BCC Minutes 04/25/2006 R
April 25, 2006
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, April 25, 2006
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:
Frank Halas
Jim Coletta
Fred W. Coyle
Donna Fiala
Tom Henning
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Derek Johnssen, Office of the Clerk of Court
Crystal Kinzel, Office of the Clerk of Court
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Ii",
'~,
'-,,":'!
"
. ' -~~"'~
AGENDA
April 25, 2006
9:00 AM
Frank Halas, Chairman, District 2
Jim Coletta, Vice-Chairman, District 5
Donna Fiala, Commissioner, District 1
Tom Henning, Commissioner, District 3
Fred W. Coyle, Commissioner, District 4
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. ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL
RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY
THE CHAIRMAN.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2004-05, AS AMENDED REQUIRES
THA T ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING
ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS."
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
Page 1
April 25, 2006
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5)
MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMP AIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary agenda.)
B. March 28,2006 - BCC/Regular Meeting
C. April 11, 2006 - BCC/Regular Meeting
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
A. 20 Year Attendees
1) James Capp, Road Maintenance
2) Steve Ritter, Traffic Operations
B. 25 Year Attendees
1) Paul Wilson, Ochopee Fire District
Page 2
April 25, 2006
C. 30 Year Attendees
1) Linda Denning, University Extension Services
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation bestowing gratitude and appreciation to the Parks and
Recreation Department for their Summer Food Service Program. To be
accepted by Jim Thomas, Athletics Supervisor for the Parks and Recreation
Department.
B. Proclamation bestowing gratitude and appreciation for PLAN (Physician
Led Access Network) of Collier County. To be accepted by Margaret
Williams of the Collier County Medical Society.
C. Proclamation designating April 20, 2006 as Naples High School Junior
Civitan Club Day. To be accepted by Ernie Modugno, Don Dix, Syd
Fishman, Micky Dix and members of the NHS Junior Civitan Club.
D. Proclamation designating April 23 to April 29, 2006 as Crime Victims'
Rights Week. To be accepted by Jane Heddy, Project Help; Angela Larson,
Collier County Sheriffs Office; Betty Ardaya, Victim Advocate for State
Attorney's Office and Marci Sanders, Shelter for Abused Woman and
Children.
E. Proclamation designating April 24 - 30, 2006 as Reserve Officers
Association Recognition Week. To be accepted by Donald Peacock,
Captain, United States Naval Reserve (Retired) and James Elson, Captain,
United States Army (Retired).
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation of the Florida Water Environment Association Award for
Municipal Wastewater Utility Operational Performance Excellence to the
Collier County Water-Sewer District. Award to be accepted by the Chairman
of the Board of County Commissioners, Commissioner Frank Halas.
B. This item to be heard at 10:30 a.m. Presentation by Chip Jones ofKPMG
(County Auditors) regarding status of the County's FY2005 Comprehensive
Page 3
April 25, 2006
Annual Financial Report.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition request by William Cabada, on behalf of Al Bottino, to
discuss "sweeps" by Code Enforcement at Diamond Shores Condo
Association.
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m., unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex-parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. V A-2005-AR-8857:
Laura and Angelo Puleio, owners of Enzos Pizzeria and Italian Restaurant,
represented by Carlo F. Zampogna, of Woodward, Pires & Lombardo, P.A.,
requesting a variance from two side yard setbacks to allow for renovation of
the interior and an addition to provide restroom facilities and storage. The
new addition encroaches 11.66 feet into the required 25-foot side setback
leaving a l3.34-foot side yard on the southern side of the property and also
encroaches 14.99 feet into the required l5-foot side setback leaving a 0.01-
foot setback on the western side of the property. The subject property,
consisting of 0.47 acres, is located at 4351 Bonita Beach Road, in Section 5,
Township 48 South, Range 25 East, in Collier County, Florida.
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item continued from the April 11. 2006 BCC Meetin2:.
Recommendation to consider Adoption of an Ordinance Establishing the
Copper Cove Community Development District (CDD) pursuant to Section
190.005, Florida Statutes.
B. Staff is reQuestin2: this item be continued to the Mav 23. 2006 BCC
meetin2: in order to allow the Plannin2: Commission to hear this petition.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
provided by Commission member. PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6283 Lely
Development Corporation represented by Coastal Engineering Consultants,
Inc., request an amendment to the Lely Barefoot Beach PUD by revising the
PUD Document and Master Plan to amend Tract J from a 1.74 acre utility
site to a .73 single-family residential development site and 1.01 acre
Page 4
April 25, 2006
mangrove preserve area. Tract J consist of 1.74 acres and is located at the
southwest corner of Barefoot Beach Boulevard and Bayfront Drive, located
in Sections 5, 6, 7 & 8, Township 48 south, Range 25 east, Collier County,
Florida.
C. Recommendation to approve a resolution adopting the Collier County HUD
5-Year Consolidated Plan for FY 2006 -2010 and One Year Plan for FY
2006 - 2007 for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Home
Investment Partnerships (HOME), American Dream Downpayment
Initiative (ADDI) and Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) Programs, authorize
required HUD Certifications, approve execution of Subrecipient Agreements
by the County Manager or his designee, and submit to the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
D. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt an
Ordinance amending Schedule Eight of Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the
Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances (The Collier County
Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance) providing for the incorporation by
reference of the impact fee study entitled Collier County Library Facilities
and Items/Equipment Impact Fee Update dated April 4, 2006, amending the
Library Impact Fee Rate Schedule to reflect the amended rates set forth in
the impact fee study, updating the annual mid-cycle indexing for the library
impact fee rates, and providing for a delayed effective date of June 12, 2006.
E. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt an
Ordinance amending Schedule One of Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the
Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances (The Collier County
Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance) providing for the incorporation by
reference of the impact fee study entitled Collier County Transportation
Impact Fee Update Study dated April 2006, amending the Road Impact Fee
Rate Schedule to reflect the amended rates set forth in the impact fee study,
updating the annual mid-cycle indexing for the Road Impact Fee Rates, and
providing for a delayed effective date of June 30, 2006.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of members to the Bayshore-Gateway Triangle Local
Redevelopment Advisory Board.
Page 5
April 25, 2006
B. Appointment of member to the Development Services Advisory Committee.
C. Appointment of members to the Habitat Conservation Plan Ad Hoc
Advisory Committee.
D. Appointment of member to the Environmental Advisory Council.
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the acquisition by gift or
purchase of fee simple interests and/or those perpetual or temporary
easement interests necessary for the construction of roadway, drainage and
utility improvements required for the four-lane and six-lane expansion of Oil
Well Road from Immokalee Road to Camp Keais Road. (Capital
Improvement Element No. 44, Project No. 60044). Estimated fiscal impact:
$12,852,500. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
B. To present to the Board the sequence of events that occurred relating to the
Wilderness Country Club Code Case and discuss any concerns the Board has
with how the Department is enforcing the Code. (Joseph K. Schmitt,
Administrator, Community Development)
C. Approve a request for permission to apply for a Florida Communities Trust
Florida Forever Grant in the estimated amount of $9.9 million for
reimbursement for the purchase of the lands surrounding the Naples Zoo.
(Marla Ramsey, Administrator, Public Services)
D. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve an
award of $250,000 from ad valorem reserve in support of the stormwater
drainage component of City of Naples' Solana/Burning Tree Drive
improvements. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt a
Resolution calling for a Referendum Election on November 7, 2006 to
determine whether the voters approve continuing the levy of an ad valorem
tax not exceeding .25 mil through the year 2013 (with the total sum to be
Page 6
April 25, 2006
limited in any event to $198 million inclusive of all sums collected to date)
to continue to fund the Conservation Collier Programs acquisition and
management of environmentally sensitive lands.
B. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners and the Board of
County Commissioners acting as Ex -Officio the Board to the Collier County
Water-Sewer District Board approve a Settlement Agreement and Release
with Belair Builders, Inc. and authorize the Chairman to execute any
necessary settlement documents following review for form and legal
sufficiency by the County Attorney Office. Back-up materials to be provided
to the Commissioners prior to the Board meeting.
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Artesia
Naples Phase 3, approval of the standard form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
2) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Bucks Run
Reserve, approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
3) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Black Bear
Ridge Phase 2, approval of the standard form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
Page 7
April 25, 2006
performance security.
4) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of
Manchester Square, approval of the standard form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
5) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Summit
Place in Naples, Phase II, approval of the standard form Construction
and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
6) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (public) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Carson Lakes Phase II.
The roadway improvements will be maintained by Collier County.
7) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Tract 2 of
Golden Gate Estates Unit No. 33 Replat.
8) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Daryl Ballweg, Larry Horman, and Mary Ann Horman for 4.79
acres under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a
cost not to exceed $176,750.
9) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Antonio Briceno and Carmen M. Briceno for 4.66 acres under
the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to
exceed $173,750.
10) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment ($176,664) to the
State Housing Initiative Partnership (SHIP) account for the receipt of
an additional allocation for disaster assistance due to Hurricane
Wilma.
11) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Reflection
Lakes at Naples Phase 3F, approval of the standard form Construction
and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
Page 8
April 25, 2006
12) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Firano at
Naples, approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve and execute the attached First
Amendment to Lease with Drop Anchor Mobile Homeowners
Association, Inc. for the continued use of County-owned right-of-way
at a first years annual rent of $10.
2) Recommends Board's approval of Adopt-A-Road Agreements (2) for
the following: ASAP Accounting Service of Ana Patino, Inc. and
American Home Mortgage.
3) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve
a budget amendment to recognize Carry Forward in the amount of
$73,726 for the East Central Transportation Concurrency
Management Area, Project No. 600641.
4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners (1)
approve a Resolution authorizing the Chairman of the Board of
County Commissioners to execute an Interlocal Agreement with the
School District of Collier County, for the construction of a sidewalk
on Floridan Avenue from Confederate Drive to Broward Street
($200,000); and (2) approve future fiscal year annual costs of
sidewalk maintenance and all necessary budget amendments.
5) To authorize the County Manager or his designee to execute the
attached Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged
grant application and applicable documents. ($10,126)
6) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve
a budget amendment to recognize additional revenue for the Collier
County Transportation Pathways Program in the amount of
$159,350.34 for Project No(s). 690811,690822, and 690817.
7) Recommendation to approve Change Order #3 to Contract # 04-3535,
Work Order UC-110 with Douglas N. Higgins, Inc. in the amount of
$89,820 to support the addition of a sidewalk on the north side of
Page 9
April 25, 2006
Granada Boulevard in coordination with the Twin Lakes Interconnect,
Project #510054.
8) Recommendation to approve a Cross Easement Agreement for the
construction of one stormwater retention pond on both Collier County
property and the District School Boards property to jointly serve the
Santa Barbara Boulevard expansion project and the Calusa Pines
Elementary School. Project #62081. (Estimated fiscal impact for
maintenance of the pond is $11,000.00 annually.)
9) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners (1)
approve a Resolution authorizing the Chairman of the Board of
County Commissioners to execute a Roadway Signage Maintenance
Agreement with the State Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP) in which Collier County would be accept the maintenance of
roadway directional signage for the Everglades Driving Trail within
the Collier County geographical limits; and (2) approve future fiscal
year annual costs of sign maintenance and all necessary budget
amendments.
10) Recommendation to award Bid #06-3918, Roadway Paint,
Thermoplastic Markings & Raised Markers to Trutwin Industries, Inc.
for an estimated annual cost of $400,000.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to approve second contract under Request for
Proposal #02-3350 for the standardization ofbiofilter odor control
units with U.S. Filter Wastewater Group, Inc. d/b/a U.S. Filter RJ
Environmental in the estimated annual amount of $200,000.
2) Recommendation to approve, execute and record Satisfactions for
certain Water and/or Sewer Impact Fee Payment Agreements. Fiscal
impact is $38.50 to record the Satisfactions of Lien.
3) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfactions of
Lien for Solid Waste residential accounts wherein the County has
received payment and said Liens are satisfied in full for the 1993
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
Page 10
April 25, 2006
Fiscal impact is $30.00 to record the Satisfactions of Lien.
4) Approve and execute the attached Resolution and Real Estate
Exchange Agreement for property to be exchanged between the City
of Marco Island and Collier County.
5) Recommendation to terminate an inter-local agreement dated
February 7, 1995, between the Collier County Water-Sewer District
and the Florida Governmental Utility Authority (FGUA), formerly
Florida Cities Water Company.
6) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfactions of
Lien for Solid Waste residential accounts wherein the County has
received payment and said Liens are satisfied in full for the 1994
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
Fiscal impact is $30.00 to record the Satisfactions of Lien.
7) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfaction of
Lien for a Solid Waste residential account wherein the County has
received payment and said Lien is satisfied in full for the 1995 Solid
Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal
impact is $20.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien.
8) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfactions of
Lien for Solid Waste residential accounts wherein the County has
received payment and said Liens are satisfied in full for the 1996
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
Fiscal impact is $50.00 to record the Satisfactions of Lien.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation to Approve a Revised Collier County Public Library
Fines and Fees Schedule.
2) Recommendation to accept donated funds in the amount of $4,500
and approve a budget amendment recognizing revenue and
appropriating funds for Barefoot Beach Preserve.
3) Recommendation to authorize purchase of park maintenance
equipment for North Collier Regional Park in the amount of
Page 11
April 25, 2006
$232,632.06 from Westco Turf, Inc.
4) Recommendation to approve Addendum I to a Transportation
Agreement for Nonprofit Organization Transporting School-Age
Children.
5) Recommendation to authorize purchase of hardware and software in
the amount of$75,940 from Active Network for North Collier
Regional Park
6) Recommendation to award Contract No. 05-3842, Design and Related
Services for Goodland Boating Park, at a cost of $500,000 to Johnson
Engineering.
7) Recommendation to approve Change Order No.2 in the amount of
$14,100 for re-bidding and additional permitting for Eagle Lakes
Community Park Phase II, Work Order No. WMBP-FT-03-09.
8) Recommendation to award Bid No. 06-3981, Summer Truck Rental
for Parks and Recreation, to Enterprise Rent-A-Car at an estimated
cost of $55,800 for the transportation of food to recreation and school
sites under the Summer Food Grant Program.
9) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners Approve a
Memorandum of Understanding with the School District of Collier
County to Provide for Employee Screening in Compliance with the
Jessica Lundsford Act.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment to Fund 518,
Workers Compensation Insurance, in the amount of $547,300 to fund
anticipated claims settlement expenses through the remainder of
Fiscal Year 2006 and to recognize reinsurance recoveries in the
amount of $435,000.
2) Recommendation to ratify additions to and a deletion from the 2006
Fiscal Year Pay and Classification Plan made from January 1, 2006
through March 31, 2006.
Page 12
April 25, 2006
3) Recommendation to award a quote under Contract # 02-3349 in the
amount of$77,850, "Collier County ADA Restrooms Renovations for
the CCSO Visitation Facility Bldg. D to Wall Systems Inc. of SW FL
dba Professional Building Systems.
4) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment and work order for
updating the Correctional (Jail) Master Plan under Contract #01-3235,
Architectural Services with Schenkel Shultz, Inc. in the amount of
$111,490.
5) Recommendation to approve a Novation Agreement substituting the
law firm of Young van Assenderp, P .A. for the law firm of Landers &
Parsons, P.A. in the Continuing Retention Agreement dated January 9,
2001.
6) Recommendation to award Bid No. 06-3949 Contract Printing
Services.
7) Recommendation to award work order VC 02-68 in the amount of
$106,350 to Wm. J. Varian Construction Company for the project
known as "Domestic Animal Services Concrete Kennel Pads and
Canopies" issued under Annual General Contractor Contract RFP 02-
3349.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Approve Isles of Capri Fire and Rescue District's application for a
matching (50/50) grant offered by Florida Division of Forestry in the
amount of $3,996.00 and approve the necessary budget amendments
to recognize and appropriate revenue.
2) Request that the Board of County Commissioners approve the after-
the-fact submittal of an application to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant
for the Isles of Capri Fire Rescue District.
3) Approval to extend the attached two Leases with Keith Basik, Jeff
Basik and Larry Basik, aka NBC Storage, LLC, for the continued use
Page 13
April 25, 2006
of outside and warehouse storage for the Disaster Response Program
for an initial six-month period at a total cost of $19,932.
4) Recommendation for approval of a Budget Amendment to fund the
purchase of Pandemic Influenza protective supplies in the amount of
$35,640.
5) Recommendation to award Bid # 06-3954 to multiple vendors for
EMS Expendable Medical Supplies and Equipment.
6) Recommendation to recognize additional funds received from the
State of Florida for the Emergency Medical Services County Grant
Program and to approve a Budget Amendment to appropriate funds in
the amount of $53,594.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, acting as
the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA), approve the 2005
Annual Report of the CRA, direct staff to file the Annual Report with
the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) and to direct the County
Manager or his designee to publish notice of filing the report.
2) To approve and execute Site Improvement Grant Agreements between
the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency and grant
applicants within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community
Redevelopment area.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Halas requests Board approval for payment to attend
function serving a valid public purpose to attend the Florida Gulf
Coast University Commencement ceremonies on Saturday, April 29,
2006, at the Alico Arena in Ft. Myers, Florida, $11.50 to be paid from
Commissioner Halas' travel budget.
2) Commissioner Halas requests Board approval for payment to attend
function serving a valid public purpose to attend the 2006 Tourism
Week Celebration at the Naples Grande Resort & Club in Naples,
Page 14
April 25, 2006
Florida on Friday, May 19,2006; $25.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Halas' travel budget.
3) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for
serving a valid public purpose in attending the Naples Alliance for
Children's Annual Advocacy Dinner on Wednesday, April 5th, 2006,
at the Country Club of Naples; $35.00 to be paid from Commissioner
Fiala's travel budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous Correspondence to file for record with action as
directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Authorize the Supervisor of Elections to accept voter education funds
with a 15% matching contribution.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners Approve
the Proposed Joint Motion for an Agreed Order Awarding Expert Fees
and Costs Relating to Parcel No. 178 in the Case Styled Collier
County v. Teodoro Gimenez, et aI., Case No. 04-056l-CA, Vanderbilt
Beach Road Project #63051. (Fiscal Impact: $1,800.00).
2) Recommendation to Approve an Agreed Order for Expert Appraisal
Fees and Costs Relating to the Acquisition of Parcels 106 and 806 in
Collier County v. Tree Plateau Co., Inc., et aI., Case No. 03-05l9-CA,
Immokalee Road Project #60018. (Fiscal Impact: $17,000.00).
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners and the
Board of County Commissioners as the Ex-Officio governing body of
the Collier County Water-Sewer District approve a settlement
agreement proposed by Metcalf & Eddy relating to the project known
as the South County Regional Water Treatment Plant 8-MGD RO
Expansion (Contract No. 98-2891/Project No. 70054) and authorize
the Chairman to execute any necessary settlement documents
following review by the County Attorney.
Page 15
April 25, 2006
4) Recommendation to approve settlement in the lawsuit entitled Jeffrey
Reister and Mary Lisa Reister vs. Collier County, et aI., filed in the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida, Case
No. 04-l73CA, for $2,250.00.
5) Recommendation to approve settlement in the lawsuit entitled Allstate
Floridian Insurance Company as Subrogee of Ann Dee Yurick vs.
Collier County, filed in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for
Collier County, Florida, Case No. 06-0003-CA, for $12,500.00.
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
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 requires that all participants be sworn in and ex-parte
disclosure be provided by commission members. Recommendation to
approve Petition A VESMT2005-AR7084 to disclaim, renounce and vacate
the County's and the Publics interest in a 10 foot utility easement located
between Lots 72 and 73 according to the plat of Bent Grass Bend at the
Estates at Bay Colony Golf Club as recorded at Plat Book 33, Pages 54
through 56, Public Records of Collier County, Florida, and to accept an
alternate easement in place of the vacated area.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
Page 16
April 25, 2006
April 25, 2006
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, County Manager.
The Board of County Commissioners is now in session.
This morning we're going to have the invocation given by
Captain Alejandro Castillo of the Salvation Army, and followed by
that will be the Pledge of Allegiance. Would you all please rise.
MS. CASTILLO: Heavenly Father, we are so grateful for our
wonderful authorities in our county. And, Lord, our business are your
business. So we ask your presence. Thank you for protecting our
country .
In Jesus, amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. And it's a
pleasure to see each and every one of you here in the chamber this
morning. And we'll get started off with any changes in today's
agenda, starting off with the county manager, Jim Mudd.
MR. MUDD: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Item #2A
REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA-
APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
Agenda changes, Board of County Commissioners' meeting,
April 25, 2006.
Add on item 12C. It's a recommendation that the Board of
County Commissioners authorize the county attorney to retain the law
firm of Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson, P.A., to number one, retain
experts of their choosing for the purpose of collecting all necessary
data and preparing a study and report based on such data to determine
the legality -- the legally appropriate fees the county can impose on
Page 2
April 25, 2006
commercial and residential development to help offset such
development's impact on affordable housing needs within Collier
County;
And number two, based upon the findings of such study and
report, to prepare a legally sufficient ordinance to be presented to the
Board of County Commissioners for consideration.
It is anticipated that the total amount of all services provided
shall not exceed $150,000. All payments for these services shall be
direct to Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson, P.A., who shall pay the experts
directly.
Next item is item 16B8. The index title and executive summary
refers to the Calusa Pines Elementary School. The correct name is the
Calusa Park Elementary School, and that correction is at staffs
request.
The next item is item -- excuse me -- item 16B9. It's continued
to the May 9, 2006, BCC meeting, and the title of that particular item
is a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
approve a memorandum of understanding with the school district of
Collier County to provide for employee screening in compliance with
the Jessica Lundsford Act, and that's at staffs request.
And of note, Commissioners, we have two time certain items
today. The first item is item 5B to be heard at 10:30 a.m., and that's a
presentation by Chip Jones ofKPMG, the county's auditors, regarding
the status of the county's FY-2005 comprehensive annual financial
report.
And the second time certain item is item lOB to be heard at three
p.m. It's to present to the board the sequence of events that occurred
relating to the Wilderness Country Club code case and discuss any
concerns the board has with how the department is enforcing the code.
That item, time certain, was at Commissioner Coyle's request.
That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. County Attorney, do you have
Page 3
April 25, 2006
any updates in today's agenda?
MR. WEIGEL: No. I think the county manager's covered it.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. At this time I'm going to ask my
fellow commissioners if they have any ex parte to give on the
summary agenda and if there's any changes on the consent agenda.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I have no ex parte
on the summary agenda, and I have no further changes to the agenda.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no disclosures to make
on the summary agenda, and no changes to the consent agenda.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have no disclosures and no
changes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I don't have any
changes to today's consent agenda or any ex parte summary agenda,
but I do want to enter a correspondence into the record today.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have nothing to come forth with
on ex parte on the summary agenda, and as far as any changes on
today's agenda, I have none.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I do have a speaker on a consent
agenda item.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Would you step forward, sir.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Hello, Commissioners. Quite a hassle
trying to get parking and make it here on time.
But anyway, I'm here to request that item 16K3, if it hasn't been
already, be pulled from the consent agenda, put on the regular agenda.
Excuse me.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 16K3. Could we have just a
Page 4
April 25, 2006
second before we decide on that to take a look at what we're talking
about?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's Metcalf and Eddy. It's the water
plant.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion to do so.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I hear a second?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Dies for second. Thank you.
Okay. At this time I need approval of to day's agenda and consent
agenda.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have a motion to approve
today's regular consent agenda and summary agenda as amended.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Carries unanimously. Thank you very
much.
Item #2B and #2C
MINUTES OF MARCH 28, 2006 BCC REGULAR MEETING AND
APRIL 11, 2006 BCC REGULAR MEETING - APPROVED AS
PRESENTED
Page 5
April 25, 2006
Motion to approve March 28, 2006, BCC regular meeting, and
April 11, 2006, BCC regular meeting.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I heard a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have a motion on the floor and a
second to approve these two meetings.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Carries unanimously.
Page 6
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
April 25. 2006
Add On Item 12C: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the
County Attorney to retain the law firm of Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson, P.A., to (1) retain experts of
their choosing for the purpose of collecting all necessary data, and preparing a study and report
based on such data, to determine the legally appropriate fees the County can impose on
commercial and residential development to help offset such development's impact on affordable
housing needs within Collier County, and (2) based upon the findings of such study and report, to
prepare a legally sufficient Ordinance to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners for
consideration. It is anticipated that the total amount for all services provided shall not exceed
$150,000.00. All payments for these services shall be directed to Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson,
P.A. who shall pay the experts directly. (Staff's request.)
Item 16B8: The index title and Executive Summary refers to "the Calusa Pines Elementary
School". The correct name is "the Calusa Park Elementary School". (Staff's request.)
Item 1609: continued to the Mav 9. 2006 BCC meetinQ: Recommendation that the Board of
County Commissioners approve a Memorandum of Understanding with the School District of
Collier County to provide for employee screening in compliance with the Jessica Lundsford Act.
(Staff's request.)
Time Certain Items:
Item 5B to be heard at 10:30 a.m.: Presentation by Chip Jones of KPMG (County Auditors)
regarding status of the County's FY 2005 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
Item 10B to be heard at 3:00 p.m. To present to the Board the sequence of events that occurred
relating to the Wilderness Country Club Code Case and discuss any concerns the Board has with
how the Department is enforcing the Code. (Commissioner Coyle's request.)
April 25, 2006
Item #3
PRESENTATION OF 20 YEAR ATTENDEES SERVICE AWARD
TO JAMES CAPP, ROAD MAINTENANCE AND STEVE RITTER,
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS; 25 YEAR ATTENDEE, PAUL WILSON,
OCHOPEE FIRE DISTRICT AND 30 YEAR ATTENDEE, LINDA
DENNING, UNIVERSITY EXTENSION SERVICES -
PRESENTED
Okay. Now I guess we're into the service awards for the
employees. Would you like us to come down in front there because
this is kind of a --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- a big day for somebody here that --
Linda Denning.
MR. MUDD: The service awards are paragraph 3, and this is for
employees.
The first awardee is a 20-year attendee, and that person is James
Capps (sic) from road maintenance. If Mr. Capps could come
forward.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: James, it's a pleasure to give you this
little card here and also a pin. And thank you very much for your
dedicated service here.
MR. CAPP: You're welcome.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for 20 years.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Make sure you come back here and get a
picture after you shake the hand of the county attorney.
MR. MUDD: Get your picture taken.
Page 7
April 25, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Right beside this little lady.
MR. MUDD: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next 20-year attendee is Steve Ritter, and he
can't be here today, and he's in traffic operations. So we'll go to our
25-year attendee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is he caught in traffic? Sorry, I
couldn't resist that.
MR. MUDD: Could be. Our next awardee is a 25-year attendee,
and that's Paul Wilson for the Ochopee Fire District.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Captain, good to see you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hi.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The next 25 will be a lot easier.
CHIEF WILSON: I hope so.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's chief.
MR. MUDD: Paul, congratulations.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Our next awardee, it's a big day, 30-year attendee,
and that's Linda Denning from the University Extension Services.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Congratulations, fantastic. And you got
this bag also.
MS. DENNING: Thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you so much for your service.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thirty years? You must have
started when you were seven.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much for your
servIce.
MR. MUDD: Thank you so much.
(Applause.)
Page 8
April 25, 2006
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION BESTOWING GRATITUDE AND
APPRECIATION TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION
DEPARTMENT FOR THEIR SUMMER FOOD SERVICE
PROGRAM - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, that brings us to the next section of
our agenda, and that's proclamations.
The first proclamation is a proclamation bestowing gratitude and
appreciation to the parks and recreation department for their summer
food service program. To be accepted by Jim Thomas, athletics
supervisor for the parks and rec department.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Jim, you certainly look good
with a tie on, I'll tell you.
On his way up here, I have to share with you, some years ago Jim
Thomas, when I had my equipment rental business, convinced me to
donate a tent to the food program.
So I went up to Immokalee and I set up one of my larger tents.
Came up there to -- Jim wanted to give me a tour of how it was
working out, how well. So he took me up to Immokalee showing me
how the tent was working out and how the food program was going,
and there was a whole bunch of kids up there on the top of my tent
using it for a slide.
But I still endorse his program fully, and it's an honor to be able
to read this today.
Whereas, the Summer Food Service Program is a grant funded by
the United States Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition
Service and administered by the Florida Department of Education with
the purpose of ensuring that children can receive the same high quality
meals during the summers as provided by the school during the school
Page 9
April 25, 2006
-- during the school year; and,
Whereas, the Collier County Parks and Rec Department has
successfully administered the summer food program in conjunction
with the summer camp program since 1982; and,
Whereas, over the course of the past 24 years, the parks and
recreation department has served nearly two million meals to children
in disadvantaged neighborhoods in Collier County; and,
Whereas, Collier County parks and recs have received the 2005
Summer Food Service Program Region IV Award of Exemplary
Performance for a small sponsor for exemplary commitment,
dedication and involvement to the service of providing nutritious
meals to the children of Florida.
Therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that gratitude and
appreciation are bestowed upon the parks and recreation department
and its staff for constant and commendable service on behalf of the
well-being of the county's children.
Done and ordered this, the 25th day of April, 2006, Fred (sic)
Halas, Chairman, and I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. That's Frank Halas.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Jim, good to see you. How you
doing?
MR. THOMAS: Good.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're going to get to say a
Page 10
April 25, 2006
couple words. You don't have to mention me, but right now they want
your picture for posterity.
MR. THOMAS: Posterity, okay. I guess I have to hold that too.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There you go.
(Applause.)
Item #4 B
PROCLAMATION BESTOWING GRATITUDE AND
APPRECIATION FOR PLAN (PHYSICIAN LED ACCESS
NETWORK) OF COLLIER COUNTY - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next proclamation is a
proclamation bestowing gratitude and appreciation for PLAN,
P-L-A-N, which is the Physician Led Access Network of Collier
County. To be accepted by Margaret Williams of the Collier County
Medical Society.
Ms. Williams?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We also have another -- a few other
people we'd like to invite up.
MR. MUDD: Everybody come up.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And as they're coming, Lauren
Leifer, Dr. Joseph Califano, Dr. Allen Weiss, Jeffrey Mebias, Mike
Mastej, Richard Akin, Dr. Joan Colfer, Margaret Eadington, Betty
Gamel, and Zena Sellers.
Proclamation: Whereas, the Physician Led Access Network of
Collier County, PLAN, is an initiative begun by the Collier County
Medical Society to provide the safety net of access to healthcare for
low-income uninsured adults in our community; and,
Whereas, PLAN is a community-based referral network that
coordinates volunteer medical care for eligible low-income adults in
need of health services in Collier County; and,
Page 11
April 25, 2006
Whereas, PLAN coordinates quality healthcare for the
underserved of your community; and,
Whereas, PLAN is led by physicians and is a community
partnership that brings together our physicians, community clinics,
hospitals, diagnostic and laboratory facilities and other healthcare
providers through an integrated delivery system of care; and,
Whereas, recently the healthcare providers of PLAN reached a
milestone of one million dollars in donated care by the medical
community in Collier County.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that gratitude and
appreciation is extended to the Collier County Medical Society and
the Physician Led Access Network of Collier County for the donation
of one million dollars in donated care and compassion in treating
Collier's underserved.
Done and ordered this 25th day of April, 2006, Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Frank Halas, Chairman.
And Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I second that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion and a second.
All those in favor of this proclamation, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is a wonderful proclamation.
MR. MUDD: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Page 12
April 25, 2006
MS. LEIFER: Hi, I'm Lauren Leifer, and I'm going to have Dr.
Califano stand up here with us, and Dr. Califano is representing the
physicians. He's our -- he's a cardiologist here with Anchor Health
Centers and a board member, and he's our acting medical direct for
PLAN.
It's my pleasure to accept this proclamation on behalf of all of the
physicians and volunteer healthcare providers who are participating in
PLAN and who have donated over one million dollars in healthcare
services over these past two years.
Weare very fortunate to have all of our community hospitals and
over 250 volunteer providers participating in PLAN, and our roster
continues to grow daily.
Here in Collier County over 40,000 adults have been identified as
low income and uninsured. PLAN is a safety net our medical society
and our community physicians have created to deliver an organized
transparent integrated system to deliver care.
Thank you for recognizing our physicians and the healthcare
providers who are truly leaders in our community.
As noted earlier, we have some of those board members with us.
Dr. Joan Colfer, department of health. Joan, could you please stand
up.
Margaret Eadington, Ne (phonetic) Williams, Dr. Allen Weiss of
NCH, Jeff Mobias from Cleveland Clinic, soon to be Physicians
Regional, Mike Mastej from Collier Regional Medical, and Betty
Gamel, Senior Friendship.
I'd also like to acknowledge Zena Sellers, who's our patient care
coordinator and who, without her great assist, this couldn't be possible.
Thank you so much.
(Applause.)
DR. CALIFANO: On behalf of the doctors of the Collier County
Medical Society, I just want to thank all the administrators, and
especially Lauren Leifer who put a lot of hard work and effort into this
Page 13
April 25, 2006
program and have made it really easy for us to incorporate the care of
these patients into our practice.
And thank you for recognizing us.
(Applause.)
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING APRIL 20,2006 AS NAPLES
HIGH SCHOOL JUNIOR CIVIT AN CLUB DAY - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next proclamation is a
proclamation designating April 20, 2006, as the Naples High School
Junior Civitan Club Day. To be accepted by Ernie Mogduno
(phonetic), Don Dix, Sid Fleischmann, Micky Dix, and members of
the National Honor Society Junior Civitan Club.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And would all the Naples High School
Junior Civitan Day Club please come up -- forward here. And it's
wonderful to see young individuals, as you, to get involved in making
sure that we have a safer world to live in, hopefully, in the future.
And we want to thank you very, very much for your attendance here
today.
Whereas, the Neapolitan Civitan Club is sponsoring the Naples
High School Junior Civitan Club, a part of an international
organization dedicated to helping our youth unite to make a difference
in our society; and,
Whereas, the Junior Civitan teachers our -- teaches our youth to
be builders of good citizenship, being intent on helping the community
while supporting their members to live fuller and unselfish; and,
Whereas, Junior Civitan is progressive in the world of change
and their members have pledged to be aware citizens seeking to meet
the needs of the world in order to ensure a better future for all people;
and,
Page 14
April 25, 2006
Whereas, the Naples High School Junior Civitan Club has made
a commitment to help other citizens in the world that are in need in
their desire to make this a better world in which we leave; and,
Whereas, a group of dedicated local youths are founding the
Naples High School Junior Civitan Club by directing their energies to
help the Naples community and their fellow citizens; and,
Whereas, the Naples High School Junior Civitan Club pledges
with (sic) further benefit the Naples Community and have a positive
effect on its citizens.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that April 20, 2006, be
designated as Naples High School Junior Civitan Club Day.
Done and ordered this 25th day of April, 2006, Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Frank Halas, Chair.
And I move that we accept this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. All those in favor of this
proclamation, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And Tressa (sic) Lepore is the president.
Here you go, Tressa.
(Applause.)
MS. LEPORE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We need to have you move around this
way. Maybe the tall boys in the back. There you go. Put the boys in
the back. Young men, I should say, young men.
(Applause.)
Page 15
April 25, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very, very much.
Item #4D
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING APRIL 23 TO APRIL 29,2006
AS CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS WEEK - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: The next proclamation, Commissioners, is a
proclamation designating April 23rd to April 29, 2006, as Crime
Victims' Rights Week. To be accepted by Jane Heddy, Project Help;
Angela Larson, Collier County Sheriffs Office; Betty Ardaya, victims
advocate for the State Attorney's Office; and Marci Sanders, the
Shelter for Abused Women and Children.
Would you please come up -- forward, please.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Whereas, victims of crime
across America need and deserve support and assistance to help them
cope with the consequences of crime; and,
Whereas, the National Crime Victims' Rights Week, April 23rd
through April 29, 2006, offers us all opportunity to promote and
strengthen the unity in helping victims and survivors of crime and
recognizing their rights as victims; and,
Whereas, victims and survivors of crime can gain strength from a
wide range of support services offered by over 10,000 community and
justice system based programs and more than 32,000 federal and state
statutes that defines and protects their rights; and,
Whereas, America has demonstrated its caring and compassion
for victims of crime, from individuals who provide support to the
victims in need to community -- through community collaboration that
results in a comprehensive service for victims of violent (sic) against
men women and children, to our entire nation responsible (sic) to the
victims of terrorist attacks on Oklahoma City of September 11, 200 --
and September 11, 2001; and,
Page 16
April 25, 2006
Whereas, by being united against crime and for the victims' rights
service, we gain strength individually, in communities, and as a nation
as a whole, and offer strength to victims who are seeking recovery in
the aftermath of crime; and,
Whereas, we must remain united in our commitment to ensure
that all victims, all crime victims and survivors are treated with
compassion and respect, recognizing the key participation within our
system of justice and afford services that provide help and hope to
them; and,
Whereas, America has joined together annually each April since
1981 to recognize the needs and rights of victims and survivors during
the National Crime Victims' Rights Week.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Commissioners
of Collier County, Florida, that the week of April 23rd through the
29th, 2006, be designated as Crime Victims' Rights Week, and that we
stand united in our commitment to victim justice as individuals,
communities in a nation.
Done in this order, 25th day of April, 26 (sic), and signed by the
chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have a motion to approve this
proclamation and a second.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Beautiful.
Page 17
April 25, 2006
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Congratulations, thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4 E
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING APRIL 24-30, 2006 AS
RESERVE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION RECOGNITION WEEK-
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: The next proclamation, Commissioners, is a
proclamation designating April 24th through the 30th, 2006, as
Reserve Officers Association Recognition Week. To be accepted by
Donald Peacock, Captain, the United States Navy Reserve, Retired,
and James Elson, captain the United States Army, Retired.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good morning, gentlemen.
MR. ELSON: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Whereas, the Reserve Officers
Association is a 75,000 member professional association of federally
recognized commissioned officers and warrant officers and their
spouses of all the uniformed services of the United States, including
the Air Force, Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, US Public
Health Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration; and,
Whereas, the Reserve Officers Association was founded in 1922
with a mission to support and promote the development and execution
of a military policy for the United States that will provide adequate
national security; and,
Whereas, the Reserve Forces of the United States are an
Page 18
April 25, 2006
invaluable source of manpower and experience to supplement our
Active Military Forces in time of need; and,
Whereas, many members of the Reserve Forces have been
mobilized and have served with distinction in support of the global
war on terrorism; and,
Whereas, the Reserve Officers Association has played a key role
in our national defense by supporting legislation to properly fund,
train, equip, recruit, and retain National Guardsmen and Reservists;
and,
Whereas, the Reserve Officers Association helps create leaders
for tomorrow by funding scholarships for ROTC cadets; and,
Whereas, the N aples- Marco Island Reserve Officers Association
Chapter 27 will be hosting the State Reserve Officers Association
Convention in Naples on April the 28th through 30th, 2006.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of April 24th
through 30th, 2006, be known as Reserve Officers Association
Recognition Week.
Done and ordered this 25th day of April, 2006, Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Frank Halas, Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we accept this proclamation.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I second it.
All those in favor of approving this proclamation, signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
(Applause.)
MR. ELSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Jim, you're up here a lot, you know?
Page 19
April 25, 2006
Doing a lot of good things, right?
MR. ELSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Gentlemen, if we can have you up here
to take a picture.
MR. ELSON : We're the citizen soldier today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: For an additional charge, we'll
autograph that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MR. ELSON: Thank you all.
(Applause.)
Item #5A
PRESENT A TION OF THE FLORIDA WATER ENVIRONMENT
ASSOCIATION AWARD FOR MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER
UTILITY OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE EXCELLENCE TO
THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT -
PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is under agenda
paragraph 5, presentations. It's 5A. It's a presentation of the Florida
Water Environment Association Award for Municipal Wastewater
Utility Operational Performance Excellence to the Collier County
Water-Sewer District.
The award is to be accepted by the Chairman of the Board of
County Commissioners, Frank Halas.
And for the board's information, Mr. Thomas J. Helgison,
professional engineer, a member of the board of directors of the
Florida Water Environmental Association, will present the OPECC
Operational excellence award to you today.
MR. HELGISON: Thank you. To Chairman Halas,
Vice-chairman Coletta, Commissioners Coyle, Fiala and Henning,
Page 20
April 25, 2006
county staff and citizens of Collier County, good morning and thank
you for the opportunity to recognize the outstanding performance of
one of the county's departments.
My name is Tom Helgison, and I'm a member of the Florida
Water Environment Association's board of directors.
I'm particularly pleased to be here today to formally present the
inaugural FWEA Municipal Utility Operational Performance
Excellence Award to the wastewater management department.
Before I ask Commissioner Halas to accept on behalf of the
Collier County Water-Sewer District Board, I'd like to make a few
remarks.
The Florida Water Environment Association is a member
association of the International Water Environment Federation,
represents the utility, consulting and vending sectors of the clean
water industry.
The association is dedicated to the preservation and enhancement
of Florida's water environment, which I think you'll agree is getting
much tougher, to the tune of about a thousand people a day.
In January 2006 our Organizational Performance Excellence
Committee proposed a new award with the purpose of recognizing
high performing Florida wastewater utilities, promote the sharing of
best practices, and to broadcast the importance of continuous quality
improvement in the industry.
At one time excellence in the wastewater business was as simple
as accomplishing the mission of flush and forget it. Not so any longer.
The new reality for this industry includes steady, some would
say, unrelenting growth, ever-increasing regulatory requirements, a
physical environment in needing to improve stewardship, scarcity of
low-cost water for potable use, competition for qualified staff,
increased competition for funding, and on and on and on. The list is,
to say the least, daunting.
The day has arrived where differences between the high
Page 21
<---- - ~...._..'."'-<.
April 25, 2006
performance business enterprise and the high performance municipal
enterprise are becoming very slight.
FWEA believes that for the wastewater industry to continue
providing suitable treatment for the preservation of human health and
the physical environment, it must evolve beyond the practices of the
past. As much as we all love Ed Norton from the Honeymooners, life
in the sewers is changing, and organizations like your own wastewater
management department are shining examples that others will strive to
follow.
As the awards charter states, this award is it to be presented to the
wastewater utility exhibiting performance excellence in strategic
planning, competitiveness, organizational improvements,
communications, employee relationships, use of technology, customer
satisfaction, employee rewards and recognition.
Reflecting the vision of this commission, the Collier County
Public Utilities Wastewater Department has established an exemplary
integrated infrastructure management system that includes a fully
networked wastewater collection system responsive to routine and
nonroutine challenges with great efficiency and effectiveness, a
wastewater treatment system that has managed to be in compliance
with all operations during all seasons, including high-demand winter
season, the hurricane season, and during wet weather.
Integrated irrigation quality water, your IQ system. Production
for reuse, as well as effective storage and distribution infrastructure
development and management, including revolutionary aquifer and
storage recovery systems, and IQ supplementary wellfield
management.
And environmental compliance management includes industrial
pretreatment ordinance execution, fats, oils, and grease program
management, and responsive certified analytical services.
As I'm sure you're aware, the department service area spans
approximately 220 square miles and includes a network of over 800
Page 22
April 25, 2006
miles of transmission mains and about 800 pumping stations.
The Collier County Wastewater Department has a total permitted
capacity of 40.1 million gallons a day, and in 2005 collected and
treated 5.9 billion gallons of domestic sanitary sewage, about five
billion gallons was reused, greatly reducing the stress on valuable
potable water supplies.
In closing, the Collier County Wastewater Management
Department has demonstrated its leadership, the commit of its staff,
and the vision and support of this commission in qualifying to be the
first ever recipient of this award. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'd just like to say a few words before I
come down to accept the award, that I think that each and every one of
us as commissioners up here accept this reward, but the real -- the real
reward goes to the people such as Jim DeLony and all the people that
work for him in regards to making this come to fruition.
It's amazing what we've accomplished in such a short period of
time when the state put us under a consent order, and here we are
today as -- considered one of the best wastewater authorities in the
State of Florida. That's outstanding, and I think each and every one of
us ought to give a rousing hand for the people that work at the utilities
department.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. What I'd really like to see is
our reporter writing something about that, because this is a positive.
And I haven't seen him write yet, but I'm sure he wants to do that now.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They don't write about positive
things.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He's going to.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do you want me to come down there to
accept the awards? Okay.
Page 23
April 25, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: From seeping to outstanding. Isn't
that wonderful? Really.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah, please, everybody stand. This is a
fantastic day.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you so much.
MR. HELGISON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: This is quite an award.
MR. HELGISON: Congratulations.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: From down cellar to the best.
MR. HELGISON: These are the guys that are doing the job for
you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: These are the guys. George, thank you,
Jim, thank you.
MR. DeLONY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You ought to be standing up here
too, guys.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Come on up here. Let's have
another picture.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Come on, Jim. This other Jim, that's the
first Jim that started this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Come on up here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's a crappy job, George.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Tell them about the grease in
the sewers.
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY WILLIAM CABADA, ON
BEHALF OF AL BOTTINO, TO DISCUSS "SWEEPS" BY CODE
ENFORCEMENT AT DIAMOND SHORES CONDO
ASSOCIATION - NOT CURRENTLY PRESENT
Page 24
April 25, 2006
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item -- and we'll go to
paragraph 6 because the next item under presentations is a 10:30 time
certain.
That brings us to 6A, which is a public petition request by
William Cabada --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Cabada.
MR. MUDD: -- Cabada on behalf of Al Bottino to discuss
sweeps by the code enforcement at Diamond Shores Condo
Association. Mr. Cabada?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He's not here.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
MS. FILSON: And Mr. Chairman, I also had one registered
speaker, but we don't have speakers on item 6, so --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2006-103: APPOINTING BILL MEARS, KAREN
BEATTY, CHUCK GUNTHER AND LINDSEY THOMAS TO THE
BA YSHORE-GATEW A Y TRIANGLE LOCAL
REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD AND TO RE-
ADVERTISE VACANT POSITION - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that will bring us to paragraph 9,
Board of County Commissioners.
The first item is 9A, and that's appointment of members to the
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board.
MS. FILSON: And if I may make a comment on this.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
MS. FILSON: I just received the email from Bill McCabe
advising that he's resigning as well from this committee, and David is
Page 25
April 25, 2006
asking if you could make a selection of one of the other members who
weren't recommended. And I told him I'd have to readvertise, but I'll
let you make that decision.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Now, what's the wishes of the
commission in regards to Phil McCabe resigning and now we have an
open spot; do we want to go ahead with the people that are listed on
here, or do we want to readvertise this?
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can we go ahead and appoint the
four members --
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- that we're considering today
because the committee has had a chance to recommend them, and then
readvertise for the one for Phil McCabe. That would follow the
normal procedure.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. FILSON: That's correct. Then I'll take the people who were
not appointed and put them back in the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: In the pot, and then -- but
readvertise it so if someone else wants to apply, they can do that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Does that seem fair to the
commissioners? Okay. I think we've got enough nods. Let's do it that
way then.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then I would like to make a
recommendation that we accept the committee recommendations for
Mr. Bill Mears, Karen Beatty, Chuck Gunther and Lindsey Thomas
for the four new appointments.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have a motion on the floor for
the appoint -- the committee recommendations of the four people, and
a second.
If there's no further discussion, I'll call the question. All those in
Page 26
April 25, 2006
favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Carries unanimously. Okay.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2006-104: APPOINTING CHARLES ABBOTT TO
THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE -
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 9B. It's
appointment of a member to the Development Services Advisory
Committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve Charlie
Abbott.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor to
approve the committee's recommendation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Excuse me?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question? Charlie Abbott, it
says here that he's a remodeling general contractor. I thought he
worked for the clerk's office, full time there. So it seems like kind of a
conflict between, how can you be a remodeling contractor and have a
__ I believe it's full-time employment with the clerk's office, isn't it?
MR. JOHNSSEN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There's some sort of conflict
Page 27
April 25, 2006
there. He's a very capable person, but I question --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, maybe the word's not
conflict.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Not conflict, but how can you--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, he might do this part
time, like on weekends and in the evenings.
MS. FILSON: And there's nothing in the ordinance preventing
him from serving on the board because he works for the clerk. It's not
an employee under the county manager.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I have a motion on the floor and a
second. And we'll see how it shakes out.
Is there any other discussion on this?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Hearing none.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think Commissioner Coletta's
raised a good question, but there is nothing to prohibit him from doing
this. It might be appropriate to make sure that his employment is more
clearly identified in the future --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and maybe that will resolve any
problem, but --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, then you'd still have another
choice on here also.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You can take two nominations.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So I'll call the question, see where it goes
from there.
All those in favor to have Charlie Abbott as the Development
Services Advisory Committee person, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 28
April 25, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Passes unanimously.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2006-105: APPOINTING ROSALYN KATZ AND
JUDITH HUSHON TO THE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
AD HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND TO RE-ADVERTISE
VACANT POSITION - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 9C. It's
appointment of members to the Habitat Conservation Plan Ad-Hoc
Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ms. Filson, on Amanda Peck's
application, it says that she is not a voter --
MS. FILSON: Yeah. She's--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- but on the executive summary
it says she is.
MS. FILSON: She accidently pressed the wrong button. And
when I send those things over to the elections office -- and the memo
should be in your backup -- it came back that she was not registered. I
called her. She went to the elections office and took care of that. And
I always do that as a courtesy in case their names are different on their
elections. And a lot of times I get people to register to vote doing that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there a hanging chad?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just that she worked for the
state --
MS. FILSON: She is registered to vote.
Page 29
April 25, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- State of Florida. That's the
only chad that I see.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So do I hear a recommendation
or a motion on the floor on this?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion that we
approve Roslyn Katz and Judy Hushon and readvertise the second
position.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or the third position.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any discussion on this,
further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If not, I'll call the question. What we're
going to do is Roslyn D. Katz and Judith Hushon is recommended for
nomination on this committee, and the other person, we're going to go
ahead and readvertise this.
So all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(N 0 response.)
MS. FILSON: And I'm currently readvertising because we have
two additional vacancies on this committee because you expanded it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
Item #9D
Page 30
April 25, 2006
RESOLUTION 2006-106: APPOINTING JAMES HARCOURT TO
THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is appointment of a
member to the Environmental Advisory Council.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I hear a nomination?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to accept the applicant,
James Gregory Harcourt.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And I'll second that.
Is there any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. All
those in favor of James Gregory Harcourt, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 2006-107: ACQUISITION BY GIFT OR
PURCHASE OF FEE SIMPLE INTERESTS AND/OR THOSE
PERPETUAL OR TEMPORARY EASEMENT INTERESTS
NECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROADWAY,
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED FOR
THE FOUR-LANE AND SIX-LANE EXPANSION OF OIL WELL
ROAD FROM IMMOKALEE ROAD TO CAMP KEAIS ROAD
(CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT NO. 44, PROJECT NO.
Page 31
April 25, 2006
60044). ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT: $12,852,500).-
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is lOA. It's a
recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the acquisition by
gift or purchase of fee simple interest and/or those perpetual or
temporary easement interests necessary for the construction of
roadway, drainage and utility improvements required for the four-lane
and six-lane expansion of Oil Well Road from Immokalee Road to
Camp Keais Road.
It's capital improvement element number 44, project number
60044. Estimated fiscal impact, $12,852,500.
Mr. Jay Ahmad, the director of engineering for the transportation
MR. AHMAD: Good morning.
MR. MUDD: -- Transportation Division, will present.
MR. AHMAD: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
My name is Jay Ahmad. I'm your Director of Transportation
Engineering, and I'm here asking for your approval of this resolution
to authorize staff to start the process of right-of-way acquisition. This
is a first step in that process which allocates the funds for that
purchase.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve with one
question.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could you tell me, Mr. Ahmad,
the land that was promised to us to be donated for the right -of- way,
has that all been done so, or is there any land out there that's in
question as far as promised donations and people not willing to fulfill
it?
MR. AHMAD: The project currently is in the 60 percent and 40
percent design stages at the various sections of it, Commissioner. And
Page 32
April 25, 2006
once we designate that right-of-way for the highway, the land will be
donated.
Mr. Feder is here. He, perhaps, can expand on that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Because there was a
considerable amount of right-of-way that's going to be donated.
MR. FEDER: Yes, Commissioner, and we're -- it's our
understanding that those commitments are still to be met. As Jay
pointed out, once we have the exact right-of-way requirements, we
will then use those instruments to get those donations provided to us.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just want to be certain that
nowheres along the line we're going to have a mistake come up where
we pay somebody for land they promised to donate.
MR. FEDER: No. That we know, and that is set in there. Plus,
if for some reason, although I don't believe there's any, we don't get
anything that's required donation, I'll make sure that this board is very
aware of that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have a motion on the floor to
approve the -- all the estimated temporary easements and right-of-way
for the Immokalee Road and Camp Keais Road (sic). Is there any
further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. All
those --
MR. AHMAD: It's Oil Well Road, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, Oil Well Road, I'm sorry, from
Immokalee Road.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Nice try, nice try.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, Oil Well. Well, I try to get
everything we can.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Page 33
April 25, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Absent.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You worked at it.
MR. AHMAD: Thank you very much.
Item #lOC
FLORIDA COMMUNITIES TRUST FLORIDA FOREVER GRANT
IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $9.9 MILLION FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE LANDS
SURROUNDING THE NAPLES ZOO - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 10C, and that's to
approve a request for permission to apply for a Florida Communities
Trust -- excuse me -- a Florida Communities Trust Florida Forever
Grant in the estimated amount of $9.9 million for the reimbursement
for the purchase of the land surrounding the Naples Zoo.
And Ms. Marla Ramsey, your Administrator for Public Services,
will present.
MS. RAMSEY: Good morning, Commissioners. I know that
yesterday most of you should have received a schematic of the plan
that we -- that we put out. And part of why we wanted to put this on
the regular agenda today rather than leave it on consent was to give
you an opportunity to make comment about that schematic plan and to
talk a little bit about the $20 million price tag that we have placed on
the land and explain a little bit about why we did that and maybe some
ramifications that may come back because of that.
Page 34
April 25, 2006
When we've done -- when we purchased the property, we took
the exact dollar amount of -- per acre and multiplied it by the amount
of acres that we are going to apply for in our grant.
When we talked with Florida Community Trust about the grant,
they recommended that we remove the zoo from our allocation, and so
we have done that, and it's left us with about 80 acres. We took the 80
acres, multiplied it by the per-acre price and came up with about $20
million.
We have to do a reappraisal, two reappraisals, when we get the
grant awarded to us to determine the actual cost or the appraised price
of those acres, and that will then determine how much will be used to
give us our match.
We're looking for a 60/40 match on this piece of property. Ifit
comes in at the 20 million or even a little less than that, we still can
get 9.9 million in the grant element, but we won't know that until after
the appraisals come in. So I wanted to bring that to your attention
today.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could you put the schematic on the
overhead maybe?
MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. I know it's a little bit difficult to probably
see what we have on the -- do I have a little thing? Is it not going?
Oh, there it is, sorry.
If you look up on the area in yellow, we have outlined the
sections that we are going to -- and to be honest with you, I can't even
see that from here. We have outlined the sections in yellow that we
will be using for our application.
There are a number of outboxes in some of the areas within the
grant area that we're going to use for our development. Up on the top
is the parking lot area with the canoe and kayak launch area along
with some rest rooms and maybe a shelter.
There are boardwalks that come out and about into the area,
pathways on top of the berms. The section up on here is -- relates to
Page 35
April 25, 2006
the water management area, which will be a continuation of the one to
the north.
There are -- the little yellow dots that you see in here are gopher
tortoises, and we've put them on the plan so we would make sure that
we didn't encroach upon them.
We have a road that goes down this side of the property that will
come into the development here and then also down into our parking
lot to give us access to the south.
Again, we looked at picnic facilities and possibly a boat ramp --
not a boat ramp, I'm sorry, a dock out in here so people in vessels
might want to pull up and use the facility.
There's also going to be connection through our parcel into the
conservation parcel that was just recently purchased, and then that will
connect with the greenery all the way down toward Tin City.
This section that's over in here is a shared parking lot area with
the zoo, along with some additional rest rooms and picnic facilities,
and then an access point that comes out and hooks up into a looping
pathway with boardwalk and asphalt.
With that, that kind of just explains the graphic to you, and I
guess I'm ready for questions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This plan is conceptual in
nature?
MS. RAMSEY: Yes, Commissioner. But when we send it up, if
we make any major changes to this particular plan, it could affect our
point -- our rating, and if the ratings get affected, it could drop us
below the funding element. So we want to be very careful about what
we send up, and that's why I present that to you today to -- if you want
to make any tweaks or changes to it, we still have a couple weeks
before this grant is due, and we'd like to get that input today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The water quality park,
would that be -- if we remove that, would that be a major change?
Page 36
April 25, 2006
MS. RAMSEY: Ifwe remove the water quality park, would that
be a major change to the grant? Yes, it would be.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. RAMSEY: And if you -- I've got -- Amanda Townsend was
here. I'm not sure where she went -- but she's writing the grant, and
she can -- you know, there are a number of water quality points in the
grant itself.
And so we do score very high with the water quality in the plan,
somewhere probably around 160, 165. And that's one of the higher
ratings. I think the water quality to the north came in about 160.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, at this time nobody has
convinced me that a -- that we need a filtration system for the Gordon
River or the Naples Bay.
It's my understanding from -- many a people have historic
information about the Naples Bay. It's not the pollutants that are a
problem but actually too much freshwater into the bay. And I just
don't feel that this is going to solve that problem.
MS. RAMSEY: Well, Commissioner, if I could turn to someone
in transportation, the stormwater area, to address that particular issue.
We have put together a big team of people from transportation,
stormwater, conservation, Collier Parks and Recreation, the zoo, the
Conservancy, a number of people have been involved in this process,
and we've kind of divvied that up. And so if I could have Norman
maybe address your concerns about the water quality element.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think when this initially came up, we
basically said that we didn't want to get involved in a water quality,
that we wanted to leave this in the -- what it is today, and that's
mangroves and a swamp area, and that would work as its own buffer.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm not done yet, but
anyways.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I -- I remember it differently.
Page 37
April 25, 2006
I remember that water quality was always one of the features of
this thing and it -- because it would attract us additional money to help
pay for this, in particular, grants from Big Cypress Basin.
We've got about 14- or $15 million that are dependent upon that
water quality feature. And I would say to you that that is sufficient
justification to have the water quality feature there. People are not
handing out $14 million of funding to build a water quality feature
because they don't think a water quality feature is necessary.
So we've got not only a state grant opportunity if we include
water quality features, but we also have a Big Cypress Basin grant.
Big Cypress Basin believes it is necessary and important.
The impact on the area is relatively minor. And based upon what
the staff has told me, a lot of this area is infested with exotics, and
you're going to have to clean those out anyway.
The other point that we have to keep in mind is that we promised
the people that if we bought this we would provide for access by the
citizens of all of Collier County.
And a water quality feature has -- is attractive for water birds, it's
attractive for people who want to hike or walk in the area. And I think
that if you believe that you have done everything you can to maximize
the possibility of getting $15 million to help us with this park, then
that's a pretty good job.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'll wait till Mr. Feder gets
a mouth out of his ear and ask him a question.
Has anybody tested for pollutants, suspended pollutants?
MR. FEDER: Basically there's a number of studies out. You've
got one that shows Naples Bay as having quite a bit of nutrients and
pollutants and issues, that's why both the Fleischmann original project
we're calling the water quality park, plus this issue, and opportunities
south, both is seen as issues to address both quantity and quality.
And you're correct that a lot of freshwater into an estuarine area
Page 38
April 25, 2006
is problematic. At the same time, there are nutrients and other issues
that we're trying to address, so we're trying to address both issues,
both volume and the quality of the water that's going into the system.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So are you saying the tests were
done at the Golden Gate Canal?
MR. FEDER: No. What I would say to you -- and I'd have to
get others with a little bit more expertise than myself specifically in
this, but to tell you that in Naples Bay there are a number of issues
relative to nutrients and other issues that are coming from what land
runoff and issues where we are trying to treat the water before it gets
directly into the river and, therefore, into the bay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I mean, I'd agree with it if
I was assured that the pollutants were coming upstream from this site.
MR. FEDER: And Commissioner, what I will do -- and most of
it is upstream from the site, obviously, because as it goes into the
river, there's some further upstream that we're trying to address with
other improvements. But I'd be happy to get the stormwater staff to sit
down with you very directly to go through that, either that or pollution
control.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know, but I'm going to vote on
this now.
MR. FEDER: What I can assure you is we're looking to treat
both quantity and quality of water, and that's been an issue that I know
Big Cypress Basin is looking to provide us money on this for much
the same reason.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Other questions?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would just like to make a
Page 39
April 25, 2006
concluding comment, and that is that the Golden Gate Canal is, I
believe, the primary source of freshwater pollution. There's little
question about that. And Big Cypress Basin is taking action to
address that. They have a program to start diverting that water into a
more normal sheet flow.
And if that, in fact, does happen, and I'm sure it will, we still can't
ignore the other water flows. And I think, intuitively, we know that
this water is polluted. It is draining off people's yards, it's taking
fertilizer residue from a very, very large watershed area. And it is -- it
is crossing at least -- or coming near a number of roads. A lot of this
water flows from the west side of Goodlette Road over to the east side
of Goodlette Road and then south and then by the Golden Gate
Parkway where runoffs from those roads further pollute the water.
So there is reason to consider water quality treatment in this area.
And even if it isn't the major cause of pollution, it is certainly an
objective of the people who are responsible for water quality and
stormwater runoff, so I would -- I'm ready to vote on it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any speakers on it?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, no speakers. Any further
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have a motion on the floor and a
second in regards to approval of this.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well -- and I'll be glad to write a
letter of support once I get the information that there is a problem, but
I just don't feel comfortable right now. And, you know, I think at the
end of the day it's going to be a good project no matter what.
And Commissioner Coyle is exactly right, this water quality park
was in there all the time, but now it gets to where the rubber meets the
road. That's all.
Page 40
April 25, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll call the question. All those in favor of
accepting this, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. I believe it --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It passes 3-2.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: 3-2, okay.
Item #6A - Continued from earlier in the meeting
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY WILLIAM CABADA, ON
BEHALF OF AL BOTTINO, TO DISCUSS "SWEEPS" BY CODE
ENFORCEMENT AT DIAMOND SHORES CONDO
ASSOCIATION - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our --
Commissioner, it's been brought to my attention that 6A, Mr. Cabada
has come forward or has come into the room. He was -- he was
mistakenly of the opinion that the meeting started at 10 o'clock even
though the letter that I sent him said it started at nine o'clock.
It's -- we've already passed that item and we've already called it.
It's up to the board to determine if they want to hear Mr. Cabada at
this particular time or he's lost his chance. It's up to the board.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What's--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, this is an item that
is subject to a lawsuit, a pending lawsuit right now. I don't know that
anything is accomplished by talking about this issue under public
Page 41
April 25, 2006
comment at the present time, and I would defer to the county attorney
to advise us on this issue.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Coyle. You're absolutely
correct in the sense that the properties, the Diamond Shore Properties,
are in litigation at the present time. If Mr. Cabada were to speak to
you, my advice to you would have been, and still is, that you may
have the opportunity to listen, if you wish, but to comment -- it is
recommended to hold comment or confer with attorney prior to
comment if you were to because of the fact that we are in litigation.
Additionally, if Mr. Cabada were to go forward, we want him to
very precisely indicate for whom he's speaking and, additionally, to
put on the record why he's here without counsel.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And what do I hear from the fellow
commissioners in regards to this?
Yes, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think Commissioner
Coyle is right, but I also feel that we should give the public, the
residents, every opportunity to speak before the board. I have no
intention to comment on this gentleman's remarks or say anything, but
I think we owe it to the public to listen.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agreement with Commissioner
Henning.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I am, too.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Then I guess it's the wishes of the
commission that the gentleman can go forward and speak his piece.
MR. CABADA: Good morning, Commissioners. As I will not
do much of the speaking, I would like to read a letter from Mr.
Steinberg and Bottino. May I read it?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. And may I interject at this moment?
Mr. Cabada?
Page 42
April 25, 2006
MR. CABADA: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: As the county attorney to the Board of County
Commissioners, are you here representing Mr. Steinberg?
MR. CABADA: Yes, sir.
MR. WEIGEL: Are you also representing Mr. Bottino?
MR. CABADA: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: Have you been authorized by Mr. Steinberg to
speak for Mr. Steinberg?
MR. CABADA: Yes. That's what I was going to read over here.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Have you been in contact with counsel
for Mr. Steinberg?
MR. CABADA: Not for Mr. Steinberg, no, Mr. Bottino, but they
both wrote a letter to me last night.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
MR. CABADA: And I believe you know that.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, I've asked the requisite questions
here, and he has given his answer in regard to whom he represents.
One moment.
Yeah, you'll note, however, that the public petition request
indicated authorization by Mr. Bottino and made no reference to Mr.
Steinberg, so that is different than what has been provided to the board
in setting up the public petition agenda item.
I'm also told that attorney Tony Pires has indicated to board
members that Mr. Cabada does not represent Mr. Steinberg. There's
nothing more I can add at this point.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: David?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We had this letter this morning that
said -- it was from Tony Pires.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that the one you're referring to?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
Page 43
April 25, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which says -- well, I better not say
any more because of the litigation.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But it says who is represented and
who isn't.
MR. WEIGEL: That's correct. The letter states what it says. I'll
not attempt to synthesize it for you right now, but that is being added
to our record on this agenda item as well.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, we've given the gentleman
permission, so we'll just listen to what he has to say. You've got five
-- what is it, five minutes?
MS. FILSON: Public petitions have 10, but it's down to 7:36
now.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, you're going to have to start over
then, I guess, and give this guy fair time and --
MR. CABADA: Thank you, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. CABADA: Dear County Commissioners, my name is Al
Bottino. I am authorizing Willy Cabada, maintenance supervisor at
Diamond Shores Condo Association, to represent David Steinberg and
myself at this hearing. Steinberg and Bottino are the majority owners
of Diamond Shores.
I am protesting the improper sweeps by code enforcement at
Diamond Shores Condo Association. Most of the residents at
Diamond Shores are Hispanic Americans. Most are not fluent in
English, are non-English speaking.
On February 7, 2006, a horde of county agents descended on
Diamond Shores in an effort to write up violations and to harass
Americans living there.
One, there is no letter sent by the code enforcement to the
residents telling them the nature of this illegal sweep. They just
suddenly appeared and began knocking on doors. Section 22-234(a),
Page 44
April 25, 2006
code of laws, states, shall explain to the owner, occupant or operator
the purpose of the inspection.
As most of the people living there are not fluent in English or are
non-English speaking, this could not be explained to them by county
agents. Therefore, the entire February 7th sweep was illegal as was all
the other sweeps and inspections unless specifically called for by the
tenant.
Also, the fact that these agents are in uniform is an intimidating
factor to many Americans (sic), some of whom might be illegal
immigrants. This gives the agents an opportunity to gain entrance
because the tenant mistakenly believes they must give them the right
of entry.
Also section 22-233 of the code of laws states that the county
have no authorization to conduct inspections of properties without the
consent of the owner or occupant or without a warrant.
The February 7 sweep and previous sweeps were in violation of
this code. In their zeal to amass violations, some agents bear false
witness and tell tenants that the owner gave them permission to enter
the units. This is what Agent Jeff Laterneau does.
Complaints to Mrs. Michelle Arnold and David Scribner are
ignored. There is no review board by county agents and this leads to
further abuse of power.
On one of these illegal sweeps at Diamond Shores, Mr. Walter
Garcia returned home from work and found two county agents at his
home who entered without his permission or knowledge. His home
was occupied by his two sons, ages 10 and six, who were very upset
by this outrageous intrusion into his house. If this happened to county
commissioners, they would feel the same outrage.
Mr. Garcia and other Hispanic Americans are in the process of
filing a discrimination complaint against all county personnel,
including, I presume, James Mudd, county manager.
If found guilty, the sweeps -- if found guilty, the sweep will be
Page 45
April 25, 2006
done away with, and you will be subject to punitive and monetary
damages.
Also Mr. Laterneau and Mr. Scribner interfered illegally in a civil
matter concerning Al Bottino and David Steinberg regarding the sale
of the property. This was reported to the county attorney, Ms.
Michelle Arnold, and Donna Fiala. Again, nothing was done about it.
Willy Cabada, a Hispanic American, was called a liar by Special
Master Brenda Garrettson, was told he was paid to lie, and she would
put him in jail if she could. Hardly a disinterested special master.
Thousands of dollars was spent in the last several months, at least
55,000 in paid receipts were sent to Michelle Arnold and Jeff
Klatzkow. Yet county officials still claim in a newspaper article that
we do not attempt to fix the units.
When myself and my attorney, Thomas Franchino, brought this
up to Arnold and Klatzkow, it was ignored. David Steinberg spent
about the same amount.
See attachment to all of the above.
I would like the commissioners to apologize to the Hispanic
Americans involved. I would also like the resignation of Michelle
Arnold, Jeff Laterneau and David Scribner. Special Master
Garrettson should be replaced.
There should be an independent review board appointed to
someone outside the county. These county agents are running amuck
with no fare of censure.
Prior to inspection of homes by the county agents, a letter shall
be sent out in English and Spanish telling of the purpose of the
inspections.
All inspections should be accompanied by a Spanish speaking
person, with uniforms (sic) the tenants of his right to refuse entry --
and informs -- excuse me -- and informs the tenants of the right to
refuse entry if he did not call in the complaint.
I have sent the letters regarding the above to Michelle Arnold,
Page 46
April 25, 2006
Joseph Schmitt and Donna Fiala, and nothing was done.
We think this inspections and sweeps were a violation of civil
rights, and fines were imposed, in might opinion, by a biased special
master, and initiated by improper methods.
Thank you very much, Al Bottino.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, sir.
MR. CABADA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We've got a 10:30 time certain. Why
don't we take a break at this point in time, and we'll be back for 10:30.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Board of County Commissioners is back
in session. And I believe we have a time certain --
MR. MUDD: Time certain --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- of 10:30.
MR. MUDD: -- 10:30, it's under presentations, item B, this item
to be heard, again, at 10:30 a.m. It's a presentation by Chip Jones of
KPMG, who's the county auditor and -- represents the county auditor,
requesting a status of the county's FY-2005 comprehensive annual
financial report.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to raise
for a point of order.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. We have a time certain at 10:30,
sir. Can we --
MR. KRASOWSKI: Yes, sir, I understand. I wanted to raise--
it will take a brief second. Well, 10 seconds.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Earlier I requested under -- a removal of an
item from the consent agenda to the regular agenda. It says right here
on your agenda that if a discussion is desired by a member of the
board, that item will be removed and -- from the consent agenda and
put on -- and considered separately.
Page 47
April 25, 2006
It's my impression, and through -- in my discussion with
Commissioner Coletta, it was his intention to discuss -- to allow for
the discussion of this item. So I respectfully request that this item, on
his suggestion, be removed from the consent agenda and put on the
regular agenda.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I need direction from the county
attorney. It's my understanding that a motion was made and there
wasn't a second, so that's -- therefore, that's why it died. Now, maybe
I stand to be corrected. County Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wouldn't call it
correction at all. The -- Mr. Krasowski has read what is indicated
there on the agenda index, and any commissioner does have the ability
to remove. To the extent that it went to a motion and there was a
board vote seemed to indicate a consensus to allow it to be determined
by the board rather than the individual commissioner.
However, the point is made, and if Mr. Coletta would wish to go
on the record to indicate that he preferred to -- prefers, and for
clarification, to have the agenda item moved from the consent agenda
to the regular agenda, that could be done. And at this point if it were
to be done, the board would need to reconsider its consent agenda as
approved, and upon a -- upon approving a motion to reconsider, then
approve the agenda with that particular item moved to the regular
agenda, and then it could go forward. But it's up to Mr. Coletta at this
point to indicate or clarify his intention.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle was -- had a
-- was next, but go ahead, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I'm sorry to drag
everybody into this. But it's a simple thing. I had no personal
objection to the item. I didn't feel any reason to pull it, however,
whenever the public has ever raised any concern -- i think with just
one exception -- I've always honored that request and pulled the item.
In this case, I unintentionally said -- I made it a motion rather
Page 48
April 25, 2006
than just asking for the item to be pulled. It was nothing sinister in my
intent to do so, but it was just a normal reaction and it was quite
interesting the fact that there was not a second, which kind of
indicated the will of the commission.
So I hate to drag the commission through this if there's four of
them that are really unwilling to hear it. At this point in time I'm
going to leave it where it is unless someone else has some interest in
this and would like to hear it, and I'd be more than happy to go ahead
with -- ask for a reconsideration.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Will of the commission?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question. So you're just
__ you're asking for a support on your -- from your colleagues, or do
you want to -- wish to pull it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Direction from my colleagues.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle? You're back?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I'm back. The agenda's
already been set. We took a vote to set the agenda.
MR. WEIGEL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, how are we going to undo
setting the agenda here, particularly if we don't have a majority vote of
the commissioners?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, as I indicated, if you -- there were a desire
to change the agenda, it would take a motion to reconsider at this
point, which --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: -- does require full board participation. So to
that extent, there has been a setting of the agenda, no question about it.
And I had indicated that if Mr. Coletta wished to go forward, that vote
on reconsideration must go forward to afford the opportunity to move
that formerly consent agenda item to the regular agenda. So it can't
happen automatically -- it can't happen by one person. It would take a
Page 49
April 25, 2006
majority motion to recover in any event to move it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just before you came in,
Commissioner Coyle, I told the commission that I didn't want to drag
this out, that there was no support the first time around to have it
heard, so I'm not going to make the motion for reconsideration.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good. Okay, thank you. Thank
you for the clarification.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
Continue on with our time certain.
Item #5B
PRESENTATION BY CHIP JONES OF KPMG (COUNTY
AUDITORS) REGARDING STATUS OF THE COUNTY'S FY2005
COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT. -
PRESENTED STATUS OF AUDIT; REQUEST TO HAVE THE
FLORIDA AUDITOR GENERAL TO REVIEW THE AUDIT:
RESOLUTION 2006-109 - ADOPTED W/CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Time certain at 10:30. Again, this is a
presentation by Chip Jones ofKPMG, represents the county auditors
regarding the status of the county's FY-2005 comprehensive annual
financial report.
Mr. Jones?
MR. JONES: Good morning. My name is Chip Jones. I'm a
partner with KPMG. I'm a resident of St. Petersburg, Florida, and I'm
here to give you a status of the audit of Collier County.
We finished the audit, essentially all of it, back at the end of
February, and we are currently at a position where everything is done
with the exception of receiving a signature of the finance director on a
management representation letter, and I'll talk about that in a little bit.
Page 50
April 25, 2006
But management representations are a key part of our audit. And
just like if you bought a car from someone and you wanted them to
sign a statement saying that the car had not been in an accident, they
refused to sign, you wonder whether or not the car has.
Well, you know, the same with representations. We need
representations from management, which is essentially the chief
executive officer, which in the case of the county, would be Jim Mudd
or his equivalent, and the chief financial officer, which would be
Crystal Kinzel, working under Dwight Brock.
Those representations essentially confirm a lot of verbal
representations during the audit and focus on three things. But this is
required by our auditing standards.
I just want to read you a couple of excerpts. During an audit
management makes many representations to the auditor, both oral and
written, in response to specific inquiries or through the financial
statements. Such representations from management are part of the
evidential matter the independent auditor obtains.
Written representations from management orally confirm
representations explicitly or implicitly given to the auditor, indicate
and document the continuing appropriateness of such representations,
and reduce the possibility of misunderstanding considering the matters
that are the subject of the representations.
There's three areas that the management representation letter
covers. One is the finance statements, management's
acknowledgement of its responsibility, or the fair presentation of the
financial statements and management's belief that the financial
statements are fairly presented.
Then it also includes completeness of information recognition,
measurement and disclosure of transactions that have been considered.
One other point to point out here, too, and the management
representation letter is written in a manner to hopefully protect the
people who sign it.
Page 51
April 25, 2006
If you read the two versions of the letter you got, there's two very
important statements in there; one that discusses materiality in that the
representation is listed -- is limited to items considered material to the
financial statements. Now, that is a very judgmental factor.
But, for instance, in our audit of Collier County, for like just a
general fund, we have a materiality threshold of around a million
dollars. Now, that doesn't mean we don't audit anything under a
million dollars. It means that if we thought that the financial
statements were misstated and they were like 500 grand and
management did not want to post that adjustment, we would probably
still issue a clean opinion with that adjustment not being posted, but
we would inform you that that adjustment had not been posted.
The other important statement in the letter, it says, to the best of
their knowledge and belief, and that applies to the signer. In other
words, we are not asking them to take sole responsibility for all the
actions to take care of. We're basically saying, if you know of
something that's incorrect in this letter, you have a responsibility to let
us know.
In fact, one of the things that we always come across in audits,
which is a unique issue -- but suppose Jim Mudd left and Leo Ochs
took over as county administrator. At the end of the year, we would
be asking him -- or let's say he came in from the outside. We would
ask him to also sign the representation letter even ifhe had not been
here all the year. And that, again, is, again, a requirement of our
county standards.
It says right here, if current management was not present during
all periods covered by the auditor's report, the auditor should
nevertheless obtain written representation from current management
on all such periods. So, again, we think that the language in the letter
protects the signer that we can't come back and say, you lied or
something like that, in the letter.
By not getting a representation letter -- well, you received copies
Page 52
April 25, 2006
of the letter that we received from James Mudd; you also received a
copy of the letter that we received from the clerk. And the clerk's letter
we found was not acceptable to us as far as our written representation
requirement.
Principally in the -- in the first paragraph of that letter, we have
statements that basically indicate that management is responsible for
the financial statements.
And the clerk added language there and in some other places that
indicated that he felt he was impeded in his responsibilities to
investigate certain transactions, component units, those types of
things, and as a result, he wanted to make it very clear in the
representation letter that he did not want to take specific total
responsibility for the items that may be out of his control.
And since he prepares the financial statements, we had a problem
with that, and that's the impasse that we're at right now.
We have been -- had considerations as late as last Friday
discussing, again, modifications to the letter, which would end up
hopefully being acceptable to us so the audit can be issued. Once we
have a signature, the audit is ready to issue.
If we do not receive a representation letter and it came that you
wanted the financial statements to still be issued without obtaining
representations from the finance director, our opinion -- and I don't
know if you've seen a copy of the draft opinion -- would basically say,
we were engaged to audit the financial statements; however, we were
not able to obtain representations from management. Consequently,
we do not express an opinion on the financial statements. That's
called a disclaimer saying we will not take any association with the
statements.
I hope we don't come to that because by obtaining such an
opinion, it could cause issues as far as going out and raising new debt,
those types of things.
The auditor general of the State of Florida has a requirement that
Page 53
April 25, 2006
if they don't receive -- they have a requirement that they receive an
audit from each county, and if they don't, they have the ability to
maybe hold back maybe certain shared revenues.
I don't know what the other consequences could be. And again,
this -- I'm just surmising that because I've never had this type of
situation before.
The clerk's finance department was totally cooperative with us in
the entire audit. They have excellent people. Their function as
internal auditor for the county is a very important function to us
because we look at checks and balances, and it's important that there is
the checks and balances that allows the clerk's office, or whoever it's
supposed to be, to investigate transactions, that, you know, may be of
question. I mean, they essentially represent the citizens. So what their
office does is very important, and that's why we rely on the
representations.
I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have,
but that's essentially where we are right now on the audit.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Are there any other questions
from commissioners? Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Chip, are you aware of the
circumstances that are cited by the clerk as reasons for not providing
you the appropriate letter?
Mr. JONES: Yes, I am.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And how long have you been
aware of those circumstances?
MR. JONES: Back at the beginning of the audit, last fall.
Dwight was very careful when we sat down and had our first meeting
to layout what was going on, the facts, and that when it came to the
end of the audit, you know, the representation letter was going to be a
matter, and we knew that from the very beginning.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And those circumstances actually
existed -- excuse me -- at the time you were doing the audit the year
Page 54
April 25, 2006
before, if I remember correctly?
MR. JONES: I don't think so, at least to my knowledge, not to
the extent that they were existing at this time.
In fact, in last year's representation letter, the clerk did modify it,
and the modification was acceptable, but his letter indicated -- in his
letter he added a statement that says, we have informed you that we
are aware of certain deposit accounts that were established under the
Collier County Board of County Commissioners taxpayer ID number,
which were not set up by the Clerk of the Circuit Court in his role as
chief financial officer of the county.
This time the clerk's office cannot determine the materiality of
the combined deposit accounts to the financial statements. In addition,
we are currently in litigation to determine the clerk's role with regard
to these accounts and their transactions.
With the exception of the aforementioned accounts, we have
provided all financial records and related data. We have not
knowingly withheld from you any other financial records or related
data that, in our judgment, would be relevant to the purpose of your
audit.
So that was the change that was made to last year's letter, which
was acceptable to us, and that's, you know, what we try to say. If you
find something that you don't agree with, spell it out in the letter.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so it's just the degree of the
disagreement that exists now?
MR. JONES: Yeah. I think this year it came down to where the
clerk is essentially saying, because his role has been impeded, he does
not believe he is in a position to represent the representations that
we've asked him to in the audit.
I don't agree with that and I've told Dwight that, but -- because I
think there is language to protect that, but I believe that's the issue.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you have sufficient information
to render an opinion on whether or not any of this is really material?
Page 55
April 25, 2006
MR. JONES: From everything we've received and we've
evaluated -- and they have given us a lot of information and we've
been through it -- we do not believe it would make the material -- the
financial statements materially misstated if some of these transactions
should have been recorded and weren't. That is our conclusion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I've received enough, and
I think the rest of the board has received enough, correspondence to
kill a forest. And this is, in my opinion, not serving the public well.
And I think at this point, from elected official to elected official, how
can we put this issue to bed without taking it through the court
system? And that question is for the Clerk of the Court.
MR. JONES: I assume that.
MR. BROCK: My legal counsel has talked with the county's
legal department about the avenues available to us to resolve this and
stop all this nonsense, sit down and try to mediate a settlement to all of
this so that we can get back to business.
You know, we've rocked along here until last year with the clerk
doing his job and didn't have a problem. Then all of a sudden we
discover what was going on out of the Ochopee account, without
complete and total knowledge of what was transpiring there, and then
all of a sudden it becomes an issue, well, the clerk can't audit
anything.
Well, you know, in talking to Ms. Hubbard, you know, she may,
in fact, have a different interpretation of what I am doing as opposed
to what I'm perceiving that I'm doing. You know, in the course of a
deposition we had a discussion about, you know, I'm not auditing like
Chip Jones audits. I'm not auditing for the purpose of opining about
the financial statements. I prepare the final statements. I certainly
don't have the independence to be out there rendering an opinion.
And, you know, there were questions asked about did Mr. Jones
Page 56
April 25, 2006
know all of this stuffwas going on early on? Well, Commissioners, I
did not know until about a week and a half ago that your fire chief out
in Isle of Capri has entered a plea of guilty to a crime involving one of
the accounts. And I have now asked the State Attorney's Office for
the information that they have with regard to that to try to go through
it.
You know, there may, in fact, be absolutely nothing wrong.
There may, in fact, be something very wrong. And it is simply an
issue of trying to uncover all of the information so that we can move
on.
So if your County Attorney's Office sits down with my counsel
and we work out an agreeable solution -- I've already had a
conversation with Mr. Jones that -- I've also had a conversation with
the auditor general of the State of Florida and his staff and the
legislative auditing committee who has given me some direction as to
a potential solution of this, is to, in great detail, include all of the
circumstances that we have in the representation letter.
You know, the major concern that the clerk has is, I am
responsible for the preparation of financial statements in conformance
with generally accepted accounting principles. I don't have the same
luxury that Chip has in determining, well, you know, if it's less than a
million dollars, I'm not going to worry about it. Unfortunately, that's
not the role that I play.
I have a little more finite role than that. I have a responsibility to
report every transaction of this county in conformance with generally
accepted accounting principles; otherwise, you know, if it's just a
million-dollar transaction, we won't worry about it.
I suspect the people of this community would take me out and
lynch me if I took that particular approach, and if they didn't, they
ought to.
My role is to ensure that the financial statements are in
conformity. The materiality issue may be an issue related to Mr.
Page 57
April 25, 2006
Jones and his role in opining on the financial statements, but it's not an
issue as it relates to the Clerk of the Circuit Court.
My conversations with the auditor general-- you know, one of
the things that I need to be sure of is that I address in each one of those
management representations an item unless it is clearly immaterial.
And the example he gave to me was, if you've got a payment voucher
for transportation costs and somebody put the wrong time and you're
three bucks, in this particular instance, off, that's probably not
something that you need to worry about.
But in answer to your underlying question, okay -- and, you
know, I've really -- after I sit here and listen to some of the comments
that are made by the members of the Board of County Commissioners,
you know, I really wonder whether we're not -- you know, everything
that is out there -- just to give you a small smattering of what's going
on.
You know, when this thing first started, the statement was made
here in the Board of County Commissioners meeting that, oh, you
know, this check was just accidentally put into the wrong account, that
it was a mistake.
Then I go back into the records and minutes of the advisory
board meeting where this particular issue comes up, and they're
discussing that, oh, no, you know, they thought that we could pay for
the item that this money was taken in for out of impact fees, and they
can't do that because that would be illegal.
Then I go back and I look at another one of the meetings, and
they discuss how we need to take the money that was earmarked for
purposes of this capital asset, and what we need to do is we need to
buy that capital asset out of impact fees and use this money that was
earmarked for this capital asset to pay for operations.
And then I discover that -- in deposition that the fire chief makes
the statement that, you know, this was my operating account as
opposed to it being this Friend's account.
Page 58
April 25, 2006
You know, Commissioners, you have an ordinance that prohibits
and makes it a crime for entities to solicit contributions without first
registering and then filing financial statements with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court. I've never received any financial statements with
regard to this.
So there are many, many issues, many, many questions that we
need to resolve. There may be perfectly legitimate explanations for all
of it. Then again, there may not. But the fact that you've got a fire
chief that has entered a plea to a crime and -- you know, and when I
saw the crime that he had entered the plea to, I went to the State
Attorney's Office and asked them, and the sheriffs department and
asked them -- because the crime that he entered the plea to was that
you've got a fire chief who's either a clerk, a sheriff, or a county judge
that failed to keep records.
Well, now, I know your fire chief is neither the Clerk of Courts,
the sheriff, nor a county judge. And as a consequence of that, I said,
wait, how in the world did you get somebody to plead to that crime?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How is this getting us closer to
solving this problem? Wasn't that your question?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was. And he answered my
question. There was some dialogue there, but I just need to respond to
one. Commissioner Fiala has made a very important statement. Do
you really believe everything you hear?
MR. BROCK: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: She said that to me.
MR. BROCK: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And she's exactly right.
MR. BROCK: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We should always question
whether we are doing the right thing.
MR. BROCK: Right. And that's all I'm saying that I need to do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And to finish up, me, as one
Page 59
April 25, 2006
commissioner, wants to try to resolve this. And I think if the clerk is
willing to sit down with mediation, at least this one commissioner
wants to do that so we can move on.
MR. BROCK: And I assure you, we have sent letters evidencing,
indicating, asking, for the opportunity to sit down and try to do it in
that particular manner.
You know, this is not good for you, this is not good for me, and
this is not good for the citizens of this community. We need to resolve
this and we need to move on. I have a role in government under our
constitution, and you have a role in government under our
constitution. And you know, we need to respect each other's role and
move on.
And I will do -- I will make you and all of the citizens of this
community a solemn promise. I will do everything within my power
to try to bring this to a resolution.
You know, one of the frustrations that I have had in going
through this process is, as opposed to resolving this, we seem to
always get diverted into these tangential areas as opposed to resolving
the issue that is before us. We need to do that. I want to do that, if we
can all agree that that's what we need to do, we need to sit down and
work out a solution.
You know, there are actually private accounts that you all have
directed money to go into that I think there are some questions from
members of this board that would like to know what's going on there,
and we want to be able to provide you with that information. That's
the role that the Clerk of the Circuit Court plays not only for you, but
for the taxpayers of Collier County.
None of this money belongs to the Clerk of the Circuit Court. It
belongs to the taxpayers. And we have a fiduciary responsibility to
protect it and to ensure that it is expended in conformance with the
laws that govern us as an organized society.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
Page 60
April 25, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, Mr. Brock, if you would,
please.
I'm quite concerned. You mentioned the taxpayers and you
mentioned the fact that this nonsense has got to stop. And I'll tell you,
I've got the same concerns. I am very much concerned about the
taxpayers out there and the hundreds of thousands of dollars that have
been spent on this, and spent on other items in the past where we've
gone to see who is the person that's right or wrong over some
technicality .
Hundreds and thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money has been
spent, tremendous amount of hours of staff time, and I'm not saying
that you're wrong or your right, or our staff is right or wrong, but it is
too much nonsense.
And I'm going to ask some questions now of our county manager
and county attorney. First I want to know, are we making every effort
-- did we make every effort up front to supply the records that were
requested in an orderly fashion?
I want to know where there's been a breakdown in this whole
thing or if there has been a breakdown in the process.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Coletta, I would respond to your question
this way, and that is, a statement has been made that there has been an
impeding of records being made available. Mr. Mudd can comment as
well, but the County Attorney Office, through its representing the
county in a lawsuit that it did not initiate, has provided all
documentation pursuant to public records request and discovery
requests through the court process.
And, of course, the County Attorney Office independently has
very few records of the nature of the litigation instituted by the clerk
itself to generate or provide.
But it has continued to be the understanding of the County
Attorney Office that all documentation has been made available and
that the County Manager's Office has made such representations as
Page 61
April 25, 2006
well, allowing all documentation to which the county has custodial
control to be made available.
And so from that stand -- and the court in the lawsuit initiated by
the clerk or the lawsuit that the county initiated in response, has been
to determine the fundamental statutory and constitutional rights and
obligations of the parties.
It is based on that kind of an intent to make a determination, not
anything else than that, so that when someone says that they want to
follow the law and they expect that we want to follow the law, we're
asking the court in this case, initiated by the clerk, that the clerk
determine what that law is and so we know what the parameters are.
And that's essentially been the context of the lawsuit.
Additionally, of course, two persons were sued for individual
liability, two employees of the county. That continues to remain a
part of the lawsuit and, of course, part of the costs that are engendered
through the defense of those individuals at this point on the taxpayer
nickel as well.
Again, I can state that I can -- I cannot -- I cannot think of any
type of impediment that the county, through the county attorney, nor
that I know through the county manager and his departments, have
provided for the ability for the clerk and his staff to collect records.
And, of course, many of these accounts, these so-called outside
accounts, have been in -- have been in place for many, many years.
That's my statement. You may wish to turn to Mr. Mudd.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, I'll tell you what the
concern here is, is that I know this has been ongoing for some time
where everybody is trying to establish whose authority supersedes
what. Obviously the county feels like they're right, and it's very
obvious that Mr. Brock's office feels like they're right. I'm sure the
clerk wouldn't be pursuing it if he didn't have some feelings that what
he's doing is right.
From your side of the house, this -- from what I understand, what
Page 62
April 25, 2006
we've got is a -- we're not going to have the clerk sign off on your
financial reports which means we would lose out on what if we don't
capitulate to what he wants us to do? What would happen?
MR. BROCK: Mr. Coletta, I don't mean to interrupt you, but I'm
not sure that is a correct representation. You know, I am in the
process of working with Mr. Jones and with the Auditor General's
Office in terms of revising the letter to delineate in great detail the
areas that I have concern of.
And once that occurs, you know, in discussions with Mr. Jones,
you know, there may be some changes to Mr. Jones' management
comments letter that has -- he is in the process of drafting, and he may,
in fact, be able to sign off on the financials and render an opinion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that would be -- then that
sign-off would finalize everything. If that didn't happen, Mr. Mudd,
from your understanding, what would happen?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if there isn't a management letter
that's acceptable to KPMG and their -- and their risk analyst, the
county has without an audit; the bond rating of the county will be
impacted in a very negative way.
Right now we have a very good bond rating. We get good
interest rates on our particular loans. People out there in Collier
County and in South Florida buy our bonds because they are a good,
safe -- and they consider them a bargain. I believe that will change.
I believe we have a risk of having -- because of the requirement
by the state to have an annual audit, that we could suffer some adverse
consequences as far as our revenue sharing is concerned from the
state.
If the state determined that they would withhold our revenue
sharing for -- and I can tell you what it is this year. I can't tell you
what it is next year because there's still changes going on in
Tallahassee as far as legislation that could affect the amount of
revenue sharing that we receive. But it was around $8.2 million this
Page 63
April 25, 2006
year. We -- that could be in jeopardy for '07.
The initial statements that David made represent -- are very
representative of what we've done and what we haven't done. I will
also tell you that the subject of the CAFR and the subject of the
lawsuit are separate and distinct, I believe, in this particular case
because I believe that KPMG's standard of materiality are different
than what the clerk's are, and I believe that mixing that particular issue
-- the two of them together, is not an issue. I think they are two
separate particular items.
I will also tell you that this all started, okay, upon a $21,000 issue
on a boat that the Ochopee district was trying to acquire.
I will also tell you that Mr. Jim Mitchell, who was the clerk's
representative in my staff meeting at the time it was coming forward,
said they had an issue on the particular item and it was withheld for
two weeks to wait, and we continued it, and then we brought it on the
regular agenda.
Mr. Mitchell brought it to my attention after staff said that the
$21,000 was put in a wrong account.
Upon learning that, I said, well, we need to get that money in the
right account and get it where it needs to be.
I was told by Mr. Mitchell that he didn't want to receive the
check until -- until Tuesday when the board was going to discuss this
particular item. And I said -- I said, I can't see why you wouldn't take
it now. If it's in the wrong place, let's take it.
I had Mr. Smykowski deliver that check to Mr. Mitchell on
Friday. On Monday in the newspaper, I found out that the clerk
initiated a lawsuit against the county and said that the reason -- that
the only reason they're paying the money is because he's initiated a
lawsuit.
Well, that wasn't the case, and that's not what I knew, and we
were trying to cooperate with the clerk and trying to rectify.
When Mr. Mitchell mentioned to me that there were a series of
Page 64
April 25, 2006
volunteer groups that had tax ID numbers, I said, that's not right and
we need to correct that, at which time I went to the clerk and I went to
Mr. Mitchell, and I said, we're going to try to fix this, and we were
providing quarterly reports as we were finding out about those
particular accounts and correcting them, either making sure they were
completely 501 C-3s, if there was any staff involved in those accounts,
to get them away from those particular accounts because they had no
business being on any kind of a signature card.
And in cases where those volunteer folks wanted to turn those
particular dollars over to the clerk's office, they have done so over the
last year and a half.
As far as I know, we have provided every bit of information that
the clerk has asked for that we have, and I know of nothing that we're
withholding.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So $8 million may be at stake if
we don't have the proper documentation?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And we'll need every dollar of
the $8 million dollars to pay the clerk's legal battles and our legal
battles. This is insane.
MR. MUDD: That's not my statement, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, there's much here that
is not what is seems, probably on both sides of this issue. But it
appears to me that there really are two issues we need to deal with.
Number one is that the proper accounting of taxpayer dollars is
absolutely essential, and I think we all agree with that, and that's one
of the clerk's primary functions.
And secondly, we should not be in a position where we're
perceived as impeding the ability to account for that.
Now, the thing that bothers me are the allegations by the clerk
that he has been impeded in his ability to perform his job. That
Page 65
April 25, 2006
bothers me. And we can sit up here for as long as we want to and say
that we didn't and he can sit there as long as he wants to and say that
we did.
I'd like to get to the bottom of that. I'd really like to understand
very, very clearly where we have impeded the clerk's ability to do his
job. And if we have, we need to correct that, but I, quite frankly, don't
think we're going to get it resolved by us sitting down with the clerk
and talking about it in the context of some settlement about a lawsuit
that the clerk has filed and that we have filed a countersuit.
I do not want this -- this resolution of what the clerk's
responsibilities are with respect to a management letter for an audit, I
don't want that to be -- to be confused with the broader issue of
someone impeding the clerk in his ability to perform his job.
Now, we can do this in a couple of different ways. We can have
a public hearing, a workshop, and we can get everybody at the table
and we can say, you tell us where this happened and how it happened
and you tell us why you didn't responded to it, and we can sort
through it, or we can get some independent third party to perform an
audit of this whole process and find out what's going on here.
Why is it that we have to resolve things with the clerk through
the courts? Why can't the clerk sit down and talk with us and we talk
with the clerk and we exchange information and we solve those
problems? Because every time I hear this process discussed either by
the clerk or by our staff, something has changed. It's been shifted. It's
a slightly different animal today than it was last week and the week
before.
More organizations are added -- these organizations that get
money like the Botanical Gardens or the Economic Development
Council and the Affordable Housing Commission, and Habitat for
Humanity and things like that.
We need to resolve this issue; otherwise, it's going to go on
forever and ever and ever, so I would like to resolve it, if the clerk can
Page 66
April 25, 2006
find a way to separate those issues of preparing an acceptable
management letter that addresses the materiality of the KPMG desires
from the overall issue of his allegations about us impeding him in his
-- in his ability do his job.
So I, quite frankly, think it is counterproductive to continue
discussing this at this point in time. Either the clerk will or will not
issue a management letter that's acceptable, and that's entirely up to
his determination.
And if he does not, we will suffer -- the taxpayers will suffer
substantial economic harm. If he does, we'll have time to sort out all
these details through whatever means that we can devise.
But I -- you know, I know we've been sitting -- we've been sitting
here for what, three or four years, and we go through the same stuff
every year. Now, I'm not saying that one side is right or one side is
wrong, I suspect it's shared, and I would like to finally get it resolved.
And I would like to do that through some independent third-party
audit. That's where I am.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: How did we make out this year in our
audit? Can KMPG (sic) give us some idea where we -- how we came
out with the audit? Do we have a lot of anomalies?
MR. JONES: No. The audit went very well. Again, the finance
department worked real good. We had some management letter
comments. I don't believe we had any proposed audit differences.
Again, we had full cooperation and everything we wanted, and the
audit went extremely well, and it was a very thorough audit.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Did you have any suspicions that there
might be some anomalies in the system with the county manager?
MR. JONES: No.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You didn't have any of the -- any
concerns?
MR. JONES: No.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Did you -- you went through
Page 67
April 25, 2006
things pretty thorough?
MR. JONES: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And how would that be in
regards to what the clerk would provide?
MR. JONES: Well, the areas the clerk is addressing are not in
the scope that we would be addressing. And as the clerk indicated,
our opinion -- our responsibilities to opine on the county's financial
statements.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. JONES: And so we selectively chose transactions, we
looked for material items, we tried to make sure that discussions that
happen in the board minutes are properly reflected in the county
records, allow that information.
What the clerk is looking at, I think, are a number of accounts
that would essentially be under our radar screen.
Now, it's important to us that the clerk is trying to investigate
those and that he's informing us of those things, and we have
evaluated all the information that has been provided us and concluded
at least from our perspective that we don't believe that the financial
statements that, if they were issued today, would be materially
misstated by not including this information.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And did you have some discussions with
the legal department also?
MR. JONES: I've had a lot of discussions with a lot of people,
but, yes, I've had --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Our legal?
MR. JONES: -- your legal department, yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Was there any concerns that you had
after the discussions in regards to those that we were not in
compliance?
MR. JONES: No. My -- and, again, my discussions with your
legal staff has been essentially, to issue our opinion, I need a signed
Page 68
April 25, 2006
representation letter.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. JONES: I don't want to -- frankly, as Commissioner
Henning said, I've seen volumes of information going back and forth.
I see where one party says we can't get the information, the other party
says, we've given you all the information. I don't understand it and I
don't want to be in the middle of that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I don't blame you.
MR. JONES: Yeah. I just want to issue your audit, which is a
good audit, so --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's -- thank you very much.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. When do we need this letter
signed by?
MR. JONES: I think technically you would have to have it by
the end of September to satisfy the auditor general's requirements. I'm
not sure -- it could be the end of June, I'm not sure. There is -- it's
either a nine-month or 12-month window. And now that I'm thinking,
it may be a nine-month window that the auditor general's requirement
is that the counties file their audit with the state.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'm going to -- I'm going to just
say what I think right on the record here. It sounds like we have a
clash of personalities and ego here. Sometimes this happens just for
positioning. I don't really understand.
But maybe what we need to do are have a couple people from
each department who are not right now affected by this, but who could
speak for each -- for each individual to sit down rationally and try and
work this out. I think in many cases it's just a technicality.
And I understand where the clerk is going with the technicality
and I understand where the county's going, saying, well, we thought
we did everything. And really, nobody's a bad guy here. Nobody's a
bad guy.
Page 69
April 25, 2006
But we want to resolve this. And sometimes when you get --
when you're so immediately involved, you can't resolve it. You need
somebody else to be involved.
My suggestion is to maybe select somebody from each
department to work together and report back. I think we can do that
much easier than working through attorneys.
And the second thing I would like to say is, some of these
companies that I've heard, like for instances, Friends of the Museum
or Friends of the Park, I was part of some of those things back when I
had another life and, you know, we were just like a little church circle,
everybody's raising money.
Oh, we need a sign. Let's all raise money for the sign. We
weren't a part of the county, we weren't a part of anything. We were
going to be do-gooders, and we were going to help by, you know,
cutting ponytails off and bake sales and washing cars to make the
money to buy the sign. Okay, fine, and that was good, that was good.
We didn't know. Nobody told us that we had to sign in with
anything or we had to keep records for anything. So my suggestion
would be, possibly, from this day forward, have a representative from
the clerk's office -- and our county attorney does this quite often also,
county attorney goes out to all these individual groups and gives them
the rules on sunshine.
Maybe a representative from the clerk's office could go to each of
these individual organizations who are -- you know, don't feel they're
affiliated with the county, they're just do-gooders, and let them know,
here's a procedure.
You know, if I would have been on the committee today, I
wouldn't have known who to turn it in to, how to turn it in, where the
account goes. I wouldn't know anything. So maybe there could be an
instruction, and that could -- that could ease some of this stuff. I think
we need to come to an agreement where everybody can walk away
from this thing holding their heads up high.
Page 70
April 25, 2006
MR. BROCK: We would be more than happy, you know. If
you've got a separate, distinct bright line separating an entity and the
county. I don't have any interest in what's going on with this entity
that's not associated with the county.
It is when you start blurring the lines, when -- you know,
somebody made the statement that, you know, these were a1l501C-3s
or they thought they were all 501 C-3s. They're not. They're just bank
accounts, some of them. Some of them, in fact, 501Cs. But even if
they're 501 C, it has the potential for problems if you start blurring the
lines of the activity over --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What causes the blur?
MR. BROCK: I do not know the answer to that. But Ms. Fiala,
we'll be more than happy to explain to everyone, not once, not for the
first time, but again --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's right.
MR. BROCK: -- and again.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It has --
MR. BROCK: I can show you an email from Mr. Ron Jamro that
we happened to find -- wasn't provided to us by the county. It was
provided to us by a private citizen, and then we went to the county and
got with the person who told us where it was located that says, you
know, the clerk's office has already told us that we can't mix and
mingle this stuff.
And then, you know, our concern is that that's not being
followed, that we are mixing and mingling the funds that belong to the
taxpayer. And we will be more than happy to go to anybody you want
us to go to and explain to them our position with regard to that.
You know, our position -- you know, anybody can have a
position. It may be right and it may be wrong, but we will explain our
position if you want us to.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You don't need to explain a
position. We're not in a positioning mode. What I'm trying to say is,
Page 71
April 25, 2006
there's no position. You can just explain to the group, if you're this
way, this is what you need to do, and if you're not, this is --
positioning all of a sudden becomes adversarial again. We don't want
to do that. Okay.
MR. BROCK: I don't.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We still need to get back to the
Issue.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There is nobody that I know of
who is complaining about the proper accounting of funds, of taxpayer
funds. I certainly don't object to that. I think we need to continue to
do that.
I am focusing on the issue that allegations have been made in
writing to our auditor that we are impeding the clerk's ability to do
that. Now, that's very serious. And if that's happening, I'd like to be
in a position to stop it.
And I can tell you, after seeing this stuff happen for almost five
years now, we go through the same cycle, you're not going to get
people from the clerk's office and from the County Manager's Office
to sit down to resolve this. If they could, they would have done it
many, many months ago. We've had two county managers who have
tried to deal with this issue. That didn't solve the problem.
So it seems -- let's get the bottom line. I'd like to ask the auditor
general to come down here and take a look at this thing, both in the
clerk's office and our office --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think that's what we need.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and get an answer one way or the
other and get this thing over with. That's what I'd really like.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Find out what the duties of each person
are.
Page 72
April 25, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Clarification of the duties.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The other point I want to make is, I
do not want to get blind-sided by a settlement agreement that requires
us to drop any legal charges or any legal action that we might have in
return for getting a management letter for our financial report. I do
not want to leave anybody with the impression that this is a process
designed to get us to capitulate on important legal principles which we
feel believe in. If that's what --
MR. BROCK: From my perspective, they're totally separate
Issues.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, that's exactly what I think
too, and that's the way I'd like to keep it. I'd like to keep it that way.
MR. BROCK: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's why I think that having the
auditor general come in and take a look at these issues and determine
whether there is reason to believe that Collier County government has
been impeding the ability of the clerk to properly account for taxpayer
funds, I'd like to do that. I'd just like to get it done, and that way we
don't get burdened with the additional requirements. I don't know how
we'd find people who have the time to do this here. We're already
stretched thinly enough.
MR. BROCK: The clerk's office is in total agreement that it
would be a very good idea to ask the Auditor General's Office to come
down and audit. I think that is an absolutely wonderful idea.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Get a clarification of what the
responsibilities and duties are of each of the officials.
MR. BROCK: Auditor general is not going to give you that, but
to come and look at what's going on.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have to get some clarification onto--
MR. BROCK: I think the lawsuit is going to -- if we can't
resolve that, I think the lawsuit is going to define what our
Page 73
April 25, 2006
responsibilities are, our rights and responsibilities under the
constitution, and --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Maybe then we'll get -- maybe we'll get
some fruition on this whole process that's been going on for a number
of years, because I just don't think it's fair to -- it's not fair to the
county commissioners, it's not fair to your--
MR. BROCK: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- it's not fair to the taxpayers here in
Collier County.
MR. BROCK: I went to one of the legislators last year and I
said, you know, why don't you just pass a statute that says, the only
role of the clerk is to do accounting of what is provided to him, take
out this responsibility of doing the other function, to which he
basically laughed at me and said, yeah, I can just see myself proposing
that up in Tallahassee.
But, you know, all I want to know is, what is my role? What is
my responsibility? If I have a responsibility to protect the taxpayers'
money, I'm going to carry it out to the best of my God-given ability.
If I don't, I don't have to worry about it. My job just got a whole lot
eaSIer.
So, I mean, if I can do something to encourage you to invite the
Attorney General's Office to request the Attorney General's Office and
the legislative auditing committee to come down and look and see
what's happening here and to audit, I think that's a great idea.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Do we have three nods?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You've got three nods.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Maybe comments from either
the county manager or county attorney before we take a final step?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County attorney, could you given us
some direction here?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Or someone from the County Attorney's
Page 74
April 25, 2006
Office.
MR. WEIGEL: Just indicate that the county and we -- the county
attorney has prepared a resolution of for this for the board to consider
and potentially adopt, and we'll be prepared to discuss that resolution.
Again, part of the discussion is, the request of the auditor general,
is it to look purely at Collier County or is it to look at the operation of
the clerk vis-a-vis what it does with Collier County --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's got to be both.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. I want to be clear about that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's got to be both.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep.
MR. WEIGEL: Resolution, Mike? Where is that? In the
context of an agenda, where is the resolution, Jackie, Ms. Hubbard?
MS. HUBBARD: No. The resolution is not to be presented
today. It's not on the agenda. It can be prepared for presentation at
the next board meeting.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good. We'll get that advertised.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, may I say something?
The --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Your light wasn't on.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let me turn on my light,
Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Now your light's on.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me just say that delaying
this, it's going to take a while to get an official from state's attorney's
office down here. Since we are discussing this issue, can we table this
item until later on in the day to where we can have a resolution? It's
something in draft form?
Page 75
April 25, 2006
MS. HUBBARD: Commissioner, yes. We -- I have a draft ofa
resolution proposal, but it's not finalized.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Advertised.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, Jackie, Ms. Hubbard, when you say not
finalized, is it in a draft form subject to review and comment?
MS. HUBBARD: It's in a draft form subject to my finalizing the
resolution itself. I have an outline of one. But I could prepare one and
have it ready before the end of the day, if that was the direction I were
gIven.
MR. WEIGEL: I think we could do that based on that
representation, and for the procedure, a -- if you wish to, a motion to
table can be entertained at any time so that one could be brought into
consideration for the board to come back later today if you wish to.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And, again, my only concern is,
we need to resolve this issue.
MR. BROCK: My question -- and I think Mr. Jones has the
same question -- why do we need a resolution? Why don't you just
give staff direction to request the auditor general to come down?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's a good question.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Would you like to comment on that,
County Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, it can be done either way, but a resolution
of the board, just as often a resolution of the board carries a little
different position, to use that word --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Gives a stronger weight.
MR. WEIGEL: -- a mere request to the staff, yes. And so from
that standpoint, we had thought a resolution of the board indicating
that request might be --
MR. BROCK: I bet you don't have any opposition from the
auditor general to coming down. I bet they will be eager to.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Ifwe can get it done today, why
don't we get it done today and get it done?
Page 76
April 25, 2006
MS. HUBBARD: Fine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Manager, do you have anything
to say?
MR. MUDD: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I wasn't complete.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It still doesn't resolve what
started this even though everybody agrees it's separate and apart. I
will put it on the agenda next week to try to resolve this lawsuit
because, again, I don't think it serves the taxpayers of Collier County
to resolve it in the courts. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I have a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to table this item until
further into the agenda.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, okay, until further today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second it.
MS. HUBBARD: Do you want a time certain? Three o'clock.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can we do it at --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 11 :45.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How much time do you need?
MS. HUBBARD: Three o'clock.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, we've got a time certain.
MS. HUBBARD: Oh, you have a three o'clock. Two o'clock?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Two o'clock.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How about two o'clock?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Two o'clock sounds good then.
MS. HUBBARD: Two o'clock's fine.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. HUBBARD: All right.
Page 77
April 25, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're going to be done.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. There is a motion on the floor
to table this until --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- two o'clock, and we have a second.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, now we don't need -- do we need
Mr. Jones for two o'clock or can Mr. Jones go back to what he does
with his --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm not sure. Maybe the county attorney
can give us some direction on this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We don't need him.
MS. HUBBARD: If it's not too much inconvenience to Mr.
Jones, perhaps it would be wise for him -- I'd like to confer with him
before I finish the final resolution.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Can you do that, Mr. Jones?
MR. JONES: I can.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Fantastic. Okay.
MR. BROCK: You want to talk to us? You want us involved in
this?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
MR. BROCK: You don't want us involved in this? It doesn't
surprise me, but that's okay, too.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's up to the attorneys.
Page 78
April 25, 2006
Item #10D
AN AWARD OF $250,000 FROM AD VALOREM RESERVE IN
SUPPORT OF THE STORMWATER DRAINAGE COMPONENT
OF CITY OF NAPLES' SOLANAJBURNING TREE DRIVE
IMPROVEMENTS - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item on
the agenda, which is item 10D. It's a recommendation that the Board
of County Commissioners approve an award of $250,000 from ad
valorem reserves in support of stormwater drainage component of City
of Naples' Solana/Burning Tree Drive improvements, and Norman
Feder, the Administrator for Transportation, will present. I was -- oh.
I was asked --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I can barely hear you.
MR. MUDD: -- by the city manager if we could help defray
some of the costs on the drainage component of the Burning
Tree/Solana Road. I asked Mr. Feder to take a look and see what he
had as far as funds in his stormwater program. He told me that those
were encumbered, obligated for projects already. I asked him to,
therefore, come forward with an executive summary for this particular
proj ect.
Stormwater on that particular road, on Goodlette-Frank, up and
down from Pine Ridge all the way down to Golden Gate Parkway and
farther down is a problem. We continue to work on it in this county.
It is part of the Gordon River project, and that came up earlier today as
far as a study, the need for stormwater for that particular item.
That proj ect was -- that study was done years ago within -- within
the last 10. And I remember Ms. Councilwoman Penny Taylor
providing excerpts from that study to this board as they were -- the
blue ribbon discussion was commencing about what to do with the zoo
property and the need for stormwater.
Page 79
April 25, 2006
But I'm not going to pretend that I can remember everything
that's in that study, but I will tell you that we're woefully short of
stormwater areas to hold water for the Gordon River Basin, and I
remember distinctly that the water quality park north of Golden Gate
Parkway and to the east of Goodlette- Frank Road only provided about
15 percent of the shortfall, so that I remember.
And staff will provide additional information for Commissioner
Henning, Commissioner Halas, and for all the commissioners about
that project and the need that's still outstanding.
Why I didn't mention all of those things is because stormwater
still is an issue. There are still properties along Goodlette-Frank Road
that flood on a habitual basis, probably more often than should
happen. And I didn't feel that the county not at least asking for cost
share in that particular project would -- could be helpful in the project.
Now, Norman, that's what I know, and that's why you're here.
MR. FEDER: Commissioners, for the record, Norman Feder,
Transportation Administrator. I think Jim has covered much of this
item on the agenda.
One thing I do want to point out to you quickly before I maybe
open it to questions is that there's an incorrect figure on the end of
your considerations there where it shows 180,000 on the executive
summary. That should be $218,482, and that represents two actions
previously to provide funds towards Burning Tree/Solana for the
roadway improvements.
What is being asked today is the option of continuing to partner
with the city on another $250,000 for the enclosure on the north side
and stormwater improvements that would service both county and city
residents in the area.
And I'll open it to any questions that you have.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This settlement, our interlocal
agreement, that we did previously, that had to do with the lawsuit on
Page 80
April 25, 2006
the overpass?
MR. FEDER: Actually previously -- and I attached it -- the
totals, the 218.482, we had two different items previously. We, first
of all, had the issue of the lawsuit on the overpass. That was some --
if my recollection's right, it's in the 70- to $80,000, and we provided
100,000 towards Burning Tree/Solana.
We wanted to do a specific project improvement if, in fact, that's
the final settlement issues on the overpass, and that was action taken
by the board sometime before.
The item you have attached was the second action taken, an
interlocal where we had provided that in our Goodlette- Frank Road
project, we would go back about 300 feet for three lanes on to Burning
Tree/Solana.
And then with the city not having their design fully completed
and having a larger cross-section than that three-lane, we agreed that
our cost would have been 118,482, that's the balance of that figure,
and provided that to the city on an action of the board. And that's why
that figure comes out, previous action of 200 -- I mean, two million --
no, 218 thousand, excuse me, 482 dollars.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, with that -- since
the overpass really has nothing to do with Solana, but we agreed to it,
I would like to see the city council keep the boat speed in Naples Bay
the same as today for these funds, and enter into a local ( sic)
agreement to do such. That's where I would like to take this item.
MR. FEDER: I don't think that's in the purview of what we
brought forward to you, but I appreciate --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know that, but the overpass
has nothing to do with Solana Drive --
MR. FEDER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- but we wanted to work with
the City of Naples. So I'd say, keep the boat speed the same, and we'll
provide the money for the stormwater drainage.
Page 81
April 25, 2006
MR. FEDER: I can't seem to stay away from the controversial
issues, can I?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I apologize, but it's just
my feeling.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Do we -- we pay a stormwater
MSTU county-wide, right?
MR. FEDER: You have .15 mills that is set up for a stormwater
utility, and that's what Jim referred to has been already encumbered
and committed out.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does the city participate in paying
that stormwater --
MR. FEDER: Yes, because it's a millage, the city is charged as
well as the unincorporated area.
MR. MUDD: Correction, it is not an MSTU.
MR. FEDER: Yes.
MR. MUDD: The board took out a piece of the general fund, .15
mills, and dedicated that to stormwater, and therefore the city does pay
as well as the unincorporated.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I like your idea.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, good.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a question that I'd like to ask
before I turn this over to Commissioner Coyle.
Doesn't the city also, they've had instituted for some time, a
stormwater tax for all the residents, and isn't this in the city?
MR. FEDER: My understanding is they have instituted a
stormwater tax, actually Burning Tree/Solana as exists today. There's
some discussion about providing over our right-of-way, but that is
county right-of-way that the improvement is on and proposed on
today.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: But this was part of the negotiation
process way back in 1999 --
Page 82
April 25, 2006
MR. FEDER: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- when they wanted annexation, that the
city was going to take on this responsibility and get this taken care of?
MR. FEDER: That is correct. These items were all part of that
original commitment back in '99 with the annexation.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And what portion is the city going to put
into this kitty?
MR. FEDER: They still have a very large item beyond the 218-
and the 250-, even if that is decided on. Their overall cost, as I
understand it, is a little over two million on the bid to make those
improvements as it stands today.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And yet they were supposed to
get this taken care of back in '99, which probably would have been a
lot cheaper; is that correct?
MR. FEDER: I think they had about a three-year period that
they agreed to to get it done back in '99.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And here we are at 2006.
MR. FEDER: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. If I could expand on that a
little bit. It wasn't the city's action that resulted in it being delayed. It
was a result of lawsuits brought by two members, two residents of the
City of Naples, who delayed this project for many years. And that's --
but you're absolutely correct, had it been permitted to go ahead at that
point in time, it wouldn't have cost nearly as much money.
The other thing is that, remember that the City of Naples pays in
this case 24 percent of all of the stormwater improvements throughout
the county.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What's that again?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Twenty-four percent of all of the
stormwater improvements everywhere in Collier County. They do
that because they pay 24 percent of all ad valorem property taxes.
Page 83
April 25, 2006
So an argument can be made that they're merely using a portion
of their share of ad valorem property taxes to pay for this, and they're
getting $250,000 in value for that. So they are contributing.
But please don't lose sight of the fact that this stormwater system
serves a lot of county residents, not people in the City of Naples. All
of those people north of Solana Road, all the way to Pine Ridge Road
are served by this stormwater system, and the people on the west side
of Goodlette Road all the way up to Pine Ridge and maybe further --
I'm not sure of the drainage north of Pine Ridge --
MR. FEDER: Just about.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- but that water drains underneath
Goodlette Road into this drainage system and is then carried down
south through the Gordon River flowway. So it's not a project that
helps just the City of Naples. It is a project that helps a lot of Collier
County residents.
And there has been a lot of flooding in the area, as we all know.
We have been doing some stormwater improvements ourselves in the
area to try to minimize the flooding during big storms. So it's not
entirely something we're doing -- we're not giving the City of Naples
money . We're actually doing something to help county residents in
this case.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can you clarify, Commissioner, that
you're saying that north of -- as Solana Road turns, is that correct, and
turns into Burning Bush (sic) or whatever it is?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Burning Tree.
MR. FEDER: Burning Tree.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Burning Tree, okay. That -- all that area
north of that is then county -- under county jurisdiction?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: None of that's been annexed into the
city?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It has not.
Page 84
April 25, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Except for Moorings Park.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Moorings Park, yes, but not the
residential community along --
MR. FEDER: I believe it's the Country Club of Naples, and that
is county.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And north of Moorings Park has
not been annexed into the city. That is county property.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So there's a lot of county property
that we're serving with this --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And on the west side of Goodlette near
Granada, that's part of the stormwater area. Is that city or is that
county?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That is county jurisdiction.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
MR. FEDER: And as --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think all -- the coastal
communities in general send -- support this program more than any
other part of the community. And all the residents in Collier County,
in Naples and Marco Island, are still county residents.
All I want to do is try to, you know, kill two birds with one stone;
therefore, I make a motion that we approve to expend up to $250,000
for the stormwater improvements along Solana/Burning Tree Drive
through an interlocal agreement where the city will keep the boat
speed the same as it is today.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, while I agree about the
fact that it's very troublesome the fact that Naples still has the boat
speeds in place, I do see these things as two separate issues. I'd like to
Page 85
April 25, 2006
hear from Commissioner Coyle what his spin on this is. Is there some
way that this would be a possible leverage to get to where this
commission might like to go as far as the boat speeds go?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: As much as the county would like
to have the boat speeds remain as they are, I think our best chance is
to continue to pursue it through the courts.
I don't see that this would cause the majority of the county -- or
the city council members to reverse their position on boat speeds,
unfortunately.
It certainly is a negotiating ploy, but I don't think that getting into
an obvious tit- for-tat situation here over that is going to improve our
chances for negotiating other mutually beneficial arrangements.
I think that the county has some areas -- some issues which
require the city to be somewhat flexible. And I think if we start tying
these things together like this, we will find that they will merely
retaliate on issues that we find beneficial, and we will suffer as a result
of it, and it's not worth it for $250,000 which we know is going to help
service our residents in Collier County and solve a potential flooding
problem.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I'd like to remind this
commission, we've been at it for a number of years where we've seen
it. At different times when the City of Naples was less than pleased
with us, the issue of the beach stickers came up and what the
jurisdiction of them would be.
And generally there would be a meltdown for a couple of weeks,
a month or two, and then we'd resolve our differences and go forward.
I'm not too sure if I want to be in the same position that they tried
to do to us before. I'd like to see us exercise a degree of maturity,
realizing that the boat issue is still an open issue, that it's very
important, but also that what's here is a separate issue that's dealing
with health, safety and welfare of the community in general.
Page 86
April 25, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further discussion? I'll call
the question, that's in regards to the motion that was made by
Commissioner Henning, seconded by Commissioner Fiala, in regards
to tying in the 250,000 in with boat speeds.
Hearing no further comments or questions, I'll call the question.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
Motion fails.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion
we approve this item.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. With -- just as it is, $250,000?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure, up to.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Up to.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For the improvement of.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, great. Thank you for the
clarification. Motion's on the floor by Commissioner Henning,
seconded by Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Coletta.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- Coletta and -- I just want to make sure.
And all those in favor of two hundred -- awarding $250,000,
there's no other strings attached, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 87
April 25, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
MR. MUDD: You said no other -- the string attached is they
build the proj ect.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: I want to make sure -- I want to clarify this
motion. You added something to the motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Let me clarify that the motion is --
MR. MUDD: So I really would like this board to clarify that
direction. It's $250,000 for the stormwater project of this Burning
Tree/Solana Road project upgrade.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And that does not affect boat
speeds, okay, as the county manager stated. So we -- have we got that
clear on the record?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That wasn't my motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's just to approve the staffs
recommendation, right, isn't it, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. That solves it. That solves
the whole thing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My second, too.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. Thank you very much.
Item #11
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to public comment
on general topics, if you'd like to go there. How many speakers do we
have, Ms. Filson?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep.
Page 88
April 25, 2006
MS. FILSON: We have two speakers on this item. The first one
is Kenny Thompson. He'll be followed by Bob Krasowski.
MR. THOMPSON: I'm Kenneth Thompson. I live at 2831
Becca Avenue. Across the street is Dale Steinberg, Dave Steinberg
again. So he's just about as bad across the street as he is at Diamond
Shores, and that ain't good.
But I found out who owns Diamond Shores, and you people
picking on the wrong people. You go over here and you look who
files his taxes. It's filed under one fat man. That's how it's filed. And I
called Joe Schmitt's secretary and I told her step by step how to go
find that.
And these people -- just like Dave and Dale, I know when they
came here in 1972. They didn't have nothing then. They bought that
house they got there off of a county worker. His name was Joe -- ain't
that something? I can't think of his name.
Anyway, he worked for the county as a plumber and he got drunk
one day and he pretty well sold it to him for nothing.
So I'm going to tell you right now, I have lived through nothing
so -- it was the third -- the 30th he got real drunk and he called the
sheriffs department and they told him he was -- they got an
outstanding warrant for him, he thought, in Minnesota, for parking
ticket, and they don't care about no parking ticket.
So they come out and obliged him. So before it was over about
with, he cracked this woman with a two-by-four, deputy lady.
So he took off and he -- this morning he's back. And he's
a-renting that house, I don't know, time after time after time. And I
got to looking at the thing on the thing he's renting it over there for,
and it's from Gary, Indiana. It was Naples, then he changed to -- the
area code to Gary, Indiana. So I called the sheriffs department and I
told them.
So this guy was parking in my yard yesterday, and I went out and
asked him why he was parking there. He said, oh, he just rented this
Page 89
April 25, 2006
place from a guy from Gary, Indiana. I said, how much you give him?
And he says -- by this time here comes truckload of people. He
had just rented it to them.
So this morning I caught him across the street before day light.
He was down here with a bright red club cab Ford pickup truck with
Indiana tags on it. So now everything he's got here is illegally. So I'm
trying to get Guy Carlton to catch him, but it don't seem to be
working.
But if there's anything I can do to help him with the sheriffs
department -- I went over there yesterday, and they didn't show up in
front of -- used to be my lawyer was Larry Martin. And I know that
he showed up there yesterday, Larry Martin's going to get --let him
have what he didn't deserve (sic). Well, he deserves a lot more than
Larry Martin gives him.
But I don't believe I've ever lived in front of a crook like this in
my life. And the whole damn family's a crook, the Steinbergs and
every one of them.
I could tell you a lot about them, how they put the property in
your name and you sign the checks and give him the cash.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, Kenny.
Appreciate it.
MR. THOMPSON: Okay. I appreciate it.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Bob Krasowski.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, Kenny.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Hello. Bob Krasowski, for the record.
There's a couple issues I wanted to address you on.
I had watched your -- the meeting where you went over much of
the Growth Management Plan sub elements, the EAR meeting, and
made -- some of the things you said I thought were pretty outrageous,
and so I wanted to come and comment on them today.
But first off though, I wanted to mention that the reason I wanted
to have the -- that item 16K3 pulled was because it's a very
Page 90
April 25, 2006
controversial issue and involves a lot of money. I know there's
various lawsuits involved in it.
But I thought it would be beneficial to the public to see how the
South Florida -- the South Regional Water Treatment Plant issue is
moving along. And it's really -- I find it very offensive as a citizen of
Collier County that when a request is made to bring this stuff to the
light of day, so to speak, in an open televised part of the meeting, it --
and it doesn't happen, it's really unfortunate. A lot of money involved,
tens of millions of dollars, accusations are flying around. But maybe
the audit, the state auditor, will be looking at that as well, so that's
great.
When you were looking at this -- and this ties in, because as part
of -- the Planning Commission suggested maybe that a utilities
advisory board be formed to put another layer of interaction, public
interaction in place so that these projects that the utilities department
has going on can be discussed and aired so we can avoid maybe some
of the problems that develop, but I notice it was a 3-2, where you
didn't like that idea. You think -- Commissioner Coyle said you had
enough advisory boards or even too many.
But also I want to comment before I run -- before my time runs
out that some of the comments that Commissioner Coy Ie said at the
suggestion from the Planning Commission, that the utility division in
its analysis of options we have now for solid waste management, that
you exclude high temperature conversion burning technologies, that to
exclude that was stupid.
Now, you know, I expect a certain decorum here and a certain
amount of respect back and forth from the community members and
planning commissions and the county commissioner. For him to use
that language against the Planning Commission, to suggest they're
stupid, is just really outrageous, outrageous arrogance. And I see he's
not here now, so maybe I'll just modify my comments. But it just is
terrible. This is your Planning Commission. They put in a lot of time
Page 91
April 25, 2006
and effort.
He likened this suggestion to someone suggesting that we try to
find independence from international oil by ignoring the option of
nuclear waste. Well, what he sees stupid could very -- just well be his
ignorance because someone who is ignorant to the fact --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, Bob. I appreciate
your comments.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Can I finish my comments; have a minute
to just finish up?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Your time ran up, sir. Can you wrap it
up in 30 seconds?
MR. KRASOWSKI: I'll do that. Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay. The -- there are reasons why people
would oppose first looking at or including nuclear or burning
technologies in the first blush of analyses situations. If you're ignorant
to the fact that nuclear waste, the waste after the energy is a problem
that hasn't been solved yet, the disposal of that waste, then maybe if
you could find alternatives without going to the nuclear component
first, that might be a good idea. It's not stupid.
The same with the burning of garbage. There's no burning of
garbage that does not emit pollutants. You find a neighborhood to put
an emitting garbage burner -- first we should look at other things.
We've already done the garbage burning --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Thank you very much for the 30 seconds to
finish up.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. At that we'll take a lunch
break, and we'll be back here at one o'clock. Thank you.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
Page 92
April 25, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, County Manager.
Board of County Commissioners is back from noon recess, and I
believe we're starting off with 7 A.
Item #7 A
RESOLUTION 2006-108 : PETITION V A-2005-AR-8857, LAURA
AND ANGELO PULEIO, OWNERS OF ENZO'S PIZZERIA AND
ITALIAN RESTAURANT, REPRESENTED BY CARLO F.
ZAMPOGNA, OF WOODWARD, PIRES & LOMBARDO, P.A.,
REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM TWO SIDE YARD
SETBACKS TO ALLOW FOR RENOVATION OF THE INTERIOR
AND AN ADDITION TO PROVIDE RESTROOM FACILITIES
AND STORAGE. THE NEW ADDITION ENCROACHES 11.66
FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 25-FOOT SIDE SETBACK
LEAVING A 13.34- FOOT SIDE YARD ON THE SOUTHERN
SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AND ALSO ENCROACHES 14.99
FEET INTO THE REQUIRED I5-FOOT SIDE SETBACK
LEAVING A O.OI-FOOT SETBACK ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF
THE PROPERTY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CONSISTING OF
0.47 ACRES, IS LOCATED AT 4351 BONITA BEACH ROAD, IN
SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, IN
COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And this item requires that all persons be
sworn in and ex parte be provided by commission members.
It's variance 2005-AR-8857. Laura and Angelo Puleio, owners
of Enzo's Pizzeria and Italian Restaurant, represented by Carlo F.
Zampogna, of Woodward, Pires & Lombardo, P.A., requesting a
variance from two side yard setbacks to allow for renovation of the
interior and an addition to provide rest room facilities and storage.
The new addition encroaches 11.66 feet into the required 25- foot
Page 93
April 25, 2006
side setback leaving a 13.34- foot side yard on the southern side of the
property, and also encroaches 14.99 feet into the required 15-foot side
setback, leaving a .01 foot setback on the western side of the property.
The subject property consists of .47 acres, is located at 4351
Bonita Beach Road in Section 5, Township 48 south, Range 25 east, in
Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Would all those that are going to
participate in this, would they please rise to be sworn in at this time.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'd like to, at this time, have the
commissioners, if they have any disclosures, starting with
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Received a correspondence
from Woodward, Pires & Lombardo.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have -- I have met with the
attorney for the applicant.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And I have received
correspondence and email in regards to this subj ect.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, may I say also, I also talked
with staff about this.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep, and I also talked with staff, as all of
us have probably.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I talked to staff, I received
the same correspondence, I met with Tony Pires, and back about a
month ago, before I was familiar with the situation, my daughter asked
me numerous questions about this one and I had no knowledge,
couldn't answer her questions.
Other than that, that's my total disclosure.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Of course, we have heard a similar
Page 94
April 25, 2006
hearing in the past concerning this particular establishment. But aside
from that, I have received correspondence and telephone calls
concerning this petition.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Please proceed.
MR. PIRES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
county commission. My name is Tony Pires here with Carlo
Zampogna representing the petitioners in this variance application.
As outlined in the staff report, this particular application involves
an existing commercial facility located on Bonita Beach Road. And
for purposes of orientation, I have an aerial photograph, once I get my
correct orientation as to the photograph.
Thank you, Mr. Mudd.
For orientation purposes, the property is located right here on
Bonita Beach Road and Valley Drive. And it is -- commercial along
Bonita Beach Road, and abutting the rear of the property are
residential structures.
As a close-up photograph to show you its relationship to the
adjacent properties, particularly the residential property, highlighted in
yellow is the most -- the southerly most adjacent property, residential,
and this is a commercial parcel.
The subject matter of the variance application is right in this
comer here, this particular addition, which are two rest rooms on the
exterior of the building that are ADA compliant, and they're family
bathrooms as opposed to the cramped bathrooms that existed.
The original structure was built in 1990 or so pursuant to the site
development plan pursuant to the regulations that existed at that time.
Under the prior zoning ordinance, before the Land Development
Code provisions as to setbacks in the zoning, the zoning allowed for
zero setbacks along a lot line such as this. So this original structure
constructed here had zero setbacks, then had the requisite setbacks to
the neighbors in the back.
In 1993/1994, a variance was obtained to enclose a Kenwash
Page 95
April 25, 2006
(phonetic) facility and also to provide for a ramp on the -- I'll call it
the southeastern exterior comer.
This application is the subject matter of a request for variance
because, based upon a mutual mistake at the time of the permit
application, I think Commissioner Coy Ie referenced a prior discussion
this board had in November of 19 -- excuse me, 2004 where the
applicant came forward asking the board to lift the stop-work order, to
let him proceed at his own risk, and then pursue a variance
application.
When the application was submitted, the applicant understood
that the bathrooms that would be added to the exterior could be added,
again, in the continuous line of construction, because you have the
existing line established by the prior variance as to the rear yard and
that this bathroom addition in the back would be similar.
So the distance between the residential properties would be
maintained and you'd have a continuous line with the setback being
almost zero on the westerly property line.
The permit was issued. Construction began. At a certain point in
time, a stop-work order was issued. Our clients came before you and
they asked you for the ability to continue moving forward, to move
forward with the variance, and they have with the construction. It's
been completed. It was to maintain the facility as well as protecting
the construction during the rainy season and hurricane season. And
we are here today asking for your approval of this particular request.
The neighbor to the south, this individual, Bains, they support
this application. They've submitted a letter of no objection, in fact, a
letter of support for this application, and they immediately abut to the
south.
We have no response from the parties over to the comer here, but
we understand that they don't have any opposition. We've had no
objection or -- no letter of no objection or no letter of objection to that
particular request.
Page 96
April 25, 2006
The -- again, just a relationship. You may hear some discussion
from Mr. Pritt or some other individuals who say they have a concern
about this variance.
With regards to location of the property and relative to others in
the neighborhood that have provided their input, the property is
located in blue. Two individual unit owners at a commercial
condominium to the west have indicated their support for this petition.
One organization that owns two commercial units have filed
objections and they may object today.
This is the Bains. They have indicated support. Mr. Beepen
(phonetic) owns these two parcels. He has indicated support. And
Elliot and Currie that own these lots about a block and a half to two
blocks away have indicated their objection.
One thing that's important to note with regards to this application
is that it does not increase the intensity, the density or utilization of the
property .
The original site development plan approved in 1690 approves
and has the -- using the parking standards at the time and the criteria at
the time, and the staff has advised you in the application that they
approved a restaurant with 150 seats. There are far less than that at
the present time.
With this bathroom addition on the exterior -- the old bathrooms
were moved and converted to server wait stations.
There is a small bar on the westerly portion of the property that
was constructed as part of the interior renovations, which was the
subject matter of the building permit, and that's for the patrons who
wish to wait -- while waiting for a table for dining.
There have been no additional seats added, no additional tables
added. And regardless, the SDP back in 1990, and the staff will tell
you that, approved a restaurant for 150 seats, and we're well under that
seating capacity at the present time.
In the past there were two variances granted, as I mentioned to
Page 97
April 25, 2006
you, for the enclosure, and for the ramp -- for the concrete ramp in the
back.
With regards to the neighbors, you may hear somebody raise an
issue with regards to a cleanout on the west side of the property. That
was raised at the last minute yesterday by a neighbor, and staff has
investigated it to my knowledge. They've indicated that that cleanout
was part of the original construction back in 1990. So 14 years, 16
years later, excuse me, to raise an issue that's been around for that long
a period of time, I think, is interesting. And if it is an issue, we'll take
care of that, we'll cap it off; do what we need to do to address that
particular issue.
As outlined in the staff report, the restaurant was originally
approved. They met all the development standards at the time,
including parking standards and setback.
The building permit application review details in this particular
process became quite the subject matter of the discussion at the
Planning Commission, and we think ended up going in a way different
tact because of misunderstanding later corrected by a staff.
There was an assertion made at the Planning Commission that
possibly the permit was issued unlawfully because a general
contractor did not apply for it. That was subsequently corrected by
staff. There was a lawfully issued permit from the standpoint of an
owner that could apply for it.
And as far as what the particular building permit indicated, it was
very clear, we believe, it said interior build out and rest rooms, and an
inspection checklist had also talked about roof, structural slab, outside
walls, rafters, outside block walls, all those indicators that, in fact, it
was to be an addition to this building on the west side and on the south
side.
In the rear of the property, as I mentioned to you before, there is
a residential existing home, and that neighbor has indicated their
support for this particular application.
Page 98
April 25, 2006
To give an indication of the relationship of this improvement to
the neighbor to the south, to recall, I mentioned to you and showed
you the aerial photograph with the Bains, who are right behind the
restaurant. This is the bathroom addition at the rear, and this is the --
you can tell there's a continuous line that was established earlier by the
prior variances to allow for the enclosure of the Kenwash facility as
well as the ramp.
And this addition for the bathrooms does not extend past that
line, so you still have a substantial distance between the edge of the
building and the fence, then there is a vegetative buffer that was part
of the original variance, then you have a fence that is on the residential
property. So you have that sandwich kind of buffering effect.
If you notice, there's a gap in the vegetation there, and you go,
gee, what caused that? Well, during Hurricane Wilma, some of the
vegetation was damaged and that oak tree caught on fire by coming in
contact with the power lines. So with an approval of this, we're -- have
agreed to restore the vegetation, plant the vegetation necessary to
bring it to its prior maturity, to continue to provide a nice buffer
between the facility and with the residents to the south.
There are no additional exhaust fans, say, from a restaurant
kitchen that you would have that -- it's not part of the kitchen. This is
the bathroom. You don't have that issue of noise and odors. And,
again, you have the neighbor who's directly behind them most
affected, if anybody is affected, has not only indicated no obj ection, in
fact, supports this application.
I just thought that was important so you can see the relationship
that there's no further, really, line of construction past what has been
established in the past in that we have -- the party who's most closest
to the property has absolutely no problem, no objection to it.
What we would submit is that there's no impact upon the
properties that have indicated their objection as far as the people that
live a couple of streets away. They're not adjacent, they're not visible.
Page 99
April 25, 2006
There's no increase in traffic. There's no increase in density, no
increase in intensity.
Variances are made to take care of issues when there are
mistakes. And unfortunately in this instance there were mutual
mistakes. The original permit was issued in good faith, reliance on
our clients' belief that they could build that bathroom addition on the
exterior at the location indicated. In the staff review, they approved it,
and my clients' belief of the validity of that application and location of
the addition was reinforced by the issuance of the building permit, and
they proceeded.
And we are here today to ask you to grant the variance. It's the
minimum necessary to achieve this purpose, to allow this bathroom
addition to remain.
Again, it provides for ADA-compliant-family-style bathrooms.
The old bathrooms were about 140 square feet. This is about 400
square foot.
So you have a much more usable facility, much more up-to-date
facility. You know, and some people have said, gee, why did you
make it ADA compliant without having to go through the hassle of
somebody knocking on your door saying you have to?
We've all, I think, read the articles in the paper where hotels or
other public accommodations have had people go around who may be
handicapped or need assistance, and then they threaten lawsuits and
file lawsuits, and they get attorney's fees and they get a court order.
Here you have a situation where all that is done without going
through that particular litigation. I'll use that technical term,
rigmarole. It was done to improve the dining experience, done to
provide for ADA-compliant family bathrooms. No addition seating,
no additional intensity.
We would therefore ask for your favorable consideration of it.
And as I mentioned to you before, you will hear from an owner of the
commercial units to the west that they object. Please keep in mind that
Page 100
April 25, 2006
the owners in the remainders of those commercial units in that
building have no objection and support this application. They've been
good neighbors all these years. We're, quite frankly, baffled why
there is that issue with that one property owner to the west of the
commercial property.
And we're available for any questions that you may have.
Also ask for an opportunity to rebut or address any issues or
questions or comments that come up during anybody else's
presentation or comments by the parties who registered to speak.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta, did you
want to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why don't I wait till after staff
makes their presentation?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. PIRES: Thank you very much.
MS. WILLIAMS: Good afternoon. For the record, Heidi
Williams, Principal Planner with Zoning and Land Development
Review.
I would just like to affirm a little bit of the history on this site. It
is .47 acres located at the comer of Bonita Beach Road and Valley
Drive. It is zoned C-4 and has been -- the original restaurant was in
existence, approved by a site development plan in 1990.
On the visualizer what I have is a portion of a current-day survey.
The green outline indicates where the original restaurant's
located.
Due to some conflicts with neighbors to the south based on the
operation of the restaurant, in the early '90s two variances were
approved for the portion that's outlined in pink. That's what we've
been referring to as the original addition, the first addition, and is the
enclosure that Mr. Pires referenced.
The first variance approved an encroachment into the required
25- foot setback. After construction, it was resurveyed and found to
Page 101
April 25, 2006
need an additional portion into that setback.
Today's variance request is for the portion that's outlined in
yellow. I just felt like this was a good visual of how that lines up with
the existing structure.
Prior to the addition being constructed, you had the green portion
and the pink, and the new addition continues the line along the
property lines of the original structure with the first addition.
The permit that was applied for in 2004 was an owner/builder
permit. And as Mr. Pires stated, in the Planning Commission there
was some misinformation that that was not a legally issued permit
because it is a commercial site. But the value was listed less than our
cutoffvalue of $25,000, so an ownerlbuilder could apply for that
permit.
The Planning Commission heard the case on March 16th and
voted with a 6-1 recommendation to forward the petition to you with
the recommendation of denial. They did feel that there were no
land-related hardships in this case.
The variance request will, should you choose to approve it,
would apply to three different locations, the western side of the
property from the original structure to the edge of the new addition __
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which way is west?
MS. WILLIAMS: West is the zero lot line side. So as you look
at that, the left side.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Left side.
MS. WILLIAMS: That's a good question.
The mouse on the screen is hovering over the western portion of
the addition.
This setback today is currently required to be 15 feet because it's
commercial side setback. It is built to 14 -- 14.99 feet into that
setback, so that is the encroachment that needs to be granted.
On the south side, which is there, it is a 25-foot setback because
it's adjacent to residential. The variance that needs to be granted to
Page 102
April 25, 2006
bring this structure into compliance is an 11.66-foot variance, which
leaves 13.34 feet from the property line.
The third possible variance that could be granted today could be
solved administratively. It applies to the first addition. Apparently
due to a survey error there is a small encroachment still existing that,
should this variance be approved, could be cleaned up at the same
time.
The staff analysis is based on the eight criteria listed in section
9.04.03 of the Land Development Code. There are eight of them.
And if you wish, I will go through each of those. They are in your
staff report as reviewed by staff in totality.
Together we don't have a set number of criteria that must be met
to have a recommendation of approval; however, overall staff felt that
the encroachment did not represent anything above and beyond what
had been provided before.
In fact, we've had a difference in how variances have been
applied in the past in this county. Sometimes the variance is applied
across -- blanket across the entire property line. So if you're granted a
five- foot variance, that can apply to the entire side that that's -- that
that is granted to.
In this particular case, it actually applied specifically to the new
-- the first addition structure. That may be where some of the
confusion came in when this building permit came in for review in
2004.
Based on the criteria in the Land Development Code and the fact
that this represents no great potential negative impact on neighbors,
staff has recommended approval with four stipulations; that the
variance is limited only to the new addition, and the previous
encroachments, should you choose to correct those at the same time,
into the south and western sides of the property, and that is as depicted
on the survey. We have an official survey that this was drawn from;
that a site development plan amendment will be completed to depict
Page 103
April 25, 2006
the existing conditions; that no further encroachments shall be
permitted; and that the vegetation along the southern property line be
replaced as required by the first two variances.
I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you very much.
So let me see if I understand it. Originally when they came
before us -- and I was sitting up here at that time, I think everyone was
here except for maybe Commissioner --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No, I was here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You were here, too -- they
asked for a variance -- they asked, not for a variance, but they asked to
be able to proceed and then come back later for a variance. And the
amount of time between that was what, two years?
MS. WILLIAMS: I believe they requested that the stop-work
order be lifted in November of '04.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. But this error is a direct
result of a bunch of contributing factors, one being that staff missed it
when they came to the front desk, from what I understand, and they
misread the blueprint; is that correct?
MS. WILLIAMS: The permit that was submitted did include
plans and somehow in the review of those plans, it was either not
addressed by everyone in the same manner -- it was essentially
granted. The permit was issued, and they began work based on the
permit being issued.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's called human error. And
what we're dealing with here is a variance which is supposed to pick
up on some of these human errors to go forward. We find enough just
cause to grant the variance to be able to bring some equilibrium to the
whole system.
MS. WILLIAMS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is a catch-up type of
Page 104
April 25, 2006
operation, if I understand correctly.
MS. WILLIAMS: That is one thing that the variance process is
for, yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, the Planning Commission,
it was a little disturbing to be able to see that 6-1 for denial, and my
understanding is their denial based upon facts that weren't corrected
until after they had made their finding.
MS. WILLIAMS: Well, I don't know how each individual
member made their exact finding. It's not like a conditional use where
they have to check off that they agree with certain points. In the
variance process it's a yes or no vote, and six people did vote that it
should be a recommendation of denial.
There was that misinformation. It was specifically stated on the
record that there was no land-related hardship, and that is one of the
criteria from the code. It is not --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I understand.
MS. WILLIAMS: It doesn't encompass all of them.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So I mean, even though they
didn't directly refer to the error that was made is the reason why, they
still came up with a denial.
MS. WILLIAMS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But they could have been
unduly influenced by the error that was made during the proceedings
as far as whether the person could legally pull a contract or not, the
builder -- the ownerlbuilder could go ahead and proceed as a regular
contract.
MS. WILLIAMS: That was a topic of discussion prior to the
vote.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, on page 2 of our
executive summary it says no -- and this, I guess, is staffs
observations. No negative impact to the public health, safety or
welfare anticipated as a result of the requested encroachment. The
Page 105
April 25, 2006
new addition visually unifies the rear of building along the same lines
as the original structure and the first addition.
So that's the basis that staff is coming up with for their
recommendations for approval?
MS. WILLIAMS: It's in conjunction with the eight criteria in the
code, but -- and based on a site visit, it did not appear to add
significantly any negative impacts to -- from what was already there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. now, I'm going to ask the
hard question, and I didn't see that in any of the paperwork that was
supplied to us. Suppose this commission today finds there isn't just
cause to agree to this variance, what becomes of the business owner?
What do they have to do at that point in time?
MS. WILLIAMS: The business has to then be brought into
compliance with the regulations that are in place for that site, which
are a 15-foot setback for any new structure and a 25-foot setback for
the southern setback for the structure. Essentially this addition would
need to be removed.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So in other words, the
work that was put in there would have to be removed and they would
have to restore the building to something similar to what it was before
the renovations started?
MS. WILLIAMS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And just one question.
Is there speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. I have one speaker.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I've got a couple of questions I'd
like to ask before I turn this over to my fellow commissioner, Mr.
Coyle, Commissioner Coyle.
When I look at the original application for the permit, I was
wondering if there was somewhat of a little bit of deception in this in
that it says that the contractor cost is $15,000 for the renovation with
Page 106
April 25, 2006
interior -- the interior build out. And basically what it was saying is
that maybe this is what led staff to believe that this was strictly an
interior modification. And then it says add bathrooms. It just -- it
didn't say that the bathrooms were going to be part of the exterior
function of the building.
And I wonder if, because of the fact that it was $15,000, that the
person on the desk could have been duped, if you wanted to put it one
way, that he -- that the person thought that this was going to strictly
going to be done interior as it says on the application here, $15,000.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, if I could, I'll answer that. For
the record, Joe Schmitt, Community Development/Environmental
Services Division Administrator.
And for the other commissioners, if I could refer you to page 49
of 101, and that is actually the application that is submitted by the
applicant when they come in the front building, or in the front door
and apply.
And we're referring down in the lower portion, left-hand side. It
says, contractor's contracted cost, and it says $15,000. That is
basically where we look. If it was $25,000 or more, the applicant,
who was serving as the ownerlbuilder -- and if go through the next
few pages, you'll note affidavits being signed by the applicant that
they're the ownerlbuilder.
The $15,000 is, in fact, what you're referring to, so I could get the
other -- make sure the other commissioners are on the same page.
You asked, would they be duped? In actuality, the first -- the
first piece where this goes to -- and I want to refer you to page 53 of
101, and up above it's planning review. All commercial buildings go
through planning review, and it's normally at the front counter. It's
one of our -- our planners who actually sits at the front counter and
reviews these. And you note he held it based on parking.
And as Heidi mentioned, I can only assume -- and we, when we
pieced this back together again -- and we know, as they stated on the
Page 107
April 25, 2006
record, back in November of 2004, the error was basically made at the
front counter when all I can assume, and through just discussing the
issue, that they believed that the original or previously approved
variances applied to this addition as well.
And that's where, in the southern line, where it -- came in line
with the previously built cooler, and on the western side, aligned with
the western wall, so that the planner at that time basically made a
judgment and concluded that the previous -- previously approved
variances applied and did not require that the applicant submit an
amended SDP.
It goes on through all the review criteria, and I'm going to direct
you to page 61 of 10l.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ijust want to--
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I just want to bring up here that when
this applicant came before the Board of County Commissioners on __
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- on November 16,2004, Mr. Thornton,
who was representing them at the time, basically said about the
variance that you're talking about --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- the first one, that the variance is pretty
specific and it says it was only for the specific improvements for 1994.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So to me this says that the
applicant knew that he couldn't extend that variance on to the new
construction, that there would have to be some other things that were
taking place.
The other thing that concerns me is the fact that when they came
before the board, it says, they decided to make some interior
improvements and remodel and add on some nicer and larger
bathrooms. They applied for and obtained the permits for these
Page 108
--, "'-"'--"'-_,,~_,_~
April 25, 2006
improvements.
A few weeks later after putting $75,000 into the project, when
they originally said that it was only $15,000, and I think that's the
cutoff. So I'm trying to figure out if the $15,000 is the price, or was it
$75,000 that they came to -- at the time, and at the point they came to
us in regards to this variance, they hadn't even put the tie beam in
place.
MR. SCHMITT: Okay. I'm trying to answer a couple questions
at the same time. I cannot -- I would have to defer that to the
applicant because they're going to have to -- I know they stated on the
record November was a $75,000 addition. Here the applicant
indicated $15,000.
Just so you understand, when an applicant comes in the front
door and places a construction value, I really do not question that
value and -- within some reason we do. But I don't do a quality
takeoff, our folks do not do an analysis. Frankly, if appears __
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If a large construction company came in
and said, I'm going to build this large building and it's only a million
dollars, in reality, it's $10 million, don't you think that the county is
taking a hosing on this?
MR. SCHMITT: I base my -- well, to answer your question,
probably so because I based my fees on the construction value. It's
called the construction evaluation -_
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is that right?
MR. SCHMITT: -- valuation tables. The applicant is charged a
fee based on the value of construction, and 99 percent of the time we
accept the value they give us. If it is really out of whack, we will so
note. There are two values on there, Commissioner. One is __
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Fifteen-thousand, one, and when they
came to us, it was 75,000. So they -_
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- exceeded the limit at which this person
Page 109
April 25, 2006
can be his own construction supervisor, boss or overseer; is that
correct?
MR. SCHMITT: At the time of app -- yes. To answer your
question, $25,000 is the limit.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: At the time of the application, the applicant
indicated there was a $15,000 value of construction. So they naturally
certainly would have, and that was placed on the record in November.
They were -- as I wanted to point out on the page, we certainly
went through all the proper reviews, and they were caught at spot
inspection or spot survey.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's because they didn't bring a site
development plan the first time that they put the application in.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. But we noted on -- page 61 is
where we do all the checks for all the various elements of the review,
and we noted a spot survey required. Spot survey is required within
10 days of placing the slab. Anything that's done beyond spot __
beyond placement of the slab is done at the owner's risk.
They came in noting that the walls were already up, they were
ready to go to tie beam, which is the next inspection, and they asked to
proceed. But, yes, we did catch them at spot survey . We recognized
the error, and that's part of my checks and balances. I -- if I didn't
catch it at the -- initially, I'll catch it at spot survey.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: But my question is to you, that when
they came in initially --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- and they talked to the person that was
working for you, they were led to believe that this is strictly going to
be in the confines of the footprint of the building as it was prior to
putting the bathrooms on; is that correct?
MR. SCHMITT: I think the -- the planner made that assumption.
The rest of the department did not.
Page 110
April 25, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. But the planner did because at
that point in time he realized that it was only $15,000.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Now, when you look at the addition--
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- okay, this addition, I believe, is 12 feet
by 39 feet; is that correct?
MR. SCHMITT: Approximately, yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So I figure that out, it's about 468
square feet. And if it's by $15,000 that tells me he's building this
whole thing with the plumbing, wiring and everything else at about
$32 a square foot.
MR. SCHMITT: Right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think the guy ought to be in the
business of making affordable housing.
MR. SCHMITT: Right. I would concur that in my professional
opinion that they could not build it at that price. But, again, I wouldn't
know what -- if they were given all the brick. I mean, that's the kind
of thing we don't -- and I know that's just -- I don't go into that kind of
detail during a review process as far as the cost.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And at the time that they came here--
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- when the person that was involved in
this, we asked them then specifically if they had added the tie beams,
and they said no, they didn't, but they already had $75,000 into the
project. We then -- the fact of -- I said, if we have them put the tie
beam in, then I think we could rectify this problem by going back to
the base line.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Of course, I believe the commissioner
said you realize that you're doing this at your own risk, okay?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
Page 111
~------<- ---'--,._- ~
April 25, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: But I just wanted to get the record clear
that they did come before us and said that they had $75,000 in the
project, yet the application in the paperwork basically said that they
had $15,000 in it.
So I think where the Planning Commission was going was that
they had an idea -- I don't know if they read this information or not--
but I think they had an idea that there was more involved in this than
really met the eye, and they realized that they probably exceeded their
boundaries as far as the 25,000.
Then I think Ms. Murray said that the -- in her opinion that the
application was not filled out clearly enough to describe exactly what
was occurring and implied that stricter interior renovations were
occurrIng.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct, that was our assumption.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: And just to follow up on a question. I know
you asked, but I don't really think I gave you the answer because what
I believe you were asking me was, should the applicant have known it
was a variance? And having gone through a variance procedure in the
past, one could only assume that they would understand that a
variance could, in this case, be required as well. But, again, I have to
defer that to the applicant, because I can't answer for them specifically
in that regard.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have one last question, and then
I'll turn this over to Commissioner Coyle.
In 1993 a variance was granted and then it was discovered. Now,
this is from Susan Murray.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: In 1993, a variance was granted and then
later discovered that it was -- actually the construction that had taken
place actually encroached further than the variance. The original
variance was granted in '93, and so they came back in '94 for an
Page 112
April 25, 2006
additional variance.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. And that's what we're here for as well.
That was the additional variance that Heidi mentioned because the
variance did not really cover what was built.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, what we're -- I think what Susan
Murray was trying to get across here is that they came forward, they
wanted a variance, they were given the variance, but then they
exceeded that, they pushed the envelope even farther.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much.
And so the bottom line of all that is that the Planning
Commission is absolutely correct that they did not have a valid permit
to proceed.
MR. SCHMITT: They--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They did not have a valid permit to
proceed because they exceeded the maximum amount of money that
they're permitted to be the contractor.
MR. SCHMITT: The Planning Commission believed that they
did not have a valid permit. When we discussed it during the hearing,
never correcting -- when we came back and corrected that the $25,000
is the limit. But to answer your question, they believed that the
contractor, ownerlbuilder at this time, basically exceeded the limit.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. So they were absolutely
correct; they did, in fact, exceed the limit.
MR. SCHMITT: I have nothing to validate that. What I have is
a$15,000--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, what we have is the
testimony of the petitioner themselves that they put $75,000 into it.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So the petitioner himself has said
that he put $75,000 into it. That exceeds the limit. So, in fact, they did
Page 113
April 25, 2006
not have a valid permit, so the Planning Commission was, in fact,
correct.
MR. SCHMITT: You can make that conclusion. I'll have to
defer, again, to the applicant to argue in that case.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That was said in a sworn hearing
before this board, and everybody stands up and says, I'm going to tell
the truth when we come here, and I presume they must have told the
truth.
So now let's go to another issue here. Let's imagine for a moment
that this is a house.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we discover that the house
sometime in the past had built an addition into the side yard setback.
Could we then come in and say, well, they've already built that one in
the side yard setback, let's let them build another one so they can sort
of square it off. You know, does that really make a lot of sense?
MR. SCHMITT: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, let's take it a bit further.
There are other commercial buildings to the west of this one. We
approve this encroachment into the rear yard setback, why wouldn't
we be obligated to do the same thing for any other commercial
building owner in this area?
MR. SCHMITT: Each variance is handled under its own merit,
so --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Unless you're saying -- if you're
saying that this does not grant special privileges to this property owner
-- and you have to say that if you're going to meet all the requirements
of granting this variance.
MR. SCHMITT: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So if you're saying, this does not
grant special privileges to this property owner, it means that every
other property owner there has the same right, and so they can come in
Page 114
-_. .._--"----~
April 25, 2006
and demand that they can enlarge their buildings into the rear yard
setback too.
So unless we're planning on doing that, we have to make a
decision that this does, in fact, confer a special privilege upon this
particular property owner.
MR. SCHMITT: Again, as Ms. Williams pointed out, we don't
value -- you don't have to meet all eight criteria, and I __
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand. But you don't need to
fail all eight criteria either.
MR. SCHMITT: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so, the bottom line is, we need
to recognize this for exactly what it is. It is a building that has
outgrown its size for this lot, and the petitioners are trying to make it
up by encroaching onto setbacks. There is absolutely no reason
whatsoever for these additions to be made unless there is an intent to
expand their business and have more customers. Where were the
bathrooms before? There had to be bathrooms.
MR. SCHMITT: They were in the exterior portion of the __
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They've been converted to
something else, haven't they? Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I think we'll find that the
whole -- the whole purpose of all this is to expand the business and __
beyond what it can logically accommodate.
And I've read this record in great, great detail. It is one series of
very well-calculated steps to reach a desired goal of having a bigger
building without having to get the proper permits to do so.
So I haven't heard all the testimony, but somebody's going to
have to work very hard to convince me that I should vote for this.
MR. SCHMITT: I mean, that's --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
MR. SCHMITT: That's not for Heidi and I to answer that.
Page 115
.------ -~-----,.
April 25, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Halas, you can
probably answer this question because you have the record there from
when they petitioned -- when they petitioned us to proceed. But the
September 6 is -- '04 is when they applied for the application.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When is --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: This is November 16th--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: November 16th.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- 2004.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it was after they applied for
the permit that we found out it was more money than they applied for.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, that's by their own testimony.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So is this the owner of the
restaurant, operates the restaurant?
MS. WILLIAMS: The owner does operate the restaurant. It's
not leased out to another entity.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, the owner -- the owner of
the restaurant is the one who applied for the permit?
MS. WILLIAMS: Right. The owner applied as the
ownerlbuilder for the original permit. And you're correct that they
applied and were issued the permit --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MS. WILLIAMS: -- prior to the statement of the cost. And the
one -- the value on the permit didn't have any contradicting
information at the time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, you know, every
time my wife goes to the grocery store, I figure she's going to spend a
certain amount. She always goes over that, okay, and that's because
she has more knowledge of that than I do.
I think this gentleman operates a restaurant. He's a cook? And
Page 116
"'----..-. ~-'--"'-
April 25, 2006
until somebody swears that he is lying to us, I'm going to -- I'm going
to take it for what -- I'm going to take him for his word.
Now, I'm sure -- and I hope the owner comes up here and
clarifies the record, but I do not want to personally treat our residents
that they're liars or cheaters or so on and so forth. But I understand
that -- the concerns of some of my colleagues.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have one speaker on this?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir, we have one speaker.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Public hearing.
MS. FILSON: Robert Pritt.
MR. PRITT: May I approach?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You can use that or -- oh, I see.
MS. FILSON: I can hand those out for you, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sir, we can't read that today. I hope
you're not thinking that we're going to read that in the time you're up
here. Hopefully your presentation will clarify what's there.
MR. PRITT: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, thank you.
MR. PRITT: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Board of Zoning Appeals. My name is Robert Pritt. I'm with the law
firm of Roetzel and Andress. I'm here of behalf of the neighbor
immediately to the west, the owner of one -- unit 116 located at 4365
Bonita Beach Road.
The documents that you have in front of you are not that
formidable. They're primarily photographs, the same paragraphs that
were submitted by me at the Planning Commission hearing, and
presumably should be in the record already. I don't know if they were
given to you or not, so anyhow, they were presented then.
Also the letter that I had submitted to Heidi Williams, the
planner, on March 8th. I have a copy here also. I presume that that is
already in the record. What I have added to it are just a couple of
documents, and I'll go through that in just a second.
Page 11 7
April 25, 2006
What I would like to say is, we do object to the granting of this
after-the-fact variance. I urge the Board of Zoning Appeals to
determine the variance criteria are not met for several reasons.
And I -- mercifully I tried to summarize these for you in the letter
that's dated today. Again, most of that letter that's dated today from me
is the same material as was presented to Heidi Williams in the March
8th letter that I had sent.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sir, I just want to let you know that you
have five minutes on this, okay?
MR. PRITT: Yes, sir. I would ask for a little extra time if
necessary, but I'll try to keep it very, very brief.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Appreciate it.
MR. PRITT: Thank you.
As to the parking -- a lot of these things have been asked by the
chair and by members of the commission already, but I'd like to
comment on, if I may.
Parking. We think that the expansion of the profit center creates
a need for additional parking which is not provided. And I have -- I'm
not very good at using this visualizer, but I do have a copy -- Mr.
Mudd, thank you.
I do have a copy of a photograph of the center of the property,
and I think you have that in your documents. But what's happened
here -- it's kind of hard to see, but what has happened here is they've
moved the main entrance to the west, and that is down next to the
property next door, our client's property next door.
Oh, by the way, I forgot to say that our owners are here. They
are not going to testify since I'm testifying in their behalf, Sue
Myhelic and Jean Rhodes.
But anyhow, what I want to say on this is that the -- by moving
the entrance, the main entrance down to the west, this has a tendency
of putting the parking over onto our client's property off-site because
people will go from the closest parking spot to the door. That is a
Page 118
--_.... .----.----.."'.,.,..,
April 25, 2006
concern we've had. In other words, there is a change because of the
reconfiguration of this property, and it does affect our client.
Secondly, I think that somebody has brought up the question or
made the comment, which we agree with, that this is not really an
expansion to accommodate rest rooms. It's really -- the moving of rest
rooms from a place where they were taking up space that could
otherwise be used for restaurant purposes and moving them to an area
where it is within the -- the encroachment -- the encroachment area.
So we think that this is really an expansion to make room for
more restaurant, and we do think it's too much on too little, as has
already been stated by one of the members of the board and several
members, I think, of the Planning Commission.
With a -- we do have problems with the zero setback. One of the
photographs shows the cleanouts outside. I think that Mr. Pires had
indicated that that's always been there -- but there's a cleanout in the
picture here, right here, and with a one-tenth of one-inch setback on
the side, it's obvious that there are going to be encroachments in the
back there.
The -- as to the conditions that your staff set out, I'm in kind of a
strange position, a staff that I'm not sure wishes to be defended. I can
understand very clearly that there's a feeling that if there is a staff
mistake, then that mistake ought to be somehow clarified or
straightened out by the staff, and maybe going through the variance
process is something that's available.
However, I don't think that this was a staff mistake. I think that
this was something that was sent to the staff, and it was -- whether
intentionally or not -- I don't know that it makes any difference.
Whether intentionally or not, this was something that was presented to
this staff. I think the staff acted in good faith on it, and something got
by, and I don't think it was a mistake.
And I will tell you -- you can check with your own attorney; of
course -- but I will tell you that it doesn't make any difference if it's a
Page 119
April 25, 2006
staff mistake. If there is -- if something is issued improperly, than it
should not -- it has no standing whatsoever in the law, and are you not
obliged to grant relief in that situation.
The last thing I'd like to say -- and I'll be glad to answer any
questions. The last thing I'd like to say, at the hearing, the Planning
Commission hearing, there was an issue that was raised actually, I
think, on rebuttal in which Mr. Pires indicated there was actually an
encroachment on the side of the property, my client's building.
I did some further checking, and I have the documents in the
packet here. And, in fact, two of those units are owned by the
applicant. Two of the units in the building on the right here in the
photograph, same building my clients are in, are owned by the
applicant. It's called the Passage to India Restaurant, but it's owned by
the applicant.
And those two units where there is an encroachment are their
units, so they've done the same thing in the building on the right,
without any permits whatsoever, as they're trying to do here with the
building on the left.
I think that's further evidence that they're just trying to get as
much room, as much space as they possibly can, and come in if they
get caught, ask for forgiveness, and I don't think that's the correct way
of doing it.
I did go through an analysis. We agree with most of what your
staff has said, except we disagree with some of the conclusions.
There's nothing special about this parcel whatsoever.
Everything was done by the applicant. It was not somebody else
that did it sometime in the deep dark past. Certainly the current
matters have been brought on by the applicant.
And I recall standing here a couple of years ago in front of this
same commission -- most of you were on the commission at the time
-- and you told me (sic) to tear the building down.
After-the- fact variance -- and that was even a clearer mistake of
Page 120
April 25, 2006
mutual error. But I don't think you have a mutual error here, and I ask
you to stick to the law. You do have good standards. These are pretty
common standards. You have good standards. Please stick to the law
and not grant this variance.
I'll be glad to answer any questions you have.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Questions from commissioners?
MR. PRITT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
MR. PRITT: I would ask that my documents be made part of the
record. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I didn't -- I didn't read it. I think
it's very inappropriate for somebody to submit a document like that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, the letter was in -- the top letter
was in our documents. The only thing I believe he brought into the
realm of things was the pictures. That was the main thing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not going to read it. It's
more than -- more than just pictures in there. I recognize the letter's
within our document, but I'm not sit up --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: How could you recognize it if you didn't
accept it, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I recognize the document in our
packet.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I can't -- it's impossible for us to
comprehend something that is pages and pages.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And there was plenty of time
between the Planning Commission and this -- and this meeting for it to
be submitted.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know. I just want to draw a
Page 121
April 25, 2006
parallel.
Commissioner Henning, I agree with you, although I've got to
admit, you did the same thing this morning, just when we were sitting
down, handing out documents. I think from now on when documents
are going to come up here to the dais, that we have the right to be able
to comment before they're handed across to us, whether it's from
fellow commissioners or from the audience, because it is difficult.
You get them on the record, supposedly some day people can
say, well, you had all the information in front of you, and I think we're
probably guilty of that too.
In this case, I agree with you on this. You get something like this
in front of you, even though it's only some pictures, the fact that it
happened, I mean, that we got it. You don't know what else is in
there. We haven't had a chance to review it.
MR. PRITT: Could I make a request? If you're going to do that,
if that's going to be the -- if that's going to be the rule, would you
please instruct your staff to make sure that they actually put those in
the record and that those are in the packet that you have in front of
you? Because I submitted the documents to the Planning Commission
prior to the -- or to the staff prior to the Planning Commission
meeting, and it did not get in the record, so I had to pass it out, so here
I am again today.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's interesting, because the minutes of
the meeting where these people came before us, that wasn't in our
packet either. I had to dig that out, too.
MR. PRITT: It's very difficult -- and you know, I'm not
criticizing, it's just very hard to get something that gets in the record.
And I'm sympathetic with staff, but there needs to be a place where
you can pre-file your documents and know that they're going to go to
the tribunal.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One of the things that people do
quite often, petitioners, is that documents that they have, they'll submit
Page 122
April 25, 2006
to our office a couple days beforehand, and our secretaries are, on a
continuous basis, bringing them in to us for us to read to be able to do
it. But I mean, at the time we're going to be hearing the item, it's so
inappropriate to receive documentation on it that we're supposed to
base the decision on. This is something we're going to have to deal
with at another time. I don't think --
MR. SCHMITT: To correct the record, it's in the record, page 96
of 101. The same letter is in the record.
MR. PRITT: Thank you. Is that the --
MR. SCHMITT: That's the staff summary. That's the letter you
issued March 9th.
MR. PRITT: Right, okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Joe, how about the rest of the stuff that
was presented to us just a few minutes ago? Was that in our report?
MR. SCHMITT: None of that was issued to staff. None of that
was part of the Planning Commission. Just later of March 9th. It's on
page --
MR. PRITT: Wait a minute. The photographs were. All my
photographs were submitted to the Planning Commission at the
meeting, at the hearing.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm a little disappointed that this was--
MR. PRITT: I'm sorry. I stood there, and I submitted those to
the Planning Commission.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would just like to point out
something. The essence of Mr. Pritt's letter was in our packet. We
understood that and we read it.
The photographs he has referred to, he has shown us during this
presentation. It's my understanding that the presentation and the
materials used in the presentation do become part of the official
record; is that not true, County Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, that's correct. And in the past, even years
Page 123
April 25, 2006
ago in the past, particularly under land use items, for instance, a
petitioner would come in, or someone else with a significant interest
evidently, and their counsel would lay down a binder.
And I learned early on to indicate to the board, let the record
show that the Board of County Commissioners has not had the
opportunity to review this which has been submitted to the record.
That's not to say that it can't be put into the record.
But I noted when Mr. Pritt was starting his presentation and
mentioned the fact that he had some material to hand out that Mr.
Halas and Mr. Henning both indicated that they couldn't see it, hadn't
seen it, and that there was a lot to review and that would not be -- one
or more indicated that they would not be able to review it during the
course of the hearing.
So I felt at that point enough record was made relative to this
material as being put in to not interject myself. But typically that's
what I have done in the past, particularly when a mass of stuff has
been given.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Attorney, if this information was
submitted to the Planning Commission, can you tell me why it wasn't
submitted as part of the -- part of our agenda package for review?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, not particularly, although typically--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I would hope that it wouldn't be used to
jade the findings here.
MR. WEIGEL: Right. Are you talking about this material by
Mr. Pritt that was submitted to the Planning Commission?
I think the question you'll need to ask the community
development/environmental services staff is, if, in fact, everything
that's submitted to the Planning Commission has traditionally become
a part of your binder.
Sometimes that could be massive amounts of materials that come
in from multiple submitters as far as that goes.
So to the extent that it goes into the published agenda materials
Page 124
April 25, 2006
that you receive or comes up separately may be a question that you
want to pose to them to assure that all material is coming up. But it
was a part of the Planning Commission record if it was submitted
during the course of that meeting.
But the answer -- part of the answer is, does all of the record,
meaning everything submitted, come to you in this binder, and I
suspect that the case is not merely no in this particular item, but
probably in other items, too, just on -- because of the mass of stuff
that's coming in.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I guess where I'm going with this, I had
to ask for this --
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- and it was something that I think
might have been pertinent to the information that was presented today
in light of the fact that the discussion in the Planning Commission
was, what was the real value of this particular permit.
MR. WEIGEL: Right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I think that that might have been
something of value for all of us here to look at and not just have one
person research all that particular information.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, kudos to the researcher, but I agree with
you that -- and I don't know who that is, but I agree with you that it
appears germane to the discussion today, and so, therefore, if there's __
I would suggest that if there is a weeding out that's done, selection,
that we have -- we, the staff, meaning whoever the staff is, has to be
very careful about the criteria because it mayor may not relate
directly to issues that are coming before this board.
And so if one is tending to make a decision, it would be to be
inclusive rather than exclusive in regard to materials that have come to
the Planning Commission and then to you. It sounds as if your
thought and discussion is not to have less ability to -- any less ability
to make a determination than the Planning Commission that's making
Page 125
April 25, 2006
the recommendation to you in the first place.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, we rely on the Planning
Commission and other advisory groups--
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- in regards to information, and
especially in something of this nature, since it -- the vote was
somewhat unanimous in regards to the findings of this, so --
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, sir, a heavy vote, correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any other discussion? Any other
questions?
MR. PRITT: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Pires?
MR. PIRES: If I may, Mr. Chairman, members of the board,
have a few moments on behalf of the petitioner to reply, rebut or
comment on various aspects that have been addressed.
First of all, I think it's important to note that the clients Mr. Pritt
represents are engaging in remodeling activities without a permit on
their property. That dumpster belongs to the folks he represents for
tearing apart the inside of their building. I don't know how much
that's costing, but that's going on, because they can't get a permit to do
that, but they're doing it.
So I think it's important to look at who's throwing the stone, the
credibility of that particular person.
With regards to the issue about the ownerlbuilder, the only way
that came up in the Planning Commission was, the question was
whether there could be an owner/builder permit for a commercial
structure.
There wasn't a real discussion about dollar value when the
Planning Commission made its determination. So I think by going off
into us doing a take-off today on something that was analyzed a
number of months ago when the permit was submitted, I think, is
inappropriate.
Page 126
April 25, 2006
But just for your edification, I think it was important to note that
when the presentation was made by Mr. Thornton, I've been advised
that those numbers that were discussed included the client's project
budget, a point of sale system that cost $10,000. There's planning and
design costs that are not part of the real cost of the construction that
don't show up in the permit, and that's part of the cost that this person
has in the proj ect.
You have cost of refrigerators, commercial -- there was a whole
renovation which doesn't always include permit activities. You get
new tables, you get new chairs, you get new mirrors. Those things are
personal property. They're not part of the cost or permit application.
That's the $75,000, Commissioners, that was being discussed by
Mr. Thornton. It wasn't the cost of the construction. It's cost of a
project. Planning, design, personal property. All those improvements
have become part of that particular operation.
So I think it's important that it not be mischaracterized, that it be
put in the proper context.
And as to the scope of the work, if you have a mistake of fact __
and I think the staff has admitted, they've come forward and said,
yeah, this was issued under our misunderstanding, mistake, but you
look at the checklist.
And page 61 of the permit, of your agenda packet, the
components as part of this permit included structural footings, slab, tie
beam, column, monolithic slab, final roofing, all those indicators that
this was an exterior addition. Why else would you have all that stuff
unless -- if you're just doing interior stuff? You wouldn't have all that
associated with it. So I think, again, there was no --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Mr. Pires, I believe that that was listed
after the fact, that they found out that they had a problem here __
MR. PIRES: No, sir. This is August 23, 2004.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- with the site development plan __
MR. PIRES: Mr. Halas, with all due respect, if you look, that's
Page 127
April 25, 2006
part of the permit application that's at page 61 of your agenda packet.
It's part of the county staff checkoff. This wasn't done afterwards.
This was done during the permit review process, and I think Mr.
Schmitt can verify that.
MR. SCHMITT: I could just validate that that page on 61 is your
final permitting process. Some people refer to that as final typing, but
it's also validating all the fees and all the required inspections
associated with the proj ect.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: This is for $15,000, right?
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. That's what was noted, and the
fees on there are as such, but there was no -- all the required reviews
associated with this project, structural, electrical, fire -- I'm going back
to page 54, 55, 56 --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: When did you decide that they were
going to have footings, that this was going to be outside the realm of
the interior of the building?
MR. SCHMITT: Prior to the permit being issued. Understand,
there's two separate reviews. There's a planning review through zoning
for commercial review for setbacks, for parking, for height, then the
building department doesn't worry about the zoning issues.
They saw that this was signed off by zoning. They focus on the
Florida Building Code. They focus on the requirements for structural
compliance, electrical compliance, water/sewer, all the other
associated things with the vertical portion of the building.
And those were all as of -- in fact, there was a rejection. There
was a fire restriction. This had to come back in, and that's why we
provided this entire packet. On page 66 there was a second correction,
and 67, where it had to come back in.
So all those criteria -- this was not like we didn't know this was
an exterior. On page 69 of 101 --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Wait a minute. You told me when you
and I discussed this that the person that was at the front desk assumed
Page 128
April 25, 2006
when this application -- when this gentleman came forward with an
application, it was assumed that everything was going to be done in
the interior of the building and nothing from the exterior; am I right or
wrong?
MR. SCHMITT: The zoning person --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Am I right or wrong? When this came in
originally that this was strictly an inside job, it was going to be --
everything was going to be in the confines of the building?
MR. SCHMITT: You're correct, that's -- the application -_
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm correct.
MR. SCHMITT: -- said interior build out.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Exactly.
MR. SCHMITT: The zoning staff reviewed it and gave it the
approval. Then it goes to the building department.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: They didn't have -- they didn't have --
they didn't have a site development plan, did they?
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct, they did not.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So how could they approve something if
they didn't have a site development plan?
MR. SCHMITT: That was the error that was made. I mentioned
that. They made the assumption that even if we -- even with the build
out, they met all the criteria. But it still goes to the building
department, went through all the appropriate reviews in the building
department.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The reason that staffmade it is because
of the fact that it wasn't very clear, and the paperwork was not filled
out properly by the applicant to start with; is that correct? There was
-- there was some errors that were made in the paperwork that were
submitted by the applicant; is that true or not?
MR. SCHMITT: I don't know what you're referring to, error,
other than it says, interior build out and add rest rooms.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And it wasn't clear exactly what their
Page 129
April 25, 2006
full intention was of this modification.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, with the zoning department, I
can say it was not clear. But the building department, it was very
clear, because it went all -- through all the required reviews.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It did after somebody snagged it and
said, I think there's something more to this.
MR. SCHMITT: Not correct. We didn't snag it. It went through
all the proper reviews. The building permit was issued, and then it
came in for the spot survey when we discovered that zoning said, you
know, we -- we approved this in error. We should have had a site plan.
I mean, there's many pieces of this.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, let me --let me quote what
Commissioner Schiffer said on the Planning Commission. This issue
is really -- the issue is really the documents that went into the building
department gave them no idea that they were building an exterior
building.
There is no site plans, there's no fire separation distance, there's
no way anybody reviewing these plans would know this building was,
therefore -- was and, therefore, I don't think the building department
properly reviewed it. It should have been given an owner/builder -- it
shouldn't have been given an ownerlbuilder permit. And the problem
really was that the document they submitted -- and I'll be polite __
confused the building department.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, I can't answer as to why
Commissioner Schiffer made that assumption. He had all the records
in front of him in regards to the permit -- the permit application.
I realize Mr. Schiffer is a registered professional architect. He
knows how to submit applications.
The packet that was given to the Planning Commission clearly
reflected that it went through all the proper reviews. In fact, it went
through two fire reviews. But, again, we weren't at the Planning
Commission to debate the merits of the permit. We were there to
Page 130
April 25, 2006
debate the merits of the variance. Two different issues. The permit
became --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
MR. SCHMITT: -- a discussion, but the issue is the variance.
The permit, we can -- we can -- he made a -- he made an assumption,
but we didn't -- I didn't correct the record. The only thing that I
corrected the record on, I said, you're right. This is an owner/builder
on a commercial project. I believe this was -- this was not
appropriate. And then when I went back and discussed it with my
building director, he said, no, Joe, the limit is now $25,000.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I do have some questions, but I
think it's appropriate to have a 10-minute cool-down period.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep.
MR. WEIGEL: Would you make a recess on the record, please?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep. Take a 10-minute recess.
(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 HALAS: Thank you very much, County Manager.
Would everybody take your seats. We're reconvening. We're
back in session here.
And I believe we're starting off with Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Pires?
MR. PIRES: Yes, sir, Mr. Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Some of my colleagues brought
up something that piqued my curiosity, what are the old bathrooms
being used for?
MR. PIRES: The servers' wait stations.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What is the former wait station
being used for?
Page 131
April 25, 2006
MR. PIRES: I don't know. I can find out, but I know there are
no additional tables; there are no additional chairs by virtue of this.
There's no additional seating capacity.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Now, additional seating
capacity -- maybe Mr. Schmitt can answer this. And I think, if I
remember right, additional seating capacity has to do with the number
of parking spots?
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: And it was very clear during the Planning
Commission and through the application that they were limited to 80
seats, and that's strictly based on the parking. Heidi made that very
clear in the Planning Commission as well. And if they exceed that,
certainly that's a code case. That's a separate issue, of course.
MR. PIRES: One other point of clarification, Mr. Halas, there
was no wait station before. The waiters used to wait in the kitchen.
So now they're just waiting in that area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it's efficiency?
MR. PIRES: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Schmitt --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- please help me.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's a lot of discussion about
deception. Given your honest opinion about this variance application,
do you see any deception? And if I'm putting you on the spot because
of -- well, no, I'm going to put you on the spot, because I think it's
very important for me to understand that.
MR. SCHMITT: If you stand back and look at everything now,
you would say -- you would have to question the $15,000. But, again,
when they said the $75,000 in the record versus -- we base solely on
the cost of construction, not all the other issues.
Page 132
April 25, 2006
So if -- but if you look at it now, I think we have an applicant that
knows and understands the variance process because they went
through it before. Did they think that they would have to because this
thing encroached no further than what was previously approved? I
can't answer that.
I would -- I believe in this case, and you go through the
application and you look through it, the applicant probably in this case
was trying to do it at minimum cost possible. My understanding, I
believe this is a son-in-law or brother-in-law or somebody that was
actually doing the work as a subcontractor.
So was there an intent to deceive? One could -- you could maybe
assume that based on looking at it after the fact. But at the time this
was issued, it came in, the planner looked at it, did not believe that an
amended site plan was required. If there was anything in error, what
we should have required immediately was an amendment to the site
plan for this addition. That's where the error occurred.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Now, the application
stating the renovation's going to be 15,000, would that trigger more
review if it was over 25,000?
MR. SCHMITT: Over 25,000 would only trigger that an
ownerlbuilder could not do the work. It would have to be a certified
general contractor.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the other fact that more
fees would be associated to it, more cost for the fees?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. There's a direct correlation between cost
of construction and the fees. The fees are based on the value of
construction.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there -- anything else have to
do with the cost of the -- the amount that the applicant put in there that
has to do with --
MR. SCHMITT: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- just those two things?
Page 133
April 25, 2006
MR. SCHMITT: The reviews are basically predicated solely on
what is being done based on a review of the plans. If there's footers,
all those type of things, that -- that is what triggers all the necessary
reviews, electrical, mechanical, structural, fire.
Those -- all those are part of the building permit process.
Whether it's just an interior bathroom, because you're talking about __
even interior work, you're talking about an egress, fire safety issues.
A permitting tech. in the building department would go through and
check all those requirements to be reviewed.
So the value is strictly related to the overall assessment of the
cost of the building permit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: And, of course, again, the trigger of 25,000. I
mean, if this was $24,500, you might question.
But I got to tell you, just so you understand, that contractor put __
or the applicant on the first piece put $15,000. CDS calculated value,
the second piece, is my staff that wrote $15,000. And they look at it.
They don't do a quantity takeoff. But, again, they agreed with it.
They don't argue -- they didn't argue with the applicant. I don't --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I don't think we're here
about --
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- about collecting more fees.
MR. SCHMITT: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, if you don't have
enough fees to run your operation, you're going to come to us for
amendments.
And maybe part of the condition is that we charge the proper fee
amount for this application through the variance process. You know, I
don't know. I don't know what the other Board of Commissioners are
thinking. But I'm not about more fees.
I just wanted to get some of the answers to some of the questions
Page 134
April 25, 2006
that my colleagues raised. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's been so long, I've forgotten my
question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sorry.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. While you're thinking about it, I'll
go to Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good. Go ahead and turn my light
off.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll tell you what; this has been
the most contentious variance I've ever seen in my life. I've never
seen it go for so long on something that should be fairly simple. I
mean, we've talked about the different issues. I'm going to ask a
couple of simple questions, then I'm going to make a motion.
Mr. Schmitt, there was all sorts of questions --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's in my district.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. You make the motion.
I'll give you that. I'm sorry if I jumped out of turn there. You can
make the motion.
Mr. Schmitt?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The work that was done, now
there's been all sorts of -- I know we're not supposed to even consider
the dollar amount that was on the permit, but obviously the Planning
Commission played into that quite heavily.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And also whether it was legally
sufficient for that man to be able to do it or not. Even though we
agree that's not an issue, isn't it a possibility that if a person only buys
materials and if they've got voluntary labor, such as a family would
do, that they might be able to build it for $15,000 if it was nothing
more than material expense?
Page 135
April 25, 2006
MR. SCHMITT: I believe so, yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I mean, we're getting so
far out in left field with this thing that it's getting absolutely ridiculous.
We're making an issue out of something that's not an issue.
And so, what I'd like to do is go back to ground zero. When this
was all done, Mr. Schmitt, could somebody go back and inspect it? I
mean, did this person know what they were doing? Does it look like
everything is up to code the way it was, or hasn't a final inspection
taken place?
MR. SCHMITT: Well, it's pending final inspection until the
variance. But everything that's part of the building department has
been reviewed and approved.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. So obviously the people
had some knowledge and some skill, even though it was
ownerlbuilder, the family stepped in to help, and the cost is probably
for the cost of materials. And with that, I won't make a motion
because I've been requested not to.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Has this met the fire codes as far
as a three-hour wall, being that this piece of property has been built
right on the property line?
MR. SCHMITT: If I can refer you to -- to answer your question,
refer to page 71 of 101. Those are the lists of initial corrections. As--
you don't have as a final copy, as each one of these are corrected,
they're stricken through. They have a strike-through, and I'm looking
for fire, so I --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Because I believe there's a fire code that
-- correct me if I'm wrong.
MR. SCHMITT: They did go through fire review, and they
were, through the plan review, approved by fire. Whether they've
been approved final by fire, I do not have that information. I could
call back and ask for the inspection.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Because I believe that since they're on
Page 136
April 25, 2006
the property line, they have to have a wall that's constructed to
withstand a three-hour fire before it bums through.
MR. SCHMITT: Again, the fire review was approved through
the review process through this -- through the --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: But did they realize that they were right
on the property line?
MR. SCHMITT: I can't answer that unless I have the fire
inspector come in. They work for the East Naples Fire District.
They're not part of my staff.
Now, Heidi, you just handed me the listing of inspections?
MS. WILLIAMS: That is right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The other question I have -- and this is
for Tony Pires. The property that you were referring to with the
dumpster?
MR. PIRES: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Doesn't your client also own those two
pieces of property right next to those?
MR. PIRES: It's a condominium project, and my client has a unit
there, but the remodeling activities are engaged in by Mr. Pritt's client.
There's no activity by my client at those units.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: There's not any activity by your client?
MR. PIRES: Not in the remodeling work, no, sir.
And one other clarification too, as referenced, Mr. Coletta
alluded to maybe a family member. Yes, Chet, the individual who's a
subcontractor, who helped doing the work; he's a nephew of the
owner. It's an Italian family operation, and that's how they keep the
cost down, you know. And I think that's a fair statement that
Commissioner Coletta made in that regard.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Have you -- before I make a motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Coletta just about
said everything I was going to say. I was thinking too, you know, if
the family applied and they were doing some of the building by
Page 137
April 25, 2006
themselves and it doesn't -- it doesn't take into consideration things
such as toilets and sinks and mirrors and wait station furniture and so
forth, they could have done that for $15,000, but that's what
Commissioner Coletta said. So I'll rest with that one.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'm going -- Commissioner
Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Coyle.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Remember, the good-looking
guy.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'm the good-looking guy.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I just remembered.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which one is that?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, it doesn't make any
difference about the money. The only reason we brought up the issue
of the money was that the staff was trying to impeach the Planning
Commission's decision by saying it's because they probably thought
that they didn't have a valid permit.
That's the only reason the price was brought up, because I don't
think the CCPC thought that at all. I think the CCPC viewed this very
thoroughly in exactly the same way we should view it very
thoroughly, and that is, this confers a special privilege on this
particular property owner, end of story. There is no way you can get
beyond that.
And if that -- if that is not true, then please be prepared to let
every one of those other commercial units there extend their buildings
into the back yard setback, because that's exactly what they'll be
entitled to do.
Don't tell me that these are determined on an individual basis,
because once you say it doesn't confer a special privilege to this
property owner, then every property owner there has the right to do
the same thing.
Page 138
April 25, 2006
So it's -- the money doesn't make any difference at this point.
The only thing that makes any difference is, is this an encroachment
into the rear yard setback, and is there a good reason or hardship
imposed upon the property owner that should permit them do that?
And the answer is no, absolutely no.
What these owners are trying to do is to enlarge their restaurant
by building into the rear yard setback. That's it. We wouldn't let
anybody else do that. I don't know why we would even consider
letting this petitioner do that, end of story.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, at that, I'm going to make a motion
for denial, and I do that --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm going to second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And I do that in regards to -- in
seeking a variance on the ground of a unique or unnecessary hardship,
a property owner cannot assert the benefit of a self-created hardship,
and that's what I base my motion on, and I believe I had a second on
that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any further discussion?
Yes, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd say the hardship is the fact
that our staff screwed up in the beginning by giving the approval. If
they didn't approve it, it would have come before us like a regular
variance, and they wouldn't have got invested into this. But they did
get invested. That's where the hardship is.
As far as someone else being able to pick up on this and do the
exact same thing, the whole scenario of events would have to be
repeated. Staff would have to make the same mistake, then you would
be able to take it to the next step.
Granting this variance to an existing building because of a staff
mess-up early in the whole process is the hardship in itself. That's my
own opInIon.
Page 139
April 25, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ifnot, I'll call the question. What's the--
oh; I'll close the public hearing. And now we'll go ahead with the
motion. I'll call the question.
All those in favor of this denial, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
Opposed, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion carries (sic).
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion failed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nope.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Failed. Okay. Excuse me. Fails.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I thought I was going crazy for
a moment.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No, no, no. I'm sorry. Okay. So they've
got the variance.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, no.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not yet.
MR. WEIGEL: There's no action been taken yet.
MR. MUDD: No, sir. You have a -- you have -- you made a
motion to deny.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep.
MR. MUDD: It was seconded, and that motion failed by a vote
of2-3.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: And that's it so far.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's time for another motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, if I may?
Page 140
April 25, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to bring this thing to a
conclusion. I'd like to make a motion that we approve with staff
recommendations.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Again--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any further discussion? County
Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. And just as with any motion in regard to
these, is there a criteria or reason for approval?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Based upon the staffs
recommendations, it fits several criterion within the analysis in our
executive summary.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. That's part of my motion.
MR. WEIGEL: The recommended -- the criteria and analysis of
the staff, okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. There's a motion on the floor.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: There's a motion on the floor, staffs
recommendation, and there's been a second.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE. Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
MR. PIRES: Thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: I believe that motion passed 3-2; is that correct?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Correct, 3-2.
Page 141
April 25, 2006
Item #5B - Continued from earlier in the meeting
RESOLUTION 2006-109: REQUEST TO HAVE THE FLORIDA
AUDITOR GENERAL TO REVIEW THE AUDIT-ADOPTED
W/CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Sir, that brings us to our time certain item of two
o'clock. We were going to come back. We tabled an item that had to
do with the presentation on 5B, which was a presentation by Chip
Jones ofKPMG, and the attorney was going to come back with a
resolution asking for the auditor general to come down and do an
audit.
I believe the county, Ms. Jacqueline Hubbard, will present.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can you tell me what are the new
documents that we should be reading?
MS. HUBBARD: Oh, good afternoon, Commissioners.
Jacqueline Hubbard, for the record. Attached for your information is a
memo -- is a memorandum attaching a copy of a resolution to the joint
legislative committee of the state legislature, which is where any
request for the assistance of the Auditor General's Office is to be
directed.
And the resolution basically asks for the auditor general to come
to assist the county to aid in the execution of a management letter
from the Clerk of Courts.
In paragraph two on the second page, the request is that the
auditor general conduct an audit of the procedure used by the Clerk of
Courts in the issuance of his version of the management representation
letter, which is attached to the resolution.
The third paragraph requests that the auditor general conduct an
audit of the issues surrounding the allegations of the clerk that the
county has impeded his ability to carry out his responsibilities as the
Clerk of Court.
Page 142
April 25, 2006
And, four, the request is that the auditor general take any and all
action deemed necessary and appropriate to assist in a resolution of
these issues in a timely fashion, which was -- which was my
understanding of my direction when I left you this morning.
Okay. Hopefully it will stay up this time.
Those paragraphs were the direction as I understood them this
morning from you to put into the resolution, and that is what I have
done.
I have also added several whereas clauses. And I'd like to state on
the record that the attorney for the Clerk of Courts has reviewed the
resolution and has certain changes that he would like to probably
discuss with you briefly, and it would be your decision as to what the
final version of the resolution would be.
The whereas clauses on the first page basically state that the
Clerk of Court serves as an ex officio clerk and accountant to the
board, which is a distinct and separate function from his Clerk of
Courts on Article V as --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Where are you now?
MR. BROCK: The whereas clause is on the first page of the
resolution.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep.
MS. HUBBARD: I'd like to go through those very briefly with
you to make sure that everyone understands what I'm saying here.
There are certain Florida statutory provisions that pertain to how
audits and how management letters are drafted. That's in the first
whereas.
In the second whereas, we simply state that the clerk, as ex
officio clerk and accountant to the Board of County Commissioners,
has an obligation to issue a management representation letter.
And the next whereas clause states that the county manager has
issued his management letter; however, the clerk has not issued his
version of the management representation letter.
Page 143
April 25, 2006
And we believe that the letter that was signed by the clerk that
was unacceptable to our outside auditors contains language that is
unsupported, and disputed certain allegations, such as, we have
impeded his access to records.
And if the clerk did not change the letter that he has already sent
to our auditors, it could have some adverse impacts on the county's
finances, which were alluded to earlier today by Mr. Jones.
And, therefore, the four items that I mentioned earlier were the
part of the resolution that is the request that goes up to the joint
legislative committee of the state legislature who will then make a
decision whether to forward it to the Auditor General's Office.
The auditor general would then make a decision regarding
whether or not they will come down and conduct the audit. They will
have to make that determination.
There is a provision under Florida Statutes, chapter 11, that
provides for a local government to request the office of the auditor
general to come in and look at any particular part of their procedure
for conducting financial audits.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And this falls within the guidelines of
the statutes -- of the Florida Statutes in regards to -- with respect to the
position or the duties of the Clerk of Courts; is that correct?
MS. HUBBARD: That's correct. In terms of issuing the
management representation letter, which is the issue that we're dealing
with today.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. HUBBARD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta, I believe you
were first.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll tell you what. I don't want to
speak prematurely. I'd rather hear what everybody has to say as far as
the Clerk of Courts back and forth, then I have some hard questions
about the lawsuit that exists now and exactly where we stand in the
Page 144
April 25, 2006
scheme of things, and what will actually be settled by this versus a
lawsuit.
MS. HUBBARD: Well, I believe the clerk indicated this
morning that the management representation letter, which has to do
with the audit report and audit opinion that's required to be sent to the
office of the auditor general, is separate from the litigation issues in
the lawsuit. These are two separate matters, and--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So this doesn't affect the
standing of the lawsuit?
MS. HUBBARD: No, it does not, and I believe that we both
agreed earlier that we would not try to intertwine those two issues.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I understand.
MS. HUBBARD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I have a question, Jackie.
Let's take the second whereas and the fourth whereas. I don't
understand the difference.
MS. HUBBARD: Correct. And that is one of the changes the
clerk is going to request, that that's redundant, and we agree that it's
redundant. We think it's harmless, but if that's removed, that's
certainly one of the requests that's been made by the clerk.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The only thing that would make it
not redundant is if the fourth whereas were to say essentially the same
thing as the third whereas says. We're saying in the third whereas that
the county manager has, in fact, provided his letter. The fourth
whereas could be that the clerk has not provided his management
letter. But there's nothing in the statute, I don't think, that requires the
clerk to provide a letter if he can't honestly certify to the conditions.
MS. HUBBARD: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So I'm not sure we need that one
there. Do we?
MS. HUBBARD: No. As I said before, we agree that paragraph
Page 145
April 25, 2006
4, the fourth whereas clause, is redundant and we'd be -- certainly, if
you want to direct us to delete it, we'll delete it. And there are a
couple of other points that I think the clerk will raise to you this
afternoon.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any other questions of
commissioners?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Clerk of Courts?
MR. BROCK: Yes. You know, Commissioners, you know, one
of the things that you and I talked about this morning was that, we
needed to tone down some of the adversarial rhetoric that is taking
place here.
I sit here and I read this, especially the -- one, two, three, fourth
whereas, making the assertion that it is equivocal and contains many
unsupported and disputed allegations that will result in a disclaimer of
opinion audit being issued by KPMG, the county's independent
certified public accounting firm, and there's no mention at all about
the entire discussion that took place here today with me and Mr. Jones
about the communication that we are now going through; is that
correct, Mr. Jones --
MR. JONES: That's correct.
MR. BROCK: -- about trying to resolve that particular issue.
And I'm standing here and I'm wondering, why would we want to
engage in that type of continuous, you know, adversarial rhetoric as
opposed to just saying, you know, come down and look at the county's
and the clerk's books and decide what it is that's going on, as opposed
to making the factual assertions that I'm wrong and he's right, or he's
wrong and I'm right or anything of that particular nature.
I am going to enter into the record -- you know, we got this at the
last moment, and we have made some proposed changes, and I will
enter this into the record and give it to the court reporter.
And obviously the board has got to do what the board wants to
Page 146
April 25, 2006
do. But, you know, I happen to agree with the conversations that took
this morning -- or that took place this morning, that as opposed to
continuing this he said, she said, this us-versus-them mentality, that
we would all be well served in moving away from that and just trying
to bring everything to an issue, or to a head in getting the issues
resolved.
The Clerk of the Circuit Court, me being the Clerk of the Court
Circuit, has one objective here, and that's to do what the law tells me
to do.
And if the law tells me that I don't need to look at what you all
do, you know, I have no desire to undertake that particular activity. I
suspect that you're never going to get any such opinion as that. But if
you do, so be it. All I want is someone to define for me what the role
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court is, and I will follow the dictates of the
law.
The problem I have is, I read the law one way and apparently
your staff read the law another. It's not a nasty or a bad scenario. It is
simply that we have a disagreement of what the law is. That's what
the courts are for.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's what we're going to find out.
MR. BROCK: And, you know, we need to cut out the, you
know, nit-picking and sniping at one another and move on.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I guess what I would like to know
is how does the county staff feel about the changes that Mr. Brock has
proposed? Are there any substantial changes that we would disagree
with?
MS. HUBBARD: I don't have a copy of the insert A that was
proposed. Do you have one, Mr. Ackerman (sic)?
MR. BROCK: I just gave it to the court reporter.
MS. HUBBARD: I don't -- I think it's -- I didn't really take -- I
don't have a strong opinion as the staff person who drafted the
Page 147
April 25, 2006
resolution on this matter, to be quite honest with you.
The fact remains that there are certain things that will result in a
disclaimer -- if the letter that's set forth as Exhibit B is not changed by
the clerk, then it will result in a disclaimer of opinion.
If you wish to have all the other language that talks about that's
it's equivocal and contains unsupported and disputed allegations, that's
a decision that you can make. I don't think that's necessarily important
in terms of sending the resolution up to the auditor general. I think our
office believes that there are disputed allegations in that letter.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, the clerk raised an issue
about defining what his role is.
MS. HUBBARD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's not what this does.
MS. HUBBARD: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The court is going to define what
his role is. We're not even talking about that today.
MS. HUBBARD: No, we're not. We're talking about the
management letter.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're talking about the
management letter. The management letter contains very specific
allegations by the clerk that we have interfered in his ability to do
certain things, and we have not given him documents that he has
requested.
MS. HUBBARD: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, without trying to say who's
right or who's wrong, I want to get to the bottom of that. I don't want
to leave that floating around out there and have somebody think that
we're not willing to take corrective action here.
MS. HUBBARD: Well--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So my feeling is that that whereas
is fine. If we're going to have somebody do an audit, let's have them
get the facts, and then the court will decide the rest of the issue.
Page 148
April 25, 2006
MS. HUBBARD: That's a decision that you as a board can
make. As the drafter of the resolution, I don't think it makes any
difference whether you leave in that's equivocal and contains many
unsupported and disputed allegations, that's -- it is editorializing. It's
up to you as to whether you want to leave it in or take it out.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm prepared to leave it in. And if
we're proved wrong, then that's fine, then we take corrective action,
end of story. If these allegations are supported and we have failed to
do the thing we want to do, then we take corrective action and we get
it done.
MS. HUBBARD: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's that simple. So I would make a
motion that we approve the resolution.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll second that.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I totally agree. So much of it is
interpretation, isn't it? So much of it. We need to get this letter off.
How would you change it so that we can get this letter off and yet at
the same time move on with determining how we can better work
together as two units, the county government and clerk's office? Is
there -- do you have a recommendation on that? We're in discussion
period now. We already have a motion on the floor, right? No?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, but we're going beyond the
motion. The motion is on the resolution, not on some other topic that
will be the subj ect of some speculation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't know if -- okay. Well, I
thought if the resolution -- because what we're doing is asking the
auditor general to come down, right?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Right, then they'll give us
recommendations and they'll --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Find out if we're wrong.
Page 149
April 25, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- say, you're deficient here and
you're deficient there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And will that delay our management
letter?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't think so. They're not
connected. They're not connected.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. We'll let --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The Clerk of Courts has said he's
going to continue working with our auditor to see if he can find some
resolution to the problem so it doesn't cause us difficulties, but we've
still got the basic underlying issues.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I think this is the best way to handle
the whole thing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That way, as Commissioner Coyle
brought up, if there is deficiencies in our area, then we can get after it
and get it addressed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But the only reason I was asking
about this -- I mean, as long as we're striking up an agreement to try
and work together, I would just -- you know, I would just --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, this is one way to find out.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you know, if the clerk had
something he wanted to add to the whereas, I would at least like to
hear it, or do you not --
MR. BROCK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: He's already given the information --
MR. WEIGEL: Well, by providing the copy of the changes to
the court reporter doesn't tell you what those changes are, however.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And we're talking specifically about
that one whereas.
MR. BROCK: Paragraph, whereas one, two, three, four.
MS. HUBBARD: Five.
Page 150
April 25, 2006
MR. BROCK: Whereas -- no, well, the -- the one, two, three,
four whereas.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Four.
MR. BROCK: That particular whereas is with the exception of --
for the 2005 audit, and the last sentence is an exact duplicate of
paragraph three -- paragraph --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Two.
MR. BROCK: -- two, right. Next suggested change that I have
is in the parentheses in paragraph one, two, three, four, five, where it
says whereas, the Clerk of Courts for Collier County as ex officio
clerk and accountant to the Board of County Commissioners, has sent
an alternative letter to the county's independent certified accounting
firm ofKPMG, LLP, for the 2005 audit, period.
And I have proposed inserting the following language: The clerk
and KPMG are in discussions about revisions to the letter to
specifically address areas of concern the clerk has with county
operation. Even if the issues surrounding the representation letter are
resolved, the board will seek the audits requested herein. Okay?
The next paragraph, which says, whereas, the action of the Clerk
of Courts of Collier County and accountant for the Board of Collier
County Commissioners will result in harm to the taxpayers adversely
impacting the county's credit rating and county's ability to receive
state and revenue sharing funds, you know, the legislative auditing
committee has indicated to me that that would not be adversely
impacted over this particular issue as it relates to revenue shares.
It would certainly have an adverse effect if we're unable to
resolve this, I suspect, on the county's bond rating.
The next change, in number two, whereas it says that Collier
County Board of County Commissioners, as the executive legislative
body of the county, does hereby respectfully request a Joint
Legislative Auditing Committee and Florida legislator to direct the
State of Florida Office of the Auditor General to conduct an audit of
Page 151
~--_...--..~..-"~_..-----~-._,._--,."'.,.
April 25, 2006
the procedures utilized by and substantive areas at concern cited by,
inserting that language, the Clerk of Courts in the issue of his version
in the Collier County 2005 management representation letter for
KPMG, LLP, okay?
I understood you wanted to look at both the county operations
and the clerk's operations.
Then paragraph 3, the Collier County Board of Count
Commissioners, as the executive and the legislative body of Collier
County, does hereby respectfully request a Joint Legislative Auditing
Committee of the Florida legislature to direct the State of Florida
Office of the Auditor General to conduct an audit of the issues,
inserting, and operations relating to, the allegations of the clerk that
the county has impeded his ability to carry out his responsibility as the
Clerk of the Circuit Court, and the Collier County Board of County
Commission -- well, that's it. The rest of it is as is. Those are the only
changes that I have suggested be made.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you have comments?
MS. HUBBARD: Yes, I have comments. The Clerk of Courts'
suggestions as to the fifth whereas clause, I don't think we have any
problem with taking out the language that says, that is equivocal --
that says equivocal and many unsupported, and we'll just say that is --
that contains disputed allegations.
MR. BROCK: Perfectly acceptable.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, good.
MS. HUBBARD: Okay. The next one is the changes regarding
paragraph 2. My only comment there is I would suggest that we leave
paragraph 2 as is so as not to broaden the issue of this particular
resolution.
The resolution is directed really solely in an effort to secure an
acceptable management representation letter, and its only concern
with the circumstances that led to the issuance or nonissuance of an
acceptable management letter by the Clerk of Courts.
Page 152
April 25, 2006
If the Clerk of Courts sends to the auditor a management
representation letter that is acceptable to our auditors that will allow
the auditor to issue an opinion for the county, then we don't need the
intercession of the auditor general. Now, that's the way the resolution
was drafted.
If you broaden those issues to include things that aren't concerned
with the issuance of the management letter, then I think it probably
lessens our ability to have the auditor general intercede, and there's
probably no need to have an intercession if the clerk and our auditors
agree on the substance of the management letter.
MR. BROCK: Maybe I totally understood (sic) what we were
trying to do here. I thought we were trying to have someone look at
the issues in totality that are in dispute here. Now I hear, oh, no, we're
not trying to do that -- maybe I'm not hearing it correctly -- but rather
we're just trying to force the clerk to issue a management letter
representation?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
MR. WEIGEL: Not at all.
MR. BROCK: Okay. And I think in order to encompass all of
the issues, it dictates that -- and substantive areas of concern cited by
the clerk, because that's what we want them to look at as well as how
the clerk came to its conclusions about the management letter, isn't it?
Isn't that where we as the constitutional officers of this
community are wanting to go? Because we're wanting to determine
what's right, right?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And so are we, you know, just as
you mentioned.
MR. BROCK: And that's what I thought. That's why I wanted to
insert that language.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you mention all the time -- and
I've always wanted to say back to you but it was never my turn, I
wanted to say, we also want to follow the law, each of us want to.
Page 153
April 25, 2006
MR. BROCK: You know, I certainly--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to add that.
MR. BROCK: -- hope that's the case, and I fully appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So while we're ironing this out, and
maybe we could just move this along, how does that -- how does that
affect us? Can we change or modify that to some degree so that we're
both -- we both have our opinions stated and we're working in
cooperation with one another?
MS. HUBBARD: Yes. May I, for the record, ask the clerk to
read the changes that he's suggesting in paragraph 2 to make sure--
MR. BROCK: Sure.
MS. HUBBARD: -- that I have them down correctly?
MR. BROCK: In its changed version.
MS. HUBBARD: All right.
MR. BROCK: Okay. The Collier County Board of County
Commissioners as the executive and legislative governing body of
Collier County does hereby respectfully request the Joint Legislative
Auditing Committee, the committee of the Florida legislator, to direct
the State of Florida, Office of the Auditor General, to conduct an audit
of the procedure utilized by and substantive areas of concern cited by
the Clerk of Courts in the issuance of his version of the Collier County
2005 management representation letter for KPMG, LLP, semicolon,
and. That is the entire context of my proposed revision.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Jackie, how --
MS. HUBBARD: Personally, I think that when you talk about
something as nebulous as substantive areas of concern cited by the
Clerk of Courts in the issuance of his letter, are you saying that what
you have cited within the confines of that document is the only thing
you're talking about; is that what you're saying?
MR. BROCK: The document --
MS. HUBBARD: That has been sent to KPMG.
MR. BROCK: No, ma'am. I'm talking -- I am making reference
Page 154
April 25, 2006
to, and I suspect, based upon my discussions with the auditor general,
the revised document will contain all of the areas so that there is
absolutely no mistake, and absolute crystal clarity of all of the issues
of which the clerk is concerned.
But what I am suggesting is that the auditor general, in the course
of its audit, look at those things that the clerk is indicating to the
auditor general that there are potential issues or problems with.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
MS. HUBBARD: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, I might note --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: -- in the clerk indicating that he will address at
some point all of the issues that are of his concern, would seem to
indicate that there are issues that neither the county manager, the
county attorney, or this board of commissioners necessarily knows are
of his concern up to this point, and that is part of the, call it, the
problem in attempting to state that, well, we know there are problems,
we don't know what they are. We're told there are problems, we don't
know what they are.
In working with the clerk, both, you know, administratively,
through the County Manager's Office, et cetera, for many, many
months -- and they indicated and Mr. Jones indicated that this started
last year. The fact is, is that if we don't know what his issues are now,
when are we going to know them? And it sounds like there may be
some more issues coming up that we don't know.
And so when Jackie was talking to this resolution, the agenda
item that came before you today was specifically in regard to the letter
that was not -- that had not been issued so that KPMG could not issue
its statement concerning the county, which, of course, has certain
effects, and the clerk has indicated that at least in regard to bond
ratings, there may be a certain effect.
We do not know for sure about the revenue sharing. He's
Page 155
April 25, 2006
indicated he's heard from the auditor general about revenue sharing,
but that mayor may not be the ultimate word in regard to how the
county's affected. And I just lay that out as, you know, background
information that we don't forget in the course of our discussion today.
As Ms. Fiala was asking and continued the discussion in regard
to the revisions to the resolution, yes, of course, the county is
interested in getting a letter that, perforce, requires a letter from the
clerk, and then the opinion letter from KPMG, the external auditor in
this regard, and that was what the agenda item was today, in essence,
was to have KPMG, Representative Chip Jones, talk to you about the
inability for them to go forward and write a letter that's typical to
letters in the past.
So to the extent that there are issues still to be determined in the
lawsuits, it sounds to me like this board is indicating that those issues
regarding statutory authority and clarity will be defined by a court of
law.
But I do have a concern if, in fact, notwithstanding that the clerk
has indicated that he is -- and he did this morning, indicated he's going
to continue to work with KPMG, Mr. Jones, toward potentially having
a letter to go out, that we do not know what those issues may be at this
point in time. I just want to caution you.
MR. BROCK: Let me clarify something. You know, we have
sent a proposed settlement letter to your County Attorney's Office that
delineates fairly clearly the issues. The entire purpose of addressing
those in the management letter is that we will cover in detail in the
representation, the management representation letter, exactly what it is
that we have revealed to everyone else already orally, in writing, so
that everyone will have an opportunity to see it. There are no new
Issues.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So--
MR. BROCK: They're all the same issues that have been there
all along.
Page 156
April 25, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: As we're trying to work
cooperatively together, then we know from you we will get all of
those issues now so that we also can look at them and study them and
research them; is that correct?
MR. BROCK: I think you already have them.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because we have to work together --
MR. BROCK: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- because we can't go trying to, you
know, hide little things, and then, you know, pull the rug out from
under somebody else. Okay. And then there was number three.
So David, do you feel that we can do this number 2 as the clerk
suggests or -- I mean, you know, I don't want anybody harmed. I want
everybody to work together. At the same time I want to make sure
that we come out with something that we can all submit with some
pride.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, if we're doing wrong, then we
need to be harmed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, absolutely, yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, that's -- we ought to find out
exactly where the source is. This is not the -- we're not the judge and
jury. That's got to be --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're not trying to do that. We're
just trying to --
MR. BROCK: We don't need to be harmed. We need to correct
the problems if there are problems. That's it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're just trying to submit a letter
right now. We're trying to -- we're trying to submit this letter that -- or
resolution that everybody will agree upon; is that -- is that not where
we're going?
MS. HUBBARD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. So on number 2?
MR. WEIGEL: So the question is, is number 2 okay with the
Page 157
April 25, 2006
revisions that Mr. Brock has indicated?
MS. HUBBARD: Number 2, as I stated before, it's the decision
that you will make. In terms of my advice regarding paragraph 2, by
adding in a nebulous -- at least as of now -- it may not be nebulous
later today or tomorrow. But as of now, we don't really know all of
the substantive areas of concern and, therefore, we don't know if it's
really broadening the scope of what you want the resolution to handle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Dwight has just said he will get that
to us immediately; is that correct?
MR. BROCK: It will take me some time to do the detail.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How long is some time?
MR. BROCK: I do not know the answer to that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I mean, not the day before.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We need an answer, Mr. Brock.
MR. BROCK: Here is, in fact, the summarization of the issues.
It is a letter dated April the 6th, 2006, sent to Jacqueline William
Hubbard, assistant county attorney, and proposed resolution to the
issues that we had, and it identifies the issue in summary manner.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We will-- can we give -- can you just
drop that off, and we'll look at it at a later date. Great.
MR. BROCK: I'm making it part of the record.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. And that way we can get on with
this.
MS. HUBBARD: All right. So--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'm just trying to straighten it
out.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, one of the problems that
keeps it from ever getting straightened out is that there is never a
benchmark. It never ends. You don't know how many rabbits are in
the hat because they keep getting pulled out every other day.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And he's right. That's why I just
asked him if there would be no new surprises.
Page 158
April 25, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute. We have a
resolution here that is as of today. We ought to approve this resolution
based upon what we understand that has been in writing with respect
to the management letter given to KPMG.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's all we should be dealing
with.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Beginning and end.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the end of it, okay?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That is the benchmark. We will
then resolve that issue, and then if there is something we decide needs
to be addressed beyond that, we can ask the auditor general to expand
the issue.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But today the only thing we can
vote on is what we know today.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Nothing more.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if we don't lock this thing
down, it's going to morph into something else tomorrow and the day
after that. So let's deal with what we know to be the case. We have a
management letter that said certain things and made certain
allegations.
MS. HUBBARD: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's pin that down. And if we are
wrong, we're going to straighten it out, I hope. Right?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Right. That's the intention.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if the clerk is wrong, he's
going to straight it out, I hope. And then we can start from there
dealing with the issues.
MS. HUBBARD: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So I make a motion we
Page 159
April 25, 2006
approve it as it is unchanged with the exception of the limitation of the
fourth whereas, because I think it's redundant, and everybody seems to
agree it's redundant.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I'll second that.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Commissioner Fiala just
answered my question, and I wanted to see if there's any compromise
by the motion maker. But since there's not, let's vote on the motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think we've pretty well
covered it. That's the big issue I wanted to get across is that we do
limit it just to the management letter, beginning and end of it.
And Commissioner Coyle, you couldn't have presented it better.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ifnot, we'll call the question on the
motion. Those all in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
Opposed, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would at least like to add the
words that I'd spoken to him about in number five.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We've got three votes that said it's
approved.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Three votes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. PETTIT: Commissioners, before we leave this item, I just
Page 160
April 25, 2006
wanted to -- county manager had brought my attention to a concern
about a misstatement this morning regarding one of our first
responders pleading guilty to a crime. In fact, there's been no
adjudication of guilt with that gentleman. Adjudication's been
withheld, and he pled no contest, and I just wanted to make sure our
record was clear on that. And I believe the item was improper
recordkeeping.
Item #10B
PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS
THAT OCCURRED RELATING TO THE WILDERNESS
COUNTRY CLUB CODE CASE AND DISCUSS ANY CONCERNS
THE BOARD HAS WITH HOW THE DEPARTMENT IS
ENFORCING THE CODE - MOTION MADE THAT
WILDERNESS COUNTRY CLUB WAS NOT FOUND GUILTY OF
ANY LAW VIOLATION AND PUD REMAINS IN COMPLIANCE
- APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to a time certain
item. It's at three o'clock, and it's 10B, and it's to present to the board
the sequence of events that occurred relating to the Wilderness
Country Club code case and to discuss any concerns that the board has
with how the department is enforcing the code.
Ms. Michelle Arnold, the Director of Code Enforcement, will
present.
MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, Code
Enforcement Director.
Commissioners, you have a copy of the executive summary that
was prepared that identifies the events that occurred.
My staff went out to the site off of Goodlette Road in Wilderness
Country Club and witnessed some clearing that was being done, at
Page 161
April 25, 2006
which time they posted a stop-work order and asked that the work stop
because what was witnessed was in excess of what was damaged by
the hurricane.
The -- one of the investigators went back and found that much of
the debris that was taken down was removed and also witnessed that
five large specimen trees were taken down, and then -- and then issued
a citation, which went to the special master because it was contested.
I believe you all heard from the attorneys for the Wilderness that
the special master ruled that there was no violations in that particular
case. And that, again, was limited to five trees that were taken down.
The ruling of the special master was no violation, but I believe
that the whole hearing got a little bit confused because what the
citation was issued for was irreparable irreversible harm, the removal
of the trees, but the ruling of the special master was for no requirement
for a permit.
But that being said, that issue at hand was -- is totally and
separate from what we have been trying to discuss with
representatives from the Wilderness.
We believe that, as I mentioned before, several trees have been
removed from an area that is designated as preserve. The Wilderness
Country Club is a development that was developed back in the '80s.
And at that particular time, the rules, as they pertain to preserves, are
different than the rules that exist today for preserve; therefore, that
development is considered a nonconforming development related to
not only the preserve areas but many other things, but we're focusing
now on the vegetation removal.
Consequently, in the ordinance, or in our Land Development
Code, there are sections that have been identified in your executive
summary that indicates how we would address nonconforming --
nonconformities and how we would mitigate for vegetation removal.
Those things are identified -- rather than me go through that
whole thing for you, they're identified in your executive summary, and
Page 162
April 25, 2006
the pertinent sections are provided for your review.
We have, since the public petition before you, negotiated with the
petitioners and come to some resolution. They have submitted to us
yesterday a replanting plan that we have made some recommended
changes, and they've agreed to do those things. And I think that we
were -- we're very close to resolving this.
The only issue that I think that still exists is that the petitioner is
concerned for what may happen in the future. I don't want to put too
many words in that petitioner's mouth, but they're concerned with, you
know, in the event of another storm, what would happen.
As I described to you all, because this is a nonconforming
development, anything that is removed in violation, meaning they're
taking things out -- and that's where we believe we are. They've--
they not only took down branches that may have been damaged as part
of the inclement weather, they removed trees that didn't necessarily
need to be removed.
We believe that some of that was because they had a plan or they
had plans for doing some revegetation on their development, they had
already hired a landscape architect and was working with that
landscape architect to do this development, and I think that they, you
know, seized the opportunity to remove some of the additional
vegetation.
As I said, we are -- we're -- we are in agreement with regard to
what needs to be done in terms of revegetation.
The only thing that I believe that is up in the air is the petitioners
are concerned with what may happen in the future. And as a result,
they're requesting that staff write a letter indicating that they'll not be
held to the nonconforming requirements in the future. And because of
what the code says, I can't write that letter. So that's where we are.
I do have pictures and the ordinance adopting the PUD, which
clearly states in there that the area of -- that we were -- that the
vegetation was removed from is intended to be native -- maintained as
Page 163
April 25, 2006
native forest and that it should be preserved as it was originally.
I -- I think that really the request that was made to you is really
one that our code enforcement board should be looking at. You know,
if there's a question of whether or not there's a violation, that's
something that your code enforcement board is charged with looking
at. And the matter probably should be forwarded to them if there is a
concern of whether or not there's a violation.
But, again, I don't think that we need to really go there because
we have come to resolution.
The way my staffhas addressed this case so far, we are in the
voluntarily compliance stage. We have not issued a notice of violation
as of today. So it's not one where we're, you know, proceeding
towards a code enforcement board. It's more, we're in talking to the
petitioner, talking to the respondent and telling them what we believe
the violation is and how we feel that it could be cured.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The case that went before the
hearing officer is the same issue, if I'm understanding, that is about
removing vegetation?
MS. ARNOLD: The case that went before the hearing officer
dealt with removal of vegetation, but it specifically was related to
vegetation removal of five specimen pine trees with DBHs of 28
inches or greater.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But it's basically the same thing,
it's a vegetation removing. And I guess I can understand about, the
concern of the community is, when does it stop? You know, it seems
like -- and I'm hearing more and more of, okay, you have other
violations. In fact, I've seen correspondence. You have other
violations that we could go after.
So I do have a concern about how we're treating our residents.
And it seems like we're treating our residents as criminals of rapists
and murderers, that it never goes away. There's no statute of
Page 164
April 25, 2006
limitation on when these issues go away . You always have
government knocking on your door over and over.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner, you made a point and
said that there's other violations they're not going after. What are --
what are the other violations?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it went to the special
master and they were found not guilty of removing vegetation. So the
same issue of removing vegetation is why these residents petitioned
us.
MS. ARNOLD: Well--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: To get back to my question --
because I wasn't done -- is this a PUD?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What does the PUD state
as far as -- because I'm sure that it doesn't conform to any of our
today.
MS. ARNOLD: Correct. And that's what makes it
nonconforming.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Well, let me ask you, do
you feel that a PUD is a lower document than the Land Development
Code?
MS. ARNOLD: No. It's equal.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's equal? Okay. That's my
misunderstanding. I always thought that a PUD approved by the
Board of Commissioners is always a higher document.
MS. ARNOLD: They're both ordinances approved by the board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. But this is a land use.
Overall the Land Development Code is a generality throughout the
whole county, and PUD is specific to a piece of property.
MS. ARNOLD: Well, the PUD is similar to the Land
Development Code in that it provides the guidelines for a specific
property. The Land Development Code is general for all --
Page 165
April 25, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: At that time, the time that the --
that the PUD is approved by an ordinance, and it has to comply to the
Land Development Code at that time, and subsequently the Board of
Commissioners, over time, has amended that code.
MS. ARNOLD: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And, in fact, I would say that
those buildings in this community, I would presume, don't fit the
compliance of today's code.
MS. ARNOLD: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So in all reality,
somebody might have to take a chain saw to some of these buildings
in this PUD because it doesn't set ( sic) the setbacks. It could.
Later on the Board of Commissioners, 10 years from now, two
years from now, can amend the code making -- if not, we already have
many of the buildings out of compliance of setbacks. So how do these
people, our citizens, noncriminals, I might add, come into
compliance? You have to cut the building off.
MS. ARNOLD: Well, they -- they would not be considered
illegal. The way --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They're nonconforming.
MS. ARNOLD: Right, but they're legal nonconforming.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And how do you -- again, it
goes back to the preserves.
MS. ARNOLD: I could explain how the -- we would apply it. If
we had a -- if you want to stick with a building. A building that was
developed at the time met the setbacks at the time, and say the
setbacks were five and a half feet on the side and they wanted to come
and modify that particular building today, they would have to try to
come closer into conformance to the standards today. They would not
necessarily have to tear that entire building down. They would just
have to come closer to conformance. That's how the code would--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's never ending. See, it's never
Page 166
April 25, 2006
ending. Every time the Board of Commissioners adopts a new code --
MS. ARNOLD: We create a lot of non conformities.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's what you're
implying. I don't agree with that, by that way. I'm saying that a PUD
document is a higher document because it met --
MS. ARNOLD: Well, I would have to refer that to the attorneys.
That's not a question I --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Each time -- okay. I
think this Board of Commissioners interprets these ordinances.
Each time this Board of Commissioners approves a land use or a
PUD saying it must conform to the Land Development Code, codes
and laws, and it's at that time.
You don't have enough staffing, in my opinion, to what you're
presuming is a nonconforming use, to have all these come into
compliance. I don't think there's enough contractors in this county to
fix all the nonconforming as it's being perceived here today.
MS. ARNOLD: We're not asking them to conform to today's
standards.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But you stated that their PUD
document doesn't have any stipulations for preserves.
MS. ARNOLD: No. I indicated that their PUD document
characterized this area as something that should be maintained as a
native forest. The standards that existed in the past are different from
the standards that exist today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, right.
MS. ARNOLD: But this particular area was intended to be
native and -- a native forest, a native preserve area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that by their PUD document?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It is?
Page 167
April 25, 2006
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Is that by their site
development plan?
MS. ARNOLD: I don't know if they had a site development plan
at that particular time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd like to preface my questions by
a statement. I think that code enforcement is one of the toughest
things we have to do in the county, and anything I have to say today is
not intended to diminish the role that the code enforcement officials
play or the importance of their job, but I need to go through a process
here so I can try to put this in perspective.
How many communities did your staff inspect immediately
following Hurricane Wilma to assess the damage to trees and other
landscaping damage?
MS. ARNOLD: I don't know the number.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That was the wrong answer.
MS. ARNOLD: I don't know what the -- the answer is to
particular communities or anything like that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Has any other community in
Collier County been cited under this same ordinance, and are you
pursuing any other community in Collier County?
MS. ARNOLD: I don't know if we are citing any particular
communities, but I know that we are citing others in the county,
whether or not it's, you know, a subdivision within a community, I
don't know what the number is.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Was it related to Hurricane Wilma
damage at all?
MS. ARNOLD: I really don't know. What we're citing folks for
has nothing to do with Hurricane Wilma damage or any other
hurricanes that were experienced last year.
Page 168
April 25, 2006
What it is is that we saw vegetation removal in excess of what
should have been removed from the hurricane. Meaning, you know, if
there were trees that were along Crayton Road that -- we would not
have cited -- stopped and cited those folks.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You didn't see the trees that were
blown across the entrance of the Wilderness?
MS. ARNOLD: There were trees blown across the entrance of
the Wilderness. But what I'm saying is that what we witnessed was
more than the removal of those trees that were blown across --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me read you something. In the
hearing by the special master, Investigator O'Farrell says that she saw
a large pile of debris had been removed. If it had still been there, I
would have been able to determine if the trees had been damaged by
the hurricane or were viable.
So according to her testimony, she did not know what was
damaged and what was not damaged. So how do you reach the
conclusion then that the residents of the Wilderness were removing
more than you thought they needed to remove for hurricane damage?
MS. ARNOLD: Well, again, that case was limited to five trees.
And what we're talking about is an area that encompasses an entire -- a
lot more.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So--
MS. ARNOLD: And according to the notes in the case, which I
don't have with me, unfortunately, there was discussion between the
landscaper that was there and the investigators -- which there were
two. There was Kevin Hilsworth (phonetic) and a Susan O'Farrell,
that led me to believe, at least from reading some of that stuff, that this
was more than just, I'm taking up hurricane debris.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But did you see this personally?
MS. ARNOLD: I did not.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So you're speaking from the
standpoint of what you were told by someone else --
Page 169
April 25, 2006
MS. ARNOLD: Right, and what I read.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- who did not know whether it was
hurricane damage?
MS. ARNOLD: Well, I'm speaking to what I was told from that
individual as well as the other investigator that was the first
investigator out at the site.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right. So we are unable to
determine if the trees that were removed were hurricane damaged.
But we are able to determine that lots of other material was being
removed that must not have been hurricane damaged?
MS. ARNOLD: That is what I was told.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But there's no way of really telling,
is there?
Okay. Now, let me ask a question that Norm Feder's going to
have to answer, I suspect. On the week of April the 1 st, a large
number of trees were removed along the area of 4330 Gulfstream
Drive, very large trees. Probably 24 inches in diameter. Were the
people who removed those trees cited for the removal of those trees?
MR. FEDER: I'm not even familiar with the removal of the trees.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Where is Gulfstream Drive?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You are. It's off 41.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's in Lely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Remember Paula Spring's lot
where you piled all of the trunks of those trees that were cut down?
MR. FEDER: The removal of magnolia -- excuse me, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Palm trees, palm trees. Native
vegetation, right? It wasn't planted by man. This is native vegetation.
Many of them, enough to fill a lot larger than this room six feet
high or so.
Did we get a permit to do that?
MR. FEDER: I'd have to check with some folks and get back to
you, Commissioner. I'm not sure.
Page 170
April 25, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And nobody cited the county for
doing that, did they?
MR. FEDER: Again, no. Obviously I'd know if we got cited.
I'm not familiar with exactly what went on out there or what the
process was.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, to get to what
Commissioner Henning was saying just a few minutes ago about we
don't have enough code enforcement people to go after the people who
are really violating the code, okay?
This is just one person (indicating). Look at all of the complaints
and violations that have been issued for this one person. One fine out
of all of this, just one single fine that by the way, was waived. The
person's probably still doing it.
It appears to me that if we spent more time going after and
solving these kinds of problems rather than going after a community
like the Wilderness, which, if you go in there, is truly a wilderness.
They've got a lot of vegetation there. They have no interest in taking
it out and destroying their vegetation. They took it out because it was
storm damage, and I think we ought to have the common sense to
understand that.
It went before a special master, and the special master said the
county has not proved its case, consequently the respondent is found
not guilty of the alleged violation.
MS. ARNOLD: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why did we then go back to try to
build another case? Why did we have to continue what appears to the
residents to be harassment? I don't know . We've certainly got enough
to do for people who really are doing bad things to our county.
MS. ARNOLD: Well, and Commissioner, I mean, the way we
look at it is, you know, we were -- we have -- as I indicated, we have
not written that notice of violation, which is what initiates our code
cases before a body in this particular case.
Page 171
April 25, 2006
We met with the Wilderness, we met with representatives of the
Wilderness, and we were trying to see how they were planning on
getting this resolved.
And as I mentioned to you earlier, I believe that, you know, the
plan that they submitted and agreed to modify will resolve the issue.
So I don't believe that we have gone after the Wilderness again. I
don't think that this is -- we -- we're intending in any way of harassing
those residents at all.
And with respect to people that are really doing something bad,
we do go after a lot of people doing a lot bad, and we do collect a lot
of fines. I don't know what particular issue you're holding up in your
hand regarding the multiple violations, but, you know, quite often we
get complaints repeatedly from folks for the same property over and
over and over and over again.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, this one --
MS. ARNOLD: And unless we see it and unless we witness it
and unless we can prove to a special master or to a body that the
violation exists, we cannot bring that to that body. We cannot pursue
it. No matter how much we believe that that might be occurring, we
have to show our evidence. We can't just do it because we believe
that person's a bad person.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: In this particular case, it's Corana
Way in Poinciana.
MS. ARNOLD: Oh.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And rather than solving the
problems and fining this person for the multiple violations over a long,
long time, you know what we're doing now? We're going after the
person who complained about what this person was doing.
MS. ARNOLD: Well, I know what case that is. And, you know,
with all of our cases, that particular individual has to be given an
opportunity to correct. And he went to -- you know, for the
permit-related issue. He went to the building department, and he's
Page 1 72
April 25, 2006
pursuing the permit. We can't fine him if he's pursuing compliance.
That person turned in his neighbor, or somebody turned in his
neighbor, and there happened to be a violation. We can't ignore it
because he reported that individual. We have to pursue it all.
Unfortunately, a lot of times we get used by neighbors to get back at
their neighbor.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand.
MS. ARNOLD: And if it's a legitimate violation, we address it.
If it's not, you know, we apologize for inconveniencing folks because
it happens, and we move on. But we try to be objective in all of our
cases.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just wanted to lay the groundwork
for what I hope will be the application of some common sense here,
because the Wilderness is actually proposing to put back more trees
than they ever took out. And I don't understand why we went through
the process of essentially threatening them that we're going to open up
their whole PUD and require them to create internal preserves that
were subj ect to our inspection.
MS. ARNOLD: Well, that comment was incorrect. It shouldn't
have been made.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, all right. Well, that's the
kind of thing that creates these difficulties.
And I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I think I've finished my
dialogue here.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do you have any pictures that show
what took place? I mean, that wasn't brought up.
The other thing is, what are we -- what is the bottom line here?
And as Commissioner Coyle brought out and Commissioner
Henning, are we here to pick on the neighbors, or are we trying to
come up with some type of resolution in regards to the trees where --
was there some --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I answer that?
Page 173
April 25, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there something that's going to be
taken care of on that?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes. They've indicated to us that they're going
to be planting -- this is a plan that they submitted to us. It kind of
identifies the area and the plants, and we're in agreement with what
needs to be done. That's where we are.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And are they -- do they want to do this
on their own?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes. They've agreed to do it; is that not
correct?
MR. BUNNER: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I guess I'm trying to -- I'm in a
quandary here trying to figure out --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, just -- the last time that their
representative was -- a local attorney got up, there was an issue about
putting the preserve in some kind of a conservation easement.
MS. ARNOLD: Right.
MR. MUDD: And I believe that was a contentious issue at the
time. And help me if I'm wrong here, okay, but that's what I
remember hearing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's hear from him.
MR. MUDD: It wasn't so much the number of trees. It was that
sticking point at the end. And I think it has a lot to do with the
arrangements that Wilderness has as far as their PUD is concerned.
MS. ARNOLD: And it's that incorrect statement, I think, that we
would have the ability to open up their PUD was also something that
was probably a sticky issue.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question for the county
attorney; I want to follow up. In this case, because it is the action of
the code enforcement, code enforcement board, possibly the board, we
Page 174
April 25, 2006
can't interfere with it. Is that my understanding? Or we can -- or can
we say, you know, they were tried and the judge found them not
guilty, and leave them alone? Can we do that?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think you can. We talk in terms of
prosecutorial discretion. Ms. Arnold has indicated that there is no
citation or notice of violation ongoing at this point in time, so I think
the board, having heard this through a public petition and asking for it
to come back in a regular agenda item for further discussion, can give
a little direction.
More concern is, of course, when there's an active case going on
that's within the jurisdiction of the code enforcement board or the
hearing officer.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, thank you. And the next
thing, I want to see if the board wants to give direction, with the
advice of the code enforcement board, advisory board, and how we
apply government to our residents.
And I can tell you that there is no statute of limitation the way it
was applied today on land use, supposedly, violation.
One example, I've heard about a pole barn or a barn that was built
40 years ago, and at that time it did not require a permit, but yet there's
a notice of violation.
And as the Florida Building Code and as our ordinances change,
these -- some people's perception, these nonconformities, gets bigger
and bigger and bigger.
And I would like to have a statute of limitation, something
similar to minor misdemeanors, because we're treating our residents,
in my opinion -- I hope nobody takes offense to it -- because there is
no statute of limitations on murderers and rapists.
And I hate to bring that parallel, but it sure seems to me like
that's how we're treating our residents in Collier County. If we had a
statute of limitation recommended by the advisory board, I think that
would be a great way to govern the people here in Collier County.
Page 175
April 25, 2006
And I want to see if there's any support of the board on this one
and other things. The -- innocent until proven guilty. I mean, if the --
I mean, there's just so many stories out there, whether they're true or
not, but one that is really sticking is the statute of limitation.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would support that kind of
guidance to the staff to come up with a solution to that problem of
statute of limitations. I think that would be good. But I'm ready to --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have a speaker.
MR. MUDD: I think David will tell you he's working on it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: I won't tell you that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because it's not true.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I guess he's not going to tell us that.
Can we tell David that? All right. Okay. You've got, I think -- do
we have enough? Okay. Then can I make a motion?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We had one speaker.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't care.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I think the gentleman would like to
speak.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you want to speak? Oh, which
speaker is that? Is it Rich? Oh, okay. I'm sorry, Rich. I thought it
was somebody else.
MR. GIBBONS: Rich Gibbons, New Castle Condominiums,
Berkshire Lakes.
Commissioner Henning asked if there was any other
communities being harassed by code enforcement, and we are too, the
same storm damage by Hurricane Wilma.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What development?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Berkshire Lakes.
MR. GIBBONS: Berkshire Lakes.
Page 176
April 25, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the issue?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sir, could you come back? I think your
commissioner has a question for you. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My understanding, that the
community -- or code enforcement is trying to assist you on the
replanting of vegetation; am I wrong?
MR. GIBBONS: Yeah. There's trees that they want us to take
down and put a berm up, put a hedge up and replace the trees that are
not even on our property. It's like, I don't know, I think it's about
70-some trees.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That are not on your property
you need to replace?
MR. GIBBONS: We just had a survey done, and we have
pictures to prove that they're not on our property.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I don't think a
government can demand, but I could be wrong.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They can demand it, but if you
bring it to us, we can straighten it out.
MS. ARNOLD: Well, instead of going through another code
case, the issue is, they -- the buffer that was required between a condo
development and a single-family development was planted in the
wrong location a long time ago, and the residents along the
single-family are complaining about the buffer. And we're trying to
work with the developers or the condo association to try to get the
appropriate buffer planted where it needs to be rather than in the
wrong location.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you're not requiring them to
replant on somebody else's property or take down on somebody else's
property?
MS. ARNOLD: Well, that's the question, who's going to be
responsible? Because we've got a PUD with many phases, and the
developer took -- planted on the wrong location. And so that's the
Page 1 77
April 25, 2006
question, who's responsible, is the question, for removing what's
planted on the wrong location.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who accepted the landscaping
plan on -- or the site -- or the final inspection?
MS. ARNOLD: The county did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did that answer your question?
MS. ARNOLD: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I make a motion and try to
solve this other problem? I'd like to make a motion that we accept the
plan submitted by the Wilderness as a complete and final mitigation
with respect to any removal of vegetation in the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- Wilderness area. Does that meet
all your requirements?
MS. ARNOLD: Is that including the changes we agreed to?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And the public hearing is closed at this
time. Oops.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: He's going to answer a question, I
think.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. Public hearing's back open.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's like a swinging door.
MR. BUNNER: Good afternoon. My name is Stanley Bunner,
and I represent the Wilderness Country Club.
Commissioner, in answer to your question directly, I don't
believe that that would entirely address our concerns, and we would
like to make a brief presentation with regard to Ms. Arnold's
statements just so that -- really it's quite on point of Commissioner
Henning's concern with regard to illegal nonconforming and this idea
of what happens when you have a PUD that met the requirements then
and what the county can, in our case, has done in response to what we
think is not a good-faith enforcement.
Page 178
April 25, 2006
So we would like to speak for a short time if the board would
allow that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You can do that now, I guess.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You can do that right now, sir.
MR. BUNNER: I have a small amount of materials that I was
going to put on the overhead projector.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You can go over to that side over there.
MR. BUNNER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: How's five minutes, is that -- will that do
for you, do you think?
MR. BUNNER: Sir, I will do it in four and a half.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Five is good, six.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You get five yes votes if you can
do it in four and a half; you get three yes votes if you do it in five
minutes or more.
MR. BUNNER: Thank you.
In light of the circumstances, I'll go a little bit out of order. I did
have a prepared presentation, but we'll first put some pictures up just
to refresh your recollection on Wilderness and what it looks like, and I
will continue to speak.
I would agree with Ms. Arnold that it would seem that the
immediate issue of the vegetation removal at the entrance is resolved
at least to the effect that we and code enforcement now agree as to
what needs to be put in there and what is acceptable to bring it back to
a level of where it was before Wilma.
The problem that we have is the two issues that I raised in the
first hearing, and you've heard them here today, and I don't believe
they've been adequately addressed by code enforcement.
We tasked them, we charged them to justify two aspects of this
code enforcement effort. The first was Mr. Snodderly's position that
in the event that they had to prove a violation, that they were going to
Page 1 79
April 25, 2006
seek a reopening of our PUD which would re-examine our fire code
compliance and our carport compliance.
Well, we and code enforcement both know full well that those
carports are not in compliance. So what they did is they raised the
stakes. With a phantom violation that they did not bring, they caused
us to sit back and say, well, now we have to weigh this out. Do we do
what they want us to do, or do we take the risk of now spending
millions of dollars changing the character entirely of Wilderness
because some saw palmettos were removed after Hurricane Wilma?
And I would submit to you that this is not a good faith enforcement
method.
I thought I was going to have to prove that the statement was
made, but we can see that the statement is not -- you know, it's not
denied now. The statement was made, and at the time it could have
been retracted. They can say that it was a mistake now and all's well
that ends well.
But the fact of the matter is, we had grown men in that meeting,
members of the Wilderness board, the president of the association
with a long time of life experience, one of whom exclaimed, Mr.
Bieroff (phonetic), during that meeting, this is scary.
Why should a member of Collier County, a citizen of Collier
County, come to a quote-unquote voluntary compliance meeting and
be compelled to state that the meeting is scary because some saw
palmetto trees were removed?
Now, Wilderness is not of the position the code enforcement is
made up of a bunch of bad people or that they're out to get us, but
they're being a little overzealous in this regard.
Commissioner Henning brought up the issue of, does this violate
their PUD. In fact, I have a copy of the ordinance that adopted the
PUD back in 1976. And Wilderness did put in its application, and it
was adopted, that the character of this project, as evidenced in the
name, the Wilderness, is to be established through the preservation of
Page 180
April 25, 2006
a maximum of the existing handsome native forest.
That is Wilderness's position. And if you want to have some
testimony here today, you will actually find that in 2005, even if they
are correct that 19 trees were removed from the entrance, Wilderness
still planted 40 more trees on its property than it removed. They
planted over 60 in 2005.
This is not a community that's cutting down trees. As we said
before, they're proud of their wilderness. They're proud of their trees,
and they don't go around removing viable trees just for the heck of it.
There was an allegation made that they suspect that Wilderness
had some plans already to change that entrance. If we have to do it,
we will demonstrate that they did consult with a landscape architect,
but only for the golf course.
The area of the entrance was never addressed until after this
entire code enforcement issue started, after the post-Wilma cleanup.
I would ask you to just ask yourself, given the fact that 40 more
trees were planted in 2005 than were even allegedly removed, given
the fact that they do maintain the native vegetation to the maximum
extent possible, given the fact that she now even admits, and
Commissioner Coyle pointed out rightly, that they really have no idea
what trees were broken or to what extent in that entrance. They didn't
document the evidence, they didn't bring the evidence to that hearing.
Regardless of their attempt to now say that the hearing really had
nothing to do with what's going on now, Commissioner Coyle pointed
out rightly that it states right in the minutes that Investigator O'Farrell
argued that Wilderness is a preserve, which is required to have 25
percent vegetation, and it does not -- a permit was required to remove
vegetation. We were found not guilty. They argued it.
The other thing I would point out is -- and this is really the
sticking point for Wilderness -- is they have made this allegation that
the law of land use and the use of Wilderness is that it's a multifamily
dwelling community with a golf course.
Page 181
April 25, 2006
They're arguing that because subsequent to the PUD, this
requirement has come out that 25 percent native vegetation be
maintained on a site like Wilderness. That does not apply to
Wilderness.
They are arguing that somehow because some trees were cut
down, they are now illegal nonconforming. Well, I ask you, what
happens in two weeks when a thunderstorm hits, two trees are
uprooted, they fall over, Willedness cuts them up, puts them out in the
street to be removed, Investigator O'Farrell drives by and says, I don't
think those were really damaged by the thunderstorm.
They call us back in for a voluntary compliance meeting and they
tell us they're going to re-open our PUD and make us change the
carports if we don't go along with them.
They said on several occasions, we didn't even give them a notice
of violation, as if that was a mitigating factor for them. I say it's a
militating factor.
They didn't bring a violation of the code to go to the magistrate
because they lost the first time and they'd lose this time too. It's much
better to have the leverage over us to threaten us with a future
violation of some sort that we can't put our hands around.
They've had two weeks to give you legal authority that justifies
the application of the law of uses to this native preserve issue. I don't
think they've given it to you. If they've given it to you, I haven't heard
it here today.
What we are asking from the board is that the board issue an
instruction through whatever lawful means it can do so, through the
county manager, that Wilderness committed no violation of the spirit
or the law of the Land Development Code or of your own resolution,
2005-410, which allowed for the removal of trees damaged by the
hurricane without a permit.
Weare asking that you give an instruction that Wilderness is
under no obligation under the Land Development Code to engage in
Page 182
April 25, 2006
any remediation with regard to that post-Wilma cleanup.
Weare asking you to give them an instruction to either justify
this claim that the law of uses somehow applies to native preserves or
-- and to instruct them to not pursue code enforcement against
Wilderness on that basis.
And finally, to look at the plan and to say that that plan is
adequate and you believe it offsets any of the county's reasonable
requirements.
And I would just finally close by saying, for them to contend that
this is not about those five trees and it's not about that hearing that
they lost, simply ask the question, why is it that those five trees are the
basis for their mitigation demand?
All of their calculations are based on those five trees. And if you
look at the summary that they gave you themselves, they gave you the
enforcement and penalty standards, 1 0.02.06( e), and they highlighted
two sections for you.
And if you look at 2A sub I, they forgot to state -- they forgot to
highlight illegally removed. In the successful replacement of trees
illegally removed, placement trees shall be a sufficient size and
quantity to replace the DBHs removed. We were found not guilty.
Sub C --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sir, are you close to wrapping up?
MR. BUNNER: Yes, I am.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. BUNNER: And I would just point out again, sub C talks
again about protected areas, trees, unlawfully removed. These are not
preserves, and code enforcement cannot claim them to be when there
is no support in the law for that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MR. BUNNER: Thank you.
MS. ARNOLD: May I just respond?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning, I think you had
Page 183
April 25, 2006
a question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, did you want to make a
motion, because I'm ready to second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I did. I think the petitioner's
asking us -- asking me to expand the motion a bit further. I have no
problem doing that.
MS. ARNOLD: Can I just speak to a couple things, if I may?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll second that motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If you do, I'll forget what the
motion is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or might add more.
MS. ARNOLD: One of the comments is that we didn't speak to
the comment. I did speak to that comment. We could not -- I couldn't
respond to the comment regarding opening up the PUD in that
meeting because that's what my staff was advised at that point.
We further, or after that meeting, found out that that was an
incorrect statement, so I couldn't respond instantaneously at that
particular meeting.
One of the -- I did want to point out that we do have photographs
of what is remaining. And some of the photo's that were taken, or
presented to you this morning, or this afternoon, this evening, clearly
shows that many of those -- the damage was branches. What was
done was the removal of the trees rather than just taking the branches
down.
And then the only other point I wanted to make is that we did use
the five trees, because had we used all of the trees, the 19 or some odd
that were taken down, the requirements would have been even more
extensive. We were trying to be reasonable in applying the Land
Development Code. That's why we used those five trees.
So I just wanted to address those points.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So can I try to construct a
motion?
Page 184
April 25, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Be my guest.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: This ought to be a good one.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd like to make a motion that the
Wilderness Country Club is not -- has not violated any law, that the
remediation that they have proposed and have planned is adequate and
acceptable, that the code enforcement action concerning this issue will
be terminated. What did I miss, anything?
MR. WEIGEL: I think that's good enough from our standpoint,
and then it looks like separately you were going to give me and county
manager staff some direction relating to limitations, which I'd like to
address separately briefly for clarification.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. Let's cover this one motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But did we cover all the issues that
you wanted to see covered?
MR. BUNNER: Commissioner Coyle, to the extent possible to
do so, we would also like to address whether or not this claim by code
enforcement that the law of land use can be somehow applied by
analogy to the native preserve standards in the Land Development
Code. We'd like you to address that, and either get a future legal
opinion or to address it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that's something we'll have
to do for the future when we deal with this statute of limitations issue
that has been raised.
MS. ARNOLD: And I don't know where Mr. Bunner is getting
that we're applying the law of land use to it. We clearly only --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You just said -- you just said
when you got up, Ms. Arnold, that you're applying the land code and
MS. ARNOLD: Land Development Code.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure. And that's where the
problem is that I tried to -- I think most people understood -- is when
Page 185
April 25, 2006
you keep on amending the code, we're always going to have to address
those issues.
And in Commissioner Coyle's motion, he might want to state that
we find that the Wilderness Country Club's PUD is a higher document
than the existing code and it does not constitute any non-conformities
because lawmakers has changed the law, okay? And then we, overall,
need to address all of these other issues through, you know, PUDs,
older PUDs.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You concur with that, County Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: I'm sorry. I didn't hear the last couple words of
Mr. Henning. Pardon me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that the -- in this
particular case -- and we need to, I think, as a board through the
direction of you, County Attorney, is this PUD is in conformance. It's
in conformity with then Land Development Code and does not
constitute a nonconformity of to day's present code.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, in regard to the issues that have
been before you, I would concur. Additionally -- and you all hadn't
turned to me to address the question about the PUD and the Land
Development Code.
Yes, in fact, they are co-equal generally in the sense that they are
both laws relating to land use regulations; however, specific will
control the general. And the application of PUDs where they have
specificity will control, and typically the Land Development Code has
been used to fill in the gaps where there is no specificity of a planning
-- planned unit development ordinance.
So from that standpoint, there is a type of protection through the
agents through time, that where a PUD is specific, it continues to be
the law for its hybrid zoning for that property, and it will continue to
exist, so to, perhaps, reduce a little bit of the concern and also the
interpretation that comes with changes in the Land Development Code
later.
Page 186
April 25, 2006
So I think your question additionally about this PUD being in
conformance, I think the board can find generally that, yes, it does
appear to be in conformance.
And as I indicated earlier, you can indicate to staff that the
prosecutorial discussion is such that you do not see any reasoning
based upon the facts concerning vegetation and trees that indicates
that they should be going forward in any circumstance towards this as
well as Mr. Coyle's part of his motion where he indicates that what has
been suggested, provided by the Wilderness in regard to vegetation
desires and requirements and replantings, is also suitable and
appropriate, and I think that would be good.
One further thing, if I may, and that is in regard to a quote,
statute of limitations. Obviously what we're really talking about, of
course, is a type of limitation that becomes part of our ordinances. So
if what you're telling me to do, working with staff, is to come up with
an ordinance of repose which takes into account the ability for staff to
have -- if not a bright line, certainly a better line than they have right
now in regard to prioritization of enforcement particularly related to
the passage of time.
And probably what I'll bring back to you will have a bit of
information, or suggestion, relating to health, safety, welfare issues,
because we can see even with the discussion today relating to trees,
health, safety and welfare can sometimes be a far cry from the kinds
of issues that come up through code enforcement complaints and
things of that nature.
I hope I've answered your questions.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I try to summarize this motion,
get to a vote?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, do you want to -- first of all, how
about if we give the direction to staff in regards to the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Statute of limitations?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- statute of limitations, then we can go
Page 187
April 25, 2006
on with the motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that would be good.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. That's -- do we have three nods?
Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Great. I look forward to working with you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Now, to make sure that we've got
Commissioner Coyle's motion taken care of, do you agree with the
verbiage that Commissioner Coy Ie brought forth in his -- in his
motion, that it will cover the confines of Wilderness here?
MR. WEIGEL: I do. I think it's fine. And the attorney for
Wilderness had talked about this language. They're looking for the
board to agree to the laws of usage, things of that nature. I think that
that can be covered separately, that really everything stated by
Commissioner Coyle does take care of their issues and needs at the
present time, and we can come back to that other aspect another time.
I prefer not to impose a judicial -- judicial interpretation into this at
this point in time.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do we have to restate the motion
at this time, or is a clarification that --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if I can real quick, I'll tell you what
-- the motion that Commissioner Coy Ie had, okay, as I wrote it down.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I believe Commissioner Henning's
seconded this.
MR. MUDD: That the plan that they -- that they presented -- and
I'm talking about Wilderness -- is adequate and responsive, code
enforcement will close the case, and there was no violation of law.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the PUD remains in
compliance.
MR. BUNNER: And Wilderness would only request, in addition
to that, that there be a statement that Wilderness is under no legal
obligation to meet any of the restoration standards in the Land
Development Code since they did not commit a violation.
Page 188
April 25, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's okay with me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll second that.
MR. BUNNER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Does that meet the confines of the
motion, County Manager -- or County Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, that's stated in the motion, so that can go if
you'd like.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any further discussion on
this matter? Yes, sir, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Mr. Gibbons brought
something up that I'm going to ask Mr. Pires to clarify, if you don't
mind, or we can go ahead and get this motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Why don't we just get this motion off the
table, okay? We'll get this addressed first, all right. And then we'll
take a break if you can hold it till right after -- so this young lady can
have a break.
If there's no further discussion on this motion, I'm going to call
the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
We will take a 10- minute break.
Commissioner Henning, if you could just hold off, and then we'll
take care of this with you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Please. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Page 189
April 25, 2006
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, County Manager.
Would everybody take their seats? And we're back from recess.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us to our next item,
which is item 8A. This item --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're not done with the other
one.
MR. MUDD: -- was continued from the April 11, 2006 BCC
meeting. It's a recommendation to consider adoption of an ordinance
establishing the Copper Cove community development district, CDD,
pursuant to section 190.005 of the Florida Statutes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Could we hold up just for a second,
because I promised Commissioner Henning, he had a question at a
break, and I said that we would -- we would address that.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Pires is, I think,
representing this Berkshire issue, and the question is if the Collier
County code enforcement is asking you to remove trees from other
people's property, don't you have to get a permit to do so?
MR. PIRES: For the record, Tony Pires. I represent the New
Castle Condominium. Mr. Gibbons was up here earlier talking about
that. And one of the requests we've had from the investigator is to
remove trees not planted by my client on adjacent property. And I'm
not sure how we quite do that.
We didn't plant them, and they're on somebody else's property.
That's one of our issues.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think you're going to have to
get a permit and--
MR. PIRES: I don't even know how you'd do that if you have a
permit. It's called trespass, as I understand it, unless you get the
person's consent, and we never planted them in the first place.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And, of course, you'd have to go
Page 190
April 25, 2006
back -- the original developer did.
MR. PIRES: Who planted them about 15 years ago.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. But you'd have to get a
permit to remove the tree, because that's what the ordinance says. So
you go up there to get a permit, and they're going to ask you, are you
the property owner, and you say no. Well, we can't give you a permit.
You say, well, code enforcement is -- wants us to do this.
MR. PIRES: And the issue here too, there's exotics and
nonexotics. There's live oak and there's vacacious (phonetic), and
somebody planted them on the wrong spot 15 years ago.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can we wrap this up quickly so we can
move on?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know how they're going
to resolve this issue.
MR. PIRES: Hopefully, in talking with Michelle Arnold during
the recess, and hopefully we can address some of the issues. I'm not
sure if Michelle is fully up to speed on all of the legal issues involved
in it, and hopefully we can work through it so that my clients can do
what they want to do, which is plant vegetation required by an SDP
from 15 years ago that the developer didn't do, and not take down the
stuff the developer put in the wrong spot. And hopefully we can work
through that. They're pretty nice people in New Castle, and --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
MR. PIRES: -- appreciate any board support along those lines,
and try to work with Michelle to achieve that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We could always bring it up,
put it on an item number nine on our agenda.
MR. PIRES : Yes, sir. I'll keep you posted; I'll keep you advised.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But that's NOV, so that's --
notice of violation, so that's --
MR. PIRES : We don't have a hearing set yet. As I said, I don't
know how we take trees off somebody else's property.
Page 191
April 25, 2006
MR. WEIGEL: Carefully.
MR. PIRES: Yeah, carefully. I don't want to go to jail, nor do
my clients, for trespassing or criminal mischief for destroying
property .
Thank you, Commissioner Henning.
Item #8A
ORDINANCE 2006-17 - AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE
COPPER COVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
(CDD) PURSUANT TO SECTION 190.005, FLORIDA STATUTES
- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Please proceed.
MS. KENDALL: Yes, good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, County
Commissioners. For the record, Marsha Kendall, Comprehensive
Planning Department.
The petition submitted by Colonial Homes and continued from
the --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Which one is this now?
MS. KENDALL: Copper Cove.
MR. MUDD: Copper Cove CDD.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 8D.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I believe we have to have people swear
in in regards to this item, don't we?
MS. FILSON: No.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No? Okay.
MS. KENDALL: The petition submitted by Colonial Homes and
continued from the April 11 th BCC hearing remains to meet the
requirements as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 190.0052, A
through F, for the establishment of a community development district.
Page 192
April 25, 2006
Additional information was provided to you from the petitioner
this past Friday and includes a hard copy of a research spread -- I'm
sorry -- research spreadsheet and Word document on the Collier
County CDDs and special districts previously emailed to you and per
your request.
I'd like to mention that of the 17 now existing CDDs in Collier
County, the largest being Fiddler's Creek at 4,271 acres, the smallest is
Pioneer Lakes, being 149 acres. If Copper Cove would be approved
today, that would be the smallest of all the CDDs.
If you have any questions, I would happy (sic) to answer them, or
the county attorney. Otherwise, I'd turn the floor over to the
representative for Colonial Homes, James Ward.
MR. WARD: Good afternoon, Commissioners, and thank you.
For your record, my name is Jim Ward, and I'm representing the
petitioner, Colonial Homes.
Just briefly in the way of some background, again, the petition is
a 10 1.56-acre community development district located in Collier
County for approximately 295 residential dwelling units within the
county itself.
It is located south -- bounded on the south and east by Fiddler's
Creek, on the west by Pelican Lakes RV and Silver Lakes RV Resort,
and on the north by the Quail Roost development itself.
Contained within chapter 190.005 are the six basic criteria that
the county must look at with respect to the establishment of the CDD
itself. Primarily they contain information with respect to whether the
petition information is true and correct, whether it is inconsistent with
applicable elements or portions of the state comprehensive plan or the
effective county governmental comprehensive plan.
The important one, I think, that obviously has been raised to
some extent here is whether the district is of sufficient size,
sufficiently compact and sufficiently contiguous to be developed as
one functional interrelated community, and whether the district is the
Page 193
April 25, 2006
best alternative available for the delivery of the services to be
provided by the district; and the final ones, whether it is incompatible
with the capacity and uses of the existing local and regional
community development services and facilities, and six, an important
one also, whether the district is amenable to separate special district
government itself.
In addition to that, I've provided to you some additional
information with respect to the benefits of community development
districts as they relate to future residents, the local government itself,
and to the district -- and to the state and to the district.
It's important to recognize that when you look in totality at the
state law itself, this act was enacted in 1980 essentially as an outshoot
of the growth management laws that were enacted in the mid 1970s,
and they provide a mechanism for developers to build, construct, and
finance infrastructure services that are required for communities such
as Copper Cove and to provide a mechanism to fund and eventually
operate and maintain those community amenities pursuant to the
statute.
The legislature, I think, correctly recognized that here in Florida,
with the way infrastructure services were -- needed to be provided
through the state comprehensive plan and eventually through local
governments' comprehensive plans, there needed to be another
mechanism to allow developers to aggregate tracts of land and to build
these functional interrelated communities such as what we have here
with Copper -- within Copper Cove and to do that and to finance those
through tax exempt municipal bonds where growth coming within the
county pays for itself, and that growth is not a burden on the local
government and it doesn't stretch its resources to any extent
whatsoever.
I hope that within the constraints of the documents that we've
presented to you, both the planner's report, the engineer's report, the
statement of estimated regulatory costs, we've been able to adequately
Page 194
April 25, 2006
demonstrate that we've met all of the six elements that are contained
within the statute itself for your review and that we have been able to
show to you that this government, if you choose to create it, is
amenable to separate use.
As -- I do want to add one other comment as to size of the
district. Although this might be what you would consider small for
purposes of Collier County, it's not the smallest district in the state
itself. There are petitions that are running through now that are much
smaller in terms of acreage. This is not the smallest district in terms of
Collier County in terms of the unit counts.
The Key Marco community development district, which is Cap
Horrs Island (phonetic), is 134 single-family residential units on 150
acres, if my memory serves me correctly.
So in terms of size, you tend to look at both, not only the acreage
of the district, but also the number of units that can be developed
within the project itself.
This project, 101 acres and 295 developable residential units,
certainly is sufficient size necessary to make it amenable to the use of
a community development district.
One additional point that I wanted to bring out to you with
respect to the petition is that we fully support the commission's
requirements with respect to the election of a member of the
community as soon as we possibly can after residents move into this
community as a member of the board. It provides, I think, a great deal
of additional input from the residents that are helpful to the
community at that time and long-term.
And secondarily, and most importantly, that we do agree to
record the notice of assessments containing specific terms and
conditions of the special assessments that will be levied on this
property itself.
Next I want to take a moment and turn to the letter that I had sent
to you along with the report that I actually recently was able to find
Page 195
April 25, 2006
from Miami-Dade County with respect to some of the benefits that
accrued to future residents into the county with respect to these
community development districts.
Most importantly -- and I highlighted it as number one in my
letter to you -- and I called them the legislative recognition benefits
similar to what Miami-Dade County calls them in their report, and
they are the myriad of reporting requirements that are required for
community development districts, the same reporting requirements
that you are required to have for Collier County, as any other
municipality in the state is required to have.
That provides, I think, incredible public disclosure, and in all the
years that I've been in this business, is one of the best protections
statutorily that we have now for the benefit of the future residents of
Copper Cove.
There was a day prior to this act being established 1980 -- in
1980 that the myriad of special districts that exist in the state had a
number of different reporting requirements, but with the codification
of 190 and chapter 189, which is local government reporting
specifically related to districts, I think the legislature, rightly so, did
great justice to future residents moving into this state in requiring all
of us to report the same way to our constituents as you report to your
constituents, and I think that has been of great benefit to all of you.
Next, and importantly so, is the legislative protections to future
residents, and I want to talk about those in two forms. One is, those
residents who have not yet purchased within Copper Cove, and
secondarily, those residents who might already be there within the
constraints of Copper Cove.
And in chapter 190, there have been, since 1980, a number of
improvements that have been made to the statute to deal with
specifically the issue of ensuring that future residents that are going to
move within this district know that this district exists and know why it
exists and know what the assessment levels are going to be within --
Page 196
April 25, 2006
within the -- within the project itself.
The first bullet that I've indicated to you indicates the specific
language just above the signature line on the sales contract that
indicate that districts -- this district will exist, that it has the power to
levy non-ad valorem assessments, ad valorem taxes, user face -- fees,
rates and charges, within -- within the district for the purpose of
providing its services.
That was originally in the legislation in 19 -- 1980. And
subsequent -- and that was actually the only disclosure information
that was in there at that point in time.
In the mid 1980s, in probably '84, '85, if my memory serves me,
there were a number of other additional steps taken within the
constraints of that statute which provided some additional disclosure
information, one of which you alluded to in your ordinance itself, but
secondarily the one -- the few that are added here that says that we
must provide full disclosure of information relating to the public
financing and maintenance of improvements to real property
undertaken by the district, made available to existing residents and to
all prospective residents of the district itself.
Now, what's public -- what is -- what do we call full disclosure?
Well, in my mind what we call a full disclosure is the fact that we
have levied an assessment, what's the par amount of debt on your lot,
what's the annual amount that you will be required to pay over
whatever the time period that those bonds have been issued for the
debt service associated with that public debt, and, thirdly, but less
importantly, is how much is the operation and maintenance
assessment that you're going to be obligated to now, and if we have
any idea of what that will be in the future.
That, in my mind, to a great extent, is public disclosure to those
future residents. They now have two pieces of information. They
have -- one, they have the signature on the sales contract. Right above
it, bolded, it tells them that they exist.
Page 197
April 25, 2006
Two, is a document that says how much debt we've levies, how
much par debt is on your lot, what's your annual assessments for debt
service, and what your potential annual assessment is for operation
and maintenance.
Thirdly, we are required, the district is required, if you choose to
establish it, that we provide that information -- sufficient copies of that
information to each prospective initial purchaser of property in the
development, essentially then to the developer to provide that
information to his proposed customers, and including a copy of our
public offering statements.
And if you're familiar with official statements, the volume of
that, that's the kind of document that's now required to be provided
under the statute.
And fourth and fifth, a little less important, but as important --
especially when you talk about multifamily sales contracts -- is that
the Division of Florida Land Sales, condominiums, mobile homes, the
Department of Business and Professional Regulation ensure that this
information is made available with respect to multifamily sales that
are occurring within the development.
And then finally, the Department of Community Affairs is sort of
the reporting entity for all districts in the state, keep such information
necessary to ensure that the districts are actually maintaining this kind
of information.
And although there is not a lot of regulatory compliance
requirements under the statute currently, I can tell you at least that the
DCA does ask those questions periodically for districts throughout the
years.
So those are really the benefits, I think, whether you call them
protections or benefits, but in my mind, both protections and benefits
to future residents that are coming within the boundaries of the
district.
And then finally the benefits to landowners and residents and the
Page 198
April 25, 2006
benefits to local governments -- and I won't take a ton of time and go
through what I've summed up here. A lot of it's -- I had pulled directly
from the Miami-Dade report that you saw.
But generally speaking, the concept under the statute is that
growth pays for growth, that future residents moving within the
community will bear their fair share of the cost of these
improvements.
You can see from the Miami-Dade report that housing prices,
whether you're within a CDD or not within a CDD, don't necessarily
drive the level of assessment themselves. You have some
communities in Miami-Dade -- and to a great extent I've noticed
across the state -- Miami-Dade sort of codified it in writing for us, that
assessment levels may be higher in one community and less in another
community whether a CDD exists or doesn't exist.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Could you wrap it up, sir?
MR. WARD: Sure. I sure can.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. WARD: I appreciate the time, thank you.
And most of the other benefits that are in here, I think, really
relate to the operation and maintenance benefits of the community, but
I think most importantly, the local governments, they do allow us to
work with you cooperatively in terms of the delivery of infrastructure
services to existing residents and to future residents and allow us to
finance those infrastructures over time. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Ward, would you be willing
to state in the ordinance that the CDD will be paid by the amount of
75 percent of the bond issue prior to the last 90 percent of the homes
being sold?
MR. WARD: Say that again? And I'm a finance guy, so I -- go
ahead. Try one more time.d
Page 199
April 25, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess I convoluted that one.
MR. WARD: Yeah. I got two questions out of that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want you to pay for the
infrastructure with the proceeds of the sale of the homes.
MR. WARD: And as I indicated to you at the last commission
meeting, the developer is not in a position to do that. We think clearly
the statute provision that ensures that growth pays for growth, this is a
mechanism to do that. We don't have the ability to do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, let me ask you
some questions then.
MR. WARD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You stated that this is a
mechanism to bring integrated tracts together?
MR. WARD: Yes. As a mechanism -- from a state perspective,
if you go back and look at some of the original authorization, it was
intended to ensure that you don't have 10-acre tract developments.
You have larger tracts of 50 acres, or 100 acres or 1,000 acres, or
whatever it may be, larger tracts.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What do you consider a tract?
What's the definition of a tract?
MR. WARD: I just use it in a generic term, that you provide a
functional interrelated community. So a community such as Copper
Cove where it has gone through the zoning and planning process such
that you've aggregated sufficient land in order to build the
development that has -- and provides infrastructure for that
development that doesn't burden the county.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What do you consider a parcel?
How big is a parcel? Is a parcel smaller than a tract?
MR. WARD: Commissioner, those engineering terms -- I'm not
here to tell you I know the answer to that question. I can just tell you
that from my perspective, the definition under 190 is really to be able
to build a functional interrelated community. The size, as related --
Page 200
April 25, 2006
whether it's a 30-acre parcel that you're doing a district on or a
100-acre or a 1,000-acre, the issue is whether -- can you build that
community and provide that infrastructure required for it that benefits
those future residents and the county.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And the chapter 190.002,
paren, C, establishing -- and it's in the best interest of a long-term
ranging plan, management and financing the long-term maintenance
upkeep, operation and basic service in the community development
district be under one of the coordinates, and one of them is, it is the
benefit of the taxpayers. And like you said, growth pays for growth.
In your response to the Growth Management Plan on page -- in
our packet, page 40 and 41, you indicate that the creation of this
special district doesn't burden or government or doesn't burden the
taxpayers. You know, like you said, growth pays for growth.
MR. WARD: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the issue is, is this the best
available funding? Well, you have impact fees. If you want to build
public infrastructure -- is that what you want to do, build public
infrastructure?
MR. WARD: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. You do have impact
fees, and all you have to do is go to the county and pony it up, and you
can build it. I mean, you don't have to create a special district for it.
And personally the residents, or future residents, future taxpayers, I
don't believe you have fit the policy within the guidelines, one through
six, in our packet or establishment of the CDD because actually,
unless there's something in the ordinance that prohibits, the taxpayers
are paying for it twice. There is no benefit.
MR. WARD: Let me try to address your multiple questions here.
First with respect to the provision in 190, the -- I think the intent
of the statute, and clearly, was that those future residents bear the
benefit of those services and, therefore, it does provide a viable
Page 201
April 25, 2006
mechanism for the long-term operation and maintenance of the
community itself.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. A benefit -- a tax
burden's not a benefit, or an obligation of a bond is not a benefit.
MR. WARD: Well, Commissioner, it is -- an assessment is a
benefit if, in fact, it provides value to the property above and beyond
what would normally be provided for by the local government itself.
Now, the intent -- and I'll --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We wouldn't provide that
infrastructure.
MR. WARD: Correct, and I agree with you, and you had -- that's
the very point I was going to make to you, talk about impact fees and
paying your impact fees and you never provide for development costs.
The fact of the matter is, here in this state, impact fees, whether
they're at the county level or the city level, generally do not provide
for payment -- generally do not provide the kinds of infrastructure that
you have that's required within this kind of a development.
A very good example these days is mitigation costs related to
conservation areas. Huge dollars in terms of requirements to provide
development. But impact fees, whether they're at your level or a city
level, generally don't allow you or a city to provide for that kind of
infrastructure, but it still has to be done. That means the developer's
got to pick that up.
And there's a lot of other examples where utility lines or off-site
improvements, you mentioned one, I think it was our last meeting, a
connection of a road or something of that nature. I can't remember
exactly.
But those are the kinds of infrastructure services that may be
required that are not necessarily covered by impact fees.
Now, do they provide a benefit? They provide a benefit to those
future residents in terms of that property being developable, and those
residents can then move in and live in this community and be a benefit
Page 202
April 25, 2006
to Collier County in terms of the additional taxes and assessments and
fees that they may pay to you locally or to the state the provision of
those services. So that's the benefit that's really provided to them.
Do any of us like to pay assessments? Absolutely not. Do any of
us like to pay taxes? Absolutely not. But, you know, the fact is that
we all do. But in this state we have no income taxes, a low sales tax.
So there are -- we had to provide another mechanism statutorily to
provide for some of this infrastructure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Well, we all know it really
isn't a burden on the county and that it really isn't a burden on the
taxpayer. What it is is, it's a funding source for the developer to build
the stuffup front, right, and you can bond out because he's now got a
CDD. I mean, let's call a spade a spade.
MR. WARD: That's what it is, Commissioner. As long as it's
disclosed properly, I think we're -- you know, we stay pretty close to
the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. And by the way, the prices
of the houses don't go down because they do that up front. You know,
the prices of the house stay that way even though -- even though
they're going to be assessed for those items and it isn't worked into the
price. So I just wanted to -- I just wanted to say that on the record.
But anyway what I wanted to get back to you is, elect one
resident of the district, and that's something that I've been very
concerned about, and your reply was, as soon as we possibly can.
Well, that could be, you know --
MR. WARD: Your ordinance is actually worded correctly. I just
couldn't remember the exact words.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
MR. WARD: So at such time as residents begin occupying the
homes, no problem.
Page 203
April 25, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what I wanted to know.
Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have some questions.
MR. WARD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: These are basically when you come up
with a CDD that's basically paid for by municipal bonds; is that
correct?
MR. WARD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. That's -- taxpayers have to decide
to get involved in this; is that correct?
MR. WARD: Those future residents -- once those bonds are
issued, yes, those future residents will repay that debt service on those
municipal bonds, only those residents.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Right. But there's people out there that
buy these bonds, right?
MR. WARD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: There's taxpaying people within the
confines of maybe the state or the county; is that correct?
MR. WARD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What basis -- in this case what basis do
the CDDs have in respect -- and since these are municipal bonds and
they put the infrastructure in, such as roads and what forth (sic) in
there and all the drainage and things, why does a CD D have the
possibility of having a gated community to stop other people from
going in there since those roads were put in by the taxpayers?
MR. WARD: Well, to the extent that -- where internal roads
behind a gate are put in by the taxpayers, so to speak, of Copper Cove,
or fill in the blank, whatever the name of the district, they can't do
that. They must provide reasonable public access to those facilities.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah, but they have a gated community
which makes you believe that you're not allowed in there.
MR. WARD: It makes you believe that, but under the law -- and
Page 204
April 25, 2006
I'll differentiate here, that once municipal bonds are issued, the
Internal Revenue Service defines the public as something broader than
the district's boundaries itself.
So if you walked up to -- well, let's see which district do I want to
get in trouble? Oh, my favorite one these days, Pelican Marsh. If you
walked up to Pelican -- you know, they would have to provide you
access to that community, reasonable access to it. There's not -- you
do not find -- I am not finding currently a lot of districts that are really
funding roads. That happened in the '90s.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Who's funding them now inside those?
MR. WARD: Generally they're provided by the developer now
because they are gated communities. The districts, if you look at even
this petition, conservation areas, off-site improvements, some
landscaping off site, water and sewer facilities that eventually get
dedicated to you all, water management facilities, that kind of
infrastructure.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So you're not -- you're not
supplying the roads and everything? And I think we need to take a
break right now just -- you need a break for transition?
THE COURT REPORTER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Why don't we just stop at this
point. Everybody just sit here and we'll have the court reporters
change seats here.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We're back in session again and I think
I've finished up my questioning. Is there any other commissioners that
have any questions on this item?
Okay. Seeing none, is there any speakers on this?
I'll entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion
for denial on the petition based upon the criterion did not meet number
four outlined by Florida Statutes 90.005.
Page 205
April 25, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I hear a second? Fails for a
second commissioner.
Do I hear another motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make a motion for the other
side, because we already got the denial, for approval with all of the
recommendations from staff included.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I hear a second?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is going to be an
interesting evening.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It failed for a second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You're going to second it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta has made a
motion for approval of the CDP and it's been seconded by
Commissioner Fiala. And is there any further discussion?
If not, I'll call the question. All those in favor signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
Those opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm not sure, what do we have here.
Okay, pass, three-two. I didn't hear those. Three-two, motion passes.
Item #8B
CONTINUED TO MARCH 23, 2006 BCC MEETING -
APPROVED
Page 206
April 25, 2006
MR. MUDD: I would like to, just for clarity, get a motion by the
board to continue the next item, 8.B, even though it states it in the
agenda, just for advertising purposes and whatnot.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those in favor for continuation by
8.B signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
Opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
Item #8C
RESOLUTION 2006-110: ADOPTING THE COLLIER COUNTY
HUD 5-YEAR CONSOLIDATED PLAN FOR FY 2006-2010 AND
ONE YEAR PLAN FOR FY 2006-2007 FOR COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG), HOME
INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS (HOME), AMERICAN DREAM
DOWNPAYMENT INITIATIVE (ADDI) AND EMERGENCY
SHEL TER GRANT (ESG) PROGRAMS, AUTHORIZE REQUIRED
HUD CERTIFICATIONS, APPROVE EXECUTION OF THE
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENTS BY THE COUNTY MANAGER
OR HIS DESIGNEE, AND SUBMIT TO THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
(HUD). - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item, and
Page 207
April 25, 2006
it's 8.C. It's a recommendation to approve a resolution adopting the
Collier County HUD five-year consolidated plan for FY 2006-2010
and the one-year plan for FY 2006 through 2007 for community
development block grants, CDBG, home improvement partnerships
home, American Dream downpayment initiative, ADDI, and the
emergency shelter grant ESG programs; authorize required HUD
certificates; approve execution of the subrecipient agreements by the
county manager or his designee; and submit to the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. There's a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coyle and I'm going to give it a toss up, I'm going to
say Commissioner Henning seconded. So is there any further
discussion, any questions by the commissioners? If not --
MR. MUDD: Any speakers?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good, thank you. Okay. Public hearing
is closed.
And I'm going to call the question. All those in favor signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
Opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. Great
presentation.
Page 208
April 25, 2006
Item #8D
ORDINANCE 2006-18: AMENDING SCHEDULE EIGHT OF
APPENDIX A OF CHAPTER 74 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES (THE COLLIER COUNTY
CONSOLIDATE IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE) PROVIDING FOR
THE INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF THE IMPACT FEE
STUDY ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY LIBRARY FACILITIES
AND ITEMS/EQUIPMENT IMPACT FEE UPDATE DATED
APRIL 4,2006, AMENDING THE LIBRARY IMPACT FEE RATE
SCHEDULE TO REFLECT THE AMENDED RATES SET FORTH
IN THE IMPACT FEE STUDY, UPDATING THE ANNUAL MID-
CYCLE INDEXING FOR THE LIBRARY IMPACT FEE RATES,
AND PROVIDING FOR A DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE OF
JUNE 12~ 2006 - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: The next item is 8.D. It's a recommendation that
Board of County Commissioners adopt an ordinance amending
Schedule 8 of Appendix A of Chapter 74, the Collier County Code of
Laws and Ordinances, which is called the Collier County consolidated
impact fee ordinance, providing for incorporation by reference of the
impact fee study entitled Collier County library facilities and
item-equipment impact fee update dated April 4, 2006, amending the
library impact fee rate schedules to reflect the amended rate set forth
in the impact fee study, updating the annual mid-cycle indexing for
the library impact fee rates and providing for a delayed effective date
of June 12th, 2006.
Go Amy.
MS. PATTERSON: Hello. For the record, Amy Patterson. I'm
your Impact Fee Manager. And I have a statement for the record
before I turn this over to Steve Tindale, who's our consultant on this
study.
Page 209
April 25, 2006
In the executive study I indicated that I'd provide to you the
recommendation by the productivity committee that met on April 19th
because the timeline didn't match the submission of the executive
summary. And the productivity committee did vote unanimously to
recommend that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the update
study and the corresponding rates.
And with that, Steve Tindale has prepared a brief presentation
that goes through the calculations, and I will turn it over to Steve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MR. TINDALE: Good afternoon, Steve Tindale with Tindale
Over. I'll be very brief. Basically, I want to go through the technical
very quickly, the technical study findings, and then open it up for
questions.
We went through several items in the study, the service area, the
inventory, the level of service, the cost. We had to check the credits
and then basically develop the fee.
The service area is countywide, the library system basically
providing services countywide. So we don't have any benefit districts
or subareas of the libraries.
The inventory we went through took all the libraries that you
own, all of the buildings and all the land and all the library materials
and inventoried that in terms of defining the current inventory,
computed the level of service.
Your current level of service ranges from .29 in terms of
buildings to .36 in terms of all buildings. Your adopted standard's
about .33 square feet per weighted residents. And that's about what
you average over time. So your adopted standard and what you've
been averaging matches.
And when we went through the books you had 1.54 books, per, I
think that's per thousand residents.
And then the other items really are not in your compo plan but we
inventoried those in terms of an impact fee asset.
Page 210
April 25, 2006
We went through a cost component. We basically looked at what
it takes you to build the libraries, and that's the reason we came in and
did this update. We didn't wait three years because of what's
happened in the last year with your construction prices. So that was a
major item we paid for -- we paid attention to is your actual reaching
construction bids and dealing with updating the costs.
We also looked at your land values and of course adjusted those.
In terms of your current asset, you have about $35.8 million
worth of buildings, about $8 million for the land, almost $17 million
with the equipment, and so the asset you have is about $60 million.
The cost per square foot we're using is $344 per square foot. I'm
not seeing anybody building buildings now for anything less than
$289 to $350 throughout the state.
The credit component, you don't use any of your taxes to build
the libraries, you depend upon your impact fees, so that was a real
easy set of calculations to do. There is no credit component.
And finally, the proposed fee schedule. We've moved from a per
square foot to three size groupings of homes to match all the other
impact fees to make them where they can be administered very easily.
And then you have a multi-family and a mobile home, and that's
the change in the fees. These are not astronomical fees, they're one of
the more reasonable fees.
You'll see the fire and the EMS and law enforcement and
libraries use their -- are well within ranges of comfort in terms of
impact fees.
That's the presentation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning has a question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, do you
remember in the AUIR that we adopted the previous year's level of
service on the books?
Page 211
April 25, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I thought we did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In your presentation you are
saying we changed it?
MR. TINDALE: I don't know. It's my understanding from the
compo plan that the adopted standard was -- .33 is the adopted.
Somebody from the compo plan would have to answer that. That was
my understanding.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Isn't it a compromise, like 175
instead of 180?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I remember that we wanted to
keep the level of service the same.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, we ugraded.
MR. TINDALE: Actually, that's kind of what we're -- let me
explain to you what we've actually done in terms of the analysis. We
looked -- what's happened is you build a building and then over three
or four years the level of service goes down and then you build a
building, so if you took anyone year --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm talking about the books.
MR. TINDALE: Oh, okay, excuse me. I don't know. The
impact fee is not based on 1.8. The impact fee is actually based on
what you've achieved, which is 1.54.
MR. SCHMITT: Let me correct the record. Joe Schmitt, for the
record. The level of service will not change officially until you adopt
the CIE. We went through the AUIR, we're now in the year process.
You still have a second hearing. So level of service changes officially
once you adopt the CIE.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me ask Commissioner
Coyle in a different way. Do you remember submitting to DCA the
same level of service for book inventory as we did the previous year?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I remember us telling the staff that
that's what we wanted to do. I don't know when it was submitted to
DCA.
Page 212
April 25, 2006
MR. TINDALE: Again, two distinct issues. For impact fee
purposes I can't use your adopted standard to charge someone. I'm
taking your current inventory, which is lower. So for impact fee
purposes it doesn't matter. Now, for your planning purposes long term
it may matter but I have used your current inventory in the impact fee,
not the adopted standard for the books. You may want to get
clarification on what your adopted standard is, but for impact fee
purposes it's not a problem.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You answered the question but
when it comes back for adoption we'll just have to look at that. Thank
you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We still have a motion on the floor.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I believe Commissioner Coyle made the
motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, Commissioner Fiala, and it
was seconded by Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: My voice sounded like his.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's okay. It's getting late in the
afternoon here. Seconded by Commissioner Henning.
Any speakers on this?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's for the next one, right?
MR. ZICHELLA: I would like to speak to this one too.
MS. FILSON: He's registered for the next one.
MR. ZICHELLA: Is it too late?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. We'll get you in the next time
around.
MR. ZICHELLA: I wanted to speak to the libraries.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Make an exception.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, we'll make an exception.
MR. ZICHELLA: Is it okay? Ifnot, I'll wait.
Page 213
April 25, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, normally what we do is people put
their speaker slips in, we hope to try to get people to put their speaker
slips in prior to it being discussed, sir.
MR. ZICHELLA: Thank you, Commissioner. Anyway, I do
appreciate it. Al Zichella, for the record. I am a registered lobbyist.
I'm here on behalf of CBIA as their president.
I just had one comment. I wasn't intending to speak to this but
construction costs at $344 a square foot I think are absurd. And that's
my only comment. And if you are basing it on that I just don't know
what to say --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that high or low?
MR. ZICHELLA: -- I've been doing this a long time and it's just
very steep. And I just don't think it's a realistic construction figure. I
happen to know that it's not.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to that.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker on this item.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He said it's too high.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would like to get a clarification.
MR. TINDALE: We had a specific study done with the libraries
themselves in terms of the cost estimates. In most of mine I deal with
the staff and use a lot of my own numbers, and we actually,
Commissioner, had somebody do a detailed study, so if you would
like to review the detailed study, specifically what's going in the
libraries and what the price is, you're welcome to the study. I feel
very comfortable with the number.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Better do that before I got my head
yanked off.
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that what we paid per square
foot or is that what we're estimating?
MR. TINDALE: That's the actual estimate that the person who
does it, the architect who does this based on -- and all the estimates are
Page 214
April 25, 2006
based on bids. I can give you just an example for the ones you are
going to see in transportation. Our current estimates are like $3.3
million per lane mile. The current numbers that are going in the
computer are about four and a half just within the last two or three
months.
So these are numbers that are estimated based on component
costs on recent bids. And you had someone do a detailed study of it.
And you are not building buildings, I can tell you, for less than 280,
290, $300 a square foot anywhere in Florida that I'm working. It's
been amazing, because a year ago we were building buildings for
$150 to $185 a square foot.
As a matter of fact -- I don't think I have it in this one, I have it in
the school one -- I can show you the cost of concrete and the cost of
steel and the changes that happened in the last six months to eight
months and the factors going into the estimate, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well.
MR. TINDALE: -- this isn't really new types of numbers that
we're experiencing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ifwe base it upon the
architectural drawings that the Board of Commissioners denied,
maybe that's why the cost came out higher than what Mr. Zichella
pointed out.
MR. TINDALE: Again, we can go back and check them again.
I reviewed --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The problem is, sir, is when we
adopt, what's the purpose of going back?
MR. TINDALE: I don't feel like you have to. It's up to you.
You can ask me to or when I look at it, the ranges we had were 239 to
512, and we used the 340. I'm comfortable with the range and the
numbers we're using for the fee.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is this statewide, is it averaged
throughout the whole state?
Page 215
April 25, 2006
MR. TINDALE: No, this is not statewide, this is actually based
on a study CH2M Hill did. And again, I've got the detailed study that
I feel comfortable with.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Geographically where is this located,
just in Collier County or Southwest Florida?
MR. TINDALE: To be honest with you, I don't know. You want
to address it?
MS. PATTERSON: I'm sorry, could you -- I missed the
question.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The question is where do you come up
with the estimate on the square footage for the building?
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, just to clarify a little bit, and Mr.
Tindale, if you would clarify this for me just a second. I don't think
that square foot cost is just straight mortars and bricks. It has to do
with furnishings --
MR. TINDALE: That's maybe the misunderstanding. There's a
clear misunderstanding then because this number is clearly within
limits of what you're building. This is everything it takes to do that
building except for land. We're talking about site development, we're
talking about parking, we're talking about landscaping, we're talking
about drainage, we're talking about utilities, we're talking about all the
books and the computers and everything in the facility. We're not
talking about what it takes to build a shell in terms of constructing like
a single family home with a shell in it. We're talking about the full,
total cost to open a library. And this number, I can tell you, is a very
reasonable number.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So you're saying a turnkey operation.
MR. TINDALE: Yes. This is the cost per square foot of
everything you own except for land.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further discussion? If not,
I'll call the question.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Page 216
April 25, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
Those opposed by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That passes four to one.
Item #8E
ORDINANCE 2006-19: AMENDING SCHEDULE ONE OF
APPENDIX A OF CHAPTER 74 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES (THE COLLIER COUNTY
CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE) PROVIDING FOR
THE INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF THE IMPACT FEE
STUDY ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY DATED APRIL 2006,
AMENDING THE ROAD IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE TO
REFLECT THE AMENDED RATES SET FORTH IN THE IMPACT
FEE STUDY, UPDATING THE ANNUAL MID-CYCLE
INDEXING FOR THE ROAD IMPACT FEE RATES, AND
PROVIDING FOR A DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE OF JUNE 30,
2006 - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is 8.E. It's a recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners adopt an ordinance amending Schedule One of
Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and
Ordinances, the Collier County consolidated impact fee ordinance,
providing for the incorporation by reference of the impact fee study
entitled the Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study,
dated April 2006, amending the road impact fee schedule to reflect the
Page 217
April 25, 2006
amended rates set forth in the impact fee study, updating the annual
mid-cycle indexing for the road impact fee rates, and providing for a
delayed effective date of June 30th, 2006.
Mr. Phil Tindall from Transportation will present.
MR. TINDALL: Thank you, Mr. Mudd. Good afternoon, Mr.
Chairman, Commissioners. I only need to state one thing for the
record before I turn it over to Mr. Tindale, which is, just like with
libraries -- oh, Phil Tindall, Transportation Planning, sorry. Just as
when with libraries, we worked closely with the productivity
committee on this item. They appointed a subcommittee. They asked
a lot of very in-depth questions and we were able to answer all those.
We ran into the same deadline issue in terms of the executive
summary but on April the 19th at their full committee meeting they
did vote unanimously to recommend approval of this item.
After that, I'll turn this over to Mr. Tindale.
MR. TINDALE: Good afternoon. Again, Steve Tindale. Again,
I'll try to be as brief as I can, I realize it's getting late.
I'm going to very briefly go over the impact fee itself. You have
enough of them where I don't have to spend a lot of time on the
concepts of them and then go through each one of the components.
We go -- in costs, as we just talked about with libraries, we go
through the cost to add the roadway system, the capacity that is
demanded from each different development types, we have many land
use types, and that is the cost to provide the service per land use.
The law requires us to give a credit and not charge the developer
twice if he's paying taxes in the future. So we basically take that cost
for each different type of land use, we take the credit for each type of
land use and we come up with a fee for each land use. So that's the
basic formula we're going through.
These numbers are the cost numbers. And again, I can tell you I
felt comfortable with these. I think they are reasonable. They're
conservative. They seem very high but I can tell you on every case if
Page 218
April 25, 2006
we were going to err we try to err on the conservative side because we
were looking at the numbers and what they look like.
We have a design component. We have a right-of-way
component. We looked at the right-of-way four different ways. We
took the OS method, the present worth, we took the county's method
of bringing the estimates of present worth, we looked at existing
purchases, recent, we looked at proposed purchases. And those four
ways, I think we took the second highest number. And all of them,
which was interesting, were within about ten or 15 percent of each
other.
So I had a nice cluster of numbers and then I picked the number
that was the second highest of the four. I feel very comfortable. I
didn't have any outliers in all four methods in terms of the
right-of-way.
The construction costs, we looked at bids, and we define them as
bids that you just recently have, bids that you have construction, bids
that you've taken that you have already billed. But we looked at bids
in terms of the county's bids. And I also compared these to about half
a dozen counties that I'm currently working in to make sure that things
looked reasonable.
The DOT construction costs, we did the same thing, we looked at
their bid numbers. The DOT is just updating, and they have some real
concerns about their numbers. They are just updating their numbers
and have a computer program where they're taking bid items from
multiple projects, getting the most reasonable number and putting it
into their system. And the best I can understand for this district is I
think that the 3.34 is going to be 4.5 here in about the next six months.
So that number is already low in terms of the numbers they are
seeing in more recent bids and their estimating process.
Then we have the construction and inspection. We have the
utilities, is what your utility location on the county roads not the state
roads. And again, those are fairly conservative numbers.
Page 219
April 25, 2006
We have mitigation, that there is a general feeling that when you
build new projects, when you get into some of the mitigation you're
going to face in the future it's going to be much higher than what we're
using here. So again, we think we're being very conservative with
migitation costs.
We then looked -- and you are one of the few communities, I
think you and Palm Beach County are building interchanges, urban
interchanges. So to get the capacity that we're using that a road has,
you have to build these interchanges or you won't achieve those
capacities. And you're going to build five interchanges in your plan.
We actually went back and added the current roadway lane miles,
because we used a current interchange, and added that to your total
amount of lane miles to come up with what those interchanges would
cost you when you add all your lane miles in the county, and we come
up with a final number. You're building 85 percent of the lane miles
in the future and the state is building 15 percent. I tell you, in most
communities it's more like 50/50.
You are building, the county has got major responsibility in
terms of the lane miles that you are building compared to most
counties in terms of just how your system is made up.
I feel very comfortable with those costs. They are much higher
than they were in the past. I think some people, though, don't think
they are as high as they are going to be. But again, we are being
pretty conservative with our numbers.
We then looked at your capacity, every time you add a lane mile.
The county is using a program to estimate the capacity, and every
time you add one lane mile of roadway you handle about 11,000 cars.
The state is averaging about 9,300. Their intersections are much
busier. When they add lanes they don't have the capacity. We take
that 85 percent county roads and 15 percent state and we come up with
a weighted average, and every time you build a laned model road in
the county you almost add the ability to have 11,000 more cars. So if
Page 220
April 25, 2006
you think of one mile of roadway, one lane mile built, you can add
11,000 more cars to your whole system in terms of one mile.
Cost. When you take that cost of 6.3 million, divide it by that
capacity for every car that travels one mile, it costs $577. And I can
tell you that in the '80's it was $50, in the '90's it was $100 and five
years ago it was $200 dollars. A couple years ago it was $300 and
now we're seeing that it's very costly to add capacity on a road system.
It's just become -- that is a fact.
We go to the demand side, that's the cost, go to the demand side.
We've got one of the largest set of information in the country in terms
of what each different development generates in traffic. We have a
national data set called the Institute of Transportation Engineers, they
have hundreds of land uses with hundreds of studies in terms of trip
generation rate, how many cars come out of each land use.
We have a Florida data base which has about 300 different sites
we've studied, and, I think it was three years ago, either three or six
years ago we studied about nine sites here in this county to make sure
that our data applied to this county. We looked at residential units, we
looked at retail units and we made sure the trip lanes and capture rates
and these analyses made sense in terms of local. So you are one of the
few counties that really have local data that's matched with the
national and the state data.
The demand, basically, is how far you travel, trip length; how
many trips, how many times you go in and out of your driveway; and
specifically for office and retail, if a car was already passing by we
don't charge you. We only charge for a new trip on the road. So we
have what's called percent new trips, and that's been measured.
Fifteen, 20 years ago that wasn't measured. And impact fees, you
are going to see some numbers very high for some of the retail uses,
they used to be even higher than that because we didn't recognize the
capture rates.
Again, trip length is from A to B. The trips is each day and
Page 221
April 25, 2006
percent new trips accounts for trips already on the road.
The average trip length -- and one thing, and that I keep
forgetting to do this, and if we make this available to everybody, we
actually have each location in the study where this data is located, if
anybody wants a reference. This is in the Appendix F.
The trip rate for the single family home is about 7.4 trips per day.
The national average is 10.5. We don't use a national average. We've
done enough studies in Florida that we know that -- excuse me, I think
it's 9.5. We're using 7.4. And it shows you an example of getting
good data.
Your average trip length is a little less than six miles. And for a
single family home, when they do the study they stand out at the
subdivision roadway and they count that postman that is going to
every house one time. So these trip rates don't have to deal with
capture because it's the number of trips going in and out of a
subdivision for all homes, where on a retail site we actually have to
stand there and do interviews and figure out whether the car was
passing by.
So when you look at a single family home, remember what I told
you about that one mile of travel, the single family home then adds 43
miles of travel to the road system. If you take that single family
home, we do some adjustment to it, and this is for all of them.
One is we take all the trips in the county and the trips that are
used on the interstate and we don't charge for it. We have a 12 percent
reduction factor. We just don't charge for the interstate travel, to be
conservative. Again, a method of being very conservative.
So we take that 43 miles and we reduce it down to 38 miles in
terms of each home. And this is an example of the calculation, you
take one home, we take that 38 miles. The first thing we do is we
charge the office or the retail site half of it, so we only charge for half
of the distance or half the travel. So we cut it in half in the impact fee.
We don't collect money from two people, we collect half of the
Page 222
April 25, 2006
money from one side, half the money from the other side.
We then take the capacity, remember I told you it was 10,000
cars was in one lane, and basically that car is consuming about .2
percent of a lane mile when the house gets built. You multiply that
times the $6 million, and every time you add a home, basically, that
home consumes $11,000 worth of roadway. That's the gross
consumption of the home. Very straightforward in terms of just like a
water plant and a gallon of water and what it costs you to provide
water. It's the same thing here, that's how we calculate the $11,000
per home.
We then go through the credit. That person's going to come up
and they pull a permit, they are going to hand you a check. They're
also going to send checks with -- or pay at the gas pump, which is a
check, or if you have ad valorem tax they pay additional taxes.
So we take two sources. You use gas tax and you use ad valorem
tax. The gas tax has got to be one of the most inefficient revenues
ever invented. It's not on a percentage basis, it's on a paying basis. I
can still remember when I was a kid and paying 25 cents a gallon, and
12 and a half cents of it was taxes, which is 50 percent.
If you just index up to today we would be getting probably about
$1.70 a gallon for the gas tax. I mean, that's what we would have to
have today.
But you only get one penny when the values change, whenever
that homeowner generates the same travel every year. So it's a
constant revenue. Cost goes up you get no more revenue from the gas
tax from every development you have. It's a flat revenue you have.
You have 13 pennies from the county that it spends on capacity. The
state is spending about 12 pennies. That would be 25 cents of gas tax.
If you were not spending impact fees, you could look at this and
say the state would be building about half of your roads and you
would be building half your roads, just like the revenues. So you can
see what role your impact fee is playing now because you're able to
Page 223
April 25, 2006
build not the same number of miles of road but about three times the
miles the state is being able to build, and that is through the impact fee
revenues. Major effect in terms of what you're able to do.
We give a credit based on each different development in terms of
the gas tax they generate. And I mentioned the gas tax doesn't
increase over time.
We went to the ad valorem tax. To be honest with you, my first
thought was that you all had a, like .1 mils -- millage, and you get a
lump sum assigned and it stays constant every year. So as the home
grows in value you are actually collecting -- if you can think about
just reducing the amount of revenue you're getting from that home
because the value goes up, another home gets built and you need less
money from that home. So it's completely different than a standard ad
valorem tax credit because you have a lump sum, you're paying debt
on the ad valorem tax. So we had to calculate that fixed amount
revenue in terms of a credit.
The gas tax comes out about $1,700. Every time somebody
builds a home over a 25-year period they generate about $1,700 worth
of capital gas tax for you and about $420 worth of ad valorem tax to
you, about a $2,000 credit. This is on a mid-sized home, the 1500 to
2500-square foot home.
You take the $11,000 gross costs, the credit, and we come up
with the $8,800 fee for that mid-sized home in terms of the final
transportation impact fee.
We have talked about indexing. I can tell you indexing has been
great for several years. The last year or two it's not been very useful
because the costs have been going up and the indexing models, both
the national models and state models just aren't very responsive to
what is really happening, especially in the sunbelt. But we do index.
We've indexed in the past the right-of-way, the land values, the
administrative costs, and we index the construction costs.
This is an example of how that index is working, and again it's a
Page 224
April 25, 2006
little out of date in terms of being real responsive in the last year. The
right-of-way would be indexed on an annual increase of about 15
percent because of your land values. Right-of-way administration,
which is the labor and the other items, is 4 percent. And the design
and construction, which is the overall index, would only be 4 percent.
We would say then within the updating year that you would only
index the cost up six and a half percent. And that is just not correct.
Now, what I understand the county is going to do in the next 12
months is actually have a study done for South Florida and this area
specifically to look at construction costs and indexing and hopefully
within 12 months have an index that is more sensitive than the current
ones that are in the ordinance. So I think that's a very important study
to have done, and with that given leave these indexes in the ordinance
and adjust them 12 months from now in terms of the reality.
This is the final fee schedule. And did I put some examples of
other ones that have been adopted. Some of them are fairly -- haven't
been adopted very recently but they have still been adopted. Your
current fee for that mid-sized single family home is about $6,000. This
moves it to about 8800.
I used the Polk County one. That one has been adopted. Polk
county is 5800. I can tell you they have some heavy construction
costs. They don't have the land and the right-of-way costs that you
have. And what they did is they passed .66 mils of ad valorem tax that
was going to grow. And I think that number was like, almost like
your number on impact fee and it came down two or $3,000 because
they passed a .66 millage to build roads as a dedicated -- more, I guess
two-thirds of a mil to build roads in Polk County.
Marion County is at about 5,000. Indian River County, which is
only at 70 percent, I think it's a couple of years old, is about 5,000.
And Pasco County has asked us to update theirs. They're about ready
to drop about a year and a half of their work program if they don't get
theirs updated, and their current one is about $4,000.
Page 225
April 25, 2006
So you can see that probably a year and a half to two years ago I
was dealing with fees that were two, three, $4,000 and you were like
the sixth. And the fees now in this state are running five and six --
five, six, 6500 and you are running about eight. So your numbers in
terms of adjustments are about in line with what is happening in most
of the states we're dealing with all over Florida.
I believe that may be the last piece of information I overload you
with.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to ask you if you
would say again -- way back in the beginning you had said something
about 50 percent and 15 percent; what was that?
MR. TINDALE: Well, there are two. The 50 percent is when
we charge the fee. And this is interesting, back in the early '80's
somebody come up with an impact fee and they didn't cut it in half,
because what happened is the homeowner travels to the work, all
right, and he pays for his travel or her travel and then the office pays --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, you had said something about --
MR. TINDALE: The 85/15?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, this was -- has to do with
the roads, state share and our share.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. TINDALE: Okay, 85/15. In your plan that we've looked at
you are going to build 85 percent of the lane miles of construction in
this county and the state's building 15 percent.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see.
MR. TINDALE: And that is just somewhat backwards. And
some of the counties that are -- this seems to be a transition. It's
interesting, I have been around too long. I can remember 15 or 20
years ago the state, in terms of lane miles, had about 60 percent of the
lane miles and about 85 percent of the traffic because they had about
three times more traffic. So the state managed 85 percent of the travel
Page 226
April 25, 2006
and about 50 percent of the lane miles.
N ow I see county after county when I'm doing these numbers that
the lane miles are changing out and even the vehicle miles of travel
are changing out, and what we're seeing is we looked at every lane
mile you are going to build through 2030 and they're going to build,
added them all up, divided yours, and you were building 85 percent of
the lane miles that are going to be built in your 2030 plan.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions? Ifnot, I think we
have a public speaker on this?
MS. FILSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have one speaker, Al
Zichella.
MR. ZICHELLA: I did sign up in time for this one,
commissioners. Thank you again for giving me the opportunity to
speak.
For the record, once again, Al Zichella. I'm here on behalf of
CBIA. I'm registered upstairs in case anyone is wondering.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll check you out.
MR. ZICHELLA: There you go. We're here today not in an
adversarial mode at all. We don't know that we have any issues with
the study as it stands now. We have been studying it. I'm here to ask
you if you would withhold or move the adoption to the next meeting
to give us a chance to finish our study, which is very close. We have a
meeting tomorrow amongst our people.
We honestly didn't know, because we're a little disorganized
these days, that it was going to be heard today. It's our fault, not
yours. But we would respectfully ask if you would mind
accommodating us. We'll finish our study and would love to weigh in
on this at the next meeting.
Right now we don't think we have any issues. Weare very
interested in continuing to build roads here. Whatever true cost is,
true cost should be. And we have no intention of arguing over that
stuff. We did our work. The last time we had a transportation increase
Page 227
April 25, 2006
we had our say, the commissioners, you were all very generous at that
time. I realized what we're asking is a little bit late. We are late to the
party, I acknowledge that. But we are very close to having finished up
our study and would hope that you would not adopt them until we
could, as stakeholders, at least bless it or give you the benefit of our
wisdom.
And that's why we're here today. It's not meant to be adversarial
or to challenge anything that's been said here today. We're not in a
position to do that today.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I need some guidance from the county
attorney. If we put this off to the next meeting will we have adequate
time to institute this before the July 1st date?
MR. ZICHELLA: We're recommending a June 30th adoption of
this -- not adoption, implementation of this fee. So we don't think that
that prejudices our rights.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I want to find out from the county
attorney where we stand on this so that we make sure that we have
proper notification for the developers in regards to this.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, yes, exactly, that is important. I'm going
to, if I may, turn it over to the county manager, Norman Feder and/or
Jeff Klatzkow in regard to the notice desires that we have based upon
the potential adoption today as opposed to a delayed date.
MR. MUDD: Jim Mudd, for the record. I would tell you that we
wouldn't be able -- our executive summary says we give them 60 days
notice on -- here, on this particular thing. If you move it 'til the 9th of
May it wouldn't be 60 days notice but your effective date would still
be 30 June.
And I believe that at the next meeting you will also have the
school impact fee will be an item on your agenda. I just let you know
that as you deliberate.
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Norman Feder,
Transportation Administrator.
Page 228
April 25, 2006
I appreciate this not adversarial and I definitely appreciate, we've
worked with CBIA and with their consultants all through this process
previously. We started out at March 10th with notice and information
on this provided a number of times through the process. I understand
that just like this board and the staff there have been a lot of issues,
particularly legislative issues and other things that have taken a lot of
time away from everybody. But we've afforded that opportunity.
What I would you tell is we're not implementing it. The delayed
implementation is June 30th, as already been noted. I would submit to
you that, as I submitted to AI, we need to adopt this. It's pretty much
the same methodology we've used in the past with update. And we
will gladly work with them.
Should there be any issue of merit to modify the computations,
we will come back to you before that June 30th implementation and
bring that forward. Should they feel that there is and staff doesn't
agree, they of course have that opportunity at public petition and your
request for us to bring it back and explain why we don't agree with it.
But again, we would be glad and will sit down with them any
time, anywhere and go through the particulars.
But I would submit that we've tried that previously in this
process, starting in early March, and that at this point we need to adopt
this. And we do have the time before its full implementation to
address any issues should there be somehting specific that we need to
address.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Anything else of staff before I --
MR. KLATZKOW: One real brief note. We like to give 90 days
notice on the implementation of these fees because the issue really is
one of impairment to contract where you don't want a builder getting
into a purchase and sale agreement with a buyer and then before the
closing the impact fees go up and the next thing you know the
builder's complaining that he's lost a good chunk if not all of his profit.
Having said that, this has been a public debate, everybody now
Page 229
April 25, 2006
should know what the proposed impacts fees are, so from that
standpoint I don't really think you have that issue as far as giving the
90 days. We've given the public notice of what we think it's going to
be.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commission Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Zichella, are you willing to
accept Mr. Feder's recommendations if you have any problem with it
to submit those and if he agrees we'll do the amendment?
MR. ZICHELLA: Mr. Feder has plenty of credit in my bank. I
would be very happy to accept those terms and to speak to him.
I would like to mention about the period of adoption. I think
there is legislation right now, I don't know if it's going to pass, that
will bring the implementation period from adoption to implementation
to 90 days. And we think that's fair.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
MR. FEDER: Sixty days. I was pretty gratified to see that it
didn't immediately go in, as the sewer fee did a few years ago, like
within ten days. I was pretty happy to see that we had 60.
All I was asking for was a chance to study it further, if, as long as
here everybody is of goodwill to give us a chance to look at it and to
comment. As everyone knows we have been at CBIA in a bit of flux
this year and appreciate the consideration. And certainly we would
very gratefully accept Norman's offer. Thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question. I don't
understand the credits. You only ask it on the gas tax.
MR. TINDALE: We basically take the amount of gas that is
being consumed by one of the land uses, say a home, the amount of
gas you consume every year. We take the tax you pay, which is 23
cents goes to capital. We take that -- where we're charging the travel.
We run it out for 25 years. We bring it back to present worth and say
that's the amount of capital money we get from your gas tax to build
roads.
Page 230
April 25, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That doesn't explain anything.
Let me ask you, you are using the full amount that we're dedicating to
capital improvements.
MR. TINDALE: Capital, that's the 23 cents.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's all?
MR. MUDD: That's state and county.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, state and --
MR. MUDD: State and county. County's 13 cents, 13.3, and
they are at 12.3, the state. He's taking all of it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We don't get the state. I don't
understand the formula but I'll have to trust that.
MR. TINDALE: Okay. I can maybe send you a little cheat sheet
or something that shows the calculation. But basically, when you go
to the gas pump --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just don't give me a test.
MR. TINDALE: -- and you -- okay. We basically want to make
sure when you pump gas and you pay gas, you're paying a lot more
than 25 cents in gas tax, but that part of it is for capital. And every
penny we collect we want to make sure we credit you and not double
charge you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. ZICHELLA: I would just have one question. Does this
include, Mr. Tindale, does this also include the trucks on the road?
MR. TINDALE: The trucks have an impact on the average
mileage in terms of the average mileage we use. We're not charging
for any of the truck traffic that's running through the county but, yes, it
does include the impact of the average sized vehicle in terms of the
gas tax revenues.
MR. ZICHELLA: I would be -- my only concern there would
be, and we did raise this question last time and we did adjust the fee
the last time because of the lack of trucks in the computation.
Obviously, you can't build a home, and we're talking about new
Page 231
April 25, 2006
homes, without heavy truck traffic. And some of that runs on 75 and
it's not all through the county traffic. As you know, 75 is a major
arterial now for our county. And so I would just raise that question
and that would be one of my only concerns. It's part of what we're
studying, by the way.
But thank you again for the opportunity. And Mr. Feder, thank
you for your offer. We gratefully accept.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any further discussion? We've close the
public hearing. Any other discussion? If not, motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved.
MS. FILSON: I didn't hear who made the second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta made the second
and Commissioner Henning made the motion.
Hearing no further discussion, I'll call the question. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
Opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
Item #12A
RESOLUTION 2006-111: A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A
REFERENDUM ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 7, 2006 TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE VOTERS APPROVE
CONTINUING THE LEVY OF AN AD VALOREM TAX NOT
EXCEEDING .25 MIL THROUGH THE YEAR 2013 TO
CONTINUE TO FUND THE CONSERVATION COLLIER
Page 232
April 25, 2006
PROGRAMS ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS - ADOPTED
W /CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to Paragraph 12,
county attorney's report. The first item is 12.A. It's a
recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt a
resolution calling for a referendum election on November 7, 2006 to
determine whether the voters approve continuing the levy of an ad
valorem tax not exceeding .25 mil through the year 2013, with the
total sum to be limited in any event to $198 million inclusive of all
sums collected to date to continue to fund the Conservation Collier
programs acquisition and management of environmentally sensitive
lands.
And Mr. Michael Pettit, deputy county attorney--
MR. PETTIT: Commissioners, good evening. As you recall in
December 2004 you asked us to work with county staff and bring back
what is in the nature of a straw ballot to determine the desires of the
voters with the continuation of the Conservation Collier levy to raise
sums above the initial funding of a $75 million bond issue.
We brought back a proposal in February of this year, February
14th, and at that time you asked staff and our office to go back, work
with the Conservation Collier land acquisition committee and other
interested persons in an attempt to come back with a cap to put into
that ballot question. And we have done that, I hope.
In the materials that were submitted with the executive summary
we have included a resolution, and as it now stands, I can summarize.
We have proposed the question as to whether to continue the levy
through the year 2013 or until we reach a total revenue collection of
$198 million. And I had had a question regarding language about
inclusive of sums previously collected, and it was the staffs
understanding and, frankly, my understanding that it was always
Page 233
April 25, 2006
intended by the board that that 75 million would be included in any
ultimate cap we proposed.
With that, if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer
them. And I know that Conservation Collier staff Bill Lorenz and
Alex Sulecki are here also.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta is up to bat.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: First question is, I need to
reconfirm which I believe is the right answer, will we be able to tap
from this fund the necessary funds for the care and the maintenance of
the land?
MR. PETTIT: That is my understanding. I would ask the staff to
address that, if you would like more detail.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, please. I would assume
that no money comes from ad valorem to cover this -- I mean, in
addition to what we approve here.
MR. PETTIT: That's correct, I think.
MS. SULECKI: Yes. For the record, Alex Sulecki, Coordinator
of your Conservation Collier Program.
That is correct, 15 percent of the levy is set aside for
management and maintenance.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have one other thing that I
would like to add to this. If we look at the ordinance itself on Page 3
-- excuse me, Page 7 of9, I believe that's the wording that's being
suggested. So Collier County will continue to acquire, preserve and
maintain environmentally sensitive land for the protection of water
resources, wildlife habitat, and public open spaces by continuing to
levy one quarter mil.
Everything is fine except one thing. I really think that if we're
going to sell this to the public we have to let them know that there is a
direct benefit that they are going to realize from this. I very much
would like to see us change the words public open space to public
access. I think that's going to be a determining factor for a lot of the
Page 234
April 25, 2006
people that I represent whether they'll vote for it or against it.
MR. PETTIT: Commissioner Coletta, Mr. Lorenz had provided
me with some language to maybe address that concern. His language
was, shall Collier County continue to acquire, preserve, manage and
provide appropriate public access to environmentally sensitive lands
for the protection of water resources, wildlife habitat and public open
space --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I like that.
MR. PETTIT: -- by continuing to levy the one quarter mil, and
so on and so forth.
I don't know that I mentioned, but the cap that was proposed is
$198 million, which as I understand it is the projected revenues
through the life of the levy through 2013 --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right--
MR. PETTIT: -- inclusive of the 75 million.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Absolutely important. Truth in
advertising, I call it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I find the wording, at least the cap
to be misleading, not clear. We're not telling them that we've already
spent roughly $80 million and that $80 million that we've already
spent is in that $198,000. The public has no way of knowing what
we're really asking to raise.
It seems to me that the purpose of this was that we failed to have
a clear question on the ballot last time. I'm afraid we're going to
repeat that mistake with this particular question.
The only thing that we wanted to determine is, did we intend to
have this tax collected through the year 2013 or not. That's what the
public was confused about last time, was it to collect a certain amount
money, which was, I believe, what, $75 million, or was it to continue
the tax through 2013.
In my estimation that's all we should be trying to clarify now:
Page 235
April 25, 2006
Was it your intent as the public to continue paying this tax of one
quarter of a mil through 2013, yes or no.
By putting the cap, that doesn't explain that we've already spent
almost half of it. That doesn't, that's not very clear. That's more
confusing than it is clarifying. And I'm just wondering why we need
to have that statement, not to exceed $198 million inclusive of all
revenues previously collected. Because you are not really telling them
the whole story. And I don't know how you tell them the whole story
without substantially extending this resolution.
MR. PETTIT: Well, one of the difficulties is that you're limited
to 75 words.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
MR. PETTIT: I think it was my understanding and staffs
understanding that you wanted a specific number cap as to the total
amount that could be spent irrespective of the continuation of the levy.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't doubt that the
commissioners did that. I didn't happen to be here during that debate.
MR. PETTIT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But my point is that the amount of
money is limited by the .25 mils --
MR. PETTIT: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and the year 2013. That limits it.
And that puts an absolute end to it.
But trying to confuse it with putting a cap of $198 million that
also includes money that you collected over the past several years that
you've already spend gets really, really messy. And it's a good
program, the public overwhelmingly approved it. The only thing
we're try to clarify is whether they intended to keep collecting that
money through 2013 or not.
MR. PETTIT: One of the alternative proposals that the
committee recommended, and I think I referenced in the executive
summary, is exactly the percent. But I think everybody felt that the
Page 236
April 25, 2006
direction of the Board at the time was to put a specific number in the
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand that but I'm
questioning that guidance. And I don't understand how this is clearer
than a statement that says did you intend to collect or pay .25 mils
through 2013.
MR. PETTIT: That's a simpler question.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's a real simple question.
MR. PETTIT: It's a simpler question. I don't disagree with you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the question we've always
been struggling with because we didn't make it clear the last time.
And so we've said, well, did they mean we were supposed to collect
$75 million and stop it or did they mean for us to collect .25 mils
through 2013?
And so that's what we're trying to determine here, not to get some
sort of accounting between money already spent and subtract it from
money we're going to collect in the future and all that sort of business.
So that's what I'm getting at. I understand the desire to say, look,
there's got to be an end to this, the end is 2013. The cap is .25 mils.
You don't know what the inflation rate is going to be. You don't know
what the inflation rate is going to be, so why try to forecast amounts of
money that might be collected in the future, and just leave it alone and
say, hey, did you intend for this thing to go through 2013? If you
didn't, vote no on this. If you did, vote, yes. That's all. My only
point. I think it's clearer that way.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I disagree with that. Any time
you use a factor of multiplier like a millage rate it's really not telling
the voters how much they are going to spend, because we tax upon the
evaluation of the property. They don't understand.
And I think the clearer way, if this language is not appropriate, is
to modify it, but I think you need to put a dollar cap on it. That is
Page 237
April 25, 2006
something that everybody understands, the almighty dollar. They
don't understand millage rates. That's a convoluted way to ask people
questions.
The question that we had in the ballot language before was $75
million. I think that was plain and simple. Now the question is, do
you want to expend more than double that to purchase more lands for
Collier County. So that's the fair question. The deception would be
not to have a clearer number, dollar amount on the ballot question.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I don't agree that that makes it
any clearer. The last time you said 75 million you really said to bond
75 million. You didn't say collect $75 million. You didn't.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That was the public's
perception. And Commissioner, I remember when this question came
up saying no, we asked the voters if we were going to bond and they
were telling the voters that we were going to spend 75 million of their
dollars. That is why this issue is back.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, it really wasn't. There are a lot
of those voters who said, I thought I was going to be paying .25 mils
through 2013. There are some who said, I thought we just going to
raise $75 million. We don't know how many voted which way. That's
what we're doing here.
The question was how long are you going to collect it. We're not
asking for any bonding authority this time. There is a difference
between bonding authority and total amount to be collected. And that
is the confusing part here. Why not just ask them to clarify the
original question: Did you mean it to go until 2013 or did you just
mean to get 75 million. And this is a way to do it, is just leave off that
$198 million, because that's not telling them anything.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's misleading, 198 million is
misleading.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think, well, we can agree to
Page 238
April 25, 2006
disagree. I think it's a perfect question. You know, you go out and
buy a car, are you going to say, well, it's -- we're going to charge you
6 percent sales tax on this car and you have to guess at what you have
to spend on the car. Or just anything, put a dollar amount, and that
would be the factual information that you are asking the taxpayers in
Collier County or the voters, I should say, who are taxpayers.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do we have public speakers?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think Commissioner Fiala was
before.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I agree with Commissioner
Coyle on this. I feel ten years is just so easy. I know when I voted I
voted for a quarter of mil for ten years, that's how I felt when I voted.
I think dollar amount you never can tell because it can vary, and
what we're trying to do is, and the reason we voted for ten years is we
wanted to put away as much land in conservation as we could so that
it wasn't all built upon, and that's why we decided to do it this way. I
don't want to see a cap on it. I can see a cap on the years, ten years,
but not a cap on the dollar amount. I too agree it's misleading.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Would you call for the public speakers.
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. We have six public speakers. The first
one is Brad Cornell. He'll be followed by Nicole Ryan.
MR. CORNELL: Good evening, Commissioners. Wow, that's
loud. I'll stand back here. I'm Brad Cornell and I'm here on behalf of
Colllier County Audubon Society, Audubon of Florida, and I'm also a
member of the Keep Conservation Collier community effort that is
aiming at continuing funding for Conservation Collier.
Keep Conservation Collier is composed of many of the same
citizens and civic groups that helped get Conservation Collier
approved in 2002. And we're again led by Ellin Goetz, who is here
today as well.
Page 239
April 25, 2006
We agree with Commissioner Coyle's assessment of the $198
million figure in the proposed language that you have in your
executive summary. We believe that that is very confusing. It
includes money, over $60 million of which has already been collected
and spent, another $5 million has been collected for management and
put into an account, and you have actually authorized $88 million
even if nothing goes forward from here. So that's $75 million of land
buying plus the management plus the administration.
So including that in the $198 million is very, very misleading and
it's very strange to go to the voters and ask them to vote on what they
have already voted on and have already spent. It won't even be money
that they see.
Keep Conservation Collier would like to offer what we believe is
a much preferable alternative for that ballot question. And this is
supported by a professional poll that was conducted at the end of
March and commissioned by the Nature Conservancy.
It's already there. These guys are fast.
I'll read it really quickly. Shall Collier County continue to
acquire, preserve and manage environmentally sensitive lands for the
protection of water resources, wildlife habitat and public open space
payable by continuing to levy one quarter of one mil in ad valorem
taxes currently assessed for those purchases to the year 201 7. This
would be three fiscal years beyond what was currently, what we're
currently talking about, which is 2013.
The poll that supported this question, we just got the executive
summary this morning and it shows that there is a strong majority of
Collier County voters that support continuing land conservation
through 2013 and an equally strong majority that support extending
the program until 2017. This was a professional poll done by the
Kitchens Group, Dr. Jim Kitchens, commissioned by the Nature
Conservancy, and it was done at the end of March and beginning of
April. And we have a great deal of confidence in that.
Page 240
April 25, 2006
In fact, if you look at the climate of our community today, I don't
think you even need a poll to figure out that people are very
supportive of buying conservation land.
The poll figures here were 62 percent for the 2013 and 61 percent
for the 2017, basically the same.
So I respectfully request that you approve the alternative ballot
question for the November referendum on keeping Conservation
Collier. Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Nicole Ryan. She'll be
followed by Nancy Payton.
MS. RYAN: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record,
Nicole Ryan, here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I can't hear the speaker.
MS. RYAN: Is this better?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Speaker isn't working.
MR. MUDD: Try now.
MS. RYAN: Better? Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can you hear now?
MS. FILSON: She can probably go to the end of the podium.
MR. MUDD: Speak right into that, real close.
MS. RYAN: Okay. And the time has started again. Thank you.
For the record, Nicole Ryan, here on behalf of the Conservancy
of Southwest Florida.
The Conservancy is part of Keep Conservation Collier and we
support the language that Mr. Cornell has provided to you. We believe
that 2017 with no cap is really the best way to go for this ballot
question.
We're very concerned about the land acquisition advisory
committee's language that you have before you. Putting a cap and a
cap with monies already voted on and already spent is confusing. And
placing a question on the ballot with an ending year and with no cap
does provide limitations. The ending year, which we propose to be
Page 241
April 25, 2006
2017, does provide a limit. And the cap is the quarter mil. So you do
have good limitations in place and this makes it a nice, clear ballot
question.
Conservation Collier passed with an overwhelming majority the
first time. It's been a very successful program. It has protected open
space, it has protected wildlife habitat, rare and unique habitats and
areas where we can have water quality and water quantity storage in
wetlands, not in water parks per se.
And this is something that we believe, as the polls have shown,
the voters want to continue this program. They believe it's successful,
they believe that the county is doing a good job, and the properties
that have been acquired, the properties are going through the cycles.
So we support the Keep Conservation Collier language, 2017, no cap.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Nancy Payton. She'll be
followed by Bob Krasowski.
MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, representing the Florida Wildlife
Federation. And we are a partner, a participant, a member of Keep
Conservation Collier, which is the reconstitution of the coalition that
was responsible for Conservation Collier being passed in 2002.
We're here to support the language that was up here on the
visualizer that Mr. Cornell discussed. It's to extend to 2017. And
again, I'll emphasize that the poll does show that there is significant
public support for extending it to 201 7. I believe that 61, 62 percent is
roughly equivalent to the figure of the support back in 2002. So we've
maintained that support and we think that's very good.
We're for the quarter mil for the entire ten years. We remind you
that no bond and no dollar cap. And as was -- previously, it's getting
late in the day for me, later for you probably -- previously that there is
a time cap, 2017, and there is a tax cap. So there are limitations, there
are parameters on this ballot question.
Therefore, I will sum up and say, please support the language
Page 242
April 25, 2006
proposed by Keep Conservation Collier that Mr. Cornell spoke about
and thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Bob Krasowski.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Not here.
MS. FILSON: Ellin Goetz. She'll be followed by Gilbert
Erlichman.
MS. GOETZ: I think it's a pleasure to be here. Thank you very
much. I'm Ellin Goetz. I'm a resident of Collier County. I was chair
of the original Conservation Collier campaign. I also served on your
very wonderful Conservation Collier land advisory acquisition
committee for the three original years of the program, and I stepped
off it to focus on this campaign that we're about to begin.
And I just wanted to very much agree with the comments of
Commissioner Coyle, that I could not be more supportive of keeping
this a very simple and very clear and very clarifying issue for the
voters this fall. And we would like to continue the program in its -- as
it has been so successful these past three years we would like to see it
continue with success. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Gilbert Erlichman.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Gilbert Erlichman. I'm a resident of East
Naples. And over the past five years I haven't appeared too frequently
before the commissioners.
This topic today, this agenda item attracted me because, number
one, I suspected that there would be a lot of environmentalists here,
and true to my thought, they are here. And they are here in numbers
six or seven. And they were all supporting this so called ballot
question.
It's called, you call it a straw ballot. Now a straw ballot has no,
has no force of conviction. It has no force to whether the people say
yes or no, according to your statement here. And number two, on
Page 2, section two, this ballot is in the nature of a straw ballot,
Page 243
April 25, 2006
quotes, to understand the desires of the voters. Thus the board
remains free to set its millage in accordance with the annual budgeting
process irrespective of the final outcome of the ballot question.
So therefore, what is the necessity for a straw ballot if it has no
strength and no conviction. The commissioners, you people, can do
whatever you want without having to go to the people. If you wanted
to make a true ballot which has the force of conviction, which would
tell you whether yes or no, that would be a different story, but this,
this so called ballot, straw ballot has no meaning to me.
I would like to make an observation about these
environmentalists. The reason why we're having problems with
gasoline today is that they haven't built any refineries in the past 20
years. Why, because of the environmentalists.
It's the same situation with our -- with nuclear power. We
haven't built a nuclear power plant in the past 30 years, whereas if you
go to France they have over 80 percent nuclear power supplied to the
residents in France.
We're stuck with nothing now, no new building, no new plants.
So therefore, we're going to, we're having to burn coal, oil, et cetera,
to produce electricity. And, that -- the environmentalists didn't realize
that or don't realize that today, I guess, or else they would take their
bans of nuclear power off so we could build nuclear power plants.
That's all I have to say. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just want to remind everybody
the story about high speed rail, the constitutional amendment where
the voters approved it and then once they put a dollar value and once
the legislators and the Governor said there shall be nothing on a
constitutional ballot unless it has a fiscal statement on it, a dollar
amount.
Page 244
April 25, 2006
Why would we confuse our public by a millage? It doesn't make
sense. And I think it's very deceptive if you have a dollar amount that
we will collect through a millage up to a certain point. You are
making a fiscal statement. There is nothing wrong with that, it's truth
in advertising. I can't support anything but.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I share similar concerns. I
talked to a number of people about this. I'm sure they have been in to
see everyone. And one of the concerns was they said the number
would scare people away and they wouldn't vote for it. So be it. It's
truth in advertising.
But I'll tell you one thing, I did hear something that did make
sense, you know, trying to have people understand the 198 million,
you know, all inclusive, that can be -- I don't think the amount is going
to matter so much. I think people are going to vote for this, whether
it's 120 or 198.
But possibly we might want to give serious consideration to
having a really financial statement that means what it says. Weare
not asking them to come up with 198 million, they've already
committed to 75.
Once again, this is a straw ballot, but the straw ballot we do
follow the will of the people out there. We just want to make sure that
when they vote on this that they understood exactly what they were
voting on or at least well enough that we can interpret it into an
ordinance that we can tax them for in the end.
So what we ought to do is consider the actual amount that it's
going to be, $120 million, and change the language -- and this is just a
suggestion, to remove the with the total sum of and then be a hundred
-- collected not to exceed $120 million, and drop all of the rest of it.
We already know that $70 million has been approved by the public.
We haven't spent all of it yet. It's still out there, it's still happening.
The public made a commitment for that years ago. We don't need
Page 245
April 25, 2006
them to reconfirm that 75 million.
We need them to be able to identify themselves with 120 million.
And without a statement on there of dollars, I'm afraid this ballot
question will fail, and then where are we going to be then. We'll be
sitting back here another year from now, two years from now and
licking our wounds and trying to come forward with something that
the public will buy.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think the last time that we sent this
to the voters 75 million was confusing. Did we mean $75 million
bond and then collect the rest or did we not. I think that that caused a
lot of confusion. And even now we're talking about the difference,
198, 120, and there is still confusion. I think we ought to make it
short, sweet and simple, fiscal statement, half -- a quarter of a mil for
ten years, period. Voters understand that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me give you an example of
what kind of a problem it creates if you try to set an amount of money
for something like this.
First, I don't think that our taxpayers are really all that stupid that
they don't know what a mil is and how much it affects their taxes.
They know that. And they watch it very, very carefully.
Now, if you set a limit on it, and let's suppose we get into 2010
and in March of that year, we hit the limit, tax bills have already gone
out, you are continuing to collect taxes. What are you going to do?
Are you going to have to send out adjustments to all those people and
say, whoops, we're going to adjust your taxes now because we just hit
the limit on this thing. You know, it's a very cumbersome process.
Or if you collect it the entire year, you've overcollected it. Then
you have to refund it or grant them a credit. How do you administer
something like that? It is absolutely crazy. The people have sense
enough to understand a quarter of a mil until 2013.
Page 246
April 25, 2006
Now I have to tell you, you guys want to go to 2017. You know,
I base my entire argument on the fact that we're trying to clarify the
original bill. And I would be violating the principal of consistency if I
now said, well, I'm going to extend it for another four years. So I can't
really support that. But I can support going to 2013 at the quarter mil
and leave off all the confusing stuff about the cap because it's almost
impossible to administer it properly.
And I believe that the people will understand it and they will let
us know whether they intended from the very beginning to pay
through 2013 or not. And if they say yes, the confusion is solved. If
they say no, I didn't intend to do that, then we stop the tax. End of
story. And I think that's the easiest way to go. I think we can solve
this confusion very simply here.
And I would -- I will make a motion to approve the language as
suggested, the language change as suggested by our staff to
incorporate the language that Commissioner Coletta wanted to see in
there with a limit of2013 and no cap.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second that motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta. Let's see
if we can wrap this up.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think we can too. Whatever
our decision is the sun is still going to come up tomorrow --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I hope so.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- I sometimes wonder. Let's
take a vote on that.
I just wanted to remind you that I don't think the voters are any
dumber now than they were when this thing originally came up. You
have to remember this was, 75 million was on the ballot, it's not a
question of this is something new. And it passed overwhelming. I
mean, there wasn't confusion. People knew exactly what they were
doing.
Now we're going to change the format. My fear is that we're
Page 247
April 25, 2006
going to look back on this someday, if we do do this and we vote this
in, to go with the ballot in this particular direction, I hope by gosh
everything works out fine -- and I never look forward to be able to say
I told you so.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We have a motion and a second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have a motion and a second. Would
you like to restate your motion one more time for clarification?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I make a motion that we accept the
language for extending this, this tax levy through the year 2013 with
the language concerning public access that Commissioner Coletta had
requested. Okay?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And that's your second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's my second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. What else do we have? County
attorney, have you got some questions?
MR. PETTIT: There is no cap intended.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No cap.
MR. PETTIT: And second, two other points. If the voters would
say no, I believe they previously committed to fund the bond issue up
to $75 million, and this board indicated that that would include some
additional management fees up into the neighborhood of around $88
million. That would still be the same.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the down side.
MR. PETTIT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the low end.
MR. PETTIT: And the other thing with regard to Commissioner
Coletta's language, Commissioner, could I suggest the word
compatible public access as opposed to appropriate? Does that make
any difference to staff?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Compatible against appropriate.
Page 248
April 25, 2006
I don't think I have a problem with it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does that include ATV?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It includes duck hunting in
downtown Naples.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Muscovies.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just kidding.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Muscovies.
MR. PETTIT: Do you want to see this item again or do we have
the language worked out? I believe we have the language worked out.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't ever want to see it again.
MR. PETTIT: Well, I agree with you, at least until I go to the
voting booth.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Exactly. Is everybody comfortable with
this?
I'm going to call the question. All those in favor, signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
Those opposed by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No or, yes? Okay. Four-one vote.
Item #12B
BCC ACTING AS EX-OFFICIO THE BOARD TO THE COLLIER
COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT BOARD APPROVE A
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE WITH BELAIR
BUILDERS, INC. AND CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE ANY
NECESSARY SETTLEMENT DOCUMENTS FOLLOWING
Page 249
April 25, 2006
REVIEW FOR FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY BY THE
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is 12.B. That's a recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners and the Board of County Commissioners acting as
ex-officio the Board to the Collier County water-sewer district board
approve a settlement agreement and release with Belair Builders, Inc.
and authorize the chairman to execute --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Excuse me, Mr. Mudd.
(Commissioners sing Happy birthday to Commissioner
Henning. )
CHAIRMAN HALAS: He's leaving the dais.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Have to go.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Happy birthday. Don't blow too hard on
those candles.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: He's the youngest member of the
. .
commISSIon.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to 12.B, which is a
recommendation of the Board of County Commissioners and the
Board of County Commissioners acting as ex-officio the board to the
Collier County water-sewer district board approve a settlement
agreement and release with Belair Builders, Inc. and authorize the
chairman to execute any necessary settlement documents following
review for form and legal sufficiency by a county attorney office.
Back-up materials were provided to the Board of County
Commissioners prior to this meeting.
Mr. Michael Pettit, your Deputy County Attorney, will present.
MR. PETTIT: Commissioners, good evening again. First of all,
I apologize for getting this item to you late. I felt that this was a
situation where we needed to go ahead and seize the day with the
settlement. We were in a lawsuit and we were going to begin to incur
Page 250
April 25, 2006
what I believe would have been unnecessary expenses in that lawsuit,
given the issues that we were dealing with, if we didn't get this
resolved.
This was a contract to build a 16- inch forcemain. There were
several disputes that arose. There was a dispute about fill being
brought to the job. There was a dispute related to change order
number two, which by the way this board has approved. There was a
dispute as to the timing of the county's payment, and the county in
turn disputed the application for payment or lack thereof from the
contractor. We had previous disputes with damages to county
facilities which this contractor did reimburse us in the neighborhood
of $73,000. We then discovered there was about 40,900 more dollars
at issue.
I believe in good faith they are saying they are probably going to
stand up and pay all or most all of that, but I have provided an
arbitration mechanism to deal with that if we can't get it resolved in
the settlement proposal.
Just so you know, and so the clerk's aware and for the clerk's
benefit, that retainage is held by the clerk. I've worked with the clerk's
finance department on this and it's provided that if I sign off and Mr.
DeLony as public utilities engineering director signs off, that retainage
can be released and we will provide the clerk any back-up documents
the clerk wants for her to sign off in addition to our signature.
The other issue is there was a valve misfunction at the time of
tie-in which delayed the scheduled tie-in. That really is on the
county's nickel for around $11,020. And those are the payments. The
agreement would require we make payment within ten business days.
Again, I've worked with the clerk's finance person who is assigned to
Mr. DeLony's group on this and she is aware that that's out there.
And that's pretty much all I have on the settlement proposal. I
think it's one of those situations where it was a construction dispute
and I think the parties have gotten to where they can get. If we go
Page 251
April 25, 2006
down the road of litigation we're going to spend a lot more money and
time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have a motion to approve and a
second. Is there any additional information that the commissioners
want to discuss? If not, I'll call the question.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
Opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
Item #12C
AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO RETAIN THE
LAW FIRMS OF NABORS, GIBLIN & NICKERSON, P.A., TO (1)
RETAIN EXPERTS OF THEIR CHOOSING FOR THE PURPOSE
OF COLLECTING ALL NECESSARY DATA, AND PREPARING
A STUDY AND REPORT BASED ON SUCH DATA, TO
DETERMINE THE LEGALL Y APPROPRIATE FEES THE
COUNTY CAN IMPOSE ON COMMERCIAL AND
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OT HELP OFFSET SUCH
DEVELOPMENT'S IMPACT ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING
NEEDS WITHIN COLLIER COUNTY, AND (2) BASED UPON
THE FINDINGS OF SUCH STUDY AND REPORT, TO PREPARE
A LEGALLY SUFFICIENT ORDINANCE TO BE PRESENTED TO
Page 252
April 25, 2006
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR
CONSIDERATION. IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT THE TOTAL
AMOUNT FOR ALL SERVICES PROVIDED SHALL NOT
EXCEED $150.000.00. -APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, this was an add-on item this
morning that I basically told you, it seems like yesterday that I told
you about 12.C being added.
It's a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners
authorizing the county attorney to retain the law firm of Nabors,
Giblin & Nickerson, P .A. to, number one, retain experts of their
choosing for the purpose of collecting all necessary data and preparing
a study and report based on such data to determine the legally
appropriate fees the county can impose on commercial and residential
development to help offset such development's impact on affordable
housing needs within Collier County.
And number two, based upon the finding of such study and
report, to prepare a legally sufficient ordinance to be presented to the
Board of County Commissioners for consideration.
It is anticipated that the total amount for all services provided
shall not exceed $150,000. All payments for these services shall be
directed to Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson, P.A., who shall pay the
experts directly.
I believe Mr. David Weigel, your county attorney, will present on
this particular item.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Jim. Nabors Giblin is already
retained by the county, has been retained by the county for many,
many years. They have already been tasked with the project of going
forward, and this is really ultimately a bit of housekeeping so that they
can bill us directly for their experts and consultants that they are using
to put together the study that we'll have.
I will add as a side note, the study is very important. It probably
Page 253
April 25, 2006
will be, I would suggest, maybe no less technical than the study you
heard this afternoon relating to the impact fees that Mr. Tindale
provided, because it's very similar to the impact fee although it is a
little bit different, a little bit different.
We are one month behind Monroe County. Nabors Giblin and
their experts are already working on Monroe County, as I've reported
to you before, and their experts should be coming to us very shortly.
And we just wanted to be able to expedite payments to them and avoid
any issue with a purchasing policy.
I would ask that you approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: With one question. This -- Cormac
Giblin doesn't have any relationship with this firm, this Giblin?
MR. WEIGEL: No, no, absolutely not.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Nabors Giblin is the firm that also represents the
Florida Association of Counties in legislative matters. They are also
our bond counsel.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have one question. This is the deal with
linkage fees and all those other fees; is that correct?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, that's the term that's been used, linkage
fees. We're really calling it affordable housing mitigation fee.
And in parallel with this is the inclusionary zoning which is part
of our land code amendment cycle that's going on right now.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So we have a motion. Do we have a
second? Okay. We have a motion to approve. Any more -- any
further discussion? I'm starting to get tongue-tied.
If not, I'll call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 254
April 25, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
Those opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I believe that carries four to one.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, appreciate it. Four-zero, I believe.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Four-zero, excuse me. One guy missing.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to Paragraph 15,
which is staff and commissioners general communications.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do you have anything to bring?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, I do. I sent you a memo on the 21st of
April, 2006. The subject was a recommendation to request
Representative J. Dudley Goodlette and Senator Burt Saunders to
withdraw House Bill 905 and Senate Bill 1862, respectively. Gave it
to the board along with the language that's in there.
The reason for that particular memo was the fact that last week
by Wednesday morning our language in the DRI, Senate DRI bill,
which is 1020, that was sponsored by Senator Bennett had been pulled
and it was gone, no longer existed.
If you remember correctly, Monday night, I think it was Monday
night, Monday night just before we started our Vanderbilt Beach
extension meeting I got board direction to tell the -- our
representatives that we support their particular actions on 905 and
1862, respectively, and that we wanted to get the language that was in
the Senate Bill 1020, which is the DRI bill, that was applicable to
Collier County to be added to the House DRI bill. That did not
Page 255
April 25, 2006
happen, and it got removed from 1020.
In the meantime, Tuesday afternoon a strike-all amendment was
submitted for Senate Bill 1862, which is Senator Burt Saunders' bill,
that applied to Collier County and its growth management.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What do you mean, strike-all
amendment?
MR. MUDD: A strike-all amendment. What it used to say it
didn't say any more. And the only thing that was left, ma'am, was or
is this particular language that is underlined at the bottom. And I
mean it pretty much went from a five page bill that explained what we
were talking about in Collier County and mirrored pretty much what
was in House Bill 905, which is Dudley Goodlette's bill, and it now
reads, nothing in this section prohibits a local government that has
adopted a stricter concurrency management system prior to enactment
of Chapter 2005-290 Laws of Florida, and that is Senate Bill 360,
that's the growth management bill from last year which provides for a
shorter time period than three years, from using the stricter
concurrency management system and requirements.
This was provided to Senator Burt Saunders by a representative
of a developer, okay, that builds homes in Collier County. And that
developer's lobbyist misrepresented himself to the Senator and said
that this had been worked out with the county and it was appropriate
and it was approved by all.
And so Burt -- excuse me, Senator Saunders basically said, well,
fine, if everybody agrees to it then I'll submit it and we will do a
strike-all and attach it. So there you were.
At that particular juncture I didn't know if Senator Saunders was
mad at us for something that went on because some very anti-Collier
County things had happened that day in the Senate, you know, the
DRI bill, the language came out from Senator Bennett and now this in
Senator Saunders' bill. And at the time, Representative Goodlette is
standing by, going, where are we right now? And so we basically -- I
Page 256
April 25, 2006
basically wrote the memo based on that particular information.
Last night, to try to clarify if Senator Saunders was mad at us or
not, I sent an E-mail-- and I have since received the answer to this
E-mail last night -- that basically said, here is what I know.
Dear Senator Saunders, I am writing to urge you to withdraw the
current version of Senate Bill 1862 that passed favorably in the
community affairs committee on April 18th, 2006. So that strike-all
with the nasty language already passed one committee.
While the bill as written does allow Collier County to adopt a
stricter concurrency management system than the one enacted in the
2005 growth management law, it also appears to limit the board's
ability to adopt a more restrictive concurrency standard than the one
currently in place. The county commission was not consulted about
the potential impacts of this change prior to its adoption nor was the
staff afforded an opportunity to provide input or review prior to the
committee vote on April 18th.
For these reasons, I would respectfully request that either you
amend Senate Bill 1862 to its original form prior to change one or to
change it entirely to mirror the language contained in Representative
Goodlette's House Bill 905.
As always we are grateful for your continued dedication and
support on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners.
Respectfully, Jim Mudd, county manager.
So the answer back is Senator Saunders will do whatever you
want, okay, on this particular thing. He wasn't mad at us. He was
misinformed by someone and he wants to correct that. So if your
particular desire, I would say to you that my memo and my result that
I came to in my memo that I provided, it was based on some
information that has changed. I believe that Senator Saunders is
willing to mirror House Bill 905 or go to the original version again, to
keep moving that through the Senate side. And I believe that Mr.
Goodlette's bill, House Bill 905, is still active and he'll proceed
Page 257
April 25, 2006
forward if that's what the board wants.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Where do you think we stand as far as
the legislative process to get this passed to address the issues and
concerns that we have in Collier County?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this is really -- you're asking me to
try to read a crystal ball and it's changing so fast --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Don't you have any Tarot cards over
there?
MR. MUDD: No, sir. Only Jack Wert uses those -- and that's
only to attract people to come to his booth, so that they will come to
Collier County.
But Commissioner, what I will tell you is there are some folks
out there that are worried that if -- the development community is
delighted if they pass a bill that basically says we're only going to
restrict this to the counties that had a stricter concurency management
system prior to the enactment of the bill because that limits any county
in the entire State of Florida from having a stricter concurrency system
than the one that's in Senate Bill 360. And Collier County is the only
one that gets out of jail free, okay.
So you can have the best county and the best concurrency system
in the State of Florida but the rest of Florida is basically saddled with
what's in Senate Bill 360. And that's basically, that's three years on
the concurrency, five years proportionate share trumps it and off they
go to the races.
So there are folks in the development community says, hey, you
know, we win if Collier County wins because we've just restricted all
the other counties in the State of Florida. I understand where Collier
County would like, we would like to have what we have right now and
quit messing with us because it really works here and it's better than
anything that you've proposed so far in Senate Bill 360. And I think
everybody on this dais agrees with that.
My fear is it's going to get through the House, it's going to getd
Page 258
April 25, 2006
through the Senate and get vetoed by the Governor. I can't say that for
sure. But I will tell you if he listens to his staff and DCA, that is
indeed what they will do because they have said some things in
committee with staff that were not very nice to Collier County in that
regard.
There is another part of me that says if it continues to go and
some folks want a vendetta, they could add some things to the
language as it moves on that could be detrimental to Collier County.
Those are the only things that I can see.
I can also see both bills pass and it gets into the -- Collier County
gets restricted as the only one in the State of Florida that gets it done,
all the rest have to deal with what they've got, which is a lot looser as
far as transportation concurrency is than we have, and they basically
cut their losses, Collier gets it and the Governor passes it and says
fine.
We didn't lose anything, we have growth management in the
entire state of Florida. Sixty-six counties have transportation
concurrency based on what is in Senate Bill 360. Collier County is a
little bit more restrictive than Senate Bill 360 but we still have
concurrency and we still have growth management, okay, in the State
of Florida, and its better than really Senate Bill 360 had envisioned
where it was all 67 counties.
That's all-- that's what I know. And I know I haven't been
definitive, but I can't read that crystal ball for sure.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me give you the answer.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm looking for the answer, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We -- the language that we had and
we were able to get into Senator Bennett's DRI bill has been removed.
It's gone. And it's gone probably for, well, I know for one reason. It's
gone because the Department of Community Affairs in Tallahassee
has been telling both the House and the Senate that they would
Page 259
April 25, 2006
recommend that the Governor veto that language. The Governor
cannot veto the language in the DRI bill unless he vetoes the entire
bill.
There is not much chance that he will do that because the DRI
bill is of immense importance to the development community in the
State of Florida. But nevertheless, no legislator or -- well, no member
of the Senate or the House wants to have a bill that is going to attract
the criticism of the Governor or DCA. So they have removed it from
the bill, and also, probably at the urging of some people who distorted
what we were doing here in Collier County.
So that there is -- it's gone out of that bill, okay. It's not in the
DRI bill, so it doesn't stand much chance of getting through there.
Now, the other two bills are pretty much stand-alone bills. They
are just for Collier County, Senator Saunders' bill and Representative
Goodlette's bill. Either one or both of those can be defeated by the
other members of the House or the Senate because there is no longer
any question whatsoever about who controls the votes in our state
legislature. We know who that is and we know the influence they
have and we know they have more --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's not the legislators.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's not the legislators. So here we
are. We've got two bills that mayor may not pass, one in the House,
one in the Senate. But if we don't try, we have none.
We need, in my opinion, we need to continue to support our
legislators on these two bills, encourage them to continue to get these
things through and to be ever vigilant for any revisions to bills that are
harmful to Collier County's efforts. And that's critical because you
know how things can get zipped into a bill right at the last minute.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We need to be careful. Now the
county manager was right, there was some concern last week that, you
Page 260
April 25, 2006
know, people might start getting vindictive and doing things. But they
will do that whether we have bills active or not. So I think our best,
best strategy is to continue with these bills. If they fail, they fail, we'll
know where we are. But we do have that one thing, that letter from
DCA which says we can in fact have a more stringent concurrency
management system.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do you feel, Commissioner, that our
constituents in our different districts ought to write E-mail to the
Senator?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It sure wouldn't hurt, you know.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And maybe also send an E-mail to
Senator Bennett.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It wouldn't --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Or do you think that would be
antagonistic?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the problem --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- you don't know where it's going
to have an adverse effect on you. If you raise it to too high a level it
might attract too much attention, and we already know that all it takes
is a few telephone calls from a few developers to get done what they
want to have done.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So do you feel that if our citizens here in
Collier County send E-mail to representative Dudley Goodlette and
also to Senator Burt Saunders saying that we want you to support this
bill --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- would you be in favor, do you think
that would be a way to go to make sure that these elected officials
understand the importance of this?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think if they worded it by saying
we appreciate your efforts to -- we support your efforts to get this, the
Page 261
April 25, 2006
concurency provisions for Collier County --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Support your efforts.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- yes. And if we can get people to
contact our legislators, and specifically Representative Goodlette and
Senator Saunders and Representative Davis. If we can get our
residents to tell those three legislators that we appreciate -- or we
support your efforts to get this bill passed, then I think that would be
constructive, yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a question now for the county
attorney. Could the county attorney give us some verbiage that we
can sent out to our constituents who may want to write to Senator
Saunders and also to Representative Goodlette so that we make sure
that we have a clear message and then that is sent by each and every
one of the constituents that so desires to?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just maybe one sentence.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: One sentence or two sentences, that's all.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, I think we can.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: And your considerations -- when you're passing
E-mail or mail, time is getting pretty short in this session.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We should do this by blast E-mail to our
constituents. I think each one of us commissioners can do that. But if
we have some guidelines so that the message is clear and that our
elected officials up in Tallahassee have an understanding that the
constituents here, not only county commissioners, but the other
constituents are very concerned with this.
MR. WEIGEL: Right. I think we could.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: If it works for you, we could provide you
something in the course of the morning tomorrow.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's fantastic.
MR. WEIGEL: And it will not only have that simple brief
Page 262
April 25, 2006
message but it will also incorporate to whom it's to be sent and how.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Great. That's fantastic.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Excellent. That's a good idea.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Anything else? Start offwith--
MR. WEIGEL: How about county attorney.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I really want this board to take a
vote on that particular item, on what you want to do with the
legislators. I do not want this to sit out there with nods on nods, I
didn't vote for this --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to support Representative
Goodlette and Senator Saunders in getting their bills passed.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I second that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll third.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Fourth.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
Opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Passes four-zero.
MR. MUDD: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any other communications from
the county manager?
MR. MUDD: I don't want to have any more.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. How about the county attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: I will have a couple and they are quick.
The last two or three years you've authorized the county attorney
to assist Mr. John Norman with the Cinco the Mayo festival
permitting requirement, and I would appreciate your endorsement.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved.
Page 263
April 25, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. All those favor signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
Opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion approved by four-zero vote.
MR. PETTIT: Commissioners, I wanted to just follow up on
regarding a fire services committee meeting that, I believe it came to
my attention that commissioners were invited to. I did have some
Sunshine Law concerns. I think if you wanted to appoint someone to
go to that committee meeting and--
MS. FILSON: It's in 15 minutes.
MR. PETTIT: It's in 15 minutes. Well, then I don't know that
any of you are going to be there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would like to nominate Tom
Henning because of his tremendous experience as a fire commissioner
and it's his birthday.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We got that taken care of.
MR. MUDD: Okay, so tonight no commissioners are going to be
there; is that correct?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm not going to be there.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Ochs will go to represent the county
manager's office.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there anything anything else from the
county attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: Try as we may we can't think of anything.
Page 264
April 25, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I really don't have a thing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That statement just took
everything out of me. I am lost for words.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have one item that I would like to bring
forth and get some type of direction from my fellow commissioners.
Now this is an ongoing situation that, in regards to Imperial Golf
Estates homeowners' association, and they are trying to get an eastern
entry through the Royal Palm Academy and De La Sol subdivisions
and to Livingston Road.
Now when Royal Palm Academy was before the Board of
County Commissioners I was under the impression that we had all
items of concern addressed with this, and of course we don't. And
what used to be a roadway is now a conservation easement. And these
-- when we're dealing with Imperial Golf Estates, this is a PUD that
was developed a number of years ago. They only have one ingress and
egress, and that is out on U.S. 41. And right now there is probably
around 1600 homes in there. They are just about pretty well built out.
And these people have been working, trying to work some type
of a plan whereby they can get access, rear access out to Livingston
Road. And obviously they ran into a couple of situations where we
have had storm events, one was with Charlie and the other one was
with Wilma, whereby the front gate was completely closed off and
there was no way to get into the community.
We have had letters of support from EMS. We have had letters of
support from the fire department, and we also believe, had some
letters from emergency manager director in regards to that we need to
find a way to get access out to Livingston. We've been trying to work
with South Florida Water Management along with staff. I can say that
staff has been working.
But there's been an individual, Herb Ohlers, who has been
working on this for probably four to five years. And we thought we
Page 265
April 25, 2006
had something solidified when the -- when the PUD came before us in
regards to the -- yes, I'll think of it in the minute -- the Royal Palm
Academy. We thought we had that taken care of. And obviously,
what some of the discussions that transpired during the course of that
being before the Board of County Commissioners was never entered
into the PUD. So --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Want to bring it back?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, what I would like to do is I would
like to have -- see if my fellow commissioners would give me the
support that instead of writing it as a commissioner of District Two,
that I write this letter to South Florida Water Management on behalf as
the chairperson of Collier County.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I so move.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Done on that one.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And Joe, maybe you can
enlighten us a little bit so that they have some idea of what has
transpired. Just give us a brief synopsis.
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, Environmental
Services Division Administrator. On the visualizer I showed -- this is
the right-of-way, existing right-of-way for the road, and then there is a
preserve. Unfortunately, when Milano was approved and the PUD was
approved, the district issued the permit in total. And now the district
will not approve the bisecting of this wetland to allow for the road to
be constructed. And we are in, I guess, permitting nightmare. Believe
it or not, yes, we are even in a permitting nightmare because the
district will not approve the bisecting.
We have been working with Imperial. Stan's been working. Stan
has been up to the district. I think the next best thing to do is as the
chairman, we prepare a letter, give it to the chair and ask, as you just
Page 266
April 25, 2006
approved, for him to send it to the South Florida Water Management
District expressing the absolute need. Stan on the board has Imperial
and there is, and there is absolutely needed a rear exit. And we are
asking the district to approve.
Once the district approves the permit I can lift the conservation
easement and create two separate conservation easements. But legally
I can do nothing until the district approves the permit.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I make a suggestion?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think we have the right idea
with the chairman writing a letter to him. But also, too, I think what
we need to do is invite the district in here, someone from Palm Beach,
to explain to us exactly their position. This will force them to start
thinking it out, to be able to make a presentation to us. I think there
should be the follow-up, a letter doesn't guarantee anything.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, we could follow up on that. I
think with this letter stressing that the commission supports this
request, stressing the need, and we identify the need both from
emergency aspects and otherwise that the exit is needed, we expect
that finally we'll get this thing at least staffed and approved. If that
doesn't happen I think the next step is ask them to come in here and
explain why they can't do it.
As the commissioner pointed out, Imperial Estates hired an
engineer. They are designing this and it's just -- really, it's truly been
a nightmare.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I hear you, Joe, and you make a
lot of sense. The only thing is is we're sliding into the summer. We
have a real heavy schedule coming up in July, June rather. Ifwe
invited them here at a particular time I think we could probably force
the issue a lot sooner than later. It sounds like something could
probably get put off. I don't know, I'm just looking for something a
little stronger --
Page 267
April 25, 2006
MR. SCHMITT: I'll take this letter, that's exactly what they
need. We need to demonstrate that the commission supports this. And
if they disagree then the next step is we're going to demand that they
come in and explain why this community cannot -- you know -- I
think we never anticipated the need.
I believe that whatever happened, and the commissioners are well
aware of the history between the PUD and the Royal Palm Academy
and whatever. The right-of-way was dedicated but when the applicant
got the permit they got the permit for the entire wetland and basically
froze out the right-of-way --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Are these decisions made by
staff or are they made by their board of directors?
MR. SCHMITT: It will be the board eventually has to approve
it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then what we have to do is if
things start to get bogged down, we have to send a division up to Palm
Beach to meet with the board of directors for a specific time and deal
on the agenda item. I would be more than happy to go too if someone
else can't.
MR. SCHMITT: Okay. The letter is addressed to the board, not
to the district itself. It's addressed to the chairman of the Board
stressing your support and identifying the emergency needs for this
road.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I appreciate this because this is an
ongoing situation, and as I brought up that years ago, that was
supposed to be a rear access, and of course because of the permitting
by other PUDs in the area, one way or another they lost that.
And of course I guess this is a good example of where we failed
in the past when we had such big huge PUDs and not having some
type of connectivity outside the back side of these PUDs. So I want to
thank each and every one of you for the support here so we can get
this going.
Page 268
April 25; 2006
MR. SCHMITT: This is our last chance. Of course, they are
going to have to go through the permitting process. They may have to
mitigate some other items but at least this moves it forward.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just to tie up a loose end, would we
authorize the county manager to send a letter to Representative
Goodlette and Senator Saunders letting them know the vote?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'm going to draft a letter up and I
will have the chairman sign it tomorrow morning.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good. Just tie up a loose
end.
MR. MUDD: Oh, yes, sir. That's got to go.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Five directions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner Fiala still has a comment,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, she doesn't.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: She doesn't have any.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have one comment. Last meeting
we voted to have our staff -- or we directed staff to go check into the
Goodland golf cart issue and get back to us, I think we said, on May
9th. The Goodland people got ahold of me. They had, I guess
Commissioner Coletta needed a lot of information from them and
most of them are leaving town. They just won't be able to have the
information available, so they asked that we postpone this or continue
this to November, okay?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that okay with everyone?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
Page 269
April 25, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is that it? We're adjourned.
***** Commissioner Coyle moved, seconded by Commissioner
Coletta and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted *****
Item #16Al
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "ARTESIA NAPLES PHASE
3", APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY -
W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A2
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "BUCKS RUN RESERVE",
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY -
W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A3
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "BLACK BEAR RIDGE-
PHASE 2", APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY - W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A4
Page 270
April 25, 2006
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "MANCHESTER SQUARE",
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY -
W /STIPULA TIONS
Item #16A5
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "SUMMIT PLACE IN
NAPLES, PHASE II", APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY - W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A6
RESOLUTION 2006-92: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PUBLIC) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR
THE FINAL PLAT OF "CARSON LAKES PHASE II". THE
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE MAINTAINED BY
COLLIER COUNTY - W/RELEASE OF MAINTENANCE
SECURITY
Item #16A 7
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "TRACT 2 OF GOLDEN
GATE ESTATES UNIT NO. 33 REPLAT".
Item #16A8
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH DARYL
BALLWEG, LARRY HORMAN AND MARY ANN HORMAN
Page 271
April 25, 2006
FOR 4.79 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER
LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT TO
EXCEED $176.750
Item #16A9
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH ANTONIO
BRICENO AND CARMEN M. BRICENO FOR 4.66 ACRES
UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION
PROGRAM. AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $173.750
Item #16AI0
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE STATE HOUSING
INITIATIVE PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) ACCOUNT FOR THE
RECEIPT OF AN ADDITIONAL ALLOCATION FOR DISASTER
ASSISTANCE DUE TO HURRICANE WILMA - TO BE USED
FOR REHABILITATION ASSISTANCE TO LOW-INCOME
SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS AFFECTED BY THE 2005
HURRICANE SEASON
Item #16All
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "REFLECTION LAKES AT
NAPLES PHASE 3F", APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY - W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A12
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "FIRANO AT NAPLES",
Page 272
April 25, 2006
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY -
W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16Bl
FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE WITH DROP ANCHOR
MOBILE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. FOR THE
CONTINUED USE OF COUNTY-OWNED RIGHT-OF-WAY AT
A FIRST YEAR'S ANNUAL RENT OF $10 - TO CORRECT AN
ENCROACHMENT ISSUE
Item #16B2
ADOPT-A-ROAD AGREEMENTS (2) FOR THE FOLLOWING
ASAP ACCOUNTING SERVICE OF ANA PATINO, INC. AND
AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE - FOR ROADWAY KNOWN
AS COLLIER BOULEVARD FROM DAVIS BOULEVARD
SOUTH FOR 2 MILES
Item #16B3
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE CARRY FORWARD
IN THE AMOUNT OF $73,726.00 FOR THE EAST CENTRAL
TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT AREA,
PROJECT NO. 600641
Item #16B4
RESOLUTION 2006-93: INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH
THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF COLLIER COUNTY, FOR THE
Page 273
April 25, 2006
CONSTRUCTION OF A SIDEWALK ON FLORIDAN AVENUE
FROM CONFEDERATE DRIVE TO BROW ARD STREET; AND
FUTURE FISCAL YEAR ANNUAL COSTS OF SIDEWALK
MAINTENANCE ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS -
TO COINCIDE WITH THE OPENING OF THE NEW
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Item #16B5
RESOLUTION 2006-94: COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS
DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE THE ATTACHED FLORIDA
COMMISSION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION
DISADVANTAGED 2006/2007 RURAL CAPITAL ASSISTANCE
SUPPORT GRANT AND APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS, AND TO
ACCEPT THE GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $91,134 IF
AWARDED - TO PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES TO
THE ELDERLY AND DISABLED RESIDENTS OF COLLIER
COUNTY
Item #16B6
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE ADDITIONAL
REVENUE FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
PATHWAYS PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $159,350.34 FOR
PROJECT NO(S). 690811, 690822 AND 690817 - AS DETAILED
IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16B7
CHANGE ORDER #3 TO CONTRACT #04-3535, WORK ORDER
UC-II0 WITH DOUGLAS N. HIGGINS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT
OF $89,820 TO SUPPORT THE ADDITION OF A SIDEWALK ON
Page 274
April 25, 2006
THE NORTH SIDE OF GRANADA BOULEVARD IN
COORDINATION WITH THE TWIN LAKES INTERCONNECT,
PROJECT #510054 - FOR SAFER CONDITIONS FOR THE
CURRENT BICYCLISTS AND PEDESTRIANS
Item #16B8
CROSS EASEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF ONE STORMW A TER RETENTION POND ON BOTH
COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY AND THE DISTRICT SCHOOL
BOARD'S PROPERTY TO JOINTLY SERVE THE SANTA
BARBARA BOULEVARD EXPANSION PROJECT AND THE
CALUSA PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. PROJECT #62081.
(ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE
POND IS $11 ,000 ANNUALLY) - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16B9
RESOLUTION 2006-95: ROADWAY SIGNAGE
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP)
IN WHICH COLLIER COUNTY WOULD BE ACCEPTING THE
MAINTENANCE OF ROADWAY DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE
FOR THE EVERGLADES DRIVING TRAIL WITHIN THE
COLLIER COUNTY GEOGRAPHICAL LIMITS; AND APPROVE
FUTURE FISCAL YEAR ANNUAL COSTS OF SIGN
MAINTENANCE AND ALL NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENTS - AT AN ESTIMATED COST OF $186.00 PER
SIGN FOR A TOTAL OF $2.232.00 PER YEAR
Item #16B10
Page 275
April 25, 2006
BID #06-3918, "ROADWAY PAINT, THERMOPLASTIC
MARKINGS & RAISED MARKERS" TO TRUTWIN
INDUSTRIES, INC. FOR AN ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST OF
$400,000. - TO PROVIDE SUPPLIES AND SERVICES FOR
ROADWAY AND PAVEMENT MARKING TO THE TRAFFIC
OPERATIONS AND ROAD MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENTS
Item #16Cl
SECOND CONTRACT UNDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL #02-
3350 FOR THE STANDARDIZATION OF BIOFILTER ODOR
CONTROL UNITS WITH U.S. FILTER WASTEWATER GROUP,
INC. D/B/A U.S. FILTER RJ ENVIRONMENTAL IN THE
ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $200,000 - FOR THE
WASTEWATER LIFT STATIONS
Item #16C2
SATISFACTIONS FOR CERTAIN WATER AND/OR SEWER
IMPACT FEE PAYMENT AGREEMENTS. FISCAL IMPACT IS
$38.50 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN
Item # 16C3
RESOLUTION 2006-96: SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR SOLID
WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY
HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED
IN FULL FOR THE 1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES ASSESSMENTS. FISCAL IMPACT IS
$30.00 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN
Page 276
April 25, 2006
Item #16C4
RESOLUTION 2006-97: REAL ESTATE EXCHANGE
AGREEMENT FOR PROPERTY TO BE EXCHANGED
BETWEEN THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND AND COLLIER
COUNTY - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16C5
TERMINATION OF AN INTER-LOCAL POTABLE WATER
SERVICE AGREEMENT DATED FEBRUARY 7,1995,
BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER
DISTRICT AND THE FLORIDA GOVERNMENTAL UTILITY
AUTHORITY (FGUA), FORMERLY FLORIDA CITIES WATER
COMPANY
Item #16C6
RESOLUTION 2006-98: SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR SOLID
WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY
HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED
IN FULL FOR THE 1994 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. FISCAL
IMPACT IS $30.00 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN
Item # 16C7
RESOLUTION 2006-99: SATISFACTION OF LIEN FORA
SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE
COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS
SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1995 SOLID WASTE
COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
Page 277
April 25, 2006
ASSESSMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS $20.00 TO RECORD THE
SATISFACTION OF LIEN
Item #16C8
RESOLUTION 2006-100: SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR
SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE
COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE
SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1996 SOLID WASTE
COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS. FISCAL IMPACT IS $50.00 TO RECORD THE
SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN
Item #16Dl
RESOLUTION 2006-101: REVISED COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC
LIBRARY FINES AND FEES SCHEDULE - AS DETAILED IN
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16D2
ACCEPTANCE OF DONATED FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$4,500 AND APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT
RECOGNIZING REVENUE AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR
BAREFOOT BEACH PRESERVE-TO ENHANCE BEACH
P ARK OPERATIONS THROUGH PRIVATE CONTRIBUTIONS
Item #16D3
PURCHASE OF PARK MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT FOR
NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL PARK IN THE AMOUNT OF
$232,632.06 FROM WESTCO TURF, INC. - AS DETAILED IN
Page 278
April 25, 2006
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16D4
ADDENDUM I TO A TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT FOR
NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION TRANSPORTING SCHOOL-AGE
CHILDREN - FOR SUMMER CAMP RECREATION PROGRAM
PARTICIPANTS
Item #16D5
PURCHASE OF HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE IN THE
AMOUNT OF $75,940 FROM ACTIVE NETWORK FOR NORTH
COLLIER REGIONAL PARK - TO MAINTAIN CONTINUITY
AMONG ITS AUTOMATED REGISTRATION, RESERVATION,
AND ACCOUNTING SYSTEMS
Item #16D6
CONTRACT NO. 05-3842, DESIGN AND RELATED SERVICES
FOR GOODLAND BOATING PARK, AT A COST OF $500,00 TO
JOHNSON ENGINEERING - TO EXPAND THE BOATING
ACCESS NETWORK THROUGH DEVELOPMENT OF THE
FIVE-ACRE PARCEL FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE PALM
POINT PROPERTY
Item #16D7
CHANGE ORDER NO.2 IN THE AMOUNT OF $14,100 FOR RE-
BIDDING AND ADDITIONAL PERMITTING FOR EAGLE
LAKES COMMUNITY PARK PHASE II, WORK ORDER NO.
WMBP-FT-03-09 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
Page 279
April 25, 2006
SUMMARY
Item #16D8
BID NO. 06-3981, SUMMER TRUCK RENTAL FOR PARKS AND
RECREATION, TO ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR AT AN
ESTIMATED COST OF $55,800 FOR THE TRANSPORTATION
OF FOOD TO RECREATION AND SCHOOL SITES UNDER THE
SUMMER FOOD GRANT PROGRAM - A MAXIMUM OF
THIRTY TRUCKS WILL BE NEEDED DURING THE NINE
WEEK PERIOD
Item #16D9 - Continued to May 9, 2006 BCC Meeting
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE SCHOOL
DISTRICT OF COLLIER COUNTY TO PROVIDE FOR
EMPLOYEE SCREENING IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE
JESSICA LUNDSFORD ACT
Item #16El
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO FUND 518, WORKERS
COMPENSATION INSURANCE, IN THE AMOUNT OF $547,300
TO FUND ANTICIPATED CLAIMS SETTLEMENT EXPENSES
THROUGH THE REMAINDER OF FISCAL YEAR 2006 AND TO
RECOGNIZE REINSURANCE RECOVERIES IN THE AMOUNT
OF $435.000
Item #16E2
RATIFY ADDITIONS TO AND A DELETION FROM THE 2006
FISCAL YEAR PAY AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN MADE
Page 280
April 25, 2006
FROM JANUARY 1. 2006 THROUGH MARCH 31. 2006
Item #16E3
QUOTE UNDER CONTRACT #02-3349 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$77,850, "COLLIER COUNTY ADA RESTROOMS
RENOVATIONS FOR THE CCSO VISITATION FACILITY
BLDG. D" TO WALL SYSTEMS INC. OF SW FL DBA
PROFESSIONAL BUILDING SYSTEMS - TO PROVIDE EASE
OF ACCESS FOR PUBLIC VISITORS, ESPECIALLY THOSE
WITH DISABILITIES
Item #16E4
BUDGET AMENDMENT AND WORK ORDER FOR UPDATING
THE CORRECTIONAL (JAIL) MASTER PLAN UNDER
CONTRACT #01-3235, ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES WITH
SCHENKEL SHULTZ. INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $111.490
Item # 16E5
NOVATION AGREEMENT SUBSTITUTING THE LAW FIRM
OF YOUNG VAN ASSENDERP, P.A. FOR THE LAW FIRM OF
LANDERS & PARSONS, P.A. IN THE CONTINUING
RETENTION AGREEMENT DATED JANUARY 9, 2001 - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item # 16E6
BID NO. 06-3949 CONTRACT PRINTING SERVICES - FOR
STANDARD FORM PRINTING NEEDS AND TO SAVE STAFF
TIME AND TAX DOLLARS
Page 281
April 25, 2006
Item #16E7
WORK ORDER #VC-02-68 IN THE AMOUNT OF $106,350 TO
WM. J. VARIAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR THE
PROJECT KNOWN AS "DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES
CONCRETE KENNEL PADS AND CANOPIES" ISSUED UNDER
ANNUAL GENERAL CONTRACTOR CONTRACT RFP 02-3349
- TO PROVIDE OVERHEAD SHELTER TO THE ANIMALS
THAT ARE PRESENTLY EXPOSED TO THE ELEMENTS
Item #16F1
ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE AND RESCUE DISTRICT'S
APPLICATION FOR A MATCHING (50/50) GRANT OFFERED
BY FLORIDA DIVISION OF FORESTRY IN THE AMOUNT OF
$3,996.00 AND APPROVE THE NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENTS TO RECOGNIZE AND APPROPRIATE
REVENUE - FOR THE PURCHASE OF WILD LAND
FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT TO IMPROVE FIREFIGHTER
SAFETY AND CAPABILITIES
Item #16F2
AFTER-THE-FACT SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION TO
THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
(FEMA) FOR THE ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTERS GRANT
FOR THE ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE RESCUE DISTRICT - TO
REPLACE A 15 YEAR OLD SELF-CONTAINED BREATHING
APPARATUS WHICH NO LONGER MEETS NATIONAL FIRE
PROTECTION ASSOCIATION (NFPA) STANDARDS
Page 282
April 25, 2006
Item #16F3
EXTENSION OF TWO LEASES WITH KEITH BASIK, JEFF
BASIK AND LARRY BASIK, AKA NBC STORAGE, LLC, FOR
THE CONTINUED USE OF OUTSIDE AND WAREHOUSE
STORAGE FOR THE DISASTER RESPONSE PROGRAM FOR
AN INITIAL SIX-MONTH PERIOD AT A TOTAL COST OF
$19,932 - FOR DISASTER RELIEF SUPPLIES AND TRAILERS,
INCLUDING PANDEMIC FLU RESPONSE SUPPLIES
Item #16F4
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO FUND THE PURCHASE OF
PANDEMIC INFLUENZA PROTECTIVE SUPPLIES IN THE
AMOUNT OF $35,640 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16F5
BID #06-3954 TO MULTIPLE VENDORS FOR EMS
EXPENDABLE MEDICAL SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT - FOR
THE PURCHASE OF ONE-TIME USE SUPPLIES AND
EQUIPMENT SUCH AS BANDAGES, SPLINTS, CATHETERS,
SYRINGES. TUBING. ETC
Item # 16F6
RECOGNITION OF ADDITIONAL FUNDS RECEIVED FROM
THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOR THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES COUNTY GRANT PROGRAM AND TO APPROVE A
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $53,594 - TO IMPROVE EMERGENCY MEDICAL
Page 283
April 25, 2006
SERVICES WITH TRAINING AND MEDICAL/RESCUE
EQUIPMENT FROM OCTOBER 1,2005 TO SEPTEMBER 30,
2006
Item #16Gl
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ACTING AS THE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA),
APPROVING THE 2005 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CRA,
DIRECT STAFF TO FILE THE ANNUAL REPORT WITH THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BCC) AND DIRECT
THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO PUBLISH
NOTICE OF FILING THE REPORT - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16G2
SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE
COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY AND GRANT APPLICANTS WITHIN THE
BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AREA - DONALD SHEEHAN AT 2559
MANORCA AVENUE
Item #16Hl
PAYMENT FOR COMMISSIONER HALAS TO ATTEND THE
FLORIDA GULF COAST UNIVERSITY COMMENCEMENT
CEREMONIES ON SATURDAY, APRIL 29,2006, AT THE
ALICO ARENA IN FT. MYERS, FLORIDA; $11.50 TO BE PAID
FROM COMMISSIONER HALAS ' TRAVEL BUDGET -
SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE
Page 284
April 25, 2006
Item #16H2
PAYMENT FOR COMMISSIONER HALAS TO ATTEND THE
2006 TOURISM WEEK CELEBRATION AT THE NAPLES
GRANDE RESORT & CLUB IN NAPLES, FLORIDA ON
FRIDAY, MAY 19,2006 @12:00P.M.; $25.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER HALAS' TRAVEL BUDGET - SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE
Item #16H3
PAYMENT REIMBURSEMENT FOR COMMISSIONER FIALA
TO ATTEND THE NAPLES ALLIANCE FOR CHILDREN'S
ANNUAL ADVOCACY DINNER ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5TH,
2006, AT THE COUNTRY CLUB OF NAPLES; $35.00 TO BE
PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET -
SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE
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 285
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
April 25, 2006
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) March 18, 2006 through March 24, 2006.
(2) March 25, 2006 through March 31, 2006.
B. Districts:
(1) Quarry Community Development District: Minutes of October
10,2005; Agenda of October 10,2005; Minutes of October 27,
2005 (continuation of October 10, 2005).
(2) Naples Heritaae Community Development District: Minutes of
November 14, 2005; Agenda of November 14, 2005.
C. Minutes:
(1 ) Collier County Library Advisory Board: Agenda of March 29,
2006; Minutes of January 26, 2006.
(2) Bayshore Beautification MSTU: Agenda of April 12, 2006;
Minutes of March 8, 2006.
(3) Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainaae MSTU: Agenda of April
12, 2006; Minutes of March 8, 2006; Minutes of Special
Meeting of March 31, 2006.
H:\DA T A \FRONT DESK - 2006\2006 Miscellaneous Correspondence\042506 misc corresp.doc
(4) Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisorv Committee:
Agenda of April 1 0, 2006; Minutes of March 13, 2006.
(5) Environmental Advisory Council: Agenda of April 5, 2006;
Minutes of March 1,2006; Revised "A" Agenda of April 5, 2006.
(6) Golden Gate MSTU Advisory Committee: Agenda of April 11,
2006; Minutes of March 14, 2006.
(7) Collier County Plannina Commission: Agenda of April 6, 2006;
Minutes of February 16, 2006.
(8) Collier County Citizens Corps Advisory Committee: Minutes of
March 15, 2006; Agenda of March 15, 2006.
(9) Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee: Minutes of
January 23, 2006; Agenda of January 23, 2006.
(10) Collier County Emeraency Medical Services Advisorv Council:
Notification of Cancellation of January meeting due to lack of
quorum; Minutes of February 23, 2006.
(11) Collier County Productivity Committee: Minutes of February 15,
2006.
(a) Operational Efficiency Subcommittee: Minutes of
February 9, 2006.
(b) Administrative Efficiency and Effectiveness
Subcommittee: Minutes of February 21, 2006; Minutes of
March 7, 2006.
(c) IT Subcommittee: Minutes of February 3, 2006.
H:\DA T A \FRONT DESK - 2006\2006 Miscellaneous COlTespondence\042506 misc corresp.doc
(12) Pelican Bav Services Division: Agenda of April 5, 2006;
Minutes of March 1, 2006.
(a) Clam Bay Sub-committee: Minutes of March 22, 2006;
Agenda of April 13, 2006.
(b) Budget Sub-committee: Minutes of March 22,2006; Agenda
of April 13, 2006.
(13) Development Services Advisorv Committee:
(a)Budget and Operations Subcommittee: Agenda of April 12,
2006; Minutes of March 22, 2006.
(14) Historic & Archaeoloaical Preservation Board: Agenda of April
19, 2006; Minutes of March 15, 2006.
(15) Collier County Airport Authority: Agenda of February 13, 2006;
Addendum to the February 13, 2006 Agenda; Minutes of
January 23, 2006; Minutes of February 13, 2006; Form 8B
Memorandum of Voting Conflict/Robert Doyle dated February
13, 2006; Agenda of March 28, 2006; Addendum to the March
28, 2006 Agenda; Minutes of March 28, 2006.
(16) Radio Road Beautification MSTU: Agenda of April 18, 2006;
Minutes of March 21,2006.
(17) Collier County Domestic Animal Services Advisorv Committee:
Minutes of March 21,2006.
(18) Lelv Golf Estates Beautification MSTU Advisorv Committee:
Agenda of April 20, 2006; Minutes of March 16,2006.
H:\DA T A \FRONT DESK - 2006\2006 Miscellaneous Correspondence\042506 misc corresp.doc
(19) Immokalee Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee: Minutes
of March 15, 2006; Agenda of April 19, 2006.
(20) Golden Gate Community Center Advisorv Committee: Agenda
of April 3, 2006; Minutes of April 3, 2006.
fill Other:
(1) Bavshore/Gatewav Triangle Community Development Agencv:
Agenda of January 3, 2006; Minutes of January 3, 2006;
Agenda of January 16, 2006; Minutes of January 16, 2006;
Agenda of February 7, 2006; Minutes of February 7, 2006;
Agenda of Arboretum Village Workshop of February 13, 2006;
Minutes of Arboretum Village Workshop of February 13, 2006;
Agenda of March 7,2006; Minutes of March 7, 2006; Agenda of
Arboretum Village Workshop NO.2 on March 27, 2006; Minutes
of the Arboretum Village Workshop NO.2 on March 27,2006.
H:\DA T A \FRONT DESK - 2006\2006 Miscellaneous Correspondence\042506 misc corresp.doc
April 25, 2006
Item #16Jl
SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS TO ACCEPT VOTER
EDUCATION FUNDS WITH A 15% MATCHING
CONTRIBUTION - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16Kl
PROPOSED JOINT MOTION FOR AN AGREED ORDER
AWARDING EXPERT FEES AND COSTS RELATING TO
PARCEL NO. 178 IN THE CASE STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
TEODORO GIMENEZ, ET AL., CASE NO. 04-0561-CA,
VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD PROJECT #63051. (FISCAL
IMPACT: $1.800.00)
Item #16K2
AGREED ORDER FOR EXPERT APPRAISAL FEES AND COSTS
RELATING TO THE ACQUISITION OF PARCELS 106 AND 806
IN COLLIER COUNTY V. TREE PLATEAU CO., INC., ET AL.,
CASE NO. 03-0519-CA, IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT #60018.
(FISCAL IMPACT: $17.000.00)
Item #16K3
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AS THE EX-OFFICIO
GOVERNING BODY OF THE COLLIER COUNTY W A TER-
SEWER DISTRICT APPROVE A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
PROPOSED BY METCALF & EDDY RELATING TO THE
PROJECT KNOWN AS THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL
WATER TREATMENT PLANT 9-MGD RO EXPANSION
Page 286
April 25, 2006
(CONTRACT NO. 98-2891/PROJECT NO. 70054) AND
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE ANY
NECESSARY SETTLEMENT DOCUMENTS FOLLOWING
REVIEW BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY - AS DETAILED IN
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16K4
SETTLEMENT IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED JEFFREY
REISTER AND MARY LISA REISTER VS. COLLIER COUNTY, ET
AL., FILED IN THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CASE NO. 04-173CA, FOR
$2.250.00.
Item #16K5
SETTLEMENT IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED ALLSTATE
FLORIDIAN INSURANCE COMPANY AS SUBROGEE OF ANN
DEE YURICK VS. COLLIER COUNTY, FILED IN THE
TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER
COUNTY. FLORIDA. CASE NO. 06-0003-CA. FOR $12.500.00
Item # 1 7 A
RESOLUTION 2006-102: PETITION A VESMT2005-AR7084 TO
DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND
THE PUBLICS INTEREST IN A 10 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT
LOCATED BETWEEN LOTS 72 AND 73 ACCORDING TO THE
PLAT OF "BENT GRASS BEND AT THE ESTATES AT BAY
COLONY GOLF CLUB" AS RECORDED AT PLAT BOOK 33,
PAGES 54 THROUGH 56, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND TO ACCEPT AN ALTERNATE
Page 287
April 25, 2006
EASEMENT IN PLACE OF THE V ACA TED AREA
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:51 P.M.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
r~g/
FRA HALAS, ChaIrman
ATTEST: . """.::',
DWIGHr,E~'BRO:Q:K, CLERK
. . .
, , .
,{;C
These minutes approved by the Board on
presented ~ or as corrected
, as
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY TERRI LEWIS AND
ELIZABETH M. BROOKS, RPR
Page 288