Backup Documents 01/11/2011 Item #16I161
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
January 11, 2011
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Districts:
1) Verona Walk Community Development District:
FYI 0 -11 Regular Meeting Schedule
B. Minutes:
1) Affordable Housing Commission:
Minutes of September 13, 2010; October 11, 2010.
2) Airport Authority:
Minutes of October 11, 2010.
3) Collier County Planning Commission:
Minutes of August 25, 2010; August 27, 2010; September 16, 2010;
September 20, 2010.
4) Consumer Advisory Board:
Minutes of April 20, 2010.
5) Contractors Licensing Board:
Minutes of September 13, 2010.
6) Development Services Advisory Committee:
Minutes of September 1, 2010; October 6, 2010.
7) Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee:
Agenda of October 4, 2010.
Minutes of August 30, 2010.
8) Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board:
Agenda of September 30, 2010.
Minutes of September 30, 2010.
9) Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency:
Agenda of October 20, 2010.
Minutes of September 15, 2010.
10) Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board:
Agenda of October 20, 2010.
Minutes of September 15, 2010.
11) Land Acquisition Advisory Committee:
Minutes of October 11, 2010.
12) Library Advisory Board:
Minutes of August 18, 2010.
13) Radio Road East of Santa Barbara Blvd to Davis Blvd Advisory
Committee:
Agenda of October 6, 2010.
Minutes of August 11, 2010 Workshop; August 11, 2010;
August 16, 2010 Special Meeting.
14) Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee:
Agenda of October 14, 2010.
Minutes of May 6, 2010.
C. Other:
1) Code Enforcement Special Magistrate:
Minutes of September 3, 2010.
RECEIVED
NOV 0 3 2010
VERONA WALK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT Baard of County Commissioners
c/o Special District Services, Inc.
2501 Burns Road, Suite A 1
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410
(561) 630 -4922
Fax: (561) 630-4923
October 27, 2010
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL —
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Clerk of the Circuit Court
Dwight E. Brock
Collier County Courthouse
3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Building L, 6h Floor
Naples, Florida 34112
Re: Verona Walk Community Development District
To Whom It May Concern:
Pursuant to Florida law, enclosed please find the Fiscal Year 2010 -2011 (October 1, 2010
— September 30, 2011) Regular Meeting Schedule for the Verona Walk Community
Development District, as published in the Naples Daily News on September 16, 2010.
If you have any questions and/or comments, please do not hesitate to contact our office.
Sincerely,
SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICES, INC.
Laura J. Archer
Enclosure
Misc. Corres:
Date: 111
t
Item 4a l� ,
5 ' -:
16
VERONA WALK
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
FISCAL YEAR 2010 /2011 REGULAR MEETING SCHEDULE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of Supervisors of the Verona Walk
Community Development District will hold Regular Meetings at 10:00 a.m. in the Town
Center at Verona Walk located at 8090 Sorrento Lane, Naples, Florida 34114, on the
following date:
October 8, 2010
November 12, 2010
December 10, 2010
January 14, 2011
February 11, 2011
March 11, 2011
April 8, 2011
May 13, 2011
June 10, 2011
July 8, 2011
August 12, 2011
September 9, 2011
The purpose of the meetings is to conduct any business coming before the Board.
Meetings are open to the public and will be conducted in accordance with the provisions
of Florida law. Copies of the Agendas for any of the meetings may be obtained by
contacting the District Manager at (561) 630 -4922 and /or toll free 1- 877 - 737 -4922 five
(5) days prior to the date of the particular meeting.
From time to time one or more Supervisors may participate by telephone; therefore, at the
location of these meetings there will be a speaker telephone present so that interested
persons can attend the meetings at the above location and be fully informed of the
discussions taking place either in person or by telephone communication. Said meetings
may be continued as found necessary to a date and time certain as stated on the record.
If any person decides to appeal any decision made with respect to any matter considered
at these meetings, such person will need a record of the proceedings and such person may
need to insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made at his or her own
expense and which record includes the testimony and evidence on which the appeal is
based.
In accordance with the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, any person
requiring special accommodations or an interpreter to participate at any of these meetings
should contact the District Manager at (561) 630 -4922 and/or toll free 1- 877 - 737 -4922 at
least seven (7) days prior to the date of the particular meeting.
VERONA WALK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
PUBLISH: NAPLES DAILY NEWS 09/16/2010
161 1 6k
September
Fiala
Halas
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY C
REC &b
NOV O I Naples, Florida, September 13, 2010
eWdafGM"CWft* eA
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Affordable Housing Advisory
Committee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 P.M. in
REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3`d Floor, of the Government
Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present:
ALSO PRESENT:
CHAIRMAN: Stephen Hruby
Vice Chair: Cormac Giblin
John Cowan
Christian Davis
Christine Jones
Kenneth Kelly
Sally Masters
Bradley Schiffer
Stuart Warshauer — Alternate
(Vacancy)
(Vacancy)
Marcy Krumbine, Director, Housing, Human & Veteran Services
Frank ( "Buddy ") Ramsey, Housing Manager
Priscilla Doria, SHIP Loan Processor and Staff Liaison
Misc. Corres:
Date: 0 I l 1
Item #: 611 l
161 1 6k
September 13, 2010
1. Call to Order — Chairman:
Chairman Stephen Hruby called the meeting to order at 3:01 PM.
2. Roll Call of Committee Members:
Roll call was taken and a quorum was established.
It was noted Larry Wilcoxson resigned from the Committee.
3. Approval of Minutes —July and August 2010:
Kenneth Kelly moved to approve the Minutes from the July 12, 2010 meeting and
the August 9, 2010 meeting as presented. Second by Christian Davis. Carried
unanimously, 8 -0.
4. Approval of Agenda:
Sally Masters moved to approve the Agenda as presented. Second by Christian Davis.
Carried unanimously, 8 -0.
5. Information Items:
A. Presentation: NSP Obligation and Expenditure Update — Buddy Ramsey
• A copy of the N.SP Properties Report was distributed to the Committee members.
• The allocated Grant funding of $7.3M was successfully obligated by the
September 4, 2010 deadline
• Total of 71 properties were purchased (76 units)
• Seven properties have been sold
• Program income: Approximately $521,000
B. Presentation: Learn and Burn Project — Chief Bill Moyer, Golden Gate Fire District
(A slide show was presented to the Committee.)
• Property was located at 5418 23rd Court SW
• Excellent example of County agencies working together
• Unique training opportunity for Fire Districts — live fire
• Debris is removed and the property is left in clean condition — only
concrete pad /metal remains
• Removing copper pipes, etc., deters vandalism
• Representatives from several Fire Districts participated: City of Naples, East
Naples, Big Corkscrew, Golden Gate and North Naples (27 firefighter)
• Teams: Attack, Back -up, Rapid Intervention (extrication)
• Water — supplied by water tenders (each holds 3,000 gallons)
• Neighboring properties were protected and monitored
(Christine Jones arrived at 3:23 PM)
The vacant lot will be added to the Land Bank.
The pre -burn demolition costs were estimated at $6,200 but should be significantly less
due to the meticulous after -burn clean -up efforts of the Fire District.
161 1 Ok
September 13, 2010
C. Presentation: Green Homes by IHOPE ( "Immokalee Helping Our People in
Emergencies ") — Rick Heers, Executive Director
(A slide show was presented to the Committee.)
• Organized after Hurricane Wilma to recover housing units that were damaged or
destroyed
• Repaired nearly 500 homes in the past four+ years
• Approximately 80 mobile homes have been made available to buyers — many are
first -time homeowners
• Received two CDBG Grants to replace properties that could not be repaired
• First attempt at rehabilitation — "Staff was green"
• Have recovered/recycled doors, windows, cabinets, A/C units, counter
tops, garage doors from homes purchased by the County when Vanderbilt
Beach Road was widen and repurpose the items for use in Immokalee
homes
• Received private donations, faith -based funding, SHIP funds, funds from a
Federal Home Loan Bank in Atlanta to build seven homes
• Homes were constructed with new building materials that prevent mold and
rodents /insect infestation and are well insulated — very low FPL bills
• Estimated to withstand 140 m /p /h winds
• Homes: 2 to 3 bedrooms (700 to 1,100 square feet) — energy efficient appliances
• Staff interviews and qualifies potential home buyers
• Clients are from low and very -low income bracket and must be residing in the
home
• New homes were given "free and clear"
• Homeowners pay insurance and property taxes
Frank Ramsey noted lien are placed against the properties (mobile and stick - built) for
the amount of the grant funds received
• Homeowners must continue to occupy replacement home as their primary
residence
• Can not sell or refinance the properties
D. Subcommittee Updates
• Housing Incentives Review Subcommittee — Frank Ramsey
o Meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, 09/15, at 3:00 PM in Building "H"
• Banking /Financing Subcommittee — Marcy Krumbine
o Met on September 8`h at 9:00 AM
• Guest Speaker — Howard Nelson. Past President of the Mortgage
Bankers Association of Florida
• 14 -month inventory of re -sales
• Government- backed mortgages are preferable
• Stricter underwriting guidelines — "over kill'
• Equity is no indication of good performance — homes have gone
into foreclosures despite larger down payments
Sub -prime mortgages have higher foreclosure rates
• One more Subcommittee meeting to
• Will begin preparation of a Report t o
Commissioners
161 1 ok
September 13, 2010
be scheduled
be presented to the Board of County
It was noted Sub -prime mortgages were also made to individuals with good credit
scores ( "no income /no asset ") and lower home prices does not mean houses are
more attainable — if credit scores are bad a borrower will not obtain mort a e
financing.
E. NSP 3 — Buddy Ramsey
• On September 8`", HUD notified funding had been awarded for NSP -3
• Allocation for Collier County was $3.9M
• Nationally, Florida received the most money — $208M — of any state
• Further details, including target areas, will be released
• No obligation deadline -- spend by July 11, 2013
• Additional funds — proceeds from sales of NSP -1 homes
• Any money repaid after 2013 stays in the Community as CDBG Funds
Public Comments:
(None)
6. Review Application for Open Position/Recommendations to the BCC
• Four applications were received from existing members — renewing
o Stephen Hruby, Kenneth Kelly, Sally Masters and Stuart Warshauer
• There are three vacancies for this Committee
• Advocate for Low- income Persons
• For - Profit Provider of Affordable Housing
• Person who represents Employers
One of the three vacancies must be filled by an Immokalee resident
gg
The possibility of changing Mr. Warshauer's status ( "Alternate ") was suggested.
Frank Ramsey stated he could qualify under the category "Person who Represents
Employers." The vacancy for an Alternate would be advertised as required but is more
flexible to fill.
Bradley Schiffer moved to accept Stephen Hruby's application for re- appointment to the
Affordable Housing Advisory Committee under the category of "Residential Home and
Building" and to forward the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.
Second by Cormac Giblin. Motion carried, 8 - "Yes7] — Abstention. Mr. Hruby
abstained.
Bradley Schiffer moved to accept Kenneth Kelly's application for re- appointment to the
Affordable Housing Advisory Committee under the category of "Engaged in Labor of
Home Building" and to forward the recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners. Second by Christine Jones. Motion carried, 8 - "Yes " /1— Abstention.
Mr. Kelly abstained
161 lad
September 13, 2010
Bradley Schiffer moved to accept Sally Masters' application for re- appointment to the
Affordable Housing Advisory Committee under the category of "Residential Real Estate
Professional" and to forward the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.
Second by Kenneth Kelly. Motion carried, 8 - "Yes '1/1 — Abstention. Ms. Masters
abstained.
Bradley Schiffer moved to accept Stuart Warshauer's application for re- appointment to the
Affordable Housing Advisory Committee under the category of "Advocate for Low Income
Persons" and to forward the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.
Second by Stephen Hruby. Motion carried, 8 - "Yes"/] — Abstention. Mr. Warshauer
abstained.
Frank Ramsey will update the BCC's office and will present the recommendations to the
BCC for review and approval.
He will consult the County Attorney's Office concerning changing Mr. Warshauer's status
from "Alternate" and will advise Chairman Hruby of the result via email prior to presenting
the recommendations to the BCC.
7. Committee Member Comments
(None)
Next meeting:
• October 11, 2010 — BCC Chambers, 3:00 PM
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting adjourned at
4:05 PM by order of the Chairman.
Collier County Affordable Housing
Advisory Committee
The foregoing Minutes were approved by Board/Committee Chair on 00-Ab te- //'u2010,
as presented W , or as amended [A .
Fiala
---tJ— AA
14111 ��
Henning
Coyle
Coletta _---- ------
RECEIVED
NOV 10 2010
Board of County Commissioners
16! 1
October 11, 2010
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, October 11, 2010
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Affordable Housing Advisory
Committee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 P.M. in
REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, of the Government
Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present:
CHAIRMAN: Stephen Hruby
Vice Chair: Cormac Giblin
John Cowan
Christian Davis (Excused)
Christine Jones (Excused)
Kenneth Kelly
Sally Masters
Bradley Schiffer
Stuart Warshauer — Alternate
(Absent)
(Vacancy)
(Vacancy)
bkv,
ALSO PRESENT: Marcy Krumbine, Director, Housing, Human & Veteran Services
Frank ( "Buddy ") Ramsey, Housing Manager
Priscilla Doria, SHIP Loan Processor and Staff Liaison
Misc. Corres:
Item t
161 1 6�
October 11, 2010
1. Call to Order— Chairman:
Chairman Stephen Hruby called the meeting to order at 3:02 PM.
2. Roll Call of Committee Members:
Roll call was taken and a quorum was established.
3. Approval of Minutes — September 13, 2010:
John Cowan moved to approve the Minutes from the September 13, 2010 meeting as
submitted. Second by Cormac Giblin. Carried unanimously, 6 -0.
4. Approval of Agenda:
Change:
• The date on the Agenda was corrected to October 11, 2010
Kenneth Kelly moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Sally Masters.
Carried unanimously, 6 -0.
5. Information Items:
A. Presentation: NSP Obligation and Expenditure Update — Buddy Ramsey
• 68 properties have been acquired (October 11, 2010)
• Grant allocation of $7.3M has been deliberately over - obligated
Mr. Ramsey noted the recent news regarding foreclosure problems with banks in various
states, including Florida, and the necessity for Courts to approve foreclosure sales.
Chase and Bank of America have halted foreclosure sales due to concerns about the
affidavits that were filed. The situation may impact NSP -3 if properties are not available.
• Closed on the sale of 10 homes — two additional properties are pending
• Program income (net proceeds): approximately $730,000
• Average acquisition /rehab cost: $130,000
• NSP program may continue as long as there is a need — funds may be converted to
CDBG Funds
o To date, no official direction has come from Congress or HUD
• NSP -3: HUD has not yet released information — it is anticipated to follow NSP -2
guidelines
o Contracts are anticipated to be released in January/February, 2011
• "Short sales" are now eligible for purchase with NSP -2 funds
o The purchase of abandoned, vacant, and foreclosed properties has always
been allowed
• Recent policy guidance suggests open interpretation of "abandoned"
• Mortgage and /or property tax delinquencies justify "abandonment'
• There may be tenant protection issues
A question was asked concerning the payments to rehab vendors.
• The forms have been redesigned
• The process has been improved — percentage of approvals
161 l b�
October 11, 2010
• Vendors are being education concerning the process /completion of forms
• Work will be awarded to lowest bidder as usual, but the number of homes the bidder
will be allowed to work on at one time will be reduced
• Average turnaround time for pay request: 30 to 45 days
Marcy Krumbine stated the forms are now "auto populated" with repeat information to
eliminate errors, such as incorrect addresses or vendor numbers, that previously caused
rejections.
Mr. Ramsey stated theft has become a serious problem — houses appeared to be "watched"
because appliances disappear within days of being installed. He is investigating various
options, i.e., cages around a/c units or hiring a security firm. Lee County has experienced
similar problems.
NSP -3 may allow expenditure of funds to secure investments, but costs cannot be passed
along to the homeowner.
There was a discussion of possibility of banks withholding foreclosure properties, reversals
of foreclosure judgments, and options if a sale is declared fraudulent ( "home back "). The
issue revolves around processing and verification of signed documents, "robo- signers."
B. Subcommittee Updates
• Banking /Financing Subcommittee — Marcy Krumbine
• In "wrap up" phase
• Will compile information and draft the Report to be presented to the Board
of County Commissioners
• Final meeting will be held in November
• Draft report will be presented to AHAC in December
• Next meeting — October 19`h at 9:00 AM (Bldg. H, Room 206)
Housing Incentives Review Subcommittee — Frank Ramsey
• Met in September as scheduled
• First topic: BCC's direction to develop a mechanism to suspend and
resume the Impact Fee Deferral Program
• Recommendation: by Resolution through the County Attorney's office
• Will prepare a report for approval by the Subcommittee and presentation
to AHAC and the BCC
• Questions discussed: When will trigger resumption of the Program?
When the Program is resumed, what should be the percentage of deferral?
• Other topics discussed:
• Density Bonus — the Los Angeles model will be presented at the
next meeting.
• Developers' needs for density vs. perceptions of public and elected
officials
• Form -based zoning and social engineering
o Next meeting: October 27a' from 3:00 to 5:00 PM (Bldg. H, Rm. 302)
161 1b
October 11, 2010
C. Habitat for Humanity NSP 2 — Nick Kouloheras, Executive Vice President, Land
Development
• Habitat for Humanity in Collier County began in 1978 and is the second oldest
affiliate in the country
• From 1978 to 1993 —built 100 homes, primarily in Immokalee
• In 1993 —built first home in Naples
• Since 1993 — approximately 1200 homes have been built
• February, 2010: HUD awarded $137 +M to Habitat for Humanity International
• HFH Collier received $9 +M to purchase and rehab 100 foreclosed homes
• Targeted areas: Naples Manor, Coconut Grove, Trail Acres
• July, 2010: closed on purchase of 10 properties and 13 additional have pending
contracts
• Rehab has begun on six of the foreclosed properties
• Two approved families are fulfilling "sweat equity" requirements
• Provide new appliances, windows, doors, a/c units, plumbing, electrical
panels, and roofs
• Compliance with Code requirements
• Habitat is the bank — mortgage payments are made personally by homeowners to
Habitat's office— personal connection
• Help homeowners create budgets to prevent delinquency
o delinquency rate is under 4%
D. NSP 1— Multi- family properties: Buddy Ramsey
• Requirement: 25% of funds was to benefit persons /households earning 50% or
less of Area Median Income ( "AMI ")
• Rental was determined to be best choice
• Limited inventory of multi - family properties
• Ready to convey properties to non - profit organizations
• First RFP —six 2 -unit buildings (12 apts -located on one street)
• BCC to approve intent to sell /convey properties
• Selection Committee will review /rank applicants - capacity and experience
• Will provide funding to rehab units if necessary — other units will be rehabbed
first
• Preference will be given to Veterans and Seniors (HUD allowed)
• Properties will be conveyed with restricted covenants
• Collier County is below national average — need to increase availability of
affordable rental units
Public Comments:
(None)
6. Committee Member Comments
(None)
Next meeting: November 8, 2010 —BCC Chambers, 3:00 PM
161 161
October 11, 2010
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting adjourned at
4:05 PM by order of the Chairman.
Collier County Affordable Housing
Advisory Committe _
�l �7c�
f ,. L Q CLt ✓�-�/z
Stephen Hruby, Chairman
The foregoing Minutes were approved by Board /Committee Chair on ( Y , 2010,
as presented i�( =n��, or as amended [_] .
6
Fiala
Con ing�
Coyle
Coletta _ --^- --
ry Collier County Airport Authority
/ . Advisory Board Meeting
/ Marco Island Executive Airport
2005 Mainsail Drive, Florida .34114
October 11, 2010
Meeting Minutes
REGEIVEDV'
NOV 16 2010
Finale nr ('ynenN C.on,m55ionera
l 6 1
1. Pledge of Allegiance.
2. Call to Order. Chairman Lloyd Byerhof called the meeting to order at 1:00 PM,
3. Roll Call and Announcement of Quorum.
Advisory Board Members _Present: Lloyd Byerhof, Michael Klein, lames Murray, Byron
Meade, Frank Secrest, Dave Gardner, and Floyd Crews.
Advisory Board Members Absent Excused: Richard Rice.
Staff: Chris Curry, Debbie Brueggeman, Debi Mueller, Bob Tweedie, Thomas Verge, Jose
Santacruz.
Others Present: Please see sign in sheet attached.
Action: A quorum was announced as being present.
4. Introduction of Guests. All present introduced themselves to the Advisory Board.
5. Adoption of the Agenda.
Action: Mr. Klein made a motion to approve the agenda. Mr. Crews seconded the
motion, and it passed by unanimous vote.
6. Featured Employee.
lose Santacruz, the October Featured Employee, provided a brief overview about his
history with CCAA, his current jobs and projects he is working on.
7. Acknowledgement of Airport Information.
Items under this section of the agenda are for informational purposes. No Advisory Board
action is required.
• Florida Sunshine Law and Ethic Workshop.
A Florida Sunshine Law and Ethics workshop is scheduled for 9:00 am on October 14,
2010 to be held in the Boardroom on the third floor of the Administration Building.
The workshop will also be broadcast on Collier TV and DVDs will be made available to
board members, by request.
• FOOT Quarterly Report for quarter ended 9/30/10.
The Advisory Board was provided a copy of the quarterly report for FOOT funded
projects submitted to the FOOT.
• FAA Quarterly Report for quarter ended 9/30/10. Misc. Corres: /
The Advisory Board was provided a copy of the quarterly report for FA/afunded 0 [ t l
projects submitted to the FAA. DDBeMb
I of 3 Ibh 1: TL 2L-- -'
C:oies t0:
161 1 6
8. Approval of Minutes.
Action: Mr. Crews made a motion to approve the Minutes for the September 13, 2010
meeting. Mr. Meade seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote.
9. Director's Report.
Advisory Board action is requested on items under this section of the Agenda.
• Recommend Approval of DBE Goals: 2.8% for MKY, 2.7% for X01.
Action: Mr. Klein made a motion to recommend that the 8CC approve Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise goals of 2.8% for the Marco Island Executive Airport and
2.7% for the Everglades Airpork for fiscal year 2011. Mr. Murray seconded the
motion, and it passed by unanimous vote.
• Recommend Award of Bid No. 10 -5498 for MKY Taxiway Construction to DeAngelis
Diamond in the amount of $5,959,000.02.
Action: Mr. Meade made a motion to recommend that the BCC award the bid for the
construction of the taxiway at the Marco Island Executive Airport in the
amount of $5,959,000.02 to the lowest, qualified bidder, DeAngelis Diamond.
Mr. Klein seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote.
• Recommend that the BCC accept FDOT funding in the amount of $60,000 for security
upgrades at the Marco Island Executive Airport. No match required.
Action: Mr. Klein made a motion to recommend that the BCC accept FDOT funding in
the amount of $60,000 for security upgrades at MKY. Mr. Meade seconded the
motion, and it passed by unanimous vote.
10. Finance Report - Period ended August 31 2010.
Staff answered questions regarding the forecasting methodology for fuels sales. No
action required.
11. Old Business.
• Fuel Prices.
The Advisory Board discussed fuel prices at various airports. Mr. Curry indicated that
the Authority's pricing strategy will be presented at the November 8, 2010 Advisory
Board meeting.
Action: Mr. Crews made a motion that a fuel discount for Fetcher Flying Service be
granted retroactively. Mr. Secrest seconded the motion, and it passed by
unanimous vote. Mr. Meade abstained because of conflict of interest, and
signed Conflict of Interest Form 88. (Copy attached.)
2of3
16 1 iV
• Proposed Brewery at Immokalee Airport.
Action: Mr. Meade mode a motion to recommend that the Airport Authority suspend
negotiations and the further allocation of resources to the proposed
development of a brewery at the Immokalee Regional Airport until the
Southwest Florida Brewing Company, Inc. provides the Advisory Board and
Authority with acceptable financial records that verify that the company has
the financial wherewithal to complete the proposed project. Mr. Crews
seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote.
12. New Business.
• FAA Grant Offer for MKY Taxiway Received September 16 - $6,068,990.
A FAA grant offer in the amount of $6,068,990 for construction of a taxiway at the
Marco Island Executive Airport was received on September 16, 2010, and accepted by
the Advisory Board in time to meet the FAA deadline of September 23, 2010. No
action required.
13. Public Comments.
Mr. Marvin Courtright indicated that he would like to share land at IMM with the Parks
and Recreations department for a museum, and that he would like to reinstate a previous
lease agreement he had with the Airport Authority for commercial activities and space at
IMM. He has submitted proposals for each of these for review.
Mr. Greg Shepard stated that he desires to renew his lease agreement with the Airport
Authority that will expire the end of December 2010, and requested that this item be
included on the November 2010 Advisory Board Agenda.
14. Next Meeting.
The next Advisory Board meeting will be held on Monday, November 8, 1:00 pm, at
Everglades City Hall, 102 Broadway Street E, Everglades City, Florida.
15. Adjournment
Prior to adjourning Mr. Klein provided Mr Curry information regarding a restored WWII
era aircraft that the Airport Authority might consider featuring at a future airport event.
The meeting adjourned at 2:30 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY ADVISORY BOARD
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Lloyd A. Byerhof, Chairman
3of3
Airport Advisory Board
October 11, 2010
Public Sign -In Sheet
161
1 p-
Naipe
E-mail/ Affiliation
Phone 4
�1� =_ ✓r /C _. CCLi:�Jjt.
},� I`IjA'w //i�'v2o `7 ,0, L<. f
�) „in =, ., 4,��
lvi _t
fLljN�on? _ —_
`t?�_- Y2 /_-_,i��iZ_._
1
L
I i
161 16 -
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
LAST NAME R
FIRST NAME— MIDDLE NAME NAME OF aOARD. COUNCIL. COMMISSION- AUTHORITY. G COMMITTEE
Meade, Byron
_ Collier County Airport Authority Advisory Board
MAILING ADDRESS
1303 Curio Court
THE eOARn.COJNCIL COMMI SS I ON AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON
COUNI
Nin r, I SERVE S A JNII OF
❑CITY [I COUHEY OTHER LOCAL A6ENCY
Naples Oiler
NAMEOF PDIITICni $UEDIVI$IDN
Colh9r courtly
-
GATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED
�Ctnfil?r 11.2010
MY POSITION IS
❑
ELECTIVE r7l APPOINTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 86
i
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council.
commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non - advisory bodies who are presented with a voting
conflict of interest under Section 112 3143, Florida Statutes.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position For this reason please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before
completing the reverse side and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also Is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea-
sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the
parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained) I to the special private gain or loss of a relative, or
to the special private gain or loss of a business associate Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec 163.356 or
163.357 F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one -acre . one -vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that
capacity
For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officers father, mother son, daughter, husband, wife, brother sister. father -In -law,
mother -In -law, son -in -law. and daughter -in -law. A business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business
enterprise with the officer as a partner joint venturer coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation
are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange).
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from voting In the situations described above you must disclose the conflet
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your Interest in the measure on which you
are abstaining from voting. and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min-
utes of the meeting who should incorporate the form In the minutes
APPOINTED OFFICERS
Although you must abstain from voting In the situations described aoove, you otherwise may participate In these matters However, you
must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision . whether orally or In writing and whether made
by you or at your direction
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
TAKEN.
You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to Influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the
minutes of the meeting, who will Incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side)
161 1 bI
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency
• The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING.
• You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before particpating.
You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the
meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the
agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
Byron Meade
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
hereby disclose that on October 11 20 10
(a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one)
❑ inured to my special private gain or loss .
inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate,
Inured to the special gain or loss of my relative _
>/ inured to the special gain or loss of New York Life
whom I am retained . or
inured to the special gain or loss of
is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me
(b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting merest in the measure is as follows.
(a) Measure before agency. Agenda Item 11, Old Business - Fuel Pricing for Fletcher Flying
Service.
(b) The company I represent provides insurance for Fletcher Flying Service.
,l-.;c /,
Date Filed I
by
which
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING. IMPEACHMENT,
REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT. DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND. OR A
CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.
CE FORM 813 - EFF 112000 PAGE 2
161 1 �' �
August 25, 2010
/CCPC /EAR
TRANSCRIPT OF THE EAR MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Rft
RECEIVED Naples, Florida Halas y-
OCT 2 7 2010 August 25, 2010 Henning
Coyle V
Boardat cowrocounlu ,we Coleft -----
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County
of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in
Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members
present:
ALSO PRESENT:
Mark Strain, Chairman
Melissa Ahern
Donna Reed -Caron
Karen Homiak
Paul Midney
Bob Murray
Brad Schiffer
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Heidi Ashton- Cicko, Assistant County Attorney
Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Page 1 of 89
Misc. �o� rles.
Date: �Ib —
Item r l L
161 1 l�
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the August 25th meeting
of the Collier County Plane ng Commission. This is a workshop for the EAR, which is the Evaluation and Appraisal
Report.
With that, I'd like to ask everyone to stand for Pledge of Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It's been about two months since we met, so a little rusty here this morning.
It's going to take a while to get back in the saddle.
And I want to make sure everybody is still aware of the basic rules. And that is we talk as fast and as unclear
as we can so Cherie' can't get anything right.
(Laughter.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we will do our best.
I do miss the coffee from recording department. But -- oh, well. Somebody out there probably isn't listening.
And let's go with the roll call.
Before we do, Ms. Ebert was appointed last -- in July to start at our regular meeting in August. And we didn't
have a regular meeting in August. And at the time no one told her that we had these meetings going on, special
meetings, because they're unscheduled. So she had a commitment that she made during this period of time, and she
can't be here for these meetings this week.
So with that in mind, if the secretary -- vice - chairman would please do the roll call.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Ahem?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midnev?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Caron is here.
Mr. Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And Ms. Ilomiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's out of order, so that's probably --Ms. Caron usually sits down at the end.
* *Okay, the approval of the agenda. We have a -- I've talked with staff about how to format today's meeting,
hopefully to move us through this in an organized fashion. Mike's going to start out with chapter one in the
introduction part of it. And then I thought we'd get to chapter three and get that behind us, because it isn't a chapter
that is of elements, it's basically a chapter of issues that they've just notified DCA we're basically working on.
So I thought it would be good if he would explain those two before we get into the EAR text element by
element.
What I intend to do today is, as we go through each clement and we go through the pages like we normally
do, as members of the audience have issues, they're more than welcome to raise their hand and let us know, and they
can come up and speak. But at the end of each element, I'll certainly ask if anybody would like to speak on that
element, so you'll have at least that opportunity to come up if you don't raise your hand during the meantime.
This can be done fairly informally today. There isn't a lot of people here. So hopefully we'll move through it.
The one element that will not be heard today is the Conservation Coastal Management Element, CCME.
That element is going to take some staff involvement. Staff members that need to participate in that have not been
feeling well, they won't be here until Friday. So it will be Friday before we Can hear that element. So that certainly is
one that we won't he talking about today. And if you're here forjust that one, that will be put off till Friday morning;
at the earliest it will be 8:30.
And the other item I'd like to note is that there are certain elements that the public is more concerned about
than others. And if it's singular elements, rather than ask you to sit here while we talk about a lot of dry topics for
hours on end, we'I I try to move tholle'Ltements that you're most interested in forward in the agenda so that you're not
Page 2 of 89
161 1 p,3
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
here all day if you don't want to be.
I know that there's some people missing I heard that were going to be here. And when they show -- various
members of the audience show up, I'll ask them what their concerns are. And if we can move it up once we finish
with whatever element we're discussing at that time, we'll try to move into their element next.
And so with that in mind, after the introductions I'll ask the audience what elements you all are here for, and
we'll try to move you forward.
So Mike, let's do chapters one and three and then we'll go into the elements of the EAR.
MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chairman Strain. Good morning, Planning Commission members.
I've got a couple, about five or 10 minutes, just a little brief introduction about the entire process that I'm
going to go through. And then we'll proceed on to the chapters as the Chair has directed.
Just want to let you know, as part of the EAR process, Florida Statutes 163.3191 requires every local
jurisdiction, every county, every municipality to not only adopt a Growth Management Plan, but every seven years
you have to review that Growth Management Plan for its effectiveness.
The EAR evaluates the performance of the elements of the GMP, the successes, the shortcomings that are
contained within each one of those elements, and it provides opportunities for the local plan to respond to changes in
federal, state and regional planting issues, as well as assessing the shortcomings and the successes that have been
expressed within the elements that are contained within the Growth Management Plan.
And the EAR -- and this is a very important process, especially for the recognition before the audience as
well as the Planning Commission -- the EAR is a two -part process. The first part is where we make the assessments,
where we go through the workshops. We will have adoptions of the elements that we say that we believe there has to
be modifications or some alterations or changes or deletions or whatever the case may be.
And then after the adoption of the EAR where we recognize the changes. And then we have 18 months to
actually formulate those changes, the specificities of the words that are contained within the policies that we say need
to be addressed.
Where we're at in that process. Right now we're in the early stages of part one -- well, about mid -stage of part
one. And the specificity, as I mentioned, the specificity of the exact changes that we're going to move to isn't what
we're discussing today. Were just trying to recognize that a policy needs to be made more effective to accomplish the
individual objective and further the individual goal that's expressed within the element.
This process started last year in August of 2009. A number of the staffers were at the Regional Planning
commission -- or Council and had a presentation from Walker Banning of the DCA to describe the EAR process, the
steps, and go over in detail the areas of concern that the state has for this upcoming round of EAR's.
In September, at Community Development, now Growth Management, we held an intergovernmental
meeting and invited all the local jurisdictions, all the interesting (sic) parties to come and talk about the process and
discuss some of the issues and opportunities that we see within this process.
In December of 2009 the Board of County Commissioners entered into a letter of agreement on the eight
major issues that were contained in chapter three of the workbooks that were presented to you.
And then we had three public participation meetings: On January 25th, at the North Regional Park, February
23rd at the University of Florida Collier County Agricultural Extension Office, and then March 15th in this very
room.
At those public participation meetings we asked the public to come and throw out every issue that they felt
that was in front of this county government and things that we -- and things that we needed to tackle and the
challenges that we needed to overcome. And that's really -- that is the basis of chapter one within your book, which is
described, all of the comments that we received during those three meetings.
Between April and July is what -- is the results in chapter two of your book. April and July is when staff
went about, and in policy -by- policy analyzed each individual element to see whether those policies were effective in
terns of furthering the objectives that they're designed to promote.
In August -- or this month, the 11 th of this month we had our workshop with the EAC. As we go through a
number -- and the EAC reviewed the COME Element, the Future Land Use Element, the Drainage Element and the
Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Element.
And those four elements, the policies that were discussed by the EAC, we didn't have enough time to
incorporate those within to the books that you were provided. But the staff members will indicate which policies that
Page 3 of 89
161 10
August 25, 20FO
C'CPC /EAR
were discussed when we go through those individual elements that were a topic of discussion by the EAC and what
the purview of the EAC was regarding those individuals policies.
From these workshops we will send this book with the areas that were discussed by the EAC and the areas
that will be discussed over today and on Friday by the Planning Commission, and we will let the -- and we will send
them to the Department of Community Affairs and the state reviewing agencies for their -- for their review. And it's a
courtesy review to ensure that we are on the path that those regulatory agencies would like to see us in terms of our
EAR review.
We'll get some comments back from that. We have a November 3rd and a fallback November I Oth dates for
the EAC for their adoption hearings. On December 7th and 8th we have scheduled two days for the CCPC adoption
hearings.
And one of the things 1 wanted to point out, the books that you see here, the workshop books, contain a
tremendous amount of detail. The detail that's going to be -- the detail that's going to be provided to the EAC and to
the Planning Commission at the adoption won't be this level of detail. What will be provided in those adoption books
will only be the policies and objectives that are being suggested to change.
We will utilize -- we'll utilize the workbook editions as the basis for how we arrived upon some -- if someone
wants to look and say how did we get to these changes, they can look at the book that has the discussions of the
Planning Commission, the EAC and staffs assessment of the individual policies to be able to make a much better
determination to how we got to where we're at within the adoption book.
The Board of County Cortunissioners on July -- or January 31 st is scheduled for an adoption hearing for the
EAR. And then 18 months after that, or 18 months after the 60 -day review period from DCA, we will have to initiate
the GMP amendment process that will be based off of all the recommended changes that are contained within the
FAR.
Just to kind of describe how the GMP works. 1 he GMP is comprised of individual elements, you know,
transportation, capital improvement, future land use, et cetera, a number of individual elements with a diverse number
of subject matters that are covered by them. The goals are the largest in the macro -- are the macro issues that those
elements would like to try to accomplish.
Those goals are supported by objectives. Those objectives are the marching orders that help support the goals.
And those individual objectives are furthered by specific policies. And those policies further the objectives which
build upon the goals which compromise (sic) the elements.
That structural design dictated staffs review of each element.
The conclusion of staffs work was the GMP is working as it's designed. There aren't major holes or gaps in
staffs purview within our regulatory fabric for our GMP. But there are areas where we can improve upon. And this
structured review in this EAR process is designed to identify those areas that we can improve upon.
You know, how do we formulaic this conclusion other than just our individual review of the policies? And it
was contained within the introduction section. You know, it's -- the work and the effort and the energy that this
county has placed within long -range planning efforts, such as the Ilorizon Study, such as the development of the
Interactive Growth Model, the development and the formulation now of the Master Mobility Plan, the 10 -year Water
Supply Plan that we recently adopted, those are all designed to bring the future, you know, into a little bit better of a
focus.
When -- as the project manager for the second phase of the I lorizon Study, I always like to tell the public
what we're doing is kind of like a sailor on a boat with a telescope. You've got the telescope and you look at it. And
you first look out into the horizon, and it's a little -- it's fuzzy, it's unclear, so you have to make adjustments.
And each planning study and each effort that we've undertaken as a county is trying to bring a little bit more
clarity towards what that future is going to be so we can take the necessary steps to ensure that we can provide for the
support and the requirements that are demanded by that individual future that we see.
And think about it, think about the major changes to our Growth Management Plan. I mean, the major
changes, not the small -scale amendments, not the individual amendment process, but the major changes that have
been made to our Growth Management Plan over this past decade. 'the Rural Land Stewardship Area, the Rural
Fringe Mixed Use District. Just recently -- I know we're not there yet, but we're partly there with the Inumokalee Area
Master Plan. All of those plans have been strongly base) upon the principles of sustainabi lily, you know, mixing of
land uses, the preservation of open space, tarmland, critical environmental area protections, providing opportunities
Pagc 4 of 89
161 10
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
for transit choices, providing opportunities within housing choices, creating ranges of housing opportunities and
choices, creating walkable neighborhoods. Those are the type of things that we've tried to promote over the last
decade within our Growth Management Plan, within our major changes within those.
The review of the AUIR and the CIE which will be before the Planning Commission next month on the 201h,
if you look at the levels of service standards that we've determined that are appropriate for this county, we're
maintaining those levels of service standards. And what we do, and what we do better than any other county that I
know of, because an'07 level of service study that we presented to this -- to the Planning Commission and then the
Board of County Commissioners, there's no other county that talks about the levels of service, that talks about the
appropriate levels of service, that talks about what we deem as important and what we want to work and strive to than
Collier County. And we are meeting those requirements, and we're continuing to evaluate whether those
requirements are appropriate based upon our population, and based upon the trends that we are expecting over the
next 10 to 15 years.
Also, the role of the Growth Management Plan to the Land Development Code. It's important to understand
that as well. The GMP objectives and policy (sic) that are expressed within each element, it's the basis for our land
development code, for our LDR's, it has to find a basis, a rational nexus to our Growth Management Plan.
So as we're reviewing and as we're going through the policies, you can see the natural extension of how this
policy is related to a specific regulation that we have within the LDC.
And the GMP also provides the framework not only for the individual land uses and how they're assembled,
but it's much far reaching in its influence. You know, the GMP dictates the measures for protection for our wellfields
and for our water supply, how stomnwater management's coordinated, how services are to be delivered, and to what
standards the community desires those services. From law enforcement to libraries to public utilities, transit, they're
all contained within our Growth Management Plan. Economic development, emergency management, housing,
recreation, conservation, environmental protection, those are all addressed within individual elements within our
GMP.
And you can even think about the Growth Management Plan as a connector or a hub for all those individual
disciplines, you know. All those areas mentioned, they're addressed by the GMP. And as the GMP has evolved, as
we have grown, the interrelationships between those elements are what we've tried to strengthen. Because that's
ultimately what the most effective planning is, is when you take the information from your water management
strategies and your water management plans, you coordinate that with your transportation plan, you coordinate that
with your future land use element. And when they have a bearing upon each other and they work with each other in
concert, the ultimate goal is a better regulatory future for how land is going to be assembled into the future.
And you can't separate the levels of service standards contained within the CIE and their influence upon the
individual elements. The standards that we construct our infrastructure has a direct bearing upon the Economic
Element and the competitive advantage that Collier County has related to its other -- to other locations in South
Florida and in the country.
And that element has a bearing upon the housing and the types of housing that's provided for, which is
directly related to the type of transportation systems that we have to construct to provide service to those individual
housings and the choices of housing, which has a direct influence upon climate change and the amount of greenhouse
gas that we emit as a county. Those are all connected.
And that is one of the areas, as you'll notice within the EAR workbook, is one of the stress that we heard from
the region and from the state is energy efficiency, greenhouse gas reductions is something that they want to see each
locality take a stronger role.
And one of the things you'll notice within the EAR report is our GMP was well ahead of the curve. Our GMP
has been addressing these issues for a long time before the state has said it's time to start paying attention to them.
This county has been paying attention to them.
And that leads us back to the analysis and the specific goals of what we're trying to do today. To borrow a
phrase from the GMP, we're seeking concurrency. We're seeking concurrency from the Planning Commission that
you review the staff analysis and provide direction in the areas that we have designated for changes, areas that maybe
we haven't taken far enough or maybe areas we've taken too far and we should pull back upon.
You, as the LPA, as the recognized land planning agency for this county, your direction will -- shapes the
final document that's going to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners beyond any other advisory board.
Page 5 of 89
161 lb�
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, much to the detriment of Cherie', you've hardly taken a breath during
that entire presentation. She's struggling to keep up with you, so you might want to go a little bit slower pace, Mike.
Thank you.
MR. BOSE I'm sorry. And I'm almost done. So I'll elongate the ending.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Cherie', 1 happen to have a cup of coffee now too, so --
MR. BOSI: And a point again to remember, we're still in the first part of the stage of the process. And, you
know, as I mentioned, this is a two -part process, and this workshop is that opportunity to address the specifics, the
details.
And it does, and if you think about this process, think about how elongated it is. The number -- we're going
to spend two and a half to three years within this FAR process, from the workshop to when we adopt the Growth
Management Plan amendments. And those opportunities for public involvement, for individuals to voice their
concerns will be presented on numerous occasion, not just within this workshop, not just within the adoption process,
but following that the transmittal of the EAR -based amendments and then the adoption of the EAR -based
amendments.
So there are avenues that are being provided for the public to provide their perspective to the entire process.
As I mentioned, the FAR books that will be adopted won't contain the level of specificity, just the areas that
we will be proposing for change, as well as the major issues that were agreed upon.
Cautionary note related to our August 1 Ith EAC meeting. At some time we may find ourselves at a level of
specificity that maybe is not appropriate for a GMP policy discussion. It ultimately can lead you there, to the -- and a
good example is water quality.
One of the main issues with the EAC was water quality and insuring saltwater intrusion within our water
supply. Well, we got to a discussion level of location for where the individual test sites are, the frequency and the
mannerism that we go about testing.
Well, that's an appropriate discussion at maybe at the LDC level or the actual programmatic provision for that
activity, but not -- we really don't want that type of specificity within our Growth Management Plan. And that's one
of the things that we do ask the Planning Connnission to look, look at the specificity that's contained within a number
of these policies, and if you believe we've gone too far with that, that we make the necessary adjustment.
Which finally leads us to how we move forward. And 1 think the Planning Conur ission, the page -by -page
analysis -- and I will try to put the current pages on the visualizer for the audience, as well as 1 provided four public
review copies that are back where the press desk is. If anyone at any period of time would like to pickup the book
and see where we're at in relationship, those four are out there and available.
With that, that's the conclusion of my overview introduction. And it's a summary of chapter one for the most
part. I'm not sure -- there's no other specific comments 1 have related to the first chapter of the book, the introduction,
the public participation continents, other than if you'll notice, during the -- or on the public participation section, we
didn't try to filter the comments, we took those comments as verbatim as we understood them at those individual
meetings. We tried to allocate whether it was an issue that directly relates to a policy, whether it was an issue that was
a personal observation from the individual who was providing the comment, or whether it was really a pragmatic
issue, mearting how we deliver service. And those -- that's how they were grouped. We didn't try to provide a general
summary or an overtone towards what the general public was saying.
And with that, 1 guess 1 would open myself to any questions that you would have on the introduction section
or chapter one before we have a discussion on chapter three.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mike. One thing I thought I mentioned to the members of the Planning
Commission, since we know we're going to be here for two days, both today and Friday, at some point we can decide
that we've done enough for today to balance it out to Friday. So we may not need to put in 10 hours today, five or six
hours may suffice, since we're going to be here Friday anyway.
With that in tnind, as we move through the pages we'll kind of keep track of the time.
One item 1 thought we'd do is start with up to chapter two, but through chapter one, and just go through the
tabs and the pages. Now, this is general introduction information, but 1 want to make sure that everybody on the
Planning Commission gets an opportunity to ask any questions about the introduction or the concept before we go too
far.
And with that in mind, the first four pages of our book are Mike's cover letter with basically some maps and
Page 6 of 89
161 1 b9)
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
introduction.
Does anybody have any questions on those pages'?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, when we finish the chapter one and chapter three discussion, I'll then
ask the audience what you all are here for individually, and we'll tabulate who's here for the most and we'll start taking
those elements in order of the attendance of the audience so you don't have to sit through the first couple chapters or
sections like this.
The next item is the table of contents. I can't imagine there would be any questions on that.
And then we have the EAR introduction page. Does anybody have any issues on that tab?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mike, just for clarification, in the introduction stage you referenced the
extensive two -year review of the RLSA overlay will form the basis for the EAR review and analysis of the overlay.
This is on Page 9, second paragraph from the bottom.
Can you explain how the RLSA changes that we had in that two -year review are being processed? Because
they're not really part of this, but they're a separate transmittal; is that correct?
MR. BOSI: Well, they're separate. The assessments that were derived over that two -year period from staffs
perspective, we could not have done the level of detail and specificity of a review that was performed by the EAC and
the Planning Commission related to those individual amendments.
Those amendments have not been initiated for the amendment cycle. One of the things that we recognize is
the development right now between U.S. Fish & Wildlife, some of the NGO's and the large property owners in the
eastern Collier area, is the development of the Habitat Conservation Plan. The development of the habitat
conservation plan is really going to be that road map that the feds are going to put forward for the RLSA as to how it
moves forward.
We believe there may be some influence that will be shed on those discussed and proposed amendments that
will come from that Habitat Conservation Plan.
We are not actively scheduling those amendments right now. The timing of when those are going to be
initiated are going to be coordinated to be able to coincide with close to the conclusion of the Habitat Conservation
Plan. But they will not -- it's not anticipated that those individual amendments are going to be part of the EAR -based
amendments that we're going to start next April and May, but they will be running on a separate track. Because the
level of specificity and the ability I think of that issue to dominate the entire EAR process, it's staffs perspective that
we need to run those on a separate transmittal track when it's deemed appropriate to move forward with those.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 11, you discussed -- started discussing the floodplain watershed
management plans. And I know those are going to be further discussed in detail when we get into the element. But
since you introduced it in the introduction, from a time perspective when do you see those watershed plans being
completed?
MR. BOSI: As we've discussed, Mac Hatcher, who is the project manager, wanted to be able to -- wanted to
utilize this EAR workshop as an opportunity to provide you an oversight of the water management planning effort to
give you the schedule and where it's at and where it's going in terms of the timing.
We weren't sure when was the most appropriate, whether it was going to be during the drainage, whether it
was going to be during the CCME, or if it's during this introduction, the preference of the Planning Commission
towards when you would like to hear that update from Mr. Hatcher.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would prefer we waited till we got into the elements that pertained to it more, as
long as the Planning Commission doesn't object.
So I j ust wanted to -- and you and I did talk about a lot of issues, and I'm going to keep bringing those up
again today, even though you spoke to me about them, only because I want to make sure the Planning Commission
and the public have the benefit of what we discussed.
On Page 13 you talk about the Master Mobility Plan. And that's the only reference I can recall seeing of it.
Are we going to be able to have some discussion of that Master Mobility Plan during the presentation process of the --
say the transportation element or something like that?
MR. BOSI: I mean, the discussion points can probably be of, you know, where that project is at in terms of
activities that have happened to date, where they're at within the schedule.
Page 7 of 89
161 10
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
I'm not sure if there's -- if the transportation is ready to discuss some of the details and whether there are
specific findings yet that have been arrived upon that are ready for that type of public vetting. But I'm sure between
Mr. Podezerwinsky and Mr. Casalanguida that they can give you at least the status update as to where we're at within
the Master Mobility Plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, since it was introduced in this discussion, I certainly think it's appropriate we
get kind of a reading on where we're at.
And also -- and part of that is for one of the other purposes I mentioned to you, that I notice in all the chapters
we have bits and pieces about saving greenhouse gases-, we have savings on energy, we have bike paths, we have
pathways, we have the Master Mobility Plan, we have the transit. We have a lot of issues related to mobility.
And at some point during file discussion over the next two days, I would like to conclude our meeting by
having a general discussion with the Platming Commission on the idea of introducing a new element to our Growth
Management Plan that is talked about in the Florida statutes somewhat. And that's a mass transit element.
But I'm suggesting we look at it a step further. I like an alternative modes -- alternative mobility element
where we can consolidate all the issues that we're trying to bring into play for countywide mobility. That includes the
planning of the mobility plan, pathways, any alternative means of transportation. And look to an element to set
benchmarks. And through that benchmark process take a look at it on a regular basis like we do the GMP to see what
our progress is.
A lot of times the government, i f you don't have a way to show that you've measured something against your
progress, you don't make progress.
So anyway, towards the end of the day it's something I would like us to consider. And I know you and I
talked about it, and you seemed to think it was a positive idea, one that I think even staff had surfaced a time or two
before. So as we get into it, we'll have further discussions on that.
Yes, Mr. Murray?
MS. MURRAY: 1 just need to have a question answered. On that same page, on 13, Roman 13, under
number four, building energy retrofits. Do I take that to mean conversion of engines to biofuel and so forth?
I'd like to understand what that really is, building energy retrofits.
MR. BOSE Well, I think that is -- that could be part of it. [ think also, you know, the utilization of solar
energy as a portion, as a contributor to the electrical demands of an individual building or buildings is also a potential
application of what that could possibly mean. I think it probably has --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I was using it as a verb. You're using it as a noun, building. Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and the last tab on this particular section of chapter one is the public
participation tab. And that takes us up to the beginning of the tab for chapter two.
Does anybody have any comments or questions concerning the public participation tab?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, Ijust have one. Somebody went through and labeled what they thought the
public's comments were related to in regards to their effectiveness. I think the word programmatic was used and
observational was used. And sometimes there was a definitive reference to a policy and a specific element in
response to what the member of the public may have said at one of those prior meetings.
What was your basis for saying observational? I know we've talked about it, but Ijust as soon you make sure
everybody's aware of it.
MR. BOSC I did that. I did that. I went through each one of the public comments and I tried to find each
individual comment. I would try to find the appropriate element that it was related to, whether it was a transportation
issue, whether it was a land use planning issue, whether, you know, for future land use element, whether it was a
drainage issue, and see if there was a direct bearing upon an individual policy or an objective.
If I wasn't able to do that I tried to classify it more as this was an observation the person was making, whether
it maybe was -- maybe it was based on tact, maybe it wasn't based on fact, but it was an observation that they felt they
wanted to put forward.
And the other portion, the pragmatic was how we deliver those services. As I mentioned within the opening
introduction, how we deliver services is not something that we want to try to contain within our Growth Management
Plan. And therefore a lot of these issues where they have relevance, they have relevance to concern and how we're
providing these individual services, but that doesn't -- and isn't -- that issue isn't housed within the actual Growth
Page 8 of 89
h�
16Aulust 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
Management Plan, and that's how those labels were derived upon.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because a lot of the comments from the public were more political in nature, and it
seems like all those got the label observational. And the ones that weren't so political in nature were labeled
programmatic. And I'm not sure that's the appropriate way to write off someone's comment.
Ijust thought it was -- I couldn't figure out how the observational got in there. They're all related to the GMP.
And under transportation, for example, it says public safety in the Estates has been ignored. And it's labeled
observational. The second bullet says paving not followed through on local roads. That's considered programmatic.
Paving is an operational function, basically staff has to go out and align the funds for it, but so is public safety. So I'm
wondering why one would be more observational than the other.
MR. BOSI: I'm not sure how the statement that public safety has been ignored in the Estates, I'm not sure
how that conclusion was drawn. I don't know. I don't know if that indeed is a factual statement. I don't know. I don't
live in the Estates. I haven't heard a lot of issues we had related to safety in the Estates.
And I wanted to put these issues out there, you know, for the advisory board, for the Board of County
Commissioners to see what the public was saying to us. But I didn't know how to treat public safety has been ignored
through a specific policy application or an objective. Or maybe it could be programmatic in the number of patrols
that are implemented from our Sheriffs Department, but I didn't have that level of understanding to be able to draw
that conclusion. And that's why it was strictly observational.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not taking a position on whether these are light or wrong, I'm just trying to
understand. And the reason that one -- that just happened to be the first example I looked at. There are multiple
references in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan to public safety issues. And that may have been a response to that
public input, in lieu of just saying it's observational.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Returning to Roman 15, where it talks under the Master Mobility Plan, just a
question having to do with physical fitness and health. And how is that envisioned as an objective? How would that
be carried out by the county or individuals or some -- I'm assuming.
MR. BOSI: Physical fitness and health? I think there's a pretty strong, growing, overwhelming conclusion
that our land use policies in the assembly of how our land uses interact have had a detrimental effect upon the
physical fitness of the residents of the people who live within a built environment.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could you give an example?
MR. BOSI: If you live within a gated community and you've got to go to the -- you need to go to a grocery
store or you need to go to your -- you need to run an errand, for the most part a large number of our residents are
placed a considerable distance away from those goods and services that are required. The only option that they have
available to them is to drive to those services. There's not an option for them to walk. There's not an option for them
to bike. They have to drive. That's directly related to the physical health and physical components of the individual.
Our land use policies, and our land use assembly is dictating a limitation, only one choice to get around for
mobility. And those choices of mobility have a direct bearing and manifestation upon our activity levels.
Those type of connections are starting to be recognized more and more by individual health departments.
And I think you'll hear an individual from the Collier Health Department who wants to speakjust to that issue. I think
that they've spoken to you in terms of -- before as a body.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I remember the smart growth questions -- but I guess it's also possible
that the same individual you're referring to might just as well have come from an hour workout in their gym in their
gated community and are keeping their physical fitness.
My concern there is how far we intrude upon personal life, okay, not that government shouldn't be helpful,
but that's a question I'll be posing.
MR. BOSI: And I understand. And it comes down to choice. And we have --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, not if government requires it, choice is then therefore limited.
MR. BOSI: But if you're living in an individual location that you don't have a choice to be able to ride your
bike or walk to get some of your daily needs met, I don't know if we're providing -- are we not subjecting them to the
choice that we've decided upon for them?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's a good question.
MR. BOSI: There's no right answer on that.
Page 9 of 89
161 10
August 25, 2010
CCPC/EAR
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we have gone through the tabs for the introduction part. And before 1 go into
the next set of tabs, as I said, 1 was going to ask the public for any comments on the introduction pan.
And Nancy, come on up.
MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, Florida Wildlife Federation.
And it actually is a question of clarification maybe on the public participation. And it revolved around or as
it's presented here on the eight major issues.
And I don't recall the opportunity for the public, and maybe I was preoccupied, to comment and help direct
and develop that list of eight major issues. Certainly we think they are lacking in some major areas that should be
addressed. And are we going to have that opportunity today to, or this week, revisit that, or was that done internally
and we just have to live with it?
MR. BOSI: That was an agreement that was made by this county and the Department of Community Affairs
to start the process. And those are the major issues that were agreed upon by those two bodies.
The opportunities at the workshops, the LAC workshops, the Planning Commission workshops, the adoption
hearing by the LAC, the adoption hearing by the CC'PC, the adoption hearing from the Board of County
Commissioners are all -- and then the subsequent GMP amendments that follow those, those are all opportunities for
other issues to be addressed in great speci flcity and length.
So the major issue agreement portion is between the two entities of Collier County and the Department of
Community Affairs and it does not limit by any means the issues that were discussed during this workshop or going
forward within the EAR process.
MS. PAYTON: I understand that, that we can bring up basically whatever issue we want, but this process
already has been cast into those eight major issues, and the public didn't have the opportunity to say those are our
issues, and yes, that was -- the process has already been sort of outlined before the public participation process began.
So that's what I want the Federation's comments to reflect is that for public participation, the public did not
have the opportunity to participate in the development of those eight major issues. And there are other issues and
expansion of these issues that really should need to be addressed.
And I think you're telling me that we can bring up other issues, but those eight major issues are really cast in
stone.
MR. BOSI: If you look at the focus of this FAR workbook, it's not the major issues that's the focus, it's the
individual elements of the policies, the do. It's the do. It's what makes up our GMP that is our focus.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Nancy--
MS. PAYTON: I disagree with you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There may be a more direct answer because, Mike, if you recall when we met on the
second page of your introduction letter, I circled and asked you, it says chapter three evaluates the eight major issues
as agreed upon between Collier County and the Florida Deparnnent of Community Affairs. And my specific question
was who within Collier County were the specific people that made that agreement.
Can you answer that for me?
MR. BOSE Yeah, the Board of County Commissioners, at an advertised public hearing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I asked the same question, Nancy. I was surprised that the eight — 1 wouldn't have
picked the eight. But that's how it happened. So I guess that's a more direct answer.
MS. PAYTON: Just reflect in the record that the public really didn't have an appropriate opportunity to help
determine those eight major issues. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Any other comments by the public?
Yes, sir, come on up and —
MR. ROSENBERG: My name is Morton Rosenberg. I'm a retired citizen of Collier County. And I just want
to say, first of all, Chairman Strain, I was so happy to hear you say that you would like to introduce a mass transit
element and to consider alternative modes of transportation. I say that as a person who does not own a car and who
came here by bus today. 1 use the Collier area transit regularly and walk.
And I just wanted to mention first of all regarding transportation, there's a fascinating article that 1 read in the
American Conservative magazine about public transportation. They talk specifically about rail transportation, but
Page 10 of 89
161 103
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
applies to us, to bus transportation too. And I'll readjust two sentences from there, please.
The first conservative political virtue is prudence. Prudence suggests the first goal of a conservative
transportation policy would be to provide options; that is, ways to get around without a car. Just as you mentioned,
Chairman Strain.
I have the article here. I would be happy to leave it with the members of the Planning Commission. And I
think you'll enjoy it. Whether you agree with it or not, I think you'll enjoy it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you were to leave that, we would make copies. That would be helpful. Thank
you.
MR. ROSENBERG: Okay, great. Should I leave it --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Leave it with Mike, and he can get the copies made during a break or have someone
make them and then we can distribute them here.
MR. ROSENBERG: Excellent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. ROSENBERG: And also, regarding land use, there was something here that also appeared in a monthly
magazine called Natural Awakenings. The headline is sustainable communities in the works. And it talks about a
planned town of Bella Vita, which would be in northeast Collier County on -- where is it -- DeSoto Boulevard and Oil
Well Road. They plan to have 1,500 residences. They plan it to be an ecological community. And they also plan to
have bicycles used within the community, and their own bus service, so they say.
But what's interesting is if you want to talk about mixed use residences, they say that they plan 1,500
residences that would include homes, duplexes, quadruplexes, condos, and rental apartments. Something for
everyone. Something for every budget.
And that location of Bella Vita is going to be, according to today's plans, on the border of the new town of
Big Cypress, which also bills itself as an ecological community, whenever it gets built, as soon as they straighten out
the issue of the panther habitat.
My practical suggestion is that the planning staff work with these two communities and encourage them to
initiate, for example, bicycle trails linking the two communities.
They are also bordering on the town of Ave Maria. And it makes sense to me to have those three
communities linked, and it's easy to do. I don't think there would be any big budget outlay, if you're talking about
bicycle trails or golf cart trails. And what I'm suggesting is being proactive and making these communities an
example for the entire county, the entire state, maybe the entire nation. And I'm just suggesting that the Planning
Commission be proactive, take a took ahead and see, take a look at the opportunities that are possible with these new
communities that are planned.
And also, I am glad to hear -- I was glad to read in House Bill 697 that it advocates a significant bicycle and
pedestrian ways and compact walkable neighbors. And I hope that the Planning Commission will move us closer to
that because I think that among the public there is, I'm not going to say huge, number of people who are interested in
that kind of community, but there are. They exist. And I think their numbers will be growing over the years. So I
thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Appreciate it and thank you for the literature.
Anybody else from the public like to speak on the introduction part of this before we get into chapter three?
Okay, yes, ma'am, come on up.
MS. REVAY: Good morning. Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Stacy Revay, I'm from the
Collier County Health Department. And I'm speaking on behalf of our director, Doctor Colter today. So I'm just
going to read this.
She wrote, the alarming statistics that nearly 60 percent of adults and 12.5 percent of high school students in
Collier County are overweight or obese is of grave public health concern.
The Collier County Health Department has a vested interest in the health and safety of our community.
Through the Smart Growth Coalition, we are working to improve the health of our community by addressing issues
related to health in the built environment.
The inextricable link between infrastructure design, transportation and health is driving the Smart Growth
Coalition to develop relationships with the transportation and comprehensive planning department to decrease the
obesity and inactivity epidemics currently plaguing Collier County and the United States.
Page 11 of 89
16 I 1 o�
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
Access to healthy foods and multi -modal transportation choices are recommended by the Center of Disease
Control, CDC, to be implemented in designing future communities. Land use patterns and transportation impacts
health directly. It affects air quality, injury risk, physical activity levels and access to necessities such as health food
options and health care.
All too often the broad smart growth objectives in our general Comprehensive Plan lack the detail that is
needed to guide actual development and are not translated into the zoning code.
Did you get that?
So I'm speaking on behalf of the director today, but I might make some comments throughout the process a
little bit later. So thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Mike, 1 think that is it for the introduction part of it. Want to move into -- walk us through chapter three to
whatever extent you feel is necessary.
MR. BOSE In chapter three were the major issues that were arrived upon by the Board of County
Commissioners and the Department of Community Affairs. Those issues are water resource protection, the Rural
Fringe Mixed Use district, Rural Land Stewardship Area, climate change and energy efficiency, affordable housing,
concurrency management, urban development patterns and intergoverrunental coordination.
Each one of those issues has a write -up trying to frame the issue in terms of how it relates to our Growth
Management Plan and the policies that are affected by those individual issues.
Really, 1 don't have a presentation related to or an overview related to each one ofthose issues, but however
the questions -- however the Planning Commission would like to proceed, we definitely will be --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, there are eight tabs. The issues are not elements of the GMP, they'rejust
general issues that the Board of County Commissioners agreed were important for Collier County. So we'll take each
tab, and I'll ask the commission if there's any questions of anybody on each particular tab and then we'll go into the
elements after that.
First one is the water resource protection. Anybody have any questions on that outside the questions that
would be in the element phase of our discussion today?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike?
MR. BOSE And again, I would just like to point out, when we get into the potable water issue and drainage,
saltwater intrusion into our potable water supply is one of the major concerns that was expressed by the EAC, and it's
basically related to water resource protection, and the specifies in the individual policies will be addressed during
those issues. But just wanted to let you know that that was one of the overriding concerns that were expressed from
the LAC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other major element is the Rural Fringe Mixed Use district. There's a
discussion, several pages on that issue.
Any questions from the -- comments from the Planning Commission?
Mike, only one. Like the Golden (late Area Master Plan, the Rural Fringe Mixed Use district is somewhat
stale. There's some questions from the public regarding the possibility of resurrecting and revisiting both the Rural
Fringe Mixed Use district as one possible restudy and the Golden Gate Area Master Plan as another.
I didn't see a reference to the potential of a restudy suggestion, and I'm not suggesting a time frame, because
we know what the budget constraints of Collier County are. But I think it would be helpful under both the Rural
Fringe Mixed Use district where appropriate to suggest that a restudy of this land use area would be appropriate
timing wise.
MR BOSI: And on Page 9 of that major issue, the last sentence, it says reasons behind the perception. It's
talking about all the comments that we've received. Because there have been a number of divergent comments that
haven't been in agreement. But there are individual issues that have been brought. Based upon the scattering of
perspective and interest related to this individual, it says the reason behind the perceptions can be explained by a
number of micro, macro conditions, it's talking about the success of the program.
But regardless of the reasons, staff believes that the public review process of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use
district should be conducted prior to the -- before the next year. Meaning that we're in agreement with you, Chairman,
that there needs to be a public planning process where we're trying to bring the stakeholders and bring all the
Page 12 ol' 89
161 1 b3,
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
divergent interests together through that program, review of the program to see what changes could improve the
program and the viability of the program.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you refer to a public review process, do you mean more than the process that
presented these eight criteria to us as part of this EAR?
I mean, because that process wasn't as open, maybe, or as knowledgeable in regards to the public being
involved as a restudy committee is. Are you referring to a more focused process?
MR. BOSI: As you remember, the five -year review of the LSA, and not trying to say that we're going to
program 33 individual meetings for the Rural Fringe Mixed Use district. But that same structural review of the
regulations with all the -- with invitations over a number of series of public venues to bring the vested stakeholders
together to review those policies and objectives of the program. That's what staffs referring to.
CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Anybody else have any questions on that tab?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, the next one is the Rural Land Stewardship Area.
And I had initially questioned staff on why this was all here when the process hasn't been fully vetted yet, we
haven't gone through transmittal adoption. And staff made it clear to me this was just to give the DCA a conceptual
update that something has been done and we're moving forward as I guess financing or whatever time permits.
So anybody else have any questions or comments on the RLSA portion of it'?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'll ask, when we get done with the chapter, I'll ask for the public to have any
comments that they would like to have.
The climate change section, the climate change tab, there is some -- or there will be some elements --
suggested changes in the elements of the GMP that relate to climate change that would have some direct impact as a
result of the issues discussed here.
Does anybody have any comments on the climate change tab?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: With regard to climate change on Page 2 when we talk about carry out an
energy use greenhouse gas emissions re- inventory in three to five years, are we currently in inventory?
Are we currently inventorying?
MR. BOSI: The energy efficiency report that was presented last year to the Board of County Commissioners
is our only assessment or attempt at inventory in terms of the utilization of energy and the efficiency of that utilization
by county government.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't remember it being in great detail.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's the first supporting document in the binder. In the support -- in this it's the very
first document. I had the same question.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm talking about what he's referring to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm suggesting --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The report's there.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess my point is, is that sufficient? Because I want you to tell me, I don't
know necessarily, whether that's sufficient to be a basis for a re- inventory. Is that considered --
MR. BOSI: It's our first and only attempt at that type of an assessment. It would be -- the Board of County
Commissioners will make the determination as to we want to revisit this in five years, following the same program
approach to see if there's been significant departure or improvements within those areas.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, because I see within the reading of all of this that there's a great deal
of emphasis being placed on this and there's a great deal of cost associated with it. So the question becomes how
much energy are we putting into it and have we already begun the process in sufficient enough detail to really capture
something?
MR. BOSI: I think we have been. We have — there's an energy efficiency task force that was formulated by
the Board of County Commissioners, and I believe Steve I lart is one of the primary movers within that advisory
board. And I believe that they are -- they're meeting on a regular basis. And they are to -- they're the body that's
Page 13 of 89
16 I 1 63
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
going to provide recommendations for how far this county wants to go regarding this individual issue.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good, thank you. That answers my question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next tab is the affordable housing tab. Are there any comments on that
issue?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next one is the concmrency management tab. Any comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ilic seventh one is the urban development patterns tab.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the last one is intergovernmental coordination.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And just so the public knows, this isn't an element review, these are just issues
presented as things that will probably be just reported to DCA. So it's not an area where there's a lot of questions,
more thanjust general comment. So that kind of explains why we're more silent on those.
Anybody from the public like to comment on any one of those eight tabs before we go into the elements?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Michael, there's one last question I had asked you to find out by today's
meeting, and I'm not sure you were able to, and that is in your discussions with DCA about self-amending documents
being referred to within the GMP. What was your finding on that, or have you gotten a reading on that from DCA?
MR. BOSI: 1 haven't gotten to speak with Scott live. He's left a message with me. And basically as static as
that is, you don't want references to documents that the regulation, the specificity of a regulation is contained within.
Now, if a document supports the policy or -- supports the policy, then DCA finds that that's an appropriate inclusion.
But if there is -- if there is a reference to a policy or reference to a support document that you have to go to to
find out what the regulation is within that individual policy, then that's their concern that DCA has related to that type
of self - amending process.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then let's -- as an example we have -- and I have finally collected them all. I
think there's about 10 references to specific ordinances, some of them dating back to the Eighties. Obviously those
ordinances are amended. Most notably are the ones referenced repeatedly in the utilities section.
Now, if you reference an ordinance and you say as amended, is that acceptable? Because the ordinance then
could change the structure or the intention of the policy by a minority vote of the Board of County Commissioners,
meaning a three vote instead of a four, whereas a GMP element requires a four vote.
So can that self- amending process, is that allowable like that? is that what they're considering
self - amending?
MR. BOSE That's what they consider self- amending. And the ironic part is we have that within our Growth
Management Plan existing today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know.
MR. BOSI: That has been approved by the Department of Community Affairs. But based upon the message,
those are -- when you reference the ordinance as amended, that becomes those areas of concern.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So that means, I would think then, where we reference ordinances and plans,
and there are 34 to 35 separate such documents that I've tabulated and actually pulled up in this master document, then
we would need to be very specific as to the one that we're referring to at that time and date.
So if we have an ordinance and it's amended, I think we ought to list the most -- the ordinance and then its
amendments and then that's where it stops. And then anything after that, we'd have to come back in and readjust the
GMP for that reference in the future, I would assume.
MR. BOSI: 'That would be in line with the message that was left by Mr. --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And would that also be applicable to the various studies that are referred to?
Because you and I had this discussion about some of them say by policy we will initiate and maintain a
certain thing. Okay, that sets it up for that policy then to start a study and the study to be maintained and implemented
as the response to the policy.
But in many of the elements we say Collier County shall, and it refers to a study, abide by or perform or do
according to a certain study. That's more definitive. Yet the study can be amended outside the context of the GMP,
Page 14 of 89
161 131
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
and in essence it becomes a change to the GMP because of the way the study was amended.
So are we saying that where the word shall and those stronger words are used in reference to an outside study
we need to carefully look at that and possibly change it to initiate and maintain or some other format?
MR. BOSI: Well, we have to pay attention to the wording within that. But that kind of hits on some of the
areas towards where those studies support what that policy is trying to promote. And if that policy defers to that
individual study, and I guess it's how it's expressed, will really dictate as to whether it's in line with that aversion to
self - amending policies within GMP's.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, prior to today we didn't have a handle on this, because you hadn't
talked to DCA. So as we go through the elements, there may be an occasion where some of those documents that I've
collected, I missed them.
But I think now knowing what DCA is looking for and having this discussion, by the time this comes back
for adoption and we reread it, all those will be caught.
MR. BOSE And that's one of the things that I do want to point out is at the conclusion of this we are sending
this to DCA, and we will cull out those areas of concern. And we'll get some preliminary feedback that will be able to
help us put a definitive conclusion to those issues that we raised regarding DCA's purview too, whether they view that
this is acceptable or not in practice within the GMP.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any other general comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, what I'm going to do, there's about 10 or 12 members of the public here. I'm
going to read the elements of the GMP, just the names of them. And if you're here for that specific element, I'm just
asking you to raise your hand.
If you're here for all of them, that's fine, too. You'rejust going to be sitting here then for a couple of days and
then participating as we hopefully get you involved. But if you're here for a specific one and there's a quantity of
people by the number of people here, I will try to move that element forward for discussion.
And staff, I know a lot of you are here for specific elements, but we're going to deal with your elements and
your issues after we get the public's out of the way.
So the first one in order is Capital Improvement Element. Members of the public, anybody here for Capital
Improvement Element?
Transportation element? Oh, that's going to be a fun one, okay.
Sanitary Sewer sub - element?
The Potable Water sub - element?
Drainage sub - element?
Solid Waste sub - element?
Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge sub - element?
Housing Element?
The Recreation and Open Space Element?
Conservation and Coastal Management Element, that will be on Friday. So if you are here for that, we're just
going to put that off till Friday.
Intergovernmental Coordination Element?
Future Land Use Element?
Golden Gate Area Master Plan? And I know there's more people coming for that, so we'll wait. They asked
me when that plan would come up, and I told them it probably wouldn't be right away because of introductions and
things, so there'll be more for that.
Immokalee Area Master Plan?
The Economic Element?
And the Public Schools Facility Element?
Okay. And the Immokalee Element, I know Mr. Midney can't be here on Friday, so we're going to make it a
point, we are going to hear that today. So I'll put that down.
Now, with that, we'll start on the transportation and then go to the Future Land Use Element. Then after that
we'll go to Housing, Recreation Open Space, and then if everybody's here, the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, then
the rest of the elements that are -- the sub - drainage, the Economic Element and the Public Schools Facility Element.
Page 15 of 89
16 1st 25,x 63
,10
CCPC,EAR
So with that in mind, let's start out with the Transportation Element.
Michael, do you have any problem with that order of events?
MR. BOSI: At your discretion, Chair.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Platunng Commission satisfied with that?
Okay, well, let's turn to the Transportation Element tab in our chapter two review.
What we'll probably do is -- well, I know what we will do is go through this two pages at a time as we have in
the past, ask questions from the Planning Commission. 'Chen at the end of the element, we'll ask for public comment.
If there's something pertinent to members of the public that they need to express before we get to the end, just
raise your hand. We're not too formal here. We actually enjoy your input more than trying to avoid it. So anything
you want to contribute along the way, as long as we know you're eying to, we'll get you involved.
So with that, under transportation, the first page, first and second pages really are just the policy -by- policy
breakdown. We're going to be getting to those individually. We take the first two pages and the first cover page of
the Transportation Element labeled Page 1.
Anybody have any questions with that beginning piece'?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The elements themselves or the objectives and policies get into on Pages 2 and 3.
Do we have any questions on Pages 2 and 3 from the Planning Commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mike, the -- there was some discrepancies between the reference to SIS and
TIFFS in the CIE. Did those get straightened out? And that's on Page 3, the very top of the page.
MR. SCHMIDT: They have. They are two specifically different references. And they're not
interchangeable. So they're deliberately mentioned in one place in the GMP and deliberately so in the other location.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so they don't need to be the same. So the reference to the FIHS in the CIE is
not inconsistent with the reference to the SIS in Policy 13.
MR. SCHMIDT: It is trot.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And those two policies can function together with a sinvlar reference?
MR. SCHMIDT! They can.
For the record, Corby Schmidt.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In that Policy 1.3, we talk about a level of service D. I find CIE had some
references I thought to level of services that were more -- less stringent than D, like a level of service E.
Mike, did you take a look at that by any chance?
I'll actually try to find the -- on Page 5 of the CIE, under Policy 1.5.A.1, it talks about level of service E on all
six -lane roads. And what (sic) I question it is because Policy 1.3 in the Transportation Element refers to a level of
service D or better as addressed in the implementation strategy of the Transportation Element except for roads that
have been widened to six lanes and cannot be widened any further.
So I just want to make sure there's not an inconsistency between the reference to a level of service E for
six -lane roads in the CIE and a level of service D on Policy 1.3 of the Transportation Element.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. Good morning. For the record, Nick Casalanguida.
You're talking about collector roads versus arterials, and that Policy 1.3 talks about county collector roads.
So arterials at six lanes go to E, collectors and locals, D. that are not widened to six -lane roads. And a road once it
goes to six lanes is not a collector road anymore, it's usually an arterial.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, on the Policy 1.5 of the CIA, it says arterials and collector roads, level of
service indicated below on the basis of peak hour traffic volume, level of service E on all six -lane roads.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that is not inconsistent with a reference to level of service D on the
six -lane reference in Policy 13?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, they talk about collector roads and it says or better addressed for roads that
have been widened to six lanes cannot be widened any further. So we're always doing level of service E on six -lane
roads and then D on roads that are below that, four -lane and two -lane roads, typically.
And they're not -- they mention collector versus arterials, that's the difference.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And as far as widened any further, that is physically constrained?
Page 16 of 89
161 1 6�,
August 25, 2010
CCPC/F.AR
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct. We typically go to D, we don't go to E if it's constrained at four.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that would be the criteria, if it's a constrained roadway and it's six lanes, it's D.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, once it's six lanes -- no matter what, if it's six lanes, it's E. Then it's
considered an arterial.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on Pages 2 and 3?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pages 4 and 5?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On the top of Page 5 where we speak about the need to modify away from
fee simple and broaden it, would you consider or are you going to consider dedication of property for roadways as
being one of those that you would use?
And if so, I would just tell you I have a recollection of events where roads had been dedicated but not
accepted by the county, and so that might be a little sticky point for you.
MR. BOSI: Noted.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, my question is I guess to Mike.
You know, we're using the words in Objective 3, you're providing the protection and acquisition of
right -of -ways. What does protection mean?
Is that what you're referring to in three, four and five where you're going to have a thoroughfare corridor
protection plan, but is --
MR. BOSI: What that means is a set -aside within individual future corridors that there will be an area that's
going to be dedicated towards where there will be no physical improvements that will be allowed for, because they
want to protect the ability to be able to develop that future corridor when that need is dictated.
And the acquisition process, trying to -- when there are structures within the roadway becomes much more
complicated, much more costly, based upon that recognition that the thoroughfare protection plan is dedicated to try
to prevent that very situation and make the acquisition for that future roadway more cost efficient for the government
to meet the needs of the system.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So -- and I kind of support this. But so what you're really saying is
prior to the ability to acquire it, you're going to put it into a status called protection. And if you look at Policy 3.5,
you're preparing a thoroughfare corridor protection plan, which I guess based on the reading of that, it didn't happen
within a year. So is that what that means then, totally, or --
MR. BOSI: Well, that's the intent, I believe, of the thoroughfare corridor protection plan is to just do as I had
described, to provide for -- provide for the identification of where those future corridors will be and the restriction of
building within that anticipated future right -of -way.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you want to take away the EAR requirement, that's one of your
recommendations.
MR. BOSI: We haven't satisfied it within the EAR. We haven't made that. So we want to take away the
time frame associated with that for when the funding and the process works itself out.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So we won't know when that will really happen.
And then again, what's the difference between that thoroughfare corridor protection plan and the thing you
reference in Policy 3.1 called an advanced right - of-way preservation? Are they the same thing, or --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Part of our five -year CIE has advanced right-of-way in there. So one of the
comments in 3.1 is the county has implemented and maintained an advance right -of -way preservation acquisition
program.
Without the thoroughfare corridor preservation ordinance, you really can't do -- it doesn't have any teeth to it
or at least a mechanism to get it done. Right now all we do is anticipate where projects are within the five years and
in the LRTP and allow for funding to be set aside to purchase right -of -way when it's available. We've done that many
times.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so the 3.1 is essentially an in -house planning. This thing in 3.5 will
be something different than that, that will actually give something a status. You call it protection, but -- so
Page 17 of 89
161 1�3
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
landowners are aware of what's potentially going to happen.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct. And we've talked, we're going to have to vet an ordinance, you know,
that's both fair to the landowner and fair to the county and, you know, that's going to be processed. That's separate
outside the GMP but it will be a standalone ordinance. It will come back to this commission.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done, thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron'?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I wanted to go back to the top of Page 5 and this whole business of the
fee simple and wanting it to be more flexible. I'm not sure I really understand the need for it to be more flexible. And
what do you actually end up with if you take some of these other ways of --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We'd always prefer it to be fee simple. There are times where for whatever reason
it's an easement that the owner grants, and he doesn't grant all of his rights under that dedication to the county. He
says I want to maintain certain rights to that property but I will give you roadway rights and utility rights and
easements.
And I can tell you it's on a case -by -case basis, we review it with the County Attorney's Office and we bring
them to the board and we say for this reason this is an easement. Sometimes it's for density, sometimes it's for a
setback. There are various reasons why sometimes they don't want to give you the property in fee simple, they just
want to maintain the underlying ownership of it and give you an easement. And it's reviewed on a case -by -case basis.
COMMISSIONER CARON: 1 think we have a lot of that out there right now and 1 don't think most of it is to
the benefit of the county and its citizens.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Agreed.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So I'm really -- I don't think we should be going away from fee simple.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: 1 think you saw a casejust recently where there was a PUD on Goodlette -Frank
Road where the abutting property was an easement, and you were trying to figure out the setback. I think it was
Naples United Methodist PUD. You remember that?
And that was an issue, it was dedicated as an easement. We didn't physically own the road in front of the
road, we had an easement over the road.
So I would love to have it a fee simple. There are times it's not cost effective and there are underlying
circumstances or it tight be one of those where we recommend fce simple but have the opportunity for an alternative.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But --well, I'm just wondering then if we should actually though be changing
the Growth Management Plan or whether if an issue comes up you try to deal with it at the time. I mean, that would
also afford some more public discussion of an event like that.
Now. I don't know whether you have to give yourself some flexibility in this language. I don't know. We've
been living with it all this tune.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Comtissioner, John Podczerwinsky for the record, "Transportation Planning.
Just to interject for a moment. One of the specific reasons that we're asking for a little bit of flexibility in this
policy is in the specifics of our right -of -way handbook there's a requirement for compensating right -of -way to be
turned over whenever a required will lane is installed. What that means is that when a turn lane is constructed it
remains in county right -of -way, but the county doesn't have to purchase additional right -of -way to install a private
turn lane.
The problem that's been presented by that is as developments have moved forward with their SDP's, for
example, the requirement for compensating right -ot -way in fee simple, based on this language here, is sometimes
difficult for them to meet. They've already designed their SDP around a certain layout on their land, they've already
designed it with an easement to contain their turn lane. And requiring that in fee simple sometimes changes their
setbacks, which requires changes to their building footprints. There's quite a domino effects to that when we don't
allow it as an easement in specific cases.
Direction to staff from this document really points us towards acquiring those even gifted lands in fee simple.
So the change in language there is just to build in the flexibility for when we actually need it.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Maybe there just needs to be a strict priority adhered to or something. Because
I just know there's a lot out there, and it's really not to the benefit of the county, it's to the benefit perhaps to the
landowners, but it certainly isn't to the benefit of the county.
So when we lessen standards, when we weaken standards, when we weaken our regulations, I'm always
Page 18 of 89
161 1 0�
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
concerned.
Moving on to 3.5 and the whole business of the year, I understand that we didn't make it in a year. We don't
usually make most of the deadlines we set for ourselves. But if wejust simply take out the deadline altogether, then
that just allows us to carry it -- you know, to do nothing for 20 years, as opposed to perhaps we could actually
accomplish something in three years.
And since we review this often enough, perhaps setting some reasonable deadline would actually be the way
to go.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on Pages 4 and 5?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mike, on Policy 3.3 it currently reads, the county shall acquire a sufficient
amount of right -of -way to facilitate arterial and collector roads of no less than a cross - section of six traffic lanes.
I would like to suggest we change it to the following: The county shall acquire a sufficient amount of
right -of -way to facilitate arterial and collector roads appropriate to meet the needs of the LRTP.
And the reason I want to put -- I'm suggesting making some reference change like that is because saying that
the county's got to have nothing but six -lane road corridors throughout this county is discouraging that green
initiative. We ought to be looking forjust the opposite. We ought to be looking for less roads, smaller roads,
alternate modes of mobility instead of trying to build everything with solid asphalt and concrete.
So I would certainly like to leave it so that if it's appropriate and needed based on the LRTP, that's the
direction we can go in, but I don't like to see it mandatory that all of them have to be six -lane roads.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Couldn't agree more. I think talking about a build -out analysis, that was important
as well too. Because we are working on it. We have that data.
The worst thing we can do to a development and to the county is to acquire once and then come back five or
10 years later and acquire a second time and then come back five or 10 years later and acquire a third time.
So in your LRTP you've identified critical intersections, and then your build -out analysis has done the same.
So maybe modifying it to say unless -- your last sentence 1 think covers you, though, exceptions of right -of -way may
be considered when it can be demonstrated through traffic capacity analysis that the maximum number of lanes at a
build -out be less than the standard.
You know, I think you have that in there to cover you to say we shouldn't, if we can show at build -out we
don't need that much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, your worst case scenario is not the worst case scenario as I see it. 1 think the
worst case scenario is taking out people's homes for a corridor you don't really need because we just didn't explore
alternative methods to get to where we wanted to be.
And that's why I'm suggesting we don't lock ourselves into these giant corridors. I think there are ways to get
around this county, and we could set the example for the entire nation if we wanted to be proactive in doing that and
help all the problems we're creating by demanding these wide corridors.
So I don't mind leaving the build -out reference in there, I think that's a good thing. But how we get there can
be a whole different program than what we have today.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And that's part of that MMP discussion we talked about. You know, I heard your
discussion, I sent an e -mail, I didn't have the rest of the Planning Commission's e-mail, but I sent you an update as to
what we've done with the MMP. That's the goal.
You know, from a business standpoint we realize for the GMP, as a business person, there's no way if I'm the
administrator, deputy administrator, I can fund a road program that meets the need.
My other option is to look at demand. If I lower demand through the MMP, the Master Mobility Plan, then
I'm lowering the actual construction requirement. That's our goal. As a community that always should be our goal.
Balancing those two is a challenge.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the other part of this policy, and I'm not sure if it's going to be best discussed in
this policy or maybe Objective 4 on the next page, but it's on one of these two pages, I would think, and that says the
way we currently do some of the -- and this, in Policy 3.3 refers to bicycle and pedestrian features.
Those are good features. But I think the way we're doing some of them are really a detriment to the health,
safety and welfare of the public instead of an advantage.
I drive 951 multiple times every day, all the way from Marco to the north end. And that little bike lane where
Page 19 of 89
161 1F
August 25, 2010
CCPCIEAR
families, kids, bikers are separated by traffic going 45 or 55, people texting and talking on their phones, weaving in
and out of lanes, and you've got all those people separated by a four -inch wide stripe. If I rode my truck at the edge of
that four -inch wide stripe, my rearview mirrors would not go over those people.
And that is the wrong way to design roads for bicyclists and pedestrians. I mean, 1 -- so I don't know where
that fits in this GMP, but we ought to be looking at that issue, because we seem to be buying right -of -way to put all
these little strips along these fast roadways, which is hurting the public, not helping them.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Chairman, you've opened up a two - minute discussion, and you're going to
have to allow me to go on this.
I get my rear end kicked up and down this county for not providing those bike lanes by the Naples bike -ped
organization. 1 can tell you that that is a discussion that should be had in the public because you're going to have 100
people in a room telling you that those bike lanes are required.
Now, on 951 you have a greenway, which is separated by a canal. So you've got a safe alternative. But I can
tell you, I get challenged every time I take a 30 percent design plan to the public meeting and they say where are the
bike lanes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not saying take them out. I'm thinking of a better way to plan for them, because
to me it's real dangerous.
Mike Bosi, he likes a very quiet preserve up near his home. 'fo get there, he's got to go out on a mile traffic
snarl where he's got one of these bike lanes that he's got to drive along on his bicycle and hope he doesn't get killed
before he gets to where he's trying to go. We've got to find a better way to do it.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, and that's the second part of the discussion is the greenways were building.
We've invested heavily as an alternative these greenways. Because 1 wouldn't take my kids on a bike lane but I'll take
them on a greenway that's on the other side of the canal.
So 951, the corridor you drive has a greenway built two- thirds of the way now, all the way from Immokalee
Road down through the phase that you talked about from Davis to 41, 10 to 12 -foot path, 50 feet away from the road,
another side of the canal, excellent place to be able to commute, recreate and be able to commute.
But these four -foot bike lanes, if you look at the cost that goes into them, they're very expensive. And the
cost to benefit has always been an issue. But I will tell you that it is a definite fire box of discussion when that comes
up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You wouldn't take your kids on them, but can you live with somebody else who's
not as concerned about their child's safety from taking their kids on them?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, they're designed to FDOT standards. That doesn't mean they're safe --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, doesn't mean they're safe.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Where's Joe Bonness when you need him?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not everybody rides bikes professionally.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you've got to make sure that if you're building the system it's going to tit
everyone. And ['in very worried about the safety, because I drive by these people and I try to get over if nobody's
alongside me. It'sjust concerning.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Fit get the two horses and the rope and you can pull me in two pieces because
that's --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think we can find a better way to do it. I'm not saying eliminate it, there is a
better way to do it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Isn't that what -- you know, in 3.3 where it's saying require a right -of -way
large enough for six lanes. Where we get smart is we buy that six -lane right -of -way but we build smaller roads, thus
we can pull the bike lanes off of the edge of the pavement.
I mean, I ride on 41 north and it is a little freaky. But thank God it's there. If it wasn't there, imagine what it
would be.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, with focused planning we can do it better. That's all I'm trying to say. And
Page 20 of 89
161 1 b3
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
I don't want to lock us in to giant thoroughfares and miniature bike lanes. Honestly, we don't need to be doing that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We've got a really good comprehensive greenway plan. I mean, we can share it
with you -- not today, I'll have to bring it to you. But there is a master plan for greenways that connect rural county
and suburban county. So our goal is to provide that corridor. It's safer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, and perhaps then again maybe the language just needs to be prioritized
so that we really prioritize those greenways, which they haven't been prioritized in the past. We've just done the 951
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Immokalee.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, it's just beginning.
Immokalee, where?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. From I -75 all the way to Collier Boulevard there's a greenway on the north
side of town.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, okay, on the other side.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And it continues east almost up to Twin Eagles, pretty close to it. And the goal is
to take that out to the rural areas as well, too.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Because there's certainly nothing on the urban --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. And all of our designs east of 951 include a greenway alternative.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last comment I got on these two pages is Policy 3.4. After the words Board of
County Commissioners, I'd suggest a period. Because based upon a recommendation from the transportation
administrator, that doesn't need to be there. It's really the BCC who takes his recommendation. So I don't think we
need to elevate that recommendation to the level of the GMP.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Agreed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the last on those two pages. Before we go on to the next two, let's take a
break. I'm sure Cherie', after being gone for two months probably could use a rest for her fingers. So we'll come back
at 10:15 and resume.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back from break. We left off on Pages 4 and 5 of the
Transportation Element.
And before we go to Page 6, a member of the public had asked to speak on one of the issues so far.
And before she does, I want to thank the records department for the coffee. We're all happy now. I had
previously been fortunate to get a cup and now we're in good shape. So thank you.
And Cherie', you're in a lot of trouble.
Okay, Nicole?
MS. RYAN: Good morning. For the record, Nicole Ryan here on behalf of The Conservancy of Southwest
Florida.
And my comment goes to Objective 3 in the subsequent policies. And Objective 3 in detennination of the
right -of -way and setting aside right -of -way where right -of -way should be, it's based on the county's five -year work
program and/or the LRTP.
And that brings up the question of this new plan, this new document that the county is in the process of
preparing, and that's the Master Mobility Plan. That is supposed to be a unifying document, a single unifying
planning document which will take into account the LRTP, which will look at the East of 951 Study, the East of 951
Bridge Study.
So my question is, and it really goes to the entirety of the Transportation Element, but I thought this would be
a good point to interject the question, what will this Master Mobility Plan do? And is it going to be a document that
really is tied into the GMP as a guidance and required guidance document'' And if so, should it be mentioned in here
so that things such as right -of -way are tied not only to the five -year work plan and the LRTP but also the Master
Mobility Plan? Or because it has not yet been approved, is it inappropriate to put it in here at this time?
MR. BOSI: And that -- Mike Bosi.
And that's my response. Until the conclusions are drawn and the memorandums of understandings that are
anticipated from that Master Mobility Plan are in place, I believe it would be a little premature to introduce it with --
Page 21 of 89
161 1 �3
August 25, 2010
CC PC/EAR
into the Growth Management Plan in an official recognized document related to specific policies. Because we don't
know what the conclusion of that process is at this time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if we were to introduce a mobility element that corresponded to the plan,
assuming the plan is something that actually ends up working, and all these policies then melded into that and we had
a master mobility element for the county of which this plan will be part of the basis, I think we'd be off on a really
good start.
And that's kind of why I had suggested that we look and consider as a conclusion to these meetings a
suggestion to staff to introduce a mobility element to our Growth Management Plan as a benchmark for going future.
And I dunk, Nicole, that would resolve that issue and it could bring in a lot of other issues that we're going to
be discussing for the next two days. It might just be resolved by such an idea.
MS. RYAN: I think that's a good idea. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chuck, did you have something you want to mention?
MR. MOHLKE: Mr. Chairman, thank you. My name is Chuck Mohlke, I'm herejust as an interested
citizen.
But this was too good an opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to make a couple of observations for the Planning
Commission's consideration and staffs consideration.
I don't know how to begin. I'm going to begin with a kind of a commonplace comment. Here we go again.
We have been through the Evaluation and Appraisal Report process repeatedly since the late 1980's, if we can
consider the formulation of the Growth Management Plan in the late 1980's is in effect as a surrogate for an
Evaluation and Appraisal Report.
We have a number of considerations that are transportation- related that in my view, you only have me saying
this, do not integrate properly. Two major components of transportation that are now under consideration awaiting
adoption in one instance and having just been adopted in another instance: The LRTP, the Long Range
Transportation Plan, and the TDP, the'fransit Development Plan, that are really in my humble view accounted for not
at all in these documents.
We are at the point where we are again prepared to do something like the version we're all familiar with in
ordinance documents, incorporated by reference. What does that men"
Mr. Chairman, you had pointed out earlier this conundrum that we're all confronted with when looking at a
subsequently adopted ordinance, a subsequently adopted series of regulations that do not require the super majority
vote that often change materially some of the material that we're looking at now.
We will have amended in the Comprehensive Plan a "transportation Element which may or may not account
properly for documents not adopted by super majority, the LRTP in some instances, not major, but in some instances
could be major, and the AUIR, the Annual Update and Inventory Report, and a whole host of other documents. And
you have other influences that need to be accounted for, and your reference to 951 is very appropriate in this regard.
Recently, thanks to the Federal Congress. we have the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that has
given Collier County some $39 million worth of investments. And if my calculations are correct, using the latest
annual report, 31.7 million of those have gone into transportation.
Are those integrated always into the LRTP, into the transit Development Plan'? No, they're not. You could
contend, well, conceptually they are. But they're really not, Mr. Chairman.
And having something like what you are proposing, a mobility element that accounts at a minimum for
transportation, for the features of the Economic Element and for some of the largely subordinate enactments
integrated sometimes reluctantly into the comprehensive plan, like the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, that can at least
demonstrate an ability to do what one new feature of comprehensive planning in Collier County has done, and we
should all applaud it, and that is the integration of an important independent governmental entity into the
comprehensive planning process, namely the Collier County public school system, that in its facilities planning must
account for the capital improvements of county government and the three municipalities, and must through a
coordinated process develop a mechanism whereby its capital program is consistent with and not in conflict with the
capital programs of four other important units of county government.
And without going on at great length here, I just wanted to make the point in general terns that I tlunk invites
an opportunity to give serious consideration to what I heard you propose and what I heard the previous speaker
endorse; namely, to find a mechanism within the plan that can account for the potential at least for the kinds of
Page 22 of 89
161 1 gq�
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
conflicts that have begun to be addressed in this other newly adopted feature of the comprehensive plan, namely a
school facilities plan.
That seems conceptually to me to be an important new improvement. Because like it or not, Mr. Chairman
and members of the Planning Commission, we are confronted with the fact that we have significant units of
government activity in Collier County at the local, the regional, the state and the federal level that are in no manner
harmonious with the plans of general purpose county government in many instances.
Let me just give you two small examples of that that could, I think -- I've read this material that you have
under consideration, and perhaps my ability to understand it is deeply flawed and I don't fully grasp what it is
intended by some of these recurring policy statements that show no evidence of ever having been enacted effectively.
They're in there, they sound wonderful. But just to give you --because I'm taking too much of your time.
Just to give you one simpleminded example. How to minimize transportation impacts. And that's a concept under Mr.
Bosi's direction that was examined extensively during the Horizon Study, the East of 951 Study, the concept of
co- location.
Here we have independent constitutional officers, fire districts, regional, state and federal agencies, and a
wide variety of other things that are vaguely coordinated with general purpose county government. The simple act of
doing everything you can to insist that as we expand east of 951 we find a way to co- locate these government entities
so that they are not all in separate locations within a mile or a mile and a half radius of a single central point, a major
intersection, plans for a future roadway by the purchase of right -of -way, or at least the dedication of right -of -way. If
we can incorporate concepts like that, Mr. Chairman, into the plan, I think we will all be the better for it.
And your idea reinforced by that -- remarks of the previous speaker, to take an element like a mobility plan
and to use it as a mechanism to say hey, what are we doing here, when we have a new transit plan just adopted at the
last meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, effective as of September 1 st, days from now, which has
material impacts on us.
It says in effect, if you read it carefully, that in order to meet the requirements based upon a best assessment
of population and ridership, we should be spending $14 million in the year 2014 in order to expand the capital fleet of
the transit system. Are we going to be able to do that? Highly unlikely.
But we need to tell people that. We need to say here's what the capital investment is required in order to meet
the needs of the future. And we're not doing that.
Thank you for the opportunity to make these remarks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Chuck, it's always a pleasure hearing from you. Thank you.
Anybody else want to comment at this point before we go to the next pages?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next pages will be Pages 6 and 7. Planning Commission, any members have
any questions about those pages?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what my question is, we're adding a new Policy, 4.9. But isn't 4.9
essentially a summary of some of these other ones, Mike?
And the concern I have is the other ones say shall provide. This one, you know, shall work to reduce and
stuff And maybe that comment about the greenhouse gas, would that be maybe better off in Objective 4 than as a
policy?
Because I think everything that you have as policy has been covered. And maybe that comment about
greenhouse gas is better up in the objective.
That's -- and what I'm fearful of is if you shall work to -- you know, some of these other things are in there
and say shall be provided, and I don't want to reduce the strength of them in the other policies.
MR. BOSI: We can most certainly take that comment and look to maybe modify it as you had suggested.
is, in terms of it's almost a restatement in terms of a lot of the mandates of what the policies are trying to do. And I
think it was our attempt to satisfy those new requirements in a straightforward manner, in a direct manner trying to
address energy efficiency and greenhouse gas.
But I understand bringing it to the objective how that would actually better our position in terms of
relationship to those issues.
Page 23 of 89
161 to
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good.
And maybe just a point of question, Mark. How are we going to handle these things'? We've all made
suggestions and recommendations. What happens from this point'?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike will take the info we provide, and he and his staff, it's my understanding, will
take a look at all this, reformat it, hopefully in response, and then prepare it in draft form for the adoption, in which
we'll have another opportunity to comment finally on it.
After that then it gets finalized and goes to the Board of County Commissioners.
Is that a fair assessment, Mike?
MR. BOSI` Absolutely. The policies that -- the additional policies or whatever modifications that you had to
our individual assessments will be the reflection within the adoption notebooks.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So as a workshop, we're just throwing ideas out. He takes it and
then we'll vote later.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We actually can't vote in a workshop, so we'rejust providing concept direction.
MR. BOSI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney'?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I had a question on Policy 4.9.
l see that there's a lot of emphasis on vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions. Has anybody put
any attention on the carbon that's stored in forests and wetlands and preventing that from being released?
Does that have any role in that HB -697? And could that relate to our planning process?
MR. BOSI: Well, it most certainty does, because, l mean, if you look at, you know, 67 percent of our county
is dedicated to conservation, federal or state protections, and those areas -- those areas have a positive effect in terms
of carbon consumption. So there is an interrelationship between them.
I'm not sure how we express those specifically within this policy, and maybe it's more of a recognition in the
policy within the Future Land Use Element or the Conservation and Coastal Management Element to the recognition
of those energy efficiency areas, or the conservation areas.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And the other part of that is when we do have impacts to wetlands or impacts
to land clearing, I know there's a lot of sanctions already, and, you know, things that prevent people from doing that or
J ust minimize it, but has there been any thought to incorporating that into what we're doing for HB -697 in additional
ways? Or is it just we're relying on the regulation that's already there?
MR. BOSI: Well, in relationship to -- I mean, I think you're drawing the correlation between wetland
mitigation impacts to mitigation for new developments and their impacts in terms of the carbon emissions. While I
think we have -- in the urbanized areas we have a number of'-- within the traffic congestion management areas, we
have alternatives towards how we meet the demands that are going to be expressed by the individual developments
and try to provide them with options for solution for their mitigation as to not to -- the construction of new vehicle or
new lane miles, but addressing it in alternative modes with meeting contributions to the public transit system or
contributions to the pedestrian or bike systems.
Those type of things are being suggested within, you know, those specific areas, of the appropriate areas
within. But we don't have anything on the large scale for every single project that comes by. We don't have a carbon
emissions evaluation in terms of what's going to be the output of the individual development and then how do you
mitigate for that. We haven't gotten to that level of sophistication yet.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else on Pages b and 7?
Mike, I've got a -- oh, go ahead, Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: On Policy 4.5, where it says to the greatest extent possible, is that really
necessary language?
Does that imply that if it weren't in there you wouldn't look to the greatest extent possible to find grants and --
MR. BOSI: If you remove it l think you don't take away the effectiveness of the policy.
COMMISSIONER CARON: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anything else?
COMMISSIONER CARON: No, that was the only one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, it stop on Policy 4.1. This is one of those shall, and it refers to a
Page 24 of 89
16 ! l e3
August 25, 2010
CCPC/EAR
self - amending possible plan, and that plan is the Collier County Comprehensive Pathways Plan.
I think we might want to say the county shall initiate and maintain a Collier County Comprehensive
Pathways Plan. But I'm not sure you want to -- shall incorporate it, because it says right here shall periodically update
the pathways plan as needed, which would then be amending the Growth Management Plan.
If you could take a look at it under that context and if it needs to be appropriately changed, fine. If not, then
we'll have to live with it.
Policy 4.3 is inconsistent with 4.1 in regard of shall. Policy 4.3 just says it shall be consistent with. And 4.1
reads, shall incorporate. I'm not sure why we've got two policies that seem to say the same thing. We might want to
check it and see how necessary that is.
And under 4.4, now, that one I can understand, we are taking the county Comprehensive Pathways Plan
through that, were developing a five -year work program, and then we're adopting the five -year work program, okay.
Is that the way this is supposed to flow? Is that actually what's happening here?
The comprehensive plan is generated. From that plan we develop a five -year work program. And the
five -year work program is adopted as our tool to go forward.
MR. BOSI: The Comprehensive Pathways Plan is not -- and maybe transportation could provide a little bit
more input. But the Comprehensive Pathways Plan is not the basis for the Capital Improvement program ndng
process of Collier County. In those -- because we don't have a level of service that's associated with pedestrian
pathways.
We aspire to be able to provide to the greatest ability the Comprehensive Pathways Plan. But I don't think
that this -- the general purpose county government --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. You asked the question. The answer is yes.
MR. BOSI: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because he's digging a hole and I didn't know if you're here to bail him out or not.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Real simple, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because we have a rive -year pathways work program. It's got to be built
upon something, and it would seem logical based on the way these policies are gelling up, it's based upon the Collier
County Comprehensive Pathways Plan.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The answer is yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARON: You have another speaker.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, as soon as I get done with my questions on 6 and 7, I'll grab them both. Thank
you.
Now, if you go to Policy 4.9 and you take the first line and then the second line up to the -- just before the
word safe, bring that down and insert it in 4.6 right before the word safe, you then don't need Policy 4.9. If you read
it, it's an identical policy. Someonejust took 4.6 and added a dozen words to the front of it and created a new policy.
What do we need all those new policies for? Why don't we just combine them? And that's if it isn't a better
idea then to go to the objective for the greenhouse gas emissions.
But anyway, Policy 4.9 seemed to be more redundancy than anything else. And you can combine the policies
as a worst case scenario and a better, maybe even put in the objective.
Policy 4.7. This one relates back to the bike paths. The county shall incorporate bike lanes in roadway
resurfacing projects as is physically possible and will not result in a safety or operational problem.
How do you determine the increase in safety by putting those bike lanes next to cars traveling in a high speed
lane right next to them? So how do you justify that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, you're going to do what's called an RRR, triple R report, road rehabilitation
report, where you look at reducing lanes widths, what it does to the safety of the motorist as well as the pedestrian by
putting the bike lane on this. So that's what you're doing in that policy, is if you're going to widen the road or if you're
going to resurface a road, can you add a couple of feet of shoulder width and put a bike lane on there? Can you take a
12 -foot travel lane and take it down to 10 and a half and incorporate the bike lane? So that you're looking at safety
not only for the bicycle but you're looking at safety for the motorists as well too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, who's looking at the safety relationship between the closeness now of those
bikes that would normally be not that close? The additional exposure to the public in that regard.
Page 25 of 89
161 1 t�
August 25, 2010
CC PC/EAR
And again, I'm not saying we shouldn't have the bike lanes, 1 just don't think we're putting them in the right
place.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Your speaker here really should get into -- should make a continent. That's a good
time for her to segue in.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark, let me --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad wants to make a comment first. Then her.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you didn't have even a small bike lane, the bicyclist is in the car lane. So
1 mean, the biggest safety feature is you get them out of the car lane.
MR CASALANGUIDA: You've got another speaker too, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And actually, we have an expert on this.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Pm glad he's taken the time to come down.
CHAIR-MAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Before the experts, would you please repeat what was the RRR report?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's resurtacing and rehabilitation. Roadway resurfacing and rehabilitation. In
other words, you're looking to make it ADA compliant.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ijust couldn't understand you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. The "R "s roll away, you know Italians.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know the only reason l brought the bike lanes up ifjust to see if Joe was
watching.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Oh, he's watching.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll go to public speakers on these two pages.
Ma'am, if you want to -- whoever wants to go first. I saw two or three people heading up this way.
MS. AVOLA: Good morning. Michele Avola, Naples Pathways Coalition.
Just a few things to note so far on Objective 4. When you had suggested about the redundancy of 4.9 and
was it better just adding a few words to the existing Policy 4.6 or moving it up to the objective, I guess where my
suggestion would be is wherever it's going to be stronger.
In reading through this whole thing, there's a lot of great verbiage in here, but great verbiage doesn't do
anything if it really doesn't have teeth, if it doesn't get implemented. So I will trust that you're in a better position to
know where it's going to have the greatest strength.
But in having the recognition of a need to reduce the vehicle miles traveled and safely accommodate
bicyclists and pedestrians, the recent policy statement by Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood put cyclists and
pedestrians on equal ground as motorized vehicles as a transportation mode. So we all, as a county, as a state and so
forth need to look at motor vehicles and those using bikes or their feet to get where they need to go as equal.
And under 4.5 where you had asked the question about do we need to have the words to the greatest extent
possible, I would suggest perhaps putting an actual minimum, say minimum live percent of the transportation budget,
so it's an actual goal, not just kind of a given that may or may not be considered.
For 4.7 1 would suggest adding to resurfacing, adding after that and maintenance projects as possible, andjust
striking the words that will not result in the safety or operational problem. Because again, that's just a given, and there
are the studies done to make sure that we're not increasing a situation to make it more dangerous.
But it is actually -- studies have been done to show that cyclists are safer in a bike lane thanjust trying to go
along a narrow shoulder where there's broken glass, other debris or on a sidewalk where they're having to contend
with dogs, people, cars coining in and out of entrances and not seeing a cyclist because they're moving at a faster rate
than a pedestrian. So bike lanes have been proven across the country to increase safety both for the cyclist and then
for the motor vehicle as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Miss, I certainly agree with you that if 1 was on 951 in my diesel truck driving
down that road and somebody on a bike was in front of me in the travel lane, he'd be a heck of a lot safer over in a
bike lane. All I'm trying to say is, I don't think the bike lanes are as safe as they can be. 1 think we can design them to
be more safe than they are.
And I think when we design our road systems and we lay out the planning for mobility on a countywide
basis, we shouldn't be designing bike lanes next to travel lanes, we should have them separated. There's ways to plan
Page 26 of 89
161 1 b3
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
to make that happen, to make it safer for the bicyclists. And then you'd encourage more people to use bikes. And I
think that would be the ultimate.
But I agree with you, it's safer than being in a travel lane. That wasn't my objection. But I don't think it's safe
the way it's coming out right now. It helps, but not as much as it should.
MS. AVOLA: Well, where there is room for a separated pathway, obviously that's going to be the best
scenario. But where that just physically is not possible, where you can widen a shoulder, where you can safely
accommodate a four -foot -wide bike lane, you're going to be doing a greater service than just hoping for the best and
letting -- you know. 'there's a number of people that they j ust need to use their bike to get to work, to get where
they're going. It's not necessarily that they're out just trying to get some exercise. It is a viable means of
transportation that more and more people are relying on for exercise, due to financial situation, trying to make a
positive impact on the environment as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the more we encourage a safer bike lane and one separated from the
traffic, I think you'll see more people use it. Right now I ride a bike --
MS. AVOLA: You're preaching to the choir. I believe you, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I ride a bike but I would never get out on that little narrow strip next to that travel
lane. No way that's going to happen. I know, I've had friends that bicycle with Joe and they tell me they have a great
time, and that's great. But that still isn't getting the majority of the public on bicycles and getting them out. Because I
think a majority of the public might be reluctant to be next to those cars traveling along those highways at the speed
they do. So that's my point.
MS. AVOLA: I agree, separate pathways are better. And you'll hear me talk later about the river of grass
greenway, which will be a proposed separated pathway from Naples to Miami that will be off the road parallel to 41.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fantastic. Good. Thank you.
Joe?
MR. BONNESS: Yeah, Joe Bonness, Pathways advisory committee chairman.
Totally agree that yeah, it would be great to have offset pathways and pathways that -- you know, separate
bicycle /pedestrian corridors. It's something that we haven't had enough teeth in to be able to really get them
developed. The ones that have been out there have taken us years to be able to get built, even once we do have them
funded. And that's something that we've been working with to try and get that going. Anything that we can put more
teeth into the plan to be able to get that going would be great.
As far as bike lanes in traffic and that, there's a little bit of a misgiving and misperception from the -- you
know, especially from the motor vehicle driver's standpoint as to the safety factor that goes on. They are palpably
about the safest place for a bicycle to actually ride.
The more you separate a bike from the traffic, the more risk you usually put them in. The turning movement
of traffic and everything else tends to be able to turn into them much more often. Out of sight, out of mind and in
danger is what happens. The more in sight that you're at, the better off you're at.
There's a movement from certain parts of the country and from the mentality -- bicycle mentality, that bike
lanes are not even needed if you treat bicycles as vehicles to begin with. You know, it is safe to drive a bicycle on a
45 mile an hour road if you're acting like you're a traffic -- regular vehicle traffic and taking the lane as you need to.
But to go into statistics standpoint, in the year 2005 there was not a single bicycle fatality in a bike lane.
Bikes were getting killed on shoulders, they were getting killed right and left on sidewalks and places where you think
they are the absolute safest.
But to able to promote bicycling and to get more people out there, to be able to separate them as much as
possible and get those facilities in there is really a goal. And, you know, changing the mentality of the motor vehicle
drivers to allow the bicyclist and not to be able to put them into a position where they think that they're being -- you
know, where they're fighting for the same road and everything else, you know, that's going to take a lot of social
changes to get there.
But if we're going to try and promote the bicycle as a mode of transportation, I'm agreeing with you that we
need to try and get them as separated as we possibly can and to be able to build those facilities. But keep the bike
lanes in there on the multi -lane roads as much as possible.
You know, that's one of the things I keep pushing transportation for is every time that they're in there doing
overlay that they should be adding in shoulders and providing for pedestrian bicycle traffic every time that we are
Page 27 of 89
161 1
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
doing that.
If we followed what we had in our Land Development Code and into the Comprehensive Plan, almost every
four -lane road or two -lane road that we have out there that's 45 miles an hour now would have a paved shoulder and
have a bike lane alongside of it. But we have avoided that continuously as we've been going through, either from the
standpoint of saying well, that's going to cost us too much or that's going to -- we have permitting that we're going to
have to worry about. And we avoid it almost all the time.
There's very few times where we actually -- when we are doing the overlays and resurfacing that we actually
go through and put in the bike lane facility, as we have had written in the Comprehensive Plan for years.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Joe.
Anybody else have any comments?
Ms. Payton?
MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, Florida Wildlife Federation.
1 want to speak on Policy 4.9. I'm not quite sure what's happening to it. But it is -- it illustrates a shortcoming
I see in some of the proposed policies, and that is that they are not measurable. They're aspirational but they're not
measurable.
Like shall work to reduce vehicle miles. Well, we want those vehicle miles reduced, and there ought to be
some goals set in the policy that by such and such a time such and such a reduction will occur. As long as it's shall
work, it's staff getting up at their desk in the morning and saying yeah, I should be working on that. And it goes on
for another year and another year and yeah, I should be working on that and I'm true to the policy.
That's not what House Bill 697 meant. It is county's got to take action. And this policy doesn't achieve that.
It's aspirational, like 1 want to clean out my garage, I should clean out my garage. But chances are that's not going to
happen.
So it's the same thing, it's a meaningless policy. And I urge you to keep that in mind when you look at some
of these other policies, that they're nice, but do they mean anything? And we don't need to clutter up our Growth
Management Plan with aspirations. We want a plan and something that can be implemented and has measurable
means to assure we're achieving that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that goes back to the whole idea that -- Mike, when we talk about the
generality of this language that Nancy's pointing out. shall work to reduce, if instead the county is a -- shall initiate
and maintain and then go into an active document that we'd have to be forced to complete, that may be a better way to
approach the VMT's and greenhouse gas issue. Instead of shall work to reduce, why don't wejust initiate and
maintain a program and figure out some methodology, whether it's through a study, whether it's through an action in
transportation, but some measurable quantity, and then we would have something to measure against.
And the time frame becomes a problem because of the budget right now. And 1 have to empathize with
staffs reluctance to put time frames in on some issues right now until we know where our monies are going to be in
the future in this county.
But at least with every EAR or sooner we'd have a standard in which to have to compare to. Right now, as
Nancy's saying, there isn't a standard to compare to. Next seven years from now, we can say, yeah, that's a good
policy, leave it there, we shall work towards that. But what do we have to say we've done anything?
MR. BOSE Let me introduce the concept that as these transportation planners have been sitting at their desk,
they have initiated a Master Mobility Plan that's specifically designed to try to bring in these specific instances into
more specificity and to bring real measurable reductions within those vehicle miles traveled.
I guess the question would be what is the appropriate term for measurement and how much of a financial
commitment does this county want to make and place upon attaining results within that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But identifying your work product then as the outcome of the Master Mobility Plan.
Maybe you need a reference to Master Mobility Plan as a reaction to the VMT and greenhouse gas emission standards
as the way we're going to get there, and then why your development of that plan becomes the mechanism in which it
gives a benchmark, let's say, that we're moving forward.
MR. BOSE I thought I heard the Planning Commission make the suggestion and yourself make the
suggestion a number of times that create, potentially discuss, contemplate a policy that's going to recognize the Master
Mobility Plan and the Master Mobility Plan contributing to the development of an overall Mobility Element within
Page 28 of 89
16 I 163
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
the Growth Management Plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. BOSI: Well, that's already been noted. We've already --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're in similar -- I think that may be then the response to Nancy's question. If that's
the line of thinking staffs moving towards, then that's good.
MS. PAYTON: That's good. Ijust don't want the county to repeat what they did in 1996, and that was they
did away with their measurable goals. And that challenge still hasn't been resolved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, at least we have a Watershed Management Plan, right?
Oh, we don't.
MS. PAYTON: See?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. Thank you.
Nicole?
MS. RYAN: Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
And I certainly like the direction that the discussion is going for creating measurable benchmarks for
reducing vehicle miles traveled, greenhouse gases. And while I think this is an important concept to introduce under
the non - motorized objective and policies, it has not been repeated in the motorized portions of the Transportation
Element. And I think that that needs to be drawn in somehow. We need to reduce vehicle miles traveled through
things such as better land use planning, better connectivity of the current transportation network.
So I wanted to make sure that it wasn't lost in the mix and only discussed and introduced in the
non - motorized and pedestrian mobility objective.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MS. RYAN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's move on to Pages 8 and 9. Questions from the Planning Commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Pages 10 and 11.
Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a question on 6.5 where it says 1 -75 Everglades Interchange. Is that
something that we want to put into our Growth Management Plan?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's a good point. Because Mr. Bosi and I had a discussion about that same
thing too.
MR. BOSI: That is an existing policy. Those were projects that have been carried out. The transportation's
review of this policy has recognized that those projects have been carried out, and they are suggesting that future
grade separated interpasses be designated as replacement projects for Policy 6.5.
And I think maybe Mr. Casalanguida can explore or explain the motivation behind the replacement of the
current policies in 6.5 with the recognition of the grade separated interpasses that the LRTP has identified as needed
within various locations throughout the transportation system.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We always go through the 2030 -2035 LRTP. Now we're going through the
Master Mobility Plan and the build -out analysis. Certain key intersections and locations always seem to come up.
Now, when you're going for federal funding or you're going for grants, having them in your GMP as
identified key locations definitely puts a bigger spotlight on those locations as well, too. And I think we've noted a
couple of them that are predominant, and recommend taking Policy 6.5 and adding those in replacement of the
Golden Gate Parkway, which was completed.
And I know they're controversial, but they've gotten a lot of support from both public involvement, from
traffic analysis, so they're justified many different ways.
Now, notwithstanding there's going to be environmental issues on one of them, and maybe that's a statement
to put in, notwithstanding any environmental concerns that need to be addressed as part of that.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I'm just concerned that you're putting something that's controversial
and it's not really settled as part of the GMP.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think a lot things in the GMP are controversial and not really set. And that's part
Page 29 of 89
161 1 b3
August 25, 2010
CCPCIEAR
of it. You're not going to make everybody happy on these items.
Again, I said notwithstanding environmental concerns that haven't been flushed out. So if we need to qualify
that statement, I'm okay with that, because that's fair and that's what we've been talking about with some of the
agencies.
I'm sure there's someone who waits to speak to that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before -- Nick, first of all, we also reference the LRTP and the MPO in other
language. So to then take certain segments of their plans and highlight them even further in this policy, the specificity
that I thought we were trying to get away from in the GMP, especially with some of this that has not been aired in the
public.
Public is not in agreement with everything that you've got written here, especially with the I -75 Everglades
Interchange. You know that by if you just read the paper recently. You have not vetted this in the public as it should
have been. Why would we even want to go this far with this specificity at this time?
The Orangetree people haven't been talked to about the Randall and Immokalee overpass that might go there
and Zook down on their homes. It isn't fair to the community to put this in the GMP, because like you said, it becomes
stronger. That's just the opposite effect we should have until we go out to the public.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would argue, Commissioner, that it has been vetted many times. I think the
Randall- Immokalee one is one that was --
THE COURT REPORTER: Can you both please slow down.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, blame records, 1 had coffee.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You just recently adopted a transmission of a GMP amendment that specifically
talked about a grade separated overpass as part of the adoption process.
Both of these -- all three of these interchanges are in the I.RTP that's going through the public vetting process.
They're not new to the LRTP, they were in the last LRTP. So they've been vetted many, many times to the public.
CHAIRMAN STRAW: I'm not in agreement with you that this needs to be in the GMP. I think if you have
it as an element through the LRTP or MPO and it goes through other processes like that, putting this in the GMP
really hurts the public's ability to have an impact on it, because it's already here.
I mean, that's where I'm coming from. And I'm not sure what the concept is from the rest of the board. Mr.
Midney, Ms. Caron seem to agree.
Melissa, Brad, do you have any thoughts on it?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm kind of agreeing with Nick that, 1 mean, it is something that is out there
is already.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I know that it is out there already and I know it's been to the public. I mean, if
you've been to -- followed any of the MPO meetings --
THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, Karen, I can't hear you.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAIC I'm sorry.
No, I know that these things have been out to the public. I mean, with the MPO there's meetings, citizens
advisory, technical committee, MPO meetings televised. I mean, these things have been --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm more concerned about having meetings with the neighborhoods that they
impact. That would be the Golden Gate Area Fstate Civic Association, the Golden Gate Homeowners Association,
Belle Meade groups, people that are going to be impacted by this.
This interchange was originally discussed to go out to service the Big Cypress area, which is going to be well
past -- in fact, the maps show it well past Everglades Boulevard. Now you're moving it into the community and the
community is not aware of it. And I'm sorry, but when they got aware of it, they voiced an objection to it, from the
quotes 1 read in the newspaper. It wasn't 100 percent in favor, Nick, so --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sir, for the record. it was our largest attended public meeting, almost 300 people,
and 97 percent were in favor of this interchange. We had it on Everglades Boulevard. So let's be clear. We advertised
it, people attended. And they wanted to string me up because I was taking too much time studying it. And that was
the response I got from the public meeting we had on Everglades Boulevard.
So it was a pretty large public meeting and public involvement on this interchange.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray'?
Page 30 of 89
161 163
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I happen to agree with Mr. Casalanguida.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Not having it in here, how does that affect any funding you may be able to get
or any grants?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It prioritizes it through the Comp. Plan, so when you look at it you can say as part
of a grant application it's top of the shelf in terms of need, of vetting. So that's how it helps.
And also, when you come in with -- when other projects come in, it's been noted as these are critical
intersections. 951 and 41 has gone through PD &E and is going through our PD &E update, vetted as grade separated
overpass. Matter of fact, our DCA and TIGER grant applications all note that.
So these aren't the ones that we've kind of just taken off willy - nilly, they've been really gone through quite a
bit of process and highlighted interchanges.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Mark, I would agree to leave them at least for the funding side of it, that it
would be in there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: What happens, though, if before the five years are up your priorities change?
I mean, I'm just --I don't think that specific projects should be --I think you should relate back to the
long -range plan where you can change your priorities as they may or may not be needed.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: These have been standing priorities for quite a bit of time --
COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, I can understand you're already underway with 41 and 951. But again,
that wouldn't change whether that was in here or not in here. Because as you know, it's already happening and it
wasn't in this plan to begin with. So it doesn't prevent any of these things from happening.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I think that it's just the wrong place to be designating them.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For track record and history, the ones that were there on Policy 6.5 have both been
constructed. So it goes to tell you that by putting those in there, the emphasis on both the county, state and federal
level, you've really said this is what we're focusing on. So from a track record perspective, 6.5, both of those
interchanges have been built.
So to continue on is what we're trying to do, is to say, look, we've had them in as a GMP and we've built
them. The three new that we're proposing have been on the radar for five, 10 years, depending on which ones they
are, and they've been number one priorities for quite some time and they should be continued. Hopefully based on the
success of the prior policy we can continue on to do that.
So it's helped by having that policy in there when you're applying for something to say this is in our Growth
Management Plan as a critical location for funding analysis and need. And again, notwithstanding that this statement
should come in that these interchanges should be -- you know, should have enviromnental impact analysis done as
well, too. Because I'm trying to be fair with the folks I'm working with --
COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I understand. But all I'm saying to you, Nick, is that U.S. 41 and 951 was
not culled out, but it's already happening now before it's even been culled out.
So things can begin to happen and will happen based on priorities, not whether or not you happened to
prioritize them on September 15th of 2010 versus, you know, six months later.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: 951 and 41 isn't happening now. It'sjust only happening at grade. We're going
through the study. There's no money to do the grade separated yet. We're doing the footprint for the grade separated
right now.
COMMISSIONER CARON: This isn't giving you money either, so -- for any of these things.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm applying for TIGER grant, TIGER grant two's, for example. And to say that I
have a policy specifically in my GMP that says this is a critical interchange for the county, that and you reference that
policy in the Growth Management Plan, you know, it helps in that grant application. Calls attention to it when you're
working with developers and they say, well, I don't want to work with you on this intersection. Well, look, we've
identified it as a key interchange, key location.
And there's only -- when you look at the county as a whole, there's one other location I can think of, like we --
a little controversial based on the 951 extension, that 951- Irmnokalee intersection, because we've already purchased
the right -of -way and kind of planned for it there. That's why we didn't include that in there.
But these are really three critical areas that I think have been well vetted. I understand the concern about
Page 31 of 89
161 1��
August 25, 2010
CCPC/EAR
identifying, but our track record shows we've done well with identifying, securing funding and prioritizing them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the consensus of this panel is four in favor and three opposed. So it will -- I
mean, you guys just go forward with that consensus. So I'll still --the rest of us can handle it the way we need to.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Do we have consensus though to add notwithstanding any environmental
issues as far as --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think he volunteered that, so I'm assuming staffs going to --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm happy to add that, yes --
COMMISSIONER CARON: I just didn't want that to get lost.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's it concern.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we still got comments from the Planning Cormnission on Pages 10 and 11.
Anybody else have any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, on Page 10, Policy 6.2. Right now the way that policy reads, it's shall
consider the applicable roadway plans of the various other municipalities and agencies. And you want to change that
to coordinate with.
Aren't we better off from a standpoint of negotiating with these other agencies and cities as to how they do
their internal roadway alignments to leave it consider so were not tied to do just what they tell us to do? Because
coordinate with would seem stronger, it would put more of an emphasis on us to have to do how we align versus let us
argue with them a little bit and maybe bring more to the table on our behalf if we leave the word consider in.
So I would suggest not making the revision. Is that -- what does staff feel about that'? Any problem?
MR. BOSI: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's it.
Any speakers on Pages 10 and I I?
MS. RYAN: Nicole Ryan, here on behalf'fhe Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
And I'd like to comment on Policy 6.5 with the addition of specific roadway projects. The Conservancy
doesn't believe that the GMP is the appropriate place to list out certain projects as prioritization for getting them
completed and in the pipeline.
And as far as the 1 -75 Everglades Boulevard Interchange, we're absolutely opposed to that project being
culled out, prioritized and put into the GMP as somehow being consistent with the GMP in its entirety.
In all fairness, if it's in the GMP as a transportation priority when the county's going to make a grant
application, while they may say it's consistent with the'fransportation Element, they really should in all fairness say
it's inconsistent with the Conservation and Coastal Management Klement and the listed species and wildlife protection
policies contained therein.
So we see the addition of this as putting in place a road project that we know the agencies are concerned
about, that we know have consistency issues with other areas of the GMP.
Another thing that both The Conservancy, Florida Wildlife and others are doing is with the long -range
transportation plan update, we're hopeful that the MPO is going to take it look at perhaps removing, certainly red
flagging, some of those transportation projects that are not environmentally compatible.
We would like to see the MPO create an environmentally feasible map, remove some of these problematic
projects. If the greatest thing happened that did end up happening, you would have then a project in your
transportation element that was no longer in the long -range transportation plan, and that would create inconsistencies.
So we don't see that it needs to be prioritized out and legitimacy added to a project that quite frankly is very
controversial, very problematic.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Okay, any other questions?
Nancy?
MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, Florida Wildlife Federation.
This also brings up the issue about these plans that are supposed to be happening, the Master Mobility Plan,
and seems as though the legitimacy and the justification for this interchange would be included in that major study.
But what's happening is there's an effort to get it in the Comp. Plan to have it, I think, drive the study and
drive decisions, and that's not what should be happening.
Page 32 of 89
16 1 1 e3
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
Also, on Policy 7.6, which is the next page over, talks about the use of the efficient decision -- efficient
transportation decision - making process. And this project is in dispute resolution through that process, a long way
away from resolving that dispute resolution. So it seems totally inappropriate and inconsistent to have a policy that's
already prioritizing an extremely controversial plan -- interchange.
So based on that -- and it goes to the eight major issues again for us in terms of transportation and Golden
Gate Master Plan. This has a significant impact that some people have not yet understood and others have to the
integrity of the Golden Gate area. It is a big changer out there.
And actually, this has been talked about, because l can go back in my files many years long before there was
a rural land stewardship and there was a Big Cypress. And there has been a push to have it there. But the
implications are not well known to many people, and need to be discussed.
The last time this was discussed in a public forum was in, as I recall, July a year ago, and it was put on as a
presentation. The public did not have the opportunity to comment on it.
I asked to have it elsewhere and was told no, it was staying on presentation. And as you know,
Commissioners don't take comments during presentations. So there has been an effort I think to somewhat push this
project through without a full public debate.
And thank you for bringing it up today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: "Thank you, Nancy.
We'll have to save our argument for another day.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One quick thing on 11. And Mike, it's Objective 7. 1 read that objective,
and obviously what it's saying is, you know, in the past you came up with standards, which I assume you've done
already, for ingress and egress to adjoining properties, right?
And then down below you kind of want to make that where these standards have to be met during the Site
Development Plan process. That's no longer -- I mean, you're giving them strength in your revision; is that correct?
MR. BOSl: That's my understanding.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The other question is that the policies after that are rather major
compared to — I mean, when l read your objective, I kind of think of two shopping centers side by side. But when I
read your policy, you know, you have corridors, transportation corridors and a whole bunch of stuff.
So when I read the objective, am I minimizing the power of that, or what's --
MR. BOSI: No, to me those individual policies help define what that safe and efficient ingress and egress are
and what the parameters can be established for those.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And at what scale of project is this intended for, all scales, I guess,
or --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would think.
MR. BOSI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because it just starts out to me sounding like connecting parking lights and
winds up connecting communities. But I guess that's the intent.
MR. BOSI: I believe it does go from the micro to the macro in terms of scale.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're done Pages 10 and 11. Let's move to 12 and 13. Any questions from
the Planning Commission on Pages 12 and 13?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, on Policy 7.4, on the middle of the third line it says, starts the sentence, it
says such plans shall take into account the recommendations of the community character plan. Why don't we use the
word may there instead of shall?
The only reason is, is that community character plan is not always consistent with the local desires.
I mean, just think about it. It's just a suggestion.
On Page 13, Policy 7.6, and that's similar to the comment, and I had circled the same thing that Nancy had
previously made. Were putting the cart before the horse. My note says the overpasses and things should be done
after this process, which is what I'm reiterating. I agree with her.
In addition, during the design of transportation projects, there are numerous design and special meetings to
take into account the socio- cultural elements of the community, including character issues such as aesthetics, avoiding
or mitigating for environmental impacts, noise and community disruption issues.
Page 33 of 89
161 1 0
August 25, 2010
CCPC/EAR
I like the language. I'm not sure -- and you're going to keep the text in there. l think that certainly will be an
argument as to why the corridor plan that is proposed in other elements of the "Transportation Element is not meeting
that criteria. But neither here nor there.
And the last thing, Objective 8, how is the word necessary determined in that last sentence where it says
necessary road facilities?
Just, I'm -- how do you determine which are necessary and which aren't? How do you determine the priority'?
MR. BOSI: I believe it's a volume of road capacity compared to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a level of service standard?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. 'That's correct, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just wanted to make sure it wasn't referring to another plan that wasn't mentioned.
Anybody else on 12 and 13?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, 14 and 15?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Pages 16 and 17?
MS. AVOLA: Before we move on.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry, 1 didn't see you standing -- I was reading my notes.
MS. AVOLA: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're short.
MS. AVOLA: Michele Avola, Naples Pathways Coalition.
For Objective 8, we would like to see the word road replaced with transportation facilities.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're on Page 13?
MS. AVOLA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MS. AVOLA: Objective 8. So timely construction of necessary transportation facilities is how it would end.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that any problem from statTs perspective?
Now, just -- 1 have another little thing, and I think these word changes are good and a good cleanup, and
we've been making them a lot here so far. I'm not sure the intent of the EAR was all this level of detail. Is this going
to be a problem?
And I'm not objecting to hers in general, I think it's a good one. But I just got to thinking we've been making
those as we go along, and a lot of little word changes. Is that going to be a problem in an EAR process, or is that
more something that should be regulated to a staff small -scale amendment?
MR. BOSI: I don't believe that it is out of context with what the state statutes require. 1 mean, the state
statute requires that each element and objective be analyzed for its effectiveness. And if a word change makes a policy
more effective that furthers an element, how couldn't that rational nexus between the motivation for the change in the
specific statute reference and requirement be coordinated? I don't see how it couldn't.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to continue on like we are unless there was a problem, but I want to
make sure we're on the right track.
Nick`?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Chair, Michele's comment's well noted. We don't have a concurrency
management system for anything other than roads right now. So we've talked about eventually having one for transit.
So if I put other facilities I don't have a concurrency management system for anything other than roadways right now.
I understand where you're going, I'm with you. But just by changing it to all transportation facilities, I don't
have one. So, you know, I kind of need to maintain it at roads, unless you're asking me to put in a pedestrian
concurrency or something else
So I don't recommend making that change, because 1 don't have a way to manage it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 1 agree.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody's else? We're on Page 16 and 17 now. Any questions on those pages?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
Page 34 of 89
161 1
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- little 16 question. And it's just a point of information. What's a speed
table, Mike? It's up at the top of the page, top left. You have speed humps and a speed table. I can guess, but --
MR. BOSI: I believe the speed tables are the more long --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, they're --typically your neighborhood traffic management doesn't use those
humps anymore, they use a table, where you actually go up, and it's five -feet long, goes down, based on speed of the
roadway.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, got it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on Pages 16 and 17?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 17, Policy 11.2, it refers to the Collier County Airport Authority as
determining the most cost effective and efficient means of facility planning.
Isn't it the Board of County Commissioners that does that? Or how is that authority handled?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, good point. Because the Airport Authority is not an advisory board to the
board --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, that's what I thought, it got changed around. So wouldn't you really want to
take them out and really put Collier County Board of County Commissioners?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir, we would.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Policy 11.1. Michael, that's another one of those self - amending, and how --
we might want to say the county shall initiate and maintain the Immokalee regional -- something like that. But you
might want to make sure that it's not self - amending the way it's written. Because those master plans can be changed
by a vote of the board and inconsistent -- and don't necessarily fall into the GMP then. So -- Pages -- Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Would it be helpful if the date of those plans were in there? Would that --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the beginning that's what I had suggested. If we're going to use a reference, date
it so it's locked in. If then -- that stops it from being self - amending if the self - amending issue is a problem.
And I think that's one of the -- there's a lot of it -- like I said, there's three dozen examples in this overall set of
elements. That's just some of them we're popping into.
COMMISSIONER CARON: One that you had done earlier was more of a change of tern as opposed to a
date. And l thought the term worked better in that particular instance, whereas dates --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Might work better now, yeah, I think so.
Anyway, I know staffs going to be looking at that.
Pages 18 and 19?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I guess that's where under Objective 12 where we had talked earlier, I think it
was Nicole Ryan had mentioned that this is where the vehicle miles and greenhouse gases should be included in this
as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on 18 and 19?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Policy 11.3, in July there was a Board of County Commissioners meeting. And the
meeting focused mostly on the Jackson Labs issue, because that was the hot topic of that meeting. But in the middle
they broke the meeting up because Sammy Hamilton, the Mayor of Everglades City, showed up to discuss the
Everglades City Airport.
Now, I wasn't paying too much attention to his issue, because I was listening in the background while I was
doing something else. But I thought he was arguing that they wanted the county to resume taking care of the
Everglades air park.
And the reason I'm bringing it up is 11.3 works in the opposite direction. But I can't remember if my
understanding of his presentation was right or not or was just the opposite.
Do you know, Nick?
COMMISSIONER CARON: It was just the opposite.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I know. He was asking the board to give him the air park.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Give him the airport back --
Page 35 of 89
161 log
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then that even -- then why on Policy 11.3 -- well, see, I couldn't figure out
why he was asking that if we have it as a policy to do that. Why haven't we done it'?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, 1 don't think we had the policy to do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, 11.3 is the policy. 1 mean, it's supposed to be -- we're supposed to have
transferred it to him. And if this has been here since the last EAR or however long, why haven't we done that, if that's
what's supposed to be done?
Because that's why I couldn't figure out -- that's why 1 thought his presentation must have been trying to do
something different than this policy, otherwise why is he in here arguing for it. We should have done it a long time
ago.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think the issue was the public airport. I'm not sure. But I don't -- I think they
wanted to take over ownership and I don't know if they could maintain it without -- with funds. Because obviously
they're having issues in getting --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, by the time we get to the adoption, would you guys look at that --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and make sure this is written in a manner that's consistent with whatever
Everglades City is trying to do?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm assuming the board is in favor of working to what Everglades City wants. But
that just -- with that there, I was a little surprised recalling his presentation.
Okay, Pages -- well, last page is Page 20. Anybody have anything on Page 20?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And by the way, Policy 12.8 is why this mobility element becomes easier to do. 1
remember bringing this discussion up a long time ago to Randy, and the response was that by introducing a new
element like a mass transit element it would fall under a required level of service that would require then things like
funding and impact fees and all that.
But because of this change in Florida Statutes, the mobility element may not need to fall under the
concurrency requirements, and we can go forward and get it initiated. And if we want to ever bring it there, I'm sure
we could. But at least it would give us the ability to start putting it together.
Chuck, did you have something you want to --
MR. MOHLKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chuck Mohlke.
Just a general comment on the duration of the EAR process. We may want to take greater consideration than
I think we have in the fact that you're on a seven -year cycle. We can't yet anticipate the one thing that drives
transportation planning more than anything else, and that's the census. We recognize that we have done, at least in my
view, a remarkably workinanlike job in Collier County in terns of estimating the impacts of future population
increases.
But nevertheless, there are -- and the point of my remarks is that there are a variety of other jurisdictions over
which we have no control, at the regional and at the state and at the federal level that are driving the transportation
process.
And what I'd like to suggest is if we're fortunate enough to have further consideration of a mobility element
for the Growth Management Plan, that we account for two, 1 believe, inevitabilities.
Inevitability number one is that at the state level we're going to he more and more and more driven by a
passion for regional planning, particularly as it relates to transportation, particularly as it relates to health and safety
issues. Because in all these instances they arc not respecters of arbitrary boundaries drawn by men and women in the
spirit of defining jurisdictions and trying to govern them in some sensible way.
When that happens, 1 would hope that there is somewhere -- and 1 don't see it, but perhaps I am not reading it
carefully enough -- an opportunity to plan for these contingencies.
Under a former governor there was a considerable effort made to regionalize the Metropolitan Planning
Organization phenomenon in Southwest Florida so that we would jointly with our neighboring counties be planning
in a manner that was far more centralized and controlled the dollars derived from transportation fees and exactions at
every level to try and unify transportation planning, to get away from those vexing issues that are always before us,
namely, who's responsible for this trip? Who generated this trip? Where is the destination? How do we account for
Page 36 of' 89
161 1b3
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
that in our separate countywide Metropolitan Planning Organization efforts to develop a transportation network
convenient not just to ourjurisdiction, but to a larger environment that we work in?
And I'm hopeful that if the efforts of the Planning Commission are successful to encourage the development
of a mobility feature for comprehensive planning that we begin to account for this first inevitability. That there will
be an effort to try and centralize a lot of these things. Because the dollar efficiencies are enormous if you can get rid
of duplication and a variety of other things.
And the next inevitability is that as we grow here and we begin to flesh out the opportunities that are
available already on the books for having community development districts become municipalities and having other
features of some of the long neglected statutes that we have available to guide us in this regard, like Chapter 380, the
beginning of the development of regional impact process, the reason that we have an area of critical state concern, the
variety of all of these things are going to have inevitably some impact. They're either going to be withdrawn from the
statute, which will require a reestimating of the way in which we plan for transportation needs over time, and we have
no way of addressing the potential of these things happening in our existing transportation element and a variety of
other, of our land use and other elements of the plan which right now will have to be adjusted in some fashion.
And if we're looking at a seven -year horizon before we have another EAR process underway, I would hope
that some of these things are at least talked about in the plan, or preferably in a mobility plan that can say here's the
regulatory environment we're under, here's the funding environment that we're under. They're driven by state and
federal statutes or enactments.
Every single one of the issues that you've talked about in such great, almost loving detail here is subject to
review by the Florida Department of Transportation's District 1 office to determine whether or not it's consistent with
established policies that govern the way in which federal and state agencies approve, regulate, constrain, expand the
way we do business here.
And I don't read anything like that in this element. And if we could have something that at least says there
are contingencies that are eventually going to have to be dealt with in this plan, how do we do that? What mechanism
exists other than going through the long and tedious process of amending the plan, particularly if it has to be a private
initiative.
You know, we don't -- we went through the last process in which some petitions were delayed five years for
reasons that were completely understandable, well documented and so on. But it's not a way to address a brand new
set of circumstances imposed upon us either at the state, the regional or the federal level. And I think somewhere in
this there needs to be a reference to that.
Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: "Thank you. Appreciate it, Chuck.
Are there any other comments?
Ma'am?
MS. REVAY: Ijust have a really quick one, actually. Stacy Revay, Collier County Health Department,
Smart Growth Coalition chair.
The Smart Growth Coalition has been working pretty diligently on creating language for specific policies and
objectives for the Transportation Element and the Future Land Use element. So I have those today, or if you'd rather,
I can e -mail them to everyone.
Also, I just have a couple of things to give you so that you can look at these.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you have anything that isn't copied, you probably need to give it to staff. During
the lunch break they can make copies for us.
MS. REVAY: Or I can e -mail it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, either way, it would be better.
And the other item that you have, if you want to e-mail that, I suggest you e -mail it to Mike Bosi, who's in
charge of comprehensive planning. He can distribute it back to us and that would be a little simpler. Everybody gets
the same thing then.
MS. REVAY: Okay, great.
And some of the things that Michele had shared also, those are some of the recommendations that we had
made. But as I'm stating, they're simply recommendations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be good to have them. That way when we get to the adoption hearing then
Page 37 of 89
161 1 �,,72
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
staff will have time to chew on them a little bit and so will we.
MS. REVAY: Okay, great. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
** *Okay, the next most popular segment of our discussion was the FLUE, the Future Land Use Element.
And we're going to take a break. I guess we'll take a break for lunch about a little before 12:00 and come back at
1:00.
So let's just go into the FLUE right now and get as much of it done as we can start to.
And Mike, I don't think we need any introduction, so we'll just go right into the text, if that's okay with you.
MR. BOSI: Well, David Weeks -- each one of the staff members within the comprehensive planning team
was assigned the coordination for the individual elements. And Mr. Weeks raised his hand and said he wanted to
tackle the Future Land Use Element, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, he's not a member of the public, so -- David, it's good to see you again.
MR. WEEKS: Hello.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know what they'd do if you as a history weren't around this county, because
you've got everything as concise as a historian could possibly have it.
MR. WEEKS: Don't make me blush.
For the record, David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning staff.
And Mr. Chairman. 1 would like to make a few introductory remarks, if you'll permit me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No.
Go ahead, sir.
MR. WEEKS: And I'll be pretty brief.
One has been touched on quite a bit during discussion of the transportation element, and that has to do with
the House Bill 697, which is -- which has now been incorporated into Florida Statutes. It does place emphasis on the
future land use plan to discourage urban sprawl, for the FLUE to he based on energy efficient land use patterns and
greenhouse gas reduction strategics.
And as Mike had stated as part of his introductory comments and overall view of the GMP, we believe it's
been successful.
Specific to the FLUE, I do believe it's mostly satisfying these statutory requirements already. The Future
Land Use Element allows and encourages mixed use development in various districts, subdistricts and overlays. It
allows higher density development through application of the density rating system. It encourages project
interconnections generally. And then specifically it encourages various transportation demand strategies within the
two transportation concurrency management areas, such as providing project interconnections, providing transit
shelters and providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Regarding the summary of the recommended changes to the Future Land Use Element, I would characterize
all of the recommended changes to the goals, objectives and policies section as being very minor in nature, more of in
the guise of housecleaning.
The substantive changes are to the future land use designation description section, the various districts,
subdistricts, overlays, et cetera.
I think that's enough.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are you going to be the one responding to our comments then?
MR. WEEKS: To the best of my ability, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Actually, at least my reading of it, you've done a pretty goodjob in the way
it was changed, so we'll see where we have to go through it.
Let's take the first few pages up and through Page 1 of the actual assessment. Does anybody have any
questions on those pages?
(No response.)
Cl (AIRMAN STRAIN: Pages 2 and 3?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just want you to go over this --I'm sorry, on Policy 1.4 where you talk
about the creation of a district, is that relating back to 1.2, the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, the Rural --
MR. WEEKS: No, it is not.
Page 38 of 89
161 1�3
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, I didn't think so. So I need you to explain to me.
MR. WEEKS: Certainly. There's four broad land use designations on the Future Land Use Map. And go
back to Policy 1. 1, that's for the urban designation. Policy 1.2 is for the agricultural rural designation. Policy 1.3 is
for the Estates designation. And then Policy 1.4 is for the conservation designation.
So Policy 1.4 is only pertaining to the conservation designation.
And the existing policy says that we shall, mandates that we create a district underneath that designation. We
do not presently have one, a district, nor any subdistricts, and we have not since the plan was adopted in 1989. That
seems from the staff perspective unnecessary.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if it's unnecessary, then why are you recommending to -- should be retained?
MR. WEEKS: Unnecessary to require the designation of a district.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But retain the policy as you've stated just in case it's needed in the future.
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on Page 2 and 3?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about 4 and 5?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, 6 and 7?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the audience knows too, while we're thumbing through this book, a lot of these
policies are not changing and therefore they may not generate a lot of comment. So if we don't seem to care, it's not
that we don't care, we're just -- there's not a lot to cornment on right now.
So, 8 and 9?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ten and 11?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of course we also know if we do care and we argue, we've got David to confront,
and he's a little more formidable than Nick.
So, 12 and 13?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fourteen and 15?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sixteen and 17?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Eighteen and 19?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: David picked the right group.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, my notes all keep saying okay next to everything. So I have -- 20 and 21?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN:
Twenty -two and 23?
Twenty -four and 25?
Twenty -six and 27?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twenty -eight and 29?
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, I have something.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, David. You're going to criticize your own recommendations, huh?
MR. WEEKS: I am.
On Page 28 in the second paragraph, starting on the third line, this is regarding changes to the traffic
congestion area boundary. Staff is recommending that that is a density reduction factor. That is, in applying the
density rating system, if a property falls within the traffic congestion area, it is subject to a one dwelling unit per acre
Page 39 of 89
161 1 0
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
density reduction.
Staff is recommending that that boundary be deleted and instead we shift that reduction factor seaward over
to the coastal high hazard area.
Now, within that paragraph, starting on the third line near the right end -- right side, it starts with, that a
correlating change be made to the Future Land Use Element. And it goes on to say to take the density bands, the
circles on the Future Land Use Map, there are -- in some cases there are only partial circles. The recommendation
here is to complete the circle.
Well, after doing a detailed analysis, I realize that there are zero properties that will be impacted by such a
change. Therefore, it's meaningless to make the change, so 1 would suggest that we not in fact complete the circle of
those density bands.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't think anybody has any objections.
Then we'll go on to 30 and 31?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN:
Thirty -two and 33?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN:
Thirty -four and 35?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN:
Thirty -six and 3T'
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN:
And then Page 38 wraps it up.
Are there any questions
from the Planning Commission on the FLUE as a whole?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER:
I just have one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN:
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Dave, when you look at the analysis you did upfront about the use of land
and everything, we're using -- essentially it's what, 4.1 units per citizen or something? Two and a half people per
acre? Isn't that about right, Mike?
I mean, there was an analysis of what the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 2.39 persons per household: is that --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, what I -- there's a study of land use and you came up with .41, I think it
was, acres per citizen, which essentially is one unit per acre.
So, 1 mean, are we sprawling across the countryside here, or why is that so high? It could be the Estates as
people are sitting on five acres. But what are we doing other than -- you know, to prevent sprawl?
Obviously the transportation is going to come in and start looking for efficiency. That'll prevent it. The
Health Department has picked up the cause to try to save our fat guts. And I'm one that should have rode a bike to
this meeting, but -- so that will help.
But what are we doing in planning to stop sprawl or stop that .41 per acre?
MR. WEEKS: First, I'm not familiar with that figure, but that does sound like to me that it must be
incorporating certainly more than the urbanized area. 1 don't have a specific figure, but I would guess that the coastal
urban area probably has a gross density of somewhere between two- and -a -half maybe and three - and -a -half units per
acre gross.
But specific to your question about sprawl, first of all, I would say that we have a defined urbanized area, so
all development -- excuse me, most development is encouraged and only allowed at higher densities within that
defined area. It's not the entire county, it's just specific portions of it.
Secondly, we have the provisions 1'or the -- most notably the RLSA, the Rural Land Stewardship Area, which
again another massive area, in that case just shy of 200,000 acres. But where the development can occur, it is
mandated to occur in a compact form. So that 1 would argue that you would not likely have sprawl, though it's
certainly still possible.
1 don't think we can outright prevent sprawl — I don't know if you call it urban sprawl, but sprawl in the
RLSA. Because as you may recall, it does allow the landowner to develop that one unit per live acres. It's a
voluntary program. So if you choose not to participate in the stewardship program, you could still do that very low
density one unit per five acre development. We're hopeful, of course, that with the incentives of that program that that
Page 40 of 89
16 1 1 b�
August 25, 2010
CCPGEAR
will not occur.
But to me it's the provision for the compact development in the RLSA, because that's the single largest area
for future development to occur in the county. And then the coastal urban area, the fact that it is a confined
geographic area.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think the thing that scared me is in that study that I was reading, again, it's
not an element, but you were describing, you know, can -- is there enough land to fit the population. And you're using
that .41 as the denominator to come to the conclusion, yeah, we've got plenty of land.
But I hope the intent is not to smear everybody at that density across the countryside. I mean, we really do
want to start doing things that are encouraging — you know, the public in their comments were much more concerned
about this, it seems, because a lot of comments are in there that they wanted to require mixed uses, not just permit it.
But we don't have anything that requires it at all, do we?
MR. WEEKS: No. Even in the urbanized area there's no mandate, there's no minimum density. Now, we
have the density rating system with which an eligibility of in most cases four units per acre. But a person that has
property, for example that's zoned agriculture allows a density of one unit per five acres. If they so choose, they could
develop their property at that low density.
MR. BOSI: But to the point of your question, Brad, I believe that we encourage -- I mean, one of the things
that we allow for -- you know, especially in the mixed use activity centers we encourage those centers to develop with
the mixture of uses. The marketplace hasn't responded to those type of allowances, but I'm not sure if we want to
mandate a mixture of uses within those activity centers.
I think there are opportunities for infill developments to take advantages of density provisions that will allow
for a more -- of a more denser in the appropriate locations.
So I think the Future Land Use Element does promote and provide allowances to encouragement for infill
development, for urbanized development within the appropriate locations to achieve a higher density than what
maybe the current average would be. And I think what we're trying to do is identify areas where maybe we need to --
we could potentially strengthen those encouragements.
But we wouldn't want to get into -- we haven't crossed that line where we think that we need to mandate.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And hopefully the market encourages that development.
One other thing, a different topic somewhat, is that in that study of housing types, there really is no
breakdown as to what is in mixed use. You know how, for example, you have multi - family, you have stuff. It would
be nice if you could categorize maybe mixed use developments and show what commercial, what office, what
multi - family is within that. I mean, in other words, essentially establish freestanding multi- family is different from
mixed use multi - family, freestanding commercial mercantile is different than, you know, mixed use mercantile, so
that we could start to see if we are actually growing in the right direction.
Thank you.
MR. WEEKS: Excuse me, you're referring to mixed use development as in a single development that has a
residential and a commercial component or --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. What you're saying, like a PUD could -- is essentially a suburban
mixed use. But, you know, somehow start to define an urban, or maybe that's a third category, suburban trnxed use
and we start to track to see how we're developing. Because then we could see if we are sprawling or we are, you
know, essentially smart growing.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think it's getting close to lunchtime, and we want to get down there before
everybody else does. So why don't we break for lunch, come back at 1:00 and we'll resume with any further
comments on the FLUE and then go into one of the other elements when we get back, probably the Golden Gate Area
Master Plan, if -- maybe that one or the recreation. We'll see when we get back.
We'll be back at 1:00. Okay?
(A luncheon recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, thank you for coming back from our lunch.
We'll resume our meeting where we left off'. First we'll go over the agenda for the rest of today, or at least as
far as we get.
We need to finish up any discussion on the FLUE, when we resume. We also will then go into the Golden
Page 41 of 89
161 1
August 2s, 2010
CCPC /EAR
Gate Area Master Plan. After that we'll do the Recreation and Open Space Element, then the Housing Element.
Those are the three that most of the public was here for.
After those we'll get to the Immokalee Area Master Plan, which is really not much of a discussion. Mr.
Midney has an issue, so we'll get that out of the way while he's here today. And then after those we'll go into the other
three that there were members of the public here for, which is the Economic Element, the Public Schools Facilities
Element and the Drainage Sub - element. Not necessarily in that order, but that's how we'll get into them in the
afternoon.
Mike, does that work?
MR BOSI: Yes, sir, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the remaining ones after that, I'll just try to handle based on staffs presence.
Okay, when we went to lunch we had finished the review by the Planning Commission of the FLUE and
questions from the Conunissioners on the overall package. I wanted to make sure that if any member of the public
had any general comment they would like to make on the FLUE now is the time to do it
Nicole, and then Tim.
MS. RYAN: For the record, Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
And I wanted to direct your discussion back to what had been mentioned earlier, which is a review of the
Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, along with a coordinated review of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, and getting
those reviews into perhaps a policy or some kind of framework so that we know that prior to -- hopefully prior to the
next EAR, those discussions, those reviews will take place.
I personally like to have a policy attached to things like that so that we have at least some assurance that staff
will have to address it at some point. So perhaps there should be a policy in the FLUE and in the Golden Gate Area
Master Plan sections or elements that state that such reviews will take place and that the two reviews will coordinate
at some point.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, what do you -- what's staffs thoughts on that`?
MR. BOSI: Staff both -- you know, recognize that both the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Rural Fringe
Mixed Use districts are ripe for a public planning process. Whether it's the discretion or the desire of the Planning
Conunission to express that within a policy or have that stated within the EAR, whatever comfort level that you
would have with it we'll defer to.
It's something that's being suggested right now, and 1 think it's just that that would be a formalization of
what's being suggested to actually create a policy that would say, you know, to the extent that there would be -- both
those planning efforts would be coordinated before the FAR but also they would be coordinated with each other in
terms of potential for joint meetings or however the setup may move forward.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and I think that's important. We've seen enough, I guess, changes in the
Golden Gate Area Master Plan to warrant a relook as soon as it's convenient for both financially feasible and within a
time frame. I think before the next EAR is a good target.
That means it could happen any time in the next number of years. That might be a way to approach it. So
unless the Planning Comnssion has an objection, 1 sure don't --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't either.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: - -and I think it would be a good thing to do for both communities.
Okay, we'll probably get into more detailed discussion in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. Why don't we
finish with any kind of further public comment on the I- LUF..
Tim'?
MR. NANCE: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Tim Nance. I'm active in the Golden
Gate Estates cornnunity.
And I was unable to attend your session earlier today. And I just want to make some comments on
something that the Planning Commission has already addressed and already taken a vote on. It may be out of order
but I wanted to address it today because I feel like -- that the Planning Commission has acted on misinformation that
they received from staff. And 1 think what £m going to say is going to be fairly controversial but I want to address it
and just give you my input on that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Most certainly address it, Tim. We're here -- this is an intormation seeking
workshop. We're not -- we actually didn't take any formal action. We can't at a workshop. So what has occurred
Page 42 of 89
16 ! 1 �3
August 25, 2010
CCPC/EAR
through the elements we've already reviewed is we just would by nod provide staff with some consensus of direction.
MR. NANCE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's where we're at. Nothing's written in stone as of today's meeting, nor could
it be.
MR. NANCE: All right. Well, I'm here today to address this topic. And quite frankly, I am as upset about
this situation as I've ever been with anything that I've been involved with in the county. And I serve as a volunteer in
many capacities in the county. I serve with Ms. Homiak on the Citizens Advisory Committee to the MPO. I'm the
current chairman of that committee.
And I believe you discussed earlier today issues regarding the proposed interchange on I -75 in the eastern
part of the county. And what I wanted to address was a public meeting that occurred regarding planning for that
interchange that was billed as vetting with the public, which I feel was in fact, members of the Commission, one of
the worst examples of manipulation that I've experienced since I've lived in Collier County.
There was a meeting that was held to discuss -- it was advertised to be discussed as a discussion on the
location for a possible interchange on I -75 in the eastern part of the county. The fact that an interchange is needed or
wanted is in my estimation very uncontroversial. It has very wide support with people in Golden Gate Estates, it
certainly has wide support by people in the RLSA, and the need for that in the future I think is uncontroversial.
However, this meeting was billed as a discussion over where that intersection should be located. And there
was a study area that was advertised by staff, and it basically was an area that was centered on Everglades Boulevard.
And it extended considerably east and some -- and for a little distance west. And this meeting was called to discuss
this study area and the interchange. I attended that meeting.
When I got to the meeting, I was completely amazed at what was being presented. There were graphics that
were present that outlined the study area and showed the areas where the interchange might exist. But there was in
that room that evening not a single piece of data or graphics to open the discussion on where the intersection should
be.
For approximately a year- and -a -half to two years prior to that, at meetings at the Golden Gate Estates Area
Civic Association and in other discussions with transportation staff and the County Commissioner, particularly
Commissioner Coletta whose District 5 I live in, the discussion was that the interchange in the eastern part of the
county would be best served if it was aligned with transportation plans for the community of Big Cypress.
This was openly discussed and mentioned repeatedly. And some of thejustification for that was that a
location at Everglades Boulevard would put a tremendous burden on not only Golden Gate Estates and that
community as a corridor through that community, but it would put a tremendous burden on the people that own
properties and live on Everglades Boulevard because it would require the eminent domain of something like
somewhere between four and 600 properties to develop a corridor for the size necessary.
In addition, it was also discussed that such a road that would certainly become a four or six -lane corridor
would then be such a transportation corridor that would in the main serve communities to be built in the future in the
eastern part of the county, would be a road that would have somewhere between four and 600 driveways in the area.
This was talked about for months and months and months.
When I arrived at this meeting, the meeting was presented with a couple little graphics describing the study
area and then went on to present three different interchange designs for Golden Gate Boulevard. There was no
discussion of the public on the advantages or disadvantages of any location_ Up to that point there had been
discussion of possible location at DeSoto Boulevard, possible location at Everglades Boulevard and possible location
in a corridor to be aligned with the future town of Big Cypress.
The meeting was presented to everybody as which of the following interchanges on Everglades Boulevard,
which design would you prefer. The room was full of dozens of residents of far eastern Golden Gate Estates who
have been very anxious to get an access to 1 -75 for years, not only as a transportation to and from the eastern part of
the county, but as an emergency evacuation issue. So the room was full of people that were excited about the
opportunity to have an interchange.
But everybody then met with dozens of staff members to discuss which of the following three interchange
designs they thought was the best. That's how the evening was spent. People voted on it, they filled out comment
cards, they wanted so on and so forth.
I was absolutely -- to be honest with you, I was freaked out by this. And I talked to Mr. Casalanguida
Page 43 of 89
161 1 0$
August 25, 2010
CCPC/EAR
directly and I said, this meeting was advertised as a discussion over where this -- you know, the advantages and
disadvantages of different locations where this might be -- where the interchange itself might be best positioned.
And he said Tim, he says, we've got to do this, we've got to have this meeting because we've got to do this
interchange justification report and we've got to get some data out there and we've got a chance at funding. Don't
worry about where it's going to be, we're going to have plenty of discussion in the future to talk about where the
alignment should actually be. Don't worry about it, I'll get back with you, go away.
Well, like a fool 1 said, okay. I had the same discussion with him in his office in transportation, you know,
during myjoumeys to and from CAC meetings. I said, listen, I don't know what you thought that meeting was, but
that's not a good meeting.
So if I'm a little upset, I apologize to you. But if you have been presented intonmation that this location has
been vetted before the public, it is misinformation. If you'd like to put in your minutes that I'm calling Mr.
Casalanguida a liar, you may do so. It's not true. And if you've made a decision on that, it's unfortunate. And I urge
the committee to investigate what information was presented at that meeting and come to your own conclusion.
I apologize for that. But, you know, as somebody that serves as a volunteer in the community, I believe that
citizen input into our planning is very, very important. I think some of our best ideas come from citizens, and I'm
most upset.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, I understand you're upset. And your reasoning behind your statements as far
as how it was vetted was a concern that I expressed here. The consensus of this board was to go forward with the
language that was in the -- that was presented by staff.
We have another opportunity to discuss that. I do not think that -- let me correct the record. I don't think in
any uncertain terms Mr. Casalanguida ever was intentionally lying to anybody. I think there may be a
misunderstanding as to what occurred based on the differences of opinion of the people that attended the meeting. So
I certainly refute that statement for the record. I don't think that's --
MR. NANCE: And fm sorry Mr. Casalanguida isn't here, because I would certainly like to discuss it with
him. It's most upsetting. And 1 think it was a very, very patronizing meeting regarding staffs interaction with the
public. I think it's absolutely awful, shameful.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand your frustration, and in some ways I share it by living out in the same
area that you do. We can only take this up at another day, at another time. But your statements for the record
regarding the way the meeting was handled and managed, I think those are good statements to understand, and I think
this board won't forget them when you come in for our EAR process --
MR. NANCE: Well, please excuse my passion. I'm very, very upset about this issue. And I apologize to the
Commission, but 1 wanted to bring that to your attention. I really don't feel like we need to go forward with
misinformation. And I thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Tim.
Anybody else would like to address issues of the FLUE and this -- before go into Golden Gate Area Master
Plan?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ** *Okay. With that we'll go into the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. And I guess,
Corby, before we get into the master plan, something that may save a lot of time, in my review of the master plan for
Golden Gate that's in here today, there were some suggested changes. Some of them are grammatical, which is
rightfully so. Any grammatical changes that could clean up, that's tine.
Some are substantial. Some arc changing the intentions of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan committee that
I was chairman of for two years. I'm very familiar with those. I've actually gone in and pulled minutes and documents
to show that my assumptions were correct, this is inconsistent with what we had voted on at the time. But I don't
really see the need to get into all that based on some other issues I've heard here today.
And I've heard that the staff is now of the opinion that the area of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan is ripe
for a restudy. And that if the restudy is going to occur and you're going to withdraw the changes that are substantial
until the restudy occurs, then I can avoid going through a lot of my paragraph by paragraph dissertation.
But I want to make sure the Planning Commission is in agreement as well as staff that that's where you're
going with this thing, so when we get the adoption there's no suIprises.
MR. BOSE Staff is of agreement with the Chair, and hopefully with the majority of the Planning
Page 44 of 89
161 1 H
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
Commission.
We would not want to suggest substantive changes to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan because of the lack
of the public involvement, the lack of the -- the public process to provide for that. The only changes that we would
like to see during the EAR process would be the clean -up, housecleaning items, and leave those substantive issues for
that public vetting process that will be provided for within the restudy.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, as we go through this document, should I point out to you some of the
ones I consider substantive, or do you -- are you just going to rewrite this and bring it back to us on adoption with the
grammatical changes that are non - invasive, let's say, or non - inconsistent with our previous master plan?
MR. BOSI: I would say that going through at least on just an identification, not with a substantive
discussion, but at least an identification in terms of your purview of what you would consider as substantive and what
would you considerjust for the clean -up would prevent some miscommunication or disagreement at the adoption
process.
Because I think we're both on the same page in terms of how we want to go about and make substantive
adjustments to the master plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work for the rest of the Planning Commission?
Okay. Corby, did you want to lead off on any kind of opening comments?
MR. SCHMIDT: A few, thank you.
For the record, Corby Schmidt, Comprehensive Planner with the Comprehensive Planning section.
And the Golden Gate Area Master Plan has seven goals. And I won't read them all. But it is meant to be an
all- inclusive document to address all the needs of the Golden Gate -- the greater Golden Gate area.
I also have gone through the document and highlighted those areas where some of those substantive issues
may be removed. So if I come across them before you do or as you do, I'll also note that. Otherwise, that's it for
remarks, and --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's move right into the document. Let's take the first three pages,
Pages 1, 2 and 3. Any comments from the Planning Commission on the first three pages?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And again, just so you all know, if we keep the comments to the grammatical, we're
not going to get the substantial issues. If there are any here, hopefully they'll be referred back to the restudy
committee.
Ms. Caron, then Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It's stated here on Page 1 that the Golden Gate Area Master Plan is an optional
element in our Growth Management Plan. And first of all, I don't think it's an optional element. And if it is an
optional element, then what is it doing in the Growth Management Plan?
MR. BOSI: The Future Land Use Element is more than adequate to be able to provide for the regulatory
fabric in the policies containing any individual subdistrict contained within, such as the Rural Fringe Mixed Use
District or the Rural Lands Stewardship Area.
Somewhere in the past course of history within this county it was deemed that the unique needs of the Golden
Gate Estates would be better served by a separate standalone master plan. Therefore, it is optional, but it's something
that this county has deemed as appropriate.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So you consider the RLSA as well to be an optional element?
MR. BOSI: No, the RLSA is a component of the Future Land Use Element. The Golden Gate -- the
regulations -- everything contained in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan can be housed within the Future Land Use
Element. That would be something that wouldn't be in discourse with the Future Land Use Element.
But we have segmented, we have said a sector planning through the master planning process for Golden Gate
Estates is appropriate. So it is optional, it could be contained in the Future Land Use Element, but we think it has a
better purpose of serving the needs and the unique needs of the Estates by having it as a separate master plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just for clarification, this is for the Estates and the city, Golden Gate City. And we
also have an optional element in the form of the Immokalee Area Master Plan as well.
MR. BOSI: Yes, sir. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, my question is really more protocol. There are a couple of places in
Page 45 of 89
161 1
August 25, 2010
CCPCIEAR
here, a few places where it says not relevant and should be deleted. So my question would be to you, actually, Mr.
Chairman. Should we construe that our silence represents an agreement with that'?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, I think in as we set up with Mike, any grammatical changes silence
would be agreement. Anything substantial I don't think they should incorporate, whether we catch it or not. But I
think you're probably referring to like Policy 1.1.5. and 1.1.6.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And those two should not be removed without going back to the restudy committee.
Those aren't grammatical. Very good point, yeah, thank you.
Those are substantial. Golden Gate has had nothing but trouble with conditional uses. We formed the master
plan committee on response to the overwhelming number of conditional uses cropping up everywhere in the Estates.
And so we established criteria for those and a voting process, and that's why that's in here.
So -- Pages 4 and 57
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Policy 1.2.2 certainly should go back to the restudy committee, Mike. Like I
say, I may not catch them all, but the ones I found most relevant, I'II just bring out to you.
Pages 6 and 7?
MS. PAYTON: I have a --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Nancy. I'm sorry.
Tim and Jim, if you guys have any issues. we're kind of informal here, we're not going to cut your legs off if
you go beyond three minutes either, so --
MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, Florida Wildlife Federation.
And I wanted to comment on Objective 1.3 on Page 5 which talks about Golden Gate and Goals 6 and 7 of
the COME. But if you Zook at Goal 7 of the C'CME. and most of its policies, they either aren't relevant to Golden Gate
Estates or they exclude single- family residences.
So Goal 7 really is not applicable or should not be put forward as a mechanism that's protecting wildlife
habitat in the Estates.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Staff, when you get time, take a look at that. If that rings true, then if it's not
needed, it's not needed.
Thank you.
MS. PAYTON: But it's an issue that needs to be addressed and hopefully that will finally be addressed
through the revisiting of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, which we thought should have been on the list of major
issues. And that water resources really should be natural resources, not just water centric.
And it goes to issues relating to the interchange as well of impacts. There is no conservation planning really
overall in the Estates. Not yet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Pages 6 and 7?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1. 1.4 is again I think something you want to move back to the restudy committee. I
notice the grammaticals on Page 7, they seem fine. They're -- I don't have a disagreement with those.
Page 8 and 9, anybody?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 10 and 11?
(No response.)
Cl IARRMAN STRAIN: Policy 4. 1.1 ought to go back, and 4.1.2.
And 4.1.3. 1 know what you're trying to do there, and I understand it, but I think it ought to be explained to
the committee. Because the Commissioner in the city, the City Commissioner was the one that initiated some of these
through the committee. I think you ought to get consensus back through the public process to remove the county as
the entity in those.
I'm not disagreeing with you or dare agreeing, I'm just simply thinking that's another one that ought to go
back.
Page 12 and 13? Certainly Objective 5.1 and all the references to the community character plan need to go
Page 46 of 89
16 1 1 03
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
back to the committee. We had a very strong position on that. And that needs to go back and be rehashed by the
restudy corm ittee.
Pages 14 and 15, same thing. Same issues with Policies 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3, Objective 5.3.
Sixteen and 17? Your reference to the VMT and GHT, I think those are good but I think the committee ought
to weigh those in how they would work in Golden Gate Estates. I don't think there's anything downside to that so --
and that's under Goal 6, Objective 6.1.
Yes, sir, Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How do we -- if this is intended to be -- VMT and GHG are intended to be
universal, as I understand it based on House Bill 697, you're not suggesting -- I realize you're not suggesting they be
removed per se, but you're looking for consideration. What would that do to us if we're trying to comport with the
law? If we change one area, will that still sustain'?
MR. BOSI: The Golden Gate Estates, as in a master plan as an optional element, there's not a mandate or
requirement from the DCA that 697 has to be addressed within this element within this year. So I don't think that if we
defer this question and allow for the public input process to formulate whatever amendments we may want to suggest
related to the goal or the policies or the objective places us in any noncompliance status in terns of the Department of
Community Affairs.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're making the prognostication that DCA will, if given a variable in one
case against what you're intending to do, which is unified, it will probably go along with it; is that what you're
suggesting?
MR. BOSI: I'm suggesting that we're going to cull out to the Department of Community Affairs that we're
going to go through a public planning process in the concepts of energy efficiency, and all of the policies and
objectives and goals related to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan will be examined against those policies as well as
the direction and the intent of the master plan.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess what I'm concerned about is the process. Because what you end up
with if you don't get full support, you don't get universality, and then it starts coming apart, which might be a good
thing, I don't know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The policies we're talking about in the other provisions of the elements in the new
potential element for the mobility, all that will have an impact on the county as a whole, including all optional
elements and municipalities within the county, whether it's Immokalee, Golden Gate or the coastal area. So that alone
will provide a lot of emphasis to House Bill 697 and the reaction to the VMT and the CGG (sic), whatever,
greenhouse gas emissions, yeah.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Whatever it is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah.
So I think it's all going to get caught up in the same overall plan for the county and how we're going to handle
this.
All of that was discussed in the 2155 study that was part of this document. Although that study we haven't
got into yet, we will here eventually, not all areas of the county though were affected by the recommendations of the
study equally.
So I think we need to be very selective in where we state that study as part of each element. But I think it
would be better if it was part of the overall process, not trying to state it in each element. And I'll get into that in more
detail. Because there's only five recommendations in that study. You can't apply them across the county, because they
don't work. They only work in certain points where they're applicable.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And you know, just for clarification, I read this as a restatement in those
areas that you wanted it to be focused as a reinforcement of the totality or the universality that seemingly was wanted.
But if it's true that it can be picked apart, then that's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think Objective 6.1, Policy 6.1.1, 6.1.2, are all issues that a restudy committee
would benefit from that discussion.
Pages 18 and 19, we have the discussion of the House Bill 697 again, we just finished that.
Policy 6.3.1. and 6.3.2. would be restudy issues, and 6.2.4.
And again, I'm not saying your recommendations are wrong or they wouldn't be accepted. I just think that as
a courtesy to the community it would be a good thing to go back and run it by them.
Page 47 of 89
161 1 0�
August 25, 2010
CCPGEAR
Pages 20 and 21?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Most of it was just as -is.
Pages 22 and 23?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think 7.3.1., the changes there, the committee would be beneficial as a sounding
board for those.
Page 24 and 25?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twenty -four is interesting, because up on top -- and this is where you've introduced
for discussion today the first two paragraphs reflecting greenhouse gas emissions in the energy audit. And you've
taken the same two paragraphs are on the top of Page 24 referencing House Bill 697, and you've included those in
most every element, at the end of almost every element in this document. Then I found out it was only the ones that
Corby touched. Because transportation, which you would think would be the most logical, didn't have it. And I
thought well, that's odd. This is the biggest impact would be on transportation, and this suggestion wasn't in the
transportation one, but all the other ones that don't really pertain to it in the most direct way have it.
And so each one of these I circled, the policy provision that's being proposed. It says, the county will strive
to meet the recommendations of the energy audit and greenhouse gas inventory for Collier County government
facilities and operations prepared by 2055, LLC and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners.
Well, I read the study, then l reread the study, then I reread the study. And 1 looked real hard to see what in
the world is Corby referring to. And the best 1 could do, Corby, was on Page 6 of the study, Roman VI, there are five
summary recommendations. And each time that 1 find this reference throughout all these elements, I keep saying the
recommendations, and I'm assuming the recommendations must be pursuant to that element, otherwise why are we
sticking it there?
And I can't find how this Golden Gate Area Master Plan necessarily needs to be reflected or is reflected in
these five recommendations. You know, move forward with the landfill gas to energy project. That's got nothing to
do with Golden Gate. Okay.
Continue work on county building retrofits. Well, that's brilliant, but notlung to do with Golden Gate.
Expand street lighting replacements of high energy - efficient bulbs. I don't know how much we paid for this
study, but these recommendations, I mean, I doubt if we could have gotten there without paying for the study.
Explore the potential alternative fuel vehicles and promote commuter services programming.
Now, putting them in the FLUE. or the transportation, maybe you'd find more relevance there. Putting them
in every optional or other element of the plan just for redundancy's sake, I'm not sure it was the right thing to do.
So I'm asking staff to reconsider that and put it more appropriately where it belongs. I don't really think the
study is that useful, you know. But since it was adopted, we'll live with it.
MR. SCHMIDT: A few conunents on that, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
MR SCHMIDT: One of the reasons that you see some variety in the elements and why the statements
appear differently in the FLUE or some of the public facilities sub - elements from some of the other portions of the
GMP, because different staff members approached their review differently. And we allowed ourselves to give you
the full spectrum of where that study may take the county and where House Bill 697 will take the county and where
considerations in the future will take us. We didn't want to hold anything back.
Now, when it comes to the document you're talking about, the energy audit and greenhouse gas inventory, not
so much just the major recommendations were really meant to be conveyed but some of the smaller ideas throughout
the document as to how to make advances or smal I changes.
But you're correct, not all of them are useful in not all areas of the county, and the staff will look at that
Further.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. 1 think it would be a good idea to not put the redundancy throughout the
document if we don't need it. The document is bulky enough.
Before we go to -- anybody else on -- up to Page 25?
(No response.)
Page 48 of 89
161 1�3
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the end of it. And the last page is 26.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jim, did you want --
MR. FLANIGAN: Jim Flanigan, Golden Gate Estates.
Yeah, I saw this policy and suggested policy, and I'm really concerned with policies referencing other
legislation and other references and standards that what might be not applicable here may somehow turn into a
disaster down the road. And if there are certain aspects of this policy and these kinds of things, that they be spelled out
as to what the intent of it is. Because at some point in time that kind of thing's going to get lost down the road.
I'm just trying to get my hands around the whole Growth Management Plan itself That to me needs a little
bit of vision.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know, that's a good point.
Corby, if you go through this and reassess how these House Bill 697 provisions should apply, and you use
that study, well, instead of referencing the study because it's maybe limited in the number of things that really apply if
they any do to certain elements, why don't you just pull the ones that do out and restate them? Because it's adopted by
the BCC, so therefore we've got to do it anyway, so why don't we just state what they are?
MR. SCHMIDT: I believe that will be the result of the next step in those proposed amendments yet to come.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great, thank you.
Okay, Nancy?
MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, Florida Wildlife.
It's a general comment about the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and references to Southern Golden Gate
Estates, which, looking forward, Southern Golden Gate Estates doesn't exist anymore, it's Picayune Strand State
Forest.
And therefore I'm going to put on the table for consideration that Southern Golden Gate Estates be severed
from the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, because there really isn't that relevance anymore, there are not any people
living there. And on the Future Land Use Map, it really ought to be in green, just like Big Cypress and Facahatchee
and Rookery Bay and others.
It is conservation land, and our Future Land Use Element Map -- Future Land Use Map should reflect that.
And there isn't any infrastructure planning to do in Picayune Strand State Forest, the restoration area, formerly
Southern Golden Gate Estates_ So it's served its time and it really ought to be severed from the Golden Gate Area
Master Plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And when I had mentioned earlier in my discussion that there was a series of
changes recommended on Page 7, those are in fact what staff is basically saying is they're going to -- they're
suggesting deletion of all but one of the policies. And I'm not sure why Policy 2.1.2. is being left in when it applies to
only Southern Golden Gate Estates. But other than that, it looks like it is going to be deleted.
Is that where you're going, Mike?
MR. BOSI: That's the assessment that was arrived upon.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think your --
MS. PAYTON: But they're going to be deleted from -- well, there's still references to it in the master plan.
And I'm suggesting that the references be eliminated --
MR. BOSI: Even the reference there that states that water and sewers should not be extended into them?
You'd like that just taken away?
MS. PAYTON: I don't think that's even necessary to state it one way or another. It's not going to happen. So
why should we put something in our Growth Management Plan that isn't going to happen? I mean, it's long and
laborious as is. We should be fine tuning it and culling out this heavy wood that's in there.
So the recommendation stands for consideration that all references to Southern Golden Gate Estates are out
of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. And Southern Golden Gate Estates now is Picayune Strand State Forest and
should be reflected as conservation land, green on our Future Land Use Element.
There's reference to coordinating with the Corps, but the Corps is not the owner of that property. They are
only heading up the restoration effort in terms of building those huge pump stations. It's the State of Florida that
actually owns the property, with some guidance from Fish and Wildlife Service.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think staff can look at that —
Page 49 of 89
161 1 ��
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
MS. PAYTON: But I can work with staff. But I wanted to bring up the point that it no longer needs to be or
should be in the master plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what staff will do is look at the ramifications of the removal and see if there's
any problems along the way and let us know by the time we get back to adoption. And if there isn't, then I don't know
why it would --
MS. PAYTON: See, I'm a little concerned about references to infrastructure, because that includes roads.
And part of the 1 -75 interchange had major impacts to some significant land in the restoration project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good point. Thank you.
MS. PAYTON: Not that I'm suspicious, but 1 just --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, did you have something you wanted to add?
MR. NANCE: Yes. Tim Nance, Golden Gate Estates, Commission members.
1 wanted to make some general comments about it. Certainly I believe the people in Golden Gate Estates
support a thorough restudy of the Golden Gate Master Plan.
I want to make just a few comments about the Collier County Growth Management Plan as a whole, because
1 believe that Collier County and several other counties in Florida are a little bit unique in that they're really
dichotomies. And I think our Growth Management Plan should reflect that a little better in the end than it does today.
By dichotomy, I say we have areas that have very intense urban development and we have other areas that are
indeed rural. Collier County being a classic example of very intense development on the coast, and then we have our
community of hnmokalee and agricultural interests in the cast.
Palm Beach County is pretty much a mirror image of the same. "I hey've got very intense development on the
Atlantic coast and they have the communities of Belle Glade and other communities in the west.
I believe that our Growth Management Plan needs to have a section that addresses rural and rural residential
issues, specifically. And 1 believe that the Golden Gate Master Plan should be a very -- of course would be a very
critical part of that, because that's the part that's probably the best example that we have.
But I think that our Growth Management Plan runs into conflicts. And we see it all the time when we have
conditional use applications and plan amendments come into the Golden Gate Master Plan where urban concepts and
standards and issues are applied by people trying to get plan amendments and so on and so forth. And they just really
don't apply when you get into a rural residential. which is what Golden Gate Estates is, and other rural areas to the
east.
And it constantly creates a conflict because there is no dedicated effort by our Growth Management Plan to
embrace rural issues that need to be addressed. Rural things do have value to our county. They have value to our
community and they can have much more value to our economy than they're given credit for.
Agribusiness has really been thrown under the bus in Collier County. We have a situation where in my
estimation -- not to get off on a tangent, but I will since I got a soap box for a moment -- high -tech agriculture has
been ignored as an economic driver in Collier County. What a shame. What a shame. Maybe now that we're on the
brink of disaster somebody will look at that again. But we certainly should have. We should be on the cutting edge
of some of those things.
But I believe, getting back to our Growth Management Plan, if we will look at that with a view that those
things have value and they can create good things for our county, including economic things, social things,
community value, that our planning will be more relevant and we'll have less conflict in it.
That's pretty much everything I'd like to say. I will certainly reserve discussion of individual issues to a
restudy which I look forward to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Tim. And county is taking on new initiatives in agriculture. We got --
we're going to be growing mice. That's probably --
MR. NANCE: What?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a fairly new initiative.
MR. NANCE: Well, you know, I worked with a pretty high -tech agricultural company for most of my
professional career, and 1 know that there's a lot of things that are possible. Because we certainly are not going to stop
eating. We're going to have to have a food supply for our nation. And I hope we don't decide that we're going to
outsource all of that as well to other areas of the world. It would be certainly a loss to our country 1 think as a nation
and certainly to Collier County.
Page 50 of 89
161 1t3
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
But I hope that rural standards will get a fair shake and that they have a place somehow in our plan, rather
than as an afterthought, as an attachment or as an amendment or as an exception in the main body of our growth plan.
And if you look, all of those rural concerns that might have always somehow end up being an exception or, you know,
somewhere.
I think it's more deserving, and it would be better planning if we get that out in the open and define what it is
that we expect out of rural development in Collier. How can it benefit us? I mean, you know, if you look at the
Estates, what benefits does the Estates have? The Estates -- everybody discusses the Estates and they always preface
their remarks with well, we know it never should have been built or we know it's not properly planned or we know it's
a mess but this is what I want to do.
And what a shame, when we know that the Estates is 80 square miles right in the middle of our county. If the
Estates is sick, Collier County's going to be sick, ladies and gentlemen. If we don't have a good growth plan, it
touches all the other areas of the county. It's going to be a cancer right in the m ddle of our county. It's our watershed.
It's an area where -- it's a donor part of the county. The people that live there donate more tax monies than they get
back. They're not demanding goods and services, they're asking for less goods and services. They're asking for
minimal roads, less lighting, less goods and services.
And with incentives, and you notice I said incentives, not ordinance and tax and government intervention,
with incentives they will take care of our watershed for us for free.
We have a great opportunity to do environmental things with incentives, not with ordinance and county
dollars. I really don't advocate that government regulation and management is required for the best of all worlds.
You know, let the rural things contribute what they can. Let's decide what we expect out of our rural areas and what
we hope for and try to make that happen and not just shift it off on the edge and make it an exception or an
afterthought.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Point well made. Thank you, Tim.
Anybody else have any comments on the Golden Gate Area Master Plan before we move on?
Mike?
MR. BOSI: Yeah, just one issue that was raised.
It was related to the removal of the South Golden Gate Estates from the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and
the redesignation as conservation. One of the things that we would have to do as staff is to confirm there is no private
ownership within that area.
Because with a change from the Estates to conservation, there could be issues related to a Bert Harris
potential claims.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
And Mike, I think that's why it was more something for you to research and bring back at this point to know.
Anybody else? Jim?
MR. FLANIGAN: Jim Flanigan, actually representing the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association.
Mike Ramsey could not be here today, he had training elsewhere. And we'd like tojust read a letter for the
record and deal with an issue of surface water management.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, I'm a member of the board of directors of the Golden
Gate Estates Area Civic Association. I'm here today representing the Civic Association.
Within the past year, the Estates Civic Association has been examining issues related to surface water
management and infrastructure in Golden Gate Estates area, east of County Road 951 and have come to these
conclusions:
That surface water management needs in Golden Gate Estates is inadequate. That the continuing build -out of
the Estates continues to add to the impervious surface area and exacerbating surface water management problem of
the Estates. Existing and potential surrounding developments add increased impervious surfaces which increase
water dumped into the Estates, further exacerbating the surface water management problems.
The Southwest Florida Management District -- the South Florida Water Management District has
acknowledged the canal drainage system in the Estates is only designed for a 10 -year storm event, and current
development has passed its threshold.
State agencies have acknowledged that they cannot help with the Estates' surface water management issues.
Page 51 of 89
161 1
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
Current wetland mitigation policy and procedures practiced by the South Florida Water Management District
continues to rnitigate for wetland impacts outside of the Estates' functional watershed and basin.
The proposed floodplain management ordinance will increase the amount of impervious surface in the
Estates, generating more stormwater drainage.
Because of these reasons, the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association is requesting that in the EAR
process that the EAC recommend that the following changes be implemented to protect the health, safety and welfare
of the residents of Golden Gate Estates by the Collier County government:
That any roads constructed in the Fstates causing wetland impacts have to be mitigated for in the Estates.
That Collier County Transportation be given direction to pursue seeking mitigation from South Florida Water
Management District by purchasing and preserving wetlands in the Estates area.
That Collier County watershed studies give attention to the fact that the state agencies are mitigating for
wetland impacts in the Estates in Lee County, and increasing the probability of flooding and property loss.
That Collier County give direction that property and dysfunctional wetland systems in the Estates be acquired
and earmarked for surface water management for the Estates.
That property acquired for surface water management in the Estates be considered part of the green preserve
area in the Growth Management Plan.
That property acquired for surface water management in the Estates be utilized for recreation for Collier
County residents.
That the lands of the RFMUD east of County Road 951 and north of 1 -75 be considered an integral part of the
Estates area, include in the upcoming Golden Gate area Estates restudy -- Golden Gate Area Master Plan restudy.
That the Estates area east of County Road 951 be considered a rural type area to maintain lower residential
densities, traffic and infrastructure needs.
That an incentive be provided to owners of 1.14 to 2.73 -acre lots to encourage combining them, resulting in
lower residential densities.
And that incentives be provided to the owners of lots in dysfunctional wetland areas in the Estates to facilitate
providing them as mitigation for wetland impacts or for surface water management.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak, and on behalf of Mike Ramsey, vice president of the Golden Gate
Area — Estates Area Civic Association. The Civic Association is available to provide further input as necessary. And
I'll submit this for --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, if you could give it to Mike.
And Mike, one thing I would suggest is that almost every itenn that he discussed, items that the restudy
committee would be taking up and implementing and through discussion of that group.
So while I don't know if it's an EAR process, I think it's handled by the recommendation of reforming the
restudy committee to study those issues.
MR. BOSI: We would make the suggested changes or try to attempt to make those suggestions during the
EAR process, but the policy that we'll suggest that the restudy be undertaken before the next year would be the
appropriate place to address these issues.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be the fairest way to handle it, yeah.
Okay, anybody else on Golden Gate Area Master Plan?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we will move on to the Recreation and Open Space Element.
Mike Bost, that's yours. Okay. Mike, did you -- I saw you look in the audience. Were you looking for
support?
MR. BOSI: I wanted to know if maybe Senator Barry's here, but we can most certainly take it solo.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not a lot of writing for this one, so if you have any opening comments, or we just
go right into it?
MR. BOSI: No, other than, you know take it as we've been going today with individual page by page.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's move to the tirst couple, three pages, Pages 1, 2 and 3. Anybody
from the Planning Commission have any questions or cotmnents of the Recreational and Open Space element, Pages
1, 2 and 3?
(No response.)
Page 52 of 89
161 10
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, Page 2, your policy achievement analysis talking about the fact there's no
longer a level of service associated with the AUIR for this, and do you want to delete those references from the
element?
What -- can you tell us how that fits in then with the AUIR or the impact fees? Because we still are going to
be paying impact fees. Generally they're done to bring us to a level of service standard. So if there isn't a level of
service standard, how does all this work now?
MR. BOSI: Well, related to the AUIR, probably maybe you don't -- it's not fresh in your mind but 2007,
2008 and 2009 recreational facility values were not anything that you were reviewing. They were not in the AUIR.
They have not been in the AUIR since the change suggested -- or since the 2007 suggestion from the Board of County
Commissioners.
So the past two AUIR's that you've reviewed have not contained them. The past two CIE's that have been
transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs has not addressed recreational facilities value. We had
addressed that removal with them based upon the 2008 CIE submission, explaining the actions of the Board of
County Commissioners to remove the facilities value.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but the last AUIR, I thought there was a discussion about the fact that they
left the cost per acre consistent even though the value per acre --
MR. BOSI: Oh, the cost per acre is different than the recreational facilities value.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So when you said there's a removal of the level of service from the AUIR,
you mean by recreational facilities you don't mean the parks, the land for the parks, you mean the vertical construction
for the parks; is that --
MR. BOSI.• The way -- the standard that we used to have that is currently expressed in our GMP says we will
spend $270 per capita on recreational equipment.
The DCA -- the Board of County Commissioners in 2007 found that there really wasn't a lot of value that was
provided by that standard. The Department of Community Affairs by the acceptance of our CIE accepted that
rationale.
The impact fees are a combination of your land values with the improvements that are to those lands as well.
That compromises (sic) the full scope of the impact fees. So it's captured. The value of our improvements are
captured. And those are the standards that were we charge newcomers to construct new facilities to.
But the 270 acres -- or $270 per capita was something that as a county staff and as the Board of County
Commissioners was in agreement, that we weren't gaining a lot of value for it.
Within our AUIR's we have the model guidelines for our inventory of our hard courts, of our softball fields,
of all the equipments in all the recreation facilities, but that is non -- that is noninclusive of what we submit with our
CIE. And that is just for the individual review of the advisory boards and the Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the verbiage between and recreational facilities and Parks and Rec, I now
understand the separation. That's fine, thank you.
Pages 4 and 5. Anybody have any comments on Pages 4 and 5?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, how about 6 and 7?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, on Page 7, Policy 1.5.1, you were suggesting an amendment to that policy.
Current policy, it says should be amended to include open space commitments as well as recreational facilities to
inventory.
The only thing I'd suggest is that we somehow categorize the open space commitment as usable for
recreational purposes.
As you know, open space can be anything from a body of water to a parking lot in some cases, and I want to
make sure that if we're tying this to a recreational element, it's tied to that. Does that work?
MR. BOSI: Understood, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Everybody okay? Pages 8 and 9?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, on 2.1.2, I think I mentioned this to you, under policy achievement analysis,
the second line towards the end, it says recommend policies related to the neighborhood park system be met at the
Page 53 of 89
161 1 0
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
LDC level.
I think my question was, well, how do you tie -- you've got to tie everything in the LDC to the GMP. How
does it tie?
MR. BOSI: Well, this policy -- this policy that we're making the modification to, we're also recommending
to relocate to Objective 3, not to delete like we had deleted the other neighborhood park provisions and policies.
And that policy being expressed that we are going to allow on an individual case -by -case basis developments
that are going to come before the Planning Commission, the Board of County Commissioners to determine whether
those recreation -- those neighborhood park recreational facilities that are traditionally associated with a gated
community, a swimming pool, whether it be tennis courts or those other amenities, those will be provided by a per
case -by -case basis based upon the conditions and the size of the property.
And we believe the relocation of this to the revised Objective 3 would allow for that type of a case -by -case
review of those PUD's and of those requests that come before the Planning Cotrmrission and also the Board.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
Pages 9 -- or 10 and 11, the balance of the recreational open space. Anybody have any overall questions
from that element'?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, the top of Page 10.
MR. BOSE Yes, sir?
CHAIRMAN S "TRAIN: Objective achievement analysis. The county's going to be able to complete the
parks master plan by 2010. There is a public process going on for that vetting process so the public is involved?
MR. BOSI: We are in — we're still at the very onset of the development of the parks master plan and have
actually sat in on a conversation with Barry Williams and Steve Tindale and Steve Tindale's assistant from
Tindale- Oliver who is performing the master plan. And he had presented the schedule and Barry had raised an
objection to the schedule that was presented based upon the lack of public meetings for the development of the master
plan process.
And because of that, because of that, there was direction provided that Barry and Tindale and Oliver were
going to have to take a step back and review the allocated steps and they were going to have to provide for more
public opportunities for participation within that planning process.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you ever needed a reason for delay, that's a good one.
Okay, well, that takes us to the end of the recreational open space. Are there any comments from any
members of the public or anyone else on that item?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we will move on to the Housing Element, which is Michele Mosca.
MS. MOSCA: (food afternoon. Michele Mosca, for the record, Comprehensive Planning staff.
And unfortunately I'm without Frank Ramsey at the moment, so I think I'm going to have to do the best that I
can until he does in fact arrive.
Plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's okay, we'll just go on to the other ones before we get into this one.
MS. MOSCA: Okay, great. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not a problem.
And the other ones, let's -- I'm dying to hear what Mr. Midney's got to say about the Immokalee Area Master
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm going to put something on the overhead.
There you go.
Yes, I realize that the Immokalee Area Master Plan has only recently been done. But part of it is -- and I can't
read the numbers real good, it says 5.1.3.
During the next evaluation and appraisal report, EAR cycle, and at least during each subsequent EAR cycle,
Collier County shall identify and map lands within the Immokalee urban area owned by a public entity where such
lands were acquired for the purposes of conservation as provided for in the Collier County future land use
conservation designation.
The county shall then consider whether such lands should be designated conservation on the FLUM.
And my question is, since we're not going to have another EAR for seven years, why not put this in now,
Page 54 of 89
16 f 1 p�
August 25, 2010
CCPC/EAR
even though it may not have been approved by Tallahassee?
MR. BOSI: Well, I guess I'm somewhat at a loss for words, because right now the Immokalee Area Master
Plan has not been adopted yet. We've only transmitted that document to the Department of Community Affairs.
Within the next two weeks to three weeks we expect to get our ORC Report back.
We'll make the provisions to address those comments and those recommendations contained within, and then
we'll take the b=okalee Area Master Plan back before the EAC, the CCPC and the Board of County Commissioners
for final adoption.
This policy in this handout, is this from the currently transmitted Immokalee Area Master Plan?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I think so.
It's kind of confusing with all the stuff, you know, the highlighting and underlining and all that. But I think
this is the most recent copy that I got.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, instead of applying it to the EAR which we're into right now, if this hasn't
come back for adoption yet, when it does why don't we just incorporate the issues identified in this policy in the
adoption process and be done with it instead of the EAR process, then you're done till the next EAR?
MR. BOSL That would be my recommendation. The only potential negative drawback would be if that's a
change that's suggested at adoption that DCA did not see at the transmittal, but I can't imagine that they would have a
problem with what is being requested of this --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've done that before, though. As long as it's not extravagant or substantial, DCA
doesn't mind those individual tweaks. If this is something that's already written in here and it proves to be
non - controversial, I don't know why we couldn't do that and accomplish the goal that Paul's looking for, instead of
going to the EAR though, they'll go right to the adoption of the Immokalee Area Master Plan.
MR. BOSI: I was going to suggest that the adoption hearings for the Immokalee Area Master Plan would be
the appropriate place to have this, at least to have the discussion. And then you can weigh in from the opinion of the
entire Planning Commission and the public as to whether they deem it as appropriate.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I don't quite understand, why was it put in there in the first place that it
would be in the EAR?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When did it start? The Immokalee Area Master Plan process started so many years
ago, we weren't approaching the EAR like it ended up getting there.
Mike, I think that's probably why. This took five years in the making to get that Immokalee Master Plan
through the process.
MR. BOSI: What I see is it's almost -- it's a discussion of the component of the hmmokalee Area Master Plan
that right now has been transmitted. We have another opportunity. It's not final, we're going to have another
opportunity to make a final recommendation on that proposal, on that proposed master plan. And I think as the
Chairman had said, the adoption hearings would be the appropriate place where we could -- and I will coordinate with
Ms. Valera, the staff coordinator for comprehensive planning specifically on this Policy 5.1, the new 5. E4, the
conservation designation, and highlight that to her so it's a specific centerpiece of discussion as we're going forward.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, because it doesn't seem like it's going to be controversial or that
Tallahassee will have any problem with it.
MR. BOSE No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When is the adoption -- when do you feel the adoption for the Immokalee Area
Master Plan is going to come forward?
MR. BOSI: We have a tentative schedule. I do not have the schedule in front of me. I believe December
was the month that we had allocated for the Planning Commission, because it was late January, early February before
it was going to go to the Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but then you also earlier today, I think you said that the EAR will be in here
for adoption in December too; is that correct?
MR. BOSL If you see in the EAR, it says, listen, all the substantive review of the Irmmokalee Area Master
Plan is being contained within the Immokalee Area Master Plan that is right now in transit, in review by the
Department of Community Affairs.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, what I would like to suggest that staff do, before the next EAR review,
which is the adoption, that you find out to what extent this policy needs to be changed or modified in the Immokalee
Page 55 of 89
161 1 �3
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
adoption. And if it's too restrictive or too comprehensive to do in that adoption, because DCA already reviewed it on
transmittal, then why then don't we put it into the adoption of the EAR so that you get it one way or the other?
MR. BOSI: Either /or.
CHAIRMAN S'T'RAIN: So that will cover all the bases. Okay?
So when we come up for discussion of the EAR, that looks like it's going to be first, let's make sure, Paul, that
this is part of that early discussion so we know it got coverers. As long as we know it's covered and it can be done in
the adoption of the Immokalee Area Master Plan.. you don't have to worry about the EAR process.
COMMISSIONFR MIDNEY: Sounds good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we're done with the Immokalee.
Anybody else got any issues on the Immokalee Area Master Plan segment? Which really hasn't any changes,
it's a reference to the transmittal that's ongoing.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we've got the Economic Element, the Public Schools Facilities
Element and the Drainage sub - element.
Is anybody here for any of those three'?
Well, Michele is, but she's waiting. She's got to sit around waiting.
Nancy, is there is anything you're here to prioritize for`'
MS. PAYTON: (Shakes head.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then we can move into anything we want.
Mike'?
M R. BOSL December 2nd is the --right now we have the consent agenda for the --December 2nd we have
the Immokalee Area Master Plan for the CCPC as their consent agenda. So maybe it is November that we're going to
be hearing it. But regardless --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's great, because that means it's done before the EAR gets finished, and if we
have a mix -up on that we can always fall into the EAR, so Paul gets his issue covered either way. Good.
** *Well, since we have all this opportunity to be flexible, I'm dying to hear what Michele is going to say
about the Public School Facility Element.
MS. MOSCA: For the record, Michele Mosca, Comprehensive Planning staff.
I really don't have a lot of continents about the Public School Facility Element. It was recently adopted in
October of 2008. And the implementing school concunency Land Development Code amendments were adopted in
2009.
And as most of you are aware, there hasn't been a lot of development within the community, so we really
haven't tested the concurrency system.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And there are eight pages to this element. And since it is so controversial and there
are so many changes, does anybody have any questions on any of the eight pages'?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michele, you're batting 100 here today.
MS. MOSCA: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody from the audience? No'? Okay.
Let's move on to -- well, we've got the Housing Flanent, which you're waiting for Mr. Ramsey.
** *And then we can go into the Economic Element, which is Mike Bosi's. How does that sound?
It's Tab EE, by the way, for everybody.
Mike, any opening continents?
MR. BOSL None other than this was also -- there was -- some of the major contribution was with the
Economic Development Council provided a number of policies and objectives and perspectives in terms of how
they're -- they believe that we can strengthen the Economic Element of the GMP.
And this is one of those optional elements that we've discussed before that's not required, but during the last
EAR we had said that this was an element that we wanted to develop.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
Page 56 of 89
16 1 10
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Earlier, quite early in the process here, reading this thing, I noted that
hospitals were included in part of government, other government in a rather long list that you have.
Why were hospitals considered other government, when I don't think any of them are in fact government?
MR. BOSI: I would --the reasoning behind that, I could assume, would be that you can't just --I couldn't just
go, even if I had five million dollars, I couldn't just go start a hospital. There has to be -- there has to be a clearance
provided through the state to be able to initiate the development of an individual hospital.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm fully familiar with that, yes.
MR. BOSI: So other -- that restriction --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That doesn't make it governmental, though. It doesn't make it a government
enterprise. I thought that there was another category that might be more applicable.
MR. BOSE There may be -- it may fit much better into a different category. I don't deny that. Because I
understand it's not a public institution.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What it does, and I don't think it would do it for too many people, because
not too many people would wade through this stuff, but it gives the impression that the government has these
hospitals when in fact it does not. And it broadens, it appears to be a lot more capital investment than in reality exists.
Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's move into the elements. "There's only -- there's not too many pages of
this, 11. Let's go to Pages 1, 2, and 3. Anybody have any questions?
Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: On Page 3, 1.7, part of the analysis says that the board has passed a resolution
to ban off -shore drilling within 25 miles of any Gulf Coast shoreline.
That seems too close to me. Is there any -- what is the restriction now?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ten miles, I think it is.
MR. BOSI: Well, the local restriction that's expressed in policy is done by lat. and longitude. As I've had a
discussion, I don't believe that we as a local government really have any regulatory control over that placement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we ought to send the Sheriffs Department out to those oil rigs and get them
removed.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, why did we put in this reference to 25 miles then?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, did I ask that question? Well, I'll let Mike answer for you.
MR. BOSI: I don't have a response for that. I would not -- I couldn't even hazard to guess.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's warm and fuzzy and feels good. "That's what it's for.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The county has no jurisdiction anyway, whether we like it or not like it.
MR. BOSI: No, it's -- like a lot of the aspects within this Economic Element, they are trying to be descriptive
in terms of the sense of place that we're trying to maintain and create. A lot of these areas are, as described probably
appropriately by the Chair as warm and fuzzy. But they are supposed to at least provide the overarching vision for the
place that we want to foster.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, if we're talking about overarching vision then, I would prefer that there
be a greater number of miles.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1 was -- I think the same thing, I think 2,025.5 miles is good. I mean, why not? If
we can pick 25, why don't we pick the whole entire Gulf? Pretty interesting the way we have policies that don't really
have a lot of impact.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wouldn't the only thing good, Mike, of this be that if the Commission ever
tried to make a policy to support a drilling thing, let's assume somebody's not balanced anymore, that they would be
violating the GMP locally. So in other words you could never get the support of the Collier Commission within this
territory.
MR. BOSE That, and if there was changes within the federal legislation that dictates the placement of oil
wells that placed it, you know, an allowance to be able to be developed here, we could at least, if there was -- we
could at least start the process of objection based upon this policy.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the Commission would be violating the GMP if they ever supported
something.
Page 57 of 89
161 1
August 25, 2010
CC PC /1 iAR
But what is those latitude, longitudes? Does that make any sense to you? Have you ever looked at that to see
what that meant?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, makes sense.
MR. BOSE I didn't plot to it to know exactly how that is in relationship to 25 miles.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, the coastline varies, and if you follow the coastline and go out 25
Miles, your latitude and longitude changes. So it's a --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It looks like they put it defined line north, south, east, west.
You know, the saddest thing is in these interviews with people on the beach during the leakage is to look out
on the horizon and see these pieces of crap sitting out there.
So it would be -- you know, anything that would ever in the slightest way help that is a good thing. But it
would be nice to just out of curiosity -- I guess we can all go look at Google and figure that out.
So I definitely think leave it in. l would check and see, when you put 25 miles, was that because you felt that
was further or lesser?
MR BOSE No, that was a resolution the Board of County Commissioners passed.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is that further or lesser than these latitude and longitude --
MR. BOSE I think in certain — because of the coastline issue, in certain instances it's less, in certain
instances it's more, but it's approximately on average I believe about the same.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The only suggestion I have, make sure it's the greater.
MR. BOSE We'll look at it, and if 25 miles is a higher percentage of being more restrictive, then maybe we
will suggest that the proposed change should be from a tat, longitude to just a straight 25 miles to the coastline.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought I had remembered that 25 miles is where the federal government
begins to issue permits and leases and so forth.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So there's no federal government ban right now -- or what is the federal
government ban in terns of closeness to the shore?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't know. There were two moratoria that were put in place, and I think
both of them are down. I'm not sure.
MR. BOSE That, I'm not sure what the current legislation is. I know it's more than 25 miles.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I thought it was something like 190 miles. Ijust —
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, there's deep water and then there's --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- shallow water.
MR. BOSE I could research that for adoption.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: If it is --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think we're going to be changing that policy. I mean, it's a tangent, but I
mean, for information, you might want to find out just for the heck of it. 1 think the state's already got laws, too.
But back on the element, Pages 1, 2 and 3, does anybody have any further questions on any of the policies
besides that one?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, on the top of Page 2, the second line from the bottom of the first paragraph it
starts, the county. It says, the county in the most advantageous position.
I would suggest that most be changed to the word "an ", that the county in an advantageous position to retain
and expend these and other similar related businesses.
The most has a connotation I'm not sure we know how that's ever met.
Policy 1.3, Collier County will support a health care system that addresses the needs of both business and the
work force.
How have we done that? I mean, can 1 come to the county and get health insurance'?
MR. BOSE As an employee you can.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, does Obama Care kick in here, we've got our own plan for that or -- do you
know?
MR. BOSI: I think there's a schedule for the health reform law regulations that were recently passed that will
eventually provide for those opportunities.
Page 58 of 89
16 1 1 b3
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
How -- as expressed within this policy?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I'm just curious --
MR. BOSI: I don't know if this is a measurable -- I really don't think this is a measurable policy.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, it's a nice thought. I j ust wonder if we did anything. I can't think of
it.
MR. BOSI: Not that I could pinpoint and provide an example that what strategy is to provide, you know, a
health care system that distinguishes between business and work force.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Pinjust curious.
Pages 4 and 5, does anybody have any questions on pages --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's 3. 1, and it's referencing the Economic Development Council. It's
saying that we do have a financial commitment, which we do. But what if that commitment was removed? They're
not part of our government, right? So do we want to put them in the GMP?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Remember, Mike, we took them out of all the references in the Immokalee Area
Master Plan. I'm not sure why we would want them in this element any different than we would in the Immokalee
Area one.
MR. BOSI: We'll be consistent with the Planning Commission wishes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, that's it, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: On 2.5, they mention all the natural amenities of the county but they leave out
Lake Trafford. I think that should be in there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually, the text down below, is that --
MR. BOSI: That's the just the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That'sjust reference, yeah.
MR. BOSI: That's my failing. I forgot to --
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: All right.
MR. BOSI: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mike's bad.
MR. BOSI: Afraid of alligators.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the policy Objective 3, it says the county will support programs which are
designed to promote and encourage recruitment of new industry as well as the expansion -- Objective three, Collier
County will support programs which are designed to promote and encourage and goes on from there.
Do we need to make sure we can support their programs where financially feasible?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Whose programs?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, for anybody's programs, new and existing industries. Programs to support
new and existing industries.
Is that necessary in an optional element?
MR. BOSI: Well, as an optional element, unless it specifies a specific dollar amount that has to be spent, I
don't think we're obligated.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not trying to complicate it, so that's fine.
Okay, Pages 6 and 7?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One quick question on that, looking at that. You want to move that to be
Objective I? And why is that?
MR. BOSL That was suggested by the EDC because that -- you know, the attraction of new industries to
relocate to Collier County and also the growth and emergence of new businesses within our own community are the
primary goals of the EDC. And they thought that it was better reflected as the first objective of the policy and then
having it as the third.
They thought as the primary goal, as the primary mission of the EDC that they wanted that front and center.
Page 59 of 89
161 1 o
August 25, 2010
CCPCIEAR
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is the Economic Element. So do you agree reading Objective 1
that -- and first of all, do the objectives really rank it? If I'm Objective 3, am I less important than Objective 1?
MR. BOSI: I don't believe that that's the structure of how the GMP is supposed to work, but perception
sometimes is reality. And the first thing that you read is an objective that states the primary mission of what
economic development is, and that's, you know, attracting businesses and growing new businesses. I think theyjust
thought that that made better logical sense to describe one of the foremost goals or objectives of the element itself.
COMMISSIONER C:ARON: I think that's why you have a goal. That sets the tone. And that's already set.
don't think you need to change the order. there's no real purpose behind it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have anything?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, change the order I think would be a good idea.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then before we go too far, let's get a consensus on it so staff can have
firm direction.
The issue is whether or not we should change the order of the objectives.
Melissa, do you have --
COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'm fine leaving it as it is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing I'm thinking is that if you look at Objective 3, you could add
some of that into Objective 1. Objective I is defining our -- and we've heard this a billion times lately, the
three - legged stool, the three legs. Three is trying to get a fourth leg in there.
So maybe could you rework Objective 1, which is my proposal, that you rework Objective 1 to include not
just the retention and expansion but the attraction of business opportunities, which is essentially Objective 3, part of
three.
MR. BOSE So it would be elimination of three, bring three into one and all those policies under three --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Don't eliminate three, just add to one that you're not just the retention and
expansion, you'd also like the attraction of it in Objective 1.
Do you think that makes a mistake then with Objection (sic) 3? Because one is kind of a general --
MR. BOSI: One talks -- the Objective 1 is fostering a sense of place.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And protecting our natural, cultural and social resources.
MR. BOSE And I see that as a separate objective than also attracting and developing and growing new
businesses.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Keep with the flow, keep Objective 1 first and leave three where it is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Oh.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to give staff some direction. There's a disagreement between Ms. Caron
and Mr. Murray over which way to go. I want to make sure staff has direction that's a consensus. So do you have a --
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I don't have any really strong opinion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Donna, I know you want to leave it as is. 1 don't see any reason to change it.
Karen?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I don't see any reason. But on the bottom of Page 1 it says to do that, I mean,
as a suggestion
MR. BOSI: It's just a suggestion by stall.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I don't see any reason to move it, really.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, you got your consensus, so --
Pages 6 and 7, any questions on those two pages?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think Policy 33 is the same point that Brad already made.
Yes, sir, Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: 3.8, what does the word traditional mean'? Are they talking about farming?
MR. BOSI: I think the traditional economic base are the three - legged stool that was referred to, and also --
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Can you just specify what the three legs are?
MR. BOSI: Agriculture, tourism and development.
Page 60 of 89
161 103
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Three - legged stool --
MR. BOST: One leg is a little off kilter now.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I mean, if you want to say that, I think it would be betterjust to say it.
Traditional is very vague to me.
MR. BOST: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what are you trying to say they should say, three - legged stool economic base?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I mean, I don't even know if you need to, because they already talk in
other sections about tourism and about, you know, development. And then in 3.16 they talk about produce, which is,
guess is another word for farming.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the way you may want to look at this, is the word traditional causing us not
to meet the ability or the intent of our Growth Management Plan in this policy, in this optional element?
If it is, then this is what the EAR is for, is to change those things. But if we're meeting it, is it doing any
harm?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It doesn't do any harm, but it also doesn't tell me what it means.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but I think the implementation document is supposed to do that, if it's
implemented, and that would be the LDC.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Why don't we just delete the word traditional?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to avoid a lot of small changes, if we can.
Mike, do you care one way --
MR. BOST: I don't know if there's a material change on any of the suggestions. I think we can move forward
with a suggestion that says the location of new companies that build upon the traditional economic base of tourism,
agricultural, agro - industry, as well as development. And just state those.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I like that better.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or my other suggestion, use the word existing economic base. Because the
intent of that is to do that. That way if you miss one thing -- in other words, the intent of this 3.8 is to build on what
you have already.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, come back with something.
MR. BOSI: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Eight and nine, any questions on Pages 8 and 9?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Mark, I had a question on Page 7.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: What are we defining as existing water ports?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page are you on?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: 3.10.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, 3. 10, okay.
MR. BOSI: They would have to be reserved for marinas. We really don't have deep ports. We don't have
shipping ports, those would have to be the --
COMMISSIONER AHERN: That was my confusion.
MR. BOSI: And maybe this could be an area where the clarification could benefit as well.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think I found it in here only twice in the whole book.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What was the resolution, Mike?
MR. BOSI: I think the solution would be to drop the term ports.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Yeah.
MR. BOSL And maybe replace it with waterfront development.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm not so sure you want to go into that territory. If you go into any --
I can't think of the bloody word now, where you go into the -- like Marco Island or Doctors Pass or other passes, there
are places there where you can refuel, you can get service done that constitute a port. It may not be for large shipping
but they constitute a port.
MR. BOSI: How about existing marine development?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, marine development's another story.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
Page 61 of 89
161 1 0�
August 25, 2010
CCPC/FAR
COMMISSIONER CARON: I think you might want to think about that one. I can see lots of ramifications
of broadening the scope too much and/or changing. I think we need to find out what the meaning was supposed to be.
MR. BOSI: I think the meaning -- I believe it's to retain boating access to the public --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So do 1.
MR. BOSI: And those marinas and those existing access points that we currently exist (sic), and it's a
protection of those. And 1 think the term port, because port has a connotation of something maybe a little bit -- of
more of a slipping and commerce.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's our limitation, not the word's limitation.
CI IAIRMAN STRAIN: So Mike, do you feel you have any direction on this?
MR. BOSE I've got to look at it and try to find a way that we're going to -- we're going to maintain the
protection and the promotion of our existing waterfront properties, but we don't want to be so general towards where
we would promote the conversion of those to an alternative use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, okay, you figure it out, we'll go with the flow.
And with that, I think it's time for Cherie' to rest her fingers for 15 minutes. We'll come back at 2:45.
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody. welcome back from break. Before we go into continue with the
Economic Element, I ought to lay out what we're going to do the rest of the afternoon so everybody's not waiting
around who is interested in some of these elements.
We have to do the CCME on Friday. I would think with the Drainage Sub - element and the Natural
Groundwater Water Aquifer Recharge Sub - clement, that those could be done on Friday as well. They all kind of are
somewhat similar.
So with that in mind, seeing those three off till Friday, if anybody's interested, that's the day to be here. That
leaves us with a couple hours this afternoon to finish up. I'm going to suggest that we go either to 5:00 or to the
following four elements, and when we finish those, whatever one occurs first we'll finish for the day.
Right now we're on the Economic Element, we're going to finish that shortly. Dan Rodriguez is here, the
Solid Waste element we could go into next. That one's going to be lengthy, probably.
After that we have the Capital Improvement Element. We also have the Housing Element. We'll probably
do the Housing Element after Solid Waste.
Michele, is your cohort here?
Okay, good.
So that would be those four. Capital Improvement Element would be last. So today I'd Tike us to get through
those four. Whatever we don't get through, we'll move till Friday. If we finish them early, we'll head out early. Is
that okay with everybody? But no later than 5:00. Does that work?
Okay, so with that in mind, let's move -- let's finish up the Economic Element. We left off on Pages 6 and 7.
Anybody have any further questions on 6 and 7? If not, we'll move to 8 and 9.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mike, on the bottom of Page 8 you have Policy 3.1.5 which is a housing issue
related to franokalee. Is this the right thing to have in this element or should it be in the hmmokalee Master Plan
Element?
MR. BOSI: There is a loose rational nexus for the inclusion within the Economic Element, but I have to
agree that it probably is more appropriate for the Immokalee Area Master Plan because it deals with an issue only
subject to that jurisdiction.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I would agree with that.
MR. BOSS And we will suggest the relocation of this to the Imtokalee Area Master Plan for the
EAR -based amendments.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's Pages 8, 9.
Brad'?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a thought on that. You might want to put it in the Housing Element
coming up, because there is some discussion of, I believe, if I remember reading it right, the farm worker. So maybe
it belongs in there. We'll decide next --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we get to the housing and we'll see how it might fit there --
Page 62 of 89
161 10
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
MR. BOSI: Either the housing or --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Either way, it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense here. I don't think anybody'd look
for it here.
MR. BOSI: And if you removed from the Economic Element and displaced either to the Housing Element or
more appropriately the Immokalee Area Master Plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pages 10 and 11. last two pages.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last Policy, 6. 1, I'm not sure why it needs to be changed. We keep doing things
to provide more flexibility and incentives, but that's basically what the periodic review of the land regulations would
allow in Policy 6.1.
We're on Page 11, Donna.
To be more aggressive and say amend as necessary to remove barriers and provide flexibility and incentives,
that can be taken a lot of different ways to the extreme, and I'm not sure we need to open that door when we have a
door open pretty good on Policy 6.1.
MR. BOSI: Leave as presented?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any issues?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other issues with any of the Pages I through 11 of the Economic
Element from the Planning Commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any members of the public or staff that have any further comment?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ** *Okay, now if you thought the transportation element would take a while, the
next one certainly will. Let's go to Solid Waste.
Dan, you'd like to rewrite the book.
Do you have any introductory comments or statements you want to get into before we --
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Sure. Just for the record, Dan Rodriguez your Solid Waste Management Department
director.
Just to start off, thank you, Planning Commissioners, for the opportunity to come before you and to explain
the importance of the Growth Management Plan as it relates to the Solid Waste Sub - element.
The Growth Management Plan is an integral part of our integrated solid waste strategy. It's basically the
nexus of a board decision directing us to move forward with recycling, waste reduction and protecting natural
resources.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's it? Okay.
Let's take the first three pages. Does anybody have any questions on the first three pages of the Solid Waste
Element?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, on the top of Page 3, Mike, Policy 1.2, that's another self - amending issue you
probably need to look at when you review all of them.
Policy 1.4, the language that wanted to be added I think causes a heavier burden to be put on the public at
times when they may not want to go to that effort versus the policy if it's left alone. It talks about public awareness
and participation in solid waste collection issues by addressing such issues in duly noticed public meetings.
If we wanted to expand that by saying and other appropriate media, but we get into stronger language when
we suggest that it's not -- we don't suggest, such issues and duly noticed public meetings and by advertising, recycling,
reuse, collection, and disposable strategies and tips by such media as local newspapers, fliers, magnets and TV and
radio commercials.
I would hate to see us in a box where we have to do all those when we can just be more generic and say we're
going to use other forms of media.
Does anybody -- is that problematic?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Actually, I think what the additional language does for us is it takes what the Board of
County Commissioners directed us to do, and that's get the public involved, get them aware of the need and demand
Page 63 of 89
161 10
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
to preserve valuable landfill area space.
As you know, they're not making any more landfills in the State of Florida. Three have been rejected in the
last year - and -a -half in the state of Florida. And it's important for us to get the marketing message out there. We need
to recycle more. We're still burying over 215,000 tons of waste in our landfill a year. Of that we estimate probably
60 percent of that is still recyclable materials coming from commercial businesses and even some of our residents that
don't take part in the yellow top recycling.
So what this does is it provides direction for staff, team members, get out in the media, have a marketing
program, educate the public, whether it's in our schools, whether it's businesses. With any new project or program,
make that sure you provide the public with the needed information to understand why we have such a demand.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could I make a suggestion?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Why -- and 1 appreciate what you want to say, but again, you're making the
level of specificity considerable here. And tips by such media or marketing programs, or even you can delete media
as far as I'm concerned. I think you might be doing yourself a disservice by getting down to the level of magnets.
And 1 appreciate that. If you have a marketing program, 1 don't think DCA's going to be concerned with that.
It's a budgetary matter and it's programmatic within the context of this, right?
So I would not go to that level of specificity.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I agree, 1 think you should just stop at the end of strategy, strike everything
else. You actually forgot the Internet, so -- that would probably be the best one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I was going to make that same suggestion. I drink you're limiting and
leaving out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. 1 think the consensus is leave it more generic, not to be so specific.
Pages --
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Midney, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Are the levels of services for recycling universal throughout the county or
does it vary depending on where you live?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: They're universal countywide. What varies is the single stream or separation. For
instance, the City of Naples, they have a different means and methods for recyclables. They're still separating their
recyclable goods. But they are moving to single stream this October.
But for the majority of Collier County, it's the same level of service.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay, thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? If not, we'll go to Pages 4 and 5. Any questions from the Planning
Commission on Pages 4 and 5?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 1 do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Policy 2.4. This is the year you're --has everything been done that's in that
list, so should we remove it? Or are you -- seven years ago we said by this year you're to achieve that.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Sure. And actually what we've done in the last 10 years, many of you arc probably
aware, 10 years ago we had less than three years of landfill air space remaining. We currently have until 2039 of air
space remaining, and that's because 10 years ago, our population was 100,000 less than it was today but our tonnage
being disposed of in the landfill was twice as much, over 400,000 tons. So we've reduced that by 50 percent, even
with the population growing by 100,000. So we were able to extend that.
So, yes, we've completed it as far as finding additional capacity for the landfill. We're going, with the county
manager and my adnunistrator approval we'll go to the Board in October to gain permission to instruct Waste
Management to raise the elevation of the landfill, gaining additional air space. So we'll be doing that in October.
And then we continue on a daily, monthly, weekly basis to look at conversion technologies, to look at other
opportunities to do more with our waste stream, whether it's recycling or diverting or finding a best value solution so
that we'rejust not burying that material into our landfills. Which also includes capital improvement projects of
Page 64 of 89
161 1b,�
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
building infrastructure, whether it's recycling centers or a new transfer station.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What's our elevation now?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Currently at 108 feet.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you're going to double it.
So the suggestion, Mike, is to add this new phrase at the bottom for Policy 2.4?
MR. BOSI: Yes. And we will have to adjust the fiscal year, obviously, because of the amendments -- that
this will be running through an amendment in either 2011 or 2012. So we'll have to adjust the fiscal year to the
appropriate year as well.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on Pages 4 and 5.
Melissa?
MS. AHERN: On Policy 2.8, 1 would agree, maybe not be so specific as to, I think you're referring to the
twice per year targeting residents' households but allowing small business to participate.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yeah, if I may, I think in the context in which that was written, there was a need and
demand to remove more hazardous waste, or provide an opportunity for the taxpayers to bring their hazardous waste
household chemicals to recycling centers in the landfill. 'There was a tremendous problem with illegal dumping of oil,
paint, things like that. And this kind ofjust outlined a level of service, you know, at a minimum, let's do five days.
We can revert back whenever we have a new project program. We always revert back to the Growth Management
Plan and said we're in compliance with the Growth Management Plan to have this level of service.
As you know, with trying times, economic times, wanting to cut budgets, restrict service levels, it was
important for us to include that in there at that time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on four and five?
Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Not a question, but Ijust wanted to make sure that everybody slows down.
Melissa, I know that Cherie' could not even hear you, never mind -- thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Dan, how long of a contract do we have with Waste Management?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: The disposal contract for the landfill as life of cycle. So as long as the landfill has
remaining capacity we will be married or partnered with Waste Management at that site.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they've got a monopoly on waste disposal in Collier County.
MR. RODRIGUEZ,: What we have is a best value contract that provides liability to a third party, Waste
Management. That's over 270 acres of waste that has been buried for the last 25 years. They've assumed
responsibility for that waste. They manage the leachate collection systems that pull the chemicals that come from that
out of the system. They also manage the liner that underlies the bells (phonetic). They're responsible for FDEP
compliance as well as federal and EPA compliance.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but they -- we've sown it up with them for the life of the landfill. Now, the
life of the landfill by their contract, Exhibit B is 108 feet. We double the height, we double at least the life of the
landfill. So now instead of having a contract with them for a life of 108 feet, we have a life of 200 feet. Is that really
what we intended when we gave them a forever contract?
I mean, did we know -- because I read the minutes of the meeting in which you got the 108 feet, and it was
controversial getting to 108 feet, and now you're asking for 200 feet, but I haven't seen the public meetings to go with
it.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct. We first get Board direction. And that's what we plan to do. We have
Board direction from the Growth Management Plan as well as the integrated solid waste management strategy.
So what we do is we then go back to the Board with a plan, we'll do that in October, to move forward with
that. And as part of that permit application is the duly public noticed meetings, NIMs meetings, neighborhood
information meetings that waste management and county staff will provide.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Prior to this element, the other elements were discussing things and everybody that
we've approached about vetting the public and the public process, I believe they have already done that in order to get
here today. You want us to approve it first and then do that afterwards. I think that would be contradicting possibly
the process.
I think the public ought to weigh in on the 200 feet before it's entered into the Growth Management Plan for
Page 65 of 89
161 1
August 25, 2010
CCPCFAR
sure. That was the whole process that this Board initiated back in'04 when we started notifying communities of
changes to the Growth Management Plan that would affect them.
So I'm real concerned that the 200 feet hasn't been vetted properly to be on the table for change in the EAR.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Well, actually, the expansion of the landfill vertically has been part of the Growth
Management Plan probably the last 10 years. So we've been directed by the Board for at least the last 10 years.
And then back in 2006, December 5th, the Board also directed us to pursue vertical expansion of the landfill.
But as part of that process, 200 feet would be the maximum. Once we do our due diligence with Waste Management
they may come back and say, you know what, 165 feet or 175 feet may be the maximum height.
But again, there's a lot of work that needs to be done as part of application process with FDEP, which
includes public notice.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm going to unfortunately disagree with this particular item, because public
notice should come before it goes into the Growth Management Plan. And that's a provision that we've always prided
ourselves on. I'm not changing on that point.
MR. BOSI: One of the points that 1 wanted to make is the amendments for these, that would be the
amendment process for when this would be adopted into the Growth Management Plan would be 2012. I'm not sure
what the schedule in terms of your public vetting is.
MS. RODRIGUEZ: Within the — we're going to the Board in October, as I've stated with county
management approval and division administrator approval, and then to execute this as soon as possible.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't just come in 2012 with it after it's been through the public process? Why
put it in the EAR?
MR. BOSE We thought this was an opportunity that, I guess, the public process would have been completed.
And the decision of that public process would have been able to influence whether we adopt or we do not adopt the
amendments that we were proposing at this time. But if that -- if the direction from the Planning Commission is to
remove it and wait for the conclusion of the public process, we'll duly note that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the point is, 1 mean, I live in the Estates. This is in the Estates. And I can tell
you that it would be interesting to have the civic associations be given a presentation, let them weigh in on it, have
public notice provided with the Surrounding neighboring property owners within so many feet so that everybody that's
going to have to look out their window and see 200 feet, which is twice the 108 now, they've got an idea of what to
expect and they've got an opportunity to express their concerns.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely. And as part of our good neighbor policy that we administer in the Solid
Waste Management Department, not only with controlling odors at the landfill, there's also operational needs.
I've met with different presentations, but what we were trying to do is just to clarify the second piece, to
increase the maximum permissible elevation, we tried to get a little more specific to that, but --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer was next, then Mc Murray.
Brad, you ready?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Which policy is it that you said the GMP requires you to look for
vertical expansion?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Policy 2.4 on Page 4, the second line.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, you can move on.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, relative to what we were just discussing, is it your practice in your
evaluation of whether to raise the height vertically or not, to deterniine a cost relationship to that as against moving
the material elsewhere or any other alternative?
That was good music.
COMMISSIONER CARON: l turned it on at lunch and forgot to turn it off.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess what I'm driving at is that we're trying to find out whether or not in
your due diligence -- I'm not so much concerned with the marrying forever of the contract, as long as you've evaluated
that their alternatives and those costs exceed what we might be paying or would be paying.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely. As one of the guiding principles, one of the four guiding principles that we
use on any of our objectives or capital projects is best value. And certainly the landfill, we own the landfill, 270 acres.
As I stated earlier, they're not building any new landfills, that's a limited resource.
page 66 of 89
161 1 b5
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
And for us to go vertical at the landfill is a best value in this business case there for it, because there is limited
capital infrastructure needed to go vertical. You already have the existing facilities, you have the existing leachate
collection, gas collection systems, your scale house is in place. So basically you're just putting your waste higher on
the existing infrastructure.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can seethe plausibility of it. I'm not questioning any part of it. I guess
what I'm trying to find out is that, okay, you have all that, it has a value, but does that value equal, exceed or is less
than what it would be to, say, put it in trucks and ship it someplace else?
In other words, did you not do any kind of evaluation to determine if there are alternatives to lifting the
height?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Sure, absolutely. And as part of our benchmarks for our annual budget, we look at
other alternatives to waste disposal outside of Collier County.
Shipping it to lake Okeechobee at the Waste Management site there, that would cost about $65 a ton.
Currently we're paying about $25 a ton to dispose it in our landfill.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, that's the kind of question I'm trying to get at --
MR. RODRIGUEZ: You could also take it to, potentially to Charlotte County. But again, you're limited on
sustainability. They may have a contract with you for a year or five, but as soon as that's up, where do you dispose it
from there? So the best option is to maximize our existing infrastructure.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, one more piece of the follow -up on that, because I noted here that you
talk about alternative methodologies that you're going to pursue, emerging conversion technologies, that is flame or
superheat or whatever. That would be if somehow or another the 108 feet were kept at a max, you'd be faced with
some kind of activity that would in, anticipation of how many years, you said 2039. Sooner than that you would have
to have alternatives.
So would you be exploring the conversion technologies just to keep abreast of things, or would you be
exploring them with the understanding that you intended to use those and then that relates back to having the 200 -foot
or not landfill?
The mix is important in this, because there's a certain cost to all of this. And if you're going in this direction,
part of you can't be going in that direction. So --
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Well, it's actually, going vertical at the landfill is one piece, as I stated earlier, of the
comprehensive integrated solid waste management strategy. Not only are we looking at final disposal, where else can
we bury it at our landfill, but the much bigger picture, the much broader picture is recycling and diversion. What else
can we do with it before it even gets to the scale and goes to the hill.
And that's where the yellow top recycling -- this year we're rolling out single stream recycling for commercial
businesses, a yellow top dumpster, a lot of initiatives that will pull that waste stream from the landfill. And what we
plan is to extend the life of the landfill even further.
One of the reasons you want to get this started now, not only are we directed by the Board, it's in the Growth
Management Plan, it's in our strategy, FDEP's restrictions on landfills every year continue to get stricter and stricter.
If there's an opportunity for us to have this asset, it maximizes it today. Whether we use it tomorrow or not, at least
the residents, taxpayers of Collier County have that as a potential disposal option. And that's best value.
Because what we don't want to do is, in many counties, many communities in the State of Florida, and we've
benchmarked many of them, they're paying much, much higher rates for the disposal. Our collection assessment here
annual is about $172 a year for twice a week pick -up, high level recycling on demand. Many communities are paying
above $350, $400 for disposal. And it's not sustainable. It's a year -to -year contract with either a waste energy facility
or a landfill that is quickly running out of space.
Collier County is you unique in that the Board of County Commissioners over the past 10 years has worked
hard to made recycling and diversion a priority. So yes, we are looking at those avenues. If there's new technology
that will allow us to do it better, faster, cheaper, and protecting our natural resources, we're on it. We'll do it, we'll
bring it to you.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd agree with you. Mike, were you were thinking of putting the 200 feet in
Page 67 of 89
161 1 p�
August 25, 2010
CCPGEAR
the GMP? Because that would kind of violate the Policy 2.7, which requires the public to be involved in all decisions.
So we wouldn't want this EAR to be a backdoor way of doing that.
MR. BOSI: Well, I mean, the suggestion is being offered today in a public meeting. The statement by Mr.
Rodriguez was the requirement for the permitting process requires extensive public outreach. It sounds like there will
be opportunities for the public to weigh in on it.
The impression that I get though is the Planning Commission believes that maybe it's premature to suggest
this policy at this time and would rather stay with the current existing policy that says to the maximum elevation
permissible.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For example, where in this Solid Waste Element do we have the limitation it should
be at 108 feet? So why do we need 200? If you can do it to 108 without saying because of the language that's already
here, you can do it to 200 or 500. It's based on your best presentation.
So I'm not -- I don't like what's being attempted to be gained here. 1 think it doesn't need to be.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: 11F may, what we look at the Growth Management is a tool. And that tool can be as
sharp or as blunt as you need it to be. And for us, when we go to the Board of County Commissioners we have direct
specific information on their direction, on the strategy, solid waste initiatives. And that's all that we were trying to do
is to clarify that.
I don't know of any landfills that are greater than 200 feet. That's what FDEP has as the maximum elevation.
Whether our county landfill could go to 200 feet, that is yet to be determined as part of the permit process.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have some minutes from a Board of County Commissioners' meeting that
shows this 200 feet was discussed with them and they recommended going to 200 feet? Because the last minutes that
1 saw that were some of the documents I had as back -up showed 108 feet. And actually, one Cotrunissioner suggested
that should be the maximum.
So since then things may have changed. I'm not disagreeing. And since then it may be fine to go to 200 feet.
But if your premise is it was directed by the Board of County Commissioners, I'd like to see the minutes of the
meeting that specified 200 feet.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: And I could look up those minutes from the integrated solid waste management
strategy, because 1 think in our presentation we provided the potential for the landfill, I believe, at 200 feet. But
certainly it's to the maximum elevation that meets the needs of the community, as well as maintaining a good
neighbor policy.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1 think the language that Brad is indicating, the language that's there now gives you
that latitude. So I don't know why we need to get into -- just like we don't get into heights for development standards
in the GMP, because that's done in the LDC. or you have other ordinances that deal with your solid waste, you have
contracts that have the limits in them.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: And if you look at the value that that height brings, and that was my only reason for
updating this, if you were to raise the elevation of the landfill, you've going to increase the life probably about 15
years, not double, because of the slope to rise, you know, it's a much smaller area. But most importantly, the value of
that air space is probably in the neighborhood of $350 million, so -- and that would be the reason that we put this in
there, is to be specific.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, no. I mean, he's got four options. Maybe that's the last one we use.
But 1 don't think putting the heights in is good because that then we'll be quoting the GMP with the heights.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 4, the top of the page is a continuation or language you're suggesting
add to Policy 2.l .
The policy currently reads, the county shall continue to monitor groundwater as required by the regulatory
permit conditions for the operation of the landfill and in compliance with state and federal rules and regulations.
Well, that says it all. You can't supercede by anything you do state and federal regulations. Your contract
with Waste Management can't be any less than state and federal regulations.
I'm not sure why we need to add the language that would limit us in reference to what you're trying to add.
You want to add and pursuant to Section 2.7 of the landfill operations agreement with Waste Management, Inc. of
Florida.
Well, that's already an agreement with the county. 'The county's already bound by the requirements of the
Page 68 of 89
161 1 0
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
2.1. Why would we want to add a reference to another outside agreement that could be, that is amended on a regular
basis anyway?
I'm not sure why we need that, Dan.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Sure. And again, it'sjust more clarification, to be more specific in the event, the long
term event we do have any contractual issues with Waste Management. It just gives us additional leverage. It's noted
in the Growth Management Plan and it just adds more body to it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the state and federal laws change, does that mean Waste Management doesn't
have to abide by them?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 'they do, wouldn't they?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. So I would think we would want to leave it as it is and not add that language,
because that only hurts us. It hurts us in negotiations, it hurts us with them. I would think that your language in your
contract would be broad enough that they have to abide by all state and federal regulations.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: And it does state that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then I don't think we need to be more specific in this document. In fact,
the premise of the GMP is supposed to be non - specificity. And your whole element, and we'll get into the 22 items
you're trying to add, bring in specificity way beyond I think what we intended, or what the whole GMP process is
supposed to be.
Moving to onto Policy 2.2. It says the county shall continue to maintain leachate and gas management
systems at county landfills in order to comply with permit conditions.
Again, it refers to the Waste Management contract pursuant to Section 2.9. You don't need to, it's already
there. Why do you need -- and how we do that is up to the county's off -GMP documents, documents that can be
changed outside of the GMP, that if you bring them into the (IMP they become self amending. And I'm not sure we
even need to go there, because you're covered already in Policy 2.2.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Sure. Again, it's for clarification. In the event we want to do a contract amendment
with Waste Management like we did with the gas to energy facility that's under construction now at the landfill, we
want to enhance that product or -- part of the executive summaries that go before the Board for their recommendation
and direction are we in compliance with the Growth Management? It adds weight to the program and the project that
we're trying to execute.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, as long as the county through the contract is maintaining leachate and gas
management systems at our landfill in compliance with permit conditions, you're in line with the GMP.
So I just really think -- and Mike, and your department when we've talked, this whole idea of too much
specificity has been a ringing issue for this Planning Commission to have to deal with in the GMP now for a decade.
And for that reason, I'm suggesting we not make those additions to the policies. I think it's going to hurt you
more than help you.
Bob?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just one added point on the -- I didn't know that you had done the gas thing
where you're going to take the gas out and you're going to finally get that and be used that for energy conversion?
Now the greenhouse gases -- the methane is a greenhouse gas -- that's — will that be attributed to this activity
that's conversion? That conversion will constitute utilization of the greenhouse gases.
But is that a basis for, you know, thinking process in any way?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: It is actually the audit that the county had done, the green audit. They reviewed our
contract as well as the equipment specification, things like that, to look at the impact and the improvement to not
contributing to greenhouse gases. So, yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have to agree that with the level of specificity it does become -- you're
subjected to a lot of these questions, which we think are valid.
I wonder if these aren't really more appropriate for the amendment cycle itself. You have the answers that
satisfy my understanding of things, but I do agree that it does bring it into question. And particularly about the 200
feet thing. The 108 feet is, I assume the basis for that was a permit. That's what they gave you regardless of what you
asked for; correct?
Page 69 of 89
161 1 0
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
MR. RODRIGUEZ: (Nods.)
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And you're seeking 200 but you expect less. Okay.
I do agree that it's like it is being snuck in from the point of view somebody six months or a year from now,
they're going to say I never knew about that. And I understand where you want to go.
I think you need to go through the amendment process and not be -- not bring it to the level of specificity
here. But then do your job, and in the amendment process you will get to a better level of specificity. That would be
my recommendation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, 1 think removing these things, too. The way they're worded,
essentially I think what you're saying is that your contract does meet this obligation pursuant to the contract. So why
it's in the GMP, I don't know.
The concern might be is somebody might interpret the ones you're not referencing have a different status. So
to me it's kind of redundant, because what you're saying is here's a policy, and pursuant to the contract these guys
honor that policy. And I don't think that's necessary.
Is there -- am I missing something?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: No. And again, as I mentioned earlier, what we're trying to do is, those items in the
contract that have the biggest value or the largest impact or liability associated with running a landfill, just to bring
those up to a higher level of compliance through the Growth Management Plan.
And then also we use that as a tool that has Board direction that -- you know, we're in compliance with your
contract with Waste Management and this is the reason that we want to either expand or develop a new program in
association with that specific item.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is it to your advantage some day to turn around and say, well, wait a
minute, that section, we have to do that because that's in the Growth Management Plan? Is that what you're looking
for?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. That's pan of the reason that we do that, to get the clear nexus to a Board
direction. Not only do we have the contract, we also have it outlined in the Growth management plan as recycling --
you know, recycling's mentioned throughout the Growth Management Plan as well as the integrated solid waste
management strategy as well as ordinances, so --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just maybe the word pursuant is the word that -- because you're saying per
that clause in the contract, which we're not even privy to
But anyway, enough.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's go on to Pages 6 and 7.
Go ahead, Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, on Policy 2.5, in the narrative it says that there's a difference between
this policy and the one in the CIE. Which one is correct?
MR. SCHMIDT: I could answer that. The correct position or the location of the levels of service standards
is in the CIE.
We're also able to place them in the sub- chcments. And if there are discrepancies between the two, the
required location in the CIE, is the document referred to when we prepare the schedule of capital improvements for the
next five years.
And I would suggest that we would refer to the level of service inside the same document and also make the
amendment to the sub - element to make the correction.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Corby -- that was a real Corby. The sentence says that it mayjust be
unnecessary duplicate. But it goes on to say except that the two policies are not the same. If they are supposed to be
telling you the same thing, which is describing the LOS, why would they be different?
I'm just reading what you wrote. Or maybe not you, specifically.
MR. SCHMIDT: The differences are there over time because they're not amended at the same pace those
inside the CIE have been. And not each one was studied. But there are some discrepancies between them or among
them.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So 1 guess part of the issue then is to get down to the issue of do we
think it's redundant -- does this board think that it should be in both places or should it only be in one or the other?
Page 70 of'89
161 1
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
MR. SCHMIDT: Yeah. And staff realized that we left it as an open question for you to consider that way.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't want to go beyond without considering it.
MR. SCHMIDT: Would you prefer to see it in both locations and with some heads -up that staff always
updates both locations when there's updates made? Or would we prefer to keep it in one place with a simple reference
to it at its one location?
And it's more your preference than it is staffs.
MR. BOSI: Well, here's another thing --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Ijust wanted to get to your question.
MR. BOSI: Here's another thing that further probably will shape the decision on this, is the CIE is amended
on an annual basis through the CIE amendment process. Amending the Solid Waste Sub - element is not a easy and
straightforward.
So when we contain the levels of service with our Solid Waste Element as well as our CIE, changes to those
levels of service standards in our CIE can be -- those adjustments can be made relative easily through the CIE
amendment process. Changing the levels of service as expressed in the Solid Waste Sub - element takes more time and
a more elongated process through the traditional transmittal and adoption hearing process, instead ofjust the adoption
process that the CIE is.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But within the Solid Waste Sub - element, you could just refer to the CIE --
MR. BOSI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: — for those changes.
MR. BOSI: Yes, we could. That's probably the best solution.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I think we need to give staff some direction on which way we want to go on
that issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Based on Mike's comment, the CIE can be changed yearly, and it needs to, based on
our AUIR and the other elements. Why would we want it anywhere but the CIE?
MR. BOSI: And we can -- Policy 2.5 should reference back to the level of service standards as contained in
the CIE.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It definitely should reference that. Definitely.
MR. BOSI: Understand, yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good catch.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, Ijust said good catch.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Pages 6 and 7?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have some, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do, too, Brad. There's 22. Mind if Ijust make a quick statement?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You can go.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's 22 suggested changes here. By far the majority are all redundant, or also
provided in other policies in a more flexible language. Much of it is items that are either addressed in ordinances or
other instruments the county can change at a much easier way than changing the Growth Management Plan.
Basically, there are four policies here that might be helpful to be added, but -- 214, 218, 225, and 230. The
rest of them, Dan, Ijust don't get it. I don't know why we'rejust not working with the policies we have to get some of
these.
But Brad, I'll -- that's kind of what I wanted to lead off by just -- I don't know where you were going to go
with it but --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, if you want to kill it all, that makes my life easier.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't want to spend the next three or four hours going over policy by policy
about why - -just like we just did the first couple. This element should never have taken this long even as far as it has.
It's not that complicated. You had a very flexible GMP element, and your restrictions on it are only going to hurt you,
not help you.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Well, actually, let's take for example 2.2.4, the county shall evaluate options for
beneficially recycle plastic agriculture film. As you know, Collier County is a very large agricultural county. It's a big
industry here. We get a lot of agriculture film in our waste stream. It's probably in the neighborhood of 10 to 15,000
Page 71 of 89
161 1 V
August 25, 2010
CCPC /I;AR
tons. That plastic comes to the transfer site in hnmokalee or it comes to our landfill. Has to be disposed of
What we tried to do here is to elevate some of those specific pieces of the waste stream that involve a greater
part of the community so that we have clear direction that we need to pursue those and basically find alternative
disposal means and methods for them, whether it's recycling it or doing that -- and granted, you're right, you're saying
well, we already have a recycling ordinance that says to do a lot ofthat, to do that.
One of the reasons you have a very successful integrated solid waste management strategy is because it's very
specific. the Board has given clear direction. We look at very specific items. And if we can tie back to the Growth
Management Plan any new program, project, whether it's through a private industry or third party, bring that to the
Board, it just makes the process easier, it provides clear direction that it's a goal and objective we need to address.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, you could tie any -- the majority of, except for those four, you could tie all
the rest back to an existing policy saying it's justified under, say. Policy 13, the county shall continue to evaluate
economic transfer and disposal systems, including the use of full service recycling centers. Why couldn't you include
ag. field plastic under that?
But what I'm -- your idea of putting in the specificity to help promote your issues I think is good, but that
should be more discretionary for the Board of Commissioners to be able to do by ordinance and policy, not tie
everybody's hands by the GMP.
And that's the problem we keep running into when we put the real specific items in the GMP. We actually
end up five years from now wishing we hadn't done it, because, oh, my God, we can't change it even though this new
technology's come along, we're tied to what we did in the GMP.
So I think the bulk of these are hurting you, not helping you. And I know you will probably have a different
opinion.
And Mr. Murray, before you -- but Brad actually started this and I interrupted him. So I apologize, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Actually, I havejust in this Policy 2.5, the bottom of six, first of all, I think
this is the first place you use C and D, which means construction and demolition. You do define it in 2.2.5. So I kind
of think define it up there first, or not -- I assume C &D means that; is that right?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Correct, constntction and demolition material.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. So in other words, it is defined later not earlier. So the first time you
use it you should define it.
But the thing that scares me here is, here you're going to study coming up with a plan that has to be submitted
prior to a building being constructed, renovated or demo'd. And that's all we need is more plans prior.
So what is the -- what's the intent of that policy?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Again, getting back to the waste stream. The county generates probably about 750,000
tons a year. Of that a good portion of it, probably 30 percent, maybe more, is construction demolition material. And
in Collier County, a lot of our C &D material gets landfilled in C &D landfills. That's your wood, your plastic, your
brick, things like that.
And again, this provides more specific direction to recycle more of that waste stream, not only at the
government level, because we do take in C &D at some of our sites, but at the private level as well, the commercial
industry. And that was the reason for including that language.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, but isn't that happening now? I mean, I go to construction sites all
the time. I don't see people not handling debris.
And here's the concert is that, what if you came up with a system that required us to have a permit
submission -- I mean, what is this waste management plan that has to be submitted prior to? And essentially what we
do now is hire private people to take the waste away. So is there a problem this is Fixing'?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely, there's a problem. As 1 stated earlier, the majority of your C &D is getting
landfilled. Recently this past year, Florida state passed a law requiring a 75 percent recycling rate by 2020.
And again, your private industry, you say well, they just take it away. It doesn't just go away, it goes
somewhere, it gets landfilled. So what we need to do is update not only our ordinances, policies, Growth
Management Plan to specifically address C &D material in the county so that those businesses that take it away are
recycling it, they're not just burying it. And that's how the county can come into compliance with the new Florida
state law. But most importantly, ensure that it doesn't get landfilled or put in our waste stream.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So what do you envision Iappening'? I'm going to build a 10 -story
Page 72 of 89
161 1 63
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
building, what do I have to do before I get a permit?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: What I envision happening is similar to what's happening in Lee County today. They've
had a C &D ordinance and policy that provides a mandatory 50 percent recycling of all C &D at any construction site.
So you would contract with a contractor in Collier County and he would have to take that material to a
facility that would recycle that. And we currently have two large facilities in Collier County, Waste Services, Inc.
industrial park as well as Waste Management that have processes, method to recycle.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what's he going to do with it -- and remember, I can't get my permit,
because you say, prior to beginning of construction. So what do I have to show to you that he's now going to what
that he wasn't doing before?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Sure. What he's going to do is provide, as part of the application process for his permit,
there will be a lialf -a -page document that shows that he's going to contract with a C &D hauler that qualifies and
recycles 50 percent of that material.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what's happening now is they're just driving up to the landfill with it
and throwing it in the landfill, not trying to recycle the material. Is that what you're trying to --
MR. RODRIGUEZ: The majority of it -- that's correct, yes. Whether it's the landfill or someone else's
landfill outside of the county. Because that does count against us.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So 1 have to prove before I start building that I've contracted with somebody
who promises that he will meet the recycling requirements for C &D.
MR. RODRIGUEZ- Yes, you'll contract with somebody that is certified by FDEP, as all C &D haulers,
disposal sites are, that they recycle 50 percent of that material.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And the problem you're having now is people arejust throwing it on
the pile.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct. What you have is people, they're demolishing their homes, there's
metals, there's woods, there's plastic, brick, put it all in one big dumpster container, it gets shipped out of the county,
get buried in a landfill.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You said shipped out of the county?
MR. RODRIGUEZ.: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we're solving some landfill -- I mean, the reason you're saying shipped
out of the county is you wouldn't accept it at your landfill or --
MR. RODRIGUEZ: We do not accept C &D material at the landfill. But we do accept it at our transfer site,
which is co- located at the landfill. Then we have to pay the transportation costs to ship all that material out of the
county to a private C &D landfill.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You have to pay, Collier County?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So this is a Collier County problem, not --
MR. RODRIGUEZ: No, some contractors contract with Waste Services, they have their own landfill, C &D
landfill. You have the government side, then you also have commercial businesses that manage C&D. You have the
option to bring it to the landfill or you have the option to call a private hauler that will come and pick it up and take it
to their landfill.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the benefit of that, since we're not taking it -- it has nothing to do with
our landfill, the benefit is that we feel better --
MR. RODRIGUEZ: It's still waste --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- that we're recycling construction debris.
MR. RODRIGUEZ,: Well, it's still our waste and it counts against us according to the new rules and
regulations by FDEP. If we don't recycle that material and we're burying it, it cuts down on the diversion and
recycling rate.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we're getting a bad score somewhere because we don't have this?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: You're getting a bad score, and also it's not best value. If it has value, the metal, you're
using virgin materials when you could recycle it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you, Mark. I'm done. But anyway, remember, move up the
description of what C &D is.
Page 73 of 89
161 1 0
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your -- when you came up with these ideas, when you'd had your meeting with
the stakeholders involving this C &D issue, what did they feel about having their plans reviewed and the process
you've now telling us about?
Like CBIA, I'm sure you must have had a long conversation with them about all these ideas. What did they
have to say about them -- or DSAC, or groups like that?
MR RODRIGUEZ: We're in the process this fiscal 2011 to bring that to the Board for review and approval
as an update to our recycling ordinance.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, here we go again, you want to put all this stuff in the GMP first and then bring
then before the public afterwards.
And I'm not going to change my intentions here. 'These are not needed in this GMP. They have not gone
through the public vetting process. The stakeholders who would have to pay for it have not been properly vetted.
This is not right.
So I'm not going to waste my time with 22 of them, because as far as I'm concerned, I already stated the only
four that seem to be new, 1 don't know what the Board wants to do --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I agree with you, Mark. You know, along time ago with private industry
we would have GMP amendments that really weren't publicly vetted, especially in the neighborhoods. And we made
a strong stand on that. What's the difference between this and that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There isn't. In fact, the stand this Board made resulted in finally for the first time in
Collier County mandatory public notification of GMP amendments. And now for our own shop we're not seeming
we have to do that, and I cant buy into that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, the GMP shouldn't have a back door.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And don't min some good things by not following the process. Process has
been working, that we do the public process first and go from there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Dan, I think if you put these into an ordinance through the BCC, an ordinance that
the BCC can amend as science gets better and as you find better ways, they can amend it on the fly. To put it in the
GMP, it's going to tie your hands and everybody's hands for anything for a long ways in the future.
Mr. Murray'?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. You're tasking. 'That's what I see this is. I wrote down each time, a
given. These are a given. So you're tasking in the GMP, which is not acceptable.
So what the gentleman has been saying, what the other gentleman has been saying, I'm echoing. You really
cannot do this, and especially now that we realize you haven't done your process with the public. It does look terribly
back door.
I understand your desires, I see that as an attempt at efficiency, but it doesn't work. Sorry about that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that gets us through Page 8, basically, and 9 and 10 are the wrap -up.
Does anybody have any final comments on the solid waste'?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN S "TRAIN: And I think, Corby, on Page 10 when you talk about this greenhouse gas inventory
and that issue, there are relevant recommendations now in that 2055 document. I would suggest that if you're going to
format them into here that they be stated. And then we know what you're talking about instead of trying to dig up
some difficult defined document in the suture.
MR. SCHMIDT: Understood.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments on the solid waste?
Anybody from the audience?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Dan, thank you, appreciate it.
MR. RODRIGUEZ.: Thank you, appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's take a 10- minute break, we'll come back at 3:50 and we'll finish up for an hour
and 10 minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, welcome back from the break. We're going to spend the next hour and 10
minutes trying to get as far through this as we possibly can.
Page 74 of 89
161 1 b�
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
Next element up is the Housing Element. And Michele?
MS. MOSCA: Yes, good afternoon. Again, for the record, Michele Mosca, Comprehensive Planning staff.
And I won't go into a lot of detail. We could probably just go into the objectives and policies unless you want
me to provide an overview.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think we can probablyjust dive right into it.
So that will get us to Pages I, 2 and 3. Anybody have any questions on Pages 1, 2 and 3?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michele, on Page 2 we talk about Objective 1 in which we have 1,000 units required
per year averaged over a five -year period and then we're suggesting reducing that to 850 units.
I'm just wondering, when we do this, we put a burden on anybody coming forward who wants to work under
this program. They have a 15 -year restriction, they have to do a lot of things to meet the criteria. Yet the sales in that
category of housing right now, and for what some of the economic reports are indicating for this area, could be
stagnant for quite some time because there is so much affordable.
Why would anybody want to go into a restrictive community that is under our guidelines with a restriction on
the sale price and all the things you can do when they can go right down the street and buy a house at that price or
lower, because so much is so cheap right now?
So what are we gaining by demanding that we still produce this kind of housing in times like this?
Are we actually tying someone's hands where we are hurting the economy, thus not making this a viable
thing to do?
I'm just wondering, I don't seethe point in demanding we continue this in all aspects of all economies. I'm
wondering how much flexibility we have.
MS. MOSCA: I'm just trying to figure out the best way to address that. We are required to address the
affordable housing needs of the very low, low and moderate income households. And we have --
(Electronic feedback.)
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Try again.
MS. MOSCA: We are required to address the very low, low and moderate income needs of the area
residents. Whether or not we look at it from a being restrictive or market rate, we have to have a full and complete
inventory to determine where those needs are presently.
So I don't know if this necessarily ties our hands. We didn't meet the objective, which isn't to say is a good
thing for the 1,000 units. And we have since come down on those units. And we actually are in the process, it's a
Board - directed affordable housing exercise to look at the affordable housing units within the county. So we are
presently trying to establish an inventory so that we are in fact trying to meet those projections for affordable housing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but is this the objective we would use -- say a project's coming forward, are
they -- say it's 500 units. Would they be required then, based on this objective to have a percentage of them
affordable?
MS. MOSCA: I would say no. That's not how 1 read the objective.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so it's only if they want the additional density.
MS. MOSCA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's just that I know we have a lot of projects out there. We had this come to us on
one on Estey Avenue where they said, wait a minute, we're required to put the affordable housing in to get the density,
we already have been approved. We put the density in, we can't sell these things.
So they wanted some release that if they don't sell them within a certain amount of time they can sell them at
a market rate, because the market's not there for this kind of housing.
I just wanted to make sure we weren't making it worse instead of better.
MS. MOSCA: And it would be based on the density, the additional bonus. And that's what that particular
project that you're referring to received. They received a conversion of commercial density bonus for those units.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 3 in your --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I can --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sorry, I thought I'd asked when we started.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not a problem. I recognize, I think, the constraints that the county has in
terms of by law what it's required to do in some respects. But we can't venture from reality either, I think -- or maybe
Page 75 of 89
161 1 �3
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
we can. You're suggesting ultimately we go to 850, 1 think it was, 850 units ultimately, right?
MS. MOSCA: That's correct. That's actually based on the projections from the Shimberg Center, yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, similar to the situation with impact fees, as the cost of housing rose,
the value, purported value rose, and so the impact fees were applied. And we have the similar situation, we had a
greater need tier that.
Now we have all this housing. And For not trying to repeat what the Chairman's just related to, but I want to
seta stage. You have all of this out there. I'm concerned that with this because of the density bonus we're going to
have when we get our restart, we're going to have people coming to us seeking to build this kind of product because
they get better, I won't say guarantees, but it's a lot easier for them in some respects to move their product.
And I'm worried about what we're doing flooding, and you're saying that Shimberg requires you to come,
arithmetically come to 850. You have no latitude.
MS. MOSCA: No, it's not a question of that. I think staff proposed 850 because it's an average. We looked at
years 2010 through 2030, and on average it would be 850 additional units per year.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: At one point we were at 1,000, then we wanted to go to 1500, we went back
to 1,000, now we want to go to 850. But we're using a horizon of what, 25 years?
MS. MOSCA: Right. Twenty years.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Couldn't we deal with the reality of today -- all right, 20 years, 15, 18. The
point is that it's such a long -term that I'm just concerned that we're going to raise number thatjust doesn't make any
sense. And it provokes developers who want to come in and do a quick job, it provokes them to do that. And that's a
concern I have.
I'm not sure we can do anything about it. But I'm not sure that 850 is a valid number, especially with the
horizon we're talking about. I think it's amending, so to speak, in the sense that if Five years from now we find we're
in the trouble we were in in 2005, there will be no problem in modifying that number. So I don't see why we need to
put such a high pitch on it.
I would be an advocate for really low- balling it for the purpose of making it clear inasmuch as 728 out of
4,214 have been built. It just makes no dam sense to put an 850 number on there any more. Let's motivate them to
build what they're going to build and get this inventory, this incredible inventory used up.
MS. MOSCA: And my concern is because you do have that 15 -year tie -in that the inventory is always going
to be changing. Recently we heard, and I could probably defer to Buddy, that there were two apartment units or two
apartment complexes, rather, that were going into foreclosure. So if that does occur or has occurred, we lose all of
that inventory. So we're constantly trying to put new inventory on line.
But I do understand your point.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I understand yours. 1 understand that this is appropriate for us to try to
plan out. The appropriateness of it, though, is how many.
And reality strikes me it just doesn't seem logical to suggest that 850 is a good number when we see all of this
product all around us. And I'm pretty sure that if we were running into trouble when we didn't have inventory, there
would be a lot of developers who would like to get in the business.
So I would be an advocate for a deep change. I would like to go even 500.
MS. MOSCA: I think the direction probably would be to try to come up with some additional data and
analysis to support the 500 number so that I could provide that information to the Department of Community Affairs.
Again, the projections are based on the Shinberg Caller, which we're required to use for our projections. But
I'll try to do that as part of the adoption hearings, with Buddy's help.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you, I'm not going to belabor this.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, first of all, this number is reallyjust a threshold that we put for the
county saying that we're doing good if we're getting this number every year, adding to it Shimberg's numbers are
there.
We can't even -- when we had the AUIR we've never been able to even get this number presented to us. So
we've asked and asked and asked and asked and we've never got it. So it's a number that has nothing to do with
developers, it has nothing to do with a market, it has nothing to do with anything other than some agency saying you
know, you guys should be bringing on line something about this number.
Page 76 of 89
16 1 1 b3
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
It wasn't an issue until we really got into a crunch with affordable housing. And there is an illusion now that
we don't have a crunch in affordable housing. But remember, when everything slipped, everybody's salary, what was
the low income guy is now a lot lower than it was back then. So everything just scaled itself down.
So I see no -- I mean, the Shimberg number, they've studied it, let's assume they know better, that's fine. But
the number doesn't have any meaning to anything other than, you know, a little threshold that we should look at once
a year, but we never get to look at the number anyway.
Isn't that right? I mean -- okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Does the -- does this 850 number apply to both rental units as well as
ownership units'?
MR. RAMSEY: For the record, Frank Ramsey, or Buddy Ramsey, Housing Manager. To answer your
question, yes, it does.
In fact, I think all the experts that I'm reading and hearing is that rental is the new home ownership. And I do
think that the element, if it would be the desire of staff and of the Board, would maybe benefit from specifically
referencing that.
As Michele mentioned two affordable rental developments recently went into foreclosure. And when at
auction. And when they are sold they will lose the restrictions. And those two developments alone represented 17
percent of the affordable rental apartments here in Collier County,
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, it's important to --
MR. RAMSEY: If I couldjust make one comment on the number. I've always had a problem with this
specific number, because it doesn't change with the market. And it's not -- it can't self adjust. The problem is coming
up with an alternative, tying it, a percentage tied to building permits issues or some other measure, and I have not
been able to come up with a very good one thus far that would also pass muster with DCA.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Buddy, I guess I'll call you Buddy.
MR. RAMSEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY:
Aren't you also constrained by the -- not the number but by the -- I'm going
to call it legitimately qualified housing?
For instance, there's been an assertion made for a long time, which I agree with, that there are many
affordable units that are not considered inventory because they didn't have some connection in the first instance.
we're not counting those.
So
And so we're counting these and saying we're going to lose this is one when in reality we have all these here.
If those properties are not taken soon because of foreclosure and there've left, the mold will destroy them, we aren't
achieving anything by making believe over here and ignoring over here.
So as part of the restudy that's going on, is that going to finally include those other appropriately qualified
homes and apartments. They are not currently on that inventory. Is that part of the restudy?
MR. RAMSEY: My understanding, and it's not run through my department, but yes, the data is being
analyzed on most recent sale price. But built and affordable purchase price mortgage amount based on income level.
So you will capture that inventory of non - restrictive units, what you're referring to, market rates units that are selling
for an affordable price.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And they've been selling that way for a long time. Theyjust never had any
first money associated with the county.
MR. RAMSEY: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So for the first time we'll have a real inventory. And then that 4,000
number will go considerably higher, won't it?
MR. RAMSEY: It will.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on Page 2 and 3?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I've got a question on Page 3, and I don't care whoever answers it. Policy 1.1,
it refers to interlocal agreements between the City of Naples, the City of Marco and Everglades City. I've been able to
Page 77 of 89
16u i st 25,20l
10
CCPC /EAR
locate the City Naples and City of Marco but not Everglades City. Do we not have the interlocal agreement that's
referred to here?
MR. RAMSEY: I'm not aware of an interlocal agreement relating to affordable housing with Everglades.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't think there is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, aren't we inconsistent with our GMP? And if we are, then how is Everglades
City handling their affordable housing'?
MS. MOSCA: Policy 1.1 actually states that we'll pursue interlocal agreements. If this is something that the
Housing Department and Board of County Conunissioners is not going to pursue, then it makes sense to remove
Everglades City.
And I don't know how they're meeting their affordable housing needs.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you find out by adoption and make the appropriate adjustment, if need
be.
And then the value of the amount of affordable housing that we're taking on behalf of the other two cities, do
we know how much the other two cities have in affordable housing quantity, how much they should have based on
the pro rata share that we supply, and how much for that we are supplying? For example, we get up to $50,000 from
Marco Island. From the City of Naples, which probably have less affordable housing than anywhere else, the city
agrees to waive city administrative planning review fees and building permit fees for projects meeting affordable
standards.
The county agrees to waiver deter impact fees. The county agrees that the county's affordable housing
activity administrative expenses including but not limited to staff salary, travel expenses, paper products, computer
equipment and other operational expenses will be funded through a countywide general fund. The city is currently
paying 25.5 percent of this fund, which shall be considered the city's proportional share contribution.
Would you mind telling us somehow how much that has come to?
We're accepting a burden of time million dollars in deferred impact fees for these other groups and as a
county whole. And out of it we're getting 25.5 percent of a fund from the City of Naples for that.
I'm just wondering how much it compares to compared to the amount the county is deferring on carrying all
this for Marco and the City of Naples. So is that something that the staff can find a number for since it's part of our
contract with the City of Naples?
MR. RAMSEY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can e -mail it to us. I think by the next EAR discussion it might help us
understand what the relationship between the City and us should be based on how much they're contributing.
Because, if you notice, and I'm going to bring this up later on, we have numerous policies in here that are the City of
Naples policies. But they're in our GMP and we have no way of regulating or controlling what they do with them.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, we had this discussion a number of years ago, 1 mean, a couple of years
ago. I think it was when we were trying to revise this number the last time, about these interlocal agreements. And
they were supposed to be looked at.
I mean, not to pick on Marco Island, but Marco Island gives us $50,000 as year. Is that maybe one unit of
affordable housing for the entire City of Marco Island? And we have to absorb everything else?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's one bedroom, actually.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, well, exactly. So I mean, I'm just not sure who's negotiating these
interlocal agreements, but I want the cities negotiator, not whoever's doing it for the county.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 1 just want to make this comment. Cormac Giblin was the guy that was in
the job, he's gone awhile now. And when he was very young in the job these questions were posed to him and we've
never been able to get an answer. I think good luck to you is the thing I would say about trying to cut your ringers on
that number.
MR. RAMSEY: If 1 could just make a few comments about what was said.
For Marco Island the amount paid is $50,000, or 10 percent of their building permit, whichever is greater. Sc
during the boom years they were paying us a tremendous amount of money.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said whatever was greater. So they weren't paying us more than 50,000.
Page 78 of 89
161 1 6
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
MR. RAMSEY: No, whichever is greater, either $50,000 or 10 percent --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. RAMSEY: So they were paying -- I'm sorry, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But I think if you look back, that figure never exceeded something like
$250,000, which maybe gave us two units instead of one.
MR. RAMSEY: Correct. And the beauty of the Marco Island fund is that the funds aren't required to be used
on Marco Island. So they provide an outstanding ability for the County Commissioners to use those funds for
activities that are not grant eligible. Some examples have been relocating a donated manufactured home to
Immokalee, paying permitting fees in hnmokalee.
Additionally, through the interlocal agreements with the City of Marco and the City of Naples, we retain the
entitlement funding from the state and federal government, and that allows us to keep that administrative cost, the 10
percent administrative to pay staff. And then they're entitled to certain amount of federal grant money each year.
So there is a benefit, both from using their population demographics in our information, in our entitlement,
and -- but I do agree that it is somewhat of a tricky hand -off.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would just be nice to know that in the future negotiations, if there are any, that
someone as a member of this county staff has a handle on the value of those to each community so we know how
much they've getting and we can negotiate in maybe a better position for the county, if need be.
MR. RAMSEY: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pages 4 and 5?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: First let's go to Objective 2. What do we do with the Collier Housing
Development Corporation, Buddy, do we have to yank that out?
MR. RAMSEY: I would. And maybe just reference just various nonprofit and for profit providers of
affordable housing. The Collier County Development Corporation, now known as the Collier County -- they slightly
changed their name. They more do a home buyer education and foreclosure prevention now, not so much vertical
construction.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what do you think we should place in there, or do you have it under
control, Mike?
MS. MOSCA: It's actually, it's under the objective achievement analysis, second paragraph. We're going to
add the phrase, for profit and not for profit providers of affordable housing.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. Page 5, under Policy 1.4, Policy Achievement Analysis,
and second sentence up it says in targeted areas of the county. Affordable work force housing in targeted areas of the
county.
I know that the law says they are to be essentially divided out equally among -- so the question then is really
important. I didn't realize we had targeted areas in the county.
What does that mean?
That was so that you got a break.
MR. RAMSEY: I believe what that is saying, sir, is that targeted areas --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think that's a serious word there. And I think that needs to be looked at
again to see whether that's a real statement that is intended, in other words, they really are targeted areas, or are you
going to comply with the law that says that that affordable housing shall be distributed equally among the districts.
Very serious question for a number of us.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unfortunately the law doesn't say what you just said. That's really unfortunate. The
policy was changed back a few years back and it did say what you say.
And when we discussed the idea of adding required acreage to all the projects corning through, I forgot the
terminology we used --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Inclusionary zoning.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Inclusionary zoning, we failed to focus on some of the smaller language changes in
Page 79 of 89
16 I 1 b-),)
August 25, 2010
CC PCiEAR
this element. One of those small language changes was taken -- where the county said the county shall distribute
affordable housing equitably, which is what you're quoting, to the new words that we have today, which says the
county shall seek to distribute. Basically we diluted that efforl.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, we did.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that dilution is inconsistent with Florida Statute. So -- I mean, Mr. Murray's
got a good point, we're not consistent with statute. We have a different policy that I believe is not consistent with
statute. And I think it's going to cause some problems.
And I'm sorry, Bob, I wanted to make sure you --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, fm not upset. That's fine. I think it needed to be said.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the statute is 163.317.6.F. I.G. And it says the following, housing element --
we shall have a comprehensive plan that will include the following elements. A housing element consisting of
standards, plans and principles be followed in the creation or preservation of affordable housing to minimize the need
for additional local services and avoid the concentration of affordable housing units only in specific areas of the
jurisdiction.
We don't know if we've done that or not because we don't have a study that tells us if we've actually
accomplished that goal. Nor do we have a requirement that that goal is to be attained. And I think that somehow this
policy needs to be brought back to that more aggressive stance.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1 think maybe that's where Bob was heading. And I wanted to make sure that the --
since 1 did have a copy of the statute I got a chance to relay it to you all, because 1 think we need to be going there
more favorably.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Can't youjust take out those two words, seek -- Collier County shall instead
of --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We could --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Instead of seek to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's, I mean, if this Board wants to --
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark, are you saying that you don't think that it should be concentrated in
Immokalee, the affordable housing as it has been for the last, I guess, 20 years?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not saying it shouldn't be, I'm saying that we, in order to comply with the statute,
we need to do a study to find out how we've avoided concentrating affordable housing only in specific areas of the
jurisdiction.
I don't know how they're going to lay out the areas of the jurisdiction. I'm not sure how that term nology's
going to fit together. When it does, we need to see if we've over - concentrated in any one area. Immokalee, on the
other hand, because of its demographics may have a different outcome in that study. Maybe the median price of a
home in Immokalee may be different than it is along the coast and there you may have a different demographic. I
don't know.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Curiously, once the study's been determined as to what the inventory is,
where it is, the word targeted may very well come into play because of the fact that there are places that do not have
the equality. And the effort can be made to direct some affordable housing in those areas where they properly should
be. That will serve to help on greenhouse gases and vehicle miles traveled, the whole thing.
So it's an important issue. I couldn't stress it enough.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I support it. But every time I've been on this Board and they've tried to put
affordable housing in other areas of the county, the room is always full, you know, of objectors. So Cm surprised that
it's even stated as a policy, since it's never really been completed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, 1 do think that that study is the important thing. I don't think we should
make any changes to this policy at this point until we've actually seen that study and analyzed that study and vetted it
in the public.
Again, back to our -- this Board's policy on how to handle things. So that study apparently is going to be
coming to us. Do we have any idea when?
MS. MOSCA: The study should be completed by December and it's actually going directly to the Board of
Page 80 of 89
161 163
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
County Commissioners. It was a Board - directed exercise.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could we know that information before the EAR adoption so we could weigh in on
this issue?
You'll have it pretty close by then, so you'll at least be able to verbally give us some kind of --
MS. MOSCA: We should certainly be able to e -mail the status, the report, everything. But of course the
Board of County Commissioners won't take any sort of action on it, acceptance of the report until December 14th.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, to take those two words out is no different a process than it took to put the
two words in. We didn't go through any public vetting or public process. We went through a meeting like this in
which nobody noticed it because they're all focused on inclusionary zoning. So I'm not sure we would need to change
the process for to put this back the way it was before it got inadvertently changed.
Ms. Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That isn't what we're doing here. Part of this is to try and make some
changes possibly to reduce vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions. So wouldn't you want to try to
distribute work force housing equitably? I mean, everywhere? I mean, those two words are stopping that, basically.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's the goal.
Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I mean, I don't -- I think it should be put in the right place, but
distributing it evenly may not be the right place. I mean, you want it along transit routes, you want near employment
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, that's not the law --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Equitably, not evenly.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is equitably mean, and equally? In other words, uniformly?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's mostly talking about affordable work force housing. So, I mean, it's
intended to be possibly -- I mean, the whole concept is to get it closer to where people work --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct, which may not be --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- and affordable for those people.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Which then does tend to put it in, you know, smaller locations.
Right now it's happening by nature because no one's building work force housing, no one's building
affordable housing. We're remodeling existing neighborhoods, existing buildings, and therefore the economy is
placing it where the value of it should be.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, did you --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I did. But I -- this is really a good conversation.
Look, the way I see this, right now if DCA were to pick up on it, we would be out of compliance in terns of
equitable distribution. So at the minimum that needs to be rephrased, and I think the policy achievement analysis is
just a set of words today. This is not the same analysis that was made earlier, was it? May have had similar words or
some structure. But this is today's analysis, is it not?
MS. MOSCA: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So somebody can change this to be reflective of the law, and then
when the inventory is determined then this body and others can go about trying to make things work better. But I'm
concerned that if you don't change it you might find yourself in a little bit of a problem.
And you're right, Mark, if our body was the one that modified phrasing the last time in a meeting like this, I
see no problem in going back and modifying it to where it should be, certainly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, did you want something to interject?
MR. WEEKS: For the record again, David Weeks of Comprehensive Planning staff. A few comments.
One is the phrase equitable distribution, even if we change it to a mandate, back to shall equitably distribute,
there's still flexibility because ultimately the Board of County Commissioners determines what that wording means.
Secondly, I believe the genesis of that requirement goes back to that concern for creating a concentration of
affordable work force housing, probably the word slum was used, I think inappropriately, but that's a perception. And
as I think we're all aware, Commissioner Fiala in particular has consistently expressed a concern about having so
much affordable work force housing placed in the East Naples area, as a generic term.
To try to equitably distribute the affordable housing 1 think is a worthy goal to pursue, but the reality is if you
Page 81 of 89
161 1 b�
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
look at commission districts or if you look at planning communities, whatever geography you use to determine what
the areas are that you want to equitably distribute this type of housing in, there are real differences in those
geographies, both economically, as in the value of land, the value of dwelling units in that area, the amount of
undeveloped land, the available land for the affordable housing to be developed is going to vary by geographic area.
So the ability to actually accomplish that equitable distribution simply may not be there.
Mr. Midney brought up a point, if we were to view, if we were to mandate that the housing be distributed
equitably and if we were to view that very strictly, then it may be that someone comes forth with an affordable
housing project, let's say it's in Immokalee and the Board has to deny that, even though there might be a demonstrated
need because we have an unequitable distribution, Immokalee is already too high on the scale.
And for those reasons, l would suggest that we not change it to a mandate but that we leave it as it's worded
or something similar to that, that we will seek to but not mandated.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One thing that you need to be aware of; Immokalee doesn't need the benefit of any
affordable housing language at all. They have densities I'ar in excess of any affordable language that we can possibly
accrue in the county.
So to even think this is going to impact Immokalee in any way it's changed, it won't. Because if you want to
do affordable housing, you get the density by right, you just go to Immokalee and do it.
So I'm not sure that an argument that this is going to hurt us in areas where we want more affordable housing
is applicable based on our zoning standards that already provide the density far beyond what this would have
provided.
MR. WEEKS: I would respond back that the affordable housing by right in hmnokalee is an unknown. The
provision is there in the Immokalee Master Plan but the implementing LDC language has yet to be developed.
So though I would tend to agree that the objective was to make it much easier, and we hope that happens, it
still is an unknown, we just don't know if it will happen or not.
But I would also mention that, aside from Immokalee, what about other geographic areas? What about the
greater East Naples area'? The same scenario, if there's a demonstrated need for it, does the county want to put itself
in a position where it may have to deny a request because of the inequitable distribution that may exist?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak, then Mr. Murray, did you have anything you want to add?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. I want to pick on David.
COMM ISSIONER HOMIAK: 1 really would like to sec this have a lot more work on it then —
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's the direction that we're going to end up with staff is they look at the
alternatives that we're talking about to change this, but bring it back with either lack of or support of the study you're
doing.
And if the study doesn't support it, well, then we may have to consider a way of saying something here that
isn't consistent with just changing it back
MR. BOSI: 1 will say that the study is going to give you a distribution of the what the market rate housings
are or how they're distributed. But when we talk about seeking to distribute affordable work force housing, I think
those are ones by agreement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, however it needs to be --
MR. BOSE And we have the map as of now. We have that map available. And there's not an equitable
distribution. 1 mean, there's over 2,000 units that are allocated to Itmokalee out of a total of close to 4,000.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir. You see, I realize this gets really confusing because you have the
low then you have the low, low and then you have what we now call affordable work force, right?
And I guess, David, what you were indicating is that somebody making a case for it. So what came to my
mind is maybe the Economic Development Council was fortunate to get an organization to come in and it's enough to
warrant hiring a bunch of folks. And that would be the kind of case that you would say that they'd come to the Board
with and plead on the basis of.
But other that. I can't imagine, and I imagine you can, where anybody else can make an argument that they
have to be located in North Naples or South Naples or Faca Palm, or whatever that's called.
And because as you indicated, clearly there's a difference in the Estates properties, et cetera, et cetera, et
cetera_ And I don't want to belabor this thing, but I just think that the key here is we ought to try to comply with the
Page 82 of 89
161 1 b3
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
law, which is I'm sure what you agree with. And we ought to avoid focusing or targeting any area. And I'm not
speaking specifically for greater East Naples, because for all I know North Naples could be inundated with work force
housing.
And if we're only talking about work force housing, it's not so much of a problem. The problem for my
understanding is that low, very low and work force are now lumped together in this thing. And that is where we have
to really get a hold on it.
So I don't know that that will help in any way, but that's something I think if it can give you some ideas.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any more comments on that. We're on Page -- we were on -- we're on Page 3
-- no, we're on Page 5. So let's move on to Page 6 and 7. Anybody have any comments?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one quick thing. Mike, could you send me a copy or reference link to
the law that we're not in compliance with?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The law regarding?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Distribution of --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Florida Statute, you mean?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- work force housing. Yeah, do you know it?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here, I'll give it to you, save Mike the trouble.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 163 something.
MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chair.
CI IAIRMAN STRAIN: You're welcome.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark's got laws in his pocket.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got to deal with guys like you, what the heck.
Okay, six and seven. How about eight and nine, anybody have any questions through Page 9?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mike, this begins the asterisk policies. And when 1 went to discover what
those little asterisks mean like in Policy 2.8 on Page 8, I realize that they are for the City of Naples. Nothing to do
with Collier County.
So what does it mean to have a City of Naples policy -- and there's quite a few of them, because as we go on
in this element you'll find that there's a whole pile of them that have nothing to do with Collier County. Page 11, the
whole page practically is the City of Naples, as -- and there's some on Page 12. It's scattered throughout the entire
thing.
What good is this in our GMP? How enforceable is it? Have we been enforcing it? Do we know what the
city is doing about it? Has the city done what they said they would do or what we told them they had to do by these
policies?
How are we -- where are we at with all this stuff?
MS. MOSCA: I'll address that. It's actually a joint housing element with the City of Naples. You'll see
throughout the element that there'll be Naples and county policy direction, as well as some specific to Naples.
When I worked with the City of Naples, they provided updates for those specific Naples policies. I'm not
sure how the element was originally established, but somehow we have the joint element.
And as Buddy had stayed, he administers a lot of those funds for affordable housing. And I'll defer to Buddy
if he wants to add something.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they decide not to follow the policy, how is it enforced, what method of
enforcement do we have? Do we have any power?
MR. RAMSEY: I don't have any power to withhold entitlement funding for them or anything. If they have
an eligible project, I have to give them the money.
MS. MOSCA: They're required also, Mr. Chair, they're required to go through the same process that we're
going through with this particular Housing Element. They'll provide their updates to the DCA as part of their
evaluation and appraisal report.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess then, because of sotne agreement it's appropriate that they have specific
policies for them in our GMP.
MS. MOSCA: To the best of my knowledge.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
Page 83 of 89
161 1 o�
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
COMMISSIONER CARON: Why wouldn't we just have one policy that says the county will administer and
-- I mean, again, I'm questioning why we have nothing to say about, for example 3.5, which wants to protect Old
Naples. But we can't do anything to further that policy or not.
So it seems to me that a lot of this could come out, you know, and t don't know what the agreement says.
MS. MOSCA: Well, again, it is ajoint element. So we're not responsible for enforcing the City of Naples
policies. This is something -- they don't have their own Housing Element. So they'll have to, again, provide updates
to these policies to the DCA justifying some of these actions, programs have been completed and so forth. Just as
we're doing here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I was just wondering why in their Growth Management Plan wouldn't they
have a housing -- what are they saving by giving it to us? I don't know.
MS. MOSCA: l don't have an answer, I don't.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It seems odd.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just to be clear, Policies 3.5, 3.6 and 1 think 3.7 as well, and perhaps more,
they are the result of an interlocal agreement'?
MS. MOSCA: I don't know the answer. I tried to find out. 1 just don't know --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If they were the result of an interlocal agreement, you could start off the
statement with, for instance Policy 3.6, in accordance with the interlocal agreement, the county and the city, or the
City of Naples will study, however you want to phrase it.
What Pm driving at is you find a hook that you can relate to it. Because it surely does look very strange.
When I read this, I said okay, that's nice, we're recording what they've recorded. Presumably they recorded. Perhaps
we are the only ones who've recorded it.
MS. MOSCA: 1 think if you look at the entire element in context you'll see the various goals, including the
objectives and policies. And then the beginning of the element states that it is a joint element. So I think it lends itself
to state that there will be policies within — for the City of Naples included within the county's Housing Element.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I don't really have a problem with that part of it. But I guess our
discussion here is centered on the fact that we have these things popping out in our GMP.
We've spoken about agreements that were extant, and we don't know much about those. But if those two are
tied together in some way, it certainly seems a nexus where you could relate to it.
Other than that, I really don't know why they're in there. even though you say if you take it context. Because
then we need to have a preliminary statement or prefatory statement regarding that, which we don't.
MS. MOSCA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Melissa then Brad.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: On Page 11, Policy 3.3, my question was in reference to SHIP funding. Are
we even receiving SHIP funding anymore?
MR. RAMSEY: Not currently, no. I would hope the program -- legislation did not kill the program, so the
program is still active. It's still an active statute. 1 have the report, unfortunately, due September 15th to the state.
But no, the last money we received was called Florida I Lome Buyer Opportunity Program, and that was to
provide up to $8,000 to first time home buyers eligible for tax credit.
I hope to get funded again in fiscal year 11/12.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On Policy 3.3, which wejust, I think, related to, moderate income residents,
are they the same people that would be using affordable work force housing?
MR. RAMSEY: Yes, sir.
Cl IAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, did you have a follow -up?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We should check in. There's got to be a reason the City of Naples is part of
Collier County, Poor Melissa represents it. So Buddy, must there be a reason that they're in there?
I'm sure we didn't do it just to frustrate ourselves or put a bunch of requirements we don't have anything to do
with.
MR. RAMSEY: This was done before my time. My guess would be that don't have the staff capacity to
administer affordable housing programs.
Page 84 of 89
161 10
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
I recently held a meeting with some staff in the City of Naples requesting -- they're requesting my assistance
in how they should spend some money they received from Coastland Center Mall when they built it, and they want to
do rehabilitation to homes in the City of Naples.
So I think it might be more of a capacity issue. And that by not having their own they don't have to maintain
a housing staff department such as us.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they pay you through some agreement?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sounds like the agreement.
MR. RAMSEY: Maybe.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mike, there's a lot of similar issues as we go through this. I don't know if
there's a point to even bringing them up if you guys are going to evaluate this at some point as an overall program to
try see why we even need these things. And if the city can be taken out, that's fine, but we have quite a few policies
that's referring to the City of Naples. And repeatedly it says they've not been created or they're not been done.
The last time this was reviewed was probably in seven years ago in the last EAR. And here we are seven
years later and I bet you we could go back and find the same verbiage in response to analysis. I'm not sure why it's all
there.
And earlier Nancy Payton said something to the effect that we have so many policies, if don't put a timeline
on them we don't ever do anything with them, or something to that effect.
And actually we don't. These are a good example.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, that was partly my point in saying it's sort of out of site, out of mind. If
they don't have to have a housing elements in their GMP, then they don't think about it either until Buddy comes to
them and says, here, you have some money, how are we going to spend it.
MR. RAMSEY: That's becoming more and more difficult as well on Naples and Marco, is finding eligible
projects.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move to 14 and 15.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: I had a question on 13.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Policy 4.2 in reference to the demolition, I'm wondering what county funding
is being used for that?
I believe the NSP reduced the amount allowed for demolition?
MR. RAMSEY: Correct. Until the neighborhood stabilization program, or NSP, came around, I believe this
was all run through code enforcement, and that I believe a lien was placed against the property for the cost of the
demolition.
We set aside a small amount of money in the neighborhood stabilization -- NSP for demo and recently
actually saved a lot of money by partnering with the fire department, and they burned the house down for us as a
training exercise, thus reducing our cost.
But NSP3 is announced and the county will receive money under that and we'll be able to revisit strategies.
And if that's demolition of blighted structures then --
COMMISSIONER AHERN: So we're not using funding outside of grants?
MR. RAMSEY: No, generally what we do is the homes are in such a condition that they can be salvaged.
This one, due to extensive, extensive termite damage was just not feasible to save.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, 14 and 15?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I love this one, Policy 5.4, especially when you get to the next page and it
says, however, the city remains interested in incentives to preserve historic structures.
I'm almost embarrassed to see that be in there. We didn't achieve it. We don't know if we ever will achieve
it, but they're still interested.
Could we do better than that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it goes back to the overall evaluation of all the City of Naples
Page 85 of 89
161 1 j�5
August 25, 2010
CCPC/EAR
inelusionary policies in our GMP. And I think staff needs to sit down with the City of Naples and says look, you guys
are going to do this or not. If not, let's just change the GMP language so that this EAR brings everything back to
center and we can start right going forward, whether you have to put more flexibility for your time frames or
eliminate the time frames or refer to them differently, I think that needs to be done.
Because right now this entire section of the GMP is woefully inaccurate. And I don't think it's the county's
fault. It seems to be more of a lacking of the City of Naples. Melissa's area, you know.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Let's have a lot of questions in this --the last paragraph states that the policy
remains relevant and then discusses the joint study between the county and city to be completed by 2011.
Is that feasible?
MS. MOSCA: My understanding from my discussions with City of Naples staff is that the city is working
presently with county staff. The date of201 1 was in tact provided to me by the city. So I'm going to assume so.
And I'll contact the City of Naples again and try to, you know, clean that up and work closely with them to
get some sort of action plan or work plan so that I can bring that information back to this --
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Who would they be working with at the county?
MS. MOSCA: I would imagine that it would be zoning staff for the historic preservation or the preservation
board itself. I don't know for sure, but I will check into that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anything else on Pages 16 and 17?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Objective 6 on Page 17, Collier County shall monitor changes to state and federal
regulations pertaining to group care facilities and as necessary amend this Land Development Code to ensure
compliance.
If I'm not mistaken, state statutes have changed, the ACLF reference has been replaced by a more broader
CCRC type reference. You may want to check that. Because if that's the case we'd need consider amendments to the
LDC in regards to that.
I know the LDC still refers ACLF.
Pages 18 and 19.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 19, 1 think, Mike, I pointed this out to you. The Objective 7 refers to —
that's on Page 18, refers to urban coastal fringe in the last three words. On Page 19, Policy 7.3 refers to the coastal
high hazard area. 1 want to make sure they mean different areas or they're trying to mean the same area. I'm not sure
which.
MS. MOSCA: That actually was a very good catch. It should be changed in Objective 7 to coastal high
hazard area.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a point.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: At the bottom of 19, should be noted that the process for awarding funds to
rehabilitate residential units must he competitive, comma, not restricted to certain geographies within the county. As
a result, the county recommends revising the objective to remove the restriction that rehabilitated units must be
located only in the Immokalee urban area, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
I think this kind of has a connection with that other question that was raised and we spoke probably more
than we needed to about it. You rnight want to -- I mean, I can understand this. And this comports more closely with
what we were trying to say. Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Pages 18 and 199 Did I already say that?
Pages 20 and 21 ?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then we'll wrap up on Page 22. Any questions?
Melissa?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Policy 9.3, are we currently expediting plan reviews for housing projects?
MS. MOSCA: No, we're not presently.
MR. RAMSEY: Well -- I'm sorry, for energy conservation design, no, we're not currently. But for
affordable housing, yes, we are.
Page 86 of 89
161 1a3
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'm familiar with the affordable but I'm wondering why we are not doing this.
MR. RAMSEY: 1 believe, and I don't want to speak out of turn, that this -- these policies are new to the
element to try to recognize the new focus on energy efficiency.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute, it's new to the element? What do you mean new to the element?
Being introduced this time in this EAR?
MS. MOSCA: Yes, it's an addition as part of the legislative change for House Bill 697.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where does it say that, because we --
MS. MOSCA: Right above Objective 9, the lead -in.
MR. RAMSEY: So all of Objective 9, 1 believe, is new.
MS. MOSCA: That's correct.
MR. RAMSEY: I'm song, Objective 9 and all the policies therein are going to be new.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ready?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. Were you done, Melissa?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Policy 9.5, I think I just want to be absolutely sure that we are talking here
when we're inserting ourselves, the county, promoting the incorporation. Not that I disagree with it for all_
But we are relating it only to construction and rehabilitation associated with affordable housing, correct?
MR. RAMSEY: It does not state that implicitly, but we certainly could say.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could somebody, could somebody then construe that this should be a whole
new program of marketing and advertising and so forth to make sure that we buy locally and we buy energy star
building appliances?
I don't know, I know that the federal government, you know, does the SEER, I think that's what it's called,
S -E -E -R rating. They have their public announcements and the state has the public announcements.
Since we have some budgetary issues, I just wondered if we needed to continue to promote. And there are
various ways of promoting. You have essentially a captive audience when you're dealing with work force people who
are very low or low. But you wouldn't have that otherwise. So as long as it -- I'm happy, as long as it relates only to
the housing.
MR. RAMSEY: And I would agree with you wholeheartedly in the sense that we are putting in higher SEER
rating air conditioners and other energy efficients into affordable housing because that household really needs the
benefit of a lower energy cost on their monthly bill.
So you could say the county shall promote the incorporation of U.S. EPA energy star building and appliance
programs into construction and rehabilitation practices of grant funded affordable housing.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that's fine. And I have no objection to it being -- I'm just worried about
duplicative costs where these things get snowballed, okay?
MS. MOSCA: The issue with HB 697 is that it applies to all housing. So 1 understand that you want to
restrict it only to affordable housing projects, but --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why?
MS. MOSCA: Well, I thought that's what Mr. Murray was saying --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why wouldn't the people who have the biggest appliances and the biggest homes
and run the massive 10,000 square foot facilities, why don't we demand they use the higher SEER rating because they
can afford it more than the affordable people can. Why would we --
MS. MOSCA: I agree. I thought was perhaps my misunderstanding. I thought --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What I'm trying to avoid is taking on another activity that relates to housing
and broadening it to everything, and the next thing you know we'll be requiring a permit if you don't have a SEER
rated 93. That's my concern.
I don't think it's excessive. I do agree that we want to advocate the highest SEER rating, no question. Just
don't need another budgetary item.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All the building codes have minimum standards, which are pretty high now.
And this isn't saying you have to go above that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think you need to change the language because I don't think that's what Mr.
Murray intended --
Page 87 of 89
16 ! 1,��
August 25, 2010
CCPC/EAR
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's not what I was asking, I was qualifying.
MS. MOSCA: I'm sorry.
MR. RAMSEY: I apologize.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that takes us to the end of the housing. Is there anybody else that has any
comments about the housing'.'
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let mejust say one thing. We can congratulate Buddy and his team. They
spent $7.3 million on time, which most cotmnunities didn't, in the neighborhood stabilization program to buy houses,
remodel them -- remodeling is work for contractors, and then they're selling them now and bringing that money in to
flip it again.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fantastic.
MR. RAMSEY: Thank you. It was a lot of work. In 18 months it was a lot of work. But we totaled 83 units
acquired. So far we've already paid out actually over $700,000 to local contractors and millions more to follow as the
projects roll on. So I appreciate the kind words, Brad, and all your help on the Affordable Housing Advisory
Committee.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And that gets us through the Housing Element.
We have a few minutes left, and Cherie's not a bit tired. So we have one item that only is a few pages. It's
the Intergovernmental Element.
I know Carolina is -- oh, right. It's not a complicated one, 1 hope. So why don't we just try to get through that
one so we can cross it off our list and we'll remaining for Friday.
Mike, I'm not going to ask you to say anything. So let's just get Pages I, 2 and 3. Anybody have any
questions on Pages 1, 2 or 3?
(No response.)
CIAIRMAN STRAIN: And the last pages, four, five and six, and then the back -up material. Is there any
questions from the Planning Commission on that element so we know we're -- either leave it as staffs suggesting or
any issues?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I've got one, two and three.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The ICE?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought 1 was looking at the right one. Intergovernmental Coordination?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it's countywide assessment, ICE. There's six pages.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, no, I know where -- I'm way in the back. Okay. No wonder I didn't
have a problem.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any comments or questions on the ICE Element at all?
Anybody from the -- there's nobody from the public.
David, you want to criticize anything about it at all?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, with that, I think we wrapped up as much as we can probably do today.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: On Page 6, 1 just put a not, Policy 3.2 there was just some grammatical errors.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where's that.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Policy 3.2, the rewrite.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I have a grammatical, I'll talk to you about it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a grammatical in the rewrite'?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: It says requires the Collier County to procedures to plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 'that's normal. 'I 'o develop procedures to plan for the future. So Mike will surely
catch that one in the go around. Thank you.
Okay, with that I think we're finished. We would need a recommendation or a motion -- Mike, is there
anything else to wrap up?
MR. BOSL No, but the workshop was advertised for today, just to let the audience know that we will be
continuing it on the 27th.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I wasjust going to do. I'm looking for a motion to continue to 8:30 in
Page 88 of 89
the morning on Friday morning here in these chambers.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Second.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa and Donna both. Let's do them two at a time.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. Thank you all.
August 25, 2010
CCPC /EAR
161 1ro �
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair
at 4:50 p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
MARK P. STRAIN, Chairman
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on n as presented or as
corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE'
NOTTINGHAM
Page 89 of 89
p3/
August 27, 2010
EIVED CGPGEAR
REC
OCT Z % 2��0 TRANSCRIPT OF THE EAR MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
,,aid of Count cwv*sbnm Naples, Florida
August 27, 2010
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commi
Fiala
.12. = ---- --
Halal
en ng....�—f --"
8
Coletta ---
ision, in and for the County of
Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the
Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
ALSO PRESENT:
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Heidi Ashton- Cicko, Assistant County Attorney
Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Page 1 of 44
Mark Strain, Chairman
Melissa Ahern
Donna Reed -Caron
Karen Homiak
Paul Midney (Absent)
Bob Murray (Absent)
Brad Schiffer
Misc.Comes:
Crate:
Item #:
6 ' 10 3
August 27, :'0 10
CCPCII AR
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good morning, everybody. This is a continuation of a workshop that started
on Wednesday for the EAR, the Evaluation and Appraisal Report. It's an every seven -year review of the Collier
County Growth Management Plan. Today we will go through the remaining elements.
If everybody will please rise to start the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ** *Okay, roll call. This -- before we do, Ms. Ebert, her first meeting won't be till
next month as our first regular meeting.
Mr. Murray said he couldn't make it till 11:00. And with that, Donna, would you like to do the --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Ahern'?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is absent.
Ms. Caron is here.
Mr. Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Homiak?
COMMISSIONERHOMIAK: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And that is it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have a quorum.
Okay, the order of today's agenda. And Mike, 1 don't think we need a refresher on the introduction, I think
we're okay. But I'll let everybody know where I think we need to be today.
The first one up will be the drainage sub- element. The second one will be the natural groundwater aquifer
recharge sub-element. The third one will be the Conservation and Coastal Management Element, CCME. Then we'll
do the sanitary sewer, the potable water and last the capital improvement.
And the reason for that hierarchy is Stan had -- actually, Stan's new sidekick, I guess he didn't know the rules
of the road and he e- mailed me and said look, we're the most important department in the county, do you mind if we
go first this morning. And I said, well, what about the public'? He said no, we should be first. I said oh, okay, you
must be new.
Stan, I'll let you take it from there.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sic (food morning, Stan Chrzanowski, with Engineering Review Services.
And you're right, this morning -- my last day is September 30th. I'm retiring. My replacement is going to be
Jack McKenna. They hired him about a month ago. He's probably going to do a better job than I did.
And also with me 1 have Mac Hatcher and Jerry Kurtz from the stonnwater department. Because the rules
that -- so you do have quite a few people here that have otherjobs. And this is a very important thing we're talking
about, so you have a lot of points of view on this. I guess I'll get started.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Stan, before you do, you have been an unbelievably dedicated individual to
work with all these years. And 1 know this board and I myself have relied on you many times for good guidance,
practical guidance. And the county as a whole isjust going to be at such a loss without you here.
So I hope that you're going to be out there somehow so that when Jack has these questions that come up that
you always handled so well, that he can at least look at your resources once in a while, so --
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sic not a problem, except I don't take my cell phone when I go kayaking, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, neither do 1. And that's probably where you and I will bump into each other
the most from here on out, so -- thank you, Stan.
COMMISSIONER CARON: We need Stan when we discuss the cord method again.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONFR SCHIFFF,R: I think that's why he retired.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think so, too.
MR. CHRZANOWSKL It's one of the reasons, yes. I'll make sure .lack knows all about that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way --
MR. CHRZ,ANOW SKI: You take a cord and (indicating.)
Page 2 of 44
161 1 b3
August 27, 2010
CCPC/EAR
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On our next Thursday's agenda we had an introduction of Jack McKenna as the new
county engineer. Did you want to do that now to save your having to be here next Thursday? It doesn't -- I know it's
not going to -- unless he's going to take an hour and a half to tell us about himself, I'm sure that we could just get done
so you guys haven't got to the come back next Thursday at the same time. I know your department's shorthanded and
busy, so --
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir, I'd rather do it now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just --yeah, if there's anymore than what you've already done, just let's get it
done. If not, at least we can stand up and say hi to Jack since he's going to be filling your shoes.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I'll let Jack come up here and tell you about himself.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great, thank you.
MR. McKENNA: Good morning, Commissioners. My name's Jack McKenna. I suppose I'm fortunate to be
taking over after Stan. I'm very fortunate to have had a time of overlap; that's been a great asset in many ways, not the
least of which is becoming friends with Stan. We've dealt together on many topics over the years, but never had the
one -on -one contact like I've had here this past few weeks, and I've enjoyed that immensely.
If you have any specific questions about me, go over my background? I've been down here since'79, passed
-- well, since'98 I've been working with Gulf Bay at Fiddler's Creek. And prior to that I was in the consulting arena
with Agnoli, Barber and Brundage for 11 years prior. Prior to that in vertical construction. And also worked for the
county in the early Eighties.
So it -- was chairman for several terns on the Productivity Committee. And looking forward to being back
with the county and serving the public once again.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if any board can try to confuse you, we will.
Anybody have any questions or comments for Jack?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Nice to hear you're on board, Jack, thank you.
Stan, we'll move into the drainage element then. Do you want to do an introduction and then we go through
the pages at a time like we did on the rest, or do you have any introduction to provide at all?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, sir, no introduction.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's start right at it then. The first -- let's go to the Pages 1, 2 and 3, see if
there's any comments from the Planning Commission on those first three pages.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, this is the drainage sub - element, not --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The drainage sub - element, right. We're not going to get -- yeah, we've got
groundwater and CCME after this, so -- okay, any -- pages four and five?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 4, Mike, are references to a couple -- at least three different -- four
different codes and ordinances, all of which as amended. And there's been others that I've missed pointing out to you.
But when I catch some of them as examples, I think I'll mention so you can make sure we note it.
Pages six and seven?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One question, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Stan, in here there's -- and it happened before a little bit -- there's a public
comment that somebody wanted a more holistic approach to this. What do you think they were meaning? I mean, I
think I know what the word holistic means, but --
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Actually, you're going to have to state the question a little more explanatory
because--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the bottom of Page 7 there's a public comment, and it happened in prior
things where the watershed management and water resource management should have a more holistic approach. I
mean, what do you think's missing that they're looking for with that comment?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I always thought we had a holistic approach. I mean, we talk about groundwater,
we talk about hydrology, we talk about surface water flow, we incorporate the LIDAR into it. I don't know how you
could get more holistic than that.
MR. SCHMIDT: I may have some input on that.
Page 3 o1`44
161 13
August 27, 2010
CCPC/EAR
For the record, Corby Schmidt.
At that hearing some of the public comments were similar. And in this case where that holistic approach was
brought up, I think the people were talking about taking into account the environment, the surroundings, the land
nearby, the neighborhood, perhaps, as well as the things Stan talked about.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Corby, was the concern that some of the -- like the drainage ponds weren't
reflective of the neighborhood, stuff like that, or what do you think they were —
MR. SCHMIDT: They were no more specific than that. Just offering their insights, but not specifically.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you.
CI IAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Stan, I don't know who wrote up the interpretations to the policies, but
in Policy 3.4 -- and I don't know if Mike gave you a heads up on my question. Policy 3.4 reads, county improvements
to and the maintenance of existing drainage facilities shall be a priority over new construction projects in the urban
and Estates designated areas.
So to me that means we've got new stuff to do in the urban and the Estates, but if existing drainage facilities
in the other part of the county that have been there for a while have problems, they're a priority before we build new
things. But then when you read the writeup it says, this policy requires that the county give major emphasis to
drainage improvements in the Estates and urban areas, as opposed to other portions of the county.
Do they mean -- are they saying something different in those two statements? Because in one it seems the
priority's supposed to be the existing, but in the writeup it seems to says the emphasize should be on the Estates and
the urban, which seems to be the opposite direction that the policy first line states.
MR. CHRZNANOWSKI: 1 should probably defer to Jerry Kurtz on that, since stormwater is the one res --
Jerry worked under road and bridge.
MR. KURTZ: Hi. Jerry Kurtz.
Yeah, 1 read the same thing you did and interpreted it the same way. I'd like to look at that. And there seems
to be a little bit of a discontinuity between the two statements, so I agree.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you want to just clarify it by the time we get to the adoptions so we'll be in --
that's I think the only direction we need to worry about.
MR. BOSI: Well, and just to point out, this policy is not being suggested for change, so you won't see it in
adoption. I think that you just --what you're providing is the clarification to --this policy is saying that existing
drainage problems shall take priorities over new projects. And it's not primarily focused upon a geographic as the
primary point of this policy, but it's -- the point of this policy is that existing drainage problems shall take priority over
new problems.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I agree with you. But if it got into this document without someone realizing
that's what it meant, someone who probably was reading this with the intention of being involved in it, maybe the
policy is not reading clear enough. That's the only comment I want to leave you with. And if you think there's a way
to tweak that policy so it's clearer so that it's kind of-- because if this rolled down and didn't come out at a public
meeting and staff made interpretations of this GMP based on that and we ended up in the implementation, who knows
where it would go. All I'm suggesting is make sure it's as clear as it needs to be.
With that, we'll move on to Pages 8 and 9. Anybody have any questions on Pages 8 and 9?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, 10 and 11?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the last one is Page 12.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, of course the Page 12 has the same issue with the house bills -- that 697
reference you made in here. If we're going to include a reference to it, I'm only suggesting that because you bring in
the 2055 LLC study, that we actually place the recommendations we're trying to talk about in that study and language.
MR. SCHMIDT: Understood.
Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
MR. SCHMIDT: 1 do have a few comments. My work sheet pages are not the same as the ones you're
working from. So if we could go back to Policy 4.1.
Page 4 of 44
161 1 �3
August 27, 2010
CCPC/EAR
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Okay.
MR. SCHMIDT: The language in that policy refers to the Big Cypress Basin/South Florida Water
Management District five -year plan. It's a simple matter of the terminology of the name of that document. We were
told after the EAC workshop and after the ORC document was prepared that the Big Cypress Basin does not publish
that five -year plan, it's actually the county that does that. And the correct title of that plan -- or the correct language
that should be in this policy is the Big Cypress Basin Strategic Plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And when I asked for a copy of that plan, Jerry I think got a response from
the Big Cypress Basin that I must be confused and I meant the strategic plan, because they don't have a five -year plan.
But I wasn't confused because now I know where I got my question from. So one of you just be consistent and make
it strategic is all you're saying, that's tine.
MR. SCHMIDT: It is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Again, though, this is saying coordinate with, so I'm not sure there's an issue
here with self - amending. But in order to make sure we don't get into a self - amending issue, it's one of the things that
we may want to date, the strategic plan dated such and such. And then we know we've locked into a document that
doesn't change the GMP every time it's changed.
And that takes us to the end of the drainage issue.
Stan, this is embarrassing, normally we have a lot of hard questions on you. Now Jack's going to think this is
an easy pushover board.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I was prepared to answer more than I was asked.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's like in deposition, you never say more than what you're asked to answer.
Donna?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Just before we leave this, I just want to confirm with staff that we were going
to change Policy 6.2, is that correct, to reflect the 150 percent? We will update it'?
MR. BOSI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, I just wanted to get that the on the record and confirm that. Thank you.
MR. BOSE Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody in the audience want to comment on the drainage sub - element?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ** *Okay, let's move onto the natural groundwater aquifer recharge sub - element.
Thanks, guys.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, I don't know if you need to do an introduction. This is pretty --
MR. SCHMIDT: As with the others, not necessary. If you'd simply like to get into the document.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's take Pages 1, 2 and 3. Anybody?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The objective, Mike, objective one, it says, the county shall continue review every
two years and revise as necessary existing map delineations.
Again, we're back into the self- amending issue. Would that be then self - amending the GMP by revising those
every two years outside the process of the GMP?
Under your achievement analysis, the second paragraph, it says, the objective should be revised to replace
review every two years with review every three years and the biennial review with the three -year review.
Well, first the self - amending issue would apply there again as a question. But then if this could be allowed,
why would we even want to put the review period in there and tie ourselves to that? It wouldn't even be necessary.
So I would just ask that question and see if it's even needed.
MR. SMITH: For the record, Ray Smith, Pollution Control Department.
I think it's important to put some sort of timeline on this. We're talking about the protection of our wellfields
and the update of the modeling.
The reason that I'm recommending that three years versus two years is to go through the process of updating
the FLUE and updating Land Development Code to achieve that measure. It really takes about three years, along
with the assessment of the data. So that's --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so if the intention is to change this objective, or the, you know, outgoing
Page 5 of 44
161 10
August 27, 2010
CC PC /EAR
policies from that objective as well, based on the three -year review so that we actually change the GMP every three
years for this objective, then I guess we're not self- amending, we're actually --
MR. BOSI: And to clarify a point is we don't change this policy, we don't change this objective, we change
the maps that this objective is dealing with.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Which changes the GMP.
MR. BOSI: And it goes through the GMP amendment process, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's tine. That's what I've been saying all along --
MR. BOSI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --that seems to be the process --
MR. BOSI: The appropriate way --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it should go through --
MR. BOSI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- otherwise, all these documents become changed in the GMP changes without
anybody knowing it.
MR. BOSS And I believe that's why the policy is structured in this way that we're going to change it from
two years to three years, but every two or three years, whatever that time period is, it's through the GMP amendment
process that we actually -- what the direction -- objective is asking us to do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's great. That's for the better. "['hank you.
Pages 4 and 5?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, on Policy 1.5, the last darkened addition that you were going to make, the
change, it refers to South Florida Water Management District's lower west coast water supply plan as amended. You
know the question.
MR. BOSI: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Self - amending issue.
Pages 6 and 7?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Policy 2.4, Mike, it refers to high or prime recharge areas. Are those defined
somewhere? How does anybody know what is high or prime versus any other? Do we have any way of knowing that
so the public is aware of it? Since we're writing standards for them.
MR. BOSI: Those are designations. And I should probably let Mr. Smith take this, but those are
designations from the South Florida Water Management District, and this policy is just asking if we will evaluate
whether we need to adopt more stringent standards than those standards that are adopted by the South Florida Water
Management District regarding the high and prime recharge areas.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But a member of the public reading this wouldn't know what you just said.
So would we want to clarify to them that these are the high and prime recharge areas pursuant to whatever document
they're found in? Or how would you -- how would the public know what that high and prime recharge areas are if
they're doing due diligence on a piece of property to find it consistent with our Growth Management Plan?
MR. BOSI: And I guess maybe there's more clarification needed, because it says, you know, standards for
higher or prime recharge areas within two years of the South Florida Water Management District governing board's
adoption of such areas.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Have you ever been to that website'?
MR. BOSI: Well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait till you see the data on that website.
MR. BOSI: Once again, in terms of a policy level, I can't get into the pragmatic delivery of information
services from that body, but this policy does I think give the clue to the reader that you've got a contact -- that the
South Florida Water Management District is the agency that would adopt those and would have information related to
them.
Now, how easy? 1 guess that might be a question, I'm not sure how we could clean that up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. And I just want to make sure there's some way to tie the high and
prime recharge areas and if their definitions are there. 1 use that South Florida site frequently, but my goodness is that
Page 6 of 44
161 1 �3
August 27, 2010
CCPC /EAR
a huge site. They've got every -- I mean, tons of data on that site.
Okay, Pages 8 and 9. Anybody have any questions on Pages 8 and 9?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, on Page 9, in objective five, Policy 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 uses the word critical.
How would you -- how was that word critical refined so that someone knows if the groundwater recharge area that
they want to do something in is a critical one versus anything that may not be critical?
MR. BOSI: Well, I guess I'll have to defer to Mr. Smith, but I'm not sure if any of our recharge in our
groundwater resources are anything but critical, so -- but maybe I will defer --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't we just take the word critical out so it applies to all of them and
there's no question about it.
MR. BOSI: That would seem appropriate to me, but I speak from a lack of knowledge.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, someone might argue that the area that they're dealing with as a recharge
isn't critical and this only refers to critical ones, and so is it -- Ray?
MR. SMITH: We can drop the word critical. I mean, the focus is protection of our recharge areas, and let's
cover it all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. And so I think if you don't mind, that would be a good way to clarify it.
Pages 10 and I 1 wrap it up.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Corby, we have the same reference to House Bill 697.
MR. SCHMIDT: Understood.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any other questions with the natural groundwater and aquifer
recharge sub - element'?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy? And any other speakers after Nancy, just come on up.
MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, Florida Wildlife Federation.
And again, it's a general comment, but focused on these proposed new objective and -- objective and policy.
And again, it's not measurable, it's aspirational. It's really meaningless unless there are some specifics in there:
Reduced by a certain percentage, meet something by a certain time. Just by saying the county will strive really is not
good enough. And that's not the intent of what the county should be doing through House Bill 697. I mean, this again
is gobbledygook. It is taking up space in our comprehensive plan because it's a meaningless addition.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you were -- I think you were here the first day. That reference is going to be
refined in all the elements in which it shows up to be more specific.
MS. PAYTON: I just want to make sure to hammer that it's in all these different elements and it's going to be
consistent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we share --
MS. PAYTON: And I'm just going to be getting up and saying it over and over again --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay.
MS. PAYTON: -- because sometimes things are forgotten.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No.
MS. PAYTON: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Anybody else wish to speak on the groundwater aquifer recharge element?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now we'll probably move into the easiest one of the day, the CCME. And I'll
say the acronym to start it out, the Conservation and Coastal Management Element.
And Michele, they got you in this one. Lucky you.
MS. MOSCA: Good morning. For the record, Michele Mosca with your Comprehensive Planning Staff.
I am the comprehensive planning staff coordinator for the CCME or the Conservation Coastal Management
Element.
Primarily, though, we have several departments that provided the review, the analysis, and I just want to
introduce them. That way as you go through the element, you can address them directly with any questions you may
Page 7 of 44
16 1 1p�
August 27, 2010
CCPCIEAR
have
I see that some of them aren't here yet, but we can perhapsjump around, if we need to.
So we have Stan Chrzanowski from the Engineering Services; Ray Smith, Pollution Control; Susan Mason
and Laura Gibson from Natural Resources; Nathan Beals, Water and Sewer; Jerry Kurtz, Stormwater and Drainage;
Mac Hatcher, Watershed Management; Gary McAlpm, Coastal Zone Management; Melissa Henning, Conservation
Collier; and Dan Summers with Emergency Management.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Now, we postponed the hearing and discussion of this element to this
morning to accommodate all those people. Is there a reason why they couldn't be here?
MS. MOSCA: I'm sure that they'll be here.
CI IAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's not the point. We start at 8:30; everybody in the public is expected to be
here if they want to address us. I'm just wondering why everybody else couldn't have been here that you just listed on
there if they intended to participate. Knowing we postponed this for their convenience.
MS. MOSCA: Right. Unfort -- Steven l.enberger, who had the majority of the review for the Conservation
and Coastal Management Element, he's still ill, so Susan Mason and Laura --
MR. BEALS: She's ill too.
MS. MOSCA: Susan Mason'?
MR. BEALS: Yeah.
MS. MOSCA: Okay. So we're running low on staff. I apologize.
Dan Summers was in fact called away. He did let me know that he wouldn't be here this morning, so I
wanted to mention that as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hopefully the questions that are asked will be able to be answered by the people that
remain.
MS. MOSCA: I hope so. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is nearly a 100 -page element. It's probably the biggest one we've been
discussing, so I will try to move through it multiple pages at a time, because we could spend a lot of time going two
pages at a time.
And with that said, did you have any further introduction, Michele, or did you want us to just get into
questions?
MS. MOSCA: We could -- that's tine. We can actually go through the page -by -page analysis, if you'd like,
or --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I was going to go --
MS. MOSCA: 1 think it's probably easier.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- about five pages at a tune.
I'd like to ask members of public who want to speak on this, when we get to the section that pertains to your
particular policy you want to speak on, raise your hand or stand up, come up to the mic., because I'd rather hear your
issues relevant to when we're on that page than wait to the end. So that way we can all focus on it better.
Let's go five pages at a time. The first five pages, does anybody have any questions or comments on the first
five pages of the CCM E?
Ms. Caron'?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Policy 1.2.3, it says that the data should be organized by established watershed
or sub -basin. And then under your policy analysis it says that there's no need to organize it that way. That but then the
next sentence says it should be organized that way. So what do you want, guys?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good catch.
MR. HATCHER: Mac Hatcher with Stormwater and Environmental Planning.
The reason that we feel like most of the data doesn't need to be organized by watershed is that most of the
data is GIS data, which means that it's got a tag to locate it in space, regardless of where it falls within watersheds.
So any time we do an analysis, that data can be organized by watershed or by commission district or any
other spatial delineation that needs to be made.
The reorganization is to organize the data that is not spatially oriented by watershed. So we would have the
GIS data simply as GIS data. And then data that is watershed dependent will be organized by watershed.
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's all tine. We just need to figure out what you're going to actually say
Page 8 of 44
161 1,63
August 27, 2010
CCPC /EAR
here. And that's not here.
MR. HATCHER: I'll amend the policy to reflect that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not what --
MR. HATCHER: The analysis.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the analysis says it should be retained, so you intend to amend this policy now?
MR. BOSI: Based upon the testimony that was just provided, I guess we are.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Something I neglected to mention at the beginning, Mac, I understand that
you were going to give us a presentation, a brief presentation on the watershed management plans at some point. And
Mike, I think you mentioned that tome. It might be appropriate to do that, if it's convenient for you, now before we
go into the rest of this element so that we have the benefit of that information in the questions we ask as we continue
on. Would that work for you?
MR. HATCHER: That's fine.
The watershed management plans are being developed currently. The consultants have updated the Big
Cypress Basin hydrologic model to do the analysis. We started really in 2007. We updated the county LIDAR in
corporation with the Florida Department of Emergency Services. That took us until January of this year. That was the
necessary element for the update of the Big Cypress Basin model.
That leaves us -- oh, and we are required by the growth management policy that speaks towards watershed
management plans to complete by 2010.
So we are trying to complete those plans by the end of the year.
We have scheduled a presentation of an analysis of alternatives for you all on November the 4th. If you
would like a workshop, we could do a workshop in October.
And we recognize that this is a compressed time frame that may not leave enough time for discussion as
some people would like, but it's necessary to meet the deadlines.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: It's necessary to meet the deadline? This deadline has been constantly shifting
right along. Why suddenly is the deadline the deadline?
MR. HATCHER: Because we have contracts now, and the work is scheduled and we don't have budget to go
beyond the deadline.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But contracts can be modified, that's -- you know, it seems like suddenly at the
eleventh hour we're rushing to cram it all in. And as even you say, we may not have time for full discussion of this.
And I'm just not sure that it really makes sense to --
MR. HATCHER: Well, the commissioners have given us specific direction to complete on time. Now, that
is adjustable, but it's not adjustable by staff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in order to understand the depth of the issues we're talking about, the idea of a
workshop and then a meeting by this board, I think that's good, because we can get more knowledge on it.
And what I'd like to suggest, Mike, is that we have our regularly scheduled meeting next week. If you could
by then take a look at how we could schedule a workshop and then the meeting time frames, and we could get that
solidified, and that will give us an opportunity to understand the depth of the issues you're involved with in a much
more better orientation to it so when we hear it in November, we have a little bit more background. So I think that's a
great suggestion. Thank you.
Is that okay with the rest of the board?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Uh -hum.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Question I have, Mac, on that issue is wejust came out -- or somebody, we didn't.
The government came out with the FEMA maps. And as expected, they don't help us in a lot of -- well, let's put it this
way, the opinions of a lot of the people who are going to be forced to make payments for insurance, they may not be
that much of a help but a hindrance.
How is your efforts in the watershed management field overlapping with the FEMA, which FEMA lays out I
guess the floodplains and where floodwaters may go. What kind of interaction do you have in those two categories?
MR. HATCHER: Well, 1 like the term that you used, overlap. We do have overlap with the FEMA study.
The FEMA study is directly related to flooding. And the FEMA models that were developed are probably the most
comprehensive models around today to address flooding issues. They include the stone surge plus runoff. They were
Page 9 of 44
161 1(�3
August 27, 2010
CC PCIEAR
based on the 2001 LIDAR. And that model is probably not as robust as the Big Cypress Basin model in terms of
evaluating some characteristics of water resources like evaporation and recharge. But in terms of an analysis of
flooding, they are the most comprehensive assessment of flooding that we'll have.
As part of the watershed management plans, we will be using the model to try to estimate capacity of the
canal systems by designing I00 -year runoff events.
So there will be an analysis of flooding, but our model is probably not as good as the FEMA model for the
end analysis of flooding. But it should give a very good idea of how flows in the system are handled and what could
be done to maximize recharge and retention of water.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will your finalization of the watershed management plans have any impact, either
positive or negative, on the elevations and issues involving the FEMA plans?
MR. HATCHER: I don't believe they will.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
Okay, with that, before we go on to the next group of pages, anybody have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's go to Pages 6 through 10.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, on Page 7, Policy 1.3.4, looks like they're going to -- it says annual basis for
NRPA's and their implementation criteria are developed in the objective achievement analysis for the policy
achievement. Says the policy is no longer relevant.
But wouldn't that policy apply if we wanted to create more NRPA's? I mean, right now I know -- I thought
up in the Wiggins Pass area there was a discussion about making sonic areas NRPA up there.
Is there a reason why we have to delete the policy if there's a possibility it could be used in the future, or is
that one that is irrelevant to that matter?
MR BOSI: Well, Policy 1.3.1 does provide for the process for the establishments of new NRPA's within the
county.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What did 1.3.4 do originally'?
MR. BOSC I believe 1.3.4 was -- and I don't have a history upon that, but I would believe that that would be
the establishment of the technical advisory committee to establish the initial NRPA's within the county.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how are the future NRPA's that could be created under Policy 1.3.1 then, how
are they brought forward'? They're not brought forward through a teclutical advisory committee?
MR. BOSI: No, it would just be through the processes established by Policy 1.3.1. I believe the EAC would
probably be that body that would serve as it technical advisory committee.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the TAC doesn l exist today"
MS. MOSCA: That's correct.
Mr. Chair, also as part of the watershed management plans is an opportunity to establish new NRPA's. That's
my understanding from Mac Hatcher.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, good. That might expedite areas that want to bejoined in.
Okay, we're going through Page 10. Anybody have any questions? Nicole? Oh, Donna first, then Nicole.
COMMISSIONER C ARON: Okay, we're through 10. Go ahead. Nicole can speak on --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Nicole''
MS. RYAN: For the record, Nicole Ryan, here on behalfThe Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
And I just wanted to make a couple followup comments on your discussion of the watershed management
plans. Because The Conservancy has been very supportive in working with staff to get these watershed management
plans into meaningful policies during the last EAR, so that we would have the plans by the time that this EAR came
forward.
And we've also been very supportive of the funding so that the watershed management plans can become a
reality.
I think Cotmnissioner Caron brought up a very, very good point though: These were due in '93, and they're
still not done yet. And part of this watershed management planning process and outsourcing a lot of the technical data
to consultants, there was the assurance on the part of the county that there would be ample opportunity for the public
and stakeholders to provide comment. Not just at public hearings, but to sit down with staff, with the consultants and
Page 10 of 44
161 1 P
August 27, 2010
CCPC /EAR
really get into the details of the data.
And while I appreciate the fact that a workshop in front of the CCPC, monthly updates to the EAC are going
to be very important as this moves forward, that is not the proper venue for the technical experts to be trying to hash
out details.
And I must say, The Conservancy has a lot of concern about how the technical background on which these
plans are going to be formed, the direction that that technical background is going.
In our review, it's really not so much a technical memorandum of how water quality standards can be met, but
it's a memorandum of arguing why the county can't meet the state and federal water quality standards. So we're very
concerned about that.
And we don't want to have to come and debate that with staff and the consultants at your workshops. We
want to sit down, talk with them. It's always much better to have those sorts of discussions at something other than a
full- fledged public hearing.
So if this needs to take a little more time to do it properly, I think it should. I'm not sure we need to have the
consultants as part of the process once their contract ends. I think these are things that staff can do.
But it's been a long time in coming, these documents need to be done promptly. We were promised that the
stakeholders would have ample opportunity to be part of this, and we're finding now it's the eleventh hour, there's not
time to do that. And we really believe that it's going to be a better product if we take the time to do it right.
So I would just leave you with those thoughts and comments. And I understand staff can extend the time
frame. But if it looks like we do need more time, I would ask that you keep that in mind.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you walk away, is there a specific policy that you can point to in -- because
this is an EAR process. We've got to focus on the policies and what we can accomplish under an EAR.
MS. RYAN: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a specific language of a specific policy that you would suggest be modified
to accommodate the ability to provide more time if the Board of County Commissioners were to grant that to staff.
MS. RYAN: Well, in Objective 2.1 it talks about the watershed management plans being completed by
2010. If we expanded that -- I'm not sure we even need another full year, but we could put in there by the end of 2011.
That would be one way to give a little more time so that we can have the in -depth stakeholder discussion and get a
good plan put forward.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we could suggest that, and then if the board wants to consider it, due to the
issues that have occurred since they last directed the time frame, which have been economic lay -offs, change of
personnel, that will give them the opportunity to do it.
Mike, what do you think?
MR. BOSI: Well, we wouldn't make that change to the objective. Remember, these policies will be
amended 2011 -2012 at final adoption. So the watershed management program will already have been completed.
What it sounds like is we've had a specific policy direction from the Board of County Commissioners. If it's
the request of this body of the Planning Commission for us to go back to the Board of County Commissioners and ask
if there's any flexibility within that schedule, it sounds like that's what the Planning Corrunission is directing or
contemplating.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we have one person's testimony that there appears to be a problem. I
think what I would like to suggest is staff look at the suggestion and see if they could do a better job if they had a little
more time. And if that's the case, then make that suggestion to the board. I don't think we should buy off on any one
person's immediate suggestion standing up here in a public process, but we ought to look at it. I mean, that's the least
consideration we could provide is to took at it and see if it's a logical -- something we should logically consider.
And I think the direction to staff would be take a look at it and if it's reasonable, and if there has not been
public vetting to the extent it should have been or there is a possibility to do a better job with one -on -one
communication between some of the stakeholders and the team, it might be a good thing to do. But I think we ought
to leave the door open.
Does anybody here feel differently?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's more the direction to come back with than anything else.
Mac, do you have any comment?
Page 11 of 44
161 1 �3
August 27, 2010
CCPCIEAR
MR. HATCHER: No, we're not at all opposed to having one -on -one discussions with The Conservancy.
We had a public meeting at the end of the -- or the evening of the EAC presentation. We were planning on
doing that with not the September EAC but all the future EAC meetings. But we can schedule private discussions
with them, if they would like to do so.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think you ought to follow up and take a look at this issue of the time frame.
And if the time frame needs to be recommended for a little more time, I think this board's saying the opportunities
from us is that we should look at that and do it if needed.
Donna?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I was just going to --I hate tojump ahead on something, but if you go to
Page 13, then you're going to look at Policy 22.5 where they talk about stomrwater management systems. And we
were suppose to have identified them by 2008, and staff is now just saying, well, we didn't do that so we'll do that and
we'll push that out to 2015.
1 think it's probably logical that if it hasn't been done, obviously the time frame needs to be moved. But also,
if you're just getting something and people have been promised input, cramming everything into the last minutejust to
meet a deadline that's already been passed by so many times, it's almost absurd, that to extend the time period until
everybody has had input and we've been able to have a workshop and thoroughly vet things as well just seems to be
better policy to me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think, though, the way we phrased it, for staff to take a look at that, because if
you really want to say that we need to adequately extend something to allow all the public input and meetings that are
desired, nothing would ever get done. Because there's always that person out there who wants to have another
meeting.
But I think staff can get a good handle on how practical it is to get this done by the end of the year and still
meet the intent of having that good discourse between the other parties. And I think you need to come back with a
recommendation for us on that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I'm not talking about holding things up for life for one person with an
agenda, so --
CHAIRMAN S 'f RAIN: No, I know that. I'm just suggesting, though, we got to temper how far we go out
with this.
Go ahead, Mike.
MR. BOSI: And remember, it won't be until December 7th that we're back before you. So these issues will
be -- we're not going to come back with an adjustment to this policy. This policy will not be changed based upon this
issue. It will be the pragmatic -- the direction from the Board of County Commissioners if we've had the discussion
and the assessment is that we won't be able to fit this -- the one -on -one's that The Conservancy is seeking within the
public process, that we'll have to go back to the board. And the board will tell us whether they want us to adhere to
their prior directive or if they would like us to elongate the process.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1 think the point is we need to kook at it and make sure we're covered.
MR. BOSE Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay'?
Chuck?
MR. MOIILKE: Mr. Chairman and committee, good morning.
I would like to comment, if I may, on Policy 2.1.7, which does invite comment that is on Page I 1 of the
material before you.
The language of this particular policy suggests that the county taking the lead and promoting
intergovernmental coordination between the county and other governmental agencies involved with watershed
planning, including -- and then I don't need to repeat the long delineation of agencies or municipalities that are
included. And concludes at the end of its last sentence, which may be useful within the watershed basin planning and
management process.
I'm somewhat acquainted with the experience of the last roughly 27 years of the City of Everglades City in
regard to issues like this. And it would be important, 1 think, although perhaps not a feature of any amendment of
language in the plan or changes in Policy 2.1.7 to call to the attention of this committee and the staff the fact that
implementation of these features called for in this policy becomes central to the issue of how these plans are
Page 12 of 44
161 1 b3
August 27, 2010
CCPC /EAR
developed. And because of the area, particularly that south of U.S. 41 and east of Collier Seminole State Park, is one
terribly vulnerable to a wide variety of issues that this element concerns itself with. And I'm hopeful that the Planning
Commission will at some point in time continue to inquire of the staff about the implementation of policies like this.
You only have me saying this, Mr. Chairman, but based upon the experience with Hurricane Wilma, the
ability of mechanisms like those suggested in this policy to act effectively, efficiently and promptly, promptly to
address problems which are related to the matters discussed in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element
becomes crucial. A great deal of money is involved. A great deal of money. And these mechanisms remain unclear.
And unless experienced people who bring themselves to the table in some cases voluntarily, in some cases not, are
able to participate prior to a major natural disaster, or man-made disaster, the proper implementation of the welcome
intent of this policy is very, very difficult to accomplish.
There are probably other agencies that might deserve being mentioned in this policy. It's somewhat
ambiguous as to what is meant by other governmental agencies. But I suggest that there are other federal agencies
with important jurisdiction here that are not mentioned in the policy and perhaps need to be. The Federal Emergency
Management Agency, for one, the National Park Service for another, that have a very important impact on that area,
much of it in the V Zone category, that is south of 41 and east of Collier Seminole State Park.
I'm not suggesting any fundamental change in the intent of the policy, but perhaps a staff revisiting or the
committee revisiting the issue of whether or not there are mentions of agencies, regional, state and federal,
particularly federal agencies, that may deserve consideration in terms of an amendment of the language of the policy.
Thank you for the opportunity.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir.
And Mike, and maybe Mac, would you guys take a close look at that and see if it needs to be revised.
Just Mac, as a side note, where it says you will rely upon the work performed and data collected by other
agencies, did you in fact go to the other agencies and use their information to the extent available?
MR. HATCHER: Yes, I will admit that FEMA and the park service weren't contacted, but the other agencies
listed there were, as well as the Big Cypress National Preserve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it might be important to see if there are some priority agencies that should
have been contacted or added to the list, as Chuck's suggesting. So take a look at it and when we come back for
adoption, I'm sure it will be discussed. Thank you.
We left off on through Page 10. Let's go through Page 15.
Go ahead, Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. On Page 11, Objective 2.2 says all canals, rivers and flow ways
discharging into estuaries shall meet all applicable federal, state or local water quality standards.
And it's being suggested here that we change this language to say that we'll j ust attain the highest water
quality practicable. And I think that's not a really wise change to make, because if you allow squishy language like
that, you'll get less than nothing happening. We've had this objective in here from the beginning, and every day we
should be striving to meet that_
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray?
MR. SMITH: For the record, Ray Smith, Pollution Control.
I agree with that, every day we should be striving to meet the state, federal and local rules and regulations
associated with water quality.
Unfortunately -- and let me back up and say yes, there are anthropogenic impacts associated with
exceedances of water quality. We keep a very good eye in the Pollution Control Department associated with, for
example, petroleum storage tanks, because they generate hazardous waste, wastewater treatment plants, leachate
disposal sites, et cetera.
Though there are occasions where exceedances occur due to natural conditions. Those exceedances could be,
for example, fecal coliform. If you have a warm- blooded species down the canal from you, a bunch of ducks, you'll
have an exceedance in fecal coliform. If you have -- if you're in an area with a swamp, your dissolved oxygen will be
lower than the standard. It's just a natural occurrence.
Now, you could -- and we do take -- and I want to emphasize this -- we do take the appropriate measures to
sample correctly. We have a quality assurance, quality control plan that we follow in depth so we're not spotting
ducks down the path and we're sampling there anyway and use our data.
Page 13 of 44
161 1�,3
August 27, 2010
CCPC /EAR
I'm just pointing out the fact that there are natural occurrences. And the language that I'm suggesting
regarding the change that's open for comment is, all canals, rivers, flow ways, discharging into estuaries shall meet all
applicable federal, state and local water quality standards, or attain the highest water quality practicable.
My intent of that change in language is to address those natural conditions that occur but not to discard the
importance of protecting our water quality associated with anthropogenic impacts.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But when you're working with FDFP and the other agencies, they take none of
that into account ever? I find that to be startling.
MR. SMITH: Ma'am, I'mjust looking at the language. We have it very good working relationship with
DER They of course understand that there's natural impacts associated with it.
But you need to also understand that when standards are established in some cases, they're established
throughout the state. They're not focused on specific regions within the state where the environments change.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you tell me how water quality standards are established in the state? By what
mechanism? Is it a -- does someone put through a piece of legislation, is it a statute, is it 91 -5, is it -- where does it
come into play?
MR. I ITCHER: FDEP is responsible for setting the state water quality standards. And they're established
in the Florida Administrative Code through the established process for adopting administrative code. "There are public
hearings with the Environmental Regulatory Commission and then the rules are adopted if they are not challenged.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so these standards are in the Florida Administrative Code.
MR. I IATCIIER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, does a local jurisdiction have the right to write law that would supersede
Florida Administrative Code?
MS. ASHTON: We wouldn't want to write anything that's inconsistent with the Florida Administrative
Code.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then we don't need to change Objective 2.2.
MR. HATCHER: Commissioner, there is one other option. We can petition the Department of
Environmental Protection to have a site specific alternative criteria which will meet the existing water uses, which
means that it will support biological life and protect human safety if conditions support that alternative criteria. This
is an expensive and time - consuming process, but it might save us from having to improve waters that practically will
be extremely difficult to improve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then 1 would suggest the language that would be added is not to change it to
eliminate the water quality standards, but to suggest that subject to any site specific approvals that we have in
whatever way you just now suggested could be submitted.
And then if you're successful in your endeavor, then that would change ob -- then Objective 2 would be
applied in that manner and not being a broad- brushed exemption due to all water quality -- I mean, exempt it to the --
attain it to the highest water quality practical. That's really broad.
1 don't mind your idea, it sounds good. And if you're successful in arguing that on a locational basis or a
specific basis, then that's how the objective could be written.
And I certainly will probably have some input on that. But that seems to fit what you just said, Mac.
MR. HATCHER: I agree, it's -- like I said, it's an arduous process to have to go through, but it's possible.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But at the same time, I don't think by putting your language in there we can
supersede the Florida Administrative Code. So one way or another, it's got to be the way it is, with the exceptions that
the code allows, which you'vejust articulated to us.
So if we add that language that those exceptions are permissible pursuant to the process you stipulated, then I
think we're there.
MR. HATCHER: Well, this comes up again in the groundwater section. And there are instances in the
groundwater section where the site specific alternative criteria don't apply, won't apply, and we really don't have any
way to adjust those.
When you have petroleum tanks that discharge and violate the groundwater standards, often the state will
decide not to remediate immediately because it's simply not practical. There aren't any drinking water sources in the
immediate vicinity, and the natural bacteria decomposition of the petroleum is often seen as the best recourse for
remediation. And we have more of a problem in that situation.
Page 14 of 44
161 1 b3
August 27, 2010
CCPC /EAR
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who would be responsible for remediation in those cases; do you know?
MR. HATCHER: In some instances it's going to be the state, if they've participated and done everything they
were supposed to do as petroleum tank storage owners.
In some instances where the owner is responsible and the owner's not able to do the remediation, then it
might be the state. But I'm not an expert in this field, and I guess don't want to lead you on any further than that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we'll be moving into that groundwater one soon, right after we get past
these five pages here.
So I think the solution to these five pages would be a consideration of the direction that we gave in regards to
Mack's response to this issue, and that would seem to resolve it.
And we're on Pages 11 through 15. Is there any other questions from the Planning Commission?
Go ahead, Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: On Page 12 on 2.2.2, the last line says, nonstructural methods such as
discharge and storage in wetlands are encouraged.
Do we need to say here, or should we be saying here treated discharge? Would that be a good phrase -- word
to add?
MR. HATCHER: In the —
COMMISSIONER CARON: Or do you think it's not necessary?
MR. HATCHER: Well, it would need to have caveats. In the instance of stormwater, it would be a violation
to discharge stormwater from a facility that's required to treat the storrnwater into a wetland prior to treatment.
In the case where you're diverting surface waters into a wetland to restore hydrology into a wetland that may
have been upset due to drainage by a canal, that treatment would not be required and not necessarily be appropriate.
So--
COMMISSIONER CARON: So the rest of our regulations in the LDC and what not would essentially take
care of that, and so it's not needed here.
MR. HATCHER: Right, the state regulations, the Water Management District surface water requirements are
the regulations that the county relies on to require that treatment.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions through Page 15?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because I have one more.
Mike, the discussion we had on Policy 2.2 with the highest water quality practical language not being maybe
the best, but a substitute for that? 'The same would apply I believe to Objective 2.3. I notice nobody was going to
suggest changes to that, which is good. But to be fair, we need to make sure we cover all of it. And I don't know if
2.3 is applicable to that site specific application that Mac said.
But if the county were to apply for it and go through the policy, it ought to be open to them on Objective 2.3
as well as Objective 2.2, I would think.
And with that, let's -- we have two public speakers. Nicole?
MS. RYAN: For the record, Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
And my comments are on Objective 2.2 and 2.3. And I think Heidi's input was very good, because my first
comment was going to be meeting state water law is not optional. The standards that the state and federal agencies
put in place take into account natural sources of pollution. 'That's factored in.
The Environmental Protection Agency has set the standard that unless it can be demonstrated that a pollutant
level -- there's no outside sources of pollutants, then there has to be a total maximum daily load established. The
county is going to have to do cleanup and limit the amount of pollutants and nutrients going into our waterways.
Essentially these agencies understand there are some background natural levels of pollutants, and that's fine.
There's also non - natural sources. And because of that, cleanup does have to occur.
Now, there is the ability for the county to do these site specific alternative criteria. Those have to be done on
a very specific basis. So we're not talking about a county -wide application of this. It's very extensive, it's very
expensive to do. And unfortunately through the whole watershed management planning process, instead of finding
ways for the county to meet state water law and clean things up, we seem to be spending all of our time arguing that
we shouldn't have to meet state water law. And that's something that's very, very concerning.
Page 15 of 44
161 '1�3
August 27, 2010
CCPC/EAR
I would reconnnend the language stay as -is. If the county does a site specific alternative criteria, then that's
understood that that is the new state law for that water body. But you're still going to have to meet what the state puts
in place as the applicable law; whether it's the standards in the Florida Administrative Code, whether it's a site specific
alternative criteria, I think both of that can be captured under the objective and it doesn't then put language in that
makes it look as if Collier County is trying to lower our water quality standards for a bunch of different water bodies.
That's not the language we should be going in.
So I would recommend the language stay as -is. I think if the county wants to go through that process, they
can and still be meeting Objective 2.2.
And I did want to point out on Objective 3.1 where it talks about the groundwater, I don't know if you've had
a chance to look through any of the EAC's comments, but staffs recommendation that that be changed to include the
weakening language of meeting the standards to the extent practical, that was not in the EAC's version. So if you see
that they didn't continent on it, that's why. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mac?
MR. HATCHER: I would like to respond very briefly.
Nicole is correct that DEP nor EPA will make us try to clean up Fakahatchee Strand, because Fakahatchee
Strand doesn't meet the D.O. standards. However, this policy says that the water quality standards will be met in
Fakahatchee Strand, and that's just not possible.
So unless we go the site specific alternative criteria route, it's simply not going to happen in many of the
natural wetlands, forested wetlands throughout the county. The site specific alternative criteria is still an option for
the canal systems.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mac.
Nancy -- or Ray, you had something to interject before Nancy"
MR. SMITH: Yes. 1 don't know if I understood appropriately, but there was some mention that 3.1 dealing
with the groundwater recommendation, and again the tens as practical was not included in the EAC. But it was there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I saw a copy of the EAC's report, and it wasn't there. So maybe you have a
copy that it was.
MS. MOSCA: For clarification, it was simply mentioned on the record. It did not actually get into the book,
but it was referenced on the record.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's the difference.
Nancy?
MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, Florida Wildlife Federation.
We have dirty water in this county and the ducks didn't do it. And I'm going to stand up for the ducks,
because the blame is getting shifted to the ducks. And I object to the narrative at the top of Page 12 that accompanies
the discussion of the objective which says, however, due to natural conditions impacting water quality found in
Collier County, some federal and state water quality conditions may not be achievable.
And they talk about the issue that -- implying that it is nature that is skewing things. And if -- they must
account for nature and they have to lower the human impacts to account for that, not elevate it and if we go over it's
due to the ducks or wood storks or anybody else.
And I just -- I find it quite laughable that our problems in this county are going to be attributed to ducks. It's
our problem and we have to solve it.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Agreed.
MS. PAYTON: It needs to he reflected.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And 1 think that's the recommendation from this board is to not insert that new
language. At the same time, I'm not sure why it even got this far. Because if we can't violate the Florida
Administrative Code, why are we even talking about trying to do it through a GMP amendment that can't supercede
Florida Administrative Code? And there are methods in which the Florida Administrative Code apparently can be
addressed on a case -by -case basis. They did that for a purpose, we should use it.
MS. PAYTON: And it goes back to we have to have a relevant and workable comp. plan, and not
aspirational or policies that we really can't legally or otherwise implement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the other thing though, too, nature's -- the muscovite ducks have come into
our area. They weren't native before, so I'm sure it's probably a lot of pollution caused by so many of them now
Page 16 of 44
161 1W
August 27, 2010
CCPC/EAR
populating the area. Okay.
MS. PAYTON: I think we have bigger problems with landscape companies than we do Muscovys, frankly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the name of them, huh, Muscovy.
MS. PAYTON: Muscovy ducks.
And it goes back to our other policies. But yes, there are issues and they can be managed, but they shouldn't
be the blame of our water quality problems.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mac?
MR. HATCHER: The Florida Administrative Code on water quality standards goes towards protecting water
quality from discharges. And there are a lot of areas of the county where people do not make discharges that impact
the water quality. Fakahatchee Strand is one case. Big Cypress National Preserve's another.
There are natural conditions that violate state and federal water quality standards, and we just simply are
trying to find some way to have high quality water that supports biological uses in the county, supports and protects
the safety and welfare of the public, but yet does not violate the statement in the Growth Management Plan policies.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Okay, we're on Page 16 through 20. Anybody have any questions on Pages 16 through 20?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess Page 16 is where I'm going to start. It seems that we're trying to remove the
requirements for certain nutrients because the FDFP doesn't support -- rule doesn't support the need to measure those
nutrients. But for a while we apparently have.
Can you explain as to -- okay, if we haven't, it's something that we've done that's actually better than FDEP,
why would we want to reduce our standards to a lower level if we're working with a level we already -- that's better
than that? And apparently we have for some time, because it's been applied that way.
MR. HATCHER: We had a rule that wasn't on -- or we had policy that wasn't being implemented because
there is no standard method for measuring or modeling the runoff for anything other than the nutrients in BOD. So
that is the reason that we're proposing to limit it to the nutrients.
The nutrients is what is being proposed to be modeled by the new state stormwater rule. That's what was
proposed to be modeled by the Army Corps of Engineers study for the EIS for Southwest Florida. And that's where
we're going -- or recommending.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if we leave a rule in that is better than a DEP and addresses five or six elements
or -- not elements, loading qualities that are not defined by the DEP, there is no definition as to when those get to a
level that is problematic? We don't have any way to benchmark them, say?
MR. HATCHER: We do have a way to benchmark them. We don't have an accepted methodology for
measuring them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the engineering companies that do due diligence on a piece of property, they do
their soil and their water test and they come back with a series of chemical analysis, and they actually have analysis
for some of these elements, zinc, lead, copper, doesn't mean anything?
MR. HATCHER: No, they have analysis for all of those parameters. You can't determine those
concentrations in the soil or water by standard methods. What we don't have a standard method for is the prediction
of what the runoff of those parameters will be.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you mean runoff of those parameters?
MR. HATCHER: This policy gets at modeling the expected loading runoff, the accumulation of these
materials from stormwater treatment, and that model is not in place or practiced at this time for any of the parameters
listed there, except for nutrients.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'm sure we're going to hear more on this. And I'm a little confused as
to if we have it in the code, why did it get there in the first place if there wasn't a way to measure it, or wasn't a way to
know whether or not the measure was problematic.
MR. HATCHER: Those parameters are the parameters that are typically studied in stormwater runoff
models. The state over the last, I don't know, five, 10, 15 years has determined that nutrients are the primary culprits
from stormwater runoff.
The treatment mechanisms that are in place for suspended solids, which would include most of the metals, are
adequate and those parameters are not as large of a problem in the runoff after it goes through the treatment processes
Page 17 of 44
161 1
August 27, 2010
CCPC/F.AR
that are in practice today. So the nutrients are the focus of the new stormwater rule, and appear to be the primary
problematic parameters in stormwater runoff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But there is a standard then, by what you just said, for suspended solids.
MR. HATCHER: Yes, there is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, what about BOD, which stands tar?
MR. HATCHER: Biochemical oxygen demand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the standard --
MR. HATCHER: There are water quality standards for both of those parameters.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about lead?
MR. HATCHER: There is a water quality standard for lead as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I low about zinc?
MR. IIATCHER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And copper''
MR. HATCHER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, there are water quality standards for those, but we want those removed from
our responsibility to be tested because we're going to fall back on DEP which only does nitrogen and phosphores; is
that what we're saying?
MR. HATCHER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to go through more discussion to try to figure out why we would do this.
And I understand -- 1 understand what you said in English language. I'm not quite understanding what impact it has
as to why we would not want to continue that monitoring. I'm not sure what it hurts. And especially if we find
something skewed way out of line, it would be good to know in that if it's in an area critical to a development of
recharge or something like that, I would assume.
MR. HATCHER: Absolutely. And we have not stopped monitoring for those parameters. The Pollution
Control Department includes those parameters in their routine monitoring. What we are stopping is requiring the
modeling of those parameters in stonmwater runoff for new development.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, can you explain then how that -- what that means? Because right now
we've got two different aspects; we're talking about modeling and we're talking about monitoring. And you're saying
it's not -- you don't want to require in monitoring -- or in modeling, but you want to require in monitoring.
MR. HATCHER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm not sure I understand the implications of that.
MR. HATCHER: Current stormwater treatment standards require that a new development model estimate
what their contribution of nitrogen and phosphorous will be. The proposed standard will set limits for what they're
allowed to have in their final discharge.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. HATCHER: The monitoring goes towards keeping track of what's in the surface waters from all
sources.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So when the modeling from a discharge point of a new development -- you're
saying we shouldn't get into these Five issues that we previously had, but yet we will measure those in a monitoring
criteria in some other body of water.
MR. HATCHER: Correct. Well, in the discharge — the waters that the stormwater treatment systems
discharge into are water monitored for water quality parameters routinely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if the modeling is done in a manner that addresses these five in order to prevent
it, which is basically upfront, wouldn't that help the -- now, this is modeling -- wouldn't that help then the monitoring
of the body of water that's receiving those rive elements to hopefully assume it's going to be a better outcome?
MR. HATCHER: It would, but practically, the treatment systems that are in place, if you put in a treatment
system that will treat nitrogen and phosphores, the state has found that you will remove more zinc, copper, lead than
they were requiring you to remove in the first place. The nitrogen and phosphores are more difficult to remove from
stormwater than the other parameters are.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if you're doing a modeling that's showing you're meeting the nitrogen and
phosphores criteria in the modeling effort, the theory is that, or maybe the fact is that that will address the lead, zinc
Page 18 of 44
161 1 ��
August 27, 2010
CCPGEAR
and copper so that when you do the monitoring, there'd be no further impacts from that particular discharge based on
the modeling of the nitrogen and phosphores; is that where you're going?
MR. HATCHER: 'That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. When someone models for nitrogen and phosphores, assuming your
statement is right, that it either equals or supersedes the ability to capture the concerns of the lead, zinc and copper,
then wouldn't we -- what's it hurting to require the lead, zinc and copper to be modeled along with it if it's going to be
caught with it anyway? Why the need for the change?
MR. HATCHER: It's extra work on the person doing the stonnwater analysis, and it's simply not been found
to be necessary.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is the extent of the extra work? Let's say take one, take lead, what does that
person have to do that's going to require them with the sampling they use for the nitrogen and phosphorus for the
modeling they use for the nitrogen and phosphorus to create an additional issue for lead?
MR. HATCHER: They would need to find a stonnwater model that addressed those and run it for those
parameters. It might not be a terribly large addition of work, but there is no standard model to do that. And we would
be left with the, I guess, job of becoming very expert in the area of models and these things so that we could decide if
the models they were using were appropriate, since there is no standard set.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that -- I understand your explanation, and I understand the link
between modeling and monitoring, and it's focused on lead, zinc and copper.
What about the TSS and the BOD's, how are they captured by the modeling of the nitrogen and phosphores?
MR. HATCHER: Again, they are parameters that are treated better than nitrogen and phosphores by the
same treatment methods that are being used today. And the removal of those parameters is easier to accomplish than
the nitrogen and phosphores. If you meet the nitrogen and phosphores standards by the treatment methods that are in
practice today, you will meet the total suspended solids and BOD standards.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, I received a very lengthy and technical memo from -- I think we all did,
from Jennifer at The Conservancy. I wish I was knowledgeable on the science that she was writing about, because it
was far beyond what I could readily understand. I think I'l l reread it after your explanation. But knowing that this is
such a contentious point with some, is there some documentation that confirms what you said that we can rely upon
that the TSS, BOD's lead, zinc, and copper are levels that are accounted for in the new standards by the DEP for
nitrogen and phosphores?
MR. HATCHER: The publications that DEP sponsored to set up the discussions for the new stonmwater rule
are where this is discussed. 1 can provide you all with links, they're available on line. And I can also let you know
that Jennifer has a different opinion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah, I think I realize that. I'mjust trying to make sure we get to the bottom
of what's reasonable. Again, one person's opiruon isn't what should be dominating, it should be a thought -out
approach to all this in how practical it is.
So I'm not saying I'm dying on the sword for her opinion, I'm just trying to understand it in comparison to all
this. And if you have that kind of information you could supply to us with a link, and please, don't give me the link
for South Florida Water Management and say here it is. Give me more specific a link.
MR. HATCHER: DEP has a very impressive website, as well as the Water Management District. But I can
provide you with links to the documents, or I'll get the documents and put them on a CD for you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 'thank you. And I think that -- I would certainly like to explore that document. It
would help by the next EAR report. The government has as tendency now with the internet to overwhelm us with
data, hoping we won't find what we're looking for. And some of the agencies are really good at doing that.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just had a couple of questions.
We've been having people test for these -- for zinc and all currently. So what models are they using right
now?
MR. HATCHER: They're not using models, they're using chemical analysis. Chemical analysis is used to
test water and sediments. Models are used to predict what may happen or has happened. They're predicted.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And the next question is that this change in thinking by the state, and we'll get
the further information you have for us, but this change in emphasis, what happens if in another three years or five
Page 19 of 44
161 10
August 27, 2010
CCPGEAR
years the change in emphasis changes again? Will we just have lost all this information that we might have been
collecting all along and have a better situation'?
MR. HATCHER: Well, I guess the short answer is yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, okay. Because models change and people change their mind about
models, and we try models that everybody swears they're going to work and then we find out that they don't work, and
then we have to remodel and figure out another way to go. So I just --
MR. HATCHER: We're constantly faced with that type of assessment. People that use different models are
going to come up with slightly different results. And the comparison between those results is increasingly difficult.
So when processes change, then you have to factor that in is when you analyze old results.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But if we were to continue doing what we've been doing, again you're saying
models weren't being used, it was just a chemical process, we'd at least have data if --
MR. HATCHER: Well, again, we haven't been doing this. We required it, but we haven't been requiring it
because the model wasn't available, there wasn't a standard model available for them to use.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I see. So --
MR. HATCHER: And this is not a state requirement that we're dropping. This is something that we had that
was above and beyond.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. That we've just not been doing. Okay.
MR. HATCHER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: We've been ignoring.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We need to take a break for the court reporter, but Chuck is standing there patiently.
So Chuck, if you want to take a moment and let us know what you have at this point?
MR. MOHLKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It will just take a moment. Chuck Mohlke, appearing without
portfolio but with an enhanced interest in the welfare of the community of the City of Everglades City.
Fm very pleased to be able to note for the committee's consideration the last two sentences of Policy 2.3.6
that acknowledged the importance of sampling the outfalls that are created from major storms and what I will call,
perhaps unprofessionally, the reverse riverine effect that happens when you have a major storm from the southwest
that accumulates inordinate rainfall north and east of a coastal area.
And I can give you ample examples, if you choose. The best one would be a no name storm March 13, 14 of
1993, the so- called white hurricane that deposited hurricane -like snow effects all the way up to Nova Scotia. When
that reverse came back, the physics of that brought all kinds of accumulated debris, chemicals and a wide variety of
other effects that impacted significantly the area south of U.S. 41 at the end of the Turner river basin.
And the fact now, if 1 understand this properly, that that will be carefully monitored and these areas that are
referred to as undisturbed, which covers that vast area north and east of those small communities of Everglades City,
Plantation Island and Chokoloskee, it would not surprise any member of the committee or anybody present here today
to see what the after effects of this reverse stornwater flow is in that community.
And that deposits left behind unmonitored have unknown effects. And if I understand this statement in
Policy 2.3.6 properly, that will be monitored in some fashion. And all I can do is say that I'm in great support of that.
And the efforts to finally address some of these consequences of increased frequency of major storm effects and
rainfalls is greatly desired.
Thank you for the chance to make these remarks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Cluck And just to make one comment, the statements say they'll be
addressed. But as we know, we don't always do what the statements say. We can only hope.
So with that, let's take a break to 10:15 and we'll come back at that time and start where we left off.
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on record, but it's coffee break. field on just a second.
The discussions we've had with Mac have put everybody to sleep and so now they're just trying to wake back
up again.
We just eliminated some elements with coffee, so -- okay, are you done?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, before we move on, let's -- Nancy, you had something you want to add at this
point?
Page 20 of 44
161 1 03
August 27, 2010
CCPC/EAR
MS. PAYTON: Yes. Nancy Payton, Florida Wildlife Federation.
And a comment on Page 15, Policy 2.3.6, talking about water quality. And subsection B excludes
single- family homes. And as long as we exclude single- family homes, we are not going to achieve our water quality
goals, and that includes northern Golden Gate Estates.
And in the revisit of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, I recommend that the county view it as one large
development area and work on water quality policies and solutions for that area. Because it is upstream from our
coast. And if we do not address it, then all the rest is for naught. You can do all the oyster beds you want in Naples
Bay, but it's not going to get us to where we need to be. So we need to think twice about excluding single - family
homes, or deal with them in a specific area rather than individual homes.
Am I making my point, to have --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MS. PAYTON: -- certain areas to address water quality, through land acquisition or other programs.
But northern Golden Gate Estates is a big problem and we've got to begin to address it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Another reason to make sure that restudy committee comes into play.
MS. PAYTON: Absolutely. And I'm suggesting that the restudy committee not just be Golden Gate Estates
but include that area. Not the separate committees for certain rural fringe areas, but to look at that area as a whole,
because some of the problems may be able to be addressed in abutting lands or integrated.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that was why the suggestion was that the two committees, the rural
fringe and Golden Gate Estates, have joint meetings occasionally, to air common concerns. Because the communities
are quite different overall in most of -- in many of their other aspects.
MS. PAYTON: Well, I would not say so, but we can discuss that another time. Because what happens in
North Belle Meade affects certain parts of northern Golden Gate Estates. And what happens along Immokalee Road
has implications to some parts of northern Golden Gate Estates. So there are parts of the rural fringe that are
integrated somewhat with northern Golden Gate Estates.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Nicole?
MS. RYAN: Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
And my comments are on Page 17 and 18 under Objective 2.5 and its subsequent policies.
Objective 2.5 essentially requires the county to establish and implement an estuarine management program.
And the policy analysis indicates that this has been done through a number of different either plans, programs or LDC
components. And because of this, the recommendation is that the objective is no longer relevant and should be
deleted, as should the policies.
And I'm questioning why that should be deleted. It is still relevant that the county continue implementation of
estuarine management programs. And in other sections of the GMP where the program has been implemented, the
objective and policies remain. For example, NRPA's, it'sjust acknowledged that yes, it has been established and the
county will continue. So I don't believe that we want to remove that, it's an important component, acknowledge that
it's being done and will continue being done, and it should stay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we hadn't gotten that far in discussion yet, but I was certainly going to bring
that issue up. And I can see Ms. Caron was too. So you jumped the gun on us a little bit, but we'll get there.
And that's where we had left off on discussion on Page 16.
1 was remiss in one item that I failed to bring up that I had talked to Mike Bosi about previously on Page 13.
I'd just like to go back and get some clarification on it. And that's Policy 2.2.5. This is that -- those members of the
Planning Commission that were here about a year ago, we had a lengthy presentation by Robert Wiley on some
FEMA guidelines and issues that were coming up, and there was an introduction to bring in a whole bunch of new
policies that were concerning in a lot of ways, some of which was the one referenced in 2.2.5.
Since that time a lot has changed. FEMA's come in with new rules, the county found solutions to a lot of
their problems without having to raise the level of cost to the individuals in the county as citizens of the county as
much as would have been had we continued with that particular meeting.
And I believe now that South Florida Water Management District has taken a position where they're more or
less in charge of enforcing what the Policy 2.2.5 was trying to achieve.
And Stan, are you -- Ijust took all your thunder, huh?
Page 21 of 44
161 1 �3
August 27, 2010
CCPC/EAR
MR. CHRZANOWSKC Good morning, Commissioners. Stan Chrzanowski with Engineering and Review
again.
Yes, sir, that's about it. If you want me to go into a five-minute explanation of —
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's why I brought it up to Mike last week, because I originally questioned that
policy but I forgot to bring it up today, because it seems like the policy isn't any longer relevant because of the actions
that have now occurred after this last year or so of activity. And I just I guess would want to make confirmation of
that.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: We wanted to postpone it for a reason. Everybody agrees that stonmwater
management systems should be inspected. And the policy actually says for compliance with their approved design.
The ordinance that was written basically required every component of the system, re- sectioning of the lakes, TV'ing
of storm sewers. It was ambitious.
And it received a lot of objection from the public, because this is not something we were imposing on the
developers, this was something we were imposing on HOA's. And at a time when the economy was not doing well
and people were not paying their dues and other problems, we were going to put a major expense. And 1 could see
where they had a lot of questions about how we were going to do it.
There's a lot of ways you could do this, from very thorough to just walking the berm, the perimeter berm and
looking at the discharge structure. And the devil is in the details, and they're not yet worked out, so we figured we
would postpone it till the future.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, isn't the issue though a lot of it handled by South Florida Water Management
District in regards to design and what the accomplishments are supposed to be to the systems, and should there be
problems -- isn't South Florida the agency that --
MR. CIIRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- generally goes out and verifies the problem and seeks the correction?
MR CHRZANOWSKI: And they have presumptive criteria. They presume that if you built it according to
their specs and the plans that they approved that ifs going to work correctly. They're not outcome based. "They don't
require testing.
And at some point you guys or somebody is going to require testing to see how we're meeting loads. And at
that point I presume the district will come up with some policy or procedure for doing that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, is Policy 2.2.5 any longer necessary in our GMP? Or is this accomplished by
policy within the administrative side of the --
MR. CIIRZANOWSKI: We think that it should be looked at periodically in the future, which is why we put
it off till whatever, 2015?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we don't get -- well, any changes then -- l didn't have an objection to your
expanding it to that date, but I just want to make sure, if we have the flexibility to decide then at that date if the job's
not being done, we can interject ourselves. And if it is being done, why push it.
MR. CHR/,ANOWSKC Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Back on Page 16. The chunk of pages we're supposed to review is 16 through 20. And I've got a question on
top of Page 17.
There's a reference wider Objective 2.4, third line from the bottom, or fourth line, it says, additionally,
Coastal Zone Management staff remains in contact with DEP for all permitted issues, as well as cooperate and
coordinate with Rookery Bay with regard to water quality.
Down on Policy 2.4.3, the writeup there says, Rookery Bay staff has been invited to participate on the
Watershed Management "Technical Advisory Team. No comments were received.
Ilow are we coordinating with them if they don't comment?
MR. HATCHER: We're inviting them t o t he meetings, providing them with all the data that we can, and
talking to them whenever we can get face -to -face with them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who specifically at Rookery Bay are you talking to'?
MR. HATCHER: They have had a change in staff, and --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who in the past have you talked to?
MR. HATCHER: I will have to get back with you on the names of the individuals that have been assigned to
Page 22 of 44
161 1 p
August 27, 2010
CCPC /EAR
the project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, only reason is if their cooperation -- and I think it's vital because they have --
they're in charge of probably the biggest estuary in the county. I do a lot of work with Rookery Bay, I work closely
with permitting and environmental issues for them, and I know they like to be proactive in these issues. And if the
right person down there isn't being contacted, it might help to know who you've talked to in the past so it can be --
MR. HATCHER: Gary Lytton, who is the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. HATCHER: -- director, has been the one that has assigned the task to the individuals.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. HATCHER: I'm sure it's a question of their basically availability to provide comments. And they do
have some reluctance in interjecting themselves into county policies.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and if that's the case, then we just maybe need to make sure we word this right
so that we're not -- we're contacting them or we're notifying them. Because if they're not participating because of
different reasons, that's another -- we don't want to force the issue in our GMP is all I'm suggesting.
MR. HATCHER: We are making every attempt to provide the materials to them so that they can comment if
they decide to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 17 and 18, Objective 2.5, I had a similar concern as the -- as Nicole
had expressed.
I don't know if we see the reason to remove the objective and policy. I think maybe instead of -- it says, the
county will continue the implementation of its estuarine management program.
I think we might want to use verbiage like we've used elsewhere. We want to initiate and maintain the
estuarine management program. Because that's what we're doing. By taking these out, it does provide the argument,
well, if you took them all out, why do you still need to do it? I'd like -- I'd rather we were proactive, leave it in and
maintain it as a policy going forward to make sure we continue with it. Is that okay?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm not sure that some of these actually have a big effect on -- some of these
LDC sections. Some of them have more than others, but --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, 1 think that's just --
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- some of them are --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's just staffs way of saying they've met the objective. But regardless, I
think it all should stay there.
Anybody else through Page 20?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we run into on Page 19 the same problem with the water quality reference
under Objective 3. 1, the very last paragraph. And that's the one that was not part of the EAC's written packet.
MS. MOSCA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then we heard it was presented orally.
I don't know, if nobody else has any different attitude, I think it stays the same as we suggested earlier in
regards to the other places.
Anybody on Page 20?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next group of pages is through Page 25. Does anybody have any
questions through Page 25?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay .
problematic, so we're getting into them.
Anybody through Page 30?
Let's go through Page 30. 1 knew there was parts of this thing that weren't
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Through Page 35?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Um.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Just give me a minute. I wanted to look at -- go ahead and continue on and I'll
Page 23 of 44
16 J 1p
August 27, 2010
CCPC /EAR
just -- I just want to check on Page 29 on 6.1.1, but --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mike?
MR. BOSI: Yes, Chair, I have -- Mr. Midney at the conclusion of our workshop on Wednesday had provided
me, because he wasn't going to be able to be here, a continent related to the COME Policy 6.1.2.D. And he asked --
which reads -- it's referring to NRPA sending lands and says, calculated at higher value of 90 percent in the native
vegetation present, or as otherwise be permitted under the density blending provisions of the FLUE (sic).
And lie asks that, consider adding the following phrase to that at the end of that statement. After the phrase
NRPA sending lands, before the colon insert the phrase, and lands within the Lake Trafford/Camp Keats Strand
system overlay.
So before you would get to the calculated at higher value at 90 percent of native vegetation present, he
wanted to include, the NRPA sending lands. And in addition the, and lands within the Lake Trafford /Camp Keais
Strand system overlay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Has staff done an analysis on how that impacts the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais over
I mean, you may not have, because it happened so recently. But I mean, what impact does that have?
MR. BOSI: Well, we would --
CIiAIRMAN STRAIN: And if it -- and the reason I'm asking that is if it --if the Camp Keais Strand, if that
overlay was equivalent to a NRPA, why wasn't it made into a NRPA to resolve the issue?
MR. BOSI: Well, the Camp Keais Strand overlay I believe was part of the discussions from the
modifications that was proposed within the hnmokalee Area Master Plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MS. GIBSON: Laura Gibson, for the record.
It actually originally -- well, there's initially maps in the beginning -- the very first Growth Management Plan
in 1989 as a wetland area. As most wetlands were throughout the county. And during the -- I guess it was the 2004
EAR cycle, or -- that was -- no, the 2002?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we get the point.
MS. GIBSON: All right, sorry.
During actually the Eastern Lands review process through all the final order requirements where the county
was required to take a closer look at -- part of it was protecting our natural resources. The hnmokalee wetlands, that
are called the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand system, were looked at as being important just as the wetlands in --
connected wetland systems in the RFMU and the RLSA like Camp Keats Strand and Okaloacoochee Slough were,
because they are a connected system.
But since they didn't fall in that Rural Land Stewardship Area, or most of it doesn't, or the Rural Fringe
Mixed Use area, they still -- we have this policy in the CCME regarding those wetlands and their greater protection
than other urban wetlands.
So that's why it's -- at that point I believe the NRPA's were also reevaluated in other parts of the county and it
was decided, you know, for the 90 percent preservation of those.
And all that was done, though, for the Lake Trafford/Camp Keats Strand system at the time was to add a
policy, Policy 6.2.5, to include those wetlands like they were wetlands just as important as in the rural fringe. Does
that help?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, under 6.2.5 you've got the rural fringe and the Lake'Trafford /Camp Keais
Strand system combined, under that policy. And under 6.1.2 it strictly addresses the county's Rural Fringe Mixed Use
District. And it breaks the uses within the mixed use district down according to what you find in the rural fringe. You
find receiving lands, neutral lands, non -NRPA sending and NRPA sending.
If we were to insert under NRPA sending and the Camp Keais Strand system there, how would anybody
know to look for it since the policy headline is for the county's Rural Fringe Mixed Use District? So I'm --
MS. GIBSON: Yeah, that may not be the appropriate place to do that then.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I also want to verify that in the hnmokalee Area Master Plan the
preservation rate there was 90 percent.
MR. BOSI: That's the crux of the question. What's being suggested in the hnunokalce Area Master Plan that
has been transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs, what is the level of protection of preservation that's
being required by that plan. Is it in coordination with this 90 percent, as would be suggested by this policy.
Page 24 of 44
16 1 1 83
August 27, 2010
CCPC /EAR
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. BOSI: That is -- that's --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can anybody answer that?
MS. GIBSON: Well, it was not addressed in the Immokalee Master Plan, it was -- a reference was made to
6.2.5 where it's addressed. And the applicants in Immokalee did not want to change at all any other elements, so they
did not come forward with any changes to the elements.
Just like the preservation requirements for the rest of Immokalee would fall back to the CCME, so would the
Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand wetlands.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Based on that then, where would the Camp Keais Strand's wetlands fall in regards to
preservation? What percentage?
MS. GIBSON: That is still a question. And that's probably why --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that question needs to be answered before we can insert a change that
affects the property ownership there. And especially a program that has been implemented by the citizens of
Immokalee in a five -year review. And I'm not saying we shouldn't do it, but I think to be fair, by the next time the
EAR comes around, there needs to be more research done on this to see if it's a viable alternative or option.
MR. BOSI: That discussion appropriately is going to take place before we have this -- in December. Because
you're going to have this discussion with the Immokalee Area Master Plan before you for adoption. And the most
appropriate place for the preservation standards required for the Strand in Immokalee is in the Immokalee Area
Master Plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: "Then I would suggest that -- and again, I'm not trying to not agree with Mr. Midney,
but we just don't have enough information, and I think we need to wait till that discussion is had with the Immokalee
Area Master Plan.
MR. BOSI: And Ms. Valera, as the coordinator for the Immokalee Area Master Plan, will note that and make
sure that that's addressed by staff in terms of when that plan comes before you again for adoption.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think that works.
MS. GIBSON: And we have put a note to that section too that we realize -- or staff realizes that that needs to
be clarified and want to work through that with this EAR cycle, too.
MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chair, I was --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MS. MOSCA: -- waiting my turn.
We do have a --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you don't get that now.
MS. MOSCA: Okay. I j ust didn't want to move ahead, but this is related to Policy 6.2.5. And under the staff
achievement analysis, there was a portion inadvertently omitted. I did have a discussion yesterday with Bill Lorenz,
he's the director, and it is, as Laura stated, is still unclear from a stakeholder point of view what that percentage will
be. I don't want to speak for The Conservancy, but I know at the EAC meeting they had suggested a recommended 90
percent, the NRPA sending.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, and I think, by the way, if you look on 6.2.5, the fourth line, and I had
made a note, does not specifically reference which one the -- the Camp Keis should be Item D. See where it says on
the fourth line a reference to Policy 6.1.2?
COMMISSIONER CARON: You need to go back to reference, Page 33, which is D, NRPA sending lands.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 43 references Policy 6.1.2, but it references the entire policy, not defining
which one of those percentages apply.
So in your solution, in your looking at this after the discussion of the Immokalee Area Master Plan, if it needs
to be corrected to a certain point, we simply instead of referencing all of 6.1.2 reference a specific sub - element of that
policy, and that would get us there.
Okay, we left off on up to Page 35. Does anybody have any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nicole?
MS. RYAN: Nicole Ryan, Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
And I will just weigh in on the 6.2.5 and the reference back to 6. 1.2 at this point, because you've discussed it.
Page 25 of 44
161 1 ��
August 27, 2010
CCPC /EAR
And during the Invnokalee Area Master Plan process it was very clear that they did not want to deal with
trying to do any wordsmithing in the COME, but it was acknowledged that when you look at 6.2.5 and you talk about
those Lake Trafford/Camp Keats Strand wetlands, it gives you this menu of options. Do you take it to the receiving
standard, the neutral, the sending or the NRPA sending?
And in looking at the context of 6.2.5, The Conservancy believed that these wetlands were intended to be
elevated in their protection. And we did agree that referencing it back to 90 percent standard of NRPA sending was
the appropriate thing to do. So I did want tojust put that on the record.
And one other issue that we had brought up at the EAC deals with both 6.1.1. and 6.1.2. And the staff
recommendation that as far as the requirements for the native vegetation retention, that the state and federal parks
preserves and forests be exempted for the purpose of managing land for conservation.
And the way that that sentence was worded, it confused me a little bit, wait a minute, if these entities are
conserving land, why couldn't they meet vegetation retention requirements?
In talking with staff, it's because some of the more in -depth policies require that within these projects a
preserve be actually designated a preserve management plan, and that doesn't make any sense within these parks. So I
didn't know if there could be some fine tuning of that verbiage so that it's understood the parks still have to follow any
applicable native vegetation retention requirements-, but they don't need to create a separate preserve and preserve
management plan. I think that could be a good clarification on that, so I bring that forward. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and there were a series of other issues, though, that go beyond the preserve.
And this came about as -- I was directly involved again with Rookery Bay.
There was a -- they have a piece of property down there that they're trying to make into a facility similar to
Corkscrew where you have a walkway through it and a bridge going over to it and things like that, and they ran into a
lot of trouble trying to process through Collier County because they are a preserve management agency and they were
told they had to reserve a -- do a county preserve management plan, which certainly was a waste of taxpayers money
to have to go through that effort, and that's what I think this is all about.
In the process, though, they have other issues that came along, Tike putting in a boardwalk or putting in a solid
walkway and a landing ramp for the bridge and things like that. And 1 think the intention was simply to let these
agencies who have rules usually stricter than ours in some cases move forward if they're a preservation agency.
And Mike, I don't know if -- this isn't final language you have here, but if there's some tweaking that needs to
be done to make it more appropriate, I don't think that's a problem. But 1 think you are aware of the issues. So as
long as we don't -- as long as we don't cause ourselves to fall back into that trap, it was just a big waste of money for
taxpayers the way it was set up.
Let's move on to 36 through 40.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Forty through 45?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Forty -six through 50?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I actually have a small question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's on Page 47, Policy 6.3.2. And it just -- you use the wording no lower
than 3.5 feet. Does that just mean that the top of the dock can't be lower than that, or is that trying to discuss the depth
of the water?
MS. GIHSON: That would be the minimum height of the dock.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Actually, the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't -- I'm not -- I think we wanted to have -- didn't we want to have water
clearance of that depth, water of that depth before boats -- in the siting of boats? Wasn't that what we were -- I
thought this was --
MS. GIBSON: Well, if there's sea grasses there, we want to make it so they can get as much light as
possible.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it is the -- in other words, what you're saying is the dock cannot be lower
than 3.5 feet, thus -- since you are close to sea grass in this case, what you're saying is you would like to get
Page 26 of 44
161 1b3
August 27, 2010
CCPGEAR
underneath it. And the four -foot width might be the clue, is you want a narrow dock, not too low to the water.
MS. GIBSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, got it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On that same page, 6.3.3, we're back to this issue of taking things out because
another agency isn't as strict as we are.
Why wouldn't we want to leave that in? Why wouldn't we want to make sea grasses an element that we have
to be considered?
MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chair, we are going to actually leave that in.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, it says it should be deleted.
MS. MOSCA: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you're going to leave it --
MS. MOSCA: But since then we've had further discussions and it will be left in.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Pages 50 through 55, anybody?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 55, Mike, there's a Policy 7.1.6. 1 remember when we brought this in, I
wasn't sure it was the right thing to do, but regardless, I don't think we should take it out but we ought to leave it -- we
ought to rewrite it to assure that the continuance of the policy is maintained. So, you know, by taking a policy out,
there's no substance then as to why we have it in the LDC.
MR. BOSI: And as we discussed, I think the more appropriate would be that, you know, the county shall
maintain the need for protection of listed plant species, simply so we have a rational nexus behind whatever -- the
LDR regulations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I know you and I talked about stuff, but I've got to bring it up --
MR. BOSI: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- at the public meeting to make sure it gets vetted.
Nancy? You disagree with this, right, you want all the plants bulldozed down?
MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, Florida Wildlife Federation.
I am back on Policy 7.1.2. And again, this one excludes single-family homes, which again excludes northern
Golden Gate Estates. But yet the Golden Gate Area Master Plan talks about how their conservation goals are being
met through Goal 7 of the COME. So again I bring that up that Golden Gate Estates needs to be included in planning
and implementing a program for habitat and listed species protection.
Then there's some updating I guess that's going to take place on like references to Priority 1 and Priority 2
panther habitat, that's outdated.
And on the top of 54 in I guess number three, the county shall consistent with applicable Growth
Management Plan policies. This is a confusing circular policy that needs to be looked at closely. It's really not
workable. We've had a variety of problems with interpreting it and implementing it in the past. And I'm going to
make that plea again that the county reconvene a stakeholders group to address this, because it is not a workable
policy and it is not working. So I'm going to -- even though it says it remains relevant, it's not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and I think more to your point is the issue that we started out with is that the
self - amending policies are concerning. Three certainly tells us it's going to be self - amending by the simple fact that
it's going to change as the other agencies change their plan. So we may want to look at that under that premise, and
that may cure your problem.
MS. PAYTON: Or how the county wants to interpret their recommendation. It's again another meaningless
policy, but yet we have even the economic element talking about how we need to protect wildlife and habitat. But the
crux of it is -- doesn't have any teeth.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think what we should probably do is look at restating it, if it's to be left, in a
manner that doesn't provide for self - amending but is more specific to something that's implemented in the LDC. Then
the LDC get to be the more specific issues that are addressed. Because the way this is written, any one of the agencies
could change anything; we've acknowledged it changes our GMP. And l believe DCA is concerned about
self- amending policies. So anyway, it's another one to look at.
MS. PAYTON: Right. But it's a step beyond that, and that is revisiting the current position that the county
defers to other agencies, and there still is a large constituency within this county that would like the county to
Page 27 of 44
16 1 1 p
August 27, 2010
CCPC /EAR
establish and implement their own wildlife policies and not rely upon what may or may not be done by other
agencies.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
MS. PAYTON: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We lell off on Page 55. And let's move, 56 through 60.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sixty through 65?
(No response.)
MR. SMOOT: Sixty -six through 70?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 66, Mike, the top of the page in your discussion, you're talking about
inserting marine before wetlands. And my discussion with you, we need to be a little careful. I mean, all wetlands are
some form of marine, otherwise they wouldn't be wet. So somehow that needs to be reworded or reconsidered.
Anything else through 70 on Page 68?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, the undeveloped coastal barrier issue. And Michele, I think we talked about
this. On 10.6.1 it talks about developed coastal barriers. Or I think Mike and I talked about it.
10.3 refers to undeveloped coastal barriers. 10.6.1 seems to define what those are. And there are four of
them. And I'm wondering if that was the intention. And if so, is that all we're ever going to have since we've defined
them on 10.6.1 and how they then would relate to the Objective 103?
MS. GIBSON: The ones listed in 10.6.1 are the only ones we have. It's also defined in 10.3.1. It references
a federal definition of undeveloped -- or coastal barriers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But my suggestion is if we are -- if we only have those four and we're not in an
ability to have anymore, with the clarity of people trying to understand how this policy or objective applies, why don't
we stick those four in an earlier part of the document so everybody knows what we're talking about? And if they're
not one of those four they don't have to pay any attention to this. Does that --
MS. GIBSON: We can add that.
MR. BOSI: And question: In the objective where it says undeveloped coastal barriers and then list the four
that we have and then -- so that everyone knows that all these objectives, the policies underneath those objectives, are
applying to these four individual --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. If that's all they apply to. And if that's all they ever can apply to. And if --
you know, if your review says that's true and we ever can't have anymore, then why not have it hanging out there and
not explain it right in the beginning?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, has anybody analyzed whether this is all there can be?
MS. GIBSON: I'm not familiar with that.
MR. HATCHER: None of us are intimately familiar with this topic. The staff at Parks and Rec is the lead on
this.
But undeveloped coastal barriers are specified by federal action, and these are the ones that are identified by
that federal action. So there are obviously other undeveloped coastal barriers in Collier County, but these are the only
ones that are specified that I know of
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, would you take a look at it before the adoption discussion? And that way if it
needs to be, if it can be clarified to make it easier for the public to understand, well, let's just try to do it.
MR BOSI: Yes, sir.
CI ]AIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Pages 70 through 75?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seventy -six through 80?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 79, Mike, we talk about Policy 10.6.2. And we're -- we're suggesting we
delete that policy. I believe that's the final outcome. Yeah, the policy is not relevant and should be deleted.
And the basis for that is that the climate change report didn't feel we would have a six -inch rise -- or it would
take 66 years to get to a six -inch rise. Now, that means it's one inch for every 1 I years.
Page 28 of 44
16 1 1 v�)�
August 27, 2010
CCPC /EAR
This policy required a property to consider the impacts of that. And it was -- the statement is in the sentence
on top of Page 80, last sentence, this time frame -- these time frames are well beyond the accepted planning horizon.
They may be, but they're not beyond the accepted life expectancy of some of those high -rise buildings that
are built within the areas that this may cover. And for that reason, that six -inch rise may be still relevant. It's not the
life expectancy of the planning horizon we should be considering but of the buildings that are built there, I believe.
And is that -- for that reason it may not be a good thing to delete this policy.
Is there -- am I missing something in that analysis, or is it -- is my -- you got any thoughts on that?
MR. BOSI: Well, I mean, the rationale that you provided sounds logical. The buildings that are being
constructed most certainly have a much longer time frame than 2025, which is the horizon year of our Growth
Management Plan.
MR. HATCHER: I won't dispute your logic. It's a matter of FEMA maps get readjusted every five years,
whether a building has to modify its structure or protection; gets reevaluated on a much more frequent basis than what
we're requiring here. But it's not a terribly difficult thing for people to address, so if you all think we should leave it
in, it's not a big deal.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think -- I don't know -- I don't see the reason to remove it based on the life
expectancy of these more expensive buildings that are built, so -- if nobody else has an objection.
Let's run through Page 85. Anything?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me ask a question on this, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the showing of compliance of this, have you required floor elevations
and all to be raised? If somebody came in and put the lobby level of a high -rise right at the FEMA elevation, are you
requiring a six -inch freeboard and stuff like that?
MR. HATCHER: No.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
MR. HATCHER: We're requiring them to address whether or not they think that they can still be a functional
project with a six -inch rise.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And how is that done? A letter, a study?
MR. HATCHER: Any way they choose.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, give me an example of one.
MR. HATCHER: I don't review the projects, so I can't speak to that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, through -- let's go through Page 90.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I've got one, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it starts at 83, Policy 12.1.3, and it's the shelter capacity.
First of all, do we know how much shelter capacity we have? This thing's requiring this year we have
900,000 square feet.
MS. MOSCA: I don't have that answer, but we'll be able to bring that back to you after I meet with Dan
Summers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You supplied me -- I had asked for backup, and we probably need to get that
distributed by e -mail to Brad.
MR. BOSI: That was something that I was never provided.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the one I didn't ask you -- that's one of the 30 to 40 I didn't ask you for
because I found it. If you go to the emergency services, it was either South Florida Regional Planning Council or
Emergency Services website that information is all broken down.
MS. MOSCA: You should have that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you need -- if you could find it and send it on, that would be helpful.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you remember the answer, Mark?
CIAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I don't remember the specific number, but through the way they looked at it,
it was met. And the way they looked at it is based on the seasonal versus non - seasonal population and then using all
the school facilities and calculating it at 20 square foot per person. And somehow it came out right, and so they
Page 29 of 44
161 1 0
August 27, 2010
CCPCIEAR
proved their point. But I wanted to make sure that it was proved, and I saw it there.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good. And, you know, one thing, you know, some of these things in
the GMP are timed. And, you know like for example affordable housing, things like this. We've always been trying
to get -- I know we have Category A and Category B; we always tried to get a Category C which is where you're
keeping us up to date on timed stuff.
Could you really start that? I mean, we've been saying that for a long time.
MR. BOSE I will evaluate that request based upon staffing availability. Most certainly, I understand the
need. And I guess we have to start to try to establish a better reporting system upon a lot of these components so we
can provide you that type of information.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think step one, you know, as we go through these, we find them. Just
isolate them and then, you know, even i f you didn't know the answer it would be nice to start to, you know, give us
that.
MR. BOSI: Well, and that's something that, you know, Dan and his people over at EMS I believe probably
that have a very good handle upon. And I think if he was here, he would be able to maybe provide some assurances
in terns of how they keep -- they maintain their inventory of space available.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think for example, the watershed, if that was done like that for 15
years, you would have been putting it in there not yet started, not yet started, not yet started quite a bit and we would
have gotten, you know, much more curious, much more curious. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's nm through the balance of this element. Anything through Page
93?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, I have one issue back on Page 36. Policy 12.1.14 says prior to the adoption
of 2007 AUIR, Collier County shall evaluate whether to include hurricane shelters in the five -year schedule of capital
improvements.
That's the report 1 was sent, should we have adequate hurricane shelters. And we have them planned for the
future, because basically the school systems provides most of them, and they're based on the various storm surges.
Why wouldn't we want to include that in there just to show that we've accounted for it and we're doing that
kind of a level of care for the citizens in regards to hurricane shelters and how we calculate it? I mean, that would
have answered Brad's question easily.
Is there a reason we chose not to do that? Is there a down side to doing it?
MR. BOSE Well, I guess the -- we looked towards the specific. There's two specific reasons why we
performed the AUIR and the CIE. The reasons are related to the concurrency management system, the requirement
for capital aid facilities to fonn the basis of the concurrency management system, and then for the Category B
facilities to ensure that the level of service that is allocated and being charged new residents related to impact fees are
being maintained and being adequately applied. 'those are the two primary purposes of what that document is.
This would be an area that falls outside of those, so we have not included it in the past. Starting -- if it's the
desire of the Planning Commission to include the availability and inventory of the hurricane shelter space within the
supporting documentation that we always provide with the AUIR, we most certainly can start to do that moving
forward.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would suggest maybe we ought to reconsider doing that, just -- it's a good
thing to do, and we do mean it. I've seen the study. So why wouldn't we want to say something good and reassure the
public that we're on top of it'?
MR. 13OSI: We most certainly will.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that okay with everybody'?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I think -- I mean, start a Category C, you know. Have C for crazy to
make --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That takes us through the CCME.
Chuck, you have some parting comments'?
MR. MOIILKE: I do. Thank you, Mr. Chainnan.
Again, Chuck Mohlke, appearing as an interested citizen.
I would like to call your attention on Page 87 to Policy 12.1.17. It is the only mention that I could find in this
Page 30 of 44
161 10
August 27, 2010
CCPC /EAR
EAR document that concerns Collier County currently conducting a hurricane evacuation restudy.
I wanted to point out, if I may, that the Department of Community Affairs requires the small municipality of
Everglades City to use the hurricane evacuation program of Collier County as a feature of its coastal management
element. It is a requirement that was brought forward in an amendment to the Everglades City plan in 1993.
So the presumption is that if there is a hurricane evacuation restudy currently under review, please, consult
with that small community to be sure that it is not mandated to do some things that during the hurricane evacuation
process that it is unaware of
If that doesn't happen, the community's experience with the Federal Emergency Management Agency is
likely to remind the city, after reviewing these documents, that it was in some manner unobservant of a requirement of
the hurricane evacuation plan, which would cause it some concern, some difficulty, maybe even the loss of some
funding if that issue isn't addressed appropriately. So it could be included in the study reevaluation I think would be
important.
MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chair, I'd like to add something. In my conversations with Dan Summers, 1 was told that
there is presently a Draft 2011 evacuation study that's being reviewed by staff.
MR. MOHLKE: Well, I'm pleased to hear that, Mr. Chairman and staff, but 1 think I can testify accurately
that Everglades City is unaware of that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it would be important. Because any of these municipalities that have
to get out of the county have got to go through our territory.
Why don't we look at putting some language in this policy when it comes back that references the need to
either coordinate with or, you know, communicate with those other municipalities to assure everybody at least has
knowledge of what we're doing.
MR. SCHMIDT: Appropriate.
MR. MOHLKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other public comments on the CCME?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great, thank you.
Melissa, we're on time.
** *Let's move into the potable water -- actually, the sanitary sewer element, Item D.
I know it's in this book somewhere. Ah, yes.
Okay. Corby, this is one of yours, huh?
MR. SCHMIDT: It is.
Like some of the others, no introduction necessary. If you'd like to just get into the documents.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That sounds good.
Document -- the next text of the document, we have -- let's go through the first three pages, like we normally
do.
Does anybody have any -- you've got to wait a minute, I've got to get to my first three pages. I'm still having
trouble finding it.
Okay, anybody have anything on the first three pages?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 3, Policy 1.4, there's a reference to an ordinance. Again, I want to make
sure it's not self - amending. Policy 1.3 refers to levels of services maintained by the service provider and whether such
level of service meets the county's level of service standard in wastewater treatment.
That's in the fourth line up from the bottom of Policy 1.3, and it's about the private utilities. Corby, when I
mentioned this to you before, I -- we had the -- it was either the last EAR or the water study or something came along
and we were trying to establish what the levels of services were in those other private utilities. And when the utilities
staff went out to get the information, as required by our GMP, they were met with some cooperation, but in one
instance they were told that it takes engineering money to get that established and that they would be charged -- they
were going to charge us next time we asked for it.
I want to make sure that if we have something in here that they're required to do, that somehow we have the
ability to demand that they do it and not get into a situation where we're being charged for them to provide the
information to be consistent with our Growth Management Plan.
Page 31 of 44
161 1 p
August 27, 2010
CCPC /EAR
I think Jamie, being in charge of the public services side of things, had a -- may have a handle on it, but I
notice he's not here today.
MR. BOSI: Yeah, I spoke with Mr. French and he had indicated that -- you know, that the requirement we
have in this policy, the 1.3, that they have to provide an annual report and they have to state the current policies and
the levels of service are being maintained and demonstrate that they were meeting those LOS's is the mechanists that
we utilize to ensure that they are indeed meeting those levels of service.
And if there is an issue with that, that is when he would take that -- the issue before the water and the
wastewater authority, which would then provide the means for resolution.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, because the last time this came up, I think it was in review of the CIE, and we
were establishing these levels of service in the document. And we asked for verification, because we didn't have any
at the time. And I think Phil Gramatges was responding to us. He had gone out and, you know, lie had some e -mails
to back up some of them, and then he went to one of them and they said well, here it is, but next time you ask for it we
need to be paid for doing this.
MR. BOSI: Was it with the CIF or was it with water supply planning process?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can't remember which one it was.
MR. BOSI: I think it was the water supply planning process that Ms. Valera had worked on and they said
that's outside of our normal annual reporting. Because of that, that's where there was some resistance from those
outside utilities.
But it also kind of speaks to the issue, we were required to adopt the 10 -year water supply plan and update it
every five years, so it's an activity that we do have to engage with these private utilities on a periodic basis. I'm not
sure how we resolve their reluctance to cooperate on some of the outside of the annual reporting requirements.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you already answered that. It'Jamie French has the ability through the PSC
to make sure this is adhered to, as long as it's written properly in the GMP, all I'm really suggesting is make sure we
have the teeth in the GMP we need to get the response we need at the time we need it to meet our other criteria and
other demands. I think that's just a coordination issue.
Pages 4 and 5?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Top of four, staff has --
MR. SCHMIDT: Again, I've got different pages. What policy are you referring to?
COMMISSIONER CARON: That is Policy 1.4. Staff has a note here, should this policy provide an updated
ordinance site.
MR. SCHMIDT: Oh, it's one of those reminders. And just as with House Bill 697 for the use of as amended,
we're reminding ourselves throughout the documents to double check all ordinance sites, statutory sites that could
have changed during the last seven years.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chuck, did you have something you want to contribute?
MR. MOHLKE: I do have a brief comment. Chuck Mohlke with a question concerning -- the only mention
that I could find in here that appears to be relevant to the remark I'm prepared to make, and that's in Policy 1.6.
Performance standards for such facilities in Chapter 64E6, Florida Administrative Code.
Mr. Chairman, I'm not as well informed about the comment I'm prepared to make as I would like to be, but
there was a statute passed by the Florida legislature in 2006 that was designed to protect natural water bodies in the
State of Florida from intrusion by septic systems.
It is my understanding through conversations with Senator Al Lawson that he is preparing some material for
legislative consideration with regard to this, that regulations are emerging that would make this apply to septic
systems statewide. And that features of this, which I will endeavor, Mr. Chairman, to bring to staffs attention, but I
thought for the purpose of the public record it might be worth noting that there may be a new regulatory scheme
which could affect septic systems in the eastern county. Particularly if they fringe upon a canal system, a man -made
water body, a natural water body or anything else that may not be yet anticipated.
I hope I'm not sounding alarmist about this, but it was brought to my attention by Senator Lawson, this is a
concern of his. And I will try and learn more about that and share it with the staff.
But it would, on top of the other things that are now impacting the Estates related to FEMA mapping and a
Page 32 of 44
161 1b3
August 27, 2010
CCPC /EAR
variety of other concerns, it would not be a happy circumstance if this came as a surprise by some regulatory
announcement at some later time. So I will take the responsibility of investigating that with the staff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Chuck. And if you find anything, whatever you find, if you copy me
with it, since I --
MR. MOHLKE: I will most certainly do that. Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Melissa?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Chuck, are you referencing the ATU systems, or is this something in addition
to that?
MR. MOHLKE: Well, I don't feel competent to answer that question in the detailed manner that I think
you're asking. All I am informed about is that this 2006 enactment by the legislature that was designed originally to
protect water bodies, particularly natural water bodies that are infringed upon by septic systems, so they would be in
some manner regulated different than they are currently regulated to ensure that no seepage into those bodies would in
any manner pollute this natural system.
My sense is that if I understand Senator Lawson properly, that that is now being expanded to include other
considerations for septic systems that in his view was never the legislative intention. That's the best I can do.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Thank you.
CI AIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Chuck.
Okay, anything on Pages 6 and 7?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 7, Mike, under the Policy 3. 1, the second part of it, as part of the EAR -based
amendments the county proposes a new policy requiring private sludge and septic should be treated to a degree yadda,
yadda, yadda.
Where is that new policy?
MR. SCHMIDT: It's just that we did not include any sample or example language, but we propose that anew
one be written.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I know. Where is it? I know that's what it says. When are you going to
spring it on us?
MR. BOSI: During the GMP amendment process that's associated with the FAR-based amendments.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. BOSI: Remember, we're not trying to find the specifics of where we're going, just that we need to
address an issue or a goal or an objective, or in this case a policy.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now I understand. Thank you.
Pages 8 and 9?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Policy 4.6, Mike, says the county shall promote the use of Xeriscape techniques.
Then it says, the policy remains relevant and requires the county to expand the use of supplemental water systems.
That doesn't belong there. Wasn't that a write -up for another policy?
MR. BOSI: I believe so.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we just need to get it in the right one.
And the one on 4.7, 1 think that seems to be the wrong writeup for that one too. Doesn't have anything to do
with -- doesn't say anything about CDD specifically. So if you guys could straighten that out. I think I know where
they went.
Objective 5. In Objective 5 the county -- it says, the county will discourage urban sprawl and the
proliferation of private sector sanitary sewer service suppliers.
Why do you need the word urban sprawl? Why don't you just say the county will discourage the proliferation
of private sector sanitary? Is there some connotation that is better to leave urban sprawl in, or does it make a
difference?
MR. BOSI: It's just another reminder I believe that the county is committed to trying to manage its growth in
the most efficient manner. But in terms of -- I don't think you lose the effectiveness if you take it out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm not saying take it out, I just didn't know if there was a reason for it being
Page 33 0£44
161 1 R5
August 27, 2010
CCPC /EAR
in, so I'm not -- it doesn't really matter then.
The balance of this element, anybody have any issues'?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let mejust quick. You're going to take out some of those other maps, is
that -- I mean, does the map have to be referenced to be relevant in the GM P?
MR. BOSI: These werejust support documentation that was provided. It's not part -- those are not part of
the element itself.
MR. SCHMIDT: They are not, but I would agree that in order for them to be useful they should be
referenced inside the element
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right, thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next element is the potable --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Potare.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad has a certain pronunciation for the word potable. It's not potable, it's potarable
(sic).
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, the Latin word to drink is potare, so hence the word is potable.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to try to say that correctly.
And 1 hope you transcribe it correctly. I'm saying potable.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a bad habit a lot of people have, they call it potable.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As soon as my son who is studying Latin, I mentioned it, he knew exactly what you
were talking about. There's a few other words he said that I mispronounce too, so --
Okay, Pages 1 through 3 of the potable water supply.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page I is a reference to an updated annual document, Mike, it's one of those
self - amending things to look at.
Page 2 and 3, anybody?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Policy L I, the write -up says, the policy remains relevant and should be
rewritten not to be utility specific
How is it utility specific in the way its written'' *
MR. BOSI: I think the term, the county. And there are other obviously utility providers other than the
county. And 1 think that it could be inferred that it was only being applicable or designed to be applied to the Collier
County public utilities system.
MR. SCHMIDT: And that's the case with the comment where you see it elsewhere in some of these
documents. It is never meant to be implied that the county itself is the only responsible party for getting some of these
things accomplished, but those private providers as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Do they all fall under the master plan? Is that what the reference will now be?
MR. SCHMIDT: They may not all fall under the master plan, but they are under the authority of the county.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Ijust wondered what you were going to replace --
MS. VALERA: If I may, Carolina Valera with Comprehensive Planning.
Yes, the private utilities are referenced in the 10 -year water supply plan, so we wanted to make sure that they
also comply.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Policy L5, the county's going to coordinate with South Florida in the
development of a water master plan update which is the primary planning document for the Collier County
water /sewer district. We're going to replace water master plan update with lower west coast water supply plan. So --
and then we're going to replace the Collier County water /sewer district with Collier County.
So the primary planning document for Collier County will become the lower west coast water supply plan, is
that what that's going to say?
MS. VALERA: The 10 -year water supply plan is based on the lower west coast water supply plan. So we
need to follow the guidelines of the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which will be our primary planning document, the lower west coast water supply
plan or the 10 -year water supply plan?
Page 34 of 44
161 1P
August 27, 2010
CCPC /EAR
MS. VALERA: The 10 -year water supply plan, which is based on the lower west coast --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if you replace the water master plan update with the lower west coast water
supply plan, don't you want to then insert also something else?
MS. VALERA: Probably, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Probably?
MS. VALERA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I mean, the plan you said is primary isn't going to be referenced, so I
think you want to --
MS. VALERA: The reason I said probably, because I haven't read the policy, but --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you didn't read it, who did?
MR. SCHMIDT: I may be able to clarify, Mr. Chairman.
The coordination we have with South Florida involves the larger document or the lower west coast water
supply plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. SCHMIDT: And the county takes from that its 10 -year water supply plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand.
MR. SCHMIDT: So the coordination occurs in the larger or the bigger document, the more inclusive one.
MS. VALERA: The answer is yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand that, but it says which is the primary planning document for the Collier
County water /sewer district.
What is the primary planning document? Which one? Whatever one it is, could you just say it?
MS. VALERA: Yes, we will, we will.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Pages 4 and 5?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have something.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this kind of goes back to the problem. We do have people in Collier
County that don't have the same water service. And Objective 2 kind of would be where that would cover it.
For example, what are we doing to bring in some of these areas that are on the Naples system that don't have
the same water supply as the county? We have a CRA that has a water supply that isn't as efficient as the rest of the
county. Are we somewhere inhere going to bring these different areas up to grade? I mean, it's -- here we put a
CRA, we go for urban development and the water supply from the city doesn't support that without, you know,
expensive thing. I mean, we have churches with water storage tanks, stuff like that that doesn't make sense.
So where in Objective 2 do we start to look at people in the county that don't have equal water service?
MR. BOSI: Where an individual property lies is dictated what water service provider that is available to
them.
Now, I believe that the utility districts are all creations of the state, and any modification to those individual
districts require modification at a state level.
Really, I'm at a loss as to whether the county wants to try to petition, pole these individuals as to whether they
want to replace their current water and sewer provider with a different water and sewer provider and if we even --
how that process works.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think, you know, this thing's discussing correcting deficiencies and
stuff like that. So if we do have citizens that don't have the same -- or property owners that don't have the same access
to equal water supply, shouldn't we be striving to do that? Or is that something that would not be in the GMP?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michael, the questions that are evolved around these two elements have a lot to do
with utilities. Is there a reason someone from the utilities department didn't show up here to answer these today? I
know you're struggling to answer them, but you're not water and sewer.
Oh, you're hiding behind the podium. Oh, you didn't want -- you're going to let Michael take all the shots?
MR. BEALS: Good morning. For the record, Nathan Beals, Collier County Public Utilities.
The reason I haven't stepped up is because my understanding of the Growth Management Plan, and Mike can
back me up, is that it is for unincorporated Collier County, and that City of Naples and Marco Island who have their
Page 35 of 44
161 10
August 27, 2010
CCPC /EAR
own utilities fall under their own plans, land development plans and growth management plans, that we can't dictate
what they do but we can only do what Collier County Water /Sewer District and then what the water — Collier County
Water and Wastewater Authority with Jamie French's group can handle.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think my problem is I'm talking about people in unincorporated
Collier County getting water from another system that's not equal to the rest of Collier County.
MR. BOSI: And that speaks to that annual reporting. There's various -- and if you look in the CIE and this
portion, there's various levels of service for each of those utility providers. Their only -- they're required to maintain
that level of service provided as stated toward their individual system.
I guess your question gets into the point, well, maybe the public -- Collier County's level of service standard
for potable water is higher than the City of Naples utility provider. Why should we allow that to happen?
We have no policies that really try to make a quantitative evaluation as to whether all utility providers have to
have an equal level of service standard.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, if you read Objective 2, it really does kind of get into the fact
that they're required to meet a level of service or greater. Again, you know, since this is the year, I'mjust looking to
see, should we have something in here that tries to bring everybody in the county at the same level, rather than
orphaning some areas of it just because they're on some other city system?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But doesn't our CIE and this document as well go to the ability -- actually, it goes to
the opposite direction, it breaks down the different municipalities and allocates them different levels of service. I
understand what you're saying, but I think by reallocating the levels of service as we do in the CIE and flns document,
we actually acknowledge there are different levels of standards, but they have to meet these because that's what that
area dictates.
MR. BOSI: And that's what I'm saying. I'm saying that each one of those individual utility providers have
established their own level of service standards. Now, whether it's equitable or appropriate that they're not all the
same, I can't speak to -- I guess and that's probably your issue.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And my concern actually isn't going to be the level of service, which
is gallons per day per capita, it's going to be the amount of water and the pressure in which that water's delivered.
And we have areas of the county -- but 1 guess if this isn't the place, this isn't the place.
MR. BOSI: And I'm not sure it is the place. But they have those levels of service standards. They have to
show that they are meeting those where they have to show that they're correcting those deficiencies. And I think that's
what this objective is trying to indicate, that they have to work towards those, providing those levels of service.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The objective is saying, though, that the areas as may be required to meet or exceed
the level of service standards established in this plan.
Now, the plan it seems like they're talking about because there's not one referenced, wouldn't it be this
element, and wouldn't it be the CIE, which is the Growth Management Plan, and that would then cover it? They have
to meet what their levels of service are established by the plan and if they have a different level of service than the
county has, it looks like it would be acceptable based on that statement.
MS. VALERA: That is correct. Carolina Valera again with Comprehensive Planning.
And that's what we reference, as you said. Chair, in the CIF. In the water supply we do make sure as a
government, as a county, we go through the 10 -year water supply plan, just to make sure that we do have water in a
10 -year horizon. Typically it's a little bit more. But at least in 10 years we report back to the agencies that all these
private utilities including Collier County will have water supply for the future. If that helps.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, yeah, I'm concerned about the inequality. But if this isn't the place to
do it, this isn't --
MR. BOSI: And one thing, if you look on Page 8, 1 mean, the City of Naples and Collier County Wastewater
-- Sewer District both have the same 185 gallons per capita daily.
MS. VALERA: And of course as you know, that's based on demand, based on, you know, the amount of
water supply that they need and what they serve. So that would be different for each portion of the county or city or --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, we can move on.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The utility -- you work for Collier County Utilities?
MR. BEALS: Yes, sir. For the record --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1 wasn't sure if you might have worked for one otthe other utilities when you got up
Page 36 of 44
161 1�3
August 27, 2010
CCPC /EAR
and said that's why you hadn't addressed things earlier.
Maybe you can help me then. What I was trying to get earlier, what is our primary planning document? What
does your department consider it? Is it the lower west coast water supply plan or is it the 10 -year --
MR. BEALS: For Collier County Public Utilities it's the master plan, based off of the 10 -year water supply
plan. So for the county as a whole, which includes the unincorporated, it would be the 10 -year water supply plan as
opposed -- it's also then based off the lower west coast water supply plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you participate in these?
MR. BEALS: I did, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ijust want to make sure that that clarification comes through in the final
document.
MR. BEALS: We'll make sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess we're on page -- we left off on Page 4 and 5 and we're going to Page 6 and 7.
Anybody have anything on six and seven?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, there's on 2.5 and 2.6 both reference issues that may be self - amending, so —
MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Chairman?
CI AIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
MR. SCHMIDT: A post -EAC. comment from staff, and again working with Nathan and his team.
Policy 2.1. Here's one of those locations where the note was made where the reference to the county 10 -year
water supply plan is preferred rather than referring to the lower west coast supply plan. So the reference is different
throughout the document.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Pages 8 and 9. Anybody?
Melissa?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: How is the level of service standard actually calculated? I mean, is there a
certain formula that's used that's different between Collier County versus the independent districts?
MR. BEALS: I can answer -- for the record, Nathan Beals.
1 can answer for Collier County public utilities. We use the population projections for each year based from
comprehensive planning -- provided to us by comprehensive plarming and our actual usage for that year demand.
And we -- during the master planning process that we do, we look at our historical actual level of service and then go
from there to provide. And that's why you'll see here the 185 in the narrative below, we've actually updated that to
170.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Because the population's decreased?
MR. BEALS: Population's decreased. Our level -- because of increased use of reclaimed water and
irrigation days and things like that.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Pages 8 and 9?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, on Page 8, is Ave Maria supposed to be in there somewhere?
MS. VALERA: Yes.
MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. And I forgot to bring this up on the wastewater. Because of a notation I see on
Page 9, Policy 3.4, the intention here is to change the level of service standards in Policy 3.1 as needed. Wouldn't we
want to move all the standards in both wastewater and potable water to the CIE and not have them here? Because the
CIE is the only thing you can change on a yearly basis, where this can't be changed that easily.
MR. SCHMIDT: That's correct. We've noted that from the last -- or the earlier portion of this session and so
noted throughout.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good.
Then the Policy 3.4 suggested changes to -- or the reference to Policy 3.1 will really reference probably the
CIE.
MR. SCHMIDT: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Pages 10 and 1 1?
Page 37 of 44
1A6 s127, 201
CCPGEAR
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pages 12 and 13?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That wraps up potable water.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Potable. Start heading for potato and you're on the right track.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1 know members of the public are here for comment. Does anybody have any
comments on those items before we finish -- what we'll do is we'll finish up the CIE, ask for any final comments from
the public and wrap it up that way.
* * *So let's move to the CIE, which is the second tab. Way in the beginning.
And Corby, that's you again.
MR. SCHMIDT: It is.
Again, no introductory statements necessary, unless you'd like to hear something. And I'll allow you to
proceed as you wish.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's take the first three pages. Anybody'?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pages 4 and 5?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: On Page 5, at the top where you're explaining the policy, is what's in bold
something that you're considering adding"
When further considering projects prioritized by this order, the higher priority shall be assigned to. That bold,
that's language you want to add?
MR. SCHMIDT: It is. Here's one of those situations where greenhouse gasses and emissions gave us the
opportunity for some more specific language than some of those other instances you had discussed.
COMMISSIONER CARON: How about adding, or not constructing at all?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you prioritize something that's not being done?
COMMISSIONER CARON: No, if you look further to the policy, then you'd know.
The simple fact of the matter is that one of the options should be not constructing something.
MR. SCHMIDT: We'll look at that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, through Page 5, does anybody -- Mike, there's some self - amending references
on Page 5, I'm sure that you'll get into those.
Pages 6 and 7, anybody?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, in here you have a discussion where you want to move all the level of
services up into the CIE and take them out of the individual elements. Is that something you're going to do?
MR. SCHMIDT: Direction from your group first half of the session coincided with our recommendation,
yes.
MR. BOSh Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 6 in your -- it talks about county potable water systems -- how did I do,
Brad? Did I do okay?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You hit it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It talks -- I notice Marco Island's missing under municipal systems in both
categories. You want to throw that in or --
MR. BOSE Okay.
MS. VALERA: That is for potable water?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you say that right? And for sanitary sewer.
MS. VALERA: It's my background.
They do their own I 0-year water supply plan, so I don't believe we have to include them. But we can double
check that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that what this is tor, only those that do I 0-year water supply plans? I didn't see
that, and I'm not sure how you got there. But --
MS. VALERA: Because we're requiring levels of services. And if we don't have any purview over either the
Page 38 of 44
161 1b3
August 27, 2010
CCPC/EAR
city or we don't have to include them in a 10 -year water supply plan, then maybe there is no need to have --
MR. BOSI: We need to include them. They have to report to the Wastewater Authority, so we --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to say, because you included them in the other elements. I'm just --
MR. BOSE We need to include them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Pages 8 and 9?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ilow about 10 and I I?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Policy 2.10 you want to increase the debt service percentage. You know,
and obviously your argument is times are slow. But times will be fast again, and then we go up the ladder. Then aflei
that times will be slow and they'll increase it again. And then times will be fast again and they're up the ladder
another notch. So is this a smart thing to do?
MR. SCfIMLET: Actually, I hope the language doesn't imply that we're asking to make that change, but only
looking into whether a change can be made, and really asking whether this is the right place to indicate it. If we have
a limitation, should this be where we state that.
MR. BOSI: Now, let me expand upon that a little bit further.
That debt ratio has been within our Growth Management Plan as far as we can tell since 1990. We — I believe
it's been there since the original adoption of our Growth Management Plan.
We just put that statement out there to contemplate whether it was -- the possibility or the contemplation
maybe that was appropriate. By no means does staff think that were asking that we need to change this.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But just asking the question --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --is opening the door for a floodgate of trouble. 1 mean, just by the mere fact you're
asking the question it's suggesting it can be change. But --
MR. BOSI: I think it puts the principles of why this policy was established back to the forefront and we can
say that a conservative approach to fiscal management is something that we view as highly important within this
county; therefore this 13 percent is where we want to stay.
That was -- l mean, by no means are we saying because you have to contemplate this policy doesn't mean that
there has to be a change.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That may not -- it may work for us, but it doesn't work for the politicians.
I don't -- first of all, if this EAR is only to make changes and you're not suggesting a change you want us to
contemplate, we've contemplated, so does that mean you're not going to include any changes in 2.10 in the EAR?
MR. BOSI: We're seeking your direction upon that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it sure confused me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it confused me too, Brad.
I think the consensus is it doesn't need to be brought up.
MR. BOSI: Understood.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why open the door.
Anybody else on 10 and 1 19
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 'Twelve and 13?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fourteen and 15?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question on 15.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Policy 4.7, you're listing some things that buildings have to do to minimize
loss. But one thing you're not really listing is the fact that it should be built wind speeds and stuff for the hurricane.
I guess to the building code it's implied. I mean, there's no way you're going to build something without
meeting the building code, so -- but, for example, you have construction above the floodplain. Well, there's no way
you're going to get away with that either.
Page 39 of 44
161 „13
August 27, 2010
CCPC /EAR
So my concern is the fact that you are nussing consideration for, you know, a hurricane wind speed, stuff like
that in your list of things. In other words, first of all, why have a list? I mean, the wildfire you don't have to build to,
so that's good to put in the list.
MR. SCHMIDT: You'd look to have that list expanded a bit to be more exemplary?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think yeah -- well, yeah, just put maybe built to all governing
construction codes or something. And then that way, wind speed, everything else gets picked up. So does floodplain,
so does some of the other things.
MR. SCHMIDT: All right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cherie', we're probably going to wrap up here in 15 or 20 minutes, but it's time you
normally have a break. Do you want to take a break or just go through?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Go for the gold.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go for the gold.
How about Pages 16, 17, and let's go through the last one, Page 18, anybody have any other questions on the
CIE?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, public comment on anything at this point.
Jim?
MR. FLANIGAN: My name's Jim Flanigan, I'm a Golden Gate Estates resident.
And for a few years now I've been following all the meetings, public hearings and whatnot that have been
happening regarding the growth management, transportation and all the activities of the county. And I'm trying to
keep an open mind about learning the process; it's a large process to get around.
I tried to keep up with the EAR process, and understand what it meant and how and where it was going. And
as I go through the Growth Management Plan, 1 tried to summarize it. And what I did was I came up with the fact
that there are 15 elements that incorporate 39 goals which incorporated 155 objectives and 764 policies.
Now, we were asked as the public to come and comment on eight major issues, according to DCA. And
those major issues, obviously we've gone through some of that here today. Although in the process of this review, I'm
not sure that we've actually addressed the major issues. We've gone through all the elements, but have we gone back
through the major issues'' *
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, the morning of the first day.
MR. FLANIGAN: Okay. Then I missed that and I apologize for missing that.
But in the big picture of things, the process I saw as a public participant I think was lacking a few things.
And I've written a summation of some of those ideas, and I just want to briefly review some of the major ones and
then leave this with you for the record so that we can incorporate this into the process.
When we first looked at the public comment period, we were asked to cormnent on those major elements.
We were asked to comment on those major elements, but there was no reference to the Growth Management Plan,
there was no reference to the goals and the objectives and the policies that we were trying to address and measure.
And as well, within those policies and goals and objectives there was no measurement to be able to assess
and evaluate those -- the successes of the Growth Management Plan. And the public comments were made, the staff
took them back and attached them to certain policies and objectives in their opinion, and we were never brought back
into the process to concur that with the public comments or to even reevaluate and reassess the interpretation of staff.
And that one particular item was missing out of the process. And I -- you know, I don't know how you would
do it myself, but that to me is one of the obvious leave -outs of the process. Kind of coming full circle.
But l -- I've gone through the process and watched a lot of things happen, and there are some considerations I
think that need to be made going forward to improve the EAR process and the growth management process as far as
involving public participation and incorporating public perspectives and incorporating some of the things that are
brought out, some of these meetings that the average person comes to these meetings, makes a comment and then
goes back to work and try to make a living and never really gets a follow -up in the end.
In general, that's the big picture. I think- there needs to be a process whereby these goals, objectives and
policies are framed so that when the public is asked a question to continent on certain major issues, that they can
actually understand how they relate back to the Growth Management Plan and then bring forward more substantial
and understandable comments. And frankly, more understanding within the public as well.
Page 40 of 44
161 163
August 27, 2010
CCPC /EAR
I understand that you have a vast amount of paper to govern here. And it's tough to put it down in the sound
bites and whatnot. But I think some of the concepts of things like rural standards and some of the other things that we
bring out in our public comments are going to get lost in the future without having that bringing full circle to come
back to see that they're incorporated and our comments, whether (sic) they may not be attributable to a certain policy,
are brought into an addressing of the public comments, and then maybe new policies and at least reviews for the
future come forward.
So I write better than I speak, so I will leave my comments with you. And I've made some copies for the
board, and I thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We certainly would like copies and that would be very helpful.
Jim had called me and talked to me about some of his concerns, and I said well, we still have an opportunity
to get on record and present things today, Mike. So I'd like to make sure his document is entered into part of the
record for the EAR.
One thing you pointed out that I never understood, never realized, but I was at one of those EAR meetings, as
you know I was, and we all sat there and put our thoughts on these charts. And then you took them and you addressed
them and explained them in today's process. But there wasn't a second meeting with the public where that was to
come back and say okay, we've taken all your comments and here's how we believe they're addressed in the GMP and
then gotten further input.
And I understand that takes another meeting and more time. But it just was a possibility that there may be
even a better way to proceed with the next EAR. And I think that's what Jim is trying to --
MR. BOSE And I guess what I don't understand is that these day and a half -- and it was described that this
was the second meeting. This is where you come and you see where your policies are being applied, where those
comments that you made are being discussed.
If there's 775 individual policies -- and I'm going to try and keep the -- capture the imagination and the
attention of general public for an hour and a half to two hours, just reading 775 policies and asking for input upon
those at a public meeting like that, it's not practical, it's not viable, it's not even useful.
What we did is we asked for what in your experience -- you don't have to know about policies, you don't have
to know about objectives, you don't have to be a water management expert, you don't have to be an architect, but you
tell me what the big problems are there facing you in your daily lives and we'll see where you can apply those within
our individual -- and we will try to attempt to attach those to individual policies and objectives.
And if you really, if you want to see where the manifestation of that's going to come, come and sit and hear
the Planning Commission and the EAC's discussion of the policy by policy and the objectives and see where those
opportunities are.
We're going to have not only this opportunity for the workshop but the opportunities for the adoption of these
documents for all these policies and where it's applying. But then we also have the GMP amendment process where
we're going to have a transmittal process through public hearings with all the advisory boards and then the adoption
public hearings for -- with all the advisory boards.
So there's a number of avenues and opportunities. I don't know if another public meeting accomplishes more
in terms of providing another avenue. And I will read these and try to figure out how we can hit those concerns, most
certainly. But I feel from my perspective -- and of course I'm biased as to comprehensive planning management -- I
believe that we carried out as inclusive as a process as we could within the resources that are available.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think you may be somewhat overreacting. All he's saying is -- and we did
those for -- you did three meetings. You did them at night when people who work during the day can attend. You
went out and asked the community, okay -- and you explained to them about it. I was there for one of them. You did
a great job.
They wrote down a little chart, here's our concerns. There was no follow -up meeting convenient to the
neighborhoods in which those other three were managed to say okay, we read everything you said, here's how we
think it's being addressed and wejust wanted you to know.
And Mike, it's not a bad thing, it's just saying here's another level that if we had the opportunity we could go
to and maybe educate the public more on what's happening with this policy and how they get from those meetings to
this more or less finalized public document.
And I know it's not final, but the fact that it's in writing and on public record, it's a lot more final than just
Page 41 of 44
16 I 1 �3
August 27, 2010
CCPC /EAR
having another informal community meeting.
And I understand there's not a lot of staff now and not a lot of time. I think it's a constructive suggestion for
the future. And that's all I think Jim was trying to get across.
MR. FLANIGAN: And Michael, please understand, I'm not putting criticism on there. I know how massive
an objective it is to take all of that and squeeze it down into two hours.
What For hoping will come out of this is that when we take those six or eight major issues of the -- the DCA
points out that we need to discuss, that we take and not focus on 15 elements but focus on the major aspects, just as a
foundation for the public to understand those major issues. I don't know that we would ever consider 15 elements in
all those policies at one sitting for one thing, but my only objective here was to get us to frame those major issues
based on policy so people would have a better perspective of what questions you're really looking for.
And a lot of those major issues don't transverse every policy, they're more focused on certain policies. And
that's where 1 wanted to go with it.
I appreciate what comprehensive planning did. And I understand the enormous task you guys have trying to
boil that all down for the public. And I respect that a whole lot, you don't know how much. I'm still trying to get my
hand around the whole growth management plan process. You know, the idea is you can get your hands around the
'Fen Commandments but you can't get your hands around the growth management process, and that's what I'm trying
to do here.
And thank you to the staff, and thank you for all your etTorts and for keeping us informed. I'm just trying to
find a way to bring a better process for all of us to get this -- get through this kind of process.
MR. BOSE Understood and I appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Jim, thank you for your analysis. It's unbelievable. You did a heck of a job. I
wish everybody had the time to understand it as well as you have, so thank you.
Before we close, 1 brought up the issue in the beginning of the meeting as the possibility of instituting staff to
come back to us at the EAR with an outline to -- or a draft of what would be considered a mobility element to be
formatted over the next 18 months or whatever it takes after the EAR is done. The mobility element was supported
by many members of the public that were here. I'm assuming -- does this board like that idea as a whole?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mike - -
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Is this separate from transportation?
MR. BOSI: And maybe where I need further clarification, between now and December, you would like a
draft element of a mobility --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, the language that would be needed to enter into the EAR.
MR. BOSI: Oh, policy.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So that it can happen afterwards when you go through the next process of
your follow -up work to the EAR.
MR. BOSE And I guess the concern that I would have is trying to be able to process all the amendments that
are going to be EAR -based amendments on top of developing a mobility element as part of that process of the
EAR -based amendments seems I don't want to say ambitious, but it seems like it could draw the resources and the
attention away from the actual amendments within the FAR -based process to be able to also say oh, we're also going
to introduce a brand new element within the Growth Management Plan and all that entails.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Mike, we're just saying we like the idea, the public likes the idea. There might
be a need for it. We're asking you to evaluate it and do put the language in the EAR that's coming up to give you the
opportunity to evaluate it. If it takes a separate point of time to do it, that's tine.
MR. BOSE Because my perspective and thought was that it was -- in early discussions was the policy would
be developed that Collier County would explore the possibility of developing a mobility option based upon some of
the conclusions and some of the progress that's made within the master mobility plan, within also the other relevant
aspects as discussed during our workshop. A policy such as that that we're going to explore the possibility of
developing that mobility option.
But I didn't -- what I heard coming from the dais was that was going to be as part of the EAR -based
amendments. And 1'mjust -- I'm reluctant to be able to make that type of a commitment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, let me -- I'll try to say it again. We have to put policies in the EAR in
Page 42 of 44
161 43
August 27, 2010
CCPGEAR
areas that we believe the GMP could be further refined to be better. And then you take those policies and you follow
them up, and later on at some point that you can fit it into your schedule.
I think we're suggesting that the idea of a mobility element be entered into that realm of things that we should
be looking at at whenever it's scheduled to do.
MR. BOSI: Understood.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a fair statement?
And did you have any question, Karen? I didn't mean to -- Mike started --
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I just --it's going to be separate from the transportation element.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, yes. It will be a standalone element on its own.
MR. BOSI: Standalone.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think that's -- anybody else have any general comments?
Melissa?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: We were going to look at Policy 3.15 and determine if we were moving it to
the housing or the hnmokalee area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They were going to do that.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that was direction we had given to staff.
She's talking about the economic element where it had the reference to the Immokalee Enterprise Zone and
how to handle --
MR. BOSI: Enterprise, and the impact fee deferral?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And then it was either going to go to the housing element or possibly the
Immokalee Area Master Plan, and you guys were going to come back --
MR. BOSI: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- after your research on that.
Anybody else have anything?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we're done. Nobody's jumping to the podium. Unbelievable. Half the time we
originally were going to go for.
MR. BOSI: Before you convene, Chair, just let me, from a personal perspective and a professional
perspective, extend my thanks and gratitude to the members, and the time and the commitment and the effort and the
energy and everything that's gone onto (sic) the process. We appreciate it.
And we do feel that this detail policy -by- policy review will better the Growth Management Plan in the long
run and this process was worth the effort, and we appreciate your time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mike, I think it goes both ways. Your let's say good bedside manner in this
whole process and the attitude you kept in dealing with us has been exemplary and we thank you for that.
Okay, is there a motion to —
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Another thing. You know, in going through it, there are a lot of policies,
and Jim actually did a great study. There wasn't that many that we real ly changed. So this means that our Growth
Management Plan might be a good one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I think the objective was to do just -- find that out.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think the careful way staff approached it --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We know that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --we're there now.
Okay, Melissa?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Motion to adjourn.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we are -- all in favor, we're adjourned.
Page 43 of 44
161 13
August 27, 2010
CCPC/EAR
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:02
p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
MARK STRAIN, Chairman -�>
These minutes approved by the board on 0 ;Clo as presented _ /or as corrected
Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service,
Page 44 of 44
Ina, by Cherie' R. Nottingham.
16 l m-
p,Fr ED September 16, 2010
oro
z C �
OCT 2 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE FW
eoard0jG WCW 0*"" COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HAWS
Naples, Florida t leflfllfl
September 16, 2010 COW
Coletta ---
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of
Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of
the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
ALSO PRESENT:
Chairman: Mark Strain
Melissa Ahern
Donna Reed -Caron
Diane Ebert
Karen Homiak
Paul Midney
Bob Murray
Brad Schiffer
Heidi Ashton- Cicko, Assistant County Attorney
Nick Casalanguida, Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation
Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager
Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District
rAsc. Corres:
Date:
item #:
Page I 1 —_ . - --
161 43
September 16, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good moming. Welcome to the September 16th meeting of the Collier County
Planning Commission.
If you'll all please rise for Pledge of Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Ms. Caron, would you mind doing the roll call`?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes.
Mr. Eastman?
MR. EASTMAN: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Ahem?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNE.Y: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Caron is here.
Mr. Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ilere.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMLAK: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And Ms. Ebert?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ** *Okay, addenda to the agenda. Any changes anybody know of today?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, we'll move forward.
** *Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is 8:30 in the morning at developmental services room
609. Is that still the plan, Nick or Ray'
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that is the conference room on Horseshoe Drive. So that's where we
will be meeting on Monday morning at 5:30 to review the AUIR, Annual Update and Inventory Report.
Does anybody on this board know if they are not going to make it to that meeting?
COMMISSIONER MLDNEY: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul? Okay. So that means we have a quorum. We'll be good to go.
** *Approval of minutes. We have none.
** *BCC report. Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, the Board of County Commissioners met on September 14th; however, there were no
land use items on that agenda.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ** *Okay. Chairman's report. Really don't have anything.
* * *So let's just move into the consent agenda items.
First item up for consent is PUDZ- 2008 -AR- 14048, Robert E. Williams, the Corkscrew Commercial Center
CPUD.
Okay, we've been distributed two different versions. The first one was in our packet, the second one was by
e -mail.
Nancy, I'm assuming the one that we are looking for approval on is the one by e -mail. I want to make sure
the commission members all have it. Anybody not have it?
You don't have it, Diane?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have it.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, Ms. Ebert didn't receive a copy. Do you have a hard copy you can give to
Page 12
161 l �3
September 16, 2010
her?
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think with those -- all of us that were -- other of us probably have read it. Did
anybody see anything that needs to be corrected?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't know about correction --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- but I offer a couple of thoughts.
Looking at the permitted uses, I've circled number 26, educational plants, number 34, group care facilities,
and number 42, libraries, and just wondered whether that would be realistic at all for that area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is a consent item, so it's not a matter of being realistic, it's a matter of was that
an issue that was brought up during the discussion and was it one of the stipulations to have those removed from the
document. If not, we can't do anything about it on consent. We can only review on consent to make sure it's
consistent with the stipulations that we did from last time.
Is there any inconsistency from the prior stipulations that you see there?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't have a recollection regarding that. And I do have a recollection -- I
thought I brought the issue up, but we didn't go over it much. But that's okay. I doubt seriously they'll build an
educational plant out there anyway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have any issues involving the consent?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a motion for approval?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make that motion, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the motion is for the one that was e- mailed to us that we --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: IT second that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Schiffer, seconded by Mr. Murray.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONERAHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0.
** *Okay, we have two items coming up. I'll read them both for the record, then we'll discuss them together,
because they both are companion items to the other.
The first one is DOA- PL2010 -843. It's 850 NWN, LLC, CG II, LLC, and City Gate Development, Inc. for
the City Gate PUD.
The other one is PUDA- PL2010 -845, same group. Again, it's for the City Gate DRI PUD hearing.
Typically we hear these two things together. One is a development order to amend a D.O. Or actually to
correct the change of DRI. The other is the same change to the PUD. It involves the environmental aspects of the
project.
Before we go into it, it's an older DRI PUD. And I want to make sure from the County Attorney's Office as to
our limitations. This is coming forward as a result of a requirement in the DRI PUD to amend it based on the changes
to the red - cockaded woodpecker habitat. And they went ahead and did an HCP plan, and that plan is what's being
Page 13
161 10
September 16, 2010
submitted for review today as a change to the DRI in the PUD.
Based on that, are we limited to review of that aspect of the change because it was advertised for that, or do
we go outside that?
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yes, Mr. Chair, we are restrained to that particular issue because of the
advertisement. The advertisement dealt only with the conforming — the PUD and DRI to the federal permits.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. I just wanted to make sure we got off on the right track in our
discussion. Because like all the older documents in the county, there's a lot of history.
And with that, disclosures on the part of Planning Conunission? Anybody?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I had met with Mr. Rice and another gentleman involving the project. We went
over some of the historic issues and how we got to where we are today, and we'll be discussing that here at this
meeting. So Mr. Rice, it's all yours.
MR. RICE: Thank you.
THE COURT REPORTER: Do you want to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, one little thing called swearing in.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly swom.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for the reminder, Cherie'.
Okay, sir, go ahead.
MR. RICE: For the record, Roger Rice. I'm an attorney and I represent the applicants, City Gate
Development, LLC, CG 11, LLC and 850 NWN, LLC.
City Gate -- is this -- how do I get mine on the viewer'?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the new ff department. Are you in charge of that too?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not yet, sir.
MR. RICE: 1 thought it was set up. I apologize.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay.
MR. RICE: City Gate is located in the urban area in western Collier County. It is in the northeast quadrant of
1 -75 and Collier Boulevard.
You'll see to the south of City Gate is the White Lake Corporate Park development. To the east is the Collier
County Landfill. To the north is Unit 28 of Golden Gate Estates. To the northeast is that area known as Golden Gate
City. To our west in yellow is the Mike Davis Elementary School. Also in yellow is the Golden Gate High School.
To the southwest of City Gate is Davis Boulevard. South of the interstate is Beck Boulevard, the Cracker Barrel, the
Comfort Inn.
As the staff report outlines, there are two petitions -- excuse me, let me go over this slide first.
The Phase I plat is outlined in blue. That portion of City Gate was platted a few years ago. It is zoned
highway commercial. Lots 15 and 16 have two hotels on them that are open. One is a Springhill Suites, the other is a
Fairfield Inn. Lots three and four have a gas station/convenience store, and lot five is a car wash.
Outlined -- City Gate wraps around the South Collier Regional Water Treatment Plant, which sits on about 26
acres. To the east of the water treatment plant outlined in yellow are our Phase II plat, which was platted earlier this
year and subdivision improvements have started there and are expected to be completed within the next few weeks.
The portion east of the South Collier Regional Water 'treatment Plant is zoned industrial.
As the staff report states, we have two amendments that are before you. The first is to our 1988 PUD. This is
to delete Section 7 entitled Red - Cockaded Woodpecker Management Plan.
The second is for an amendment to the DRI D.O., which is to revise section four, paragraph C, entitled
Off -Site Mitigation and paragraph D entitled Red - Cockaded Woodpecker Management Plan. These changes are
required to conform to our Federal Fish & Wildlife permit and our habitat conservation plan.
Our federal permit was issued by U.S. Fish & Wildlife on .duly 1 st, 2009.
These proposed changes do not affect the land uses approved for, or the amount of development approved for
the City Gate project.
This slide is a history of our consultation with U.S. Fish & Wildlife. My clients acquired the parcel in July of
2003. We first met with U.S. Fish & Wildlife in September, 2003. And you can see that the permit was issued July
Page 14
161 1 �3
September 16, 2010
1 st, 2009.
This lengthy consultation period was due in part because City Gate's Section 10 permit is the first to involve
Florida panther, it is the first in the State of Florida to involve a privately funded wildlife crossing, and it is the first in
Southwest Florida to involve RCW translocations.
This is a copy of our -- the face sheet of our federal permit.
We met with numerous people. The review not only included the Vero Beach office but also involved the
southeast region in Atlanta. It was also reviewed by the commission, a number of people of the Wildlife Commission.
Early on we chose to engage local environmental groups. We met with Nancy Payton and The Conservancy,
Brad Cornell and the Collier Audubon Society in April of 2004. And there were a number of meetings along the way.
Also at the urging of environmental groups, we began our mitigation efforts in 2004. We have had great
success. Of the four — four of the 10 active breeding groups of RC W's in the Picayune State Strand Forest have at
least one breeder that was translocated by RCW -- excuse me, translocated by City Gate. And one of the four active
breeding groups in the North Belle Meade has one breeder that was translocated by City Gate.
We have very little left to do because we began our mitigation efforts in 2004, five years before we got our
permit. We have a couple years left of monitoring. We have our final RCW translocation, which will take place in
November of this year. We have to construct a panther crossing, which we'll tell you a little about in a few moments.
Now, this panther crossing is not near the City Gate project. It is east of Immokalee in an area where there
have been a number of panther traffic mortalities. We have all of our permits in place, we have our funding in place.
We are expecting to start it in early -- excuse me, in November, as soon as the dry season starts, and we'll have that
completed in early 2011.
And we have our Final donation of our mitigation parcels in the Picayune, a process that's been started and we
expect to complete it in early 2011.
City Gate has already incurred over $2.5 million in mitigation costs. We have 1.2 left for a total of over $3.7
million. That does not include soft costs, like attorneys fees.
We do have a short presentation by our RCW expert. Following that, he and I will be available to answer any
questions.
We also have present here to answer any questions another attorney for City Gate, Donald Pickworth. We
have two members from Davidson Engineering that could also answer any of your questions.
Roy DeLotelle has been a wildlife consultant in Florida for over 25 years. He's authored numerous RCW
management monitoring plans for many properties, private and state owned. Roy was a member of the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife's RCW recovery team. Roy lives in Gainesville but has played a significant part in the conservation efforts
for RCWs in Western Collier County since 1999.
In addition to his consulting work, Roy has been conducting red - cockaded woodpecker research for many
years, publishing his findings in peer - reviewjoumals and symposium proceedings. fie has been published over 25
times. Now, what makes that incredible is that Roy spends a vast amount of his time in the woods establishing
artificial recruitment clusters, actively participating in RCW translocations and monitoring RCW's.
And in his last slide, this is Roy a few years ago in the Picayune Strand State Forest. He's translocating an
RCW, a subadult RCW to an artificial cavity that he placed in a tree. And you can kind of get an idea of how high he
is in that photograph.
Now, at that time he made this claim, and this is, I'm quoting him, he says that he is the oldest RCW guy still
climbing trees.
So if you will, Roy.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, were you swom in earlier?
MR. DeLOTELLE: No, I wasn't.
(Speaker was duly swom.)
MR. DeLOTELLF: Well, like Roger said, I'm the oldest guy still climbing cavity trees, but I don't know if
that's a good distinction or not. But I have a lot of help from other people to do the stuff, put in the inserts and the
younger guys.
But anyway, we started the HCP for City Gate, we started that process in '03. And as Roger says, a big
component of that is moving birds around.
And I'm trying to figure this out a second. Okay.
Page 15
161 1��
September 16, 20 10
And as most people probably know, City Gate, the orange on this photo or yellowish orange in the comer
there at the Alligator Alley and 951 in this photograph depicts a lot of the historic RCW clusters that occurred around
951 and throughout, most of which are gone today.
All right, why did the original management plan need to be changed? Methodologies, technologies have all
changed since the early Nineties and such when essentially all we were doing was preserving habitat on -site, you
know, and trying to manage it a little bit and really waiting for the birds to be extirpated there and move on.
City Gate is not located in an ideal position to do that. All of the birds that surrounded them had disappeared
over the intervening years by the time we got to looking at it in '01
Doesn't seem to want to move.
You know, they were disappearing in Western Collier County and they were disappearing all over the county
except for the birds that were on the Big Cypress National Preserve. All the birds that were immediately west of 951,
and in the Picayune we had four groups down there, three of them were males only and one of them was a female
when I started back in '99.
So we -- when I came in, you know, and got involved both in Picayune and at City Gate, one of the things
that I was suggesting that we do is translocate RCW subadults and that we build clusters of artificial cavities, and we
put four of them in what's called recruitment cluster and, you know, we would move two birds in there as subadults
and hopeful they would stay and become breeding groups.
And since 1998 we've moved well over 500 birds throughout the southeast, and over 200 of those have been
donated to Florida.
Now, more specifically, there are approximately 24 small populations of RCW's in the Central South Florida
Recovery Unit. And since 2000 when we really first started doing these techniques, the number of breeding groups
has increased from 264 to well over 300 in that intervening nine years.
And Picayune and the little population here was part of that increase. We increased from no breeding groups
in the south and presently we have 10 groups, two of which are on the mitigation lands on Picayune that City Gate is
supporting.
Eventually, you know, it would have resulted in a net loss of RCW's if we continued with the management on
City Gate. And we've already replaced it with two new groups in the Picayune.
And this is a no net loss philosophy that the Fish & Wildlife Service is operating under presently. The
success ratio is about one to two, one loss being replaced by two new groups throughout the Southeast United States
where the red - cockaded woodpecker occurs. You know, winch is essentially from East Texas to Florida up to Virginia
and does -- well, it does include Kentucky, although most of those birds have disappeared.
Management activities for RCW's which includes burning and reducing midstory and such is good for all of
our endangered -- South Florida endangered species, you know, fox squirrels, panthers, gopher tortoises, you know,
creates that open environment, grassy ground cover, which is good, in addition to a number of game species, such as
white tailed deer and turkey.
Here's a picture of some of the habitat conditions that occur both in the North Picayune, occur up in North
Belle Meade on some of the lands up there that have RCW's. And there's actually a cavity tree in that picture way in
the background, but it's surrounded by cabbage palm, holly, melaleuca and a lot of things in the midstory.
And this is a typical situation that we see after we've been able to work where the cavity trees are to reduce
that midstory, create those open conditions that RCW's's prefer. And now, you know, RCW's do better in this habitat
because it's -- it doesn't provide so much cover for predators, such as hawks and things that will eat birds, in particular
small birds like red - cockaded woodpeckers.
In addition to manually removing some of that midstory and also mechanically, long -term the best way to
control understory and create the ground cover conditions that support RCW's's is regular controlled fires. And this is
part -- that was part of the area that we're burning, that City Gate's been burning out on the Picayune. And in this
particular stand there's been two fires, one in 1 think '07 or'08 and then the more recent. These were controlled bums
that we go out and create the fire lanes and such, make sure the fire's restricted, get the permits, and then come in and
do a bum, a cool bum that bums up the ground cover vegetation in a sense that it reduces it, it doesn't kill it, and
doesn't kill the pines so that the pines are left there, because that's where the RCW's are foraging is on the ball and the
canopy of the tree.
Here's what we've been working with -- or I've been working with the last 10 years. You see the green dots
Page 16
161 1 0�
September 16, 2010
are occupied clusters of cavity trees with RCW's in it. And we have 10, eight in the south and then two up in the north
part of Picayune. And then there's some North Belle Meade birds, you know, the birds up in Nancy Payton's preserve,
I've been working with those birds the last couple of years with county people. And then there's some birds on Hussy,
and then the Rocco, as we call it, is the cluster sort of in between -- there you go -- in between the Payton preserve
birds and the Hussy birds. Potentially, you know, that will be donated to some state program; we're trying to figure
out which one of them.
And here's just an example of the federal permit that City Gate has to acquire from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service regarding the HCP and the incidental take permit. The permit is split into two documents: The habitat
conservation plans, which is essentially the plan proposed by clients such as City Gate; then the incidental take permit
or the ITP, as they call it, is the Fish & Wildlife Service document. They take the HCP, incorporate requirements
from it or importing procedures, and the general concepts of things to be done, such as fire, putting in cavities and so
on. But anyway, we've -- City Gate's obtained that permit.
Just to give you an example, since 2004, this is a list of the birds that we've translocated either to North
Picayune, and one year we moved some birds down to the south too, and have had recently good success. I think we
have birds throughout the different populations that have been translocated as a result of City Gate's efforts.
So, you know, an important thing here to remember is City Gate started this work well before, and with the
approval of the Fish & Wildlife -- before the permit was actually obtained so that a large portion of the requirements
have already been met.
And here's a good example of a picture Jeremy took, he's a good photographer, of an RCW sitting at a cavity
tree. And that's an artificial or insert box that he's perched on. And as you can see, they're armor plated. You know,
the PVC pipe keeps the redbelly woodpeckers from enlarging the hole, which makes it unacceptable to the RCW and
often creates conditions to allow water to drain in there.
And then the wire mesh is on there to keep the pileateds from hammering out the holes; pileated
woodpeckers, the largest ones. And this wood is redwood and it's fairly soft.
So anyway, here's a screen. And actually, there is an RCW that we've translocated that's inside that hole.
And this is what you do: You bring them in, get them from like Apalachicola or Withlacoochie State Forest. This
year we're going to Ft. Stewart up in Savannah, Georgia to get our birds. And we move them.
This is a young male that we're banding. You can see the red in the corner of the white cheek patch. And all
males have that. And the females don't. And we're putting some bands on him.
So four of the 10 breeding groups in Picayune have birds that we've translocated. The breeders from City
Gate have been translocated. Two of their active groups in the Picayune were in the north part of the Picayune.
And, you know, we generally were ending up with birds -- which from a genetic perspective is a good thing,
because with small populations it's possible that you get genetic bottlenecks and stuff, and we've got birds from a
variety of places in the population.
Some of the things that I have to do. You know, annual reports in terms of monitoring efforts we have to turn
into the Fish & Wildlife Service.
We're going to conduct a final translocation right before Thanksgiving of this year for Picayune, the North
Mitigation Picayune for City Gate, and, you know, we'll get the birds up at Ft. Stewart, we'll come in there in the
evening and the birds will be handed off, and then we'll probably hold them all the next day and feed them. And that
evening or late afternoon we'll put them in the cavities and then come by in the morning and pull that screen off so
they can fly out and meet each other and join up, although it's not quite that simple.
In addition, you know, we have to finalize, you know, constructing the wildlife crossing for the panther, and
the donation of the Picayune mitigation parcel.
Just a general map showing the location of City Gate, which you all know.
MR. RICE: No, that's the wildlife crossing.
MR. DeLOTELLE: Was that the wildlife crossing? I'm sorry.
And here's a map showing some of the panther data that's been collected over the years with a dispersal
corridor where the wildlife crossing will go.
And some of the permits, you know, Swiftmud, Collier County, such for the wildlife crossing. So there's
been a lot of negotiation there.
I don't think that's me up that tree. It's someone. You know, we usually go up about 20 feet and put the birds
Page 17
161 1��
September 16, 2010
in these cavities, keep them out of the range of fire and stuff.
And so, questions?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions? Paul?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I notice that only I think it's 102 acres are going to be in perpetual
management easement. How are you going to keep the habitat good for the rest of the area where you're translocating
the birds?
MR. DeLOTELLE: Well, you know, the Picayune State Forest has a regular fire program and a control
program to reduce exotics, to manage the forest from a fire protection, and so -- and there's some monies that are
being donated to Picayune to do that sort of stuff.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll probably have some when we get done with the public discussion.
Staff report first.
Thank you, sir, very thorough report. Appreciate it.
Mr. Rice, could you tell us that gentleman's name for the record.
MR. RICE: Roy DeLotelle. I'll provide you with a card.
MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, Kay Deselem, Principal Planner with "Zoning.
And you have a staff report for both projects. You have one for the amendment to the DRI and the resolution
that goes with that. And then you also have the staff report for the PUD amendment and the ordinance that goes with
that.
Staff is recommending approval of both. You have findings of fact to support the PUD recommendation.
And we are recommending that it be found consistent with the Growth Management Plan and then approval of that, as
well as approval of the D.O. amendment for the DRI.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Kay.
Does anybody have any questions of staff before we go to public -- Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, Kay, can this HCP be changed or modified?
MS. DESELEM: In the future it can, but it would take the same process, it would take public hearings to
amend it.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It would?
MS. DESELEM: That's my understanding.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And -- but that was my question, because we are crossing out, in -- this would
be the PUD amendment, we're crossing out all the language in there that says that we have -- it should go before a
public hearing.
MS. DESELEM: I understand what you're saying, I'm sorry, I misspoke. What it is, they're taking the
requirements out of the PUD document where it had what was required at the time to now recognize the management
plan that's been accepted by the federal and state regulatory agencies.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. But what I asked you was can that HCP plan that's been approved right
now be changed in the future.
MS. DESELEM: Yes, my understanding it would be in compliance with the federal and state regulations.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, but -- so we are passing along any comments that the county may have
on this strictly to the state and the fed.
MS. DESELEM: I think --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right now we have -- that's why we're here today is it's in here specifically that
the county has to review this. And we are going to give up that right.
MS. DESELEM: That's my understanding, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Why would we want to do that?
MS. DESELEM: Basically because the federal and state regulations are the ones that control it. And we're
not going to be going against what they're recommending and requiring anyway. So it's just another layer of
approvals that they have to go through that's seemingly unnecessary.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But that's as of today this minute. We're talking about in the future. And as
Page 18
161 1 e
September 16, 2010
you know, Collier County has every right to make their rules and regulations stronger and more strict than either the
state or the federal. So why would we give up the potential? I mean, we probably will never use that right ever again,
but why would we strike it out here? I don't understand. I mean, I understand they want us to strike it out, but I don't
understand the benefit to the county.
Heidi?
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: You're still going to have the reference to the permit in the DRI. And it refers to a
permit and specific dates under subsection C. So if that permit is changed, the way I'm reading this is that this DRI
would have to be amended to reference the new permit.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. That's the way you interpret --
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: So it's taken out of the PUD. Yes, and I don't know if Mr. Rice or Mr. Pickworth
would want to comment, but that's how I'm reading it.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I'd like it on the record that everybody agrees that that's the intent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go that far in relationship to that, Kay, the whole purpose of this HCP is
to move the woodpeckers from the City Gate property to other areas for mitigation. Is that what has occurred or
what's occurring?
MS. DESELEM: That's a correct assessment, in my opinion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's not going to be any woodpeckers on this property, right?
MS. DESELEM: That's my understanding, correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the whole thing is moot. Whether it's in the DRI PUD or not doesn't
really matter, because the birds are being physically moved and there's going to be industrial buildings put up in their
place.
MS. DESELEM: I think that's a correct assessment.
In reality, we are taking it out of the PUD, but it does stay in the DRI, as Ms. Ashton spoke. It's on Page 3 of
9 in the DRI development order.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Anybody else have any questions of staff?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a small one. I think I know the answer.
Kay, this doesn't affect their master development plan at all?
MS. DESELEM: No, sir, it does not.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go to public speakers, any other questions?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Just one more.
Kay, in all of the revision language here, it talks about -- it refers to it as strictly the Red - cockaded
Woodpecker Management Plan, whereas the actual management plan is for red - cockaded woodpeckers and Florida
panthers. Should we not refer to the whole — should we not include --
MS. DESELEM: My understanding, it dealt with the RCW's's. But let me look at it. I'm not certain, let me
look at it and see.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, we just talked about panther crossings, so --I mean, the title of their plan
says that it's a Red - cockaded Woodpecker and Florida Panther Plan. So just to be specific and to be correct, I think
we would use the full title of the plan.
MS. DESELEM: I see no problem with that. It's probably more correct, like you say.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, Ray, any public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered to speak.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any member of the public like to speak? If so, just come up and use the
microphone.
Ms. Payton first and the gentlemen second. Were you both swom in? Ms. Payton, you were? Sir? Okay.
MS. PAYTON: Good morning. Nancy Payton, representing the Florida Wildlife Federation.
And I'djust like to speak briefly in support of the proposals that are before you today. We've worked closely
Page 19
September 16,
with City Gate and their consultants in addressing a number of concerns, and they were very responsive. And this is
really a big gain for wildlife when you think about their mitigation obligations under the original approvals, that
panthers have been added. There's a wildlife crossing that's being built on a road that I don't know how else we would
have gotten a crossing there, because it's a road that's not slated for any improvement, there was no nexus for any sort
of public monies, it's an area that have had significant panther kills, it is an area that panthers travel as they're going
north as we're trying to grow the population.
It set the precedent as to the justification of why wildlife crossings are appropriate mitigation in certain
circumstances. Because if you have females and young females being killed on the road, it really is a blow to
expanding the population and its range.
What wasn't mentioned, which really wasn't directly a part of the habitat conservation plan, but I would like
to mention it, that City Gate was a major contributor to the University of Florida and University of Central Florida's
Eastern Collier Wildlife Movement Study that determined through a scientific process over a year on the ground
review as to where appropriate places are for animal crossings, including panthers, and the type of crossing that might
be appropriate. So they have made significant contributions to the protection and recovery of red - cockaded
woodpeckers and Florida panthers. In fact, they found a county property that was occupied by RCW's's and part of
their mitigation was to improve that property for those birds.
So I think they deserve a pat on the back for working so closely with conservation groups, hearing our
concems and addressing them and really stepping up and going beyond the minimum for protecting and restoring our
wildlife habitat. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Nancy.
Sir, do you want to use one of the mics? You need to state your name for the record, please.
MR. GIOFRIDA: Philip Giof ida. I'm a resident of Collier County. I live across from the water plant where
the woodpeckers been removed and set out into the Estates.
What people don't realize is that area -- I've lived there for 30 years, and we had eagles sitting on pine trees
along the canal bank. And apparently Southwest Florida Management District, Big Cypress Basin, decided to clean
our canal bank, strip it to nothing. Absolutely took every tree out. These people have been trying to get their permits
since what, '04?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 2003, 1 believe.
MR. GIOFRfDA: 2003. I've got pictures here when they first started the desecration of the canal bank.
My property. I own 25 feet vegetation and the trees were right to the canal bank. And all of a sudden they
started ripping them out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the "they ", sir, you're referring to South Florida Water Management District?
MR. GIOFRIDA: Apparently. But it was City Gate's property. And somebody had to approve this. The
county allowed them to come on our property, rip out all our trees, no permits, no permission, no forewarning,
nothing.
We finally stopped -- my neighbors and I finally stopped the destruction of all the palm trees and everything
along the canal bank only five years later to come back and take out everything. And this was a few months ago.
I found out at the board meeting at Big Cypress Basin apparently that time of the year is when they've got to
spend their money and they decided to spend the money by raping the canal bank up and down the street, 39th and --
along with building a new weir, which we were not uninformed (sic) of.
The county has no say. I could not find one person in the county, just could not refer me to anybody but Mr.
Tears, who is doing all the destruction.
I talked to Matt Hudson, one of our representatives from the state, because apparently that's the only way you
can talk to Big Cypress Basin. And he gave me a little drawing of how the canal bank is going to be designed. I have
it here with me. And it shows that -- I'm in the construction business and have been. I'm a semiretired contractor.
And every project I've made or done or dealt with, I've had to keep -- the water that's on your property stays on your
property.
1 have a little cross- section design here that shows it stabilized roadway rolling the water into my property
through a buffer zone and on into the canal. And if I have to do it on all my projects, I don't understand why City Gate
and/or whoever's doing this, the city or -- because the water plant is there. So the county has a certain stake in it. The
state overrides apparently the county. And now I'm understanding the federal is the one that created all the
Page I10
161 10
September 16, 2010
woodpecker transformation (sic).
I used to be able to sit at my back table and watch an eagle occasionally fish the canal. Now it's all I've got is
water plant. They're going to put up south -- Big Cypress Basin said they're going to put a buffer zone in. Well, that
buffer zone, I'll be dead before it's big enough to hide the water plant that's behind me.
My property values keep plummeting, and they keep doing more destruction. I would have thought that they
would have let some of that vegetation along the canal bank and maybe some of the birds would have stayed. I mean,
anybody that's ever driven to Everglades City, on your way down you see telephone poles. The only place they've got
to perch, they're there. So had they left some of this vegetation, maybe we could have had it. But they were allowed to
rip it out. Nobody said a word to them. County said nothing.
I'm hereto say something. Ijust want to know how I have to play by the rules and the county does not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's a question a lot of us ask ourselves living in this county, sir. I don't
know how to help you with an answer on that, so -- I appreciate your expressing your concerns to us, but on this issue
we're really -- our hands are tied on review today to limit it to the environmental aspects of the habitat conservation
plan.
MR. GIOFRIDA: Well, the vegetation is already down. And I just want to know what procedure can I tell
my -- tell people that -- how to stop this. The county has no say. And I don't know why we're even here. If the state
and federal government are going to do whatever they want, why are these people wasting their time with you?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator of the Growth
Management Division.
This item came up a while back. It is BCB clearing in their easement is the predominant reason you're here, I
believe, sir. And we've discussed that with Clarence. We have no control over what they do within that 20 -foot strip.
MR. GIOFRIDA: Why aren't they at this meeting? Did they have anything to do with --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, sir, this meeting is -- honestly, this meeting is not about that issue. That's what
I asked the County Attorney at the beginning of the meeting --
MR. GIOFRIDA: It's about woodpeckers that were on my property and were on the vegetation that was
there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And the testimony is the woodpeckers have been moved and relocated, and
they've done all the mitigation required by federal and state permitting to do just what they've done.
The issue you have is not one of the issues being discussed today. It is part of an older DRI that started in
1988. The terms and conditions of that DRI is what this gentleman has to adhere to. He will be doing that when he
puts his buffer up and he puts other things up as he progresses into the project. He's not that far along.
What has occurred on his property is not his doing. It is a 50 -foot drainage easement that I have the plat of
right here, and it is off your property. It is on his property. He didn't do it. But because that easement is there, the
agency had a right to do it. And that's what I think Mr. Casalanguida is trying to express, is it was out of the county's
hands. That's the Big Cypress Basin's ability to put their access road in and put their lines in. That's something they
did. We have no control over it at this point, at least at this meeting.
So as much as I understand your concern, I don't know what we could do to help you here today.
MR. GIOFRIDA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN S'T'RAIN: "Thank you.
Any other members of the public wishing to speak on this issue?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the applicant wish to have any final comments before we close the public
hearing?
Yes, sir.
MR. RICE: The answer is no.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The answer is no. Why you're sitting there, I assumed that.
I do have a question for you, Mr. Rice. I've read your ADA, your DRI, your PUD, the amendments, your
CDD, your bond applications and the settlements that you've had in getting your DRI and the other settlements with
the county, and there are three of them.
In that process, how much impact fee -- how many dollars in impact fees approximately are you obligated to
Page III
September 16, 210 03
or have you already paid? I know you advanced some impact fees to the county.
MR. RICE: A little over six and a half million dollars, I believe, has been paid. The total for Phase I was in
the neighborhood of 4.5. In January of this year we paid a little over $2 million.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And according to your ADA, the construction employment to be generated
from the duration of your project is 4,460. I'm assuming your ADA at the time was accurate.
MR. RICE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And according to the permanent employment that you're supposed to generate from
your project, the number of people to be permanently employed over the duration is 4,865. So you're going to be
employing in one manner or form over 9,000 people, and you've contributed six and a half million so far in impact
fees and 3.7 million in mitigation.
Are you going to be asking any taxpayers money for any assistance here?
MR. RICE: Chair, we have spent the last six or seven years permitting the project. We knew when we
acquired the project that it had issues with red - cockaded woodpeckers.
During that time period we put on hold, if you will, our marketing and plans for the ultimate development of
the property.
So the answer is we're today finalizing or coming to an end of our wildlife issues. And after today, then we
can focus on where exactly we're going and whether or not we would be seeking some public money.
But you are absolutely correct, to date we have not solicited one dime.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I -- it's quite a bit of money and Collier County has benefited from your
facilities so far, and that's commendable that we were able to get the impact fees up -front Tike we have.
And also your work on the HCP. I haven't seen many do as much as you have.
The only remaining issue, and I'd like to ask this, for you to do voluntarily when you leave here is that at
some point get together with Mr. Giofrida and see if you can show ltim the landscape buffers and provisions you're
going to be actually placing along that north edge. They're not part of today's meeting but I know they're part of your
DR] and they're part of your PUD requirements. And maybe that will give the neighborhood a little bit higher level of
comfort that something is going to be addressed in that north end.
So if you wouldn't mind doing that, I would certainly appreciate it from this board.
MR. RICE: We commit to that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any other questions of anybody regarding this matter?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll close the public hearing.
Is there any discussion before a motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What we've got to do is take a motion on each item one at a time. The DOA first,
the PUDA second.
Does anybody wish to make a motion?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it, Mark
I move we forward with a recommendation of approval DOA- PL2010 -843.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: 1 second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ebert seconded.
Is there any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONERAHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONFRHOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
Page J12
161 1 t3
September 16, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0.
Is there a motion on the PUDA?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it again.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move we forward with a recommendation of approval
PUDA- PL2010 -845.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray seconded.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion again carries 8 -0.
Thank you all very much. And I certainly hope that you can make some headway with Mr. Giofrida and the
neighbors to the north, it would solve another problem. So thank you.
Okay, that brings us to the end of advertised public hearings.
* * *Is there any old business?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ** *Any new business?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're moving fast. Cherie's going to have not enough to type up here today.
** *Public comment items?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, is there a motion to adjourn?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ahem made the motion, seconded by?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Motion carries, 8 -0. Thank you all very much.
Page 113
September 1 16.21 03
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair
at 9:26 a.m.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
MARK STRAI N, Chairman
" /
These minutes approved by the board on as presented -je—lor as corrected
Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham.
Page 114
RECENED
OCT 2 7 2010
Boerd d CO MW CWAWWMM
TRANSCRIPT OF THE AUIR MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida
September 20, 2010
161 1tj
September 20, 2010
AUIR
RdS
Halal
Herrin
e V
Coma Z—
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of
Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION at 2800 Horseshoe
Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
ALSO PRESENT:
Mark Strain, Chairman (Absent)
Melissa Ahern
Donna Reed - Caron, Acting Chairwoman
Diane Ebert
Karen Hom ak
Paul Midney (Absent)
Bob Murray
Brad Schiffer
Mike Bosi, Community Planning Manager
Heidi Ashton- Cicko, Assistant County Attorney
Nick Casalanguida, Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation
Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District
Page 1 of 64
�risc ;orres;
G.fe:
161 1p
September 20, 2010
AUIR
MR. BOSE Chair, you have a live mic.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Good morning, and welcome to the September 20th, AUIR special meeting for
the Collier County Planning Commission.
Commissioner Strain had some personal business that he had to take care of today, so he will not be with us.
Mr. Midney was also going to be absent.
I don't know about Ms. Homiak, she may be coming shortly. I don't remember the other day whether she said
she was going to be here or not. But we do have a quorum, so we will get started, and we'll start by pledge of
allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: All right, let's turn the meeting over to start with to Mr. Bosi.
MR. BOSE Thank you, Chair. Good morning, Planning Commissioners.
Today we are going to have the AUIR/CIE, a special meeting adoption hearing.
There is one issue that I have to relay to the Planning Commission members. It's related to the advertising for
the Capital Improvement Element, the amendment. That advertising did not make the Naples Daily News. The
advertising for the AUIR did. So we cannot take action on the CIE amendment.
What staffs suggestion will be is we can take our appropriate action upon the AUIR. The CIE we will
present to you when we bring the AUIR back for the consent agenda on October 21 st and we will have our advertised
public hearing for the CIE.
And it does provide one benefit: There was a memo that was provided earlier last week by Mr. Casalanguida
related to our transportation impact fees and potential action, reduction, to those transportation impact fees by the
board at next Tuesday's board meeting.
If the board takes an action to reduce the impact fees, they anticipated 42 percent, well, that will correspond
into a reduction within the revenue available for transportation in their five -year capital improvement projects.
Because of that one project, or -- it will be affected by the projects that will be put forward. So the CIE that
you (sic) will be presented to you oil the 21 st of October will be different more than likely than the CIE that's
contained within your books. So you'll be taking action upon the CIE that the board will be taking action upon in
their November meeting, so that works out well.
The agenda is on the overhead. We're going to start with an overview of the AUIR process by myself, a
quick kind of tutorial, and then we're going to go to the two department fire districts and then down the line through
our traditional with transportation and then drainage and the category A and then the category B facilities.
One of the things that I passed out to each one of the planting commissioners was a sheet that really -- that
talks about the AUIR component, what the expansion of that system was based upon and what the levels of service
that expansion is based upon.
Transportation and drainage are unique commodities within the AUIR/CIE world. They -- population is not
the basis of their improvements.
(At which time, Commissioner Homiak enters the boardroom.)
MR. 130SI: Transportation actually used traffic counts, the volumes, the ratio of volumes to the system
capacities within individual roads.
Drainage is more on terms of the base -- the information contained within the basin studies to be able to
determine what's appropriate in terns of water quantity and water quality in terms of moving through the system.
The rest of your components are population based. Population are the triggers that calls for the new
improvements.
A good example I always utilize is libraries. Libraries says we have .33 square feet per capita of library space.
That's what the county, the advisory boards and the Board of County Commissioners has said what is appropriate for
this county, and it's .33 square feet per capita.
So over a five -year period, if we're expecting 10,000 new people to come, we have to add 330 square feet of
library space to satisfy that level of service. And that is how we -- that is the program, that is the equation that
determines what's appropriate for the new facilities that are going to come on board.
If I could call your attention towards Page 6 within the staff report, and it talks about population. And as I
was describing, population is one of the key components, one of the key factors, really, it's the driver for where our
new improvements are going to come, at what level.
Page 2 of 64
1 September 20, 2010 p
AUIR
And on Page 6 you can see back in 2005 when the environment, the business climate and the demand for
units was much different. The five -year growth percentage, we were estimating almost 25 percent. In 2006 it was 31
percent expectation of increase within a five -year period.
Obviously macro and micro conditions have changed drastically since then, whereas if you looked just last
year it was only a 7.1 percent population increase for the five -year period.
This year, 2010 was the first year in the past three years where they've actually -- where the University of
Florida's Bureau of Economic and Business Research -- and let me clarify, that is the official -- that is the official
entity that is to provide per state statutes to the county and our Growth Management Plan the population numbers that
we're to utilize.
And the Board of County Commissioners within the Growth Management Plan has designated that we're
going to utilize the BEBR numbers, the University of Florida Business and Economic Research, but we're also going
to utilize a seasonal adjustment. And when you see within the books, you'll see reference to a permanent population,
but you'll also see reference to a peak season population. And all that peak season population is is 20 percent above
our permanent. And that's to count for the fluctuations that we experienced over the seasonal months.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: How is that calculated?
MR. BOSI: It's straight -- the permanent population and the permanent population projections that we're
provided from BEBR, it's just times 1.2. And that --
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Right, but where do you come up with 20 percent?
MR. BOSI: Oh, that was an effort that was arrived upon by the county and the Department of Community
Affairs three years ago. The way that we had done -- the way that we had estimated our peak season, we had a
weighted population average, and we tried to expect what was our -- what was the number of seasonal units that were
available, what was the number of short-tern units that were available, trying to get a better handle upon okay, what
each month, December, January, February and March, what was the number of people that were coming for each one
of those months, based upon those occupancy and vacancy rates.
We found that it was -- that trying to track that and trying to keep an accurate number wasn't providing as
successful as we would have liked. So we decided with the Department of Com munity Affairs to arrive upon just a
20 percent above our permanent population as the appropriate number for our seasonal population demands.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: So that's across the board? It doesn't take into consideration different areas,
where it's obvious your Estates area may not have as much of a peak so you're not --
MR. BOSI: No, no --
COMMISSIONER AHERN: -- going to need a higher level of service?
MR. BOSI: -- and it doesn't. And it doesn't. And the reason why it is, is not -- and we don't think about it as
segmented in terms of we don't deliver our service. We don't have a different level of service for the Estates residents,
for our park lands compared to, say, the urbanized area. We all enjoy 2.9 acres per 1,000 level of service standard.
So we don't distinguish between difference in levels of service standards between geographic area. So we
only try to estimate. That 20 percent is really also trying to capture what is the demands, the extra demands that are
placed upon each one of these systems by the seasonal population. So we don't try to distinguish between geographic
areas when we go forward with that.
And based upon that -- and based upon, you know, this much slower rate of population increases, we have
found ourselves within a system where the majority of the categories, the majority of the category A facilities and the
majority of the category B facilities that are contained within the AUIR /CIE book that was presented to the CCPC
members, there's really no improvements that are being suggested. The levels of service standards are adequately
meeting the demands against the population projections.
Drainage and transportation really are the two components where there's -- there are projects that are being
put forward based upon the demands, based upon the completion of prior projects.
Another thing that l need to offer distinguishing about it is when I mentioned your category A versus your
category B facilities. Your category A facilities are drainage, roads, your public utilities, schools and parks. Those
are the systems that are accompanied and contained within by your Capital Improvement Element. Those are the ones
that the State of Florida wants to make sure that each jurisdiction, that Collier County and every other county is
maintaining whatever the levels of service that they've deemed appropriate, the state wants to make sure that those are
being maintained at the level that we've expressed. And if we're not -- if we're not attaining those individual levels,
Page 3 of 64
Septemb1r 20, 2010 p
AUIR
then there's certain actions and certain remedies that are associated with it. But we are meeting those.
On your category B facilities, your category B facilities are jails, law enforcement, government buildings,
libraries, your dependent lire districts, those are locally regulated. I mean, locally determined and locally enforced.
The state doesn't ask to see your Capital Improvement Element related to those facilities. So those are only dealt with
within the AUIR.
And they also have a relationship to our impact fees, because the impact fees that we charge for those
categories, we can't let the levels of service fall below what we're charging newcomers to say that we say we're going
to provide for them.
So those are the two distinctions that are contained within the book. And as you'll notice, it is segmented into
a category A and a category B facilities.
That would conclude my remarks in terms of just the general overview of the AUIR, other than a reiteration.
From reviewing the improvements that are contained, you'll see that there's not a lot. There's not a lot of
improvements that are being suggested because we're meeting the levels of service based upon the population.
And I had mentioned, this was the first year that BFBR had thought that we're going to maybe experience a
little bit greater of a population increase for the next five years. While that's encouraging, I'm not sure anyone within
this room is ready to say that, you know, that that 15 to IS to 19, 20 percent population increases over a five or
10 -year period is just right around the corner. Those conditions are still going to have to be played out.
As time goes by, as other leading indicators provide a little bit more clues as to what's going on within the
local but also within the national and the global economy maybe we'll be able to make better determinations and put
more confidence within these numbers. But at this time I think it's premature to say that we've got a departure from
what we've seen in the last couple of years. I think we're going to allow ourselves to continue to look at the needs,
look at the needs within the individual systems, try to identify what are the greatest beneficial next new projects for
each one of our systems, so when that demand does become -- or is realized again, that the projects that we're going to
put forward will be the most efficient and will be the best use of the public expenditures to be able to satisfy and
expand the systems and reach the individual users of those systems.
And with that, I would offer any questions that the commission may have before we get into --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have it question.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Thanks, Mike.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I just want to get something perfectly clear. In your -- on Page 6 and
when you look at the chart, the BEBR estimate is not the peak or is the peak'?
MR. BOSE The BEBR estimate, those -- that is permanent, permanent population.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So the peak would be 400,320.
MR. BOSI: Correct, correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Just want to be sure we all work from the same number.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Melissa?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: When are we going to have the new revised BEBR numbers based on the 2010
census?
MR. BOSh 'The-- it will not be until next spring. That's when the 13EBR --every year the BEBR numbers
come out, the preliminary numbers come out at the end of February. The official numbers come out right around the
beginning of April.
The expectation with the U.S. census, the 20 -- this annual census, is next -- early spring, late winter.
February/March, is when we're going to start getting information from the Census Bureau.
I do know that BEBR and the census have a working relationship. So the numbers that will be provided next
year from BEBR will have been influenced by the work of the census.
And the reason why, and I think that Melissa has asked the question is because one of the most impacting
things I believe that's going to be contained in next year's population numbers, and you may see even a reduction from
what we have this year, and it's all related to the vacancy rate. And what we -- what these numbers have not done an
adequate job of capturing is the true vacancy rate that's out there, just because of the limitations in the way that the
system works.
With the limitation in the vacancy rates that are going to be detemmined from the census work of this year will
Page 4 of 64
161 1p
September 20, 2010
AUIR
be influenced upon next year. So next year you'll see a more, a truer -- I think a truer reflection upon what the
permanent and our peak season populations will be.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: We talked a lot about that last year, about trying to capture that
vacancy situation. And I know that everybody here is trying to do the best that they can in order to come up with a
solid number. And obviously we'll know more with the census for sure.
Couple of things just for housekeeping. I guess we actually should for the record call the roll. And so let me
do that right now before we get too far off track.
Ms. Ahem?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Here.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON:
Ms. Ebert?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Here.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON:
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON:
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON:
Ms. Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON:
And Mr. Eastman --
MR. EASTMAN: Ilere.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: -- and Ms. Caron are all here. And Mr. Midney and Mr. Strain are
absent. So we're all set for that.
And go ahead, Mike.
MR. BOSI: Oh, yeah, one last thing that I probably should have -- I mean, I needed to include this within my
opening remark, ask that for each section that's presented, at the end of each section if the commission could provide a
recommendation upon that individual section, which will be provided to you for your consent agenda review on the
21 st of October, but will also be forwarded along to the Board of County Commissioners for the November 10th
meeting for the AUIR/CIE.
So for each -- after each presentation for each one of the sections of the AUIR, we ask for a specific
recommendation from the Planning Commission.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Thank you.
We'll move along and get the chiefs up here so that they can --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Donna? Donna?
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: -- get back to work.
Go ahead --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I still have a question in the executive summary.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: -- Brad. Yeah, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Page 6 below the population stuff, second to the last paragraph, you're
discussing a concept there. And then that last sentence which you say what is noteworthy. What you're saying is that
we do have an actual use that's much less than the demand we figured with impact fees and in our level of service
because of vacancies. But now when those come back on -line they're going to cause trouble, because there's no
additional revenue. Shouldn't --
MR. BOSI: It's not going to cause trouble. What it's going to cause is it's going to be an issue with
perception. Because the demand -- there's excess slack within the system. And the individuals who are living in
Collier County are enjoying a level of service that's provided that's meant for a population that's not here yet, or that's
not here yet because of vacancy, because of empty units.
What it's saying, and it's really related to your -- for the most part related to your transportation
improvements. You're going to see when those vacant rate houses till up, all of a sudden you're going to see the
pressure within the transportation system increase a bit. But there won't be relief in terms of new impact fees coming
on to be able to provide excess capacity, because that excess capacity has already been built within the system.
And what all that's saying is we're enjoying a system that is built for a population that is above what our
current population levels are right now.
Page 5 of 64
161 1
September 20, 2010 J
AUIR
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think, you know, the way it's worded, it says here: No capital
improvements will be allocated to satisfy additional demand.
It's not really an additional demand. I mean, we -- in impact fees we get into this, the demand is a number
and the use could be much less.
MR. BOSI: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or maybe much more.
So the point is I really think that it's not demand that's being placed on the system, it's as the use starts to
equal what the demand was designed for. So it appears as if you're looking for or there would be the need for more
money, and there's not. Is there?
MR. BOSI: And maybe the -- I should exchange the --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The word demand.
MR. BOSI: -- demand to utilization.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I would flunk that would make it --
MR. BOSE And I'll note that and I'll make sure that's noted within the executive summary and update the
staff report to clarify that is, it's really the utilization of the individual systems that will change and not the demand.
Because one of the things, and it's inherent with the way that we do capital improvement progranuning, it's
population based, but they're all tied to dwelling units. And when you've got potentially 25 percent of your dwelling
units or 20 percent of your dwelling units that right now are unoccupied, you've got a system that's built to
accommodate all those dwelling units that are on board, but all those dwelling units aren't exerting pressure on the
system. And that's really where we're trying to -- we were trying to point out.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I'm just saying, get rid of that word demand, because in the impact
fee argument there are people that argue that the demand's higher than reality. And you don't want to get caught in an
argument in that sentence. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mike?
MR. BOSh Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You've got to think of it too is a container that's maybe three - quarters full,
you know, the collector and the other, the major roads are D and F. So there's a lot of opportunity to fill that
container, so to speak. So 1 agree completely.
MR. BOSI: Well, acknowledging that. And I'll make note within the executive summary as well, and
provide an update to the staff report related to that individual statement.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Okay, any other questions before we -- on the first section of the
report before we move on?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Did you have a question, Ms. Homiak?
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well let me --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: --just to make sure 1 understand.
Prior to that, and I think the page or so before that, you discuss that the impact fee has a level of service that it
tries to achieve. That's the demand service. And we're not allowed to go below that with actual level of service; is
that correct? So is the level of service shown in all these elements the impact fee level of service?
MR. BOSI: No. No, there are many instances where the level of service that are contained within our books
are higher than what is contained within our impact fees. You can never -- you can't charge people in -- related to
your impact fees, you can't charge people for a level of service above what we're currently providing. Because that
would be asking a new person to add to our system.
The basis and the equity portion -- and equity is the basis of impact fees -- the equity portion of the concept of
impact fees are you're a new pers -- you're a new entity, you're a new family coming to our community, you're going
to exert pressure upon the school system, your going to exert pressure upon the road system, you're going to exert
pressure upon the library, the park system, all the things that accompany an individual household.
We're not going to ask you to improve our system by your contribution of your impact fees, but your
contribution of your impact fees are meant to keep that scales balanced, that you're going to come to our community,
Page 6 of 64
161 i6�
September 20, 2010
AUIR
you're going to pay your fair share to allow for that system to remain balanced, to remain as it was as you came here.
And that's really that concept of relationship between impact fees and levels of service.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And so because we never are told what the impact service is, we can
assume that every level of service in this book is greater than or equal to the impact fee level of service?
MR. BOSI: You most certainly can. If we ever had a case where the impact fees were higher than our levels
of service, Ms. Patterson would definitely raise the issue with us.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. Thank you again.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: I was just going to say, Amy Patterson is sitting right there. I think --
** *Okay, let's get the chiefs up here so that we can get them out of here. This should be relatively painless.
Chief Rodriguez?
CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Good morning. Emilio Rodriguez, Chief, Isles of Capris Fire Rescue.
This morning I have our AUIR to present, and basically it's the same as last year. We have no capital
improvements for this year as well. So I'm here to answer any questions that the board may have.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Anybody have any questions for the chief?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No change.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: No change.
Somebody want to make a motion -- I'm sorry, Melissa?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Ijust have one.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Go ahead.
CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: You're showing a need for an additional station. Looking at the radius
provided on the map, have you looked at other areas where maybe you could move the existing stations instead of
adding an additional one to cover the radius?
CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: No, ma'am. It's not cost beneficial to move our existing station. If we move that
station per the ordinance, we would lose that land. It's deeded for a way that we're not allowed to sell it.
And where we're located now, we are able to run our marine operations because of where our boat is located.
So it's the best area to have our main station.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Thanks.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move we forward the 2010 Isle of Capri AUIR as shown on the summary
form.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second.
ACTING CHARWOMAN CARON: All right, all in favor?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHIEF McGLAUGHLIN: ** *Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. For the record, Allen McLaughlin,
Chief, Ochopee Fire Control District.
And our AUIR has not changed either since last year, so I'm here to answer any questions.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Anybody have any questions for the chief?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: These are the easy ones. We love getting these out of the way early.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Go ahead.
Page 7 of 64
16 1p September 1 0, 2010
AUIR
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: --that we move the 2010 AUIR Ochopee Fire Control as shown on the
summary form.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Okay, all in favor?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Thanks, Chief.
** *Okay, now we're back to Noma. Now we'll go to transportation.
MR. FEDER: You say that with such enthusiasm.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: I know. We love you, Norm.
Go ahead, the floor is all yours.
MR. FEDER: Okay. First of all, I'm going to give you a brief background and then we'll go page by page
and see what questions you have, or issues.
I'm going to concentrate obviously on the AUIR component, but it's tied very directly into the CIE, which is
going to change basically, based on next board meeting we're going to be reviewing the transportation impact fee.
There's two parts that I want to make clear. What you see in here in the way of cost and numbers are
basically structured based on current estimates, not on the impact fee itself. 'The impact fee, the only place you see it
is up at the top when it talks about our level of service and unit cost. But that is not used in our CIE and our work
program and other items. They are current costs.
But we are looking at going to the board on the 28th. Right now the formula appears to be doing a couple of
things. First of all, we're going to look to take the utility portion out of die transportation impact fee. That amounts to
about 10 percent of our impact fee. That was put in previously with the idea that growth pays for growth and that at
least in like kind replacement the utilities are being moved basically -- in this case the county public utility was being
moved -- based on the construction project and therefore should be an impact fee item therefore in the transportation
impact fee.
As we move most of our work program further out to the east, that is no longer the case as we're not
providing utilities in those areas, and we're recommending that that 10 percent portion be taken out and that utility
address it either in their user fee or their impact fee as is appropriate, and we're working with them. Obviously with a
much slower program it should be lesser dollar, but we're working through those particulars with them.
So that's about a 10 percent reduction. That will be in our Phase 11 is what we're recommending to the board,
to come further in January. When you have a reduction, you implement it immediately.
The other portion of that, because of reductions in cost, components, and we did a full credit and cost
analysis, is going to amount to, with all items, about 32 percent. So that will be the initial reduction, 32, followed up
by a Phase 11, which will remove the utilities about another 10 percent. That's where we are right now in
methodology going to the board.
There is of course the Chambers issue of 50 percent reduction, so that's going to play out. So I'm going to
give you sort of a feel for how that will change the CIE. But as was noted, that's going to be addressed after the board
takes the action and we know where our impact fees are. But I'll refer to that as we go through.
Starting off on Page 17, what I need to make you aware of in the way of background, as I said, is the fact that
basically ad valorem has been taken out of the transportation capital program. The only ad valorem you have is a
portion, not all, of the debt service, which was for the backlog, i f you remember. ]'fiat was for the two bond issues that
went forward for the gas tax bonding. Then there was an additional about 10 million that got reduced a little bit in the
last couple of years, but basically 10 million and above that was used for the rest of the backlog.
When 1 came here in 2000, we had about a $278 million backlog. About 210 million of that was handled by
Page 8 of 64
l6! l�
September 20, 2010
AUIR
the two bondings. All of that additional money that was covering the rest of that backlog equation, as well as some of
it that was helping to replace the gas tax loss of about 14.8 million a year, is now removed in the way of ad valorem,
about 13 something is retained. And I'll show you that as we go through.
So there is no ad valorem now in the transportation capital program. There is of course in the operations and
maintenance, and even that's been reduced, because I've had to use some of the gas tax as well to cover some of the
debt service in the capital program.
Going into that, that's shown on Page 17. We've got a balanced program, if you will. Total of 268,728. As
you go down that, and we're going to hit it later, but the impact fees is assumed at 67 -5, and that is likely to be
reduced somewhere in the vicinity of one -Hurd or greater, as you know.
In the case of that 10 percent on Phase II, when you take the utilities out and you take the dollars out, it takes
out the cost of projects, so that should be a wash. So it fires the major impact to deliver your projects is that initial 32
percent or what it turns out to be by the board.
Are there any questions on Page 17 that someone would like me to address'?
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Any questions?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let me ask a dumb question.
You speak about ad valorem not being represented in there, but the general fund, where does that come from?
MR. FEDER: That is ad valorem. That's property taxes ad valorem.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. So I misheard you then, you said you didn't have any ad valorem
taxes this year.
MR. FEDER: What you have is only the 13 of the 14 -8 to cover debt service from the backlog previously,
which couldn't be funded with impact fees. So that figure that you see in ad valorem there of general fund of 68,675,
you look at that, that's a little over 13 million a year, covering the debt service of about 14.8. The rest of it's covered
by gas tax.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, thank you.
MR. FEDER: Any other questions on 17?
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Anybody else have any other questions?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Norm, our lane miles, is that still an appropriate figure for your lane
miles?
MR. FEDER: No. That figure that you have there, the 6,255,000 is what is going to get changed with the
upcoming impact fee.
And again, we use that as we've done in every AUIR. My note was we didn't use that lane mile cost as a way
to develop the projects in the CIE because we use current cost. And that figure will come down approximately, as I
said, a third to a half for the next cycle, depending upon the action by the board.
Page 18 just reflects what we just saw in 17. The pie is getting smaller and the ad valorem portion is reduced.
The grant portion is the only one that's sort of going up. You look at it, the first one, our impact fees, if you look at
the various years, has come down dramatically and continuing to fall off. Gas taxes are basically a step down, based
on more fuel efficiency or the fleet. So it's a step down each year.
Our general fund, major hit this year. To balance the budget this cycle it was major -- it was predominantly
on transportation capital program. As I said, all the ad valorem other than a portion of the debt service taken out of
the program. We contributed everything in '10 as well as in 'l l to most of that reduction that you had in the budget
the last cycle.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Your grant funding, while it's up as a percent of your total budget is
actually down in terms of real dollars.
MR. FEDER: Yeah, it's actually down just a little bit, as you see from the prior year, couple of the grants.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Ijust wanted to make a note of the difference.
MR. FEDER: We're in'10, and so it's down a little bit, yes.
But the good news is grants is helping to cover some, if you look over the trend --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question.
MR. FEDER: -- but is just down a little bit, you're correct.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Mr. Murray?
Page 9 of 64
161 1
��
September 20, 2010
AUIR
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In looking at that chart, for the period 2009 through'13, do you really
believe you can collect 40 million a year'?
MR. FEDER: Excuse me?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. For the period 2009 throughout'13 --
MR. FEDER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- do you really believe you can collect $40 million a year?
MR. FEDER: On?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On the impact fees.
MR. FEDER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Really?
MR. FEDER: Yeah, because we brought it down. If you remember, our impact fees -- and I think I showed
you a table not too long ago --we were up at 67 million three years. And it has comedown, our dollars we had in
there. If we maintain the current formula, we're fairly comfortable with that 12 and a half and then about 15 out, and
being a little bit conservative in the outer years, we think. So that 67 mullion, 67 -5, we think is a reasonable projection
based on what we've seen with our impact fees. Thcy have come down dramatically, obviously as you see by even
that bar chart there.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. But the 32 percent reduction would be based on new fees or
retroactively?
MR. FEDER: If you take a look at the projection of what we're collecting, 12 and a half, 15 million, you take
it off of there.
Now, it wouldn't be just a reduction in the impact fee. And that's something that we're going to discuss with
you. Because if you take out the impact fee, as t hit my work program on the following page, you're going to end up
then losing some of your grant funding as well.
So in the case if I lose what looks like would be -- and I'm a little bit ahead of what I thought we'd hit page by
page. But if I call your attention to -- let's just jump over there, since it's been raised -- Page 22, and we'll go back for
any questions you have.
As you can see, the -- this is the CIE or the work program that propagates the CIE on the following pages.
Basically our capital program is down at $87 million total over live years. Of that, 67 -5 is impact fees. The basic
balance from that pretty much is grants.
As you look at it, you only have two construction projects in the five years, and you have two right -of -way
acquisition projects. 'The right -of -way acquisition projects have previously and even in this scenario, which is going
to change, based on what happens with the impact fee, has already been reduced significantly. The two right -of -ways
are opportunity to make people whole that come forward, not aggressive acquisition.
And then the two construction projects, both of which have grant money tied to them. And so if we end up
moving one of them out of the program, which is probably the 951 from Golden Gate Boulevard down to Green, then
I lose eight mullion of TRIP funds as well.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I wondered about that, because that was one of them that you recited
as being a candidate. Just trying to square it --
MR. FEDER: Actually, if you look at the program here, just to give you a frame of reference, again you can
look at it, it's 87 million of cost, 15, 21, 30, and then 11, okay?
If I'm going to take out of my -- and then going down on your revenues, 12 -5, 15 of cost, if take out
one -third you can pretty easily sec I have to address it year by year and balance year by year. So then I'm taking out
effectively about five million a year.
So then if you go back up top here, what would you do? You definitely would take your right -of -way phases
in the early years and either defer them or delete them. But that still doesn't get you there. Once you get out to -- that
might hold you the construction on 41/951 by taking out in the right -of -way, but then you're still forced to take out
that construction in the year'14 on Collier Boulevard.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We are permitted to extend on construction projects, are we not?
MR. FEDER: You can extend a construction project. This is one that in 2011 is a projected deficiency, as
you'll see when we go through on the AUIR portion.
Yes, of course you can move out, but then you've got some issues. If I move that out, one, since it's a
Page 10 of 64
161 1 b3
September 20, 2010
AUIR
projected deficiency in'11, based on putting invested trips, as well as existing, then I'm not meeting it by'l 1, but I
have a plan to get to it in '13 under this scenario.
With the reduction of about a third, let's say, or maybe half of the impact fees, then if I move that out of the
program, the construction, and move the right -of -way significantly out, which I'd have to do as well, if I was able to
keep all the right -of -way, then I am outside the five -year time frame. Then the question is from DCA, am I meeting
my concurrency or are they trying to force us into a long -term concurrency process. And that only DCA can tell us.
I know they understand economic times, but they've also been very desirous of moving us into a long -term
concurrency.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I see your juggling act. I understand it.
MR. FEDER: Okay. Let me go back. I think that answers your question. So as we reduce our impact fee,
it's going to have significant impact not only on the impact fee portion, obviously, but also on our grants portion, if we
can maintain it. Going --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Let's go back to 19 and pick it up.
MR. FEDER: Yeah, Page 19.
On Page 19 what you're relating to is basically the information. Again, our level of service is on the 250th
highest hour. To Commissioner Schiffer's issues, I think he had valid points he was making, but it's a little less
applicable to transportation in the sense that we're not based on population. We're doing it on the basis of actual trips
out there and vested trips to the system. So I'll sort of hit on that a little bit as we go through.
As you go in here, the demand -- the real issue, and we tried to highlight this the last few years, we built 240
additional lane miles, added quite a few signals. A lot of people didn't realize that our maintenance budget was
probably too low when I came in 2000. Hasn't appreciably gone up. But it was basically shadowed, if you will, by a
very, very aggressive construction program. When it was under construction the contractor maintained it. When it
was finished, it was brand new.
But you look at Livingston Road now, as an example, one of the earlier projects done under that aggressive
construction program, it needs in places resurfacing, it needs re- striping and pavement markers. And so that
maintenance is coming due. And our maintenance budget is woefully inaccurate -- under funded.
And so we've been trying to raise this issue there's a life cycle cost to what we're doing. We had a very
aggressive construction program. And while I'm moving a little bit of my gas tax to cover debt service in the capital
program, I'm using all the ad valorem that I do get, other than the debt service, and my gas taxes, which are going
down, as you see in value, to address maintenance.
And our maintenance has gown; our budget has not grown to meet the needs. So we're going to start facing
that.
Plus we only a couple years ago, as you know, put in a bridge program. It was the first that we started getting
reports from the state, who reviews all bridges of deficiency in our bridges. They are safe, nobody's going to fall in on
a bridge, but yet we find that we had five and then we've had another four in the last report that are coming forward to
us that need work and repair.
We set up a bridge program, you'll see it on I think it's Page 22 when we go there. But even there we're
getting pushed hard. So our maintenance issues, because our bridges, some hundred of them -- and that's major
culverts as well as what you think of as a normal bridge -- are over 50 years old, which is basically lifespans of that
product. So we're facing a lot of issues on our maintenance. That's what his --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Norm, I brought this up last year. And while I think your
maintenance issues are a big issue, the life cycle situation, we built our roads to the same standards as they would
build them in Miami or Jacksonville or Tampa. But our roads don't get the same kind of activity that those roads get.
So wouldn't our life cycle naturally be extended beyond what the industry average would be?
MR. FEDER: Yes.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Okay, because --
MR. FEDER: But let me characterize that. Basically the rule of thumb industry standard is about six to eight
years on arterial, about 12 to 15 years on a non - arterial. Our non - arterials are probably more in the 20 range. They
don't have the volume. Now, we do have the sun but we don't have the snow and the heat and that.
Our arterials though are pretty much sitting with industry standards. Those arterials that get that beating, as
you say, for even heavier traffic and the like, same standards, they're probably not meeting the eight years, they're not
Page 1 l of 64
161 1 3
September 20, 2010
AUIR
meeting the six years in some cases over in Miami.
So even the state DOT's resurfacing program, they're finding that they're resurfacing earlier over there.
And yes, we use the same standards, state standards national, and pavement and the like.
So we're getting our six to eight years as a rule of thumb. As I said, look at Livingston, when was it finished,
and look at what's happening to the condition of that. So it's basically within that time frame.
Now, that -- we look at in each instance pavement condition. Some are going to last 10 years, some are going
to last five to get that industry standard rule of thumb. But basically we're sitting in that area.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: But for example, with Livingston, isn't Livingston really a striping
issue, not a resurfacing issue?
MR. FEDER: There's both in there. You don't have what I have on 951 which is natural cracking and base
issues. But you do have -- if you travel down Livingston Road, I recommend that you try to take your right -hand turn
onto Vanderbilt Beach Road. You've got some heaving, you've got some pavement issues that are developing. You
definitely have your striping and your pavement markers, most of which are missing.
But you're getting to the point of maintenance requirement is the point I was trying to make, can 1 last a little
longer without it. But you've got some sections, and then you've got to add intersections where you're going to see it.
So it's mainly where the highest wear and tear, the nature of turn lanes at intersections and your striping and
the like where you need it now.
It's nothing like I'm facing, let's say, on Santa Barbara, north of Golden Gate or 951. But you don't want to
get to that point. You want to be able to do an overlay, not to have to do major reconstruction, which is more costly.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In that regard, just to make the point as clear as possible, you're talking
about an average 40 -year cycle. So I would take that to mean that road A or bridge one, it would not be looked again
at until 40 years.
MR. FEDER: No, we're always doing a pavement condition, the state's doing, and then we follow up if
we've got issues from the state analysis on bridges. So you're always looking at individual facilities and responding as
best we can.
What that's really doing is taking nothing more than -- and it's actually the paving cycle, if you will -- taking
what your lane miles are of arterial and non- arterial, taking what your basic cost is for resurfacing or repaving of an
arterial and a non - arterial, right, factoring out then what you need to have annually, based on an eight and 20 -year
cycle to meet it. And in reality, our budget doesn't do that. My budget would only allow me to do the full system in a
40 -year cycle, not in the cycle that is basically normally required.
But no, you wouldn't address a road and then now come back in 20 years. We're evaluating it every year.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 1 wanted to make that point here, because it's absurd if anybody would think
that we wouldn't Zook at them. It's a totality; it's a bucket.
MR. FEDER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And within that bucket you take those roads and bridges --
MR. FEDER: Yeah, and what that does is tells you is overall you're underfunded, yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But I will say this, though, the -- both you and especially Nick have been
properly complaining about the maintenance dollars that you need. We had a tremendous program for construction,
and we didn't put much in the way of maintenance. And yori ve been trying to make that point. 1 hope you can make
it even clearer because, quite frankly, all the good roads are going to go to hell otherwise. They're really not going to
look very well.
MR. FEDER: I think we're starting to get that point across, and we need to continue to do so. But I think it's
starting to come across. And we'll continue to make that point and make the need known. And we'll — as 1 said, it's
kind of hard to do that in the time of no revenues, if you will. And we'll again do the best we can with it.
And obviously, just to finalize your statement, we're going to address the worst first.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And one last thing, if 1 may, just probably out of curiosity. You're no longer
using Synchro and you now have HIGHPLAN. What does HIGHPLAN give you that Synchro failed you in?
MR. FEDER: Basically we're using a combination of all of them, but HIGHPLAN -- go ahead, Mike.
MR. GREENE: Michael Greene, Transportation Planning.
Page 12 of 64
161 1��
September 20, 2010
AUIR
Synchro is an extremely narrow viewed, very technically oriented and very detailed analysis. Our plan and
level of service planning tools are better apted for the system -wide, the network.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So does that mean that you wouldn't use Synchro at all anymore?
MR. GREENE: No, we still use Synchro, but we use it for narrower research, for smaller sections of the
network.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You've highlighted that you're no longer using Synchro, you're now using
ARTPLAN and HIGHPLAN. And I got the impression that Synchro was going away.
MR. GREENE: No, that's not --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, then probably you should --
MR. GREENE: Synchro is ever evolving.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Probably should qualify that a bit more, I think. Thank you.
MR. FEDER: We'll do that. Again, we use Synchro. It's -- excuse me. Using Synchro --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know the feeling.
MR. FEDER: -- in a specific project -- excuse me, lost my voice.
Okay, Page 20.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wait a minute, don't do that to yourself.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Wait.
MR. FEDER: It will come back.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nick's coming.
MR. FEDER: This voicejust doesn't go away, it comes back, so it's on its way.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Nick's got you some water, Norm.
MR. FEDER: Okay, sorry.
Again, the Synchro is used in defined corridor studies, definitely in operational issues and projects, so you're
much more detailed.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I got it.
MR. FEDER: Page 20 recognizes that actually we've a little bit turned the comer, at least one year, from'08
to '09. We're up two and a half percent in our trips. Not a significant increase. And when you take with the year
before, you still haven't recouped all of the prior losses but you're starting to turn the angle to additional trips.
And then we do recognize the issue of the vacancy rate. And based on Commissioner Schiffer's comments,
in transportation it's a little bit different in the sense of the way we do it. It's not just population and demand. We're
assuming basically that vested trips are coming along as a portion one - seventh over time, and go into the background.
So when we go and do a traffic count, if I'm already three years into, let's say, a project, I assume that those
trips are on there and so I'm not recounting them again. When in reality, if it's a vacancy rate that we're experiencing,
especially like we're experiencing right now, I assume those trips are on the system and therefore the remaining
capacity is available. Without a further review, let alone any additional funding, those trips could very quickly come
onto the system, should we turn around and our vacant units start to get full. So it's a little bit different on
transportation.
But that's the issue that we're trying to raise there, that while we tell you we've got capacity on some of our
segments, that could change very quickly.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Norm, we made a change last year in that you used to remove from
the trip bank after a year anything, and now we don't do that. This past year --
MR. FEDER: That's true.
seen --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: -- we've stopped --
MR. FEDER: We stopped doing that.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: -- and changed that, to more accurately reflect what's going on.
MR. FEDER: That's correct.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: 1 just wondered how that's working and what kind of changes you've
MR. GREENE: It's actually working --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: -- as a result.
MR. GREENE: -- very well. We're still doing field audits. We're not just automatically removing trips from
Page 13 of 64
Sep mber
t 20, 20 ✓ 3
AUIR
the trip bank. When the structure's up, we're waiting until we see some of them be occupied. So we're trying to
balance the trip bank to cover the vacancy.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Yeah. And I thought it was a very important thing. We talked about
it last year, and you guys have done it. And 1 think that's -- I think that was a very good thing to have done. I just --
you know, I hadn't heard anybody comment on it before.
MR. FEDER: No, we appreciate your support in that. And yes, that was our response to this same note.
And we'll continue to look at it. But we just raise it again to make sure you understand that that's an issue out there.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Has it actually -- probably not this year, because I don't think we've
had anything. But it hasn't actually prevented anything from going forward, so it's --
MR. FEDER: No. And we've got some excess capacity out there in locations, as you're going to see. We do
have some spots and that's what we're going to cover right now, which is really the essence of the AUIR.
What you have on the next page is - -just shows you graphically, if you will, that overall statement about a
system -wide two and a half percent with about half of them showing a decrease and about half an increase over time.
Just shows you where the trips are changing.
And you look at it, it's got some interesting factors in it and items. But basically that gives you a feel for
where trips are changing.
Page 22 we talked about something that is the five -year work program, which has been reduced based on
reduced revenue stream. But again, we further addressed, as soon as we get with the board on and they make their
decision on the impact fee level as well.
Yes?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In specific, looking at various programs -- and I realize you have to
moderate, 1 understand that. But what happened to the shoulder safety program? Was that wrapped into another
program?
MR. FEDER: No, we had a very small program on that and we had to pull that out.
This is again the fourth year of major reductions within the program. And we had a very sizeable reduction
in transportation to try and balance the budget this year.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I noted that out on hmuokalee Road going out toward Innnokalee that there
was some shoulder work.
MR. FEDER: Yeah, we've got a LAP project or a project with the state that was doing some shoulder work
out there. And that isn't shown specifically in our programming here, that's a current project under LAP.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, the word safety is in it, and that scares me that it's being reduced. I
understand you have to make decisions.
MR. FEDER: When we do resurface we do try to, where we can, address some of the shoulder needs.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So if I were to make a generalized statement, which would not be
appropriate, but I'll make it anyway, I Zook at intersection safety capacity improvement, and that's up this year, but the
shoulder program is down.
MR. FEDER: The intersection safety capacity is also pulled together. There were two intersection
categories, if you look at last year's. They've been pulled together, they've been kept. It's down a little bit, but not
much.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. All right, 1 just --I was wondering if we were focusing on western
Collier as opposed to some of the outbound roads.
MR. FEDER: No, basically what we're looking at in the urbanized area, you still have some widening
needed on the arterial system, but generally most of it's been done.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would think.
MR. FEDER: The concentration is heavily on operations and maintenance of maintaining the capacity and
efficiency of what we have. Of course the growth issues which are limited pretty much in this program right now
would be in the eastern counties where you're widening the roads still, or proposing to.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Norm, I had a --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Melissa?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: -- question back on Page 20. Sorry.
Page 14 of 64
16 ! 1p
September 20, 2010
AUIR
MR. FEDER: Yes, that's fine. What's your question?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: For developments that were accounted in the trip banks that applied for the
extension under the new legislation, are those starting to fall off if they're not vested --
MR. FEDER: They're not in the background. Because we're doing it based on counts, so we're not doing it
by population or totally by that. You're assuming your background count, and then we're only addressing vested trips
to look at projection of where our deficiency might be in the future.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Right. But as soon as these projects are approved, then you're calculating
those trips, so --
MR. FEDER: Our real -time concurrency -- let Mike get that.
MR. GREENE: Most of the projects that received extensions were in the zoning stage. And we don't put
vested trips into our system at that stage. We wait until they get through that and they're going for their SDP's.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Do you know what percentage you had? I'm just trying to estimate how many
projects may have either paid the first portion and got the three years extension but then if they don't pay the balance
then they lose that right.
So how many projects have either gone back to the bank or are not moving forward that are being added back
into the bank?
MS. GREEN: None of the projects that have been approved and gotten their extensions were removed from
the bank that are being added back in. They're all still in the bank, if they received their approval and they're moving
forward with their payment. If they stopped making their payments and they're withdrawing their status, then we go
through annually and remove those dormant projects.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay. So you're adding the trips back to the bank.
MR. GREENE: Yes, we're allowing that capacity back to the remaining trips.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay, thank you.
MR. FEDER: Not adding it to the bank. That would be --
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Right, right.
MR. FEDER: -- vested trips. So it's actually adding it back in --
COMMISSIONER AHERN: To the --
MR. FEDER: Not having it in the background or in the bank, if you will, yes.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Go ahead, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Norman, on pathways, sidewalk and bike lanes --
MR. FEDER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- what is going on? Because last year we had a nice blend of 500 thou. a
year. This year we're going to spend 25 and then we're going to go next year, spend a lot of money, and then we drop
off. So what's going on with that?
MR. FEDER: What you have is payment in lieu. And we had some state dollars, grant money for pathways.
And so it recognizes both of those and the two years to implement. And then we go into what we have programmed,
and we don't project any -- although we may -- we're going to try to get, but any more funding from the state and with
development down, payment in lieu is down significantly.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But that one year where you're going to do one mill., 460, is that a
particular project you have in mind, or what is --
MR. GREENE: That is in Naples Manor. We did a walkable communities assessment, and we received over
$800,000 in community development block grants. And we leveraged the $500,000 that we already had identified for
a sidewalk project in that community. And we're doing about six sidewalks and intersections and safety upgrades all
right together.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I got it, thanks.
MR. FEDER: So as I said, that's back to the grant that we --
Going on --
COMMISSIONER AHERN: I have one more question. How do you calculate the contingency?
MR. FEDER: Our contingency is meant to provide a portion beyond what you have in your capital program.
Realistically it's the dollars available, and we try to keep about a five percent contingency where we can, but you'll see
the numbers don't provide for that.
Page 15 of 64
1 6 1 ]. 3
September 20, 2010
AUIR
Page 23 is basically --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Norm, don't go on, I have a question.
The transfers, 60171, what are the transfers to other funds? What --
MR. FEDER: Your transfers right here that you're seeing, some of that is staffing and some of it is I.T.,
portion of it is Uf. All of our indirect and direct that we pay internally to other entities in the county.
ACTING Cl IAIRWOMAN CARON: Okay. That figure —
MR. FEDER: We pay to legal, we pay to LT., we pay to others.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN ('ARON: Right.
MR. FEDER: And some staff, yes.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Okay. Good, thank you.
MR. FEDER: On Page 23 is sort of a workup otmuch otwhat you've seen already. It'sjust basically
looking at your revenues, your expenses and your revenues. The debt service is at 14 -6, as you see across. A little
over 13 of that is out of ad valorem; that the only portion of ad valorem in the capital program. The balance of that of
course is by gas tax. And then you see your sources where they're being spent and where they're coming in. And
that's consistent with the numbers you've seen so far, total ot268.
Next pages are basically going through section by section. I'll ask Mike, if you have a question on that.
This is the workup from the realtinic concurrency program. And if you have a question on a segment. I'd be
happy to entertain that.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: '[here's a note on here that says that the trip bank adjusted per revised DCA,
what was it adjusted to or from?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You need to put the uric. so we can hear you.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Sorry.
What was it adjusted to or from?
MR. GREENS: Which 1. 11 — segment f D. are you referring to?
COMMISSIONER Al ERN: 36.2. And 36.1.
MS. GREEN: That segment is actually a state road. And we're required to use the state's level of service,
which is one higher than ours so it allows a lower service volume. So that when you adjust the remaining capacity
and the trip bank per their requirements, you show fewer remaining trips on that segment.
MR. FEDER: We use level of service D and F, the state uses C and D, generally.
Any other questions on Pages 24, 25?
(No response.)
MR. FEDER: The meat of the AUIR is on Page 26. This reviews actually the segments that are either
currently deficient based on current traffic volumes, which as you see is Golden Gate Boulevard. Which
unfortunately if you look at our work program, you see only a portion of the right -of -way within the five years, not
the full right -of -way, nor construction.
Then you have existing deficiencies when you bring in vested trips, not just the actual count on the street
right now, if you will, on the road.
You've got County Barn. Realistically that is being resolved with the six - laning that was recently opened on
Santa Barbara extension. You've got Davis Boulevard and the state route, as well as Collier Boulevard. Both of those
are our projects just about to be let.
And our FYI projects, that because of state issues and permitting got delayed, but are about ready to be let.
And then you've got 41 /1'amiami Trail, which we advanced the PD &E with the state. They've got some
design, but they don't have anything to follow on the state system.
We are however working on the intersection of 951 and 41, which should provide some relief to that segment
failure. But the main line is only two lanes there and it does have some issues and we're working with the state on
that.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Did the DC'A fall apart there?
MR. FEDER: It had three or tour different renditions. ht the final there was a group that held, a smaller
group, and they are providing and they've already provided funding towards our current update of the PD &E, the
project development and environment study, as well as the design work for an at -grade solution that were working on
now.
Page 16 of 64
16 1 1 �3
September 20, 2010
AUIR
So there still is a consortium, it just wasn't a consortium that we first initially had that would have also
addressed main line improvements on 41.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And the decision to keep it at grade was whose?
MR. FEDER: The decision at grade is a funding issue. We are developing, though, the at -grade in a manner
to provide the full footprint for grade separation and to make sure that we have very little if any throw -away, should
we get to that point.
We do have an effort, a Tiger Grant or stimulus funding to try and go grade separated, if we can. But right
now funding -wise we're moving on an at -grade improvement that accommodates the future grade separation.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That gives me confidence, thank you.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Norman, why isn't Old 41 shown as deficient? It says up here that it's
deficient in 2011. It doesn't show here, and it doesn't show on your map.
MR. FEDER: It may be an error.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: 41 and Old 41.
MR. FEDER: Yeah.
Is there a reason for that, Mike?
MR. GREENE: I don't see it -- it was -- Old 41 was nearing deficiency in our previous AUIR, and because of
the reductions in traffic it's no longer listed as a deficient segment.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Okay. Well, somewhere in here it says it's still going to be --
COMMISSIONER AHERN: I.D. 62.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: -- deficient in 2011. I should have marked where it is.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: It's I.D. 62.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Page 24, I.D. 62.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Yeah, 2011.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's an error. That needs to come out.
MR. FEDER: We'll get that corrected. But it -- I know on tape --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Actually, it should still be listed as deficient.
MR. FEDER: But it is now not shown as deficient because the trip issues are going down on it. But yes.
2011, we are showing, as I mentioned, Collier Boulevard, two segments as coming on deficient in 2011. And
again, you've got other issues out.
On Page 27, basically graphically represents what we just went over on 26.
Your current deficiency is the Golden Gate. Your evolving deficiencies are in the orange. County Barn
being taken care of with Santa Barbara. The 951 and Davis by projects we're about to let. And then the other portion
of Davis with a project that the state has programmed and is moving forward on. And then the blue shows the
emerging in'11 deficiencies.
The next pages just shows you two TCMA's. You have the northeast and the central TCMA's. The issue
there is is that you're looking at north/south and cast/west and you're saying do I have a link that may be deficient, but
overall am I at least 85 percent of the north/south's or the east/west's facilities operating well, and that is the case that
shows you the percentages, 90 and 94. You do have the same deficiencies, Davis and that section of Collier shown
here. But overall you're still at 90 percent within that TCMA.
And then you do have the deficiencies on Immokalee Road/Livingston/I -75, which is pretty much gone away
now with the eight - laving. And Vanderbilt Beach Road, Goodlette to Airport, which we do have an in -house
construction project underway now that should provide some relief on that. Because a major portion of that problem
was right at Airport, just west of — excuse me, Vanderbilt, just west of Airport. And that is being widened out to take
advantage of the six - laning further to the east.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Actually, the interesting thing about these charts is that we have more
lane miles within these TCMA's and we are meeting the standard less than we ever have before.
MR. FEDER: Well --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Well, yes. Comparejust last year. If you want to look at the east
central TCMA, we were meeting the standard there 94.5 percent of the time, and now we're down to 90 percent.
If you look at the other TCMA, we were at 96.3 and now we're down to 94 percent. And we've added lane
miles to every single one of those TCMA's, and —
Page 17 of 64
161 1
September 20, 2010
AUIR
MR. FEDER: And we're updating the service volumes. And I think you'll see that in the next cycle, the
service volumes being added in.
Mike?
MR. GREENE: Parallel to this project we've updated the level of service, a service volume for the whole
network based on all these projects that have completed. Those have yet to have been adopted and incorporated into
the TCMA reports. So when we adopt those new service volumes, you'll seethe percentages increase.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: When will that happen?
MR. GREENE: We're hoping to bring that by full vetting in the next couple of months. We want to go to
DSAC and bring it to the Planning Conmussion and the board.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Okay. All right, I'll make a note about that, thanks.
MR. FEDER: Please do.
Page 29. 1, this is recognizing that you have funds that carry forward a role. Of particular note of course arc
the last ones there, which are the projects as I noted on Davis and 951 that are about ready to be let. That's why the
volume there is high in dollars. The other, Santa Barbara /Polly, that figure is being spent out this year and most of it
gone. But this gives you what is rolled in additional dollars that was still available beyond. It's all encumbered except
for the Davis /951, which is about to be.
Page 31.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Norni?
MR. FEDER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Do we know what the level of service on these roads are going to be once
these are complete?
MR. FEDER: We develop to -- we design to a 20 -year level of service C. Our standard is D and E. Do we
know what they'll be? Unfortunately you put in a good facility designed at D and then everybody says I don't know
what happened, it's all consumed now.
Unfortunately you can't build it all at one time. That's designed at C as part of a network of all the
improvements being in one place at one time. So -- if I've answered your question. You design it to get a level of
service C within the network, but as you put in an improvement and people start using it sometimes you see less than
C.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: So we don't know what the excess capacity will be once --
MR. FEDER: Well, that's part of what you're going to get out of this study and when you're done. But do we
have some excess capacity now? Yes. We didn't design for today's traffic, we design for 20 years out. But we didn't
get to do all the improvements is what I'm saying.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay.
MR. FEDER: Page 31 is basically taking what you've seen so far, putting it into the CIE format. There's
nothing really changed in information here.
Again, I've got to bring to your attention the fact that this is likely to change a third, a half, whatever comes
about on the impact fee assessment review with the board. And so that's going to change some of both projects and
revenue stream.
Yes?
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Norm, is that -- is the $200,000 for the Everglades interchange, is that
Collier County money or is that an FDOT?
MR. FEDER: It's county money that we put in in support of monies that we got from federal highway -- I
mean, excuse me, from actually Washington congressional delegation for the last three years I think on that
interchange.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: There's a note down here, a star for -- it says production ready
candidate projects. And then there are a serious of numbers. Only one of those numbers -- I mean, they are tagged
again back to the Everglades interchange, that's where the star is, yet none of those numbers have anything to do with
MR. FEDER: No, those were meant to be tagged to the interchange. What you're looking at is Northbrook,
you're looking at County Barn, ones where I've brought them production ready, or they will be shortly. In this case
they are. But I don't have any construction funding, it's just trying to bring that to your attention. I do have
Page 18 of 64
161 1 p3
September 20, 2010
AUIR
production ready projects that I can't move on at this time.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Okay. But if you're going to note it that way, then you need to tell us
what you're noting. Because right now that asterisk is --
MR. FEDER: We'll move the asterisk.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: -- there at the Everglades. And nothing is mentioned to what those
other projects --
MR. FEDER: Yeah, we'll move that asterisk up to the word project at the very top so you'll understand those
are the ones that are production ready. I agree.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Good, thanks.
MR. FEDER: We'll make that change. Good catch.
Anything else on 31, 32?
(No response.)
MR. FEDER: Okay, that basically sums it up.
What I'm going to tell you is that basically our capital program is pretty much gone away. You've got two
construction projects as it stands now, most likely one.
The difficulty in my mind is where a -- what do I say, we're basically a donor county within a donor state.
And we sought real hard to go get the TRIP funds and seek other grant funds from the state. I hate to lose them. But
if we only have as our revenue stream those grants that we got and impact fees effectively, the impact fees go down
appreciably, then we probably are looking at losing some of that grant funding as well.
We've got a year to try and restructure it. I don't know if things can turn around that rapidly. Prospects are we
probably lose it, along with the reduction in program by the reduction in the impact fee.
And then we still have the maintenance program that is itself underfunded, but we also recognize we're in a
very, very tight funding time. And most of that funding came out of the transportation program, recognizing the fact
that we are in those very, very tight times.
The difficulty I have, and I've told you this before, is we've kind of come to the end of the road, and instead of
blazing a new trail we seem to be going back to the beginning to walk the same road again. And I'll leave it at that.
Any other questions?
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Go ahead.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Just a little housekeeping for you.
If you go back to Page 27, in which is your deficiency map -- for the record, Nick Casalanguida, Deputy
Administrator of the Growth Management Division.
You have now two facilities: Golden (fate Boulevard, which is shown in red, and Collier Boulevard to the
left of that north/south, which is shown in blue as a plan deficiency.
With both of those projects being deferred now through the reduction revenues, we do risk -- and I want to
make sure the Planning Commission understands -- a fining by DCA for noncompliance. If we turn down a
development order in those two areas, that applicant can petition DCA and say the county is not responding in the
five -year plan to those projects, and we could be forced two things: Funded out of general fund or go to a long -term
concurrency plan for those two links. And that's something Mike and I have discussed as a real possibility in the next
year or two. And I wanted you to be aware of that.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's a good bomb to drop.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No developer in Collier would do that.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Oh, no. 'They're already sitting there.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do have a question.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Yeah, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is actually for Mike.
Mike, this is for arterial and collector roads. Are the other roads in the AUIR process at all?
MR. BOSI: No.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So all the other roads --
MR. FEDER: Only what's modeled in your long -range process. So you do have -- and we have very few
collector roads. You do have some collector roads, but your local roads are not in that system. We don't establish a
level of service for a local road.
Page 19 of 64
16 ! 1 h3
September 20, 2010
AU IR
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And we don't put it in a category B or something, wejust --
MR. FEDER: No.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 'Ihey'rejust taken care ofby?
MR. FEDER: Maintenance.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And the funding is mostly --
MR. FEDER: Ad valorem.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: --ad valorem. Okay.
MR. FEDER: When you can, yes.
Any other questions'?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion. Do you want one, Donna'?
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I move we forward the 2010 AUIR for county roads with a
recommendation of approval.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: As shown in the summary form.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I second that --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, Bob?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I withdraw my second -- no.
MR CASALANGUIDA: Okay, well, I just want to make sure that you understand, the memorandum that
Amy and 1 sent to you last week as may be amended by the reduction in fees going to the --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Were not working on the CIE right now.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, it will affect your AUIR documents, too.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: It'll revise them, but --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. So in that memorandum we talked about what we would do, pushing out
Collier and adjusting the right- of-way programs. So as long as --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: So would you ralher us not do an approval on this until the next
meeting?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, you're going to -- no, the documents are going to change.
You can approve them as long as they're -- you're approving them consistent with the memorandum we told
you, the changes we submitted with the memorandum.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: But do we know for sure that those will be the changes that will
happen? What if the commission decides on something else?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: 1 hen it would change.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: All right. So perhaps it is wiser for us not to go forward with the
motion right now and to wait until our next meeting --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It is a recommendation.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: -- and have it all happen together.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But Chair, it is it recommendation only.
MR. BOSL For today's meeting we're going to need a recommendation upon the AUIR portion. And tome
the wording would be based upon -- you would make a recommendation of approval, but based upon the actions of
the Board of County Commissioners related to the impact fee reduction. 'Ihe corresponding project adjustment shall
be made as appropriate.
And then the CIE that you will be presented on the 21 st of October will have all those changes reflected
within it, as deenned appropriate by the Board of County Commissioners.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That will work.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, we'll -- let's just see what that — in other words, based --the only
thing we're missing is based upon the actions of the Board of County Commissioners.
MR. BOSI: The specific level of impact fee reduction will have a corresponding effect --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, it's not wise for a board to make a recommendation based upon a
hypothetical or an open -ended deal.
page 20 of 64
161 1
September 20, 2010
AUIR
So what if we made it like we did based upon today and we amended that when we know what we're talking
about?
MR. BOSI: You can make that amendment as part of the consent agenda review; you canjust make that
minor modification.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Heidi, if we have -- on consent can we make any changes? I mean,
based on --
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Well, it's a little bit unique today because you're approving or making
recommendations on the AUIR, and the CIE is being deferred. So it's not really going to be a consent item, it really
ought to be a regular agenda item.
MR. BOSI: And the CIE will be. And I guess what you're saying is you'd like to -- and I'm not sure how we
would do this.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, we could continue it to the 21st.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Right, it needs to go on a regular agenda item on the 21st.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me change my motion, is that we -- while we are, you know, ready to
forward a recommendation, we will continue this to the 21 st when -- after the BCC meeting. Okay? So it's a
recommendation to continue.
MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah. Because the AUIR is unique to Collier County, where you're primarily
looking at the level of service standard.
And then the CIE is what is statutorily required, and we will need the formal vote for that.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll continue my second but with a brief suggestion.
In other years we've had the CIE afterwards and things will have changed. And we still had made a
recommendation which became moot, so I don't see the difference, quite frankly.
MR. BOSI: That's a valid point.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mike, for clarification, you could adopt a level of service review. That won't
change. The maps that show the deficiencies, those tables in the TCMA, the links specific analysis, none of that will
change, just the financial documents at the front of the AUIR. And the financial documents of the CIE will change.
So you could approve the level of service standards and a snapshot review and then bring back all the documents.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what it is. And I think what you need to do -- what we need to do is
include his memorandum into the AUIR, because you sent it to us, but I didn't see it as being included in the AUIR. If
it is included, then that becomes part of the process.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: But again, as they pointed out, I don't know what the board will go on the 28th, so
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that's true. But at least the predicate for what we would recommend is
where I'm going.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. You could -- again, I'll be clear, if I can, you could adopt a level of service
standard, the concurrency review of all the links and the TCMA maps and all the maps, none of those will change.
What will change would be the fiscal documents. And you're going to get clean fiscal documents when you meet
again in October, because it will be -- so you'll have all those to review again or look at.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't have a problem doing that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why don't we do this. And this isn't the wording of motion, this is just for
discussion. We'll recommend approval as presented today, but we'll also recommend continuance of the final vote,
subject to the financials presented on the 21 st.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could you also include his memorandum into the process, so that it becomes
part of the program?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What's his memorandum is a heads up we're going to be changing stuff,
right? So he doesn't know if the -- the memorandum is hypothetical.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's a plan.
I'll go along with you. I'll --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It maybe.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- second it, but I disagree with that part of it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what's the virtue of having the memorandum and the problem not
Page 21 of 64
r,
161 1 3
September 20, 2010
AUIR
having it?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, in an attempt to answer you, 1 sec the memorandum, as I said, as the
predicate for what the recommendation would be. We're accepting from the recommendation certain potential items.
They will not sustain. So that would be the reason for it.
If it were in the staff report, it would be part of the AUIR. That's all.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it's not.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's not a critical factor. The record reveals it now anyway.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner Murray, I might point out that the footnotes on all your fiscal ones do reflect
the fact that there's a likely change because of board action on the impact fee, which may be your predicate that you're
asking for.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. What I was attempting to do was make the record more complete as
to that.
MR. FEDER: Yeah. And again, not knowing if I'm dealing with a third, a half or something different.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. I seconded it, I did so.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, yeah.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Absolutely. All those in Favor?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Ave.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Cherie' might be, because I'm not sure she under --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Well, for Cherie' we're going to take a break now and give her 15
minutes to catch up.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But are you clear on what the motion was, Cherie'?
THE COURT REPORTER: I'm not sure you actually made a motion.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And then it appears everything after that became a motion, so that
tricked you.
So should we restate the motion, or will you be okay with that?
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Go ahead, restate it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just to be clear. We reviewed the 2010 AUIR and all the supporting data,
and we recommend approval. But we're going to do the final vote subject to the revisions of the fiscal data from the
commission -- you know, the CIE.
MR. BOSE To the October 21 st meeting.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On October 21st.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 'I hat's probably -- the other one probably was clearer.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: And we will take 15 minutes for Cherie' right now.
(Recess.)
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Okay, is everybody all set? Then I guess we are back in business.
** *Norm, the floor is yours again for stornrwater management.
MR. FEDER: 'Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I can be fairly brief on this. Just like with transportation where that $27 million shortfall was addressed,
about 24 mullion, 17 in transportation, about seven of it came out of stormwater between fiscal year'l0, the current,
and'1 I in budgeting. So major portions of the change came out of the transportation and stornwater.
In the case of stormwater, what had been .15 mills, roughly about 12 million a year, going down a little bit as
assessed values went down, was converted to.] mills. And another three million was taken out of fiscal year' 10. So
you see that reflected in the AUIR in front of you.
page 22 of 64
161 1 3
September 20, 2010
AUIR
The AUIR in stormwater is not quite as defined. We've been working towards that with this committee, as
well as our own efforts in doing watershed master planning, developing specific criteria.
Right now what we have is projects that we've done the permitting on, and have been the focus, and ourjob
has been somewhat simplified. What you see in this AUIR is essentially that our funding, other than my monitoring
required on other projects, a little bit in NPDES and a little bit in that planning to try and get to a more solid level of
service analysis system -wide for deficiencies analysis is all on LASIP, which I have until 2015 to complete my
permits. We are looking to try and ask for an extension, because it would be difficult with our current funding to do
that.
Plus we have needs again in maintenance. You don't build these systems and not maintain them. And yet we
have little funding in maintenance and we find that some of the weirs and other issues need to be addressed, and so
we're going to try and see if we can get an extension to that 2015 under a .1 nulls going forward, should that stay.
So that's basically what you're seeing in the AUIR here. There's a little less of the definition of deficient
segments, other than the fact that as you know the concentration has been on Golden Gate triangle. That has been
accomplished by putting in some retention and the pumping. And the tertiary components of that are being addressed
by the CRA to get the water over to that pumping and out.
Gordon River, which we had some other projects, but basically we stopped at the Freedom Park, the old
Water Quality Park. We've added a pump into get some of that waters at the headwaters of the Gordon River and get
it through the park and clean.
So the concentration now is solely on LASIP. But as I said, we've got maintenance issues. We need to try to
find a way within that .1 mill to be able to do that, as well as LASIP. And yet it's very tight, at least estimate -wise, to
finish LASIP by 2015, so we'll seek an extension.
Jerry, anything to add to that?
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Questions? Go ahead.
No one has --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'll have one. And it's really the watershed management plan. How
does the secondary system -- it feeds into that, correct? Or where is the role of the secondary system in the watershed
management?
MR. FEDER: Okay, basically, and I'm going to be simplistic, and then I've got an expert here that I know
knows it very well, so if my simplistic doesn't do it, Brad, please call in the expert.
What I'll tell you is you've got your primary system of canals that are basically how we move water away
from the overall system.
The secondary is bringing it from local or tertiary stormwater management over into that primary system,
again trying to not just drain the swamp flood attenuation, but also water quality, trying to retain it, trying to recharge
the aquifer and address those issues as well.
So basically the way Pd look at it is almost like the road system: The interstate is the primary. All of what
we call arterials the state calls minor arterials and major collectors; the Livingstons, Airports, Pine Ridge examples are
the secondary. And then your local roads, if you will, are the tertiary system.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thanks.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Okay, I have a couple of questions. On Page 37, under 510059, it
talks about transfers, reserves and debt service.
MR. FEDER: Yes.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Are there actually all three of those in there, or is it --
MR. FEDER: It's really only the debts --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: -- chart on 40 says it'sjust debt service.
MR. FEDER: It's just the debt service. That is the purchase of the Freedom Park lands. But there's also
about a million -- there's a million a year that we're getting from Water Management District that effectively covers
that debt service.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Okay. I just think to be clear, you should either create three lines and
put zeros for there are no transfers and there are no reserves, all right? That dollar figure just --
MR. FEDER: We can just label that solely --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: -- relates to debt service --
Page 23 of 64
161 1p
September 20, 2010
AUIR
MR. FEDER: -- as debt service is what you're saying.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Right. So that everybody's clear on what's included in that number.
MR. FEDER: Mike, make sure we make that change. Go straight to debt service, which is all it is.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: And then I guess a question too down here under projects.
Your stormwater master planning, is that the watershed management plans'?
MR. FEDER: No, it is not. That is taking that and developing a methodology, much like transportation, to
identify your deficient segments.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Where are the watershed management plans included here and --
MR. FEDER: They are not.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: -- where are the dollars for that?
MR. FEDER: This is just covering the stormwater activities that are funded under that. I mills. I'll let Nick
talk to you about the watershed master plamung that's being done on the other side of our house.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: "Chen 1 have a question. Your secondary system repairs --
MR. FEDER: Yes.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: -- you have less -- you have fewer dollars slated to that category than
you do for your master plan.
MR. FEDER: Correct.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Is --
MR. FEDER: Not what 1 want to be but that's --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: -- that good planning?
MR. FEDER: That is a necessity to be able to identify where to best spend my dollars. And that's what I'm
trying to do with the master planning.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: So is that a committed consultant fee? Is that why it's --
MR. FEDER: No, it's not a committed consultant fee. That is an ongoing -- a lot of it is actually asset
management right now where we're going through and identifying exactly what we have, what its capacity is.
Remember, we discussed that last time. So a lot of it is what I will call asset management and identification of spot
deficiencies, which we're trying to do maintenance on. As you can see, very few dollars on maintenance.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Well, I mean, everybody knows we need more in the repair and
maintenance. I don't think it takes anybody too brilliant to figure that out. Transfer some dollars and help yourself
out.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And you'll see that change over the five years. The problem we have is you have
an MPO adopted long -range transportation plan which drives your five -year CIE. So you don't have a long -range
stormwater master plan.
One of the problems we have in this county is we're applying for grants and then justifying to one community
why a project is more viable to another community. We always get hit with, well, there was flooding in this area, so
why not work on this project.
So if we have a long -range adopted stormwater master plan, we can kind of take that guesswork out, apply
for the grants and then say this is a board approved reviewed every couple of years adopted master plan.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Yeah, I'm not questioning the need for a master plan, I'm just
questioning where the dollar amounts for that master plan came from.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: 1 can answer, if you want.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: 1 mean, I don't know. You said it wasn't to a consultant to do it.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's to gather and collect data and we'll hopefully get it gone in the next couple of
years. If our goal is, is we get it done in the next two years you're going to see this change over the next AUIR and
CIE and drop way off.
But we set aside a budgeted amount over the next five years to do that. Our goal is to try and get it done early
with less than that dollars. But we thought that was the minimum.
When you do your long -range transportation plan, it's done approximately every five years and it costs about
a million to a million and a half dollars. So you can see we're trying to average it out over a, you know, period of
time. We're going to try and be conservative and piggyback on the watershed management plans, if we can, and then
go right into the long -range stormwater plan. But if we can't, at least we're showing a consistent amount.
Page 24 of 64
161 103
September 20, 2010
AUIR
Hopefully in a year or two you'll see this switch, stormwater plan will be done, the long -range planning will
come off and go into maintenance.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Okay, thanks.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner Caron, to your point, and it's well made, obviously the maintenance dollars are
insufficient. We note that. That's why we're trying to see if we can extend the time frame for implementation of
LASIP. Because right now, very tight. If I can implement LASIP by its permit provisions of 2015, actually last in
2014 being let, if I get an extension of that time frame, the goal would then be to extend out LASIP and to be able to
address more in maintenance issues, which we do have in the system.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: How long are you anticipating extending LASIP?
MR. FEDER: We'll find out what our options are. But usually we've got a five -year and we'd ask for a
five -year extension. We don't know whether we'll, one, be granted that or, two, if all of a sudden I would have so
many more provisions placed on the LASIP that I would want to stay with current schedule under current permit.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Thank you.
Anybody else have any questions?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Quick question. The land for stormwater retention off of roads and stuff, is
that part of the road budget or the --
MR. FEDER: No, that is part of the stormwater. Matter of fact, for instance, Santa Barbara extension, a
portion of that paid for a LASIP canal and project there. That was paid by LASIP, both the land and the construction.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So there is no right -of -way acquisition in here for stormwater?
MR. FEDER: Yeah, there is. And you're just seeing general dollars, but that's both right -of -way phases and
construction and design.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Somebody have a motion?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion that we move the 2010 AUIR for stormwater
management forward with a recommendation of approval.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON:
All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON:
Any opposed?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON:
Okay. ** *And next up is potable water. Or potable --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Potare.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: --as Cormmissioner Strain likes to say.
MR. BEALS: Good morning. For the record, Nathan Beals.
It's potable water.
I'm here to answer any of your questions.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Does anybody have any questions on the potable water'?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: On the first page you've got a note in here, it says that with the increase in
population projections, NERTWP will be reactivated, permitted and constructed. I'm assuming as the new BEBR
numbers come out with the census we're anticipating those to go down, those will be reevaluated?
MR. BEALS: Yes, the northeast plant's reevaluated each year as populations come out.
As early as -- as soon as, what was it, the'06 AUIR, we had projected the northeast water plant last year. So
we've deferred it as populations have decreased.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: It's still out in'27 right now, right?
MR. BEALS: Yes, it's in 2027 currently.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Donna, I have a question.
Page 25 of 64
Sept emben1 2010 3
AUIR
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In your -- and I'm back at the Exhibit A of the CIE. The expansion related
projects, where do you intend to expand?
MR. BEALS: Most of that money -- there's less than half a million in most years. if I'm looking correctly --
is this Page 53?
MR. BOSL Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Four 1 think I'm looking at. But it's on 53 too, yeah.
Well, let me make it easier. Does any of that study need to go into picking up some of the Naples service
areas? In other words, I still have this pet peeve that the people who live in the Naples service area have a lesser
quality of water pressure than the rest of the county. And therefore we shouldn't orphan them. So is any of that
having anything to do with that? That could be yes or no.
MR. BEALS: Tech -- no. Because we don't have anyjurisdiction over those areas. They are outside of our
water service district.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But they are within the county, obviously --
MR. I3EALS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: --and they're not within the city.
MR. BEALS: Correct.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Go ahead, Melissa.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: On Page 44, the previous GPCD's were at 180, and now we've reduced it to
170. Is that accounted for this here? I mean, I'm trying to figure out how the --
MR. BEALS: The last year it was at 170. At the'08 master plan it was at -- I'm sorry, previous to the'08
master plan it was at 185. And through the master plan process we reviewed the level of service and dropped it to
170.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: 170.
MR. BEALS: We have a master plan scheduled for next fiscal year FYI 1, and we'll be looking at those
levels of service again, and we don't have -- it may be going down, it may stay the same.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: So what's this one based on?
MR. BEALS: This is based on the 170 from the'08 master plan.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Anyone else'?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 1 think it's probably silly, but same question in another form that
Commissioner Schiffer asked. Only he wasn't very specific, or perhaps he was. Orangetree, they get kicked out
another four years. Was that a result of an agreement with the Orangetree facility, or --
MR. BEALS: No, the reason for the Orangetree, last year we were going to interconnect it in 2023, and due
to the drop in the population growth in Orangetrec service area. they're able to maintain reliable capacity with their
existing plant until 2027. And at that time we're planning currently to bring on our northeast plant and decommission
theirs.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Now here's one case where capacity is one thing, and that's all good and
well, but I've heard a lot of complaints over the years about the quality of their water, and that was another issue I
thought prompting it.
MR. BEALS: When we take ownership, we will definitely be doing an analysis of water quality and system
reliability to see what needs to be done.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: 1 think that's been an ongoing issue right along.
MR. BEALS: We have a project for Orangetree evaluation as soon as we are able to get in there.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I hear what you're saying. I'm disappointed. I don't live there.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: I think everybody was concerned initially, Mr. Murray, because they
had serious problems out there.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Absolutely.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: And 1 think everybody had hoped we would take it over a lot sooner,
but not to happen.
Okay, do we have a motion? Or does anybody have anymore questions?
Page 26 of 64
lb ! 1 H
September 20, 2010
AUIR
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion that we forward the 2010 AUIR for potable water with a
recommendation of approval.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'm against. And I'm going to be against until somebody starts
studying bringing the whole county to the same level of service.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Okay. All right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The orphaning pan of our county I'm not in favor of, so one against.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: So we have a motion for approval and that motion passes 5 -1. Thank
you.
THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, who was the opposed?
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: One is Mr. Schiffer, the person who made the motion.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He made the motion.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: It's a protest.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just trying to be friendly, that's all.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: It's a protest.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it is serious.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And nobody takes it --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: No, I hear what you're saying.
** *County sewer.
MR. BEALS: For the record, Nathan Beals. I'm here to answer your questions.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Thank you, Nathan.
Questions?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is the CIE going to change this --
MR. BEALS: No, ours will not be changing. We're on track.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So we should probably go over the CIE.
MR. BOSI: No, because we can't take action. We didn't advertise for the CIE.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, that's right, 1 forgot.
MR. BOSE The CIEDC (sic) today will be the CIE that's going to present to you on the 21 st.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Okay, if nobody has any questions, just so long as you keep our
sewers happening, we're happy campers, okay?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion that we forward 2010 AUIR for wastewater system with
a recommendation of approval.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 1 have -- I'll second that, but I do have a question that I'd like to pose.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Oh, thank you. That's why I had asked.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On Page 57, I made a comparison, as we all did undoubtedly, those that had
the books from last year and years prior -- my apologies -- but in the retained and deficit constructed capacity the
numbers changed. Why? And 1 can understand that numbers might change, but why will they change? Just give me
an insight as to why they should change.
MR. BEALS: If you look at the following page on 58, note nine explains how we calculate the minimum and
maximum retained capacities. And it's the change in the required capacity from one year for the minimum and the
change in the required capacity for eight years, which is how long it takes for us to permit, construct, design a new
plant or expansion. And that's where we get the maximum.
Page 27 of 64
16 �3
1 r 20, 2010
AUIR
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So your variable is the eight year'? Which by the way Mr. DeLony said it
was I I years. But okay, that's the variable?
MR. BEALS: Yes. And it's all based basically on the population. And as the population changes, each year
that then creates that minimum and maximum to change and fluctuate, depending on the amount of growth or lack
thereof.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I suppose you could see the issue. We strive to try to figure out what it is
that's being done with regularity and with consistency even, and this makes it very challenging. I see the footnote and
I appreciate the footnote, but it makes it kind of wild.
The differential is not that significant. I guess, but it's just 1 guess what is it, a clean record, is that what it is?
MR. BEALS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. Well, I had seconded the motion. That was my question.
THE COURT REPORTER: I have Ms. Ebert seconding the motion.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I did, yes.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Okay, all in favor'?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER IIOMIAK: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They've got the county covered here.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: All right.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do we have the wastewater level of service for south county, or we did all of
them?
THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, Mr. Murray, I can't hear you real clear.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'rn sorry.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My apologies. I guess I'm talking to myself, almost.
Did we consider this motion to be inclusive of all the wastewater activity?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, that's fine.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: ** *And you get to continue with solid waste.
MR. BEALS: For the record, Nathan Beals, here to answer any of your questions on solid waste.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Does anyone have any questions on solid waste?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question, and it might be for Nathan and it might be for Mike.
Mike, back in the appendix we're starting to outline that we're borrowing from funds that are being set aside
for the new cell at solid waste, right? Isn't that right'? We did it last year. This year we've seen -- as we come up in
especially the category B's -- let me find that page in the back, the list of all the -- somewhere in the back. Hold on.
In the appendix this year you have a list of all the --
MR. BOSI: The financials, the revenues that are coming in? I believe Nathan had just on a side conversation
had mentioned to me --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 211. Page 211 in your book.
MR. BOSI: Is this this year's or last year's?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This is this year's. And it's loans from solid waste, which seemed to be the
balance of last year.
So the concern I have, we don't see payments back to that loan. Well, let me cut to the chase. I don't want
the wastewater department foreclosing and owning the county. So does this mean pays the -- we don't want them to
rule the -- how are the payments? You know, because we are borrowing against it, correct?
MR. BEALS: I spoke with the operations director for public utilities before I actually came this morning.
Page 28 of 64
161 l �
September 20, 2010
AUIR
We loaned the general fund from solid waste -- I'm sorry, I believe it was 4.6 million last year. And we're expecting
about $700,000 payback per year. And so it will take about eight years to pay back.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But we -- even this year we have, I believe, and maybe they'll come
up, we have other departments using that fund to balance their profit and loss statements.
MR. BEALS: Not that I'm aware of
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Then I'll wait till we become aware of it as we go through it.
That's my only question.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Okay, anybody else?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, we don't have to look for it. As we go it's clear in the departments.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I only have a comment.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Goodjob.
MR. BEALS: Thank you. I can't take all the credit, our Solid Waste Director is here. He did do a lot of
good job work too.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We knows we think he does a goodjob.
MR. BOSI: And this will be -- if there's no other questions, there's one comment -- I'm sorry.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Go ahead, you can finish your comment.
MR. BOSI: It was just echoing what Mr. Murray said. If you look on Page 76, if you look at the average
disposal rate in 2001 for this county at 1.32 tons per capacity, and then you look at what we've -- in just nine years, the
reduction, over 50 percent at .52.
And what that means is not only are we throwing away less stuff and burying less stuff and recycling more
things within the spirit of sustainability, but in terms of that pressing issue that was in 2000 and 2001 of how are we
going to replace this landfill, Mr. Rodriguez and his team, through their aggressive recycling programs and their
improvements within the system, has really provided this county a tremendous amount of cushion in terms of
addressing a tough issue. And just in sort of the same spirit of recognition of what Mr. Murray's comments was.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: It definitely has been huge.
To that point I have a question. The new recycling project that you're putting on Goodlette, where are
projects like that accounted for?
MR. BEALS: The AUIR is for the landfill capital projects. And we review those during the budget process
each year for the other non -CIE, non -AUIR portions.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: So that would fall outside of --
MR. BEALS: The landfill capital projects.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: So it's not considered a capital project?
MR. BEALS: I'll let Dan Rodriguez answer that.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning, Planning Commissioners.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Good morning, Dan.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Dan Rodriguez.. Thank you.
They are capital projects, and they're part of our operating budget. We have a capital component of that, so
yes
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Okay, thank you.
Okay, how about a motion?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it. I move we forward the 2010 AUIR county solid waste with a
recommendation of approval.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Aye.
Page 29 of 64
161 1
September 20, 2010
AUIR
Any opposed?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Thank you.
MR. BEALS: Thank you very much.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Very much.
** *And next up is the Collier County school. Mr. Eastman gets to make a presentation. Fantastic. We never
hear from you.
MR. EASTMAN: Yes. The school district has only two capital improvement projects: One is the Bethune
Education Center in Immokalee, and this is the razing of an old building and replacing it with new facilities.
And we also have a large HVAC project at Pine Ridge Middle School.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: What's an HVAC?
MR. EASTMAN: That would be air conditioning and heating.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Thank you.
MR. EASTMAN: Does the Commission have any question?
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Anybody have any questions for Mr. Eastman?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Oh, come on, guys, that was much too short and simple for Mr.
Eastman on his first try.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We could razz him a little bit.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: 1 have a question. How do things like -- there's been some talk about
in conjunction with this proposed biomedical park, or whatever we're calling it these days, that there would be a
science -based charter school started. How does that affect the overall school planning?
MR. EASTMAN: The school district, the public school systems interested in monitoring charter schools
relative to our enrollment projections. And it's possible that we could have a partnership or issue the charter for that
and work with them.
I personally on the facilities side have no knowledge that that's going on or negotiations have begun. But it's
something I could check out for you --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Okay, thank you.
MR. EASTMAN: -- follow up.
ACTING CI AIRWOMAN CARON: Thanks.
Okay, do we have a motion?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move we forward the 2010 AUIR Collier County school capital
improvement plan with a recommendation of approval.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ave.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Aye.
Any opposed?
(No response.)
AC'T'ING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: ** *And we have Mr. Williams up next for County Parks and
Recreation.
MR. WILLIAMS: Good moming. Barry Williams, Parks and Recreation Director. I'm hereto answer your
questions
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Go ahead, Melissa.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Do you want to go page by page'? I'm going to be --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Yeah, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: -- jumping to 97, so --
Page 30 of 64
161 1 63
September 20, 2010
AUIR
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Go ahead. You mayjump ahead.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay. On Page 97, a couple of questions. What's the difference between an
interdepartmental transfer and an intergovernmental partnership?
MR. WILLIAMS: Can you tell me which ones you're referencing on that page?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Let's see. FPL greenway, Isle of Capri, Big Corkscrew and Pepper Ranch.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Top two lines.
MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry?
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Top two lines on that page.
MR. WILLIAMS: I gotcha.
The FPL greenway, the interdepartmental transfer, that is a transfer from the Transportation Department.
They are actually constructing the greenway, the FPL greenways between Davis and Rattlesnake Road. And
intergovernmental, that's an example -- and I think you're referencing the Isle of Capri?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: And Big Corkscrew.
MR. WILLIAMS: And Big Corkscrew.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Oh, no, that's a transfer, I'm sorry. Interdepartmental partnership, Isle of Capri
and Pepper Ranch.
MR. WILLIAMS: Okay, the Isle of Capris, the intergovernmental transfer is between the State of Florida,
Rookery Bay and the Board of County Commissioners. It's where a kayak launch that they are developing right off of
951, we're in discussions with them right now about our maintaining that property once that project's completed.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay. And the — now that one's listed, okay, as partnership.
And the interdepartmental partnership with Pepper Ranch?
MR. WILLIAMS: That is another relationship that we're exploring with Conservation Collier. Conservation
Collier's part of Collier County government, and what we're looking to do is to develop a recreational access, working
with Conservation Collier to develop a trail head for recreational use at that facility.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: And reference -- I guess part of my question in reference to all of these is
where, you know, Pepper Ranch -- Conservation Collier purchased these a year ago for $13,000 an acre and now
we're going to pay them $230,000 an acre. And under Conservation Collier's ordinance, that -- part of that, they are to
provide access for the public.
MR. WILLIAMS: I understand_ And I appreciate that question. I hear this question frequently through these
proceedings.
The $230,000, the unit cost that we've assigned, there would be no transfer of money. We use our impact fee
study that gives us that unit cost; that's the dollar that we usejust to characterize the costs associated with transfer.
There is actually no transfer of funds between us and Conservation Collier. The agreement that we would
have would be to provide our staff to do -- and you mentioned Conservation Collier. They do have that in their
mission to make available for recreational use. What they're looking for, though, with them having a staff of three
people, we have staff sufficient that could provide for the admission into the trail head, taking monies, those type of
things. So that's what our role would be in that.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: So that cost would be covered by Conservation Collier to Parks and Rec?
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, it's part of a negotiation that we're having now. Typically what we will do is if we
provide for a particular recreational use, we'll charge user tees. Typically those user fees offset the operating expense
associated with that activity.
For the most part Parks and Recreation, our user fee are cost recovery. Overall the entire department is about
38 percent, so we would use any revenues that we would have that were coming in to offset our operating expense.
That would be the arrangement that we would have with Conservation Collier.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: And when you say like in this case user fee, you mean to access the facilities?
MR. WILLIAMS: If that were the case. If that were allowed in our agreement with Conservation Collier.
We haven't worked throughout all those details.
If Conservation Collier obviously had a prohibition about charging user fees based on their mission, then that
wouldn't be part of the deal.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay. Yeah, because I think that's part of -- I mean, the taxpayers have
already purchased the land. It seems --
Page 31 of 64
161 1�3
September 20, 2010
AUIR
MR. WILLIAMS: It seems like they should --
COMMISSIONER AHERN: For the taxpayers to have to continue to pay to utilize what they already own --
MR. WILLIAMS: I understand. And I wouldjust offer that, you know, typically there is operating expenses
associated with anything that we do with Parks and Rec, and so those user fees do a good job of offsetting.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: So in none of these cases none of this money is actually transferring, it's just
your -- and that was my -- my point was the 230,000 is based off the impact fee study. And I was trying to figure out
why we're using an arbitrarily -- you know, an arbitrary number that's really not realistic.
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, it's -- 1 guess the one thing I would point out with all these transfers, there is no
exchanging of cash. We aren't paying this dollar amount in order to provide for these transfers.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: So what's the benefit of using that number?
MR. WILLIAMS: I think that -- and Mike, 1 don't know if you can help me as far as how we characterize our
unit cost associated with these transfers, but -- and I think that when you look at the spreadsheet you'll see the value
associated with it. Beyond that Pin not sure that there is --
MR. BOSI: It's strictly for accounting purposes. There's no real monitory transfer.
And think about the utilization when you talk about interdcpartment transfer, and the Pepper Ranch and
Conservation Collier program is a great example of double benefits. Because Conservation Collier was something
that's been twice approved by the voters to preserve environmentally sensitive land that has a mission purpose to
provide that access.
Well, they've gone out and they've identified Pepper Ranch, they've acquired it, and they're going to provide
that access. But they don't have the staffing level to actually maintain those facilities.
Parks and Recreation has the staffing ability to maintain those facilities and they can acquire lands, they can
acquire acreages back into our park system included with our park system between that interdepartmental
arrangement that is established between Conservation Collier and the park system where the rights of the individuals
within this county, the people can utilize the facilities. Parks and Rees will staff it to a specific level. Conservation
Collier makes those lands available. Those lands are not only part of Conservation Collier's inventory, but the portion
that the park system utilizes and maintains can be brought into our acreages so we don't have to double -- we don't
have to have another additional land purchase to increase the acreages in the recreational spaces that are available.
So there's benefits on two different proposes that arc accomplished through that.
MR. WILLIAMS: I think your question was why do we put $230,000 as a value for it.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Right.
MR. WILLIAMS: And we've explained this in the prior years as saying it's a placeholder. It's not used for
any particular purpose. The value that is identified, it is conveyed as far as this transmittal process, but it's not used as
any characterization of the amount that we would pay for the transfer. So it is a distracting number, I realize that.
MR. BOSI: And I'll distract you even more. 'I lie unit cost will be updated based upon the recently (sic)
impact fee studies to be 197,000. But once again, that's a utilization for an accounting purposes (sic). And once the
establishment that there's real (sic) no money that's transferred, those are just numbers to be able to show if there was
a value associated, this is the value that would be associated with that type of action.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: So Mike, you just said, and I was going to ask questions on Page 98
about the new impact fee and the new service standards. What did you just give us as a figure?
MR. BOSI: $197,110 is going to be the -- when the board adopts the parks impact fee study update, that will
be the new unit cost that will be utilized.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: "Thank you.
MR. BOSI: But once again, every acquisition that parks would make, even though there's none suggested
within this five -year program, but that next acquisition of land that parks would go out and acquire, they're not going
to go in with an obligation to pay 197,000, they'll pay whatever the market is bearing.
MR. WILLIAMS: Madam Chair, just as a point too with that number and the documents that you have, we
didn't have that number at the time these were put together. So when you consider this, we would want to bring that
new index number forward with that.
There's a note on Page 94 that references rant costs, $230,000 acres (sic) based on 2009 impact fee study unit
cost will he adjusted prior to the September 20th, CCPC /AUIR special meeting. Unfortunately that didn't occur.
Page 32 of 64
161 to
September 20, 2010
AUIR
Based upon the impact fee update and indexing expects to be finalized mid to late August, 2010, that would be
recharacterized with that new number.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: So when are we going to talk about that number? I mean, when is --
MR. BOSI: You won't. Until the board acts on it, we can't -- and once again, it's a unit placed for an
accounting purpose, and it has no real bearing upon the -- it has no real bearing upon the capital improvements that's
being suggested within these individual sections, it's just trying to put a cost of what is the average cost of the acreage
within the existing inventory.
MR. WILLIAMS: The one point though to make after previous years discussion about this same issue is that
it is indexing downward. I think that was kind of the concern, that that seemed overly inflated. And I know that, you
know, that's been something that we've had discussion in the past about.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Yes, go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. I'm going to return you to Page 90. This will be a question for
you, Barry, and also with you, Mike. Because I established early on that we had -- the population is 400,000,
whatever that number was, 20 percent added, not the 333,600. So I'm looking at the bottom of Page 90, and we see an
unincorporated population of 393,463. And up above we see in bold using the peak season unincorporated population.
Do we have a differential here because I'm missing something?
MR. BOSI: No, this is the one category we're not using county -wide population. This is only unincorporated
population. This doesn't include the population of the municipalities. Therefore, you've got a lower number than the
majority of the categories that use county -wide that includes the populations of those cities. So that's why you see a
discrepancy within the community park, which is different from the regional parks.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This is the -- we did the roads, they don't use population. We did water and
sewer and they are local.
MR. BOSI: They're district.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. We haven't done any others that I know of so far that use --
MR. BOSI: The handout that I provided that I referenced --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, no, what I'm driving at is I don't remember that we have done any
based on population until this time. And I guess I was trying to establish, if the number 393,463 is valid and that's
what we're going to use, that's fine.
MR. BOSI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just wanted to be sure that I understood correctly, because that's why I did
that -- took that issue in the first place.
And that $230,000 is -- we went through this every year that we've done this. And all the persons who are
new are going to get used to something like that. I don't -- the 47, acres I found out why that happened.
And then I note in here in the regional park there we do use the 443,531, which is different than what I had
established this morning as being a population number. I'm just looking for consistency. And I can't find where I put
that. 400,320. And here we have 443,531.
MR. BOSI: Yes. And once again, the one utilizes -- if you look at the sheet, the hand -out that I handed out
this morning, it says regional parks and then it says community parks.
In regional parks you use peak season county -wide. That's the cities and the unincorporated areas of
populations for the entire county.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, Mike, yes, I understand. But if you take 393,600 and you add 20
percent to that, it comes out to be 400,320_
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: He's using the --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You can do the arithmetic --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: -- 29 percent.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: --really quickly.
MR. WILLIAMS: You're looking at community parks at this one?
MR. BOSE You're saying that the --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm only saying what little I know. I'm looking at your chart and the BEBR
estimate for 2010 is 333,600. And as you indicated early on, it's a simple calculation, you take that number and you
multiply it by 1.2.
Page 33 of 64
16 1 1p
September 20, 2010
AUIR
COMMISSIONER AHERN: I think that's taken through the first part of the year. So you have to look at the
other chart, the population chart in the appendix that that includes through October. Because I did those calculations
myself to figure --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, yes, but --
COMMISSIONER AHERN: -- to figure that out.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I want Mike to help me with that on that basis for this reason, that you've
said that we use peak population --
MR. BOSE Yes, we do.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- based on that. Now, that's a two months number, that's the added number,
right?
MR. BOSI: No, it's the 20 percent.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Twenty percent.
And I presume that it's based on that number that's right there, the BEBR estimate, and not on a series of
calculations that modify that estimate.
MR. BOSL And maybe I need to go back to the very beginning -- maybe I need to go back to the very
begituting of the -- this line of questioning, and the establishment that there's a difference between the unincorporated
and the county -wide population, and there's a difference between our October counts and our April counts as to what
your numbers areas to arrive upon your peak season. It's just your --it's your permanent population, whether it beat
April or whether it be at October, times 1.2.
And maybe I'm still amiss, because I'm not sure where the inconsistency may lie.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 1 think the inconsistency for me would be then that you needed to explain
that in your charting. I've read out the outset that for purposes of peak population, choose the months of X and Y.
That's what you're telling me, right?
MR. BOSE Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. That's not reflected here. And that's where I'm coming from.
Because when we get numbers that vary, it does look as though it's not clear, all right? I'm sure there's a great
explanation for it and I'm looking for that. If 443,531 is tine, I'm good. But I just want to be clear.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, a suggestion, because 1 had some confusion too, is if you could
actually put a chart showing county -wide and non county -wide, both permanent and peak, 1 don't think it --
MR. BOSE Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, you can get that in here somewhere, but it's -- and I think the
problem is that if you did a chart, we wouldn't be sitting around playing Mr. Calculator and messing it up, okay?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And from my point of view, when fm reading this stuff and I'm looking at
the prior year and I'm looking at this and I'm trying to do the calculations, I don't have that information clearly. I
might get it later on, that's why my notes are scratched out quite frequently, but in this case 1 didn't get that.
Okay, that was my issue.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Donna, I have a question.
MR. LEFF.BVRE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And based upon that, if you look at the community park area, we -- okay,
I'm sorry, not the community park. If you look at the regional where -- what this is telling us is we're below?
MR. BOSC Correct. We are not meeting the levels of service that we have adopted at 2.9.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And why is -- the regional's based upon the seasonal, the peak population,
correct?
105110.mlj �
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And why isn't the community'?
MR. BOSE It is. It's based on seasonal as well. It just doesn't include the pop -- the difference between --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, got it. Got it.
MR. BOSE -- the two is the cities.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, it's the taking out of the city to -- you know what might be good is if
you could show on this chart, even though it's not our level of service, if you could show a graph line that is the
permanent population. I think that might -- I'd be curious to see how it looks. I mean, are we getting close to
Page 34 of 64
16 ter 20, 2010 "
September
AUIR
compliance on regional, just for the people that live here permanently?
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Actually live here, yeah.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah.
MR. BOSI: I can most certainly add an additional line. And it's just the —
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It doesn't mean anything other than it makes us --
MR. BOSL It would have no bearing other than just to give you the understanding of what the permanent
populations would be based upon.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, there's enough regional park for us. It's not enough regional park for
us plus them.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know we've had this conversations too.
I know we've had this conversation too about peak season, but every time I look at this I just wonder how it
can -- you know, we're putting this number in and we're using it for all of -- for the totality. And it is representative of
really not the totality. I mean, I can't imagine — maybe you can tell us that it grows in fact that big, but I don't know
that the use is that significant.
That's been a stumbling point, as well as the 230,000, for some time.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Murray, I'm not sure I understand your --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, a peak population number, okay, I don't know that if we looked at the
parks and every day the people who use the parks -- I'll give you a for instance, as my mind works, anyway. We have
the kids in the summer, they're not going to school, they're using the parks. And to some degree you might say that's a
peak, okay, because that's a considerable increase in the daily usage versus the rest of the year.
But peak population is usually construed to mean when those folks from up north come down here. And I
know an awful lot of people don't go to the park, but obviously you folks know that an awful lot of people do go to
the park.
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, and, you know, your park system is very diverse. I think, you know, certainly with
the peak season, if you've ever tried to go to the park during peak season you know what that's like. That's where
everyone is that comes down from the north.
You do make mention of our summer. I mean, the only month that we're slow in Parks and Rec is
September. It's like every other month is extremely busy for us. And people use the park depending -- as you
mentioned, the summer, typically the locals use our pools, use our summer camp, use our parks. And it's extremely
busy for us.
And then the shoulder seasons, you know, we have a little bit of both. So I'm not sure if that to gets your --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, you're answering the question. You know, and I'm not going to go
much further than that. But when we think about having 20,000 plus foreclosures, and the loss of all the jobs, which
means the loss of all those young families, it just strikes me there's a subtraction there of some significance and yet
we're still using numbers that are in my mind just too high.
I cannot disprove them_ I must trust that what you have done is a calculation based on reality, or reality as
you see it, as you can calculate it. But Ijust wonder, based on -- we're in a recessionary situation and we're talking
about increasing need. And that just doesn't jive for me.
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, again, I would point out that we're looking to increase needs in creative ways. I
mean, where we don't have the funding currently to build facilities and, you know, we're just following the school
board, I think, you know, one of the things that we've used very effectively in the county is the ability to partner with
the school board and develop facilities based on similar to what we mentioned earlier with Rookery Bay and such
where we have staff, we can maintain the facility where there's lands available, where we don't have to purchase
more, but we get them through intergovernmental or interdepartmental transfers.
So we're not trying to spend money to expand, we're basically looking to use the resources that are already
there and try to do it in a creative way.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let me make something clear: I have no doubt you folks are working very
hard to do the right thing. That's not my purpose in qualification. But my job, our job is to look at it in the
appropriate critical way to determine whether or not we're on track.
MR. WILLIAMS: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And given -- I think it's a valid question, given the number of people that
Page 35 of 64
16 I 1 0
September 20, 2010
AUIR
we've lost in this community, particularly young people, I don't see a measure of that in this calculation. And it's
silent in the calculation. It's probably in there, but I don't see it. And 1 don't know that I want to see it necessarily. I
don't know that you could capture it, in truth. But I think that is what if anything in the public's mind is perception of
question, that would be one of those factors.
1 end with that, thank you.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Barry, the transfer of the 47 acres, l mean, there's a big deal here that
it should have come out of community parks and instead we took it out of regional parks and blah, blah -- but it's
going to a regional park.
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, last year we had it characterized as regional park land. And the intent behind that
was we were moving the 47 acres. The 47 acres was given us -- provided to us from the Golden Gate Estates Land
Trust.
AC "PING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Right.
MR. WILLIAMS: And the purpose of that was, in discussions we were having, was to take those 47 acres,
provide it to a project that the school board and transportation were considering, and then we would have land
associated with our big Corkscrew Island Regional Park purchased by transportation for us on that behalf So we were
characterizing it, we were taking those 47 acres, characterizing it as what we would be using for Big Corkscrew Island
Regional Park.
What's happened is that deal is not happening. There's not going to be 47 acres that's given to the school
board and transportation for the purpose that they thought. We're retaining the 47 acres. And so we wanted to put it
back in the inventory where it was appropriate. It is best characterized as community park acres, so that's why we
kind of -- we've withdrawn and put it back into that category.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: If it doesn't get out into something else --
MR. WILLIAMS: That's correct.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: -- is that what you're saying'?
MR. WILLIAMS: We are having some discussions with the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust about those
acres. For us, I mean, the acres are on the wrong side of the road I mean, we have most of the folks that would use
the park on the other side of Immokalce Road. And we would like to, you know, respectfully request the Golden Gate
Estates Land Trust to divest ourselves from those 47 acres and reapply them somewhere where it's more suitable for
park.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Okay. On Page 93 and 94, does Page 93, does that -- actually, that
relates to your community parks, not your regional parks.
MR. WILLIAMS: And that shows on page -- yes, yes. We're basically returning the 47 acres back into
community park land.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Okay, 1 was looking at the wrong -- okay, we're good.
Does anybody have any other questions'? Melissa I know did.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Mike, this might be for you.
The -- on Page 98 it shows a level of service options. And it comments that the 2.2 reflects the lowest level
of service that could be adjusted on the 2009 impact fee study.
Does the new study change that number, the 2.2'?
MR. BOSI: I'd have to defer to Amy to the specifics. But my estimation would be no, it doesn't, because I
don't think there's been a significant change within our inventory between last year and this year, but --
MS. PATTERSON: Good morning. Amy Patterson for the record.
No, we're actually in a mid -year indexing this year, so we didn't take into account level of service in this
study. This is only -- last year was a full study and this year is an indexing.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay. So I guess my other question, there's a chart on -- or a map on 103 and
it's showing the federal and state owned parks.
Is there any way to look at -- the amount of acreage in Collier County that's federal and state owned is
probably one of the highest in the country. And then we have so many communities that are gated that provide their
own facilities.
1 mean, at some point you have to question how many people are actually using parks versus their own
switmning pools and tennis courts. And then when you look at the amount of federal and state owned parks and
Page 36 of 64
161 lob
September 20, 2010
AUIR
lands, it just seems like you were saying, that the number of parks that we are required is really high.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Melissa, we've been having this round and round for the past number
of years. I brought up initially several years ago the issue of the state and federal parks.
And I think it -- if I'm not correct, that Page 98 is supposed to address that because the BCC also agreed and
said we have to give them some sort of recognition.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Well, and that's what I was looking for in here, but this chart is only showing if
you reduce the level of service, it doesn't really calculate additional acreage provided from state and federal.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Well, that would be the basis.
MR. BOSI: That's why we provided you a representation of all the state owned and federally owned park
areas.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Right, but it's not in the calculations.
MR. BOSL It can't be part of the calculations.
MR. WILLIAMS: From parks perspective, if I may say a couple of things, and I know, you know, you've
heard me say this before in terms of the characterization of state lands, federal lands and even Conservation Collier
lands. You know, we're distinguishing a level of service for park lands that deal with what we consider active
recreation. These are soccer fields, little league fields, pools, you know, those type of amenities associated with park
land.
When you're talking about the state and federal lands, there is recreational components to that. But you can't
-- you shouldn't look at it the same way. 75,000 acres of Facahatchee Strand is not a place where you can take your
kid to play soccer. It's -- you know, there is a small area that you can recreate with trail heads and pathways and what
not.
So we're -- the other issue I think, though, for DCA is that we cannot characterize land that's not managed by
the county and have an agreement. Although there are some examples of -- and I mentioned Rookery Bay where we
have been able to solicit and get agreements where those lands that we have under agreement where we're maintaining
them we can count towards our level of service requirements.
What we wanted to do too, and it's not been mentioned yet, but in the past AUIR cycle we actually had
included 625 acres of ATV land that had exceeded our regional park land. My goodness, it was like, you know, we
had more than we needed in terms of regional park land.
What we've subsequently done for this year is remove that, and for a couple of reasons. There's a question
about whether or not that agreement's going to make -- it's currently in litigation, and South Florida Water
Management is working with the county on that.
It's not clear, and there's been a number of examples where South Florida Water Management have tried to
secure this 625 acres and they've not been successful. We felt that as staff it would be best for us to not recommend
and characterize those 625 acres. We wanted to pull those out until it was clear exactly what that deal was going to be.
But the another thing I would want to mention about those 625 acres is that it did overly inflate, much in a
way what I'm describing with the state and federal lands, 625 acres for a specific recreation use for ATV's. It takes
away from a level of service that we're looking at to define better as those, you know, park lands that again are more
suitable to active recreation.
The last thing I'll mention, and we wanted to provide for you this table that you have and that you're
referencing. There was a question about well, if we were to pull -- in the county park lands that we manage, we
manage about almost 1,700 acres, there's about 340 acres in our regional park land that is what we would characterize
as preserves or, you know, lands that can't be used --
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Water management.
MR. WILLIAMS: -- for active recreation.
So we looked at well, if we were to take those lands out, what would that do to our level of service. And so
what we provided for you was a level of service option. And we wanted to bring this forward to the Board of County
Commissioners as well thatjust looked at if we were to reduce our level of service to -- you know, and you see across
the top of the chart level of service 2.2, that's the minimum that we can have. 2.9 is where we are now.
If we were to reduce our level of service and we were to take out those preserve lands, you could see the
difference of what we would have. Actually, I want to say I'm getting a little tight here, I think we actually are saying
that with this, you can see with 2.9 we're barely going to meet our level of service with actually being 46 acres in the
Page 37 of 64
161 1p
September 20, 2010
AUIR
hole. Which my understanding is that that's an acceptable place for us to be.
MR. BOSI: I mean, right now currently at the end of our five -year program, we'd be 50 acres short. And I
think we have identified projects within this six through 10 that would be able to rectify that. So I don't think we are
in -- we are in a noncompliance issue.
We provided this chart as part -- and as Madam Chair had indicated, this has been an ongoing discussion for
the past four years within the AUIR. I low do we recognize that the state, how do we recognize the federal and the
privately held recreation facilities that are out there, we know they're out there. Well, we can't include those within
our levels of service, we can't include those within our impact fees, because we don't own them, we don't control
them. But we do recognize that they're there.
And if you feel that 2.9 is too high of a level of service for this community based upon the amenities and
based upon the characteristics of the private communities, here's where your options for recommendations could be.
So if you feel as a body, you feel that 2.9 is just a little bit too high, based upon the state, the fed, the privately held
recreation facilities, the swimming pools that are out there, these range -- here's your range of options for a
recommendation you can make to the Board of County Commissioners recognizing all those other facilities. And
that's what 98 was meant to do.
Because we can't incorporate it -- I understand how you -- let's see how mathematically that expresses itself.
But we're restricted upon what we can and can't count. But we want to recognize and give you the options and the
latitude that's provided for within that page.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You stimulated Marla to come up. May I ask -- are you finished?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: May 1? I need to understand something.
If we're extracting certain lands that are already in inventory, and the question I have is the components that
make up the overall value of $23,000 an acre, western Collier on the beach versus whatever, are we going to inflate
then the value that we attribute to acreage by taking out those lands that are lesser in value or lesser in —
MR. BOSI: That was an option that we dropped. We never took -- we decided that taking out the limited
preserve wasn't going to serve the purpose of what we --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, but --
MR. BOSS -- were trying to accomplish.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So the components that are used to realize that number, are they static year
to year?
MR. BOSS No. No, the value of -- whenever the impact tee is updated or --they will look at each acre of
land within the ownership of Collier County, place a numeric value or a market value upon each acre of land based
upon the current bearing of the market at that tune, and arrive upon a unit cost.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So just for sure, so I'm clear, we take the booked value, okay, that we had in
a given year and then we look at the value that is now ascribed to those lands based on the appraisals?
MR. BOSE I'm not sure what you mean when you refer to book value.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, the book value is that which you purchased at.
MR. BOSE Oh, we don't -- once it's purchased --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Once it's purchased, you don't care what it is.
MR. BOSE Unless we purchased it the same year we're doing the impact fee. Well, then it would have
relevance, because that gives us a real -time bearing upon that.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, okay. I mean, we don't want to get into strange stuff like -- it's not
business in the same sense that I would relate to it.
But what I'm trying to get to is that if we recalculate every year, that's what you're saying, we take the totality
of the inventory and we --
MR. BOSE Every impact tee study.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- look at the value that -- that's the appraiser's value, is that correct?
MR. BOSI: Sure.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And then that's where we get our 230 --
MR. BOSI: 'Think about if you owned five parcels of land. Every year you'd be like I wonder what my value
of that land is. Well, you wouldn't say what 1 paid for it, because that's not the value of your land, that's what you paid
Page 38 of 64
161 l 3
September 20, 2010
AUIR
for it --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I would if I were in a tax situation. But okay, fine.
MR. BOSI: If you paid at that time. But five years down the road that value hasn't changed. And each year
you'd say, okay, the market value would bear "X" for each one of my properties; we'll take the average and that's the
average of my acreage that I own.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That is the reason why I asked the question, whether by extracting any
property that might have lesser appraised value, we tend to inflate the other.
MR. BOSI: Yeah, no, we haven't extracted any from the inventory.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Donna, a question.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mike, 1 think the reason we have this conversation every year, it's your
fault. Because it's the way you put this together. The level of service is acreage.
MR. BOSI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So 1 think what you should do is when you analyze it, analyze the
acreage. If you come up with a need to buy more acreage, then put value on it. And then you could use that number
to go through it.
But what you do is you come in here and you essentially put value on the whole park system, a dollar value,
and it totally confuses the issue. The issue is 2.9 acres, and that's what we want. And it's only the -- the value of it
only becomes an issue if we have to go get some more. Don't you agree'?
MR. BOSI: The value of it has (sic) nothing other than for accounting purposes. When we go acquire that
new acreage, as I said before, we wouldn't -- it doesn't care what the unit cost is asked, it's what that geographic piece
of property is going to bear at the time that we're trying to acquire it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But if you look at it the way you do it in the summer, you start out taking a
number, and then we talk about it ad nauseam here every year, and you throw it on all the acres you have. And then
somebody's going to point out that an acre in the swamp isn't worth the acre on the beach and then we go on and on
with that for a while.
MR. BOSI: Exactly. And we say that the value of all the properties on average equals this number. And
there'll be discrepancies --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But maybe you should analyze it in terns of the real level of service, which
is acreage. And then if we have to start buying some acreage to make up something, you could start figuring out how
much money you need to do that.
MR. BOSI: As long as we would know the location of where that is. But it would still be an arbitrary
number, because if we say we're going to acquire it in three years from now, the number that I arrive upon now I
couldn't tell you what the real value would be in three years. So it's always going to be that arbitrary process.
And remember, the primary purpose of the AUIR/CIE, are we satisfying the level of service demands, not are
we appropriately accounting for what our potential future costs are going to be. The primary purposes of this exercise
is to make sure we're meeting our levels of service, and that's acre -- are we acquiring enough acreages.
How -- what value we put just to be able to show what the potential acquisition cost is going to be, you know,
there's not a right answer on that in how you express it. Because when you get to that purchase, it's going to be what
the market's bearing at that time.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the confusion comes when you take there's not going to be a right
answer on that, and then put a value on the whole inventory and then start analyzing it that way.
I would recommend analyze it by the acreage, the level of service that's important. And then figure out a way
to start putting value. Because you do have specific things you're doing, and you'd probably be better guessing at
these different values than you would with a conunon denominator.
MR. BOSI: Oh, I see what you're saying, is try to place individual appraisals upon the acquisitions that we're
planning so therefore the project costs could be a little bit more realistic in terms of what we could be expecting.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
MR. BOSI: And I understand.
And the one thing I would clarify, that if you look within the five -year program, there's not one acquisition
Page 39 of 64
1 6 1 1 b3
September 20, 2010
AUIR
outside of an interdepartmental transfer, so I understand -- I wouldn't even have that opportunity to do that --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Work on the level of service. Unless you enjoy this conversation every
year.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Marla, it's your turn. .lump in.
MR. RAMSEY: Well, I could just, you know, refer you back the last five years to the same thing that I have
said every single time I have stepped up, is that we are -- our level of service is acres per thousand, we don't care
about the dollars. That's a state element_ How much it cost us is not something that we're relevant with. It's a place
holder, it's always been a place holder. And we go for cheap whenever possible, so your dollars are being well spent.
And we're not spending 230,000 for swamp land.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And here's what I'd rather see you do is analyze it by acreage, which
is what you're saying, and then you're going to start bringing some acreage up, adding more acreage, and start
guessing at appropriate prices. In other words, you're going to be out in the swamp buying it in this range, you're
going to be on the beach buying it at a different range. Rather than, like you said, every year we have this
conversation. And the conversation doesn't even matter, but we enjoy having it for some reason.
MR. RAMSEY: We just don't -- we can't have new people show LIP so that we have to go through it every
single year.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And we've got to wean them in on the same problem and it's -- but anyway.
MR. BOSI: I think by year three we'll get --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Well, in point of fact, let's, you know, get back to partly what
happened though, is we are now acknowledging some of the park lands that werejust being totally ignored before.
And both the Board of County Commissioners as well as this board have said that's a good idea. We have to take
them into account in some fashion or another. 'I 'o just say, well, it's a federal park and so we ignore any recreational
value to it was also wrong.
So what everybody's been trying to work toward is some sort of, you know, acknowledgment of what's out
there and start focusing on the needs of the population and not just on the numbers of thousands but on the needs of
those thousands of people. Because if we've got plenty of hiking trails, then you don't need to go buy Inking trails
anymore. And, you know -- so we need to concentrate on what we actually need for the population base.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Go ahead.
MR. WILLIAMS: Madam Chair, if I may, could Ijust ask Sid Kittila to come up and talk about Page 98, 1
believe? I don't know that I spoke clearly about that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me ask a question on Page --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: No, you haven't. But finish, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me ask a question on 98. If you look on 96, it shows we're in -- we
have a deficiency in regional park land.
MR. BOSI: Yeah, that corresponds with what's on 2.9.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: With the 2.9, okay.
What number on Page 98 brings that into compliance? Does any?
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: 2.7.
MR. BOSI: 2.7 gets us on the positive side.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So Donna, in your thing is look, we have a lot of state -- or federal
and state park land around here. Maybe we don't need a 2.9. Maybe we could gladly justify, which we can do in the
motion, reducing the 2.7, which brings us into compliance. And that's what we should be doing, not --
MR. RAMSEY: Let me ask. When we went through this thing on Page 98, what we were really trying to do
is that there are other communities throughout the state who use the word developable land. And that's really what
our park system is really about. We're trying to find lands that we can turn into athletic fields. And I'm going to use
North Collier Regional Park as an example of that. We bought 212 acres of lands there, of which 90 acres had to go
into preserve, so that I could have the other hundred some acres available for activities, like soccer fields, et cetera.
So we had to buy almost double the amount of acres in order to get to the active side of it. And so part of
what we were trying to do is if we took preserve lands out and we just went after what the level of service was for
developable land, knowing that some day you might have to buy 200 in order to get to 100, but then only the 100
would go into the inventory as level of-service, that's where we were going. It became impossible to do, okay,
Page 40 of 64
Sc ember 20, 1100,
AUIR
because they have to come as a unit.
And so the only thing that you have in front of you right now is dealing with the ATV acreages being out,
okay. But if we had a way that if you're going to reduce the level of service and there's a way to attach itself as such
that it could be actively developed or lands that would be developed for active recreational and not for preserve
elements, that's where we're seeking to get to. We just haven't been able to do that as easily here as they do in the
middle of the state where they don't have as many preserves requirements for water management.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's the same frustration a developer would have: I'm going to buy
100 acres, I'm going to put preserves. So you're stuck in the same game.
But it's these preserves that make Collier the special place it is. So the point is I'm not going to give you any
sympathy because every developer in town's doing the same thing. But he's taking his full acreage, he's getting units
for his preserve, so you should be getting full credit for your preserves as the acreage.
MR. RAMSEY: Except that we'd -- it depends on the level of the service that I need. If I need to put in 10
soccer fields and that's what my level of service says that I need, I might have to buy a lot more lands to do that. But
then you'll look and see and say, well, you know, you've met your level of service so you don't need any more lands.
I'm saying yeah, I need four more soccer fields but I've met my level of service based upon the fact that a lot of it is
preserve lands but not active lands. That's the dilemma that we've come up against.
So Ijust leave that to you, because we couldn't come with an answer yet. We don't have it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, what do you think of the 2.9? Is that a level that the state would --
across the state where people are at?
MR. RAMSEY: Well, again, it's every one of them is different. And I don't know if it's in the back of this
one, but we did the --
MR. BOSE We did the level of service --
MS. RAMSEY: Level of service.
MR. BOSI: -- comparison in 2007.
MS. RAMSEY: Lee County's like 10 acres per 1,000, you know, we're at 2.9. So every single community's
got a different level of service based upon what is it that our community wants. What do we want our community to
look like.
And some of those communities put all their preserve lands into it and that's why they have 10 acres per
1,000. We haven't done that. We've really tried to stay with active recreational lands in our level of service.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the acreage you show is active recreational lands and not preserves?
MR. RAMSEY: Well, of the 1,700 that we have, we have about 300 of that. And most of that is at Tigertail
and Barefoot Beach.
MR. WILLIAMS: Let me just correct. And that's where I was trying to get Sid up here, is in the Page 98,
that does not include -- that does include preserve lands that we have.
MR. BOSI: Everything in inventory.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: How much preserve land do we have in Collier County?
MR. WILLIAMS: Are you saying --
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Natural --
MR. RAMSEY: Collier County owned?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, not Collier County --
MR. BOSE 67 percent of Collier County is either placed in federal or state conservation.
MR. WILLIAMS: This graphic here is very descriptive. I think if you see it as it relates to the county, in the
county park system we have about 340 acres. Conservation Collier, I don't know exactly their acreage. And then
transportation, I know they have some, I believe some preserve lands.
MR. BOSI: Page 103 in your book gives the map, the color map.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I see that, but we have other preserve areas.
MR. BOSE We have additional preserve areas within Collier County, but 67 percent of the land is already
dedicated to preservation.
You're going to have preservation components to every parcel of land out there. We don't have calculations
for that. But that will give you a pretty good understanding of the amount of land that has been set aside for
preservation within Collier County in general.
Page 41 of 64
161 10
September 20, 2010
AUIR
MR. RAMSEY: And again remember, the Conservation Collier is the agency that provides the preserve
lands for Collier County, not Parks and Recreation.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's not playground, their land.
MR. RAMSEY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The -- on Page 101 there's a breakdown of all the regional -- and actually
community also. Do you have the ability, I don't mean for approval here, but to break the regional parks into how
much is preserve land? And what was the word you used, buildable or --
MR. WILLIAMS: Developable.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Developable.
Are you able to split that into two categories?
MR. WILLIAMS: We have actually for this AUIR cycle looked at that. And we did -- it's not included in
your packets, but we have the ability to do that, yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And do you remember what kind of ratio you came up with, or --
MR. WILLIAMS: You know, we had a couple parks that really -- you know, those 340 acres I mentioned
got the bulk of it. So it was Barefoot Beach preserve, you know, which was about 150 acres, and then North Collier,
which I believe was about 100. And Tigertail, which is also a major preserve area for us.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But do you remember bottom line, what is --
MR. BOSI: Twenty percent There's 340 --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Twenty percent is preserve?
MR. BOSL -- there's 1,700 in acreage and inventory for regional. There's 340 that is basically
non - developable. It's about 20 percent of the available acreage that can't be utilized by the park system to develop
their athletic fields and their active programs.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that's -- you know, a private developer deals with a bigger number than
that, so -- okay.
"Chen the only other question is we do show deficiency in the regional parks. So does that mean you
recommend a different level of service? Which is kind of cooking the books.
MR. BOSI: No, no, we're not recorrunending a change to the level of service. We had heard for the past
three years that the advisory boards and the Board of County Commissioners would like options. Ninety -eight is
designed to fulfill that request. If you feel that an alternative recommendation for level of service is what is the
consensus from this body, we would take it forward and have the Board of County Conurnssioners consider that
alternate level of service, based upon the recognition of the state and federal lands and the privately held recreation
facilities that are out there.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Madam Chair, I could make a motion, if you want.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Well, yeah, I mean, what this chart shows, I mean, is a difference. If
you go to a 2.7 of like 100 acres, it's not --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, 1 mean, the motion I would make -- 1'd make two. One is community
parks, that one goes away. This one would be to approve it but recommend the lowering of the level of service to the
2.7.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 1 would second that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me -- I've got to make one at a time --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: You've got to make two different motions.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Okay, so the first motion is move --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Is on community parks.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to forward a recommendation for the 2010 AUIR of approval for
community park land.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: As is.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: As is.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I would second that.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Okay, all in favor'?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
Page 42 of 64
keptejber 20, ,11003
AUIR
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Aye.
Any opposed?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: So now on to regional parks.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second motion would be to move the 2010 AUIR for regional parks with a
recommendation of approval, and also a recommendation that the level of service be lowered to 2.7.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second it.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Okay. Just for discussion, Ijust had one question before I call the
motion, and that's on Page 102 where you take into account the regional parks in the city, and/or you've listed
community parks, but you're not taking them into account in your inventory in any way. Why would community
parks just across the board be excluded?
MR. BOSI: As I noted, within the way that we calculate the levels of service for regional and community,
the regional included that the county -wide population as a whole, the community parks does not include the
populations of the cities, therefore, we do not include the parks of the community category that the cities' providing,
because we do not include their population.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Okay. So that's a discussion for another day if we are ever in the
negative on community parks. Thank you.
MR. RAMSEY: Ijust -- Marla Ramsey.
If you're going to add the community parks from the cities, you'd have to add the cities' population into the
inventory --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Right, understood.
MS. RAMSEY: -- which we currently don't do.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Yeah, understood, which we don't do. Thank you.
Go ahead, Brad, you're going to make a --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I did. It's been seconded.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I seconded it.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: And I'll call the motion.
Excuse me, do we have somebody who wants to speak?
MR. EASTMAN: Just anecdotally. Barry and I worked together trying to get the youth organizations out on
the fields using either Parks and Ree facilities or school district facilities. And given the issue of wear and tear on
particular sports fields, be it Pop Warner or youth soccer, we have a true demand in this community for those types of
things. The school district hosts little league. We don't host any type of adult softball or anything, that's all handled
through Parks and Rec.
And I think there's a perception that, you know, we have these big preserve areas, but no one is, as Barry
mentioned earlier, and I think it's a point that needs to be reiterated, nobody's out there playing soccer, nobody's out
there playing little league or Pop Warner in the Picayune Strand.
And these are true community facilities that help with our youth and our community and great team work and
fight against obesity. And they're restrained. I mean, we don't have a wealth of these facilities. We have to deal with
volunteer organizations and stuff, trying to get facilities for them.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, if 1 may, I think -- I couldn't disagree with your idea. But what's
presented to us is purportedly the valued availability, that which is concluded as needed to fulfill all of those things
that you have indicated or desired or you desire that they be.
You're making a case, I think, unless I misheard you, I think for us to approve a higher number, 2.9 or
whatever, which would then create a deficit that they need to go out and buy more property. Unless I mishear you.
I'm trying to understand. I heard the plea, and it's a valid plea. You want to do all these things, but what's
being presented, as I understand it, is adequacy, the population, the need.
THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Eastman, if you couldjust get on a microphone so the public can hear you.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: I'm sorry, Cherie', I didn't realize he didn't have a microphone over
Page 43 of 64
161 1�3
September 20, 2010
AUIR
there.
MR. EASTMAN: Commissioner Murray, I'm really not making a recommendation to change the level of
service. The school district's not -- doesn't have a party in this tight. I'm just trying to change the perception that
there's this wealth of sports fields available, and that's really what I was trying to get at.
And that anecdotally, from working with it day -to -day, there are organizations for youth sports that need
facilities. And there aren't a wealth of facilities. We're not over parked. At least with respect to that regard in terms
of what I experience in my job day -to -day.
But the recommendations for the county parks, that's strictly county business. I'm just trying to discuss a
perception issue.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And Tom, I thank you. I remember the people from Pop Warner
showing up at cotmnission seeking opportunity to use, and they were claiming that there were school facilities that
they -- you know, that they thought they tnight be able to use.
One would hope that we are embracing that, that we're having as much as possible with the school facilities
shared with the parks. But there are only a couple of places I know of, and maybe a few where that's possible.
And I don't -- I don't disagree with your plea, just that what I'm trying to state is that I think that what we've
been offered, the two things meet, the population against the level of service. So that's all.
MR. EASTMAN: 1 guess not every acre of land that may be considered park is equal for every particular
purpose. We do work well with the Pop Warner, we have them on our site. They're always welcome. It's been a
good relationship. And I know we're all in the same game of trying to make the cormm mity better.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And Barry, 1 think that's an excellent suggestion that Commissioner Schiffer
made to extract -- not to extract but to side -by -side of the park land which is preserve and which is useable for park,
so that we can get a better insight into net useable as against total acreage, because it's a misnomer for us; it doesn't
work for us.
MR. WILLIAMS: And just to make a -- I appreciate Mr. Eastman's point.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: As do 1.
MR. WILLIAMS: And we have multiple agreements with the school and multiple locations throughout
Collier County. We were talking off -line, we were thinking seven or eight different sites where we've been able to
share that.
And I think, you know, that is a good point that we would want to make is, you know, in terms of a
discussion, if you've never been to a local park, your perception may be that no one uses it. And we deal with that
quite often, where people may not use the park because they may have their own private recreational amenities. The
fact of the matter is, our parks are very well used. You know, we have included in part of your packet utilization
figures of that.
So -- and encourage you to visit your local park, certainly, and see some of the things that happen. Fall sports
are on right now for us. And, you know, this is one of our busiest times. So it's -- your motion, and I know you're
considering it, is reducing from 2.9 to 2.7. I think that we're not looking to get in the midst of your motion, we wanted
to bring back to you 2.9 recommendation based on what we could sec.
But we do understand with some of the consideration for the state and federal land and other type of
recreational amenities you also help us get to where we need to be with our AUIR as far as meeting our level of
service, so I don't know that we're opposed to that.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just -- as long as -- it; and this is -- you may not know this, certainly, but if
you were to extract all of the lands that are considered not usable for active park activity, would we then have a
deficiency?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yeah, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Of course.
MR. BOSE If we were to take 340 acres -- if we're deficient at the five years with everything and we take
340 out, we're going to be 340 more deficient.
MR. WILLIAMS: You throw an ATV park back in there, though, and -- so yes, we would be deficient if you
took those acres out. But we certainly can bring back in the next cycle a characterization of those acres. I think that
was Mr. Schiffer's point.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what we would do then -- I mean, the 2.9 is with preserves. Always
Page 44 of 64
161 1 p
September 20, 2010
AUIR
has been. So obviously if you take away the preserves then we have to adjust that factor, which essentially will again
cook the books and balance it back out.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Maybe we should wait till next year.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Go ahead, Melissa.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Are there any calculations that show out of all of the parks the percentage of
the acreage that is what you were talking about, like ball fields and more of an active portion of the park as opposed to
what portion is more passive?
MR. WILLIAMS: And I think that's the question at hand is whether — we've done that internally, we don't
have it included as part of your packet. Certainly next year and through the next cycle we could characterize it that
way and show you that.
I could tell you, for regional park land, you know, and what is it, Sid? I want to say it's 1,000 acres for
regional park land; does that sound right? A thousand acres, about 340 are, you know, considered in this preserve
category.
Our community parks for the most part, and that's about six, 700 acres, I don't have exactly that number, that
breakdown, for the most part our community parks are totally active recreation. We don't have as many preserve
areas associated with our community parks as we do our regional parks.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: I think over the years we've been trying to force the issue of a more
well defined way to analyze our parks and our recreation. I mean, they were different things. And we're still not
there. Obviously you all have done some additional work that we haven't seen yet in trying to get to a calculation,
developable land versus your land in total. But you're not there yet, because you decided not to bring that forward.
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I did want to mention one thing that we are participating in. We are working
through a master planning process for parks, and that's something that's been -- we had a master plan developed many
years ago, and there's been the need for an update. And the times we're in, and certainly we're looking at doing this as
efficiently as we can. We are working with Tindale- Oliver, and Nick has talked about the master mobility plan, and
we were able to negotiate with them to do an update of our current master plan. So we think that's going to be useful.
And part of the analysis and what they're doing is basically looking at these meetings, the AUIR process and
trying to sift through that and provide some recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. So I did want
to mention that.
We do feel like our next cycle, with the ability of having that master plan, that parks master plan, we may get
to some of those answers -- some of those questions that have arisen through this group, so --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: And you expect to have that by next year at this time?
MR. WILLIAMS: We do. The Growth Management Plan stipulates that it (sic) to be completed by the end
of December. We're going to be right there. We think it should be done, we're looking at January, February. We
actually have a series of events that are coming up in the next couple of months that will begin to bring together
public input and involvement in that process, so -- but we're looking at end of January, February of 2011. So next
year we'll have that data for you.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Well, and as we've seen, you know, next year we can make changes
again based on the most current and up -to -date information that we're presented with. I mean, for sure.
We're just trying to get to a real figure. We don't want to short little kids ball fields in favor of, you know, my
wanting to go to the beach or whatever. That's not the point_ The point is to analyze everything that we've got and
everything that we might need based on the needs of our population. So it's getting to that real number. And we
haven't been able to extract it out quite yet, I don't think.
Go ahead, Melissa.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Just one more comment. And maybe my wording is off. But when I say
passive, I don't mean preserves, I mean other areas in the park that may be for picnic or something else. It seems like
your main issue is ball fields. So, you know, maybe there's a way we can look in the future of addressing that issue as
opposed to acreage on a whole that's not going to satisfy that need.
MR. RAMSEY: Just let me just for clarity situation, when we talk about an active activity, I mean, when you
go to the ball field to play soccer, when you get done with it a lot of times they will have picnics afterwards or their
group will get together. The parking lot is all associated, you know, with the activity that's being happening (sic) at
that location, and recreational needs are always changing. I mean, you know, we're now into Lacrosse. We never had
Page 45 of 64
161 1 P�
September 20, 2010
AUIR
Lacrosse in this community before. We've added that to our rectangular fields which, you know, we call soccer, but
use it for field hockey and Lacrosse and football and, you know, all kinds of different things.
So when we talk about an active facility, it kind of does encompass all of that, including the restroom
facilities and the meeting rooms and other things that you need to have to have a good recreational opportunity for our
community.
So it's hard to say okay, well, I'm going to take out this, you know, 300 feet because it's just a picnic area,
when that picnic area really is an enhancement of everything that happens in the park. Because when they come to
the park, they sometimes come for the day.
MR. WILLIAMS: Another point, too, if I may, and l think I understand your point, we do have preserve
lands that, you know, in North Collier comes to mind where we have cypress and pine that you're not going to go
picnic or walk through. But then we have other -- and we're talking about active recreation. I think Ms. Ramsey's
correct in associating these other things that may seem passive but are also included in that --
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Green space.
MR. WILLIAMS: Pathways, green space, picnic areas, all those kinds of things. So that is a distinction
that's important to make.
And when we're talking about this 340 acres, we're not talking about those things, we're talking about these
cypress pine stands that you don't do --
COMMISSIONER AHERN: You can't touch.
MR. WILLIAMS: - -those things.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Okay, 1 --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 1'd like to call a vote.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: -- think Mr. Schiffer was going to make a motion.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, I made it. It's been seconded. I'm ready to --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Okay, and it's been seconded by Mr. Murray'? Thank you.
All those in favor of the motion?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONERAHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON:
And anybody opposed'!
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON:
Aye.
All right. We'll revisit -- and it sounds like, guys, that you're working
to get us to a comfortable place and the board to a comfortable place. I know it seems like it's been like pulling teeth,
but sometimes that's what it takes to get to where everybody needs to be.
So I hope you will take it in the spirit that it's meant, we'rejust trying to get everything better and get us to
where we belong, so --
MR. WILLIAMS: We promise we won't march in soccer players to -- thank you.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Thanks, Barry.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Madam Chair, speaking of comfortable places, if we get a head start on
lunch, we can beat the crowds.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: We can do that. If you'd like to retire for lunch, then that's fine by me.
And I'm sure it will be fine by Cherie'.
Thanks everybody. We'll do that and we'll be back at 1:00.
(Luncheon recess.)
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Welcome back, everybody.
** *This afternoon -- first this afternoon is countyjails. So Chief Smith.
CHIEF SMITH: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. For the record, Greg Smith, Chief of Administration
for the Sheriff's Office.
I'm here to answer any operational questions you might have regarding the information contained in the
Page 46 of 64
16 0
September 20, 2010
AUIR
report.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Okay, the first thing would be a good reminder to everybody to speak
slowly. I'm sure that she couldn't get anything that you just said. So just as we go forward, everybody needs to chill.
Thank you. Just a little.
Thanks. Does anybody have any questions?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: ► do. Your level of service, are you comfortable with that?
CHIEF SMITH: 1 think we are. We certainly haven't seen any trending upward with regard to jail
populations. If anything, it seems to be stable or even trending downward slightly, so --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But since -- but it's not within the five years. But you do start to get in
trouble -- well, that's too far down the road. Never mind. You're in good shape.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I will say, you guys do a goodjob.
CHIEF SMITH: Thank you, Commissioner Murray.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Would you like to make a motion, Commissioner Murray?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Does that mean they never get out?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nobody escapes is what that -- yeah, I'll make a motion that we approve the
2010 AUIR for countyjails with a recommendation of approval.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Aye.
Any opposed?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Okay, we're all set. Thank you.
Next?
CHIEF SMITH: ** *Okay, that takes us to county law enforcement. And again, for the record, Greg Smith,
Chief of Administration for the Collier County Sheriffs Office.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do have a question.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Go.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Peak season, are you using the number for peak season, the same number
that county parks was using?
CHIEF SMITH: 1 don't know what county parks is using. We are using the peak season.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They are? You verified -- okay, that's all. Just my purpose was consistency,
that was my thought.
In looking at this, we have 771 inventory, but you have a surplus of 178 -9, which is a nice thing to have, if in
fact it's really a surplus. That's statistically a surplus.
But with the foreclosures and the rest of the conditions that we have, have you increased -- or not increased,
but you've maintained the scheduled patrols and the rest of it?
CHIEF SMITH: From an operational standpoint, we are pretty much conducting business like we have for a
while. We see, you know, downward trends in both calls for service and in the crime rate, which is a good thing. It's
allowed us to maintain a certain vacancy level. To date we have 180 vacancies at the sheriffs office. A good number
of those being in patrol -- or in the certified sectors, not all in patrol. It's evenly spaced out through the agency.
So we -- it has resulted in us keeping open some vacancies in order to make sure that we're where the county
has issued budget guidance. So we are doing that, as much -- I'm sure all the county departments are doing the same
thing.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I misunderstood this application then. A five -year surplus with deficit, it
Page 47 of 64
161 1 6-�
September 20, 2010
AUIR
appeared to be as a surplus, which suggested to me you had more people than -- but 1 guess you're saying it's the other
way.
CHIEF SMITI C Well, 1 think what this actually is, is they take like the square foot of our buildings and then,
you know, do some kind of machination to tell you what the suggested inventory would be to service a number of
proposed officers.
We have never budgeted that way, we have never staffed that way. I think that's just the number that they use
for comparative purposes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that's where it gets a little strange again. ft's not only buildings, it's the
police; cars as well.
CHIEF SMITH: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. l remember now and clearly. fhat was it for me.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Any other questions? Melissa?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Uh -uh.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Page 126. You have a productivity committee recommendation. Do
you want to talk about that?
CHIEF SMITH: Do 1 want to talk about that?
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Yes.
CHIEF SMITH: Would you like to talk about it? I'll answer whatever --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Well. we're going to.
CHIEF SMITH: PII answer whatever question you'd like to ask.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: If we went to -- if the BCC went to .0912, what would that do to your
service in this community'
SMITH: Well, again, I think it's important to understand that this report, the AUIR, does not speak to
staffing levels. The agency will always staff what they think is appropriate and put that in their budget documents for
submission.
1 can tell you that the one percent that they suggest, if we're only talking about road patrol deputies, which is
what they're stating, then we're already in essence there. That's about where we're at today. In fact, we're a little less
than that. But if you talk about the certified law enforcement officers that encompass any number of positions, other
than just patrol, then we have significantly higher numbers, and that gives yield to the 1.96 number that you see
above.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: All right. But they are saying here that they'rejust talking about the
road patrol. So you're telling me you're already there.
CHIEF SMITH: Yes, ma'am.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: So that's a good thing and that probably should be noted in your
report to the commission.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Go ahead, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mike, this is kind of to you. Why do we have this building square
footage to support the 1.96? And that's the last time we use the reference to building square footage, right? So why
do we do that?
MR. BOSI: The value of the level of service relates to what Chief Smith had indicated. We utilize 1.96
officers per 1,000 as our current level of service. But it's not the officers that are really inventoried, it's the square
footage that would house the officers that are what we monitor within our capital improvement programining.
So when we have a surplus of square footage that would support addition -- a level of certified officers,
operational, they're not obligated to staff at that level, they staff at what they feel is appropriate. It's just a constructed
square footage would express to that level.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But why would you come to a denominator for a police officer of square
footage`? Is it -- Amy jumped up, so I think there's a clue there.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Brad's always been quick on picking up on the clues.
MS. PATTERSON- Amy Patterson for the record.
The 1.96 officers per 1,000 population is the level of service established by the last impact fee study. During
Page 48 of 64
16 ! 1 k3
September 20, 2010
AUIR
this impact fee study, which is currently ongoing, we're looking at a better way to translate that level of service to
square footage. Because like Chief Smith said, this has caused ongoing confusion between the actual officers and the
officers related to a level of service. So that was part of the direction last year was to find a better expression of level
of service, tied closer to what we're measuring here which is the buildings and the equipment needed.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But why do you go to square -- to building square footage? I mean, I guess
you could go to ground beef or something else, but why do you go do that as a denominator?
MR. BOSI: Because those are the bases of your capital expenditures.
MS. PATTERSON: Right.
MR. BOSI: And this is what we're --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the cost of a police officer, isn't there a lot more to that than --
MS. PATTERSON: And it will be --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: - -just equipment and --
MS. PATTERSON: Similar to libraries and some of the other facilities, there are --there's books, there's
equipment, there's furniture. In the case of law enforcement there's pal rol cars. We'll be able to express that better
through some sort of square footage or square footage type of number versus police officer. Because it's not indicative
of what they actually have for police officers. So when we do our calculation, we're coming up with a number that's
completely different than the number of officers they actually have serving the public. So it's confusing.
We're not saying that we're not going to acknowledge those things that we're needing for a police officer, but
rather we're finding a different way to express those items: 'The cars, the equipment, the building.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But the square footage is confusing to me, so if you do find another
way --
MS. PATTERSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- I'll be --
MS. PATTERSON: The whole way it's done has been confusing.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just out of curiosity now, what is the square footage of a 1.96 police
officer?
MR. BOSI: Well, I think that's the Rosetta Stone that we haven't been able to provide to you.
MS. PATTERSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the confusion is well justified?
MS. PATTERSON: Yes.
MR. BOSI: And it was something that we squared away at the beginning of the impact fee study update, that
we asked the consultant to look around and find out a better way to express it.
And the one thing that Amy had noted to me was that Tindale- Oliver had recognized that officers per
thousand or officers per population was a standard methodology throughout the state in terms of how you express a
level of service. We just asked them for how do we translate that into a more straightforward representation to put
before the advisory boards and the Board of County Commissioners, and that's what we're hoping for within the
impact fee update.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One comment. The phrase building square footage only shows up in this
level of service description. You know, when you say building square footage to support the number of police
officers, why don't we just get rid of it? Because you're not showing any square footage from that point on.
I mean, the whole analysis is one point, is the number of police officers per thousand.
MS. PATTERSON: I think --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There's never square footage popping up again.
So other than -- I mean, what am I missing here? Everybody says they're confused, so I guess I've just joined
the club.
MS. PATTERSON: I think we had refined down the level of service standard from last year. I think we
might have shown it in two lines. And this year -- because I think we had some more information in there about
building square footage. I could be wrong, but I think we were trying to help and maybe made it even more confusing
than it was to begin with.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, last year you didn't have the word square footage.
MS. PATTERSON: Okay.
Page 49 of 64
161 1P
September 20, 2010
AU IR
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But why drag square footage into this'? And you say oh, because the
libraries do it. We'll have that conversation --
MR. BOSI: No, no, no.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- there. I mean, as the world evolves, the last thing in the world that brings
with it as square footage is denominators.
MR. BOSI: Because the basis of what we're doing is building, we're constructing square footage, we're
constructing space to house officers. And that correlates to our levels of service. We say we're going to have 1.96
officers per thousand. We have to build space to be able to accommodate that levels of service that we're proposing.
And that's why it's tied back to that space, because we can't -- we have to have a place for these officers to be able to
do the jobs and the tasks that's performed. Whether it's when they're out from the field inside, you know, back to their
home base locations, they have to have a place to work and to process and do the things that they need to do. [mean,
that's why --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, among other things.
MR. BOSI: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And therefore, why did you take that one thing? And you don't have to
answer. ICs just that the building square footage I think is a -- l mean, that doesn't make any sense. And the number of
police officers --
MR. BOSI: Yeah, because it's not -- and you're right, it's misleading in the sense that that is not the -- that's
not the only component that goes up into making the cost to provide for --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, you could choose horsepower for his car, that would make as much
sense to me.
Okay, enough said.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: We had this discussion last year as well. When you look down and it
says officers and then value cost, officers are not really individual officers, that's just the square footage for those
officers.
So I think yeah, it's time to rethink how it's expressed so that everybody gets it. And it should be gettable for
everybody in the world, not just for Mike Bost or for you, Amy, or the Chief.
MS. PATTERSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And if 1 may chime in, they don't own the building, but they own the police
cars; do they not'?
MR. BOSI: Oh, we -- and I'm not sure in terms of the ownership. I know we construct the buildings in
budget for the construction of their buildings. Cm not sure --
CIIIEF SMITH: I can help you with that.
By state statute, the Sheriff is forbidden to own real estate.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right.
CHIEF SMITH: So lie certifies need to the county and then the county includes it in their capital works plan,
and that's how we get our space.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So in this effort to try to capture everything, while square feet are included,
we also include the equipment, winch is the police cars and so Borth. However they have to be budgeted separately,
don't they?
CHIEF SMITH: They are.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it's kind ofcotnpounded.
CHIEF SMITI C And I'm not sure if this is going to help at all, because I've got to tell you, I'm just as
confused as anybody sitting here as to why we do this. And every year I think to myself, there's no relevance, why do
we report it, you know, like this? And so 1 understand your frustration and share it.
But as a separate independent Constitutional officer, the Sheriff doesn't go to the county for anything other
than his buildings. Everything else regarding operational issues, regarding how he'll staff, all of that stuff, he is free to
develop whatever plan he wants. And he just submits his budget to the county, certifying as a chief law enforcement
officer that this is what it takes to do thejob.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. Now I realize that's true. But is it not also true that Skip takes care of
the buildings and the sheriffs, you take care of the equipment purchases, the capital acquisitions. You or another
Page 50 of 64
161 103
September 20, 2010
AUIR
person. I'm talking about the police cars and so forth.
Would it serve us -- and this is truly a question -- would it serve us to have a reference, if you will, the square
footage that's relevant to one part of it and then the other capital equipment, so that we can see that the composition of
1.96 really is representative of those components? Does that make any sense?
MR. BOSI: I think it makes sense, but I'm not sure if that's the appropriate manner or way to display the
information, because of the unknown that we have specifically made the request to have the level of service express
itself in a more straightforward manner to the impact fee consultants, and they're going to provide recommendations
to us in terms of how to make the necessary modifications.
And that impact fee study will be brought before the Board of County Commissioners in December, and
those options will be available.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We have next year.
MR. BOSE Yes.
CHIEF SMITH: It seems to me, Commissioner Murray, that what we do is we take the cost of providing that
deputy and then we somehow, you know, take that associative cost and we convert it to what we know the cost of a
square foot to be so that we're all operating with the same universal currency, so to speak, and then that's the way it's
reported.
But certainly to me, I understand what you're saying, and it's the same thing that we think would be beneficial
as well, identify the cost of furnishing a deputy and tell us what it is so that we can see that this is what --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Basically that's really it. And ifTindale- Oliver does a goodjob for us, fine.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The thing you're going to do in December, is that going to come down to a
square foot cost?
MR. BOSL I'm not sure what the options --impact fee consultant, Ijust don't know what they're going to
provide for us to be able to, you know, address the specific issue that -- you're right, we were -- this is the same
discussion we had last year, and we expressed the difficulty. And I remember it was -- I believe it was -- if it wasn't a
recommendation, it was a statement that was made a couple times that the Planning Commission would like to see a
better way to express the level of service standard.
And when we were in -- this past spring when we were in negotiations with "findale- Oliver about updating
this, those comments were echoed and forwarded to the consultant based upon these concerns that have been
expressed today.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we're going to leave it this year so we can have it again next year. So it
will be next year --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: No, it should be solved by next year, Brad.
MR. BOSI: With the adoption of the impact fee study --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We'll see. I mean, if it's a square foot cost it will never make sense to me.
Because I think what Bob is saying is correct, is that there's a lot of different categories --
MR. BOSE Yes, serious --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- some of which you're building, some -- and that's nice that that's even
separate so that the county knows what they have to deal with and mix it into theirs.
And the other is the equipment and everything else. And I think that for us that's how we can see if in fact
everything is taken care of for the use and inventory.
MR. BOSE And as part of the draft, they have the total capital cost for, you know, provision of law
enforcement services. And four percent is land value, 38 percent is building value, 58 percent is equipment value.
And this type of information will be shared with you as part of the AUIR. We'll give you those keys towards what
you're breaking down.
So these are areas that are being explored right now with the impact fee consultant.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, that --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So maybe we won't have this next year.
MR. BOSI: I will strive to make sure that we don't have this discussion.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This AUIR, looking at our notes, it's definitely a form of deja vu.
MR. BOSI: Yes.
Page 51 of 64
161 ip
September 20, 2010
AUIR
COMMISSIONER SCHll'FER: 'Ihe -- can you take the word building square footage out this year then?
MR. BOSI: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All the way to support and just use the same factor'? Last year we had no
discussion of building square footage.
MR. BOSI: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would make a motion.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That we recommend approval of the 2010 AUIR summary for law
enforcement. I guess that should be sufficient on its own.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And IT second it under the assumption it includes removing the building
square footage --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- that you referenced.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would be correct.
MR. BOSI: Noted.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: 1 think that was acknowledged.
MR. BOSI: Acknowledged.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: All in favor'?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Aye.
Any opposed"
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: All right, thank you.
Cl LIFE SMITH: Thank you very much.
MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chief.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: ** *All right. Next, county libraries.
MS. MATTHES: Marilyn Matthes, Library Director.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Welcome, Marilyn.
MS. MAY FHES: We haven construction projects planned for the foreseeable future. Otherwise, do you
have any questions for the library?
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Anybody, questions?
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Cm toying with --you do it --I didn't remember from last year that we were
doing it for five years. But it turns out I guess that's a good way of going about it.
The impact fees anticipated, last year you projected 960,648. Did you ever get anywhere near that number?
MS. MATTHES: 500,000 -- no, five'? That was a five -year estimate last year.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Let's have you come up and speak on the mic. That would be better
for Cherie' and for the record. Thanks.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're right, and thank you for correcting me. It is for live years. But it's a
rolling number, isn't it'? Or is it? Because you had a prior number.
MS. USHER: Ili. Susan Usher, from Office of Management and Budget.
It's a five -year number. Every year we update it, depending on what's going on in the market. And all we can
do is based on what's happening today and projecting out, based on population growth.
So if today we're at a very low number and population growth is only two percent, then we take today's
number and grow it by two percent. That's how we do the calculation on all the impact fees --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's straightforward.
page 52 of 64
161 1
September 20, 2010
AUIR
MS. USHER: -- in Category B.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Straightforward and it's honest, and that's a good way of going, I guess.
But I just -- you know, looking at it, when you say to yourself -- because we know that the impact fees
received have been very small.
MS. USHER: Yes, they have.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So when we see a number that although it's declined and it's -- again, I
marked it five years, still, you just -- you know, it provokes the question, gee, I wonder what we did get to. Because
otherwise it's a -- it could be construed as a filler. And no, I said could be construed that way. You've said how it's
done, which is honest.
MS. USHER: It's calculated.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And -- excuse me, we have an uncle over here that's not behaving.
I just was concerned that we are in a state of decline, it is declining, your numbers are declining, but not by
enough to make me wonder.
And so that's how you do it.
MS. USHER: Uh -huh. I do it on all of the category B's that way, the calculation. I look at where we are
today and then I grow it by the population growth.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And for Marilyn, I have the question which is inevitable because it was the
question we asked last time.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Thank you for that.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you.
You assigned -- and that's been a constant, you assign $25 an item, no matter what the item is. And how real
is that in terms of today? And I know that it's a conglomeration from the highs and the lows and so forth.
MS. MATTHES: It truly is an average. And it's really maintained that value for a number of years. Because
of the higher value books, we aren't buying as much of anymore. More of that information is available on line
through data bases on the Internet. So we're not buying those really expensive books in as large quantities as we used
to. So the $25 is still a viable number.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because you're -- and I don't want you to go crazy with this, but my
supposition then would be that that being the case, if it represented a significant or fairly significant number in terms
of those costs and you're not buying as many, that suggests that with that same $25 we're able to buy other items such
as CD's or DVD's in greater numbers? Is that a reasonable statement?
MS. MAT'ITIES: We're -- not really. We're spending the money that we have. And the average cost per
item is about $25. Whether we're buying more items than we used to, probably not. We certainly had an influx of
money to purchase materials for the new South Regional library.
And if you noticed, a few years ago we were under what our level of service was for a number of items. But
once South Regional opened we really caught up with that number. So we're actually a little bit ahead of the level of
service now.
That's also partly respons -- in a response to our staff decreasing. We don't have as many staff members to
actually weed out the old materials, and so they're staying on our shelves longer, but we also have more space to hold
them. So, you know, it's just a balancing act --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I hear it.
MS. MATTHES: -- at this point.
So are we buying more quantity materials? No. We don't have as many people to process those materials
either. But the materials are actually staying on our shelves longer. So maybe we have a travel book that that we
should have gotten rid of two years ago, maybe we have some travel books that -- or finance books or investment
books that really are out of date and we really haven't had staff to get rid of them from our collection yet.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Well, that's where I was basically leading. Because ultimately when
you do get staff again and you do start restating those kinds of activities -- reinstating -- then the question will become
will you be short'? Will $25 be enough to sustain you or will you modulate that to remain at a $25 figure?
MS. MATTHES: Yeah, I think it depends on the market at the time. And it depends on -- we look at the cost
per items annually. So right now it's still okay. Will it be okay next year? Certainly I can't predict that. But it's okay
right now.
Page 53 of 64
161 1p
September 20, 2010
AUIR
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just wondered if 25 was still a good number.
MS. MAFTHES: It is.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because it's been a number now for what, five years?
MS. MATTI ES: Pretty close to that.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. And as a composite, you know, we've had inflationary and we've had
deliationary.
MS. MA7 °FHES: You can think of it this way: We used to buy large reference materials for all of our
libraries. Not every title for every library; some of the smaller libraries didn't get the, you know, real expensive titles.
So we've cut down -- initially we cut down on the quantity that we did get and now we're actually even
reducing that quantity further. So, you know, it's a gradual step.
And we aren't really noticing a lack of need of service for those large purchases that we no longer make,
because the information is available elsewhere.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that would bring me to the last part of this, which would be the issues
of complaints. You would know by the number and type of complaint whether or not you're satisfying the
marketplace, so to speak. And you're not in any sort of situation where we're getting a lot of complaints about the
absence of or --
MS. MATI'HES: No, no, we aren't. We have an easy complaint method on our website and people can
easily ask us. If they're not asking in person, we have a continent section. And I seldom hear that oh, you got rid of
that expensive finance guide. Most often we hear, I'm 60th on the waiting list for this new best seller, when am I ever
going to get it? That's the continent that we get.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's a different kind of complaint, right.
MS. MA ITIES: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: "Thank you.
MS. MATTHF.S: You're welcome.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Anybody else'?
Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Arid first of all, this might be a good role model for the last thing, because
they have buildings separated from in this case items. In that case you might want buildings and equipment or
something.
But anyway, this isjust like I think housekeeping stuff. The unit cost we have, $25 per volume, we can
change that be item too, right'? And these are things we did last year --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: I think we did last year.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- and never caught up with it. But we'll -- three or four years we'll get it.
'The revenues, the impact fee allocated to new books should be items, don't you agree? I mean, let's just make
it all items. I mean, the new people here are having trouble, maybe.
MR. BOSI: On page --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Under revenues. Yeah, I'm on Page 134. You have a unit cost of $25 per
volume. So that's (sic) should be per item.
This is really important stuff we're doing here now. But I guess if we go back and back and back. We have
to spend tune.
Under revenues, it's allocated to new not books but items. Do you see it, Mike? You look puzzled.
MR. BOSE Yeah, uh -huh.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then down under revenues it says library materials. Just say
library items might be good there also, just so that it's clear.
And then the only other thing, it just dawned on me when you were talking, you know when you put the
books out for sale on the table and we buy them and put them on E -Bay and sell them for more? Why don't you just
sell them to E -Bay and make -- you know, just the handling scam will make you rich. So --
MS. MATTHES: Staffing. Staffing.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, get some high school volunteer group to run E -Bay auctions of your
stuff rather than --
MS. MATTHF.S: We actually accept donations from the public in the name of our Friends of the Library,
Page 54 of 64
161 1 p
September 20, 2010
AUIR
and they go through and pull out the most expensive items, and they do sell them on E -Bay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Because everybody buys one of those dollar books, they're going to
run home and sell it on E -Bay. Maybe a couple will read it, then sell it on E -Bay.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Do we have any other questions?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: I have one more.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Go ahead, Melissa.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: It looks like as far as the buildings, there's years worth of inventory left.
hi terms of the actual items, you're showing a need in 2012,'l 3, which will probably be remedied by the new
BEHR.
But in terms of impact fees, how is that split? Which is paid first? Whatever's deficient?
MS. MATTHES: Impact fees are used to purchase growth books intended for new population.
Replacement books, if we're replacing an investment title, a best seller, they're really purchased all essentially
together. Although different funds can be charged for different parts of an order.
We're ordering actually probably on a weekly basis to make sure that the books and materials and items come
in at a regular rate, as opposed to all coming in at the first of the month and nothing coming in after that.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Okay. On your operational statistics at the back of this report, any
surprises for you there? Anything that you were not expecting?
MS. MAT`IHES: No, not really. Our use of electronic materials, our downloadable books, our language
programs that are on line now instead of on a CD are certainly increasing in usage. More people are using those
on -line resources than have been in the past. And certainly it's a much easier collection to manage than a physical
collection.
Jail population seems to be going down. Ourjail circulation seems to be going down. We're affected by
everything else that everybody is affected by. If tourism is down in the wintertime, certainly our peak months,
January through March, April, are -- have less circulation. So we're similar to everybody else.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have one more.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Can downloadable books be overdue?
MS. MATTHES: No, they can't. They disappear from your Ipod, your MP3 player, or they become
disabled, you actually have to take them out. So there are no overdues for downloadable books.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So we lose the currency on that.
MS. MATTHES: We do.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Do I have a motion?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it, if you want. And it will be two motions. First one will be for --
recommend we forward with approval 2010 AUIR for library buildings.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Okay, all in favor?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER IIOMIAK: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Aye.
Any opposed?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: All right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second motion would be that we forward the 2010 AUIR for library
materials with a recommendation of approval.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Somebody else?
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Thank you, Ms. Ebert.
Page 55 of 64
16 3
September 20, 210
AU1R
Thank you. All in favor?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ave.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ave.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Aye.
And none opposed, I could count that myself.
Thank you. Thank you.
** *And now we are down to Mr. Page, EMS.
CHIEF PAGE: Jeff Page with Emergency Medical Services.
And I'm here to answer any questions. As you can see, really not until the last two years do we really have
anything planned out.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Questions?
Go ahead, Melissa.
COMM ISSIONER AI TERN: Again, these numbers front impact fee studies, you're showing you needed --
you didn't need equipment but you need building replacement, land replacement for two -- or not replacement, I'm
sorry — for two --
CIIIEF PAGE: "two stations-.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: --new stations, right. And on the front you're showing additional revenues
required at the 3 million, 750.
My question is, why use the $900,000 number that was based off of 2006 impact fee study using a 2005 land
cost? Why not be more realistic and have a number that may be attainable as opposed to so high?
CHIEF PAGE: Well, our impact fee studies are actually coming before the board I think next month. So
that's all going to change.
But those numbers were based on the numbers that we had then. So you're right, they need to be updated,
and that's what we're currently doing.
COMMISSIONER AlIFRN: Right. It makes it look like you need a lot more funding than maybe you
actually do.
CHIEF PAGE: I understand.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: When is your new study coming up?
CHIEF PAGE: Second meeting in October?
MS. PATTF,RSON: Yeah.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Second meeting. So we would also have that new information by the
time -- on the 21 st?
MR. BOSh No.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: We would not have it on October 21 st?
MR. BOSI: No, the second meeting in October is a week after. You guys meet the third week in October.
The second meeting of the BCC would be the fourth week of October.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: No, no, no, the BCC's going to hear them in their first week, which is
week two.
MS. PATTERSON: No, the second meeting in October.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Oh, the second meeting. Okay, I'm sorry, I thought he said the second
week in October.
MS. PATTERSON: We'll have the recommendation to the board ready by the October 21st --by your
meeting on October 21st. That executive summary will be loaded and ready to go to the board. You just won't have
the benefit of the board's action.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Right, right. Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, that thing we continued won't have the benefit of the board's action,
which means it will be still hypothetical.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Yeah.
Page 56 of 64
161 l �3
September 20, 2010
AUIR
Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, let's --
MS. PATTERSON: Sony, excuse me.
The one you continued, transportation, is going to the board September 28th.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, never mind.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Jeff, I realize that you bill customers of EMS, and I know that in many
instances you probably don't get the money from them. But in another set of instances, whatever that number may be,
you do get refunds from insurance companies and so forth. You get I call it a refund, because it's an expense that
you're getting money back.
We don't ever see that explained as revenue. It's not truly revenue in the same sense that you and I might
think about it, but it's an offset to expense.
CHIEF PAGE: Correct. Back in 1981 the board then basically decided -- and it vanes from location to
location, but they decided that they would like to take about 50 percent of what it cost to run EMS from ad valorem
taxes and base the fees on the other 50 percent.
And any given year, I mean, you're making a guess of what you're going to collect in revenue. But typically
this year I think we ran about 2,000 more calls than we did the previous year, so our revenues are up a little bit. But
it's --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, your expenses are also up, too, likely.
CHIEF PAGE: Well.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If you planned for 20 helicopter activities and you had 30, at $1,000 a mile
-- what is it, 1,000 a mile, something like that? One year you said something about $1,000 or something like that.
CHIEF PAGE: Or, the cost per hour of the helicopter.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Per hour, that's what it was.
CHIEF PAGE: Yeah, that's about a thousand --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Per mile was a little high. Per hour is not cheap either.
What I'm driving at is that when you use -- you know, you use this for one purpose and that's another, I
realize that. But what I'm driving at is let's say in one year that you had 30 calls and 17 of them you got refunds from
the insurance companies. Your budget will be operating a little happier on that basis.
Do you reflect that in your budget then, just as you have here, carry forward, is that reflective of a little bit of
how shall we say, float?
CHIEF PAGE: Well, any additional money that we collect in revenue for the most part goes right back to the
general fund. I mean, it's not something that we necessarily carry forward.
But this last year the board allowed us, because we did so well on collections last year in revenue, we actually
were able to take that surplus and purchase some of the -- replace some of the ambulances that were deteriorating.
We were behind and still are on those replacement schedules.
But it's just based on whatever budget that we end up with what -- we reduce like every other department, you
know, and you've got to go from there.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, unfortunately unlike every other department you're running at a deficit
in terns of time, which is response time, and you're running in a deficit in area. And I understand you have battalion
chiefs or whatever you guys call them running around in their cars operating as, how shall we say, logistically there.
They're troubadours, okay. And I don't know if that represents a significant additional expense or a benefit to you.
And have you determined that yet? Because I know that was a stopgap method associated in part with the
issues with the fire departments.
CHIEF PAGE: Well, not necessarily. The intent there with the MedCom, is what we call it, Medical
Command. But the intent with the MedComs is is that they backfill vacancies and zones where maybe I have a unit
transporting into the hospital, they may backfill that vacancy.
They're not really a replacement for the fire departments, because the fire departments still respond as a first
responder. They've never quit doing that. So there really was no connection with the MedComs coming on board. It
was another method to help us backfill concurrent calls. We have problems with, you know, calls appearing in the
same zone, sometimes as many as three or four. And so you try to get a MedCom in there, they can go to the most
serious calls. And they do serve a supervisory type position in the fact that they're an additional medical command, so
Page 57 of 64
161 1 p
September 20, 2010
AUIR
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, sorry for the misjudgment 1 made about it being associated with the
fire department. But I knew that I thought it was a good idea. And I just wondered if you determined whether or not
that is actually beneficial financially for you or it doesn't matter whether it's beneficial for you, it's an idea that has to
stay.
CHIEF PAGE: Well, it is something that's really working out for us, and I'll tell you why. I think 1 told you
last year that about 65 percent -- and this number is pretty static -- but about 65 percent of the tune when we respond,
it doesn't result in a transport. In other words, there are automatic responses, like a car accident where people call in,
we respond.
But what we found is that with so few -- and I consider it few -- when you're only transporting about 40
percent of the calls that you're responding to, it's actually better to have less transports and more response capability,
all right?
So what we did in just this last year, we noticed that 75 percent of the flights that the helicopter was
responding say an accident on the Alley, at a certain mile marker they would automatically fly out. Well, 75 percent
of those times there wasn't a transport required. And once we realized that we said, you know what, we're not going
to send a helicopter till we get someone on scene and they verify that there's a need for a transport.
So we've taken that measure. And, you know, EMS is all about that. I mean, every year you're looking at
different ways to skin the cat. And that'sjust one of the things you do, you adapt. So it's -- you know, I don't know
what we'll be doing next year.
And the other thing, I would tell you this, is that four and live years out when you're looking at the AUIR, I
don't even know if I'll need those stations then. Because where I think I need them this year, it may not be the case
next year. And it keeps changing.
And if you go back in the books, you'll see sometimes where our growth stations that we planed out seven,
10 years out, things like this, they change, because the call volume is actually more concentrated here now.
So those are some of the things. And, you know, the other opportunity, we do have joint stations with some
of these fire districts. So who's to say, I may not even need to build this station. We may just collocate with
somebody else at a different location.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, you hardly have any variables in your occupation, I see.
CHIEF PAGE: I'm about the only thing that stands from year to year.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm done.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Other questions?
Go ahead, Melissa.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Do you ever consider modular buildings as opposed to --
CHIEF PAGE: Actually, we were looking -- one of the stations that we have or the land that we have at
Logan and Vanderbilt, we were looking at possibly putting a trailer there on a pad. But once we got with facilities
and they had, you know, actually looked at what the cost associated with that -- because we were going to do it as a
temporary measure. But it really wasn't that big a savings.
We currently run out of one at Ave Maria currently. We're staffed therejointly with Immokalee Fire
Department. And I think in the next year or two they're due to build a joint facility for both tire, EMS and law
enforcement there.
So we take those opportunities when we can get them. But modular for whatever reason just didn't workout.
It was something I was really interested in. Because I thought I could just take tins thing and move it to the next spot.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: That's what 1 was thinking.
CHIEF PAGE: But it didn't really work out that well because of permitting and there's a lot of requirements
with it.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: That's a shock.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have one other question, if I may. If you were done. Are you done`?
COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'm done.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 'Fins just occurred to me, that if Jacks. Labs go forward and if they then have
a hospital out there, that might tend to relieve things, providing that hospital is established to operate as we would say,
a general hospital.
Page 58 of 64
16 ! 1 �3
September 20, 2010
AUIR
Have you begun the thought of exploring that, or poking into that?
CHIEF PAGE: Well, I can tell you this: I was just meeting with hospital officials, both with Naples
Community Hospital and then HMA at the Pine Ridge facility, and it works a lot better for us when we have multiple
destinations that we can transport to. When we just had Naples Community Hospital before -- I mean, right now
Marco residents can actually go to the HMA facility on Collier Boulevard there. It's much closer than the NCH
facility.
So what we're always looking to do is at the point the hospitals can get their cardiac care up to a level that
allows for us to transport them, for the most part serious heart attacks go to the main campus at NCH downtown. But
nowjust recently there's been a cardiologist group that's going to be working out of the Pine Ridge facility, which will
allow us to transport there as well. So we won't have to bypass that facility now to go to the hospital.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There'll also be at Collier as well.
CHIEF PAGE: Right.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can assure you of that.
CHIEF PAGE: Yeah, we're always looking for that. And certainly any opportunity -- both facilities have
offered us in the past and currently the ability to run out of their facilities to use as a station, so to speak. So that's
something we're also interested in.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I don't want to tell you your job, and I'm not suggesting that I'm trying
to tell you yourjob, but the thought occurred, inasmuch as that hospital may be a teaching hospital or a specialty
hospital, maybe getting a poke in early to try to see whether or not regardless of what it ultimately turns out, maybe
there's a section there that could be the receiving and treatment for at least some aid, qualified aid there, as opposed to
that long trip in even to Pine Ridge is a nice trip.
CHIEF PAGE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Other questions?
(No response.)
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Motion?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move that the 2010 AUIR for emergency medical services be forwarded
with a recommendation of approval.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Aye.
CHIEF PAGE: Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: ** *Now we're down to government buildings.
MR. JONES: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I lank Jones from the Department of Facilities Management.
Our general government building AUIR has no new construction in the next five years and very little in the
outgoing years, other than a couple of projects which continue to roll from year to year, as needs arise.
Do you have any questions?
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Any questions?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, yes. Could you imagine.
The $345.58 unit cost, what period of time is that from, the last impact fee study?
MR. JONES: No, that's basically the number that I've developed here looking at past costs for facilities that
we've just completed. But factoring in some very difficult relationships between the work we're now doing, which is
a lot of conversion work, purchase and convert, which is entirely different than building new structures. So I've tried
to temper down the cost and project forward what I think a new building would cost us. It's way down from what it
was in 2007.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, and I know that there's a double asterisk statement here, representative
Page 59 of 64
161 1 3
September 20, 2010
AUIR
projects. So which of course makes one question what, you know, representative in your case as professional you're
taking those eligible and they're eligible because? Can you help me withjust --
MR. JONES: Well, since the title is general government building I didn't use the emergency service center,
because that was a much more complicated type of building. But l used predominantly the courthouse annex and
some of the fleet facilities. More general maintaining service type buildings.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thank you for that, because I think that's a more effective way of doing
business.
And I also note too that the impact fee anticipated is 1,123,648 less than '09. Wow, you really did take the
cut, didn't you?
MR. JONES: Well, and I think -- I don't know what's coming out, but I know I've been doing a lot of work
with the impact fee study that's going on right now. So I'm waiting as well to see what finally comes out of it.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And my final question/statement is: You have in available inventory 28,721
square feet over'09. Was that the acquisition of the lormer Elks Lodge"
MR. JONES: I'm sorry, which line are you looking at? Over'09'?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm talking about the available inventory.
MR. JONES: Well, yeah. And you said in 910, that 27,556 is the Elks Lodge facility that came on line.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Just wanted to be very clear that it is.
Those take care of my questions.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Anyone else'?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Go ahead, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it goes to, you're going to get 3.1 million to pay back the solid waste
loan?
MR. JONES: That portion is just for the purchase of the property, the Elks property.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, which you borrowed from solid waste.
MR. JONES: That's right. And in addition we borrowed the construction cost. But the total package, which
I think was 5.8 million, is being paid back over eight years by the avoidance of the lease payment that we were
making, which was 626 odd thousand dollars per year.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it shows us on Page 211 you're going to pay down 630,000. In other
words -- so you're keeping some of that revenue from that appraiser's rent for operations'?
MR. JONES: 1 need some help.
MS. USHER: Susan Usher from Officer of Management and Budget.
Money was borrowed from the solid waste fund to purchase the property. I believe some -- we rearranged
some allocations in the capital -wide capital projects fund, what we call 301, which is usually funded by general fund
monies. And I think what we did is rearrange, we collapsed some projects that were completed and then gave
additional money so that they could renovate the building.
But the 630 represents the money we borrowed from solid waste, and we're paying it back. So that's the 630
a year over eight years.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And last year, and 1 guess it shows on that other page, you borrowed four
million, 618 dollars from them. And then so you're going to pay them back at 630 a year.
MS. USHER: Plus interest. So that eighth year, it may go into a ninth year. The interest is -- the actual cost
of the money per year. Right now interest rates are very low, were not earning much on our money. But if interest
rates were to go up we have to -- see, utilities has that money -- could have had that money and they could have been
earning interest on it all this time. So what we're going to do is pay back the money that they could have earned
interest -wise on the county's investments.
So right now the principal is about eight years. It may go into a ninth year, once we figure out the interest
aspect of it, because there's costs with that money.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The revenue is the -- here's -- let me make it simple. Forget the numbers.
Is it -- you're getting back a big chunk of money from the property appraiser's rent payment. You're paying a
lot less than that back on the note. So in other words --
MS. USHER: No.
Page 60 of 64
161
September 20, 2010
AUIR
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're not?
MS. USHER: They -- in our budget they had a rent payment at their old site. We rounded up to 630,000.
And what we did is we decided to build an amortization schedule that just transferred that amount of money to help
pay off that debt with solid waste.
The Property Appraiser -- okay, the -- we paid the rent. Because the board is supposed to supply the facilities
to the constitutional officers. So we had a place in our general fund that said this is property appraiser expenditures,
but the board has to pay for it.
So every month we made that rent check out and we would send it. And instead of sending it to an outside
entity, now we're taking that money and -- or annually with 630,000. So now annually we give that to solid waste to
pay them back.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I get that. My question comes, though, and this year the revenues
show 3.1 million coming from the property appraiser's rent payment used to repay solid waste for Elks Lodge.
MS. USHER: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's the thing that's confusing me. In other words, I know what you're
doing, in lieu of paying the rent to private citizen, you're paying the rent to the dump for letting you borrow against
the money they have for down the road.
MS. USHER: Right. But you take five years and that's what it amounts to.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what's this 30 -- in other words to me it looks like you're getting 3.1
million.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: It's a five -year figure.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, over the five years.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Yeah. It's 630 times five.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There's where I messed up.
MS. USHER: Yeah, we have to pay the debt back. So I just sort of gave you a little bit more information.
Instead of saying general fund transfer --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I got it.
MS. USHER: -- to solid waste, I wanted to tie it into the Elks Lodge, and this is about how much money we
would have had to pay anyway had the Property Appraiser stayed at the building across the courthouse.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, no, that's good. It's washing. The mistake was mine in not
understanding the five -year accounting.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Any other questions?
Go ahead, Melissa, you've been waiting very patiently.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Under Owned Facilities on Page 174, the ODES buildings obviously make
sense. Why is the Tax Collector not included in the study?
MR. JONES: That's a good question. I don't recall. There were certain ones they didn't include, right?
MS. PATfERSON: Amy Patterson again for the record.
Outside funding source besides impact fees are ad valorem. That's the same reason why CDES isn't in there.
Whatever the funding source was for the Tax Collector was one that we put onto the weren't going to include in the
study category.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Okay
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: I'm done.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Oh, okay, that was your only question? All right.
I have just a couple questions, I think.
The future building here, which I recognize is out in these out years, but the building in the Heritage Bay, I'm
surprised they're even showing up here any longer. I mean, they should just be wiped off the face of this thing. For
all intents and purposes they're meaningless, I think.
MR. JONES: Well, the planning cycle -- I'm sure Mr. Camp can explain, but the planning cycle for a
structure like that, if it comes to pass that the BEBR study would indicate that say the economy gets back on the road
and that area of the county starts building, the planning cycle has to start. Because it's a I0 -year cycle almost to get
something like that on the road.
Page 61 of 64
161 1 63
September 20, 2010
AUIR
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: So you're using a l0 -year cycle?
MR. JONES: I'm just throwing that out as that's when a typical planning cycle would start -- would take if
you were going to put a major construction project out.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: All right. That's stretching.
The -- your current impact fee unit cost, Amy, is $306 per square foot?
MS. PATTERSON: That was the cost in the last full update, which was in 2006.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON : Right, but we don't have the new one yet, so why isn't that the figure
that gets used?
MS. PATTERSON: If they have better representative costs because of current projects, which a lot of the
facilities now don't have, then they'll use the impact fee cost. But as that becomes more outdated and if they have a
better cost, that's what we've traditionally been using. We're under study now and we know that number's coming
down.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN C: ARON: You said earlier that you hied to adjust because you know that you're
no longer building new facilities and those always cost more money than refurbishing old, like the Elks Club where
you went in and youjust rehabbed a building.
Yet one of the buildings you used as it basis was the courthouse construction, and that was all new, so --
MR. JONES: That's Correct. Because basically the AUIR is for basically new construction. New buildings.
And so 1 was looking for representative new structures that we've completed that would be representative of new
office structures for the future.
MR. BOSI: And can I -- and really, it goes back to that request that we had earlier where you were
mentioning about related to the parks. And a good example is libraries. Libraries we didn't use the impact fee
number, we used the number we got from the south library, because that was the last project that we utilized. So we
said that's a much better representation of the reality of the construction.
And what Skip and Mr. Jones have tried to do is try to give you what the reality -- a more realistic approach
towards -- based upon past experiences what that cost would be.
I think the line of questioning would have burn, you know, is it appropriate the ones that we choose, then
that's maybe a different field. But the reason why, is when we have better information related than in an impact fee
study, if we have more up -to -date unit cost, we want to give you just exactly what you had said, a truer representation
of what that real cost would be.
And I think maybe some of the differences are, some of the projects that we chose maybe aren't in your
purview as best representing what would be a new project that we're going to put on line.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Well, I guess it just goes back to when that project started and what
were the construction costs at that time versus what we're hearing now and what we can foresee over the next five
years. And I'm just saying I think that these figures are still a little high.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think, Donna, one thing is you've got probably soft costs and other
things in there too. Architects, those silly —
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Oh, those architects, man, they run it up every time, don't they? Oh,
man.
MR. BOSI: And 1 will reiterate. I know through both of-- between real property efforts and facilities efforts
is we're not tied to a cost when we go forward. We look for best value engineering, we look for how we can be as
most efficient within the acquisition for any new projects.
So we place this as a place for the accounting purposes, but once again, we stumble that this is not the
obligation that we will have --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON, Yeah, no.
MR. BOSL -- we will have a much different actual cost when we do identify that next project.
MR. JONES: The other thing that frequently comes up is that the figure that I'm using here is not just a cost
per square foot for some cement blocks and wallboard, it's the total project cost, which is the planning of it, the
permitting, the hearings, all of that rolled together. This is actual return soup to nuts cost.
I also caution against the fervor of everybody saying oh, well, right now I can get my bathroom remodeled
for 10 cents on the dollar what it used to be. The only -- right now the only thing that I've seen is there's been some
labor efficiencies that you're getting. The material prices, if you check the indexes, the material prices are not
Page 62 of 64
Septembl r 20, 2010
AUIR
changing that drastically. And they -- furthermore, all it's going to take is a little kick, I hope, in the economy and all
these prices, mark my words, will jump back up quickly.
Because there'll be a -- when people -- there's a built -up need coming to us, and when it breaks, everybody's
going to want the same tradesmen, the same materials at the same time. I think materials and everything will catch
up. Maybe not go right back to the 2007 levels, which were crazy, but they're going to come back up higher than they
are today by a considerable margin, I think. My opinion, though.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: You have a -- we have very few leased situations left.
MR. JONES: That's correct.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: We've been trying to get out of them, I know.
MR. JONES: We are out of all of them except the very few that I've listed.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Except the four that are here on Page 175.
Obviously the FDOT one, I'm not even sure why that one has to be included. For 50 bucks over 10 years,
that's the best deal that anybody's ever gotten. So kudos to whoever negotiated that with FDOT.
But the Tax Collector's Office at Greentree and the one at Eagle Creek, those are convenience for the public
to some degree or another. And is it in these economic times still really viable to be doing those kind of convenience
ones? For example, Greentree is not that far from Orange Blossom where you've got services right there. I mean, it's
a matter of a couple of miles. I don't know.
MR. CAMP: That's a -- for the record, Skip Camp.
That's a great observation. And the county manager sent a written document to the constitutional officers to
try to collapse some of those convenient leases. The Tax Collector was adamant about keeping those two. But we
absolutely thought that it's not that far, this is a great facility at the North Collier Government Service Center. They
could handle it. But the Tax Collector as a constitutional officer decided he wanted to keep those two locations. But
that point is well taken.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Okay. Well, I mean, as a planner 1 see that personally I love
Greentree, but I just don't -- I don't see it as -- you know, 1 mean, there's a couple hundred thousand dollars a year that
could go back into other things that are --would seem to be a lot more vital. Anyway, that's just my personal
comment.
I guess we're going to need a motion here, if nobody else has any --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I --
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: -- further questions.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- have one question of Mike.
Given that -- you know, and I heard you and I understand you and I agree with you, it's a pent -up demand and
that demand will initially or within short order exceed capability to produce. But it will flatten out.
However, if BEBR were to give us numbers at some percentage higher than what he has as realistic costs,
when would you start pulling the hom, you know, making the noise that there's something strange here?
MR. BOSI: One, l would say that the relationship between BEBR and whatever costs that government
facilities could come up with are -- there's no connection. BEBR allocates population projections, and the population
projections really have no relationship to unit cost for construction.
Where -- if we kept continually seeing the BEBR projections that were provided for us year after year not
materializing, I think that's when we would go back to our conversation with the Board of County Commissioners
saying is BEBR medium still the appropriate rate of growth for this county based upon whatever window, or whatever
the statistical sample, as long as it was significant enough that we felt that we no longer were in that environment, we
no longer felt the growth that BEBR was projecting at the medium level. We'd have to go back to the Board of
County Commissioners and engage the Department of Community Affairs in that discussion in saying, you know,
based upon the past four years there has been a minimal population increase, but the population projections that have
been provided by your designated source has been much higher than what has been realized; therefore, we think it
appropriate to go to BEBR low population projections.
And that would be the appropriate action if we did find ourselves in that scenario towards where they were
always grossly over - estimating what we were to expect in that five and 10 -year window.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. 1 guess I really wanted to say the impact fee study but stop,
you've already answered my question.
Page 63 of 64
16 I 13
September 20, 2010
AUIR
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: All right, motion?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 1 move that (sic) the 2010 AUIR with a recommendation of approval for
government buildings.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Second.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Aye.
Thank you.
MR. JONES: Thank you.
AC FING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: That brings us to the end.
Now, obviously we don't have anybody here from the public. Amy, do you want to speak to us again?
Okay. Then TII entertain an motion.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, first of all, Friday meeting is not necessary.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Not necessary.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So 1 move we close the AUIR hearings for 2010.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: I second.
ACTING CHAIRWOMAN CARON: Thank you.
All in favor'
SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye.
ACTING CI AIRWOMAN CARON: Aye.
We're out of here.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:10
p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
DONNA REED CARON, Acting Chairwoman
These minutes approved by the board on �/ %11/D_ as-presented ✓ or as corrected
'I ranscript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham.
Page 64 of 64
RECEIVED
OCT 2 7 2010
Board of County CanMaWMM
161 1 gA
ApfWe, 204.4 �
Hales
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
CONSUMER ADVISORY BOARD
Naples, Florida, April 20, 2010
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Consumer Advisory
Board in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein,
met on this date at 2:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier
County Community Development Services Conference Room #609/610,
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members
present:
CHAIRMAN
VICE CHAIRMAN
Justin P. Caldarone
Kristi J. Bartlett
Victoria DiNardo
John Herbert Mitchell
(Vacancy)
ALSO PRESENT: Michael Ossorio, Licensing Compliance Supervisor
Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney
James French, Director of- Operations, CDES
Connie Thomas, Administrative Supervisor Licensing
N"4C. Jorres.
Date: —Uj¢JL= J
Item #�—Yi l I
161 10
April 20, 2010
I. Roll Call
Chairman Caldarone called the meeting to order at 2:03 pm
Roll call was taken and a quorum was established.
II. Additions or Deletions
III. Approval of Agenda
Ms. DiNardo moved to approve the agenda subject to the following addition:
Item VI.(C) — Robert McGuire
Second by Chairman Caldarone. Carried unanimously 3 -0.
IV. Approval of Minutes
Date: January 29, 2010
Chairman Caldarone moved to approve the minutes of the January 29, 2010
meeting. Second by Mr. Mitchell. Carried unanimously 3 -0.
V. Discussion
(A) Roberts Rules of Order
Continued
VI. New Business
(A) Clean Ride
Appellant: Clean Ride Limo, Inc.
Reason: Request for Reduction of fines assessed by Special Magistrate
Represented by: P. Brandon Perkins, Attorney — Bobby Calvert, Clean Ride
Limo, Inc.
Jamie French, Director of Operations, CDES provided a brief overview of
the case noting the citations had been issued under the previous Public Vehicle
for Hire (PVHF) Ordinance and the current Staff was not involved in the
citation or established a position in the case.
Michael Ossorio, Licensing Compliance Supervisor noted the Section 4A of
the Resolution 2009 -27, Section Four (a) states "A Consumer Advisory Board
(CAB) is herby established for the purpose of hearing any appeals from adverse
administrative decisions regarding a public vehicle license permit. The CAB is
established for the purpose of hearing all public consumer issues. " The item
has been placed before the CAB for consideration.
Brandon Perkins noted;
• The previous PVFH Ordinance was unclear on the definition of a
"limousine" or "bus."
In the opinion of Clean Ride Limo, Inc., twenty eight passenger vehicles
were defined as a "bus" and subject to the requirements of the State of
Florida Transportation Department.
These requirements exempted them from the Collier County PVFH
Ordinance.
{ r
1 bLV
A ril l 2!10
p ,
0
• Collier County disagreed on the exemption.
• The company was operating 26 and 28 passenger vehicles within Collier
County without a Public Vehicle for Hire License.
• A citation was issued for the alleged violation by Collier County Code
Enforcement.
• The citation was appealed to the Special Magistrate who issued fines in
the amount $3420.00 for Civil Penalties, Operational Costs and
Administrative Costs($3200.00 and$200.00 and $20.00 respectively) as
shown on page 17 of the appeal documents.
• Clean Ride Limo, Inc. has a pending appeal for the fine assessment and is
attempting to resolve the matter at the County level.
• They will be applying for new licenses as required under the new PVFH
Ordinance.
• They seek the reduction of the fines assessed to the level of Operational
and Administrative Costs ($220.00)
Steve Williams noted the Board of County Commissioners has the authority to
abate the fines issued by the Special Magistrate. Staff is requesting a
recommendation from the CAB regarding the appellants request to reduce the
fines assessed. The CAB may choose not to make a recommendation if they so
desire.
Discussion occurred between Staff, Board members and the Appellant on the
circumstances of the violation.
Mr. Mitchell moved to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners the
Civil Penalties assessed to Clean Ride (Cases#CO-00194—CEVFH-2008-
0007574, 0007320, 0007285, 0008361 —C000195,197 and 0007684) be
dropped and the fines for the Administrative Costs be upheld in the amount of
$220.00(two hundred twenty dollars). Second by Chairman Caldarone.
Mr. Mitchell noted the motion was based on the apparent ambiguity in the
previous PVFH Ordinance regarding the definitions of limousines and buses.
This is evidenced by language in the new PVFH Ordinance specifically written
to address the issue.
Jamie French noted the recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of
County Commissioners.
Carried unanimously 3-0.
(B) Carrington Scott
Appellant: Carrington Scott
Reason: Appeal of Staff decision of"Preliminary Intent Not to Issue Driver's
ID"
3
t 161 1 .
April 20, 2010
Reason for Denial: Previous Driver's License Suspension,per Collier County
Ordinance 2009-27 Section 5 (b).
Represented by: Himself
Carrington Scott noted his Driver's License Suspension was based on his
failure to pay child support. All child support payments are current and his
license has been reissued.
Steve Williams noted a records check completed by Sterling Direct on page 11
of 12 of the appeal documents contradict Mr. Scott's testimony. It indicates the
suspension of his license from January 14, 2008 through June 19, 2008 was for
driving related offenses.
Michael Ossorio noted Section 5(b) of Collier County Resolution 2009-27
governing the CAB states"Any previous driver's license suspension is a basis
for denial of a Collier County(PVFH) license. " The suspensions were the
grounds for denial of his application.
Mr. Scott has a pending criminal case involving a drug felony which is not an
official part of the appeal today. If he is found guilty in this case, it will be
grounds for revocation of any license issued to him by Collier County for
operating a Public Vehicle For Hire.
Mr. Scott is confident he will be exonerated from the pending criminal
charges.
Discussion occurred on Mr. Scott's personal status and the timing of his
pending criminal case(trial dates,probability of being exonerated, etc.) His
next court date is May 11, 2010.
Jamie French recommended a temporary PVFH Operators License be issued
pending the final outcome of his criminal case. Staff will obtain documentation
on the status of his criminal charges.
Ms. DiNardo moved to grant Mr. Scott a provisional(temporary) license to
operate a Public Vehicle For Hire subject to the following conditions:
1. The license be valid until the June Board meeting, at which time Mr.
Carrington must appear before the Board to report the status of his
pending criminal case.
2. Staff obtains written documentation from his attorney on the anticipated
timeline of Mr. Scott's legal proceedings.
Second by Chairman Caldarone. Carried unanimously 3-0.
(C) Robert McGuire
Appellant: Robert McGuire
Reason: Appeal of Staff decision of"Preliminary Intent Not to Issue Driver's
ID"
4
Aprki 2§ 2010 1 04
Reason for denial: Conviction of a Felony within the past 5 years, per Collier
County Ordinance 2009 -27 Section 5 (d).
Represented by: Himself
Michael Ossorio provided an overview of the case noting the record check
completed by Sterling Direct (page 8 of 18 of the appeal documents) indicate a
felony conviction on September 6, 2006.
Section 5(d) of Collier County Resolution 2009 -27 governing the CAB states "
If as a result of either the criminal history record check or the applicant's
disclosure, one or more of the following are discovered, the applicant shall be
denied a permit. (])Conviction in the past S years of a felony. "
This was the basis for his denial.
Robert McGuire addressed his personal status and has been employed by Taxi
Time for approximately 2 years.
Speaker
Ken Mastrodomenico, Taxi Time noted Mr. McGuire was granted a license
two years ago, within the time 5 year time period of his felony conviction. He
has been employed for approximately 2 years by Taxi Time and has been a
model employee with no complaints from the public.
Discussion occurred on how Mr. McGuire obtained a previous PVFH Operators
License.
Steve Williams noted the administration of the PVFH Ordinance has been re-
assigned to new Staff personnel with new requirements for background checks.
The felony may not have been indentified during the previous application
review. The language under Section 5(d) of Collier County Resolution 2009 -27
cited by Mr. Ossorio above includes the word "shall. " The word is intended to
create a clear, concise guideline on the requirements for the issuance of the
Operators License.
Discussion occurred on the exact dates of the felony conviction as there was
confusion over the timing of his original felony conviction due to a probation
violation.
Steve Williams noted the original date of the felony conviction should be
utilized to determine the 5 year waiting period. He recommended Staff research
the Court Docket to determine the date of his original conviction. If Mr.
McGuire does not agree with the determination he may appeal to the CAB.
Mr. Mitchell moved to uphold Staffs denial of Mr. McGuire's Application for
Vehicle For Hire Operators License, and directed Staff to determine the
official date of Mr. McGuire's original felony conviction for future reference.
Second by Ms. DiNardo. Carried unanimously 3 -0.
16
April 20, 2010
Michael Ossorio noted Mr. McGuire's application is considered "closed." For
any future consideration of issuance of a PVFH License, Mr. McGuire will be
required to file a new application.
VII. Old Business
None
VIII. Reports
Speakers
Fizz Papps, Dolphin Transportation Specialist, Inc. addressed the Board
requesting the Collier County Vehicle for Hire Administrative Policy Manual be
amended to allow rear window signage on Private Charter Transportations vehicles.
Steve Williams noted Section 6 (e) of the Collier County Vehicle For Hire
Administrative Policy Manual addresses the requirement in question which states
"Charter service vehicles and other motor vehicles for hire, with the exception of
taxicabs, may display the license holder's trade name only on the front license plate
of the vehicle and/or in an area not to exceed seventy-two (72) square inches in total
area and permanently affixed to the rear bumper or other place on the rear of the
vehicle, but not on any window, and shall not have any type or form of light
device... "
A change to this Section would require an amendment to the Administrative Policy
Manual.
The Board directed Staff to place an item on the next Agenda for the consideration of
signage for the rear window of Private Charter Transportation vehicles.
Ken Mastrodomenico, Taxi Time addressed the Board expressing support for the
new PVFH Ordinance and CAB. He requested the Board consider amending the
Collier County Vehicle For Hire Administrative Policy Manual to require registration
numbers on vehicles for public identification and/or alleged code violations, etc. In
addition, individual drivers be required to generate a manifest of daily operations.
Discussion occurred on the ramifications of requiring drivers generating a daily
manifest of activities (Code enforcement assignments, impacts on law enforcement,
etc.)
The Board directed Staff to:
1. Place an item on the next Agenda for consideration of requiring identification
numbers on Public Vehicles For Hire.
2. Contact the Collier County Sheriff's Department on their position of requiring
PVFH drivers to generate a daily manifest of activities.
IX. Next Meeting Date
Tuesday May 18, 2010 - Collier County Community Development Services
Conference Room #609/610, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida. 34104
161 164
April 20, 2010
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was
adjourned by the order of the Chair at 3:27 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY CONSUMER ADVISORY
BOARD
., � (4 -
Cha; nan, Justin P. Caldarone
These Minutes we approved by the Board /Chairman on fC46o% 1 °�
as presented ✓✓ , or as amended
7
C" ,IVED 16
September 13, 2010
0c l 0 2010 Fiala
"wo:<<�,:;,,,:; Hales
Henning
Coyle --- ---- --
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIERq
CONTRACTOR LICENSING BOARD
Naples, Florida, September 13, 2010
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Contractor Licensing
Board, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in
REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #610, Collier County Growth
Management Division — Planning and Regulation Building, 2800 North
Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Thomas Lykos (Excused)
Vice Chair: Kyle Lantz
Michael Boyd (Excused)
Lee Horn
Terry Jerulle
Richard Joslin (Excused)
Robert Meister
Jon Walker
Patrick White (Excused)
ALSO PRESENT: Patrick Neale, Esq., Attorney for the Board
Robert Zachary, Esq., Assistant County Attorney
Michael Ossorio, Contractor Licensing Supervisor
Ian Jackson, License Compliancy' fT cer I
Date
1
bJ 1�c-,
September 13, 2010
Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the
proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim
record of the proceedings is made, which record includes that testimony and evidence
upon which the appeal is to be based.
I. ROLL CALL
Vice Chairman Lantz called the meeting to order at 9:05 AM.
Roll call was taken and a quorum was established.
II. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS:
Changes to Agenda:
• Under VI., "New Business," add Item (D) — Request of Robert Reed to waive
requirement to re -test to reinstate license
• Under VII, "Old Business," Item (A) - additional information was distributed
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Mr. Jerulle moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Mr. Horn.
Carried unanimously, 5 -0.
(Note: Additional information concerning Item (D) was distributed to the Board)
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Date: August 18, 2010 - Board Meeting
Date: August 18, 2010 — Workshop
Mr. Walker moved to approve the minutes of the August 18, 2010 Board meeting
and the minutes of the August 18'h Workshop as presented. Second by Mr. Jerulle.
Carried unanimously, 5 -0.
V. DISCUSSION:
(A) End of Month Report — August 2010
The Board reviewed the "Contractor Licensing Monthly Report" updated
through August 31, 2010.
Michael Ossorio noted the renewal process for State Contractors and local
Contractors began in September. He stated future monthly reports will be
emailed to the Members for their review.
VI. NEW BUSINESS:
(A) Stephen M. O'Connor— Contesting Citation
Citation No.: 5658
Date: August 2, 2010
Description of Violation: Engage in the business or act in the capacity of a
Contractor, or advertise self or business organization as available to engage in
the business, or act in the capacity of a contractor without being duly registered
or certified.
2
161 106
September 13, 2010
The. individuals to testify were sworn in.
Stephen O'Connor presented his case:
• He was contesting the Citation received on August 2, 2010;
• He received a phone message from Mr. Ganguli the week prior while he
was on vacation;
Upon his return, Mr. O'Connor was informed Mr. Ganguli visited his
residence after their conversation and taped his business card inside Mr.
O'Connor's mailbox in a violation of federal law;
The flyers in question were originally printed and distributed in 2008 and
2009
• The flyers clearly described the work he would perform
• There was an expiration date of December 31, 2009 printed on the
flyers ( "10% off labor ")
• Approximately 200 flyers were distributed — usually left on
automobile windshields;
When he learned about the licensing requirement, he stopped distributing
the flyers;
He received only one small job as a result of the flyers, and
He has applied for a Carpenter's License and a Painter's License.
Mr. O'Connor stated he was just trying to find work and if he was approached
to perform work that required a Contractor's license, he referred the job to
individuals who were licensed. He reiterated he was not compensated for the
referrals. He cannot afford to pay the $300 fine.
Robert Ganguli, Collier County License Compliance Officer, reviewed his
written Summary:
• On July 30, 2010, he received an anonymous complaint concerning an
advertising flyer for Steve O'Connor Home Maintenance & Repairs
which listed several contractor licensed trades
• Mr. O'Connor held two Collier County Business Tax Receipts:
o #023663 — Home Inspections
o #071093 — Maintenance Service/No Contractor Work
• Mr. O'Connor applied for examinations in carpentry and business /law
o Both applications were listed as "Void —Never Sent" on
November 19, 2002
• Mr. Ganguli left his business card at Mr. O'Connor's residence and a
phone message requesting to meet with him
• Mr. O'Connor met with Mr. Ganguli at the Contractor Licensing Office
on August 2, 2010 and Citation 45658 was issued
• Evidence packets were distributed containing the following documents:
• E -1: Copy of the advertising flyer
• E -2 and E -3: Copy of Business Tax Receipt 9071093
• E -4 and E -5: Copy of the "CAN NOT DO LIST" (Handyman
Affidavit) — the acknowledgement was signed by Mr. O'Connor in
16 ! 1 �(j
September 13, 2010
2007 and stated "I will not be doing anything that is listed on this
paper;" and
o E -6: Copy of the Citation, signed by Mr. O'Connor and Mr.
Ganguli, citing a fine of $300.00 and describing the violation.
Vice Chairman Lantz questioned Mr. O'Connor regarding his intent, noting
some of the items listed on the flyer as work he would perform were also listed
on the Handyman Affidavit ( "Can Not Do List ") which Mr. O'Connor signed.
Examples cited included installing new fixtures, screen repair, and installing
ceiling fans.
Mr. O'Connor stated he assumed he was allowed to do maintenance and repair
an item that was damaged. If the work required a license, he referred the job to
a licensed contractor.
Vice Chairman Lantz stated when Mr. O'Connor referred work, he was acting
as a General Contractor — which was another violation.
Mr. O'Connor objected stating since he was never paid for any of the referrals,
and didn't think it was a problem.
Lee Horn noted if an individual is not licensed to perform certain work, he
cannot advertise his services. If the flyer had listed only those services he could
legally perform as a handyman, the Compliance Officer would not have singled
him out.
Mr. O'Conner stated he stopped handing out the flyers and still has a number
at home.
Mr. Lantz stated the Board has made exceptions in the past for individuals who
secured licenses prior to appearing before the Hearing
Mr. O'Connor repeated he felt as if he was being singled -out, claiming he
"didn't understand why — it was two years ago."
Lee Horn moved to uphold the Citation as issued. Second by Terry Jerulle.
Carried unanimously, 5 -0.
Vice Chairman Lantz explained the Board members decided to uphold the
Citation and Mr. O'Connor was required to pay the fine as assessed.
Mr. O'Connor indicated he intended "to fight" the decision.
Michael Ossorio suggested he call him later in the afternoon to discuss options.
Lee Horn moved to uphold the Citation fine of $300.00. Second by Terry
Jerulle. Carried unanimously, 5 -0.
165
September 13, 2010
(B) John F. O'Brien — Request to Waive Testing to Reinstate License
Ian Jackson, License Compliance Officer, gave a brief Summary:
• Mr. O'Brien originally tested for a concrete forming/placing license in 2003
• The license was issued in February 2004
• His license was not renewed in September 2008
• The license was considered to be "suspended" in January 2009
• The status of the license in January 2010 was "null and void"
• Due to the original test date, Mr. O'Brien is required to retest
John O'Brien stated:
• He worked for Habitat for Humanity until 2007
• In 2008, he worked for a condo association on Marco Island but was injured
and not allowed to work for a period of six months
• He is requesting to obtain his license without being re- tested
Vice Chairman Lantz asked he if also was applying to waive the back fees as
well as the testing. Mr. O'Brien confirmed he would pay the fees.
Attorney Neale cited the Standard outlined in Codified Ordinance 22- 184(c),
which states the Board could consider other relevant evidence from the
Applicant, such as recent work experience in a specific trade, to determine
whether or not to waive the requirement for competency testing.
It was noted the response the Ordinance specifies testing after three years after
the issuance of a license.
Michael Ossorio stated Boards have, at times, waived the testing requirement
provided an Applicant could testify to and provide proof of his work experience
in the trade during the interim period. He noted approximately 15 Waivers have
been granted previously.
Mr. O'Brien stated he has been working for another contractor [John Harrison]
in concrete and block for approximately two years and that Mr. Harrison would
verify his employment.
Board members asked Mr. Ossorio if there had been any substantial changes in
the Florida Building Code between 2003 and 2007, and if the Applicant was
licensed in 2007.
Michael Ossorio replied the changes to the 2007 Florida Building Code were
not enacted until 2008 or 2009 when the Applicant was not licensed.
Vice Chairman Lantz asked the Applicant how long he worked in the trade
prior to being licensed in 2003.
Mr. O'Brien stated he has been employed since 1979.
When asked if he worked for General Contractors, Mr. O'Brien listed several
161 1 dh�
September 13, 2010
employers and stated each had signed for his license. He indicated the same
Contractors currently have work for him
Michael Ossorio confirmed no complaints had been filed against Mr. O'Brien
and noted the Applicant stated he has worked for a concrete company for the
past two years. If Mr. O'Brien's employment is verified by the employer, Mr.
Ossorio stated he would be support granting the Waiver.
Mr. O'Brien confirmed he would pay all past fines and fees.
Lee Horn moved to approve granting the Waiver to reinstate the license
without retesting, provided the Applicant supplies acceptable verification to
the County of his employment in the trade for the past two years. The
Applicant is required to pay the late fees due to the County. Second by Terry
Jerulle. Carried unanimously, 5 -0.
Mr. Ossorio clarified:
The Board waived only the testing portion of the licensing process
The Applicant must complete a full application for his license
If there are any issues, such as personal credit, the Applicant will be
required to appear before the Board.
The Applicant confirmed he submitted the documentation to the County.
(C) Roger S. Bruttomesso —Request to Waive Testing to Reinstate License
Ian Jackson provided background information:
• In 1991, the Applicant was tested in Lee County for a tile and marble
license
• In 1995, he was issued a license from Collier County based on his Lee
County exam
• The County's certificate expired in 2001
• Mr. Bruttomesso applied to the Board requesting issuance of a license
and to waive the testing requirement. His second tile and marble license
was issued by Collier County in February 2004
• The second license was not renewed in September 2006
• In January 2007, the license was considered to be "suspended"
• The status of the license in January 2008 was "null and void"
• The Applicant is requesting reinstatement of his license without retesting
The Applicant stated:
• He was tested in 1991 and began working immediately after receiving
his Certificate
• He relocated in 2006 to Connecticut
• He has been licensed for the past three years in Connecticut and has worked
continuously
• He took the test Lee County because it was the only location available
16 I;
September 13, 2010
• He clarified he was never licensed in Lee County
•
The reason why his license lapsed in 2004 was due to his efforts to patent
a tool — he invented a grout sealer /stain applicator
It was noted the Applicant's credit report cited painting and wallpaper hanging.
Mr. Bruttomesso stated the reference was an error.
When asked if he was the sole owner of Speedwheel, Inc., the Applicant
responded his family members are listed as officers but he is the majority owner
and a copy of the Shareholders' Certificate was submitted to the County.
It was also noted the Applicant's credit report was exemplary.
Michael Ossorio stated if the Applicant submits proof of his training, education
and work experience in the tile /marble business from the State of Connecticut,
and if he pays the back fees according to the Fee Schedule, he would support
granting the Waiver.
Mr. Bruttomesso agreed to provide copies of his Certificates.
Mr. Ossorio stated the tile /marble test had not changed. The Board's options
were to administratively approve the application or request the Applicant take
the business procedures test.
Lee Horn moved to approve granting the Waiver to remove the testing
requirement provided the Applicant supplies verification to the County of his
employment in the trade from the State of Connecticut and pays the fees and/or
fines due to the County. The Applicant will submit a completed application to
the County. Second by Terry Jerulle. Carried unanimously, 5 -0.
The Applicant will contact Mr. Ossorio to submit his documentation.
Vice Chairman Lantz suggested a short break to review Mr. Reed's information.
BREAK: 9:40 AM
RECONVENED: 9:45 AM
(D) Robert Reed —Request to Waive Testing to Reinstate License
The Applicant stated his Request was due to a clerical error and cited from a
letter which had been submitted to the County:
"We were recently informed that our license in your County had
lapsed. We were unaware since we have not completed any work
in your County since 2007. I am a licensed painting contractor in
eight counties in Florida and have never allowed one of our licenses
to lapse. "
Michael Ossorio stated the Applicant's circumstances were similar to John
O'Brien because he also did not renew his license in 2007 and the Certificate
6 y
September 13,2010
for paining was considered to be "null and void." Mr. Reed has not taken an
exam in the interim three years.
He further stated if Mr. Reed provides proof that he is licensed in other
jurisdictions in Florida and has continued working in the trade of painting, he
would support reinstating his license without requiring that Mr. Reed take the
exam.
Mr. Reed stated he is licensed in Miami -Dade, Broward, Palm Beach,
Hillsborough, St. John's, St. Lucie, Pinellas, and Orange Counties.
Jon Walker moved to waive the requirement for an examination. Second by
Robert Meister.
Terry Jerulle suggested the Applicant provide proof of employment in other
Counties.
Mr. Walker amended his motion and moved to waive the requirement for an
examination pending submission of proof to Collier County that the Applicant
holds valid licenses in other Florida Counties. Second by Mr. Meister.
Carried unanimously, 5 -0.
VII. OLD BUSINESS:
(A) Marisol Santos — Review of Credit Report (Six -Month Review)
Michael Ossorio noted Ms. Santos was not present and provided background
information:
Ms. Santos is on probation due to credit issues
She was requested to appear before the Board
Documents distributed to the Board: a copy of Ms. Santos' current
credit report (dated August 17, 2010), a copy of a previous report (dated
January 2010), and a copy of Ms. Santos letter requesting the Board end
the probationary period and grant an unrestricted license
Michael Ossorio suggested proceeding to the Item VIII on the Agenda. The
Board could return to "Old Business" if Ms. Santos appeared at the Hearing.
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
(A) Case 2010 — 03: Jeffery A. Wiles — d /b /a DJAX, LLC
It was noted:
• The Board granted a Continuance to Mr. Wiles on August 18, 2010
• Mr. Wiles was notified of the date of the September Board meeting and that
no additional Continuances would be granted
• Mr. Wiles was not present at the Hearing
Mr. Jackson was sworn in.
Attorney Neale outlined Public Hearing procedures:
September 1A110 1�'
• The County and the Respondent would each present an Opening Statement
• The County and the Respondent would each present its case
• The County would have the opportunity to rebut
• Both sides would present Closing Statements
• All testimony would be taken under oath and on the record to ensure the
Respondent received due process
• The Board would enter into deliberations at the close of the Public
Hearing and would vote on two separate issues:
• Whether or not the Respondent committed the violation as
charged
• If violations were committed, the Sanctions to be imposed
Mr. Jackson distributed additional documentation concerning service of process
consisting of a copy of the County's August 23, 2010 letter notifying Mr. Wiles of
the Complaint filed by the City of Naples Building Department, and a copy of the
U.S. Postal Service delivery receipt signed on August 27, 2010.
Lee Horn moved to enter the packet of information previously distributed and
the additional documentation presented concerning service of process into
evidence as County's Exhibit "A." Second by Terry Jerulle. Carried
unanimously, 5 -0.
Mr. Jackson stated Mr. Wiles called him on August 31" and acknowledged
receipt of the letter.
Opening Statement:
• The County will show that Jeffrey A. Wiles committed a willful violation
of Section 105.1 of The Florida Building Code by installing windows
and/or doors in 18 individual units while under contract with the unit
owners at the Park Shore Landings Condominiums
Mr. Jackson presented the County's case:
• The Florida Building Code was adopted by Collier County
• The documents contained in the information packet were reviewed
including the arrangement to abate the violation made between the City of
Naples and the Respondent
• The Respondent's inability to adhere to the abatement agreement
constituted a violation of County Ordinance 2004 -46, Section 4.2.2
Vice Chairman Lantz summarized:
• The Respondent applied for Permits and obtained reviews of the plans
• The work was begun before the Permits were issued
• The Respondent paid the Plan Reviews fees
• The Respondent did not pay the Permits fees
• Inspections were not conducted
161 10,
September 13, 2010
Michael Dssorio stated the Respondent contracted with each unit owner
individually and was paid for his services by the unit owners.
Gene Rontinini, witness, was sworn in and testifed for the County:
• He is the president of the Park Shore Landings Board of Directors
• He confirmed installations were made to 18 units
Paul Bollenbeck, witness, was sworn in and testified for the County:
• He is employed as the Building Official for the City of Naples and is
licensed as a Building Code Administrator by the State of Florida
• The Permits are considered as "non permitted" — the plans were reviewed
and approved by Staff but the Permits were not issued and the Permit fees
have not been paid
• During April 2010, he contacted the Respondent and the Respondent
indicated he would rectify the situation
• The abatement agreement:
• The Respondent would pay the Plan Check fees — four /five per week
for a one month period
• Permits would be issued after the fees were paid
• He agreed the Respondent violated Section 105.1 of The Florida Building Code
The following topics were questioned by the Board:
• whether any inspections been conducted;
• the type of windows installed;
• if there were safety hazards due to the installation;
• the cost of the Permits, and
• if the Respondent had been paid.
Ian Jackson stated he was unaware if the Respondent received payment from
each unit owner. The County accepted the case on a collective basis, rather than
individually. The issues of restitution or financial harm to the unit owners would
not be discussed.
Gene Rontinini testified as follows:
• He has only general knowledge — that upon contracting with the owners,
the Respondent received a 50% deposit.
• He had been in contact with the Respondent previously. He has not
received any complaints from the Respondent concerning non - payment
from the owners.
• He knew of one unit where money was withheld until some issues were
corrected. But the situation was resolved.
Ian Jackson testified he did not discuss the subject of compensation by the unit
owners with the Respondent.
10
6
September 13, 2010
Closing Statement:
• The County has shown Mr. Wiles' actions of installing windows and/or
doors without obtaining the required Building Permits was a clear
violation of The Florida Building Code, Section 105.1.
• The inability or refusal of the Respondent to adhere to the arrangement
made with the City of Naples on May 12, 2010 constituted a willful
violation of said Building Code.
• The willful violation of the Building Code also constituted a violation of
Section 4.2.2 of Collier County Ordinance 2006 -46.
Lee Horn moved to close the Public Hearing. Second by Jon Walker. Carried
unanimously, 5-0.
Attorney Neale outlined the deliberation procedures:
• The Board shall ascertain that fundamental fairness and due process were
afforded to the Respondent
• Pursuant to Section 22 -202 G(5) of the Ordinance, the formal Rules of
Evidence as set out in Florida Statutes shall not apply
• The Board will consider only the evidence presented during the Hearing
• The Board will eliminate irrelevant, immaterial and cumulative testimony
from its deliberations
• The Board shall admit and consider all other evidence of a type normally
relied by a reasonably prudent person
• Hearsay may be used to explain or supplement evidence, but hearsay by
itself is not enough to support a finding
• The Standard of Proof: The County must prove its case in a clear and
convincing manner
• The Board must find Facts that show the violation was actually committed
by the Respondent
• The Facts must show the Respondent was in violation
• The Board may decide upon only the charges presented
• The decision by the Board must be stated orally at the Hearing and is
effective upon being read by the Board
• The Respondent has certain appeal rights as set out in the County's
Ordinance and in Florida Statutes
• If the Board is unable to issue a decision, the Board may withhold its
decision until a subsequent meeting
• The Board shall make Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law if it finds
in support of the Administrative Complaint
Vice Chairman Lantz noted the Respondent did not attempt to defend himself by
submitting a written response even though Mr. Wiles had asked for a Continuance
in August in order to be present at the September Hearing.
16 ( 1 t5
September 13, 2010
Lee Horn moved:
In the case of Collier County versus Jeffrey A. Wiles, d/b /a DJAX, LL C,
Case Number 2010 -03, License Number CGC 1510732, Collier Certificate
Number 28867, the Administrative Complaint as Count I, Section 4.22,
"Willfully violating the applicable Building Codes of laws of the State, City, or
Collier County, "the Board finds him guilty as charger. Second by Robert
Meister. Carried unanimously, 5 -0.
Vice Chairman Lantz stated.
Jeffery A. Wiles, Case Number 2010 -03, was found guilty of the charge
of willfully violating the applicable Building Codes or laws of the State, City, or
Collier County.
It was noted the Respondent is a State - certified Contractor.
Attorney Neale stated the only Sanction available to the Board in the case of a
State - certified contractor is to deny the issuance of Collier County or City
Building Permits or to require the issuance of Permits with certain conditions.
He further stated notification of the Permit Denial will be submitted to the State's
Department of Business and Professional Regulations within fifteen days after the
Board's decision.
The Board shall also issue a recommended penalty to the State's Construction
Industry Licensing Board. The recommended penalties:
• No further action, or
• Suspension, revocation or restriction of the Certification or Registration, or
• A fine to be levied by the State's Construction Industry Licensing Board
Michael Ossorio stated the County requested revocation of the Respondent's
Certificate. The County will send a letter to the Executive Director in Tallahassee
advising of the revocation of the Respondent's General Contractor's Building
Permit privileges and a copy of the Board's recommendations to the State.
Mr. Ossorio noted the unit owners will be notified of the Board's action and outlined
some of the options available to them.
Paul Bollenbeck stated the City's concern to inspect the units as soon as possible to
determine if there are any safety issues. If a deficiency is identified, the manner in which
it will be rectified will be determined.
Mr. Ossorio explained a unit owner may be required to hire another General Contractor
to pull a Permit to ensure the work complied with Code. He will remain in contact with
Mr. Bollenbeck to assist in facilitating the situation. The City of Naples may not charge
the after - the -fact fees, but the unit owner will be responsible to pay the Permit fee of
$150.00
Vice Chairman Lantz stated his concern was to avoid making the unit owners hire a
second General Contractor.
12
16 1 o
September 13, 2010
The Board discussed options concerning recommendations to the State and the amount
of the fine.
Lee Horn moved in the case Jeffrey A. Wiles, d/b /a DJAX, LLC, License
Number CGC 1510732, Collier Certificate Number 28867, to recommend with
regard to the City of Naples, the City of Marco, and Collier County, revoking
his Certificate and Permit pulling privileges and also recommend to the State's
Construction Industry Licensing Board to impose a maximum fine of $10,000
and revoke his license and to explore the possibility of restitution. Second by
Robert Meister. Carried unanimously, 5 -0.
Findings of Fact:
• Jeffrey A. Wiles is the holder of State License Number CGC 1510732 and
Collier County Certificate Number 28867
• The Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Contractors'
Licensing Board is the Petitioner (Complainant) in this matter
• The Board has jurisdiction of the person of the Respondent
• The Respondent, Jeffery A. Wiles, was not present or represented by
Counsel at the Public Hearing held on September 13, 2010
• All notices required by Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended,
have been properly issued and were personally delivered
• The Respondent acted in a manner that is in violation of Collier County
Ordinance and is the one who committed the act
• The allegations set forth in Administrative Complaint as Count I,
"Willfully violating the applicable Building Codes or laws of the State,
City, or Collier County," have been found to be supported by the evidence
presented at the Hearing
Conclusions of Law:
• The Conclusions of Law alleged and set forth in the Administrative
Complaint as Count I have been approved, adopted and incorporated
herein, to wit:
o The Respondent ``willfully violated the applicable Building Codes
or laws of the State, City, or Collier County," of Collier County
Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, in the performance of his
contracting business in Collier County by acting in violation of the
Section set out in the Administrative Complaint with particularity.
Order of the Board.
• Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and
pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and
Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, by a vote of 5 in favor and
zero opposed, a majority vote of the Board members present, the
Respondent has been found in violation as set out above.
• Further, it is hereby ordered by a vote of 5 in favor and zero opposed, a
majority vote of the Board members present, that the following
13
VII.
16 ! 1 ��
September 13, 2010
disciplinary actions and related Orders are hereby imposed upon the
holder of Collier County Certificate of Competency Number 28867.
The Sanctions are:
• To revoke his Permit- pulling privileges throughout Collier County
including the City of Naples and the City of Marco Island;
• To revoke Collier County Certificate of Competency Number
28867;
• We recommend the State Construction Industry Licensing Board
revoke his license, Number CGC 1510732, and impose a
maximum fine of $10,000;
• We also recommend the State to explore any forms of restitution
that may be necessary.
Vice Chairman Lantz stated the case was closed.
Additional Item:
Attorney Neale stated an item has been omitted from the Agenda concerning
Orders to pay civil penalties. He requested authorization from the Board to allow
the Vice Chainnau and himself to sign the documents.
Terry Jerulle moved to approve authorization. Second by Lee Horn. Carried
unanimously, 5 -0.
OLD BUSINESS:
(A) Marisol Santos — Review of Credit Report (Six -Month Review)
Michael Ossorio noted Ms. Santos was on probation. She was notified of the
meeting and provided a copy of her most recent credit report. He recommended
continuing the case to the next meeting and requesting she appear to explain her
credit situation.
Terry Jerulle moved to continue the case to the next Board meeting. Second
by Lee Horn. Carried unanimously, 5 -0.
IX. REPORTS:
None
X. NEXT MEETING DATE
Wednesday, October 20, 2010 - Commissioners Meeting Room, W. Harmon
Turner Building, 3rd floor, 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL 34112
(Courthouse Complex)
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was
adjourned by the order of the Vice Chair at 10:46 AM.
14
1 6 1 I 66
September 13, 2010
COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTOR
LICENSING BOARD
1%1'7
Kyle Lantz, Vice Chair6fan
These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on
as presented , or as amended
15
RECEIVED
Nov 0 4 20
Board of County Comn"MWR
161 1
Fiala _
Halas _
Coletta
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, September 1, 2010
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Development Services
Advisory Committee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at
3:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #610, Collier County
Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive,
Naples, Florida, with the following Members present:
CHAIRMAN: William Varian
Vice Chair: David Dunnavant
Ray Allain
James Boughton
Clay Brooker
Laura Spurgeon DeJohn
Dalas Disney
Marco Espinar (Excused)
Blair Foley
Regan Henry
George Hermanson
David Hurst
Reed Jarvi
Robert Mulhere (Excused)
Mario Valle
ALSO PRESENT: Norman Feder, AICP, Administrator, Growth Management Division
Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator, GMD — Planning & Regulation
Judy Puig, Operations Analyst — Staff Liaison
Jay Ahmad, P.E., Director — Transportation Engineering
James French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management
Ed Riley, Fire Code Official — Fire Code Office
Amy Patterson, hnpact Fee and Economic Development Manager
Pam Libby, Manager — Water Operations
Robert Wiley, Principal Project Mgr, Watershed Study Proms
t G -'e: 0 t (S
Item #: I �T l� � _
C� pies to:
PAr
161
September 1, 2010
I. Call to Order:
Chairman Varian called the meeting to order at 3:05 PM and read the procedures to be
followed during the meeting.
II. Approval of Agenda:
Chance:
• Chairman Varian added the topic,
August 27, 2010," under Item III.
"Approval of the Subcommittee Minutes of
George Hermanson moved to approve the Agenda as amended Second by Reed JarvL
Carried unanimously, 11 -0.
III. Approval of Minutes — August 4, 2010 Meeting:
Dalas Disney moved to approve the Minutes as presented. Second by Mario Valle.
Carried unanimously, 12 -0.
Approval of Minutes — August 27, 2010 Subcommittee Meeting:
Chairman Varian noted the Subcommittee Meeting Minutes vote would be held when a
quorum of members was achieved. Six Subcommittee members were required for a quorum.
IV. Public Speakers:
(None)
V. Growth Management Division Staff Announcements/Updates:
A. Public Utilities Division Update: Pam Libby, Manager — Water Operations, for
Nathan Beals, Project Manager (Excused)
• The RPZ Meter discussion previously scheduled to be heard at the Board of
County Commissioners September 14'h meeting had been postponed to the last
meeting in October, 2010.
• He requested additional time for general discussion with the group
• Information was submitted to the Fire Code Office regarding pressures
A question was asked concerning the scheduling of another meeting.
Ms. Libby deferred the question to Nathan Beals, who will be available next week.
(David Dunnavant arrived at 3:07 PM.)
B. Fire Review Update: Ed Riley, Fire Code Official — Fire Code Office
The groundbreaking ceremony for the new Fire Code building has been
scheduled for September 22, 2010
III.
V.
161 1 bV
September 1, 2010
Approval of Minutes — August 27, 2010 Subcommittee Meeting:
[ Note: The following Subcommittee members were present and voted:
William Varian — Subcommittee Chairman, Melissa Ahem, David Dunnavant,
Blair Foley, Joey Hatfield, David Hurst, and Ed Riley.]
Chance:
• On Pages 3 and 4, the spelling of "PETO" was corrected to "pitot"
Ed Riley moved to approve the Minutes as amended. Second by David Hurst. Carried
unanimously, 7 -0.
Growth Management Division Staff Announcements/Updates:
C. Transportation Planning Division Update: Jay Ahmad, P.E., Director -
Transportation Engineering
• Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension is open (six lanes) for public use
• Two segments of the Oilwell Road Project are under construction
• from hnmokalee Road east to Everglades Boulevard
• from Oilwell (grade road) to the entrance of Ave Maria
• The Project is ahead of schedule and on budget - anticipated completion is
March, 2012
• Project Bids:
• Davis (from Radio Road to Collier)
• Collier Blvd. (from Davis to Golden Gate Canal)
• Permitting is on -going and anticipated by the end of 2010
• A right -of -way permit is required from the State of Florida
• A court hearing for Order of Taking is scheduled for October 27, 2010
• Continuing to obtain property (ROWS) from willing sellers for various projects
Questions:
• Regarding the Santa Barbara extension, why are the retention ponds located so
far from the road?
There are two projects within the Santa Barbara Project and one is a
Stormwater project to build canals on the west side of the road. The retention
ponds are located on the east side of the road.
Is there a landscaping project on Orange Blossom Road in North Naples,
between Airport - Pulling Road and Livingston Road?
All landscaping projects are "on hold" pending funding unless it is an MSTU
project.
D. Planning and Regulation Update: James French, Director — Operations &
Regulatory Management
Met with representatives from Fifth/Third Bank regarding credit card option to
accept VISA cards
o Spoke with "Magic Writer " /'Pay Pal' — the user fee will be between the
bank and the customer
161 1 &
September 1, 2010
• There is Federal legislation concerning capping the fees
• More discussions are necessary regarding fees
Met with Kim Grant from County Manager's office regarding digital
submissions — tests anticipated within the next two months
Re: "CityView" -- Phase III (Building Department) is being `ramped up" — the
anticipated "go live" date is February, 2011
VI. Old Business:
A. Update on Utilities/RPZ Subcommittee Meetings: Chairman Varian
(Copies of the Subcommittee Minutes were distributed to all members.)
• The Subcommittee met on August 13`h, August 19`h, and August 27`h
• The Subcommittee and Utilities did not reach a conclusion
• Three recommendations (Motions) were agreed upon for DSAC's consideration
o The BCC directed DSAC to vet the RPZ (Health/Safety/Welfare) issue
and return a recommendation to the BCC by the September 14`h meeting
• It was noted Utilities removed the Executive Summary from the Agenda for the
September 14a' meeting on Wednesday
• DSAC's directive from the Board of County Commissioners was not changed
Ray Allain moved to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners to not
remove the Administrative Stay until evidentiary support is produced to document
Utilities position that there is a HealthJSafety / welfare issue.
(There was no Second in support of the Motion.)
Chairman Varian reviewed the three Motions from the Subcommittee:
Motion #1:
"In the course of these Subcommittee meetings, it has not been
demonstrated that the additional potential Health and Safety risk
is immediate, and it has not been demonstrated that installing an
RPZ in lieu of a DDC is warranted "
Motion #2:
"This Subcommittee has not been able to determine — or there has
been no empirical data submitted to substantiate the requirement
of an RPZ over a Double Check Valve Assembly and, therefore, we
cannot support the requirement to install an RPZ in lieu of a Double
Check Valve Assembly."
Motion #3:
"This Subcommittee is to be continued for the sole reason of two
issues. One is to address and vet out Utilities' request to have in -line
meters installed The second is to discuss the appropriateness of the
charge for fire lines. "
161 1�0
September 1, 2010
George Hermanson noted he attended the August 191h meeting only, and the Motions
were made during the August 27th meeting.
Chairman Varian clarified the Subcommittee consisted of DSAC members,
representatives from Industry, the East Naples Fire District, and the Fire Code Office
James Boughton stated the Subcommittee's charge was to determine the issues
covered by the first two motions and Motion #3 appeared to be unnecessary since it
was not part of the issues.
Chairman Varian stated:
• The RPZ was the primary issue for the Subcommittee.
• At DSAC's March meeting, Utilities introduced a revenue issue was discussed
and included meters for fire lines.
David Dunnavant stated the RPZs were implemented in 2008 and the meters in 2009.
They were placed on a Consent Agenda by Utilities, and the Subcommittee addressed
both issues.
Blair Foley stated there was "good interaction" during last Subcommittee meeting but
Utilities did not provide much input — the question asked repeatedly was "Where is the
data ?" — any supporting documentation. Utilities indicated it would meet with Fire
concerning existing pressures in the lines and calculations. It was important to the
Subcommittee to continue the discussions and have Industry represented, which was
the basis for Motion #3.
Ray ABain noted there were two issues for DSAC to discuss: (1) the meters, and (2)
the charges for the fire lines, but the issue concerning the RPZs should be discussed
first in order to send a recommendation to the BCC.
• "If there was such a compelling argument and compelling evidence for
the Utilities Department to pursue this avenue, then I don't understand
why it's so elusive and difficult to present to DSAC."
Points of information for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners:
• DSAC adhered to the directive by holding three Subcommittee meetings within
the allotted timeframe in between two regular DSAC meetings
• DSAC is an all- volunteer Committee consisting of 15 members
• Time was taken to ensure that DSAC's recommendations would assist the BCC
with its decision - making process
Blair Foley noted the Board was concerned about the issues and requested additional
information be presented at the September 10 meeting -- because Utilities removed
the topic from the Agenda did not alleviate DSAC's responsibility to present its
findings as directed.
Chairman Varian stated, due to the removal of the item from the Agenda, DSAC
must make a public petition in order to present its recommendations.
• "DSAC did what it was asked to do in a timely manner."
161 1 YP
September 1, 2010
Clay Brooker stated the Code does not allow the BCC to take a vote or any action but
can only listen to the information presented. He suggested sending a letter to the
Commissioners outlining exactly what DSAC did and when, as well as its conclusions,
and to make DSAC's request to be placed on the Agenda in the letter.
Dalas Disney asked if there were enough time for DSAC to make a request to the
County Manager to add a line item to the Agenda for a five - minute presentation.
Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator, Growth Management Division, stated
it was too late to add an item to the Agenda. He suggested that Jamie French speak
with Chairman Varian concerning the public petition. He agreed while the BCC could
not vote on any information presented via a public petition, it could direct Staff to take
action.
He recommended a strong "read ahead" be prepared such as a letter to the
Commissioners and the County Manager concerning the information to be presented
and why.
Dalas Disney noted the issue of Health/Safety/Welfare had been a paramount concern
and was stated as such at the BCC's meeting. The Board insisted DSAC was not
allowed the 90 days it requested to vet the issue, but must return its recommendation
on September 14 "'. Since Utilities has pulled the item, DSAC will have no opportunity
to presents its findings.
David Dunnavant stated the BCC was prepared to hear from DSAC and there were
almost two weeks left before the meeting ...
• "... to request the item go back on [the Agenda] does not seem
insurmountable."
Nick Casalanguida stated the County Manager could be asked, but if the Utilities
Administrator said he was unable to present the item and needs more time —there is no
item to include on the Agenda.
Chairman Varian noted it was not "just" Utilities' item since DSAC was given a
directive by the BCC. He cited Page 230 of the BCC's Minutes as follows:
"Commissioner Henning: Motion to continue until we get DSAC's
recommendation.
Chairman Coyle: But we want it back here for a decision by the Board
no later than the first meeting in September."
David Dunnavant stated the record should reflect DSAC's presentation was available
and if Utilities pulled the item, they should explain to the Board why it was done.
Mr. Casalanguida stated he would make a phone call while the DSAC meeting
continued and would return before the meeting concluded.
Clay Brooker requested Mr. Casalanguida ascertain the deadline to submit the public
petition.
161 1 &
September 1, 2010
Chairman Varian stated the recommendations were kept as three separate Motions
for the following reasons:
• It was brought to the attention of the BCC that there was a Health, Safety and
Welfare issue. That was the first Motion.
The Second Motion dealt with Utilities' request to install RPZs:
o Through discussion, it was determined the current system uses both
RPZs and Double Detector Check Assembly Valves (DDCAs) and both
accomplish the same thing — both are back flow preventers.
• Why is one superior to the other?
• The conclusion was there had not been enough data presented to justify
the request or the expense.
• Why does Collier County have to be above the standards of the
Industry and the remainder of the country?
• What is wrong with the Double Detector currently used in a number of
communities and buildings throughout the County?
Dalas Disney stated there were three separate issues to be accepted, or not, by DSAC
and moved forward as a recommendation to the BCC as determined by DSAC.
• "The third [Motion] is just the continuation of the Subcommittee to resolve
continuing and open issues."
He agreed the BCC should be made aware there are other issues to be discussed.
Dalas Disney moved to recommend accepting the Subcommittee's findings on
Motion #1 and Motion #2, and to forward the information to the Board of County
Commissioners. Second by Mario Valle.
As requested, Motion #1 motion was reviewed:
"In the course of these Subcommittee meetings, it has not been
demonstrated that the additional potential Health and Safety risk
is immediate, and it has not been demonstrated that installing an
RPZ in lieu of a DDC is warranted "
Chairman Varian noted the First Motion had been discussed and amended.
Dalas Disney referred the Committee to Pages 13 (Amended Motion), and 17 of the
August 27`h Subcommittee Meeting Minutes to review the first two Motions.
Blair Foley stated his notes reflected different language:
• "There was no significant data provided to show that it was an imminent
danger or a Health, Safety and Welfare issue."
In response to a question, Mr. Disney stated his Motion did not include the
Subcommittee's Third Motion in order to deal with the immediate issue of Health,
Safety and the RPZs, and the potential risk to the public. No risk was found, the
question was answered, and the Motion should be brought to the BCC.
His approach was to consider the items individually.
161 1 P
September 1, 2010
George Hermanson stated he will vote "No" on the Motion. He did not hear Public
Utilities' case since he attended only one meeting, but maintained there was a case [for
public safety] whether or not it had been substantiated.
Nick Casalanguida returned. He spoke with the County Manager who confirmed the
item will be returned to the Agenda for the September 14`h BCC meeting.
Chairman Varian called for a vote.
Motion carried, 12 — "Yes " /I — "No." Mr. Hermanson was opposed
In reference to the Motion to continue the Subcommittee, Chairman Varian asked the
Members to consider Staff time and how to pay for the meetings. He noted DSAC's
fees are allocated from the Building Fund (113). Since the Subcommittee, if
continued, will be discussing Utility issues, he suggested recommending that Utilities
help fund the cost of the meetings.
Jamie French, Director of Operations & Regulatory Management, stated he might
be able to provide a Staff Liaison as long as the meetings were scheduled in advance.
The cost for minute - taking could be allocated from the General Fund but not from
Fund 113 or Fund 131.
Chairman Varian stated Utilities provided very little information although the
Subcommittee repeatedly requested data.
Blair Foley noted the Subcommittee often asked Utilities for their comments and
positions on the issues. He questioned why there was no feedback from Utilities.
David Hurst asked if DSAC had the authority to continue the Subcommittee without
BCC approval and if DSAC could find a funding source.
Chairman Varian stated he was unsure. He referenced a specific billing (blatant
over- billing) issue brought to the Subcommittee's attention by David Dunnavant. He
continued if Utilities intended to pursue metering of the fire lines, the issue must be
discussed at DSAC's meetings or by a Subcommittee of DSAC.
David Hurst referenced the Utilities "discussion group" and asked if it had voting
authority. He suggested attending the group meetings.
Dalas Disney stated in order for the Subcommittee to be effective, it must receive
information from Utilities. If Utilities continues to "stone - wall," he asked if a
Freedom of Information request could be filed? He noted the conversations that
happened were due to the BCC's directive. He further stated it was appropriate to
inform the BCC of the secondary issues that were discussed as a result of the
Subcommittee meetings and that DSAC and Industry were available to continue
discussion and vetting of the issues.
Clay Brooker stated DSAC would appear foolish if it did not continue to be involved
when, or if, the empirical evidence requested from Utilities was presented.
161 1
September 1, 2010
Dalas Disney moved to accept the Subcommittee's Third Motion that empirical data
be submitted to continue discussions with Utilities in order to come to a conclusion
concerning RPZs versus Double Detector Checks and meter requirements, and to
forward the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners
Second by David Hurst
Nick Casalanguida stated the BCC wanted a recommendation from DSAC. If the
recommendation is to continue the Subcommittee, there should also be a
recommendation to continue the Stay as well, since the BCC was going to implement
its decision based on the information presented at the September 10 meeting.
He suggested amending the Motion to include the language concerning the Stay until
the documentation is presented.
Dalas Disney stated Utilities did not support its own claims.
Chairman Varian stated he thought the two Motions were very clear concerning the
RPZ issue, but clarification of continuing the Stay could be included. He reiterated
the Subcommittee found there was no immediate Health, Safety or Welfare issue, and
no information was presented stating RPZs were better than the Double Checks.
David Dunnavant stated it was acknowledged RPZs are better than Double Detector
Checks. The issue was the impact of installing the RPZ and the cost/benefit in
exchange. The Subcommittee clearly recommended there was no need to install
reduced pressure back flow devices in this County and Collier would be the first
County in the State to do so.
He further stated installing the RPZs would place Collier County well ahead of any
other County from a safety standpoint, but the impact and cost to Industry and the
citizens of Collier County did not make it viable - "it didn't add up to us."
No supporting documentation was presented. He agreed with Mr. Casalanguida that
the Motion should be clearly stated.
He continued the problem was that approval of the installation the RPZs was currently
in an Ordinance passed by the Board of County Commissioners on a Consent Agenda
presented by Utilities in 2008.
• "We would have to unwind that."
Mr. Disney noted the Subcommittee's first Motion answered the questions concerning
the Health, Safety issue and the necessity of installing RPZs.
Mr. Dunnavant stated the issue for the September 140' meeting is to be clear on a
recommendation to the Board concerning RPZs. The fire metering and revenue issue
is separate issue that did not need to be resolved by September 14 .
David Hurst stated the question of how to quantify installation of RPZs was not
answered by Utilities during the Subcommittee meetings.
161 1 N
September 1, 2010
Reed Jarvi suggested adding a third point to the first two Motions stating the Stay
should be continued. He noted the Ordinance has not been addressed — to either
implement it or continue the stay until such time as supporting documentation for
Utilities' position is presented.
Public Speaker:
Melissa Ahern, CBIA, stated the Board initially issued two directives:
• the RPZs, contained in the Ordinance, was "stayed," and
• the water meters were on a subsequent Resolution, and was also "stayed."
• The last directive was to return on September 14`h with DSAC's response
concerning RPZs and the Subcommittee made its response.
• The issue of continuing the Subcommittee to come to a resolution on the water
meters has not been decided.
She stated she thought the BCC would expect DSAC to complete vetting the water
meter issue because a recommendation was not being made at the September 14`h
meeting.
Clay Brooker noted a Motion and Second had been made and was on the floor.
Chairman Varian confirmed the Motion to continue the Subcommittee was on the
floor.
Dalas Disney withdrew his Motion to simplify and re -state it. The Second was also
withdrawn by David Hurst.
Dalas Disney moved that DSACforward its recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners that the Subcommittee is to be continued for the sole reason of two
issues: to address and vet Utilities' request to have in -line meters installed, and to
discuss the appropriateness of the charge for fire lines.
Second by David Hurst
Norman Feder, Administrator, Growth Management Division, suggested changing
the language of the two approved Motions, i.e, "DSAC finds that..." (continue the
Motions as stated) ... "and, therefore, recommends a stay until such time as
documentation is provided."
For the Third Motion, he suggested adding, "to that end, that the Subcommittee
continue to work on that issue and the water meter and that funding be provided in a
nature to allow the Subcommittee to continue and allow the issues to be documented."
Consensus: Revise the motion to include the suggested language.
George Hermanson voiced his concern that the issues of in -line metering and the
RPZs remain as two separate Motions, no matter how they are worded.
Chairman Varian stated the Motions will be formatted to incorporate Mr. Feder's
suggested language. Dalas Disney and David Hurst agreed.
E
161 16P
September 1, 2010
Clay Brooker asked for an explanation regarding the difference between the RPZ
issue and the metering issue.
George Hermanson stated one is a safety issue and the other is an economic issue.
Chairman Varian summarized:
• The Subcommittee met and agreed upon three Motions.
• DSAC's first Motion was:
"To recommend accepting the Subcommittee's findings on
Motion #1 and Motion #2, and to forward the information
to the Board of County Commissioners."
• George Hermanson is on record opposing the above - referenced Motion.
• DSAC's second Motion recommends consideration from the BCC to continue
the Subcommittee to discuss the metering issue and charges to the fire lines.
David Hurst noted Mr. Feder did include the RPZ issue, by reference, and to continue
that discussion and should be excluded from DSAC's second Motion.
Clay Brooker suggested formatting the Motion into two identical Motions — one for
the RPZ and the other for the water meters as stated.
He stated if the RPZ issue is to be re- addressed after the BCC's September 14`h
meeting, Dalas' earlier motion was that DSAC wants to continue to be involved in
discussions — or else DSAC will look foolish.
Chairman Varian stated it was important to note there was no value for a property
owner to install an RPZ instead of a Double Check, and the Subcommittee found there
was no value to justify the increased costs associated with an RPZ.
Blair Foley stated the Subcommittee asked Utilities for data to support whether or not
there was an issue but it was not provided, and the Subcommittee made its conclusion
not to support installation of RPZs.
• When did the Double Detector Checks fail versus the RPZs?
• What kind of information did Utilities have?
• Are we in a situation where it is problematic?
He continued, "We just don't know."
Clay Brooker restated: Regardless of what the value may be, the Subcommittee
conceded the RPZ is better.
He asked if DSAC was still going to vote "No" regardless of what data was presented
by Utilities?
Mario Valle noted the Executive Summary stated there was an imminent Health and
Safety Risk. The Subcommittee asked Utilities to provide the data to support its
statement that there was an "imminent" Health and Safety risk. Utilities could not
provide anything. The Subcommittee concluded that, based upon the fact that Utilities
could not provide any data, a recommendation was made to not spend more money to
install RPZs.
September 1, 2010
David Dunnavant stated if there was a true Health and Safety issue, DSAC would not
ignore it, and would support installing RPZs.
• "In light of the fact that for the past 20 years, most every other community in
the U.S. have been sufficiently protected — unless there are contaminates in the
system such as antifreeze in northern climate fire sprinkler systems — then
Double Detector Checks are suitable."
• "There is additional protection provided by RPZs but it's typically — even by
the American Water Works Association standards that all Utilities use as a
guideline — it is indicated only when known contaminates are in the system.
• "We are taking an additional step without any known contaminates — there is
no evidence of problems or bad water created by the Double Detector Checks —
therefore, we don't understand the additional cost."
• "There is another factor and why Fire is interested — the impact of RPZ on the
flow — the friction loss in the fire suppression systems is significant. It will
mean modifying the design of buildings and how existing buildings would be
impacted if there were to be a `look -back' feature."
• "The concern is that there will be a `look -back' feature in the future if the
Ordinance proceeds forward."
• "It would not make sense to require RPZs from this point forward — the last 20
years of sprinkler systems were all designed using a Double Detector Check
based on the friction loss of a DDC — there's an issue there."
George Hermanson suggested voting on the Motion including Mr. Feder's language.
He stated his vote on the other Motion was due to the way it was stated. If there's no
data, there is no reason for the RPZs. He stated he did not believe it was true and that
there was a case. He stated the 90 days requested from the BCC was not used up and if
the Committee wanted to combine the language and continue the stay against the RPZ
that he would vote for it.
Chairman Varian stated there was a Motion and a Second.
David Dunnavant stated from what was accomplished over the past four or five
months with Utilities on this issue, additional time is not going to make a difference
unless more data is presented. He recommended stating the Stay should be indefinite
unless Utilities could present sufficient data indicating it is necessary to implement the
RPZs.
He cautioned going to the BCC to say DSAC didn't have enough time, but would in 90
days.
• Nothing will change until such time as data is presented.
• DSAC was asked to look at what has been presented and DSAC determined
from what was presented, we do not understand the need for an RPZ.
• Utilities indicated it will work with Fire on other issues.
• DSAC's recommendation is it cannot support installing RPZs and also
recommend the Ordinance, as it is currently enacted, be stayed indefinitely or
until something changes.
12
161 100
September 1, 2010
Reed Jarvi suggested recommending revoking the Ordinance rather than the Stay until
such time as Utilities can prove its claims.
Chairman Varian stated the Stay would refer to one line item within the Ordinance.
Mr. Jarvi clarified he was referring to the specific section in the Ordinance.
Chairman Varian stated there was a Motion and a Second.
Clay Brooker stated the Motion was open -ended with no time line — from Mr. Feder's
language.
Dalas Disney stated he wanted to incorporate Norm Feder's language in his Motion.
David Dunnavant stated there was an issue that DSAC didn't stay involved in the
Utilities' Subcommittee because DSAC's members are volunteers. DSAC did not stay
involved because of the presentation of voluminous changes to a technical document
submitted to DSAC. He stated DSAC should continue to involve Industry as much as
possible. He noted there are three Civil Engineers on a 15- member Committee. Most
DSAC members do not deal with back flow preventers on a regular basis.
He continued a short statement should be made that DSAC has an interest in being
involved with the Industry. DSAC has no interest in being handed voluminous
changes to technical documents prior to its regular meetings and being used as an
endorsement of the validity of the changes. The facts are DSAC is interested in being
involved but the process was being abused. Because workshop /discussion group,
items were "slid in" on Consent Agendas and now DSAC is trying to catch up.
Chairman Varian again called for a vote on Mr. Disney's amended Motion.
The Motion carried unanimously, 13 — 0.
Dalas Disney asked who would represent DSAC at the BCC's meeting.
Chairman Varian stated he would attend as well as David Hurst.
The final versions of the Motions are as follows:
Motion #1:
"DSAC finds that.
• it has not been demonstrated that a potential Health and Safety risk is
immediate, and
• it has not been demonstrated that installing an "Z in lieu of a Double
Detector Check Assembly is warranted since no empirical data was
submitted to substantiate the requirement
Therefore, DSAC recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
continue its Administrative Stay concerning the implementation of the
Ordinance until such time as supporting documentation is provided."
13
161 1 0
September 1, 2010
Motion #2:
"DSAC recommends that the Board of County Commissioners continue the
Subcommittee for the sole reason of resolving two issues:
• to address and vet Utilities' request to install in -line meters, and
• to discuss the appropriateness of the charge for fire lines.
To that end, DSAC requests that funding be provided to enable the Subcommittee
to continue in order to allow the issues to be documented. "
B. Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance: Robert Wiley, Principal Project
Manager, Watershed Study Project/FEMA
(Copies of the Approved Draft of the Flood Management Prevention Ordinance were
distributed to the Committee)
• The Ordinance will be presented to the Planning Commission in September or
October and to the Board of County Commissioners in November /December
In response to Clay Brooker's question (on Page 30) concerning the type of Appeal,
Mr. Wiley consulted the County Attorney's office and was informed the decision to
choose either a Trial De Novo or Writ of Certiorari will be made by the Appellant.
In answer to Mr. Brooker's second question concerning when the 10 days to file an
Appeal would start, it was determined the period would begin "upon receipt of a
written decision."
Clay Brooker suggested including the language in the Ordinance.
• It was suggested to review the document on a page -by -page basis
• On Page 4, the reference to the CCCL (Comment #10) was removed, but the
removal weakened the Ordinance
• On Page 5, under "Existing Construction," a question was asked concerning the
significance of 1979
o The County entered into the Flood Insurance Program in 1979
• On Page 7, a question was asked concerning the "Floodway Fringe" — is it one
percent of the width?
• It referred to the one percent annual chance storm event
• Collier County does not have established Floodways but FEMA will not
allow the definition to be removed
• On Page 7, regarding Comment #21 —criteria was added by Staff to clarify the
maximum seepage rate over a 24 -hour period for a non - residential structure
• On Page 11, regarding Comment #34 — the phrase "repetitive loss" structures was
removed from the Model Ordinance as too restrictive upon advice from the State
o FEMA revised the Model Ordinance for the State of Florida which the
State distributed without first reviewing
The State does not agree with FEMA's statement
14
161 1 0
September 1, 2010
• On Page 14, a question was asked concerning a "Development Permit"- was it
a new or an existing Permit?
o It is an existing, standard Permit
• On Page 15, a question was asked concerning the meaning of the phrase
"liberally construe"
o The County Attorney's office directed inclusion of the language as a
standard statement
Dalas Disney earnestly objected to the inclusion of the language.
On Page 15, a question was asked concerning "Permit Procedures" - is this
what is being done currently?
o Yes
A suggestion was made to capitalize the first letters of each defined term throughout
the Ordinance, i.e. Development Permit.
• On Page 19, it was noted the language in (2) and (3) was similar.
o It was worded the same way in the Model Ordinance
• On Page 19, a question was asked concerning FEMA's "Technical Bulletins" --
which specific Bulletins are referenced?
o There is a series of approximately twenty Technical Bulletins published
by FEMA to regulate the National Flood Insurance Program. All are
available on FEMA's website.
• On Page 20, concerning Item 12 (c), a suggestion was made to either be more
definitive regarding "adequate drainage" or remove the statement. Since it is
covered elsewhere (in the Land Development Code, the South Florida Water
Management District), the statement should be removed.
o Add the phrase, "as provided by the agencies having appropriate
jurisdiction" to the end of the sentence.
• On Page 21, concerning 16 (b)(iv), a suggestion was made to clarify the intent
of the Mean Sea Level by removing the phrase "above Mean Sea Level
(MSL)." The definition will read:
o Mean Sea Level - eight and one -half (8.5) feet based on the North
American Vertical Datum (NAVD) of 1988
• On Page 22, a suggestion was made insert Comment #74 in B.(2).
• On Page 24, a suggestion was made to change (c)(iv) to (d) since the paragraph
references FEMA - supplied recreational vehicles and emergency housing.
• On Page 25, concerning (c), "de minimus impact," Mr. Wiley asked if a
maximum length for a single lane access driveway should be specified.
o It was decided a length would not be specified.
(David Hurst and James Boughton left at 5: 00 PM.)
On Page 30, a question was asked concerning (b) and (c) - who determined the
figures for the maximum allowable size and maximum allowable value?
o The Building Department is currently using the referenced figures.
15
161 10'
September 1, 2010
• On Page 30, a question was asked concerning (d) what is to be done
regarding "effects of debris ?"
o The design should show the structure will fragment into 4 -ft or smaller
sections.
• On Page 31, under (5), a suggestion was made to add the phrase, "after thirty
days advance notice from the Floodplain Administrator" to the end of the
sentence.
On Page 28, under (6) "breakaway walls," it was noted there is an exception in
the Ordinance currently that allows obstructions up to 20% of the length
parallel to the shoreline to be used for sheer walls or elevator enclosures.
o The existing language will be emailed to Mr. Wiley.
Regan Henry moved to approve the draft of the Ordinance, amended as outlined
above, and to include the language for a 20% obstruction allowance far sheer
walls. Second by Reed JarvL Carried unanimously, 11 -0.
VII. New Business:
A. A -128 Requirements for Spot Surveys and Affidavits — Jamie French and
Nick Casalanguida:
• The required boundary survey will be no more than one year old
• The "Building Block" will be revised
• No hand drawings will be accepted — a signed, sealed drawing will be required
• Does not apply to sheds or non - permanent structures
Regarding the Affidavit for permit and the language, "the building footprint that legally
existed prior to the issuance of this Permit:"
• Who will sign the Affidavit?
o The contractor
Concern was expressed for who was responsible to conduct the research in order to
verify set backs.
(William Varian left at 5:20 PM.
The Meeting continued under the direction
of Vice Chairman David Dunnavant)
Discussion ensued. It was pointed out the last sentence of the Affidavit violated
insurance coverage and cannot be certified by Architects. Additional questions were
asked concerning the County's responsibility.
It was noted the Affidavit could be utilized in lieu of submitting a spot survey. Staff
will contact the County Attorney's office to review the document and will return with
proposed revisions at next month's DSAC meeting.
16
161 1o1°
September 1, 2010
(Mario Valle left at 5:30 PM.)
B. Update: Indexing/Transportation Costs and Credits — Nick Casalanguida and
Norm Feder
(Slides and graphics were presented.)
• It is an Indexing Year for Road Transportation Impact Fees
• Costs are coming down — Staff determined the proposed reduction could be
increased
• Various slides were presented
o trip lengths and capacity updates are necessary in order to determine
true costs
Norman Feder:
• Impact fee rates in Collier County were the highest in the state — 50% was
required up front
• Real capacity must be addressed
• 400 lane miles and additional signals have been added
o Gas tax supports maintenance
• There are only two major road constructions projects slated for the next five
years
• There is a concurrency issue with Golden Gate Boulevard
• If Impact Fees are reduced significantly, grant money from the State will be
lost
• Proposed reduction: 25 to 30%
• Recommending removal of Utilities costs from Transportation Impact Fees
[Note: Questions to Staff concerning various issues including credits should be
submitted to Judy Puig, Staff Liaison, who will forward to the appropriate party.]
• How will the Utilities portion of the costs be billed?
Utilities is an enterprise and will bill from the Impact Fees and user fees.
The Transportation Study and results will be presented to the Productivity Committee
on September 15`h and to the Board of County Commissioners on September 281h.
• Has Collier County considered using a tiered Impact Fee system?
The Board of County Commissioners rejected implementation of a tiered
system.
Concern was expressed to avoid implementing an artificially low reduction that could
be increased next year.
Consensus: More time is needed to review the Study before a recommendation could
be made.
17
161 1 0
September 1, 2010
C. Subcommittee for EMS /Fire Impact Fee Study — Amy Patterson, Impact Fee
Manager and Economic Development Manager
• 11.9% reduction in Impact Fees for Regional Parks
o Intensively land based
• 4.7% reduction for Community Parks
o Smaller parcels - more buildings
• Correctional Facilities —the rate will remain constant
The Study will be presented to the Board on September 28`h.
Reed Jarvi moved to revise the Study to tie straight land costs for Parks Indexing.
Second by Blair Foley. Carried unanimously, 9 -0.
VIII. Committee Member Comments:
(None)
Next Meeting Dates:
October 6, 2010 — 3:00 PM
November 3, 2010 — 3:00 PM
December 1, 2010 — 3:00 PM
January 5, 2011— 3:00 PM
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned
by order of the Vice - Chairman at 6:11 PM.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
William Varian, Chairman
The Minutes were oved by the Board/Committee on PA, 1)
as presented or as amended
is
RECEIVED
Nov 0 4 2010
7uard of County Commission'"
ll§
I -/'
Halas
Coletta
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, October 6, 2010
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Development Services
Advisory Committee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at
3:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #610, Collier County
Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive,
Naples, Florida, with the following Members present:
CHAIRMAN: William Varian (Excused)
Vice Chair: David Dunnavant
Ray Allain
James Boughton
Clay Brooker
Laura Spurgeon DeJohn
Dalas Disney
Marco Espinar (Excused)
Blair Foley (Excused)
Regan Henry
George Hermanson
David Hurst
Reed Jarvi
Robert Mulhere
Mario Valle
ALSO PRESENT: Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator, GMD - Planning &
Regulation
Judy Puig, Operations Analyst - Staff Liaison
Jay Ahmad, P.E., Director - Transportation Engineering
James French, Director- Operations & Regulatory Management
Ed Riley, Fire Code Official - Fire Code Office
Amy Patterson, Impact Fee and Economic Development Manager
Nathan Beals, Project Manager -- Public Utilities
Stephen Lenberger, Senior Environmental Specialist Misc. Corres:
Deb:
Item #:
161 1 0�
October 6, 2010
I. Call to Order:
Vice Chairman Dunnavant called the meeting to order at 3:05 PM and read the
procedures to be followed during the meeting.
Il. Approval of Agenda:
Chang..
• Vice Chairman Dunnavant added the topic, Notice for Outstanding Advisory
Committee Nomination Procedures, under Item VII as "C."
James Boughton moved to approve the Agenda as amended Second by George
Hermanson. Carried unanimously, 9 -0.
III. Approval of Minutes — September 1, 2010 Meeting:
Clay Brooker moved to approve the Minutes as presented Second by Mario Valle.
Carried unanimously, 9 -0.
IV. Public Sneakers:
(None)
V. Growth Management Division — Staff Announcements/Updates:
A. Public Utilities Division Update: Nathan Beals, Project Manager
• The Standards Committee has not met during the past two months due to lack
of topics for discussion.
o Meetings will be held at 3:00 PM (Note: time change) on the
third Tuesday of each month in the Risk Management building
• The Administrative Stay for Fire Requirements for RPZs/Metering remains in
place. The Board of County Commissioners directed Public Utilities to return
only once more with a recommendation.
Mr. Beals will contact Judy Puig to schedule a Subcommittee meeting to be
held prior to DSAC's November meeting.
(Laura Spurgeon DeJohn arrived at 3 :10 PM.)
Reed Jarvi noted there was a dripping "relief valve" at the water main on the west side
of Vanderbilt Drive, north of 111`h at the first culvert crossing.
Vice Chairman Dunnavant questioned the parameters and time frame of the BCC's
directive stating a full Cost/Benefit Impact was requested and asked for a progress
report.
Mr. Beals stated a cost benefit and risk analysis was in progress. It was thought the
analysis was to be brought back to the Board in November, but he reviewed the video
recording and noted a specific date was not mentioned.
Vice Chairman Dunnavant is aware of a document which states it was due at the end
of October. He stated a recommendation concerning the RPZ issue is to be presented
first and then a separate presentation is to be made concerning the revenue/metering
161 1 P
October 6, 2010
issue. He stated he did not think the BCC limited the number of presentations and
urged scheduling the Subcommittee meeting as soon as possible.
(Dalas Disney arrived at 3 :12 PM.)
Mr. Beals clarified there will be more than one Subcommittee meeting but only one
presentation to the BCC. He will provide read -ahead materials at least one week in
advance of DSAC's next meeting.
B. Fire Review Update: Ed Riley, Fire Code Official - Fire Code Office
• The Monthly Report was submitted in the Information Packet.
• In August, a total of 697 reviews were conducted.
• The initial Permit for the new Fire Code building was cancelled (with the
cooperation of the City of Naples)
• Will re -apply for a second Permit on October 8`h to save approximately
$49,000 due to the reduction in Impact Fees for Roads
• The funds were donated by the Industry
C. Transportation Planning Division Update: Jay Ahmad, P.E., Director -
Transportation Engineering
• Public Meeting/Workshop will be held on October 7, 2010 to present the result
of the Project Planning and Development Study for Intersection of 951 and 41
Mr. Ahmad provided the following background information:
• DOT conducted its own PD &E Study but the focus was on US 41 and not the
intersection. The Level of Service was projected to 2015.
• Transportation Planning Division hired consultants because it was not satisfied
with the DOT's Study.
• TP's Study conclusions:
• long -term goal - an overpass will best serve the needs of the area
• short-term - build an "at -grade intersection" within the footprint of the
anticipated future overpass
• Level of Service was projected to 2035
• An FPL Greenway is under construction
• 12 -foot blacktop pathway will connect Radio to Rattlesnake
• Distance: 3 miles
• Construction of Oilwell Road is proceeding on schedule
• Six lanes on the east side between Ave Maria to Oilwell Grade Rd.
• From Everglades to Immokalee, will be a four -lane road
• Anticipated completion of the north side -December, 2010
Question: Is a traffic light scheduled for installation at the intersection of Orange Tree
and Oilwell Road. Will residents be able to make a left turn?
• Yes and yes.
161 1 bU,
October 6, 201(
Mr. Abroad stated the at -grade intersectionkill begin in 2013 and explained the
process:
• The County wants to re- evaluate the FDOT's recommendations
• Public hearings /workshops will be held as required by the Federal government
in order to change the preferred recommendations
• Lanes will be added to the intersection
• The right -of -way will be acquired
• The overpass will be constructed at a future date when traffic volume dictates
Bob Mulbere clarified the intersection has been efficiently designed to function now
and accommodate the overpass when needed.
D. Planning and Regulation Update: James French, Director — Operations and
Regulatory Management
• Local artists donated photographs which are on display at the front end
(Ray Allain arrived at 3:24 PM)
• Ceiling tiles have been replaced (from Fund I I 1 budget)
• Installing an ATM machine (through the Tax Collector's office)
• Several single- family home applications have been submitted to the Building
Department — very few commercial
In response to a question concerning Mr. Riley's building permit with the City of
Naples, Mr. French stated if a permit is in "apply" status (no inspections have been
completed), it can be pulled and you may re- apply. There is a re- application fee to be
paid.
He is working with the County Attorney's office, Gary Harrison, and Ed Riley to
review the Florida Building Code and establish a cut -off date. Guaranteed time
standards may raise concerns if there is a high volume of cancellations. There may be
direction from the Board of County Commissioners on this issue.
Suggestion: Add the topic of the process for Florida Specialties to a future Agenda.
Jamie French stated a Site Development Plan application process is under
development:
• even if an SDP application is rejected, it can lead to a simultaneous review
process. For example, as corrections /revisions are made to the SDP on the
land -use side, the Building Department/Fire Review can begin.
He explained the Florida Specialties project where the foot print of a pre -built structure
was expanded to accommodate additional services. The process morphed into an
alternative method of accepting plans on a fast -track basis. He cautioned a developer
runs a risk because if the SDP can't be corrected or the structure is not built to the
correct specifications or the plans have not been approved, whatever has been
constructed may be torn down.
Bob Where's test -case project in Immokalee was described. There was a
comprehensive conceptual Site Plan review with Staff and it was brought to the Board
of County Commissioners for approval. The permit was issued and vertical
161 1 �4
October 6, 2010
construction began before the SDP was approved, but there were no critical flaws, and
no ERP ( "Environmental Resources Permit ") issues, i.e., no listed species on the site
no wetland issues.
Modifications were made. The building process began in April and the structure will
be C /O'd before November 1'. The process may be applicable in limited re-
development opportunities for commercial sites and may impact future businesses.
The County Manager asked for a review of the fast -track process and incentives.
Mr. French noted the Board of County Commissioners formed the Economic Recovery
Task Force (` ERTF "). The Chamber, former elected officials and the Sheriff's office
are involved. The goal is to work with the real estate industry concerning vacant
commercial properties to develop a GIS overlay to pinpoint available structures. The
information will eventually be available on the website.
Dalas Disney described his solid -waste recycling facility project and stated there were
no specialty issues and it was fast - tracked. Documents were finished in seven weeks.
The process was consolidated and permits are anticipated to be issued within a fifteen
day cycle.
Road Impact Fees [added Topic]: Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator,
GMD — Planning & Regulation
• The Board of County Commissioners moved to adopt the Study update which
recommended a 32% reduction in Phase 1, effective October 8, 2010
• A 10% reduction will go forward as part of the Utilities component
The Chamber of Commerce requested a 50% reduction and a lock -in for two years.
The BCC Chairman directed special projects that bring jobs to the community ($1 +M)
but may need some assistance to get the project up and running quickly to be brought
before the BCC. It will consider deferral of fees.
School Impact Fees:
Mr. Casalanguida stated the Study will be brought to the BCC on October 12`h. Staff
will recommend a review of the proposed 50% reduction for one year period with
evaluation at the end of the term. The School Board recommended a two -year 50%
reduction with a rate lock.
A question was asked concerning hiring of a Building Manger.
• A list of interview questions is being compiled.
• A candidate will be selected by the end of the month and an offer will be
extended.
• There have been approximately 60 applicants for the position.
It was noted the certified Building Official is separate from the Administrative Staff
and not subject to influence, as required by the Florida Building Code.
Vice Chairman Dunnavant noted the Minutes referenced the discussion of different
issues relating to RPZs between Fire and Utilities. He asked for a status report.
161 1p'�
October 6, 2010
Ed Riley stated he received information which was forwarded to the Fire Marshalls for
their review and comment. A meeting is scheduled for October 10 to discuss the data
concerning the 50 -psi issue.
VI. Old Business:
A. A -128 Requirements for Spot Surveys /Affidavits: Jamie French
• The issue has been vetted in a form meeting with local licensed engineers
• The Building Blocks is still in draft form and release maybe pushed back to
December if necessary
There was a question concerning the difference between the certified plan to be
prepared by a profession architect, land surveyor, or engineer (first paragraph under
Building Permit Applications) and a stamped plan submitted to the County by an
architect or engineer.
Nick Casalanguida stated a spot survey can only be done by a surveyor. The point
was to guarantee the drawings were done by a professional.
A question was asked concerning the second sentence of the third paragraph under
Building Permit Application ( "In lieu of ... ") and whether it established foot print or
elevation of the structure.
Nick Casalanguida clarified if there were no changes to the foot print, the Affidavit
can be submitted.
The first paragraph on Page 2 (third line) referenced a "stop work order." A question
was asked concerning how to repair damages under a stop work order.
Nick Casalanguida stated corrective action removes the stop work order, but no work
is to be done until such time, which is current practice.
There was a discussion concerning the intent of the affidavit and who should sign it.
It was noted the second sentence of the Affidavit ( "Further, I affirm ... ") is an un-
insurable statement and professionals will not accept it.
Also noted, architects are not hired to perform research to verify the information
provided on a previous survey. For example, was the structure legal at that time and is
it still conforming to Code. It was suggested the owner should be the only person to
sign the document.
Suggested Changes:
• New Title: Affidavit in lieu of Certified Plan (to be filed with Permit)
• First sentence of Affidavit
• Remove the phrase "in any way" after "modification"
• Remove the word "legally"
• Second sentence:
• Insert the phrase ", to the best of my knowledge, that" following "affirm"
• Remove the word "all'
• Third sentence:
o Remove the phrase "in anyway' following "nonconformity"
161
October 6, 2010
• Add a line underneath signature for identification:
o Signed:
(check one) Owner _ Contractor _ _ Design Professional
(Regan Henry left at 4:10 PM.)
Nick Casalanguida suggested the entire second sentence is unnecessary and should be
removed from the document.
Consensus: Email the revised document to the members for their approval. If there
are any objections, it will be brought back to the Committee in November.
Robert Mulhere moved to approve the Affidavit in Lieu of Certified Plan, subject to
final review via email, with no objections to same. Second by Dalas Disney.
Carried unanimously, 11 -0.
VII. New Business:
A. Update: EMS and Fire Impact Fee Subcommittee: Amy Patterson, Impact Fee
and Economic Development Manager
(An overview of the Fire Rescue Services Study was distributed to the Committee)
• The Study referred to the two dependent Districts, Ochopee and Isles of Capri
• Last update: 2006
• Total Impact Fees collected: $1,600 (both Districts)
• No plans to expand but new equipment will be purchased as necessary
• Buildings and land were not included in the calculations
• Isles of Capri — fees will be decreased (residential and non - residential)
• Ochopee -- fee for residential will be decreased but non - residential will be
increased
• Study will be presented to the Productivity Committee for a recommendation
and to the Board of County Commissioners for a public hearing
Ms. Patterson noted the Fees will be examined again next year.
Ed Riley stated the North Naples Fire District cut its Impact Fees by 50% (residential
and non - residential).
Reed Jarvi moved to approve implementing the Alternative Impact Fee Schedule for
Ochopee and Isles of CapA Second by Mario Valle. The motion failed
Dalas Disney supported reducing Impact Fees to the greatest extent possible.
Robert Mulhere moved to support the proposed increase to commercial Impact Fees
and reduction to residential Impact Fees as appropriate. Second by Clay Brooker.
Motion carried, 7 — "Yes," 4 — "No." Opposed: Dalas Disney, Reed Jarvi, Mario Valle,
and David Hurst.
BREAK: 4:40 PM
RESUMED: 4:45 PM
om
161 1��
October 6, 2010
(An overview of the EMS Study was distributed to the Committee.)
Mario Valle moved to approve the Impact Fee Study as submitted by Staff.
Amy Patterson stated Fees would be reduced by 25% on the residential side and by
30% on the commercial side.
Methodology was same as the previous study
Significant reductions in land and building costs
Plans to add stations in the next few years
Mario Valle noted new EMS stations were built based on potential growth and the
Impact Fees to be collected. The Impact Fees funds were to be used to offset the debt
service. However, based on the reduction inland costs, it will not be possible to
generate the revenue necessary and the debt service will exceed the amount of funds
by approximately 2012.
Robert Mulhere noted money was borrowed based on a revenue stream which no
longer exists but the obligation to pay back remains. One way to pay the debt is to find
a new revenue stream. If the reduction in Impact Fees generates a volume of new
development, some money will be coming in and minimize reliance on Ad Valorem
fees since the Ad Valorem rate has been lowered. He concluded any reduction in Fees
is a shift in the "right direction."
It was predicted that Impact Fees was not the proper funding mechanism.
Dalas Disney equated the concept of Impact Fees is, basically, a Ponzi scheme and
stated when people moved to the area, it worked. He noted when the growth stopped,
Impact Fees - as well as the economy -- fell apart.
Mark Twain was quoted: "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Impact Fees in Collier County add approximately $34,000 to the cost of a single - family
home over 2,500 square feet.
Mario Valle moved to accept the Study as submitted by Staff. Second by Reed Jarvi.
Carried unanimously, 11- 0.
Vice Chairman Dunnavant noted Reed Jarvi submitted questions concerning the
Transportation Impact Fees. A memo, prepared by Tindale- Oliver & Associates, Inc.,
responding to his questions was distributed to the Committee.
Mr. Jarvi objected to the responses to the last two questions concerning credit issues
and asked Ms. Patterson to investigate.
Vice Chairman Dunnavant suggested adding the topic to the Agenda for the next
DSAC meeting under "Old Business."
(James Boughton and David Hurst left at S: 00 PM.)
161 tU
October 6, 2010
B. Update: EAC ("Environmental Advisory Council ") Ordinance Amendment —
Stephen Lenberger, Senior Environmental Specialist
• The EAC Ordinance was revised to adhere to the changes made to the Growth
Management Plan and the Amendments to the Land Development Code.
o The requirement to submit an Environment Impact Statement ( "EIS ")
was eliminated
• Applicable environmental data may be submitted in place of the EIS
• The EAC will review impacts to native vegetation and a project's
environmental sensitivity based on the size
• The Board of County Commissioners approved the amendments to the
Ordinance
• A public meeting/workshop will be held on Friday, October Wh, to review the
Amendments to the Land Development Code from last cycle
C. Notice for Outstanding Advisory Committee Nomination Procedures: Vice
Chairman Dunnavant
• A nomination form was distributed to the members and must be completed one
month prior to submission to the Board of County Commissioners.
• Anyone may nominate a member.
• Nominations will be accepted in November.
VIII. Committee Member Comments:
• Vice Chairman Dunnavant outlined a summary of the BCC meeting regarding
the RPZ issue was presented:
• Utilities requested to defer all issues including the RPZ and Chairman
Varian agreed
• A Subcommittee meeting will be scheduled by Nathan Beals prior to the
next DSAC meeting
o DSAC's report was presented to the BCC by Chairman Varian and the
Commissioners appeared to favor DSAC's recommendation
• The Stay remains in place
• Due to the lack of prudent data from Utilities and a oost/benefit analysis,
the BCC directed all parties to continue and return when the issues were
settled
Next Meetine Dates:
November 3, 2010 — 3:00 PM
December 1, 2010 — 3:00 PM
January 5, 2011— 3:00 PM
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned
by order of the Vice - Chairman at 5:05 PM.
161 1��
October 6, 2010
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ADVISORY COMNhTTEE
David Dunnavant, Vij(e Chairman
The Minutes were approved by the Board/Cymmittee on
as presented , or as amended _
III
161 101
COLLIER COUNTY DIVISON OF PUBIC SERVICES
Parks and Recreation Department
15000 Livingston Road - Naples, Florida 34109 - Phone (239) 252 -4000 - F (239) 514 -8657
Website. colliergov.net Ftala
Henning
n 2) 010 Coletta
GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER
ADVISORY BOARD
AGENDA
October 4, 2010
I. Call to Order
II. Attendance - Establish a Quorum
III. Approval of Agenda
IV. Approval of Minutes -August 30, 2010
V. Public Comments
VI. Old Business
A. Recreation Highlights - Vickie Wilson
B. Projection Equipment - Peggy Harris
VII. New Business
A. Monthly Budget - Annie Alvarez
VIII. Member Comments
IX. Adjournment
The next meeting will be on November 1 at 6:00 PM
Collier County Golden Gate Community Center
4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Conference Room "D"
Naples, Florida
Misc. Corres:
Date: DO
Item a1� T t l
*16.
30 20
August , 10
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER
ADVISORY BOARD
Naples, Florida, August 30, 2010
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Golden Gate
Community Center Advisory Board, in and for the County of Collier,
having conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:00 PM in a
REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room "D" of the Golden Gate
Community Center, 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
VICE CHAIR:
Jim Klug (Excused)
Bill Arthur
Darrin Brooks
Peggy Harris
Kaydee Tuff (Absent)
ALSO PRESENT: Vickie Wilson, Community Center Supervisor
16 I ��
August 30, 2010
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6:07 PM by Bill Arthur, Acting Chairman.
11. Attendance — Establish a Quorum
A quorum was established.
Ill. Approval of Agenda
Add. VIL B. Projection Equipment
Darrin Brooks moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Bill
Arthur. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0.
IV. Approval of June 7, 2010 Meeting Minutes
Darrin Brooks moved to approve the June 7, 2010 Minutes as submitted.
Second by Bill Arthur. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0.
V. Public Comments — None.
VI. Old Business
A. Recreation Highlights
Vickie Wilson reported attendance for programs held in June, July and
August as follows:
• Elementary Campers -- 112
• Middle School Campers — 52
• BMX Camps - 6
• Skate Camps — 5
• Men's Basketball League began in July — 12 teams
• Youth Indoor Soccer— 80
• VPK Program began August 30'x'— 18 children registered and there
are 18 on a "waiting" list.
She gave an update on the following Projects and Summer Events:
• Bleachers are not completely installed.
• Hurricane Shutter Grant has been approved and scheduled to be
installed in September.
• National Night Out with the Sheriff's Office and local groups had
500 in attendance.
• "Hot Summer Nights" had a small turnout due to rain.
• Summer Series BMX Qualifier is scheduled to be held on
September 25'h and 26'h from 2 — 8 pm. BMX and Family Fun
Day with games and concert. City ot'Naples owns the movie
screen and it will cost about $500 to rent a movie and show to
public.
• Purchase Order has been awarded to Bentley Electric. They have
commenced working on the electrical panel. Lights will be
ordered and an installed by October 1 s`
Auguskkjo 1 �1
VII. New Business
A. Monthly Budget — None
B. Projection Equipment
Peggy Harris asked the Advisory Board if they would consider sharing costs
to purchase projection equipment (approximately $1,000) with the Golden
Gate MSTU Beautitication Advisory Committee to help both MSTUs to go
"paperless" and allow other local groups to use equipment as needed.
She stated equipment specifications and associated costs will be emailed to
the Staff and Board Members for their review on:
• AVerMedia AVerVision 300AF + Document Camera, $641.95
• Epson EX31 LCD Multimedia Projector, $499.99
• Apollo Ventura 4000 Ultra - Portable Overhead Projector,$468.99
Staff shared the GGCC MSTU has $5,000 available for audio equipment.
Funds were only available until September 15.
Bill Arthur suggested purchasing a computer to complete projection system.
VIII. Member Comments
Bill Arthur stated flag was not lit at night and should be.
Staff responded they will contact Bentley to address the flag spot tight issue.
Bill Arthur suggested installing a 6 foot high fence from parking lot of the Tax
Collector Office back to Lucerne. He added it would save monies used for the
temporary fencing used every year.
Staff stated the temporary fencing installed each year costs approximately $3,500.
When Cool Cruisers hold events, they place workers at each entrance instead of
using gates.
Bill Arthur recommended Staff request quotes for inexpensive decorative
fencing. He suggested not using a chain fink fence.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was moved
and seconded to adjourn. The meeting adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:25 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY GOLDEN GATE
COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY
BOARD
Bill Arthur, Acting Chairman
161 1 p
August 30, 2010
These Minutes were approved by the Committee /Board on _ l jQ _ G - / G as
presented Dl< or as amended
161 161
June /July /August
112 Elementary Campers
52 Middle School Campers
3 BMX Camps /6 students
2 Skate Camps/ 5 students
Men's Basketball League began July 12teams
Youth Indoor Soccer 80 kids
Men's Indoor Soccer League 12 Teams
VPK Program began 8/30/2010 18 children registered 18 on waitlist
Bleachers are in/ not complete
Playground was redone to correct major concerns ($20,000)
Shutter Grant has been approved and will be getting the Hurricane Shutters in September
National Night Out with the Sheriff's Office and local groups 500 in attendance
Hot Summer Nights Rained both programs had a small turnout
Summer Series BMX Qualifier Sept. 25`h & 26`h 2 -8, BMX and Family Fun day with Games and Concert.
Going to work on getting a free movie.
City of Naples owns the movie screen, costs about $500 to rent a movie
and show it
Lights Update: PO has been awarded to Bentley Electric, they have begun work on the electrical panel,
lights are being ordered and should be completed by October V.
Flala ; 4
Halas
Henning
RECEIVED Collier County Coyle
HISPANIC oletta
AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD
NOV 0 2 2010 Meeting Agenda
Board of County Cra"'"'O*ra September 30, 2010 6:00 PM
County Government Complex
Boardroom
1. Call to Order —Chairperson Manuel C. Gonzalez
2. Approval Meeting Agenda
3. Approval of Minutes from May 27, 2010 Meeting
4. Old Business
a. Law Enforcement Report-Manny Gonzhlez
b. Education Report- Valaree Maxwell
c. Update regarding Friends of the Library-Bill Forbes
S. New Business
a. Visit from Commissioner Jim Coletta
6. Member and Staff Comments
a. Update on voter redistricting -Mike Sheffield
7. Public Comments
S. Action Item(s) to Board of County Commissioners (if any)
9. Adjourn -the next HAAB meeting will take place on Oct. 28, 2010 at 6pm
Misc. Cares:
Date: 0 I I
lem s: I � T_ t
to,
Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board
September 30, 2010
6:00 p.m.
Members Present: Chairman, Manuel Gonzalez; Vice- Chairman, Mario Ortiz; David Correa; F. Williams
Forbes, Valarie Maxwell, Renato Fernandez
Members Absent - Excused: Ileana Ramos, Alejandro Balan; Unexcused: Zetty Rivera
Others Present: Mike Sheffield, County Manager's Office; Tamika Seaton, Growth Management;
Barbetta Hutchinson, Office of Management and Budget; Commissioner Coletta
Call to Order: Chairman Manuel Gonzalez called the meeting to order at 6:00, noting that a quorum was
established.
Approve the Meeting Agenda: Mario Ortiz motioned to approve the agenda, David Correa seconded.
The motion was carried 6 -0.
Approval of Minutes from the Meeting of May 27, 2010: Mario Ortiz motioned to approve the
minutes, David Correa seconded. The motion carried 6 -0.
New Business:
Visit by Commissioner Coletta: Commissioner Coletta addressed the group by giving a short recap of
the interesting past year. He opened the floor for questions from members of the board.
David Correa asked about the red light cameras. The Commissioner said that the right on red
violation was removed because it was very difficult to be enforced by state statute, but it is still
illegal to turn right on red without a full stop.
Renato Fernandez inquired about the clean -up procedure after a car accident. Commissioner
Coletta said that he will find out who is responsible for the clean -up and get back to the group. Fire
consolidation was discussed noting that the fire departments work together, but each department is
a separate entity with their own pension benefits by the union. If the groups would be combined,
the new hires could be held to certain reasonable levels.
Mario Ortiz spoke regarding illegal citizens and having our vendors hire legal people. He stressed
the use of e- verify by our vendors. Mario also spoke about gang violence and lack of formal
education. The issue of education and why the money from drug arrests can't be used for drug
prevention education.
o David Correa asked that a discussion on Jackson Labs be put on a future agenda. Valarie suggested
that they try to fill the audience so that the citizens can be educated about what's happening with
this project.
Old Business:
Education report: Valarie Maxwell told the group that the four lowest performing schools in Florida are
in Collier County. She gave some interesting facts such as every 26 seconds in the United States,
someone drops out of high school and outlined a format how to involve the community in aiding the
schools to improve those numbers.
Law Enforcement Report: Manny Gonzalez attended a seminar on sex crimes that was sponsored by
the Sheriffs Ethic Bureau. Ken Becker gave the presentation regarding the characteristics of the sexual
predator and the signs to look for in our children regarding suspected abuse. He mentioned staggering
statistics that 1 out of 5 girls and 1 out of 10 boys are sexually assaulted before the age of 18. He said to
go to www.fdle.state.fl.us for more information. He said there will be another seminar on December 2nd
regarding gangs.
Friends of the Library: Bill Forbes handed out brochures for fall programs and talked about a "Red,
White & Roulette" fundraiser in November at St. Catherine's on Airport Rd. While there are 10 branches
of the library, with 5 being primarily Hispanic, there is only one "Friends of the Library" group. Because
the Hispanic population does not have libraries as a part of their culture, they need to be educated on
the available services and programs. Volunteers also need to be encouraged to help tutor and translate.
Redistricting: Mike Sheffield informed the group that the census bureau will submit the information
from the most recent census to the county in April of 2011. The Department of Justice and the Board of
County Commissioners will be the deciding parties for the redistricting. There will be 5 maps sent to this
Board to review and make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. David Correa will
relay our information to the Department of Justice.
Community Involvement: Manuel Gonzalez spoke to the area of education, stating that there are four
times as many Hispanics that drop -out of high school than whites. He said that education is the key to
breaking the chain of poverty. He asked the group to think about what they can do personally for the
community, beyond their participation on the board. He suggested working with the elections office
trying to sign up new voters, applying for guardian ad litem positions, interpreting for the courts, riding
along with the Sheriffs office or becoming literacy volunteers. He also told the group about a Coalition
on Human Trafficking Program being held on November 13`" by the Sheriffs Office in Immokalee. The
issue was raised regarding the Sunshine laws and possible conflicts and Mike Sheffield suggested that all
members attend the Sunshine Law & Ethics Workshop.
Public Comment: Tamika Seaton, staff liaison from the Black Affairs Advisory Council introduced herself
to the group and asked for participation in the Martin Luther King Parade. Valarie said that she will
contact Tamika offline to get her students involved.
Adjourn: David Correa motioned to adjourn the meeting at 7:55 p.m. and Mario Ortiz seconded. The
motioned carried by a group vote of 6 -0.
Next Meeting: The next meeting of the HAAB will be held on October 28, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. in the Board
of County Commissioners Boardroom.
Approved by nuel C. G nzal s, Chai an
I n - ZQ, --10
Date
CRA Governing Board
Commissioner
Donna Fiala
Chair
Commissioner
Tom Henning
Commissioner
James N. Colette
Commissioner
Fred W. Coyle
Commissioner
Frank Hales
State Enterorise Zone
Development Aeenev
Board (EZDA)
Richard Rice
Chairman
Edward "Ski" Olesky
JelTrey Randall
Michael Facundo
Chief Tom Davis
Robert Halman
Ex- officio
Julio Estremera
Kitchell Snow
Floyd Crews
Ana Salazar
James Wall
Eva Deyo
Carry Williams
Melissa Martinez
CRA Staff
Penny Phillippi
Executive Director
239252 2310
Bradley Muckel
Project Manager
239.252.5549
Christie Betaneourt
Administrative Assistant
239.252.2313
RECEIVED
Nov 0 2 2010
Board of County cotes
C:oi e• Gwn'r Rxomunity Rcaevelourienl Agency.
IMMOKALEE CRA
I The Place to Cal', Home !
EZONE MEETING AGENDA
State Enterprise Zone Development Agency
October 20, 2010 - 9:30 to 9:45 AM
Career and Service Center of Collier County- Immokalee
750 South 5d' Street
Immokalee, Florida 34142
Fiala
Halas
Coyle
Coletta
A. Call to Order.
B. Roll Call and Announcement of Quorum
C. Adoption of Agenda.
D. Communications.
E. Consent Agenda.
a. Approval of Minutes.
i. Regular Meeting September 15, 2010 (Enclosure])
b. Enterprise Zone Monthly Activity Reports, August & September
(Enclosure 2)
c. Enterprise Zone Annual Report, FY2010 (Enclosure 3)
F. Old Business.
G. New Business.
H. Citizen Comments.
1. Next Meeting. November 17, 2010 at 9:30 A.M.
J. Adjournment.
Misc. Comes:
Date II
Item 0
1,.r,: _ -
w.. er CUUIp �oTnmv:ny Nec t!velJorwri Aye:lw M
IMMOKALEE CRA Enclosure 1 1
i The Place to Col ..fame!
MINUTES
State Enterprise Zone Development Agency
September 15, 2010
A. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Dick Rice at 10:30 A.M.
B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum
EZDA Members Present:
Floyd Crews, Richard Rice, Jeffery Randall, Kitchell Snow, Eva Deyo, Julio Estremera,
Robert Halman, Mike Facundo, James Wall, Ski Olesky, Chief Tom Davis, Melissa
Martinez and Carrie Williams.
EZDA Members Absent /F,xcuse&
Ana Salazar
Action: A quorum was announced as being present.
Others Present: Phil Tindell, Kevin Conner, Bill Howell, Thomas Verge, Daniel Rosario,
Steve Hart, Jim Coletta, Clare Ayala, and Louis Telcy.
Staff: Penny Phillippi, Rosemary Dillon, and Christie Betancourt.
C. Adoption of Agenda.
Action: Ms. Deyo made a motion to adopt the Agenda, Mr. Estremera seconded the
motion and itpassed by unanimous vote.
D. Communications.
E. Consent Agenda.
a. Approval of the Minutes.
i. Regular Meeting August 18, 2010
Action: Mr. Olesky moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Ms. Deyo seconded and the
Consent Agenda was approved by unanimous vote.
F. Old Business.
G. New Business.
H. Citizen Comments.
I. Next Meeting October 20, 2010 at approximately 10:30 A.M.
J. Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 A.M.
Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency
IMM KALEE CRA
I The Place to Call I lone!
Certification of Minutes Approval Form
Prepared by:
Penny PhAlippi, Executive Director
Innnokajee Community Redevelopment Agency
161 1
Approved by:
Richard "Dick?' Rice, Chairman
These Minutes for the September 15, 2010, CIZA Advisory Board /EZDA Meeting Ivere
approved by the CPA Advisory Board /EZDA on October 20, 2010, as presented.
* The next joint Advisory Board /EZDA/IMPVC meeting will be held November 18, 2010 at
8:30A.M. at the Career and Service Center located at 750 South 5n' Street in h Innokalee.
** There is no scheduled IMPVC meeting at this time. Further meetings will be held at 5:30
P.M. at the Career and Service Center located at 750 South 5a' Street in Immokalee and will be
appropriately noticed and announced in advance of such meetings.
All meetings will be publicly noticed in the W. Harmon Turner Building (Building F), posted at the Immokalee
Public Library and provided to the County Public Information Department for distribution. Please call Christie
Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at 239.252 -2313 for additional information. In accordance with the American
with Disabilities Act, persons needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact Christie
Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at least 48 hours before the meeting. The public should be advised that
members of the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee and the CRA Advisory Board are also members
of the other Boards and Committees, including, but not limited to: EZDA, Immokalee Local Redevelopment
Advisory Board, Immokalee Fire Commission, and the Collier Counly Housing Authority; etc. In this regard,
matters coming before the IMPVC and the Advisory Board may come before one or more of the referenced Board
and Committees from time to time.
'r'
Col; es County Cornrluruty Reaeveloortenl Agency 161
IMMOKALEE CRA
i The Place to Cali Home I
CRA Governine Board
MEMORANDUM
Commissioner
Tom Henning
Commissioner
DATE:
October 29, 2010
Donna Fiala
Commissioner
TO:
Sam Tucker, Executive Aide, BCC
James N. Coletta
Commissioner
FROM:
Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant
Fred W. Coyle
Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency
Commissioner
Frank Halas
RE:
Agendas, Minutes, and Signed Approval
CRA Advisory Board
Attached are
the Agendas, Minutes, and Signed Approval from October for your
Slate Enterorise Zone
conveyance.
Aeencv Board
Michael Facundo
Chairman
Thank you.
Ana Salazar
Carrie Williams
Edward "Ski" Olesky
Jeffrey Randall
Eva Deyo
Floyd Crews
Kitchell Snow
Melissa Martinez
James Wall
Julio Estremera
Robert I lalman
(Ex Officio)
CRA Staff
Penny Phillippi
Executive Director
Bradley Muckel
Project Manager
Christie Betancourt
Administrative Assistant
Immo4ee Community Redevelopment Agency
310 Alachua Street, Immolaalee, FL 34142
239.252.2313 "' 239.252.6725 (FAX)
r
CRA Covernine Board
Commissioner
Donna Fiala
Chair
Commissioner
Tom Henning
Commissioner
James N. Coletta
Commissioner
Fred W. Coyle
Commissioner
Frank Halas
CRA Advisory Board
Richard Rice
Chairman
Edward `Ski" Olesky
Jeffrey Randall
Michael Facundo
Chief Tom Davis
Robert Halman
Ex- officio
Julio Estremera
Kitchell Snow
Floyd Crews
Ana Salazar
James Wall
Eva Deyo
Carry Williams
Mel issa Martinez
CRA Staff
Penny PhilhPPi
Executive Director
239.252.2310
Bradley Muckel
Project Manager
239.252.5549
Christie Betancourt
Administrative Assistant
239.252.2313
C0.Ler Co) ,wy iwrl icndy 3eceveioprienl Ayency Fiala
RECEIVED IMMOKALEE CRA H nning,
NOV 2 Z�tu i The Place. to Cal: -dome ! V dUyia
utt f=,U,COrMttYWl COletta
ommunity Redevelopment Aeenev Advisory Committee Agenda
October 20, 2010 - 8:30 A.M.
Career and Service Center of Collier County - Immokalee
750 South 5`I' Street, Immokalee, Florida 34142
A. Call to Order.
B. RolI Call and Announcement of a Quorum.
C. Announcement.
D. Adoption of Agenda.
E. Communications.
a. Public Notices
F. Consent Agenda.
a. Approval of Minutes.
i. CRA Advisory Board Meeting September 15, 2010 (Enclosure 1)
b. Fagade Grant Program Monthly Activity Report, August & September (Enclosure 2)
c. Approval of Consultant Monthly Reports and Invoices
i. RWA, Inc.
1. September Monthly Activity Report (Enclosure 3a)
2. September Invoice (Enclosure 3b)
ii. Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. (CDM)
1. September Activity Report and Invoice (Enclosure 4)
G. Old Business.
a. Immokalee Area Master Plan -- Update
i. DCA ORC Report Response (Enclosures 5a & 5b)
ii. Adoption Schedule Update (Enclosure 6)
iii. Immokalee Land Development Codes —Update
b. Stormwater Master Plan — Update
i. Project Manager's Report (Enclosure 7)
c. Immokalee Christmas Decorations - Update
d. County Code Enforcement Monthly Highlights — Kitchell Snow
e. Marketing Update.
H. New Business.
a. Celebration of Cultures Event— (Enclosure 8)
i. Fundraisers
1. Art Auction (Enclosure 9)
2. Jewelry Party (Enclosure 10)
3. On -Line (Enclosure 1 1)
4. Bowling (Enclosure 12)
b. Pepper Ranch Public Schedule (Enclosure 13)
c. Housing Study Proposal (Enclosure 14)
d. Executive Director Evaluation Form (Enclosure 15)
e. Department of Agriculture Rural Business Enterprise (RBEG) Grant
1. Citizen Comments.
Misc. Corres:
Date: 1
Item ik d 1 (�
J. Next Meeting Date. Regular Meeting and Operational Plan Workshop November 18, 2010 at
8:30 A.M.
K. Adjournment.
* The next Advisory Board/EZDA Board meeting will be held November 18, 2010, at 8:30 A.M. at the Career and
Service Center located at 750 South 5`h Street in Immokalee. All meetings will be publicly noticed in the W.
Harmon Turner Building (Building F), posted at the Immokalee Public Library and provided to the County Public
Information Department for distribution. Please contact Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at
239.252.2313 for additional information. In accordance with the American with Disabilities Act, persons needing
assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact Christie Betancourt at least 48 hours before the
meeting. The public should be advised that members of the CRA Advisory Board are also members of other
Boards and Committees, including, but not limited to: EZDA, Immokalee Fire Commission, and the Collier County
Housing Authority; etc. In this regard, matters coming before the Advisory Board may come before one or more of
the referenced Board and Committees from time to time.
IMMOKALEE CRA 1 I M��
Community'Redevelopment Agency 1 j/
I The Place to Call Home! Enclosure 1
MINUTES
Immokalee Local Redevelopment Agency
September 15, 2010
A. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Richard Rice at 8:35 A.M.
B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum.
Advisory Committee /EZDA Members Present:
Floyd Crews, Richard Rice, Jeffery Randall, Kitchell Snow, Eva Deyo, Julio Estremera,
Robert Halman, Mike Facundo, James Wall, Ski Olesky, Chief Tom Davis, Melissa
Martinez and Carrie Williams.
Advisory Committee /EZDA Members Absent/ Excused:
Ana Salazar and.
Action. A quorum was announced as being present.
Others Present: Phil Tindell, Kevin Conner, Bill Howell, Thomas Vergo, Daniel Rosario,
Steve Hart, Jim Coletta, Clare Ayala, and Louis Telcy.
Staff: Penny Phillippi, Rosemary Dillon, and Christie Betancourt.
C. Announcements.
Dick Rice announced that Ms. Melissa Martinez was appointed to the Advisory Committee
and welcomed her to the Committee.
D. Adoption of Agenda.
Action: Mr. Olesky made a motion to adopt the Agenda, Mr. Crews seconded the motion
and it was unanimously approved.
E. Communications.
Public Notices, CDBG Award Letter and Loop Road PowerPoint were passed around in
the Communications Folder.
F. Consent Agenda.
a. Minutes —CRA Meeting August 18, 2010
b. RWA August Invoice and Monthly Report
Action: Mr. Olesky made a motion to adopt the Consent Agenda, Ms. Williams seconded
the motion and it was unanimously approved.
G. Old Business.
a. Master Plan and Interim LDC Update.
1. Ms. Phillippi reported that RWA has begun drafting the LDCs for
Immokalee. She and Brad Muckel have been meeting with RWA to review the
status of the LDRs. Staff has asked RWA to include options for green initiatives
and green incentives. RWA will submit (to the Advisory Committee) the first
draft by the end of September. RWA intends to meet frequently with planning
staff to ensure we are on track and won't get any surprises during planning staff
review.
2. ORC Report from DCA.
Collier County has received the review report on the Immokalee Area Master Plan
from the Department of Community Affairs. Ms. Phillippi provided each
Advisory Committee member a copy of the report by overnight mail. She and the
consulting staff were pleased that the concerns were so few. Ms. Phillippi met
16 I 1 lb°
with RWA and Planning Staff on Monday to discuss how to address DCA
recommendations.
There were three (3) concerns: Intensity caps, water and sewer capacity and
transportation impacts. RWA consultants intend to create a memo of response
and have a conference call with DCA and Planning staff to outline how we intend
to address the issues. Bob Mulhere will meet with Mark Strain in advance of the
hearings.
b. The Stormwater Master Plan — Update.
1. Ms. Phillippi reported that staff has submitted a request to South Florida
Water Management District for assistance of funds to complete the
construction of the SWMP and/or funds to study the portions of the
community not included in the Plan. A copy of the letter of request to
Clarence Tears is part of agenda package as Enclosure 4.
2. Enclosure 5 of the Agenda packet represented a realistic look at the CRA
purchase of the 8.25 acres located at the corner of 91h and Eustis for the
purpose of constructing the first stonnwater retention pond. This land
purchase is part of the expenditure of the $3.5 million grant. The cost of the
land is $465,000.
3. Camp Dresser & Mckee, Inc. (CDM) is the consulting firm working to get the
Stormwater Master Plan "shovel ready ". Because we have not yet received
their invoice but anticipate that we must pay an invoice before September 30
when the County closes the books, staff requested approval to pay the invoice
as soon as it is received, up to $50,000. Clearly, there is no Enclosure 6.
Action: Ms. Williams made a motion grant staff the ability to pay the CDM invoice upon
receipt up to $50, 000. Mr. Estremera seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved.
C. Immokalee MSTU /CRA Update.
1. Ms. Phillippi informed the Advisory Committee that the Immokalee MSTU
and CRA expect that the new Immokalee banners will be put up on the poles
by October 1, 2010.
2. She also informed the group that the MSTU and the CRA have agreed that the
CRA will purchase the Christmas decoration lights and the MSTU will store,
erect and maintain the decorations. The CRA Director will send a letter to the
Seminole Casino requesting that they pay 50% of the cost which is
approximately $10,000.
d. Florida Department of Transportation presentation of State RD 29 By -Pass.
At the request of this Committee, staff invited FDOT to make a presentation on
the status of the Loop Road. Mr. Bill Howell presented the new routes being
studied. The Advisory Committee decided, by consensus, that a new Sub -
Committee should be created to study the various routes being suggested by
FDOT for the Hwy. 29 By -Pass (Loop Road) in Immokalee as they impact the
Immokalee Public Realm Plan and the Immokalee Area Master Plan. Mr. Mike
Facundo (Architect for the RCMA) and Committee member volunteered to serve
on the Sub - Committee. Staff was instructed to request the assistance of a
professional planner (pro bono), specifically, Wilson Miller. The Committee
asked staff to make the request through Commissioner Coletta's Office.
2
161 101°
e. County Code Enforcement Monthly Report- Kitchell Snow presented an update
on Code Enforcement activities and announced that a clean-up will be held on
10/02/2010 on Robert's Road. Dumpsters will be available for residents to drop
off their items for pick up.
H. New Business.
a. BCC Approved Agenda Items:
Ms. Phillippi announced that the items approved by the BCC on Tuesday were:
(1) the Amendment to the Chamber of Commerce Contract, (2) FRA Travel, (3)
the BA for (CDM) funds from Transportation, (4) Sub - Recipient Agreement for
$3.5 million (Stormwater), (5) and new Committee Member — Melissa Martinez.
b. Florida Trend Ad
Ms. Phillippi announced that the September issue of Florida Trend has a 1/6 page
ad and the November issue will have a 1/3 page ad for Immokalee. She also
stated a copy of the magazine is in the Communications folder.
C. Florida Rural Broadband Alliance - $24 million grant. Ms. Phillippi stated that
she was appointed to the Advisory Committee by the BCC and Birgit -Pauli Haack
is her designee. The first meeting is September 15`n
d. 2011 Marketing Plan Presentation — Steve Hart presented the successes of the
2010 marketing campaign and presented the plans for the 2011 event.
H. Citizen Comments
I. Regular Meeting October 20, 2010 — 8:30 AM
J. Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 AM.
3
Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency
MWOOKALEE CRS
i The Place to Call I'lorne !
Certification of Minutes Approval Form
Prepared by:
Penny Phi ippi, ExectiveD' rector J
hntnokajre Community Redevelopment Agency
161 1 0"
Approved by:
Riehaid: -!- ieIt! L-E-I o&-, C- hairnian-
These Minutes for the September 15, 2010, CRA Advisory Board /EZDA Meeting were
approved by the CRA Advisory Board /EZDA on October 20, 2010, as presented.
x The next joint Advisory Board /EZDA/IMPVC meeting will be held November 18, 2010 at
8:30A.M. at the Career and Service Center located at 750 South 5th Street in Immokalee.
,,K There is no scheduled IMPVC meeting at this time. Further meetings will be held at 5:30
P.M. at the Career and Service Center located at 750 South 5o' Street in Immokalee and will be
appropriately noticed and announced in advance of such meetings.
All meetings will be publicly noticed in the W. Harmon Turner Building (Building F), posted at the Immokalee
Public Library and provided to the County Public Information Department for distribution. Please call Christie
Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at 239- 252 -2313 for additional information. In accordance with the American
with Disabilities Act, persons needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact Christie
Betancoutt, Administrative Assistant, at least 48 hours before the meeting. The public should be advised that
members of the hnmokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee and the CRA Advisory Board are also members
of the other Boards and Committees, including, but not limited to: EZDA, Immokalee Local Redevelopment
Advisory Board, hmmokalee Fire Commission, and the Collier County Housing Authority; etc. In this regard,
matters coming before the IMPVC and the Advisory Board may come before one or more of the referenced Board
and Committees from time to time.
R�.'NED
J 2010
" "y (.0"1414"
Fiala
(� e✓ c o er 11. 2010
enntng
Coyle
COletta
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CONSERVATION
COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Naples, Florida, October I I. 2010
LET IT BE REMEMBERL1), that the Conservation Collier Land
Acquisition Advisory Committee, in and for the Counry of Collier, having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR
SESSION at Administrative Building 'T 3`d Floor, Collier County
Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN
VICE CHAIRMAN
Bill Poteet
Michael Delate
Tony Pires
Jeffrey Curl
,Jeremy Sterk
Thomas Sobczak
Annisa Karim
Clarence "tears
Lauren Barber
ALSO PRESENT: Alexandra Sulecki, Conservation Collier Coordinator
Jennifer White. Assistant County Attorney
Cindy Erb, Real Property Management
Melissa Hennig, Prin.E,nvironmcmal Spec.,Program Man.
Mist, Corres:
Date.
item
lb 1 Idu
October 11, 2010
Roll Call
Chairman Poteet called the meeting to order at 9:OOAM. Roll call was taken and a
quorum was established.
IL Approval of Agenda
Mr. Curl moved to approve the Agenda .subject to the following additions:
• Item VILA Letter to Naples Airport Authority regarding CD( parcel
• Old Business, I irst item - Conflict of Interest statement -- Lauren Barber
Second by Mr. Delate. Carried unanimously 9 -1).
111. Approval of September 13, 2010 minutes
Ms. Karim moved to approve the minutes of the September 13, 2010 meeting
subject to the following changes:
• Page 4, paragraph 1, line 4 from "...Kimeiy Flom..." to "Kimley Hom..."
• Page 5, paragraph 3. line 3 from
...identifying which on Conservation..."
to "...identifying on which Conservation..'
• Page 5, paragraph 5. line 3 from "... udner _ _ to "...under...
• Page 6 item k, addition of comment - Additionally the question was asked
whether the "cattle water ponds "are consistent with the Land
Management Plan. Afelissa Hennig answered that, yes they are.
Second by Mr. Delate. Carried unanimously 9 -0.
Ms. Barber reported she has a conflict of interest with the Happy #4 family
application and read the conflict of interest statement into the record-
IV. Old Business
A. Real Property Management update — A -list properties
Cindy Erb, Real Property Management provided the following updates:
Red Maple Swamp — to date 61 parcels acquired totaling 174.70; 2 parcels under
contract.
1. Contracts
a. Berman/Bennett/Ceisnak - 2.73 ac (WH)
Cindy Erb presented the F'.xecutive Summary "Approve an Agreement Jar
Sale and Purchase Or 2 -3 acres within the Winchester Head Multi- parcel
Project under the Conservation Collier Land. 4 cquisition Program, at a cost
not to exceed S28. 000 (Berman/Bennett/Celsnak 7r,) " dated October 11, 2010
and related Agreement Iitr Sale and Purchase 'or approval.
Mr. Delate moved to approve the proposed Agreement for Sale and
Purchase (2.73 acres within the Winchester Head Multi - parcel Project
under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to
exceed $28,000 (Berman/Bennett/C'eisnak Tr.)) Second by Mr. Curl.
Carried unanimously 9 -0.
b. Boose 1.59 ac (WH)
October 11, 2010
Cindy Erb presented the Executive Summary "Approve an Agreement jor
Sale and Purchase for 159 acres within the Winchester Head Multi parcel
Project under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, cat a cost
not to exceed S16,500 (Mabel R. 13oose Trust)" dated October 11, 2010 and
related Agreement tit Sale and Purchase for approval.
Mr. Delate moved to approve the proposed Agreement for Sale and
Purchase (1.59 acres within the Winchester Head Multi parcel Project
under the Conservation Collier Lund Acquisition Program, at a cost
not to exceed $16,500 (Mabel R. Boose Trust.)) Second by Mr. Curl.
Carried unanimously 9 -0.
c. Kinlaw - Presutti — 1.59 ac (WH)
Cindy Erb presented the Executive Summary "Approve an Agreement for
Sale and Purchase jor 1.59 acres toithin the Winchester Head Multi- parcel
Project under the Conservation Collier Land .4squicition Program, at a cost
not to exceed 516,500 (Jones /Kinlaw- Preston) " dated October 11, 2010 and
related .Agreement for Sale and Purchase for approval.
Mr. Delate moved to approve the proposed Agreement for Sale and Purchase
(1.59 acres within the Winchester Head Multi - parcel Project under the
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed
$16,500 (Jones /Kinlaw- Presutti.)) Second by Mr. Pires. Carried
unanimously 9 -0
Cindy Erb noted the -offer period" has expired and sought Committee
direction on how to proceed (obtaining new appraisals, sending out additional
offer letters, etc.)
The Committee determined the Outreach Subcommittee will meet with
Roosevelt Leonard, County Appraiser on the issue and provide a
recommendation to the main Committee.
d. Cannon -2.27 ac (NGGE Unit 53)
Cindy Erb presented the Executive Summary "Approve an Agreement for
Sale and Purchase /or 2.27 acres within the Red Maple Swamp Preserve
Muhi- parcel Project under the Conservation Colher Land Acquisition
Program, al a cost not to exceed S1 7,650 (Cannon-VfcElroVv.Vullis) " dated
October 11, 2010 and related Agreement for Sale and Purchase.
Mr. Delate moved to approve the proposed Agreement for Sale and
Purchase (2.27 acres within the Red Maple Swamp Preserve Multi parcel
Project under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost
not to exceed $17,650 (Cannon1McElroy1Mullis.))" Second by Mr. Sobczak.
Carried unanimously 9 -11.
1 Pu
October 1 t. 2010
Discussion occurred on the feasibility of contacting the CREW Land and
Water Trust and to determine if they would be interested in conveying their
parcels located in Red Maple Swamp to the County for incorporation into the
Conservation Collier Program.
Mr. Pires stated his wife is on CREW Land and Water "I'rust Board of
Trustees.
Mr. Tears stated he is a member of the CREW Land and Water Trust Board
of Trustees.
Jennifer White, Assistant County Attorney noted the potential motion
would be for Staff to contact the'frust on the feasibility of conveyances and
would not present a conflict of interest for them at this point.
Mr. Pires moved to direct Staff to contact the Executive Director of the
CREW Land and Water Trust on possible conveyance of their parcels in
Red Maple Swamp to Collier County. Second by Mr. Delate. Carried
unanimously 9 -0.
e. Aspen, Da'Nee- 1.14 (NGGE Unit 53)
Cindy Erb presented the Executive Summary "Approve an Agreement for
Sale and Purchase for 1.14 acres within the Red Maple Swamp Preserve
Multi - parcel project under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition
Program, at a cost not to exceed S9, 100 (Aspen Da'Nee. LLC) " dated October
11, 2010 and related Agreement for Sale and Purchase.
Mr. Pires moved to approve the proposed Agreement for Sale and Purchase
(1.14 acres within the Red Maple .Swamp Preserve Multi parcel Project
under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to
exceed 89,100 (Aspen Da'Nee, LLC.))" Second by.Mr. Delate. Carried
unanimously 9 -0.
B. Gordon River Greenway Project — update
Mr. Curl provided it sketch of proposed improvements to the Conservation
Collier parcel located within the Greenway. The intent is the Conservation
Collier recommendations he incorporated into the final design plans. lie noted:
• Surface walkways are permitted in the non wetland areas, the other areas
will require boardwalks.
• "ihe type of lighting to be utilized in the area is still under review.
• Determinations are being made on the high water elevations of the wetland
areas.
• The proposed bridge across the Golden Gate Canal /Gordon River will be a
minimum of 8 feet above the high water level.
• It is proposed that the pathway within the Gopher Tortoise be an at -grade
boardwalk instead of asphalt but there is a price difference.
October 11, 2010
Sneaker
Ellie Krier, Southwest Florida Land Preservation Trust noted the proposed
lighting standards will need to be in conformance with the requirements ofNaples
Airport. There are FAA elevation contours on the 7.5 acre parcel owned by
Collier Development Company (proposed for acquisition by Conservation
Collier) which may affect the value of the parcel.
C. Preserve Ordinance - update
Alex Sulecki noted:
• Staff is working on a Preserve Ordinance including the provision for
hunting.
• Consideration is being given to developing a Preserve Ordinance to be
encompassed in the Parks and Recreation Ordinance.
• This may be favorable as it would provide the public with one location to
obtain the necessary Ordinances governing Park lands and County
Preserves.
• Another option is a "stand alone" Preserve Ordinance.
• On October 4, 2010 the Ordinance Policy and Rules Subcommittee
reviewed the options and recommended Staff obtain direction from the
Board of County Commissioners.
Discussion occurred on the pros and cons of either option noting a separate
Ordinance may be more beneficial to the pubic as it addresses a particular set of
properties controlled by the County including enforcement avenues. etc.
Ms. Karim moved to request direction from the Board ojCounty
Commissioners on how to proceed with a Preserve Ordinance. Second by Mr.
Teurv.
Staff noted they will provide options to the BCC and the pros and cons of each
option. Other Departments will be notified on the Committee's decision.
Curried unanimously 9 -1l.
D. Off -site Preserves Acceptance Policy Resolution - update
Alex Sulecki noted there have been minor revisions to the Resolution. It will be
presented to the Board of County Commissioners for consideration.
E. Starnes Cattle Lease Amendment — solar fixtures question
Melissa Henning Principal Environmental Specialist, Program Manager
presented the document "First Amendment to Lease Agreement — Lease #CC107"
dated October 11, 2010 For consideration. Photos of the proposed solar fixtures
were also provided.
Mr. Pires moved to approve the Lease subject to the following change:
161 1&
October 11, 2010
• Item #1 (Article #3 of Lease Agreement is amended as follows:), line S
from "...LESSEE may off -set rent by mowing 198 acres oJ'pasture,... "to
"LESSEE shall mow 198 acres of pasture...
Second by Mr. Delate. Carried unanimously 9 -0.
It was noted any improvements proposed for the property require approval from the
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee.
V. New Business
A. ICSR — Paskanik
Alex Sulecki provided a Slideshow on the Initial Criteria Screening Report
(ICSR) highlighting:
• The parcel is located on 62 Ave, N6 one parcel removed from Panther
Walk Preserve.
• A Bank of America parcel separates Panther Walk Preserve from the
Paskanik parcel.
• Bank of America expressed interest in conveying their parcel to
Conservation Collier. To date, no application has been received from Bank
of America_
• It received an ICSR scored 240 out ofa possible 400 points.
• The property is primarily wetlands.
• Total Integrated Wildlife Habitat Ranking score is 8 out of 10.
Vl. Outstanding Advisory Committee Member Program
Alex Sulecki reported Jeff Curl has been selected as an Outstanding Advisory
Committee member. The award will be presented by the Board ofCounty
Commissioners at the October 26, 2010 meeting. Staff will provide notification in
the event 2 or more members attend the meeting.
VII. Coordinator Communications
A. Letter to Naples Airport Authority regarding CDC parcel
Alex Sulecki provided a draft of a letter proposed to be sent to the Naples Airport
Authority regarding their stance on partnering with Conservation Collier in the
acquisition ofa 7.5 acre parcel owned by Collier Development Company located
in proximity to Naples Airport.
Ms. Karim moved to authorize Staff to send the letter to the Naples Airport
Authority. Second by Mr. Pires. Carried unanimously 9 -0.
Staff noted:
• Any members who need copies of any ICSR should contact Staff.
• There has been a settlement in the dispute with the lands in the Nancy
Payton Preserve. Section 24's designation will remain "neutral lands."
phis may help provide access to the Preserve through future developments.
Vlll. Sub- Committee Meeting Reports
October 11, 2010
A. Outreach — Tony Pires, Chair
A meeting will be scheduled to discuss the status of-appraisals and offer letters.
B. Lands Evaluation and Management — Mike Delate, Chair
A meeting will be scheduled to discuss the Pepper Ranch Final Management Plan.
C. Ordinance Policy and Procedures — Annisa Karim, Chair
A meeting was held on October 4, 2010, where the proposed Preserve Ordinance
was discussed.
IX. Chair Committee Member Comments
None
X. Public General Comments
None
XI. Staff Comments
Melissa Hennig reported the Pepper Ranch Youth Hunt scheduled for October has
been postponed due to the wet conditions on site.
The Committee recommended Staff contact youth organizations such as the Boy
Scouts, Girl Scouts, 411 club, etc. to notify them of the proposed Youth Hunts.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was
adjourned by order of the chair at 10:08 A.M.
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory
Committee
Michael DelaterLL( -L, - l
Bill Poteet, Chairman
I'hese minutes approved by the Board /Committee on
as presented _ or as amended
7
PFrFIVED
k 010
Naples, Florida, August 18, 2010
Fiala
Hales
Coyle
Coletta
LET IT BE KNOWN that the LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD met on this date in regular
session at 10:00 a.m. in the Main Library with the following members present:
CHAIR: Doris J. Lewis
VICE - CHAIR: Loretta Murray
Carla Grieve
Rochelle Lieb
ABSENT: Connie Bettinger- Hennick
ALSO PRESENT: Marilyn Matthes, Library Director
Judith Kraycik, Administrative Assistant
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mrs. Lewis asked for comments or corrections to the minutes of June 16, 2010. A few minor
adjustments were requested and noted. Mrs. Grieve moved to approve the minutes, seconded by
Mrs. Murray and the motion was carried unanimously that the minutes be approved with
corrections as noted.
Mrs. Matthes inquired whether the Board would think it appropriate to refer to members in the
minutes by their first names. After a brief discussion it was unanimously decided to continue to
refer to the members using their titles and last names.
LITERACY PROGRAM REPORT
In the absence of Roberta Reiss, Literacy Coordinator, there was no Literacy Program Report.
REPORT OF OFFICERS — None
COMMUNICATIONS
Mrs. Murray asked if the October Library Advisory Board meeting could be changed to the
second Wednesday of the month due to election early voting. Mrs. Murray runs early voting at
HQ for the Supervisor of Elections and she is concerned that she may not be available for the
Board meeting on October 20. All attendees agreed that it should not present a problem to
change the October meeting to the 13'".
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Employee of the Month — August
lot,
The Board reviewed the nominations submitted for selection of the Library's Employee of the Month. Mrs.
Matthes commented that the recent changes to the program may have prompted more interest and resulted
in more nominations. Mrs. Lieb moved to select Konstantine Karras at Naples Regidpl ;as EOM
for August. Mrs. Murray seconded the motion and all in favor.
oaoe: 0 l � I
Item 0:
161 1
Mrs. Matthes also stated that she has discussed with Linda Fasulo the two grand prizes to be awarded at the
end of the year and they tentatively decided that winners would receive luncheon lecture tickets to the
lecture of their choice. The members were pleased by this suggestion. Mrs. Matthes also reported that the
selections for June and July had not yet been notified due to vacations.
Planning for policy revisions
Mrs. Matthes began by distributing copies of the GUIDELINES GOVERNING USE OF THE LIBRARY.
She stated that there have always been issues with children using the Library on their own and at what age
level this should be allowed. The definition of a `guardian' was discussed, and whether this person should
be an adult or just older than the children being supervised. All seemed to agree that we want to encourage
use of libraries by children, but also provide guidance to ensure safety of all using libraries. Mrs. Matthes
will provide additional information on policies of other libraries and on policies of Collier Parks
Department. After a discussion of problems for both library staff and parents, the discussion was tabled for
the September meeting.
Mrs. Matthes stated that it is time that all of the Library policies should be reviewed and updated. She
continued that possibly the focus of the policies should be more behavioral than specific yes or no
guidelines. For example, our current policy does not allow the use of cell phones. Other Libraries are
changing their policy to state that if a patron is having a cell phone conversation but it is not disturbing
anyone, then that would be acceptable. Mrs. Mathes emphasized that, again, this is more of a behavioral
issue then a policy issue. She added that there are a number of other policies that she wants to review and
she will provide the Board with additional information at the next meeting.
Self check -outs and floating collections
Mrs. Matthes reported that she and four other staff traveled to Sarasota to discuss how this process works.
Mrs. Matthes responded that neither Lee nor Charlotte Counties use it, but many other libraries in Florida
and the Country do. Mrs. Murray asked how many branches does Sarasota have compared to Collier
County, Mrs. Matthes answered that Sarasota has eight branches and we have ten. Mrs. Grieve asked
about the procedure for implementing this process. Mrs. Matthes responded that for floating collections,
software is installed and then the types of books that are to be floated are selected, for example, large print
or non - fiction. When that type of book is checked back in, the catalog is updated to show where the book
came from and where it is now. Mrs. Lich asked if the system keeps a history of where the book has been.
Mrs. Matthes responded that it keeps the original location of the book and the last location of the book.
Mrs. Murray asked if someone checks out six books at one location and returns them to another, is this not
going to create a problem with unequal distribution. Mrs. Matthes stated that Sarasota has been doing this
for about two years and they had to do a major shift about a year ago. But since that time, it has been
balanced with only minor adjustments.
Mrs. Murray asked how realignment is handled and whether it is manual. Mrs. Matthes responded that yes,
it would require scanning the books out at their present location and then they would need to scanned into
the new location.
Mrs. Grieve asked about the self check -out procedure. Mrs. Matthes stated that will be more work to
implement. Chips would need to be installed in each book. The self check out procedure would require
some type of security such as something by the door. The next step would be to select an RFD) vendor and
choose two locations to convert to RFID and try it.
Mrs. Grieve commented that she has noticed that you can now freeze a reserve. Mrs. Matthes confirmed
that yes; this can be done if you are going to be away you can freeze the reserve until you return.
161 1b "
Circulation
Mrs. Matthes distributed a report showing the circulation figures through July of this year as compared to
last year and also just for the month of July 09 compared to July 10. Circulation is down but the Library is
open fewer hours. In addition, a change was made to DVD's which allows patrons to keep them for seven
days rather than three but they cannot be renewed. This resulted in lower circulation figures.
East Naples Branch, survey
Mrs. Matthes also stated that a survey was done at East Naples Library to make it more tailored for patrons
needs. Some of the suggestions for improvements are possible and can be acted upon. Providing audio for
library computers may pose problems due to residual noise and the use of headphones. Mrs. Grieve noticed
that one of the suggestions was for more Spanish language books. She continued that Friends of the
Library are printing some of the brochures in Spanish. Also, there is a gentleman on the Board of Friends
of the Library who is fluent in Spanish who is working with local media to promote the Library to the
Spanish speaking community.
lL [S� /RQ.yI2Imf.X`D26ST
C e7�1► i� :7:�1[Ka]`►691�J11:7:�IIlCa7�b � �
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Mrs. Matthes distributed a list of the County holidays for 2011
Mrs. Lich asked about the new ethics policy. Mrs. Matthes explained the new policy means she cannot
serve on the Senior Resource Center Board because she is a County employee. Mrs. Lich asked if there is
going to be a health facility there. Mrs. Matthes responded that Friendship House is currently renting a
facility on Pine Ridge Road that is already a clinic.
Mrs. Matthes referred to a publication that she distributed which provides a variety of library statistics for
the entire country. This information is supplied by OCLC which is a nonprofit library cooperative which is
a shared resource for libraries throughout the country.
Mrs. Matthes stated that the Library is celebrating the Smartest Card week which occurs in September. The
smartest card in your wallet is your library card. There should be information provided in each of the
libraries.
A brochure was also distributed entitled 'Taxpayer Return on Investment in Florida Public Libraries'. Mrs.
Matthes stated that many public facilities and nonprofits publish information of this type to show the effect
on the public and to encourage the continuance of public money being provided to the organization. She
commented that Linda Fasulo also has seen it and has requested that copies be distributed to the Friends of
the Library.
Mrs. Matthes asked the Board whether it mattered whether the agenda packet is mailed in the large brown
envelope which has been the case, or whether it would be acceptable to fold the material and send it in a
standard size envelope. The reason is that mailing costs could be reduced. All the members agreed this
would not be a problem.
16 I 1 V/
Also distributed at the meeting was information regarding an online resource called NoveList. This is
included on the Library main page and it is to help patrons decide what books they wish to read. The
information provided today is regarding an enhancement that will take effect in September. Mrs. Matthes
stated that Friends of the Library are paying the upgrade fee for this service. The Friends are trying to
become more involved with local book clubs and they plan to market the NoveList to them. She also
mentioned that many local book clubs support the Friends lecture series.
Mrs. Matthes pointed out that there is new and improved lighting in the Library and encouraged the
members to take notice before they leave. Also, in the courtyard the walkway pavers have been replaced
with concrete. There are plans to change the courtyard which would include removal of the fountain which
could be relocated to the Senior Resource Center.
At Naples Regional the light switches are being replaced in the meeting rooms. An electronic board that
was installed more than 20 years ago can no longer be maintained and if and when the lights fail, the
switches would all need to be replaced. As a result, work has begun to replace the switches before they
fail.
REPORT OF THE FRIENDS
Mrs. Grieve stated the Friends of the Library do not meet during the summer. However, work is being
done on projects during this time. One of the projects is the revision of the by -laws which most people find
very confusing. The lecture series will be held at the Naples Beach Hotel. The hotel will provide
accommodations for the speaker at no charge. The next meeting will be in October.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Library Advisory Board, Mrs. Murray moved to
adjourn, seconded by Mrs. Lieb and carried unanimously the meeting was adjourned at 11:16 a.m.
Approved by:
Doris J. Lewisy' Y
Chair, Library Advisory Board
R4641:.01 1z"01
H.5J.1/. Akz" eonwo-�
2885 S. H—ad -, N;�
Nom, Ft 34104
I. Call Meeting to order
II. Attendance
III. Approval of Agenda
October 6, 2010
AGENDA
Fiala`
Halas
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
IV. Approval of Minutes - August 11, 2010. and August 16, 2010
Regular meeting
V. Transportation Services Report
A. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera, Budget Analyst
B. Project Manager — Darryl Richard, Project Manager
VI. Landscape Architect Consultant Report — Dayna Fendrick, Urban Green
Studio
VII. New Business
A. Florida Sunshine Law and Ethics Workshop — October 14`h
B. Transcriptionist Requirements
VIII. Old Business
A. Liaison Report — RR MSTU — Sue Chapin
IX. Future Meeting Date
X. Public Comments
XI. Adjournment
The next meeting is scheduled for November 3, 2010 at 10:00 a.m.
2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples, FL 34104 misc. Corres:
Date: � t � � � 2
Item #: 1- � J
--ies `V
71014
I. Call Meeting to order
II. Attendance
III. Approval of Agenda
October 6, 2010
AGENDA
Fiala`
Halas
Henning
Coyle
Coletta
IV. Approval of Minutes - August 11, 2010. and August 16, 2010
Regular meeting
V. Transportation Services Report
A. Budget Report — Gloria Herrera, Budget Analyst
B. Project Manager — Darryl Richard, Project Manager
VI. Landscape Architect Consultant Report — Dayna Fendrick, Urban Green
Studio
VII. New Business
A. Florida Sunshine Law and Ethics Workshop — October 14`h
B. Transcriptionist Requirements
VIII. Old Business
A. Liaison Report — RR MSTU — Sue Chapin
IX. Future Meeting Date
X. Public Comments
XI. Adjournment
The next meeting is scheduled for November 3, 2010 at 10:00 a.m.
2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples, FL 34104 misc. Corres:
Date: � t � � � 2
Item #: 1- � J
--ies `V
Fiala}
Halas �r
Henning
Coyle
f.010" i�� E _ .pletta
'JC 1 1 €3 2010 H.S.T.U. A4:" Cah+"w
Nht ", Ft 34104
Workshop Minutes
August 11, 2010
2:00 PM
The Workshop was called to order by Chairman Dale Johnson at 2:00 PM.
1. Discuss and review previous interviews from Landscape Architects
A lengthy discussion took place concerning the various Architects
presentations that had been given at the Committee's July 21`' meeting.
Sue Chapin distributed and reviewed her notes on JRL Design, McGee &
Associates, Urban Green Studios and Windham Studios and points she
observed at the July 215` meeting. (See attached)
Many pro and con issues were debated. A final decision was made to approve
Urban Green Studio as the Landscape Architect.
Staff called Ms. Fendrick and announced the Radio Road East MSTU
Advisory Committee had chosen Urban Green Studio to be their Landscape
Architect.
It was then decided to hold meeting on August 16`" at 10:00 AM at 2885
Horseshoe Drive to discuss the project and Proposal for the Scope of
Services.
It was noted the Landscape Architect would normally do a proposal based on
Concept Development, Design Development, Construction Drawings and
Construction Observation and will be discussed further at the October 6'h
meeting
2. Make an informed decision to discuss and vote at regular meeting for
Landscape Architects
Further discussion ensued on when to hold regular meetings and it was
decided the Advisory Committee will hold future Radio Road East MSTU
meetings on the first Wednesday of each month at 2885 Horseshoe Drive at
10:00 AM.
The Workshop was concluded at 3:00 PM. Misc. Corres:
Date:
Item #:
1
NOTE ;S TAKEN FROM JULY 21ST MEETING
JRL
16 I( 1
• Cost Conscience
• Worked with Jack Lieber
• Plant Materials — less water — challenge
• Main Road Designs
• Bayshore — Bio- Swales being used. Minimum turf — is more maintenance & uses more
water.
• Mr. Tindall — Project Mgr — not in attendance
o Immokalee & Golden Gate — refurbish Main St. in Immokalee
• Small Firm
• Master Plan for Bayshore MSTU & CRA — street guidelines
• Master Plan important
• Has worked with the BCC for 20 years.
Knowledgeable but too laid back.
The Project Mgr was not there
McGee_& A ocjates
• Is a Cert. Arborist (important for knowing #1 quality trees)
• Important to continue maintenance with same firm
• 27 yrs. w /BCC CC
• 26 yrs. w /MSTU
• 50 miles of roadway
• FDOT qualified
• Will respond to us ASAP
• Establish Goals & Objectives
• Stay Focused — Best Mgt Practices
• Coronado & Hunter (GG MSTU)
• Has wkly meetings w /staff etc.
• Aware of Stormscaping, Waterwise, going Green, and different grades & standards for
nursery plants
• Davis Blvd — little water
• RR MSTU
• Lely — no irrigation in cul -de -sac for 14 year plantings
• CC has a "No Turf' policy ??
• No turf plantings more costly
• Design first before irrigation
Lots of Good experience with MSTU's
Very knowledgeable
Great presentation
Good ideas
Would be easy to work with
Fiala —'/
t , Halas
Henning
Q` 2010 R.44. P'M-4 &'skoletta
M.S.T.U. A Con-"-414 2885 5. H-Wt P Iin;.ut
Nom, ft 34104
Minutes
Au-ust 11.2010
1. Call Meeting to Order
The Meeting was called to order by Chairman Dale Johnson immediately
following the Workshop at 3:05 PM.
I1. Attendance
Members: Sue Chapin, Thomas Depouw, Renato Fernandez, Dale
Johnson, Paige Simpson (Excused)
County: Michelle Edwards — Director ATM Dept., Darryl Richard —
Project Manager
III. Approval of Agenda
It was moved and seconded the Agenda be approved as submitted.
Motion carried 4 -0.
IV. Approval of Minutes - July 21, 2010
It was moved and seconded the July 21, 2010 Minutes be approved as
submitted. Motion carried 4 -0.
V. Landscape Architect Consultant
A. Discussion and Selection
Staff e- mailed the Committee a list of Roadways that have been
completed, or being worked on by the various Landscape Architects.
It was moved and seconded to approve Urban Green Studios as the
new Landscape Architect for Radio Road East MSTU. Motion
carried unanimously 4 -0.
Vt. New Business — None.
VII. Old Business
A. Liaison Report — RR MSTU
Sue Chapin reported attending the Radio Road Beautification MSTU
meeting. She suggested Radio Road East MSTU work together with
them to resolve problems and share information. She statedWwdCwres:
Road East supports their efforts with new landscaping and thanked
the Radio Road Beautification MSTU Committee for their ppgw.e -----
Item N
16! 1 0
support and hope they will continue to support the (MSTU East)
Committee's efforts.
VIII. Future Meeting Date
The next meeting will be August 10 at 10:00 AM and the next
regular monthly meeting will be held on October 6 °i at 10 AM.
IX. Public Comments
There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 3:30 PM.
Radio Road East Beautification
MSTU Advisory Committee
Dale Johnson, Chair an
These minutes approved by the Advisory Committee on—//)
as presented _ or amended _ ✓
The next meeting is scheduled for August 16, 2010 at 10:00 a.m.
2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples, FL 34104
2
16 I 1 X1
1b! 1 P
Water Source
�zevised Finish
LA Consultant
Number
Date
LivingProject
. -.
.,,
(Radio - Pine
complete- ,
Associates
Ridge)
Livingston -.
. ,.
.. -.
Productions
Livingston -.
Phase
McGee &
..
(Pine Ridge Rd.
complete-
,
Associates
.:-
Outside
complete- 7/05
?—f-t
��v e
ssJ
Productions
3. 2$
161 1 ��3
Project
Water Source
Description
Revised Finish
Miles
LA Consultant
Number
Date
Livingston Rd.
Phase
Outside
62071
re -use
(VBR to
complete- 3/06
2.0
Productions
Immokalee Rd.)
Goodlette -Frank
Road
A. Gail Boorman &
60134
re -use * **
(Pine Ridge Road
complete- 1/06
4.0
Associates
to Vanderbilt
Beach Road)
Golden Gate
Pkwy
Outside
600277/600275
re -use * * **
( Livingson Rd-
complete- 1/06
1.5
Productions
66th St. /60th to
SBB)
US 41 North
McGee &
600291
potable
(VBR - Immokalee
complete- 1/06
1.5
Associates
Rd)
Davis Blvd.
McGee &
600981
City Potable
(Airport - US 41
complete- 12/05
1.0
Associates
E) Irrigation
Project
Water Source
Description
Revised Finish
Miles
LA Consultant
Number
Date
Median potable
Pine Ridge
& reuse
complete
601114
Median
2.0
In House
20,21,30 (old
4/1/2006
Refurbishment
3,4,13)
161 1 W
Project
Water Source
Description
Revised Finish
Miles
LA Consultant
Number
Date
reuse W-
Pine Ridge
McGee &
740461
potable E
Interchange
1/2/2007
2.0
Associates
re -use &
US 41 North
1/2/2007 C/O to
McGee &
600241
(Immokalee Road
add days for as-
2.0
potable
- Wiggins Pass)
built
Associates
Immokalee Road
( @111 -US41
McGee &
600241
potable
N) /Part of US 41
1/2/2007
0.3
Associates
North Phase III
Golden Gate
Outside
600221
well
Blvd. Ph. 2 (29 St
10/13/2006
2.0
11 St)
Productions
600066/313- 163673
McGee &
763110- 600066
reuse
GG Overpass
8/30/2007
2.0
Associates
Davis Blvd.
(Airport - US 41 E)
A. Gail Boorman &
620121/600981
City Potable
Landscape
10/15/2006
1.0
Associates
Improvement
Project
Goetz +
Stropes /Constructio
600521
Private
Port of the Islands
1/31/2007
1.0
n Management - In-
House
mm__
161 loo
Project
Water Source
Revised Finish
LA Consultant
Number
Date
O, .
VBR pond
Pine -..- -.
edi
potable
.:
.a...4arilu..a'i`m31'�'mn.' /l
Rp
{ ZOf
KxiY`nw`N'+ �i"
IN
161 1011
Project
Water Source
Description
Revised Finish
Miles
LA Consultant
Number
Date
-
----7A
US 41 North
Completed /Contr
McGee &
600211
re -use
(Wiggins Pass-
act
2.0
Associates
County Line) Ph5
signed/Waiting to
open PO
US 41 East
BA
(Barefoot
Completed/Waiti
McGee &
600451
re -use
Williams- Collier
ng for signed
1.5
Associates
Blvd.) Ph.E
Contract
US 41 East (St.
BA
Andrews -
Completed/Waiti
McGee &
600231
re -use
Barefoot
ng for signed
2 5
Associates
Williams) Ph.D
Contract
Rattlesnake
Completed/Waiti
McGee &
600261
re -use
Hammock - St.
ng for signed
1.5
Associates
Golden Gate
Completed /Contr
Outside
600221/600701
well
Blvd.(2 miles)
act
2.0
Productions
signed/Waiting to
Good lette-Fran k
Waiting for
A. Gail Boorman &
600054
City re -use
(GGPkwy -PRR) &
signed contract
3.5
Associates
Spur Rd
Pine Ridge (1 -75 -
McGee &
740461
RE -Use
Logan)
0.5
Associates
16 I 1 M3
Project
Water Source
Description
Revised Finish
Miles
LA Consultant
Number
Date
Fund 112 - 60043 /
LAP(200732 -3)
McGee &
Amount:
GG Interchange
FY09
1.00
Associates
$134,000 /Fund 112,
600431
Fund 112 -
Immokalee Road
McGee &
660423/Fund 313,
(US 41 to I -75)
FY09
3.50
Associates
660423
Project
Water Source
Description
Revised Finish
Miles
LA Consultant
Number
Date
Immokalee Road
Fund 69101
(1 -75 to Collier
FY091Turnback
3.50
Windham Studio
Blvd.)
Fund 112 - LAP
Collier Blvd.
McGee &
08/09: Amount:
South (Jolly
FY09
1.5
Associates
$448,100
Bridge)
Fund 112-
RSH Rd (Polly-
McGee &
FY09 /Turnback
2.00
601693/313, 601693
Collier Blvd.)
Associates
Vanderbilt Beach
Fund 112 - 630514
Road (Airport -
FY09/Turnback
4.80
Windham Studio
Collier)
161
Project
Number water Source I Description Revised Finish I Miles LA Consultant
Fund 112 - 600301 -
LAP 10/11 (Amount:
$315,100)
Immokalee
Interchange
1W
IBIS/ PO - Total
Spent:
FY10 2.00 $13,707.09[Work
Stopped PO Amount
71K
*Ommited since the project was stopped.
Project water Source Description Revised Finish Miles LA Consultant
Number Date
GRAND TOTAL
FOR LANDSCAPE
BEAUTIFICATION
88.4
MASTER PLAN
PROJECTS -LA
SERVICES
Project water Source Description Revised Finish Miles LA Consultant
Number Date
GRAND TOTAL
FOR LANDSCAPE
BEAUTIFICATION
3.3
MASTER PLAN
PROJECTS -IN-
HOUSE
Roo"R"*4 6*4
M.S.T.U. AA"n,
2885 S. H.0 1Z
N,tl", FL 34104
Special Meeting
Minutes
August 16, 2010
161 lbly
L Call Meeting to Order
The Meeting was called to order by Chairman Dale Johnson at 10:00
AM.
II. Attendance
Members: Sue Chapin, Thomas Depouw, Renato Fernandez, Dale
Johnson, Paige Simpson (Excused)
County: Pamela Lulich — Landscape Operation Manager, Darryl
Richard — Project Manager, Roger Dick, Irrigation Project Manager
Others: Dayna Fendrick - Urban Green Studio, Katie Binkowski —
Urban Green Studio
III. Approval of Agenda
Sue Chapin moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by
Thomas Depouw. Motion carried 4 -0.
IV. Discussion with Landscape Architect Consultant — Urban Green
Studio
A. Discussion regarding project "Scope" and Proposal for Scope of
Services
A "Meet and Greet" Session was held with Urban Green Studios with
questions directed to Ms. Fendrick. Discussion was made after each
of the questions.
It was noted Collier County Policy prohibits the use of irrigated
floratam sod on any road ways. Floratam sod requires an enormous
amount of water and fertilization, maintenance, mowing and pest
control.
Sue Chapin stated the Radio Road East MSTU has a unique situation
with medians wider than most other medians. She suggested sod be
used for better coverage in some of the design areas.
161 1 X13
The Staff suggested the Scope of Services include a Design Plan to
establish a water supply source. Another option was to request South
Florida Water Management (SFWM) to permit a well and evaluate the
costs associated with each source.
Discussion was made on the irrigation system, mixing chamber, and
the installation of sod other than floratam and it was decided the
Advisory Committee will review the Landscape Architects
suggestions for the Project Design.
Pamela Lulich stated the Radio Road East MSTU applied for a
Beautification Grant and still eligible for funding.
Darryl Richard suggested using Project Phases to protect the
Committee's Grant eligibility.
The Staff and the Advisory Committee requested the following be
considered in the Scope of .Services:
➢ Design the entire project all at once.
➢ Irrigation Supply
➢ 5 -6 Year Budget and long range maintenance
➢ Sod or type of grass for wide medians
➢ Budget Restraints
➢ PH Factor and Core Samples
➢ Power and Irrigation Control System
➢ Mixing Chamber as an alternate supply
➢ Testing Communication
➢ DC Controllers
It was recommended the Advisory Committee hold a public meeting
in the future to get information to the residents on the Concept
Development.
The Staff requested the Landscape Architect provide 3 different
concept options for the Advisory Committee's approval prior to
presentation to the public.
Urban Green Studios will provide Scope of Services for review and
approval by the Advisory Committee at their next scheduled meeting.
The Staff will research the well installation with SFWM. They issue
permits and recommend placement of wells.
The Staff recommended using the same contractor for irrigation and
planting due to future adjustments and bidding the entire project for
better pricing and complete sections as funds are accumulated.
V. New Business — None.
Vl. Old Business — None.
2
16 I 10?
VII. Future Meeting Date
October 6, 2010 - 10:00 AM.
Vlll. Public Comments — None.
There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was
adjourned at 11:15 AM.
Radio Road East Beautification
MSTU Advisory Committee
I
Dale Johnson, C! Orman
These minutes approved by the Advisory Committee on
as presented X or amended
The next meeting is scheduled for October 6, 2010 at 10:00 a.m.
2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples, FL 34104
October 14, 2010
AGENDA
I. Call Meeting to Order
II. Attendance
III. Approval of Agenda
IV. Approval of Minutes: May 6, 2010
V. Budget Report
VI. Landscape Maintenance Report - CLM
VII. Utilities Report - Charles Arthur
VIII. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard
IX. Old Business
X. Update Report
A. Maintenance — Bruce Forman
B. Tax Analysis — Bud Martin
XI. New Business
XII. Public Comment
XIII. Adjournment
The next meeting is November 4, 2010 at 2:00 P.M.
ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER
625 111TH Ave.
Naples, FL. Misc. Cares:
Date:
Item #T�TC6B-1
Fiala _
NOV 0 y 20110
Halas
�4wmofGOW d�ry �
Henning �
Coyle _
V _ s A
id
T
)K.SA letta
wd `
Advisory OorgeMlttee
1 6 1 I
2705 Horseshoe Diive South
Naples, FL 34104
October 14, 2010
AGENDA
I. Call Meeting to Order
II. Attendance
III. Approval of Agenda
IV. Approval of Minutes: May 6, 2010
V. Budget Report
VI. Landscape Maintenance Report - CLM
VII. Utilities Report - Charles Arthur
VIII. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard
IX. Old Business
X. Update Report
A. Maintenance — Bruce Forman
B. Tax Analysis — Bud Martin
XI. New Business
XII. Public Comment
XIII. Adjournment
The next meeting is November 4, 2010 at 2:00 P.M.
ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER
625 111TH Ave.
Naples, FL. Misc. Cares:
Date:
Item #T�TC6B-1
May 6, 2010
161
Advlsow Goshmoittaa
2705 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples, F1, 34104
MINUTES
Call Meeting to Order
The meeting was called to order by Charles Arthur at 2:04 p.m.
A quorum was established.
Attendance
Members: Dick Lydon, Bud Martin, Charles Arthur, Bruce Forman
(Excused), Bill Gonnering
County: Darryl Richard -MSTU Project Manager, Caroline Soto - Budget
Analyst, Pam Lulich- Landscape Operations Manager
Others: Chris Tilman - Malcolm Pirnie, Jim Fritchey -CLM, Chuck Bentley -
Public, Georgia Hiller - Public, Rollin Rhea - Public, Darlene Lafferty -
Juristaff
III. Approval of Agenda
Add: XI. A. Summer Schedule
XI. B. Signage
XI. C. Beach Property Acquisition
Move: VIII. Landscape Maintenance Report -CLM to VI.
Subsequent Agenda Items were renumbered.
Bud Martin moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by
Dick Lydon. Motion carried unanimously 4-0.
IV. Approval of Minutes - April 1, 2010
Dick Lydon moved to approve the minutes of April 1, 2010 as
submitted. Second by Bud Martin. Motion carried unanimously
4-0.
V. Budget Report - Caroline Soto reviewed the following: (See attached)
• Collected Ad Valorem Tax $907,671.57
• Available Improvements General $4,842,781.71
1 bl�
161
Darryl Richard stated the Balance Sheet will be emailed to the
Committee prior to the next meeting (September.)
VI. Landscape Maintenance Report-CLM -Jim Fritchey
Jim Fritchey reported:
o Fertilization is underway
o (1) Dead Coconut Palm (Heron Ave.) due to cold weather
Dick Lydon reported an email was submitted to the County to address the
issue of Branches obstructing the Sign. Subsequently the County cleared
the Tree Branches away from the Sign.
o Irrigation was running during daylight hours due to testing of the
Irrigation System
Charles Arthur questioned if new bids were required to relocate
Landscaping (installed by Property owners) when Power Lines are
installed.
Darryl Richard responded the Refurbishments can be performed on a
limited basis by the current Contractor (CLM Contract.)
VII. Utilities Report- Charles Arthur (See attached)
VIII. Project Manager Report-Darryl Richard (See attached)
Darryl Richard reviewed the following Projects_
o Phase II consists of Vanderbilt Beach Road
- Between Gulf Shore Dr. and Vanderbilt Dr.
• Phase III consists of Residential Property
- Along Vanderbilt Dr. and Finger Streets
• RWA revised Bid is 20% lower than previous Bid
Bud Martin questioned if the Survey would be valid at the time of
Project(s) activity.
Chris Tilman perceived the Survey will be valid for Project Activity.
Charles Arthur stated during Phase II FPL prefers to include the
Commercial area and Condominiums (East and South boundaries.)
Discussion ensued concerning Bluebill Ave. (Phase) and the number of
Phases (4) required for the Project.
After discussion it was agreed by the Committee to include Bluebill Ave. in
Phase IV.
Dick Lydon moved to exclude Bluebill Ave in the Phase 11 Survey, to
retain (Bluebill Ave.) for Phase IV (Survey,) and request Staff to
provide the cost reduction for removing Bluebill Ave from the Phase
11 Survey. Second by Bud Martin. Motion carried unanimously 4-0.
I aid
Staff will request RWA provide an updated Cost Estimate to incorporate
Bluebill Ave. into Phase IV in lieu of the Phase II Survey.
Dick Lydon moved to approve $204,700.00 (RWA Proposal Phase 118
Phase 111) less the reduction from eliminating Bluebill Ave from
Phase 11 Survey. Second by Bill Gonnering. Motion carried
unanimously 4-0.
Darryl Richard reviewed a quote by Bentley Electric for the following (2)
Service Upgrades on Gulf Shore Dr.: (See attached)
o Item A. Lighthouse Inn
- Installation of new Service Equipment and underground
wiring
- Estimate $14,710.00
- Noted a temporary generator may be required as the
Lighthouse Inn and Kings Crown Condominium power
outage may be 1 -3 days (cost $2,700.00 included in
quote.)
Item B. Kings Crown Condominiums
- Install Service Conductors
- Total Estimate $9,900.00
Dick Lydon moved to approve $24,610.00 (Bentley Electric Proposal.)
Second by Bud Martin. Motion carried unanimously 4-0.
(VA- Conversion of 31 residential properties to underground
Darryl Richard presented a quote from ITran Partners in the amount of
$9,862.00 for items not included in the original Scope of Services. (See
attached)
o Example of additional items
- Boring for a new Electrical Line due to Concrete pads were
installed against the Foundation of the Home (installed by
Home Owner)
Discussion took place on the Bid by ITran Partners and the following was
noted:
• Original Bid - $39,000.00
• Revised Bid Total - $49,174.00
Bud Martin moved to approve $9,862.00 (ITran Partners Proposal.)
Second by Dick Lydon. Motion carried unanimously 4-0.
(VA -30) Comcast `Phase I" Coordination
• Estimate was submitted to relocate Aerial Plant - $331,351.25
(See attached)
• Labor and Material cost are included in the quote
161 10
Bill Gonnering moved to approve $331,351.25 (CWSI Proposal.)
Second by Dick Lydon. Motion carried unanimously 40.
Chris Tilman gave an update on Easement Acquisitions:
o Met with Property Owners of the (6) required Easements
o (5) Property Owners granted Easements
o (1) Property Owner refused consent for Easement Acquisition
(Mr. Epright)
o Options were discussed to relocate the Equipment originally
proposed on the Property of Mr. Epright
- Shift (3) FPL components 100 ft. north (to Vanderbilt Bay
Property)
- Relocate the Water Main Line into the Easement (required)
- Additional Easements may be required as FPL requires a 7
'/� ft. offset from Utilities (for Foundation Slabs)
- A deviation Agreement will be requested (from FPL)
concerning the 7 '/2 ft. offset to avoid additional Easement
Acquisitions
Charles Arthur reported the following:
• Originally (5) boxes were planned to be located on private
property (Mr. Epright)
- Subsequently FPL decreased the number of planned Utility
Boxes to be installed on the Property
• FPL requires (4) ft. access behind the Utility Boxes and is firm
on the requirement
• A meeting was held with Mr. Epright to propose the following:
- Requested an Easement Acquisition for the comer of the
Property in lieu of installing Utility Boxes in a visible
location
- Landscaping would be installed to screen the Utility Boxes
(for aesthetics)
- Mr. Epright refused to grant the Easement Acquisition on
the comer of the Property
Bill Gonnering volunteered to speak with Mr. Epright to discuss the
Easement Acquisition.
Chris Tilman noted Mr. Epright is leaving Naples within 1 -2 weeks for
summer vacation (2 months.)
IX. Old Business -None
X. Update Report
A. Maintenance -Bruce Forman -None
B. Tax Analysis -Bud Martin -None
161 Z M
XI. New Business
A. Summer Schedule
Charles Arthur suggested suspending summer meetings and to
resume meetings in October.
After discussion it was agreed to suspend summer meetings with the
exception of July. The meeting was rescheduled to July 13, 2010.
B. Signage
Darryl Richard distributed Designs for Beach Access Signs for
Committee review. (See attached)
Bud Martin viewed the proposed Beach Access Sign as obtrusive.
The Committee was in agreement with Bud Martin.
Dick Lydon moved that the (Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Committee)
does not believe the signs that were proposed meet the standards
of Beaudricadon as they understand them. The Committee
suggests a smaller less obtrusive sign be designed for
consideration. Second by Bud Martin. Motion carried
unanimously 40.
C. Beach Property Acquisition
Charles Arthur reported the following information:
• Frank Halas proposed to purchase a Single Family Residence
on Gulf Shore Dr. with the intent to install Public Restrooms
• Additionally Frank Halas proposed to purchase the adjacent
empty lot (North of La Playa) to install a Parking Lot
Charles Arthur volunteered to draft a letter to the BCC expressing the
Committees viewpoint on the Property acquisition. He perceived the
intent for the Property (install a Public Restroom and Parking Lot)
demonstrates inconsistencies in the Beautification process for the
Vanderbilt Beach area
Discussion ensued and it was agreed that the Property acquisition falls
under the realm of the MSTU Beautification as the Committee's
purpose is to enhance the neighborhood, improve Property Values,
and maintain the Vanderbilt Beach area.
Bud Martin moved for Charles Arthur to draft a letter from the
MSTU Advisory Committee recommending against this plan
(Beach Property Acquisition) due to deterioration of the
neighborhood character and ambiance. Second by Bill
Gonnering. Motion carried unanimously 40.
161 1 �1l
u. Public Comment
Charles Arthur introduced Georgia Hiller and noted she is running for
County Commissioner.
Georgia Hiller commended the Committee on the Line Burial and scrutiny
on the Cost Analysis. She addressed the Beach Access Project and
stated the following:
o Installation of an additional Restroom Facility was proposed in
close proximity to the Facility location suggested by Frank Halas
o Careful Analysis is needed to determine if the Project is
necessary based on Public needs and demand
Bud Martin inquired on the number of concentrated areas with Beach
Access in Collier County as parking and traffic flow is an issue. He noted
Vanderbilt Beach has 2 out of 6 Beach Access areas listed as follows:
• Barefoot Beach
• Wiggins Pass
• Vanderbilt Beach
• Clam Pass
• Downtown Naples
• Tiger Tail
Georgia Hiller responded many Access points exist. She noted:
• Between Vanderbilt Beach and Wigging Pass a total of (7)
Access points are present
• Expressed concern on the proposed County Beach Access
Signs on Gulf Shore Dr. as they would cause disruption in
Traffic flow and create Safety Hazards
Bud Martin noted Emergency Vehicles cannot enter or exit Gulf Shore Dr.
on good beach days.
Georgia Hiller stated the Traffic Flow situation is a significant Public
Health and Safety issue. Additionally Traffic flow must be managed in a
way that ensures Emergency or Fire Vehicles can transit Roadways in the
time necessary to save lives.
Bud Martin questioned if Georgia Hiller presumed a third Lane (minimum)
is necessary at existing Access Points prior to adding Access points on
Gulf Shore Dr.
Georgia Hiller perceived the Transportation Department needs to provide
a solution Traffic Flow issues.
Bill Gonnering left at 3:51 p.m.
Charles Arthur thanked Georgia Hiller for attending the meeting.
16 1w
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting
was adjourned by the Chair at 3:58 p.m.
Vanderbilt Beach MSTU
Advisory Committee
Charles Arthur, Chairman
These minutes app oved by the Board /Committee on i
as presented _or amended
The next meeting is October 14, 2010 at 2:00 P.M.
ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER
625 111 T" Ave.
Naples, FL.
Ip OJ V O N A W N+ O i0 W V m N A W N O 10 OC J 01 N A W N+ O tD OD J m fT A W N+
(/�
V
A W N O
Av AA W W 1-�7I 0 -00 TorC»33NZ�mv
N >vv °m =mnicmimZ
vO�ZNmm �AA mh0 A�AA1A7JZ Z"!100
=ZOpzG�" DOA> DD <mmTiMp
C�7AO1D ��N
O> O N W
(nD00�
O
DA 77JJ� 2A�F
ZpEn>mN
--A C) �mmmmmr
= 4 mX(immm'
.. ° <ANN ZAO DD
� -I DO
'T TT
m O m O w m
O O P m
'MMZQozz
D D ..
<< m� -i T r< o m D(n Z Z r z D o A o D o- m m
mmm C1 0O
�A ��,
Cm
m m m m m m m x <<
�N� A � p pr
O O O O J O
N T A ,Zn N
NO crm GziA W p<m> ZAm OO-im 0z7 m
TO1 -prlT �-y�{
O O O O o O
A ZZZ 5y 9Z fW=TI PA;a m0Zm< �D0 mm
viA
{�mci3��ngA �mm�m
10<pAoo n "" -zl z Mm
!z oo�D
000000
yrn -iD z �Om
�O V z m Zw ZZ2� Z��yy777J Om-
�I�
�OmZ
00yy -p Crr- m-I y�y�
D O'er O z mm OOT zO Ogr I-DC
D
mZ 7J mO,i x
r r A r O m r A
m n
Z DD
O
V J W
W N W W m m P
tO tp W OI V N N O O W
0 0 0 tO O O N IJ V N
O O O O O O O A A [O O
O O O O O O O J J J O
oO O O O O O m OI tp O
O O O O O O O W W m O
:' lfl ffl df fA b1 fA EA N fA fA (!)
iA O O U
V V W
A A 10
V J J
W W N
,..f9H fA (fl EA fAM NEA NEn
v:
": f9 fA fq fn E» M EA E» Efl EA E»
m m
OI Q) N
W N W V J W
N N N A
0 0 0 O 8 w O
O O O O S O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 C C O Q
ENWwEn e»Fn En E»w E»EnW WEn Eli w EnW
3 m r.
m
m �
a
A
a
v
II
0 N N N
O J
y
O fO m
o m < a
m ° <
m a
N C
0 ry
W
m + w A
w UI
O> O N W
N O O O J
N O UI
O O O
O O m A m�
O O O O O UI
m O m O w m
O O P m
J O
0 0 0. 0 0
O O O O J O
6 6 6
1
0
O O O O o O
O O O
0 0 0 0 0
000000
ENWwEn e»Fn En E»w E»EnW WEn Eli w EnW
3 m r.
m
m �
a
A
a
v
II
0 N N N
O J
y
O fO m
o m < a
m ° <
m a
N C
0 ry
W
Q)
(P J
O
W m
m O m
0O OI A061,
O
J O
O
(T O
O O O 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
000000
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 O O 0' 0
O fO m
o m < a
m ° <
m a
N C
0 ry
EA fA fA M EA fA EA Eli En fA bi W fA EA EA fA fA EA
EA fn fA Hf EA fA fA EA (fl EH fA EA Efl EA fA EA E» Efl
W
Q)
(P J
O
W m
m O m
0O OI A061,
O
J O
O
(T O
EA fA fA M EA fA EA Eli En fA bi W fA EA EA fA fA EA
EA fn fA Hf EA fA fA EA (fl EH fA EA Efl EA fA EA E» Efl
rn w m m w
A O O O O
m O O O O
m 0 O O p
En EA E9 fn (fl EN fA W (H W
EA fN fR EA df fA EA M fA 6
fA Ep (A v
o
m m
47 W
N �
A O
N O �
A O
m O
W f En
O
0 W
O tO
O O
O O
O O
m a N N 6 O O m O O O m
D D D^ n m m x r a 3 0
0 0 3 d m y 3 o f
n n n T m o A 7 o o O Z
m m d a O m
N N <D 0 LD >> C m
m ^ a -
- 3 � I
D <C
a lD V '0 05 O K Tm= n OE A
O
;o
O
fD N C N N F a b
y m V o m j m N to
m m
N m
+ = m
O �]
= m
N
A A A A A A
N U N
000000
0 0 0 0 0 0 Z Z
m m W 0 S W D D#
0 8 W N
m W A m m O
(T m m O V a
l0 O m �D W j
m W 0 0 0 O
i Efl fA M
i
II �
a
n
0
1�q
O D Z
O
�Cm
� p W
V 4
A
oE"'3
o y
1
C
W m
m N
W m m
m O N+ W m
m O m m O
m O m
0O OI A061,
O m 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
m 0 0 0 0 0
O O O 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
000000
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 O O 0' 0
rn w m m w
A O O O O
m O O O O
m 0 O O p
En EA E9 fn (fl EN fA W (H W
EA fN fR EA df fA EA M fA 6
fA Ep (A v
o
m m
47 W
N �
A O
N O �
A O
m O
W f En
O
0 W
O tO
O O
O O
O O
m a N N 6 O O m O O O m
D D D^ n m m x r a 3 0
0 0 3 d m y 3 o f
n n n T m o A 7 o o O Z
m m d a O m
N N <D 0 LD >> C m
m ^ a -
- 3 � I
D <C
a lD V '0 05 O K Tm= n OE A
O
;o
O
fD N C N N F a b
y m V o m j m N to
m m
N m
+ = m
O �]
= m
N
A A A A A A
N U N
000000
0 0 0 0 0 0 Z Z
m m W 0 S W D D#
0 8 W N
m W A m m O
(T m m O V a
l0 O m �D W j
m W 0 0 0 O
i Efl fA M
i
II �
a
n
0
1�q
O D Z
O
�Cm
� p W
V 4
A
oE"'3
o y
1
C
En EA E9 fn (fl EN fA W (H W
EA fN fR EA df fA EA M fA 6
fA Ep (A v
o
m m
47 W
N �
A O
N O �
A O
m O
W f En
O
0 W
O tO
O O
O O
O O
m a N N 6 O O m O O O m
D D D^ n m m x r a 3 0
0 0 3 d m y 3 o f
n n n T m o A 7 o o O Z
m m d a O m
N N <D 0 LD >> C m
m ^ a -
- 3 � I
D <C
a lD V '0 05 O K Tm= n OE A
O
;o
O
fD N C N N F a b
y m V o m j m N to
m m
N m
+ = m
O �]
= m
N
A A A A A A
N U N
000000
0 0 0 0 0 0 Z Z
m m W 0 S W D D#
0 8 W N
m W A m m O
(T m m O V a
l0 O m �D W j
m W 0 0 0 O
i Efl fA M
i
II �
a
n
0
1�q
O D Z
O
�Cm
� p W
V 4
A
oE"'3
o y
1
C
0
1�q
O D Z
O
�Cm
� p W
V 4
A
oE"'3
o y
1
C
161' 1 ��
Collier County, Florida
Vanderbilt Beach MSTU
Adjusted Balance Sheet (Unaudited)
As of respective date
Collier County, Florida
Vanderbilt Beach MSTU
Source of monies from inception - CUMULATIVE
Ad valorem taxes $ 6,687,19135 $ 6,687,191.75 $
(9)
Unaudited
As of
9/3012010
10113/2010
Pooled cash and investments
$
5,080,344.09
$
5,078,094.93
$
Market valuation of investments (done annually)
(4,128.11)
(4,128.11)
Due from Tax Collector
-
-
Due from Property Appraiser
1,037.70
1,037.70
Due from other funds
-
-
Interest receivable
7,293.01
7,293.01
Total Assets
$
5,084,546.69
$
5,082,297.53
$
Goods Receiptllnvoice Receipt
$
5,653.08
$
36,848.23
$
Accounts Payable
875.00
-
4,652,625 42
Revenues:
Ad Valorem Collections
947,406.78
Interest Revenue
38,957.06
Miscellaneous
-
-
Expenditures:
Other Contractural Services
(52,470.00)
(11,865.15)
Legal Fees
(1,473.95)
-
Engineering
(44,320.00)
-
Surveying Fees
(14,982 05)
-
Abstract Fees
(875 00)
-
Indirect Cost Reimbursement
(10,000 -00)
-
Water and sewer
(46,810.77)
-
Sprinkler maintenance
(846.07)
-
Landscaping
(13,345.71)
-
Mulch
(3,218.60)
-
Other miscellaneous (fertilizer, electricity, etc.)
(8,523.52)
-
Improvements - General (Capital)
(315,614.76)
(19,780.00)
Transfer to PA
(6,412.89)
(924.16)
Transfer to TC
(19,077.33)
Transfer to Fund 111 (Unic. MSTD)
(23,000.00)
Total Liabilities and Equity
$
5,084,546.69
$
5,082,297.53
$
Collier County, Florida
Vanderbilt Beach MSTU
Source of monies from inception - CUMULATIVE
Ad valorem taxes $ 6,687,19135 $ 6,687,191.75 $
(9)
161101 ot`
Miscellaneous income (refund)
503.65
503.65
Interest earnings
581,659.97
581,659.97
Insurance recoveries
13,085.17
13,085.17
Good and services
(1,915,896.45)
(1,918,145.61)
Transfers out to other County funds
(286,200.00)
(286,200.00)
Cash balance as of respective date
$ 5,080,344.09
$ 5,078,094.93 $
WDe rekWa ndymeeting. As
00)
161 10
Report for: October 14, 2010 Meeting
Prepared by:
Darryl Richard, Project Manger, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes
Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Project Status
(VA -35) - ACTIVE — Water Line Relocation Project — Project V -1
10- 04 -10: Jeff Gower, P.E. provides bid documents for bidding Water Line Relocation Project —
Project V -1. Project Plans reviewed by staff. Total Project cost is estimated at: $82,500.00
10- 14 -10: Project Plans are under review by ROW Permit Section. 2 week minimum review
period Upon receipt of ROW Permit Project may be bid through Purchasing Dept.
(VA -34) - ACTIVE — Survey for Phase II & III (PO 4500118493)
10- 14 -10: Survey for Phase II and III is on -going and active.
(VA -33) - COMPLETED — Conversion of 2 Commercial properties to underground
(individual meter connection)
10 -14 -10 Bentley Electric has completed meter conversion of Lighthouse Inn & Kings
Crown Condominiums
(VA -32) - Partially Completed - with exception of 1 property w/ code issues — Conversion of 31
residential properties to underground (individual meter connection)
10 -14 -10 Itran Partners, Inc. completed 30 property meter conversions; 1 property at
10021 Gulfshore Drive could not be done due to outstanding electrical code
violations noted by building inspector. 100% of all residential units are required to
have been converted in order to obtain 25% GAF reduction in project cost.
(VA -30) - ACTIVE — Comcast "Phase One" Coordination
10 -14 -10 Draft Agreement received from Comcast as per tariff 6.310 requirements. Draft is
under review at County Attorney's office. Total project cost is estimated to be:
$331,351.25. Comcast in 'draft' agreement is requesting a 10% contingency
fund. Copy of pole agreements is pending from Comcast.
(VA -27) - ACTIVE — Phase One "Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement" (UFCA)
11 -10 -09 COMPLETED for Channel Drive (only), UFCA approved by BCC for'Channel
Drive'
10 -14 -10 Overall Phase One UFCA is pending resolution of 'easements' required for
Phase One Project; As soon as easements are obtained FPL will proceed with
Final Engineering Cost Estimate and production of Final Design Plans for project.
(VA -26) - ACTIVE — Malcolm Pirnie; Review preliminary design provided by FPL
10 -14 -10 Ongoing review of easements and negotiation with property owners in progress.
(VA -19) — ACTIVE - ONGOING — On Call Services — Malcolm Pirnie Engineering
On -going services for meeting attendance and preliminary investigation regarding underground
power line installation.
10 -14 -10 Ongoing On -Call Engineering Services by Malcolm Pirnie Engineering
(VA -18) — ACTIVE - ONGOING- — Maintenance Contract — Award to Commercial Land, Annual
Maintenance 'base contract' per Quote
10 -14 -10 Ongoing Maintenance Services by Commercial Land Maintenance
(11�
16 ! "1 M
Brief summary of "Underground Utilities Conversion" project activity
Since December 11, 2007 Initial BCC Approval of Agreement
12 -11 -07 BCC Approval of ROW Agreement with FPL date Dec. 11, 2007
03 -26 -08 TEAM TELECONFERNCE (FPL, COMCAST, COUNTY, MSTU (C.ARTHUR), VBPOA (JACKIE
BAMMEL, RWA, MALCOLM PIRNIE)
03 -10 -08 PUBLIC MEETING AT ST. JOHNS
05 -12 -08 Review of RWA Survey w/ Malcolm Pirnie and C. Arthur
06 -05 -09 Confirmation of 4 residential units affected by "Channel Drive Pilot Project" with FPL
(Ryan Drum); Field Meeting to review project; Affected Properties are:
NANCE, HAROLD 283 CHANNEL
BASTANI, KEN K 261 CHANNEL
KOHLER, RUTH H 227 CHANNEL
REYNOLDS TR, HENRY E 213 CHANNEL
06 -23 -09 CHANNEL DRIVE: Hart's Electrical begins work per PO 4500107832
09 -11 -08 Review of 1st RWA Survey Submittal Sept 11, 2008
09 -12 -08 Confirmation of FPL Red -Line Comments for survey Sep. 12, 2008
09 -17 -08 TEAM TELECONFERENCE (FPL, MALCOLM PIRNIE)
09 -22 -08 FPL "Pot Hole" digs recommended locations identified Sept 22, 2008
11 -21 -08 TEAM MEETING (C. ARTHUR, J. BAMMEL, MALCOLM PIRNIE)
02 -02 -09 FPL Approval of Survey Feb. 4, 2009
02 -04 -09 Staff request $13,027.00 Engineering Deposit Invoice Feb. 4, 2009
03 -09 -09 PUBLIC MEETING AT ST. JOHNS
04 -02 -09 MSTU Committee makes motion to proceed with "Channel Drive Project"
04 -10 -09 Verification of easements for 'private property' April 10, 2009
04 -28 -09 BCC Approval of Modified Ordinance adding installation of powerline within
'easement' to private properties. This is to allow installation of power from ROW Line
to private property connection.
(17.)
16 i 10
06 -01 -09 CHANNEL DRIVE: Ryan Drumm (FPL) request.pdf of ROW Agreement for review;
forwarded via email
06 -25 -09 FPL Draft Design submittal Phase One Plans
06 -26 -09 Staff request (1) Cadd file of Phase One Submittal; (2) Review indicates drawings are not
sufficient for bidding purposes; (3) Full size prints 'to scale' requested'
06 -26 -09 TELECONFERNCE ; CALL IN FROM FPL (John Lehr, FPL; Troy Todd, FPL; Ryan Drumm, FPL;
Darryl Richard, Collier County) Troy Todd (FPL) clarifies that "tariff charges' apply to
Channel Drive Project (ref: Tariff No. 6 per PSC approved Tariff); $566.59 for the 4
properties on Channel Drive
07 -27 -09 CHANNEL DRIVE: Hart's Electrical completed electrical from ROW to Home /Resident for
the following Channel Drive Address': 213,283,263 and 227
08 -07 -09 RYAN DRUMM SUBMITTAL — Channel Drive UFCA; and 'Draft' plans; Ryan confirms no
existing underground FPL Facilities on Channel Drive
09 -16 -09 RYAN DRUMM 2nd SUBMITTAL — Channel Drive UFCA (dated 8- 18 -09); and 'Final'
Channel Drive plans (marked 'check set')
09 -17 -09 CHANNEL DRIVE RESIDENT COORDINATION: Kent Smith called on behalf of Mr. Nance to
report that he has received the mailing /letter regarding Channel Drive project and that
Mr. Nance chooses to 'not participate' at this time due to financial concerns. He
mentioned his wife was in the hospital and that he did not have the money to pay the
$650.00 for his "private conversion" to underground.
09 -22 -09 TELECONFERENCE (FPL, COUNTY LEGAL, STAFF, MALCOLM PIRNIE, C. ARTHUR)
Recommendations: FPL to submit 'agreement' in word format (if possible); staff to
proceed with obtaining payment for 'private' underground conversion from property
owners Nance and Bastani on Channel Drive. FPL confirms that survey has been
accepted and 'Final Plans' are pending for Phase One Project.
09 -21 -09 Ryan Drumm provides FPL Cost Breakdown for Channel Drive; Staff intends to process
payment for an "FPL Invoice" upon BCC approval of UFCA (Underground Facilities
Conversion Agreement) for Channel Drive; UFCA is pending completion of 'legal review'
TOTAL CHANNEL DRIVE COST: $23,242.00
09 -23 -09 Message from Mr. Kent Smith (Legal Representative for Mr. Nance (Property Owner at
283 Channel Drive); Mr. Smith stated that the 'owner' has 'no desire' to underground
his private connection, and furthermore has 'no intention of spending any money on his
home' (at 283 Channel Drive) related to the power line underground conversion.
09 -24 -09 COMCAST COORDINATION; Channel Drive Plans forwarded to Comcast for quote of
underground conversion for Comcast overhead utilities
( 13)
161
10 -01 -09 Phase One "Legal Description" forwarded to FPL for confirmation of FPL formal
acceptance of 'Legal Description' per 'Right of Way Agreement Section 2. Sub - section
(d)'
10 -05 -09 FPL ACCEPTANCE OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION; John Lehr via email confirms FPL's official
acceptance of the legal description for the Phase One Project; Staff request
confirmation of "EXISTING FPL FACILITIES" per'Right of Way Agreement Section 2.
Sub - section (e)) documentation of all existing FPL underground facilities within the
ROW that will not be included under ROW agreement (for Exhibit C)
10 -06 -09 COMCAST COORINDINATION: Mark Cook informs County Staff that Comcast has re-
assigned project review to himself and Andy Vaspasiano; Mark indicates he and Andy
are working on "Channel Drive" Cost estimate.
* *COMCAST CONFIRMS 100% of conversion of Comcast Utilities is to be by the
10
Vanderbilt Beach MSTU as the project sponsor. Comcast indicates that there will be no
'reductions' in cost due to 'depreciation' of equipment /existing installation. Services are
identified as 'new' and 'not in need of upgrade'. Installation of underground conduit for
Comcast is through Comcast contractor managed 'entirely by Comcast'.
10 -09 -09 Malcolm Pirnie submits letter for review of Project Drawing submittals and
recommendation related to which party should install the underground conduit for
Phase One Project
10 -12 -09 County Legal provides legal opinion from Nabors Giblin & Nickerson, 1500 Mahan Drive,
Suite 200, Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (letter dated 10 -8 -09 Gregory T. Stewart
10 -12 -09 RWA Proposal submitted for survey of Phase II, III, and IV
10 -13 -09 TELECONFERENCE (C. ARTHUR, STAFF, MALCOLM PIRNIE)
10 -14 -09 FPL SUBMITTAL; PLANS FOR PHASE ONE PROJECT (Marked 'Preliminary')
10 -14 -09 John Lehr notifies staff (via phone call evening of 10- 14 -09) that the 'one page'
agreement submitted on 8 -7 -09 has to be revised to a new 4 page agreement (delivery
pending from FPL)
10 -22 -09 John Hart Electrical received check for $650.00 for Bastani on Channel Drive 'Private Can
Conversion to underground.
10 -28 -09 Bastani Channel Drive private conversion project completed by Hart's Electrical
10 -28 -09 Revised UFCA Agreement received from FPL for BCC approval on Nov. 10, 2009
11 -03 -09 Confirmation of Comcast cost for Channel Drive Project is $4,000.00 per FPL plans.
11 -03 -09 Scott Teach and Michelle Arnold teleconference with Nabors Giblin & Nickerson results
of teleconference to be presented at 11 -05 -09 MSTU meeting.
( 1+)I
161 1
11 -05 -09 Discussion Nabors Giblin & Nickerson legal consult related to 'underground conversion'
and potential 'ordinance'; Committee makes motion to direct staff to pursue Ordinance
for the MSTU to pay for homeowner's conversion and Ordinance to 'require'
participation and mechanism to address non - participation.
11 -10 -09 BCC Approval of UFCA Agreement with FPL for Channel Drive 'pilot project'
11 -10 -09 Field Meeting to review Proposed "Easements' for Phase One Project; Ryan Drum FPL
was in attendance with Chris Tilman, Darryl Richard, Jeff Gower, and Charlie Arthur.
Inspection indicated that all of the easements proposed were not necessary, and that
'alternative' site planning would locate the electrical boxes within existing ROW. Follow -
up meeting with John Lehr scheduled for December 8, 2009 (1 pm)
12 -08 -09 Meeting with FPL (John Lehr, Kate Donofrio, Ryan Drum) and Malcolm Pirnie (Chris
Tilman, Jeff Gower) and County Staff (Darryl Richard); Review of easements proposed;
approximately 50% of easements were determined to not be necessary; However, the
other 50% of easements require (1) detailed re- survey, (2) placement of stakes in field
identifying ROW and property lines, and (3) re- identification of utilities in the field (cal
into Florida One Call system)
Staff will coordinate with Malcolm Pirnie and RWA for necessary project activity;
additional proposal from RWA is necessary for scope of work identified. Proposal from
Malcolm Pirnie for'easement acquisition' is also recommended at this time in
anticipation of possible requirement for easements.
12 -15 -09 BCC Approval of Ordinance Modification to add 'private' connections to MSTU
Ordinance thus allowing MSTU to complete 100% of private meter connections as
required to obtain 25% GAF waiver from FPL.
01 -04 -10 Draft Letter to 37 residents requiring underground conversion for meter connection
under review
01 -04 -10 Channel Drive Project Under Construction
01 -19 -10 Letter sent to 35 residents in Phase One Project that have 'overhead' meter
connections; staff is monitoring confirmation of receipt of this mailing by Certified Mail
02 -09 -10 Channel Drive Project 90% completed; missing 2 transformer boxes pending from FPL;
Comcast is 100% installed on Channel Drive.
02 -09 -10 RWA Delivers 13 exhibits for locations for transformers and switch cabinets; These
exhibits will be used in review of proposed easements by FPL in Preliminary Design
02 -09 -10 Malcolm Pirnie provides Final Bid Documents for Electrical Conversion of 35 properties
in Phase One Project which have existing overhead meter connections. Staff preparing
bid for advertisement and release to 'all bidders' not restricted to annual contractors.
bl�q
CI S>
16 1 1 06
03 -04 -10 MSTU Committee awards bid to ITran Partners, Inc. for underground conversion of 31
private residential units. It was determined that only 2 additional properties require
underground conversion. Since the 2 additional properties are 'Commercial Property'
and will require extensive review and investigation prior to conversion —these will be
handled through Collier County Annual Electrical Contractor.
03 -11 -10 Meeting with ITran Partners to review 31 properties to be undergrounded. Some
properties were noted as 'possible change order items'; namely saw cutting concrete
driveway and re- installation of concrete slab over newly installed conduit. Malcolm
Pirnie is assisting staff in review of each property and related 'issues' that may require
further review.
03 -24 -10 EASEMENT ACQUISITION MEETING: 9895 Gulf Shore Dr.; Laplaya LLC;
Jeremy Arnold, PE; Barron Collier Enterprises
Summary: Mr. Anrold was very agreeable to granting easement
03 -26 -10 EASEMENT ACQUISITION MEETING: 10352 Gulf Shore Dr.; Mr. Epright;
Summary: Mr. Epright is not agreeable to all 4 boxes being located on his property. He
would like for the County to pursue alternative of placement of "2 boxes North of his
property line — on the Condo Property" (10420 GULF SHORE DR; "Vanderbilt Bay
Condominiums); Staff will coordinate with Engineer Consultant in bringing an alternative
solution to the property owner; after preliminary review /approval by FPL as a viable
alternative
03 -26 -10 Meeting with ITran Partners to review further 'more in depth' some of the technical
issues related to each property conversion. Further coordination with FPL (Troy Todd) to
identify certain items which appear to be 'non-standard' installations and modifications
to FPL's meter connections is required.
03 -30 -10 All Tariff charges for the 31 properties have been approved for payment to FPL. Note
there is a $566.59 Tariff charge for each of the 31 properties. Material supply for
conduit will be by FPL for the residential units. With wire being 'pulled' by FPL. FPL will
notify County once material supply has been received and is in stock.
03 -30 -10 EASEMENT ACQUISITION MEETING: 9635 Gulf Shore Dr.; Casa Grande
Summary: Pam Pettit (Manager) and the Board President of Casa Grande. Appeared to
be in agreement with granting easement. Was in favor of project.
03 -31 -10 COMMERCIAL PROPERTY CONVERSION: Meeting with Bentley Electric to review project
details for conversion of 2 Commercial Properties
(1) 9140 GULF SHORE DR (Hotel /INN)
(2) 10540 Gulf Shore Dr (multi -unit condo)
Bentley Electric to provide quote under annual contract 09 -5325 On Call Electrical
Services Contract
03 -31 -10 Malcolm Pirnie Provides layout alternatives (Options 1, 2, and 3) for Mr. Epright's
property. All 3 alternatives require an easement of some sort. FPL appears to be
(io
161 1 M
interested in Option #1 which places 2 boxes to the north parcel and 2 boxes on /near
Mr. Epright's property. (requires easement from both property owners)
04 -01 -10 Meeting with Lighthouse Hotel Owner Kevin Dugan regarding easement. Kevin is in
favor of project and is willing to provide easement
04 -06 -10 ITran Partners begin underground conversion of 31 Commercial Properties.
04 -21 -10 Meeting with Charles Chaffee; Mr. Chaffee is in favor of project and will provide
easement
04 -21 -10 Meeting with Mr. Epright; Mr. Epright is not in favor of project and is willing to offer
very limited easement (5 ft. along Northern Edge of property)
04 -28 -10 Meeting to review proposed Park & Recreation plans for 111`h Ave. parking lot. It was
determined that no conflict exist between MSTU FPL Project and proposed changes by
Park & Recreation.
04 -30 -10 Final Draft for Agreements for (3) Three Easements submitted to Kevin Hendricks,
Director, Collier County Property Acquisitions
04 -30 -10 Easement Exhibits received from Malcolm Pirnie
05 -03 -10 Meeting with Collier County Utilities (Joe Thomas, P.E.) regarding the easement
proposal for Vanderbilt Towers (North of Epright Property); Proposed alternative
involves relocation and /or disconnection of existing water force main. Joe Thomas,
Collier County Utilities indicates his staff will have to review what is proposed and then
get back to Malcolm Pirnie /Staff. Note: a 7.5 foot off -set requirement is noted as being
'required for our project'; staff /consultant had previously been utilizing 5 ft. off -set per
FPL requirements for existing utilities. Malcolm Pirnie is to provide an exhibit for Joe
Thomas illustrating the locations for utility boxes and off -sets as relates to utilities
(water main lines in particular)
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Follow -up meeting with Collier County Utilities (Joe Thomas, P.E.) regarding relocation of water
main for required off -set for FPL utility boxes.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Notice to Proceed sent to RWA for Phase II & 111 Survey; P. O. #4500118493; CONTRACT: RFP
#06 -3944 Annual Fixed Term Surveying & Photogrammetric Services; 360 day contract period.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Inspection of Residential Electrical Meters - Vanderbilt Beach MSTU
1) 10021 Gulfshore Dr; BOWEIN, LLOYD L; LURLINE S BOWEIN; 10021 GULF SHORE DR; NAPLES FL 34108; FOLIO
NO. 27530040005; FAILED INSPECTION: CODE DEFICIENCIES NOTED BY BUILDING INSPECTOR. PROPERTY
REFERED TO CODE ENFORCEMENT FOR CODE RELATED DEFIECIENCIES.
2) 10091 Gulfshore; FORMS, ROBERT C =& DEBRA 1; 10091 GULF SHORE DR; NAPLES FL 34108; PHONE: 239 -254-
8484; Mobile: (230) 641 -8000; PROPERTY OWNER PAID ELECTRICIAN UNDER PRIVATE CONTRACT TO RESOLVE
CODE DEFIECIENCIES; STATUS: RESOLVED.
16!
Friday, August 27, 2010
Comcast Coordination Meeting; Review of basic requirements for agreement per Tariff 6.310
(Fla. PSC Approved Tariff regarding underground conversion of powerlines)
September 23, 2010
Comcast Coordination Meeting; Update on progress toward 'draft agreement'
And discussion /clarification of details related to project.
Monday, October 04, 2010
Jeff Gower, P.E. provides bid documents for bidding Water Line Relocation Project — Project V -1.
Project Plans reviewed by staff. Total Project cost is estimated at: $82,500.00
Friday, October 08, 2010
First Draft of Comcast Agreement with Vanderbilt Beach MSTU /Collier County received and
forwarded to County Attorney's office for review.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
ROW Section confirms Water -line relocation project is being tracked under ROW Permit
Application #10 -0520. ROW Permit is required prior to bidding project.
1 01�
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Jeff Gower, P.E. confirms that FPL has 'approved' 12 out of the 13 total easement proposals. Staff
and consultant are negotiating with property owners in obtaining owner approval of proposed
easements.
LIST OF PROPOSED EASEMENTS:
Easement No. Owner /Parcel No.
1A
3
Vanderbilt Shores
1
4
Vanderbilt Bay Condo Phase 2
2
5A
Chaffee
3
5A
Thompson
4
9
Chaffee 2
5
11
Mario Costantini
6
12
La Playa
7
13
Villas of Vanderbilt Beach
8
14
Casa Grande
9
15
Manatee Resort
10
16
Vanderbilt Beach LLC
11
17
The Watermark Condo
12
18 &
19Vanderbilt Beach Motel
Easement Size FPL Review
15'x40'
In Progress
4' x 10'
Approved
5' x 10'
Approved
5' x 5'
Approved
3' x 10'
Approved
3' x 10'
Approved
5' x 20'
Approved
2' x 10'
Approved
20'x 20'
Approved
1' x 10'
Approved
4' x 13'
Approved
4' x 13'
Approved
5'x 20'
Approved
Thursday, October 13, 2010
Code Enforcement meeting with Property owner at 10021 Gulfshore Drive (Bowein);
Code Case # Code case reference #CEPM20100017920
Summary:
( I QJ)
161 1 64
Code Enforcement Staff (Susana Capasso, Supervisor, North Naples District) meeting
with Mr. Bowein. Mr. Bowein has coordinated with FPL and the electrical wire that was
resting across the roof has been addressed (inspection pending). He is working on the
closing the open permit for replacement of windows and will be working with Mark
Thomas, Building Inspector, Building Review & Permitting, on the electrical code
deficiencies noted.
0 ot�
7
H �
�C
C J
Y O
U d N
� � H
d
m N y
W «
L N O
W N 9
�C N
C N
N L y
> a �
161 I W
(-Z 0)
°
°
°
°
C
Oc
°
C
t
Y
t
t
Y
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
r
t4
t
C°,
t
t
t�
t
v
t
t
v
A
v
t
t
t
_
t
t
t
E
t
t
t
t
t
t
m
t
N
«
«
0
0
E ` °
` °
a
a a
U °
r, a
C, a
Y„ E
a
'
E
`u
a o
s
s
s
s
`o
E
«
x
w E¢
tg
a
u° `.
u° `
.a °
°
N
c
a
¢
¢
¢
0
4
'0
a
0
a
0
a
2
¢
'0
¢
>
0
¢
d
a o°
0
°
zv
0
J
E
E
m
50
m
aw
N
a m
d
M~
(-Z 0)
INDEPENDENT ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS AND
CONSULTANTS
October 4, 2010
Mr. Darryl Richard, RLA
Project Manager
Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes
2885 Horseshoe Drive South
Naples, Florida 34104
Re: Vanderbilt Beach MSTU
General Consulting Services Change Order No. 2
Dear Mr. Richard:
161 1 0
Malcolm Pirme., Inc.
4315 Metro Pkwy, Suite 520
Fort Myers, FL 33916
Phone(239)332 -1300
Fax (239) 332 -1789
Malcolm Pirnie has been pleased to provide the Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation
Modes (Department) General Consulting Services for the Vanderbilt Beach MSTU since April 2008, and we
would like to continue providing these services to the County. Under this Change Order No. 2 scope,
Malcolm Pirnie will continue to function as an extension of the Department's existing staff, assisting with
the management of the day -to -day aspects of MSTU projects while keeping the Department integrated in
the decision - making processes. Our services will vary depending on the nature and complexity of each
project, but generally include the following:
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The services for this project include the following tasks:
TASK 050— Project Management
This task includes the work effort required for project planning, administration, and coordination. Specific
activities included in this task include the following:
• Managing and coordinating project activities and field personnel to control costs and maintain the
project schedule.
• Maintaining project files and data systems
• Preparing monthly invoices
• Providing internal quality control
• Internal and external project - related communications
16 1 1 biq
Mr. Darryl Richard, RLA
Vanderbilt Beach MSTU CMA Services Change Order #2
October 4, 2010
Page 2 of 3
TASK 100 — General Consulting Services
Under this task, Malcolm Pirnie will provide the Depart ment and the MSTU Committee with experienced
professional consultants that will provide technical assistance and engineering resources on an as- needed
basis. Such assistance may include project planning, budgeting, reviewing documents, and other services
as requested by the County.
TASK 200— MSTU Meetings
Under this task, Malcolm Pirnie will prepare for and attend up to twelve (12) meetings with County staff,
stakeholders and /or the MSTU Advisory Board to review project statuses and address outstanding issues.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
In addition to performing the work identified in this scope, Malcolm Pirnie will perform Additional
Services as requested by the County. The need for such services may arise from the completion of the
tasks identified above and cannot be fully defined at this time. However, it may be determined at some
future date that these additional services are necessary to thoroughly complete or implement the Work.
Examples of Additional Services may include technical evaluations, preparation of reports, or other
activities deemed necessary by the County. It should be noted that the fees for these services have not
been included in this scope. Such tasks and their level of effort, associated budgets and schedules will be
described in detail in work authorizations to be issued at the time such tasks are requested by the County.
SCHEDULE
Malcolm Pirnie anticipates providing the professional services outlined above for a period of up to one (1)
year after Notice to Proceed or until the total contract amount is invoiced. The scope and schedule of
services provided in each task above is dependent on the level of services requested by the County and
are subject to adjustment during the course of the project so as not to exceed the compensation amount
shown below.
COMPENSATION
Malcolm Pirnie will provide this scope of services under the terms and conditions of Contract 05 -3657
Agreement for Project Management and Oversight Services for a lump sum fee of $40,000. The project
budget is based on the scope of work as provided and is subject to cost adjustment resulting from any
change in the scope or schedule of work that would exceed the total lump sum fee shown above.
(ZZ�
161 1 bR
Mr. Darryl Richard, RLA
Vanderbilt Beach MSTU CMA Services Change Order #2
October 4, 2010
Page 3 of 3
Malcolm Pirnie appreciates this opportunity to provide this requested scope of services, and will enjoy
working with the County on this important project. If you have any questions regarding this scope or
need any additional information, please feel free to contact Christopher Tilman, P.E. or me at (239) 332-
1300.
Sincerely,
MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC.
Robert H. French, P.E.
Senior Associate
A403746
(23)
161 1 b1q
UNDERGROUND FACILITIES
CONVERSION AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made and entered into this _ day of _ . , 20_ , by and between
the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, Fl., a Florida municipal corporation
or county ( "Board ") and COMCAST OF THE SOUTH, INC. ( "Comcast "), a Colorado corporation with an
address of 1675 Broadway, Suite 1200 Denver, Colo.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance 2001 -43, the Board created the Vanderbilt Beach Beautification Municipal
Service Taxing Unit ( "MSTU ") for the purpose of beautifying public areas within the boundaries of the MSTU.
WHEREAS, the MSTU seeks to beautify a portion of Vanderbilt Beach Road by having cable and other utility
lines including Florida Power & Light Utility poles moved from aboveground to underground.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the MSTU's request, the Board now requests and has agreed to reimburse Comcast for
its costs to convert certain of its overhead cable distribution facilities attached to Florida Power & Light ( "FPL ")
utility poles located on Vanderbilt Drive between Vanderbilt Beach Road and Bluebill Avenue, as more
specifically described in Exhibit "A ", attached hereto (the "Conversion" and collectively the "Existing Overhead
Facilities ") to underground.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and the covenants and agreements set forth
herein, and other consideration the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties intending to be
legally bound, hereby covenant and agree as follows:
L Comcast has provided the Board an estimate for the Conversion in the amount of $331, 351.25.
2. The Board hereby agrees to pay Comcast its costs for the Conversion in the amount of $331,351.25 or
up to 110% of such amount if actual Conversion costs exceeds the estimated costs, as provided in
paragraph 4 hereof ( "the, Payment").
3. The Board shall issue the Payment to Comcast prior to Comcast's commencement of the Conversion.
After the Payment is received and FPL has converted its aboveground facilities to underground, Comcast
will remove the Existing Overhead Facilities from FPL poles and convert them to underground, except
for equipment or facilities necessary to maintain the underground facilities, after FPL notifies Comcast
in writing that it has converted its facilities to underground.
4. In the event the actual cost of the Conversion exceeds the estimate, the Payment shall be increased to the
actual Conversion cost, up to a maximum of 110% of the estimated cost. Comcast shall notify the Board
in writing of the excess amount (if any) and the Board shall remit payment to Comcast of such excess
amount within 30 days of its receipt of said notice from Comcast.
Conflict between Terms of Franchise Agreement. In the event of a conflict between the terms of this Agreement
and any permit or franchise agreement entered into by the County and Comcast, the terms of this Agreement shall
control.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board and Comcast have executed this Agreement on the date first set
forth above.
BOARD OF COMMISSONERS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FL.
Signed-----
Name
COMCAST OF THE SOUTH, INC.
Signed_
Name
(-Z +�
Title
Signed
Name
Title
Approved as to Terms and Conditions
Signed___,_
Name
Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency
Signed_,_ . _
Title
16 1 1 �k�
Czs>
SOLICITATION FORM
161 1 0i�
C: wr C county
Alternative Transportation Modes
Vanderbilt Beach MSTU
UTILITY RELOCATION (GULF SHORE DRIVE)
PROJECT V -1
I
,Description
1.0
Estimated Unit Unit Price
Mobilization f't 1 LS $7,500.00 $7,500.00
2.0
Maintenance of Traffic (2)
1 LS
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
3.0
Restoration (Grading and Sodding)
4,000 SF
$1.00
$4,000.00
4.0
Roadway Restoration (3)
1 LS
$7,500.00
$7,500.00
5.0
Remove and Replace Existing Sidewalk
1 LS
$1,200.00
$1,200.00
6.0
8 -in PVC WM (C900, CL150, DR18)
80 LF
$35.00
$2,800.00
7.0
8 -in PVC WM (C900, CI-200, DR14)
60 LF
$45.00
$2,700.00
8.0
Fire Hydrant
2 EA
$3,750.00
$7,500.00
9.0
Fire Hydrant (Installation Only - Fire Hydrant
Provided by Collier Count (4)
1 EA
$3,000,00
$3,000.00
10.0
4 -in Gate Valve and Valve Box
1 EA
$700.00
$700.00
11.0
6 -in Gate Valve and Valve Box
2 EA
$800.00
$1,600.00
12.0
8 -in Gate Valve and Valve Box
1 EA
$1,200.00
$1,200.00
110
8 -in Gate Valve and Valve Box (Installation Only - 8-
in Gate Valve Provided by Collier Count t5i
1 EA
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
14 0
Hot Tap: 16 -in x 6 -in Tapping Sleeve, 6 -in Gate Valve
and Valve Box (Includes Connection to WM)
1 EA
$5,500.00
$5,500.00
15.0
Hot Tap: 16 -in x 8 -in Tapping Sleeve, 8 -in Gate Valve
and Valve Box (Includes Connection to WM)
1 EA
$7,500.00
$7,500.00
16.0
Connect to Existing 4 -in Main
1 LS
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
17.0
Connect to Existing 8 -in Main
1 EA
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
18.0
Connect to Existing 8 -in AC Main �s�
2 EA
$3,000.00
$6,000.00
19.0
Abandon /Grout -in -Place Existing 8 -in AC Main (')
380 LF
$5.00
$1,900.00
20.0
Remove Existing 8 -in AC Main tee
120 LF
$20.00
$2,400.00
TOTAL • $82,500.00
4037122
Page 1 of 2
(26)
161
SOLICITATION FORM
C"i ?eY county
Alternative Transportation Modes
Vanderbilt Beach MSTU
UTILITY RELOCATION (GULF SHORE DRIVE)
PROJECT V -1
u1
Item 1.0 Mobilization: Cost is limited to 10% of the cast to perform the work. Sum of Items 2.0 through 20 0.
I,I
Item 1.0 Maintenance of Traffic Requires flight -of -Way Permit for Gulf Shore Drive (TO be Obtained by the Contractor).
I,I Item 4.0 Roadway Restoration: Includes open cut of Gulf Shore Drive, backfill, compaction, subgrade, limerock, asphalt & striping per Collier County
Minimum Requirements.
lal Item 9.0 Fire Hydrant (Installation Only - Provided by Collier County): Fire Hydrant to be provided by Collier County Utilities, New Fire Hydrant and
Tap (Connection to Existing 16-in DIP WM) to be completed prior to removal of Existing Fire Hydrant and Grouting of the WM.
Isl Item 13.0 8 -in Gate Valve and Valve Box (Installation Only - 8 -in Gate Valve Provided by Collier County): 8 in Gate Valve to be provided by Collier
County Utilities.
Item 18.0 Connect to Existing 8 -in AC Main: Utilize Collier County Standard Detail "G -fi "Thrust Block Detail for Existing A/C Pioe
171 Item 19.0 Abandon /Grout -in -Place Existing 8 -in AC Main. Includes the Existing WM Crossing Gulf Shore Drive. Remove Existing FH and Return to
Collier County Utilities prior to Grouting.
Ih Item 10.0 Remove Existing 8 -in AC Main: Remove and Dispose of the quantity specified: Existing 8 -in AC WM per FDEP requirements (FDEP Permit
Required and to be Obtained by the Contractor)
This form must be completed and submitted for items 1 through 20 with the sum of these items to be considered the Total
Cost. The solicitation must be complete with costs shown for all items or the solicitation shall be considered irregular. The
OWNER reserves the right to accept or reject the solicitation. The OWNER, or his representative, further reserves the
unqualified right to determine whether any particular item or items or materials, equipment, or whatsoever is an approved
equal, and reserves the unqualified right to a final decision regarding the approval or rejection of the same. Selection shall
be based on the apparent low bidder for the amount of the "TOTAL COST ".
Unit prices (for furnishing and installing, complete) are provided in the event that the OWNER desires to add or
(delete piping, fittings, valves etc., to the project, from the scope of work.
4037122 Page 2 of 2
1 W
(Z'77)
C.)
ui
ui
7
W
V
W
LU
NW
0
`Q
161 1
.. — -avm HUM VJINDB
m
N W
F N �
Q K
S W
X �
fp a ?
� f O
i H
Y U
3 W
nYMMWd.3JQ3 scoax.. o c to
O
n
a
�Yl w Q
0- NK m Q
Z C 2 2 U)
O 3 'off F
0
Q w 5 LLJ
Fa Q
woH SUd SET191A5.
ui
m� a
lf3NH _3Hamoow
2 � �
4� U'
Y''CfF ❑�7,:
v
a
- 'snrAnr i-1ieame .. , rkDH 3nN30 Ha<<<
a I —
_. _ z
• — l
Vanderbilt Drive Greenway Project
Project Details
• Length: Approximately four (4) miles (I I IIh Avenue North to Bonita Beach Road)
Width: This trail is proposed to be 12 feet wide (10 feet minimum) per American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT) standards. In some instances the trail width may
be less than 10 feet due to limited right -of -way conditions, but will still be American with
Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant.
• Construction is proposed primarily within the existing right -of -way on the west side of
Vanderbilt Drive. Minor easements may be needed to accommodate existing conditions.
• The proposed trail surface is asphalt for capital cost effectiveness, reduced maintenance
cost, and because it is a multi-user friendly surface.
• There are three (3) rest stops proposed along the trail. Rest stops include covered
shelters, benches, bike racks, trash receptacles and solar ground lights.
• Informational signage will be provided as an amenity throughout the trail. Signage
proposed includes directional signage, mile markers, general information, and
environmental considerations.
• All consideration to minimizing environmental impacts has been made in the design and
construction of the project.
• The project cost is estimated at $570,000 - $640,000 for the base trail. If amenities are
selected, additional money would be required.
Anticipated Schedule
• Construction is estimated to begin in the spring of 2011.
Who to Contact for Information
Collier County Growth Management Division:
Project Manager: Alison Bradford, P.E. — 239- 252 -6820 or a4wc :itii'Id! 0!c. h`c0lir
Community Liaison: Connie Deane -239- 252 -8192 or ccnii a _-a it, i C -1 :
ix rn i mssser*rrs�
September 3, 2070 L I
MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRAT V/ �lala
Halas
Henning
Naples, Florida, September 3, 2010 Coyle
Coletta
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Special Magistrate, having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION
in Administrative Building "F," 3rd floor, Collier County Government Complex,
Naples, Florida, with the following persons present:
SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: Honorable Brenda Garretson
ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Supervisor
Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Administrative Secretary
Sgt. Robert Brown, Collier County Sheriff's Office
i"'Sc.:.onEs- 11
Date: kI��t! --
item #.I r � -�
16 1 1
September 3, 2010
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Honorable Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson called the Hearing to order at
9:00 AM. All those testifying at the proceeding did so under oath.
A. Special Magistrate Garretson outlined the Rules and Regulations for the Hearing.
The Special Magistrate noted that, prior to conducting the Hearing, Respondents
were given an opportunity to speak with their Investigating Officer(s) for a
Resolution by Stipulation. The goal is to obtain compliance without being
punitive.
RECESS: 9:06 AM
RECONVENED: 9:25 AM
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Supervisor, noted the following changes:
(a) Under Item V (A), "Public Hearings," STIPULATIONS were reached in the
following cases:
Agenda #11, Case #CEV 20100008287 — BCC vs. Guan Xiu Wu
Agenda #13, Case #CEAU 20100008678 — BCC vs. Randi L. Willie
(b) Under Item V (B), "Hearings," the following cases were WITHDRAWNby the
County:
• Agenda #3, Case #CEPM 20090010528 — BCC vs. Fifth Avenue Plaza, LLC
• Agenda #4, Case #CENA 20100001722 — BCC vs. Sandra E. Freedman
• Agenda #5, Case #CEPM 20100001875 — BCC vs. Sandra E. Freedman
• Agenda 96, Case #CESD 20100002055 — BCC vs. Sandra E. Freedman
• Agenda 410, Case #CESD 20100005390 — BCC vs. Pedro Baigorria
• Agenda #12, Case #CEV 20100006822 — BCC vs. Anthony, Cecile, Pierre,
and Marie Forges
• Agenda #14, Case #CEV 20100002648 — BCC vs. Danny A. Hogan
• Agenda #15, Case #CEPM 20100005268 — BCC vs. Danny A. Hogan
• Agenda #16, Case #CEPM 20100005549 — BCC vs. Michael Olenginski
• Agenda #17, Case #CEPM 20100005543 — BCC vs. Vanderbilt Real
Estate Holding, LTD
(c) Under Item VI (A), "Motion for Imposition of Fines," the following case was
WITHDRAWN by the County:
• Agenda #2, Case #CEROW 20090016239 — BCC vs. Timothy P. and
Beatrice C. Frank
The Special Magistrate approved the Agenda as amended, subject to changes made
during the course of the Hearing at the discretion of the Special Magistrate.
161 1
September 3, 2010
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — August 6, 2010
The Minutes of the Special Magistrate Hearing held on August 6, 2010 were reviewed
by the Special Magistrate and approved as submitted.
IV. MOTIONS
A. Motion for Reduction /Abatement of Fines: None
B. Motion for Extension of Time: None
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. Motion for Imposition of Fines:
4. Case #CEAU 20090008537 — BCC vs. Anton Karaba and Eva Karabova
The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigator Michele McGonagle.
Respondent, Eva Karabova, was present and represented her husband, Anton Karaba.
Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 2004 -41, as amended,
Section 5.03.02(A) and Florida Building Code, 2004 Edition, Chapter 1,
Section 105.1
Wooden fence built on property without a valid Collier County Building
Permit.
Folio No: 48600000705
Violation address: 12243 Fuller Lane, Naples
The Respondents reside at 12243 Fuller Lane, Naples, Florida.
Investigator McGonagle stated the initial Order was issued on May 7, 2010 and the
violation has not been abated.
Fines have accrued at the rate of $100.00 per day for the period from August 16, 2010
through September 3, 2010 (19 days) for a total fine amount of $1,900.00.
Previously assessed Operational Costs of $112.64 have not been paid.
The total amount due to date is $2,012.64.
The Respondent stated she was not aware of the fine because she did not receive a
copy of the Order. She had sent a letter requesting an extension of time to comply
because her husband is out of state due to serious family issues. He may return at the
end of September or beginning of October.
The Special Magistrate noted the Respondent's Motion for an Extension of Time was
denied at the August 6, 2010 Hearing. She explained the Order authorized the
County to abate the violation and charge the costs to the Respondents.
lb 1 1 ci
September 3, 2010
The Respondent stated the fence was built for security reasons and claimed the fence
was built "strong and stable" and has withstood hurricane damage. She is
unemployed and unable to pay the fines.
Investigator Azure Sorrels stated the Special Magistrate did not issue the Order
during the Hearing but requested to review the Permit and the plans submitted to the
County. She stated the fence failed inspections due to its height and where the cross-
bars met.
The Respondent stated the cost to obtain a new Permit is one hundred dollars.
The Special Magistrate noted there were no Health/Safety or Welfare issues involved.
The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Respondent's Motion for an Extension of
Time to December 3, 2010 and stayed the fines during the period of the Extension.
The Special Magistrate did not rule on the Respondent's request to vacate the fines
accrued from August 16 through September 3, 2010.
The Special Magistrate suggested the Respondents pay the Operational Costs as soon
as possible and she will receive a copy of the initial Order.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Stipulations:
11. Case #CEV 20100008287 — BCC vs. Guan Xiu Wu
The Hearing was requested by Code Enforcement Investigator Renald Paul who was
present.
The Respondent was not present.
Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended,
Section 2.01.00(A).
Vehicles on site with no license plate.
Folio No: 36238240004
Violation address: 5203 Hunter Blvd, Naples
The Respondent entered into Stipulation on August 24, 2010.
Investigator Paul stated the Respondent entered into a Stipulation on August 24`h and
agreed to the terms of the Stipulation. He noted the Operational Costs were paid and
the violation has been abated.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served and finding the violation did
exist but was CORRECTED prior to the Hearing, the Respondent was found NOT
GUILTY of the alleged violation.
161 1 ci
September 3, 2010
The Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of
the case for $112.38 have been paid.
13. Case #CEAU 20100008678 — BCC vs. Randi L. Willie
The Hearing was requested by Code Enforcement Investigator Renald Paul who was
present.
The Respondent had been present earlier, but left before the Case was heard.
Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended,
Section 5.03.02(A).
Section of fence has fallen down.
Folio No: 36373160007
Violation address: 2231 54th Street SW, Naples
The Respondent entered into a Stipulation on September 3, 2010.
Investigator Paul stated the Operational Costs were paid and the violation was abated.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served and finding the violation did
exist but was CORRECTED prior to the Hearing, the Respondent was found NOT
GUILTY of the alleged violation.
The Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of
the case for $112.20 have been paid.
B. Hearings:
1. Case #PR 041530 — CEEX 20100010156 — BCC vs. Michael Fitz
The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present.
Collier County Park Ranger Cynthia Gaynor was present.
Violations: Code of Law & Ord., Section 130 -66
Commercial launch sticker required
Violation address: Caxambas
The Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail on August 16, 2010 and delivered
on August 19, 2010.
Ranger Gaynor stated the Commercial Boat Launch sticker was not displayed on the
boat trailer, and the Respondent did not pay the $5.00 launch fee. She introduced
seven photographs which were marked as County's Composite Exhibit "A" and
admitted into evidence.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found
GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a civil fine in the amount of
$30.00 plus an administrative fee of $5.00 on or before October 3, 2010.
161 1 ci
September 3, 2010
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution of the case for $50.00 on or before October 3,
2010.
Total Amount Due: $85.00
2. Case #CEV 20090013615 — BCC vs. Lorrie L. Callow
The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator
Jonathan Musse who was present.
The Respondent was not present.
Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended,
Section 2.01.00(A)
Two vehicles with expired tags and one of the two is inoperable.
Folio No: 62650320000
Violation address: 786 103`d Avenue North, Naples
The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and Courthouse on August 17,
2010.
Investigator Musse introduced three photographs which were marked as County's
Composite Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence. A Lis Pendens was filed in June
2009. Chase Bank has been unable to abate the violation due to title issues. He
conducted a site inspection on August 2nd and the violations have not been abated.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found
GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to affix current license plates on the
vehicles, repair the vehicles making them operable, or store the vehicles in a
completely enclosed structure, or remove them from the premises on or before the
close of business on September 7, 2010 or a fine of $50.00 per day will be imposed
for each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent
Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate.
If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to
abate the violation by contractor bid -out and assess the costs to the Respondent.
If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office
to enforce the provisions of the Order.
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution of the case for $112.20 on or before October 3,
2010.
The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of
the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm
compliance.
Total Amount Due: $112.20
Setember 3, 2010
7. Case 4 CEPM 20090017492 — BCC vs. Juan and Armandina Flores
The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator
Michele McGonagle who was present.
The Respondents were not present.
Violations: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI,
Sections 22 -231 (12)(b), 22 -231 (12)(i), and 22 -243
A vacant mobile home with unsecure doors and windows. The exterior
walls are covered with mold.
Folio No: 00768320006
Violation address: 17042 Lockhart Drive, Naples
The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property on August 23, 2010 and at the
Courthouse on August 24, 2010.
Investigator McGonagle introduced six photographs, dated July 21, 2010, which were
marked as County's Composite Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence. A family
member stated the property owners did not have funds to repair the mobile home.
The violations have not been abated.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found
GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to obtain a Collier County Boarding
Certificate and complete the boarding of the mobile home, and provide a detailed
plan for either the rehabilitation or demolition of the mobile home on or before
September 10, 2010, or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the
violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of
the Special Magistrate.
The Respondents were further ordered to repair and secure all doors /windows and
clean the exterior of the mobile home, or obtain a Collier County Demolition
Permit to remove the structure, all required inspections and a Certificate of
Completion, on or before October 3, 2010, or a fine of $250.00 per day will be
imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a
subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate.
If the Respondents have not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to
abate the violation by Contractor bid -out and assess the costs to the Respondents.
If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office
to enforce the provisions of the Order.
The Respondents were ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution of the case for $112.56 on or before October 3,
2010.
The Respondents are to notify the Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement
of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm
compliance.
Total Amount Due: $112.56
161 1 ci
September 3, 2010
8. Case #CESD 20100008829 — BCC vs. Juan and Armandina Flores
The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator
Michele McGonagle who was present.
The Respondents were not present.
Violations: Florida Building Code, 2007 Edition, Chapter 1, Permits, Section 105.1
and Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended,
Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a).
No Permits for an addition to a mobile home.
Folio No: 00768320006
Violation address: 17042 Lockhart Drive, Naples
The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property on August 23, 2010 and at the
Courthouse on August 24, 2010.
Investigator McGonagle introduced one photograph, dated July 21, 2010, which was
marked as County's Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence. A family member
stated the vacant mobile home was to be demolished. An application for a Permit has
not been submitted, and the violation has not been abated.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found
GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to obtain a Collier County Building
Permit for the unpermitted addition, or obtain a Collier County Demolition Permit
to remove the addition, all required inspections and a Certificate of Completion on
or before October 3, 2010, or a fine of $200.00 per day will be imposed for each day
the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order
of the Special Magistrate.
If the Respondents have not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to
abate the violation by Contractor bid -out and assess the costs to the Respondents.
If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office
to enforce the provisions of the Order.
The Respondents were ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution of the case for $112.56 on or before October 3,
2010.
The Respondents are to notes the Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement
of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm
compliance.
Total Amount Due: $112.56
9. Case #CEPM 20100005899 — BCC vs. Security Capital of Florida, LLC
The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator
Jonathan Musse who was present.
The Respondent was not present.
161 1 c�
September 3, 2010
Violations: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Buildings
and Building Regulations, Article VI, Property Maintenance Code,
Section 22- 231(15).
Pool is green, stagnate, and not properly maintained.
Folio No: 66631880002
Violation address: 707 Willowwood Lane, Naples
The Notice of Hearing was sent, via Certified Mail, on August 17, 2010 and delivered
on August 26, 2010. The property and Courthouse were posted on August 17, 2010.
Investigator Musse one photogragh, dated July 20, 2010, which was marked as
County's Exhibit "A" and two photographs, dated September 2, 2010, which was
marked as County's Composite Exhibit `B." The Exhibits were admitted into
evidence.
He stated the property was acquired by Deutsch Bank, but it will not receive title until
a lien against the property has been satisfied. The violations have not been abated
although it was noted efforts to abate have begun.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found
GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to either.
(1) Chemically treat the pool water to kill the algae and provide bi- weekly
treatments to maintain clean pool water on or before October 3, 2010 or a fine of
$250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter,
unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate,
-OR-
(2) Chemically treat the pool water and cover the pool to prevent the intrusion of
rain water, pursuant to HUD standards, on or before October 3, 2010 or a fine of
$250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter,
unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate.
If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized
to abate the violation by contractor bid -out and assess the costs to the property
owner. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriffs
Office to enforce the provisions of the Order.
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution of the case for $112.47 on or before October 3,
2010.
The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of
the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm
compliance.
Total Amount Due: $112.47
RECESS: 10:20 AM
RECONVENED: 10:28 AM
161 1 c�
September 3, 010
Supervisor Waldron announced the addition of the following case as an Intersection
Safety Program Hearing:
• Notice #1361000165006 — BCC vs. Janett A. Benoit
The Special Magistrate called the case to order.
Notice #1361000165006 — BCC vs. Janett A. Benoit
The County was represented by Sgt. Robert Brown from the Collier County Sheriffs
Office.
The Respondent was present.
The Respondent resides at 15076 Summit Place Circle, Naples, Florida 34119, and
verified she is the registered owner of the vehicle.
Date of Violation: June 24, 2010
Time: 6:15 AM
Location: Intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Livingston Road
Sgt. Brown presented the video and several still photographs for the Special
Magistrate to review.
Sgt. Brown noted the Respondent's vehicle was located behind the stop bar in one of
the still photographs and the light was "clearly red." The vehicle proceeded through
the intersection under a red light.
He stated if a vehicle enters an intersection under a yellow or green light, it is
permitted to legally exit even if the light cycles to red. However, if a vehicle enters
an intersection under a red light, it is considered illegal.
The Respondent stated she did not remember the incident clearly but she was going to
work. There was a hesitation — but she determined she could not without causing an
accident and "kept going." She has not had a ticket in over two years and never for a
red light.
The Special Magistrate stated she did not see a "hesitation."
Sgt. Brown noted the other vehicles were able to stop. The Respondent's speed of 46
miles per hour would be considered "reasonable" if she were not approaching a traffic
signal.
The Special Magistrate noted the light was definitely red and her ruling would be
based on the evidence presented.
The Respondent asked for a warning because she could not afford the fine. She
further stated she was confident she did not run the red light because she does not
speed. She continued to note she made a decision to not cause an accident by not
stopping.
El
161 1 ct
September 3, 2010
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found
GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $62.50 plus an
administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of
the Order to make payment.
TotalAmountDue: $112.50
The Special Magistrate stated the Respondent had the right to appeal the decision to
the Circuit Court, and noted she could obtain a copy of the transcript of the Hearing
from Minutes and Records (Clerk's Office) on the 4`h floor.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
B. Hearings:
18. Case #CEV 20100007342 — BCC vs. Alvus M. Perkins
The Hearing was requested by Code Enforcement Investigator Renald Paul who was
present.
The Respondent was not present.
Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended,
Section 2.01.00(A)
Vehicle on site with expired plates and inoperable commercial
equipment.
Folio No: 38160480008
Violation address: 6311 Copper Leaf Lane, Naples
The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and Courthouse on August 16, 2010.
Investigator Paul introduced three photographs which were marked as County's
Composite Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence. He noted there were commercial
vehicles on the premises which were inoperable. The owner was abusive and
threatened the Investigator. The violations have not been abated.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found
GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to affa current license plates on the
vehicles, repair the vehicles making them operable, or store the vehicles in a
completely enclosed structure, or remove themfrom the premises on or before the
close of business on September 7, 2010 or a fine of $50.00 per day will be imposed
for each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent
Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate.
If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to
abate the violation by contractor bid -out and assess the costs to the Respondent.
If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office
to enforce the provisions of the Order.
The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution of the case for $112.20 on or before
16 1 1 ck
September 3, 2010
October 3, 2010.
The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of
the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm
compliance.
Total Amount Due: $112.20
19. Case #CEPM 20100005026 — BCC vs. Vir¢ilio and Elizabeth Valdes
The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Reggie
Smith who was present.
The Respondents were not present.
Violations: Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22 -231 (19) and
Section 22 -243.
Vacant condominium unit has excessive mold on interior walls.
Folio No: 46573003925
Violation address: 190 Santa Clara Drive, Unit 5, Naples, FL 34104
The Notice of Hearing was sent, via Certified Mail, on August 20, 2010 and delivered
on August 23, 2010. The property and Courthouse were posted on August 20, 2010.
Investigator Smith introduced three photographs, dated April 16, 2010, which was
marked as County's Composite Exhibit "A" and one photograph, dated September 2,
2010, which was marked as County's Exhibit `B." The Exhibits were admitted into
evidence.
The Investigator noted the mold was probably caused by windows and the front door
which were left open and unsecured until July, 2010. The case was transferred to the
Foreclosure Team, but the bank was unresponsive and the case was returned to the
Investigator. He stated the condominium remains vacant and the violation has not
been abated.
Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found
GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to remove/treat the mold and restore
sanitary, habitable conditions, and obtain all applicable Permits to remove the dry
wall, required inspections and a Certificate of Occupancy on or before the close of
business on September 10, 2010 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for
each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent
Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate.
If the Respondents have not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized
to abate the violation by contractor bid -out and assess the costs to the property
owner(s).
If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office
to enforce the provisions of the Order.
The Respondents were ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code
Enforcement during the prosecution of the case for $112.38 on or before
12
VI.
161 1 ci
September 3, 2010
October 3, 2010.
The Respondents are to notes Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of
the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm
compliance.
Total Amount Due: $112.38
C. Emergency Cases:
(None)
NEW BUSINESS
A. Motion for Imposition of Fines:
1. %-use Hl.r' a" LUU70014040 — "l. vJ. Vcui M: a auwuow w
The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Cristina
Perez on behalf of Investigator Carol Sykora.
The Respondent was not present.
Violations: Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Buildings and Building
Regulations, Article II, Florida Building Code, Adoption and
Amendment of the Florida Building Code, Section 22- 26(b)(104.5.1.4.4)
Abandoned or Suspended Permit — Pool and spa permit were issued on
August 27, 2004 and canceled on June 5, 2007. No final inspection or
Certificate of Completion issued.
Folio No: 37987440002
Violation Address: 3580 White Blvd, Naples
The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and Courthouse on August 17, 2010.
Supervisor Perez stated the violations have not been abated.
Fines have accrued at the rate of $250.00 per day for the period from July 8, 2010
through September 3, 2010 (58 days) for a total fine amount of $14,500.00.
Previously assessed Operational Costs of $112.56 have not been paid.
The total amount due to date is $14,612.56.
The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines in
the total amount of $14,612.56 and noted fines continue to accrue.
J. lase ffVL'r1y1LVV7VV1101J —Ul.l. va. �w Yawl cwlwlcw
The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Jeff
Letourneau and Investigator Carmelo Gomez.
The Respondent was not present.
13
Septemiter 3, 110
Violations: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Buildings
and Building Regulations, Article VI, Property Maintenance Code,
Section 22 -231 (15)
Pool with green water - algae.
Folio No: 33140012763
Violation address: 3850 Recreation Lane, Naples, FL
The Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail on August 17, 2010. The property
and Courthouse were posted on August 12, 2010.
Supervisor Letourneau stated the initial Order was issued on November 5, 2009. The
violation was abated on December 1, 2009.
Fines have accrued at the rate of $250.00 per day for the period from November 13,
2009 through December 1, 2009 (19 days) for a total fine amount of $4,750.00.
Previously assessed Operational Costs of $117.96 have not been paid.
Abatement costs incurred by the County for $960.00 have not been paid.
The total amount due to date is $5,827.96.
Supervisor Letourneau stated he was contacted by a representative of Deutsch Bank
who was unable to attend the Hearing.
The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines in
the total amount of $5,827.96.
5. Case #CEPM 20100000031— BCC vs. Zonia Lambert Revocable Livina Trust
The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Jeff
Letourneau.
The Respondent was not present.
Violations: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI,
Section 22 -231 (2)
Dwelling that is being occupied with City of Naples water and sewer
connections shut off. The occupants of the dwelling are using
unapproved well water system
Folio No: 74413960006
Violation Address: 3450 Cherokee Street, Naples, FL
The Notice of Hearing was sent, via Certified Mail, on August 17, 2010, and the
property and Courthouse were posted on August 11, 2010.
Supervisor Letourneau stated the violation was abated on April 12, 2010.
Previously assessed Operational Costs of $112.73 have not been paid.
The total amount due to date is $112.73.
14
Septembi 3, 21
The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines in
the total amount of $112.73.
6. Case #CEV 20100003067— BCC vs. Edita Technical Land Trust UTD 4/14/08
The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Jeff
Letourneau.
The Respondent was not present.
Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended,
Section 4.05.03.
Vehicles parked on grass.
Folio No: 36300080008
Violation address: 1983 Hunter Blvd, Naples, FL
The Notice of Hearing was sent, via Certified Mail, on August 17, 2010 and delivered
on August 21, 2010. The property and Courthouse were posted on August 9, 2010.
Supervisor Letourneau stated the violation was abated on August 30, 2010.
Fines have accrued at the rate of $50.00 per day for the period from July 20, 2010
through August 30, 2010 (42 days) for a total fine amount of $2,100.00.
Previously assessed Operational Costs of $112.29 have not been paid.
The total amount due to date is $2,212.29.
The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines in
the total amount of $2,212.29.
7. Case #CEPM 20080016337- BCC vs. James K. and Deborah B. Towne
The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Jeff
Letourneau.
The Respondents were not present.
Violations: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI,
Section 22 -231 (12c)
Vacant structure with damaged roof.
Folio No: 35759720004
Violation address: 4419 18`h Avenue SW, Naples. FL
The Notice of Hearing was sent, via Certified Mail, on August 18, 2010 and the
property and Courthouse were posted on August 23, 2010.
15
S jekJ 3, 201 C1
Supervisor Letourneau stated the initial Order was issued on July 16, 2010. He noted
the violation has not been abaed.
Fines have accrued at the rate of $250.00 per day for the period from August 17, 2010
through September 3, 2010 (18 days) for a total fine amount of $4,500.00.
Previously assessed Operational Costs of $112.29 have not been paid.
The total amount due to date is $4,612.29.
The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines in
the total amount of $4,612.29 and noted fines will continue to accrue.
VII. OLD BUSINESS
A. Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order: None
VIII. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as referenced in the
submitted Executive Summary.
The Special Magistrate reviewed the cases cited in the Executive Summary and
GRANTED the County's Request.
B. Request for the Special Magistrate to Impose Nuisance Abatement Liens on
Cases referenced in the submitted Executive Summary.
The .Special Magistrate reviewed the cases cited in the Executive Summary and
GRANTED the County's Request.
C. Request for the Special Magistrate to Impose Foreclosure Collection
Authorizations referenced in the submitted Executive Summary.
The Special Magistrate reviewed the cases cited in the Executive Summary and
GRANTED the County's Request.
IX. REPORTS
None
X. NEXT HEARING DATE
October 15, 2010 at 9:00 AM, located at the Collier County Government Center,
Administrative Building "F, "3rd Floor, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the Hearing was
adjourned by Order of the Special Magistrate at 11:16 AM.
E
Septembef 3, 20
COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE
HEARING
—Brenda Garretson, Special Magistrate
The Minutes were approved by the Special Magistrate on 'S �1 O
as presented i/ , or as amended _
17