BCC Minutes 01/11/2005 R
January 11, 2005
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, January 11, 2005
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/Fred W. Coyle
Frank Halas
Tom Henning
Jim Coletta
ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Jim Mitchell, Office of the Clerk of Courts
Page 1
....-.----
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
~
AGENDA
January 11,2005
9:00 a.m.
Donna Fiala, Chairman, District 1
Fred W. Coyle, Vice-Chair, District 4
Frank Halas, Commissioner, District 2
Tom Henning, Commissioner, District 3
Jim Coletta, Commissioner, District 5
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM
MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER
WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE
AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED, REQUIRES
THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING
ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS".
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBA TIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5)
MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
1
January 11, 2004
M._. "--'--'""- ~-~ ,-_._-
-._"- -,."
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMP AIRED ARE A V AILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of to day's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary agenda.)
B. October 22, 2002 - Aquaport Closed Session
C. November 30, 2004 - BCC/Regular Meeting
D. December 6,2004 - BCC/PUD Monitoring Workshop #3
E. December 6, 2004 - BCC/Conservation Collier Workshop
F. December 7,2004 - BCC/Sidewalk Workshop
G. December 14, 2004 - BCC/Regular Meeting
H. December 17, 2004 - BCC/ Annual Update Inventory Report Workshop
I. December 17,2004 - BCC/Tourist Development Council Workshop
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
1) Advisory Committee Service Awards
2
January 11, 2004
'~--""_.'-~ _.'M'
-,-'.'
2) Presentation of the Advisory Committee Outstanding Member award
to Janet Vasey
4. PROCLAMA TIONS
A. Proclamation to designate January 17,2005 as Martin Luther King Day. To
be accepted by Laverne Franklin and Mary Linda Sanders, President of the
NAACP.
B. Proclamation to designate January 11,2005 as Boy Scout Troop 2001
Philanthropy Day. To be accepted by Boy Scout Troop 2001, Richard
Treiser, Christine Bianchi, Owner of Chrissy's Wildside Cafe, and
Maryanne McCarty.
C. Proclamation to designate January 16 - 22,2005 as Purple Martin Week. To
be accepted by Mr. Jerry Glasson, President of the Purple Martin Society of
Collier County.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. SELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN
B. A report from the Collier County Health Department regarding a study of
the bacteriological safety of the drinking water from private wells in Golden
Gate City.
C. Recommendation to receive an update and provide input for the County
Road 951 project development and environment (PD&E) study, from
lmmokalee Road to Alico Road in Collier and Lee Counties.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public petition request by James Bryant to discuss traffic light timing
B. Public Petition request by Goodwill Industries to discuss Attended Donation
Center Program
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
3
January 11,2004
,--.-..-.'" ---
A. This item reauires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission Members. V A-2004-AR-5878:
Michael J. Needham arid Wendy B. Needham, property owners, represented
by Michael A. Durant of Conroy, Coleman and Hazzard, P.A., requesting a
7-foot variance to the Pelican Bay PUD zoning district from the required 15-
foot rear setback to allow an eight-foot (8) setback, within which the
petitioner wants to extend an existing screen enclosure. The property,
consisting of 17,077 square feet, is located at 720 Bay Tree Court, further
described as Site 7, Block Pelcian Bay Unit One, in Section 4, Township
49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
B. This item reauires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission Members. V A-2004-AR-650 1,
Fidelity Investments, represented by Ryan Kring of site Enhancement
Services, requests a variance from the limitation of a single pole or ground
sign for a single-occupancy parcel having frontage of 150 feet or more on a
public street, or combined public street frontage of 2 linear feet or more for
corner lots as allowed by Section 5.06.06.C. of the Land Development Code
(LDC), in order to maintain an existing second ground sign located on the
northeast corner of the property.
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item reauires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission Members. Naples Syndications,
LLC, represented by Karen Bishop ofPMS, Inc. of Naples, requesting a
rezone from "PUD" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development known as Warm
Springs PUD by revising the PUD document and Master Plan by increasing
the allowed dwelling units by 290 units to a maximum 540 units, a density
increase from 2.1 units per acre to 4.52 units per acre; to show a name
change from Nicaea Academy PUD; and reflect the PUD ownership change.
The property is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard, approximately
one mile south of lmmokalee Road, in Section 26, Township 48 South,
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 119 +/- acres.
B. PUDEX-2004-AR-6694 Bayview Villas, LLC, represented by Dwight
Nadeau,ofRW A, Inc., requesting a two-year extension of a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) zoning granted by Ordinance No. 2000-0 pursuant to
LDC Section 10.02.13.D for the North Port Pay PUD. The property,
consisting of 46.33 acres, is located north of U.S. 41 (Tamiami Trail), east of
4
January 11,2004
'~-"---"" .~"..".,
_,....h
the Fahka Union Canal, in Sections 4& 9, Township 52, South, Range 28
East, Collier County, Florida.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of member to the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local
Redevelopment Advisory board.
B. Appointment of members to the Environmental Advisory Council.
C. Appointment of members to the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning
Committee.
D. Appointment of members to the Isle of Capri Fire control District Advisory
Committee.
E. Recommendation to declare a vacancy on the Paarks and Recreation
Advisory Board.
F. Commissioner Henning request discussion regarding the fee scheduled,
particularly the resubmittal fees, of the Environmental Impact Statements.
During the November 14, 2004 BCC meeting, a Resolution amending the
Collier County Administrative code Fee Schedule of development-related
review and processing fees as provide for the Code of Laws Section 2-11
was brought before the BCC. See Fee Schedule change 41, page 14
(attached), from Nov. 14th meeting agenda. Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) fee is $1600.00; 2nd submittal $15000.00; 3rd submittal
$1000.00, 4th and subsequent submittals $500.00. These fees are not
consistent with other fee schedules.
G. Discussion regarding request by David E. Bryant representing Empire
Builders and the HD Development PUD at Olde Cypress. (Commissioner
Fiala.)
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to Confirm the Appointment of Ms. Marla Ramsey to the
position of Public Service Division Administrator. (Jim Mudd, County
Manager)
5
January 11, 2004
.<..-,.'"'''-~ >---- .".'. "Ill ._----"."....~-
---.-
B. Recommendation to approve Contract Amendment No.1, Exhibit E, for a
Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) of up to $16,6000.00 under Contract
No. 04-3576, Construction Manager at Risk Services for Courthouse Annex
and Parking Garage, with Kraft Construction Company, Inc. for the
construction of the Courthouse Annex Parking Deck, project 52010 and to
approve the necessary budget amendment. (Len Price, Administrator,
Administrative Services)
C. This item has been continued from the December 14~ 2004 BCC meetine:
and is further continued to the January 25, 2004 BCC meetine:. Staff
report and recommendation in response to the Public Petition presented at
the December 14, 2004 BCC meeting by Robert France regarding parcel
exchange at 36 4th Avenue NE. (Jim DeLony, Administrator, Public
Utilities)
D. This item has been continued from the November 30~ 2004 BCC
Meetine:. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution authorizing the
acquisition by Condemnation of non-exclusive, perpetual utility and
maintenance easements, temporary construction easements, and access
easements for the construction of a sewer force main, raw water mains and
well sites required for the South County Regional Water Treatment Plant
(SCRWTP) Reverse Osmosis Wellfield Expansion to 20-MGD, Project
Number 708921, at a cost not to exceed $2,622,850. (Jim DeLony,
Administrator, Public Utilities) Copies of the Technical Memorandums and
Exhibit "A" are on display in the Board of County Commissioners Office,
3rd Floor, W. Harmon Turner Building, 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples,
FL. (Jim DeLony, Administrator, Public Utilities)
E. Recommendation to approve a Developer Contribution Agreement between
Waterways Joint Ventures, LLC, a Florida general partnership hereinafter
collectively referred to as "Developer," and the County. The right-of-way
donated and the funds received will be for the future construction of a
portion of Tree Farm Road as a minor collector added as a supplemental to
the Collier Boulevard (CR-951) improvement project #65061. (Norman
Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
F. Recommendation to approve a Developer Contribution Agreement between
Naples Syndications, LLC, hereinafter collectively referred to as
"Developer", and the County. The funds received will be for the future
construction of a portion of Tree Farm Road as a minor collector added as a
6
January 11,2004
--_._"..~ .....~--"--~-
-----
supplemental to the Collier Boulevard (CR-951) improvement project
#65061. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. This item to be heard at 11 :00 A.M. Recommendation that the Board of
County Commissioners direct outside council (Gavin & Tripp, P.A.), in
conjunction with the County Attorney, to take all appropriate steps to protect
the County's interests in connection with 558 purported Brett Harris Act
claims allegedly arising out of the adoption of the Rural Fringe Growth
Management Amendments and Implementing Regulations.
B. Recommendation for Approval of the Settlement Agreement and Mutual
Release between Collier County and Kenco Development, Inc.,
Pebblebrooke Lakes Limited Partnership, through its general partner,
Saundry Associates, Inc. in reference to Case No. 04-3094-CA that is now
pending in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Jucicial Circuit for Collier
County, Florida.
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 in 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approved and/or Adopted with changes - 5/0
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
7
January 11, 2004
"_..~,- ._,.
~_.~."_...._----- " ---
1) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Kit Kraft for 1.59 Acres under the Conservation Collier Land
Acquisition'Program, at a cost not to exceed $17,900.
2) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Gordon M. Blake and Katharine Blake for 1.14 acres under the
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to
exceed $13,900.
3) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of "Heritage
Bay commons", approval of the standard form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
4) Recommendation to approve Lien Resolutions for the following Code
Enforcement Case Numbers; 2004090342/Galloway, Barbara,
2004011292/Joyce Et AI, Wallace Landon, 2004080049/Wisniewski,
Leonard, 2003060430/Park East Dev. Ltd., 200490674/Caruana,
James & Rachel, 2004080496/Buchman, Walter, 2004090347/Golden
Florida Resort Inc., 2004090870/Taylor, Peggy 2004080475/La
Quinta Homes ofSW FL Inc., 2004080474/La Quinta Homes ofSW
FL Inc., and 2003120304/ Arevalo, Jesus & Rodriguez, Maria Cruz.
5) Recommendation that the Board of County commissioners set a
public hearing date for June 14, 2005 for consideration of a proposed
Development Order for a Development of Regional Impact for
Petition DRI-04-AR-6293, The Town Of Ave Maria.
6) Recommendation to approve Lien Resolutions for the following Code
Enforcement Case Numbers 2004070662/Joyce Et AI, Wallace
Landon, 2004050744/Holaway, Jo Gene, 2004040613/Cavataio,
Salvatore, 2004060752/Hamiliton Bay Dev LLC, 2004060750/
Hamiliton Bay Dev LLC, 2004011253/Ca Mobley Et AI, Priscilla,
2004060676/Murphy, John E. 2004030534/Reding, David and
2004050246/Bayshore Land Development LLC.
7) Recommendation to approve Satisfaction of Liens for Code
Enforcement Board Case Nos.: 2004036 Board of County
Commissioners vs. Del H. Ackerman; 95-012; Board of County
Commissioners vs. Louis Filostin and Ocepha Polite; 2001-018;
8
January 11,2004
---.~._( ".. -,,---~ .......--'-
----.----.--,--
Board of County Commissioners vs. Phillip and Anna Marrone and
2004-021; Board of County Commissioners vs. Greg and Jane Bee
8) Recommendation to approve the agreement between Collier County
and St. Matthew's House, Inc. the administration of an Emergency
Rental Assistance Program for the purposes of providing individual
households with emergency rental assistance for the payment of rent,
security deposits and utility deposits.
9) Recommendation to terminate Contract #02-3317 with Henderson,
Young and Company relative to the Educational Facilities Impact Fee
Update Study, waive the formal competition process and solicit
proposals to select a new consultant to update the Educational
Facilities Impact (estimated amount not-to-exceed $65,000)
10) Recommendation to approve two Satisfaction of Liens for Resolution
No's: 03-447 and 04-276 styled Board of County Commissioners vs.
Claudette and Maurice Tremblay.
11) Final Acceptance of water utility facilities for Capital Self Storage,
Phase 1.
12) Recommendation to approve a resolution by the Board of County
Commissioners (BCC) of Colliers County, Florida, amending the
Collier County Administrative code to establish procedures for
expediting the development review process for qualified affordable
housing.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) To approve the attached Interlocal Agreement and supporting
resolution as required for addition of Everglades City to the Collier
MPO.
2) Recommend Board's approval of Adopt-a-Road Agreements for the
following: Jean-Marc Katzeff-South Bay Realty, Glades Realty &
Captain Brock, global Title Company, Marie-Ange Katzeff-South Bay
Realty and Marie-Ange Katzeff South Bay Realty.
9
January 11,2004
-~------<--- ,-- <_"M"__ ~,.,,- -, _.___..'_~__m_
3) Recommendation to approve a Resolution to reduce the speed limit on
Collier Boulevard (CR 951) from 55 miles per hour to 45 miles per
hour for the section from Davis Boulevard to Cedar Hammock
Boulevard at a cost of approximately $400.
4) Recommendation to approve the use of transit enhancement funds
(313) to purchase a new transit bus under Florida Public
Transportation Association/Harline contract 2003-07-01, trolley decal
writing and necessary equipment (in the estimated amount of
$286,500).
5) Recommendation to approve a Resolution approving and authorizing
the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to execute a
Local Agency Program Agreement with the Florida Department of
Tr~nsportation, which Agreement I\implements up to $695,200 for the
design and construction of roadway lighting and replacement of
sidewalks on State Road 84 from US 41 to Airport-Pulling Road by
Collier county, with reimbursement by the Florida Department of
Transportation.
6) Recommendation to award bid #05-3760 "Airport Pulling Road
(Cougar Blvd. To Vanderbilt Beach Road), Orange Blossom (Airport
Pulling to Yarberry Lane) Roadway Grounds Maintenance" to
Commercial Land Maintenance, Inc. in the amount of$65,169.70.
7) Recommendation to approve award of a construction contract with
AP AC-Southeast, Inc. for intersection improvements in the amount of
$544,565.20 on New market Road at Charlotte Street, No. 05-3742.
8) Recommendation to approve Amendment No. I to Agreement No. C-
13925 between the South Florida Water Management District
(SFWMD) and Collier County.
9) Adopt a resolution requesting transfer of access road R/W from FDOT
to Collier County and approve and enter into an agreement
implementing same.
10) Recommendation to allow the Transportation Division to advertise
and receive bids for proposed roadway and drainage improvements to
10
January 11, 2004
-_. ~. .-........
.-~..-
lmmokalee Road from US 41 to 1-75, Project No. 66042. Estimated
fiscal impact is $19,00.00.
11) Recommendation to Approve Contract for RFP #04-3684, "Vanderbilt
Beach Road Extension Corridor Study," (Project Number 60168) in
the Total amount of$599,558.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to award Bid 05-3755 to Motors & Bearings
concept, Inc., for the purchase of Falk gear reducers for the North
county Water Reclamation Facility - Oxidation ditch Aerator Motors
and Drives Rehabilitation in the amount of $29,455.50, Project
725112.
2) Recommendation to approve work Order CDM-FT-05-02, under
Contract 00-3119, fixed Term Professional Utility Engineering
Services, with Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc., for engineering services
related to adding tow new public water supply wells (Wells 35 and
36) to the Tamiami Wellfield in an amount not to exceed $246,058;
Project 70158.
3) Recommendation to award Bid #04-3716R to Hannula Landscaping,
Inc. for Installation of Irrigation and Landscaping at the South County
Water Reclamation Facility and to approve a budget amendment for
total project funds in the amount of$176,000, Project 725071.
4) Recommendation to Approve a Blanket Purchase Order with U.S.
Filter for Maintenance and Repair of Odor Control Units at Both the
North County Water Reclamation Facility and the South County
Water Reclamation Facility, in the Amount of$145,094.
5) Recommendation to approve a resolution authorizing a loan
agreement with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP) for construction costs associated with Goodlette Frank Road
Force Main & Reclaimed Water Main and Pump Station 1.03
projects; Establishing pledge revenue designating authorized
representatives; providing assurance; providing for conflicts,
severability, and effective date.
11
January 11,2004
~"'--. ""-,,.,"-,~'_..~. ""__"~""'O~~
6) Recommendation to award surplus bid #805-3722 for underground
parts, in the amoUntof$1452.05, for the South County Water
Reclamation Facility Expansion Project, 73949.
7) Recommendation to approve, execute and record a Satisfaction of a
Notice of Claim of Lien for Sanitary Sewer System Impact Fee.
Fiscal impact is $10.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien.
8) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfaction of
Lien for a Solid Waste residential account wherein the County has
received payment and said lien is satisfied in full for the 1993 Solid
Waste Collection and disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal
impact is $20.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien.
9) 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 the 1994 Solid
Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments. Fiscal
impact is $30 to record the Satisfactions of Lien.
10) 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 the 1995 Solid
Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments. Fiscal
impact is $40 to record the Satisfactions of Liens.
11) 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 the 1996 Solid
Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments. Fiscal
impact is $30 to record the Satisfactions of Liens.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve a resolution to accept a donation in the
amount of$776.84 willed to the Human Services Department Services
for Seniors program and approve the required budget amendment tin
the amount of $776.84.
12
January 11, 2004
-.,."" ,,~.._-,."~ "_...~-~-
2) Recommendation to approve an operations plan for the East Naples
Skate Park, accept donations of material and labor for improvements,
and budget funds for continued operations.
3) Recommendation to declare the parcels known as Best Friend Park
surplus property.
4) Recommendation to grant a Deed of Conservation Easement to South
Florida Water Management District for the Collier County North
Naples Regional Park, at a cost not to exceed $175.00, Project
806021.
5) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment to recognize and
appropriate private contribution revenue of $11,000 for Domestic
Animal Services.
6) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$50,000 to cover pre-acquisition expenses related to the purchase of
Caribbean Gardens and adjoining lands from the Fleischman family
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Recommendation to award Bid #04-3714 to Terminix International
Company as primary provider for annual pest control services.
2) Recommendation to award Bid No. 05-3733 Handyman/Minor
Carpentry Services to Wm. J. Varian Construction Co. Inc., Bradanna
Inc. and Made in Rio, Inc. for routine carpentry services
3) Recommendation to ratify modifications to and deletions from the
2005 Fiscal Year Pay and Classification Plan made from September
28,2004 through December 17,2004.
4) Recommendation to award Bid #04-3706 - "Chemicals for Utilities"
to various vendors in the estimated annual amount of$987,807.73.
5) Recommendation to approve a two-year Lease Agreement with
Congressman Connie Mack for the use of County-owned office space
for a total of$20.00 and to approve a budget amendment totaling
13
January 11,2004
_..0 , ~-'" ---
... ~_.- ---
$55,816.20 for the renovation of office space for Congressman Mack
and State Representatives Mike Davis and Dudley Goodlette.
6) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, acting in
their capacity as Trustee of GAC Land Trust, approve and execute an
agreement which provides $60,200 from the GAC Land Trust Fund to
the Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control & Rescue district for the
purchase of various equipment.
7) Report to the Board of County Commissioners concerning the sale
and transfer of items associated with the county surplus auction of
December 4,2004, resulting in $8,717.50 in gross revenues.
8) Recommendation to approve the renewal of group insurance
coverage and services for calendar year 2005.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners Rescind
Award of Bid #04-3613 for Pelican Bay-Gulf Park and Oakmont
Irrigation Installation to Collier Irrigation, Inc.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a
$57,000 increase to Bid #05-3749 for Clam Bay Interior Channel
Construction Phase III, to Floraquatics, Inc.
3) Recommendation to approve the purchase of 125 post market
evaluation automated external defibrillator's (AED) for placement on
Collier County Sheriffs Office (CCSO) first responder patrol units
4) Approval of budget amendments
5) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment appropriating carry
forward revenue in the Livingston Road Phase II Beautification
MS TU to fund Final Transactions prior to closing the Fund.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
14
January 11, 2004
-~_.,. _.~.-
~ n_", .
1) Approve a budget amendment in the amount of$115,000 for
professional serVices required for the Environmental Resource Permit
(ERP) and master development process at the Immokalee Airport.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous correspondence to File for Record with Action as
Directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Recommendation to approve the budget amendments appropriating
carry forward and expenditure budgets for open purchase orders for
non-profit funds and for unexpended budget for project funds at the
end of Fiscal Year 2004.
2) 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 of Open
Purchase Orders from November 27,2004 to December 10,2004 is
on display in the County Manager's Office, Collier County
government Center, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, 2nd Floor, W. Harmon
Turner Building, Naples, Florida.
3) 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. Acopy of the Detailed Report of Open
Purchase Orders from December 11, 2004 to December 24, 2004 is on
display in the County Manager's Office, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, W.
Harmon Turner Building, 2nd floor, Naples, FL.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
15
January 11, 2004
_.~.." ---
1) Recommendation to approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to
the simple fee ac'quisition ofP. 130 in the lawsuit entitled Collier
County v. North'Naples Fire Control & Fescue District, et aI., Case
No. 02-1702-CA (Goodlette Rd. Project 60134).
2) Recommendation to approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to
the perpetual, non-exclusive road right-of-way, drainage and utility
easement acquisition of Parcel 118 in the lawsuit entitled Collier
County v. Collier Development Corporation, et aI., Case No. 04-3821-
CA (Immokalee Road Project 66042).
3) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to Approve
a Stipulated Final Judgment Relative to the Acquisition of Parcel 751
in the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v. Regent Park Clust Homes
Association, Inc., et aI., Case No. 04-3452-CA (Immokalee Road
Project #66042).
4) Recommendation to approve an Agreed Order A warding Appraisal
Fees as to Parcels 151 and 152 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v.
John F. Sudal, et aI., Case No. 02-5168-CA (Immokalee Road Project
60018).
5) Recommendation to approve a Mediated Settlement Agreement and
Stipulated Final Judgment to be drafted incorporating the same terms
and conditions as the Medicated Settlement Agreement relative to the
acquisition of Parcels 183 and 184 in the lawsuit styled Collier
County V. Mary Lous Adsit, Et AI., Case No. 04-0506-CA
(Vanderbilt Beach Road Project 63051).
6) Recommendation to authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment
pursuant to Section 73.032, Fla. Stat., to Respondent, Mary Lou Adsit,
Individually and as Trustee of the Trust Agreement dated December
16, 1999 ("Respondent"), in the amount of $224,400.00, as full
compensation, excepting attorney's fees and costs, for the acquisition
arising out of the condemnation of Parcel No. 181 in Collier County v.
Mary Lou Adsit, et aI., Case No. 04-506-CA.
7) Recommendation to authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment
pursuant to Section 73.032, Fla. Stat., to Respondents, Patrick J.
Murphy and Sharol Murphy ("Respondent"), in the amount of
16
January 11,2004
...#-,. --
$49,600.00, as full compensation, excepting attorney's fees and costs,
for the acquisition arising out of the condemnation of Parcel No. 185
in Collier CountY v. Patrick J. Murphy, et aI., Case No. 03-5270-CA
(Vanderbilt Beach road Project 63051).
8) Recommendation that the Board authorize an increase of Purchase
Order No. 4500037900, Tinter Assoc., Inc., expert witnesses and
consultants for the County in the lawsuit entitled Collier County v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et aI., (Immokalee Rd. Project 66042), for an
amount not to exceed $75,000.00.
9) Recommendation to approve the Settlement prior to hearing on
Collier County's Motion for Final Summary Judgment in the lawsuit
styled: Canger v. Collier County, Case No. 02-2300-CA-HDH CA.
Total settlement of $4,000.
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZED
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 OF THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE
QUASIJUDICAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN
IN.
A. This item reauires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Recommendation to
approve Petition A VPLA T2004-AR6660 to disclaim, renounce and vacate
the County's and the Public's interest in a portion of the 25 foot wide utility
and drainage easement located along the front of Lot 5, according to the plat
of "Bayfront Gardens" as recorded in Plat Book 14, Pages 114 through 117,
Public Records of Collier County, Florida, located in Section 6, Township
48 South, Range 25 East.
17
January 11, 2004
"_'.""",__.o,^"'"'" .' .~----......._.
.~,.. ,-....-----..
B. SE-04-AR-6538, a Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 04-33, the
Community School of Naples Rezone to correct a scrivener's error resulting
from the unintentional'omission of Zoning Atlas Map 9512N in the Title of
the Ordinance and the body of the Ordinance resulting in an incorrect legal
description in the adopted Ordinance for the property located on the west
side of Livingston Road approximately ~ mile north of Pine Ridge Road in
Section 12, Township 49 south, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
C. This item reauires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. CU-2003-AR-6300
Frank L. Veasley representing Bethel Assembly of God Church, Inc.
req2uests approval of a Conditional Use in the RMF -6 Zoning District
pursuant to Tabl of Section 2.04.03 of the Collier County Land
Development code, to allow for the expansion of an existing church by
adding a gymnasium on the subject 4.79 +/- acre site. The subject parcel is
located at 1225 West Main Street in lmmokalee, which is on the south side
of West Main Street and approximately 1,500 feet west ofS.R. 29, in section
4, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida.
D. This item reauires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Recommendation to
approve Petition A VPLAT2004-AR6852 to disclaim, renounce and vacate
the County's and the Public's interest in a 15 foot wide drainage easement
located on Tract "J", according to the plat of "Stratford Place", as recorded
in Plat Book 40, Pages through 21, Public Records of Collier County,
Florida, and to accept a 15 foot wide relocation drainage easement on a
portion of said Tract "J", located in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range
26 East.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
18
January 11, 2004
M__"" "",.-,.. --~" -_.~.-
January 11, 2005
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Will you all please take your seats.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. The Board of
County Commissioners meeting is called to order this day, January
11 tho
Would you all please rise. And who do we have saying our
invocation today?
MR. CARTWRIGHT: Clay Cartwright, East Naples Baptist
Church.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Say your name again into the
microphone, so we can --
MR. CARTWRIGHT: Yes. My name is Clay Cartwright,
associate pastor, East Naples Baptist Church.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. CARTWRIGHT: Shall we pray? Heavenly Father, we
come to you this morning. We thank you for this beautiful day that
you've given us. We thank you that we're citizens in the United
States, in a land that lives by the motto "In God We Trust." We thank
you that we're Floridians. We thank you that we live in a land that's
free and where the people have the right to make laws.
Father, as we come to you this morning, we would pray that you
would guide and direct us in this meeting in this time as we meet
together. We pray that you would give us wisdom and guidance with
the issues that are at hand and to make the decisions that will best help
all Floridians who live in Collier County.
Father, we thank you for your love for us and how you guide our
lives and we ask that your spirit would be with us this day and every
day. For in Jesus' name we pray, amen.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Commissioner Coyle, will you lead
us in the pledge.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you all for being here this
Page 2
~_....... ",--
January 11,2005
morning. I think I'm supposed to have a microphone. There it is.
Thank you very much.
And now, let's see. I'm sorry. I'm getting a little bit lost here. It
must be because it's my last day, right?
Item #2A
REGULAR CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: You never know, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Maybe it isn't. Maybe I'm always
wandering around in this. Commissioners, I'm looking to have you
approve today's consent and summary agenda, but first I need to find
out if you have any ex parte, and also we need to determine whether
there are any speakers for the summary agenda in the audience.
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I do not have any changes to the
agenda, and I do not have anything to disclose on the summary
agenda.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Madam Chair, I have nothing to
disclose on the summary agenda, and I have nothing that I'd like to
change or remove from the consent agenda.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have nothing further besides
what the changes are on the change sheet, and I have no ex parte
communication.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have no ex parte communications
for the consent or summary agenda, and I have no further changes.
Page 3
......._".'_A."""'"_''''. ...~_"'.".'n._._..,..._""".___~'~""''''~.. ,. -.---
January 11,2005
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Nor do I have any further changes and
nothing to disclose on the summary agenda.
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, would you like me to read the change
sheet for you?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, why don't you do that?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
David, do you have any first?
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, I do. One, thank you.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Madam Chair, Commissioners, there are just two
items under county attorney regular agenda. 12A, which Jim will
note, is to be heard at time certain, at 11 a.m. 12B on the regular
agenda under county attorney is the recommendation for approval of a
settlement agreement and mutual release relating to the Pebblebrooke
Estates, Kenco Development matter.
I note that counsel for Pebblebrooke is here. If this were to
remain on the regular agenda, it may be heard in the afternoon.
They've made a request that it either be moved to consent, or if you
wish to hear it, if you could kindly hear it this morning while counsel
is present, Mr. Rich Y ovanovich, on behalf of petitioner.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioners, any comments?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd like to move it to the consent
--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Any discussion on that?
(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.
Page 4
~~._--"^'. .~,~",,,'-"'-~-----"-"-'-.- .-
January 11, 2005
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you very much. And that's it.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, agenda changes, Board of County
Commissioners meeting January 11th, 2005. Withdraw item 6B,
public petition request by Goodwill Industries to discuss attendant
donation center program, and that's at the petitioner's request.
Withdraw item 7 A and that's variance 2004-AR-5878, and that's
Michael J. Needham and Wendy P. (sic) Needham, property owners
represented by Michael A. Durant of Conroy, Coleman, and Hazzard,
P .A. requesting a seven-foot variance in the Pelican Bay PUD zoning
district from the required 15- foot rear setback to allow an eight-foot
setback within which the petitioner wants to extend an existing screen
enclosure. The property consisting of 17,077 square feet is located at
720 Bay Street (sic) Court, further described as Site 7, Block A,
Pelican Bay Unit 1 in Section 4, Township 49 south, Range 250 east,
Collier County, Florida, and that item is withdrawn at the petitioner's
request.
The next item is item 8B, is continued to January 25th, 2005,
BCC meeting. It's PUDEX-2004-AR-6694, Bayview Villas, LLC,
represented by Dwight Nadeau ofRW A, Inc., requesting a two-year
extension of a planned unit development zoning granted by ordinance
number 2000-05 pursuant to LDC section 10.02.13.D for the North
Port Bay PUD. The property consisting of 46.33 acres is located north
of U.S. 41, Tamiami Trail, east of the Fahka Union Canal in Section 4
and 9, Township 52 south, Range 28 east, Collier County, Florida, and
that's at staffs request, and that had to do with basically an
advertisement discrepancy.
The next item is to add item 9H, and that's a discussion regarding
a resolution supporting the acquisition of Babcock Ranch, a 91,000
acre habitat for Florida's endangered wildlife, and that's at
Page 5
.---"" ~--""~,-----"'_., --",.-.--
January 11, 2005
Commissioner Coletta's request.
The next item is add item 9I, and that's a discussion regarding the
Pelican Bay Annexation Report, and that's at Commissioner Henning's
request.
The next item is add item 16KI0, and that's a recommendation
that the Board of County Commissioners approve the waiver of the
application of resolution number 98-498 in connection with the recent
public records requests received from the sheriff provided that the
sheriff also imposes no charge with respect to recent public records
requests sent to his agency by county staff, and that's at staffs request.
And I believe that each commissioner is aware of that particular issue,
and that's why it's on the consent agenda.
The next item is item 17C, and that's to be continued indefinitely,
and that's CU-2003-AR-6300, Frank L. Veasley representing Bethel
Assembly of God Church, Inc.; requests approval of a conditional use
in the RMF -6 zoning district pursuant to table 2 of section 2.04.03 of
the Collier County Land Development Code to allow for the
expansion of existing church by adding a gymnasium on the subj ect
4.79 plus or minus acre site. The subject parcel is located at 1225
West Main Street in Immokalee, which is on the south side of West
Main Street, and approximately 1,500 feet west of State Road 29 in
Section 4, Township 47 south, Range 29 east, Collier County, Florida,
and that's at staffs request.
Brings us to the second page. It's move item 17 A to 8C. This
item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure
be provided by commission members. It's a recommendation to
approve petition A VPLA -- and A V plat, 2004-AR-6660 to disclaim,
renounce, and vacate the county's and the public's interest in a portion
of the 25- foot wide utility and drainage easement located along the
front of lot 5, according to the plat of the Bayfront Gardens as
recorded in Plat Book 14, page 114 through 117, public records of
Collier County, Florida, located in Section 6, Township 48 south,
Page 6
'"', ~ - ..~-~, "",-_.,,_.....> --
January 11, 2005
Range 25 east, and that's at staffs request.
The reason for the move, we had an obj ection to the particular
item come in yesterday from a -- from a concerned citizen.
And the rest are notes.
Item 7B, the correct petition number for this item is
SV-2004-AR-6501. The item was advertised correctly, however,
some documents in the backup material identified this item as V A,
instead of SV, 2004-AR-6501.
Next item is item 9A, the Board of County Commissioner sitting
as the Community Redevelopment Agency. It's appointment ofa
member to the Bayshore Community Triangle Local Redevelopment
Advisory Board, and just so you make that distinction on 9 A.
Item 16A6, note that the correct case number for the Salvatore
Cavatolo is 2004070613, rather than what's in the agenda item, and
there was a 7 and a 4 that were -- that were in adv -- the 4 was put in
instead of the 7. So the correct number is 2004070613.
Item 16E4, the name of the vendor on the first line of the exhibit
for Sodium Fluorosilicate should be Brentag Mid-South rather than
Univar.
Time certain items. Item 10E and 10F to be heard prior to 8A,
and that has to do with DCA agreements that have to do with that
particular zoning request.
And then the next item is item lOA, and Mr. -- the county
attorney, Mr. Weigel, mentioned that it has an 11 a.m. time certain.
That's a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
direct outside counsel, Gavin and Tripp, P .A. in conjunction with the
Office of the County Attorney, to take all the appropriate steps to
protect the county's interests in connection with approximately 558
purported Bert Harris Act claims allegedly arising out of the adoption
of the rural fringe growth management plan amendments and
implementing regulations.
That's all I have, Madam Chair.
Page 7
--.- ..,,"~- ...~~.... m. ' -_."._-~_." "-
January 11, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve the -- today's
agenda as amended, approval is the regular, consent and summary.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Halas to
approve.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Madam Chair, this commission has
been very diligent in the past in trying to assure that we have full
disclosure and notify the public of issues that are being debated.
I would like to bring to your attention that three items were added late
yesterday afternoon to this agenda that were not advertised, the public
does not know the background or the purpose for these, and people
who might be affected by them are not -- do not have the opportunity
to be present.
Two of these items are administrative in nature and I have no
objection to them. One of them, however, is a potentially contentious
issue involving two major communities in our county, and potentially
millions of dollars, and I would respectfully request that this item,
although it deserves to be heard, that it be heard after proper
advertisement so that people who are concerned will have an
opportunity to hear and voice their opinions about this item.
So I would respectfully ask that item 9I be withdrawn and
scheduled for our next regularly scheduled meeting and properly
advertised, which is consistent with our general approach as a Board
of County Commissioners.
Page 8
----- ,. _ ..,~.,__.'......,,__c_,,_ ---
January 11, 2005
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioners? Commissioner
Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's the one on the Pelican
Bay annexation?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I believe what we're getting is
an update where we are at this point in time. I don't think it's an action
item. Is it, Mr. Mudd?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It is an action item. It requests that
the Board of County Commissioners direct the chairperson to send a
letter informing people of certain decisions to be made.
And you will recall at our last meeting we had a debate
concerning that, and Commissioner Fiala did, in fact, say, let's bring
this up at a future board meeting to discuss it further.
So there was plenty of time to bring this up for proper
advertisement, but it was not brought up for proper advertisement.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I see what you're saying,
Commissioner Coyle. I do -- I do feel that, you know, this is
something that is not -- has been duly noticed. But in any case, if the
comfort level's not there, I'll second your motion. I see no harm in
moving that to the next meeting.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I feel that the issue at hand really is
between the City of Naples and Pelican Bay, and I think that before
we jump the gun here, I think what really needs to be done is those
two parties need to figure out what they're going to do, if they're going
to continue on in the realm of the annexation, or whether they feel that
maybe it's not beneficial for either group. And I think at this time we
need to sit back and just see how things unfold, to be honest with you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I -- I would respectfully suggest
that in order for those two parties to make a reasonable decision, they
need to have resolution to the issue that --
Page 9
"----"-.- _.._._.....m...~.."._,.~"_~. <<"..~.,'_.,,",.~. ' "---
January 11, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- Commissioner Henning has
raised.
And so I do think it's something that needs to be addressed. But
I'm merely suggesting that it leaves the appearance that we're trying to
sneak something through at the last minute, and I think that is an
incorrect perception.
The thing we must be careful about doing is doing these things in
the sunshine and making sure they're properly noticed, and so I would
-- I would suggest that, yes, we need to discuss this issue because
those parties need to know what our decision is. But I'm just asking
that you discuss it after it's been properly advertised and noticed, and
that would be at our next meeting.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Once again, as I've stated, that I
feel that we let -- should let due process go through its venue here, and
these people need to figure out what they want to do, and then they
come to the county to figure out what needs to be addressed at that
point in time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor from
Commissioner Coyle.
MR. WEIGEL: Madam Chair?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You had one earlier than that.
MR. WEIGEL: Pardon me.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Madam Chair, pardon me. Just in
regard to the procedure, you actually have a motion on the floor to
approve the agenda as stated; motion maker, Mr. Henning, second by
Mr. Halas.
What you've just had is the discussion relating to that motion and
Page 10
-----. .~.,._-_..._--...,.."^., ,-.'. .,. ..~_,__._.~".~..r_'._~ _v._
January 11,2005
request for a different action be taken, which essentially would be a
revision of the prior motion that was made.
So at this point, either the motion maker or the person who made
the second may, in fact, make any adjustment that they wish to do or
make no adjustment, and that matter comes to you all for a vote.
Another way to go, which isn't necessarily simpler, is that a motion to
table can be made at any time by someone else, and if supported by a
second and a majority vote, then that -- essentially the initial motion is
waylaid and a new motion could be made as far as that goes, and it
would preempt the first motion.
But I would suggest that, perhaps, you just return to the motion
and second that you have on the floor at the present time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Our first motion was by
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I amend my motion to
remove 91.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Our second was by Commissioner
Halas. Okay. We have a motion on the floor and a second to remove
9I, but we have a second motion, I guess that --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. But my motion will die if
that's the change, okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Discussion, Commissioner
Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm a little bit concerned. We
said to remove. We haven't addressed when we're going to be able to
bring it back, so --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Let's get this done first, and then
we'll --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that's up to me.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a motion on the floor and
Page 11
--' --~---'.._--" ,. .,-,-.--- ..'--,~=-._~'~ ._~,,'---
January 11,2005
a second to adopt the agenda --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: As amended.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- and remove 9I from that agenda, right,
as amended.
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.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. That was difficult. First time
we ever had that, huh?
Okay. Commissioner Henning, did you have anything else that
you might want to comment on?
The reason I say that is, Commissioner Henning is always our
lead.
Page 12
_.....,.~ '0-'" """""'''___~"~ -' ,,--~,---",^.q." .,....---
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
Januarv 11 , 2005
Withdraw Item 6B: Public Petition request by Goodwill Industries to discuss
Attended Donation Center Program. (Petitioner request.)
Withdraw Item 7A: V A-2004-AR-5878: Michael J. Needham and Wendy B.
Needham, property owners, represented by Michael A. Durant of Conroy, Coleman
and Hazzard, P.A., requesting a 7-foot variance in the Pelican Bay PUD zoning
district from the required IS-foot rear setback, to allow an eight-foot (8) setback,
within which the petitioner wants to extend an existing screen enclosure. The
property, consisting of 17,077 square feet, is located at 720 Bay Tree Court, further
described as Site 7, Block A, Pelican Bay Unit One, in Section 4, Township 49 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Petitioner request.)
Item 8B continued to the Januarv 25. 2005 BCC meetin2:. PUDEX-2004-AR-6694
Bayview Villas, LLC, represented by Dwight Nadeau, of RW A, Inc., requesting a
two-year extension of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning granted by
Ordinance No. 2000-05, pursuant to LDC Section 10.02.13.D for the North Port Bay
PUD. The property, consisting of 46.33 acres, is located north of U.S. 41 (Tamiami
Trail), east of the Fahka Union Canal, in Sections 4 & 9, Township 52 South, Range
28 East, Collier County, Florida. (Staff request.)
Add Item 9H: Discussion regarding a resolution supporting the acquisition of
Babcock Ranch, a 91,000 acre habitat for Florida's endangered wildlife.
(Commissioner Coletta request.)
Add Item 91: Discussion regarding the Pelican Bay Annexation report.
(Commissioner Henning request.)
Add Item 16KI0: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
Approve the Waiver of the Application of Resolution No. 98-498 in connection with
recent public records requests received from the Sheriff provided that the Sheriff
also imposes no charges with respect to recent public records requests sent to his
agency by County Staff. (Staff request.)
Item 17C Continue Indefinitelv: CU-2003-AR-6300 Frank. L. Veasley representing
Bethel Assembly of God Church, Inc., requests approval of a Conditional Use in the
RMF-6 Zoning District pursuant to Table 2 of Section 2.04.03 of the Collier County
Land Development Code, to allow for the expansion of an existing church by adding
a gymnasium on the subject 4.79+/- acre site. The subject parcel is located at 1225
West Main Street in Immokalee, which is on the south side of West Main Street and
approximately 1,500 feet west of S.R. 29, in Section 4, Township 47 South, Range 29
East, Collier County, Florida. (Staff request.)
-'--~-----'> --------..' .---
Move Item 17A to 8C: This item requires that all participants be sworn in and Ex
Parte Disclosure be provided by Commission members. Recommendation to
approve Petition A VPLA T 2004-AR6660 to disclaim, renounce and vacate the
County's and the Public's interest in a portion of the 25 foot wide utility and
drainage easement located along the front of Lot 5, according to the plat of
"Bayfront Gardens" as recorded in Plat Book 14, Pages 114 through 117, Public
Records of Collier County, Florida, located in Section 6, Township 48 South, Range
25 East. (Staff request.)
NOTE:
Item 7B: The correct petition number fOf this item is SV-2004-AR-6501. The item
was advertised correctly; however, some documents in the backup material
identified this item as V A-2004-AR-6501.
Item 9 A: The Board of County Commissioners sitting as the Community
Redevelopment Agency. Appointment of member to the Bayshore/Gateway
Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board.
Item 16A6: Note that the correct Case Number for Salvatore Cavataio is
2004070613 (rather than 2004040613) .
Item 16E4: The name of the vendor on the first line of the exhibit for Soduim
Fluorosilicate should be Brentag Mid-South (rathef than Univar).
Time Certain Items:
Items 10E and 10F to be heard prior to 8A.
Item 12A to be heard at 11 :00 a.m. Recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners direct outside counsel (Garvin & Tripp, P.A.), in conjunction with
the Office of the County Attorney, to take all appropriate steps to protect the
County's interests in connection with approximately 558 purported Bert Hafris Act
Claims allegedly arising out of the adoption of the Rural Fringe Growth
Management Plan Amendments and Implementing Regulations.
--. "'--~~ ~,..- -~--
January 11, 2005
Item #2B, #2C, #2D, #2E, #2F, #2G, #2H, & #2I
MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 22, 2002 AQUAPORT CLOSED
SESSION; NOVEMBER 30, 2004 BCC REGULAR MEETING;
DECEMBER 6, 2004 BCC/PUD MONITORING WORKSHOP #3;
DECEMBER 6, 2004 BCC/CONSERV A TION COLLIER
WORKSHOP; DECEMBER 7,2004 BCC/SIDEWALK
WORKSHOP; DECEMBER 14, 2004 BCC REGULAR MEETING;
DECEMBER 17, 2004 BCC/ANNUAL UPDATE INVENTORY
REPORT WORKSHOP; AND DECEMBER 17, 2004
BCC/TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL WORKSHOP -
AEEROVED AS E.RESENIED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve October 22nd,
'02, Aquaport closed; November 30th, '04, BCC/regular meeting;
December 6, BCC/PUD monitoring workshop; December 6th, '04,
BCC/Conservation Collier workshop; December 7th, '04,
BCC/sidewalk workshop; December 14th, '04, BCC/regular meeting;
December 17th, '04, BCC/annual update inventory report workshop;
December 17th, '04, BCC/Tourist Development Council workshop.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I have a second by Commissioner
Halas.
Before we go further, I just want to say that Commissioner
Henning has been there every meeting for me just handling this stuff,
and I really appreciate it. Last meeting --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Last meeting I failed.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 13
-~._""..,,-,.,_. ~".__..,.,-~ ""-
January 11,2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
Item # 3
SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD
MEMBER S)
And now we go on to advisory committee service awards. And
Commissioners, we have four today. Would you like to go down and
shake their hands?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure would.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Madam Chair, first we'll start off with the
five-year recipients, and these are advisory board members awards
participation.
The first recipient is Robert Doyle for the Airport Authority, and
he has served on that authority for five years.
MR. SCHMIDT: Madam Chairman?
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: I believe Mr. Gene Schmidt is here in Mr. --
MR. SCHMIDT: I'm not Mr. Doyle. He's unable to be here
today, and he asked me if I would come and accept the award on his
behalf.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would you tell him thanks so much for
all his hard work.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Nice seeing you, Gene.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thanks for all the work you've also
done. Appreciate it.
MR. MUDD: The next recipient is Ira Malamut, and she has
Page 14
-- ...."'~._-,~ ~~~,-_.....-~ ~-~--
January 11,2005
worked on the Immokalee Enterprise --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: He.
MR. MUDD: He, excuse me.
MR. MALAMUT: Actually it's a he.
MR. MUDD: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We could tell.
MR. MUDD: And he has worked on the Immokalee Enterprise
Zone Development Agency for five years.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks for your service.
MR. MALAMUT: God bless you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would you like to take a picture with us?
MR. MALAMUT: Stand in the back or front?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You can stand right here.
MR. MALAMUT: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: The next recipient is Janet Vasey, and she has
worked -- she has worked on the Collier County Productivity
Committee for five years.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: And that's the end of the five-year recipients.
The next recipient will go to 10 years, and that's Sabina Musci,
and she's worked on the Library Advisory Board for 10 years.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Wow, that's a long time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: Could we get a picture, please, ma'am?
MS. MUSCI: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: And Commissioner, that brings us to item 3A2,
and that's a presentation of the advisory committee outstanding
member award to Janet Vasey.
If Ms. Vasey would please come forward. And, ma'am, I will
switch real quick and start reading.
Page 15
-"". ~"."_'K__".~e'_ .---..".".----,..'" --.,-
January 11, 2005
Janet Vasey has served as a member of the Collier Government
Productivity Committee for about six years, even though we got her
five-year pin finally.
In addition to her most recent appointment on February 4th,
2004, she received previous appointments on January 12th, 1999,
March 14th, 2000, and February 4th, 2002. During the course of her
service to the Board of County Commissioners as a member of the
productivity committee, Ms. Vasey's, most recently in November of
this year, provided a thorough and comprehensive review of the
Economic Development Council/Anderson Fiscal Stability Analysis
as requested of the productivity committee by the Board of County
Commissioners.
This year she has also prepared, on behalf of the productivity
committee, a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners
regarding the Golden Gate Parkway overpass as well as a request that
the board address the Collier County School Board -- School Board's
updated school impact fees.
Ms. Vasey has assume the role of lead analyst on most impact fee
reviews, as lead analyst on a review of the first law enforcement
impact fee study. In 2004 Ms. Vasey identified critical challenges to
the methodology applied.
Upon review in 2003 of the first government building impact fee
study, she agreed with the methodology used.
Ms. Vasey also assumed responsibility of lead analyst on a
review of a transportation impact fee study in 2002 and identified
serious challenges to that methodology.
In 20 -- again in 2002, she made a recommendation to the board
about the recognition or the reorganization -- excuse me --
reorganization of the county manager's agency.
As vice chairman of the productivity (sic), also in 2002 she led
all committee members in a major budget review for fiscal year 2003.
hat review resulted in recommendations of millions of dollars in
Page 16
-" ~'"'..'._';"-""~ "_.. '-
January 11, 2005
budget reductions.
In 2001, Ms. Vasey wrote sections of the Airport Authority
review. In 2000, she consolidated the committee's major findings on
transportation shortfalls and recommended courses of action.
In 1999, she led a review of the general fund and the unincorporated
general fund.
Productivity Chairman -- Committee Chairman Joe Swaja wrote:
Janet has been an asset to the productivity committee. Her knowledge
of the government processes as compared to private industry practice
provides the team with the expertise we need to understand the
differences.
Her analytical ability is matched by no one. She is always willing
to get involved and can be counted on to deliver as promised. I enjoy
working with her and appreciate her candor, knowledge, experience,
and sense of humor.
And I'll end it there. Weare all very thankful she is part of our
team.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Personally, I think she deserves a raise.
How about you guys? Double the wage. But I do have to announce,
although she does all of this for nothing, we have given her a parking
space for one month.
Where is that parking space? I'm hoping it isn't out in the field.
MR. MUDD: No, ma'am. It's right by yours.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It is yours.
MS. VASEY: It's very close, and I found it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Janet, thank you so much.
The engineer (indicating) for the parking space by the way.
MR. MITCHELL: Congratulations.
(Applause.)
Item #4A
Page 1 7
~-~..,- --.-.--^,. _.,,,-~......._-,,.,.,, ,..,-,-_..,- ",-
January 11, 2005
PROCLAMATION TO DESIGNATE JANUARY 17,2005 AS
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And now we move on to proclamations.
The first proclamation for Martin Luther King Day will be read by
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And if I may call up Laverne
Franklin and Mary Linda Sanders, please, who's president of the
NAACP. Why don't you come right up front here while I read this
proclamation. Thank you.
Whereas, Congress of the United States of America has
designated the birthday of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.,
as a national holiday; and,
Whereas, the President of the United States has signed legislation
authorizing Reverend Dr. King's birthday, January 17th, as a national
holiday; and,
Whereas, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., received national and
international recognition for his stirring struggle against injustice and
leadership in expounding (sic) brotherhood, self-discipline, and
nonviolence; and,
Whereas, the Collier County branch of the National Association
for Advanced (sic) of Colored People, NAACP, will hold its
commemorative celebration of Dr. King's birthday by sponsoring the
community activities and events throughout the month of January
2005.
Now, there (sic), be it proclaimed by the Board of
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the month of January
2005 be designated as the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s
birthday celebration in Collier County, Florida, and urges all citizens
to remember the -- Dr. King's outstanding accomplishments by
participating in the commemorative celebration to be held throughout
the month of January.
Page 18
-- '---'~;"-";_.~ ...""..,----,.," ~
January 11, 2005
Done in this order, 11 day of January, 2005, signed by the chair.
Madam Chair, I make a motion that we approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor to approve
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.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Hi, Laverne. How are you?
MS. SANDERS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Our next proclamation --
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, I think you have a couple
comments.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry, Laverne. Excuse me. Just
moving right along.
MS. FRANKLIN: Oh, that's okay.
MS. SANDERS: I agree with you. As the new president of the
NAACP, on behalf of them, I accept this proclamation and thank you
for recognizing us and our work for such a famous African American.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, our new president of the NAACP.
Congratulations.
MS. FRANKLIN: It's the new president.
MS. SANDERS: As of January 1st.
Page 19
,'----~ ..--..~--_._" -----<-- ---
January 11,2005
(Applause.)
Item #4 B
PROCLAMATION TO DESIGNATE JANUARY 11,2005 AS BOY
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Our next proclamation will be read by
Commissioner Halas, and it's regarding the Boy Scout Troop 2001,
philanthropy -- philanthropy day. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. At this time I'd like to call
forward Michael Treiser, Robert Kohler, James Costi, and also
Christine Bianchi, and Maryann McCarty, please.
And this is in regards to a proclamation, and I want to say that one
time I can say that I was --
MR. MUDD: Come on, guys, right up here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- I was involved in this
organization, the Boy Scouts, and it's a great organization.
The proclamation reads as follows:
Whereas, our community of Naples in Collier County has
residents who are in need of assistance throughout each holiday
season; and,
Whereas, the loyal Boy Scout Troop 2001 sponsored by the
North Naples Fire and Rescue District met this need of the community
and conducted a fundraiser with the assistance of Chrissy's Wildside
Cafe to host a dinner to raise money for families in need; and,
Whereas, the generosity and determination of Boy Scout Troop
2001 has partially supplemented financial burdens of at least four
families in Collier County during the 2004 holiday season; and,
Whereas, through the kindness and support of the Collier County
Health Department, the baskets of food and toys were delivered to
families in need; and,
Page 20
--., .~.~.. _.~._....., -.~".--=-.'._'--' .~_._--
January 11, 2005
Whereas, with the continued support of their parents, families,
and the community of Collier County, the young leaders of Boy Scout
Troop 2001 will strive to assist others through the philanthropic acts
of kindness each holiday season and throughout the year.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that January 11th, 2005,
will be designated as Boy Scout Troop 2001 Philanthropic Day and
call upon all of our citizens in Collier County to remember others less
fortunate during the holiday season and all throughout the year.
Done and ordered this 11th day of January 2005, Board of
County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, Donna Fiala,
Chairperson, and I move that we approve this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor and a second
to approve.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let me stop you for just a moment. We
should have a seat to be envied, because as I look out, I can pick out
all the parents and grandparents of these kids because they have these
big, beaming smiles of pride on their face. So much fun to watch all
of you as you feel the pride for your young men. Thank you very
much.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I pass these out? Would you
give this down to Chrissy, please, and then we'll give one to each of
Page 21
-- ~">.~..._-,.....-.,~_. ' . .-."'..-..._--_.-.,~~ ".'--
January 11, 2005
the Boy Scouts. There's two more.
Line them up, Sergeant.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would you like to say a few words?
Yeah, we should shake your hands.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, definitely.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We sure should.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Of these young fine gentlemen.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you for all your work.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do you happen to be a Watkins boy? Is
your last name Watkins? Oh.
BOY SCOUT: You're the first person that's ever said my name
correctly without me having to tell them what it is.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Wow.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's because he's from
Michigan.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Boy, look at all the awards they're
wearing and everything.
MS. McCARTY: My name is Maryanne McCarty, and I work
with the Collier County Health Department. And I just want you to
know that I was able to see the faces of the clients that these young
men assisted. And I wrote a letter to the Naples Daily News, and I'll
just quote one thing. I said, look no further to the future of Collier
County. It is here.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: Thanks, guys.
Item #4C
Page 22
--- ""_r~""_U'" ..~. ,.-.- --._----"''"'' ,.....-"--
January 11, 2005
PROCLAMATION TO DESIGNATE JANUARY 16 - 22,2005 AS
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And now Commissioner Coletta, will you
read the next proclamation?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Madam Chair.
This is for the purple martins, and I'm going to ask for the -- Mr. Jerry
Glasson and whoever else from the Purple Martin Society of Collier
County who may be in the audience to please come forward at this
time. Looks like you're it, Jerry.
MR. GLASSON: I'm it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But we're always glad to have
you. I think I've seen this proclamation every year since I've been
here as commissioner, and I believe that I got to read it probably about
three out of the four times. I guess that they figure I'm a bird person,
and they're right. So if I may have you turn and face the audience.
Whereas, in a very short time thousands of our very beautiful
feathered friends, the purple martins, will return from their winter
home in Brazil; and,
Whereas, these birds will be searching for suitable housing to
enable them to nest and rear their young; and,
Whereas, the Florida legislator -- legislature has designated
Collier County the purple martin capital of Florida; and,
Whereas, the Purple Martin Society of Collier County is desirous
of urging the public to erect proper housing for these very valuable
winged creatures by placing said housing on their property; and,
Whereas, during the period of January 16th to the 22nd, 2005, the
Purple Martin Society of Collier County will endeavor to alert the
public to how valuable these birds are in helping to diminish the insect
and mosquito population.
And, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of January
Page 23
~._-~- ".'''''o."",__",,,,..-''_~-d'__'''''''"_">''''~'_''''''' "~-,--- .------
January 11,2005
16th through the 22nd, 2005, be designated as Purple Martin Week in
Collier County and urge all citizens to join with the Purple Martin
Society of Collier County to show their concern for these valuable and
friendly winged creatures and learn to protect and preserve them.
Done and ordered this, the 11th day of January, 2005, Donna
Fiala, Chairperson.
And I make a motion for approval, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 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.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if you would like to say a
couple words on behalf of our feathered friends, we'd love to hear it.
Oh, we didn't get the official picture.
MR. GLASSON: Well, once again, this has almost become
routine every year. Seems like the years fly by faster.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MR. GLASSON: But the birds are a little late this year, and
we've spotted a few, but none of them have come to roost. We're
hoping for a good productive year again, since the mosquitoes are
always here.
So the newsletter you have, if you care to join our club, there's an
application on the back of it. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Page 24
,- ..-....-,...,. ..,,_...,..~.~--~--_." "-
January 11, 2005
Item #5A
COMMISSIONER COYLE SELECTED AS CHAIRMAN AND
COMMISSIONER HALAS SELECTED AS VICE-CHAIRMAN -
.AEER OVEn
And now we move on to the selection of a new chairman and
vice chairman. Every year, the first meeting in January, we elect a
new chairman for the Board of County Commissioners and a new vice
chair.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Madam Chair, it would be my
honor to nominate Fred Coyle for the chair.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I'll second that.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Mr. Chairman?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And we --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We need a vice chair--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: There we are.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- to help me carry out my duties,
and I would like to nominate Commissioner Halas.
Page 25
._"-- ..-.--".-.-, ~-'''''">'''--'~~'-' ,",.,-".._,...-",._" "~-
January 11, 2005
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I'll second that.
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: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And before I give up my seat --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Uh-oh.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a few words I'd like to say.
Normally whenever I'm talking about something from my heart, I
can never read anything, so I'm going to probably stumble through this
a little bit, and I ask that you please, kind of, put up with me while I
do that.
But I'd like to read a couple things and tell you, you know, when
I started this job a year ago, I was really nervous, a woman, a short
woman, sitting up here as the new chair. I didn't know if I would be
able to do it, especially with these guys that are all strong and quite,
quite brilliant, and I didn't know if I would be up to the task.
But I want to tell you, every one of them has been there by my
side helping me, and we have worked together as a team all year long,
and it's absolutely been a joy and a pleasure in this position.
But I would like to tell you a few of the things we accomplished
this year, and now I'm going to read my statement, my prepared
statement.
Throughout the past year I have been privileged to serve as
chairman of the Board of County Commissioners. Please allow me to
take this opportunity to express my appreciation to each of you, my
Page 26
- "..--,- -,.-.,,,,,,,,..,,-,-.,,- --
January 11, 2005
fellow commissioners, for contributing to what has been a very
successful year.
We have combined our efforts, and as a unified, cohesive group,
we have done a remarkable job. It has, indeed, been a rewarding
experience working with all of you in 2004, and I look forward to
2005 with a great deal of enthusiasm with our new chair and new vice
chair as we continue to meet the challenges of this dynamic Collier
County community and make decisions in the best interests of our
constituents.
At this time I'd like to share with you some of the 2004
accomplishments that I'm most proud of. Not that these are all of
them, because we've had a lot this year.
In the Transportation Services Division, we implemented, in
March of 2004, our transportation checkbook concurrency initiative
which ensures adequate road capacity in place before any new
development is improved.
A final segment of Livingston Road -- ah, was that a wonderful
thing -- between Vanderbilt Beach Road to Immokalee Road has been
completed. We have proceeded with construction of Golden Gate
Parkway, Goodlette- Frank Road, and Immokalee Road.
Construction has begun on the Golden Gate Overpass, Vanderbilt
Beach Road, and Immokalee Road between U.S. 41 and I-75. Also,
phase one of the computerized signal system has been finalized and
phase two has been initiated.
Our Collier County Area Transit, the CA T system, has been a
resounding success with ridership of nearly one-quarter of a million
passengers as of February 2004.
Staff has been constructing additional bus shelters and expanding
routes, including service to Marco Island, which has been a -- quite a
success, and we had no idea it would -- would be that successful.
We initiated the median and roadside landscaping program
consistent with the landscape master plan.
Page 27
,.-- -----~,._--' .~_._~..;~--". .- ---.....-". _'W"'_
January 11,2005
Our new Emergency Services Bureau really had a workout
during 2004 hurricane season with four major hurricanes threatening
Collier County and our neighbors across Florida. And we, in many
cases, because we were so fortunate, we still housed our neighbors
here because they had to have a place to flee and someone to take care
of their needs.
In the Public Services Division, commissioners approved a
partnership and lease agreement with the Children's Museum of
Naples, which will be located in the new North Naples Regional Park,
which is scheduled to open in May, 2006.
Restoration continues for Lake Trafford. In honor of the driving
force behind this initiative, Lake Trafford Park has been renamed to
Ann Olesky Park.
Commissioners approved real estate incentive for boat and beach
access, which allowed Parks and Recreation to purchase several
residential lots near Bayview Park to provide more parking and
boating access to those in the county who don't have direct access in
their own neighborhoods.
The Vanderbilt Beach Parking Garage is on the horizon finally
with an intended completion date of November -- November 2005.
With open -- when opened, more Collier County residents will have
the opportunity to enjoy beautiful Vanderbilt Beach in North Naples.
Our Collier County Museum System announced the Pioneer
Museum in Immokalee, Roberts Ranch, was listed with the National
Register of Historic Places as the 18th national historic landmark to be
listed in Collier County.
The county also moved forward with plans to lease the Naples
Depot, which will serve as the gateway to our own museum system,
and we're just so thrilled about this -- this agreement with the Naples
Depot.
Congratulations go to our Collier County Library Department,
which won area and state public relations awards for the Love My
Page 28
----... .~_.~_.,,-~'."'~,...._..,-. "..---~---.~. _.~~-
January 11, 2005
Library Campaign. They have also completed construction of the
addition to the Immokalee branch library.
In 2004, we also began revamping Domestic Animal Services,
and a successful relationship was forged with previous shelter
adversaries and an ambitious campaign was launched.
We also brought onboard a new director, Margo Castorina
(phonetic), who has made numerous improvements in the DAS
operations.
There have been significant improvements in the Tourism
Department, including promotions and a new campaign slogan and
logo identifying our region as the Paradise Coast, and I believe this
year we broke all records for tourism dollar collections.
The Airport Authority has a new director, Teresa Cook, and a
new five-year plan has been adopted -- has been developed, excuse
me.
The Community Development and Environmental Services
Division -- in the Community Development and Environmental
Services Division, the Conservation Collier program was aggressively
implemented and land acquisitions have already begun.
Five Economic Development Council incentive programs were
developed and implemented, which fostered the creation of the
county's housing development corporation.
We had three Land Development Code Cycles this year which
resulted in numerous amendments. In addition, the existing LDC was
condensed to eliminate duplications and organized in a more
user- friendly section -- in more user-friendly sections.
A great deal of time was spent developing design standards and
baselines for the Rural Lands Stewardship Sending and Receiving
areas. A Transfer of Development Rights program was approved and
has -- is being implemented, which will, in turn, protect
environmentally sensitive wetlands and uplands while focusing
development in lands that are disturbed, such as farmlands.
Page 29
-"' ,.-.........."".-... -,.~--","'~'. ".'-
January 11,2005
The Ave Maria Community District and the Big Cypress
Stewardship District were created. A two-year-Iong project called
The Contract with the Community on Concurrency was directed by
the board and CDES, who did an excellent job delivering exactly what
we requested.
The Public Utilities Engineering Department has either
completed or is currently working on more than -- get ahold of this --
more than 200 water and wastewater capital proj ects with a budget of
more than $285 million. That means they're planning for our future
now.
And a lot of people worry about our water, well, I want to tell
you, they're up there and they're taking care of us, and we're just so
pleased with how much they've done. Additionally, there are six solid
waste proj ects that staff is addressing.
Commissioners, county staff, and community members, I'm
pleased to say the list goes on and on. Indeed, 2004 has been an
exceptional year marked with successes we can all be proud of.
Working as a team, which we have really done, has made it all
possible, and I look forward to another year of tremendous progress in
2005.
Again, I wish to extend my sincere thanks to the citizens of
Collier County, their commissioners, and our aides, by the way, our
wonderful assistants -- assistants. Each one of us, they make us look
good, don't they -- and all the dedicated Collier County government
staff who have been so supportive throughout the year for making our
-- my year as chairman a very productive and rewarding experience.
Your cooperation and dedication are truly appreciated. Thank
you very much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let me present this to you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Page 30
--- ~..""",.~-'--~- '-~-"""- ^"'-
January 11, 2005
COMMISSIONER COYLE: With that list of accomplishments,
there's really nothing left for me to do this year.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But I would like to present you
with a plaque. It expresses our appreciation for Donna Fiala's
leadership and service as chairman of this commission for the last
year. I'm told that you're not authorized to use the gavel to control the
meetings anymore, but you can use it to give me gentle reminders
when I do something wrong.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we have one other thing that
we, would like to present to you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: A check?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Don't go away.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Boy, is this beautiful. What an
honor.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're a great lady.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, you're the first one to get
one of these in quite a few years.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You guys haven't ever gotten one of
these.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't want to start a precedent
here, because I don't want any flowers when I leave, but this is to
show our appreciation as a Board of County Commissioners for all of
the things you do for our community and the compassion you show
for all the constituents in Collier County. Thank you very much for
the wonderful job you've done.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. I can't hug you, Frank. Oh,
yes, I can.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, we're going to take a short break.
Page 3 1
--.- ._-~-- '--'-"""'-" -.~_.,~" --
January 11,2005
Let's make it a 10-minute break rather than a 15-minute break, and
give people an opportunity to express their appreciation to Donna for
all the work she's done for the past year.
(A brief recess was taken.)
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
Item #5B
A REPORT FROM THE COLLIER COUNTY HEALTH
DEPARTMENT REGARDING A STUDY OF THE
BACTERIOLOGICAL SAFETY OF THE DRINKING WATER
FROM PRIV A TE WELLS IN GOLDEN GATE CITY -
ERESENIED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, County Manager. I believe the
next item on the agenda is a report from the Collier County Health
Department regarding a study of the bacteriological safety of the
drinking water from private wells in Golden Gate City.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Dr. Colfer?
DR. COLFER: Good morning --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How are you?
DR. COLFER: -- Chairman Coyle, members of the commission.
For the record, I'm Dr. Joan Colfer, Director of Collier County Health
Department. I'm here with staff from our Environmental Health
Division to report on a board-funded study of water quality in private
drinking wells in Golden Gate City.
Now, just to briefly review, concerns about well water in this
area surfaced after several source wells for the Florida Governmental
Utility Authority, also located in Golden Gate, appeared to have
significant bacteriological contamination back in the fall of 2002.
Now, their water's chlorinated before it's ever distributed to their
Page 32
'-'. ~.._------, -"~"~"--"-" "---""~' -,,~
January 11, 2005
customers, so the concern was not for their drinking water, but the
concern was for the remaining 40 percent of the individuals that lived
in Golden Gate City and that obtained their drinking water, bathing
water, from the well in their backyard, their private drinking well
water.
The health department began sampling in the area close to the
contaminated wells, and we also took some random samples
throughout Golden Gate City. We had some initial lab problems but
were eventually able to get reliable data that indicated that very few
wells had fecal coliforms, but quite a few had total coliforms
indicating a need for better maintenance of individual wells.
And the health department, in response to that at the time
developed some brochures, distributed them to the community that
was on private wells, and encouraged people to seek assistance from
their well drillers and clean up their wells.
However, there remained a concern, because all of our testing
was in response to a concern for public health and was therefore
conducted at the time we had the problem, all of the testing was
during the dry season, was in the fall of 2002 and the first months in
the winter of2003.
Because of that we came back to the board during the next
budget cycle and asked you all to fund the health department to do
another study sampling a statistically representative sample of wells
throughout the city done in all four quarters of the year so we could
compare the dry season to the wet season and be sure we really didn't
have a problem there. You all, very graciously, agreed to fund us to
do that.
And then in addition, Clarence Tears from the South Florida
Water Management District was on our ad hoc committee looking at
this particular problem, and he offered some additional funding which
allowed us to test for nitrates and nitrites in that water.
Now, these chemicals are indicative or can be indicative of
Page 33
----. -.~---...''"' .. ~-----~..-, '----'._-- -_.-
January 11, 2005
polluted waters. Septic tanks, manure, and fertilizer are sources of
nitrates, for instance. These chemicals are problems for small infants
and young children because they interfere with the oxygen carrying
capacity of the blood, and they actually cause what's called Blue Baby
Syndrome or Methemoglobinemia, which can actually kill small
infants in -- that are drinking water from these wells. So we really
wanted to be sure that our community in Golden Gate wasn't dealing
with this problem, too.
Now, with that I'll stop for a second and turn this over Ken Reck
(phonetic), who is our engineer and director of the Environmental
Health Division for the health department, and his staff to present the
findings and recommendations of the study. Ken?
MR. RECK: Thank you. Good morning, Commissioners. And
for the record, my name is Ken Reck, and I'm the Environmental
Health and Engineering Director.
And at this time I'd like to present some of our findings to go
along with the published report that we have in front of you, and let
me go ahead and start.
And the map in front -- up on the screen, this is a depiction of
Golden Gate City, which is approximately -- okay, I'm sorry --
approximately a four-square-mile area of Golden Gate City. And in
the area right where the pointer is indicating, this area right here is, for
the most part, public water and public sewer in this area here.
And so we can -- we did most of our study in the area that was
not served by the public water and public sewer. So we -- we
selected, over the course of the year, from September 2003 to August
2004, we had 108 locations that were part of our study.
And we also picked the wells so that they had a very good
indication as far as a spread, and we wanted to see the best condition
of Golden Gate City so that it was truly representative.
The chart in front of you, on the first sampling period, we had 93
participants, and on the second we had 93, the third, 92, and the
Page 34
--,., M",,"__'=-'~_"" . '*-#_-- --
January 11, 2005
fourth, 92.
The 92 sample participants was statistically significant in that it
added validity to our study. It's probably -- we have some indications
here of the different good samples and some of the problems, but let
me show you on the -- I think it's much cleaner if we show you the
picture right here, that 91.4 percent of all the samples that we took
during the whole course of the study -- and there were 370 locations
that were actually sampled -- that 91 percent of those were clean on
the first sampling.
On the first sampling, only 8.6 percent of the people had total
coli form contamination, and 0.8 percent had any fecal.
When we also -- anyone who had a positive bacteriological
result, we also went back and did a confirmation test on to make sure
that the initial sample was, in fact, something that might really be in
the groundwater.
And the 8.6 percent that you see there went down to 4.3 percent,
so half of the samples did not confirm positive on the second
sampling. On the fecal, it went from 0.8 percent down to 0.5 percent
on our confirmation.
Some of the sample results, the 8.6 percent of the initial
groundwater samples tested positive, the -- and then the 0.8
groundwater samples tested positive for the fecal coli form, and then
4.3 percent for the repeated total coli form positives.
We also reviewed the nitrate and nitrite samples. The goods
news that we found during all the nitrate and nitrite samples was that
where we did find any levels of laboratory analysis, they were just
barely over the method detection limit, and there was -- in no case was
there any problem with any of the readings.
And, in fact, the highest reading that we had on nitrate was 10
times less than the standard for drinking water.
And the best way to look at this is that 98 percent of the water
that was tested out there had no results for nitrate or nitrite.
Page 35
'-'~' ..----" ~~"_.- .~,....__...M ---..--- "--
January 11, 2005
So on the nitrates and nitrites, we only detected nine locations out of
the 370 total participants during the complete study, and this would --
only represented 2.4 percent of the samples tested.
And like I indicated, the nitrate and nitrate levels were of no
public health concern because they were just barely over what the lab
could determine.
Some results that we were able to -- by analyzing the data, only
two of the hundred plus sample locations exhibited positive, or excuse
me, exhibited repeat positive samples during the 12-month study, and
only two sample locations exhibited any repeat in nitrate or nitrite, and
that was over the complete 12-month study.
Some of our conclusions. The chance of finding total coli form
bacteria in the groundwater serving Golden Gate City is low. The
chance of finding fecal coli form bacteria contamination in
groundwater beneath Golden Gate City is extremely low. And there --
at this time there is no indication of any elevated levels of nitrate,
nitrite, or bacteriological contamination in the groundwater serving the
residents of Golden Gate City.
Our recommendations, based on the study results, at this time we
don't anticipate any requirement for any additional groundwater
studies in the Golden Gate City area, and we'd also like to stress that
during our sampling, that many times we found wells that were not
well maintained and the treatment systems needed some -- they
needed some effort to make sure that they were protected from
animals and some of the dirt and debris that accompanies people who
have treatment systems on their wells.
And part of our effort, as we went around and sampled, is we
handed out information to the people and we worked with the people,
and we really saw a need for continued education in the community on
anyone who was being served by private water.
So at this point I also have two of the staff members; I have Jim
Miller, who was the -- in charge of the program, and -- he's in the
Page 36
-,-". "-.~._-- ~---,.~."' ..>.""._~.~...- -,,---
January 11, 2005
audience, and also Jim Grimes was the environmental-- the inspector
who did all the sampling, so that we had continuity.
And if you should have any questions, they're here to help.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, just one question, just to help
me understand a little bit. I had always kind of visualized wells as like
straws going into the same water supply, and yet when you said you
had some of these problems in some of them, I was wondering how --
how only a few were affected but not all of the rest of them because
they're all poking their straws into the same water supply. Is that
because their treatment systems are poor or something or what?
MR. RECK: For the most part, when we see some of the
bacteriological results, it's only taking a snapshot at the present time
when you take that particular sample, and they may be at different
levels that the wells are drawing from.
If the -- there's always contamination in the groundwater sources
in some small amount, and it only takes the presence of one colony of
bacteria to give you an indication that you have a problem, so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But the colony just lives in that
areas and it doesn't go swimming around to other areas?
MR. RECK: Well, the groundwater is actually more like a river
flowing under the ground, and at anyone point in time you may have
something.
If you continued to start seeing bacteriological problems, then
that would be more indicative of a con -- of an actual problem.
Sometimes some of the bacteria is just in the well casing itself, and
just by sampling you'll dislodge one. So that's why we always go
back and recheck to verify that the first sample was truly accurate.
DR. COLFER: So in other words, if there's anything there, it's
very transient and it's not of a nature that's a public health concern.
The water might be transiently dirty for one point in time, when we
happen to have sampled it.
Page 37
"-' -_._,_.~ --~"-~~"" ",.,_._~.. -.-
January 11, 2005
But we only saw, was it, one or two households that had fecal
contamination throughout the study, and those par -- that particular
household that I'm thinking of was doing a lot of construction in the
backyard, we think disrupted the septic system, and probably caused
that one to be the one that was repeat. But that's it. I mean,
everything else looked really good.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess you could say in conclusion
then, any contamination that was discovered was probably from the
wellhead back to the water softener and any spigots that were attached
to the outward side of the building; is that what you're -- the
conclusion that you've come to, that it isn't the source, the water
source itself, but it's because of the maintenance, or whatever, at the
wellhead?
MR. RECK: Well, for the most part, this study attempted to take
the water at the closest sampling point to the well, and we tried to
eliminate the distribution and all the other associated piping from the
house.
For the most part, we tried to get the water directly from the
groundwater, but it could be some bacteria in the water itself or it
could even be from the casing. And we had a normal procedure where
we ran the water for five minutes, but in all cases that may not be
sufficient to fully evacuate a well.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, how about when you
disinfected the well and you came back and checked it, then
everything turned out to be okay?
MR. RECK: For the most part, when we found a bad sample, we
went back and sampled again, and we did not disinfect the wells
themselves, but we disinfected the sampling tap itself.
We wanted to make sure that before -- before we notified the
people that they had a real problem and to get someone else to look at
their situation to help them out, we wanted to make sure that the
Page 38
'-"<- ".".~._-_. ....,-.--,.....-.."'. ,.'-.-----"" -
January 11,2005
bacteriological was actually true.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. My question is regarding
the septic tanks. Do you think that there's any concern at this point
about septic tanks in Golden Gate City being a possible threat to the
groundwater?
MR. RECK: At this -- at this point, from the results of the study,
it did not appear that there was any contamination from any of the
localized septic systems and that, also in that area, we were also very
concerned about some of the surficial canals that were around there.
And if there would have been some problem that we would have
determined, we probably would have seen it in not only the
bacteriologicals but some elevation in nitrate and nitrite. And in all
cases, like I said, they were very, very small.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Dr. Colfer, you've recommended that no
additional tests are required at the present time. Does that imply that
there should be tests done sometime in the future? Do you have any
idea about the interval for testing in this area, or is it acceptable to
caution the residents themselves to have samples of their water tested
for these bacteriological contaminants?
DR. COLFER: Well, at this time we're not planning to do any
more testing. I mean, we've been -- we've been working with this
really basically back to 2002. So we have a comfort level that allows
us to sleep at night to know, you know, that the children are not in any
danger, there's no nitrates and that, for the most part, except for maybe
some transient dirty water that goes through there, that they're in good
shape. And, again, the dirty water is not fecal. We only have those
one or two households, and staff is working with them to clear up
those problems.
So at this point, no. But remember that we are the agency that
does get complaints when there are failing septic systems in the area
Page 39
-- ."0<.__' ---
January 11,2005
and we're going to continue to monitor those, look for any increases,
look for complaints from the citizenry, and the other thing is to look at
the continued development in that area. We've always been concerned
that it's very densely populated to be on septic systems.
But at this juncture, it doesn't look like that's a problem for the
community. But we will continue to watch it very, very closely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: When I look at the data results that
you submitted to us, basically we're talking about -- let's see if we've
got this right here -- figure 4.3 and 4.4, I notice that there's one
particular residence that seems to have a reoccurring problem. What
have you done to address this particular residence?
MR. RECK: Okay. At this time let me ask Jim Miller to come
up and address your question.
MR. MILLER: You were looking at figure 4.3 and 4.4?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct, sir. I mean, I notice
that the same residence looks like it has reoccurring problem from the
test results.
MR. MILLER: Yes. In fact, that residence actually detected
three times, and figure 4.1 was also on there.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. MILLER: In these four maps over here on the wall, if you
can see them, represent the four quarters that we did, starting from
September on your left, to July and August over here, of this year.
And location one, which is the one spot that you mentioned, was
-- tested positive in three of those four quarters. That was the same
property Dr. Colfer mentioned, that they had construction going on
pretty much most of the 12 months during the time we sampled, and
we felt that that was probably a cause for them getting repeat
positives.
What we did was, we contacted them every time we got a
Page 40
-"'" --.-",.-,.---. ..'......-.....--.'.".' ...----- ---
January 11, 2005
positive. We did the repeat samples to confirm that it was positive.
And when it was, we also offered -- it wasn't a part of our original
study. We offered to take a sample of their distribution to make sure
that since the groundwater was positive, to find out if their treatment
system was working and taking that contamination out before it got
into the house.
So we did that. We offered that to all those people that were
positive. Most of them accepted. We did that. We also did get a few
positives on the distribution. So that's why our recommendation at the
end is that people need to maintain their systems because even if the
groundwater, like our study is saying, is fairly safe from bacteria, it
can occur occasionally. And if your treatment system isn't working
properly, it's going to get into your house.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The question I have to follow up on
that is that -- have you tested this well since August 2004?
MR. MILLER: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do you think that we should go
back and just make a spot-check of that well to see if that has cleared
up?
MR. MILLER: I believe that the four quarters that we did gave
us enough information that shows that they have a problem. We've
advised them to seek professional help. Each of those homeowners
are responsible for their well.
And we've -- in fact, Jim Grimes and I have talked to them
directly numerous times about, hey, this is what we've found. You
should really have someone check your system, clean your system,
and also your treatment system so -- to make sure that if there's
anything going on, it doesn't -- it doesn't get into the house.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what you're saying is, it's up to
the individual now --
MR. MILLER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- and not the county's
Page 41
- . .^--~~-- --
January 11, 2005
responsibility; is that correct?
MR. MILLER: That's what I'm saying.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Item number 5C.
Thank you, Dr. Colfer.
DR. COLFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's good seeing you again.
DR. COLFER: Nice to see you.
Item #5C
RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AN UPDATE AND
PROVIDE INPUT FOR THE COUNTY ROAD 951 PROJECT
DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT (PD&E) STUDY, FROM
IMMOKALEE ROAD TO ALICO ROAD IN COLLIER AND LEE
COUNTIES - MOTION TO ACCEPT CONSULTANT'S
MR. MUDD: Item 5C is a recommendation to receive an update
and provide input for the County Road 951 Project Development and
Environment, PD&E study from Immokalee Road to Alico Road in
Collier and Lee Counties.
MR. QUINTY: We had this set up originally. It's either--
temporarily disappeared. Give you a brief introduction. For the
record, Joe Quinty, your Transportation Planning Department. I am
the staff liaison for the county route 951 PD&E study.
This is an effort that's gone on for a little over two years. You
might remember last January that we gave a similar presentation to
you, and a lot has happened since then.
It's really a good effort, a good cooperative effort between Collier
Page 42
-'.' e~__~" ~",.",--"""" _.~-~.. ,.--..--
January 11, 2005
County, Lee County, and the Florida Department of Transportation.
We have Donda (phonetic) Berry here as the Project Manager for Lee
County. We want to thank him for attending and lending his support.
And I'm going to find the presentation here on the drive, and then I'll
turn it over to Ralph Beauvais who is largely responsibility for the
success we've had at this point, and he's with the consulting firm of
DRMP.
MR. BEAUVAIS: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of
the commission. My name is Ralph Beauvais. I'm a Vice-President
with the consulting firm of Dire, Riddle, Mills and Precourt. For the
record, our address is 1505 East Colonial Drive, Orlando, 32803.
I'm here this morning as the Consultant/Proj ect Manager for the
County Road 951 Project Development and Environment study. The
project is being commissioned by the Lee County Board of County
Commissioners in association with your board as well as the Florida
Department of Transportation.
It's been almost exactly one year since we've provided an update
to you. In fact, I think it was January 13th of 2004 when we provided
a progress update, and it looks like the PowerPoint presentation is up
and running, Joe?
MR. MUDD: I believe so. You need to just put it on the bottom
and do the -- come on up a little. To the right. Right there, that
button.
MR. BEAUV AIS: Okay, great.
The purpose of this presentation is just to provide to you an
update and an overview of the PD&E study and the progress that
we've accomplished in the past year since the last presentation to your
board and talk specifically about the alternatives analysis, in
particular, present to you our recent recommendations or results of our
evaluation for project alternatives, as well as talk about the no-build
alternative, which is a viable alternative that is considered throughout
the PD&E study process.
Page 43
,-~ ......~-"".,.,._,. ,."_.-....--,~' --
January 11, 2005
At the very beginning of the project -- and you recall that we've
established certain project goals and objectives, this helps us
determine the purpose of the extension of County Road 951 between
Immokalee Road in Collier County and Alico Road in Lee County.
Essentially the roadway is identified as being needed to relieve
congestion on paralegal north/south facilities, including I-75, to also
provide a facility that separates regional and local trips and try to get
some of the local trips off of the interstate which is intended to serve
more longer distance and region trip purposes.
And by doing this, we enhance the north/south mobility through
this portion of Southwest Florida and improve safety on the regional
network by providing options and opportunities for distributing travel
demand, and also to improve emergency management in the light of
the recent hurricane season, and I'm not sure we can have enough
evacuation routes to serve all points of Florida.
In terms of the alternatives analysis, I will talk a little bit about
the no-build alternative a little later in my presentation, but present to
you build options that we have developed throughout this process.
And whether it's a no-build alternative or build alternative that we
look at, those options or alternatives must satisfy the project goals and
obj ectives and have that relationship between what we believe the
need and function and purpose of the roadway is.
So we begin by looking at travel demand forecasts. I'm not going
to go through this chart in any great detail, but this is an example of
the type of data that is produced early on in a PD&E study that gives
us an idea of what our travel demand forecast will be in the year 2030,
which is design year. That is what we're trying to provide and
accommodate for in terms of growth and population and need for
transportation.
We are looking at all of the north/south roadways that are within
or adjacent to the 951 study area. We look at the different roadway
types, and we compare the travel demand forecasts for the roadway if
Page 44
~--- -"",-- '~-'~-''''-'"' ,,,.,,,,,,,,",,,,.,".,,,,,,,,",C" .~,-,."'~ .....-
January 11, 2005
it were to be implemented against the, what we call no-build
alternative or, you know, the traffic and travel demand if we did not
build 951.
And from that, then we can provide a travel service comparison.
And, again, I won't go through all of the details of this chart, but it,
again, is a sample of the type of data that is produced during a study.
This one happens to be color coded to show that with the 951
extension, whether it's an arterial roadway or a limited access toll
road, whether it terminates at an extension of Estero Parkway or goes
all the way up to Alico Road in Lee County, the yellow highlighted
boxes indicate an improvement in level of service and up to a 9
percent reduction of traffic on those parallel roadways, such as U.S.
41, Old 41, and I-75.
The green colored boxes indicate a reduction of traffic on those
parallel facilities of 10 percent or more. And then the blue colored
boxes on this chart indicate an improvement in level of service on
those parallel facilities if we were to build 951.
So you can see the magnitude of benefit just from a travel
demand standpoint that the roadway would bring.
You'll recall back a year ago when we presented to you -- and I
may have referred to this as our spaghetti bowl of alternative
alignments, that these were possible combinations of alternatives
probably representing several hundred different ways to get from
Immokalee Road to Alico Road, and actually these alternatives were
developed in conjunction with the general public at a public workshop
setting where we actually encouraged and empowered members of the
community to help us draw these alignments. These -- this is a graphic
representation of that exercise.
We then proceeded through the evaluation of those alternative
alignments looking basically at the travel service and whether we met
the project goals and objectives and what type of impacts and can we
minimize impacts to social environment, natural environment, and
Page 45
~."~----..,-~...,., . ~,---,-"~"_.....-.,_.'_' - ~.._.~-
January 11, 2005
physical environment.
So with the number of alternatives that we dealt with from the
very beginning of the project, we went through an initial screening.
And this is where we left off last year at our presentation.
The alignments that are represented in green on this exhibit were
those that emerged as the most viable project alternatives at that time.
Now, we have gone through a series of presentations through the
past year, including presentations to your board, to the Lee County
Board of County Commissioners, and a number of other Government
Organizations, Staff Agencies, and Intergovernmental Coordination,
as well as providing updates to Special Interest Groups.
We've been working very closely with groups like the National
Wildlife Federation, the Conservancy of Southwest Florida and others
that you see listed on this exhibit on this slide, and proceeded then to
go through a refinement of those proj ect alternatives and looking
specifically at more detail on the preliminary engineering and the
design criteria, looking at different alternatives or roadway types.
As I mentioned, we're looking at this roadway two different
ways, either as an arterial or controlled access-type facility or one as a
limited access toll road.
We have been directed by the Lee County Commission, and I
believe you all have expressed an interest in, perhaps, finding ways to
help finance this project or subsequent phases of this project, and a toll
road is just one of those mechanisms that can be used to do that.
We've also, in the past year, started looking at more specific
roadway concepts than in typical sections, what would the roadway
actually look like.
At the very beginning of the project we were dealing with
corridor widths for the alignments of about 500 feet, but now that
we've begun to determine the number of lanes and the median
separation, we've begun to define those right-of-way limits, and we
can fit a roadway in more like 250 feet. So that helps reduce the
Page 46
-" ' .__,~._~~.o*~.._ --"<-'" .~..,.-,- ~~"'-
January 11, 2005
impacts from the initial project screening.
I'm just giving you the highlights of the work that we've actually
accomplished over the past year.
And so with that, we also made some modifications to the
alignments from a geometric standpoint, and also from the standpoint
of trying to minimize -- further minimize environmental impacts, and
also maximize the use of available rights-of-way or existing roadway
networks as we tie this roadway some 13 miles in length from
Immokalee Road to Alico.
So as a result of all of that, again, starting with the map that we
left off with last year at our last presentation, we've refined the project
alternatives. I'm not going to -- I will address any specific details that
you might have in this graphic representation, but this is really the
result of that work.
Now what I'm going to do is kind of flip the study area on you,
and north now is to the right. This is Immokalee Road on the left side,
Alico Road on the right, I - 7 5 is at the top of the exhibit.
And I will go through and just talk a little bit about now the
recommendations and the results of the evaluation that we've
accomplished late last year and presented at a public information
workshop on November the 30th.
The color graphic representation here, the alignments that are
shown in an orange or red color are those that have been
recommended to be eliminated from further study. And those that are
in the or -- or the yellow and green are those alignment alternatives
that we're recommending move forward now to an even more detailed
engineering evaluation and would move forward into the
documentation of the environmental impact statement.
So we'll focus a little bit, or as much as you would like, on the
Collier County section from Immokalee Road actually up to Bonita
Beach Road. I know that's in Lee County, but that provides a logical
(sic) term, and I just want to talk about this section in particular.
Page 47
__B -.<....--" ,_ """"_".~'L"'''_",~,,,,,*,,"_'''--'~'''-'-' .--,........-
January 11,2005
Initially we had two -- basically two alignment alternatives
beginning at Immokalee Road and taking advantage of available
rights-of-way between Heritage Bay and Mirasol and proceeding
northward to a point where there are then two alternatives, again,
maximizing utilization of existing or anticipated rights-of-way that
would be available from Heritage Bay and Mirasol.
One alternative would continue due north and come across the
Lee/Collier County line, impacting Corkscrew Growers and the Bonita
RPD and then terminating at Bonita Beach Road and then turning to
the west to connect over towards Bonita Grande.
The other alternative has more of a diagonal in a north/west
direction. Again, taking advantage of available rights-of-way that
have been set aside through the Mirasol flowway.
This area in particular would receive some additional
consideration on behalf of the engineering design and would be
looking at grade separation or a bridge structure that would come
through some of the more environmentally sensitive lands, and then
tying back in between Corkscrew Growers and Parklands West.
In Lee County, there are available rights-of-way between these
two planned developments that would enable us to have the roadway,
then come up and cross over Bonita Beach Road.
We did, at the request of certain agency representatives in an
intergovernmental agency coordination meeting we held back in
February, we did look at the utilization of Logan Boulevard, which is
depicted here in this white line; however, as an alternative for the 951
extension, Logan Boulevard serves a specific purpose in providing
access to the number of existing and planned development that we
have in this portion of Collier County.
It is only planned within an 80- foot right-of-way as initially a
two-lane roadway and has a different design criteria and would not
serve the regional trip purpose. And similarly, it would not provide
systems continuity as we come straight up from the existing 951 into
Page 48
~",.-- "..---....-,.- ...-
January 11, 2005
the planned 951. We would have a disjointed travel operation that
would require the use of Immokalee Road to get to the Logan
Boulevard extension.
So for those reasons, we eliminated Logan Boulevard as a viable
alternative for County Road 951; however, with the selection of this
alignment, in yellow and green as the most preferred in this area, we
do recognize the opportunity that in the future a connection to Logan
Boulevard may be evaluated by staff.
So we are recommending the elimination of this segment in
orange and in red in the Collier County section due primarily to the
additional social impacts. There's no right-of-way available between
planned developments in the Lee County portion. We also have some
additional right-of -- or environmental impact associated with the
Cork Screw Regional Ecosystem Watershed on the very southern end
of our study area.
We have the critical CREW acquisition going on by the water
management district, and these lands that I'm highlighting now with
the arrow are part of that. So that's the highlight for Collier County.
I will just move very quickly and just do the Lee County section
in snapshot. Again, just letting you know that those alternatives
highlighted in red and orange are being recommended for elimination
as viable alternatives in favor of those in green and yellow.
And we've dealt with a number of different issues, in particular
the Bonita property owners' association. We had a small group
meeting with this group of neighbors that helped us develop some of
these more circuitous alignment alternatives that they felt they could
live with.
So that is in response to public input as the project team,
consultants, and county staff, working together with the community,
that we have responded to.
We have also met with the Florida Wildlife -- or the game and
fish commission -- Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and
Page 49
-.--. ,.-,.-.--.,..-.. ~",""--'~".- - -,...._.'--"_..,~- ..-
January 11,2005
looked at opportunities for bringing the alignment as close to I - 75 as
possible to avoid or minimize any impacts into the primary panther
habitat, which is essentially all of this area that I'm now outlining with
the arrow.
That is one of the challenges that we've had with this project is
trying to minimize those environmental impacts. We also have an
alternative that comes up along the power line, excuse me, as we
move north to Corkscrew Road that would be collocated against a
right-of-way that is already disturbed by the power line.
And then again, when we get into the northern end, we recognize
that Estero Parkway, which is this dashed line, is a planned project
that Lee County is implementing to cross over I - 75 and tie into Ben
Hill Griffin Parkway.
We see that as an opportunity to, perhaps, even -- either tie into
that or to even terminate our project at that location or continue north
to Alico Road.
So that is essentially the snapshot. And I believe you have
handouts in your packet that show these alignments and these
alternatives as well as the overlays. And this is the type of data, again,
that we used to evaluate the viability of these alternatives.
These are the project alternatives overlaid on top of natural lands,
including wetlands and uplands and what it looks like as we overlay
the alignments on top of public lands.
This would be all of the CREW property essentially in this area,
also planned developments, future land use, panther habitat. The
orange color or brown color represents the primary panther habitat.
Crosshatched areas represent planned improvements or land
developments within those panther habitats, and then also existing
residential.
Public involvement has been a very large part of this process,
perhaps the most important element. We've had a number of
consensus building meetings since the very beginning of this project.
Page 50
-"" --""",..~.......-". .,,--,- ..~......._-,. "M_
January 11,2005
Our last meeting we held was in November of last year, and we
will continue to have small group meetings. We've got one scheduled,
perhaps, I believe, within the next 30 days with a small group of folks
just to talk about the no-build alternative in that analysis.
We've been meeting with homeowners' associations in both
counties as well, as I mentioned, the special interest groups, and up to
and including the environmental agencies and staff.
As far as the no-build alternative, it was presented to us, and it --
I'll back up just a second. A no-build alternative is always a viable
alternative in a proj ect of this magnitude. When we're pursuing
federal funding and following a NEP A process and utilizing the
Florida DOT PD&E process, the no-build alternative is a viable
alternative all the way through the final public hearing.
But we are going a step -- step further in working with the
community because there is a lot of interest in evaluating the no-build
alternative for this entire proj ect.
So our question back to the community was, if no 951, then
what? What do we do to address the capacity and mobility needs in
transportation that we have facing us in Southwest Florida? What
other improvements could we implement and are they feasible? And
if so, at what cost and at what impact, and how do those costs and
impacts then compare to project alternatives for County Road 951?
Just some of the alternatives that we've looked at -- and there are
more that aren't on this screen, but it has been requested for us to look
at additional improvements along I - 75.
Everything we have done so far in terms of travel demand
forecast or looking at planned and programmed improvements has
included the maximum laneage that has been recommended by the
Florida DOT. So all of our traffic modeling, all of our traffic analysis
has included the 10-lane section of I - 7 5 through our study area.
So I'm not sure what more we can do without violating state
policy for maximum number of general use lanes and special use
Page 51
----.. _,,__"'"'c."~. '~-""-',._-_._~ ---
January 11,2005
lanes, whether they're tolled or for high occupancy vehicles.
We've also looked at possibly going beyond what's planned and
programmed for U.S. 41. It is planned and programmed, and by our
design year, would be a continuous six-lane facility, but what if we
eight-Ianed it? What benefit would that have? Would we still have
the same travel service benefits in doing that?
We've also been asked to look a little bit deeper at transit
opportunities, surface transits or mass transit. And to the extent that
those alternatives are incorporated into the long-range transportation
plans in both Lee and Collier County, it would take an evaluation of
that mode of transportation to really address its benefit.
What we do know is that with the no-build alternative, whatever
that ends up being, it would eliminate the impacts associated with
build alternatives. That's pretty simple; however, it would not provide
the extent of mobility and capacity improvement. It would place a
greater emphasis on the existing infrastructure and the regional
transportation system to replace that capacity and mobility and
emergency management and does not provide the access that is
intended to serve the growing needs of development on the east side of
I-75 that are already there.
Whether this roadway is built or not, there are planned
improvements, land development improvements east of I - 75. And a
no-build alternative at this time would not be consistent with the
regional goals and objectives.
The build alternatives essentially do all of the opposite of those
things, so I won't necessarily go through that list again.
So what's next? We're on the circuit, if you will, in providing
briefings to public officials. We've come to Collier County first. We
are planning to go to Lee County Commission in early February, and
then we will go deep into the documentation and further evaluation of
the project alternatives and preparing the draft environmental impact
statement to be submitted to the Florida DOT and the Federal
Page 52
-"' --,--";'" -......-..-,-.""'..,'..-.-..".,,-- --~~- ~_.-
January 11, 2005
Highway Administration in September of this year.
So with that update, Mr. Chairman, I would stand ready to
address any questions that you might have.
We would suggest or recommend your concurrence with this
work to date. We're not necessarily seeking an approval or an
adoption of any particular alignment or series of alignments, but just a
general concurrence, as we did last year, a general concurrence that
you're in agreement that we're on the right track.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I wanted to make sure I
understood you correctly. Where you said that 951 on the Collier
side, then veers up to the Mirasol property. Did you say through the
flowway?
MR. BEAUVAIS: Yes. There is -- there is a flowway and an
environmentally sensitive area that has been identified. The exact
limits I'm not sure of, but it's been suggested that there are
commitments that that area be grade separated in order to maintain
water surface flow and further minimum impacts that would be
associated with the complete fill section of roadway.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm very concerned about that --
MR. BEAUV AIS: Absolutely. And we are, too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- because that's the only one left,
because we're also planning for our future water supply.
MR. BEAUV AIS: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I would hate to see it
interrupted by a road.
MR. BEAUV AIS: Right. And another thing with the limited
access alternative, that would help further reduce any future
connections to that roadway. With it being elevated, it would help
protect the access of the roadway itself and, perhaps, preserve --
further preserve the environmental characteristic surrounding the
roadway.
Page 53
._'__0 "~---"'" _-.._o.,~""".._.,... --- -'"-
January 11, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. Looking at what the -- the
proposed portion of the roadway, it seems to me that -- I think that we
ought to take advantage of the power line right-of-way. To me I think
that would be the -- probably most cost effective and probably the
least amount of impact from what I can see on this.
And I would also suggest that it run farther north than Alico
Road if possible. And I think when we separate the distance between
I-75 and along that power line right-of-way, to me that seems to be
more advantageous in overall addressing the traffic in the future here.
MR. BEAUV AIS: Right. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I got -- I just -- on the no-build
theory, I realize what we're required to do. I wouldn't have committed
the Collier County funds to go forward with a no-build theory, and I'm
sure my fellow commissioners in Lee County wouldn't have spent 10
times as much to also advance that.
I know we have to go through the process. I hope we get there
sooner than later. The no-build theory is just ludicrous to -- but we
have to go through it. I understand that.
One of the things I am concerned about is when this -- we do get
to the point where we decide this road's going to be built, which I -- do
we have a date on -- sometime in the future? If everything comes
together, all the stars and the planets line up, when do you think that
this road would be built? Will I be on social security? Will it still be
on this side of the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It may be longer than that. It's only
going to be a couple years before you get social security.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm just trying -- in the back of
my mind, I'm just trying to put this into perspective as to when we'd
able to put the tires down to the pavement and drive down this
beautiful road we're talking about.
Page 54
--.... ,.~.,..<-,~---, ".."- ^.~.__v_ .~~"-
January 11, 2005
MR. BEAUVAIS: For planning purposes, we're utilizing the
year 2010 as the opening year. Again, that is just for planning
purposes and travel demand forecast.
Both Collier and Lee County are beginning to program and look
at funding for the final design of their respective section -- segments.
I believe your staff has funding available for a portion of design in
fiscal year '07/'08.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. The only other thing I
would like to mention is -- I'm sorry.
MR. BEAUVAIS: I'm sorry, Commissioner. The real answer to
your question is probably beyond the year 2010 for an opening year.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. The other thing I wanted
to mention is the fact that Collier County has been proactive on
preparing for this for some time, and we do have the right. Where Lee
County is -- of course, they have a much longer direction to go with
this road than Collier County does, and they have not been able to
narrow it down quite to the point that we have.
But since we have the advantage as far as a route already, just
about determined, to Bonita Beach Road, and due to the fact that we
already own the right-of-way, I hope that my brothers in Lee County
realize that -- realize this, and when the road does get planned and
they start to come into phases that Collier County's portion to Lee
County, Bonita Beach Road takes precedence.
MR. BEAUVAIS: One of the things that we'll be looking at will
be a stage construction or sequencing of construction, and those are
some of the variables that would go into that determination or that
evaluation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I concur with my
colleague that a no-build in this scenario is not wise for the future and
the safety of the residents in Collier County. I think it's being
Page 55
-~ .,-............"~".~-",-" ---~-
January 11,2005
recognized as -- this route as a potential for hurricane evacuation.
So with that I would -- I don't know if it needs a motion -- but
concur through consensus that -- that we accept the recommendations
of the consultant and look forward to the PD&E study.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Coletta.
Discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I do have one question.
MR. BEAUVAIS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This commission sitting today has no
authority over what happens north of the Lee County line. I'm asking
that really as a question, okay?
It appears to me that you have finalized only one recommended
route over which this commission has any authority whatsoever, so
there are no variables as far as we are concerned in Collier County
based upon your study. There is one route, one route only that you're
recommending.
My question is: Can we speed this process up if we, as the
Collier County Commission, were to go ahead and approve a project
for the proposed route? Of course, it depends upon the design of this
project. Commissioner Fiala has some concerns about it, and I think
the rest of us do, too, but it depends upon the design of that route.
But if we were able to work out the environmental problems,
would it help solve any traffic problems to get the first section of this
road completed from Immokalee Road to Alico Road?
MR. BEAUV AIS: My suggestion to you would be to let this
process that we're two-thirds of the way through play out, and by
playing out I mean let the draft environmental impact statement be
completed as it was begun, you know, considering the entire length of
Page 56
"--... >.~_.-<_."'-"'''~,.- .--_..- ",,,-.-
January 11,2005
the project so as to not jeopardize that administrative action that the
Federal Highway Administration and Florida DOT would be taking.
Let us go through that process. And through the reevaluation of
that then four-inch thick environmental document, assuming that it
gets approved by Federal Highway Administration, that document,
before a document can be moved to the next phase, has to be
reevaluated. And in that reevaluation process, that gives you the
timing to then suggest pulling out the Collier County section and
advancing that ahead of other sections.
But my recommendation and suggestion to you would be, let's
not jeopardize what we've started in the investment that we've made in
the last two years and want to continue moving forward in its entirety
and get that approved first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any other questions from
commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Hearing none, then we have a motion on
the table to accept the recommendations of the study group and concur
with their study process.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous.
We have a time certain at 11 o'clock.
MR. BEAUV AIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: And we have one -- we have one public petition.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And the time is--
MS. FILSON: Ten minutes.
Page 57
,_u'__ '-"""''''-" --"-~^... .--.-
January 11, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ten minutes. Okay. That's going to
work out fairly well.
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY MR. JAMES BRY ANT TO
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And this public petition, section 6. It's
number A. It's a public petition request by Mr. James Bryant to
discuss traffic light timing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Bryant, are you here?
MR. BRY ANT: Good morning, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning, Mr. Bryant.
MR. BRY ANT: Thank you for having me here this morning.
I'm kind of glad I'm here this morning, because I hear all these
discussions about the new construction all the way from here to Lee
County. And the main reason I'm here this morning is I think the
management of the lighting system and the traffic system needs to
have a big overhaul.
I hear talk today about the computer system of which I believe I
heard that phase one was in effect right now, and phase two is coming
shortly.
I -- I guess I have questions on where that is being operated,
because the timing of the traffic light situation to me is causing a lot of
what is known as road rage.
A good example being -- I did some last-minute cruising last
night just to see, maybe because I'm sure transportation knows that I'm
going to be here this morning, so I took a drive late last night to see if
there were any last-minute changes on the complaints that I've had
over the last couple years. And to my amazement, it was the worst
night that I had ever seen last evening on Pine Ridge Road.
Page 58
--_.'-" ,._.."._w "-',"~-- .~<.".--
January 11, 2005
As I turned off of 41 going east on Pine Ridge, I was backed up
almost before Goodlette- Frank thinking maybe there was an accident,
because I'd never been backed up that far, and then I could not get
across Goodlette-Frank Road and traffic was backed up completely to
Airport Road. Now, normally it was maybe half that, it would be
backed up to Shirley Street.
I had brought this to the attention of everyone, from Mr. Feder on
down over the last couple years. I'd been in a car looking at this
situation with the officials. Mr. Tipton, Mr. Feder, Diane Flagg, a
fellow by the name of Randy. I'm sorry I don't know his last name.
He's fairly new to the department.
I've been in the car with these people going through this situation
street by street and not had any results whatsoever on any changes that
they have agreed need to be changed. They even agreed with me that
Shirley Street had two lights simultaneously turning red.
Now, I'll say one thing, that was corrected, where if you went
through a late yellow, it stopped you 100 feet ahead. Well, that's
corrected and lets you go through there if you're running through a
yellow.
But the main concerns -- and I've also -- I've been in Naples for
25 years, so I'm not a newcomer. I've seen everything change. I've
seen the new construction going on, but I think our light system -- we
have to have somebody in charge of that basically going around like I
do and looking at situations.
I've heard the stories about traffic counts. For example, Airport
Road and Golden Gate Parkway where we have the overpass going --
I know you disagree with this because you vote -- you know, have the
overpass going through, but to me, the problem is in the light timing.
In 90 percent of the cases that myself and people from the
transportation department have talked about, the timing of the red and
the green lights should be completely reversed.
At Golden Gate Parkway, going east to Golden Gate in rush hour
Page 59
"----,. ..,,,~.,-----,,~,.. ~...~-".._.',_'^ "._-,---,_.~. -----
January 11, 2005
traffic, the latest is that Mr. Tipton increased the green time from one
minute to one minute six seconds on my request to increase it.
My request to increase it was to increase it to two minutes green
__ and I don't think that's an awful lot for probably our number one
intersection in traffic at rush hour, to one minute red and two minutes
green.
They claim that northbound traffic on Airport Road coming, say,
from Tamiami Ford going through to the north toward Immokalee and
Vanderbilt, is heavier.
Now, I looked at the traffic counts. I guess I can't disagree with
the traffic counts, but if you actually sit there on the corner, you will
never see Golden Gate Parkway backed up even to the canal in front
of Tamiami Ford. That's not very far.
But if you look at Golden Gate Parkway, you'll see it's sometimes
backed up to way beyond Bear's Paw, and that's an everyday
occurrence.
Pine Ridge Road is the same way. It's all in a matter of the
timing of the traffic signals. And I think that every major intersection
ought to have at least two minutes of green, and then one minute of
red. And then there's a lot of left turn signals around.
For example, turning left off of Pine Ridge going south on 41,
three cars go through on the green arrow, and that's been pretty
consistent for the last year. I mean, three cars.
Getting back to this road rage situation. I honestly feel that
there's been kind of a -- I guess I've heard through the grapevine
there's been a lot of tickets issued for going through reds and late
yellows. I think it's all due to the fact that if you make three light
changes, come about that third light change, you're going to go
through there. You're not going to wait for a fourth.
And you're sitting there, you've gone through three of them now
and you've seen three cars get through an arrow, or you've waited --
like yesterday, it took me -- I turned off of 41 onto Pine Ridge Road at
Page 60
--- "-".""~-".~ ..~...""""..._~.,.,"'" _._-~-
January 11, 2005
5:24, and I got to Airport Road at quarter to six. That's only a couple
of miles, but I was stopped at every light, and then, of course, backed
up all the way.
Now, I can get -- I can get to Fort Myers on 41 in almost that
period of time the way the traffic lights are set up there.
So I guess my -- I talked with George Archibald, City of Naples,
and we had a discussion about the four corners where when you turn
off of 41 going toward -- toward the bridge, toward Tin City, the
traffic backs up in the middle of the intersection because 10th Street --
if you're familiar, that's the next light -- does not change ahead of the
left turn traffic.
So I talked to Mr. Archibald, and I said, all you have to do is this.
He says, well, you know, I don't know the answer. So I said, all
you've got to do is have the 10th Street light go green when they start
to turn left and let them flow right through, and then the next light is
just before the bridge, and you time that one and they go right over the
bridge.
And I don't mind being stopped at Davis Boulevard. That's a
pretty good shot to get through. So I'll buy the fact that if I get
stopped at Davis Boulevard, that's fair. I got through about three
lights so far.
And we tried that, and he increased the light. Perfect. Now, the
only thing we're working on now is traffic coming out of 5th Avenue,
going straight through, we've got to figure out how not to back that up
because that's backing up down to where my office is, halfway down
5th Avenue.
But the first one, many people were caught in the turn, turning
left. And then the people coming from the south started beeping the
horns and yelling and screaming because they're in the way and they
can't go through north on 41.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Bryant, I don't want to cut you short
but the time is limited. I think I've got your point. You don't like the
Page 61
-"-. --,--<,'~'~-'- "'>-~"'-""'-'j---"'"'''' ."--'-.-
January 11,2005
traffic light timing.
MR. BRY ANT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If -- now, the purpose for the public
petition is for us to decide to bring it back for detailed discussion
about these issues, and I think you'll find that all the commissioners
here feel that we need to do something with the --
MR. BRY ANT: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- timing of those lights.
So, County Manager, how best could we deal with this issue?
Would you like to have a -- if the commissioners concur, would you
like to have a workshop on this issue and try to see what we've got and
what we can do?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You've got a light.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, we could do that, or we could come back
and give you a 20-minute presentation, tell you what plans we have
and what's been done, or whatever you'd like to do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Bryant?
MR. BRYANT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We spoke about--
MR. BRYANT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- two years ago about this.
Okay. I receive so many phone calls, I don't remember. And
you're a realtor and you work on 5th Avenue?
MR. BRYANT: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you live off Airport?
MR. BRY ANT: I do now, but I get all over town. I'm just
recently on 5th A venue since the fall.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In the example of 5th Avenue
backing up, I'm sure it's because of the retiming of the lights on 41.
I've been here for 31 years. The traffic on Golden Gate Parkway
and Airport Road has always been that way since -- over 25 years
Page 62
-",> -,._---.~, ,...>-.-.---
January 11,2005
when I worked in the City of Naples.
The problem is not the traffic lights timing. A good example
was, we retimed those lights on there on the backs of the people east
of Airport Road on Golden Gate Parkway. They lost out. The
problem is, we need to add some more capacity, which you disagree,
on the overpass.
The -- you know --
MR. BRYANT: Well--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We could -- I think it's
worthwhile for the Board of Commissioners to have a presentation on
what is going to happen in the near future with the synchronization of
the lights, but the real issue is -- the conversation that you and I had, is
that you want special treatment out of your community to your office,
and I understand that. I do, too, and so does everybody else.
MR. BRYANT: No, I don't.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The problem is that it has to be
on the backs of somebody else.
MR. BRY ANT: No, I don't want any special treatment. All I'm
saying is that until that overpass is completed -- which I assume that
that's maybe a 10-year program, that you're not putting that overpass
in for the traffic that's going to be there today. I assume that's for 10
years from now.
But all I'm asking is that I think the times of the lighting -- all
you have to do to handle the problem at Golden Gate Parkway is to
make it two minutes green, period.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we tried that, and it's on the
backs of somebody else.
MR. BRYANT: We haven't tried it to my -- I haven't seen it at
two minutes yet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And believe me, when they
changed it, I got phone calls at my house, so -- but I agree with
Commissioner Coyle, I think it's worthwhile to do a presentation on
Page 63
~-'"""--- ._"---,-,,,'. ..----..'- ..--.-
January 11, 2005
that. But, again, when you take away from -- give to somebody green
time, you're taking away from somebody else. There's only so many
seconds in a minute, there's only so many minutes in an hour.
MR. BRYANT: Right. But I think most people would rather
spend one minute or so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: As long as they're traveling with
you and they're not on the other side of the traffic light.
MR. BRYANT: Well, I'm not talking -- this is not a personal
thing. This is something I think is for the good of everyone. I think it
will make people think more of the City of Naples and Collier County
in terms of how the traffic is running. And you can go to Fort Myers
and you can go down Cleveland A venue and go all the way to the
bridge to North Fort Myers without stopping. They have it together
there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just went there last night, and
there was a lot of traffic lights that I stopped at. I purposely traveled
U.S. 41 instead ofI-75 --
MR. BRYANT: All I'm saying is --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- just to see that, and they do
have more capacity per capita than we do. I think they've done an
excellent job of adding capacity of the roads.
MR. BRY ANT: When you say you received phone calls, the
phone calls were pertaining to?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pertaining to -- since the traffic
light timing was changed at Airport and Golden Gate Parkway --
MR. BRY ANT: Changed to what?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You had more green time of the
people traveling east on Golden Gate Parkway --
MR. BRYANT: Right, and what did they say --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- on the backs of the people--
MR. BRYANT: Unhappy with it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- from the east going west.
Page 64
-_._-,.~,. . >''''"..h''''';__''''''_O_'~ ,.. ~"",,,,-""- ..,--
January 11, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're not -- this isn't the time to debate
this issue. All you've done is petition us to bring it back for
discussion.
MR. BRY ANT: That was my next question is, where do we go
from here?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to try to resolve that in just
a moment. We have one other question from Commissioner Halas.
MR. BRYANT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Obviously I understand your
predicament in regards to what's happening to the traffic, and you're
talking in the last couple of weeks how the traffic's increased. I think
you have to realize also right now we're getting to the height of tourist
season.
MR. BRYANT: I realize that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And we're doing everything
possible. The transportation department, as you can see, has been
working the last five or six years to try to catch up on the road
building because there was a period of time that we didn't do any road
building whatsoever. We're still in that phase. We're still in the phase
of catching up.
Now, if you'll bear with us, I'm sure that we're going to rectify
some of those problems. And the reason that we had this discussion
earlier about 951, that's to help alleviate some of the traffic that's
going back and forth on I - 75 and northwest corridors, and then we're
trying to work on additional east/west corridors also, so we can
alleviate this problem.
But I think also that when you see all this traffic, it benefits you
because you, as a realtor, are going to make a lot more sales, because
there's a lot of people who love to come here, and we're trying to
accommodate their needs by working with the transportation
department.
They are working diligently trying to figure out the best way to
Page 65
-..--' '_".~wm__~" ""'-"--'.'-~"'-". _..-~ -
January 11, 2005
adjust this. And once we get a lot of these roads taken care of, I think
you're going to see the problem, hopefully, be alleviated to some
extent, sir.
MR. BRY ANT: I agree with the road work. I'm just saying that I
think sometimes the last worker on the road the day they open it, that
the last worker on the job sets the timing and says, what do you think,
guys, one minute, two minutes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Maybe we ought to hire you as a
traffic expert here.
MR. BRY ANT: I'd like to do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's bring it back.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Does anybody on the board
disagree with bringing this issue back and getting a briefing from the
staff concerning our progress on timing lights?
I'll -- I will make this observation. For every problem, there are a
dozen simple solutions, and they're all wrong. This is a complex
issue, and I understand what you're saying. But you change the traffic
at one intersection, it doesn't solve the problem with the downflow
traffic at the other intersections. You try to change them at two or
three intersections, and something changes at the -- another
intersection. It is a complex process. It requires a computerized
system, and I'll tell you right now, that doesn't exist right now.
MR. BRY ANT: I've got a sprinkler system at my house that I
can have it turn on at one o'clock in the morning for one cycle and
then turn that same cycle on at three in the afternoon, and that --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. And I want you to connect it with
mine so that they don't conflict, okay?
MR. BRY ANT: And that computer costs 50 bucks.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I want you to coordinate it with all
of the people in the neighborhood so they don't come on at the same
time so that your water pressure doesn't go down.
Now, you try that and you get an idea of how difficult it is to
Page 66
--. -"-~...,.._.- '.'.-'-~- -<-~-
January 11, 2005
coordinate all of these traffic signals. Timing one is simple. Timing a
whole pattern is a bit more difficult and requires computer interfaces
which, quite frankly, do not exist. They should exist.
We should have had those things here long, long ago, but they
are not installed, and we have waited for the state department of
transportation to provide funding for those. They were late by a
couple of years. We got some that were not adequate.
Weare replacing them with a new computerized system that
supposedly will deal with an entire chain of intersections, which is
what you want.
The problem is, those things cost money and it takes time to
procure them and install them. I want to get a report from where we
are with all of that, and I want the public to hear that.
But I want to discourage anybody from thinking that it is so
simple as going out in a box and changing the timing on a light. It just
isn't that simple. And we'd invite you to take a look at that in some
detail and hopefully convince you of that.
But does anybody object to having this come back?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I tell you what, with the amount
of time we spent on this, we could have had a staff presentation and
got it over with.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: February. Do I see three nods to bring it back in
February?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, we'll bring it back, it will be
public advertised. You'll be here, you'll be able to listen to it, you'll be
able to ask questions and debate the issues, as will anybody else who's
interested, okay?
MR. BRYANT: In response to what you've just mentioned, I did
go through the chairs all the way. Even Mr. Mudd, but Mr. Mudd
chose not to meet with me. So it's not that I came to you first. I've
Page 67
-'--.. '''''''''''-''''''''.- ^-"",_.........',.> -.-
January 11, 2005
been through everyone from the bottom up to the top.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We don't mind you coming here. It's just
that we can't debate that issue right now because --
MR. BRY ANT: I just want to let you know that I'm not coming
here as the first time. I went through the chairs to see if we could get,
you know, something handled.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. BRY ANT: So I appreciate your time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Appreciate you coming in.
Item #12A
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS DIRECT OUTSIDE COUNCIL (GA VIN &
TRIPP, P.A.), IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY, TO TAKE ALL APPROPRIATE STEPS TO
PROTECT THE COUNTY'S INTERESTS IN CONNECTION
WITH 558 PURPORTED BERT HARRIS ACT CLAIMS
ALLEGEDL Y ARISING OUT OF THE ADOPTION OF THE
RURAL FRINGE GROWTH MANAGEMENT AMENDMENTS
We have a time certain at 11 o'clock.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, that is item 12A. It's a recommendation
that the Board of County Commissioners direct outside counsel,
Garvin and Tripp, P .A., in conjunction with the Office of the County
Attorney to take all appropriate steps to protect the county's interest in
connection with approximately 558 purported Bert Harris Act claims
allegedly arising out of the adoption of the rural fringe growth
management plan amendments and implementing regulations, and Mr.
Tripp --
Page 68
._""->." '.","H~.__~ .~~-_.,._'."" - -..----- ..-----
January 11, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Tripp, before you begin, I'd just like
to make sure I understand. You're not going to ask us for specific
guidance or discussion about what we will do; you're asking us merely
for a general guidance to protect our interest in this case; is that
correct?
MR. TRIPP: That's correct, Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. TRIPP: And I appreciate the opportunity to appear before
you.
For the record my name is Ted Tripp. My law firm is Garvin and
Tripp, P.A., and we have been retained to represent the interests of
Collier County in a series of Bert Harris Act claims that were served
in July of 2004.
I appreciate the opportunity to meet with each commissioner
individually. Because of the nature of the public forum, there are
many things that we could share with you individually that we should
not discuss today in the public forum.
Weare asking that the county commission at this time adopt the
direction recommended by the Office of the County Attorney in the
executive summary that has been provided to you as part of the public
record.
There are issues related to those claims that we believe need to be
addressed in order to protect the taxpayers and in order to hold down
the costs of litigation. And we're simply asking the board's authority
to proceed with those issues and to deal with them in conjunction with
the Office of the County Attorney in a way that will provide a
maximum protection to the taxpayers at a minimum cost to the
taxpayers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I agree with the
recommendations, and I will make that motion to do so.
I also think it's prudent that we give direction on all Bert 1. Harris
Page 69
-,.-> "'"'.---""~ "~-,--~~-,._._... ' ",,-
January 11, 2005
cases to -- to coordinate and consult and communicate with the other
claims that are filed to see what kind of resolution, nonfiscal
resolution that we can come up with.
MR. TRIPP: Commissioner Henning, the statute does
contemplate a 180-day period within which that dialogue can occur.
Weare pursuing those in not only this case but other cases in which
we have been asked to provide representation.
We think that it is fiscally responsible for the county to have that
dialogue as early as possible and to explore every method by which
any Bert Harris Act claim can be resolved, if possible without fiscal
impact on the county.
And I understand that the direction today, if the council -- or if
the commission is of a mind to pass the recommendations, would
apply not only to this proceeding, but other proceedings in which we
are involved.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct, that's part of my
motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion by Commissioner
Henning. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Coletta.
We have one public speaker.
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. Mr. Bruce Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of
the commission.
In your executive summary all the different settlement options
that you have are listed on a Harris Act claim. And let me say, I don't
represent any of the claimants on this one. But one of the options is
the transfer of developmental rights.
And you will shortly be seeing an amendment to your existing
transfer of development rights laws that we hope will aide you in
defending against these Harris Act claims. Thank you.
Page 70
~-- -'--.._".,,- ""-
January 11, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
We have another question by Commissioner Coletta then.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I see Commissioner Henning's
light was on, too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think it was left on before; is that
correct, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just want to make a comment.
I wasn't going to say anything because of the fact that we are supposed
to keep these things close to our chest, but I want you to keep an open
mind about that last statement that Bruce Anderson just made. And
when it comes time to talk about the rural fringe and the number of
credits and all that, we'll get into deeper discussion of that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. We have that issue coming before
us on a subsequent board meeting.
MR. TRIPP: Next week.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But we have a motion to approve the
staffs recommendation on this particular issue. We have a second by
Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous. And it's approved.
Thank you very much.
MR. TRIPP: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Next item is 7A, County Manager?
MR. MUDD: It's withdrawn. It's -- 7A was withdrawn, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Withdrawn, been withdrawn.
Page 71
----" ~,-"._- 4_""'.-- -'--"--"- ---
January 11, 2005
Item #7B
RESOLUTION 2005-34 - SV-2004-AR-6501, FIDELITY
INVESTMENTS, REPRESENTED BY RY AN KRING OF SITE
ENHANCEMENT SERVICES, REQUESTS A V ARIANCE FROM
THE LIMITATION OF A SINGLE POLE OR GROUND SIGN FOR
A SINGLE-OCCUPANCY PARCEL HA VING FRONT AGE OF 150
FEET OR MORE ON A PUBLIC STREET, OR COMBINED
PUBLIC STREET FRONTAGE OF 2 LINEAR FEET OR MORE
FOR CORNER LOTS AS ALLOWED BY SECTION 5.06.06.C OF
THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC), IN ORDER TO
MAINTAIN AN EXISTING SECOND GROUND SIGN LOCATED
ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY -
.AD.OEIED
MR. MUDD: The change brings us to 7B. This item requires
that all participants be sworn and ex parte disclosure be provided by
the commission members.
It's variance 2004-AR-6501, Fidelity Investments, represented by
Ryan Kring of Site Enhancement Services, request a variance from the
limitation of a single pole or ground sign for a single-occupancy
parcel having frontage of 150 feet or more on a public street, or
combined public street frontage of 220 linear feet or more for corner
lots as allowed by section 5.06.06.C of the land development code in
order to maintain an existing second ground sign located at the
northeast corner of the property.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioners, I will ask you now to
make any ex parte disclosures concerning this item.
We'll start with Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I do not have any disclosures on
this particular item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
Page 72
--""" _O"'__''''''~' "__,.,~~",~C"_ ._<.,,-
January 11,2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I also have no disclosures.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I have no disclosures.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: None.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: None.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. There are no disclosures.
Will anyone who is going to be offering testimony on this issue
please stand to be sworn in. This will include any public speaks who
are going to speak on this.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. KRING: Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, fellow
commissioners, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to speak
before you this morning. I'd also like to thank the planning staff for
all their help throughout this process.
My name is Ryan Kring, and I'm with Site Enhancement
Services, and I have with me my associate, Mr. Peter Hauser, and we
are national sign agents on behalf of the Fidelity Investments.
The property we're talking about in question today is located at
8880 Tamiami Trail North. This branch is located on a hard corner of
Tamiami Trail and Vanderbilt Beach Road with surrounding property
-- or surrounding roads that surround the property.
In March of 2004, Fidelity Investments began a nationwide
rebranding initiative. They have recently evolved from a property
where their customers used to just call in and check on the status of
their annuities or finances to one where the customers are actually
visiting the property three, four times a year.
And because of this, Fidelity felt the need to have a nationwide
brand to provide a wayfinding tool for their customers to be able to
safely locate and access their properties.
Today we are asking for approval to allow a face change of the
Page 73
"',---,.~. -.""""-",,....-.,-.-. _.~,~--;--."' <'-'-
January 11, 2005
current existing monument sign. The face change we are proposing
will result in no additional square footage or additional signage to the
branch. It is simply a copy change or face swap, which will allow this
branch to stay consistent with Fidelity's rebranding initiative
throughout the country.
Recently as part of this, we've re- imaged all the wall signs and
the one existing monument. This resulted in a decrease of square
footage on this property. The previous signs were 79.33 square feet.
When we imaged them to update them with our new logo, the signs
totalled 59.43. This resulted in a 20-foot reduction on wall signs for
this property.
This morning we respectfully ask for the commissioners to allow
the Fidelity Investment to retain their existing sign and allow a face
change in keeping with its nationwide rebranding program.
At our last meeting with the Collier County Planning
Commission, they voted unanimously in favor of this approval --
proposal based on the following three conditions:
The first one was that the property be limited to the square
footage and the signage requested in this application.
The second condition was that the existing landscaping on the
property would not be removed or altered.
And that -- the third condition was that we had to prove that the
existing sign was issued a permit and was not installed illegally.
Since then we've gone back and spoke with Fidelity, and they
have agreed to all these conditions, that they will not add signage to
this property, they will not change the landscaping, and we have since
also proved through the records department that these signs were
issued a permit and they were not installed illegally. So these are
existing signs that have been permitted.
N ow I realize that the board must make a decision based on set
criteria, the first one being, what are the special conditions or
circumstances that are unique or peculiar to the location, size, and
Page 74
-'-" """,~...,--",.,,,.,,~_._",...'~- ~._."-
January 11, 2005
characteristics of the land structures or the building involved.
The business is located on a pretty busy corridor, as you all
know. The planning commission was quick to point out that the
property is completely surrounded by roads and that the existing signs
that have been issued permits address these facts.
Due to positioning of the investment firm in relationship to these
major roadways, this business needs multiple ground signs to allow
their customers to safely reach the location. Motorists that are
traveling along these roadways need to be aware of Fidelity's location.
Another special condition of the property is the fact that Fidelity
Investments has enjoyed the luxury of these two signs that have been
granted permits, and all we're simply asking for is a face swap.
These signs are not intrusive to the public nor are they aesthetically
unpleasing to this corridor.
The second condition is, are there special conditions and
circumstances existing which do not result from the actions of the
applicant, such as preexisting conditions relative to the property where
it is a subject of the variance request. Yes, there are.
Fidelity Investments has enjoyed the luxury of these two ground
signs that have been issued permits for quite some time now, and we
are simply asking for a face change, as we mentioned before, just to
update the logo, keep it consistent.
The third criteria is, will a literal interpretation of the provision of
zoning code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or
create practical difficulties on the applicant?
The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will
result in an unnecessary hardship with regards to Fidelity Investments'
nationwide rebranding program and their ability to adequately
communicate to their customers their location.
The fourth criteria is, will the variance, if granted, be the
minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the
land, building, or structure while promoting the standards of health
Page 75
,---~ n ___.""__ ~.,.-- .,_.~._.._~. ~-
January 11, 2005
and safety or welfare?
This variance, if granted, will be the minimum amount of relief
necessary, as we've already talked about with the planning
commission, special conditions that we have agreed to.
As mentioned before, due to the busy traffic surrounding, we
need these multiple signs to address the fact that we are surrounded by
roads, to allow our customers who are not familiar with our parcel --
this is not like a pharmacy or a supermarket where they come in on a
weekly, daily basis. This is something they come to three -- two, three
times a year, and our customers simply just aren't aware of the
location. They need to have some kind of way finding tool.
The fifth criteria is, will granting the variance requested confer
on the petitioner any special privilege that is denied by these zoning
regulations to other land, building, or structure in the same zoning
district?
The proposed signage modifications that are being requested will
allow Fidelity to update their image while promoting the safe
landscaping and appearance of the property. Other properties in this
commercial corridor have been allowed to update their properties, and
we're simply asking for the same opportunity.
Currently several businesses have multiple ground signs, and the
closest one to us is actually on our adjacent parcel, the Bank One.
They have the same size monument sign and the same orientation.
We're simply asking for the same opportunity to have the adequate
signs that we need to allow our customers to locate our property.
And also, along Tamiami Trail there are also several other
businesses that have two monument signs that are in almost the exact
orientation of ours.
The sixth criteria is, will granting the variance be in harmony
with the intent and spirit of this zoning code and not be injurious to the
neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare?
The purpose of the zoning code is to keep aesthetics and the signs
Page 76
,"--... ... '_.'_'~'_'i<<<l."""'''.'''_"'~-'- -,,---,--'~-' -.--
January 11, 2005
(sic) of signs -- the size of signs consistent within this trade area.
According to the staff report -- I'm going to quote them -- the
limitation of signage is a major factor on the county's efforts to create
a positive image for this community, end quote.
Currently we allow under code one pole or monument side -- size
(sic) with an overall height of 15 square feet and a cabinet of 80
square feet.
Counting both sides of that code allowed sign, there'd be 160
square feet of total signage we'd be allowed and a 15- foot height. Our
proposal for both of our signs that you see in front of you totals 96
square feet. This is a reduction of total square footage of 64 square
feet, and also our two existing signs are six foot tall when we could
have one 15-foot tall sign.
Approval of our proposal will result in a net reduction of square
footage as well as a reduction in the overall height under our code
compliance sign.
Fidelity feels that this is what -- Fidelity really feels that this is
what's consistent with the proposal of the zoning code and it's
consistent with the thoughts conveyed by staff.
The seventh criteria is, are there natural conditions or physically
induced conditions that cause the goal and objectives of the
regulations, such as natural preserves, lakes or golf courses?
There are several beautiful trees and foliage along this parcel and
building. Fidelity Investments understands the importance of trees
and how landscaping plays a factor into this community.
Because of the height of the existing signs and we've had them
for such a long time, that they blend well with the building and
landscaping, and that's why we have agreed to not alter our
landscaping as part of planning commission's recommendations.
This property is completely surrounded by roads. There's
Vanderbilt Beach Road, there's Tamiami Trail road. Along Vanderbilt
there is an access road that parallels it, as well as an access road that
Page 77
.,.--"" .- -,,~~_.,-,_."" -'-'"" -----. .---
January 11, 2005
parallels Vanderbilt Beach Road.
And in order to reach the property coming along Vanderbilt
Beach Road, it goes from two lanes and flares out to four. Well, the
speed limit's 35, but I think everyone will agree that cars are still
flying by there at around 55 miles an hour.
So right where that lane juts out so that you can access the
property, if there's no signage there, the motorists are forced to go up
to 41, make a turn to your left or right and have to double back. These
increased driving maneuvers do not promote good traffic safety.
Criteria number eight is, will granting the variance be consistent with
the growth management plan?
We feel that approval of our proposal will allow this parcel to
reach its maximum zoning potential, it will also ensure its place in this
community as a successful business.
In the staff report, the staff commented that the growth
management plan generally supports limitations on signage. Approval
of our proposal will reduce the amount of signage for this location.
Along with reducing the total square footage in both square
footage and height, approval will also maintain the aesthetics of the
landscaping around this property.
The planning commission also brought up a pretty unique
example of a parcel that's very close to the Fidelity Investments called
the Courthouse Shadows property. The Courthouse Shadows recently
installed a code compliant sign, and after installing it, they realized
that they were being blocked by the landscaping of their property.
Well, if you would go by this parcel right now and drive by it,
you'll see that they have systematically removed all of their mature
landscaping and put in the small spindly trees every 30 feet that code
requires. And comparing it to all the properties in the corridor, it just
looks atrocious.
Our proposal will allow the landscaping to stay mature and won't
alter any of the landscaping features or the building aesthetics.
Page 78
.---,u ."~......__.._.^^ -,",..,-,~"-,.""....,,,"--"~ -----,.._..~. .~--
January 11,2005
Today we have demonstrated the justification and satisfied all of
your criteria for approval. The uniqueness of this branch and the fact
that it's surrounded by roads requires adequate exposure to address the
motorists traveling along these roads.
Our proposal will not add additional square footage or additional
signs to the branch and approval will actually reduce the entire
property's square footage by 84 square feet. That's 20 for the wall
signs that we re-imaged and 64 as opposed to a code compliant full
Sign.
Fidelity Investments does not want to be put in the same position
that the Courthouse Shadows was put in.
Today we have expressed unique hardships of this property and
we respectfully request your approval to -- approval for the minimum
amount of relief necessary for our permitted ground signs.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. We have
two commissioners who have questions.
Commissioners, would it be okay if we had staffs presentation
and public comments before your questions --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- or is it essential that you ask them
now?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Staff? Does staff have anything
to present here?
MR. MEYER: Excuse me. Mr. Chairman, members of the
commission, I'm Robin Meyer, Principal Planner with Zoning and
Land Development Review.
Just for clarification, the reason we're here for a variance is that
the code requires anytime a company refaces signs, if those signs are
not in compliance with the current regulations, then they must come
into concurrency with the regulations.
In this particular instance -- and I apologize for my tardiness
Page 79
_.~. ".,=,-..,,-, ,~- ,.-.-,_.".~~ --
January 11, 2005
here. I was talking to the county attorney -- what we're really looking
at is, there is a provision in our code that allows a second sign, but
there's a thousand-foot separation.
And so in this particular instance, now that they've established
that the sign was given a permit originally in 1998, that what they
would need is a variance to that sign separation distance, and so we
would have to come up with the exact number if you were to approve
this sign.
I will be brief and not go through each of the eight criteria.
Suffice it to say that when staff did our analysis based on those
criteria, we did not find this request consistent with any of them.
However, when the planning commission made their review of
this request and listened to the applicant, looked at the site, they had
several concerns. Number one was traffic. They felt that because of
the width of the right-of-ways, speed, and the distances, that the
second sign would provide additional safety.
They were also concerned that the -- by denying this, it would
encourage the applicant to put one 15- foot, 80 square foot sign on the
site rather than the two signs, and they didn't want that.
They were also concerned that this would encourage removal of
landscaping material. And so as stated by the applicant, they
recommended approval and added the three conditions. And staff
would say that if you are going to go with the planning commission,
we concur that those three conditions would adequately protect this
property .
With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think we're going to hold the questions
until after public comment, if you don't mind. Are there any --
MS. FILSON: I have one registered, Peter Hauser.
MR. HAUSER: Me. I'm with Ryan, so --
MS. FILSON: That's your final speaker.
MR. MUDD: You're waiving, sir?
Page 80
,--- ,. <"~~"'-"--'"". -,. ----- "~-
January 11,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You're waiving?
MR. HAUSER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioners? Commissioner Fiala, I
think, was first.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. On the first page of our
executive summary, it states here -- or it tells us about four signs, but
on the second page, do I count seven signs on this building?
MR. MEYER: There are four signs that are actually -- that are
technically what we would call a building face or ground sign. The
other signs that are listed are actually directional signs that are
permitted in a different section of the code. But there are seven signs,
but they are not considered advertising signs.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah. I never heard of a
business being allowed to have seven signs before.
MR. MEYERS: Well, they're -- technically they should not be
visible from the roadway and they're just to direct traffic within the
development, and so that's why they're there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see. Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm concerned because this
commission worked very diligently to make sure that we came up with
a sign ordinance that would be -- pretty much cover the whole gamut
for the business district.
I hope that if we decide to give the variance on this, that this isn't
opening the door of opportunity for morphing a sign and to basically
dilute what we've tried to accommodate here for this community as far
as a sign ordinance.
Is that why that you, the staff, recommended a denial?
MR. MEYER: That is why we recommended denial. But I
should point out that each variance is looked at as a unique request,
and so this variance, were it granted, could not be used as a precedent
for any other request. They have to be judged on their own merits
Page 81
-~.,~ -~--,.."-"' "'-""-'--~~-"_. ~-"-' ----,-
January 11, 2005
each time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So I guess where it puts me, I
understand that the planning board passed this unanimously, but then
we have a conflict here where you and staff that was involved in this
says it's a denial. So can you give us some clarification of why we
should give this a variance?
MR. MEYER: I feel -- staffs position and really our job is to
look at these regulations very strictly and be very consistent in our
application of them. I think that's very important for staff and people
that are, you know, on the job for the county.
The commission is appointed by this board to sometimes look at
the broader perspective and unique circumstances and issues that
occur in the community and make decisions based on that, and
sometimes I think that results in a difference in opinion.
And I respect the commission's decision. Just from a pure
planning perspective, which I have to use, I couldn't say that it was
consistent.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think, you know, that's the right
answer. You don't have any flexibility?
MR. MEYER: No, sir, I don't.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have to look at what the code says
and you have to adopt a position that enforces the code. We do have
some flexibility.
MR. MEYER: Yes, you do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I have a couple of questions of my
own since there are no other commissioners who are standing in line
yet to ask questions.
But Bank One has a sign both on 41 and on the access road to the
rear. They have two signs. Would it be your position that if we held
Fidelity in violation here that you would also have to go and file a
violation against Bank One?
MR. MEYER: Unfortunately we're probably going to have to
Page 82
,.-" _'~_'_O~_ .._-,-_.. ."~... -
January 11,2005
look at how Bank One got two signs.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. See, that's our problem. And I've
looked at it. I find absolutely nothing wrong with the signs that
Fidelity has. I think they're far more attractive than a pole sign that
would be what, 15 feet high and 80 feet -- 80 square feet or something
like that, which is what they logically would have to put on the corner
there at 41 and Vanderbilt Beach Road --
MR. MEYER: Vanderbilt.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- because the only way they -- people
who drive the area can see their facility and know it is Fidelity, if
they're coming down Vanderbilt Beach Road, is to see the sign that's
on Vanderbilt Beach Road.
If they're coming down 41, the only way they can see it is to see
the sign that's on 41. If we reduce it to one sign, Fidelity's only option
would be to put a big pole sign there at the corner that could be seen
from both directions, and that would be far more unsightly than the
signs that you have now.
So I understand the precedent of -- that we might set by granting
a variance, but since these are taken individually, I think we have the
opportunity to use judgment.
And in this case, it's my personal feeling that the Fidelity signs
are quite tasteful, they're smaller than they could be, and they serve a
useful function.
When I first saw the petition without visiting the site, however, I
was inclined to disapprove it because I thought there were too many
signs there. When I took a look at it, I found that it was not the case.
But in any event, Commissioner Halas, you have a question?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And there's a second. A motion
by Commissioner Halas for approval and second by Commissioner
Henning.
Page 83
-,.. -'--'-~._-- ""-,-,, '-"""--~" ,-.-
January 11, 2005
Is there any other discussion, gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no other discussion?
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is a unanimous approval.
Thank you very much.
MR. KRING: On behalf of Fidelity Investments, I'd like to thank
you for your time this morning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. We didn't close the public
hearing, but that closes the public hearing.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
That brings us to item -- we can do a couple of DCAs, but I don't think
we'll get all the way through item 8A before lunch.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have E and F prior to 8A.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are those too complicated, do you think,
to try to get through them before lunch?
MR. MUDD: No, sir. I think you could probably get through
both of those before -- before lunch.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't we try that and see if we can't
move it along fairly quickly. I think it's pretty straightforward, and
these are things that certainly serve -- serve our interests.
Item #10E
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A DEVELOPER
CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN W A TERW A YS
Page 84
~-~,- ,.'-'---- .'-"' ---..,--
January 11, 2005
JOINT VENTURES, LLC, A FLORIDA GENERAL
PARTNERSHIP HEREINAFTER COLLECTIVEL Y REFERRED
TO AS "DEVELOPER," AND THE COUNTY. THE RIGHT-OF-
WAY DONA TED AND THE FUNDS RECEIVED WILL BE FOR
THE FUTURE CONSTRUCTION OF A PORTION OF TREE
F ARM ROAD AS A MINOR COLLECTOR ADDED AS A
SUPPLEMENT AL TO THE COLLIER BOULEV ARD (CR-951)
MR. MUDD: Okay. Number -- item 10E is a recommendation
to approve a developer contribution agreement between Waterways
Joint Venture IV, a Florida general partnership herein collectively
referred to as the developer, and the county.
The right-of-way donated and the funds received will be for the
future construction of a portion of Tree Farm Road as a minor
collector added as a supplemental to the Collier Boulevard, County
Road 951, improvement project, which is project number 65061.
State your name for the record.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. Good morning, Commissioners.
Good morning, Chairperson. For the record, my name is Nick
Casalanguida, Proj ect Manager for -- try that again -- Proj ect Manager
for Transportation Planning.
I'd like to ask the chairperson if we could look at both items
together. They're very similar.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I would -- I would suggest that, as
a matter of fact. I think it would make it a lot easier.
MR. MUDD: Okay. And number 10F is a recommendation to
approve a developer contribution agreement between Naples
Syndication, LLC, hereinafter collectively referred to as, I guess the
other developer, and the county.
The funds received will be for the future construction of a portion
of Tree Farm Road as a minor collected (sic) added as a supplemental
Page 85
--,-- -~_._,--~.- ___.'''._____.u.."'.'-- ---"<' ._.~-,- ~.".._--
January 11, 2005
to County Road 951.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning. First of all I'd like to
thank Mr. Norman Feder, Mr. Don Scott, and Attorney Klatzkow for
their help in performing this task. It took a lot of effort, and their
guidance and support were very well received by me. Being here six
months, this is one of the first projects I took on that provided some
significance to the roadway network.
The project location is approximately one mile south of
Immokalee Road east on 951 where there is two current
developments, Warm Springs, presently known as Nicaea Academy,
and Bristol Pines, and there's an unpaved road, Tree Farm Road. I
think the commissioners have more history on that than I do, and I've
caught up to speed on what's gone on out there.
The DCA is to establish the first leg of a minor collector road that
will expand our grid network. Additionally, we will provide a
controlled access to 951, so it's a -- it's a benefit to the county to get
this thing started.
The parties -- both parties will be contributing the funds to
provide that -- that road and modify that access in the bridge
expansion to get onto Tree Farm Road.
The parties have agreed to provide 100 percent of the cost for the
bridge expansion, 100 percent of the cost for the turn lanes, sidewalks,
and a large majority of the cost to build the road itself, including
utilities.
The county, in turn, will provide a full median opening there, and
at the time that it's warranted there, put a signal there to control access
from the developments onto 951.
The county itself will bring up the standard of the road to a minor
collector cross-section, slightly larger footprint, will add bike lanes to
that road as well, too.
This will be done as part of a supplemental to the 951 project,
slated to start in Q-3 of this year, and approximately last about 24
Page 86
- -,"._~-_-..-",- .- ""-
January 11, 2005
months to accomplish.
I request that there be one change in the Bristol Pines DCA, in
that bullet number 10 we've asked that instead of going 30 days, it
goes to 60 days for them to provide 30 feet of right-of-way to the
county, and that's only because we need to clean up some title issues
in that time period, which we've asked for an extension. We don't
have a problem with that.
I believe that Mr. Yovanovich or Mr. Nadeau will provide some
more information on that as well to the board.
Both parties agree to donate a right-of-way in this. Nicaea
Academy's already provided 40 feet, and Bristol Pines will be
providing 30 feet, for approximately 2,460 feet of roadway.
And that's about it, Commissioners, if you have any questions. I
can fine tune the details of the payments, but I think that's pretty
explanatory in the bullet points.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas, was it -- your light
on from before?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, it was on before.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any questions from the
Commissioners?
We have -- we have covered this before in some of the
development reviews, and the purpose of this is to have the property
owners on each side of Tree Farm Road donate right-of-way and
contribute to the construction of a road that will serve the best interests
of Collier County government and the traveling public. It establishes
a grid in an area that is growing rapidly, and it seems to be in our best
interest. Is that --
MR. MUDD: And a bridge.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And a bridge. So it looks like something
that is really very good, and I congratulate our transportation
department for the negotiations that have taken place here.
Any questions from any of the commissioners on this?
Page 87
---"-"~_... _.._-,.,.,.~,,,,..,_., -,-~_.........."......_...._. __..R_
January 11,2005
(N 0 response.)
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if you --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: David?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would suggest that with this item, 10E and with 1 OF, if they are
approved by the board, that the notation on the record is that this
approval is -- will be consistent with an approval of item of 8A. If 8A
is not approved, that these agreements would not be approved.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why is that? I think they're supposed to
be separate, aren't they?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, and I am (sic). I just thought I'd mention
while I'm mentioning to you now, this one's 10E, and 10F -- okay.
Do you need to say anything on the record?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's my understanding there is -- there is
no relationship with 8A as far as these agreements are concerned.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. It's not to be -- your
approval of 8A is not contingent upon these DCAs.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We reflected these DCAs in 8A --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 8A.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- but it's not contingent upon that.
MR. MUDD: And Commissioner, the reason we did 10E and
10F is because when Nicaea Academy came up before, about six
months, eight months ago, there was -- there was major concern on the
dais about Tree Farm Road.
And if you remember, there was all kinds of public comment in
that process in how we were going to get access, and as each one of
these developments that pop up on 951, are they all going to ask for
their own separate bridge, their own separate in and out, their own
separate median cuts when you're trying to six -lane that particular
portion of the road.
And the board basically gave some direction at that meeting to go
Page 88
_""~'O ...,.~-~,...._.._,..-. -,-;..._.-",,-'~"-"'- ,~-"",,---._._' ..-..--
January 11, 2005
back out there and see if you can't work a minor collector on Tree
Farm to work out something better, and that's what staff has basically
done.
So to preclude that conversation coming back up again, okay, and
that concern, we thought it would be more prudent to let you know
that we have gone out and done those DCAs so that you can then get
into the zoning particular issues on Warm Springs when it -- when it
comes up on 8A.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: When it comes up, right.
Are we okay then, David?
MR. WEIGEL: I accept that, and I appreciate that explanation.
Thank you all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And by the way, I think the
transportation department -- I didn't recognize the contributions by the
property owners. I think it's remarkable that they would -- they would
sit down and work out an agreement that benefits the people of Collier
County so well.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can you tell us, this total DCA
package, what's this amount to?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Approximate value of the cost, sir?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I believe both parties are contributing
approximately $500,000 for the construction of the road, and
individually they're paying for their turn lanes at about 25,000 each,
and also paying for the bridge cost.
One thing that's significant about the DCA is, should we come
back at a later time and find out that the bridge costs more than this
estimate, we have recourse to come back to the parties and ask for
more funds.
And in turn, in fairness to them, should the cost of any turn lane
be lowered at the actual build time, they can come back and ask us for
Page 89
-" "..-.-,,--, .w",-,.__'__' "--
January 11, 2005
a credit for it.
So approximately $700,000 for both of them each, and then the
county would contribute, probably out of impact fees, $250,000 to
bring it up to a minor collector status, but using the impact fees alone
from both projects.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Nick, you left out the cost of the
right-of-way that's been donated at no cost. That's a very, very
significant amount.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Chairman, that's very correct, and I
may point out to the board, as 8A comes up, there's a little additional
right-of-way that Ms. Bishop and Nicaea Academy, Warm Springs,
has agreed to discuss in front of the board as well, too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Does that answer your question,
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, it does.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'd like to get separate motions on
10E, and then 1 OF.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. On 10E, is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make a motion for approval
for 10E.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta has made
the motion, second by Commissioner Halas.
Any discussion?
MS. FILSON: I have a speaker, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a speaker.
MS. FILSON: Yes. Rich Yovanovich.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's -- you're going to snatch victory out
of the jaws of defeat or what?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Not intentionally, no. For the record,
Rich Y ovanovich. I did need to get a couple things on the record.
First of all, I want to thank Nick for getting all -- us all together to
Page 90
,-'- "M__'_""__'__"""""""""~'_'''''"''''_~''''- ~>-'~~-'-'~' . "-
January 11, 2005
resolve this issue because, as you know, Bristol Pines would have
built a bridge onto 951 and then would have had to dismantle the
bridge when this situation was actually worked out. So it was nice
working with Nick.
I do want to also thank the county attorney's office, because we
did get this done in quick time over the Christmas holidays to make
sure we got this on to meet this time frame.
I just wanted to let you know there's a third party to this
agreement, which is Elias brothers. They actually own the 30 feet that
will be donated to the county.
We had been working with Alias Brothers to make sure that this
will happen. Last minute, Alias brothers has decided to hire another
attorney to look at the agreement. They have assured us that the
business points that we have arranged to make sure that that
right-of-way is dedicated -- because we're ultimately obligated to
make that happen -- those business points will not change because
they own the right-of-way.
I just wanted to get on the record that Alias brothers is a party to
this even though they're not a party per se by the agreement. We're
working with Alias brothers.
County staff will help us continue to keep things moving, but that
is one issue that is out there, but we're responsible for making that
happen, and we may need some county assistance in the future to
make sure that that does happen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
We -- no other speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am -- no, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you have a motion and a second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion and a second.
MR. MUDD: And I would ask that you add the change that it's
60 days to work out the right-of-way instead of the 30 days that this
Page 91
,..--.'~ "m,._"""'",~, ,.~,.,.,~",.. ,.,.....-
January 11, 2005
particular item might have.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved in my--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And my second --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the second, okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- incorporates that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The person making the motion and the
second have agreed to make the modification to the time required.
So I'll call the question. All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Opposed by like sign.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's unanimous.
Item #10F
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A DEVELOPER
CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN NAPLES
SYNDICATIONS, LLC, HEREINAFTER COLLECTIVELY
REFERRED TO AS "DEVELOPER", AND THE COUNTY. THE
FUNDS RECEIVED WILL BE FOR THE FUTURE
CONSTRUCTION OF A PORTION OF TREE FARM ROAD AS A
MINOR COLLECTOR ADDED AS A SUPPLEMENTAL TO THE
COLLIER BOULEV ARD (CR-951) IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
#65061 - AffROVED
MR. MUDD: Need a -- I need a motion for 10F, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. 10F?
Page 92
-" ----.. ~~~._....---.,,< ~,"'<",~...~,.,.~ "--
January 11,2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion for approval of
10F.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Halas, second
by Commissioner Coletta, for approval.
Any discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed, signify by same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Unanimous decision.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nick, welcome aboard.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, thank you, Nick.
County Manager, do we have something that could be certainly
done --
MR. MUDD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- certainly within 10 minutes?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I think we can start working on 9A, and
we'll basically start 8A, and we'll do that right at one o'clock after
lunch, but we can go -- start going down the nines and see where 10
minutes takes us.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: One o'clock? I think Commissioner
Coyle is planning for a two-hour lunch.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: She's joking.
Item #9A
Page 93
._-~~ --- ...-..-
January 11,2005
RESOLUTION 2005-35 - APPOINTING RODNEY 1. GARNER TO
THE BA YSHORE/GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE LOCAL
REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD (BCC ACTING AS THE
CRA) - ADOEIED
MS. FILSON: On 9A, Commissioners, when you make the
appointments to this committee, just to remind you that you are sitting
as the CRA board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That we're doing what?
MS. FILSON: Sitting as the CRA board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. I was going to make that
announcement, that we are now sitting as the CRA board to make an
appointment to the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment
Advisory Board.
The committee has recommended Rodney 1. Garner. Are there
any recommendations or nominations by the board?
MR. WHITE: Assistant County Attorney, Patrick White. I'djust
note for the record that I believe that the chair for the CRA is Ms.
Fiala.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ms. Fiala, that's right.
MR. WHITE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: She has designated me to act in her
stead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I heard her say it, too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make the motion to approve
Rodney Garner, the committee recommendation, for an appointment
to the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA -- advisory board.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. You call the -- you call the
question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying
aye.
Page 94
._~.~ .~_...._~,,-"..., ..._._.,~-". '-'-""-""- "'-
January 11,2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You haven't forgotten how.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's really close, yet.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The CRA board meeting is
adjourned.
MR. MUDD: That brings us -- and you're now sitting as the
Board of County Commissioners.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2005-36 - APPOINTING IRV KRAUT
(TECHNICAL) AND LEE HORN (NON-TECHNICAL) TO THE
That brings us to item 9B. It's an appointment of members to the
Environmental Advisory Council.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh. That was --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I went through with great
detail on the applicants that we had, and I mean, let's be honest, your
first indication is to try to pick someone from your own district. But in
this case, I got to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Not me.
Page 95
'-'" _....,~-". >-<,,,.,"'.....-..-...-.~ ~,--
January 11, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, never. I mean, you're above
that, and I appreciate that. That's why you're the chair.
In this case, I think that Mr. -- am I saying the right -- the name
right, Kraut? It's K-R-A-U- T.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Kraut.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to nominate him. He
seemed to have the strongest application --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Boy, I second that. I did the same
thing, Commissioner Coletta, went through all of these, I really poured
through them, and he --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Likewise.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and I don't know the man.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have Mr. Kraut as a
recommendation.
Now are there any other recommendations for members?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How about Richard D. Pickett?
MS. FILSON: Commissioners?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MS. FILSON: This appointment is for one technical member
and one nontechnical member.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. And--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I recommend Lee Horn.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then -- that Lee Horn is the only other
nontechnical member available.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MS. FILSON: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we have two nominations. Are there
any other nominations?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then nominations are closed.
Page 96
-- ~""._'""._-"" ",~""...~,_",_...~....,.,__ ."" __W"'^_'__.O",_'_"_"'_~"'_""_"_'"" -."--
January 11, 2005
Then let's have a vote on Irv Kraut as the technical member of
this committee.
All in favor, please significantly by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sounds like it's unanimous.
And all those in favor of Lee Horn, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Was any -- was there any opposition?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. Then it was unanimous also.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're doing great.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2005-37 - APPOINTING FLOYD CREWS AND
RICHARD L. HEERS TO THE IMMOKALEE MASTER PLAN
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 9C, and it's
appointment of members to the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning
Committee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if I may?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You may.,
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to nom -- go with the
Page 97
"-~."' .~.._~> ^".,.,_..,.~.,-,"~'> ..,,,<,,~.~__""_~_n. --
January 11, 2005
committee's recommendation for Floyd Crews and Richard Heers.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a recommendation for
Floyd Crews and Richard Heers from Commissioner Coletta, second
by Commissioner Halas.
Are there any other nominations?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The nominations are closed.
All in favor of Floyd Crews and Richard Heers as the members
for the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee, please
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So it's unanimous.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2005-38 - APPOINTING REGINA DAY AND RE-
APPOINTING 1. JAY CA V ANAUGH AND BENJAMIN F.
PEARSON TO THE ISLE OF CAPRI FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT
ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND TO RE-ADVERTISE FOR
MR. MUDD: That brings us to item 9D. It's appointment of
members to the Isles of Capri the -- it should be the Isles of Capri Fire
Control District Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I read -- if I may?
Page 98
- "-""'--~ ". ..-,,,_......'-~..' ~ ."~...----_. -
January 11,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I read this with a great deal of
interest. And it was recommended by the committee on Isles of Capri,
that due to a possible conflict for Susan Alexander, who is president of
a 501 C-3 organization that solicits donations for the volunteer
firefighters, this position should be readvertised.
And I also had some confusion. As I was going through this and
studying, I found a Susan Alexander and an Alex Alexander, and I
didn't know who was what. And so I checked with Sue. Apparently
that's her nickname. It isn't her husband, which I thought.
So anyway, I would like to recommend Jay Cavanaugh, Ben
Pearson, and Regina Day for the three members to serve two terms for
the Isles of Capri control district --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And since there's --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- fire district.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- those are the only people who are
available for recommendation, there's no point in having further
nomInees.
Is there a --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- second? Okay. Second by
Commissioner Halas.
We also are being asked to readvertise for that other position.
MS. FILSON: Yes, and I have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that part of your motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then all in favor to accept the committee
recommendations and to readvertise for the other position, please
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 99
-,~,.- --"'--""""-' .'_'m"___'" "~--
January 11, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And opposition?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. It is unanimous.
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2005-39 - TO DECLARE A V ACANCY ON THE
MR. MUDD: Sir, that brings us to item 9E, which is a
recommendation to declare a vacancy on the parks and rec. advisory
board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So move.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Henning,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Those in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's unanimous.
Item #9F
Page 100
-"'- 0_'_-"- '-'~""~'-'-- ""0"_.-
January 11, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING REQUEST DISCUSSION
REGARDING THE FEE SCHEDULE, PARTICULARLY THE
RESUBMITT AL FEES, OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT
STATEMENTS. DURING THE NOVEMBER 14,2004 BCC
MEETING, A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COLLIER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE FEE SCHEDULE OF
DEVELOPMENT-RELATED REVIEW AND PROCESSING FEES
AS PROVIDE FOR THE CODE OF LA WS SECTION 2-11 WAS
BROUGHT BEFORE THE BCC. SEE FEE SCHEDULE CHANGE
41, PAGE 14, FROM NOV. 14TH MEETING AGENDA.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT STATEMENT (EIS) FEE IS
$1600.00; 2ND SUBMITTAL $1500.00; 3RD SUBMITTAL $1000.00,
4TH AND SUBSEQUENT SUBMITTAL $500.00. THESE FEES
ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH OTHER FEE SCHEDULES. -
STAFF TO BRING BACK AFTER RE-EXAMINING THE FEE
SIRIlCII1RF - A EEROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 9F, and it's
Commissioner Henning's request to discuss -- discussion regarding the
fee scheduled, particularly the resubmittal fees of the environmental
impact statements during the November --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can we do that in four minutes?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you all agree with me.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't agree with you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me -- let me continue.
On the first page of the agenda item, in the middle of it it says,
clarification to ensure consistency in fees with other resubmittal fees.
That's what we approved November 20 -- November 16th.
MR. MUDD: 14th, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 14th?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- on the next page, the
Page 101
-"- <....,..._"'"~'" _..._~,_.........~ .,.--.'''"'" ..--.- "--
January 11,2005
closest things that I could find, a resubmittal fee would be a site
development plan.
Now, not knowing all the fees, I was just assuming it was
consistent with other fees. Site development plan is $5,000 for a
submittal, and the second submittal is free.
And a site development plan goes through at least six
bureaucratic departments in community development for review. So I
find that the EIS resubmittal fees of $1,500 is not consistent with other
fees, and I would make a motion that we direct our staff to bring back
something that is more comparable to other resubmittal fees.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What does staff have to say about this?
MR. MUDD: Sir, we would like to honor that request and
re-examine those fees to make sure that we haven't -- we're not
charging too much on either the first or the second or the third or
whatever.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So the motion is to re-examine the fee
structure for the environmental impact fees.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that the motion, Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then I'll second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a second? Second by
Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I've looked at this. And, you
know, most of the problem, I think, rises from the developers, and I
would think that the developers have been in business in this
community long enough to realize that they have to make their
submittals right the first time.
I think this is very labor intensive when you go through a
Page 102
___"V"" ,-"" "._~._-_...,~~, ~"",",,,",,,..~'-,",,,,,~_'- "-
January 11, 2005
resubmittal, not only for staff, but also for the developer, and I would
think that these people need to make sure that they get the job done
right the first time.
And as you know, in the past we've taken some heat and also has
community development/environmental service taken a lot of heat in
regards that a lot of people feel that they're not working efficiently.
And when you have a resubmittal, what you're doing is you're taking
away time from other people that need to get their proj ects taken care
of.
So I think we need to make sure that we have something in place
so if somebody wants to do -- excuse my terminology -- sloppy
workmanship as far as submittals, there should be some way of
making sure that we recoup our cost from this, because I think it is
very labor intensive.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I had some
correspondence with community development, and the response that I
got, the reason for -- the fee is that high on the resubmittal, it's only a
$100 difference, between 1,600 and 1,500, is 95 percent of them are
wrong.
Now, when you submit something, Commissioner Halas, when
it's rejected there's comments on there. You address those comments.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But by this time they should be
able to get -- understand what the -- what's going to be addressed on it
and not basically do the submittals by failure, saying, well, we'll just
see if we can get this taken care of and then --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I just see it as --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- the county staff will then tell us
no --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's a cash cow. You know, if
you base it on other resubmittals, fine, I totally agree with that. But I
look at it as a cash cow.
Page 103
--'- -._-- v- "-'~'."""".""il\"""~'''''''''--'-- "._-"~-"- "--
January 11, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, when people have to go back
through a resubmittal, that's time. That's time from staff getting other
work done because they have to go back and re-review this thing.
You don't get something for nothing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You definitely don't in Collier
County.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I have no problem with
bringing it back. I agree with Commissioner Halas to a large point,
but I do think that you have the right to -- if you have concerns, then
I've got concerns, too. Let's bring it back for discussion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I would -- I would imagine that
staff will address the concerns of both commissioners when it's
brought back.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that right? Is that okay, gentlemen,
ladi es?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then you have instruction to
bring it back--
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and provide us a report. Do we need a
motion or --
MR. MUDD: No, you told us -- you told us what to do. That's
fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We have a motion on the floor and a
second though, don't we?
MS. FILSON: Yes, we do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's -- you want to have a -- cancel them.
Yeah, we can do that. Let's start doing that. I'd like to cancel all
Page 104
~-" ^' .__".._r~~- .'- ~.""~_...-=..,, -"'~~-'._'-'""- ,-. ".~-~-" ~^._.-
January 11,2005
those motions.
Okay. All in favor of the motion to bring this back, please
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous. Thank you very much.
Weare now breaking for lunch.
MR. FILSON: For one hour?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: One hour.
(A luncheon recess was taken.)
MR. MUDD: Sir, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much, County
Manager.
Item #8A
NAPLES SYNDICATIONS, LLC, REPRESENTED BY KAREN
BISHOP OF PMS, INC. OF NAPLES, REQUESTING A REZONE
FROM "PUD" TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
KNOWN AS W ARM SPRINGS PUD BY REVISING THE PUD
DOCUMENT AND MASTER PLAN BY INCREASING THE
ALLOWED DWELLING UNITS BY 290 UNITS TO A MAXIMUM
540 UNITS, A DENSITY INCREASE FROM 2.1 UNITS PER
ACRE TO 4.52 UNITS PER ACRE; TO SHOW A NAME CHANGE
FROM NICAEA ACADEMY PUD; AND REFLECT THE PUD
OWNERSHIP CHANGE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE
EAST SIDE OF COLLIER BOULEVARD, APPROXIMATELY
ONE MILE SOUTH OF IMMOKALEE ROAD, IN SECTION 26,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
Page 105
~- .,_._,,-.-,-- ----^--',.. ---- _.~-
January 11,2005
We will now go to 8A.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, and that's an advertised public hearing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Number 8A. This item requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
commission members.
Naples Syndication, LLC, represented by Karen Bishop ofPMS,
Inc., of Naples, requesting a rezone from PUD to PUD, planned unit
development, known as Warm Springs PUD by revising the PUD
document and master plan by increasing the allowed developing units
by 290 units to a maximum of 540 units, a density increase from 2.1
units per acre to 4.52 units per acres, to show a name change from
Nicaea Academy PUD, and reflect the PUD ownership change.
The property is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard
approximately one mile south of Immokalee Road in Section 26,
Township 48 south, Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida, consisting
of 119 plus or minus acres.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. I'm going
to ask for disclosures by commissioners before we have the swearing
In.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I had meetings with the--
with the people involved in this, and that was it, just a meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I had a couple of meetings with
the petitioner and also with staff.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I've had a meeting and email
from the petitioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Henning?
Page 106
._"'~'- -~._=_..._... "..--.,,-,"-..-.-.,.., .,-._-,~,~.,- ~..-
January 11, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm not sure if this is the
Warm Springs PUD or the Nicaea Academy, whether we need to give
disclosures of both or just Warm Springs.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It probably would be good for both,
because I think we've all been through the Nicaea Academy proposal.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we had a public hearing
back last year, and I received some correspondence on that one from
staff. I did talk to some residents after the Nicaea Academy hearing.
And I'll have to do some research and find out if I had any phone calls
on that one.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'd like to add to mine then--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- also and say that back when we
were working with Nicaea, I had correspondence and so forth, but
they're all in a file in the back that anybody can look at.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I think that's the same for all the
other commissioners, too, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct. Maybe we can get
direction from our county manager on this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: County attorney, you mean?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Attorney. I mean county attorney,
excuse me.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. It doesn't appear that Nicaea is before you
today so that your disclosures are relative to the Warm Springs PUD
item as advertised for you today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I should disclose that I have met
with the petitioner and discussed this with staff.
So now all those who intend to provide testimony in this hearing,
please stand and be sworn in, and that includes all members of the
public who wish to speak.
Do we have any registered members of the public?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir, we have two.
Page 107
---'. .-...-.,.- .~....._;...----' --'- -.--
January 11,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Two. And I hope they're standing.
MS. FILSON: I believe they're with the petitioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good.
If you would swear them in, please.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Ms. Bishop?
MS. BISHOP: I have a new skill. I'm going to try to use it here,
okay. Uh-oh.
MR. MUDD: Hit podium.
MS. BISHOP: Hit podium. I went back to school to learn some
new things.
Okay. Good afternoon, and happy new year. My name is Karen
Bishop. And on behalf of the new owner of what used to be known as
Nicaea Academy is now Warm Springs PUD. Bob Singer is here of
Naples -- the company that bought it, as well as our attorneys. And
our engineer actually had to go, but our traffic guy is here because he's
the most important guy, I think, here today.
We're going to start with -- I prepared a PowerPoint presentation
to discuss a few things about this project. First we're going to review
the location and the neighborhood it's in, we're going to go over the
proj ect history, which many of you are aware of already, and then our
current request.
The location of this project, this is 951, across -- 951 is this way,
I'm sorry, and this is Immokalee Road, north and south. Our proj ect is
right here, south of Crystal Lakes, an existing R V, or what we call a
mobile home park at this point.
The neighborhood -- we're going to review the surrounding
zoning, the essential services in the area, the access. Right now the
surrounding zoning in this area consists of several PUDs. I've taken 10
PUDs here we've looked at with their approval dates, the size and
locations, which, like I said, are in the neighborhood.
Page 108
,-_..~ --~."..._.,,,. '. ""'._-^- ----",-- <--~--
January 11, 2005
Ibis Cove is right down the street, Brittany Bay is across the
street, Indigo Lakes is across the street, Richland PUD as we know as
Pebblebrooke, Wolf Creek, is to the south, Tuscany Cove is to the
north, Bristol Pines is directly to the south of Tree Farm Road, and
Summit Place is across the street right next to the Golden Gate Fire
Department without that training tower.
There's the map and locations of these items from your PUD
map, specifically. So there would be Richland, here's Warm Springs,
Crystal Lakes, Tuscany, Brittany Bay, Summit, my fire place without
the training tower, and then Wolfs Creek.
Within this location of this area, we have a high school, middle
school, elementary school. And from what I'm understanding, the
Collier County School Board is looking to purchase property at the
end of Vanderbilt for another high school and purchase property on
Immokalee Road for another elementary school. So there will be
quite a few schools in this area that our project will hope to serve
specifically.
There's a fire station across the street. And as I mentioned,
without that training. Right across the street EMS services also is
available if they choose to go in there.
Weare within a mile of an activity center. Forty acres of my
project, in fact, is within the density band of that activity center. We
are near the Vanderbilt commercial -- the commercial facility that's
going to be at Vanderbilt and 951, and then there is a new one right
across the street. I want to say that's Wolf Creek -- no, the Naples -- I
think it's the Nagel-Craig. I always call it Naples Craig. It's
N agels-Craig (sic) Industrial Park.
There is additional shopping, like I mentioned. And then from
the interstate this proj ect -- the intersection of Immokalee Road and
951 is three miles from the I - 7 5 interstate, so we're one mile south of
that. So we're in close proximity to the interstate.
Project history, which everyone is pretty much aware of, in 2000,
Page 109
-,.-" ~--_..." ~._---~,. " ""...-
January 11, 2005
I came in front of the board at that time representing Bart McIntyre
and his wife for the property on a school. And then that school was
subsequently zoned. There was permitting that occurred after that,
and then the 2003 zoning amendment came in front of you.
The 2000 amendment was a private school with 600 students.
There was a church, assisted living facility, and 10 residential units,
had also availability for fire station/EMS, and the ALF density hadn't
been determined then, but it was based on your FAR criteria, which
can be anywhere between 20 and 26 units to the acre, which -- as it
turns out when you do the calculations.
And then the access at that time, there was no pinpointing of
access. The access was going to be somewhere along the frontage of
951, and if they used Tree Farm Road, then, of course, they had to
prove they had access over it and do the improvements necessary for
it.
Subsequently to that permitting, submittals were made to South
Florida Water Management and a permit was received. Permits were
submitted in 2000 for south Florida. Permits were received in 2001
for that.
Then there was a two-year issue with getting sign-offs on through
one of the environmental agencies, and so the permit for the Corps
was issued in 2003.
The zoning amendment that came before you last year was -- was
a different applicant to begin with. They requested 598 residential
units, which is based on the maximum density from the growth
management plan that would be allowed on this site.
At that time they had no commitment with Tree Farm Road and
there was no access off of that directly, and they were looking for their
own access, however that worked out.
What was actually approved at that hearing was 250 residential
units phased at 50 percent. In other words, they had 125 they were
allowed to build up front and then 125 after the six-Ianing was
Page 110
"M.__""'" -,...,,"'--- ~,..._~<- "-
January 11, 2005
completed.
Access at that time was required during that process for them
now to come off of Tree Farm Road and to be involved in the building
of that with no impact fees or credits, and no -- you know, to be
specifically public left out of that loop and the private donations
handled as -- the 40-foot right-of-way dedication was also at that time
for the whole -- this project is a mile long, so that's where that 40-foot
was set aside during that process.
And then at that time there were a lot of county commissioners --
that's why the request was one thing, and then, of course, what they
got was something different.
At that time the county commission concerns were, based on the
record, construction of Tree Farm Road, because as Nick
Casalanguida mentioned earlier, this is a part of the long-range
planning of our grid system, and something that's also mentioned in
your community character plan about, you know, roads -- the grid
roads that help get people to the same place using different access
areas, the interconnection to Tree Farm Road, which is -- our access is
directly on Tree Farm Road, in keeping 951 the limited access road
that it is designated by the county commission, also to be involved
with the bridge improvements, because they would be
developer-related, and the time frames for 951 improvements.
And at that time, 951 was still in its planning and design stages
and wasn't as definitive as it is today.
Our current request is for 540 residential units. The density is
4.52, which is -- since 598 would be the maximum, I believe that does
give us 5.0, so it's less than what would be the maximum allowed
based on the GMP.
Weare looking to provide 10 percent of moderate income
affordable housing. We are not asking for any credits. We are
providing that. We will deed restrict this as per the LDC.
We have met with Cormac, who has given us quite a bit of help
Page 111
--. .._---_._"-"-,-----.."~~.,,..,.,.._.._.,~._.--._"'_..,~,.. .~,~."".-' .-.-.----.-
January 11, 2005
in understanding how this works, and we are going to be providing
those within our proj ect.
Weare also looking to provide -- spread these 10 percent among
the whole project so that there's not a clumping, I believe, of __
isolating of the affordable housing, which is what we've heard is not a
positive thing from Cormac.
Weare also a 50 percent participant in the construction of a half
mile of Tree Farm Road. Weare providing the total water
management for that halfmile within our project, and the Tree Farm
Road dedication that we did that Nick mentioned earlier is for a whole
mile.
What was dedicated by our neighbors to the south is a half mile.
Weare dedicating all the way to the end. So there is that -- you know,
so it's 40 feet for a mile, essentially.
And that dead ends into Massey Road, which is the 50-foot Nick
was discussing early that we have no problem with reserving. If we
are able to get our densities that we need with this request, then we
may able to actually donate that land to the county instead of just
reserving it for purchase at another time.
Weare also a 50 percent participant in the bridge expansion. We
are interconnecting to Tree Farm Road, and we are offering a unit
phasing based on the 951 completion.
What we are offering at this point for the unit phasing -- and I
had given another handout, but then we went back and did the math.
Apparently I shorted one of my buildings by two units.
So what we are offering is that we would like to build the first
252 units subject to the concurrency management plan as the
ordinance stands today, no building permits for any additional units
shall be issued until such time that the project engineer certifies that
the expansion of the project for 951 from Immokalee to Pine Ridge is
substantially complete.
Now, we did go in front of the planning commission. Let me get
Page 112
-""'.~- '.....,."".,,-......-..... ,..."'-_._<~_...,."--,,._..... ---
January 11, 2005
back to another slide here. We did go to the planning commission.
That planning commission did not go well.
We were -- they approved a lesser density. What I surmise as the
issue from the planning commission is -- was what appeared to be a
lack of confidence in the concurrency management plan, the
checkbook concurrency plan.
And I don't really know how to answer that. I believe that what
you have in the ordinance works, but there's a perception that maybe
it's not working, and that's one of the reasons why we offered up the
phasing, which I did offer up then, but I don't know that he heard that
phasing offer, so that kind of became an issue for Mark.
Also the issue came up among other planning commissioners that
-- what happened at the last hearing, and that they felt that they didn't
necessarily want to go against what the Board of County
Commissioners had said at that point, even though this is a new
applicant with new circumstances and -- so we stand in front of you
today looking at what was in the past, trying to correct those items,
and we come back with you.
Today my client is intending to build what would be considered
workforce housing of sorts. Not necessarily affordable housing, but
workforce housing. We do have an affordable housing element. But
it's a place where teachers and police and the people that are going to
be working in that area could, in fact, live, starter homes, including
someone like my son when he gets out of college, too. So those are
the kind of things that we have to offer.
There are some things through -- the planning commission asked
for. We did, in fact, provide an additional buffer on the northern and
southern line of 75 feet, but that was for three-story buildings based on
the old plan.
We did find that at one little place it might be a problem for us,
which we can show you and discuss. It's one little corner where we
still have an issue with.
Page 113
--,'"", ~'----.'~""" ._'~_."_.,..,,..,......- ----.
January 11, 2005
But -- and all in all, there was no issue with the 75-foot for the
three-story buildings.
We also are looking for a deviation of part of the environmental
section. Mark went through the environmental section that had been
blessed by the environmental department, because we already have
our permits, and made some notes to it. I would actually like to keep
the old section as per the county staff because it does seem to fit us
better. We do have our permits.
This is a very usual site from a geometry perspective. And any
more additional criteria that we'd have to adhere to could really, you
know, mess with our ability to do what we need to do, especially since
this site actually has more preserve land than development land. So
we do meet a large criteria for that.
And I think that's it.
Do you have any questions?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a question from Commissioner
Henning. Would you prefer to wait until after the staff and public
comments, or would you want your question asked now?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you don't mind, I'd like to ask
it now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I assume there's an agreement
for the affordable housing density bonuses with our affordable
housing director?
MS. BISHOP: We're not asking for bonuses so there is not an
agreement. What we have agreed to do, which is in our PUD, is
agreed to hold that 10 percent as per the LDC, the 15 years that the
LDC calls for in the affordable housing section.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Now, you mention
workforce housing, which is a different element of affordable housing.
Do you have an agreement with the county on how that will take
place?
Page 114
~-_.< -'.n...._".~ ~-_...~~,_.- "--
January 11, 2005
MS. BISHOP: Yeah, the affordable housing, which is the only
thing that I know of that there's an agreement on, we, in fact, are not
asking for credits, so there is not a formal agreement. What we have
done is met with Cormac.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you're making a
commitment.
MS. BISHOP: We are making a commitment on the record in
the documents that we will do this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In the land development code
there is language recognizing what workforce housing is, and you're
saying that you're going to build workforce housing, but there's
nothing stipulated what that workforce housing is going to be.
MS. BISHOP: What I said was that we are setting aside 10
percent for affordable housing, and the rest of what we're building
would be considered a workforce type housing __
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MS. BISHOP: -- which is housing for lower level income type
of families, such as teachers and police and starter homes.
Our price points at this point are starting from 139 and going to 180.
That falls within the range of those price ranges.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But that's not in the --
MS. BISHOP: The 10 -- what we are guaranteeing in our PUD
document --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's just hearsay. All
you're saying is hearsay. You're saying it's workforce housing, and it's
not in the PUD. It's just hearsay, so --
MS. BISHOP: Okay. I'm not suggesting it's hearsay, but I mean
that is what our plan is doing at this point.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's not in writing, and I'm
not going to be -- go down that road again --
MS. BISHOP: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- of -- you know, whatever you
Page 115
-" '>"'~._~.,~.- '~'>"-""'-'"~",,,,,,,,,. -~"""'-"~- ~'---
January 11,2005
commit on the dais or at the podium, you need to commit in writing.
MS. BISHOP: I'm committing to the 10 percent.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it -- your -- affordable
housing --
MS. BISHOP: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- but you're not committing to
workforce housing?
MS. BISHOP: Okay. Yes, ma'am?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'm sorry.
MS. STUDENT: May I be recognized?
I had a point that I wanted to address Commissioner Henning's
question. I met with Mr. Giblin. And, in fact, I had thought he was
going to be here today, but he advised that the affordable housing is
80 percent of median and that will be guaranteed through deed ,
restrictions.
And, in fact, I would like to add those provisions to paragraph
5.12 to the PUD that does deal with affordable housing and define that
as 80 percent of median income, and also to have a provision that
states that this will be accomplished through deed restrictions
applicable to those units and put that in the PUD document.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the only clarification I
want to make is, again, is the workforce housing is recognized in the
land development code. Our affordable housing director has -- you
know, knows the price points of that, and, if we're just going to make a
verbal commitment, it's not going to do us any good.
MS. STUDENT: That's why on the affordable -- exactly. And
on the affordable, there's a provision to deal with that. There's no
other provision. I have not seen any nor have I discussed it with Mr.
Giblin. It's the first I know about this other aspect of workforce
housing at this juncture, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I was also looking for
Page 116
-.---.... ---..,....-,._, 'A_",,~","<,,"_,_ ~-""'--'." ~---.~. ""-
January 11,2005
clarification. And Karen, it isn't because of you or your people.
We've discussed at a meeting just recently how many times people
come to us and ask for one thing and then we're duped. We believe
that what they say that it will look like or will become, never goes
through.
MS. BISHOP: I understand that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And so that's why -- I'm sure that's
why you're asking it to be spelled out -- and you've talked about two
different components. I don't know if one is a rental component. I
don't know if it's --
MS. BISHOP: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- an upscale product. You said
something about the 15 years, which means that by deed restriction
they can't sell it higher than 10 percent for 15 years.
MS. BISHOP: This is owner-occupied homes. And to me -- I
mean, I've lived here for so long. To me it's what I can afford to live
in. I call that workforce housing. But apparently now there is a new
definition, which I need to get myself more familiar with so I don't
misspeak and, you know, make it confusing on the podium.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And it needs to be here, too.
MS. BISHOP: Right. And in my master plan, we do, in fact,
have on the master plan that 10 percent of the units by phase shall be
affordable housing units, minimally meeting the moderate income
level at thresholds established, and that is on the master plan itself. It's
in the document.
So if Marjorie wants the words, it's perfectly fine, because it's the
same intent.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I can understand some of
the concerns here, because we've been through this before. If we were
to tie this in in such a way that it's not only in the document, but the
affordable housing would come online at a predominant rate, in other
Page 11 7
- . '.'~,---~ '".~_.",,-~,..... _""_"-'_~'M' "--.-'-
January 11, 2005
words, for every so many houses you build, you have so many
affordable houses, and we tie it right to the COs for approval, I don't
see where we're going to have a real problem.
We've got to have the nexus in there to make sure that we've got
it covered. And I'm sure between now and before the time we get
ready to make a -- take a vote on this, our attorney or one of his
assistant attorneys will come up with a mechanism that will guarantee
us some sort of assurance.
MS. BISHOP: Cormac did mention to me, sir, that during the
PUD monitoring process, that that is something that we report on
through that process.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Cormac's here now if you want
to -- if you wanted to --
MS. BISHOP: Ask Cormac?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: He probably doesn't know what
we're talking about. He just walked through the door. We've been
saying nothing but nice things about you, by the way, Cormac.
MR. GIBLIN: I can piece it together.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're dealing with the issue of
how we can be assured that affordable housing will take place at this
10 percent rate, and --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have to be sworn in, Cormac.
MR. GIBLIN: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
(The speaker was duly sworn.)
MR. GIBLIN: For the record, my name's Cormac Giblin, your
housing and grants manager.
The language included in the PUD specifically references that the
affordable housing units will be modeled after the provisions in the
LDC that govern them, and those are traditionally a land use
restriction in the form of a PUD developer commitment and an
individually recorded deed restriction on each of the affordable units
Page 118
-~.^.- -'~'-'~-~--"- ~-'-'- +-'-
January 11, 2005
for a period of 15 years, which has some resale and other types of
penalties, if for some reason the unit were resold at a later date.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does that mean it must be owner
occupied, not an investor purchased?
MR. GIBLIN: That's right. The income of each buyer must be
certified by the developer, and then those records submitted to the
county as part of their annual PUD monitoring report.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And they must live there?
MR. GIBLIN: They must be owner occupied, yes, in this
instance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Giblin, the petitioner has
stated on the record, but it's not in the document, about providing
workforce housing, and she also gave us a price point. And I think if
the board is going to consider approving any amendment to this PUD,
that should be stipulated in the PUD, so I hope that you would get
together with the petitioner and find out what the price points are and
find out how many units.
What I thought she said was, the rest of it is going to be
workforce housing.
MR. GIBLIN: Sure. I've met with the petitioner a couple times.
I've seen their price -- their price list for the entire development, and it
does look to be very reasonably priced, even the units that are not
going to be encumbered by this stipulation.
Just to be on the record, that the affordable housing units that
they are providing are going to be at the 80 percent of median income
I eve 1.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And -- but the workforce
housing is not in the document. If you can address that with the
petition, I would appreciate that.
MR. GIBLIN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
Page 119
---- ~-"'......~'- "'---" . '-"-_~.'_.~"""_"~'~""'="_w .~_.
January 11, 2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I'd like to hear staffs report
before I have -- I have questions, but I'd like to hear staff report.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Very well, let's hear
from staff.
MR. BOSI: Thank you, Commissioners. Mike Bosi, Zoning and
Land Development Review.
Before I get into the staffs report, I guess I will make just a slight
clarification. At the planning commission meeting, a lot of these
issues in terms of the phasing weren't as specifically documented, and
I think that is what motivated the planning commission to a large
extent to the recommendation of approval, but approval of only 278
units.
The phasing component really wasn't highlighted during that
applicant's presentation, so I think that's what's caused us some
reservation and motivated the recommendation.
Staff has looked at the petition. And based upon its standing
within the growth management plan and the land development code,
the overall reviews have come in favorably, and staffhas
recommended approval.
One of the things that motivated the recommendation of approval
is the future land use element and the future land use map. Forty
acres, roughly 30 percent of this property, is within a residential
density band, and a residential density band is what tells people who
look at a future land use map where a higher intensity is allocated
within the county.
The issues with the planning commission were related to
transportation and transportation concurrency and whether the
expansion of951 was going to be able to be accommodated within the
time frame that these new units were going to be done.
My conversations and my interactions with the county
transportation staff has assured me that the 951 corridor, there is
capacity with -- within the -- within the system, but the additional
Page 120
~--_. '---'0... .""-.... .-~'-,_..._,._. -."--
January 11, 2005
aspect of the connection, that Tree Farm Road connecting to Massey
to provide the extended access points and alternative access points,
was one of the components that transportation was extremely attracted
to the petition.
And as you know, the issue of Tree Farm Road in the inability to
finalize or resolve on how we're going to deal with that and the work
that Nick and the rest of the applicants have done really was the final
push for transportation to say that this met the growth management
plan components as well as the checkbook concurrency.
The -- at the planning commission there was one aspect that was
called out as a deviation, and conversations with the environmental
staff has indicated that there's no problem with the requested
deviation, and it relates to buffers from conservation areas in
relationship to the existing ERP permits from Southwest Florida
Management District and the Army Corps of Engineers.
Any questions that I could entertain, I'd be more than happy at
this time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have some questions. The
petitioner basically provided me with some PUD names. I need some
clarification. This arm PUD, is that the Mirasol PUD?
MR. BOSI: Tuscany Cove.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's Tuscany Cove?
MR. BOSI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. When I -- when I look at
what we have approved out in this general area -- and that's not
counting Mirasol, that's not counting Twin Eagles, that's not counting
Heritage Bay, I get somewhat concerned of the density in this whole
general area.
I just sat down and tried to do some quick calculations. And
before we even look at the density of this unit, it looks like in that
whole quadrant out there, we're looking at about 9,394 buildable units
Page 121
-- '.'_M~" ^,~,~,-"~,,--,,,," ~'-~"-~-"'--'" .---
January 11, 2005
at this point in time. Can you verify that for us?
MR. BOSI: The actual number, I don't have the spreadsheet in
front of me. I wouldn't contest those numbers. But what I would say
-- and I would tie it back to the presentation you heard about the 951
extension study to Alico Road.
Within -- within a short period of time, and within a short period
of time in terms of the planning horizon, this is going to be an
intersection of two major arterial roads. This is the area that the future
land use map designates for higher intensity and higher densities.
What we as a staff rely upon is the policies contained within the
checkbook concurrency and the transportation aspects of the growth
management plan to provide the assurances that even though there's
units approved, that the units that come online will not negatively
impact the system that's failing.
I think by nature of how the future land use map designates this
area as a higher intensity, high-density area, any sort of land use
decision that doesn't coincide with what the future land use map
dictates for this area is somewhat -- is not consistent.
I think one of the -- one of the issues is -- is, from the board and
maybe from the planning commission, is the reservation of looking at
the number of units and wondering how this system is going to be able
to handle all of those units.
We as staff -- I have to -- I place my full confidence within the
transportation staff that the checkbook concurrency system that this
board has adopted is the mechanisms that will prevent any units from
coming online when the capacity is not there.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think to -- my
understanding, that we're not evening looking at the extension of this
951 to Alico Road until 2010 or 2012, somewheres in that period of
time. So I'm not even putting that into what's going to happen at the
present time here.
I guess what I'm concerned is, I'd like to know exactly, like
Page 122
..-,.. -'-~._~~._>; "-,<"--,,,........, -.-..
January 11, 2005
Mirasol and like Heritage Bay, most of these have already been
brought in under the concurrency out-transportation because they've __
I when they got their units approved, didn't they basically fall under the
criteria of the traffic? And if not, then I guess we've got to figure out
where we're at here.
MR. BOSI: And I -- to adequately address that question and
concern, I would have to defer to the transportation staff, not being as
intimate in the day-to-day involvement of the administration of those
policies and those issues.
I will say on a side note, the only reference when I said the
extension of 951 to the north, with that removed, this is still an activity
center. This is still designated as an activity center as -- now. It's
designated an area for the higher intensity uses within the -- within the
overall area.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to hear from the
transportation department. I need some clarification, I guess.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good afternoon, Commissioners.
Nick Casalanguida, Transportation Review.
I've made it very clear to Mr. Springer and Ms. Bishop that at the
zoning stage right now, they will be subj ect to concurrency when they
come online right now.
And I think as part of your concerns, I couldn't have been more
forceful with them to let them know, just because you get zoning,
doesn't mean at the time you come in for development orders, if the
trips aren't on any particular segment, you will not get approval. And
they're very well aware of that.
As far as what's going on out there, we do have some things that
we want to try and alleviate, transportation issues going forward, and
we're looking at the interchange of I - 7 5 for a loop, we're looking at
implementing things like SCOOT.
So as things start to come online, Commissioners, we will have
the opportunity to mitigate that and eventually try and tie into that
Page 123
~_.~ -.--'"-.. ~ _.~ .---
January 11, 2005
time frame as 951 does become available and other roads, Logan
North, become available as well, too.
But as far as concurrency's concerned, they're very well aware
that if they agree to phase, even with a first phase and second phase --
and I think them granting the second phase not to be even considered
until 951 is complete puts them at risk, and they assume that risk. We
do not.
So we were very clear with them to let them know that if you
offer up the phasing, that at such time that that comes up, you may not
be able to come online if we have a problem. And so, it's at their risk,
as far as we're concerned. And they, I believe, understand that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta's next.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. Ijust wanted to
make sure we're not trying -- we don't get this confused with an earlier
petition we had for the same land when it was under a different name.
At that time we had -- we had the petitioner that was less than
cooperative. And I know it turned us off. And we have a totally
different situation here.
Some of the -- some of the questions that come to mind, of
course, is the same as you have. Everyone's concerned about the
density and what's going to happen with the transportation system. We
also have to keep in mind that we're very much in tune with the need
for affordable and just a step above affordable housing for the
residents of Collier County.
In that note, too, if we take and we reduce it down to what the
planning commission recommended -- which, by the way, they didn't
have all the facts when they made their recommendation as far as
phasing goes and Tree Farm Road, like we had the exposure to it.
Ifwe made it to that kind of density, I assure you that you would
not find the type of affordable units that we're going to see. It can't be
done.
And the petitioner at this point in time is asking for an amount
Page 124
'-~' ~,>". .. - --'.""~"'> "-'-~"---'-
January 11, 2005
that is less than would be permitted being in that density band, and I
think we need to keep an open mind.
What impresses me is the fact that we are going to have an
affordable element, and not only the affordable element being in the
front 10 percent, but in the remainder part, too, if everything holds
true. I'm sure we can get those assurances we need and we can get
them on record.
Also, I do know the petitioner is a person that's working in
Immokalee with Orangetree and -- not Orangetree -- excuse me --
Arrowhead and has made a commitment there to provide the units that
are needed that are affordable, too, and that's a big concern to me.
I don't need another golf course community in my district and on
951. I need something that's going to accommodate the working class,
the working people, in several directions, and that's just the point.
I have total confidence in our transportation department and in
their -- in the element they put together for the concurrency,
checkbook concurrency.
I'm sure that when that time does come, there's going to be a lot
of surprised developers out there at some end of our county that are
going to find that they're at the short end of the balance of the
checkbook for their particular corridor.
I'm just giving an idea which direction we're going. We've still
got a lot of discussing to do on this before I can totally weigh in and
say that this is something I want to commit to, but I just wanted to
give us a balance to the whole thing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll wait.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You say that the future land
use map designates that this is a higher density area. I wasn't aware of
that, and that was interesting information.
One of the things that I'm concerned with is I think that -- this is
Page 125
--. ---,., .---~ -...",""-,.-"...-.".- ""~"-- "-
January 11, 2005
my own opinion -- it's great that we comply with the traffic elements
that transportation has told us, but I think maybe their level of service
maybe needs to be adjusted a little bit because I think we're giving it a
really low standard, and what we're seeing, the result of, is all of this
traffic that's pouring in.
And I feel sorry for those people on Immokalee Road because
they haven't even begun to build out with all of the stuff that's still
approved.
And I know that we keep -- we keep trying to accommodate the
future citizens of our community, giving them houses that are
moderately priced so that we can have workforce in here as well as
those retirees, and we want to accommodate them all. But I'm just
afraid of what it's going to do to this road.
And I think at some point in time we need to address that level of
service standard maybe at a workshop or something. We can't do it
today, but I'm just concerned about the traffic.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm going to take a chance to jump in
here for a minute.
There are two points I want to make. One is that, yes, all of the
approved but not yet built units are included in our traffic analysis
concurrency system, okay. So that answers Commissioner Halas's
question earlier.
The other point I'd like to make, and I'm going to keep making it
every time it comes up, is that most of the concerns about the
concurrency management system that are voiced by people on some of
the committees are voiced because they don't understand it. It's not
because the system is bad. They simply don't understand it.
It is the best concurrency management system in the State of
Florida. It is a precedent-setting concurrency management system,
and this Board of County Commissioners is to be commended for
implementing it.
The one thing that causes all of the confusion is exactly what you
Page 126
-" "---.- "-"",,,,----., ""--'-".
January 11, 2005
said earlier, and that is that a zoning decision doesn't mean you can
actually build it.
So what we tend to do is separate the decision from zoning with
the ultimate decision to determine if it meets the concurrency
requirements, and that is confusing to most people, and
understandably so, and maybe that's something we need to address
one day.
But we do have laws and rules that tell us how we're supposed to
calculate concurrency and how we're supposed to calculate traffic
impacts, and we can't just say, I drove out there last week and it
looked terrible, so it's not going -- you know, I'm not going to vote for
it. You know, that's a violation of our law, because we have a law that
says how we do that.
But I am concerned about density for this reason. The one reason
that you have higher density is so that you can have lower cost units.
And if you want more lower cost units, you have to have higher
density. That's the only way you're going to be able to afford the land
on which to build workforce housing is to have higher density.
And in -- unless we specify in this particular development that
there are going to be workforce priced homes, it is hard, I think, for
some of us to make the leap to a high density.
And let me just quickly try to wrap this up and say, if you wanted
to make a lot of money off this at low density, or if you wanted to
make a profit at low density, you'd have to build estate houses
probably and offer something very, very expensive, but if you're going
to offer something less expensive, you're going to have to be able to
build more of them in order to afford the land and the infrastructure to
develop it.
So I'm merely pointing that out for consideration of my
colleagues here because we all want more workforce housing, and we
have to recognize that when we make the decision to take -- or to get
more workforce housing, we are necessarily making the decision of
Page 127
-" -,.,," "'<,~,_,.,,"_M< '....--,"-..^ "--
January 11, 2005
building higher densities, and there's no way around that. That just __
there's no way to make it otherwise. And I'm sorry for taking so long.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess what I -- where do we stand
at that today at that intersection of Immokalee Road and 951 as far as
level of service?
MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, Transportation Planning. The level of
service of the intersection itself is probably around a D, and I'm
guessing at the -- and maybe the applicant can tell us exactly what that
is. Obviously it's different when we six lane 951, also six lane
Immokalee the other direction.
Right now 951 's operating at D, but it's very close to E. The
standard's a D, that's out with the six-Ianing coming forward.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So as Commissioner Coyle stated,
that all the approved PUDs, that traffic impact is already put into the
equation?
MR. SCOTT: There are a lot of different iterations we went
through before we adopted the concurrency system. Obviously the
long-range plans and everything approved is part of what we looked
at. Obviously everything that's approved is not going to be built, too,
which has been brought up several times, many times before.
In some of those iterations we don't just look at -- you know, the
system has vested units that are in it and does not have all the
approved units in it, but iterations that we did over the time does
include all the approved units. Over the five years -- that's how __
where a lot of the five-year work came from, and then also in the
long-range plan, on some of the iterations of the longer range
improvements that we need to include.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So we've already taken in
effect that 3,400 units that's going to be possibly built at Heritage
Bay?
MR. SCOTT: That's correct, but in the concurrency system it--
Page 128
.'~._""",-~'" ~'-""'-'~'" _._"'_....".~~~.~ ------~~... ,---
January 11, 2005
you know, if you say today, what do I have for trips at a certain
location, it includes part of those trips, like we were talking about
one-seventh going to whatever built over the last two years. Now the
longer term, 3,400 units, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So tell me this, let's say, for
instance, Heritage Bay came in and started building now, and all of a
sudden you found out that the impact was so great on the road that it
was causing it to fail, do you have the power then to say you're not
going to get any more permits to build?
MR. SCOTT: For Heritage Bay itself, no. For everybody else,
yes.
The other issue that's with that is that -- I mean, realistically what
can someone build per year? They start throwing 300 units per year,
that's what we'll be putting into the concurrency system.
Meanwhile, we'll be developing 951 extension, Immokalee will
be done east of 951 as well as the other segments to the west.
The problem with throwing everything at one time -- you know,
one of the iterations we did that we did not share is we threw every
approved unit on the system the way the system is right now. Well,
obviously if you throw everything out there that's right now on the
system, it's going to fail because I didn't include any, you know,
improvements over time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. In your models, when you
took possibly everything that could be possibly built out there at this
point in time without looking at any future PUD and with the upgrade
to Immokalee Road and 951, what level of service did you come up
with?
MR. SCOTT: Level of service E.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Level of service E. Okay. And
that's with everything, after all the improvements are made?
MR. SCOTT: You talking about on --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What we've got today.
Page 129
'......._~... -'-,,-,,-., "'~-.,.~,..~..~.._,..,..., . -'-"-~--'~", ,-
January 11, 2005
MR. SCOTT: On 951, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: On 951 and Immokalee, at that
intersection.
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We'd end up with the best -- with
all the improvements, we'd still end up with a service level E?
MR. SCOTT: Right. Now, one issue that's come up is that you
say, what overpasses may we need in the future? One thing that 951
extension, depending on how popular that road becomes, that might be
a grade separated interchange in the future, then your level of service
would be better.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's a possibility?
MR. SCOTT: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. You're doing a
great job, by the way, Chairman.
I think we're getting a flavor for what's happening. It all has to
do with future planning, how it comes together. But when it all comes
down to it, it has to deal with what's the greater public good.
One thing we don't need is just another development. There's got
to be something that's got to be a payback for what our citizens are
going to have to endure, because there's going to be an added element.
Even with the improvements to the road, there's going to be an added
element on the roads.
The corrections are going to be made to the road, the six -laning
of the road's all going to make a big difference in the end.
But we're not talking -- we got to level everything out to see what
we're talking about. Now, we're talking about affordable housing,
something that's very dear to every one of us, that we think is very
important. If this was just another development, I'd be first on the --
first up on the line to be able to say, you know, we don't need it, we
Page 130
~---- ~.... "'-'~""._,.._,_w_"_ ---.--.. """---
January 11, 2005
don't want it, go away, leave us alone.
We're talking about a major transportation element within this
development, Tree Farm Road, that's going to make a big difference in
the interconnectivity that it's going to take to move possible problems,
set back far enough they can be a controlled intersection. And if I'm
not mistaken, it also shares the entrance with the fire department,
right?
MS. BISHOP: No, sir. Actually, Tree Farm Road is going to
align across the street, but the fire department is south of that. The fire
department without the training department is to the south of that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Up to now, it's doing very good.
Some of the other benefits that I see from this is the right-of-way that
we're going to be receiving. And -- but I would still like to twirk (sic)
it just a little bit more. I'm sorry?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm just asking--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I thought I was being signaled.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, you're okay. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Am I talking too long?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to see about--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Your time's up.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- twirking (sic) this just a little
bit, if I may.
I think 10 percent is a nice number, and I realize the whole
project falls within the range of certain affordability. But I'd like to
see that number increased by 50 percent, to 15 percent, 10 percent to
15, I'd also like to see the density lowered to 525, which is a slight
variation from your 540, but it's still -- and that would make it 73 units
below what would be permitted under the law. And this gives us a
certain amount of comfort in the fact that we got a little bit more of a
cushion to work with.
And also too -- and this is something that -- the 75-foot setback, I
Page 131
.,..~....~,_;o<"",.~,.. ----.. --..-.-
January 11,2005
don't have any problem with the southern, south boundary for that one
house that comes close to the edge of it being whereabouts it needed
to be. I guess it's 50 feet, was it?
MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That doesn't raise a problem
with me at all or any kind of real concern. However, I'd also like to
see that the 50-foot of right-of-way on the eastern boundary be also
dedicated to the county without fees so that we can complete the
transportation grid in that area at a point in time that we need to do so.
MS. BISHOP: We can certainly do that. If we get a favorable
vote for this, that's something we can absolutely put in there, because
it's not something that we need.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'm surprised -- I'm sorry to
surprise you with this, but that's something looking over --
MS. BISHOP: No, it's actually --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's something that's absolutely
needed.
MS. BISHOP: I think the grid system over there is an important
system. Massey Road, from Immokalee Road to Vanderbilt, is an
important system, and we're happy to be able to accommodate that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. In that case, I'll put it in
the form of a motion. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have two public speakers. Would
you rather wait?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Forgive me. I'll wait.
MS. BISHOP: The public speakers are on my team. They don't
need to speak.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Good. We don't need to hear
from them then.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's always in your favor, you
know that?
MS. BISHOP: I knew that. Less is more.
Page 132
-- ~",--,.,^^ "-
January 11, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You don't have any others other
than the ones that are on their team, right?
MS. FILSON: I have Shane Parker and Andrew Solis.
MS. BISHOP: They're with me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta, go ahead
with your motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm going to need a little bit of
help along the way from everyone here, including the county attorney,
maybe the county manager, and four other commissioners. But the
total, as this is by staff recommendations, by the total units not to
exceed 525.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How about 330?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 330? No, I don't think that's a
realistic number, not unless you want to build high-end, and then
where are my people going to go that are going to have to work in this
area?
Fifteen percent be affordable housing built proportionate as the
ongoing project develops, that it's not something that's going to be
done at the end, that it's done during the project, that it be placed
throughout the project in such a way that it's not identified as an
affordable part of it; in other words, it's part of the whole project going
across, and these units are designated as the affordable part.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Blending.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Blending. I think that's the
word. Thank you, Donna -- that it be phased in. And on this I might
need some help from transportation on -- phased in at 50 percent
permitted before 951 is completed and the other 50 percent can begin
at the time that 951 is built.
Okay. I don't see any outcrying of grief from anybody.
In addition to the Tree Farm Road, the 50 feet of right-of-way on the
eastern boundary -- and I believe everybody knows what I'm talking
about in transportation and from the petitioner -- be deeded over
Page 133
--~"'"''"'' ..~-,,- --...-,.,. ""-
January 11, 2005
without fees or impact fee credits, that the 75-foot boundary -- 75-foot
setback rule, that the exemption be made for the southern boundary
for the one unit that will be required to be built in an affordable
fashion, and that would be 50 feet for that -- for that one exception.
MS. BISHOP: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I believe I caught it all. I'm
just trying to see if there's something else I missed.
I'm sorry. Yes, Mr. Student?
MS. STUDENT: Yes. Ms. Chairman -- or excuse me -- Mr.
Chairman and Commissioner Coletta, I just wanted to put on the
record while you have your motion open so you could add to it, there's
some clean-up items that need to go into the PUD document and the
master plan, there's some incorrect citations, for example, and some
clarifications, and particularly in the environmental section, there's a
reference to the platting of a conservation area. This is not going to be
platted, so it will just be a conservation easement in favor of the
county.
So with those clarifications on the record -- thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And I include that in my
motion along --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Before -- before you continue with the
motion, let me close the public hearing, okay?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. You're not going to
make me repeat the motion?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, but read it in reverse. You want me
to summarize the motion? We don't have a second yet. But
Commissioner Halas wants to speak.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've already spoken.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Coletta, seconded by Commissioner Fiala, essentially
Page 134
"-'~- ._-,""-"..,,,......"" . ,.~-,.,"'.,.-.". .""-
January 11, 2005
suggesting approval at three hundred and -- five hundred and how
many units?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Twenty-five.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Twenty-five.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- 525 units with 15 percent of the units
to be affordable housing units, phased in, built in a phase and,
distributed or blended throughout the development, that the overall
development will be -- will be phased in accordance with the
completion of 951 improvements.
Did I miss anything?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Fifty foot of the eastern boundary--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, yes.
MR. MUDD: -- dedicated to the county, no impact fee credit for
it, and the southern boundary unit will have a 50-foot setback.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, okay.
Any discussion concerning the motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The last part was that 50 percent
couldn't be built until 951 's completed?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's correct, that's right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. Ifwe go along with the 525
units on top of the other figure that I came up with originally, we're
almost at 10,000 units within a two or three square mile area.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Once again, too, transportation
has justified the increases to the road there to cover it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: They said with all the additional
improvements that we'd still be at level E, before we even approve
this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Possibly Norm Feders (sic) or
someone from transportation would like to come forward and address
any other concerns?
Page 135
,-~' ~,._.".~.,.. ,~,.,-_."-".~'< ,._--,..-",..,;.~~~' ,~~---
January 11,2005
MR. SCOTT: I guess -- Don Scott, transportation planning --
was there a question in there?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I think the question was, how do
we justify adding this additional traffic if the best we're ever going to
do is level of service E, even with all the improvements; is that
correct, Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Correct, that's correct.
MR. SCOTT: Well, obviously, you know, part of what I'm
looking at is, when we talk about 2025 or 2030 is plans out into the
future, but not necessarily build out.
Obviously there are other things that are coming along that are
going to help; Logan Boulevard extending up to the north,
improvements like we're talking about at I -75 and Immokalee, a future
-- I mean, what's been raised several times at the MPO, an interchange
at Everglades and I - 75 will really help the Immokalee corridor if we
can get that moved forward.
I don't necessarily -- I mean, right now it's not in the 2025 plan
but we were going to, next month, actually add that to the long-range
plan and try to move that into the next 20 years or 15 years or 10 years
if we can. Obviously those improvements would help what we're
talking about in that area.
So there are other things beyond even the longer range plans over
the next 20 years.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So if I could paraphrase what you've just
said to see if I understand it. Is it the worst we would ever have is a
level of service E, and if any other improvements such as alternate
routes are established, they will actually improve the circumstances at
that intersection; is that a fair statement?
MR. FEDER: That's a fair statement, Commissioner. Basically
you are not going to allow development once you get past E. But I do
want to put a couple of things in perspective.
First of all, what I want to tell you is your adopted level of
Page 136
--- ,~---_.. >.._,.'"""""-"'-"-'"._....--_._.._..."-_.,,--~'---~--,,..,- .----
January 11, 2005
service, once you go to six lanes, is level of service E, and that is what
you're facing on the system in many areas.
Actually what isn't being discussed as much, until we have a
broader grid system, part of what's being raised here, until we start
establishing some destinations or some workforce affordable housings
closer in, we're going to continue to have longer and longer trips and
face that on the network.
But in answer to your question, Commissioner and Chairman,
yes, you're correct, that we would then go into concurrency at that
point that we're at E and anything beyond that, because we can't allow
it to go beyond E, but E is our adopted level of service and what we
experience in major parts of the network, and so that's why the focus
on establishing destinations, not just origins, in each county, many of
the issues that we're bringing up that the boards direct us to look at
strategically.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, no, I didn't --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You didn't, okay.
Then I would like to raise one other issue. I've become more
interested in reducing density of developments than increasing them,
and I think the other commissioners have felt the same way.
In -- there's only a couple of good reasons for increased density,
and I've touched upon them earlier, and that is to get more affordable
housing.
And Commissioner Henning raised a question earlier today that
pertains -- it goes beyond just affordable housing.
Your price ranges on this property seem to indicate price ranges
which are suitable for workforce housing, but yet there is no guarantee
in the PUD that that's what you're going to do, and I think that what I
would be looking for in order to support the higher density was some
understanding that beyond the affordable housing, that there really is a
commitment to keep the remainder of those homes within the price
Page 137
--,., -".,~.~ ... ,"."-' 'e.____ ---
January 11, 2005
breaks, generally within the price breaks that you have specified,
which are workforce housing homes. And so that's one, I think, good
justification for having higher density.
Now, what can we do with that?
MS. BISHOP: Well, I want to start by apologizing to
Commissioner Henning. I didn't know that there really was,
somewhere buried in the affordable housing, a workforce definition.
I've been going on the assumption it hasn't been done. Even the
county attorney and Joe Schmitt, we didn't know, you know, until
now. And I don't want to get myself tied into any of those things.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, we make those changes
surreptitiously so we keep you off balance.
MS. BISHOP: I know. But, you know, I eat my feet enough. I
don't need to eat it anymore.
The -- my client has a proj ect in mind. The proj ect in mind has
the 80 percent affordable housing element, and all of the rest of the
units are in the same alignment with them.
He is going to mix these units no more than 50 percent in a
building, so there will not be any isolation of these units out there.
Barring any major increases of concretes and asphalts and steel, which
we are seeing happen at any time, the numbers that he has looked at
today, he hopes he can do those tomorrow.
Weare going to be six months before we put our permits in. I
know that just in the last three years, dirt has doubled, just dirt, from
six bucks a cubic yard to 11. So his intent is to keep this proj ect all
the same because he doesn't believe that he can have a high end with
affordable element. He doesn't see that that really is going to work.
So he will be keeping the rest of these units in the same price
range because the people work together, live together. That's the
project that he builds. He builds affordable housing projects.
How to tie this in based on the economy, I'm not sure how to do
that. I have him here so that you can speak with him directly, but he
Page 138
- -;"...-.,-'-'" "";'-'---" -_.-
January 11,2005
certainly is doing the 15 percent, and believes that the rest of those
units have to fall in that same line or he will not be successful even
with those. He won't be -- if he can't sell that 15 percent of the units,
that kiboshes the project. So they will all be within that same range.
I'm not sure how to give you more of a comfort level than that,
but you can speak to Bob directly.
MR. SINGER: Hello, my name is Robert Singer. I am the
Owner and Land Developer of the Warm Springs PUD, Naples
Syndication, LLC. And we've thought about the dilemma that you've
asked us about, and one of the problems we have is we're making that
total commitment, which was 10 percent and now will be 15 percent,
as a lock-in price basically for affordable housing.
Some of our units are not going to be built for several years down
the road because we're not going to do it all up front and lock in and
knowing the prices now.
You asked me, and I've agreed to, extend this out over a several
year period of time. We're talking about that I wouldn't even be
pulling permits until 951 is done. So we're talking about, it will be
three, four years down the road.
It would be very hard for me to count on all of our prices as to
what the price of steel and concrete and everything else is going to be
then, and of course, what's going to happen is, those other units will
bear the burden of my locked in price for that now 15 percent.
Someone's got to pay for it.
Basically, I will probably not make any money on any of those
15 percent at all, and I'm not looking to. It's a commitment that my
family has made when we're coming down here. We've moved into
Collier County, and this is the commitment we want to do. This is --
my family's going to be in this county, and we intend on staying here
and doing this type of work.
And I'm doing it up right now in Immokalee, and I made a
promise to my family that this is what we're going to do with our --
Page 139
----~-_.._. ,~----~ ."......---.--'.. ---
January 11, 2005
with our livelihood and our funds.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Yes, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just wanted to get one thing.
I wrote down a note earlier that said that you were going to be
building some of the -- some of the development will be single-family
homes and some -- no, they're not going to be? Any--
MR. SINGER: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just -- then you said three-stories at
75 feet?
MS. BISHOP: I'll explain that. What I was talking about at that
point was the planning commission wanted to --the original PUD, the
one that was from last year, not the original, the 2003 submittal, had a
PUD setback boundary on the north line and the south line of 75 foot
for three-story buildings.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh.
MS. BISHOP: And so when they asked me at the planning
commission if I was willing to have that same provision for
three-story buildings, I said, sure, for three-story buildings, this is not
a problem. So that's what it was.
Except for that one unit where I need 50 feet on one building
because it does get a little close on the south -- it's on the southern
property line, not on the northern property line, so that's what the 75
foot for the three-stories was, a setback off the northern property lines.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So nothing is single-family homes?
MS. BISHOP: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: All of it is condominium type
living?
MS. BISHOP: Yes, ma'am. There'll be townhouse ownership
product, is the product he's doing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any other questions?
(N 0 response.)
Page 140
~._-~-" ~---'~ ~",-->-- . _..~,....-_-'- _.-,-
January 11,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then we have a motion on the floor with
a second.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
All opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So three opposed -- two opposed --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The reason I'm opposing is because of
the density.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did you get the ones who voted for and
against? Okay.
Thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: County attorney, don't we need four on this?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, you need four. The motion fails for lack of
supermajority.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion fails.
MS. BISHOP: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Next item, Mr. Mudd?
Item #8B
PUDEX-2004-AR-6694 BA YVIEW VILLAS, LLC,
REPRESENTED BY DWIGHT NADEAU, OF RW A, INC.,
REQUESTING A TWO-YEAR EXTENSION OF A PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) ZONING GRANTED BY
ORDINANCE NO. 2000-0 PURSUANT TO LDC SECTION
10.02.13.D FOR THE NORTH PORT BAY PUD. THE
PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF 46.33 ACRES, IS LOCATED
NORTH OF U.S. 41 (TAMIAMI TRAIL), EAST OF THE FAHKA
Page 141
, ^------,~..~---.<<"' ~--_..^~. --
January 11, 2005
UNION CANAL, IN SECTIONS 4 & 9, TOWNSHIP 52, SOUTH,
RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA-
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, item 8B is a -- it's continued to the
25 -- to 25 January BCC meeting. That was announced earlier.
Item #8C
RESOLUTION 2005- 40 -A VPLA T2004-AR-6660 TO DISCLAIM,
RENOUNCE AND V ACA TE THE COUNTY'S AND THE
PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN A PORTION OF THE 25 FOOT WIDE
UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED ALONG THE
FRONT OF LOT 5, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF "BAYFRONT
GARDENS" AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 14, PAGES 114
THROUGH 117, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, LOCATED IN SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,
RANGE 25 EAST - A~
The next item would be 8C, and that used to be item 1 7 A, and
that was pulled forward because we received a citizen that had
concerns about this particular item.
And that is -- this item requires that all participants be sworn in
and ex parte disclosure be provided by the commission members.
It's a recommendation to approve petition A V-PLAT, an A V
Plat, 2004-AR-6660, to disclaim, renounce, and vacate the county's
and the public's interest in a portion of the 25- foot wide utility and
drainage easement located along the front of lot 5, according to the
plat of Bayfront Gardens as recorded in Plat Book 14, page 114
through 11 7, public records of Collier County, Florida, located in
Section 6, Township 48 south, Range 25 east.
Sir, if you'd state your name for the record.
Page 142
"-,," -~.". -,-~" ~-"...,,-'""-" -- "-
January 11,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you would, let me get appropriate ex
parte disclosures from the commissioners.
Commissioner Halas? That will be 1 7 alpha that has been pulled from
the consent agenda.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I didn't have anything on the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- on the consent agenda, or on the
summary agenda, excuse me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 17C, correct?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 17 A.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: A? No disclosures.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. No disclosures for me.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: None.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: None.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. No disclosures.
Are you going to be the only speaker?
MR. JEPPESEN: No, one of the other--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Anyone else who is going to speak,
please raise -- stand and raise your hands to be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Okay, sir, go ahead.
MR. JEPPESEN: For the record, I'm Greg Jeppesen,
representing the applicant with Jeppesen Engineering Corp.
What we have here before us is a simple request to vacate a
portion of an existing utility and drainage easement, and the reason
being, there's a residence under construction right now that -- a
permitted residence, that the main structure is outside of these
easements, howeyer, the stairs to the front door ended up in the .
Page 143
"'_... ".~._..,--. .--",-- -'.-
January 11, 2005
existing easement.
I'm not privy to how that happened but it did, and it brings us
here today. The builder, Mark Raudenbush, is here, too, in case you
have questions.
This -- the easement we're talking about is a combination 25- foot
utility and drainage easement, which is pretty large, and too large in
my opinion. The portion that we're vacating is basically four and a
half feet into that easement and 23 and a half parallel to it, which is
the stairs themselves.
We've obtained letters of no objection from all the easement
holders, and it's my understanding that it just got pulled from
summary agenda yesterday because there were some people objecting
to it.
That's pretty much it. Again, I have the builder here, too, to
explain anything you may need.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Ochs, the staff pulled this. What
comments do we have from staff concerning this?
MR.OCHS: You have a rep. from the county attorney's office
coming forward, I believe. Mr. Cook is here as well.
MR. COOK: Yes, Tom Cook, Engineering Director. Good
afternoon, Commissioners.
We've reviewed this request to vacate this part of the drainage
easement and utility easement, and we've received letters from all the
utility companies and reviewed it for stormwater management, and we
have no objection to the -- to the vacation of that part of the easement.
But if you have any specific questions, I'd be glad to answer them
for you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Tom. The staff pulled this.
Why are we considering it then rather than having it on the
consent agenda?
MS. FILSON: I think, Mr. Chairman, it may have been pulled
because we have speakers who wanted to speak on it.
Page 144
_.....-_~,--""_."' ---,"-~' ,"".-
January 11, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ah. So we have speakers?
MS. FILSON: I have three speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then let's call the public speakers.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Frank Herrmann -- or I'm sorry, Mark
Herrmann. He will be followed by Paul Brinkapt (sic).
MR. BRINKOPT: Brinkopt.
MS. FILSON: Brinkopt.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. My name is Mark Herrmann. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
I live directly across the street from this property. And if you'll
notice, the property, or if you can tell that, is on a bay.
This, I believe, is the fourth variance asked for on this property.
They have built the original home, almost 10 feet up to the water
instead of 25 feet, which I guess was granted some time ago. They
moved the drainage. They have now put a larger boat dock in with a
variance, and now today asked for these stairs to encroach out towards
the street again.
And I think someone said earlier, you know, we must be very
vigilant about allowing all these things. We, as citizens, I think, all
have to live by zoning and building restrictions, and I believe these
people have taken this beyond the limit and continue to ask for
variances that are really unreasonable for a lot of this size.
The bottom line is, they're just trying to put too large of home on
too small of lot. So -- thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Paul Brinkopt, and he will be
followed by Ann Brinkopt.
MR. BRINKOPT: My wife had a hair appointment, so she didn't
make it.
But Commissioners and Mr. Chairman, thanks for letting me
speak. My name is Paul Brinkopt. I live next to Mr. Herrmann.
And generally on this small easement, I wouldn't be opposed.
Page 145
-~...._",._--~- -"""""".,--",..~- .....,--~"" "-~
January 11, 2005
But during the last hurricane season right after Charley, my wife and I
were both concerned about the drainage on our property. We were
here during Gabriel. Our property drained very well. And during this
time, I called in the engineer that works for me on my home and in our
area and asked representatives from American Engineering to come in
and take a look at what's happened.
And during this check, we found that the drainage easement or
the drainage of our house had changed, and a representative of
American Engineering -- while we were there one of the
representatives of the contractor came and asked what we were doing,
and we told him what we were concerned about, and they mentioned
that this easement had been vacated.
And we were concerned about that because they did put in a very
nice system. And the question that I asked for the contractor was, will
the system that you put in take away the same amount of water that
you replace?
And they would not answer that question for me, or he said he
would not, and they did not give me the name of the engineering
company, and I let it drop at that point in time.
But what's continually happened, you know, the drainage
easement wasn't -- in my mind wasn't addressed, and we still have that
in our mind. We were gone over Christmas, so we did not get this
notice until after we got back, and I contacted our association.
I feel the same way as Mr. Herrmann. You know, this is a very
large lot (sic). And I just read very quickly the qualifications that you
put on appearing and getting rid of an easement, you know. And
property on a bay or property on the water, we know is very
expenSIve.
And it appears to me that as a business guy, that for a thousand
dollars, you can come here and have this advertised, and if
everybody's in agreement, you will vacate this easement, and all of a
sudden we've got a gigantic house on a little bitty piece of property
Page 146
......---' "~,-.,,~-~-<"'_.. " --
January 11, 2005
that's using the previous easements to build on.
And to me, that's not the purpose, you know. And even though I
went over and looked at this little part that -- the one that you're
addressing today is not a big concern. But what's happened here is a
big concern, how we keep coming up with it.
And one of my other major concerns is, is during the time the
gentleman with American Engineering was there, we looked at the
plans, and there was a swimming pool that has not been built. And his
comment to me was, well, I don't know how they're going to get the
swimming pool in with the current easements that they have, but I
have not followed through with it since.
But my problem's the same as Mr. Herrmann. You know, we've
got a big house and a little lot, and we keep vacating easements to
accommodate.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. Any questions, Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion for denial.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let me close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh.
MR. RAUDENBUSH: May I please speak.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
MR. RAUDENBUSH: I'm the general contractor.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. RAUDENBUSH: But let me just put a couple of things --
Mark Raudenbush.
MR. MUDD: Speak into --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you speak into the microphone,
please.
MR. RAUDENBUSH: Mark Raudenbush, President of Idle
Construction, the General Contractor working on this project.
Some of the points I want to kind of rebut or at least defend.
Page 147
..-.. ~._".'._-~- +--.->>-"....-.'-. -,..-
January 11, 2005
They've talked about several easements. The first one was in 1994
before this property owner bought this property.
This piece of property, as you can see, is a long, narrow piece of
property. Before this property owner owned it, he -- previous owner
took the 25- foot rear yard setback and modified that.
We worked inside of that from the time that we -- that my client
bought that lot. At that point, there was a drainage easement that
came through the property right in the middle of the property through
here.
We worked in 1998 with staff to move that drainage easement up
to the north end of that property. Did that through the public process.
That was before the construction on the house had begun. At that time
it was our belief that we had any and all easements out of the way.
The land development code allows us to have a three-foot
encroachment for front stairs on -- in this zoning on this lot.
Three-foot encroachment into the front yard setback for entry stairs.
It's a very often used condition in the land development code.
We're not here talking about a land development code issue. This
house, as it's proposed -- which incidentally, guys, is well under
construction. Actually nearly complete.
This house as proposed now fits under the land development
code with the situations we've got and the easements, et cetera, et
cetera.
What we found out after construction was well underway was the
front yard setback was not the only issue, but this 25-foot easement,
public utility easement, that -- on most of the adjacent lots -- if you are
on anyone of the other streets in this neighborhood except for this
particular street, that setback is 10- foot.
On this street, that is a 25- foot utility setback, whereas our land
development code says, keep the building back 25 feet from the
property lines, allow the stairs to come forward three feet into that.
The house is virtually done. I just can't get to the front door, as
Page 148
----. "n___.","__ --" "-
January 11,2005
we've got it stated here.
This is not an adjustment to the land development code. This is
strictly one public utilities easement that we're talking about here.
And, you know, quite frankly, I don't know -- certainly this property
owner has an intent and a right to try to get to his front door, which is
going to be very difficult if we do it -- if we don't get this utility
easement compromise today, although I suppose the only other way is
to berm up to that, which certainly is not going to be as aesthetic or --
desirable outcome. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I need to ask staff some questions, Mr.
Mudd.
Tom? What is the side yard setback for this house?
MR. COOK: I'm not sure. I haven't looked at the side yard
setback.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And the rear yard, I keep hearing
talks about 15 feet in the rear or 25 feet, and I see 11.3 feet.
MR. RAUDENBUSH: The current rear yard setback is 10 feet.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ten feet. Has that been modified from
before?
MR. RAUDENBUSH: 1994 there was a revision -- an
amendment to that zoning or variance to that zoning before this
property owner bought this lot.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the side yard setback?
MR. RAUDENBUSH: Seven and a half.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And has that always been seven and a
half or has there been --
MR. RAUDENBUSH: Yes, always~-
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- an exception granted to that?
MR. RAUDENBUSH: No exceptions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the front yard setback is 25?
MR. RAUDENBUSH: Twenty-five, yes
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you're actually asking for a
Page 149
--"- -,--' ~_._."._. "-
January 11,2005
four-and-a-half foot --
MR. RAUDENBUSH: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- variance from that because --
MR. RAUDENBUSH: No. What -- we've got, two kind of
parallel -- land development code says 25- foot setback allows us for a
three- foot, so probably that a 22- foot setback on the front yard, for
front entry stairs. That 22 we're looking to modify down to 20.5.
However, that -- what happened, as soon as we realized that we
had an easement issue as opposed to a land development code issue --
land development code speaks to any structures built above -- 30
inches above grade and says that those have to be -- at that point that
would have the 22- foot setback. This house is built in the coastal
construction line.
Down at elevation zero, eight foot below existing grade, there is
a grade beam that exists under there. There was a base foundation for
the house. It was put in two years ago when we began construction on
the house. That is at the 4.5, or at the 20.5 off of the front yard.
Because this is an easement issue, that had to be considered.
What we will have, if board approves and construction
completes, is that stairway will actually be at 22 off of the front yard
setback and will encroach three foot into the front yard setback as is
allowed by the land development code.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And as a point of fact, is that correct,
Tom?
MR. COOK: That would be correct. And I did want to point
out, they're not asking for a variance. They're asking for vacation of a
part of that easement. They're asking for, I think it's like four and a
half by 20 some feet, which would take up the space of the stairs that
are out into the existing 25-foot easement, but--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just want to follow along. Is it
__ is there allegations that vacating this easement will cause drainage
Page 150
-'-. ~ ...,...... .,.-
January 11,2005
problems? Is that the reason --
MR. COOK: No. No, it will not. We reviewed it along with
offering the letters of no objection.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't under --
MR. COOK: The engineering department did review it, and
there's no impact on the drainage by that encroachment of that four
and a half feet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just don't understand the
motion that's on the floor then, Commissioners, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas, you're next.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. Let me get this straight.
The land development code says that when you build a house up in
that neck of the woods, I believe you have to have a setback of 25
feet; is that correct?
MR. COOK: I'm going to have to refer that to Susan. I believe
she's more -- more into it on the setback.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And this drainage easement is
located in the front of the house; is that correct?
MR. COOK: This drainage easement --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. COOK: -- the front 25 -- from the street line back towards
the property or the home site, 25 feet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So let's first of all get
something clarified here. What's the setback of the front of the house
from the road?
Susan, can you help me on this?
MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray, for the record, zoning director.
I can't confirm whether it's 25 feet or not. I just don't have the
documentation in front of me. I have no reason to doubt that.
However, if the requirement is 25 feet for a front yard setback,
the house has to be built at 25 feet; however, the land development
code does allow certain accessory structures to encroach certain
Page 151
--- ,..__", .. r ,.--., -~-
January 11, 2005
amounts. And for front stairs, they can encroach three feet into the
setback.
I think the issue here is that they can't encroach into an easement,
and that's -- a structure can't encroach into an easement or be built
across an easement, is probably the better way to say it, and they're
asking to vacate that portion of the easement so that they can allow the
steps to be built into that portion of the easement.
There's no land development code issue here. It's not a variance.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That's where I was trying to
go with this. So I pull back -- I retract my motion but -- because I was
under the impression that where they were located at was, that not
only would they have to vacate the easement, but they'd have to come
in for a variance.
MR. RAUDENBUSH: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Okay. This got on
the consent agenda because there was no objection out there during
the public process?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. It was there until -- until just a couple of
days ago, and then we heard that there was some objection and we
pulled it from the summary agenda and put it on the regular agenda.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And I think those
objections, for the most part, have been --
MR. MUDD: I believe you've heard those objections.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'm going to close the -- I need to
ask one more question, if I could.
I just want to get the figures pinned down, because based upon
what you're telling me, the figures here on this map are not correct,
okay, either one of you.
Page 152
--'.-" -~,,- ~,.....,.- .~'+ --...--
January 11, 2005
Ifwe use 25.45 as the distance of the front yard setback and we
say that the land development code permits a three-foot encroachment,
then that means you can encroach into the 22-foot -- 22.46-foot
category, but you've got 20.46 foot here, if I can -- if I can make that
out, just above where your pen is. So you're really asking for a
five- foot variance here, so --
MR. COOK: If they're asking for -- I believe it's 4.52 or 4.54 --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you can't ask for that much under a
land development code. It tells you you can have three.
MR. RAUDENBUSH: Sir, now let me clarify that, and then
Susan can back this up as well.
The structures -- what we're asking for is 4.56 feet of a vacation
of easement. The land development code speaks to structures that
pass up through grade, and this is a grading that sits at elevation zero,
sea level. Yeah, well underground.
The land development code speaks to structures as they pass
through the ground. We don't, in the land development -- in the
construction services division, they don't survey to the back side of the
footings, the foundations, for setbacks, otherwise we'd lose a couple of
feet on every house out there that we're building.
The 4.56 feet allows for the footing underneath this to be well
within the easement. The structure, as it penetrates through the surface
of the grade there, will be at 22- foot setback, otherwise we wouldn't
get approval from building and zoning. That will take care of itself in
their procedure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I don't want to belabor this, but if
that's the case, then your drawing's wrong.
Your drawing, if you're talking about setbacks, should be from
things above the ground, not from footings underneath the ground,
okay.
So take me back to the other one, okay. I want to pin that down.
All right.
Page 153
--. ""- ,u.."..__'__"" .^M.._____.~ -
January 11, 2005
Now, that figure of 20.46 feet, that is pointing to a stair?
MR. RAUDENBUSH: Yes. That's pointing to the foundation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then what is the 25.46 feet pointing to?
MR. RAUDENBUSH: That is the existing structure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that's the aboveground portion of
the existing structure, right?
MR. RAUDENBUSH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we're mixing apples and oranges here
in these measurements then, aren't we?
MR. RAUDENBUSH: What we've done, sir, is we've built that
-- the house at 25.46 feet--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. RAUDENBUSH: -- where the land development code
would have allowed us to put that at 25, so the house is back--
roughly a half a foot back from its front yard setback as it stands.
When land development code lets me come to 22 feet with the
stairs, we're not asking to come forward with -- further than the 22
with the part of the structure that penetrates through the ground. The
mere fact is that the foundation, the footing, is at 20.46.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If there's a motion to approve, I would
ask that you consider at least specifying that point, because this is very
confusing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And somebody's going to get another
two and a half feet out of this, if they can.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Forgive me. The motion was
not to do anything to upset the setback as far as it goes. It was just for
the vacating of what, a small part of the easement. If there is
something in violation of the setback and of the code, they're never
going to get their CO; am I correct?
MR. RAUDENBUSH: Exactly, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So, I mean, why are we going
Page 154
--..~ --"'--'''"-- .._.._.~,.., ,....-
January 11, 2005
through this little -- I mean, if there's something we don't understand
here -- I mean, does it make sense to me? No, I'm not a builder.
You know, the setback's here for the foundation, and this in there,
we're not asking for anything to change anything there. The only
thing we're asking is for an easement change, and that's what my
motion's for.
If there's anything wrong -- I mean, I'm sure one of us is going to
end up going out there with somebody to have it explained to us. If .
there's something wrong, then they're not going to get a CO, and the
whole darn thing just sits there until they're willing to come back here
and deal out two thousand some dollars for a variance, at which time
we can say, what in the --
MR. RAUDENBUSH: We're not asking for any variance to the
land development code.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I don't know why we
need to deal (sic) into this any deeper than we are.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I tend to agree with that.
The only thing is, we've been presented diagrams before, and based
upon the approval, those people have gone out and done certain things
with them, and it turned out to be not what we wanted them to do.
As long as there's a clear understanding on that and our building
department and our people will be out there looking at that, then I
agree with you.
Now we have a motion. You were going to make a motion. I've
closed the public hearing. You were going to make a motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Vacate of just the easement?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, just the way it's worded
here, vacate the portion of the 25- foot wide utility drainage easement.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And is there a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Located in front of the lot 5,
according to the plat of Bayfront Gardens.
Page 155
-"" ._--'" ,-_." --
January 11,2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My second is there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I've got a second by
Commissioner Henning.
Any further discussion by the board?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Unanimous.
MR. RAUDENBUSH: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that would -- that should -- we
could either take a break for the court reporter, if she needs it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, why don't we do that. It's been a
while.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do you think you're going to be
able to work with this guy?
MR. MUDD: Ten minutes, sir?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ten minutes.
(A brief recess was taken.)
MR. MUDD: You have a hot mike.
Item #9G
DISCUSSION REGARDING REQUEST BY DA VID E. BRY ANT
REPRESENTING EMPIRE BUILDERS AND THE HD
DEVELOPMENT PUD AT OLDE CYPRESS - STAFF TO
EVALUATE PUD WI PETITIONER TO DETERMINE IF ISSUES
Page 156
- ---"'-"~ "-
January 11, 2005
CAN BE READIL Y ADDRESSED AND BRING BACK TO THE
BCC O~RY 22, 200S - A-eEROVED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Mudd, we're going to 9G.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, 9G, and that's a discussion regarding a
request by David E. Bryant representing Empire Builders and the HD
Development PUD at Olde Cypress, and this was brought on by
Commissioner Fiala's request.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. BRY ANT: Good afternoon, Commissioners.
MR. MUDD: No, it's Commissioner -- Commissioner Fiala's
request, and I believe Ms. -- Commissioner Fiala has the podium, and
--
MR. BRY ANT: Oh, excuse me.
MR. MUDD: -- she's going to ask the board to do some things.
So, ma'am, this is your item.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Well, yes. I spoke with
David.
David, do you want to give any presentation here or --
MR. BRY ANT: I'll just be glad to give a synopsis if you'd like
for me to, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Please.
MR. BRYANT: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, David Bryant,
representing Empire Builders. Before I start the synopsis, I'd just like
to commend Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Halas for their
selection by their colleagues in their respective positions today, and
I'm sure it's going to be great working with all of you.
The reason we're here today is basically what we believe is a
win-win situation. We've got an existing approved PUD, and what
we'd like to do is make a very minor modification to it, and something
that is totally novel, especially after today's long discourse.
Weare here asking to decrease, decrease density and increase the
Page 157
--,.--" -._'__0'-- . ~...,. ~~_.. -- .-.....-- .,,---
January 11, 2005
green space area and increase the surface water area in a particular
small section that Empire is doing within the Olde Cypress PUD.
This unit was -- or this PUD was approved for 26 more units than
what we want to build. We want to decrease those. The homeowner
associations, everybody's in favor of it. It's what we feel is a win-win,
not only for the people that live in the community, but for the
community as a whole. It decreases traffic, it decreases the need for
parks and rec. It does everything that this board has been a leader in
doing in working with the modification of density and the
improvement on what has happened in the past.
And if that answers your question, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And so what you -- what you would
really like to do is have our approval so that you don't have to go
through the entire process again, is that what you're asking for?
MR. BRY ANT: Yes, ma'am. We want to build 29 less units.
That's the whole key to it. It's just a very minor modification.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any questions? Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Does this mean that we have to put
this on a future agenda for approval, or can we go and give you the
approval today?
Staff, can you assist us on this?
MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray, for the record, zoning director.
No approval is necessary by you or by this board to not build to the
maximum allowable density. I guess it's within the PUD, and I have
not reviewed the PUD.
If there -- so in other words, if they were approved for 100 units
and they want to build 50, there's nothing in the PUD that says they
have to build 100. That is the maximum they're allowed.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, why would -- why would this
gentleman be here then today?
MS. MURRAY: I'm not really sure.
MR. BRY ANT: Commissioner Halas, it's the same discussion
Page 158
--"" .._----~ ,...._.__..._.._~"'...__.. -
January 11, 2005
that was held with Ms. Murray's office. The project was approved for
one section at 12,000 square foot units and the other for 6,000. All we
want to do is blend those two and have the two sections at 9,000
square foot each for the particular product that's going in this
particular area.
So we're going from a 12,000 square foot footprint in one section
of the development area to a 9,000, and we are going to have 9,000,
which is the approved in the other section.
So it ends up with a reduction of 29 units. Ms. Murray's right, we
don't have to build all the units that we're approved for. But we can.
But we are saying we don't think it's appropriate for us to have to go
through an extensive PUD amendment to accomplish what this board
has wanted to do, which is decrease density.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So they have to go through and
make a -- go through a whole array of paperwork just to decrease the
density?
MS. MURRA Y : No. And I think, if I understand what Mr.
Bryant is saying, it sounds as if there is a dimensional requirement, a
minimum in the PUD, that he wishes to go below. That -- I'm just
repeating what I think I'm hearing.
And, in other words, if there's text in the PUD that says, for
example, you have to build a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet
and he wishes to build a 5,000 square foot lot, then that is considered a
text change and that is required to go through the duly advertised
public hearing process in front of the planning commission and the
Board of County Commissioners as a PUD amendment, much like an
LDC amendment.
If you have a minimum established in a zoning district for a lot
size, for example, and you wish to change that, that is handled through
an amendment process to the LDC through the duly advertised public
hearing process.
It's the same with the PUD. And if I'm incorrect, I'm sure--
Page 159
--"^- . .'. -- ".___.w_ ~-~->." "',-
January 11, 2005
MR. BRYANT: No, Ms. Murray is totally correct. We do not
want and we don't have the product to put to 12,000 square foot
footprints. We want to decrease that to 9,000. We meet the 9,000 on
the second section, which ends up with a net decrease of 29 units.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand.
MR. BRY ANT: So that's why we felt, and that's why we've
shared these thoughts with you, that we thought this is what the board
wants to do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm done, okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, would you
mind if I ask a question?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure, go ahead. You're chair.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This is -- yeah, but you were in line next.
I just wanted to show you the courtesy of going first or last.
The -- this is theoretically an insubstantial change to a PUD.
MR. BRY ANT: Yes, sir, that's exactly what we feel.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that requires CCPC approval.
MR. MUDD: They can approve it, but that does not go to the
board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, it doesn't go to the board at all.
We don't have an approval process to do that.
What I think we do have, however, is a pending change to the
process which permits you to get that accomplished very quickly, and
that pending change is coming to us, I think, pretty quickly; is that
true?
MR. MUDD: In the next two months, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: In the next two months. Now, I don't
know if that meets your time frame, but my concern right now is, that
based upon what I understand, there is no procedure to permit us to
jump in and make a decision that is currently authorized only by the
CCPC. And so I just want to say that and then go on with
Page 160
-." "..-------- '..'-- -
January 11, 2005
Commissioner Henning's question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we can do that based upon
law change in the works.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We've done that before.
MS. MURRA Y: Actually, Commissioners, I feel, and I've just
discussed it with Marjorie, that we can do that now. We've--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
MS. MURRAY: -- established the fee for it. Again, if you
remember, we came back through the fee resolution and re-established
the fee for the PUD amendment process and an abr -- and the
argument was that it was an abbreviated review process rather than the
PUD to PUD rezone in cases just like Mr. Bryant is presenting, that
they could just go through the PUD amendment process.
Now, the public hearing and the advertising is all the same, but
the staff review time is significantly --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Less.
MS. MURRA Y: -- different because you're just amending minor
sections of the PUD and not readopting an entire --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why would that not serve your purpose?
MR. BRYANT: Well, I think it's time frame, Commissioner,
because supposedly it's going to take anywhere from six to nine
months if we have to go through a formal PUD amendment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What we're saying is you can go
through the same process of what you're asking now. Ms. Murray just
addressed it. She can do it now --
MS. MURRAY: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and it's only a limited scope.
MS. MURRAY: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And, you know, I'm viewing
this request of the PUD a minor amendment myself. And, you know,
it's going to -- it can happen today. You don't have -- you won't have
Page 161
""<--.---.,,- .--._- '-""0-'- ~_>.";____'" ,,---
January 11, 2005
to come back to the board.
MS. MURRAY: Oh, no. They do have to come back through
the board through the public hearing.
MR. BRYANT: It's almost like a regular PUD amendment,
Commissioner. It's not that very streamlined. And Ms. Murray can
tell you, but I believe she's going to tell you, it's going to take some
time to do that to try to accomplish what this board has said it's
wanted to do for years, for the last, at least three years.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yep. I guess the question is,
can we legally do this request? Because to me, reviewing what they're
asking is what we all want. And from my understanding, there's -- and
you have a very tight neighborhood there that has really no obj ection
to it, so can we do this?
MS. STUDENT: Not really. For the record, Marjorie Student,
Assistant County Attorney.
I suspect he can reduce -- not build to the density -- or excuse
me, density or number of units in the PUD without a PUD
amendment.
But if there are any other performance standards that may need to
be changed in the PUD -- and Ms. Murray hasn't reviewed the PUD
for us to know that. I heard Mr. Bryant talk about, was it some lake
areas or some other areas? But if -- and then he also talked about, I
believe, some minimum requirements of square footage.
Our code says that any text change to a PUD has to go through
the amendment process. That is the law in Collier County. And I dare
say that's law in Florida because zoning changes have to go through
advertised public hearings.
The attorney general has opined that you can't automatically
rezone, in other words, put a time limit on a zoning thing and say it
automatically reverts to its prior -- say it's agriculture, you can't do
that because that bypasses the public hearing process.
And these are quasijudicial matters in nature, and as such, have to
Page 162
-.-.- ' ,.,,--~----..,----- '~."..._.--,~ _n"_..'__
January 11, 2005
go through the public hearing process, by virtue of that as well as by
virtue of state law.
So my point is, if there's a text change involved in that PUD, it's
going to have to go through the amendment process. If it's a -- just a
master plan change, that is an abbreviated procedure that goes to the
planning commission and doesn't necessary have to come back here.
But I think staff needs to evaluate the PUD and coordinate with
Mr. Bryant to see exactly what the changes are that are required in the
PUD. And then if it's a text change, it will have to come back
through.
MR. BRYANT: I'll agree with one thing Ms. Student said, it is a
text change in the sense that it is a reduction in the 12,000-foot
footprints to a 9,000.
But the other section -- there's two sites within that particularly
approved PUD. Those stay the same. We take that square footage
that we've reduced from the 12 to 9 and put that into green space and
lake surface area. That's why, as Commissioner Henning says, the
people that live in the area are very supportive of it.
Now, when she's talking about rezonings and things like that and
agricultural to commercial, that has nothing to do with why we're here
today. That is something that, I agree, you've got to advertise, you've
got to have full-blown hearings.
All we're trying to do is accomplish something in a timely matter
in trying to accomplish what this board has said over and over that it
wanted to do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. The land is within the
PUD, so it's not agricultural two.
MR. BRYANT: Absolutely. It's an approved PUD today. We
could go out and build all of these units, including 29 more. But we
don't want to do that and we don't want to build that product. We
think that the community is aesthetically (sic) and it's going to be
more attractive with the increased surface area and the lakes, increased
Page 163
-'~" ~"-_....~.- -'-'--- ..~.-
January 11, 2005
green space.
And that's why we felt frustrated when we tried to do this,
because Empire went to Ms. Murray and talked to her about that and
she said, no, you can't do it. You've got to go through the full-blown
PUD amendment process.
And I can understand and appreciate her position. But we
thought when we sat down and looked at it and we discussed what this
board's direction has been to developers, that's why we wanted to
come share with you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Would it be possible if the
petitioner could get with staff and look at what needs to be done, and
if it's something that can be readily addressed, bring this back maybe
at two meetings from now or three meetings from now so we can get
this --
MR. BRYANT: We'd be glad to do that, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sit down with them and look. And
if there is a problem, then they realize that they may have to go
through a long process. But if it's not, maybe we could put this on the
fast track just to see what's going on, and bring it back in, say, three
meetings, is that --
MR. BRYANT: Whatever's convenient for the board.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, before you go down there.
Joe, you have this new cycle that's coming up to try to get the line
through amendment issue locked in.
When does it start and when does it go before the planning
commission and things like that?
Because if you're going to use the legislation and process issue to
get him resolved, you want to have that included in that process. And
if three meetings from now, a month and a half, pushes you out of that
time frame, then he's stuck till another cycle, okay, so it could be six
months again. So, Joe --
Page 164
._,.~ ^'-~~'. '~--"._"~-"- .^"""......~__w ,..~~~_...
January 11, 2005
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, Community
Development/Environmental Services Administrator.
What Jim's referring to -- but you -- I think you're referring to,
Jim, what was passed -- this board in the last meeting approved the
PUDA process where we, through a simple strike through and
underline, go into the code, go into the PUD, without going through
the extensive staffing process.
If you recall at the last meeting, Mr. Bill Klohn came before the
board and talked specifically about Arrowhead, which was really the
first proj ect to go through this reinvigorated process of the PUD
amendment process, so it's a simple dealing with the text change.
And we've already got that PUD scheduled for our planning
commission and scheduled for board meeting. Unfortunately the law
compels us to go through that rather linear process.
I think what we're asking for here is something completely
different, which would be somewhat of an administrative process. We
don't have that authority. And if the county manager -- if your
direction to the manager that we explore some way of creating another
vehicle to go through these type of administrative changes -- but I
think what the county attorney has opined, that there is no other way
to do this.
Just the -- I will call it the abbreviated method, which is the PUD
amendment process, which is -- in fact, I guess I would have to refer --
we had some difficulty getting that through, but it is a process to deal
with things exactly like this that we can go in, and with very little
staffing and bureaucracy, get through it, but we still are forced to go
through that -- those public hearings through the planning commission
and the Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Joe, when are you going to have that
proposal --
MR. SCHMITT: You already approved it, and we already have
-- I already have -- in a previously-approved fee schedule, you already
Page 165
'-" ---- "'~'..._._'~~ --,.,,,- '_"M'_"__"'_ .~-._.-
January 11, 2005
approved that process, and the board approved that at the last meeting.
So that is now in effect, and the Arrowhead project is the first
project to go through that. So we are doing that right now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then that is the insubstantial
change?
MR. SCHMITT: No, that -- Commissioner, no. An insubstantial
change is an administrative change. That is something different, or --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I know, but I thought that's what the
county manager asked. When are you going to have that particular
proposal ready to be approved?
MR. SCHMITT: I already have an insubstantial change process.
Now, if it's an insubstantial change, it's something that was changed --
is a change in the master plan, it just goes before the planning
commission, but that still requires a public hearing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And how long will it take you to get that
--
MR. SCHMITT: This process, this modified process, because of
the advertising and the planning commission and the -- probably 90
days, 90 to at least -- 90 to 100 days, at minimum.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How's that fit your time frame?
MR. BRYANT: Well, it's better than going through a full-blown
PUD amendment. I really appreciate your discourse on that,
Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Halas.
But could we potentially look at this as something, as
Commissioner Halas suggested, that we set this off for like three
meetings? We have a chance --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MR. BRYANT: -- to sit down with Ms. Murray and see if we
might be able to even avoid that process, if she feels that is beneficial
to the community and it's what this board wants to accomplish?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Either that or just direct the
Page 166
,- _..'--...._,_...,_.. ---
January 11, 2005
county attorney, stating that we feel this is a minor amendment and we
shouldn't have to go through the whole process.
I think with Commissioner Halas's comments and then if county
attorney can assist, it would be better off for everybody.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I'd like to hear -- I'd like to hear
whether or not we really have the authority to do this. I heard that we
don't have the authority to do it.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I'd like to respond, and that is, right now I
don't see the authority for the board to direct the development services
staff or the county attorney to create a document for you to approve. I
don't see that, notwithstanding that the desire of Mr. Bryant and his
client are allocable and, perhaps, conform with the policy of the board
at this time, that less density is better.
It sounds to me like less density is just part of what he has in
mind here. There is a change in format of construction, which has
become a requirement of the PUD. And if it weren't a requirement of
the PUD, he wouldn't be here to have it changed in the first place.
Remember that a PUD is hybrid zoning. And so the discussion
about going back to go ago or something doesn't carry the picture very
well to you. But what we do know is that the PUD in its finished form
that you finally approve at any point in time is based typically upon
negotiation and desires of you and potentially any other people that
have come and commented to you both outside and at the hearing
itself.
And so this particular requirement which Mr. Bryant, on behalf
of his client, would like to have changed, was agreed to and is, in
essence, the zoning -- part of the zoning itself, and that's why it makes
it very difficult for staff and Susan Murray or anyone else, DE --
CDES because this is beneficial, that she can make a change.
She can have her own thought about whether it's beneficial or
not, as we all can, but she has no authority to make a change just
based because it's the better thing to do.
Page 167
--" "H"~ ~.._.",---~~.". - ~'... .'---
January 11,2005
In fact, employees of the development services department have
made rather independent decisions years past that they thought were
good and came back to haunt them and the county and the county
attorney and everybody.
Now, in this case at least we have a head start to know what the
desire is, and it's not merely at the staff level. It's before the board.
If we come back in three weeks and we can do so, what I would
suggest is a package of one or two forms, one, we come back and tell
you what we think can be done.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
MR. WEIGEL: I have a -- but I do not think at this point -- but
we may find out that we can -- ask you to, in fact, do something
yourself. But that may not be the case, and I would tell you that right
now.
There may be nothing that you can do at that meeting that
finishes this request off at that point in time. We may have
investigated every which way we can and come back to you and say,
however, ultimately, development services, county manager, county
attorney, counsel you that there is a procedure in place, albeit a
shortened procedure, which Mr. Bryant may have to go forward to do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas, you have a motion
to make on this issue?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I make a motion that
presenter here this afternoon get with staff and see what can be done,
and as you said, the county attorney said, there may not be anything,
but, again, it may not be that difficult, that it's something that we can
make a change as long as we aren't in violation of any rules and
regulations within Collier County.
Does that sound fair enough to everybody?
MR. BRYANT: That sounds fine.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. We'll do that in three
weeks.
Page 168
-- ._"_H__"'_'", ..-- ""-
January 11,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Three weeks.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Or three meetings.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Three meetings, and we have a second.
Any further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any public comments? I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would feel more comfortable
with the motion, instead of saying for the petitioner to get together
with our staff or county attorney, is for the county attorney or staff to
get together with the petitioner.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. So it's been modified. How
about the second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second's okay?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Any further discussion?
MR. MUDD: We'll come back on the 22nd of February.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, all right, 22nd of February.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It carries unanimously.
MR. BRYANT: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Item #9H
Page 169
--,---" ..--. -""-'--,. " "- ~~'"-
January 11,2005
RESOLUTION 2005-41- SUPPORTING THE ACQUISITION OF
BABCOCK RANCH, A 91,000 ACRE HABITAT FOR FLORIDA'S
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 9H, and that
is an item that was brought forward by Commissioner Coletta, and
that's a discussion regarding a resolution supporting the acquisition of
Babcock Ranch, a 91,000 acre habitat, for Florida's endangered
wildlife.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mudd.
This was requested that it be put on the agenda at this time by
Commissioner James from Lee County. It's a timely thing. They're
going to be traveling to Tallahassee on January 19th.
They already have a resolution from a number of different units,
including Southwest Regional Planning Council, one of their own,
City of -- City of Sanibel. I'm not too sure what else, but if you'd like,
I can read the resolution that they suggested, and I think would apply
just fine for us, into the record for this commission's approval.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you wouldn't mind a comment. The
resolution of the Lee County Commission has certain things in it that I
don't know that we would be willing to commit, but I think you're
asking for a position which would support the acquisition of Babcock
Ranch.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct. Even a letter
from the chair would suffice.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Well, I would go with a
resolution.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: All right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's just that when I read the Lee County
resolution, it's actually in Lee County, and they're actually involved in
raising the money --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's right, we're not.
Page 170
,,,_"'^~__"'_A"'._ ----- ---,--
January 11, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- to get it done and we're not, so it
would have to be modified somewhat. But I would certainly support
your recommendation that we have a resolution to support Lee County
and others in their efforts to purchase Babcock Ranch but not commit
money of our own --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, no, no way. No shape or
form.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It was his motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll support it --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just needed help with the
wording.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll support it just as long as
Commissioner James doesn't change his mind.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Again.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Again.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh. Hope he's not listening.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You've got a motion and a
second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You've got a motion and second.
Any discussion? There's public comment?
MS. FILSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. FILSON: I have a speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Jennifer Hecker.
MS. HECKER: Jennifer Hecker, speaking on behalf of the
Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
The Conservancy of Southwest Florida supports the acquisition
of Babcock Ranch. The ranch covers 143 square miles and is the
Page 171
-- ~~...,--^ "'~"'40'_'O"'_"~ ..._~-
January 11,2005
essential missing piece of a 65-mile corridor from Lake Okeechobee
to Charlotte Harbor.
It's the largest single parcel of unacquired acreage located in
southern Florida that has been identified as a strategic habitat
conservation area, as well as is vital to the efforts of restoring the
Everglades.
Just wanted to add that the parcel's also unique because it's the
largest natural water storage tract in private ownership, and much of it
has been managed for decades in a manner that has preserved many of
the natural systems within its border.
Its values in terms of water supply and storage, habitat for native
species, and outdoor recreational opportunities for generations of
Floridians and visitors to our state cannot be overstated.
Therefore, the Conservancy of Southwest Florida commends this
commission's recognition and support of the importance of the
acquisition of Babcock Ranch. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any further comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Carries unanimously.
I guess we'll have somebody draft that resolution?
MR. MUDD: I believe the county attorney should draft that
resolution, sir. I'm not trying to pass the buck, but --
MR. WEIGEL: We're half drafted already.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good, good.
Page 1 72
- "~-" ,,~.. "_._..___-.....,..o~.^ .~_. ._-,~-
January 11, 2005
All right. We'll go to 91.
MR. MUDD: No, sir, that got removed.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, it did.
Item #10A
RECOMMENDATION TO CONFIRM THE APPOINTMENT OF
MS. MARLA RAMSEY TO THE POSITION OF PUBLIC SERVICE
MR. MUDD: That brings us to lOA, and that's a
recommendation to confirm the appointment of Ms. Marla Ramsey to
the position of public services division administrator.
Marla surfaced after a wide search, and we basically sent that
throughout the county -- or county and country.
The finalists came forward after a selection committee
interviewed about 15. There were four finalists that were presented to
me, two external, two internal.
Marla basically was the best of the four finalists for the position,
and I'm asking the board to confirm her appointment as the public
services division administrator.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Halas, a second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Page 173
-,., .- .._~ ......_ u_.....,., "-
January 11, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Opposed, no?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to meet this new person in
the county. I don't know that we've ever met her.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We haven't.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Which one is she? That one. The bold
one, right.
MR. MUDD: Sir, I've had trouble with gender already today,
one time.
Item #10B
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE CONTRACT
AMENDMENT NO.1, EXHIBIT E, FOR A GUARANTEED
MAXIMUM PRICE (GMP) OF UP TO $16,600,000 UNDER
CONTRACT NO. 04-3576, CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT
RISK SERVICES FOR COURTHOUSE ANNEX AND PARKING
GARAGE, WITH KRAFT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE COURTHOUSE ANNEX
PARKING DECK, PROJECT 52010 AND TO APROVE THE
Sir, the next item is number -- is number lOB, and that's a
recommendation to approve contract amendment number 1, exhibit E,
for a guaranteed maximum price, GMP, of up to $16,600,000, under
contract number 04-3576, construction manager at risk services for
courthouse annex and parking garage with Kraft Construction
Company, Inc., for the construction of the courthouse annex parking
deck, project 52010, and to approve the necessary budget amendment.
Page 174
_'e'_. ,..-.,---,... .'<-- --
January 11, 2005
And Mr. Ron Hovell, the project manager of facilities, will present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ron, could you just orient us a little bit
where the courthouse is in this picture?
MR. HOVELL: Yes, sir. I'll get right to it.
For the record, Ron Hovell, Principal Project Manager in the
Facilities Management Department.
That's a rendering of the garage, and we're here today to talk
about awarding the guaranteed maximum price.
The site of this parking garage will be in the surface parking lot
just southeast of the building that we're in today, Building F.
The footprint of the building will basically be the asphalt parking
area, they'll also be using this area initially for a lay down area, and
further down the road the retention pond will get extended out some.
So basically this whole area will be under construction here in the next
couple months. The--
MR. MUDD: Would you point out the courthouse, please?
MR. HOVELL: Yes, sir. It's way at the end because I wondered
if somebody was going to ask that question.
The courthouse annex itself will be between the courthouse and
Building F, where we are today. And longer term, the -- there will be a
walkway between the garage, and then on up toward -- a covered
walkway up towards Building F and the courthouse annex.
Did I answer that part of the question?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Halas going to
lose his parking space?
MR. HOVELL: I think that's a separate project.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Janet Vasey already got it.
MR. HOVELL: This project has a construction manager at risk
contract for both the courthouse annex and the parking garage. Today,
however, we're just talking about the parking garage portion of that. It
will provide approximately 1,130 parking -- public parking spaces.
As I mentioned, the public walk -- or the covered walkway.
Page 175
-- -.-> .-.. ,~-. -..-
January 11,2005
It will be six stories, precast design much like you saw go up
over near Building H. And once under construction, it will take about
a year to construct.
Guaranteed maximum price, again, the construction manager at
risk is with Kraft Construction. They've proposed and staff has
negotiated $16,539,777. And if you're familiar with the construction
manager at risk contracts, that means that we will pay them their
actual costs not to exceed that amount.
They'll go out for their formal bids. As a matter of fact, some of
them started coming in yesterday, and by the end of the month they
should have their various subcontracts in place. Kraft's been involved
since March of 2004 with the design consultant.
The overall proj ect budget, when you include the design permit,
impact fees, other costs and contingency, is about $19.1 million, and
this will be paid for out of the government facilities impact fees. It
was also a portion of the $180 million bond issue that you approved
back in December.
So the follow-on actions pending your approval of this action
today would be for us to process the contract amendment and budget
amendment, upon approval of the site development plan, which we
hope to get in the next month or so, to begin site and utilities work, to
encourage employee parking in the garage over by Building Hand
alter our shuttle schedules to accommodate getting folks to work, and
within the next month or two, to bring you the courthouse annex GMP
contract amendment.
So our bottom line recommendations today are for you to
approve the contract amendment in the amount of$16,539,777,
authorize the chairman to execute that contract amendment after
review by the county attorney's office, and to approve a budget
amendment in the amount of 4,500,000.
And just to note, that does not bring us up to the full project
amount of the 19.1 million. That just gets us enough to award the
Page 176
._'-" -....-.. ^-,,,~,;",-;",--,,,,.,,- ."._~. "-
January 11,2005
contract amendment. The balance will be provided with the budget
amendment that it recognizes the revenue from the total $180 million
bond proceeds.
Are there any questions for me today?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any questions, Commissioners?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. I have one speaker. Steven Berkler (sic).
MR. BERLER: Decline.
MS. FILSON: Okay. No speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No speakers. Any questions,
Commissioners?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do I hear a motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion for approval.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion for approval, Commissioner
Halas.
And is there a second? And then we'll get to the county attorney.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
County Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Just to advise you, as you are
probably aware, that the funding mechanism mentioned here, the
government building impact fee, is the impact fee that has had a
lawsuit filed against the county on December 23rd of this year, this
past year, and we'll be vigorously defending that ordinance. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good.
And what is the alternative source of funding in the event that lawsuit
is successful?
MR. MUDD: Sir, it would be ad valorem, just like it has been
for government buildings in the past.
Page 1 77
,-~'-- ----"" ~-~- -'-" , ~-,..,~ ~--
January 11, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: And without -- let me also mention that the reason
we're doing the parking garage is because we need to expand the
courthouse. We have new judges that are coming onboard, and it's
been a series of years. I mean, I talk to the chief judge all the time.
And, you know, it's -- let's move this around today in order to get this
done. We had the law library move in order to free up more spaces
for folks. In order to do the courthouse annex, we need the parking
garage. You can't do that to stay concurrent. So it's long overdue.
And there's nobody that comes to any meeting or does anything
on this thing unless it's at seven o'clock at night that says the parking
is adequate in order to find a space, because you're parking over by
W al * Mart or over there by the church.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We'll call the question.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous.
Item #10C
STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RESPONSE TO
THE PUBLIC PETITION PRESENTED AT THE DECEMBER 14,
2004 BCC MEETING BY ROBERT FRANCE REGARDING
TH
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, item -- item number 10C is -- was
Page 178
-- --" ,,~,_.<.- Ir 'F_~"''''~'" .--'-
January 11, 2005
-- carne before the board on 14 December. It was a public petition
request by Robert France. Mr. DeLony and public utilities would like
to have two weeks and continue this further until the -- until the 25th
so that they can try to work something without Mr. France as far as a
land swap.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You need a motion for--
MR. MUDD: No, sir. I just want to make sure that it's there.
You approve the -- you approved the agenda this morning, and that
was part of it.
Item #10D
RESOLUTION 2005-42 AND RESOLUTION CWS-2005-01 -
AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION BY CONDEMNATION ON
NON-EXCLUSIVE, PERPETUAL UTILITY AND
MAINTENANCE EASEMENTS, TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION
EASEMENTS, AND ACCESS EASEMENTS FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SEWER FORCE MAIN, RA W WATER
MAINS AND WELL SITES REQUIRED FOR THE SOUTH
COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT (SCRWTP)
REVERSE OSMOSIS WELLFIELD EXPANSION TO 20-MGD,
PROJECT NUMBER 708921, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED
$2,h22,R:10 - A llOEIED
Next item is 10D, and this is an item that was continued from the
November 30th, 2004, BCC meeting, a recommendation to adopt a
resolution authorizing the acquisition of condemn -- by condemnation
of nonexclusive perpetual utility and maintenance easements,
temporary construction easements and access easements for the
construction of a sewer force main, raw water mains, and well sites
required for the South County Regional Treatment Plant reverse
osmosis wellfield expansion to 20 million gallons.
Page 179
<...~".,~ '" ~,,~--- -
January 11, 2005
It's project number 708921, at a cost not to exceed $2,622,850.
Copies of the technical memorandums and Exhibit A are on display in
the Board of County Commissioners' office, third floor of Building F.
And Mr. Jim DeLony -- excuse me, Phil Gramatges --
MR. GRAMATGES: Phil Gramatges.
MR. MUDD: -- will be -- will present from public utilities
division.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. GRAMATGES: Yeah. For the record, I'm Phil Gramatges,
Senior Project Manager Public Utilities Engineering of Collier
County .
As you will remember, as Mr. Mudd stated, this is a continuation
of an item that was presented November 30th. Consequently, I would
like to continue where we left off.
The plan is for me to present as an introduction, review the
recommendations that we made at that time, and then I am ready to
turn this over to the engineer of record, Mr. Tim Moore, from
Greenley and Hansen, LLC, who will be discussing or presenting to
you the technical background for this decision or these
recommendations to go with -- with the number one route.
And here you have the overheads that we presented to you, of
course in reduced form, and we also presented at the public meeting
that we held on Thursday of last week.
As you remember, the reason we wanted a continuance is
because you wanted to have -- give us the opportunity to have a public
meeting, which we did on Thursday of last week, and also you wanted
to be taken down to the well sites and be able to personally see what
this project is all about.
As well, some of you, if not all of you, had the opportunity to see
existing wells and to see generating capacity of generators that are on
the -- in the field right now.
I trust that we have accomplished everything you requested of us.
Page 180
-- --.~ --..- -'-~'-~---_. ..-
January 11, 2005
And consequently, if you approve of this method, I will go ahead with
my presentation.
You will recall that alternative number one was the FPL corridor.
And the reason we recommended this is because it's the lowest capital
cost alternative due to a number of factors that are listed here.
Also, this is the best non-cost criteria for us due to the remote
location and the right-of-way and easement concerns and others. I
believe you were able to see that this is in a very remote location, for
the most part, and we were able to see also through the -- through the
public information meeting that the region or the community that was
most of concern to you, Forest Glen, apparently had a positive
reaction to what we did.
Now, the purpose of this project, of course, this project that's
identified in the 2003 master plan, that was adopted in May 2004 and
is there to provide capacity for the South County Regional Water
Treatment Plant, 12-MGD reverse osmosis operate -- 12-MGD, of
course, million gallons per day.
And this is to meet the projected increase in potable water
demand by December of 2006. This wellfield has 23 production
wells, delivering an additional 12 million gallons per day capacity.
And I will pause now and ask you if you have any nontechnical
questions that I can answer for you before I turn this over to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I see no questions. Let's proceed.
MR. GRAMATGES: Okay. Then let me introduce Mr. Tim
Moore. He is the engineer of record who will take you through the
process that we use to identify this as the -- as the best alternative for
this project. Tim?
MR. MOORE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
I am Tim Moore, Project Manager with Greenley and Hansen. Weare
the engineer of record for this particular project, the South County
Regional Water Treatment Plant, 12-MGD upgrade wellfield.
Basically, what we have here -- excuse me -- is route alternatives
Page 181
-'~- ._,.,~ -",. ,,,"-
January 11,2005
or a route study, which is usually what's done by Florida law, let's say,
for determining what type of route or alternatives you're going to
have, and there's five criteria that are used. When you --
MR. MUDD: If you're going to move, you've got to--
MR. MOORE: I'm sorry.
MR. MUDD: You've got that tendency to want to go that way.
Use that mike.
MR. MOORE: Like I said, there are five criteria that are used in
typical Florida law, and those five criteria deal with cost, the need for
looking at other alternatives that are viable, environmental concerns,
safety, and long-range planning, and those are the five criteria that you
look at when you're looking at doing route alternatives.
Now, the first part of the study was obviously to define your
boundaries, and your boundaries are defined, first of all, most
importantly by your hydro geologic study. Hydro geologic study
means that you have to determine your source water and if your
source water is good quality and good quantity.
And based on testing, we determined this area here to be a good
area for quality and quantity of water.
We also look at, you know, natural and man-made features in the
area, as well as pipeline length, like I said, environmental concerns,
property acquisition, things like that. And like I said earlier, test
results in the area were favorable for this particular area to look at
wellfield alternatives.
The next thing you want to look at are like rights-of-way and
your easements, how much property you're going to need to acquire,
what types of effects that may have on the property owners, et cetera.
You also need to look at traffic volumes.
So in other words, you can look at the alternatives there. We
have a blue line, a yellow line, and a red line, here and here and here.
And what these alternatives show are, you know, the three different
alternatives that we looked at when we were doing this study and
Page 182
---~ ._-,,- .' ._. -_.~~-;,,-- --
January 11, 2005
more or less the different criteria that we looked at.
So when you go to the red line, you can see one of our
alternatives may have been to go down the 951 corridor. But as you
can see, one of our criteria was traffic volume and how much it will
have an effect on the pipeline itself and the construction of the
pipeline. And obviously 951 has, you know, a lot of traffic, so it
could be an ordeal.
Obviously, another extremely important aspect of alternative
route studies are environmental aspects. Lots of different reasons for
that, permitting, et cetera. But environmental aspects, you want to
look at what proposed areas you have there, the layouts that you have,
what types of vegetation and species you would be affecting when you
actually went out there and did your construction.
And actually, a reconnaissance of the area was done in each of
these three alternatives to determine which particular area was a better
area for, you know, its effect on the environment.
A long-range planning has always been extremely important
criteria. By that I mean what types of proj ects do you have planned in
the future for these areas. Specifically, the -- obviously the 12-MGD
upgrade is one of the most important, which is why we need this
wellfield in the first place.
The 951, U.S. 41, water mains are going in to provide better
service to the customers in that area. The 951 road widening, which is
planned in the future. There's also some intersection improvements
there at Beck Boulevard and 951, as well as 1-75 improvements in the
future as well.
And, again, like I was saying earlier, the cost criteria that helped
determine these alternatives are in -- as well as non-cost criteria, and
these are the criteria that you look at specifically by Florida state law
when you're -- when you're looking at alternative routes in a process
such as this.
Your cost criteria are your pipeline length, how long is your
Page 183
--- ^,-. -- .~------,- ---- .-
January 11,2005
pipeline, how much is that going to cost, it's directly cost-related;
property acquisition, obviously cost-related; road restoration or
restoration in general. Most of the time you try and restore whatever
areas you affect as close as possible to the way they were.
Permitting, obviously, it could be a long, arduous process. That
could be cost involved.
Non-cost criteria, such as -- let me just say, cost criteria
determines your overall cost of the project, which is going to give you
cost numbers. Non-cost criteria is going to give you a score of each
one of these alternatives, and usually you -- based on cost and
non-cost criteria, you choose which alternative would be best for the --
for this particular route or pipeline.
And the non-cost criteria are pipeline length, again. Basically, by
that -- why that's mentioned, again, is pipeline length, how much area
will it affect. It's non-cost. That's -- environmentally, if we have a
longer pipeline, we're going to -- we may have the possibility of
affecting more areas.
Public inconvenience is a non-cost criteria. We look at, how will
it affect the public based on the route we choose. Safety of the
workers as well as the public. Most of the time you want to -- you
want to try and keep these well sites to a location that would be safe
for public access.
Major road crossings, you know, such as 1-75, Beck Boulevard.
Those are the road crossings. Geotechnical considerations. Those are
things that you look at in non-cost.
More non-cost criteria are permitting requirements, right-of-way
and easements, which we've talked about; operation and maintenance,
how easy is it for the operations crews to get to these and maintain
them; environmental impacts, like we talked about; long-range
planning, again, such as the projects that are going on in the future in
that general area.
And what you end up with is, cost criteria gives you a dollar
Page 184
"'"~ "".,- ..- _. ..---
January 11, 2005
amount, like we talked about. Non-cost criteria gives you a score.
Again, the three alternatives, the yellow line is alternative one,
which is the Florida Power and Light or FPL corridor; alternative two
is the blue line, which is Le Buffs Road FPL corridor; and alternative
three is the red line, which is Beck Boulevard or 951 corridor.
Now, once you compare all of the alternatives that we have there
on the boards, alternative one, which is the yellow line, the FPL
corridor, comes -- these are 2002 numbers -- comes at us with a cost
of 15,387,000. So cost-wise, alternative one, the FPL corridor, does
agree.
Non-cost criteria, alternative one ends up with the highest score,
which is 165. Now, by that I mean, taking those five criteria that we
spoke about, specifically weighing those and grading each one of the
particular routes. And once you weigh and grade the routes, you see
that alternative one comes up with the highest score, which also makes
the FPL corridor, once again, the favorable route for this pipeline.
MR. MUDD: Your non-cost criteria, high score is the best -- is a
better score?
MR. MOORE: Yes, sir, that's correct.
And again, as Mr. Gramatges said earlier, the alternative one, the
FPL corridor, was chosen because of its low capital cost alternative
due to the permit ability of the area, the constructability of the area,
the pipeline length was shorter, the right-of-way concerns were
lessened because of the FPL corridor, property acquisition
requirements were not as involved.
And best non-cost criteria score due to its remote location, its
right-of-way and easement concerns, again, safety for workers and
public during construction, public convenience or public
inconvenience, environmental impact, and maintenance accessibility,
and, of course, long-range planning. It kind of stays out of the way for
what's planned in the future of that area.
And I'm going to turn the floor back over to Mr. Gramatges.
Page 185
.<,."~ ,-",~>, -.. ---
January 11, 2005
Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. Do you have any questions?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No questions. Maybe there is one.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The well sites are on section
lines; is that correct?
MR. MOORE: Repeat the question, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The well sites, like around the
lake, are they on section lines?
MR. MOORE: They are located along property lines to, you
know, provide the least impact as possible to the property owner, so
they are -- that would be correct, they are along section lines.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No other questions. Let's proceed.
MR. GRAMATGES: So in summary, and based on a thorough
review of both cost and non-cost cost criteria by a team of
professionals, professional engineers, and professional environmental
scientists, the recommended alternative for the construction of the raw
water pipeline is alternative one, the FPL corridor.
And that concludes my presentation. Are there any questions,
please?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Questions, Commissioners?
Commissioner Henning? Did you have another one?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You already answered -- no.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any other questions,
Commissioners?
MR. MUDD: You have speakers, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have how many speakers?
MS. FILSON: We have six speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Three minutes each, okay.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Except for Rich Yovanovich. He gets
one and a half.
Page 186
.-".- ----.----.- '-.-" --. ..-
January 11, 2005
MS. FILSON: Rich -- actually he signed up twice for this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's why he gets one and a half.
MS. FILSON: Rich Yovanovich will be followed by Rich
Y ovanovich.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the reason for you speaking twice is
what?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I've got two different clients on the same
Issue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, but are they on the same sides of
the issue, or are you arguing both sides?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm going to -- that's where my triplet
comes In.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner, I'm going to -- quite
frankly, I don't think I can get it done in three minutes. I would
request that you just give me a couple of extra minutes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, isn't it the same argument for both
--
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- both people?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, it is, and I didn't -- I need to place
this map up there, and I don't want to move your pretty pictures.
MS. FILSON: Your time's running.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If I can, for the record, Rich Y ovanovich,
representing the Willow Run Land Trust and also Vision and Faith.
And I'm -- I've put up on the -- or I'm having the county manager
assist me in putting up a map, basically, of the Willow Run mine that's
out there today, and what ultimately, once the mining is done,
becomes a residential development. It is located just east of 951.
We have several concerns with the proposed route. Now, it's not
our goal here to not have you go forward with this proj ect. We have
some concerns about some of the well sites located on the Willow Run
Page 187
-.. -'-"'----',..-. "-"~-
January 11, 2005
property, and we have some suggestions that, perhaps, we need to
discuss some of the locations, and some of the locations we don't have
a problem.
The reason I bring this up is, you've been told that your estimated
cost of this project is roughly $2.7 million. I don't think that's a good
estimate after some of the issues that I'm going to bring up, and these
are not new issues for your staff.
First of all, your executive summary states that there's been some
negotiations that have gone back and forth, and because those
negotiations didn't work out, we're now in a position of having to
condemn the property.
Now, we've never once received an offer to purchase the
property. We've been contacted, but we've never seen, we're willing
to pay you X to acquire the property. So I don't know how we can get
to the stage that there's been a negotiation when there's never been an
offer for the property. Second -- that's for both clients.
Second of all, specifically with the Willow Run property --
excuse me, Jim. This is -- this is 951. And this particular piece of
property is being recommended to have seven well sites acquired from
it, which is more than any other piece of property out there.
The first well site is well site number nine. It is immediately --
that's our entrance roads not only to the -- to the quarry, but also to our
ultimate residential development. You'll see that we have a wetland
right here, and that well site is right in the middle of our access to the
property, for both purposes of mining rock right now and ultimate
development of the residential.
Well site number six, number seven, and number eight are
located on our dike. We have to have a dike as part of our permit for
our mining operation. If you install -- install that pipeline, you're
going to remove our dike for our mining operation.
Same is true for 11, 12, and 13. If you remove the dike, we are
no longer in compliance with our mining operation. We're out of
Page 188
,----, '--,-,,'_' ._~.,-,,-~.- ..--
January 11, 2005
business if you go forward with condemning this property and --
excuse me -- condemning the property and going forward as you're
.
proposIng.
We don't have issues with number -- we can work with you on
number 11, 10, and number six. Do I have that right, Maureen -- 11,
10, six, yes. We can -- we can work with you on those. Those are not
issues for us. It's the others that are creating problems from (sic) us
and will ultimately create problems for you from a cost acquisition
standpoint.
In the after situation, when we're done developing -- when we're
done, you know, mining the rock, those are beautifullakefront lots
that we ultimately would sell at a very high price.
We're convinced that the diminution in value to our property by
taking those particular locations is going to be very significant, and I
think you're going to miss your estimate of $2.7 million for acquisition
on just our site alone.
We're also concerned about the impact on the lakes. Right now
we're concerned that if you go ahead and put the wells there and you
start drawing water out, we're convinced that those lakes will go
down, the water will corne out, you'll be sucking water out of our
lakes.
So we're convinced that there are issues with what you're
proposing. What we're saying -- what we're proposing on this
particular site is, on the well sites where we don't have issues, fine,
we'll go forward, if you want to go through condemnation -- go
through condemnation, but maybe you can make us an offer first and
maybe we can accept it. We don't know.
But on the other well sites, I would suggest that you not go
forward with condemnation on those areas, ask your staff to meet with
us and talk about where in our project we can accommodate some well
sites. We may not be able to do all seven on our property, but we
certainly could do more than three. So we'd like to work with you
Page 189
-. ---",,,,,-, ~,...--"--. ..- ---
January 11,2005
instead of being put in a position of condemnation.
Keep in mind, we didn't know until Thursday when we had the
neighborhood information meeting that this was even on the agenda
for today, and, we were scurrying to get here and make a presentation.
Now, on the -- on the other parcel, you're talking about three
sites, three well sites on Rattlesnake Hammock as it's extended. Those
three well sites are on commercially-zoned property. That, again, is
going to be a very expensive venture, and also hopefully will be the
entranceway to a residential development as well.
We would like the opportunity to work with staff to find other
locations for those wells. We, again, think that you picked some pretty
expensive property to acquire based upon the zoning of the property
and this ultimate impact to the future developments on those
properties.
With that -- I'm trying to rush through my time period to hit all
the major issues. I think I've hit all the major issues. The major
concern, again, on Willow Run is, you're going to put us out of
business right now, because we've got concerns with the wellfield
ordinance.
You know, are we even going to be able to do blasting? Are we
going to be able to store our materials on site based upon where these
well sites are located? That's a major impact to an ongoing business,
and Collier County's already got a shortage of rock. You don't want to
exacerbate the situation.
I think I've hit all the major highlights. And if you've got any
questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is your client aware of, you
know, some of these wells, you're not going to be able to see them,
they're going to be underground? There are going to be some
pumping stations in certain locations that will be --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, my understanding is they're not
Page 190
'-~"'"- ~"""''''-''- _.--..,._-~._., ._-,-_._~- ----..-
January 11, 2005
totally underground, they're not totally invisible. But, you know,
we're aware of that, but still at the same time, if you compare the --
you have not only a well, you have a pipeline easement that's adjacent
to the well, and it's the combination of the depth of those two things
that basically renders these lots right here, the combination of the two,
it renders all these lots worthless, and these are all waterfront lots.
They're already, you know, narrow, they're very marketable, but
now you're talking about bringing these things down by 30 feet for
your pipe and another 30, 40, 50 feet more for your well. The same
thing across up here.
That's the combination of the issue, and these are -- these pipes
right here the trans -- are under the dike. Sometimes you're talking
about a minimum of five feet of dirt above elev -- you know,
elevation. You're going to have to dig through that, put your pipe
underneath that, and our dike is gone. On this side, their dike is even
higher. It's about 15 feet. So those are the issues.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you saying that they -- that
property is platted? I mean, it has residential lots?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I'm not saying it is. What I'm
suggesting is, is that this property's in the urban residential fringe. We
will be corning through with a rezone of the property at the base
density of one and a half units per acre. We would expect a
reasonable rezone on the property, and we would expect to be
successful in obtaining a rezone. This is the most valuable portion of
the property when you're talking around the lakes.
We're suggesting, you've got to keep that in mind when you're
talking about your budget of $2.7 million.
Second of all, we're not saying we have problems here. We're
saying we have a problem here and these over here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have other land we can work with
you on. We're not saying we don't want to work with you. We're
Page 191
"._--= n___
January 11,2005
saying we need to maybe relocate some of these wells.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When is the rezone corning
forward?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm not sure when the rezone will be
corning forward.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sometime in the future?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We expect that that's the natural thing
that's going to happen next.
MR. MUDD: So what I'm saying is our budget could be getting
less than more.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, because you can't really expect a
reasonable rezone if you're being unreasonable in selling us the
property .
MR. MUDD: Well, if you don't have any water then you don't
have any zoning, so --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And again -- and I knew that
question was going to corne up. We're not talking about stopping your
project. We know the county needs the water. We're talking about,
let's be reasonable. You've got a $2.7 million budget. We think you
missed it, and we thought we'd be remiss in corning forward and
telling you we think you missed the budget.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you want somebody to talk with
you about possible locations, see if we can reach a compromise, right?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. That's all we're talking about.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's all we need to know. Okay, good.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Maureen Bonness. She will
be followed by Joe Bonness.
MS. BONNESS: I'm Maureen Bonness. I am corning here with
several hats. First of all as a taxpayer, I would like to see you avoid
the lake shores at Willow Run, because I know right now there are
some offers on that property. I have an idea of the value of the
Page 192
-,-, _.... --. '..,....,-,.- _m__ ---
January 11, 2005
property that a developer is willing to pay, so I have an idea of the
value of those acreages along the lake shores, and it's very high. So as
a taxpayer, I'm saying avoid the lake shore, because it's going to cost
me money as well as all of my neighbors.
I'm also corning to you as a member of the Naples Area
Triathletes. And this is group of folks that swim, bike, run, and one of
the other things we do is mountain bike, and we have a mountain bike
trail on the course that is maintained by the Naples Area Triathletes,
and this mountain bike course, it's unique, it's the only one like it in all
of Southwest Florida. If has a lot of elevation change in it, and it's got
drops and climbs and bridges.
And there are a number of people that joined our club just
because of this mountain bike trail, including a couple of crazy guys
from New Jersey that corne down every winter just to ride on this
mountain bike trail.
So from that standpoint, your wells on the southern border of
Willow Run go right through the mountain bike trail at this point.
I'm also corning to you as a property owner. I'm one of the
property owners at Willow Run. And so I think the effect you will
have by the wells that are on the eastern -- on the eastern side of your
pipelines are going to affect our property value significantly,
especially on the southern shore.
And also I was a little remiss at the process that we got basically
two business days to try to gather some support from the other
members of the Naples Area Triathletes, et cetera, between the public
meeting and today's hearing. I was really surprised at not being
notified as a property owner that this was coming in front of the board,
and I guess this is the second time it carne in front of the board and we
were not notified the first time.
And then I'm also corning to you as the manager of the preserve
at Willow Run as an environmental consultant, and I am concerned
about the lake levels, because that will definitely affect the water
Page 193
~--- _. ~_._-,,~,--~ ~,-- -- -'--
January 11, 2005
levels in the preserve itself as -- so I would -- my recommendation
would be to try to stay in the power line, if you can, stay as close to it
as you can, because I know that's already -- that area's been pretty
much scoured by FP &L, so the environmental issues are much lower
and there's less permitting.
I'm not sure why you stopped at Rattlesnake Hammock Road,
why not keep on going father south? The length of the pipeline will be
the same, whether you go east, west, north, south. So why not -- I
don't know if that's slated then for two decades from now as the future
southern expansion. Why not keep on going on the power line itself?
And I would recommend staying as far west as possible and not
to push into the eastern lands as you get farther towards preserves and
environmentally sensitive areas.
Thank you. Any questions?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Are there any questions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I have one.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Go ahead, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, this land that is the bike trail--
MS. BONNESS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- that we've gotten so many letters
on, are you going to sell that for homesteads once you finished
blasting there?
MS. BONNESS: Yes. It is -- definitely it's a time-constrained
mountain bike course. There's no doubt about that. Eventually that
would be -- have to be forfeited for development.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MS. BONNESS: So, I mean, as far as looking at putting the
wells in there and the pipeline, if the mountain bike trail were
damaged, removed, or destroyed, whatever, because of the sake of the
pipeline, we would be interested in maybe somehow the county
reimbursing the triathlete club so they could build a mountain bike
trail somewhere else, or the county providing a mountain bike trail
Page 194
- _.___h ,....---"." -,..~,-,..~.~ -"---~_._... -
January 11, 2005
somewhere else in lieu of our temporary loss.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But you'll be building one anyway
then when you sell the property?
MS. BONNESS: At the next quarry?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. When you--
MS. BONNESS: Which quarry is that? At our next quarry
maybe, but we don't have another quarry at the moment.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. You've worked with staff a
little bit, haven't you?
MS. BONNESS: They carne out and visited the site yesterday
evenIng.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And have -- were there any -- were
there any concessions or any compromises there that everybody felt
would be acceptable? I mean, possibly just realigning the route just a
little bit? I don't know.
MS. BONNESS: Well, in my view, if you just go 70 feet south,
which sends it to the neighbor instead of us, that would alleviate my
problem.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Everybody wants to do that.
MS. BONNESS: I know. But they don't have a mountain bike
trail.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see. But were there any other --
MS. BONNESS: They suggested they could do drilling
underneath the berm that has the mountain bike trail, that they could
drill the pipeline instead of excavating it and digging down, and they
suggested that would be a possibility. I don't know the cost difference
on that though.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you want to hear from staff on
that or ask them?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You want to hear all the public
comments? I think they're all going to say the same thing, right?
Aren't they?
Page 195
--~. <~....,,"_.> - ^----
January 11,2005
MS. BONNESS: I don't know.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's go through the public
speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have just one question, if I could
ask.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I toured the area along the FPL
easement, and I didn't really corne across this mountain bike trail as --
was the trail that we were in the four-wheel drive, was this part of the
mountain bike trail?
MS. BONNESS: No. We would consider that boring. Our trail
-- we do not own the -- our property is right adjacent to the FP&L
easement. It is not on it except for our access road.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The well sites -- or the
proposed well sites that I visited -- and I think staff did a pretty good
job in doing this -- I didn't see where it -- there was a conflict with any
kind of a trail. It was all grass and stuff, unless --
MS. BONNESS: You did not go along our southern shore.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I thought we did.
MS. BONNESS: In fact, as far as I know, when staffwas out
there yesterday, that was the first time they've seen that site and
walked on it. The surveyors have been there. You can ask the
surveyors. It's very evident where they've been.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And you've never -- and staffnever
contacted you at all in the course of looking --
MS. BONNESS: I would not be the primary contact person. Joe
Bonness would be that person, so you'll have to talk to him as to what
kind of conversations. I know there's never been a price offer, but I
don't know what other kinds of communication there has been.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But there has been communication
Page 196
-"" ftW' _,'" .""~ -,''''' --"" --."-
January 11, 2005
though; is that correct?
MS. BONNESS: You'll have to ask Joe Bonness.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll ask Joe. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who's next?
MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is Joe Bonness. He will be
followed by Michael Dill.
MR. BONNESS: Hi, good afternoon. I'm Joe Bonness. I
represent the Willow Run Land Trust and Winchester Lakes Land
Trust.
I'm going to expound a little bit more on what Rich was talking
about as far as our mining plan and some of the concerns that we have.
We have talked very often with the utility department about what
they're proposing out here, and we have always said that we do not
like what they're having on -- doing to us on the southern boundary.
We're talking about long-range planning from our standpoint and
how we connect into other properties and how we interconnect on our
properties. The position of the pipeline itself will sever about 1,300
feet of our property and future development lots from the lakeshore
that they're going to -- that they would be enjoying. We own -- this
one work?
MR. MUDD: Yes, just push it up.
MR. BONNESS: We own a 10-acre parcel that adjoins in
alongside of us. This is contemplated for possible future for mining as
we go along with the pipeline cutting across the north end and along
the side of it. We do not have any way of connecting into the existing
lake again. That highly restricts what we're doing.
When we are finished with the project, we are anticipating
having housing that faces up onto the lake alongside of us. And this
pipeline and wells will be in the backyard of the lots with an access
utility road that's going through the back lots of -- back side of these
very, very expensive lots, of which, I guess they won't be very, very
expensive lots at that point because there's going to be, you know,
Page 197
-.. ~.._, .--
January 11,2005
maintenance vehicles and that driving through.
We also because of -- the way that the easement is set up, it is set
30 feet -- begins 30 feet north of our property line, and then it's an
additional 20- foot above that, so in essence, you're taking 50 feet from
our property lines to be able to do this, plus any other setbacks that we
may have as far as what we can put near the water line.
The water line will be there. We will not be able to build on top
of it. We can't put a sewer line within 10 feet of it, we'll have
considerable building restrictions as to what's going on.
I've had numerous conversations with our property owner to the
south as far as adjoining properties at the time of the development.
This definitely affects any negotiations I have going on with them,
because if they're going to be trying to put condominiums in there that
were going to connect into the lake, they can't.
There's a water line that's underneath that they can't go over a
utility easement that's going through, and now they wouldn't be able to
make the connection. So we're seeing a very heavy cost from our
standpoint as to what this will be, and it's well above any money that
you've got in there for the acquisitions at this point.
I'd like to see that particular line totally removed out of the plan
and there be other locations that probably could do the same thing.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you, Jim.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Michael Dill. He will be
followed by your final speaker, Richard Crouse.
MR. DILL: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
Just real briefly, I'm Michael Dill, Vice-President of Operations for
Charro Devices (phonetic). More importantly while -- why I am here
is because I'm an avid cycler, cyclist in the area. I'm a member of the
Naples Fellow (sic). I'm a member of the Naples Area Triathlete
Group, and I'm one of probably maybe up to 100 people who actively
use the Willow Run quarry mountain bike course.
Page 198
_.e.... ...- _.... ~",...'. '"'-
January 11,2005
And real briefly, that's why I'm here. I will say I've ridden most
of the recreational courses all the way up to Krummer Recreational
area to Markham Park, to Redick Park. And it's kind of -- it's too
much of a well-kept secret. But the mountain bike park at the quarry at
Willow Run is the best, I would say, in the State of Florida, so -- and
I've had the opportunity to ride it numerous times.
I ride it on the weekends, we ride it during events. I've been out
there when there have been as many as 75 racers participating in an
event on site. And many of us have been able to go out and work with
the Bonnesses and have worked that trail for the last -- I personally
have worked with them for the last five years.
We go out there on the weekends, we build new structures, we've
cleared new parts of the trail, and particularly the south berm, the
berm in question, is the most technically demanding for a cyclist slash
racer. It is the most technically demanding part of the course.
Obviously with an elevation of up to 15 feet, there are not many
other locations in this part of the state where you can get that type of
elevation change.
So that's why I'm here. Thanks for hearing my comments, and --
thanks.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MR. DILL: Yes, sir.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Richard Crouse.
MR. CROUSE: Hello, and thank you. Fellow Collier County
resident, avid mountain biker, mountain bike racer, and members of
the Naples Area Triathletes. Here kind of for the same reasons that
Maureen brought up and Michael.
The course is incredible. It's the only thing near us. Those of
you that don't know, we actually hold off-road triathalons at that
course, anywhere from two to four races per year, and there's nothing
else like it around here.
The south berm area, which would be the area most affected -- I
Page 199
-'--. -,- ..~,._-"'_...'''... ---"-
January 11,2005
was out last night with some of the Collier County folks. And if
there's any way possible to, you know, direct the wells and the lines,
you know, away from that berm area, even if it's just 30 or 40 feet to
the other side of the berm to keep it away from the mountain bike
area, I mean, that would be -- that would be a perfect solution.
And that's my reason for coming here is to basically plead for
you to keep in mind the mountain bike course, how special it is.
Nothing like it anywhere else in Collier County. If there's any way
possible to just, you know, work with the Bonnesses and keep the --
keep the wells and lines, you know, away from the course, that would
be wonderful. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, Rich.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I would hope that
we can try to work with the property owners if they have some other
suggestions for the locations of these wells, and I guess the concern
that I have, if these properties ever corne back for rezoning, it's going
to be very difficult. So -- and if we don't get any kind of well sites, so I
think it's in the best interest of everybody if we can try to resolve this
.
Issue.
MR. DeLONY: For the record, Jim DeLony, Public Utilities
Administrator. Commissioners--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I thought it was Marla.
MR. DeLONY: Marla Ramsey, public services administrator.
It's a lot more fun job some days than the one I've got, I suspect.
Commissioner, we want to be good neighbors wherever we
develop utility infrastructure in Collier County. This is no different
than anyplace else. Now, that's our goal. That's our intent.
But the challenge is in getting this infrastructure in place in
places where there isn't anything else, and you want to do the right
thing, and there's a lot of right things on the table.
We have a very short window of execution available to us to
Page 200
,-~_... .-. -.-. TI __~- -._-.... "-
January 11,2005
meet demand, to stay in compliance for all that growth. We've had a
lot of discussion today about density.
This is on that fast track to make it happen. We spoke to this a
couple weeks ago at the AUIR. We carne to the board last January
with a resolution outlining these -- this proposal and asked for your
approval to convey -- draft these properties to gift or purchase or other
means other than condemnation.
But to date, we've not been able to get to that point through the
process, and I'll refer to the county attorney's office for them to
describe that to you if you have any questions about it.
This tool that you're providing us in terms of condemnation gives
us that opportunity to work, but work in a very directed and very
quick manner, relatively quick manner, to resolve the best choices we
have in putting these wells in.
Sir, I think there's a compromise going to have to be reached
across the board wherever these wells go, whether it's here or
anywhere else. The days in Collier County of our ability just to put
another hole in the Everglades to find water resources for this utility
are over.
There is no place that we're going to -- I'll be back here over the
next series of years with similar well field projects. Now, we've got to
develop the well, for example -- the wellfield, for example, for the
northeast plant that's going to be in Orangetree. There will be a
companion well field along with that.
Because the wellfields are such over -- over such a large area,
they're not compact like a plant, there's no doubt that we're going to
continue up -- much like Norm in building roads, he impacts a lot of
people and sets in motion land use that is maybe not quite yet gelled in
terms of that land use for that property owner or the adjacent property
owners and in terms of what they want to do, because we're still
looking at relatively undeveloped properties at this stage of the game,
which is the right thing to do.
Page 201
--.,,, _.- -- 'tI1"-......--..._.~ ..--
January 11,2005
To place a well in the middle of an existing neighborhood is not
something this board has directed me to take a look at, quite frankly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But it doesn't serve the public's purpose
to purchase wellhead property where the property is more expensive
and where the price, of course, is higher. So it would seem to me that
if there are ways to work with the property owners to find less
expensive ways to do that, the taxpayers benefit would be served.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you're saying that the
proposed well sites are not set in stone; they could be moved?
MR. DeLONY: No, sir. We would like to work with the
property owners more than we have in the past, but the idea of going
to the board today for this condemnation gives us the tools to move
forward till we reach a point of decision.
And as you know, land use takes time. The problem that I've got,
that we've got, is that we have -- we have got to get moving with this
proj ect to allow that water plant to corne online as per our
requirements. So there's our rub.
At some stage we've got to, you know, make a decision. The
condemnation lets us take the combination of factors under the law,
under the law, and then to look at this in terms of the law and find that
best and highest use for these properties, and using that certainly
speeds that along.
We don't intend to not be anything but a good neighbor to the
point that we can. But at some stage, we've got to make a decision, or
at least a recommendation for a decision, to the board to move on with
this project.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me ask my question a
different way --
MR. DeLONY: All right, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- because you didn't answer it.
MR. DeLONY: I'm sorry.
Page 202
'.<-'-~_.- -,- ----- --
January 11, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Those dots on that chart, can
they be moved around?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, they can.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. DeLONY: The only -- the only thing that I've got to caution
the board on that's constraints, the overwhelming constraint that we
have is that the area of geological consideration, that is where I've got
the hydro geological information where there's a water producing
aquifer for the zones that we're going to explore in this well field,
we've got to stay in that footprint. And it's on the map there. It's in
the yellow part.
But it shows you where we've looked at. And as Tim presented
to you, when we did our search, we had to go in an area where we
knew the aquifer could provide the quality and the quantity of water
we need. That's one constraint.
The other constraint we have with regard to it is that, using the
combination of factors that Tim briefed you both in terms of cost and
non-cost, you are always going to find a compromise. And so this
represents not, you know, as -- it's as best we can at this stage of the
game our best compromise of those competing and diverging factors
both in cost and non-cost.
County attorney's office has some comments with regard to that
specific issue. Please.
MS. CHADWELL: I had some comments with regard to
Commissioner Henning's question, because I want it to be clear.
If, in fact, we were to relocate some of these actual well sites and
we could not negotiate voluntarily with the property owners but had to
condemn them, we would have to corne back to this board to revise
the legal descriptions in the resolution, because the resolution in
Exhibit A, which is attached to that resolution, was provided to you all
separately along with the technical memorandums. That clearly
delineates the property that you are -- and only the property that you
Page 203
,--- .~___, . M .... ",,,,,-,,""- "'_"N --
January 11, 2005
are authorizing us to go forward and condemn.
Now, Mr. Y ovanovich suggested that, perhaps, there could be
some moving of those well sites to the property itself. Well, if, you
know -- if staff should make that decision -- and clearly they have
some ability to renegotiate and redesign the project.
But if they should make a decision and the property owners to the
south weren't willing to voluntarily work with the county and convey
those, then we'd be back to the board asking the board to give us
authority to condemn those particular well sites.
And as Mr. DeLony points out, it's very difficult to find any
longer a piece of ground where you can pump a well site in without
having some opposition because there are -- there are some impacts,
there are going to be some impacts.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What I heard Mr. Yovanovich
say is he feels that his clients can work with the county to find --
relocate those wells. And if that's what we're doing, I'm fine.
MS. CHADWELL: And there's nothing to prohibit staffunder
the color of this resolution, because remember, we also have a gift and
purchase resolution, so we can continue to work with them. And I
encourage a discussion with Mr. Y ovanovich, as I always do, to see if
we can resolve that. But there -- please recognize that if those well
sites are to be moved, there will be some redesign costs to incur as
part of that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioners Halas?
MS. CHADWELL: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is to Mr. DeLony. In the
course of plotting this area out, was there any concerns at the point in
time when you were working with the residents there? And I'm sure --
did you give them any insight? First of all, did you give them any
insight that there was going to be possibly a wellfield there?
MR. DeLONY: Well, sir, yeah. We began this process a long
time before today in terms of our journey leading to today. About a
Page 204
"-.-.",.,.. ...~.^' --"--<.,- ~"_....,.,.--- .r~,___ .--
January 11,2005
year ago we carne before the board for a resolution dealing with just
purchase or gift with regard to this particular -- this particular routing.
And so throughout that period of time, we have talked to folks, to
the people that are affected there, if that answers your question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, it does.
When did the bike trail, the mountain bike trail, corne into being
here? Has this always been an issue of contention?
MR. DeLONY: Sir, to the staffs knowledge -- and I believe I
speak for the entire staff here -- we were not aware of the bike path
until last Thursday night. And at Thursday night's meeting, I believe
Commissioner Coletta was at that meeting, was the first hint that we
had that the trace that we were providing, you know, in terms of this
resolution, would affect a mountain bike trail.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. When you go out in the
field, in other words, what we -- if we go ahead today and we approve
this and move it forward, you're obligated to go out and work with the
people that are the landowners to see if you can corne up with a
reasonable solution, correct, something that's equitable for all as far as
money goes? You take into consideration a lot of the facts that they
brought, in other words, that it's being planned for development with
lakefront property and this and that? Is that figured out? Is that taken
into consideration when you corne up with the settlements that you
do?
MR. DeLONY: I'm going to defer to the attorneys here real
quick, and then I'll corne back to that point.
Ellen, you want to -- excuse me. Would you like to take that first
in terms of the process from a legal prospective? Then I'll come back
with staff -- with our side of it, sir, if I could.
MS. CHADWELL: Well, there's a statute that directs us to
negotiate in good faith, but -- and that is to negotiate the property as
identified in the resolution.
Page 205
--_.,. ._._.,.~" "--'"'.....-. .,,- .-
January 11, 2005
If there is going to be -- if you want staff to look at alternatives as
part of this process, then I would suggest that that be a specific
direction from this board because otherwise, certainly we have that
opportunity.
When you say obligated, I'm a little concerned by the use of that
word, because the resolution itself does not obligate us to do anything
but follow the law in condemning the property, and that law is to
negotiate in good faith with the property owner based on a valid
appraisal.
The valid appraisal takes into account any damages, not only the
value of the property that we're taking, meaning the easements for the
wells, but it requires us to consider any damages to the remaining
property, meaning that if your property is worth less by virtue of the
taking than it is before, then that's considered severance damage and
the county has to pay that as well as the value of the actual dirt that
we're acquiring.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I guess the question is,
how do we get from here to there? We've got a problem in the fact that
we've got a time element. And believe me, if there's one thing in this
world we don't want to do is we don't want that consumer to turn the
tap and not find water corning out. You better believe they'll be out in
front here carrying torches and pitchforks and running us out of town
in short order. Very, very unforgiving.
And you mentioned several times that this is one of the elements
that has to be done in a timely fashion to be able to get us to the next
step. I know that we've been -- we were running quite close to the line
with a new opening of the new plant. We managed to get above it for
a while, so we're not quite banging against the door.
But if we don't bring this online, will we be in danger of corning
up to that line again before we have time to react?
MR. DeLONY: Sir, this is our next step.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
Page 206
--- --.",.,,,,-..-. --
January 11,2005
MR. DeLONY: I mean, this is the next step in our incremental
approach to providing the quantity and quality of water we need to
meet demand.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm going--
MR. DeLONY: And as we covered those charts, those growth
charts and those demand charts at the AUIR a couple weeks ago, this
is the increment of planned expansion to corne online.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then I'm going to pass the torch
to whoever's next, but my thoughts is, maybe we can corne up with a
way to direct you to go forward with this and still work with the
landowner in such a way that maybe we can find another route within
their property or right next to it that will meet everybody's needs. But
the process has got to go forward. I don't know what we're going to
do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, if you don't mind, Commissioner
Fiala's letting me jump in here and ask a question.
But we seem to be going around in circles here, you know.
We're talking about a negotiation process, and you're saying you
really need authority to condemn it without negotiation if you want to,
and I don't think it's going to go that way, all right? And so I think
we've got to settle on something.
There are 16 wells that you're going to be drilling.
MR. MUDD: Twenty-three.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. DeLONY: Twenty-three, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Twenty-three wells that we're
going to be drilling.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Not all 23 of them are located on this
property along the south side of this quarry or anywhere near that bike
trail. There are a few of them.
Now, there's -- in my opinion there is no reason that we cannot
Page 207
-'-- -~",'--'_....."" ,.---- ,-...._,,- ' .- ,.- ----
January 11, 2005
go ahead with whatever eminent domain action we need for areas
which are not under dispute at the same time that we're negotiating
with property owners here to try to find a less costly way of getting
the wells we need in this particular area.
There is nothing wrong with having a property owner negotiate
with you about saving money. And ifit looks like we're going to have
to pay a lot more money for the sites there than we thought we were,
how can we possibly refuse an offer by the property owner to sit down
and work out an alternative that is less costly? We can't afford to do
that.
MR. DeLONY: And we wouldn't do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And so I think what we may very well
be corning down to is an approval for the eminent domain action but
no authority to -- to consummate the taking of the property until such
time as you've negotiated with the property owners and corne back to
us for approval on it.
And with that, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Utmost importance to us, all
of us, whether they be the bikers, the landowners or the
commissioners sitting here, is we have to prepare for our future water
source. That's it. We all agree about that. And we know that there's
nothing more important than that.
You've found -- you've found different routes here in order to get
to that water, and we're prepared to start moving ahead with it. Maybe
there'd be a way for you to speak to these landowners, maybe the
water -- I mean the land right against the lake where they're talking
about might be far more expensive, because you're buying lake
property, than on the next people's property at the back end of their
property which would usually be going for green space or something
anyway along their lot lines. That might be a thing to consider.
Maybe -- maybe working with this group boring under, as
somebody had talked to them about, because that's going to go away
Page 208
-. ~.--_.- ____,.,,,-.e ~""'^' -.~-
January 11,2005
anyway. They've already told us, as soon as they finish digging,
they're going to get rid of the bike trail. So maybe there would be a
way for us to work with them there.
I think we definitely need to proceed, as Commissioner Coyle
just said, with -- I guess we can proceed with 19 very easily, and just
moving on forward. Maybe sit down with the people and see what we
can corne up with, but we must move forward.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. As I surveyed the property, I
was surprised that all of this finally came to a head, because as I went
on the tour, I talked with staff, and basically they had given me the
impression that people worked diligently in regards to addressing the
concerns and issues that the property owners had out there.
In fact, in some of the email that I received from staff when I first
started getting this, I was somewhat amazed because the email that I
got from the property owners basically said that there was no contact
whatsoever or had made it to believe that there was no contact, and
then, of course, when I inquired about this, found out that there was a
trail, paper trail in regards to people being contacted and realizing that
there was going to be some activity in this region.
I have to go along with the chairperson here saying that I think
we need to move on, and I also think that we need to keep all of our
options open to work with the developers or the landowners in the area
of six or seven wells that are of contention.
And I think that if we work with them and they work with us, I
think we can corne to an agreement here, and I feel that we need to
move on here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Me, too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Does someone have a motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that we approve
the executive summary, that we move on with this project and give the
-- our staff the ability to either work with these people or that we have
Page 209
-"'~ -",,- ....'" -.-
January 11, 2005
eminent domain.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second the motion if you
direct staff to -- it's a direction of staff to work with the landowners to
--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I thought I made that clear, but if I
didn't, yes, to work with landowners to see if we can corne to
resolution before we go to eminent domain.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. DeLONY: Let me ask the county attorney's office if they
have anything that they need to clarify on record with regard to that
before I speak.
MS. CHADWELL: No. If I understand correctly, they're going
to approve the adoption of the resolution with the further direction to
staff to work diligently in considering, I guess, alternatives in working
with the property owners; is that fair?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second the motion.
MS. CHADWELL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any other discussion concerning
this issue?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ifnot, all in favor, please signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimous.
MR. DeLONY: Thank you.
MS. CHADWELL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's break time, 10 minutes.
Page 210
-. ------ _._-._--~ "-'~-"""-""-'" .. -~. ---' -.-
January 11, 2005
(A brief recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you'll please take your seats.
Commissioner, 10E and 10F were already done by the Board of
County Commissioners earlier, and they were done prior to item 8A.
That brings us to public comment on general topics.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And tell me, Ms. Filson, do we have any
public comments?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
MR. MUDD: I don't see any at this particular juncture.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there anyone in the audience
who wishes to make any public comments about anything at all?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. Okay. There's no public comments.
County manager?
MR. MUDD: Sir, I told you I had gender problems this morning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I didn't know it was that kind.
MR. MUDD: We just had some problems. It started out bad and
it's kind of stayed that way.
Item #15
Sir, I have two things that I'd like to discuss with the board. First
of all, I'd like to -- I'd like to close the loop with the board. Earlier in
the fall we had talked about how we address different tax percentages
on ad valorem bills, and the board asked the chairman at the time,
along with the county manager and the county attorney, to go talk
with the tax collector, and we did.
Commissioner Fiala and myself talked with -- talked with the tax
collector on the 16th of December, and the results of that conversation
Page 211
-'-- ---.,,----..'" " ,- -..,,-, ._'~"-"~.- ----
January 11, 2005
were, the tax collector really doesn't have any more room on the tax
bill because there's additional items that the school had put on earlier
in prior years to break things down.
But he did say that we could put information on a green
instructional sheet. You know how you get that green page that gets
(sic) along with your tax bill, tells you how to break it down. He has
room in there that you could put different information or you could
include a separate flier, like a three by five, or whatever you wanted in
that envelope, or an eight and a half by 11 inch page with that tax bill
to kind of break that particular information down as far as where the
ad valorem taxes are going for the taxpayers of Collier County. You
could do that in a pie chart, you could do anything.
We discussed plenty of those particular issues, but I just wanted
to make sure that the board knew that we, indeed, Commissioner Fiala
and myself, had that conversation with the tax collector to kind of give
you that information and the results of that particular meeting.
The next item that I'd like to bring to the board's attention is a
request from Mr. Crowles (sic), who's the current president of the
Goodland Civic Association. And there was a request by one of their
members to -- and it was unanimously approved by a majority vote --
excuse me -- a majority vote of their particular civic association, to
ask the Board of County Commissioners to take a survey of -- and this
particular thing says to take a survey, a vote of all the property owners
in Goodland as to their position on selling the property or building the
park for the boat ramps. This has to do with the five-acre parcel.
The -- Commissioner, I received it. I need to get some further
direction. I will tell you there's been lots of surveys in that particular
neighborhood on this particular item, either taken by the Goodland
Civic Association or the Goodland Preservation Association.
That community has had a little bit of upheaval because of the
discussions that have been going on, Commissioner. And I also bring
to your attention that this is a regional park, because it is a -- it is a
Page 212
-",._", -0'__" ..~-~-"..'. "......,--',..-~-".....-.._... "M'"",,,-,,,"_~< .- "-'-
January 11, 2005
boat ramp. It's envisioned to be a regional boat ramp type park, and
I'm not too sure, just on my own opinion, that this -- this is only a
Goodland issue.
Goodland, yes, it will be located on that particular peninsula, but
it's not necessarily just Goodland in and of itself because there are
other boaters that are going to be using that particular boat launch.
And I just need to get some direction from the Board of County
Commissioners on this particular issue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, thank you. I think you
just about summed it up, Mr. Mudd, except for the words, I'm not
sure. I'm sure. If we -- we provided a community park for Goodland.
This isn't quite the same as the -- what we went through over at Naples
Park and some of the other areas.
We're building a small neighborhood park for them, and they
wanted the right to refuse it. And I respect that right and I'd want to
do it.
In this case we have a mixed group of people, and they're not too
sure what they want, and I'm not opposed to them doing their own
surveys and giving us the results, but I do not feel if we -- if we do a
survey in Goodland, we need to do a survey of the whole county and
make it a referendum that goes on a ballot. That's the only way this
would be fair, because this is a community issue, not a community
Issue per see
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ditto.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That was fast.
Any other comments by commissioners?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I would tell you that if you make a
referendum issue on a particular park or anything you do, that's a bad
precedent.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I know. I'm not saying --
Page 213
'-", - ~,-- .-
January 11, 2005
MR. MUDD: Because every time somebody doesn't want to do
something, then you're going to get yourself pushed into a referendum.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think the answer is, what
Commissioner Coletta's saying is, no, we don't want to honor the civic
association's request.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I just think we have to make
sure that we keep our eye on the big picture and that we make sure
that we have adequate access to waterways for all of our people here
in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you have your guidance?
MR. MUDD: I think I have guidance to basically say to Mr.
Crowles, no, we're not going to do the survey.
Commissioner Fiala has her hand up.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just wanted to just finish this
off with, yes, we do need to keep our eye on the situation and -- as
Commissioner Halas said, and we do need to make sure there's
boating access.
We also, all of us, every single one of us have always been very
cognizant of the communities. We've been -- we've listened to the
neighbors and we've made sure that we try and accom -- we're trying
to accommodate a bike path. We have to make sure we don't destroy a
tiny little village in our zeal to overcrowd five acres with too much
boat launch space.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Point's well taken.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have your guidance.
MR. MUDD: That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The county attorney has item
12B.
Page 214
"-"".- ^---.. ~'~"_'____O ,,"",-, .--- _.",--
January 11, 2005
MR. MUDD: No. 12B was put on the consent agenda. You did
that so Mr. Y ovanovich wouldn't have to spend all afternoon here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, yes. Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: I see he was here anyway.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: In that case, Commissioners -- do you
have anything else, David?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, just briefly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and that is, this
morning you entertained and approved a waiver of our resolution
regarding copy fees and charges with the sheriff based upon if he
reciprocated.
I'd only ask you, since we've had the flavor of that discussion, if,
in fact, you would wish to direct the county attorney to amend, that is,
create a superseding resolution to our 1998 resolution, which made
that a proviso for elected officials and constitutional officers and other
boards, such as school board, et cetera, relating to our public records,
the fees and charges resolution, because it presently does not provide
any flexibility to the staff.
And the flexibility you provided this morning was the two-way
street, that if the requester agrees in their request and our request that
we don't pay them, that they -- we, therefore, don't require them to pay
us. If you'd like us to bring something back, we can. I just thought I'd
mention that since we'd had that discussion earlier today on a related
matter.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I think we ought to have a
general cooperative working arrangement with all of the constitutional
officers, you know, as well as school board and fire departments.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. We probably would maybe include
municipalities as well.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, absolutely, yes, and
Page 215
--~. .w.-_ Wli,-_" ---
January 11,2005
municipalities. Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: But I'm really not looking for outside of Collier
County at this point.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just within the taxpayers of Collier
County.
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, that's right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How it affects them, the
constitutional officers.
MR. WEIGEL: We'll fashion something and bring it back the
next --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Pardon me?
MR. WEIGEL: I say, at your general consensus, we'll fashion a
resolution and bring it back for your review in a meeting or two.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we have three nods, okay. Looks like
we do. My only question, David, is whether or not there should be
any distinction based upon the source of funding.
I can understand when the funding is corning from the same
essential source that it's sort of ridiculous to take money out of one
pocket and put it in another pocket. But if they are sources of funds
that are corning from different places --
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- maybe there is a reason why we
should be charging. Do you see the distinction or do you see any
merit in investigating that?
MR. WEIGEL: I clearly understand the question, but I think
with municipalities, school board --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. WEIGEL: -- most constitutional officers we're going to be
dealing with the same ad valorem source.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
MR. WEIGEL: But we can include that in there, too.
Page 216
"-~.- <~; 'I' ~ -.." ---~"-
January 11, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you know, we're talking about
municipalities. That isn't the same source of funds.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But yes, we should show a general
and mutual cooperative feeling amongst them.
MR. WEIGEL: Oh, I see what you're saying. It's the same
funding type, but it's not from the county tax bill.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see what you're saying. Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: It's all ad valorem, but it's not necessarily on the
same bill.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. And I want to also say that I
certainly enjoyed working under the chair of Commissioner Fiala, and
I look forward to the new chair as well.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Commissioners, we'll start with Commissioner Halas today.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd just like to say that -- welcome
you aboard as our chair, and it was a pleasure working with
Commissioner Fiala in the year that she was the chair. And I think
that we, in a short period of time here of three or four years, or the
three years that I've been associated with this board, I think we've
accomplished an awful lot as a team, and I look forward to even
bigger and better things this corning year.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think Frank did an excellent
job of summing it up.
Commissioner Fiala, you did an excellent job. I really enjoyed
you being the chair. I'm sure we're all going to survive Commissioner
Coyle.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Remains to be seen, right, when you take
your seat out there.
Page 217
.-- -----"" ^,..--""",..-",..-.- .-
January 11,2005
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. I want to talk about an
item that we had on our agenda today, and that's the Nicaea Academy,
Warm Springs. I want to explain why I voted no on the project, and
it's only one reason.
It's the reason that -- if there was some kind of an agreement that
the workforce housing would be workforce housing within the PUD, I
would have felt comfortable of voting for it, but I understand the
petitioner could not because he had to phase his project.
Now, let me tell you, my Sam, my Sammy, is struggling and will
struggle to provide payments for her mortgage in her new place, and
she is not the only employee of the county that is going to struggle to
live in Collier County, and there's quite a few of them that live outside
the county.
I can tell you that I talked to an IT person that is -- the luxury
apartments is going to condos, therefore, he's going to -- he's luckily
fortunate the new owner is going to allow him to stay. But not all
cases, since they went to condos, that that's going to happen.
That type of housing is no different than the affordable housing.
We need it in here in Collier County. I would really like to reconsider
the zoning on there as -- and what I'm looking for, if it does corne
back, is there won't be any phasing, and a true commitment to
workforce housing.
And we need to trust the concurrency system that this Board of
Commissioners passed. And I know in some people's eyes it is not
true concurrency, but to that I can just say that it's the best thing that
we can do under the -- under our legislation authority, since we do
have bigger government that needs to approve our growth
management plan.
Again, we need to trust it. We need more this type of housing in
Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is -- you know, there is the possibility to
Page 218
_H~_'""~____ -.,., ...",.~," ~ .10.0; " ~~ .-
January 11, 2005
bring that back for reconsideration, and you will --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I will -- I will give Ms. Bishop a
call and I will have her go see Commissioner Henning to understand,
or Commissioner Halas, to understand -- because those are the two, I
believe, that voted in the affirmative that basically denied the petition
-- and see if she is -- she can figure out exactly where that vote is. She
can give me a letter, and then I basically petition you commissioners
to determine if anyone wants to reconsider the particular issue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I would really like to talk
to the landowner who's going to build the housing. That would be the
most appropriate. I think Ms. Bishop was caught a little short of --
didn't know the code. So if I could get a commitment from the
landowner, I think that would suffice.
Are you the landowner?
MR. SOLIS: May I?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's up to the chairman.
MR. SOLIS: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, by all means.
MR. SOLIS: Just to clarify. For the record, Andrew Solis. I was
here this morning. I'm not the landowner. I'm his attorney. And I -- I
understand what the commission's saying.
I will certainly -- we would love to have it reconsidered so that
we can clarify the issues related to the workforce housing. I think that
was something that carne up today that -- I'm not sure that we were all
using the same definition of workforce housing, but I understand that's
something you want us to address. We'll certainly do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you want me to educate the--
whoever I need to on affordable and workforce, I'd be happy to do
that.
MR. SOLIS: Very good. But we certainly would appreciate a
reconsideration of the application.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it appropriate to do it at that
Page 219
---._--~^ - ,.."._-' -""- ~~-
January 11, 2005
time, or should we put it on the agenda item?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner -- Commissioner, I would prefer if
they send me a letter, and at the same time they have conversation
with Commissioner Henning, and then either one of the
commissioners can make that determination to put -- instead of putting
them on the spot right now where you might not get any movement,
and if that's the case, then the commissioners have the opportunity
without -- without sitting on the dais and trying to debate it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm only concerned about the time frame.
There is a specific time frame for a reconsideration to be made by
a commissioner. As long as you don't violate that time, whatever
process works for you.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You know, it would be fine with me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. SOLIS: And we will-- the landowner will be present in that
so we can address your concerns.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good, good.
Anything else, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just wanted to talk just a
little bit more or less to you, Commissioners, and see if you might
want to think about looking at our level of service on the roads. I
know we were talking about E, and that's what's acceptable now.
And I was wondering if maybe you think that that's too low,
especially as we see all of these developments corning in, and maybe
we could workshop it somehow just to -- just to talk about that. Also
maybe while we're workshopping that, we could -- we could revisit
the density in two areas that really concern me, and that's the coastal
high hazard area and the TCA that --
Page 220
-,-- _.",~",-;,,,,_....., -
January 11, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: TCAM?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, TC -- traffic congested areas.
And the traffic congested areas, I just think it's wrong. I still think it's
wrong where we have a traffic congested area, so we drop one unit per
acres off because of the traffic congestion, and then we add another
eight on because of affordable housing or more because it's in an
activity center. And I just think, maybe we ought to be thinking about
that because we are really trying to get ahold of our road system and
plan more wisely, but the rules don't allow us to do that.
So I think we might be wanting to workshop that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. The -- I would -- I would think
that that's an appropriate -- some of that is appropriate. I would
disagree with respect to the level of service, and let me tell you why.
If you start dropping or changing levels of service, what happens
is you automatically place certain road segments into a failing
condition or into a condition that doesn't meet your standards.
That forces you, under state regulations, to commit money to
solve that, and the problem then becomes, where do we get the money
to solve that within the specified number of years, and that leaves us
only with an opportunity for tax increases, and that's the problem.
We force ourselves into a situation where we have to raise taxes
to meet a level of service that we, ourselves, just established.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you know --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we can't -- you know, I think that's
a very, very dangerous thing to do. And levels of service of D and E
are quite common. They're quite common in lots of places,
particularly in peak season when you're in a tourist area.
But I'll tell you, just as an example, I mean, people corne in with
anecdotes about how terrible traffic was yesterday at a certain place.
Well, let me tell you, when we drove up to the MPO meeting up in
Bonita Springs, I drove from my home in -- south of the City of
Naples, all the way to Bonita Springs at eight o'clock in the morning
Page 221
- -~.." .-.....-.--. .- ,...- ---,-
January 11, 2005
when we were supposed to have rush hour with all of the workers on
it. I made it there in 32 minutes. That's absolutely exceptional, on
Route 41.
I drove back at, what, 10:00 or 10:30. It took me 35 minutes.
That's good. There's nothing wrong with that.
I've lived here for 15 or 16 years, and it has never ever taken me
more than 25 minutes to drive from downtown Naples to Pine Ridge
Road, never under the worst circumstance at any time. I've never
encountered it.
So, yeah, I hear a lot of -- lot of horror stories about traffic, but
the problem is, you can't use anecdotes to develop a governmental
policy.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's really not where I was going
at all. Where I was going was to, more or less, if you want to, say,
support Norm, when he comes in and he knows that we really
shouldn't be opening a huge development or whatever but he doesn't
have rules to back him up, so he has to go with what rules are
available. That's one of the things I'm thinking of, and there are a
couple instances that corne to mind.
I also thought many times we see that maybe -- maybe we need
to reduce density and -- but we don't have the law to back us up. And
so what I thought is, maybe we could toss this around a little bit,
certainly not at this meeting, but toss it around at a workshop or
something, and -- but if I'm wrong, you know, you tell me.
I just felt that that was a way to support you, and possibly even
get you some dollars from other governmental sources to help build
the roads that we're going to need.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, Mr. Chairman, if it's all right.
Norman Feder, transportation administrator.
First of all, the chairman was very, very correct. Level of service
E is not unusual. D and E is pretty much your standards throughout
the state.
Page 222
._- ."..,.~..._~, -. -
January 11, 2005
We've had level of service E. We basically had that even before
I carne here as our standard on many of our roads, some at D. We do
have the tools.
As the chairman pointed out, we've got the strongest concurrency
legislation in the state. We tried other things. As a matter of fact --
and of course, department of community affairs was very concerned
because the issue they had, and correctly so, you can't just shut down
all development with your plans. Your plan has to be responsive to
what you can manage, what you can deliver on, and I think we've got
one that requires us to be extremely aggressive.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me interrupt you and just tell
you, I'm really proud of our concurrency.
MR. FEDER: Yeah, I am as well.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying
to correct anything there.
MR. FEDER: Yeah. The point I'm trying to make though, there
is a balance. You're trying to also deliver very aggressively, and this
board has given us the resources to do that, on the infrastructure
needed to make sure that plan, that aggressive plan, can be
implemented.
I think a workshop would be great. I'd be happy to go through it.
I think there's folks that have raised issues about our concurrency we
need to clarify, and I would welcome any new thoughts or issues.
I'll also tell you though that as this board has addressed, and as
County Manager Jim Mudd has pointed out, we need to have a very
strategic vision of what we're doing east of 951, and that's where we
need to establish some destinations, because if we don't, I've told you
this from this podium when I first carne here, we can't solve the
problem.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Tell everybody what that really means
though.
MR. FEDER: What that means is you can't just have a bedroom
Page 223
--" -".~ ._~W """ ~",_'._.NU --
January 11, 2005
community that requires the trips to all corne in, if you want to pick up
a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Have a place to shop, to work --
MR. FEDER: Place to shop, to work --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- go out to eat --
MR. FEDER: -- everything else.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- everything.
MR. FEDER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, yeah.
And just one fast comment, then I'll get to Commissioner Halas.
Now, when I was suggesting not -- not to just arbitrarily change
levels of service on roads, I didn't mean to imply that the idea about
addressing density wasn't a good one, okay. I think it is a good one,
and I think they're two separate issues.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, they are.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So I would support that.
Commissioner Halas?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if I get -- if I get a couple more
nods, I will -- I will hook that into a workshop. It's not going to be a
full three hours --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
MR. MUDD: -- to talk about that particular -- it will take about
an hour. I can hook it onto the next PUD workshop or whatever,
whenever community development has it, and we'll get those
particular issues, and we'll talk about the TCAs and we'll talk about
the coastal high, and we'll talk about, you know, cutting one, adding
eight, and we'll see -- we'll talk about those particular issues and we'll
also talk about level of service a little bit just to kind of maybe go over
-- you asked for some issues, Commissioner, about where -- the vested
units on the spreadsheet. We might be able to share that with the
board at the time and maybe have a couple minutes to talk about that
just to get everybody a little bit more comfortable.
Page 224
--'" -.....""....-....,. -~---_.. --
January 11, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, getting back to the concerns
that Commissioner Coletta and also Commission Henning brought up
in regards to the PUD that we turned down.
I was hoping that we'd have more dialogue or discussion in
regards to density of that PUD. As I stated, briefly, I made a brief
statement -- in fact, I interrupted Commissioner Coletta, and I should
probably --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're forgiven.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But we basically were trying to
establish 525 units, and I felt that if we could corne up with a
compromise around 300 or 330 units, I wouldn't probably -- I could
probably work on that, and as long as it was workforce housing or
housing for people that are new to our community.
My concern is, is trying to balance that -- the whole amount of
density that's going to be located or is presently going to be located in
that whole quadrant and trying to balance where we have affordable
housing for people, and that's -- it's a very difficult thing.
I would love to have 400 -- or 540 units that they claim they
would build there. But when I look at what's the impact there and I
look at, it's going to be years before we get Vanderbilt Beach Road
extended out to Wilson and beyond and I look at what's happening out
there and I look at other proposals of -- as it was brought up briefly
today in discussion, increasing TDRs out in that area, and this all has a
huge impact of exactly what's coming down the pike.
And I just want to make sure that we, as commissioners, look at
the whole picture, because we're here to make decisions that's going to
affect a lot of people way after we're gone from this post.
So that's why I look at -- try to look at things realistically, and I
just felt that if we could have addressed a lower density in regards to
this project, that I would have probably approved it.
Page 225
--_.~. .--.,- -~.- -- .~,._.~.;,-.-.- ._rn" -.'-
January 11, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We have another chance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe we could put that
density in Naples Park on that land that we just figured on surplus.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Boat storage facility.
Okay. I'm the last person here to speak. And I would just like to
say that I appreciate your confidence in electing me as chairman, and I
hope that my service will not disappoint you over the next year.
There are some things that I'd like to try to change, and I'm going
to go into -- experiment with moving all of the land development
decisions to the afternoon rather than having people sit here all day
not knowing exactly when these things are going to happen. I'm going
to try to schedule them to start right after lunch at one o'clock.
If we don't have enough to fill up the morning, then we'll move a
land development issue to the morning on a time concern. That way
we don't have members of the public and others just sitting here in the
room for hours and hours and hours, not knowing when something's
going to happen. At least they'll know they don't need to show up
until at least one o'clock in the afternoon for land use decisions.
So we'll see how that works. And if it works okay, we'll continue
it. If it doesn't, we'll have to revise it. But I thought I would just let
you know, because you'll see that change in the next agenda, and so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I say something on that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I have a lot of
concern about that. Historically it has been always the land use -- we
get to them in the morning and the public has always known that.
And if we're going to make such a dramatic change on how we
hold the public's meeting -- it's really -- the Board of Commissioners
are the trustees of the public, and this is the public's meeting, that we
should have this item corne back on a regular agenda so we can fully
discuss it with anybody else that wants to discuss it.
And I know you have the privilege as chairman to move items
Page 226
-. .,'.'~""-' ---".~. --- --
January 11, 2005
around, but I just hope that you take under consideration this is the
public's meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, first of all, it's simply not true that
we've always done it in the mornings. We've never done it in the
mornings. I don't think we've ever completed land development issues
in the mornings --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we've started them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- in the three years. Sometimes we start
them, sometimes we don't. Most times we don't, and we wind up
taking a break sometimes in the middle of them, and people who have
sat here in the morning wonder why we're not working through lunch
to get these things done. They don't want to have to corne back again.
So I think -- I think we'll give it a try. And you know --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would hope that you would
reconsider it. I mean, there's no press here. Public has no idea. And
all of a sudden, barn, we're making dramatic changes to our agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This sounds like sort of payback for this
morning, the guy that got his proposal pulled off the agenda.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ifwe want -- if we want input
on changes, then we ought to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you see I don't want input.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- have the public to do it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I was being informative. I was telling
you what I was going to do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So I didn't ask for input. I merely
was telling you what I was going to do. And if it works, we'll be
happy. If it doesn't work, I'll change it, okay?
And you had a --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I was just going to say that, as you
stated, that we can set it up so -- in the afternoon, and then if we feel
that we have a lot -- a certain amount of issues or we have a heavy
Page 227
-..' _..-,. _M____..-." ~...- -._-
January 11, 2005
agenda, we can make it time certain for the afternoon.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I thought that was a great
idea.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep, that's exactly it, yep. Yes, ma'am?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: One other final comment. I know
that when audiences or people who are interested in a certain item are
asked when are they supposed to be here, they're always told nine
o'clock --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and they're sitting here and
waiting. They don't understand that, you know, different things take
different times. I think it will help people to know --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: True.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- a little bit better, and same with
staff, you know, when people are called say, sometime after one,
might be even a lot easier.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. The staff won't have to sit here all
day long hoping they corne up soon. And let's face it, if it doesn't
work, we'll change it, you know. You don't lose anything. All right?
Okay. Then we are adjourned.
***** Commissioner Henning moved, seconded by Commissioner
Halas and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and! or adopted: * * * * *
Item #16A1
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH KIT KRAFT
FOR 1.59 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER
LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT TO
Page 228
._'- . ....,.,-..,._,......"'''''---'' -".- _.. ---
January 11, 2005
EXCEED $17,900 -PARCELS LOCATED IN GOLDEN GATE
~:11
Item #16A2
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH GORDON M.
BLAKE AND KATHARINE BLAKE FOR 1.14 ACRES UNDER
THE CONSERV A TION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION
PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $13,900 - PARCELS
Item #16A3
FINAL PLAT OF "HERITAGE BAY COMMONS", APPROVAL
OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROV AL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY - AS
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-01 THRU RESOLUTION NO. 2005-11:
LIEN RESOLUTIONS FOR THE FOLLOWING CODE
ENFORCEMENT CASE NUMBERS: 2004090342/GALLOW A Y,
BARBARA, 20040 11292/JOYCE ET AL, WALLACE LANDON,
2004080049/WISNIEWSKI, LEONARD, 2003060430/P ARK EAST
DEV LTD., 2004090674/CARUANA, JAMES & RACHEL,
2004080496/BUCHMAN, W ALTER, 2004090347 /GOLDEN
FLORIDA RESORT INC., 2004090870/TA YLOR, PEGGY H.,
2004080475/LA QUINTA HOMES OF SW FL INC.,
2004080474/LA QUINTA HOMES OF SW FL INC., AND
Page 229
,._,._-,. ~"-,,,,-,-'~"~""'.- "~'-'--' --._--
January 11,2005
Item #16A5
A PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR JUNE 14, 2005 FOR
CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ORDER
FOR A DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMP ACT FOR
Item #16A6
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-12 THRU RESOLUTION NO. 2005-20:
LIEN RESOLUTIONS FOR THE FOLLOWING CODE
ENFORCEMENT CASE NUMBERS: 2004070662/JOYCE ET AL,
WALLACE LANDON, 2004050744/HOLA WAY, JO GENE,
2004070613/CA VAT AIO, SAL V A TORE, 0040607 52/HAMIL TON
BA Y DEV LLC, 2004060750/HAMIL TON BA Y DEV LLC,
2004011253/CAFFA-MOBLEY ET AL, PRISCILLA,
2004060676/MURPHY, JOHN E. 2004030534/REDDING, DA VID
Item #16A7
SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
CASE NOS.: 2004-036; BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
VS. DEL H. ACKERMAN; 1995-012; BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS VS. LOUIS FILOSTIN AND OCEPHA
POLITE; 2001-018; BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS VS.
PHILIP AND ANNA MARRONE AND 2004-021; BOARD OF
Item #16A8
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND ST.
Page 230
.~~-,_.,,- "--_'.,..--...,,,._..~..'._-, '_H'_.__" ....,.- ._,-._, ~--'",--
January 11,2005
MATTHEW'S HOUSE, INC. FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF
AN EMERGENCY RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR THE
PURPOSES OF PROVIDING INDIVIDUAL HOUSEHOLDS WITH
EMERGENCY RENTAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE PAYMENT OF
RENT, SECURITY DEPOSITS, AND UTILITY DEPOSITS - AS
Item #16A9
TERMINA TE CONTRACT # 02-3317 WITH HENDERSON,
YOUNG AND COMPANY RELATIVE TO THE EDUCATIONAL
FACILITIES IMP ACT FEE UPDATE STUDY, WAIVE THE
FORMAL COMPETITION PROCESS AND SOLICIT PROPOSALS
TO SELECT A NEW CONSULTANT TO UPDATE THE
EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE (ESTIMATED
AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $65,000) -AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16A10
SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR RESOLUTION NO'S: 03-447
AND 04-276 STYLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Item #16A11
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
CAPITAL SELF STORAGE, PHASE 1- WI RELEASE OF
Item #16A12
Page 231
-.,..-'- --- -, --,'- ~.' 9
January 11,2005
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-21: AMENDING THE COLLIER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE TO ESTABLISH
PROCEDURES FOR EXPEDITING THE DEVELOPMENT
Item #16B1
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-22: AN AMENDED INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT AND SUPPORTING RESOLUTION AS
REQUIRED FOR ADDITION OF EVERGLADES CITY TO THE
COLLIER MPO - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item # 16B2
ADOPT-A-ROAD AGREEMENTS FOR THE FOLLOWING:
JEAN-MARC KATZEFF-SOUTH BAY REALTY, GLADES
REALTY & CAPTAIN BROCK, GLOBAL TITLE COMPANY,
MARIE-ANGE KATZEFF-SOUTH BAY REALTY AND MARIE-
ANGE KATZEFF-SOUTH BAY REALTY - TOTAL COST OF
$450.00 EOR.SJX (h) NEW SIGNS
Item # 16B3
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-23: TO REDUCE THE SPEED LIMIT
ON COLLIER BOULEV ARD (CR 951) FROM 55 MILES PER
HOUR TO 45 MILES PER HOUR FOR THE SECTION FROM
DA VIS BOULEV ARD TO CEDAR HAMMOCK BOULEV ARD AT
Item # 16B4
Page 232
_."M' ,. '~""'""-""-",."'---"'--~-"-' _.-~.,,-~.._...- .--
January 11, 2005
APPROV AL OF THE USE OF TRANSIT ENHANCEMENT
FUNDS (313) TO PURCHASE A NEW TRANSIT BUS UNDER
FLORIDA PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION/
HARLINE CONTRACT 2003-07-01, TROLLEY DECAL WRAP
AND NECESSARY EQUIPMENT (IN THE ESTIMATED
AMOUNT OF $286,500) - TO EXPAND SERVICES TO A TOTAL
OE..ELEYENJillSS
Item #16B5
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-24: A LOCAL AGENCY PROGRAM
AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, WHICH AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTS UP
TO $695,200 FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF
ROADWAY LIGHTING AND REPLACEMENT OF SIDEWALKS
ON STATE ROAD 84 FROM US 41 TO AIRPORT-PULLING
ROAD BY COLLIER COUNTY, WITH REIMBURSEMENT BY
Item #16B6
BID #05-3760 "AIRPORT PULLING ROAD (COUGAR BLVD TO
V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD), ORANGE BLOSSOM (AIRPORT
PULLING TO YARBERRY LANE) ROADWAY GROUNDS
MAINTENANCE" TO COMMERCIAL LAND MAINTENANCE,
INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $65,169.70 - AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16B7
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH AP AC-SOUTHEAST, INC.
FOR INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF
Page 233
--... ~...-- "" ,,~.~ ~ ...."'-""".,,,.._- H__ ..-
January 11, 2005
$544,565.20 ON NEW MARKET ROAD AT CHARLOTTE
STREET, BID NO. 05-3742 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SllMMARY
Item #16B8
AMENDMENT NO.1 TO AGREEMENT NO. C-13925 BETWEEN
THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
(SFWMD) AND COLLIER COUNTY - EXTENDING THE
Item #16B9
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-25: REQUESTING TRANSFER OF
ACCESS ROAD R/W FROM FDOT TO COLLIER COUNTY AND
APPROVE AND ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT
IMPLEMENTING SAME - FOR THE IMMOKALEE ROAD
EROlE.CT
Item #16B10
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION TO ADVERTISE AND RECEIVE
BIDS FOR PROPOSED ROADW A Y AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS TO IMMOKALEE ROAD FROM US 41 TO 1-
75, PROJECT NO. 66042. ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT IS
$19,000,000 - FOR THE WIDENING OF IMMOKALEE ROAD
Item #16B 11
CONTRACT FOR RFP #04-3684, "V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD
EXTENSION CORRIDOR STUDY," WI CH2M HILL (PROJECT
Page 234
-- ,--,~ "'-'--~'-'._-'-"" -- -,... ---
January 11,2005
NUMBER 60168) IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $599,558 - AS
Item #16C1
BID #05-3755 TO MOTORS & BEARINGS CONCEPT, INC., FOR
THE PURCHASE OF FALK GEAR REDUCERS FOR THE
NORTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY-
OXIDATION DITCH AERATOR MOTORS AND DRIVES
REHABILITATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $29,455.50, PROJECT
725112 - TO MAINTAIN CRITICAL EQUIPMENT TO MEET
PEAK W ASTEW ATER DEMANDS AT THE NORTH COUNTY
Item # 16C2
WORK ORDER CDM-FT-05-02, UNDER CONTRACT 00-3119,
FIXED TERM PROFESSIONAL UTILITY ENGINEERING
SERVICES, WITH CAMP, DRESSER & MCKEE, INC., FOR
ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED TO ADDING TWO NEW
PUBLIC WATER SUPPL Y WELLS (WELLS 35 AND 36) TO THE
T AMIAMI WELLFIELD IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$246,058; PROJECT 70158 - TO INCREASE THE RELIABILITY
OF THE EXISTING TAMIAMI WELLFIELD AND PROVIDE
BACKUP CAPACITY
Item # 16C3
BID # 04-3716R TO HANNULA LANDSCAPING, INC. FOR
INSTALLATION OF IRRIGATION AND LANDSCAPING AT
THE SOUTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY
AND TO APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR TOTAL
Page 235
.,~_. -'..- ~~.-- I '.w. _.,.." '._q, _M___
January 11, 2005
PROJECT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $184,032.09, PROJECT
Item # 16C4
BLANKET PURCHASE ORDER WITH U.S. FILTER FOR
MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF ODOR CONTROL UNITS AT
BOTH THE NORTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION
FACILITY AND THE SOUTH COUNTY WATER
RECLAMATION FACILITY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $145,094 -
Item # 16C5
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-26: AUTHORIZING A LOAN
AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP) FOR
CONSTRUCTION COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH GOODLETTE
FRANK ROAD FORCE MAIN & RECLAIMED WATER MAIN
AND PUMP STATION 1.03 PROJECTS; ESTABLISHING
PLEDGED REVENUES; DESIGNATING AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVES; PROVIDING ASSURANCE; PROVIDING
FOR CONFLICTS, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
~ 7,h~R)
Item #16C6
SURPLUS BID #S05-3722, TO LARRY SILVER, INDUSTRIAL
BROKER, FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITY PARTS, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $1,452.05, FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY WATER
RECLAMATION FACILITY EXPANSION PROJECT, 73949 - TO
DISPOSE OF EXCESS PARTS AND MATERIALS REMAINING
Page 236
-'" -- ~. '. ~,,,,---",,,".~,,,,,~.._'. '-"'--0
January 11, 2005
AI...IHE..F ACILITY SITE
Item #16C7
SATISFACTION OF A NOTICE OF CLAIM OF LIEN FOR
SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEE. FISCAL IMPACT IS
$10.00 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN- WI HOLLIE
lliANRBR OOKS
Item #16C8
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-27: TO APPROVE THE SATISFACTION
OF LIEN FOR A SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT
WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND
SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1993 SOLID
WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS $20.00 TO RECORD THE
SAIISF A C1J.CThlOE.LIEN
Item #16C9
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-28: TO APPROVE THE
SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL
ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED
PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR
THE 1994 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. FISCAL IMPACT IS $30.00
Item # 16C10
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-29: TO APPROVE THE
SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL
Page 237
~~--< .~,~,,-. ,,,--,,'-'---"<'~ --.."'" ._~--
January 11, 2005
ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED
PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR
THE 1995 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. FISCAL IMPACT IS $40.00
Item #16C11
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-30: TO APPROVE THE
SA TISF ACTIONS 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 IMP ACT IS $30.00
Item #16D1
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-31: TO ACCEPT A DONATION IN THE
AMOUNT OF $776.84 WILLED TO THE HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT SERVICES FOR SENIORS PROGRAM AND
APPROVE THE REQUIRED BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $776.84 - FROM THE ESTATE OF JEANNE A.
.s.HINOJ '
Item #16D2
OPERATIONS PLAN FOR THE EAST NAPLES SKATE PARK,
ACCEPT DONATIONS OF MATERIAL AND LABOR FOR
IMPROVEMENTS, AND BUDGET FUNDS FOR CONTINUED
OPERATIONS - TO MAKE USE OF THE PARK IN A WAY
THAT BEST SERVES THE COMMUNITY - AS DETAILED IN
Page 238
...,.._,~ .--. ""_~,~~_",,,,'--'" ---
January 11, 2005
Item #16D3
DECLARE THE PARCELS KNOWN AS BEST FRIEND PARK
SURPLUS PROPERTY - TO DECIDE THE FUTURE USE OF THE
COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTY IN A MANNER CONSISTENT
Item #16D4
DEED OF CONSERV A TION EASEMENT TO SOUTH FLORIDA
WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FOR THE COLLIER
COUNTY NORTH NAPLES REGIONAL PARK, AT A COST NOT
TO EXCEED $175.00, PROJECT 806021 - AS DETAILED IN THE
Item # 16D5
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE AND APPROPRIATE
PRIVATE CONTRIBUTION REVENUE OF $11,000 FOR
DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES - TO PURCHASE
Item #16D6
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000 TO
COVER PRE-ACQUISITION EXPENSES RELATED TO THE
PURCHASE OF CARIBBEAN GARDENS AND ADJOINING
LANDS FROM THE FLEISCHMANN FAMILY - TO PURSUE
Page 239
-..... ^ _...~..,,~-, ,"--._- . "".,- ,..-~~,.._,,- ,-"""---,,--- ..,---
January 11, 2005
Item #16E1
BID #04-3714 TO TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL COMPANY AS
PRIMARY PROVIDER FOR ANNUAL PEST CONTROL
SERVICES - FOR COUNTY FACILITIES AT A COST OF
$27,:100.00 ANNllALJ,y
Item # 16E2
BID NO. 05-3733 HANDYMAN/MINOR CARPENTRY SERVICES
TO WM. J. V ARIAN CONSTRUCTION CO. INC., BRADANNA
INC. AND MADE IN RIO, INC. FOR ROUTINE CARPENTRY
SERVICES - FOR REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF BUILDING
SIRllCIllRFS
Item #16E3
RATIFY MODIFICATIONS TO AND DELETIONS FROM THE
2005 FISCAL YEAR PAY AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN MADE
FROM SEPTEMBER 28, 2004 THROUGH DECEMBER 17, 2004 -
Item #16E4
BID #04-3706 - "CHEMICALS FOR UTILITIES" TO VARIOUS
VENDORS IN THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF
Item # 16E5
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-32: TWO-YEAR LEASE AGREEMENT
WITH CONGRESSMAN CONNIE MACK FOR THE USE OF
Page 240
---'- ->>"- -". _"~.~.~_'"O .,...-.~...._' ~" --
January 11, 2005
COUNTY -OWNED OFFICE SPACE FOR A TOTAL OF $20.00
AND TO APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT TOTALING
$55,816.20 FOR THE RENOVATION OF OFFICE SPACE FOR
CONGRESSMAN MACK AND STATE REPRESENT A TIVES
MIKE DA VIS AND DUDLEY GOODLETTE - TWO YEAR
LEASE THAT RUNS FROM JANUARY 3, 2005 TO JANUARY 2,
2007 AT $10 ANNUALLY WI COUNTY BEING RESPONSIBLE
FOR UTILITIES AND JANITORIAL SERVICES - WITHIN THE
Item # 16E6
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ACTING IN THEIR
CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE GAC LAND TRUST,
APPROVE AND EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WHICH
PROVIDES $60,200 FROM THE GAC LAND TRUST FUND TO
THE BIG CORKSCREW ISLAND FIRE CONTROL & RESCUE
DISTRICT FOR THE PURCHASE OF V ARIOUS EQUIPMENT -
Item #16E7
REPORT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CONCERNING THE SALE AND TRANSFER OF ITEMS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE COUNTY SURPLUS AUCTION OF
DECEMBER 4,2004, RESULTING IN $8,717.50 IN GROSS
Item # 16E8
RENEWAL OF GROUP INSURANCE COVERAGE AND
SERVICES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2005 - AS DETAILED IN
Page 241
"_'O"M"_ -~."._-- -..,"< ..,_..v,..., .. ..'''""_'A_"_'',~'_~ ."~-
January 11, 2005
Item #16F1
RESCIND AWARD OF BID #04-3613 FOR PELICAN BAY-GULF
PARK AND OAKMONT IRRIGATION INST ALLA TION TO
Item # 16F2
APPROVAL OF A $57,000 INCREASE TO BID #05-3749 FOR
CLAM BA Y INTERIOR CHANNEL CONSTRUCTION PHASE III,
TO FLORAQUATICS, INC. - FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
Item # 16F3
PURCHASE OF 125 POST MARKET EVALUATION
AUTOMATED EXTERNAL DEFIBRILLATOR'S (AEDs) FOR
PLACEMENT ON COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE
(CCSO) FIRST RESPONDER PATROL UNITS. ($125,000) - TO
MAXIMIZE THE SURVIV AL RATE OF PATIENTS WHICH
FALL VICTIM TO OUT-OF-HOSPITAL SUDDEN CARDIAC
.DEAIH
Item #16F4
APPROV AL OF BUDGET AMENDMENTS - AS DETAILED IN
Item #16F5
Page 242
--,.-.-'" --~'-"","",,,,._~---- ..,--,~-_._.,..,.~, .--.-
January 11, 2005
BUDGET AMENDMENT APPROPRIATING CARRY-FORWARD
REVENUE IN THE LIVINGSTON ROAD PHASE II
BEAUTIFICATION MSTU TO FUND FINAL TRANSACTIONS
Item #16G1
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $115,000 FOR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REQUIRED FOR THE
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT (ERP) AND MASTER
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AT THE IMMOKALEE AIRPORT-
Item #1611
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR
REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 243
.' 'U"" _._~ -~,-~ ., '"..~__..................c_.,+"__.,,, ._-'".._---~-_.... _..,--~
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
January 11,2005
FOR BOARD ACTION:
A. Districts:
1. Ave Maria Stewardship Community District - Schedule of Regular
Meetings; and Budget for 2004-2005.
2. Wentworth Estates Community Development District - Registered Office
and Agent; District Map.
3. Big CyPress Stewardship District - Registered Office and Agent; District
Map; Certified Copy of Resolution 2004-9.
4. Quarrv Community Development District - Agenda and Minutes of
Meeting for August 17 and September 13,2004; Registered Office and
Agent; Schedule of Regular Meetings; and Budget for 2004-2005.
5. Mediterra South Community Development - Agenda and Minutes of
Meeting for July 28,2004; Schedule of Regular Meetings and Budget for
2004-2005.
6. Port of the Islands Community Improvement District - Agenda and
Minutes of September 24,2004 and October 15,2004; Audit Report;
Annual Financial Report; Management Letter; and Rebuttal to
Management Letter.
B. Minutes:
1. Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. - Agenda for November 16,2004,
and January 18,2005 Minutes of October 19,2004, and November 16,
2004.
2. Vanderbilt Beach M.S.T.U. Agenda for December 2,2004 and January 6,
2005, Minutes of November 4, 2004, and December 2, 2004.
3. Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee - Minutes of July 26, 2004.
4. Collier County Planning Commission - Agenda for November 18, 2004;
December 2, 2004 and December 16, 2004; Minutes of October 21 st,
2004, November 4th and November 18, 2004.
5. Coastal Advisory Committee - Minutes of November 10, 2004.
H:Data/Format
~.^"-"'-'''-~< ,----...-
"-""-,~,.. -----"'.-.....-
6. Pelican Bay Services - Agenda for December 1, 2004; Minutes of
November 3,2004; Statement of Revenues and Expenditures for
November 23,2004; Biological Monitoring Report; Water Quality
Sampling Report No.5; Clam Bay Restoration Project; and Clam Pass
Restoration and Management Plan.
7. Development Services Advisory Committee - Minutes for November 3,
2004
a) Budget & Operations Sub-Committee -Minutes of November 3,
2004, and November 10, 2004.
8. Isles of Capri Fire /Rescue District - Agenda and Minutes for August 5,
2004, August 19,2004, September 2,2004, October 7, 2004 and
November 4,2004.
9. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Meeting - Agenda for November
17, 2004, Minutes of October 20, 2004.
10. Collier County Emergency Medical Services - Minutes of October 27,
2004.
11. Environmental Advisory Council - Agenda for December 1, 2004;
Minutes of November 3, 2004.
12. Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage M.S.T.U. - Agenda and Minutes for
November 10, 2004.
13. Bayshore Beautification M.S.T.U. - Agenda for November 10,2004 and
December 8, 2004; Minutes for October 13, 2004 and November 10,2004
14. Historical and Archaeological Preservation Board - Agenda for November
17,2004, and December 15,2004; Minutes of August 18,2004, October
20,2004, and November 17,2004.
15. Domestic Animal Services Advisory Board - Minutes of October 19,
2004.
16. Lely Golf Estates Beautification M.S.T.U. - Agenda for November 18,
2004,and December 8, 2004, and December 16, 2004; Minutes of October
21, 2004, and November 18, 2004.
17. Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Board - Agenda for December 14,
2004; Minutes of November 9, 2004.
18. Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee - Agenda for
December 13,2004.
H:Data/Format
" '0_- -~"-''"'' ---
,--,,"" --
19. Immokalee Beautification M.ST.V. Advisory Committee - Notes of
November 17,2004 (No fonnal meeting due to lack of quorum).
C. Other:
1) Caribbean Gardens Blue Ribbon Committee - Minutes of November 4,2004.
H:DataIF onnat
~".'-<""""""--" "'"'--'-~' -,,-
_.,..."~,-"
January 11, 2005
Item #16J1
BUDGET AMENDMENTS APPROPRIATING CARRY
FORW ARD AND EXPENDITURE BUDGETS FOR OPEN
PURCHASE ORDERS FOR NON-PROJECT FUNDS AND FOR
UNEXPENDED BUDGET FOR PROJECT FUNDS AT THE END
OF FISCAL YEAR 2004- AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARy
Item # 16J2
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MAKE A
DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THE PURCHASES OF
GOODS AND SERVICES DOCUMENTED IN THE DETAILED
REPORT OF OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS SERVE A VALID
PUBLIC PURPOSE AND AUTHORIZE THE EXPENDITURE OF
COUNTY FUNDS TO SATISFY SAID PURCHASES - FROM
Item # 16J3
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 - FROM
Item #16K1
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE FEE
Page 244
--_.,.,--_......~-'.' ,. --.. " ,_____.__..~'m~._._". ""-.. -
January 11, 2005
SIMPLE ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 130 IN THE LAWSUIT
ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V. NORTH NAPLES FIRE
CONTROL & RESCUE DISTRICT, ET AL., CASE NO. 02-1702-
CA (GOODLETTE RD PROJECT 60134) - STAFF TO PAY THE
SUM OF $5,772.20 TO QUARLES & BRADY, LLP TRUST
Item # 16K2
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE
PERPETUAL, NON-EXCLUSIVE ROAD RIGHT -OF-WAY,
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT ACQUISITION OF
PARCEL 118 IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY
V. COLLIER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL., CASE
NO. 04-3821-CA (IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT 66042) - STAFF
TO PAY THE SUM OF $3,036 TO BOND, SCHOENECK & KING,
Item # 16K3
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE
ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 751 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. REGENT PARK CLUSTER HOMES
ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL., CASE NO. 04-3452-CA
(IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT #66042) - STAFF TO DEPOSIT
THE SUM OF $3,400.00 INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT
AND DIRECT PAYMENT OF $150 SERVICE FEE TO THE
CLERKDF COURT
Item #16K4
AGREED ORDER AWARDING APPRAISAL FEES AS TO
Page 245
-~,.,--_....-... ...... . < ..__.~- 'w...__~- _.- ----
January 11,2005
PARCELS 151 AND 152 IN THE LA WSUIT STYLED COLLIER
COUNTY V. JOHN F. SUDAL, ET AL., CASE NO. 02-5168-CA
(IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT 60018) - DIRECT STAFF TO
PAY THE SUM OF $10,000.00 TO CALHOUN, COLLISTER &
~C
Item # 16K5
MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND A STIPULATED
FINAL JUDGMENT TO BE DRAFTED INCORPORATING THE
SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THE MEDIATED
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RELATIVE TO THE
ACQUISITION OF PARCELS 183 AND 184 IN THE LA WSUIT
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. MARY LOU ADSIT, ET AL.,
CASE NO. 04-0506-CA (VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD PROJECT
63051) - STAFF TO DEPOSIT THE SUM OF $37,300.00 INTO
THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT AND DIRECT PAYMENT OF
Item #16K6
OFFER OF JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 73.032, FLA.
STAT., TO RESPONDENT, MARY LOU ADSIT, INDIVIDUALLY
AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE TRUST AGREEMENT DATED
DECEMBER 16,1999 ("RESPONDENT"), IN THE AMOUNT OF
$224,400.00, AS FULL COMPENSATION, EXCEPTING
ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS, FOR THE ACQUISITION
ARISING OUT OF THE CONDEMNATION OF PARCEL NO. 181
IN COLLIER COUNTY V. MARY LOU ADSIT, ET AL., CASE
NO. 04-506-CA - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Page 246
---.-..,~, """'0".'___'.". ._.._._____".c_._,,~"_ ..- ----~-"..._. -.-
January 11,2005
Item # 16K7
OFFER OF JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 73.032, FLA.
STAT., TO RESPONDENTS, PATRICKJ. MURPHY AND
SHAROL MURPHY ("RESPONDENT"), IN THE AMOUNT OF
$49,600.00, AS FULL COMPENSATION, EXCEPTING
ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS, FOR THE ACQUISITION
ARISING OUT OF THE CONDEMNATION OF PARCEL NO. 185
IN COLLIER COUNTY V. PATRICK J. MURPHY, ET AL., CASE
NO. 03-5270-CA. (V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD PROJECT
Item #16K8
INCREASE OF PURCHASE ORDER NO. 4500037900, TINTER &
ASSOC., INC., EXPERT WITNESSES AND CONSULTANTS FOR
THE COUNTY IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER
COUNTY V. W AL-MART STORES, INC., ET AL., (IMMOKALEE
RD. PROJECT 66042), FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
Item #16K9
FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED:
CANGER V. COLLIER COUNTY, CASE NO. 02-2300-CA-HDH -
CA. TOTAL SETTLEMENT OF $4,000 - AS DETAILED IN THE
Item #16K10
WAIVER OF THE APPLICATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1998-
498 IN CONNECTION WITH RECENT PUBLIC RECORDS
Page 247
,__.___.,_._~.,.. "..___,..w"___,._.,, >~.~'-"'-~- ..~--_.- ,.--,"-
January 11, 2005
REQUESTS RECEIVED FROM THE SHERIFF PROVIDED THAT
THE SHERIFF ALSO IMPOSES NO CHARGE WITH RESPECT
TO RECENT PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS SENT TO HIS
AGENCYRYCOUNTYS~
Item #16K11- Moved from Item #12B
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE
BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND KENCO DEVELOPMENT,
INC., PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
THROUGHITSGENERALPARTNER,SAUNDRY
ASSOCIATES, INC. IN REFERENCE TO CASE NO. 04-3094-CA
THAT IS NOW PENDING IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT FOR COLLIER COUNTY,
ELORIDA
Item # 1 7 A-Moved to 8C
Item # 1 7B
ORDINANCE NO. 2004-01: SE-04-AR-6538, A ORDINANCE
AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-33, THE COMMUNITY
SCHOOL OF NAPLES REZONE TO CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S
ERROR RESULTING FROM THE UNINTENTIONAL OMISSION
OF ZONING ATLAS MAP 9512N IN THE TITLE OF THE
ORDINANCE AND THE BODY OF THE ORDINANCE
RESUL TING IN AN INCORRECT LEGAL DESCRIPTION IN THE
ADOPTED ORDINANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON
THE WEST SIDE OF LIVINGSTON ROAD APPROXIMA TEL Y 12
MILE NORTH OF PINE RIDGE ROAD IN SECTION 12,
TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
ELORIDA
Page 248
-_.-.~-_..".~~"...,..- ~._.... .--._.. ..~.,,_.,.. ..--
January 11, 2005
Item #17C- Continued Indefinitely
CU-2003-AR-6300 FRANK L. VEASLEY REPRESENTING
BETHEL ASSEMBLY OF GOD CHURCH, INC. REQUESTS
APPROV AL OF A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE RMF-6 ZONING
DISTRICT PURSUANT TO TABLE 2 OF SECTION 2.04.03 OF
THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, TO
ALLOW FOR THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING CHURCH BY
ADDING A GYMNASIUM ON THE SUBJECT 4.79:!: ACRE SITE.
THE SUBJECT PARCEL IS LOCATED AT 1225 WEST MAIN
STREET IN IMMOKALEE, WHICH IS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
WEST MAIN STREET AND APPROXIMATELY 1,500 FEET
WEST OF S.R. 29, IN SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH,
Item #17D
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-33: A VPLAT2004-AR6852 TO
DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND
THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN A 15 FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE
EASEMENT LOCATED ON TRACT "J", ACCORDING TO THE
PLAT OF "STRATFORD PLACE", AS RECORDED IN PLAT
BOOK 40, PAGES 15 THROUGH 21, PUBLIC RECORDS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND TO ACCEPT A 15 FOOT
WIDE RELOCATION DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON A PORTION
OF SAID TRACT "J", LOCATED IN SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 49
SOll.IlL-.RANGF, 2() R AS T
*****
Page 249
,..,-~..__..'--,- ---....- -->. --'-'--' ----
January 11, 2005
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:48 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
'1uJ-W. ~
FRED COYLE, Chai n
, ,
ATTEST:' .; .:,'.>,.,,>
IF " ~ w .
DWIGHT,E~./BROQ{, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on~.oAff 8. 2tfJ/;' as
presented ~ or as corrected r .
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES, INC. BY TERRI LEWIS.
f
Page 250
---,.,.^-." .. -_.~--_..._-_.