BCC Minutes 11/15-16/2005 R
November 15-16, 2005
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, November 15-16,2005
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such
special district as has been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9: 00 a.m., in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Fred W. Coyle
Frank Halas
Jim Coletta
Donna Fiala
Tom Henning
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Derek J ohnssen, Office of the Clerk of Court
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
November 15, 2005
9:00 AM
Fred W. Coyle, Chairman, District 4
Frank Halas, Vice-Chairman, District 2
Donna Fiala, Commissioner, District 1
Tom Henning, Commissioner, District 3
Jim Coletta, Commissioner, District 5
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM
MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER
WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE
AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2004-05, AS AMENDED REQUIRES
THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING
ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS."
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
Page 1
November 15,2005
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5)
MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Chaplin Michael Harper, Naples Community Hospital
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of to day's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary agenda.)
B. October 13,2005 - BCC/Value Adjustment Board AM Meeting-front half of
boardroom
C. October 13,2005 - BCC/Value Adjustment Board PM Meeting-front half of
boardroom
D. October 14, 2005 - BCCN alue Adjustment Board AM Meeting-rear half of
boardroom
E. October 17,2005 - BCCNalue Adjustment Board Meeting-front half of
boardroom
F. October 18,2005 - BCC/CRA Workshop
Page 2
November 15, 2005
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
A. Advisory Committee Service Awards
5 Years
1. Jim Coletta, Lake Trafford Restoration Task Force
2. Sofia Pagan, Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board
3. John Ribes, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
4. Heather Rockcastle, Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council
5. Nicole Ryan, Lake Trafford Restoration Task Force
6. Sharon Tims, Immokalee Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee
7. Peter VanArsdale, Development Services Advisory Committee
10 Years
1. Jack Humphrey, Industrial Development Authority
2. Cheryle Newman, Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee
3. Barbara Minch Rosenberg, Industrial Development Authority
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation designating November 20 - 26 as Farm-City Week. To be
accepted by David Santee.
B. Proclamation designating November 15,2005, as Hurricane Katrina Relief
Workers' Day. To be accepted by Nicole Basta, Karen Simander, Marie
Laliberte, and Tonia Figueroa of the Collier County Health Department;
Division Chief Dan Bowman, Captain Les Williams, Lieutenant Eva Weeks,
Lieutenant Heather Spieth, Lieutenant Eric Havens of Emergency Medical
Services; Chris Byrne and Jonathan Aponte of the City of Marco Island Fire
Department; Erick Baltodano and Marc SanAngelo of the City of Naples
Fire Department; Al Sanchez and David Levitt of Domestic Animal
Services; and Jim Durrwachter, Josh O'Connor, Marc Rogers, Frank Connor,
Jamie Farmer, Fed Privett, and Marty White of the Florida Panther National
Wildlife Refuge.
C. Proclamation designating November 2005 as National Epilepsy Awareness
Month. To be accepted by Gerry Harwick, Prevention and Education
Coordinator for Epilepsy Services of Southwest Florida; and Marielys
Page 3
November 15,2005
Figueroa Ruiz, Case Manager for Epilepsy Services of Southwest Florida.
D. Proclamation designating November 2005 as United Way of Collier County
Agency Awareness Month. To be accepted by Palma Fuson, President of the
Board of Directors, United Way; Jennifer Edwards and Dr. Leo Mediavilla,
Co-Chairs of the Campaign, United Way.
5. PRESENTATIONS
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. This item was continued from the October 25~ 2005 BCC Meetine:.
Public Petition request by Thomas Selck to discuss Building Permit No.
2005080737,3560 21st Avenue SW.
B. This item was continued from the October 25~ 2005 BCC Meetine:.
Public Petition request by J 0 Presi Brisson to discuss road paving in Golden
Gate Estates.
C. Public Petition request by John J. Juliano to discuss acceptance of
Henderson Creek Drive as a County Road.
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 D.m., unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. This item was continued from the October 25~ 2005 BCC Meetine: to the
November 1~ 2005 Meetine: and was further continued to the November
15~ 2005 BCC Meetine:. This item reauires that all participants be
sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided bv Commission members.
CU-2005-AR-7586 Southern Centers in Naples, LC, in regards to Office
Depot, represented by Wayne Arnold, ofQ. Grady Minor and Associates,
P.A. and Richard Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, P.A.,
requesting a conditional use to allow an office supply store in excess of
5,000 square feet within the C-3 zoning district (with an ST overlay)
pursuant to the previous LDC Section 2.2.14.3.11. The subject property,
consisting of 4.02 acres, is located on the northeast comer of Collier
Boulevard and Tamiami Trail East (US 41), in Section 3, Township 51
South, Range 26 East.
Page 4
November 15, 2005
B. This item has been continued from the October 25~ 2005 BCC Meetine:
to the November 1~ 2005 BCC Meetine: and was further continued to the
November 15~ 2005 BCC Meetine:. This item reQuires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Petition: CU-2003-AR-3573. Independent Haitian
Church of God, represented by Kelly Smith of Davidson Engineering, Inc.,
requesting a Conditional Use in the RMF-6 zoning district as provided for
within Table 2 of Section 2.04.03 per Land Development Code (LDC) for
expansion of a church. The 2.03 acre property to be considered for the
conditional use is located at 3709 Guilford Road, Lot 5 and Lot 6, Block A,
Guilford Acres, in Section 13, Township 50, Range 25, Collier County
Florida.
C. This item was continued from the July 26~ 2005 and October 11.2005
BCC meetine:s and is further beine: reQuested to be continued
indefinitely. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex
parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. CU-2004-AR-
6384 Golden Gate Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, represented by
Mike Landy, of Landy Engineering, Inc. requesting a Conditional Use in the
Estates zoning district for an additional church building pursuant to Table 2
of Section 2.04.03 of the Collier County Land Development Code. The
proposed Conditional Use will replace the existing CU-96-12 (E) Ordinance
Number 97-440. The new church building is proposed to be 4,400 square
feet. The property consisting of 5.15 acres, is located at 3480 Golden Gate
Boulevard S. W., Tract 81, Golden Gate Estates Unit No.4, in Section 11,
Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Naples, Florida.
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item has been continued from the October 25~ 2005 BCC Meetine:
to the November 1~ 2005 BCC Meetine: and was further continued to the
November 15~ 2005 BCC Meetine:. This item requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. PUDZ-2005-AR-7469, Sonoma Oaks MPUD:
Richard and Frances Craig and CDN Properties, LLC, represented by Robert
Mulhere ofRW A, Inc., in requesting a rezone from the Rural Agricultural
"A" zoning district to the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development "MPUD"
zoning district to be known as Sonoma Oaks PUD, a mixed-use
development consisting of a maximum of 112 residential dwelling units and
120,000 square feet of commercial uses located on approximately 37.5 acres,
Page 5
November 15, 2005
on the west side of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), approximately 1/4 mile
north of Vanderbilt Beach Road, in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range
26 East Collier County, Florida.
B. This item has been continued from the October 25~ 2005 BCC Meetine:
to the November 1~ 2005 BCC Meetine: and was further continued to the
November 15~ 2005 BCC Meetine:. This item reQuires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. PUDEX-2005-AR-7832 Hammock Woods LLC,
represented by David Underhill, P.E., of Banks Engineering, Inc., is
requesting a 2-year extension of the Sierra Meadows PUD. The subject
property, consisting of90.8 acres, is located at the southwest comer of
Rattlesnake-Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard, in Section 22,
Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
C. This item has been continued from the October 25~ 2005 BCC Meetine:
to the November 1~ 2005 BCC Meetine: and was further continued to the
November 15~ 2005 BCC Meetine:. This item reQuires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6092: Benderson Development
Company, represented by Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc. and R. Bruce
Anderson, Esquire of Roetzel & Andress, requesting an amendment to the
Westport Commerce Center PUD for the purpose of revising the PUD
document and Master Plan to show a reduction in the intensity of the
commercial/retail and industrial square footage, delete the Accommodations
District land use, increase the amount of preserve area, and changing the
PUD reference to MPUD (Mixed Use PUD). The property is located on
Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) and Davis Boulevard, in Section 3, Township
50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 96.3 acres.
(Petitioner's request)
D. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-2004-AR-
6906 James J. Fields, contract purchaser, represented by William
Hoover of Hoover Planning and Development, Inc., requesting: a
rezone from the Residential Multi-Family-6 (RMF-6) with a Bayshore
Mixed Used District-Residential (BMUDR2) overlay zoning district to the
Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for a project
to be known as the Cirrus Pointe PUD, to allow for a multi-family project of
up to 108 residential units; and, consideration and approval of an affordable
Page 6
November 15, 2005
housing density bonus agreement authorizing the developer to utilize
affordable housing bonus density units (in the amount of 78 units at 7.89
bonus density units per acre) in the development of this project for low-
income residents that will include a maximum of 32 units designated as
Affordable Housing units. The subject property, consisting of9.92
acres, is located at the northeast comer of Bayshore Drive and Thomasson
Drive, in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,
Florida.
E. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-A-2004-AR-
6084 Waterways Joint Venture IV, represented by Dwight H. Nadeau, of
RWA, Inc., and Richard D. Yovanovich, of Goodlette, Coleman and
Johnson, P.A., requesting a rezone from Rural Agricultural (A) and
Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) to Residential Planned Unit
Development (RPUD) for a project to be known as Bristol Pines RPUD to
amend the existing PUD document and master plan for a residential
subdivision to add land and units to allow for a maximum number of 292
residential units and recreational amenities. The project density is proposed
to be 6.85 units per acre subject to the approval of the companion Affordable
Housing Density Bonus Agreement, authorizing the developer to utilize
affordable housing bonus density units (in the amount of 121 units at 3.0
bonus density units per acre) in the development of this project for low-
income residents that will include a maximum of 29 units designated as
affordable housing units. The project consists of 42.61 acres and is generally
located at 14750 Collier Boulevard on the east side of Collier Boulevard
(CR-95 1), approximately 1 mile south of Immokalee Road (CR-846).
Access to serve the project is proposed to be from Tree Farm Road in
Section 35, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
F. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in an ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDA-2005-AR-7557;
Empire Developers Group LLC, represented by Laura Spurgeon of Johnson
Engineering, Inc., requesting an amendment to the HD Development PUD
document and Master Plan by revising the development standards in Tracts 1
and 2 by: revising the minimum single-family lot areas from 12,000 square
feet and 6,000 square feet to 9,000 square feet; revising the minimum
interior lot widths from 85 feet and 55 feet to 60 feet; revising the minimum
comer lot widths from 95 feet and 65 feet to 65 feet; the project ownership;
removing attached and zero-lot line dwelling units as permitted uses; and,
Page 7
November 15, 2005
adding additional landscape requirements along the northern PUD boundary.
The subject property is approximately 46.64 acres located east of Olde
Cypress Boulevard, between Immokalee Road (CR 846) and Treeline Drive,
in Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 26 East.
G. This item is beine: reQuested to be continued to the November 29~ 2005
BCC Meetine:. Petition: represented by Michael Fernandez of Planning
Development Incorporated requesting a rezone from the PUD zoning district
to the PUD Mixed Use zoning district by revising the existing Pine Ridge
Medical Center PUD Document and PUD Master Plan to reduce the
commercial use to 10,000 square feet, renovate the existing hotel into a
condominium building with 64 residential units and change the name of the
PUD. The property to be considered for this rezone is located in Section 15,
Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Lot 51, Collier County, Florida. This
property consists of 4.02 acres and is located at 1100 Pine Ridge Road.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Nomination of applicant to forward to the Governor for consideration of
appointment to the SW FL Expressway Authority.
B. Appointment of member to the Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU
Advisory Committee.
C. Appointment of members to the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning
Committee.
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. This item to be heard at 1 :00 p.m. Review of the approval of a
Commercial Excavation Permit (AR 3853) for "Mirasol Flowway and Water
Management Lakes, located in Sections 10, 15, & 22, Township 48 South,
Range 26 East: bounded on the north by Lee County (Residential), on the
west by Parklands PUD, Terrafina PUD, and land zoned Agricultural, on the
South by Immokalee Road and the Cocohatchee Canal, and on the east by
land zoned Agricultural and by the Heritage Bay PUD. (Joseph K. Schmitt,
Administrator, Community Development)
B. Status report to the Board of County Commissioners on the Copeland Area
Rezone Project. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community
Page 8
November 15, 2005
Development)
c. Recommendation to approve a Budget Amendment in support of Hurricane
Wilma Recovery Efforts in Collier County. ($31,000,000) (Mike
Smykowski, Director, Office of Management and Budget)
D. Recommendation to approve a budget amendment for the transfer of funds
from the Collier County Water-Sewer District Operating Fund (408) Reserve
for Contingencies, and other sources of Revenue in the total amount of
$2,000,000 to cover unanticipated Hurricane Wilma related operating
expenses in the North County Water Reclamation Facility and Wastewater
Collections Cost Centers. (Jim DeLony, Administrator, Public Utilities)
E. This item to be heard at 10:00 a.m. Recommendation to approve an
Agreement for Sale and Purchase with the Trust for Public Land for the
purchase of land housing and adjoining Caribbean Gardens and the Naples
Zoo at a cost not to exceed $45,667,911. (Marla Ramsey, Administrator,
Public Services)
F. This item to be heard with Item 10E. Recommendation to adopt a
Resolution authorizing the borrowing of an amount not to exceed
$7,200,000 from the Pooled Commercial Paper Loan Program of the Florida
Local Government Finance Commission pursuant to the loan agreement
between the Board of County Commissioners and the Commission in order
to finance the acquisition of the Caribbean Gardens property; authorizing the
execution of a loan note or notes to evidence such borrowing; agreeing to
secure such loan note or notes with a covenant to budget and appropriate
legally available non-ad valorem revenues as provided in the loan
agreement; authorizing the execution and delivery of such other documents
as may be necessary to effect such borrowing; and providing an effective
date. (Mike Smykowski, Director, Office of Management and Budget)
G. Recommendation to approve an amendment to Contract 04-3673 with
Carollo Engineers in an amount of $1,144,432.00 to provide professional
engineering services for design of the Northeast Regional Water Treatment
Plant and Water Reclamation Facility, Project Numbers 70902 and 73156.
(Jim DeLony, Administrator, Public Utilities)
H. Recommendation to award bid #05-3873 Golden Gate Parkway Grade
Separated Overpass Landscape Installation to Hannula Landscaping Inc.
Page 9
November 15,2005
with a base amount of$1,100,584.65 and 10% contingency of$110,058.46
for a total of$I,2l0,643.l1 plus bid alternate 2a (fund 313, project
#600066). (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
I. Recommendation to name the water park facility at North Collier Regional
Park Wetlands. (Marla Ramsey, Administrator, Public Services)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Waterways of Naples Unit
Three. The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately
maintained.
2) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Waterways of Naples Unit
Four. The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately
maintained.
3) Recommendation to award Contract 05-3784, in the amount of
$62,000, for Consultant Services for the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Five- Year Consolidated
Page 10
November 15,2005
Plan which includes a One- Year Action Plan and Analysis of
Impediments to Fair Housing to Florida Planning Group.
4) CARNY-2005-AR-8548, Reverend Ettore Rubin, c.s., Our Lady of
Guadalupe Catholic Church, requesting a permit to conduct a carnival
on November 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27, 2005, located at 207 South 9th
Street in Immokalee.
5) Recommendation that the Collier County Board of Commissioners
terminate Contract 033500 Land Use and Permitting Software
Application with Hansen Information Technologies.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve an amended funding agreement with the
South Florida Water Management District for an additional amount of
$250,000.00 for design and construction of the Gordon River Water
Quality Park.
2) Recommendation to approve a Florida Communities Trust (FCT)
grant contract from the State of Florida Department of Community
Affairs for the Gordon River Water Quality Park.
3) Recommendation to approve a Resolution authorizing execution of a
Florida Department of Transportation Local Agency Program
Agreement for the conversion of an existing irrigation system from
potable to effluent water source along US 41 North (Tamiami Trial
North) from Pine Ridge Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road. (The grant is
for $50,000 for the effluent conversion and for other incidentals.)
4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt a
Resolution, superseding and replacing Resolution 03-239, to prohibit
trucks in excess of five (5) ton capacity and other commercial
vehicles, except when passing or preparing to turn left, from operating
in the left lane on: Immokalee Road from Airport-Pulling Road to
Collier Boulevard; Golden Gate Boulevard from Collier Boulevard to
Wilson Boulevard; Collier Boulevard from Golden Gate Boulevard to
US 41; and on Immokalee Road from Collier Boulevard to 43rd
Avenue N.E.
Page 11
November 15, 2005
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to Award Bid #05-3885 - SCWRF Lawn and Berm
Maintenance to Ground Zero in the approximate annual amount of
$58,000.
2)
Recommendation to authorize conveyance of an Easement to Florida
Power & Light Company for the installation of underground electric
facilities to serve the Santa Barbara Sewer Force Main Interconnect
Pump Station.
3) Recommendation to award Bid No. 05-3892 to D. N. Higgins, Inc. for
the South County Water Reclamation Facility Rehabilitation Piping
and Odor Control Modifications in the amount of $217,900.00;
Project 725341
4) Recommendation to authorize the purchase of sole-source technical
support services related to SCADA programming software for Collier
County Public Utilities Division-wide Site Licenses in the amount of
$31,637.38 for Project 710561 Water SCADA Systems Software &
Support Renewals, and Project 725411 Wastewater SCADA Systems
Software & Support Renewals.
5) Recommendation to Authorize Sole Source Purchase of Replacement
Pumps, Specified Repair Parts and Materials for Approved
Submersible Lift Stations in the estimated annual amount of
$300,000.
6) Recommendation to accept a reimbursement check in the amount of
$22,920 from Greeley and Hansen for the design of three check valves
at Pump Station 107 and approve a Budget Amendment Project
739452.
7) Recommendation to approve the South Florida Water Management
District Local Governmental Agreement No. DG06l166 in the
amount of $1,000,000.00 as partial funding for construction of
Hawthorn Wells, Project number 710111 and Project number 710061.
8) Recommendation to approve work order CH2-FT-3785-06-0l under
Contract # 05-3785 with CH2M HILL, Inc. in an amount of
Page 12
November 15, 2005
$144,600.00 to provide professional engineering services for design of
a reclaimed water transmission main to serve the Northeast Regional
Water Reclamation Facility, Project Number 74311.
9) Recommendation to approve a change order to work order MP-FT-04-
04 under Contract 003119 with Malcolm Pimie, Inc. in an amount not
to exceed $300,000.00 to provide continuing project management
support services for the Northeast Regional Water Treatment Plant
and Water Reclamation Facility, Project Numbers 70902 and 73156.
10) Recommendation to award Contract 05-3896, to Mitchell & Stark
Construction Inc., in the amount of $262,300, for the South County
Water Reclamation Facility Chemical Storage and Feed Facility
Upgrades, Project 72008.
11) Recommendation to approve Work Order UC-122, under Contract 04-
3535 to Kyle Construction Inc., in the amount of$197,49l, and a
budget amendment to incorporate additional funds, in the amount of
$ I 54,936,from Centex Homes for the Immokalee Road Well field
Well 1 Relocation, Project 73955.
12) Recommendation to approve Work Order CH2-FT-3785-06-02 under
Contract 05-3785 with CH2M Hill for design services related to the
raw water transmission main on Immokalee Road in the amount of $
266,860, for the Northeast Regional Water Treatment Plant Wellfield,
Project 70899.
13) Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
attached Settlement Agreement and Release among Collier County,
the Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD), and two
landowners: Citygate Development, LLC, and CG II, LLC in the
amount of $500,000.
14) Recommendation to approve a South Florida Water Management
District Local Governmental Agreement No. DG06ll67 in the
amount of $433,333.00 as partial funding for construction of the 12th
Avenue Tamiami Interconnect, Project Number 71006.
15) Recommendation to approve a South Florida Water Management
District Local Governmental Agreement No. DG06ll69 in the
Page 13
November 15,2005
amount of $500,000.00 as partial funding for construction of the
Reclaimed Water ASR, project number 74030.
16) Recommendation to approve a South Florida Water Management
District Local Governmental Agreement No. DG061l68 in the
amount of $720,000.00 as partial funding for construction of the
Reclaimed Water Projects, project numbers 74035, 74076, and 72501.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a
rate increase of $700 per burial for indigent adult burial services
funded by the Human Services Department.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
the use of $82,200 from the Human Services Department to be used as
a part of a local match requirement to obtain State and Federal
funding to continue operation of the Horizons Primary Care Clinic in
Golden Gate City.
3) Recommendation to enter into an agreement with Collier County
Child Advocacy Council to provide supervised visitation services in
Collier County. Services will be reimbursed through a grant awarded
by the United States Department of Justice, Office on Violence
Against Women in the amount of$125,000.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve Phase II of Work Order #SCD-FT-05-
02, issued to Spillis Candela DMJM (Architects), in the amount of
$137,454.00 for the design of the Courthouse Renovations, Floors 1
and 4 Proj ect.
2) Confirm and consent to the re-assignment of Contract Nos. 00-3131,
and 04-3614, both titled Fixed Term Landscape Architectural Services
from Outside Productions, Inc. to Windham Studio, Inc.
3) Recommendation that the Board authorize the County Attorneys
Office to draft an ordinance to authorize airport-type searches of
individuals who enter the Administration Building at the Main
Page 14
November 15, 2005
Government Complex.
4) Report and Ratify Staff-Approved Change Orders and Changes to
Work Orders to Board-Approved Contracts.
5) Recommendation to piggyback upon the award for Pharmacy Benefit
Management Services as approved by the District School Board of
Collier County to Express Scripts, Inc.
6) Recommendation to award RFP#05-3748R, Onsite Primary Care
Health Services to Vocatus Medical Management Services of Naples,
Florida.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Recommendation to authorize the drafting of an Ordinance to recover
costs associated with hazardous materials and negligently caused fire
emergenCIes.
2) Recommendation to approve a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity for the Collier County Emergency Medical Services
Department.
3) Approval of Budget Amendment Report.
4) Recommend Approval of supporting Swamp Buggy Fall Classic in
the amount of $10,000 for out of market advertising for event date
change
5) Recommendation to approve a Resolution approving, as serving a
valid public purpose, the expenditure of County funds for specific
expenditures relating to recognition for individuals who performed
exceptionally before, during and after Hurricane Wilma. ($25,000)
6) Recommendation to approve an emergency-related Resolution
adopting temporary policy of non-enforcement of permitting
requirements and code violations related to County's use of parcels,
PUD areas and sites for horticultural debris and construction and
demolition debris deposit and processing prior to removal.
Page 15
November 15, 2005
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended the 17th
Annual SW Florida Residential Development Snapshot on November
10,2005 at the Naples Elks Lodge; $60.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
2) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement to
attend a function serving a valid public purpose. To attend the
Leadership Holiday Party on December 6, 2005 at the Hilton Naples
and Towers; $35.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel
budget.
3) Commissioner Coletta requests approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner
paid in advance to attend the American Specialty Contractors of
Florida (A.S.C.F.) Board of Directors Meeting on November 10,2005
and is requesting reimbursement in the amount of $30.00, to be paid
from the travel budget.
4) Commissioner Coletta requests approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner
paid in advance to attend the Collier Citizen of the Year 2005 event
on November 8, 2005 and is requesting reimbursement in the amount
of $30.00, to be paid from his travel budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous Correspondence to file for record with action as
directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
Page 16
November 15,2005
1) Recommendation to approve Agreed Order A warding Contractor
Expert Fees and Costs in the amount of$1,750.00 for Parcel Nos. 141,
841, and 143 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Primera Iglesia
Cristiana Manantial De Vida, Inc., et al., Case No. 03-2372-CA
(Golden Gate Parkway Project 60027).(Fiscal Impact $1,750.00)
2) Recommendation to approve Agreed Order Awarding Real Estate
Appraiser Expert Fees and Costs in the amount of$lO,OOO.OO for
Parcel Nos. 142, 742A, 742B and 942 in the lawsuit styled Collier
County v. Parkway Community Church of God, et aI., Case No. 03-
2374-CA (Golden Gate Parkway Project 60027). (Fiscal Impact
$10,000.00)
3) Recommendation to approve Agreed Order A warding Real Estate
Appraiser Expert Fees and Costs in the amount of $1 0,000.00 for
Parcel Nos. 141, 841, and 143 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v.
Primera Iglesia Cristiana Manantial De Vida, Inc., et aI., Case No.
03-2372-CA (Golden Gate Parkway Project 60027). (Fiscal Impact
$10,000.00)
4) Recommendation to Approve a Mediated Settlement Agreement and a
Stipulated Final Judgment to be Drafted Incorporating the Same
Terms and Conditions as the Mediated Settlement Agreement in the
Amount of $70,000.00 for the Acquisition of Parcel 177 in the
Lawsuit Styled Collier County v. Big Corkscrew Island Fire District,
et al., Case No. 02-2218-CA (Immokalee Road Project No. 60018).
(Fiscal Impact: $48,456.00)
5) Recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners and the
Board, Acting as Ex-Officio the Governing Board of the Collier
County Water-Sewer District, to Approve a Settlement With Wright
Construction Corp. Arising out of Disputes Over Payment in
Connection With the North County Regional Water Reclamation
Facility Deep Injection Well Pump Station Bid/Contract No. 03-3442.
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDA TION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
Page 17
November 15, 2005
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE QUASI-
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. This item has been continued from the October 25. 2005 BCC Meetin2
to the November 1~ 2005 BCC Meetin2 and was further continued to the
November 15.2005 BCC Meetine:. This item reQuires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. A Resolution amending Resolution Number 05-
261 that granted Conditional Use approval for the Florida
Home Model Center Extension to correct a scriveners error
resulting from an incorrect legal description included in the
adopted Resolution for property located in Section 15, Township 49 S,
Range 26 E, Collier County, Florida.
B. This item has been continued from the October 25~ 2005 BCC Meetin2
to the November L 2005 BCC Meetine: and was further continued to the
November 15. 2005 BCC Meetine:. This item requires that all
participants be sworn in and Ex Parte Disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Recommendation to approve Petition
A VPLAT2005-AR8151 to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County's and
the Publics interest in a portion of the 7.5 foot wide drainage easement
located along the side of Lot 67, Block F, according to the plat of Flamingo
Estates as recorded in Plat Book 10, Pages 34 through 35, Public Records of
Collier County, Florida, located in Section 1, Township 50 South, Range 25
Eas t.
C. This item has been continued from the October 25~ 2005 BCC Meetine:
to the November 1. 2005 BCC Meetine: and was further continued to the
November 15~ 2005 BCC Meetine:. This item requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. PUDZ-04-AR-6422, D. Wayne Arnold ofQ. Grady
Minor & Associates, P. A., and George Varnadoe ofCheffy, Passidomo,
Wilson & Johnson, representing The Lutgert Companies, requesting to
rezone 53 acre site from Rural Agriculture (A) Zoning District to a Mixed-
Page 18
November 15,2005
Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) to be known as the Mercato
MPUD permitting a maximum of395,000 square feet of retail floor space,
100,000 square feet of office space, and a maximum of 80 hotel units is
permitted within the 27.7-acre Mixed Use tract and 175 residential dwelling
units in a mixed-use area and on a 10.67 acre Residential Tract resulting in a
density of 3.3 units per acre. The property is located on the northeast
quadrant of Vanderbilt Beach Road (CR-862) and Tamiami Trail North (US-
41) in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 25 East.
D. This item has been continued from the October 25~ 2005 BCC Meetine:
to the November 1~ 2005 BCC Meetine: and was further continued to the
November 15~ 2005 BCC Meetine:. This item reQuires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. DR!ABN-2004-AR-6251 Collier Development
Corporation (CDC) represented by George Varnadoe, of Cheffy, Passidomo,
Wilson & Johnson, LLP, requesting abandonment of a Development of
Regional Impact (DR!) for the CDC DR! approved in DR! Development
Order 862, approved on November 10, 1986 because the proposed changes
to the PUD will reduce the project below the applicable criteria for a DR!.
The property is located south of Thomasson Drive, south and west of U.S.
41, north and west of the Wentworth PUD, and east of the Naples Bay
Intercoastal Waterway. The property is in Sections 23, 24, 25, 26 and 36,
Township 50 South, Range 25 East, and Section 19, Township 50 South,
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 2,416.08 acres.
Companion to PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6126 - Sabal Bay PUD (Companion
item to Item #17E - PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6126)
E. This item has been continued from the October 25~ 2005 BCC Meetine:
to the November 1~ 2005 BCC Meetine: and was further continued to the
November 15~ 2005 BCC Meetine:. This item reQuires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6126 WCI Communities, Inc.,
and CDC Land Investments, Inc., represented by Richard D. Yovanovich,
Esquire, ofGoodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A. and Robert J. Mulhere,
AICP, of RWA, Inc., requesting a rezone from the Planned Unit
Development (PUD), Agricultural-Special Treatment area (A-ST) and
Agricultural (A) zoning districts to the Mixed Use Planned Unit
Development (MPUD) zoning district, for a project to be known as the Sabal
Bay PUD. A portion of the site is currently known as the CDC PUD
or Collier DR!. The proposed project will include a residential component
Page 19
November 15,2005
consisting of a maximum of 1,999 varied housing type units and golf course,
commercial uses, recreation/village center uses, and public facility uses,
preserve areas and rights-of-way. The property is located south of
Thomasson Drive, south and west of U.S. 41, north and west of the
Wentworth PUD, and east of the Naples Bay Intercoastal Waterway.
The property is in Sections 23, 24, 25, 26 and 36, Township 50South,
Range 25 East, and Section 19, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida, consisting of2,416.08 acres. (Companion item to
agenda item #17D - DRIABN-2004-AR-6251)
F. This item has been continued from the October 25~ 2005 BCC Meetine:
to the November 1.2005 BCC Meetine: and was further continued to the
November 15. 2005 BCC Meetine:. This item reQuires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. PUDEX-2005-AR-7909 Lodge Abbott and
Associates, LLC, represented by Richard D. Y ovanovich, of Goodlette,
Coleman and Johnson, PA, is requesting a 2-year extension of the
Cocohatchee Bay PUD. The subject property, consisting of 532 acres, is
located on the northwest comer of Wiggins Pass Road and Vanderbilt Drive,
in Sections 8, 16, 17, and 20, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier
County, Florida.
G. An Ordinance of Collier County, Florida, amending Collier County
Ordinance No. 2001-75, as amended, The Public Vehicle for Hire
Ordinance; providing for inclusion into the Code of Laws and Ordinances;
providing for conflict and severability; providing a delayed effective date.
H. A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, requesting the Redesignation of the Immokalee Enterprise Zone,
providing reasons for Redesignation, and providing an Effective Date.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
Page 20
November 15, 2005
November 15-16,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do we have a live mike, Mr.
Manager?
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, the Board of
County Commission meeting is now in session. We will have the
invocation by Chaplain Michael Harper from Naples Community
Hospital.
CHAPLAIN HARPER: Let us pray.
Spirit of the living God, bless this meeting with your guiding
presence that will enable our county commissioners to use their talents
and gifts to accomplish the important work of county government.
Guide them with the spirit of wisdom, charity and justice. Open
their minds, their hearts, their hands to help our county to recover
from the aftermath of Hurricane Wilma.
Help them to faithfully serve in their offices, to promoted a
community of well-being for all the people living, working, and
visiting Collier County. Amen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Would you please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
County Manager, do you have any changes to today's agenda?
Item #2A
REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA - APPROVED
AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Agenda changes, Board of County
Commissioners' meeting, November 15,2005.
The first item is item 2B. It should read October 13, 2005,
Page 2
November 15-16,2005
BCC/Value Adjustment Board special magistrate a.m. meeting, and
that change is at staff s request.
The next item is item 2C. It should read October 13, 2005. It's a
BCC/Value Adjustment Board special magistrate p.m. meeting, and
that's at staffs request.
The next item is item 2D. It should read October 14, 2005,
BCC/Value Adjustment Board special magistrate a.m. meeting, and
that's at staffs request.
Next item is item 2E. It should read October 17, 2005,
BCC/Value Adjustment Board special magistrate meeting, and that's
also at staffs request.
Next item it item lOA. The second paragraph, second sentence,
should read, as a watershed area for a fourth, rather than a forth,
F-O-R- T -H, PUD in the north, and that's at Commissioner Fiala's
request.
The next item is item 16C 13. The sixth paragraph under
considerations should read, the agreement includes a promise from the
Collier County water/sewer district to Citygate regarding a potential
panther crossing as well as specified permitting and regulation issues,
but none of these crossing issues require any expenditure of money or
granting any credit by the county and/or by the Collier County
water/sewer district, and that clarification was at Commissioner Fiala's
request.
Note, item l6C 13, same as the one above, significant
transportation improvement conditions were placed on approval of the
Citygate DRI/DO. Nothing in today's action removes or limits
Citygate's transportation development requirements nor limits access
to the future Collier County (sic) signalized entrance to Citygate from
Landfill Road.
Next item is item 16E2, second paragraph, first sentence under
considerations should read, Outside Productions, rather that Outside
Products, Inc., and that correction was at Commissioner Fiala's
Page 3
November 15-16,2005
request.
The next item, item 16Dl, it was to move to 10J, but
Commissioner Henning has had his questions answered, and he
requests that this item stay on the consent agenda. So 16Dl is
requested to stay on the consent agenda.
The next item is item 16E3, and that's to move to 10K. That's a
recommendation that the board authorize the County Attorney's Office
to draft an ordinance to authorize airport type searches of individuals
who enter the administrative building at the main government
complex, and that request is at -- or that request to move to the regular
agenda is at Commissioner Henning's request. And that's -- we're
going to make that 10K. We're going to leave it like that. We're just
going to -- the 16D 1 move to 10J, we're just going to delete that.
The next item is item 1 7D. Second paragraph, fifth sentence
under considerations should read, should be exempt from rather than
for the DRI standards, and Commissioner Fiala -- that clarification
was at Commissioner Fiala's request.
Note. Please note that item 7B and lOG required all participants
be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission
members. And also note that lOG is continued indefinitely, so it
really only pertains to 7B on today's agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's 8G that's continued.
MR. MUDD: 8G, excuse me, sir.
You have two time certain items. The first is item lOA, to be
heard at one p.m., and that's the review of the approval of the
commercial excavation permit, AR-3853, for the Mirasol flowway and
water management lakes, located in Section 10, 15, and 22, Township
48 south, Range 26 east; bounded on the north by Lee County
residential, on the west by Parklands PUD, T errafina PUD, and loan
zoned land -- I'll get it -- and land zoned agricultural on the south by
Immokalee Road and the Cocohatchee Canal, and on the east by land
zoned agricultural, and by the Heritage Bay PUD. And, again, that's
Page 4
November 15-16,2005
item lOA to be heard at one p.m.
The next item with time certain is item 10E, and that's to be heard
10 a.m., and that's a recommendation to approve an agreement for sale
and purchase with the Trust for Public Lands for the purchase of land
housing and adjoining Caribbean Gardens and the Naples Zoo at a
cost not to exceed $46,667,991.
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
County Attorney, do you have any changes?
MR. WEIGEL: Nothing to add, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
I'm going to ask for ex parte disclosure on the summary agenda
for the commissioners, and for any changes they might wish to make.
We'll start with Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I'd also like to say that I've
had -- the only disclosures I have on the summary agenda are 17C.
And at this time I'd like to get some clarification to that PUD. There
are some concerned citizens that live in Naples Park, and they want to
make sure that some type of correspondence can be put onto that PUD
to address a traffic situation on 91 st Avenue.
Norm, can you enlighten me on this a little bit?
MR. FEDER: Yes, Commissioner. For the record, Norman
Feder, transportation administrator. We're going to -- we are
continuing to work with the Florida Department of Transportation to
establish a left-in and left-out in the median. If we are unable to
accomplish that to stop direct crossover traffic from the development
on the west side -- I mean, the east side going to the west to 91 st, we
will make some adjustments either at the development or at 91 st to
stop that through movement. In effect, 91 st, we do not want to close
that off in any way, but we will create in effect a right-in, right-out
situation either at the median or improvements on 91 st.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: County Attorney, does that suffice
Page 5
November 15-16, 2005
as far as covering that item?
MR. WEIGEL: I think that it does. I chatted with other counsel
of our office in regard to this. And the board has the authority to
recognize that, where general policy of the growth management plan
has been changed with specific -- due to specific circumstances, in this
case, with county effect to the property, that it is not -- if the board so
finds it's not a violation, they can, in fact, approve it.
There's no requirement that the board approve it. There's no
requirement that the board make a determination that it is not a
problem with the growth management plan, but you have the ability,
the prerogative, to determine that based upon the facts specific to this
particular proj ect and the parcels, parcel and parcels affected, county
as well as the adjacent parcels, that this is a --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All we want to do here is just make
sure that we're protecting the ability so that we can address a traffic
situation on 91st Avenue. Will this suffice? That's all I need to know,
yes or no.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, it will.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
I don't need any -- I don't have any other changes in today's
agenda, and I think we've clarified the problem that might have
existed with this PUD, so that's the only ex parte that I have was on
17C.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir, good morning. 16--
or, excuse me, on the summary agenda, 17 A, I do have -- I have
received e-mails. 17C, I've had meetings, e-mails, and phone calls,
met with Tony Pires, Wayne Arnold, George Varnadoe, and Nick
Baker, and that's the -- let's see, what else?
Also on 17E, I've had meetings with Rich Y ovanovich, Bob
Mulhere, Ed Griffin and Dave Hart.
And on 17F, I've had meetings, correspondence, e-mails and
Page 6
November 15-16, 2005
phone calls, I most recently met with Rich Y ovanovich and Don
Corsay (phonetic).
And that's the extent of my disclosures, and I have nothing to
change on the consent agenda or summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. On the summary agenda, I
have nothing to declare on A, nor B. On C, I've had some meetings
and e-mails with regard to Mercato.
On D, I've had meetings, correspondence, e-mails, I've gone to
see the site, I've talked with different groups in the East Naples area to
tell them about this and written some articles, newspaper articles on
this as well.
On number E, I've had meetings, correspondence, and e-mails
agaIn.
And let's see. And F, I've had meetings, correspondence, e-mails,
calls, and I have them all right here to be put on file for public
VIeWIng.
Oh, and also, I hope this is okay. I don't want to pull anything
off the consent agenda, but I wanted to talk about one item just real
quickly, and that's F6, and that is the debris removal. By the way, our
county is just doing such a wonderful job with debris removal.
But I wanted to suggest that hopefully we never need this
suggestion, by the way, because this -- hopefully this is the last
hurricane we have for another 45 years and we won't know about
what's going on in the future. But if in case there happens to be
another one that comes our way, maybe we could identify these sites
beforehand and go take a look at them.
And, you know, like when we hear that there's a hurricane
coming our way, just start identifying these sites. I know we can't do
that permanently because things change all the time. But a week
before a hurricane, we could look at this and maybe identify any
problem areas there might be on the site or anything, and prepare that
Page 7
November 15-16,2005
way, too.
MR. DeLONY: For the record, Jim DeLony, public utilities
administrator. Yes, ma'am, and we do that. In a couple of cases here,
we made some adjustments to our plan to make sure -- to see if we
could get closer in facilities, or closer in sites than what we had
planned. But yes, ma'am, we'll do exactly that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And after the meeting, I
wanted to talk to you about something on Manatee if you wouldn't
mind.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But not for now.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all I wanted to do. And so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- with that I'm finished.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have -- spoke to Mark Morton
on 17C, received some correspondence or e-mails from planning
commission members; 17D, Rich Y ovanovich tried to talk to me; and
I received some e-mails on 17D and E.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And no changes, no further
changes to the agenda recommended, right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. With respect to my ex parte
disclosure for 17 A, pertaining to a scrivener's error, I have had some
correspondence concerning that item.
There is no disclosure on 17B. 17E, I have met with Mr. George
Varnadoe specifically concerning this particular specific petition, but
it should be noted that this pertains to a discussion that was held
earlier, and I have met several times with representatives of this
particular development.
17G, I have meetings, correspondence, e-mails, and telephone
calls concerning the Sabal Bay PUD, the former Sabal Bay PUD, as
Page 8
November 15-16,2005
well as item number 17H, which pertains to the same development.
I've had meetings specific to these two petitions, but I think we must
also recognize that these items have been in the planning stages for
over 15 years, and members of this commission have probably all
been involved in some way with respect to Sabal Bay discussions
during that period of time.
And 17K, I also have had meetings, correspondence, e-mails and
calls, most recently met with Richard Y ovanovich who is a
representative of the petitioner.
I have no further changes to the agenda.
Do we have any public speakers for the summary agenda?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve today's
agenda as amended.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve today's agenda, as
amended, by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It carries unanimously.
Page 9
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
November 15. 2005
,tem 2B should read: October 13, 2005 - BCCNa'ue Adjustment Board Specia' Magistrate AM Meeting.
(Staff's request.)
Item 2C should read: October 13, 2005 - BCCNalue Adjustment Board Specia' Magistrate PM Meeting.
(Staff's request.)
,tem 20 should read: October 14, 2005 - BCCNalue Adjustment Board Special Magistrate AM Meeting.
(Staff's request.)
Item 2E should read: October 17,2005 - BCCNa/ue Adjustment Board Special Magistrate Meeting.
(Staff's request.)
,tem 10A: Second paragraph, second sentence shou'd read, " . . . as a water shed area for a "fourth"
(rather than "forth") PUD to the north. . ." (Commissioner Fiala's request.)
'tem 16C13: The sixth paragraph under Considerations shou'd read: The Agreement inc'udes a promise
from the CCWSD to Citygate regarding a potential panther crossing, as well as specified permitting and
regulation issues, but none of these crossing issues require any expenditure of money or granting any
credit by the County or by the CCWSD. (Commissioner Fiala's request.)
Note: 'tem 16C13: Significant transportation improvement conditions were p'aced on approval of the
Citigate DRIIDO. Nothing in today's action removes or limits Citigate's transportation development
requirements nor limits access to the future Collier Boulevard signalized entrance to Citigate from
Landfill Road.
'tem 16E2: Second paragraph, first sentence under Considerations should read: "Outside Productions,
Inc." (rather than Outside Products, Inc.) (Commissioner Fiala's request.)
Item 1601 - Move to 10J: Recommendation to approve a rate increase of $700 per burial for indigent
adult burial services funded by the Human Services Department. (Commissioner Henning's request.)
Item 16E3 - Move 10K: Recommendation that the Board authorize the County Attorney's Office to draft
an ordinance to authorize airport-type searches of individuals who enter the Administration Bui/ding at
the Main Government Complex. (Commissioner Henning's request.)
Item 170 Second paragraph, fifth sentence under Considerations should read, " . . . should be exempt
"from" (rather than "for") the DRI Standards. (Commissioner Fiala's request.)
NOTE:
-
Please note that Items 7B and 8G require that all partiCipants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
provided by Commission members.
Time Certain Items:
,tem 10A to be heard at 1 :00 D.m. Review of the approval of a Commercial Excavation Permit (AR 3853)
for "Mirasol F/owway and Water Management Lakes, located in Sections 10, 15, & 22, Township 48 South,
Range 26 East: bounded on the north by Lee County (Residential), on the west by Parklands PUD,
Terrafina PUD, and land zoned Agricultural, on the south by Immokalee Road and the Cocohatchee Canal,
and on the east by land zoned Agricultural, and by the Heritage Bay PUD.
Item 10E to be heard at 10:00 a.m. Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with the Trust for Public Land for the purchase of land housing and adjoining' Caribbean Gardens and the
Naples Zoo at a cost not to exceed $45,667,911.
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING
Continuation of the November 15, 2005 Meeting
November 16, 2005
The following item was advertised but omitted from the November 15, 2005 BCC
Agenda and is hereby requested to be continued to the December 13, 2005 BCC
meeting. PUDEX-05-AR-7951 Teryl H. Brzeski, represented by J. Gary Butler of
Butler Engineering, In~., is requesting a 2-year extension of the Pine Ridge
Corners PUD. The subject property consisting of 4.22 acres, is located north of
Pine Ridge Road, 1/6 mile east of Whippoorwill Lane, In Section 7, Township 49
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
November 15-16,2005
Item #2B, #2C, #2D, #2E, #2F
MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 13, 2005 - BCC/ V AB
MAGISTRATE AM MEETING; OCTOBER 13,2005 - BCC/VAB
SPECIAL MAGISTRATE PM MEETING; OCTOBER 14,2005-
BCC/V AB SPECIAL MAGISTRATE AM MEETING; OCTOBER
17,2005 - BCC/V AB SPECIAL MAGISTRATE; OCTOBER 18,
2005 - BCC/CRA WORKSHOP - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve the
BCC/Value Adjustment Board of October 13, 2005; October 13,2005,
p.m. Value Adjustment Board; October 14, '05, BCC adjustment board
a.m. meeting; October 17th, '05, BCC board meeting front half of
boardroom; and October 18, '05, BCC/CRA workshop.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve the minutes by
Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Halas.
Any further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It carries unanimously. Thank you very
much.
Item #3
SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD
Page 10
November 15-16, 2005
MEMBERS) - PRESENTED
That brings us to service awards, County Manager?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll do them from here. We just have
the pins to award to the recipients, right?
MR. MUDD: Okay. This brings us to paragraph 3, which is
service awards, and this has to do with advisory committee service
awards. And we'll start with the five-year awardees and then move to
the 10-year awardees.
The first five-year awardee is Commissioner Jim Coletta, and he
has served on the Lake Trafford Restoration Task Force.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You don't have to go down there. I can
just hand it to you there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll join my --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can we have a group picture rather than
individual, or does everybody want an individual picture? Who wants
to have an individual picture?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who wants to have a group picture?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Group.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. We've got one vote,
Commissioner Henning -- or Coletta.
Okay. Come on down. You can stand right here in front.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Block the camera.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right. Let me present you with
your pin and congratulate you.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Take a picture, please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, we're going to take individual
pictures, all right.
Leave him out of it.
Page 11
November 15-16,2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is going to be all day.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is going to be all day.
MR. MUDD: Sir, we normally send each one a picture, and a
little letter and --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I understand. I thought it would be nice
to get them all together.
MR. MUDD: We could do that, too, sir, if we want.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, why don't you stand by and we'll
have a group picture for everybody.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll hide over here.
MR. MUDD: The next five-year recipient is Sofia Pegan from
the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board. Sofia?
(No response.)
MR. MUDD: Not here. The next recipient is John Ribes from
the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: John, we love you on these
committees.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next five-year recipient is Heather Rockcastle
from the Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm informed that she was not going to
be able to be here today.
MR. MUDD: Okay. The next recipient is Nicole Ryan from the
Lake Trafford Restoration Task Force.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next five-year recipient is Sharon Tims of the
Immokalee Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee. Sharon
Tims?
(N 0 response.)
MR. MUDD: The next recipient is Peter VanArsdale from the
Page 12
November 15-16, 2005
Development Services Advisory Committee.
(N 0 response.)
MR. MUDD: Okay. Commissioner, that basically finishes the
five-year recipients. If I could get the five-year recipients to come to
the front to take a group picture.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Front and center. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next series of advisory committee service
awards are for 10 years. The first recipient is Jack Humphrey from
the Industrial Development Authority. Mr. Humphrey?
(No response.)
MR. MUDD: The next 10-year recipient is Chery Ie Newman
from the Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wearing her Kiwanis pin proudly.
MR. MUDD: The next 10-year recipient is Barbara Minch
Rosenberg from the Industrial Development Authority.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. She isn't here.
MR. MUDD: Okay. And that concludes our advisory committee
service awards, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. We are
now --
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MS. FILSON: Just so that you know, we do send them letters
and call to confirm that they are going to be here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I understand.
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 20 - 26 AS
Page 13
November 15-16,2005
FARM-CITY WEEK. ACCEPTED BY DAVID SANTEE-
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: That brings us to proclamations, sir. The first
proclamation is a proclamation designating November 26 -- 20th
through 26, as Farm-City Week.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it's to be presented by
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I'm not too sure who it is
we're going to present this to, but anyone that has a vested interest in
Farm-City Week, would they please come forward now?
Whereas, November 20th through the 26th is National Farm-City
Week, a time set aside to recognize and honor the contributions of the
country's agriculturalists and to strengthen the bond between the urban
and rural citizens; and,
Whereas, in Collier County, the high point of Farm-City Week is
the annual farm-city barbecue sponsored by the Collier County
University Extension and a committee of volunteers; and,
Whereas, agriculture is an important element in Collier -- in the
Collier County economy machine with total economic activity of over
$300 million annually; and,
Whereas, 22 percent of Collier County is utilized for agriculture,
providing vital ecological benefits, including habitat for wildlife and
recharge areas for our aquifers; and,
Whereas, the Board of Collier County Commissioners support
local agriculture through programs, including cooperation with the
University of Florida, IF AS extension service; and,
Whereas, 2005 marks the 50th year of the National Farm-City
partnership; and,
Whereas, we encourage all citizens to pause to recognize the
contributions of our local farmers and ranchers to our economy, our
food supply, and our society; and,
Page 14
November 15-16,2005
Whereas, today we honor the Daniel Rosbaugh family of -- this
year's farm family of the year for their numerous years of tireless
commitment and dedication to Collier County and its agriculture.
And, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that on behalf of the
citizens of Collier County, great appreciation and honor is owed to all
of this county's agriculturalists and that November 20th through the
26th be designated as Farm-City Week.
Done and ordered this, the 15th day of November, 2005, Fred
Coyle, Chairman.
And I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion for approval by Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It carries unanimously, thank you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: See you Wednesday.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Hopefully you're going to give a
little plug for the barbecue coming up.
MR. SANTEE: For the record, David Santee, Chairman for the
Farm-City barbecue.
Commissioners, I would like to thank you for all the years of
support. This is the 50th year celebration.
On November 23rd at the 4-H extension office on Immokalee
Road at 11 :30, we will celebrate once again. And for all the tireless
Page 15
November 15-16,2005
years, a little over 40 years, I'd like to present to the Rosbaugh family
a little token of our appreciation. Farm-City Family of the Year, the
Rosbaughs.
(Applause.)
MR. SANTEE: Thank you. Hope to see you guys on
Wednesday.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I already got my tickets.
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 15,2005, AS
HURRICANE KA TRINA RELIEF WORKERS' DAY, ACCEPTED
BY NICOLE BASTA, KAREN SIMANDER, MARIE LALIBERTE,
AND TONIA FIGUEROA OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HEALTH
DEPARTMENT; DIVISION CHIEF DAN BOWMAN, CAPTAIN
LES WILLIAMS, LIEUTENANT EVA WEEKS, LIEUTENANT
HEATHER SPIETH, LIEUTENANT ERIC HAVENS OF
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES; CHRIS BYRNE AND
JONATHAN APONTE OF THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND FIRE
DEPARTMENT; ERICK BALTODANO AND MARC
SANANGELO OF THE CITY OF NAPLES FIRE DEPARTMENT;
AL SANCHEZ AND DAVID LEVITT OF DOMESTIC ANIMAL
SERVICES; AND JIM DURRW ACHTER, JOSH O'CONNOR,
MARC ROGERS, FRANK CONNOR, JAMIE FARMER, FED
PRIVETT, AND MARTY WHITE OF THE FLORIDA PANTHER
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next
proclamation, which is 4B. It's a proclamation designating November
15,2005, as Hurricane Katrina Relief Workers' Day, to be accepted by
Nicole Basta, Karen Simander, Marie -- and if I pronounce (sic)
anybody's name, I beg your forgiveness -- Lamberte, (sic), Tonia
Page 16
November 15-16,2005
Figueroa, of the Collier County Health Department; Division Chief
Dan Bowman, Captain Les Williams, Lieutenant Eva Weeks,
Lieutenant Heather Spieth, Lieutenant Eric Havens, of the Emergency
Medical Services.
Now, if I'm calling these names off, I'm hoping everybody's
coming up here to the front because the Commissioner's going to have
a heck of a time asking you all to come back up again.
Chris Byrne and Jonathan Aponte of the City of Marco Island
Fire Department; Erick Baltodano and Marc SanAngelo of the City of
Naples Fire Department; Al Sanchez and David Levitt of the
Domestic Animal Services; and Jim Durrwachter, Josh O'Connell
(sic), Marc Rogers, Frank Connor, Jamie Farmer, Fed Privett and
Marty White of the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And this proclamation will be presented
by Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This ought to be fun. Now let's see
how bad I can butcher all these names. First of all, I want to say thank
you very, very much for volunteering and taking care of all the people
up there in the Katrina-devastated area.
Whereas, Hurricane Katrina was one of the most catastrophic
hurricanes in U.S. history; and,
Whereas, the hurricane impacted more than 90,000 square miles
along the Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida coastlines when it
struck on August 29, 2005; and,
Whereas, a massive unprecedented disaster relief response has
been mounted by both the public and private sectors; and,
Whereas, Collier County government agencies quickly responded
to the call for assistance in the hurricane and stricken areas (sic); and,
Whereas, five Collier (sic) emergency medical services
paramedics - Division Chief Dan Bowman, Captain Les Williams,
Lieutenant Eva Weeks, Lieutenant Heather Spieth, Lieutenant Eric
Haven, along with the City of Marco Island Fire Department Chris
Page 1 7
November 15-16,2005
Byrne and Jonathan Aponte, and the City of Naples Fire Department
Erick Baltono (sic) and Mark SanAngelo - were dispatched to
Mississippi to assist Katrina victims; and,
Whereas, four health department employees - Karen Simander,
Marie Laliberte, Tonia Figueroa, and Nicole Basta - were also
deployed in the relief effort; and,
Whereas, two domestic animal service officers - Al Sanchez and
David Levitt - were sent to Gulfport, Mississippi, in a search and
rescue mission to help the thousands of animals left homeless or
injured by the hurricane; and,
Whereas, seven employees from the Florida Panther National
Wildlife Refuge in Collier County - Jim Durrwachter, Josh O'Connell
(sic), Marc Rogers, Frank Connor, Jamie Farmer, Fed Privett, and
Marty White - assisted in rescuing hundreds of citizens in coastal
Louisiana and Mississippi, supporting local police and fire department
officials and providing critical help to the American Red Cross relief
workers; and,
Whereas, the bravery, dedication, and compassion exhibited by
each of these individuals during this crisis deserves special
recognition.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that November the 15th,
2005, be designated as Hurricane Katrina Relief Workers' Day.
Done and ordered this 15th day of November, 2005, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Fred W. Coyle,
Chair.
And I move for approval of this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion for approval by Commissioner
Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 18
November 15-16, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
'CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Congratulations,
and thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you wish to say anything? No?
Okay. Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 2005 AS
NATIONAL EPILEPSY AWARENESS MONTH, ACCEPTED BY
GERRY HARWICK, PREVENTION AND EDUCATION
COORDINATOR FOR EPILEPSY SERVICES OF SOUTHWEST
FLORIDA; AND MARIEL YS FIGUEROA RUIZ, CASE
MANAGER FOR EPILEPSY SERVICES OF SOUTHWEST
FLORIDA - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next proclamation is 4C. It's a
proclamation designating November 2005 as National Epilepsy
Awareness Month. To be accepted by Gerry Harwick, prevention and
education coordinator for the Epilepsy Services of Southwest Florida,
and Marielys Figueroa Ruiz, the case manager for Epilepsy Services
of Southwest Florida.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Proclamation: Whereas, more than
2.5 million people in the United States have epilepsy, including
160,000 people in the State of Florida; and,
Whereas, it is estimated that between 70,000 to 129,000 new
cases of epilepsy occur each year in the United States; and,
Page 19
November 15-16, 2005
Whereas, epilepsy can affect anyone at any age and any time;
and,
Whereas, the lack of education about this disorder has
contributed to age-old myths, superstitions and prejudices, and the
stigma associated with this disorder is sometimes worse than the
disorder itself; and,
Whereas, the goal of the Epilepsy Services program is to improve
the health and quality of life of all Floridians with epilepsy through
the provision of essential medical care, case management, and
pharmaceuticals to maximize seizure control through vocational
services to improve employment opportunities and through
professional and community education to improve understanding of
the challenges faced by people who have epilepsy.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that November be
designated as National Epilepsy Awareness Month.
Done and ordered this 15th day of November, 2005, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Fred Coyle,
Chairman.
And, Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: A motion by Commissioner Fiala for
approval, second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Congratulations,
and thank you.
(Applause.)
Page 20
November 15-16,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you care to say a few words?
MS. HARWICK: Yes, I would.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good, thanks.
MS. HARWICK: Gerry Harwick. I'm Prevention and Education
Coordinator for Epilepsy services of Southwest Florida.
I just wanted to say that epilepsy is one of the oldest neurological
and most common disorders, and 70 percent of the people with
epilepsy have -- has an unknown cause. But they believe head trauma
is the number one cause of epilepsy.
So we partnered with Department of Transportation and the
sheriffs office to provide bicycle helmets and safety education for the
children of Collier County, and I have to commend the sheriffs
department all their hard work in helping us with the bike rodeos.
The prejudice in the community is a real problem for these
people in order to get employment and so forth and to lead productive
lives, so it's not just an individual problem. It's really a community
problem. And I encourage all of you to support us and support the
people with epilepsy so that they can lead productive lives. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4D
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 2005 AS
UNITED WAY OF COLLIER COUNTY AGENCY AWARENESS
MONTH, ACCEPTED BY PALMA FUSON, PRESIDENT OF THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS, UNITED WAY; JENNIFER
EDWARDS AND DR. LEO MEDIA VILLA, CO-CHAIRS OF THE
CAMP AIGN~ UNITED WAY - ADOPTED
Page 21
November 15-16,2005
MR. MUDD: The next proclamation, sir, is 4D, which is a
proclamation designating November 2005 as United Way of Collier
County Agency Awareness Month. To be accepted by Palma Fuson,
President of the Board of Directors of the United Way, Jennifer
Edwards, and Dr. Leo Mediavill, the Co-Chairs of the campaign for
United Way, and I believe there is a cast of others here that are
probably --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And this proclamation will be presented
by Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Whereas, since 1957 the United
Way of Collier County has sponsored and funded qualified
not-for-profit community agencies to provide essential social and
health services to the citizens; and,
Whereas, throughout the 46 years' history of the United Way of
Collier County the organization has demonstrated a continued
growing (sic) and currently funding 29 community agencies providing
service to all areas of the county; and,
Whereas, the Board of Commissioners are grateful to
acknowledge and support the fine work of the United Way of Collier
County and its members agencies.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Commissioners
of Collier County, Florida, that November 5th (sic) be designated as
United Way of Collier County Agency Aware (sic) Month.
Done in this order, 15th day of November, 2005, Board of
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, signed by our ferous leader,
Fred Coyle.
Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we approve this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion for approval by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
Page 22
November 15-16,2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Thank you for
your good work and congratulations.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you like to say a few words?
MR. MUDD: Got to get a picture first. Jennifer, can I get your--
MS. EDWARDS: I'd like to ask everyone who is here on behalf
of United Way, the representatives from our agencies as well as Dan
Rodriguez and Jim DeLony who are actually managing Collier
County campaign, to please come forward and join us with this
picture, and I'd like to thank the commissioners for your support as
well as the county manager and his staff.
And I believe Ernie may have a few words to say also when we
get our picture taken.
MS. ARNOLD: Could I ask you to squeeze together as closely
as possible.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, there is an error
on that proclamation that we need to fix. It's been 48 years since you
United Way of Collier County's been in existence.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good.
MR. BRETZMAN: Good morning. My name is Ernie
Bretzman, and I want to thank the board for this honor and recognition
for United Way of Collier County.
We've been partnering for a long time with many agencies,
including Collier County government. We've worked together on a
number of important projects, like healthy kids program and funding a
Page 23
November 15-16, 2005
SWAT program, and more recently establishing the Horizon's Health
Clinic in Golden Gate.
We believe in collaboration and working together, and it's kind of
culminating, I think, in the Collier County employees' campaign, and
it's becoming very successful. We have great leadership. And it
wouldn't be possible without leadership beginning right at the top with
the board and the county manager and his staff.
So I just want to thank everybody for supporting United Way of
Collier County and what we're trying to do to improve lives in our
community.
And I want to wrap it up by commending Collier County
government across the board for just an outstanding job in preparing
us for Wilma, during the storm, and now after, and we're working
together on the short-term and long-term recovery. So thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: With respect to the proclamation itself,
Commissioner Henning, you would like to have a new proclamation
submitted to replace this one with the proper --
MS. FILSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- number?
MS. FILSON: I've already taken care of it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can issue them a new one. Okay,
good. Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Taken care of it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That brings us to public petitions,
right, County Manager?
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY THOMAS SELCK TO
DISCUSS BUILDING PERMIT NO. 2005 - 080737, 3560 21ST
Page 24
November 15-16,2005
AVENUE SW - MOTION TO BRING BACK AT A FUTURE BCC
MEETING - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. First public petition is 6A. This item was
continued from the October 25, 2005, BCC meeting. It's a public
petition request by Tom Selck to discuss building permit number
2005080737, which is at 3560 21st Avenue Southwest.
MR. SELCK: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Tom
Selck. I live at 3510 21 st Avenue Southwest. I'm a practicing
architect in Collier County and have been for many years. I'm a past
member of the Naples Planning Advisory Board, and I'm saying this
because I want to have you have no doubts about the factual dispute I
have with the building department.
Your building department has told me that the public approval --
or that the approval process for a building permit is not a public
approval process. No one but them looks at the building permit. If a
citizen has an objection to a building permit, it isn't really considered.
I've corresponded with the building department when I first saw
the building plans pointing out the problems in the plans and the
negative impacts the development has on my property and the
adjacent property on the other side of this lot. And I've been told that
my only appeal in this whole process is to come before you. That's
why I'm here today, and I'm disappointed to have to be here and take
your time for something like this, but it's extremely important to me.
The background is that -- I'll go down my list, and there's some
exhibits in here which support my claims of improprieties in the
approval of the permit.
A property was bought by the developer 75 feet wide by 660 feet
deep in between my two-and-a-half-acre site and an adjacent
two-and-a-quarter-acre site. The dispute is based on the fact that
proj ect does not meet the requirements of the Florida Building Code,
and I'll go into those in some specifics.
Page 25
November 15-16,2005
The second is that it does not meet the Florida Health
Department requirements. Third, the drawings are unam -- or
ambiguous and thereby unenforceable. There are major conflicts in
the plans that relate to the two issues that I raise, and it's -- it makes
the plans really almost meaningless because you could interpret them
a variety of ways.
In support of my position in the dispute, if we turn to the first
exhibit in the -- in the packet, it's got yellowing. It's a piece of the
Florida Building Code. The first item says, no significant stormwater
is permitted from the subject premises to abutting properties.
What the developer is doing here is he's filling this site from
property line to property line with a -- with a bermed fill which is
shown on Exhibit 2, which is a cross-section through the site. In
doing that, they're damming up the entire property and the stormwater
from the site will run onto my property and the property of Mrs.
Thompke's next door.
Using the swift mud criteria, that's some 60,000 gallons. This is
a three-year storm now. Sixty thousand gallons of water will be
diverted onto my property, and 30 some gallons onto the property of
Mrs. Thompke on the other side.
That's called black letter law. You can't do development on any
property to flood the property of another, and that's exactly what's
happening here.
Second, it says in this same first Exhibit A, at the second
yellowed area, plans will show that the construction of the lowest
floor elevation meets the elevation criteria. Well, there's no elevation
shown anywhere on the plans except on the road.
By taking the data that is -- that is given on the development
plans, it's not possible for the floor of the house to meet the building
code requirements and also make -- be 18 inches above the crown of
the road. As it stands now, the floor of the house is going to be some
six inches below the top of the septic field.
Page 26
November 15-16,2005
The septic field on the plans is shown 72 feet or so from my well
point. I went to the Health Department and I asked them about the
separation distance. They said, well, it's 75 feet.
And I said, okay. Tell me what the definition of a septic field is.
And they read for me from the code -- read to me from the code, and
they said, well, it includes the piping, the septic tank, the berm, and all
the appurtenances that go into the septic -- as part of the septic system.
That is the definition of septic field.
The code says that the septic field shall not be closer than 75 feet
to the well. It's 60 feet from my -- from my well, according to the
county definition.
Furthermore, it's in the front yard. It's only 20-odd feet from the
street. It's the only septic field on the street that's in the front yard, so
to speak, setback. The berm of the embankment is against the
property line of Ms. Thompke. She's a teacher, otherwise she'd be
here today, but she can't be.
The site plan is shown in the packet of the information that you
have before you. There are major differences in the plan. There are
two plan drawings that are in your -- in your set. The first one is titled
COV -1 in the lower right-hand corner. That plan shows the correct
foundation for the house. That is a foundation that has what's called a
spread footing, and the house rises up from it.
On top of that, I superimposed in my computer where the floor
slab would be on that, and you can see it in that red box.
The next drawing shows what's called a mono footing, and that
footing is on an earth fill where the ground slopes to the property line.
I have a large drawing here -- and I hope I can put this up so that you
can see it.
But this -- what's happening is that this is the way the
development is proposed right here. The ground is going to slope
directly to my property line. When it does, the water off the roof, the
water that drains along the ground, the property slopes to the rear, is
Page 27
November 15-16,2005
going to run onto my property because this -- this property is filled to
my property line, and that's wrong. You can't do this anywhere in the
county that I know of.
These plans were done, if you look on the title block on those
plan sheets, these plans were done for a tract subdivision where all the
lots are 75 feet. In that case, when the water slopes to a property line
where all the lots are the same, you know, it's in a trough and it doesn't
make any difference.
But out in the Estates where the properties are different, you've
got a situation where the property -- the developed property slopes
into mine, and I'm ending up with all this water. Furthermore, it's
going to flood my well point, which means that I can't use the water in
my well.
The developer has got a number of remedies. One, they can do a
stem wall, leave the swale on the side of the house for the water to run
by, and I'm happy as a clam. It's the -- it's the correct solution. It's
what one sheet of the plan shows where another sheet shows this. I'm
not allowed to get my plans permitted by the building department if
there's any kind of major ambiguity on something like the foundation;
but nevertheless, this proj ect was.
The septic field can be moved to the rear of the site. The site, for
goodness sake, is 650 feet long. There's ample room to do it. They
have to pump the sewage anyway. An additional 50 feet of pipe is all
that's required to -- of additional pressure pipe required to pump it, the
sewage, to a disposal field in the back of the site, and I would
cheerfully pay for the pipe if the developer can't do it.
But I don't think that this develop has the right to flood my
property and to endanger my health by having his septic field too
close to my well point.
I seek your help in two ways. One, I would ask that you put a
temporary hold on this development, which has not started yet, until
this can be worked out; and second, that you direct the building
Page 28
November 15-16,2005
department to have some good faith conversation with me on
resolving this matter, which they will not do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Selck.
Commissioner Coletta, you have --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I'd like to ask Mr. Schmitt
ifhe could come up to the podium there. Mr. Schmitt? I don't think
.. .
my VOIce IS carryIng.
Mr. Schmitt, a couple of issues come up here that are of concern
to the petitioner, and, of course, it's of concern to me too. The
stormwater runoff, taking them issue by issue, is this something for
true concern? It sounds like, that with the ground sloping right to his
property line, that all the water coming off the roof and the side yard
would go right into his property. Is this something that's permitted? Is
there some sort of mechanism in there to take care of this problem?
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, community
development/environmental services division administrator.
Commissioner, to answer your question regarding the
stormwater, this is an issue we've been well aware of for years in the
Estates. The Estates, as you well know, is a platted subdivision. This
is a 75-foot lot. It's a legally nonconforming lot. We no longer allow
75- foot lots, but the existing lots are developable. And this is a
proposed single-family home on an existing, legally nonconforming
75-foot lot.
Let me put that on there first, Stan. Stan, if you could point out
Mr. Selck's home, and then it doesn't show up very well, but the rest is
-- then the neighboring property where the home is proposed to be
built.
The -- we're talking about the stormwater runoff. And just for
clarification, the building department, more specifically Mr. Bill
Hammond, my building director, has been in contact with Mr. Selck
probably since October.
The issue really is Mr. Selck was not pleased with the response,
Page 29
November 15-16,2005
meaning he was not -- he did not agree with the response regarding the
issues dealing with the construction of the home and the stormwater
runoff. Stormwater runoff is a problem. It's a problem in the Estates
and we know it is because of just exactly what is pointed out here.
When the home is built with the tapering sides, you bring fill in,
and then the sides taper. It does create a problem. It creates a
problem through the entire Estates.
The other option is through the stem wall construction, but there
is no mandate. There is no requirement. It's not part of the Florida
Building Code.
Stan can address the issues in regards to the engineering. During
our -- what we call our 800 series inspections, those are the
inspections where we do site approval work prior to issuing CO.
Stan's team, or Tom Kuck's team goes out there and actually conducts
a site inspection to ensure that all the water that is -- that is impacted
by that property stays on that property.
And even today, the Florida Building Code now requires
downspouts -- gutters and downspouts on the sides of every home to
ensure that that water is captured and moved either to the front or the
rear of the home. So those problems will be dealt with.
And that developer has every responsibility to ensure that the
water that is captured on that site stays on that site. It cannot move to
another location. And our staff will ensure that that is taken care of.
But in regards to the options of construction, that is strictly up to
the developer. There is no requirement to go to a stem wall versus a
tapered fill.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's go back.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I never considered the gutters on
the side of the house there. But this would require the gutters on the
side of the house?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, it does.
Page 30
November 15-16,2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: To take the runoff water?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Florida Building Code --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- and to move it to someplace
else in the front or the back of the yard?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
MR. SCHMITT: Florida Building Code now requires that. And,
Stan, if you want to highlight the topography. This is something we
deal with in the Estates. It's an issue that is going to become more and
more of a problem certainly as we build out in the Estates because of
the -- what is created.
In essence, when you build these homes on these lots, you do
create a problem. Stan?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm
Stan Chrzanowski with engineering review. What you're looking at is
a graphic representation, the lidar topography of the area. Mr. Selck's
home is the one that -- his lot is the one that's outlined in dark black.
The small lot next to him, the 75- footer is where the house is being
built, and there's a neighboring home on the other side of that.
If you look, the runoff -- as much as everybody says, they realize
that water flows downhill. We do have to explain over and over that
the areas that are dark blue would be the ones that are filling up first
with water. The lighter blue would be the next areas, the green, and
then the yellow, and then the orange.
You can see the runoff from Mr. Selck's lot here runs from his
house, runs into the back yard, flows across the neighbor's property,
and then down toward the other neighbor's property. This is a
common instance in all of the Estates. As relatively flat as it is, water
just flows mostly north to south, but not necessarily. Sometimes east
to west, across -- ifhis neighbor were to shed water, it would go
toward the east, toward the low area in there. That -- what you're
looking at there is probably a cypress head.
The guttering that Joe talked about is something we added to the
Page 31
November 15-16,2005
code a couple of years ago because we found that homes that were
building too close -- and I think out in the Estates if you're closer than
10 feet to your property line you have to gutter.
And this house next door would gutter, and the water would flow
to the back and to the front. The water to the front would go into the
roadside swale. The water to the back would keep going south.
We don't see the drainage here as a problem. It's normal Golden
Gate Estates. If you look farther off to the east -- I'm sorry, to the
west, you'd see one, two, three, four, five 75-foot lots in a row. We
have brought up for years that we have a problem when all these
house get built. We can't specify that they build stem walls. We can't
specify that they stagger. Weare stuck with what we have out there.
We're trying to find a good solution.
But I don't think that this is going to be a problem of a lot of
drainage going onto Mr. Selck's property based on what I see here.
MR. SCHMITT: Note for the record that this is eight foot,
two-inch setbacks, side yard setbacks. Most homes in platted
subdivisions are seven and a half foot setbacks, and some are even
five. This is eight foot, two inches. So -- and just for the record, the
home has been reviewed and approved by the building department,
and the septic field and well have been approved -- reviewed and
approved by the health department.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Even though -- they were less
than the required 70 feet?
MR. SCHMITT: Well, let me put -- let me show you what we
got here. Basically what the health department reviewed -- and let me
-- Stan, let's put this one on first.
This is in Selck's, the well field -- the well field that's shown
there. I believe what's shown are two well fields. He had an original
well, and then he put in an additional well, which is fairly close to his
property line. And what you have are the circles that show the zones
of influence of those wells.
Page 32
November 15-16,2005
Stan, if you could put the next chart on. That shows the proposed
wells and the septic field for the proposed single-family residence and
are highlighted in blue. And--
MR. MUDD: Hang on, Joe, for a second.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I think -- I think the question was
-- and it's really a yes or no answer. Is the septic tank less than 70 feet
from the well?
MR. SCHMITT: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is not?
MR. SCHMITT: No, it is not. Question -- answer your question,
no, it shows 78 feet. It's outside --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It shows 78 feet, but what is it? Who has
measured it?
MR. SCHMITT: The approved design, Commissioner -- it's not
been installed yet -- but the improved design is greater than 78 feet.
The circle is the 78- foot arc, and the proposed septic tank as shown --
Stan, if you could put your -- on the septic is outside of the area of
influence of the well. And that's what was approved by the health
department.
MR. SELCK: May I comment here for just a second?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Selck, I'm really going to try to cut
this conversation short because we're not supposed to be trying to
solve it today, Mr. Selck. What we're supposed to do right now is
decide whether or not there is sufficient cause to bring it back for a
full hearing. We cannot solve it at this meeting. What we have to do
is decide if we should bring it back for a meeting. And based upon
what I've heard, I'm going to vote for it.
But Commissioner Coletta's not finished with his -- with his --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll tell you what, Commissioner
Coyle (sic), Commissioner Fiala are waiting. I'll come back after that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas, you're next.
Page 33
November 15-16,2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How long -- how long have you
lived out in this area, Mr. Selck?
MR. SELCK: Six years.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Six years. And this property's just
starting to be developed now?
MR. SELCK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Did have you an option to buy that
piece of property to protect -- so that you didn't run into a situation
like this?
MR. SELCK: It was offered for sale when it was up, and I made
an offer on it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. But you didn't purchase it?
MR. SELCK: No.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That might have been
probably the best way to handle this whole thing.
MR. SELCK: Looking back, you're absolutely -- you're
absolutely right. But let me just say one thing on this real quick.
The 75 feet, they're measuring from the piping. This big square
that you see here is the berm. And the code says, the septic -- defines
the septic field as including the berm. It goes on to say 75 feet, and
that's from the berm, not the piping.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But the health department
approved this, right?
MR. SCHMITT: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Have we got other
situations out there like -- similar to this?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, sir, not that I'm aware of. Could I
say something quickly?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: If you looked at Mr. Selck's drawing,
you saw he had a well in the back and a well in the front. The well in
the back is the one he had for potable water for a long time. Most
Page 34
November 15-16,2005
people put their drain field in the front so that when sewer comes, they
can tie easily to the front, and you put the well and the water in the
back because that's a pressure line. You can connect real easily around
the house.
Mr. Selck, about a year ago, January, not even a year ago, drilled
a separate well where you see it showing a 75- foot radius onto the
neighbor's property. We almost -- if he had timed it right, we might
not have caught it. His drain field, if you look at the other drawing, is
also in the front. It's 75 feet from the other side. He has positioned his
well on purpose six months, eight months ago, in between two drain
fields. I wish he hadn't done that.
MR. SELCK: That is not true. I have an inch and a half well in
the back. It's going bad. I can't get a truck back there to drill another
well in the back because of the way my property is landscaped and so
forth and all of the destruction that would happen for it.
I drilled a well in the front, a four inch well lawfully in the
county to provide myself with potable water. This is long before the
permit was even applied for. And I resent that comment that -- it's not
accurate.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I agree with you that we should
bring it back. It looks like it's too long of a discussion for today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We always bring these things back.
Maybe in between the time that we bring it back we could have all
parties sit down at a table and -- with an open mind and see what they
can work out amongst themselves. Many times things aren't worked
out because nobody sits around and talks about it together. So I would
suggest doing that before our next meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that a motion, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I will second that motion.
Page 35
November 15-16,2005
Commissioner Coletta has a comment.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, actually, that's about what
I was going to do too. But maybe we might also be looking at the
long-term solution to this and how we're going to be able to avoid
conflicts like this in the future.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. This won't be the last one, right?
MR. SCHMITT: This certainly will not. We're talking a platted
subdivision that was platted 30, 35 years ago. And as the Estates
builds out, we're going to be dealing with these kind of problems.
And --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have -- it is approved 3-2 with
Commissioner Henning and Commissioner Halas dissenting. So it
will be coming back for a hearing, Mr. Selck, and we'll try to work
these things out as quickly as possible.
MR. SELCK: Thank you very much. I appreciate your time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now we're going to --
MR. MUDD: Time certain.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're scheduled for, yeah, a time certain
now. But so that everyone understands, we will have to take a break
at 10:30 for the court reporter, so we will hear the first 30 minutes of
this discussion, and then we will break for 10 minutes. Okay.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Sir, on this item, you want to come back on the 15th of
December and give them a little bit of time to have a conversation
Page 36
November 15-16,2005
about this instead of --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, yes.
Item #10E
AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH THE
TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND
HOUSING AND ADJOINING CARIBBEAN GARDENS AND
THE NAPLES ZOO AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $45,667,911 -
MOTION TO APPROVE PURCHASE OF OPTION #1; THE
PURCHASE OF PARCELS #1, 2,3,10, AND 16 FOR $45
MILLION, WITH ACCEPTANCE OF THE PURCHASE
AGREEMENT AND THE LEASE (WITH
MODIFICATION/AMENDMENTS WITH TPL AND THE ZOO IN
AGREEMENT) AND THEN HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION ON
PARCELS 11 AND 12 - APPROVED - MOTION TO APPROVE
PURCHASE PARCELS #11 & #12 FOR THE AMOUNT OF $4
MILLION - APPROVED W/STIPULATIONS
MR. MUDD: Okay. Commissioner, the next item to be heard at
10:00 a.m. is a recommendation to approve an agreement for sale and
purchase with the Trust for Public Land for the purchase of land
housing and adjoining Caribbean Gardens and the Naples Zoo at a
cost not to exceed $45,667,911.
And Ms. Marla Ramsey, your Administrator for Public Services
Division, will present.
MS. RAMSEY: Commissioners, I don't have a long
presentation, but I did want to highlight a couple of things that we
need to do today.
On the visualizer, currently we have two options. Trust for
Public Lands has offered us on -- the property with the zoo and
surrounding the zoo, and in black I've outlined option number one, and
Page 37
November 15-16,2005
in the orange color on the bottom is additional lands to make option
number two.
The other thing that we have on the agenda is to look at the lease
agreement between the Naples Zoo, Inc., and Collier County, which
would be assigned to Collier County with the purchase of the lands
that we're discussing today.
I have Trust for Public Lands here in the room, as well as some
of the attorneys from our office who have worked on both the lease
agreements and the purchase agreements. And rather than go through
and rehash a lot of the things that you've already heard, I'd rather open
it up for questions and see what kind of questions you have and bring
the right person up to the dais for you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry. I wasn't here at last
meeting so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I'm going to rehash some of
these things, if you don't mind.
MS. RAMSEY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There is a parcel that is not
hatched out close to Golden Gate Parkway. Is that a piece that was
sold to a developer?
MS. RAMSEY: The area in the top, which he has got along
Golden Gate Parkway, is being identified to be sold to someone else,
as is 13, the little triangle off to the side.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning is talking about
the ones that are not crosshatched, below --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you're talking about --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- below eight and nine.
MR. MUDD: You're looking at the piece that's below eight, next
to nine in there?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
Page 38
November 15-16,2005
MR. MUDD: That's privately owned, and that wasn't part of the
Fleischmann property. I believe there's a separate owner for that, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So, Marla, which piece
was to be sold to a private developer?
MS. RAMSEY: The private developers are the ones on the top
right here, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, and 13.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What -- and that's one
purchase?
MS. RAMSEY: That I do not know, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Do we know anything
about the purchaser on properties at Golden Gate Parkway?
MS. RAMSEY: No, I don't.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. RAMSEY: Trust for Public Lands could maybe share some
of that with you, if you'd like to know.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. GARRISON: Good morning, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good morning.
MR. GARRISON: John Garrison, Trust for Public Lands. We
went through a bidding process and received bids from a number of
developers, qualified developers both within the -- from Naples and
from elsewhere in Florida, and we selected a developer based upon his
credentials, his reputation, his track record, and his price that he
offered.
We selected a gentleman name Thomas Overton, a resident here
in Naples, owns a company called Prestige Homes of Naples, who we
think is going to do a very, very nice job developing that property in a
way that's consistent with and compatible with surrounding properties.
And that's the name of the developer.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I have a few other
questions about that. How big of a parcel; how many acreages?
MR. GARRISON: Seventeen point one seven acres.
Page 39
November 15-16,2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Seventeen point one. And what
was the -- what was the price for that?
MR. GARRISON: Twenty-two million dollars.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Twenty-two million. So that's
approximately 700,000 per acre?
MR. GARRISON: If you've got -- I haven't done that arithmetic.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's more than 17.
MR. GARRISON: Hold on a second. Yeah. Seventeen -- you're
talking about northern parcels. That's 17 acres.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Let's--
MR. GARRISON: It also includes --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's stay with that one, the 17
acres.
MR. GARRISON: Oh, well, there was -- there was not a
separate price. They were -- he bid on this parcel and this parcel.
MR. MUDD: And point right here. Did he bid on 13; is that
what you're --
MR. GARRISON: He did, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did he get 13?
MR. GARRISON: He did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For $22 million?
MR. GARRISON: No. He got--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's separately?
MR. GARRISON: No, that's -- 22 million represents what his
price is for -- we called track one, which is Golden Gate Parkway
properties, and tract 13, which is the -- adjacent to the Bear's Paw.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Overton bid on four, seven, six, five, eight,
nine, and 13?
MR. GARRISON: That's correct.
MR. MUDD: Some 28 acres, and his offering price was $22
million.
MR. GARRISON: Correct.
Page 40
November 15-16,2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Twenty-eight acres.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. GARRISON: Yeah. If you include the 10.6 acres of 13.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay. All right. That's
easier to do the math on that one. What is the present zoning for the
properties?
MR. GARRISON: It's a combination. The -- a number of the
parcel there on Golden Gate Parkway are in the mixed-use activity
center designation. And Chuck Carrington can probably give you the
actual current zoning.
MR. CARRINGTON: It's -- this mix, I believe, there's
residential RF -6, and there's RF -6 with a cap of 3 on it, there's some
agricultural zoned in there as well, and then parcel 13 is all
agriculture.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Can you give me the
percentages of the zoning, you know, residential, commercial, ag.?
MR. CARRINGTON: I can give you a breakdown.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If I could help. Can't we show that
breakdown that we have of the zoning and acreages of each of these
parcels so it's very clear to all the commissioners? We have it broken
down on a graphic, right?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, we do.
MS. RAMSEY: Yeah, we do. We have it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can we show that?
MS. RAMSEY: Uh-huh.
MR. CARRINGTON: It's not broken down in percentage. It's
broken down as acreage.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Acreage, that's fine.
Okay, all right. I'll -- let me study this while the others are asking
questions.
Page 41
November 15-16, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We'll come back to you then.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I was wondering if the county
ever wanted to buy one of those parcels along Golden Gate Parkway,
would we be able to do that, or have you already committed, period, to
selling it to this developer?
MR. GARRISON: We have already committed to selling it to
this developer. At the instructions of staff, who identified those
parcels as being excess to the county's requirement to preserve the zoo
and the environmentally sensitive lands surrounding it, in order to
bring the price down to something close to what your taxpayers voted
for last November.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And Commissioner Coyle, I
wanted to talk about the lease, but I think I'm not going to go off this
subj ect right now. I'll go to the lease later on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And I will tell you I also have
great concerns about the lease. We need to have some time to discuss
that, and I'll join you when we do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My question is to the gentleman
there standing at the podium, how many bids did you receive on this
whole conglomerate of property?
MR. GARRISON: I believe we received eight.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Eight bids?
MR. GARRISON: Eight bids.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And was there some bids that you
just threw out?
MR. GARRISON: There were some bids that were
nonresponsive because they bid on properties in excess of the ones
that we offered for sale. They actually wanted the parcel that is
adjacent to -- between the Southwest Florida Conservancy and
Page 42
November 15-16, 2005
Goodlette Road and also wanted properties that the county wishes to
retain just to the north of the zoo. So we considered those bids to be
basically nonresponsive since they didn't adhere to the request for bids
that we sent out saying this is the property for sale, please bid on this
property.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Now, I have a concern. If you put
that chart back up, and if we look at where property number 13 is --
property? There we go. Now, you got -- this developer wanted to buy
number 13. How's he going to access that property?
MR. GARRISON : Well, there would be a couple of possibilities,
one which would be, and the most desirable and the most feasible
would be if he were able to work an arrangement with the Bear's Paw
Country Club, which, of course, is this property here.
MR. MUDD: John, could you please point to the overhead.
MR. GARRISON: Oh, I'm sorry.
MR. MUDD: People can't hear you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Keep you on the mike.
MR. GARRISON: Okay, yeah.
MR. MUDD: If you could point to that map.
MR. GARRISON: Okay, thanks, Jim.
The best access would be through Bear's Paw County Club.
There's actually a service road that approaches here right up to this
corner of the property.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what happens if Bear's Paw
says, you can't have access through out property?
MR. GARRISON : Well, then there would be possibility of an
access easement off of Golden Gate Parkway running north/south to
the northern point. And this would be something that the developer
would have to apply for after he owns the property, and that would be
your decision.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So in other words, he's going -- he's
going to have to come up with some type of easement --
Page 43
November 15-16,2005
MR. GARRISON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- and this is basically wetlands in
here.
MR. GARRISON: Correct. He would have to come up with an
easement. And I've had preliminary discussions with county staff that
they would -- they would entertain, you know, a request to grant an
easement, sell an easement there.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's an idea, going to be
interesting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Are you finished? I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I have a question. Have you
received the nonrefundable deposit from --
MR. GARRISON: Yes, we have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you got that by Friday then?
MR. GARRISON: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that nonrefundable deposit has been
applied even though the developer doesn't know how he gets to parcel
13?
MR. GARRISON: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Nor does he know what density he's
going to get for the parcel along Goodlette Road that he purchased?
MR. GARRISON: That's correct, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right, thank you. Gutsy
developer.
Okay. Any other questions by commissioners?
Commissioners Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, this whole issue
about the parcel next to the Conservancy and the parcel that you have
a deposit on for purchase, there's a discrepancy in my figures of what
is the Conservancy offering versus the other buyer. And the bottom
line is, whatever is peeled off -- and hopefully we can keep it whole as
Page 44
November 15-16,2005
much as possible -- whatever's peeled off is what the taxpayers pay.
MR. GARRISON: I understand.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So whatever is -- agreement is
worked out through -- with the Conservancy and this private
developer, the bottom line is, the taxpayers are going to pick up the
rest of it.
You know, knowing a little bit about pricing in Collier County
for commercial and retail/commercial, you're not going to find
anything less than $1.5 million an acre, and here we are offering
something -- a parcel for $4 million for, what is it, seven acres?
MR. GARRISON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So in reality, if that's the offer
that -- if the board doesn't buy it, in reality, we're saying to the
taxpayers, we're going to allow a donation to the Conservancy to
purchase this property.
MR. GARRISON: Well, actually, we took -- you recall the
whole period of time when we went through the multiple appraisal
process to try to negotiate with the Fleischmann family, and a
company called Realty Urban Solutions did an appraisal that came in
in the low 60 million range? We asked that appraiser -- we had a very
tight time line to go back and allocate that appraisal over the four --
basically four tracts of land, the major tract that the county is going to
acquire, the tract 13, the tracts along Golden Gate Boulevard, and the
tract that we're speaking about now between the Conservancy and
Goodlette Road. And he came back with a number $4,120,000.
Now, that information was based upon research and comparable
sales several months old. There was not time in the period of time in
order to meet our commitments to the Fleischmann family of bringing
a package to you today so that you could -- you could vote on it, to go
out and do all new appraisals. That takes weeks, if not months.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, in order to do the justice
to the taxpayers, I think that we should take the time and do it right.
Page 45
November 15-16,2005
That's my feeling, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have another concern with buying
all of this property. And maybe Marla can enlighten me. Do we have
a five-year business plan on this, what it's going to cost the taxpayers
to run this whole area of land that we're going -- we're thinking
seriously about purchasing?
MS. RAMSEY: Well, Commissioner, we haven't done actually a
five-year business plan because we haven't known exactly what we are
going to purchase.
But in the -- if you recall the number of scenarios that we used,
most of this parcel that the county is going to use that doesn't have the
zoo sitting on it is going to be passive in nature, which is normally a
rest room facility here with a parking area, pathways or boardwalks
across wetland areas with shelters. That's the game plan. That's been
the game plan from the very beginning. Very passive, some open
spaces so kids can play, but nothing -- nothing like athletic fields or
things that are quite costly.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But still, there's going to be cost
involved in this. When we take over this property, if we decide to
make that decision today, who takes care of all of the hurricane
damage on that property? Does that become our responsibility?
MS. RAMSEY: Well, I would assume that, to begin with, we
have to remove all the exotics that are currently on that location. A
number of exotics do exist there, so yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And have you gotten any idea what
the price is going to cost to do that?
MS. RAMSEY: Not at this moment, sir, no, I do not have that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, we've had almost two years.
And if we looked at the property, I'm surprised that we had some idea
of what we were looking at for property and why we haven't looked at
a business plan or how we're going to address this. Kind of bothers
Page 46
November 15-16,2005
me. I can't believe, you know, we've got -- you know, we don't have a
bottomless pit of money. So it's going to cost the taxpayers money
here. So I'm surprised we didn't come up with something like this.
MS. RAMSEY: It will be included in our five-year plan once
we've purchased, and it will be phased, as we do with every park
facility that we have, and bring it on in that -- in that regard, as, I
guess, impact fee monies become available, or Florida Community
Trust dollars come forward, if we're able to utilize some of those.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But you don't have any idea what
the operation and maintenance plan will be for this piece of property
at this point in time?
MS. RAMSEY: No, sir, do not have that plan available.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So we're going to be basically
flying in the dark? We're going to buy something, but we really don't
know what it's going to cost us, what the whole bottom line is?
MS. RAMSEY: Well, Commissioner, we always look at lands
and look to purchase the lands based upon our growth management
plan and the need to have the acreage.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. RAMSEY: And then we try and place them in locations that
will service the population the best, and then off of those we put
together a committee of people, usually parks and recreation advisory
board, involved in helping us to determine what the entire system is
going to look like, and we have done a number of scenarios, but we
have not gotten down into the nitty-gritty. Because as you know,
prices have gone up at least 30 percent over this past year. And any
number that we did a few months ago would be outdated even as we
speak.
So if you would like us to bring back some scenario, I definitely
can do that for you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that would be beneficial. I
think all of us need to know what we're -- you know, what the
Page 47
November 15-16,2005
operational cost is going to be on this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If I could help. The operational costs do
have to be determined, certainly, but they are dependent upon what
plan we approve for the utilization of this property.
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ifwe were to leave much of this
property undeveloped and unusable, then there wouldn't be much of
an increased cost associated with it. If we turn it into a central passive
park, as we have discussed in the past, there would be operational
costs associated with it. So it really depends upon a future decision
the board will make concerning the utilization of the property.
But right now, there are only three decisions I think we have to
make today. One is, are we going to buy this property; number two,
are we going to permit the Conservancy to buy parcels 11 and 12; and
number three, are we going to accept the lease as it is currently
written.
MS. RAMSEY: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Those are the only three items that we
should make a decision on today, that we have to make a decision on
today. And quite frankly, I don't know how we do that today.
But nevertheless, Commissioner Fiala has some comments.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. My first comment is, I was
going to ask Mr. Garrison from TPL, the property that we sold to the
developer, or that you sold, I'm sorry. We didn't have any part of that,
that you sold.
MR. GARRISON: Right. We're a private, independent,
nonprofit organization.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How much did you charge him per
acre? I mean, if you figure it all out, how much was it per acre?
Because they had commercial, residential, ago in there, you know,
MR. GARRISON: If you divided -- what was the total--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's about 700,000 an acre.
Page 48
November 15-16, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Eight hundred.
MR. CARRINGTON: Seven hundred thousand dollars an acre.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Seven hundred thousand dollars an
acre. Okay, fine.
Commissioner Coyle, can I make a motion, or do we need to
listen to our speakers first, if there are any on this? On one portion of
this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It depends on what motion you make.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to make a motion that we
approve option one, which is buying parcels one, two, three, 10 and
16, for $41.5 million.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Everyone understands where
three and 16 are located? They're obliterated by the mark on this
particular slide. I'm sorry, 16 is shown, but three is not. It's right at the
top. Okay. There we go. One, two, three, 10 and 16; 16 is the
median at Fleischmann Boulevard and U.S. 41.
So there's a motion on the table for the purchase of those parcels.
Now, let me hasten to, well, ask -- this does not mean that a motion
cannot be made later for the purchase of 11 and 12; is that true?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. That's going to be discussed, I
guess, on the next one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, okay. So you're suggesting that we
go ahead and make the decision to purchase one, two, three, 10, and
16?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And then we will discuss 11 and 12 later.
I think that's an easy appropriate way to deal with this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because we know this is a
done-deal. I mean, we want to make sure that that zoo is preserved,
and as much environmentally sensitive land as we can. This is the
way to do it. And so my motion stands.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I will second the motion.
Page 49
November 15-16,2005
Commissioner Coletta, you had a question.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'm going to redirect the
question towards the motion, if I may. Not that I think it's a bad
motion. I think it's a good motion. My problem is is that we had a
mandate for the voters of $40 million, and now we're exceeding it by
1.5.
I'd like to see if there's an option to be able to recover the 1.5. It's
somehow -- somehow or redirect it in a different direction. I mean, if
we --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If I could, I can answer that question for
you, I think.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Number one, we didn't have a mandate
from the voters to pay $40 million for the property . We asked the
voters if they would tax themselves an additional $40 million so that
we could buy it. That did not prohibit us from adding other -- other
sources of funds to the purchase.
Quite frankly, it is my belief, and I believe the staff will back me
up on this, that the price will be far below the $40 million ultimately
because we will -- once we own the property, we can apply for and
probably receive state and federal grants perhaps to the tune of $20
million or so. Is that a fair estimate?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, there is a possibility of having
folks contribute to the purchase of this property, and I believe your
$20 million figure is a good approximation if they come through with
their grants.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, you're saying folks contribute. I'm
talking about state and federal grants. I'm not talking about members
of the audience coming up and giving us a hundred bucks apiece,
right?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the best you're going to get on a
grant from the Florida -- from the Florida side of the house is around
Page 50
November 15-16,2005
$9 million.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And then we've got a possibility
of getting a grant from Big Cypress Basin?
MR. MUDD: I wouldn't call that a grant, sir. I think they're
going to ask you to put some stormwater things into this particular
piece of property, specifically in parcel number two, in order to get
that $5 million that I have talked to the director about.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So under the worst-case scenario --
MR. MUDD: Sir, you also have Conservation Collier--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. MUDD: -- which is a fund, and they're very interested in
parcel two. And they do have monies, but they -- it takes them -- you
have to own the property first before they can do their evaluation.
And so that's been holding them up based on their ordinance, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So the bottom line is, that once we own
the property and we can apply for grants and other sources of funding,
the price will be well below the $40 million that the voters agreed to
tax themselves. So I don't see a conflict there in our concerns, right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, can you nod your
head up and down that that's correct, that statement?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if that materializes, that's, indeed,
going to be the case. I believe the decision on Conservation Collier
rests with this board.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I mean, Conservation
Collier is not a dollar source that I see as a tremendous advantage
here, because that's money that's already going to go in the community
one way or the other, and I'm really kind of reluctant to see them put
all their eggs in one basket. I am interested in the other grants we
were talking about. And if we could possibly -- is this $9 million from
the state and federal, these grants, are they real or something fictional?
Are they really something for sure we can get or something that's
questionable?
Page 51
November 15-16, 2005
MR. MUDD: Sir, you can't -- you've got to apply, and they go
through a selection process. So there's nothing sure about any of that,
okay. You have to apply. And depending on how the applications are
from other parcels in the state and how well you stack up against those
particular applications decides if you're going to get money.
But let's give you a for-instance. That 19.2 acres that you bought
above Golden Gate Parkway which we used to call the Fleischmann
property, okay -- I guess this is Fleischmann two. But the other side of
the property that you purchased, we are getting a Florida Communities
Trust Grant for that in the tune of around $8 million, okay.
That has been approved, and the final -- exactly the dollars and
cents outside of that 8 million, give or take a couple of dollars, they're
deciding that right now. But we have been told we were approved for
that particular grant. So there are monies coming forward for that
particular purchase that you made.
So there is a possibility that this will happen. We will not know
that until around September of 2006.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I have no problem with
that. I think that's a wonderful avenue to go. I kind of hope we can
hold off on using Conservation 2000 dollars for this purchase till we
find out where we are. I'd like to see that money buy additional lands
rather than just go into this and that's the end-all of the fund.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How our agenda is laid out, the
recommendations by our staff is, the board would make a selection of
option one or option two. The motion on the floor is for option one.
I understand that you're stating that we can decide on parcel 12
and 11, which the Conservancy's offering, at a later time.
But I'm not going to support the motion because of just the way
it's laid out. And I think perception -- I'm really concerned about what
I stated is, having the taxpayers donate to a not-for-profit organization,
because we really don't have the price on it. I think that we should
Page 52
November 15-16, 2005
purchase the properties, all the properties, and get a -- an estimate on
what the 12 and 13 are really worth.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then it's going to cost the taxpayers
more.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know, sometimes you
have to spend a little to get a lot. And --
AUDIENCE: Boo.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, please, please.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, the appraisal was
done after the offer was made by the Conservancy, and I know that.
So let's be fair to the taxpayers. And that's what I'm going to be doing.
AUDIENCE: We are the taxpayers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, you'll have your
chance to speak. Please, no speaking from the audience.
I think the purpose of the motion, Commissioner Henning, was to
permit us to focus specifically on that. There's no question, I don't
think, in any member -- in the minds of any member of this board that
the taxpayers did not tell us they wanted us to preserve this property,
and one, two, three, 10 and 16 is the first step in doing that.
We can, and certainly will, immediately after that vote, go to 11
and 12, if you wish, and then we can have that debate as to what we
do with it. But at least if we could -- if we could indicate our
willingness to purchase and preserve those parcels just mentioned, it
would be helpful to move this debate along.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I heard Commissioner Henning,
and I'm probably going to get the displeasure of the audience over this,
but for the most part I agree with him. I just, I want to explore one
more time where we're going with this. So what you're saying is that
we're looking -- this approval does not eliminate the possibilities of 11
and 12 coming up as the next part of business to be able to be dealt
with?
Page 53
November 15-16, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It does not.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And -- but then again, too,
Commissioner Henning wants to tie this together in one package to be
able to expedite the whole thing so that we don't have the ability to
negotiate as we go down the line.
I believe that's what you're doing, Commissioner Henning.
Could you help me with this?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Actually, I think it's expediting
the whole process. Either you're in favor of doing just option one or
option two. We're going to have a third vote, option one, option two,
the lease, the lease -- the lease on the property for the zoo, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- I just don't agree with the
motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion on the table by
Commissioner Fiala, seconded by me. I'm going to call the question
and see if it fails, and then we'll proceed. There's no point in debating
it any further.
MS. CHADWELL: Excuses me, Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MS. CHADWELL: I'm sorry. I heard you say earlier that -- I'm
sorry. Ellen Chadwell, Assistant County Attorney for the record.
I heard you say earlier that you had some issues with the terms of
the lease that you wanted to discuss. And before you voted on the
matter, I'd like to suggest that, since your vote to approve the purchase
of those properties -- if you're either going to limit it to -- just to the
purchase of those properties or if you're approving the agreement, then
we might want to take up the issue with the lease first, because by
approving the agreement, you're, in essence, agreeing that you will
accept an assignment of a lease as attached, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion was specifically for an
agreement -- for the purchase of those parcels mentioned. It--
Page 54
November 15-16,2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I can add to the motion to say that
we would discuss the lease in another motion. Would that help you
legally?
MS. CHADWELL: You're agreeing you want -- you're moving
you want to purchase those five parcels, but if you're not approving
this -- if you're approving this purchase agreement, in my opinion,
you're accepting the terms or agreeing that you will accept an
assignment of the lease as drafted and attached to the document.
So I think you should take up the issues with the lease in advance
of voting on the purchase.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, why is there not the possibility to
approve the purchase without assuming the obligations of the lease,
assume -- with the expectation that additional discussions would occur
to resolve the differences in the lease?
This is the first time this lease has come before the board. There
has not been a public hearing on the lease. There really has not been
sufficient discussion concerning it, and I am concerned about the lease
itself, many of the provisions of the lease.
And I really do not believe that we have time today to sort those
issues out, because the information does not exist. I have asked for a
financial pro forma for the zoo, and what I was given was a list of the
revenue the county would get. That's not a pro forma.
We have to have some kind of a financial report that indicates
what the zoo's income is likely to be in the future, taking into
consideration impacts like hurricanes and other things, resolving some
of the issues that were raised by a couple members of the board about
-- about clearing exotics and/or recovering from hurricane damage,
whose responsibility is that.
There are a lot of discussions we have to have concerning that.
And I am not certain that we can spend the time today to do that.
So can we separate the lease decision from the purchase decision
with the understanding that we would continue to work with the zoo
Page 55
November 15-16,2005
and the TPL in refining the lease?
MS. CHADWELL: I don't believe so, and the reason for that is
the statute requires that if you're going to lease public property, you
have to solicit -- you have to competitively solicit bids for the leasing
of the property.
You can purchase property subject to a lease as well as subject to
any other incumbrance that may exist. So the arrangement is that TPL
would enter into the lease with the zoo, and the county would
purchase the property subject to that lease.
If you approve the purchase without coming to some satisfaction
with the terms of the lease and you want to take it up as a separate
matter, you've bought the property without -- with it not being subject
to the lease. You've not agreed to that.
So then you're, in my opinion -- perhaps there's a difference of
legal opinion on this matter, I don't know -- but -- and if you buy it not
subject to the lease, then you're subject to the statute that says you're
going to have to competitively solicit that.
Now, whether there be other zoo keepers out there who want to
throw their name in the hat and make an offer on a leasing
arrangement with the county on this, I don't know. I doubt it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There is nothing wrong with us
amending the lease after we sign the purchase agreement.
MS. CHADWELL: No, you can do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then Commissioner Fiala, you
want to modify your amendment to include the acceptance of the
purchase agreement and the lease.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, and some words to -- in effect,
to say that we still have the ability to modify the lease.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. I'll jump in here. I think that we
recognize that the board is making its statement and we have parties
here, representative of all interested parties that are already parties to
the lease that are recognizing this, to the extent that they wish to go on
Page 56
November 15-16,2005
record.
Ms. Chadwell is correct, the lease can be modified. The reason,
as she explained, that the lease is in place right now, is that it helps
meet the statutory requirements of a less -- of not having the board
having to go out for a solicitation of lessees if we take the land subject
to a lease, which it is currently subject to a lease, entered into prior to
our purchase.
We would be receiving an assignment of this lease from the
lessor, which is the current landowner, which is TPL, if that's not
already clear for the public.
And so yes, as a lessor and as taking assignment of the lease, we
have the ability to amend the lease. One last question I would raise
for your information, is for Ms. Chadwell, representative of the TPL,
who is the current leaseholder, that is there any bar in the current lease
that exists between TPL and the Tetzlaff organization, Naples Zoo,
Inc., that prevents this Board of County Commissioners in assuming
the lease to have -- is there anything that prevents them from the
ability to modify or amend that lease?
MR. CARRINGTON: If I may add something. Yeah, Chuck
Carrington, real estate services manager. If I recall from the lease is,
that the board really only has a right to come back at the end of every
five-year period and negotiate at that time or look at the terms of the
lease, the rent payments. But any time in between, I believe -- and
Ellen might have to correct me here -- but I believe unless there's a
default, then I really don't believe you would really have an
opportunity to come in and just to -- unless the zoo would be willing
to negotiate some kind of amended deal.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the TPL?
MR. CARRINGTON: Well, TPL would be out of it then once
we were the owner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas has been waiting.
MR. CARRINGTON: Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Page 57
November 15-16,2005
MS. CHADWELL: I would like to say that I think that the
agreement to purchase these parcels can be done with the qualification
that you will accept -- as Commissioner Fiala has suggested, with the
qualification that you will accept an assignment of the lease subject to
some minor modifications between the TPL and the zoo. That means
that they will still have to agree to those modifications, but --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They who?
MS. CHADWELL: -- at least your approval is conditioned on
that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That they who will have to agree, TPL?
MS. CHADWELL: TPL and the zoo will have to agree on that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right.
Commissioner Halas, you've been waiting to speak.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think they answered my question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then you're modifying your
motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Modifying my motion to include
that I would like to discuss that lease. I don't know how minor the
discussion that I want to have is. I've gotten some differing
information on lease amounts, and I want to discuss that. So I don't
know how minor that is. Yearly payments.
MS. CHADWELL: Well, I think -- I think that's a material term
of the lease --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine.
MS. CHADWELL: -- so I don't consider that minor at all.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: After we -- oh, it isn't minor at all.
So that --
MS. CHADWELL: I wouldn't --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- means that if we vote yes on this,
then we also vote yes on the lease? Now, I'll tell you right out, in our
-- here it says, someplace or another, how much we're going to charge
them, and I think it's something like what, $235,000?
Page 58
November 15-16,2005
MS. RAMSEY: Two hundred thirty-five thousand, five hundred
dollars per year as a base rent.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, as base rent, that's without the
tax. And so it comes up to be 250,000?
MS. RAMSEY: Well, no, ma'am. Once the county owns it,
there isn't a tax on it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Now, I talked with the
people from the zoo and asked them -- because I was told yesterday
that they've been paying $250,000 a year to the Fleischmann family,
and I've told -- and I was told they were paying that every year.
So I asked them, I didn't know that. I -- you know, all I could do
was believe what I heard, and they said last year was the highest year
they've ever had, and they still didn't pay 250,000, and they've never
paid that amount to the Fleischmann family before. This was the
highest they've ever paid.
Not only that, but this year they're going to be closed while
they're making all of the repairs because of the hurricane and so forth.
They'll never even get close to that amount. Plus -- that they paid last
year.
And so I feel that we're going in handicapping them, and I think
that that ought to be adjusted properly.
MS. RAMSEY: Well, there are adjustment opportunities in the
lease itself. And if you do have a hurricane such as we've just had
recently, their base rent is prorated based upon the fact that they
haven't had the income -- if they've been closed for two months, then
it's prorated. So the base rent does have some ability in there to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So every month it's prorated,
depending on what they make that month or something?
MS. RAMSEY: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I didn't think so.
MS. RAMSEY: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
Page 59
November 15-16,2005
MS. RAMSEY: There is a base rent of235,000 divided into 12
equal payments. If for some reason there is an act of God that closes
the zoo, then there is an opportunity for hardship and that base rent --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So -- but we're basing that rent on
one year, the last year, the highest rent they've ever paid because we
had great tourism. We don't know what our tourism year is going to
be like this year after all of the news of the hurricane. We don't know
if we're going to get people back or whatnot. So why are we basing it
on the highest year we ever made? And this is my point.
MS. RAMSEY: Well, let me also add in here though that the
base rent that we're looking at does not include any taxes, and the base
rent they were paying to the Fleischmann family, they were paying
taxes on top of that base rent.
So we have taken what their last year's -- and that's the dollar
amount we have, which is $3,400,000, and we've determined what that
base rent is based upon, that element, which is -- actually is cheaper
than the 250 that they have been paying currently.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What do you mean have been
paying? I want you to clarify that, please.
MS. RAMSEY: They've been paying 250 per year, plus taxes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: For how many years?
MS. RAMSEY: I'd have to ask -- how many years? Thank you.
Plus the taxes, right? Okay.
They've been paying anywhere from 220 some thousand dollars
plus taxes, and then of course, they have their sales tax on top of that,
which is a separate entity of it. So if you take the taxes --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, you said 250 every year.
What -- what is every year?
MS. RAMSEY: Annually, every year annually.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. But I mean--
MS. RAMSEY: That's the average.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How many years is every year?
Page 60
November 15-16,2005
MS. RAMSEY: They have from 2000 to 2004 on this list, which
has been averaging about $250,000 with the taxes, right?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. This is the reason that I wanted to
separate this discussion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you want this thing to breeze through
this board, you should have presented this thing to us at a workshop so
that we understood what was going on here.
There is no comparison of the total cost paid by the zoo in the
past and what we're expecting them to pay in the future.
Let us face it, the operation of this zoo is something that is
beneficial to the community. We should not be using it as a cash cow
so that we can extract as much money as we can from it.
Now, my feeling is, if you wanted this thing approved and you
wanted to make it easy, you should have been working with the
commissioners to get it done, and that didn't happen.
So I will be happy to continue seconding this motion, and I will
call the motion because I want to see if it's going to fail or not. There's
no point in continuing this discussion if there's not enough support on
this board to continue with it.
But I would ask that you --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But the motion does include that we
are able to discuss this rent afterwards.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Or anything else--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Anything else, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- as far as I'm concerned about this lease
agreement.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not in five years? Now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Immediately, whenever we acquire it.
We should be able to sit down with the Tetzlaffs and negotiate an
agreement that is in the best interest of this entire community.
And if that is your motion, I'll still second it.
Page 61
November 15-16,2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, that's my motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But I'm going to call the question.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And opposed, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It is approved 3-2, with
Commissioners Coletta and Henning dissenting, and we're going to
take a break, 10 minutes.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll be back.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Looks like we have three
commissioners, so we have a quorum.
Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. The Board of
County Commission meeting is back in order.
Where's our county attorney?
MR.OCHS: He's on his way in, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. David, there's -- before we go
into the next item, there is one question I need to ask you. I think
you've already given me the answer, but I want to make sure that we
are on firm legal footing with respect to the action we took on the
lease.
MR. WEIGEL: You're on firm legal footing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good.
MR. WEIGEL: Would you like any further--
Page 62
November 15-16,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, that's it.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's it. I like those short, sweet
answers. Okay.
David, did you have something you wanted to tell us?
MR. TETZLAFF: Yes, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. I don't think this is the time or place to dissect the
lease.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right, it's not.
MR. TETZLAFF: Honestly, I do not. And as far as Naples Zoo
is -- the lease can be as it stands. I want to move the process along.
It's been 19 months. Let's go on with this. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That solves lots of problems.
Okay. Now I had promised the dissenting commissioners that
they would have a fair and open hearing on parcels 11 and 12, and
that's what we're going to have right now.
So we're going to discuss whether or not the county commission
will also authorize the purchase of parcels 11 and 12 or whether they
will permit those to be sold to the Conservancy as has been proposed.
And Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to make a motion that
the Board of Commissioners purchase these two parcels for the
remaining dollars in option B, and also give direction, as part of my
motion, give direction to staff to get a -- an appraisal on these two
parcels and present that to the Conservancy for their consideration of
purchasing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. There's a motion to approve the
county's purchase of these properties with the proviso that the county
seek a -- an appraisal of the property. Is there a second?
(No response.)
Page 63
November 15-16, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion dies for a lack of second.
Is there any other discussion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to hear the speakers,
first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question for my
colleagues.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning, go
ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question for my
colleagues.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Obviously that -- the private
developer is purchasing less valuable property for more money. Don't
you think that we owe it to the taxpayers to make sure that we get a
fair deal on all the parcels? And what I'm referring to is parcel 12, and
parcel 11.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. In my opinion -- you asked
all the commissioners, so I'll give my opinion -- this was, as far as the
Conservancy went, a fair price because they had gone to and gotten an
appraisal. You know how many appraisals we got for this land and
how they differed. And the longer we waited, the higher the appraisal
went.
But not only that, you asked, is it fair to the voters, absolutely,
because the voters voted to buy all of this land to preserve for a park.
That's what they wanted, and that's what I say they should have.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'm not arguing that point.
And we heard from the gentleman from Public Lands of Trust (sic),
they did a fast appraisal.
Now, do you want to make a decision on something that was
Page 64
November 15-16,2005
done, you know, with a fast appraisal instead of in-depth study to find
out what the true value of this property is?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, Commissioner, according to
what I see written here, the county was only going to pay 45 million
for the property, 45.5, which is 4 million. It's the same price that the
Conservancy was offering in option B. So, you know, it's the same
pnce.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, even the appraisal
that the Conservancy had is more than what they're offering.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'm willing to go with that,
because I think that's what the voters wanted, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You think the voters wanted to
give their tax dollars to a not-for-profit organization?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, please.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If that will keep this land. You
know, what did they do in Boston when they put the Boston Common
in there? You know, maybe people didn't like it at the time, but
forever after, people are going to be able to enjoy that, and they would
never be able to do that again. It would be full of high-rises if they
didn't take that bold step forward.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we don't -- I'm not saying
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Part of my motion was not to
put high-rises there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right, I understand that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My motion was to get a fair
dollar for this piece of parcel.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think it's fair.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And, you know, wherever the
board goes with this, I'm not going to let this go, because I think it's
our duty to be stewards of the taxpayers' dollars.
Page 65
November 15-16,2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And to be fair, you always have felt
that way.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas, you had
some questions or a comment?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I just wanted to know, the
Conservancy has stated that they want to put this in preserves, so are
you going to put it in preserve, or do you have something that you're
going to build on this sometime in the future?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're asking that specifically of Ms.
Prosser?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Ms. Prosser, please come and
respond to that question.
MS. PROSSER-BOVARD: Thank you. Good morning. Kathy
Prosser-Bovard, president and CEO of the Conservancy of Southwest
Florida, at least for a few more weeks. Pleased to be here.
In answer to your question, Commissioner Halas, the
Conservancy has always been very clear, first and foremost we would
like to have these two parcels preserved. We believe that it should be
a part of Naples Central Park. We believe that that is what the citizens
voted for.
However, if the county is unable or unwilling to purchase these
two parcels and keep it in preservation, then the Conservancy has
offered to pay $4 million, which was the price given to us by the Trust
for Public Land.
And what we would do is to have an entrance off of
Goodlette- Frank Road that allows people to come into our nature
center and find the Conservancy, because we do educate millions of
people every year about the environment, and we do offer wildlife
rehabilitation as a service to this community. The more people that
find us, the more people that will benefit from it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My question is, are you --
Page 66
November 15-16,2005
eventually plan to build any buildings on this property?
MS. PROSSER-BOVARD: We do not have a plan, period. We
want an entrance, and that is what we would like to do. We would,
beyond that, use the rest of the land, integrate it into a Naples Central
Park.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Now, about 18 months ago
there was a gentleman that came before me with a big grandioso plan,
and it was an architect out of Boston. And in that plan was an
amphitheater that you wanted to put in and some other things.
MS. PROSSER-BOVARD: We didn't want it put in, and it
wasn't our plan, and we didn't support it. And that has been a
misconception that has been prompted by county staff to
commissioners. It is not correct. It is not our plan. It was a
Fleischmann plan.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Would you --
MS. PROSSER-BOVARD: I am telling you the Conservancy's
plan is to spend $4 million of very hard-earned money -- and let's not
forget, we, too, are a non-profit organization.
And we are willing to spend $4 million to preserve this parcel,
for the most part, and have an entrance that allows more people to
come to the Conservancy and integrate the rest of that land into a
Naples Central Park consistent with the overall plan that will be
developed by the county. That's it.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. My other question is, would
you be willing, if we went out on the open market, as Commissioner
Henning said, and get an honest appraisal that's up to date? I believe
the gentleman said it was about eight, nine months old -- and to get an
appraisal, and then offer that to you as the first option?
MS. PROSSER-BOVARD: Commissioner, if we were intending
to develop high-rises or affordable housing on that land, we'd be very
happy to go get some other appraisal. But we believe, given that most
Page 67
November 15-16,2005
of that land will be in preservation consistent with what the county
and the voters want, that $4 million is a very high price for a
non-profit to pay to do something to preserve land that really should
be done by this county commission.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So can I --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let -- just a minute.
Ladies and gentlemen, please hold your applause. It's going to
take us a long time to get through this, and if we have to wait for you
to finish applauding every time, it's going to be a long, long day for us
all. So please hold your applause, and then applaud when we finally
make a decision.
Okay. Commissioner Halas, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This land presently, I believe, is
commercial.
MS. PROSSER-BOVARD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So would you have any -- any
qualms if we just pulled the zoning off of that so that it's permanently
in a preserve so that the only thing you can do with it is to put a
roadway in and that's it?
MS. PROSSER-BOVARD: We are happy to talk about that as
long as you understand we don't have our plan developed yet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What's the plan?
MS. PROSSER-BOVARD: Okay? So -- the plan is to put an
entrance in there.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And is there anything else?
MS. PROSSER-BOVARD: But whether that entrance, for
example, has a gate through which people will come, we don't know
that. So within those confines, let me tell you this, I don't have a plan
today because we aren't that far along. But what you do have today is
the word of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, who has been
working in this community for 41 years, and that word today should
Page 68
November 15-16,2005
be good enough to make this happen.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I need to clarify
something. Kathy, thank you very much. I --
MS. PROSSER-BOVARD: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- agree with just about
everything you say. And you're the first person today that brought up
the word affordable housing. It hasn't been mentioned here, and I just
want to make sure and try to get the sentiments of this commission.
Before Commissioner Henning went on break -- you surprised
me with your motion, you really did. You sent a letter out, a memo to
the commissioners, and you mentioned affordable housing in it.
It might be a good thing now if we established the fact that we're
going to be able to talk about this, because I've seen this as an
opportunity, if not for affordable housing there, to be able to draw this
community into the affordable housing issue, kicking, screaming, or
whatever it takes.
The Chamber of Commerce, everyone else that bought into this
and says, this is the most perfect use of this land is for the
Conservancy. Maybe they're right, but we've still got an underlying
need for affordable housing.
And I've been working on this for 15 years, and I hear the same
rhetoric over and over and over again. And if I could force the issue
through this particular thing, negotiate later, as people go forward and
they've got a vested interest to come up with affordable housing in the
urban area, then we would have been a better community for it.
But I want to make sure that this is off the table. I, for one, am
still willing to discuss it. But if my fellow commissioners don't think
this is something they want to discuss, then so be it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. That is a good way to expedite
this discussion, because it is the affordable housing issue that has
Page 69
November 15-16,2005
dictated the interest in purchasing this property to some degree.
And I would like to make one other comment. Almost every
PUD that comes before us, we demand that there be an affordable
housing component or contribution from that PUD. That's become a
regular exercise with this board for the past year and a half or two
years, perhaps.
There -- and we have the opportunity to demand affordable
housing in parcels four, five, six, seven, and eight, or maybe even 13
if this other developer consummates the purchase of this property. So
as I see it, any way we go, we're going to get some affordable housing
here one way or the other.
So with that, I'll go to Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I applaud Commissioner
Coletta's passion for this, and I totally agree that we need to do
something about affordable housing and keep it in the spotlight. And
like he said, probably not on this piece of property because it doesn't
really make any sense, but --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I didn't say that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that's what I read into it.
Maybe I was wrong. That's why I asked about buying one of those
other pieces of property. That's why I asked TPL if there was a way
for us to purchase the others. But then -- and I thought maybe we
could use one that's right there on Golden Gate Parkway for this
project instead, which would certainly make a lot of sense, but then
they said they've already sold it.
So I think that maybe, you know, as long as we keep it in the
forefront of our minds and continue to try and find affordable housing
-- maybe we couldn't do it. But like Commissioner Coyle said, I think
that's a great idea -- nobody's mentioned that at all -- maybe to insert
some of it right in each one of these parcels, and that would work.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I -- you know, that's
Page 70
November 15-16,2005
somebody else's land, unless we decide to purchase it. So how can we
tell them what kind of housing to put on this?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We do everybody else.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We do it all the time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we exact some monies out
for the affordable housing land trust.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. But we do like to see them
actually build some right on their property. That was --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And how many times have we
demanded that? How many times are we going to demand it today?
Have we demanded it on the summary agenda today? No. So, you
know, I don't believe that's a true statement.
You know, my issue is, is getting a fair value for the piece of
property. Purchase it, and if we can't get a fair value, then it's -- then
it's really up for discussion with what to do with the piece of property.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, Commissioner Henning, ifit
were actually -- see, if it would be used for commercial, then the value
would probably be higher, as Kathy Prosser pointed out. But being
that it's going to be mostly in preservation or used as a park, I would
think that that would reduce the value to what they're offering to pay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The property is zoned
commercial.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If I tear your house down -- you
want to sell your house, and I tear it down and use it for a park, that's
my privilege, but you're not going to discount your property, your
house to me if I want to turn your property into a park. And if you
wouldn't do it with your own money, you shouldn't be doing it with
the taxpayers' money.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, maybe we could ask
Conservation Collier if they would help with the price, if that would
make you feel a little bit. Maybe Conservation Collier could help.
Page 71
November 15-16,2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm just fielding for the
taxpayers, that's all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Well, Commissioner
Henning did hit on some points that are very valid. We've never
required anyone to put it in, affordable housing. In this case, the -- if
this is going to be commercial, what we have had them come forward
and donate out of the goodness of their heart is 50 cents per square
foot, which is really a pittance towards affordable housing.
I just want to get this part behind us. I'm going to make a motion
at this time just to be able to get this on the table that, what we're
doing here today, that we require an affordable element in 12 and 13,
and I'll make that motion now just to be able to clarify the situation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What did you say?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You don't mean 12 and 13. You're
talking about 11 and 12?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, yeah, 11 and 12.
Thirteen would have been neat, but it's a little farther over. And if that
fails, then we know where we stand as far as the affordable housing
issue goes, or if it fails either way, it doesn't get a second or if it
doesn't get the vote.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta is making
a motion to require that there be affordable housing in parcels 11 and
12. Is there a second?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It dies for lack of second. So that
means that there is not sufficient support on the board to purchase this
property for the purpose of putting affordable housing on 11 and 12.
Let me address affordable housing just for a moment. There
have been many times when developers have been required to place
affordable housing in their developments, particularly when they
wanted increased density. The best way for them to get increased
Page 72
November 15-16,2005
density is by providing affordable housing units.
And I can assure you that at the price that this developer is
paying for these parcels, they're going to need some increased density.
And so we can control it by doing that. We can grant increased
density to the extent that affordable housing is accommodated there.
So I believe we can, when the time comes, have the discussion
with the developer about a mixed-use development that will require
some affordable housing.
But now let's get back to parcels 11 and 12. The crux of the
matter really is this, I think: The property is more valuable as
commercial than it is as conservation, hence the reason the
Conservancy is offering $4.5 million for it -- $4 million for it. How
about another five?
MS. PROSSER-BOVARD: Nice try, but going once, twice--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- four million dollars for it because it
would be in conservation, and we're being offered the property at the
same price because it is going to be preserved, or you would expect
that it would be preserved at least. TPL was expecting that it be
preserved.
It is worth more than that only if it is commercial and if it's going
to be developed. The board has just said it's not going to be developed
for affordable housing. So now the question is, what does the board
intend to do with it? Would the board like to see it rezoned to
conservation?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And -- is there sufficient support on the
board for that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me ask a question, if I may.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think it's a great idea. Would they
be able to build an entry way into -- number -- two questions. Would
they be able to build an entryway into the Conservancy off Goodlette
Page 73
November 15-16,2005
Road with a conservation zoning on it, and, secondly, can it also -- can
the rest of the land be incorporated into a central park? Do we need to
have some kind of a park zoning to it, or can that all be under
conservation?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think that's a question best answered by
the Conservancy and our staff.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not -- park is not
preservation.
MS. PROSSER-BOVARD: Well, passive recreation, which is
what Conservation Collier buys land for, what the voters thought they
were voting for, both in 2002 and 2004. And that's what we're talking
about, Commissioner, passive recreation, a central park.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So are you going to come back
for Conservation Collier to purchase this property?
MS. PROSSER-BOVARD: No, not -- the Conservancy of
Southwest Florida is standing here offering to purchase this property
for $4 million. Conservation Collier is interested, as you were briefed
earlier, of that one big piece.
But during Conservation Collier's referendum, this whole parcel
was used as the poster child for what the county and the citizens of
Collier County could get if they passed Conservation Collier. And
now it's have-to time. It's decision time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, yes.
MS. PROSSER-BOVARD: Let's do what the voters said.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Before I go to Commissioner Halas, let
me just ask another question. If the board were to have a desire to
purchase this property and then down zone it to conservation, would
you then still be interested in purchasing the property for $4 million as
conservation?
MS. PROSSER-BOVARD: I would like to defer to my legal
folks here to answer that question, if you don't mind. Dick Grant,
member of our board.
Page 74
November 15-16, 2005
MR. GRANT: For the record, I'm Dick Grant. I'm a board
member. I am an attorney, but I'm here as a board member, but I do
practice law.
I think it all depends on the detail. I don't think the Conservancy
has a problem in agreeing to some limitations of what could be done
with this property.
We've said we're not planning to make commercial use of it. We
want to acquire it to see to it that it is protected and integrated into our
nature center campus, and, frankly, integrated with the rest of the land
the county buys. Make it all work for everybody.
Can we sit here today and say, only a road? Maybe we want a
little shelter for people to sit under when they get off a bus or
something, maybe we want to put a few parking spaces. We probably
need some water retention, I don't know. We're incapable here today
of saying.
But I think if the question is, is the Conservancy willing to spend
the $4 million and then eliminate the potential that typical commercial
retail office-type development could be put on there, I think the
answer to that is yes. We're willing to discuss that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. GRANT: But I don't think that's something you can expect
us to sit here today on the podium and do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I understand that.
MR. GRANT: We'll sit down with the county manger and the
county attorney.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm just trying to draw the parameters for
hopefully a compromise on this issue.
And Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's where I would like to go on
that is that we pull any kind of zoning off of this and put it into
preserve, and that they're only allowed to build an access road. And if
they need to work on water retention, that would be part of it, but no
Page 75
November 15-16,2005
other structures on there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. County Manager, can you give us
a brief overview of what is permitted on a conservation parcel?
MR. MUDD: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there anybody here to do that?
MR. MUDD: Not off the top of my head. I'm looking for that --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: I'm looking for that planner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: David Weeks is here.
MR. MUDD: There's David.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks, Planning Manager
in the Comprehensive Planning Department.
Commissioners, the conservation zoning district allows for a
variety of conservation uses. For example, the Conservancy's nature
center itself is zoned conservation right now. Also some of our state
and national parks in Collier County are as well.
The point in mentioning that is simply so that you'd understand
the types of facilities that we presently see in that land, but also you'd
recognize that the Conservancy and those other types of conservation
uses have to have access to their property, they have to have essential
services, in many cases. They're allowed to have a nature center,
allowed to have a gift shop, they're allowed to have a variety of uses.
To the specific question of, could they have an access road, I would
say absolutely,
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And they could have facilities of
the type they have on their currently zoned conservation property?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that would be permitted under
conservation use?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. Both by the conservation zoning, as
well as by future land use designation.
Page 76
November 15-16,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Mr. Dickman?
MR. DICKMAN: Yes, sir. Andrew Dickman for the record,
Policy Director and legal counsel at the Conservancy. I think we're
very close to a solution here.
And, quite frankly, Commissioner Halas, I understand your
concern, as I believe a concern of other commissioners, that we don't
get the benefit of a commercial zoning. And as you've heard already,
that we are not seeking that. We could care less if that was agriculture
or conservation, we would still be offering the same price.
So I think what I want to avoid though is some motion that tries
to specify to too much of a detail, because I think the details need to
be worked out. And here's my suggestion, is that, vote to allow us to
buy this property, TPL will get up and tell you that they want to sell it
to us, before the closing -- and because you can't -- the rezoning
cannot occur quick enough before the closing has to occur.
TPL, the county manager, Chuck Carrington and your real estate
expert, and us will sit down and draft some type of restriction that can
be placed on the land that will prevent any over building it. I mean,
this is -- obviously if you don't believe that, you know, that's our
mission, we would not develop it; however, we understand the
concerns.
And if it -- if down the road it ends up that we file an application
to rezone the property, which candidly will probably take several
months, at best, but the closing has to occur in December. That's
TPL's need right now to get all of this closed. And Mr. Garrison is
here, and he could probably talk to you about that. But we are very
willing.
V ote today to allow us to buy this property, we'll sit down with
county staff, with TPL, come up with some type of declaration of
covenants that can go on the land that will achieve what you want,
which is to make sure that we don't have the benefit of this intense
zoning. We can do that. We're ready to do that.
Page 77
November 15-16,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Garrison, you really are interested in just one thing, and that
is, that you have the money obligated to do the closing in December;
isn't that correct?
MR. GARRISON: Commissioner, that's a primary concern we
have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. GARRISON: But we also, you know, feel strongly that we
want to see the wishes of the taxpayers of Collier County honored,
you know, as the way they voted last November. And we firmly
support and believe that the Conservancy will do the right thing on the
property, and we support their position.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But if we were to approve a motion
similar to what Mr. Dickman has just outlined --
MR. GARRISON: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- that would serve your needs with
respect to the preparation for your closing in December --
MR. GARRISON: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- on a total package?
MR. GARRISON: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sir, on the -- excuse me. On the
properties that were negotiated up there at the Parkway, how did you
work out the deal as far as determining commercial, agricultural, and
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Residential.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- and residential? How did you
work that out?
MR. GARRISON: There was nothing worked out. Basically
they bought what exists. And you know, they can make application
for changes, but they are acquiring the property with the density that is
there.
Page 78
November 15-16,2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So you think this is an honest price
for this property?
MR. GARRISON: I do.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Even though it's -- the estimate is
about eight months old? Now, if you remember, if you recall when
we went through this whole scenario, we went out and got about four
different appraisals, and there was only one appraisal by the opposing
side. And, of course, they had an appraisal that was extremely high.
I'm wondering if this appraisal is extremely low.
MR. GARRISON: Commissioner, are you addressing specific
parcels in your question or the overall?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm addressing the parcels in 11
and 12 here. Do you think -- who did you use for an appraiser?
MR. GARRISON: The same organization that did the third
county appraisal, Urban Reality Solutions.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Were they the same people
that did the appraisal up there at the top too?
MR. GARRISON: They did an appraisal also of the -- they're the
company that did the review of the seller's appraisal and the first two
county appraisals. If you can recall back, that one was one of the
many steps along the way.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Did they have anything to do with
the appraisal of the property up here that fronts on Golden Gate
Parkway?
MR. GARRISON: We had this company break out or allocate
the appraisal that they performed in -- I think Chuck Carrington says it
was -- effective date of April-- May 14th. Allocate that appraisal out
to these four separate tracts of land.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. GARRISON: And, in fact, when you split it up and add it
up, it came to more than the original number. The sum of the parts
was greater than the whole by a couple million dollars.
Page 79
November 15-16,2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So you're saying that you feel that
the -- that this area was then -- let's get back to the question. Did they
do an honest appraisal of this particular --
MR. GARRISON: They did what we instructed them to do,
which was to, considering the time available, to allocate the
already-done appraisal using MAI appraisal standards to these
individual tracts within the parent tract. And I think they did a fair
and honest job of that, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. These are the same questions that
Commissioner Henning was trying to get at. And I would like to ask a
question of Chuck Carrington and you, John, both of you.
I'd like to make a statement and I'd like for you to tell me if it is a
correct statement. If this property were being sold for development for
commercial purposes, $4 million would not be a fair price for it. If it
is being sold for conservation use, $4 million is a fair price for it. Is
that a correct statement?
MR. CARRINGTON: If you instructed an appraiser to appraise
7.37 acres zoned as conservation, I believe the 4 million may be a fair
price. But if it was appraised -- it is zoned commercial, if they were
asked to appraise that, then I -- you're probably going to see a number
between 6 and $8 million.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, that's what I would expect too.
And so, the concern of some of the commissioners is that we want to
make sure that the taxpayers are treated fairly. But the only way to
get the higher price for this property is to sell it to someone who
would develop it.
And since we were pretty much instructed by the taxpayers not to
develop this property, that we were to preserve it, then the
conservation alternative seems to be the one that is best from the
standpoint of the perspective of the taxpayers.
So under those circumstances, $4 million is a fair price for the
property. Is that essentially what we're saying?
Page 80
November 15-16,2005
MR. CARRINGTON: Under those assumptions, I would say
yes, SIr.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. GARRISON: I would completely agree that that is a fair
comment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let's talk about, while
we're talking about the wishes of the voters, selling off the northern
piece, is that the wishes -- wish of the voters?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And here's my understanding,
that we were going to purchase the land for the zoo and surrounding
areas. That's very vague in my opinion. I'm not saying that we need
to rush and buy this to sell it to a commercial. You know, I'm just
saying, you know, we're rushing into something and selling something
at less than value. That's all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I need to correct that.
We're not selling it because we don't own it, but we're allowing it to
happen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Y eah. Well, in answer to your other
question, I would have preferred that we could have purchased the
entire amount, but I think it's important that everyone understand we
never had the money to do that. We never had the alternative to do
that. We couldn't ever break up the property so we could purchase
what we thought was important.
We talked about state and federal grants, but you can't even apply
for those until you own the property. We never had the opportunity to
own the property, so we couldn't apply for any grants, so we couldn't
get the money.
So it's a very, very complex and confusing process. But I think
all of us wanted to preserve the entire parcel. It just -- the way it was
Page 81
November 15-16, 2005
presented, it just made it impossible to do, unfortunately. And we
appreciated TPL's efforts in getting us where we are here.
Okay. Commissioners, let me -- we've got how many speakers
here?
MS. FILSON: Eighteen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'm going to try to get a sense of
the commissioners about where we are on this. And we will not take a
vote until after we've heard from the public, but perhaps you will
conclude maybe it's not necessary to spend the next hour and a half
talking about this any longer.
But we're at the point where we can either permit -- we could
permit the Conservancy to purchase this property with certain
agreements with respect to its use. It's my understanding that if we
wanted to down zone the property, it would take some time to do that,
and we could not do that before December, so that really isn't an
option at the present time.
It could be a subject of negotiation between us and the
Conservancy, and it could be a contingency on the sale of the property
to the Conservancy. And I'd like to get an indication as to whether or
not there's any support for that on the board.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to see it down zoned.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We can't down zone it before
December, but we can make that a contingent--
MR. DICKMAN: We will commit to that. We will work that
out and we will find a zoning commensurate with what we have now.
And your zoning professional told you that that's -- our uses that we
have now are commensurate with that. We will make that
commitment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And do I see three nods here anywhere?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, one more time. This
is to approve the county going back and negotiating with the
Conservancy?
Page 82
November 15-16,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. Actually permitting the
Conservancy to purchase parcels 11 and 12 for $4 million provided
that they adhere to conservation zoning on this property and that we
then will take action to down zone it to conservation as quickly as we
can. Is that where we are?
MR. DICKMAN: Just the wording. I know that the way that we
want to have this worded -- because whether it's conservation or
agriculture or whatever, I think we need to -- we will agree that we're
going to down zone this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. DICKMAN: Our zoning, I believe, is agriculture. It may
be conservation. But if you leave the language broad enough that we
can meet with your county manager, with TPL, and get to a place that
this use is brought way down from commercial -- because I
understand that's the concern here -- bringing the use down to what is
commensurate with a $4 million value.
Obviously the highest and best value is for major development on
this. But if we will-- we will work with the county manager. I don't
want -- the language of stipulating a particular zoning may be too
limiting -- but give your county the authority to sit with us to down
zone this property, put whatever restrictions on it need to occur. The
zoning will have to occur after we purchase the property, but that
agreement can be worked out before the December closing date.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that could be a stipulation in the
motion.
Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to make it perfectly
clear we're not going to have any kind of development on here, we're
not going to have an amphitheater, we're not going to have all this
other stuff on there.
MR. DICKMAN: Sir, you have my promise as a gentleman and
as a representative of the Conservancy.
Page 83
November 15-16,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I don't see why we're
making any other motion, because we either -- the recommendation is
either option one, that's all the land except for parcels 11 and 12, or
option two that included it. You just let it alone, then the Conservancy
got what they wanted.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, the problem is, that some of the
commissioners have expressed concerns that the Conservancy might
do too much to this property and not keep it as a preserve, and it is
now commercial. And I think some of the commissioners are looking
for a better way to restrict the use of this property.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, how can you do that when
you already made the decision? If you make the decision not to
purchase it, it's going to happen in December. You're just going to
have to take the faith of the organization that they're going to do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't think so, but nevertheless.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. I just wanted to
check. One of the things that's always been important to me,
especially with Conservation Collier, was the access to property to the
public. Is there -- could we make every attempt possible to have
possibly paths wandering through there with some benches, keep it
still passive? Is that something that the Conservancy can commit to?
MR. DICKMAN: Absolutely. I mean, our present CEO said that
we have every intention to integrate this. I personally -- and we've
talked about this with a number of people -- it would be great if
someone can park at the zoo and the gardens, walk to our nature
center, enjoy the whole facility, and vice versa. There's no sense in
having people drive from one parking lot to the next. I mean, this
could be great.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm not quite through. And I
want to apologize if I put some people through a little bit of hell on the
Page 84
November 15-16, 2005
affordable housing issue.
One thing I did get that was very positive was a personal
commitment from many of you that come to see me, that regardless of
how this turned out, you would dedicate yourself to affordable
housing in the future to try to come up with some answers that are
missing in the program and see that it goes through. And I'm looking
forward to working with you at that end.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. In answer to Commissioner
Henning's question, I think what we were going to do here is trying to
get -- we were going to approve a commercial paper loan for the
remainder over $40 million, is that correct, so you needed 1.5 to make
up that 41.5?
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, that's the next item, and we'll cover that
right after you decide what you're going to do or not going to do, and
then we'll go right to it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then I'm going to make a motion and
see if we have sufficient support to proceed, that we permit the
Conservancy to purchase parcels 11 and 12 for $4 million, or that we
waive our right or interest in purchasing it, and that would be subject
to restrictions on the use that are consistent with conservation zoning,
and the details of the zoning will be worked out jointly between the
Conservancy and the Board of County Commissioners or staff at a
later date.
MR. DICKMAN: And TPL.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And TPL.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And TPL.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. We have a motion by
Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Fiala.
And a question by Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Could you include
Page 85
November 15-16,2005
reasonable public access? They agreed to it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: They've got public access off the
road.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, yeah, but it's not
necessarily --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What do you want, ATV in there?
MR. DICKMAN: Mr. Commissioner? And I'm probably
telegraphing what your attorney's about to tell you, which is, why
don't you make the wording that we will restrict the property to the
satisfaction of the county and TPL so that you don't get into some type
of contract zoning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Contract zoning, yes, yes, I understand.
All right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's part of the motion?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's part of the motion.
Okay. David, go ahead.
MR. WEIGEL: Now that you have a motion and you may have a
second, are you going to have those speakers that wish to speak?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I'm going to ask the public, do you
want to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory, or do you want us to
go ahead and vote on this or do you want to speak?
There's one person in the rear who wants to speak.
MR. KRASOWSKI: One over here that wants to speak.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Bob. We've got two of you. All
right.
MS. FILSON: You don't want me to call their names then?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. Well, I hope they will-- they will
MR. WEIGEL: Waive on the record.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are we required to call their names
legally?
MR. MUDD: It would be good, sir, if you call their names.
Page 86
November 15-16,2005
MR. WEIGEL: So they can waive on the record.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. FILSON: David Tetzlaff.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can just say you waive if you don't
want to get up and speak.
MR. TETZLAFF: Waive.
MS. FILSON: Sheila Crowley?
MS. CROWLEY: I waive.
MS. FILSON: Robert Butkiewicz?
MR. BUTKIEWICZ: I waive.
MS. FILSON: John Ribes?
MR. RIBES: I waive.
MS. FILSON: Nancy Tetzlaff. She'll be followed by David
Roellig.
MR. ROELLIG: I'll waive. Please sign the vote.
MS. FILSON: Bob Krasowski? Bob, you're second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're second, Bob.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay. This gentleman here?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
MS. FILSON: The lady.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The lady.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nancy Jane.
MS. TETZLAFF: Nancy Jane Tetzlaff Barrons. I would like to
speak on the lease, that that can be modified before five years if there's
some kind of a workshop with the commissioners, an open forum, that
the concerns of the newly-formed Naples Zoo board, a nonprofit
entity, can come forward with their concerns.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker's Bob Krasowski. He'll be
followed by Wayne Agnole.
MR. AGNOLE: I'll waive.
MS. FILSON: Robert Ott?
Page 87
November 15-16,2005
MR. KRASOWSKI: Hello, good morning still. I'm Bob
Krasowski. I'm a 26-year resident of Collier County, and I have an
interest in this issue.
And I think it's really inappropriate to characterize people who
still want to speak as wanting to snatch victory from the jaws -- defeat
from the jaws of victory, or whatever, okay, because we might have a
different perspective and you don't know what it is. This steam rolling
thing that you're doing here is really offensive. Even though --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Bob, you've got three minutes. Why
don't you use them. .
MR. KRASOWSKI: I know, and I am using them. The -- okay.
So what I see here -- initially the voters voted to purchase all of this
for $40 million. So you had to make some adjustments, fine.
But now, given this map here, you have the Jungle Larry's which
you're going to -- you have a deal set already with to operate the zoo,
and then below them you have the Conservancy. Where is the public
access to this?
I think that you should buy 11 and 12 today, the county should,
and then work -- then work a negotiated agreement with the
Conservancy that would allow you to give them the amount of
property they need and then allow for unencumbered public access to
especially area number two, where you can have boardwalks and
passive park used.
You have Conservation Collier, who is heavily influenced by the
Conservancy, and I'm not saying that's a negative thing, but they're --
they'll make a move to purchase -- to participate in the purchase of
those properties.
But what I don't want to see is that the public, wanting to use this
land after paying for it, has to go through Jungle Larry's or through the
Conservancy to get to it. I want a path to it.
Now, there's some land to the north of it. But I think you have to
do your homework better and do some more work as far as assuring
Page 88
November 15-16,2005
public access.
You're saying that you're going to down zone this to
conservation, but the point was made, they can still build -- put
buildings on there, sheds, they can put gift shops. That's commercial
environmental. That is not a conservation.
This -- we voted to preserve this stuff for passive use, not for the
expansion of any special interest.
I appreciate the Conservancy. I appreciate what they do in the
community . You have -- they fill this room with their supporters.
There's a lot more people in this county that have interests in different
areas that want to see their preservation money spent, their tax dollars
spent, in a more, I believe, appropriate way, that are not in this room
today. So you have to take them into consideration.
So before you steam roll this thing along, Commissioner Coyle, I
would suggest that you give greater consideration of this and buy 11
and 12, by the county, and make sure the county gets what it wants.
No building on there. It's for preservation. There's gopher tortoises
and all that. If they're real environmentalists, they won't want to
expand the building.
Look what happened years ago, to those of you who have been
here, Lely Barefoot Beach. It was an option for the county and the
state to buy the whole thing. Some people got involved that were
more interested in development. They developed part of it. The park
for the people is way down at the end. We had to fight for years to get
past the guardhouse, which I don't think that's still happening, but -- so
that's another example of, we don't want to be encumbered in our
access to this property.
Thank you very much for your attention.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Bob.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Robert Ott. He'll be followed
by Kathy Patterson.
MS. PATTERSON: I waive.
Page 89
November 15-16,2005
MS. FILSON: Andrew Dickman?
MR. DICKMAN: I'll waive, already spoke.
MS. FILSON: Richard Grant?
MR. GRANT: I waive.
MS. FILSON: Kathy Prosser?
MS. PROSSER-BOVARD: Waive.
MS. FILSON: Okay, sir.
MR.OTT: My name is Robert Ott. I reside at 160 Moorings
Park Drive. I'm a citizen of Naples for 27 years. I was a director of
the Conservancy for five or six years in the 1980s. And ever since the
Conservancy has desired to establish its property where it is now, it
has wanted this particular piece of property we're talking about today
because they did want the access to Goodlette Road.
I hope that the county will not deny and choke off the last vestige
of the possibility of the Conservancy to purchase this property and
utilize it as an easement or as an entrance into their property. And as
sure as I stand here, the Conservancy is not going to build buildings on
that property and decimate it. This is not the mission of the
Conservancy. The mission -- the purpose of the Conservancy is to
preserve habitat and properties that conform with wetlands and other
environmental habitat. And you could rest assured that what they
really want there and only want there is an entrance into this property.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Brad Cornell. Bill Klohn. He'll be followed by
Mimi W olok.
MS. WOLOK: Waive.
MS. FILSON: Bill Barnett.
MR. BARNETT: I'd like to waive, but I have to read a letter.
MS. FILSON: Okay, go ahead.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute. Bill Klohn was first.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The other Bill.
Page 90
November 15-16,2005
MS. FILSON: No, Mr. Klohn's first.
MR. KLOHN: Honorable Mayor.
Good morning, thank you. My name is Bill Klohn. I'm president
ofMDG Capital Corporation. As you know, our company is very
active in the development and promotion of affordable housing.
The need for affordable housing in not just this county, but ever
county, is tremendous, and it's getting worse by the day.
I'm not going to waste a lot of time because I can see where this
vote is going to go today, but I want to ask one question. There's a big
pie on your screen. A lot of that pie is going to conservation, and I
recognize -- and by the way, I do applaud the efforts of the
Conservancy. I think you've done a great job over the years. I've been
here 25 years, and I can see why you want this land.
Back to the pie. Parcels 11 and 12 -- I believe it's 11 and 12 -- 11
and 12 are also interesting parcels for affordable housing. And my
question is, can't we all have just a slice of the pie? And I would
suggest that you consider that we work together and give you the
access through the land but possibly also add some affordable housing
to it while you're getting the access.
In the last week, I was contacted by Cormac Giblin, who is the
affordable housing fellow here in Collier County. We worked
together to develop a plan that provided 79 affordable, professional,
workforce housing units for this property.
I recognize that that plan may have gone to a lot of work for
nothing. But before we let it go today, I wanted to ask the question,
can we not consider giving the Conservancy its access but also
provide the affordable housing that is desperately needed, not just in
Collier County, but in this area of Collier County and Naples?
As we all know, you've got hospitals within a half a mile, you've
got a police station very nearby . You've got many medical services
nearby, grocery stores. And to put affordable housing where it's
needed, where the people are working, that's what we should be
Page 91
November 15-16,2005
thinking about.
And this piece of land that we're talking about today, parcels 11
and 12, once it's gone for affordable housing or a compromise with the
Conservancy for their access in affordable housing, it's the last
opportunity for this.
So please -- please consider before you absolutely vote and down
zone it -- and, again, I do support Conservancy's mission in Collier
County, but maybe there's a compromise here.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Mayor Barnett, and he'll be
followed by your final speaker, Kathy Granoff.
MS. GRANOFF: I'll waive.
MS. FILSON: Okay.
MAYOR BARNETT: Thank you, and good morning, Chairman
Coyle, fellow County Commissioners. I would waive, but I have to
read this based on my orders from the rest of city council.
Dear Chairman Coyle and County Commissioners, on behalf of
the Naples City Council and the City of Naples Planning Advisory
Board, I am writing to urge your support of the Conservancy's offer to
purchase a 7.37 -acre site from the Trust for Public Lands.
At our city council meeting on Monday, November 14,2005, we
discussed the importance of the preservation of this property and they
all recognize that the need for more workforce housing in Collier
County is an issue that most people can agree upon.
However, the property that the Conservancy has offered to buy,
in Council's opinion, is more suited for conservation, and I believe that
was the intent of the voters.
Your consideration of this request is greatly appreciated.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, Mayor Barnett.
That was our last speaker?
Page 92
November 15-16,2005
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioners, do you have any
questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then I'll call the motion.
All in favor of the motion, please specify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 4-1, with Commissioner
Henning dissenting.
(Applause.)
MR. DICKMAN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good luck to you all and thank you for
being here. Have a good day.
Where would you like to go next? We have seven minutes.
Item #10F
RESOLUTION 2005-399: AUTHORIZING THE BORROWING OF
AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $7,200,000 FROM THE
POOLED COMMERCIAL PAPER LOAN PROGRAM OF THE
FLORIDA LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE COMMISSION
PURSUANT TO THE LOAN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE
COMMISSION IN ORDER TO FINANCE THE ACQUISITION OF
THE CARIBBEAN GARDENS PROPERTY; AUTHORIZING THE
EXECUTION OF A LOAN NOTE OR NOTES TO EVIDENCE
SUCH BORROWING; AGREEING TO SECURE SUCH LOAN
Page 93
November 15-16,2005
NOTE OR NOTES WITH A COVENANT TO BUDGET AND
APPROPRIATE LEGALLY AVAILABLE NON-AD VALOREM
REVENUES AS PROVIDED IN THE LOAN AGREEMENT;
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF SUCH
OTHER DOCUMENTS AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO EFFECT
SUCH BORROWING; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE,
MIKE SMYKOWSKI, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT
AND BUDGET - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we need to do 10F.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 10F, okay.
MR. MUDD: And 10F -- ladies and gentlemen, if you'd -- ladies
and gentlemen, we're going to try to get one more item done before
lunch, so if you could -- if you want to stay, please stay; if you want to
leave, please do that quietly. Discussion out in the hallway is
encouraged.
Brings us to 10F. This item to be heard with item 10E. It's a
recommendation to adopt a resolution to authorize the borrowing of an
amount not to exceed $7.2 million from the Pooled Commercial Paper
Loan Program with the Florida local government finance commission
pursuant to a loan agreement between the Board of County
Commissioners and the commission in order to finance the acquisition
of the Caribbean Gardens property; authorizing the execution of a loan
note or notes to evidence such borrowing; agreeing to secure such loan
note or notes with a covenant to budget and appropriate legally
available non-ad valorem revenues as provided in the loan agreement;
authorizing the execution and delivery of such other documents as
may be necessary to effect such borrowing; and providing an effective
date.
Mr. Michael Smykowski, your director of office and
management and budget will present.
Mike, I think I just did present. If you could just tell the board
Page 94
November 15-16, 2005
how much you need in order to purchase what they just voted on in
10E with all negotiated costs, sir.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Actually -- for the record, Michael
Smykowski, O&B director. I believe you can approve the resolution
in its current format recognizing obviously that the total purchase
price of 41 ,5-, that will be plus closing costs, plus contingencies and
prepaid interest on the commercial paper loan.
My guess is, that would probably be a million and a half dollars.
But, again, recognizing that you don't have an exact figure because
we'll be calculating prepaid interest based on the prevailing interest
rate.
At that point in time, my recommendation will be to adopt the
resolution in its current format recognizing that you'll ultimately be
borrowing much less than 7.2 million because the margin above 40 in
the actual purchase price was only a million and a half dollars.
You had approximately outlined in the executive summary about
$170,000 worth of anticipated closing costs, title insurance, and the
like, and then you'd have prepaid interest. But my recommendation
would be, adopt it in its current format.
Obviously the clerk will oversee the final transaction in
conjunction with us, so we will not be issuing any more money than is
absolutely necessary to purchase that property and close on the
transaction as approved by the board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I understand that we're
going to be spending less than the $40 million we're authorized, so I
can support this. I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion for approval by Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Henning.
Any further discussion?
MR. MUDD: I need to clarify a statement that Commissioner
Page 95
November 15-16, 2005
Coletta just made. If I heard it right, he said we're going to be
spending less than the $40 million. We're going to be spending less
than the $7.2 million that's in this particular item. The $40 million is
already a given. So it's going to be something above $40 million.
And from what I just garnered from Mr. Smykowski, it's going to be
something in the order of about 42.5 million.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: One other -- one other point, Mr.
Chairman, before you take that roll call vote on the motion is, that
there were -- from the tax levy this year, you actually levied ad
valorem taxes on the .15.
Obviously whatever cash we have in the bank prior to closing,
we would use that available cash to, in effect, buy down the necessary
amount of the commercial paper loan. We would only want to borrow
exactly enough to close on the transaction, and that would take into
account any cash that would have been collected from your .15 tax
mill levy that was levied in FY -'06 for the Caribbean Gardens as well.
Just so that's clear.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta, does your motion
still stand?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It still stands, but I still
understand that with the grants that we're going to get out there, that
the cost will eventually come down to an undetermined number. We
went through a great discussion on this earlier, and I'm really getting
perplexed now on this part of it.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the grants are not a given, okay?
Weare going to apply for them, we are going to do our darnedest to
go get those dollars, okay. We're going to make our best case in front
of those agencies that basically can make the approvals on that and
bring those things home. The reason we wanted to go to commercial
paper on this particular item is we believe as a staff, that we are going
to receive dollars from Big Cypress Basin, from Conservation Collier,
from the Florida Community Trust, that will significantly --
Page 96
November 15-16,2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Airport.
MR. MUDD: -- bring down the long-term lending that we have
to do. That's why we didn't go into a bond item. It would be foolish
on our part from a staff perspective and our financial advisor's
recommendation. Why would we go into a long-term borrowing on
40 million when all this money comes in and then you're still stuck,
you can't pay it off, you can't pay the loan off for some five to 10
years when the bond item --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand you, Mr. Mudd.
And what I'm saying is is that we've had the commitment from many,
many people that came before us that they're going to step up to the
plate, and I expect that they will.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I'm expecting it, too, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was going the same place as
Commissioner Coletta, so nothing else.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Is there a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I did, we did.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right. You made a motion to
approve, Commissioner Henning made the second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the clarification is to
approve the resolution.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
Page 97
November 15-16,2005
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you.
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY JO PRESI BRISSON TO
DISCUSS ROAD PAVING IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES -
MOTION TO BRING BACK AT A FUTURE BCC MEETING-
APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, County manager, do we -- Sue, do
we have the other two public petitions still pending here; are they
here?
MS. FILSON: One public petition asked to be continued because
she didn't know --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. FILSON: And the other one I'm not sure of, 6B.
MR. MUDD: That was 6B, Jo Presi Brisson had to leave and
asked to continue that item, and I need a vote to have that item
continued by the board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we're going to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make a motion to continue
Jo Preston's (sic) item there for the public petition.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I second it.
All in favor, please signify --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that the one that wanted to
continue?
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am, 6B.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
MS. FILSON: Who made the second?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I did.
Page 98
November 15-16,2005
MS. FILSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So the item is continued until the next
meeting.
Item # 6C
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY JOHN J. JULIANO TO
DISCUSS ACCEPTANCE OF HENDERSON CREEK DRIVE AS
A COUNTY ROAD - MOTION TO BRING BACK AT A FUTURE
BCC MEETING - APPROVED
Then we'll try to get in this next one, Mr. John M. Juliano, before
we break for lunch so that you don't have to sit here while we eat
lunch.
MR. JULIANO: Thank you, Commissioners, and good
afternoon. It is after noon.
My name is John Julian. I'm president of Holiday Manor Co-op.
We are a senior community, and we are located at 1185 Henderson
Creek Drive.
On March 5th, 1964, a quitclaim deed was recorded in the
official books of Collier County conveying to the county a strip of
land 60 feet wide and approximately 2,700 feet in length, with a
60-foot radius cul-de-sac at the terminating point. That created
Henderson Creek Drive.
Holiday Manor, a senior community of 312 sites comprised of
Page 99
November 15-16,2005
mobile homes, RVs and park models occupies all of the land, all of the
area to the north side of Henderson Creek Drive.
On the south side, there are two vacant parcels, there are four
mobile home parks, a single-story condominium complex, a
three- family home, and a manufactured home at the end of the
cul-de-sac.
Last year we inquired with the county about cleaning the
drainage ditch that runs parallel to Henderson Creek. That ditch
serves to take runoff stormwater which reduces flooding on our streets
because of our low level.
We were informed that the county could not do that work
because it was a private road. We were caught totally by surprise by
that statement, as the county -- we've been a co-op for 10 years, and
during those 10 years, the county has cleaned the drainage ditch, they
have repainted a white line that delineates a sidewalk area for people
to walk on.
We've talked to the previous owner that developed Holiday
Manor Park in 1968. He said he did not pave the road. Nobody
knows who paved the road.
And we have not discussed this with our own residents. My
board is aware of it, but we have not discussed it with our residents.
We have not discussed it with the other property owners along
Henderson Creek Drive or the residents, because I think that would
have just attracted a crowd and total confusion knowing, why isn't this
a county road.
So my request today is that the Board of Collier County
Commissioners accept Henderson Creek Drive as a county road and
not as a private road.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't know. I hate to do this,
Page 100
November 15-16,2005
but I don't see the necessary staff here to answer the questions, so it
looks like lunch started.
Possibly -- I hate to do this to you, sir, but without our staff here
to be able to answer questions, we're in kind of a dilemma. I hate to
tell you one way or the other what we can do. Could we continue--
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, normally at a petition, what the
board is doing is basically saying you're going to bring this item back
to another meeting or not. In this particular case, I would --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion we bring it
back at another meeting, because I can't get the questions answered at
this one.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And that's the result you want
because --
MR. JULIANO: We'd like you to consider it. And County
Manager Jim Mudd, when he did respond to me in his letter, he did
say that the board would not make a decision today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
MR. JULIANO: So we are fully aware of that. But we ask that
you consider accepting the road as a county road.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion to bring it
back at a regularly scheduled meeting when we've got staff members
and everyone here to address the issue. It's a motion by Commissioner
Coletta and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Absent.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas is in
Page 101
November 15-16, 2005
opposition, and Commissioner Henning is absent for the vote. So it
passes. And we are now--
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, before you do that, the
commissioners were supposed to give me their votes for 9 A.
Commissioner Fiala gave me her votes yesterday. But I need your
primary and your alternate selection for the Southwest Florida
Highway Authority before you break for lunch so that I can get that
stuff compiled and bring back --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How about I give it to you right after we
break?
MS. FILSON: I thought we were going to hear that tomorrow
mornIng.
MR. MUDD: Weare. I just need to get it compiled, tallied.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. With that, we are breaking for
lunch. Be back here at one o'clock.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. The Board
of County Commission Meeting is back in session.
Am I correct that we are going to start with number 7 A, County
Manager?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, you are absolutely correct. And number
7 A is, this item was continued from the October 25, 2005, BCC
meeting to the No -- excuse me, no, we're not going to do 7 A, sir.
We're going to do the time certain item for one p.m. that's lOA, so I
stand corrected.
Item #10A
Page 102
November 15-16, 2005
REVIEW OF THE APPROVAL OF A COMMERCIAL
EXCAVATION PERMIT (AR 3853) FOR "MlRASOL
FLOWW A Y AND WATER MANAGEMENT LAKES, LOCATED
IN SECTIONS 10, 15, & 22, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST: BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY LEE COUNTY
(RESIDENTIAL), ON THE WEST BY PARKLANDS PUD,
TERRAFINA PUD, AND LAND ZONED AGRICULTURAL, ON
THE SOUTH BY IMMOKALEE ROAD AND THE
COCOHATCHEE CANAL, AND ON THE EAST BY LAND
ZONED AGRICULTURAL AND BY THE HERITAGE BAY PUD
- APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: lOA. Okay.
MR. MUDD: This item was heard -- this item to be heard at one
p.m. It's a review of the approval of a commercial excavation permit,
AR-3853, for Mirasol flowway and water management lakes, located
in sections 10, 15, and 22, Township 48 south, Range 26 east,
bounded on the north by Lee County residential, on the west by
Parklands PUD, Terrafina PUD, and land zoned agricultural, on the
south by Immokalee Road and the Cocohatchee Canal, and on the east
by land zoned agricultural and by Heritage Bay PUD.
And Mr. Joseph Schmitt, your administrator for community
development's environmental services, will present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, I -- without going into great
detail with the executive summary, as you well know, this is coming
to you at your direction based on a public petition back on September
27th by Mr. Brad Cornell, who -- a Big Cypress policy associate for
the Collier County Audubon Society, you had asked that this come
forward.
Just to reiterate, on May 11, 2004, we came to you, the board --
and the board approved and authorized the issuing of an excavation
Page 103
November 15-16,2005
permit for the Mirasol development, LL Communities, Incorporated.
Basically it was an excavation permit to begin excavation for what is
being termed as the Mirasol Flowway.
That excavation permit was administratively approved, meaning
that it was approved by the board but it was not approved by the staff
and will not be approved by the staffuntil we obtain the proper federal
and state permits.
This has been in permitting under the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers for probably well over a year, a year to year and a half.
And what you had asked is for this item to come back to you to be --
for discussion.
I want to point out from the standpoint of the Board of County
Commissioners and what staff is here to talk about primarily is the
permit itself, and the option you basically have, you can revoke that
administrative approval, but once the applicant receives the
appropriate permits, they have every right to come back and apply for
that excavation permit.
If they do not apply for that excavation permit, once they get
their proper permits, they can always submit any required plans or
plats, and upon administrative review through staff, they can begin
that project as well.
The zoning exists. I gave you a history of the surrounding
properties because this flowway is an integral flowway between the
Terrafina PUD, the Mirasol PUD, Parklands PUD, and Olde Cypress.
And it is an integral flowway that's designed between those properties.
I am -- I have asked that the applicant come prepared to discuss
or ask any -- answer any questions that you wish to ask in regards to
the science or the design regarding the flowway.
So subj ect to that, what are your questions regarding staff, at least
in regards to the administrative approval of the excavation permits?
The excavation permit was only approved for the initial work on the
flowway, again subject to proper presentation of approved U.S. Army
Page 104
November 15-16,2005
Corps of Engineers section 404, wetland permits, and the associated
state permits.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You asked what our concerns
were. What my concern is, is I received this notification from the
chief regulatory division for the Army Corps, and they had so many
concerns that they mentioned throughout their letter that I just didn't
feel we should go ahead until we got their permit, because they might
not give it. I know you keep saying we're going to get it, but I wonder
if we don't. And they continue to make statements that the flowway
might not perform as we'd predicted, and -- or as was predicted. And
-- well, anyway, that's my concern.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, ma'am -- and again, just to reiterate. We
will not give the final approval until the Corps issues its permits. And
as I noted in the executive summary, this is in the federal review
process, in the permit process. Nothing can start on that property until
they receive the state and federal permits.
As I noted, the property has been zoned through a PUD. And--
but no work, again, can start. So it is up to the federal agencies as to
whether or not they decide to approve the flowway as designed, and
nothing can happen until they actually have those approvals.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You asked what our concerns were,
well, we brought this back because Brad Cornell had some concerns,
and I'd like him to come up and tell us about them, because that was
where it all began.
MR. SCHMITT: Okay. Would you like to hear from Brad first
or the background on the flowway?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas first.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Have you been given any
information in regards, what's the maximum volume that this flowway
will handle in a hundred-year storm?
MR. SCHMITT: Sir, I would have to defer to the applicant for
Page 105
November 15-16,2005
that. I -- again, I am not part of the permitting process in regards to
the flowway. So we have not done any analysis. Based on the
guidance in our GMP, we defer to state and federal agencies for that
kind of technical assistance, and the federal permitting.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta, did you want to
ask a question?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll wait until after.
MR. SCHMITT: We can have the applicant give a brief
rundown in regards to how the flowway is designed and what the
intent is, and --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
MR. SCHMITT: -- then certainly you can hear from Mr. Cornell
as far as what his concerns are, and the concerns of the Audubon
Society .
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So Commissioner Fiala, you were
asking for Mr. Cornell to come up --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and make a presentation?
Mr. Cornell?
MR. CORNELL: Thank you, Commissioners. Brad Cornell on
behalf of Collier County Audubon Society and Audubon of Florida.
With me also is Jason Lauritsen with the Audubon of Florida,
Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. He's the Big Cypress science
coordinator.
Commissioners, we believe that new critical data and information
have become available since Mirasol's permit applications were first
reviewed by Collier County. Audubon wished to present two
categories of new data and information which we believe are strong
enough concerns to warrant reconsideration of all previous actions
based on the old applicant data.
The first category is lower than historic ground water levels with
Page 106
November 15-16, 2005
corresponding huge increases in wetland impacts. And the second
category is, greater impacts to endangered wood storks and their vital
rookery at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary.
One important point to note in this reconsideration is, whether or
not Mirasol is built does not affect the extension of County Road 951
to Lee County. We support this extension route regardless, and that --
you can see that route at the PD&E study website CR951.com. We
still support that route. It goes through the preserve area north of
Miraso 1.
Original Mirasol permitting information said, this project would
restore wetlands, benefit wood storks, and provide regional flood
protection benefits for Bonita Springs.
It has now been shown to provide none of these benefits. It will
kill at least 47 wood stork chicks each year, destroy or harm at least
962 acres of wetlands, and provide negligible regional flood
protection.
Jason Lauritsen, Big Cypress science coordinator for Audubon of
Florida, and an experienced wood stork biologist at Corkscrew Swamp
Sanctuary, will now briefly present data which document our concerns
over the grave risk Mirasol poses to wood storks, wetlands, and the
Cocohatchee Slough and Corkscrew Swamp itself.
These concerns are shared by Florida Wildlife Federation, the
Conservancy of Southwest Florida, and National Wildlife Federation.
Based on these data, we ask that you consider your provisional
approval of Mirasol's excavation permit in May 2004 as based on
incorrect data; and, therefore, in error.
Please act on this new knowledge by rescinding your provisional
approval for that excavation permit. And now Jason?
MR. LAURITSEN: I believe you all have a copy of the
handouts. The first one describes the -- you can see the border of the
Mirasol property indicated on the left-hand side. It is outlined in
black. That's the Mirasol property. It is approximately five miles --
Page 107
November 15-16,2005
okay.
It's approximately five miles from the historic Corkscrew
Rookery, and I have indicated in shaded circles there a prey-based
recruitment area where the important fish resource for wood storks
breed and populate during the high water times. That's a critical
aspect of identifying what the impacts are going to be on wood storks.
In addition to the timing of when those wetlands are available
also has a -- has a determining factor on whether or not wood storks
have a successful nesting season or an unsuccessful nesting season.
I'd also like to point out, the location of the 951 extension well,
right at the arrow, and the location of the Coco 95 well. Both of those
wells are South Florida Water Management District wells. The
information that I use from those is located on the DB hydro website
for the district.
This first graph indicates the 951 well data, and the top red peaks
there, those demonstrate when water is available during certain times
of the year for wood stork foraging. And just to give you a little idea,
if I could use -- can we switch, can we switch to the --
MR. MUDD: Yes, we sure can. Hang on.
MR. LAURITSEN: All right. I apologize for the crude nature of
this graphic, but --
MR. MUDD: Use the hand-held mike.
MR. LAURITSEN: Thank you. Just to give you a little
background on wood storks, wood storks historically would come in
and nest in November and December. And what would happen is the
water table recedes throughout the year from -- starting in late
September, all the way through to the rainy season in June.
And as that water table recedes, different wetlands come on line
for wood stork foraging. They require very specific requirements of
water depth, and they require also high concentrations of fish.
We have converted a lot of November and December wetlands
into other land uses. As a result, that has caused wood storks to
Page 108
November 15-16,2005
historically abandon their historic nesting times, and nest initiations
are now coming in late January and February. That has serious
impacts on wood storks' productivity overall.
Going back to the PowerPoint, if we could.
Again, looking at this graph, you have nine different nesting
seasons identified here, and you can see three years where wood
storks did not nest at all. The water levels at those times were at a
maximum of 1.4 feet above the bottom of that 951 well flag pond.
The years when wood storks were successful in nesting was for a
period of time above 1.8 feet in depth. You can see the two most
productive years were in '99 and 2001 when, together, over 5,600
wood storks were produced during those -- those two seasons.
What the Mirasol proj ect goal is, is to reduce peak staging in that
area to prevent flooding in Bonita Springs. As Brad Cornell talked
about, there is no measurable benefit to Bonita Springs in the
modeling of this flowway, and yet, at the same time, the area around
the Mirasol flowway does reduce the peak stages six inches.
When you take a look, again, at the two graphics here where you
have significant wood stork chick production at Corkscrew Swamp,
you reduce that by six inches and you get into going from 3,160 wood
storks to 780 or 450 or O.
Another goal is to reduce inundation times reflected on the
landscape. Inundation times are reflected by the width of those peaks.
Short inundation times don't produce enough fish for wood storks --
for the wood storks to have concentrated prey in those shallow
wetlands.
In addition to the timing issue, they are replacing that shallow
wetland with a deeper wetland, which is a four-foot deep trench with a
couple of eight-foot deep ponds, and it -- the bottom of that trench is
just above nine feet.
The only real-time data that you have at the 951 extension well
goes down to just below 11 feet. We don't have any real data which
Page 109
November 15-16,2005
indicates when those wood storks would be able to feed in that trench.
If you do extend those well lines, you get an idea of when those
depths in that trench might become available for wood storks to
forage. At the very upper end, they just start to become available in
mid-January and February, in some years not at all. So you're
replacing a wetland that was available, and often November and
December, producing large numbers of chicks with a wetland which is
available later in the year, when wetlands are not as scarce.
What happens with wood storks, when you delay their nest
initiation, is their productivity drops dramatically. When wood storks
start nesting in November, on average, throughout the course of the 50
years wood storks have been tracked at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary,
they produce roughly 3,000 chicks per year.
When they start to nest somewhere in December, they produce
over 2,000 chicks per year. When they start to nest after January 1st,
the productivity drops precipitously.
What is happening here with the design of this flowway is you
have reduced peak water levels which reduces the inundation times
and reduces the availability of November and December wetlands for
wood storks to forage, which will, again, decrease their opportunity to
nest early in the year.
In addition, this project was presented to Corkscrew Swamp
initially as restoration. We were told that the water levels on site were
actually wetter now than they used to be. We were told that these
historic conditions had changed because of land changes around the
area.
At first we believed maybe there was something to this. I looked
a little further into that. This is a slide image, which you may have
seen the last time we presented before you indicating the wetland
delineation in 1985 and the wetland delineation in 1999 by the same
entity, the South Florida Water Management District.
They concluded from this graphic that 800 acres of wetlands had
Page 110
November 15-16,2005
been added to this site because of flood water levels. The reality
behind that is, the Florida Administrative Code changed for
delineation of wetlands and they began to include hydric pine
flatwoods. Most of Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary is hydric pine
flatwoods.
Under the 1985 ruling, much of Corkscrew would have been
delineated uplands in 1985, whereas now, in 1999, it would be
considered wetlands. It wasn't a result of flooding and increased water
levels. It was a result of a rule change.
We feel that this information, in partnership with some other
information that's come out recently, indicates that there's a drying
trend on site. A density reduction ground water recharge and mining
study done just recently by the City of Bonita Springs is found on line
at City of Bonita Springs dot org, I believe.
Greg Rawl did that study, and you can see I added a figure in the
lower right-hand corner of this graphic where it shows the top two
sections of Mirasol where it comes out on the study. This indicates
that the very top right corner of section 10 does have a slightly wetter
trend to it, but the rest of section 10 is dryer. The entire section 15 is
dryer from the periods of 1991 to 2002, according to Greg Rawl's
study.
This would indicate a drying trend from that period of record.
Fish and Wildlife Service believed that the information that was given
to them by the applicant, that over the last 20 years, water levels were
actually increasing. That doesn't seem to be the case.
When you look at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary's water level
data and rainfall from the period of 1983 to current times, you see that
rainfall has trended upward. You would expect then if rainfall is
increasing, you would also see a note -- a noted rise commensurate
with the rainfall increasing as well when you look at the well data.
You take a look at the 951 well, and you do see a very slight rise
in the water level. But when you compare that with the slope of the
Page 111
November 15-16, 2005
line for rainfall at Corkscrew, it does not have as significant a slope,
therefore, you could explain that increase in slope on -- that very slight
increase in slope on the 951 well data not as a wetting trend, but
simply a reflection of the rainfall.
When you take a look at the data from the Coco 95 well, which is
active from 1983 to 1995, you see a decrease in water level on the
surficial aquifer. So, again, we should be seeing an increase, but
instead we see a decrease because there is a drying trend, a significant
drying trend.
That's really actually all I need to say about this. We're hoping
that you will consider that there are some other alternatives. If our
goals are to alleviate flood pressure in Bonita Springs, there are some
alternatives that do comply with the Southwest Florida environmental
impact statement and the South Lee County watershed plan, and their
goals and recommendations, we'd hope that you would consider those.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Coletta, you have a question?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I do. Mr. Schmitt? After
the report you just had -- what expertise you do have, maybe one of
your staff could answer that -- do you have any concerns about the
plans of the flowway as it exists now and has been sent on to the
federal authorities for their blessing?
MR. SCHMITT: Actually, Commissioner, my concerns are
irrelevant, and I really am not being rude with this commission.
The decision is up to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, who
sends out to the other federal agencies for comment, and they will
issue the permit based on the data that they have. And this data is
certainly pertinent and should be forwarded to the federal agencies for
consideration.
So I mean, that's where we're at. When we do a review from an
environmental standpoint, we review in accordance with the compo
Page 112
November 15-16, 2005
plan and with the LDC, likewise with any of the land development.
And our code is very clear that we defer to the state and federal
agencies for these -- this type of technical review and permitting. And
they will issue the permit. If they issue the permit, we will issue the
excavation permit. If they deny the applicant the permit, the applicant
certainly can attempt to redesign to seek approval from the federal
agencies, which they will then come back to us for some kind of a
modified plan. But from a standpoint of the data presented, I'm not
really ready to opine as to whether or not it's an impact, either positive
or negative, on the design.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do you have the human
resources to be able to take the place of the Army Corps of Engineers?
MR. SCHMITT: Do I? No, sir, I do not.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is water management here, if I
may continue.
MR. SCHMITT: Clarence Tears is here from the Big Cypress
Basin.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Tears, would you mind
coming up? Welcome back, by the way. Thank you for serving this
country .
MR. SCHMITT: And if I could just reiterate my past
experiences in the Corps of Engineers, again, I would not take this on
without the adequate staff here, nor would I, unless the board directs
we take on this type --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand.
MR. SCHMITT: -- of permitting application. Clarence?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Tears, in your--
MR. TEARS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: With your expertise, do you
have any concerns about the flowway that the county passed on the
Army Corps of Engineers? Do you feel the Army Corps of Engineers
is capable of making a decision of this magnitude?
Page 113
November 15-16, 2005
MR. TEARS: Yes, I do. I mean, the Army Corps of Engineers
has a sister agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife to do their environmental
review, so it's gone through the review process.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And they're charged with the
task of finding the -- if it's inadequate, and at that point in time, they
would turn it back.
I'm kind of lost of the concern that the petitioner is coming
forward with. Possibly the Army Corps of Engineers would be --
wouldn't be diligent in their duties. Have you seen this happen
recently in the -- where the Army Corps of Engineers as far as these
flowways go, has not followed through?
MR. TEARS: I mean, nothing in life is perfect. And, you know,
everybody reviews permits based on the most recent information
available, so I'm sure the Army Corps of Engineers will use due
diligence.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do you have any
recommendations for this commission?
MR. TEARS: Not at this point.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Clarence, I have a couple of
questions for you. I remember a few -- or a couple of years ago
already when we turned over the south Golden Gate Estates, and I was
riding on a bus with you, and I believe it was you that made mention
that any time you dig ditches like they did out in south Golden Gate
Estates, it has a reflection on the water levels two miles on either side
of the ditch.
Do you think that -- what's the effect going to be when we do put
it this ditch down through there? Is it going to have an effect similar
to what happened out in Golden Gate Estates years ago?
MR. TEARS : Well, from the modeling I've seen -- and the
control, what's important is there's control at Cocohatchee Canal,
Page 114
November 15-16,2005
which has a certain elevation that we maintain -- it shouldn't have the
impacts.
The impacts, you know, from the environmental standpoint,
would be some of the tree removal, the improvements made to
accommodate this ditch and lakes. But from a standpoint, from a
water standpoint, in the modeling that we looked at, most of the
improvements that are made by this channel are localized right at the
project location.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Where did you get this data and
how old data is it?
MR. TEARS: Most of the data that we reviewed was -- this
project's been going on for three, four years -- three, four years. I've
been reviewing data for probably the last four years.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Ifwe had a 25-year event
and had to release this water or it was coming down through this
flowway, what kind of an impact would it have once it reaches the
Immokalee Canal and then into the Cocohatchee? What effects is it
going to have on the estuary system?
MR. TEARS: When we say 25-year event, is that countywide or
localized? A 25-year event countywide would have catastrophic
impacts on the system.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. What about if it was just
local, up in the southern Lee County, northern Collier County?
MR. TEARS: Well, that system is designed for a 25-year storm
event. So it would be maximized at that point.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And how would -- how are we
going to retain the water so that it doesn't -- there isn't a massive surge
going down there? I just don't want to get ourselves in the same
problem --
MR. TEARS: Well, most of your -- most of your developments
have on-site retention, and they're only allowed their pre-imposed
storm conveyances, the same pre as post.
Page 115
November 15-16,2005
So their internal design is designed to allow so much water out at
any given moment based on rainfall, and they're pre-imposed, storm
event. But the channel and the canal is designed to handle a 25-year
storm event. Every development along that breach of channel would
be releasing water at that point.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's what I'm concerned about. I
just don't want to see us get into the same kind of predicament that's
up at the Caloosahatchee when they release large amounts of water out
of Lake Okeechobee. We're going to have a series of lakes and canals
on this property, and then also we've got all the other PUDs that are
along this area. And I'm just wondering what the total effect is going
to be.
MR. TEARS: It was all -- it was all -- the whole Cocohatchee
improvements was designed with 750 CFS total for this area. There's
like two possible flowways, the Mirasol flowway, in addition, there's
another flowway out by the Centex property, or the pits.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Now, you're talking -- CFS, you're
talking cubic feet per second?
MR. TEARS: Cubic feet per second. And the maximum that we
would allow through both of these flowways, which were considered
into the design of Cocohatchee Channel, was 700 CFS, right around
700 CFS.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And then what happens if we
exceed that? In other words, we exceed the rain and it's backing up --
MR. TEARS: Well, it's designed not to exceed that. The only
way we would exceed that 700 CFS through those flowways is if we
had such a storm event that we had sheet flow across everybody's
property .
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. TEARS: And at that point, you know, the system fails
because it exceeds design.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
Page 116
November 15-16,2005
MR. TEARS: Does that answer your --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, it answers part of my
question. The only thing that I'm still leery about is, if -- when we dig
a four-foot ditch, what's this going to have to do with the water table
behind it in years that we have dry years? Is it going to dry out the
wetlands instead of being sheet flow --
MR. TEARS: Well, the idea is, that's what we -- you know, on
all our system, we have control -- control gated structures to alleviate
that possibility. And if we don't have the rainfall to raise the water to
a height where we open the structures, we keep them closed. But
anywhere in Collier County, if we have one or two dry years in a row,
we'll all see the impacts in the channel system.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got one last question. Why do
you think it's taking the Corps so long to determine whether this is in
compliance or not in compliance, this flowway?
MR. TEARS: I think because of all the concerns raised by the
environmental groups, they're trying to do a thorough review of this
project.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Do you know when you
would anticipate when this might be approved?
MR. TEARS: Honestly, I've been here for the last three years
that they were ready to issue a permit, so, no, I don't know.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. TEARS: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Before you go, Clarence, this
was your third tour in Iraq, right?
MR. TEARS: Yes, it was.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just would like all the audience to
just give this man a hand. Three times he's served.
(Applause.)
Page 11 7
November 15-16,2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. That's all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm surprised -- I'm surprised that after
three tours you haven't straightened things out over there.
MR. TEARS: I'm trying. They don't listen to me over there.
MR. SCHMITT: That's because he's Air Force.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, that's the reason.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We don't have the expertise to
analyze any data that's submitted like they do in South Florida Water
Management --
MR. SCHMITT: No, sir, and that's -- I want to clarify in page
three of my executive summary, I made it very clear, in this instance,
as in all issues dealing with listed species, listed species habitat, and
wetland preservation, is deferred to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the provisions of section 404
of the Clean Water Act.
So all your questions you are asking are the same issues that are
being addressed by the Corps and the other agencies in regards to the
review and approval of this permit.
And, Commissioner Halas, regarding time, the LASIP (phonetic)
only took 14 years, I believe, for the permit. The Corps moves, but
not with great speed, and I can say that, so -- having worked for the
Corps.
But -- so to answer your question, Commissioner, no, I don't have
the staff to do this. We do not do any of the review technically
associated with the wetland issue other than my authority to review
based on the requirements in the land development code and in the
growth management plan.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But the Audubon has a venue to
share their concerns --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and that's through the district
Page 118
November 15-16, 2005
in the Corps of Engineers --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. It's a public -- it's a public permitting
process. It is advertised, and anybody who disagrees with the
permitting process or any part of the permit can certainly address,
either in person or in writing, their concerns to the permitting
agencIes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Ifwe issued the -- we're
issuing the permit based upon the Corps' finding?
MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If -- let me ask you a question,
and it's more of a -- probably of a legal question, but I think you can
give me the proper guidance. The permit, if we choose to deny or pull
the permit, would that be any correlation of the property on Goodland
to where they had a permit to build a condo building and we pulled it?
MR. SCHMITT: I think the county attorney would -- I would
have to probably turn to Steve. We -- it would depend if we deny the
excavation permit altogether, and that would have an impact on what
is already approved in the PUD zoning. The PUD approved the master
plan and associated --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I don't know--
MR. SCHMITT: So to answer your question, there would be a
potentially -- could be a claim by the applicant against the county for
something that was previously approved.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And I don't know where
the board's going to take this decision and I don't want to jeopardize,
you know, the action that might be taken, but the bottom line is, the
Audubon has a venue to air their concerns about issuing this permit
through the Corps of Engineers?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. And just to clarify, if, in fact, you revoke
today the, what I would call the administrative approval of the permit
that was approved a year ago, the applicant would still have every
right, once they get their Corps permit, to come back to this board or
Page 119
November 15-16,2005
come back to staff and apply for a commercial excavation permit.
They have every right to do that, and that would, I would assume, be
their first avenue of approach in regards to, if this board denied, at
least today, the administrative approval of the excavation permit.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta, are you finished?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do we have speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir, we have six.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Before we go to the speakers, does the
petitioner have anything to say about this?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We do have a brief presentation to make.
It might -- it might be more efficient if we just heard what the
speakers had to say, since we've kind of opened it up to public
speakers by letting Brad go first. We'll do whatever you want, Mr.
Chairman, but it may make more sense to let them go ahead and say
what they've got to say, and then we'll present our presentation, kind
of -- then we could do our rebuttal and presentation at the same time.
It might be a little bit more effective.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have eight public speakers, I
believe.
MS. FILSON: Six.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Six public speakers. Okay. It will be
three minutes each.
MS. FILSON: Nicole Ryan. She'll be followed by Andrew
Dickman.
MS. RYAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
Nicole Ryan, here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
I'd first like to point out that the staff report states that you're
reviewing the approval of a commercial excavation permit, but really
what's being asked today is that you rescind the preliminary
provisional approval, which gives staff administrative authority to
issue the permit once they have the Corps permit in hand, within 72
hours.
Page 120
November 15-16,2005
This project came before you for this preliminary approval
because the Corps permit was supposedly any day now. That was 18
months ago. It was asked because you were going to go on your 2004
summer break and you wouldn't be meeting for a while. That's no
longer the case.
So we believe that this preliminary approval is no longer
necessary, and we ask that the applicant should reapply only if they
receive their Corps permit; however, this question of the primary
approval also brings up the project itself and some of the harmful
impacts, and the county's obligation under the growth management
plan.
The Conservancy still maintains our position that under the
CCME, Collier County is obligated to protect listed species and that
the county does have a role in this.
When the PUD was approved, the number of wood storks that
would be taken was not known. It is known now. We believe that it's
actually highly underestimated. But this should be enough to
convince the county to maybe take a look at this proj ect again.
Beyond that, your staff report references the drainage
sub element, policy 1.4.1, which states in part, water management
projects shall be undertaken in coordination with the Big Cypress
Basin's, South Florida Water Management District five-year plan.
I'd point out that this piece of land has been identified by the
Southwest Florida Environmental Impact Statement as a piece of
property that should be purchased and preserved and kept intact. It
has also been targeted in the draft Southwest Florida feasibility study
restoration proj ect data base as land which should be purchased and
restored to keep the Cocohatchee flowway intact and to further the
effort of western Everglades restoration.
I think that Everglades restoration has taught us all a few lessons,
and one of the most important is that removal of wetlands and
channelization is simply not a viable solution for protection of water
Page 121
November 15-16,2005
quality, water quantity, aquifer recharge, flood protection, or habitat
protection.
In addition, in the CCME in goal two, Collier County has the
mandate to protect its surface and estuarine water resources through
watershed management plans. These are five and a half years
overdue, but that does not mean that the county can abdicate its
obligation to protect these resources. Mirasol and its conveyance
ditch is a clear example of why we do need to have a Cocohatchee
watershed plan in place so that cumulative impacts can be looked at
during the county process.
Our growth plan clearly indicates Collier County does have a
responsibility to assess all of these impacts. New information has
come forward about the tremendous impacts to wood storks and
wetlands, and we ask that, today, you rescind the primary approval for
the commercial excavation permit. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Andrew Dickman. He'll be
followed by Gary Price.
MR. DICKMAN: Good afternoon. Andrew Dickman with the
Conservancy. Let me just point out that we are asking one very
simple thing, is that, bring back the decision to the commission. You
have already given administrative approval. So the developer, once --
if they are to get their wetland permit from the Corps that -- right
away, administratively, that can be approved.
Obviously this is something that the Conservancy, Florida
Wildlife, Audubon, and many others are exercising the venue at the
federal level, which is very far removed from this community. We are
only asking that normal procedure -- so that once the Corps permit, if
it is issued, that it follows through to you all and then follows through
to staff.
We feel that that gives the best opportunity for you all to get
every single bit of information that you need in order to understand
this and its ramifications. Between now and then, you have the
Page 122
November 15-16, 2005
security of knowing that this is going to come back to you, and any
further questions that you have of regulatory agencies, from the water
district, to anyone, you can ask those questions.
If you -- if you do not rescind that or bring it back, then those
questions are up to the administration, and certainly they would ask
those questions. But isn't is it fair for you all to be able to bring this
back and advertise it and give people a chance to come here and
understand exactly what's happening?
I also want to close with, the permit process hasn't been
completed. You have not issued a permit. There isn't a vested right in
that permit. By the fact that you have administratively said to your
department that, okay, you can issue this without coming back to us,
that is not a vested right. It's far different than pulling back a zoning
decision or a variance decision.
You have not issued that. They do not have a vested right. It's
fully within your purview to say, you know, we want to step back, we
want you to bring this to us with the full knowledge of the Corps'
understanding and the Corps' recommendation in their staff report.
And we would ask that that's the prudent thing to do, and we would
ask that you bring this back to your venue. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Gary Price. He'll be followed
by Jason Lauritsen.
MR. PRICE: Good afternoon. I'm Gary Price. I'm the city
manager of Bonita Springs.
On behalf of the City of Bonita Springs, the residents of east
Bonita, which are outside the city, and south Lee County, we urge you
to stand firm in your support of this project and let the regulatory
agencies do their job. The need for the reversal of the cumulative
impacts on the recent proj ect built since 1995 along Immokalee Road
needs to be considered.
Three hundred twelve -- 310 square mile collection area
upstream of this proj ect, much of which is in Bonita Springs, has not
Page 123
November 15-16,2005
changed.
The inability of the Imperial River to carry the flow from this 310
square mile collection area has not changed. There are limited things
we can do to take all of that water.
The support of the 1995 Lee County watershed study prepared by
the South Florida Water Management District in 1999 has not
changed. The support of the South Florida Water Management
committee, the Board of County Commissioners, and the city council
of Bonita Springs has not changed, the public and private support for
the restoration of historic outfalls and flowways.
What has changed is, the flowway has been reduced from width
of two linear miles to something less than 270 feet since 1995.
The need for the restored flows is imperative with the projected,
more active hurricane seasons that we're going to experience -- we're
told we're going to experience over the next 10 years.
We urge you to allow the regulatory agencies to do their job and
not to preimpose your will on top of those regulatory agencies which
have the knowledge, ability, and the responsibility to review all of
these things. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Jason Lauritsen. He'll be
followed by Brad Cornell.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Brad Cornell has already spoken.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Then he'll be followed by Nancy Payton.
And she'll be your final speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And haven't you already spoken?
MR. LAURITSEN: Yes, I have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then is there a need for you to tell us the
same thing twice?
MR. LAURITSEN: I wasn't going to tell you the same thing
twice.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. LAURITSEN: Would you like me to sit down?
Page 124
November 15-16,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Have you told us what you needed to tell
us already?
MR. LAURITSEN: I would like to add, if I might.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead.
MR. LAURITSEN: Jason Lauritsen, Audubon of Florida. The
South Lee County watershed plan does indicate that they desire
restoration in the Cocohatchee Canal area. The South Florida Water
Management District did do a review of the project as it was modeled
initially.
There was a remodel requested and done. The South Florida
Water Management District did not review and analyze that second
modeling. By deferring to the South Florida Water Management
District, when they do not do their job and do another additional
review of further modeling, I feel that there is a danger that a wrong
decision might be made.
Thankfully there are decisions that are still ongoing, and we
could participate in this process again. But I would urge you to
consider the fact that there is further analysis that needs to be done by
some of the agencies, and you could step in and potentially halt a
wrong that might be accomplished. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: And your final speaker is Nancy Payton,
MS . PAYTON : Nancy Payton, representing the Florida Wildlife
Federation, and here to support Audubon's position.
I wanted to comment briefly about these preliminary, in-advance
provisional permits as being problematic. And not just this case, but I
think it's symptomatic of a bigger problem.
They don't take into account that proj ects change, they morph,
they mutate, and data does change. Data is coming in question -- into
question, as we heard today, about Miraso1.
These preliminary or anticipatory permits, we feel, are used as
wedges with other agencies. For instance, an applicant can go to the
Corps and say, Collier County think's this is great. They've already
Page 125
November 15-16, 2005
given you the dig permit. We're just waiting on you, and what's
problem?
So we feel that because there isn't as much communication as we
would like between agencies, it can cause this wedge issue and
confusion.
When this was approved, this excavation permit, there was the
distinct impression that the Corps permit was going to be issued any
minute, any day. It was right around the corner.
Well, we're many, many months away from that. We still don't
know when it's going to be issued, and I think that's a signal that there
is a problem with this project, and the permit ought to be revoked.
Back in April 2001 when the PUD came before you, it was
promoted as being good for wood storks. This was great. It was a
flowway that was going to be patterned after what we did at Twin
Eagles, which was no deeper than three feet and provided a lot of
feeding pools for wood storks.
And as you recall, the Twin Eagles flowway linear preserve
received an award from the governor's counsel for Sustainable Florida
as being good for nature.
Well, what we have now happening with Mirasol is potentially a
take permit to have negative impacts each year on 47 wood stork
chicks. There's been a reversal here, and what was promoted as good
for wood storks now is not so good for wood storks.
I happened to find my binder back from April 2001, and was
looking through it with my comments and all, and there was an
interesting letter in there from Nancy Lanan, Carlton Fields, your
consultant. And it was a cautionary letter against anticipatory
approvals, just what we're talking about today. And I think we have to
step back and take an action today that revokes the permit, the
anticipatory permit for digging in Mirasol and do let the other
agencies take their course, and we can deal with it as is when and if it
is approved. But it's premature and it's wrong for that excavation
Page 126
November 15-16,2005
permit to be hanging out there.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That was our last speaker?
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, Mr. Chairman,
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Commissioner -- I'm sorry.
Commissioner Fiala, do you want to speak first?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, that's all right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Mr. Y ovanovich?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I've just got a few comments, and then
Mr. Barber's going to get up and take you through a brief presentation
on how the flowway actually works and will answer a lot of the
comments that were made, because we obviously disagree with a lot
of them and don't believe that they're factually based on the
information.
First of all, what we're talking about today is the excavation
permit for the Mirasol project that will allow for the ultimate
construction of the flowway. I don't know if the board is aware, there
have been three site development plans basically that have run the
process and are ready to be issued for the actual construction of the
flowway pending receipt of the Army Corps of Engineers permit, and
that's over three different projects. It's Terafina, Olde Cypress, and
Miraso1.
So the SDP's are in place for the actual construction of the
flowway. So even if you were to revoke your delegation of authority
to staff, once the Corps of Engineers' permit is issued, those three
SDPs will be issued, assuming they're consistent with the Corps
permit, and the flowway will be constructed.
What will happen is, is we just won't be able to store some of the
fill within the Mirasol project. We'll just have to remove the fill to
somewhere else.
So there's already in place a mechanism for the flowway to be
constructed that will not involve the Board of County Commissioners
Page 127
November 15-16, 2005
at all in the decision.
I think Joe's report -- this is a very -- your people are saying,
there must be a problem with the project because the Corps hasn't
issues its permit yet. I don't think that's a fair conclusion. This is a
very complicated issue. They have asked for a lot of data and analysis
and a lot -- an analysis and study and modeling before they issue the
permit.
AB&B has provided that data and analysis to the Corps. We're
hopeful, and we've been hopeful for a while, that we've answered all
the questions from the Corps, and their decision will be issued shortly.
If not, we'll have to provide more information.
Nothing that you've already done will result in the issuance of
that permit if we don't get a Corps permit to actually construct it, and
Joe has pointed that out.
Now, the county had its own experience with the very
complicated -- the Lely area storm project. They took several years to
get it approved. It did not mean that the project was a bad project. It
just meant that there needed to be additional data and analysis done
before it has been approved. We've been in the process for a long
time. We have provided a lot of data and analysis.
And with that, I'd ask Rick to provide it in a short synopsis, how
the flowway will work and how it will address the concerns raised by,
I think, Commissioner Halas and others, regarding the impact on the
swamp and all those other things. And if you'll let him do his
presentation, it shouldn't take more than about 15 minutes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's try 10.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: He can talk fast.
MR. BARBER: Good afternoon, Commissioner. Rick Barber,
Agnoli, Barber and Brundage, for the record. Are we on?
MR. MUDD: Yeah, we are. You want your computer on?
MR. BARBER: That would be good.
MR. MUDD: See if we can do that for you.
Page 128
November 15-16,2005
MR. BARBER: Thank you. What I'd like to do is just give you
an overview of the South Lee flood study, which led up to the
reasoning to put the Mirasol flowway in place.
In 1995 there was a flood in Bonita Springs and north Collier
County, as you're aware. Seventeen hundred people were displaced for
eight weeks. At that time that was FEMA's longest evacuation.
When we first started the study, we really didn't understand how
big the watershed was. All we had to work with was USGS five-foot
contours in this area. That's the only topo we had. So they had
defined -- they, I mean our predecessors had defined the watersheds
for the different creeks and rivers that flow out of the big Corkscrew
watershed into Estero Bay, and into Wiggins Bay using that kind of
data.
What we found in '95 was that since 1-75 was constructed, and
that's the blue line that runs north and south here, that it really formed
a levy.
Now, the conveyance structures that were put underneath 1-75
were probably the right size, but they only worked within their
right-of-way. They did not do anything to collect the water on the east
side and anything to distribute it on the west side.
So what we found in '95 was that water was piling up behind 1-75
and flowing south into Bonita Springs and trying to get south into the
Cocohatchee River.
The size of the watershed is now under here, and that's this gold
line. It runs all the way up to State Road 82 on the north, all the way
up into Hendry County, and east past Lake Trafford out to Immokalee.
And then on the south end, the limits of our study were really down to
almost the Collier line.
But as you know, the Collier line runs north and south here and
really runs out to Immokalee. That will show up on a later slide. But
this turned out to be 315 square miles. And what happens in an event
of a real wet year is, all the water collects in one big pool and goes to
Page 129
November 15-16,2005
the lowest point. That lowest point right now is Bonita Springs.
When the other outfalls don't operate like the north branch of the
Estero River -- that's what these are is the natural outfalls that are
there. North branch of the Estero River, the south branch, Halfway
Creek, to Spring Creek. That's been severed by 1-75, and then the
Imperial River, with the Kehl Canal, then the east and west branches
of the Cocohatchee, as you heard, and there's a Corkscrew Canal
connection, and all the way out here to the east, the Camp Keais
Strand which flows down in the Fakahatchee Strand.
And, again, in '95 what happened was that these northern outfalls
had been severed, and the water ended up in Bonita Springs and tried
to get down through the Cocohatchee, and I'll -- the adverse conditions
that we encountered in '95 were -- I've just got some quick slides here
to show you what it looked like.
This is Worthington, which is a Lee County project. It's on
Bonita Beach Road. We're looking south. That's Quail West in the
background there. And then Manna Christian Park, which was a
migrant park, is in the foreground.
This is Bonita Beach Road. It was closed for two weeks. That's
the main evacuation route out of Bonita Springs. 1-75 is out here in
the background. That is another road that goes from Bonita Beach
Road out to the Imperial River.
This was Imperial Bonita Estates, why it's important. There's a
bridge here that had a 44-foot span over the Imperial River. It was
downstream of the span at 1-75, which was 300 feet.
So you see that there needed to be a lot of knowledge
accumulated to understand the size of this watershed.
This is the one-foot contour map, which was the first product of
the study that actually showed and defined the area of the watershed.
This is a computational computer program grid. The same model that
was used in that South Lee study was used in the evaluation of the
Mirasol flowway.
Page 130
November 15-16,2005
Recent area improvements. Almost all the improvements that
have taken place are west of 1-75 and in Lee County. We cleaned and
snagged the Estero River because when that river has to operate like a
piece of infrastructure, it has to look vastly different than it did, okay?
Every time a permit came through with an existing culvert on it
that was affected by one of these outfalls, the water management
district asked that they be properly sized. This is at Corkscrew Road
up in Bonita Springs, in Estero, I'm sorry.
Another example of a flowway that was put in was on Halfway
Creek at the Brooks project that's up in Estero. Exactly the same
concept as Miraso1. Halfway Creek had been severed when the land
was farmed.
When the Brooks came in for a permit, the water management
district asked that the flowway be reconnected, and the Brooks
complied. There were a lot of components to that. Here's a bridge
that was on Halfway Creek west of 41. It was taken out by Florida
Power and Light, and that's how it looks today.
This was the crossway under the railroad for Halfway Creek.
South Florida came up with the money to pay for the improvements,
and the developer did the permitting. That's how it looks today with
four box culverts.
So you can see these are all improvements to conveyance
because what we found was that the watershed, to get an inch a day
off it, takes about 9,000 CFS. That's over the whole watershed.
Back in '95, we had, I think, a total flow of somewhere around
3,500 CFS, so that's maybe a third of an inch a day. With all of the
improvements we've done so far that I've shown you, we're probably
up to 4,500 CFS. So we're still not even -- we're barely at a half an
inch a day off this watershed.
So every outfall where we have an opportunity to restore it to
historic proportions, we've got to take advantage of it. And the
Mirasol flowway's our first real opportunity in Collier County to do
Page 131
November 15-16,2005
this.
This was the bridge that was replaced by FEMA money over the
Imperial River. And another program the water management district
has on now is the, buy houses that are within the flowways.
A new weir was put in at Kehl Canal, which is the headwaters of
the Imperial River. The weir has three operable gates on it so that the
system can be drawn down ahead of a hurricane, ahead of a storm.
What's interesting is this weir is just north of Bonita Beach Road
off of Bonita Grand Road. Its control elevation is at 10, and the
control elevation for the first weir in Mirasol's at 13 and a half. The
same as the ground elevation there.
Another improvement that was made at the request of Audubon,
Corkscrew Sanctuary, was that they upgraded five 30-inch culverts
that were installed underneath an old tram railroad there. They
upgraded those to 72- inch culverts, this is Audubon, because they felt
that they were being flooded upstream of that. That lets water down
into the same area that Mirasol flowway's supposed to be constructed.
One of the last opportunities, besides Mirasol, in Collier County
is Camp Keais Strand, which is out here by Lake Trafford, that's
figure 11, and that's really the south outfall out of Lake Trafford down
on into the Fakahatchee Strand.
What we found there was that there's an old road. I don't know if
you can see it. But there's an old road that connects Big Corkscrew
Island to Immokalee. It's since been abandoned and it holds water up
about a foot and a half above natural conditions and forces more water
to the west. So that's an opportunity in the future.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Barber, this is very good from a
historical standpoint, but I'm not finding any answers here to the
questions that have been raised by the prior speakers, and that's what
we're really here to do.
Can we get some answers about whether or not the concerns of
the people who have raised concerns are valid, and if not valid, then
Page 132
November 15-16, 2005
why not?
MR. BARBER: Any specific concerns you wish me to address,
sir?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, the concerns about the destruction
of wood stork habitat and the reduction of their nesting areas. Any of
those would be really good if someone were to spend some time
addressing it.
MR. BARBER: I think our biologist, Mr. Hall, can do that for
you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. BARBER: I've just got a couple more minutes here. The
reason I'm giving you this historic background is that it's important to
understand that all of these flowways, and I think there's only six or
seven of them, are very important to be -- to operate at historic
proportions. If they don't, the flooding problem's just going to get
worse.
That's the Brooks between '97 and today. That's how it looks
today. Going specifically to the area that we're talking about, the
sections 10, 15 and 22, which are Mirasol -- and we're right adjacent
to Neil Penn (phonetic) Quarry, which has about a square mile of open
water pit that's 70 feet deep. That's to our east.
Originally when Mirasol was proposed it had development up in
section 10. That's been since removed as part of the permit process.
And I guess what I'd like to show you is the reductions that have
been made within the local area of Mirasol itself. Down here is the
outfall location that Big Cypress has installed. That's what happened
after the first year after they did their canal improvements and put the
berm up. It had a lot of erosion, so they came back and hardened it
and reinforced the berm, because so much water comes out of here.
That's how the outfall out of the flowway looks today. And that's --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could you finish up in the next minute?
That will be 15 minutes.
Page 133
November 15-16,2005
MR. BARBER: The flowway is now constricted down to 580
feet adjacent to Olde Cypress at the north end, and 270 feet. The
reason we need the flowway is because these constrictions are there
today. We have to overcome those constrictions with the channel in
order to deliver the water that all the Coco improvements are designed
for.
We can barely deliver -- the Coco three structure is designed for
about 640 CFS. They expected 600 CFS out of this flowway. With
the channel we can only deliver, well, about 500 or 480.
There's two control structures in the flowway itself. The
flowway's four feet deep. There's one here at the western boundary of
section 15. It's at ground level. It's at elevation 13 and a half, so you
don't get the operation of the channel until water is above ground
surface.
And there's another here at the canal itself at 1,275, which is also
ground surface. So the only time you get any lift out of the channels
is during periods of high flow.
There are adjacent developments that will flood today if the
flowway's not constructed. Olde Cypress will flood; Longshore Lakes
will flood. If this developer with his private investment doesn't do this
improvement, Big Cypress or Collier County will be doing the
improvement in the next five years.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Fiala, you have a question?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. So actually all we're talking
about right now is -- we're not talking about stopping any building or
changing anything at all? All we're saying is we just want to go back
to what it was before that -- the summer when we gave approval to
administratively approve the excavation for the construction of this?
And all we're saying is, just go back to the way we were doing -- we
always do it, right?
We're not saying you can't construct; we're not saying anything
Page 134
November 15-16,2005
like that. All we're saying is -- right? Yes. Not to handle it
administratively but the way we always do it. That won't stop
anybody. Like they said, they can't do anything anyway until they get
the Army Corps permit, and so they couldn't move forward. I don't
understand what it's all about then.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Barber answered my
question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I'd like to make a motion
that we go along with staff recommendations and not rescind the
approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Coletta
to approve staffs motion to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Recommendation,
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- to keep the anticipatory approval in
place, and seconded by Commissioner Henning.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's -- all opposed by like sign?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then it passes 3-2, and
Commissioner Halas and Commissioner Fiala are dissenting.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 7 --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, could I make one remark just to see
Page 135
November 15-16,2005
if there's sufficient support from commissioners? I would like to see
an end to these kinds of approvals. I would like never to see another
one of these come before us where we're granting an approval prior to
an appropriate review by the issuing agency. And I don't know how
the other commissioners feel about this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But I would prefer that we never--
nobody ever bring these things back to us again. I think it is out of
sequence. I don't think we should be doing this. And the only reason
that --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why did we approve it the first
time?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that's exactly right, that's exactly
the -- right. And we should not be doing this, and I'd hope the staff
would not bring these back to us again.
Okay. Are there three commissioners here who feel similar?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree with what you're saying
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- but I do have a question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What would be the
ramifications? I mean, would somebody be able to go forward
without it, I mean, get the approval from the Army Corps before they
came to us?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: They'd have to get that before they
came before us.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that -- is that -- someone
tell me if that's the way the process can work.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's the way the process should
work.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'd like to hear from staff.
Page 136
November 15-16,2005
There might be a reason for the fact that they went this particular
direction in the first place.
MR. SCHMITT: We went this -- again, Joe Schmitt, for the
record. We went this direction at the request of the applicant. It was,
as Nancy pointed out, Nancy Payton, it was prior to your summer
break. We anticipated that the permit would be in hand within 30
days. We wanted to get this thing moving so they would be able to do
it during the dry season so all the plants would be in prior to the wet
season.
So there was somewhat a method in the madness in regards to
bringing this before the board. We do not issue any local development
order until we have all state and federal permits though. This would
be another one -- the final approval of this would be a local
development order, meaning that we would allow the applicant to go
forward.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand, Mr. Schmitt. I can
support you on that, Commissioner Coyle.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good, then we've got three nods
that we don't get these anymore.
Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're not saying -- this is the
example, because what we do -- and what I heard somebody say is,
don't even hear anything until they get their Corps permit.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we do it every day when
we do our projects. So you need to clarify that, if you want to stop
road construction -- or approval of road construction then -- because
we go out and try to get the permits afterwards.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think we ought to treat everybody the
same.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Woe.
Page 137
November 15-16,2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Woe.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm not going there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I'll tell you --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm shaking my head no.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- I agreed with you because I
thought administratively on something like this where we're just
waiting for a permit and we're -- for something like this and we're
going on a summer break, I don't think we should do that. But I think
we don't want to step too far away from what we do now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. I've got to clarify.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The support has evaporated
apparently.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Wait a minute.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: When it comes to road work --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can't support anything that's
going to slow up in any way our possibilities of building roads in a
timely fashion. Strike my name from that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I don't think you've got three
nods.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, can I go to 7A?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I need some clarification. I didn't
-- I always thought that we got our permits before we started doing
any developing.
MR. MUDD: We do.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, then what's the problem?
MR. MUDD: We do, but you'll come in front of the board, and
we'll get the board to award a construction contract pending the permit
coming in from the Corps that we put in in a process so you can get
things in line so that when we get that permit, we can move forward
with the project.
So in some cases we have got a construction permit out in front
Page 138
November 15-16, 2005
of having the final permit approval from the Corps of Engineers or
from the South Florida Water Management District.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So we're going to continue to have
these items come up in front of us whether it's -- deals with Collier
County or whether it deals with the development community, right
then?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Apparently.
MR. MUDD: Yeah. We award the contract, Commissioner, but
we don't award the notice to proceed, okay? We have all the contracts
in place before we go anywhere, before we turn dirt.
So you might, in county contracts for roads or things like that,
just to get things so it's moving in an expeditious manner so we get
everything aligned, but you go through the public hearing process and
everything else.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, the way things have been
going lately on the roads, it doesn't really make a difference.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well--
MR. MUDD: You ain't seen nothing yet till you do the 1-75
expansion project, and every road contractor in Florida gets consumed
in that proj ect.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It really shouldn't make any difference
anyway. The only time it would make a difference is when we are on
the summer break, and you should be able to time these approvals so
that you avoid that situation. But if there are not enough
commissioners who believe in that policy, I'm not going to make a
motion or suggest that we treat ourselves differently than we treat
everybody else.
Okay. Let's go on to the next item.
Item #7A
RESOLUTION 2005-400: CU-2005-AR-7586 SOUTHERN
Page 139
November 15-16, 2005
CENTERS IN NAPLES, LC, IN REGARDS TO OFFICE DEPOT,
REPRESENTED BY WAYNE ARNOLD, OF Q. GRADY MINOR
AND ASSOCIATES, P.A. AND RICHARD YOVANOVICH OF
GOODLETTE, COLEMAN AND JOHNSON, P.A., REQUESTING
A CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW AN OFFICE SUPPLY
STORE IN EXCESS OF 5,000 SQUARE FEET WITHIN THE C-3
ZONING DISTRICT (WITH AN ST OVERLAY) PURSUANT TO
THE PREVIOUS LDC SECTION 2.2.14.3.11. THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF 4.02 ACRES, IS LOCATED ON
THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF COLLIER BOULEVARD AND
TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST (US 41), IN SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 51
SOUTH. RANGE 26 EAST - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 7A. This
item was continue from the October 25,2005, BCC meeting, to the
November 1,2005, meeting, was further continued to the November
15, 2005, BCC meeting.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by commission members.
It's conditional use 2005-AR-7586, Southern Centers in Naples
LC, in regards to Office Depot, represented by Wayne Arnold ofQ.
Grady Minor and Associates, P .A., and Richard Y ovanovich of
Goodlette, Coleman, and Johnson, P.A., requesting a conditional use
to allow an office supply store in excess of 5,000 square feet within
the C-3 zoning district with an ST overlay pursuant to the previous
LDC section 2.2.14.3.11.
The subject property consisting of 4.02 acres is located on the
northeast corner of Collier Boulevard and Tamiami Trail East, U.S.
41, in Section 3, Township 51 south, Range 26 east.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Would all persons who are going
to be providing testimony in this petition please stand and be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
Page 140
November 15-16,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. And ex parte disclosure
from commissioners; start with Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: On this particular item, 7 A, I don't
have any disclosures at this time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I had meetings,
correspondence, and e-mails, and it's all in my folder for anyone that
wishes to see it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I have had meetings with
representatives of the -- of the developer and also I have
correspondence and e-mails.andthey.rein the file for anyone that
wishes to review them.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've had meetings with the
representatives for the developer.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did we see this before?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: A few years ago.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Maybe a long time ago.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. A different petition
though, right?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We have approved a restaurant for
166 seats, right? And a drugstore.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Drugstore.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But a different petition, so I can
say I have no disclosures.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Not for this particular subject.
Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich
Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. I have the two owners of the
property here as well, and Wayne Arnold and Reed Jarvi to answer
any questions that you may have regarding this.
Page 141
November 15-16,2005
This, on the visualizer is the property location. There's a CVS
drugstore already there. The property to the north is already zoned
C-3, so it already has commercial zoning. We're simply here because
the land development code used to say and is intended to say today
that if you have a knowledge that is -- a user that's greater than 5,000
square feet, you come through the conditional use process to get that
user approved.
The use is approved, it's just if the use is less than 5,000, it's a
permitted use; if it's greater than 5,000 square feet, it's a conditional
use.
We're going through that process now. It was a 266-seat
restaurant. We're requesting an Office Depot, which is roughly 17,500
square feet. That actually is a reduction in overall traffic by changing
the use from the restaurant to the Office Depot.
We have agreed to follow the lead of predecessors in addressing
affordable housing when it deals with retail uses and have agreed to
provide a donation to the county's Affordable Housing Trust Fund, I
think -- I hope I have the right trust fund -- in the amount of 50 cents
per square foot, which is -- is what other retail users have agreed to
provide.
We're consistent with all the review criteria in your land
development code. We have no objections from our neighbors, which
I think speaks well, because when the neighbors in that area don't like
what's going on, they do come out and speak their voice.
We've got no objections. And with that, your staff report is very
complete, and I'll answer any questions you may have regarding the
petition. I don't believe we need a very long presentation.
And we do acknowledge that we are subject to concurrency, and
until there are certain improvements in the area, we are simply just
getting in line for our conditional use, and the conditional use may
expire before we actually get to construct this and we'll have to come
back to you in the future if that does occur.
Page 142
November 15-16,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Who was first?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas or Commissioner
Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Five questions, Rich. Some
of them are pretty darn easy really.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How many square feet is in the
CVS? And the reason I'm asking that is it seems like so little property
left, I can't imagine how they'd squeeze 17,5- on there. But maybe
CVS is a lot larger, so I'm just trying to -- trying to visualize.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Actually, it's about -- it's about 14,500
square feet. It's 14,000; 14,100 square feet. That's the site plan,
Commissioner, to show you how it works. And what we actually did,
I think, which made the residents of Falling Waters happier is, the
original site plan for the restaurant put all the parking and the noisy
activity up against the residents, and we've actually put the noisier
elements away from the residents.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I read that. I was wondering
about the lights in the parking lot. I think of, at night --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- is there going to be some type of a
shield to shield the people in Falling Waters?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, ma'am. We will shield the light to
make sure it doesn't spill over the property lines.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great. How about delivery truck
hours? Will they -- will they be restricted, like before nine and after
eight or something like that, eight a.m.?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Hopefully you can see that a little bit
better. We have designed this to where the loading is actually -- I
Page 143
November 15-16,2005
think that direction's south. It's away from the residents so they won't
be hearing the loading and unloading. I don't think we've restricted
ourselves to nine o'clock in the morning. We would like to be able to
do deliveries earlier than that. But we've designed this to keep the
deliveries away from the residents.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So they don't have that beep, beep,
beep, beep noise?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I think all those trucks have to have
that, but it will be for --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but I meant while they're
sleeping.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So that's designed to stay
away from that. Let's see. Is this a TCMA or any kind of a traffic
congested area, traffic congested management area?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. Well, it's a congested area, but it's
not one of those -- one of those areas.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I notice that they'll be donating
to help alleviate some of the problems. You're not going to be
building before we've --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- got the problem solved, right?
So my last question was, I know that it would be less invasive on
the traffic than a restaurant would have been. How much we would
have loved to have a restaurant in East Naples. But anyway, but I'm
wondering how much of an impact right there. That's a really tough
area for traffic, and we're very sensitive to that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And this will be a reduction, and we have
committed to the planning commission and -- which has been carried
forward, to pay our fair share for the overall fix of that intersection.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we need any interconnectivity or
anything that helps move traffic? Is there any way that we can do
Page 144
November 15-16,2005
that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think that that really can happen.
Clearly not with the residential.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I mean, if our guys -- if you guys
wanted it, you would have suggested it, right? Okay, fine. Thank
you. I'm finished.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got some questions. One
question for Rich. Are we going to tear this drugstore down?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Are you going to tear it down?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. Are you going to tear it down.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. I thought you said we. No, it's going
to stay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And then the drugstore's going to
be used?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It will be our next-door neighbor, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The site plan accommodates both the
existing CVS drugstore and the Office Depot.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Wow. This is for our traffic
department. Has the traffic already been allocated for the drugstore
and the restaurant?
MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, transportation planning. Drugstore,
yes, because it's in there. The restaurant, no. There's nothing vested in
this corner. As Rich is mentioning, he doesn't have concurrency by
anything -- any action today. He's still subj ect to concurrency.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I'm not so much talking
about Office Depot. I'm talking about the restaurant.
MR. SCOTT: That's not in the system at the moment, no.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So if we go ahead and
approve this, it may be five years before there's anything done on this
piece of property?
Page 145
November 15-16,2005
MR. SCOTT: That's true.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So is this considered a PUD and
will it be sunsetted at that point in time if there's nothing done?
MS. DESELEM: Good afternoon. For the record, Kay Deselem,
principal planner. The conditional use would expire in three years.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Three years.
MS. DESELEM: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So then they have to come back
before the board if nothing's done?
MS. DESELEM: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. What's our best guess when
we're going to address the concerns at this intersection?
MR. SCOTT: That's a good question. There's a coalition. This
makes it available for them to join the coalition that they're talking
about, paying above and beyond impact fees to widen U. S. 41 --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And who's the coalition?
MR. SCOTT: -- to the east.
I don't have all the names yet. We've met with some of the
people along the corridor.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Some of the improve -- that stuff
that's already been approved; is that correct?
MR. SCOTT: Some of them, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So then we're just going to
add more to this coalition in regards to this?
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So in other words, they may come
up with enough money that we can four-lane u.S. 41 all the way down
to State Road 92?
MR. SCOTT: The discussion for the -- I like your deal.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I like the way he thinks.
MR. SCOTT: The discussion's been the first two miles so far.
Probably six lanes, and 20 something -- $20 million, something like
Page 146
November 15-16,2005
that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And so we're probably
looking at an overpass.
Now, my concern is, are we going to have enough right-of-way
depending upon whatever happens in the future for an overpass, if it's
going to face north and south or east and west basically.
MR. SCOTT: Not knowing, it could be a fly-over, which would
be like a northbound to westbound fly-over, which then would need
more right-of-way. One of this -- one of the options before was a
north/south overpass that may be able to be fit in.
But we -- most likely, yes, we wouldn't need right-of-way. At
the moment, we can't tell them what it is. That is something that we
could deal with them as part of them coming -- you know, obviously
they have to give something up as they come forward.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, should we address this now?
MR. SCOTT: I can't tell them exactly what it's going to be, so
that's the question side of it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Because this is, I think the
point in time, if we need to get right-of-way, I'm sure you're not just
going to -- you're going to have surface roads that are going to be in
that same perimeter with the overpass, depending upon the layout of
the overpass, correct?
MR. SCOTT: Correct. But obviously the drugstore's already out
there, and that's an issue, too.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All right.
MR. SCOTT: Ifwe had a design that we -- and obviously we'll
get that out -- you know, following the PD&E. And we talked about
advancing the design to be able to identify what -- exactly what you're
talking about. Then we would say, yes, this is what we're looking at,
but we don't have definitive enough data to tell them that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, my concern is, what are we
waiting for, the state to make the P&E (sic) study, or are we going to
Page 147
November 15-16,2005
be making the study?
MR. SCOTT: The state's already working on the PD&E study.
And, yes, we are waiting on the state at the moment.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: In other words, you don't have any
idea when we'll have any of that data back that you can share with us?
MR. SCOTT: Earliest for those type of analysis, probably next
year.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, don't leave. So when you talk
about the overpass and you're talking about north/south or east/west,
you -- and the way you were saying it, you're not talking about a half
of an overpass --
MR. SCOTT: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- for just traffic going one way?
MR. SCOTT: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're talking about a whole
overpass, right?
MR. SCOTT: And that was one alternative someone was
looking at.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The half an overpass was?
MR. SCOTT: But you're talking -- no, we've had a lot of
discussions about this before so don't --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So we've eliminated that one?
MR. SCOTT: Don't look at 10 years out, look at many years out.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. So we've eliminated the half
of an overpass?
MR. SCOTT: Yes, we've -- yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, good. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any further questions by
commissioners?
(No response.)
Page 148
November 15-16,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Presentation by staff?
MS. DESELEM: Yes. Again, for the record, Kay Deselem,
principal planner with zoning and land development review. You do
have the staff report, and you do have the executive summary with
you.
In response to some of the questions you were asking earlier,
there is an interconnection shown on the site plan to the property to --
along 41. There is not one shown to Falling Waters, but there is a
walkway that's shown there, and it was deemed to be appropriate
through the other review that that would be the proper way to do it.
Staff believes that this project is consistent with the GMP if
condition six is addressed -- is adopted as part of the approval. That
addresses the timing element.
And we would also suggest that the other conditions be adopted
to be consistent with the other elements to include the future land use
element and the LDC.
And I would note that there is no flow condition at this time to
what Rich had committed to earlier regarding the 50 cent contribution
per square foot, and we'd have to include that. If that's part of your
motion, I would ask that you do include that.
And other than that, I'm here for your questions if you have any.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. There appear to be no other
questions by commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I got -- the only thing I want
to make sure is that we're not going to do anything in regards to, if we
approve this today, that there's not going to be anything that's going to
take place on this until we're in compliance with 5.1; is that correct?
MS. DESELEM: That is my understanding. In fact, the
applicant has been made aware through the process that they're
seeking this conditional use, however, the conditional use could, in
fact, expire prior to their opportunity to build.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Maybe we'll have our first
Page 149
November 15-16,2005
chance to see if we can sunset a PUD.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Commissioner Halas,
you did a wonderful job. You asked -- you asked all the questions I
was going to ask, and I'm satisfied with what I hear, and I'd like to
make a motion for approval.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Will the motion for approval
include the conditions as specified by the staff?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Planning commission and the staff.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the -- staff and the planning
commISSIon.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So it's conditions one through nine,
right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Y ovanovich is trying to get
our attention.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, because I don't want you to forget
that we agreed also to the affordable housing donation to be paid at
CO, like everybody else. And if you do adopt a linkage fee in the
future, that it would be a credit against that linkage fee as well, so we
wouldn't be paying twice.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've got no problems including
that in my motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll include that in my second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do we have any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: They already spoke, sir. You had six.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Oh, I'm sorry. No, we don't have any on this one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It seemed like six.
Page 150
November 15-16,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It did seem like six. We have a motion
by Commissioner Coletta for approval with staff recommendations,
and a second by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
It is now time for a break. We're going to take a 10-minute
break, and we'll go on to the next item later.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Item #7B
RESOLUTION 2005-401: PETITION CU-2003-AR-3573
INDEPENDENT HAITIAN CHURCH OF GOD, REPRESENTED
BY KELLY SMITH OF DAVIDSON ENGINEERING, INC.,
REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE RMF-6 ZONING
DISTRICT AS PROVIDED FOR WITHIN TABLE 2 OF SECTION
2.04.03 PER LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC) FOR
EXPANSION OF A CHURCH. THE 2.03 ACRE PROPERTY TO
BE CONSIDERED FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE IS LOCATED
AT 3709 GUILFORD ROAD, LOT 5 AND LOT 6, BLOCK A,
GUILFORD ACRES, IN SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 50, RANGE
25, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA - ADOPTED
W/STIPULATIONS
Page 151
November 15-16,2005
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, that brings us to item 7B on your
agenda. This item has been continued from the October 25, 2005,
BCC meeting, to the November 1,2005, BCC meeting and was
further continued to the November 15,2005, BCC meeting.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by commission members.
It's petition, conditional use 2003-AR-3573, Independent Haitian
Church of God represented by Kelly Smith of Davidson Engineering,
Inc., requesting a conditional use in the RMF-6 zoning district as
provided -- as provided for within Table II of section 2.04.03 per the
land development code for expansion of a church.
The 2.03-acre property to be considered for the conditional use is
located at 3709 Guilford Road, Lot 5 and Lot 6, Block A, Guilford
Acres, in Section 13, Township 50, Range 25, Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Will all person intending to give
testimony in this petition please stand and be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
Ex parte disclosure, we'll start with Commissioner Henning this
time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: None.
Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No disclosures.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I have received some
correspondence concerning this petition, and that is in my file for
public review if necessary.
And Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No disclosures.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No disclosures on this item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. We'll
proceed with the petitioner's presentation.
Page 152
November 15-16, 2005
MS. SMITH: Thank you. Good afternoon. For the record, my
name is Kelly Smith with Davidson Engineering. I'm here this
afternoon on behalf of the applicant and their conditional use request
for the expansion of an existing church with customary accessory
uses.
The Independent Haitian Church of God is requesting
permission, or approval rather, to expand their existing church from 72
seats to 288 seats, and also to add an additional building to serve as a
fellowship hall and classroom facility, and that building is 3,426
square feet.
The site development plan for this project has already been
approved conditionally by your staff and that was a process required
because the church is also requesting a parking reduction for the
expansion of their existing church.
The parking reduction is requested and justified because the
church provides transportation for a great percentage of the
congregation.
The church owns and operates a bus which they anticipate
transportates (sic) 25 percent of their congregation, and it is also
assumed that 5 percent of the congregation walks to the church
services, and another 5 percent of the congregation participates in ride
sharing.
And due to that extensive amount of alternative transportation
use, that is the reason that we're requesting the parking reduction.
This item was heard by the Collier County Planning
Commission, and at that time there were two neighbors of the church
who spoke in opposition to the expansion. Their three major concerns
were that, number one, the fence along the front of the property, the
chain link fence is unsightly, and I would tell you that that existing
chain link fence will be removed as part of the expansion. That
removal is also already on the approved SDP application.
The landscape buffers on the church property will also have to be
Page 153
November 15-16, 2005
brought up to current standards, which will further enhance the look of
the site.
Their second concern that was during church services, there's
parking all over the property. We would also argue that the expansion
will provide the opportunity to correct that problem because it will
provide marked parking areas.
Their third concern was that the property is not maintained and
that there are several concerns with mowing the lawn, debris removal,
and those types of issues.
Pastor Eric of the church has met with the neighbors to discuss
their concerns, and I will be asking a member of the church board of
directors to speak to you about that.
The church is committed to keeping their property in good
condition. And I think, again, the expansion of the church will help to
enhance the look of the facility.
With that, I would like to ask Mr. Jesse (sic) Boplant (phonetic),
who's the secretary of the church board of directors, to speak to you.
MR. BOPLANT: Good afternoon. My name is Jean Claude
Boplant, one of the secretary of the church.
In the last meeting that we had on October 5, 2005, here in this
building, we heard our neighbors' concern about the extension (sic) of
our church and their complaints.
We members of the church and the congregation stand up behind
our pastor with a new resolution. Keeping the area neat and clean,
remove all trashes and -- around the property, remove the basket pole,
that was one of the concerns, in the vacant lot, remove the old lawn
mower that was around the property.
The fence will be removed, and as soon as we finish with
construction, we will keep asking our members to comply with the
speed limit in the area.
We also had a meeting with the members of the Guilford
Association. We talked to them about their concern. We showed
Page 154
November 15-16,2005
them the new plan of our church. We promise them and we agreed
with them to respect the content of the plan.
As a church we understand that our presence should not be a
nuisance to the community and the environment, but we should help
the community to grow up morally, spiritually, and in all respect.
As soon as we have from you the permission to extend our
church, the parking problem will be resolved. We would be very
happy if you, members of the Board of Commissioners of our
community could grant us the favor to extend our church, especially
for our kids.
And God will usually bless you. One more time, may God bless
you and our community. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Commissioner Halas, do you have a question?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have a couple of questions.
Maybe this gentleman, if you would come back to the podium, if you
would, sir, for a minute. I've got some questions to ask here, and -- or
maybe this young lady here can address it.
How old is your church or the congregation? How long has this
church been in existence?
MR. BOPLANT: It's -- I would like to see the pastor come
forward so he can help answer more of those questions.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
PASTOR ERIC: Okay. My name is Pastor Eric. I am with the
Independent Haitian Church of God. I'm very happy to be here today
and to speak on behalf of the church. The church been -- exist since
1986, but we got the building built in '94.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 1994 is when you built the present
church?
PASTOR ERIC: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And how much has your
congregation grown from '94 till today?
Page 155
November 15-16,2005
PASTOR ERIC: I can say it's grown like, I don't know, two
quarter, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm sorry?
PASTOR ERIC: Two and a halftimes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Two and a halftimes?
PASTOR ERIC: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. My concern is, have you
ever given it any thought -- what we have here is we have about five
pounds of marbles in a three-pound bag. And have you ever given
any thought about selling this property and then seeing if you can
acquire some other property that would fit the growth of your church
in the future?
PASTOR ERIC: In the future, but for now we have -- the
congregation we've got now -- because when it was start, it was -- we
had 11 people, 11 people, and then -- so when we build a church, we
was have 70 people. When church build, now we got around 200
people, 250, like that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right. And the reason I've got
concerns on this is because right now you're looking for a reduction of
about 51 parking spaces.
PASTOR ERIC: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I realize that at the present
time you say that you transport a lot of people to the church.
PASTOR ERIC: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But I think that as people get
accustomed to cars and driving, that that's going to have a great impact
in this particular area on your property and probably around the
surrounding neighbors.
So that's why I offered this suggestion, if you could sell the
property -- I'm sure it's probably worth a lot of money, and you could
probably make a -- maybe purchase some new property so that you
could build in the confines of what really needs to be addressed,
Page 156
November 15-16,2005
because it sounds to me like your congregation's going to grow even
more than it is now.
PASTOR ERIC: So -- I'm very happy for your comment, sir, but
now with the church we got, we got lots of people now, because the
economic situation, you know. Like in Collier County now, when we
figured we got a lot of people move from the church, go Tallahassee,
or somewhere else. So that's why we lost people now, because they
cannot afford a house to stay, they cannot afford all that thing. So
that's why we -- I don't think we going to be -- grow that much
anymore.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. SMITH: If I could also address the transportation question.
The church is committed to continuing to provide transportation for its
congregation members, and one of your staffs recommendations for a
stipulation is that the owner, whether it's this church or future
churches, that wish to have the parking reduction will also have to
commit to that transportation of their congregation members, and the
church has committed to continuing that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But my concern is, how can we
enforce it?
MS. SMITH: Understandable.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay? I think that's where it lacks
is that we don't have the ability to enforce it, and then to send people
out there on Sunday morning and give citations, that's not too cool.
MS. SMITH: Understandable.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay? So that's why I have some
very -- concerns in regards to trying to pack so many people on this
property, and that's why I asked the reverend if it was -- there was an
option that maybe you could sell this property and acquire something
that would be larger to accommodate, because I'm sure this reverend is
going to go out and solicit more people in his congregation.
And let's face it, it's going to be a growth issue here, and that's
Page 157
November 15-16,2005
why I'm concerned about it.
MS. SMITH: And I certainly do understand your concern. Ijust
wanted to reiterate that that issue has been brought to the reverend's
attention several times throughout this process, and they've
continuously committed to continuing that transportation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So now, Reverend, how do you --
how are you going to address this parking issue if your congregation
decides not to take the bus or to share rides and want to drive their
car?
PASTOR ERIC: So -- so the problem is, you know, when you
look at like Haitian community like that -- so we got a lot of people
that don't even know how to drive, so somebody have to take them.
And we got like four buses. We got one bus from -- take people from
Golden Gate to the church, and another one taking people from 10th
Street, go out to -- and bring them to the church, and another one
bringing the people from East Naples, Naples Manor, to bring them to
the church. So most of them have no car. Even when they come, they
don't even have enough money to -- for the car. We have to help
them, you know, help the church, you know, like with the money.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I wanted to continue that
discussion. It looks like what you're doing is asking to increase your
church by 400 percent, from 72 to 288, so that's a little over 400
percent, right?
But already you're having parking problems even though you're
busing people in and you're having people walk, if you -- if you
expand from 72 seats to 288 seats, there probably aren't enough places
that you can walk from at that time.
And going back to the parking, they say that the parking is a
problem right now, and you only have 72 seats. What -- it just makes
me very uncomfortable to think of where -- people are going to learn
to drive, they're going to get better jobs, they're going to get cars. And
Page 158
November 15-16,2005
being that they can't live right in the neighborhood, or maybe it's a
rainy day. I am concerned about the parking.
MS. SMITH: The parking problem that exists now is not one
that there isn't enough parking. It's that it's not marked parking. So
you have parking in a very inefficient manner because they're parking
wherever they see that there's a space to park.
Through the expansion of the church, there will be additional
parking spaces, not only paved parking spaces, but grass parking
spaces. That will eliminate that problem.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, if you do meet the 51 parking
spaces, if you don't have those, then what happens to the -- to your
proposal? I mean, if you -- to accommodate all of the parking --
MS. SMITH: If we didn't get the parking reduction; is that your
question?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
MS. SMITH: We would have to take a look at how it would be
possible to do the church addition, because 51 parking spaces is a
significant amount of land area.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And are you going to be -- is
there a school there now?
MS. SMITH: No, there's not.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But you're going to start a school
there?
MS. SMITH: It would be Sunday school.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, just Sunday school?
MS. SMITH: Yes. It's not a separate school. It's a Sunday
school for during church hours.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. And about the
maintenance of the property, which is something that we heard is a
real problem, and I know I've driven by there myself a few times, and
I was surprised at the condition of the property, quite frankly. How do
we know that it's going to improve? It might just be improving till
Page 159
November 15-16,2005
you get a permit.
MS. SMITH: Well, first of all, you have the church's
commitment that it will not just be until they get the permit, but that it
will be a commitment for eternity.
The other issue, however, is that maintenance of the property is
really not a condition -- is really not an issue for denial of the
conditional use application.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, it sure isn't. I'm thinking of the
neighbors right now. This is located in a residential neighborhood,
correct?
MS. SMITH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's the only church in a residential
neighborhood?
MS. SMITH: Actually there are two other churches --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Two others?
MS. SMITH: -- on this street, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any other questions from
commissioners?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I could?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Let's go back to the
parking places. You say that the parking places that will be added
under this improvement that they're proposing will meet the current
needs and future needs also?
MS. SMITH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Without 51 extras.
MS. SMITH: Right. We believe that because of the nature of
the transportation provided for the congregation, the fact that a lot of
the members do not have vehicles or do not have the ability to drive
themselves to the services, that the parking reduction is appropriate.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do we have staff presentation?
Page 160
November 15-16,2005
MR. BOSI: Thank you, Commissioners. Mike Bosi, zoning and
land development review. I will try to keep it concise. I know you
have quite a heavily populated agenda.
The one thing I will say is the parking reduction is a specific
code related to parking requirements for existing churches. It's only
where it applies to existing churches that are expanding that can firmly
establish a significant hardship.
And staff looked at it and staff looked at the characteristics and
demographic characteristics of the parishioners who attend this church
and felt confident that the statement that 35 to 40 percent of those
parishioners would be bused to the service. That was almost a one
from (sic) one exchange to the 51 spot reduction that they're seeking.
It's about -- it's about a 37 percent reduction from what would have
been required. So we thought of it as a one for one.
The planning commission heard this petition. They appr -- they
recommended approval, or a recommendation of approval to the
Board of County Commissioners by a 4-3 vote. The three members
who were in dissent specifically stated the maintenance issue.
I'm not sure, and maybe we'll have to defer to the County
Attorney's Office, but I would think that the -- a condition that the
church must maintain adequate maintenance of the facility throughout
the life of the conditional use could be an appropriate condition to be
placed in these -- and the neighbors within Guilford Road have shown
an ability to police this church somewhat through the use of code
enforcement. I think that is how you could also be assured that the
parking wasn't being abused, that there was -- that the people were
being bused in and there wasn't parking spilling over onto the street.
That condition, on top of a condition of maintenance, I think,
through the -- through the code enforcement process could ensure that
this church meets the conditions and meets the concerns that the Board
of County Commissioners may have.
With that, I open myself to any questions you may have.
Page 161
November 15-16,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who was first, Commissioner Halas or
Henning?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Henning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sure Michelle Arnold thanks
you for that comment.
Commissioners, I see something that concerns me just overall in
our code, and that's allowing staff to make, on conditional use, certain
amendments to height, location of buildings, and so on and so forth.
That's something that I think that we need to address in the future.
But knowing the community -- Haitian family community,
they're a community that goes to church as a family so that the ones
that do attend, I think you're going to see them in one vehicle if they're
not being bused.
The concern that I have is, exactly how do we address the
maintenance of the property, the aesthetics of the property? Do you
have any suggestions, Marjorie?
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: For the record, Marjorie
Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney. I think there's our
regular code enforcement provisions, you know, for maintenance,
internal maintenance and so forth, of the property. The board also has
the authority to place reasonable conditions upon a conditional use
approval.
So if the board wished, I think you could add that condition for
maintenance and upkeep. It would just work in tandem with what we
already have in our codes regarding upkeep of property. But I see no
problem with adding such a condition.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Marjorie, was you at the
planning commission when this was heard?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, sir, I was.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you can assist us on
Page 162
November 15-16, 2005
developing some language as far as the conditional --
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. I will work with the staff to
place a condition within the resolution.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Marjorie, can you assist me in how
we're going to be able to force item number three? It says, the current
owner and all future owners of the church facility authorized by this
conditional use shall continue to utilize private bus service to transport
patrons to and from the facility.
This requirement is based upon the parking reduction associated
with the conditional use or approval. How are we going to enforce
that?
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I think it may be difficult to
enforce without having a code enforcement officer present at the site
when the church services are being held to determine what the parking
situation is if, in fact, parishioners are being discussed.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, because that's my concern.
I'm sure this church -- with the added space they're going to put into
this, I'm sure their congregation is going to increase in size. And I
think that parking could become a real problem.
And looking at where this is located, it looks like it's right next to
a residential area, and I'm afraid they'll end up parking on the road and
everything else, so --
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Understood. I would just ask the
board, in making whatever motion the board makes, determines
appropriate, there are four criteria for the granting or denial of
conditional uses that are set forth in the staff report, and I believe the
board has also been provided with those by our office for the different
types of petitions that come before the board, as has been provided
with those criteria.
So whatever the motion might be, I would ask that the board
Page 163
November 15-16, 2005
articulate one of those or more, if it's appropriate, as a reason for the
motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I'd like to take a little bit
of a different spin on this. If we're ever going to try to encourage
good citizenship, we need to have a solid foundation for people to
build on. We're trying to encourage people to join our civic
associations, our chambers. But when you get right down to it, one of
the very basic things that we can look for in this country is the
churches. The churches are where these people meet. They recognize
that was almost a form of government. Their whole life centers
around the church.
It serves as a good example not only for the individuals, but for
their families, and it sets a mode of life for them to live. If anything,
we want to try to encourage and to see this grow.
I think that the problems that we see are pretty common
throughout our community. I go to St. Elizabeth Seton on Golden
Gate Parkway, and it's an absolute riot. Every year when we get to the
heavy part of the tourist season, we have dozens and dozens of people
park along the parkway to go to church, and dozens and dozens of
people get tickets.
And Father Spinelli gets up in front of the crowd every time and
he says, I hope you're not parked out on the parkway because you'll
get a ticket. And that enforcement doesn't seem to work for a couple
of times around. After the sheriff serves notices to enough people,
pretty soon they start parking in the parking lots and they start
observing the laws.
So it's not just the Haitian community. It's the community in
general. So I think we've got to rely on our code enforcement to be
able to draw the lines. We've got to be able to work with the
neighborhood. If we're ever going to have good citizens, they're going
Page 164
November 15-16,2005
to learn to be good citizens through their church. and I, for one, am
going to support their motion (sic) and make a motion at this point in
time for approval.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion for approval
by Commissioner Coletta.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Commission--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to second it as long as
we have some stipulations.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: And Commissioner, the four
criteria are consistent with the land code and the growth management
plan, ingress and egress to the property and proposed structures
thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety
and convenience, traffic flow and control and access in case of fire
catastrophe, the effect of the conditional use on neighboring properties
in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor effects, and, finally,
compatibility with adjacent properties and other properties in the
district, meaning the zoning district.
So, in your motion, do you find that those four criteria have been
met as part of your motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, it's part of my motion.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: And if there is any motion to the
contrary, I would appreciate it, and if so, that the reason be articulated
based upon the four criteria or all or part of them that I just read into
the record.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now we have a motion and a
second, and we have Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I was just going to say, we
have some wonderful Haitian churches -- I've been to them, by the
way -- in -- one down on Bayshore, but they have plenty of parking,
and they -- after church, then they all bring potlucks, and they -- you
know, they have a celebration outside. Their church services last
about three hours, and -- but there is plenty of parking there.
Page 165
November 15-16,2005
And I think -- which then enhances the church. And they keep
the place immaculate. And same with the one down on U.S. 41, same
thing. Plenty of parking, and they keep the place immaculate. And
they're not even located in -- well, the one on Bayshore's located in a
neighborhood.
But, you know, I think that this is terribly important if we have
too many cars, and I think these people are going to be successful in
being able to buy cars and able to find transportation and maybe not
want to take a bus, and I do worry about the congestion that will be
caused from such a huge increase. That's my only concern is what it's
going to do, not only to the church, but the neighborhood.
And maybe if it could be -- you know, if this could be scaled
back enough so that the parking and the seats match one another, I
would feel a lot better about that. So that's my thought.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have one public speaker so
we'll have the public speaker now.
MS. FILSON: Osnel-- and I know I'm going to mess up his last
name -- Cajuste.
MR. CAJUSTE: That's good. Good afternoon. My name is
Osnel Cajuste.
I listen to the concern of everybody and you commissioners, but I
think for -- on the concern that especially Ms. Fiala has, that's
something that can be resolved because every business, you know,
everybody who's going -- we ask for the extension because we see that
we pass from 70 people to 250 some people, so that's why we are clear
the next lot to see if we can expand this church, and that's the reason
why we ask that.
But if we need, five or 10 years from now and we have a
problem, because we understand now that we have the -- the members
that we have, if you agree with us, the parking that we ask, that we
okay, but if for to 10 years from now we expand.
So the concern that I guess Mr. Frank has, that we can sell that
Page 166
November 15-16, 2005
church and, I mean, buy another one. That, with every business, that's
what happened, we can do that.
But right now we don't have that need. We only need for the
commissioner to approve the rezoning of the lot that we have so we
can expand and build a church.
The other thing, there's a lot of things saying that we --
maintenance, and I think that most concern that the other members has
of getting that maintenance thing -- because we understand that in the
community, and for the community to grow, you need to keep it,
especially in Collier County.
We have -- most of us are homeowners. I mean, if we don't keep
our properties cleaned or whatever, we lose money, so we understand
that. So we understand that keeping the area clean and everything is
for our benefit, first of all.
And second, the maintenance thing is -- that's why we ask for the
rezone -- I mean, that place to be rezoned to increase. That lots that
they talking about, which is not keeping clean and everything, that's
why we are here, to give us the permission to expand that church,
because that thing, nobody live on it. I mean, first of all, maybe if we
have a pole of basketball they were talking about, that thing is --
nobody live in that place. I mean, that lawn mower thing, nobody live
in that part of the building that they were talking about.
So we now try to see if we can, I mean, listen to the concern of
everybody, keep it clean. And we already meet with those guys in the
neighborhood with process, and we told them that we going to do
everything possible to be able to keep that thing neat and clean.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. We have another speaker?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'm going to close the public
hearing.
Any other questions by commissioners?
Page 167
November 15-16,2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. The motion was to
approve, and I second the motion if -- as long as stipulations would be
put on the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And what might those be, the
ones contained in the executive summary?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That they'll just have church
service on Monday. Just kidding.
Staff recommendations, and how we going to address the
maintenance of the property? I mean, we're saying there's code
enforcement issues. Code can deal with those under the existing
ordinance, but I think it's the fence maintenance. I don't think there's
an ordinance on how you keep your fence; is there?
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I am not -- I am not aware of an
ordinance about fence maintenance. I do not usually handle code
enforcement issues.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you just give me --
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I don't know if there is someone
that can assist in terms of fence maintenance. I know we have a
building maintenance ordinance that code enforcement utilizes to
make sure the buildings are properly maintained.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you just give us some
directions of what kind of conditions that we need to put in number
four?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: And I think that we should
probably include an -- a condition that -- on top of what we already
have in the code enforcement ordinance, that the church and all
associated buildings shall be properly maintained in accordance with
applicable codes, and that the fence should be properly --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The fence is going to be
removed. I was just trying to give you an example.
Page 168
November 15-16,2005
Kelly, can you help us?
MS. SMITH: I'm sorry. Can you repeat the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I want some kind of
stipulations because there was concerns about the upkeep of the
property by neighbors.
MS. SMITH: I've spoken with the pastor, and they would agree
to providing the county with a contract with a landscape company or
some type of maintenance company for an annual contract, that would
help ensure that not only would the members of the congregation be
helping to keep the property well maintained, but that there's a
professional company involved in the proj ect.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'm going to make that
stipulation number four.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that okay with the motion maker?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's fine with the motion
maker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then we have a motion by
Commissioner Coletta to accept staff recommendations with the three
stipulations contained therein, plus the one that Commissioner
Henning has just requested that be added, and a second by
Commissioner Henning,
Any further discussion? Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Just one more little thing,
because I'm ready to vote for it as well, but I am still concerned about
the parking. And so I wonder if this church grows -- it sounds like it's
growing, you know, by great dynamics, and that's wonderful. But if
we're already reducing the parking spaces by 51 and it grows more
than you ever hoped for, what are we going to do about the parking?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I address that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is there something that can be put in
here?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's a right-of-way
Page 169
November 15-16,2005
ordinance that you can't park in the right-of-way. They have to park
in their property or they can have a shared parking agreement with the
commercial property on U. S. 41.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, across the street at Towne
Center maybe?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, there's a -- maybe it's a
hardware store, I'm not sure what's in the front there, Kelly. But that
would have to come to the -- back as a shared parking agreement to
the county anyways.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm just -- I just want to make sure
we safeguard.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But if -- right. If your concern
is parking off site, there's present laws that would deal with that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just don't know what they're going
to do if they don't have enough parking spaces because they expand
too much, and then they're stuck in a pickle and their people aren't
walking and, you know, and they have more people around here so
they don't bus them in, then what do they do?
And I want to give them the church because I think it's wonderful
the way they celebrate around their church. I just -- I'm really worried
about, you know, handicapping them with 51 extra -- or less spaces. I
need some assurance, please.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I make a suggestion? I
don't know if this would work. Could we bring this back to the
commission for review like in two years?
MR. BOSI: I would have to defer to the County Attorney's
Office, but that would be at the discretion of the Board of County
Commissioners. If you would grant a conditional use approval for
three years and to bring it back within a three-year period to ensure
that --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would that make you feel more
comfortable, Commissioner Fiala?
Page 170
November 15-16,2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but then what do they do if
they run out of spaces? They can't tear down the church.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then they have to go with
Commissioner Halas' suggestion and move to another location.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can't even make them do that. The
thing is, there's no need to do that. We've already said, you have to
park on your own property. You can't park anywhere else. If you
park anywhere else, you're going to get ticketed, and we'll just keep
ticketing people until they don't park there. That's the way you control
it.
And if people want to go to church and pay a $25 fine for parking
every Sunday, then we'll just make lots of money, so -- and the church
will be very successful.
MR. BOSI: I would also say that there is another extremely
simple possibility, I would think, is an additional service. I don't think
we all have -- it would have to be mandated to one single service per
Sunday. I think if the growth at a congregation got to that point
towards where the busing and the number of patrons were exceeding
the number of spots, that they could just go to a number of services.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Bingo.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think the church can make their own
decisions about that. You know, we've got the framework of the law
to prohibit abuse.
MR. BOSI: Commissioner, can I say one point of clarification?
During this review process, staff was not authorized nor did we grant
any deviations from the development standards. All we did, we
brought forth the parking reduction, which was called for by the land
development code, and brought the question to the planning
commISSIon.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But I think Commissioner Henning was
concerned that you do have -- seem to have that authority.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you see, what it says here
Page 171
November 15-16,2005
is the zoning department, land development review director, may
approve minor changes to location, siting, height, and building
structures.
MR. BOSI: Oh.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That -- also had that right. The
concern in here by the board may be the height, that's all. And we
don't have to deal with that right now.
MS. MURRAY: May I just make -- no?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I know you do a good job
and do what the board wants, and blah-blah blah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And if you don't, we'll call it to your
attention, okay?
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: There must be some criteria that
you use in regards to addressing issues of parking on a church
property, whether it's a brand new church, church that wants to
expand; is that true?
MR. BOSI: Absolutely. I think that within a new church, you
have to qualify for three spots per every seven seats. With an existing
church, the land development code clearly states that when there is an
established hardship and that the applicant of an existing church can
establish a hardship that -- towards where the parking reduction -- or
the parking reduction is excessive -- and I think this is -- and I'm
trying to think of the other situation where that regulation would come
into play. I'm not sure of any other one other than busing the
individuals to the location.
So that was the criteria that staff utilized where we thought that it
was appropriate and it would not be incompatible to the surrounding
land uses, which are a church -- an R V park and a church.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So if you were building a
new church, would you -- and somebody says, well, we don't have
Page 172
November 15-16,2005
enough property, would you then institute a hardship in regards to
parking?
MR. BOSI: They wouldn't be able to pursue the parking
reduction as this petition is seeking. What they could seek would be a
parking exemption, and that question would be placed before the
Board of County Commissioners, and you would make the ultimate
decision of whether the conditions that were placed within that
individual case that you're talking about justified the granting of that
parking exemption.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How did you come up with the
criteria for eliminating 51 parking spots?
MR. BOSI: Basically they had indicated through statements and
conversation that 35 to 40 percent of their popu -- of their population
or their patrons were bused on the site to the location.
The 51 percent reduction was roughly about a 38 percent
reduction. So as I had indicated, it was almost a one for one
exchange, and therefore gave me a comfort level towards where I
thought, based upon -- based upon the statements that the church has
made representing the characteristics of the percentage of individuals
that were bused to the location, that it was -- that it was appropriate
and that we would not over -- over maximize the potential of the site.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what you're saying, I think, is
that the parking today on the facilities with the reduction of the 51
parking spots basically fits their needs today but for no future growth;
is that correct?
MR. BOSI: The 288 seats that this would authorize would -- I
would believe, would have to be the cap towards where any expansion
could be based upon the limitations of the size of the two parcels.
They could not expand beyond 288 seats and make it still a
manageable situation in terms of the parking.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So how do you think this is going
to be managed if their congregation starts to grow and people start to
Page 1 73
November 15-16,2005
-- more people start to drive there?
MR. BOSI: I think Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner
Henning both have indicated that they've got a finite amount of space
and they cannot park on the right-of-way. At some point in time if the
situations were where you could only fit so much on the property, that
they'll either go to a number of services a day or --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Parking structure?
MR. BOSI: -- or they'll have to address it in a different manner.
At that point in time, other than that, I'm not sure, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just don't feel comfortable. I just
-- I'm trying to figure out where to go here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of the motion, please
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 4-1, with Commissioner
Halas abstaining -- or dissenting. Okay. It is approved.
Let's go on to the next item.
Item #7C
CU-2004-AR-6384: GOLDEN GATE CONGREGATION OF
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, REPRESENTED BY MIKE LANDY,
OF LANDY ENGINEERING, INC. REQUESTING A
CONDITIONAL USE IN THE ESTATES ZONING DISTRICT
FOR AN ADDITIONAL CHURCH BUILDING PURSUANT TO
TABLE 2 OF SECTION 2.04.03 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
Page 174
November 15-16, 2005
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE PROPOSED
CONDITIONAL USE WILL REPLACE THE EXISTING CU-96-12
(E) ORDINANCE NUMBER 97-440. THE NEW CHURCH
BUILDING IS PROPOSED TO BE 4,400 SQUARE FEET. THE
PROPERTY CONSISTING OF 5.15 ACRES IS LOCATED AT
3480 GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD S. W., TRACT 81, GOLDEN
GATE ESTATES UNIT NO.4, IN SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 49
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA - APPROVED
TO CONTINUE INDEFINITELY
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is -- and I don't have
to read it. I just need a motion for an indefinite -- or for an indefinite
continuance for item 7C.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to continue item 7C --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- to a future meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Indefinitely.
MR. MUDD: Indefinitely,
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Indefinitely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion to approve the
continuation by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is continued indefinitely unanimously.
Item #8A
Page 175
November 15-16, 2005
ORDINANCE 2005-61: PUDZ-2005-AR-7469 SONOMA OAKS
MPUD: RICHARD AND FRANCES CRAIG AND CDN
PROPERTIES, LLC, REPRESENTED BY ROBERT MULHERE
OF RW A, INC., IN REQUESTING A REZONE FROM THE
RURAL AGRICULTURAL "A" ZONING DISTRICT TO THE
MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT "MPUD"
ZONING DISTRICT TO BE KNOWN AS SONOMA OAKS PUD,
A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF A
MAXIMUM OF 112 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS AND
120,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL USES LOCATED
ON APPROXIMATELY 37.5 ACRES, ON THE WEST SIDE OF
COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951 ), APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE
NORTH OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD, IN SECTION 34,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA - ADOPTED W/STIPULATIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is item 8A. This
item has been continued from the October 25,2005, BCC meeting to
the November 1,2005, BCC meeting. It was further continued to the
November 15, 2005, BCC meeting.
This items requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by commission members.
It's PUDZ-2005-AR-7469, Sonoma Oaks MPUD, Richard and
Frances Craig and CDN Properties, LLC, represented by Robert
Mulhere ofRW A, Inc., in requesting a rezone from the rural
agricultural A zoning district to the mixed use planned unit
development MPUD zoning district to be known as Sonoma Oaks
PUD, a mixed use development, consisting ofa maximum of 112
residential dwelling units, and 120,000 square feet of commercial uses
located on approximately 37.5 acres on the west side of Collier
Boulevard, County Road 951, approximately one-quarter mile north of
Page 176
November 15-16,2005
Vanderbilt Beach Road in Section 34, Township 48 south, Range 26
east, Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Will all persons who intend to
provide testimony in this petition please stand to be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Very well. We'll have ex parte
disclosures, starting with Commissioner Halas this time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I've had correspondence and
e-mails, and I've talked to staff on this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Meetings, correspondence,
and e-mails. And I have my folder for anyone who wishes to see it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And of course we heard this before at a
prior meeting. And I have had meetings, telephone conversations and
correspondence and e-mails with the petitioners, the petitioners'
representatives, concerning this item, and all of the correspondence is
in my public folder for review.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've had meetings also with
representatives for the developer. I've had correspondence and letters
and also e-mails.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioners length?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The community development
administrator tried to talk to me on this item, and I received some
information from -- or e-mails from -- and phone calls from
neighboring property owners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Very well. We'll hear the
petitioner's presentation.
Mr. Anderson?
MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. First of all, I want to thank you for agreeing to
reconsider the Sonoma Oaks PUD. We believe that this is a -- this
Page 1 77
November 15-16,2005
project is a fine example of what working together can accomplish.
Responsible development that is beneficial to the residents of the area,
beneficial to the county, and also to the property owners.
This PUD consists of three separate tax parcels, and I've got
those identified on that old fashioned board that I've posted here
behind the county manager.
The Craig family owns a 9.38-acre parcel that's next to the
Mission Hills Shopping Center, and the other two parcels that consists
of just over 28 acres are owned by the Nagel family.
It was the collaborative process of these two parcel owners, the
neighbors, and the county transportation department that led to the
proposed configuration, the configuration that provides the county
with a valuable connector road and a combination of commercial and
residential uses that complements the current development in the area.
It is the county's desire to enhance the road network in this area
with a connector road that causes this property to be split and creates a
newly-configured commercial parcel, which is surrounded on four
sides by public roadways.
Your county planning staff does agree that this -- that this 9. --
that the PUD proposes the same size parcel, 9.378 acres, for
commercial zoning, that the Craig family parcel already qualifies for
commercial zoning under the comprehensive plan.
And although there is a difference of opinion with the
comprehensive planning staff as to the interpretation and application
of the infill commercial, provisions of the comprehensive plan, staff
does assert that this is a policy decision for the county commission to
make.
Now, in this case there are two unrelated parties, the Craig family
and the Nagel family, that have unified to propose a mixed use project
that has significant public benefits. Denial of this PUD application
would tell my clients to dissolve their agreement to jointly develop the
property, and instead for the Craigs and the N agels to go their separate
Page 178
November 15-16,2005
ways.
Now, if that happened everybody would be worse off, the
landowners, the neighborhood residents, and certainly the county.
This PUD provides for neighborhood employment, roadway
interconnectivity, emergency access, a county well site, and affordable
housing mitigation in addition to commercial and residential
opportunities.
This PUD is overwhelmingly in the public interest, and it has the
support of neighbors and of the planning commission, and we
respectfully request your support as well.
I want to read into the record two letters that we're particularly
proud of. The first is from the director of Collier County EMS. It
says, Dear Commissioners, as medical director of Collier County
EMS, I am writing to urge your support of the Sonoma Oaks PUD.
This PUD provides an important road connecting Wolfe Road
and the new Golden Gate fire station to the Mission Hills Shopping
Center at the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier
Boulevard. This road will provide the fire department and other
emergency vehicles with an alternate response route from the fire
station south to Vanderbilt Beach Road.
An alternate route for emergency vehicles can increase critical
response time, particularly during peak traffic hours. Alternate routes
providing access to shopping centers and busy intersections where
incidents requiring emergency response often occur are even more
important.
The connecting road from Wolfe Road to Mission Hills would be
an invaluable option to an emergency vehicle responding from the
north of the intersection or the shopping center. Please note that I am
writing this letter of support for the proposed PUD without having any
direct or indirect financial interest in the project or without the
prospect of personal benefit therefrom.
Very truly yours, Robert B. Tober, M.D., medical director,
Page 1 79
November 15-16,2005
Collier County EMS.
Second letter is from the Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue
District fire chief. Dear Commissioners, the approval of the Sonoma
Oaks PUD will provide valuable emergency access routes in the
Collier/Vanderbilt Corridor for our new Golden Gate Fire Station 73.
An internal road that runs parallel to Collier Boulevard connecting
station 73 to the Mission Hills loop road and the extension of Wolf
Road to the west will provide alternative routes for emergency
vehicles dispatched to calls south and west of the station.
Considering the already heavy traffic on 951, this is an important
option to access the shopping center and residential communities to
the south and west, such as Island Walk, Logan Woods, and others.
In conclusion, the interconnecting proposed roadways associated
with Sonoma connecting Wolfe Road and Mission Hills would be a
big benefit to the delivery of all emergency services.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely,
Donald R. Peterson, fire chief.
I'll ask Bob -- I'm going to enter these into the record, and I'll ask
Bob Mulhere to come forward and speak with you briefly about the
layout of the PUD.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you. Good afternoon. For the record,
Bob Mulhere with R W A. I also want to thank you for the opportunity
to be before you again to give you a full presentation on this petition,
and I will try to be brief and non-repetitive.
Our objective really was very simple, and I think we achieved it,
to create a community that is compatible with the neighborhood and
combines needed office and retail uses with residential.
This aerial here shows you the subject property. It shows you the
shopping center; Mission Hills immediately to our south, which is
open and operating. You can see some of the outparcels are presently
under construction, and you can clearly see the intersection of
Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard and the development to
Page 180
November 15-16,2005
our north and the development to our west, which is under
construction.
In summary, we're proposing 112 residential units, 120,000
square feet of office and retail space. We've worked hard and have
gained the support of all of our neighbors. We received CCPC
recommendation for approval by an overwhelming majority. And we
will provide, although this is a relatively small land use petition in
size, we are providing significant public benefits.
The plan, in order to achieve compatibility with the
neighborhood, locates commercial activity adjacent to the existing
commercial and the major arterial roadway with the residential
situated in a secluded enclave to the west and adjacent to residential.
This exhibit here, which I also had on during some of the time
that Bruce was speaking, I think clearly shows you that this is the
missing piece of the puzzle in this area providing the access from the
north, both for the Golden Gate Fire Department and for the other
residential developments to the north and to the west through our
proj ect, then again through the Mission Hills or to the Mission Hills
Shopping Center, and also to Vanderbilt Beach Road if folks want to
travel, again, to the west, and they will avoid that major intersection.
We've stood before you many times, and there's been much
discussion on interconnectivity and the importance of
interconnectivity, particularly within the Collier County transportation
system.
Sonoma Oaks significantly furthers interconnectivity for both
transportation and utilities by providing the connector road, by
participating in the development of the loop road which has been
constructed, which is between us and the shopping center to the south,
and also accesses Vanderbilt Beach Road. So you have a double way
to avoid the intersection by participating in the Collier Boulevard
improvements, Wolfe Road improvements, and Vanderbilt Beach
Road improvements, and we're also providing a master well site.
Page 181
November 15-16, 2005
This aerial here just gives you a little larger perspective of the
area. It shows you some of the residential developments that surround
the property both to the east of Collier Boulevard and to the west,
north of Vanderbilt, and I think clearly indicates that this -- the
importance of this interconnecting road, and also the importance of
providing the mixed use, the commercial and office -- retail and office
uses.
We have met several times with the transportation division with
regards to this petition, and we've gained their support. They support
the petition because it provides this critically needed interconnectivity
between those residential developments that I showed you on the
previous slide, and the commercial area. It's not only ours, but also
the shopping center to the south.
And all of this interconnectivity is consistant with and furthers
the provisions of the future land use element and the transportation
element of the growth management plan.
I think the slide is very telling. We've grayed in the connector
road and shows you the location of the Golden Gate fire station. The
connector road provides emergency access, as previously stated for
the fire station, and also provides admission to the office and shopping
areas for residents of these adjacent communities.
But the main benefit really for the public at large is that it will
alleviate significant traffic and impacts to that intersection. We've
talked about the master well site. This will help satisfy current and
future water demands in Collier County. This is not a typical well site
that Collier County asks for. It's a much larger site, and it will house
up to three deep wells and a pump house providing interconnectivity
to the other well sites that the county already has easements for within
the area.
So in summary, this has been a collaborative planning effort
among the development team, the county, and our neighbors. We
have many of the components, if not all of the components that I've
Page 182
November 15-16,2005
heard this board ask for in these types of developments. It's a mixed
use development. It poses -- the plan provides for additional office,
retail, residential opportunities.
In doing so, it also provides for additional employment
opportunities within these office and retail establishments. It provides
interconnectivity with the connector road. Really you have double
interconnectivity here with both Wolfe Road to our north, which will
be signalized at Collier and Wolfe, and potentially signalized in the
future at Vanderbilt and Wolfe, and the loop road, which is to our
south.
Again, this will alleviate congestion to a significant degree on
that intersection. Also, the well site adds in satisfying future water
needs.
In terms of safety, you've heard Bruce read in the record the
letters -- in the public record relative to the impact -- the beneficial
impact for the fire station for emergency service vehicles.
And finally, in terms of concurrency, we have this project timed
to coincide with the roadway improvements, and that was part of the
planning commission's recommendation, which we did agree to.
I have one minor issue, which I want to get on the record, and
that is that this plan at this location here, for some reason, only
indicates a right-in. Obviously we have talked to transportation staff
and met with them. We meet the separation requirements, and this
was intended to be a right-in, right-out. There is no median cut there,
so it really should have no impact on traffic.
That concludes my presentation. I think both Bruce and I are
prepared to answer any questions that you might have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My biggest concern is -- this is a
great project -- but when you were putting this together, Bob, since
you were a former person that worked for the county in the planning
area, why didn't you address this with growth management plan
Page 183
November 15-16, 2005
updates?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, that's a good question. And I would tell
you that you really didn't have this type of situation come up, at least
not while I was in the position of planning director.
There never was a situation that came up where someone in a
unified plan of development came in and qualified for commercial and
asked to shift the commercial not to benefit themselves -- although
albeit there is a benefit to us -- but because of a request by the county
to split that property for the public roadway. That situation never
arose.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, staff says that they don't
recommend approval on this because of the fact that it didn't --
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
MR. MULHERE: I understand.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- you didn't address it with the
growth management element here and getting changes in it. And I
was wondering why you didn't incorporate that when you were putting
this all together.
MR. MULHERE: Oh, I apologize. I misunderstood the
question. Thank you.
It's our opinion that this really is a policy issue for the board to
decide upon and that it rises to that level. The staff agrees with us that
it's a policy issue.
Staff has taken a position that is doesn't meet the original intent
of that policy. We're suggesting to you that times change. There is
significant public benefits here.
The language does not prohibit what we're asking for. It simply
is not clear on it. Staffs got a position; we've got a position.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I thought it was -- to me it read like
it was pretty clear.
MR. MULHERE: It says that you should not create a --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The four elements that we looked
Page 184
November 15-16,2005
at here.
MR. MULHERE: Commissioner Halas, it says that you should
not create a parcel to take advantage of this policy. And our position
is, we're not creating the parcel to take advantage of this policy. I
mean, in my view, it's crystal clear. Obviously somebody disagrees.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You stated that this project will
offer jobs to -- prospective jobs to area residents. Wouldn't the
proposed business park offer more jobs, that I never got an
opportunity to hear?
MR. MULHERE: I think there's no question. The proposed
business park was a 37-acre business park, 35-acre business park.
Obviously that would have had more employment opportunities. But,
Commissioner Henning, I would defer to Mr. Anderson to speak to
that issue, if he so chooses.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You answered the question. I'm
just a little disappointed that it never got any opportunity for that.
MR. MULHERE: I just wanted to just put on the record -- and,
you know, I thought about it after our last meeting. And I understand
your position on it. And one of the things I forgot was that we
actually had gone to the planning commission originally and had a
recommendation for approval and had to go back to the planning
commission where in between there was an advertising glitch. Second
time we went back to the planning commission, we didn't have a
recommendation for approval, and we had neighbors objecting, and
that really was the rationale for going back to the drawing board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not done yet. The provision
-- you're asking for mixed use, but the provisions is actually infill,
office commercial infill.
MR. MULHERE: That's what qualifies that southern piece is the
office and infill, yes.
Page 185
November 15-16,2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Otherwise, it could be just all
residential, correct?
MR. MULHERE: That is correct, that is correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- and that's what was on
the previous slide you showed?
MR. MULHERE: The first slide -- I can go back to that if you'd
like, just momentarily. Let me just enlarge that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That's the one on the left
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- our left -- or everybody's left
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- is the one that qualifies for the
infill ?
MR. MULHERE: That is correct. And Commissioner Henning,
the difference between the two is we would -- we would be happy --
would have been happy to come forward with a plan like that or,
perhaps, an all residential plan, and we even looked at those options.
And we, in fact, even met with staff, and we were told, no, you can't
bring two options, you have to decide on one, which I understand.
However, once the staff -- you'll note that there is no connecting
road on the left, and we were not proposing, under either that plan or
an all residential plan to split the residential portion of the property
with a public connecting road.
Once staff -- and I think they were very insistent, and I
understand their insistence, said, we want that connecting road -- that's
when we looked at, okay, if you want the connecting road, let's do
residential to the west and commercial to the east. It's a win-win
situation. It makes sense for everybody. Not asking for anything more
intense than what the plan allowed for in terms of acres or uses.
Simply a shifting in a unified plan of development. It made sense for
Page 186
November 15-16, 2005
everybody.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The one on the left, it
does interconnect.
MR. MULHERE: Those are gated -- those were intended to be
gated. Those -- that little connection into the commercial was
intended to be gated so that the public would not be able to move
north and south, but our residents could move into that -- into that
shopping area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The one on the right has
a spline road.
MR. MULHERE: Correct, north/south, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: North/south spline road. Is that
MR. MULHERE: No, that's --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- proposed to be gated?
MR. MULHERE: The one on the right is -- no, not -- is open to
the public. We would construct it and dedicate it to the county under
-- to county standards.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So I guess my -- I do
have another question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not for Mr. Bob Mulhere.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For our legal staff. Ifwe find
this in compliance with our code, public interest, are we setting
precedence?
MR. WHITE: Assistant County Attorney Patrick White.
Commissioners, I don't believe so. I think that the facts here are fairly
unique, and as a result, I don't consider this to be precedential with
respect to the application that your staff would make in the future
regarding the office infill commercial parcel.
I think that what they would apply it in the future for would only
Page 187
November 15-16,2005
be a circumstance where you'd have, essentially these same set of
facts, and that may exist somewhere out in the county, but it's
unlikely, and there would be other facts that would have to be, at that
time, considered as well. So I think whatever precedential value it
may have is very limited.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'd like to ask a question before I go to
Commissioner Fiala, Mr. Mulhere.
MR. MULHERE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is the plan on the left in compliance with
the growth management plan?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, sir, it is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So the reason you're not now in
compliance with the growth management plan is because of the
county's insistence on an interconnect road?
MR. MULHERE: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So -- I can't believe this. So we're saying
that we want -- we don't want you to develop the one that is in
compliance with the growth management plan on the left because we
want an interconnect road, and now that you're going to agree to the
interconnect road, we're saying we won't approve it because it doesn't
comply with the growth management plan; do I have this right?
MR. MULHERE: You do. I'm not one to pick a fight. But
Commissioner Coyle, I think it is a question of different perspectives.
The perspective of the transportation department and the importance
of that connector road versus the perspective of the comprehensive
planning staff and their vision of what the purpose and intent of the
policy was.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And do I also understand that
agreements that are associated with this will save the county $1.5
million?
MR. MULHERE: Well, that's correct, because there is an AT&T
Page 188
November 15-16,2005
(sic) substation down along the loop road there that there's an existing
location for that, and without the configuration that you see on the
right, it's likely that that will have to be relocated to the tune of about
1.$5 million.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So, once again, the county is insisting on
certain things you should provide them so that the county can save
$1.5 million in relocation of a substation, and number two, so that
there can be an additional vehicular link across this property, and as a
result of your agreeing to do that, the county is saying, you're in
violation of the growth management plan?
MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean, that's the way it works out.
That's one --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just wanted to ask the
county, possibly Susan, but I think she's going to have trouble getting
up here. Although this was a denial by staff, wasn't it -- I asked the
question already so I do know the answer. Wasn't this a soft denial?
Only county really felt that it should go through, but being that they
have to stick to the letter of the law, they denied it, but they don't
mean it; is that correct?
MR. SCHMITT: Let me save David. I'm going to -- for the
record, when we looked at it -- again, Joe Schmitt, administrator of
community development/environmental services division.
When we looked at it from a planning perspective and the
community's perspective, naturally the interconnect, the commercial
tract along 951 makes sense.
Where the hangup was -- and I heard the wording from
Commissioner Coyle -- it's not that we disapprove, it's just that in my
comprehensive planning department, David, who is my gatekeeper, so
to speak, of the comprehensive plan, knows why and how this was
written, the rule for commercial infill, and opined that, in fact, it was
not the intent of the commercial infill. We had the argument back and
Page 189
November 15-16,2005
forth.
Back with my previous -- or former director, he and I discussed
this, and he was a -- he had a little bit different opinion.
So what we did when we -- and his opinion was sort of with
Bob's. Yes, this could be a policy decision. So I won't call it a soft
now, because that's kind of -- there's no such thing. But the denial is
there, but the next paragraph says, if the board so chooses, it is a
policy decision on how you apply that decision to this parcel.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So in other words--
MR. SCHMITT: So in other words, Norman and I, everyone
agrees, that this is a good plan. It just has this one issue that is -- and
that had to do with the application of the rule of the commercial infill.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's what we're here for is to
make policy.
MR. SCHMITT: You can make --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is not going to set a precedent
for anybody else. If it's something that we find that's going to happen
as we connect roads or something, then we'll come to add it into the
land development code or the growth management plan in order to
address this type of concern. But this is a one-time basis because our
transportation staff needs this road, right?
So I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion for approval,
second by Commissioner Coletta.
I have a couple of questions. Joe, you've got to come back to the
microphone.
Now, let's cut through all the garbage, okay?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What do you think we ought to do?
What's your recommendation?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I love it.
Page 190
November 15-16,2005
MR. SCHMITT: I prefer the plan with the commercial along
951. It makes more sense from a community perspective and from a
planning perspective. It is -- even from a development perspective.
The housing is off the main road. It's set back from the main road.
And we will accept the fact that you've ruled and made a policy
decision. But from all perspective, the interconnect, the donation of
the right-of-way, and just the orientation itself of the commercial tract
plus the residential just makes sense from a community development
perspective.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My question is, why didn't you put
that into the summary agenda so that we could have read that as such?
MR. SCHMITT: In the executive summary?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MR. SCHMITT: Again, I'm pointing out where there is a
disparity with the application of the GMP.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I know.
MR. SCHMITT: Which I need to do. And I can't force you
down -- I have to point out to you that this is a policy decision that
you can make. That's why we went into the second paragraph and
pointed out there was an option.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But it's really a policy conflict that we
created for the petitioner --
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- through our insistence, so they're
caught in a Catch 22.
MR. SCHMITT: Unless you rule that you -- in this case you
want to apply the commercial infill with this type of modification.
And as Bob used the words, the commercial infill was designed to
prevent -- and how did you say it, Bob, to prevent --
MR. MULHERE: The main -- the main -- I don't know if I said
Page 191
November 15-16,2005
this or not, but what's called leapfrogging. In other words, you
shouldn't be able to continue to move up. You know, the next parcel
doesn't qualify and the next parcel doesn't qualify. There's only one
parcel that qualifies, and of course, we're shifting it a little bit, but
we're not asking for any greater intensity or density.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I think the statement you made
was that the growth management plan prohibit -- I mean, this
provision of the growth management plan was approved to keep
someone from intentionally using this criteria to take advantage of that
opportunity .
MR. SCHMITT: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, you don't believe that they
intentionally did this when it's really created by an insistence of the
county, do you?
MR. SCHMITT: No. I mean, it was created -- and there's a
mutual benefit for both parties. The mutual benefit for the county and
as -- the developer as well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So under that circumstance, it is not in
contradiction with the growth management plan.
MR. SCHMITT: With that logic, I would agree.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. WHITE: And if I may, Mr. Chairman, just interject. I think
the inference that you're drawing is logical, number one, but it's also
legally correct and forms the basis for you being able to attain the
policy direction in this specific set of facts. So I think you've hit the
nutshell of what this is, why the staff believes you have this discretion
and how it would be limited in this specific case.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's almost like deja vu
agaIn.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All over again.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, we have Commissioner
Page 192
November 15-16,2005
Fiala making the motion, we have Commissioner Coletta seconding it,
but it didn't pass.
But with that said, I do have one more disclosure. I did talk to
David Weeks on this item, and I do agree with his analysis that -- the
definition of infill, but also knowing a little -- now a little history of it,
it was to stop that progression of strip zoning.
And what can be accepted is not in the best public interest. But
we -- what's being proposed is a better design for the public interest;
therefore, I'm going to support the motion once the determination of
findings is met.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now what does that mean?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's saying that the BCC
has determined that the petition is consistent with the office infill.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. WHITE: I would assume, Mr. Chairman, as a point of
procedure, that the motion maker and second could agree with that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Commissioner Coletta,
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I will make a determination
that the petition is consistent with the office and infill commercial
subdistrict.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And is not in violation with the growth
management plan.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that.
MR. WHITE: Consistent with the comprehensive plan.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Very good. Thank you. That
will be in my motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'm not about to argue with
a lady.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's about time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have one speaker?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. William Hoover.
Page 193
November 15-16, 2005
MR. HOOVER: I'll waive my right to speak. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: You have no speakers.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For less than a day?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have no speakers. Okay. Very well.
I'll close the public hearing and call the question.
All in favor of this motion to approve, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Thank you, and
congratulations.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you.
Item #8B
RESOLUTION 2005-402: PUDEX-2005-AR-7832 HAMMOCK
WOODS LLC, REPRESENTED BY DAVID UNDERHILL, P.E.,
OF BANKS ENGINEERING, INC., IS REQUESTING A 2-YEAR
EXTENSION OF THE SIERRA MEADOWS PUD. THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF 90.8 ACRES, IS LOCATED AT
THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF RATTLESNAKE-HAMMOCK
ROAD AND COLLIER BOULEVARD, IN SECTION 22,
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item,
which is 8B. This item has been continued from the October 25,
Page 194
November 15-16,2005
2005, BCC meeting, to the November 1st, BCC meeting, and then
further continued to the November 15,2005, BCC meeting.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by commission members.
It's PUDEX-2005-AR-7832, Hammock Woods, LLC,
represented by David Underhill, P.E., of Banks Engineering, Inc., is
requesting a two-year extension of the Sierra Meadows PUD.
The subject property consisting of90.8 acres is located at the
southwest corner of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier
Boulevard in Section 22, Township 50 south, Range 26 east, Collier
County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Will all persons who intend to
give testimony in this petition please stand to be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Ex parte disclosure by
commissioners. Commissioner Henning, it's your turn to go first.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I talked to our staff, and that's it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Talked to transportation and
had meetings with a representative of the developer.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I talked only with Mr.
Y ovanovich, if I remember correctly, and I have no other
correspondence or e-mails or telephone calls concerning that.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I talked to staff, and I
received e-mails.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just talked to staff. No other
meetings or correspondence or e-mails or phone calls on this subject.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We'll have the petitioner's
Page 195
November 15-16, 2005
presentation.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich
Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. I'll try to keep this pretty
brief.
I've put on the visualizer the location of the property. It's on the
southwest quadrant of Rattlesnake Hammock and Collier Boulevard.
We're requesting the extension to the PUD.
We met the first requirement, which was within five years we got
at least 15 percent of the infrastructure through the review process.
Actually, we've gone further. At this point we have constructed
infrastructure for 100 percent of the project, so we have a plat for the
entire proj ect approved and the infrastructure is in.
The second requirement is that the -- by the sixth year you have
to have building permits issued for 15 percent of the development. At
this point we have submitted building permits for 100 percent of the
300 residential units, so there are permits in and submitted as of
September 1 of this year.
With any luck, we'll get those approved prior to the PUD sunset
of December 14th. In an abundance of caution, we obviously applied
for the application to extend the PUD for two additional years because
we didn't want to take the chance that we didn't get the permits issued
prior to the expiration of the PUD and we wanted to make sure we
submitted our request for the extension prior to the expiration of the
PUD.
We anticipate submitting two more SDPs for some of the
commercial. We anticipate submitting that prior to the expir -- it
would be prior to December 14 of this year.
It is our -- as you know, the purpose of the sunsetting provision
was to make sure that people didn't come in and just speculatively
zone their property, that they actually were following through with the
zoning and building a project. I think we've met that goal and that
criteria.
Page 196
November 15-16,2005
We've also -- one of the other mechanisms is to make sure we're
still consistent with the comprehensive plan, and nothing's changed in
the area to say maybe you shouldn't approve the PUD in the first
place.
Your staff agrees that we've met the review criteria for the
two-year extension. We've been diligently pursuing the project.
We're moving forward in good faith.
With that, we're requesting that you go ahead and agree to the
two-year extension just in case we don't get the building permits in
time for that -- to meet the criteria.
And with that I'll answer any questions you may have. I don't
think it needs more than that. And I think your staff report was very
thorough.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And any questions by commissioners?
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Has transportation issues and all
that been addressed on this PUD?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe so. We've been meeting with
your staff. And keep in mind, I've only been on this probably about
18 months, and my client just bought the property in 2003. I
understand there may have been some discussions that predated us.
But we've been working with your staff to address access to the
property and make sure access is where they want it to be. We had
some access points approved on the PUD master plan that we've
agreed to relinquish. And we're also working with your staff to share
some cost savings on Rattlesnake Hammock so that we don't have to
build access lanes twice, once with our dollars and once with your
dollars. I think we've addressed the issues.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what about right-of-way?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: As far as I know, those have all been
addressed.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: They have been addressed. How
Page 197
November 15-16, 2005
many times has this been extended?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: This will be the first, as far as I know.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I thought this was extended once
before. No?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, not as far as I know, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's been amended one other time. But as
far as extension request, I believe this was the first request.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Because it's all-- dates all
the way back to 1985.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And there was a -- yeah, and there was a
significant amendment, I believe, in 1999, and that's what we're
addressing right now is the PUD. It hasn't been amended since 1999.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I'd like to call Mr. Feder
up front. Mr. Y ovanovich is, I guess, fairly new with this PUD and
probably not up to date. It's my understanding that there is still some
loose ends as far as right-of-way or roads for this PUD that have never
been answered?
MR. FEDER: Yeah, we had dealt with this development about
four years ago, 2001, about April, May. We were seeking some
right-of way on 951. At that time we were unable to negotiate issues
out in trying to reserve that right-of-way. They have worked with us
on Rattlesnake Hammock. Weare working with them on access
Issues.
The original PUD had a full signalized open median 600 feet
south of Rattlesnake Hammock. Obviously that's not something we
could agree to and to resolve that, I thought back to 2001.
My concern that I raised on this was -- I think the chairman asked
for Joe to be very specific, so I'll do the same.
I constantly ask when a PUD comes up from sunsetting, what
does that mean? What is a sunset, because I haven't seen one. But I'm
Page 198
November 15-16,2005
not sure that's an issue that applies here.
I also was told that it was extended twice because they hadn't
provided the reason for the extension, and I was told it was because
transportation held them up. And I'm hard pressed to believe that in
five years transportation held them up. So that's the issue that I had
originally.
I will tell you, we still need to work with them on right-of-way
issues on 951, and we'll seek to do so. But I have no reason that they
shouldn't get a two-year extension.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My question, Mr. Feder, is if
we're to extend this two year -- two more years, what bargaining
position are we in, where if we don't extend it and make them go back
through the process?
MR. FEDER: I understand. We went through the process
originally. We're going to look at their site plans. I'm going to hope
that they'll deal with us as well as they can on the right-of-way. And
I'm not sure that if you don't extend it, what the basis would be and
whether or not we have that bargaining position, but I'll leave that to
the board.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. I don't mean to
belabor this, but --
MR. FEDER: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- I'm really confused now. In
other words, we're going through a process that has absolutely no
meaning. In other words, to not extend it would be wrong, but we'll
still go through it. I'm really lost. Why are we here?
MR. FEDER: Your basis -- your basis for whether or not to
extend is only three issues, as I understand it and as I've been told, and
those issues are whether or not it's incompatible with neighboring
uses; it's changed, it hasn't; whether or not there's a concurrency issue
at this time, there is not; and whether or not it's no longer consistent
with your growth management/comprehensive plan, which it is not
Page 199
November 15-16,2005
either. So there would be no basis for denying it under the current
provisions of sunsetting of a PUD, and that's why I answered the way
I did, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why isn't this under -- I'm sorry.
I probably shouldn't be asking these questions of you.
MR. FEDER: It should be on the consent agenda. The issues I
raised, very honestly, about -- I had asked about sunsetting because
those are the only three provisions, and I'm not sure they're servicing
us totally, which is a separate set of issues. And then the issue that,
the delay was caused by transportation. I questioned that. Somehow
it ended up on the regular agenda, I believe, is the question you asked
me, Commissioner. It probably should have been on consent.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Marjorie, can you sum this up
as best --
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, I can. Under the authority of
the case of City of Naples versus Naples Plaza, a local government is
constrained to look at the criteria in the land development code, or
whatever code there is, in determining whether or not to, in this case,
extend the PUD and only that criteria. If a local government should
look at other criteria that are not in its code, a court is very likely to
invalidate that decision.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I might be able to explain a little bit why
it got to where it is. There is a statement here that the applicant's
difficulty and coordination with the county contributed to delays in
infrastructure development, and I think Mr. Feder was merely
expressing a contrary opinion, that that really was not the case and that
there was not sufficient delay as a result of coordinating with the
county.
But the conclusion, I think, Mr. Feder has given us, is that there
also is not sufficient evidence to refuse -- to refuse the extension of the
PUD, but nevertheless.
Page 200
November 15-16, 2005
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. One stipulation is that
the approved development will not, by itself or in construction (sic)
with other developments, place an unreasonable burden on essential
services. So as far as we know, water, sewer, trash, transportation, it's
not putting an undue burden?
Mr. County Manager, is that true?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. That's what we have right now on the
record, it's not putting a burden on the particular issues.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I make a motion to
approve then.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala. Do you
have any speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'll close the public hearing.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes unanimously.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you.
Page 201
November 15-16,2005
MR. MUDD: The next item, Commissioner --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We will-- we will take a break right
now, 10 minutes. We'll be back here at 4:21.
(A brief recess was taken.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, County Commissioner (sic).
Are we going now to 8C?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: County Manager.
MR. MUDD: County Manager.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I mean County Manager.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What did I call him?
MR. MUDD: You've called me a lot of things, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, I see. I didn't mean to insult you.
Item #8C
ORDINANCE 2005-62: PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6092 BENDERSON
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, REPRESENTED BY AGNOLI,
BARBER & BRUNDAGE, INC. AND R. BRUCE ANDERSON,
ESQUIRE OF ROETZEL & ANDRESS, REQUESTING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE WESTPORT COMMERCE CENTER
PUD FOR THE PURPOSE OF REVISING THE PUD DOCUMENT
AND MASTER PLAN TO SHOW A REDUCTION IN THE
INTENSITY OF THE COMMERCIAL/RETAIL AND
INDUSTRIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE, DELETE THE
ACCOMMODATIONS DISTRICT LAND USE, INCREASE THE
AMOUNT OF PRESERVE AREA, AND CHANGING THE PUD
REFERENCE TO MPUD (MIXED USE PUD). THE PROPERTY IS
LOCATED ON COLLIER BOULEVARD (C.R. 951) AND DAVIS
BOULEVARD, IN SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE
Page 202
November 15-16,2005
26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 96.3
ACRES - PETITIONER'S REQUEST - ADOPTED
W/STIPULATIONS
MR. MUDD: You didn't. 8C. This item has been continued
from the October 25, 2005, BCC meeting, to the November 1, 2005,
BCC meeting, was further continued to the November 15, 2005, BCC
meeting.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by commission members.
It's PUDZ-A-2004-6092, Benderson Development Company,
represented by Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc., and R. Bruce
Anderson, Esquire, of Roetzel & Andress, requesting an amendment
to the Westport Commerce Center PUD for the purpose of revising the
PUD document and master plan to show a reduction in the intensity of
the commercial/retail and industrial square footage, delete the
accommodation district land use, increase the amount of preserve area,
and changing the PUD reference to, mixed-use PUD.
The property is located on Collier Boulevard, County Road 951
and Davis Boulevard, in Section 3, Township 50 south, Range 26 east,
Collier County, Florida, consisting of96.3 acres.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All those who intend to provide
testimony in this hearing, please stand to be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Ex parte disclosure by
commissioners. We'll start with you, Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much, Chairman.
8C, the only -- the only contact I had was with staff. I had no other
meetings or correspondence or e-mails on this item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I had correspondence and
e-mails, and I talked to staff.
Page 203
November 15-16, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I have met with the petitioner as
well, by the way, as the representative for the adjacent property, and
I've met with Mr. Anderson. We have exchanged -- there has been
correspondence associated with this petition, and that's it for me.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've had meetings and
correspondence and phone calls, and I've also talked to our
transportation staff.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I spoke to staff, I met with Mr.
Anderson and the petitioner, and met and spoke to the neighboring
property owners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Halas, do you have a
question already?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm going to wait until after the
presentation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But I do have a question, I sure do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's a transportation question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then why don't we go ahead, Mr.
Anderson, and then we'll get to Commissioner Halas's request in a few
minutes.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record,
my name is Bruce Anderson with the law firm of Roetzel & Andress.
And with me today to help answer any questions you may have are
Fred Reischl and Jim Carr of Agnoli, Barber and Brundage, and Rick
Reef, a transportation consultant and Kimley-Horn & Associates.
This is a PUD amendment application. And as the executive
summary states, this is a limited-in-nature PUD amendment that does
not open the PUD up to additional scrutiny.
I would respectfully suggest to you that this is the kind of PUD
Page 204
November 15-16,2005
amendment that you really ought to love. This application simply
eliminates a hotel and reconfigures the square feet of already-allowed
commercial and light industrial uses into a mix that lowers the trip
generation rate by more than 10 percent from the current PUD allowed
mix. Plus, this application increases the preserve area to cover more
than 25 percent of the site.
Specifically for the record, the changes convert 345,000 square
feet of light industrial uses, and a 150- foot, 150-room hotel into
95,000 square feet of retail/commercial uses.
This PUD property has been platted, and it's improved with a
public bypass road, connector road, if you will, that enables people
traveling east on Davis Boulevard to bypass the intersection with
Collier Boulevard by using Market Center Drive.
All the project infrastructure has been completed, and also my
client has reached an agreement for a future interconnection with the
property owner to the west of this property, and that future
interconnection is shown on the PUD master plan. That's not an exact
copy of the master plan that is in your agenda packet, and our
transportation planner is available to address any questions that you
might have on the reduced trip generation represented by this
application.
One item that we've had hanging fire that I -- may still be
unresolved is the county utilities staff wanted some well sites on this
property, and they wanted well sites even though this PUD
amendment, in fact, reduces the potable water demand from that
which would exist under the existing approved PUD. It cuts it by a
third.
My client is desirous of cooperating with the county. And, in
fact, on another piece that they manage across the street that you'll see
in a few weeks, they have provided two well sites. But they have
extreme difficulty shoehorning in another well site or two on this
property, which is already platted and has all the infrastructure in.
Page 205
November 15-16,2005
My client has offered the county a well site at this location. And
we haven't heard a response whether that's acceptable or not. But we
have tried to be cooperative and helpful. And I'll be glad to try to
answer any questions that you have now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I'd probably like to get
somebody from transportation department up here. Has the traffic or
the trip generation already been reserved for this PUD?
MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, transportation planning. Yes. This
was one of the previously-vested developments from Benderson. They
had seven properties around the county. Three years ago they paid $15
million up front of their impact fees, and it is considered vested by that
action.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Now, if I throw a wrench in the
works here, I understand there's the possibility that we may not get the
funding that we were realizing from the state to address the issues of
the transportation problems out on Davis, so how does this play into
the equation?
MR. SCOTT: You didn't throw a wrench into it, FDOT did. We
found out on Thursday essentially -- they had a public meeting --
hearing last night in Bartow, and they have one Thursday at RPC --
that they're pulling $30 million out of the work program, which is half
of the right-of-way for Davis and the construction. Looking at the
work program this morning, they've left 19 million in there for
right-of-way from Santa Barbara to Radio in 20 11. We were planning
on doing this in what, 2008. So is there a problem there, yes?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, my question is, if this road--
if this road is not in concurrency, then this gentleman can't go forward
with this project; is that true?
MR. SCOTT: I'm not sure that I can do anything about it based
on the vesting.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And when was this vested, back in
Page 206
November 15-16,2005
1992?
MR. SCOTT: It was back in -- no, 2003, I think.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 2003, okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute. Refresh my memory. I
thought we were supposed to get more money with the growth
management plans SD-360, not less money.
MR. SCOTT: Me too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Have you seen any more money?
MR. SCOTT: No, we've seen less. And that is one -- let's say,
one of our problems is that, and having press conferences and we're
getting all kinds of money, and meanwhile money's going out the back
side. So yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Where's this money being directed
to? Is it someplace else on the east coast or what?
MR. SCOTT: We're still trying to figure that out.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It would be interesting to know.
MR. FEDER: The comment that we're getting -- for the record,
Norman Feder, transportation administrator -- is that they're having
estimate increases. We are as well.
What I will tell you is, as the chairman pointed out, the growth
management bill was passed with a strong statement of 1.2 billion
with the promise of 7 billion additional over a number of years, yet
what we're finding is that 30 million is taken out of our program.
We're about 10 percent in District 1.
I asked, and I haven't seen all the figures yet, and I've also asked
for what's called a par report that's all of their funding and how it gets
distributed and the difference from prior year, as well as in equity
report. But the long and the short of it is, that would be 300 million
just out of District 1.
We did get the interstate. I want to be very thankful for that, so I
don't want to pull back, but we also need the other issues.
And what I find very interesting is the new growth management
Page 207
November 15-16,2005
legislation says that they basically are trying to make sure our CEI is
committed to and is brought forward, much like we've been doing here
in Collier County, and yet a project that is even in statute previously
and remains in statute as I understand it, that says we can rely upon
the first five years of their adopted work program, that construction
was in that fifth year and now is moving out.
So I'm not sure the standards are going to be held the same for
the state as they are to the counties, so we have a number of issues to
address on Thursday at the RPC.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, that's just what I was going to
talk about. I was going to ask you if they were vested, because I'm
very concerned. I had heard the same word about this. And then like
Bruce just said, they have another one going in right across the street,
and of course, they're not -- they're not going to even reconfigure that
intersection or redo it so it can handle the traffic until at least 2025.
And, of course, they're not going to widen 1-75 down to this
point. Folks, we are going to just be really stuck in this area. And I
know some -- we've been pretty careful about not permitting extra
density in this area, and still, I don't think we're going to be able to
travel at all. This is really serious.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm glad this application is
reducing the trips, because we're going to need every bit of it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was the hotel.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Anderson, the -- there is an
interconnect -- interconnectivity that you were working on. Did that
come out satisfactory?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir, yes, sir. We've reached an
agreement with the adjoining property owner, and that is reflected--
the interconnection is reflected on the PUD master plan.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Page 208
November 15-16,2005
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Here's the concern that I have is
previous petition was going to provide a business park along Collier
Boulevard north/industrial uses.
If it's okay with my colleagues, would you be willing to retain
some of that business park/light industrial uses on your property?
MR. ANDERSON: To provide additional flexibility?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The flexibility? You know,
what we have is people rushing to the coast to get to their jobs, you
know, the cabinetmaker and so on and so forth. And if we provide it
further to the east, we have some opportunities to help Mr. Feder in
his transportation network by our east/west corridors. And I'm
thinking maybe a third of what you're offering up, like 130 (sic)
square foot.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: A hundred and 30,000.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thirty thousand.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, we -- I've spoken with our
transportation consultant, and he tells me that we could retain 113,000
of the business park/light industrial uses, and maintain -- or not
increase our traffic impacts beyond what they are today from -- that
could be expected from this proj ect. In other words, it would have a
neutral effect.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And possibly help out
Davis Boulevard going into Naples. Does that -- if we --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Makes sense to me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I think that's great.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But are you -- you're asking for the
whole 113 to be retained, Commissioner Henning, or --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think they were -- they
had allowed 300,000, and I'm asking for -- over 300,000, and I'm
thinking about a third of that, retaining a third of that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Around 100,000.
Page 209
November 15-16,2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Around 100,000.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And how does that meet your
requirements, Mr. Anderson?
MR. ANDERSON: That would give us a total of218 because
we are retaining some, like 105,000, I believe.
MR. MUDD: Yes, that's correct.
MR. ANDERSON: So that would be--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you want -- do you want that much
retained, Commissioner Henning, 218 or --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think to have the
flexibility to have the market -- and hopefully what's going on around
eastern 951, south U.S. 41, and activities just to the east, that we'll
have some cabinetmakers and plumbers and things like that within
there, but let the market bear whatever it can.
MR. ANDERSON: Developers always like flexibility.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And with respect to the traffic impacts,
you're not going to have a more severe impact by doing so.
MR. ANDERSON: That is what our transportation consultant
tells us, yes, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas? I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And there's just one other thing.
I would hope that we develop like we do transportation on our well
sites, wellhead sites, some sort of master plan that the board can adopt
instead of having these exactions every time these issues come up, you
know, and have something that the board can adopt.
Hi.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He looks like a soldier standing
there.
MR. DeLONY: Well, thank you. For the record, Jim DeLony.
Sir, you know, I kind of wanted just to give you the background of
where we're at and why we're doing what we're doing. Well field
development is equivalent to just about as tough a thing we do around
Page 210
November 15-16,2005
here in terms of making sure it fits in the land use and then provides
the connectivity to our existing and planned infrastructure.
And what we've pursued the last couple years is, as we see land
use come into being and decisions made by developers and in turn
approved by the board, we participate in that process in building for
the future of the infrastructure needs as best we can.
Regrettably, my crystal ball is only so good with regard to many
of these types of issues. So the incrementalism that you're suggesting
here is really not as incremental. It is part of a larger plan. But as
PUDs come available, we do try to work with the developer to provide
-- to provide for these infrastructure needs for our water/sewer district
future, our water supply needs, and that's what we're trying to
accomplish here, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Here's my concern.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're not allowed to do
exactions.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Unless it's law.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, I under -- yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And why should we allow our
staff to do that? If we adopt something that's saying, we give Jim
DeLony the right to ask or demand a wellhead site, I don't have a
problem with that.
MR. DeLONY: And I understand, sir. And I don't know if it's
implied or as much expressed within the context of our utilities master
planning. You have charged me and my division, through the county
manager, to do the water supply planning for the county. And this is
the exercise of that direction that you've given to our division.
This certainly is not outside that authority, I promise you, and
that's the authority that I'm -- that is not necessarily an exaction, but
we do -- yes, sir, go ahead.
Page 211
November 15-16,2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We could have this discussion
later on.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We've got a busy day today.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But I don't agree with you.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, I understand.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But we will have this
discussion.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, I understand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's what my concern -- my
concern was, did the -- yeah, I forgot. Did we address the well issue,
cool, clear water, and that's what I was trying to -- that's where I was
going with this thing.
MR. DeLONY: With regard to this specific PUD, no, sir, we
have not completed our workings with Mr. Anderson and his client.
We have attempted to do that. We have not come to a solution as yet.
And we will continue to do that as we do with every firm or every
development coming through here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think the county attorney has --
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- some statement.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. I just wanted to put
something on the record. Under the United States Supreme Court of
Dolan versus City of Tigard, a local government can exact certain
things from a developer, but there has to be a reasonable relationship
between the exaction and the impacts of development or what's
commonly called from this case the rough proportionality test.
We understand that the reduction in intensity as was originally
presented by this project would result in a need for 39,000 gallons of
water per day. So whatever exaction that the county would need,
Page 212
November 15-16, 2005
whether it would be in the form of in kind or a payment of money to
acquire a -- something that would provide 39,000 gallons of water a
day would be legal under Dolan versus City of Tigard.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess we cleared that up.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So we're going to get that done,
right?
Okay, Commissioner -- you finished?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So at this point in time we are
moving forward with the well? That's something that we can expect
to accomplish? Do we have to have that in our motion when we get
around to making one?
MR. DeLONY: Sir, it would certainly be your discretion as to
. how you want to handle this matter. This is what we've asked of this
particular PUD, or this particular action.
We've approached the folks there and said, look, we could use a
couple well sites here to offset some of the impact here in this
particular area. They've come back with one.
We also know that we have a need for 30 feet on the 951 side of
this property, Collier Boulevard, for a potable water main that we're
going to have to run through there. Now, whether we have to get that
through condemnation, gift or purchase, we're going to get that --
we're going to need that to put the potable water main that we're going
to move down through that area to serve the south end of the county.
So working with the -- with Mr. Anderson and his -- and the
folks that he represents is the -- those are the needs that we need to
have, and everyone benefits from those particular items that are
appropriated -- I mean, excuse me, incorporated in this particular
property.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. A question, Margie. I'm
not too sure where extractions such as this that were mentioned all of a
Page 213
November 15-16,2005
sudden become contract zoning. Can you explain the difference of
that to me? Because I have one more problem.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, I don't believe it's contract
zoning at all because the development is what is generating the need
for the exaction. So it is related to the impacts of development, so I
fail to see how that would be contract zoning because what the
developer's being asked to do is to provide his share of infrastructure
for the impacts that he's causing by asking for the development.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Bingo. Let's go to affordable
housing. How could that fit into this after the fact?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, on this particular PUD, we
only are dealing with a -- we're not opening up the whole PUD. We
are only looking -- and this is an amendment to an existing PUD. So I
think affordable housing issues may be a bit problematic with this one.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: And also you need to look at what
type of zoning we have here. As I understand it, this is more of a
commercial/industrial type PUD, and then you start to -- this is an
amendment. And when you start to put residential in that mix, it then
becomes a mix. And if you recall, we have different types of PUDs
now. We have residential ones and mixed use ones and so forth, and
then that can cause us a problem with the way the thing was
advertised, and so on, as well.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The planning commission,
working at a lower level, they've been finding that the developers are
coming across with donations, like 50 cents per square foot for
commercial and $1,000 for residential, so would this --
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Understood.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- this wouldn't apply then in
this case for --
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, again, this isn't a PUD to
PUD rezone. This is just a portion of a PUD . You may wish to ask
Page 214
November 15-16,2005
the applicant if they would be willing to make such a commitment and
-- but only, again, as it would relate to the portion as being opened,
and not the entire proj ect.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to ask that question of
the applicant. Mr. Bruce Anderson, you can stand up, sir, and come
up to the mike. Since this subject came up -- and I'm not too sure how
we got to this point -- did you have anything to say on behalf of your
client?
MR. ANDERSON: That is not something that they had
contemplated doing, because this is an already approved proj ect that
they're not increasing the density on. They do have other projects in
other parts of the county where they are coming in to increase, and
they are aware of the increasing tendency to do that and have factored
that in. You may see that done on other of their applications.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But this one's the exception
because of the fact that they started earlier?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Couple questions, Bruce. First
one is, when we see this interconnect, does it -- do you have two exits
onto Collier Boulevard? I wasn't quite sure what that looked like.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You have two exits onto Collier
Boulevard.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So in other words, they can go from
Davis to Collier and not have to deal with that intersection? Okay,
fine.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And my second question is, do you
have an interconnect to Wal * Mart.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, that's part -- that's part of this PUD.
Page 215
November 15-16,2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay, good.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good. At least you'll be taking
some of the traffic off, okay, thank you.
MR. ANDERSON: And that's a public roadway that they
constructed and dedicated to the county.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I have a question concerning the
interconnect. Excuse me. The executive summary states that the staff
wanted to have the PUD master plan reflect the interconnection of the
property to the west and to include language in the PUD document
that reflects the change.
I couldn't find it in the PUD document, so I asked the question,
where can it be found in the PUD document, and then I was told that
it's being handled outside the PUD, and that the only way that this will
ever come to fruition is if the adjacent property owners agree.
Now, that's not my understanding of where you are today, or
right now. It's my understanding that there is an agreement for an
interconnect, and that both property owners are in agreement about
that interconnect, and that there's nothing about the demands of one
property that is not acceptable to the other; is that true?
MR. ANDERSON: That's certainly correct from my
understanding. Does their attorney want to come and confirm it on the
record? I think that'd be nice.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Yovanovich. You're representing
the other party. We'd like you to get this cleared up to make sure that
there is a mutual agreement between the two parties that there will be
an interconnect, not something that's dependent upon one side or the
other approving it at some future point.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: My understanding -- and my client just
stepped out of the room -- but yes, we have a signed agreement, and
the money that's supposed to go into an escrow pursuant to that
Page 216
November 15-16,2005
agreement has either been wired in or is in the process of being wired
in. So, yes, we have an agreement, as far as we know, and that's not
conditioned upon zoning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that's going to be placed in the PUD
document?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know if Mr. Anderson's putting it
in the document. We have a -- we have an easement agreement that
will be recorded of public record that gives us access rights across a
portion of their property to construct the interconnect that we will
need for our property.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: In return for certain payment, I presume?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All I'm trying to do is get that
nailed down so it is part of the approval process. Because, you know,
I don't want to be in a position a year from now, having to revisit this
thing and people telling us, well, we really didn't consummate that
agreement.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I think it would be important to
have it as a condition --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- of the approval of the PUD so that if,
you know, something happened between what I understood earlier and
now, that this somehow doesn't get recorded --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- we're all protected.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's what I'm after.
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I just wanted to elaborate on that
point and state for the record that I feel it appropriate that the
agreement be referenced in the PUD.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So I just bring that up so that if
there is any intention of the commissioner making the motion, I just
ask that you give that some consideration.
Page 21 7
November 15-16, 2005
Commissioner Henning, you're next.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm ready to make a
motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ifmy colleagues doesn't (sic)
need staffs presentation, I'll go ahead and make a motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Shoot.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've asked about every question we
could possibly ask.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But we need to get the well
figured out. Now, is (sic) their impacts suitable for one well or do we
need two wells?
MR. DeLONY: For the record, Jim DeLony, public utilities
administrator. Sir, when we first took a look at this property, we
assessed it to be two, and we've been offered one.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So what is the gallonage
out of one?
MR. DeLONY: Sir, we just try to do as best we can to fit the
needs of at least one well or two based on the separation between
those wells, knowing that you've got a reliability factor associated
with those wells. So typically we'll asked for one. If there's enough
separation, we'll ask for two. All -- we'll look in more detail with
regard to the site itself.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. DeLONY: This site will accommodate two wells in terms
of the spacing between the wells, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. So to answer my
question, is one adequate for their use?
MR. DeLONY: Sir, one would be better than none, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But not as good as two.
MR. DeLONY: That's correct.
Page 218
November 15-16, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And not as good as half a dozen.
MR. DeLONY: Actually, the best fit solution here, as I had
mentioned, would be for them to work with us on the easements in the
front as a willing seller or as part of an agreement that we can make
with regard to that easement, and then work with us on the well sites
that we've outlined or requested as part of our review of this PUD.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well let's get Mr.
Anderson up there and see if we can nail this and move on.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Anderson, the 30-foot
easement for the main, the water main, is really for a community
benefit. They're asking for two wells. Can you accept one well and
work with our staff on the utility easement, the 30- foot utility
easement?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. And I don't know that -- I'm not the
expert, but I wonder if a second well couldn't be put in that 30-foot
easement area.
MR. DeLONY: It could. Yes, sir, we could.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could that be a stipulation?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I could --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That we work together to accomplish
that goal?
MR. ANDERSON: Sure, sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning,
Commissioner Halas has a question. You want to make your motion
now and --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure. And if I have to amend it
for Commissioner Halas.
I'm going to make a motion to approve with staff stipulations
Page 219
November 15-16,2005
except for, the well field be modified to provide one well, to work
with the utilities administrator on a 30- foot water main easement along
951 and see if a second well can be configured in within that 30-foot,
that the interconnection agreement will be attached to the PUD, that
the applicant retain 113,000 square foot of business park/light
industrial.
MR. ANDERSON: That would be on additional?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Additional.
MR. ANDERSON: For a total of218?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Clarification, that the agreement be
attached as an exhibit to the PUD document or that the agreement be
referenced in the PUD document?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Attached.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Become part of or referenced would be
better than having it attached as an exhibit, wouldn't it?
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I think so. I'm just thinking back
to other projects where I've had questions about exhibits.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You could say that it's contingent upon
-- the approval is contingent upon the agreement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Recorded.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Recorded as a deed.
MR. ANDERSON: We've got an easement document all
prepared, and I have my client's signature on it, and just waiting for a
check.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Contingent upon the
agreement recorded as an easement, okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. We have a motion to approve
by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Halas, did you have something you wanted to --
Page 220
November 15-16,2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just want to make sure we've got
everything in here. We're going to have 100,000 additional square
feet of light industrial; is that true?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Wasn't it 113?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hundred and thirteen, right, hundred
and thirteen.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Hundred and thirteen.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hundred and thirteen?
MR. MUDD: Hundred and thirteen plus the 105 that they're
leaving in there.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
MR. MUDD: So that gives you your --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And then we're going to have a
30- foot easement for the line, and we're going to look at possibly two
wells; is that correct?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, yes. We're going to work with your
staff.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: One for -- definitely one well, and
the --
MR. ANDERSON: That one there.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And the possibility of additional
well on that property; is that correct?
MR. ANDERSON: Within the 30-foot easement area that we
would be negotiating with your staff on, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And then the
interconnectivity is going to be agreed upon by the two parties?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're all set? We have no public
-- I'm sorry, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, please. I'm just a little bit
concerned. I mean, the fact that we're reducing a more intense
industrial -- is that what we're doing here -- than was originally
Page 221
November 15-16,2005
planned for on this?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, it's actually a reduction of --
they originally had 300 -- over 300,000.
MR. MUDD: Four hundred fifty thousand.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, 450,000. They dropped it
down, I brought it up, a motion was seconded.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I understand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have no public speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then I'll close the public hearing.
All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #8D
ORDINANCE 2005-63: PUDZ-2004-AR-6906, JAMES J. FIELDS,
CONTRACT PURCHASER, REPRESENTED BY WILLIAM
HOOVER OF HOOVER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT,
INC., REQUESTING: A REZONE FROM THE RESIDENTIAL
MULTI-FAMILY-6 (RMF-6) WITH A BAYSHORE MIXED USED
DISTRICT-RESIDENTIAL (BMUDR2) OVERLAY ZONING
DISTRICT TO THE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR A PROJECT
TO BE KNOWN AS THE CIRRUS POINTE PUD, TO ALLOW
FORA MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT OF UP TO 108
Page 222
November 15-16, 2005
RESIDENTIAL UNITS; AND, CONSIDERATION AND
APPROVAL OF AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY
BONUS AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING THE DEVELOPER TO
UTILIZE AFFORDABLE HOUSING BONUS DENSITY UNITS
(IN THE AMOUNT OF 78 UNITS AT 7.89 BONUS DENSITY
UNITS PER ACRE) IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROJECT
FOR LOW-INCOME RESIDENTS THAT WILL INCLUDE A
MAXIMUM OF 32 UNITS DESIGNATED AS AFFORDABLE
HOUSING UNITS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF
9.92 ACRES, IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
BA YSHORE DRIVE AND THOMASSON DRIVE, IN SECTION
14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY. FLORIDA - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item.
This item also requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by commission members.
It's PUDZ-2004-AR--6906, James J. Fields, contract purchaser,
represented by William Hoover of Hoover Planning and Development,
Inc., requesting a rezone from the residential multi-family 6, RMF-6,
with a Bayshore mixed use district residential, BMUD- R2 overlay
zoning district, to the residential planned unit development, RPUD
zoning district, for a project to be known as Cirrus Pointe PUD, to
allow for a multi-family project of up to 108 residential units and
consideration and approval of an affordable housing density bonus
agreement authorizing the developer to utilize affordable housing
bonus density units in the amount of78 units at 7.89 bonus density
units per acre in the development of this project for low-income
residents that will include a maximum of 32 units designated as
affordable housing units.
The subject property consisting of 9.92 acres is located at the
northeast corner of Bayshore Drive and Thomasson Drive, in Section
Page 223
November 15-16, 2005
14, Township 50 south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Will all those who intend to give
testimony in this petition, please rise and be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Ex parte disclosure by
commissioners. Who started first last time, Commissioner Halas or
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I started last.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I received an e-mail from David
Jackson.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've had meetings, I've met
with the developer many times from the start of this proj ect. I've
spoken with the CRA on Bayshore and gotten their feelings on this.
I've received e-mails. I've spoken to the developer's representatives,
had meetings with them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And I--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, and I've spoken to
transportation department, excuse me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I've had conversations with Mr.
Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner, I've also talked with David
Jackson, the executive director of the redevelopment area, and that is
probably it for me.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, and I met with the
representatives of the petitioner, meetings, correspondence, and
e- mails.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The only thing that I've had is
Page 224
November 15-16,2005
e-mails and, of course, I've talked to staff about this also.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're ready for the petitioner's
presentation.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich
Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner.
Jim Fields is here, who has the contract to purchase the property,
to answer any questions you may have, as well as Bill Hoover, and we
have our engineer here if necessary to answer questions.
I'll do -- the property is located at the corner of Thomasson and
Bayshore. It's up on your visualizer. It's a little under -- it's 9.92
acres. The base density on the property would be 30 units. We're
asking for a density bonus of7.89 units through an affordable housing
density bonus agreement, which will yield an additional 78 units, for a
total of 108 units on the property.
Of the 78 bonus units, 32, roughly 40 percent of them, will, you
know, meet the workforce/affordable housing guidelines. Twenty-one
will serve the 60 percent or less of the income level, and 11 of them
will serve the 50 percent or less of the income level.
Like all requirements, this will be owner-occupied. They'll be
within the same buildings as the market rate units. You will not be
able to tell the difference between a market rate and affordable
housing unit. They'll have the same finishes, over-sized tile, Corian.
They'll just be sold for a little bit less.
Essentially, my client will be losing about $100,000 a unit on
each of the 32 -- yeah, on each of the 32 units versus what it's going to
cost him to construct it and what he's going to actually be able to sell it
for. Hopefully he'll make that up with the market rate units.
The unit size, the minimum unit size is going to be 1,526 square
feet, so these are nice-size units. They're three-bedroom units.
We have made all of the changes to the PUD document requested
by the planning commission. Your staff is recommending approval.
The planning commission recommended approval.
Page 225
November 15-16,2005
And with that, I'll conclude my remarks and answer any
questions you may have regarding the proj ect.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. How long -- well, let me start
here. Will there be a stipulation that, by deed restriction, that the
purchasers, the owner-occupied purchasers will be homesteaded at
that property? In other words, this is their primary residence. We
want to make sure -- I want to make sure, personally --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- that we don't have an investor go
in and buy 10, calling them an owner-occupied -- I've seen this happen
too many times. And I'm getting -- I'm getting something from Jim.
Okay. That's wonderful.
Will the deed restrictions allow only one family per unit?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We don't have a few families
moving in renting out bedrooms?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let's make sure we -- when you're saying
deed restrictions, we anticipate doing that throughout our
condominium association documents, which are restrictions on the
land, but you won't find them specifically in the deed from me to a --
from us to the purchaser. It won't be in text of the deed, but that will
be in the chain of title and applicable to the property. So I just want to
make sure you're not expecting to see it in the warranty deed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I kind of was because I just
wanted to make sure people know what they're getting up front. Will
they be homesteaded?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: They will, right --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Has to be the primary, has to be
their family, not --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that will all be in the condominium
association documents, which are recorded and are recorded prior to
Page 226
November 15-16,2005
anybody taking title to the property. So they do know what they're
getting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does that govern what the real
estate agent --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- then comes in and does?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It absolutely -- they have to hand that
document to a prospective purchaser that tells them, these are the rules
that apply to the property, and that prospective purchaser's not bound
until they receive those documents. So that will make it clear. And it
says, don't rely on anything that's oral. You only can look at these
written documents as to what the rules of the game are.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because real estate agents now are
-- well, you and I both know what's going on.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I won't -- now, how will you
verify that there is only one family living per unit? Will -- I mean,
say, for instance, your homeowners' association finds that somebody's
come in there and there's eight people living in there, they all have
different cars, and they're renting out the rooms. Because that happens
in this area --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- so I have to be cautious of that.
This is going to be a wonderful project. I don't want to see it go down
hill. So if the homeowners in the rest of the association determine that
somebody is renting out rooms, what can you do to stop it?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, the condominium association
documents will be clear, and the association will have the authority to
go in and undo that situation. They'll obviously send a letter first.
And if the unit owner doesn't voluntarily do that, they will -- they will
be able to take enforcement action against them to get compliance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And could you tell me how
Page 227
November 15-16,2005
much each category -- you've given us two categories.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Market rate I'm not going to ask
about. But how much will those homes sell for?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I have that. Between 133 and 155.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Perfect, okay. And the last
question, how long will it stay affordable?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, the requirements under the county's
guidelines are 15 years, and --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, good. That's what I needed
to know.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're restricting the return--
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- if someone sells, correct?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. We're complying with the
county's guidelines that you're only allowed to increase, I think it's
five percent a year, that the property owner would get automatically,
and then they split the difference if they ultimately sell short of 15
years.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. Thank you.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My questions have been answered.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- Commissioner Fiala, second by
Commissioner Coletta. We have one public speaker.
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. Kathy Patterson.
MS. PATTERSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Kathy
Patterson with the Collier County Housing Development Corporation.
Page 228
November 15-16,2005
And I want to -- the Collier County Housing Development
Corporation would like to speak in favor of you approving the
rezoning of this multi-family parcel into a planned development unit
(sic), and also for the density bonus.
The shortage of affordable housing in Collier County is in a
crisis, at a crisis level, and with the approval of the Cirrus Pointe 108
unit mixed-income development, 32 of these units will be affordable
to the workforce of Collier County. It doesn't begin to address the
crisis; however, it's a wonderful start, and I encourage your support
and thank for your time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. No other --
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- public speakers, right?
I'll close the public hearing.
We have a motion on the table by Commissioner Fiala for
approval. Who seconded?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I did.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta seconded.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. It passes
unanimously. Thank you.
Item #8E
ORDINANCE 2005-64: PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6084 WATERWAYS
JOINT VENTURE IV, REPRESENTED BY DWIGHT H.
NADEAU, OF RW A, INC., AND RICHARD D. YOV ANOVICH,
Page 229
November 15-16, 2005
OF GOODLETTE, COLEMAN AND JOHNSON, P.A.,
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A)
AND RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD)
TO RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD)
FOR A PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS BRISTOL PINES RPUD
TO AMEND THE EXISTING PUD DOCUMENT AND MASTER
PLAN FOR A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION TO ADD LAND
AND UNITS TO ALLOW FOR A MAXIMUM NUMBER OF 292
RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND RECREATIONAL AMENITIES.
THE PROJECT DENSITY IS PROPOSED TO BE 6.85 UNITS PER
ACRE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE COMPANION
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS AGREEMENT,
AUTHORIZING THE DEVELOPER TO UTILIZE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING BONUS DENSITY UNITS (IN THE AMOUNT OF 121
UNITS AT 3.0 BONUS DENSITY UNITS PER ACRE) IN THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROJECT FOR LOW-INCOME
RESIDENTS THAT WILL INCLUDE A MAXIMUM OF 29
UNITS DESIGNATED AS AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS.
THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF 42.61 ACRES AND IS
GENERALLY LOCATED AT 14750 COLLIER BOULEVARD ON
THE EAST SIDE OF COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR-951),
APPROXIMATELY 1 MILE SOUTH OF IMMOKALEE ROAD
(CR-846). ACCESS TO SERVE THE PROJECT IS PROPOSED TO
BE FROM TREE FARM ROAD IN SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 48
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA -
ADOPTED W/CCPC STIPULATIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item,
which is 8E. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and
ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members.
It's PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6084, Waterways Joint Venture IV,
represented by Dwight H. Nadeau ofRW A, Inc., and Richard D.
Page 230
November 15-16,2005
Y ovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman, and Johnson, P A, requesting a
rezone from rural agricultural A and residential planned unit
development, RPUD, to residential planned unit development, RPUD,
for a proj ect to be known as Bristol Pines RPUD to amend the existing
PUD document and master plan for a residential subdivision to add
land and units to allow for a maximum number of 292 residential units
and recreational amenities.
The project density is proposed to be 6.85 units per acre subject
to the approval of the companion affordable housing density bonus
agreement authorizing the developer to utilize affordable housing
bonus density units in the amount of 121 units at three bonus density
units per acre in the development of this project for low-income
residents that will include a maximum of 29 units designated as
affordable housing units.
The project consists of 42.61 acres and is generally located at
14750 Collier Boulevard on the east side of Collier Boulevard, County
Road 951, approximately one mile south of Immokalee Road, which is
County Road 846. Access to serve the project is proposed to be from
Tree Farm Road in Section 35, Township 48 south, Range 26 east,
Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All persons intending to give
testimony in this hearing, please stand and be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Ex parte disclosure, Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No disclosures on this item. I just
spoke with staff on it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I met with Mr.
Y ovanovich and Dwight Nadeau.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I have also met with
representatives of the petitioner concerning this petition.
Page 23 1
November 15-16, 2005
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have met with
representatives of the petitioner. I've also spoken with staff, and I've
received e-mails.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No disclosures.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Very well. Then we'll start with the
petitioner's presentation.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich
Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. With me today are Richard
Davenport, who represents the property owner Dwight Nadeau, the
professional planner on the project, and Reed Jarvi, if you have any
transportation questions.
This is essentially phase two of a project you saw about a year or
so ago. The property's located on 951, the east side of 951. It's a --
the total project site is 42 acres. The first phase that you saw was 22
acres. We're adding just under 20 acres in this second phase.
The first phase was for 159 dwelling units, of which 16 were low
-- were affordable housing units. The second phase is for 133 units,
for another 13 -- which will include another 13 affordable housing
units.
So the total project would be 292 residential dwelling units at
6.85 dwelling units per acre. We're requesting just under three
additional units through the affordable housing density bonus
program.
Of the additional 121 units through the affordable housing
density bonus, roughly 24 percent of those will be affordable housing
units.
In the first phase of the project we agreed to reach an agreement
to construct Tree Farm Road to a certain point. That would be phase
one, which is basically shown on the master plan.
This agreement -- this PUD would require us to fund the
Page 232
November 15-16,2005
engineering design of the remainder of Tree Farm Road. So we have
worked with your staff to address transportation issues in this area to
hopefully come up with a road that essentially will be Tree Farm that
will get you to W oodcrest/Massey, that will then bring you north to
Immokalee Road so people will be able to avoid the intersection of
Immokalee and Collier Boulevard, and eventually will actually --
Massey already exists, so it will also be a north/south bypass road
eventually from -- so people won't even have to get to the intersection
and will be able to go north/south down to Vanderbilt Beach Road.
We're talking about four- and six-unit buildings within the
proj ect. We have worked with Vanderbilt Country Club residents to
make sure they're happy, and I believe they're supporting the project.
We're providing a six-foot high wall that abuts their property line,
which is what they requested and we're providing.
We got EAC recommendation of approval with one condition,
that we install a 30- inch elliptical pipe under the proj ect roadway to
allow for small animals to have access to each of the two preserves,
and as I already mentioned, we've worked with Vanderbilt Country
Club.
I think with that, that is a good summary of the project. Your
planning commission recommended approval, your staffs
recommending approval, and we're available to answer any questions
you may have regarding the project.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Couple of things. The bypass
down to Vanderbilt Beach Road is not a sure thing, is it?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The bypass road down to Vanderbilt
Beach Road? Well--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Some opposition to that, isn't there,
no? Or not?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Not that I know of. I don't know of
anything. But our project is not really contingent upon that. We're
Page 233
November 15-16,2005
addressing Tree Farm--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- but there's -- no, I don't know of any
opposition to this bypass road concept.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. As far as getting COs for
this, the planning commission has stated that it won't be until October
-- what is it -- January, 2007. How's this going to affect -- after we
six-lane 951 in that area? Can the transportation department give us
some insight into this as far as the capacity? Especially that whole
intersection area of Immokalee Road and 951 and the amount of
development that we've got scheduled for -- already for on Immokalee
Road.
MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, transportation planning. Obviously
with the six lanes and what we have banked in there already, besides
-- approved projects in the area, we are adding quite a bit of capacity
going from two to six.
We've had discussions before about Immokalee and 951, if 951 is
extended into Lee County as a potential overpass site in the future.
One of the things we're trying to do with them is work at bypass roads,
Tree Farm, Massey, some of the -- Woodcrest, to get other alternatives
that don't get out to 951 on Immokalee. What we're trying to do is
work with them to mitigate their -- their impact to the system.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So do we have -- is that a sure
thing, Massey Road out to Immokalee Road yet?
MR. SCOTT: Weare showing that on all our plans and working
towards that, so -- I haven't heard much opposition. I guess you might
be inferring that there is some, but --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. I just want to make sure that
we have that -- capabilities of getting out to Immokalee Road. Is
there?
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. From Tree Farm Road, but
Page 234
November 15-16,2005
going from Tree Farm south, we don't know if that's going to be
feasible though, right?
MR. SCOTT: Well, we're showing that on our plans and -- yeah,
it's an existing roadway in there right now. Some people drive it. I
think it's not the best roadway right now, but we show that as a future
network road.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The other thing about
affordable housing, how long is this going to stay in inventory? Is this
going to be, again, another 15 years or so?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Again, this is the owner-occupied,
three-bedroom units. And yes, it's in the inventory for 15 years
through your standard agreement.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I'd like to make a motion on
this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to make a motion along
with all of the recommendations that the planning commission
recommended, that this be included into this.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And if I -- and I neglected to state that we
have withdrawn our request for deviation number one. I just need to
get that on the record. So that's no longer an issue within the staff --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And deviation number five.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Deviation number five only applied to
phase one, which is already under construction. We're not asking for
that in phase two.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So that's included in my
motion also, those two.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Halas for
approval, with stipulations specified by the planning commission.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Planning commission.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And is there a second?
Page 235
November 15-16,2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Coletta.
Do we have any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No public speakers. And I will --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wait a minute. You forgot to call
on me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That was intentional.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. You're offering affordable
housing. It doesn't say for low or low-low. Now, can you -- on the
last one we heard prices for both those ranges.
Can you tell me how much your affordable housing will sell for?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The price points?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Assuming interest rates don't go up,
which would mean the price will come down, about 160 to 180.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And that's 29 units. And our
last developer, who was granted the privilege of having extra density
units added for affordable housing -- now we've given the guy a lot of
extra units, and all we get is 29 units. The last guy, he gave us 30
percent of his entire amount. I'm not going to ask for 30 percent, but I
would like to see another level of affordable housing, maybe gap
housing in here with another, say, 21 units.
He's still going to be making money on gap housing, but this way
then there will be more devoted to them and a good reason why we're
giving him all of these extra density units.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, Commissioner Fiala, like the
previous petitioner, there's a matrix that you go to and say, you're
going to provide -- in order to get a density bonus of three units per
acre, you've got to provide certain types of units to qualify for that.
Page 236
November 15-16,2005
And we followed the matrix, and the matrix is what generated the
percent that we're providing, and that's the same thing that happened
in the previous application.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, he provided 32 of 108 units.
They're providing 29 of 228 --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct, and --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- for 292 units.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And they wanted a density bonus of
almost eight units per acre versus a density bonus of about three. So
there is a -- in order to get a higher density bonus, they had to agree to
provide a greater percentage of affordable units.
Now, we're playing within the rules that are within the land
development code.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I understand that, but I'm trying to --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If someone wants to change --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- add to our affordable housing
market a little bit more.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I appreciate that. But, Commissioner,
this has been a developer who has appeared before you before and has
said, I'll be one of the first to actually do affordable units within my
market rate proj ect. And I would hope that we wouldn't try to change
the matrix on us while we're at the podium.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Haven't we been trying to -- I've
known on other PUDs where we've tried to get 10 percent and 10
percent, right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We have on occasion, but this
particular line-up -- but what I'm surprised at, if I may -- I didn't ask
permission first -- but how much was the price again of these homes, a
hundred and --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: About 160 to 180 with today's interest
rates.
Page 237
November 15-16, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Isn't that considered gap
housing?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, it is. It's not affordable.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, no. No, no. It's going to serve --
it's going to serve people who -- to qualify -- to qualify you've got to
make 60 percent or less, correct? Sixty percent or less.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, I know where we
are with housing in Collier County with the mid price, what now, a
half a million dollars on the average?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then maybe we need some low
Income.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I still can't believe that, you
know, the price got this high. But I mean, that's what it is.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And it may not be that high,
Commissioner. The person who qualifies still can only make -- their
family income can still only be 60 percent or less of the median
Income.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And this will be deed restricted,
right, so that it --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- we don't have investors coming in
and buying them up, right? And it has to be owner-occupied
homesteaded?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. The -- yes. These units have to be
owner-occupied --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm still uncomfortable with the
number. I would like to see some more affordable housing, maybe
low income or low-low or nothing. But as long as the motion is -- I
don't know. It depends on what the motion makers agree.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I will leave my motion as it was.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I think if we're going to try to
Page 238
November 15-16, 2005
change it, we ought to change the land development code and the
matrix contained in it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I think we have to do that
as soon as possible.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, yeah. And maybe that's
something we need to talk about, that's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. We give a lot of density
bonuses away and get very little in return, but they get a lot in return
for all the extra density they get.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Maybe Cormac might want to
add something to this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's deal with this particular petition.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we've got to deal with--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, let's go.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. We've got a motion and a second
here. I'm going to close the public hearing.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 4-1, with Commissioner
Fiala dissenting.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Item #8F
ORDINANCE 2005-65: PUDA-2005-AR-7557 EMPIRE
DEVELOPERS GROUP LLC, REPRESENTED BY LAURA
Page 239
November 15-16,2005
SPURGEON OF JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC.,
REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE HD DEVELOPMENT
PUD DOCUMENT AND MASTER PLAN BY REVISING THE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN TRACTS 1 AND 2 BY:
REVISING THE MINIMUM SINGLE-F AMIL Y LOT AREAS
FROM 12,000 SQUARE FEET AND 6,000 SQUARE FEET TO
9,000 SQUARE FEET; REVISING THE MINIMUM INTERIOR
LOT WIDTHS FROM 85 FEET AND 55 FEET TO 60 FEET;
REVISING THE MINIMUM CORNER LOT WIDTHS FROM 95
FEET AND 65 FEET TO 65 FEET; THE PROJECT OWNERSHIP;
REMOVING ATTACHED AND ZERO-LOT LINE DWELLING
UNITS AS PERMITTED USES; AND, ADDING ADDITIONAL
LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS ALONG THE NORTHERN PUD
BOUNDARY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS
APPROXIMATELY 46.64 ACRES LOCATED EAST OF OLDE
CYPRESS BOULEVARD, BETWEEN IMMOKALEE ROAD (CR
846) AND TREELINE DRIVE, IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 48
SOUTH. RANGE 26 EAST - ADOPTED W/STIPULATIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us to item 8F. This
item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure
be provided by commission members.
It's PUDA-2205-AR-7557, Empire Developers Group, LLC,
represented by Laura Spurgeon of Johnson Engineering, Inc.,
requesting an amendment to the HD development PUD document and
master plan by revising the development standards in tract one and
two by revising the minimum single-family lot area from 12 thou --
from 12,000 square feet and 6,000 square feet to 9,000 square feet;
revising the minimum interior lot widths from 85 feet and 55 feet to
60 feet; revising the minimum corner lot width from 95 feet and 65
feet to 65 feet; the project ownership re -- and the project ownership;
and removing attached in zero-lot line dwelling units as permitted
Page 240
November 15-16,2005
uses; and adding additional landscape requirements along the northern
PUD boundary.
The subject property is approximately 46.64 acres located east of
Olde Cypress Boulevard between Immokalee Road, County Road 846,
and Treeline Drive in Section 21, Township 48 south, Range 26 east.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All those who intend to provide
testimony in this hearing, please stand to be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas, it's your
turn.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, great. I had two meetings with
both the attorney and the developer on this issue, and I also talked
with staff on this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. We're dealing with
8F here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't even show it on my
schedule. All I can say is no disclosures. I go from E to G.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Mr. Hoover, did I -- did we meet
on this particular item?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Did I meet with you, sir?
MR. BRYANT: Yes, sir. It's David Bryant, for the record,
Commissioner Coletta. We met, and you were kind enough to give us
some of your time, as was Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then I add that to there,
and I apologize for the lack of that on my disclosure list.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It wasn't on my schedule, but I
remember we did meet.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And Tony Pires, too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And Tony Pires, too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Okay. Commissioner -- so it's
clear, we did meet and we talked about this project.
Page 241
November 15-16,2005
And Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I met with the developer and
with the attorney and with Tony, and with staff, and also I've received
e- mails.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I met with big boy Bryant, and
MR. BRYANT: That's a compliment, I assume.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- received an e-mail from the
clerk's attorney, and received some e-mails from some residents.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Very well. Mr. Bryant, we're
ready.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I also received some e-mail from
the residents too, so I want to put that on the record. I forgot about
that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if I may, I hate to come
back on this, but they've got the alphabet going E, G, and F, so I did
find it, and also received some e-mails.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Mr. Bryant, we're ready for you
to go now.
MR. BRYANT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. It's
a pleasure being here with you this afternoon.
As you remember from our discussions early on -- earlier this
year about this matter and also our discussions, you were kind enough
to give us time to present our project to you. This is a situation -- or
this is a project out on Olde Cypress, and you'll see on the visualizer
where it's located. It's on the south side ofOlde Cypress, and it's
accessed through Treeline Drive, and it is the project on the very south
end that also abuts the canal and the preserve area that drops into the
canal on Immokalee Road.
This is a proj ect that is novel to this commission and to this
community, I would submit to you, because we are not asking for any
Page 242
November 15-16, 2005
density bonuses, we're not asking for any increase in density. What
we're doing is decreasing density.
We have an approved PUD, one that was approved in 2003,
which provides this developer the ability to go out and build the
project as it has been approved.
The developer believes that by changing and amending the PUD,
which only opens up certain matters which the executive summary
points out -- and I would point out to you that staff has recommended
approval of this particular petition and also had recommended
approval at the planning commission.
We believe that this particular product with this particular size lot
is more amenable to the community, it's more attractive, and it's a
better product for this particular site.
Weare only requesting to build 71 units. We have a small out
parcel down -- which would be on your right-hand corner. That is
also a parcel that is not part though of this particular amendment at
this time.
We have some residential that could be approved there, but
there's no desire to do residential in that area so that only -- we're
asking for -- this particular amendment is 71 units for the particular
subject site.
We do intend to come back to you at a later time and request
commercial for that lower right-hand corner parcel because Empire
would like to build a very impressive, very nice corporate
headquarters there, and this is adjacent to some intense commercial
development, which we believe it would be compatible for that
particular site.
We have one issue before -- or one major issue before the
planning board that I think spilled into other areas which caused the
planning board to look at issues that did not seem appropriate, and
staff -- your staff found that those issues brought up by the planning
board were not really appropriate for this matter and disagreed with it.
Page 243
November 15-16,2005
I think one of the issues that really we did not look at and we
didn't believe we had to because of the fact that this is an amendment
to an existing PUD, was affordable housing. And I was very pleased
that Marjorie Student, who's not here now, made a comment early on
when Commissioner Coletta asked about affordable housing
contributions to an amended PUD, and Ms. Student said that that
should not be opened up. That was not something that should be
considered because this is an amendment, not a new issue.
However, notwithstanding that appears to be the opinion of the
county attorney as voiced by Ms. Student at this hearing and on the
record, my client is more than happy to make a contribution believing
that affordable housing is very important to this community.
The president of Empire has two sons. He wants to come back
here and live here. He wants them to be able to afford to live here.
Mr. Slavage (phonetic), who is the past president of the Florida
Home Builders and the Collier Building Association worked very
diligently to bring more funds into affordable housing and create more
avenues for affordable housing, both through the Sadowski Act and
other areas.
And it's a very dear thing to him, and he took it very personal
when he, in essence, got beat up because we had not looked at that
issue mainly because we believe that that was the opinion of the
county attorney's office that no affordable housing matter was
required for an amendment to a PUD.
But notwithstanding, we are going to tell the board right now that
we are going to make a commitment to offer $1,000 per door as the
closings take place for affordable housing to boost that trust fund, and
hopefully build more money for it.
The main issue that has occurred from the beginning and it has
escalated at this point is the buffering along the area that adjoins the
existing housing and our new development. The homeowners along
the northern side, along this area right here, have requested certain
Page 244
November 15-16,2005
buffering.
We're required to do an intense buffer along Treeline because it's
a right-of-way. We're going to do a D buffer there of20 feet.
The homeowners wanted another 20 feet required along the
entire northern boundary . We're constrained because there's a golf
course -- or golf cart path along that north side. We want to do as
much as we can.
We had told them we'd do a minimum of 10 but we would do up
to 20 if we had the space to do that. Because as I said, we're
restrained by not only drainage issues because we were going to do a
mounding and a berm and make it very tastefully and architecturally
consistent with the community.
And Mr. Slavage has told the homeowners that he's more than
glad to give them up to 20 feet if he can do it with the footprint he's
got.
The homeowners wanted to adjust the layout of the lake to try to
pick up some additional space. We don't believe, due to the hydrology
issues and quality and quantity of cleanup that the lake is required to
maintain, that's possible, with also our lake easement.
So the real issue -- and we're really sorry that we have not been
able to resolve this with the homeowners. They have been diligent in
their position. We believe we've been very diligent in our position.
We have had many discussions with them. We've talked to them
a lot about this. We have tried to work within the constraints of the
particular site. But now, just as of Friday, that we learned that the
homeowners wanted a class C buffer along that particular entire
northern boundary as opposed to a D that we had committed to do
along the entire section.
As I know this board is well aware, a C buffer is typically
between two totally incompatible land uses, such as residential and,
let's see, an industrial park, which would be appropriate for a class C.
We do not believe that you build walls between residential
Page 245
November 15-16,2005
communities. We don't think it's aesthetically pleasing, we don't think
it is appropriate, and we have made the decision that that, in our
opinion, is not appropriate for this particular site, that it will not
enhance the aestheticness of the site, and it won't improve the view of
all of the people there.
We believe that it's an ideal project, that the reduction in density
will reduce transportation impacts on the community and be an asset
to not only Olde Cypress, but to Collier County.
And with that, if you have any questions, we're more than willing
to answer them. Ms. Spurgeon is here, Mr. Slavage is here to respond.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Before I call on Commissioner Halas,
Commissioner Fiala has a correction to make to her ex parte
disclosure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I also met with some
homeowners. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: David, just to clarify that tract
number three is not going to be residential, but eventually it's going to
be commercial; is that correct?
MR. BRYANT: That's correct, Commissioner Halas. That's our
total request. We have not abandoned any residential there because
we feel that we might be able to get four units on it if this board
decided that commercial was not appropriate.
We believe it is appropriate and we believe your staff would
recommend commercial for that site because of where it is and what
it's located adjacent to and around it.
Realistically, who would want to live next to a Jiffy Lube and a,
you know, some type of service station? We just don't think that's
where people want to live. But you're correct, Commissioner Halas,
we want the 71 units on the subj ect site and we want commercial on
that particular -- because we believe in a planning sense that's totally
appropriate for it.
Page 246
November 15-16,2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
MR. BRYANT: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Staff, do you have a presentation that you think is important to
us?
MS. WILLIAMS: Just a short explanation. For the record, Heidi
Williams with zoning and land development review.
The information I handed out is additional correspondence. It
was received after the agenda item was closed. And possibly to
clarify, I'd really like to make sure that you understand, tract three is
not a part of this amendment.
Right now we would still allow multi-family development on
tract three. A future amendment is what is intended for that
commercial. But everything else should be contained in the executive
summary, unless you have some questions that I could answer.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have--
MS. FILSON: We have five speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Five speakers, okay. Let's hear from the
public speakers.
MS. FILSON: Anthony Pires. He'll be followed by Leland
Berry .
MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Good
afternoon, or good evening. Anthony Pires, for the record,
representing a number of property owners within the Olde Cypress
PUD and existing established residential community of million dollar
plus homes located north of and adjacent to this particular property.
I guess for clarification purposes, I think it's important to note
that this application does not decrease the density. The existing PUD
provides for 104 units in section 3.2. The proposed amendment does
not change section 3.2. There are 104 units that can be built in this
particular proj ect.
The additional 33 units -- we have 71 units that are part of this
Page 247
November 15-16,2005
particular tract that's involved in this application where the developer
proposes to basically provide for an increase of 62 percent of the
number of units along the northern property line.
Doing the math, at 85 foot wide minimum lots, approximately 15
single- family homesites could be provided along the northern
boundary of this property as it exists today. The concept plan calls for
24.
That becomes the concern of compatibility for the established
Olde Cypress single-family home community to the north, and I'll
have aerial photographs to show the location of that relative to his
particular property.
Of other interest is the fact that Mr. Bryant said all the property
owners involved in this PUD, that's part of the PUD is to change,
reflect their current owner. That piece in the bottom right-hand corner
is not owned by Empire Builders, who's the applicant. That piece is
owned, based upon my review of the property appraiser's materials --
and I provided this to the county staff -- is owned by Amy and
Richard Melson, and here's the property appraiser's information as
retrieved by me on 11/11/05.
Thank you. The visualizer turned upside-down on me. So I just
want to correct two things for the record. I believe it's important to
have accurate facts when you all are deliberating these kind of things.
There's no reduction of density, and not all of the property
owners who own property within this PUD are here today or part of
this application. So I don't know what representations can be made
about the property in the lower right-hand corner. That's from
November 11, 2005, as far as the ownership issue.
With regards to the offer of affordable housing, the additional
$1,000 per unit, that's a notable gesture. I guess for clarification
purposes, is that on the 71 units or all 104 in this PUD? I think that's
important for this board to know.
Additionally, that generosity we wish would extend to the
Page 248
November 15-16,2005
neighbors to the north. The generosity providing a 20- foot minimum
class type C buffer along the north would be a generous offer to have
an established residential community.
Another generous offer that could be made to the neighbors of
this particular proj ect is the construction access point. The proposed
proj ect calls for construction access to be along the Cocohatchee
Canal-- Cocohatchee River, South Florida Water Management
District, Big Cypress Basin Board easement.
If you'd bear with me -- if you could indulge me for just a few
more minutes, Mr. Chairman, I'll get these facts on the record, since
I'm representing a number of individuals.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, are those individuals going to
speak also?
MR. PIRES: Some of them, but not on these particular points
necessarily and the level of detail.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're not going to duplicate any
testimony.
MR. PIRES: We'll try not to duplicate.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We'll give you one more minute.
MR. PIRES : Yes. What I propose is that -- I've talked to
Clarence Tears today with regards to utilizing that particular access
point. And to quote Clarence out in the hall, prefer not to have it.
And I think if you look from a safety situation, it's not going to work.
What I would submit would be a better route, Mr. -- or Empire
Builders, the applicant in this project, owns the property to the west.
That's the property -- bear with me so I can get my orientation.
This is north. And this is the proposed canal access easement.
We proposed an alternate to be on the property of this developer that
is right here to the west. That would be a good alternate that would
not interfere with Treeline. There's a better one, if I could.
This property is owned by Empire Builders. This is the gatehouse
at Treeline Drive. By having a construction exit through Empire
Page 249
November 15-16,2005
Builders's adjacent property, it would minimize traffic on Treeline and
obviate the necessity of trying to go to South Florida.
What we would request then is that -- a type C, minimum 20- foot
buffer along the northern property line for compatible purposes,
because as a minimum, since this is a PUD, you want to ensure, as
outlined in the land development code, in all cases screening shall, at a
minimum, be designed to protect existing first floor residential
occupant window levels.
Type C, 20- foot would achieve that, and we believe a little bit of
meandering along that lake, creative engineering to create a
curvilinear lake versus a triangular lake would achieve that.
But I just want to correct the record.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me that additional minute.
And we request that if this is to be approved, that the modification be
provided as to construction access and that the landscape buffer be
20- foot, type C along the northern boundary.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Tony, can I--
MR. PIRES: Thank you. And I apologize.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Why would they want the
construction trucks going right by their houses when it could be down
by the front, that way they wouldn't have any dust, they wouldn't have
any noise, they wouldn't have any lights?
MR. PIRES: We believe -- that would be a good route, but we
don't believe that would be feasible because of South Florida. What
we would suggest, to try to minimize the extent necessary if possible,
use of Treeline, is to keep the language that's in section 5.8S at pages
16 and 18 that talks about access being to the Cocohatchee Canal
easement, subject to permitting by South Florida Water Management
District, which means if they say no, they can't use it, then they're
back to using the entire Treeline Drive.
What we would suggest is an additional sentence that would say,
Page 250
November 15-16,2005
provided, however, that if such access is not provided or authorized by
either South Florida Water Management District or the Big Cypress
Basin Board, then such construction-related traffic shall only access
the project site to the property immediately adjacent to the west,
immediately east of the existing gatehouse on Treeline. That would
be this route as the backup. So we have two backups to try to keep the
traffic off of Treeline.
Thank you for asking that clarifying question.
MR. BRYANT: And my clients says, we will more than be glad
to agree to that.
MR. PIRES: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, wait a minute. Let's take all
of those issues at one time. Can we -- Mr. Bryant?
MR. BRYANT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Pires brought up a number of issues.
Can we at least get a reaction from you about all of the issues he
raised?
MR. BRYANT: I think -- well, let's start at the ending. We
would be more than -- be more than glad to agree to those alternative
accesses. We believe that South Florida is going to grant us that
license to utilize the canal.
There's a road there already that the Corps and also South Florida
uses themselves to maintain the canal, so we believe that that's going
to be a consistent use and we believe -- they have our application,
they've got our bond already, so we think that's going to occur,
notwithstanding what Mr. Tears might or might not have said today
about that particular site on that particular part of the canal.
As far as the class C buffer, we are adamantly opposed to that.
We do not believe that's a reasonable request. We believe that we
have worked diligently to provide to the homeowners any type of
protection they believe they need from this type of product.
When you say that you've got a million dollar plus home but
Page 251
November 15-16,2005
you're going to have product that's going to be almost a million dollars
which is going to detract from that, it almost begs the ability to
perceive that.
So that's why we totally disagree with the class C buffer. We'll
do everything we can to make the buffering 20 feet along the area that
we're not required to if we are not constrained by the cart path and any
drainage issues.
And as far as reduction in density, we have reduced density. My
client today could go and start pulling permits and build 74 units there,
because that was approved in 2003. We committed to 71 units. That
is a reduction.
Mr. Chairman, if I could respond to any others, I'd be more than
glad to.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I have a question from Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll wait till the -- after the public
speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Hit your button again.
Okay. We have how many, five more speakers?
MS. FILSON: Four.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Four more speakers. I would ask the
speakers not to be repetitive. You have a right to be heard. But if you
hear somebody has said the same thing you're going to say, I'd
appreciate it if you'd just stand up and say, I agree with the previous
speaker, and let's get on with it.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Leland Berry. He'll be
followed by Edward Neer.
MR. BERRY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Leland Berry, and I live at 7414 Treeline Drive, which is lot three in
Olde Cypress. As you drive in Treeline Drive, my house is the third
house on the right, and it directly faces the proposed area that we're
discussing.
Page 252
November 15-16,2005
I've got somebody else's paperwork here. I don't want to mess it
up.
The first thing I want to say is, I hear the attorney for the
developer elaborating how cooperative they have been. I just want to
go on record as saying that the homeowners do not agree with that
statement.
Up until the time that the planning commission made their
recommendation, the developer was pretty adamant that they didn't
need to accommodate us at all in terms of the buffer.
I also want to make a point on the issue of the canal and the use
of the canal. I personally called Mr. Nath, who's a senior engineer at
the South Florida district on November 3rd, and then I called John
Poserowski (phonetic), I think it is, today on this issue of whether they
were going to be -- use the canal.
The reason I did that is because all through this time since the
neighborhood meeting in July, they have been saying, oh, we'll use the
canal, we'll use the canal. And we view that as an effort to try to just
get around the issue.
Both of the gentlemen that I referred to at the water district said
that it was extremely unlikely that they would allow them to use this
easement. The reason being, that the easement at that point -- and
they both looked it up while I was on the phone with them -- is
between 20 and 25 feet.
And they pointed out to me that they have to access the easement
for maintenance and other matters. And so the bottom line was that
they seriously doubted that that would be approved, which is in direct
contradiction to what the attorney told you just a few minutes ago.
So my question is, you know, why hasn't there been a definitive
answer been established between June and now on this issue?
This morning when I spoke to John Poserowski, he said he had
not spoken to anyone from Empire, and he is a local person who is
responsible for the work on the permitting. That's all I have to say.
Page 253
November 15-16,2005
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker's Edward Neer. He'll be
followed by Robert Printz.
MR. NEER: Thank you. I live in the first house on the way in,
and I am the newest resident. I've been -- I bought the lot in May of
2003.
When you -- when you buy a lot that's next to that undeveloped
area, you are very cautious. And Stock is the developer of Olde
Cypress, and Stock is going to be the developer of the proposed
proj ect.
I must have asked the Stock person 25 times, what can go on that
part of land? And 25 times he told me, 50 to 60 homes that you'll
never be able to see.
Now, I can't speak for anyone else, but that's a pretty common
statement that a lot of people were told, that noth -- there's three or
four different stories. I'm not going to do hearsay. All I'm saying is
that we think the buffer is very important, because we were told that
we were buying these lots and that we would not be able to see
anything else. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Robert Printz. He'll be followed by Gene
Mayberry.
MR. PRINTZ: Hello. My name is Bob Printz. I live at 7440
Treeline.
A couple of things here. I'm a representative of the homeowners'
association. I have a letter here from the head of the homeowners'
association, Mr. Dedio, that backs this plan. I have copies if you
would like them.
What I'm here to do is to rebut Mr. Bryant's thing that the C
buffer will be attractive. And as you can see here, what's up here, is
that this is the homes on Treeline Drive. This is the lake that is here.
Page 254
November 15-16,2005
And what we're maintaining is that this is a C buffer, the people that
are over here will look across the lake and see a wall of green. If that
is not there, what -- they'll look across and they'll see the back end of
all of our houses and vice versa.
And so we have a hard time thinking that that is really a valid
point that the C is not a good thing to have. We think it is, and this
way everybody's -- it's going to enhance everybody's value. Because
of the elevation of the new homes, they're going to look across the
lake, and they're going to see the back end of our houses. They're not
going to see the golf course, and they're not going to see any lake
there because it's much -- it's down a fair amount.
And so we feel if there's a C, we'll look across and see a wall of
green, and these people will look across the lake and see a wall of
green.
The other thing I'd like to bring up is that -- in addition to the
PUD is that we'd like the land -- this buffer to be installed at the
commencement of the site cleaning activities, because when this gets
cleaned off, this is going to be pretty much open, just blowing dust
and noise and everything over to us.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Gene Mayberry.
MR. MAYBERRY: Good afternoon. For the record, my name
is Gene Mayberry. I appreciate the opportunity to address you this
afternoon, and my remarks will be very brief and focus on the buffer.
By way of background, the parcel under discussion was
originally zoned as agriculture. In 2002, developer of Olde Cypress
approached the neighbors along the northern boundary of the property
under discussion and stated his objective to rezone from agriculture to
residential.
He committed at that time to maintain homesites and values
consistent with the homes along the northern boundary. We agreed to
Page 255
November 15-16, 2005
the proposal, and the HD Development PUD was approved in June of
2003.
In 2004, the developer came back to the neighbors and stated a
revised interest to amend the PUD to allow smaller lot sizes and less
expensive homes facing the northern boundary; however, he proposed
a significant 20- foot wide landscape buffer between the properties.
When we attempted to secure a firm written agreement on this
landscape buffer plan, the developer reneged on that promise. In fact,
at the neighborhood informational meeting, the developer stated, the
buffer was not under consideration.
After considerable protest, and we believe with the
encouragement of county staff, the developer reconsidered his
position.
Subsequently, there have been many iterations on this buffer.
And in fact, at the planning commission meeting, there was
considerable confusion on what the developer was proposing.
Even the current exhibit in your PUD today is subject to
interpretation. For example, the exhibit displays pine trees, which the
developer has already declared will be removed.
Commissioners, based on the history of this proj ect, we clearly
do not trust this developer; therefore, we are requesting that the buffer
as originally promised be a type C. This will remove ambiguity and
enable enforcement. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That was the last speaker.
We haven't heard from the staff.
Commissioners, you want to ask your questions now?
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I want to ask a question
of our staff. The buffer, residential versus residential, what is the
requirement?
MS. WILLIAMS: The required buffer between single-family
Page 256
November 15-16,2005
homesites between developments is a 10- foot wide type A buffer.
That buffer consists of one tree every 30 feet on center.
The statement that the enhanced buffer was at the encouragement
by staff is not necessarily correct. Staff simply facilitated the
incorporation of the agreed upon -- the originally agreed upon
enhanced landscape buffer into the PUD document as a compromise
between parties and was not endorsed in any way.
The land development code requires the type A, and we could
not necessarily require anything greater because that would indicate
our land development code is inadequate in that area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Which parties made the
agreement? I'm assuming it was, you know, either the homeowners'
association or residents and developer.
MS. WILLIAMS: I'd have to defer to the applicant.
MR. BRYANT: Okay. Mr. Slavage would like to respond to
that, Commissioner Henning, if he could.
MR. SLA V AGE: Commissioner, on the issue of the buffer--
MR. MUDD: State your name, please.
MR. SLA V AGE: My name's Bill Slavage. I am a, let's see, one
of the owners of Empire Developer's group as actually a petitioner,
and I'm also a homeowner in Olde Cypress.
What you've heard before you is a lot of different things about
the buffer. For the record, the conversation about the buffer was in
Stock Development's office, of which Mr. Mayberry was one of the
participants in the meeting, along with some other people, where we
had an agreement with the home -- president of the homeowners'
association and Empire Developer's Group with the homeowners to
install a type D, 10-foot buffer along the golf course property and a
type D, 20-foot buffer along Treeline Drive. This was prior to the
planning commission meeting.
In your packet summary you probably will see a letter from Mr.
Dedio, who's representing the homeowners' association, who we have
Page 257
November 15-16,2005
an agreement with who approved that.
Now, as recently as Friday, I believe, November 8th, we were
given another letter stating that now they want a type C buffer. We
agree that the access to the property -- I live eight or nine houses past
Mr. Mayberry, look at this exact same property -- that the construction
entrance, we have actually applied and posted the bond with the
district at West Palm Beach, which is where Southwest Florida's
offices are, for the access through the Cocohatchee easement.
If we don't get that, we agreed earlier that we'd be more than
happy to come in through either the bottom portion, which I agree
with you, Commissioner, would be much better than going off of
Treeline, for the heavy construction as far as the clearing and fill and
all the construction.
But we did have an agreement on a buffer from homeowners at a
meeting at the developer's office and agreement with the developer on
a 10-foot, class D buffer, which is increased from a class A, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I have some other
questions, but let's stay on the topic of the buffer. I know the -- Mr.
Slavage, I know the code says class C is between residential and
commercial, and we can't demand that you put that in. But if that's a
part of the motion, will you accept a class C? I know that, you know,
we can't demand it.
MR. SLAV AGE: If part of the motion was to state that we had
to have a class C, then to be honest with you, sir, we would ask for a
continuance since this just came up four days ago, and I was actually
out of town on Friday, and then we would ask the potential buyers of
the property that were going to develop that could look at a golf
course, that they're going to look at a six-foot wall instead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, let's move on from
that.
MR. SLAVAGE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. The size lots vary.
Page 258
November 15-16,2005
The circular lots or the corner lots are, I think, 95, and I think the
center lots, interior lots, are 85 foot wide. On the northern end -- I
couldn't find it -- what's the width of those lots?
MR. SLA V AGE: The lots are 60 feet wide.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sixty feet wide?
MR. SLAVAGE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What are the lots normally
within Olde Cypress?
MR. SLA V AGE: They range anywhere from 50 to 100 in Olde
Cypress.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So they're just all over, so --
MR. SLA V AGE: Actually, there are -- there are even lots that
are less than that because they have attached product, which most
people would consider duplexes, common wall, in Olde Cypress, too,
yes, SIr.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And these are just single
family; they're not villas?
MR. SLAV AGE: These are considered single family, fee simple
ownership, and a homeowners association.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who is Melson, Richard and
Amy Melson?
MR. SLA V AGE: Rick and -- Rich and Amy Melson are my
partners in Empire Developers and the owner of Empire builders.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The request is to keep it
2.23 units per acre. But you only want 71 acres (sic). If there is a
motion, can we refer up to 71 lots instead of the acreage units?
MR. SLAV AGE: Well, 71 is what we want, but on the tract
three, if I agree with that, then I come back and say, I want to take
tract three from having zero residential, I guess, left to commercial -- I
mean, I would agree that -- can we agree that we will bring tract three
in as a rezone for residential to commercial? Then I would say yes,
sir, I'll agree 100 percent with you.
Page 259
November 15-16, 2005
But if you took it all away from me, then I wouldn't even be able
to put one single-family lot on it. I have no problem stipulating that
we can bring tract three in as a --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're not even talking about -- I
think one and two.
MR. SLA V AGE: We're talking one and two.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And what was said was, we're
not even discussion tract three. We're going to discuss that later on.
What our request is is 71 units.
MR. SLA V AGE: For one and two, then I would agree to that,
yes, sir, on tracts one and two.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we dealing with tract three
today at all?
MR. SLA V AGE: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. SLAV AGE: But I would agree with you on 71 units on
tract one and two, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. We just need to get
through this buffering issue. And you're offering -- you're required to
do a 10-foot, you're offering a 20-foot, ifpossible, class D, instead of
anA.
MR. SLAV AGE: We're offering a minimum of 10-foot, up to
20- foot in areas that we can. We have an agreement with the
developer, because on some small portions of the property, the cart--
if I put a berm and I have four feet to the cart path, we've actually
worked an agreement with Stock Development that we actually go
from the cart path, incorporate all that into one berm, in a minimum of
10 feet in some places, a maximum of 20 wherever we can, so 10 to
20 wherever, and a type D instead of a type A. That is exactly what
we've offered.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And a type D would be over the
whole buffer?
Page 260
November 15-16, 2005
MR. SLA V AGE: The whole buffer, type D.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you know, my thinking, I
don't know why we buffer our residents, our neighbors, but that's the
way the code is, whether it's an A or a Z code type buffer. I mean, it's
there. But I understand what the wishes of the community is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't understand it myself.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm somewhat confused. What type
of a product are you putting here? I hear that the neighbors are
concerned that if you build your product, that it's going to lower their
property values is what I'm picking up here; is that true?
MR. SLA V AGE: Well, sir, as I stated earlier, I'm a resident in
Olde Cypress. I'm a builder in Olde Cypress, have been a builder in
o Ide Cypress since they first started building houses, and I can tell
you that when we first started building houses, they weren't selling
between 750- and $850,000. They were considerably less than that,
and we've even sold some in there recently less than that.
The minimum -- the price range of this communities starts at
750,000 and goes up from there. I would say, when we've run pro
formas, they are based on an average price of somewhere between 800
to 825.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Now, the neighbors, what do they
have? What's the value of their homes?
MR. SLA V AGE: Well, I would -- the value of their homes range
anywhere probably from something close to that to up to two million.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. SLA V AGE: I can tell you that my house appraised down
the street for close to that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My concern is that when I moved
in a neighborhood, I had a nice sandy area, and now I've got 1 7 -story
condos that I look at every day, so they didn't buffer that for me. I'm
confused.
Page 261
November 15-16,2005
MR. SLA V AGE: And we're only building one-story houses.
We're not building any two-story products.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just one comment. As we were
talking about home values. Never have I seen, ever, in anyplace in
Collier County home values go down, no matter what goes in, no
matter how many people say that the home values are going to go
down, they never go down.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to have to find some way to
do that.
MR. SLA V AGE: I think you're working a good step in the right
direction for the affordability of housing and the trust fund, so I will --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a motion by the
commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion for approval with
the stipulations that were put in there by the -- well, I think there was
some here from the planning commission.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Staff recommendations?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Or staff recommendations, excuse
me, yeah. Thank you. It's getting late in the day here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Halas for
approval with the stipulations as proposed by the --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Staff, yep.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And could we also add the stipulations
made by the petitioner about the construction entrance?
MR. BRYANT: Definitely, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a second?
MR. MUDD: Commission, you've got $1,000 on affordable, too,
that they offered up.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
Page 262
November 15-16,2005
MR. MUDD: Are you taking that offer?
MR. BRYANT: We agree to that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's in my motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I second it, but I have a
question, too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Tony Pires brought up a good
question. Was the offer for the affordable on the 74 units or the
hundred and --
MR. BRYANT: It's like in all the other projects, Commissioner
Coletta, we are offering it on the units we sell as we close on them, not
what we potentially could build on something.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So--
MR. BRYANT: So 71 units at $71,000 will go into the trust
fund.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you, sir.
MR. BRYANT: Thank you -- at closing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Halas for approval with the stipulations as we have
discussed, a second by Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Henning wants --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Question by Commissioner Henning.
And then after that, I'm going to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. No questions. The
request is for 71 units, so is that a part of the motion, up to 71 units?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Up to 71 units.
MR. BRYANT: On tracts one and two.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Tracts one and two, correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we dealing with tract three
today, sir?
MR. BRYANT: No.
Page 263
",,,.",,"'~~"""_'_'" -.r.w.. ",'__....,'~.,'..__.., ... 'M~_~,"""",_",~,,*,""""r"'___'__._""-'--
November 15-16,2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, geez.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's getting late.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We don't have to say that anymore.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know, geez. Give me
a break.
MR. BRYANT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. PIRES: Clarification about the stipulation --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Hang on. I'm not done. I'm not
done.
Now, the buffer. It's going to be a class D buffer?
MR. BRYANT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ten to 20 feet wide?
MR. BRYANT: That's correct. Up to 20, and we will do 20
along the whole way that we have the ability to do it. We committed
to 20 on Treeline, and we'll do up to 20 along the remaining portion so
long as we have the space.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's part of the motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. That's part of the motion, what
they recommended before, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And single-story?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Single-story. They said it was
going to be single-story.
MR. BRYANT: Our product's all single-story, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And, of course, the second picks
up on that, too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Mr. Pires, did you want to clarify
something?
MR. PIRES: I believe Commissioner Henning -- I think I had a
premature clarification is what I had. So Commissioner Henning
clarified that issue with regards to the type D buffer. And I think if
they could achieve the 20 feet, it would be greatly appreciated.
Page 264
November 15-16,2005
Especially along the lake, I think they can meander it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'm going to close the public
hearing.
All in favor of the motion with the stipulations as stated, please
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. We are now--
MR. BRYANT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners.
Item #8G
PETITION: REPRESENTED BY MICHAEL FERNANDEZ OF
PLANNING DEVELOPMENT INCORPORATED REQUESTING
A REZONE FROM THE PUD ZONING DISTRICT TO THE PUD
MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICT BY REVISING THE EXISTING
PINE RIDGE MEDICAL CENTER PUD DOCUMENT AND PUD
MASTER PLAN TO REDUCE THE COMMERCIAL USE TO
10,000 SQUARE FEET, RENOVATE THE EXISTING HOTEL
INTO A CONDOMINIUM BUILDING WITH 64 RESIDENTIAL
UNITS AND CHANGE THE NAME OF THE PUD. THE
PROPERTY TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THIS REZONE IS
LOCATED IN SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25
EAST, LOT 51, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. THIS
PROPERTY CONSISTS OF 4.02 ACRES AND IS LOCATED AT
1100 PINE RIDGE ROAD - MOTION TO CONTINUE TO THE
11/29/05 BCC MEETING - APPROVED
Page 265
November 15-16,2005
MR. MUDD: One item -- well, this is a real easy one.
Commissioner, I just need a motion on 8G to be continued to the 29th
of November.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve 8G to be
continued to, what --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Twenty-ninth of November.
MR. MUDD: Twenty-ninth of November.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Twenty-ninth of November.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I second that motion.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is -- it is passed unanimously.
Weare in recess until tomorrow morning at nine a.m.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
*****
CONTINUATION OF THE NOVEMBER 15,2005 BCC MEETING
Page 266
November 15-16,2005
MR. MUDD: Please, gentlemen, please take your seats. Mr.
Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we are
back from recess and we will resume our meeting from yesterday.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I put this piece of paper at your--
on your dais today. We need to add one thing to the agenda for
agenda changes.
It was discovered that there was an advertisement for this
particular item but it did not make the agenda and, therefore, we
would like to continue this particular item. We've already checked
with the petitioner until December 13th. And I'll read it. (As read):
The following item was advertised, but omitted from the November
15, 2005, BCC agenda is hereby requested to be continued to the
December 13th, 2005, BCC meeting. It's PUD EX05AR7951, Terrell
H. Breskey represented by J. Gary Butler of Butler Engineering, Inc.,
is requesting a two-year extension to the Pine Ridge corner PUD. The
subject property consisting of 4.22 acres is located north of Pine Ridge
Road, one-sixth mile east of Whippoorwill Lane in Section 7,
Township 49 South, Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida. And I
just need to -- to make a motion to continue.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Move to continue this to --
MR. MUDD: December 13th, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- December 13.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion for approval by Commissioner
Halas. Second by Commissioner Fiala. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 267
November 15-16, 2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2005-403: NOMINATION OF APPLICANT TO
FORWARD TO THE GOVERNOR FOR CONSIDERATION OF
APPOINTMENT TO THE SW FL EXPRESSWAY AUTHORITY -
NOMINATING STANLEY W. PLAPPERT - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Thank you, sir. That should bring us to Agenda
Item 9 A. I also put a piece of paper on -- on the dais today.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What about Agenda Item 8G? Did
we continue that?
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, you voted yesterday. It was the last item.
You did continue it --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh.
MR. MUDD: -- to 11/29.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sorry.
MR. MUDD: No problem.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I guess I'm still tired.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, 9A, is a nomination of an
applicant forward to the governor for consideration of appointment to
the Southwest Florida Expressway Authority. And -- and prior to this
at the last meeting, the board had already selected four of the five
candidates to be sent to the governor and they were Jim Gibson -- Jim
Gibson, Duke Vasey, Bruce Anderson and Dex Groose where Mr.
Dex Groose were the four. And -- and there was no agreement on the
fifth.
I asked the boards -- or asked the board members to give me a
Page 268
November 15-16,2005
primary and an alternate selection hoping that we could get three or
four matching on one, and that didn't happen. On the overhead or on
your computer screen as you see it right now, these are the votes that
each commissioner gave me yesterday during the meeting; and I put it
on the sheet in an effort to try and help the board members to select
the -- to select a fifth member on that list to be submitted to the
governor. The governor will select one from Collier County to be on
the board.
As you can see Mr. David Farmer received a -- an alternate vote
from Commissioner Henning. Or the next candidate Glen Harrell
received a primary and alternate vote, primary from Commissioner
Halas and alternate vote from Commissioner Coletta. Then we go
down the list to Mr. Matt Nolton with an alternate vote from
Commissioner Coyle. Down the list again Stanley W. Plappert with a
primary vote from Commissioner Henning. Mr. Morton Potashnick
with a primary vote from Commissioner Coyle and alternate vote from
Commissioner Fiala. Go down to the next candidate, Dwight E.
Richardson with an alternate vote from Commissioner Halas. The
next candidate, J. Steven Rudolph with a primary vote from
Commissioner Fiala. And the last to receive a vote was Richard
Y ovanovich who has a primary vote from Commissioner Coletta.
What I can tell you is the list of eighteen had you votes to eight
candidates. So maybe you've got it down to eight candidates versus
the eighteen. If you can take a look at it today, maybe it was some
help.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And if -- if I could -- could just offer
some guidance. I don't really care which person goes or is nominated
because I don't know hardly any of these people except, well, maybe
one or two of them. I would only caution the commissioners that --
that our decisions with respect to who we select to be on this -- this
commission determines who controls the commission.
We have always been very sensitive to the fact that it should ber
Page 269
November 15-16,2005
controlled by the -- by local government, by Collier County
commissioners. But we're going to have a total of four people on that
commission who are appointed who are not commissioners. And we
could easily get outvoted if we don't choose the right people.
So what I'm saying to the commissioners is if you know
somebody on this list that you can depend upon to -- to -- to work in
the best interests of the people of Collier County and Collier County
Government, then I'm certainly happy to support you. I have to admit,
I don't know anybody on this list who fits that category. And I've
merely selected my -- my nominees based upon their qualifications.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm afraid I did the same thing. I
read each -- each --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I just --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- person's qualifications.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Commissioner Halas. Yeah. I'm
sorry .
Go ahead, Commissioner Fiala. Go ahead and finish and then
we'll --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I just choose the one that
seemed to be a strong individual who knew something about roads.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. And Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I looked at the qualifications of this
-- my first choice. And felt that this person has been actively involved
here in Collier County. I believe he was with Pelican Bay and then of
course has moved on to where he's now involved with the Coastland
Center. So I felt that this person -- in fact, he was with Waterside
Shops. So I felt that -- that's one the reasons that I felt that this person
had a real commitment to the Southwest Florida area and Collier
County.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Commissioner Henning is
next.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if -- if you're wanting to
Page 270
November 15-16,2005
choose somebody that you feel that is -- that will go along with -- with
the Collier County elected officials, you want to -- I mean, you got
Dwight Richardson who's not involved in business. I know Stanley
Plappert personally. I know him to be conservative and would want to
do the best thing for the public in Collier County.
So I'll -- I'll make a motion that we send a recommendation of
Stanley Plappert.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. Who?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Stanley Plappert. He's towards
the middle, lower middle.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I see him.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What are his qualifications?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, he's -- he's an insurance
agent. He's on the Republican Executive Committee. I know that's
not part of his application. He's been involved in numerous
organizations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And -- and he's chairperson for the
Chamber of Commerce Revenue Committee. So that's something.
We're wanting to have somebody with revenue. It says here -- also it
says graduate of Leadership Collier.
MS. FILSON: He actually has a "T" on the -- on his --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, Plappert.
MS. FILSON: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning has
nominated Mr. Stanley Plappert.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are there any other nominations?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, there is.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I'd like to -- oh, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How about order?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sorry. I didn't mean to step on
your toes.
Page 271
November 15-16, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Following the rules here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I'm going to tell
you the reason why. We -- we don't really need somebody that knows
how to build roads. This person's not going to build roads. We need
somebody that can get in there and be a consensus builder, someone
that can bring the -- unite the -- the cause, to bring it together and get
it done in the shortest period of time possible. We don't need
somebody that's going to try to run their own show or to grandstand.
We've got to remember, commissioners are going to be limited to
two-year period on this particular board while everyone else has got
four years.
So we're going to be on the -- we're going to be behind the eight
ball in a little bit. We have to find somebody that's going to have very
good reasons to be there. And I'm going to go back to telling you why
I think Richard Y ovanovich -- he was my first choice both times. He
still is. And the reason being is we've seen an example of what he can
do time and time again as a consensus builder with the different clients
that he's had and he's been before us hundreds of times. And he has a
way of bringing conclusion to very difficult processes. And I think he
would be an very excellent choice.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A nomination for Richard
Y ovanovich. And, Commissioner Halas, you had a nomination --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yup.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- you'd like to make?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to make a nomination for
Richard -- for Dwight Richardson. And as far as my feelings about
Richard Y ovanovich -- and it's not personal. I don't feel that we need
to have a lawyer on there. And I think Rich does enough
grandstanding in here. I've seen his actions. And I feel that we need
to have somebody that is really here for the citizens. And I've got
some concerns about where his -- where his real heart is.
Page 272
November 15-16,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So we --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll go along with Richardson to
move this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I'll -- I'll go along with Stanley
Plappert.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I was impressed with what
you said about Stanley Plappert as well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know the man.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It sounds like a majority then.
MR. MUDD: Do we have a -- do we have a motion and do we
have a second?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, we will in just a moment.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas, do you have
anything else or was this --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That was it. Just Dwight
Richardson.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then we have -- we're -- we're
going to vote on all three of these just to make sure that we give them
each consideration.
Now, let's start with the first one, Stanley W. Plappert. All in
favor of Mr. Plappert, please signify by saying aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He gets three votes; Commissioner Fiala,
Commissioner Henning, and Commissioner Coyle. Let's go to--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's it then?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, unless another one gets four votes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, you can keep voting?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
Page 273
November 15-16,2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Dwight Richardson.
All in favor of Mr. Richardson, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have Commissioner Coletta
and Commissioner Halas. He received two votes.
And Richard Yovanovich. All in favor of Mr. Yovanovich
please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. One vote by Commissioner
Coletta.
So it is, indeed, Stanley Plappert who has been selected.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2005-404: APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO THE
VANDERBILT BEACH BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY
COMMITTEE - RE-APPOINTING RICHARD E. LYDON TO THE
VANDERBILT BEACH BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY
COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item
which is 9B, appointment of member -- a member to the Vanderbilt
Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the committee recommendation was
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Richard E. Lydon.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- Richard E. Lydon.
MS. FILSON: And actually he's the only one that meets the
criteria.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then now --
Page 274
November 15-16,2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. There's a -- there's a motion for
appointment of Mr. Lydon or reappointment of Richard Lydon by
Commissioner Halas, I believe.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2005-405: APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO
THE IMMOKALEE MASTER PLAN AND VISIONING
COMMITTEE - APPOINTING RICHARD RICE AND BRIAN
BLOCKER TO THE IMMOKALEE MASTER PLAN AND
VISIONING COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 9C. It's
appointment of members to the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning
Committee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion that we go with
the committee's recommendation of Richard Rice and Brian Blocker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion by Commissioner
Coletta for the appointment of Richard Rice and Brian Blocker.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
Page 275
November 15-16,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And second --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- by Commissioner Halas. Yes. It
comes right after the second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we've gotten a second from
Commissioner Halas and now we're going to have discussion. Go
ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know that one of the Blockers is
the one that runs all of the slum properties in Immokalee. That isn't
this guy, is it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's -- let me -- I mean, gosh.
You're putting me in an embarrassing position with slums. They run
maybe some substandard housing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But it's -- it's -- it's parts of the
family now. Whether it's Brian or not, I couldn't tell you. But I can
tell you when you've got a master plan in movement, you want to
make sure you bring all the players in, especially the Blocker family
being that they control probably about 20 percent of all of the
Immokalee real estate. They'd be excellent people to have in the mix
as far as a member goes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'm going to vote by your
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Ifit doesn't work out,
we'll kick them out.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We'll watch.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's a stipulation. All in favor please
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Page 276
November 15-16,2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Rice and Mr. Blocker are appointed.
Item #10B
STATUS REPORT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS ON THE COPELAND AREA REZONE
PROJECT - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to Agenda Item lOB.
It's a status report to the Board of County Commissioners on the
Copeland Area Rezone Project. And Mr. Cormac Giblin, who's your
Affordable Housing subject man or expert so to speak in community
development will present.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Which one was this? Excuse me.
MR. MUDD: This is lOB, sir. lOA was decided upon at 1 p.m.
yesterday. I could be wrong, two o'clock, but we heard it at 1 p.m.
MR. GIBLIN: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
Cormac Giblin, your Housing and Grants Manager.
This is an update on the Copeland Area Rezone Activity that our
department is undertaking. At the June 14th, 2005, BCC meeting, you
heard a public petition from a gentlemen named Donnie McDowell
who is the president of the Copeland Area Civic Association. And he
has -- he was asking the commission for direction in terms of rezoning
properties in the community of Copeland.
I've put on the visualizer what seems to be the problem out there.
And if I can direct you to -- to the northern area of the town of
Copeland here. You can see how there are some properties that are
actually bisected by a county zoning line. This has made it very
Page 277
November 15-16, 2005
difficult for residents of Copeland to make improvements to their
properties, to get new houses, to build new houses and many other
consternations that come with properties that are dual zoned.
So our department has been looking at this situation. And as near
as we can tell, it was actually an error in the transposition of the old
zoning lines onto the new zoning maps. We've been working with the
planning department for the past several months on how to correct this
error. And it is -- actually it is a rezoning of the properties that needs
to occur to move the line so it no longer bisects residential properties.
Throughout that process we have been in constant contact with
the citizens of Copeland. And they have expressed the desire to not
only move the zoning line, but actually to change their underlying
zoning. Right now most of the residential areas in Copeland are zoned
VR, village residential. There are some things that the community
likes about village residential and there are some things that they wish
that they could change.
So right now the course that we're undertaking is to write a LDC
amendment specifically for the area of Copeland which would be a --
kind of a tweak on the existing VR zoning to allow them some uses on
their property that the community has expressed interest in through a
community-wide survey that we completed. Things like being able to
keep a swamp buggy on their property, being able to limit the number
of crab traps or -- or permit a certain number of crab traps allowed on
certain properties. Things that really fit the community character of
this area of the county.
And at the June 14th meeting, the BCC directed us to bring back
a status report on how we are proceeding along those lines. To date
we have hired a firm by the name of Q. Grady Minor as a private
planning consultant to do those two things. First, create the new
zoning category in the LDC. And then rezone those properties to the
new category so that they're no longer split-zoned.
We've identified certain costs that are going to be involved with
Page 278
November 15-16,2005
that, some professional planning fees, some county fees, some
advertising fees. And it's going to be about a total of almost $68,000
for us to complete this task. We have identified community
development block grant funding to -- that the board has previously
committed to the area of Copeland. And we -- we will pay for these
tasks using that funding. Keeping in mind that this is a significant
amount of money and originally we had budgeted, I think, only about
12,500 to complete this task. So the remaining -- the remainder of the
$68,000 will be taken from other previously committed projects that
have been earmarked for Copeland if no other funding source is
identified.
The time line for this is that it will be in the first cycle of the
LDC Amendments next year beginning in January with the rezone
probably occurring in the fall of next year.
If you have any questions, I'm --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I just want to tell you this
is one of those success stories that we've seen in the making for some
time. Not only has the county been of some help, the citizens of
Copeland have taken the initiative, especially Donnie McDowell
who's turned out to be one of the greatest civic leaders I've ever met.
And they've taken the bull by the horns and they've been working very
closely with the county. A little frustrated by the length of the
process, but I haven't met anybody that's dealt with government that
has ever been satisfied with the time line that comes together. But all
and all I think this commission can be congratulated for a wonderful
job in helping to bring Copeland into a -- this century.
And with that -- with your permission I'd like to make a motion
to approve staffs recommendation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Motion to approve by
Commissioner Coletta. Second by Commissioner Fiala.
Page 279
November 15-16,2005
Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a little bit, yes. First of all, this
happened because you believed in them. It happened because you
gave them time. It happened because you brought them to -- to the
attention of others and into this process. And -- and you deserve a lot
of credit, most of the credit. Because -- because of you this is
changing.
Now I had -- I had a question for you, sir. I know Area -- Area of
Critical State Concern, ACSC and ST, but what is CON?
MR. GIBLIN: Conservation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, conservation.
MR. GIBLIN: So--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And then another question I
have, I'm delighted that they're putting together a master plan. Once
their master plan is approved and in place, is there -- when I went out
-- after Commissioner Coletta started getting involved, I went out
there. Actually, I went out there a number of times to see what he was
talking about to make sure that when we spoke of it, I knew the area.
And I -- I noticed a lot of extra land. Once everything is in place the
way the community wants it, will this be a good place then to possibly
bring in some maybe affordable housing or some gap housing or, you
know, something along that line or maybe a mixed use would be a
wonderful thing to bring in a new element as well?
MR. GIBLIN: Certainly, Commissioner. That is part of our plan
to upgrade the community and provide affordable housing
opportunities. Like I said with having to put a lot of our money
towards the rezone itself, it may lessen the amount of money we have
available for those activities, but we can continue to work towards
that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great. Even a little bit of
commercial so they have some --
MR. GIBLIN: There is some commercial zoning there already.
Page 280
November 15-16, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good.
MR. GIBLIN: We have a good plan for Copeland.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I'm concerned about when
we keep talking about gap housing and affordable housing. Yesterday
when we had one of the items on the agenda, there was nobody there
to help support this effort on housing on a particular piece of land. I
was quite surprised that there wasn't more in the community that
would be -- be get involved in making sure that we had the proper
land to address professional housing here in Collier County.
So when I -- when I looked at the response of this, I really don't
think it's that big of a crisis right now. Because if we don't have
people come into the community here and express their concerns and
also the business community expressing their concerns, then I don't
think it's really a big problem.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. One -- one of the things I'd ask
the staff to do, just on that note. I don't want to take a lot of time.
We're getting off topic. I would like to get a list of all of the affordable
housing that we have -- this commission has approved. And I'd like to
understand how much of it has actually been built. There is -- there is
an inordinate demand to have the government solve this problem
rather than the private industry help solve the problem. And, quite
frankly, it's a problem caused by private industry, not by the
government. But nevertheless we're getting off our topic.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I -- can I just ask?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: On top of that could they also
include how much they actually charge? How much they either sold it
for or are renting it for so we have an idea of what this affordable
housing that we've been approving and giving extra density for
actually turns out to be.
Page 281
November 15-16,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, my -- my point, I think, is they
haven't even build it. You see we approve it, but these things don't get
built. And so there's no way of knowing what they sold it for. So
we've got this big inventory of approved but unbuilt affordable
housing out there. And there is a continuing outcry about why don't
we have affordable housing. Well, we would have more affordable
housing if the stuff that was already approved was being built. Is that
true?
MR. GIBLIN: I would say that the things that you've approved
recently -- you approved them at the zoning stage.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. GIBLIN: It does take time for those roofs actually to come
up. I can't think of any that you may have approved that decided not
to build.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. But how about Bucks Run?
MR. GIBLIN: Bucks Run may be the only exception where they
have -- I mean, it's tremendous community opposition and were taken
to court and then gave up their plans to build affordable housing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Okay. All right. So we have a
motion on--
MR. MUDD: But, Commissioner, staffhas been working on that
question here for a couple of weeks. I asked them that question a while
back to get that information so that you could have it. But it's good
that you re-enforced that particular request.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: It's like Danny and I were smiling. I was winking
at him. I told you that question before, Danny . You better be working
on it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas, do you have
something else?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I just want to say that, you
know, I -- a lot of times I get lobbied in regards to, Well, we got to --
Page 282
November 15-16,2005
The government has to do something because I can't hire people. But
yet when we have an opportunity to address -- really get down to the
nitty gritty of this thing, there was none of these people --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They're not here, are they?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: They're not here. They weren't in
this room and saying, Well, I -- you know, I'm having a hard time
getting people to move into this community because we don't have
affordable housing. And yet they're the people that are -- are lobbying
me.
And yet yesterday when we had -- when we had this -- this item
that came up on the agenda, I figured it would be a fairly good
sampling of what we needed to address here. And, of course, the
people that are concerned about affordable housing weren't here.
Nobody at all. So obviously --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They didn't even write us.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Huh?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They didn't even write us.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly. So I don't think it's as big
an issue as everybody says it is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coletta. Second by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor
please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Item #10C
Page 283
November 15-16,2005
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN SUPPORT OF HURRICANE
WILMA RECOVERY EFFORTS IN COLLIER COUNTY-
$31.000.000- APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 10C. It's a
recommendation to approve a budget amendment in support of
hurricane -- Hurricane Wilma recovery efforts in Collier County. The
price tag on this is $31 million. And Mr. Michael Smykowski your
Director of Office Management and Budget will present.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Michael Smykowski, OMB Director. As Mr. Mudd indicated,
we have a $31 million budget amendment request. The bulk of which
is for the initial stages of debris removal. As stated in the executive
summary, the preliminary estimate for debris removal is estimated at
approximately 1 million cubic yards at a price tag of $25 per cubic
yard. So initially that's, you know, $25 million. In addition there's a
monitoring contract above and beyond that to ensure that the loads are
appropriate and everything meets FEMA guidelines for
reimbursement.
We -- we did have our initial kick-off meeting with FEMA.
They have changed their focus significantly from -- from a year ago
even in terms of how the reimbursement process will work. And it is
much more customer friendly and actually pro taxpayer, I guess I'll
say. Because as you'll note in the fiscal impact, while we're looking
for a $31 million budget amendment, the -- the breakout is 75 percent
FEMA or twenty-three and a quarter million dollars, 12 1/2 percent
from the State of Florida which is 3.875 million. And then the local
share for Collier County is a like amount to the state level at $3.875
million.
A year ago you were looking at -- you would have had to front
the money with the bulk of the money and then upon submittal of paid
Page 284
November 15-16,2005
invoices be reimbursed. Obviously, with an initial outlay estimated at
$31 million that's -- that's an expensive proposition.
FEMA has changed significantly as I noted. They are looking to
write estimates for projects and then pay on an incremental basis. So
we're hopeful they've already written up the project worksheet for the
debris removal. And as -- as we approach the point of our 30-day
payment requirement with -- with Ash Britt, who's the primary
contractor, we will immediately begin to draw down reimbursements
as those invoices are paid. So, in essence, money will be going out to
Ash Britt; but hopefully in a similar time frame, we will have money
coming back in the door rather than having, again, to front the full
amount and be invoiced. So that, again, is a significant change.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is there -- there was talk that the
governor was going to pick up the 25 percent or the 12 1/2 percent
that was going to be addressed to the county.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is there anything in there?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: As stated in the executive summary, there
is a request for -- Governor Bush wrote the president requesting 100
percent funding for the first 60 days and thereafter a 90/10 cost share
which would, again, reduce Collier County's share to 5 percent of -- of
the actual cost beyond the initial 60 days. There has not been a -- a
formal decision on that. I've -- I've gotten documentation from the
state requesting us to, you know, enter into the formal reimbursement
agreement. It -- it does show at this point the 75, 12 1/2, 12 1/2
breakdown. But within the text of the agreement, it says -- it does
note that is a less -- another alternative reimbursement percentages is
approved. So that gives the board and the county flexibility should
that request be honored.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: COMMISSIONER HENNING. Oh, I'm
sorry. You were finished? Okay. Commissioner Henning.
Page 285
November 15-16,2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we have the funds if the
monies don't come in at the anticipated time frame? Do we have the
31 million?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thirty-one million dollars in cash would
be a significant outlay. We would be cannibalizing our general fund
reserves as well as our reserves probably in -- in some of our road
areas. What -- we have spread the burden out, but that would be a
much more daunting task than is currently outlined here. So the -- the
-- the proposal and discussion with the FEMA folks is a great positive
change for local governments and for taxpayers in that you will not be
fronting that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The only reason I'm asking it,
you know, I'm not sure if we can really depend on big government to
come with a paycheck on time. That's all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a motion for this?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Commissioner Henning is
moving for approval and --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- Commissioner Fiala seconds.
Any further discussion? All -- all --
MS. FILSON: Commissioner, I have a speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. Okay.
MS. FILSON: Bob Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. Bob
Krasowski, Zero Waste Collier County Group. I'm -- I'm very much
interested in this item because it -- it -- it is a 30 million -- 31 dollar --
million dollar expenditure even though the money's coming from
FEMA. It's still tax dollars. It's our tax dollars and tax dollars from
people around the country. Many people living here live in other
places, so they might pay taxes and still contribute to this.
What I -- what I was -- what I want to do is -- is evaluate the --
Page 286
November 15-16,2005
these expenditures. And yesterday I did a little searching around and
found out where I might find those documents. Mr. Carnell has been
very cooperative in saying that I can go look at the contracts that were
prenegotiated in preparation for a storm event. So I think the planning
here is certainly excellent, but -- but I'm suggesting there's room for
improvement. But the planning compared to other places has been
really excellent for a storm event like this. But $31 million -- $30
million is a lot of money. And this is primarily for horticultural
material. So I want to review these expenditures, where this money's
being spent, who's being paid to do what, and then compare it to what
the expense would have been if years ago as suggested we would have
bought some land to prepare for such an event and been able to
accommodate the windroll (phonetic) storage of these materials and --
and handled it locally or reduced the volume of materials to save
money before we shipped it out.
As you know, this stuff s going to a trash incinerator on the other
coast. First, it was said it was going to a sugar cane operation, but
maybe the electricity from that goes to the sugar cane. But it's -- it's in
generally from my understanding trash incinerator. They shouldn't
even exist as far as we're concerned.
So I know in -- in the City of Naples they -- they have 150,000
tons, right, and they will have another 100,000 tons. So that's a
quarter of what we've identified as our potential volume. And their
150 that they have now is sitting on a 20- foot pile on approximately
four acres. So you multiply that out and we could accommodate our
own handling of this material. And we're -- we're probably going to
have storms in the future so this is something maybe we can look to,
and I'm sure the staff is thinking about how they can tweak and
improve their program. But maybe to the future, maybe we should
buy a track of land, a section or something or a large area of land; and
we could make -- plant it with grass, open fields for passive recreation.
And then in the event of a storm, we have these locations so we don't
Page 287
November 15-16,2005
have to go running around like we have in the past and work out what
-- we'd still have to do that. They'd have more local points to collect
the stuff and then process it and distribute it.
But so I -- so I just wanted to come out as an interested citizen,
speak directly to you my elected officials and make it known that I'm
looking for this information and hope that I continue to get
cooperation from the staff so I can review the program.
Thank you very much for your attention to my comment.
MS. FILSON: That's your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: At our next agenda we have a
bid contract for mulch for Collier County and maybe -- maybe we
already found our mulch.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think we're handling it quite well, but
Mr. Krasowski will keep up his -- his analysis, and we will look at it
the next time he comes up to speak. So that's -- that's the way it goes.
So -- okay. We have -- we have a motion on the floor and a
second.
All in favor please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes unanimously.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you.
Item #10D
A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS
FROM THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT
Page 288
November 15-16,2005
OPERATING FUND (408) RESERVE FOR CONTINGENCIES,
AND OTHER SOURCES OF REVENUE IN THE TOTAL
AMOUNT OF $2,000,000 TO COVER UNANTICIPATED
HURRICANE WILMA RELATED OPERATING EXPENSES IN
THE NORTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY
AND WASTEWATER COLLECTIONS COST CENTERS -
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item
which is 10D. It's a recommendation to approve a budget amendment
for the transfer of funds in the Collier County Water-Sewer District
Operating Fund (408) reserve for contingencies and other sources of
revenue in the total amount of $2 million to cover unanticipated -- to
cover unanticipated Hurricane Wilma related operating expenses in
the North County Water Reclamation Facility and the Wastewater
Collections Cost Center. And Mr. George Yilmaz, your director of--
of -- I forgot.
MR. YILMAZ: Wastewater.
MR. MUDD: Wastewater. I keep saying sewer. I'm sorry.
Your Director of Wastewater will present.
MR. YILMAZ: Thank you, County Manager. Good morning,
Commissioners. For the record, George Yilmaz, Public Utilities
Wastewater Director.
Commissioners, today I would like to provide the board with a
very brief summary report for our Category 3 Wilma response that we
have provided in our public utilities division and wastewater team.
During the emergency response period of October 23 through
October 29th, public utilities wastewater management department
managed cummulatively over 110 millions of gallon of wastewater
using pumper trucks and limited portable generators. And we were
able to keep over 110 millions of gallons of wastewater underground
running through our pipes and being received per our wastewater
Page 289
November 15-16,2005
plans. Given the conditions we were in, most of the county and most
of the infrastructure we were in was without FP&L power.
During the same period, the public utilities wastewater team
working 24/7 was able to maintain and keep all field assets operational
including 13,392 manholes that were maintained and kept operational.
Only 39 overflows or less than 200 gallons from manholes were
reported by our customers and responded to promptly and cleaned up
within six to eight hours.
We had 800 miles of underground pipes that were kept
operational with no main breaks. Only exception to that was two
lateral breaks. Those are the small pipes from house to the main on
the road. And they were promptly responded and repaired and fixed
within six to eight hours. This is happening within 72 hours to 48
hours emergency response period for the hurricane.
Furthermore, over 32,000 customer connections to our household
were kept operational. Only two reported interruptions -- and even
our administrator personally visited at least two of those and
responded promptly together with our staff.
More importantly over 500 wastewater lift stations -- they are all
dependent on FP&L power which we did not have -- over the 72-hour
period were kept operational using portable generators; and our team
effectively controlled, just in time, 18 overflows less than 500 gallons
from these lift stations. And they were cleaned up, followed up by our
pollution control, and reported to FDEP promptly.
During the same period, both north and south wastewater
treatment plants were operational without any service interruption
24/7. Given the flow and given the slow picks we had from aisle nine
in operation, we were able to keep our processes and discharge and
our IQ within our compliance parameter list. Therefore, during that
time we were continuously producing high quality IQ water, irrigation
quality.
Furthermore, irrigation quality water team was able to maintain
Page 290
November 15-16,2005
and operate water storage and dissolution systems including some
limited fire protection lines that we had on our lines. And they were
our priority and they were operational within a couple hours. We
were able to achieve above-mentioned results by implementing our
emergency response plan including activating our emergency response
contracts and Florida One Mutual Agreement. All that had been
executed by the board in advance in anticipation of up to a Category 4
event.
Florida One is an association which has over 100 members
through this mutual agreement that you have executed and provided
that resource which gives us, just in time within 24 hours, 31 skilled
fully equipped staff members in the field most needed. And they were
provided from City of Punta Gorda, Tampa Bay Utilities, Hernando
County, Pinellas County. ^ City of Redington provided some
generators.
That almost completes our staffing in the field and increases
about 50 percent. So our response capabilities were increased by 50
percent through Florida One Agreement, mutual agreement which you
have executed in advance and provided that resource for.
Therefore, I'd like to thank the board and our leadership for
providing us with the resources necessary in advance for us to meet
the challenges of a Category 3 direct hit hurricane with minimal
customer service. Without these resources and without some of the
resources and planning we had in place, we could have hundreds if not
thousands of houses backing up with sewer and flows. And our
overflow rates and noncompliance issues would be exponential. So
we thank you very much.
I'd also like to thank our wastewater team who worked 24/7 with
an outstanding safety record with no time lost. Conditions they were
working under, you-all can imagine and visualize. Wires down, rain,
pitch dark, 24/7 conditions, ten to twelve-hour shifts. And these
individuals have done a tremendous well job for our leadership, for
Page 291
November 15-16, 2005
their community, and for our board.
With that I would like to move to recommend that the board
approve all necessary budget amendments for any related activities
and authorize staff to make the payments in accordance with
negotiated and board approved agreements and contracts. We will
also claim all eligible expenses for reimbursement from FEMA.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Who was first here as far as this.
I've got like a Christmas tree. Yes, Commissioner Halas, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to thank the staff from
the public utilities department for the -- the vision and the planning
that went into making sure that we were prepared five to six months in
advance. And I can assure you that this didn't go unnoticed especially
when Senator Bill (sic) Martinez was here and Congressman Mack. I
believe Senator Mel Martinez made a comment to the fact that we
were probably the poster child of Florida in regards to the response of
a direct hit from a Category 3 hurricane. And I think that just goes to
show the leadership and the vision and where we're at in this county.
And, of course, Congressman Mack was also very much
impressed. He was in our EOC quite a few times to see the operation.
And I believe that he would like very much for our emergency
manager director to go to Washington and probably -- basically testify
in regards to what needs to be done in local response. That local
response is the most important asset. And I think we proved that here
in this whole county. I believe that when -- when the chips were
down, we were there. We were ready. And the accolades that are
coming in now in regards to the massive cleanup effort and how we're
handling this, I think we all need to be commended. Thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Well, he said most of
everything but I'm going to go back and say again. The horticultural
debris removal has -- has just received many accolades because we all
Page 292
November 15-16,2005
can see it and we -- and we see that it's gone and it's gone quickly and
-- and everybody's very impressed. But nobody ever thinks about
their toilets flushing unless they don't. So you don't get many
accolades, but your -- your -- your response team, your preparation
was phenomenal. And it's too bad that more people don't realize what
an outstanding job you did. I just want to say that. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My toilets didn't work for six
days.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You didn't have electricity.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We know what it's like not to have
toilets working.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We've -- we've got the laugh house.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- I have some questions on
the break out.
What I heard you say is we have approximately 200 gallons that
needed to be contained, correct, or is it --
MR. YILMAZ: Are we talking about the spills from the
manholes or the lift stations?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, you had lift stations and --
MR. YILMAZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What was the total?
MR. YILMAZ: We're looking at less than 2,000, and we had one
master lift station failure didn't go to surface water. That's the only
one exceeded 10,000 gallons. Everything is less than 10,000 gallons.
Mostly it's 25, 50, 200 gallons.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. YILMAZ: And they were all cleaned up verified by
pollution control before the FDEP people.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. That was an expensive --
what I see as $1.2 million.
MR. YILMAZ: Most of the expense is our pumper trucks, our
Page 293
November 15-16,2005
generators, and Florida One interlocal agreements we have with the
agencies. So I would say cleanup would be probably less than 1
percent of the total cost as far as -- as far as sewer cleanup goes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Most of it was for
generator usage?
MR. YILMAZ: Most was response, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Most of it was for generator use
or --
MR. YILMAZ: Yes, sir, and the manpower.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And 35,000 in food allocation.
MR. YILMAZ: Yes, sir. That's -- that's going back to -- to our
Florida One mutual agreement that we have to provide lodging and
accommodations for them. And the way we have looked at we have
used JSA's guidelines which is no different than our per diem
calculations here. Under per diem calculations we could go as high as
$61 per meal -- I mean, per person. So we -- we -- we -- we have
about $31 per day per person, but we could claim up to $61 from
FEMA.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. YILMAZ: So we're about 50 percent of what we could
claim from FEMA per day per person per diem.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it was a deal.
MR. YILMAZ: I would say we did everything we could given
the conditions. Many places were closed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: COMMISSIONER COLETTA.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: George, I just wanted to also
extend my personal thanks to you and your staff for all the hours you
put in to hold the system together. It was a remarkable effort. And
thank you for ajob well done.
MR. YILMAZ: Thank you, sir. Thank you for your support.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Do we have a motion for
Page 294
November 15-16,2005
approval? Motion approval by Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Coletta. Any
further discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: One more question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Were we able to award our
employees some way for all of the extra overtime that they spent with
us rather than with their families? I read a little something, but I
wanted to -- I mean, you know, just like all of the extra time or
whatever.
MR. DELONY: For the record, Jim Delony. Let me speak for
the division or else I'll defer to the County Manager for any remarks
he's got on this matter.
With regard to overtime, of course, hourly employees they're
going to be paid the overtime rate, but as you know and I know that's
-- that's not always the compensation. Mr. Mudd, as you might recall,
in his negotiations for extension to contract requested from the board
-- and I believe you approved $25,000 for us to use as part of the
recognition ceremony. Beyond that, though, recognition internally, the
respect that you've shown today is probably worth a lot more than
what you spoke to earlier. And I want to tell you I appreciate that. So
that reward is there as well. And so I hope I've answered your
question.
Mr. Mudd, anything from you on that, sir?
MR. MUDD: Yes. Commissioner, just to kind of let you know
our -- our policy prior to the storm was if -- if you're -- if you're sitting
at home, you're getting straight time. And if you were coming to
work, you were getting straight time during the storm. And so it
behooves a employee to stay home. Why would you want to -- if
you're -- if you've got a county day off, why would you want to come
to work and get yourself through that when you could be cleaning
Page 295
November 15-16,2005
your yard at home, because there's no benefit outside of, Gee, that was
nIce.
So I made a policy change as far as compensation was concerned
within my authority to do so that basically said, Those people that
came in during those four days that the county was off, they -- they
would get time and a half. And I did that basically on -- on four hours
of comp time to that eight hours they put straight time just so that
there was a difference in -- in that approach and made sure that those
comp time hours could be moved to next year. Because we -- we
normally sunset comp time hours to a certain level at the -- at the end
of the year. Those hours will be recognized and they can pull those
forward if they -- if they so desire.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think one other thing needs to be
recognized too. And that is that a lot of the employees who were
working not only in the EOC but in -- in the other departments making
sure the fundamental services were -- were operating suffered damage
at their homes. And -- and -- and they could easily have been at home
trying to take care of that and being with their family. But instead
they were out working trying to help other people in this county and
they -- they all deserve special recognition for that.
So thank you very much. We have a motion on the floor. All in
favor please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed by like sign?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Thank you.
Page 296
November 15-16, 2005
Item #10G
AN AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT 04-3673 WITH CAROLLO
ENGINEERS IN AN AMOUNT OF $1,144,432.00 TO PROVIDE
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR DESIGN OF
THE NORTHEAST REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT
AND WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY, PROJECT
NUMBERS 70902 AND 73156 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item.
You did E and F yesterday. So we're down to lOG. That's a
recommendation to approve an amendment to Contract 04-3673 with
Carollo Engineering in an amount of$1,144,432 to provide
professional engineering services for the design of the Northeast
Regional Water Treatment Plant and Water Reclamation Facility,
Project Nos. 70902 and 73156. And Mr. Roy Anderson, your Director
of Engineering for Public Utilities Division will present.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Mudd.
Okay. Thank you. This relates to an executive summary to approve
and amendment to Contract 04-3673 with Carollo Engineers to
provide professional engineering services for the design of the
Northeast Water Treatment Plant and Water Reclamation Facility.
Commissioners, staff requests -- respectfully recommends
approval of Amendment No.2 to this contract with Carollo Engineers
for services related to their revised phasing of the Northeast Water
Treatment Plant and Water Reclamation Facility and that you
authorize the chairman to execute the amendment after approval by
the county attorney's office.
The purpose of the proj ect is to provide for water treatment and
wastewater treatment service facilities to meet demands of the
northeast region of the county and to stay in compliance with
regulatory items.
Page 297
November 15-16,2005
The project is consistent with the 2003 water and wastewater
master plans that were updated and approved by the Board of County
Commissioners on May 25th, 2004. Due to the increased area,
demands for water supply and wastewater capacity in the area, we're
taking this opportunity to cost effectively optimize the construction
phasing for this proj ect. In order to accommodate recent increased
area growth projections, it's being recommended that the initial phase
of these facilities be revised as follows: First, to construct the water
reclamation facility with initial -- with an initial capacity of 4 million
gallons a day and to construct the water treatment plant with an initial
capacity of 15 million gallons per day.
In order to implement this new phasing strategy, it's
recommended that the scope of services for this contract be amended
in the amount of $1.144 million for revised total contract amount of
$12.8 million. Funding is available for this project and is consistent
with the FY 06 capital budget that was approved by the Board of
County Commissioners on September 22nd, 2005. The source of the
funding will be water and wastewater impact fees.
Commissioners, staff respectfully recommends your approval of
this amendment with Carollo Engineers for these two facilities and
that you authorize the chairman to execute the amendment.
That concludes my presentation. We're prepared to answer any
questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: On the breakout page 7 of7 on
our agenda, the last item, Task 9, cost of business adjustment --
adjustment, the previous or the original contract called for more than
CPI. Why are we continuing to give them more than CPI or why are
we even -- it's a five-year contract. So why are we even giving them
more on that? They're already getting a half million dollars for it.
MR. ANDERSON: The increases that we've -- that we're
proposing here are all consistent with the cost of -- the cost of doing
Page 298
November 15-16,2005
business that were specified by the purchasing department. So we'd
be happy to provide this information to show you the consistency of
the increase.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, why are we giving them
more than CPI?
MR. ANDERSON: I'll ask Harry to--
MR. HUBER: For the record, Harry Huber, Senior Project
Manager in the Public Utilities Engineering Department.
In the original agreement there was allowance for the cost of
business adjustment after the first year. And it's a maximum of 3 1/2
percent or -- or what the Consumer Price Index is. And for this
particular year, for instance, the Consumer Price Index, I just checked
on it yesterday, is about five. So we're only going to be giving them a
three and a half percent increase. And that's that allowance that's in
the original agreement and then it's just a percentage. This percentage
increase here is just slightly less than 10 percent. So they -- you
know, so because each year -- in fact, I'm getting ready to do it pretty
shortly because it's at the anniversary date of this contract. Each
anniversary date -- and that will be coming up, like, December 14th.
So we'll see what the Consumer Price Index was for the past 12
months, and use that Consumer Price Index for the cost of business
adjustment or 3 1/2 percent whichever is less. And so I don't think
anything is included in here that's different than what the original
agreement provision had.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When somebody bids on
something, the bidding on this job or -- or doing this job, and I -- I
can't understand why even CPI is in there, but I was alone on that.
MR. HUBER: Put on the plan it was consistent with the original
agreement that was approved.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas.
Page 299
November 15-16,2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Did you say this is a three-year
contract basically, this engineering contract?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And so with the way that
the inflationary rate is going basically in Southwest Florida, I think
that's pretty much understanding why it's costing us more to do
business. I know that we've had other contracts that we've had to
adjust accordingly because of the fact of construction materials going
up. And I think that the big reflection is probably the amount of
destruction that we've realized down here in the southeast part of the
United States. And so I think that's part of the reason that we're
looking at increase in -- in what -- what it's doing basically to do
business here in Southwest Florida. So to me -- it looks to me it's just
a viable expense.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think it's just on employee
costs, labor costs. I think it's on the materials.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, obviously, it must be the
labor costs are going up also. When we look at what it -- what the
housing market here is in August, we had a -- the average cost of a
house was $480,000 and now it's over $500,000. I'm sure it's not only
just in Collier County. I think it's pretty much statewide.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Halas. Second
by Commissioner Fiala for approval.
All in favor please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 300
November 15-16, 2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It carries unanimously.
Item #10H
TO AWARD BID #05-3873 GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY GRADE
SEPARATED OVERPASS LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION TO
HANNULA LANDSCAPING INC. WITH A BASE AMOUNT OF
$1,100,584.65 AND 10% CONTINGENCY OF $110,058.46 FOR A
TOTAL OF $1,210,643.11 PLUS BID ALTERNATE 2A - FUND
313. PROJECT #600066 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item
which is 10H. It's the recommendation to award Bid Nos. 05-3873,
the Golden Gate Parkway Grade Separated Overpass Landscape
Installation to Hannula Landscaping, Inc., with a base amount of
$1,100,584.65 and a 10 percent contingency of$110,058.46 for a total
of$1,210,643.11 plus bid alternate 2a, Fund 313, Project No. 600066.
And Ms. Diane Flagg, your Alternate Transportation Modes Director
will present.
MS. FLAGG: Good morning, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning.
MS. FLAGG: As the county manager indicated, this is an award
of the bid for the Golden Gate Overpass Project which includes the
installation of the plants and trees, mulch, root barrier and landscapes
Livingston Road where the overpass is on the portion of Airport Road.
The installation of the landscaping will run concurrently with the
construction of the overpass with a projected completion date of
December 2006. The amount of the bid is consistent with the
approved budget. And just for your information, the project is also
going to be irrigated by reuse water as opposed to potable water.
Page 301
November 15-16, 2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Halas.
Any discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It carries unanimously.
Item #101
RECOMMENDATION TO NAME THE WATER PARK
FACILITY AT NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL PARK
"WETLANDS" - A MOTION WAS MADE TO NAME THE PARK
"SUN-N-FUN LAGOON" - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is No. 101. It's a
recommendation to name the water park facility at the North Collier
Regional Park "Wetlands," and Ms. Donner from the Parks and
Recreation Department will present.
MS. DONNER: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
my name is Mary Ellen Donner, Assistant Director, Collier County
Parks and Recreation.
The Collier County Parks and Recreation Department for some
Page 302
November 15-16,2005
time has been working on a name for the new North Collier Regional
Park Water Park. For the purposes of the North Collier Regional Park,
it's important to choose a name that not only markets the existing park
to current users, but also invites new customers to come and try us out.
From a marketing perspective the name should have a global
appeal. We want to create a vision in -- in the potential customer's
head of exactly what we're offering. While there's no magic formula
for concocting -- concocting distinctive business names, it should be a
name that people want to repeat and establish as a destination.
Competition among names is often fierce and, therefore, they're often
protected through copyright and! or trademark.
Numerous suggestions for the North Collier Regional Park
Aquatic Complex have been considered. The names on the far right
column are actually trade marked and, therefore, not available for use.
The blue line indicates the -- when the actual date -- the date that that
name was copyrighted. So those names on that far right-hand column
are not available.
After review of these names and others, staff recommends
"Wetlands" as the appropriate and a marketable name available for the
North Collier Regional Park water park.
Additionally we present a few little visuals so that it might give
you an idea of exactly what we were looking at. The type in these
names can be changed. The drops can be -- can be changed as well.
This is just to give you an idea of what perhaps this might look like.
We have a couple more. Little caricature in -- in the middle of "E"
can be anything. It doesn't need to be an alligator with a bathing cap
on. And this one is just -- has -- has in the background some of the
wetlands and a -- and a slide because we do have a tube slide that
actually enters -- the tubes go into the lazy river.
With over 60 acres of wetland preserve on the park site,
Wetlands not only puts a fun twist to the name, but also provides a
link to the park. The staff is recommending that the Board of County
Page 303
November 15-16,2005
Commissioners name the water park at the North Collier Regional
Park "Wetlands". I am available for any questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I -- I understand the county manager has
suggested "The Mudd Slide."
MS. DONNER: We kind of thought "Mudd Puddle."
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why -- why -- why did you reject that?
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I really, really appreciate all the
research that you and your staff have gone through and I'm sure that
they spent hours on it, but I just speak out of feeling that Wetlands is
kind of hokey. It would be nice if we could get some kind of a name
that's catchy and has a little pizzaz to it. So that's -- that's my feeling.
But I appreciate all the research that you've have done on this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Everybody has an opinion;
right? I love it. I think it's just darling. And -- and I love some of the
logos that you have as well because it says, Kids are welcome. Kids
are invited. It's for everybody. And it also some -- somewhere just
imbedded in that Wetlands name also says there's a lot of preserve
there that we're taking care of as well. And so I like it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I have to -- I have to side with
Commissioner Halas on this one. The -- you know, we talk about
wetlands all the time in zoning and land development issues and
conservation issues. I'm afraid that it will get lost in that discussion.
And I'm not at all sure that it is distinctive enough to convey exactly
what you have in mind here.
This is something that is -- is -- is going to be a major attraction
for all of Southwest Florida. And -- and I -- I think we need to give a
little more thought. I've always thought we should name it Water
World, but you're telling me that -- that this is already copyrighted, but
copyrighted by whom and under what circumstances?
MS. DONNER: Universal Studios actually has copyrighted
Page 304
November 15-16, 2005
Water World. Water World copyrighted as Waterworld is copyright.
Water World as two words is not copyright. But, if I may, the United
States Patent and Trademark Office is to whom we submit our -- our
patent or our copyright request. And if they feel that it's too close to a
current copyright or trademark name, they will perhaps not approve it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you were to say Collier Water World
what would that do for you?
MS. DONNER: Until we actually submit it to the patent office, I
-- I can't answer the question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Or like Water World, something of
that nature.
MS. DONNER: If I may, some of the thought behind Wetlands
also was because the pool. It's wet. It's fun. That was another
thought process behind what we -- what we were trying to do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, the ones that you have that don't
have dates --
MS. DONNER: Any of the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- beside them --
MS. DONNER: Any of the names on the left-hand side the first
two columns are -- are other names that were submitted that we
considered naming the water park.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So if -- if we see anything we like
in those first two columns from the left, we could select those; right?
MS. DONNER: Those were submitted and currently are not
copyright.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. The -- the person we're
trying to appeal to here is, what, a child, someone, a young person?
MS. DONNER: Children. Families. Fun.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think we got to be realistic.
What's -- what's going to get a child's attention? Is it going to be a
long name with the -- with the name Collier in front of it? I don't
Page 305
November 15-16,2005
think so. I think it needs to be something that -- that kids could relate
to real quick and be able to seize on the opportunity to be able to go
with it. I'd like to get the opinion of some kids.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: One that catches my vision here
just right off the bat is Spiral Splash because you're going to have the
-- you're going to have the -- the little tube in there with the water
running through it. And -- and I think that's going to be a great
attraction.
In fact, when I went on a tour with the gentleman who's in charge
of overseeing this project for the county, I already told him that he
better plan on taking this and using it as a cookie cutter to move
someplace else. Because I believe in six months time when this opens
up, that there's going to be -- I'll be getting tons of e-mail where
people have to wait in line 20 minutes to 30 minutes. They're going to
think that is way too long. So there is going to be I believe an outcry
or something, another venue just like this someplace else in the
county. So -- but I don't know.
Being the flash -- Fast Splash is pretty good. And I think it needs
to be something that the kids can relate to. But, like I said, I know that
you put a lot of time and effort into it, but maybe you can go back and
just kind of see if you can come up with something that's kind of
catchy and it's got a little pizzaz to it other than Wetland. That's my
feeling.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I -- I agree with Commissioner
Halas. I'd like to see you take it to maybe about a fifth or sixth grade
class or two. Maybe something like Splash -- Splashtastic. I don't
know if that would be a word kids could relate to or not, but I'd like to
see something that they grab ahold of and they feel it belongs to them.
I think Wetlands a little too formal.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I -- I -- I know of a home that I'm told
the children decided on the colors of the home and it is purple and
Page 306
November 15-16,2005
pink. I think it's a really bad idea to start asking people for
suggestions for names like that unless you're committed to accepting
them. And you don't know what you're going to get. But what's wrong
with Sun and Fun Lagoon? I thought that's a -- that's a pretty good
idea. That conveys a fairly broad range of activities and something
that children could understand and appreciate.
MS. DONNER: These were just names that we had submitted
and that we had considered.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MS. DONNER: We -- we thought that perhaps a shorter -- a
shorter name would be helpful. Kids could remember it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, it would become Sun and Fun. I
mean, you name it Sun and Fun Lagoon. It would become Sun and
Fun. I'm going down to Sun and Fun for the day; right? Okay.
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nothing. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. What -- what do the
commissioners want to do? Just instruct the staff to go back or do you
want to -- do you want to nominate some things?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I want them to go back and see
what they can come up with.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You want to help them and nominate a
few things off this list?
MS. DONNER: If I may, we do have a time frame. We have a
water tower that is slated for installation and we're -- we're trying to
get a name on that water tower so that it can be seen from Livingston
and -- just so that's a consideration if --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, if we give you a time line of
next meeting, would that be sufficient?
MS. DONNER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good. Well, then come back--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll tell you right now, even though I
Page 307
November 15-16, 2005
like -- I like Wetlands, Sun and Fun sounds good and I would go along
with that and then we can get this show on the road. How about
anybody else?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Sun and Fun, it gets a
little bit closer to what kids can relate to.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I agree.
MS. RAMSEY: Commissioners, can I just interject one thing?
Our closest competition is called Sun Splash and that's in Cape Coral.
And if we could stay away from the word "sun" or "splash," that
would be very appropriate I think in -- in something that's as close.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Cape Coral's 60 miles away.
MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. But they're very -- they're the two closest
water parks within -- you know, geographic driving distance. And I
think "sun" and "splash" are probably two things that shouldn't be in
our title just as a courtesy to them.
THE COURT REPORTER: Your name?
MS. RAMSEY: Marla Ramsey, Public Service Administrator.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I -- I -- Marla, I appreciate your
comments, but I disagree with you. I -- I would -- I think Sun and Fun
won't be confused with splash.
MS. RAMSEY: Sun Splash.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sun Splash.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I think you're on -- I think you're
on a thing there. Sun and Fun Lagoon and Sun and Fun being the
nickname --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: I think -- I think I've heard three commissioners at
least say that it's a good idea. Do we have a motion for that particular
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that we adopt the
name Sun and Fun.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Page 308
November 15-16, 2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do you want lagoon at the end
or no, just Sun and Fun?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sun and Fun.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We could have it lagoon and it would
just be shortened naturally to whatever people say.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Then I'll restate my motion,
Sun and Fun Lagoon.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That sounds great. That's okay.
Motion by Commissioner Halas. Second by Commissioner Coletta
for Sun and Fun Lagoon. All in favor please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any -- any opposed by like sign.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Thank you very
much.
MS. DONNER: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I -- I'm sorry. Mary Lou (sic),
could I ask a question if I may?
MS. DONNER: I'm sorry. No. No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: At my kitchen cabinet, one of our
members had heard, he said from a reliable source, that they were
going to shorten the hours at -- at the water park in the summertime if
not eliminate some of the things. They said they wouldn't do that.
That's the time when everybody wants to be in the water. And they
said no, they heard it.
Page 309
November 15-16,2005
I would like you to state on the record.
MS. DONNER: Currently the proposed hours of operation
during the summer are seven days a week 10 a.m. to 7 p.m.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you very much.
MS. DONNER: You're welcome.
Item #10K - Moved from Item #16E3
AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO DRAFT
AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE AIRPORT-TYPE SEARCHES
OF INDIVIDUALS WHO ENTER THE ADMINISTRATION
BUILDING AT THE MAIN GOVERNMENT COMPLEX-
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item was -- was going to
be 10J, but Item 16D1 stayed on the summary agenda. So that moves
us to -- and the board voted that it stay on the summary agenda.
The next item is NK and that is formally 16E3. And that's
basically a recommendation that the board authorize the county
attorney's office to draft an ordinance to authorize airport type
searches of individuals who enter the administrative building at the
main government complex. The item was moved to the regular
agenda at Commissioner Henning's request. And Mr. Skip Camp your
director of facilities will present.
MR. CAMP: For the record, Skip Camp. The board directed--
through its budget process, it directed staff to increase the level of
security for the administration building. This agenda item directs the
county attorney's office to construct an ordinance providing the
authority to screen employees and visitors entering this facility.
And I will tell you rather than going into any more detail on live
television, I prefer just to answer your -- your questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead, Commissioner Henning.
Page 310
November 15-16,2005
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What offices are we trying to
protect?
MR. CAMP: Well, actually you have an eight-story high rise,
one of only two in the area and you have two floors of State Attorneys'
Office. Those are the people that prosecute the bad guys. Right off
the bat you have the local executives. You have -- you have a senator.
You have a state senator, state representatives and a U.S.
congressman, all of them that need some security at some level.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Not to mention five commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: They're a dime a dozen.
MR. CAMP: But I will also tell you, Commissioners, that you
had a government official murdered at his desk in Lee County. The
books back there are filled -- those binders are filled with assaults at
county buildings throughout this country . We've had 67 incidences in
this building in the last 18 months. That's our recommendation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, would it be more feasible
to move these hazardous people from danger into one building instead
of -- I mean, you got the public records, people going up there to get a
marriage license or -- or get married. Is -- you know, taking off their
shoes or getting a body search or something like that, wouldn't it be
better to move those potential targets into one building instead of
protecting it all?
MR. CAMP: Well, actually, Commissioners, we've actually
done that over the years. Most of those are in this building. And
they're either in this building or they're in the courthouse. And even in
the courthouse there are -- there are some departments that really don't
need screening, but the majority do. And in this building the majority
should have screening.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: IT Department needs to be
screened?
MR. CAMP: Yes. And remember we have a master plan that
some of those departments will be moving also, and we'll be putting
Page 311
November 15-16,2005
more of the -- I'll call it the hardened offices in -- in these protected
spaces. We have a plan right now, for instance, to move a large
portion of IT off campus because we need more space for State
Attorneys' Offices.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So we're moving IT. Are
we moving -- we're moving the clerk of court out?
MR. CAMP: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. CAMP: And then for more spaces for the -- the Public
Defender and the State Attorneys' Office.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we really need to be
protected from the public?
MR. CAMP: Well, to be honest, Commissioners, I feel very
uncomfortable talking about this, again, on live television because of
the security issues. But we've had -- as you know we've had threats
against the commissioners. Again, this is not the forum that I really
feel comfortable talking about this. But, yes, we've had threats against
the commissioners, State Attorneys' Offices, and -- and the state
attorney has very much endorsed this program. So we've had threats
against employees, against visitors, and against the commission.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I mean, it's a board
decision but, you know, I could just see the public comments about
having to go through that to get to their elected officials that do
government business. I don't find it necessary myself, but I think in
the minority.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that we approve
this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas makes a
motion to approve. Commissioner Coletta, you had --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, comments.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Comments. Go ahead, please. By the
Page 312
November 15-16,2005
way, I'll second the motion just to make sure it doesn't get lost here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: While I see a need for it, I still
have concerns. I appreciate the fact Commissioner Henning pulled it.
I had it on my list to pull during the beginning of the meeting, but in
any case -- because I did want to discuss some of the issues. Back
sometime ago when I first became a commissioner in Immokalee, I
had an office at the courthouse. I couldn't get anybody to come into
the office because of the fact they had to go through security. Finally
so I moved to the community center and that didn't work out because
of the competition with the kids. And then later I got to the office in
Alachua where I am now.
So it is a real concern. And there are people that do feel
intimidated when they go through security. But be as it may, there is a
danger, an ever present danger. I believe it's two times now that three
of us commissioners have been threatened, our lives have been
threatened. And we're very concerned about it. I know we went
through some very trying times, and it'd be nice to know that in this
building there's some measure of security.
What I would suggest is that we try to make it as user friendly as
possible, that we have special sensitivity. The guards we have now
are wonderful individuals. They don't really -- they interact great with
the public. But when they get to the point they're going to have
hundreds of people coming through the door and everything is
moving, I think a little sensitivity training maybe in advance. And
when new people come on so we can keep the whole thing flowing
and make people feel like they're very welcome and this is just a small
part of a process coming to the building and it's nothing that's
threatening. That may be the answer.
MR. CAMP: Absolutely. We will make that a priority.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Halas. Seconded by Commissioner Coyle. All in favor
please signify by saying aye.
Page 313
November 15-16,2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning dissents. It
passes four to one.
MR. CAMP: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That brings us to public comments.
Item #11
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
MS. FILSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have one speaker, Bob
Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Gee, what's this country coming to? Used
to be you could move around pretty freely; and even if you were a
dissenter to the government, you kind of weren't considered as a
threat.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You might like the body search.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Not -- by who? No. I don't think so. And,
you know, when you talk about airport security, they do some pretty
horrendous things in the airports to people.
But the reason I'm getting up to speak and I'm -- I'm sorry
Commissioner Fiala left -- oh, here she comes -- this is one of her
favorite topics, the affordable housing. Now, I -- I have stood here
before and brought something up, and I'd like direction from you as to
which committee meeting or subcommittee meeting I should go to to
deal with this. But as it stands now rental units, people that live in
rental units, they're not protected to any degree from an increase in
Page 314
November 15-16,2005
their taxation on the property as we are. When we live in a home, you
can only raise the tax on our home a maximum 3 percent a year, I
believe it is, you know, a maximum, right?
So when somebody's renting a house and these people rent these
homes are working throughout the community. They have jobs and
just regular people like the rest of us. And so when they're living in a
rental unit, if -- if the value of the property goes up in their
neighborhood, there's no cap on that. So the -- the value of the
property goes up. The taxes go up. And then the landlords have to
raise the rent, you know, and some of the rents are amazing of relative
to what they used to be just a few years ago.
So as we're trying to consider affordable housing for people and
going through all these great pains to find money and to subsidize
these developments for the lower echelon of incomes and even
medium incomes. It seems counterproductive to me to not have a
program in place that would require landlords to adhere to certain
conditions and standards but then would try to lock in a reasonable or
a slow growth of the -- of rent beneath the pay rent in order for the
landlord to cover his expenses, you know.
So what committee should I go to, sit down and propose some
kind of formula? And I'm certain that the staff would, if they
pondered this and worked it through, could come up with something
that would protect people living in rental units so that we don't wind
up raising the rent and pushing them out into the street. And then
you're looking -- you have to build them a house at everybody's
expense.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you're hitting a good topic,
Bob. One of the things that I strongly object to and I've voiced this
concern many times is, first of all, when they build new rentals and
they're considered affordable housing, they charge an outlandish rate.
For a three-bedroom home they charge $1,049 a month for affordable
housing rental.
Page 315
November 15-16,2005
MR. KRASOWSKI: That's incredible.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And they're -- and they're paid
money to do this, paid millions of dollars. Then, of course, they raise
it as the taxes go up. Property values increase. And -- and, of course,
they're not homesteaded. That's a business there so they have to pay
the increased rentals. With that having said, I'm just voicing my
disgust again about that.
But as far as, you know, rental units and high prices go, you can
go to Affordable Housing Commission. That's -- that meets monthly.
Cormac Giblin is in charge of that. Give him a call, 403-2400. Give
him a call and the public is always welcome.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Uh-huh. Okay. Well, thank you very
much for your attention to my comments.
MS. FILSON: And that was your final speaker, Mr. Vice Chair.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, I'm sorry. Is there anymore
comments from the public?
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. MUDD: That would bring us to -- to Item 15 which is staff
and commissioners general communications.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. County manager, do you
have anything to bring forth?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I do. The first thing is I'd -- I'd like to --
to make sure that we -- we -- we recognize the fact that a -- that a great
public servant has passed away the day that the hurricane passed at
5:55 p.m., on the 24th. And that was Mr. Ken Abernathy. His
services are Saturday. But I wanted to make sure that we publicly
acknowledge the fact that he was a great servant. He spent many
years on the -- on the Planning Commission for us. And -- and I for
Page 316
November 15-16,2005
one valued his -- his recommendations and his insights into particular
problems.
***The next item I'd like to talk about and I gave you yesterday
-- and -- and I'm sorry for the short turnaround, but I wanted to make
sure that Mr. Dan Summers gave you an opportunity to at least brief
you on -- on some of the -- the things that are still outstanding in
Collier County. One of which has to do with -- with temporary
housing. And it's significant enough that in my personal opinion, I
would have liked to see those trailers in here a little bit sooner. And
I'm not too sure they're here yet. But I do know that we still have
families that are -- that are living in one shelter in our community
center in -- in Immokalee. And we still have, what, eleven or a dozen
-- a dozen or so families that are still there in a shelter run by the Red
Cross. And I don't want you to lose visibility on that until those
people have moved into adequate quarters and gotten some help from
the Federal Government. So Mr. Summers, please.
MR. SUMMERS: Thank you. Commissioners, good morning,
Dan Summers, Director of the Bureau of Emergency Services, your
Emergency Management Director. And I have a team effort here. Let
me introduce some of the folks that are here. Jamie French has been
our contact person with Community Development Environmental
Services. Roy Dunn is here. Roy is the housing officer for State
Division of Emergency Management from Tallahassee. Dr. Joan
Colfer is here from our health department, Jim von Rintein from
emergency management, Jamie Sarbaugh, public information and Joe
Schmitt.
I wanted to tell you a little bit is that we all tried to get back into
some form of normal operation post Wilma. Understand that
emergency management and all these organizations go through this
natural transition period where we kind of come out of EOC where the
adrenalin is working so hard and we're putting all these fires out to a
transition of dealing with a number of needs in the community. And
Page 31 7
November 15-16,2005
oftentimes it's said that the recovery process is much more challenging
than response process because we're back to doing our regular
assignment plus all the additional post-disaster burdens and
challenges. We've been working very hard. The group continues to
meet every morning at ten o'clock particularly focussed on human
service needs and, again, while some of these representatives are here.
I do apologize as well that you got a big packet of information
late yesterday when we felt like that there were so many issues
associated with temporary housing and FEMA relieve programs, that
it would be very difficult in ten minutes to give you the big overview.
So you do have a read package that you can take back and digest at a
later time.
Let me hit some big numbers for you just a little bit and try to put
-- put the horse blanket, if you will, on what's going on so far. FEMA
in terms of the State of Florida right now has already issued $45
million in individual assistance. That's when you call the 800 number
with FEMA. You fill out an application with them and tell them
basically what some of your unmet needs are. And then based on a
number of criteria, which is in this large read-ahead, tells you how that
criteria addresses that.
In Collier County the blue-roof program, in other words, the
temporary dry-in, temporary tarping, as of yesterday we had 1,954
people registered in that program in Collier County. And the Corps of
Engineers has done a phenomenal job with their contractors. And as
of yesterday 1,054 roofs in Collier County have had the blue tarp
installed.
In Collier County we know that over 12,000 people have
registered with FEMA. We continue to push that because that FEMA
registration opens the doors for a lot of programs, again, qualification
dependent, income dependent to some degree. But that also opens up
other host of services. Whether it's tax relief through the IRS or SBA
applications, very low interest loans, Small Business Administration
Page 318
November 15-16,2005
for not only the individual but the small business. In addition to that,
that also allows FEMA and Red Cross to some -- to some degree to
collaborate on community needs.
Our Collier Chapter of American Red Cross, again, the National
Red Cross is running the organization in Collier County or running the
disaster job, if you will. They reported to us that they had over 700
case files that they were actively working as of yesterday. And at this
point in that FEMA registration system which, again, is sort of the
kick-off point for all of the other programs, particularly as we get into
temporary housing -- and let me put an asterisk beside temporary
housing, because I need to make sure you're aware of some key points
there. FEMA has about 900 individuals out of the 12,000 or so that
have registered with FEMA that are in the cue for eligibility --
eligibility and further assessment for temporary housing.
Now, let me -- let me -- let me make sure you understand all
sides of the picture associated with temporary housing. In Hurricane
Katrina the request right now is for 90,000 temporary homes as a
result of Katrina, 90,000. The country only builds about twenty to
twenty-five thousand mobile homes or RVs in a given year. That's
countrywide. So there is a huge problem right now just in the
allocation of travel trailers and mobile homes nationwide.
The FEMA and the White House has given the General Services
Administration, GSA, permission to go out and buy travel trailers and
mobile homes on the open market. When you get a FEMA mobile
home, it's a rather generic federal type standard mobile home;
however, because of supply and demand, they're going out and trying
to do their best on the open market with competitive pricing to address
that issue. So just the mere fact of being at the end of the hurricane
season, a phenomenal hurricane season, with all due respect in defense
of what FEMA has or trying to do, there's just a real impossible
market situation out there to deal with.
A couple of things and I need you to be aware of and, again, is
Page 319
November 15-16,2005
dealing with temporary housing. Please understand that American
Red Cross has issued their client assistance card, the debit card, in
some cases where they have given an allocation and that range is
about $300 per person in a household up to maybe two months. So, in
other words, a family of three from Red Cross may have received
between 900 and $1,200 as a client assistance card which they can
either purchase needed goods which are tax exempt or they can, in
fact, exchange that for cash for other temporary housing situations;
hotel, motel, at their discretion. In other words, it's not a direct bill to
Red Cross, but there is an allocation of funding there.
The funding that FEMA has probably provided to Collier
County, and I don't know if Roy has that number. The last number I
heard was around 12 million allocated. We're still waiting on some
new numbers today. But FEMA in its individual assistance has put
aside roughly about $12 million in Collier County for what they
project as the short-term and long-term financial assistance.
Then we get into the trailer or the mobile home -- the travel
trailer or the mobile home, the additional temporary housing
scenarios. And that's where I mentioned earlier that just supply and
demand is a real challenge. Let me tell you, I've got information from
a number of sources here, that roughly -- here we go. It's always the
last page, right? Roughly that out of the 12,000 folks in Collier
County that have registered, we know this about temporary housing
and mobile homes, we have 13 families that have been assigned or are
waiting a travel trailer pad. We have 29 sites that have already been
identified by FEMA, not -- the county had already given an inventory
to FEMA, but verified by FEMA another 29 available sites.
Seventeen additional sites that are considered feasible -- feasible. And
as of yesterday seven families have been, quote, leased in. In other
words, they are assigned a trailer. The trailer is waiting. The
contractor that sets that trailer has two things to do possibly. Not only,
one, verify the site. Two, pull permits. And in the event at the
Page 320
November 15-16,2005
existing site that there is demolition to be done or removal of a trailer,
pull that trailer out and -- and bring that trailer in and set it up and
make it habitable for a family.
We know that that -- that is a slow start. We recognize that.
We're dealing, again, with all of the issues related to the -- I believe it
was 1 7 counties declared as a result of this event and everybody has
competing needs as well as competing sources for inventory. But
those things are moving forward. Roy Dunn is our state housing
person. I don't want to put him on the spot. He came in. I know he's
been running from conference call to meeting to federal conference
call in terms of making sure the process is running.
I will tell you that Collier County was ahead of the curve
statewide in identifying temporary sites for mobile homes, identifying
existing pad locations that might, in fact could be used, working
through some of the permitting issues so that we can do everything
possible to expedite that. And that is our primary form of relief. I
understand cash disbursements from Red Cross, other voluntary
organizations as well as FEMA and in turn those folks that qualify for
the additional temporary housing.
So let me stop right there because no doubt you have some
questions. And maybe Dr. Colfer, maybe Roy want to give you some
additional insight. But that's a thumbnail sketch of how that program
works.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commission Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is -- this coincides with what
you're basically talking about. The Economic Development Council
has also been working with the small businessmen and also with the
banks here in the community. And they've been working to make sure
that the small businessman has been taken care of. I've been to a
couple of their sessions and I'll tell you they're doing an outstanding
job. And I think that we're ahead of the curve on that also to try to get
funding out there for the small businessmen.
Page 321
November 15-16,2005
There was different programs that were available. There was one
from the State of Florida. I believe it was the six-month program
interest free up to six months, but then after that it gets pretty
expensive. But then that gives the ability for that particular
businessman to look for financing in other -- other places.
So I just want to say that the EDC is doing their job, and they're
doing a good job with the small businessmen.
MR. SUMMERS: That bridge loan in the SBA is a great
program.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: All right. I have heard nothing
but positive comments from one end of the community to the other,
even at some of our most devastated individuals are saying that they're
getting help that they need. They'd like to see things happen faster,
but --
MR. SUMMERS: We would too.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. But then again, too, this
is what we call government. There is one thing of great concern to
me, and I do want to get it out so my fellow commissioners are aware
of it. And it's not entirely the county's responsibility. In fact, I'm not
even sure what the level of responsibility for the county is. It has to
do with the seasonal laborers in Immokalee.
Right now we have about a number between eight and ten
thousand people working in Immokalee, and there's plenty of work for
the most part. There seems to be work. A lot of it is hourly work
which they don't prefer. They prefer the piecework where they can
pick the vegetables and at their own pace be able to make an income
that is considerably more than a minimum wage. But there is a
problem on the horizon no one seems to be able to totally assess. And
I've been working with the social service agencies and just about
anyone else who can put some input into it. A whole bunch of little
pieces of the answers are coming back, but somehow we need to be
Page 322
November 15-16,2005
able to formulate it.
There is a good possibility there's going to be a total lack of work
in Immokalee for a month, a month and a half, maybe two months
between the time that they get the planting in and the new crops come.
Normally they come in increments during the whole season and
employment is a sure thing. If that does happen and if the migrants
aren't made aware of the fact that there is going to be little work for
this time period, we may have a population of five to ten thousand
unemployed people that will have to exist on the public dole. And it's
going to be extremely difficult because we depend upon our social
service agencies, private and nonprofits to provide the services to
these people especially the food. And there's only so much as far as
resources go that we can draw on. As you may be aware, the food
bank of Fort Myers is just about empty now. About every pantry in
the area is empty. And so we could be facing a potential crisis.
Now, we -- somehow we got to get our hands around this. Have
you got any kind of reports on this at this point in time, Dr. Colfer?
MS. COLFER: Well, I wasn't going to talk about work force--
work force development, if you will, but I did want to talk about the
housing for that work force. For the record, I'm Dr. Joan Colfer. I'm
the Collier County Health Department Director. Some of you look
puzzled to see me here today. I certainly haven't been here in any of
the other storms on the housing issue. But the reason I am here is
because one of the roles that the Health Department has in addition to
taking care of special needs people during and after a storm is
ensuring some measure of safe housing for certain individuals.
We license and regulate the mobile home parks and in addition
we license and regulate migrant housing. And migrant housing is
defined as that housing that's provided to the seasonal farm workers
when there's five or more in a single dwelling. Since the storm
passed, our staff -- our environmental health staff out in Immokalee
which does this work with assistance from some state folks -- and you
Page 323
November 15-16,2005
had to be able to be somebody that was credentialed in migrant
housing to go in and look at this housing -- but we had a number of
people on the ground in Immokalee working shoulder to shoulder with
our staff. And what they have been able to tell me is that out of our
migrant housing stock that we have out there, we currently have l33
units that are basically uninhabitable. For migrant housing I -- I asked
my person out there, Well, you know, how many people live in a unit?
And it's all over the place, but the best we can guess is an average of
about eight people for each one of those one hundred and thirty-three
units. So that comes out to over 1,000 people will be without housing.
In the mobile home parks, the news is a little bit better. There are
only 29 trailers that are uninhabitable at this point. I just use four
people or half of the eight for that. That's about another 100 some
folks. So at the moment we haven't told anybody you need to vacate
that housing; but I have to tell you that the population that lives out
there, no matter what the circumstances of the housing, they're pulling
a piece of plywood or whatever they can find over in some cases what
is nothing but a hovel and living in it.
And at some point here we need to say you can't do that. And in
addition some of these things that are in a little bit better shape, they're
doing the same things with. The owners in particular that want to
make money off of these poor souls are, you know, putting a tarp
over, patch working it together, which is not acceptable and plugging
it back in and telling people to live there. And my fear and concern is
we're going to have fires. We're going to have people electrocuted.
We're going to have whole trailers collapse on an infant. We're going
to start killing people out there. And I don't think that's what any of us
want.
So -- so I'm here to share with you my concerns about the
housing issues as well. We have talked downstairs. We have brought
up every possible solution I can think of in thinking outside of the box
for what we could possibly do for housing. And it's all very
Page 324
November 15-16,2005
problematic. So I think both myself and Joe Schmitt and his staff, you
know, are here to hear what you would like us to do in this scenario.
And we could talk about some of the other options.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Joan, you're -- you're
right about the housing. It is substandard. It has been substandard for
a long time. I think Commissioner Fiala alluded to this earlier about
Immokalee and some of the housing. And the truth of the matter is at
this point there's very little we can do. Because if we go in there and
we tell people this is substandard, you're out of here, now, we did
something we've never done in Collier County before and that's
remove people from a dwelling, whether it's up to par or not. As soon
as this season's over with, we have to make the determination to go in
there and really assess what's in that -- the inventory in Immokalee
and condemn every single unit that's below par once the migrants
leave. We can't do much now. As far as the migrants that are out there
now, there doesn't seem to be a problem. Everything I've seen
indicates that they've been reabsorbed in the community which
probably means from eight they went to ten on some trailers.
There's a small number of people in the shelter. Friendship House
at this point is just about full or bumping against the ceiling about how
many people they can take. So I'm not overly concerned about the
housing situation for the migrants as much as I'm concerned about
migrants coming here for work that doesn't exist.
I need to have some sort of assessment done with the growers,
the crew chiefs, with social service agencies there that provide the
services to be able to find out exactly where we're going to run into a
problem. So we can get a word out over the public media and let the
public out there know and the migrants too wherever they are in this
country at this point in time, that at a certain point in time there will
not be work in Immokalee and how long it's going to last or there's
going to be a limited amount of work so that we don't have these
people coming down with no work here and then stuck here for a
Page 325
November 15-16,2005
month or two waiting for the work to come. It's a real big concern. I
want to see us avoid a disaster that may be on the horizon.
DR. COLFER: And I think we can do that. We took our Katrina
Coordinating Council from our efforts two months ago and -- and
changed that into the Wilma Coordinating Council. We're taking it to
Immokalee tomorrow to meet with their interagency group in
Immokalee and the chamber and anybody and everybody that we can
think of at one o'clock tomorrow. And I certainly hope that you'll be
able to be there as well.
And I think we can get the word out up the migrant stream that
this is not the place to come to. There's a little bit of work now, you
know, as you've said. The migrants that are here are cleaning up the
fields. There are some replanting that's going on. But the people that
come to work in the packing houses, there's nothing -- there's not
going to be anything to pack. And I think we can do that. I think, you
know, through all the partners that exist out there, they can get the
word out up the -- up the migrant stream.
But, again, I mean, my concern is the people that live in this
housing, you know, right now and -- and, I mean, there are some that
you wouldn't want a dog to live in. I mean, I really think some people
just really are going to be displaced. And, you know, I need to also
seek guidance from the state people because these are state rules that
I'm required to -- to enforce. So I have to call into them.
Unfortunately, we moved the meeting up so I didn't get that guidance
as well.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The best guidance we can give
and I won't -- I'll finish with this and I appreciate your indulgence -- is
the fact that eventually this is going to have to become the -- the
agriculture itself is going to have to step up to the plate.
DR. COLFER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And those people, there's a lot
of them that have stepped up to the plate and they're providing great
Page 326
November 15-16, 2005
housing for their employees. Those that haven't are going to have to
do without the labor. And it's going to be -- it's going to be one of
those effects. I'm getting sick and tired of this business of everybody
and his brother in Immokalee spending 75 percent of their time
subsidizing the farm labor industry because someone else doesn't wish
to do it.
DR. COLFER: And I agree. And if you can help us talk to
growers to assume some of this responsibility, that would be
wonderful.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Doctor, I think some of these
concerns that you have should be taken care of by code enforcement.
I'm going to ask my fellow commissioner next to me, Commissioner
Coletta, in regards to the migrant workers. I would think that the
migrant workers have kind of their own pipeline of information in
regards to if there's work in certain locals and if there's not work in
certain locals. And it seems to me that their -- their network of
communication, whatever it may be, they know in -- in the course of
time that areas that may have -- like they had worked for last year,
there's nothing available this year. And I would think that then what
they do is they go to other areas that may need their assistance.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I respond?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I asked you a question.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, no. I just want to make sure
I go through the chair each time to make sure I don't step on anybody's
toes.
You're right. There is probably a pipeline that exists, but who
wants to take the chance with five to ten thousand individuals showing
up expecting work and not finding it possibly because of the fact that
nobody ever did an assessment. I think once we get the assessment
done, and possibly that's something you'll be able to come up with.
Page 327
November 15-16,2005
We've got to make sure it's not overwhelming to the point where we
shut off a stream when there's still workers needed. Somehow there's
got to be some sort of controls.
But once the assessment's made and I'm pretty sure we can -- we
can get the word out to make sure that the people do show up at the
time that we need them and that they're some place else when we don't
need them, when they have work and can sustain themselves with
their own two hands.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But I don't really think that falls in
-- in our venue here to assist the workers one way or another. I think
that the powers to be either from the state or federal government have
to get involved in this. I don't think this is a responsibility that we the
-- we the county need to take on this huge undertaking. When you're
talking 10,000 people, I hope that you're not implying that we're going
to be taking care of these people. Because I think it's got to be a state
and federal deal here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And Commissioner Halas, in the
beginning when I started my presentation to -- to everybody here
about what the problem was, I mentioned the fact that it's probably not
the county's problem. And whatever the county's role in it is limited
and it has to be determined. It's the social service agencies. But let's
-- let's be honest about it. Anybody -- anytime somebody steps over
the Collier County borders and they're in Collier County, we assume a
certain amount of responsibility for them as far as emergency services
go, as far as providing code enforcement. And so we do have a
responsibility. And the only way we can make sure everything works
out is that we do partner up with our private institutions to provide the
food, to provide the shelter, to make sure that everybody's aboard to
make it happen. You're right. The county doesn't have 100 percent
responsibility here. You're absolutely right on that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're -- we're not going to be able to
Page 328
November 15-16,2005
solve this today. It is a serious problem. Why don't we schedule a
workshop specifically to address this. We just had a meeting with the
Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board. They are very interested in seeing
us crack down on substandard housing. They're going to come to us
with some recommendations. And -- and I'd like to just leave it at
that. And -- and let's schedule a workshop. We're not going to solve
this here. We don't even have the people who we need to get input
from. And if we're going to make any policy changes, we need to do
it in an advertised meeting. So let's -- let's understand that we've got a
problem and -- and we need to address it by devoting some time in a
workshop to come and help with some solutions. Okay?
Now, the -- the other thing and, Dan, are you hiding back there
somewhere? You're -- you're -- you're exactly right about the
continuing efforts to deal with the problems caused by Hurricane
Wilma. We -- we -- we have a tendency sometimes to let down after
the hurricane's gone, but the problems remain for a long period of
time. So you're doing exactly the right thing.
I suggest that you -- you -- you continue to give us concise
written reports about people in need of housing, people in need of
food, people in need of the -- the essentials so that we can keep our
focus on the most important issues here. And if there are any
problems with respect to satisfying those needs, that we're alerted as
quickly as possible so that we can take whatever action is necessary.
So if you just keep giving us those on a regular basis so that we are
aware of the -- of the severity of the problems, I would appreciate it.
Okay?
MR. SUMMERS: Sir, thank you. These recovery memos that
Jaime has been putting together for you is an attempt to capsule what
to -- to abbreviate, if you will, what we are doing when we meet every
single day to look at options and to see what avenues open up.
Because it has been a very fluid recovery process as you would
expect. We're -- we're waiting on the -- the additional mobile homes.
Page 329
November 15-16,2005
We've addressed the parks. We're dealing with Red Cross. We're
working with nonprofits, our United Way partners have stepped up as
well, the Immokalee stakeholders that we're bringing in. So a lot of
interaction going on in attempting to do -- not only look at the big
picture but address those -- those greatest priority needs and we'll
continue on that road.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And -- and please highlight any
actions you believe the -- the county commissioners need to take.
Sometimes we might not really understand which agency is
responsible for doing certain things and when they're responsible for
doing it. If you believe that we need to take action on something,
please highlight that so it becomes a very important issue for us.
Okay?
MR. SUMMER: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, ma'am.
MS. FILSON: I'm sorry. Can we take, like, a two-second break
so she can change --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I was hoping we can conclude this and
then do that. Are we concluded?
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, if I could just make sure. I just
want to bring up -- for the record, Joe Schmitt, Administrator,
Community Development Environmental Services -- at least for
Commissioner Coletta and Commissioner Fiala.
One area that has been of great concern to both of them has been
the Diamond Shores, Port-of- Prince. There has been -- the property
has flipped ownership. I expect that that property will-- future will be
developed, but we're working -- my staff is working with the Corps.
We've identified probably 35 of those trailers will be switched out
here in the next week or two. They will put in and my understanding
with Roy working with him and the state, those will be temporary but
eventually that will evolve. And I believe that developer or they will
Page 330
November 15-16, 2005
eventually come in and develop that site. So it will be -- we're going
to clean up what's existing. And you know what's out there,
Commissioner Fiala. Deplorable. We're going to replace the 35 -- at
least 35 sites I think have been identified and then -- and then it'll be,
like I said, temporary. And I believe eventually you'll see somebody
come in and propose some kind of development for that area.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's terrific.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're -- we're in recess for ten
minutes. I'm sorry.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. Mr.
Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're back in session.
MR. MUDD: Two more items to talk about, one of which is a
letter, time critical. A couple of months ago the board put Berry
Williams as their representative on the -- on the Collier County
Substance Abuse Coalition Group. There was a $5,000 grant that
became available to talk about the work on substance abuse in Collier
County for the sheriff. They needed letters of support and they needed
to have them before the 15th. I did that. The letter that I sent is -- is
right there to Ms. Mary George, the president/CEO of the Community
Foundation of Collier County in support of that particular grant. We
have no idea if we're going to get the grant or not; but when we do,
we'll bring it back to this board to accept. And that's not a problem,
but it was time critical to get the letter out at least to have some
support so to try to get our best leg forward on it.
The next item is a letter that the chairman received. And that was
from Commissioner Susan Lativa (phonetic) from Pinellas. I hope I
pronounced her name correctly. And this is what happens when you
go to the F AC and you're the only commissioner from Collier County
that goes. They -- they put the arm on you to -- to kind of be their
point person for the -- the -- their annual Florida Associations
Page 331
November 15-16,2005
Conference that's going to be held at Marco Island here in Collier
County from June 27th through the 30th.
And this letter is basically asking the board to recognize the
F AC, that their previous conversation with Commissioner Halas --
again, he was -- he was the only commissioner that went to the
delegation meeting and, therefore, he became the "stuckee" so to
speak. I -- I guess we need to have a board recognition of that or
whatever and let him still remain that point person to make sure that
the F AC conference is successful.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve made by
Commissioner Coletta. Second by Commissioner Coyle.
All in favor by -- all in favor signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed by like sign?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes four to one with Commissioner
Halas dissenting.
MR. MUDD: That's all I have, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. County attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Just one thing. JeffGlassgow
traveled yesterday with Amy Patterson and Debbie White to the
legislative impact fee meeting scheduled on a Tuesday, a little
importune for most commissioners. And he provided an e-mail report
to you and to Jim and me. And if you haven't seen it yet, I
recommend you read it. I think it's not unpredicted but insightful as to
the impact fee legislative process.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yup. Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would hope that any future
Page 332
November 15-16,2005
meetings put together by this task force that they would concur with
the counties to make sure that doesn't fall on a commission day. I feel
that this is not being fair to all the constituents here in the State of
Florida. And this is a very, very important issue. So I'm not sure if
we need to have a letter come out of the chairman's office or maybe
out of your office in regards to this to address this issue, but I think it's
very, very important that -- that also both sides of the conversation are
heard. And I think that the scheduling should be done so that it
doesn't have a conflict with a lot of the board meetings of all the
different counties here in the State of Florida.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Commissioner Halas.
Anymore from the county attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we'll start with Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, under the circumstances
of our agenda, Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank you for what an
outstanding meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: One thing on the impact fee task
force, I'm very disappointed in the person on that task force who told
me that he wanted to stop abuse, but voted into limiting impact fees. I
-- I did speak to Deb White who attended the meeting. She suggested
that all the commissioners of Collier County try to attend the next
impact fee task force meeting for -- for their input. And that's
sometime in September.
MR. MUDD: December?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: December.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: December.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: End of November, first of
December. That's Stuart, Florida.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Stuart?
Page 333
November 15-16,2005
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Florida, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do they have a date yet?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. It's--
MR. MUDD: I'm working on it right now.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Most of the hotels are filled up, so
it's going to be a two- to three-day meeting. But it's very, very
important that a show of force is put out there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And we need to clear our calendars.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Anything else, Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, that's it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just that we didn't clarify who was
going to take the responsibility in sending a letter out to F AC and -- or
whatever in regards to addressing this issue. Would you -- office like
to take on this or --
MR. WEIGEL: I'd be happy to do it, but I think it would have
more clout if it was board approved and chairman sent.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: And I'd certainly assist in any way I could--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think that's a fine -- I would agree with
that. I don't have a problem.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that has to be circulated to
all the other counties if possible so that we can gamer the support to
make sure that this doesn't happen again.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have nothing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I -- I would like to bring up a subject that
is going to -- going to create some consternation I suspect, but it's as a
Page 334
November 15-16, 2005
result of this.
As -- as many of us have predicted, the Senate Bill 360 for a
large part is a farce. We not -- we're not getting the additional money.
We're actually losing money and there's no promise of getting any in
the future. And the Impact Fee Task Force is going in the direction
that we all -- mostly all suspected they would go in. And I don't see
any movement to get any of the provisions of that bill changed.
And -- and I think it is incumbent upon the commissioners to
begin to evaluate how we can possibly control growth, manage growth
in Collier County once Senate Bill 360 has circumvented our power
and limited our ability to collect impact fees. And -- and I would like
to ask the commissioners if there's enough commissioners on the
board here to begin -- to instruct the staff to begin the evaluation of a
Rate of Growth Ordinance in Collier County so that we can -- can
exercise control of -- of growth hereafter our -- our authority has been
circumvented by Senate Bill 360.
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I -- I think that we have a lot of
tools. And I for one am -- am not going to ask the present taxpayers
of Collier County to pay for future residents. There's -- there's no way
that I'm going to do that. And where it's going and what we're forced
into by not funding the roads that were supposed to be funded, state
roads by taking away existing revenue sources, therefore, going to
property taxes, rate of growth or even a possible charter in this county
to where every growth management bill or every growth management
change that we have has to go to the voters.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I -- I don't have any problem
with that whatsoever.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I've reached the same point.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Me too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I've -- I've had it. I just am not going to
Page 335
November 15-16,2005
get pushed around anymore. And if -- if that's the way they want to
play the game, then I'm ready to play hardball. I'm -- I'm happy to
hear your support. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I have to also support that
venue. I -- I just -- it's hard for me to believe that the state said there is
little over a billion dollars in this transportation fund, and we've been
trying for many years here in the commission to get the state funding
for Davis Boulevard. And, of course, now we understand that that
funding is disappearing.
There's no way that we can manage growth and there's no way
that we can keep traffic in -- in concurrency. So I really think that this
may be the avenue that we have left. And if enough taxpayers get
involved in this, I think the message will be sent back to Tallahassee
that we're going to have to address these growth issues. And not only
in Collier County but it's going to have to be statewide.
So I think this might be another avenue that may be left open.
What's -- what's concerning to me or disconcerning to me is the fact
that we haven't got enough citizens riled up in this so that they start
hollering to their legislative representatives. And I'm very concerned
about that. We've been -- we've been taking the initiative here to
address this serious problem that's been going on now for the past
year. But until we get the citizens involved in this and get them to
understand the -- the -- the ramifications that could happen here,
whereby -- let's face it. The developers are saying, Hey, the people
that are here should also pay for growth even though they've already
paid for it. So they want this to be a continuing process and they're
telling us that impact fees are very detrimental to low-cost housing or
work-force housing. And, of course, we know that's a farce. And we
can't get that through to this work -- this task force that's working on
this. And I think it's high time we get the citizens involved in this and
they start writing their legislature.
Page 336
November 15-16,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You've got the right idea, but
usually you don't get the citizens involved until they get a tax bill.
And the simple truth of the whole matter is, the way that it's laid out
by the state now, we have to provide essential services. We're forced
into it. The only thing we can do is go to a moratorium if we can't
provide them. And, of course, the moratorium just says that we'll
come up with a plan to provide it within a year's time.
If the funding doesn't come from impact fees, where does it come
from? It's going to come from ad valorem tax. And we'd be forced
into the issue. So if this is a measure that will be a contingency plan
that we can fall back on if the state legislative body fails us and goes
to a impact fee reduction mode and does not allow us to collect the
fees that we need to be able to build our infrastructure, at that point in
time we do need to have something in place to protect the taxpayers of
Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. When do you think we'll know
-- we are -- we're already suspecting that $30 million is taken away
from Davis Boulevard. It looks like that's the case. When we finally
know and will that be soon, we ought to get the leaders of -- of the
important key groups around Collier County including CBIA because
they're going to be hit hard by this. And get them all on line to make
sure they realize what our -- what -- the only way we can go is and
then to start writing their legislators and, you know, Chamber of
Commerce, EDC, major groups all over the county that should be
involved. The Republican Party is another one.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The -- the person that's
representing the task force is from Collier County and I believe he's
going to be installed as the next president of CBIA.
Page 337
November 15-16,2005
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I know who you're talking
about. He's representing Collier County?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, but he's on the government--
governor's task force.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me tell you one -- one reason that it's
-- it has been difficult to get the citizens involved in this. They did
respond very well at the -- at the -- at the point in time when the
impact fee bill was introduced. We got them to respond very
forcefully and they did a good job. But then the impact fee provisions
were taken into the growth management plan and camouflaged in a
way that people didn't understand their impact.
And the -- the -- the stated goals of the Growth Management Bill
are excellent. There's nothing wrong with it. I cannot quarrel with the
stated goals of Senate Bill 360. The problem is the bill doesn't do
what everybody says it does. And I've -- I've seen the -- the press
conference with the governor and the department -- and the Secretary
of Transportation and the head of DCA. And they all have wonderful
goals in mind and they're talking about good things, but the point is
the bill doesn't do that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Nope.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And so they -- the people who have not
delved into the details of the bill assume that it's doing all these great
things. And, in fact, it is not. And we have evidence now. So rather
than -- than belaboring this much further, can -- can I ask that we
instruct the staff to begin evaluating a Rate of Growth Ordinance as
well as any other measures to manage growth that we could -- could
effectively use in Collier County?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And at our next meeting give a
report.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we can give further
Page 338
November 15-16,2005
direction.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I think we should play this
out a little bit.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. It would be evolving. I don't
expect any finished product anytime soon. But I think if we -- if we at
least get the staff started on something, we can begin to refine it and --
and know where we're going in the long-term.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner, I think it's a great
idea because I think it would also give us some ammunition when we
go over to Stuart, Florida.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Okay. Good.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We could get some idea. And like
you said, it doesn't need to be a finished product. It can be raw data.
Something that we got and wrap our arms around and bring this
forward when we need to.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Okay. Good. Anybody see any
problems? County attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: No, not at all. Did the board ultimately endorse
the letter through the chairman to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. Well-- well, we -- we did it by--
by at least three nods.
MR. WEIGEL: Right. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And when do -- when do you think
you'll have the letter drafted? Who's going to do the drafting, you or
the county manager?
MR. MUDD: He volunteered.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Make it -- make it brief and to the
point. Okay?
MR. WEIGEL: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: You'll have it -- you'll have it very briefly.
Page 339
November 15-16,2005
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think Jeff can probably put some
input into it also so that it's -- it's got to be a strong, stem letter.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And -- and it will either be sent out by
me or the vice chair. Okay?
MR. WEIGEL: Great.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to just suggest we continue
to move forward at a good pace. We don't let this thing linger at all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let them know --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Rate of growth thing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- We're not playing games here.
MR. MUDD: Do I have three -- do I have three nods for __
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've got five nods, I think, don't we?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It's unanimous. And thank you
very much.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the only -- the only -- while you're
on that particular topic, that -- that lack of money for Davis Boulevard
is going to be presented to the RPC tomorrow, I believe. Norm, is that
correct?
MR. FEDER: Yes.
MR. MUDD: It's going to be presented or the absence of it is
going to be presented to the RPC tomorrow. And I know two
commissioners on the dais are members of that RPC. It would be -- it
would be good if this board basically discussed or at least showed
their unified opposition so that your commissioners could take that
forward.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I would also suggest we go a step further
than that. This is a very significant event. It -- it -- it has a major
impact on Collier County and our road network. We should put out a
Page 340
November 15-16,2005
press release on this issue so that everybody understands that this has
happened. This is not something we should keep secret. So I think
you ought to get a press release.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In the press release we ought to
state we were promised so many millions of dollars out of a recent
growth bill --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and, you know, here's -- here's
what we're getting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. That's exactly the point.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Full page ad.
MR. MUDD: We'll work on that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll start with the press release and
then maybe --
MR. MUDD: We'll have that press release and we'll get it to the
chairman for -- for his approval --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: -- before we send it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And -- and -- and when you're
figuring out these figures about rate of growth that you're going to
present to us, in this road in particular because there's a lot of building
going on there or a lot of -- a lot of developments approved, how the
absence of these dollars is going to affect that and how we deal with
that in particular I think ought to be included there too. When do you
stop building entirely?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You all set?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that might happen.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what I mean. That's right.
It's going to have to stop. Ifwe can't --
MR. MUDD: Well, ma'am, if you don't have that road and it's
not in your plan --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
Page 341
November 15-16, 2005
MR. MUDD: -- Norman has no way to say it's under
construction. And there's no way that he can basically issue any kind
of -- of -- and pass them for a permit for any kind of __
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And even those that vested. They
can't build if you can't get on the road, you can't use the road.
MR. MUDD: I don't know if I'd go that far, ma'am, but I would
tell you for those folks that aren't, you can definitely go that far.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And we might not even want to
consider any more petitions for those areas quite frankly.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But, nevertheless, that's -- that's a
discussion -- that's something you can evaluate, okay, and come back
to us with a report.
And there's no other business to be addressed today so we are
adjourned. Thank you very much.
Page 342
November 15-16, 2005
* * * * * Commissioner Henning moved, seconded by Commissioner
Fiala and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted
Item #16A1
RESOLUTION 2005-388: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY PRIV ATE AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR
THE FINAL PLAT OF "WATERWAYS OF NAPLES UNIT
THREE". THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT
WILL BE PRIV ATEL Y MAINTAINED- W/RELEASE OF THE
MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 2005-389: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "WATERWAYS OF NAPLES UNIT
FOUR". THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
WILL BE PRIV A TEL Y MAINT AINED- W/RELEASE OF THE
MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A3
CONTRACT 05-3784, IN THE AMOUNT OF $62,000, FOR
"CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
(HUD) FIVE-YEAR CONSOLIDATED PLAN" WHICH
INCLUDES A ONE-YEAR ACTION PLAN AND ANALYSIS OF
IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING TO FLORIDA PLANNING
GROUP- THREE FIRMS WERE RANKED TOP FOR PROPOSAL
AND FUNDS ARE BUDGETED IN COMMUNITY
Page 343
November 15-16,2005
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUND 121
Item #16A4
CP 2005-07; CARNY-2005-AR-8548 A PERMIT TO CONDUCT A
CARNIVAL ON NOVEMBER 23, 24, 25, 26, AND 27, 2005,
LOCATED AT 207 SOUTH 9TH STREET IN IMMOKALEE FOR
THE ANNUAL OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE CATHOLIC
CHURCH CARNIVAL AND WAIVE THE SURETY BOND
Item #16A5
TERMINATE CONTRACT #03-3500 "LAND USE AND
PERMITTING SOFTWARE APPLICATION" WITH HANSEN
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES- TO REPLACE THE CDES
COMPUTER SYSTEM
Item #16B1
AMEND FUNDING AGREEMENT NO. OT050976-A01 WITH
THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
FOR AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF $250,000.00, FOR DESIGN
AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE GORDON RIVER QUALITY
PARK PROJECT-THE MATCHING FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE
IN THE FY 06 CIP FUND 325. PROJECT 510185
Item # 16B2
A FLORIDA COMMUNITIES TRUST (FCT) GRANT
CONTRACT FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR THE GORDON RIVER
WATER QUALITY PARK - CSFA #52002
Page 344
November 15-16,2005
Item #16B3
RESOLUTION 2005-390: EXECUTION OF A FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION LOCAL AGENCY
PROGRAM AGREEMENT FOR THE CONVERSION OF AN
EXISTING IRRIGATION SYSTEM FROM POTABLE TO
EFFLUENT WATER SOURCE ALONG US 41 NORTH
(TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH) FROM PINE RIDGE ROAD TO
V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD- THE AMOUNT OF 50,000.00
WILL COME FROM THE FUND 112 (LANDSCAPING);
PROJECT #601551
Item #16B4
RESOLUTION 2005-391: SUPERSEDING AND REPLACING
RESOLUTION 03-239, TO PROHIBIT TRUCKS IN EXCESS OF
FIVE (5) TON CAPACITY AND OTHER COMMERCIAL
VEHICLES, EXCEPT WHEN PASSING OR PREPARING TO
TURN LEFT, FROM OPERATING IN THE LEFT LANE ON:
IMMOKALEE ROAD FROM AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD TO
COLLIER BOULEVARD; GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD FROM
COLLIER BOULEVARD TO WILSON BOULEVARD; COLLIER
BOULEVARD FROM GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD TO US 41;
AND ON IMMOKALEE ROAD FROM COLLIER BOULEVARD
TO 43RD AVENUE N.E.
Item #16C1
AWARD BID #05-3885 - SCWRF LAWN AND BERM
MAINTENANCE TO GROUND ZERO IN THE APPROXIMATE
ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $58,000 - WENT TO THE LOWEST,
Page 345
November 15-16,2005
QUALIFIED AND RESPONSIVE BIDDER FOR AN ANNUAL
CONTRACT
Item #16C2
AUTHORIZE CONVEYANCE OF AN EASEMENT TO FLORIDA
POWER & LIGHT COMPANY FOR THE INSTALLATION OF
UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC FACILITIES TO SERVE THE
SANTA BARBARA SEWER FORCE MAIN INTERCONNECT
PUMP STATION, THE COST OF WHICH SHALL NOT EXCEED
$18.50, PROJECT 731321 - SOURCE OF FUNDS IS
WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES (413)
Item # 16C3
AWARD BID NO. 05-3892 TO D.N. HIGGINS, INC. FOR THE
SOUTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY
REHABILITATION - PIPING AND ODOR CONTROL
MODIFICATIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $217,900.00; PROJECT
725341
Item #16C4
AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE OF SOLE-SOURCE TECHNICAL
SUPPORT SERVICES RELATED TO SCADA PROGRAMMING
SOFTWARE FOR COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES
DIVISION-WIDE SITE LICENSES IN THE AMOUNT OF
$31,637.38 FOR PROJECT 710561 WATER SCADA SYSTEMS
SOFTWARE & SUPPORT RENEWALS, AND PROJECT 725411
WASTEWATER SCADA SYSTEMS SOFTWARE & SUPPORT
RENEW ALS
Page 346
November 15-16,2005
Item #16C5
AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE OF SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE
OF REPLACEMENT PUMPS, SPECIFIED REPAIR PARTS AND
MATERIALS FOR APPROVED SUBMERSIBLE LIFT
STATIONS IN THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF
$300,000 - WAIVE THE COMPETITIVE PROCESS AND
AUTHORIZE STAFF TO PURCHASE THE NECESSARY PUMP
PARTS AND MATERIALS FROM ITT FLYGT CORPORATION
Item # 16C6
REIMBURSEMENT CHECK IN THE AMOUNT OF $22,920
FROM GREELEY AND HANSEN RELATED TO THE DESIGN
OF THREE CHECK VALVES AT PUMP STATION 107 AND
APPROVED A BUDGET AMENDMENT PROJECT 739452 _
FUND 413
Item # 16C7
THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. DG061166 IN
THE AMOUNT OF $1,000,000.00 AS PARTIAL FUNDING FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF HAWTHORN WELLS, PROJECT
NUMBER 710111 AND PROJECT NUMBER 710061- TO
PROVIDE ADDITIONAL RAW WATER SOURCES TO MEET
INCREASED WATER DEMANDS
Item #16C8
WORK ORDER CH2-FT-3785-06-01 UNDER CONTRACT # 05-
3785 WITH CH2M HILL, INC. IN AN AMOUNT OF $144,600.00
Page 347
November 15-16,2005
TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR
DESIGN OF A RECLAIMED WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN
TO SERVE THE NORTHEAST REGIONAL WATER
RECLAMATION FACILTY, PROJECT NUMBER 74311-WAIVE
THE $90,000.00 WORK ORDER THRESHOLD IN CONTRACT
05-3785
Item # 16C9
A CHANGE WORK ORDER MP-FT-04-04 UNDER CONTRACT
00-3119 WITH MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC. IN AN AMOUNT NOT
TO EXCEED $300,000.00 TO PROVIDE CONTINUING PROJECT
MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES FOR THE NORTHEAST
REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT AND WATER
RECLAMATION FACILITY, PROJECT NUMBERS 70902 AND
73156
Item #16C10
AWARD CONTRACT 05-3896, TO MITCHELL & STARK
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF
$262,300, FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION
FACILITY CHEMICAL STORAGE AND FEED FACILITY
UPGRADES, PROJECT 72008 - TO IMPORVE SAFETY AND
RELIABILITY FOR THE CHEMICAL STORAGE
Item #16C11
WORK ORDER UC-122, UNDERGROUND UTILITY
CONTRACTING SERVICES CONTRACT #04-3535 TO KYLE
CONSTRUCTION INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $197,491, AND A
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO INCORPORATE ADDITIONAL
Page 348
November 15-16,2005
FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $154,936, FROM CENTEX
HOMES FOR THE IMMOKALEE ROAD WELLFIELD WELL
NO.1 RELOCATION. PROJECT 73955
Item #16C12
WORK ORDER CH2-FT-3785-06-02 UNDER CONTRACT 05-
3785 WITH CH2M HILL FOR DESIGN SERVICES RELATED TO
THE RAW WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN ON IMMOKALEE
ROAD IN THE AMOUNT OF $266,860, FOR THE NORTHEAST
REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT WELLFIELD,
PROJECT 70899-WAIVE THE $90,000 WORK ORDER
THRESHOLD IN CONTRACT 05-3785
Item #16C13
THE ATTACHED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
AMONG THE COLLIER COUNTY, THE COLLIER COUNTY
WATER-SEWER DISTRICT (CCWSD), AND TWO
LANDOWNERS: CITYGATE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, AND CG
II, LLC, IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $500,000 - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16C14
THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. DG061167 IN
THE AMOUNT OF $433,333.00 AS PARTIAL FUNDING FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE 12TH AVENUE TAMIAMI
INTERCONNECT PIPELINE, PROJECT NUMBER 710061-TO
BLEND BRACKISH AND FRESH WATER TO OPTIMIZE
USAGE OF THE EXISTING WELL FIELDS
Page 349
November 15-16,2005
Item #16C15
A SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT NO DG061169IN
THE AMOUNT OF $500,000.00 AS PARTIAL FUNDING FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE RECLAIMED WATER ASR,
PROJECT NUMBER 74030 - PROVIDE STORAGE OF
RECLAIMED WATER FOR USAGES DURING DRYER
PERIODS OF THIS PROJECT
Item #16C16
A SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. DG061168 IN
THE AMOUNT OF $ 720,000.00 AS PARTIAL FUNDING FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE RECLAIMED WATER PROJECTS
NUMBERS 74035, 74076 AND 72501- PROJECT MUST BE
COMPLETED WITHIN ONE YEAR OF EXECUTION OF THE
AGREEMENT
Item #16D1- Moved to Item #10J - To Remain On Consent
A RATE INCREASE OF $700 PER BURIAL FOR INDIGENT
ADULT BURIAL SERVICES FUNDED BY THE HUMAN
SERVICES DEPARTMENT- DEPARTMENT DOES NOT HAVE
A CONTRACT FOR SERVICES WITH ANY VENDORS AND IS
WORKING WITH PURCHASING TO BID THIS SERVICE.
VENDOR UNDER CONTRACT WILL ENABLE THE
DEPARTMENT TO MANAGE THE PROVISION OF THESE
SERVICES MORE EFFECTIVELY
Page 350
November 15-16, 2005
Item #16D2
AUTHORIZE THE USE OF $82,200 FROM THE HUMAN
SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO BE USED AS A PART OF A
LOCAL MATCH REQUIREMENT TO OBTAIN STATE AND
FEDERAL FUNDING TO CONTINUE OPERATION OF THE
HORIZONS PRIMARY CARE CLINIC IN GOLDEN GATE CITY-
AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16D3
AGREEMENT WITH COLLIER COUNTY CHILD ADVOCACY
COUNCIL TO PROVIDE SUPERVISED VISITATION SERVICES
IN COLLIER COUNTY. SERVICES WILL BE REIMBURSED
THROUGH A GRANT AWARDED BY THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE ON VIOLENCE AGAINST
WOMEN IN THE AMOUNT OF $125,000 - ENHANCING THE
SERVICES OF THE EXISTING LOCAL VISITATION CENTER
Item #16E1
PHASE II OF WORK ORDER #SCD-FT-05-02, ISSUED TO
SPILLIS CANDELA DMJM (ARCHITECTS), IN THE AMOUNT
OF $ 137,454.00 FOR THE DESIGN OF THE "COURTHOUSE
RENOVATIONS, FLOORS 1 AND 4" PROJECT - AS OUTLINED
WITHIN THE SUMMARY
Item # 16E2
CONSENT TO THE RE-ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT NOS. 00-
3131, AND 04-3614, BOTH TITLED "FIXED TERM
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES" FROM OUTSIDE
Page 351
November 15-16,2005
PRODUCTIONS, INC. TO WINDHAM STUDIO, INC - AND TO
RELEASE OUTSIDE PRODUCTIONS, INC. FROM ANY
LIABILITY AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE CONSENT
Item #16E3- Moved to Item #10J
Item #16E4
REPORT AND RATIFY STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS
AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS TO BOARD - APPROVED
CONTRACTS - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item # 16E5
PIGGYBACK UPON THE AWARD FOR PHARMACY BENEFIT
MANAGEMENT SERVICES AS APPROVED BY THE DISTRICT
SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY TO EXPRESS
SCRIPTS, INC - AUTHORIZE STAFF TO NEGOTIATE A
THREE YEAR CONTRACT
Item # 16E6
AWARD RFP#05-3748R, "ONSITE PRIMARY CARE HEALTH
SERVICES" TO VOCATUS MEDICAL MANAGEMENT
SERVICES OF NAPLES, FLORIDA - APPROVE A BUDGET
AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $200,000 FOR CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS TO CONSTURCT THE CLINIC
Item #16F1
AUTHORIZE THE DRAFTING OF AN ORDINANCE TO
Page 352
November 15-16,2005
RECOVER COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS SPILLS AND NEGLIGENTLY CAUSED FIRE
EMERGENCIES - TO PROVIDE MEANS TO RECOUP THE
NECESSARY AND REASONABLE COSTS
Item # 16F2
A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY
MEDICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT - AN ANNUAL
RENEWAL FEE OF $250 IS TO BE PAID - FUNDS ARE
AVAILABLE IN FUND 490 FOR FY 06
Item #16F3
BUDGET AMENDMENT REPORT - ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE
(144) #06-021& GAC LAND TRUST (605) #06-024
Item #16F4
SUPPORTING SWAMP BUGGY FALL CLASSIC IN THE
AMOUNT OF $10,000 FOR OUT OF MARKET ADVERTISING
FOR EVENT DATE CHANGE - APPROVAL OF STANDARD
TOURISM AGREEMENT
Item #16F5
RESOLUTION 2005-392: APPROVING, AS SERVING A VALID
PUBLIC PURPOSE, THE EXPENDITURE OF COUNTY FUNDS
FOR SPECIFIC EXPENDITURES RELATING TO
RECOGNITION FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO PERFORMED
EXCEPTIONALL Y BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER
Page 353
November 15-16,2005
HURRICANE WILMA (25,000) - FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE GENERAL FUND RESERVE
Item #16F6
RESOLUTION 2005-393: ADOPTING TEMPORARY POLICY OF
NON-ENFORCEMENT OF PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS
AND CODE VIOLATIONS RELATED TO COUNTY'S USE OF
PARCELS, PUD AREAS AND SITES FOR HORTICULTURAL
DEBRIS AND CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS
DEPOSIT AND PROCESSING PRIOR TO REMOVAL - AS A
RESUL T OF HURRICANE WILMA
Item #16H1
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. ATTENDED THE CBIA'S 17TH ANNUAL SW
FLORIDA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SNAPSHOT ON
THURSDAY NOVEMBER 10, 2005 AT THE NAPLES ELKS
LODGE-LOCATED 3950 RADIO ROAD; $60.00 TO BE PAID
FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #16H2
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
TO ATTEND THE LEADERSHIP HOLIDAY PARTY ON
DECEMBER 6, 2005 AT THE HILTON NAPLES AND TOWERS;
LOCATED AT 5111 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH; $35.00 TO BE
PAID FROM COMMISSIONERS FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
Item # 16H3
Page 354
November 15-16,2005
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING THE AMERICAN
SPECIALITY CONTRACTORS OF FLORIDA (A.S.C.F) BOARD
OF DIRECTORS MEETING. COMMISSIONER PAID IN
ADVANCE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING AT THE
KENSINGTON GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB ON NOVEMBER
10,2005 EVENT AND IS REQUESTING REIMBURSEMENT IN
THE AMOUNT OF $30.00, TO BE PAID FROM HIS TRAVEL
BUDGET
Item #16H4
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING
A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. COMMISSIONER PAID IN
ADVANCE TO ATTEND THE COLLIER CITIZEN OF THE
YEAR 2005 EVENT ON NOVEMBER 8, 2005 AND IS
REQUESTING REIMBURSEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$30.00. TO BE PAID FROM HIS TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #1611
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE- FILED AND/OR
REFERRED-
THE FOLLOWING MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE, AS
PRESENTED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
HAS BEEN DIRECTED TO THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS AS
INDICATED:
Page 355
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
. November 15, 2005
FOR BOARD ACTION:
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Clerk of Courts: Submitted for public record, pursuant to Florida Statutes,
Chapter 136.06(1), the disbursements for the Board of County Commissioners for
the period:
1. October 8,2005 - October 14,2005.
B. Districts:
1. Port of the Islands Community Improvement District: Minutes of August
5, 2005.
2. Immokalee Fire Control District: Schedule of monthly Board Meetings.
3. Heritage Greens Community Development District: Public Meeting
Schedule for Fiscal Year 2006.
4. South Florida Water Management District: Executive Summary.
C. Minutes:
1. Collier County Contractors' Licensin g Board: Agenda of October 19,
2005.
2. Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee: Agenda of
October 20,2005; Minutes of September 29,2005; Minutes of August
23, 2005.
3. Environmental Advisory Council: Agenda of September 19, 2005;
Agenda of October 5,2005; Minutes of September 7,2005; Staff Report
of October 5,2005; Proposed Action Plan Implementing Various
Changes to Environmental Provisions of the Growth Management Plan
and Land Development Code.
4. Collier County Planning Commission: Agenda of October 20,2005;
Minutes of September 15, 2005; Minutes of August 17,2005.
5. Citizens Coms Advisory Committee: Revised Min~tes of September 21,
2005; Minutes of September 21,2005; Agenda of September 21,2005.
H:\DATA\Melanie\2005 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE\November 15, 2005 Misc.
Corresp..doc
6. Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Advisory Committee: Agenda of October 6,
2005; Minutes of August 16, 2005.
7. Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage MSTU Advisorv Committee:
Agenda of October 12, 2005.
8. Domestic Animal Services Advisorv Committee: Minutes of September
20,2005; Minutes of September 22,2005.
9. Immokalee Beautification MSTU Advisorv Committee: Agenda of
October 19, 2005; Minutes of September 21,2005.
10. Collier County Hispanic Affairs Advisorv Board: Agenda of November 7,
2005.
H:\DATA\Melanie\2005 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE\November 15, 2005 Misc.
Corresp..doc
November 15-16,2005
Item #16K1
AGREED ORDER AWARDING CONTRACTOR EXPERT FEES
AND COSTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,750.00 FOR PARCEL
NOS. 141,841, AND 143 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER
COUNTY V. PRIMERA IGLESIA CRISTIANA MANANTIAL DE
VIDA, INC., ET AL., CASE NO. 03-2372-CA (GOLDEN GATE
PARKWAY PROJECT 60027). (FISCAL IMPACT $1,750.00) AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16K2
AGREED ORDER AWARDING REAL ESTATE APPRAISER
EXPERT FEES AND COSTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,000.00
FOR PARCEL NOS. 142, 742A, 742B AND 942 IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. PARKWAY
COMMUNITY CHURCH OF GOD, ET AL., CASE NO. 03-2374-
CA (GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY PROJECT 60027).(FISCAL
IMPACT $10,000.00) AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16K3
AGREED ORDER AWARDING REAL ESTATE APPRAISER
EXPERT FEES AND COSTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,000.00
FOR PARCEL NOS. 141,841, AND 143 IN THE LAWSUIT
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. PRIMERA IGLESIA
CRISTIANA MANANTIAL DE VIDA, INC., ET AL CASE NO.
03-2372-CA (GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY PROJECT 60027).
(FISCAL IMPACT $10,000.00) AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 356
.,----- ~.---,-
November 15-16,2005
Item #16K4
A MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND A
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT TO BE DRAFTED
INCORPORATING THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS
THE MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $70,000.00 FOR THE ACQUISTION OF PARCEL
177 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. BIG
CORKSCREW ISLAND FIRE DISTRICT, ET AL., CASE NO 02-
2218-CA (IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT NO. 60018). (FISCAL
IMPACT: $48,456.00) AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16K5
A SETTLEMENT WITH WRIGHT CONSTRUCTION CORP.
ARISING OUT OF DISPUTES OVER PAYMENT IN
CONNECTION WITH THE NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY DEEP INJECTION WELL
PUMP STATION BID/CONTRACT NO. 03-3442; AS DETAILED
IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #17A
RESOLUTION 2005-394: SE-2005-AR-8020, AMENDING
RESOLUTION NUMBER 05-261 THAT GRANTED
CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR THE FLORIDA HOME
MODEL CENTER EXTENSION TO CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S
ERROR RESULTING FROM AN INCORRECT LEGAL
DESCRIPTION INCLUDED IN THE ADOPTED RESOLUTION
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 49 S,
RANGE 26 E, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - PROPOSED
Page 357
November 15-16,2005
RESOLUTION WILL CORRECT THIS ERROR
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2005-395: A VPLAT2005-AR8151, TO DISCLAIM,
RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND THE
PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN A PORTION OF THE 7.5 FOOT WIDE
DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED ALONG THE SIDE OF LOT
67, BLOCK F, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF "FLAMINGO
ESTATES" AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 10, PAGES 34
THROUGH 35, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, LOCATED IN SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 25 EAST
Item #17C
ORDINANCE 2005-58: PUDZ-04-AR-6422, D. WAYNE ARNOLD
OF Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P.A., AND GEORGE
VARNADOE OF CHEFFY, P ASSIDOMO, WILSON & JOHNSON,
REPRESENTING THE LUTGERT COMPANIES, REQUESTING
TO REZONE A 53 ACRE SITE FROM RURAL AGRICULTURE
(A) ZONING DISTRICT TO A MIXED-USE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) TO BE KNOWN AS THE MERCATO
MPUD PERMITTING A MAXIMUM OF 395,000 SQUARE FEET
OF RETAIL FLOOR SPACE, 100,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE
SPACE, AND A MAXIMUM OF 80 HOTEL UNITS IS
PERMITTED WITHIN THE 27.7-ACRE MIXED USE TRACT
AND 175 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS IN A MIXED-USE
AREA AND ON A 10.67 ACRE RESIDENTIAL TRACT
RESULTING IN A DENSITY OF 3.3 UNITS PER ACRE. THE
PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT
OF V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD (CR-862) AND T AMIAMI
Page 358
November 15-16,2005
TRAIL NORTH (US-41) IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,
RANGE 25 EAST
Item #17D
RESOLUTION 2005-396: DRIABN-2004-AR-6251(ALLOW THE
DRI DEVELOPMENT ORDER TO BE ABANDONED). COLLIER
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (CDC) REPRESENTED BY
GEORGE VARNADOE, OF CHEFFY, P ASSIDOMO, WILSON &
JOHNSON, LLP, REQUESTING ABANDONMENT OF A
DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI) FOR THE CDC
DRI APPROVED IN DRI DEVELOPMENT ORDER 86-2,
APPROVED ON NOVEMBER 10, 1986 BECAUSE THE
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE PUD WILL REDUCE THE
PROJECT BELOW THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA FOR A DRI.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF THOMASSON
DRIVE, SOUTH AND WEST OF U.S. 41, NORTH AND WEST OF
THE WENTWORTH PUD, AND EAST OF THE NAPLES BAY
INTERCOASTAL WATERWAY. THE PROPERTY IS IN
SECTIONS 23, 24, 25, 26 AND 36, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 25 EAST, AND SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING
OF 2,416.08+ ACRES. COMPANION TO PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6126
- SABAL BAY PUD - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #17E
ORDINANCE 2005-59: PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6126 WCI
COMMUNITIES, INC., AND CDC LAND INVESTMENTS, INC.,
REPRESENTED BY RICHARD D. YOV ANOVICH, ESQUIRE,
OF GOODLETTE, COLEMAN & JOHNSON, P.A. AND ROBERT
Page 359
"'--~-'--' "^ ..<--.--.----
November 15-16, 2005
1. MULHERE, AICP, OF RW A, INC., REQUESTING A REZONE
FROM THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD),
AGRICULTURAL-SPECIAL TREATMENT AREA (A-ST) AND
AGRICUL TURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICTS, FOR A PROJECT
TO BE KNOWN AS THE SABAL BAY PUD. A PORTION OF
THE SITE IS CURRENTLY KNOWN AS THE CDC PUD OR
COLLIER DRI. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL INCLUDE A
RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT CONSISTING OF A MAXIMUM
OF 1 ,999 VARIED HOUSING TYPE UNITS AND GOLF
COURSE, COMMERCIAL USES, RECREATION/VILLAGE
CENTER USES, AND PUBLIC FACILITY USES, PRESERVE
AREAS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED
SOUTH OF THOMASSON DRIVE, SOUTH AND WEST OF U.S.
41, NORTH AND WEST OF THE WENTWORTH PUD, AND
EAST OF THE NAPLES BAY INTERCOASTAL WATERWAY.
THE PROPETY IS IN SECTIONS 23, 24, 25, 26 AND 36,
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, AND SECTION 19,
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 2,416.08+ ACRES. COMPANION
REQUEST TO DRIABN-2004-AR-6251- AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #17F
RESOLUTION 2005-397: PUDEX-2005-AR-7909 LODGE
ABBOTT AND ASSOCIATES, LLC, REPRESENTED BY
RICHARD D. YOV ANOVICH, OF GOODLETTE, COLEMAN
AND JOHNSON, P A, IS REQUESTING A 2- YEAR EXTENSION
OFTHECOCOHATCHEEBAYPUD. THESUBffiCT
PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF 532 ACRES, IS LOCATED ON
THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF WIGGINS PASS ROAD AND
VANDERBILT DRIVE, IN SECTIONS 8,16,17, AND 20,
Page 360
November 15-16,2005
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
Item #17G
ORDINANCE 2005-60: AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-75, AS AMENDED, THE PUBLIC
VEHICLE FOR HIRE ORDINANCE; PROVIDING FOR
INCLUSION INTO THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES;
PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY;
PROVIDING A DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE
Item #17H
RESOLUTION 2005-398: REQUESTING THE REDESIGNATION
OF THE IMMOKALEE ENTERPRISE ZONE, PROVIDING
REASONS FOR REDESIGNATION, AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE
Page 361
November 15-16,2005
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:07 p.m., to be
continued at 9:00 a.m. on November 16,2005. On November 16,2005
the regular meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :25 a.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
~~_w. ( ~
FRED COYLE, C~RMAN
ATTEST:
~*T~~~'E1i
Attest;~J t~:,c~~'.
.tgnatri' GaT'~'
These minutes approved by the Board on _ ( - d..4- t:4
as presented ~ or as corrected
,
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CAROLYN J. FORD, RPR AND
TERRI LEWIS.
Page 362