BCC Minutes 12/14/2004 R
December 14,2004
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, December 14, 2004
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such
special district as has been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9: 00 a.m., in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Donna Fiala
Frank Halas
Tom Henning
Fred W. Coyle
Jim Coletta
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Jim Mitchell, Office of the Clerk of Court
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
6",
...".:..-.....
-.,~.....
'.,
?
-- -.:..=.~:~.
AGENDA
December 14, 2004
9:00 AM
Donna Fiala, Chairman, District 1
Fred W. Coyle, Vice-Chairman, District 4
Frank Halas, Commissioner, District 2
Tom Henning, Commissioner, District 3
Jim Coletta, Commissioner, District 5
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM
MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER
WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENT A TION OF
THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED REQUIRES
THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING
ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK
TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS
DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT
ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH
EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR
TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC
PETITIONS."
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
Page 1
December 14, 2004
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5)
MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTl\1ENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1 :00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Reverend Dr. Kathleen Kircher, St. Monica's Episcopal Church
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary agenda.)
B. November 10,2004 - BCC/Land Development Code Meeting
C. November 15,2004 - Special Value Adjustment Board Meeting
D. November 16, 2004 - BCC Regular Meeting
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
A. Advisory Committee Service Awards
1. Advisory Committee Service Awards.
4. PROCLAMATIONS
Page 2
December 14, 2004
A. Proclamation to acknowledge that December 7, 2004 was celebrated as
Golden Gate High School Junior Civitan Club Day. To be accepted by: Mrs.
Connie Pinckney, Faculty Adviser.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation by the Lake Park Elementary School 4th Grade Panther Posse
regarding the Florida Panther Poster Contest.
B. Recommendation to recognize Heriberto (Eddie) Hartnack, County Veteran
Services Officer, Public Services Division, as Employee of the Year for
2004.
C. Presentation of Status Report by the Caribbean Gardens Blue Ribbon
Committee. To be presented by Kathy Prosser, Committee Chairman.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. This item continued from the November 16,2004 BCC Meetin2. 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.
B. Public Petition request by Robert France to discuss parcel exchange 3681
4th A venue Northeast.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Recommendation by the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) to the
Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to expand the boundaries of the
Immokalee Community Redevelopment Area to include the entirety of
parcels inadvertently bisected by the present boundary.
B. This item reauires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. PUDZ-2004-AR-5220
Land Development Group, LLC, represented by Ronald Nino, AICP, of
Vanasse Daylor, LLP, requesting a rezone from Rural Agricultural (A)
zoning to Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MUPUD) for a project to
Page 3
December 14, 2004
be known as the Buckley Mixed Use PUD to allow for mixed-use
commercial and residential development. The PUD is proposed for a
maximum of 251 residential dwelling units, a maximum of 74,230 square
feet of retail commercial, and a maximum of 97,070 square feet of office
commercial uses. The property is located at 7501 Airport-Pulling Road, in
the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Airport-Pulling Road and
Orange Blossom Drive, north of the Collier County Regional Library, in
Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida,
consisting of 22.84:1: acres.
C. Adoption of an Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of The Collier County Code
of Law and Ordinances, as amended by Ordinance No. 2001-13, The Collier
County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, providing for annual mid-cycle
year indexing adjustments to water and sewer impact fee rates.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of members to the Library Advisory Board.
B. Appointment of member to the Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory
Committee.
C. Appointment of members to the Golden Gate Community Center Advisory
Committee.
D. Appointment of member to the Golden Gate Beautification Advisory
Committee.
E. Appointment of members to the Development Services Advisory
Committee.
F. The Annual Performance Appraisal for the County Attorney.
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
Page 4
December 14, 2004
A. This item to be heard at 10:00 a.m. Recommendation to approve a
Resolution authorizing the issuance of capital improvements and refunding
revenue bonds Series 2005 in an amount not to exceed $180,000,000. (Sales
Tax Bond Issue) (Mike Smykowski, Director, Office of Management and
Budget)
B. This item to be heard immediatelv followin2 Item lOA. Recommendation
to approve a Resolution authorizing the issuance of limited general
obligation bonds in a not to exceed amount of $75,000,000. (Conservation
Collier Program) (Mike Smykowski, Director, Office of Management and
Budget)
c. This item continued indefinitely. Consideration of Multi-County
Agricultural Extension position. Due to Sheriffs budget appeal, no
consideration of Unfinanced Requirements (UFR) list will be considered at
this time. (Jim Mudd, County Manager)
D. Approve and Adopt by Resolution a Hazard Mitigation Plan for Collier
County also applicable to its Municipalities. Copies of the Hazard Mitigation
Plan are available for review at the County Manager's Office, 3rd Floor W.
Harmon Turner Building, 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL and all
Collier County Public Libraries. (Dan Summers, Director, Emergency
Management)
E. Recommendation to approve the Selection Committee's recommendation
and approve a Professional Services Agreement with Carollo Engineers in
the amount of$II,725,020.00 pursuant to RFP # 043673 for design and
resident engineering services through the warranty period related to the
construction of the Northeast Water Reclamation Facility and the Northeast
Water Treatment Plant, Project Numbers 70902 and 73156. (Jim DeLony,
Administrator, Public Utilities)
F. This item to be heard at 1:00 p.m. Recommendation to allow a
presentation of the construction options for the Golden Gate High School
Bridge Study alternatives conducted by the Collier County School Board
and the preferred alternative selected by the School Board at their November
18, 2004 Board meeting. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation
Services)
Page 5
December 14, 2004
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1. Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "Mediterra
Parcel 125," approval of the standard form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
2. Recommendation to 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 2-11.
(Changes to the PUD monitoring fees)
3. Recommendation to approve the application for the Property Tax
Stimulus Program, Advanced Broadband Infrastructure Investment
Program and the Job Creation Investment Program by Advocate
Aircraft Taxation Company.
4. Approval of the application for the Job Creation Investment Program,
the Advanced Broadband Infrastructure Investment Program and the
Fee Payment Assistance Program by Guadalupe Center, Incorporated
and provide for the waiver to pay the upfront fifty-percent of the
estimated Transportation Impact Fees at Final Site Development Plan
Page 6
December 14, 2004
approval, but instead pay all impact fees, in full, at issuance of the
Building Permit through the Fee Payment Assistance Deferral
Agreement.
5. Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of
"Veronawalk Phase 2B," and approval of the standard form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount
of the performance security.
6. Approval of Satisfactions of Lien.
7. Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (Public) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of "Sabal Bay Commercial
Plat - Phase One." The drainage improvements will be privately
maintained. Collier County will maintain the roadway improvements
within Thomasson Drive and Xeric Lane.
8. Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "Britney
Estates," approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
9. Request that the Board approve the reinstatement of the PUD
Amendment Process by the Department of Zoning and Land
Development Review in order to allow for a PUD amendment to be
processed in the form of a substantial modification to the PUD rather
than through a total PUD to PUD rezoning process.
10. A recommendation to release and authorize the County Manager to
execute a Satisfaction for an Impact Fee Deferral Agreement for
Brittany Bay Apartments, Phase II upon receipt of a legally sufficient
irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of $1 ,210,626.56 on behalf
ofCED Capital Holdings 2001B, LLC.
11. Request approval by the Board of County Commissioners for an
additional amendment cycle for the 2005 calendar year to address
urgent amendments to the Land Development Code regarding
Sidewalk issues pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 10 of the
Collier County Land Development. Code.
Page 7
December 14, 2004
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1. Recommendation to Approve Award of Bid #05-3691, "Roadway
Lighting Components" to Multiple Vendors.
2. Recommendation for Board approval to reject all bids received under
Bid #04-3595R "Clearing, Grubbing and Tree Trimming Removal
Services. "
3. Recommendation to approve a Resolution to reduce the speed limit on
New Market Road to 35 miles per hour for the section from Jerome
Drive to Hendry Street and 40 miles per hour for the section from
Hendry Street to State Road 29 (North 15th Street) at a cost of
approximately $400.
4. Recommendation to approve award of Bid #05-3690, "Electrical
Components," to multiple vendors.
5. Recommendation to Award Contract #04-3588 "Fixed Tern1 Material
Testing Services" to the following firms: Allied Engineering &
Testing, Inc.; Ardaman & Associates, Inc.; ASC Geosciences, Inc.;
Forge engineering, Inc.; and Professional Engineering and Inspection
Company, Inc. (Estimated Annual Amount $750,000)
6. Recommendation to award bid #05-3741 "Mowing of Grassed or
Vegetated Roadside Areas" for the estimated annual amount of
$276,000.00 to Southern Services.
7. Recommendation to approve Supplemental Agreement No.2 to the
Professional Services Agreement with American Consulting
Engineers of Florida, LLC, in the amount of$357,735 for the design
of Goodlette- Frank Road from Golden Gate Parkway to Pine Ridge
Road, Project No. 60005.
8. Recommendation to approve a Donation Agreement and to accept the
conveyance of a Temporary Construction Easement required for the
replacement of a drainage pipe under Blocks 260 and 261, Golden
Gate Unit 7 (Project No. 60016). Estimated Fiscal Impact: $18.50
Page 8
December 14, 2004
17. Recommendation to approve a budget amendment to reallocate
$28,000 from the Golden Gate City Outfall- Project Number 512181
to the Fish Branch Creek Box Culvert - Project Number 510211; Both
are part of the Water Management Department Capital Projects.
18. Recommendation to approve Contract Amendment No. 03-3473-AOl
with HDR Engineering, Inc. -"Consultant Services for Preparation of
a Land Development Overlay for Bayshore/Gateway Triangle
Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) District" to include civil
engineering design services in the amount of $156,071.40 for the
Gateway Triangle Drainage Improvement Project, Project Number
518032.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfaction of
Lien for a Solid Waste residential account wherein the County has
received payment and said Lien is satisfied in full for the 1994 Solid
Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal
impact is $20.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien.
2. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfaction of
Lien for a Solid Waste residential account wherein the County has
received payment and said Lien is satisfied in full for the 1995 Solid
Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal
impact is $20.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien.
3. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfactions of
Lien for Solid Waste residential accounts wherein the County has
received payment and said Liens are satisfied in full for the 1996
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
Fiscal impact is $30.00 to record the Satisfactions of Lien.
4. Recommendation to approve the Satisfactions of Notice of Claim of
Lien for Sanitary Sewer System Impact Fee. Fiscal impact is $20.00
to record the Satisfactions of Lien.
Page 10
December 14, 2004
5. Recommendation to approve, execute and record Satisfactions for
certain Water and/or Sewer Impact Fee Payment Agreements. Fiscal
impact is $20.00 to record the Satisfactions of Lien.
6. Recommendation to approve Work Order JEI-FT-05-01 to Johnson
Engineering (JEI) in the Amount of$163,364 for Engineering Service
for the Design, construction plans and Construction Inspection of a
Master Pump Station under Contract 01-3290 - Fixed Term
Professional Engineering Services, Project 73079.
7. Recommendation to approve FY 04-05 Innovative Waste Reduction
and Recycling Grant Agreement from the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection to fund construction of the Innovative
Recycling Fitness Walk, and associated Budget Amendment.
8. Recommendation to award Bid #04-3721 for the hauling and disposal
of lime sludge in the estimated annual amount of $200,000 for the
South Regional Water Treatment Plant.
9. Recommendation to approve a South Florida Water Management
District LocalGovernmental Agreement No. OT050868 for partial
funding of the 16-inch Reclaimed Water System Interconnect, Davis
Boulevard to Radio Road.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1. Recommendation to approve the purchase of two residential lots from
Kenneth and Eileen Clawson for expansion of the County's Bayview
Park at a cost not to exceed $22,070. Project 80060.
2. Recommendation to approve the purchase of two residential lots from
Bernadette M. Lemelin for expansion of the County's Bayview Park at
a cost not to exceed $16,365, Project 80060.
3. Recommendation to approve the purchase of two residential lots from
Andrew and Anne Lena for expansion of the County's Bayview Park
at a cost not to exceed $22,070, Project 80060.
Page 11
December 14,2004
4. Recommendation to approve an Agreement to Transfer Assets and
Release Sanctuary Skate Parks-Collier, Inc. from an existing Skate
Park Concession Agreement.
5. Recommendation to enter into agreement to provide existing funding
of $50,000 for operational expenses associated with the Collier
County Medical Society development of the American Project Access
Network of Collier County a coordinated, integrated system of
accessing health care for uninsured citizens of Collier County.
6. Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the.amount of
$300,183 to ensure continuous funding of the Older Americans Act
gran t.
7. Recommendation to approve a Lease Agreement with Southwest
Heritage, Inc. for use of the Naples Railroad Depot as a branch facility
of the Collier County Museum at an annual rent of $1, staffing and
operations cost of $200,800, building improvements and repairs of
$250,000, and exhibit development costs of $85,000.
8. Recommendation to approve agreement between Collier County
Veterinary Society, Inc., and Collier County for neuter, spay and
general physical examination services.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1. Recommendation to authorize the additional expenditure of a sum not
to exceed $7,500.00, for additional overtime payments as a result of
the Fair Labor Standards Act Audit.
2. That the Board of County Commissioners approve award of Bid #05-
3758, "Parts for Fleet," in two categories as follows: Heavy Trucks,
Heavy Equipment and School Buses - award to Naples Truck Parts as
primary vendor and to Bonita Auto Supply, Inc.-NAP A and NAP A
Auto Parts as secondary vendors; Automobiles and Small Trucks -
award to Bumper to Bumper Parts Depot, Inc. #540 as primary vendor
and to Bonita Auto Supply, Inc.-NAPA and NAPA Auto Parts as
secondary vendors.
Page 12
December 14, 2004
3. Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$32,000 to prepare and secure an alternative site for the storage and
sale of surplus vehicles at future surplus property auctions.
4. Recommendation to retain from active sales various properties
obtained from Avatar Properties, Inc., and which are part of the GAC
Land Trust.
5. Recommendation to approve Amendments to two existing Lease
Agreements with Alan and Patricia Boole for the continued use of
garage space by the Sheriffs Office, at a total cost of $85,800.
6. Report and ratify staff-approved change orders and changes to work
orders to Board-approved contracts.
7. Confirm and consent to the re-assignment ofRFP No. 00-3113
"Department of Utility Billing Services Integrated Software System"
from IMS of Tech, Inc. to N. Harris Computer Corporation.
8. That the Board of County Commissioners award Bid No. 05-3746 for
Temporary Clerical Services to Manpower Temporary Services, Inc.
as primary vendor, and Kelly Services, Inc., as secondary vendor.
9. Recommendation to approve an increase to the cost of work in the
amount of $45,000 to Contract No. 04-3694, for the remodeling of the
Collier County Clerk's MIS Department located on the 5th floor of the
County Administration Building.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1. Recommendation to Approve the Award of Bid #05-3744, Hideaway
Beach Jetty and T -Groin Construction, to Marine Contracting Group,
Inc., in the Amount of$2,140,880 and authorize a $180,000 time and
materials engineering services work order with Humiston & Moore
Engineers for construction observations and monitoring, Hideaway
Beach Renourishment, Project 90502.
2. Recommendation to Approve Work Order Amendment #1 to TE-FT-
03-02 with Taylor Engineering for-additional design/permitting efforts
Page 13
December 14, 2004
for Marco South Beach Renourishment, project 90500, in the amount
of $36,610.
3. Recommendation to approve an engineering services work order with
Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc., under contract #01-3271, Fixed
Term Professional Engineering Services for Coastal Zone
Management Projects, for designing and permitting an artificial reef
and for completing requirements established by the U.S. Minerals
Management Service for a borrow area lease, in an amount not to
exceed $153,160.
4. Recommendation to Approve the Award of Bid # 05-3753,
Maintenance Dredging of Wiggins Pass, to Snyder Industries, Inc., in
the Amount of$380,000, and authorize a $44,149 time and materials
engineering services work order with Humiston & Moore Engineers
for construction observations and monitoring, Wiggins Pass Dredging
2005, Project 90522.
5. Recommend the Board approve a Memorandum of Understanding
with the Southwest Florida Professional Firefighters Local 1826
International Association of Firefighters Inc to include a career
progression matrix to the current collective bargaining agreement.
6. Approve sole source purchase of" Audicor" for placement on Collier
County Emergency Medical Services Department units in the amount
of $225,000.
7. Award Bid #04-3715 for Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus to
Porche Fire Equipment, Inc. in the Amount of$90,000.
8. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners award Bid
#05-3749 in the amount of $67,840.00 for Clam Bay Interior Channel
Construction Phase III, to Floraquatics, Inc.
9. Recommendation to approve a Lease Agreement with the City of
Naples for shared use of Fire Station 2 at a first year's total cost of
$146,600.
Page 14
December 14, 2004
10. Approve a Florida Emergency Medical Service County Grant
Application, Grant Distribution F Offfi, and Resolution for training and
medical/rescue equipment in the amount of$112,672.82
11. Approve the sole source purchase of one SimBaby for training
purposes of Collier County Paramedics and EMT's to maximize and
enhance the current delivery of care to infant patients. This is a
previous awarded grant from the State of Florida.
12. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners Approve
and Ratify the Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Firefighters
of the Everglades International Association of Firefighters, Local
3670. The Agreement is available for public viewing at the Collier
County Manager's Office or Bureau of Emergency Services Office,
3301 East Tamiami Trail, W. Harmon Turner Bldg, Naples, FL.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1. Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending the Hospice of Naples Open House Reception serving on
December 16, 2004; $20.00 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's
travel budget.
2. Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for payment of an
overnight stay between Southwest Florida Regional Legislative
Delegation Reception on December 9th and the Issues '05 Southwest
Regional Delegtion Forum on December 10th; $79.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
3. Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending the Naples Hispanic Chamber of Commerce's First Annual
Christmas Party; $30.00 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's
travel budget.
4. Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement for
his attending the Kiwanis Club Luncheon featuring Dr. Gene
Page 15
December 14, 2004
Landrum as its speaker on December 8, 2004; $10 to be paid from
Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1. Miscellaneous Items to file for record with action as directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners make a
determination of whether the purchases of goods and services
documented in the Detailed Report of Open Purchase Orders serve a
valid public purpose and authorize the expenditure of County funds to
satisfy said purchases. A copy of the Detailed Report is on display in
the County Manager's Office, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, W. Harmon
Turner Building, 2nd Floor, Naples, Florida.
2. In compliance with the purchasing policy, report to the Board of
County Commissioners the total dollar amount of interest payments
that were made during the preceding fiscal year for violations of the
Florida Prompt Payment Act.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1. Recommendation to authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to
Respondent, Mary Lou Adsit, for Parcel No. 181 in the amount of
$163,900 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Mary Lou Adsit, et
aI., Vanderbilt Beach Road Project 63051.
2. Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to Approve
an Agreed Order and Authorize Payment of Engineering Fees for
Parcels 117, 133, 717A, 717B and 733 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier
County v. Calusa Bay Master Association, Inc., et. aI., Case No. 02-
2040-CA (Goodlette-Frank Road Project #60134).
3. Recommendation to approve the Mediated Settlement Agreement as
to Parcel 116 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Northside
Construction Company, et aI., Case No. 00-0136-CA, Pine Ridge
Road Project 60111.
Page 16
December 14, 2004
4. Recommendation to authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to
Respondents, Jack V. Harrison and Juanita Harrison, for Parcel No.
122 in the amount of $12,500 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v.
Vil1age Walk Homeowner's Assoc. of Naples, Inc., et aI., Case No.
04-345-CA (Vanderbilt Beach Road Project 63051).
5. Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment as to Parcel
102 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Pelican Marsh Community
Development District, et aI., Case No. 04-1532-CA (Vanderbilt Beach
Road Project 63051).
6. Recommendation to authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to
Respondent, Walnut Farms, Inc., for Parcel No. 166A in the amount
of $36, 150.00 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Juan Ramirez, et
aI., Case No. 02-5166-CA (Immokalee Road Project 60018).
7. Recommendation to authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to
Respondent, Walnut Farms, Inc., for Parcel No. 166B in the amount
of$207,100.00 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Juan Ramirez,
et aI., Case No. 02-5166-CA (Immokalee Road Project 60018).
8. Recommendation for consideration and Approval of Agreement and
Budget for Partial Funding of Legal Aid services to assist qualified
indigent residents of Collier County with civil legal problems.
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDA TION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE
QUASIJUDICAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN
IN.
Page 17
December 14, 2004
A. This item reauires that all participants be sworn in and Ex Parte
Disclosure be provided by Commission members. Recommendation to
approve Petition A VROW2001-ARI388 to renounce and disclaim all rights
and interests of the public to access (ingress/egress) and travel upon the
following road rights-of-way located within Boyne South subdivision. Those
road rights-of-way depicted and described in the plat of "Royal Palm Golf
Estates Unit One", as recorded in Plat Book 12, Pages 13 through 18, Public
Records of Collier County, Florida; providing for the continuing and
unaffected rights of easement holders, emergency medical and fire services,
Collier County water management vehicles and personnel, Collier County
transportation vehicles and personnel and Collier County water-sewer
district vehicles and personnel; providing an effective date. Located in
Section 20, Township 51 South, Range 27 East.
B. This item reauires that all participants be sworn in and Ex Parte
Disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition V A-2004-AR-
6140, Pine Ridge Center and Pine Ridge Center West PUDs, represented by
D. Wayne Arnold, AICP ofQ. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., requesting
two 15-foot variances, one from the required I5-foot setback for the western
boundary of the Pine Ridge Center Planned Unit Development (PUD), and a
15-foot variance from the required 15-foot setback for the eastern boundary
of the Pine Ridge Center West PUD, to permit a O-foot setback from the
common boundary between the two PUDs. It is the applicant's intent, if
these variances are granted, to construct a single office building across the
common property line.
C. SE-2004-AR-5861, An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of
Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended,
the Collier County Land Development Code, by specifically amending
Ordinance 03-51, pertaining to the Wentworth Estates PUD, to correct a
Scrivener's Error due to inclusion of an incorrect Zoning Atlas Map Number
for Wentworth Estates PUD; and by providing for an effective date.
D. This item reauires that all participants be sworn in and ex-parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Pinnacle Towers, LLC,
represented by Deborah L. Martohue, Esquire, of Hayes & Martohue, P.A.,
requesting Conditional Use 13 of the (A) Agricultural zoning district for a
518-foot replacement guyed tower and associated facilities, prior existing
524-foot guyed tower destroyed July 12, 2004. The property, consisting of
14.55 acres, is located at 305 Tower Road, northwest intersection of U.S. 41
Page 18
December 14, 2004
and S.R. 951, in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida
E. This item'reauires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. DRI-04-AR-6469,
Lucky Strike MK, Inc., represented by R. Bruce Anderson, of Roetzel &
Andress, LP A, requesting an amendment to the Green Heron Development
of Regional Impact (DRI) Development Order by extending the termination
date from February 7, 1999 to January 1, 2009 for property located on the
north side of Radio Road (C.R. 856) and approximately one-half mile east of
Santa Barbara Boulevard in Section 33, Township 49 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida.
F. Recommendation To Consider Adoption Of An Ordinance Of Collier
County Florida, Amending Collier County Ordinance No. 91-65, To Add A
Position Of Alternate Member On The Affordable Housing Commission.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
Page 19
December 14, 2004
December 14, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would you all take your seats, please.
MR. MUDD: You have a hot mike, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
May I call the meeting -- the Board of County Commissioners
meeting to order today, December 14th, 9 a.m.
And would you all please rise. Thank you.
Our Reverend Dr. Kathleen Kircher from St. Monica's Episcopal
Church will lead us in the prayer.
REVEREND KIRCHER: During this season of the year where
both in Judaism and Christianity we ponder great mysteries of God as
the source of light and love and life, we pause now and we pray. Give
us, oh, God, hearts large enough to match the breath of our own spirits
and give us spirits strong enough to seek vision and wisdom.
As leaders let us seek more than development for ourselves
though development we hope for; more than security for our
homeland, though security we need; more than satisfaction for our
wants, though many things we desire.
Give us openness to work with other leaders to bring peace and
justice to the whole world. Give us wisdom to lead this county to
virtue without seeking to impose our kind of virtue on the virtue of
others. Give us governance that provides for the advancement of this
county and nation without taking resources from others to achieve it.
Give us insight to be leaders who can discern strength from
power, growth from greed, leadership from dominance, and real
greatness from the trappings of grandiosity.
We trust you, great God, to open our hearts to learn from those to
whom you speak in different tongues and to respect the life and words
of those to whom you entrusted the good of other parts of this globe.
We beg you, great God, give us the vision as a people to know
where global leadership truly lies, to pursue it diligently, to require it
to protect human rights for everyone everywhere. We ask these
things, great God, with minds open to your word and hearts that trust
Page 2
December 14,2004
in your eternal care, amen.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle, will you lead us in
the Pledge of Allegiance, please.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Before we move on to our agenda, I'd like
to just say, Happy Birthday, Sue Filson. Today is our office manager,
Sue Filson's, birthday, and I want to tell you, she works like a trojan
for us, and we're just really proud to have you as our own, Sue. Thank
you.
(Applause.)
Item #2A
REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And now we move on for David Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do any have any additions or corrections
to our agenda?
MR. WEIGEL: No changes to the agenda revision list. I will
have some discussion on some items as they come up.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. Thank you.
And Mr. Mudd, how about you?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. Agenda -- and this is a little bit of a
long list.
Agenda changes, Board of County Commissioners meeting,
December 14th, 2004.
Item 8C, the draft ordinance did not contain the "Conflict and
Severability" provision. A replacement ordinance has been provided
to all the commissioners.
Adoption of -- and this is an adoption of an ordinance amending
Page 3
December 14,2004
Chapter 74, the Collier County Code of Law and Ordinances, as
amended by Ordinance Number 2001-13, the Collier County
consolidated impact fee ordinance, providing for annual mid-year
indexing adjustments to water and sewer impact fee rates, and that's at
staff s request.
There's an add item, it's add item 8D. This is a companion item to
item lOB, which will be heard following 8A and lOB at 10 a.m.
It's a recommendation to adopt an ordinance authorizing the
issuance of limited general obligation bonds, Conservation Collier
Program, from time to time payable from the levy of an ad valorem
tax levied upon all taxable real property in the county in an amount
not to exceed one-quarter of one mill for the principal purpose of
acquiring certain environmentally sensitive lands within the county;
providing for various rights and remedies of the bonds holders;
providing that the bonds authorized hereunder will be limited general
obligations of the county, and providing an effective date, and that's at
staff s request.
The next item is move item 16A2 to item lOG, and that's a
recommendation to adopt a resolution amending the Collier County
Administrative Code Fee Schedule for development-related review
and processing fees as provided for in code of laws section 2-11.
Changes -- in brackets, this is basically changes to the PUD
monitoring fees, and that move was at Commissioner Henning's
request.
The next item is to move item 16A3 to 10H, and that's a
recommendation to approve the application for the Property Tax
Stimulus Program, Advanced Broadband Infrastructure Investment
Program, and the Job Creation Investment Program by Advocate
Aircraft Taxation Company, and that was at Commissioner Henning's
request.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And mine.
MR. MUDD: And Commissioner Fiala's request.
Page 4
December 14,2004
The next item is to move item 16A4 to 10I, and that's an approval
of the application for the Job Creation Investment Program, the
Advanced Broadband Infrastructure Investment Program, and the Fee
Payment Assistance Program by Guadalupe Center, Incorporated, and
provide for the waiver to pay the up-front 50 percent of the estimated
transportation impact fees at the final site development plan -- the
final site development plan approval, but instead pay all impact fees in
full at issuance of the building permit through the Fee Payment
Assistance Deferral Agreement.
And that move was at Commissioner Henning's request, and
Commissioner Fiala did have some concerns about that particular item
when I talked to her.
The next item is to move item 16A9 to 10J, and that's a request
that the board approve the reinstatement of the PUD amendment
process by the department of zoning and land development review in
order to allow for a PUD amendment to be processed in the form of a
substantial modification to the PUD rather than through a total PUD to
PUD rezoning process, and that move was requested by
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, if I may, my
questions on that particular item were fully answered. I have no
reason to pull it any longer.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Uh-huh, great.
MR. MUDD: All right. Then that item will stay on the consent
agenda.
The next item is to withdraw item 16B13, and that's a
recommendation to award bid 05-3750, Rattlesnake Hammock Road,
County Road 864, U.S. 41, Tamiami Trail East to Polly Avenue,
Roadway Grounds Maintenance to Ground Zero Landscaping Service
in the amount of$30,781.90, and that's staffrequest due to a protest.
The next item is to move item 16D7 to item 10K, and that's a
Page 5
December 14,2004
recommendation to approve a lease agreement with Southwest
Heritage, Inc., for the use of the Naples Railroad Depot as a branch
facility of the Collier County Museum at an annual rent of one dollar,
staffing and operations costs of $200,800, building improvements and
repairs of $250,000, and exhibit development costs of $85,000, and
that move was at Commissioner Coletta's request.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I also had some concerns on that,
too.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
The item -- the next item is to move item 16E4 to 10L, and that's
a recommendation to retain for active sales various properties obtained
from Avatar Properties, Inc., and which are part of the GAC Land
Trust, and that move was at Commissioner Coyle's request.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I was going to pull that as well, so
thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: And Commissioner Fiala's request.
The next item is to withdraw item 16B2, and that's a
recommendation for board approval to reject all bids received under
bid number 04-3595R, and it's Clearing, Grubbing, and Tree
Trimming Removal Services, and that's at staffs request.
The next item is withdraw item 16H2, and that is Commissioner
Coletta's request for the board to approve for payment of an overnight
stay between Southwest Florida Regional Delegation Reception on
November 9th, and the issues '05 Southwest Regional Delegations
Forum on December 10th. It was $79 to be paid from Commissioner
Coletta's travel budget. Commissioner Coletta asked for it to be
withdrawn, and it wasn't used.
So the next item is a note. Items lOA and lOB, there are -- there
are minor revisions to the proposed bond resolutions. Copies of these
changes have been made available, and that's just a staff note, and that
was a continuing issue with bound -- bond counsel as we've been
developing those particular issues.
Page 6
December 14, 2004
The next note is item 16A8. The correct spelling for this the
project is Britney Estates. The executive summary incorrectly spelled
this project as Brittany, B-R-I-T-T-A-N-Y, Estates. So the correct
spelling is B-R-I-T-N-E-Y. The summary on the forms had it spelled
correctly, but if you look at the executive summary, the spelling is
incorrect.
The next note is item 16A10, and that's a recommendation to
release and authorize county manager to execute a satisfaction for an
Impact Fee Deferral Agreement with Brittany Bay Apartments, phase
II, upon receipt of a legally sufficient irrevocable letter of credit in the
amount of$1,210,626.56 on behalf ofCED Capital Holdings 2001B,
LLC.
The satisfaction agreement has already been created, and this
item should now authorize the chairman to execute it rather than the
county manager, and that's at staffs request.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And is 16A10 going to also include
the spelling correction for the name?
MR. MUDD: No, sir. This spelling is correct on this particular
item. 10 is -- that's why the staff got all confused with their executive
summary. 16A8 has to do with the B-R-I-T-N-E-Y, and 16A10 has to
do with the B-R-I-T-T-A-N-Y Bay Apartments, okay?
That's all I have, Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
Commissioners? Let me start 'with Commissioner Halas. Do you
have any additions or changes to the agenda or ex parte disclosure for
the summary agenda?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Chairman, no, I don't have any
additions or corrections to the summary agenda.
I have one -- excuse me -- or to the agenda itself. But I do have
one disclosure on the summary agenda, and that's under 17D. I've met
with different petitioners throughout the course of this project and also
talked with staffmembers.m
Page 7
December 14,2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no additional changes to
the consent agenda; however, on the summary agenda, I'd like to
declare that 17 A, that I've had meetings, correspondence, emails, and
phone calls. 17B, I've had correspondence. 17D, I've had emails.
And I have no disclosures for E. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- I have received some
correspondence on 17D, Pinnacle Towers. 17E, that is Lucky Strike, I
have some -- I met with the petitioner and a resident of Sapphire
Lakes, and we heard this item under the Regional Planning Council.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
And Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have no further changes to the
agenda.
With respect to the summary agenda, items A and D, I have had
meetings and I have received correspondence with respect to both of
these petitions, and the information is in my public file for
examination if desired.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
And for myself, I had one other one I wanted to pull, and that
was 16D4 for discussion.
And items 1 7 A on the summary agenda and 1 7D on the summary
agenda I've had meetings, correspondence, emails, and so forth. I
have them in my file for viewing for anybody who is interested.
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, that item 16D4 will now become 10M.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve today's agenda
as amended, the regular, consent, and summary agenda.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Page 8
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
Page 9
December 14, 2004
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
December 14. 2004
Item 8C: The draft ordinance did not contain the "Conflict and Severability"
provision. A replacement ordinance has been provided. Adoption of an
Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Law and
Ordinances, as amended by Ordinance No. 2001-13, The Collier County
Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, providing for annual mid-cycle year indexing
adjustments to water and sewer impact fee rates. (Staff request.)
Add on Item #80: This is a companion item to Item 10B. which will be heard
followina 10A and 10B. and will be heard at 10:00 a.m. Recommendation to adopt
an ordinance authorizing the issuance of limited general obligation bonds
(Conservation Collier Program) from time to time payable from the levy of an ad
valorem tax levied upon all taxable real property in the County in an amount not to
exceed one-quarter of one mill for the principal purpose of acquiring certain
environmentally sensitive lands within the County; providing for various rights
and remedies of the bondholders; providing that the bonds authorized hereunder
will be limited general obligations of the county; and providing an effective date.
(Staff request.)
Move item 16A2 to 10G: Recommendation to 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 2-11. (Changes to
the PUD monitoring fees.) (Commissioner Henning request.)
Move Item 16A3 to 10H: Recommendation to approve the application for the
Property Tax Stimulus Program, Advanced Broadband Infrastructure Investment
Program and the Job Creation Investment Program by Advocate Aircraft Taxation
Company. (Commissioner Henning request.)
Move Item 16A4 to 101: Approval of the application for the Job Creation
Investment Program, the Advanced Broadband Infrastructure Investment Program
and the Fee Payment Assistance Program by Guadalupe Center, Incorporated,
and provide for the waiver to pay the upfront fifty-percent of the estimated
Transportation impact fees at Final Site Development Plan approval, but instead
pay all impact fees, in full, at issuance of the Building Permit through the Fee
Payment Assistance Deferral Agreement. (Commissioner Henning request.)
Move Item 16A9 to 10J: Request that the Board approve the reinstatement of the
PUD amendment process by the Department of Zoning and Land Development
Review in order to allow for a PUD amendment to be processed in the form of a
substantial modification to the PUD rather than through a total PUD to PUD
rezoning process. (Commissioner Coletta request.)
Withdraw Item 16B13 - Recommendation to award bid #05-3750 "Rattlesnake
Hammock Road (CR 864) (US 41 Tamiami Trail East to Polly Avenue) Roadway
Grounds Maintenance" to Ground Zero Landscaping Services in the amount of
$30,781.90. (Staff request due to protest.)
Move Item 1607 to 10K: Recommendation to approve a lease agreement with
Southwest Heritage, Inc., for use of the Naples Railroad Depot as a branch facility
of the Collier County Museum at an annual rent of $1, staffing and operations cost
of $200,800, building improvements and repairs of $250,000, and exhibit
development costs of $85,000. (Commissioner Coletta request.)
Move Item 16E4 to 10L: Recommendation to retain from active sales various
properties obtained from Avatar Properties, Inc., and which are part of the GAC
Land Trust. (Commissioner Coyle request.)
Withdraw Item 16B2: Recommendation for Board approval to reject all bids
received under Bid #04.3595R "Clearing, Grubbing and Tree Trimming Removal
Services." (Staff request.)
Withdraw Item 16H2: Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for payment
of an overnight stay between Southwest Florida Regional Legislative Delegation
Reception on December 9th and the Issues '05 Southwest Regional Delegation
Forum on December 10th; $79.00 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel
budget. (Commissioner Coletta request.)
NOTE: Items 10 A and 10B: There were minor revisions to the Proposed Bond
Resolutions. Copies of these changes have been made available. (Staff request.)
NOTE: Item 16A8: - The correct spelling for this project is "Britney Estates". The
Executive Summary incorrectly spelled this project as "Brittany Estates".
NOTE: Item 16A10: A recommendation to release and authorize the
County Manager to execute a Satisfaction for an Impact Fee Deferral
Agreement for Brittany Bay Apartments, Phase II upon receipt of a legally
sufficient irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of $1,210,626.56 on
behalf of CEO Capital Holdings 2001 B, LLC. The Satisfaction Aareement
has already been created and this item should now authorize the Chairman
to execute it rather than the County Manaaer. (Staff reauest.)
December 14, 2004
Item #2B, #2C, #2D
MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 10, 2004 BCC/LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE MEETING, THE NOVEMBER 15,2004
SPECIAL VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEETING,
NOVEMBER 16, 2004 REGULAR MEETING - APPROVED AS
ERESENIED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Being that I wasn't here for a
couple of the meetings, I'm reluctant to make a motion to approve
those minutes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. May I have a --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that we approve
November 10th, 2004, BCC/land development code meeting and
November 15th, 2004, special value adjustment board meeting and
November 16th, 2004, BCC regular meeting, move for approval.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. 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 very much.
And now we move on to item 3A, advisory committee service
awards.
Item #3A
Page 10
December 14, 2004
SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD
MEMBERS) - ERESENIED
MR. MUDD: Service awards.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we going downstairs?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Did you want to call them up, Jim, for us?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am, I will.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, we'll start with the five-year
awards.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Okay. And I think the pins are laid out that way.
This is program that the board -- this is the second award session
that we've had. This is a program that the Board of County
Commissioners started that was well past due, and I think it was at
Commissioner Henning's--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It was.
MR. MUDD: -- idea on this one, and I believe it's been very
successful. And sometimes these folks on all these committees -- and
we have some 50 that the board has that provides them advice and
guidance, and sometimes those folks don't get the recognition they
need, and they're kind of the silent excellent ones that are behind the
scenes, and this gives us an opportunity to publicly recognize them.
The first award -- and we're going to start with the five-year
awards -- is for Kenneth Abernathy, and he works on the Collier
County Planning Commission. Mr. Abernathy?
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thanks for all you do, Ken.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Great person on the planning
commISSIon.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
Page 11
December 14,2004
MR. MUDD: Now if we can get Mr. Abernathy to take a picture
with the commissioners, that would be great.
MR. ABERNATHY: I'm shorter than everybody, so that won't
be a problem.
MR. MUDD: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next five-year awardee is Alice Carlson, and
she works on the Educational Facilities Authority and on the Industrial
Development Authority. Ms. Carlson?
(No response.)
MR. MUDD: We'll go to the next.
Mr. Floyd Crews. And Mr. Floyd Crews has worked on the
Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency and the Immokalee
Area Master Plan Ad Hoc Committee.
Floyd, you out there?
(No response.)
MR. MUDD: Nope, don't see him.
Okay. The next awardee is William Erickson, and he works on
the Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee.
(No response.)
MR. MUDD: Okay. Next awardee is Marco Espinar, and he
works on the Development Services Advisory Committee and on the
Land Acquisition Advisory Committee.
(No response.)
MR. MUDD: Okay. Next awardee is Blair Foley, and Mr. Foley
works on the Development Services Advisory Committee, has been
doing so for the last five years.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations, Blair.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thanks for being here today.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would you take a picture with us, please?
MR. MUDD: Thank you.
Page 12
December 14,2004
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next awardee is Maurice Gutierrez, and
Maurice works on the Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory
Committee and on the Immokalee Area Master Plan Ad Hoc
Committee.
Mr. Gutierrez?
(No response.)
MR. MUDD: The next awardee is Raymond Holland, and he
works on the Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency and
the Immokalee Area Master Plan Ad Hoc Committee.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: He's probably in the same car with Floyd
Crews.
MR. MUDD: I think so.
The next -- the next awardee is Jack Humphrey, and Mr.
Humphrey works on the Educational Facilities Authority and the
Industrial Development Authority.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations. Thank you for
your service. Appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks for all you do.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Stand up here with us, would you?
MR. HUMPHREY: Really?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next awardee is Robert Jones, and Mr. Jones
has worked on the Forest Lakes Roadway Drainage Advisory
Committee for five years.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you for what you do.
Page 13
December 14, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you. Good morning. It's a
pleasure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Jones,
appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you, Mr. Jones.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Could we get a photo, sir?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Wherever you'd like.
MR. MUDD: Thank you.
MR. JONES: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next recipient is Brian Jones, and he's worked
on the Development Services Advisory Committee for five years.
Mr. Brian Jones?
(No response.)
MR. MUDD: The next awardee is Mr. Morris Louis, and he has
worked on the Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory
Committee for five years.
Mr. Louis?
(No response.)
MR. MUDD: Next awardee is Thomas Masters, and he has
worked on the Development Services Advisory Committee for five
years.
(Applause.)
MR. MASTERS: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next awardee is Barbara -- Ms. Barbara Minch
Rosenberg, and she has worked on the Educational Facilities
Authority and the Industrial Development Authority for five years.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Boy, you're always busy, aren't you, girl?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you for your dedicated
Page 14
December 14,2004
servIce.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Barb, stay up here for a picture. Get in
amongst the men. There you go.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next awardee is Ms. Jerilyn Neuhaus, and she
has worked on the Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory
Committee for five years.
Mrs. Neuhaus?
(No response.)
MR. MUDD: The next awardee is John Pennell, and he has
worked on the Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee for
five years.
Mr. Pennell?
(No response.)
MR. MUDD: The next awardee is Ms. Mary Rand, and she has
worked on the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board for five years.
(Applause.)
MS. RAND: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you for your dedicated
work.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you so much for your
servIce.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next five-year awardee, and the last five-year
awardee, is Ms. Susan Saum, and she has worked on the Radio Road
Beautification Advisory Committee for five years.
(Applause.)
Page 15
December 14,2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Susan.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Now we start our 10-year awardees. First 10-year
awardee is Mr. Dallas Disney, and he has worked on the Development
Services Advisory Committee for 10 years.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you for your service.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for your 10 years of
servIce.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Hopefully your next 10 years
you'll speak up a little bit more.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next 10-year awardee is Mr. Robert Duane,
and he has worked on the Development Services Advisory Committee
for 10 years.
(Applause. )
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Robert, here's a little pin from us.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good to see you.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next 10-year awardee is Mr. Steven
Greenberg, and he has worked on the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust
Committee.
Mr. Greenberg?
(No response.)
MR. MUDD: The next 10-year awardee is Mrs. Sabina Musci,
and she has worked on the Library Advisory Board for 10 years.
Ms. Musci?
(No response.)
MR. MUDD: Okay. That brings us to the IS-year awardees, and
we have one, and this is Mrs. Dorcas Howard, and she has worked on
Page 16
- ...~..._,._-"._. " .". '-'--_..",
December 14,2004
the Immokalee Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee for 15
years.
Ms. Howard?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: She's in the car with Floyd and Ray
Holland.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, that's all you have for awardees
today. Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, thank you very much.
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT DECEMBER 7,
2004 WAS CELEBRATED AS GOLDEN GATE HIGH SCHOOL
And now we have Commissioner Henning who will be reading a
proclamation today for Golden Gate High School Junior civilian __
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Civitan.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let me put my glasses on. Oh, yeah,
Civitan Club Day. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'm going to ask Ms.
Connie Pinckney from -- facility advisor, and also we have the
principal, Dr. Spano, and a bunch of civitans from the Golden Gate
High School. Please come up in front of the dais.
MS. PINCKNEY: Hi.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Hello.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Whereas, Neapolitan Civitan
Club is sponsored (sic) the Golden Gate High School Junior Civitan
Club, a part of the international organization dedicated to help our
youth units to make a difference in our social (sic); and,
Page 1 7
December 14,2004
Whereas, Junior Civitan teaches the youth to build a better--
good citizenship, being centered on helping the community while
supporting their members to live a -- fuller, unselfish lives; and,
Whereas, the Junior Civitan is progressive in the world of
change, and their members have pledged to be aware citizens, seeking
to meet the needs of the world in order to ensure a better future for all
people; and,
Whereas, the Golden Gate High School Junior Civitan Club has
made a commitment to help other citizens of the world that are in need
and in desire to make this a better world in which to live in (sic); and,
Whereas, the group is dedicated (sic) local youths are founding
the Golden Gate High School Junior Civitan Club by directing their
energies to help the Collier County community and their fellow
citizens; and,
Whereas, the Golden Gate High School Civitan Club pledges
(sic) future benefits to Collier County community and a positive effect
on its citizens.
And just to add I'm sure they're going to be very active in the
Golden Gate community, their community.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Commissioners
of Collier County, December 7th, 2004, was celebrated as Golden
Gate High School Junior Civitan Club Day.
Done in this order, 14th day of December, signed by the
chairman, the Board of Commissioners of Collier County, Florida.
Madam Chair, I make a motion to approve this proclamation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second that motion.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 18
December 14,2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, thank you so much for all you're
doing.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So is this better than being in
class?
MR. MUDD: Yeah, it should be. And we need to get everybody
to smile. I watched them when they were reading the proclamation,
and it looked like they were in mourning. I know it is morning, but --
MS. PINCKNEY: It's exam week.
MR. MUDD: Ah. We will make sure you get copies from us,
too. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I love your tie. Let me shake your hand.
Excuse me.
Item #5A
PRESENTATION BY THE LAKE PARK ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL 4TH GRADE PANTHER POSSE REGARDING THE
N ow we have a presentation by the Lake Park Elementary School
4th Grade Panther Posse regarding the Florida panther poster contest.
MS. PIRES: Hi. I'm Ricky Pires, and I'm the founder and
director of the Wings of Hope Program at Florida Gulf Coast
University.
And what the Wings of Hope Program is, is I take my students,
and which are sophomores at the university and which in the last three
years, which was 3,500 students, and which were sophomores, and I
Page 19
December 14,2004
present environmental programs in our community. We've touched
base with over about 100,000 students. It's really been dynamic.
And I'm also the education chair out at the Florida Panther
Refuge with the Friends of the Florida Panther Refuge, and I designed
and created the Florida Panther Posse and which we have 4th and 5th
grade students that are monitoring radio-collared panthers, with the
help of the refuge, and also with Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission Panther Team, and which, right now as we speak, are out
collaring panthers, and it's really been dynamic.
The posse has won local and state and national awards, even in
Disney. And of course, we did have a huge poster contest and which
you will be honored to be able to see these posters. We had 32
schools; 5,000 participants.
But today we're going to present our Panther Posse and which I
have in 40 schools, in five counties, these Panther Posses and which
are learning through science and awareness, and they're really helping
this endangered species and its habitat.
Today what I brought is I brought the Lake Park Posse, okay,
three of our members, and their sheriff, and which is Leanne Elliot,
and which is their teacher, okay? And they're going to give you some
updates, and -- on their radio-collared panthers that they're monitoring
and give you some information.
And the first posse member is Jonathan Saunders, and which you
look at Saunders, and which is Senator Saunders' son, and which
Senator Saunders has really been dynamic in helping our posse also.
So I'd like to present Jonathan.
JONATHAN SAUNDERS: My name is Jonathan Saunders.
One of the Florida panthers I'm monitoring is number 131, a
133-pound five-year-old male panther that lives in the Florida Panther
Refuge.
He just killed male Florida panther number 59 two weeks ago.
Males need at least 200 square miles for their home range. Our posse
Page 20
December 14,2004
has been monitoring Florida panther number 59, but he was killed by
number 131 over territory.
The loss of habitat that results in such competition for land is one
reason the Florida panther is an endangered species.
Why are we working so hard to save the Florida panther? When
we save the Florida panther and it's habitat, we save everything that
lived with the Florida panther, other wildlife, plants, trees and clean
water for people and kids in the future. We save ourselves. Thank
you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Wow.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: He's going to be president
someday.
JESSICA BUSTAMANTE: My name is Jessica Bustamante. I
like monitoring Florida panther number 113, a
two-and-a-half-year-old female that was orphaned back in October
2002, along with her brother when her mother was killed by an oncher
colored male Florida panther.
She was raised at White Oak Conservation Center in North
Florida from six months old until she was 16 months old. She was
then released back into the Florida Panther Refuge where she came
from. We hope she will den and have kittens the first of the year.
We are now passing out a photo of three panther kittens by our
panther wildlife biologist, Mark Gloat (phonetic) and Dave Shindle
from Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. As you can see,
the kittens have bright blue eyes for about six months.
Now you will receive a photo of number 113, as a kitten with her
mom. This picture was taken with the posse's infrared camera we
bought with out Pennies for Panthers. We give the panther photos to
the panther team to help them track the panthers.
Our photos of other wildlife -- other wildlife are given to the
Florida Panther Refuge to help show the health of the refuge and aid
Page 21
December 14, 2004
in panther research.
In this last picture, you can see two Florida black bears just
playing around.
Weare very proud to be part of this scientific research involving
the recovery of friends (sic) and helping save the Florida panther and
its habitat.
Thank you for your time.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'd just like to stop for a minute and say
this little fellow that's delivering these pictures, that's Morgan Arnold,
one of our very own employees; Michelle Arnold and Wayne Arnold's
son, and so we're glad that -- to see you here, Morgan.
MS. PIRES: He's a great posse member.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's great.
MS. PIRES: This is our Sheriff Elliot.
MS. ELLIOT: Good morning. I'm Sheriff Elliot, and my
students love participating in the Florida Panther Posse.
As you can tell, they've become very knowledgeable about the
Florida panthers, and the last thing they want to see are these beautiful
animals in a museum marked extinct.
Students take home panther awareness sheets to educate their
families about the Florida panther. In return, they receive panther
kitten photos. Everyone learns what they can do to help.
The students do panther challenges from the panthers boards and
earn panther photos. Not only are they learning about panthers, but
they are practicing reading, vocabulary, and science skills. They also
learn about other wildlife, habitats, future careers, water conservation
and their favorite, the panther kittens.
The panther posse program instills an awareness that they can
make a difference in their community. My students are proud to be a
part of the research that is helping to save the Florida panthers and
their habitat.
Page 22
December 14,2004
We hope that you, as county commissioners, will help us save
habitat for future generations for future Florida Panther Posses. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MS. PIRES : We also have some extra goodies for you, too, right
posse? Come on back.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm glad to see the Florida Fish and --
Florida Wildlife Federation here. Nancy, that's who you're with, isn't
it? And Nancy protects these panthers as well.
MS. PAYTON: We try.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm glad you're here to see this.
Awe. Did you make that? Look, how cute. The Florida panther.
Oh, my goodness. Well, these are just darling. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's going to be hard to drink coffee
out of this.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You can do it, I know.
MS. PIRES: We would also like for you to sign this. This is a
quilt that's going to be presented. This is, all my posse have signed
this quilt, and it has a huge panther on it. A six-foot panther is drawn
on this quilt.
This will be presented to Governor Bush and his staff and his
cabinet in -- the first year, and this will be quilted, and this is a
message that we care from Collier County and also all our students
and our teachers, that we really care about this endangered species and
we want to save its habitat, and we are really working hard and we
want you to sign this quilt and we'll be giving it to Governor Bush.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Did you want us to come down there to
sign it?
MS. PIRES: If you wouldn't mind, that would be absolutely
wonderful. We really appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Being this is for the governor, sign
Page 23
December 14,2004
Commissioner or something?
MS. PIRES: Oh, yeah, that would be wonderful. Anywhere
here.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, this is difficult. It just wants to keep
runnIng.
MS. PIRES: Thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MS. PIRES: You have no idea.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Where did Commissioner Halas escape
to?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: He's down there with them getting
a picture.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Here's your pen.
MS. PIRES: Thank you so much. We really appreciate your
time. It was excellent. Thank you.
Item #5B
RECOMMENDATION TO RECOGNIZE HERIBERTO (EDDIE)
HARTNACK, COUNTY VETERAN SERVICES OFFICER,
PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION, AS EMPLOYEE OF THE YEAR
EOR 200~COGNIZED
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And now I have -- I have the pleasure of
recognizing Eddie Hartnack as the Employee of the Year for 2004.
(Applause and standing ovation.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Got your picture, okay. I have something
to read here, if you don't mind. I'm sorry to embarrass you like this,
Eddie, but here goes.
Eddie Hartnack always encourages the veterans he meets to visit
the Veteran Services Department to explore any benefits that they may
Page 24
December 14,2004
be entitled to for serving our country, from World War II to current
day soldiers.
This has resulted in an outstanding network of veterans who are
currently being served by the Veterans Services Department in
Naples, Bonita Springs, Immokalee, Everglades City areas, and areas
of other parts of Florida and the country.
Ed always goes the extra mile to visit veterans in the hospital, or
if a client has tried and cannot get a ride to a VA medical appointment,
he takes the veteran himself when possible. If a veteran is in need of a
cane, walker, wheelchair, et cetera, Ed searches any and all resources
to get one for him or her.
Ed is very active in his church, and through it, has helped
veterans in dire need receive money for their utility bills, rents, et
cetera. He is also active in Habitat for Humanity and with toys for
indigent children at Christmas time. He speaks when asked at nursing
homes and clubs on benefits available to veterans.
Twice a year Ed attends intensive CVSOA. That's County
Veterans Services Officers Association training conferences. His file
has many certificates of his achievements at these classes. Even
though Ed is a retired 20-year Army man, he has been given honorary
membership in the Marine Corps League for exemplary service in the
interest of the U.S. Marine Corps and the Marine Corps League.
Ed also visits widows of his veteran clients when they request it.
His personal file is filled with letters of gratitude. But most of all, Ed
has been in the newspaper more than any other county employee in
recent years for his exemplary service in our community. Almost
always in the articles there is a reference to the fact that because Eddie
persevered through the system, the VA, the federal government, et
cetera, and fought vehemently for his clients, that through this effort,
they received benefits when no one else was able to procure them.
Ed's diligence to his clients has acquired them over one million
dollars in benefits. Ed is truly a Collier County employee passionatev
Page 25
December 14,2004
about his work and a superior role model in customer service for all
employees.
We really appreciate what you're doing, Ed.
(Applause and standing ovation.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now, you know, just for the record -- I
want to give Ed, by the way, a plaque and a little check from us and a
letter. But all the guys that are here supporting him, how about if we
get them up here for a little photo opportunity as well.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, come on up.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's great.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Come on up.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Come on up.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Ed, you take this.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Ed, would you like to say a few words?
MR. HARTNACK: Next time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, all right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you for your service.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you for your good work and
your military service.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What an honor.
(Applause.)
MR. HARTNACK: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I believe the next item 5C, Ms.
Prosser has a board meeting, and she's going to be just a little bit late,
so --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: -- if we could hold on that one and move to public
petition --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You bet.
Page 26
December 14, 2004
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY JOSEPH BA WDUNIAK TO
DISCUSS THE USE OF THE DEPOT BY THE ANTIQUE
AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF AMERICA, AND FAA SAFETY
MR. MUDD: -- number A, and this item is continued from the
November 16th, 2004, BCC meeting. It's a public petition request by
Joseph Bawduniak to discuss use of the depot, the Naples Depot by
the Antique Auto -- Automobile Club of America and FAA safety
seminars for local pilots.
MR. BA WDUNIAK: Good morning. My name is Joe
Bawduniak. I live in North Naples, and I appreciate the opportunity to
speak to you this morning.
My purpose is to inform you of a little or totally unknown benefit
to our citizens. By way of background, I happen to be president of the
Antique Auto Club of America, our Naples/Marco region.
Weare facing next March our 17th annual car show at the depot.
This show is known throughout the southeast United States as the
depot show.
We are a not-for-profit 501 organization formed for beneficial
purposes. This year we have raised our donations up to $5,000 to
Collier County students, two grants to the bands at two high schools,
and very importantly, we've been able to give $2,000 this year to the
Lorenzo Walker Institute.
We are able to do this because of the tradition of having paid
access to the depot. Knowing you have an interest in the depot now,
why, is -- hopefully we will be able to continue with our one Saturday
in March each year so we can continue the beneficial flow to worthy
causes, several of which I just mentioned.
Our next show is November -- is March 19th, and I hope to see
Page 27
December 14,2004
you all there, and thank you very much for the opportunity of
informing you of this benefit from a marvelous site, which you've just
taken into your museum function.
End of subject. Any questions? Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'd just like to say that I think it just fits in
so perfectly with the depot. At the depot they're always highlighting
history, of course, and the history of transportation, and here you are.
MR. BA WDUNIAK: And, boy, do we have some old cars.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And so I'm hoping that we can form a
marriage that lasts forever.
MR. BA WDUNIAK: Thank you very much.
End of subj ect.
Second item, separate and distinct from the first. I'm still Joe
Bawduniak, but I speak to you as an FAA safety counselor related to
the Miami Flight Services District Office 19, which is responsible for
Collier County.
I'd like to update you on an ongoing activity that is, again, a
benefit to our citizens. Each year at Naples Airport and at Marco
there are a series of safety seminars held. These are supported locally
by FAA safety counselors, by local businesses, and most of all, by
local pilots.
The FAA, in collaboration with all of the above, has scheduled
with us eight seminars this year. This is Collier County. Lee County
has one.
Aircraft fly low and slow around airports. This is known as
taking off and landing. Pilots are keenly aware of the residential areas
that exist approximate to our airports. For example, three-fourths of
the Naples Airport is surrounded by, quote, county, not just city.
During the season we meet at the Naples Airport Pilots' Lounge.
We have over 100 attendees, and this is a marker of how serious our
local aviators are. We cover operations, equipment, maintenance, and
most importantly, this is all free. This is at no burden to the local
Page 28
December 14, 2004
taxpayers. Local businesses help us.
And it's noteworthy that in one recent four-year period, there
were three awards given to local safety counselors that were on a
district basis. There was one national award given to a local pilot for
his work, and this is just a marker of how serious the intention is and
the achievements of this little or unknown function.
While no machine is perfect and no man/machine relationship is
foolproof, we feel we're making a positive impact. And this benefits
not only the people who fly the planes, but those of us who live below
them.
Thank you very much. Any questions?
Again, I emphasize, at no cost to local taxpayers.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Joe, but do you also touch on
security issues and things of this nature out at the local airport so that
pilots are aware of what's going on around the surroundings?
MR. BA WDUNIAK: At these seminars, while it has only been a
major topic once, it is always brought up as a reminder subject, the
security. And it's very interesting, if you don't have a face that's
known on the airport and you're walking around __
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're checked?
MR. BA WDUNIAK: -- people hear about it right away, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
MR. BA WDUNIAK: Thank you very much for the opportunity
to mention these two positive elements during your day.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you, Joe.
Item #6B
REQUEST BY ROBERT FRANCE TO DISCUSS PARCEL
EXCHANGE AT 3681 4TH AVENUE NORTHEAST - MOTION TO
BE BROUGHT AND PLACED ON A FUTURE BCC AGENDA _
AEffi OVEn
Page 29
December 14,2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And our next is a public petition request
by Robert France to discuss parcel exchange 3681 4th Avenue
Northeast.
MR. ZAMPONIA: Good morning, Madam Chair, members of
the board. My name is Carlos Zamponia from Woodward, Pires and
Lombardo, and on behalf of Robert France. I'm presenting a public
petition request to discuss a possible parcel exchange or other viable
solution for the property out at 3681 4th Avenue Northeast.
A brief history of the sounding circumstances, Mr. France was
conveyed this parcel on April 16th of 2003. At the time of the
conveyance to Mr. France the problematic garage, which I will discuss
in a moment, was already in existence and had been built with
requisite surveys and proper building permits.
In addition to this problematic garage that was there, Mr. France
also thought that he had owned all five acres until August of 2003,
when he was notified by Collier County code enforcement that this
garage, which you see here, was actually on county property.
As you can see, this area right in here is, outlined in black, is Mr.
France's property. And the area -- well, it doesn't really come up __
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sir, you're going to have to
speak into the mike.
MR. ZAMPONIA: I'm sorry. The area -- this area right in here
that is outlined in black is Mr. France's property. The area with the
red striped lines is the county's property. This is -- this is the garage in
question. It actually encroaches onto the county's property by 15 feet.
What we are proposing is any viable solution where Mr. France's
garage will come into compliance with local land code and setback
requirements. Since the garage is actually 15 feet onto the county's
property, we would need an additional 30 feet, which would be a total
of 45 feet. The garage is also 60 feet long. And to comply there, we
would need 105 feet, so the total area would be 105 by 45.
I know that the letter that was sent by Mr. France to the
Page 30
December 14, 2004
commissioners stated a complete parcel exchange, and the property -_
the property size of the county is 200 by 200. This property was
acquired by the county in 1975 and was used as a dual wellfield.
If it is possible and we could move -- or the county could move
this 200 by 200 anywhere on the -- on Mr. France's property, we are
willing to accept that; however, if that's not possible, perhaps -- I
know that there's been discussion of -- with the county of, perhaps, a
lease, an easement, or even if we could purchase the area that I had
recently described -- or previously described, the 105 by 45.
If these aren't available, maybe even a property line adjustment to
have this garage comply with the area. Any costs for application and
approval would be borne by Mr. France.
And further, I'd like to say that his -- he does have a Collier
County code enforcement violation against him right now. And the
deadline for compliance is December 22nd, and fees will begin to
accrue on that day.
I know that you do not have the power to tell Collier County
code enforcement to grant an extension, but hopefully we could come
to some kind of agreement there.
Just in conclusion, Mr. France didn't know about this
encroachment when he got the property. He didn't know that we were
on county land. He didn't do this intentionally or maliciously. He
came here today to hopefully, you know, find a resolution to this
problem.
Weare open to any and all suggestions and look forward to
working with the board and county staff to resolve this problem.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mr. Zamponia, usually on a public
petition we ask the commissioners if they would like to bring it up for
a future agenda item.
MR. ZAMPONIA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I have two speakers. Did you want to
just wait till we bring it up on a future agenda item?
Page 31
December 14,2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's what I was going to ask,
because there's too much -- there's too much detail to this to be able to
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- get into it to make a decision
today. And what we need to do is be able to see what all the
alternatives are. We are here to try to meet the public's reasonable
needs while we protect the interest of the county.
I'd like to see this come back as an agenda item.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So would 1.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's a motion to --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. It's a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Commissioner Halas has a second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, approve to bring it back
as an agenda item.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right, I'm sorry. I didn't say that
correctly, but you're right. I'm sorry. It is to bring it back as an agenda
item.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion by Commissioner Coletta, second
by Commissioner Halas.
Any further discussion?
Yes, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In the motion, let's give specific
direction --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- for staff to give us. You
know, should we keep this in inventory? Is it going to be a future
need? Is there a way to do a property swap with Mr. France's? What
Page 32
December 14, 2004
is the resolution --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is there a wellfield on there now?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- to abate this code
enforcernentissue?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Fine.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Something was brought up in the
discussion that there's a well there. Is that a county-owned well?
MR. ZAMPONIA: It was. I'm not certain that it is being used
right now. We have been told that it might be used in the future.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The only --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There is not a well there. Mr.
DeLony is shaking his head no for the public -- court reporter.
MR. MUDD: The only -- the only well that's being worked right
now on Mr. France's party (sic) belongs to the City of Naples. That I
know for a fact.
This particular parcel was purchased with the -- with the idea that
-- of future wellfields. And right now Mr. DeLony's looking at this as
a potential site for a well for the northeast water plant that's going to
be out there by Orangetree.
And staffs been working on this particular issue with Mr. France
and his attorneys, I believe, since about May, so -- and we're trying to
find a solution.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
And Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm fully in support of the motion
of bringing it back. But is there anything that can be done to hold any
further penalties in abeyance? Is that possible? We won't -- we won't
be able to hear this until January, so --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- it would be good if we could at
Page 33
December 14, 2004
least hear from code enforcement about --
MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, code
development director. The -- whatever action is taken by staff as well
as the Board of County Commissioners, we will take that into
consideration and ask for reduction of fines if they were to accrue.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can we hold the fines until such
time as it was brought before the Board of County Commissioners?
MS. ARNOLD: We can hold off on recording the fines __
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. ARNOLD: -- before then. But the petitioner has already
gone to the Code Enforcement Board for one extension. They've been
granted one extension. And they've kind of voiced the opinion that
that was the final extension. But we could hold off on the recording of
those fines.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But what does that really mean, hold off
on the recording? That means he's still going to be fined but you're
not going to record them?
MS. ARNOLD: Right. The -- once they are recorded in the
public record, then they become official, it's an official lien. So we
can hold off on the actual recording of them. But they'll be accruing
and projecting to the county's interest.
MS. CHADWELL: Well, it's my -- I'm sorry. If I may speak.
I'm Ellen Chadwell, assistance county attorney.
It's my understanding that Mr. France can go back to the Code
Enforcement Board and ask for a continuance. Even though the time
has run, they can grant that order nunc pro tunc, which means
retroactively to the date of the 22nd of December. But the burden is on
him to go forward with that request, and I believe it's a request that
staff would support, certainly if it's this board's direction to do so, that
they would support that.
And I -- but you have no control. CEB may decide not to
Page 34
December 14, 2004
continue it, but I think in light of what's happening here today and
staff support, that they're very likely of extending it further.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MS. CHADWELL: Ifprogress is being made.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So now we have a couple of amendments
to the motion. Commissioner Henning suggested two, and
Commissioner Coyle followed up with a third amendment.
Would you like to incorporate that into your motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's incorporated in my second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There's no problem with that. I
assumed that the original motion would have covered all that for staff,
and staff would have realized the direction, but I have no problem
with putting it in there as additional direction.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And the second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I include that in my second,
yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Anything further from
commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. 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.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, we'll bring that back on the 11 th of
January to try to get some resolution.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
Page 35
December 14,2004
MR. ZAMPONIA: Thank you.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 2004-382: AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND REFUNDING REVENUE
BONDS SERIES 2005 IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, this now brings us to a time certain
item, and that's number lOA, and that -- this item to be heard at 10
a.m., and it's a recommendation to approve a resolution authorizing
the issuance of capital improvements and refunding revenue bonds,
Series 2005, in an amount not to exceed $180 million. It's a sales tax
bond issue.
Mike Smykowski, director of office management and budget,
will present.
MR. SMYKOWSK1: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Michael Smykowski.
Indeed, as Mr. Mudd has stated, we're looking for board approval
today of the attached resolution authoring -- authorizing the issuance
of capital improvement and refunding revenue bond, Series 2005.
There are five specific new projects that require bond financing.
They are enumerated on page 2 of your executive summary, and they
were --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry. Your time is up now.
MR. SMYKOWSK1: They were -- each of the five new projects
requiring financing was included in the FY-'05 adopted budget as
approved by the board, and those projects include the North Naples
Regional Park, the county courthouse annex, phase I, the associated
courthouse annex parking garage, the emergency operations center,
and the county fleet facility.
Page 36
December 14, 2004
As further enumerated in the executive summary, there have been
price increases in those projects that are solely a function at this point
of the current market for both concrete and steel. That is obviously
adversely impacting the county and is an issue, I think not only in
Collier County and the State of Florida, but getting to be a nationwide
Issue.
There are two projects that are currently financed with
commercial paper. Those include the Arthrex building that is
currently housing or will be housing in -- I believe transportation's
moving in tomorrow into the new Arthrex building on Horseshoe
Drive and the Fleischmann property that was acquired in the last year
as well.
Commercial paper obviously has a variable rate debt instrument
subject to some interest rate risk and ideally used for short-term
borrowings or as an interim financing measure. When we approved
both of those products, we had indicated we might be back to the
board looking for securing a longer term financing structure for each
of those two projects.
The final component is a refunding opportunity of capital
improvement refunding revenue bond, Series 1994. Based on current
market conditions, the refunding would generate net present value
savings in excess of $1.1 million or 7.04 percent.
As a general rule, county staff recommends refunding bonds
when the net present value savings is in excess of five percent due to
the associated costs of issuance and the like. If it were a stand-alone
issue and it were below five percent, we would not be recommending
that to you.
From a rating standpoint, Fitch's Rating Service and Standards
and Poors have assigned underlying AA minus ratings on this bond
issue, and that's something we all can be proud of.
It's a -- based on -- and quoting from the -- their statements,
based on the relatively stable nature of the pledged revenue stream,
Page 37
December 14, 2004
adequate coverage by the pledge revenue, sound legal provisions, and
the county's general credit characteristics, it would be anticipated that
this bond issue would close in early -- early in February, 2005.
Mr. Miller from Nabors and Giblin is also here, as is Hall
Kenary, the county's financial advisor, who helped us package this
bond proposal. And there were some changes.
We have set an aggressive schedule on this bond issue due to __
hopefully to avoid future interest rate risk. As a result, there have
been some changes in the general insurance provisions. Some of the
technical backup in the resolution. You were provided a copy of those
yesterday, and if there are no questions, I'll have Mr. Miller walk
through the resolution.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I just have one question.
MR. SMYKOWSK1: Yes, sure.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You say Fleischmann property here under
the commercial paper refinancing.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: What part of the Fleischmann property?
MR. SMYKOWSK1: That is the Fleischmann property at the
corner of Golden Gate Parkway and Goodlette- Frank Road.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Airport. That's that 20 acres there.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's that first part? Oh, for the retention
pond?
MR. SMYKOWSK1: Yes. It's for the retention, I'm sorry. I
should have clarified that in the executive summary.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It didn't say it in here, so I -- the whole
agenda had a lot of things missing from it. So thank you very much.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Mike, I was looking at the
increase -- your projected increase. This is pretty astounding. Some
of these projects were looking like the emergency operations center
where you're anticipating $11 million increase in the actual cost of the
Page 38
December 14,2004
building, because -- is that because of concrete and steel?
MR. SMYKOWSKl: Primarily yes, sir. The -- that building, I
believe -- and Dan Summers is here. I believe is designed to
withstand a category 4 hurricane.
So, in essence, what you have is a -- somewhat of a reinforced
concrete bunker with extra thick concrete walls with reinforcing steel
throughout, and obviously that adversely impacts the price of the -- of
the construction, given the current market for each those products.
Mr. Mudd, on a daily basis, has gotten copies of where, you
know, steel prices go through roof, concrete prices escalating, you
know, vacillating wildly. It's a pretty amazing market.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My question is, if when we allocate
these bonds, will we able to put a cap on what the -- hopefully put a
cap on the escalating price of the construction of these projects?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. We'll go to the guaranteed maximum
price on those contracts for those particular items. We don't normally
get into a guaranteed maximum price on a particular proj ect unless we
have funds in order to build the particular thing, so we don't want to
get ourselves in a default position.
So as soon as the bond item goes through, we'll go -- we'll go
GMP on all of those particular items.
MR. SMYKOWSKl: You have -- do have a GMP,
Commissioner Halas, on the North Naples Regional Park, the
courthouse annex, phase I, and the annex parking garage. The GMP
that we're awaiting is on the EOC. The county fleet facility is planned
to be a bid proj ect.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I just wanted to clarify that.
I'm not sure that we directly responded to Commissioner Halas'
question.
Will we have a chance to take a look at the cost of this
Page 39
December 14,2004
emergency operation center before it goes out to bid, or do you feel
that you already have approval to go out for bid for a specific amount
of money?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: No, sir. We do not have a guaranteed
maximum price. At the point at which we would, we would be
bringing forth that via a separate executive summary, and at that point
you would have an opportunity to vote yes or no on that -- on that
specific proj ect.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you very
much.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you. I apologize if I didn't answer
that correctly.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My understanding, I thought that
that was already bid and already pretty much sealed, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just the design.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Because they were going to
break ground, I thought, in February or March of this year, aren't they,
with the EOC building, or am I wrong?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Here comes Dan Summers to let us know.
MR. SUMMERS: Commissioners, Dan Summers, director of the
Bureau of Emergency Services.
I don't see Skip here to follow up on some detail, but let me tell
you where we are. We're in excess of 50 percent design development
with the building. We're also standing by for the gross maximum -- or
I'm sorry, the guaranteed maximum price with the construction
company, and that -- that company has been chosen.
Yes, we will be bringing back to you the guaranteed maximum
price as well as the final programming with the building.
I think it's important to clarify, however, to you, that since -- and
this project is three years old now, so three years in the programming,
and we're finally here. But I want to remind you that this is not necess
-- although it's referenced as EOC, emergency operation center's just
Page 40
December 14,2004
one component.
This is officially titled as Emergency Services Complex. You
have in there a fully functional 911 center going in, you have a
sheriffs office substation center, an EMS headquarters, EMS training,
the clerk IT -- because of the reinforced structure of the building, that
will be basically their main -- their data center -- the county's IT as
well, and less than three or five percent vacancy remaining for growth
in that building.
So it is a little -- a little overwhelming that you think it's just
EOC, but because of -- also we've experienced a change in wind
loading and wind construction, so you have an enormous amount of
steel and concrete, a heavy resilient building, and all this additional
programming. So the EOC is just one component of those many
tenants.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What -- are we antic -- when are
we anticipating to break ground?
MR. SUMMERS: Sir, we're going to do our best for our
February/March scenario, because we're at the point of design
development now that the last 25, 30 percent that's remaining goes
very, very quickly. In fact, I will tell you that we already have
basically final drawings that staff is under review with right now, so
we're very, very close.
It will -- it will fast track, I think, from this point forward, but the
work is being done. I do know that in early March you have one final
PUD review on this project as well, so we are -- we're at a fast pace.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So you don't have to go out for bid; you
already have the company chosen?
MR. SUMMERS: The company is already chosen. And the
advantage to that for us is the ability to work with them to value
engineer. Staff has got hundreds of hours in value engineering this
project, so we have -- we are constantly working with Kraft to find
ways to, again, minimize costs or to effectively program that building.
Page 41
December 14,2004
So it's really worked out well. And again, because this building
is pretty high tech, there's an awful lot -- when you're talking about a
911 center, the fiber optics, the data requirements for those two data
centers as well as the EOC, you do have a lot of wire and technology
in this building, and that's what makes it complicated.
It will be doable. It's very doable. It's very resilient, but we are
taking great pains to dot the I's and cross the T's in the process.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let me ask one more question then. Is it
legal not to go out to bid?
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, you did go -- you did go out for selection
of contractors with a bid, okay, and you went out there for a request
for proposal to the particular firms. There were proposals that went
out.
We asked the board to go out for this particular item. We went
out. Those particular firms came forward with their -- with their
proposals, and we rate them 1 through 5, or whatever that is, and then
we start to --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: -- negotiate the --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That wasn't explained to us.
MR. SUMMERS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: When you said chosen, I take it at face
value. And so what you mean is, through the bid process, you have --
you have established who the builder will be?
MR. SUMMERS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Who, by the way, is a fine builder.
MR. SUMMERS: Yes, ma'am. And I apologize for not hitting
that point clearly. But, yes, there is a very in-depth, almost a 90-day
selection process.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, very good. I just didn't want that
to come back and haunt us.
MR. SUMMERS: No, ma'am.
Page 42
December 14,2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So now it's on the record. Thank you.
MR. SUMMERS: No, ma'am. Very clear.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any other questions, Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Mr. Miller may have some minor
clarifications on the resolution incorporating the final insurance
changes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Let me just interrupt you for one
second and say I already have a motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning and a second by Commissioner Halas.
We're still open for discussion. Go ahead.
MR. MILLER: Okay. Good morning. Steve Miller with
Nabors, Giblin, and Nickerson. I just wanted to point out -- and we
apologize for this. This is not our usual MO with bond issues.
We did have a few changes we were negotiating with the
insurance company all the way up until yesterday morning. And just
for a way of background, typically we like the insurance bids to come
in a week or a week and a half ahead of your agenda deadline so we
can get everything worked out before your agenda.
In this particular case, as Mr. Smykowski pointed out, we had an
aggressive timetable in order to make sure the county was not
subj ected to rising interest rates, as they are starting to go up.
Insurance bids only came in three days prior to your agenda deadline.
It took us a week to negotiate all the terms.
F or this particular deal, the only change that occurred since
agenda deadline was that the insurance company wanted to make it
crystal clear that if there was a default by the county on the bonds, that
they would step into the shoes of the bondholders. This is already in
your master resolution, but they just wanted to clarify it in here.
That's the only change, and I'll answer any other questions you
may have.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any questions?
Page 43
"--- "...... -4
December 14,2004
(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. That's 5-0.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 2004-383: AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF
LIMITED GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS IN AN AMOUNT
NOT TO EXCEED $75,000,000 (CONSERVATION COLLIER
EROGRAM) - AIlOTIED W/CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, we go to the next item, and that's a
companion item, and that's 1 OB. Well, it's not -- excuse me. That's not
a companion item. It's a new item. This item to be heard immediately
following lOA.
It's a recommendation to approve a resolution authorizing the
issuance of limited general obligation bonds in a not-to-exceed
amount of $75 million. It's a Conservation Collier program, and Mr.
Michael Smykowski, director of office management and budget, will
present.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Again, for the record, Michael
Smykowski, O&B director.
As Mr. Mudd indicated, we do have a resolution adopting --
recommending the authorization of limited general obligation bonds in
a not-to-exceed amount of$75 million. And while the amount there is
Page 44
December 14,2004
not to exceed, obviously you see on page 2, the planned projects is
actually just shy of $35 million. The not-to-exceed amount would be
the maximum that is available under this program.
But what is contemplated, and the proj ects as enumerated in the
bond documents, is approximately $35 million and would be the first
issue under the Conservation Collier program.
The projects include the American Business Park. Again, as the
executive summary states, when that was initially approved, we
funded that on an interim basis with Commercial Paper.
As we talked at the workshop last week, and Mr. Mitchell noted,
that has to be refinanced by the first week in March. That was just a
temporary stopgap measure to acquire that property, and the intention
all along was to secure that with the long-term financing mechanism
through the general obligation bonds that would be funded by the tax
levy not to exceed one-quarter of a mill.
Are there any questions?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. There's another Fleischmann
property on this one for two million. What is that?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's the wetlands.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Alex Sulecki is here.
MS. SULECKI: Good morning. For the record, Alex Sulecki,
coordinator for Conservation Collier. That two million was an
estimate, and it's probably a high estimate of what -- the 13-acre
wetland portion of the Fleischmann property that was purchased under
the other final executive summary.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So in other words, part of the retention
area that the transportation needs, and this is the wetland portion of
that?
MS. SULECKI: Yes. And we don't know how much that is
now. It was a guess.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: That's the 13 acres of the 50-acre parcel that we
Page 45
December 14,2004
purchased for 19 -- $19 million or thereabouts --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: -- a couple months ago, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MS. SULECKI: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any other questions, Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Commissioners -- I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. SMYKOWSK1: There are changes to the resolution --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Let me just first say that we have a
motion to approve by Commissioner Henning and a second by
Commissioner Coyle.
Further information that you wanted to provide?
MR. SMYKOWSK1: Basically it's the insurance requirements
that Mr. Miller enumerated on the -- on the capital improvement
revenue bonds. It's a similar situation where, in negotiating, there
were final changes. Obviously we would ask that the resolution you're
being asked to improve would incorporate those changes that you
have previously been provided.
Steve, is there anything beyond that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Part of my motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That's a part of Commissioner
Henning's motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Part of the second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And also Commissioner Coyle's second.
Any discussion?
Yes, Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Basically, what are we going to be
purchasing bonds at? What interest rate is the county going to be
Page 46
December 14,2004
getting? Do we know offhand?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: The estimated range, sir, on the debt
service schedule ranges anywhere from 2.45 to 3.85 on the loan.
Obviously a general obligation bond typically provides the best
financing structure because it is supported by the ad valorem tax.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Any further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Now we have --let me
interrupt you.
Kathy Prosser is here with us, so I'd like to go back to number
5C, presentation. A status report by Caribbean Gardens' Blue Ribbon
Committee before we break. Is that okay?
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, you have a companion item to lOA,
which is 8D, which was an add-on on your change order.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, yes, okay. Let me -
Item #8D
ORDINANCE 2004-78: AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF
LIMITED GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS (CONSERVATION
COLLIER PROGRAM) FROM TIME TO TIME PAYABLE FROM
THE LEVY OF AN AD VALOREM TAX LEVIED UPON ALL
Page 47
December 14,2004
TAXABLE REAL PROPERTY IN THE COUNTY IN AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED ONE-QUARTER OF ONE MILL
FOR THE PRINCIPAL PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING CERTAIN
ENVIRONMENT ALLY SENSITIVE LANDS WITHIN THE
COUNTY; PROVIDING FOR VARIOUS RIGHTS AND
REMEDIES OF THE BONDHOLDERS; PROVIDING THAT THE
BONDS AUTHORIZED HEREUNDER WILL BE LIMITED
GENERAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE COUNTY; AND
MR. MUDD: And this is a recommendation to adopt an
ordinance authorizing the issuance of limited general obligation
bonds, Conservation Collier program from time to time payable from
the levy on an ad valorem tax levied upon all taxable real property in
the county, in an amount not to exceed one-quarter of one mill for the
principal purpose of acquiring certain environmentally sensitive lands
within the county; providing for various rights and remedies of the
bondholders; providing that the bond -- bonds authorized hereunder
will be limited general obligation of the county; and providing an
effective date.
Mr. Smykowski will present.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. Commissioners, again, for the
record, Michael Smykowski.
This is kind of a perfunctory step as recommended by bond
counsel in each case where we have adopted revenue bonds in the past
for, most recently, the gas tax revenue bond a few years ago.
Bond counsel recommends the adoption of the Home Rule
Powers Ordinance, which they feel would give the county some
additional legal standing in the event of challenge. So it's kind of an
additional step above and beyond that that is required, but it gives
them an additional level of comfort as we proceed with the sale and
issuance of these bonds.
Page 48
December 14,2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Move for approval.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have motion to approve by
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And a second by Commissioner Coyle.
Under considerations in the executive summary, it says on
November 5th, 2002, a bond referendum election was held, and the
issuance of not exceeding. Of what?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Not exceeding the --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No. It says, the issuance of, but then I
guess there's a sentence.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's the 75 -- the $75 million associated
with the Conservation Collier program.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. You just might want to -- you
know, for the record, you might want to clean that sentence up so it
makes sense, if you don't mind.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, I will. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know, I guess we better just wait for
a few minutes and take a la-minute break, and then we'll come back
with Kathy Prosser.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
(A recess was had.)
Page 49
December 14,2004
Item #5C
STATUS REPORT BY THE CARIBBEAN GARDENS BLUE
RIBBON COMMITTEE - MOTION MADE FOR STAFF TO
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH COMMITTEE UP UNTIL TIME
THAT THE BCC BRINGS IT BACK - APPROVED;
RECONSIDERATION OF PREVIOUS MOTION - APPROVED;
MOTION MADE FOR STAFF TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH
COMMITTEE UP UNTIL THE TIME THAT THE BCC BRINGS
IT BACK AND WITH THE STIPULATION THAT STAFF WILL
NOT BE INVOLVED IN SOLICITATION OF FUNDING IN
ANYWAY - APPROVED; MOTION MADE TO DIRECT
COUNTY ATTORNEY TO BRING BACK A RESOLUTION
REGARDING AN OFFICIAL SANCTIONED COMMITTEE FOR
LAND USES OF FLEISHMANN PROPERTY AND FOR THEM
TO SEEK FUNDING FROM GOVERNMENTAL FUNDED
SOl.IRC.RS - AEEROVED
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Will you all please take your seats now.
We're going back to item 5A, which is presentation --
MR. MUDD: 5C--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 5C, I'm sorry.
MR. MUDD: -- which is a presentation of status report by the
Caribbean Gardens Blue Ribbon Committee to be presented by Kathy
Prosser, the committee chairperson.
MS. PROSSER: Good morning, members of the commission.
Kathy Prosser, president and CEO of the Conservancy and also chair
of the blue ribbon panel.
I, first of all, want to begin by wishing everyone happy holidays.
It's nice to see you.
I'm here today to give you a status report on the work of the Blue
Ribbon Committee. You will recall that in June of this year you met
Page 50
December 14,2004
in a workshop to discuss the potential to purchase the Caribbean
Gardens land in an effort to save the zoo. And at that workshop, one
of the things that came out of that was the appointment of this blue
ribbon panel.
And our mission from you was twofold. First it was to take a
look at this ISO-acre parcel that the Fleischmanns are going to be
offering for sale as one major piece, and to determine, perhaps,
potential uses for that ISO-acre parcel. The second part of the mission
was to identify potential funding sources that could supplement the
referendum that was recently passed.
The other thing in the workshop you did was to approve the
referendum going on the ballot in November of this year, and that
referendum would allow for an increase in property tax up to $40
million that could be bonded to help to pay for this Fleischmann
parcel.
When I refer to the Fleischmann parcel, now, I am referring to it
as the entire 150 acres; that includes the 52 acres on which the zoo
sits, but also includes the surrounding properties.
I'm very happy to say that the blue ribbon panel was very much
involved in working with the public over the summer and fall to
ensure the passage of this referendum by 73 percent of the voters, so
we're very pleased that that was quite a strong mandate, that the voters
wanted to not only have the zoo land protected for the use for the zoo,
but the surrounding parcels as well.
The members of the blue ribbon panel are several. Two members
of the Naples City Council are members, including Councilwoman
Penny Taylor and Councilman John Sorey, Clarence Tears of the Big
Cypress Basin is also a member, John Ribes, who is a landscape
architect in town, Dexter Groose, who is a concerned citizen, and
myself as chair.
The committee worked over the summer to look at ways that the
150 acres could be developed, and we came up with a concept, three
Page 51
December 14,2004
different concepts, actually, that we would put forth for consideration
as a starting point. And I want to thank especially Joe Delate on your
staff who just did a great job working with the blue ribbon panel to
help us come up with these concepts in a visual way that made it easy
to understand, and also want to thank Marla Ramsey and her staff for
doing an exceptional job of helping the blue ribbon panel as we've met
throughout the course of the past six months.
We'll put up for you the first concept. Marla, thank you. Concept
one is ranked as number one and intentionally done that way, and it
would be the committee's desire that concept one, if at all possible, be
what we strive to achieve.
That concept is what we call all green all the time, which
primarily means that the zoo, of course, would stay in its current
location, and that we would work to put together funding opportunities
to keep the remaining parts of the land in conservation. And I can go
into more detail on the specifics of that, if you would like.
Concept two is slightly different, and that would be primarily
green as well but with a little different configuration. The zoo would
remain as it is, and much of the parcel would remain green, although
you see in this concept paper, or this concept draft, that there are
lakes, and the Big Cypress Basin has indicated a willingness to help
fund and support this by putting a lake and marsh filtration system in
as a piece of this that would go a long ways towards improving water
quality as it goes into the Gordon River and into Naples Bay.
The third concept we came up with also allows for green space
and provides for the zoo to remain as it is, but it also includes
approximately 18 to 20 acres of this 150-acre parcel that could be
developed to help offset some of the costs for purchase of this land.
So those were the three concepts that the blue ribbon panel has
come up with over the past months for discussion purposes as we
move ahead.
The second part of our mission was to identify funding sources to
Page 52
December 14,2004
supplement the $40 million referendum that passed. The blue ribbon
panel has looked at a variety of options that could be brought to the
table, including public/private partnerships, although we have not
pursued those beyond this concept three and would need to work more
on public/private partnerships as we determine what the highest and
best use of this land would be.
In other words, if we did determine that a part of the lands would
be used for development, at that point we would be looking more
carefully at a public/private partnership.
However, we did look into a Florida Communities Trust Grant.
And as you know, that's a state grant program that provides up to $9.9
million per year that can go to funding initiatives very much like the
one we're talking about here today.
Their new cycle for funding begins in June of '05, and the county
staff will be working to prepare a submission for Florida Communities
Trust to apply for some or all of that funding.
Additionally, Conservation Collier -- as you remember in 2002,
part of the Fleischmann lands there were considered a poster child for
us as we went out to advance that initiative, and so Conservation
Collier would be most interested in determining if a part of that 150
acres is environmentally sensitive land, it would be appropriate for
Conservation Collier to fund and purchase a part of that.
Staff of Conservation Collier will be going on site. We have
received approval from the Fleischmann family to go on site next
week and to take a look at the 150 acres to determine more
specifically which of those acreages might be appropriate for purchase
by that land acquisition program.
Big Cypress Basin I mentioned. A filtration marsh, and lake
system could be appropriate if the county commissioners decide that
they want to include that as a part of development of this property.
And if so, there would be money that Clarence Tears tells us could
come from Big Cypress Basin.
Page 53
December 14,2004
Florida Forever, a state land acquisition program, is something
we will explore as well. They do offer funds to purchase lands such as
these for protecting environmentally sensitive lands.
We've looked into the ICTEA money that's federal highways
money that can be used for pathways. And county staff informed me
that in the past, the county has applied for I CTEA money and has not
been successful, but that doesn't mean we can't try again in this case.
And finally, the Trust for Public Lands. The blue ribbon panel
met with representatives of that trust several times, and as a result of
those meetings, made a recommendation to you in writing that you --
encouraging the county to work with Trust for Public Lands as a
facilitator to purchase this entire 150 acres, and very happy that on
November 16th you approved TPL as being the facilitator for this very
important purchase.
Over the course of the last six months, the blue ribbon panel has
met periodically. These meetings, of course, have been open to the
public. We have had good participation from the public and want you
to know that the recommendations we are bringing forth today as a
status report -- they're not really recommendations, but a status report
for you -- are a result of receiving good public input from the
community to this point.
On behalf of the blue ribbon panel, I am here today to not only
give you a status report, but to ask that you consider extending the
work of this panel as we move into the next important phases of trying
to pull together all the different kinds of monies that will be required
to buy this land, and then to continue to work with the public and with
the staff on these concepts so that we become a clearinghouse for you
to bring information and to weed out misinformation.
There are a lot of folks involved and very interested in there, as
you know, but I imagine that once we get a sticker price on this and
start to really bring this together, a lot more people are going to be
coming out of the woodwork and wanting to get involved, and I
Page 54
December 14,2004
suggest that the blue ribbon panel could serve as a clearinghouse for
you, continuing to receive input from the public and bringing that to
you for your consideration. So I thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Madam Chair, I would like to
make a motion to accept the recommendations of Kathy and to extend
the Blue Ribbon Committee with specific guidance to pursue and try
to get commitments on any funding sources that are available from the
various sources she mentioned.
It has been our intent from the very beginning that the Blue
Ribbon Committee would evaluate sources of funding that would
reduce the cost to the taxpayers or supplement the money which we
are -- the taxpayers have authorized us to raise in order to complete
this purchase of the property.
So I would make a motion that we approve the extension of the
Blue Ribbon Committee with specific guidance to try to finalize or
formalize some of the additional funding opportunities.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll second that motion. And, but a
question I have is, have we ever received a final price from the
Fleischmann family? This whole town has been riveted on buying
this property, we've gone to ballot and everything, but we've never
gotten a price from them.
MR. MUDD: No, ma'am. And this week Mr. Garrison from the
Trust for Public Lands, and SeIser and Mr. Passidomo are in
discussions.
MS. PROSSER: And just to supplement that, I did call Mr.
Passidomo before I arrived, and he indicated that they did hope they
would have a figure to discuss with the Trust for Public Land
Thursday when they got together to meet.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So we have a motion on the floor
and a second.
Commissioner Henning?
Page 55
December 14, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was my understanding that the
group was supposed to seek private donations. What kind of outreach
have you done on that and what kind of success?
MS. PROSSER: We haven't really done any formal outreach yet.
We're waiting to get the sticker price to begin with. But I appreciate
your raising that, because I do believe the blue ribbon panel can
function in a way that, perhaps, county staff cannot, and that is to be
out having discussions with private individuals as well as other kinds
of private partnerships, and we fully intend to do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want you to be aware of a
couple comments that I heard pertaining to the participants on this
committee --
MS. PROSSER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- about conflict of interest.
You have several city council people on there. I have some
concerns on that. And, of course, the Conservation Collier -- or
Conservancy borders that, and I would hope that we can resolve some
of those concerns, and possibly if we're going to extend it, to have a
different makeup. There's always -- in the process of public
involvement in that. But public perception on this is -- it might kill
the whole project.
You know, I appreciate the Conservancy's efforts in this, but you
don't want to have that stigma out there of potential conflicts.
MS. PROSSER: Well, we'd certainly -- the Conservancy would
be happy to do whatever you feel is most appropriate. Our main
concern is to make this deal happen and to have the zoo remain and to
have a, hopefully a central park of some kind surrounding that.
So whatever you would deem appropriate --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think it's prudent for the board
to take a look of the makeup of this group and bring it back on a future
agenda.
It's not a sanction -- really a sanctioned committee by the Board
Page 56
December 14,2004
of Commissioners. The sources of the monies for our participation, if
I remember right, we were kind of looking at transportation,
stormwater to get involved in that as far as stormwater issues. I think
that's maybe another possibility. And I think there's some other
county issues that we might want to address on this piece of property.
And to steer it into -- Public Lands for Trust is steering it into
their agenda, and that's more for the animals than people, and I'm not
sure if -- how many animals are paying the taxes on this piece of
property.
MS. PROSSER: Well, again--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, to give us options, I
appreciate it, but I hope that we're not steered into a specific corner.
MS. PROSSER: Well, I appreciate that comment, and that is
why I think you see three different concepts as a beginning point, one
of which does include potentially some development on there if the
county commissioners would deem that as appropriate in a way of
reimbursing some of the fund.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have some similar concerns as
Commissioner Henning has. I remember quite specifically when we
were discussing this in the workshop that the end result was that most
of this was going to be donations that were going to be put up by the
private sector. And the reason that we put this agenda on the ballot
was in case there wasn't enough money to make the total purchase of
the land.
So as it stands right now, my understanding is your Blue Ribbon
Committee has really not acquired any funds other than the funds that
were used to advertise this property for the elector.
The other concerns I have is similar to what Commissioner
Henning has, and that is the makeup of the board. I think it's, right
now, too -- too much loaded towards the City of Naples, and not only
did the City of Naples vote for this, but also the whole community,
Page 57
December 14,2004
and I feel that there should be an equal makeup between the city and
the county. And I would look forward to bringing this back to address
these issues and to see what's going on.
Also I would think that there might -- I'm concerned about some
of the conflict of interest here, so I think that's another area that may
need to be addressed.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I share some similar concerns,
and I would like to see us take a look at the makeup of the board, but
meanwhile, I do want to compliment you for the wonderful work you
have done to this point --
MS. PROSSER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- in time and the public
awareness that you brought forward.
I want to make sure that there's no misunderstanding in the fact
that final decision's going to be the commission--
MS. PROSSER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- and there should be all the
options on the table. No matter how far off they are, they should all
be there so we can make a decision based upon fact across the board
and what's going to be in the best interest for all the taxpayers of
Collier County.
MS. PROSSER: I completely concur with that. If I may -- and
thank you for your kind words.
And to Commissioner Halas, the blue ribbon panel has not yet
found the money because we don't know what we're going to be
looking to find. But in talking with staff and getting ready, for
example, for the Florida Communities Trust Grant, that is a potential
$9.9 million, but we first do need to know the ever important price of
the land before we can really go out asking people to fund it. So just
by way of explanation.
As it relates to the Conservancy, we are very proud of the role
Page 58
December 14, 2004
that we have played to date in this. We will be in there pitching and
fighting to help make this dream a reality in any capacity that you all
deem is most appropriate.
So we're honored to have been a part of it to this point.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, I'd like to say, Kathy,
that I have absolutely no concerns about conflicts of interest with your
organization or this particular panel. It is not an officially-appointed
board, paneled by this board, consequently, it doesn't fall under any of
those provisions, but the perception is important --
MS. PROSSER: Yes, indeed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- that the principle is important.
But I have no concerns that the people who are there are somehow
going to profit from a decision to preserve property.
And I think the only caution is that the Conservancy not get
involved in benefiting some way from the transaction, and I think that
is a valid concern, and I think you've avoided that quite successfully.
But if our job is to raise money, it's important that we get people
on the committee who have experience raising money, and I don't
know of anyone who is more capable of doing that than you and the
Conservancy.
MS. PROSSER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I would like to encourage that
if there are changes on the board, or in the committee itself, that they
be changes that enhance our ability to find the funds.
I think we've accomplished the job of getting public awareness of
the need to conserve this property and to get it on the ballot. We now
need to start raising the funds. And I would encourage that we think
about people on this committee who can raise money for us, and
you're in a far better position to determine that --
MS. PROSSER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- than we are.t
Page 59
December 14, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess for the county manager,
county attorney, what's the board's ability to change the makeup of
this Blue Ribbon Committee that has not been appointed by the
board?
MR. WEIGEL: I'd like to respond, if I may, Commissioners, and
that is, the committee, I think, came into being as a discussion,
request, a bit of direction at that workshop that was held far earlier this
year in the sense that the board recognized that people with interests
could conceivably come together and inform the board and make
recommendations to the board, and even possibly show the board
where some funding sources might be utilized, or someone other than
the commission and its staff collect money and bring it forward,
ultimately.
That committee was not created by the board, although it has
functioned up to this point with a recognition, call it a prerequisition
of a type of existence totally within the sunshine, which protects them
and protects anyone that would be involved and to that extent.
To further answer your question, however, the members of the
committee were not directed by this board. They came into being, in
part, just through discussion, I believe, of Marla Ramsey, and Ms.
Prosser, and some names mayor may not have been mentioned as
possibilities at the meeting, but it was never the board's workshop
decision as to who would or would not be on it.
And, in fact, the committee morphed a little bit, it changed a little
bit from its initial attempted makeup. Again, not with any direction of
the board, but by virtue of the fact that they had staff members on the
committee and that was inappropriate to have voting employees on a
committee, particularly if it might potentially be perceived as a county
committee.
So there was some cleanup and some changes along the way so
that it could function a little more independently of the county as well.
Page 60
December 14, 2004
Just prior to your discussion -- and by the way, there is a motion
and a second on the floor still to extend the committee, and with that
motion having been made and to the extent that it may even be
removed from the floor, my suggestion was going to be that if it were
to be extended with whatever membership -- and Ms. Prosser had
indicated certain persons that were assisting at this point in time --
that, in fact, the board, if it were to officially recognize this
committee, should, in fact, direct county attorney to work with Mrs.
Filson to bring back resolution to the board, which may not be
necessary at this point if you should change your mind, because it
sounds to me as if your thought is, both to Mrs. Prosser and anyone
else out there in the community, if they have some ideas, you as a
board are welcome to hear and receive those ideas, and to the extent
that the board may take some action in a more formal collective board
way to make ideas turn into realities, you would do that at that point in
time. But information is something you're looking for.
To have a committee of the board directly soliciting money is
really no further than an extension of yourselves. And so, Mr. Coletta
and Mr. Henning, certainly, and Halas, have certainly noted as well
that there can be some concerns there, and county attorney would
want to be involved if we were to proceed closer in that direction.
But right now it sounds to me as if the board is thinking of
thanking Ms. Prosser and the persons that have been working with her,
indicating to her and anyone else that they could, in fact, go forward,
but not recognizing a specific committee at this point in time.
But to the extent that she or others may independently or together
bring persons and players and idea people or funding people together
and bring information back to you, she may do that just as anyone else
might, if you find that a workable solution. Perhaps I'm -- I have
stated something that you have in mind there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if the motion stays, I'm
not going to vote for it. I'd much rather see something formal by the
Page 61
December 14,2004
Board of Commissioners. Since we are spending the staff time, it is
dollars of the taxpayers. I think it's prudent to advertise this item as a
board-sanctioned committee and for the board to appoint members.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That -- that is -- represents quite a
conflict from an earlier position that said we didn't want to have
conflicts.
If you want to have a conflict of interest that is really, really
serious, then what you want to do is do exactly what Commissioner
Henning just suggested, and I think that's a big, big mistake.
Can you imagine a board or a committee sanctioned by this board
with members selected by this board going out and trying to get
money from the public, many of them who might be contributors who
come before this board looking for approval for some action?
That -- that's a recipe for disaster. So I would encourage you not
to do anything with respect to formalizing a fundraising committee
reporting to this board and responsible to this board.
And I think the county attorney has raised a very good point.
This isn't a formal committee established by this board, so why do we
have the authority to extend it? It can go on as long as you want it to
go on, Kathy, and you can advise us as much as you'd like, and you
can raise as much money as you'd like, and you can select whatever
people you want to help you raise that money, and that's the perfect
way for this thing to operate.
You know, we shouldn't be going out and trying to raise money
for people who are certainly going to have an interest at some point in
time in coming before this board to seek approval, perhaps on major
developments.
So we need to stay as far away from that as we can. And so I
would withdraw my motion, because I think the county attorney has
made a good point. We don't need a motion to do this. You just
continue to do what you think is right and help us -- help us finance
Page 62
December 14, 2004
this purchase that is in everybody's best interest.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Believe it or not, you're both
right. I think we need to have a formal board underneath our director
__ a committee underneath our direction. I do think that this should
still be a freelance committee that can do some fundraising on the side
without the sanction of the Board of Commissioners.
You can't sanction them without -- at that same point in time
regulating them in some form. There's just no way to marry the two.
But, fine, as an independent group out there trying to seek funding and
maybe making a report back to the committee, that wouldn't a
problem.
But in all cases, we're not going to settle this here today. I think
we need to have this come back at the next meeting. I'm sure we can
put something together that will work well for everyone.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And maybe by then we'll have a price.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Maybe, hope so.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want to remind my colleagues
that we appoint advisory boards all the time that seeks monies from
the private sector, a lot of times sponsoring certain events. Parks and
rec. does it all the time with our events. So I don't see the big deal.
I just would rather have some kind of formal thing as long as
we're using the tax dollars to support this group, because,
theoretically, there's other groups out there that could ask the board for
some kind of staff support to do whatever they want to do.
And if we're -- if we're going to use the tax dollars that way, it
ought to be sanctioned by the Board of Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got concerns whereby we've
got a committee out there that's not under any of the jurisdiction or
direction from the Board of County Commissioners and yet they're
Page 63
December 14, 2004
using our staff time, and to me, that's tax dollars and that belongs to
the community.
So I think we've got an area here that needs to be looked at by the
county commissioner -- or excuse me -- by the county attorney in
regards to exactly what the ground rules are and exactly how we get
from point A to point B.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure.
MS. PROSSER: If I may, Commissioner Halas, the blue ribbon
panel formed as a result of your workshop, and at that workshop, it
was suggested that a group of people get together to look at this with
support from staff, so this is not just an independent group who said,
hey, let's just go do something fun and use the county staff, but rather
we did feel that we were doing what was in the interest of this
commission and feel we have done that up to point.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're absolutely right and you're
doing a great job. My concern is that in the process of the workshop
that it was very clear in the discussions that the last resort was going to
be that we were going to put this on the ballot to try to save the zoo,
that there was going to be a lot of public people, outpour of money, to
save this whole scenario.
And as of right now, there's no money in the coffers. That's my
biggest concern, okay, because it was pretty clear to me that we, the
commissioners, wanted to make sure that we did save the zoo, but it
was going to be done under the auspices that the last resort was
taxpayers'money. That's what I remember from the workshop.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I'll follow up and kind of close this
thing up. Who did select that committee, by the way? How did the
committee get selected?
MS. PROSSER: Well, I think in part I was there at the
workshop, and so that was a part of it, as were maybe some other
folks. The Tetzlaff family was represented at that workshop, as well
as some others. And so I think it loosely formed as a result of that,
Page 64
December 14, 2004
those who showed interest.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You decided at that time how many
members would be on and who would be on, is that it, after that
meeting?
MS. PROSSER: We met shortly thereafter during a public
session and just saw who had an interest and who would be interested
in serving. And for example, David Tetzlaff, of the family who runs
the zoo and owns the zoo, was originally on that committee, and then
the committee deemed that it was inappropriate, given that there was
going to be a political action committee put together and so forth, and
that there was a vested interest from the Tetzlaff family and the
outcome of this, that they should not serve in any way on this
committee, so they stepped out.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I had no idea how this committee
even formed or who decided how many members would be on it. I
don't know that any of us did, but I sure didn't.
MS. PROSSER: If I may, they -- Marla Ramsay and the county
staff were involved in pulling the first meeting together, and the
county staff members were on the blue ribbon panel. And then others
like me and some others came forward to say we'd like to serve as
well. So that's the actual genesis of this involvement.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I truly don't feel government officials
should be on there, only because if there's money raising involved, I
don't care --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- what form of government they serve, it
-- you don't want to be out there asking for money and then having
these people come before you. That's a -- not that anybody would do
this thing illegally, but man, perception is awful.
And getting on with that, there's been a perceived conflict.
We've -- I think we've all gotten those letters. And not that we would
ever even suspect that. I think everybody is genuinely passionate
Page 65
December 14, 2004
about this property and wanting to preserve it forever. But we've
heard that. And you know, sometimes things get blown out of
proportion. So I agree with Commissioner Coletta, we ought to bring
this back as an agenda item at a future date.
MS. PROSSER: I would ask the commission then, would you --
are you recommending if that resolution passes that the blue ribbon
panel not meet again until after you have come back --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, no, no.
MS. PROSSER: -- or do we continue to meet? Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No. I just think that if we meet again in
January, we'll probably know the price of this property.
MS. PROSSER: Hope so.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And maybe we'll have a better
understanding of how we want to move forward, maybe some people
will get the idea. I think everybody can discuss it a little bit. I think
definitely you need to be moving forward, that why I seconded the
dead motion, and maybe -- you know, maybe we can discuss more of
the issue.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Kathy, once again, tell me what
was the vote in favor of this cause?
MS. PROSSER: Seventy-three percent.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Seventy-three percent of the
taxpayers in Collier County said, please, let me contribute to this,
right?
MS. PROSSER: That's exactly right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, I think there are two
issues here. One is we've said that this Blue Ribbon Committee is not
a government-appointed committee, so if they continue to meet, we
have no control over it whatsoever, okay. So they should continue to
meet, in my opinion, you should continue to try to solicit funds to help
pay for this property, and if it is the desire of this Board of County
Page 66
December 14, 2004
Commissioners to remove staff support from members of the public
who are trying to do good, then I'd like to see a vote on that today.
And if not --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Make a motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. You make a motion. I'm
not going to vote for that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If there's someone here who
wants to make a motion to remove staff support from this public
committee --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Why would you want to do that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let me help you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what everybody's saying.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let me help you. No, no. I'll
make a motion just to clarify where I stand and hopefully I think the
other commissioners stand.
Our question is, you know, making this committee whole, but I
have no problem with staff support. In fact, I'll make a motion that
staff support continue with this committee until that point in time that
we meet to make further decisions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I second that motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good, good. I'm glad to hear that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't want any misconception
on that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: There's a motion on the floor and a
second for staff to continue working with this committee.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, all right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have Commissioner Halas first
and Commissioner Henning next.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have no problem with staff being
involved in this as long as the staffs time's being paid for.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It is, by the taxpayers.
Page 67
December 14, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's -- that's the concern that I
have, because this is not a formalized Blue Ribbon Committee by the
commission, and so, therefore, it's like any other concern. If
somebody wants to use the staff, then they should pay for it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I was -- Commissioner Coletta
was interrupted before he finished the motion, and I didn't understand.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm sorry, that was me. I'm sorry to
interrupt.
Would you say -- would you say your motion again, please?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My motion -- I thought I
finished it, but whatever Commissioner Fiala --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I was talking, yeah, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My motion's simple, that we
recognize that staff is serving a useful purpose and that we'd like them
to continue to work with the committee, at least up till the time that we
have our meeting to discuss how we're going to handle it in the future,
at whatever point in time we bring it back for our consideration.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And the only comment
is, we're leaving it open-ended. I would hope there would be another
motion so we could bring resolution to this whole issue of the concern
of the majority of the Board of Commissioners, that is the perception
of conflicts with this non-sanctioned committee and whether the board
wants to appoint a committee to bring final recommendations on this
piece of property that the taxpayers told the Board of Commissioners
to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I hear you, and I'll tell you, all
that is great, but I'd like the motion to stand alone, if I could, please,
and then we'll come back and address the second part of it, which has
merits.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner -- well, what about
Page 68
December 14,2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just wanted to comment on
staffs cost. We direct staff to do this for several reasons; one, it's been
the tax -- the will of the taxpayers was spoken in the last election, and
number two, that any time that we delay this any longer than
necessary, the cost is only going to go up.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, that was the point I wanted
to make is that we should separate those two motions. It seems to me
that Commissioner Coletta had already voiced his preference to see
the issue brought back to discuss a formal designation of a committee.
That's where the ultimate conclusion will be made. And so I presume
that's going to be a follow-on motion, so I agree with separating these
two.
And by the way, we provide staff support to lots of people all the
time, and it doesn't come to the county commissioners for approval.
It's an ongoing service we provide to the public. And to get all
worked up about this, I think, is really counterproductive, but --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- I would vote in favor of this
motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor and a
second.
Anything further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 69
December 14, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have four -- one opposed,
Commissioner Halas.
MR. MUDD: Just for the record, for the public out there, the
staff support will be there to help them with any ideas that they need
to do or that will help them if they need to apply for a grant, but the
staff is precluded by the ethics ordinance from soliciting, okay, and in
no way, shape, or form will staff be involved in solicitation of private
funds for this particular entity because it would be a violation of the
ethics ordinance.
And if they're there and that is going on, they will excuse
themselves from those proceedings.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So long as that's clarified, then I'll
change my vote.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Can he do that, David?
MR. WEIGEL: You can make a motion of -- a person who voted
in the majority can make a motion to reconsider if they wish to.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure. Let's do that. I'd like to
have everyone aboard. I'll make a motion for reconsideration.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: With the clarification that the
county manager did stipulate.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I restate my motion with
that clarification that the county manager just stipulated to.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, you're not there yet actually,
Commissioners. The motion to reconsider is merely a motion to
reconsider, and then you can add that new proviso to the vote that
you're just reconsidering.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Call the question, please.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Page 70
December 14,2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. The floor is open for a new motion on
this subj ect.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Let's start over again
now. I make a motion that we allow staff to work with the Blue
Ribbon Committee within the limitations as was mentioned by the
county manager.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Regarding staff working with this
committee?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right, staff cannot work in a
direction where they're soliciting donations.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll second that motion.
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: Okay. Now, did you want to propose a
second motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, no. I think it was
Commissioner Coletta's second motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I seem to have the floor. I'll tell
you what, I'm going to -- I'll allow you to do this one. I'll be more
Page 71
December 14,2004
than happy to second it. I don't want to dominate the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not going to do it because I
disagree with you. But go ahead, somebody else can do it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll do it. Make a motion to
direct county attorney to bring back a resolution for a
board-sanctioned committee to give direction on the land use and
potential funding sources for the Fleischmann property, also known as
Caribbean Zoo, and the 120 acres associated with it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it for discussion
purposes. I think you're going in the right direction. I just want to
make sure it covered what we need to do to get there. It doesn't
address the present Blue Ribbon Committee as an entity that can still
exist after the fact. I think that's something that should come back for
consideration, too, at that time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's not a -- sanctioned by the
Board of Commissioners, so they can --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They can do what they want,
okay, I agree.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: They can do what they want.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They can exist if they want.
They can also apply for a sanction by the Board of Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But in my personal opinion, I'll
be looking at the potential of conflicts out there on members.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I hear you, Commissioner
Henning. You're right. And I second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So just -- we have a second on there.
And I think it's very important that we are sensitive to that issue
of conflict, even though none of us ever would think that anybody on
the committee has a conflict, it's amazing how it can be painted
differently.
Page 72
December 14,2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Perceived.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Perceived.
MS. PROSSER: Perception can be reality.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, my goodness, yes. And we don't
want anything to upset the beautiful direction in which you're
traveling, and so that is something important to consider, even though
we would have no -- no feeling of that ourselves.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Either I'm not expressing myself
clearly or --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I heard you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- maybe we're having some
difficulty really understanding what conflict of interest is. But let me
paint you a picture.
Let's suppose we set up an officially sanctioned committee and
that committee, as Commissioner Henning has defined, would be to go
out and try to find additional funding sources to help pay for this, and
they go to the Collier Company and they ask them for a contribution
of $500,000.
Do you think the Collier family is going to do that when they
have to come in here and petition us for development orders, PUDs?
No. They would be crazy to do that, because you've got an officially
sanctioned government agency going out soliciting money from
people who are coming here to ask us for approval.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So what would you --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you completely eliminate the
opportunity to get funding from some of the biggest contributors in
Collier County.
But now, if the Conservancy were to go to them and say, will you
contribute money for this purpose, that's an entirely different issue.
And I just think the board is being very shortsighted in an effort to
solve an imagined conflict of interest, which, by the way, we can
Page 73
December 14, 2004
solve in lots of other ways.
But I just -- I just cannot believe that you would want to put
yourself in that kind of position for raising money to support this. I
think you doom the effort by doing that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, give me a solution then instead --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- because we have received mail
regarding conflict. What would you do to solve the problem?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, let me -- let me say this. I
have seen a vote of 73 percent of the people who wanted to do this,
and I have seen a very, very small number of people who are
complaining about conflict of interest, and it's generally people who
don't really understand what a conflict of interest is and might very
well disagree with the concept in the first place.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. You haven't given me a solution,
but Commissioner Coletta, you might have one.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I think when we -- it
comes back, we'll be discussing all the options. I don't think there's a
problem with somebody working with a sanctioned committee or
working with the Conservancy and the Conservancy coming back
with whatever it is. It's wide open. I don't think we ever shut the door
on anything.
Let's bring it back, let's get the discussion going. The thing is to
make this work. It's not to impede it or anything. The only thing I'd
like to see is direction given to staff, is that we recognize the urgency
of the situation and would like it brought back at the earliest possible
time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- we don't know what we
want to use this land for. We've seen three concepts. There might be
more out there.
Page 74
December 14,2004
My envision (sic) is this sanction committee would take a look at
that. And like Ms. Prosser said, is Big Cypress Basin could be a
partner in this, and that's what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about
going to developers. And -- for this committee, and I just find it
offensive that because we have one member on the losing side on the
Board of Commissioners, that the personal attack is really not
necessary .
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, there's no personal attack.
The point is that you specifically said that the purpose was to get
members of the public to contribute to this, okay?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I make a motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And members of the public
includes developers or anybody else.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I didn't say that in the motion.
That was a previous discussion, Commissioner Coyle, and I just view
it as, you know, different than the majority of the Board of
Commissioners, and that wasn't my thought on this motion of going to
development for contributions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think when this is brought back, I
hope that we have a complete information package, also information
from the county attorney's office in regards to legalities, what we can
do, what we can't do, case law stated, the whole nine yards, so we've
got real direction in which direction we're going to go.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. So we will be bringing this
issue back --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- for further discussion at another time.
Thank you, Kathy, for all the hard work you've already done.
Can you give us a date, Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'd like the board to tell me if
Page 75
December 14, 2004
they're all in favor of this motion yet. You have a motion for the
county attorney to -- for a resolution for committee makeup for uses of
the property, is basically what I wrote down on this particular issue,
and it's there. Did it go for a vote yet or is it still --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Still hasn't been voted on.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That was your --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, no, it was Henning --
Commissioner Henning's motion, and I seconded it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And you seconded it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've got a clarification. If that's
what the vote is about, I'll vote for it, okay? If that's what the motion
was, I'll vote for it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. Commissioner
Henning, would you tell me, did it also include the fact that they were
going to be looking at the funding apparatus of the whole thing, where
it's coming from? I mean, you can't divorce one from the other totally.
It doesn't preclude somebody else going out there and securing funds.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That was part of my motion, just
to clarify it. It's not for the sanction committee to go out for private, in
this example that was given, development, the Colliers, or something
like that. That was not part of the motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Could you restate --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: To further clarify it, it is like
Big Cypress Basin, the land trust, that type of organization, for this
potential funding sources once we know a guaranteed price.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So let's --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm confused.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is everybody clear on this motion --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're confused?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I'm not.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- or would you like to hear it one more
Page 76
December 14, 2004
time?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I made a motion to direct the
county attorney to prepare an ordinance for a sanctioned committee to
take a look at the land uses on this and seek funding from government.
An example would be, on the private sector, would be the land trust.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And that is your second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, but it's my -- I'll agree to it,
but I just have a question. Where does the other donations come
through? How are they channeled to reach this?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You've got an interested party
right next door, the Conservancy, you've got the city council members
individually.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I see, I see. I see where
you're coming from, and I understand, and I understand where -- that
part. You can't make that part of the motion, but I understand where
you're coming from now. I agree.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if the intent is to make sure
that it's not involved in fundraising but evaluating grants and other
governmental sources of funding, I would agree with you, too.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Is that the intent, Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I don't think the public--
correct me if I'm wrong about the public land trust. That's a
not- for-profit organization, correct?
MS. PROSSER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we want to exclude them out
from this?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't think so.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, I don't think that that's -- but that isn't
-- he just means like private companies that we would do business
Page 77
December 14,2004
with. He's not talking about governmental -- even though it's in
501 (C)(3), it's -- I think we consider it as governmental because -- it
might not be, but, you know, it kind of feels that way because it isn't
anything locally here.
MS. PROSSER: May I ask a question --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure.
MS. PROSSER: -- at this point? And hopefully it's a question
that might clarify. What I'm -- what I'm hearing is the suggestion that
. you form an official committee at some point in the future whose job
will be to work with government entities such as Florida Communities
Trust, Florida Forever, and so forth, to try and bring supplemental
money to the table; meanwhile, you are just saying the blue ribbon
panel can continue to work in any configuration it chooses with
support of the county staff and that you would prefer that that
committee work on private donations?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
MS. PROSSER: Is that what I'm hearing?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. Everybody's nodding in agreement;
is that correct?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what I understand the
motion to be.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I call the motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. All those in favor, signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 78
December 14,2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 5-0.
MS. PROSSER: May I, just for the record -- because it's been
brought up so many times today, and I really appreciate all of your
comments about the conflict of interest not being a reality but the
perception being there. So I just want to go on the record as saying
the Conservancy has been interested in purchasing this land since the
day I set foot in Collier County over four years ago, long before this
was ever an Issue.
The Conservancy, however, will not directly benefit in any way,
shape, or form from what happens here. You know, it abuts us on
three sides, this land, including the zoo. But in terms of a direct
benefit to the Conservancy, that is not the case, so I just wanted it
stated for the record. And I thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And we'll see you back at a
meeting soon. Okay.
MS. PROSSER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
Item #8A
RESOLUTION 2004-384: CRA RECOMMENDATION TO
EXP AND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE IMMOKALEE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA TO INCLUDE THE
ENTIRETY OF PARCELS INADVERTENTLY BISECTED BY
That brings us to item 8A, and that's a recommendation by the
Community Development Agency, CRA, to the Board of County
Commissioners, the BCC, to expand the boundaries of the Immokalee
Page 79
,.....^.-,.,.;---.-'.- --------- ,.
December 14,2004
Community Redevelopment Area to include the entirety of parcels
inadvertently bisected by the present boundary.
State your name for the record, sir.
MR. MOSS: Good morning, Commissioners. John David Moss,
comprehensive planning. Six months ago the boundaries of the
Immokalee redevelopment area were expanded, and that expansion
included those parcels, and -- or those two map sections, rather, and as
a result of the expansion, four parcels were bisected by the boundary
line.
Consequently, when the property appraiser's office began
figuring the taxes, they were unsure about where to deposit the funds,
whether they would go to the Immokalee redevelopment fund or
whether they'd go to the county's general fund.
And so they asked us to come before you to clarify this matter.
And while we were doing that, they asked if we could also go ahead
and clarify some other parcels that they found problematic, and those
are the ones that are in the southeastern comer, right there.
The staff of comprehensive planning did a site visit and
determined that the properties do meet the statutory requirements for
blight, and is recommending that they be included into the expanded
area.
All told, the taxable value of these properties is $302,000, which
represents approximately $4,338 in ad valorem taxes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Are these vacant properties?
MR. MOSS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Wait. There might be a speaker.
Page 80
".-",._^-~" ...,~-~-_.-
December 14,2004
MS. FILSON: No.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh. Is there a speaker?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, there isn't. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I need to close the public hearing then
before we take a final vote. Thank you.
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.
Item #8B
PUDZ-2004-AR-5220: LAND DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC,
REPRESENTED BY RONALD NINO, AICP, OF VANASSE
DA YLOR, LLP, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM RURAL
AGRICUL TURAL (A) ZONING TO MIXED USE PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MUPUD) FOR A PROJECT TO BE
KNOWN AS THE BUCKLEY MIXED USE PUD TO ALLOW
FOR MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT. THE PUD IS PROPOSED FOR A MAXIMUM
OF 251 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS, A MAXIMUM OF
74,230 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL COMMERCIAL, AND A
MAXIMUM OF 97,070 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE
COMMERCIAL USES. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 7501
AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD, IN THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT
OF THE INTERSECTION OF AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD AND
ORANGE BLOSSOM DRIVE, NORTH OF THE COLLIER
Page 81
--"".,-----,.._" -,.-.<<,,,--...,...,-....--,<,
December 14, 2004
COUNTY REGIONAL LIBRARY, IN SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 49
SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
CONSISTING OF 22.84::l:: ACRES. MOTION TO APPROVE WI
DENSITY AND HEIGHT CONDITIONS - DENIED; MOTION TO
RECONSIDER - APPROVED; MOTION TO BRING BACK TO A
LATER BCC MEETING OF JANUARY 25,2005 WI
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF, AND
PETITIONER TO PAY FOR RE-ADVERTISING COSTS -
MER OVEn
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item,
which is 8B. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and
ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members.
It's PUDZ-2002-AR-5220, Land Development Group, LLC,
represented by Ronald Nino, AICP, of Vanasse Daylor, LLP,
requesting a rezone from rural agricultural A zoning to mixed-use
planned unit development MUPUD for a project to be known as the
Buckley mixed-use PUD to allow for mixed-use commercial and
residential development.
The PUD is proposed for a maximum of 251 residential dwelling
units, a maximum of 74,230 square feet of retail commercial, and a
maximum of 97,070 square feet of office commercial uses.
The property is located at 7501 Airport-Pulling Road in the
northwest quadrant of the intersection of Airport-Pulling Road and
Orange Blossom Drive, north of the Collier County Regional Library
in Section 2, Township 49 south, Range 25 east, Collier County,
Florida, consisting of 22.84 plus or minus acres.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Will all those in the audience
who are going to be speaking on this particular agenda item, please
stand to be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
Page 82
December 14, 2004
And, Commissioners, ex parte declaration. Let's start with you,
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you, sure. I have had
meetings with both the petitioner and also the surrounding
community, and I've also received emails on this particular project.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I have also had meetings,
correspondence, emails, and phone calls, and my file's available to
anyone that wishes to see it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. I, too, have had meetings,
emails, calls, and correspondence, and I have them all in this packet
for public viewing.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've had meetings with the
petitioner as well as some of the neighbors, correspondence and
emails concerning this issue that are in my packet.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I received some emails from the
neighbors on this petition, and also on the Smart Growth Committee,
there was an architectural renderance (sic) and potential uses on this
property that I did view.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
Proceed.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich
Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner.
With me today also, if you have questions, are Ron Nino, who's
the planner for the project; Bob Mitchell, who's the landscape architect
for the project; Reed Jarvi, who's our transportation consultant for the
project; and also with the purchaser are Joe D'Jamoos, Andy
D'Jamoos, and Brad Guarino.
I represent the seller of the property, Buckley Enterprises, and it's
my responsibility to take this project through the prezoning of the
Page 83
December 14,2004
property. Mr. D'Jamoos' entity has a contract to purchase the
property .
I'll give you a brief history and then take you through the project
pretty quickly. And then if you have any questions, we'll be able to
answer them.
This project started with a comprehensive plan amendment that
was adopted by the board in May 2002, and that's the Buckley
mixed-use subdistrict. Shortly after the subdistrict was adopted, the
homeowners' association for Emerald Lakes filed a challenge to the
adoption of that comprehensive plan amendment.
We went through the administrative hearing process, and the
property owner prevailed, and that decision was appealed. We -- we
then sat down with the residents of Emerald Lakes and said, listen, we
want to address your concerns because we think -- I think they were
more opposed to the compo plan amendment out of fear of not
knowing what could happen versus, you know, the adoption of the
comprehensive plan amendment.
So we met with the residents -- with the homeowners' association
representatives about what was proposed on the project, and that
changed from the original adoption of the comprehensive plan
amendment to -- to when we sat down with them.
The original proposed developer, it was -- who wanted to do a
more intensive residential development, more of an apartment-style
complex, pulled out, and Mr. D'Jamoos came into the picture, who
wanted to do a different type of project, a higher-end residential,
combined with both office and retail.
And we sat down with the residents of Emerald Lakes through
their association and reached a settlement agreement, something that
made them happy, something that made the -- Mr. D'Jamoos' group
happy, and we reached a settlement agreement, we finalized that, and
we were coming through the process to do the PUD.
So I'll take you through the SDP and explain to you how we
Page 84
December 14,2004
addressed the concerns of the association.
The compo plan amendment would have allowed us to ask for up
to 15 units per acre. The residents were concerned with that level of
intensity. And through the settlement agreement, we agreed that we
would not ask for more than 11 units per acre, and that's what the PUD
proposal in front of you is, a maximum of 11 units per acre.
They were concerned about setback from the -- from our western
property boundary, their eastern property boundary. And we agreed to
increase the setback to 100 -- a minimum of 100 feet. So we increased
the setback which would -- which would work towards helping the
visualization of our project in keeping the project away from the
people that lived on the eastern sides of Emerald Lakes.
There was also a concern that -- regarding the buffer. They
wanted an eight-foot wall that basically ran the entire length of our
western property line, and we agreed to the eight-foot wall. They also
had concerns that there be a wall along our northern property line, and
we agreed to a six-foot wall there.
We -- so we went through the process with them, and we
basically addressed their concerns about intensity on the project.
They wanted to make sure that we didn't exceed 11 units per acre.
They also had some comfort in knowing that -- they kind of know
what the project's going to look like because Mr. D'Jamoos had
developed the Galleria, so they knew he was a local developer. They
had a real-life example of the quality of the architecture for the other
projects he's done.
And we met with them to talk about the architecture for this
particular project. And it's going to be a mixed-use project that, on
many of the buildings, not all of them, but many of the building will
have either office and/or retail on the first floor and residential on the
second and third floors.
There are some -- there are buildings that are exclusively
residential buildings, but a large majority of the buildings are a
Page 85
December 14,2004
mixture of, again, either office, retail, or -- and residential.
So we showed them the architecture of what we had proposed,
and they liked the architecture, and they have an example of seeing
the Galleria, so they knew that they were going to get that level of
quality of architecture. It wasn't somebody new to the neighborhood.
So when we sat down with the residents of Emerald Lakes they
were -- they were very -- we reached a very reasonable settlement.
We didn't get everything we wanted, they didn't get everything they
wanted, but we all got a good quality project, and that's what
everybody wanted.
You know, the developer wants to do a good quality project, and
the residents of Emerald Lakes want a good quality project next to
them because, one, we want them to come use our retail and office
uses, and, two, it helps our property values, and it will help their
property values if we all strive to do a good quality project.
We are on -- we're on approximately 22.84 acres. We're asking
for a maximum of 251 dwelling units, which is 11 units per acre,
74,000 -- a maximum of 74,230 square feet of retail, and a maximum
of 97,070 square feet of office.
Now, the master plan attached to the PUD is a representative
example. It tells you where the buildings are, but it also is a
representative example of the -- what could happen as far as
development goes.
Under this plan, if we do all of the retail and office, we will only
achieve 204 residential units, which is approximately nine units per
acre. If we want to go more than nine units per acre, we'll have to
reduce either the office or retail to increase the residential density, but
we can never exceed 251 residential units.
But to get above the 204, we're showing you right now, we're
going to have to reduce either office or retail to make that happen. So
you can see that we will not be able to achieve a maximum of both of
those development parameters through the ultimate site planning of
Page 86
December 14, 2004
this project.
We continued our hearing in front of the planning commission
because we had been informed that some of the residents who are on
the eastern portion of Emerald Lakes had some concerns with our
project. We had a meeting with five or six residents and we asked
them, what were their concerns, and we wanted to give them the
details of our project because we were fairly certain that they didn't
know the details of our project.
When we met with them and explained that we were 100 foot
back -- minimum 100- foot setback, that this was the type of
architecture we were looking at doing, their primary concern was, they
didn't want balconies facing their property. So we agreed that we
would have no balconies so there wouldn't be people looking over.
And I didn't think they could see over the hedge in the first place,
but since we agreed there will be no balconies, you don't have to
worry about that. There will be no balconies on the eastern boundary,
so we addressed that concern to give them some additional privacy.
I do want to point out that if you drive into Emerald Lakes, you'll
see that you have 100 -- we have our 100- foot setback here, then they
have their substantial Areca palm hedge, then they have a ro -- they
have their road, and then you have their front yards, and then you have
their homes, their front door.
And most -- those homes all front on a lake in their rear yard, so
really the living area -- their homes are focussed to the rear of the
house so they'll take advantage of the lake view. So we do believe
that we're in no way hindering or hurting their lively -- their peaceful
enjoyment of their home the way we have structured this project.
We went through the planning commission. The planning
commission unanimously recommended approval. They had a few
stipulations that were included in the motion that we have no obj ection
to. I believe that's a good summary of the project, and if you have any
specific questions of me, I'll be happy to answer them, otherwise we
Page 87
..._"'__"'_.",._..u__"<._'~'~ .~
December 14,2004
request that the Board of County Commissioners vote in favor of our
PUD.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Usually we like to hold our questions
until after staffs presentation.
MR. MUDD: Just for the record, I want to make sure that we all
understand that the no balconies is on the west side, not the east side.
We'll work the directional thing with you later.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I've always had -- I've always been --
that's why I'm not a surveyor.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And we'll ask questions as
soon as we hear from staff.
MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, my name is
Kay Deselem. I am a principal planner with the zoning and land
development review section.
And we have submitted our recommendations to you in the form
of our staff report, and you also have the executive summary.
Generally speaking, we have recommended this be deemed
consistent with the GMP, and we're recommending approval with the
limitations found in the PUD document; however, I know that
transportation, Norm Feder, wishes to address you, because he has
some concerns about some of the things in the PUD document that
were recommended by the planning commission, and Margie Student
has some issues with the actual PUD document and some changes that
need to be made to that.
So unless you have specific questions for me, I will let Norm
Feder address his transportation issues.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. FEDER: Commissioners, good morning. Norman Feder,
transportation administrator, for the record.
We have a concern, as is noted, under the recommendations with
the provision that was added by the planning commission that said that
Page 88
."-........_--,,--_..,~'_.__._...._"...~._'"."".."
December 14, 2004
there be -- encourage to be a signal about midpoint on this proj ect on
Airport Road.
We would note at this time that, first of all, in a PUD, that it's
premature to make a strong statement of encouraging this signal be
placed. And more importantly, even if signal warrants are met, that
there are concerns about spacing the signal given current signals that
exist out there today where this signal would basically be at a quarter
mile spacing where we have already Pelican Marsh, Vanderbilt Beach
Road, as well as Emerald, as well as Orange Blossom.
So we'd request that that one provision recommended by the
planning commission not be added in encouraging that a signal be
placed for this development, and that's our major concern.
We would encourage, although we realize there's some limitation
to that, anywhere where they could pursue interconnection, that be
pursued. Otherwise, as with many developments in the county, they
may have to have right-in, right-out with a provision to go in and
make the turn-around at one of the signalized intersections.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Stay handy, because after -- we have
three speakers. And then after that, others might have questions for
you.
MR. FEDER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Our speakers, please. Or I'm
MS. FILSON: The first speaker --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- sorry. Here's Margie. She -- I'm sorry.
MS. STUDENT: Thank you. For the record, Marjorie Student,
assistant county attorney. And these are just some standard things that
we find in PUD documents and the meaning that did not appear in this
one, and also a change, because there's an incorrect reference in the
definition of land development code on page 8 in paragraph 2.2A to
the code of laws and ordinances as part of the definition of LDC, and
that should just be stricken.
Page 89
December 14, 2004
And then on page 12, paragraph 2.12A6, instead of a reference to
the zoning director, it should be the board of zoning appeals there in
paragraph 9 where there's a reference to any other use which is
comparable in nature.
And finally -- just bear with me a moment -- in the general
development commitments, in paragraph 4.2, and that would be on
page 19 of the PUD document, we always reference state and local
laws and codes and regulations applicable to the PUD, and we always
say when they are in effect, and our standard language is in effect at
the time of approval of the development permit to which the
regulations relate.
I've discussed these matters with Mr. Nino and also Mr.
Y ovanovich, and they don't have any objection. And just by way of
generalities, there are some typos and commas and references to PUD
that should be MUPUD that will be corrected in the document. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Margie. And now we have
three speakers.
MS. FILSON : Yes, ma'am. The first speaker is Claire Goff.
She will be followed by F orest Wainscott.
MS. GOFF: Good morning. My name is Claire Goff. I'm the
president of the homeowners' association as well as the residents'
association in Emerald Lakes.
And I think Mr. Y ovanovich pointed out to you rather clearly
what we've been over -- gone through for the last two and a half years.
And I was active in this whole process and followed it all the way
through.
And it -- he has stated to you -- and that's exactly where the
associations are at this point -- that we came to an agreement just over
a year ago, and while nobody is 100 percent happy ever with any
given agreement, that we felt that the development was going to be
something that we could live with.
Page 90
December 14, 2004
So I am here on behalf of the association today to recommend
that the county commissioners approve this development.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Forest Wainscott. He will be
followed by Sidney Showalter.
MR. WAINSCOTT: Good morning, Commissioners. My name
is Forest Wainscott, and I am a resident of Emerald Lakes.
I've reviewed the PUD, and it's already been stated what it--
what it proposes. The site is presently zoned rural agricultural. And if
you look at the master plan zoning for this area, it's to be residential
with a maximum density of three dwelling units per acre.
The surrounding area that we're talking about is entirely devoted
to low density residential units with the only exception being Brighton
Gardens and the Collier County Library and the commercial comer at
Vanderbilt and Airport Road.
All the buildings in this area are less than 35 feet maximum
height from ground to the top of the roof. This includes Brighton
Gardens, the commercial comer, and even the Greek Orthodox church
across Airport Road.
The homes directly adjacent to the Buckley property are
primarily one-story homes with a height of 18 and a half feet and a
few -- actually, two two-story homes with a height of24 and a half
feet.
The proposed buildings on the Buckley site are to have a
maximum height of 45 feet for the code regulations, which means, if
you look at the image there, they're going to wind up being 60 or 70
feet high, and they dwarf all the other buildings in the area.
The developer stated that he agreed to 100- foot setback from the
property line, or the Emerald Lakes property line, so as not to be so
objectionable to the neighboring homes, but consider that the front of
these homes is less than 50 feet from the property line. How would
you like to have a 60- or 70-foot apartment building right in your front
Page 91
December 14, 2004
yard, or almost in your front yard?
I know I've emailed you a number of times. I'd like to go on to
say that this is all being proposed as basically a rental unit. The PUD
states that, the one that I reviewed, states that all the units would be
rental units and a model sales and rental office would be proposed
along with model dwelling units.
If you look at this, all -- the internal roadways and the parking
areas are basically the open -- the primary open space, and the only
plant life on the site appears to be relegated to the setback areas.
The proposal surround -- the proposal said the entire site would
be surrounded by 1,027 parking spaces, and it's essentially devoid of
any amenities for the future residents.
Three proposed entrances and exits were proposed for Airport
Road, but all the traffic would have to be entering to this southbound
and all the traffic would have to exit southbound, which would really
tend to make a real mess in that area because anybody who wanted to
use this facility and going the other direction would have to make a
U-turn somewhere on Airport Road, and there aren't many places.
Additionally, the PUD takes exception to design standards for
subdivision practice and regulations and substitutes site-specific
standards by the developer. These exceptions include street
right-of-way, pavement widths, sidewalks, and other specific
infrastructure as may be specified by the developer.
The PUD has defined the development of this site as a concept,
and once approved, reserves the right to amend it as the developer sees
fit, as long as it falls within the general definition of intent of
development.
What is being proposed here is a high-density mid-rise and
commercial complex in the middle of a low-density residential unit. I
feel it's an abomination of the zoning process to consider that this
proposal has moved this far.
The Buckley site is really comparable to the Banyan Wood site,
Page 92
----.--,--,'.- .. -----_.~.
December 14,2004
which is located further south on Pine Ridge -- up on Airport Road
below Pine Ridge, it's a similar low-density residential area and should
be handled the same way.
It should be noted that the Pulling site, which is on the comer of
Airport and Orange Blossom Road, was recently zoned last year and
remained within the density requirements of four dwelling units per
acres with only limited commercial space, you know, at the
intersection of Orange Blossom and Airport.
I'm not opposed to the future development of the Buckley site but
pray that the county commissioners would adhere to the master plan
and zone it accordingly.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Sidney Showalter.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mr. Showalter, let me interrupt you and
say, I believe you were out of the room when we swore in anyone who
wanted to speak, so can we do that now, please.
(The speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. SHOW ALTER: My name's Sidney Showalter, and I live at
Emerald Lakes. As a matter of fact, I live right in this area here, right
in here. And I'm one of 25 people whose property faces directly into
the Buckley property.
And I would say I have a lot of respect for the developer. He's
done a fine job over there. But just, we don't want to necessarily have
to look at tall buildings when we look out in the morning, because
that's where the sun comes from when we get our morning sun
through the existing Areca palms.
I've got a little presentation here, if I can find it.
Okay. We basically were developed -- started back in the 1980's,
and this is the properties that are around us. There's a commercial
property on the north side that has -- backing up to us has a one-story
building and has three stories along Vanderbilt Beach Road, or
Page 93
December 14,2004
Vanderbilt -- yeah, and then Harbor Chase, which is on the right side
there. It has three stories along Airport Road, and back behind, facing
us, it has a one -- it goes down to a one-story building.
The library is probably about three stories on the top -- on the
front along Airport Road, and the back of the property there is like 19
feet.
This is -- shows the setback of the 60 feet that they're talking
about there. This is the height of the property there. It's about 10 feet
there at the front, and it goes back to where -- it's kind of a low slung
roof there. So it doesn't create much of a line of sight that's any
problem.
The library there, it sets about 200 feet from the nearest house.
And when you put that on the line of sight, it's not a factor either. Not
very pretty from the back but it's there. See here's the 19 feet.
Now here's a comparison of the three -- the four properties. The
Harbour Court is the one that's immediately to the north of the
Buckley property, the library's the south, that commercial property is
the one on the north. And that is what -- I did this on a CAD drawing
here, and it shows about 55-foot height of the building, and you go
back, eyeball sight is about five feet, so you see that on the left. That
shows you the different comparisons of the line of sight.
N ow I've got one here which, if we can -- can we put this on
here?
MR. MUDD: Sure.
MR. SHOWALTER: Just the bottom one there is fine. Okay.
When you combine those all together -- okay, that's -- we're on
there now, okay. You have the different heights.
What I've done there is, I went out and measured the other day
the height of the tree, and I've got a digital picture I can show you
there. That's the Areca palm and where it sits. It's about 24, 25 feet
high. And you go back to the back, the line of sight from five feet,
like standing at the front of our buildings or homes, which would be
Page 94
December 14, 2004
like our front door or front window looking out, the Areca palm will
just barely cover the top of 55 feet. If it goes higher, it's going to be
sticking up there. And the main -- you know, main thing we're
concerned about is, we don't have our sun we used to have.
Can we switch this back to --
MR. MUDD: Sure.
MR. SHOWALTER: -- over here?
Okay. See, there you can see the comparison. That's the bottom
of the example I think you have there.
This is an example of the Areca palms, which are full in the
bottom and they have a top on it, but through the middle, you can see
a lot through there. And this is kind of typical. I've got a couple other
picture there.
See, they're filled at the bottom, and at the top -- it's hard to get a
good picture because of the contrast of the light with the plants there.
There's another one.
So, you know, any property we see back there is going to be -- 50
or 60 feet high, we're going to be seeing it through there. A 14-foot
tree is not going to make a whole lot of difference.
You know, what are the alternatives? A one-story on the back,
maybe a two-story or it's three-story. And if it's going to be a
three-story, we have to deal with it. So that's what we're concerned
about there. And I don't know what the solution is.
The main thing, besides this we're concerned about, is the
parking lights. And we've been told by the builder -- the developers
that they should have some sides on them so we can't see them,
because we were told that at the library also, and you can -- they're
quite a nuisance if you live on the south side of our property and look
out at the library.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Showalter. We -- I'm glad
you mentioned that as well.
Okay. That's the last of our public speakers?
Page 95
,_.._---~---'>"-'-,.,-'~..
December 14,2004
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Then I will close the public hearing.
We have some questions first by Commissioner Coyle, then
Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Henning.
Do you want them to ask questions, or did you want to have a
couple minutes to --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. If you wouldn't mind, I'd like to
address just a couple of the points raised by the speakers, and maybe
they'll answer your questions, maybe they won't, and then we'll handle
your question, if that's okay with the chair.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: First of all, some of the statements made
by Mr. Wainscott are not factually or legally correct. He is ignoring
the fact that the comprehensive plan was amended to address the
Buckley subdistrict.
And we are specifically -- we are specifically consistent with the
Buckley subdistrict that would allow for this type of mixed-use
project, which will be the first one in Collier County where we're
going to combine residential and commercial. So we're really the first
one to try to do this, which has been a focus of the community
character plan to try to encourage more of these types of
developments.
The only way to do that was to actually create a subdistrict that
would allow for a residential and commercial mix that would work. So
we are consistent with the compo plan, as Kay Deselem pointed out
when she gave the staff comments.
His statement that we'll be 60 to 75 feet high is also not correct.
We are -- zoning height is 45 feet. Maximum actual height, which is
the truth in advertising height, is 55 feet. And if you will, we're
talking about 55 feet, we're talking about to the tippy top of these
architectural embellishments.
When you measure 45 feet, it's to the midpoint of the roof. So
Page 96
December 14,2004
we're 45 feet to the midpoint of the roof. We're 55 feet to the tippy
top of the architectural embellishments. And we believe that we need
that extra height to allow for an architecturally pleasing project. And,
you know, an architecturally pleasing project's going to add value to
our project as well as add value to our neighbors'.
So we're not asking for 75 feet. We're asking for 55 feet, and that
was one of the stipulations that the planning commission included in
their recommendations.
The comment about this being an apartment building, I thought I
addressed that early on. That was what the original developer wanted
to do was an apartment complex. We're talking about a condominium
proj ect, a higher end proj ect, not an entry level or even a mid level
apartment complex, so we're not --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So you're talking about a for sale product,
not a rental product?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. We're not talking about a rental
development. We're talking about a for sale development.
Traffic entering and going south, again, is not entirely accurate.
We have designed our main entrance to line up with Lakeside, which
is a full median opening right now, so we should able to have people
coming north to our project and being able to go north again leaving
our project.
I didn't -- I didn't point this out, but it's in your -- in your
documents. This originally was a request for a right-in, right-out. The
residents of Lakeside were concerned that if we did allow right out
movements, we would -- our traffic would try to weave over and do a
U-turn at t~e full median opening and they didn't want us to compete
with them, so we have -- this is only a right-in now, it's not a right-out.
So we'll have traffic leaving either at this opening here or at our
very southern opening. So I think the traffic comments were not --
were not completely accurate.
Our calculation, front door to front door, from our western
Page 97
December 14, 2004
boundary and their eastern boundary, is approximately 157 feet. And
we have a 100- foot setback minimum. They have a right-of-way, then
they have their front yards. So we think there's about 175 feet door to
door as a separation.
Weare three stories in height with a maximum of 45 feet. And
again, I pointed out the maximum from ground to tippy top is 55 feet.
I want to point out that -- my aerial is off, but it's okay. There's a
couple of commercial projects next to us that also adjoin Emerald
Lakes. Their maximum permitted height is 50 feet. So we are cons--
we are actually a little lower than the commercial properties that are
zoned around them that could go to 50 feet.
And even within the Emerald Lakes PUD itself, they can go to
three stories. So we're asking for three stories, which we believe is
consistent with what the PUD for Emerald Lakes allows.
I think that hits the highlights of all the comments that were made
and points we wanted to make, and we're available to answer any
specific questions the commissioners may have.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And Mr. Feder, you had a
comment to make right here?
MR. FEDER: Yes. For the record again, Norman Feder. I want
to clarify. First of all, you do not have a full median opening there.
As noted, you have a directional, dual directional.
We'd also point out that anybody leaving this development, if
their desire was to go north, they can come down to Orange Blossom,
go up to Goodlette- Frank, they can then take a left to go to Livingston
or they can take a U-turn at the protective signal at Orange Blossom.
Given our other spacing of signals, we could not address the
spacing issue. And that's even here at a PUD level, which is not really
the time to be dealing with whether or not there should be a signal in
there. That's why we told you that we don't feel that discussion should
be in the PUD to begin with.
But, again, it is a directional opening, which would allow a left
Page 98
December 14, 2004
turn into this property as exists today, allows a left into the property
opposite as well, but is not a full opening, nor would we propose to
make it a full opening, let alone a signalized one.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Now let me get to my
commISSIoners.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Yovanovich, a couple of the
questions that were asked of me when I met with some of the
neighbors had to deal with the lights in the parking lot and an
enhancement of the landscape buffer. What can you tell us about
that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, first of all, we -- obviously our
lights are going to be prohibited from spilling over on their property.
And, two, it would not be -- remember, we're a mixed-use project.
We're talking about residential with retail. We've got people that are
living there. We're not going to have lights that are going to affect
their quality of life, too. So we don't believe that lighting is going to
be a problem the way we're going to design this and also the code
prohibitions for us actually having lights spill onto their property.
You know we have -- I don't necessarily agree with what Mr.
Show -- how Mr. Showalter characterized the Areca -- the Areca palm
situation there. But we also -- we have -- we have designed our
landscape plan to where, on its own, it will block the buildings. So if
their Arecas ever died off or they decided, for some reason, they
wanted to get rid of them, our landscape buffer alone would serve as
the shield.
So we look at it right now, they have two defenses to our project,
if you will. They have their own Areca palms plus the quality of
landscaping buffer that we're required to put into the proj ect. So we
should -- we should definitely supplement or augment what they
already have there. And if theirs would ever go away, they'll still be
shielded.
Page 99
December 14, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What will be the height of the light
poles in the parking lots there?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know. Right now we haven't
gotten into that level of detail, but we're certainly going to have to
shield our residences from too bright a lighting in the first place. I
mean, we're going to -- we're going to have enough for security
purposes for both the residential users and the retail and office users,
but we're not going to have, you know, a glare problem for our own
residents, let alone for the neighbors.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: County manager, are there any
specific provisions in the land development code that govern the
height of lighting in residential parking lots?
MR. MUDD: Well, Commissioner, you've got me on this one.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's okay.
MR. MUDD: I'm going to have to turn to Mr. Schmitt to see if
he's got staff here that can answer that question here in the audience.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Deals with candle power and --
so I think it deals with it that way.
MR. MUDD: I believe it -- I believe it has to do with lumens,
but it doesn't necessarily get to the height issue.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: Can you help me?
MS. DESELEM: For the record again, Kay Deselem. There are
requirements in the architectural section of the LDC that limit the
amount of light that can spill over. I believe the limitations may be 25
feet, but in no case is it allowed to exceed what would be required for
safe lighting standards, and it's kind of a generic statement, I believe,
that allows it to be whatever's required to meet that safe standard. But
there are certain prohibitions from the light spilling over and they have
to have it shielded to prevent that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I would just point out that we're not
Page 100
December 14,2004
talking about a big box retail user here. We're talking about more of a
boutique, so we're not going to have the level of lighting you would
find at a typical shopping center or something like that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. It was stated -- I think you
stated -- that the compo plan was changed. Do you know about what
time the compo plan was changed for increasing density?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It was May, 2002.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: May, 2002. Okay. And at that
time the density was -- what was the density established at prior to the
change in the compo plan?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: From what to what?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- you could have gone anywhere from, I
believe, three to six units per acre, depending upon -- well, and if you
did an affordable housing project, you might have been able to get to
-- I think it was 11.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Now, you're talking about
the landscape buffer that you're going to provide. Can you tell me in
more detail what type of landscaping buffer that you're looking at here
to enhance the landscaping so that it doesn't interfere with the people
in Emerald Lakes?
MR. BOB MITCHELL: Good morning, Bob Mitchell, landscape
architect for the project. What I'd like to do is kind of describe looking
from Emerald Lakes to the west, and work back towards the proj ect.
MR. MUDD: You want to use this or you want to use this?
MR. BOB MITCHELL: I can use this.
MR. MUDD: Okay, fine.
MR. BOB MITCHELL: They can see it on here.
This portion of the drawing is a representation of the west side of
the project.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That butts up against the Emerald
Page 101
December 14, 2004
Lakes?
MR. BOB MITCHELL: Yes. Emerald Lakes would be over
here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
MR. BOB MITCHELL: There's a match line, so this is one long
design. This drawing up here is a cross-section through this, through
this area here. So this would be --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What is the height of the trees
going to be?
MR. BOB MITCHELL: Well, if you'll bear with me. Looking
from this side back over here, this represents the existing Areca tree,
and there are two lines showing that either from the sidewalk or up
near the front of the buildings, the sight line clears way above the
height of the buildings; however, as we saw before, there are a few
slight openings.
If you were standing over here looking straight across, the first
thing you would see is the existing Areca buffer, immediately behind
that -- and I'm going to begin to describe the level of enhancements --
would be a hedge to grow about six feet tall, be maintained at that the
height, immediately behind that, an eight-foot wall. The purpose of
the hedge is to buffer the eight-foot wall. So if you were looking
straight across, it would be impossible to see any vehicles, any
movement whatsoever at that level.
Behind the wall would be a double row of trees. And what is
proposed is an alternating grouping of magnolias and oak trees. So
there'll be one row of oak trees, then over about 15 feet will be another
row of oak trees or magnolias, and then coming up near the parking
lot, there's another third row of vegetation, which includes royal palms
with the idea that it could get very tall. And if for some reason you
could even see a glimpse of the building, they'd be filtered by the top
of the royal palms.
Then there's the, in the parking lot, medians occasionally, a row
Page 102
December 14,2004
of trees, and then on the opposite side. So there's like about six rows,
layers, if you will, of vegetation. The existing Areca palm buffer does
quite a good job right now, but then behind that there's just going to be
layers and layers of enhanced planting.
Any questions?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I've got a number of
questions. Originally wasn't this project supposed to be designed two
stories, and now we've got two stories over parking, which, in that
sense, is three stories?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: There was some discussion, but there
was nothing included in the compo plan amendment that limited the
height.
When we met with the residents in trying to settle this to make
sure that we made everybody happy, the trade-off for the two stories
to go to three stories was the increase in setback to 100 feet versus
something that could be closer. Even though it would be two stories,
the set -- the increased setback plus the increased buffer and wall was
__ and the architecture and the type of proj ect, when we talked about
the entire site plan for the residents, the trade-off was to go to three
stories there.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Question, you brought up in
the earlier discussion here that the total height -- and you were
pointing at the cupola -- and you said that that was going to be at 55
feet; is that correct?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So this is taller than the peaks of
the roof; is that correct?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what is the height of the roof
then?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Again, we would -- do we know? We
have not designed the buildings yet. Our design limitations now within
Page 103
December 14, 2004
the PUD documents say we cannot design anything greater than 55
feet in height, top to bottom.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So the roof could get to 55 feet and be
equal to the cupola. It will probably be a little less. But we're trying
to, you know, break up the buildings to make them look smaller.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would like to see the roof heights
lowered to 50.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The roof height; not the cupolas, but the
roof height?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The roof height, exactly, 50 feet.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The other that I'm
concerned about is this whole corridor has a tremendous amount of
traffic. And as we look at the build-out of this northeastern part of this
quadrant in Collier County or in the urban area, I'm concerned about
the density.
And I know that we've looked at density issues as far east as 951,
and we've recently just completed the widening of Airport Road at this
point at six lanes, and I'm not sure what our future plans are, but I'm
sure that we'll probably at least go to six lanes going north of that
intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road.
I'd like to see -- I know you stated the density of 204 units, but I'd
like to see a maximum put on that of 225 units instead of the 251
units. Because you're really -- what you said in your presentation was
that you anticipate 204 units as probably the build-out, but then with
the idea that you could have 251 units.
And I think the density is far too great for there, and I'd like to
see it lowered, if possible, at 225.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, Commissioner, we're talking about,
you know, a project that's going to be the first one in Collier County to
try this kind of mixed-use development. We thought that the 251 --
Page 104
December 14, 2004
the cap of 11 units per acre gave us flexibility to figure out what the
market would support for this proj ect to be successful.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But you stated earlier 204 --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Hang on a second. I understand. One--
this plan right now -- because remember, we're the first one to go
through. You're seeing a lot more detail than you would ever see in a
PUD, including, you're seeing -- you're seeing where the buildings are
located, you're seeing the setbacks.
Because right now -- and your planning commission pointed out,
right now our development standards would allow us to go to 20 feet
on Airport Road, but we came in with a specific site plan that shows a
greater distance than 20 feet. And to increase that setback -- I mean, or
decrease it to go closer to Airport Road, we've got to go to the
planning commission before we can do that.
So you're seeing a whole lot greater level of detail than you
would normally see. We need the flexibility to interchange
commercial and office for residential.
Our traffic analysis was at 251 units. And under that traffic
analysis, you did not have an issue under the comprehensive plan for
traffic. We know we're not going to max out both the residential and
the commercial and retail. We're just asking for the flexibility that --
you know, maybe we want to go to the 251 residential units and bring
the office and retail down from the maximum number we're asking to
some other number.
It will work from a traffic transportation standpoint, and as long
as we can have appropriate parking facilities, it will work from that
standpoint. But from a market standpoint, we need that flexibility to
make sure we have a project that will work. And since we're the first
one to go through this process, I would hope there would not be
limitations on our ability to be successful.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I don't think we're here to
stimy your success. I'm just looking at 204 units, and then you're
Page 105
December 14,2004
looking for possibly a maximum of 251.
What I'm concerned of is the congestion just in that 22 acres by
itself. So I would hope that maybe we could limit this to 225. And I
think you -- I think you'll accomplish the task that you really want to
accomplish here.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, Commissioner, I believe -- and
Reed can come up here and correct me if I'm wrong -- is that if we go
to more residential units, we'll actually have less traffic than if we
maximize the commercial.
So it would actually -- from a traffic transportation standpoint, it
would more beneficial if I put more residential units than maximizing
the office and retail.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So that was --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I remember when Karen Bishop
brought this forward for the growth management plan amendment
with a lot of details. I remember Commissioner Coyle said the mistake
was there was too much details in there.
But I do remember when Karen Bishop stated, we're going to --
we need the density so we can offer a mixed-use product for
residential, you know. Low income, median income, and higher
income, and all we got here is higher income.
But the reason that I supported it was because it was a mixed-use
housing element, and there's nothing here that states that. So whatever
the market bears, and you've stated that twice now.
And I just want to tell you why I supported the growth
management plan. It's a different animal coming back to us.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And, Commissioner, one of the issues we
ran into was, the residents of Emerald Lakes did not want an
affordable housing element next to them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I don't want a landfill in
Page 106
December 14,2004
Golden Gate.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand that, Commissioner
Henning, but what I'm saying, we met with the residences -- the
residents to come up with a project that was palatable and would work
for everybody.
When Karen was speaking, there was a different developer who
was looking at doing an apartment-type complex, not a for sale, more
of a rental-type community, and that was not something that -- and it
was also at 15 units per acre. That was something that the community
did not want. It was clear to us the community did not want that.
They wanted something with less density. They wanted it to be a
for sale project. And that is -- it meets both -- it meets both needs.
For us to be successful in this type of project, we're obviously going to
have to have a blend at an appropriate price point for the residential
and the commercial to work together to make it a venture that the
private sector would want to take on and try to do.
I mean, this is some unchartered waters, and there's a lot of risk
involved. And this is a project that the community, our neighboring
community, that was also at the meeting when the compo plan
amendment was spoken about, didn't like a lot of what was being said
and wanted some changes to be made. And we've -- I think we've met
the -- we've met the needs of the community, not only to our
immediate neighbor, but also Collier County community, by trying to
do this project under these parameters.
And, yes, it's a little different from what was originally proposed,
but that's in response to trying to meet the needs of our immediate
neighbor.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And I think it's the
charge of the Board of Commissioners to provide what's good for the
community. And if we have entry-level housing there, you know, I
believe the potential of even lowering the trips on the roads -- because
you're going to have that retail office sector where the entry level or
Page 107
December 14, 2004
median priced people are going to live, so -- I mean, really that's the
reason I supported the request that was over four units per acre is
because of that.
And what -- the zoning you got, 15 units per acres, 11 units per
acres besides commercial, it's -- the price of the land is why you need
to do an upscale proj ect, in my opinion, where you're going to have
condos for 3-, $400,000. It's not really government dictation. It's
what the market is going to get for the land. And I don't -- I just think
it's -- I mean, I can't support the project.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have some questions, and then
Commissioner Halas.
We go back to the 11 units per acre. Was the three that you
began with -- instead of four units per acres, was it three because of a
traffic congested area?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, I believe -- I believe we're in -- it
would be four minus one because of the traffic congestion area.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And then you added eight onto there for
affordable housing density bonus?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But these aren't affordable housing units.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You said, we don't believe the lights will
bother anybody, but you can guarantee that, can't you?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure, yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas asked--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Within reason. I mean, I -- yes, we can
say that we're not --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You can shield them?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Y eah. We'll shield them, but I mean, that
doesn't mean someone's not going to nit-pick it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I just -- we don't believe --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. I'm sorry, I didn't mean --
Page 108
._~..__..,..-". ,,'-' .~--"..
December 14, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- you know, guarantee sounds so
different, you know.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. I'm with you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: What height -- so you can guarantee it?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: What height -- Commissioner Halas
asked what height the vegetation would be, and the gentleman so
kindly told us what all vegetation he would be planting there, but you
didn't say what height the trees would be or what height the bushes
would be. You said when they grew out, they would be six feet tall,
but where do they start?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The live oaks, when they're planted, will
be between 12 and 14 feet; the southern magnolias would be between
10 and 12 feet when they're planted; the -- there's an ace -- is it Palatka
holly that would be between 10 and 12 feet at planting; and royal
palms, between 12 and 14 feet at planting, and then the hedge, that
planting would be between 24 inches and 36 inches. That's on the plan
that's attached to the PUD document.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I think you've answered all of my
questions. So with -- maybe this to Norm. Being that there is -- this is
a traffic congested area, Norm, TCA, then -- but we're giving them the
affordable housing bonus but they're not building any affordable
housing, how is that going to affect your concurrency?
MR. FEDER: We just recently expanded Airport to six lanes.
We have the capacity to address this development within the lanage
that's out there.
Our major concern though is the spot impact, as I've already
addressed, in the idea of trying to require a signal. If you allow only
right-in, right-out, there's plenty of access to turn around to the north,
depending on your destination, as I pointed out. Goodlette- Frank, turn
around at Airport, a protected signal, or up Livingston.
If we don't open up beyond the directional openings that exist
Page 109
December 14, 2004
today, we feel comfortable that Airport can handle the traffic. That's
not to say that that should be granted by you. I'm just saying that we
can handle it and we've looked at it in that manner.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Every time I see a TCA and then I
see an affordable housing density bonus on it, it makes me very
nervous. The reason it's a TCA in the first place is because they don't
want any more units. They reduce it. And I just wanted to hear from
our transportation administrator how he felt about that.
Commissioner Halas and then Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have some -- as I said before, I
have some real concerns on this whole project, so I'll let it be at that
and find out where my other commissioners are on this.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I merely want to address the issue
of the growth management plan amendment so that everybody has a
better understanding of why I opposed the growth management plan
amendment at the time.
It granted the density which is now being used as a right, okay?
It granted affordable housing units in a TCA and it granted bonus
density. And I opposed it because I thought that the density should be
determined when some development was proposed rather than when
we were considering a growth management plan amendment.
And I still think that's the appropriate way to go, because when
we approve a growth management plan amendment that guarantees
high density, then it is a natural process for a petitioner to say, well,
wait a minute, your growth management plan amendment says I can
have 11, and I only want to build five or six or seven, so it's a
reduction in density, and that's the reason I opposed the kind of detail
that was approved in the growth management plan amendment.
So I know that you were not here, and I just wanted to share that
with you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's what I going to ask. So
Page 110
December 14,2004
you're talking about the discussion that took place May, 2002?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right, that's right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the reason that we -- that I
brought it up at that time, and I was on the losing end of that
argument. And I would hope that the board will look at this in the
future when we have growth management plan amendments because
this is --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Definitely.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Lesson learned.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep. But otherwise, I don't object
to the development. I think it -- it is the first mixed-use development
we've got. It has been endorsed by the majority of the homeowners.
You've done a lot to mitigate the concerns of the people. So I think it
serves some useful purpose.
But once again, I believe that the commissioner who represents
the district in which this is located has a great deal to say about how
this thing goes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And what you said is quite true,
Commissioner Coyle. I'd like a little guidance from the county
attorney. I mean, we're talking about setting the growth management
plans, putting everything into place, and now we're talking about
amending it here on the dais as using that for a possible reason to
reject this application.
Are we on solid grounds to even give that kind of consideration?
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, assistant
county attorney. This is not the venue or the hearing to amend the
growth management plan, but it's my understanding in my review with
this with staff that the provision in the compo plan is silent about
affordable housing, and I can have staff come up and address that.
What you need to do when you're looking at zoning that
Page 111
December 14,2004
implements the compo plan and case law -- it's Brevard -- the Brevard
County case tells us that there has to be a connection with the public
health, safety, welfare really to deny a project that comes in that's
consistent with the compo plan.
So to that end, you have criteria that are set forth in your staff
report that address whether a project is out of scale with the
neighborhood, whether it's compatible with the neighborhood, and
those are findings based upon the evidence that's been presented to
you today to make in determining whether or not to approve this
project.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But I'm sorry, I'm going to have
to ask you again. The question is, is based upon what we've heard
here today, if we were to find that the density was too high and
recommend that, you know, it be rejected, would that be appropriate
or not?
MS. STUDENT: Well, the density is established in the
comprehensive plan, and what you need to look at -- that's established
in the plan and has been approved by this commission.
What you need to look at are the criteria that exist in the land
development code, and they are -- you find them in your staff report.
And they are two sets of them, one for PUDs and one for rezoning,
and we compress the two for the rezoning. That's what you're guided
by.
You don't necessarily say, the density is too high. You look at
those criteria that are set forth in the staff report and make your
motion based upon a finding as it relates to one or more of the criteria
that would support the motion.
But you don't say that the -- it's not said that the density's too
high. It has to do with compatibility and whether the project is out of
scale with the neighborhood and that type of thing. And as I stated,
it's set forth there in your staff report.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So then we have the right to be
Page 112
December 14, 2004
able to redraw density at this point in time? I'm sorry, Marjorie --
MS. STUDENT: I wouldn't characterize -- it would not be
characterized as redrawing density. It would be characterized as
looking at the project in light of those criteria. And it doesn't really
address density per se. What it does address is compatibility, whether
the project is out of scale with the neighborhood or in the general area.
It's not couched in terms of density. So the finding must be made
based upon the criteria that's set forth in the land development code.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I thank you very much,
Margie. So my thing is that the density issue was not raised by the
planning commission, it's not been raised by the residents. I don't think
it's really a factor. We established a rule back in 2002 that basically,
we -- we're bound to, in short, to stay with it until that point in time
that we change it, and that's the reason that they came up with this
particular development.
I am a little confused on -- at the time I thought we were doing
something that had to deal with affordable housing. I didn't realize
that it was allowed across the board, or maybe I lost it as time went
by. But I remember the reason I was supportive of it was because of
the affordable housing issue, and I don't know how to comment past
that.
As long as the neighbors don't have a major objection to what's
taking place in the neighborhood, as long as transportation doesn't
have a major problem with what's taking place -- I do have a problem
with even mentioning the fact that you could put a light in there at
some time in the future. I don't think there should be any reference of
it in there. That should be something that's dealt with. You know, it
sounds like we're giving them a right to have a light there, and that
could raise a major problem and set a precedence that would be
never-ending. But I don't have any major problems with this.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Marjorie, I appreciate the
Page 113
,----'"-"_... -
December 14, 2004
clarification. Just to -- further conversation on that issue, when
petitioner -- somebody petitions the county commission to change the
growth management plan, what they say to the Board of
Commissioners, doesn't that mean anything?
MS. STUDENT: Yes, yes, it does. And what you have
generally is what's presented in the compo plan amendment, which is
presented to the Board of County Commissioners, and I just -- in
reviewing this with staff, I had asked them to refresh my memory as to
whether -- I don't believe I was here when the -- I think I was on
vacation when this item was passed by the board -- that is the comp.
plan amendment, so I have no recollection because I was not present.
But I am told from staff that the compo plan amendment is silent
as to the type of housing. Now, I can ask -- I'm the attorney that makes
the argument, so I need to, perhaps, have staff come up and affirm
that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't have any question that
our staff did their job about reviewing the growth management plan.
MS. STUDENT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'm sure it has -- I think it
was either 15 or 16 units per acre, and it didn't -- and it probably
doesn't say in there that it is going to be, you know, low, median and
high income. I have no question about that.
But when -- the question I have is, when somebody petitions it,
even though it's silent in the language, and says, oh, we need this
density because we want to offer a mixed-use product of different
housing elements, does that mean we're duped, or does that mean that
we can take those comments under consideration under the PUD
rezone?
MS. STUDENT: Okay. What is -- what appears in the
document that you passed is what goes to the Department of
Community Affairs for review, that's what's advertised, and it goes to
the Department of Community Affairs, in fact, for two reviews. And
Page 114
December 14,2004
the language -- and what somebody might say in the record does not
go to the Department of Community Affairs and it does not go
through --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why?
MS. STUDENT: -- required legal-- because it's what's in the
comprehensive plan --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was written in law.
MS. STUDENT: -- element. That's the law that goes to the
Department of Community Affairs. And if someone said something at
the hearing that wasn't intended to be part of the language and it was
gratuitous or anecdotal, that has not gone through the process.
Now, that's distinguished from the PUD process because we have
a provision -- a standard provision in our PUD language that talks
about graphic material presented and representations made during the
hearing become part of the regulations, which operate to determine
how the development is going to be. And -- but the amendment of the
compo plan nature being what it is, it's what's in the document that
goes. Unfortunately, as I said, I don't -- I believe I was on vacation
when this was heard by the board and I don't recall --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You've answered my question.
MS. STUDENT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We were duped, that's what the
whole -- the answer is, is we were told one thing and just because it
wasn't put in writing doesn't mean it was going to be factual. And I
appreciate that.
The second thing and -- doesn't it state in the growth
management plan for interconnection is -- interconnectivity is
encouraged?
MS. STUDENT: Yes, I believe it says that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It does say that, and I don't see
any interconnectivities with the surrounding properties here except for
on a major arterial roadway, so --
Page 115
December 14, 2004
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If I may. First of all --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because I was duped, I'm just
going to bring up other things.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: All right. Well, first of all, I want the
record to be clear that I was not involved --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You wasn't.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- with the compo plan amendment, okay?
There's some statements you're making that I want people to
understand were not made by me.
Second of all, on the interconnectivity issue. Interconnectivity
was our goal. We wanted to interconnect. The people of Emerald
Lakes did not want interconnectivity. They didn't want -- for
whatever reasons, they liked their community separated from ours.
We were also prohibited from connecting to the library site by
county staff. That's why you have a site plan the way it's designed,
because we were told interconnectivity was not an option for us. And
we have designed our site plan accordingly because of the realities
that people of Emerald Lakes did not want interconnectivity, nor did
the county want interconnectivity when we were going through the
process, and that's why we have a site plan the way the site plan is laid
out.
We -- I'm sorry. We can connect. You know, we can just simply
continue on and interconnect to the library site if that is something that
the county wants. We can connect. I'm just telling you, we were told
that that was really not an option for us, so that's why you don't see
interconnectivity .
We have provisions for pedestrian interconnectivity if the people
of Emerald Lakes ever want it. Right now they did not want it. It was
not because we didn't want to interconnect, it was because those
around us didn't want the interconnectivity to occur.
Regarding the compo plan language and, you know, whether
affordable housing is required or not required. There was discussions
Page 116
December 14, 2004
of much higher density, a maximum of 15 units per acre. We're talking
about a rental project at that time. Totally different project, a project
that the residents around there did not want, and -- nor was it a
condition of the approval of the compo plan.
Had a requirement been that there be affordable housing, I would
have thought it would be part of the motion and included. I think what
we had was a better proj ect without that requirement, because then we
could work with our neighbors. If it were an affordable -- if
affordable housing were required, there would have been no ability to
work with our neighbors.
We would have to come in and ram an affordable housing project
down their throats, and I'm not sure that the commission wanted that at
the time the compo plan went through. I thought there was discussion
about, hey, we want -- with any other compo -- with any compo plan
amendment, you set parameters that you can come in and ask for, and
we have not come in and asked for the max. We have come in and
asked for less than the maximum.
We have worked with our neighbors to come up with a project
that will be good for the developer and will be good for them. We've
addressed all the requirements of the compo plan. We don't have
traffic issues. We're compatible. I believe we committed to the 50
feet that Commissioner Halas wanted.
If it's critical that we go to the 225, we'll accept 225 and we'll
come back to you if we have a problem. Ifwe have a problem to go
from 225 to 251, we'll take the risk of going through a PUD
amendment to make that happen. We'd rather not go through that
process. We'd like to -- we'd like to have that flexibility ahead of
time, but if that's a concern to limit to 225, then we'll accept that
limitation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Yovanovich, I apologize if
you feel that I was saying that you duped the Board of
Commissioners. It was Karen Bishop, and I thought that was clear.
Page 117
____~......__~._.,___...,_"~_u,.,____-
December 14,2004
She's the one that shepherded the amendment through, and I'm not
going to --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- try to circumvent the growth
management plan. But what communications was to your neighbor to
the north as far as interconnectivity?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I recall -- and I can't --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there anything in writing?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't believe there's anything in writing.
We had meetings, or Ms. Bishop had meetings at the time that the
compo plan amendment was being proposed, she met with the project
to the north, Emerald Lakes, and county about interconnectivity, and
those really weren't options.
There's really -- it makes no sense to interconnect with the
Brighton -- I think it's Brighton Gardens. It's an assisted living
facility, and it really doesn't make any sense to connect through there,
have our traffic through there, their project. We do have an ability for
pedestrian interconnectivity for them to walk over and enjoy the retail
and office options that we will have.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But just looking at the GIS, it
looks like there's the ability to interconnect there and get to Emerald
Lakes Boulevard close to Airport Road. But there wasn't any
correspondence for interconnectivity?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We -- well, I mean, there was
communication. I mean, we met with the people. We didn't write a
letter and say, oh, please give us interconnectivity and have them
respond back no, but we met with them, and it was an emphatic no.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it was just, Karen Bishop
asked for the interconnectivity?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I bet Ms. Goff can get up here and
answer those questions. And specifically, when we talked about the
settlement, interconnectivity was not an option for the settlement to go
Page 118
December 14, 2004
through.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's up to the
chairperson whether they want to recognize --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, the public meeting --
MS. GOFF: This is Claire Goff. I could shed just a little bit of
light on this for you, Commissioner Henning. What it looks like on
the map is deceiving. There is no connection between what was
Brighton Gardens -- I can't remember, it's Cypress something now,
that -- the assisted living facility and Emerald Lakes Drive.
When that parcel was developed, the -- there was no connection
allowed between there so that there is no north connection from
Brighton Gardens even into Emerald Lakes Drive or into Fountain
Park. You have to go out on Airport Road from Brighton Gardens,
come back north and get in.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Yovanovich, I know that
Fountain Park owns a portion of and maintains a portion of Emerald
Lakes Boulevard in front of their commercial development.
Well, you answered my question, thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I did answer your question?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, you did.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to ask Marjorie Student,
you said that you were absent when this took place because you were
on vacation.
MS. STUDENT: Yes, sir, I believe I was.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, don't we have records in
regards to what was promised or what was said in the minutes of the
meeting?
MS. STUDENT: Yes. You can -- you can go look into them--
Page 119
December 14,2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So can't we use that as the basis for
holding somebody to what has been stated in the -- on the record?
MR. WEIGEL: Commissioner, I'll respond, if I may. And
clearly the record is important, and it may -- it may be certainly a
desire of this board for staff and this board itself to review the record
at that time to determine what kind of statement was made in regard to
affordable housing, if that's the particular issue there. The --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, it's just, whatever -- whatever
was stated on the record, I would think that that would be one of the
prerequisites, that when something of this magnitude comes through,
that if there was a change in the growth management plan, that the
staff would go through the records to make sure of what the intent of
the growth management plan was prior to the petitioner going through
this whole exercise here.
MR. WEIGEL: Right. And I can't state that the staff or the
county attorney has not done so, but there is some recollection of the
discussion of the affordable housing aspect of the discussion relating
-- a required -- or excuse me -- requested change to the growth
management plan relative to the area, if not site specific here. But the
concept that was ultimately approved was this mixed-use concept with
a residential over -- a residential over commercial.
And Mr. Y ovanovich may want to comment further himself, but
the fact is that I think that affordable housing may have been certainly
an element of discussion, but the density, the concept of a density over
the units may have not been a function of affordable housing at all, but
maybe it was.
And if the board and staff members would like to, I think it
wouldn't be inappropriate to continue the item and review it and come
back to the board to see if, in fact, any of the statements on the record
directly led the board to the -- to the legislative decision that they
made.
But what both staff and Ms. Student have told you is that the
Page 120
December 14,2004
documentation that was approved at that meeting and became the law
in our books and recognized at the state level apparently makes no
mention of affordable housing as a requirement in there.
And Mr. Y ovanovich and Margie may also indicate that, as part
of a growth management plan as opposed to a PUD, that may have
been inappropriate to put that in there.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If I can give an example.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got one more question, please.
And in regards to the interconnectivity to the north to the -- with the
county there, I believe that's a water retention pond that they have
there, so I think that's why you got a --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. Commissioner, there's a road
already existing right here to the south. There's a right-in. We can
simply connect into the one way in, and, you know, wind our way
through the library parking lot to get to Orange Blossom and a light.
That was not something that the county thought was a good idea with
their library facilities, but we could do that and very easily
interconnect to an existing pavement.
Now, over here we have absolutely no ability to interconnect
because Brighton, whatever it's called now, does not physically
connect as all. I mean, we would connect in and we'd loop back out
and there would be no reason for interconnectivity because we
couldn't get to a road. But we could interconnect at the library.
The concern, I'm assuming was, the amount of children that come
to the library and having more vehicles going through the parking lot
was probably not the best -- in the best interest of the county.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If I --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I think we've gone over
this in great lengths. We've covered everything, and Commissioner
Halas has been very diligent in extorting in -- not extorting -- reaching
Page 121
December 14,2004
an understanding as far as density would go. You met his request for
the density, if I'm not mistaken?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I offered it up, yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And also, my motion -- I'm
going to make a motion for approval including that density provision
that Commissioner Halas brought up, also the height provision that
Commissioner Halas has included that you agreed to -- and I'm trying
to think what else it was.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Interconnectivity?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, no, interconnectivity was
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Eliminating that traffic signal.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Eliminating the traffic signal.
And I don't -- I don't want to place the county in a position where
we're going to endanger the people of the library by interconnectivity
that may wander people in and out of a parking lot. If it's been refused
by the county, it's been refused for very good reasons, and I don't
think this is the time or the place to try to raise that issue and try to go
one step further to make sure that happens when it might be to the
detriment of all, and that's my motion.
Other than that, I incorporate the planning commission's staffs
recommendation in my motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll second the motion. Okay.
We have a motion on the floor and a second.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, since we have a motion on
the floor, I'll waive.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Great. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I still have some concerns about
what was brought up in May of 2002, and I think that maybe we ought
to look at continuing this till a later date till we get some additional
information.
Page 122
December 14, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That was -- that was what I was
going to address, and I'll try to be brief.
But, you know, I remember fairly clearly what we discussed at
that point in time, and we did discuss the eligibility for an affordable
housing bonus, and that got the members of the public who were here
very, very upset.
Now, I would like to discourage any attempt to make a growth
management plan a development order, that is, we're not supposed to
design the project during the growth management plan revision,
because the growth management plan could be in effect for years and
years and years, and there are lots of good reasons why you want to
change your idea for development over a period of time to respond to
the market, but you could still comply with the provisions of the
growth management plan.
So I would suggest that it is -- it is not necessarily a good idea to
try to lock into concrete everything that's discussed about a proposed
development at the time of the growth management plan provision
because it reduced our flexibility --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- to make it conform to whatever
community evolves around it. And if the residents of Emerald Lakes
were to come to us and say, no, we do not want affordable housing, I
don't think we should lock ourselves into that and essentially put
ourselves in a position of ramming it down their throats whether they
wanted it or not. That's a compatibility issue, I think, we need to
consider.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So I only wanted to bring that
thought up for your consideration in hopes that we wouldn't try to bind
our future flexibility by literally interpreting everything that was said
during a growth management plan hearing.
Page 123
December 14, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Uh-huh. I have to just echo what
Commissioner Henning said before. I think we've noticed time and
time again over the past few years how we've been duped, that's the
word you used. Somebody requests some certain zoning, higher
zoning, and the only reason they do it is to flip the property and get
more dollars from it. And, you know, it's taken us a while -- it takes
you a while being on this commission before you realize that you can't
believe anything everybody says. So this --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Unless it's in writing.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. And then --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not even then.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Even then they can reinterpret.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Then they can still flip the property. So I
think we're going to be very wary when people come forward from
here on in.
We have a motion on the floor and a second.
Any further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a 3-2 vote.
Is that what we need, David?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
MR. WEIGEL: No, the motion fails. It requires supermajority.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I think I owe -- explanation
for my vote is, I didn't see any -- since the growth management plan
does encourage interconnectivity, in the questioning about the
Page 124
December 14,2004
interconnectivity to the north, it was hearsay and there was nothing in
writing of trying to establish an interconnection.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to make a motion that staff
research this again and bring it back at a later date. Can we do that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You mean you want to continue
this?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we need to continue it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Can you do that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can you do that?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, the matter is not to be continued because
it's been voted on and decided at this particular point. Now, Mr. Halas
could make a motion that staff research the item and bring it back.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, David, suppose one of the --
MR. WEIGEL: I beg your pardon?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Someone voting in the majority
can have it brought back for reconsideration.
MR. WEIGEL: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now the only problem is, which
one is the majority? The two that voted against it or the three that
voted for it?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Madam Chairman?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good question.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's over here. May I just make one
comment? And I know -- I want to -- in response to Commissioner
Henning's reasoning for why he voted against it was interconnectivity,
and I don't know if you had a good enough opportunity to see the
property to the north, which is Brighton Gardens.
Even if we were to interconnect with Brighton Gardens, all we
would do is connect with their parking lot and come back out. When
Brighton Gardens was approved, it was prohibited from connecting to
the main entranceway of Emerald Lakes. So interconnecting wouldn't
do any good because we would not be able to get to tran -- get our
Page 125
__,,~... _ .... "._~_._._.. "_.,_._"'_'.._0...""...., "^""".W"~_____
December 14,2004
trips onto a road. All we would do is get them into another parking
lot.
And I don't know if I made that clear enough when we were
talking about that, but interconnectivity to the north was just not an
opportunity that could happen because of the prohibitions with
connecting to the main boulevard to Emerald Lakes in the first place.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Yovanovich, I understand
that, but the growth management plan encourages interconnection.
And my problem is, you didn't -- in your evidence, you didn't show
where you tried to establish an interconnection. I understand it not
connecting to Emerald Lakes Boulevard. I'm just going by the growth
management plan.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It encourages interconnectivity. It does
not require interconnectivity.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It encourages it, and I didn't see
any evidence where your client, Ms. Bishop, tried to get
interconnectivity. It was just hearsay. There was no evidence of
actual talking --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You're aware that the PUD itself
specifically says that we're to try to get interconnectivity. If we can't
get it --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where's the evidence?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, we've already voted on this. And I
understand that a couple people want to bring it back, but I haven't
heard of the -- of the arrangement to bring it back.
MR. WEIGEL: Right. I'm ready to tell you.
Under the reconsideration ordinance of the county, it has two --
two different paths to get you there, but they do -- they do come
together.
And a motion for reconsideration is any member of the board
who voted with the majority, parens, or in the case of a rezoning,
voted against on the original petition, may move for reconsideration of
Page 126
December 14,2004
the petition at any regular meeting of the board. Now, that's under the
land use aspect of the reconsideration ordinance.
So in this particular case, a member of the commission who
voted against the petition may bring it back for reconsideration.
Now, that particular provision also talks in terms of
reconsideration made at a petitioner's request and it comes back later.
But if we bump over to the other part of our reconsideration ordinance
which talks about any matter brought before the board, that can be
heard at the same meeting prior to adjournment of that meeting, and
we have availed ourselves of that from time to time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So what you're saying is? Tell me what
you're really saying.
MR. WEIGEL: What I'm saying is that if nothing happened
today, the petitioner could still make his request to the county
manager that would come to a commi -- one of the commissioners
who voted against this matter today, and it could come back in the
normal scheme of things under the reconsideration ordinance, or I will
opine that the ordinance is provided here to give you some flexibility,
and so a member who voted against at this meeting itself, the same
meeting, which hasn't adjourned, could, in fact, make a motion to
reconsider ifhe or she wished to do that. In this case he's, I think.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that we reconsider
this and have staff come back with additional information --
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. The vote is merely to reconsider, and that
will, if approved by the board --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I make a motion to
reconsider.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion by Commissioner
Halas, second by Commissioner Coy Ie to reconsider.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
Page 127
December 14,2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That's a 4-1. And now--
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. The motion --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a one o'clock time certain, but I
have a funny feeling everybody up here is very hungry, and I don't
know that we can --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm hungry.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What shall we do? I wasn't going
to come into this subject, by the way, but it was called for me and I
was going to go --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's take a break.
MR. MUDD: Are we -- ma'am, I'd say, you've got the school
board folks, you've got Mr. Poteet from the civic association here for
the one clock, you've got -- you've got the principal probably here
from the school. I'd suggest you do that item and break for lunch for
an hour.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, let's take a break first. He needs a
break, and I want to tell you, so do 1. We'll break for 10 minutes.
MR. WEIGEL: Madam Chairman, Madam Chairman, this item,
you've made your motion to reconsider, which passed, so the matter
may be reconsidered at this meeting today. Now, if you want to go to
another item or take an adjournment or recess for a while, the proper
motion to make would be to table this item until your time certain, or
whenever you say, for later on today.
The motion for reconsideration is to reconsider today . You will
Page 128
December 14,2004
now vote again on this matter.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let us have Commissioner Halas tell us
what he wants to do here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What I want -- what I'd like to do is
have this come back at a later date, this item, with additional
information in regards to what was discussed on May, 2002, so that
everybody is up to speed exactly on what took place.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think he's looking for a
continuance.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Continuance of the --
MR. WEIGEL: That sounds fine. It sounds like a motion to
continue probably to January 11th, the next board date, which is
within the advertising time for this. And--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Whenever.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
MR. WEIGEL: And if you take that vote and approve it, then
you're done with this item. I just don't want you to leave this item
hanging because you have to --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So we have the motion--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Concerns here.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Let me first hear the motion again.
The motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The motion is to bring this back at
a later date with additional information.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But we made that and voted on that one
already, and that was a 4-1 vote, but now we're --
MR. WEIGEL: No, that was the motion to reconsider, and that's
all that was.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I'm sorry, okay.
MR. WEIGEL: And so -- and if you don't say a date specific,
then the matter will have to be re-advertised for whatever date we
pick. So January 11 th would work as a date specific if you'd like to
Page 129
December 14, 2004
bring it back at the next board meeting.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So, Commissioner Halas, would you like
to restate your motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: There seems to be some confusion
out there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Susan?
MS. MURRAY: Thanks for recognizing me. For the record,
Susan Murray, director of the zoning department. We would prefer
the second meeting in January. If you want us to gather the
information and research and have it -- time to put in the executive
summary for you to contemplate, due to our time frames and the
holidays --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's what I was hoping that the --
MS. MURRAY: -- it's going to be very challenging, and I think
that's what I understand that you want. So I'd just respectfully make
that request so that we could gather all the information for you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll make a motion that we bring
this back to a later date with all additional information that needs to be
presented in front of the board.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But David Weigel said you had to give a
date, not a later date; is that correct, David?
MR. WEIGEL: That's correct. And if --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: The second --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is the 11th soon enough?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, she just said --
MR. MUDD: 25 January, sir.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: The second meeting in January.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, 25 January.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can you do that, David? I thought
it had to be the next --
MR. WEIGEL: That puts us beyond the five-week window for
Page 130
December 14, 2004
readvertisement.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: So if it's the 11th, you don't re-advertise. If it's
beyond that,ll th, and then to go to the to 20 what'th?
MR. MUDD: Twenty-fifth.
MR. WEIGEL: -- 25th --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Twenty-fifth.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I second it.
MR. WEIGEL: -- and I think we're at six weeks.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So we have to re-advertise.
MR. WEIGEL: It would have to be re-advertised. And at whose
nickel?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Who's going to pay for the re-
advertisement?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Petitioner.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Please don't let that be an issue. We'll
pay for the advertising.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine.
So we have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Halas to
continue this, is that the word?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Twenty-eighth (sic).
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Till the 25th of January?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Twenty-fifth of January.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And a second by Commissioner Coletta.
Yes, Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've still got a problem. We voted
to bring this back for a rehearing. We're now voting on a
continuation. I don't believe we can do that.
MR. WEIGEL: I think you can.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You can. Okay. That's your
opinion, okay. I'll go with it. I just think we're mixing two different
motions here, but that's all right. Go ahead.
Page 131
December 14,2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. All those in favor, signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, 4-1. Thank you.
With that, at 1: 17, we are going to take a break till 1 :30, and I'm
sorry if anybody has to wait around, but that's what we're going to do.
(A recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You would all please take your seats.
Item #10F
A PRESENTATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION OPTIONS FOR
THE GOLDEN GATE HIGH SCHOOL BRIDGE STUDY
AL TERNA TIVES CONDUCTED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
SCHOOL BOARD AND THE PREFERRED AL TERNA TIVE
SELECTED BY THE SCHOOL BOARD AT THEIR NOVEMBER
18,2004 BOARD MEETING - MOTION TO APPROVE
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, we have a time certain, and this is
item 10F, and this item to be heard at one p.m., and we're a little late
on that. Recommendation to allow a presentation of the construction
options for the Golden Gate High School bridge study alternatives
conducted by the Collier County School Board and the preferred
alternative selected by school board at their November 18th, 2004,
board meeting.
And Mr. Don Scott, Collier County planning director for
Page 132
December 14, 2004
transportation, will present.
MR. SCOTT: Good morning, or good afternoon.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good morning, good afternoon.
MR. SCOTT: Previously we came forward, and they had four
different options that were presented. The pedestrian bridge was
excluded. Now the school board representatives are back to present
what they presented to their board.
Essentially what they've come up with is an alternative open to
Golden Gate high school traffic only, accessing from Tropicana, and
then also you'd have access off of 951, essentially half of the parking
lot each. I'll just turn it over to them to have them show all the
different options and the impacts to it, and we're here for any
questions that you have.
MR. PERRY: Thank you, and good afternoon. Excuse me.
F or the record, my name is Jeff Perry. I'm transportation planner
with WilsonMiller. I'm joined today by Adolfo Gonzalez, the
engineer of record on the civil engineering work for the Golden Gate
High School also with WilsonMiller. We also have in the audience
with us today Mr. Alvah Hardy, who's the executive director of the
facilities and construction -- excuse me, planning and construction for
the school district, Amy Taylor and Sandra Palm, who are planners
with the school district.
Adolfo and I are going to walk you through a very brief
presentation of the final two alternatives that made the cut, so to
speak, with the school district. I'll give you a brief overview, and then
we'll take you through the two options.
As you probably know, the Golden Gate High School opened in
the fall of 2004. Primary and only means of access today is via
Magnolia Pond Drive that comes off of Collier Boulevard, however,
the attendance zone of the school is about 80 percent of the students
that live -- excuse me, that attend Golden Gate High School live in the
area north of the Golden Gate Canal.
Page 133
December 14, 2004
This is a graphic of the entire attendance zone. You'll notice
Golden Gate City in the north, and the yellow area that's highlighted is
the actual school site. The remaining 20 percent of the student
population lives south and east of the school.
But those 80 percent of the students that go to that school cannot
walk to the school, cannot get to the school without venturing out onto
Collier Boulevard, down to Magnolia Pond, and into the high school
property .
This is a little closer view of the canal area where Tropicana
Boulevard, which dead-ends at 32nd just north of the canal, and where
a proposed bridge would be extended across if it was an extension of
Tropicana Boulevard onto the school property.
The final two vehicular bridge options -- as you recall there was a
pedestrian bridge option and there was another drop-off bridge option
that we looked at for the school board. But the final two bridge
options that really met the obj ectives of the school district involve a
through-traffic option, which actually physically connected Tropicana
Boulevard through the school property to Magnolia Pond, would be
technically open all the time, allowing through traffic from Golden
Gate to circulate back through to Magnolia Pond to 951.
The other option was to allow only Golden Gate High
School-related traffic to use the bridge and come across onto the
campus. And as you recall, the last presentation I made, we talked
about the different traffic impacts of those kinds of -- those different
improvements.
I'm going to ask Mr. Gonzalez to walk you through the specifics
of the final two options, and then we'll give you the recommendation
of the school board at the end.
MR. GONZALEZ: Good afternoon, Commissioner. I'm Adolfo
Gonzalez with WilsonMiller. I want to give you a little bit of
information about the two options that were finalized. One is the
through traffic, and the other one is just for Golden Gate High School
Page 134
December 14, 2004
traffic. I'm going to show you a couple of graphics that show the high
school site plans, some cost information, and then a potential
visualization of what the bridge could look like over the Golden Gate
Canal.
The through traffic option, these are some of the features that we
had summarized for the school board, beginning with, out of the two
options, it's one that represents the highest construction cost. It does
significantly increase traffic through the Golden Gate City neighbors
that front the Tropicana Boulevard road from Golden Gate Parkway as
far south as 32nd Avenue Southwest, which is the road that parallels
the canal.
It also has a potential for increasing traffic on Magnolia Pond
Drive via Collier Boulevard because of the increased cut-through
traffic, not just associated with the school, but also with community
traffic in general.
And there's also a potential for increased conflicts with the future
Collier County greenway since you get more cars, more potential
conflicts with pedestrians and bicyclists on that greenway along on the
canal.
The through option also represents more of a visual impact to the
neighborhoods along Tropicana Boulevard and 32nd Avenue, again,
associated with the higher number of vehicles that could take that
route.
There's also significant off-campus improvements that will be
required such as signalization at 32nd Avenue Southwest and
Tropicana, possibly also at -- on campus and some additional
off-campus turn lane requirements on 30th, Place and Tropicana and
25th Place and Tropicana, additional right turn lanes in those areas.
In addition, it may also require additional signals within the
campus itself. One at the main entrance of Magnolia Pond Drive and
the entrance to the school, as well as one at the bus loop exit off of
what is now the perimeter road to the school.
Page 135
December 14, 2004
The vehicular bridge for Golden Gate High School traffic only
would require some modifications to the on-site facilities, namely --
and besides the obvious canal crossing -- bridge crossing, it would
also require some gates, three sets of gates within the campus itself.
The first gate would be right on Magnolia Pond -- if I can orient
you on this site. This is the Magnolia Pond Drive entrance off of
Collier Boulevard. This is the main entrance to the school here, this is
the planned Tropicana bridge crossing at the Golden Gate Canal. This
here would be a new lake that would have to be constructed to connect
it to the existing perimeter driveway along the school site.
The three gates I mentioned would include the primary one at the
entrance to Magnolia Pond Drive, then two internal gates to, again,
restrict cut-through traffic that wanted to try to get from Golden Gate
City out to CR 951/Collier Boulevard or vice versa. One would be at
the first entrance to the west parking lot, and the second one would be
to close off the roundabout at the main entrance here.
The features of this particular option include increased
emergency vehicle access to the school. Right now the only -- the
primary means of emergency vehicle access to the school is through
Magnolia Pond Drive. The school does have a gate that is locked at
all times. It's a driveway connection to Forest Park. It can be open at
the discretion of emergency services personnel, fire, police, things like
that, but it's not a connection open to the public right now.
It also would improve access from Golden Gate City to the high
school for not just students but also parents dropping off and picking
up students, buses that could use an alternative access point, and the
community at large.
The benefit of this particular option is it allows about another
1,000 students to be able to access the school from Golden Gate City
without needing to be bused to that school. In addition to that, it
retains the drop-offs on campus rather than providing or forcing
parents to drop off their children on the north side of the canal
Page 136
-~..~-~."""..,~..,_..,,=-..-...
December 14, 2004
somewhere within that Golden Gate City neighborhood, which would,
again, be an impact to the neighborhood. This option does not require
that or encourage that.
It also eliminates the potential for queues. Parents will normally
wait for their students, their children, just anyplace that's convenient
for them. Well, this kind of encourages them and it makes it
convenient for them to drop off and wait for their children on school
property rather than on the street system in Golden Gate City.
In addition to that, the gates could be constructed and installed to
allow buses to actuate the gates so they can either enter from Collier
Boulevard, travel to the school, then enter the bus loop or -- and then
continue out to Golden Gate City or vice versa.
Some of the features of this option also include reducing traffic
through the -- at the Collier Boulevard/Magnolia Pond Drive
intersection. Obviously there would quite a few parents, buses,
visitors, that could access the school via Golden Gate City, which
would, again, reduce the total traffic at the intersection of Collier and
Magnolia Pond Drive. It also provides access to the pedestrian
greenway that's planned by the county along the south bank of the
canal.
In addition to that, it's a lower construction cost than the through
traffic option simply because there are less off-site improvements
required. The only off-site improvements would be at the intersection
of 32nd and Tropicana, right where the bridge would start over the
canal. There are no additional off-site improvements that would be
required for that.
Here is a summary of the various cost implications of both of the
options. The through route, and we estimated it could cost as much as
$4.9 million for design and construction, and we estimate the
vehicular bridge just for Golden Gate High School traffic would cost
about $2.9 million.
The differences, again, are the extent of off-site improvements,
Page 137
December 14, 2004
the turn lane improvements, the traffic signals. The through lane
option would also require a widened roadway on the Golden Gate
High School site, and some additional security upgrades to that
property since it's not, for instance, fencing along that perimeter
roadway. There is no fencing internal to the site. Things like that
would have to be added.
Here's what that bridge could look like. This is our rendering of a
potential bridge crossing. It's similar to what you would see on Santa
Barbara Boulevard at the Green Canal crossing or the Santa Barbara
Canal, but not as much of an exaggerated profile over that bridge.
We did get an inquiry from your staff while we were researching
some of this information regarding navigational clearance under the
bridge. We checked into the existing navigational clearances under the
Santa Barbara Boulevard and Golden Gate Canal bridge as well as the
Collier Boulevard bridge at Golden Gate Canal.
This bridge, to meet the water management district's navigation
clearance requirements to allow their operations to proceed, this
bridge would have to be as much as eight to nine feet -- the lowest part
of the bridge would have to be about eight to nine feet higher than the
typical water elevation in that canal during normal events.
This would be about 10 inches higher than the Santa Barbara
clearance right now and a little bit lower than the Collier Boulevard
clearance, so all in all, it will keep the same types of navigational
clearances as the existing bridges about a mile downstream and a mile
upstream.
We presented this information to the school board about a month
ago. They decided to select the Golden Gate High School traffic only
option and has requested that the board consider sharing the cost of
design and construction with the school board.
With that, we'd be glad to take any information back to the
school board or open it up to any questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we -- do we have a staff report? Does
Page 138
,._-"~"_.... ,.~-.,>~-_..-
December 14,2004
staff want to weigh in on this subj ect?
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, transportation
administrator.
Commissioners, we've looked at this and worked with the school
board. We appreciate all the efforts and analysis they've done.
What we would recommend to you to consider as you try to
present your findings back to the school board is that right now the
county did put aside 1.5 million towards this issue. Of that money, we
would recommend, as your staff, that you reserve about 200,000 of
that for traffic calming and turn lane improvements that would be
required in Golden Gate City, even with the general concept that
they're providing to you.
We would also recommend that they consider modifying
something in between the two alternatives that they presented, which
would be that they open up that gate to allow access through, much
like we do in the case of where school board warrants a signal for
operating hours as they have folks come in and leave at the end of the
day.
We basically provide for 45 minutes before school time, 15
minutes after school starts, and then 15 minutes before school ends
and 45 minutes after school ends, which would be an hour in the
morning, an hour in the afternoon that they, in fact, open up that one
gate that you saw there such that parents are coming -- for instance,
the 80 percent from Golden Gate City, if they decided that once they
dropped their child off -- those aren't the children driving themselves
and parking -- that if they wanted to go through, let's say, to the
government center, that they could then continue on 951 and then get
over onto Davis, rather than do a loop around and go back through
Golden Gate City and through the community once again, to then head
on out.
We don't feel that that would induce the real concern of the
community for cut-through traffic. Not many people want to get into
Page 139
December 14, 2004
that traffic queue while everybody's dropping the children off and
moving through that area and the slow speeds during school hours.
Plus, who wants to get in there with the chance that the gate could
close if they're not within that hour time frame and have to then head
back around.
So we really don't feel that that would induce a lot of through
traffic, which is the concern about the alternative, keeping it open all
the time, and yet it would provide more benefit overall to the system,
and for that matter, we believe, to Golden Gate City itself.
So our recommendation would be that we do agree to share the
cost up to 1.3 million for design and construction only, not for
right-of-way and other issues associated with this, and that we reserve
the other 200,000 for turn lane and for traffic calming improvements if
they will agree to opening up the one hour at the start of school and
the one hour after, 45 and 15, and then 15 and 45 respectively.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we have a speaker?
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am, William Poteet.
MR. POTEET: Good afternoon. My name is William Poteet. I
am president of the Golden Gate Area Civic Association, and I'm
speaking on behalf of the bridge, in favor of doing a limited access
bridge, like we've been talking about all along.
We discussed the concept that Mr. Feder has just presented to
you. We find that to be a very viable compromise and would
recommend that you pursue that course.
The principal of the high school last night told us at our meeting
that he absolutely needs the bridge. Right now he has kids that are
staying after school that cannot get back to the Golden Gate
Community without either him busing them on a separate bus
schedule for the after school kids, or they have to walk along 951,
which is something that no one wants to see the kids do. It's just not a
viable solution.
And so we wholeheartedly recommend that you follow Mr.
Page 140
December 14,2004
Feder's recommendation and get this bridge built.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank, Bill.
Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question for Mr. Feder, and Mr.
Rodriguez after that. The $200,000 that you're recommending to hold
back for traffic calming, would that be at the end of the bridge at
32nd?
MR. FEDER: Yes. What we would look at is either turn lanes or
__ and most likely, like you say, 32nd. Basically we're looking at it as
just internal traffic within Golden Gate City. Again, we're not
encouraging cut-through traffic, but we're going to have more traffic
on 32nd than some of the other streets within Golden Gate City by
establishing this bridge of Tropicana.
And with that in mind, we expect that there's going to be requests
and some need for both turn lanes and traffic calming. 32nd would an
obvious candidate, particularly, I believe it's on the west side where
we don't have the speed humps at this time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we go back to the --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or do you want to --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, go ahead, go ahead. I'll wait.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- to the graphic about the cost?
Thank you. The -- do you -- do you believe that there should be
some kind of off-site improvements with the vehicle bridge that are
open to the public on limited hours like he suggested or if it's just
students only?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Well, if it's the Golden Gate High School
traffic only option, that will require some off-site improvements if you
consider the intersection of 32nd and Tropicana as off-site. So it
Page 141
__w_,_._,~ - ,.,..",.......",,'...
December 14,2004
requires that intersection to be improved. Essentially some turn lanes
and some sidewalk modifications in that area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I guess my concern is,
we were all young once driving vehicles to school, if we were
fortunate. Except for Commissioner Coyle --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Five miles each way.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- walked.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Uphill both ways.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Uphill both ways.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Through the snow.
MR. MUDD: With no shoes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Uphill both ways.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The tendency to travel over --
above the speed limit -- so my opinion, I think there's going to be
substantial traffic calming devices in directing traffic to get to the
collectors and arterials.
Do you know the potential savings to the school board by not
having to bus kids if we provide this bridge?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: No, sir, we don't have that figure at this
time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I heard it's substantial.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: As I recall, I think there are -- when we
designed the school, I think we had designed it to accommodate, I
think, up to 26 or 28 buses coming in all directions, and this proposal
would most likely cut down as many as 10 buses because of the
additional almost 1,000 students that could walk within the Golden
Gate City area.
Whatever that converts to in terms of dollar savings, I'm not sure
right now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. This question's for Norm
Page 142
December 14, 2004
Feder.
Norm, how are we going to pay for half this bridge? Is it the
funds from this -- is this coming out of ad valorem taxes or is this
coming out of impact fees?
MR. FEDER: First of all, we can't use impact fees per se on it.
What we are looking at, I believe, is gas taxes are set aside, 315 gas
taxes, 1.5 million. And again, as I noted, we tried to reserve at least
200,000, and then also recommend that you not go above the
remaining 1.3 if, in fact, that was half the cost of the design and
construction.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do you know how the school board
is going to pay for their half of the bridge? Is this going to be impact
fees or -- school impact fees or what?
MR. HARDY: Good afternoon, I'm Alvah Hardy, the executive
director of planning and construction for the school board. No, I don't.
We have multiple fund sources. I'd have to contact our financial
person to find out which fees he had -- which revenues he had
budgeted for this purpose.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would assume that since schools
are -- would be considered an impact on the community, that the
impact fees would not only pay for the school but also would pay for
the bridge in this case, I would think.
MR. HARDY: Our use of impact fees are regulated by statute,
and we spend them the way they tell us to.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think the impact fees are
regulated by the ordinance that the Board of Commissioners approved,
and I think when they're updated, we're looking to include off-site
improvements for the impact of the school.
The thing that -- what we have here is a public safety issue
besides on 951, it will relieve our arterial roadway. I do like what Mr.
Page 143
December 14,2004
Feder suggested. We budgeted $1.5 million for this proj ect. I think
that we do need to hold back $200,000 for improvements--
intersection improvements and other traffic calming improvements.
And I do believe it is a great compromise to allow a limited
access with the hours open to the public, like Mr. Feder mentioned,
and I'll put that all into a motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor to
approve with the amendments that Mr. Feder suggested, and a second
by Commissioner Coletta.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Thank you.
Now we go to lunch.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, let's stay here. Let's stay
right here and finish the day up. Just kidding.
MR. MUDD: Three o'clock.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I see a look of delight coming
from Mr. Mudd. We'll be back here at three o'clock after lunch.
Thank you.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Take your seats.
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, you have a hot mike.
Page 144
__...._.;__' ._,._" .jl& ,.".... "...W""__"
December 14, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Very good.
Now we move on to item number 8C.
Item #8C
ORDINANCE 2004-79: AMENDING CHAPTER 74 OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, AS
AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2001-13, THE COLLIER COUNTY
CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE, PROVIDING FOR
ANNUAL MID-CYCLE YEAR INDEXING ADJUSTMENTS TO
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am, and that's an adoption of an ordinance
amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Law and
Ordinances as amended by Ordinance Number 2001-13, to Collier
County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinances, providing for annual
mid-cycle year indexing adjustments to water and sewer impact fee
rates, and Mr. Tom Wides, the financial director for public utilities,
will present.
MR. WIDES: Commissioners, good afternoon. As Mr. Mudd
said, I am the -- my name is Tom Wides, and I am the operations
director for public utilities.
And this afternoon I am in front of you to request your approval
on the mid-cycle indexing of water and wastewater impact fees under
the consolidated impact fee ordinance.
As you -- if I can help you with some of the recent history, over
the last three years we've completed three master plans and three
impact fee studies, and the board has approved those in each of those
calendar years.
The initial study was the first in approximately three, almost four
years, and significantly adjusted the impact fees. That was back in
around 2002. And that was recognizing the much more aggressive
Page 145
December 14,2004
expansion plans of the county, given the population growth.
The following two studies in the two following years were
important to rationalize the first study and to test the spending
program and the -- and right sizing the calculated impacted fees.
Those two follow-on studies adjusted the wastewater impact fees
by about 3.9 percent and 2 percent for the years 2003 and 2004, and
the water impact fees were adjusted by 3.5 percent in the year 2004.
The reason I bring this to your attention is that those fees
basically change in the range of what we would consider to be an
inflationary CPI type adjustment.
And in an effort to avoid increases going forward where we wait
and spread out the master plans and spread out the impact fee studies
and then all of a sudden realize that we're behind the curve, we're
suggesting that it would be much more to everyone's benefit to just
adjust to the CPI each year in the off years between the master plans
and the impact fee studies.
This would put us on a basis consistent with what is done under
the ordinance for indexing with parks and recreation, with roads, and
with the library and government building impact fees.
So on that basis I'm requesting your approval today of this
executive summary and the adoption of the ordinance to index the
water and wastewater impact fees in the two mid-cycle years between
the studies for the impact fees.
If you have any questions, I would like to address those.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're adopting the revised
revisions that the board received this morning?
MR. WIDES: Yes, sir, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'll make a motion to
approve the revised revision --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- report.
Page 146
,.~"^...--'~~'_"'''_'_'__''' h..,...,.,.' T ~ ...-...-.-.'"
December 14, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have no speakers, so I will
close the public hearing, and I just had one question. Do you have an
estimate on what the new fees will be when you char -- I realize you're
waiting for the census, but I was just wondering if you have an
estimate.
MR. WIDES: Yes. Commissioner, the only thing that I know is
history at this point, and I can only -- I would only be speculating
based on -- you heard a lot of discussion early this morning about the
cost increases of cement, steel. I'd only be speculating at this point.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Halas.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, just so you know, as part of the record,
whatever those fees are based on the CPI, they come back to you for
approval before they go into effect.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, I -- thank you.
All right. And now we go on to section 9, appointment of
members to the Library Advisory Board.
Item #9 A
RESOLUTION 2004-385: RE-APPOINTING ANDREW H. REISS
Page 147
_______..__._._.A._ ".,....--"'-"
December 14,2004
AND DORIS 1. LEWIS TO THE LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Recommendation we accept the --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Recommendations.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- recommendations of the
committee.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
MS. FILSON: And that's also to waive the two-term limit?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And I understand they need three
positions, but only two here because these are the two zones or
districts that are represented.
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am, and I've already--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now we have to go re-advertise for five?
MS. FILSON: I've already advertised for District 5 and have the
applicants and sent them over.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, great. Okay, fine, thank you.
I have a motion on the floor and a second.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2004-386: RE-APPOINTING KENT L. ORNER OF
Page 148
December 14, 2004
DISTRICT 5 TO THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT
ADVISORY BOARD AND WAIVE THE TWO-TERM LIMIT _
ADOEIED
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now we go on to 9B,
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Recommendation to appoint
Ken Orner, re-appointment, to the Ochopee Fire Control Advisory
Committee.
MS. FILSON: And that includes waiving the two-term limit.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And that includes waiving the two-term __
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2004-387: RE-APPOINTING CHERYLE L.
NEWMAN AND WILLIAM E. ARTHUR TO THE GOLDEN GATE
COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND WAIVE
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Then we go on to 9C, which is appoint
two members to the Golden Gate Community Center Advisory
Committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move--
Page 149
December 14,2004
MS. FILSON: And again, we'll have to waive the two-term limit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve the
committee's recommendations and waive the two-term limit.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor and a
second.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2004-388: APPOINTING GINGER MARTIN TO
THE GOLDEN GATE BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY
COM.MlITER - A 0illIED
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We move on to 9D, appoint one member
for the Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve the
committee's recommendations.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 150
December 14, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2004-389: RE-APPOINTING ROBERT J.
MULHERE AND DALAS D. DISNEY WAIVING THE TWO-
TERM LIMIT, AND APPOINTING JASON HAMILTON MIKES,
GEORGE H. HERMANSON AND DAVID B. DUNNAVANT TO
THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE _
AIlOEIED
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We go on to 9E to appoint five members
to serve four-year terms for the Development Services Advisory
Committee, DSAC.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve the committee
recommendations.
MS. FILSON: And--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
MS. FILSON: And again--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And waive the two-term limit.
MS. FILSON: -- for Mr. Dallas Disney.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And a second by Commissioner
Henning.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
Page 151
December 14, 2004
(No response.)
Item #9F
THE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL FOR THE
COUNTY ATTORNEY: MOTION FOR FY 02-03, AND FY 03-04,
8% MERIT INCREASE EACH YEAR, PLUS PROVIDE LIFE
INSURANCE ON A PAR WITH WHAT COUNTY MANAGER
RECEIVES-DENIED; NO MERIT INCREASE FOR FY 02-03, 8%
MERIT INCREASE FOR FY 03-04, COMMISSION TO PROVIDE
PORTABLE TERM LIFE INSURANCE AT $450,000, AND
REQUIRE A YEARLY PERFORMANCE REVIEW DUE IN
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And we go on to the last --
MS. FILSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- of number 9, which is -- oh, 9F, and
that is our county attorney performance appraisal.
Now would you -- would you like to lead this, Mr. Mudd, or -- I
think it's kind of hard for you to lead that, David, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll lead it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Y ou'lllead? I just don't know if anybody
has anything prepared here for this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The Board of Commissioners,
the annual county attorney's performance evaluation was graded by all
the commissioners with the overall ranking of 2.42, and the
parameters are from 1 to 3, so I find it a favorable evaluation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I do, too. I meant to write a letter and get
it over to David, and I did not. But I just wanted to comment, over the
last year and a half, David has been dealing with some very serious
health issues, yet we always see him in that chair working hard and
dedicated as can be, and I think he's done a marvelous job at not only
Page 152
December 14,2004
serving us in our community, but his office and his fellow employees.
And I've never -- I've never given anybody straight A's, and I did this
time. You deserved every one of them.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I'd like to also point out
that I found David's past year's performance to be very well. It was
remarkable the fact that he was always there for the Florida
Association of County meetings. Everything that was outside of the
regular parameter of his jobs, he was there.
I can't think of a time that we didn't ask for somebody from the
county attorney's office, and Dave would be the one to show up at the
civic association meetings or the property association meetings.
Also, I don't think you may be aware of it, but when we had our
-- forget which one it was, I think it was Frances, yes, the hurricane
came through. And at that point in time there was need for a radio
operator in Immokalee to be able to be present in case the power went
out, to be able to reach back to Naples to be able to tell what the
condition of the area was, and Dave graciously volunteered his role as
a ham operator to go to Immokalee and sit through the majority of the
night in one of the schools to wait for that possible disaster to take
place, and it's very much appreciated.
Thank you, David.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, that's a little known story. Thank
you for bringing that to light.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I understand where my fellow
commissioners are coming from, but I have some areas of concern.
And if I could indulge the commission, I've got a prepared statement
that I'd like to read at this time, if I could.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The following items illustrate my
Page 153
December 14,2004
views and concerns about the performance of the county attorney. I
have noted several specific instances and issues:
Delays that must result in litigation. I tried for many months to
obtain guidance from the county attorney on the Vanderbilt Overlay
study regarding the lowering of building heights to 75 feet. This has
been done in other communities without triggering serious or
successful Bert Harris claims.
It was finally delivered only 25 minutes before the Collier
County Planning Board Commission meeting hearing. At the hearing
it appeared that no interaction on this important development had
taken place by the county attorney's office or by community
development/environmental services staffbefore the CCP (sic)
hearing began.
This is a fundamental law -- or land law issue in Florida, and it
simply should not have been difficult to get and give competent and
timely advice.
Compromise versus commitment. It has seemed to me that too
often the county attorney's office has looked for compromise rather
than supporting the position of the BCC. Compromise has its place,
but so do other options.
It is my view and belief that the Board of County Commissioners
and the county attorney's office are in place to work for the citizens
and not to ease the path of developers seeking approval to run counter
to our LDC.
Improper planning. The Cap d'Antibes appeal was poorly
planned by the county attorney's office. The board of appeals' actions
are relatively rare and significantly different from the regular BCC
meetings. I believe that neither staff nor commissioners were properly
prepared and briefed by the county attorney's office.
This appears to be true especially for a chairperson who I believe
was not adequately briefed. It appeared that she was not given in
advance clear guidance for running such a hearing.
Page 154
-'"._.,........-_.~._~.,-'''''''...._...."
December 14, 2004
Throughout the proceedings I continually asked what was
relevant or irrelevant to our decision from the discussions and
presentations of opposing attorneys. I could not get a straight answer
nor would our attorney control the proceedings and protect our staff
from courtroom antics.
Overlay -- overly complicated language and style. I also believe
that the county attorney office gives boundaries in legal areas. He
does not explain to the BCC and staff in laymen terms how to
accomplish what we are collectively trying to do.
There needs to be proactive case law research to support the
likelihood that our desired outcomes will be achieved. We must able
to make legally defensible decisions on land use matters and LDC
changes.
Actability. Questions posed to the county attorney are often
answered in equivocal manner rather than being specific, clear, and
concise. It isn't the BCC's job to explore the vagaries of the law. We
employ him for research and best answer. It often appears that the
county attorney is unwilling to risk and -- the precedent and be
accountable. .
Contents of motions, and I think we've had that today. Much
more attention needs to be paid to the content of the motions made so
that the full intent of the BCC is clearly incorporated into the action of
record. This is a critical area where the county attorney's office has
not performed well.
More discipline needed. Law is a discipline and not an academic
exercise. The discipline needs to be imposed on the decision-making
process. The county attorney should be actively stepping in.
Incorrect information. I understand that there was someone from
the county's attorney office that instructed the community
development service -- environmental services staff that a petitioner
could bring back an issue prior to a year's time lapse. That was
incorrect information based on reading of the LDC.
Page 155
December 14, 2004
I had to challenge the county attorney in this matter, just as I
have challenged him on other pending issues that will be before the
BCC.
Allowing or being a party to manipulation of a system to stack
the odds of a favored outcome is clearly not in the public's best
interest. The county attorney's office needs to work for the citizens in
the greater county welfare and not promote an interpretation that will
serve to confuse the public and the BCC in the conduct of their
responsibilities under our ordinances of the comprehensive plan and
LDC.
I have -- I've had to challenge the county attorney's office
decisions on various matters so that issues could be heard by the BCC
before the LDC procedures on allotted time were passed.
Conflict with the LDC and GMP. I also have concerns about
decisions that have been made where there are violations or conflicts
with the LDC and the GMP and no red flag was raised at the time,
such as the listed species issue, paragraph 7.2.1 and the GMP of 12.2.
Specialization and generalization. I believe we have too many
general attorneys and not enough attorneys that specialize in the areas
of the law where we need critical support, expertise, to deal with the
growth challenges that we face.
We need sufficient proficiency and depth so far -- and so far as
not to be intimidated when someone threatens to sue the county over
unfavorable land use decisions or changes to our regulations.
Other counties have been successful in shaping their
communities while avoiding successful lawsuits, and Collier County
should be no exception.
As a result of this performance review process, I encourage my
fellow commissioners to take the steps necessary to terminate the
present county attorney's service. I've lost confidence in his ability to
lead the department.
My view of the future and the legal talent we need strongly
Page 156
December 14,2004
suggests that we look outside the present staff to bring some fresh
views and expertise into play on behalf of the county.
I am suggesting that the county attorney's office needs major
restructuring, a new focus, and a commitment to a more proactive
posture so that the BCC can better serve the community. And that's
my statement.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I don't want to defend or
negate my colleague's feelings, but I do feel that the county attorney,
David Weigel, tries to get guidance from the board of where the
majority of the board is going instead of the law, because in a lot of
cases, he will defend -- well, he would defend the Board of
Commissioners, no matter what the decision the board makes, and he
has gave (sic) some pros and cons on both sides to give as guidance,
but ultimately it is the law that prevails.
And land use items, you know, they're difficult and complex.
And when we start changing our growth management plan and land
development code, there are potentials for litigation.
And I feel confident, going through the Vanderbilt Beach issues,
that we did have good representation. I think the county attorney
provided a legal -- outside legal counsel that's an expert in, not only
the Bert J. Harris Act, but just land use in general; provided guidance
from Marty Chumbler, a great law firm in Tallahassee.
I think we've -- over the last year, we've had -- made some
tremendous strides in the lawsuits area, and I had concerns last year
about performance evaluations from his own staff. I feel very
confident he has addressed my concerns, and the people that he has on
specific cases, I think, is doing an outstanding time in time
management in those areas.
So, Commissioner Halas, I understand your feelings, but I just
can't support your position.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
Page 157
December 14, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't want to jump in front of
Commissioner Halas.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You were first but --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know I was, but let him speak.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, you go ahead, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I, too, agree with
Commissioner Henning. I think that what has taken place has served
the county well.
I have some thoughts on this whole thing. Well, one, five people
are never going to reach a consensus on anything, and that's one of the
reasons why we're elected is to maybe have a difference of opinion so
that we can search our souls at different times to be able to come up
logical reasons to be able to move forward on.
However, in spite of the fact, you know, Commissioner Halas is
not overly excited about the county attorney's performance, the county
attorney did average 80 percent, just a hair over 80 percent in his
evaluation of this commission.
And in that light, I think we need to make an adjustment to his
pay based upon the evaluation that we did. And I'm not too sure on
the language of this exactly what this 10 percent is and what this three
percent is.
And Mr. Mudd or -- Mr. Mudd, could you enlighten us on that,
or aren't you familiar with it? In other words, it's -- the statement here
is such annual performance base merit adjustment shall not exceed a
maximum of 10 percent of the employee's annual base salary. The
minimum increase for satisfactory performance, which this goes past,
under such performance base merit system will equal the average
percentage salary adjustment provided to all county employees for the
given finance -- fiscal year or three percent, whichever is greater.
Well, I guess the question is, what is the average percent in salary
adjustment that went to the county employees? Does anyone have
Page 158
December 14, 2004
that number?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner -- and, David, I don't know if your
contract talks about COLA or not.
MR. WEIGEL: It's the same as yours, Jim, on these.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, what that basic -- clause basically
says is, if you deem that Mr. Weigel's performance meets standard,
then the minimum that you will give him is a three percent increase in
his pay, and that will go to his pay.
If you deem his performance to be above meets standards, the
bare -- you know, the satisfactory thing and you believe it's in that 80
percent range, then it -- then it could go to up 10 percent, and that
could be added to his pay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Ten percent, of course, is
the ceiling to go. Three percent's the minimum, 10 percent's the
maximum?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And based upon that, he
received an 80 percent approval rating from this commission, so I
would recommend an eight percent increase of the 10, based upon
what we came up with, the score.
And I would make a motion at this time that we approve his
contract, what is it for a year, one year?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, this is actually a two-year annual review
because we didn't bring it forward last time. Excuse me. As it
indicates in executive summary, to date, the county -- the board and
the county will save money because it wasn't implemented even a year
ago, and that's interest gone and lost and so be it.
But ultimately, Commissioner, and all commissioners, the
decision you would make would be for each of two years to bring it
up.
Another thing that I discussed with you separately, and I would
just mention right now, is that working with the clerk's office, and Jim
Page 159
December 14,2004
Mitchell particularly, that perennial term of insurance where we went
from whole life to term needs, on the record, to be recognized, if you
would, as portable term, because three times my salary is an odd
amount, and they won't write a portable policy for an odd amount, so
I've been paying the premiums myself for over the last year.
I would appreciate if you would -- could make it just a fixed sum,
and my salary is less than right around $155,000 right now, pretax, of
course. And so that three times that is the -- as the element in the
contract comes up to an odd 460 or something, and they can't write a
policy for it.
I would appreciate if you would just round that off to either 450
or 500, and then it would just be static and they will write that or
adjust that. It's currently a $450,000, but it doesn't match my salary,
three times the salary.
A little side note -- and if you can just give a solid figure for that,
it won't change the obligation that was previously expected but it will
give the satisfaction to the clerk that they can administer this as a
portable term life insurance aspect.
The other thing, as I mentioned to you at the beginning of my
statement was, that you would be making a percentage increase, the
terminology -- the term is the same for each of two years, so you're
really making a two-year disposition at this point in time.
So to be fair and perfectly clear, what you do for the first year,
which is the '03 year, will create a bump into the second year, no
question about that. So again, if you use the same -- the same
percentage increase -- and I appreciate that, it's very similar to the kind
of application you gave Mr. Mudd -- if you should use the same
increase, it will mean more dollars-wise in the second year than it will
the first year, and that's why the executive summary is written with
that broad dollar range that it is.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. If I may, Mr. Weigel,
let's cover one issue at a time. The eight percent issue that we're --
Page 160
December 14, 2004
that I'm going to propose --
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- it would be the year we -- the
previous year, is that what we're saying? It would cover the year
'03/'04?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And then it would -- it would
carry forward into the '04/'05 year?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. It's a salary increase based on the term of
the contract.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: '03/'04. We're in '04.
MR. WEIGEL: '03/'04.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know that, but we're going
back a year.
MR. WEIGEL: I mean, '02/'03, and then '03/'04.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You didn't get a performance
review last year.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. One more time.
MR. WEIGEL: '02/'03 was not reviewed because that would
have been at the end of the year.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So we're not going back to that
year. We're dealing with the current year that's coming up?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, under the contract you'd handle both
years, and so you could handle it with a percentage for each year at
the percentage you felt was appropriate, or if we reach agreement on
the floor -- and I'm a pretty agreeable person, I can assure you -- if it's
a, one static figure, it can either have retroactivity to one year and then
nothing the next year, and that might be the simplest way to do it, or a
percentage for each year based on your evaluation that you did here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, normally this percentage,
10 percent maximum, three percent minimum, is based upon one
year's performance?
Page 161
December 14, 2004
MR. WEIGEL: That's right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And what we're talking
about is a two-year contract, which is going -- which is -- which starts
with the year '04/'05 or '05/'06?
MR. WEIGEL: Actually, it's '02/'03, which would have been the
fall of last year review, and then '03/'04 would be --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So this could be retroactive
back to that?
MR. WEIGEL: It's retroactive, yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So we'd be dealing with '02/'03
and '03/'04, which -- where does that leave us for '05/'06 that we're
coming into?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, that would be October or thereabouts this
next year as Mr. Mudd --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. In a more timely fashion
it would come back to us --
MR. WEIGEL: That's right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- for that year.
MR. WEIGEL: That's right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So we're reaching back to
correct what we did not do the year before?
MR. WEIGEL: That's correct, yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Based on that, I'll make
the motion, I'll see if I get a second, and then we can carry the
discussion, because there's a lot more to this than meets the eye.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm going to make a motion for
dis -- and hopefully we get it forward with second so we can just start
with something -- that we deal with two different years here of the
contract, which is the '02/'03 and the '03/'04, and that it's eight percent
based upon the review results that we have for each year.
In addition to that, on the insurance part of it, I am not too sure.
Page 162
December 14,2004
I'd like to come up with something that corresponds to what we do
with the county manager rather than create a totally new animal; in
other words, whatever we expend for the county manager in
proportion to the county attorney. I don't know. I'm a little lost on
that, and I don't know if $450,000 is applicable.
How's it work for you, sir, County Manager Jim Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I -- and I don't know if it's -- if
David's particular insurance has to do with guaranteed insurability or
not, but mine is just with the county. I use the county's system. It's
three times, instead of two times. And I use the county system. So
when I leave, my insurance stops.
And this portable term, David might be able to take that with him
because it's guaranteed insurability, and that might be of some
advantage to the county attorney in this particular regard.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'm not too sure. I'm
going to try the wording on this, and I'm sure it's not going to address
the whole thing -- but that we address the county attorney'.s insurance
needs in a dollar fashion that's comparable to what we do for the
county manager, and if it doesn't quite meet the description that Dave's
looking for, that -- if it's a difference that he has to make up, then he
can make it up out of his own funds.
I don't know how else to approach it, David, without -- maybe as
we get going in the discussion here, somebody will have a better idea.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. No, I think -- I think that that works,
because as Jim indicated, there's an advantage to be able -- for me to
personally to pay for life insurance when I leave here on my own with
a fixed rate policy that's been set a couple years ago as opposed to
going out in the marketplace and paying higher later on at that time.
But there is a value for Jim's, for my, and for all employees'
insurance in the annual arrangement that exists that isn't portable, and
that value could be determined, and then I could make up the
difference myself and assure the portability of the --
Page 163
December 14,2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the only other thing I can
think to add at this point in time, and I'm sure my fellow
commissioners will have much more to add or to take off or whatever,
is that your review become an annual one to take place in October of
every year with predictability.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, sir,
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that's my motion.
MR. WEIGEL: If I could make another -- make another
comment here, and it has nothing to do with the term of the contract.
But clearly these evaluations kind of bring to a focus issues, and I
have obviously significant issues to review and address with Mr.
Halas, and -- but all the commissioners, I represent a collective client
but work with individual commissioners, and there's much, much to be
explored and developed there, and I appreciate his comments and I
take them most seriously and would hope that whatever the will of the
board, at this point and forward, that I will have the opportunity to
explore and develop and answer -- answer questions and assist any
commissioner at any point in time. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta, your motion
stated something about the insurance, but David was looking for a
figure, 450,000 or 500,000. Would you include that in your motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd love to, but I'm not -- I need
some help with that because I'm not too sure how it would
corresponded back. Whatever we're paying for the county manager
I'm willing to pay for the county attorney.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I guide you on that --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- if that's going to be part of
your motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Of course, I don't like your
motion, but what Mr. Weigel is asking is for a life insurance that fits
Page 164
December 14,2004
his needs and actually is less than what the county manager receives,
if it's two times the amount; am I correct?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Three times.
MR. WEIGEL: It's very similar.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Three times. The only thing is,
it's portable, so he can continue on his life insurance. That's what I
understand. So the recommendations would be to provide a portable
term life of $450,000.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that would be your
recommendation?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's what he's asking. I
can support that aspect of it, I just can't support the merit going back
on years when it really was the obligation of the county attorney to
bring back his evaluation to the Board of Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a motion. And before I
get to -- Commissioner Halas is waiting so patiently, and I'm sorry, we
have a motion on the floor.
Do I have a second before we hear discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll second the motion for the sake of
discussion.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I believe that Commissioner
Henning hit the nail on the head. I believe that the county attorney
has an obligation to turn his -- or to submit a performance review on a
yearly basis.
I believe that we may have been laxed (sic) as the Board of
County Commission not to be after him in regards to a performance
review, but I would think that it's his obligation, if he wants to get a
merit raise for that year, to submit a performance review.
And I find it very difficult to go back a year and say, well, we're
going to now -- since you didn't submit a performance review last'
Page 165
December 14, 2004
year, now we're going to reward you for it. I've got a real problem
with that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. The question that I haven't
heard answered yet is how much is the insurance policy going to cost,
you see. And that's the primary determination as far as I'm concerned.
I am sympathetic to Mr. Weigel's concern about having a
portable policy, but what I think is more important is what is the
incremental cost associated with this, and then we need to make a
decision on that. Do we know that, David?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, I do. The close figure -- excuse me. A
close figure for a 20-year term, which is what I'm in right now, at
450,000 -- at 500,000 it's 2,270 is the annual premium.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's a $500,000 policy?
MR. WEIGEL: $500,000 policy.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, is that the increase in the
premium, David, or --
MR. WEIGEL: No. That is what a policy is for 500,000. It's
slightly -- it's incrementally less at the 450,000, and --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And where is it now?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, where is it?
MR. WEIGEL: I'm at 450,000, and I'm paying for the policy
myself. I got into it working with risk management and HR -- the HR
office not knowing that we'd run into a problem with the payment of
the policy later, because this was a switch-over from the board's
previous approval of whole life, which is, of course, a continuing
policy over many years, so I tried to do this -- a savings term life
switch into a fixed premium -- a fixed policy for 20 years. And so the
cost is, again, at 500,000, it's 2,270 annually, and that's fixed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Slightly less at 450,000, which is what is in
place right now.
Page 166
December 14, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, is there something in
the contract that specifies that that's what you would be provided?
Was there just a failure to communicate here, or what happened with
respect to this?
MR. WEIGEL: When I made the -- when I made the revision on
the floor, I said term life ins -- I haven't gone back to look at the
minutes, but term life insurance, thinking that term was fixed term life
insurance, as they call it, level term. I didn't use that phraseology, and
so the contract says term life insurance.
All employees receive life insurance for one year, or while
they're in the employment of the county. And I thought that this was
something different that I had talked with the board, but apparently as
written, it didn't compute and work that way in the administration.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Ifwe -- if we agreed that your life
insurance coverage should have been the same as the county
manager's arrangement, what would be the cost of that; do we know?
MR. WEIGEL: I don't know, but ifit were the same, then I've
been out of the system -- of the county system for a year, year and a
half, and paid the premiums myself, so I know there's a savings, but I
expect it's less.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You were only out the system for a
year, year and a half?
MR. WEIGEL: That's -- yeah, a little over a year and a half.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: That's right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you were paying them
yourself at that point in time?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I didn't at first and then I was told that the
county would no longer make payments, and so to preserve the policy,
I started making payments myself till I got back to you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the payments that you made
are higher or lower than the 2,270 that we're talking about for
Page 167
December 14, 2004
500,000?
MR. WEIGEL: So far I've paid a total in two premiums of
$809.78.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I need to get some clarification
here. Are we in the process of negotiating a new contract? Wasn't
there a contract that was drawn up last year?
MR. WEIGEL: It was extended last year, and that's when the --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Extended with the -- with what? I
mean, extended with --
MR. WEIGEL: No changes --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Was there any changes to --
MR. WEIGEL: The only change was changing the term from
whole life, which would have cost the county many thousands of
dollars, to term life. That was the only substantive change to the
document.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And was that an obligation that you
had to be picked up or was that an obligation that the county said they
were going to take care of?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, having talked with risk management, I
thought that the word term life did the job, but it apparently didn't.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So is that be -- is that an error on
our part then?
MR. WEIGEL: Absolutely not.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So I'm not sure where we're
going with this.
MR. WEIGEL: Well--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Maybe you -- can you enlighten
me a little bit more?
MR. WEIGEL: Sure. Ifwe do nothing, then the policy will just
be effectuated and I'll have the annual insurance no different than Mr.
Page 168
December 14,2004
Mudd or any other employee. Mr. Mudd's and my contracts both
provide for three times our salary, and so that's what it would be, and I
can elect to either maintain a separate policy for life insurance or not.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I have to pay my own life
insurance policies. I don't get anything given to me here.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. Well, I am the product of a negotiated
contract, which there were mutual desires, at least at the time that it
was done. But be that as it may, if -- I told you I'm very flexible here.
But it's a clarification that I need to know so I can make the
appropriate action myself to either continue paying the premiums
outside or -- and just revert back as Jim Mudd is to three times the
annual policy that's in place for all employees. I didn't mean to spend
this kind of time on this element.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any other comments?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I don't know if we really
clarified it. My motion's fluid, and I was looking for guidance to
amend it as necessary to make it work.
I don't think we have answered the part about the insurance.
Where I left it off was that we allow the same dollar amount as we're
doing with Mr. Mudd, but we don't know what that is, and we don't --
we really don't know how this whole thing comes together. I'm a little
bit nervous about that unknown factor.
You don't know, Mr. Mudd, what your insurance value is on
yours?
MR. MUDD: Sir, it's three times my salary. I believe that that's
probably at around $480,000 right now today.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I understand that. How
much the cost of your insurance is?
MR. MUDD: No, sir. It's the county policy that they have with
the same insurer. It was the cheapest way to go. Mr. Olliff had
something that was little bit different in his -- in his policy, and I
basically said, hey, I don't want anything different than the employees
Page 169
December 14, 2004
had. So I chose to go in that direction, which was a whole lot easier
with some conversations with Mr. Mitchell prior to doing that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So my motion which says, you
know, that we honor the contract with the same amount that we're
spending on yours would still be valid --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: The same percentage?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- even though we don't know
what the -- well --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Three times the amount?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, three times the amount,
but whatever the cost is we spend on the county manager. In case
Dave wants to use it in a different of direction and pay the difference,
it's still valid.
Do we have to know that amount now before we can act, or can
we leave that part open?
MR. WEIGEL: I think I've got an idea of a solution, and that is,
I'll just go into the three times the salary, which comes into an odd
number, which is okay through the county, and then if I wish to
continue with a separate portable policy, which I'm already enrolled in
at a cost of about 2,200 a year, I'll just elect to do it myself.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The difference can't be all that
great.
MR. WEIGEL: No, but -- it won't be. It probably wouldn't be,
but in essence, you're giving me the option to just take the cost, which
we don't quite know, but I'm sure it's less than my annual premium
right now. I could just go with the annual policy just as Jim does, and
then I'll make my own decision on the outside premium with --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think we clarified that part, but
we still -- I'm looking for guidance from the commission before we go
through a lengthy procedure here on the salary. And my motion was
for eight percent for the two years, and we've heard a difference
opinion from one commissioner that it should be eight percent for just
Page 170
December 14, 2004
one year.
Guidance, please.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I was going to address the
insurance issue, and I think you probably have already solved that, so
I'm not sure that my comments would be relevant.
I'm concerned that if the contract doesn't clearly call for the
payment for a portable insurance policy, we probably shouldn't be
trying to modify it at this point in time, but maybe take it up whenever
the contract comes up for renewal.
But I think it really is just an issue of, does the contract require us
to pay for it or does it not? And if it doesn't, then I don't know how
we can add it at this point in time without renegotiating the contract.
So I think David's solution is probably the best one, as far as the
insurance is concerned.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Did you want to make any more
comments?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I don't have anything else to
add.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a motion on the floor and
a second. Shall I try and repeat that motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Please, give it a try.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I'll give it a try.
Commissioner Coletta motioned, with Commissioner Fiala
seconding, for eight percent merit pay increase for two years, for 2002
to 2003 and for 2003 to 2004, also to provide the county attorney with
insurance at the same rate as our county manager receives.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Or he has the option of using
that money as he sees fit for another policy or even beyond the county
system, for whatever that value is.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Was there any other portion to
your --
Page 171
December 14,2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Other than the fact that we get
an annual review every October.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, yes, and that the county attorney
gives us an annual review each year.
Okay. That's the motion and the second.
I call for the vote.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have two for, three against.
Okay.
Do you know -- do you need to know who they were?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me -- let me see if I can go
through this. The -- actually what -- the motion that was on the floor
was a merit pay increase for three years.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Two years.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, two previous years and
the upcoming year.
MR. WEIGEL: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No? Okay. I'm going to make a
motion that we provide a merit increase for the -- from October of '05
to October of '06 of eight percent.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's next year?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Next year?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Next year, the following year?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're paying for performance that
he's completed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: '05 -- I'm sorry, '04 to '05.
Page 1 72
December 14,2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry, October to October.
MR. WEIGEL: We're not there yet, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're not?
MR. WEIGEL: No. That will come next October for both Mr.
Mudd and myself, or July.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: For your performance for the past year?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's paid in arrears?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay.
MR. WEIGEL: It's a review of the past performances.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
Then I make a motion for 2003 in October to 2004, October.
The -- we're bickering over portable insurance of the valuation of
$2,000, and I don't think that we should bicker over that.
Part of my motion is, include to provide portable insurance to the
county attorney, the value -- for the term of $450,000.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Did you have a percentage of
merit pay increase for 2003 to 2004?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Eight percent.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Eight percent for 2003 to 2004. Did you
want to also include evaluation each year in your motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So I have a motion on the floor for an
eight percent merit pay increase for 2003 to 2004, a portable insurance
policy paid by the commission for $450,000, and asking for a yearly --
a yearly performance appraisal.
I'll second that motion.
Discussion? Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I thought we just voted on this,
didn't we? Didn't we have one vote that carried 3-2?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, but it was three against, two for.
Page 173
December 14, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, three against, okay. Excuse
me.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's all right, that's all right. So here
we are agaIn.
David?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Madam Chairman. You're only
addressing one year, but I mean, there are ways to address both years
with one number or a reduced number even, if you wish to do that, but
there are two -- the contract provides for two years.
So if the record is such that we're, you know, forfeiting '02/'03,
then the record will so provide that there's no merit increase for that
time. But it wasn't stated specifically, and I know during the course of
today specifics have been kind of our anathema here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay. My
misunderstanding, I'm sorry. I thought it was a yearly evaluation and
contract.
MR. WEIGEL: It is. The contract provides for an annual
evaluation, and I did not bring it forward at the end of the year last
year. In fact, I mentioned to you that I may not be able to bring it
forward at that point in time.
But be that as it may, I had to make a decision, do I bring it in the
spring with another coming shortly thereafter or just work through and
not have it come back so quickly. And that may be an erroneous
decision on my part, but you've reduced the exercise to one time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So your motion stands?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. I did understand it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just for the record, why -- what
was the problem that you didn't bring forth your performance review
last year? What was the problem?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. I had eye surgery on September 22nd. I
Page 174
December 14, 2004
had a period of convalescence afterwards where I was regaining a
greater ability to see with ease.
We approached the Christmas holiday. And I'm very busy just
doing my job and -- with the other employees that I have, and, of
course, the rest of the staff that we work with, so I just opted not to
bring it forward at that point in time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning, which I've already repeated, but if you'd like
to, I can repeat again.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You did a fine job.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We're okay with that, okay. And a second
by Commissioner Fiala.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That's a 4-1. Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And we move on now to -
Item #10C
CONSIDERATION OF A MULTI-COUNTY AGRICULTURAL
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us to item 10C, and this
item's continued indefinitely, and I wanted to make sure that I just
read it and got your -- you don't have to vote on this.
Page 175
December 14,2004
Basically, when the gentleman came forward with a petition to
talk about the multi-county agricultural extension position, the board
asked me to bring that back, and the date that was set to bring it back
was the 14th of December.
Since that particular time, we've had an appeal with the sheriffs
budget, and at this particular juncture I don't think it's appropriate if
we add that to this year's budget pending that appeal and that process,
so I called the gentleman and said, until further notice we're going to
continue indefinitely on this particular item until we get some kind of
resolution on the present appeal that's in Tallahassee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to continue.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
Item #10D
RESOLUTION 2004-390: A HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN FOR
COLLIER COUNTY ALSO APPLICABLE TO ITS
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, that brings us to 10D, and that's approve
and adopt a resolution of hazardous mitigation plan for Collier County
also applicable to its municipalities. Copies of the hazardous
mitigation plan are available for review at the county manager's office,
Page 176
December 14, 2004
the third floor of this building, and all Collier County public libraries.
Mr. Dan Summers, the director of emergency management will
present.
MR. SUMMERS: Commissioners, good afternoon. Dan
Summers, director of the Bureau of Emergency Services. On a
lighter, personal note, please excuse my incomplete uniform of the
day, as I experienced a wardrobe malfunction this morning. Not of
Superbowl caliber, however.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It wasn't with the pants.
MR. SUMMERS: That's correct, that's correct, so bear with me,
and thank you for your indulgence, but good afternoon.
Couple things I want to mention to you very quickly. I've got to
pass out just a few accolades on this effort. This encyclopedia that
you see here is a result of one year of very intensive hazardous --
hazard mitigation planning efforts with a very large team.
Mr. Mudd kicked off our hazard mitigation planning effort, and
despite the fact that we lost well over 60 days of staff time due to
something we were doing in September hurricane-related, we still
have met -- actually met all of our deadlines.
Rick Zyvoloski is our emergency management coordinator. He
has just a few power points he'd like to go over with you in this hazard
mitigation strategy. I want to thank the Collier County Citizen Corps
who was heavily involved in some input, a large staff from Joe
Schmitt's office at CDES working with us to pull together all of the
potential disaster impacts and help put us into a disaster mitigation
planning process.
And if I can -- if I can coin a phrase here, is that this effort that
you see here is now the cornerstone of building Collier County as a
disaster resistant community. And there's just an enormous amount of
work that's gone into this. This is a strategy. This will be a fluid
document as we recognize more hazards, as we find more funding
opportunities to help make Collier County more disaster resistant.
Page 1 77
December 14, 2004
But, again, just an enormous team effort both in the civilian
public side as well as the local municipalities, and I want to thank
them for their effort.
Rick, if you'll come forward and hit a few bullets for the
commissioners, please.
MR. ZYVOLOSKI: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name
is Rick Zyvoloski, for the record, also am the chair of the local
mitigation strategy working group, an elected position.
The hazard mitigation plan is a result of federal law where the
federal government is interested in making the whole country disaster
resistant, and they have levied certain requirements on us, each
jurisdiction that -- if they want to obtain any of the federal monies to
help in mitigating the effects of disasters, they have to plan, and so
that's where we are right now, the main planning areas.
They're really interested in the process. They want public
involvement, adoption by the government. They're looking for a
unified strategy, and that's where we are. And the big emphasis,
again, is the public involvement. They wanted to see that continuing.
Next three slides are just to give you an idea of the team that was
involved in developing this plan. We've had health department, state
-- people from the state, water management districts, from the cities,
we've had involved there, a couple businesses, and it's an overall
effort. And we get -- we have new faces all the time come to our
monthly meetings.
Basically the strategies all revolve around the disasters. They
deal with areas of wind protection generator systems. And we're not
just looking at one grant type opportunity. It's a whole range of
opportunities. We're just -- we're cataloging all of our initiatives
under -- under one plan in order to provide more impetus to help,
perhaps, fund another grant opportunity using the fact that it's making
Collier more disaster resistant as a bit of strengthening to their
initiatives.
Page 178
December 14,2004
That concludes my presentation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second.
Okay. I have a motion to approve by Commissioner Coyle, a
second by Commissioner Henning.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a 4-0 on that.
Now we have to go back to item lOG -- I mean 8G, excuse me,
which is l6A2.
MR. MUDD: No, ma'am. I think -- I don't mean to disagree
with you. I believe we're on 10E.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, but we didn't do 8G, H, I, oh -- or
are these 10?
MR. MUDD: These are 10, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry. I've got them written under
the wrong line, excuse me. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: And that would bring --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You can disagree with me on that.
Item #lOE
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE SELECTION
COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVE A
Page 1 79
December 14, 2004
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CAROLLO
ENGINEERS IN THE AMOUNT OF $11,275,020 PURSUANT TO
RFP #043673 FOR DESIGN AND RESIDENT ENGINEERING
SERVICES THROUGH THEW ARRANTY PERIOD RELATED
TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NORTHEAST WATER
RECLAMATION FACILITY AND THE NORTHEAST WATER
TREATMENT PLANT, PROJECT NUMBERS 70902 AND 73156-
MEROVED
MR. MUDD: The item 10E is a recommendation to approve the
selection committee's recommendation to approve -- I'll get to it. Let
me start over again.
This is item 10E. It's a recommendation to approve the selection
committee's recommendation and approve a professional services
agreement with Carollo Engineers in the amount of $11,725,020
pursuant to RFP number 04-3673 for design and resident engineering
services through the warranty period related to the construction of the
northeast water reclamation facility and the northeast water treatment
plant. It's project number 70902 and project number 73156.
And Mr. Harry Huber, senior project manager for public utilities,
will present.
MR. HUBER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
my name is Harry Huber, senior project manager with the public
utilities engineering department.
This item consists of a recommendation for approval of
engineering services for design and construction of a water
reclamation facility and water treatment plant to provide service to the
expanding northeast region of Collier County.
The staff recommendations for this item as set forth in the
summary are as follows: Approve selection of Carollo Engineers as
recommended by the selection committee for RFP number 04-3673,
approve a professional services agreement with Carollo Engineers in
Page 180
December 14,2004
the amount of $11,725,020 with 3,249,000 authorized at this time, and
authorize the chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to
execute the professional services agreement after approval by the
county attorney's offices.
This project entails the construction of a water reclamation
facility otherwise known as the wastewater treatment plant and a
water treatment plant on the 2l6-acre property located east of the
Collier County fairgrounds and north of the Palmetto Ridge High
School.
The red arrow depicts the project location as shown in the 2003
master plan update approved by the board on May 25th, 2004, which
is located in the northern portion of the existing Orangetree PUD.
The current site of the proposed treatment plant consists of the
208 -- 2l6-acre property acquired by the board on May 13th, 2003.
The agreements for sale and purchase of this property specifically
identified the use of this site for a water reclamation facility, water
treatment plant, community park, and a residential recycling drop-off
center.
As indicated in this conceptual site plan, water and wastewater
facilities would be collocated on the site and designed and buffered to
promote community acceptance. Park and recreation facilities and a
residential recycling drop-off center would also be located on this site.
Briefhistory of the project to date. In December of200l, the
Board of County Commissioners approved the waste and wastewater
master plan updates. These plans identified the need for additional
water and wastewater plants to serve the northeast region of Collier
County .
On May 13th of2003, the Board of County Commissioners
approved the purchase of the 2l6-acre property located in the
Orangetree PUD for the location of the proposed water reclamation
facility and water treatment plant to serve the northeast region of
Collier County.
Page 181
December 14, 2004
In December of 2003, the Board of County Commissioners
approved a work order with WilsonMiller to perform professional
services related to an application to rezone the property for its
intended use. And in September of 2004, the nine-member selection
committee ranked Carollo Engineers number one to perform
engineering services for construction of the water and wastewater
facilities.
Based on the results of the selection committee recommendation,
staff and consultant, Malcolm Pirnie, have worked with Carollo
Engineers to develop a very detailed 60-page scope of work
describing the tasks to be performed by Carollo. Major tasks include
major extensive public involvement assistance, assistance with all
permitting, preliminary and final design services, construction phase
services, and training, start-up, and warranty period services.
Since the purchase of this site, the staff has been active in
promoting public knowledge of the proposed uses of the site. We
have participated in a town hall meeting conducted by Commissioner
Coletta in April of 2004. We've conducted tours of the south county
water reclamation facility and the north county water treatment plant
with residents who live near the site. We have also made personal
visits to several concerned neighborhoods who adjoin the property to
the north.
As we proceed with the design and subsequent construction of
these facilities over the next five years, we have identified a list of
activities that the staff and our consultants will organize and
participate in to ensure that the public is fully informed of the project
impacts.
Those include an upcoming town hall meeting in April of next
year, the public information meeting that's required as part of the
rezone process, formation of a community advisory panel,
neighborhood workshops, public information website, project
newsletter, and appropriate collateral materials and public forums.
Page 182
December 14, 2004
The total negotiated amount for this agreement is $11,725,020,
which consists of fees for basic design services, services during
construction, special services, allowance for unseen conditions, and a
cost of business adjustment over the projected life of the contract.
With approval by the board, the project would begin in January
of 2005. Site planning and design of the facilities will take place
through July of 2006, and construction will occur through July of
2009.
Once again, I would like to present the staff recommendations for
this item. Those are to approve the selection of Carollo Engineers as
recommended by the selection committee for RFP number 04-3673,
approve a professional services agreement with Carollo Engineers in
the amount of$11,725,020 with 3,249,000 authorized at this time, and
authorize the chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to
execute a professional services agreement after approval by the county
attorney's office.
That concludes my presentation. I would be glad to answer any
questions you may have at this time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Halas, were you
first or Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, I think Commissioner Henning
was first.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I've got a lot of questions.
You want to go first?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure. Thank you very much.
My concern is because of the amount of development that's
taking place out there, will we get this plant online soon enough --
both these plants online soon enough to take care of the large amount
of growth that we've already approved out there in the recent board
meetings? And how soon?
You're projecting only 2009. Is there any possibility of getting
these facilities online to take care of the large amount of growth?
Page 183
December 14,2004
MR. HUBER: If I may, I'd like to have the administrator answer
that question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure.
MR. DeLONY: For the record, Jim DeLony, public utilities
administrator.
Sir, the service area for that area, I mean, the actual obligation to
provide centralized services, we don't have the authority in the
Orangetree area to do that. The Orangetree area, where a lot of, I
think, your concerns are, we don't have the ability to provide those
services in that area until 2012, because by agreement, that's when
essentially their time is up and our time begins in terms of the
servIces.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My question was the Orangetree
Ranch area.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I'm sure there's some more
development that's going to take place out in that general area. It
wasn't specifically the Orangetree area as such.
MR. DeLONY: Those, right now -- you know, that right now, as
I know, I think that's the immediate ones that you all have been
concerned about. But we aren't in that business out there till 2012.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Now, the other question I
have, even though we haven't rezoned the land at this point, this plant
really is not site specific; is that correct? I mean, if something should
happen, we can still go along and do all the design work because
there's a couple of other locations, I think, in Collier County where
we're going to have wastewater treatment plants and freshwater
treatment plants. So it's not site specific as far as the engineering
concept of this; is that correct?
MR. DeLONY: The actual design will be site specific. The
question will be when you make the second decision.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
Page 184
December 14,2004
MR. DeLONY: Ifwe stay on track with our zoning time line that
you were briefed on and if there's a difference at that time, a direction
from the board, we could suspend the design activities without
significant loss in terms of effort.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right, yep.
MR. DeLONY: And then take that effort and move it to a
different location. But at some stage of the game, you'd move from
general specifications or general design criteria to a site specific
design criteria, but that would come much later, I believe, than what
we envision our current project delivery timeline. I think I've
answered your question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You sure did.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, please, thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is the largest design
contract that the Board of Commissioners ever approved, or am I
assuming that? To your knowledge?
MR. DeLONY: Sir, I don't know.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who's the project manager for
this job?
MR. DeLONY: The project manager's Mr. Huber, who just
briefed you, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The contract states that
WilsonMiller is the contract manager for this, but in reality they're just
the person to do the rezone?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The firm. Did the board
approve that contract?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So Mr. Huber will be
telling the contractor -- will be reviewing the payment slips that the
Page 185
December 14, 2004
contractor provides? It won't be any other outside firm?
MR. DeLONY: Sir, the -- Mr. Huber will ultimately be
responsible for the review of those progress payments.
As you may not know, sir, we use an integrated project delivery
team consisting of the public utilities engineering department, the
clerk of courts, as well as outside consultants at times to ensure that
what we're providing in terms of progress payments are adequate and
meet the intent and specifications of the contract.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that CM@RISK?
MR. DeLONY: No, sir. That would be the methodology that
we're looking at for the acquisition of the actual construction. This
particular contract deals strictly with the design of the plan itself.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What is CM@RISK?
MR. DeLONY: Sir, it's -- Construction Management Risk is an
acquisition strategy for construction which provides for something
different than the traditional low bid or lowest bid type of acquisition.
It's a specific type of strategy that allows you to allocate the risk
associated with the construction in a different way than that in
traditional procurement methodologies.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. DeLONY: We have used that method with great advantage
in numerous projects here within Collier County inside public utilities
and other places within the county.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That's great. It's not a
firm or anything like that; it's a tool?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I see that there's a lot of
travel time included in the contract. Now, those firms are, except for
WilsonMiller, from outside of the county. Carollo is based out of
Sarasota, so we base -- are we giving them travel time from Sarasota
to Collier County?
MR. DeLONY: Do you have the specifics on that?
Page 186
December 14,2004
Normally in the fee schedule, there will be specifics with regard
to travel and to hours served with regard to the -- to the effort. I'm not
able to answer that question specifically right now, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, why don't we -- why don't
we just clarify it, because this is in our contract. And then we have a
32 cent per mile reimbursement for travel time, too. So you've got the
travel time and then the travel hour time.
And I'm kind of reluctant to pay somebody that was -- just
because they're out of town, give them time to travel from their office
in Sarasota down to their job if they need to come down here.
Can we remove that? Would that --
MR. DeLONY: The package that we negotiated we felt was fair
and accurate with regard to the totality of the effort we're asking them
to do. That aspect of it is just one aspect of that design effort that
you're speaking to.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. Are--
MR. DeLONY: Just a second. Just a second. Can I answer -- let
me see what -- Harry, go ahead. Introduce yourself again.
MR. HUBER: For the record, Harry Huber, senior project
manager for public utilities engineering department.
If I'm correct in what you're referring to, I think that's -- in the fee
schedule in the professional services agreement where it talks about
the travel, those fee schedules are specifically for if we have -- request
them to do any additional services, but the contract itself is a lump
sum contract so they wouldn't be paying -- be paying -- be paid
anything additional for any travel under the basic contract.
Those fee schedules in the professional services agreement are
strictly for any additional services that we may request them to do
outside of the, you know, lump sum contract.
So if I may, I could maybe have Ms. Lynn Wood from the
purchasing department confirm that, but that's my understanding.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
Page 187
December 14, 2004
MS. WOOD: Lynn Wood, purchasing agent and contract
specialist for your purchasing department. Mr. Huber is correct --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. WOOD: -- about what he said.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the analogy, if Mr. Huber
says, go over to Fort Lauderdale and look at this plant, they've got a
great new thing going on, they would get reimbursed for time and
travel, but under the contract, they won't get travel time from their
office to the site or the office to Mr. Huber's office?
MS. WOOD: Correct. You're correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Great. I feel a lot better about
that. But there is some overtime being -- in what cases would they be
paying overtime when it's a fixed contract? I don't understand that.
MR. HUBER: I don't -- the best of my knowledge, there's no
provision for overtime in the lump sum contract. I mean, it's -- the
lump sum contract is a negotiated --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry. I misread that.
MR. HUBER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I apologize for all these
questions. I received this contract yesterday and finished it up today.
MR. HUBER: And it's -- primarily that's the county's standard
professional services agreement. That main thing that we insert into
that would be the scope of services, which is that 60 pages, and then
the -- you know, the fee schedules that I mentioned before relative to
additional services.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The $3.2 million, what would
that be? Would that be the preliminary design and architectural and--
MR. HUBER: That would -- primarily, that's -- that's the --
where I arrived at that figure is that's the amount remaining, available
funds in the budget for this fiscal year. And, in fact, in the executive
summary, I recommended that we base the authorization on an annual
-- to proceed on an annual basis based on the amount of fundsm
Page 188
December 14, 2004
available in the budget.
But that would just primarily take us through preliminary design,
which then would not be site specific at the particular point in time at
the end of this fiscal year, and which would also coincide with the
rezoning approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In the -- in the contract it refers
to landscape architectural -- architectural, which includes landscaping,
decorative walls, fencing, building to development. Is that in
accordance to the land development code, or is that --
MR. HUBER: Absolutely. That would have to meet the
minimum requirements of the land development --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's a minimum of the
land development code?
MR. HUBER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess --
MR. HUBER: And that would --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This will be answered in the
rezone, will it have to meet architectural standards?
Cost of the business adjustment?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And every year that this
contract is going forward, there would be an annual cost of business
adjustment?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. That keeps it competitive over the life
cycle of the contract, this being a multi-year contract. That's much--
in my view, sir, I recommend that that is a good a way of doing
business when we know what those fixed rates would be, and people
wouldn't unnecessarily wire all those into the full life cycle of the
contract. We have some control over those escalating costs.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Here's one concern that I have.
Schenkel/Shultz -- and I guess this is my biggest concern.
Schenkel/Shultz Architectural -- and are they the -- for the noise
Page 189
December 14,2004
abatement, are they doing noise control services or are they doing
architectural services?
MR. DeLONY: Architectural, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. In the hourly rate
schedule we have an executive and then the partner and then the
principal, but then you get into the people who are doing the work,
and I'm kind of objecting to paying the owner $265 an hour, and I'm
not sure what he does except for, you know, make payroll.
MR. DeLONY: As briefed by Mr. Huber earlier, the contract
that we're asking you to approve is a lump sum contract. Those rates
that you see would be those rates we would use if we had additional
services, required additional services outside the current scope of the
contract. I can promise you if we're going to bring someone on at 265
an hour, we're going to take a hard look at that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 285, I'm sorry.
MR. DeLONY: Excuse me, 285 an hour. We'll make a hard--
make sure we do a hard look at that, make sure that's true value for the
contract.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's a part of the contract, and I
just can't understand what an executive's getting paid for when it's
really the people who works for the executive is going to do all the
work.
MR. DeLONY: Well, again, sir, I don't know if I can answer
your question any different than what I did. Within the scope of
services that we've detailed for this --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. DeLONY: -- project, we have a lump sum that the county is
being asked to pay --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know, I know.
MR. DeLONY: -- should it come time that we need additional
services or we find out of scope requirements. Certainly we don't
want to be hitting that $285 fee very hard, and we'll make sure that,
Page 190
December 14, 2004
with the project delivery team and the clerk, that what we're getting is
of a fair and reasonable value.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I understand it's a lump
sum figure.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I just hope you heard my
concerns --
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, I do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- because I just have a real
problem with that.
MR. DeLONY: Sir, I understand.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have Commissioner Coletta
next.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
Commissioner Halas brought up some good points, and that had
to do with the present utility that's there and can they supply to a given
point in time. We can't guarantee what Orangetree Utility's going to
do. I mean, we've had all sorts of problems for some time; however,
we did have it built into our code and our laws that in order to get your
CO, you have to have a certificate of adequate facility; is that correct?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, that's true.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So if at some point in time there
is a falling off and they do not have the capacity to be able to handle
the next thing that's coming down, the existing customers will be
protected over and above anything new coming in.
And I think that some of the developers that are into that area
now and are going into that area realize that if there is a falling out,
they may have to provide for their own facilities to that point in time
the county comes in -- online.
The problem if Orangetree Utility goes down, it's real deep, goes
very far. And if they do fall along the way, I'm going to expect that
the county's going to bring the full force of whatever resources it can
Page 191
December 14,2004
bring against them to bring them into compliance.
One of the things though that I am a little bit concerned about,
and that has to do with the zoning by contract. That's what the
appearance of this is. Could you tell me, assure me of the fact we
doing the right thing according to the way we're set up and the public
process?
MR. DeLONY: Sir, I'm going to defer to the county attorney
first, then I'll follow him. Sir?
MR. WEIGEL: If I may, thank you, Jim.
The term that we typically work with is contract zoning where
the zoning itself is contracted with the owner, petitioner, or developer.
In this particular case, we own the property, the 216 acres.
And so it's -- one might say it's impossible to do contract zoning
with ourself; however, I can state, however, that there will be a
process no different than the process that would occur with anyone
with a rezoning where this property -- this property will need to come
through the self-induced, county-induced petition process with staff,
be administered, come to the planning commission and then to the
Board of County Commissioners.
The planning commission as well as staff will make
recommendations to you. Ultimately the board will have the
determination as to whether to rezone the property or not. It's always
in your prerogative. You will never be forced to make a decision one
way or another.
As Mr. DeLony and Mr. Huber indicated, this contract does, in
fact, become site important or site critical at a point in time later on,
and I believe -- and they can correct the record if need be -- that the
rezoning process instituted will come to pass and a decision made
before we reach that time critical period of site specificity with this
particular structure that's being designed.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's it. Yes, I had a question also.
Page 192
December 14,2004
On page 2 it was saying the estimated cost of construction for the
initial phase, and then you give the 60 -- $60 million plus $78 million.
What does initial phase mean?
MR. DeLONY: This would be the first increment of
construction. In the master plan we've got plan expansions from the
beginning throughout the life cycle of construction of that plant before
we get to full build-out, and that's for the first increment of capacity
for those plants.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I see.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So in other words, this is for now for
these functional plants --
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- to go into operation. It's going to cost
us $78 million, and then if, indeed, we want to expand those plants,
then that will be the next phase. This wasn't just year one?
MR. DeLONY: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine.
MR. DeLONY: And we'll be -- of course, be back to you and
talk to you about the timing of all of those issues -- excuse me -- of
that construction, you know, since subsequent meetings, but this is the
first phase of construction.
It will do a lot to set the footprint for the ultimate build-out in
terms of the land use, obviously, in terms of the actual arrangement of
the site development plan, the site itself, and then all of it would be
viewed toward ultimate build-out of that site for full build-out, full
utilization of that site in terms of plant capacities and plant functions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And full build-out is what, like in 30
years or so?
MR. DeLONY: Well, you know, I'm going to reserve that one
for AUIR on Friday.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All right.
Page 193
December 14, 2004
MR. DeLONY: But I am going to tell you clearly that -- to be
seen. You know, we want to have flexibility to meet the needs and the
compliance requirements that aren't foreseen. But best guess, today,
by your staff and by your direction -- but our intent is to look at this in
a very flexible way and allow for those capacities to come online in a
cost-efficient and best value manner, so --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I just wanted to make sure we weren't
paying $78 million every year for the first five years or something,
okay. You know, when it says first phase, that's what it -- okay.
MR. MUDD: No, ma'am. I believe in that contract they're
talking about 10 million gallons of water and two million gallons --
MR. DeLONY: That's correct, Mr. Mudd.
MR. MUDD: And I believe the ultimate build-out on that plant
will be 20 million gallons of water and 10 million gallons of sewer, or
thereabouts.
MR. DeLONY: That's our current plan.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Six million gallons of sewer. I stand corrected.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good. I feel so much better. Thank you.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I think we've accomplished a
lot in this county in the last few years catching up to where we should
have been in the long haul. And in a short period of time we've
accomplished a lot.
And I feel that at this time I'd like to make a motion for approval
on this project. I think we have to make sure that we plan for the
future. And the way that growth is going on in that general area, we
have to make sure that we're ready for the future.
So I make a motion that we approve this proj ect.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor to
Page 194
December 14,2004
approve the proj ect and -- by Commissioner Halas, second by
Commissioner Coletta.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just two comments. One is on the
issue of concurrency. We do see a lot of development out there and
we know that the existing water utility serving that area has been
having great difficulty.
Just so that the public understands, although there was a PUD
modification or rezone, a separation of a PUD, we have done nothing
which will grant anybody the right to build anything yet in that area.
We will -- they will have to demonstrate that the capacity exists
at that utility before they can build anything, and that might require
the new PUD petitioner to contribute money to that utility or create
their own package plant to service their new development. Right?
MR. MUDD: That's correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So although there has been
talk of about 1,200 units being built out there, nobody has a right to
build anything yet. And certainly where we get to that point, we're
going to be talking about phasing that development, them developing
their own package plant to provide services or them contributing
money to the existing Orangetree facility so that additional -- the
additional capacity will be available.
Now, the other -- other point is that there is a good reason in
contracting, particularly when personal services are involved, to
include the list of salaries of the people who are likely to be called
upon to do additional services. The reason for that is, you want to
know up front what the billing rates are. You don't want to be
surprised about it later. So you get them committed in writing right
now on what they would charge, and then you know that you're not
going to get ripped off later when you're over a barrel and you need to
have some additional services and you find out they want to charge
you $300 an hour rather than 250.
Page 195
December 14, 2004
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So that's the primary reason you
want to have those locked in to protect you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I -- I'm glad this project is
coming forward, and I agree with the statement that we ought to know
everything up front about charges. The only thing I disagree with is
paying the executive, the partner and principal something when I just
can't see that they're going to be an added value to the -- this proj ect.
And I would assume that their senior project architect and the architect
and the CAD operator will be, so --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, those are sometimes the most
experienced people in the company. They are, themselves, engineers
or architects, and many times you want some high powered pressure
on something to get something done, and you might ask them to attend
a meeting to make sure that you're getting the emphasis that you need.
And so that's the way you do it, that's the reason you do it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's just like when you had your
business, if somebody came to you when you had your business
before you took on this endeavor, and things weren't done right, they
came to you and you made sure that it got done right, so.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Commissioner Halas --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And they paid you for your
servIces.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In the other companies you
don't have the executive and the CEO and the partners' salary in here.
It's just that one firm.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, if the CEO is your top
individual that has the company, then, yeah, you're going to pay him
for the services rendered. You may be --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Carollo's not asking for it,
so I hope you're not suggesting paying them some money.
Page 196
December 14,2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, no.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Call the motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a motion on the floor and
a second.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a 4-1 vote on that.
MR. DeLONY: Thanks, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now, you know what I'd like to do, I just
asked Sue Filson out here if all of these items that we've pulled off the
consent agenda, how many have speakers in the audience, and we
have four items that have speakers in the audience. So the other three
we do not. I'd like to go to these four first, if that would be all right
with you, Commissioners.
Okay. And the first one is l6A3, which is the property tax
stimulus program. And we have three speakers on that.
Item #lOH
AN APPLICATION FOR THE PROPERTY TAX STIMULUS
PROGRAM, ADVANCED BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE
INVESTMENT PROGRAM AND THE JOB CREATION
INVESTMENT PROGRAM BY ADVOCATE AIRCRAFT
TAXA1J.QN COMEANY - A~OVED
MR. MUDD: And that's a recommendation to approve the
application for the Property Tax Stimulus Program, Advanced
Page 197
December 14,2004
Broadband Infrastructure Investment Program, and the Job Creation
Investment Program by Advocate Aircraft Taxation Company, and
this item was moved from the consent to the regular agenda by
Commissioner Henning, and Ms. Amy Patterson, our impact fee
coordinator, will present.
MS. PATTERSON: Hello. For the record, I'm Amy Patterson.
I'm your impact fee manager from community development. And if
you want to -- I don't know if you want to start with the public
speakers or if you have questions for me first. I can answer any of
your questions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I, too, had pulled this because I also had
questions, but wait until we have the public speakers.
We don't have to close the public hearing then, do we?
MS. FILSON: No.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. Why don't we -- as long as
that's okay, with you.
MS. PATTERSON: Fine with me.
MS. FILSON: Ready for public speakers?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MS. FILSON: Dick Botthof. He will be followed by Marsha
Sutherland.
MR. BOTTHOF: Yeah. For the record, my name is Dick
Botthof, and I'm the executive director of the Regional Business
Alliance, which is a subset of the Economic Development Council.
We're kind of a marketing extension of that.
And I'm here to speak in favor of bringing this company to
Collier County. I think it's a classic example of the type of companies
that we want to attract to Collier County. It's obviously a clean
industry. It's a -- high wages.
If my memory serves me correct, the wage is somewhere two and
a half times north of what our average salary is in this community.
They're all professionals, they're young people. They're the type of
Page 198
December 14,2004
people who will add to the fabric of our community, and I would
strongly recommend that the commission support these incentives. It's
what we're looking for in the county.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know, I better say up front why I
didn't want it pulled so that this way then you know what you're
dealing with from this commissioner anyway.
The reason I had it -- or I wanted it pulled was because in this
entire summary, they sounded like a great company, but there was
nothing that told us what their background was, what their credit
background was, what their financial feasibility was.
And, you know, we had that little problem with Sapphire, and I
don't know -- I don't want to see that again. And actually I was going
to suggest to EDC that from here on in, when they ever submit
anything to us, it gives us more information. We don't know how
many years the company's been in process. Although it says they
lease the space they're in now, I don't know if they can afford a space.
There's nothing in here that gives us that--
MR. BOTTHOF: Well, Commissioner Fiala, one of the things
that I brought, and I'm sure someone else has that, but I just took the
liberty of copying some excerpts off their website, but it also gives
you quite a bit. And the owner of the company actually has a home
here, and these are the --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But you know, can you say anything on a
website.
MR. BOTTHOF: Oh, I know that. I'm--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right.
MR. BOTTHOF: -- simply saying it for point of information and
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, there was so much lack of
information in here, it really threw a red flag for me. So -- and thank
you, Dick, I didn't mean to --
MR. BOTTHOF: No, no. No problem.
Page 199
December 14, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- interrupt you.
MR. BOTTHOF: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Marsha Sutherland.
MR. BAKER: Commissioner, excuse me. Denny Baker. Can I
say something, please?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure.
MR. BAKER: For the record, Denny Baker, director of financial
administration and housing.
One -- and your point's well taken, but we have to be careful
because when that information is provided to the county, it becomes
public information. If it's a privately-held company, the proprietor,
the owner, may have serious reservations about giving that to us.
That's the reason we use the EDC to filter all that for us.
Now, granted there is some information we can expand and
include in that, but certainly some of that may be considered
proprietary and confidential.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: EDC could just say to us --
MR. BAKER: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And nobody's asked them to do this. I'm
not admonishing anyone. Let me just say, EDC could then do this
background check and let us know when they submit this that their
credentials have been thoroughly investigated and they give their nod
of approval.
MR. BAKER: We can do that. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is Marsha Sutherland. She'll
be followed by Tammie Nemecek.
MS. SUTHERLAND: How do you do, Commissioners? My
name is Marsha Sutherland. I am an attorney. I'm admitted to
practice in the State of Florida. I am admitted but inactive in Ohio and
Georgia. I've lived in Naples for about five years. I am a new
Page 200
December 14,2004
employee of Advocate Consulting, and I've been asked to speak on the
financial stability of the company.
The company is closely held, privately held, by Lou Meiners,
who is a resident of, part time Indiana and part time here. He has been
involved with this company, Advocate Consulting, ever since the
inception of Blue & Company, which was its predecessor.
About 10 years ago, Mr. Meiners became the managing partner
of this portion of Blue & Company, and seven years ago he purchased
it. Ever since the purchase date, this company has been debt free, and
it has made a profit. Today it is still debt free and is still profitable,
expecting gross income of about $5 million.
I spoke with Mr. Meiners today to get this information from him.
It has substantial net worth. It's 100 percent owned and controlled by
him. He's admitted to practice law in Indiana, and he's also a CPA.
He's not admitted here.
The intention is to bring about 60 employees here in January.
We have two lease prospects. One of them will be a long-term lease
commitment of five years. We have not signed that agreement yet;
waiting to see what happens here.
The other one is short-term lease space for a period of one year in
Poinciana Office Park, and that would be short term. It's all ready for
us to move in, take over the phones, the desks, everything, so that we
immediately bring employees from Indiana.
I am currently working through the Indiana office. I live here, so
they're letting me work here, but all of the relationship so far has been
through Indiana.
This company has about 60 employees in Indiana. And of that
number, we're hoping to bring down about 25 to 30 in January or
February, and then more than -- you know, hire extra people here for
those who come to work here to have paralegals and other secretarial
administrative staff.
Okay. That's the extent of my information.
Page 201
December 14, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Tammie Nemecek.
MS. NEMECEK: Good afternoon. Tammie Nemecek, executive
director for the Economic Development Council of Collier County.
I would like to talk about the application and answer any
questions that you might have specifically with regards to the
company that we're in the process of recruiting here. And to keep in
mind that this company is still in that decision process, and we are
competing with Indianapolis in order for the company to stay there.
It was really something kind of out of the realm of thought from
the company to actually put the facility here, even though the owner
had a part-time home here.
And through the partnership, through the regional business
alliance, they were getting -- they were going through the process of
looking for facilities up in Indianapolis, and luckily we have the
context through the RBA where we could offer them an opportunity
to, instead of expanding up there and building a facility up there, that
they could actually come down here and move their company here.
And through this partnership and the incentive program offered
by the Board of County Commissioners, we are close to that decision
of the company actually locating here. And again, as addressed by
Mr. Botthof and Ms. Sutherland, the company will be creating 60 new
jobs with an average wage of $62,000, which fits into the criteria for
the high impact companies for Collier County in the incentive
program.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I -- there was a statement that
threw up a flag on here, and I have some concerns about it. And it
says, the State of Indiana offers competitive incentives such as
economic development for the growth economy edge credits that can
be -- can be added incentive for the company to maintain its location
Page 202
December 14, 2004
there.
Without the incentives Advocate Aircraft Taxation will have to
debate its decision to relocate their corporate offices to Collier
County, Florida.
Are they insinuating that we don't have incentive programs and
that we're going to have to come forth with some more incentive
programs for -- because that's how I read this statement.
MS. NEMECEK: Yeah. No, it's worded--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: They're looking for more yet.
MS. NEMECEK: Correct. No, the wording of it -- that's not the
meaning of the wording. The current incentive -- the current incentive
program that we're offering them has been worked out so that it is
sufficient enough to recruit the company here.
I will make one note though, the fact of the company building a
building versus leasing a building, and the issue came down to -- they
were ready to build a building in Collier County, and unfortunately the
incentive program for the impact fees was not enough to offset the
amount of impact fees that they would have had to pay in order to
build a new facility, so that's why they are leasing a facility.
Even though they'll still be paying their property taxes through
that lease arrangement, it is a -- it will be not the construction of a new
building, but the absorption of existing rental space.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have some nice abandoned boarded
up buildings in East Naples that need to have some attention.
Okay. We have next, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I guess that was the
question of the Board of Commissioners. Was it our intent when we
approved the program to provide this to businesses that are leasing?
And I mean, it sounds like a great company that I would love to have
in the community, definitely, but I can -- I can assure you that wasn't
my intent. And if that was the board's intent, I hope that we could get
clarification about setting precedence on this issue.
Page 203
December 14,2004
MS. NEMECEK: Right. With the leasing of the facility, they
are still paying their fair share of property taxes associated with that.
It's part of their lease agreement, so the property taxes are still paid by
the company through the program.
The building of the buildings is going to be an issue for us going
forward, because in the -- you know, the impact fees and the incentive
programs, while it covers a percentage of it for some companies, it
may not be enough of an inducement to get them here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not sure I have a question. I
think you've answered my question.
I still have a few concerns. I think we have to sort out this issue
of building leasing and the credits, but certainly job creation has --
there's no impediment to granting job creation credits here.
MS. NEMECEK: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I mean, with these salaries that
they're offering, we should be very, very happy to see these people
coming here.
MS. NEMECEK: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But from a policy standpoint, I
think we need to deal with the issue of the leasing. Now, I can
understand that this particular client is going to be investing $800,000
in improving the building.
MS. NEMECEK: The facility.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that presumably will increase
the tax base, and we will get some benefit from that. But we're going
to be looking at another one, I think, shortly here that has the same
situation, and we need to have a policy, a clear policy on that issue.
So I would appreciate anything you might be able to provide with
respect to guidance as to how we should proceed with that sort of
thing.
Page 204
December 14,2004
MS. NEMECEK: Will do. And the Property Tax Stimulus
Program is based on the fact that the companies actually have to prove
that they paid property taxes before they actually can get the incentive
on that, and that's an annual thing that they have to do for the next 10
years, so it's not something that they get up front or -- I mean, they
still have to prove that the jobs are there and that they actually paid
that tax before they can be provided the incentive.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's a good point, and it goes
back to Commissioner Fiala's concern. Despite the fact that we have
these incentive programs, we don't give the incentives until we see the
benefit. You don't give job credits until you've got the jobs.
MS. NEMECEK: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you don't provide tax credits
until you've got the taxes.
MS. NEMECEK: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But how do you -- the current
building owner is paying taxes right now.
MS. NEMECEK: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. This new business comes in
and leases that building. What tax base do you use for the purpose of
determining the credit, and what portion of it do you credit to the new
business coming here, and which portion of it do you credit to the old
-- the old owner of that building?
MS. NEMECEK: As far as I understand it -- and Amy can
probably clarify that -- is that with the lease arrangement with the
triple net, it's actually indicated on their lease agreement how much in
taxes that they pay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Is that -- but they can put all
the taxes in there, can't they? They can negotiate any kind of contract
they like with a triple net lease, and the lessee can be paying all of the
taxes of the building, right --
MR. BAKER: That's true,
Page 205
December 14,2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- or any portion of them?
MR. BAKER: That's true, however, we're not going to stand for
that. In terms -- we have to see all of the documentation of all of these
incentives before the county pays out one cent.
And in this particular case -- it's a very unusual case because it's
the first lease situation we have -- we're going to look at the total
property valuation, which we have information about, we're going to
look at their share on a square footage basis, and make sure that it is
consistent with their percentage of the square footage which they're
paying, which they're occupying.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. I think that was
an excellent way you phrased the question, and I like the answer that I
heard, that you don't get payment until there's proof that you complied
with what has to be done.
Whether it's paid to the owner of the property or it's paid to
reduce the amount the person's leasing it for, it's still a benefit, a direct
benefit that brings the person here.
I don't have a problem with it, however, I would like to ask our
county attorney if maybe someone could comment on that. Are we
following the intent of the law by allowing for money towards the
lease -- the lease for the rent part or -- excuse me -- for the tax part on
the lease rather than to the direct owner of the building? Are we within
our frameworks of what we originally set up?
MR. WEIGEL: I think the best answer I can give you is that you
might make -- if you should approve, that you approve provisionally
so that we see that there is no issue that we can't answer today that is a
problem in that regard, and if there were to be, that we would bring it
back. I cannot tell you off the top of my head that that is not a
problem, although it may not be a problem.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would I be able to make a
Page 206
December 14, 2004
motion at this time, Commissioner Fiala?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to make my motion at
this time that we approve it with the added caveat that if we need to
bring this back because of any legal reason, that we reserve the right
to do so.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'll second it, but does that
give the potential business owner adequate incentive to make a
decision?
MS. SUTHERLAND: I'm sure it will go a long way towards
that, and if not, I'll have him get in touch with them immediately. He's
out of town right now. He's up in Indiana.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I ask one point of
clarification then? Is the intent of your motion to make sure that we
clarify the procedures for determining the tax payment rebates or
assistance or incentives?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Actually, it was to make sure
that we're within the law to be able to make a reimbursement on taxes
paid to a lease holder rather than to the owner of the building. That
was the only -- the only thing that seems to raise a little bit of a flag in
my mind.
I hate to get into this and find out that six months down the road
we have this man aboard and everything and somebody makes a
challenge to it because our laws are written in such a way that it
doesn't make that provision.
MR. BAKER: Commissioner Coletta, excuse me. This is an
application that we're approving today. There's an actual agreement
between the recipient of the benefits and the county which is -- which
goes to the county attorney's office and is reviewed thoroughly before
we --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. In that case then -- I
Page 207
December 14,2004
don't want to cause the applicant any undue concern. I remove the last
part and would recommend approving it as staff recommended here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor to
approve as staff recommended by Commissioner Coletta, second by
Commissioner Coyle.
Commissioner Halas, did you have anything to say, or would you
like to just vote on this?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I've got just one item that I'd
like to bring forth here. It was stated earlier, the difference between
leasing and building a building because of impact fees, whether the
person that's coming to town with a new business, if the building's
been there, then there's been impact fees that were paid on that
building at some point in time. So it's all going to come out in the
wash whether the impact fees are the latest upgraded impact fees or
the impact fees that were put forth on this building at some other point
in the history, the amount of money in the lease is going to be part of
the equation for the impact fees. Just -- I want to make sure that that
was clear.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The only concern I have is the
precedent setting at this point, and if it's the opinion of the county
attorney that we're not -- this is standing on its own merits, this
application, we're not setting precedence, then I'm okay with it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is there case law on this?
MR. WEIGEL: I don't know without doing research without
having the question ahead of time. But I don't think we're -- I don't
think we're setting precedent other than the fact that we're new in the
program, and so we're looking for an orderly uniform application.
And if we find a bar and see an issue in the application, then it
cannot go forward and we'll inform the board certainly by memo or
correspondence as well as, if necessary, to bring back a board item at
Page 208
December 14, 2004
the next -- the next available board if it's the pleasure of staff and the
board.
But I cannot -- would not say that this is a precedent in the sense
that -- as an improper deviation from what is set up to be established
in the first place.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me just say, are we setting
precedent of -- if we have another leaseholder coming through and the
tax stimulus -- property tax stimulus--
MS. NEMECEK: It's going to have to be something that we're
going to have to address because there's going to be issues where
you're going to have an existing building that you may want a
company in there that's, you know, an IBM or something and they're
going to lease the building, and we need to make the decision whether
or not we're going to allow this arrangement or not.
But the bottom line of this is the fact that property taxes are paid,
and that's really ultimately what we were looking for is the fact of
whether or not property taxes are paid. And if they're being paid, then
do we provide that incentive to the companies for that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the property taxes are
being paid today?
MS. NEMECEK: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can't resist the chance to get
one more --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I noticed.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm getting as bad as Coyle and
Halas, I'm telling you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Wait a minute.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I mean as good as, as good as.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're not in the same arena as you
and Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I just wanted to point out
Page 209
December 14,2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you have the watch? Get me
the watch.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know. This is a dirty trick to
try to make me forget what I was going to say. It's not going to work.
I think we -- we've got to keep in mind, what's the objective of
what we're trying to accomplish? And what we're trying to
accomplish is very simple, it's to provide jobs in the area to --
high-paying jobs.
And really, think about it, if you've got an empty building out
there, do we want to force somebody to build a new building just to be
able to keep the program going, or would we like to occupy the
building that's existing to be able to keep things moving forward? Just
another point, another thought I just wanted to get forward.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That was a good one.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: With that --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have thorough --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- I hope I can get the last word
In.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, you did.
We have thoroughly discussed this subject, and I have a motion
and second on the floor --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Call the question.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- 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?
(No response.)
Page 210
December 14,2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 5-0. Thank you.
That was our three-speaker pulled item off the consent.
We have a two-speaker pulled item off the consent, and that's
16D4, Sanctuary Park.
Item #10M
AN AGREEMENT TO TRANSFER ASSETS AND RELEASE
SANCTUARY SKATE PARKS-COLLIER, INC. FROM AN
EXISTING SKATE PARK CONCESSION AGREEMENT-
MEROVED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 16A4?
MR. MUDD: No, 16D4, and that's what Commissioner Fiala
pulled off. It was the item that she -- that she pulled off during her
particular comments, a recommendation to approve an agreement to
transfer assets and lease Sanction Skate Parks, dot, Collier, Inc., to
release them from an existing skate park--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: D, dog.
MR. MUDD: -- concession agreement.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: D, Donna.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Donna, yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. Did you want me to tell you why I
pulled it, or do you want to just --
MS. RAMSEY: No, that's fine, yes. Go for it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Maybe that would be easier for you.
It tells us that you want to terminate this agreement because the
guy has asked to be terminated and -- but it doesn't say then what you
plan on doing with the park. It just left it empty, and there was
nothing that the county's going to manage it or who's going to do what
with it. Are you going to lease it out again? It was just lack of any
other information, and I pulled it.
Page 211
December 14,2004
MS. RAMSEY: Okay. I can give you that. I'm Marla Ramsey,
interim public services administrator.
The item before you today is -- the Sanctuary Skate Park gave us
termination as of September 30th of this year, and this agreement in
front of you is to codify that, that they are no longer in charge.
What we have done over the last couple of months is we've been
operating it out of the parks and recreation department on Saturdays
and Sundays from 12 to 6. And during that period of time we've been
gathering data to find out how many children are in -- utilizing this
facility or what kind of need there is in the community to continue to
have the skate park at this location.
Part of the reason for doing that is that we've been told by the
Sanctuary Skate Park that they have very few members, that no one's
participating, that they're taking a loss of 15- to $20,000 annually on
the park.
So part of our data between -- between the October 1 st and
actually tomorrow, we have a recommendation going to the board of
__ to the parks and recreation advisory board where we will discuss our
options based upon the data that we have.
I know that I have Mike Nelson behind me. We've had a lot of
conversations about what we can do with the skate park in the East
Naples area. And then once we have gotten a recommendation from
the parks and recreation advisory board, then we plan to be on the
January 11th agenda to present to you what the options are.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That means this will come back to
you us--
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- for consideration of some other
action, presumably budget action because you're going to have a cost
associated with operating that.
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct.
Page 212
December 14,2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think Commissioner Fiala's point,
and certainly my point is, that that probably could have been solved
with this one executive summary. Had you said what you're planning
on doing with it and what the annual cost is going to be, perhaps we
could have approved this, and we could have gotten it done all at one
time. And goodness knows, we need to do something about reducing
the volume of all this stuff.
So it was, in my estimation, and apparently in Commissioner
Fiala's estimation, not complete, but maybe in the future it would be
good if we just got all of the things decided when it's brought to us for
decision initially, and then we won't have to keep bringing these
things back for incremental approvals.
MS. RAMSEY: Just a comment on that. One of the reasons that
we haven't been able to give you a specific date or number, et cetera,
is that we have been working with the community policing in the East
Naples area, and they are doing some legwork for us as trying to find
some donations.
We know that the cost to repair the ramps that were left by
Sanctuary are over the $20,000, closer to the $30,000, in order to
repair it. We're trying to see if we can reduce that number for you, and
we haven't got all those ducks in a row for this particular meeting.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I can understand why you don't have
many people using it. Limited hours and repairs up to 20- to $30,000,
plus that big hole in the back of the thing. It must be very difficult for
anybody to even use the facility. I looked at it. It's -- and it is, it's a
terrible mess.
We have speakers.
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am. We have two speakers. Skip Riffle.
He will be followed by Michael Nelson.
MR. RIFFLE: Good afternoon, Commissioners and ladies and
gentlemen. My name is Skip Riffle. I'm the owner of the Family Bike
Center and a member of the East Naples Kiwanis Club.
Page 213
December 14,2004
We've had -- been discussing the possibilities of the skate park
continuing, and we think that it is something that is definitely needed
for the East Naples community to occupy the time of our kids, keep
them off of the streets, away from the malls, keep them in an area of
relative safety in their off-time. We believe that from what we've read
and been told, that the failure of the skate park thus far has been just a
real poor management by the company that had run it up to this time.
I'm not going to go into anything further, as Officer Nelson is
going to -- has got a lot more facts and figures on what can be done
with it.
But we do believe that from -- again, from the Kiwanis Club of
East Naples side, that this is just a valuable asset to the community,
and that if we should lose this facility or it be moved to another area of
the county, that the children who really need it would not have the
ability to -- for transportation to another part of the county to make use
of this facility.
The other parts of the county have different things that are
available to them, and this is definitely something that is needed here.
And it is -- was at one time a state-of-the-art park used by the ESPN.
And as Mike -- Officer Nelson will tell you, kicked off the career of
Tony Hock, which I think everybody, whether you're into skate
boarding or in-line skating, recognizes that name. But he got his start
right here in East Naples where he won his first medals.
Short of that, I'll let Mike Nelson do it, because he's got just a
wonderful presentation. But I just wanted you to know that we think
that it is needed and we support its continued existence in the -- in
East Naples.
Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON : Your final speaker is Michael Nelson.
MR. NELSON: Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I'm
Corporal Mike Nelson. I'm a community policeman and deputy in
Page 214
December 14,2004
East Naples.
The reason I'm here is to let you know that the skate park itself,
right now we're averaging about 100 to 125 kids every weekend.
We held an event called family day. We had over 400 children
show up to use the park to compete, to come out and enjoy it. A lot of
why it hasn't been used, it hasn't been maintained and the hours are
sporadic and people were getting thrown out from Sanctuary
management, so a lot of misinformation was there.
The other thing is they didn't maintain. And I've got a couple
pictures, if I can put them on the overhead.
MR. MUDD: Sure.
MR. NELSON: What you're seeing is the back wall of a 14- foot
half pipe, and a half pipe is an apparatus they use when they're doing
their in-line -- in-line stating.
That's the top ramp that the skaters would actually be up there
waiting on, and you can see where the plywood and everything is
delaminated. And also the rail, you can see where it's weathered and
checked, and it's not anything that parks and recreation has done. It
was simply Sanctuary not doing any maintenance to it whatsoever.
From the best I could find, they hadn't done any maintenance in
three and a half years on the wood structure. We already have
materials in place, people in place, to repair the damage that is there
right now so that the park can be fully operational.
We have people that are willing to come in. They've donated
their time, their material, their labor to get it repainted, to get it set up
so we can keep the park and keep it running.
I've been working with parks and recreation. We're buildings
some programs similar to what they offer at Wheels where kids can
get lessons. We have professional skaters that are coming down.
They'll be here this evening to help us layout things that we can do at
the park to make it a viable asset to East Naples and to the community
as a whole. Thank you.
Page 215
1.""_. .... ,--,--",,",~.,
December 14, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's all of our speakers?
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This skate park, was this built by
the parks and recreation department?
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. It was built about six, seven
years ago as a -- it was actually built originally to host the ASA, the
Aggressive Skate Association's World Championship. It was built at
that particular scale about six, seven years ago.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Then how did we let this thing get
in such disrepair, even though I would think that we would have had
control over it since we had a contract with a vendor here?
MS. RAMSEY: Well, up until three years ago, we did all of the
maintenance on this particular facility, and we've spent, probably
since it was built, over $120,000 up till three years ago on repairing
the ramps.
In the new lease agreement that we had with Sanctuary Skate
Park, part of their lease agreement for getting that facility was to
maintain the ramps to the level that we gave it to them. And when we
gave it over to them, we had done $50,000 worth of repairs on this
particular site.
And part of the reason why you're getting this a little bit late is
that we've been trying to negotiate with the Sanctuary Skate Park for
some reimbursement as to -- you know, we feel that they have failed
on their contract, that we have seen nothing in return, and what we
were able to get out of them was about $8,000 worth of retail
merchandise from the -- from the pro shop in exchange for leaving the
facility in the shape that they did.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I hope we have basically lessons
learned here so that whenever we get involved with another vendor
someplace else within the county, that we periodically go there and
determine what the state is so we can have a -- basically a stopgap at
Page 216
December 14, 2004
that point in time and let them know that there's some ramifications if
they don't take care of the equipment, because this belongs, really, to
the taxpayers.
I'm in -- I'm in favor of something like that. I think it's a great
idea, and it exerts a lot of that -- the hormones of young people to go
out there and get rid of this stuff. But I'm amazed that we ended up
with a situation like this. It somewhat amazes me a little bit.
MS. RAMSEY: It's very frustrating to go onto a park and try and
get some kind of results from a concessioner who's a for-profit, trying
to make dollars off of our children but yet putting none of it back into
the park, and the lease agreement really didn't have a hammer for us in
order to make it happen.
We would -- they would go in and make minor repairs in order to
keep the facility open, but not the major stuff that we really needed to
have done.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I bet it was kind of hard to get your
figures for the last few weeks that you say you were operating it with
it being in this type of disrepair.
MS. RAMSEY: We are average -- we are honoring about 100
memberships right now that the Sanctuary had when they turned it
over in September. There's about 100 members to the facility. We
have absorbed all of that and are running them through until it expires,
which is December 31 st.
Our goal and our recommendation to P ARAB tomorrow will be
that we need two part-time people to offer like Thursday, Friday,
Saturday, Sunday, open hours for the children, and that they have the
same benefit that Wheels has in the fact that it will be $10 per year
and no additional costs associated with it.
The fees for this particular park at this time were $30 per year,
plus $3 for a three-hour session. And if you look at what Edges was
doing at the time, it was definitely a disadvantage to that particular
location.
Page 217
December 14, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: What's Edges?
MS. RAMSEY: Edges is the skate park at -- near the mall at
Fleischmann Park.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Go ahead. I'm sorry. I didn't --
MS. RAMSEY: That was basically my point, is that -- so it's
difficult for us to know how well the East Naples park will respond,
and that's why we've been gathering data, getting addresses of where
the children are so we can determine if they're being -- you know,
coming from other parts of the county or if they're actually East
Naples children.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you very much. That's why
I wanted to pull it. I didn't know what all was involved, why it was on
here. Thank you for explaining that.
I appreciate the other speakers who were here to also give us
some background history on this as well, and good luck tomorrow at
your P ARAB meeting.
And so may I have a -- I'll make a motion --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- to approve.
Okay. I have a motion and a second by Commissioner Halas.
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?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. That's a 5-0.
We're going to take a break for our magic fingers court reporter.
I'm sorry that I held you so long. We have two others with speakers.
We have the Naples Depot, Southwest Heritage, and we also have
Page 218
December 14, 2004
Creation Investment Program, each has one speaker. We'll be back at
5: 15.
(A recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, you have a hot mike.
Item #10K
A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHWEST HERITAGE, INC.
FOR USE OF THE NAPLES RAILROAD DEPOT AS A BRANCH
FACILITY OF THE COLLIER COUNTY MUSEUM AT AN
ANNUAL RENT OF $1, STAFFING AND OPERATIONS COST
OF $200,800, BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS AND REPAIRS OF
$250,000, AND EXHIBIT DEVELOPMENT COSTS OF $85,000 -
AEERQVED
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
Now we go on to --let's see. We have the depot -- the Naples
Depot, item D -- 16D7.
MR. MUDD: l6D7 is a recommendation to approve a lease
agreement with Southwest Heritage, Inc., for use of the Naples
Railroad Depot as a branch facility of the Collier County Museum at
an annual rent of $1, staffing and operational costs of $200,800,
building improvements and repairs for $250,000, and exhibits
development costs of $85,000.
And it was moved at Commissioner Coletta's request, and Mr.
Ron Jamro, our museum director, will present.
MR. JAMRO: Good afternoon Commissioners. Ron Jamro,
your museum director.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Jamro, I'm sorry to interrupt
you. With the permission of the chair, possibly I could direct the
questions that I have. I think we're all very familiar with the -- thank
you very much, Donna.
Page 219
December 14, 2004
How can you make me lose my thought so easily? I'm telling
you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, that's all right.
I thought possibly I could put the questions directly to you and
save everybody a lot of time. I think we're all very familiar with it. I
believe that we're all solidly behind it; however, a couple of things
that gave me concern was that in the summary, there was mention that
the City of Naples' surplus fund from the Diamond Jubilee could be
used, but it didn't give anything past that point. It was just a little
blurb in there.
And also that landscaping would be maintained and improved,
improvement would be provided by the City of Naples also. And it
was in there as a blurb as something that would very possibly take
place. And, of course, any time we can expend our budget from the
museum, the more we can accomplish, the more we can come across
for other things. Is there anything that you know that's a little more
solid and that they might do it?
MR. JAMRO: That's a great question. I would almost defer that
to Lodge McKee, who I think has been in contact with the city more
than I and is working that end of it. I think tomorrow a decision is
expected on that one-time gift, we think about 22- to $25,000, and I
believe the mayor has made an informal pledge to assist us with the
maintenance of the facility, at least the grounds anyway.
Is Lodge still here?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MR. JAMRO: Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, let me introduce Lodge
McKee --
MS. FILSON: He's the registered speaker.
MR. JAMRO: -- president of Southwest Heritage. I'd call him a
little early because he may have more insight on that.
MR. McKEE: Good evening. This is -- I'm Lodge McKee. I'm
Page 220
December 14,2004
the president of Southwest Heritage.
Yes, we did meet with representatives of the City of Naples after
our last meeting with you to discuss what participation they might
consider, and what Mr. Jamro has referred to has, in fact, taken place.
And I believe Chairman Fiala has a letter from the mayor --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, I do. I shared that with Jim Mudd --
MR. McKEE: -- to that effect.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- to then dispense to our other members.
MR. McKEE: Yes. Certainly that might help to answer your
question.
The surplus funds was really an initiative that came from one of
the councilmen to dedicate those surplus funds to the new depot
museum facility, recognizing that this is not really a city initiative. It's
an initiative from Southwest Heritage for the -- on behalf of the people
of Collier County, but the city wants to show their enthusiasm and
encouragement for the initiative.
We also talked, as has been mentioned, about the landscaping,
and I had cleared that with both the mayor and the city manager, so
we -- we can throw that into the mix.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. That's fine. And, of
course, the council has to approve it.
MR. McKEE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And at that point in time that a
motion's made, and I may be the one to make it -- I'm kind of hoping it
will be contingent upon their agreement on the council meeting that's
coming up so that we can keep it all flowing forward. And that's
great, because it's interlocal agreements like this where we work
together, then we come up with a product that far surpasses anything
that either one of us could do by ourself.
Pretty good for this late in the day, huh?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, it is.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The other thing that I wanted to
Page 221
December 14,2004
go over, and this really doesn't -- isn't going to be part of the vote, but
I just want to make sure that we realize that we're finally getting to the
point where we're meeting some of the needs for coastal Collier
County with the museum that we're going to be going into.
This is going to be a museum that's going to really service Naples
and the area that's around there. I think we're going to be meeting a
tremendous need for that area, and plus we're going to incur a great
expense.
I want us to start looking and thinking about when it comes time
for the next budget that we wean the other entities off that are
non-County from the process so that we can dedicate our monies to
the museum.
Sometime we might be able to come up with a special grant to be
able to meet certain needs, but I'm very concerned where this is going
to go and what kind of doors are going to be opened in the future for
others.
Right now we have two ventures out there, and that's the
Conservancy, with some of their special projects and displays in their
building, and the Botanical Gardens, which everybody dearly loves.
But your funding is going to be limited in the future, and this is going
to be drawing quite a bit. Between now and then, I just want to give
thought to the whole thing.
And with that, if I may, I'd like to make a motion that we approve
this contingent upon the City of Naples' contributions of their surplus
funds from the Diamond Jubilee and the agreement to maintain the
landscaping as a part of the agreement.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Does that mean then that if they do not
vote in that manner --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then it has to come back to us.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I see. And we can do that, as far as come
back to us, County Attorney?
Page 222
December 14,2004
MS. ASHTON: Yes, you can come back. I don't know ifit will
delay any time constraints that the depot has, if any. It's conditional.
MR. McKEE: Well, the time constraints -- the most critical issue
really is for the museum itself more than the -- than Southwest
Heritage. Ifwe're delayed into January, so be it.
Our concern is that the museum has an opportunity to get this
facility open to the public during the winter season when we can make
a difference. And so we're anxious. But I think we'd be in tough
shape if, yes, it was going to be six months or nine months or
something like that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I assume that by the letter
that I've seen and what you've told me that it's nothing more than
getting it before the city council to give their official okay. So why
should there be a delay?
MR. McKEE: You know, obviously I can't speak for the city
council.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I understand that, but I
don't see where this is going to be an impediment. It shouldn't be an
impediment, I mean, if everybody is really truly expressing their true
feelings.
MR. McKEE: No, we have -- we have pursued from the outset a
j oint effort aided -- aided by the friends of the Collier County
Museum, aided by the members of the Southwest Heritage, there are
some 600 member of that association, the City of Naples, and you
folks.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right.
MR. McKEE: There is a lot of ground support, ground troop
support for this initiative, and it comes from many, many different
directions, and we're very anxious that it benefit all the people of
Collier County.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor. Did
-- and a second?
Page 223
December 14,2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There was a second, yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine.
We have Commissioner Halas and then Commissioner Coyle
wanting to question.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Put me off.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This letter doesn't state the price.
All it says is that they're going to come up with some kind of a
monetary value, but there's nothing stated in that letter that it's
$25,000. Is -- also is the city going to continue each year to put
$25,000 towards this museum; do you know?
MR. McKEE: I don't believe so.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is this a one time?
MR. McKEE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. When I look at the figures
here and I see 85,000, 250,000, 200 -- another $200,000, I get
concerned into exactly where we're leading -- going and where this is
leading us to because of the fact that we have county-owned
museums, and I'm hoping that we're not going to take funds from
those county-owned museums and place the money into here, because
we have projects on those county-owned museums that need to be
addressed also.
I feel that we need to take -- make sure that we take care of our
own family before we get involved in additional -- additional
museums here.
So I guess what I need is an answer from the director of
museums, is -- are we going to take funds that are allocated presently
from the county-owned museums and use this in regards to shoring up
this piece of property that we're not going to own? All we're going to
do is pay $1, and it's on a 30-year lease, which is renewable twice for
30 years?
MR. JAMRO: No, Commissioner. That's a valid concern. And
we are on a rotation with the various museums. Next year Roberts
Page 224
December 14,2004
Ranch will be receiving the bulk of the funds. We're finishing the
exhibits here in the main museum. But this plan uses only additional
funds that were collected in the museum's category, TDC category,
this year because of the strong finish to the season, and reserve
monies. We don't -- we aren't stopping any projects or shorting any
projects or changing them to finance this new venture.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you're also -- on Friday you have a
joint workshop with the TDC, and one of the items on that workshop
is to talk about modifying the ordinance to talk about how you want to
continue to fund non-county museum type items and what percentage
you want to put against that particular item to see if you want to move
a heavier percentage against county museums in that process.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have some concerns because
every time we turn around, there seems to be more people stepping up
to the trough here on these TDC funds, and this is a -- this is not an
endless well here of money.
And so if we're taking on other obligations as a county, we have
to make sure that we find the way that we're going to fund them. Is it
going to be strictly TDC dollars, is it going to be ad valorem dollars,
or is it going to be a combination of the two?
And when I look at -- looking at what our initial investment is
going to be here -- and yet we don't own the property. And that's --
that's a big concern of mine, okay?
I have a real problem whereby we're just leasing this property.
Somebody's being kind enough to us to say, oh, by the way, we're
only going to charge you a dollar a year, but yet we're putting in a
tremendous amount of money and we're going to have to make sure
that we take care of our own museums before we take on additional
expenses. That's the only thing.
And I don't mean to beat a horse, but I'm very concerned about
that, that we make sure that we have sufficient funding for the
museums here in Collier County that we presently own.
Page 225
December 14,2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't -- I'd like to expand upon
your answer a little bit too, Commissioner Halas, because I don't want
him to feel that maybe he didn't get the accurate answer to the
question, but let me -- let ask you something.
His concern is that you not divert money from other museums to
this particular facility. I don't know that you can make a commitment
like that because clearly you're going to take exhibits and bring them
to this particular facility.
If those exhibits come out of another museum somewhere, there
has to be some slight transfer of cost from one to the other. And over
time it might be that you will find that one of your other locations is
not nearly as good as this location is for a central Collier County
museum.
So I would hate to lock ourselves into a position where we
couldn't make some decision about transferring certain things from
other facilities. And I don't want Commissioner Halas to feel like he's
gotten an incorrect answer here.
Now, am I right here, Ron?
MR. JAMRO: Yes and no. Financially we're not moving
money. Although when -- and if you decide to make this the fourth
county museum, obviously it becomes part of our budget, it gets a full
consideration at that point in time.
But the collection -- the museum's collection, the people's
collection of artifacts and the case works and the panels, the
interpretative tools that go with those, are one -- are centrally held
here at the mother house and then sent out to the satellites as required.
So there's no transfer of funds when that happens, just inventory.
This case will work better in this application so it's going there, and
that's the judgment we make in each situation.
Obviously we don't have a tremendous surplus of cases, and
that's why we'll eventually need to, you know, get some funding to
Page 226
December 14,2004
develop those, and a really compatible presentation with the depot,
which is transportation here in Southwest Florida, which will be a
very -- you know, an exciting theme.
But that can wait, and we can begin with the things we do have in
surplus, and -- through temporary exhibits which we'll -- which we'll
get that up and running and test our theory if, in fact, we can draw the
crowds we hope to draw.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you very
much.
Now, with respect to the City of Naples' participation in funding
-- and I'm pleased to see the mayor's letter. We do need to nail down
the amount, as you pointed out.
But remember, if there are any ad valorem property taxes
involved in providing this support, we have to keep in mind that 25
percent of that comes from the City of Naples, so they are, in fact,
contributing substantially if ad valorem property taxes are used for
that purpose.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Any other comments from
commissioners? .
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor and a second.
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?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, 5-0.
MR. JAMRO: Commissioners, thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Page 227
December 14,2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: May I ask one question? If this is
such a great deal for the county, why do -- why are we renting this
property or leasing this property for a dollar a year? Why don't they
just turn it over to the county to put it in as an asset?
MR. JAMRO: I couldn't answer that. Mr. McKee?
MR. McKEE: The property -- the property --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't -- then I'd have a warm and
fuzzy feeling.
MR. McKEE: No. As -- if it's converted to multi-family use, it's
worth about $12 million. We'd be happy to --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Wait a minute. You said you've
got a museum here, not a multi-family use.
MR. McKEE: Excuse me, sir. We'd be happy to sell it to you, if
ownership is the only thing here that really matters. We're a
non-profit organization whose reason for being is to preserve a
landmark in the community. And we -- we caused a study to be
conducted of what the highest and best use of that landmark was, and
the bottom line was, a museum.
And we investigated how to go about that. The study suggested
that we raise the money ourselves and do it independently, but we felt
that we weren't equipped to do that as well as our Collier County
Museum system is.
The county has facilities in the City of Naples. There's nothing
unusual or strange about that. The library seems to work really well.
We've got some great schools in the City of Naples, and they're
Collier County schools. They're part of the Collier County school
system.
So this really -- the fact that the depot happens to be in -- within
the City of Naples isn't the issue. We want it to be the best museum
that it can be.
And so we've tried to make the least expensive overture that we
possibly could, and that is to simply offer it to the people of Colliern
Page 228
December 14, 2004
County for $1 a year.
The maintenance, I mean -- and I've been here for a number of
your meetings, and you approve some pretty large budget items out
here. You did one today that was simply for consulting fees. It wasn't
anything permanent; it was a consulting fee, and it was in the millions
of dollars. We're a cheap date. I don't see the problem.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well said.
Item #101
APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE JOB CREATION
INVESTMENT PROGRAM, THE BROADBAND
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT PROGRAM AND THE FEE
PAYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM BY GUADALUPE
CENTER, INCORPORATED AND PROVIDE FOR THE WAIVER
TO PAY THE UPFRONT FIFTY-PERCENT OF THE
ESTIMATED TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES AT FINAL
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL, BUT INSTEAD PAY
ALL IMPACT FEES, IN FULL, AT ISSUANCE OF THE
BUILDING PERMIT THROUGH THE FEE PAYMENT
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And now we move on to the last
item that has a speaker, and that's 16A4.
MR. MUDD: l6A4 is approval of an application for the Job
Creation Investment Program, the Advanced Broadband Infrastructure
(sic) Investment Program, and the Fee Payment Assistance Program
by Guadalupe Center, Incorporated, and provide for the waiver to pay
the up-front 50 percent of the estimated transportation impact fees at
final site development plan approval, but instead pay an impact --
instead pay all impact fees in full at the issuance of the building permit
through the fee payment assistance deferral agreement.
Page 229
December 14, 2004
And, again, Amy Patterson, the impact fee coordinator for Collier
County, will present.
MS. PATTERSON: Hello, again. Amy Patterson, for the record.
I just wanted to go on the record quickly before we discuss the
Guadalupe Center and say that when we brought forward these
incentives back last November, we brought forward five great
programs, and we've learned a lot of things along the way with
Sapphire and with the other programs of what we should and should
not do.
But I wanted to reassure the board that when these people come
forward as applicants to these programs, there's -- basically what
you're seeing is the very early steps of how somebody gets into the
program.
First the EDC takes their application in and is reviewed
thoroughly by the Economic Development Council, which is then
forwarded over to community development/environmental services to
the financial administration and housing department for protection
(sic) that I work for, where we go through all the information that we
need to qualify the people or the company for the program, and that
involves the number of jobs they're creating, the wages, their capital
investment and all of the other issues that are required by the program.
At that point we evaluate them as a viable candidate or not, and
then at that point we come forward to you and ask for the Board of
County Commissioners to endorse our recommendation to accept
them into the program.
Again, at this point, no dollars are changing hands. We're not
giving them anything except an acceptance into the program. In order
for an applicant to receive any kind of incentive funding, they have to
come forward with the proof that they've created the jobs, that they've
put the broadband infrastructure into their building or that they've paid
their property taxes.
And in the case of the impact fee deferral or fee payment
Page 230
December 14,2004
assistance agreement, they enter into a legal agreement with the
county where we put a lien on their property so that if, in the event
that anything went wrong where they defaulted or they sold the
property or they didn't meet the qualifications of the program, the
county is protected, they've protected their investment into that
company.
And so that's just something that I wanted you all to know that
there's -- we've learned and we're being very, very careful as to not
being taken advantage of or to be taken by surprise by any kind of
events.
And with that, I will turn to the application for the Guadalupe
Center and any questions that you may have on that program, or on
that applicant.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I don't know who pulled that one.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I did.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I never envisioned a
not-for-profit organization applying to this plan. My understanding, it
was business, job creation. And, I mean, we have a lot of wonderful
not-for-profits out there.
I was envisioning businesses, you know, and not not-for-profit.
MS. PATTERSON: Right. The Guadalupe Center is expanding
by 17,000 square feet, and in that, they're adding 25 new employees,
that's creating jobs.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the average wage is
$16,000, 17,800, and I just think that would be more government
assisted for those new people.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have one speaker.
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am, Tammie Nemecek.
MS. NEMECEK: Good afternoon. Talking about Guadalupe
Center and the program that they're eligible for out in Immokalee and
looking at the qualifications for the program, the criteria is met for this
Page 23 1
December 14,2004
company to qualify for the program.
Looking over and above the bottom line criteria for qualification,
we're looking at a day care facility-servicing employees out in
Immokalee, and that does take into consideration, I think, as far as the
application goes.
But as far as qualification for the Guadalupe Center, we have met
the requirement for it. It would be determinate upon the board of
whether or not this is sufficient enough to qualify for the program.
And it's entirely up to the board, but it has met the qualifications for it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have Commissioner Coyle,
then Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Tammie, could you explain what
will be the benefit of broadband communications for the Guadalupe
Center?
MS. NEMECEK: They are putting in fiber optics. That's a
choice of the company of whether or not to put fiber optics into the
facility, and that's their choice. And if they choose to put fiber optics
into the facility out in Immokalee it's an extremely important benefit,
because again, you're adding to the usage and the demand for fiber
optics in a community that have very limited broadband access.
So this program has actually incentivized this company to put
fiber optics into the building rather than just going maybe with a T-l
line that does not improve the broadband infrastructure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I guess my problem -- my concern
is that when we came up with that particular incentive program, its
purpose was to attract high-technology organizations. We encourage
people to build buildings with broadband technology so we could
attract companies with high technology backgrounds and higher
salaries than $17,000.
I am concerned whether or not broadband technology is being put
into this building merely for the purpose of getting some incentives
and some payments from the government as opposed to creating a real
Page 232
December 14,2004
opportunity where technology organizations are actually being
attracted to the Immokalee area.
MS. NEMECEK: It was -- actually the program was put in
twofold. One, it's a benefit to the technology companies coming here
that we know that we're going to request broadband access. The
second part of the program -- because we made it available to any
company in Collier County, doesn't matter what industry that they're
in -- was the point that we wanted to induce the usage, the demand for
the usage of that fiber optic network within Collier County.
We have learned over the years in dealing with this issue, we've
done a connecting Collier County study years ago where we brought
together all the various industries, construction, technology, medical,
non-for-profit organizations, analyzing the usage and demand for
usage, and what we've found is that working with the providers of that
technology is that the demand needs to be there before the products
are put into the ground, that they just won't build it, and this type of
program is designed to induce companies to demand that usage,
therefore, upgrading the infrastructure that's in the ground.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Final question, with respect to the
average salaries. What assurance can you give us that this average
salary isn't arrived at by taking a couple of fairly high salaries for
executives and averaging it with a lot of very, very low salaries that
cannot meet the normal standard of living in Immokalee?
MS. NEMECEK: The program requirements just ask for an
average of all the jobs created. So it does take into consideration that
there may be some at higher wages and there may be some at lower
wages, and that's how companies are designed, with the fact that
you're going to have some secretaries and that kind of support
personnel as well as management personnel, as well as upper
management personnel. So there are requirements as far as just
documenting the specific number of jobs and the average wage of
those jobs.
Page 233
December 14,2004
MR. BAKER: Commissioner Coyle, Denny Baker. Again,
before we reimburse them, we will do an audit of the jobs, the W-2s,
added to the payrolls during this period of time and calculate the
average and verify this number.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But I thought we actually
required jobs above a certain level in order to provide the incentives,
rather than just an average salary?
MR. BAKER: No, sir.
MS. NEMECEK: Average of all the jobs.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So, in other words, somebody could be
making $10,000 and require assistance, but they would qualify?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we would have to provide --
MR. MUDD: But it's the average of all the new jobs. It's not --
it's not the old jobs.
MR. BAKER: Not existing jobs, only jobs created.
MS. NEMECEK: So the 25 -- when you average out that 25, you
would have to have people making hundreds of thousands of dollars
versus people making $10,000. I mean, in the -- when you average it
out, that's what the outcome of it is that we're looking at, the
aggregate.
You look at the average wage of Collier County. We're not
looking at each individual wage. We're looking at the aggregate of the
average Collier County is 30,994, and that's our baseline, so we take
average to average as far as the comparison.
And that's -- again, it's the requirement of the provision. We're
matching the same requirements that we go with the State of Florida.
And how the programs are designed and developed is an average of all
the jobs that are created.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think -- and I'm just visioning
some figures. But I believe with 25 jobs roughly, if you had two
people make $70,000, you could have the rest of them making
$10,000, and you'd average out pretty close to 17,000.
Page 234
December 14,2004
But, you know, that's the kind of thing we've got to guard against
if that happens, because that's not helping us at all. We're creating
positions where we're going to have to provide supplemental services
for those people, so the cost to us becomes rather great.
And I think right now is not the time to belabor that point. We
have a policy. But it would be good if you spent some time taking a
look at that and determining how best to control that, because we
could very easily dig ourselves into a hole here if this sort of thing
actually occurred.
MR. BAKER: I agree, Commissioner. And I do remind you that
there are three zones, and the most east -- the more west you come in
Collier County, the higher the percentage of the average wage --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. BAKER: -- and Immokalee is the lowest, of course.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sure, sure. Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It's average, not base.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This has been a very stimulating
conversation, I'll tell you. And we're covering a little bit of new
ground, but mostly old ground. I want to remind you that the
objective, not so much is a project that's being produced, but it's
services being provided. Not so much even the services being
provided, but the wage that's being paid for a meaningful service to
sustain itself. And Guadalupe Service is providing a very needed
service that enables the rest of the economy to function.
I do agree that as we get into the process farther, we need to be
able to look at these things and maybe fine tune it so that we can make
sure that we have the ability to be able to say, you know, that these
jobs that are being provided do not go below a certain amount.
And of course, Immokalee, for some time to come, maybe
another two or three months, will remain at the low end of the pay
Page 235
December 14,2004
scale. Well, it might be a little longer than that. But I, for one, think
that this is very worthy of our consideration, and I'd like to make a
motion for approval.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I hear a second?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: The motion dies right now. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think Commissioner Coyle's on
the trail here. I requested some information, and two individuals, the
combined salary is over $100,000. And the amount of people that are
directors and treasurers and so on, they get zero as far as
compensation.
So I'm not sure if this falls into the equation that Commissioner
Coyle was referring to. And this was ending 9/30/2003 is the income
tax return that I had. And so if anybody wants to take a look at it,
they're more than welcome to.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But does that deal with new
jobs?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I don't know.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Because we're talking new jobs.
That's not existing jobs.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, that says -- with the amount
of people that you've got here, directors and secretaries and treasurers,
they're not getting any kind of compensation. They're doing this on
their own except the two, so I'm not sure how they're doing this as far
as directing new jobs.
MS. NEMECEK: If I may, to -- there's a certain amount of
community service that goes into this project. I mean, we're talking
about a day care facility. And as we know, with the day care
facilities, it's very difficult to make the numbers work, especially in
Collier County with land costs, construction costs, and impact fees.
Page 236
December 14,2004
And that was one of the things that, again, they brought out that said,
without this incentive program and the assistance on the impact fees,
we just can't expand this facility to provide the service.
And so if there's a way that maybe at board direction that we set
a limit -- if the concern is the wages, that we could go ahead today and
go ahead and set a limit as far as, you know, only employees at the
$17,000 or the 50 percent minimum that's a requirement of the
program, it not be the average of all the jobs, but 50 percent minimum
and above would qualify for the program and that we could recalculate
based on that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That would make me feel a lot
better.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, me, too. Me, too.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That might be a good solution for
our overall problem.
MS. NEMECEK: Correct, correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This happens other places, not just
here in this particular proposal.
MS. NEMECEK: Right, right. And for Immokalee we have a
lower requirement, but instead of doing it as an average, it would be a
mInImum.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think that's so much better. And one
other thing, now that my commissioners have all spoken, this is
50l(C)(3) so they never pay taxes, and it's only one of 430 50l(C)(3) s
in Collier County, which means this is -- this is new ground for this
company, and it paves the way for 429 other companies to want the
same incentives who don't pay any taxes, but then if we -- if they
require services that no taxes are paid for, yet they have to dip into the
general funds for, I think we can get into some serious problems. I
think we need to address that.
MS. NEMECEK: Right. And actually only -- if you're outside
Page 237
December 14,2004
the Immokalee enterprise zone, you would have to comply with the
industry requirement only --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Which is?
MS. NEMECEK: Which would be biomedical, information
technology, manufacturing, aviation, corporate headquarters.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, but medical -- like, for instance,
NCH, they're not-for-profit. They don't pay any taxes. And so they
could apply, you know.
MS. NEMECEK: NCH would be part of that biomedical.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MS. NEMECEK: But keep in consideration that it's not open to
every 501(C)(3) in the community. In Immokalee we get the special
provision of waiving that industry requirement. It's the only location
in Collier County with that industry requirement. Outside of that,
NCH is probably the only one outside of that that would be required.
You could also have some sort of research institute come to the
community that may be a nonprofit as well, and so that consideration
would need to be made.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I bet --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You mean my church wouldn't
be qualified?
MS. NEMECEK: Not outside of Immokalee.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I would bet that there are others that
could somehow find a way to fit into that parameter. For instance,
you know, the shelter for abused women, I'm sure they provide some
kind of health care to those who --
MS. NEMECEK: SIC -- their SIC code would preclude them
from doing it. So it really -- I mean, based on specific -- and we have
those NICS codes now that really prequalify that outside the
Immokalee area.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Could you -- could you -- unless the
commissioners don't agree with me, do you think you could go to take
Page 238
December 14, 2004
a look at that and make sure that we don't have a bunch of other
50l(C)(3) s coming up for these incentive programs just because
they're there?
MS. NEMECEK: Yes.
MR. BAKER: It just so happens, Commissioner, we think we
have one coming very soon from the Immokalee area so -- new
construction. Similar to Guadalupe, but on a smaller scale. I'm not
certain, but I think so.
MS. NEMECEK: And that would be the direction of -- if it's a
nonprofit organization, that it's precluded maybe just within the
Immokalee area and needs to meet the minimum wage requirement,
something of that sort. But we can work with Denny's office to bring
back some sort of recommendation on that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. Like you said, we're -- I mean,
Amy kind of said, there's a lot of bugs to work out in the program. It's
new to us, and with each new one, we learn a new lesson, so it's just
something to think about.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think this is an excellent point,
and it deserves some serious consideration.
What we have to ask ourselves, is the intent of this program to
encourage economic growth in Collier County? And if so, what role
do not-for-profit organizations play in stimulating economic growth in
Collier County?
And if you reach the conclusion that they don't contribute as
much as a for-profit organization, then it would appear to me that you
must give priority for for-profit organizations in this incentive
program.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a motion on the floor and
a second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would you restate the motion?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would somebody restate the motion?
Page 239
December 14,2004
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, I don't think you have a motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, we don't have a motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It died.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, that's right. It did die.
MR. MUDD: I think Commissioner Coletta made a motion, it
wasn't seconded, and then it died, and that's where it stands.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Okay. So would somebody make
a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make a motion not to
approve.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor not to
approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And I have a second to that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But I'd just like to add something,
if you wouldn't mind. Perhaps you could sort out these issues and
come back to us.
Is there anything that would preclude them from coming back in
a reasonable period of time if they have additional information and/or
new policy guidance?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, I don't think so. Right, David?
MR. WEIGEL: No. If you set the question up right, which
you're doing, you can come back. And typically if you come back
with something different, even if a little different, then it's not the
same anyway.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think when we voted on this -- or at
least let me just speak for myself. I had understood the base salary --
see, I didn't hear -- I didn't hear average. I heard base salary would be
$15,000 in Immokalee.
As it was, I was concerned that it wasn't enough, but then I was
assured by some of my fellow commissioners, no, that's fine. I wanted
to make sure they weren't being slighted, but I never thought it would
Page 240
December 14,2004
go below 15,000, so I would feel a lot better if that were a base salary.
Okay.
So we have a motion on the floor and a second.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a 4-1 on that. Thank
you.
MR. BAKER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now we go back to item l6A2.
Item #lOG
RESOLUTION 2004-391: 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.
MR. MUDD: l6A2 is item number lOG, and it reads,
recommendation to adopt a resolution amending the Collier County
administrative code fee schedule of development-related review and
processing fees as provided for in codes and laws of section 2-11, and
it's basically changes to the PUD monitoring fees.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I pulled that one, and I had all
my questions answered. I'm very comfortable. Thank you.
So I'll make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
Page 241
December 14,2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor to
approve by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Coletta.
Yes, David?
MR. WEIGEL: Madam Chair and Commissioners, I would
appreciate if the motion and second could include a revision relating
to lOG, and it's -- the correction on item lOG is located on page 9 of
Exhibit A under second L3, which should read as follows -- and this
has to do with the cost of copying the official zoning atlas map, the
sheet publications and maps -- and reports shall be copied at actual
cost.
As presented to you is says $.50 a page. Sometimes the cost may
be less than $.50 a page, sometimes it can be more than $.50 a page.
And under the public records law, it actually has to be at actual cost.
So with that change, I'll provide this to the reporter, and if you
would add that into your --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's part of my motion.
MR. WEIGEL: -- motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And part of your second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
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?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
Next we'll move on to l6A9.
MR. MUDD: Next is 10J, it's l6A9, and it's a request that the
board approve the reinstatement of the PUD amendment process by
the department of zoning and land development review in order to
Page 242
December 14,2004
allow for a PUD amendment to be processed in the form of a
substantial modification to the PUD rather than through a total PUD to
PUD rezoning process.
And Commissioner Coletta pulled this particular item.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, at the beginning of
the meeting I said that my questions were answered, and I asked --
MR. MUDD: I'm sorry, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- that it be kept on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. We kept it on the agenda.
MR. MUDD: Excuse me, sir. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's quite all right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry.
MS. FILSON: l6E4.
Item #lOL
RECOMMENDATION TO RETAIN FROM ACTIVE SALES
VARIOUS PROPERTIES OBTAINED FROM AVATAR
PROPERTIES, INC., AND WHICH ARE PART OF THE GAC
MR. MUDD: 10L then, ma'am, and that is -- and that is an item
-- it used to be l6E4, and that's a recommendation to retain from
active sale various properties obtained from the Avatar Properties,
Inc., and which are part of the GAC Land Trust.
Commissioner Coyle pulled this particular item.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me explain why I did that. If I
could refer you to page 2 of the executive summary, it's the last
paragraph on that page.
It says that they're asking for the authority to bring -- make these
parcels available for sale when it is in the best interest of the land trust
without having to come back to the board for approval.
Page 243
December 14,2004
Now, I interpreted this as a request for a change in policy. I
presume that they would not have asked this had they not in the past
had to bring it to the board for approval, and so the flags go up and I
say, why are we trying to take the Board of County Commissioners
out of loop. And so that's my question.
MS. MOTT: For the record, Toni Mott, Real Estate Services.
And in the past the board has directed the committee to have the
authority to remove parcels from the reserved list and make them on
the active list without coming to the board, and what that did was it
provided them the flexibility of ensuring that there was an ample
amount of reserve money available because of timing issues. The land
trust committee meets every other month, and then preparing an
agenda item and getting it to the board for approval, it could be an
extensive amount of time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But you're actually asking that
these particular parcels of land be made available for sale without
board approval.
MS. MOTT: Only the ones designated as future marketability.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Right. And my question is, if
you're holding them for some future point in time, what is the urgency
in getting board approval to put them up for sale?
MS. MOTT: In the past, to date, the board has approved agency-
funding requests in the amount in excess of $1.6 million. Right now
we do have over $1 million in our reserve account, so this may not be
applicable. The committee was just being consistent in asking the
direction that the board has provided them in the past.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'm still confused. If the
board has provided them guidance in the past, why are we taking the
board out of the process now?
MS. MOTT: We're not. The direction from the board in the past
did allow the committee to remove items -- to remove parcels
designated as future marketability from the reserved list to the active
Page 244
December 14,2004
list without coming back to the board. That has been the board's
direction since 1988.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then this is not a change in policy?
MS. MOTT: No, it isn't, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then why the phrase, without
having to come back to the board for approval? If you've never come
back to the board approval in the past, why is that phrase included in
the paragraph?
MS. MOTT: That's just standard verbiage that was carried over
from the previous executive summaries.
MR. MUDD: So you do -- so you --let me try to help a little bit.
So Toni, you do this how many -- every five years?
MS. MOTT: Every five years. In the past the board has directed
the committee to reevaluate the reserved lands, check with the
agencies that have parcels specifically set aside for their potential
future use. There are also parcels set aside for future marketability
because of their location and their size.
Now, if the committee approved that, then it would be every five
years. So unless some other motion or some other direction was
provided to the committee in order to allow them to remove specific
parcels in the event that they felt it was in the best interest of the land
trust, they would have to wait five years or bring an individual item
back to the board on each separate occasion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'm getting confused with
the terminology then. To me this paragraph says that you can decide
to make a parcel available for sale without getting approval from the
board. Is that a policy that was established in the past, or is this a
change in policy?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that was a -- that was a policy that
has been used in the past, and every five years it comes back to the
board with that complete list and for reauthority to exercise that
particular option for the next five years for the committee that
Page 245
December 14, 2004
oversees the GAC Land Trust.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm next, and then Commissioner Halas. I
had also asked to pull this.
So we don't even know what happens to the land then or to the
money? I mean -- because it has nothing to do with the board, we
give you approval for every five years, and then you don't ever have to
tell us anything about this land again or how much money you sold it
for, who it went to, where the money went to.
What are we doing here? I don't -- I don't quite understand why
we're giving away our authority.
MS. MOTT: There's the 1983 agreement between Avatar
Properties and Collier County which provides rules and regulations on
how the land trust should be handled. We have -- the board has
appointed a land trust committee. They meet bimonthly, and they go
over any business that's viable.
There are fire districts that have come before the committee,
parks and recreation asking for funding. The land -- the monies
derived from the lands that are sold through the list is deposited into
the land trust, and that's where the money is available for the different
agencies when they come and make requests.
So we do report to the board, and actually the board votes on
those agreements.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: The Avatar board?
MS. MOTT: The Board of County Commissioners actually vote
on the agreements based on land trust committee's recommendation
that you should approve X amount of dollars for the purchase of
equipment, fire equipment.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I've seen that before, and yet, of course,
the Golden Gate fire district needs to have an MSTU in order to pay
for their expenses. Does this money go to them? I don't understand.
I'm having a real problem with this myself, because -- because I
guess we don't have as much involvement in it as maybe we should.
Page 246
December 14,2004
Yes?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, Halas is before me.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to turn over to clerk of the
courts so -- because I think they have a concern. That was one of the
issues that the clerk of the court, Jim Mitchell and I, sat down and
discussed, and I was going to pull this also, but it was -- there was
other people that were concerned this.
So, Jim, go ahead.
MR. MITCHELL: Well, primarily when I read this, it begs the
question -- and this is one that I'm hoping David can help me with, is
this in effect a delegation of discretionary authority that is vested with
the Board of County Commissioners?
And I realize it may have been a practice that's reviewed every
five years, but this time when we're looking at it, that question has
come to the front.
So David, if you could, where are we at with that?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay, fair question.
As I -- as I review this, Jim, and board, that particular paragraph,
which as I understand from Toni, is a paragraph from prior executive
summaries, but it does not mean it's a separate stand alone policy that
the board has adopted, notwithstanding that there is a 1983 agreement,
which sets up parameters for certain things to occur and properties to
eventually -- eventually be sold and provide a revenue source to the
county to use in the district in that area.
But it appears to me, Jim, that the authorization that the board has
employed in the past, and would be asked to do here, is that these Ian
-- the board is saying these lands will be sold, and it's just a question
of time.
And the discretion -- the only discretion is in the time of the sale
and not in the decision to sell in the first place.
I guess we're parsing a bit. The question, is that illegal
Page 247
December 14,2004
delegation? I don't think so. Is it a policy with vagueness that the
board maybe wishes not to go forward with at this point? Could be.
But I think the board is indicating these properties shall be sold, and
it's just a question of time at that point.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry. Commissioner Coletta
was next. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, yeah. I've seen the
process take place over about as long as I've been here in Golden
Gate, and I've had a number of people on that committee, people I
know, we've appointed a number of people to it. And the funds are
dedicated just to be used for Golden Gate Estates in lieu of the fact
that Avatar never came up with the money to build what was the
infrastructure that was supposed to be there.
They'd had a certain amount of latitude. I don't know if they
have overextended themselves or not. I don't think so. But I do know
that the final decision still came back to the board. We got to see the
final results of it every time.
They are an advisory committee. I don't know. The wording in
here leaves a little bit to be desired as far as it will not -- it's not going
to come back. If anything, I just think the understanding's very
simply, we approve this thing not as is. We amend is it so it states
very clearly that the final decision comes back to the Board of
Commissioners as it should and has in the past. I think it's that
wording that's got everybody excited.
MS. MOTT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think if we just eliminate that,
that would remove your objection, wouldn't it?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Am I next?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not sure of that. I'm not sure it
Page 248
December 14,2004
will solve the problem to do it exactly that way.
The amount of money you derive from the sale of the property is
sometimes decided by when you decide to sell it.
And I think that if the Board of County Commissioners has a
fiduciary responsibility for maximizing the revenues from this, we
should at least be told why someone thinks now is the right time to put
it on the market, and we should be able to hear that, have a debate or
discussion, and also take into consideration any land planning issues
that we might be aware of that might impact the proper timing of the
sale for that property.
And I'll just use an outrageous example. Let's suppose we know
we're planning this big regional park and it's going to be built five
years from now, and we think we can get a lot more money out of
adjacent property that's owned by the trust if we wait until after we
build that park, because it will be more valuable. And so, you know,
we are aware of those kinds of things, and it appears to me we should
be given the authority and opportunity to make those kinds of
decisions.
And so what I would suggest is that we just have it brought back
to us --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and then we'll hear the
arguments for putting it on the market, and if we disagree, we'll tell
them, and if we don't disagree, we'll give them the go-ahead.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, staff doesn't have a problem with
removing that whole number three, okay, and coming back to the
board every time they need to make a sale on the particular problem.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Let's do that.
MR. MUDD: That's not an issue and, you know, it's not that
hard to do. And those are -- that's easy.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then that would be my
recommendation.
Page 249
December 14,2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just read the agreement
between GAC, or the Avatar, and the Board of Commissioners, and it
was back in the '80s when they were being defunct. It states that any
property in the trust must be sold, no less than 90 percent of the
appraised value.
MS. MOTT: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So, you know -- and the
properties out there available are not much available for building on,
you know, that I viewed.
These properties that are on this list, or the evaluation list, that
was in -- one example was in the school board's domain and now it's
going to parks and rec. And I'm sure that parks and rec. and other
facilities such as fire departments -- and I hope Jim DeLony's taking a
look at it -- you're taking a look at it, see if it fits any of your needs.
I feel confident in the process. The actual sale comes back to the
Board of Commissioners anyways; is that correct? We -- if we have a
contract, a purchase contract, it still comes back to the Board of
Commissioners?
MS. MOTT: No, it does not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That is the only problem
that the Board of Commissioners -- and that's a fiduciary duty that we
should have, because even though it's in the trust, the Board of
Commissioners or -- well --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we're basically taking away three,
so that means every parcel that's going to be taken off this list and put
up for sale will come in front of the Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. I think that arrangement was
arranged many years ago with a different commission, and now --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. Now we kind of like to keep a
closer look at everything. So I feel comfortable with it now that that's
Page 250
December 14, 2004
taken off.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So do I hear a motion to approve with that
caveat?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve with the idea
that any land that's sold comes back to the Board of County
Commissioners for approval.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Halas, a second by Commissioner Coyle.
Any further discussion?
(N 0 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?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a 5-0 on that. Thank you.
MS. MOTT: If I could tell you one more thing though. The
Board of County Commissioners previously approved the sale of
individual parcels. They gave staff the ability to market those parcels
at 90 percent of appraised value in an attempt to expedite the sales
prior to coming back to the board on an individual basis. Those are
for the parcels that are on the active sales.
The agenda item that we're presenting today is for the reserved
parcels. So if that's the board's intent with respect to the reserved
parcel, that's great.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: What does reserved parcels mean?
Page 251
December 14,2004
MS. MOTT: What it actually means is back in 1988, originally
Avatar properties conveyed 1,061 acres to the county. Of that 1,061
acres, certain parcels were set aside for use, fire districts, parks and
rec., library. Some were designated as future marketability because of
their size and location.
I do have that breakdown. There's a total of 162 acres set aside
from the 1,061. A little over 97 of those acres were designated for
potential use by Golden Gate fire district, Big Corkscrew Island Fire
Control. The remaining 64.17 acres were designated for future
marketability. So that's what is on the reserved list right now.
On the available list we only have approximately 14 acres left,
and that breakdown is contained in the executive summary. All of the
buildable parcels are currently under contract or a contract is pending.
The remaining parcels, which total 8.43 acres, on the available list are
non-buildable and we do not have them under contract right now.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So -- but reserved list didn't mean
somebody came in and put a reservation on it for when you're going to
sell it so they get privileged land that nobody else can then buy?
MS. MOTT: No. The Board of County Commissioners actually
approved this acreage be set aside as reserved lands for future use by
the fire districts or different entities --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's good.
MS. MOTT: -- and future marketability.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you're looking for
clarification, we took action on this item on the agenda.
MS. MOTT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you're thinking that we took
action on other ones, it has to come back.
MS. MOTT: All right. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All right. I just -- I have to apologize. I
thought I was -- I had pulled item l6B2, because that's one of the
Page 252
December 14,2004
numbers I thought somebody else had called out. I had four that I was
going to pull.
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, it was -- it was withdrawn at staffs
request.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay, fine. Thank you. That's why I
have it crossed out. Okay, thank you.
Okay. Now, let's see. We move on to -
Item #11
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS - BILL KLOHN
WITH MDG CAPITAL CORPORATION RE: APPROVAL OF
THE ARROWHEAD RESERVE @ LAKE TRAFFORD
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PUD FAST-TRACK PROCESS -
MEROVED
MR. MUDD: I think we're at public comment, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to adjourn is my public
comment.
MS. FILSON: Oh, no. We have one person registered for public
comment, Bill Klohn.
MR. KLOHN: Good afternoon and thank you for staying late.
My name is Bill Klohn. I'm president ofMDG Capital Corporation.
We're the developer of Arrowhead Reserve in Lake Trafford.
I may be the last speaker on the agenda, but we still remain the
largest planned workforce housing community in the history of Collier
County .
One of the things I'd like to say first, you know, the name
Arrowhead when we bought the property three years ago, should we
keep the name or should we rename the project. Fortunately today the
name worked out just fine because we're having our banner painted
that says Arrowhead congratulates the Indians. So good job to the
Page 253
December 14, 2004
boys in Immokalee for the state champ.
The reason I'm here this evening is to -- number one, if you'd like
an update on our progress at Arrowhead, which is tremendous, I'd be
happy to take that time. The primary reason is to ask for your
consideration in recommending to staff that they award this project a
fast track review process.
It's interesting that while this might be the largest affordable
housing community, that we still do not qualify for the fast tracking
because we didn't ask for, nor did we need, the density bonus credits.
I am doing a PUD amendment right now that modifies the depths
of my setback requirements. One of my builders, who has a contract
before me today for buying 330 lots, all of his product will not fit, so I
have applied for a PUD to PUD amendment, which I am well into the
process and I've paid my $18,000 to have the privilege of changing
about six number on my setback table chart, and I was very pleased
this evening to learn that you approved the PUDA process, which is
the abbreviated form of the PUD amendment. I think that this project
is a good example of why you should have and did support that.
In any event, I have a lot of progress and -- in construction with
regard to my roads. There's one example of our progress. We'll be
finishing Lincoln Road. If you look on your brochure, Lincoln
Boulevard will actually be complete within two weeks. That's about a
mile of paved spine road through the community. It's that road that
connects Lake Trafford Road to Carson Road.
We're also going to be completing what we used to call Future
Carson Road. If you look on the east side of the property, you'll see
Carson Road. That road, too, will be completed by the end of this
year.
My first 95 lots up near the top portion of the site plan, they, too,
will be completed with all infrastructure and lots ready to built on by
the end of the year.
In my PUD to PUD application process for the amendment of the
Page 254
December 14, 2004
setbacks on the chart -- I'm not going to ask you to approve any of
those numbers today. That's approved in the process. I'm simply
asking that Arrowhead be recognized as a fast tracked project -- fast
track project because of its affordable nature.
In the PUD amendment three years ago, I know that I was very
proud to commit to Cormac -- and thank you for staying late, Cormac
__ that we would commit to 15 percent, not less than 15 percent of our
residents to be at 80 percent of median income. In the reality, it will
probably be more like 50, 60 or 70 percent.
But it is that trigger that would automatically give me the fast
tracking. I'm reasonably certain that in our PUD hearing that I did
commit to that even though it didn't make the document. So I'm
prepared to say that in order to qualify for the fast tracking, that I'm
happy to make that commitment of 15 percent of my residents to be
earning not more than 80 percent of median income.
So unless you've got questions about other progress in the
community, I can cut this nice and short and say, please direct staff to
afford this proj ect the fast track process for PUD to PUD amendment.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to call Cormac up and
ask him some question, if I may.
Cormac, what are we being asked to do, I mean, at this late hour.
Is this something that is matter of fact normally granted, or is this
something that's a long process to get? Where are we with it?
MR. GIBLIN: No, sir. For the record, Cormac Giblin, your
housing and grants manager. Basically, all an applicant would need to
do to be considered as an affordable housing fast track review project
is to make a commitment in the form of a proposed land use
restriction, a developer agreement, a PUD restriction, an impact fee
assistance agreement, or some other type of instrument recorded
against the property that ensures its affordability for a period of no less
than 15 years.
Page 255
December 14, 2004
If in his PUD amendment application Mr. Klohn would like to
include one of those items that reserves at least 15 percent of his units
as affordable housing, we'd be happy to fast track it for him.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So this isn't something the
commissioner normally makes a decision on --
MR. GIBLIN: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- a one-by-one basis? It's
through your department. Is there a -- is there anything that -- is there
a time element with this that takes forever to get it done, or is this
something that's just matter of fact, one, two, three, and it's done?
MR. GIBLIN: I'm--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: To be able to get to the point for
fast tracking, to be recognized--
MR. GIBLIN: To be recognized as a fast track project, it is
pretty much one, two, three, and you're done. The actual review and
approval of the project does take some time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, you mean after it's been fast
tracked, it's still got to go through it. But I mean, to get to that point
you're being -- you're asking for right, to the fast track status, that's
something that staff can grant when you just meet one of the
requirements.
So I think you're there, and I think you've got a wonderful project
going. It's going to change the dimension of housing in Immokalee
tremendously, and I'm very, very pleased with the middle-class
housing you're putting in and the price you're going to put it in for.
Hopefully it will be a place that our teachers and our sheriff
deputies and many of the people that travel back and forth will find
reason to settle in that community and be a part of the Immokalee way
of life.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioners, by fast tracking it,
you're cutting their approval time from two years down to one year
and 11 months.
Page 256
December 14,2004
MR. GIBLIN: One clarification. He is not there yet. He does
have to agree to actually restrict these units within his PUD or through
some other type of agreement, and then we'll be there.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a couple questions. I just -- are
these going to be rental units, like apartment-sized rental units?
MR. KLOHN: To give you a brief summary of the project again,
we have 427 single-family homes in the single-family section of the
project.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right.
MR. KLOHN: We have 186 townhouses going in in this tract,
304 rental apartments here, and 300 flat over flat condominiums.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: What I'm concerned with are the rental
properties.
MR. KLOHN: Yes, we are--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I just heard some street talk. I'll just let
you know a little bit. I think this is a wonderful project. You know
I've been solidly behind it until I heard this little bit of alarming news
that one of the builders in there is the same builder -- I don't know that
this is fact. I'm telling you what I heard.
That one of the builders is the same one that built Whisper --
Whistler's Cove. If that's the builder -- and of course they charge a
$1,049, they call that affordable housing, for a three-bedroom place,
which is not affordable -- and I know what's happened because then
people have to share the apartments because they can't afford them at
that price, and the crime that comes out of there, it's been disastrous
for the East Naples area.
I don't want to do that to your area. If that's the same builder, I'm
going to have a problem with it.
MR. KLO HN : Well, I heard a -- I heard a rumor that you heard a
rumor, and I made a call to my apartment developer to ask them if
they had built the Whistler's project, and this is, in fact, their first
project in Collier County, and I don't think it's appropriate --
Page 257
December 14,2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good.
MR. KLOHN: -- to name the other developer, but it is not my
apartment developer.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But what are they going to be charging
for rent?
MR. KLOHN: Based upon the tax credit application approvals
that they've received for the financing of this project, it's my
understanding that the rents will be 575 on a two-bedroom and 675 on
a three-bedroom.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good. You got my nod of approval.
Okay. I just -- I just want to protect every other community from ever
having to suffer what we have to suffer with.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did we ever address your
question, Mr. Klohn?
MR. KLOHN: No. I am seeking --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Your question was to consider
your application a fast track --
MR. KLOHN: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- to get it to the Board of
Commissioners to approve.
MR. KLOHN: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'm going to refer you to
the commissioner of the district.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm more than willing to direct
staff to work with you to bring this about as soon as possible as long
as you meet the requirements that are there.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I'll second that.
Okay. We have a 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.
Page 258
December 14,2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: .Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. KLOHN: Thank you. I'd like to add one last thing, is that
in the pre-app. process and so on, staff has been very, very good to
work with and very supportive of the minor amendment that we're
making, and I'd like to thank staff and, again, Cormac for staying late.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And thanks for clearing that
up for me. Glad you heard what I heard, because that way you were
prepared.
Item #15
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Now we move down to staff
communications. We're going to be starting with David Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. l7F today had to do with summary
agenda, affordable housing amendment ord -- amendment to
ordinance relating to an alternate member. It appeared that it was not
problematic, approved without comment, and the county attorney
office will be bringing back, over the weeks ahead, other committees
with the alternate member concept similar to that.
No incentive for members not to show up because there's--
because there will be an alternate there, because they still have the
possibility of sanction of losing their own post if they don't show up
too many times. But we'll be bringing those back in the weeks ahead.
Page 259
December 14,2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: ,That's good. I think that's something we
started just a few months ago and --
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- it works a lot better. We have less
committees that can't function because of no quorum. Thank you,
David, for bringing more back to us.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we have any comments from our
county manager?
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, the only thing I'd like to talk about is, I
gave each commissioner a memo this morning that I signed yesterday,
and it had to do with the City of Naples Urban Services Report. I also
made sure that every one of the commissioners received a copy of that
Urban Services Report as soon as I got my hand on it, okay, and that
was basically Monday morning, and you got an opportunity, I hope, to
read that -- those 10 pages.
But there's some things in that report where there's some
anticipation from the city as far as that's concerned, and I tried to
address particular items where I'm trying to get some feedback from
the board on how you want me to reply, how you want me to start
negotiations, if you want me to start negotiations, or if you just want
to let it -- let it lay fallow for a while and see what -- and see what
happens as this goes through the process.
One is the water/sewer and reuse particular section. And
basically, it anticipates that the county is going to continue to provide
same and that we would enter into an interlocal agreement with the
City of Naples on that particular item.
You also have a resolution that was passed last January that
basically says reuse water isn't to be provided outside of the cou -- out
of the county into the municipalities. So we're making sure that you
know that.
I did make sure you were aware of the 25 percent surcharge that's
Page 260
December 14, 2004
basically charged to county residents receiving city municipal
services. And that might be-an item that we might want to talk about
since you will probably be providing, based on the city's plan, a good
portion of the city residents in Pelican Bay, if they choose to annex,
with water and sewer or reclaimed water, if you want to talk about that
25 percent surcharge.
You do not have the option, as an unchartered county, to put a
surcharge on any service. If you were chartered, you would, but
you're not, so you can't. And so if we're going to talk about leveling
the playing field, that might be an item that you might want me to
carry forward and talk about.
Another item in the particular report has to do with parks and
recreation and the assumption that the county will continue to provide
service to the two parks, one of which is a beach access type facility
and the other a tennis facility, if that is going to be the case. I don't
know of any other facility as far as parks is concerned where the
county is actually 'operating a facility within the City of Naples from
the parks and recs. side of the house.
I'll also let you know that parks and recs. is funded by the
unincorporated general fund. It is not a general fund funded particular
issue. There are -- there are parks that county residents do use in the
City of Naples, but when they do use them, they are charged a
surcharge on the regular fee, and there's a -- there's a fee schedule
that's higher than a resident of the City of Naples would provide. That
might be an item that you want me to talk and negotiate -- try to
negotiate with the city manager.
And last but not least is the item that I've been trying to work on
for the last year, I would say, Leo, if I'm wrong, with the Pelican Bay
Foundation, and that's trying to get covenants taken off of the parking
lot that's just south of the Registry to make it a multi-level parking
facility to try to increase the number of visitors on the beach south of
Clam Pass.
Page 261
December 14, 2004
And we've -- in conversations with the Registry, we've tried to
negotiate the ability to cost share part of the garage, cost share part of
the boardwalk extending south from the gazebo restaurant area that's
down there by the beach down south a little bit so that we can increase
the usage of that particular beach.
Those were the three items that I put in the memo to you.
Hopefully you've had time to read them.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, it seems we have, because we have
Commissioner Halas, Henning, and Coyle wanting to ask some
questions.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I read the proposal from the City of
Naples, and I felt that there was a lot that was lacking from that report.
I'm not sure if it was done intentionally or what, but I would hope that
the city manager would get in touch with you and set up meetings in
regards to this so that there would be a nice open dialogue between
you and the city manager and exactly where we're going to go with
this program and where we're -- where we're headed.
And maybe we need to bring some people in from Pelican Bay so
we have a three-way conversation so that all parties realize what we're
talking about.
It looks like some of their, the reports that they have, that
basically the costs that are going to be incurred by the city are about
$3.8 million for about four years, and then they'll break even. I have
some concerns about, as you brought up, the water issue and sewage.
And so I think really the -- I think, three parties needs to sit
down, and hopefully the city's got this all figured out.
I think we've given our information to people of Pelican Bay and
also the city, and I would think that now we need to sit down and
come up with some kind of a dialogue so we -- everybody knows
where we're at.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have commissioner Henning
Page 262
December 14, 2004
next.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The effluent is off the table.
The Board of Commissioners approved the resolution stating that the
effluent waters for the residents in the unincorporated area, and so -- I
mean, that's not going to be provided for, to the Pelican Bay residents;
is that your understanding?
MR. MUDD: At this particular juncture, yes, sir, that's my
understanding.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Unless you change the ordinance.
MR. MUDD: If that was going to come back on, then we would
talk about the 25 percent surcharge and try to level the playing field so
that the services provided between the City of Naples and Collier
County providing services to their residents are on equal standing and
they're basically paying a fee that it costs to provide that particular
service, and there's no artificial inflation to the cost.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the eff -- they don't
provide effluent, do they?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Not at this time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: To any county residents, and we
have a lot of communities out there begging for that service. So why
not provide it to them if they, you know --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think the county manager started
off this discussion by saying he was looking for some guidance as to
what we wanted him to do with respect to this. And my -- my feeling
is we have stirred this pot quite enough and that I agree with
Commissioner Halas that what we need to do is to have some quiet
dialogue with the county, between the county manager and the city
manager, and merely volunteer our services to be helpful and to
discuss issues and help resolve any problems until such time as we
find out this is going to be a reality at all.
It very well could not go any further. I understand there's
Page 263
December 14, 2004
supposed to be a vote sometime soon in Pelican Bay. And then after
that, the City of Naples has to vote. So I would suggest that before we
-- we start assuming this is going to happen, let's just keep the city
informed. Hopefully you'll share your memo with the city manager.
MR. MUDD: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And maintain open dialogue with
the city, and let's see where it takes us. And if this thing becomes a
reality, then we can sit down at a workshop and decide where we go
from there.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Here's -- here's my concern, is
the residents -- some of the residents -- I mean, it's -- clearly the
foundation members want to annex into the City of Naples. And I
would presume that some of the city council and the city manager
would love that.
The problem is, the people are not afforded the opportunity to
know some facts, and I think that the county owes it to those people
where we stand on certain issues with the possibility of annexation,
because we definitely don't want them to be surprised after they vote
on it. So we need to address some of these issues.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, the -- I believe that we have
reiterated the statement made by the mayor of the City of Naples,
which says we would like to make the decision that is in the best
interest of all the people in Collier County, okay.
It is -- it is not wise in my opinion to intentionally sabotage the
process by refusing to negotiate an interlocal agreement for effluent
water. If the county gets reimbursed for it and in return gets a
reduction for water/sewer rates for county residents who are currently
served by the -- by the city, that's a positive thing for. county residents.
And if you're suggesting what we're going to do is absolutely
refuse to cooperate in any way with respect to effluent water, then I
Page 264
December 14,2004
think you're right. I just think it's a mistake to take that position at this
point in time.
I think we should always be open to reasonable negotiation and
reasonable interlocal agreements, because I can assure you, this is not
the end of the annexation process.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Commissioner Coyle, you
were here when we passed the ordinance dealing with the effluent
stating that that would be for the county residents, the unincorporated
area. So I think that we've pretty much taken that off the table.
N ow what still is on the table is providing -- potential (sic)
providing water and sewer for the residents in Pelican Bay and coming
out with an amicable solution, but we've already taken the effluent off
the table.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you know, if we take the
position that we can never adjust our decisions based upon future
occurrences, then I don't think we're ever going to get anywhere here.
But if it is, in fact, the position of the commission that we're
going to refuse to even entertain an interlocal agreement to provide
effluent water to Pelican Bay, then please let's make that decision now
because what that will do is that it will stop the annexation of Pelican
Bay and it will encourage annexation of some other areas. So -- and
that will all be to the detriment of the -- Collier County.
So, you know, we can take a hard line if we want to. And I'll tell
you the same thing I've told you before, there's two sides to this
sword. It cuts both ways. And if you want to get into a fight like that,
and I do not, we're both going to suffer as a result of that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I -- you know, that's a vague
statement --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's pretty damn clear to me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and somewhat threatening.
I'm just saying that every one of the commissioners were here when
we passed that ordinance, so we clearly made a statement to the City
Page 265
December 14, 2004
of Naples and Pelican Bay. .And whether that was a deal killer, I don't
think it was, because they're. still proceeding forward with the
annexation question. And we just passed that last year.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And they're proceeding forward
with the expectation that Collier County government will be
reasonable in the negotiation of interlocal agreements.
Now, if we are not going to do that -- and, you know, I'd like to
hear that now, you know. If we're really going to take a hard line on
that particular issue, I think that's something that the city needs to
know now. And I don't think we should delay it.
If the Board of County Commissioners does not intend to
negotiate an interlocal agreement with the City of Naples if the
annexation occurs for effluent water, that's a very critical element, and
I think we need to know that.
So we've got one vote who says, no, I'm not backing off on it.
Are there any others?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. I think I'm next on
the hit parade here.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, you are.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's 6:50, we're getting late. I
think out -- I don't -- I hear a lot of comments being made that don't
sound all that user-friendly.
I don't think that we're ever going to reach the point where we're
going to close the door on anybody that lives in Collier County and
say, you know, this is it, 100 percent, you're dead in the water, forget
it, go away, we're not going to talk to you, take us to court. You're
right. But I didn't hear Commissioner Henning saying that either, and
I didn't hear our county manager, Jim Mudd, saying it.
I think that if the point in time does come and money's not the
obj ect and they want to come forward with some sort, of offer to drop
the 25 percent surcharge that they charge all the residents outside of
the City of Naples for water and sewer, including the county, if they
Page 266
December 14,2004
want to do some other thing~ to make amends and make it -- oops, I'm
sorry -- like Mr. Mudd said,. or I believe the commissioners little said a
little while ago, what's good for all of Collier County, and what's
going to be in the very best interest of everyone.
I don't think we're going to go into this hostile. We're going into
this with open eyes. We're going to go into it with an open mind, but
also we've got to protect the financial integrity of everyone in Collier
County that's got an investment in this.
And I'll tell you, one of the things I haven't heard discussed that
really gives me great concern is the cherry picking that goes on in
these particular mergers of different areas. It's totally wrong, it's
inappropriate, and if there was some way to address that -- if you want
to take Pelican Bay, take Naples Park. If you want to take something
in East Naples, then take the rest of East Naples and deal with the
problems that go with it. Don't just take the most affluent areas and
then expect the county to step up to keep dealing with what's left.
I mean, we try to encourage in Immokalee middle class housing
to go in. We're even trying to encourage country clubs to come in to
give the community a balance. And if you start to remove the balance
where you put it all into a small enclave, you're just going to destroy
the whole reason the people came to Naples in the very beginning.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I stand where I -- my feeling is I
stand where I stated before, that I think that we need to get all three
parties together and sit down and -- with cool heads and try to come
up with some kind of an interlocal agreement. I think we should leave
that option open.
And we know -- or our county, our staff knows what needs to be
-- what needs to be done, and I think that we just give them guidance
to go in that direction, and we'll see where it shakes out at. That's it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, I think that's exactly
Page 267
December 14,2004
where we aught to go, and I think that solves Commissioner Coletta's
concern about cherry picking. I think the one way to discourage
cherry picking is to sit down and work out rational agreements with
people. And if you do that, you can specify certain conditions in that
agreement and achieve goals which are beneficial to all parties.
But if we -- we continue to take hard lines on these things and
fight each other, then we don't achieve those goals, and again, I think
we both are poorly served as a result of it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we're -- I guess the direction
I hear is, deal with the sewer and the sewer issue, the charges, and the
water and the water issues, Pelican Bay and what the City of Naples
provides, because, you know, let's face it, the other downside of this,
we're losing, what is it, $4 million from Pelican Bay?
MR. MUDD: About 3.5 million.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 3.5, so we need to deal with that
in the next budget.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: About 4.2 billion, isn't it, or 4.5
billion?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Not taxes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh. That's the --
MR. MUDD: We're talking about 3.5, then the city makes it
about 5.8.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, Commissioners, I'll just weigh in on
this just a little bit and say that I had read that the people from Pelican
Bay were going to be voting on this, we should have an answer back
15th of January. We're going through the holiday season now. I think
that gives us plenty of time to talk in between, and probably
everybody's going to be pretty busy anyway. Why don't we discuss it
at a meeting after the 15th of January.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Page 268
December 14, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is that okay?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All right, fine.
MR. MUDD: That's all I have, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Cheryl Coyle left, and I was going
to introduce her and ask her if she wanted to say anything. She's
usually with us the whole time, and I figured, my goodness --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: She's been telling me how to vote
all day.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Didn't you see the hand signals
back there?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And now, Commissioner Halas, any
comments?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd just like to say that it was a very
interesting day, and at this time I'd like to wish everybody here, the
staff and all of my fellow commissioners and everybody else in the
county a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's very nice, and I also
would like to extend the very best wishes to everyone for the holiday
season and looking forward to the coming year.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, ditto. I hope all our staff
has a wonderful holiday and looking forward to the new year, even
better -- bigger and better than this year.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Everybody's talking like this is our
last meeting this year, and we're going to be in meetings several times
this week --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Last BCC meeting, yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We'll still be in meetings.
Page 269
December 14,2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: .Is that your final comment?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's my final -- bah humbug.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And you have to live with him, Cheryl.
Cheryl is back with us. I just want to say how pleasant it is to look out
there and always see her smiling face. It's kind of like reassuring that
we have a friend in that audience, and that's great.
I want to say also that this is my last official full BCC meeting
with all of you as chairman, and I want to say what a pleasure it's been
to all of the staff and to the members. Everybody's been so supportive.
Really, it's been a joy working with all of you.
I wish all of you and all of the people out there a very merry
Christmas, and I'll see you next year.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And you did a great job.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thanks.
***** Commissioner Henning moved, seconded by Commissioner
Halas and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16Al
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "MEDITERRA PARCEL
125", APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY -WITH
STIEl.IL.AIIONS
Item #16A2-Moved to Item #lOG
Item #16A3-Moved to Item #lOH
Item #16A4-Moved to Item #lOI
Page 270
December 14, 2004
Item #16A5
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "VERONA WALK PHASE
2B," APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY-WITH
~S
Item #16A6
SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT
NUISANCE ABATEMENT AND CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
LIENS THAT HAVE BEEN PAID IN FULL-SCHUMACHER 2003-
408, WARREN 2002-202, CORP Y. BRAUNSCHWEIG 98-326,
RONALD SUMMERS CEB 2004-040, BA YWOOD MANOR
ANTIQUES AND JEWELRY, INC. AND JOSEPH A. GIALLANZA
CE.B..2.QQ.1d){1
Item #16A7
RESOLUTION 2004-371: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PUBLIC) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR
THE FINAL PLAT OF "SABAL BAY COMMERCIAL PLAT-
PHASE ONE" (THOMASSON DRIVE AND XERIC LANE)-WITH
Item #16A8
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "BRITNEY ESTATES,"
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY-WITH
Page 271
December 14,2004
SIIEI.lLA.Il:ilS
Item #16A9-Was to be moved to Item #1 OJ-Remained on the Consent
REINSTATEMENT OF THE PUD AMENDMENT PROCESS BY
THE DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR A PUD AMENDMENT TO
BE PROCESSED IN THE FORM OF A SUBSTANTIAL
MODIFICATION TO THE PUD RATHER THAN THROUGH A
Item #16AlO
RELEASE AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE A SATISFACTION FOR AN IMPACT FEE DEFERRAL
AGREEMENT FOR BRITTANY BAY APARTMENTS, PHASE II
UPON RECEIPT OF A LEGALLY SUFFICIENT IRREVOCABLE
LETTER OF CREDIT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,210,626.56 ON
BEHALF OF CED CAPITAL HOLDINGS 200lB, LLC. -AS
Item #16All
REQUEST FOR AN ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT CYCLE FOR
THE 2005 CALENDAR YEAR TO ADDRESS URGENT
AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
REGARDING SIDEWALK ISSUES PURSUANT TO THE
REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 10 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ,
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE-TO BEGIN ON JANUARY 7, 2005
AND END ON MARCH 22, 2005 FOR A TOTAL OF THREE (3)
Page 272
December 14, 2004
Item #16Bl
AWARD BID #05-3691, "ROADWAY LIGHTING
COMPONENTS" (IN PORTIONS) TO HUGHES SUPPLY, INC.,
CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS, INC.,
GRAINGER INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY, AND R.J. STEEDMAN,
INC.-TO SUPPLY NECESSARY COMPONENTS AND
EQUIPMENT FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF
Item #16B2-Withdrawn
RECOMMENDATION TO REJECT ALL BIDS RECEIVED
UNDER BID #04-3595R "CLEARING, GRUBBING AND TREE
I.RIM.Mlli G SERYICFS"
Item #16B3
RESOLUTION 2004-372: A RESOLUTION TO REDUCE THE
SPEED LIMIT ON NEW MARKET ROAD TO 35 MILES PER
HOUR FOR THE SECTION FROM JEROME DRIVE TO HENDRY
STREET AND 40 MILES PER HOUR FOR THE SECTION FROM
HENDRY STREET TO STATE ROAD 29 (NORTH 15TH STREET)-
AT A COST OF APPROXIMATELY $400 FOR INSTALLING
Item #16B4
AWARD BID #05-3690, "ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS," (IN
PORTIONS) TO CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL
DISTRIBUTORS, INC., TIME MARK, INC., HUGHES SUPPLY,
INC., AND TRAFFIC PARTS, INC.-TO SUPPLY NECESSARY
Page 273
December 14,2004
. .
COMPONENTS AND EQUIPMENT FOR THE MAINTENANCE
AND REPAIR OF TRAFFI.C OPERATIONS ELECTRICAL
INSIALLATIONS
Item #16B5
AWARD CONTRACT #04-3588 "FIXED TERM MATERIAL
TESTING SERVICES" TO: ALLIED ENGINEERING & TESTING,
INC.; ARDAMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.; ASC GEOSCIENCES,
INC.; FORGE ENGINEERING, INC.; AND PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION COMPANY, INC.
Item #16B6
AWARD BID #05-3741 "MOWING OF GRASSED OR
VEGETATED ROADSIDE AREAS", FOR THE ESTIMATED
ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $276,000.00, TO SOUTHERN SERVICES
FOR RURAL NON-CURB AND GUTTER LARGE MACHINE
MOWING, SLOPE MOWING, INTERMEDIATE MACHINE
MOWING, SMALL MACHINE MOWING AND LITTER
REMOVAL WHEN NECESSARY, FOR USE BY ALL COUNTY
llEURIMENTS
Item #16B7
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO.2 TO THE PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH AMERICAN CONSULTING
ENGINEERS OF FLORIDA, LLC., IN THE AMOUNT OF
$357,735.00, FOR THE DESIGN OF GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD,
FROM GOLDEN GATE P ARKW A Y TO PINE RIDGE ROAD,
PROJECT NO. #60005-AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
Page 274
December 14, 2004
Sl.IMMAR y
Item #16B8
DONATION AGREEMENT AND THE CONVEYANCE OF A
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT REQUIRED FOR
THE REPLACEMENT OF A DRAINAGE PIPE UNDER BLOCKS
260 AND 261, GOLDEN GATE UNIT 7 (PROJECT NO. 60016)
ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT: $18.50-AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16B9
AN ADOPT -A-ROAD AGREEMENT WITH NAPLES BAY
ROTARY CLUB, FOR A SEGMENT OF ROADWAY KNOWN AS
LIVINGSTON ROAD, FROM RADIO ROAD TO GOLDEN GATE
PARKWAY, AT A TOTAL COST OF $150.00 FOR TWO (2) NEW
SIGNS
Item #16BlO
AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$34,500.00, TO STEMIC ENTERPRISES, INC. AND ALLOCATE
$3,450 (10% OF THE CONSTRUCTION COST) FOR
CONTINGENCY PURPOSES TO DREDGE THE OUTFALL AT
WIGGINS PASS LOCATED OFF OF PAN AMERICAN AVENUE,
Item #16Bll
AWARD BID #05-3687 "VANDERBILT BEACH
BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ROADWAY GROUNDS
Page 275
December 14,2004
MAINTENANCE" CONTRACT TO COMMERCIAL LAND
MAINTENANCE, IN THE.AMOUNT OF $34,697.00-FOR
ANNUAL SERVICING OF THE ROADWAY MEDIANS WITHIN
IHRMSII J
Item #16B12
RESOLUTION 2004-373: A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND
AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS TO EXECUTE A LOCAL AGENCY
PROGRAM AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA STATE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, IN WHICH COLLIER
COUNTY WOULD BE REIMBURSED UP TO $24,500 OF THE
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF $28,000 FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF A SIDEWALK SEGMENT ON 53RD ST. SW FROM 28TH
PLACE SW TO 30TH AVE. SW IN GOLDEN GATE; AUTHORIZE
THE ADVANCE OF $24,500 FROM THE GAS TAX FUND; AND
APPROVE FUTURE FISCAL YEAR ANNUAL COSTS OF
SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE AND ALL NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENTS-AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SIlMMARY
Item #16B13-Withdrawn
AWARD BID #05-3750 "RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD (CR
864) (US 41 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST TO POLLY AVENUE)
ROADWAY GROUNDS MAINTENANCE" TO GROUND ZERO
Item #16B 14
AWARD BID #05-3751 "PINE RIDGE ROAD (AIRPORT
Page 276
December 14,2004
PULLING-LOGAN BLVD.) ROADWAY GROUNDS
MAINTENANCE" TO COMMERCIAL LAND MAINTENANCE,
Item #16B15
A DONATION FROM FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $155,000.00- FOR LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS
BETWEEN GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY-PINE RIDGE ($30,000),
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT FEEDER BURIAL ($80,000) AND
THE LIVINGSTON GREENWAY ALONG FP&L EASEMENT
($45,OOO)
Item #16B16
A DONATION FROM WCI COMMUNITIES, INC., UP TO THE
AMOUNT OF $100,640.00, FOR LANDSCAPING ALONG
Item #16B17
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO REALLOCATE $28,000 FROM THE
GOLDEN GATE CITY OUTFALL-PROJECT NUMBER 512181
TO THE FISH BRANCH CREEK BOX CULVERT -PROJECT
NUMBER 510211; BOTH ARE PART OF THE WATER
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT CAPITAL PROJECTS-TO
IMPROVE ROADSIDE AND WATER MANAGEMENT
CONDITIONS AT THE LAKE TRAFFORD ROAD CROSSING
Item #16B18
Page 277
December 14, 2004
CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 03-3473-AOl WITH HDR
ENGINEERING, INC.- "CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR
PREP ARA TION OF A LAND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY FOR
BA YSHORE/GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AREA (eRA) DISTRICT" TO INCLUDE
CIVIL ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF
$156,071.40 FOR THE GATEWAY TRIANGLE DRAINAGE
Item #16Cl
RESOLUTION 2004-374: A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR A SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL
ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED
PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE
1994 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS $20.00 TO
Item #16C2
RESOLUTION 2004-375: A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR A SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL
ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED
PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE
1995 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS $20.00 TO
Item #16C3
RESOLUTION 2004-376: A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE
Page 278
December 14, 2004
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR A SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL
ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED
PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE
1996 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS $30.00 TO
Item #16C4
SATISFACTIONS OF NOTICE OF CLAIM OF LIEN FOR
SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEE. FISCAL IMPACT IS
Item #16C5
EXECUTE AND RECORD SATISFACTIONS FOR CERTAIN
WATER AND/OR SEWER IMPACT FEE PAYMENT
AGREEMENTS. FISCAL IMPACT IS $20.00 TO RECORD THE
SATISFACTI.QNS OELIEN
Item #16C6
WORK ORDER JEI-FT-05-01 TO JOHNSON ENGINEERING (JEI),
IN THE AMOUNT OF $163,364, FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION OF A MASTER PUMP STATION
UNDER CONTRACT 01-3290-FIXED TERM PROFESSIONAL
Item # 16C7
THE FY 04-05 INNOVATIVE WASTE REDUCTION AND
Page 279
December 14,2004
RECYCLING GRANT AGREEMENT FROM THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TO FUND
CONSTRUCTION OF THE INNOVATIVE RECYCLING FITNESS
WALK, AND ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENT -AS
Item #16C8
AWARD BID #04-3721, TO PROLIME SERVICES, IN THE
ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $200,000, FOR THE
HAULING AND DISPOSAL OF LIME SLUDGE FROM THE
Item #16C9
THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGREEMENT NO. OT050868, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $330,000, FOR PARTIAL FUNDING FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE 16-INCH RECLAIMED WATER
SYSTEM INTERCONNECT FROM DAVIS BOULEVARD TO
RADIO ROAD. (PROJECT #74035)-AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16Dl
THE PURCHASE OF TWO RESIDENTIAL LOTS FROM
KENNETH AND EILEEN CLAWSON FOR EXPANSION OF THE
COUNTY'S BA YVIEW PARK AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED
$22,070. (PROJECT 80060)-FOR THE EXPANSION OF BEACH
Item #16D2
Page 280
December 14, 2004
THE PURCHASE OF TWO RESIDENTIAL LOTS FROM
BERNADETTE M. LEMELIN FOR EXPANSION OF THE
COUNTY'S BA YVIEW PARK AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED
$16,365. (PROJECT 80060)-FOR THE EXPANSION OF BEACH
Item #16D3
THE PURCHASE OF TWO RESIDENTIAL LOTS FROM
ANDREW AND ANNE LENA FOR EXPANSION OF THE
COUNTY'S BA YVIEW PARK AT A COST NO TO EXCEED
$22,070. (PROJECT 80060)-FOR THE EXPANSION OF BEACH
Item #16D4-Moved to Item #10M
Item #16D5
ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE EXISTING
FUNDING OF $50,000 FOR OPERATIONAL EXPENSES
ASSOCIATED WITH THE COLLIER COUNTY MEDICAL
SOCIETY DEVELOPMENT OF THE AMERICAN PROJECT
ACCESS NETWORK OF COLLIER COUNTY, A
COORDINATED, INTEGRATED SYSTEM OF ACCESSING
HEAL TH CARE FOR UNINSURED CITIZENS OF COLLIER
COUNTY-FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 2005 THROUGH
SEPTEMBER 30, 2005-AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16D6
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $300,183 TO
Page 281
December 14,2004
ENSURE CONTINUOUS FUNDING OF THE OLDER
AMERICANS ACT GRAN.T-TO ALLOW FOR UNINTERRUPTED
SUPPORT SERVICES TO SERVICES FOR SENIORS' FRAIL,
ELDERJ ,Y CLIENTS
Item #16D7-Moved to Item #10K
Item #16D8
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY VETERINARY
SOCIETY, INC., AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR NEUTER, SPAY
AND GENERAL PHYSICAL EXAMINATION SERVICES-FOR
ANIMALS HANDLED BY DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES-AS
Item #16El
AUTHORIZE THE ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE OF A SUM
NOT TO EXCEED $7,500.00, AS A RESULT OF THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT AUDIT-FOR BACK WAGES
EARNED BUT NOT PAID AS A RESULT OF
Item # 16E2
AWARD BID #05-3758, "PARTS FOR FLEET", IN TWO
CATEGORIES AS FOLLOWS: HEAVY TRUCKS, HEAVY
EQUIPMENT AND SCHOOL BUSES AWARDED TO NAPLES
TRUCK PARTS AS PRIMARY VENDOR AND TO BONITA
AUTO SUPPLY, INC., AND NAPA AND NAP A AUTO PARTS AS
SECONDARY VENDORS; AUTOMOBILES AND SMALL
TRUCKS AWARDED TO BUMPER TO BUMPER PARTS DEPOT,
Page 282
December 14, 2004
INC. #540 AS PRIMARY VENDOR AND TO BONITA AUTO
SUPPLY, INC. AND NAPA AND NAPA AUTO PARTS AS
SECONDARY VENDORS
Item # 16E3
BUDGET AMENDMENT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $32,000, TO
PREPARE AND SECURE AN ALTERNATIVE SITE FOR THE
STORAGE AND SALE OF SURPLUS VEHICLES AT FUTURE
SURPLUS PROPERTY AUCTIONS-TO STORE AND SELL
Item #16E4-Moved to Item #10L
Item #16E5
AMENDMENTS TO TWO EXISTING LEASE AGREEMENTS
WITH ALAN AND PATRICIA BOOLE FOR THE CONTINUED
USE OF GARAGE SPACE BY THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, AT A
TOTAL COST OF $79,800-TO BE EXTENDED ONE YEAR FROM
JANUARY 1, 2005 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 WITH EACH
LEASE ABLE TO BE EXTENDED FOR TWO ADDITIONAL
ONE-YEAR PERIODS. USE OF PROPERTY IS NEEDED UNTIL
THE SHERIFF'S NEW FLEET MAINTENANCE FACILITY, AT
COUNTY BARN ROAD, IS CONSTRUCTED AND READY FOR
Item #16E6
REPORT AND RATIFY STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS
AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS TO BOARD-APPROVED
CONTRACTS-TO PROMOTE ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE USE
Page 283
December 14, 2004
OF STAFF AUTHORITY-~OR THE PERIOD OF OCTOBER 30,
2004 THROUGH NOVEMBER 22, 2004-AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16E7
CONFIRM AND CONSENT THE RE-ASSIGNMENT OF RFP NO.
00-3113 "DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY BILLING SERVICES
INTEGRATED SOFTWARE SYSTEM" FROM IMSOFTECH, INC.
TO N. HARRIS COMPUTER CORPORATION-AS DETAILED IN
Item #16E8
BID NO. 05-3746 FOR TEMPORARY CLERICAL SERVICES
AWARDED TO MANPOWER TEMPORARY SERVICES, INC. AS
PRIMARY VENDOR, AND KELLY SERVICES, INC., AS
SECONDARY VENDOR-TO BE USED BY ANY COUNTY
DEPARTMENT TO COVER EMPLOYEE VACATIONS, SICK
Item #16E9
AN INCREASE TO THE COST OF WORK, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$45,000, TO CONTRACT NO. 04-3694 WITH SURETY
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., FOR THE REMODELING
OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CLERK'S MIS DEPARTMENT
LOCATED ON THE 5TH FLOOR OF THE COUNTY
Item #16Fl
Page 284
December 14, 2004
AWARD BID #05-3744, "H;IDEAWAY BEACH JETTY AND T-
GROIN CONSTRUCTION'.', TO MARINE CONTRACTING
GROUP, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,140,880, AND
AUTHORIZE A $180,000 TIME AND MATERIALS
ENGINEERING SERVICES WORK ORDER WITH HUMISTON &
MOORE ENGINEERS FOR CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS
AND MONITORING, HIDEAWAY BEACH RENOURISHMENT,
~502
Item #16F2
WORK ORDER AMENDMENT #1 TO TE-FT-03-02 WITH
TAYLOR ENGINEERING FOR ADDITIONAL
DESIGN/PERMITTING EFFORTS FOR MARCO SOUTH BEACH
RENOURISHMENT, PROJECT 90500, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$3 (), () lililO
Item #16F3
ENGINEERING SERVICES WORK ORDER UNDER CONTRACT
#01-3271, "FIXED TERM PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING
SERVICES FOR COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS",
WITH COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC., FOR
DESIGNING AND PERMITTING AN ARTIFICIAL REEF AND
FOR COMPLETING REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED BY THE
U.S. MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE FOR A BORROW
Item #16F4
AWARD BID #05-3753, "MAINTENANCE DREDGING OF
WIGGINS PASS", IN THE AMOUNT OF $380,000, TO SNYDER
Page 285
December 14, 2004
INDUSTRIES, INC., AND AUTHORIZE A $44,149 TIME AND
. MATERIALS ENGINEERING SERVICES WORK ORDER WITH
HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS FOR CONSTRUCTION
OBSERVATIONS AND MONITORING, WIGGINS PASS
Items #16F5
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS
LOCAL 1826 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIREFIGHTERS INC. TO INCLUDE A CAREER PROGRESSION
MATRIX TO THE CURRENT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING .
AGREEMENT-TO DESCRIBE THE QUALIFICATIONS
NECESSARY FOR CERTAIN ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES TO
Item #16F6
A SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE OF "AUDICOR" FOR
PLACEMENT ON COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES DEPARTMENT UNITS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$225,OOO-TO MAXIMIZE AND ENHANCE THE CURRENT
DELIVERY OF CARE AND TRANSPORT OF PATIENTS
Item # 16F7
AWARD BID #04-3715, TO PORCHE FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC.,
FOR SELF-CONTAINED BREATHING APPARATUS, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $90,000.-FOR THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL
IlISIRIC.T
Page 286
December 14,2004
Item #16F8
AWARD BID #05-3749, TO FLORAQUATICS, INC, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $67,840.00, FOR CLAM BAY INTERIOR
Item #16F9
LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES FOR
SHARED USE OF FIRE STATION 2, LOCATED AT 977 26TH
AVENUE NORTH, AT A FIRST YEAR'S TOTAL COST OF
Item #16FI0
RESOLUTION 2004-377: FLORIDA EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICE COUNTY GRANT APPLICATION, GRANT
DISTRIBUTION FORM, AND RESOLUTION FOR TRAINING
AND MEDICAL/RESCUE EQUIPMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$112,672.82-TO EXPAND AND IMPROVE EMERGENCY
MEDlCA.LSERYIC.S
Item #16F11
SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE OF ONE "SIMBABY" FOR
TRAINING PURPOSES OF COLLIER COUNTY PARAMEDICS
AND EMT'S TO MAXIMIZE AND ENHANCE THE CURRENT
DELIVERY OF CARE TO INFANT PATIENTS. THIS IS A
PREVIOUS AWARDED GRANT FROM THE ST ATE OF
ELORIDA
Item #16F12
Page 287
December 14, 2004
APPROVAL AND RATIFICATION OF THE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENT WITH THE FIREFIGHTERS OF
THE EVERGLADES INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL 3670. THE AGREEMENT IS
AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC VIEWING AT THE COLLIER
COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE OR BUREAU OF EMERGENCY
SERYICES
Item #16Hl
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING THE HOSPICE OF
NAPLES OPEN HOUSE RECEPTION, DECEMBER 16, 2004, AT
COCONUT PLACE OFFICE PARK, NAPLES, TO REPRESENT
DISTRICT 5. $20.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
COLEIT A'S TR A VEL..B.IJllGE.T
Item #16H2-Withdrawn
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR PAYMENT OF
AN OVERNIGHT STAY AT WYN STAR INN & SUITES, FORT
MYERS, BETWEEN THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL
LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION RECEPTION ON DECEMBER 9TH
AND THE ISSUES '05 SOUTHWEST REGIONAL DELEGATION
FORUM ON DECEMBER 10TH. $79.00 TO BR PAID FROM
,
Item #16H3
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING THE NAPLES HISPANIC
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE'S FIRST ANNUAL CHRISTMAS
Page 288
December 14, 2004
PARTY, DECEMBER 8,2004, AT THE NAPLES BATH AND
TENNIS CLUB, TO REPRESENT DISTRICT 5. $30.00 TO BE
,
Itenl #16H4
COMMISSIONERS COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING THE KIWANIS CLUB
LUNCHEON, FEATURING DR. GENE LANDRUM AS ITS
SPEAKER, ON DECEMBER 8,2004, AT ONE STOP CAREER
AND SERVICE CENTER, IMMOKALEE, FL. $10.00 TO BE PAID
,
Item #161
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR
REEERRED -
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 289
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
. December 14,2004
FOR BOARD ACTION:
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Districts:
1. Fiddler's Creek Community Development District -Agenda and Minutes
of June 23, 2003; Agenda and Minutes of August 25, 2004; Description of
Outstanding Bonds; Proposed FY 2005 Budget; Registered Officer and
Agent; Schedule of Regular Meetings; District Map; and Unaudited
Financial Statements for May 31, 2004.
2. Fiddler's Creek Communitv Development District II - Agenda and
Minutes of August 25, 2004; FY 2005 Operating Budget; Unaudited
Construction Financial Statements, July 31, 2004; and FY 2005 Schedule
of Meeting.
3. Port of the Islands Community Improvement District - Agenda and
Minutes of August 20, 2004; Registered Officer and Agent; Independent
Auditor's Report.
4. Riviera Golf Estates Homeowners Association - Schedule of Regular
Meetings; and Amended and Restated Governing Documents for Riviera
Golf Estates (2 sets).
5. Ouarry Community Development District - Agenda and Minutes for
September 13,2004; Agenda and Minutes of October 11,2004 and
October 21,2004.
B. Minutes:
1. Coastal Advisory Committee - Minutes of October 14,2004; Procedures
for the Coastal Advisory Committee and the Original Resolution 2004-01
Adopting those Procedures.
2. Pelican Bay Services Division - Agenda for the Budget Sub-Committee of
November 23,2004; and Minutes of October 20,2004.
3. Productivity Committee Meeting - Minutes of October 20,2004.
4. Vanderbilt Beach M.S.T.U. - Summary of Minutes & Motions for
October 19, 2004.
H:DatalFormat
5. Collier County Planning Commission - Minutes for September 2, 2004.
C. Other:
1) Caribbean Blue Ribbon Committee - Minutes of July 21, 2004.
H:DataIF ormat
December 14,2004
Item #16Jl
DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THE PURCHASES OF
GOODS AND SERVICES DOCUMENTED IN THE DETAILED
REPORT OF OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS SERVE A VALID
PUBLIC PURPOSE AND AUTHORIZE THE EXPENDITURE OF
COUNTY FUNDS TO SATISFY SAID PURCHASES. A COPY OF
THE DETAILED REPORT IS ON DISPLAY IN THE COUNTY
MANAGER'S OFFICE, 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, W.
HARMON TURNER BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, NAPLES,
FLORIDA-FOR THE PERIOD OF NOVEMBER 13, 2004
Item #16J2
REPORT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURCHASING POLICY, THE TOTAL
DOLLAR AMOUNT OF INTEREST PAYMENTS THAT WERE
MADE DURING THE PRECEDING FISCAL YEAR FOR
VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA PROMPT PAYMENT ACT -AS
Item #16K1
MAKING OF AN OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENT,
MARY LOW ADSIT, FOR PARCEL NO. 181, IN THE AMOUNT
OF $163,900, IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
MARY LOU ADSIT, ET AL. (VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD
PROJECT #63051)-AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16K2
Page 290
December 14,2004
AN AGREED ORDER AND PAYMENT OF ENGINEERING FEES
FOR PARCELS 117, 133, 717A, 717B AND 733, IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. CALUSA BAY MASTER
ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL., CASE NO. 02-2040-CA.
(GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD PROJECT #60134)-PA YMENT OF
$39,000.00 TO CALUSA BAY MASTER ASSOCIATION, INC.
Item #16K3
MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AS TO PARCEL 116
IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. NORTHSIDE
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, ET AL., CASE NO. 00-0136-CA.
(PINE RIDGE ROAD PROJECT #60111)-AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16K4
MAKING OF AN OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENTS,
JACK V. HARRISON AND JUANITA HARRISON, FOR PARCEL
NO. 122, IN THE AMOUNT OF $12,500, IN THE LAWSUIT
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. VILLAGE WALK HOMEOWNER'S
ASSOC. OF NAPLES, INC., ET AL., CASE NO. 04-345-CA.
(VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD PROJECT #63051)-AS DETAILED
Item # 16K5
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO PARCEL 102 IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. PELICAN MARSH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, ET AL., CASE NO. 04-
1532-CA. (VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD PROJECT #63051 )-AS
Page 291
December 14,2004
Item #16K6
MAKING OF AN OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENT,
WALNUT FARMS, INC., FOR PARCEL NO. 166A, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $36,150.00, IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER
COUNTY V. JUAN RAMIREZ, ET AL., CASE NO. 02-5166-CA.
(IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT #60018)-AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16K7
MAKING OF AN OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENT,
WALNUT FARMS, INC., FOR PARCEL NO. 166B, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $207,100.00, IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER
COUNTY V. JUAN RAMIREZ, ET AL., CASE NO. 02-5166-CA.
(IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT #60018)-AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16K8
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT AND
BUDGET FOR PARTIAL FUNDING OF LEGAL AID SERVICES
TO ASSIST QUALIFIED INDIGENT RESIDENTS OF COLLIER
COUNTY WITH CIVIL LEGAL PROBLEMS-WITH LEGAL AID
SERVICE OF BROWARD COUNTY, INC. D/B/A LEGAL AID
SERVICE OF COLLIER COUNTY TO PROVIDE FOR A LEGAL
Item # 1 7 A
Page 292
December 14, 2004
RESOLUTION 2004-378: PETITION AVROW2001-AR1388 TO
RENOUNCE AND DISCLAIM ALL RIGHTS AND INTERESTS
OF THE PUBLIC TO ACCESS (INGRESS/EGRESS) AND
TRAVEL UPON THE FOLLOWING ROAD RIGHTS-OF- WAY
LOCATED WITHIN BOYNE SOUTH SUBDIVISION. THOSE
ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY DEPICTED AND DESCRIBED IN THE
PLAT OF "ROYAL PALM GOLF ESTATES UNIT ONE", AS
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 12, PAGES 13 THROUGH 18,
PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA;
PROVIDING FOR THE CONTINUING AND UNAFFECTED
RIGHTS OF EASEMENT HOLDERS, EMERGENCY MEDICAL
AND FIRE SERVICES, COLLIER COUNTY WATER
MANAGEMENT VEHICLES AND PERSONNEL, COLLIER
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION VEHICLES AND PERSONNEL
AND COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT
VEHICLES AND PERSONNEL; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE. LOCATED IN SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH,
R.ANGR 27 FAST
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2004-379: PETITION V A-2004-AR-6140, PINE
RIDGE CENTER AND PINE RIDGE CENTER WEST PUDS,
REPRESENTED BY D. WAYNE ARNOLD, AICP OF Q. GRADY
MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P.A., REQUESTING TWO 15-FOOT
VARIANCES, ONE FROM THE REQUIRED 15-FOOT SETBACK
FOR THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OF THE PINE RIDGE
CENTER PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), AND A 15-
FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 15-FOOT SETBACK
FOR THE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF THE PINE RIDGE
CENTER WEST PUD, TO PERMIT A O-FOOT SETBACK FROM
THE COMMON BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE TWO PUDS. IT IS
Page 293
December 14,2004
THE APPLICANT'S INTENT, IF THESE VARIANCES ARE
GRANTED, TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE OFFICE BUILDING
ACROSS THE COMMON PROPERTY LINE-WITH
SIIEllLAIIQNS
Item #17C
ORDINANCE 2004-76: SE-2004-AR-5861, AN ORDINANCE OF
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-
41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE, BY SPECIFICALLY AMENDING
ORDINANCE 03-51, PERTAINING TO THE WENTWORTH
ESTATES PUD, TO CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S ERROR DUE
TO INCLUSION OF AN INCORRECT ZONING ATLAS MAP
NUMBER FOR WENTWORTH ESTATES PUD; AND BY
Item #17D
RESOLUTION 2004-380: CU2004-AR6464, PINNACLE TOWERS,
LLC, REPRESENTED BY DEBORAH L. MARTOHUE, ESQUIRE,
OF HAYES & MARTOHUE, P.A., REQUESTING CONDITIONAL
USE 13 OF THE (A) AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT FOR
A 518-FOOT REPLACEMENT GUYED TOWER TO REPLACE A
PRIOR EXISTING TOWER DESTROYED JULY 12, 2004. THE
PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF 14.55 ACRES, IS LOCATED AT
305 TOWER ROAD, NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF U.S. 41
AND S.R. 951, IN SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE
Item #17E
Page 294
December 14, 2004
RESOLUTION 2004-381/DO 2004-03: DRI-04-AR-6469, LUCKY
STRIKE MK, INC., REPRESENTED BY R. BRUCE ANDERSON,
OF ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LP A, REQUESTING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE GREEN HERON DEVELOPMENT OF
REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI) DEVELOPMENT ORDER BY
EXTENDING THE TERMINATION DATE FROM FEBRUARY 7,
1999 TO JANUARY 1,2009 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF RADIO ROAD (C.R. 856) AND
APPROXIMATELY ONE-HALF MILE EAST OF SANTA
BARBARA BOULEVARD IN SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 49
Item #17F
ORDINANCE 2004-77: AN ORDINANCE OF COLLIER COUNTY
FLORIDA, AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO.
91-65, TO ADD A POSITION OF ALTERNATE MEMBER ON
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:57 p.m.
Page 295
December 14, 2004
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL =C~ER ITS CONTROL
DONNA F ALA, Chairman
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E.. BROCK, CLERK
,..." "" 'I. ro
. "" ,~~,:.. ~ ::". , . . ". :',." ..
\"~' ',,"i'
. ,.~ ~" " tl: '
. '- . ..
.0.(.
..",-:;. ';
These minutes approved by the Board on \-\ i-ODDS' , as
presented v" or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES, INC. BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 296