BCC Minutes 11/16/2004 R
November 16,2004
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, November 16, 2004
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such
special district been created according to law and having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR
SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples,
Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Donna Fiala
Frank Halas
Tom Henning
Fred W. Coyle
Jim Coletta
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Jim Mitchell, Office of the Clerk of Court
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Ii', ", ,
'.
/
-0-.. \
-^-"--.~
AGENDA
November 16, 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
1
November 16, 2004
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5)
MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
T AMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMP AIRED ARE A V AILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Reverend Craig Nelson, East Naples United Methodist Church
B. Swear-In Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner Henning and Commissioner
Coletta by Judge Ramiro ManaIich.
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. Closed Session for Aquaport Case approval of minutes for May 27,2003,
March 27,2004 and September 9,2004.
C. October 4,2004 - BCC/City of Naples Joint Workshop
D. October 6, 2004 - BCC SpeciallValue Adjustment Board AM Meeting held
in front half of room
E. October 6, 2004 - BCC SpeciallValue Adjustment Board AM Meeting held
in back half of room
F. October 6,2004 - BCC SpeciallValue Adjustment Board PM Meeting held
2
November 16, 2004
in back half of room
G. October 7,2004 - BCC Special/Value Adjustment Board PM Meeting
H. October 8, 2004 - BCC SpecialNalue Adjustment Board Meeting
I. October l2, 2004 - BCC Regular Meeting
J. October 13,2004 - BCC SpecialNalue Adjustment Board Meeting
K. October l3, 2004 - BCC/Land Development Code Meeting
L. October 15, 2004 - BCC/Value Adjustment Board
M. October 19,2004 - BCC/Legislative Initiative Workshop
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
A. Advisory Committee Service A wards
1) Advisory Committee Service Awards.
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation to designate the week of November 19-25,2004 as Farm-City
Week. To be accepted by David Santee, Chairman of the Farm City
Committee.
B. Proclamation to designate November, 2004 as United Way of Collier
County Agency Awareness Month. To be accepted by Mr. Mokey Shea and
Mr. Ernie Bretzman, Executive Director of the United Way.
C. The Naples Children and Education Foundation Day has been proclaimed by
the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that
November 12th, 2004 was celebrated as Naples Children and Education
Foundation Day. To be accepted by Dawn Montecalvo, Executive Director
of the Naples Children and Education Foundation.
5. PRESENTATIONS
3
November 16, 2004
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition requesfby Graham Ginsberg to discuss access to the Pelican
Bay Beaches.
B. Public Petition request by Joseph Bawduniak to discuss use of Depot by the
Antique Automobile Club of America, and FAA Safety Seminars for Local
Pilots.
C. Public Petition request by Ron Hamel to discuss Collier County's
participation in Multi-County Agricultural Extension Agent Funding
Proposal.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. NUA-2002-AR-2995:
Holiday Manor Cooperative, Inc., represented by Bob Reed, requesting non-
conforming use alteration approval, to enable unit owners to replace existing
non-conforming structures, in conformance with the Fire Code and so as not
to increase the existing non-conformities. The subject property is located at
1185 Henderson Creek Road, in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26
East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 32:1: acres.
B. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. CU-2004-AR-5770,
ARCO Finance, Inc., represented by Vincent A. Cautero of Coastal
Engineering, Inc., requests Conditional Use 11 of the Commercial
Intermediate (C-3) District for a single-use building greater than 5,000
square feet in area, as specified in Section 2.2.l4.3 .11. of the Collier County
Land Development Code (LDC). The property to be considered for the
conditional use is located between 104th Avenue North and 105th Avenue
North, in the Naples Park Subdivision, in Section 28, Township 48 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida and consists of 1.85 acres.
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item was continued from the October 26, 2004 BCC meetin!!. This
item reQuires that all participants be Sworn in and ex parte disclosure
be provided bv Commission members. PUDA-03-AR-4227, Wayne
4
November 16, 2004
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 PUD. 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
B. This item was continued from the October 26, 2004 BCC meetin!!. This
item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure
be provided bv Commission members. PUDZ-03-AR-4l50, 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 l3, 14, and 24, Township 48S, Range 27E.
Companion Item: PUDA-03-AR-4227
C. This item was continued from the October 12, 2004 BCC meetin!!. This
item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure
be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-03-AR-3561, Hiwasse, Inc.,
represented by Robert Duane of Hole Montes, Inc., requesting a rezone from
Rural Agricultural (A) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) to be known as
the Hiwasse PUD to allow for a professional office, or indoor self storage, or
a combination thereof for property located on the west side of Livingston
Road, approximately one-quarter mile south of Pine Ridge Road (CR-896)
in Section 13, Township 498, Range 25E.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of member to the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee.
B. Appointment of members to the Board of Building Adjustments and
Appeals.
5
November 16, 2004
C. Appointment of members to the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning
Committee.
D. Appointment of members to the Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU
Advisory Committee.
E. Appointment of member to the Public Vehicle Advisory Committee.
F. Request for reconsideration of Comp Plan Amendment CP-2002-02 Basik
Development Company. (Commissioner Coyle)
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution authorizing the acquisition by
condemnation of nonexclusive, perpetual utility and access easements for
the maintenance and improvement of the existing North Hawthorn Wellfield
Water Supply Transmission Mains along the Cypress Canal in proximity to
Wells RO l2N through RO l5N, at an estimated cost not to exceed
$292,600, Project 700751. (Jim DeLony, Administrator, Public Utilities)
B. Recommend to allow the trust for public lands to act on behalf of the
citizens of Collier County as the facilitator of the purchase of 150+- acres of
land from the Fleishmann family to preserve the Caribbean Gardens. (Marla
Ramsey, Interim Administrator, Public Services)
C. Recommendation to adopt Collier County's 2005 Legislative Agenda. (Beth
Johnssen, Assistant to the County Manager)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
A. This item to be heard at 10:00 a.m. Status of the Sheriffs Office
2004/2005 Budget.
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
6
November 16, 2004
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "Gerald R.
Fineis Subdivision".
2) Recommendation to approve the submittal of the attached Partners
for Fish and Wildlife grant application to the US Fish and Wildlife
Service for $20,000 (of which $10,000 will be reimbursable) to fund
exotic vegetation removal and habitat restoration on Conservation
Collier lands.
3) Recommendation to approve the after-the-fact submittal of the
attached Sea Turtle License Plate Grants Program grant application to
the Caribbean Conservation Corporation for the Collier County
Environmental Services Department's Sea Turtle Public Awareness
Program and to approve any necessary budget amendments.
4) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of "Carlton Lakes Unit 3-C".
The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately
maintained.
5) Petition Carny-2004-AR-6724, Pastor Ettore Rubin, c.s., Our Lady of
Guadalupe Catholic Church, requesting a permit to conduct a carnival
from November 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28, 2004, on the church property
located at 207 South 9th Street in Immokalee.
6) Recommendation to approve for recording the fmal plat of "Tuscany
Cove", approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
7
November 16,2004
7) Recommendation to approve an Amendment to Agreement for Sale
and Purchase for 1.14 acres under the Conservation Collier Land
Acquisition Program at an additional cost of $1 ,200.
8) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "Quarry
Phase I A", approval of the standard form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
9) Recommendation to approve an Amendment to Agreement for Sale
and Purchase for 3.79 acres under the Conservation Collier Land
Acquisition Program at an additional cost of $ I ,000.
10) Recommendation to have the Collier County Board Of County
Commissioners adopt a Resolution amending the Collier County
Administrative Code fee schedule of development related review and
processing fees as provided for in Code of Laws Section 2-1 I.
11) Recommendation to have the Board of County Commissioners ratify
the County Manager's letter where he, due to the timeliness of the
issue and in his official capacity spoke for the BCC per resolution
2000-149, and in doing so provided Collier County support for a
request for sharing of title to the Pal-Mar South property between the
State of Florida and Palm Beach County and the future sharing of title
between local governments and the State in land acquisitions for
conservation purposes, as appropriate.
12) Recommendation to approve Satisfaction of Lien for Code
Enforcement Board cases Aljo Inc. 2003-051 Stanley W. White, Jr.
2002-006 Robert A. Mitchell 2001-021 Anne J. Milne and Thelma B.
Garcia 2004-04 I Eric B. Bertelsen 2001-084 Shadow Court Fuels,
Inc. 1999-052 Derya Corporation, Usulu Okur, RA 2002-025
13) Recommendation to approve a $300.00 reimbursement to Mr. and
Mrs. John Foster to correct an erroneous posting of funds.
14) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of
"Southpointe at Windstar Marina 44-45 Replat".
15) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "Valencia
8
November 16, 2004
Lakes Golf and Country Club, Phase lA", approval of the standard
form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the
amount of the performance security.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation to accept a Quitclaim Deed for Right of Way for a
portion of Woods hire Lane in Forest Lakes subdivision. Fiscal impact
$18.50.
2) Recommendation to approve a Purchase Agreement for the purchase
of property required to construct a stormwater retention and treatment
pond (Pond No.2) for the Collier Boulevard six-laning project (from
Golden Gate Boulevard to Immokalee Road). ($362,000)
3) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve
a budget amendment to decrease the debt service payment by
$ I 00,858 and increase the building rent payments for the Horseshoe
Drive Square lease space from October 2004 through January 2005.
4) Recommend Board's approval of Adopt-a-Road Agreements (3) for
the following: Sunrise Community of Collier County, Waste
Management, Inc. of Florida and Corporate Cab, Inc.
5) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve
a budget amendment to recognize carry forward amounts from FY 04
for the Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU Fund (152) in the
amount of $88,349.00
6) Recommendation that the Board approve the installation of a traffic
signal at the intersection of Goodlette- Frank Road and Wilderness
Drive at an annual maintenance cost of approximately $3,500.
7) Approve an Amendment No.5 to extend the time of the Contract for
Professional Services Agreement by Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc.
for the Livingston Road Improvement Project, from Pine Ridge Road
to Immokalee Road, Project No. 62071.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
9
November 16, 2004
1) Recommendation to reject the bid from Vila & Sons received for Bid
# 04-3 716 and to provide authorization to re-advertise for the South
County Water Reclamation Facility Installation of Irrigation and
Landscaping, Project 725071.
2) Recommendation to approve Work Order VC-02-l5 under Contract #
02-3349, General Contractor Service, with Wm. J. Varian
Construction Company for services related to the South County Water
Reclamation Facility - Security Upgrades and Facility Reliability
Improvements, Projects 725052 and 72508 I.
3) Recommendation to approve an Easement Agreement and accept a
Utility Easement from David H. and Anna M. Farmer at a cost not to
exceed $3,296, Project 710061.
4) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution and approve a Declaration of
Easement for a Utility and Access Easement within property acquired
for a future park at an estimated cost not to exceed $13,531, Project
710061.
5) Recommendation to award construction contract to "Expand North
County Water Reclamation Facility Process Control Building" to
Bradanna, Inc., Bid 05-3726, Project 72510 for $179,800.00.
6) Recommendation to award construction contract to "Expand South
County Water Reclamation Facility 2nd Floor Process Control
Building" to EHC, Inc. Bid 04-3724, Project 72509 for $689,000.00
and approve a Budget Amendment for $400,000.00.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation to renew an Agreement for Joint Use of Facilities
with St. John Neumann High School.
2) Recommendation to approve a Purchase Agreement for three
residential lots for expansion of the County's Bayview Park at a cost
not to exceed $92,730.
3) Recommendation to approve after-the-fact submittal of a Florida
Recreation Development Assistance Program grant application to the
10
November 16, 2004
Florida Department of Environmental Protection for North Naples
Regional Park. .
4)
Recommendation to adopt a Resolution amending parts of Article IV
of the Collier County Parks and Recreation Department Facilities and
Outdoor Areas License and Fee Policy.
5) Recommendation to find that this is a valid public purpose and
approve expenditures in an amount not to exceed $ I 0,000 associated
with hosting the site visitation committee as part of the National
Accreditation process for the Parks and Recreation Department.
6) Recommendation to approve the FY 05 contract between Collier
County and the State of Florida Department of Health for operation of
the Collier County Health Department in the amount of $ I ,328,240.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve the First Amendment to Lease
Agreement with Jeanne L. Noe, as Trustee of the James R. Noe II
Revocable Trust, for the continued use of garage and parking space
for the Sheriffs Office, at a total annual rental of $61 ,932.96.
2) Recommendation to approve Change Order No.6, Work Order
#BSSW-00-07, Design of the North Naples Government Services
Center, to BSSW Architects, Inc. in the amount of $6,378.00.
3) Recommendation to approve the purchase of vehicles and equipment
from Bid #04-12-0823 and Bid #04-05-0824 as coordinated by the
Florida Sheriffs Association, The Florida Association of Counties, and
the Florida Fire Chiefs Association when in the best interest of the
County.
4) Recommendation to approve the after-the-fact submittal of the
Cooperative Water Resources Projects Fund grant applications to the
Big Cypress Basin/South Florida Water Management District for a
reclaimed water system interconnect, a central irrigation control
system and Australian pine tree removal.
5) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution authorizing the Director of
11
November 16, 2004
Facilities Management, or his designee, to execute any and all
applications for development approval including rezones,
environmental permitting and the like.
6) Recommendation to award Contract 04-3579, Arbitrage Rebate
Calculations for Collier County in the estimated amount of $50,000
for the 2004 calculations.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Approval of Budget Amendments.
2) Recommendation to approve First Amendment to the 2001 Tourism
Agreement with the South Florida Water Management District for
Restoration of Lake Trafford Extending Agreement until November
30, 2005.
3) Recommendation to Approve a TDC Category "A" Grant
Application, Interlocal Agreement, Budget Amendment and Purchase
Order in the amount of $30,000, Project 90526, for Marco Island laser
grading.
4) To purchase a new Fire Truck in a cost effective manner by utilizing
the Florida Sheriffs Bid List in the net amount of$274,973.
5) 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.
6) That the Board of County Commissioners waive formal competition
and approve the sole source purchase of AutoPulse from Revivant.
($299,989)
7) Approve an Agreement between Collier County and the Department
of Community Affairs for $105,806 for Emergency Management
program enhancement. Funds, which have been made available for the
eleventh year, resulting from a surcharge to residential and
commercial insurance policies enable Emergency Management to
enhance existing programs.
12
November 16, 2004
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) The Board of County Commissioners sitting as the Community
Redevelopment Agency. Recommendation that the Community
Redevelopment Agency (CRA) approve the expenditure of $250,000
in FY05 Budget tax increment financing (TIF) funds to assist with the
establishment of a Florida State University School of Medicine rural
health training center in Immokalee.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Halas' request for Board approval for reimbursement
for attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner
to attend the 2004 Farm City Barbeque on November 24,2004.
$15.00 to be paid from Commissioner Halas' travel budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Request that the Board of County Commissioners authorize Chairman
Donna Fiala to sign the attached Agreement authorizing the Collier
County Sheriffs Office to have Traffic Control Jurisdiction over
private roads within the Wilshire Lakes Subdivision.
2) That the Board of County Commissioners make a determination of
whether the purchases of goods and services documented in the
Detailed Report of Open Purchase Orders serve a valid public purpose
and authorize the expenditure of County funds to satisfy said
purchases. A copy of the Detailed Report is on display in the County
Manager's Office, Collier County Government Center, 2nd Floor, W.
Harmon Turner Building, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL.
3) Recommend that the Collier County Commission endorse the United
States Department of Justice/ Department of Treasury Federal
Equitable Sharing Annual Certification Report.
13
November 16, 2004
4) That the Board of County Commissioners authorize the transfer of
funds collected through the Court System to fund the Collier County
Juvenile Assessment Center to the Clerk of the Circut Court to be
used exclusively for the operation of the Juvenile Assessment Center.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment as to Parcel
144 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Primera Iglesia Cristiana
Manantial De Vida, Inc., et al., Case No. 03-2372-CA (Golden Gate
Parkway Project 60027).
2) Recommendation to authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to
Respondent, Beverly 1. Gatti, for Parcel Nos. 160 & 960 in the
amount of$35,305.00 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Beverly
Gatti, et aI., Case No. 03-2551-CA (Golden Gate Parkway Project
60027).
3) Recommendation to authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to
Respondents, Daniel and Desiree Hope for Parcel No. 172 in the
amount of $9,545.00 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Beverly
Gatti, et aI., Case No. 03-255l-CA (Golden Gate Parkway Project
60027).
4) Recommendation to authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to
Respondents, Joseph and Beth Manning for Parcel No. 169 in the
amount of$8,510.00 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Thomas
F. Salzmann, et aI., Case No. 03-2550-CA (Golden Gate Parkway
Project 60027).
5) Recommendation to authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to
Respondents, Marvin and Eva Smith for Parcel Nos. 162 & 762 in the
amount of $20,355.00 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Beverly
Gatti, et al., Case No. 03-255l-CA (Golden Gate Parkway Project
60027).
6) Recommendation to authorize the making of an . Offer of Judgment to
Respondents, David and Barbara S. Burgeson for Parcel No. 170 in
the amount of $15,000.00 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v.
Thomas F. Salzmann, et aI., Case No. 03-2550-CA (Golden Gate
14
November 16, 2004
Parkway Project 60027).
7) Recommendation to authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to
Respondents, Donald and Pauline Profitt, for Parcel No. 156 in the
amount of $24,265.00 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Joseph
Sannicandro, et aI., Case No. 03-2500-CA (Golden Gate Parkway
Project 60027).
8) Recommendation to approve the Mediated Settlement Agreement as
to Parcels l32A and 132B in the lawsuit styled Collier County v.
Village Walk Homeowners Association of Naples, Inc., et aI., Case
No. 04-345-CA (Vanderbilt Beach Road Project 63051).
9) Recommendation to approve the Mediated Settlement Agreement as
to Parcels 136 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. John
Aurigemma, et aI., Case No. 04-344-CA (Vanderbilt Beach Road
Project 63051).
10) Recommendation to authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to
Respondents, Jake and Christina Sannicandro, for Parcel Nos. 155 &
755 in the amount of$9,430.00 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v.
Joseph Sannicandro, et aI., Case No. 03-2500-CA (Golden Gate
Parkway Project 60027).
11) Recommendation to authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to
Respondents, William & Lisa Brock, for Parcel Nos. 148 & 948 in the
amount of $27,255.00 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v.
Elizabeth D. Bloch, et aI., Case No. 03-2403-CA (Golden Gate
Parkway Project 60027).
12) Recommendation to authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to
Respondent, Norman C. Partington, for Parcel No. 158 in the amount
of$2l,275.00 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Joseph J.
Guidish, Jr., et aI., Case No. 03-2549-CA (Golden Gate Parkway
Project 60027).
13) Recommendation to authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to
Respondent, Janet Romano, for Parcel Nos. 117, ll8A and 130 in the
amount of$102,465.00 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Dianne
P. Haaga, et aI., Case No. 03-05l8-CA (Immokalee Road Project No.
15
November 16, 2004
600 18).
14) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to Approve
a Mediated Settlement Agreement and a Stipulated Final Judgment to
be Drafted Incorporating the Same Terms and Conditions as the
Mediated Settlement Agreement Relative to the Acquisition of Parcel
177 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v. Teodoro Gimenez, et al.,
Case No. 04-056l-CA (Vanderbilt Beach Road Project #63051).
15) Recommendation to authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to
Respondent, TECH Foundation, Inc., for Parcel No. 150 in the
amount of$27,140.00 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. TECH
Foundation, Inc., et aI., Case No. 03-2499-CA (Golden Gate Parkway
Project 60027).
16) Recommendation to authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to
Respondent, Anna Mongillo, for Parcel No. 840 in the amount of
$7,500.00 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Nancy L. Johnson
Perry, et aI., Case No. 03-2373-CA (Golden Gate Parkway Project
60027).
17) Recommendation to direct the Office of County Attorney to prepare
an ordinance for the establishment of the Rock Road Improvement
MSTU.
18) Recommendation to approve a satisfaction and release of lien in Code
Enforcement Board Case No. 2003-055 and direct the County
Attorney Office to file a stipulated notice of dismissal in Aljo, Inc. v
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Case No. 04-1679
CA.
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
16
November 16, 2004
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE
QUASIJUDICAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN
IN.
A. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and Ex Parte
Disclosure be provided by Commission Members. Recommendation to
approve Petition A VROW2004-AR60 11 to disclaim, renounce and vacate
the County's and the Public's interest in the road right of way which was
granted to the Public by the Deed of Easement recorded in Official Record
Book 321, Page 277, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Located in
Section 22, Township 49 South, Range 25 East.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
17
November 16, 2004
November 16,2004
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Madam Chair, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. And thank you all
for being here today. I bet everyone's here to see our swearing in,
right? No other issue that could be at hand that's quite so important.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're here to see the swearing.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Folks, would you please stand with me?
We have Reverend Craig Nelson with us today from East Naples
United Methodist Church, and he will say the invocation. I think we
have him here today.
MR. MUDD: Reverend Nelson, are you here?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We don't have him here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I appoint Mr. Mudd the
reverend for the moment.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Reverend Mudd, would you take over,
please?
MR. MUDD: I was just commenting to Ramiro, I think I have
the choir. No, I'm sorry.
We pray.
Heavenly Father, we come to you today as a community
thanking you for the blessings that you have so generously providing.
Today we are especially thankful for the dedicated elected officials __
for the three elected officials that will be sworn in today as they
continue their service to Collier County, staff and members of the
public who are here to help lead this county as it makes the important
decisions that will shape our community's future.
We pray that you will guide, lead, and direct the decisions made
here today so that your will for our county will always be done. These
things we pray in your holy name, amen.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Amen.
Page 2
November 16, 2004
Ramiro, would you lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you so much.
Now, before we go any further and we even work on our agenda
and changes and so forth -- oh, look it. I just have to stop right here.
I'm sorry that I'm going to embarrass our assist -- our administrative
assistants, our right arms, but here they are.
Commissioner Coletta's assistant, Nancy. Raise your hand,
Nancy.
My workhorse, Trojan, lifesaver, Kathy, raise your hand.
Trisha, she's -- she's the same thing to --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: She sure is.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- to Commissioner Halas.
Who else do we have there?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Paula.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, Paula. That's Commissioner Coyle's.
And Sam, she's Commissioner Henning's.
I want to tell you, they're the backbone of our organization, and
every time you call, these are the ladies you get.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Probably without them, we wouldn't be
conducting the swearing in.
Shall we proceed?
Oh, Sue. I -- you should be standing so I could -- Sue is our
office manager back there in the county commissioners' office. And
she -- she keeps us out of trouble, she keeps us straight. She always
makes sure that everything that we're doing -- you know, sometimes
you're doing something, and it just seems so automatic, and she'll say,
wait a minute, now you have to think about this. And she always
keeps us straight. She always keeps us above reproach.
And if you think our ethics are high, a lot of it has to do with Sue,
because she makes sure that we don't even waiver a little bit, and we
Page 3
--~.....__"'_------..,._.~_w._.__"~_..._.."~..,.
November 16, 2004
~
really appreciate all that Sue does. Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: She's also in charge of all of those
committees that everyone works on that helps us out so much.
And with that, now, Ramiro, we'll have the swearing in.
Item #lB
SWEARING IN OF COMMISSIONER FIALA, COMMISSIONER
HENNING AND COMMISSIONER COLETTA BY JUDGE
JUDGE MANALICH: Good morning. Just a couple of
comments, Commissioners, before we begin.
First of all, good morning, board members, County Manager
Mudd, and your staff, County Attorney Weigel and your staff, citizens
and distinguished guests.
I'm Ramiro Manalich, county judge, and I have the privilege and
honor today of doing this ceremony, and it doesn't seem like too long
ago in my former life I was here as the chief assistant county attorney
for Mr. Weigel and working with the board members, and it's truly
good to see many old friends here today.
I just -- a couple of comments I thought would be in order. This
really is an occasion to celebrate our democracy and our electoral
process and its success. One of our nation's greatest leaders, Abraham
Lincoln, once spoke of our government as being of, by, and for the
people.
And you who are here today about to be sworn into office and
joining your two incumbent colleagues are the embodiment of that
concept.
Local government truly is where citizens interface with their
governments. Our citizens expect, and by choosing you through the
Page 4
November 16, 2004
electoral process, are confident that you will lead with wisdom,
courage, and ethics and make the difficult decisions that need to be
made for the betterment of our community.
The citizens are also confident that in our nation's great political
tradition, you will lay aside any political or other campaign
differences that may have arisen during the campaign and be good
representatives for all of the people.
At this time then I will swear you in and have you state the oath
as symbolic of your commitment to the office and to the people of our
fine county.
If you would come forward.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We'll just let these three go
forward.
JUDGE MANALICH: How would you like us positioned?
MR. MUDD: Let the commissioners face the audience, Judge.
That would be wonderful.
JUDGE MANALICH: Please raise your right hand and repeat
after me.
I -- please state your name.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I, Tom Henning.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I, Donna Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I, Jim Coletta.
JUDGE MANALICH: Do solemnly swear or affirm.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do solemnly swear or affirm.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do solemnly swear or affirm.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do solemnly swear or affirm.
JUDGE MANALICH: That I will support, protect, and defend.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That I will support, protect, and
defend.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That I will support, protect, and defend.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That I will support, protect, and
defend.
Page 5
November 16, 2004
JUDGE MANALICH: The constitution and government.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The constitution and
government.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: The constitution and government.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The constitution and
government.
JUDGE MANALICH: Of the United States.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Of the United States.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Of the United States.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Of the United States.
JUDGE MANALICH: And of the State of Florida.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And of the State of Florida.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And of the State of Florida.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And of the State of Florida.
JUDGE MANALICH: That I am duly qualified to hold office.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That I am duly qualified to hold
office.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That I am duly qualified to hold office.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That I am duly qualified to hold
office.
JUDGE MANALICH: Under the constitution of the state.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Under the constitution of the
state.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Under the constitution of the state.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Under the constitution of the
state.
JUDGE MANALICH: And that I will faithfully perform.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that I will faithfully
perform.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And that I will faithfully perform.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that I will faithfully
perform.
Page 6
November 16, 2004
JUDGE MANALICH: The duties of county commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The duties of county
commISSIoner.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: The duties of county commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The duties of county
commISSIoner.
JUDGE MANALICH: For Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For Collier County.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: For Collier County.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: For Collier County.
JUDGE MANALICH: On which I am now about to enter.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: On which I am now about to
enter.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: On which I am now about to enter.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: On which I am now about to
enter.
JUDGE MANALICH: So help me God.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So help me God.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So help me God.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So help me God.
JUDGE MANALICH: Congratulations and good luck.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would anybody like to come up and give
us a hug?
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd like to come
forward and congratulate the commissioners, and there's some coffee
and cookies and stuff out in the hallway.
And we'll resume the board meeting at 25 after 9:00. Is that fair,
ma'am? Thank you.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Page 7
November 16,2004
Madam Chair, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
Before we continue on, I'd just like to say a happy birthday to
Charlie Abbott. Charlie, where are you? All right.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Charlie. Glad you're here
with us today. Happy birthday, many more.
Item #2A
REGULAR CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA - APPROVED
And now, folks, we're going to move on to the agenda. First let
me ask our county attorney, do you have anything to add or say on the
agenda?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, thank you. And again, congratulations on
the swearing in and the new terms to befall us all. We look forward to
working with you.
One comment, and that is, under county attorney consent agenda,
16K17 is a consent agenda item relating to the authorization of the
board for the county attorney office to potentially draft an ordinance
for the Rock Road MSTU and bring it back to the board advertised for
the December 14th board meeting, the last meeting of the year.
And the recommendation in the executive summary provides that
if the necessary 50 percent plus one number of petitions are not
available at a -- essentially at a drop-dead type of date prior to
December 14th, that the county attorney would not bring that forward.
I would just ask for any clarification, that if the board were to
have an interest to hear the item even if the petitions were not fully in
at that time, it could be heard and the board make a decision on the
14th regardless. The advertising will be paid for by the property
Page 8
November 16,2004
owners.
So the question would be, the executive summary indicates that if
the number of petitions aren't in, the county attorney won't even go
forward, because our policy typically talks at 50 percent plus one. But
if we don't have the number of petitions, the board has the prerogative
of going forward creating an MSTU and letting it lie fallow if it
wishes to until the next budget time or until petitions come in.
Y .?
es, SIr.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, if I may. Rock Road
residents, they formed a civic association there. It's been very active.
And this has been their main item they've been driving for is the
MSTU, the establishment of it. I kind of hope that we'll have the more
lenient of the two where we would allow them to form, and then lay it
dormant to that point in time that it can be activated, because I hate to
see it go by and then miss a whole year.
I think they're down to one or two signatures from people that are
out of state, and they're just trying to reach out to touch them to get it,
and I'm sure they're going to have it in short order.
MR. WEIGEL: If the board were to accept that, then county
attorney office, on behalf of the board and staff, will work to go
forward and present this on the December 14th agenda, and the board
can give any further instruction at that point in time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So all you need from us are nods?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, yes, a nod would be just fine.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Majority rules on all these
issues, right? You're not saying that the minority rules, are you?
MR. WEIGEL: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That's fine.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Everybody's in agreement then.
Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you very much.
Page 9
November 16,2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: No further comment.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, agenda changes, Board of County
Commissioners' meeting, November 16th, 2004.
Item 16E5, executive summary should read, recommendation to
adopt a resolution authorizing the director of facilities management, or
his designee, to execute any and all applications for development
approval including rezones, environmental permitting, and other
related items, and that's at staffs request.
The next item is a note. Item 16G 1, the Board of County
Commissioners is sitting as the Community Redevelopment Agency
for that particular item. It's a recommendation that the Community
Redevelopment Agency, CRA, approve the expenditure of $250,000
in the FY-'05 budget tax increment financing, TIF funds, to assist with
the establishment of a Florida State University School of Medicine
rural health training center in Immokalee.
That's all I have, Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Great. Commissioners, do you --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: County Commissioner (sic), do we
have to pull that from the agenda and vote on it separately since it's a
CRA issue?
MR. MUDD: No. Just make note that you're acting as the CRA
when you approve it on that particular item.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioners, do you have any
changes, corrections, or ex parte on the summary agenda?
Let's start with Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The only issue that I have -- on the
ex parte of the summary agenda, I don't have anything to come forth.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And nothing -- no adds or changes
or anything?
Page 10
November 16, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No adds or corrections to today's
agenda.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no changes to the agenda.
And as far as the summary agenda goes, A, I have had some
meetings, and they are in my file for anybody that wishes to see them.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have no ex parte
communication, Madam Chair, on the summary agenda.
I do wish to pull, put on the regular agenda, 16A 7 and 16A9.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, 16A7 would become 10D, and
16A9 would become 10E.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have no ex parte disclosures for
the summary agenda, and I have no changes to the agenda.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. And--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, I make a -- oh,
I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh. And I have no ex parte to declare
and no changes or additions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, I make a motion
we approve today's regular, consent, and summary agenda as
amended.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion and second by
Commissioner Halas.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Page 11
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
Page 12
November 16, 2004
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
November 16. 2004
Item 16E5: Executive summary should read: Recommendation to adopt a Resolution
authorizing the Director of Facilities Management, or his designee, to execute any and
all applications for development approval including rezones, environmental permitting
and other related items. (Staff request.)
NOTE: Item 16G1: The Board of County Commissioners sittinQ as the Community
Redevelopment Aaencv. Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment
Agency (CRA) approve the expenditure of $250,000 in FY05 Budget tax increment
financing (TIF) funds to assist with the establishment of a Florida State University School
of Medicine rural health training center in Immokalee.
November 16,2004
Item #2B, 2C, 2D, 2E, 2F, 2G, 2H, 2I, 2J, 2K, 2L, & 2M
MAY 27,2003, MARCH 23,2004 AND SEPTEMBER 9,2004
MINUTES FOR THE CLOSED SESSION FOR AQUAPORT
MEETING; OCTOBER 4, 2004 BCC/CITY OF NAPLES JOINT
WORKSHOP MEETING; OCTOBER 6, 2004 SPECIAL
MAGISTRATE AM FRONT, AM BACK, AND PM BACK
MEETING; OCTOBER 7,2004 SPECIAL MAGISTRATE
MEETING; OCTOBER 8, 2004 SPECIAL MAGISTRATE
MEETING; OCTOBER 12, 2004 REGULAR MEETING,
OCTOBER 13, 2004 SPECIAL MAGISTRATE MEETING,
OCTOBER 13,2004 LDC SPECIAL MEETING; OCTOBER 15,
2004 VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEETING; OCTOBER 19,
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, I make a motion
that we approve the closed session of the Aquaport case that was
March -- minutes for May 27th, March 27th, '04, and September 9th,
'04; October 4th, '04, BCC/City of Naples workshop; October 6, '04,
special Value Adjustment Board a.m. meeting held on behalf of -- in
the front half of the board meeting; October 6, '04, BCC special Value
Adjustment Board meeting; an October 6, '04 special Value
Adjustment Board p.m. meeting; October 7th, '04, BCC special Value
Adjustment Board meeting in the p.m.; October 8th, '04, BCC special
Value Adjustment Board meeting; October 12th, BCC regular
meeting; October 13th, Value Adjustment Board meeting; October
13th, Land Development Code meeting; October 15th, BCC Value
Adjustment Board meeting; and October 19th, '04, BCC legislative
incentive (sic) workshop.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor by
Page 13
November 16,2004
Commissioner Henning to approve all of the minutes he just
mentioned, and a second by Commissioner Coyle.
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: Very good.
And before I continue, just one fast note. Found at the last
meeting in this room was a wireless PDA keyboard, Belkin brand, and
also women's prescription glasses, copper color, for anybody, please
see -- please see the commissioners' office if any of those belong to
you. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I like the glasses.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Hmm?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I said I like the glasses.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh.
Item #3A
SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD
MEMBERS)-~
And now we go on to service awards. Advisory committee
service awards -- let's see.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this is -- this is the first time that
we've done this. It's probably well overdue.
Page 14
November 16, 2004
Keep them there and move them to the front.
It's well overdue for these dedicated volunteers that help you and
the commissioners do your -- do your daily job as commissioners and
to help run this county in a very effective way. They basically give of
their time to make this a better government.
And we'll -- today we'll provide five- and 10- and 15-year pins to
these particular wonderful volunteers and great citizens of Collier
County. And if I could get the board to come down.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, thank you.
I'd just like to add, thanks to Commissioner Henning for alerting
us that this had not been done. I really appreciate -- we all appreciate
his thoughts on this and his suggestion.
MR. MUDD: I think if Commissioner Fiala's going to give the
pins -- and if I could get the commissioners to stand to her right, then
we'll have a pretty good flow of the folks as they come in and take
some -- and take some particular pictures too, so that would be
wonderful.
Madam Chair, with your permission -- with your permission,
we'll start with the five-year awards, and these are people that have
worked for five years, working on these particular advisory boards,
commissions for the Board of County Commissioners.
And it is, indeed, my honor today to announce their names.
The first recipient is Karen Acquard. She has worked on the --
Karen Acquard, if you could come forward please. Acquard?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Acquard.
MR. MUDD: She's worked on the Golden Gate Estates Land
Trust Commission and the Animal Services Advisory Board. She is a
five-year awardee.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: And Karen, I'm going to have to get you to turn
around so you can get a picture in the middle of this group. There we
go.
Page 15
November 16, 2004
Thank you.
The next awardee is John Agneli, and he's worked on the
Educational Facilities Authority and the Industrial Development
Authority. John?
(No response.)
MR. MUDD: John's not with us today, and we'll make note of
that and we'll get him to receive his award at a different time.
Next awardee is Robert Bennett, and Robert Bennett has worked
on the Utility Authority for five years.
(Applause.)
MR. BENNETT: And the Black Affairs Advisory Board.
MR. MUDD: And the Black Affairs Advisory Board.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next awardee is Dr. Fay Biles. And Dr. Biles
has worked on the Utility Authority and the Emergency Medical
Services Advisory Board.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next five-year awardee is Pam Brown. Pam
Brown?
(No response.)
MR. MUDD: Okay. And we'll do Pam. She's worked on the
Lake Trafford Restoration Task Force and the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board.
The next awardee is Ed Carlson.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: And Ed has worked on the Lake Trafford
Restoration Task Force, the Environmental Advisory Council, and the
Land Acquisition Advisory Committee.
MR. CARLSON: I never stand in the front, never.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next awardee is James Carol, and he has
worked on the Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory Committee for five
Page 16
November 16,2004
years.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next five-year awardee is Jeffrey Cecil, and
he's worked on the Affordable Housing Commission.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next awardee is -- five-year awardee is Les
Dickson from the Contractor Licensing -- he's worked on the
Contractor Licensing Board.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next five-year awardee is Gail Dolan, and
she's worked on the Emergency Medical Services Advisory Board.
We need a picture.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next awardee is Roberta Dusek, and she's
worked on the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, north.
Roberta?
(No response.)
MR. MUDD: And we'll have to schedule her for another day.
The next -- the next awardee for five years is Dr. Eric Flaig. Dr.
Eric Flaig?
(No response.)
MR. MUDD: And he's worked on the Lake Trafford Restoration
Task Force, and we'll schedule him again.
Next awardee is Clifford Flagal, and Clifford has worked --
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: And Clifford has worked diligently on the Collier
County Code Enforcement Board, north.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Next five-year awardee is John Fury, and he has
worked on the Lake Trafford Restoration Task Force. John, are you
here? Yes, he is.
(Applause.)
Page 17
November 16,2004
MR. MUDD: Our next five-year awardee is Gary Hayes, and
he's worked on the Board of Building Adjustments and Appeals for
five years.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Gary?
MR. MUDD: Gary?
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Next awardee is Gene Hearn, and he's worked on
the Lake Trafford Restoration Task Force for five years, and we
thought that was Gene, but Gene isn't here.
The next awardee is John Inglehart. John, are you here?
(N 0 response.)
MR. MUDD: Okay. Next awardee is Wilfred Jaeger, and he's
worked on the Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee for
five years.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Will, for all you do.
MR. JAEGER: Great idea you had, Tom.
MR. MUDD: If we could get a picture, please.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Next five-year awardee is Richard Joslin. He's the
contractor -- he's worked on the Contractor Licensing Board for five
years.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Next five-year awardee is Doris Lewis, and she's
worked on the Library Advisory Board.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next five-year awardee is Bill Neal, and he
has worked on the Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory
Committee and the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment
Page 18
November 16,2004
Advisory Board for a five-year period of time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thanks for your time and
servIce.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let me give you this pin.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next-five year awardee is Cheryl Newman,
and Cheryl has worked on the Golden Gate Community Center
Advisory Committee, the Golden Gate Beautification Advisory
Committee, and the I-75 Golden Gate Parkway Ad Hoc Committee.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next five-year awardee is Ross Obley, and
he's worked on the Industrial Development Authority and the
Education Facilities Authority Boards for five years.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next five-year awardee is Edward Olesky. I
think it's Ski Olesky. I know it's Ski Olesky. And he's worked on the
Lake Trafford Restoration Task Force, the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board, and the Immokalee Area Master Plan Ad Hoc
Committee, and he's a fire-year awardee.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Also a fire commissioner.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, and that, too.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next five-year awardee is Kent Orner, and he's
worked on the Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee.
Kent?
(No response.)
MR. MUDD: We'll have to schedule him for another time.
Next awardee is George Ponte, and he's worked on the Collier
County Code Enforcement Board, north.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You can tell we're friends, right.
Page 19
November 16, 2004
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Next five-year awardee is Joanne Quinn, and she's
worked on the Historical! Archaeological Preservation Board. Is
Joanne here?
(No response.)
MR. MUDD: We'll schedule her another time.
Next awardee is Miles Scofield, who's worked on the Lake
Trafford Restoration Task Force. Is Miles here?
(No response.)
MR. MUDD: Next awardee is Jackie Smith, and she's worked on
the Lake Trafford Restoration Task Force. Is Jackie here?
(N 0 response.)
MR. MUDD: There must be something wrong on Immokalee
Road today. Okay.
The next awardee is Clearance Tears. I've seen Clearance this
morning. He's outside. And there's Clarence Tears. And Clarence
has worked on the Lake Trafford Restoration Task Force and the
Immokalee Area Master Plan Ad Hoc Committee, and he's a five-year
recipient.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Take a picture, Clarence. Good catch.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next awardee is John Thompson, and he's
worked on the Historical/ Archaeologic Preservation Board, and he's a
five-year recipient.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Next five-year awardee is William Tyson, and he's
worked on the Historical! Archaeologic Preservation Board.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you for all you're doing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for your time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much for
everything.
Page 20
November 16,2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much for your
servIce.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Next five-year awardee is Rufus Watson, and
Rufus has worked on the Black Affairs Advisory Board for five years.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you for all you're doing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for your service.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thanks.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Keep up the good work.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Next five-year awardee, and the last five-year
awardee for today, is Diane Williams for the Library Advisory Board.
Is Diane here?
(N 0 response.)
MR. MUDD: Okay. Let's hear it for all the five-year awardees.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Commissioner -- and I promise you that the
10-year and 15-year lists are a lot smaller.
Okay. first -- and we're going to now turn to the 10-year
awardees, and the first 10-year awardee is Charlie Abbott, and he's
worked on the Development Services Advisory Committee for 10
years. He's also the birthday --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And our birthday boy, right.
MR. ABBOTT: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You think another 10 years
you'll have it straightened out?
MR. ABBOTT: I'm on the other end with this crowd.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Next 10-year awardee is Russell Budd, and
Russell's worked on the Collier County Planning Commission for a
Page 21
November 16,2004
10-year period of time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Appreciate it. It seems like it's
been a lifetime.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's a great opportunity to thank you
for all your service. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good seeing you again.
MR. BUDD: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next 10-year awardee is Robert Cole, and he's
worked on the Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee
for 10 years. Is Robert Cole here?
(No response.)
MR. MUDD: Okay. We'll have to schedule him at another time.
The next awardee is Diane Gonzalez from the
Historical! Archaeologic Preservation Board. She's worked on it for 10
years.
(No response.)
MR. MUDD: Okay. We'll have to reschedule that one.
The next 10-year awardee is Robert Laird.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: He's currently serving on the Emergency Medical
Services Advisory Board. He's previously served on the Collier
County Productivity Committee, the pro -- different name, a
Productivity Committee, and the Contractors Licensing Board.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let me shake your hand.
Thanks again.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you, Robert, for all you do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thanks.
MR. MUDD: The next 10-year awardee is Thomas Peek, and
Thomas has worked on the Development Services Advisory
Committee for 10 years.
Page 22
November 16, 2004
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thanks, Tom.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next 10-year awardee is Stephen Price. Steve
make it today?
(No response.)
MR. MUDD: Okay. And Stephen is currently serving on the
Airport Authority, but he has previously served on the Immokalee
Enterprise Zone and on the Productivity Committee, and we'll have to
reschedule him.
The next awardee is Herb Savage, and he works -- and he works
on the Development Services Advisory Committee. He's been doing
that for 10 years.
(Applause.)
MR. SA V AGE: She won't let me say anything, so I'm going to
sit down.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: And the last 10-year awardee for today is George
Werner, and he's worked on the Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory
Committee. Is George here today?
(N 0 response.)
MR. MUDD: Let's hear it for the 10-year awardees.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I will tell you that the IS-year
awardees list is a lot smaller than the five and the 10.
The first awardee is Rita Avalos, and she has worked on the
Immokalee Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee for 15 years.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Wow. That's quite a record. Thanks for
all you're doing.
Page 23
November 16, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much for all you're
doing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Done well.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next IS-year awardee is Cheryle Thomas.
She is currently serving on the Immokalee Beautification MSTU
Advisory Committee, and she has previously served on the Parks and
Rec. Advisory Committee. It's a IS-year award.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: And now that we've seen the better half of this
relationship, the next IS-year awardee, and the last IS-year awardee
for today, is Fred Thomas. He is currently serving __
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: He is current -- and I know Cheryle liked that
comment. He is currently serving on the Lake Trafford Restoration
Task Force; he is currently serving on the Immokalee Enterprise Zone
Development Agency Board; he is currently serving on the Citizens
Advisory Task Force; he has previously served on the Affordable
Housing Commission, the Collier County Planning Commission, and
the Rural Lands Assessment Area Oversight Committee, and this is a
IS-year award.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Let's hear it for the IS-year awardees.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mr. Mudd, before we get into our time
certain, let's read the three proclamations. We have a lot of people
waiting here.
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, as you leave the room, if
you could -- to hold it down as best you can, and we'll continue
Page 24
November 16,2004
business.
Madam Chair?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION TO RECOGNIZE NOVEMBER 19-25,2004 AS
~y WEEK - AllOEIED
Our first proclamation will be accepted by David Santee and
presented by Commissioner Coletta. David Santee is the chairman of
the Farm-City Committee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Hi, David.
Whereas -- whereas, November 19th through the 25th is National
Farm-City Week, a time set aside to recognize and honor the
contributions of the country's agricultural -- agriculturalists and to
strengthen the bonds between the urban and rural citizens; and,
Whereas, in Collier County the high point of Farm-City Week is
the Annual Farm-City Barbecue sponsored by Collier County
University Extension and a committee of volunteers; and,
Whereas, agriculture is an important element in Collier County's
economic machine with a total economic activity of over $300 million
annually; and,
Whereas, 22 percent of Collier County is utilized for agriculture,
providing vital economic ( sic) benefits, including habitat for wildlife
and recharge area for our aquifer; and,
Whereas, the Board of Collier County Commissioners supports
local agriculture through programs including cooperation with the
University of Florida Extension Service; and,
Whereas, we encourage all citizens to pause to recognize the
contributions of our local farmers and ranchers to the -- for our
economy, our food supply, and our society.
Page 25
November 16,2004
And therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners, that on behalf of the citizens of Collier County, great
appreciation and honor is owed to all of this country's -- this county's
agriculturalists and that November 19th through 25th be designated
Farm-City Week.
Done and ordered this, the 16th day of November, 2004, Donna
Fiala, Chairperson. And I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion to approve and a
second.
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, and congratulations.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. We love that. Even though
I'm supposed to be cooking Thanksgiving dinner at the same time.
Turn around so we can take a picture.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Do you want to say a couple words?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: If you want to say a couple words.
MR. SANTEE: For the record, I'm David Santee with the
Foreign Bureau and Chairman of the Farm-City Committee.
I'd like to thank the committee members who work hard to put on
this yearly event; Bonnie Falls, Suzie Dorr, Rob Massey, Bobby
Page 26
November 16,2004
Newsome (phonetic), John Contera (phonetic), Bart Zeno (phonetic),
Joe Silvia, Dorothy Harris.
Our barbecue coincides with the National Farm-City Week to
promote and enlighten the understanding between urban and rural
residents and show appreciation for the agriculture community and
their role in providing our citizens with the safest food supply in the
world.
I'd like to also ask Cecelia -- Celia Hill, the interim county
extension director, to please come up.
Ladies and gentlemen, Commissioners, I would -- I would like
for you to help me congratulate this year's recipient of the Farm
Family of the Year. At this time I'd like to call up Harold Thomas.
Harold, for numerous years of tireless commitment and
dedication to Collier County and its agriculture, I'd like to present to
you this award. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. SANTEE: I'd like to invite everyone out to our barbecue to
celebrate Farm-City on Wednesday the 24th located at Nobles/Collier
Packing House in Immokalee.
Commissioners, thank you again for your support.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much, David.
Item #4 B
PROCLAMA TION TO RECOGNIZE NOVEMBER, 2004 AS
UNITED WAY OF COLLIER COUNTY AGENCY AWARENESS
MillITH - A D.OITED
Commissioner Henning will be reading and presenting the next
proclamation to United Way of Collier County, to be accepted by Mr.
Mokey Shea and Mr. Ernie Bretzman, executive director of the United
Way.
Page 27
November 16,2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
Whereas, since 1957 the United Way of Collier County has
sponsored and funded qualified, non- for-profit ( sic) community
agencies which provide essential social and health services to our
citizens; and,
Whereas, throughout the 47 (sic) years of United Way of Collier
County, the organization has demonstrated that -- continued growth
and currently funding 30 community agencies providing service to all
areas of Collier County; and,
Whereas, the Board of Commissioners gratefully acknowledges
the support of the fine work of United Way of Collier County and its
member agencies.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Commissioners
of Collier County, Florida, that November, 2004 be designated as
United Way of Collier County Agency Awareness Month.
Done in this order, 16th of November. Signed by the chairman.
Madam Chair, that -- I would like to present also my personal
commitment as the commissioner of District 3 to United Way.
Motion to approve the proclamation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor and a second
to approve the proclamation.
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.
(Applause.)
Page 28
November 16,2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you for all you do. And his check.
Look at that. He's coming up shooting, I'll tell you. That deserves a
handshake.
MR. MUDD: This is a great day. Ifwe could all smile, it would
be great.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Ernie, would you like to say a couple
words?
MR. BRETZMAN: I sure would. Can I say more than a couple?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. BRETZMAN: Good morning, everybody. I want to thank
very sincerely the Board of County Commissioners for this
proclamation for representatives from a member agency. I also want
to recognize Jim DeLony, who's the member of our board of directors
representing Collier County government.
(Applause.)
MR. BRETZMAN: And Dan Rodriguez, who's the campaign
coordinator for the Collier County government campaign. Thank you
very much.
(Applause.)
MR. BRETZMAN: The United Way of Collier County was
founded in 1957. That year our goal was $22,000. This year it's 2.5
million.
We're trying our hardest to keep pace with the growing
community and the growing needs placed upon our member agencies.
Once again, thank you very much for your generous support. We
know we're going to have a great campaign with Collier County
government this year, and we're going to make our goal.
And Collier County's a wonderful place to live. Thank you very
much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Amen.
(Applause.)
Page 29
November 16,2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION TO RECOGNIZE THAT NOVEMBER 12,2004
WAS CELEBRATED AS NAPLES CHILDREN AND
And now I am proud to read the proclamation for the Naples
Children and Education Foundation Day, to be accepted by Carla
Acosta, who, it looks like, is the grant administrator; is that correct,
Carla --
MS. ACOSTA: Yes, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- who will be accepting this
proclamation. Thank you for being here today.
Whereas -- I better put this closer.
Whereas, the Naples Children and Education Foundation, NCEF,
has awarded $13.7 million during the past four years to "Build a Better
Future" for Collier County's most vulnerable children; and,
Whereas, each year beneficiaries of the Naples Children and
Education Foundation will join together to celebrate and recognize the
advancement of essential youth services in the community including
health care, education, housing and shelter and enrichment and
therapeutic programs for those who are underprivileged and
underserved; and,
Whereas, the Naples Children and Education Foundation is
committed to supporting charitable and educational programs that
prevent abuse and neglect and/or provide services that enrich the
physical, emotional, and educational quality of life of children in
Collier County by supporting the following local charities: Boys and
Girls Club of Collier County, Collier County Child Advocacy
Council, Collier Health Services, David Lawrence Center for Mental
Page 30
November 16,2004
Health, Incorporated, Early Years education foundation, FGCU
ELLM Project, Fun Time Nursery, Incorporated, Guadalupe Center,
Inc., Immokalee Childcare Center, Inc., John Maxwell Biasco
Foundation -- wow, you support a lot of them -- Make-a-Wish
Foundation, Naples Equestrian Challenge, PACE Center for Girls,
Step by Step, the Foster Care Council of Southwest Florida, the Ricky
King Foundation, YMCA of Collier County, and Youth Haven; and,
Whereas, the trustees, beneficiaries, volunteers, and community
members will celebrate and honor their partnerships and shared
passion for helping the children.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that November 12th, 2004,
was celebrated as Naples Children and Education Foundation Day and
will be so designated forever.
Done and ordered this 16th day of November, 2004, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Donna Fiala,
Chairman.
I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor and second to
approve.
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.
(Applause.)
Page 31
November 16, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. Would you turn
around to take a picture with us.
Thank you. And would you like to say a few words?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if I could get -- I'm sorry.
MS. ACOSTA: That's all right. Okay.
On behalf of the Naples Children and Education Foundation, I
would like to thank the Board of County Commissioners for this
proclamation.
The Naples Children and Education Foundation is beneficiary of
the Naples Winter Wine Festival and was established in 2001. Since
then it has raised $13.7 million.
The fund raise -- funds raised are being used to enable 18 youth
organizations to build better lives in Collier County, Collier County's
most vulnerable children.
This money has helped six areas of service in the community,
including children at risk, therapeutic, summer enrichment programs,
education, health care and groundbreaking.
This accomplishment was celebrated by the beneficiaries of the
2004 Naples Winter Wine Festival on November 12th, 2004, during
the organization's first NCEF day, building a better future. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mr. Mudd, you wanted to comment?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. We have a time certain, 10 o'clock,
next item.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And is our sheriff here?
Item #13A
STATUS OF THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE 2004-2005 BUDGET-
MOTION TO INCREASE THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT FY'05
Page 32
November 16,2004
BUDGET BY AN ADDITIONAL $1,687,556.26 IN ADDITION TO
THE $119,229,900 PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE BOARD,
MR. MUDD: And that's item 13A, and it's the status of the
sheriffs office 2004/2005 budget.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: There he is.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Good morning, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good morning, Sheriff Hunter.
SHERIFF HUNTER: It seems you've already had a full agenda.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And we've only just begun.
SHERIFF HUNTER: I hope not to keep you long.
I notice Mr. Smykowski just exited the room. Shall I -- shall I
delay momentarily?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: He's not a voting member.
SHERIFF HUNTER: It may pertain to the budget. I appreciate
the opportunity to come before you and speak this morning.
I hope -- certainly this has become far more a situation than in
years past, owing to the, I think, the funding that is available
throughout the county and certainly what the board is looking at for
future years in terms of revenue, and we recognize that.
And we would like to get this back on a -- back on a professional
plane and let me discuss with you what the concerns of the agency are
this morning, and the entire intent this morning coming back before
you was simply not to replow old ground, but rather give you my
understanding of where we currently are.
We've had certainly time with staff to review where we would
stand in this current fiscal year, '05 fiscal year, given the reductions to
the budget request that have been made by the board, and I wanted to,
if I may, make my final plea to you to review with us where we
currently stand.
I would give a little more good news, and I know that all of the
Page 33
November 16,2004
commissioners, being strong advocates for law enforcement, would
join me in saying congratulations to the professional members of the
agency and all of our colleagues locally who work with us, Marco
Island and Naples Police and emergency services, because the agency
received word that for the first six months of this calendar year, we've
had yet another downturn in the crime condition in Collier County.
That's not uniform across the State of Florida.
Right up the road in Lee County they had an increase in their
situation of crime, part one crime. But we are happy that we have had
a downturn here to the tune of about an 11 percent decrease when
compared to the same period last year, 500 crimes fewer. That's good
news, but we still have in excess of 7,000 proj ected criminal victims,
victims of crime, through the end of the calendar year, so we are
working hard to make sure that we have the absolute best situation in
Collier County, regardless of what may happen in the remainder of the
state.
I -- we have a few staff members here. They're going to hopefully
help me through this by providing the board with some visual
material, if I may, on the -- using your -- hopefully we know how to
use that, Jim, so we can get through it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If you use our equipment, Sheriff,
it puts up our numbers.
SHERIFF HUNTER: I was trying to read some of those
numbers the other day, I couldn't make them out on the board. You
don't mind if I put these on.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No.
SHERIFF HUNTER: The first item is simply -- it encapsulates
why I'm here. And if I may just take them -- one item each.
As you know, we have an attrition policy for the county
established by the Board of County Commissioners, actually
predecessors of yours, some time back, which simply states that each
agency would be subj ect to a four percent attrition, meaning, in
Page 34
November 16,2004
essence, at the end of the day, you would approve 100 percent of the
positions, but would fund 96 percent.
There are some exceptions by board policy. Exceptions are
public safety under the board, emergency management -- emergency
medical service rather -- emergency medical service, any element of
the board that has fewer than 10 members in a group, and also one of
the fire departments, one of the dependent fire departments, are not
subj ect to that four percent.
One of the things I'd like to accomplish today is to ask the board
to revisit this with us. The sheriffs office currently is fully staffed and
we believe and intend to be -- remain fully staffed through the course
of the -- of this year.
We are already in the '05 fiscal year, as the board knows, but for
purposes of the public record, we believe that we will continue to
maintain full staffing through the remainder of this calendar -- fiscal
year.
So I'm asking the board to restore the $3.6 million that was
reduced at the time of budget submission, meaning, let's take another
look and let's revisit that policy, because I believe that four percent
may be far more than what we are going to experience, far more than
what you're going to experience, and hopefully so, and I'd like to
revisit that whole policy.
Number two, I'm asking that the board restore the $2.5 million in
anticipated overtime. Now, the board sent, by law -- if I may, just for a
moment, digress, because that has been a great deal of confusion about
this.
Under law, as the board knows, once the budget process is
finalized by board's final vote indicating what the actual budget will
be for a constitutional officer, a sheriff in this case, would send the
board a request, a formal request authorized by law, to depict to the
agency head, the constitutional officer, what the actual reduction in
the proposed budget was.
Page 35
November 16, 2004
You've done that, and you've indicated that beyond the other
reductions from the request, one of the areas to particularly be
concerned about is the $2.5 million that was reduced from the
agency's proposal in the overtime area.
I'm asking that the board review that with us and restore the $2.5
million because I believe that I could convince you that that -- those
dollars are necessary.
Number three, we had a phase-in of$1.2 million for the jail wing
opening and $1.1 million to the law enforcement positions that are
necessary just to maintain business the way we do it last year in the
'05 fiscal year.
We had added some investigators, you'll recall, we added some
people, youth relations deputies for schools, the brand new schools
that opened this year. Those were removed during the course of the
budget discussions through the public hearings.
Number four, restore the $931,000, which were moved to impact
fees which represents the capital expenses that were proposed to the
board for this ensuing year, the year we're currently in.
The board had suggested that a law enforcement impact fee may
be adopted at some point during the '05 fiscal year and had further
suggested that once revenues were begun -- once that stream was
begun that we could fund capital out of that impact fee.
We would ask that rather than relying upon conjecture and
speculation pertaining to whether that impact fee may be adopted or
not, that we recognize the expense, the $931,000, and I ask the board
to restore that -- those moneys.
And finally, just asking the board's acknowledgement, access to
the reserves according to Florida state statutes, chapter 30 at section
49, paragraph 7, which simply says, in essence, that we would have
access to reserves for expenditures unexpected.
And as you know, we went through that in something of a drill
during the last -- well, we had a workshop before regular -- regular
Page 36
November 16,2004
commission meeting, and then we had -- in the final public hearing,
we had some discussion pertaining to access to reserves.
Those are the items that I would like to specifically discuss. I am
asking predominantly -- as I say, if you would look at the $3.6 million
that was removed literally ahead of time before the budget's submitted
to you as a matter of policy of the board, look at that 3.6 million, and
at least, at a minimum, we really need to revisit that policy.
I'm asking the board to take a look, let's see what might be more
viable, because we do believe we will remain fully staffed for the
fiscal year. And obviously, we suffer the same thing you do, a
position here, position there, retirement, resignations, firings. There
may be -- there's some -- it's fluid throughout the course of the year;
however, under current recruiting and retention policies of the agency,
we have people literally standing in line waiting for a position because
we recruit applicants, we inform them that this is for a future hire date,
not for an immediate hire date, and we encourage them to wait for an
openIng.
So literally, when an opening occurs, we have a person waiting to
fill that position in the critical areas of the -- of the agency, especially
jail, road patrol, and communications. We have people literally
waiting.
The 2.5 million -- if I may ask for a little help here. And before I
do that, I'd like to -- it's something that really doesn't come before the
board, because I don't talk about it a whole lot. But I know that the __
our other constitutionals recently, and with great fanfare, presented
you with checks indicating what they were able to return to the board,
indicating that they have raised some additional revenue for the board;
the clerk's office, especially Mr. Carlton's office, our tax collector.
We don't really talk about it a whole lot.
But just as a reminder to the board, from time to time, the agency
does, in fact, generate revenue for the county that we don't ask you to
recognize for us, but I would like for the public to know that,
Page 37
November 16, 2004
obviously, with all the citations written on the streets of Collier
County, with all of the people arrested who post bonds and then walk
away from those bonds when they fail to appear for court, for all of
the -- for all of the parking citations that are issued in Collier County,
for all of the meals that we collect on from inmates and all of the
medical costs and booking costs that we charge to inmates, what we
can account for today, estimated, roughly, is about $6 million that the
agency brings in to the Board of County Commissioners, or through
the Board of County Commissioners and the clerk's office.
That money doesn't come to the sheriffs office, it doesn't reside
with us. It goes, direct, to you for disbursement under state law and is
properly accounted for by the Clerk of Courts.
We're showing about a million four that we returned to you. That
was a result of a request for access to reserve. We had a request -- as
you know, this goes way back now . We tried to predict, before the
end of the fiscal year, where we were going to reside at September
30th.
And we believed at the time that we would have expenditures
that would both be for full-time positions that we had been able to fill
plus overtime to pay for the people who were backfilling, in other
words, standing in the position of the person who's a full-time member
now but needs to be trained through the academies of the State of
Florida, be certified by the State of Florida in order to maintain
custody over inmates and operate the 911 system as an emergency
medical dispatcher and become a patrol officer for the streets of
Collier County in this case.
We were glad to return $1.4 million plus to the board because we
ultimately didn't need that. Remember we had -- besides Charley, we
had three additional storms that were stacked up waiting in line at
various times during the course of those deliberations.
In fact, one of the -- the first meeting when we were to appear
before you was -- we had to postpone our request because of Charley.
Page 38
November 16,2004
So we are very happy that we're returning 1.4 million in
unexpended funds. And just for public -- just for the public to
understand, all of the constitutionals must return any excess funds to
the board at end of any fiscal year. We don't have any carryforward.
So I make reference to that.
Any questions so far, Commissioners? I'll be happy to try to
respond. We do have --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle has a question.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Sheriff Hunter, I just -- if
we could go back to the prior slide, what I'd like to try to do is to get a
fix on the total difference between what we have authorized and what
you're requesting to be restored. And if I could just go over my
understanding of it and see if you agree with it.
With the restoration of the four percent attrition factor and the
restoration of the phase-in positions -- let's for a moment disregard the
impact fees, because I think -- I think we have a common
understanding on the impact fee issue of$931,OOO, at least I think I
do.
Would it be accurate to say that you're asking for $6 million
more, and a part of that will come from the turn-back and the FEMA
reimbursement for overtime, leaving a difference of roughly $3.5
million apart; is that essentially where you think we are?
SHERIFF HUNTER: I subscribe to that -- those numbers, yes.
That's roughly where we are.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just general, okay.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just wanted to make sure that I
understood exactly what we were doing here. And we can discuss the
details a little later.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Could we --let me throw this -- Jean, if
you could put this chart up for Commissioner Coyle.
Commissioner Coyle, ladies and gentlemen of the Commission,
Page 39
November 16,2004
asked for a specific piece of material during my discussions with him.
This is some of that. It's not the official form, but it is the official
number that we are using for purposes of FEMA reimbursement as a
result of the four storms that threatened Florida and this coast during
the course of the earlier part of our hurricane season.
The actual number should be $1.1 million reimbursement back to
the board at some point in the future from FEMA. I don't know how
to predict that precisely, but I understand it may -- it may take a year
or a year and a half for that money to come back to the board, but it is
subj ect for reimbursement. And we believe that these numbers would
be the numbers that you would see.
That is correct. We -- in my discussion with you, Commissioner
Coyle, I said a million dollars. It should be about a million one, looks
like.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And Commissioner Halas, I think,
is next to speak, but I just had a follow-up question. I need to -- I'd
like to at least get an understanding from the other board members and
the county manager about the position concerning the impact fees.
It's my recollection that the $931,000 was expected to be
obtained from an impact fee that we hoped to implement. It was not
necessarily a reduction in the sheriffs budget. It was merely a
definition of the potential source of the funds. Is that what happened?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. In their document we basically say, if the
board does not implement the new impact fee, then nine hundred __
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thirty-one thousand dollars.
MR. MUDD: -- thirty-one thousand dollars needs to be found
from someplace else.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: And my recommendation is that it come from that
turn-back money if the board doesn't approve the impact fee.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: And what I don't want to do is tie the board's
Page 40
November 16, 2004
hands to say that you have to approve an impact fee in order to get it.
So those dollars were going to be set aside in order to get to those
dollars if you didn't approve the impact fee.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So that's consistent with my
understanding.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That was not a budget cut. It was
merely a definition of where the money was coming from. And the
money would come from some other source if we didn't get it from the
impact fee. So Sheriff, I don't --
SHERIFF HUNTER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- think you should be concerned
that the money won't be available if we don't pass the impact fee. I
think that --
SHERIFF HUNTER: Thank you for clarifying that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That might be something --
SHERIFF HUNTER: I did not understand that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- we can remove from this
equation, but we'll have to decide upon where we get the money. But
I just wanted to lay the groundwork for a common understanding on
where we were with this.
SHERIFF HUNTER: That helps me. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
SHERIFF HUNTER: I didn't understand that, Commissioner
Coyle.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I'm a little fuzzy here, so I'm
hoping that the county manager can maybe help me out in this, or
maybe Mike Smykowski, the budget director.
Ifwe reestablished the 3.6 million, does that basically -- will that
fall in line with the budget guidance that we gave the sheriff at the __
early on? I think we were trying to maintain somewheres around 39
Page 41
November 16,2004
percent of the pie for ad valorem taxes. And where would that put us
if we reestablish that, where we are today?
MR. MUDD: Okay. And Commissioner, so you -- I just had a
chart -- I just had a chart, and the first -- the top part of this chart isn't
different -- any different at all than what Sheriff Hunter had put up
earlier, except I have the adopted '04 next to it. So -- in this area in
here where the numbers are squared away.
And what you're basically asking -- and so this 5.9 right here
comes down into this particular area. Based on your -- your guidance
for certain percentages to basically hold everybody to what they __
what their percentage of general fund moneys was for 2004, if you __
if you bring that down to the sheriff, it was 39.59 percent.
And if you take a look at that percentage times the -- let's call it
the unanticipated but good news turn-back from the constitutional
officers, and we try to make -- just so the audience understands, we try
to get a feeling from the constitutional officers ahead of time how
much they believe the turn-back's going to be so we can budget those
amounts in the '05 budget. They turned back $5.9 million more than
expected. That's really good news.
If I take that 39 percent against that 5.9 on the turn-back to keep
within your budget guidance, that would turn out to be $2.3 million.
If you -- if you take a look at where the sheriffs budget is right
now, after your 2.5 cut, his budget is $663,611 over your guidance.
If you subtract that from the 2.3, that would -- that would leave __
within budget guidance with this -- the additional turn-back, it would
mean that that, to keep within guidance -- to keep your guidance, the
board could put 1.6 million -- excuse me -- $1,687,556 into the
sheriffs budget, and you would still be with -- and he would still be
within your guidance that you basically gave to everyone.
Did I answer your question, sir?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, you did.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know, that seems--
Page 42
November 16,2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm not done yet. I've got a couple
more, if I could.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So where are we as far as the
growth rate of the county manager's budget versus where we are with
the growth rate of the sheriffs budget, the percentage increase over
this year?
MR. MUDD: If you're trying to figure out what percentages the
operating budget came in for the manager, we came in at around seven
percent, and that's basically trying to hold down our head count that I
told the commissioners I would do two years ago trying to hold it at
25 per year. It -- and the sheriff right now is around 13.5, 13.6.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, with the added overtime that
the sheriff is incurring in his budget, is there any reflection of the
overtime versus what the end result will be as far as what the -- what's
going to be placed on the taxpayers as far as a burden at the time of
retirement? Is that -- does that ever enter into the equation? Is it based
just on base salary or is it based on total salary that people are -- as far
as retirement benefits? Can anybody answer that?
MR. MUDD: Mike, go ahead. If you can help me.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: For the record, Michael Smykowski,
budget director. The Florida Retirement System rates and ultimate
payouts to people who vest in the program are based on the __
typically the average five highest years of salary, and overtime is a
component of that high -- high five, so to speak, that is used to
determine. That times the number of years of service and the
applicable percentage rate ultimately determines what each retiree will
receive as a retirement benefit through the Florida Retirement System.
So overtime is a component of the calculation; annual salary plus
overtime.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And how would that fit into our
Page 43
November 16,2004
equation as far as what the load would be on the general taxpayer here
in Collier County?
Is there any difference between what the retirement rate is, let's
say, for people that retire from the county manager's staff or another
staff, versus law enforcement?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: There is a differential. Law enforcement
personnel are characterized, certified as high-risk or special-risk
category, so they are -- they are afforded a higher percentage annually.
The average employee would receive, civilian employee, it's 1.6
percent for every year of service, and I believe it's 2 or -- I don't recall
the exact percentage, but it is higher than the 1.6 percent that is
afforded the average civilian employee.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And then my last question is, do
you believe that it's good budgetary policy to use turn-backs as putting
that into the equation for budgets for -- of expenditures that are going
to continue year after year --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: As a general --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- as a turn-back?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: As I general rule, no, because __
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- obviously one-time money -- you need
to be cautious in the use of one-time money __
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- because obviously after you spend it in a
one-year period, you do not have it available in the subsequent year.
And if you're funding ongoing programs or costs that have multiyear
implications for funding, obviously you would need to make up that
funding source from some other revenue in the upcoming year.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The end result is, would we
be within the budget guidelines of 39 percent?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: No. The sheriff is currently over the
allocation by 663,000, inclusive of that two and a half million dollar
Page 44
November 16, 2004
reduction.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Now, Commissioner, I want to make sure -- the
answers -- I want to make sure you have all the answer, okay, and
Mike hit upon it.
When you -- when you cut $2.5 million out of the sheriffs
FY-'05 budget, okay, those were reoccurring dollars. You still have
that money on top of the 5.9 on turn-back. I want to make sure that
you understand that.
So you really have about $8.4 million, 2.5 of that is that cut off
the '05 budget that you made during the budget hearings, okay. That's
reoccurring money. That's money that is coming in year after year
after year.
So the answer to Commissioner Halas' question, you have to be
careful if you're going to give -- if you're going to give more than $2.5
million in reoccurring costs, because if you do and you're using
one-time dollars that are in turn-back, then you get yourself into a
shortage when you get into the outyears.
So I want to make sure that you have that particular issue. You
do have some reoccurring dollars out there.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: The two and a half million dollar reduction
that you made to the sheriffs budget, those funds were placed in
reserves, so -- and they are recurring dollars, and they are available
per the decision of the board.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You can go before me, then I'll be next.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Let me -- let me deal with
the overtime. We had a budget of $4 million last year, and it went to
8. Did the $4 million that was budgeted anticipate overtime resulting
from hurricanes? Do you routinely do that, and if not, why not?
SHERIFF HUNTER: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You do not?
SHERIFF HUNTER: We don't budget -- we don't budget
Page 45
November 16,2004
overtime based upon our experience with hurricanes, because
obviously it seems to fluctuate year in, year out.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, all right. Then that
answered my question.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I just want to mention -- although
I know we have five speakers still waiting -- but I would think two
solutions to this ought to be kind of simple; one, if you gave us 1.4
million -- and it looks like we hadn't allocated it anyway, I don't see
why we can't give it back to you. That would solve a little bit of the
problem. That seems like a very easy solution.
And the next thing is, you have four percent attrition, but happily,
you've kept 100 percent employed. So I think that that should be there
for your use. As long as you're operating at 100 percent employees,
you didn't need that four percent, I think that that should be there for
you to take in an unfettered manner. So to me, that might help a little
bit in this -- in this equation.
How do you feel about that?
SHERIFF HUNTER: I'm feeling optimistic. I agree.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's too early for that.
SHERIFF HUNTER: You could see my enthusiasm.
No, I agree with the board that the 3.6 -- and for purposes of the
public record and for the -- and our audience, obviously we submitted
a budget to you that anticipated, because of your established policy on
attrition, that that four percent would be removed. So it's actually an
item of the front page of the budget submission that we reduced the
budget by four percent of the personal services as a result of the
board's policy.
So when I ask you to revisit it, I understand you can't do that
today. But for the record, I would strongly urge and ask that the board
revisit the attrition policy, and I appreciate what the chairman is
saying, that is unfettered access to reserve, because --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That only makes sense, you know.
Page 46
November 16,2004
SHERIFF HUNTER: I'm aware that that was not budgeted
moneys. The 1.4 turn-back and then the expected FEMA
reimbursement that we've made the acknowledgement on to
Commissioner Coyle, now to the board, also is there and would
certainly put us in a much stronger position for this year.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now, I just mentioned that. Of course,
nobody else knew that was coming up.
Commissioner Coyle, Commissioner Halas, and Commissioner
Coletta. So I just felt that that was a good point to begin with, if that
-- and I wanted to hear what your thoughts were on it.
Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. There are a couple of
observations, and then I'd like to sum up with a recap of the difference
in dollars that I think we're talking about.
One is that it's certainly possible and probable that the four
percent factor will not prevail with the current full staffing situation,
but it is also equally probable that it won't be zero, that there will be
some attrition no matter what happens.
We don't know what that figure is. But if that figure were two
percent rather than four percent, we're talking about a difference of
$1.8 million. And as you'll see when I get to the recap, that has a
substantial impact upon the ultimate resolution of this.
Now, when we talk about the $1.4 million turn-back that the
sheriff didn't use from last year that was actually taken out of next
year's budget, it logically should go back, I think, for next year, but
remember also that there's $1.1 million in new revenue coming in
from FEMA reimbursements.
And if the sheriff incurred expenses, increased expenses as a
result of hurricanes, and the federal and state governments are
reimbursing for those -- those overtime costs, then it seems to me the
sheriff should get that amount of money.
His problem, as I see it, is that he's not likely to get that money
Page 47
November 16, 2004
until sometime in the future. But I would suggest that hopefully the
sheriff isn't going to spend 50 percent of his overtime budget before
that money comes in.
So -- in any event, I see that we have, with the $1.4 million
turn-back and $1.1 million FEMA, we're talking about $2.8 million
right there, and 1.1 of it is not coming out of general funds, out of our
pockets. Am I right so far, County Manager? The $1.1 million in
FEMA funds isn't coming out of our pockets?
MR. MUDD: No, as long as -- as long as they reimburse us.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. Now that's the key.
MR. MUDD: And everybody's -- everybody's on the shoestring
right now in order to get that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: We've had an expenditure of ad valorem dollars,
general fund dollars in order -- the same thing in the county manager's
agency when you take the hurri -- and then you go back to do your
claim for FEMA.
And right now the budget policy that we have for the state, is
FEMA's paying 90 cents on the dollar, the state's paying a nickel on
the dollar, and the other nickel that's left is the county responsibility.
So hopefully we'll get 95 cents on the dollar for reimbursement on our
claim.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we're looking at the possibility,
the very high probability, that there's going to be $2.6 million or $2.5
million available there with the FEMA reimbursement.
My primary certain lies with the phase-in of the positions that
were addressed earlier. Now, the sheriff and I discussed this in a
meeting yesterday, or was it last week? I guess it was last week.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Last week.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The budget prepared by the sheriff
was actually prepared and the printed numbers produced sometime in
April of this year. It does not appear to me that it would have been
Page 48
November 16, 2004
possible for the sheriff and his budgeting department to forecast the
delays in the construction of the jail.
So if that is the case, it would appear to me that some of these
phase- in costs are -- or some of these phase-in offsets, reductions, are
entirely appropriate. In fact, there might be additional cost savings,
because I understand the jail has just been slipped maybe a few more
months that we didn't know about until recently.
So the longer that jail is delayed as far as construction is
concerned, the less need there is to get the staffing involved as early as
anticipated earlier this year. And so what I'm hoping is that the sheriff
will be able to take a look at that phase-in thing, the phase-in dollars,
and there's $2.3 million of phase-in cost there.
So if we can improve on that, Sheriff Hunter, the remainder
seems to have already been taken care of. The $2.5 million seems to
be taken care of in FEMA reimbursements and the $1.4 million
turn-back.
So that's why I didn't need that general understanding of our base
figure when we began our discussion, because we're talking about
restoring $3.6 million -- I'm sorry -- restoring the phase-in dollars for
the j ail opening.
My concern is the jail opening has been delayed again, and I
would hope we could find even more savings there. But let's suppose
we can't. Let's suppose you just live with the things we discussed early
this year, and I think you agreed to. We dealt with the $931,000 in
impact fee.
And the primary concerns right now are the $2.5 million, which I
don't agree should be going to overtime, but, you know, you make that
decision, but you've got $2.5 million, I think, you're going to get, and
then the four percent budget policy issue, which can't be determined at
this point in time, I don't think, because we don't know what the
attrition figure really is.
And if we -- if we could reach agreement that with the $1.4
Page 49
November 16,2004
million turn-back you're making to us, plus the $1.1 million in FEMA
reimbursements for your last year's overtime will give you an
additional $2.5 million, I think it gets us back to where we were earlier
this year before we got into this intense disagreement.
Because I believe you had -- you had agreed to phase in some of
those positions.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Right?
SHERIFF HUNTER: That is correct. Going into the last budget
discussion, we had that understanding.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, where does that put us with
respect to budget guidance? Does that put us right on track with the
budget guidance? Remember that the $1.1 million in FEMA
imbursement doesn't enter into that issue, right?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. You just take it -- you'll take that from
the turn-back money that you have a one-time, and you wait for
FEMA reimbursement.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: And I just have to talk to Mike and Crystal to
figure out -- and Jim, when FEMA does return the moneys, where
does it go to? That part -- you know, sometimes you have to wait a
while before they return it, and I don't have experience in that, so I'm
going to have to ask these experts how that money comes back in.
Because if it comes back in to the sheriff, then the sheriff would
return it to the general fund reserve to make up for the, so-to-speak, a
loan.
What does that do for you as far as your budget guidance? That
would -- that would put the sheriffs budget about 200 -- about
$287,000 below the percentage allocation that the board had in the
budget guidance.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then let's give him 200,000 more
dollars and make it work, right?
Page 50
November 16, 2004
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. It goes back to my original--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So rather than 2.5, make it 2.7.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm glad you want to give away
taxpayers'money.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I mean, we're just getting it
back equal to the -- to the budget guidance that we decided on the first
time. That's all we're doing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well--
MR. MUDD: It goes back to that chart that said it's -- 1.687
would be the percentage against that new turn-back dollars that were
sitting there, and then you're talking about a $1.1 million loan for the
FEMA expenditure that the sheriff had, and then -- I just want to make
sure that we're clarified on that, depending on the board's decision on
the impact fee, the new impact fee, law enforcement impact fee,
there's nine hundred and --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thirty-one thousand.
MR. MUDD: -- and thirty-one thousand dollars that we will hold
in a reserve from the turn-back to determine if -- dependent on your
decision. If the law enforcement impact fee is passed, then it will
come out of impact fee dollars, and that $931,000 would then go into
reserve or to be used at the board's discretion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let me just ask while -- this concerns me.
You talk about these law enforcement impact fees. And say, for
instance, we passed them today. Obviously they're not on the agenda,
so we're not even really talking about it. When do you begin to collect
those impact fees?
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, you put a -- you put an execution date as
soon as -- as soon as you pass it. It's normally within anywhere from
14 to 30 days after you pass --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay.
MR. MUDD: -- it that we put that down, and then we'd start
collecting them and we'll have a projection based on the permits for
Page 51
November 16,2004
the rest of the year, how much we collect, and we would collect a
certain amount of dollars and that --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, it's money that's being collected
almost immediately after it's passed, if, indeed, it is passed?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if I could just clarify
something --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- before Commissioner Halas
speaks. But all I was trying to do is get us to the budget guidance
issue, and that's the amount of money we told the sheriff he could
have back in February or March, or maybe earlier.
So all I'm doing is trying to be consistent with what we told him
he could have at that point in time. And I'm really not trying to throw
away throw-away money here. But if it's that -- if it's fair to let the
sheriff have what we told him he could have under the budget
guidance, would you agree that that is true, that that is fair?
MR. MUDD: That's why I built --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: That's why I built that chart to let you know what
your budget guidance was and where that fares out as far as the sheriff
is concerned.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, all right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have Commissioner Halas,
Coletta, and Henning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sheriff, I just have a question for
you. You came before the board in late September, and that was
basically after most of the hurricanes had --
SHERIFF HUNTER: I'm not hearing you very well.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, I'm sorry. You came before
the board in late September, and that was basically after most of the
Page 52
November 16,2004
hurricanes had passed and were very adamant that you needed the two
and a half million dollars to meet September's payroll, which we gave
to you. Obviously we also took some money out from -- we moved
money from one kitty to the other kitty to make sure that we could --
that you could meet payroll. But yet within a month later, we end up
with a turn-back of $1.4 million. Can you clarify that, how that all
came about?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, to some extent I can. Then I'm going
to have to rely on Director Kinzel, but I'll give it a shot to begin.
We did request 2.5, and that was based upon an estimate that we
made many months prior, trying to get through the end of the fiscal
year, understanding that we could incur all of those costs, we were
estimating it about 2.5.
We got to the end -- what we had done in between, we were -- we
became fully staffed and we had some advantage that we gained by
going -- for instance, one of our largest areas of expenditure was jail,
as we discussed, Commissioner Halas, at that meeting, jail.
What we did was convert from a 10-hour shift into a 12-hour
shift. When we did that, because we were fully staffed now and we
can do that, we converted into a 12- hour shift pattern, and we were
able to save considerable dollars that way. That is one way we were
able to conserve and be able to return some of the dollars to you.
I haven't done a study at the moment to determine what that 1.4
is composed of what and how we were able to do that. We've been
gathering information and been quite busy lately as a result of
potential appeal and working with the board on public records request,
but I'll be happy to try to define that more explicitly in the future.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The other thing that I'd like to put
on record, if the board approves the addition or the turn-back of this
money to you, do you anticipate that you'll be coming forward for
additional reserve funds in the near future?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, I'm not satisfied that I understand
Page 53
November 16,2004
precisely where the board is going. I believe you're saying 2.7 million
at the moment, is on the -- is being discussed. That gets us back to
where we were, roughly, at the beginning of the last public hearing.
Will we dip into reserves? I'm glad you brought -- you give me
an opportunity to ask the pertinent question because Commissioner
Coyle touched on it.
If Mr. Mudd -- if County Manager can give us a date certain,
within the realities of construction proj ects, but if you can give us a
time concern, date certain, on the opening of the jail, not only the CO
has been issued, but as Commissioner Coy Ie points out, the punch list
has been completed, I can give you a better idea of whether we will
actually get into reserves.
Because as I explained to you -- to the board in September during
the public hearings, we had this nine-month window for the recruiting,
the hiring, academies, field training, and operating the building. If we
have a CO, a Certificate of Occupancy for that jail, we could at least
put the recruited members into the jail to begin operating the jail,
learning how it operates, know where the hidden areas are, how the
cameras are going to work, how to articulate them, how to operate the
doors. We train -- we'll train for a month on operation of the facility.
And the answer is, it depends upon the opening of the jail and
when we actually have the CO and we can actually occupy the facility
for training purposes, and then I back up from that date, that moment,
nine months, and that's where we begin hiring.
Right now it looks like January of 2005 would be where we
begin to hire so that we can actually occupy in September. But we're
getting nine months of expense. Those nine months are currently part
of our phase-in plan, and where would we stand?
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner -- and maybe I can sum up a little
bit.
SHERIFF HUNTER: For the record, Crystal Kinzel, director --
MS. KINZEL: For the record, Crystal Kinzel, finance director.
Page 54
November 16,2004
The sheriff is exactly right. What we've programmed in under those
phase-ins is to add some of the jail deputies starting in -- June 30th
and some in January. So the construction deadline of the jail will
absolutely determine the actual phase-in and the necessity of those
positions and the timing to that accordingly.
SHERIFF HUNTER: But right now as we're currently funded, if
we get the 2.7 million --
MS. KINZEL: Correct.
SHERIFF HUNTER: -- will we have to go to reserve, is the
question, and the answer is, if we open on time. And that time being
MS. KINZEL: And also depending on what our true attrition rate
is, as Commissioner Coyle alluded to. If our true attrition rate is any
more than maybe one or two percent, we would still have to come
back full staffing at the end of the fiscal year.
But we would have to balance -- and that's why it's important to
remember, I think, Commissioner Halas, we submitted our budget
way back in -- June 1 of last year, and we're trying to think of where
we're going to be next September.
So to sit here today and say, well, if we get 2 million, we will not
come back for reserves when we have outstanding construction and all
of these things pending, I don't think we can really appropriately tell
you that today, but that's why there is a reserve policy, and we will try
to minimize it. We'll try to minimize the overtime and our phasing in
according to the construction deadline.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand. And every -- every
constitutional officer has to basically deal with how they're going --
how much they're going to need when they put their budget together.
My concerns are, right now the Board of County Commissioners
has at this point in time given you -- at this point where we stand is
$14.2 million for new moneys that was allocated for 2005. And now
we're talking with an additional $2.7 million, I believe that takes us
Page 55
November 16, 2004
almost to $16.9 million. And then we're looking at the possibility that
you may have to come back for additional reserves, and that could
probably end up to run the budget up another 2 million or $3 million;
do you think?
MS. KINZEL: Well, I think, Commissioner, it is important to go
back to within the board's policy. And as long as we are within that
39.1 percent that you gave us with the original guidance, all of the
constitutionals and all of the other agencies also have those reserve
funds allocated specifically for emergencies.
So at any point based on the allocation of the budgeted money, if
you come back during the year because of an emergency, because of
hurricanes, because of any unanticipated events that we would have,
those reserves are available then that we can apply to the budget.
But I think it's important to get back to the budget guidance and
the policy that was originally set. And if we can meet that, we're still
within what the board originally directed.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I just don't like this --
hopefully we won't use the reserves as a fallback for additional funds
on a yearly basis. I guess what I'm saying is that it should be strictly
for emergency and not to be used as anticipated entitlements, I guess
is the way to put it.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Commissioner Halas, let me assure you --
and that's exactly why I bring up the four percent attrition rate. That's
exactly what Commissioner Coyle and I discussed in the previous
meeting, the last meeting we had, and that is, we don't like going to
reserves for these expenses that we believe we're going to have as a
result of being fully staffed.
This should be simply set aside for unanticipated expense. That's
what a reserve -- a true reserve account is. And we agree with you
that it should be used only for unanticipated, and hurricanes certainly
would fit that bill. But if we don't try to -- we don't anticipate that
we're going to four, 12 or 18 named storms, it's all dependent.
Page 56
November 16,2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Now, I hate to stop everybody, but
we've got to give our court reporters a little bit of a break, so we're
going to take 10 minutes, and then we'll be back, and then
Commissioner Coletta, Commissioner Henning, Commissioner Coyle
will be up next.
Thank you.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Madam Chair, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
We have Commissioner Coletta up next.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, thank you. I'll wait just a
second there.
I see the direction we're starting to go, and I understand what the
guidance of the commission is, and I couldn't agree more that
probably the right way to go for this year is to get back within the
original guidance that we came up with; however, it still doesn't
answer all the questions that are out there and all the concerns.
You know, because we are stewards of the taxpayers' money, and
not just the sheriffs department, but for all Collier County offices and
all the constitutional officers and all our departments, and we do have
a responsibility to try to do something better at all times, to try to find
a better way.
Now, personally I don't think that we can go out there and do it
ourselves, but we have to be the instrument to bring the different
departments in line in such a way that we get the best bang for our
buck, for the taxpayers' dollar out there.
I can go along with the guidance that was there and probably
accept the decision of this commission, but I think we need to look at
the long-range picture. You know, we don't want to come back next
year and be going through this whole process again, and we really do
Page 57
November 16,2004
need to look at such things as EMS and some of our other county
departments.
We're talking about a possible tax increase next year, and it
scares the daylights out of me that we'd have to raise the ad valorem to
be able to cover all the costs that will be coming up in the following
year.
I do -- I do take particular pleasure in one of your recent memos
that I've come across. In it you have given direction to all agency
members. Sheriff Hunter says, all the overtime accorded -- according
to policy must be reviewed and approved by supervisors prior -- and
that's in capital letters -- to work the overtime.
I am asking that all supervisors be vigilant in monitoring
overtime and reviewing workloads so we can continue our mission
with minimal expenditures.
And that, sir, I'm sure that's a normal course of events for the
most part, but the fact that you emphasize it again in a memo to your
-- to your staff, it's encouraging to see that; however, we're going to
have to do some serious soul searching in the coming budget for the
following year in such a way that we know that everything that's being
spent on all levels of county government are for the best interest of the
people that we jointly serve.
At this point in time, I can move towards the direction we're
heading with recognizing the budget to be within our guidelines, if we
can do it. But I do think that guidelines are nothing more than
guidelines, and that we should always try to exceed it wherever
possible.
I would ask for you to consider, instead of going with
Commissioner Coyle's recommendation, that -- to bump it up another
$200,000 to bring up even to a percentage point, that you accept the
amount that we've been talking about, less that, so we're just slightly
below it. And I think that would give renewed confidence not only in
the sheriffs department but in the Collier County Commission, the
Page 58
November 16,2004
Collier County Government, too, if we could jointly agree on that.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Response?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Please, sir.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Okay. Well, first of all, let me say,
pertaining to the memo, yes, from time to time -- and I think we all do
it. I know Mr. Mudd, I'm certain, does it as well.
For EMS crews, public safety, there's a great tug for anybody
involved in saving lives to say, well, what's a life worth to you,
Sheriff?
You know, we're out there on the scene, we're doing the work.
Weare attempting to do what we're supposed to do. Is it important for
me to reassert from time to time that we do have existing policy,
ladies and gentlemen, and we will -- we will not tolerate variances
from it, and you are going to get prior authority for the expenditure of
overtime unless it's an absolute exigent circumstance, an emergency
that must be -- that must be tended to that you absolutely cannot walk
away from.
So -- and I appreciate you reading that into the record, because
that is our position and that is what we are attempting to do. Are we
100 percent flawless, no, nor would you be, nor would any
organization be, public or private.
We're not flawless on the execution of policy rather -- whether
because of misinterpretation of the policy or the guideline or whether
it's just outright willful departures, as we've discussed, as you've seen
some evidence of in your own groups, and as every organization --
every human organization sees that. But we are going to continue to
reiterate.
I thought that the discussion as it was proceeding was important
in the sense that it was pointed out by, I believe it was Commissioner
Coyle, that if we followed -- if we were considered -- if the agency
was considered under the same guidelines as every other agency of
county government and we were given that portion of the pie that was
Page 59
November 16,2004
discussed by the board back in, I believe, March of 2004 of this year,
that we would have actually gotten slightly more than the two and a
half that's currently being discussed for restoration. It would be about
2.7, as Commissioner Coyle repeated. That seems fair to me.
Not to be contrary, but if that's the portion -- although we're
subscribing now to the idea of a portion of the pie as opposed to
unusual -- we believe these are unusual expenses that we are facing
this year and next in order to occupy the wing -- the new wing of the
jail, and we shouldn't be coming back to you for 60 more people, or
120 people, for quite some time.
I'm just simply satisfied that we are going to do what -- we'll fall
back to where we were. We have had years where we had .9 percent
increases in our budget. We can fall back. We can't get to a point
likely where we'll never tap reserves if we continue with the four
percent attrition.
But if we reset that attrition policy to be more realistic, one or
two percent, then our ability to manage is going to be much better, and
we shouldn't be coming back to you and hitting reserve because it's no
longer an anticipated expense.
But unanticipated means exactly what it says. I don't know for
certain what those unanticipated expenses would be; otherwise, we
would forecast them and give you that.
So I would like to see the board, if it's at all possible, move in the
direction of the original agreements, your policy, comply with the
policy as stated by the board earlier this year with the 2.7.
Certainly 2.5 is moving in the direction that we need to move in
order to be able to keep hold the agency, and the recognition that the
attrition's going to be reviewed again and that we would have access
to reserve to fill the positions.
And as we discussed just before break, if that -- if the jail
opening gets pushed off, say, till October in the new fiscal year, then
we're going to be able to delay hiring. Instead of January of 2005,
Page 60
November 16,2004
we'll delay until February of2005.
We still need that nine months to get them ready to occupy the
space. But every month forward, we just march with you. If it
becomes November of next year, a year from now, then we're going to
go to March of next year and delay hiring, and that will be additional
savings that will be returned to the board at the end of the fiscal year.
That's where we stand.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now I have Commissioner Henning, then
Commissioner Coyle, then we're going to stop right there and --
because we have five speakers as well.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Could I --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So I'd like to get those in.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Could I ask a couple more
questions after those --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: After the speakers?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. Because we keep going on and on
and on, and we really need to get that taken care of so we can bring
this to a close.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay? Thank you.
So Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The hurricane events of the
summer, of this year, surely that has been paid the overtime, you've
paid that, correct?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Yes, we did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was that in '04 the budget or '05
budget?
SHERIFF HUNTER: That was the '04. And we had a chart on
that. I believe we did anyway. Yes, '04.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And even within that time, you
turned back $1.4 million.
Page 61
November 16,2004
SHERIFF HUNTER: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't understand the need for
asking to reimburse that when you've paid it and you've had extra
money to turn back to the Board of Commissioners.
SHERIFF HUNTER: We -- okay. We've paid the overtime. We
didn't go to $2.5 million. I believe I understand what you're saying.
We can't keep that 1.4; otherwise, we simply would have
reimbursed ourselves for the 1.1 and returned the difference to you.
But we can't keep that. That goes back to you. So the 1.4 was
returned.
We did have expenditures. We request reimbursement for the
board, in essence, from FEMA.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where'd the 1.4 come from?
Which fund did it come from?
SHERIFF HUNTER: That was Commissioner Halas' question as
well. I know we were able to convert, because we're fully staffed, to a
12-hour shift. Obviously you can't work a person 12 hours and then
say, oh, by the way, you're going to work another shift tonight or
another 12 hours. That's 24 hours on post.
So when we converted to 12 hours, we reduced some of our
ability to ask people to work overtime, but we also saved some money
because we are fully staffed, because of the nature of the 12-hour
posting.
We know that that's part of it, but I don't have a complete
breakdown on how we saved the additional dollars. I don't know that
we're prepared to discuss that this morning. And you --
MS. KINZEL: Good morning. For the record, again, Crystal
Kinzel, finance director. Maybe I can help you, Commissioner
Henning.
Most of this has to do with the sheer timing of the event. We put
in the agenda item and requested the 2.5 million out of reserves in
August, at August 30th. The only hurricane that we had experienced
Page 62
November 16,2004
was Charley. And even at that time we had not been able to calculate
the payrolls, because what happens, obviously the day that overtime is
worked, we don't have that total, what that really costs us.
We just got the totals for all of the FEMA events completed this
week, because our payrolls run cyclical every two weeks, and we are
also two weeks in arrears. You work the time, you turn in your time
card, and you're not paid for those hours till two weeks later.
So what we had to deal with between August 30th and the end of
September when I have to have the funds to meet payroll, we had
three additional hurricanes pending in the month of September. We
did have the additional full staffing, but then that was offset a little bit
by the ability to reduce some overtime in the corrections environment,
which I think I also brought up to you.
So the budget is very complex, but most of the reason that we
had the 1.4 turn-back was total timing, and the three hurricanes, thank
goodness, Collier County did not experience significant amounts of
overtime for those events similar to what we did with Charley in the
initial event. But at August 30th, that was just the anticipation on our
part. We asked for the 2.5, it came in at less than that, and that's
where we are.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me try to -- you turned back
the 1.4 10 days ago.
MS. KINZEL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Where did that money
come from?
MS. KINZEL: Your 2.5 amendment to our '04 budget.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. So, you know, it
seems to me that you didn't need that money anyways but you're
asking for it back.
MS. KINZEL: Because you reduced our 2005 budget by 2.5
million because of our reserve request in 2004. So we're asking for
the 1.4 not to have anything to do with 2004 expenditures. The 1.4 is
Page 63
November 16,2004
trying to restore what we really need to operate in 2005.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Best estimate.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you asking for that money
back ahead of time, or are you going to wait to see what FEMA
reimburses the county?
SHERIFF HUNTER: We're asking today for the restoration of
the two and a half million. We believe that that -- as Commissioner
Coyle actually has proposed, I believe, that there's an offset because of
the FEMA reimbursement that will be forthcoming to the board, we
believe.
I mean, that's historically correct that FEMA does reimburse
local government expenses that are borne as a result of these
catastrophic events, and we have experience in that. But it comes
back to the board, and that's an anticipated reimbursement.
MS. KINZEL: And I think, Commissioner, maybe I can also
help you out a little bit. Even though we're talking about amending
the sheriffs office budget at this point, we will not get that two and a
half million today in our coffers, so to speak.
We draw down from the board, according to statute, one-twelfth
of our budget on a monthly basis. And then at September 30th of next
year, if we have not spent those funds that you've allocated, those, in
turn, would be turned back to you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The reserves you're asking for,
you still need to come back to the board for a particular allocation for
that; is that correct?
SHERIFF HUNTER: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
SHERIFF HUNTER: What we're talking about today is, you've
already allocated and I believe appropriated -- Mr. Mudd, I believe the
reserves are already appropriated. That was in previous discussions.
And I believe that would be accurate, correct?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Page 64
November 16,2004
SHERIFF HUNTER: So the reserves are already appropriated to
the tune of about $5.9 million, which is the -- is based upon a
percentage of our budget, just as you budget yours, and the board
holds that.
Today's discussion is about restoring as an appropriation 2.5
million. Not that we need it tomorrow, but rather, based upon our best
estimates of a budget going -- which we prepared in -- we roughly
finished that in March of this last year, April of this last year, because
we were gathering information, putting it all together for publication
in June.
But based upon our best estimates, March and April of this last
year, '04, we're going forward saying, we need these dollars in order to
finish the fiscal year without going to reserve. But there is a potential
now that we're fully staffed that we might have to go to reserve
because of the issue of being much smaller attrition happening in the
agency. This is simply a discussion about appropriation this morning.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: But that would not occur until sometime
mid to late in fiscal year '05.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Correct.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: As opposed to --
SHERIFF HUNTER: We won't need all the money until --
obviously if we're going along at one-twelfth request drawdown each
month to the board, then with the two-twelfths in January, I believe it
is, we won't need all of these moneys until we will have expended all
of them in -- by September 30th, 2005, theoretically. If not, the
remainder returns to the board, just as it always has.
MR. MUDD: And just for the -- just for the record, the reserve
that we set aside is five percent in a particular case. I just want to
correct for the record that it's not 2.9. It's around six million in the
case of the sheriff as far as his total budget is concerned.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle, and then
we'll go to our speakers.
Page 65
November 16,2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm going to withhold my questions
until after the speakers so we can get to the speakers.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Very good. Thank you.
Would you call our speakers?
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Linda Hartman.
SHERIFF HUNTER: I'll get out of her way.
MS. FILSON: Linda Hartman?
MS. ACQUARD: She had to leave.
MS. FILSON: She'll be followed by Karen Acquard, and she
will be followed by Bob Spano.
MS. ACQUARD: Good morning. For the record, my name is
Karen Acquard, and I'm here representing the civic association of the
estates.
Please bear with me because I have to include information from
Linda that she had to present, as well as mine.
Last July the Golden Gate Estates and city civics sponsored a
joint form for the sheriff and the county to present information about
the proposed budget. The homeowners in the estates pay the same
rate of ad valorem taxes as everyone else in the county, yet we still
don't seem to have a sheriffs substation. And, folks, that's the reason
we're here, that's number one, and I haven't heard it discussed yet.
At that July forum, there was a straw vote taken; 54 people
decided to vote, and to the question, do you support the sheriffs
budget as originally presented, only two people voted no; 53 support
the estates substation, and 49 were willing to pay an increased tax to
support that substation.
The districts that are already established for sheriffs protection,
such as North Naples, East Naples, Golden Gate, usually encompass at
the very most 50 square miles. I believe North Naples is like 25
square miles. They all have a fully-staffed substation with an average
of five deputies on duty per shift.
The estates is about 200 square miles, and at the present there are
Page 66
November 16, 2004
two deputies assigned to the estates.
Now, I am told by one of the deputies that at this point they don't
even have a functional workstation because they do not have the
computer hookup between themselves and the other areas; therefore, if
a report has to be filed, one of them has to drive into Golden Gate to
file the paperwork, leaving one deputy to cover the estates.
It's not fair to the people living out there. And to be -- frankly,
we're tired of getting shoved to the back burner. The criminals are
getting a new jail because it's mandated by law.
The fact that the old one's overcrowded attests to the fact that
there are -- there is a criminal element out here and yet there's only
two deputies to protect the estates.
The estates is the fast -- second fastest growing subdivision in the
United States, surpassed only by Reno, Nevada, and Collier County is
the largest county in Florida. About 2,000 square miles.
Therefore, being an intelligent and reasonable people, you
shouldn't compare the needs of our sheriffs department with counties
that are smaller and with a slower growth rate.
Now, I know that Commissioner Coletta supports the substation
for the estates. And according to the sheriff, it is still in the budget,
but I have to say that we fear that it is the first -- one of the first things
that will be sacrificed to budget cuts.
It has been the policy of the Golden Gate Estates Civic
Association to find the compromise in situations of conflict, and I am
now, on behalf of the citizens of the estates and the 280 plus members
of the estates civic association, asking the Board of County
Commissioners and the sheriff to find the compromise so that the
sheriffwill have reasonable money to operate his -- his department
and protect the citizens of the united -- of Collier County and that the
substation for Golden Gate Estates will become a reality. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Bob Spano.
SHERIFF HUNTER: I believe Mr. Spano had to depart.
Page 67
November 16, 2004
MS. FILSON: Okay. George Brenco.
SHERIFF HUNTER: I believe he has also departed.
MS. FILSON: Michelle LaBute.
SHERIFF HUNTER: And she also has departed, I believe.
MS. FILSON: And the final speaker is Kenneth Thompson.
MR. THOMPSON: I stood there a minute ago and tried to
explain to him what his problem was, but he don't want to hear that.
And I've been calling since 12 o'clock last night to get a deputy to
come to my house because of the problem out front of the house
cussing and fighting, running up and down the street.
I've been to Commander Baker's office three times. He told me,
okay, we'll get you somebody, and it just gets worse. It just gets
worse.
And you just keep wanting to give him more money. I just can't
even believe it. Hell, I've been here 6 -- 45 years. I'm 68 years old.
And it took me that long to make $100,000. He's a deputy, makes
$100,000 a year.
And then the other day I was out there and he accused me of
shooting three deputies, and I ain't even opened my mouth to him, just
sitting there, me and my wife. I thought it was ridiculous.
And there's that Liz Rudey come out there, what, the 10th -- the
4th (sic) at five o'clock, a guy keeps trying to kill me with his truck.
He don't care how he does it. Runs right through the yard.
So I tried to get her back and get her back. I can't get her back.
So finally they sent -- I went to Commander Baker and they sent Mr.
Rue (phonetic) out there, and he finally got it straightened out, he
could be checked out. So the guys took off. We don't know where he
went, but he lives next door to me. Maybe if I can keep signing
papers on him, he won't come back.
But I'll tell you one thing, with this kind of money that Don
Hunter's a-getting, damn, you can build a battleship every three
minutes. And you want -- Fred Coyle, you want to keep giving him
Page 68
November 16, 2004
money. And, ma'am, you still want to give him money.
Cut him off. Cut him off. Let him do like I did, give him a
shovel or give him a truck or some old raggedy truck and let him get
out there and earn his money and then protect the county, because
that's just about what you're getting.
I tried to talk to him today. He don't want to talk to me. I ain't
no good. So what's on one foot fits his foot.
I'm telling you, he's not worth the money he's getting. Like I told
you before, you ought to impeach him and get him out of Collier
County or do something.
I went to try to get Mr. Dougal (sic) up in Fort Myers. He don't
mind telling you like it is. I asked him ifhe wanted to come down and
run for sheriff. He told me he didn't want no part of Collier County.
Isn't that something? Damn if I don't believe him.
I've been here for so long it's pitiful. And every time I try to get
on an airline, my wife won't leave with me. But every time somebody
mentions Don Hunter to me, it curdles my damn coffee. It -- really it
does. And somehow or another, I just -- just ain't got no use for that
man. And I been wanting to tell him so for a long time.
But if I have to get up here and tell him this -- I was going to tell
him in a nice way over there, but -- the more money you get him --
give him, the worse the thing gets.
And he's got that lady trained over there to talk like that, you
know. She make a good -- you know, a good clown, you know,
because any other way, you know -- I tried to talk to her. She split out
of here. Now you finally listening.
But you know something, Hunter, I seen a lot of things go down
in this town, and I don't believe I've ever seen anything like you.
You're firing your deputies for having sex. Hell, there ain't nothing
wrong with that. You did the same thing. I see you still on the job. I
see you -- you're firing them for everything. You went and pulled a
deputy out -- a third-degree felon out the jail down here and went and
Page 69
November 16, 2004
robbed the pawnshop in Golden Gate.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mr. Thompson --
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- we're going to have to kind of --
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, you need to --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We don't want to shoot any arrows here,
okay? Thank you. Excuse me.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, I've got some defense work to do.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So now we have Commissioner Coyle,
and then Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sheriff, I'll support the additional
$200,000 if you'll just take care of Mr. Thompson's problem.
SHERIFF HUNTER: I want to assure the board that we spent --
I spent about two minutes with Mr. Thompson on break, and then I
asked Chief Smith to actually run down the information for Mr.
Thompson so that we could understand better what the concern was
last night. And we'll certainly know that by the end of the business
day.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But I -- seriously, let me get to the
issue and make sure that my position has been accurately
communicated.
My proposal would be that we restore the $1.4 million that was
taken out of your FY - '05 budget to provide you money to cover your
payroll in FY-'04 that was not required ultimately, okay? So we're
really returning money that we previously had already authorized for
you because you didn't spend it.
And, of course, we would be willing to transfer to you the money
that FEMA reimburses for overtime, which is -- was certainly fair, and
that brings us up very close to the budget guidance that we had
established for all constitutional officers at the beginning of the
Page 70
November 16,2004
budgeting process.
And for those who don't remember what that was, we essentially
said that each constitutional officer would get the same percentage of
the increase in revenues from property taxes as they received last year,
and that brings you up very close to that budget guidance.
And then with respect to the other issues, my position would be,
rather than making a decision now to just arbitrarily open up the
reserves for some future purpose, to expect that the sheriffs
department would manage their overtime and phase in the positions
consistent with a new opening date for the jail, and by managing those
two elements of cost, hopefully offset the problems with the four
percent attrition issue and then retain the reserves for truly
emergencies and unanticipated circumstances, and basically that's
where I am with this.
I think it is a good compromise. I think it gets you where you
want to be. But my expectation would be, of course, that the overtime
budget be managed very carefully and that maybe a more accurate
phase-in of the deputies for the jail based upon the new jail
construction date would help you get over that discrepancy with the
attrition issue.
And so basically that's where I am. It gets us where we -- I think
we all wanted to be and hopefully is a fair -- fair budgeting
arrangement.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you Commissioner Coyle.
Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just so that we get everything on
the record. I believe last year's budget was -- the sheriffs budget was
$105 million, if my memory serves me right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 102, I think.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 104.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. What was his real budget?
Was it -- when we put the added amount for the county commission
Page 71
November 16,2004
portion of the sheriffs budget, which takes care of maintenance and
upkeep and all that?
Mike, can you help me out on that? I think the total budget
ended up 104.9, wasn't it?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, in the adopted 2004, it was -- the
sheriffs budget without the BCC paid was $102.5 million. BCC paid
was 2.3. Brought his budget up to 104.9.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: And that was the adopted 2004 budget.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: For conversation sake, we'll say
105. The Board of County Commissioners, after hearing from the
sheriff and we decided that, trying to keep things in the budget
guidelines, I believe we came up with $14.2 million to be increased
for the sheriffs budget.
And then with the talk of the 1.4 million turn-back plus the 1.1
million FEMA, which as long as it follows within the guidelines, I
probably could go along with that.
So when we add that up to the 105 plus the 14.2, we end up with
$119.2 million. Then we add the 2.5 million, that's part of the 1.4 and
the 1.1 million from FEMA, we're now up to $121.7 million for the
budget. Then we have 5.9 in reserves.
So there's a potential that the sheriffs budget could end up being
around $127.6 million or thereabouts. I just want to -- where I stand
on this, Sheriff -- and I really appreciate this letter that was given to
me, and I think this is -- this is -- you should be commended for doing
due diligence, and I hope that this stays the same.
One of the lines that is in this that I think is very important, until
such time as the budget issues are resolved, we will have to work
together to contain costs, and particularly in overtime. And I hope
that we -- after we get this budget issue taken care of, that the due
diligence that you asked your staff to do, I hope this remains as part of
the guidelines for making sure that we take care of the taxpayers'
Page 72
November 16,2004
budget.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So I think that the reestablishment
of the 2.5 million, I could probably go along with, but I'm not sure
about the additional 200,000 that Commissioner Coyle mentioned.
But I'm still out. I haven't made a decision yet. I want to listen to my
fellow commissioners and see where they are on this. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How much money is
reoccurring? Reoccurring -- 2.5 is reoccurring moneys, or 1.5
reoccurring, 1.4?
MR. MUDD: At this particular juncture, I would say the 1.4 that
you're talking -- I'm -- I showed you 1.6 before, now it's down to 1.4,
so I'm going to go back to 1.4, the original money that the sheriff
turned back. The money is reoccurring dollars.
The FEMA reimbursement, it depends on how the sheriffs going
to use that money, if it's going to be reoccurring or it's going to be one
time. I would tell you it's a one-time reimbursement. It's not
something that you're going to get every year. So it's 1.4 of that 2.5
that you're talking about right now is reoccurring.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Help us with the budget
guidance. What was the bottom line for the sheriff for the '04 -- '05
budget?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, what I would say to you is that
$1.4 million would not come out of the turn-back. It would come out
of the 2 point --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Five.
MR. MUDD: It would come out of the 2.5 that you cut
originally from the 2005 budget.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you show us the chart on
the -- on the budget guidance and the -- or -- I think you -- that last
chart you had up.
Page 73
November 16, 2004
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That was -- that's the
turn-back.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, that's the turn-back.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And that's not
reoccurring?
MR. MUDD: No, sir. That's one time. And I mentioned to you,
in order to get the full picture, that there's another 2.5, and that was the
2.5 that you took out of the 2005 budget. Those were reoccurring
dollars.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Those were reoccurring?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. So I said, that total amount that you're
looking at in the chart is 2.5 plus the 5.9, and I mentioned that it
comes out to be about $8.4 million.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what was the budget
guidance for the '05? What was the bottom line dollar?
MR. MUDD: The budget guidance for the sheriff and for the
other agencies is this -- is this percentage that's on your chart right
here that lays down, it says, here's what you should try to contain your
budget to is the percentage of the general fund moneys that you
received from the previous year.
If you take that percentage and you multiply it against the $5.9
million, okay, it comes out to be 2.3 million; however, the sheriffs
budget, even with the $2.5 million cut that you made based on the
exchange of moving the $2.5 million to the 2004 budget and then--
. and then taking the $2.5 million out of the 2005, the sheriffs budget is
$663,000 above your guidance, your budget guidance.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: If you subtract that from the $2.3 million that's
right here, okay, it comes out to be about 1.6 million and change. So
what I'm basically saying to you, within the budget guidance that you
gave him, you could give the sheriff 1. -- $1,687,556, and he would be
Page 74
November 16,2004
within your budget guidance at that particular juncture.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Now, you have the discretion, because
there's $2.5 million that are not on this chart of money that you're
either going to put in reserve and use it at a different time, you could
make that allocation of dollars either be reoccurring or one-time, okay,
because you have that 2.5 million that's not on the chart.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'm concerned of where
we're going here. It definitely will -- we'll either have to raise the ad
valorem in future years or cut some of our capital improvements or cut
our services to the public.
And I never really got a straight answer on the 1.4 million
returned to the Board of Commissioners. It wasn't needed. You paid
your overtime for the events that we had. It wasn't needed, it was
turned back to the Board of Commissioners, and the only thing you're
asking is to just restore it to the '05 budget.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Well--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I think that we should use
some of this money to -- for our capital debt that we have today, and
we're going to have capital debt coming up in the future.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm troubled by that particular
analysis. It -- we understand it, but anybody looking at this will have
no understanding of what we're talking about.
And it would be really very good if you could show the total
amount of money that was approved for the sheriffs budget within our
budget guidelines. It was $119 million and some change. After the --
after the reduction of the 2.5 million that he needed for payroll for the
-- for 2004.
So if you have something like that, let's put that up to take a look
at what we're really, really talking about. Okay.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner--
Page 75
November 16,2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, that's the one that makes
sense.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'm trying --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: -- to anticipate the questions, okay, and I'm -- but I
was trying to come up with something that said here's -- use this
pointer -- here's the FY -'04 budget, here's the percentage of the budget
that you basically put in your budget guidance --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 39.--
MR. MUDD: -- five nine percent. Okay. Here's -- here's the
allocation in FY-'05 share as far as the new money is concerned in the
general fund to be allocated to.
So if the sheriff came in and stayed within the guidance, then his
allocation would be $118,566,289. With your $2.5 million cut,
because of the exchange of dollars between '04 and '05 based on the
sheriffs request, his budget is now $119,229,900, which is $663,611
over your guidance. Okay?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
MR. MUDD: Now, if I go from that chart to this previous chart
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But I ended up with a total figure,
that's what we're looking for. What is the total figure? It's going to be
$118,000 (sic) and change?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 119.2.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, minus 663 because we're
taking -- taking it back down to the budget guidance, so it's going to
be 118.6.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, but then you're talking about the
additional moneys that came in that were unanticipated from the
constitutional officers, and that's why I go to this next slide. Because
when you do that --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: See, it gets more complex.
Page 76
November 16,2004
MR. MUDD: No. When you do that, Commissioner -- it doesn't
get more complex. It basically says, okay, here's the turn-back dollars
additional general fund revenues that you have, okay?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not reoccurring?
MR. MUDD: Not reoccurring.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: They're never reoccurring.
MR. MUDD: The $2.5 million you took out of his budget in '05
still sits there, okay? You haven't allocated it to anything, all right? It
is additional reserve money.
So if you take a look and you said, okay, I'm going to do the
budget guidance upon the additional general fund money that the
constitutionals turned back and you laid out those percentages -- and
in no way anticipating that anybody's coming in asking for additional
dollars outside of this gray area right here because I did it so that we
could -- we could work through the sheriffs particular agenda item
today.
If you broke that down on 39.59 percent, it would be an
additional $2.3 million to his budget, which is -- if it was under your
guidance -- and the previous slide would have 118, not 119. And
that's why you subtract that 663.
So what you have, if he's going to stay within your budget
guidance with the additional money that the constitutionals gave back
before the 29th of October, the board could give the sheriff
$1,687,556, okay, and he would be within your budget guidance.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And then you give him --
let him have his reimbursement from FEMA for the overtime that he
has already paid for, and that turns out to be $2.7 million, roughly,
right?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now that puts him within
the budget guidance that we all voted for and agreed to when we
began this budgeting process. It is not giving the sheriff any
Page 77
November 16,2004
additional amount of money. It is merely returning to our budget
guidance, and the sheriff then can live within our budget guidance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I disagree with that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I disagree.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then where are we wrong?
MR. MUDD: I think--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the wrong is --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's non-refundable --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- the $1.4 million returned back
to the board, that it wasn't needed, and that's $1.4 million more than
the budget guidance.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, it's not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The numbers -- the numbers, if
you add the numbers, it is.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, it's not. If you take it out of
FY-'05 and put it in the FY-'04 --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He didn't need it. He didn't need
it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: He didn't need it, so then you
return it to FY-'05, you're right back to where you were at the
beginning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. Right now he's $119.2
million, I believe, before we even do anything. That's -- that's also
including the moneys that are allocated in his budget from the Board
of County Commissioners to take care of all that. So his total budget
really is $119.2 million.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, that's what I was asking the
county manager to go through, and I think it's the same right now; is
that right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Put the first sheet up there,
you'll see it.
And the allocation and the -- and what was budgeted, it's still a
Page 78
November 16, 2004
negative number of $663,000 above -- above our guidance. So you
want to go even further on that. And I'm willing to go 1.6 based on
turn-back money. That's where I would go, and I'd be willing to make
a motion on that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And wouldn't you return FEMA, too?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It wasn't -- I mean, the sheriff
didn't need it. He paid it with the '04 budgeted amount of money and
still turned back that money, so it wasn't needed based upon that
event. And we don't know if that's going to come back, and that's not
reoccurrIng money.
And if you allocate it back to the sheriff, you're taking a chance
on having to take that out of the future budgets that is -- because it's
not a reoccurring money.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly right. I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And you have a motion on the floor --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make a motion that we give
the sheriff an additional $1,687,560 -- $1.687 million.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning, and a second by Commissioner Halas.
Discussion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to hear from the sheriff.
SHERIFF HUNTER: Thank you, Commissioner Coletta. Well,
I think -- well, first of all, it's beginning to get very confused. The 2.5
-- we have two separate budget years we're discussing.
Last budget year right at the end we ran into some situations that
we believed would suggest that we were going to be about $2.5
million short. We did our calculations back at the end of July, and in
August -- to the best of our ability, giving the board as much notice as
possible -- we had a hurricane interrupt, and then a series, made the
2.5 million even more suggestive.
As I explained to the board -- and I don't have all the materials
Page 79
November 16,2004
here today to be able to explain to you exactly why we were able to
return 1.4. I'm very happy we did. I'm very pleased we were able to
save that money . We didn't spend the money . We tried to save the
money, and every year we return any excess. And we have had
excess, and we have been returning excess to the board.
As Finance Director Kinzel explained, some of that has to do
simply with mechanics. We have separate cards that we report our
special hours on. They'll be different colors, blue and green and pink
and white. We collect all those cards. And all of those taken together
yield our payroll for any given period plus any -- the special events
and special assessment.
Because of our pay periods every two weeks, we do have some
slippage, if you will, and we pay in arrears. We finished our
calculation, and we returned the remainder of the money, 1.4, 10 days
ago because we didn't need it after all. We're happy about that. We
miscalculated in the sense that the things that happened actually were
less severe than what we thought would happen.
We also retooled our jail division which was consuming a great
deal of our overtime. And once we were fully staffed, even though we
do have some members who are in our academies, we have delayed
departures for some jail deputies who wanted to move to road patrol
because we need them in the jail.
But we retooled. We went from a 10-hour shift to a 12-hour
shift. That helped us save some dollars. It wasn't 1.4 million. But if
one of the -- one of the things I can point to to tell you that this is one
of the reasons why we were able to save. That was last fiscal year.
This fiscal year we have some additional need. Karen Acquard
talked a little bit about it, a substation at Orangetree, full staffing for
that, for partial first-year staffing for a substation there to give us
enough for one person per shift. That's important to us, and we
believe that's important for the estates area.
We have investigators that we asked for in the budget proposal
Page 80
November 16,2004
owing to caseloads, historical caseloads and trends that we are aware
of. We have additional deputies, youth relations deputies for the new
schools that were opened in this county.
We -- that's a new budget year. We have 60 new positions for
the jail wing that will be open, we are told, in September of this
coming calendar year that, that causes us to have to hire people back
in January because of the academies and training and putting people in
the building to operate the building four months so that they can
literally accommodate any emergency, riot, improper lock down,
confrontations with inmates.
They need to be able to know how to escape, they need to be able
to know how to operate the facility so that we are fully protected from
a liability sense. Those are two separate issues.
And what happened at end of fiscal year was, we asked for 2.5,
board gave it from -- we thought it was coming from reserve, instead it
came from next year's budget. We're asking the board to restore that
2.5 this morning recognizing the new budget, the new budget year, the
expenses in the new budget year, and appropriate that 2.5 back to the
agency so that we will have sufficient funds to operate this next year.
That's where we stand, as I understand it, as of this morning, and
that's where Commissioner Coyle was going, as I understood it.
Commissioner Coletta, I hope that was responsive.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I -- you know, Sheriff, I just
want to tell the public that we didn't say, don't allocate the needs for
Golden Gate Estates. We didn't say, don't allocate the needs of the
schools. We did give you a menu of where you could and should.
And one of those, I think, the sticking points, was the overtime.
And we didn't say, cut out this person's overtime or this person's
overtime. We're just giving you some suggestion of where you can
save.
So I don't want to get (sic) the impression of some of the public
Page 81
November 16, 2004
who were asked to be here today -- we're not saying to the sheriff to
cut those particular things.
And the allocation -- my motion is above and beyond what the
board asked for all the constitutional officers and asked the county
managers to abide by. So it's above and beyond any of the other
constitutionals or the county manager, because we recognize some of
your needs, and I hope you can recognize some of our challenges that
we have, not only this fiscal year, but future ones. And you do a great
job.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Did you have anything?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Well, Commissioner Henning, I appreciate
what is being said. And, of course, yes, any increase is moving
towards funding next year's budget so that we can do things like the
substation at Orangetree.
What I'm trying to portray to the board is that we do have
committed costs. We have obligations, just as you do. We do
business as best we can. We just opened brand new yesterday, I
believe was the day -- Chief Smith -- a visitation -- off-site visitation.
It's all going to be video. What does that mean?
Well, it's an efficiency. It means we won't have to monitor the
people who visit inmates to the Collier County Naples Jail Center as
closely as we had before. It means we will avoid the introduction of
contraband, bombs, contagious disease at the Naples Jail facility by
moving it over into a different facility and reducing, probably, the
introduction of contraband because that's no need. What are you
going to accomplish if you introduce contraband over here in this
off-site facility?
We're doing what we can to try to make even more efficient what
we do on a daily basis, but we have obligations moving forward into
the new year. What we were trying to depict to the board early on, I
think, to Commissioner Halas' question, was that we -- the built-in
costs, if you will, of just doing business next year in exactly the same
Page 82
November 16,2004
ways with the efficiencies built in like off-site visitation, there's a
number there. That number is a significant number. You'll -- you
basically funded part of that number when you made your decisions
back in September.
But what we need today and what we've been discussing with
you today embedded in all of this is, how do we fund the 60 additional
jail deputies? How do we fund the members for the schools that have
just opened? How do we fund the investigators, the traffic group,
Orangetree? You give us the 2.5, access to the 3.6, which diminishes
your reserves, but at least it's there and we know that, and we just
wanted to make the board aware that we are fully staffed and are not
suffering the attrition we had been suffering.
You give us access to that, we already have an assurance from
the board that $931,000 in capital that was moved over to -- over to
impact fee is available if the impact fee does not go forward for law
enforcement. That seems doable. That's workable for us. It's still a
significant cut to the sheriffs office proposal, but I think we can work
with that under Commissioner Coyle's proposal.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I thought I knew what was going
on here, but I've changed my mind. I have no idea what we're talking
about.
Can you help me?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I think there's -- I think there's a
motion -- there's a motion on the floor and it's been seconded to --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then let me ask some questions
about --
MR. MUDD: -- to give --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- about the motion.
MR. MUDD: -- to give the sheriff $1,687,556.26. That's what I
believe.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: To what total? You see, I don't
Page 83
November 16, 2004
care about the micromanaging of the dollars. I'm just interested in the
total amount of money that's going to be allocated to the sheriffs
budget. That's all I'm concerned about. I'm not going to try to
micromanage where he puts it.
And talking about, you know, $1.1 million, I want to know what
the total is. Because the board approved -- except for me -- approved
a budget of$119,229,000, okay, back early this year.
Now, what I'm trying to figure out is, what is it we're voting on
here? Are we going to give them what the board approved earlier this
year, or are we reversing that approval and doing something different?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, what I take from the motion that's
on the floor is, the sheriffs new budgeted amount with board paid is
going to be $120,000,917 -- excuse me -- $120,917,456. I believe
that's the motion that's on the floor.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: $120,917,000?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
SHERIFF HUNTER: May I just ask a quick question? Is that
not including paid by the board, or is that including paid by the board?
MR. MUDD: That includes paid by the board.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Includes paid by the board. You
started out today, he was at 119.2, and if this passes, he'll leave this
room with $120 million -- 120.9 million.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So we've added $1,688,000.
MR. MUDD: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that essentially is the $1.4
million, plus a 200 --
MR. MUDD: Plus about another quarter million.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Which is what we were talking
about in the first place?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Plus we talked about --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, the only thing--
Page 84
November 16, 2004
MR. MUDD: The only difference here is the FEMA.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is the FEMA.
MR. MUDD: Okay. If you -- if the FEMA went into his budget,
then the sheriff would be above your budget guidance by the amount
of the FEMA reimbursement. Now, I say that--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. MUDD: Now, if those deputies received -- or however he
came up with his FEMA reimbursement. If those people received
moneys out of 2005 budget, then what I just said was wrong. If they
received it in the '04 budget, then what I said was correct. Because if
he -- ifhe paid those FEMA costs out of2005, then those
reimbursable dollars should go into the 2005 budget, and then he stays
within your guidance.
But if those moneys were paid out of2004 budget, okay, then it's
separated, he turned back 1.4, and -- if you added the $1.1 million
that's on top of your budget guidance, okay. That 120 million -- the
$120.9 million is within your budget guidance, and it's exactly to the
penny.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And that's where we're
going with this thing.
MR. MUDD: That's what the -- that's the motion on the floor,
.
SIr.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it is within the budget
guidance?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, tell me what you're going to
do when you get a check from FEMA for $1.1 million in overtime.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Since that was expended in FY -'04, that
would just accrue to the fund balance of the general fund and be
available for subsequent appropriation in FY-'05.
Yeah, typically it's anywhere from 12 to 18 months, you know,
Page 85
November 16,2004
depending on -- obviously the reimbursement timetable varies from
year to year. Obviously with four storms, it may be a little more
complicated than it may have been in the past.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then one final question. I hope it's
the final question. The overtime expenditures for the sheriffs
department for the last year were $8 million, roughly.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It was budgeted for $4 million.
Now what I need to know is whether the $1.1 million in overtime
resulting from Hurricane Charley, or any other hurricane, was
included in the $8 million of total expenditures for overtime.
MS. KINZEL: It was.
MR. MUDD: Can you answer the question?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It was.
MS. KINZEL: For the record, Commissioner Coyle, Crystal
Kinzel. Yes, the FEMA amount of money was in the 8 million in
overtime. And if you look at what we've then budgeted for next fiscal
year in 2005 overtime, we've reduced our budget to 6.8 for next year.
So we deducted that hurricane money for the total that we put in
overtime for '05 to come up with the 6.8 million, and that's when the
board then for '05 reduced that 6 million amount by another 2.5
million, and that's where the magic of the 2.5 is coming back that we
need the 1.1 FEMA added to the policy amount to bring our overtime
back to the 6 million range, but that's without the hurricane factored
in, but it is a reduction from our actual.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not sure that I agree with the
logic, but that's a time for -- you know, there's a time for that
discussion later.
Okay. I think I understand where you're going.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, since you asked that question, I
would ask -- I would ask that that information be provided, and at --
during correspondence, that I provide you the exact figures on
Page 86
November 16, 2004
overtime, okay, so that we make sure that we've got it, because I think
we've taken Ms. Kinzel a little bit off guard with the question, okay. I
want to make sure that the dollars are correct for the record.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do you have any comments before we
vote?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Let's -- if I may show this one chart,
because I believe this is fairly illustrative of where we currently
reside.
Since the board narrowly focused its attention in on overtime
issues, personal services relative to overtime particularly, I would like
to direct some of my discussion to overtime, and actually I do have a
couple of final comments I'd like to talk about, maybe pertaining to
Mr. Fussell, who has gotten some severe treatment in the newspaper
and by one of our previous speakers.
But if you'll take a look at this chart, it's fairly busy. Look at the
top. These are your overtime hours as best we can determine in the
'04 fiscal year. There were some compo time hours.
Now, when you are suffering as an agency, as we were, with
understaffing, being unable to fill your positions but you have to
actually post a person to the positions, such as a j ail, emergency /911,
investigative crews, including crime scene, you cannot permit that
person to accrue compensatory time. Compensatory time, audience, is
where you get not only the day off, you get time and a half time off
under Department of Labor law instead of regular straight time off.
So what you've done -- if you don't have a full complement of
people to work the streets of Collier County or serve the jail
population in your jails and you start giving compensatory time off at
time and a half, you have worsened your condition, not improved it.
And if you had the same situation for emergency medical service,
where you were given compensatory time off, you would be not well
served.
Page 87
November 16,2004
Now, you can do that with administrative positions where reports
are due here or there and there are no strict guidelines. You can say,
compensatory time off, I'm not going to pay you overtime.
We have fewer of those positions than you do. What we have is
jail, patrol, investigation, emergency/911 centers. You cannot give
compensatory time off.
But your total hours, overtime hours, was roughly 233,827 hours.
What you -- we projected our overtime hours in fiscal year 2005,
which would correspond now to the green bar down here, 198,164
hours. If we kind of cut to the chase here, that purple bar is your
actual expended overtime hours for last year, 2004.
We're projecting overtime hour expenditure for 2005 at less than
what you spent last year, according to your records.
And what you funded us at is the red bar -- we're currently
funded at 11,668 hours. And what we were asking the board this
morning to do, now this afternoon, to do was take a look at -- let's do
talk about overtime, if you wish, but let's try to get closer to the green
bar, which is where we think we need to be because of our public
safety functions. Knowing that we filled our positions, we've cut back
to here.
We will -- we can balance some hours also provided by
Department of Labor law, and we're hopeful of giving some
compensatory time, but most of our overtime is contributed back to
public safety functions like emergency medical. So that gets us back
to where -- Commissioner Coyle's position projects us back along that
green line instead of the red line, and that's my easiest way of
understanding this as I walked in the door this morning.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: May I just interrupt. Commissioner Halas
wants to speak, but just for -- there's some people that have written
letters to the editor and they've said something about, what about the
BC -- what about the Board of County Commissioners' overtime, and
they've kind of been insulting us.
Page 88
November 16, 2004
I just wanted to let the audience out there in television land know
that we make $66,000 a year, and that's gross. We don't -- we're not
supplied a car. We have to pay for our own expenses, and we never
get overtime, ever. And I say we average about 65 to 70 hours a
week. That's an average. So--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What about our costs?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And the costs. Yeah, well, that's what I
was saying. We have to pay for our -- we have to pay for everything
we do on our own, so I just wanted the -- whoever is writing those
nasty letters to know that it's not a cakewalk here.
Go ahead, Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: County Manager Mudd, can you
help me out here in regards to why our overtime is higher than what
the sheriff is bringing forth here?
MR. MUDD: I haven't seen the slide. I know we paid $4.7
million in overtime in 2004 --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: -- in the county manager's organization, of which
2.8 million was EMS related.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 2.8.
MR. MUDD: And there's mandatory -- and there's mandatory
EMS and then there's discretionary EMS, and let me try to explain that
to you.
$2.1 million is mandatory because it's part of the union
negotiations in the contract that we have. And basically what happens
is because we have these people work a day on and two days off so
that it corresponds with the fire departments that are out there, they
basically work 56 hours a week, so there's 40 hours of straight time,
and there's -- and there's 16 hours of overtime, okay, for those EMS
folks.
So when you add that there, there's 2. -- 2.1 -- close to $2.2
million in mandatory overtime as far as EMS is concerned. And then
Page 89
November 16,2004
if you take the discretionary time on EMS, it's about $800,000 on top
of that.
Now, if you subtract that $2.9 million from the 4.7, that means
that the rest of my agency is at about $1.8 million in overtime, and we
are not full by any stretch of the imagination.
So I'm not sure how the percentages work to try to explain how
$8 million gets 4.7, and the numbers and the hours get different, but I
can look at that after I --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can you tell me under you, under
your management, what would be the -- what's the amount of people
that's under your jurisdiction?
MR. MUDD: About 1,700, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Seventeen hundred. We're talking
-- what would you say the total overtime was for 1,700.
MR. MUDD: Outside of EMS?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MR. MUDD: EMS relates to about 170, 175 people off the top
of my head, 170. And those folks have mandatory overtime of 2. --
$2.2 million, okay, subtract that from the 4.7. Then the discretionary
pieces that I've got out there equates to about $2.5 million.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
SHERIFF HUNTER: May I add, this is not intended to be
critical. I'm simply saying, the board has built-in overtime as well.
You also suffer the same circumstances, especially in a -- I'm trying to
narrowly focus the conversation, because emergency medical is about
as close as we get.
We don't -- we don't sleep people on shift, but we do have the
same kinds of overtime issues that you do relative to emergency
services, public safety . We do have a chart we've developed just --
but I -- this green line is our best estimate of what we think we're
going to be protecting our overtime at again for public safety
positions, and if you could get us back closer to that, rather than the
Page 90
November 16, 2004
red line which is where we're currently funded according to your
letter, your official letter back to me as the final document from the
board, then we, I think, will be able to function.
And the 1.6 won't do that. It will be somewhere in between the
red line and the green line, but it will be, as you can see, far below
what your expenditures were just last year in overtime hours.
So -- and that's the only significance of this chart, not to say
yours were not authorized or appropriate or you weren't controlling
your overtime. Simply to say, you did have overtime. You will
continue to have overtime. You have emergency services and public
safety functions just as we do, and we understand that. And we're just
trying to maybe help the board understand what some of the give and
take is here relative to public safety positions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any further comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Then I call for the question.
All those in favor of the motion that was proposed, or that was
submitted by Commissioner Henning and seconded by Commissioner
Halas, right?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Maybe we could have the
commissioner restate what the motion is that -- and how much money
we're going to -- or have the county commissioner (sic) --
MR. MUDD: As it stands -- as it stands right now, the motion on
the floor is to increase the sheriffs FY-'05 budget from $119,229,900
by an amount of$I,687,556.26 so that his new amount of his budget
is $120,917,456.26.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that's within the budget
guidelines?
MR. MUDD: That's within the budget guidance, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. If I may, Mr. Mudd.
That amount, if we agreed to it, that puts us how much above last
year's as far as the increase goes?
Page 91
November 16,2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Eighteen thousand -- eighteen
million.
MR. MUDD: Over last year's, it's a --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle said 18
million. We've got some other business to do today.
MR. MUDD: It's -- it's almost 16 million. It's like fifteen, nine
sixty or something.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: 15,977,256.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's not including the county
paid portion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, it is.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's inclusive.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So $104 million, right? That's what
you told us earlier.
MR. MUDD: Hundred and four million dollars is inclusive of
the BCC paid.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. Now, you subtract
that from the 1 --
MR. MUDD: Hundred and twenty gives you right around $16
million new money. Before it was 14.3, and you're giving him 1.687.
It's going to come out to right around 16 million.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a motion on the floor and
a second.
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.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
Page 92
November 16, 2004
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That passes 5-0.
SHERIFF HUNTER: One final --
(Applause.)
SHERIFF HUNTER: One final comment. Just for the record,
again, we certainly wish the board could have gone to the 2.5,
restoring that. I would like to say, in defense of our members who
have been ridiculed in the press for overtime expenditure, I very much
appreciate what they do.
We don't have a mandatory policy where I tell single mothers and
single fathers and those caring for their mothers and fathers at home
that they must come in to work overtime. We do permit them to work
overtime, and that is our policy.
It is very closely and strictly monitored, as reflected by the memo
that was graciously read by Commissioner Coletta. It is monitored,
and we do attempt to control it. Mr. -- yeah.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Fussell?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Hmm?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Fussell?
SHERIFF HUNTER: Fussell. Roger Fussell runs an inmate
work crew for us. That's what his duties are. He runs inmate work
crews. He also provides security at the facility after hours while we
have construction going on with doors open and our normal security
envelope reconfigured, if you will.
Those inmate work crews, as you can imagine, can't just come in
-- they can't come into this room here and begin painting while you're
running a commission meeting or go into your office and begin
painting that while you're trying to conduct some type of confidential
business. Instead he has to wait after hours.
He runs the crews during the day for our 19 or so facilities.
We're doing with one person what you're basically doing with 39
people, but we can do that because we have inmates available, inmate
Page 93
November 16, 2004
labor.
I want to make sure you understand that Mr. Fussell is doing this
at my behest. He is expending money. He is a certified corrections
officer by the State of Florida, and there are only a small number of
people in the agency in proportional terms who can run inmate work
crews that are not already associated with some duty post inside the
facility, very small number, like two people. Mr. Fussell happens to
be one.
He's a corporal. He's a long-term corporal. He's at the end of his
career, and he knows how to operate saws and drills and all of the
things necessary to build cabinetry for the agency that we don't have
to out-source and contract for. We saves hundreds of thousands of
dollars a year by using Mr. Fussell as opposed to out-sourcing.
And much of the work that Mr. Fussell does cannot be done
during regular business hours. It's done on the weekends when nobody
is there.
So just for the record, just so everybody knows, we, like you, try
to control our overtime. We have policy in place to do so, and we'll
continue to do so. But this singling out individual members under our
policy, that is not a mandatory policy. It's -- we try to convince
people to work and give up their free time, and we're glad they do
because of what the savings are to this county and maintaining
security of this county.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Not singling out anybody at all, but I
know when -- we keep going, going, going, also, especially during
high season, and you get really, really tired. And I think people in the
capacity of working, whether they work behind a gun or they work
behind a saw, or whatever they're doing, they can only work so --
SHERIFF HUNTER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- so long safely. And I added one and--
with the hours and so forth and came up with 76 hours a week, every
week, 50 weeks a year, and I thought, that's not safe. And I'm sure
Page 94
November 16, 2004
that you want to make sure to cap that as well. But--
SHERIFF HUNTER: Oh, absolutely. That's monitored --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think safety is --
SHERIFF HUNTER: -- by a supervisor. And different people
require different levels of rest as we all know. Mr. Fussell functions
quite well. And we continue to monitor Mr. Fussell and Mr. Gray and
the other members who are participating in overtime work crews.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. And right now we
will adjourn to lunch. We will return at 1 :45.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, you have a hot mike.
Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
Now we go back to the beginning of our agenda, and that's
number 6, public petitions.
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY JOSEPH BA WDUNIAK TO
DISCUSS USE OF DEPOT BY THE ANTIQUE AUTOMOBILE
CLUB OF AMERICA, AND FAA SAFETY SEMINARS FOR
LOCAL PILOTS - CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 30, 2004 BCC
MEE.I.J1S G
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. Before -- before you start on number
6, number 6B, petitioner, Mr. Joseph Bawduniak, basically, he had to
leave. He asked if you could continue his item until the 30th of
November, if that's what the board--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, absolutely. That would be fine.
Item #6A
Page 95
November 16,2004
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY GRAHAM GINSBERG TO
DISCUSS ACCESS TO THE PELICAN BAY BEACHES -
ERES.ENIED
MR. MUDD: That brings us to 6A, and that's a public petition
request by Graham Ginsberg to discuss access to the Pelican Bay
beaches.
MR. GINSBERG: For the record, my name is Graham Ginsberg.
I'm a resident of Naples, about 14 years. I'm here to speak about the
public's right to access public property and specifically the first
amendment violations along the coastline of Pelican Bay.
This petition is a result of correspondence between Collier
County manager's office and Pelican Bay Foundation. In letters dated
27 July, 2004, and 7 October, 2004, the county stated that it would not
pursue public beach access directly through county-owned property
adjacent to the beach in Pelican Bay.
We have on the overhead the section of the letter that indicates
we would not pursue public access.
President Roosevelt, a Republican, said, the rights of the public
to natural resources outweigh private rights and must be given first
consideration. It's entirely in our power as a nation to preserve large
tracts of wilderness as playgrounds for the rich and poor alike and to
preserve the game. But this end can only be achieved by wise laws
and a resolute enforcement of the laws. Lack of such legislation and
administration will result in harm to us all, but more of all -- sorry --
but most of all, harm to the nature lover who does not possess fast
wealth.
Over 100 years ago, President Roosevelt encouraged the federal
government's acquisition and management of public lands. He wanted
to use this government's acquisition to prevent the exploitation of the
nation's natural resources by the wealthy for private gain and to ensure
a more equal and democratic distribution of public lands and its
Page 96
November 16,2004
resources.
The laws that President Roosevelt was referring to was the
United States Constitution, but most specifically, to the first
amendment, which states, Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or
abridging the freedom of speech or the press or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for redress of
gnevances.
The right to assemble was largely responsible for the 19th
amendment, the women's right to vote. Alice Paul, who formed the
women's party, used her right to assemble primarily and most effective
by regular assembly at the gates of the White House, which took place
on private -- public property.
In 1995, Brendon Leydon filed suit after being denied access to
the municipally held park known as Greenwich Point in Connecticut.
In summary of this case, the Connecticut Supreme Court focused
exclusively on the first amendment argument that the beach is a
traditional public forum. The court decided that the right of freedom
of expression given to all citizens protected nonresidents' access to the
beach.
The picture you're looking at now is public access available in
the Pelican Bay area. That's a half-mile radius, and at the bottom, it's
actually half moon because access stops at Clam Pass.
Our government has traded beach access as if it were game cards.
In the past if a developer wanted exclusive rights to a few miles of
beach, access was traded to the outskirts of the development. This
was the case of Pelican Bay when no public access was provided
between Clam Pass in the south and Vanderbilt Beach in the north;
however, two private walkways for motorized shuttling of Pelican Bay
residents were placed strategically one mile apart giving adequate
exclusive and convenient beach access to Pelican Bay residents.
Based on the distance barrier of five miles, congregation at
Page 97
November 16,2004
Pelican Bay is neither feasible nor desirable for the majority of the
population.
This, in my opinion, is a violation of our first amendment rights,
the right to assemble on public lands. It is the duty of the government
to ensure that all people have equal and nondiscriminatory access
without distance barriers, which exclude a large percentage of our
population to public land.
The picture that you see in front of you now shows the access
available to Pelican Bay residents. As you can see, it is a large --
much larger section of access based on the two boardwalks that they
have strategically placed between the two-and-a-half-mile distance
between Vanderbilt Beach and Clam Pass.
According to the national census on the accessibility, one out of
five people have some type of functional limitation. The U.S. Census
of Florida in 2000 indicates that 5.9 percent of Florida's population is
under five years old, 17.6 percent are over 65 years old, and 20.5
percent are disabled over the age of five years old. This totals 44
percent of Florida's population. Consider that this was in 2000. Our
population since then has grown.
The access board, a federal agency committed to accessible
design, had considered that half mile a reasonable distance between
beach access routes on a renourished beach. Based on the distance
barrier of five miles, congregation at Pelican Bay is neither feasible
nor desirable for the majority of the population.
In conclusion, please consider our laws and our concerns and
allow us unrestricted assembly without prejudice at our public
shoreline in Pelican Bay.
I'd just like to show you one other picture. The picture on the
overhead shows the northern pathway to the beach, which is exclusive
access to Pelican Bay residents. This would be, approximately, I
would say, a mile and a half south of Vanderbilt.
This picture on the overhead shows the most northern boundary
Page 98
November 16, 2004
of public access to the Pelican Bay stretch of beach. It's 2.5 miles
from this point to Vanderbilt Beach Road parking lot. Generally, this
channel is fast flowing and not a desirable place to take the elderly to
cross and -- as well as young children. I would not consider it a safe
place to cross over.
Thank you for your time, and congratulations for your reelection.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. You know, with Joe Bawduniak--
or Bawduniak, did you want to just put that onto a future agenda?
MR. MUDD: That's what the board basically told me to do, and
he said he could do it back on the 30th. It's the next meeting. So that
would be fine.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, I mean, rather than bring it up as a
public petition, could we just put it on a future agenda?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I don't see why not. I mean, it pretty well
explains what he wants to do.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's the next meeting, I believe, isn't
it?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No. He was going to put it on the public
petition section of the next meeting.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I ask a question about this,
please?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is the purpose of this particular
public petition to ask the county if they can -- if Mr. Bawduniak's
organizations that he's representing here can use the Depot for this
purpose?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's my understanding.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. They've used it all along and --
MR. MUDD: We don't own the Depot yet.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But see, we don't own the Depot
yet, yeah, and that's the problem. And I'm wondering why -- I don't
Page 99
November 16,2004
want to keep Joe from being able to speak to us, but it might save him
a lot of trouble if we said -- you know, got a sense of the commission
that, hey, if we own the Depot and we're -- and we have responsibility
for scheduling its use, we'll be happy to entertain these activities there,
and then that will save Joe from having to come back and making a
presentation, and wait for hours.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. I think --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I mean, if that was his purpose.
MR. MUDD: I don't know what his purpose was of the FAA--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is it?
MR. MUDD: -- safety seminars.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I believe that's what his purpose
was to see if -- actually I think he really needs to address his issue
with the city in regards to the Depot.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But I think he also was -- wanted to
petition the commission here in regards to making sure that people
understood that he also was involved in the FAA training for pilots,
and I think that's where he was going now.
Whether he was going to use the Depot again for that, it's good
that he's coming before the Board of County Commissioners, but I
think really where he needs to go is ask the city council at that point in
time ifhe can use it for prescribed areas, since it's not under our
jurisdiction.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, yeah.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, I think that he's -- right now it's
okay with the city. I think he's trying to line up the county when we
take over, what, the first of January, but then--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't know that it will be the first
of January at all.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
Page 100
November 16, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh. I thought it was the first of January.
MR. MUDD: Well, we're going to discuss how you want to do
the money, but I haven't seen anybody come up with a $114,000
shortfall yet.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay.
MR. MUDD: So we'll talk about that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, can we solve this by getting a
sense of the commission that we would be happy to have Mr.
Bawduniak's two organizations, the Antique Automobile Club and the
FAA, have some activities there if we, in fact, do have control over it
wherever these things are scheduled next year?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Ifwe have control.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Ifwe have control.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that's where he was going.
I'm not sure what his timeline was. I guess we have to wait for him to
discuss that.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I have no idea what our museum--
and the displays that they want to do in the Depot. And if Mr. -- if Joe
wants to do classes there, I might not have a classroom. So his saying
that it would be okay to do training there would be an issue, so --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I'm only suggesting to you, if
you put it on the agenda, you're going to have Mr. Bawduniak sitting
out here for some period of time again waiting for him to ask us the
same question that we can give him an answer on right now.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's all I'm saying.
MR. MUDD: For his antique car show, I think we're fine. I do
not know where he wanted to go with his FAA thing besides an
announcement that there's classes that are being done.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, and I'd spoken to him on the
antique car show. I didn't speak to him on the other thing, but -- and I
Page 101
November 16,2004
told him, it fits right in. There you have a train station, we're talking
about a transportation museum, amongst other things. It would seem
to fit in perfectly. It's a great thing, I think, for us as the county to
participate in. So I said I didn't see a problem with it. You know,
surely he should bring it. So I would agree with Commissioner Coyle,
you know, that it should seem okay. I guess they have to do that in
February or something.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, we've got to find out if we're
going to take over the Depot. I don't even think we've got that solved
yet. So I think it's an open-ended issue. And if he wants to do
something prior to that, then I think he needs to go to the city and
address it with the city council, because -- if he's got some type of a
time line, and I'm not sure what his time line is. We didn't discuss that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, why would the city
council figure into the Depot?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because they own that -- well, the
city owns the Depot, doesn't it?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: They don't own the Depot, no.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They don't own it. It's in private
hands.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Private hands?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. Southwest Heritage or something
like that owns it, but it's in the city right now.
MR. MUDD: I'll give Mr. Bawduniak a call and see what he
would like to do and let him know that we don't have a problem with
his antique car show if we owned the Depot. And in the meantime, he
gets a hold the Lodge McKee and works it out that way.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, that's great. Then he doesn't have to
sit here again. Thank you so much.
Item #6C
Page 102
November 16,2004
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY RON HAMEL TO DISCUSS
COLLIER COUNTY'S PARTICIPATION IN MULTI-COUNTY
AGRICULTURE EXTENSION AGENT FUNDING PROPOSAL -
Let's move on to Ron Hamel.
MR. MUDD: This is item 6C. It's a public petition request from
Ron Hamel to discuss Collier County's participation in a multicounty
agricultural extension agent funding proposal.
MR. TOWNSEND: Madam Chair, members of the board, I'm
not Ron.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I know.
MR. TOWNSEND: Ron had his own budget hearing to go back
to with Gulf Citrus Growers Association, and he felt like he needed to
get back there so that he could hopefully keep his salary in the next
year's budget.
I do thank you for the opportunity to discuss this petition with
you today, and I also want to thank you for the proclamation that you
passed earlier this morning recognizing the contributions to the
agricultural industry, not only to Collier County, but Southwest
Florida. Really appreciate that.
My petition today involves a proposal to have several counties
fund agents that would function in all of the counties that -- and you
have in your packet there a six-county plan. And what I wanted to do,
just to kind of reemphasize where we're going with this, is show you a
graphic on the PowerPoint here. If I can wake the computer up.
All right, did that get it?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
MR. TOWNSEND: Ron had talked to you earlier about how
important the ago industry was, and you-all quoted a figure earlier this
morning during your proclamation that indicated the agricultural
industry had contributed over 300 million in economic impact in
Page 103
November 16, 2004
Southwest Florida. Actually it's a little over 379 million.
This is a result of an economic study done by the University of
Florida. And you'll notice that each county's contribution to the
Southwest Florida economy is shown there, with Collier County being
the second largest in the region.
And even though we have a real good strong ago industry, it still
needs the Extension Service's service, and more than -- now than ever
before. We're beleaguered by the new pest. I'm sure all of you are
familiar with the citrus canker issue.
We've also got trade issues, we've got environmental issues that
we've got to change our method of operating, and those services are
still very badly needed through the Extension Service. Historically,
the Extension Service was always conducted through the local county
extension office. Each county would have its own agents to address
its own programs.
And the three major programs a county extension office would
address is agricultural, family and consumer sciences, and the 4- H
club youth program. Well, in recent years, due to the fact that
resources are very tight, there are virtually no commercial agricultural
agents in Southwest Florida, except for three in Hendry County.
And the University of Florida feels very strongly that those
services do need to be extended to all of the counties in Southwest
Florida. And so in order to make most efficient use of their resources,
as well as the counties resources, we have devised with the
agricultural industry a plan where the counties would share in the
county's portion of that.
I don't think I introduced myself for the record a while ago, did I?
I apologize for that. I'm Dallas Townsend. I'm a retired county agent,
and I worked in Collier County for about 14 years. I'm sorry for that
oversight.
So anyway, in your packet, if you've had a chance to review it --
I won't bore you with all 10 pages, or however many there was. Ib
Page 104
November 16,2004
want to switch to the last page. And there you see the chart. I've
divided the chart in half so that it would fit on this PowerPoint
presentation.
We have four extension agents. These would be commercial
agents that will work in the fields of citrus production, vegetable
production, livestock, and sugar cane. Collier County, Lee County,
and Charlotte County do not have sugar cane, so you're not going to
be asked to support that.
But the other three commodities, citrus, vegetables, and
livestock, you do have, and you do have the significant industry,
particularly in the citrus and vegetables industries.
So if you'll look there on the top half, it shows the proposed
funding that the state would provide, which is about 55.7 percent of
the total. The counties collectively would provide about 44.3 percent,
and the bottom chart shows each county's portion of the county
portion.
And what we were asking you to do today is hopefully you'd be
-- see fit to add about $30,310 to the local extension budget in order
for us to be able to extend those extension services into Collier
County .
Your share amounts to about 16.2 percent of the total, and I think
you could see the other figures there in front of you; Hendry County
has got the largest percentage because it has the largest agricultural
industry .
And I'll be very happy to answer any questions you may have,
but I would like to say one more thing. Palm Beach County, Lee
County, and Hendry County and the University of Florida have
already signed off on this proposal, so we're operating on the hope that
you will also join in.
Glades County is not in the bag yet, so to speak, and I don't mean
to say that frivolously. They're on our agenda to go to next. We were
trying to do this piecemeal because we just didn't have the resources to
Page 105
November 16,2004
attend all five counties at one time.
But we hope that you can see your way to support this program.
I think it will nurture your industry. It will be very well-received with
the agricultural industry, and I'll be very happy to answer any question
you may have.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Now this is something -- a petition
just says, would you like to bring this back to another meeting.
MR. TOWNSEND: That's fine. We'd like to bring it back, and
hopefully you'll be able to -- you know, to take action, whatever's
necessary to amend the 2004/2005 extension budget to include those
funds. And obviously a lot of details have got to be worked out.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right. And I think that there's a lot of
questions that need to be asked, but I don't think today is the day to do
that.
But Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Agriculture is a very big
part of Collier County's economic make-up, and we've supported this
in the past, and I think we need to support it in the future. And I
realize, of course, that we don't have much in the way of UFR money,
but I really would like to see it come back and for us to give it very
serious consideration.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's a motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I'll second that for the sake of
discussion.
Then we have Commission Halas?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We had Henning next.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Henning next. Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Call a motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a motion.
Commissioner Halas, did you want to say anything now or --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I'd just like to ask, is there
Page 106
November 16, 2004
going to be any portion of the contribution provided by the ago
industry in this?
MR. TOWNSEND: The ago industry provides an awful lot of
support to the local extension office. I know in my tenure in Hendry
County, it was enormous through like-kind contributions. There's very
little financial or monetary contributions because they, you know,
make their contribution through the tax base.
In Hendry County, the ago industry pays about 40 percent of the
ad valorem taxes there. I know that's nowhere near that big a number
here in Collier County. But financially, it's always been a state- and
county-funded program, and that was, you know, kind of mandated in
the 1914 Smith-Lever Act that Congress passed mandating federal,
state and county funding.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: As Commissioner Coletta said, I
support agriculture, but I also think that maybe before we bring this
back, if you'd investigate what the chances are of the ago industry
maybe kicking in a little bit also on this, I would think that would be
beneficial for everyone in this case.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So we have a motion on the floor
to bring it back for a regular agenda item, as a regular agenda item, by
Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala.
We've had some discussion. One of them is direction from
Commissioner Halas to include that portion in your presentation when
you come back.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(N 0 response.)
Page 107
November 16,2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Great, we'll have you back.
MR. TOWNSEND: Thank you for your attention.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, I'd like to include this into the UFR
discussion that we will probably have on the 14th of -- excuse me --
the 14th of December. I think the 14th of December is the meeting in
December.
MS. FILSON: Yes, it is.
MR. MUDD: Okay. On the 14th when we do it, I'll bring a
whole list of those UFRs, and it will include this on the list so that you
can see the whole thing so you're not -- you're not just approving
piecemeal. You've got to look at everything that's out there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. When are we going to
finalize the budget?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Next year.
MR. MUDD: As soon as -- as soon as we find out --
Commissioner, as soon as you find out if you're (sic) going to appeal
the sheriffs budget or not. Ifhe's going to appeal based on what he
presented today, it could be in the tune of $6 million additional, and he
could -- and the governor could overrule your budget and that could
be returned. And if that's the case, then you're going to have to come
up with that $6 million from the turn-back or whatever else you have.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: When do we find that out?
MR. MUDD: He has till the end of the month to determine if
he's going to appeal or not.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So November 30th.
MR. MUDD: You never know. It might be in tomorrow's paper,
I don't know.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Fine, thank you. So we have a
motion on the floor and a second and --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Already--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- we all voted in favor of bringing it
back. And thank you very much, sir.
Page 108
November 16, 2004
And we're now on to item number 7 A.
Item #7 A
RESOLUTION 2004-349: NUA-2002-AR-2995; HOLIDAY
MANOR COOPERATIVE, INC., REPRESENTED BY BOB REED,
REQUESTING NON-CONFORMING USE ALTERATION
APPROVAL, TO ENABLE UNIT OWNERS TO REPLACE
EXISTING NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES, IN
CONFORMANCE WITH THE FIRE CODE AND SO AS NOT TO
INCREASE THE EXISTING NON-CONFORMITIES. THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1185 HENDERSON
CREEK ROAD, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF
12 + ACRES - Al)()EIEJ)
MR. MUDD: 7 A is, this item requires that all participants be
sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission
members.
It's NUA-2002-AR-2995, Holiday Manor Cooperative, Inc.,
represented by Bob Reed, requesting nonconforming use alteration
approval to ensure unit owners to replace existing nonconforming
structures in conformance with the fire code and so as not to increase
the existing nonconformities.
The subject property is located at 1185 Henderson Creek Road in
Section 3, Township 51 south, Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida,
consisting of 32 plus or minus acres.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. Will all those that
wish to speak on this subject please stand and be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now we will declare any ex parte,
starting with Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: On this particular issue, 7A, I do
Page 109
November 16, 2004
not have any disclosure of ex parte.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I, myself, for 7 A have numerous
correspondence, many emails, and I've met with the people in the -- in
the development there about -- I don't know how many times -- four or
five times over a two-and-a-half-year period.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I have everything in my
file if anyone wishes to see it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Commissioner Coletta.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: None from me.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing from me.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I've spoken to staff about it myself,
and I've had no other correspondence.
Okay. Shall we move on? Who -- will staff be presenting first or
MS. DESELEM: Petitioner.
MR. MUDD: Normally we do the petitioner, Ma'am, and then
the staff answers any questions that you might have in this particular
case, and I believe that Holiday Manor Cooperative, Inc., is being
represented by Bob Reed, according to the --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Reed.
MR. REED: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Bob
Reed. I'm a director of Holiday Manor Co-op. Because I am the only
director of Holiday Manor who lives here by primary -- by primary
residence, our president, John Juliano, requested I represent him
during the summer months pursuing the NU A petition.
He will explain some of the Holiday Manor shortly. But first I
want to -- I want you to know, it has been great working with Michelle
Arnold and Kay Deselem. Both are aware of the problems we have at
Holiday Manor.
Page 110
November 16, 2004
Again, I would like to thank both of them for their effort and time
helping me. I've greatly appreciated it.
N ow I would like for you to meet president John Juliano, who
will tell you a little bit about our park.
MR. JULIANO: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is
John Juliano. I'm president of Holiday Manor Cooperative.
On the screen you'll see an overhead of the property that Holiday
Manor occupies. It's outlined in yellow. We're off of951 across from
Eagle Creek Country Club, and to the north we border the Artisa Point
PUD.
The photo that is up there now shows the park as it is. The
development of Holiday Manor started as a rental park in 1968 by Leo
and Robert Cavin, and it was completed somewheres around 1973.
The property was laid out with 312 sites; 187 allotted for mobile
homes, and 125 allotted for R V s, park models, and recreational motor
coaches.
The sites were never pinned nor was the property recorded as
platted property. It's recorded as one parcel of land. The trailers were
placed on the property in a random fashion, which when we became a
cooperative, created many problems for us.
Under the Cavin ownership, there were implied boundary lines,
and the cooperative operates with those same implied boundary lines.
And any disputes amongst our residents are governed by the board of
directors.
In 1996 the residents formed the cooperative and purchased
Holiday Manor for $6 million from the Cavin brothers.
The park is a 55-plus community. Of the 312 sites, there are 295
owner-occupied units, and there are 17 vacant R V sites, which are
available for rent or for sale. Those are mainly used by motor
coaches.
The off season, the hurricane season, we're down to probably 70
people in the park, and during the hurricanes this year, because all of
Page 111
November 16, 2004
our residents are -- that are there are in their elder years, shelters are
not conducive to them, so they go to hotels, motels, and to family
friends, so they do not utilize the shelters.
We do have a recreation hall. But in a hurricane four or five, it's
not the place you want to be.
The residents own a share of the corporation, and they have a
99-year proprietary lease to occupy the site that their mobile home or
trailer is on.
Over the past eight years, the management has worked very hard
to improve the appearance of Holiday Manor and make it an asset to
the East Naples community. I think you can see that by the greenery
that we planted along 951 and the new signage that we installed to
show that it is a good community.
Residents are prohibited from storing personal belongings outside
of their units. Most of them have sheds, and some are attached to the
principal residence and some are stand-alone units.
The issues of shed placement and separation of sheds surfaced
about two years ago when several motor coach owners purchased sites
in Holiday Manor, and we were faced with setback and side yard
distances.
We consulted with Michelle Arnold of code enforcement, and
after a site visit with Michelle, it was her recommendation that we
apply for the nonconforming use alteration because of the manner in
which trailers and sheds have been haphazardly placed on the
property .
Since our park is nonconforming, the cooperative is seeking
relief for a separation distance for principal and accessory structures.
The relief sought would not increase the number of units that our park
is authorized for, nor would it increase the nonconformities but would
allow us to replace existing nonconforming structures in conformance
with the fire code.
We would also be better able to utilize the 16 vacant lots to
Page 112
November 16,2004
accommodate the large luxury motor homes. And as you look in
Sunday's paper, these motor homes -- there was a section on motor
homes, and they're extremely large. So we need to be able to
accommodate them to be competitive.
The land development code requires principal and accessory
structures to be separated by at least 10 feet. The department of
zoning and land development supports that separation distance plus a
zero separation if the accessory structure is attached to the principal
structure or to another accessory structure; therefore, since we are a
nonconforming park, we are requesting that the recommendations of
the department of zoning and land development be approved for use at
Holiday Manor.
If you have any questions, I would be glad to answer them for
you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Sue, was he also our speaker?
MS. FILSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have no other speakers?
MS. FILSON: I had speaker slips from the both of them. No
other speakers.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. So then I will close the
public hearing,
Thank you very much, sir. And with that we'll ask questions, and
we'll begin with Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I'm very familiar
with this residence site down here. They've been in existence for close
to 40 years now, and it's a little different than what you might consider
the norm in Collier County for the simple reason that they've been
there before the rules were established. They came up with their own
rules within there, and they've lived as a close-knit community for
many years.
They have -- they have a lot of activities within the park. It's a
very interesting place to go. They had one neighbor that raised a little
Page 113
November 16, 2004
bit of problem for everyone in the neighborhood by turning in a lot of
the nonconformities to code.
This is the only way these people can get the peace of life that
they need to be able to get back to enjoying what they like to do most,
which is visit with each other and do a little fishing.
I know it's like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole to a
degree. But by having that nonconformity that -- allowing that
nonconformity and recognizing it for what it is within the rules and
regulations of the -- that the planning commission and the staff have
come up with, we can offer them what they need to be able to go
forward.
I'd like to make a motion at this time to approve both planning
commission's recommendations and staff recommendations, which are
the same.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I'll second that motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: For approval.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll second that motion.
And for discussion, Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I -- maybe Commissioner
Coletta, you can fill me in --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- or Commissioner Fiala, since
both of you are familiar with this. My understanding is that the county
really doesn't have any jurisdiction over all of these locations, lots that
are located in there, because they've never been platted.
So my con -- my question is, what is the real concern of the
people that have homes in here? Can you maybe enlighten me a little
bit, what is the real concern? Why did code enforcement really get
involved in this issue if this wasn't even platted by the county?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well-- but being platted doesn't
exempt it from all sorts of different codes that are existing. Possibly
Joe Schmitt might be able to address this.
Page 114
November 16,2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And also what they wanted to do was
they wanted to replace some of the very old trailers with a new
modern one, but I think that then the code would kick in, right?
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, administrator of
community development/environmental services.
I've been involved in this for over two years, and my staffs been
involved. This started with some complaints that -- the residents came
to the community development to help solve some of the problems
basically of encroachments, or perceived encroachments.
As you heard, this is not a platted subdivision. There are no lot
lines. We could not get involved in the internal disputes in regards to
where sheds were put and control of that. That's pretty much up to the
-- to the co-op, and they manage that.
This led to some discussions in regards to violations. If you want
to call it what it is, where even -- even where covered garages morph
into Florida rooms that morph into bedrooms, so we have a lot of
issues out there.
My building department inspectors have been out there, code
enforcement has been out there. This is an attempt to try and at least
resolve some of the ongoing issues.
We're not trying to go out there and issue everybody a notice of
violation and kind of, as they say, bring a wrath of government down
on them, but we're working with the residents trying to get them to at
least come into conformity.
Our biggest concern also was those 10- foot separations, to allow
for emergency vehicles, to allow for those kind of things so we can
preclude any type of -- well, whatever you want to call it, violation in
regards to at least emergency access and fire.
I think one of the things -- and I noted this yesterday in my
discussions -- that possibly even East Naples Fire District would
provide -- I think at the request of the residents provide an annual
inspection or at least to advise to ensure that these separations are
Page 115
November 16, 2004
maintained. That was our biggest concern.
The other concern, of course, is as they come in for future
building permits to replace existing structures out there, whether
they're sheds or older units that we can issue building permits as long
as the nonconformity isn't -- isn't increased, so that's kind of how all
this started.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think it's admirable to note also that
there are so few places in town that can actually accommodate an
affordable type housing for senior citizens, and this is one of them,
and it's -- so I'm happy that we're headed in this direction.
Thank you, Commissioner Coletta, for all you've done.
So we have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Coletta to
approve as staff and the county planning board suggested and as they
recommended with their two stipulations, second -- a first by -- or the
motion by Commissioner Coletta, and the 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.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Passes 5-0. Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, folks.
Item #7B
Page 116
November 16, 2004
RESOLUTION 2004-350: CU-2004-AR-5770; ARCO FINANCE,
INC., REPRESENTED BY VINCENT A. CAUTERO OF COASTAL
ENGINEERING, INC., REQUESTS CONDITIONAL USE 11 OF
THE COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE (C-3) DISTRICT FOR A
SINGLE-USE BUILDING GREATER THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET
IN AREA, AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 2.2.14.3.11. OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC). THE
PROPERTY TO BE CONSIDERERD FOR THE CONDITIONAL
USE IS LOCATED BETWEEN 104TH AVENUE NORTH AND
105 TH AVENUE NORTH, IN THE NAPLES PARK SUBDIVISION,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND CONSISTS OF 1.85 ACRES
=--.ADOEIED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 7B. This item
requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
provided by commission members.
It's CU-2004-AR-5770, which is ARCO Finance, Inc.,
represented by Vincent A. Cautero of Coastal Engineering, Inc.,
requesting conditional use 11 of the commercial intermediate C-3
district for a single use building greater than 5,000 square feet in area
as specified in section 2.2.14.3.11 of the Collier County Land
Development Code.
The property to be considered for the conditional use is located
between 104th Avenue North and 105th Avenue North in the Naples
Park subdivision in Section 28, Township 48 south, Range 25 east,
Collier County, Florida, and consists of 1.85 acres.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And will everyone that wants
to speak on this subject, please rise and be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioners, anything to declare?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You want to start off with me?
Page 11 7
November 16, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I -- start off with, I've had
meetings, correspondence, emails, and phone calls, and I've also
talked to staff on this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I had everything that
Commissioner Halas had except for the phone calls, and I have my file
here for anyone that wishes to see it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And I've spoken to staffmembers.
I've also had meetings, correspondence and emails, and I have them
all in a folder right here for public viewing.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have had meetings and emails
concerning this proj ect, and they're all in my correspondence folder
for review if anyone wishes to see them.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have some email
correspondence on this issue, and they're in this blue file right here if
anybody wants to see them.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And how many speakers do we
have, Sue?
MS. FILSON: Nine.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Nine speakers, okay.
Shall we move forward?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich
Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner.
I have with me also Ken Knuckles and Tim Deerman. They're
with the developer of the property; Vince Cautero with Coastal
Engineering is the planner on the project, along with Don Murray,
who's also here to answer any questions; Clayton Miller is the civil
engineer on the project, to answer any questions you may have
regarding civil engineering; Rob Price from Metro Engineering is here
to answer any transportation questions you may have; and Jeff Moore
Page 118
November 16,2004
is our landscape architect, who's here to answer any questions you
may have.
I will take you with a -- take you through a brief overview of the
project and what we're proposing. And then if you have specific
questions that I can't answer, these individuals will be here to answer
the questions.
As the introduction by the county manager indicated and your
materials in your agenda package indicate, we're asking for
conditional use number 11 for retail -- for a retail use of over 5,000
square feet on a particular piece of property that's almost two acres in
SIze.
The zoning is C-3 as it exists. And in order to have an individual
user exceed 5,000 square feet, you have to go through the conditional
use process. It's not a permitted use to have a use over 5,000 square
feet.
We are proposing an Office Depot that is approximately 19,000
square feet in size. Of that 19,000 square feet, approximately 15,250
square feet is actually retail sales, and the remainder is offices for the
manager and storage area.
Right now we're proposing access to be off of 1 05th Avenue and
also off of 104th Avenue. Currently there are some access points to
the property on u.s. 41. We anticipate that the state's FDOT is not
going to allow those access points to exist. So we anticipate our
access will be off of 1 05th Avenue, as well as 1 04th Avenue.
There were some questions that were raised through the
community, as well as at the planning commission, regarding the size
of the building. And in reality the size of the building will be the same
whether it's a single user as an Office Depot or if it's a strip center like
currently exists out there. You'll still have approximately a
20,000-square-foot building.
The difference will be you have an Office Depot as a single user
in the 20,000 square feet versus four, five, or six individual users that
Page 119
November 16, 2004
would divide up the 20,000 square feet if it's a strip center.
And we have to keep in mind that the strip center would be a
permitted use and there would be no public hearing process involved
in getting that approved. That would be just an administrative
approval.
We have taken the time to be involved with the Naples Park
community. We did our initial neighborhood information meeting,
and at that neighborhood information meeting there were some
questions raised.
The predominant questions dealt with, what is our landscape plan
going to be for the western portion of the property, because the
western boundary of the property is immediately adjacent to
residential property, as basically all of that area is. There is a
difference from u.s. 41; that's C-3 zoning immediately adjacent to
residential, and that runs the -- basically the entire length of Naples
Park. So the question was, what's the landscaping going to look like.
The next question was transportation-wise, how were we going to
handle deliveries to the -- to the Office Depot, and then the question
was, you know, drainage. Were we going to make the situation better
or worse by developing the property.
So we went back for a second meeting with the neighborhood --
and both of these meetings occurred at night so people would have an
opportunity to come and not have to take time off from their jobs --
and we explained what was happening. And I'll briefly go through.
The delivery trucks will be coming from the north, dropping off
at our Office Depot, and heading south on 41 to get to the Office
Depot across from the mall, so there would be no reason for any of our
delivery trucks to ever get into the residential neighborhood. So our
delivery trucks will not be going into the residential neighborhood,
and that was one of their concerns.
The second issue is, what was the landscaping going to look like.
And we committed to a wall and berm combination of eight foot in
Page 120
November 16,2004
height, plus landscaping planted in front and in back of the wall. And
we showed them the landscape plan with the planting elevation, and
that has been specifically included as an exhibit to the approval of the
conditional use.
So this landscaping plan is a requirement of the -- of the project,
assuming we get approval for the conditional use from the
commISSIoners.
And finally the question was, you know, how are we going to
hand -- how was drainage going to be addressed. And essentially right
now water just sheet flows across the property and just, you know,
disperses amongst, you know, Naples Park.
We will be required to retain water on our site, treat the water
and make sure it's clean when it leaves our site and ultimately goes
into Vanderbilt Lagoon. Any project that gets approval will have to
go through that process if this site is redeveloped.
So we are, in fact, going to make the drainage situation better
because we will be holding water for a while before it can be
dispersed, versus water just sheet flowing as it is right now.
So we met with the neighbors. And I would say that the vast
majority of the neighborhood at the neighborhood information
meetings were supportive of our project. They like the architecture.
They like the fact that we designed the loading zone to be fronting
104th Avenue and not be behind the building adjacent to the
residential portion of the development. They liked the fact that we
had limited our deliveries to make sure that we would not affect or in
-- their quality of life by having our delivery trucks go through their
neighborhood. I think they like the fact that we listened to their
concerns and incorporated it into our design.
The only negatives I've heard -- I've not heard one negative about
the fact that it's an Office Depot. The only negative I've heard is about
the size of the building. Well, the size of the building, whether it's an
Office Depot or it's a strip center, is going to be approximately 20,000
Page 121
November 16, 2004
square feet.
So the size of the building is essentially a wash, if you ask me
because you're going to have a 20,000-square-foot strip center. You're
just going to have more users within that 20,000 square feet versus an
Office Depot.
And the traffic analysis that was done as part of this project that's
required as a conditional use will show you that if we do break up the
units, the 20,000 square feet into smaller units, we will actually
generate more traffic than we will generate by having a single user as
an Office Depot.
And, you know, who knows what the users are going to be in
strip centers. But if you throw in some kind of restaurant, like a
Chili's or something like that that's a quick turnover restaurant, the
traffic numbers are even greater if you do a strip center.
I believe the neighborhood said they've had enough strip centers
in the area and they would prefer our Office Depot the way it looks
and the architectural -- the compliance with the architectural standards
for the county.
We agreed to additional plantings in out water detention areas.
The planning commission wanted us to do that, and we've agreed to
put additional plantings out there, and we've already met with your
staff to make sure that's okay.
We meet all the criteria within the land development code to
obtain a conditional use. Your staff is recommending approval of the
conditional use. The planning commission recommended--
unanimously recommended approval of the conditional use, and I
think that's a fairly detailed but brief overview of our proposed
project.
And I, along with all of the consultants, are here to answer any
questions you may have regarding the project, and we would request
approval of our conditional use request.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Before we ask any questions, would you
Page 122
November 16, 2004
like to call our speakers, please? And we --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I would love to have some response
time, rebuttal time if -- to the speakers.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm sorry, Ray. Let me first ask Ray
Bellows to give his presentation. I'm so sorry.
MR. BELLOWS: No problem.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But that's a nice tie.
MR. BELLOWS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Thank you.
For the record, Ray Bellows with department of zoning/land
development review.
Mr. Y ovanovich gave a very good presentation of the purpose of
this petition. As he indicated, the code requires a conditional use
when a single use retail facility exceeds 5,000 square feet. The site is
eligible for at least four buildings of 5,000 square feet each.
The traffic study reviewed by our department of transportation
indicates that there won't be no -- will not be significant impact on
traffic.
The petitioner indicated that there is a possibility of higher trip
generation if it's a retail -- restaurants or other higher generating uses
or -- that are permitted in the C-3 district.
The county engineering staff and the county landscaping staff has
met several times with the petitioner to improve the landscaping and
the water management. The plan before you now, the water
management along 105th is now sloped at 3-to-1 or 4-to-1. There will
be no walls retaining water man -- stormwater management. That was
a concern raised by many residents.
The landscaping was also a concern of many residents during the
neighborhood information meeting. Staff is convinced that the plans
as modified through discussions with our county architect meets code
and exceeds code in areas where there will be compatibility issues
with adjacent residential.
The uses permitted are permitted as a matter of right in the C-3
Page 123
November 16,2004
district, only that they're exceeding 5,000 square feet over here today.
Staff has conducted a compatibility analysis, and the design of the
building meets setbacks. We have included conditions of approval
that require additional landscaping.
And I'd be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And now we'll hear from our speakers.
We'll ask questions in a minute. First we'll get to hearing our
speakers, if you don't mind.
MS. FILSON: First speaker is John Weaver. He will be--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Each speaker will have five minutes.
MS. FILSON: He will be followed by Marie Sourbeer.
MR. WEAVER: Good afternoon. My name's John Weaver, and
I have a concern with the Office Depot not so much that it's an Office
Depot. It could be -- and does sizability really matter? It could be 10
million square feet, I don't care.
I live on 104th Avenue, and I also own Stoney's Barber Shop, so
my main concern, it's going to put a large financial burden on my
family because we took out a second mortgage on the home to pay for
the business. I've only been in there a year.
My wife's going to barber school. She'll be completed in that in
March, so we haven't been able to make it, and it's just paying the bills
right now.
I can't afford to move it or anything else. So I'm just imploring
you to just think about that. Maybe -- maybe the money part doesn't
matter. I've -- even though I work for government, I really don't know
how a lot of this works, so.
And another thing too is the traffic. I know you guys got it all
figured out and these charts are beautiful, this and that. But there is a
lot of traffic on 104th coming in and out because of Randy's and
everything, so a lot of the nights when I'm coming home I go down
105th. I never have -- I never had to do that before, so that's
something to think about.
Page 124
November 16, 2004
Plus there's a parking overflow. Just think about this, if one of
you-all might want to cruise by there like in the evening sometime,
like 5:00,5:30, around dinnertime, and just check out the parking
overflow. I think Randy has like 50 spaces, and it's all overflowing
into where my building is, Stoney's, where I lease at.
And the same deal with Dunkin Donuts. Look at the size of their
parking. They've got like 10 spaces. So Office Depot, if they get it,
that's fine. Whatever's going to happen's going to happen, but they
might want to think about that, too, because they're going to have to
deal with the same problems that I've been dealing with, so -- I'm just
concerned about my family. That's all. So just think about that.
All right, thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Marie Sourbeer. She will be
followed by Barbara Bateman.
MS. SOURBEER: Good afternoon. I wanted to thank the
commissioners that put out that nice spread this morning. Without
that, I'd have been hungry by now. I saved one of those bagels and
had a cup of coffee. But congratulations to all of you.
I am glad to be here this morning because I've been to the
planning commission meetings, and I have heard them really go over
the coals with these gentlemen to find out all the good things and the
bad things that could develop with that project that they're presenting
to you for special consideration.
I'm asking for your support regarding the request for this
conditional approval for the Office Depot, which will be the only
tenant there in that 19,000-square-foot building. It's not such a large
building when you think -- if you look at that piece of empty land.
And the gentleman just referred to all that spillover of people
parking in that so-called empty lot, almost, it is. It's got a little barber
shop on the one side and a little Matty's ice cream store.
No matter what happens, those two places are going to be let go.
I mean, if they develop that into anything, those two little places are
Page 125
November 16, 2004
going to have to be moved out of there.
And the people that are doing all the over parking is that nice big
restaurant that gone -- that's on the next corner. And really, they're
illegally parking. They're all parking on somebody else's property.
But that's where they park. I do see that. I live up there. I've been up
there 37 years. There was nothing out there when I went there.
The people that live in there, in Naples Park, with little
exception, have been very happy to see such a development for that
site. It would be something of primary use for North Collier, as well
as just the neighborhood there in Naples Park.
We don't need another gas station, a motel, storage shed, a
boutique shop, a minimall, because they're already building one on
91 st Avenue, the bo -- what's the name of that? Anyway. Bellagio,
that's the word -- where they're selling T-shirts. We don't need any
more doctors' offices.
I think they've already sold out that one little mobile home thing,
and I see that's going to be torn down and they're going to put doctors'
offices in there, and I'll bet you we don't have to worry about --
nobody's going to ask us what they can do there, and that's right along
that -- along 41 there. We don't need another fast food place, and we
certainly don't need another bank.
So I'm asking you, please, for your support with this project.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Barbara Bateman. She'll be
followed by Rose Palumbo.
MS. BATEMAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm going to
be speaking initially as the Naples Park Area Association civil
chairwoman, and then when I complete that, I will be speaking for
myself.
Number -- to begin with, I have a letter that -- Bill and Ulga
Williams would have liked to have been here today, and they wanted
to lend their support.
Page 126
November 16,2004
Ulga has written a letter. Please be advised that both my husband
and I are in favor of building the Office Depot on Route 41 in Naples
Park. We have lived here for 10 years and believe it will be a great
asset to our area.
Thank you for your kind consideration in this matter.
Will this be a part of public record?
And then also speaking for the Naples Park Area Association, we
held a meeting in (sic) October, 21st -- we had approximately 24
people in attendance -- and a vote was taken regarding the Office
Depot location on 41; and 16 people did vote in favor of the proj ect,
and three against.
Now speaking for myself, I personally reviewed the architectural
drawings of the proposed Office Depot, and I have no problem with
the design or the landscaping. In my opinion, it will look very neat
and aesthetically appealing, especially if you notice the little canopy
along the breaks that line the front of the building and it makes
alongside of the building, which also helps to enhance the design.
The many Naples Park homeowners and residents that I've
spoken with do not have any objections to this building. They
actually would prefer this kind of business as opposed to a variety of
other business that Marie Sourbeer had mentioned.
They like the design. Again, they'd rather have a single
free-standing building as opposed to having the strip mall with a
variety of businesses, which would also increase the traffic in the area.
As long as this organization upholds to the proposed
specifications set forth in the architectural and landscaping design, I
personally see no reason why this project would not be acceptable in
our community.
Quite a lot of Naples Park homeowners and residents look
forward to having this conveniently located establishment in our
neighborhood, and I encourage you to consider moving forward with
this conditional use. Thank you.
Page 127
November 16,2004
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Rose Palumbo. She will be
followed by Vera Fitzgerald.
MS. KNOWLTON: I'd like to go on the record. I am Anne
Knowlton, a 14-year resident of Naples Park, and I am speaking for
Rose Palumbo today, who had to leave.
I think the best place for Office Depot is on Route 41 between
104th and 105th Avenue. I -- there is not an Office Depot located
between Coastland Mall and Terry Street in Bonita Springs.
The building will have a nice landscaping with parking off -- on
41 only. We have enough strip malls. A new one is currently being
construct -- under construction on 91 st Avenue and Route 41, and I
am very much in favor of an Office Depot, which does not affect area
-- traffic in our neighborhood.
Respectfully submitted, Rose Palumbo, president of Naples Park
Area Association.
And I also, Anne Knowlton, would like to go on record as being
affirmative for the Office Depot proj ect.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Vera Fitzgerald. She will be
followed by Lloyd Bowein.
MS. FITZGERALD: Hi. I'm Vera Fitzgerald. I live in Naples
Park. I have a few points here that have been brought up by a number
of people who live there, not just 21 people who attended a meeting,
and 16 were in favor of it. There's -- must be at least 8,000 people live
in Naples Park, so I hardly think that's representative.
The lady just said that there isn't an Office Depot or anything like
that between Coastland Mall and Bonita Springs. That alone should
give them a little clue as to how much traffic this thing is going to
generate and attract. It's going to have a huge attraction for an awful
large population into a small area.
All right. Some of the objections that I have heard, and my own
objections, are traffic. As I just said, this will have a real negative
effect on Naples Park. Anybody who lives in the north or the west of
Page 128
November 16, 2004
Naples Park, that traffic will not go out onto 41. It will not use the
intersection of Immokalee Road and 41. It will cut through Naples
Park.
Now, we can talk about this until the cows come home, but you
know that's a fact. It will cut through the neighborhood. It won't go
out on the highway.
Cut-through traffic, they never show any respect for the locals.
They don't stop at stop signs, as we've seen at various crashes. They
speed through. And our narrow roads can't handle the amount and
kinds of traffic that this box store will attract.
And we all know that, traffic plans and patterns, you hire an
expert and you hire him to tell the story you want, not necessarily
what others want.
Now, the -- another problem that a lot of people have said is that
there's no convenient northbound turn from either 104th or 105th. In
the summer crossing three lanes of traffic to try to make a left turn, a
left U-turn to go back north is difficult. In season it's close to suicidal.
So customers will go west to 8th Street, then use the lights on
111 th or even go to 99th and use the lights, and this would be grossly
unfair to the residents in this area as well as causing a reduction in
their tra -- in their property value.
Having a big box next to your house is definitely going to reduce
the value of your property. I was a real estate agent for almost 30
years. I can tell you that for a fact.
There are many old strip malls, is the second point, along the
one-mile strip of commercial fronting on U.S. 41. If you allow this,
these strip malls will also sell out to big boxes. What's to stop it?
So you'll be setting a very, very bad precedent. Anyone who --
and I can think of at least four that could be sold out to big boxes.
This parcel allows for four buildings of 5,000 square feet each.
The type of business using a 5,000-square-foot building generally
receives delivery via UPS and FedEx vans, like the medical shops.
Page 129
November 16,2004
That whole area is becoming quite -- has a lot of medical and
businesses in there.
So they get UPS and F edEx. They don't get -- the big boxes
receive their deliveries via tractor trailers. Think of the noise that will
necessarily make in the middle of the night, which is when the box
stores receive their deliveries. I don't think you'd want to live near
there. And there are homes abutting this property.
There are many activity centers in north Collier County where
this type of business is allowed, and traffic patterns or roads are built
to handle the high volume of traffic this type of business generates and
attracts.
Right across from 41 there's a large commercial area with roads
on all four sides with no impact on a residential neighborhood. Also
more commercial is at U.S. 41 and Vanderbilt Beach Road, and there's
more at Wiggins Pass Road and u.s. 41, and our Wal-Mart wants to
move to a bigger quarters and build a super center, so that building's
going to be available, and I suggest Office Depot look at that.
This type of business is out of character with the neighborhood. I
can't imagine something like this sitting on the end of a residential
street. It simply doesn't belong here.
So we're asking you to protect our neighborhood and homes and
say no to this precedent setting request.
I thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Lloyd Bowein. He will be
followed by Chris Carpenter.
MR. BOWEIN: Hello. For the record, my name is Lloyd
Bowein, and I'm one of the owners of Randy's Fish Market Restaurant
on the south side of this property. In fact, at one time I owned that
property .
And I feel that this would be a great use for the property. It's
clean. And again, a whole lot less traffic than, say, right now a
Starvin' Marvin could go in there without even coming before the
Page 130
November 16,2004
board, which could operate 24 hours a day with semis coming in all
night and getting gas. So I think this is a much better use.
Let's see. I have lived and owned property in Naples Park for
over 30 years, and, you know, I don't -- where she sees four more box
stores could go in.
Pardon me. I'm nervous. I'm not a big public speaker.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're doing fine.
MR. BOWEIN: Also in response to the first person on Stoney's
Barber Shop. I was Stoney's landlord at one time, and the landlord of
the barber before him. When he and Stoney entered these negotiations
and he bought it, he knew this property was for sale and he knew he
would have a limited time there.
And so, you know, I appreciate he needs, you know, to feed his
family, et cetera, but there are other rentals in the area for a barber
shop that would suit his needs.
And -- let's see. As for the traffic going back to 8th, I mean,
you've got a left-hand -- when you're northbound, you've got a straight
shot left-hand turn right into 105th to get in there. You don't have to
go across and go across three lanes trying to get in there, as one person
brought up.
And I'm also a realtor as well, and I disagree with the last
speaker. I think that the box store would actually make the property
go up. Because, again, it's a light use, clean use type, for the property.
If you -- like, again, if you put a Starvin' Marvin in there, you're
going to see the property values go way down.
So anyway, I'm 100 percent for the Office Depot. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Chris Carpenter. Chris
Carpenter? Oh, I'm sorry. She will be followed by Rita Matarese.
MS. CARPENTER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name
is Chris Carpenter, and I own a duplex on 105th in Naples Park. Right
now I'm not living with it -- living in it. I'm living with my mom over
in Vanderbilt Beach, but I do own this property.
Page 131
November 16,2004
I would welcome Office Depot if they scaled down the size of
their project to about half of what they're proposing. I think an
individual store at 19,000 square feet, whether it's Office Depot or
anything else, it just doesn't fit in in Naples Park. There's nothing else
there that's that big, an individual store.
The biggest thing you'll find takes up maybe half a commercial
block, not a whole one. And I think that a large store like that belongs
in a large shopping center, like across the street at the Granada
Shopping Center.
Oh, I was talking to many people on 105th and 104th, and I
found so many people who felt the same way I do that I decided to do
some door-to-door polling, and I polled all of 105th, I polled three
blocks of 104th, one block on 95th, the fourth block on 104th was
done by somebody else, but they gave me their results.
And the opinions offered by the people on these nine blocks are
as follows: Number opposed, 69; in favor, 19; neutral -- and by
neutral I mean they're not really opposed, they're not really in favor,
they just kind of don't really care -- 19; and undecided, 11.
Two of the in-favors, one of them, he was in favor because he
just didn't want to have an empty lot, but he'd really rather have a strip
mall, and the other in favor was in favor with some reservations about
the stormwater drainage and the traffic and the landscaping.
Of the 11 undecideds, two of them were leaning towards being
opposed, but they wanted more information and they also wanted to
check with their spouses.
Now, I asked these people, the people who were opposed, I said,
you know, what would you like there instead? And the answer
invariably was small businesses. I asked if they'd mind having a
20,000-square-foot strip mall instead of Office Depot, and they said,
no, they wouldn't mind, because it would still be small businesses.
And in listening to speakers today, it seems an advantage of
having a strip mall would be that maybe Stoney's Barber Shop could
Page 132
November 16,2004
stay there.
I'd like to turn in a petition opposing Office Depot signed by 154
people. The petition -- well, it was only out there a week, and it was
available in two stores, and there were only two people running it. I
have a copy for each of you. I'd like to bring it up. If I may.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We can just pass them down so we don't
take too much of your time.
MS. CARPENTER: Let me go ahead and read that petition real
quickly. To the Collier County Board of County Commissioners, we,
the undersigned, oppose the 19 square -- 19,000-square-foot Office
Depot proposed to be built on u.s. 41 between 104th Avenue North
and 105th Avenue North. The Naples Park Area Association does not
represent us on this issue.
We think that the proposed building is too big and that it's out of
character with the Naples Park community. We believe that this
project could cause traffic and stormwater drainage problems in
Naples Park.
Please do not approve Office Depot's conditional use application.
I hope that this information is helpful to you in making your
decision.
Just a couple more things. Mr. Y ovanovich had said that at the
public meeting held in June that most people approved it, but he didn't
mention that there really weren't that many people there. I think there
were about 25, and there were even less at the second public meeting
because it was held one day before Hurricane Frances. And I think
this is the last thing.
That would be great, thanks.
This is my duplex on 105th, and this is my duplex when it rains
and -- I'm almost done. And I'm not talking hurricane rain, tropical
storm rain. I'm talking just your average late summer rain when the
ground is already saturated.
So if you do decide to approve this, please make sure that they
Page 133
November 16,2004
have their stormwater drainage plan, that it's a good one.
Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Rita Matarese, and I'm sure
I've got this name wrong.
MS. MATARESE: No.
MS. FILSON: I got it right?
MS. MATARESE: You got it right. Matarese. And I'm very
nervous.
MS. FILSON: Oh, don't be nervous.
MS. MATARESE: If you hear my knees knocking together, I'm
just nervous.
My name is Rita Matarese. I've been a Naples Park resident
since October of '95. I feel that the Office Depot is too big for our
side of 41 and that it will put Stoney's Barber Shop, you know, out of
business. He'll be torn down.
I have been out talking with homeowners. I also helped run a
petition against Office Depot. I have spoken with the people on the
700 block of 99th, the 5- and 600 block of 100th, and the 700 block of
101 st. I found the majority is against this.
Here is what they said. I got 32 opposed, three undecided, and
two in favor. I really feel that you should know that 12 of the 36
opposed told me that they were so badly harassed during a previous
hotly debated Naples Park issue that they were afraid to sign a petition
or speak out against Office Depot. Seven people on my block also
opposed but felt their opinion did not matter, that this was a done deal.
The people I talked to would rather see a mom and pop business,
even if it's in a strip mall, and I agree.
Please do not approve this 19,000-square-foot Office Depot.
Thank you. I'm sorry I'm so nervous. My voice is shaking. Thank
you.
MS. FILSON: She was your final speaker.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And with that, we'll close the
Page 134
November 16,2004
public hearing.
Mr. Yovanovich?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. I'd like to just respond to a couple
of the points. I thought Lloyd did a very good job, and since Lloyd
works there and has some experience of how Naples Park operates, I
thought his comments were very good.
Ms. Fitzgerald talked about deliveries and alluded that we would
have deliveries at night and they would be tractor trailers and they
would be disruptive to the neighborhood. Well, she doesn't
understand -- she doesn't know the facts. She didn't attend any of the
meetings, so I wouldn't expect her to understand the details of how we
operate.
But, in fact, the deliveries are between eight a.m. and five p.m.,
and there's one delivery a day. So there are no nighttime deliveries, so
there's going to be no disturbance to the residential neighborhood, and
we also have taken care to make sure that the deliveries will occur
here (indicating) on the south side and away from the residential
development, so we took great care that our deliveries, one, will
happen during reasonable working hours, and, two, would not disturb
the residential neighborhood.
I also want to point out, if you were to put fast food there or a gas
station, their deliveries are with big tractor trailers. It's not UPS and
FedEx.
And also, if you were to do a strip center, I can assure you that
the garbage trucks, the deliveries would all occur adjacent to the
residential development and not off to the side, as we're proposing,
because that's how typical strip centers are. They have deliveries in
the back.
We have taken great care to protect the neighborhood with our
site layout, our architecture, our landscaping. Weare in character
with the neighborhood. The size of the building would be the same
whether it's a strip center or not. It's -- traffic issues will be reduced
Page 135
November 16,2004
because we are an Office Depot type use versus a strip center type use.
We believe that we are -- I also, you know, kind of question the
results of the poll. I doubt that they were done by an unbiased
individual taking and polling these people. And I would point out,
you know, the exit polls in the last election indicated that we had a
different president. So I don't know that I hold a whole lot of faith in
the polls that were conducted.
Weare compatible with the neighborhood. Your planning
commission listened to all the details of this and recommended
unanimously to approve this.
The picture of the flooded area is on the 500 block, which is a
great distance from us. We will be required to properly hold and
retain and treat our drainage, so we are not going to create to the --
create a problem for that one individual lot.
With that, we're available to answer any detailed questions you
may have or respond to any particular concerns that the speakers
raised that you think we need to address.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I've got some questions, but
this is for staff members. And I'd like to start off with Ricardo Valera.
Sorry if I didn't get your last name right, Ricardo.
And this is in regards to addressing stormwater issues. And in
regards to the size of this piece of property, in regards to the size of
the building, and also the parking lot, which all is impervious to water,
have you looked at the plans in regards to -- and I'm -- first of all, I'm
not here to develop a site plan. I'm just trying to make sure that we're
accommodating all the issues that may arise so that we don't run into a
flooding issue.
When you -- when we as the county to look at a building of this
size and to retain the water on the site, what do you -- what kind of
design criteria do you have in regards to, is it a 10-year event, a
25-year event, where they have to retain the water? Can you lead us
Page 136
November 16,2004
into that?
MR. VALERA: Yes. For the record, Ricardo Valera, director of
stormwater.
Well, to answer your questions, we do look at the criteria
established by the state. That would be the 25-year, three-day event
for water quality attenuation, and the 100-year event for the finished
floor elevation.
However, I do need to clarify that the delegation of authority that
came from the state under Florida administrative code 4400, section
315, I think it is, falls into the team that Joe Schmitt has. So I would
have to defer that to Stan.
But I have not looked at the plans, only today on the monitor, and
it can be done. There are some conditions, safety factors, to
conditioning the soil for infiltration under the parking area, putting
inserts, filters, and all kinds of things, so -- but I'll have to defer to
Stan.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Staff.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, please.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good afternoon, Commissioner Halas,
Commissioners. Stan Chrzanowski with engineering review.
I don't know if anybody brought it up yet, but this project's
already been through one review. The site development plan has been
simultaneously sent in with the other project.
And our first set of review comments is online for anybody to
see. The public's welcome. Maybe they don't know how to get in
there, but if they go into the planning department part of the county
website, they can access review comments on there for any proj ect
that's being reviewed by the county.
First set of comments asks for them to show the wet season water
table. A couple of cross sections, the control structure detail to show
the baffle for water quality, adding a discharge pipe, with an end
structure from the control structure, unobstructed positive fall from the
Page 137
November 16,2004
discharge point to the receiving waters, cross section of the
underground water management vaults, all that. I could go down a list.
We've looked at it, and I always tell people there's two criteria we
worry about, water quality and water quantity. Now, water quality
means you take the impurities out of the water. You do that by
filtering the water through a retention area or something like that.
To do proper water quality, it's like a filter, and the filter in your
house, the filter in your car, your air-conditioning filter, they clog, and
they have to be maintained.
Now, that's one thing we don't get a lot of in this town is
everybody maintaining their water management retention areas, so we
don't like people putting that below ground. So you'll see -- the plan
you saw has an above ground water quality retention area, hut they're
also going to add some below ground.
But the water quantity is all -- as I've been told by the last
meeting we had with them, which was on Friday, as a result of one of
our reviews, they're coming up with underground vaults, concrete
vaults.
Now, there are a bunch of systems for doing this. A lot of them
look like concrete, the end table in your living room, you know, a slab
with legs, and they put one next to the other. These things are six foot
by 14 foot four or five foot high, three foot high.
You can actually get down into them to maintain, but that's only
for water quantity. The water goes in there, and there's a discharge
structure that throttles down how much -- how fast the water leaves,
and it -- we have rates that they have to meet with how fast the water
leaves.
But there's a minimum size for the -- well, there's also -- yeah,
there's a minimum size for the discharge hold, and sometimes the
water coming out the discharge hold exceeds the allowable rate, but
not by much. In this case I've checked it out, and it would have to get
fairly high to exceed that.
Page 138
November 16,2004
Anyway, we've looked at it. If you have any real specific
questions, I could get into it, but the matter --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Stan, I guess my real specific
question is at a -- if a heavy rain happens to occur and I -- do we retain
the water with the level of a 10-year or 25-year period so it doesn't run
off into the surrounding neighborhood? That's all my concern is.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. We retain the water -- we retain
all the water on site except the -- up to the 100-year storm, at which
point everybody floods.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Up to 100-year storm?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, but -- and everything has to be
put -- the roads are above the 25-year storm, and the buildings are
above the 100-year storm.
But everything stays on -- yeah, there's a perimeter berm that's
fixed to the 25-year -- I'm sorry. The 25-year three-day storm is the
perimeter berm. That's where we retain water to. We figure for the
100-year storm, everybody floods equally.
If you look at the topography on there, the high ground is red,
brown, middle ground is green or -- yellow, and then down to green.
Down to blue is low ground. That's the lake between 107th and 108th
on the side of that page, the very blue area.
The flow is from the south, which is the left side as I'm looking at
that, to the north in that area. And where the arrow is is where the site
is. You can see that the flow was off 41 heading into the site, and then
probably headed out to the north.
I asked Ms. Carpenter where she lives, and she lives on the 500
block, which is three blocks up the page as you look. We really think
that there should be some central water management improvements
done to Naples Park, a lot of it, but I think we tried that a couple of --
a while back, and -- I don't know, I'd like to try it again.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, we have now a stormwater--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wait till I'm gone.
Page 139
November 16,2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Anyway, my concern is I want to
make sure that we don't have a large amount of runoff that ends up
into --
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, sir, you won't get that in here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- the Vanderbilt Lagoon, okay?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: You will not get that from here. There
will be water quality to clean the water and then water quantity
measures to throttle down what's leaving.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: You're welcome.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The next question I had was
directed to Norm Feder or Don Scott, and that's in regards to, how can
we address traffic so it does not enter into the neighborhood after
people leave the store, so that we -- is there ways of directing traffic so
that people have to go back onto 41 without running through the
neighborhoods?
MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, transportation planning. Obviously
getting in is not an issue because you can come from the south and use
the directional onto 105th. Getting out though, if you want to get to a
signal, yes, you would have to go through the neighborhood to work
your way towards the signal either north or south of there.
You could try to do things like signage or whatever. I'm not --
it's hard to enforce that though, you know, to say, please exit out on
41. Otherwise, it's hard to enforce beyond that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Because I have some
concerns about, if we can put signage up there, hopefully people
would respect the wishes of the people that live in Naples Park so that
this doesn't occur. I'm not sure how we can go about -- Norm, do you
have any suggestions at all on this issue?
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, our feeling was that while the
traffic might be less overall with this project, that we'd want to look at
it during site development plan to see what we can do with access
Page 140
November 16,2004
points.
I was surprised to hear that it's already in site review, so was
Don. But we will get those comments in.
The one possibility, just offhand, is if you had access coming in
off of 105th and then going out on 104, in other words, set up a
circulation pattern that is bringing traffic in and out onto 41, but we'd
look at it in site plan to try and make sure that we minimize disruption
to the community and keep that commercial traffic as much as we can
on 41 or adjacent to 41.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you. And, Commissioner, I
have one more person I'd like to bring up, and that's Joe Schmitt.
Joe, I have some questions that maybe -- hopefully you can help
me out on this.
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, community
development/environmental services division administrator.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. My concern is that we're
looking at -- one of the items that I think needs to be addressed is
landscaping and also water retention. And I understand that there's
already been one proposal put in, and, of course, it didn't meet the
requirements. And like I said, we're not here to address -- to build a
site development plan.
My concern is, if you can't accommodate everything on the site
as is, then is the petitioner willing to downsize the building to make
sure that we can accommodate all the necessary issues?
MR. SCHMITT: I can't answer that, but let me address, certainly
-- so you understand where Stan came from. We did do our first
review. In fact, we had a lot of comments during our first review,
both from landscaping and engineering.
The applicant met with my staff as late as Friday and came to
some agreements. That's when they agreed to this underground
storage and some of the other systems that they're going to design into
the site in order to meet the requirements to retain. They have to
Page 141
November 16,2004
retain the water on site before it can be released, as Stan mentioned.
Also with the landscaping criteria, one of my landscape reviewer
-- reviewers are here if you want any specific -- in regards to
landscaping. But we've reached agreements to accommodate both the
landscaping and water retention, to answer your question.
Now, if they don't meet that, we will certainly make those
comments during the site development review process, and certainly
they're going to be -- they're going to be forced to basically -- to meet
those requirements. How they meet them will be up to the applicant.
And I have to turn over to Mr. Y ovanovich if, in fact -- because
they've got to meet parking requirements, they have to meet
landscaping requirements, they have to meet the water retention
requirements. That's all part of the site development review process.
Of course, one of the reasons why people complain it's so hard to get a
permit basically is because of the requirements that are placed upon
the developer in regards to meeting those requirements in both the
land development code and state and federal code.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. To -- with the advent of
using an underground vault system for storing stormwater --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- is this a good way of going, or
do we -- does it have problems -- is it problemistic?
MR. SCHMITT: I'll turn it over to Stan again, from engineering
servIces.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. Underground water storage
for water quantity is not a problem at all. It's done in many areas of
the world, and that's especially in pop -- heavily populated areas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm looking to see if we have a
higher failure rate than if we do it aboveground.
MR. LITSINGER: Not for water quantity. For water quality we
wouldn't know because we have no way of checking, which is why we
discourage belowground water quality, because it is a filter and it
Page 142
November 16,2004
clogs. Water quantity is not a filter. It's a storage area. It's like filling
up your fish tank and sticking a hole in it and draining it out. Comes
in, goes out.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much for enduring
all those questions. Appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: They were interesting.
MR. SCHMITT: Let me have Mike Sawyer, just for -- on the
record, Commissioner, talk about the landscaping requirements so the
residents know what we're doing, if I could.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MR. SCHMITT: Mike?
MR. SAWYER: Commissioners, Mike Sawyer, senior planner
with zoning and land development review.
We did, in fact, have a meeting with the applicants on Friday
where we talked about a number of the problems that we had in the
review. Probably the largest was the water -- the above ground water
management that they're proposing to do on the west and towards the
north of the site.
Originally they were proposing to do what we improperly term a
water management vault where you've actually got a retaining wall
that goes around this area, and that doesn't meet our code requirement.
Your water management areas need to be curvilinear and appear
to be natural. They, during the meeting, said that they would increase
the underground water storage area and come back with proposals that
would actually slope this area so that we would get rid of the retaining
areas, and again, get back to that more natural curvilinear water
management area.
We have not seen -- obviously since Friday we haven't seen what
their proposal is going to be, other than what you're seeing in front of
you right now.
My understanding is that they're going to propose doing
additional plantings, additional landscaping. But, again, we haven't
Page 143
November 16,2004
seen that, and I don't believe the conditional use necessarily has any
specifics as far as what those additions are going to be.
The planning commission did recommend in their approval
additional plantings within the water management area.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Did the petitioner come to any kind
of agreement that if need be, they would cut off maybe 100 square feet
or 200 square feet of the building to accommodate all of the necessary
water requirements and everything else?
MR. SAWYER: That really did not come up in the conversation,
to be honest, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Rich?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner Halas, obviously we have
to meet the code requirements. And if we cannot meet the code
requirements and still end up with a 19,000-square-foot building, we'll
end up with a building smaller than 19,000 square feet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That sounds great.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. We always knew, through the site
development plan process, we have to meet code. We're not asking
for any exceptions from the code, no variances from the code, just --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So if we could cut the building
down by a couple of hundred square feet to accommodate all of the
necessary landscaping and above ground retention and all the water
retention --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If that becomes necessary, we will have
to do that. I'm not -- I can't tell you today, and I don't think staff is
saying that we have to shrink the building.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But yes --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But what I hear --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm just trying to make sure that--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure.
Page 144
November 16,2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- all the options are open here so
that --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, absolutely, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- we make sure that we address all
the concerns that some of the residents have brought forth.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And for instance, the planning
commission was concerned with replantings in this water management
area to kind of soften the view of this building, and that was one of the
reasons we met with Mr. Sawyer was to find out exactly what we can
do under the code to do additional landscaping. So we know we have
to do that and -- we don't anticipate having to shrink the building, but
if that has to happen, you know, we know we have to do that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: About landscaping.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: The picture is always so beautiful when
it's painted by the developer wanting to encourage the neighborhoods
to cast an approval, approving glance at their property. I remember so
clearly the Gulf Coast American Blind company who discussed their
landscaping and how they were going to just do wonderful things in
order to appease the neighborhood and give this building a wonderful
appearance, something that the neighborhood could be proud of.
Not only was what they planted disappointing, even though it
was according to code -- that's what it said, according to code -- it has
never matured, it has never been maintained, and .it's, in my opinion,
extremely shoddy looking. I don't want to see that happen again to
another neighborhood.
And, you know, you can say all you please, but these people __
and these people didn't even want a park in their neighborhood, much
less a huge building. They didn't want a tiny tot lot. If you're going to
put that -- and tot lots don't encourage traffic, and this thing will
encourage traffic to go through there as well.
Page 145
November 16,2004
And if you don't put landscaping in that can really do the job of
giving it a good -- a good, soft feeling rather than -- you know, and
hiding some of what -- you know, you're located next to a residential
neighborhood. It's just making me feel very uncomfortable because
time and time and time again we're promised one thing but the results
are something else.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And the difference in this case,
Commissioner Fiala, one, is we went to the planning commission with
this particular landscaping plan with the size of the trees, with the size
-- the number of plantings, and that got incorporated by the planning
commission as part of our submittal.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So did Gulf Coast American Blind.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well -- but this is required, and it
exceeds code. It's required that we plant it. If we don't meet this,
then, you know, you've got to yell and scream at us.
Another thing is -- and it's kind of unfair to applicants -- if there's
a problem with the with the code, if the code is not getting you the
level of landscaping that makes everybody happy, then we need to
change the code and make it more detailed. We're already exceeding
code, and that's a requirement for us in our petition, according to the
planning commission.
If there's a problem with the code, we need to -- we need to
change the code. If the code's not turning out to what everybody
expected it would look like --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But you're promising extra.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think you've painted a picture for these
neighbors saying, I know we're settling in --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- a residential neighborhood, so we're
going to give you extra.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
Page 146
November 16, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Not only what code says, we're going to
give you a lot more to kind of mask our appearance, to soften its blow
to your residential neighborhood.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Exactly, and that's why that's attached
and it's a requirement. I didn't come in and say, I'm going to meet
code. I came in and said, I'm going to meet this standard and attach it
to my petition to make sure I meet this standard versus promising
something and then planting to code. We promised, and it's part of
our -- part of our requirements.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Susan?
MS. MURRAY: Thank you. Susan Murray, zoning director, for
the record.
I just wanted to follow up a little bit on the CVS landscaping,
which I think you're referring to, because we did send you a memo,
and I think Rich made a really great segue into an issue we do have
with our landscape code and a potential issue with this site too.
Rich did talk about the enhanced landscaping to the rear, but you
also need to consider the landscaping surrounding the property,
fronting U.S. 41 and within the parking areas.
And in particular, the issue we had with CVS, I believe -- and
unfortunately Nancy Simeon isn't here, and she worked on that
project, but she briefed me a little bit on it -- and we had two major
issues. One, the landscape plantings were not maintained at the
minimum code height, which really is kind of an after-issue after
development.
But the other issue we had was our code presently allows 50
percent of the water management area to be planted with landscape
buffer. And the problem is on some of these tight sites where you're
putting very large buildings on small sites and trying to accommodate
all the required landscaping, parking, and water management, is you
start putting in very steep slopes along your water management
ditches and then planting them with landscaping.
Page 147
~"---"-"- -'-
November 16,2004
That does several things. First it decreases the survive --
likelihood of survivability and health of the plants, so even though the
plants may be alive, they are -- they don't look very -- very good.
Second, it's almost impossible to maintain when you get steep
slopes like that. You get a lot of runoff erosion. Even if you stabilize
the bank, it is so steep at that level that it just aesthetically looks
terrible and doesn't function like a landscape buffer should. So that is
a shortcoming in the code that we have.
And our initial review of this design shows very steep slopes
along some of the landscape buffers. And I can tell you that's going to
be problematic from the standpoint of landscape maintenance and
health and viability of the landscape buffer.
There isn't a whole lot we can do about that simply through the
site plan review process; however, the conditional use process would
allow you-all to make some conditions if you feel appropriate to
ensure the viability of that landscape buffer and ensure the
compatibility of the use and the structure within the neighborhood. I'm
just --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let me just finish --
MS. MURRAY: -- making you aware of that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we stay on track of this
topic?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, I am.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know you are.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm trying to.
I'm now -- I wasn't talking about that particular place. I was
talking about Gulf Coast American Blind.
MS. MURRAY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And what I wanted to do was compare.
They don't have any sprinkler system out there. Is there going to be a
sprinkler system here?
MS. MURRAY: Yes, that's required.
Page 148
November 16, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is somebody going to be hired to mow the
outside of the wall that faces the residential community and prune the
plantings and replace the dead things?
MS . MURRAY: Maintenance is required, and also the irrigation
will be required as well.
So you can have -- I mean, you can plant as many plants as you
want and they can be maintained and irrigated. But if the environment
in which they're planted in isn't conducive to their best health, it's not
going to look that great regardless.
So I just wanted to point out that shortcoming in the code,
because we don't have a lot of administrative authority to do that. And
the plans we've initially seen for this building show some very steep
slopes around some of the water management that may affect of the
landscaping.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Susan. I appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, one last question.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And the last question is, what is the
real height of this building from the ground level to the highest point?
Truth in advertising.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Truth in advertising. Are you talking
about from the elevation to the front at the highest point, at the highest
point?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Highest point, and then the
elevation in the back, what's the highest point?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The highest point in the front is 34 feet,
eight inches, okay?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: In the rear -- help me -- it is --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: At that point it's the same. It's the
back. You're seeing the back side. But the back of it --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The back -- and the lowest point in the
Page 149
November 16,2004
back is 22 feet, six inches --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- but it staggers up, Commissioner, as
you're looking back to front. So the highest is 34'8, the lowest is 22'6.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I make a motion for
approval of this petition.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor to approve by
Commissioner Halas, a second by Commissioner Henning.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, please signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
Aye.
4-1. Thank you.
And I -- you know, we'll take a fast 10 minutes, if you don't
mind. I know we're going to change our court reporters, but --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Eight minutes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Fast 10 minutes as in eight minutes, yeah.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Madam Chair, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
Item #8A
ORDINANCE 2004-73 - PUDA-03-AR-4227, WAYNE ARNOLD,
Page 150
November 16,2004
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 PUD. 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 - ADOPTED W/ STIPULATIONS
COMPANION ITEM: 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 APPROXIMA TEL Y ONE MILE EAST OF
IMMOKALEE ROAD (C.R. 846) IN SECTIONS 13, 14, AND 24,
MR. MUDD: The next item is 8A, and it's probably got a
companion item of 8B. I call 8A the divorce and 8B the rezoning.
8A is, this item was continued from the October 26th, 2004, BCC
meeting. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex
parte disclosure be provided by the commission members.
It's PUDA-03-AR-4227, Wayne Arnold representing Bryan W.
Page 151
November 16, 2004
Paul requesting a planned unit development 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 on the northeast corner of Immokalee
Road, County Road 846, and Randall Boulevard in Sections 11, 12,
13, 14, 23, and 24, Township 48 south, Range 27 east.
This is a companion item to PUDZ-03-AR-4150, and I'll read
that right now, and that's item 8B. This item was also continued from
October 26th, 2004. This item requires that all participants, again, be
sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission
members.
It's 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 through C-5
zoning districts; and a 90-plus acre community facility tract permitting
recreational uses, government offices, schools, childcare 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, and this is a companion item to
8A.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Will everybody that will be
speaking on this subject, please rise and be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioners, any declaration of ex
parte? We'll start with you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I've talked with staff on this,
I've had meetings with the petitioner, and I've also had emails on both
Page 152
November 16, 2004
items A and B.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. We're dealing with both
A and B for our disclosure at this time, is that correct, or just A?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Just A, I think.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just A?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Are we doing both A and B?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, we've mentioned it, and I--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think we only just mentioned A right
now.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But I did give disclosures --
MR. BELLOWS: No, they're both companion items to be heard
simultaneously.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So we can do both, okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, great.
MS. STUDENT: If you wish to say on A, my disclosure's this,
and on B my disclo -- that would clarify it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We can roll it all together
because it's almost the same. Many, many meetings, correspondence,
emails, phone calls. My contact with this goes back two and a half,
almost three years ago.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My disclosure still remains the
same for both A and B. It was meetings on each of these and emails
on each of these and talking to staff on each of these, A and B.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I received some correspondence
from Waterways and Orangetree on A and B, and they're in this file if
you'd like -- anybody'd like to review.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have had meetings with the
Page 153
November 16,2004
petitioners, I have emails that are contained in my files, I've also met
with staff concerning both these issues.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. And I, too, have
-- I have had meetings and emails, I've talked with staff, and I have
them all in this file for public viewing if they wish to see.
Thank you very much.
MR. BELLOWS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Before I let
the -- turn it over to the applicant to present the petition, I just would
like to clarify the record, that item 8B, which is the amendment to
Orangetree PUD, the only purpose for this petition is to less out or
eliminate the 616 acres so it can be rezoned to the Orange Blossom
Ranch PUD. There's no increase in the number of dwelling units
associated with that amendment.
And now I'll turn it over to the petitioner.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. For the record, I'm Wayne Arnold
representing Bryan Paul. I'd like to introduce you to the team that we
have working on the Orange Blossom Ranch and Orangetree PUD
amendments.
With us today I have David Schmitt, special engineer from our
office ofQ. Grady Minor and Associates, we have Tony Piers who
represents Mr. Paul, we have Rich Y ovanovich who represents our
contract purchaser, Pulte Home Corporation, we have Reed Jarvy who
did the traffic analysis for our project with Vanasse, Dailer, and I
believe Rich McCormack is back there in the rear of the room with the
Pulte Home Corporation. And I think that is everybody on our team.
Mr. Paul -- I don't know if all of you have met Mr. Paul. Some
of you do know him, but he's in the audience as well.
As Mr. Coletta reminded us, this does go back for several years.
There have been a couple of comprehensive plan amendments that
were initiated by Mr. Paul on this property. The last amendment was
approved unanimously by county commission back in 2003, which put
in process this opportunity for us to come forward on today's rezoning
Page 154
November 16,2004
for the Orange Blossom Ranch PUD, and, in fact, it provides for us to
go forward in the settlement area, as this is known, to rezone the
property and ask for the residential, commercial, and community
facility uses that we're seeking today.
This does go back for several years in the sense that we have
worked through the various committees that have been involved in this
area. This portion of the county falls uniquely under the Golden Gate
Master Plan area. It also falls under the future land use element of the
plan known as the settlement area.
We worked with the Golden Gate Restudy Committee over the
past couple of years. They endorsed our project and heard, from
several occasions, from us during their process. We did make a
presentation to the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association during the
Growth Management Plan process and the rezoning application
process that we're here for today.
I think we've heard nothing but positive feedback from both of
those groups, especially with respect to the fact that we have a 44-acre
and 200, OOO-square- foot commercial component that seems to be very
welcomed by that part of our community.
We had a neighborhood informational meeting that's a
requirement element of our rezoning process. I think we had six
people that were in attendance at that meeting. I think we heard no
negative comments at those meetings. We did talk with some of the
residents from Waterways.
I know that Mr. Paul has continued dialogue with certain
residents at Waterways regarding the proj ect as we've made our way
through the process over the last 18 months.
The planning commission heard this item last month,
unanimously approved this 8-0 vote. There was one registered
speaker from the public from Waterways, and Amy Taylor,
representing the school district of Collier County, was also there to
speak, and those were the only two speakers that spoke on that proj ect.
Page 155
November 16, 2004
Again, Mr. Paul has worked very closely with all the residents in
this area. I know that he's attended a couple of the government day
activities that have occurred out and about Orangetree, and he's been
involved extensively on what is now the orange grove portion of this
property .
A little bit of the history that some of you are well aware of, that.
Collier County School District purchased about 135 acres, which is
shown in this location. That's the new high school that has been
constructed. That photograph, not quite a year old, shows it's still
under construction. But that property was acquired from Mr. Paul for
the high school.
About a year ago Collier County utilities acquired a little over
210 acres for property that's immediately adjacent to the fairgrounds,
which is about 200 acres running east/west behind the fairgrounds in
an area that's connecting the school board property with the county's
property that runs on the west side of that lake, and that was acquired
for the future water and wastewater facility that Collier County
utilities will be constructing out in this area.
The remainder of property that is owned by Bryan Paul is
highlighted on the master plan, but it consists of roughly a 97 -acre
lake parcel, about 44 acres of commercial that we're proposing on the
property, and then the balance is proposed for residential community.
Thank you, Mr. Mudd.
The property does span both Oil Well Road to the north and
south. There's about 165 acres that lie on the south side of Oil Well
Road. And, again, we're now bounded by the county to the north and
the school district to the west, and what is known as Valencia to our
southwest that's part of what is now Orangetree.
I have an exhibit that I can put on here that shows more detail of
the master plan itself. Thank you. And I guess of primary --
something that stands out primarily on the plan is the lake parcel that
you see on the top left portion of the page. Again, that's about a
Page 156
November 16, 2004
90-acre lake inside of what's approximately a 97-acre parcel of land.
You see Oil Well Road that separates the two pieces, north and
south. I have a 44-acre commercial that's shown in orange. We've
highlighted where our internal recreational amenity tract would be for
the residential component. And again, you have about 165 acres south
of Oil Well Road.
The community facility parcel, as we've called it, which is the
lake parcel, is to be transferred to Collier County. The document
presently grants us community and regional park impact fees. The
land itself -- being transferred to the county. It's approximately 97
acres -- has a substantial value from the real estate standpoint.
Probably in excess of $4 million for the lake parcel itself that is
proposed to become a county park.
And there's specific language. We've talked to Marla Ramsey
over the last year or so. Started out with John Dunnuck prior to Marla
in discussing this opportunity.
Another primary feature of the project, we've been working with
your Collier County transportation staff, and we've provided for 100
feet wide of right-of-way reservation for future Oil Well Road
improvements. It's expressed at 75 feet on the north side of Oil Well
Road and 25 feet on the south side of Oil Well Road. That
right-of-way reservation is approximately eight-and-a-half acres of
land. And, again, based on land values in this area, it's in excess of
$400,000 for that reservation area.
The commercial tract, again, it's 44 acres. We've made provisions
in there for a wide range of commercial uses, and much of that is in
response to our dealings with the community over the last year or so in
that there is a huge desire to have a commercial shopping center that
can house and support what would probably be a grocery store anchor
type center, so we've made provisions for that.
We've made provisions for other offices for general offices, but
also some of the uses that range towards C-5 that would be for
Page 157
November 16,2004
contractor offices, electricians and things like that, people we've heard
who are now presently driving all the way into the urban area to pick
up service vans and things of that nature that could otherwise come
and conduct business in the Orangetree area and then service the
growing estates community as well as the Orangetree/Orange Blossom
Ranch area.
The other provision that we've made in an agreement to gain
access to the future county park site, we've made a provision for there
to be a 60- foot wide easement that would connect Oil Well Road to
the lake parcel, and that would be deeded as an easement across the
property for public access and that there would be no impeding the
public's access to the lake parcel through our project from Oil Well
Road.
The other feature of our project we have and have recognized the
fact that our neighbor is the high school to the west. We've provided
for two interconnection opportunities with the high school in
cooperation with them, and we've talked to them about making some
other adjustments to their access point on Oil Well that may benefit
several property owners in the area.
In working with your utility staff, we've also identified five
future wellfield sites that would service the future water and sewer
facility north of this. We've provided for three of those potentially
along the existing lake. We've made provisions for two of those to be
located on our commercial tract or adjacent to the commercial tract in
locations that are shown in sort of the north portion of the commercial
tract.
Again, we have five wellfield sites in total that are shown there.
I think over the course of the past couple of years, we've had a
multitude of issues that we've worked through with staff in something
that has been fairly complex in its creation, removing the portion of
this project from Orangetree and becoming its own PUD, and I think
that we've done a very good job of trying to address and resolve issues
Page 158
November 16,2004
as they've arisen.
I think that your staff report and executive summaries reflect very
clearly how we have dealt with many of these issues, and I think the
PUD document that you have before you identifies each and every one
of these requests from the county. As far as I know, we have no
outstanding issues that need to be resolved as any form of
disagreement with your staff.
I think that it's important to say that this general area is in an area
that is, you know, primed for what is occurring today. We have a
middle school, an elementary school, we have a high school. We have
a future utility site for Collier County, we have fairgrounds, we have
the agricultural extension office out here. There's a lot of critical mass
with respect to governmental facilities and infrastructure that are
supportive of a residential community.
And I think in this particular context, we've done the job of
taking our time, and we've been in this process for almost a year and a
half on a project that has no environmental issues. It's all an orange
grove today, with the exception of the lake.
So we've taken our time trying to do it the right way, and
hopefully the product that we've brought forward today is responsive
to what the county commission needs to see. We believe it is
responsive to what staff has requested that we do over that year and a
half.
That's sort of my summary that I can provide. We have the
various team members who can respond to any of the questions that
you may have that are specific to an issue that I didn't address.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. While you -- as you finish and
before we have staff up here, we'd like to let the court reporters
change places.
Page 159
November 16,2004
(Continuation ofBCC for 11-16-04.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We're all set.
MR. ARNOLD: Great. Thank you.
I was just reminded that -- two things that I should have said for
you that I did not, and one was to really summarize a couple of things
that occurred at the planning commission.
There were -- in response to the two speakers that were there, one
of the Waterways residents talked about some of the concerns and
questions they had involving traffic and how traffic would have been
managed long term.
We've I think successfully dealt with those issues. There were
some modifications made, based on the planning commission
recommendations. Those have been incorporated.
And then secondly, there were issues that were raised by the
school district. And what occurred from that discussion was we
identified and added language to the PUD document that gave the
school district the opportunity to seek a new 20-acre site on what is
our residential component of the project. There were limitations.
Commissioner Strain, at the planning commission I think led the
discussion on this, but there was a request by the school district to
have school facilities permitted throughout our residential component.
From our perspective, Mr. Paul had worked extensively with the
school district over the past couple of years. He has no problem
continuing that dialogue and discussion, but as a land developer comes
along, they need a little bit more certainty with where and how a
school facility could be operated and located. So it was restricted to an
area not to exceed 20 acres for a school located on the north side of
Oil Well Road and adjacent to it.
So it narrowed that focus down between the commercial
component and then eastward toward the canal, and that was sort of
what occurred at the planning commission.
Page 160
November 16, 2004
I know you're going to hear from both of those speakers, so I
wanted to make sure I at least dealt with that issue.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Staff?
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, Manager of the
Department of Zoning and Land Development Review.
Staff has reviewed this petition for consistency with the Land
Development Code and the Growth Management Plan in regards to
transportation, environmental, open space requirements.
The -- as you noted in the staff report and the executive
summary, the comprehensive plan noted their settlement agreement
for Orangetree that specified a certain number of dwelling units that
were vested, 2,100.
The petitioner is now requesting to rezone 616 acres to allow for
an additional 1,600 dwelling units and 200,000 square feet of
commercial uses.
As noted in the executive summary, this is consistent with the
comprehensive plan.
The transportation department has reviewed the traffic impact
study and has recommended approval, subject to additional
right-of-way.
I have been working with Bleu Wallace concerning water and
sewer. The Orangetree Utilities has committed to make water and
sewer improvements.
There's also plans for a future county utility on-site, as the
petitioner has indicated.
I also have Bleu Wallace here to answer specific questions about
water and sewer capacity for this proposed expansion.
The environmental review indicates there were no problems
because the site was previously cleared for agricultural purposes.
The Collier County Planning Commission recommended
approval, and -- subject to conditions that the petitioner has agreed to
and has incorporated into the PUD document.
Page 161
November 16, 2004
I'll be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: First we'll hear from our speakers. We
have two speakers.
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am. Jake Sullivan. He will be followed
by Amy Taylor.
MR. SULLIVAN: Good afternoon. It's been a long day, so I'm
going to be very brief.
I represent -- my name is Jake Sullivan, I live in Waterways of
Naples. I'm president of the homeowners association there.
We're kind of between a rock and a hard place here, because we
really want, as the petitioner has said, this 200,000 square feet of retail
and office space. I mean, we are in dire need of some of that service
out there.
Right now we have to travel five and a half miles one-way trip to
get to the closest Publix on a, as you all know, traffic-choked road.
Not only that, it's going to provide jobs for our kids that are going
to school out there, older adults that are looking for part-time work,
things like that.
But there's two concerns that we have, and I think they can be
addressed. And I've talked to Commissioner Coletta about this. And,
you know -- but they need to be addressed.
One of our concerns is the widening of Oil Well Road. We really
would like to see a move to accelerate that proj ect. I believe right now
it's not going to be until 2007 until we get to some actual drawings on
a piece of paper.
The other concern we have is the utility, which the petitioner has
said that, you know, Bleu Wallace is on top of this. You know, we
just want to make sure that there's enough capacity or that there will
be enough capacity to handle an additional 1,600 homes and 200,000
square feet of office space, with the potential now, I understand, of
maybe a school or something on 20 acres inside the project.
As you probably are all well aware, we're having our -- we're
Page 162
November 16, 2004
trying to iron out our differences with the utility out there right now.
And -- but it is a concern. The water quality and whether or not the
level of service will drop or not is a concern to many of our residents.
And that's about it. Like I said, we are very much in favor of this
proj ect, because we do want the retail space, but we need to have
those two items addressed, we think. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Amy Taylor.
MR. MUDD: While Ms. Taylor comes up, just to address some
of the issues about the road. We're having some conversations right
now with Ave Maria University. They might be willing to do a public
partner -- a public/private partnership with us in order to expand Oil
Well Road.
Part of this road right-of-way is important, and also the road
right-of-way to the east of this particular property. And I believe -- I
believe Pulte Homes owns it, but we'll have a conversation about that.
And that should bring all the right-of-way into the county. And that
particular juncture, we can make that agreement and hopefully speed
up the actual construction of that road.
The expansion of the Orangetree utility, their permits have been
pulled. And they're supposed to -- and we've gone through that. The
water part's supposed to be on line December of 2004. The expansion
in the sewer part will come on-line in the fall of 2005.
Your county facility that's north -- that land that was out there
that was described to you at the beginning, that plant sewer will come
on-line 2009, water will come on-line 2010. Build-out for that utility
plant will be 20 million gallons water, eight million gallons sewer.
MS. TAYLOR: Good afternoon. My name is Amy Taylor. I'm
the long-range planner with the school district.
And first off, I would like to extend my support for this project as
well. The school district is in support of wonderful projects like this,
are very grateful to Mr. Paul and how he has worked so closely with
the school district on meeting the needs of the Golden Gate area
Page 163
November 16, 2004
number of students.
We anticipate that we will need another -- at least another
elementary school in the Orangetree area as it exists now, and would
need one as these -- definitely as these new units are added to that
particular area.
So we appreciate your support and your long-term support over
our -- meeting our capacity needs, just as you would evaluate your
own needs for roadway capacity and so forth. And we hope that you
will follow the planning commission's recommendation. Thank you
very much.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And with that, we'll close the
public hearing for not only 8(A) but 8(B). Very good.
And I had some questions, and I see Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, you can go first.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. I have a number of questions,
and --let me first make sure I understand what this really is.
We already have 2,100 dwelling units and we're adding another
16. So that's 3,700 dwelling units, right? That's kind of larger than
Heritage Bay is, isn't it? Yeah.
And so that's the one thing -- I want to make sure everybody
knows, we're talking about a huge project. We're not talking about
something small.
And I notice back here in the paperwork, first of all, the
neighbors are expecting commercial and retail, they really wanted to
see that. I understand that, I think they should -- I would want them to
have it, too. But hidden away in here, they've changed -- they've
changed some of the uses to allow hotel and motel in that commercial
district.
And I notice, myself, when we've gone and approved something
because we've been painted a great picture, just as you have, "oh, now
we're going to have the retail we've always needed," but it also
Page 165
November 16,2004
includes hotel and motel, and boom, the retail's out and all of a sudden
you get a hotel and they say well, we had that approved, you know.
I just want to make sure that there's something in here that makes
sure you get the commercial and retail that you want and not a
hotel/motel in its place. I just want to protect you with that.
And the second thing I wanted to talk about was also tucked
away in here nicely, right near industrial -- rather, I'm sorry, right near
residential communities, they've also approved -- they've also
approved earth mining. And I'm thinking, how could you put earth
mining in -- you know, in part with the residential? That made me
very, very nervous. So that's my second question.
Third question I have is what is a sanatorium? I'm not sure. It
says stationery store, supermarkets and sanatoriums. I'd like
somebody to tell me what a sanatorium is.
Again, here's a maximum density for motel/hotel, transient
lodging up to 26 units per acre. So those were a couple of the
questions.
My next question is, with 3,700 units, they're sure going to need
a huge work force to work in that community. And I want to make
sure that there's some work -- that there's a work force housing
component written into this thing so we don't have to be bringing the
work force from out and overloading those roads that we're just trying
to protect right now. We're talking about Oil Well Road, we're talking
about the roads leading to this thing. We have to make sure these
people can work and live -- or can live close to their place of
employment. I want to make that sure there's a work force housing
component.
And as we talk, I understand this is going to be sold, this
property, once it's approved or not approved, it's going to be sold.
And I want to make sure that whatever we decide today impacts the
people who buy it.
And also, you know, coming along -- we want to make sure that
Page 166
November 16, 2004
there's adequate water.
I think those are -- those are right now my major concerns. Let
me just make sure that I have everything here. Yes, okay, I do.
So at some point in time I'm going to need some answers on that.
Would you like to do that now?
MR. ARNOLD: Commissioner Fiala, I will try to respond. One
of the things I noted, your reference to sanatoriums. That appears in
the existing Orangetree PUD document. We were trying hard not to
modify things that we don't control, since we don't control that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: What is a sanatorium?
MR. ARNOLD: I'm not certain I--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I mean, it sounds like sanitarium, but I
don't think it is a sanitarium. But what is a sanatorium? I thought we
ought to know what we're -- what we're permitting in here.
MR. ARNOLD: Well, it is permitted today, and that's -- that's I
guess what I'm trying to be more clear.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But maybe we could delete it if it's
something that might not work into this neighborhood very well. But
I want to know what a sanatorium is. Anybody know?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's a place where you commit
commissioners who have to spend a day talking about this.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'd better protect them.
Okay, wait till I kick you under the table here.
MR. ARNOLD: And Commissioner Fiala, one of the other
questions you had was about hotels. I just got the okay from Mr. Paul.
If that is a concern or sore spot with any of the commissioners, he's
willing to concede that use in his Orange Blossom PUD.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, great. So we can remove that?
MR. ARNOLD: You can remove that, yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Period.
MR. ARNOLD: And I guess just to clarify the earth mining
question --
Page 167
November 16,2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MR. ARNOLD: -- I don't know which page you were looking at,
but there are provisions in the existing Orangetree that make
provisions for earth mining activities. And then we have in our
Orange Blossom Ranch project provisions for there to be commercial
excavations, but it allows us to transfer fill material, for instance,
across Oil Well Road without that being considered off-site material,
just so that we could have fill balance for our 616-acre site, to move it
back and forth.
So I may be misunderstanding the comment, but I think from the
standpoint of us being a commercial fill operation, that is not our
intent. And if it's expressed that way, I'd like to modify that language
so it's clear.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. It just makes me -- when they
mention residential and earth mining right next door to one another,
that gives me great concern. And I wanted to make sure that there's
some provision to protect those future residents in there, because they
can't protect themselves now.
MR. ARNOLD: Exactly. Like I said, as a necessary part of
most land development, there are excavations for the lake systems that
will be there, but it's not the intent of this application to be a long-term
earth mining --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But it says earth mining.
MR. ARNOLD: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I mean, you know, it --
MR. ARNOLD: And if we need to modify that to say
excavation, or however it makes everybody comfortable, that's fine,
because that was not our intent.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That would make me comfortable if it
said "excavations for this proj ect." I could handle that.
MR. ARNOLD: Okay. Great, thank you.
You asked another question about work force housing and price
Page 168
November 16, 2004
points.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MR. ARNOLD: And I was looking up your other reference on
sanatorium, so I didn't catch all of your comments. But I know Mr.
Y ovanovich represents the contract purchaser, and --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Did you find out what a sanatorium is?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I could tell you what a sanatorium
IS.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: What is it?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: A sanatorium --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I don't want the same answer as last time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, no, no. A sanatorium is a
facility that offers a regimen of treatment for the acute -- for chronic
illnesses and for rest and recuperation.
It's perfectly applicable for county commissioners. But that's
what a sanatorium is. And if you're planning some kind of treatment
facility for the chronically ill, or a rest and recuperation facility, then I
think the people should know about that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's not in our PUD, is it? Okay, it's not
in the Orange Blossom Ranch PUD, it's in the existing Orangetree
PUD. So the 660 acres that are coming out will not have that use
allowed. So the new commercial area will not have that use allowed.
If you need --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So you can guarantee me that that will be
struck also?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I can't -- did we give it up in the
old Orangetree?
We don't -- I guess, for the record, Rich Y ovanovich. We don't
control the commercial property in the old Orangetree PUD, so we're
not authorized to strike that provision in the old Orangetree PUD. We
can guarantee you that it will not be included in the new Orange
Blossom PUD, PUD.
Page 169
November 16,2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So in all of the acreage we're talking
about in A and B, 8(A) and 8(B), there -- the hotel/motel will be
eliminated, the sanatorium will be --
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, let me make a clarification
agaIn.
MR. MUDD: Hang on. 8(A) is the divorce.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I understand that, but they're talking
about old PUD and new PUD. I want to make sure that --
MR. MUDD: 8(B) is where you want to have that particular
language put in. 8(A), they can't do it. They just need to divorce
themselves and break apart that PUD and get themselves weaned off
of it. It's 8(B) where you want that stuff to put in there.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: As long as it's put in here to protect all of
the properties, the 3,700 dwelling units that we're talking about in
here.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows.
On the Orangetree PUD, we're only lessing out the 616 acres.
That's the property they own and that's the only ability they have to
amend the PUD. They can't amend other people's prop--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So that's the only piece we're
talking out, nothing else, and so that's -- everything in 8(A) and B only
addresses those 660 acres --
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- is that what you're telling me?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And on the 660 acres, you're building
3,700 units?
MR. MUDD: No, 16, 1,600.
MR. BELLOWS: No, only 1,600. The remainder is in the
currently approved Orangetree PUD.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. BELLOWS: I'd just also like to point out staff is reviewing
Page 170
November 16,2004
an amendment sponsored by a different property owner within
Orangetree to amend the Orangetree PUD, and we can address your
concerns about sanatorium uses or any other uses in there when that
comes before the board. And staff will work with them to eliminate
some of those uses that are not deemed consistent or compatible
today.
But that will be coming before the board maybe sometime after
January.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And the most important thing to
me really was with the commercial component, being that the
neighbors are looking forward to having retail and commercial, I
wanted to make sure that that doesn't translate into hotel/motel instead.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And you can assure me of that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And yes, on that 40 acres there'll be no
hotels or motels and no places to treat Commissioner Coyle.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You put it right. That's my vote.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, I don't think you got a --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I didn't get my answer --
MR. MUDD: -- you didn't get your answer to the work force
housing.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- to the work force housing. Yeah, that's
right.
Thank you.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. Again, I'm -- we are -- we are a
price points. In today's dollars are 170,000 for the town homes and
220 for single family. That's the market we're going for, so that will
address the work force. The work force. It doesn't address affordable
housing, but it addresses work force, people who are, you know,
teachers and people who are going to be working will be able to afford
Page 171
November 16, 2004
this community.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You think teachers can afford a $170,000
home, huh?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I don't think that addresses work force at
all.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It doesn't address affordable, but it does
address the work force.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Y eah. You have to both work, and then
people criticize them because they leave their kids at home unattended
because they have to earn a living to pay for the price of a house.
No, I don't think that that's enough. I think that there ought to be
a component in there to take care of the work force that's going to be
waiting on the people in the commercial and in the retail.
And I'm going to be going for that before we vote. I'm just
letting you know. So come and think about it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's go with what we got and
what we're going to get to, before we start off on trying to tear
something apart of this size.
I need the petitioner right now. Unless Mr. Wallace, did you
have something you want to add that --
MR. WALLACE: For the record, Bleu Wallace, and I have been
sworn.
Commissioner Fiala had one issue about water. And I wanted to
assure her that at a Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority
meeting that was on October the 25th, the customers and the authority
aired some of the issues that the customers are having with this utility.
One of them was capacity on water.
They will expand their 425,000 gallon a day water plant to
750,000 gallons by next month. So that will come into play. And this
was placed on the record by the management of Orangetree. And you
did mention you wanted to make sure about water.
Page 1 72
November 16, 2004
And also, they do have an expansion for their sewer plant
planned for 2005.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And this will all be in time to
accommodate these homes, right?
MR. WALLACE: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Also, too, a certificate of
adequate capacity will have be issued for each home. So if something
terrible goes wrong, you can't issue a certificate, you don't get your
CO.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Correct?
MR. WALLACE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct. So you got that
covered. I mean, it's -- the builder's a little bit at risk, but everything
else comes together. They can't go ahead and overload a system
because of that adequate capacity has to be available.
Could the petitioner come up for just a second?
In order for something -- this thing is something that I've been
personally looking at now for about three years. I -- so I want to get a
couple of things cleared up right now, just so there's no
misunderstanding.
The lake, the 97 -acre lake, that lake that's filled with bass, a
beautiful thing that it would be for our residents to be able to fish in,
that they could access from the fairgrounds or from the school
property. Hopefully where the bus barn was going to go, we can end
up with that as a park.
Is your client willing to succeed (sic) ownership of that to the
county so we can use it for a public facility?
MR. ARNOLD: The 97-acre lake parcel?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's not asking for much.
MR. ARNOLD: There he is, right there. I didn't see -- he moved
since I started my presentation.
Page 1 73
November 16,2004
Mr. Paul is nodding his head in the affirmative. Yes, that is
something that we would do.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then this is going to be a
tremendous boon to the recreational fishermen of Collier County.
Also, this lake would be able to have a path around the whole thing so
the residents of Orange tree, Waterway, the new community that's
going to be taking place, they would be able to use it in the evening
for strolls or to jog.
Now, let's go to the road right-of-way, if we could, please.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if I can make one -- can I ask one
question?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir.
MR. MUDD: I want to make sure that your question is -- I
believe what you're asking, I want to make sure it's complete.
When he said he'd turn it over, you've got to make sure, is it
impact fee eligible? Right now it's turn it over to the county, but it's
costing the county Parks and Recs impact fees in order to get it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I expect the same rules to apply
here that applied at Heritage Bay, that we --
MR. MUDD: You expect it to come over to the county fee title
with no impact fees.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Without impact fees.
And I see you nodding your head. Did you want to speak to the
affirmative so we got it on the record?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir, Commissioner Coletta. I understood
that to be the case, and was noting that to myself.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, the right-of-way, we were
very successful in having the other developers in the area succeed (sic)
the right-of-way for Oil Well Road so we could go forward also for
drainage.
Your client is willing to turn that over to the county and not for
impact fee credits?
Page 174
November 16,2004
MR. ARNOLD: Since we started this process, we had originally
worked with the county on the right-of-way reservation, and it was
established so that we would receive payment based on the fair market
value the day prior to any zoning approval, so it would be based on
agricultural land.
As we negotiated the right-of-way reservation area, your staff did
some arm twisting and it's now written in there that we would gain
impact fee credits for that right-of-way reservation.
And I guess what I hear you asking is the same as with the lake,
are willing to concede that area to Collier County and provide title to
that at no impact fee credits.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the reason is very simple.
We're looking for the public -- in order for us to get that road to be
able to sustain the community, we have to be able to do it as soon as
possible. And if the economics enter into it, it may no longer be a
workable deal.
MR. ARNOLD: I understand that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let's ask Norm Feder to come up and tell
us of this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure. Mr. Feder?
This is going to take a few minutes, if you don't mind. I do have
quite a bit.
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, Transportation
Administrator. And I've been sworn in.
I will defer, if these gentlemen give you the answer that I'm
hoping they're going to give you, and so I can wait a second here, I
guess.
MR. MUDD: But if Norman had his druthers, he would like the
right-of-way without impact fee credits. He'd like it free and clear in
order to do it. And that's basically what we did with Heritage Bay on
that road, and --
MR. FEDER: Our discussions -- just to add to that, our
Page 175
November 16,2004
discussions initially were that they would be without impact fee
credits. Then when Oil Well was added to the long-range plan, based
on all the development going out there, the feeling was that that then
allows the possibility of credits for right-of-way, which is not what
we've done with Ave Maria nor Big Cypress. And our position is that
again we would not seek to provide impact fee credits for that
right-of-way for retention --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We have to be consistent with
everyone we're dealing with on --
MR. FEDER: About the stormwater retention and the
right-of-way.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. I guess, just for clarification sake, I
need to put on the record that we haven't heard comments from all the
commissioners, and our ability to go ahead and concede on these
points is based on, largely, the PUD that you have before you. I mean,
we are seeking 1,600 units and 44 acres of commercial. And there's a
point at which you sort of run out of things to give. I mean, the lake
itself is over a $4 million gift, and then there are impact fee credits
that were associated with that. And I just need to find out exactly
where we are before --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand where you're
coming from. And especially with the concerns that Commissioner
Fiala raised. I know that not everything is doable, that we're going to
get to a point where at some point in time something isn't going to
work.
I can tell you this: I've been working on this on for three years.
Mr. Bryan Paul walked in my office three years ago and he put his
map up on the wall, and what he was intending to do was build a golf
course community through the whole thing.
I took one look at it, and I realized that this missing piece to the
element was something we never considered when we worked on the
Golden Gate master plan in the past when I did it in 1991. We
Page 176
November 16, 2004
ignored the Orangetree/W aterways area for the simple reason that it
wasn't considered part of the Estates.
All of a sudden here was the missing element. You had an area
where there was no homes presently built where you could put
commercial and you wouldn't have the impact of residents that would
have to be moved; something you couldn't do through the rest of the
Estates without a tremendous amount of effort and time.
So it excited me. I said well, Mr. Paul, this is something that I'm
very interested in, but can you give this consideration for this to be
commercial. And Bryan said, you know, I guess so, you know, we
can certainly start looking at it.
So we started moving that idea forward. I can tell you one thing,
he'll make more money off residential than he would commercial.
You can turn that -- the land out there is unbelievably valuable for
residential. Commercial, it does have a value, but it doesn't correspond
the same.
So we're extracting quite a concession from him. And that
commercial is the reason why we have people from Orangetree here
today, and the reason why you have a number of residents that come
out in support of the whole project.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And that's why I wanted to make sure it
stayed commercial. And they would sure --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No -- and I appreciate it. I'll be
honest with you, I didn't catch it about the hotel/motel being as being a
possible deterrent to the whole thing. I'm glad you brought it up and
I'm glad that we got that stricken off. Because that's something they
could probably install a lot quicker than they can commercial.
So that leads us to the point where we can be a little bit more sure
of that being the kind of commercial that will benefit the residents of
the area. Plus it will provide jobs.
I'm not too sure how we can deal with this affordable housing
issue, unless we wanted to give up the lake. And believe me, I've
Page 1 77
November 16,2004
worked awful hard for three years for this lake to make it come to be.
I remember I had to fight off our utility at one point that wanted
to locate where the high school was going to go. The reason being is
that I thought the appropriate place for the high school was lined up on
Oil Well Road with the elementary and the middle school. The whole
thing started to make sense, plus it took out a block of land on the
other side of the lake. The other side of the lake we have our utilities
going on, and the far side of the lake we own that small strip and then
the fairgrounds is over there, which will allow access from that way or
another direction.
The whole thing's coming together in a manner that I find
acceptable, the residents of the area find acceptable. And there's a
couple of issues here that I just want to touch on real quick.
The roads -- we also have protection on the roads. Suppose
everything goes terribly bad, we might have a hurricane come in, and
all of a sudden our priorities have to change to rebuilding the coastal
area because of a major hit.
Okay, now meanwhile, what happens to this PUD that takes
place without roads? Well, it can't. We got checkbook concurrency
waiting to rear its ugly head at any moment in time when somebody
exceeds that magic mark. And that would happen. So we got
ourselves covered on it. This commission's been pretty complete on
how it's put it all together.
The right-of-way, they're going to give it to us, but they want to
make sure we're not going to exhort (sic) something else out of it.
Now, if we go and we demand the money for affordable housing,
then I assume we're going to have to use the right-of-way money for
the right-of-way or the credits for the impact fees on this road here to
make it all balance out.
So one way or the other, we're going to have to pay the piper on
it someplace.
I'm also concerned about the school system coming forward after
Page 178
November 16,2004
we have three schools in a row, and Bryan Paul went out of his way,
at a very good price, to sell the land to the high school.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But where are their teachers going to
work -- I mean live? You know.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Live -- right.
Orangetree/Waterways is a perfect community, or Bryan's project, for
teachers. That would fit them -- fit the bill perfectly.
But the whole thing is, is that if we put another school in the
middle of this project, I question the economics of that, you know. If
all of a sudden they have to dedicate 20 acres for a fourth school
within a mile, does that really make sense? I mean, you want to try to
put the schools closer to where the students are going to be.
So I -- that's something I want to leave open for discussion. I
really don't know where the school board's coming from, and I don't
really know if the petitioner is troubled by it or if it would cost him
something or if it's something open -- for the open market to decide a
price later that would be fair.
But the whole deal has to come down in such a way that it's
going to be agreeable for every participant to it. The way it's put
together at this point in time, thank God for you catching the
motel/hotel. I can back it myself, and when that time does come that
we exhaust the discussion up here, I'd like to make a motion for
approval of both A and B.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And did you -- you got all the answers
that you wanted --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, very --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- for all the questions?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- much so.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just want to -- one more time,
Mr. Feder, did I miss anything about the road? I know that's still
open. Before we make that final decision, we got to make sure that we
Page 179
November 16, 2004
got that cleared up as far as the impact fee credits go.
MR. FEDER: That's correct, sir.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are you sure he's finished?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Not really. I can go for another
10 minutes. Are you timing me today?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I'll let -- she has my watch
over there.
I have just a couple of issues of principle to go over here, and --
you know, it's my belief that Mr. Paul has been extremely generous in
working out the arrangements that Commissioner Coletta has
identified, and I would like to see -- find a way for this thing to go
forward.
But there are some things that trouble me, and I just need to
understand them a little better. What -- we have gone through a series
of legal challenges and/or settlements over a number of years on this
property that provided 2,100 units, vested units, as a density for this
particular property.
N ow we are dividing the property, and in doing so we're being
asked to more than double the density, because not only is there a
request for 1,600 additional units here, but it's my understanding that
the Orangetree PUD is coming in to ask for another what, four, 500
units? I get the feeling that I'm -- you know, we're being taken
sequentially through this process and that it's being broken up to avoid
the DRI review requirements.
And so I have a concern about whether or not this is true, is there
anything about this massive increase in density and the failure to
consider it under a DRI? Is there anything there that works to the
disadvantage of our community? I think we need to understand that.
And I suspect somewhere along the line somebody is going to
tell me that the action we take today doesn't really determine density,
to which I am going to say" garbage." It really does. Because we're
Page 180
November 16,2004
being asked to guarantee density. And how else could the owners of
the property make the concessions that we want without knowing
what the density is that they're going to get?
And I'm also going to be told, don't worry about concurrency,
because that comes later.
I just feel uneasy about splitting up property, doubling the
density and not having it all before us for consideration at one time.
Now, Ray, can you give us -- make me feel more comfortable
about this?
MR. BELLOWS: I'll try. For the record, Ray Bellows.
The question about whether this is a DRI and the aggregation
rule, it should be noted that the aggregation rule relates to ownership
of the land. Mr. Paul is the owner of the petition before you today.
There's another petition that you referred to, the property owner's
Roberto Bolt (phonetic). He will be submitting -- or will be
presenting at some point before this board that amendment that will
increase the number of dwelling units, increase the commercial square
footage.
Staff would have liked them to come together as one petition
before you at the same time; however, that was just not in the works
because of whatever conflicts they had between them. But the fact is
that it's not a DRI.
There is, as noted in the staff report, compatibility issues
concerning the comprehensive plan. And if you have specific
questions, I have David Weeks here from comprehensive planning to
go over that.
But given the fact that it's not a DRI, it's -- there's no prohibition
for either property owner, either Mr. Paul or Mr. Bolt, to ask for
increases in density -- you are right, they are increasing the density of
the project, as currently approved, if you just took Orangetree as
currently permitted.
And I have on the visualizer a chart that was prepared, and
Page 181
November 16,2004
basically it shows the currently approved PUD at a density of 0.77
units per acre. When you take both projects together, we'll have 3,700
dwelling units, and the density increases to --
MR. MUDD: 1.3 units per acre.
MR. BELLOWS: 1.3 units per acre.
So you are right, if you look at the currently approved PUD
boundaries of Orangetree, there will be a net increase in density, but it
is still consistent with the comprehensive plan; and therefore staff is
constrained from making any other recommendations concerning
density, other than we can look at compatibility of the types of units.
And we did that. And the units they're proposing are similar
compatible and the density of the subdivisions resulting from that will
be similar to what's out there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So the fact that we had a legal
settlement which said that 2,100 dwelling units was the maximum
density on this entire PUD --
MR. BELLOWS: Without them coming back in for further
approvals.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. So that legal settlement really
didn't mean anything.
MR. BELLOWS: Well, it does to the property owner. It
guarantees them a certain amount of units without having to come
back before the Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, let's take the last part.
Orangetree PUD is apparently coming in for an additional density
Increase --
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- that is not shown here.
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And it's going to push the total
density well above 4,000 units.
MR. MUDD: 4,402 units, to be exact.
Page 182
November 16,2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So they're looking for 700 more
uni ts.
MR. MUDD: 702, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right. I do understand
the DRI issue, okay, now.
Thank you very much, Ray.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thanks for bringing that to our attention.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've already had mine.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, Marjorie, I'm sorry, I didn't see you.
MS. STUDENT: Yes. For the record, Marjorie Student,
Assistant County Attorney.
I also wanted to point out for Commissioner Coy Ie that the
settlement agreement has the PUD appended to it, and the last
paragraph provides that it can be amended. So I just wanted to point
that out, that it wasn't necessarily cast in stone, because of that
provision in the Attachment B to the settlement agreement.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I'm still worried. Now we're even
getting to have a bigger area. I'm still worried about what's going to
happen in the traffic on those roads, especially with the work force
coming and going, if they're not going to be building any
owner-occupied homes under 150,000 to accommodate the people
who are working in the schools there, as well as the people in the
commercial or who even own the commercial, much less people
working in that area on other jobs.
And I feel that we must do that. We worked with the Heritage
Bay people, and they also understood that there needed to be a
component for their -- for the work force that didn't put an extra strain
on the streets. Because we're talking 3,700 units. But then if you don't
provide any work force housing, how many more people will need to
be traveling to that area and using those roads that we're not
accounting into this figure?
Page 183
November 16,2004
So I'm still -- I'm still concerned with that. I'm delighted to hear
about the motel/hotel. I'm delighted to hear about the change from
earth mining to whatever it was, digging or something.
MR. MUDD: Excavation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, excavation.
MR. MUDD: And no sanatorium.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, and sanatorium.
MR. MUDD: And no sanatorium.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think Commissioner Coletta was
before me.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Once again, I want
to point out that we have circumstances here that are a little bit
different. We're going to be approving these PUDs one at a time. It
sounds like a lot, but you've got to remember, we're talking about a lot
of acreage. But in order for us to get Oil Well Road completed, we
need to get the right-of-way, we need to get the concessions. We have
the residents of the area united in favor of it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Because there's commercial.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, because of the right-of-way
and the fact they're going to get the road done. Without this project
going forward, we're going to have a delay and probably a cost of
millions of more dollars to come back and buy the land, and then the
next person will come in and probably make the concessions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, but I want to work with these
people. I want to make sure it happens. But we're right now planning
for the future of this whole area, and if we don't plan it right because
we're just worried about one little component, if we're not thinking the
whole project overall, then we're doing a disservice to our community.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We are looking at every
component. You got to remember, too, when you compare it with
Page 184
November 16, 2004
Heritage Bay, the difference in count that these people are going
forward with and what Heritage Bay had is tremendous. There's no
comparison between the two with this element we're dealing with, as
far as the numbers go.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, this is so much bigger, right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, smaller.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No. That -- Heritage Bay is 3,450.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Richard, please, for just a
second. I think we need to get some sort of comparison of what we're
talking about in numbers.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The numbers that are being thrown out,
we're a 1,600 unit project. We're not a 3,700 unit project, we're a
1,600 unit project. The 2,100 is Orangetree. That's the other group
that's going to come before you and maybe ask you for more density,
maybe not ask you for more density.
I can assure you that this is not an attempt to work as a group to
get more density. Weare totally separate. We've got our issues to
make sure that they do their job right, as far as the utilities and go
(sic), all that. So we're not partners in trying to get more density.
We're a 1,600 unit project.
There's a lot of benefits: You know, the road right-of-way, the
97 -acre lake. I mean, there's a whole lot of things that are going to
serve, the commercial that's going to serve everybody in that area.
Plus the price points are relatively low. Are they affordable housing
price points? No. But they are lower price points for entry level
housing to give people an opportunity to get into the market.
But if you take it all together as a whole, the 97 -acre lake, the
right-of-way and the commercial opportunities, I think that this is
something that is really beneficial to the community, is going to serve
the Estates. It serves more than just us, it serves the Estates, it's a
tremendous benefit to the community, plus concurrency is going to
take care of all those other issues.
Page 185
November 16,2004
That -- you know, we cannot -- if we can't -- if the utility is not
there to provide water and sewer, we don't get a co. You know,
we've got to meet roadway concurrency. So we're there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I do hear concerns of
Commissioner Fiala. When it comes to affordable housing, it is
something that is a concern to every commissioner up here.
In Heritage Bay's case, what they did is -- Jim Mudd, help me
with this. They came up with -- how much money was it altogether,
just to draw some comparisons?
And let me go through this a little -- one time.
MR. MUDD: Go ahead, Ray.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I was the
principal planner for Heritage Bay.
Heritage Bay had two forms of affordable housing, because it
was a DR!. They went through the DR! regional planning process and
we required them to provide a certain number of affordable housing
dwelling units on-site.
And we also had a provision that if they did not reach those set
number of affordable housing dwelling units on-site, that they would
contribute monies to an affordable housing builder in Collier County
for off-site affordable housing. And it was a set number. I believe it
was 10,000 per unit that they didn't build -- for each unit they didn't
build on-site. But they had to have at least a certain maximum that
they had to meet. And I wish I could remember the exact number, but
it was --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 220 units.
MR. BELLOWS: Something like that, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 220 units. And they had a 3,450 unit
PUD -- or DR!, right? Yes, they did.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I also think that we also asked
them to provide, ifmy memory serves me right, about $450,000 __
Page 186
November 16,2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- to the --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Habitat.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- Habitat for Humanity.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, that's correct. And--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: To build across the street.
MR. BELLOWS: -- because that project was a DR!, we had
some certain regional impacts that the petitioner had to address. And
work force housing is a component of the DR! review process.
The petition before you today is not a DR!, and staff doesn't have
quite that leverage to work with in the -- for affordable housing. But if
you note in the PUD document, they do provide multi-family housing,
which is generally going to be less expensive per unit, the cost to
acquire that unit.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You mean only 170,000, versus 220?
MR. BELLOWS: It varies with the type of unit. And there's no
guarantee that there will be any built. It's just a use permitted within
the PUD.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, if each component had to provide
some type of housing -- and we talk about entry level. Now we're
talking about the young college kid that just gets out of school. But
they don't make a whole heck of a lot when they first come out of
school, but you'd be delighted to have them working in your
neighborhood, or the technician over at the hospital or, you know, the
teacher or somebody working over at Ave Maria. We need housing
for these people.
MR. BELLOWS: Definitely.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's go back through this again,
now. One more time. 1,600 is what we were looking at for this
project. What was it for Heritage Bay, 37?
MR. BELLOWS: 3,450.
Page 187
November 16,2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 3,450.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 3400, 50.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 3,450.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So about 40 percent of the total.
And what I'm looking at, though, is if we could back off what the
value of the lake is from that, then work backwards, see what there'd
be left for affordable housing. In other words, if the lake's got a value.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But they don't have to pay for the
affordable housing, all they have to do is either get somebody like
Mario Valle and have him build some in there or build -- build
whatever -- they're going to still make money on it, it's not like they're
gIVIng up money.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no, I agree. No, you got to
give up something to make this whole thing work. So I'm going back.
I wanted to try to find out the value of where we are with the lake, the
value where we are with the -- well, the right-of-way we got from the
other -- Heritage Bay, so that's almost a wash in itself. But let's go
back to what the value of the lake was. What was the value for the
lake?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Four million.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Twelve million dollars?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Four.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Four million, excuse me. Okay,
it was $4 million for the lake. All the concessions were made by
Heritage Bay, which would be 40 percent of the whole thing. We had
$4,500 (sic) that went to Habitat for Humanity, and the other
component, which was the 10 percent affordable housing element.
Was that what it was, Mr. Bellows? Help me with this. I'm trying to
find a value for this.
MR. BELLOWS: I didn't hear the question.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Heritage -- going back to
Heritage Bay, we know about the 4,500. It was another element to the
Page 188
November 16,2004
affordable housing part, and that part of the affordable housing
element was homes, what, on the premises or what? I'm trying to
recall what it was.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, it was --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And what was the value of that?
MR. BELLOWS: I don't have that information.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: If they build them and they sell them, it's
not like they're giving up their land or that it's costing them any
money, they're just adding that component.
MR. BELLOWS: There's a component --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You can't build affordable
housing unless you got the land at a price that's affordable. You've got
to come up with a concession similar to --
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, they had a tract of land that they were
setting aside for affordable housing. They didn't specify the exact
total of number of units that would be built on that tract, because they
were still in the process of working out the master plan design for that.
And so we made that other provision of providing off-site.
But there was a cost of giving up the land, there's a cost of selling
the units less than the market rate. They worked out an agreement
with --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would you say maybe the
whole thing was -- the 450,000, do you think we're talking about $5
million?
MR. BELLOWS: Without the exact numbers, I'd hesitate to
make a guess. But it sounds reasonable, but I don't have the exact
numbers.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, let's say $6 million, just
for comparison sake. I'm just trying to see where this all comes
together. And maybe there might be something that can be done with
impact fees that we were going to forgive, they pay and then they
divert the money to affordable housing.
Page 189
"-~,~._~~ - ,..*'...._..J,,_,,"'".__.
November 16, 2004
What it might take -- what it's going to take I have no idea at this
time. If we had 40 percent of $6 million, we'd have $2.4 million.
That's still considerably less than just the value of the lake we get. Of
course we also, from Heritage Bay, we did extract money for Parks
and Rec. in lieu of taking the lake there. And that was for how much,
Mr. Bellows, remember?
MR. BELLOWS: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Who's got total recall on this? I
think it was -- I'm sorry, I can't hear you.
MR. OCHS: 714.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 140?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 714.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Marla said 714,000.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 714,000. Okay. What I'm trying
to do is see where the balances are on this as far as that 60/40 percent
rule goes, breaking it down in such a way.
So that's about $420,000 to the 2.4. You're about $28,000.
You're still only half the value what the lake is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: While we're thinking out loud,
can some other people interject?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, let me just carry it one
step further, because, who knows, I might lose my thought along the
way, Commissioner Henning. I'll give it to you in just one second.
And forgive me for stopping for just a moment to go forward.
But if we weighed this backwards, suppose -- if you're looking
for money for affordable housing, give him the impact fees for the __
let him take the impact fees for the road, then convert -- have him give
money to affordable housing. Somewheres along the line there's got
to be a balance to this.
And I thank you very much, Commissioner Henning, for letting
me finishing that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I wasn't looking for money for affordable
Page 190
November 16, 2004
housing.
But Commissioner Coyle, you're next.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me try something here. I
understand that it's unfair to judge this particular petition on the basis
of what other petitions are likely to do. And I certainly wouldn't want
to do that.
But in the interest of proper planning, if we know these other
things are going to happen, then it's prudent that we begin to analyze
the potential impact upon the entire area.
And so let me try this. It's worth something to the community to
have commercial there. It has a positive impact upon traffic on the
roads, because you don't have people commuting long distance. It
provides people in the area to work -- or places for the people in the
area to work. So -- and the park is a wonderful amenity. It would cost
the county a lot of taxpayer money to buy a similar facility and create
a recreation area.
So maybe there's a good reason to increase the density or provide
the requested density here. But that leaves us with the issue of
affordable housing.
And I understand why it can be expensive for a builder to
allocate affordable housing in a community that he's designed
otherwise. But what's wrong with dealing with a mixed use
application in the commercial area? Because the lands isn't going to
cost you any more, you put the affordable housing on the second or
third floor or whatever. It's a concept that has worked rather well in
other areas. It works in the City of Naples, although affordable
housing is sort of irrelevant there. But in this location, it appears to me
that you could provide some reasonable affordable housing units in a
mixed use area and continue with most of your density as you've
proposed it.
So if that would meet Commissioner Fiala's concerns, maybe
that's a way of solving this problem.
Page 191
November 16,2004
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I ask, though, does anybody have a
number of units in mind? Because right now we're talking about __
right now, I mean, our quick calculations, if you include the $450,000
that went to Habitat, the 2.2 million buy-out you could do for Heritage
Bay, because they could pay 10,000 a unit, I understand, for the 220
units and not build them, and the 714,000 that went to Parks and Rec.,
you're about $3.3 million. And that project was 3,450 units versus
1,600 units. And it was a four-square-mile project. We're 600 and
something acres.
Then you throw in the fact -- so let's say that's whatever number
we are, maybe we're 40 percent of that number. You then -- you talk
about a lake that's worth $4 million, and you talking about road
right-of-way that's worth another four, $500,000. Our project is going
to give you more than Heritage Bay did with their affordable housing
requirements than we're going to give you, and we're much smaller.
We're 1,600 units versus 3,450 units. I think we are -- we're going
above and beyond what Heritage Bay did.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, the reason they gave us some
money for the lake is because nobody can access it, but --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But we're giving you a $4 million lake
that you can access.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right. And you don't even have to
maintain it, you don't have to do anything on the property, and you
wouldn't be able to build a house on it. And so it kind of works out
for both, I think. You know, you can certainly use it in your density,
but then once it's there -- you know, I think that that's a good thing. I
can't -- I'm just thinking of like -- I never thought of a number.
Hundred, hundred.
And I think Commissioner Coyle's idea is outstanding. A mixed
use. You accomplish something, you don't use a piece of your land at
all, and you can sell them or rent them or whatever you want to do,
and nobody's out anything.
Page 192
November 16, 2004
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't -- okay, now, can we have a
couple of minutes to think about --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- I mean, you got 100 --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We can take a break.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We can take a break.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Give yourself 10 minutes, okay?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. I appreciate that.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would everyone take their seats, please.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You are next.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I start?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You may.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The -- my concern is
we're doing legislation on the fly. There's rules and regulations that we
set for DRIs, you know, a mandate of, under Florida state government
and South Florida Regional Planning Council and the Board of
Commissioners.
To compare this one, this application, with a DRI, I think is
unfair because it isn't a DRI, but yet we're requesting elements that it
is a DRI. And if we do legislation on the fly, we're going to be here
for quite a few hours.
If we don't like the rules, then we need to change the rules so that
we're more conducive and government is more reliable in what we're
doing.
Now, I can tell you, Ave Maria is bigger than a D RI, and they're
required -- they will be required to put affordable housing in this area
of Orangetree, Golden Gate Estates and so on and so forth.
I would -- recognizing that we got not only a lake but well sites,
we have, you know, a reduced price for our water and sewer plant out
Page 193
November 16,2004
there. We have right-of-way at a cost of not of a rezone price, but
agricultural price. So --
MR. MUDD: He said they'd give us the right-of-way.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Give us the right-of-way. No
impact fee credits.
MR. MUDD: No impact fee credits.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So, you know, it's a good thing
that our staff has been working with the developers and Commissioner
Coletta on this. And I feel confident that Commissioner Coletta has
done the right thing, because I know that he cares about his
communities in his district. And he's worked hard with the residents
and the developer on this case.
So I'm going to support -- hopefully at this time Commissioner
Coletta would make a motion so that I can second it so we can
hopefully end this item. And then come back at a later time, if we
don't like our rules, and change our rules.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. But, you know, one of the things we
did was, for instance with Mirasol and Parklands and so forth, we
could see -- we were all very new, you and Jim and I were all very
new, and we could see that although we were only allowed to address
one PUD at a time, we could see what the impact was going to do on
Immokalee Road when they all gathered together. But the rules said
we couldn't consider anything else but that one.
We changed the rules. But it took us a long time to change the
rules. And meanwhile now they're going to be inundated with all the
traffic because we weren't allowed to address the situation as we knew
it should have been. I don't want to see that same thing happen here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you like the rules the way
they are?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I like the rules the way they are and I also
want to make sure that as we finish, we're planning for the future.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Well, let's stick to the
Page 194
November 16,2004
rules, then.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, we will.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's what our staff is
charged to do, is make sure the rules, being the growth management
plan, land development code, that they stick to our rules. And they've
addressed those. And I think they overaddressed them. And that's
fine, that's better for the public.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And all I'm asking is that they also
include a component for the work force that's going to be working
right there in their commercial or in the surrounding school area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understand that, but that's not
part of the rules, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It isn't not part of the rules. What says I
can't do that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It is -- if you do that, you need
to do that for everybody.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I'm gonna. Guaranteed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'm saying that is not a part
of the land development code or the growth management plan for
PUDs to provide affordable housing within their project.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think it is. So it's just a difference of
opInIon.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think that -- I will check
with staff to make sure that my understanding of the rules is correct,
and I encourage you to do the same.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And if we don't like what it is, I
think we need to bring something forward to change it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I tried to do that once, but I got shot
down.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. What we're getting from
Page 195
November 16,2004
Bryan Paul goes way back a long time ago. I'm going to do something
now that I don't know if he's going to be for or not.
Mr. Bryan Paul, would you please come up to the microphone?
If you don't mind. If you feel uncomfortable doing it, I won't force
you.
Here's a man that's given tremendous to the community, not only
here but over in Hendry County. I mean, he's helped with the
V 0- Tech, he's made commitments to do the right thing. He's got the
trust of just about everybody going just by the way he conducts
himself and the mannerism that he's done it.
Bryan sold the land to the school at a price that was unbelievably
low, with the idea that somewheres along the line people were going
to make things right.
Then they came to us for the sewer treatment plant. Bryan
stepped up again and sold another section of land. I mean, he didn't
give it away, but I'll tell you something, he gave it away at a price that
was unbelievably low.
Now, I'm not -- let me finish, Commissioner Fiala. I'm not going
to be able to support extorting one more penny out of these people.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, but I'm not asking for a penny. I
don't understand why you're against including this in -- I mean, they
just build some extra.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I got -- I'll tell you what, I
wouldn't mind -- well, let me finish where we are now.
Bryan Paul also, after everything got rolling forward -- and he
knew early on that I was going to be asking for the right-of-way and I
was going to be asking for the lake -- he also had county staff come to
him and beat him of out several well sites. And he gave them up.
They went over to the county, too.
Meanwhile, his size of his holdings are starting to get smaller and
smaller, what can take place, what can happen, what he can develop,
how he can make that final buck to be able to make everything come
Page 196
November 16, 2004
together in one piece.
Then we get him to put in commercial, where he originally
wanted to put in a golf course community, which would have netted
considerably more money to meet the needs of the community.
And now we're coming back and we're looking for something for
affordable housing.
Now we can -- I'll tell you what we can do. This is the eleventh
hour. I don't expect them to come up with another penny. I don't
expect them to alter their drawings in such a way to be able to try to fit
a residential above commercial and to try to draw this thing out from
scratch from beginning to end. It wouldn't be fair.
What we can do is we can pay a million dollars for the lake and
then they can donate that and they can put that towards the affordable
housing element. That's all I can suggest at this time. I think anything
else would be a travesty at this point, it really would be. I never had a
developer --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: What's wrong with affordable housing? I
just --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There's nothing wrong with
affordable housing. It's how you're going to get there from where we
are right now. The time to have addressed it would have been when
they came into your office and they talked to you --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I did.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- or way on in the process --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I did address it when they came into my
office.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The thing is, at this point in time
to try to add this element to this on the --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I told them to be prepared to talk about it
here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, they did talk about it.
And the thing is, it that if we're going to do it, we got to roll back on
Page 197
November 16,2004
something else. We got to say, okay, we're going to pay you for the
right-of-way, you turn around and donate that back. We can't -- we
can't take the --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You're sounding as though it's a hardship
for them to do this, to include this. This is something -_
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It would be.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- that they can sell, it's not that they're
going to lose any money. They add it to the top.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no, no. They would.
They'd take a hell after beating with the affordable housing. And I'm
sure they wouldn't mind doing it if everything else was different, if we
didn't get the lake where they had $4 million for work with, if they
didn't get the right-of-way where they could have used impact fee
credits. If all these things were in place where that went through it,
then affordable housing would probably fit in, as far as the money
goes.
Ifwe're going to do it now, let's roll back on something else as
far as concession. We can't expect them to make the concessions and
now something this small, say you will come up with 80 affordable
housing units.
I know this is probably going to cost a lot of work on the part of a
lot of people, but the thing is, is that at this point in time
Commissioner Henning's right, we can't rewrite the rules right from
zero. I mean, if there was not a concession made, if the public good
wasn't there, I'd say the hell with it, out the door, Charlie, we don't
need you, we don't want you. But the public good has been served.
You heard the residents of the community come up and speak about it.
You received dozens of e-mails speaking about it in favor of it.
And so at this point in time, if we condemn it it's going to come
back, and it will come back some other day, but I doubt seriously it's
going to come back in the --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So make your motion.
Page 198
November 16,2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My motion is for approval with
the stipulations that the lake and the right-of-way comes to us without
impact fee credits, and that other -- the other accommodations that are
in here. I understand -- oh, one thing I just got to touch base with.
My understanding in talking to Amy Taylor is that the school
element in there is a voluntary thing that can come up some time in
the future for 'a yea or nay on your part; is that correct? Okay, so
there's no reason to go back at that now.
Mr. Bellows, you have something to add on that?
MR. BELLOWS: I just want to make sure I was clear on all the
extra conditions. We eliminated hotels or motels.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
MR. BELLOWS: We're revising language dealing with
excavations within the PUD. The lake and Oil Well Road will not be
subject to impact fees.
MR. MUDD: No sanatariums -- sanatoriums.
MR. BELLOWS: And no sanatoriums.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sanatoriums.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No day spa.
MR. BELLOWS: That's all.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If that's part of your motion, I'll
second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I just have one question. Aren't we
supposed to get A first and separate the PUD from the other thing?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My understanding, we're doing
both in the same time. Marjorie?
MS. STUDENT: For the record, there should be two motions.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. My first motion would
be for approval of A.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any discussion?
(No response.)
Page 199
November 16, 2004
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: Okay, that's a 5-0.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then the second one
would be for B, the approval with the stipulations we just mentioned,
including the lake, the right-of-way, the striking from the PUD such
things as the hotel/motel, sana --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sanatorium.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- sanatorium. And was there
something else?
MR. MUDD: And earth mining is going to turn into excavations.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, earth mining.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Earth mining would be to use as
excavation for the project itself, not for sale.
MR. MUDD: Right, non-commercial.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll second the motion and
include in the second that the road right-of-way will be given to the
county at no charge.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think that's already in there,
but that's fine.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: With no impact fee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: With no impact fee. Same with
the lake.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All those are in there. All right,
I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
Page 200
November 16, 2004
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: Opposed? Aye.
And I will not vote for any PUD over 1,000 units again unless it
has some component --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We'll get it in early.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, I--
MR. ARNOLD: Commissioners, thank you all very much.
Item #8C
ORDINANCE 2004-75 - PUDZ-03-AR-3561, HIWASSE, INC.,
REPRESENTED BY ROBERT DUANE OF HOLE MONTES, INC.,
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A)
TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) TO BE KNOWN AS
THE HIW ASSE PUD TO ALLOW FOR A PROFESSIONAL
OFFICE, OR INDOOR SELF STORAGE, OR A COMBINATION
THEREOF FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF
LIVINGSTON ROAD, APPROXIMATELY ONE-QUARTER MILE
SOUTH OF PINE RIDGE ROAD (CR 896) IN SECTION 13,
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, the next item is 8(C). This item
was continued from the October 12th, 2004 BCC meeting. This item
requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
provided by commission members.
It's PUDZ-03-AR-3561, Hiwasse, Inc., represented by Robert
Duane of Hole Montes, Inc., requesting a rezone from rural
Page 201
November 16,2004
agricultural A to planned unit development PUD, to be known as the
Hiwasse PUD to allow for a professional office or indoor self storage,
or a combination thereof, for property located on the west side of
Livingston Road approximately one quarter mile south of Pine Ridge
Road, which is County Road 896, in Section 13, Township 49 South,
Range 25 East.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You again.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know. Like a bad penny.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Who's going to swear him in?
(Speaker duly sworn.)
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I was going to say, this project's been
seen by the board a few times.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And brief.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I was going to say, this project's
been seen by the board a few times --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have to -- we have to see if anybody
here has anything to disclose.
Let's start with Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I received some correspondence
on the compo plan amendment dealing with the access. Nothing on the
zoning of this property.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have had meetings with the
petitioner and with the residents in the area, people both in favor and
opposed to this development. I have correspondence, e-mails,
telephone calls, and they're all in a file here that's about an inch thick.
And I've also spoken with the staff.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Over the past year I've even
gone out to see the site and I've met with people in my office and on
this site. I've had correspondence, e-mails, phone calls, and I have a
huge packet here that is open for public display.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can ditto that one, everything
Page 202
November 16,2004
that Commissioner Fiala just mentioned.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have had meetings with the
petitioner, I've had correspondence with the residents in the area, also
e- mails and phone calls on this subj ect. So everything is listed here in
my packet and it's here for inspection.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good evening. For the record, Rich
Y ovanovich.
I think you all have seen this on many occasions, so the staff
report was pretty detailed.
This is the PUD that has been agreed to by the residents of
Kensington. The access has been moved off of Eatonwood Lane.
There's access on Livingston Road. Our ultimate hope and goal is to
get access shared with La Costa Apartments. Unfortunately, they've
been less than responsive to our request, so we're still having to show
access on Livingston Road.
This is the last piece in the puzzle to resolve everything between
Kensington and the owner of this property.
If you have any specific questions about the PUD -- I know
you've seen the compo plan amendment, so I think everybody is up to
speed on the proposed project. And at the late hour, I don't know that
I need to make a more detailed presentation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No. But let me stop you for one second
and say they just found a N extel telephone, in case it belongs to
anybody. Sue's just trying to race out in the hall, but in case it belongs
to you, she's got it. Thank you.
Brief ad.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Brief ad.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Anything from staff?
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I just wanted to
point out that the planning commission approved this by a vote of 6-0.
Everything else staff has found consistent.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
Page 203
November 16,2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm going to make a motion of
approval, but with the conditions as stated by the CCPC and the staff.
But I also need to ask a question, Rich. Did you or anybody else
ever receive any reply to my letter?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, sir. We have been continually trying
to call the owner of the La Costa Apartments to get them to follow
through on the agreement we had with them months ago, and we've
had no luck.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second the motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, I have a motion on the floor and a
second. A motion on the floor by Commissioner Coyle, second by
Commissioner Henning.
Commissioner Halas, you --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I just want to know, as it's --
the information that I have here in regards to this proj ect, there -- right
now there's no warrants in regards to a traffic light being put up at the
south end of this property, is it, or --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's actually the north end.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The north end, okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If and when we get access with La Costa,
there'll be a full median opening. And if the warrants are ever there to
put up a light, that is when we would be able to build our bank.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That's the only way you can
get the bank built is it has to have the warrants there for the light.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: There has to be a traffic light.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just want to know if the
motion included the recommendations from the planning --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, they did. I stated those, yeah.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, we have a motion on the floor and
Page 204
November 16, 2004
a second. 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, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's a 5-0. Thank you.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2004-351: APPOINTING MIMI WOLOK TO THE
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item is 9(A). It's appointment
of member to the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I motion that we accept Mimi Wolok for
Land Acquisition Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion and a second.
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.)
Page 205
November 16,2004
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2004-352: APPOINTING KENNETH R. RECH,
LEO F. RODGERS, AND RE-ADVERTISE FOR ONE VACANCY
==--ADillIED
MR. MUDD: Next item is 9(B). It's an appointment of members
to the Board of Building Adjustments and Appeals.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I recommend that we appoint
Kenneth R. Rech and Leo F. Rodgers as the two and readvertise for
the additional member.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's all right. We have a motion and a
second by Commissioner 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, like sign.
(No response.)
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2004-353: APPOINTING FRED N. THOMAS, JR.,
EDWARD (SKI) OLESKY, CLARENCE S. TEARS, JR., LEO F.
RODGERS, ESMERALDA SERRATA, GARY D. HOLLOWAY,
RAYMOND T. HOLLAND, AND MAXWELL L. PRESS AND RE-
Page 206
November 16, 2004
MR. MUDD: The next item is 9(C), appointment of members to
the Immokalee Master Planning and Visioning Committee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to make a motion that
we approve Mr. Thomas, Mr. Olesky, Mr. Tears, Mr. Rodgers, Mrs.
Serrata, Mr. Holloway, Mr. Holland and Maxwell Press, and then
readvertise for the other two positions that do not meet the criteria.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor and a
second by Commissioner Halas.
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 #9D
RESOLUTION 2004-354: RE-APPOINTING CHARLES C.
ARTHUR AND ALVIN D. MARTIN. JR. TO THE VANDERBILT
BEACH BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE-
.ADOEIED
MR. MUDD: Next item is 9(D), appointment of members to the
Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to nominate Charles C.
Arthur and Alvin D. Martin, Jr. --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- for reappointment.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor for
Page 207
November 16,2004
reappointment and a 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.)
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2004-355: APPOINTING RICHARD DAVID
PICKETT TO THE PUBLIC VEHICLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
==--ADillIED
MR. MUDD: Next item is 9(E), appointment of member to the
Public Vehicle Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion that we accept
Richard Pickett.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor to accept
Richard Pickett. Do we have a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second by Commissioner Coletta. Any
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.
Page 208
November 16, 2004
Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
Item #9F
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COMP PLAN
AMENDMENT CP-2002-02 BASIK DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
- MOTION TO BRING BACK FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE
MR. MUDD: Next item is a request for reconsideration of compo
plan amendment CP-2002-02, Basik Development Company. And
that's at Commissioner Coyle's request.
Now, I want to make sure as we talk about this that you
understand that there are some issues with trying to bring this back up
in our transmittal that we just sent to DCA.
If the board decides to reconsider this and bring it back, it would
be -- you need to give staff direction to bring this particular item in the
next compo plan amendment that we're going to send forward, because
right now community development's environmental services does not
plan to have an individual parcel compo plan until 2006 now.
So you would add this on to their next one as an addendum to it,
versus waiting till 2006.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And when is that next one?
MR. LITSINGER: Good evening, Commissioners. For the
record, Stan Litsinger, Comprehensive Planning Director.
We will be coming to you on January the 11th with a
recommendation not to have a private petition amendment cycle in
2005, due to your EAR amendment process.
I would tell you that from a staff perspective that we have
difficulties with the prospect of reviving this particular petition at this
time, outside of the compo plan amendment process. We're also
Page 209
November 16, 2004
concerned with the number of adoptions of compo plan amendments
that we're permitted statutorily per year. And also the very precise
comprehensive plan amendment process that is governed by state
statutes. And from a staff perspective, we would recommend that you
not bring this petition back at this time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And why would you recommend
that?
MR. LITSINGER: We are very concerned with the status of the
adopted compo plan amendment which is currently in the process of
compliance review at DCA at this particular time.
We do not know -- recommendation you're going to receive from
the county attorney relative to the time frames for reconsideration of
this ordinance, whether there would be a recension of the existing
ordinance that was adopted a couple of weeks ago, and how the
process would be reviewed from the standpoint of the submittal
requirements to the Department of Community Affairs, including the
public hearing process and the advertising requirements and the
procedural measures at each step to reconsider this particular
ordinance.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not sure I got a reason, but
okay.
MR. LITSINGER: We're not sure from the perspective of the
comprehensive planning process established by state statute, Chapter
163, Part 2, that that does not trump our local reconsideration
ordinance that you're going to hear about from the county attorney.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I guess my position would be if
we're uncertain about it, why don't we just do it and see if it gets
rejected? If it doesn't get rejected, then it's likely to be approved, and
our confusion will be cleared up.
But I haven't heard anybody give me a reason that says we can't
do it or we shouldn't do it. All I have heard is we are concerned.
Now, you know, I'm concerned just about everything we do here,
Page 210
November 16,2004
and if I didn't take action on things I was concerned about, we
wouldn't get much done.
And so what I would suggest is, unless it's against the law, that
we do this, and if it's challenged and if it's defeated, it's defeated, you
know, that's -- that's the way things work.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But would it have an effect on the
whole compo plan that we sent in?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I can't imagine how. But
nevertheless.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm waiting for somebody to tell
me something.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll tell you why I didn't bring it
forward myself and ask for reconsideration. Before this all took place,
we had an understanding how this was supposed to come together, and
we had the petitioner here, and his representative made all sorts of
apologies for things that he said and promised. They tried to get it
through without the concessions that we were expecting.
And then now that it's passed, they want to bring it back for
reconsideration. I think we're going to open Pandora's box if we have
everybody and his brother who got a negative vote coming back for
reconsideration and adding some little trinket to the whole thing.
We understood pretty much so it was going to be acceptable to
the commission and to the residents of the area. They failed to meet
that. N ow they want to come back and give it. I say they go back
through the process and we avoid the problem with someone coming
back later and asking for the same consideration, just by adding some
little part to it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: County attorney wants to say
something.
Page 211
November 16, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, David, I'm sorry.
MR. WEIGEL: That's quite all right.
Stan was kind of attempting to kind of move the focus over to the
county attorney in the legal opinion.
The reason -- one of the reasons of course you have the
opportunity to consider a motion to reconsider today is because in
reviewing the ordinance it does address to some degree the compo
plan, the reconsideration of the compo plan. And my concern, not
merely for the board but for everyone who comes before the board, is
they be afforded due process.
And so today's consideration --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It doesn't read that way.
MR. WEIGEL: -- of an agenda item is nothing more than the
fact that the board is providing the due process to the petitioner, in this
case, the petitioner denied at the last board meeting, pursuant to the
reconsideration ordinance.
And if the board determines by a majority of the members
present to go on to the next phase, which is a yes vote on a motion to
reconsider, then it merely goes to the next phase, which would be a
public hearing, advertised, for the December 14th agenda date.
And even at that date, the board then has the prerogative to see
the item anew in review, but again, as if it's new, and make its
determination, as it does in any reconsideration situation.
It mayor may not pass at that time. If it were not to pass at that
time, then I guess the matter is closed, in the sense that there's nothing
to transmit up to DCA.
But at the same time, in doing our homework on the fact that this
was coupled into a compo plan amendment cycle that has now been
already submitted to DCA, we checked with DCA, and the kind of
comment we got back was nothing telling us that it was absolutely
inappropriate. At the same time, not telling us that this was -- that the
reconsideration and addition of an item sometime later to a prior
Page 212
November 16,2004
submission might not be problematic.
My review of that is then is that well, if someone's out there who
wants to raise a challenge, I can't predict how the challenge would go
vis-a-vis the Department of Community Affairs. I can say, though, if
there were to be a challenge by the petitioner or someone else, I can
state very clearly that this commission, even by having this item
today, has given the petitioner due process.
Our outside counsel, Nancy Linnan of Carlton Fields, was
consulted on this, and as you know, they are experts in the area of land
use and work closely with the DCA, and they recommended that it not
go forward, but again, they can't say absolutely that it would be
problematic or catastrophic or some negative thing if the board
ultimately were to determine after a vote yes today and after a yes
vote on December 14th, that the submittal would be a problem in and
of itself, or would be a problem to our prior submittal of the package
that we did on October 26th.
So that's pretty much the background on it. We have provided
the petitioner, as we reviewed the ordinance, reconsideration
ordinance, an opportunity for due process, which is occurring right
now.
If the board determines to go forward to December 14th by
voting yes on a motion to reconsider, and a mere majority is needed
here for that, it will have to be advertised promptly to meet the legal
requirements for December 14th, and then at that point, again, you
hear everything afresh and can give an upper or no vote at that time.
I hope I've answered most of the questions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioners? Okay.
Do we -- what do we do from here, David? Do we just --
MR. WEIGEL: Well, if there's no further question, then you
have brought to you, and Mr. Coyle can state for the record a motion
to reconsider this agenda item, identifying the agenda item, and then
you may have discussion and a vote on that.
Page 213
November 16,2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'll make a motion that the
board bring compo plan amendment CP-2000-02, Basik Development
Company, back for reconsideration at the December 14th board
meeting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, I have a motion on the floor to
bring back this discussion at the December 14th meeting made by
Commissioner Coyle and a second by Commissioner Henning. Any
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
That's a 3-2 opposed.
MR. WEIGEL: Motion fails. The matter is concluded.
MR. LITSINGER: Thank you.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 2004-356: AND RESOLUTION CWS-2004-04 _
RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION BY CONDEMNATION OF
NONEXCLUSIVE, PERPETUAL UTILITY AND ACCESS
EASEMENTS FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT
OF THE EXISTING NORTH HAWTHORN WELLFIELD WATER
SUPPL Y TRANSMISSION MAINS ALONG THE CYPRESS
CANAL IN PROXIMITY TO WELLS RO 12N THROUGH RO 15N,
AT AN ESTIMATED COST NOT TO EXCEED $292,600,
Page 214
November 16,2004
EROlE.CT 700lil - A DOEIED
MR. MUDD: The next item is Item 10(A), and that's a
recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the acquisition by
condemnation of non-exclusive perpetual utility and access easements
for the maintenance and improvement of the existing North
Hawthorne well-field water supply transmission mains along the
Cypress Canal in proximity to wells reverse osmosis 12N through
reverse osmosis 15N, at an estimated cost not to exceed $298,600.
Project 700751.
And Mr. Roy Anderson, the Director of Engineering for Public
Utilities, will present.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second.
I have a motion on the floor to approve and a second.
Any discussion?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. I want to make one statement, okay?
The staff made a mistake on this particular item, and I think I've seen
every commissioner on this. I think legal has talked to you on this.
We got advice that we could put these in there based on the Big
Cypress ownership of the property. We found out they had an
easement, and this is basically to make the things right. We have
agreements with five of the seven landowners, okay, and two are
looking for condemnation in the particular issue in order to get the
purchase.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you for putting that on the record.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 215
November 16,2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's 5-0.
Item #10B
RECOMMENDATION TO ALLOW THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC
LANDS TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITIZENS OF COLLIER
COUNTY AS THE FACILITATOR OF THE PURCHASE OF 150 +
ACRES OF LAND FROM THE FLEISHMANN F AMIL Y TO
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item is Item 10(B), and it's to
recommend to allow the Trust for Public Lands to act on behalf of the
citizens of Collier County as the facilitator of the purchase of 150 plus
or minus acres of land from the Fleishmann family to preserve the
community gardens. And Ms. Marla Ramsey, Interim Administrator
for Public --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Caribbean Gardens, right?
MR. MUDD: What did I say?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Community.
MR. MUDD: I'm sorry, it's Caribbean Gardens. You're right,
ma'am.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It will be the community gardens.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's right.
MS. FILSON: And Madam Chairman, just so you know, I do
have a speaker on this issue.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MS. RAMSEY: For the record, Marla Ramsey.
I have before you a request to use Trust for Public Lands as a
facilitator to purchase. The request is coming to you from the blue
Page 216
November 16,2004
ribbon committee which was formed earlier this summer to look at
different types of scenarios as to what we could do with the land, as
well as to look at different funding sources.
And as part of that process the Trust for Public Lands made two
presentations to the committee to share some of the opportunities that
they can bring to the county in helping to negotiate with the
Fleishmann family a purchase price.
If you don't know what the Trust for Public Lands is all about,
they are a nonprofit national organization who have a solid history of
putting together large conservation land purchases.
One of the most recent large purchases that they have done have
been the Cypress Gardens in the center of the state, where they work
with both the local, the state and private entities in order to make that
a reality.
The Trust for Public Lands has worked with us in the past. They
have a very good track record of securing grant funds from the Florida
Community Trust. And staff feels that the last grant that we received
in large part was due to our partnership on that particular grant.
The Trust for Public Lands has a number of staff that can provide
to the county at no additional cost to us the opportunity to negotiate, to
do the surveying, to do the appraisals, to do a number of the due
diligence that needs to be done for the land purchase itself.
Every step of the transition that we would work with the Trust for
Public Lands and would be approved from the county, both from my
office, from real estates services, as well as the county manager, and
then before we even -- at that point in time then we would also come
back to the Board of County Commissioners with a contract that
would allow you to see what staff has done up to that point.
And so at this time I would like to entertain any questions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I was just going to make a motion.
But first, I think it's true that there will be no additional cost incurred
Page 217
November 16,2004
to the county for these services.
MS. RAMSEY: There is no administration fee associated with
the Trust for Public Lands. As you know, in any real estate transaction
there are costs associated with doing that, whether they be appraisal
costs, survey boundary, environmental service type of associated
costs. What Trust for Public Lands does is try to work with the seller
to pick up those costs so then they don't come back to the county
itself. And even if we didn't use Trust for Public Lands, we would end
up paying for 100 percent of that; in this case it might even be -- it
may be less than that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So bottom line is by using the Trust
for Public Lands, we might actually save money on the negotiation
process; is that a fair statement?
MS. RAMSEY: That's a fair statement.
MR. MUDD: Sir, I want to make sure that you say "might".
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Might.
MR. MUDD: Yes. Because--
MS. RAMSEY: Might.
MR. MUDD: -- the Fleishmanns aren't real forthcoming in
paying those particular salaries, okay, based on my conversations with
them.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute, salaries?
MR. MUDD: I'm sorry, fees or whatever the--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But if the Trust for Public Lands
was not involved, we would have to pay those fees for appraisals
anyway.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay? So I'm just comparing the
situation. If the county did it alone, it will be no more expensive if the
Trust for Public Lands did it for us.
MS. RAMSEY: That is correct.
Page 218
November 16,2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's no difference in cost. So
we don't incur an additional cost by involving the Trust for Public
Lands in the negotiation process.
And secondly, the Trust for Public Lands can be beneficial
hopefully in getting some additional grant money which might __
might reduce the cost for taxpayers.
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then under those
circumstances, I will make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I'll second that motion.
MR. MUDD: Can I make one statement? Everything holds true
with everything that you said. One thing that we've got to be very
cognizant of, and this was a conversation that I had with Mr.
Passidomo when I was on the phone here during -- around 2:00 this
afternoon. Basically says we've got to make sure that we don't get an
increase in cost, because the public -- the lands -- this trust buys the
property, pays all the title issues and goes through that whole process,
and then all of a sudden sells it to us and then we've got to go through
all that title business all again, okay? So he basically -- that was one
of the things that he -- and he is a real estate attorney, so he gave me
some information. He says, the one thing that he doesn't have an
answer for, and I didn't have an answer at the time that I talked to him
this afternoon, was that one issue.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, but, you know, that could be
an important issue. And so how do we get approval to proceed with
them if we don't have the answer to that particular question?
MR. MUDD: Well, if they're facilitating our purchase, okay, and
we're going to purchase it, then we don't have a problem.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Let's do it this way then:
Let's suppose the board gives you permission to proceed with the
Trust for Public Lands, contingent upon participation with the TLC
not costing us any additional funds. And then if you find out that
Page 219
November 16,2004
there are additional costs associated with it, you come back to us and
we talk about that, okay? Is that fair?
MR. CARRINGTON: May I add something? I'm Charles
Carrington, Real Estate Services Manager.
We will have a coordination meeting before we ever enter into a
contract with them. And they will at that time iron out all costs to the
county .
As far as the duplicate title costs, there should not be any, other
than once they acquire title to it -- they will have to clear all title. If
they didn't buy it, we would have to do the same thing, clear all the
ti tl e.
But once -- they will get a title policy and then we'll have a short
period of time where we will have to update that. That would be the
only additional cost to us. And there will be an additional cost in
doing that, but our cost for that, updating the title commitment, is like
$375.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But because of the very short
period of time from one transfer to the other, that title search should be
very, very minimal.
MR. CARRINGTON: Ifwe time it right, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And should be very --
almost insignificant. Okay.
If we can do it with those understandings, my motion still stands.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And my second does also.
We have a motion and a second. We have Commissioner
Henning and then Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- they are providing a
service for there, and it will be expenses. And my concern is we're not
doing the competitive bid process for service. And it doesn't state that
in the executive summary. There will be a charge. Now, we're
assuming it's going to be lower, but how do you know unless you get a
bid?
Page 220
November 16, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not sure. There's a
misunderstanding then. It's my understanding the Trust for Public
Land is not going to charge us for their services.
MS. RAMSEY: They do not charge--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They will charge us only the
expenses that we would otherwise have paid had we purchased it.
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So there is no difference in cost
between the Trust for Public Lands doing this than if we did it, except
for that one minor item you mentioned about doing the very quick title
search update right before they transfer it to us. And that's in the
hundreds of dollars.
MS. RAMSEY: Yes. There is no fee -- there's no administration
fee on behalf of the Trust for Public Lands.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But there is services they're
providing that will be a charge. Appraisals?
MS. RAMSEY: Well, a lot of that hinges on whether the
Fleishmann family is interested in some of the other opportunities that
they have. For example, they have tax attorneys that can help them
with land conservation purchases and how they can do tax savings
because of doing a conservation land exchange. They might make
some savings there.
In exchange, they might give a donation to the Trust for Public
Lands which would then cover a lot of those other expenses.
On the project that we're doing right now, I think we're ending up
paying about 75 percent of the fees that we would have normally have
paid 100 percent for, so we are seeing a 25 percent discount on that
facility purchase.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's an important point, and I just
want to make sure we're clear on it. If we were going to pay
somebody a fee for doing this, Commissioner Henning is absolutely
right, we would probably have to competitively procure it. But we're
Page 221
November 16,2004
not paying them a fee for doing it. We will pay a fee for an appraisal,
which we would pay for anyway, if we were doing it ourselves. We
will pay a filing fee, which we would pay anyway. So those are not
subject to competitive procurement regulations.
MS. RAMSEY: Right. And remember now, they are not
working on our behalf. They are going to purchase this property on
their behalf and then they're going to sell it to us, because they will
have ownership at that point in time. So it's not like we're asking them
to do a service for us. They are actually going to make the purchase
and then they're going to transfer it to the county and to the public.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Will there be stipulations on the
sale price back to the Board of Commissioners? My concern is __
MS. RAMSEY: Yes. We would need to come back to you with
a contract to say -- as we are going to in the next board meeting for the
other parcel that we're purchasing, there's a contract coming back that
we would enter into with Trust for Public Lands before they would
exercise their option to purchase that parcel, they would like to see the
approval from you on that purchase price and all of the associated
costs associated with that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. My concern is access to
the public on the lands. And I know that their involvement, I think it's
the same group, their involvement is just set aside for the animals.
No?
MS. RAMSEY: Not that I'm aware of, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. All right. Well, you've
addressed my concerns.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, just to kind of help you a little bit
on that, right now they're helping us purchase a parcel on Goodland,
okay, that we are planning to make a park out of, along with a canoe
launch, along with a museum site for, you know, the Goodland fishing
village kind of building that's there. And so you have access on that
Page 222
November 16,2004
particular parcel and you can make sure that's specified.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In the contract.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
MS. RAMSEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't want to throw any flies here
in the ointment, but I'm concerned about where we're going with the
possibility of the projected price of this land. My understanding is the
referendum was approved for $40 million, and in the workshop there
was discussion that at that time the best guess was that the price of the
land would be somewheres between 28 and $35 million.
I also think that I recall from the workshop that there were some
people that came forward and were talking about establishing a
509(A)(2), which basically gave the ability for people within the
community to put forth money that would be tax deductible for raising
the revenue for buying all of this property. And that the commitment
that the county was going to be held with is any shortcomings of
raising money to purchase this land then would be -- then the county
would be held accountable for.
My understanding at this point in time, that the blue ribbon
committee has not come forth with any funding in regards to saying
how many people have contributed to this. And so I have some
concerns where we're going with the whole cost of this project.
And I guess what I need to have as a level of comfort is I guess
we need to establish what the real cost of this is going to be prior to
going much further in regards to the negotiations.
And it's just my concerns that I have, because I know that when
we had the workshop, there was much information put out that they
were going -- people were going to work diligently to try to raise
funds and that would -- to buy this property. And I don't think we're
even anywheres near --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I will tell you, during
correspondence I'm going to bring up a letter that Ms. Prosser has sent
Page 223
November 16,2004
to Commissioner -- to the Chairwoman that basically talks about
extending the blue ribbon committee.
And I believe your particular concerns are shared by at least one
other member on the board right now. And I basically said when that
comes up, there will be a discussion about what do we want to do for
consideration.
And the other member is Commissioner Coyle. He basically said
I would like them to come back at a board meeting and basically tell
us what they've done as far as their charter was concerned as far as
that finance, additional finances on top of the ad valorem referendum,
what are the designs that they came up with best use -- and I know I've
received three of those so far -- and have them brief the board on the
progress and then determine if you want to extend that blue ribbon
committee any further.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And we have one speaker. I'm
sorry that I delayed so long.
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am. Penny Taylor.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Penny was here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: She left about 10:00 this morning.
MS. FILSON: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you, Penny, for being here
earlier.
Okay. We have a motion on the floor and a second.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I would just like to second
Commissioner Halas' concerns. That's exactly what happened, Frank,
we were supposed to get some ideas about how this could be done.
They're still working on that. But we're not going to know the exact
price until we go through the process of sitting down and talking and
get some appraisals and that sort of stuff.
And at that point in time we'll have a better understanding of
what we're going to be able to get. There is a possibility of getting up
Page 224
November 16, 2004
to what, I think $6.9 million in grants for this particular parcel, so
that's a possibility.
MS. RAMSEY: Commissioner, yes. Right now Florida
Community Trust, your application is 6.6. Depending on how you
structure the purchase, if you did it over multiple years, you could
then make two applications to Florida Community Trust, because you
would be buying it in pieces, which then could get you over 13 from
the state. So I think there are some opportunities there. But it all
hinges on how much does it cost and how are the Fleishmanns willing
to work with us.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have -- you want to say
something?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no, no, I'm just happy as
anything that you're happy.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a motion on the floor and a
second to approve.
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: I think there's a TV camera crew out there
that wants to interview somebody on this, so I told them that they can
-- they can call one of us but the rest of us could continue on. Moving
on to 10(C).
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, and I'm -- Ms. Walsh, had to -- my
executive assistant had to go to a gas meeting at 5:00. And she used to
be the interim director, and she's trying to make the transition between
the new director that's on station and their advisory committee. So that
Page 225
November 16,2004
process is going on. So I told Ms. Walsh that I would handle this
particular item.
Item #1 OC
RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT COLLIER COUNTY'S 2005
This is Item 10(C), it's a recommendation to adopt a Collier
County 2005 legislative agenda. And what I wanted to it is, we went
down this, there's a series of items that we discussed during our
workshop that the board said that they wanted to add to our annual
legislative agenda that the Chairman will present the Tuesday before
Thanksgiving, as our local legislative delegation meets in this
particular room.
And I'd just like to go down those items to make sure we're still __
that we haven't lost any interest or changed a vote or whatever.
So I'd like to go to the first item, and all I need you to do is give
me a vote on each one, and we'll go do the first one, which is partial
year assessment. I don't think I have to describe it anymore; it's
whereby any time during the year --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You want a motion on each
one?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just a nod.
MR. MUDD: I just need a nod that it's still on there, okay, that
stays.
Gas tax indexing?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MR. MUDD: I will also tell you that partial year assessment of
gas tax indexing, look like they're going to be your region -- two of
your regional items that we'll take with all of Southwest Florida during
our legislative date at Tallahassee.
Page 226
---~""'<"---,---~_..,-.-~---.. ,..,"'-----,,-_..,
November 16, 2004
Real estate transfer tax?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm against that, so I'm sorry, I can't be
one --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would like to keep that on for
discussion, because I think maybe there's some areas that we need to
eliminate and then combine so that we got only one tax and not all
these other little taxes that are in that segment, so --
MR. MUDD: Well, right now I have two votes against and--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm for it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm for it.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner Coyle, where are you?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why don't you come back to
that.
MR. MUDD: I'll come back to that item.
The next item is public records exemptions.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MR. MUDD: Okay, good. Next one is removal of Plantation
Island from the Big Cypress area of critical state concern.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I talked to Representative David
Rivera on this issue. He feels that that could be done administratively.
So either Commissioner Coletta or myself will work with our
representative on that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ifwe could leave it on there,
though.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Even though -- you know, just
so -- I appreciate that, Commissioner Henning --
MR. MUDD: Ms. Student, did you have anything to say on that
particular item?
MS. STUDENT: The only thing in response to that, I have
talked to representatives from the Department of Community Affairs,
Page 227
November 16, 2004
and they have advised that if it's done by rule, it may get lost in the
agency and take a very long time, where statutorily it would be a
shorter amount of time.
However, if we have representatives pushing the agency, then
that would probably make a difference.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We still need to have that
approval from this end, just to show that we do have a backing.
MR. MUDD: Okay. So do I have nods on that particular item?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MR. MUDD: It stays.
Next item is emergency preparedness of assisted living facilities.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MR. MUDD: Okay. And the next item is community shelters at
manufactured home communities.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Shakes head.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I mean, they're going to deal
with whatever the possibilities are, but it's not something you can --
MR. MUDD: Now, in Collier County, you already have that in
your land development code, so that's transpired.
I will also let you know that Lee County has this item on there
also.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that the area that we
evacuate is the coastal area. And if we require that, we should require
it of the coastal area, and not just pick on mobile homes, or poor
people in the mobile homes or on fixed incomes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, if you look at what happened
up in De Soto County, that wasn't coastal, that was inland, and there
was a tremendous amount of damage there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And if you take a look at the
building code with mobile homes, manufactured homes, it is truly a
Page 228
November 16, 2004
different issue than the older mobile homes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I still think that we need to address
that. It can be part of a community center in a mobile home park, and
all they have to do is make sure that it withstands Category 4 storms.
Because it would be part of their community center anyway in a
mobile home park.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: In a new mobile home park or an old
one?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: In a new one.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we could do that in
county.
MR. MUDD: You already have that in your land development
code.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. MUDD: Okay, they either harden their community center
into a shelter or they basically pay a fee that's used to harden a school.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
MR. MUDD: This item has to do more with the State of Florida
and what the State of Florida is doing in this particular regard, or not
doing in this particular regard. And I believe this county is the only
county that's --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not in favor of it, myself.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm not either.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, it's two against two--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Where's Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can understand for new parks.
I got reservations on trying to -- I know that people live in mobile
home parks for affordable living and to try to assess them with new
fees at the time is very difficult. I'm all for it for new ones coming
on-line. Ifwe want to qualify it that way, I might -- maybe we can
have enough support to keep going forward.
Page 229
November 16, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's move on to the next item
and come back to this.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's the last item.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know what, I'd like to add one. You
had mentioned if we wanted to add a little something? And this is
brand new. I wish I had the right words for it.
But funding -- this has to go to the state, it's not from us, funding
for CREW land acquisition, Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem
Watershed land acquisition. There is something going on in the state,
and I was supposed to have the right words. They probably came in
while I was out here, and I wanted to read it properly. But it has to do
with state funding. And apparently the funding that they were going to
be putting toward CREW land acquisition has been shifted to another
program altogether, somewhere else, and what we'd like to do is have
them reinstate that.
But I don't have the proper words to even --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I suggest something?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Not everything that's on that list
doesn't mean it's the only thing that you can't personally endorse when
you're talking to the legislative people (sic ). You can personally come
up with a whole bunch of things. I mean, I'm not going to bring up
every issue that I want to talk to them about, a lot of them have to do
with health care, and I'd just drive everybody crazy with about 12
different items. It's items that I won't say the commission endorsed,
I'd say that I have a personal interest in it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, what I'll do is --
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, do you want to talk -- is this for land
acquisition for CREW?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MR. MUDD: Okay. You basically want -- you want to make a
Page 230
November 16,2004
recommendation to our local legislative delegation that the state
continue adequate funding for CREW land acquisition?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, yes. And what I'll do when I get the
proper wording and have my head clear, I'll even copy all the
commissioners in. But it's nothing to do with our money or anything,
it's just to make sure that that project go forward.
MR. MUDD: If you leave it that way, then they have some
latitude to figure out what adequate funding is, okay, as they work
through it. So you just want to make sure that you're bringing CREW
land up as an item that they should be paying attention to far as setting
their budget.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we go with the next item on
the agenda and then come back to this, Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Sure, sure. You were going to
leave, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I was asked to stay just a
little.
MR. MUDD: Next item on the agenda -- and we'll come back to
10(C) because we have some deadlocks on votes, and plus we have
the new CREW land item.
Item #10D
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE FOR 1.14 ACRES
UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION
Next item is 10(D), which used to be item--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to make a motion to
approve, because I got my answers -- my question answered. So I'll
Page 231
_._,..,.,-_...,,---~,.... -"--.
November 16,2004
make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, second. I have a motion to
approve and a second on item 16(A)(7). Any discussion?
Pardon me? I'm sorry, the second was Commissioner Coletta.
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 #10E
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE FOR 3.79 ACRES
UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION
MR. MUDD: The next item is Number 10(E), and that was
brought to the regular agenda by Commissioner Henning, and it used
to be Item (16)(A)(9) --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Same thing, motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Coy Ie. Any
discussion?
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 232
November 16,2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Opposed, like sign.
(N 0 response.)
Item #10C (CONTINUED)
RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT COLLIER COUNTY'S 2005
LEGISLATIVE AGENDA - CONSENSUS APPROVED WI
CHANGRS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, there's only one item on the
agenda we need to finish and that's Number 10(C).
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And then we have public
comment.
MR. MUDD: Then we have public comment.
And Commissioner Coyle, just to bring you up to speed, we had
-- we got to the third item on your computer terminal and on your
screen, which is real estate transfer tax, and that deadlocked with a
2-2.
And what I'm trying to do is determine if you still-- it went 3-2
during the workshop. And I'm wondering -- and we're going down
each item to make sure that we're still backing it. We're backing
partial year assessment, gas tax indexing. Real estate transfer tax
deadlocked at 2-2, and you're the deciding vote. Do we carry it
forward or we let it sit?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I will vote no, because there are
still questions I have about it. That doesn't necessarily mean we
shouldn't consider it sometime in the future, but I still have questions,
and we need to work out some of the details. Remember, we talked
Page 233
November 16,2004
about a number of issues at the workshop, and we haven't worked out
those things out yet. So I would vote no.
MR. MUDD: Okay. So we have -- now the vote is three no's,
two yes. We're going to drop it from the legislative agenda.
Public records exemption is staying on, removal of Plantation
Island for the Big Cypress area of critical state concern is staying on.
And we're not conceding the fact that we could work this out
administratively, but we want to make sure that we have the
delegation backing to help us push it through DCA. Because if it goes
to DCA without them helping us, it will get lost in somebody's inbox
and we'll still have the problem 10 years from now.
The next item is emergency preparedness of assisted living
facility, and that's staying on.
We got to community shelters at manufactured home
communities, and we went 2-2. You're the deciding vote on that
particular one.
Now, there was a discussion that basically said that they could
support it and change their vote if it was only for new mobile home
communities. And that's where this discussion ended.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We talked about -- I think also
added in there that most of these mobile home parks have community
centers and all they need to do is harden them so that they would
withstand possibly Category 3 to 4 winds. The mobile home parks that
don't have community centers, then I think they should be exempt
from that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, I think --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, and once again, we're
back to the almighty dollar and with a limited economic group that --
trying to harden the facility some times is the same as rebuilding it. I
don't know if they could afford to do that. That's my concern.
I mean, if it was an upscale community -- now, there are some
upscale mobile parks, especially these travel ones that come in. We
Page 234
November 16,2004
got one down in Golden Gate Estates, unbelievable. The cost of lots
are like $150,000 apiece just to park there six months a year. But they
already have a facility and I think they --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: They need to probably harden it to
Category 3.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, they already have, I'm
pretty sure, you know. They're capable of paying for that.
We got some existing communities that are economically
challenged to cover a cost like that. I hate to put any more burden
upon the low income group that lives in this affordable housing __
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, they would become the
responsibility of the county then.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: To evacuate.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, like they said this morning, that
group that was in here, the senior community --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That place wouldn't survive a
storm.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- they said they don't stay here --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, they don't.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- they all get out and go to family or
relatives or something.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, about 90 percent of them
don't live there during the summer. It's a very, very small number that
stay here during the summer. When that goes through, it's going to be
instant urban renewal.
MR. MUDD: Again, this isn't a local concern, because you
already have land development code language that basically says
when you come in with a mobile home or manufactured, you've either
got to harden your community shelter for hurricanes and emergencies,
and! or you have to pay a fee so that we can harden a school in order to
do it.
If you want, if it would make better sense -- right now it reads
Page 235
November 16, 2004
mobile home parks and manufactured home communities should be
required statewide to build and maintain. You could put down new
mobile home parks and manufactured home communities should be
required statewide to build and maintain a community shelter area
capable of housing the community's residents in emergency. The
shelter should be equipped with backup power, minimum supplies, as
determined by local emergency management office requirements.
Therefore, by doing it and saying "new", you wouldn't be putting
a burden on existing residents that have already been in -- for instance,
we did Naples Manor this morning. They couldn't fit a community
shelter in that particular dense group that we looked at. And in that
particular case, that might put a hardship on that particular
community.
But if you said new ones, then people would have to adjust their
land development codes throughout the state in order to accommodate
this particular piece of legislation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think I would go along if we said new
ones.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I could go for it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: I have three -- I have four nods.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And the silent one just smiles.
MR. MUDD: "New" will be added and that item will stay.
The next item that was brought up that was new was one that
Commissioner Fiala brought up while you were out in the hallway,
Commissioner Coyle. And it basically said -- there was an item that
was brought to her attention, and it looks like that CREW land
acquisition funds in the state are drying up, and so --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: They're being shifted.
MR. MUDD: Shifted. That's drying up, ma'am. Shifted.
And so she asked that we support a resolution where we're
basically asking our legislative delegation to push continued adequate
Page 236
November 16,2004
funding for CREW land acquisition. And she will provide us some of
the data as it comes in. It hasn't come across her desk yet.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If that's important to you, it's
important to me.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, thank you.
MR. MUDD: Okay. And ma'am, you're going to give me that
data so I can give you some stuff --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I will.
MR. MUDD: -- to back that up.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I should have it by tomorrow.
MR. MUDD: Okay. And I have three nods on that.
So the one item that we've dropped is real estate transfer tax from
our particular agenda. We've added the word "new" for community
shelters, and we've added the continued adequate funding for CREW
land acquisition. That's all I have on this particular item, and I've got
your direction. Thank you.
Item #11
Commissioner, that brings us to public comments on general
topics. Ms. Filson?
MS. FILSON: Yes. We have six speakers. The first one is
Christopher Thornton.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And how much does each -- how much
time does each speaker get?
MS. FILSON: Five minutes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. THORNTON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Chris
Thornton with Treiser, Collins and Vernon. I'm representing Angelo
and Laura Puleio.
Page 237
November 16, 2004
The Puleios own Enzo's Restaurant. It's an Italian restaurant up
on Bonita Beach Road. It's at 4351 Bonita Beach Road. The Puleios
have been operating the business for about 20 years. It's a family
owned and run restaurant.
They decided to make some interior improvements and remodels
and to add on some nicer and larger restrooms. They applied for and
obtained the permits for those improvements, and a few weeks later,
after putting about $75,000 into the project, the county discovered that
the permits should not have been issued. There's a 25- foot setback in
the C-4 district between commercial and residential properties, so our
addition was too close to the neighboring residential properties.
The Puleios have received a stop work order. They were trying
to get this proj ect done in time for the season, and so we have met
with staff, the Puleios have, and we have agreed to go through the
variance application process.
What we're here today to ask for is your authorization to continue
with the work so that we can get it built and done and occupied, and
then I guess if we don't get the variance, it would have to come down,
but if we do, we've gotten the use of it this season, which is very
important to the Puleios.
We have a good relationship with the neighbors. We don't think
that that will be an issue in obtaining the variance. And I think the
reason that this happened is that the Puleios actually obtained a
variance in 1994 that allowed for a partial addition on the back of the
building. This addition is the same amount of an encroachment, and
so I think that staff and probably the Puleios probably thought that we
already had a variance that would allow us to go all the way back
there, all the way across. But the variance is pretty specific and it says
it's only for those specific improvements from '94.
So we're just asking you today to let us proceed with the
construction while we go through the variance process. We've worked
with staff on it, and I think Susan Murray's prepared to speak. If you
Page 238
November 16,2004
have questions for me, I'd be happy to answer them or for staff.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm in favor of bringing it
forward, conditional use.
MR. THORNTON: It's a variance application.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Variance.
MR. THORNTON: A variance of reduction of the 25-foot
setback to about 13, because the permit was issued in error. And we
would like to bring in the variance application, but not just put this __
the contractors are -- have already been hired and they're already
halfway done. We're at the point where walls are up, rough
plumbing's done, it's time to put on the trusses.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to hear from staff. Is this
up in District 2 again?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I hope so. Yeah, it's the only
place it ever happens.
MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray, for the record. Yes,
Commissioner, it's off of Bonita Beach Road, which I believe is your
district.
And actually, what Chris is asking -- because there's a stop work
order right now, it's been red-tagged, so they cannot proceed with
construction. We aren't authorized to lift the red tag to allow them,
but we have in the past come before you and applicants have come
before you with similar situations for various reasons and asked that __
for permission to continue construction, recognizing -- and I need
Chris to recognize that on the record, please -- that it would be at their
own risk, knowing that they have to apply and obtain approval for a
variance before it's -- could be issued a permanent CO.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can you explain in detail? I didn't
quite get the other side of the story -- I'd like to get the other side of
the story in regards to there was supposedly a variance issued in 1994?
Can you give me some history on this?
MS. MURRAY: Sure. Actually, there was two variances issued
Page 239
November 16,2004
for the property, one in '93 and one in '94, but both pertained to the
same addition along the same wall of the structure. And in 1993, a
variance was granted and then later it was discovered that what actual
construction had taken place actually encroached further than the
variance -- original variance was granted in '93, so they came back in
'94 for an additional variance. I'm not talking about numbers right
now, because I don't have all the specifics, I'm just trying to give you a
brief overview of the history.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So there's more to be even larger?
In other words, they encroached, they got a variance __
MS. MURRAY: I believe there was some mistake in measuring
or on the survey. And what their original requested variance for was
not enough for what they wanted to build. And they came back for
another variance in '94 to legitimize what they originally intended to
build.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And now they're building again, so
now what's -- where are we at with it?
MS. MURRAY: They encroach some more?
MS. MURRAY: What happened here is this is actually an
addition, and I believe it's very similar to the one that was granted a
variance previously in '93 and '94, but this is a different addition in a
different location.
And what I believe happened is kind of a series of problems.
One, the building permit application was applied for and only stated
that there would be interior renovations; however, the site plan did
show an exterior addition, and that was missed by staff.
But additionally, the applicant has the responsibility to fill out the
application correctly. So there was kind of responsibility on both
parties.
So the building permit was issued. And then later it was caught
at the spot survey stage that the building permit was issued in error,
because the new addition was going to encroach and a variance had
Page 240
November 16,2004
not been granted for the new addition, and one needed to be in order to
construct at that setback.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what you're telling me, right
now we're at the spot survey and so that we can rectify the problem at
this point; is that correct?
MS. MURRAY: My understanding is that they're at tie beam
level at their point in construction.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Have they put the tie beam in?
MS. MURRAY: That's my understanding. No? Okay. You just
have the --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: If the tie beam isn't in, I think that
we could go -- we could rectify this problem by going back to where it
should be.
MS. MURRAY: I think what they're asking is to -- you to grant
permission for them to proceed with construction, knowing that they
are assuming a risk that they may not obtain variance approval, and
the structure then would have to comply either by tearing it down __
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But that never happens. I mean, it
never happens to where we end up -- I guess what I'm getting at is, if
we're out of compliance to start with and now we're to come back to
get another variance and we're out of compliance, so we're actually
three times that we're working on this building and we've got three
different variances; am I correct on this, Mr. Schmitt?
MS . MURRAY: If this last one was approved, yes, it would be
three different variances.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, and if they're not at the tie
beam state, why don't they just go back to where they should be?
MS. MURRAY: That's really -- I'm not an advocate either way,
I'm just trying to give you a background of what the history and what
they need to do to comply. They're here asking you for permission to
go ahead and proceed with construction because we can't lift a red -- I
can't -- you know, Joe can't lift a red tag, so --
Page 241
November 16,2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm not in favor of it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I'm a little bit concerned.
I know what a small businessman goes through around here. I know
your season is real short. I can't understand why you couldn't have got
this done sooner. That's a different story altogether. So right now
your restaurant is more or less exposed and shut down; is that correct?
You're going to have to step up to the mic. there and then state
your name for the record.
MR. PULEIO: My name is Vinnie Puleio. I'm Angelo and Laura
Puleio's son. I work at Enzo's Italian Restaurant full-time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, now, question: Is the
restaurant now left exposed and shut down?
MR. PULEIO: No, it's not exposed. I mean, where the
additional bathrooms will be placed is in the southwest corner of the
building where we have a banquet room. It will be tacked onto that,
and it's a totally separate room, so we're still able to operate.
But our problem is we've already put a considerable amount of
money and time into it. To -- you know, to not be able to proceed with
it would just kill us.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And it was -- the reason you got
to this point is because of a mistake that we made at staff level?
MR. PULEIO: Right, right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And you wouldn't have
invested the $75,000 if staff had caught it that time, you would have
gone through the variance procedure back then?
MR. PULEIO: Oh, of course, of course.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that would have brought
you right to this point in time, would (sic) you have probably been
with the construction, and the variance would have been paid for,
everything would have been approved and you would be going
forward?
Page 242
November 16,2004
MR. PULEIO: Right. I mean, we want to be able -- we want to
be as cooperative as possible with the county. I mean, and we -- I
mean, we're working people, we're chefs, we're not, you know,
architects, we're not engineers.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Unless there's something here
that I'm missing, I mean --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think they said that they
didn't fill out the application form correctly, too, right?
MR. PULEIO: I'm not too aware of the application form. I
mean, I never filled out any paperwork --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may ask Susan Murphy (sic)
behind you, will you help with this? Now, the application was
approved based upon the information you received?
MS. MURRAY: Correct. The--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It wasn't some mistake that staff
made, it was the information that was provided?
MS. MURRAY: My opinion is it was a mistake by both parties,
because the application was not filled out clearly enough to describe
exactly what was occurring, and it implied that strictly interior
renovations were occurring. However, the site plan did show an
exterior addition.
My assumption is the staff member who reviewed it assumed that
it was strictly interior renovations and approved it. When you have an
interior renovation, you don't have to have a site development plan
amendment. And what we check for is to make sure the building
permit matches the site development plan amendment. We make sure
those plans match before it's granted approval.
Just reading the application that the applicant filled out, the
contractor filled out, it said interior renovations, and I believe the
assumption was made that that was all that was occurring. And so he
passed the review of the permit on, and the building department issued
the building permit.
Page 243
November 16,2004
When they came in -- and once they obtained a building permit,
obviously, they started construction and were required to come in at
the spot survey stage where the error was then picked up that this was
actually an addition and no site development plan had been approved
and no variance had been obtained because there was an
encroachment.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I don't have a problem
with doing it, but I'm going to leave that up to the rest of the
commission to decide.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, I don't have a problem with it
either. Is it just a bathroom?
MR. THORNTON: It's -- can I -- I'll try to point out what
happened.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's don't go through the
variance process right now. You need four of them -- four votes for a
variance. Commissioner Coyle's the last person to give a yea or nay to
bring it back for a variance process.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is it more than just to bring it back
to variance process? Isn't it waving a red flag? Isn't that what we're
doing?
MR. SCHMITT: Let me clarify. We're not discussing the
variance here, nor are we approving the variance, nor do you have to
vote for them to bring it back. They have every right to ask for the
variance, whether you're going to approve it or not. And they've
already started that process.
What they're asking -- what we're asking the board to do is
recognize that they would proceed, you would grant me the authority
to lift the red tag, they would proceed at their own risk, with the
understanding is that when they come back to the board after going
through the variance process, which requires a hearing before the
planning commission and before the Board of County Commissioners,
that if the variance is not approved, they would have to return the
Page 244
November 16,2004
building to its original state. That's really what they're asking. So, I
could --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's cheaper to do it now.
MR. SCHMITT: -- if the board approves, I would lift the red tag,
he would be allowed to proceed -- his contractor would be allowed to
proceed, and we even could issue a conditional CO, pending the
results of the variance.
But it's all at his risk, and he knows that, and his lawyer knows
that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So it ends up that he's going to
have more money into this thing than if he finishes -- continues to
finish this project.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Time's money.
MR. SCHMITT: And that's correct --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: He's already got -- he's already --
the restaurant --
MR. SCHMITT: -- and he's a businessman, he understands the
risk. He's got to weigh that risk or reward issue and -- again, for the
record, Joe Schmitt, I know you know who I am, but -- but that's a risk
he's got to take, and that's the risk that was explained to him, with the
understanding the variance process, because of the public hearings, the
notification, all the other things that have to happen, it's at least
anywhere from four to six months to go through that process, just
because of the requirements.
And that -- as Commissioner Coletta pointed out, that moves him
beyond the season, and it's a risk he is choosing to take.
MR. PULEIO: And if I can add, I mean, what are the main risks
that we are facing here with regards to the variance?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Plenty. Yeah--
MR. PULEIO: What are the biggest risks? Are the neighbors __
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It takes four votes ifit comes
before us. If your neighbors rise up and start complaining from one
Page 245
November 16, 2004
end to the other, probably it will be denied.
MR. PULEIO: Well, we have a great relationship with our
neighbors. I mean, the neighbors directly behind the addition and the
neighbors right by them. I mean, great -- I mean, they wouldn't have a
problem with it. I can have letters writ up -- you know, written up for
you guys.
MR. MUDD: But, sir, your risk is if the board doesn't approve
your variance, you'll have to take that addition down.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's going to cost you more.
MR. PULEIO: I understand. But at the same time, it's a mistake
made by the county, and for us to -- you know, for it to be at our
expense, I mean, it's -- it's pretty bad, I mean.
And if we have to, we will proceed with a lawsuit. I mean, there
is too much money involved here. We're working people. We don't
know the law all that well. I mean, we hire professional people,
Grady Minor was our land surveyor. We hired them, you know,
relying on the fact that they would submit, you know, the paperwork
properly to the county.
We were relying on the fact that the county would pick up on
boundary lines, you know, and we're just trying to be as compliant as
possible, you know. And for some reason, it's not working out. I
mean, what are we to do?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, if I supported you, it
wouldn't be because of the threat of a lawsuit.
MR. PULEIO: I understand. But at the same time, I mean, ifit
was your money at risk, what would you do? I mean, you going to let
-- I mean we--
,
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I'd definitely -- I'd be here
in your shoes doing the same thing.
MR. PULEIO: Right. We have had problems with -- I mean we
have been as cooperative as possible with the county. I mean, we've
been having problems. In the past year alone -- actually, in the past
Page 246
November 16,2004
five years, you know, the county has asked of us many things to keep
updated with all the new codes. Originally it started with water
retention behind our building, okay --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sir, I believe you on all that. I
think what we got to do is just get the consensus of this commission
and then we're off and running.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right. So we've got then -- you say to
move forward.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, do it. I think we got
three, but like Commissioner Henning pointed out, it's going to take
four to pass it when it comes back --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And that's up to you again.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- and I don't want to put this
guy in jeopardy --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner--
MR. WEIGEL: Commissioners, it only takes three votes for a
vanance.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, does it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, does it? Okay. Well, then I
think we got it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then, I guess you've got it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, my only hesitation is I
want to make sure you clearly understand that the commissioner in
your district is not supporting you on this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's not good.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That is not good. Generally we
listen very closely to the commissioners in the district, and -- because
they're more familiar with their district than we are, and so there's no
way to predict how this thing might turn out. And you could put a lot
of money in this and then have to tear this whole thing down if it's not
approved.
Page 247
November 16, 2004
So I know it's a tough decision, and I would hesitate to tell you to
go ahead and do it, unless you've got a pretty good feeling that you're
going to get this thing approved ultimately; otherwise, you're faced
with a terrible expense. And you think you're frustrated now, boy, can
you image how frustrated you'll be if that happens.
And so I will vote to let you proceed, but that doesn't __
MR. PULEIO: I mean, that's all we're asking for right now, is
just to be able to proceed with the construction of the addition, you
know, and to be able to have a temporary CO issued at the same time,
at our own risk. We're willing to do that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But if you do that and it comes
back through with an unfavorable recommendation by our planning
commission, and Commissioner Halas continues to oppose it, it could
very well not be approved, and then that creates a very serious
situation.
But if you wish to proceed that way, and you fully understand the
consequences, I will vote to let you go.
MR. PULEIO: Okay. We want to be as cooperative as possible.
My parents are very old-fashioned people, they don't believe in
lawsuits. We want to, you know, work with you guys as much as
possible here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would suggest to you, you pursue
your consultant who worked on this who failed to provide the proper
information.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I'd like to make a motion
to allow him to proceed--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- until that point in time that he
gets the variance, with the understanding that he's at risk and that we
may not give him the variance when the time does come.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm not going to repeat that motion, but
there was a second to it by Commissioner Henning.
Page 248
._".~-~--,.~.".__. ~,",,~--~-
November 16,2004
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Opposed, like sign.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, that's 4-1. Thank you.
MR. PULEIO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Moving on.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Kenneth Thompson, and I
believe he left.
Following him is Phil Osborne.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Who?
MS. FILSON: Phil Osborne. He will be followed by Alex
Walburn.
MR. OSBORNE: Good evening, Commissioners. Thanks for
giving me the opportunity to speak before you again. I'm here
representing the Marine Industries Association of Collier County, but
also, I feel like I'm representing the tens of thousands of boaters that
utilize the Naples Bay as their main travel area to reach their ultimate
points of destination.
As you're aware, tomorrow -- I think you should be aware,
tomorrow the City Council will go ahead with their final reading of a
proposal to further restrict boat speeds in Naples Bay. I think you'll
recall us coming before you previous and laying out our plan of
opposition for that. We were very appreciative of your asking staff to
compile the data by which the city will use as a vehicle to acquire the
permits necessary from the State of Florida.
In reviewing the data that staff provided you, I am going to ask
that you have some discussion and support the Marine Industries
Association and the boaters of Collier County in opposing publicly the
Page 249
November 16,2004
city's unwarranted restrictions on the boaters of Collier County.
I heard today, I believe, the Fleishmann name. I think that's
who's putting up the boat park that I think recently City Council came
to you all asking for you to participate monetarily in the building of a
new park. Maybe it's the Pullings--
MR. MUDD: It's Pulling.
MR. OSBORNE: Is it Pulling? Okay, the other big family here
in town.
Anyway, they came to you asking for funds to help them, you
know, get that thing up and running. And part of the evidence that
they felt justified their position in asking you for those funds was a
study that they did that clearly showed that 70 percent of the people
that utilize the city landing that feeds into Naples Bay were not city
residents but in fact county residents, and those are the folks that are
going to be most adversely affected by this intrusion on their
recreational lifestyles.
So we're just asking that you form an opinion with the data that
you were given and maybe give us a resolution that we can take to the
state, because ultimately that's where this process is going to go.
The city's going to have their final reading tomorrow, and we
anticipate they're going to pass that final reading, and then they'll go
on to the state. And hopefully accompanying that second reading and
that ordinance request will also go along with it your resolution
opposing this intrusion.
Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Alex Walburn.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Questions? Commissioner Halas __
Henning, sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Starts with an H.
The -- I'm glad you're here, because I was going to bring this up
under commissioner's comments. The study came back in, and the
only piece that's really missing, there's a chart that was part of the
Page 250
November 16,2004
study for the Hamilton Harbor Marina, and it clearly showed that the
level of service, even at peak time, peak season, peak time, was a level
of service C.
Now, to me, if I apply that to the level of service that we're used
to dealing with, it is a -- it's a good thing. You know, there's not a
problem.
I would like to make a motion, after the speaker, directing the
county attorney to fight this issue at the City Hall, on behalf of the
board, and then bring back a resolution supporting documents for the
State Fish and Wildlife that there's no clear evidence to change the
Naples boat speed to a more stringent boat speed. But anyways __
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll be happy to second that
motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor and a
second by Commissioner Coletta to -- do you want to repeat your
motion, or did you get that motion clearly?
MR. WALBURN: I waited two hours, and I didn't find that
spread that lady was bragging about, so I want to at least have a
chance to talk.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We ate it all.
MR. WALBURN: I would like to thank Commissioner Henning
for what he's making a motion on and what Mr. Coletta is also doing.
What I would be more appreciative of, in lieu of trying to deal
with the Naples City Council that seems predisposed to rush to
judgment on this thing when they have no clear and compelling
evidence, is to ask you to make a determination, if you agree with Mr.
Henning and the boaters of Collier County, that this is an unlawful and
onerous intrusion on the boating rights of the members of the public,
not only of the City of Naples and Collier County, but it's sovereign
state land, it's a federal channel that's maintained by the federal
government. So everybody has a piece of this bay.
So what I would be more -- what I'm here to ask you to do is take
Page 251
November 16, 2004
a position with the FWC, if it is granted approval by the Florida Fish
and Wildlife Commission, and I think that's something that mayor
may not happen, but if for discussion purposes it is approved, I would
ask that you folks be named as an interested party in this and be
noticed that they are going to approve it, and then at that time make a
motion, direct your staff to file for administrative review on behalf of
the interests of Collier County.
Now, the way this process is explained to me--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's part of my motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My second, too, by the way.
Isn't that a coincidence?
MR. WALBURN: The FWC is going to be here tomorrow to
speak with the Naples City Council. It would behoove, in my
estimation, Collier County to understand the administrative appeals
process, in addition to how the FWC mayor may not approve this
application. They may approve it and then throw it to the
administrative appeals process.
I can appeal it by myself, any boater can appeal it. But I think
this is an issue that warrants the attention of the entire county. And I
hope you'll look at it very closely.
Your staff did an outstanding job, and then the city took your
report and forwarded it to the state and said this is why we need to do
it. I didn't see one piece of evidence that did anything that said __
showed that Naples Bay is a very safe place. Manatees really don't
frequent that area very much.
They're citing congestion, safety and manatee protection as the
reasons they need to slow the boats down. I think it's hypocritical, if
that's not too strong a word, to say we've got congestion and we got to
slow the boats down, but can you send us some money so we can
build another marina and put more boats in the bay.
So there's kind of a disconnect there in their positions. And I
hope you look at it really close.
Page 252
November 16,2004
You asked them to wait until there was a determination of fact by
all parties. They dismissed your report, and I don't think you folks
have made a determination.
So my last request is that you look at this very closely. If you
determine that my position is correct and the boaters of Collier
County's position's correct, you make a motion, direct your county
attorney to look at filing for administrative review and an
administrative appeal of this unwarranted intrusion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Walburn, the only issue, I
think it's courtesy that the City Council knows our position in their
meeting, that we don't feel that there's evidence to do some changing
on this, and maybe that will sway them to do what, you know, the
facts provide and --
MR. WALBURN: I hope you're right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me?
MR. WALBURN: I hope you're right. I seriously -- seriously
doubt it, based on my conversations with them. I don't -- I think
they're predisposed to do what they're going to do, and I don't think
they have the facts to back it up.
And the boaters -- a number of boaters are going to challenge
this. We just would like for the entire community to be involved in it
because they are trying to legislate for a very small segment of the
community. They're dressing it up as safety; it's shoreline property
protection is what it boils down to.
I thank you very much for your time.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, I have a motion on the floor and a
second. David?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, if I may -- and the motion will be fine,
ultimately. But under my staff comment, this was number one of the
two things I wanted to talk to you about was in fact yes, that at 1 :30
tomorrow, time specific, is the agenda item relating to the boat speeds
Page 253
November 16,2004
on Naples Bay.
The report prepared by the county was tendered by the city
manager to the City Council at their last meeting two Wednesdays
ago. So they haven't -- and as Mr. Walburn indicated, they have
attempted to utilize it for their own purpose.
I will have -- well, that's your -- particularly with your motion.
But I was going to ask you for direction. We will have a
representative there tomorrow, and of course any -- just for your
information, the administrative process of review and appeals, the
Chapter 120 process, which will come after they finish making the
sausage, the legislative sausage that they do tomorrow.
But again, it appears that what you're instructing me, our office to
do in attendance is to again state on the record that the county board,
as they know previously from the workshop you had, the county board
not merely has concerns but is opposed to the changes that they are
purporting to implement tomorrow. And it would seem to me that no
matter what change they're implementing is a change that you are not
agreeing to.
And as Mr. Henning had indicated just a few minutes ago, and as
was discussed at the workshop back six weeks ago with the city, the
level of service was noted then in the record, and we can note again
from the county attorney office the level of service again would seem
to indicate that it's not appropriate to make these changes.
So we can assist with the record tomorrow and then be ready
thereafter, depending on what they do tomorrow.
Now, I have observed, in either attending or watching the video
replay of the City Council meeting, that they do tend to legislate on
the fly, and so that's why I'm saying to you is that what they may end
up doing tomorrow may be different than what they had to some
degree on first reading last week.
Mr. Pritt, the city attorney, has told them what he believes are
substantive changes, which will kick them into additional hearing.
Page 254
November 16,2004
And he said speed and location, I think, were two things he talked
about. So if -- whether it's 20 miles an hour or 30 miles an hour, we
know that both those things are being contemplated. They may end
up having another hearing beyond tomorrow, if the changes are
dynamic enough at their meeting tomorrow.
I just thought I'd fill that in. But I think we're ready to take your
instruction.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, David.
MR. MUDD: The other piece of information you need to add to
make it very complete is the Chairwoman wrote a letter to the Mayor
asking them to delay a decision on the speed zones until this board had
an opportunity to review the data based on the study that I passed out
to everybody. And it wasn't my first item in communication, it was
my fourth item that I was going to talk about, and basically figure out,
based on your review, what your deliberation is so that we can inform
the City of Naples. And now we're in the process of doing it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So we have a motion on the floor
and a second.
Does anybody need the motion to be repeated? There were
different things added to it, correct?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's clear as --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Clear as mud.
MR. MUDD: Now that you mentioned my name, I will ask a
question.
Now, I want to make sure that the motion that's on the floor is
you want to keep the speed zones as they are today with no change,
and that's the part that isn't very clear in the motions that I've heard.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's the only thing that we can
do, because as Mr. Weigel stated, they seem to do things on the fly.
And I would hope that we can come to a consensus as two bodies
what's best for the public and the environment, being the manatee, but
we can't, because it always changes.
Page 255
November 16, 2004
So no change, I think, is a safe position that the board should take
to not only the City Council, but the state, the feds, the Congress, the
President, whoever else we need to bring it to.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: In your motion, did it include somebody
being there tomorrow? Did you say the county attorney to be there
tomorrow?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: County attorney represent the
board.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Very good. Motion on the floor
and a second. 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, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 5-0. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Cooper -- and I believe it's
Rordin? Kordin?
MR. KORDIN: For the record, my name is Cooper Kordin.
You've already voted on it, but I'm here to appeal to all of you for
your help. Saying that the City Council legislates on the fly I think is
the biggest understatement I've heard in a while.
I think this is a very important and we really need your help,
because they've made it pretty clear that they don't care what I think.
They certainly don't care what you think. They made that very clear
in the last meeting.
In fact, they don't even care what certain members of their own
council want to say. They voted, you know, to not let Tamela
Page 256
November 16,2004
Wiseman comment last time.
And we really need your help. This is an important issue that
affects the city, it affects the county, and they need a reality check
tomorrow, I think. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Eric Alexander.
MR. ALEXANDER: Eric Alexander. Thank you for your
consideration about the speed zones in Naples Bay. Thanks for all
your help.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That was fast. Thank you, Eric. Okay.
MS. FILSON: He was your final speaker.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Final speaker. Okay, fine.
Item #12
Now we move on to final communications and -- were you here
for something, Ellen?
MR. WEIGEL: She's with me.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay. Okay. Let us start off with
you, David.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Well, the only other thing I had to
say, and Jim may be talking about as well, is the fact that all of you --
and Jim and I have received the information, starting over last
weekend -- that the court has ruled in favor of the Florida Association
of Counties in 15 counties that contested that -- the legislation in effect
from this past year regarding the Department of Juvenile Justice.
And that of course has a significant economic -- positive
economic effect for Collier County, which will be making payments
over a 12-month period to the state to pay for the service.
The county had made its first payment, conforming with the legal
Page 257
November 16, 2004
requirement of the law under protest, and on November 8th a letter
was sent to the county from Tom Gallagher on behalf of the Chief
Financial Officer of the state, indicating that they were going to start
to withhold funds from us unless we entered into an administrative
hearing process to the tune of approximately $120,000 a pop.
I've been in contact a couple times now with Ginger Delegal, the
attorney for the Florida Association of Counties, and she's going to
contact me or I her, on Thursday, whoever does it first, because the
Florida Association of Counties counsel will be providing us, all of us
county people, some information as to how we -- they would
recommend that we, the counties, proceed vis-a-vis the finding of
unconstitutionality of the state law. And also potentially provide us
with some, I'll say, mild hints or tips as to what we may do
procedurally and quickly, expeditiously toward getting the hundred
and some thousand dollars back that we had already sent in.
It will be a net savings over the year, Jim knows the exact figure,
but it's about a million four, I think, to the county, based upon this
legislation. Now, that has been ruled unconstitutional.
Will the state appeal? Well, we don't know at this point in time.
The opinion's very well written. It's -- it has great detail and bases,
legal bases as to how the judge has arrived at what he has.
So I think there's risk for them to appeal it further, as well, and to
the extent that it becomes punctuated, perhaps, at the appellate court
level.
We'll be learning about that in the days ahead, as well. And I'll
certainly keep you informed informally before the next board meeting,
at the next board meeting.
But that's real good news. And Jim may have some additional
kind of procedural and county procedural news, maybe, in that regard.
But you've probably seen the e-mails, and it truly is a good thing.
MR. MUDD: Sir, and ma'am, I did call -- he called the chief
counsel in fact, I called the chief counsel in the DJJ, and I talked to
Page 258
November 16, 2004
Mr. Berkowitz, and he basically said well, do you want your money
back? And I said let's do first things first. I've got a letter here from
Mr. Gallagher that basically seems to be pretty serious, and I want to
know if you want us to continue to march on this, based on the
unconstitutional ruling. And he said, basically put that letter off to the
side, it's pretty much OBE. And they are in determination if they're
going to appeal or not. He wasn't willing to tell me that, and I didn't
blame him. I told him that additional payments wouldn't be
forthcoming, and probably the refund is going to transpire.
I will also tell you, from their standpoint, they're in a financial
hurt, they're running out of money, and this was $90 million that was
coming to them from all the counties in Florida.
So our legislators are going to have to be busy here to try to
figure out how they're going to come up with $90 million to offset this
particular issue.
But for the agency, they're trying to make ends meet. And not
that many counties made the first payment. I think there were only
11, and we were one of them under protest. So they don't have the
dollars and so they're in a bit of a crunch.
You had passed an executive summary that came through you on
the 27th of July to pay fact fees for their DJJ and for the homestead
exemption. I'm trying to trace down the fact that we actually sent a
check, okay? And if we didn't, I will send a check, based on their cost
of $2,000 for the defense of this particular item. But we're trying to
chase down if we sent a check, when we sent it. You did approve the
exec. summary, so you gave us the authority to write the check. I just
need to make sure it went. And if it didn't, we'll get it right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That was all for you, David?
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, that's all for me.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. Jim?
Item #15
Page 259
November 16, 2004
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, first item is we will have a wonderful
event that is going to transpire Friday, this week, November 19th at
2:30. Weare going to have a ribbon cutting ceremony on Livingston
Road, okay, with the final segment being open for the 22nd.
At the same time, we are going to dig a little dirt, okay, and we're
going to have a ground breaking for the Vanderbilt Beach expansion.
Okay, we'll try to do them both at the same time.
So I encourage your attendance, and I encourage the viewing
audience out there to attend this particular event. It's not every day
you get to open one and start construction on another. So -- and that's
again Friday, the 19th of November at 2:30. And it will be out there,
basically, at the corner of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Livingston will
be the area that this will transpire. Just follow the signs, people will
guide you in.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: If I may add, that's -- this is the
first north-south road to be constructed since the advent of 1-75, I
believe, in Collier County. So that's a big milestone.
MR. MUDD: Okay, the next item I want to make sure that
you're aware of, and it's been just a little while, this was
correspondence from Mayor Bill Barnett to the Board of County
Commissioners, and it transpired on October 29th. And it's basically a
reply to Commissioner Fiala. It basically says, "Thank you for your
letter of October 15th, 2004, regarding the county's pending
administrative challenge to DOHA Case No. 04-104-GM. The
counsel would prefer to wait" -- I'll get my little cursor out of the way
-- "wait until the issuance of the final order by the Department of
Community Affairs. Thereafter, the counsel will respond to this
request. "
Your letter basically asks them, if you drop the thing about the
Page 260
November 16,2004
county paying your legal fees --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: The overpass.
MR. MUDD: -- we'll drop our challenge to this particular compo
plan amendment. And that's the answer in that particular area.
The second paragraph, with regard to the boat speed issue, "We
appreciate the joint meeting between the commission and our council,
as well as your input. The request by the county will be taken under
consideration. "
And that request was please wait till we're done taking a look at
the data to give you a response before you act any further on that
particular case.
I will tell you that I have had a correspondence verbally from
Bob Lee, the manager, that basically said that our study was helpful in
their deliberations, and they thanked us very much for our particular
efforts. So I wanted to make sure that you knew that as you go
through that process.
And then on a final note, thanks for your kind words regarding
the overpass. I just wanted to make sure that everybody saw that and
that particular process is done.
Next item, Commissioner Fiala asked me to bring this forward. I
haven't received the letter in the mail yet, but here's the draft. And this
is a letter from Kathy Prosser, PresidentlCEO of the Conservancy of
Southwest Florida, and it basically asks the Chairman and the
commission to extend the blue ribbon committee that's basically
examining the Fleishmann parcel.
I made mention to this when Commissioner Halas had some
concerns when we had the item that was up under 10(B). Your further
direction on this particular item, so we can respond, either bring this
back as a board item, I can make a verbal communication with Ms.
Prosser. What would you like us to do?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think everybody's getting a little bit tired
now. Why don't you bring it up under a board item.
Page 261
November 16,2004
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Unless you have --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I could give -- you know, my
concern was, you know, I wanted to find out what they'd been able to
accomplish so far. It may be a quick status report of what they
considered and what they're recommending at this point in time. And
then have a program or plan to proceed for the next six months or 12
months or whatever, so that we'll understand exactly what they're
going to be trying to do.
And that would sort of depend -- that would determine whether
or not they were going to extend it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly.
MR. MUDD: Okay. And Commissioner, I'd like to give them
some time to prepare that, and I will get with them to see if they want
to do that on the 30th of November or the 14th of December.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. Okay.
MR. MUDD: Okay, do I have three nods?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: And that's how we'll respond on that particular
item.
Last piece in communication that I have is just to make sure that
you know today, because everybody's going to ask -- and this is
communication, I just want to make sure that I'm communicating with
you.
Today you added $1.6 million to the sheriffs budget, brought it
to $120.9 million. That is a 15.2 percent increase over his '04 budget.
I want to make sure that you had those figures, that you knew them. I
had Michael do them real quick so that you would know in case you
get asked by the press in the next couple of days.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We got the press right here.
MR. MUDD: And no doubt he's taking copious notes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: He's taking notes.
Page 262
November 16,2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: He's scribbling down furiously.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I will also come forward to you in
the near future, and I don't want you to go through this eye chart, but
I'm going to basically go down -- here's what the turnback was, here's
where the dollars are, here's what you got back from DJJ. And that's
not on here yet, but the sheriffs funding is, along with the loan that
you made to the CRA with dollars. And I need to add the DJJ piece.
And I'm going to come back and show you what your UFR list looks
like and figure out what you want us to do. I plan to do that around
the 14th of December as an item so that you would know, so you can
give me some direction on what you want to do before the year gets so
far out in advance that the year is over before you get a chance.
***The last item that I want you to also make sure that you're
aware of is right down here at the bottom where it says "descriptions."
We've got some requirements based on the new impact fee about the
special operations building for the sheriff or the Orangetree substation,
law enforcement capital, we talked about that today, of $938,000, and
you got to set money aside for the appeal.
So the reason I say it's not going to be until the 14th of December
is by that time we'll figure out if the sheriffs going to appeal or not,
and I might be able to scratch an item for this particular agenda.
We need to just talk about those things, and I think the 14th of
December would be a good time to do that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a point. Jim, if you'll go back
to the top of this, this thing. I have a problem with the terminology of
sheriff funding increase, 11/16104, of$1,687,000. That's not really an
increase. What --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- what we did was we let him use
$2.5 million out of next year's funds to pay for salary costs last year.
He didn't use all that money, so we're merely restoring it to his budget.
MR. MUDD: I'll change the nomenclature, make it sheriffs
Page 263
November 16,2004
request, 11 blank, blank, and everybody will know what that is.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, restoration of -- partial
restoration -- yeah, okay. It just leaves the impression that what we've
decided to do is add some more money to the budget, and it really
isn't, because we transferred 2.5 million out and then he didn't use it
all, so we're putting the part he didn't use back in there.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Right? Is that what --
MR. MUDD: I was just trying to show that there was a
placeholder on that particular --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Coyle, you're
absolutely right. But he came in here with only so much money in his
pocket and he left with a little more.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, but it's because he didn't
spend the money that we gave him for the last year, so he just -- it's
sort of like a carry-forward, you know. We carry forward things from
an unfinished project from one year to the next. So it's just sort of a
carry - forward --
MR. MUDD: I'm just going to call it sheriffs request, sir. I got
it. I'll work it out, okay. I'm not going to argue about this. It's
semantics. I just want to show that it's there and I had to deduct it
from the monies that you had available to use for unfunded
requirements.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's not a request.
MR. MUDD: Sir, I'll work it, okay?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Get out your dictionary and find a
good term for this, okay, other than "sanatorium."
MR. MUDD: That's all I have, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine.
Commissioner Halas, do you have anything to say on the record,
here?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I do. I have quite a bit to say
Page 264
November 16,2004
here.
I want to thank my commissioners for where we worked -- we
were working on this effort since early May, and that's the sheriffs
budget. And I'm looking for some way or another that we don't have
to go through this year after year after year, okay? I'm hoping that we
-- we're able to give the sheriff some direction in saying that we would
like him to hold his cost at 39 percent of the budget, okay?
Here's an idea that I have, a couple of ideas, and I just want to
pass them by here and see what we -- if we agree on this.
In view of the current difficulties between the board and the
sheriff with respect to his budget requirements on the annual tax bill, I
would like to ask that the board instruct the chairman to write a letter
to the tax collector requesting that he publish on the trim notice, or
better known as the annual tax bill, a separate and distinct from the
countywide general fund millage, the millage rate required to fund the
sheriffs budget, beginning with the next property tax cycle. In other
words, where we would write a letter to the tax collector, asking him if
he would be so kind as to break that out separately, so people have an
understanding of what it costs for the sheriff.
Now, if the tax collector finds that that's difficult or he can't make
that commitment, my second idea is, for some reason if the tax
collector is unwilling to grant this request, I would like to ask the
board to direct the county attorney to send a letter to the three
municipalities in the county seeking their endorsement to create a
countywide MSTU to fund the sheriffs budget with a corresponding
and -- with a corresponding general fund millage reduction for those
municipalities.
So what we're trying to do here is make people aware of exactly
what it's costing us, in case that the sheriff doesn't understand that
we're trying to hold the line on costs.
And if the county only grows seven percent per year, then he
ought to realize that we don't have the millage rate coming in and,
Page 265
November 16,2004
therefore, we're going to have to find some other way of compensating
his budget.
But -- so of those two, would you like to write a letter to the tax
collector, asking ifhe could break that out as a separate item, and
seeing where that leads?
And if we find out the tax collector is not in favor of this, or it's
too difficult for him, then we would basically direct the county
attorney to write letters to the three municipalities here in Collier
County, stating that -- would they be in favor of endorsing an MSTU,
with the idea that it also would lower their tax rate.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If I could--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- if you wouldn't mind. I think
they're both excellent suggestions, but the -- and I hate people who tell
me this, but we, you know, tried that once and it didn't work.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What's that?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But we did talk with the tax
collector about doing exactly that, and he was not willing to proceed
with that. So maybe the way to do that is to send a letter and formally
request it.
The problem at the time was that he didn't believe that there was
sufficient room on the form to put another line for the sheriffs budget,
so he was unwilling to proceed with that. But I think maybe a letter, a
formal letter requesting that might produce better results.
With respect to the MSTU, the problem is that most of the money
is going to have to come from the unincorporated area MSTUs.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so the municipalities, in most
cases -- I can almost tell you what Naples is likely to say, they're
likely to say, yeah, go ahead and set up an MSTU, we just won't pay
into it because we don't need a sheriff.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Marco Island will chime in with that one.
Page 266
November 16, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. And I think they both would
say that. But if it were developed as an incorporated MSTU, that's a
different possibility entirely. But I think they're both ideas worth
evaluating.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if you're going to set up a
countywide MSTU, you have to have the permission of the
municipalities to participate in a countywide MSTU that you basically
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But what I'm saying to you is they
probably won't participate, you see?
MR. MUDD: Well, if you get an offset on their general fund.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, okay, maybe so. All right.
Yeah, if you make it work, fine. I just know they don't like
paying for sheriffs expenses right now.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right. And same with Marco, they've
been wanting to lower their fees, if not discontinue them altogether.
So I don't know that that --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's worth a try. Let's try.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think it's worth a try. I think--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Everything's worth a try.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So would three nods be enough to
-- for the letter-writing for the Chair, and then three nods for the
county commissioner -- or the county -- yeah, lawyer, to go ahead and
MR. MUDD: I think David has some words. I don't have a
problem doing the draft letter for the chairwoman to go to the tax
collector, but the legality of the MSTBU --
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I was just going to suggest that if the
board --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Speak into your microphone, David.
Excuse me.
Page 267
November 16,2004
MR. WEIGEL: Pardon me.
If the board and the chairman and county manager were of
accord, how about the idea of the county attorney, county manager
and the chairman going over and sitting and talking with the tax
collector and we can brainstorm, as opposed to a letter. We may not
capture all the potential --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's a great idea.
MR. WEIGEL: -- opportunities are there. And then the chairman
can report back to the board at the next meeting or something like that
as to how we might further approach. And if letters are important at
that point, we could send them to whomever necessary.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Take one at a time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I'd be happy to go over and talk
with him. I always think people sitting around a table and discussing
things is a lot better than letters. You lose a lot in that letter. Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, I just don't want to go
through this year after year. I think we burn up an awful lot of energy.
We got an awful lot of items that need to be addressed in this county,
and I'm just trying to find one way, one source that we -- that we can
address an issue, and hopefully it won't come back and haunt us every
year when budget time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would tell you that while I
think it's a good idea I'm not sure it will yield the results you want.
Because it won't constrain the sheriffs budget necessarily. Because
the sheriff has told us, and I think he sincerely believes this, is that the
people don't mind paying additional money for his department.
And the mere fact that it appears as a separate line on the trim
notice is not really sufficient to make everyone aware, because most
people don't study that trim notice enough. In fact, I'd be hard pressed
to tell you what some of the lines really are and how much they
represent, although I've looked at them.
So I'm suggesting that it's a good idea to do that, but I don't think
Page 268
November 16,2004
it will result in the widespread understanding that will control the rate
of expenditure increase in the sheriffs department.
I think that we tried that -- the thing we did this year, which is
different than the things we've done in past years, is to apply this
percentage of the pie. You can grow -- you can have no more -- no
larger a slice next year than you had this past year. And that provides
a fair and reasonable increase for everybody in Collier County
government.
I think if we stick with that policy -- and we have this year, you
know. The action taken by the board today was to stick with that
policy.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, it was very difficult.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I know, but it was the first year.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It was very difficult.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And maybe it will be less difficult
next year, I don't know. But I'm not making any promises. But
certainly, I think if we indicate a willingness to stick with that policy,
then I think over time it will get easier, it will become routine. And
the things that we're concerned about will be examined more closely
by the sheriff before he submits his budget to us, and perhaps we will
be able to reach agreement more easily on that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I sure hope so. This was --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It was agonizing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It was. We spent an awful lot of
time on this and we could have been using our energies to approach
other problems that we needed really to address here in Collier
County .
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And it's not necessarily over yet
either.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, that's true. I understand that,
Commissioner.
And I just -- but I'm trying to figure out a good way to address
Page 269
November 16,2004
this so that we make sure that everybody in the community
understands what we're trying to accomplish. That's the big thing.
And that we're trying to be stewards of the people, including yourself
and myself and all of us that sit here. We pay taxes, and we want to
make sure that we get the value received. And that's the only thing
I'm trying to accomplish here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is it my turn now?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Your turn.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it's a good segue. You know
that I am working at your direction on programs to reduce
expenditures by trying to get all of the governmental agencies to work
to gether.
We had a good meeting with Judge Hayes and his staff. He's got
some really interesting ideas that he's actually working with some
other counties on. So I think we can implement similar programs here
and accomplish some savings.
The sheriff has agreed to participate. The -- Jennifer Edwards has
said she'll participate in this joint study. But of course Jennifer has
trimmed back her costs to the point where there's not much savings to
be obtained, and so has Abe Skinner.
The other constitutional officers have not responded, and so I'm
going to assume that they're not going to participate.
So I have sent letters to the school board members and I have
talked with members of the school board about getting them involved
in this study. And the school board members I've talked with are very
enthusiastic about that. They in fact had some ideas about saving some
money jointly that I had not thought of. And so I think there's a good
opportunity to leverage that.
And we've also sent letters to all of the fire districts, asking for
their participation.
Page 270
November 16,2004
And if we can get all of these governmental agencies working
together and trying to find ways that we can consolidate say
purchasing functions or piggyback procurement actions on things,
then --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Health insurance.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- that's right, lots of things. We
might come up with some very, very substantial savings for the
taxpayers.
I wanted you to know about that because it was sort of an
expansion of the charge that you had given me before, but it was
perfectly logical for us to do it, so I proceeded with it. And I hope that
we get good results from it. That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And I just wanted to -- because
I'm never allowed to talk to you in private, I just wanted to let you
know that I've been working on a little project. I've had an idea that
I've been pursuing, and I think it's a really cool idea. I don't know --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's affordable housing?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, no. No, actually, it's a remote control
park. And I've been going out to watch these guys that fly remote
controls planes. They build them themselves, they're absolutely
dynamic. I've spoken to Marla Ramsey about it. And they fly on a
field that they maintain and they have maintained. It's county
property .
They've used this field now for 24 years, but Marla has given
them notice that they're going to have to move because she wants to
build soccer fields there. She says we need more soccer fields.
And so then I said oh, gosh, this is such a great thing. We don't
have a park like this. So then I asked Marla to meet with me in Jim
Mudd's office, and we have done that. And there have been some pros
and cons. But I just wanted to tell you, I'm doing that.
This remote control park that I'm thinking of I think is a great
asset. It's more of a man thing than a woman thing. And I think for
Page 271
November 16,2004
young boys, it's especially wonderful because they have something
else other than sports to throw their heart and soul into, and they even
take pride in it. These guys mentor these children. It's a great group.
There's -- the property that they use is off Manatee Road, way
out east, and it adjoins Manatee school system there. And there's a
lake right there for remote controlled boats, whether they be power
boats or sailboats. It's quite a nice piece of property. There's enough
area that Marla's going to be building a dog park there. And that's
good.
She wanted to build soccer fields there, and the more I've been
concerned with this, the more I've thought, all of the development
that's going in there is pretty high-end development. We've got some
wonderful things, Treviso Bay and Lands End, across -- right next
door to Eagle Creek, and we have V erona Walk and we have Fiddler's
Creek.
One of the points that Jim brought up was that the airplane noise
might bother the people in Fiddler's Creek, and I thought a lot about
that, because it was a good point, but I have a funny feeling that the
soccer lights until midnight and the noise from the cheering in the
stands and the traffic might also be a disturbance to those people. And
they go there every night, whereas these people only fly during the
day.
I have some little maps here, just to show you, just so you can
know what the area looks like.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Where is this going to be, out by
Manatee School?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It's out by Manatee School, and I thought
it could be a cooperative agreement with Manatee School. I
mentioned this to Marla too, maybe -- and I'd be happy to talk to them
-- actually, I have -- to see if we couldn't work some extra soccer
fields there.
I've also talked with an engineer about the East Naples
Page 272
November 16, 2004
Community Park, there's a big field that's just sitting there, right --
bounded really beautifully by wonderful melaleuca, and it would
make -- he figured four additional soccer fields, and it would be right
there where they play.
So I want to tell you that although I've received some negative
answers, I'm not giving up, because I just think this is a wonderful
thing and something new and special for our community. I've asked
Jim to look into it.
Jim also mentioned something about high -- or the frequencies,
and I've talked with the groups, and actually, they have something
where they have different numbers and they don't conflict with one
another. And I thought that was great.
Let's see, what else did I --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner, the 60 acres here, it
belongs to the county?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
And see this little piece here, that's the flying field. And they've
been maintaining this all along. Here's a little bit of data on them.
They pay their dues, they maintain the field. They don't charge us any
money or anything. And they're willing to continue to do that. They
don't want any money from the county, they're just happy to do this.
They'd love to have other kids come in, and groups.
And I just thought I would love to see us work on this idea,
because it's so new, so different and I think a new thing for children.
And so I'm just letting everybody know that I've been talking with you
and Marla on that.
And I have one other thing to say, and that is I'm so glad that I
was elected again and I didn't have to run for office. And I want to tell
you that working with both of you, and with the other two
commissioners has truly been a pleasure. We all treat one another
with respect. And our ethics are so high that we can be proud of one
another, and we have a great deal of trust. And so I'm just pleased that
Page 273
November 16,2004
we can all be working together for the next few of years.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're pleased to have you back.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And with that, the meeting is
adjourned.
***** Commissioner Henning moved, seconded by Commissioner
Halas and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved andlor adopted: *****
Item #16Al
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "GERALD R. FINEIS
Item #16A2
GRANT APPLICATION TO THE US FISH AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE FOR $20,000 (OF WHICH $10,000 WILL BE
REIMBURSABLE) TO FUND EXOTIC VEGETATION
REMOVAL AND HABITAT RESTORATION ON
CONSERVATION COLLIER LANDS - TO PROVIDE
FINANCIAL AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO PRIVATE
PROPERTY OWNERS AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AGENCIES TO HELP RESTORE WETLANDS - AS DETAILED
Item #16A3
AFTER-THE-FACT SUBMITTAL OF THE ATTACHED SEA
TURTLE LICENSE PLATE GRANTS PROGRAM GRANT
APPLICATION TO THE CARIBBEAN CONSERVATION
CORPORATION FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY
Page 274
November 16,2004
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT'S SEA TURTLE
PUBLIC AWARENESS PROGRAM AND TO APPROVE ANY
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS - THE TIME PERIOD
FOR GRANT COMPLETION IS ONE YEAR FROM THE
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 2004-343: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIV ATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "CARLTON LAKES UNIT 3-C". THE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE
PRIVATELY MAINTAINED - WI RELEASE OF
Item #16A5
CP-2004-10: PETITION CARNY-2004-AR-6724, PASTOR
ETTORE RUBIN, C.S., OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE
CATHOLIC CHURCH, REQUESTING A PERMIT TO CONDUCT
A CARNIVAL FROM NOVEMBER 24, 25, 26, 27 AND 28, 2004,
ON THE CHURCH PROPERTY LOCATED AT 207 SOUTH 9TH
STREET IN IMMOKALEE - WITH WAIVER OF THE SURETY
BOND
Item #16A6
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "TUSCANY COVE",
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY - WI
SII.Ell.LAIIONS
Page 275
November 16, 2004
Item #16A7 - Moved to Item #10D
Item #16A8
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "QUARRY PHASE 1A",
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY - WI
SII.Ell.LAIIONS
Item #16A9 - Moved to Item #10E
Item #16AI0
RESOLUTION 2004-344: AMENDING THE COLLIER COUNTY
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE FEE SCHEDULE OF
DEVELOPMENT- RELATED REVIEW AND PROCESSING
FEES AS PROVIDED FOR IN CODE OF LAWS SECTION 2-11 -
Item #16A11
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO RATIFY THE
COUNTY MANAGER'S LETTER WHERE HE, DUE TO THE
TIMELINESS OF THE ISSUE AND IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY SPOKE FOR THE BCC PER RESOLUTION 2000-
149, AND IN DOING SO PROVIDED COLLIER COUNTY
SUPPORT FOR A REQUEST FOR SHARING OF TITLE TO THE
PAL-MAR SOUTH PROPERTY BETWEEN THE STATE OF
FLORIDA AND PALM BEACH COUNTY AND THE FUTURE
Page 276
November 16,2004
SHARING OF TITLE BETWEEN LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND
THE STATE IN LAND ACQUISITIONS FOR CONSERV A TION
PURPOSES, AS APPROPRIATE - AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16A12
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
CASES ALJO INC. 2003-051, STANLEY W. WHITE, JR. 2002-
006, ROBERT A. MITCHELL 2001-021, ANNE J. MILNE AND
THELMA B. GARCIA 2004-041, ERIC B. BERTELSEN 2001-084,
SHADOW COURT FUELS, INC. 1999-052, DERYA
CORPORATION, USULU OKUR, RA 2002-025 - AS DETAILED
Item #16A13
A $300.00 REIMBURSEMENT TO MR. AND MRS. JOHN
Item #16A14
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "SOUTHPOINTE AT
Item #16A15
FINAL PLAT OF "VALENCIA LAKES GOLF AND COUNTRY
CLUB, PHASE 1A", APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
Page 277
November 16,2004
Item #16Bl
QUITCLAIM DEED FOR A PORTION OF WOODSHIRE LANE
RIGHT-OF-WAY IN FOREST LAKES SUBDIVISION. FISCAL
IMP ACW R 50
Item #16B2
PURCHASE OF PARCEL NO. 125 REQUIRED FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A STORM WATER RETENTION AND
TREATMENT POND NECESSARY FOR THE SIX-LANING OF
COLLIER BOULEVARD. (CR 951) FROM GOLDEN GATE
BOULEVARD TO IMMOKALEE ROAD. (PROJECT NO. 65061,
IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT NO. 37). FISCAL IMPACT $362,000
Item # 16B3
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO DECREASE THE DEBT SERVICE
PAYMENT BY $100,858 AND INCREASE THE BUILDING
RENT PAYMENTS FOR THE HORSESHOE DRIVE SQUARE
LEASE SPACE FROM OCTOBER 2004 THROUGH JANUARY
2005 - TO COVER LEASE PAYMENTS UNTIL
TRANSPORTATION CAN RELOCATE INTO THEIR NEW
FACILITIES
Item #16B4
THREE (3) ADOPT-A-ROAD PROGRAM AGREEMENTS AT
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING AT A
TOTAL COST OF $150.00 FOR TWO (2) NEW SIGNS THE
OTHER SIGNS ALREADY EXIST - SUNRISE COMMUNITY OF
Page 278
November 16,2004
COLLIER COUNTY, WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. OF
Item #16B5
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE CARRY FORWARD
AMOUNTS FROM FY 04 FOR THE LEL Y GOLF ESTATES
BEAUTIFICATION MSTU FUND (152) IN THE AMOUNT OF
$RR,149 00
Item #16B6
INSTALLATION OF A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE
INTERSECTION OF GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD AND
WILDERNESS DRIVE AT AN ANNUAL MAINTENANCE COST
OF APPROXIMATELY $3,500 - ALL COSTS WILL BE
REIMBURSED TO THE COUNTY BY THE WILDERNESS
Item #16B7
AMENDMENT NO.5 TO EXTEND THE TIME OF THE
CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
BY AGNOLI, BARBER & BRUNDAGE, INC. FOR THE
LIVINGSTON ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, FROM PINE
RIDGE ROAD TO IMMOKALEE ROAD, PROJECT NO. 62071 -
Item #16C1
REJECT THE BID FROM VILA & SONS RECEIVED FOR BID #
04-3716 AND TO PROVIDE AUTHORIZATION TO RE-
Page 279
November 16,2004
ADVERTISE FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY WATER
RECLAMATION FACILITY INSTALLATION OF IRRIGATION
AND LANDSCAPING, PROJECT 725071 - TO ENCOURAGE
COMPETITIVE BIDDING TO GET THE BEST PRICING FOR
THE COl.IN.TY
Item #16C2
WORK ORDER VC-02-15 UNDER CONTRACT # 02-3349,
ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR GENERAL CONTRACTOR
SERVICE, WITH WM. J. VARIAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
FOR SERVICES RELATED TO THE SOUTH COUNTY WATER
RECLAMATION FACILITY - SECURITY UPGRADES AND
FACILITY RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECTS 725052
AND 725081 - TO IMPROVE SECURITY MEASURES AND
INFRASTRUCTURES AT THE SOUTH COUNTY WATER
Item #16C3
EASEMENT AGREEMENT AND ACCEPT A UTILITY
EASEMENT FROM DAVID H. AND ANNA M. FARMER AT A
COST NOT TO EXCEED $3,296, PROJECT 710061- AS
Item #16C4
RESOLUTION 2004-345: A DECLARATION OF EASEMENT
FOR A UTILITY AND ACCESS EASEMENT WITHIN
PROPERTY ACQUIRED FOR A FUTURE PARK AT AN
ESTIMATED COST NOT TO EXCEED $13,531, PROJECT
Page 280
November 16,2004
Item #16C5
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO "EXPAND NORTH COUNTY
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY PROCESS CONTROL
BUILDING" TO BRADANNA, INC., BID 05-3726, PROJECT
72510 FOR $179,800.00 - TO PROVIDE AN
ENVIRONMENTALLY CONTROLLED INSTRUMENT REPAIR
FACILITY AND ADEQUATE SPACE FOR OPERATOR
IRAillING
Item #16C6
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO "EXPAND SOUTH COUNTY
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY 2ND FLOOR PROCESS
CONTROL BUILDING" TO EHC, INC. BID 04-3724, PROJECT
72509 FOR $689,000.00 AND APPROVE A BUDGET
AMENDMENT FOR $400,000.00 - TO ACCOMMODATE THE
TECHNICAL NEEDS IMPOSED BY THE NEW PLANT
EXE.ANS.lillS
Item #16Dl
RENEW AN AGREEMENT FOR JOINT USE OF FACILITIES
WITH ST. JOHN NEUMANN HIGH SCHOOL - TO MAXIMIZE
USE OF AND ACCESS TO COUNTYWIDE RECREATION
FAClLIIlRS
Item #16D2
PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR THREE RESIDENTIAL LOTS
FOR EXPANSION OF THE COUNTY'S BAYVIEWPARKAT A
Page 281
November 16,2004
COST NOT TO EXCEED $92,730 - FOR THE EXPANSION OF
Item #16D3
AFTER-THE-FACT SUBMITTAL OF A FLORIDA RECREATION
DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM GRANT
APPLICATION TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR NORTH NAPLES
REGIONAL PARK - FOR PUBLIC OUTDOOR RECREATION
Item #16D4
RESOLUTION 2004-346: AMENDING PARTS OF ARTICLE IV
OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION
DEPARTMENT FACILITIES AND OUTDOOR AREAS LICENSE
AND FEE POLICY - TO GENERATE REVENUE SUFFICIENT
Item #16D5
A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE AND APPROVE EXPENDITURES
IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $10,000 ASSOCIATED
WITH HOSTING THE SITE VISITATION COMMITTEE AS
PART OF THE NATIONAL ACCREDITATION PROCESS FOR
THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT - AS
Item #16D6
Page 282
November 16, 2004
FY 05 CONTRACT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FOR
OPERATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HEALTH
DEPARTMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,328,240 - TO
PROVIDE LOCAL FUNDING TO AUGMENT THE LEVEL OF
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES TO THE RESIDENTS OF
COLLIER COlThITY
Item #16El
FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT WITH JEANNE
L. NOE, AS TRUSTEE OF THE JAMES R. NOE II REVOCABLE
TRUST, FOR THE CONTINUED USE OF GARAGE AND
PARKING SPACE FOR THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, AT A TOTAL
ANNUAL RENTAL OF $61,932.96 - AMENDED LEASE PERIOD
FOR ONE YEAR BEGINNING NOVEMBER 29, 2004 AND
ENDING NOVEMBER 28,2005 WI RIGHTS TO EXTEND THE
LEASE FOR TWO ADDITIONAL ONE-YEAR PERIODS WITH A
Item #16E2
CHANGE ORDER NO.6, WORK ORDER #BSSW-00-07, DESIGN
OF THE NORTH NAPLES GOVERNMENT SERVICES CENTER,
TO BSSW ARCHITECTS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,378.00 -
TO BE LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF AIRPORT
Item #16E3
PURCHASE OF VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT FROM BID #04-
12-0823 AND BID #04-05-0824 AS COORDINATED BY THE
Page 283
November 16,2004
FLORIDA SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION, THE FLORIDA
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, AND THE FLORIDA FIRE
CHIEFS ASSOCIATION WHEN IN THE BEST INTEREST OF
THE COl.IN.TY
Item #16E4
AFTER-THE-FACT SUBMITTAL OF THE COOPERATIVE
WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS FUND GRANT
APPLICATIONS TO THE BIG CYPRESS BASINISOUTH
FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FOR A
RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEM INTERCONNECT, A CENTRAL
IRRIGATION CONTROL SYSTEM AND AUSTRALIAN PINE
TREE REMOVAL-AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SllMMAR Y
Item # 16E5
RESOLUTION 2004-347: AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO
EXECUTE ANY AND ALL APPLICATIONS FOR
DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL INCLUDING REZONES,
ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING AND OTHER RELATED
ITEMS
Item # 16E6
CONTRACT 04-3579, ARBITRAGE REBATE CALCULATIONS
FOR COLLIER COUNTY IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF
$50,000 FOR THE 2004 CALCULATIONS - AS DETAILED IN
Page 284
November 16,2004
Item #16Fl
APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENTS - AS DETAILED IN
Item # 16F2
FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 2001 TOURISM AGREEMENT
WITH THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT FOR RESTORATION OF LAKE TRAFFORD
Item #16F3
TDC CATEGORY "A" GRANT APPLICATION, INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT, BUDGET AMENDMENT AND PURCHASE
ORDER IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,000, PROJECT 90526 - FOR
MARCO ISLAND BEACH LASER GRADING FROM
Item #16F4
PURCHASE A NEW FIRE TRUCK FROM THE FLORIDA
SHERIFF'S BID LIST IN THE NEW AMOUNT OF $274,973 -
Item #16F5
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
Page 285
November 16,2004
$469,530 - TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT 4401 BA YSHORE
~,S
Item #16F6
PURCHASE OF "AUTOPULSE" FOR PLACEMENT ON ALL
COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
DEPARTMENT UNITS ($299,989) - TO MAXIMIZE THE
SURVIVAL RATES OF PATIENTS WHICH FALL VICTIM
Item # 16F7
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
ACCEPTING $105,806 FOR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM ENHANCEMENT - AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16Gl
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) APPROVE
THE EXPENDITURE OF $250,000 IN FY05 BUDGET TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING (TIF) FUNDS TO ASSIST WITH THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF MEDICINE RURAL HEALTH TRAINING CENTER
IN IMMOKALEE - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SllMMARY
Item #16H1
Page 286
November 16,2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS' REQUEST FOR BOARD APPROVAL
FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION
SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. COMMISSIONER TO
ATTEND THE 2004 FARM CITY BARBEQUE ON NOVEMBER
24,2004. $15.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HALAS'
TRAVEL BUDGET - TO BE HELD AT NOBLES - COLLIER
Item #1611
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE- FILED ANDIOR
REEERRED-
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 287
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
. November 16, 2004
FOR BOARD ACTION:
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Minutes:
1. Collier County Pelican Bay Services - Budget Sub-Committee Agenda for
October 20, 2004; Minutes for September 15, 2004.
2. Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory Committee - Agenda and
Minutes for August 25,2004; Agenda and Minutes for September 15,
2004, unofficial, no quorum; Agenda and Minutes for September 29,
2004, unofficial, no quorum.
B. Other:
1) Guy L. Carlton, Collier County Tax Collector - Amendment for the FY 2003-
2004 budget.
H:Data/F onnat
November 16,2004
Item #16Jl
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AUTHORIZE
CHAIRMAN DONNA FIALA TO SIGN THE ATTACHED
AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING THE COLLIER COUNTY
SHERIFF'S OFFICE TO HAVE TRAFFIC CONTROL
JURISDICTION OVER PRIVATE ROADS WITHIN THE
Item # 16J2
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 -
PURCHASE ORDERS OPENED FROM OCTOBER 16,2004
IHROll.GH OCTOBER 29, 2004
Item # 16J3
COLLIER COUNTY COMMISSION ENDORSE THE UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICEIDEPARTMENT OF
TREASURY FEDERAL EQUITABLE SHARING ANNUAL
CERTIFICATION REPORT - TO ENFORCE FEDERAL
~,AWS
Item #16J4
TRANSFER OF FUNDS COLLECTED THROUGH THE COURT
SYSTEM TO FUND THE COLLIER COUNTY JUVENILE
Page 288
November 16, 2004
ASSESSMENT CENTER TO THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT TO BE USED EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE OPERATION
OF THE JUVENILE ASSESSMENT CENTER - AS DETAILED
Item #16Kl
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO PARCEL 144 IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. PRIMERA IGLESIA
CRISTIANA MANANTIAL DE VIDA, INC., ET AL., CASE NO.
03-2372-CA (GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY PROJECT 60027)-
STAFF TO PAY THE SUM OF $8,143.75 TO THE FORMAN,
Item #16K2
OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENT, BEVERLY J.
GATTI, FOR PARCEL NOS. 160 & 960 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$35,305.00 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
BEVERLY GATTI, ET AL., CASE NO. 03-2551-CA (GOLDEN
GA TE P ARKW A Y PROJECT 60027) - AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16K3
OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENTS, DANIEL AND
DESIREE HOPE FOR PARCEL NO. 172 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$9,545.00 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
BEVERLY GATTI, ET AL., CASE NO. 03-2551-CA (GOLDEN
GATE PARKWAY PROJECT 60027) - AS DETAILED IN THE
Page 289
November 16,2004
Item #16K4
OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENTS, JOSEPH AND
BETH MANNING FOR PARCEL NO. 169 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$8,510.00 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
THOMAS F. SALZMANN, ET AL., CASE NO. 03-2550-CA
(GOLDEN GATE P ARKW A Y PROJECT 60027) - AS DETAILED
Item #16K5
OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENTS, MARVIN AND
EVA SMITH FOR PARCEL NOS. 162 & 762 IN THE AMOUNT
OF $20,355.00 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY
V. BEVERLY GATTI, ET AL., CASE NO. 03-2551-CA (GOLDEN
GATE P ARKW A Y PROJECT 60027) - AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16K6
OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENTS, DAVID AND
BARBARA S. BURGESON FOR PARCEL NO. 170 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $15,000.00 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER
COUNTY V. THOMAS F. SALZMANN, ET AL., CASE NO. 03-
2550-CA (GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY PROJECT 60027) - AS
Item #16K7
OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENTS, DONALD AND
PAULINE PROFITT, FOR PARCEL NO. 156 IN THE AMOUNT
OF $24,265.00 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY
Page 290
November 16,2004
V. JOSEPH SANNICANDRO, ET AL., CASE NO. 03-2500-CA
(GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY PROJECT 60027) - AS DETAILED
Item #16K8
MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AS TO PARCELS
132A AND 132B IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER
COUNTY V. VILLAGE WALK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
OF NAPLES, INC., ET AL., CASE NO. 04-345-CA
(VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD PROJECT 63051) - AS
Item #16K9
MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AS TO PARCELS 136
IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. JOHN
AURIGEMMA, ET AL., CASE NO. 04-344-CA (VANDERBILT
BEACH ROAD PROJECT 63051) - AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16Kl 0
OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENTS, JAKE AND
CHRISTINA SANNICANDRO, FOR PARCEL NOS. 155 & 755 IN
THE AMOUNT OF $9,430.00 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. JOSEPH SANNICANDRO, ET AL., CASE
NO. 03-2500-CA (GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY PROJECT 60027)
Item #16K11
Page 291
November 16,2004
OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENTS, WILLIAM & LISA
BROCK, FOR PARCEL NOS. 148 & 948 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$27,255.00 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
ELIZABETH D. BLOCH, ET AL., CASE NO. 03-2403-CA
(GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY PROJECT 60027) -AS DETAILED
Item #16K12
OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENT, NORMAN C.
PARTINGTON, FOR PARCEL NO. 158 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$21,275.00 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
JOSEPH J. GUIDISH, JR., ET AL., CASE NO. 03-2549-CA
(GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY PROJECT 60027) - AS DETAILED
Item #16K13
OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENT, JANET ROMANO,
FOR PARCEL NOS. 117, 118AAND 130 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$102,465.00 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
DIANNE P. HAAGA, ET AL., CASE NO. 03-0518-CA
(IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT NO. 60018) - AS DETAILED IN
Item #16K14
MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND A
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT TO BE DRAFTED
INCORPORATING THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS
THE MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RELATIVE TO
THE ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 177 IN THE LAWSUIT
Page 292
November 16, 2004
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. TEODORO GIMENEZ, ET AL.,
CASE NO. 04-0561-CA (VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD PROJECT
Item #16K15
OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENT, TECH
FOUNDATION, INC., FOR PARCEL NO. 150 IN THE AMOUNT
OF $27,140.00 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY
V. TECH FOUNDATION, INC., ET AL., CASE NO. 03-2499-CA
(GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY PROJECT 60027) -AS DETAILED
Item #16K16
OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENT, ANNA MONGILLO,
FOR PARCEL NO. 840 IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,500.00 IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. NANCY L.
JOHNSON PERRY, ET AL., CASE NO. 03-2373-CA (GOLDEN
GA TE P ARKW A Y PROJECT 60027) - AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16K17
OFFICE OF COUNTY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN
ORDINANCE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ROCK
ROAD IMPROVEMENT MSTU - AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16K18
Page 293
November 16,2004
SATISFACTION AND RELEASE OF LIEN IN CODE
ENFORCEMENT BOARD CASE NO. 2003-055 AND DIRECT
THE COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE TO FILE A STIPULATED
NOTICE OF DISMISSAL IN ALJO, INC. V. COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CASE NO.
Item # 1 7 A
RESOLUTION 2004-348: PETITION A VROW2004-AR6011 TO
DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND
THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN THE ROAD RIGHT OF WAY
WHICH WAS GRANTED TO THE PUBLIC BY THE DEED OF
EASEMENT RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 321,
PAGE 277, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA. LOCATED IN SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH,
RANGE 25 EAST - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SllMMARY
Page 294
November 16,2004
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:04 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALSIEX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL.
~d~
DONNP!.. FIALA, ChaIrman
ATTEST:.
DWIGHT:E:':SROCK, CLERK
" at! i^.",
These minutes approved by the Board on ~~t~ /</1 1JJdr!
as presented v or as corrected
,
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM.
Page 295