BCC Minutes 06/06-07/2006 R
June 6-7, 2006
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
June 6 and June 7, 2006
Naples, Florida
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
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
6'"""
~
,
--'" \
._~-~
AGENDA
June 6, 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
June 6, 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 IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of to day's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary agenda.)
B. May 9,2006 - BCC/Regular Meeting
C. May 15, 2006 - BCC/Bayshore CRA Budget Annual Workshop
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
A. Advisory Committee Service Awards
Five Year Awards
1) Christopher Sutphin, Pelican Bay Services Division Board
2) Ronald Pennington, Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee
3) Anthony Pires, Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee
Page 2
June 6, 2006
4) Bill Neal, Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment
Advisory Board
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation recognizing June 9, 2006 as Sons of the American Revolution
Day to be accepted by Don Cahill, Naples Chapter President, and Sam
Cahill, Naples Chapter Second Vice President, National Society of the Sons
of American Revolution.
5. PRESENTATIONS
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition request by Francis Hoy to discuss bridge at Cypress Way
East between Immokalee Road and Piper Boulevard.
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 D.m.. unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. Petition: PUDEX-
2005-AR-8649 Hammock Park PUD, Joseph A. Filippelli, for Sembler
Florida, represented by Dwight Nadeau, ofRWA, requesting a 2-year PUD
Extension to the Hammock Park Commerce Centre PUD Master Plan and
PUD document pursuant to LDC Section 10.02.l3.D.5.a. The subject
property, consisting of 18.15 acres, is located on the northeast comer of
Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake-Hammock Road, Section 14, Township
50 South, Range 26 East; and Section 23, Township 50 South, Range 26
East, Collier County, Florida.
B. This petition was continued from Februarv 14~ 2006 and is further
reQuested to be continued to June 20~ 2006. This item requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. PUDEX-2005-AR-8478: Rookery Bay Business Park, LLC,
represented by Wayne Arnold, ofQ. Grady Minor and Associates, P. A. and
R. Bruce Anderson, of Roetzel & Andress, requesting a two-year extension
to the ASGM Business Center of Naples PUD from October 8, 2005 to
Page 3
June 6, 2006
October 8, 2007. The subject property, consisting of 40.88 acres, is located
on the east side of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), approximately of a mile
south of Manatee Road, in Section 10, Township 51 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida.
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item will immediately follow Item 10B~ which is 10:00 a.m. time
certain. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt
an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2001-13, as amended, (The Collier
County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance); Providing for incorporation by
reference of the Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study, dated June 6,
2006; Also to insert a reference to the County's most recently updated Water
Master Plan and its most recently up-dated Wastewater Master Plan; Also to
insert amendments required by Florida HB/SB 1194; Also to append the
revised Water and Sewer Impact Fee Rate Schedule to thereby incorporate
into the Ordinance, by reference, these new water and wastewater impact
fees; Providing for conflict and severability; Providing for inclusion into the
Code of Laws and Ordinances; Providing that the Ordinance shall become
effective upon receipt by Florida's Secretary of State, but that the revised
impact fees shall not become effective until 8:00 A.M. on Friday, September
8, 2006. (Companion to Item lOB)
B. This item will immediately follow Item 8A and Item 10B~ which have a
10:00 a.m. time certain. Recommend adoption of an Ordinance that
modifies Ordinance 2001-73, titled Collier County Water-Sewer District
Uniform Billing, Operating and Regulatory Standards Ordinance; this
modification includes proposed rates for water and wastewater services
based on a rate study dated June 6, 2006 titled Water and Wastewater Rate
Review for Collier County Water-Sewer District; And provides for a new
fee titled Allowance for Funds Prudently Invested (AFPI) as Schedule Seven
of Appendix A of the Ordinance; and provides for an effective date of
October I, 2006 for Schedules 2 through 7 of Appendix A of the Ordinance;
And provides for effective dates of October I, 2006 and October 1, 2007 for
Schedule 1 of Appendix A of the Ordinance. (To be heard after Item 8A)
C. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-2005-AR-8l26:
Rock Creek Holdings, LLC, represented by R. Bruce Anderson, of Roetzel
& Andress, LPA and Bruce Tyson, of Wilson Miller, Inc., requesting a
Page 4
June 6, 2006
rezone from the C-4 (Commercial) and RMF-6 (Residential) zoning districts
to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district to
allow development of a maximum of 120 multi-family residential dwelling
units, to include a maximum of 24 or 20 percent of the total dwelling units
as workforce housing units for a project known as Meridian Village RPUD.
The subject property, consisting of 11.68 acres, is located on the northwest
comer of the intersection of Airport-Pulling Road and Estey Avenue, in
Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
D. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-2005-AR-890 I:
Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc., represented by Laura
Spurgeon, of Johnson Engineering, requesting a PUD Rezone of
approximately 26.85 acres from the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to
the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district with an
Affordable Housing Density Bonus. The project is to be known as Liberty
Landing and is intended to provide 162 affordable housing units in
Immokalee. The subject property is located in the north half of Section 31,
Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida.
E. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-A-2005-AR-
8918, Palermo Cove PUD, Elias Brothers Communities at Raffia Preserve,
Inc., represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, ofQ. Grady Minor &
Associates, P.A., requesting an amendment to Palermo Cove RPUD, by
adding multiple family residential dwelling units as a permitted use for
property located north of Wolfe Road, west of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951),
in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
F. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-2003-AR-4991,
Robert Mulhere, ofRW A, Inc., representing Woodfield Builders, LLC,
requesting a rezone from" A" Rural Agricultural to "RPUD" Residential
Planned Unit Development to be known as Rockedge RPUD, subject to the
approval of an Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement authorizing
the developer to utilize affordable housing bonus density units (in the
amount of 111 units at 7.5 bonus density units per acre) in the development
of this project for low-income residents. The 76.46 acres subject property is
located on the east side of Collier Blvd. (CR 951) approximately 6 tenths of
Page 5
June 6, 2006
a mile south of intersection with Rattlesnake-Hammock Road, in Section 23,
Township 50, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of member to the County Government Productivity
Committee.
B. Board Consideration of the Implementation and Administration of the
Special Master Ordinance, Ordinance No. 200446, by the Special Master,
including the Workshop of January 20,2006 and to take all Appropriate
Measures to Assure Impartiality and a Positive Public Perception in the
Special Master and the Special Master Program.
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution authorizing the acquisition by gift or
purchase of fee simple interests in the proposed right-of-way, as well as
perpetual, non-exclusive road right-of-way, drainage and utility easements,
and temporary driveway restoration easements, and temporary construction
easements, which will be required for the construction of roadway, drainage
and utility improvements to Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension from C.R.
951 to Wilson Boulevard (Project No. 60168) (Norman Feder,
Administrator, Transportation Services)
B. This item to be heard at 10:00 a.m. followed by Companion Item 8A~
then Item 8B. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
adopt the 2005 Collier County Water and Wastewater Master Plan Updates,
Dated June 6,2006, Projects 70070, 73066 and 75007. (Jim DeLony,
Administrator, Public Utilities)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
A. This item to be heard at 11 :00 a.m. This item was continued from the April
25,2006 BCC Meeting. Presentation of the FY2005 Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report by KPMG (County Auditors).
Page 6
June 6, 2006
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 Marsala at
Tiburon, 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 Hampton
Village at Ave Maria Phase 1, approval of the standard form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount
of the performance security.
3) Recommendation to accept a donated Publix gift card in the amount
of$75.00 to be used to purchase volunteer lunches at the Otter Mound
Planting Days.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment to recognize
revenue received from the John Eastern Insurance Company in the
amount of $4,068.85 due to Hurricane Wilma Clean Up.
2) Recommendation to waive formal competition and approve purchase
of Panther Habitat Units, in the amount of $276,945, as mitigation for
road construction impacts. Project 62081
3) Recommendation to approve the purchase of2.674 acres of improved
property of which 0.372 acres are required for road right of way for
Page 7
June 6, 2006
the Santa Barbara Boulevard expansion project. Project No. 62081
(Estimated fiscal impact: $621,925.00)
4) Recommendation to approve expenditure of $25,000 to repair a failing
culvert located under 10th Street SE over the C-l Canal (Project No.
51022).
5) Recommendation to reject all bids submitted for Bid #06-3909,
Traffic Operations Electrical Components.
6) Recommendation to reject bids submitted for Bid #06-3917, Roadway
Lighting Components.
7) Recommendation to approve a Resolution of the Collier County
Board of County Commissioners (BCC) authorizing the filing of the
Trip and Equipment Grant Application with the Florida Commission
for the Transportation Disadvantaged (CTD).
8) Recommendation to authorize the disposal of certain County-owned
property that is without commercial value.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to Approve Change Orders to Greeley and Hansen
LLC Work Orders GH-FT-05-07 in the amount of$47,250 and GH-
FT-05-08 in the amount of$4l,304 under Fixed Term Contract #00-
3119, Fixed Term Professional Utility Engineering Services, for the
2005 Utilities Water Master Plan Update and the 2005 Utilities
Wastewater Master Plan Update and Appropriate Budget
Amendments, Projects Numbers 70070, 73066, and 75007.
2) Recommendation to approve the purchase of an Aquatech Mobile
Catch Basin and High Velocity Combination Sewer Cleaner from
Pat's Pump and Blower on State Contract 070-700-322 in the amount
of $196,572.80.
3) Recommendation to award Contract 06-3901 Loan/Grant Acquisition
and Compliance Services to Angie Brewer & Associates, LC, as
primary, and to Public Utilities Management & Planning, LC, as
Page 8
June 6, 2006
secondary, in an estimated annual amount of approximately
$1,000,000.
4) Recommendation to award Contract 06-3977 to Vaccaro Consulting,
Inc. for "Consulting Services and Planning Assistance".
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve a Limited Use License Agreement
between the Board of County Commissioners and the Naples Junior
Chamber of Commerce, Inc., approving use of specified county-
owned property for conducting a July 4th Fireworks Festival.
2) Recommendation to waive the formal competitive bid process and
authorize purchase of outdoor pool deck furniture from Contract
Furnishings International, Inc. in the amount of $85,616.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve Phase I and Phase II of Work Order
#SCD-FT-3850-06-01, issued to Spillis Candela DMJM (Architects),
in the amount of $368,730.00, for the design and construction
management of the Naples Jail Improvement Plan project.
2) Recommendation to approve funding for emergency generator
upgrades and associated work in the amount of$408,538.
3) Report and Ratify Staff-Approved Change Orders and Changes to
Work Orders to Board-Approved Contracts.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Recommendation to approve expenses not to exceed $4,000 for
Collier County to provide bus services for elected officials from other
counties to two events scheduled June 27 during the Florida
Association of Counties 2006 Annual Conference in Collier County at
the Marco Island Marriott.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Page 9
June 6, 2006
1) Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
approve application for corporate membership of $200 to Bayshore
Arts, and approve a donation of $300 to Bayshore Arts, a 501 C3
organization, from the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Trust Fund (Fund
187) FY06 budget and declare the donation serving a valid public
purpose.
2) Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
approve the expenditure of$5,701.50 of Bayshore Gateway Triangle
Trust Funds from FY06 Fund 187 budget, to pave Catherine Avenue,
a lime rock residential street within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle
CRA boundary, as part of Florida Highway Products sole source
contract approved May 9, 2006, and approve all necessary budget
amendments.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Halas requests Board approval to attend a function
serving a valid public purpose. Attending the Gulf of Mexico Alliance
on June 21, 2006 at the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research
Reserve Environmental Learning Center; $30.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Halas' travel budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) This item continued from the Aprill1~ 2006 BCC Meetinf!.
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
the Clerk's Office to file the State of Florida Annual Local
Government Financial Report for the Fiscal Year 2004-2005 as
required by Florida Statute 218.32.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to Approve a Mediated Settlement Agreement and a
Stipulated Final Judgment to be Drafted Incorporating the Same
Page 10
June 6, 2006
Terms and Conditions as the Mediated Settlement Agreement in the
Amount of $80,400.00 for the Acquisition of Parcels 119, 121,821
and 921 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v. Robert J. Derr, et aI.,
Case No. 03-2196-CA (Golden Gate Parkway Project No. 60027).
(Fiscal Impact: $47,286.75).
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER 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 that
the Board of County Commissioners approve Petition SNR-2005-AR-9467,
by DY Land Associates, LTD., represented by Mark W. Minor of Q. Grady
Minor & Associates, P.A., requesting a street name change from Clear
Marsh Circle to A viamar Circle for property in Fiddlers Creek Phase 5 Unit
1 - Aviamar, located within Section 13, Township 51 South, Range 26 East.
B. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Recommendation that
the Board of County Commissioners approve Petition SNR-2005-AR-9468,
by DY Land Associates, LTD., represented by Mark W. Minor of Q. Grady
Minor & Associates, P.A., requesting a street name change from Laughing
Gull Court to Marengo Court for property in Fiddlers Creek Phase 5 Unit 1 -
Aviamar, located within Section 13, Township 51 South, Range 26 East.
C. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Recommendation that
the Board of County Commissioners approve Petition SNR-2005-AR-9469,
by DY Land Associates, LTD., represented by Mark W. Minor of Q. Grady
Page 11
June 6, 2006
Minor & Associates, P.A., requesting a street name change from Wading
Bird Court to Serena Lane for property in Fiddlers Creek Phase 5 Unit 1 -
Aviamar, located within Section 13, Township 51 South, Range 26 East.
D. This item reQuires that all participants be'sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Recommendation that
the Board of County Commissioners approve Petition SNR-2005-AR-9470,
by DY Land Associates, LTD., represented by Mark W. Minor of Q. Grady
Minor & Associates, P.A., requesting a street name change from Skylark
Court to Serenity Court for property in Fiddlers Creek Phase 5 Unit I -
A viamar, located within Section 13, Township 51 South, Range 26 East.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
Page 12
June 6, 2006
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
June 6. 2006
Add Item 5A: Presentation to recognize and thank those responsible for the clean up of certain
areas in East Naples, specifically around Home Depot, St. Matthews House, Palm Drive and Town
Center. (Commissioner Fiala's request.)
Move Item 7 A to 8G: This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure
be provided by Commission members. Petition: PUDEX-2005-AR-8649 Hammock Park PUD,
Joseph A. Filippelli, for Sembler Florida, represented by Dwight Nadeau, of RWA, requesting a 2-
year PUD Extension to the Hammock Park Commerce Centre PUD Master Plan and PUD
document pursuant to LDC Section 10.02.13.D.5.a. The subject property, consisting of 18.15
acres, is located on the northeast corner of Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake-Hammock Road,
Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East; and Section 23, Township 50 South, Range 26
East, Collier County, Florida. (Staff's request)
Move 7B to 8H: This petition was continued from February 14, 2006 and is further requested to be
continued to June 20, 2006. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDEX-2005-AR-8478: Rookery Bay Business
Park, LLC, represented by Wayne Arnold, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. and R. Bruce
Anderson, of Roetzel & Andress, requesting a two-year extension to the ASGM Business Center
of Naples PUD from October 8,2005 to October 8,2007. The subject property, consisting of 40.88
acres, is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), approximately 114 of a mile south
of Manatee Road, in Section 10, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
(Staff's request.)
Move 16B1 to 10C: Recommendation to approve a budget amendment to recognize revenue
received from the John Eastern Insurance Company in the amount of $4,068.85 due to Hurricane
Wilma. (Commissioner Fiala's request.)
Move Item 16B2 to 10D: Recommendation to waive formal competition and approve purchase of
Panther Habitat Units, in the amount of $276,945, as mitigation for road construction impacts.
Project 62081. (Commissioner Halas' request.)
Move 16B3 to 10E: Recommendation to approve the purchase of 2.674 acres of improved
property of which 0.372 acres are required for road right-of-way for the Santa Barbara Boulevard
expansion project. Project No. 62081 (Estimated fiscal impact: $621,925.00.) Commissioners
Fiala and Coletta's request.)
NOTE: Item 16C3: A copy of this contract with Angie Brewer and Associates is available for
viewing in the County Purchasing Department. (Staff's request.)\
Move 16G1 to 14A: Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) approve
application for corporate membership of $200 to Bayshore Arts, and approve a donation of $300
to Bayshore Arts, a 501 C3 organization, from the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Trust Fund (Fund
187) FY06 budget and declare the donation serving a public purpose. (Commissioner Halas'
request.)
Page 2
Change Sheet
June 6, 2006 BCC Meeting
Time Certain Items:
Item 10B. This item to be heard at 10:00 a.m. followed immediately by companion Item 8A, then
Item 8B. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the 2005 Collier
County Water and Wastewater Master Plan Updates, Dated June 6, 2006, Projects 70070, 73066
and 75007.
Item 8A. followina Item 10B: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt an
Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2001-13, as amended, (The "Collier County Consolidated
Impact Fee Ordinance"); Providing for incorporation by reference of the "Water and Wastewater
Impact Fee Study, dated June 6, 2006"; Also to insert a reference to the County's most recently
updated Water Master Plan and its most recently up-dated Wastewater Master Plan; Also to insert
amendments required by Florida HB/SB 1194; Also to append the revised Water and Sewer
Impact Fee Rate Schedule to thereby incorporate into the Ordinance, by reference, these new
water and wastewater impact fees; Providing for conflict and severability; Providing for inclusion
into the Code of Laws and Ordinances; Providing that the Ordinance shall become effective upon
receipt by Florida's Secretary of State, but that the revised impact fees shall not become effective
until 8:00 A.M. on Friday, September 8, 2006.
Item 8B. followina Item 8A: Recommend adoption of an Ordinance that modifies Ordinance 2001-
73, titled "Collier County Water-Sewer District Uniform Billing, Operating and Regulatory
Standards Ordinance"; this modification includes proposed rates for water and wastewater
services based on a rate study dated June 6, 2006 titled "Water and Wastewater Rate Review for
Collier County Water-Sewer District"; And provides for a new fee titled "Allowance for Funds
Prudently Invested" (AFPI) as Schedule Seven of Appendix A of the Ordinance; and provides for
an effective date of October 1, 2006 for Schedules 2 through 7 of Appendix A of the Ordinance;
And provides for effective dates of October 1, 2006 and October 1, 2007 for Schedule 1 of
Appendix A of the Ordinance.
Item 13A: This item to be heard at 11 :00 a.m. This item was continued from the April 25, 2006
BCC Meeting. Presentation of the FY2005 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report by KPMG
(County Auditors).
June 6- 7, 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.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Collier
County Board of Commissioners' meeting, and it's now in session.
We'll have the invocation this morning by Lester Elliot, who is
the pastoral outreach coordinator for the Hospice of Naples.
Would you all rise for the invocation, followed by the Pledge of
Allegiance.
MR. ELLIOT: God of this universe, God of this nation, we ask
for your grace as the commissioners of this county meeting to do the
people's business. Give them insight as they grapple with complex
issues, give them wisdom as they -- that they may lead Collier County
in a bright and glorious future. Give them courage that they may lead
with conviction. May they never forget that as they serve others, they
serve you.
So may your divine blessings be upon them today and always,
this is our prayer. In Jesus' name, amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good morning, County Manager.
Do you have any updates on today's agenda?
Item #2A
TODA Y'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA AS
AMENDED - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED W/CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Agenda changes for the Board of County
Commissioners meeting June 6, 2006.
Add item 5A. It's a presentation to recognize and thank those
responsible for the cleanup of certain areas in East Naples, specifically
around Home Depot, St. Matthews' House, Palm Drive, and the Town
Page 2
June 6-7, 2006
Centre, and this item was added at Commissioner Fiala's request.
The next item is to move item 7 A to 8G. This item requires that
all participants be sworn in and ex parte be provided by commission
members. It's petition PUDZ-EX-2005-AR-8649, Hammock Park
PUD, John A. Filippelli of Sembler Florida, represented by Dwight
Nadeau ofRW A, requesting a two-year PUD extension to the
Hammock Park Commerce Centre PUD master plan and PUD
document pursuant to the Land Development Code section
10.02.13.D.5.A. The subject property consists of 18.15 acres.
It's located in the northeast corner of Collier Boulevard and
Rattlesnake Hammock Road, Section 14, Township 50 south, Range
26 east, in Section 23, Township 50 south, Range 26 east, Collier
County, Florida. That item is moved at staffs request.
The next item is also an item on 7, and it basically accomplishes
all the sevens. It was a legal opinion that these items should be __ are
more properly done under section 8, and this is to move 7B to 8H.
This petition was continued from February 14, 2006, and is
further requested to be continued to June 20, 2006. And, again, that
will take a board vote when this particular item comes up in order to
continue it because it was advertised for today's meeting.
This item requires that all participants also be sworn in and ex
parte disclosure be provided by commission members. It's
PUDEX-2005-AR-8478, Rookery Bay Business Park, LLC,
represented by Wayne Arnold ofQ. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A.
and R. Bruce Anderson of Roetzel & Andress, requesting a two-year
extension to the ASGM Business Center of Naples PUD from October
8, 2005, to October 8, 2007.
The subject property consisting of 40.88 acres is located on the
east side of Collier Boulevard, County Road 951, approximately a
quarter mile south of Manatee Road in Section 10, Township 50 south,
Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida. That item, again, was moved
at staffs request.
Page 3
June 6-7, 2006
Next item is to move 16B 1 to 1 DC, and that's a recommendation
to approve a budget amendment to recognize revenue received from
the John Eastern Insurance Company in the amount of $4,068.85 due
to Hurricane Wilma. That item moved at Commissioner Fiala's
request.
The next item is to move item 16B2 to 10D. It's a
recommendation to waive formal competition and approve purchase
of panther habitat units in the amount of $276,945, as mitigation for
road construction impacts, which is project 62081. That item was
moved at Commissioner Halas's request.
Next item is to move 16B3 to 10E. It's a recommendation to
approve the purchase of2.674 acres of improved property of which
.372 acres are required for road right-of-way for the Santa Barbara
Boulevard expansion project. It's project number 62081. Estimated
fiscal impact is $621,925. The item was moved -- was requested to be
moved by Commissioners Fiala and Coletta.
Next item is a note, item 16C3. A copy of the contract for Angie
Brewer & Associates is available for viewing in the county purchasing
department, and that item was added -- or that clarification note was
added at staffs request.
The next item is to move item 16Gl to 14A. That's a
recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency, CRA,
approve application for corporate membership of $200 to Bayshore
Arts, and approve a donation of $300 to Bayshore Arts, a 501 C-3
organization from the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Trust Fund, Fund
187. It's an FY-06 budget, and declare the donation serving a public
purpose, and that move was at Commissioner Halas' request.
And I'm not going to read the next items in total, but I will tell
you that we have a series of time certain items today. At 10 o'clock
we'll start with item 1 DB, and that is the county water and wastewater
master plan updates. That will be followed by item 8A, which is the
impact fee update for water and wastewater, to be followed by item
Page 4
June 6-7, 2006
8B, and that -- and these are all around 10 o'clock, but they'll probably
go into -- through 10:30 and to the next item certain at 11 -- but
followed by 8B, which is the increase in water, wastewater rates.
And then we have an 11 a.m. time certain, and that -- this item
was continued from the April 25, 2006, BCC meeting, and it's a
presentation of the FY -2005 comprehensive annual financial report by
KPMG to county auditors.
That's all I have, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
County Attorney, do you have anything to add to today's agenda?
MR. PETTIT: No, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. At this time I'll ask for ex parte
from each of my commissioners in regards to the summary agenda and
also to see if there's any additional comments or anything that needs to
be addressed on the consent agenda. I'll start with Commissioner
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I have no ex parte
disclosure for the summary agenda, nor do I have any further changes
to the agenda.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you, sir. I have -- I
have nothing to declare under the summary agenda as far as
disclosures go. And I do have one item that I almost would like to see
if I could get a quick answer rather than hold staff in reserve for a long
period of time while we have the meeting.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And it's 16B4, repair to the 10th
Street crossing. And the question -- and I may even have it in my
email, but I haven't had a chance to check it today, is, do the school
buses use this crossing? If so, will the necessary repairs be done
before the school reconvenes?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Maybe someone from the transportation
Page 5
June 6-7, 2006
department can enlighten us on this? I know it's going to be a long
meeting, and if I can keep staff down to a minimum.
MR. SCOTT: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That solves that problem.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, is that an honest forward
answer? Well, in that case I'd like to pull it to have that answered at
some point in time. I just want to make sure that we're providing for
the safety of the school children, if not, that the public is duly noticed
the fact that the buses are using this particular crossing, that there may
be some danger.
I know school buses won't be used during the summer most
likely, and I don't even know if they use it at all. It's just one of those
issues that really need an answer.
MR. SCOTT: We'll find out from--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Possibly -- if I may suggest,
possibly you can find the answer and leave it with Mr. Mudd so that if
we're going late this evening -- and if this is the only thing you're left
to have to stay here for, that Mr. Mudd could just answer that simple
question.
MR. SCOTT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. Thank you very
much, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll start the -- to my left, Commissioner
Henning, do you have anything to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No ex parte on today's summary
agenda. I do want to pull 16D2.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: 16D; was that dog?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And 16F, as in Frank, 1.
Page 6
June 6-7,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, 16B4 is 10F; 16D2 is lOG; and
16F1 is 10H.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understood that to be 16B2. Am I
wrong or is it 16 delta or --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: 16D, delta.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Delta. 16D2 and 16 fox trot 1.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Correct. Those are the only two, I
believe, County Manager, right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, for me.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have nothing to declare for
ex parte for the summary agenda. I have nothing to add, but I would
like to ask if we could just continue 7B right now, or does that have to
wait? Being that we all know that they want it to be continued, and I
guess we all agree, we could just continue it right now along with our
consent.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I'll second that ifit needs
a second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Manager -- or I mean, excuse
me, County Attorney, can we do that?
MR. PETTIT: I understand the desire for expedition, but I'm
afraid that's an advertised public hearing, and I feel like it needs to go
on at one.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: If you're going to do that particular item and
continue it, then at one o'clock I would suggest that you make a
motion to continue it at that time, and then if anybody wants to speak
on that particular item, they will have already been signed up, and
then they will at least have an opportunity to say they don't like it or
like it.
Page 7
June 6-7, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much for the
clarification.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you. Then that's all I
have.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Myself, I do not have anything
that I -- concerns me at this point in time with the consent agenda, and
I do not have any ex parte on the summary agenda.
So at this time, I entertain a motion for approval of today's
consent and summary agenda as amended.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So move.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Fiala, to approve
today's consent and summary agenda.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, 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: Motion carries.
Page 8
June 6-7, 2006
Item #2B and #2C
MAY 9, 2006 BCC/REGULAR MINUTES AND MAY 15, 2006
BCC/BA YSHORE CRA BUDGET ANNUAL WORKSHOP
MINUTES - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
Need a motion for the approval of the May 9, 2006, BCC regular
meeting, the May 15, 2006, BCC/Bayshore CRA budget annual
workshop.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Fiala, and a second by Commissioner Coyle.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, call for the motion. 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: Motion carries.
County Manager?
Item # 3A
SERVICE AWARDS: 5 YEAR ATTENDEES - PRESENTED
Page 9
June 6-7, 2006
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to paragraph 3,
which is service awards, and these are the service awards for five
years for advisory committee service awards. And I believe you'll do
it from up on the dais, and we'll call those individuals forward.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep.
MR. MUDD: The first on our list is Christopher Sutphin. He's
worked for five years on the Pelican Bay Services Division Board.
He's not in attendance today, but I wanted to make sure that we
publicly announce and show our appreciation for Mr. Sutphin and his
five years of hard work.
The next five-year recipient is Mr. Ron Pennington, and he has
worked for five years with the Collier County's Coastal Advisory
Committee.
Mr. Pennington?
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good morning, Ron?
MR. PENNINGTON: Thank you all.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much for your dedicated
service and all the years that you've been involved, not only with the
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- Coastal Advisory Committee, but all
the other committees that you've been advising.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
MR. PENNINGTON: Don't you all love our new sand?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We love it. Outstanding. Thank you so
much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you so much. Job well done.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's no shells though, Ron.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, no rocks either.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Where's the rocks, Ron.
Page 10
June 6-7, 2006
MR. PENNINGTON: No rocks. We had a choice. We could
have shells and rocks. Thank you all very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, Ron, for all your
servIce.
(Applause.)
MR. PENNINGTON: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: The next five-year recipient is Mr. Anthony Pires.
He's worked for five years -- or some people -- I think it's Pires is how
he pronounces it, I hope.
MR. PIRES: My mom and dad do, yes.
MR. MUDD: Yeah, okay. And he's spent five years working on
the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee also.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MR. PIRES: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Nice to see you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good job.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We'll have a picture with you now.
MR. MUDD: Thanks, Tony.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: And the next recipient is Mr. Bill Neal, and he's
spent five years working on the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local
Redevelopment Advisory Board.
(Applause.)
MR. NEAL: I'm not running for anything.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What are you running from, Bill?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Bill.
MR. NEAL: Thank you so much for your help.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, Bill.
Page 11
June 6-7, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. NEAL: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
Item #4
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING JUNE 9, 2006 AS SONS OF
THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION DAY - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to paragraph 4,
proclamations. We have one proclamation today. It's a proclamation
recognizing June 9, 2006, as Sons of the American Revolution Day, to
be accepted by Don Cahill, the Naples Chapter President, and Sam
Cahill, the Naples Chapter Second Vice-President of the National
Society of the Sons of the American Revolution. And anyone else
that has do with this particular proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Anybody--
MR. CAHILL: I've got the big crowd today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There are not -- there are not many
surviving members of the Army of the Potomac, but fortunately we
have some with us today. Welcome.
Whereas, the National Society of the Sons of the American
Revolution was organized on April 30, 1989, and chartered by an act
of Congress on June 9, 1906; and,
Whereas, the charter was signed by President Theodore
Roosevelt, the fourth of 16 United States presidents to become
members of the Sons of the American Revolution; and,
Whereas, the Florida Society of the Sons of the American
Revolution has promoted its patriotic, historical and educational
objectives through youth, veterans and outreach programs for more
than 100 years.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Page 12
June 6-7, 2006
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that June 9, 2006, be
recognized as the 1 GOth anniversary of its charter and designated as
Sons of the American Revolution Day and urge all citizens of Collier
County to observe this day by celebrating the contributions made by
this society.
Done and ordered this 6th day of June, 2006, Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Frank Halas, Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we accept this proclamation.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coyle for the approval of this proclamation, and
seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
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: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Looking good. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good to see you again.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Who's going to accept this
proclamation? Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You gentlemen just turn around here so
we can get some pictures of you.
MR. CAHILL: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
Item #5A
Page 13
June 6-7, 2006
PRESENTATION TO RECOGNIZE AND THANK THOSE
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CLEAN UP OF CERTAIN AREAS IN
EAST NAPLES, SPECIFICALLY AROUND HOME DEPOT, ST.
MA TTHEWS HOUSE, PALM DRIVE AND TOWN CENTER-
PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item -- paragraph
5, 5A, and this is a presentation to recognize and thank those
responsible for the cleanup of certain areas in East Naples, specifically
around Home Depot, St. Matthews' House, Palm Drive, and Town
Centre, and this presentation is by Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I really thank you for allowing me
to do this on this very busy day . Would the guys from Code
Enforcement come on up and anybody else who's worked on this
project with me.
I just -- I'm just so, so proud of everything that you all have done,
and I just -- I just wanted to recognize everybody . You've been __ boy,
you've been dynamite.
But to explain all of that, just stand up here for a little bit. I got a
letter from some people in the Glades, Constance and William Chaffy,
and they were telling me about the problems that they're having, the
canals weren't draining and it was too tall with grass, and they were
filled with homeless stuff, that they themselves, just these couple
people, had picked up trash and beer cans, bottles, syringes,
underwear, socks, food, jeans, beer bottles, blankets, and so forth, that
were just strewn all over everyplace, and they were talking about the
gazebo where there had been stabbings, and then somebody had gone
into Home Depot and they were full of blood from one of the
stabbings, and they were just pleading for our help and saying, you
know, can't we do something?
They were using the gazebo at Home Depot as a bathroom and a
Page 14
June 6-7, 2006
bedroom and a closet and a beer parlor, and it -- they were really,
really having problems, and they're pleading with people.
And I started sending some letters out seeking some help, and it
didn't get very far. And then I called Patti Patrulli. This is our Patti
Patrulli right here in the orange, and she got her staff together, and
Eddie, Eddie Ybaceta, okay, and Ian Jackson. And tell me your name
again, I'm sorry.
MR. McCLAMMA: Joe McClamma.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Jim?
MR. McCLAMMA: Joe.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Joe?
MR. McCLAMMA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Say it again real loud.
MR. McCLAMMA: Joe McClamma.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Joe McClamma. Say your name.
MR. MARTINDALE: Ron Martindale.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ron Martindale. Oh, I remember
seeIng your name.
MS. GRIMSHAW: Heather Grimshaw.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Heather Grimshaw.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: John, what's your name?
MR. YONKOWSKY: John Yonkowsky.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And Jamie, what's your name?
MR. FRENCH: Jamie French.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And Michelle?
MS. ARNOLD: Michelle Arnold.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: These people -- these people came
out and personally called on businesses, Home Depot, for instance,
and Wal*Mart and Bealls and Goodwill store. Behind the Goodwill
store, what was happening -- and I hope audiences are listening to this
because they need to know this.
People at night drop their clothing off behind Goodwill in order
Page 15
June 6-7, 2006
to donate them to those that are less fortunate. The problem is during
the night, while all of their donations are sitting there, the homeless
then raid it. Of course, they don't feel any need to fold them back up
and put them in the bags when they find something they don't want.
They strew them all over, and the canals become full, the back yards.
So these Goodwill people have to go out every morning and
clean up all of the trash left every night the night before. We're
having -- we're just having a terrible problem.
And so -- and I would have loved to have had St. Matthews'
included in this, but they haven't been there. But I want to tell you
that the people from Home Depot, this guy named Lenny -- oh, gosh,
Lenny Gabriel, he came marching in and helping.
He really -- he even gave the Glades people a discount on buying
any of the flowers or anything to help decorate the area up to try and
improve it. He's put lights in. He's had his own people, even though
he doesn't like them cleaning up all of the syringes and everything,
he's had his own people coming out. They cleaned up 10 bags the first
day.
And then we've had our sheriffs office -- and Mike isn't here,
Mike Nelson and Rob Reu. They've been going out to all the homeless
camps. You see what happens is, the homeless are in this area
because, of course, there's the food here and the shelter and any other
things that are given. Their mail comes to St. Matthews' House, so
they camp in this area.
So they've been going out and having these guys clean up their
own trash. The sheriffs office, actually Mike and Rob, will go out
and give them bags. They collected 42 bags of trash at just one camp
that first week. And so we've had so many people coming out to help
us.
And I just wanted to tell you, the canals are cleaned. They're
putting up new fences. The whole area is getting picked up, and that
is because of these people that you're looking at and even some who
Page 16
June 6-7, 2006
aren't here but who have participated strongly in it. And I just want to
thank them from the bottom of my heart. And thank you for letting
me do this today.
Patti, guys, you've all been so wonderful. Thank you. I really
appreciate it. Thank you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, where is Kendra. Where is
Kendra? Where is she?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: She's right over there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I want Kendra to come up here. I
asked Sue to bring her up here and I didn't see her come in. .
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Did you get her to pick up trash?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. But Kendra's been my aide,
and she would have gone out and helped them except that she was
coordinating everything from my office. Kendra, you come up front
so people can see you. This is my aide, and she has been working
closely with all of these wonderful people.
Thank you so much for all your help.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It must make you feel good for what you
did.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're very much appreciated.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That was wonderful what you did.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You really deserve recognition.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY FRANCIS HOY TO DISCUSS
THE BRIDGE AT CYPRESS WAY EAST BETWEEN
Page 17
June 6-7, 2006
IMMOKALEE ROAD AND PIPER BOULEVARD - TO BE
BROUGHT BACK AT THE JUNE 20, 2006 BCC MEETING _
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is paragraph 6, public petitions, and we have one on today's
agenda, 6A.
It's a public petition request by Francis Hoy to discuss the bridge
at Cypress Way East between Immokalee Road and Piper Boulevard.
Mr. Hoy?
MR. HOY: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good morning, sir.
MR. HOY: I'm Francis Hoy, President of the Palm River
Homeowners' Association. I want to thank you for allowing me the
time to further explain our petition to save the Cypress Way East
bridge at Palm River.
Palm River's a community of about 1,900 homes and
condominiums, including the original units plus some newer
developments, such as Candlewood, Quail Crossing and Horse Creek.
This community uses Cypress Way East and Palm River
Boulevard as its two point of egress, plus the Airport Road bridge for
turns prohibited at the Cypress Way East bridge.
The monitor shows a diagram of the Cypress Way East bridge
and the Airport Road bridge. The Cypress Way East bridge is
scheduled for removal in connection with widening Immokalee Road
probably as soon as early fall.
As our petition says, we're asking you to retain the bridge,
preferably both in and out, to and from the west as it is now, but if
that's not possible, then at least as an exit turning right onto
Immokalee Road.
Now the reason we want to save the bridge: For the eastern half
of the Palm River community, the westerly bridge at Palm River
Page 18
June 6-7, 2006
Boulevard is out of the way and it's an awkward intersection __
awkward exit for several reasons; therefore, the residents of the
eastern half use Cypress Way East.
At present traffic exiting onto Immokalee Road to the west and
incoming traffic from the west uses the Cypress Way East bridge.
Traffic to and from other directions use the Airport Road bridge,
which is shared with Willoughby Acres.
Removal of the bridge at Cypress Way East will redirect all
traffic to the Airport Road bridge, increasing the count there by
roughly 50 percent. This estimate's not from a traffic study but just
assuming roughly equal traffic to and from all three directions.
The north approach to the Airport Road bridge is on Piper
Boulevard. Piper Boulevard is a narrow two-lane road which cannot
be widened to provide turn lanes. That intersection is already
frequently congested. It will be much worse if its traffic count is
increased by half, plus traffic for the retail mall which will soon open
with its entrance and exit at the bridge.
Looking at the diagram of this intersection, you'll see that
incoming traffic from Immokalee Road must always have the
right-of-way, otherwise, it would back up onto Immokalee Road.
There is no time that the traffic light at the Airport Road
intersection protects the intersection on Piper Boulevard; therefore, all
three lanes of traffic approaching the bridge at the Piper Boulevard
entrance must stop and then proceed whenever there's a break in
incoming traffic.
You can see from the diagram that there will be three streams of
traffic converging at the bridge, merging in the length of the bridge,
and sorting themselves out into five lanes of traffic exiting the bridge
in three different directions.
Given this complicated traffic pattern at the Airport Road bridge
versus the smooth flow at Cypress Way East bridge, it seems totally
unwise to remove the Cypress Way East bridge and add that traffic to
Page 19
June 6-7, 2006
the other intersection unless there's some compelling reason to do that.
We've been working with county staff to learn if such a reason
exists. They've been quite cooperative, and without exception, they
have tried to be helpful; however, no one so far has been able to give
us a good reason for removing the bridge.
There does not appear to be a bridge strength issue. While the
bridge is old, no one has said it's unsound. It has been commented
that there's no space to add an acceleration lane, but there are many
roads in the county intersecting highways without acceleration lanes.
The intersection here, in fact, has a safety advantage in that the
traffic light ~t Airport Road provides comfortable breaks in westbound
traffic for the traffic in and out of the bridge.
I think transportation people would have to agree that this is a
less dangerous intersection, even with the wider Immokalee Road,
than many that exist in the county.
I've examined the widening plans for Immokalee Road. The
bridge does not appear to interfere with the plans. The plans show all
new roadbed construction to be into the median or into the south. The
plans do show the eastbound left turn lane extended past Cypress Way
East bridge, but this is only necessary to accommodate the traffic that
would be added by closing the bridge.
Some minor changes to the bridge exit would probably be
required, but whatever these would cost, they would be partially offset
and perhaps more than offset by eliminating the cost of demolishing
the bridge and rebuilding the canal banks.
So the bridge is sound and the intersection is not dangerous.
Why is the bridge to be removed? I can only conclude that it's
because the design team for the Airport Road bridge several years ago
decided their new bridge made this bridge unnecessary. I can't find
any other reason.
But the fact that two lanes are being added to the Airport Road
bridge now shows that the current transportation staff doesn't see it
Page 20
June 6-7, 2006
that way.
Those two lanes will add more stacking space on the bridge, but
they won't eliminate the confusion and traffic jams at its entrance. I
can guarantee you that not one of the couple thousand drivers in the
Palm River community think that the Palm -- that that bridge is
unnecessary. Everyone I've talked to has said, please save the bridge.
I can see no downside to retaining the bridge with its current
traffic pattern. I think the result can only be positive. It provides a
smooth, safe, simple flow of traffic for that which uses it, and avoids
loading that traffic onto the Airport Road bridge with its two busy
intersections.
I said earlier that timing is urgent. Without action on your part,
the bridge will be removed as soon as the two added lanes on the
Airport Road bridge are complete, probably within a couple months;
therefore, we ask that you have the transportation staff re-examine the
issue to see if our petition makes sense in time for you to consider it
again at your meeting on June 20th. We ask you to consider our
petition and take action in time to save the bridge.
Thank you for your time and for considering this issue.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, Mr. Francis (sic).
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mr. Hoy.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hoy, excuse me; Francis Hoy.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'd like to bring this back. I
tell you, we're always looking for more interconnectivity and better
ways to get the traffic to flow, and I believe that we're trying to avoid
stacking up and everything converging into one area. I don't know
what the rationale is behind it, but I wouldn't mind bringing this back.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. I got some questions I want to ask
the transportation department on this.
One of my concerns is, not only does this affect Palm River, but
it also -- we're opening up a commercial section that's just west of this
Page 21
June 6-7, 2006
Airport bridge that's just going to be opened up, and it's a whole
commercial strip next to the Presbyterian church. And I have some
real concerns because I don't believe that we can widen Piper
Boulevard to make a stacking lane; is that correct, Don Scott?
MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, transportation planning. Yeah, you're
talking about this one commercial area right here.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Exactly. And that's in the process of just
being opened up.
MR. SCOTT: Right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Then people that are coming off of
Cypress Way East, if they turn -- if you take that bridge out and then
they make a left turn and head in the eastbound direction, with the
amount of homes that are presently in Cypress Way plus the
additional construction that's going to be there, when those people
leave out of Cypress Way, head east to go to that new expanded
bridge, they're going to end up, once they fill the bridge up where the
stacking will be, then they're going to start stacking up on Piper
Boulevard; is that correct?
MR. SCOTT: Yeah. We have 140 feet essentially between
Immokalee and Piper, and then there's 500 feet between the bridge and
Cypress Way East. There is only a single lane on Piper at that
location.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So--
MR. SCOTT: Weare getting a left turn lane at Piper and __
what's that?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: But whether it's left turn or right turn,
you're still going to be stacking up on the bridge. And then after that,
you're going to be stacking up onto Piper in the westbound direction;
is that correct?
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And so any other movement's
going to be stopped at that point in time. So I think what these people
Page 22
June 6-7, 2006
are asking is, would transportation do a further study -- and I believe,
Mr. Roy, you can correct me on this -- but you're basically looking to
try to save this bridge so that you end up with a right out only; is that
correct?
MR. HOY: Well, we would settle for a right out only but -- we'd
settle for a right out only, but, frankly, I don't see any reason for not
continuing the inbound --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Left in.
MR. HOY: -- and taking that traffic off the Airport Road
intersection.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Now, what's the distance between
where you would make a left in and the distance to the Airport
intersection where there would be a traffic controlled light?
MR. SCOTT: Five hundred feet.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Five hundred feet. So if we stop all
traffic, then people that would be heading eastbound on Immokalee
Road would then be able to have the opportunity of making a left into
that or they could have the option of going over to the Airport bridge;
is that correct?
MR. SCOTT: Well, see, our problem with it and the -- you
know, I looked at the out based on some of the things that were raised.
The in is that the turn lanes for Airport are longer than that -- than the
-- they go through that intersection essentially.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. SCOTT: Come back through there.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So my concern is, if we end up taking
this bridge out, we're going to have less egress out of this area of Palm
River than we would before; is that correct?
MR. SCOTT: Well, we are adding -- obviously we have the
three -- three bridges along the roadway. There are five lanes that will
be coming out at Airport, two at Lakeland and two at Palm River. So
essentially you have nine lanes coming out.
Page 23
June 6-7, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: But you've only got the small two-lane
highway. And my concern is, if you take the bridge out and people
then have to use just this particular bridge because the other bridge
that was -- that was also brought up in the discussion, Cypress Way
West, again, that is a -- a bridge that is very difficult to negotiate, and
so you end up stacking traffic there.
So I hope that my fellow commissioners will go along with the
suggestion that Commissioner Fiala had and let the transportation go
ahead and make a study on this, another study. And I think we need
to move fast because my understanding is, this bridge may be even
removed by the end of this month; is this correct?
MR. SCOTT: When talking to the contractor, they are waiting
till they finish the Airport, but it could be as soon as the end of the
month, yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And then they would remove that bridge.
What's the chances of, if we could stop this bridge from being
removed at this time, to make an additional study to make sure that
we're taking care of the people that live in this community in regards
to health, safety and welfare in order to get out of there if we need to
have them evacuate?
MR. SCOTT: Well, it's a lot to do in two weeks, but I think if
you want to act fast and not affect the schedule of the project, that we
need to bring it back in two weeks then.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I have a motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, and you've got a motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you've got a second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Tom Henning -- I'm sorry.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I didn't know if we were
debating this issue now or if we're bringing it back on a future agenda.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I'm concerned that because -- we'll
have to make a rapid move here because of the fact that this bridge
Page 24
June 6-7, 2006
could be removed as quickly as the end of this month. So I really
believe that we need to work on this as quickly as possible. If two
weeks would be sufficient so that we could address this concern, do
you have enough time?
MR. SCOTT: My only caveat is, I will have a lot of stuff in front
of you. I won't be able to give it to you ahead of time.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. SCOTT: Because I think the agenda, my schedule is like,
right now.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there some way that we can--
then if you need more time to do the study, is there some way that we
can stop the destruction of this bridge until you can make a thorough
study of this at a later date?
MR. SCOTT: It costs us more money essentially because they're
out there for mobilization right now. It's about 35,000 for taking the
bridge down. Remobilizing could be 10,000 more or whatever. That's
not as much of an issue as, they might claim damages in time to the
schedule, so --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, my concern is the health, safety
and welfare of people.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we can have this item in front of
the board on the 20th of June. In the printed packet you won't have the
background -- backup, but we'll try to get it to you Friday before the
board meeting so that you'll have it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good.
MR. MUDD: We'll have it out at the desk for anybody to see it.
But we'll have it here on the 20th of June, and that will be timely
enough in order to make a decision on this particular item.
Now, I want to make sure that everybody in the audience
understands that this design had been vetted with the public and the
construction contract cut on this particular item with this bridge
removed now for a number of years, I believe.
Page 25
June 6-7, 2006
MR. SCOTT: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: So this is not a new item. We will reevaluate to
make sure that we haven't missed anything.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I think we need to take that
opportunity to make sure--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you want to make a motion?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll make a motion that we bring this
back on June 20th.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second the motion. And I
hope when you bring the material back, you'll tell us why you would
want to remove the bridge, I mean, a real good reason that we can
actually believe, okay?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor
and we have a second. Is there any further discussion?
(No response.)
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: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. Thank you,
Francis.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2006-141: APPOINTING JOE SWAJA TO THE
COUNTY GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE _
ADOPTED
Page 26
June 6-7,2006
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 9A, and that
item is appointment of a member to the Collier Government
Productivity Committee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve Joe Swaja -_
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- the committee's recommendation.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor
for approval of Joe Swaja by Commissioner Fiala and a second by
Commissioner Henning.
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: Motion carries.
Item #9B
CONSIDERATION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION AND
ADMINISTRATION OF THE SPECIAL MASTER ORDINANCE,
ORDINANCE 2004-46, BY THE SPECIAL MASTER, INCLUDING
THE WORKSHOP OF JANUARY 20, 2006 - DISCUSSED WINO
ACTION
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is 9B, board consideration of the implementation and
administration of the special master ordinance, ordinance number
200446, by the special master, including the workshop of January 20,
Page 27
June 6-7, 2006
2006, and to take all appropriate measures to assure impartiality and a
positive public perception in the special master and the special master
program.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioners, I really thought
that this would be an afternoon item, but let me go forward with it.
First of all, I want to say, for those who watch TV news report,
either -- might have been last night or particularly this morning, this
item has nothing to do with the code enforcement department. It has
everything to do with the special master's program and the training
session that took place on January 20, 2006.
As it states in the executive summary, the ordinance doesn't call
for the special master to train, nor does it calls for it in the contract.
But there is something within the contract to -- for the code
enforcement director to ask the special master to perform other duties
that are not spelled out within the contract. I thought this was a poor
decision if that's what did happen for any employee of Collier County
to ask a judge to train the police officers or the prosecution.
And I think there should be a separation between a person who
makes judgment on our residents and a -- and code enforcement,
whether it be animal control, code enforcement department, other
departments, or the police department. The special master has heard
issues of all kinds, not just code enforcement.
A resident of the county did provide me a transcript of a taping
that was taped by the Clerk of Court. The excerpts and references is
in the board's agenda.
There are many excerpts in there that I feel -- and I have grave
concern that that prejudgment may be on our residents.
Just as an example, on page 33 of 34 of the executive summary,
the transcript, special master, it says, and I quote, and that person
that's going to be nervous is the person that's going to be standing over
at that podium, that one over there, because they're the ones that have
violated. They're the ones that have screwed up.
Page 28
June 6-7, 2006
I have concerns with statements within the transcript about
attorneys representing our residents to receive a fair and impartial
rendering on their code case of comments of the special master.
I think it's the duty in this -- I think the special master program
should continue. I think it has provided a relief to the Code
Enforcement Board, but I want to make sure -- and I hope that the
Board of Commissioners -- well, I know the Board of Commissioners
want fair treatment to all residents.
I have -- with talking to the county attorney, I have changed my
-- my recommendations, but I still believe the special masterate (sic)
presiding over these cases should step down. I think the Board of
Commissioners needs to ask the alternate, Lynn Hixon-Holley, to step
in as the special master.
I believe the Board of Commissioners should ask the committee
to reconvene to select an alternate in the meantime of the contract of
October of 2006.
I also, with the -- talking to the County Attorney's Office, that we
offer any resident who went before the special masterate ( sic) between
the date of January 21, 2006, and today that contested their notice of
violation, that they have the opportunity to go before the Code
Enforcement Board to have their hearing reheard, if they choose to.
But my whole -- my whole purpose in this is to bring consistency
and reliability in the faith that government is going to be fair and
impartial to our residents.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. And I read the whole
transcript myself also, and I would bet that maybe the special master
wouldn't have been quite so candid had she known that it was being
taped. But I think -- you make some good points. But I also agree that
we really, really do need continuing education for all of our
departments, continuously.
Possibly we -- we could refrain from using a judge or something
Page 29
June 6-7, 2006
when we're -- especially in code enforcement, being that they're also
presiding. We should probably have some kind of a policy that we
can continue to educate all of our people because we're not going to be
able to represent our county government without continuing
education, but maybe select somebody different to be doing that.
I wouldn't want to see the special master eliminated, I mean, that
particular person. I haven't heard of any -- anything that she's done
wrong on the job. I would hate to lose her, and I figure, unless there's
-- you know, unless there's some, you know, overwhelming reason
besides just teaching, I wouldn't want to see her fired, or whatever the
word is that you were using. I would like her to continue.
And we probably need to have a policy about special education
or continuing education just to make sure that we don't run into this
agaIn.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have also read the transcript of
this particular recording. I'm puzzled as to why the questions that
were asked of the special master during this training session were not
audible. We get only one side of the conversation. We don't have the
context in which the remarks were made by the special master.
She was responding to questions from the members of this group
that she was instructing, and we don't get the questions that they
asked. They're not audible on the tape, and consequently they're not
contained in the transcript.
I think that in our search for justice, we've got to make sure that
if we take any adverse action, we at least should have both sides of the
story or the complete picture of what was going on.
Taken as a single event, it appears to me that the special master
did what is provided in the statement of work. The statement of work
defines what the special master is supposed to do, and then says, as
well as additional services as required and mutually agreed upon in
writing by the code enforcement department and the consultant,
Page 30
June 6-7, 2006
special master.
It's my understanding that the code enforcement department and
the special master did, in fact, reach an agreement to perform these
services, and the special master was actually paid for that.
Now, it raises a question as to whether or not you should have a
hearing special master also training the code enforcement department.
But I would say to you that we here on this dais frequently give
similar instructions to our staff. We say to you frequently, don't you
bring to us something at the last minute and expect us to read it.
We give directions about how we would like to have things
presented to us. We've even given directions about how we would
like to see the executive summaries written to make them easier for us
to understand and arrive at a conclusion. So, you know, those things in
themselves don't indicate a bias.
If there is any evidence in the hearings themselves where the
code enforcement issues were actually heard and if there was clear
bias, then we should act on that. But to take answers to questions we
have not heard out of context for a recording that was made without
anyone's knowledge, it is, I think, a stretch.
And I think that we just should say to the code enforcement
people, maybe reevaluate this again or maybe don't do this again in
the same way. And if you do, invite everybody, you know, people
who are likely to represent people before the special master as well as
the code enforcement people. Everybody should understand how
information should be presented at those hearings because it makes the
hearings more efficient. And maybe if we could just issue that
guidance, that would be acceptable.
But I'm still puzzled -- excuse me -- about how the recording was
made, because the recordings we make here get the questions. You
know, where was this recording made? How did it come about? Why
didn't it get the questions from the members of code enforcement who
were being trained?
Page 31
June 6-7, 2006
That's -- you know, that's a question. It's not central to the issue
but, you know, it's just a question.
And so basically that's where I am on this. I think we should
continue with the services of the special master and just express our
concern that maybe when we have training sessions of types, we invite
the public. And if we're going to tape them, we'll tape them properly
rather than surreptitiously. So that would be my recommendation.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. First and foremost,
anytime a commissioner's got concerns, I do think they should bring it
forward to the commission itself so that we can hear those concerns
and make our own judgment decisions, and so I'm not going to fault
Commissioner Henning for that, and I encourage him to -- and also in
the future.
However, you know, I do have some concerns over the fairness
of the recordings, and made without the knowledge of the people in
the room. Some of the language that was used was a little bit on the
rough side.
It's very common for us when we talk to our peers, we may use a
different tone of language than we would in a public setting, and not
having the advantage of knowing there was a recording taking place,
the language sounded like it was rough. Although, to be honest with
you, I mean, in this day and age, I don't think anybody would be
offended with some of the terminology that was used. Many of us use
it in our day-to-day conversations with different people that we know
quite well.
I could find nothing wrong with what was presented. I thought
that the special master did a great job of giving the message across in
an unbiased way of how to handle information when it comes before
her. Because if those instructions aren't followed, then you're going to
have untrained people losing case after case just for the simple (sic) of
technical reasons.
Page 32
June 6-7, 2006
Now, on the same page, training sessions should be available to
the public. I think Commissioner Fiala made some very good points.
I think at some point in time, possibly two, three times a year, I mean,
we might offer something to the public that would give them that
ability to be updated on it. Maybe something more like a video that
could be available on the Internet where they could go to it and see,
how do you present your case, how you handle the information that
comes before them, and that when people do file -- or they're served a
notice, they might be referenced to this particular area to go. Because
the truth of the matter is, not everybody can afford to hire an attorney,
and quite often people will act on their own behalf, in many cases to
their -- to a disadvantage.
So if anything comes out of this, I do think the way to enlighten
the public on how the process works is a very good measure.
There's a couple things I'd like us to keep in mind in the future.
When I read transcripts or summary agendas, I'd like to know who the
author is. I'd like to know who the person was that actually took the
responsibility to transcribe it or order it being transcribed, just to give
it the validity that it needs for due consideration.
Also, the summary agenda, it doesn't -- it makes all sorts of
determinations and suggestions, but it doesn't give ownership to any
one person.
I'm sure maybe I'm reading it wrong, but I would love to have
seen, you know, Commissioner Henning's recommendation, just as we
have now, staff recommendations or so and so's recommendations or
the environmental protection agency recommendations, they're all
listed down there so we can look at it and we know that it's something
that's coming from an individual, a group or what, what the
recommendations are. And that's a suggestion that would sure make
my decision-making process in the future when these things come
forward is a little bit easier. Thank you for the time.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
Page 33
June 6-7, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you'll find the
recommendations on page 2, Commissioner Coletta __
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- on the bottom. And if you
look on the next page, is a -- who it's prepared by. The item was
submitted to the county manager with my signature. Okay?
In reference to the training of code enforcement officers, there's
no question about it. And I think that's what the association of code
enforcement officers in the State of Florida do.
In fact, I was told just recently, there was a training session on
Sanibel Island just recently. So there's venues to do that, and probably
a more appropriate one than the one that took place.
As far as taping, or the audible part of the training session and
why it didn't get into the transcript, if the people don't come to the
mike, it's not going to get into the tape; therefore, you can't record it.
You can't -- you can't put it in transcript form if it's not audible.
But it's not so much about the training. It was what was said by
the special master in the training session, which I included in the -- in
your backup material.
So that is why, on page 2, that I made the recommendations.
And I'm going to make it into a motion, that the Board of
Commissioners terminate the contract with the existing special master
for convenience, that we appoint the Alternate Special Masterate,
Lynn Hixon-Holley, that we direct the committee, Special Masterate
selection committee, to reconvene for an alternate, and that we give
the citizens who contested their notice of violation before the Special
Masterate an opportunity to be reheard to the code enforcement
officers, or to the code enforcement board, and I make that a motion.
MR. PETTIT: Commissioner Henning? Mike Pettit, for the
record.
With respect to the last recommendation, what I would tell you is
that the general process for an appeal of a code enforcement
Page 34
June 6-7, 2006
determination is that you have 30 days, and typically if your charge is
unfairness or bias, that has to appear of record, and that has to be part
of your appeal. That's, I say, typically. To my knowledge, I don't
know how many issues were appealed that were contested.
I think arguably, because this is a board that can take actions for
a valid public purpose, that the board could conceivably find that there
is a valid public purpose to compromise or disgorge fines or
compromise and release liens. It's clear that the board can do that in an
individualized setting.
F or example, if somebody does appeal, I'm sure -- I know from
time to time people have come before you and you have released liens
or compromised liens for less than full value, and you have full power
to do that.
In an unusual circumstance -- I will tell you, I have not fully
researched this. But I do believe the board can act for a valid public
purposes, and if based upon this record, it found there was some sort
of flaw in -- potential for a flaw in the contested cases, it could
determine that, for a valid public purpose, it could set up some sort of
claims review process.
I would caution you that this board does not have the authority to
act as an appellate body nor does it have the authority to overturn or
review the code decisions. It would simply be a recognition based on
information brought forward that there may have been some flaw; and
in order to assure the public trust in acting for a valid public purpose,
that you follow that process.
Now, that I'm telling you is somewhat complicated, because the
typical way to challenge a code enforcement determination is appeal
it. And to my knowledge, that hasn't been done in many cases. I don't
know how many. Michelle probably can tell us.
So I caution you that I have not completely and fully and finally
researched that question of a review process. I believe that there
probably is a way to get there if that's what the board would desire.
Page 35
June 6-7, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can I ask a question?
MR. PETTIT: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Attorney, have you had any
knowledge of any improprieties of this person in administering her
duties as the special master?
MR. PETTIT: In the course of hearings?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: In the course of hearings, yes.
MR. PETTIT: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Pardon?
MR. PETTIT: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor,
and I don't believe it's received a second, so I believe the motion dies.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much though for
bringing that forward to us.
Okay. I believe we have a time certain.
Item #lOB
TO ADOPT THE 2005 COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND
WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATES, DATED JUNE 6,
2006, PROJECTS 70070, 73066 AND 75007 - PRESENTED AND
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: We have a time certain. It's item lOB. The item
to be heard at 10 a.m. It's followed by companion item 8A and 8B.
This is a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
adopt the 2005 Collier County Water and Wastewater Master Plan
updates dated June 6, 2006, project 70070 and 73066 and 75007, and
Mr. Roy Anderson, your director of engineering for public utility
division will present.
MR. ANDERSON: Good morning. I'm Roy Anderson, public
Page 36
June 6-7, 2006
utilities engineering director, and I'm here to introduce agenda item
number lOB, 8A, and 8B, namely the 2005 Water and Wastewater
Master Plan updates. The water and wastewater impact fee studies,
the water and wastewater rate studies, and the necessary updates to the
impact fees and rate ordinances.
In a minute, I will introduce Mr. Mike Pecala (phonetic) from the
firm of Greeley and Hansen, who worked with us in the preparation of
the Water and Wastewater Master Plans.
Mike will present the master plans before concluding -- and
before concluding, we will solicit your questions, and then we'll ask
for votes for the approval of the master plans.
Following that, Mr. Robert Ori (phonetic) from the firm of
PRMG, who worked with us in the preparation of the impact fees and
rate studies, will present these studies, and we will then request your
questions and your votes for the separate approvals of the impact fees
and the user rate studies, as well as the necessary changes to the
ordinances that are requested under items 8A and 8B.
So with that, unless you have any questions at this time, which
I'd be happy to answer, I'll ask Mr. Pecala to come up and make his
presentation.
MR. PECALA: Good morning. For the record, my name is
Mike Pecala with the firm Greeley and Hansen. The purpose of
today's presentation is to report on the 2005 master plan updates to
show that the 2005 methodologies are consistent with the previous
master plan updates that have been prepared and with current trends to
identify differences between the previous master plan update and this
year's, and to make recommendations for the -- for changes to the
January 2006 Annual Update and Inventory Report and Capital
Improvements Plans.
As with the 2003 master plan, essentially what we're doing with
this is we look out at ultimate population conditions and the county's
mission, and identify programs and infrastructure needs to provide the
Page 37
June 6-7, 2006
required level of service, and then to plan for that in a series of steps.
The drivers for the master plan decisions are to have adequate
capacity to provide your level of service, to provide reliable facilities,
to be concurrent, to meet the demands of development, and especially
in the case of water resources, to have sustainable supplies.
Service areas. To my right here you can see the water and
wastewater service areas. I'd like to point out that the service areas are
exactly the same as what was previously approved in 2003. No
changes there.
And that -- in the case of the water service area, there are four
plants; the existing north county and south county plants and a
proposed northeast and southeast and regional water treatment plant.
There is a minor change in the number of plants for the
wastewater service area. There are four plants there also. Previously
there were five. There's the existing north and south county plant and
a northeast and southeast plant.
Previously, in the previous master plan, there was planned an east
central plant, and that plant has been deleted and replaced with a
master pumping station.
I'd like to talk about the water and sewer district customers. We
utilize the county planning services data for customer proj ections from
the AUIR. Those projections are based out of the Florida Bureau of
Economic and Business Research, or BEBR, numbers, as required by
statute. The BEBR high population proj ections are used for 10 years
per the AUIR, and then average rate of growth is used thereafter.
Those population projections are anchored in the 2000 census,
and a recent certificate of occupancy data validates this approach.
The county only serves water and sewer customers in the water
and sewer district. That includes your current customers and infil1.
The sewer/direct in the future will include Orangetree. There's an
obligation for the county to take that facility over in 2012, and the
planning is consistent with the AUIR and county future land use
Page 38
June 6-7, 2006
element.
I'd like to talk now about water flows and water demand,
wastewater flows and demands. The level of service has not changed
from the previous master plan update.
Water demand is calculated using 185 gallons per person per day,
and wastewater demand is calculated using 1120 gallons per capita per
day.
This is an important chart as an intro for the charts that I'm going
to show you in just a minute. New plant construction for water or
wastewater typically takes about eight years from start to finish
planning to place it in operation, and that impacts, of course, how
things are built.
This graphic shows the maximum month daily water demand as
the red line in the chart, and then the existing and proposed water
treatment plants that are planned to keep up with that demand.
That chart is duplicated here with colored bars at the bottom.
You can see a blue line that's located above the colored bars, and that
represents the actual raw water supply that needs to be provided to
those plants to produce the finished water along with the treatment
losses, and then the green line which is shown above that represents
the actual capacity or wellfield capacity that has to be built with
consideration of additional wells for reliability and sustainability.
The -- providing sustainable water supply is a key aspect of the
master planning, and the county must have a flexible plan that
considers hydrologic and regulatory uncertainties. How is that
flexibility provided? Essentially the master plan uses alternative
water supplies to meet future demands, that's brackish and salient
water, and that's consistent with South Florida's lower west coast
regional water supply plant.
The county will consider use of freshwater sources in the future if
those become available as a means of mitigating costs and also to
provide a diversity of supply.
Page 39
June 6-7, 2006
Wastewater. A similar chart as what I showed you for the water
plant capacity. The red line there represents the maximum month
wastewater demand, and then the colored bars represent the existing
and future plants for those expansions to meet that demand.
I'd like to now highlight some of the differences between this
year's master plan update and the previous one.
The capital improvement project costs in five-year increments are
shown on this chart. Each one of those bars there represents five years.
The blue is water cost; green, wastewater; and yellow is irrigation
water. And I'd like to emphasize that the CIPs are based on local
costs.
In numbers, the 2006 master plan has approximately $1.2 billion
ofCIP costs within the 10-year impact fee window.
What are the major differences between the 2005 and 2003 CIP
budgets? In the case of the wastewater CIP, the northeast facility was
increased from an initial capacity of two to four MGD.
As I mentioned before, the east central plant was replaced with a
master pumping station. The expansion of the north county facility
was accelerated by three years, and contingencies were reduct?d to 0
percent for recurring projects, and for years one through five, and 10
percent for year six through 10 at 20 percent thereafter. And those
contingencies are consistent with the reclaimed water CIP in the water
also.
On the -- in the case of water, we've added new expenditures for
water supply reliability wells. The northeast plant is now aID-year __
10 MGD, excuse me, facility; now a phased 15 MGD.
A portion of the costs for the southeast plant have now moved
within the impact fee window and, again, the same contingency
change.
The Annual Update and Inventory Report was approved in
January, 2006. And in the process of developing this, we have
changes that need -- minor changes, essentially, that need to be made
Page 40
June 6-7, 2006
to that report.
What are those deviations? In the case of the water system, the
northeast plant has been broken into two phases and the
implementation dates delayed a little. The ultimate capacity of that
northeast plant is now 30 MGD rather than 45 MGD. And in the case
of the southeast water plant, the facility is now planned to be a 12
MGD facility in 2017, and then expanded to a 24 MGD facility in
2023.
In the case of the water --
MR. DeLONY: Watch the mike. Get closer to it.
MR. PECALA: Okay. Thank you.
In the case of the wastewater system within the impact fee, that is
now planned to be a four MGD facility in 2011 with an expansion in
2014 rather than what was planned in AUIR, which was four in 2009
and eight in 2012.
And then in the case of the ultimate capacities for the northeast
water reclamation facility, it's now planned to be a 20 MGD facility in
2025 instead of a 28 MGD.
Now I'd like to turn the presentation back over to Mr. Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: Thanks, Mike. I'd like to ask you if you
have any questions at this juncture in any of the information presented
so far?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're showing a decrease in
requirements. Wait. Go back to the other slide, the one you were on
before.
Why are we showing a decrease? AUIR specifies four million
gallons in 2009, then eight million gallon expansion in 2012 . We are
substantially reducing that in the master plan.
MR. DeLONY: Yeah. For the record, Jim DeLony, Public
Utilities Administrator.
Commissioners, the bottom line of it is, we were very aggressive
Page 41
June 6-7, 2006
in that schedule and those demands, and we looked closely at the
direction of the board and also on the recommendation of the Planning
Commission of what would be our excess capacity during that
window of time between the completion in 2009 and our on-line date
of2012.
The actual numbers you see here are a better fit with regard to
balancing that challenge of just in time, you know, demand, and just in
time supply. It's a phasing opportunity here.
We'll be building that plant in two MGD increments with regards
to the RO side of it. So we'll be able to dial in if we miss this -- as we
see in two years, one of the recommendations you're going to hear
today is that we relook at all this in two years. But if we see it, we'll
still have the time to go back maybe to our earlier assessment.
But given what we know now in terms of the population numbers
we have and the timing that's a best-fit scenario from terms of risk,
cost, and availability, this is our recommendation.
We'll eventually build that plant out to that ultimate capacity. It's
just that we're going to take it at a slower pace than what we originally
thought in our A VIR earlier in January.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Just so that I understand the
parameters here, the A VIR, as you just stated, was in January.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The master plan update figures are
as of what date?
MR. DeLONY: Sixth of June, as of today. It is the most current
use of information that we have is what you're seeing today.
And when I brought that to you in January, I was actually using
data that went back three or four months. And so giving that -- again,
the Planning Commission and this board asked me to take a very
careful look at the timing of this and see if we were being a little bit
too aggressive. And I've got to be honest with you, we were. The
bottom line of it is, we looked at population. I think this is a better-fit
Page 42
June 6-7, 2006
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, there's nothing wrong with
being conservative in your analysis --
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- when it comes to water and
sewer. But I presume at some point in time you're going to tell us
what this means in terms of, perhaps, cost savings?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And how that will benefit our
future capital improvement plans.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, exactly. In fact, the rate study __
excuse me. The impact fee study, which follows this presentation,
will lay that out to some degree and layout what was -- some of our
constraints were financial, but truly in terms of the appropriate
concurrency model, this is a -- this works. This meets concurrency,
and it's fundable and feasible, given the impact fee and rate study
which follow this recommendation in terms of the CIP.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a question before I turn this over
to Commissioner Henning. My question is to you, what is our average
influx of new customers per year over the last five years?
MR. DeLONY: Well, let's see. We usually get -- where's John?
John, come on up here with me, please. We usually get somewhere
between 200 and 250 new accounts a month; is that correct, John?
MR. YONKOWSKY: That's correct.
MR. DeLONY: And so those accounts could be one
single- family home or it could be a condo that may have a master
meter or a shopping center with a master meter. So the actual number
of people that come on-line have to be -- the only answer I have is
what I get from comprehensive planning in terms of their forecasting
model. But our experience is, about 200 to 250 new accounts a
Page 43
June 6-7, 2006
month.
We are, in this master plan and in the funding strategy ahead,
we're anticipating, Rob, 4,300 equivalent residential units of demand
for each of the next five years; is that correct?
So that would be like 4,300 new homes coming on-line. It may
be, you know, not necessarily a home, but it would -- may be an
apartment or a shopping center. But that would -- that answers your
question --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Per year?
MR. DeLONY: -- in your terms of demand.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that's per year; is that correct?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, per year.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Wow.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. We get--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: But we don't -- and this isn't individuals.
This is combination of single- family homes and condos; is that
correct?
MR. DeLONY: All users, yeah. Could be a shopping center,
could be a gas station. An account is an account.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's just -- we're talking account, not
people?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir; yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And Mr. Chairman, if I could just
make a quick comment. That's amazing considering the fact that the
Florida Home Builders Association says we're in a moratorium here in
Collier County.
MR. DeLONY: I'll let Mr. Schmitt speak to that in terms of his
building permits and his program with regard to certificates of
occupancy.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I must commend you on the
master plan. It's a very comprehensive in-depth look.
Page 44
June 6-7, 2006
The east central area, what determines when that is constructed?
MR. DeLONY: The short answer, sir, is when demand appears
on the horizon. We have an obligation to serve at some stage -- and
I've got my lawyer to the right -- it's usually within aID-year window
is what we generally look at. But we have an obligation to serve.
But that combination of when and how much is a function of the
rate of growth. And the rate of growth that I use for predicting that
model that you see in front of you -- and that's what we have is a
model or a guess -- is strictly driven by what you give me in terms of a
decision in AVIR.
When you -- in the A VIR process, you layout what are the
parameters with regard to population growth in the county, and the
comprehensive planning folks give that to me in terms of areas of the
county, and I look at that. And at some point we tip the scale to where
we need to either up the ante in terms of capacity or come on with new
development in terms of the infrastructure.
So the answer is a little convoluted. What you have there is our
best understanding of when land use decisions that are pending or in
place tell us when we need to have those facilities on-line.
If there's a changes, somebody comes in and wants it, we'll work
with that developer within a developer agreement and see if we need
to bring them on earlier in some type of shared basis. This is not
unlike what you see sometimes happening within our road program,
for example. It's the same type of scenario.
But the bottom line of it is, what I know today in terms of my
best understanding of demand and timing is reflected in that report.
And, again, it's all driven from your decisions through the
annualization and inventory report.
Hope I've answered your question, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct, you have. I just -- I
haven't seen any activity in the area, east central.
MR. DeLONY: Sir, we've had some folks come and talk to us
Page 45
June 6-7, 2006
off-line about potential development in that area, but no commitments
with regard to timing other than just kind of, you know, we're looking
at it, that kind of thing. And certainly, anything that we would do
inside or outside of anything we do, we'd bring it back to you all for a
decision, obviously.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. But when the check is
cashed, that's an indication that you need to do some.
The -- I just want to point out that the comprehensive financial,
or the keeper (sic) report shows 2005, number of commercial permits
is 228, and the number of residential units is five hundred and
sixty-eight hundred (sic).
So, you know, I don't know. I know you're doing a good job of
trying to provide, and it just doesn't track what you said.
MR. DeLONY: If I might, sir, what you're talking as units. But I
look at demand. And demand for me is 350 gallons per day per
residential unit, and we will equate all of that demand that you've had
there in terms of permit and equate them to what we call an ERC, and
we budget our concurrency based on our ability to deliver water
against that ERC demand.
So we take that unit development and convert it to a demand
number, and that's the reason you don't see a one-for-one relationship
between your numbers and what we have in terms of our projection
for demand.
We lay this out though very carefully in AUIR where we kind of
amalgamate our demand in terms of per capita consumption. We don't
look -- you know, we just take how many people in the county, you
multiply it by a level of service, which is 185, and then that looks at
our gross demand, irrespective of use, commercial or residential or
multifamily, and then we look at our plant and distribution capacities
and see if we're concurrent.
We also do a monthly checkbook analysis whereby the
individualized FDEP permit application is actually evaluated, and we
Page 46
June 6-7, 2006
look at what we have available and what that specific user has taken
off the wire in terms of capacity.
So we're able to monitor it pretty effectively at this stage of the
game and make sure that we're not over building, but we're just in time
in terms of meeting demand and staying in compliance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess I misunderstood,
because I thought you were talking about hookups, and now you're
talking about capacity.
MR. DeLONY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What I understand was, it was
200 hookups per month. That's what I'm basing my comments,
because it doesn't track -- and I'm not saying yours is wrong.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm just saying it doesn't track
the -- you're saying 1,200 -- approximately 1,200 a year, maybe more.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In here it's saying 5,800 units,
whether it be commercial permits or residential permits.
MR. DeLONY: Sir, I'm pretty sure that document covers the
entire county, which the water/sewer district does not cover the entire
county. We're a subset of the county. The only--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That would bring your -- the
numbers down --
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- on your part?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. Sir, I can take a look --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine. We don't have to
debate it.
MR. DeLONY : Yes, sir. I'm not debating at all. I know that
what -- I know what our historical -- that was the question, what's
been our historical experience. I know what we've done in terms of
concurrency management through the AUIR. I know what we've seen
Page 47
June 6-7, 2006
in the four years I've been here in developing these master plans.
And I believe what we have here is as good as we can get with
regard to predicting our needs in the near term.
Now, you saw in the executive summary that I want to come
back in two years and do this all over again, because I believe that
where we're at in the volatility, that that is the kind of close-end
looking we need to continue to do.
And so I hope that the kind of fidelity that you're asking for here
we can serve as we get more and more experienced with regard to
predicting our future here in the county, and that's the reason I'm
doing that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's a detailed report, and it's a
very good report, and I think the board trusts you in your judgment,
therefore, I'm going to make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I've got a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning for approval and a second by Commissioner
Coy Ie. And Commissioner Coletta has a question, and then I have a
question to follow Commissioner Coletta's.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, first I'd like to add to
Commissioner Henning's comments that it's an excellent summary
agenda, an excellent report. It definitely kept a lot of us busy over the
weekend.
Thank you so much for the summary agenda for identifying what
the differences were from the last time to this time. It sure made the
reading a lot easier to know what you're looking for. I think you did
an excellent job with it. And if we're ever going to err, let's err on the
side of caution and have an excess capacity than to get to that point
where we were a couple years ago.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: My question is -- and it follows up a
little bit with what Commissioner Coletta was just talking about -- say
Page 48
June 6-7, 2006
we have a large influx of building permits that come into this county,
into Joe Schmitt's area, and obviously you follow whatever's
happening in the community development/environmental services,
how fast can you ramp up to meet those demands?
MR. DeLONY: I'm going to go back here to something you saw
earlier and talk to you about the real world, that answer.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I want to know the real world, yep.
MR. DeLONY: First of all, you know, an influx is anticipated to
some degree in our planning in terms of contingency-based analysis.
F or example, we're not -- we're not on the mark. We've given ourself
some reserves, and those reserves are clearly outlined here in terms of
how much more we're going to have available than just meeting it
specifically. If you need 100, maybe we've got 110, 115. So there's
also some -- and this plan has some flexibility.
I think that Commissioner Coletta outlined it carefully that you
all expect me to have a plan that is flexible but does not get below the
standard of meeting demand and staying in compliance.
But the real world is, it takes about eight years from start to finish
to put a new capacity on-line. That's the bottom line. Now, if you
have an existing plant structure, you can cut that probably in about
half because you're not dealing with the siting and land use and the
acquisition of real estate.
Now, in the case of our water plant, our south and north water
plants, the current plants, after we finish this next year's expansion of
our south water plant, that's it. We're all the way to the fences.
There's no more expansions there.
The north water plant is already built out. So our next increment
of change is a full expansion of the new plant, and that's our northeast
plant.
We bought 216 acres there. We're going to have a site that is
expandable and has got the ability to grow as the county sees fit and as
the county's demands are to do it, so there is -- the acquisition of real
Page 49
June 6-7, 2006
estate's been done correctly, I believe, to meet your question.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. DeLONY: And then it comes down to this board directing
me through -- primarily through the AUIR as to what you expect me
to have when, an influx that causes a blip will result in this. We'll go
to a drop high permit, meaning that if we don't have the capacity either
in water or wastewater services --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. DeLONY: -- for the customer at the point of that customer's
demand, whatever the reason, that we will not issue certificates of
occupancy that deal with central -- you know, providing those
essential services, but --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You're answered my question, yep.
MR. DeLONY: But, again, we don't want to go there. Ifwe can
stay concurrent with demand, and I think this board's committed for
the utility to do that, that's my -- that's our charter. That's our mission.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do we have any public speakers
on this?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor.
Is there any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll 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: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries unanimously.
Page 50
June 6-7, 2006
And we will take a 12-minute break, so we'll be back at 10:44.
Please be back because we've got a busy day.
(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.
Board of County Commissioners is now back from recess, and _
Item #8A
ORDINANCE 2006-26: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2001-13,
AS AMENDED, (THE COLLIER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED
IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE); PROVIDING FOR
INCORPORA TION BY REFERENCE OF THE WATER AND
WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE STUDY, DATED JUNE 6, 2006;
ALSO TO INSERT A REFERENCE TO THE COUNTY'S MOST
RECENTL Y UPDATED WATER MASTER PLAN AND ITS
MOST RECENTLY UP-DATED WASTEWATER MASTER
PLAN; ALSO TO INSERT AMENDMENTS REQUIRED BY
FLORIDA HB/SB 1194; ALSO TO APPEND THE REVISED
WATER AND SEWER IMP ACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE TO
THEREBY INCORPORATE INTO THE ORDINANCE, BY
REFERENCE, THESE NEW WATER AND WASTEWATER
IMPACT FEES; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND
SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION INTO THE
CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; PROVIDING THAT THE
ORDINANCE SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE UPON RECEIPT
BY FLORIDA'S SECRETARY OF STATE, BUT THAT THE
REVISED IMPACT FEES SHALL NOT BECOME EFFECTIVE
UNTIL 8:00 A.M. ON FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2006.
(COMPANION TO ITEM lOB) - ADOPTED
Page 51
June 6-7, 2006
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item on
the agenda, which is 8A. This is -- this item is to follow 1 DB, which
the board just acted upon.
It's a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
adopt an ordinance amending ordinance number 2001-13 as amended,
the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance; providing for
incorporation by reference to the Water and Wastewater Impact Fee
Study dated June 6, 2006; also to insert a reference to the county's
more recently updated Water Master Plan and its most recently
updated Wastewater Master Plan; also to insert amendments required
by Florida HB and SB 1194; also to amend the revised Water and
Sewer Impact Fee Rate Schedule to thereby incorporate into the
ordinance by reference these two water and wastewater impact fees;
and providing for conflict and severability; providing for inclusion
into the code of laws and ordinances; providing that the ordinance
shall become effective upon receipt by Florida secretary of state, but
that the revised impact fees shall not become effective until 8 a.m. on
Friday, September 8, 2006.
Again, this is a companion item to lOB. And Mr. Tom Wides,
your director of operations for Public Utilities Division, will present.
MR. WIDES: Commissioners good morning. As Mr. Mudd
said, my name is Tom Wides. I'm the operations director for public
utilities. This morning I will introduce the presentation of the
proposed changes to the impact fees for the water and sewer district.
The agenda this morning will be to discuss the guiding principles
that were used to develop the fees, what we've done to date in terms of
approvals up to this point in time, a review of the development of and
the resulting impact fees, and the introduction of a new fee, which is
called the allowance for funds prudently invested known as AFPI.
As you hear more about this AFPI fee this morning, think of it as
a mechanism to fund the carrying costs of the debt incurred to build
Page 52
June 6-7, 2006
future capacity. We'll talk about that a little bit more as we go.
Finally, we will present the proposed user rates resulting from the
master plans and updated miscellaneous fees.
Our guiding principles. With the large increases in population
anticipated in the district and as portrayed in the AUIR recently
completed and the resulting master plans, the utilities' intent is to
maintain its position that growth will pay for growth.
The capacity that is developed will reflect the required utilization
by our customer base. User rates must cover the cost of providing
reliable and sustainable service. The utility must maintain sustainable
-- must be sustainable and financially viable.
It is our position that we will not sacrifice the future to minimize
fees today. We must reflect today's cost of service to our customers at
the current level of service standards that you heard earlier this
mornIng.
We will maintain a financially creditworthy utility. This includes
adequate operating reserves, reasonable debt-to-asset ratios, and
compliance with rate covenants and bond resolutions and
state-revolving fund loan agreements. Finally, we will maintain
competitive and affordable user rates.
What have we done to date? We've updated the impact fees in
compliance with the AUIR and the resulting master plans, as I've
noted. As you heard earlier, the capacity cost in those master plans
were based on localized cost data for construction.
We have designed the allowance for funds prudently invested,
the AFPI, to recover the carrying costs of that debt that will be
incurred for new capacity.
We've prepared the financial forecast and evaluated the user rate
adjustments. We've also evaluated our miscellaneous utility fees, such
as meter tapping charges, change of ownership fees, meter locks, et
cetera.
Further, we've gone through and met with the Development
Page 53
June 6-7, 2006
Services Advisory Committee and gained their approval for all studies
by a margin of 10 to 1.
Likewise, the Productivity Committee unanimously approved the
studies that they reviewed, which include the master plans, impact
fees, and the AFPI.
Finally, outside legal counsel in conjunction with internal legal
counsel has reviewed the studies and approved the methodology for
legal sufficiency.
At this point I would like to turn the presentation over to Mr. Rob
Ori, the principal for PRMG, and he is our Rate Consultant.
If there are any questions -- otherwise, I'll turn it to him for
discussion of the impact fee study itself.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any questions from the
commissioners at this time? Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- we're not making a
decision till this afternoon on impact fee rates, are we?
MR. WIDES: Commissioner, our request this morning will be--
one request will be to approve the impact fees as presented, and a
second request after presentation will be to approve AFPI, the user
fees, and also the miscellaneous fees this morning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Wasn't it advertised as
an item to be heard this afternoon?
MR. WIDES: I believe we had it advertised as a study for today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I know it's today, but item
seven and eight are -- in the front of our book it states that those items
won't be heard before one p.m.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. It said -- it says, items seven and eight to
be heard no sooner than one p.m. unless otherwise noted. And if you
go to item 8A in your agenda, it says, this item will immediately
following lOA, which is 10 a.m. time certain.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. As long as we're
legally --
Page 54
June 6-7, 2006
MR. MUDD: And the same thing with 8B, sir. We did that to
make sure it was specifically noted that it was changed to the
precedent that comes after one o'clock.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I do have some questions on the
rates, if you don't mind.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- your recommendation is
to approve the rate study for two consecutive years?
MR. WIDES: Yes, sir, that is correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What -- just recently we
approved a study for efficiencies within the department. Is those
efficiencies going to affect the -- well, I'm assuming it would affect
the operation and then may affect -- depends on the study, may affect
the rates?
MR. WIDES: Commissioners, the intent of the study that you
mentioned is, in fact, an audit of the processes in utility billing and
customer service.
Also, as you are aware, on an annual basis there is a component
of the CAFR, of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, that
deals directly with the water/sewer district. That is part of the ongoing
-- KPMG, our external auditors, that is part of their ongoing process
each year, to audit the data that passes through the utility billing
system for revenues, et cetera.
But this audit that we've asked for as staff is, in fact, a process
audit, which is looks at the controls that we have within, looking at the
potential bottlenecks in our business process that we might want to
all eve (sic) as time goes forward; however, I can -- I can almost __
based on my experience in the past in these types of audits, these will
be ongoing changes that will affect far into the future as opposed to
the types of changes you'll just turn on a dime and move now.
Will it help maintain rates at lower levels in the future? Yes,
that's our intent. Will it reduce rates today? I don't believe that will
Page 55
June 6-7, 2006
be the outcome. I haven't seen the outcome. We haven't done the
audit yet, but I've had a lot of experience in this area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So it's not an efficiency
study?
MR. WIDES: Of course we'll look for bottlenecks, and if we
take things out of the bottleneck, that would be an efficiency item.
That would be --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. WIDES: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me get to the question.
MR. WIDES: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The previous item that the
Board of Commissioners approved for you to hire a consultant, was it
an efficiency study; yes or no?
MR. WIDES: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, thanks.
MR. WIDES: That is not the primary intent of that study.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. WIDES: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions from my
commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much for your
presentation.
MR. WIDES: Commissioners, thank you. I'll turn it over to Mr.
Ori at this point.
MR.ORI: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, for the
record, my name is Robert Ori of the Principal Public Resources
Management Group, and with me also today is Mr. Brian Mance, who
is a consultant with our firm who was instrumental in preparing the
analyses I'm presenting for you today.
I'm going to make several presentations, one on impact fees, the
Page 56
June 6- 7, 2006
MPI charges and user fees, and I'd like to talk about the impact fees
first.
MR. DeLONY: Make sure that you get close to that microphone.
MR.ORI: As you well know, the purpose of the impact fees
basically is to try to ensure that growth pays for growth. It's our first
business principle in what Tom presented to you earlier, and it's a
capital financing tool that's been used by the county for many, many
years, especially in the water and utility industry for well over a
decade.
But the key here is that the impact fees must meet the national
nexus requirements required by case law, and the fees must be
reasonable. The long-term effect, obviously, is to drive additional
funds to the existing rate payers and to stabilize the long-term effects
on rates.
As was previously mentioned in the presentation of the master
plan, we've got almost $1.2 billion of capital needs for the next 10
years, and you can see on this slide a lot of it is water related. But
those capital improvements provide various -- or meet various issues
relative to your program.
It's not only for growth, though a lot of it's for growth, but you
have renewals and replacements as assets reach through usable lives
(sic), you need to replace those assets, or that could be upgrades to the
systems due to regulator concerns and/or liability issues. So this 1.2
billion includes basically everything.
The financing for those improvements will really be three major
sources: User rates, debt financing, and impact fee collections. As the
enterprise fund, the district receives no benefit from outside revenue
sources nor receives any government funds from the general -- from
taxation of general government subsidies. We have to support
ourselves, basically.
In terms of, if we looked at aID-year planning horizon, over the
next 10 years the master plan identified over 30 MGD of water
Page 57
June 6-7, 2006
additions and almost 19 MGD of wastewater additions, as you can see
here.
Based on the master plan, the level of service identified in the
master plan and the level of service identified for the impact fees,
we're recommending an increase in the impact fees about a little over
17 percent or $1,000, as you can see on this chart, with the majority or
the primary effect being on the water side.
And you remember the CIP slide, a lot of the dollars in the
capital improvements plan were also water, so there is definitely
consistency there. That's what we're recommending today.
In addition, we also went back and did a reasonableness check
and looked at the most recent cost to the expansion that the county's
just performed, compared the treatment costs that we've recognized in
the impact fee calculation to the treatment cost that you've actually
incurred most recent.
And what we discovered was, the fees are very reasonable, so
match the reasonable test and the rational nexus test. Not only is it
very comparable to the existing, but our methodology supports the
overall plan.
In terms of capital recovery, this is a major issue, and this is
going to come up in effect with user fees and AFPI and one of the
reasons why we're recommending that new fee.
As you know, with the utility industry, you've got to build before
they come. You have to have the facilities in place before you can
serve them. It's not like a road or a park where you can kind of work
around it. I've got to have service, and to do that, we've got to
construct in advance.
The impact fees we're recommending will recover in the next 10
years about 50 percent of that capital cost reflected in the impact fee.
You may say to me, well, gosh, we want to recover 100 percent.
I can't do that. I've got to recover the pro-rata share of the capacity per
customer.
Page 58
June 6-7, 2006
F or example, if I have $100 in need and five customers in the
next five years, I can't recover that $100 from that five if that $100 is
there to serve 10. So I have to have a relationship there, and that's
why we have a proportionate share of the percent recovery.
Recognize we have to recover in advance or build in advance, we
have to remove the capital cost to carry, which I'll discuss in a second.
To give you an idea on comparability, that's always a question.
And as you can see on this chart, we're at the high end today and we're
at the high end tomorrow. Weare in the area where we have
generally the highest impact fees, and there's a lot of reasons for that.
But if you look at this chart, those -- those entities or utilities at
the bottom of that chart that are upper-cased capital letters, they all
have impact fee adjustments in effect or being evaluated at this time.
And a couple -- one that's really important, I think, is like, for
example, Manatee County. They will probably be raising their impact
fee, my guess, between 1 to $2,000 here in the next 60 days or so.
That's what they're looking at. That's -- I like that one because that's a
utility that's had low costs for a long time, and now the regulatory
impacts are starting to hit them in terms of new water supply, new
technologies, which you've been having for many, many years
already. That kind of gives you the idea of the relationship.
There's a lot of reasons why these fees may differ, and you're
pretty interesting. You've got to think about your service here. You're
over 220 square miles of utility service area.
And they gave me a statistic I thought was interesting. If you
take your water pipes and lay them -- or wastewater pipes even, lay
them end to end, it goes to Nashville. That's how much pipe you have
in the ground right now if you have to -- oh, yeah, it's long. It's 800
miles. It's a long ways.
So you know, you've got to recognize this. And the density of
your system because you're a county system, you know, you've got the
facilities, and then the densities occur. So it's amazing.
Page 59
June 6-7, 2006
The other thing is, I mentioned Manatee County as an example,
where you are in the utility life cycle. They -- Manatee County got
grant funds, old facilities in their facilities. Now they're reaching the
need to expand again. If you look at that comparison and saw Naples
and the City of Bradenton, they're very low in the comparison, but
what are they doing? Basically nothing. They're built-out
communities, they don't need additional capacity. Their biggest issue
is renewals and replacements, not new capacity. That kind of gives
you some of the reasons why these fees are different.
And with that, I can turn it back over to Tom, or do you have any
questions?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any questions from
commissioners?
MR. ORI: No.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Please proceed.
MR. WIDES: Commissioners, as noted in the executive
summary this morning -- and if you will, I won't read the require
recommendation, but essentially we're trying -- we're requesting you
to adopt these impact fees effective eight a.m. on Friday, September
8th, and also to have us come back in approximately two years to do
an additional review of the impact fees to make sure that we've
maintained the link between the fee levels and the current capacity
planning and requirements.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do we have any public speakers
on this item?
MS. FILSON: We have one, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Just a fast question. I was
wondering why we're going to do this on September 8th when the rest
of them we've been enacting by July 1 st.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the governor in his signing of the
impact fee legislation, we're not real sure where it is right now as far
Page 60
June 6-7, 2006
as, is it signed, is it on his desk. And to be on the safe side, we've put
the 90-day requirement into the future impact fees.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we have one speaker, Kenneth
Thompson.
MR. THOMPSON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. You
know, before you give these people one red dime -- for the last three
weeks, I have called that man right there. He won't respond, he won't
-- he won't help you. They're out there at 1:47 this morning again
dumping these big dumpsters, they're causing me trouble, more and
more trouble. He's a-sending his gar -- I don't know whether he know
it or not, but you don't need 40 garbage trucks on Bayshore Drive -- I
mean on Becca Avenue.
And the garbage, I swear to God they're hauling it in, because I
go down -- and I went and spent a lot of money, 800 bucks, for a DVD
Sony camcorder, and I don't think he'd lie to you. I'll stand here and
play it for you.
And what they have left on Pine Street is 'frigerators hung wide
open. And I have never -- the garbage truck will run, and then more
trash will pile up. I don't believe I have ever in my life had a problem
like I've had this last three weeks.
I call them, I leave him a message. He will not call you back. So
I got in such bad shape the other day, it came out what I wanted him to
know, it really did.
And DeLony back there, he's not going to do nothing. Why don't
you take some of this money they're getting here and tell them to go
over there behind Wal *Mart, right over here, and fix that. The bowels
(sic) are so froze up over there, it won't work. The water's flooding
everywhere.
I make a point to find his bad spots as well as his good. But
when I find some of his good spots, I'm going to let you know,
Page 61
June 6-7, 2006
because I'm going to tell you like it is. I never stuck nobody in the
back. I've lived in this town long enough to know he had nothing to
do with the water. DeLony's taking credit and getting his picture
taken for his water, doing the good thing with the water. He just
screwed it up.
I got a brother and some people that worked for this county for
many, many years. And you got the best water in this country. I don't
buy it no where. I drink it from right out of the spigot. I don't have to
boil it, but I'm afraid I might have to if you don't cut their money off.
Money's one thing, but work is another, and that's my biggest problem
is work. I go out there and I get out of one mess, I come home, I get
right back in it. I go right back to work.
But if you going to give him the money, hire somebody to go
behind them and check them out. And I know, Mr. Coyle, you don't
like what I'm saying, but you know something? I changed my mind
about you. I think you're a pretty good commissioner. I'm going to
tell you like it is, but you got -- you got a nice secretary.
And so I want to tell you something, until you give him the
money check them out.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MR. THOMPSON: And the rotten garbage trucks is leaking all
over the streets. They don't have proper people driving them. I'm
going to get --
MS. FILSON: That's your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
MR. THOMPSON: -- DOT to --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, Kenny.
Okay. The final speaker, public hearing is closed. Any further
discussion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coyle and a second by Commissioner Coletta. Any
Page 62
June 6-7, 2006
other discussion?
Hearing none -- yes, I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What was -- there was a
dissending (sic) vote in the Productivity Committee?
MR. WIDES: Yes, Commissioner, that is correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What was the concerns
addressed by that person?
MR. WIDES: The individual just had one concern. Excuse me.
That one dissenting vote was in the DSAC committee--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: DSAC.
Not Productivity Committee.
MR. WIDES: -- not the DSAC committee, and that one
dissenting vote was -- he had a very short statement that he did not
agree with the way the -- my words, with the way we gilt edge these
buildings.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we approving this as the
Board of Commissioners or ex-officio Board of Commissioners?
MR. WIDES: Yes, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There was two things. Are we
approving it as the Board of Commissioners or ex-officio Board of
Commissioners?
MR. WIDES: I will not -- I'm going to ask our attorneys to take
that for us because I -- from my point of view, I think that would be a
better answer.
MR. PALMER: Commissioners, it's -- technically it's ex-officio,
the board of the water/wastewater district because this -- the
administration of this entire ordinance is basically the staff of the
water/wastewater district. They're county employees, but it's a subset,
under a special act. So you're acting as the collegial body over that
board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And I guess that's duly
noted.
Page 63
June 6-7, 2006
MR. PALMER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The next question, in the rate
study I think calling for -- there's really no planning outside of 2030,
and statements of possibly going to desalination?
MR. WIDES: Commissioner, I'll let Mr. DeLony speak to that.
MR. DeLONY: For the record, Jim DeLony, public utilities
administrator. I don't know if within the rate study we speak to that. I
know in the impact fee study we've spoken to being in compliance
with the lower west coast water supply plan.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's what it is.
MR. DeLONY: And what we talked to there is that whatever we
do in terms of water resource demand will be in conjunction with that
plan derived by the district, in turn, I guess the state.
The bottom line of it, to say we don't have a plan, we're going to
have to have continuity of operations throughout this period of time,
SIr.
And as we move forward and get -- and next year we'll start all
over again at looking at our water supply, and the year after that. This
has no end. We have no end to seeking best value options in terms of
what is a right mix of fresh, brackish and potentially, potentially,
saltwater or seawater, and it would not necessarily come from the Gulf
but would be coming from very, very deep aquifers.
Technology every day is moving rapidly and, for example, in
filters, which is critical to that. Technology being feasible from the
standpoint of cost and operations. We want to be able to maximize or
service vehicles across all those technologies.
It is for sure that the availability of what has hereto been
considered cheap water, that's the freshwater, that that is a finite
resource available to this utility and in turn, all members of this
county. There is a finite amount of freshwater. That's been stated
many times on the record many years before even I came here.
In working with the district, we will continue to look at that
Page 64
June 6-7, 2006
carefully and validate that statement, and then given that constraint,
we will then go to alternative water supplies, which include brackish
and saltwater potentially.
I hope I've answered your question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, thank you.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just one more question. What
was the credits in the impact fee?
MR. DeLONY: In the impact fee?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. Was there credits for well
sitings?
MR. DeLONY: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Donations?
MR. DeLONY: No, sir, no, sir. Nothing at all with regard to
credits, no, sir. If we had anything in calculation of the impact fee that
would do with grants, we add that credit, but in the calculation,
forward looking calculation, if you don't have it, you can't count it as a
credit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So the donations that
were given on the land use items haven't been actually turned over to
you yet?
MR. DeLONY: If there's been any, they would have been
accounted for hereto before in terms of our total cost picture to date.
But going forward, I don't have those in hand so there's no way to
predict what that cost picture would be, and that's what the impact fee
does. It looks at where you are, where you need to be, and what's the
delta in between.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I thought you had them in hand.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. DeLONY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any further questions?
Page 65
June 6-7, 2006
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Not hearing any, I'll call the question at
this time. We have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Coyle,
second by Commissioner Coletta.
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: Motion carries.
MR. WIDES: Commissioners, thank you. I'll ask Mr. Ori to
speak to the user fees now at this point in time, which I believe is item
8B.
Item #8B
ORDINANCE 2006-27: ORDINANCE THAT MODIFIES
ORDINANCE 2001-73, TITLED COLLIER COUNTY WATER-
SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING AND
REGULATORY STANDARDS ORDINANCE; THIS
MODIFICATION INCLUDES PROPOSED RATES FOR WATER
AND WASTEWATER SERVICES BASED ON A RATE STUDY
DATED JUNE 6, 2006 TITLED WATER AND WASTEWATER
RATE REVIEW FOR COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER
DISTRICT; AND PROVIDES FOR A NEW FEE TITLED
ALLOWANCE FOR FUNDS PRUDENTLY INVESTED (AFPI) AS
SCHEDULE SEVEN OF APPENDIX A OF THE ORDINANCE;
AND PROVIDES FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF OCTOBER 1,
2006 FOR SCHEDULES 2 THROUGH 7 OF APPENDIX A OF
Page 66
June 6- 7, 2006
THE ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDES FOR EFFECTIVE DATES
OF OCTOBER 1,2006 AND OCTOBER 1,2007 FOR SCHEDULE
1 OF APPENDIX A OF THE ORDINANCE. (HEARD AFTER
ITEM 8A) - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HALAS: 8B.
MR. ORI: Thank you, Tom.
Again, for the record, I'm Robert Ori, Public Resources
Management Group.
I'd like to kind of break this presentation into two parts, if I could.
One, you've heard the words allowance for funds prudently invested,
or AFPI charge. I probably refer to it as AFPI, if obviously I'm
announcing funds prudently invested, and then I'll talk about the user
fees.
The AFPI charge is a new fee being recommended to you today,
and the purpose of this fee is to recover the cost of the carrying and
the capacity for new development. As I mentioned in the impact fee
presentation, we've got to build before they come. And generally the
impact fee includes -- in our analysis, includes the principal or capital
cost of construction, not the interest carry cost of the construction.
This fee includes the interest carry cost of construction. We don't
add in multiple years of interest into our calculation. It's pure bricks
and mortar in our fee calculation.
It's only applied to new connections. It would not be applied to
the existing customers that are served by the district today. They'd be
collected at the same time that the impact fees are paid, so it's
coincident with that, and it's being used by many utilities in the State
of Florida.
And on the southwest coast, Hillsborough County has a version
of this fee, and actually Sarasota County has a version of this fee for
the wastewater. And as I understand talking to them last week, they're
looking at implementing a water AFPI charge. Those are a few that
Page 67
June 6-7, 2006
will do that.
There's a lot of other utilities across the state that have versions
of a carry cost. Martin County has a carry cost called system
availability charges, so when people pay, they reserve capacity and
they pay fees. So this type of concept is very prevalent in the
industry.
Also the Florida Public Service Commission on the private side
has a version of AFPI charges. In fact, that's where I coined the term
from was from the private side, even though these fees are calculated
differently than that.
What we're recommending is a forward looking fee application
that matches the carry cost of capacity at the time an applicant pays
for the capacity to the impact fees. And if you look at your chart on
your screen there, it's probably easier to discuss that.
F or example, if I was a new developer or an applicant that is
buying one unit of capacity, one ERC of capacity, in month one, 1'11
pay $24. That's the carry cost of that capacity for one month.
But let's say I come in five years later and you've issued bonds,
you've funded these facilities, you're going to pay a lot higher fee, and
this fee maxes out in 72 months or six years at $1,674 approximately
for water and wastewater combined. Then after that it ends.
And we picked the six-year period, because as you remember the
chart in the master plan, it takes roughly eight years to site, design,
build, and construct the facility, and then you've got to fill up the
facility by utilizing capacity.
If you look at eight plus five a prudent -- or eight plus six a
prudent time, that's 14 years. This is around the average of that. And
we felt -- I didn't want to take on a 14-year period, that seemed
awfully long, especially when you're not financing permitting and
design up front. You usually carry that through some of the bridge
financing.
We were very conservative and went to six-year. Second, we'd
Page 68
June 6-7, 2006
be looking at this again in about two or three years.
The key here is you adopt this fee to recover the carry costs. It
will produce about $12 million of additional operating revenue to the
system for the benefit of the systems. That's a lot of money.
And actually in the last year, the fifth year of -- this is only for
five years. In the sixth year, it will be close to $6 million, between 5-
and $6 million a year, assuming 4,300 ERCs of connection every year.
So it's a substantial amount of dollars that benefits the system to
help finance the debt service basically reflected in the rates, if you
remember the primary pledge for the payment of debt rates (sic), so
this benefits that, and that's the purpose of this fee.
MR. MUDD: Rob, do me a favor. Commissioner Halas asked a
question earlier. How do you make sure that you have the facility on
line when you need it --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Exactly.
MR. MUDD: -- so that you're not issuing dry permits?
And what happens, and what you're not explaining is, when a
developer comes in front of utilities and he puts out that Site
Development Plan or that plat and lays it out there and he says, how
many buildings are going to be on that particular piece of land, at that
point in time, it gets reviewed by utilities, and they reserve capacity to
that particular development.
That development though doesn't pay their impact fees until they
draw the individual permits for those buildings. So they could reserve
600 homes worth of capacity four years earlier but never draw permit
until four years later.
So Mr. DeLony and crew has built the water plant, has put in the
lines, has got the capacity for that, and has issued a wet -- so to speak,
a wet permit to them, but he doesn't have the impact fees.
So you've laid down capital, okay, in order to build that capacity
in the plant, and you're paying interest on it, because you've got -- you
don't have the impac( fees to pay for it, so you've had to borrow
Page 69
June 6-7, 2006
money. Well, how do you pay -- how do you pay that capitalization?
How do you pay that interest? And that's what this carrying charge is
all about. Too bad we don't have a system for roads like that where
we could pay for all of the vested units that .are sitting out there. We
don't do that. But that's what he's getting to.
MR. ORI: Exactly right; good explanation. And that's exactly
right. Your reservation or needed capacity occurs well in advance of
the collection or the funding of that capacity, and this helps cover that
carry cost.
This chart just kind of shows you the effect on a single-family
residential -- or ERC, which is single-family home basically. If you
paid -- if you requested -- or the building time, building permit, paid
the imposed impact fees as adopted, and this AFPI charges shows you
what the effect is on the bottom line. Kind of gets you a feel for that.
And this went out to month of 49.
And with that, before I go to user fees, I'll open up for any
questions or comments or issues you'd like to discuss.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. I believe Commissioner Coyle has
some questions.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just briefly. Number one, we -- for
roads, the road impact fees we do collect 50 percent of the impact fees
at Site Development Plan approval, or submission, I think. Why don't
we have a similar arrangement for utilities, water and sewer?
MR. WIDES: Commissioner -- again, Tom Wides for the record.
Commissioner, we could do that.
This is another mechanism that has been used in other
municipalities in the state that provides basically that same funding
level. So we've taken a little bit different approach but yet it is an
approach to get more funds up front in order to pay the debt that we're
going to incur in advance of the actual connections.
MR. DeLONY : Yeah. I hear what you're saying, sir. We
looked at that approach when the -- I guess it was about two years ago
Page 70
June 6-7, 2006
we began doing that here for the roads. I guess it was about two years.
Amy, two years ago? Two years ago?
MS. PATTERSON: Going on three years.
MR. DeLONY: Three years, almost three years now. I'm not
sure that that's not the way we might go two years from now. I think
this AFPI is a better nexus formula in terms of he who benefits pays
and he who pays benefits. And I'm not going to say arbitrary, but a set
percentage of impact fees up front.
It may be or it may not pass the rational nexus test legally or
otherwise. This is our approach now to make sure that we stay
sufficient to the rational nexus test.
I would tell you, I would like to do this for two years and come
back and test it again, see if we'd have done the 50 percent and
compare the two and see where we go forward from here, would be
my thoughts on that, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'm not sure you're right, but
I think that's the right approach to take.
MR. DeLONY: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have the hunch that getting the
money in hand at SDP approval or submission is better than the
approach we're using here, because I have a feeling it will get us the
money -- more money earlier.
MR. DeLONY: It will also --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And it will have a very direct
nexus to the development or the demand, and thus, if there is some
long delay for the developer to finally bring these things to permit,
who really cares, right?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So I'm not -- I'd have to work
through the numbers to convince myself that what I said was correct,
but that's what you're suggesting we do.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
Page 71
June 6-7, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We try it for a couple of years, see
what it looks like, and if it doesn't produce the desired result, then you
look at something else.
MR. DeLONY: That's my thought, sir. We looked at this, and
Mr. Mudd and I discussed it up to this point.
This approach and deployment seems to have a really straight
nexus between benefit and cost and timing. We can look at that and
evaluate two years down -- every recommendation we're making
today is -- everything we're doing today, we're going to be back here
two years from now because of the volatility of the market, as I spoke
earlier to -- I believe to Commissioner Halas' question.
So if I might, sir, I'd like to take your thoughts on that, and then
bring it to fruit here as we look forward, and then come back here in a
couple years to see which course of action we would go.
Mr. Mudd, do you have anything on that?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You see, my only concern here is
that we be consistent in the way we account for this. And if it is a
good thing to do for public utilities, it should be a good thing to do for
roads and vice versa. So it's good that we're evaluating both
processes.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if we find that one is better
than the other, my suggestion would be that we do that uniformly
across the board for all the appropriate impact fees.
MR. DeLONY: Let me ask Amy. Amy, do you have anything
to say on this issue beyond what we've discussed?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'd also -- this is Jim Mudd, and
Amy, you can come on up to the mike. And I'm just talking to Mike
because I've got a legal question.
The 50 percent road impact fee was done based on the
development community coming forward and volunteering to do that,
okay. It wasn't mandated by the board, and I'm not too sure you can
Page 72
June 6-7, 2006
mandate that by ordinance. And so that would have to be, I believe, a
negotiated thing with the development community in order to do that.
But we will check on the legalities of that particular issue. That's
something else that we need to look at.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, for the record, Joe Schmitt,
community development.
A couple of issues. At SDP, normally the impact fees -- or in all
cases impact fees are based on flow. In Jim's departments, when they
get the SDPs, they review those.
But oftentimes the -- at SDP stage, they're really not fully -- the
buildings may not be designed or they're not at the level to really give
a full estimate of the demand.
But I just said to Tom, let's say in an instance where you may
have a 3~-building complex all off of one meter, that 3D-building
complex may take three or four years to build, but the day that meter
goes in the ground they're paying impact fees 100 percent for the
entire complex of 30 buildings, even though it may take four years to
build those 30 buildings. So, in fact, there is a pretense of
prepayment.
And I'll ask Tom and his team. They can kind of cover that. So
there is a -- there is a process where Jim does, in those kind of
instances, get the money quicker.
MR. DeLONY: I think we have your guidance, sir, and we'll
move out accordingly. Obviously, this vesting issue, we'll work
through that and come back with the best fit recommendation to the
board here where we come back in two years and update these fees, if
that's to your desire, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Good, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I hear a motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion to approve.
Page 73
June 6-7, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And before we just -- just one fast
thing.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just want to commend you guys
again, because this is the first year I ever knew, in the six years I've
been up here, that we didn't have any calls for water restrictions or
anything, which the water just kept on flowing. And let's face it, it
sure wasn't like that a few years ago. You've done a great job.
MR. WIDES: Commissioners, thank you. We'd like to move to
the user fees at this point in time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We have to vote on the one --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have to vote on this.
MR. WIDES: I'm Sorry.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I believe we have a motion on the
floor by Commissioner Fiala and a second by Commissioner Coyle.
Are there any further discussion?
MR. MUDD: And this is for the allowance for funds prudently
invested, the AFPI.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Thank you for clarifying that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Hearing no -- yes, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're sitting as the ex-officio
board of the water/sewer district?
MR. PETTIT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, we are.
Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'll call the question. All those in
favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 74
June 6-7, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries. Thank you.
MR. WIDES: Okay. Commissioners, thank you. Mr. Rob Ori
again for user rates.
MR.ORI: Again, for the record, Robert Ori, Public Resources
Management Group.
I'd like to now go to the user rates, as Tom mentioned. I wanted
to talk about the financial forecasts, some of our approach, our
findings, and comparability of our existing proposed rates that we're
recommending to those of other communities.
This was a very detailed evaluation of your user rates. You
actually developed a six-year financial forecast through the fiscal year
2011. Why we prepared six years, we took your existing budget year
as the test year. And since it's near -- we're nine months into it now,
roughly -- we wanted to go ahead and go five years beyond that.
Also, to the extent you go to the bond market, which I'll talk
about in a minute or so, to get secure in the outside financing, they
like to see a five-year forward protection beyond the test year too. So
we're kind of doing that as well.
The purpose, obviously, was to identify trends, any issues
relative to your rates in terms of cost recovery, and also to develop
strategies and what's the appropriate level of rates to charge and how
to finance the capital improvement program and be in compliance
with our bond resolutions, as well as meet our business principles
regarding cost recovery strategies and compliance with our bond
covenants, and also to maintain the credit worthiness of the utility
system.
We looked at customer growth, the expenses, capital
Page 75
June 6-7, 2006
improvement requirements, et cetera, in our evaluation.
Kind of give you an idea of the service area demands where we
are today. You saw a lot ofprojections in the master plan side, but
let's -- from a rate side, we look at it a little different.
Conservatism to us is we have rates high enough to meet our
needs in case there's an issue regarding expenses. Conservatism to the
master plan is, I want to have the capacity available. So we're a little
different here.
But if you look at where we were last year, you served about,
say, on average water and sewer, about 46-, 47,000 accounts, or over
70- to 75,000 ERCs. I think that's one of the questions earlier about
building permits and accounts and customers.
F or example, a multifamily unit with 100 units would be one
account, but it would be 100 ERCs or 100 single-family households.
So this kind of gives you a feel of how big your system is now getting.
And if you looked at where you are today, you're over the 50,000
customer range now, and probably close to the 80,000 ERC range.
You're becoming a real, real utility out there.
The growth rate that we've proj ected is a 5 percent compounded
growth rate, about 4,300 units. It's consistent with the AUIR, and that's
pretty substantial. This is sustained growth, 5 percent compounded
per year.
And if you take 4,000 times, say, three people per household,
that's 12,000 people per year. Another question asked, how many
people are coming to the system. My guess to you is 10- to 12,000
people. That's a lot of people. The reason why we need capacity.
And we want to make sure our projections match the capacity
requirements of the master plan.
We've got to finance that plan and make sure there's adequate
capacity to serve those needs, both for existing the ratepayer as well as
the future ratepayer.
And that is an issue I want to mention is, we recognize a fairly
Page 76
June 6-7, 2006
strong rate of growth, and that's why we want to look at this every two
years. I think it's prudent what the utility's trying to do to make sure
you have that match of capacity to growth so you don't overbuild and
whatnot, because your most expensive capacity is your unused
capacity, and we don't have a lot of unused capacity sitting there.
Revenue requirements. You heard me say that before. That's the
total expenditures from rates. That's operations, maintenance
expenses, debt service, funding of renewals and replacements from
rates, meeting our financial commitments through our bond
resolutions, et cetera, and that's what we have to recover from our
rates.
The six-year capital improvement program. You saw this already
in terms of $1.2 billion over 10 years. Over the next five years, you
remember the bar chart slide in the master plan, that first five years is
over $750 million, and that's what we're targeting to make sure we
finance.
You can see on your chart there that our financing plan right now
has about 59 percent coming from future bond issues. It's not one
bond issue. There's a series of basically six bond issues. Senior lien
and low interest state revolving loan fund programs.
The proposed impact fees based on that growth will generate
almost $200 million of funds to help finance that program, and the
capital accounts or rates and additional rate revenue with that is, is
we're funding a lot of the R&R program on a pay-as-you-go type
basis. That ranges between 7- and $12 million a year to not only
increase the equity of the utilities system, but you don't want to bond
existing rate improvement for existing customers that have shorter
asset lives.
The annual rate revenue you see there is more for departmental
capital, trucks, equipment, things of that nature over the whole
forecast period.
Debt compliance. This is a critical issue relative to rates. You've
Page 77
June 6-7, 2006
borrowed money in the past and you're going to borrow money in the
future. We all pretty much know that.
Give you an idea where you stand today . You've got about $163
million of outstanding indebtedness, senior lien, junior lien and
commercial paper.
The junior lien bonds that you see on their loans, I should say,
again, are state revolving loan fund borrowings, low interest, primarily
for the wastewater system, very attractive rates, in the 3 percent range.
Very, very, very good financing there.
What you've done that I need to commend both the district, I'll
say, and staff, is that you do -- you enter into the commercial paper
program by bridging the borrowings by utilizing variable rate and low
interest funds.
So as you construct the facilities and finance them, you're not
taking out $100 million to do this. You're doing it piecemeal, so you
lower your interest cost during the construction frame. Very good
program.
We consider you -- obviously you want to continue that. And
then when you build the facilities -- and during that time customers
keep coming on, then you go to permit and financing, take out that
short-term debt because you can't -- it's short-term, and you replace it
with senior lien debt, and the customers and facilities are billed.
We're looking at about $500 million in total bonds. You saw 400
before. This includes issue costs and things of that nature in there as
our estimate for that.
The repayment for those bonds, existing and future, are required
from system revenues and impact fees. And you can see on your
chart, we have certain requirements we have to meet. This is one of
our covenants is that the net revenues of the system, which is gross
revenues, all of the funds coming in, less O&M expenses, that
number, net revenues, has to be 125 percent of our debt payment
. . . .
mInImum, mInImum.
Page 78
June 6-7, 2006
If you don't reach that, technically you've covenanted in your
bond resolutions, you will raise rates. And why do you do that? If I'm
a bondholder, it's to my security that you'll have enough revenues
there to pay me as bonds become due if I'm a bondholder. So that's
what that's all about.
Junior lien has the same thing.
Proposed rates that we have identified will meet those covenants.
There's another covenant also that is called an additional bonds test.
When you go and issue new senior lien bonds, there's a test that says
the revenues must be sufficient when you issue those bonds to meet
these covenant requirements; the reason why we have to adjust rates
also.
And what we're looking at, we see a rate adjustment about 12
percent of -- in fiscal year '06, and 12 percent '07, and the potentially
declining rates would increase rates thereafter.
We're only recommending the first two because we want to
validate the need for any rate adjustments thereafter. For example, if
growth is 6,000 units, that's a lot more revenue with the capacity there.
I probably will need one of these rate adjustments. That's why we do
that.
If also there's more growth, higher AFPI charges, more dollars at
the tail end, won't need those rate increase, I don't think. Or if we
slow and we push the capital improvement program out, that could
affect this, as you well know. That's what we're looking at right now.
The reasons for this increase, one is to maintain the financial
sustainability of the district. You have to do that. And I'm going to
show you some of the charts in a second. But we need to finance the
capital program, the six-year capital program, that you had presented
to you earlier today.
The other thing to keep in mind, the operating expenses are
increasing at a much greater rate than even I anticipated three years
ago.
Page 79
June 6-7, 2006
For example, electrical cost. You've probably all felt this at your
house. Well, the utilities felt it also. In fact, I serve clients on the east
coast of Florida and the west coast of Florida, and I'm seeing 30
percent increases in power cost, total costs, in fiscal year '06 from
FP&L, which is your provider, I believe, here also. It's been amazing.
Plus we have incremental costs with new plants coming on-line,
additional personnel, et cetera.
The overall compound growth rate and operation expenses we
have is around 9 percent, which is consistent with what's recently
happened.
To kind of give you an idea, since I spoke to you three years ago
on the user rate study, we identified a 6 percent rate adjustment three
years ago for this fiscal -- for the upcoming fiscal year, not this one;
upcoming fiscal year.
And we're actually double that right now. And what's some of the
reasons? If I look back to, what did I present to you three years ago
and where I am today, if you look at your chart, the fiscal year budget
in '07 -- I'm sorry, in '03, was 39.3 million. That's O&M expenses.
We estimated $50 million in '07, 6 percent growth rate, which is
-- to me, I thought, was pretty reasonable. Obviously it's around 10
percent; it's $58 million.
And part of that -- and there's a lot of reasons for that. As you
can see, salaries and benefits have gone up with new staff, and that's
always an issue. The benefits insurance, et cetera, has gone up
tremendously over that period of time, electricity has, as you can see,
has gone up almost 90 percent. That's unbelievable with the cost of
power, and that's an uncontrollable cost. That's -- whatever FP&L
charges, we have to pay. Chemicals, et cetera, has gone up. And you
kind of get a feel.
The other thing is, the capital improvement program that we need
to finance has gone up as well over a five-year period of about $200
million, and that has a direct effect on rates themselves.
Page 80
June 6-7, 2006
Kind of give you an idea about the water rate design. We're not
recommending any change in the design. This is for a three-quarter
inch meter, as you see here, for water. If you looked at -- if I showed
you commercial customers, the 7 -Elevens or the -- or things of that
nature, their base charge -- you see here, is based on the meter size.
The larger the meter size, the higher the fee. That's what you have
today. We're not recommending any change to that.
But you can see here that the conservation incentives are getting
-- are getting -- are getting pretty steep there in terms of trying to
reduce the cost of -- reduce the amount of consumption per customer.
This is the impact to the water rates. You see a block around
8,000 gallons. That's your average today for single-family residents.
And this adjustment will produce about $3.78 to the 8,000 gallon
level.
You'll say, well, 13 -- the percent, I think is a little higher than
that in water. Again, we put more of this increase to the tail end of
this -- of this adjustment, more on the higher blocks so it will benefit
the lower customers. You can see the percentages there.
The next year -- the next increase is across the board, as you can
see there, about $4.
Sewer. No change in the rates also, just the change in level. We
adjusted the rates by a uniform across the board. All customers pay
equally on this one, about 10 percent, and you can see the adjustments
there, the rates. And there's the rate adjustment, about $4 for the
upcoming year, another $4 thereafter at the 8,000 gallon level.
Combined we'll go from 71.50 to almost $80, and then up to $88
if you adopt the two-year increase for the average customer.
In terms of comparability, again, we're not alone here. As I
talked about the impact fees, if you look through this chart, I'm going
to take you to the orange and green hash colors. The 71.50 is where
you are today, and the 83 -- I'm sorry, the $79, the dark color, is where
the first proposed rate adjustment would take you. You'd be below the
Page 81
June 6-7, 2006
system average of utility in this area. And then the second adjustment
would put you right above the system average.
Because as you can see on here, there's a lot of utilities -- those
are in upper case -- have rate adjustments coming, that I know of
today. And of course, if you go two years out in the future, my guess
is those that are highlighted will be having rate adjustments. One I __
two that I know of, I think, are contemplating it right now are Punta
Gorda and Englewood Water District.
They're having water issues, major, in those two utilities at this
point in time, and I expect a rate adjustment, though I didn't highlight
them because I have not validated that at this point in time. So that's
where you'd be on the competitive basis if the two adjustments were
recognized.
The reasons for the increase, as you can imagine, same as the
impact fees, densities of service area. I mentioned those statistics to
you.
The maturity of the utility system. You know, where do they
stand in their growth cycle? You're a growth utility. In fact, if you go
back and look at this chart, North Port, Collier, DeSoto, Okeechobee,
are high growth systems, as well as Bonita Springs Utility is a high --
in fact, is a high growth system, which that rate is being evaluated as
well as Hillsborough County.
Those that seem to be high growth systems that have a lot of
issues regarding water resources and things of that nature are the
utilities that are being impacted probably the most relative to rates.
The results of the rate adjustments, they will confirm with the
utility guiding principles that Tom mentioned earlier, but it's
sustainability, financial creditworthiness of the utility system, the
ability to comply with your bond covenants, et cetera.
We will recover the full cost of operating the system, meet our
six-year capital program, and maintain adequate reserves in the future,
and in the same token, remain competitive with all our neighbors as
Page 82
June 6-7, 2006
we move forward.
And with that, I'll turn it over to questions or any comments, and
then --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Would you go back to that chart--
MR.ORI: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- and show in case there's some TV
audience out there, exactly where we fall in the -- line of chart -- in the
chart there, just for clarification?
MR. ORI: I've got an arrow here.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. 0 RI: If you can see the arrow. This is where you are today.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, okay.
MR. ORI: Seventy-one dollars, and these utilities here are below
you right now. They are in a rate increase, I see -- they're going to
have multiple year adjustments coming the next five years, and Lee
County's got a study going on right now, and these two, I think, will
be adjusting the rates in the next 24 months.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR.ORI: So that's where you are today. The -- this color here is
water; this color here is wastewater. Blue is always on the bottom in
terms of the other utilities and red is wastewater.
You will move to this line here, basically go up two places. You
hardly move. And then the next thing -- oh, I lost my arrow here.
The next one then brings you up to this point. And these utilities
are also higher to you today. This is 16 months out or so in the future,
and these guys are still ahead of you today. And almost -- almost
every one of them is looking at a rate adjustment, if you can believe it.
They're high growth systems.
The other thing I noticed, we went back and looked in 2003,
2002, at the relationship of where you stood compared to the other
utilities. In this proposed relationship we have in 2008, you're about
where you were three, four years ago on a relationship standpoint; not
Page 83
June 6-7, 2006
a dollar standpoint, but a relationship standpoint. You haven't really
moved, what I thought was pretty good, which tells me they're all kind
of raising their rates.
But this is kind of where things -- again, here's existing, first
phase, and second phase, and this right here, I did not mention, is the
average of all the red and blue that's on there as of today.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much. I think
that helps clarify exactly where we stand in here.
MR.ORI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, if I may, sir.
MR.ORI: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would you go back to that chart
agaIn.
MR. ORI: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think it's very important that
we understand exactly what we're looking at as far as the rates go and
why the rates are where they are. I mean, the assumption is is that
we're probably -- we might not be as efficient as City of Naples or
some of those that are at the low end. But the truth of the matter is, it
has to do with where our water sources are and what we do to get
them to where we need them.
In the case of the City of Naples and a lot of them that are at the
far end of the chart, they're drawing from the upper Tami. aquifer,
which is freshwater and takes little processing, where I would assume
the rest of them, and from the middle going over, probably are
drawing from the same source as we are for the majority of the water,
which would be the Hawthorne aquifer.
MR. ORI: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And they have tremendous costs
associated with that.
Page 84
June 6-7, 2006
MR. ORI: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just so people don't think that--
you know, that our money is going towards frivolous means, I think
we need to be -- explain that.
MR.ORI: And that's a good point. I wouldn't -- I would debate
you on the efficiency side of Naples. Naples is a system that's old, it's
mature. It's not building new capacity, new water supplies, you're
right. They're in the upper aquifer. They've got good water. They
don't need to go to the RO of membrane softening.
If you look at these utilities, for example, Hillsborough County,
of course, it gets all their water from Tampa Bay Water, raw water,
and then they treat it, and that's going to go up at least 60 cents a
thousand gallons, 50 cents a thousand gallons the next five years, the
proj ections I've seen.
So they're -- without doing anything, they have to raise their rates
just to get the increase that they want.
Marco Island has a blend of RO in the lime pits out here.
Obviously, as you know, they're going to RO even further. North
Port, Charlotte, DeSoto, all our Peace River supplies, surface water
supplies, they've got a major, major program going. They've got
water problems. They don't have enough water. They have issues
there.
So to kind of give you a feel, the water supplies for these that are
in the upper cases have -- don't have low-cost high-quality water
supplies like you mentioned. You're absolutely correct on the water
side, that's correct. I totally agree with you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. Is there any other questions,
discussion by commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do we have any registered speakers on
this?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
Page 85
June 6-7, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you. Do I hear a motion?
Pardon?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Coyle
for approval and a second by Commissioner Coletta. Any other
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll 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: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
I believe we have a time certain for 11.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, yes. We have a -- the next item is
13A.
MR. DeLONY: Mr. Mudd, if I might, just before we go to 13A,
could I have one minute, please?
I just want to restate where we've been today, just to make sure
we're clear on the record with regard to the AVIR, that we updated the
A VIR as part of this process today, we updated our master plan, our
impact fees, our AFPI and our rates. We're going to be back here in
two years to take a hard look at these again.
I'd like to pass on to the commissioners here, lastly, we received
a national level award this morning from the National Association of
Clean Water Associations on to the public utilities, Collier County, for
Florida water management of wastewater water during emergencies,
Page 86
June 6-7, 2006
national level award. Twenty of these given out nationwide. Just got
it this morning. I thought I'd share this with the board --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Wow.
MR. DeLONY: -- and make you aware of this. We'll have a
press release out yesterday (sic). I'd like to thank the delivery team for
their work today, and thank you, again, Commissioners, for your
support of where we're going and where we've been.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Gary Menon, write that down. We
need to know that in the paper, right?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. That's a great
presentation that you gentlemen -- everybody has received.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, isn't that nice?
Item #13A
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE APRIL 25, 2006 BCC
MEETING. PRESENTATION OF THE FY2005
COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT BY KPMG
(COUNTY AUDITORS) - PRESENTED AND APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 13A, and this item
was continued from April 25, 2006, BCC meeting. It's a presentation
of the FY-2005 Comprehensive Annual Fiscal Report by KPMG. And
I believe that Ms. Crystal Kinzel, the Director of Finance, will present.
MS. KINZEL: Good morning, Commissioners. Still good
morning. I almost had to change my page here. But good morning.
F or the record, Crystal Kinzel, Finance Director for the Clerk of
Courts.
Today we are here to present to you the financial statements for
the year ending September 30th of 2005. And I just wanted to take a
moment to thank the entire clerk staff, county staff, and all of those
Page 87
June 6-7, 2006
involved for the hours of work that they spent in completing these
financial statements this year.
We appreciate the cooperation and the hard work. And I would
especially like to recognize Mr. Derek Johnnsen and Ms. Kelly Jones.
They coordinated the statements for this year and did a great job in
keeping our office together. So I'd just like to recognize them.
I'd also like to introduce Mr. Tom Grady to make a statement on
behalf of the clerk.
MR. GRADY: Mr. Chairman, members of the board, good
morning. My name is Tom Grady. I'm a lawyer here in Naples, and I
have represented Mr. Brock for six or eight years, I think, on various
matters, all of them, I'm happy to say, successful.
And he asked me to come before you this morning to let you
know that we have good news this morning. And the good news is
that KPMG has agreed to render an unqualified opinion regarding the
financial statements for Collier County.
And, of course, the board will remember from a couple of weeks
ago, there was a question about what form of opinion KPMG would
be able to issue because of the circumstances surrounding
representations that are required to be obtained from Mr. Brock as
well as from the county.
The good news is that it has worked out. Mr. Brock, as you
know, initially was asked to sign a representation letter and felt that he
was unable to do so. I agreed with his conclusions that he was unable
to do so and negotiated with KPMG initially by drafting his own letter
which was not acceptable to KPMG.
Mr. Brock then called upon the resources of the auditor general
and the legislative committees in Tallahassee and got some very
useful, practical advice from them and suggestions that allowed him to
redraft and revise the letter that he had proposed that KPMG accept,
and ultimately, KPMG did.
And in the process, KPMG, including Mr. Chip Jones, who's here
Page 88
June 6-7, 2006
today to present the details to you, represented that Mr. Brock and his
office and staff had been extremely cooperative throughout the entire
process, very diligent, very honest, and that Mr. Brock's concerns in
the initial representations that he was asked to provide were legitimate
and reasonable.
But at the end of the day, it has worked out. It's an unqualified
opinion. And as a representative of Mr. Brock, I'm very happy to
introduce Mr. Chip Jones, who's going to talk to you about the
unqualified opinion that KPMG's providing for the financials for
Collier County. Thank you.
MR. JONES: Good morning. I think Kelly's passing out these
summary presentations, which I wanted to review with you. I believe
each of you has received a cope of the CAFR, and it's a -- quite a long
document, about 160 pages. But it's got quite a bit of useful
information in it.
And I would encourage you, if you just want to look at certain
parts, look at the transmittal letter, the management's discussion and
analysis, a couple pages which I've replicated in this presentation, and
then also the statistical section, which gives you about a 10-year
history of the county.
But the audit went very good, other than the representation issue
letter, which was resolved satisfactorily. We issued an opinion on the
financial statements. Well, we actually issued approximately 21
different letters and reports, all of which were unqualified.
The primary ones being the opinion on the financial statements
included in the CAFR, an opinion on the trunk and troll (sic) financial
reporting and compliance, single audit on your major federal and state
programs, and you get, I think, about $37 million of funding this past
year.
We issued a letter to your audit committee. You actually are the
only county I have that has an audit committee, and that was
established by the clerk a year ago. It's made up of members of each
Page 89
June 6-7, 2006
of the constitutional officers as well as Mr. Mudd and people from the
clerk's office and internal audit.
We issue separate financial statements on each of the
constitutional officers as well as on the water and sewer system.
The audit went well. Crystal and her staff were very cooperative.
The people at each of the constitutional officers were very
cooperative. Mr. Mudd takes a very active role in the audit
comparison, as well as my other county managers, and I appreciate
that. He's always made it known that he wants thing done right, and if
there's an issue, tell him and he's going to get it fixed, so we appreciate
that level of involvement.
The financial statements are broken down into a lot of -- yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I just bother you for one
question?
MR. JONES: You may.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right in the beginning you said
qualified and unqualified, and I don't really understand what that
means. What's the difference?
MR. JONES: Okay. Unqualified means that there are no "except
for" or "subject to" or those types of things that basically say that
there's a contingency or something out there. Unqualified -- qualified
is where we'd say that the financial statements are presented except we
don't believe management has accrued enough for self-insurance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So unqualified is a good
thing?
MR. JONES: Is good.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you.
MR. JONES: It's the best, so -- yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MR. JONES: It's a good question though because the word clean
usually makes more sense to people than unqualified, but -- and I
didn't use that word, but it's a good question.
Page 90
June 6-7, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MR. JONES: The financial statements are broken down. And as
we audit, we audit according to the concept of major funds. Major
funds have to satisfy certain criteria, and it goes back to the theory that
80 percent of the county's activities may be represented by 20 percent
of the funds, that type of thing.
But we have six major funds that we audit within the financial
statements of the county. Audit to such a level of detail that
supposedly we could issue a separate stand-alone opinion on those if
we needed to. We also audit all the aggregate financial data that
remains from other funds as one number in total.
You also include in your financial component -- financial
statements component units, being the health facilities authority, the
housing finance authority, the industrial development authority and
the educational facilities authority.
These are the only component units that we identified that were
financially and control-wise linked to the county. Their activity was
very small in the past year.
The next two pages, pages 3 and 4, I think, are really the best
pages you can look at if you really want to get a snapshot about your
county government. And page 3 is a statement in net assets, and that's
basically what any person would look at, say, that's my balance sheet,
that shows basically what I own, what lowe, and what is left, what is
my equity in these numbers.
And I've summarized the major captions here. And we've put
over on the right comparative totals, but I'll cover some of the larger
numbers.
Cash investments, 833 million. A significant part of the county's
operations. Some of that is reserve, some of that -- almost $250
million of that is unspent bond proceeds related to capital
improvement bonds and gas tax bonds that were issued during the
year, but the projects that they were financing weren't expended
Page 91
June 6-7, 2006
before the end of the year.
The other significant asset is your capital assets, which is up to
about 1.5 billion. That includes all your roads, bridges, those types of
things. It includes essentially all your infrastructure as well as all the
county buildings, the land, equipment, those types of things.
You've been very active in capital expenditures over the last few
years, and I'll show you that on another slide. But right now you have
construction and progress of almost 427 million, and that represents a
number of projects that are going on. Those are both in the utilities
and in the regular county government.
There's been significant acquisitions of land the past two years,
mostly related to your Conservation Collier program, but that -- which
I commend you on. It's very important. But that is reflected in your
capital asset number.
The liabilities that you own principally are composed of
payables. Your typical payables, unearned revenues and our
long-term debt. The payables are up about $30 million from last year,
from 48 million to 74 million. Again, most of that is related to
expenditures on construction projects. Again, you've been very active
in capital expenditures.
Unearned revenues, essentially your impact fees. Collier County
has a policy that allows that if the impact fees are not spent within a
seven-year period of time, that the developer can request a refund of
the unspent monies. You are generally spending those impact fees,
but because there is that refund provision, they are deferred in your
financial statements and not recognized until you incur the expense.
Most other counties already are including this as a fund balance.
I think Lee County and Collier County are the only two that I have
that defer them because of the provisions they have. But that
represents a future financial resource, 139 million, which is
substantial.
And that is up, and we'll see not only did we spend more money
Page 92
June 6-7, 2006
out of impacts this year, but the collections that were taken in were
growing faster than the expenditures because there's so much
development taking place in the county.
Your long-term debt has been going up. You can see that last
year it was about 409 million. This year it's 678 million. Again,
principally related to the two bond issues I mentioned, the capital
improvement bond and the gas tax bonds.
As the person before me mentioned, you did issue some
commercial paper on your water and sewer systems this year to
finance some of those expenditures, and that was 27 million.
The important numbers to look at down here are your net assets,
and that's essentially what you're worth. And we divided it into three
different components. One is, we take all of your fixed assets, capital
assets, infrastructure, and we subtract the debt used to acquire those
items to come up with what we call invested in capital assets and that
of related debt.
That's roughly a billion dollars. That includes infrastructure. It
also is after depreciation expenses have been included in that
calculation.
Our restricted are those amounts that have been essentially set
aside because of, more than anything, your bond covenants that say
that certain amounts have to be set aside for debt service.
And your unrestricted, which is up to $382 million this year.
About a $30 million, 9 percent increase over last year. The bulk of
that was in the governmental activities, which was up about -- I think
about $25 million, and the rest was in the business type activities.
And I'll go over -- I have some slides over -- I want to go -- but I
think your fund balance is healthy. I don't think it's too high. I don't
think it's too low, and I'll show you how I think you've really done a
good job maintaining that fund balance at an adequate level.
The second page here, page 4, I think, is the other very important
statement that I would focus on, because this one page shows you
Page 93
June 6-7, 2006
what the county did this past year. It shows all the different
governmental as well as business type activities, it shows how much
the cost was to carry out those activities, and how those activities were
paid for, be it charges for services, operating grants and contributions
and capital grants and contributions.
And obviously the bottom part, the business type activities, those
are designed to essentially have their costs covered by fees, which
they are. The only one that really isn't is the emergency medical
services, and there the county historically has been transferring. I
think this past year was about $11 million from the general fund to
support the EMS activities.
The governmental activities up above are not designed to make a
profit. I mean, that's what people pay property taxes for and that's
what some of your other taxes are for, and those are identified down
here on the bottom.
Property taxes this year were $237 million compared to 213
million last year, combination of growth as well as the 11 percent
increase in the carrying value of -- the assessed value, rather, of your
properties.
But the 237 million is enough by itself to cover your
governmental activities net cost, which this year was $204 million.
That was almost identical to the cost last year of $203 million. There's
some reasons why this year is comparable. One of the biggest reasons
was because of the Article V requirements on the court operations.
There's about $12 million more revenue now that's flowing into the
county because of that that wasn't coming in before, so that obviously
has allowed you to cover more costs from sources other than taxes.
And then also in the transportation area, you had increased FT A
grants and impact fees that offset those costs. But this essentially
gives you a snapshot of all the governmental activities this year, and I
think it's a good slide as far as trying to understand how government
works, and if you can ever understand how government works. And
Page 94
June 6-7, 2006
it's, you know, simplest forms.
On the next page, I want to talk a little bit about your fund
balance. You can see that your fund balance this year grew up to $59
million from $53 million the year before. The important thing though,
there's a measure of, how is your fund balance compared to your
expenditures and your net transfers out?
Because essentially you want to have reserves on hand to
support, number one, the fact that you usually don't get much tax
collection for the first 60 days of the year. You want to have the
ability to manage things like Wilma, which, you know, had about $40
million of debris pick-up which is not reflected in these financial
statements, but as the county, you had to react, and you didn't want to
be strapped like New Orleans was in trying to meet the needs of the
citizens to recover from such an event.
But we looked at a percentage. And generally the GFY (sic) way
recommends a 5 to 15 percent range. What we usually see in Florida
counties is probably a 10 to 25 percent range, and you're at 21.8
percent this year, which was almost exactly the same as last year.
In fact, going back, other than a dip down in 2001 and 2002,
going back to 2000/1999, you were about 21 percent those years too,
so you've maintained your fund balance proportionately equal to the
growth in the operations of the county. So I think that's a good sign,
because you can do a couple things. You can use that -- you're using
money to buy roads, you're not borrowing all the money to pay for
some of these needs. At the same time, you're not dipping into your
fund balance to pay for it. You've got a wise balance of user fees,
debt, and reserves to cover the cost of the growth that's taking place in
this county.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do you have time for a question?
MR. JONES: I do.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In order to maintain a double A
Page 95
June 6-7, 2006
rating, what's the recommendations to keep in reserves?
MR. JONES: I don't know the answer to that. I think it's a little
-- a lot more than just reserves, but I do not know the answer to that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. JONES: I would think that you are in the favorable light as
far as that. Because I get to look at a lot of governments from around
the country, and when you look at some of the governments up in the
northeast and stuff, they're suffering.
New Orleans, for instance, had only a $20 million fund balance
before Hurricane Rita hit them, which is amazing -- or Katrina, rather.
They had no ability to react, and that's why the city is in the -- having
the problems they've had. I mean, you know, they tried to spend
everything that they got on what they thought were immediate needs.
But I believe your county is in an excellent position on that. I
don't know, if you had more fund balance, if it would make any
difference in your bond ratings or less. I don't know how far you
could go down before it would have an impact. But I think it's a
healthy fund balance, and you've maintained it status quo for a number
of years.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this slide in 2006 -- and I hate to
project next year. But in the 2006 budget, we moved $14.1 million in
the transportation smoothing fund down into transportation, and that
brought them to $38 million.
So if you take a look at that 58 -- now it will go up little bit, but
subtract 14 from it, and it kind of tells you where you sit. So I want to
make sure that you understand that.
It was rising up because you were also putting money into the
smoothing curve for transportation in that particular case over a series
of years, so I just want to make sure that you know.
MR. JONES: Good point.
On page 6, we show some of your other fund balance. And these
Page 96
June 6-7, 2006
are essentially special revenues -- revenue that's been earmarked for
specific purposes; in other words, you just can't spend it for general
government needs.
The debt service same thing. And capital projects, likewise, is
money that's earmarked solely for capital projects.
The big growth in the capital projects funds is the unspent bond
proceeds. So you see that red bar, and you've got twice as much as
you had before. Again, that was those two bond issues that were
issued this year, capital improvement bonds and the gas tax bonds.
They were funding a number of projects, and those monies are sitting
in there.
The special revenue fund also went up. Basically there's a whole
bunch of different special revenue funds, but the biggest ones in there
is you've got an $18 million fund balance for community
development, $25 million for your Conservation Collier, and $29
million for tourist development, so those are the three major funds
within that composition.
On page 7 I've just graphed it out, a comparison of your revenue
sources for the last five years. And on page 8, there was a little pie
chart that shows that. But again, looking at this, there's a couple that
stand out.
Again, the taxes, most of that is property taxes; probably 237
million of that 268 million is taxes. That's where most of the growth
went.
Licenses and permits were up to $21 million. You can just see
two years ago they were 13 million. That's a combination of two
things; one, there's a lot of growth in the county, but also with
Hurricane Charley going through, there was a lot of permits taken out
for reconstruction and those types of things, which added to that
revenue.
Charges for services. I've mentioned that includes new revenue
from the Article V provision that flows back to the county.
Page 97
June 6-7, 2006
Impact fees. Again, that is a function of your expenditures
because you spend it and then you recognize it, so you had a lot more
expenditures of those money. At the same time, the collections come
in, were coming in even quicker than the expenditures.
And then interest income has obviously gone up. Rates are
rebounding at the same time. The cost of new debt is going up, too.
So they kind of go in tandem.
As I mentioned, page 8 essentially shows you the sources. And,
again, taxes were 55 percent of your total revenue base in the current
year.
Page 9 is the same for expenditures. And unlike any other
county, your biggest expenditure is on capital outlay. This year was
$174 million. That's a very large percentage of your budget, but
you've got definitely the needs here. The growth is incredible. You
know, the infrastructure that you're putting in place.
I don't live here. My father-in-law used to live here before he
passed away. But I think Collier has always been proactive in trying
to meet the needs of what's going on. And obviously to spend that
much in capital outlet, you need to do that.
Your largest single expenditure is public safety, and that's 27
percent of all of your expenses. If we went back to that earlier chart
where we excluded capital outlay and we included appreciation,
public safety is probably 40 percent of your government expenditures.
Page 10 is a pie chart. Again, there was really no change in your
public safety or general government categories compared to the prior
year. And, again, the largest is capital outlay at 34 percent.
Pages 11 and 12 are basically summarizing the -- your debt
position over the last five years, and there's been a lot of growth. And,
again, you've been financing a lot of your capital outlay with some of
your revenues, but you also have to borrow money to meet those
needs, and future revenues will pay the debt back on that.
But you can see that our outstanding debt at the end of the year
Page 98
June 6-7, 2006
was 510 million. Again, quite a bit of that was sitting in a bank
account at the end of the year, but, again, that's the unspent bond
proceeds and -- well, those two new bond issues.
Last year reflected a significant increase too. And remember,
you had about 50 million in bonds, capital improvement bonds, for the
jail complex and things like that.
The water and sewer debt. The biggest increase this year was
commercial paper, the $27 million, and then about $12 million in
additional borrows on your state revolving loans, which is the notes
payable.
And as the previously presenter showed, there's going to be quite
a lot of capital expenditures that have to go on in the next few years.
In fact, as I'll show you later, the cost of your construction
expansion and upgrading of your system is more than your operating
costs of your system. That's how much the demand is on your
capacity.
On page 13 is just a summary of the revenues and expenses. The
73 million revenue, again, increased usage and some increased rates.
Fifty-nine million dollars was your cost. That did not go up near
as much as the revenues did. Again, as he mentioned in his previous
presentation, your unused capacity can be very expensive. So as you
grow your system and you've got more users, it cuts down your fixed
cost as a proportion.
On page 14 we reflect just some of the cash flows. And, again,
this linked -- by the way, I'm an accountant, but I did appreciate the
PRM presentation before. He did a good job, I think, of explaining
the rates and stuff. So that fits into a lot of this.
But, again, you want your operations to generate cash flow to
service your debt to help pay for those expenditures that are not
covered by debt or impact fees.
And so you can see, we have $32 million of cash from
operations. We have $23 million of system development charges, and
Page 99
June 6-7, 2006
at the same time, we expended $73 million on capital expenditures
and $11 million in debt.
So the difference came from the $40 million of additional debt
we had this year, including the 27 million commercial paper.
Just a couple more slides. Page 15 is just a summary of your
cash and investments. There's a lot of regulations that cover how you
invest your money, some that have been established locally, some by
the state.
If you look at the notes in the financial statements, the
disclosures on cash investments change considerably this year. It's
actually a very detailed presentation, and it gives you a lot more
information than you had in prior year financial statements. But
essentially this is a summary of where we had most of our investments
at the end of the year.
The single audit also received unqualified or clean opinions.
These are the different programs that we look at. We use a risk-based
approach to our programs. In other words, if we've audited it one
year, we may skip it the next year, unless it's very major.
Like state revolving loan, we usually look at that every year
because they also have a closeout requirement, so at points in time
they're going to have us look at it.
But major federal programs, look at six, and they represented a
total of $25 million. Next year this will change considerable because
of the FEMA on Wilma. That will definitely be a major program,
which comes under your Homeland Security grant, and that was
money that we looked at last year particularly, and then some this
year.
And then the major state programs, we also looked at six, and
you get $11 million total funding out of the state. The largest was
your Golden Gate Parkway widening overpass project, which was
about $5 million.
And then on page 17, I've talked about the first three items. The
Page 100
June 6-7, 2006
only other item out there is -- and I'm not sure if your staff has advised
you on this, but there is a new accounting pronouncement that will
require municipalities to reflect the liability for their unfunded what
they call OPEB, other post employment benefits, and this is -- I think
it's 2007, Crystal, or 8?
MS. KINZEL: Eight for us, I think.
MR. JONES: Eight, that it has to be implemented. But
essentially under Florida law and under county policy, people that
retire from the county do have their insurance, health insurance,
subsidized by the count as a retired employer -- employee.
The amount of that subsidy -- and there's two type of subsidies.
There's a direct where you can say, well, the premium cost is X.
We're going to pay you -- cover 50 percent. The other is, if you let
them pay 100 percent of what the employees are paying here, they're
still what they call an implied subsidy, because if these people were in
their own group of retired people, their cost would be significantly
higher.
But there will have to be an actuarial count -- calculation done of
what that liability is. And the county will have a choice of how they
can fund it or do pay as you go, which is what you've been doing. But
that is going to be an impact. And I think most people are now in the
process of engaging actuaries to calculate what that cost will be to
their government and how they want to address it. But that's the only
thing major on the horizon.
Again, the audit went good. You've got excellent people to work
with, and I'd be happy to respond to any questions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. Commissioner Henning has a
question for you, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Several. Can we get a copy of
this, the disk, on a disk, your presentation?
MR. JONES: Sure. In fact I -- we have it on a disk, so Derek
can give that to you, yes.
Page 101
June 6-7, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Very interesting.
Page 7, the different graphs, I don't think they're tracking the
same way as the figures is -- I'm assuming that's because of the scale
of the parameters that were put in.
MR. JONES: That could be. I -- they should be. Do you see
one that looks --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if you look for -- charges
for service is 2001 to 2005, they more than double.
MR. JONES: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So is it just my eyes on the
graph?
MR. JONES: I don't know. It's hard to tell. I mean, I look at it
and I can see where the red bar might be almost double the green bar.
But yeah, I could just be -- the formulas are supposed to be right, but
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
MR. JONES: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The other thing, the
constitutional officers -- I think I get this right -- is you're saying that
you're not -- you haven't audited them. You just included those
figures?
MR. JONES: We do a separate audit. We actually treat each of
them as their own client.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. JONES: We meet with them at the beginning of the audit,
we go out there, we issue our stand-alone financial statements, which
is actually in a separate document that includes all of those.
We have exit conferences with them, and we usually try to get
those all done in December so they can -- that information can be
flowed into the CAFR. But we do a separate stand-alone audit. And
because of the nature of their offices and the relationships, we try to
treat them each as their own client and try to give them their own
Page 102
June 6-7, 2006
separate service.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The -- you give us
certain things to correct within the audit --
MR. JONES: Yes, management letter.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- within your report. Are you
saying that the constitutional officers did everything correct and --
MR. JONES: I believe there was -- and correct me, Crystal. I
believe we had one or two management letter comments within the
constitutional officers that are not included in this letter.
MS. KINZEL: Separate letter.
MR. JONES: Yeah. They get a separate management letter also.
So they're -- what they are doing is not in this, but they do get a letter,
and it seems to me there's a couple comments, but I don't recall--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we get those?
MR. JONES: Yeah. Again, they should be in the thick copy of
the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, it is in here, okay.
MR. JONES: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did you look at the fire impact
fees and make sure they're allocated to their proper district? Did you
go into that type of detail?
MR. JONES: I can't remember. We did have a comment on an
impact fee that wasn't allocated appropriately that they corrected, and
I can't remember if that was fire or not.
MR. MUDD: Transportation.
MR. JONES: Transportation.
MR. MUDD: Road impact fees.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, it was transportation.
MR. JONES: But we do look at that. It might be on a broad test
basis, but we try to look at that, and we did select a test item that we
found had been allocated to the improper district and then they
corrected that.
Page 103
June 6-7, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. On your report talking
about the housing, the SHIP funds, the home programs and stuff like
that, am I getting this right? This wasn't corrected from the previous
year?
MR. JONES: Probably. I'm trying to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. It's a -- let's see. On
audit general, page 7 --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- was a big one.
MR. MUDD: We had a number of issues on home and SHIP,
part of which was to develop policies and procedures. And we had
done a lot of those. We're still working on updating some of the
policies and procedures during this review. Some of the things were
in -- we're working so that we couldn't get credit for having them done
and completed, but we're working on those past year audit remarks,
and that gives you a status of those particular issues on page 7 and
page 8.
MR. JONES: And I would echo what Mr. Mudd said. I believe
those are all corrected now, but September 30th, some of them weren't
or they may be in the process of being corrected.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I see.
MR. JONES: Since it's a single audit as opposed to our
traditional management letter, we have to report any findings within
that 12-month period. We can't say, well, they fixed it. We can take it
off. We're required to report them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I see. So maybe in the -- in
your next annual report, if you're so lucky to do it, we'll get a report on
how this has been fixed?
MR. JONES: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. I guess we'll wait till
then, unless we want to get it earlier.
Thank you.
Page 104
June 6-7, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any other questions from the
commissioners?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Coletta has his light on.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's for another issue.
Do I hear amotion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to accept the auditor's
report.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor,
we have a second. Motion by Commissioner Henning and a second
by Commissioner Fiala to accept the CAFR report.
Hearing no further discussion, call for the vote. 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: Motion carries. Thank you very much.
MR. JONES: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I believe Commissioner Coletta's
got a request for the county manager.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. What it is, we have two
people that are here to -- dealing with the right-of-way issue for Santa
Barbara and also Vanderbilt. I know that when we get back we have
to go right into our land use items. I was wondering if we might make
an estimate of what time this will come back to us so that they don't
have to sit through three or four hours of meetings until we get to it. If
we could give them an estimate on that, I think it would be wonderful.
Page 105
June 6-7, 2006
I'm not asking for a time certain. I know at this --
MR. MUDD: These are -- and these are 10 -- these are item 10
items, correct?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, this is item, excuse me,
10A and 16B3, which is EI0, 10E.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I would tell them not to be back before
11 -- or excuse me -- 3:30.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Three-thirty. Thank you, sir.
And when the time does come, I'm going to request that we hear the
Santa Barbara issue first, and then go to the Vanderbilt Beach issue,
change the order of it because of the timing of the issues coming
forward.
MR. MUDD: If that's what the board desires.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We will take a one-hour break. I request
that our commissioners and everybody else that's going to be here
return at 12 :20 (sic). Thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: At 1 :20.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Or 1 :20, excuse me.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's 12:20 now. It's going to be 1 :20.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, County Manager.
Board of County Commissioners are back in session from our
lunch break, and I'll let you direct us.
Item #8H
Page 106
June 6-7, 2006
PUDEX-2005-AR-8478: ROOKERY BAY BUSINESS PARK, LLC,
REPRESENTED BY WAYNE ARNOLD, OF Q. GRADY MINOR
AND ASSOCIATES, P. A. AND R. BRUCE ANDERSON, OF
ROETZEL & ANDRESS, REQUESTING A TWO-YEAR
EXTENSION TO THE ASGM BUSINESS CENTER OF NAPLES
PUD FROM OCTOBER 8,2005 TO OCTOBER 8,2007. THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF 40.88 ACRES, IS
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF COLLIER BOULEVARD
(CR 951), APPROXIMATELY OF A MILE SOUTH OF
MANATEE ROAD, IN SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA-
CONTINUED TO JUNE 20~ 2006 BCC MEETING - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I believe that Commissioner Fiala
in our opening -- in our opening comments today wanted to have a
motion on item 7B, which is now 8H.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That I did.
MR. MUDD: And this has to do with the continuation of the
two-year extension request for ASGM Business Center.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: And Commissioner, I think -- and we need a mo --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I would like to make a motion
that we continue it to the next meeting.
MR. MUDD: Twenty June, yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I have a second on that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. Motion by Commissioner
Fiala to continue 8H, which was 7B originally, to be continued to June
20th, and a second by Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Coletta.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- Coletta. If there's no further
discussion, I'll call the question.
Page 107
June 6-7, 2006
All those in favor of this motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Absent.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Mudd.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
Item #8C
ORDINANCE 2006-28: PUDZ-2005-AR-8126: ROCK CREEK
HOLDINGS, LLC, REPRESENTED BY R. BRUCE ANDERSON,
OF ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA AND BRUCE TYSON, OF
WILSONMILLER, INC., REQUESTING A REZONE FROM THE
C-4 (COMMERCIAL) AND RMF-6 (RESIDENTIAL) ZONING
DISTRICTS TO THE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW
DEVELOPMENT OF A MAXIMUM OF 120 MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS, TO INCLUDE A
MAXIMUM OF 24 OR 20 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL
DWELLING UNITS AS WORKFORCE HOUSING UNITS FOR A
PROJECT KNOWN AS MERIDIAN VILLAGE RPUD. THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF 11.68 ACRES, IS
LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE
INTERSECTION OF AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD AND ESTEY
AVENUE, IN SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - ADOPTED
W/STIPULA TIONS
Page 108
June 6-7, 2006
The next item on our agenda is 8C. This item requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
commission members.
It's PUDZ-2005-AR-8126, Rock Creek Holdings, LLC,
represented by R. Bruce Anderson, of Roetzel & Andress, LP A, and
Bruce Tyson of Wilson Miller, Inc., requesting a rezone from the C4
commercial in an RMF -6 residential zoning districts to the residential
planned unit development, RPUD, zoning districts, to allow
development of 120 multifamily residential dwelling units to include a
maximum of 24, or 20 percent, of the total dwelling units -- it's easy
for you to say.
Let's say that one more time -- to include a maximum of 24, or 20
percent of the total dwelling units as workforce housing units for a
project known as Meridian Village RPUD.
The subject property consisting of 11.68 acres is located on the
northwest corner of the intersection of Airport-Pulling Road and Estey
Avenue in Section 2, Township 50 south, Range 25 east, Collier
County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. At this time would everyone
that's going to testify in this land development case please rise to be
sworn In.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. At this time would the--
Commissioner Coy Ie, would you -- do you have any ex parte on this
particular item?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I do, Mr. Chair. I have had a
meeting with representatives of the petitioner, and that is all that I
have in my file.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. On 8C I've met with Bruce
Anderson on 6/5, a letter from Michael Metcalf on 4/28, and phone
Page 109
June 6-7, 2006
call to the same.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I, myself, have had -- met with
the petitioner, had some emails on this item, and they're all in my
folder.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've met with Bruce Anderson
also. I've met with staff and -- with our transportation staff as well as
some people down in community development, talked to people as
they came through my office, preparation meetings for this meeting,
and I think I've even talked to the county attorney a little bit.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I talked to some residents at
Rock Creek R V Campground, and I've received some emails,
correspondence on this, and that's it, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. TYSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Bruce Tyson. I'm a Certified Planner and Landscape Architect with
WilsonMiller in Naples.
With me today is our attorney, Bruce Anderson, of Roetzel &
Andress, and we are representing Rock Creek Holdings, the owners of
the property that is the subject of this petition, their principal and
managing partner here today, Rogers Wells and Mike Metcalf, and
also in attendance from WilsonMiller is Jeff Perry, our lead
transportation planner.
Probably the easiest way to do this is for me to point to this
graphic that's up on the wall for everybody to see.
MR. MUDD: If you grab this right here, maybe you won't--
hang on. This one. See it?
MR. TYSON: All right. I have a relatively large graphic here
that -- and the importance of this is to demonstrate the proximity of
this location.
Rock Creek, the property is right here. Meridian Village, I should
Page 110
June 6-7, 2006
say. And this is Airport Road, which heads in a north/south direction,
of course. Davis Boulevard, which is right there. You have
Shadowlawn which continues down to 41, comes back up to Estey and
crosses Estey right there at that location.
Radio Road, which is right here, runs east/west, and, of course,
the airport is located on the graphic here to the west of Airport Road.
The proj ect is bounded to the north by Rock Creek and the Rock
Creek R V resort, and then to the east of it is the -- is commercial uses,
basically. It's a Shell station and convenience store. They are C-4
uses.
To the south by Estey Avenue and commercial uses, that's -- it's a
used car sales location, as -- and the Salvation Army PUD, and to the
west by single-family and multifamily dwellings.
What's important is, when you look at this graphic, is to
recognize that on the top, and right there, is where our transportation
and community development services are located, and, of course, we
are right here, the other hub of the major activity and employment
centers of Collier County government.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And also the industrial center is a
large employment center, right?
MR. TYSON: Well, we have a significant -- well, I'm going to
look at that as being more low density, but absolutely. It's the
industrial park, the Arnold Industrial Park, which is right here.
Comprises a lot of land relatively low density. But at the same time
from pure intensity standpoint, we have the main uses from the
county. That's a good point, thank you.
The other thing that's unique about this property is that at the
corner of Estey and Airport, right here in this location, is the CAT
transfer station.
Now, it -- for one person who typically doesn't use that service,
at the same time I was very pleased to see that there's now nine bus
routes, and they all converge at that one location throughout the day
Page 111
June 6-7, 2006
and then take on different routes, so that's the transfer point. And this
project is literally diagonal across the intersection from that point.
This section of the county is fully served with sidewalks. It is
approximately three-quarters of a mile to the Shadowlawn Elementary
School. It's about a quarter mile to the Lorenzo Walker Institute of
Technology, and it's about a half mile to the East Naples Middle
School. It's also about a mile -- or excuse me -- about a half mile to
three-quarters of a mile to two places of worship that are down on
Shadowlawn.
It's also a very easy walk to many convenient shops, food outlets
and drugstores. Simply stated, it's an excellent residential infill
property with an exceptional location.
This is -- the total property, as indicated before, is 11.68 acres;
4.89 of those acres are in a C-4 district, which is out adjacent to
Airport Road, it's right there. The balance of it, or 6.7 acres, is
RMF-6, and that's on the western portion of the property.
The petition request and overall unit count of 120 multifamily
residential dwelling units has been found to be consistent with the
Growth Management Plan by county staff. This unit count is derived
by using the conversion of commercial zoning to residential zoning at
the rate of 16 units per acre, or 80 acres, and by adding the 6.7 acres of
RMF -6 land at six units per acre, or 40 acres.
The 120 units will create an overall density of 10.27 units per
acre. Let's put that up there. There's a -- another way of possibly
looking at the density that you may want to consider, and at the --
again, the total project is 11.68 acres. The entire project, if you were to
look at it with an RMF -6, would generate 70 units.
Weare requesting or we're going to place -- we're not even
requesting, we're going to do it -- a number of affordable units at 24.
In order to make those affordable units work, we're looking for 26
additional units.
The project will have a 20 percent affordable housing
Page 112
June 6-7, 2006
component, which is comprised of 15 percent of workforce housing at
the 80 percent of median income, and 5 percent of gap housing at 150
percent of the median income.
The proj ect is not requesting a housing affordable -- or affordable
housing bonus. The applicant only is -- has requested the expedited
staff review process for the project.
The affordable housing units will be embedded within the market
rate multifamily structures.
The fact that 20 percent of the units will be affordable and given
the project's unique location with regard to employment centers --
thank you -- and close to the employment centers, schools,
transportation networks and convenience shopping is exactly what's
needed in this location.
Interestingly, in the April 24, 2006 edition of the Naples Daily
News, in one of their Paradise, What It Costs articles, one of the more
interesting statistics that was highlighted was a chart that indicated the
major employers in the health care system, the government system, as
well as the fire district, were looking for 841 places to dwell, so a
significant number. And while 24 is a relatively small number of that,
given its location, it's really important that we consider that at this
point.
But aside from that, I don't think there's a firm or an agency in
Collier County that has -- that really hasn't felt the effect of the high
cost of local housing.
The concept for the project will be to have the perimeter
vehicular system. The perimeter vehicular system will wrap around
the project and will have the housing units within a building zone that
will be toward the center of the proj ect. ,
There's a very small quantity of wetlands, very difficult to pick
up on this because of the graphic. It's only about -- it's a little less than
a quarter of an acre, that is associated with Rock Creek, which is a
tidal stream to the north, and that is going to remain completely. We
Page 113
June 6-7, 2006
will not touch that during the development.
The other part of it is that because there are a number of pine
trees -- I'm sure that you've recognized that in driving by the property,
there's a relatively high number or high quantity of land that is in the
native vegetation category, and 2.19 acres of that native preserve is
demonstrated in this area right there.
Access to the property will be from Estey Avenue about as close
as we can -- or as far away, I should say, as we can get it from the
intersection of Airport Road. And, of course, the water management
lakes, the idea is to havethe dwellings surround those so that the
people have pleasant views into a water management lake.
The idea will be to have a gate for the community, and within the
community we will provide sidewalks, and there will be a connection
made to the public sidewalk system on Estey Avenue.
I indicated, I think, somewhere in the presentation so far that
there are a number of sidewalks, all the major arterials here have
sidewalks on both sides of the street, so we will want to do as much as
we possibly can to continue that and make everybody -- or have the
opportunity for everybody to walk out to those streets and use them.
At the neighborhood information meeting that was conducted in
accordance with the policies, we received a fair amount of feedback
from the participants, and since that point, both of the principals who
are tied to the project, Mike Metcalf and Rogers Wells, has spent
times with those residents whose homes abut the property, and they
were just to answer questions and to further explain anything that was
going to happen.
At the CCPC hearing, well, we had a few speakers expressing
concerns about traffic, and the executive director of the Naples Airport
Authority expressed concern about the project's location in regard to
the airport.
At that hearing we stated that any and all work for the site would
comply with the county and the FAA's regulations. And Mr. Soliday
Page 114
June 6-7, 2006
was there, and he asked that the developer kind of go beyond these
regulations. He requested that in addition to what is stated in the LDC
that, in fact, we sign an avigation easement and that, as well, have
information placed in the condominium documents that would express
the statement of how close this project was to the airport and, in
addition, would want the people who were reading those documents,
better known as the purchasers of the property, to acknowledge and
send back a note or letter to the airport indicating, in fact, that they
had read the documents.
Our client has agreed with the Naples Airport Authority and
requests, in the request for the easement and noticing, and that is
basically upon approval of the PUD, they will sign an avigation
easement, and once the condominium documents have been created, in
fact, there will be a component in there, as stated -- and I believe it's in
section 5.11 of the PUD, you can actually read the language and the
specifics of what was going in there. Anyway, all of those things will
take place.
From the standpoint of the airport, we received some information
at that time which was referred to as the future non-precision approach
zone. And what I want to do is just take a little bit of time to explain
some of these things because it's somewhat important to recognize the
position of this property as it relates to the airport.
There's three lines that you'll notice here that come diagonally
back from the airport. And if you'll recall, the airport, of course, was
immediately to the northwest of this property.
Where the arrow is right now is the center line of the runway.
That point happens to be -- that center line happens to be about 440
feet from the closest residential -- the likely point of the closest
residential structure.
The next line in is the current line for the approach safety zone,
and the line to the outside is a proposed line for a safety zone, which
I'll refer to as the runway protection district or runway protection
Page 115
June 6-7, 2006
zone. I've learned a lot about airports here recently.
Anyway, within the -- the other thing, of course, that's important
to recognize is that within the rules and regulations of the county, we
have noise barriers and noise zones that say if, in fact, you fit within
one of these noise zones that come from the airport, that in fact you
will need to notify everybody on the property that you are within one
of these noise contours.
Well, this little point right down here on the very far tip, far
northern -- northeast corner, there's about .04 acres of this project that
fits within the outer zone or the furthest LDN zone, is what it's
referred to, and that's about less than one half of 1 percent of the total
proj ect.
Because of that, we will notify everybody . We will soundproof
buildings as required by the rules. And from that standpoint, everyone
will have been, in fact, notified as to what is occurring.
Now, significant to the project is that within -- and I'm just going
to refer to the proposed line, because we feel that at some point in time
that proposed line will, in fact, become rule. If I worked with this line,
it would be -- you know, it would be just argumentative as to how
soon something else is going to happen. So let's just work with this
outer line.
We have about 1.67 acres of the project that's within that. Of
that, approximately -- little over an acre is in the preserve. And only
about half an acre, little over half an acre, .53 acres, fits within this
triangle, which is the development zone.
We attempted with this plan to show that with the setbacks, with
the parking, with the circulation, where the edge of the building area
would likely be, and in this slightly darker zone is where the
residential structures are likely to appear.
Again, the little corner that is -- potentially may not even have a
building, but at the same time is within what we consider to be our
future development zone, is -- again, it's only .04 acres, a very, very
Page 116
June 6-7, 2006
small portion of the project.
Putting that whole thing into perspective, the overlay covers
about 9 percent of the land designated for development on the master
plan.
As I indicated before -- and this is -- recognize, too, that this
runway is strictly in a visual runway. It's not an instrument landing,
so the only time they use it is when you can actually see what the
pilots can.
So that 440 feet would be quite a wing span, and we don't expect
anybody to be in the area, even though it is a protection zone,
recognize that it's -- it's going to be pretty far away from where the
airplanes would be in relation to where that protection district is.
And then secondly, the point -- this point of the building zone
right here is about 1,385 feet from the end of the runway, which is
back in this direction to the airport. So we've done all the technical
knowledge that we'd have to look at to understand what the impacts
would likely be on the project, and we feel that we've got a very good
understanding.
And if you look at the way in which we've designed the project
with most of the runway protection zone in preserve, we've done
everything we can to minimize the impacts that would occur to any
residential structures because of the way in which the airport runway
protection districts are established.
Within the PUD itself we have other commitments. We did a
traffic impact statement, of course, that was prepared, and the county
determined that there were no adverse impacts that were associated
with that.
We have agreed that at the corner of Estey and Airport, that we
will add an additional left-turn lane, so we're going to have two turn
lanes right now. One of the fascinating things is that we have a
left-turn lane but no dedicated signal for that. So people have to wait
for traffic coming from westbound Estey to cross over before they can
Page 11 7
June 6-7, 2006
take a left and go and use Airport Road.
So we will create a double left with an express arrow for the turn,
so that should help to alleviate any kind of situation that exists with a
backup.
From the environmental standpoint, there are no jurisdictional
wetlands that are going to be altered on the property, no listed species
were found on the property, and because of that, we did not have to go
to the EAC.
There were no specific engineering issues from the engineering
team. And one of the things we did learn from the -- and worked with
the residents along Steeves Avenue was we recognized that the __
there's single-family buildings. And as you can look at the plan and
recognize where we're likely to put these structures, we've indicated
there to be a minimum of a 50-foot setback from Steeves to any of the
buildings in the proj ect.
This representation of the building is a -- it's a 15-unit building,
three stories. To the top of the roof, a maximum of 45 feet. This is
the same graphic that was shown to the neighborhood at the
neighborhood information meeting as well as to the Planning
Commission.
And obviously there's some like tweaks that will need to be done.
We don't have an architect that's been -- that has been signed up on
the project as yet, as we're still in a very conceptual stage. But
nonetheless, that's a close graphic representation of what you can
expect to see on the property. And, of course, once the SDP gets done
and the building elevations are done, those will be shared.
During the elevation -- or the evaluation process of the project,
we assessed various components of this project that would have an
impact or an effect on the type of development suggested for the land.
One of the most significant items that always is found in there deals
with transportation and the roadway system, and I would like to have
Jeff Perry describe some of the various scenarios that we considered
Page 118
June 6-7, 2006
and the overall condition of the roadway system in the vicinity of the
project. Jeff?
MR. PERRY: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Jeff
Perry. I'm a transportation planner with WilsonMiller.
As Bruce indicated, the site is currently zoned RMF -6 and C-4,
as such about the five acres of the C-4 commercial zoning would
accommodate a certain amount of commercial development.
As we looked at this type of development potential, we tried to
judge whether or not we would have all retail or a mix of retail and
office. We're able to sort of generate some what-if scenarios if we
developed it as a mix of commercial in conjunction with the 70
multifamily dwelling units that would be permitted on the -- excuse
me -- with 40 multifamily dwelling units that would be permitted on
the approved existing multifamily zoning.
We looked at two different scenarios, specifically one that
provided for -- one that provided for two-thirds retail and one-third
office use of the commercial development, about 33,000 square feet of
retail, and 17,000 square feet of general office building, plus the 40
dwelling units, generating approximately 3,785 daily trips and about
355 during the peak hour.
A little worst-case scenario would be developing the entire site as
retail, 50,000 square feet of retail and 40 dwelling units on the
multifamily portion for 4,600 daily and 424 during the peak hour.
The important thing to note here is that if converted entirely to
residential, 120 residential units, instead of 4,600 daily trips, we're
talking about 749 daily trips. And instead of 424 during the peak
hour, we're talking about 70 during the peak hour. So it's a substantial
reduction in the future traffic impact depending on how the project is
ultimately developed.
Obviously, there could be other mixes of commercial office. But
generally speaking, that's sort of the worst- and least-case scenarios
for the commercial development.
Page 119
June 6-7, 2006
The other important thing to note here is that Airport Road, Davis
Boulevard, are currently operating at acceptable levels of service;
operating at level of service C. The intersection at Estey Avenue and
Airport Road is also operating at an acceptable level of service; level
of service C.
Our buildout year, the point at which we expect to be completed,
or near completed, would be 2008. When we analyze that both with
and without the project traffic that we're proposing, without project
traffic, the roads and intersections continue to operate at acceptable
levels of service.
And with improvements that have -- the transportation
department has asked us to make, would continue to -- the intersection
would also continue to operate at an acceptable level of service C.
As Bruce indicated, the important improvement that we're talking
about here is the extension or addition of an additional eastbound
left-turn lane.
The existing single left-turn lane stretches all the way back from
Airport Road westward all the way to Steeves Avenue. By adding an
additional left-turn lane, we're able to, in essence, cut in half the queue
length. You're able to store the same amount of cars in half the linear
distance back from Estey because there are now two rows -- two lines
of cars.
This does two things. Number one, it pulls that queue or that
length of stacking cars away from our entrance road so that our project
and people trying to get in and out of Steeves Avenue, as well as
people trying to get in and out of our entrance road would be less
likely to encounter cars waiting in line on Estey Avenue at the traffic
signal.
Another more important factor is that dual left-turn lanes will
allow the traffic signal to operate more efficiently . You get twice as
many cars, twice as much through-put, if you will, twice as many cars
going through the cycle of the green time for the left-turn lane. So
Page 120
June 6-7, 2006
that's a very important improvement that we're proposing to make.
So as I said, with project traffic in the buildout year as we're
proposing to be constructed, all of the level of service standards would
be met. We believe that this is entirely, from a traffic standpoint, you
can't ask for really a better solution to development of this particular
parcel, developing a site like this with about 16 percent of the traffic
that could otherwise be there if it was developed as commercial and
multifamily together.
If you have any questions, I'll be glad to try to answer them.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala has some questions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I just had one. First of all, let
me tell you I think this is a wonderful project and I plan on voting for
it, so let me just say that up front.
I just have a couple little questions though, and, Bruce, you might
answer one. And one of the things -- but first, Jeff, one of the things
they said was, it's going to be difficult for them to get -- this is -- it's
entirely workforce in that area. You've got a lot of affordable rentals
there and the rest of them are workforce housing. So that means, you
don't have retirees, you have people going to work in the morning and
coming home at night.
And I had -- I had been -- it had been suggested that possibly it
was going to be difficult for these people to get out but they can't use
this Steeves Road, I think that's what it's called, Steeves Road.
MR. PERRY: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is there -- will this left-turn lane -- I
know it will improve it, but will they still have difficulty getting out of
there?
MR. PERRY: There will be a lot less difficulty getting out with
the dual left-turn lanes. There may be, at certain moments of the peak
hour of the day when those two turn lanes are fully loaded, waiting for
the traffic signal to turn green, there may be points at which someone
trying to get out of our site would not be able to do that, or if someone
Page 121
June 6-7, 2006
trying to get into the site if they were heading eastbound on Estey
Avenue, they would simply be in line waiting to reach the driveway.
Coming from the west won't be any problem, won't be anybody
able to turn into the driveway . We believe that the dual left-turn lane
is a very important improvement for everyone in the neighborhood.
It's not just for our -- for our residents that benefit by that particular
improvement.
They will be able to get out much easier. There perhaps will be
times when they'll have to wait within their driveway on their property
for an opening or a gap, let that queue empty out, and they'll be able to
make their left turn towards the signal.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I really appreciate your honesty
with that. And probably they'll know that when they buy there
realizing they have to leave for work early or whatever, because it's
not just going to be exit easy.
Okay. The second question I had -- and then I won't bother you
anymore until the next one comes along. The second one I have is, I
notice that this is 45 feet tall. Where's the parking going to be for
these people? Is it going to be underneath?
MR. TYSON: No, ma'am. We have sufficient space that will be
surrounding the project. That will be -- the parking will happen off of
this roadway, continue all the way around the edge. So interspersed
with where -- close -- and really close to the buildings will be the
parking with the building mainly surrounding the lake.
So we've looked at that, and we believe that from a proportion
standpoint -- we haven't designed it, but from the standpoint of
proportions and the way in which that appears at this time, you know,
there will be sufficient space for that to occur.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I have another question then.
Bruce --
MR. TYSON: Maybe I could finish a couple things.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
Page 122
June 6-7, 2006
MR. TYSON : Jeff asked about questions and --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. TYSON: -- let me just run through, and I can wrap up, and
then we'll be done and get on with the questions, if that would work.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay, good. All right.
MR. TYSON: I did want to point out a couple of things, that did
-- first of all, did occur at the neighborhood information meeting. You
may have seen them on the plan.
Steeves Avenue runs immediately west of the project, right
through here. It right now has a -- it's a dead-end street that ends
approximately where the cursor is.
We suggested that they connect through to this property so that
there would be an easy opportunity for people to loop around, get in
and out of the proj ect. They did not want to have that happen.
So what we have done, in talking to the fire department who is
the one who was mostly concerned about this, is to -- first of all, we're
going to create a turnaround within the right-of-way of Steeves
Avenue that will accommodate probably about 90 percent of the truck
traffic or any car traffic that comes back in there.
Secondly is that right at the property line we'll create a gate,
12- foot gate with a lockbox for the fire department so that they can,
upon need and demand, run through that, if they're in here, need to get
out, they can do that quickly and easily. That was at the request of the
East Naples Fire Department. So from that standpoint, we should be
able to accommodate all of the trucks and the traffic that is needed at
that point.
I just wanted to close here by stating that while we have a density
of the 1 point -- or excuse me, the 10.27 units per acre, but I wanted to
let you know that by voting for this, you will not set a precedent, as
you have recently approved two other proj ects with slightly high
densities within the coastal high hazard district area.
They happen to be Botanical Place, which has an affordable
Page 123
June 6-7, 2006
housing bonus tied to it, but that is 10.99 units per acre, 218 units in
total down on Bayshore; and Serus Point, which is -- has an affordable
housing bonus also tied to it, but it is 10.89 units per acre. That too is
down off of Bayshore.
The county staff deemed the project to be in compliance with the
growth management plan in the applicable sections of the Land
Development Code. The project received a 5-3 favorable vote from
the Planning Commission on May 18th.
I'd just like to point out, in summary here, some of what we
consider to be the real benefits of this project. Its proximity to a major
employment center will mean shorter trips for the residents of
Meridian Village, which will help reduce traffic on other roads within
the county.
Because the project meets the county's concurrency
requirements, we can proceed with the SDP permitting as soon as this
project is approved. One of the problems with so many of the
approved affordable housing projects is they cannot receive their final
development orders since they cannot meet the current county
concurrency standards. By doing this, we are going to get these units
to market as soon as possible.
The development is an infill project, completely surrounded
development. Additional setbacks, buffering and preserves have been
strategically placed to minimize the impact to surrounding receptors.
And because of the project's proximity to neighborhood schools, retail
facilities and public transportation system, it is my belief that the
additional vibrancy and a better sense of community will be added to
this section of the county, which can only be positive.
The fact that the affordable units will be embedded within the
multifamily market rate units should minimize social and economic
differences.
And the development through the zoning change will remove
approximately 80 percent of the potential trips from the immediate
Page 124
June 6-7, 2006
roadway system, a significant public benefit. In addition, dependency
on personal vehicular use should be minimized with the public
transportation, sidewalks, and convenience retail close by. Again,
overall reduction in roadway congestion.
Lastly, this is a perfect location for a project that will offer both
affordable product, but is also planned to have the balance of the
market rate units in the high 300s and low $400,000 range. The
developers are planning a project that can be a substantial benefit to a
broad spectrum of Collier County workforce.
Thank you, and I'll entertain your questions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. I have a number of questions. First
of all, I think your presentation was great, and I think that workforce
houses is the utmost important thing that we realize that we need to
take place in this county.
My concern is the density. Number one, you brought it up in
regards to the coastal high hazard area. And the -- I believe that the
two items that you talked about where the density was higher, that was
because of the fact that is has an overlay, and that's in the Bayshore
area.
My concern is, I think we have some other traffic issues. One of
the traffic issues is the failure of the intersection of Airport and Davis
Boulevard, which isn't too far away from this location.
The other concern that I have is the fact that you're assuming that
we're going to increase the density of that commercial to 16 units per
acre. I have some ideas of what I feel should be adequate density for
that.
But first of all, could you address the question about the failure of
the intersection that we presently have, and that's at Davis Boulevard
and Airport?
MR. PERRY: Mr. Chairman, the traffic analysis requirements,
there is a term you're probably familiar with, de minimis, which is, it's
an extension --
Page 125
June 6-7, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I've heard that an awful lot. And de
minimis is getting us into trouble.
MR. PERRY: Okay. Well, it's also the measure by which traffic
from a given project is so small that it is similar to what you would
commonly refer to as a rounding error.
The traffic coming from this particular proj ect during the peak
hour of the day, when distributed in all directions to and from the site
-- there's four different directions the traffic can go -- that the amount
of traffic that actually gets onto any of those given roadways is, in
fact, de minimis. It's less than 1 percent of the service volume or the
capacity of those roadways. It is not absolutely no -- it has absolutely
no measurable effect on the Davis Boulevard intersection.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. PERRY: Contrary to that, if this site were developed as the
commercial with substantial amounts of traffic, as much as 10 times
the amount of traffic generated during the peak hour, a substantial
portion of that would, in fact, impact that intersection and, I would
suspect, would become a problem.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. My concern is that most of the
area around there, the 7. -- or 6.7 acres right now is RMF-6, and I
believe that's what you're using with your calculations.
Myself, I look at the additional five acres that you have, roughly
five acres -- I think it's 4.9 acres, is affordable. I would like to see that
all as affordable as eight units per acre under the auspices of what
we've -- this Board of County Commissioners has come up with
recently, and I think that would be a good mix, and that would give
you -- we'd cut down the density, and I think it would be about 82
units in that particular area.
Because I believe you talked about the average cost of the other
homes would be somewheres between 300- and $400,000. So that's
where I stand as far as the density is.
MR. TYSON : Well, I can certainly appreciate what you're
Page 126
June 6-7, 2006
saying. We're looking at this as a total package. And the point is that
we can -- the affordable units basically -- I'm sure you've all heard the
stories of what happens when you put an affordable unit down, that it's
literally a give-away by the part of the developer, and sometimes at a
loss.
So consequently, we have a situation here with the land cost,
with the cost of construction. You know, we're looking at a situation
where these units, especially the way in which we're planning them
and placing them on the property, would wind up being literally
glve-aways.
The other side of that is, we're not trying to create a product that
is uniquely different from that which is in the neighborhood. And as
soon as you start to reduce density, you're going to have to improve
the quality of those units in order to get your money back.
And the problem is that you wind up with a situation -- I'm not
going to tell you it's incompatible. We've got a lot of places around
the county that are slowly changing and making that happen. But I
will tell you that at eight units per acre, this project, as conceived,
doesn't work.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, you know where I stand on it.
MR. TYSON: I understand.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there going to be an affordable
housing agreement for the 24 affordable units to make sure they stay
affordable housing?
MR. TYSON: The agreement has already been signed but it's
not the typical housing -- affordable housing agreement. They will
stay that way because in the expedited review process, we already
have signed that with the county. That's in place. So as far as I am
aware, those units will stay affordable,
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. What does that mean? It's
not the same --
Page 127
June 6-7, 2006
MS. DESELEM: Not exactly as it was. There was discussion
that was brought out, and they did add conditions to it. They did
adopt several things, and staff attempted to make it clear with the
strike- through underline what portions were brought forward.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, strike-through underline on
what?
MS. DESELEM: On page 6.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The ones that you just told me
were not part of the recommendation?
MS. DESELEM: The one that you were talking about, which
was --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Number 5.
MS. DESELEM: -- number 5, and you can see that it says, the
NAA revised this comment. It's the same density as the surrounding
property, but there was no limitation -- the CCPC did not make a
limitation to come up with something other than the 120 units that was
proposed. And I --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But the other recommendations
where you've had underlines, you're telling me that the CCPC did, in
fact, approve those?
MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir, and I do apologize for the confusion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So they approved, one, two, three
-- one, two, I guess, parts of six and seven, but five, for some reason,
was not part of their recommendation?
MS. DESELEM: They didn't specifically address it to come up
with a density other than what was proposed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's very confusing, okay.
Now, you're not asking for any affordable housing density
bonuses at all, but you're presuming that you're entitled to a 16-unit
conversion for the commercial.
MR. TYSON: I'm not going to say entitled. That's -- we're just
indicating that we're using what is in the Growth Management Plan as
Page 129
June 6-7, 2006
MR. TYSON: Yeah, they're in the PUD. It's done that way so
that they will be part of it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I just want somebody to tell
me it's done what way, okay? How long will it stay affordable
housing? Does it have the 15-year requirement? Does it guarantee
that the prices will not be escalated in the marketplace?
MR. BAKER: Yes, Commissioner. Denny Baker, for the
record. You're correct, it's a 15-year requirement. It's already been
executed. They have to remain affordable for that period of time, and
then they get into the profit sharing if they sell above the 5 percent per
year appreciation. That's all committed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, I'm concerned -- and
this is a question for staff. I am confused about the executive
summary which lists under Planning Commission recommendations a
statement that this project be approved only for the same density as
the surrounding property, which is RMF-6. Can you explain that
statement to me, please?
MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem, principal
planner. That is information that was taken from the letter from the
Naples Airport Authority . We were speaking, just characterizing what
was presented to the Planning Commission, and that was the way they
worded their letter to the CCPC; however, as -- if you read through
that, you'll see that later on that actually was not adopted as part of the
condition. It was just recommended with whatever limitation.
It was like the density was okay as it was. They did not limit it to
anything other than what was proposed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That is very unclear. It's listed
under the Planning Commission recommendation. And if it wasn't a
Planning Commission recommendation, it should not have been listed
under the Planning Commission recommendation. But in any event --
so you're saying to me that the Planning Commission recommended
approval exactly as this PUD was submitted?
Page 128
June 6-7, 2006
the technique to get us to the density that we've requested.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. And that works out to be a
ratio, essentially, of two -- a bonus of two market rate homes for every
one affordable housing unit that you build, actually a little bit more
than that?
MR. TYSON: Well, if you remember the chart that I put
together before, it's almost a one-to-one, because what we're asking
for, we had the 70 units, that if you looked at that whole property as an
RMF -6, which it had been at one time, and we're asking for 24
affordable using (sic) -- units, excuse me -- we need 26 units to get to
the actual density. It's very close to a one-to-one.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I think you're right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, Commissioner Fiala was
next.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Back to my height.
MR. TYSON: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The maximum height in that zoning
district is 35 feet, but you've proposed a three-story building at 45 feet.
What -- being that there's nothing else but one story in the area,
can you -- are you going to have like, oh, some kind of architectural
embellishments to take the immense look out of that area? I mean,
being that everything is one story.
MR. TYSON: We recognize that. The fact that what we've done
is -- has been -- first of all, we have a B buffer which surrounds the
property, which is a little bit more stringent than what would normally
be required as the -- typically residential to residential is an A. We're
doing, even though it's doing multifamily, we've got a B buffer here
that will require a planting, at the time of planting, a tree every 30 feet
on center, canopy tree, and we have agreed to a little bit bigger
Page 130
June 6-7, 2006
standard than what the county's rule is, I think is 10, the county
standard. We're going to put in a 12- foot tree. And we'll put in the
five- foot hedge, and that will be allowed to grow to the point of where
it will be a very good buffer between anything that's on the residential
side and what's on -- and in the development zone.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I guess what I meant is, you're not
going to just have a flat cement wall there?
MR. TYSON: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're going to have some kind of
architectural features that soften the look, right?
MR. TYSON: All the end units will have -- will have windows,
you know, so it will be -- it just won't be a monolithic concrete slab,
correct. It will be -- and we'll have a lot of landscaping that will be
surrounding the buildings. We've left enough room so there'll be a fair
amount of landscaping between the buildings.
Also, if you notice to the far northwest portion of the property, as
you look at it, there is a big -- I think it's about 75 feet of preserve, so
all of the native pine trees that exist in there will be maintained or
retained, and that will be in a permanent conservation easement.
And then in addition to that, then you cross and you have at least
85 feet because of buffers and parking widths and sidewalks and
everything else. You've got 85 feet before you're going to get to a
building, so we've set these buildings back as far as we can in order to
make the plan work. And that's what I was pointing out that, you
know, pretty sensitive to all of those issues that exist and the receptors
that exist within the area.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: All those workforce housing units
back behind this thing are all single-family. I was just hoping that
maybe some kind of architectural features could just soften it. I don't
know. You know, like little -- what do you call them, canopies or
something over the windows, just something that --
MR. TYSON: Sure.
Page 131
June 6-7, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- would make it a little more
pleasing looking.
Secondly, under the Planning Commission recommendation
number two, and it says, the petitioner must provide disclosure to all,
da-da, da-da, da-da, the petitioner must provide a signed copy to?
MR. TYSON: Naples Airport Authority.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, it doesn't say that. Okay.
MR. MUDD: Yes, it does, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It says, Naples Airport Authority
noted this is addressed in item number two, right? But to be sign --
that's crossed out where it says, to be signed at closing and sent to
NAA, right?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, NAA is not crossed out.
MR. MUDD: NAA is not crossed out.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, it is -- oh, I see. Very good.
MR. MUDD: It's just because the A's, they look like the lines go
through them.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I better get new glasses. Thank you.
I can't tell you how many times I read that and I never saw that.
And lastly, what will the gap pricing be at? You said up to 150. I
mean, will you make it more reasonable like 120 or --
MR. TYSON: It's very -- it's very high twos, low threes. I think
it's very close to 305-, $310,000, somewhere in there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's pretty much not gap
anymore.
MR. TYSON: Oh, it's -- I know, but -- well, that's the upper end
of the gap.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Gap -- well, from what our
definitions were, stopped at 280, and I thought, you know, as long as
you've got a -- well, this is just by our committee recommendations,
and, you know, being that you've got teachers and everything in the
area, that would -- you know, you get up past 300 and you've missed
Page 132
June 6-7, 2006
all of them, and the affordable, the teachers and deputies and so forth
can't live in, so you need to have a good amount of gap as affordable
to them.
MR. TYSON : Well, again, I think part of the beauty of this
project is the fact that there's no part of it that fits into that category,
from a market rate, is a relatively midrange. It's not -- we don't have
exorbitant units here that start anything -- that will start anything over
the low fours.
And consequently, that was the goal of the proj ect to make sure
that it was consistent, had a lot of unanimity, and made it to the point
of where it would feel very cohesive as a community.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you think your gap housing,
being that it's all in these buildings together, do you think it could be
priced more reasonably, like at 280? I mean, that would be something
that --
MR. TYSON: That is what -- that's the number that comes out.
That's a factor of the median income and how that all works out. So
whatever that number turns out to be is where it will be. It won't be--
I can't exceed that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, yeah. Median income all the
way up to 150 --
MR. TYSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- is a lot different than median
income at 120 percent is what I'm talking about.
MR. TYSON: I understand, I understand.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I don't want to argue or
anything. I just wanted to see if they could -- you know, you could
make sure you have some allocated for that middle range as well.
MR. TYSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sixty to 80 percent.
MR. TYSON: Pardon me?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Somewheres around the 60 to 80 percent
Page 133
June 6-7, 2006
of the income too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, he's got 80 percent in the
affordable housing.
MR. TYSON: Well, we've got -- we have a -- right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But he doesn't have anything that --
all the way up to 150 is what I'm saying.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I believe we have some public speakers.
We'll open--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What about me?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, go ahead. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, that's okay. I let -- Donna
was ahead of me and you turned off my light, too. That's okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just a couple questions, if I
may.
Denny Baker, if you wouldn't mind, please, I'd like to talk to a
couple members of staff so I've got a clear definition of where all this
is coming together.
And by the way, Commissioner Fiala, I do agree with you about
the softening effect. That's an amenity that wouldn't be a tremendous
expense, a little thing like shutters at the right place --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- or the way that they bring the
peak of the house together.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Those types of things really do
have an effect, and I agree, too, about the plantings and how they're
put in and the height of them. That's all important.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You want the ambience to be
maintained.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
Page 134
June 6-7, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Baker.
MR. BAKER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There's been some discussion
about the relationship of density versus affordable housing. How
important is it? Is there some way that density could be given up and
affordable housing still maintained on the private market?
MR. BAKER: We've had this conversation many times, and it
just doesn't work, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just thought maybe you
changed your mind.
MR. BAKER: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So in other words, density and
affordable housing are one and the same. Now, what we're talking
about here is, they're not even claiming the density they would be
entitled to by the affordable housing.
MR. BAKER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So, in effect, they have limited
the density that's there. And if we do make density a requirement, it's
the same as saying, you can't do affordable housing.
MR. BAKER: It works in reverse, correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. The other question I
have for you, if I may, is the gap housing.
MR. BAKER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: At 150 percent, I mean, now,
that's the upper number. People--
MR. BAKER: That's the upper number if -- for a family of four,
the median income is approximately 66,000; 150 percent would be
approximately 100,000 times three. So the affordability would be up
to a cap of approximately $300,000 purchase price.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. And that's allowing for
what -- I mean, if you had somebody apply, gap is 80 to 150.
MR. BAKER: Yes.
Page 135
June 6-7, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If they had people apply that
were 120 percent --
MR. BAKER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- then, of course, the price of
that house would have to change --
MR. BAKER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- to accommodate them.
MR. BAKER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. And of course, the -- it's
going to depend on the banks that accept these. It's not going to be a
case of the builder going through it and trying to pick out every single
one of them at 150?
MR. BAKER: Oh, that's correct. The applicants -- presumably
the developer would have a waiting list of people, and they'd have to
obtain a mortgage from the bank first and prequalify.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, let's go back. What's 80
percent? Eight percent is how much of median income?
MR. BAKER: Approximately $52,000.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. What does a deputy
make out there, a starting deputy?
MR. BAKER: I'm not sure. Perhaps the deputy could -- 35,000.
MR. MUDD: I think it's about 38.
MR. BAKER: Thirty-eight thousand.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thirty-eight thousand. So--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't think he hears you.
MR. BAKER: A deputy in a school --
THE DEPUTY: Oh, I'm sorry.
MR. MUDD: Starting--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You did it with your eyes open,
too.
THE DEPUTY: Starting salary for a deputy is, I believe, after
the academy, roughly 38,000.
Page 136
June 6-7, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And I didn't mean to pick
on you because you do have a gun.
THE DEPUTY: I appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So the point being is that I
assume that probably schoolteachers are somewheres in the same
category.
MR. BAKER: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So 38,000, ifit was--
MR. BAKER: Seventy-six thousand for --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That would put them in what
category?
MR. BAKER: Seventy-six thousand dollars would put them in
the 80 to 100 percent range.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. But meanwhile, that's
presuming two people are working.
MR. BAKER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. But if only one's
working, one -- like a mother with a couple of children, then they
would fall in the under 80 percent.
MR. BAKER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Probably closer to 60?
MR. BAKER: I would say so, Commissioner, yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So we've got a catch-all
mechanism in here. But the fear that was here before -- and I think
you have removed that fear because, I mean, I communicated with
you before we had this meeting today -- was that they were going to
pick the high end of the affordable and the high end of the gap, and
everybody else be darned. That's politically correct, by the way. But I
know that's not true.
MR. BAKER: I can't say for certain, Commissioner. The way
that the agreement is written, they're capping it out at the 80 percent.
They're saying less than 80 percent and less than 150 percent.
Page 137
June 6-7, 2006
Depending on the applications and what people can qualify for in a
mortgage, I don't think anyone can say for certain what the end of
range is going to -- they're going to be successful.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But still, there's a lot more play
in it than the high number?
MR. BAKER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. The next question I got is
for Don Scott. Mr. Scott, could you please come up.
One of the things this commission has always been concerned
about is roads, the lack of them, mainly, and what the capacity of
those roads are with our growing population. And trying to keep
ahead of the curve is extremely difficult.
In this case, this has no -- we hear this will have no measurable
impact. This is what the petitioner's telling us. Not relying totally on
the petitioner, but I'd like to hear from my own staff exactly what this
means.
MR. SCOTT: Well, every department has some impact, but what
they're speaking to is that less than one percent is considered de
minimis, and their traffic generation over what the service volume is,
divide that number. It's less than 1 percent. It's about. 7 percent.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So by itself, I mean, is
there impact that's measured also with the fact that this particular
location is conducive to school or education opportunities or work
opportunities?
MR. SCOTT: Oh, definitely.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is that figured into it and that
fact that the travel distance maybe shorter?
MR. SCOTT: From trip standpoint, no, but obviously a lot of --
if I was picking a place to put affordable housing this would be the
place, because it's in between a lot of areas that people are going to
work in relation to, if I stuck it out in the Estates and those people
were traveling into this area.
Page 138
June 6-7, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now, I don't see
anybody from emergency management, so I'll phrase the question for
you. Being that this is in the edges of the so-called coastal high
hazard area, do you see a development like this as being a difficulty at
the time of evacuation if standard procedures are followed?
MR. SCOTT: No. Based on the way the Regional Planning
Council looks at evacuation and the hours of evacuation, no, I don't.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Scott.
Thank you, Chairman Halas.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'd like to hear our -- if you could
wait.
MS. FILSON: Okay, Mr. Chairman. We have--
MR. MUDD: Before you -- before you do that, could I get the
staff -- you really didn't get staffs presentation.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right.
MR. MUDD: And Ms. Deselem needs to put a couple of things
on the record.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. Excuse me. I'm sorry.
MS. DESELEM: Good afternoon. Again, for the record, Kay
Deselem, principal planner with the department of zoning and land
development review.
I just wanted to put on the record the fact that you do have the
staff report, a copy of the application, and the executive summary, and
staff is recommending that this petition be found compatible with the
neighborhood, and we are recommending that it be found consistent
with the Growth Management Plan. We have provided you with
findings of fact in support of our position, and we are recommending
approval of the petition.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Question. Are you recommending then
that 16 units per acre?
MS. DESELEM: Yes, or that--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are you considering this as an
Page 139
June 6-7, 2006
entitlement?
MS. DESELEM: No, sir. It is not an entitlement.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So it's up to us to make that
determination where the density should be in regards to the
commercial, right?
MS. DESELEM: That is correct, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Richard Cunard.
MR. HALL: He's not here.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Harold Hall. He'll be followed by Erv
Dehn, D-E-H-N.
MR. HALL: For the record, Harold Hall. I live at 1082 Rainbow
Drive, which is right off the west end of Estey Avenue.
This really doesn't affect me directly, and I have certainly no
vested interest. My concern is the safety of school children.
Now, we are going to have some increased traffic, and right in a
place where it is probably the biggest single problem right now in the
safety of school children. Several of us, and I've met with two people
today, that experienced the unbelievably dangerous situation about
three or four years ago with all the cut-through traffic coming from
Davis Boulevard.
Our transportation staff did what I think was a fantastically good
job. Even though it was quite expensive, they closed some of the
left-turn lanes from Davis going east coming over into Estey Avenue,
put in the speed bumps, and it really cut down on the cut-through
traffic. That was good.
Now, here's what we're going to have. Well, this morning, 10
minutes till 8, the left-turn traffic on Estey Avenue that the
transportation planner was telling us about was backed up all the way
up through the existing turn lane.
Now, this is not schooltime and this is not season. At the
intersection of Davis and Airport Road, traffic was backed up a half
Page 140
June 6-7, 2006
block or so in all four directions.
Now, I don't know about this 1 percent. I know that we have a
little bit of a problem right now at Davis and Airport Road. I'm not
opposed to really this -- the plan there. In fact, I thought that Mr.
Tyson did a good job pointing out the advantages of this location, and
it certainly is a good location.
Just down Estey Avenue about one block is another big parcel
about three times this size. That would be a good location also for 10
units per acre.
But at any rate, bottom line is, I'm not -- I'm not sure but what we
are going to get back into a situation with those three schools -- this is
the walkway to three schools. The Brookside area and all up Estey
Avenue there's a lot of children that, going to school there, they're
lined up.
They -- the sidewalks that our transportation people put in really,
really made a tremendous difference in the safety of those children
walking.
So -- and by the way, as Jeff pointed out, we do have good
conditions there for the children walking right now, but we may be
adding a lot more traffic. Think about the safety of the children.
That's all.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Erv Dehn. He'll be followed by George Mallis.
MR. DEHN: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Erv
Dehn. I'm the director of engineering and planning from Naples
Airport Authority.
I want to commend Mr. Tyson on his presentation, and I think
they have -- he's presented some very attractive features for this
property, and I commend him on his attempts at explaining some of
the aviation terminology. He had a very brief Airports 101 education,
over a couple of session with our office.
I bring to the podium today about 45 years of experience in
Page 141
June 6-7, 2006
airport planning design, and I want to speak to some of the problems
that I see with this project and voice the opinion of the Naples Airport
Authority .
First of all, I want to correct one thing. At the Collier County
Planning Commission, Ted Soliday, the executive director, did not
appear before the commission. That was, in fact, myself, although I
appreciate the promotion. But--
MR. ANDERSON: He was there.
MR. DEHN: We discussed a number of things, and you'll find in
your packet today, I believe, two letters, one that I hastily drafted kind
of over my shoulder on the way out the door one afternoon to try to
get something before the Planning Commission.
And then during the presentation to the Planning Commission,
they questioned a couple of the items, one of which was that item
number 5, I believe, on your packet. That was our suggestion that if
you have to rezone this residential, that it not be any higher density
than what's surrounding it right now, and that caused some confusion
in interpretation in our explanation, so we dropped that and rewrote
the letter. You should have a copy of the second letter.
The problems that we see with this, first of all, as an airport
receiving federal grant money, we have to sign what we call sponsors
assurances each time we receive a federal grant, that we will do
everything we can to protect the airport from encroachments, mainly
being residential developments around the airport.
So by basic principle, we object to the rezoning going from
commercial, which is fairly compatible with airport use, to residential.
It doesn't really matter whether it's one unit or 50 units. It's -- we
cannot come out in public and support that change in zoning from
commercial to residential.
Second of all, Mr. Tyson mentioned the runway protection zones.
And, yes, we do have a visual runway, runway 1432. This is the three
two end of that runway. It is technically a VFR, what we call visual
Page 142
June 6-7, 2006
flight regulation runway right now, and that inner diagonal line that
you see is our runway protection zone under visual flight regulations.
When we go to or ask FAA to improve that to a non-precision
runway, one of the things that they will take into consideration is the
development within that footprint.
And there is a possibility that even though it's one or two units, as
Mr. Tyson explained, it may fall within the future non-precision
approach zone. There's a possibility that FAA could look negatively
at that and not grant us a non-precision approach or require us to
displace the threshold on the runway sufficient to clear that property,
and that's not a good plan for us. We only have 5,000-foot runways to
start with.
So basically we have a problem with two things. One is what we
feel is changing the property from commercial, somewhat compatible
use to the airport, to residential, which we feel is not compatible with
the airport, and second is the possible jeopardization of our future
non-precision runway approach to that runway in three two.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, sir.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is George Mallis.
MR. MALLIS: Hello. I'm George Mallis. I live on Steeves
A venue, and unfortunately a lot of our neighbors are on vacation that
were at the advisory committee.
I do want to point out a few things. The zoning was changed to
commercial in 1990, and now they want to get 16 units. We're
predominantly single-story homes, single-family homes in that
neighborhood. And on that same block of ours, they want to put these
mammoth three-story condos, which is really out of character. I
mean, try putting that in Port Royal or Foxfire or one of your gated
communities.
Weare a working-class community . We don't probably have a
lot of clout. He keeps throwing around things like, you know,
workforce or affordable housing. But that 2-, $300,000, I really don't
Page 143
June 6-7, 2006
see it.
The traffic problems. I live there. I drive every day off of
Steeves Avenue. It was a big cut-through. The traffic department,
I've got to commend, for putting in these speed bumps, because now
we're getting a lot less people cutting through; however, as soon as
they put that left-turn lane on Airport, we're going to get people trying
to cut through again because now they're going to have an arrow and
they're going to try to bypass Davis Boulevard and come through our
neighborhood again.
I don't see that mitigating or being a I-percent problem. I think
that's going to be a huge problem for the owners and for the people
that live there already. Already we have a lot of traffic. We have
trouble getting in and out. There's a tremendous amount of back -- it
backs all the way up to Shadowlawn in season; not this time of year,
during peak loads, not during -- all the time, but during -- when you're
trying to get to work and when you're trying to come home, you've got
to wait down that road.
Let's see. I think the higher density will negligibly (sic) impact
the whole neighborhood. I just don't see it. The whole Brookside
neighborhood, we know all our neighbors. I know all my neighbors
on the street, and all those houses going way back are all single-family
homes, and I just don't believe three-story condos belong on this infill.
If you had a separate piece of property with no houses, you know
-- there are properties in the county that are like that. That's where
those condos belong, but not in our neighborhoods.
And, of course, you know, I'm just hoping -- if it was your
neighborhood, you'd know what I mean, and I hope you take into
consideration our feelings on the neighborhood. It's a small tight-knit
community, and we'd like to keep it that way if possible.
And I have no problem with them putting RMF-6like we have.
We're a sixth of an acre on our properties, but I don't see having, you
know, three-story condos there. You know, if they can bring the
Page 144
June 6-7, 2006
height down and keep the zoning down, I think it would be a lot better
neighborhood in the long run for everybody. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We'll close the public hearing.
MR. TYSON: Could I offer a couple of comments to those
comments?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, you had enough time, I believe,
sir, to cover most of the stuff here.
MR. TYSON: Well, it's just things that were brought up that --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. TYSON: -- just a little -- let me see if I -- that might be
beneficial for everybody. This is a picture that shows the existing
future -- it's a future land use map for the county.
The black line is the coastal high hazard line that has been
constructed. You'll notice that there are a number of -- and our
project, by the way, is right in here.
There are a number of developments, albeit in the city, but you've
got the Estuary, you've got Bears Paw, there are a number of units and
projects that just abut right up to that point.
So you can see where the -- I wanted to put that in perspective as
to where the coastal high hazard area is in relation to this project.
A couple of comments -- and I think it's just real simple that
people talking about changing from residential, or going from
commercial to residential, the comments that came up here were just --
got to the point of where it's -- you can appreciate the fact that once
you are a residence -- residential community, you've got people that
are there sincerely interested in protection of everybody. Very
different from commercial. So again, we feel that it's very warranted
to take this project from commercial to residential.
The other thing is Mr. Dehn. There were two hearings, by the
way, with the Planning Commission. One was -- the first one was
Page 145
June 6-7, 2006
continued. At that meeting Mr. Soliday was present. Mr. Dehn was
present at the second one.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. TYSON: I think that's the important considerations. If you
have any other questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Back to the height again--
MR. TYSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- now that he brought it up again.
Forty-five feet. Now, because this is in the coastal high hazard area --
and I was really concerned, so I talked with Joe Schmitt about this.
And you know, it's right on the edge there, and I understand that. I
said, how much of a chance would there be to flooding, and he said,
they have to build it up anyway to the base flood elevation.
MR. TYSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I just began to think about that.
How high do you have to build it up before you count your 45 feet?
And where does the 45 feet end? And are there accouterments on top
of that?
MR. TYSON: Good point. First of all, the elevations in the area
right now are somewhere around four, four to five. That's the existing
top on the property.
We will have to build that up. It will probably be a little over
seven. It's -- I don't know exactly what that is. When the engineering
comes, the engineers put that together for the SDP process. They will
determine that. That's from where the grade starts at -- it's an AE-7
right now.
And to answer the question, the 45 feet was the maximum height
of a building. So we are not anticipating, you know, quite getting
there. It will be maybe close. But there's two different -- there's one
definition in the county that has it as halfway up the height -- or the
height is measured halfway up the building roof --
Page 146
June 6-7, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
MR. TYSON: -- or the plane of the building roof. The Planning
Commission is trying to get us to the point where it's like -- state
exactly the maximum height of the building, and that's what that
would be.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That is what it would be?
MR. TYSON: That would be -- it would be no higher than 45
feet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And also to answer this gentleman's
concerns that was just talking about him living right behind, and the
whole neighborhood. You said you're going to plant big thick bushes
in the back, five-foot tall bushes; is that what you said?
MR. TYSON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: To protect those neighbors from this
and to soften the appearance of 45 feet?
MR. TYSON: Well, the other thing too is, those pines that are
there, they're pretty mature in the preserve where they're going to be
against the other properties. Some of those are over 50 feet right now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I know. But, you know, to
get to the 50 feet, you've got just a -- you know, just a trunk, you
know. I mean, it's not like it's hiding anything.
MR. TYSON: Well, probably from 35 feet to 50 feet is mostly
vegetation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I drive by there all the time,
so I can see everything that's right beyond those things. They don't
hide anything. I'm sorry, Bruce.
MR. TYSON: Oh, no. At that level. I'm saying from 35 to 50
feet, they'll block any roof line.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Anyway, would that--
would these bushes be like ficus bushes that cause a nice thick hedge
type of a thing?
MR. TYSON: I'm sorry? Would you just --
Page 147
June 6-7, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would the -- would the ficus hedges
be like -- I mean, would the bushes be nice, thick --
MR. TYSON: Oh, sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- ficus hedges?
MR. TYSON: It will be -- whatever it is has got to be according
to the county rules and will -- will do something to make sure that
that, you know, is very -- you know, they're going to be thick.
Whether they're pruned, whether the abutting communities want to see
those go up to 10, 15 feet, that's up to them.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I ask that because every once in a
while you go by somebody who plants bushes, and they plant the
bushes, and they're like five feet apart, and then they're little scraggly
things, and they don't do anything but die. So I wanted to make sure
you were really going to have something to protect --
MR. TYSON: It will all be irrigated and it will be according to
the rule -- according to the county's buffer requirements.
The other thing that Bruce Anderson just pointed out to me --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning? Yes. I'd like to
move on, if we could.
MR. TYSON: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. I do have another
disclosure. I did -- or Ted Soliday did speak to me, and I did see the
Planning Commission meeting with Mr. Soliday there. So Mr. Tyson,
I have a question to follow up on the discussion at the Planning
Commission.
There was going to be some follow-up with the airport director.
Was there a follow-up?
MR. TYSON: The next day. I and my assistant were in his
office, I believe, at 10:30 on Friday morning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The concerns with the
flight path there was addressed with Mr. Soliday?
Page 148
June 6-7, 2006
MR. TYSON: I didn't hear it quite the way Mr. Dehnjust
presented it this morning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me?
MR. TYSON: I didn't hear it quite the way in which Mr. Dehn
presented it just a few minutes ago. I don't remember hearing about
the fact of future and it would impact the potential of the airport. I
didn't hear it in that context.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'm a little concerned
that, you know, we're getting conflicting statements.
MR. TYSON: Well, the other--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, clearly the Planning
Commission meeting that I see that Mr. Soliday was there. And you
know, being the director, I would have thought that he would be the
spokesperson.
MR. TYSON: You mean today? I believe he's on some type of
a medical emergency.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. He might -- but it -- the
statements are concerning, what was said today, from the airport.
Would --
MR. TYSON : Well, we have to meet -- if you recognize, too,
when the SDP is done, we have to do a -- check with the FAA to make
sure that everything fits within the guidelines. So there's just no
chance of us slipping something through that won't be looked at. It's a
mandatory requirement that we do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- one more thing and then I
have some questions for my planning staff. Would you be willing to,
as far as the height restrictions, stay within the height restrictions
within the present zoning district? You may want to talk to your client
on that.
MR. TYSON : Well, I can -- I can tell you it will be challenging.
We -- right now I think the way in which it's worded it is 35 -- three
stories or 35 feet, but the 35 feet measured at that measurement is half
Page 149
June 6-7, 2006
way up the roof line.
Now, if you take it to what we're showing at 45 feet to the peak,
there's probably about five to six feet of give and take in that, meaning
that the county's dimension of 35 feet would probably go to 41 if it
was to the peak, so that's my -- that's my point.
I think if you wanted to use the way in which it's worded in the
regulations, you know, that's -- you've just got to spend a few minutes
talking about it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Ms. Deselem, I have
some questions about fellow Commissioner Coyle's questioning. The
Planning Commission recommendations, there's strike-throughs and
underlines in there, and I -- this is the first time I've ever seen
recommendations from the Planning Commission with
strike-throughs. How did the strike-throughs happen? Was it because
of two different hearings or --
MS. DESELEM: There were two different hearings by the
CCPC. It was continued to allow the applicant to address the issues
raised by the Naples Airport Authority.
We have received several letters from the Naples Airport
Authority. This particular thing that was in front of you as far as the
executive summary was an attempt by staff to explain what we
believed was the result of the CCPC hearing.
This is what we believe was the ending discussion that showed
what was agreed upon as far as the items one through seven with the
changes that were adopted at that time.
Then after that last CCPC hearing, we did get another letter from
the Airport Authority which has been forwarded to you as well. That
letter actually says something somewhat different from what the
discussion was.
So staff attempted to give you all the letters that the Naples
Airport Authority has provided to us and provided to you a synopsis
of what our understanding of the meeting was and the agreement that
Page 150
June 6-7, 2006
was reached at the CCPC so you would have all the information in
front of you so that you could try to understand what the position was,
and then the Naples Airport Authority staff is here as well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. DESELEM: But it was, at best, confusing because of the
different positions that were taken by the Airport Authority.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, these are Planning
Commission recommendations, not the Airport Authority
recommendations. We want the Planning Commission
recommendations, and the Airport Authority has the ability to submit
letters just like anybody else does, and they're very important, just like
anybody else.
But we asked the Planning Commission -- they spent a lot of time
-- and they're very good in going through the details, and that's the
only reason I can't understand it.
So if the commissioners don't mind, I'd like to go through them
since the Planning Commission member's here, to make sure that this
is their recommendation and not the Airport Authority's
recommendations, okay?
Number one, planning -- petitioner must record aviation
easement over the entire tract in favor of the -- okay.
Petitioner must provide and disclose to all buyers that the units
for sale in the development are in the proximity of the airport facilities
and should accept all disbursements (sic) associations within. You
want to deed something within the documents.
And then number three, provide construction noise within the
condominium documents and homeowners' association bylaws. That
was struck through.
MR. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, do you mind?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No. Please step up to the mike so you
can identify yourself.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Give you a copy of what we're
Page 151
June 6-7, 2006
talking about.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you, Commissioner
Coletta.
MR. MURRAY: Good afternoon, all. My name is Bob Murray,
and I am a planning commissioner, and thank you for the opportunity.
What were the last ones, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: A strike-through, that means
that you didn't recommend to provide a constructive notice.
Commissioner Coletta just gave it to you, if you could follow me.
Number three.
MR. MURRAY: Number there, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was a strike-through?
MR. MURRAY: Yeah. We said, and they agreed, the developer
agreed, that they would provide constructive notice, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And that's within number
two?
MR. MURRAY: And within number two, the petitioner must
provide a signed copy. Yes, we made it so that all bases were covered
so that any party who would buy in -- for as long as that development
exists, they would be given the opportunity when, due diligence, to
see that that might be a noise problem for them even with the intended
additional noise barriers.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Number four, permit --
MR. MURRAY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- irreversible deed notification,
but then it says -- to me that seems like that would be to the residents
or future residents.
MR. MURRAY: I don't know about the parenthetical that's there
about the NAA. All I know is that we did state that we'd like a
permanent and irreversible deed notification.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And I think that's true,
because notifications, those condo docs. can be amended by the
Page 152
June 6-7, 2006
association all the time.
MR. MURRAY: And get lost and forgotten, et cetera.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And -- exactly, be in another
document within the Clerk of Court's recording.
MR. MURRAY : Yes. This way it was guaranteed that the
persons who would buy would know.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we want to keep that?
MR. MURRAY: And the developers agreed with that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Lower density of
development permitted by code and consistent with the residential
zoning properties in the proposal. NAA received this comment and
asked for the CCPC to recommendation (sic) approval. Does that
sound good?
MR. MURRAY: Well, all I remember is that the Airport
Authority representative, the gentleman who spoke earlier, stated that
it was a normal condition for the airport to avoid as many complaints,
et cetera, regarding noise by trying to limit the density all around the
property .
And in our vote, we did not accept that as a basis to tear down
any densities that were offered. So the densities as offered by the
developer were those that were agreed to by us.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Number six, NAA
revised comments acknowledge -- let's see. No, this is actually
something -- natural preserve area, northeast corner, to be maintained
in perpetuity by the homeowners' association, and maybe that's -- you
struck that through because it was in the PUD documents?
MS. DESELEM: Yes. If I can respond? That's the intent, that
we didn't need to incorporate it as an additional condition for both six
and seven because they're already covered.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understand.
MS. DESELEM: Likewise, with two and three, they're already
covered as part of the requirements listed above. It wasn't our intent
Page 153
June 6-7, 2006
to imply that they're not going to be applicable.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, no, no. I don't think so, but
it's still the Planning Commission recommendations.
MS. DESELEM: Like I said, this is what staff had understood
the Planning Commission had discussed, that those things were still
included, but they said that we didn't -- they didn't need to specifically
list them again, because to say that they needed to have, for example,
the notice within condominium documents, that repeats what it says in
two, disclosure to all perspective buyers. So it was just repetitive, so
we didn't need it. It wasn't implied that it wasn't pertinent.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. But it says, the Naples
Airport Authority revised these comments to acknowledge this is a
requirement by the code.
MS. DESELEM: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Again, we depend on what they
have to tell us whether we agree with it or not. It's not up to an
authority by the City of Naples to amend Planning Commission's
recommendations, period.
Number seven, additional sound annotation ( sic) provided by the
builder/developer for each of the units in the development as spelled
out within the ordinance, 2000 --
MR. MURRAY: A concern we had, Commissioner, was that
being so close to the flight path, there would certainly be more noise
than if you were further away. We urged the developer to put as much
soundproofing as they could, and I personally suggested the closer the
proximity to the flight path.
The response by Mr. Tyson was, we are going to put very good
sound baffling or attenuation equipment, not equipment, but materials
in all of the property and that it should bring the decibel level way
down to where the people would be comfortable. That was the
concern and that was what we expressed, that we wanted to be sure
that it was part of if it and it wasn't forgotten, it was part of it.
Page 154
June 6-7, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. MURRAY: And I agree with you, Commissioner, it would
be better if what we say were -- you know, no offense to Kay, but
thank you for that thought. It's what we appreciate.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's the understanding by our
staff, and that's just what it is. And I appreciate your time. I know
you don't represent the Planning Commission here today. But since
you are a Planning Commission member, I just wanted to ask some
questions.
MR. MURRAY: Well, thank you for the opportunity.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That very small area in the lower
right-hand of this diagram -- I need to be talking with the petitioner
now. Can we just reach agreement that you will not put a building
that will encroach into that area?
MR. TYSON: Yeah. We can make that work. Somewhere -- I
think you're talking -- let me just make sure __
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I'm talking about the .40 acres,
the four-hundredths of an acre there, and anywhere to the right of that
line. Can we -- can you state that you will not put a building in that
area?
MR. TYSON : Well, I prefer to state that what we would do is
that we will -- we have to comply with all of the FAA regulations, so
regardless, if something -- no matter where it goes on the property,
we're going to have to get with them and get their approval.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, here's the problem.
MR. TYSON: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: As the FAA and airport changes
the type of approaches they have at any of their runways, there are
different requirements.
So if you build a building now there, it might not interfere with
Page 155
June 6-7, 2006
an approach that they have now, but it might very well prohibit an
approach that they might want to have in the future.
And so the Airport Authority is naturally concerned about future
impacts of anything you might do in that particular very small area. It
seems to me that you have enough flexibility to design the building
locations to avoid a four one-hundredths of an acre area.
MR. TYSON: I understand completely what you're saying, and
that's, quite frankly, why we decided -- and we wanted to put that line
on the plan. That is not today's line. That is a future line, and
everything that we have done in our thinking is based on the fact that
we don't want to prohibit -- as a matter of fact, we can't prohibit what
the airport wants to do.
So the reality is, if a portion of a building was in there that met
all the height guidelines, everything else that was possible, you know,
it seems to me that it would go through the FAA.
If it becomes an issue to the point of where the FAA would turn
around and say -- and, of course, you heard Mr. Dehn say that they
would prefer not to have anything here at all. The point being that,
you know, if we had commercial structures and we were just outside
of that line, theoretically, without even coming to you, we could put
something up, as long as it was outside of that line, 75 feet tall.
We've got to comply by the rules. We have to -- we have to
make sure that anything we do -- and the only thing I can say is that
I'll do everything we possibly can to stay out of there. We can mark
that on the plans. I'd sure hate to inhibit a great site plan for
something that mayor may not have any impact in the future from the
airport. But I will -- I certainly understand exactly what you're saying.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Four one-hundredths of an acre is
not very much area and is not going to impact your site plan.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have to agree with
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I do too. When I get a chance,n
Page 156
June 6-7, 2006
I've got a suggestion.
MR. TYSON: We'll keep our buildings out of that zone.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I've got a couple of questions I'd like to
ask. Number one, I'd like to ask Denny Baker if maybe he can assist
me in regards to saying, you said that someone that -- or a family
that's making $76,000 a year can afford a 200- to $250,000 unit; is that
correct?
MR. BAKER: Approximately, not quite that high. Two and a
quarter, 225,000.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Two and a quarter, okay.
MR. BAKER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And that's including paying taxes and
paYIng --
MR. BAKER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That amazes me. And paying a car
payment?
MR. BAKER: That's correct. Well, that's -- the fundamental
relationship, the ratio that we use, which is accepted by federal
authorities, is 30 percent of income. So approximately three times
their --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thirty -- is that 30 percent of the real
income or is that 30 percent of what they can afford to buy a home
with?
MR. BAKER: That's 30 of their earned income, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. As you know, Commissioner __
thank you very much.
MR. BAKER: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. As you know, Commissioner
Coyle, my concern is that I'm a little taken by the amount of impact
that they want to put into this commercial district when the rest of the
surrounding area there is RMF-6. And I don't mean to put you on the
Page 157
June 6-7, 2006
spot. Do you feel comfortable with this density that's here at the
present time of 120 units? My concern was that I'd like to see this'
down to around 82 units.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I -- I, quite frankly, would
like to see it about four units per acre, but I know that's not going to
work. And my concern is that I have to deal with the law as it exists
now and not as I wish it were and, perhaps, it will be in the future. I
think we've made a recommendation that we limit density in the
coastal high hazard area to a lot less than this, but that's not the current
law.
So I don't really have a basis in law to demand that people adhere
to that density. The Land Development Code does entitle them to ask
for --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ask for.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- ask for 16 units per acre for
conversion to commercial. I don't like that number, and we've already
suggested we eliminate that from our Land Development Code in the
future, and I'll be glad when we do.
But the point here is -- and I agree that in this case commercial is
the worst thing you want to put there. It has a bigger traffic impact.
It's going to cause a lot more noise for the neighbors. It's a bad thing
to put in this area, even though it is more compatible with the airport.
So bottom line is, there are a lot of things I don't like about this,
but there are good reasons to have some -- some affordable housing
here. And the only way I can get there is to let them have the density
they've requested, and I just can't find any other way to do it.
The ratio of one -- essentially one density bonus per one
affordable housing unit is quite reasonable. It's really good, as a
matter of fact. We're granting two and three and four density bonuses
for each affordable housing in some of the other areas. So this is an
improvement to that.
So, make a long story short, I share the same concerns you have
Page 158
June 6-7, 2006
here, but because of the unique circumstances, I am -- I find myself in
a position of not really having any choice, because if you don't let
them go ahead with this thing, it's going to become commercial, and
they have a right to development commercial.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I was looking at -- there was
recently commercial property that was zoned residential up in my
area, and I believe we gave them eight units per acre, and I felt that
since the presentation was that we were really trying to get additional
affordable housing and because of the fact that it was centrally
located, I was hoping that maybe the people that owned this property
would maybe come up to something higher than, I believe, 24 units
for affordable housing.
I'd like to see more in the affordable housing range in regards to
what they're offering at the present time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I would, too. I really think
that would be a good result.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So can we get something--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The only problem I have is that
we've approved others at 10 or 15 percent, and these are actually __
they're actually being -- willing to do it at a higher percentage.
So there's a conflict, unfortunately, in this case, and I can't find __
not that I'm looking for a way to approve it -- but I can't find a legal or
honest reason for me to vote against it. And I can tell you, if I could
find a way to lower that density, get more affordable housing, I would
jump on it in a minute. I'd just love to do that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The reason I ask you these questions
because of the fact that this is in your district, so I wanted to __
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- open this up for other commissioners
so they could get a feeling of -- know where you're at with this.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much. And I've
Page 159
June 6-7, 2006
heard the arguments, and they've been absolutely beautiful. There's
been some good issues raised here today.
I would like to make the motion, but I'm not going to. I think
that that would belong to the commissioner of that district, and if he'd
like to make a motion of approval with the stipulations that we
mentioned about the placement of the building, the architectural __
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Architectural features.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- features to soften the
appearance of the project, I'd be more than happy to second it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And ifhe doesn't choose to make
the motion, does it fail?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's your district, man.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'll make a motion for
approval with certain stipulations, that the absolute height of the
buildings not exceed 45 feet to the peak of the building.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: From the ground to the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: From the finished elevation to the
peak of the building; that you do have architectural features that soften
-- that's a very vague kind of thing. I don't have the slightest idea what
the means, but I'm incorporating it because Commissioner Fiala
brought it up and I think she's right. We're going to have to get more
specific than that; and that no buildings be located within the area
identified for the proposed new approach area for the Naples Airport.
And I would also encourage that there be enhanced buffering
between this development and the single-family homes that abut this
property, and enhanced buffering can mean taller primarily to shield
or to provide a line of sight that does not include these buildings from
the yards of those homes. That would be helpful.
So with those stipulations and the other staff recommendations, I
will make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'll be -- I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I just want to clarify something,
Page 160
June 6-7, 2006
Commissioner Coyle. You said that you would like to see some of
these enhancements. Maybe you ought to say, I want these
enhancements.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You betcha, okay, yep.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Put that on, that we want these--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We want these enhancements.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- not you desire them.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'll make that change in my
motion. Is it part of the second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And including all the Planning
Commission's recommendations, right?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Including the Planning
Commission's recommendations as we have gone over them, because
we can't take them verbatim out of here because there's at least one
that shouldn't be there.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, just a
quick clarification on that last statement about one should not be there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Number five is -- apparently
is erroneously included as a recommendation --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- because I think the member of
the Planning Commission who spoke earlier says they did not accept
that one as a recommendation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just so that everybody has a
clear direction, you want things in there like the Planning Commission
recommended but had strike-through permanent and irreversible deed
notifications, those kinds of things?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Let me just note the
numbers of the ones that I think should be included, and they are
Page 161
June 6-7, 2006
recommendations number one, two, and I think that's it. The others
seem to say that they're all included in one and two, or they're stricken
out completely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- number four doesn't have
a permanent and irreversible deed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I would include number
four, yes. I would include number four; one, two, and four.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My second agrees.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Your second is also? Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, the northeast corner, in
addition to -- okay.
MS. DESELEM: Excuse me. For the record, Kay Deselem.
Can I clarify what the motion was?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: God, I hope so.
MS. DESELEM: If I can point you to section 5.11 of the PUD
document, this is what staff and the applicant has proposed based on
our understanding of --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can you give me a page number?
MS. DESELEM: Page 20.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Page 20. ,
MS. DESELEM: It's the very last page.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, it can't be.
MS. DESELEM: Of the PUD document.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. DESELEM: This is what our understanding __
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Page 20 of219?
MS. DESELEM: Oh, well, perhaps --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
MS. DESELEM: It's the PUD document, and it's the last page of
the PUD document. Your page numbers, perhaps, might be different
than --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's 5.11?
Page 162
June 6-7, 2006
MS. DESELEM: Yes, 5.11.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All the way to the back.
MS. DESELEM: Oh, somebody just told me it's 210 of219.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Two ten of219.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Two ten of219.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Two ten.
MS. DESELEM: Hopefully this is what you're asking to have
included to address the concerns from the airport. That was the intent
of the language.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Proximity of property to the Naples
Airport. That's 5.11; is that correct?
MS. DESELEM: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I guess -- I wish I could tell
you that, but my page numbers have been stricken through and typed
over and blurred to the point where I have no idea which page you're
talking about.
MS. DESELEM: If I may, I might--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's -- go to the next.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The last page.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Go to 8D and then go back one
page.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 8D, you know, so the next thing,
and then go back one page. And on the bottom of the __
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The lower left-hand corner -_
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- of the left-hand side.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Five eleven.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That's 215 out of219 in my
Page 163
June 6-7, 2006
book. I don't know what it is --
MS. DESELEM: I don't have your book, so I don't know.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's 5.11 down on the left-hand
comer.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's A, B, and C; is that what you're
telling me?
MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir. This was what we came up with
between the County Attorney's Office, the applicants, and staff to
address the concerns raised to make sure that all the issues were
addressed, that there were easements recorded, that the Naples Airport
got a copy of it, and that they were allowed the opportunity to review
plans that came in. That would show compliance with items six and
seven of their memo.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, does this -- and this is
a question for the lawyers. Does this essentially provide a permanent
and irreversible deed notification?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Because condominium documents
can be amended, as was discussed, I think that it would not necessarily
and that we might want to add the stipulation that the notice be placed
in the deed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then why don't we make that four,
or number D, as a stipulation?
MR. ANDERSON: What about the avigation easement? Doesn't
that qualify?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, it would be in the public
records, but I think the avigation easement, you know, gives them the
right to fly over, and I think putting it in the deed -- and they might not
understand what that means. I think this makes it much more
understandable to a purchaser.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Pretty clear.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. That's just for the air above
the land.
Page 164
June 6- 7, 2006
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: That's right. It gives them the right
to fly over.
MS. DESELEM: Okay. Between the County Attorney's Office,
we will come through with language for that. And then, I'm sorry, I
didn't hear what you came up with to make sure that there's
compliance with some architectural enhancement. My concern is is
that staff will be reviewing this, and we need to make sure that they're
in compliance with your vote, and the only way I can do that is to
have something specific that I can measure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Make it pretty.
MS. DESELEM: If I might suggest--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Attorney? Can you help us out
here? We want to make sure that we have this very clear.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think so, but I'm going to defer
back to staff to state what these items might be, because I'm not an
expert in architectural design. But I do want to make sure what we put
in the PUD document is something that's clear and concise and it can
be implemented.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the problem. We haven't
worked that out. And it's a good objective, but working the details out
is something we haven't done yet. I would presume that the petitioner
would be happy to work with staff in working out something that
would be acceptable.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I want to -- you ought to -- we
ought to make sure that it's discussed, it's put on the record, so it does
get into the PUD and not in, like a lot of cases, where we made a
discussion but it wasn't in the motion and, therefore, it does not get
into the PUD.
MS. DESELEM: It I might offer some language. Perhaps we
could offer the commercial standards for architectural renderings,
commercial standards for architectural buildings as far as how projects
Page 165
June 6-7, 2006
can project, and they have to have a setback distance within -- and
windows so that you can't have blank walls.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: This isn't going to look like a Wal*Mart
. .?
now, IS It.
MS. DESELEM: No. That's just the idea, to keep it from
looking like a big box building.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sort of like -- sort of like that CVS
pharmacy down there off Davis, very close by, with the painted on
windows and things like that?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Attorney?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I had a solution, perhaps, that
would save us having to work it out here where you delegate the
authority to the staff to achieve that objective that there would be
architectural details that would soften the effects of the height and
mass of the building, and that that's the objective, and you could
delegate that authority to staff to work with the petitioner to develop
that at the time of Site Development Plan review.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And will this be put into the PUD so it's
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: That will be put in the PUD
document.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Suppose we recap this to
make it clear to everybody. Okay. It's a motion to approve as
submitted with the recommendations of staff and the Planning
Commission A, B, C, and D, which -- and D will say, permanent and
irrevocable deed notification, and E, an enhanced buffer between this
property and the residential -- the single-family residential buildings
adjacent to the property, and F, the petitioner will work with staff to
develop architectural stylings or enhancements which will __
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Will soften the effects of the mass
and height of the structure.
Page 166
June 6-7, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that a legal term? Will soften the
mass and the height of the structure, okay?
MS. DESELEM: That's good. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that latter one will be
delegated to the staff to make a determination, okay?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My second.
MS. FILSON: Are you finished? There's two speakers.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Attorney?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Did you state the restriction about
no building located in the four --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I didn't, but that should be in there,
okay. And no building would be located in that --
MS. FILSON: And 45 feet.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And a maximum of 45 feet from
the finished elevation to the peak of the roof.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And better landscaping. Where did
you put that? You said --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: He's already got that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, does he? Did he say that again?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. The landscaping and softening.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I hope we're finished with
this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the second agrees again.
MS. DESELEM: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any further discussion on
this before I call for the vote?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Seeing none, I'll call the question. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
Page 167
June 6-7, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And the motion carries. I think
we had --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just one fast comment before you
call the break.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, before I call a break, Ijust want to
let people know that I believe that because of how long this particular
item took, that we're going to have a number of land issues that are
coming up, so we'll plan that -- we're going to work till about six, and
then we'll break and then we'll reconvene tomorrow morning at nine.
So I just wanted to let everybody know.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I just wanted to ask if this is
okay with fellow commissioners. Where -- I never had this happen
before where our Planning Commission gave us recommendations and
then they were struck out by another organization who had nothing to
do with us, and I would just like to say, if it's agreeable with all of you
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We don't see that again.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- we should prevent that from ever
happening again.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. I don't want to see that again.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't think that's what happened.
I think what happened was the Airport Authority brought this to the
CCPC, and then there was a discussion and the staff then talked with
the Airport Authority, and they tried to bring what was discussed in
the CCPC meeting into conformance. And so the staff made changes
to this based upon what they believe was discussed in the CCPC. It's
very confusing. I'd prefer that we not do it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
Page 168
June 6-7, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But I don't think any other
organization did it. I think the staff was trying to give us an
interpretation of --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, then--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- what actually happened.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- maybe they ought to have
Planning Commission recommendations and staff recommendations.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It should be clear, yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. Very clear.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you.
MR. MUDD: You'll never -- you'll never see that again.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We're going to take a 12-minute break,
okay . We'll be back here at about 3 :28.
(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.
The Board of County Commissioners is back in session from
recess.
Item #8D
ORDINANCE 2006-29: PUDZ-2005-AR-8901: HABITAT FOR
HUMANITY OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC., REPRESENTED BY
LAURA SPURGEON, OF JOHNSON ENGINEERING,
REQUESTING A PUD REZONE OF APPROXIMATELY 26.85
ACRES FROM THE RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING
DISTRICT TO THE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT WITH AN
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS. THE PROJECT IS
Page 169
June 6-7, 2006
TO BE KNOWN AS LIBERTY LANDING AND IS INTENDED
TO PROVIDE 162 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS IN
IMMOKALEE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE
NORTH HALF OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE
29 EAST~ COLLIER COUNTY~ FLORIDA - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us to item 8D. This
item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure
be provided by commission members.
It's PUDZ-2005-AR-890 1, Habitat for Humanity of Collier
County, Inc., represented by Laura Spurgeon of Johnson Engineering,
requesting a PUD rezone of approximately 26.85 acres from the rural
agricultural A zoning district to the residential planned unit
development, RPUD, zoning district with an affordable housing
density bonus.
The proj ect is to be known as Liberty Landing and is intended to
provide 162 affordable housing units in Immokalee.
The subject property is located in the north half of Section 31,
Township 46 south, Range 29 east, Collier County, Florida.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, I don't mean to
interrupt, but I think this is an item that we have read quite well and
we've got a great understanding on it.
I would like -- you know, with the permission, of course, of the
chair and my fellow commissioners, I'd like to see us go right to the
people that may have to address the commission, and then we can ask
questions and have a motion and move this thing forward.
I mean, I'm quite familiar with it. Maybe I'm just presuming the
my fellow commissioners are. But that would be my suggestion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I'd like to see us put a brief -- kind
of a brief description on record so that people out there that maybe
haven't -- are not familiar with this have an understanding of where
we're at with this, and I believe we have one public speaker also.
Page 170
June 6-7, 2006
So what we need to do is, I think we need to get some of it on
record. Make it very brief, if you could.
MS. SPURGEON: Okay. Do we need to swear in?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. At this point in time, everybody
that's going to be participating in this, please rise to be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And starting from my left,
Commissioner Henning, do you have any disclosures on this, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. I received three emails on
this proj ect yesterday.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I have no disclosures. Oh, I
did talk with staff on it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Myself, I talked with staff, and I
also had one or two emails on this, and they're located here.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. If you could, what's the
item number again?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's D.
MR. MUDD: 8D.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 8D?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I received emails on this,
and I've talked to people at the Immokalee Civic Association, talked to
Floyd Crews, who's here in the audience. Other than that, I've had no
other correspondence or calls.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I have no disclosure on this
item at all.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much. Please
proceed.
MS. SPURGEON: For the record, my name is Laura Spurgeon.
Page 171
June 6-7, 2006
I'm a Planner with Johnson Engineering. I'm here representing Habitat
for Humanity of Collier County.
With me is Chris Hagen, also of Johnson Engineering, and Sam
Durso, the President of Habitat for Humanity.
The request is for rezoning of 26.85 acres in Immokalee. It's on
the north side of Lake Trafford Road bounding the Lake Trafford
Elementary School to the north and to the west.
The site is covered by three different land use designations.
Briefly those are primarily low residential allowing four units per acre.
There's a -- the site is skirted on the east by mixed residential at six
units per acre, and also a small area of neighborhood center applies to
the site at 12 units per acres.
Based on those applicable land use designations, the site is -- has
a base density of 5.1 dwelling units per acre. This is a request with an
affordable housing density bonus agreement to achieve six units per
acre, actually 6.034. That would allow 162 units on this 26.85-acre
site.
This request is a fulfillment of the Ave Maria DRI resolution
05-235 which require -- has a stipulation that acreage be donated to
Habitat for Humanity to accommodate at least 150 very low income
dwelling units, so this request is for very low income, which is at or
below 50 percent of the median income.
Just to pinpoint our deviation request, we had a request for relief
from the sidewalk requirement on both sides of the street going up the
entry road; however, we've agreed to staffs condition that sidewalks
be located along both sides of that entry road in order to accomplish
having county maintained right-of-way.
We would like to retain section 5.5.J in the PUD document,
which is standard language establishing county maintenance of that
right-of-way. Connect -- the right-of-way through Liberty Landing
connects to county-maintained right-of-way to the north in
Independence as well as to Lake Trafford Road along the south.
Page 1 72
June 6-7, 2006
And also there's a staff stipulation that garages be required, and
those garages further have dimensional requirements and a restriction
against conversion. We would request that the standard language that
garages be required, which has also been included in other PUDs for
Habitat for Humanity projects, be limited to that only, garages shall be
required.
And finally, there's a stipulation that the issuance of COs in the
Liberty Landing project be contingent upon completion of a county
drainage improvement to the Fish Branch Creek.
In discussions with the stormwater project director, Gene Calvert,
that project is proposed, but funding has not been approved yet, and
the final design is not complete yet, so tying the COs at Liberty
Landing is a little nebulous as far as when the actual stormwater
improvement proj ect that the county has proposed would actually be
complete.
We'd like to tie a date certain to say, completion of the Fish
Branch Creek proj ect or April 1, 2007, whichever comes first, then
COs could be issued at Liberty Landing.
Those are the only issues we wanted to address with staff
recommendations. We had -- we do a staff recommendation for
approval an a unanimous Planning Commission recommendation for
approval. And with that, I would take any questions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a question. You stated something
in the transportation division of -- one of the stipulations by the
Planning Commission is that the transportation division reserves the
right to deny maintenance responsibilities of right-of-ways as
stipulated by staff. Did you have a concern with that?
MS. SPURGEON: That comment was generated by the request
for a deviation where we would not need a sidewalk along one side of
the street, and therefore, it would not be a code standard right-of-way
construction.
Since we've agreed to follow all code standards as far as
Page 173
June 6-7, 2006
right-of-way construction, we feel that it's appropriate that that be
removed, that there should not be the reserving the right to deny when
the commitment has been made bate applicant to follow all of the code
standards in right-of-way construction.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do you know what some of the concerns
were because of what the Planning Commission -- why they put that
particular item in there?
MS. SPURGEON: It was consistent with staffs
recommendation, and staffs recommendation was generated by the
original deviation request that we had to eliminate a sidewalk on one
side of a street.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. Do I have any
other questions from my fellow commissioners before I open up the --
open this up for public hearing?
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I like the project. I think it's
good, but I have two problems. The first one is the sidewalk. Do we
have sidewalks throughout the entire facility?
MS. SPURGEON: The commitment is there to provide
sidewalks throughout the facility. That's a 120-foot long private
access drive on the northwest corner of the site that only accesses four
units, and that being a narrow private access, the request there is to
only have one sidewalk along that accessway.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But there are sidewalks throughout
the rest of the --
MS. SPURGEON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I didn't -- I didn't quite
understand that, and I thought you were only talking about a sidewalk
in the entryway. But you're talking about the whole place?
MS. SPURGEON: We've committed to have sidewalks through
the whole project.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. The second thing is there
Page 174
June 6-7, 2006
was a neighborhood meeting, and some of the problems that they had
were noise at night and weekends, but then further in the body of this,
it says, adequate landscaping buffers will serve to decrease potential
noise impacts, yet you're trying to reduce the regular landscape buffer
of type B down to a type A, so I don't know that that's actually going
to protect the neighbors after all if you're just using -- that's a very,
very minimum landscaping buffer. And so we've promised here that
we would protect them from that, and then we're trying to reduce it.
MS. SPURGEON: The reduction actually only occurs on the
east side of the property, and that's where there's no development at
this time. It's -- so all the buffers are meeting code except for that one
eastern extent of the property where there were no neighbors.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could you show me on the map
where -- are there going to be neighbors there, or is that not of
concern? I see.
MS. SPURGEON: It's that eastern area, and I don't know the
plans for development there.
DR. DURSO: For the record, Dr. Sam Durso, President of
Habitat for Humanity. It's my belief that that land there is going to be
donated to the school. The school's going to have that land eventually.
They'll eventually put another school -- they're going to put a second
elementary school there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And above that, not on the
eastern side then where you just mentioned, but above that it shows
type A buffers also, but you really mean type B's?
MS. SPURGEON: No. We're meeting the code standard for
type A buffers along the north, and the only neighbors to our north is
another Habitat for Humanity project. So they're compatible and they
would not require additional buffering above the code standard.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I have several questions,
Page 175
June 6-7, 2006
but I'll be brief. The Collier County Planning Commission, I think
rightly so, recommended that a garage be included. What kind of
impact will that have on the proj ect as far as who can qualify?
DR. DURSO: You know, we have been doing garages at our
current Naples project. We just started doing it, okay.
Personally I don't have a strong opinion whether we do garages
or not. We were asked by the planning board to do garages on that
project. We're trying it out. We're going to see what it's like. The
house looks great. Some of you commissioners have been out and
seen it. We think the house looks real good.
If the intention of the garage is to get cars off the road, I don't
know if that's going to work. We're not going to be able to find out
until we've been in there for a year or so, okay? But we're more than
happy to put garages here.
It does cost us more money, okay, but we -- because we raise
money from private donations, it's not going to affect who can afford
the house.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, fine.
DR. DURSO: But they're going to cost us more money. It's
going to cost us probably 8- to $10,000 more per house, but we're still
going to be selling it to people making less than 50 percent earned
Income.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It will blend in better with the
neighborhood.
DR. DURSO: We think it will. Let's try it. And you know, we'll
judge later on. I mean, we could come up with a plan without the
garage as well. But we'd like to try this as our standard plan in Naples
and Immokalee, build the same house, the attached villa with the
garage.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Dr. Durso, there was
mention about the -- some concern about the garages being turned into
additional living space to be possibly rented out. Of course, you have
Page 176
June 6-7, 2006
an association you put in place in each one of these places that --
DR. DURSO: It's against the law to do that anyways. You can't
turn a garage into a living space without a permit. You know, we
have condo docs. that -- I mean not -- homeowners' association
documents that don't allow that as well.
So we don't really want to have another thing that says you can't
do it. It's already -- you've already got county law that says you can't
do it, out homeowners' association documents that say that they can't
-- they can't change the house without our permission. So we just
don't want to add it. We don't want to be in there a third time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand. The -- tell me also
too now -- I'm sorry to keep bringing it up about the sidewalks. I
think that we've discussed it quite a bit, but I just want to make sure I
understand. We're talking about the internal sidewalks will all be in
place.
DR. DURSO: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The external sidewalks, on the
road on the side that the proj ect faces Lake Trafford Road --
DR. DURSO: There'll be sidewalks there. The only sidewalk
that we wanted -- I wanted to get rid of was the sidewalk as you look
-- as you look at the piece, to your left. The only thing to your left is
two single-family homes on 25 acres. I thought I was doing them a
favor by eliminating that sidewalk. That sidewalk, nobody's going to
use. It's a total waste.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Go to the school. The children
will have sidewalks all the way to the school.
DR. DURSO: Oh, absolutely. And we've interconnected this
proj ect with Independence as well, so the kids from Independence are
going to be able to walk through this project to the school, and there'll
be an access, a pedestrian walkway, from our project into the school.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would you be so kind as to just
touch the map that's on the display unit there; show us where the
Page 1 77
June 6-7, 2006
sidewalks would go, from where to where.
DR. DURSO: Lake Trafford Road is down here -- Lake Trafford
Road is down here. You come in off of Lake Trafford Road. The
school is right in here, okay. And then there's going to be some
houses along here, and then it comes in with a big circle around here
and a lake.
And then right above us here is Independence, so we have 150
Habitat homes in this area above it. So this is going to be a great
interconnect into this subdivision above it. We had to take out one of
the lots in Independence, but we're going to do that so we have that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
DR. DURSO: But the school is -- the school is right in here.
And I believe there'll be a future school back in here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And sidewalks __
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So the sidewalks will exist--
DR. DURSO: There's sidewalks everywhere. There's sidewalks
on both sides of this entry road and there's sidewalks on both sides of
the circle.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, why was one of the
concerns of the residents about sidewalks or school children walking
to school?
DR. DURSO: I have no idea.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Well, we possibly might
find out --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: From staff.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- from Mr. Crews when he
comes up.
And also, too, the -- there was mention of noise at night and
weekends. Do you -- has there been a problem with this in other
Habitat communities?
DR. DURSO: We do the best we can. You know, as you know,
we're the biggest Habitat in the country. We maintain a relationship
Page 178
June 6-7, 2006
with our families forever. They all come into our office to pay their
mortgage, so we know our families. We have tremendous
homeowners' associations that are models that are used throughout the
country. You know, are there problems? There's always going to be
problems. We take care of the problems when they happen, you
know.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'm a little bit concerned,
and I -- you explained it once. I need it explained again so that I truly
understand it. It didn't make sense the first time, that transportation
reserves the right to deny maintenance responsibility of the
right-of-way. What are they denying? Is this something that they
don't normally do and they're just going to do it for Habitat?
DR. DURSO: No. I think they're trying to do that for everybody
now. They'd rather not take responsibility for the roads. But if we
build the roads to county standards, we would like the county to
accept them.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would assume so too. I'd like
transportation to address it. Because I mean, I know Orangetree, we
built the roads, and -- they built the roads and they turned them over to
the county to accept responsibility, and it's been true with most of the
homes through that whole area.
DR. DURSO: And they -- they are going to -- you are going to
accept maintenance of Independence, which is the other subdivision
right next door, so --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why would this be different?
DR. DURSO: I have no idea.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Somebody from transportation
or somebody from planning?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We can have staffprobably address this
in their presentation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I mean, I think questions
follow in a logical order. I don't care if it's staff or if it's -- who, but I
Page 1 79
June 6-7,2006
do want an answer to it.
MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, transportation planning. The issue was
raised specifically because at one point the sidewalk was going to be
left off on the eastern side of the roadway entering in, and one of the
concerns that we've always raised is having roads built to standard __
we'll accept roads built to standard.
If they're not built to standard, we're trying to be more selective,
because later on it gets on us, essentially, to go out there and improve
the road back to standard. And there's always a stipulation, even for
like roadway thickness. If someone goes out and puts a half inch of
pavement and says, go and take our road, that's not what we're going
to do. So we always have that stipulation.
As it's shown right now, it is to standard and we would accept it
as long as --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can we remove that?
MR. SCOTT: -- it's to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If it's up to standards, if it's
going to be built to standard, can we remove this clause? Because I'd
hate to see this one community have to carry the burden from now on
out when every other neighboring community is exempt from having
to maintain their own roads.
I'm kind of lost why this -- I mean -- they're meeting -- they're
going to meet the requirements to be a county-maintained road,
correct?
MR. SCOTT: If they build it according to the way they've said,
yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why do we want this particular
wording in here that makes them still responsible to build it, to
maintain it?
MR. SCOTT: Well, my only qualification to that is, fine.
They're saying they're going to build it like this. If they go out later
on and say, here's an inch of pavement and here's your road, that's not
Page 180
June 6-7, 2006
going to be something we'll accept.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. I'm asking the
question the wrong way.
MR. MUDD: Don, why can't we change the verbiage so it states,
the county transportation will accept the road when it's at county
standards?
MR. SCOTT: That's fine.
MR. MUDD: Okay. And when that happens -- and it's in a very
positive way instead of negative way, and I think that's what you
want.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Because I'm looking 15,20
years down the road when this community, all of a sudden, why do we
have to maintain our road? Why do we have to put the next coat of
blacktop down? We're paying our taxes just like anyone else.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I believe with that change, you'll
get what you want, and I believe it will get what transportation is
requiring of all developments.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: My question related to the same
thing. We're saying in recommendation number two exactly what we
talked about, but then it goes on to say that section 5.5.J shall be
removed from the PUD document.
Now, I don't understand that because 5.5.J says that operation
and maintenance of driveways, private right-of-way, and other
pathways shall be operated and maintained by an entity created by the
developer.
Why would we remove that from the PUD document? And that's
a question for staff.
MS. WILLIAMS: Your version of the PUD document -- I'm
sorry. For the record, Heidi Williams, Principal Planner, Zoning and
Land Development Review.
Your version of the PUD document may be different from that
Page 181
June 6-7, 2006
citation. The original 5.5.J stated that, due to the interconnection with
the county maintained right-of-way __
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, but go to the last sentence.
MS. WILLIAMS: The concern was that that section would
create an internal conflict with the stipulation that the county reserved
the right to deny maintenance. Perhaps, it should not have covered the
entire point, and just -- it should have covered just the section about
the county maintaining the roadway; however, it appears that the
county does accept --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, the county hasn't accepted it.
The county will accept it only if it's built to county standards, and the
county's willing to accept that.
MS. WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So if it's built to county standards,
the county will accept it. But the second sentence in that provision
says, the operation and maintenance of driveways, private
right-of-way and other pathways shall be operated and maintained by
an entity created by the developer. We're not going to maintain
driveways.
MS. WILLIAMS: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. WILLIAMS: I understand that. And actually that is
redundant to the Land Development Code. It's in there, and removing
it would not require that the county maintain the driveways.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Where is it in the Land
Development Code then?
MS. WILLIAMS: I don't have the citation in front of me, but it
is in there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Because if it's not, you
know you're going to be maintaining their driveways.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, for the record, Nick
Casalanguida. That is typically a stipulation that's in for private
Page 182
June 6-7, 2006
PUDs. That should be stricken from that record. That last sentence
should not be in there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There is a provision somewhere
else then that says we don't maintain driveways?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We don't maintain driveways by code.
It's private property.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: So we would not. That section's in
there for private PUDs. If the petitioner has offered up to provide the
sidewalk and meet typical county standards, we would accept the
roadway, so that sentence should not be there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So eliminating 5.5.J from
this PUD --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Second sentence.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- document is okay? Now, you're
going to be --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Held liable.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You see, you're suggesting -- that
is staffs recommendation is to eliminate the entire 5.5.1.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. The second sentence of that,
and then qualify the first with what County Manager stated, that if it
meets typical county standards, we'll maintain the roadways.
MR. MUDD: So you're basically saying strike the sentence and
the recommendation number two that says that section 5.5.J shall be
removed from the PUD document. Is that what you're telling them?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You could keep J in there and strike
the second sentence and qualify it as you did, sir, County Manager, by
stating that if it meets typical county standards, we would accept that
roadway.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then we have to make changes to
two things then. You have to make changes to 5.5.J by striking the
last sentence, and then you have to make changes to the staffs
Page 183
June 6-7, 2006
recommendation number two by striking the statement that section
5.5.J. shall be removed from the PUD document, and then you need to
reword the first sentence to say that the county will accept
responsibility for maintenance of the roads if the roads are constructed
to county standards.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We got it right now?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That would -- that would solve the
problem.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right. Thank you.
DR. DURSO: The lesson I learned is, we will definitely put
sidewalks on both sides of the streets always. I mean, I thought it was
a good idea not to do it in the one place, but I confused everybody.
MS. SPURGEON: And I also want -- just for the record, I want
to point out that section 5.5.B states everything we've just talked
about. It says that all traffic control devices, signs, pavement
markings, and design criteria will be in accordance with FDOT
Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards, and that all other
improvements will be consistent as required by the LDC. So that's
covering the improvements that have to do with transportation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not sure. It seems to me that
that pertains to improvements of the roads themselves to have traffic
control devices and lines and things, but not necessarily construction
standards of the road or the curbing or anything of that nature.
I think those are two different things. But I think we've got it
sorted out. But there's one other thing. I wanted to get at your other
concern about the date certain for the stormwater improvements, and I
need somebody from staff to deal with that for me.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, it says in here that it will be
completed in the fall of 2006. And I was on the phone when she
brought it up, they needed time certain. Let me give you a time
certain. You can't have a CO -- and we'll have the proj ect before __
Page 184
June 6-7, 2006
completed before July of 2007. Does that fit okay with you?
DR. DURSO: That's fine. We don't need a CO till July 2007.
So change it from April to July 1st of2007. That's fine.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then I've got it. I'm ready.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Could we have the presentation
by staff, please, and then we'll call the public speakers up.
MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. Again, for the record, Heidi Williams
with zoning and development review.
Just a few things. We've gone over the deviations. They, as
revised, are supported by staff. The Planning Commission was
unanimous in its recommendation to approve.
They had five stipulations for approval. We've gone through
some of the differences. They are very close to the five
recommendations by staff.
We've fully discussed 5.5.1. The garage, should you choose that
the stipulation regarding garage remain, staff added to that stipulation
with some development standards to make it easier to implement that
provision to clarify what the Planning Commission recommended.
And other than that, I'm happy to address any questions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Are there any questions by
commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If not, thank you very much for your
presentation, and we'll open the public hearing up.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have one public speaker, Mr.
Floyd Crews.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. CREWS: My name is Floyd Crews. I'm from Immokalee.
I want to thank all you all for approving the previous project with the
workforce housing over here in Naples. That is a -- I'm glad to see it.
We get plenty of it in Immokalee. Maybe between all of us we're
going to make some marks in Immokalee.
Page 185
June 6-7, 2006
But my problem is, we don't have enough roads, and they're
going to dump all of that traffic out onto Lake Trafford Road.
The project to the west of it dumps out into Lake Traffic Road.
Arrowhead, right directly across from the school, dumps out into
Immokalee Road.
And as Commissioner Henning can tell you, we've tried to get
roads through MSTUs, and we don't have the tax base. How do we
get some roads?
Now, whenever they come over there -- what we need is for them
to use an alternate route and not put all the traffic on Lake Trafford
Road. And however that can be done -- but I am well in favor of the
Habitat people. They've done a good job for the last, oh, 22 years I've
been working with them.
That's all I got to say.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
Commissioner --
MR. CREWS: Thank you all.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- Coletta.
MR. CREWS: And thank you all.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Don Scott? It doesn't come as a
surprise that there's a concern in Immokalee over the lack of a real
network. We make fun of Golden Gate Estates occasionally for not
having interconnecting roads, but that's unbelievably well laid out
compared to Immokalee with as many private roads and dead-ends.
And Lake Trafford Road has been an issue for some time.
What are some of transportation's plans in the near and distant
future to be able to remedy some of the problems at that end of
Immokalee?
MR. SCOTT: Near future, Arrowhead has some commitments to
meet on Lake Trafford. There's more paved shoulders and intersection
improvements at Lake Trafford. The last conversation I had with
them is they were out doing survey work to move forward on that.
Page 186
June 6-7, 2006
Longer term, we've talked about connections of -- you know, one
of the concerns is Lake Trafford out to the east, there is no other way
in and out. We've had some discussions about Westclox being
extended over to Little League Road, also a north/south connector
between Lake Trafford and State Road 82.
Some of those -- they're not programmed at the moment. Some
of them are -- like the school is talking about making the first little
connection of Westclox out. Some of them are in various stages of
development based on whatever developer comes forward in some of
the process out there, let alone the east of 951 study and some of the
identified roadway in those areas.
They're not as quick as the Immokalee area would like in some
respects. I've worked with the Immokalee Master Plan regarding, you
know, Immokalee loop road and some of the other issues, we are
working on various new roadways and widening of existing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There's -- is there -- there's no
real magic bullet out there at the moment?
MR. SCOTT: No. I mean, one of the things we talk about, talk
about Immokalee loop road, is that, how fast can we get it? And it's
about eight to 10 years, unfortunately, because it's just supposed to
start PD&E fairly soon. Same with State Road 82. One of the things
that's been said is, if we have all the money we need, how fast is it?
It's still eight to 10 years. I mean, we're at the beginning of the stages
that we need to be for some of these things, but unfortunately it takes
some time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I didn't mean to interrupt you,
but we do have some major players coming in in Immokalee in the
very near future. I kind of hope that one of the requirements for them
to even consider a PUD -- and I mean, what's the one there--
MR. SCOTT: Seranoa (phonetic).
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Seranoa, which is going to be
how many homes, they're talking about?
Page 187
June 6-7, 2006
MR. SCOTT: Six thousand, I think, was the last count I heard.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What commercial area--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We'll get some roads out of them.
MR. SCOTT: It's a DR!. It's a DR!.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ifwe could -- I mean, I'm not
going to commit the civic association in Immokalee, but we, maybe
through Jim Mudd's office, we might want to talk about having the
civic association deal with the road situation. They've done it before,
and we've got to do it again and again and again.
But possibly in September or October, dedicating their meeting
to it, we can go there with -- give them some idea of where we are,
where the problems are, and then let the community interact at the
appropriate times when people come forward with PUD demanding
what we need to be able to make it happen.
MR. SCOTT: Well--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Regrettably, Habitat for
Humanity is a little small on the size and definitely in the pocketbook
to be able to underwrite the cost of any substantial road
improvements. I mean, that would be the same as saying, you can't
go, if we ever made it a requirement.
MR. SCOTT: Well, after my negative speech, I'd follow up to
say, you know, obviously Immokalee Road, we were going to start the
PD&E, and that was going to be 10 years out. Oil Well Road now is
as close as 2007 starting construction.
You can cut a lot of the phasing -- you know, a lot of time
throwing out right-of-way, obviously getting donated right-of-way.
There are ways to speed it up, but we need commitments from other
people, too, besides ourselves.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that's true. There's a lot of
landowners there, especially with the --
MR. SCOTT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- interconnect to 82 who have a
Page 188
June 6-7, 2006
lot to gain. And maybe what we do have to do is have that meeting
with the civic association and invite them to it and see if we can start
people going towards a commitment so we can see the light at the end
of the tunnel --
MR. SCOTT: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- per your suggestion now, and
I'll talk to Anne Goodnight and some of the people from the civic
association, and then with Jim Mudd's office to see if we can arrange
for transportation to come in and start addressing it.
Sorry, Mr. Crews, I wish that we could tell you that the solution
was going to take place next week, but obviously --
MR. CREWS: I know, I hear you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know, and it's -- I know, but
thank you very much for taking the time to come.
And with that, I'd like to make a motion for approval with the
stipulations that have been mentioned.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'm going to close the public
hearing.
Is that the last public hearing person?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'm closing the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the table
from Commissioner Coletta and a second by Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I ask, Mr. Chairman, if the
motion includes the staff recommendations and the changes to strike
the last sentence of recommendation number two and to strike from
the PUD document the last sentence of section 5.5.J?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That was included in my
motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. That's included in your second,
Page 189
June 6-7, 2006
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I'm sorry, the addition of a
July 2007 time certain for certificates of occupancy.
MR. MUDD: For the stormwater.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Stormwater.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's also included.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does that include the sidewalk?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The sidewalks is laid out on the
plan as we see it in front of us now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's a roadway. Where's the
sidewalk?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. Forgive me. The
sidewalks, from what I understand, go around the whole perimeter of
the inside of the property and also continue on the outside of the
property .
Is that correct, Mr. Durso?
DR. DURSO: The roads and sidewalks will be built to county
standard, which means there will be a sidewalk on both sides of the
road.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if that isn't done, of course,
they wouldn't be able to get the approval, but that's not the
recommendation, but the direction of the motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about the garage
stipulations?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that was part of the
original recommendations that came forward and, of course, they
remain along with the other elements of the Planning Commission and
staff recommendations.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So the garage standards
Page 190
June 6-7, 2006
are bigger than the other Habitat communities? That's what I'm
hearing in the motion.
DR. DURSO: We'd rather not have item four, which says each
dwelling shall have a garage that's a minimum of nine feet by 18 feet,
and it also says, garages are prohibited from being converted to living
space.
In actuality that -- the size is correct. That's the size we would be
making them, but I really don't want to have that clause saying
prohibitive from being converted to living space, because I don't think
that's put into anybody else's garages. And so I wouldn't want it to be
put -- why would Habitat communities have that restriction? I mean,
it's county law. You can't do it anyways.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Picking on you.
DR. DURSO: We don't think we should have a separate specific
restriction because they're Habitat homeowners.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My motion includes striking
that part of it, with the idea that county codes and laws and ordinances
already cover it.
DR. DURSO: But garages will be required. We're happy with
that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's for sure.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Have we got everything included in the
motion? Is everybody clear on the motion or should we restate the
motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no. We're clear.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You sure?
All right. Is there any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS:
Page 191
June 6-7, 2006
Hearing none, I'll 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: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
Item #8E
ORDINANCE 2006-30: PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8918, PALERMO
COVE PUD, ELIAS BROTHERS COMMUNITIES AT RAFFIA
PRESERVE, INC., REPRESENTED BY D. WAYNE ARNOLD,
AICP, OF Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P.A.,
REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO PALERMO COVE RPUD,
BY ADDING MULTIPLE F AMIL Y RESIDENTIAL DWELLING
UNITS AS A PERMITTED USE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
NORTH OF WOLFE ROAD, WEST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD
(C.R. 951), IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST~ COLLIER COUNTY~ FLORIDA - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is 8E. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and
ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members.
It's PUDZA-2005-AR-8918, Palermo Cove PUD, Elias Brothers
Communities at Raffia Preserve, Inc., represented by D. Wayne
Arnold, AICP, ofQ. Grady Minor & Associates P.A., requesting an
amendment to the Palermo Cove RPUD by adding multifamily
residential dwelling units as a permitted use for property located north
Page 192
June 6-7, 2006
of Wolfe Road, west of Collier Boulevard, which is County Road 951,
in Section 34, Township 48 south, Range 26 east, Collier County,
Florida.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. All those that are going to testify,
would you please stand to be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And starting from my right,
Commissioner Coyle, do you have any ex parte on this particular
item?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I do. I have had meetings
with representatives of the petitioner. I've also received emails and
telephone calls concerning this petition.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Last Monday I met with Rich
Y ovanovich and Wayne Arnold, and I received a phone call from Rich
Y ovanovich.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Myself, I've received emails and
talked to staff about this particular project, and I believe that that's --
that covers the area of concerns with me.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We actually met on this subject
once before, I don't know, maybe last year already, so we were pretty
well versed on it then. Plus this past week, or somewhere within the
last week, week and a half, I met with Wayne Arnold and Rich
Y ovanovich, and I've also met with staff.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nothing on this new petition at
all.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much. Rich?
Your turn.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. Good afternoon. For the
record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner.
Page 193
June 6-7, 2006
With me today are Gary Gasparini and Doug Nelson from Elias
Brothers, Wayne Arnold and Mike Delate from Q. Grady Minor and
Associates, and Reed Jarvi, to answer any question that you may have
that I may not answer in my brief presentation.
This is an existing PUD that went through the process last year.
It's located on the visualizer on the west side of County Road 951,
Collier Boulevard, just north of Vanderbilt Beach Road. It's
approximately 131 acres, and it's an -- the existing is for 524 units.
What we're requesting today is to amend the PUD to add a
different permitted use, or another additional permitted use, which
would be multifamily as a permitted use.
Currently the PUD allows for single-family and single-family
attached, but does not allow for the typical multifamily product. It
does allow for townhomes, but it does not allow for a typical
multifamily product.
The request is to -- there are a lot of townhome products in the
area, and we would like to provide an opportunity for varying the
product within our -- within our project and not necessarily provide as
many -- Summit Place is a townhome project, and Bristol Pines across
the street is a townhome product, and we'd like to vary it up a little bit
by providing some multifamily product.
By going to multifamily, it actually allows us to provide a little
bit larger units than we would provide under the typical townhome
product, so there's a benefit there as well by allowing the addition of
multifamily.
If you will recall -- and I'll briefly take you through the history of
the project, this was probably the first project that comprehensively
addressed both gap housing and affordable housing. It actually, I
think, is the product -- that project that coined the phrase gap housing.
This project is required to provide 10 percent of the constructed
units to meet the 125 percent or less threshold, which is actually lower
than what was recently adopted by the Board of County
Page 194
June 6-7, 2006
Commissioners.
We also have already contributed $250,000 to the Empowerment
Allowance, and donated five acres to Habitat for Humanity. So we
originally addressed all those types of issues.
Currently access is limited to Pristine Drive, which on the
visualizer, basically runs from Vanderbilt Beach Road -- it runs down
through here. It runs from -- it basically runs from Vanderbilt Beach
all the way up to our project, and that's known as Pristine Drive, which
is currently under construction.
The way the PUD currently reads is that we're prohibited from
allowing any traffic onto Collier Boulevard, which at the time we
went through it originally, everybody acknowledged was a road that
needs to be six-Ianed as quickly as possible.
It originally provided that we would not put any direct
connection to Collier Boulevard until early year of completion of
Collier Boulevard, or October 1, 2007.
As we were going through the process with this requested
amendment, we agreed with the Planning Commission to prohibit a
direct connection of the project with 951 until the completion of
Collier Boulevard. What that means is that our project will have
access through Pristine to Vanderbilt Beach Road, which is already
under construction.
So we've agreed to that condition, except for two -- well, we
would like two circumstances when we could actually interconnect the
project to Collier Boulevard.
First, emergency access, and the Planning Commission agreed
that emergency access would be appropriate for connection to Collier
Boulevard.
Second, we believe that construction traffic should also be able to
use Wolfe Road. Essentially, we have trucks that are going to be
coming from Immokalee Road heading south. Under the Planning
Commission's requirements, those roads -- those trucks would be
Page 195
June 6-7, 2006
required to travel all the way south on 951 until they got to Vanderbilt
Beach Road, go through the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road by
taking a right, then going to Pristine, and then going back north to get
to the project to deliver whatever they're delivering with their
construction.
To us it didn't make any sense to force trucks to stay on 951 for a
longer period of time when they could get off 951 at Wolfe Road. We
understand the concern for trucks coming from the south, but trucks
coming from the north we didn't understand the concern.
If they're coming from the south, they'll get to Vanderbilt Beach
Road, they can take the left, go up Pristine Drive; we understand that.
They're actually getting off of 951 quicker that way. But you're
actually requiring them to stay on 951 longer if they're coming from
the north.
And we request that we be allowed to have construction traffic
use Wolfe Road for construction access. It's already being utilized as
construction access for -- it will be used for Sonoma Oaks, Wolfe
Creek, and currently is being utilized by Summit Place. So it's already
-- Wolfe Road is already being utilized for those purposes.
We had a neighborhood information meeting and met with the
residents in the area. There were some residents from Indigo Lakes,
which is basically in Island Walk, and also -- I'm sorry, Indigo Lakes
is north of us, and we had residents from Island Walk, but they didn't
raise any issues, and Summit Place.
Their primary concern was not with what we were adding, but
they just were concerned about where the three-story buildings would
be if we built three-story buildings.
And we agreed to a provision that's in the PUD that would
prohibit any buildings taller than two stories from being within 200
feet of our border with Indigo Lakes and Summit Place, so I think we
addressed the concerns of our neighbors in that area.
With that, that's a summary of what we're proposing. The actual
Page 196
June 6-7, 2006
conversion to -- what we're proposing, I believe, actually better
addresses traffic issues in the area than the current PUD does, and
actually by going to multifamily, they do generate less trips than
single- family generates. And with that, we're able to answer any
questions you may have regarding the project.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The only question I have is staff couldn't
give me a good definition of what intermediate gap housing units is.
Can you elaborate?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure. The PUD -- the PUD is very
explicit. It talks about, you have to make less than 125 percent of the
median income. And we actually have a provision in our PUD that
requires that it stay gap housing for 15 years. So our gap provisions
are tailored to the county's affordable housing provisions. So
essentially -- but -- so they're applicable to people who make 125
percent or less of median income.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: A hundred and twenty-five percent down
to what, 80 percent?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: They'd go down to as low as we want to.
They have to make less than 125 percent. That's the current -- now
the county's current definition is less than 150 percent.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Who's first on there?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'm going to read from a letter on
23 November, 2005 that I received from Elias Brother, and basically
to answer your question. The PUD included a requirement for 10
percent of the proposed units to consist of gap housing units which are
homes for sales to those who earn between 100 and 125 percent of the
Collier County median family income.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: And I believe that's the definition.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I appreciated that definition.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. That's just great because
Page 197
June 6-7, 2006
nobody's building that. They always go for the high end of
everything. I'm really pleased to hear that.
I want to know, with the multifamily, how are you going to --
how are you going to intersperse that? You're not going to put all,
like, gap housing shoved in a corner here and --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, they'll be -- they'll be interspersed
with the market rate units.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So they'll all be interspersed.
Do you have any idea of what it's going to look like? Do you have
some kind of a --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I do have some -- what our conceptual
renderings are today.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If that --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If you have, I would just love to see
that. And while you're doing that, will any of the single-family homes
be in that gap price range? I know they won't, but I thought I'd ask.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, on the visualizer you'll see what is
the current rendering of an eight-plex, and we also have a rendering of
a four-plex that we'll put up as well.
Your stand-alone single-family homes will not be within the gap
price ranges. We just can't bring the price down low enough to do
that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I kind of knew that, but I thought I'd
just ask.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But that is -- that's an eight-plex that we
may build, and then we have a four-plex that I think is underneath
that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's beautiful looking. By the
way, for anybody who is asking, they have some of those architectural
features over there.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And then here's a four-plex that we're
Page 198
June 6-7, 2006
also considering for the multifamily.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nice looking, Rich.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So we're -- it's going to be a nice product.
I think people know Elias Brothers. They build a nice product.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all my questions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Can you share these
elevations with the people who are going to do the Meridian village?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Did you say sell them or share them?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You could share them, would be
nice, depends on whether or not you want a vote for approval here.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'll be over there tomorrow.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Be sure to talk with them about
this. This is very attractive.
I have -- I don't know why, but it seems that executive summaries
are just getting more and more confusing to me. And so that
everybody knows, I talked to Mr. Y ovanovich and others about this in
detail yesterday.
I need to hear from staff what is really meant here. And let's go
to the Planning Commission recommendations, and recommendation
number four.
It states that the CCPC voted 7-1 to recommend approval with
the following conditions: Number four, no vehicular access to Collier
Boulevard shall be permitted until the four lane schedule
improvements for Collier Boulevard are completed.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Do you want me to answer that question?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I don't want to hear from you
at all. I want to know -- I know what Mr. Y ovanovich's interpretation
of that is, and we've talked about that, and that's not what it says, but --
okay.
MR. DeRUNTZ: For the record, Mike DeRuntz, principal
planner with the department of zoning and land development review.
Page 199
June 6-7, 2006
The Planning Commission was very concerned about the access
of vehicular traffic from -- on there until the roadway's improved.
They did -- did modify that to allow emergency vehicles.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now -- but wait a minute. I
believe Mr. Y ovanovich and the petitioner's position is essentially this,
that that concerns only construction traffic, right?
MR. DeRUNTZ: No. They didn't want any vehicular traffic
from this development to use Wolfe Road to get out to Collier
Boulevard.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Then I am confused. You're
going to have to help me out again.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I will. What happened was, they didn't
want any of our occupied residential units to have direct access to 951
because we have a back entrance, if you will. We have two entrances.
One off of Wolfe Road and one off of Pristine.
They only wanted us to use Pristine for our project until 951 was
completed, then we can open up our back gate to regular residential
traffic. And they said they didn't want any construction traffic using
the back entrance --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- but they would allow emergency
vehicles.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I got it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's what that means.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now I understand.
Now I need to talk with the transportation people. If they use
Pristine to go out to Vanderbilt Beach Road, what assurances do we
have that they're not going to wind up at the intersection of Collier
Boulevard and Vanderbilt Beach Road anyway?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, for the record, Nick
Casalanguida. You bring up a very good point. One thing I want to
clear up, you mentioned Collier as a four lane. I think there's a guy in
Page 200
June 6-7, 2006
the back who may lose his job if it's not a six lane.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's a six lane.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, yeah, it's always six lanes.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. I want to clarify that for the
record.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's six lane.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We have to change everything here.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you see, I'm reading from the
staffs -- staffs document here that says four lanes.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. It should be six lanes, sir. I just
want to correct that for the record. He got a little nervous when I said
that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: I understand what it says, and I can't tell you if
that's four-lane improvements in addition to the two that already exist.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, good.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. That's why it's confusing.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Really good.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good save.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: When we -- I was at the Planning
Commission hearing that day, and it's -- if you've got a dump truck
coming down from Immokalee Road down Collier Boulevard and they
can take a right down to Wolfe Road to get to the project and avoid
going through the intersection of Vanderbilt Road and then going
down Vanderbilt, it make sense to be able to provide vehicular access
for construction vehicles at that point. And it -- the conversation got a
little convoluted at a lot of different discussions, and it was difficult to
clarify that. But for the record here, it would make sense to allow
construction vehicles to get down that road.
Page 201
June 6-7, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'm not talking about
construction vehicles. I understand now the deal with the construction
vehicles. And I think you agree with Mr. Y ovanovich that the traffic
-- construction traffic coming from the north should be able to turn
onto Wolfe Road, right?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So -- now, what I'm concerned
about is the traffic generated from the residents of the development
prior to the completion of the widening of Collier Boulevard.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sir, honestly that would apply to that
too. I mean, if you've got any -- a second entrance and if that person
was going to the Publix shopping center at Pebblebrooke and they
were coming down south on Collier Boulevard, if they could come
into the development prior to going through the Vanderbilt
intersection, which is also under construction.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Maintenance and traffic will take care
of itself with the construction process while they're doing the Wolfe
Road intersection. If they need to close that down and force vehicles
around to the Pristine entrance, they will do so.
So having a secondary entrance there and a restriction on it didn't
seem to make sense to me at the time. If it's a shorter trip length, then
it can avoid additional trip miles along the construction right-of-way,
it would make sense to allow them to come in at that point as well,
too.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I'm apparently not make
myself clear. Let me try it a different way.
We've got over, what, 500 units, 524 units going in here, and
they're going to be developed or under development before 951
improvements are completed.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Just half of them.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Two hundred and seventy of them.
Page 202
June 6-7, 2006
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They're phased.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's correct, 270 of them --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Two sixty-four.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, 260 or whatever, will be
finished before Collier Boulevard is widened.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, if you take them off Pristine
onto Vanderbilt Beach Road, some of that traffic's going to find it's
way onto Collier Boulevard.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Right?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We haven't finished constructing
Collier Boulevard yet. It's going to be a mess.
Now, what I'm concerned about is that these restrictions on the
entrance have nothing to do with the phasing of the project. The
project can go ahead whether Collier Boulevard is completed or not,
and I don't like that, okay?
So I'm trying to find out -- figure out a way that we can make
sure that the improvements have been made to Collier Boulevard and
that Collier Boulevard can accommodate the traffic generated by this
development as well as all other developments that are going to be
coming on line at that point in time.
And so what I need to understand is, what is the status of that
improvement, the awarding of a contract, the estimation of cost, the
availability of funding; where is all that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: This -- I believe some of the
information received this morning was the permitting was completed
for a portion of that, and that will be going out to bid within the next
six weeks. It's a 24- to 36-month project.
I know the first phase will be Wolfe Road and Tree Farm Road.
So we're optimistic that this goes to construction this fall. And, again,
Page 203
June 6-7, 2006
it's a 24- to 30-month project. We bid it one time. As you know, only
one bid. We're optimistic with our adjustments and the clarifications
to the permitting that we'll have additional bidders on this project.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we're looking at maybe having
this project completed sometime in 2008, maybe 2009?
MR. SCOTT: Spring of'09.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But we've got 260 dwelling
units that are going to be eligible to receive certificates of occupancy
by September the 31 st, 2007.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir, that was in the prior board
hearing that was adopted.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Now this amendment actually drops
down the traffic itself a little bit, and we did not address any additional
phasing since that was set in the first zoning hearing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I understand that the PUD's
already approved.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, we're not going to be
able to change the PUD unless the petitioner agrees to it. But they're
asking us to do certain things about adding multiple family residential,
and what I'm interested in pursuing is an adjustment to the phasing
schedule that will help us get closer to the anticipated completion date
of Collier Boulevard.
Why we would want to have additional traffic on this road while
we're constructing Collier Boulevard is beyond me. I just don't
understand why we'd want to do that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would share your concerns, and
when the petitioner approached us as part of the rezone in
transportation division, he expressed that currently he's zoned for
more trips with the single-family, and he was going to less trips
multifamily. We agree with that assessment based on the trip
Page 204
June 6-7, 2006
generation, and, therefore, he was not discussing any additional
phasing. And if that's something you wish to discuss, that's probably
something the board is welcome to take up with the applicant.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'm just concerned that
we're, again, moving into a situation where we've got major
developments and major road construction happening all at the same
time and we know that the result is not good. It never is good, and it's
a bad situation to be in.
And I would like to see ourselves start working out of that mode
and getting to the point where we get the job done before we start
having the traffic on the road.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Some of the petitions we're working
with on that that will be coming forward soon more directly tie into
construction time lines. But as Mr. Y ovanovich pointed out to me
when we first met, that this was already phased and a phasing was set,
and they were decreasing the intensity of the project; therefore, that
was what the -- you know --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And let -- let me make sure
everybody understands the implication of this. We thought we were
going to get started earlier.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can't--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We approved a phasing schedule
that we thought was going to work because we would have a contract
issued and people working on this job a lot earlier than now. And
through no fault of our own that didn't happen because we got an
outrageous bid. So we've had to go back out for bid to hope we get a
more reasonable bid. We don't know if we're going to get one.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Can't guarantee that, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we don't know when this job is
going to be completed.
So what has happened is that we made a decision to approve a
development based upon what we thought was going to happen, and
Page 205
June 6-7, 2006
that didn't happen, through no fault of ours, but we approved the
phasing schedule.
And in my estimation that's something we can't do anymore,
okay? But nevertheless, I don't know how to solve it right now unless
Mr. Y ovanovich and his client is going to say, yeah, we'll be happy to
move it off into 2008.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And be a good citizen.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we're trying to be good citizens.
And remember, it's not our fault either.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I know, yes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. And we understood what we
thought would be a reasonable schedule, which meant that we would
not have any trips going to 951 until October of '07, I believe it was,
and we're willing now to say, there'll be no direct connection to 951
until the road is done.
So I think we're willing to inconvenience our residents, if you
will, because it is an inconvenience for them, to not have that
secondary access open until 951 is completed.
Vanderbilt Beach Road is already under construction. And, you
know, we believe that the number -- we believe the majority of the
trips are actually going to head west to where they're going than
actually heading north on 951 that will actually go to the east on
Vanderbilt and head up to the intersection. There will be trips that go
through the intersection. There's no question about that.
So I think we've gone a long way to try to accommodate the
construction schedule and the delays by agreeing to not interconnect
directly until that road is completed. So I hope that that addresses
some of the concerns.
Now, the way the PUD reads today, basically until October '07,
we get 260 units, and after October '07 we get the remainder, and we
can actually interconnect with Collier Boulevard. We're willing to
Page 206
June 6-7, 2006
extend that period over which -- you know, still starting in '06 that we
could start getting units, but the 260-unit limitation would go from
October -- I think, it's -- well, let me look exactly in the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: September 31,2007.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Y eah. We would extend that to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It can't be September 31 st. There is
no September 31 st.
MR. MUDD: Can we -- we're on page 1. Can we Look at that?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah, page 1.
MR. MUDD: Page 1 of 4 on the executive summary, Rich. If
you could just get there with us a little bit so we understand.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I'd rather read from the PUD,
because the PUD is what really matters, and that's page Roman
numeral V, and under your code, it's page 52 of 132, and it's six eight
-- 6.8B.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I think it's kind of funny,
the certificates of occupancy prior to September 31 st. There is no
September 31 st.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's okay. There won't be any
certificates of occupancy either.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Until there is a December (sic)
31st.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. We've just solved this
problem.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good work, Donna.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Note to self, 30 days in September. But
extend that to -- we would -- we would add basically until April 1, '08,
we'd still only get the 260. I think that's four or five months.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the affordable housing units
will be -- will be built in a proper proportion to that number?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, what it basically -- I will tell you
what we hope. Based on construction costs, we'll be able to build
Page 207
June 6-7, 2006
them quickly. But we do -- because of all the other commitments we
made through the PUD document, we were given the flexibility to
build those gap units whenever we could. And we'd like to keep that
flexibility, but the way construction costs are going up, we need to
build those sooner rather than later because --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why don't we put them in the first
phase?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, because we still also need to have a
building -- a plan that returns enough money to keep the project going,
so we need to have some flexibility with that, especially now that
,
you ve --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's hard to have flexibility when
you don't have the CO or building permits.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: For what? We already have the ability to
do that. We're trying, Commissioner, to be -- work with you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you have any idea how many
affordable housing units you're doing during that first phase?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: In the first phase? They're not -- well,
they're -- in our provision they're called gap. Do we know? We
honestly don't know. We just don't know. We've always had the
flexibility to build them whenever.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're going to be integrating them
into the buildings that you just showed us?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know how many of those
buildings you are going to build to get 260 units. You also should
know how many affordable housing units in each of those buildings
you're going to provide.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I don't think it's that easy. We're
talking about the market. The market may dictate that we build some
of the bigger homes first and go to some of the smaller homes second
and save the multifamily till later. We don't know what the market
Page 208
June 6-7, 2006
conditions are.
I can't tell you today that we're definitely building the
multifamily first. If I knew that for sure, then I could probably give
you a better schedule. We're asking for some flexibility with the
marketing of our project. We know we have the obligation, and we've
already got the flexibility in the PUD document.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I didn't get an answer.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning's been
waiting so patiently here. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. The -- I might have
to do more disclosure. I forgot when Commissioner Fiala brought up
her issues, I heard the same thing from the county manager. And do I
need to disclose the county manager?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: We have a history of disclosing
speaking with staff, so I think that would be appropriate.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I appreciate
Commissioner Coyle's concern about 951. It is quite difficult out
there. And, you know, it is what it is, and I agree with you that we
need to put those stipulations on there where there's no connection
until the road is complete.
And so with that, I'm going to make a motion to approve with all
the stipulation -- agreed stipulations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I was going to bring up the fact that I
think -- wasn't there some opposition by -- when this was brought to
the board -- or brought to the planning board way back when, the
people in Vanderbilt club there, Vanderbilt community there, did they
have some opposition about putting traffic on 951, or am lout of --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't recall that, Commissioner Halas. I
think -- you know, we worked with all of our neighbors to make sure
that we had appropriate development standards that they can all live
with but--
,
Page 209
June 6-7, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: But when it was before the Planning
Commission, there wasn't any opposition in regards to making sure
that we didn't have any traffic on 951 until that was widened?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, there was -- I know the Planning
Commission themselves had that concern, and that's where that
stipulation came from.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's correct. But wasn't there some
residents that were concerned about that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know. I know I'm looking -- I
didn't represent them at the Planning Commission. Dwight did, that's
why I'm looking and asking ifhe recalls.
According to Mr. Nadeau, it was only DiVosta that had some
concerns, which would be Island Walk. It was not across the street.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: To be honest with you, my
questions have been answered. It took a little while, but you got there.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, okay.
Do we have a presentation by staff now?
MR. DeRUNTZ: For the record, Mike DeRuntz, Principal
Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development
review. You have a copy of the staff report and the application and
the executive summary.
The staff has reviewed this petition and has found it to be
compatible with the land -- the growth -- or the Land Development
Code and consistent with the Growth Management Plan. You have
copies of the findings of facts, and the staff is recommending approval
with the -- with the recommendations as set forth by the Planning
Commission.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any other questions by
Board of County Commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I believe Commissioner Henning made
Page 210
June 6-7, 2006
the motion and Commissioner Fiala seconded. Is there any changes
you want to make to your motion at this time, Commissioner Henning,
or are you satisfied with it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm comfortable. I don't know
how everybody else is, but --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I made the motion. I appreciate
my colleague's consideration on 951 and them having no residential
traffic on 951 till that's completed, or that interconnection on Wolfe
Road.
But it makes sense to have the construction traffic allowable from
Wolfe Road. That intersection is going to be a disaster once it gets
under construction.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle, are you -- okay,
you got your light on. I was going to ask you if you were --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just one last comment. We're being
told that the request to add multifamily residential dwelling units here
will, in fact, reduce the number of trips; is that correct?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. I think your staff agrees that
multifamily generates less trips than single-family.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But yet we're told that we
don't know whether multifamily or single-family units will be built
during the first phase and! or how many. So during the phase where
we really need the greatest relief from trips, we're getting no assurance
that, in fact, that is going to happen during the first phase so -- and
that's the time we're concerned about because we need to complete the
road.
So I will tell you that I will vote no on this unless there is an
assurance that there will be sufficient multiple family units developed
during phase one to accomplish the reduction in traffic and there will
be a proportionate number of affordable housing units built during that
phase.
Page 211
June 6-7, 2006
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know if -- I think I can help you on at
least part of it. We will agree that not more than 150 stand-alone
single- family units will be constructed in the first phase, so that will
assure you 110, if I've done my math right, multifamily units.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Hundred and ten --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Again -- 110.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- or 150?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It would be 150 stand-alone
single-family units, no more than that in the first phase, okay, and 110
multifamily. Do I have my numbers right?
Again, I'm requesting you give us the flexibility on the affordable
-- I mean, on the gap, affordable, whatever our 125 or less income
level is, when we do those throughout the proj ect.
We would -- we would not -- we would hope not to be tied to
guaranteeing a percentage of those units as gap at this point.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It would only be 11 out of 110.
Why does that cause you a problem?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, actually there's -- no. It's 10
percent of our project. Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I'm talking about a
proportionate share. So if you're saying you'll develop 10 percent,
then what I would be looking for is 11 units, 10 percent of the 110
multifamily units that you're proposing.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So you want 10 percent of the
multifamily units --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: In phase one.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- in phase one to gap, our definition of
gap. Okay, okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then you've addressed my
concerns.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. I think I've got that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is that in your motion, Commissioner
Page 212
June 6-7, 2006
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is that in your second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Commissioner, can I get clarification? Were
you going to modify to allow construction traffic to be on Wolfe Road
also besides emergency vehicles; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Nods head.)
MR. MUDD: Right-in.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Okay. Right-in only.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I pursue that just a minute?
It's right-in only, okay. It's not --
MR. MUDD: Right-in only for the construction.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: For construction.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Right-in only for construction.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Onto Wolfe Road.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Would that be in your motion,
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And then you can have a
code enforcement out there enforcing it. I mean, you know, it's very
clear -- is, you know, construction traffic will be allowed. I think the
construction traffic would rather use the traffic light if they're coming
from the south. You know, you can only put so much in, and
everybody knows the intent.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But if they're coming from the
south, they would go up -- use the light and go up Pristine, right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, let common sense
Page 213
June 6-7, 2006
dictate it instead of government dictate it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And my only comment is, you know, in
the -- why would you not want them to go back north off Wolfe and
force them to go out Pristine and come through the intersection? As
long -- they're going to control traffic during construction. At some
point I imagine they're going to take away the left -- the ability to go
left. But while that ability is still there, why would you want to
prohibit that? That's just a comment.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just because of 951 's traffic.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. The impact of951 at the present
time with two lanes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Call the motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep, aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you.
Item #8F
ORDINANCE 2006-31: PUDZ-2003-AR-4991, ROBERT
MULHERE, OF RW A, INC., REPRESENTING WOODFIELD
BUILDERS, LLC, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A" RURAL
AGRICULTURAL TO "RPUD" RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS ROCKEDGE RPUD,
Page 214
June 6-7, 2006
SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF AN AFFORDABLE
HOUSING DENSITY BONUS AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING
THE DEVELOPER TO UTILIZE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
BONUS DENSITY UNITS (IN THE AMOUNT OF 111 UNITS AT
7.5 BONUS DENSITY UNITS PER ACRE) IN THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROJECT FOR LOW-INCOME
RESIDENTS. THE 76.46 ACRES SUBJECT PROPERTY IS
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF COLLIER BLVD. (CR 951)
APPROXIMA TEL Y 6 TENTHS OF A MILE SOUTH OF
INTERSECTION WITH RATTLESNAKE-HAMMOCK ROAD, IN
SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA - ADOPTED W/STIPULATIONS;
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY AGREEMENT WITH
PHASING - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: The next item, Commissioner, 8F. This item
requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
provided by commission members. It's PUDZ-2003-AR-4991, Robert
Mulhere ofRW A, Inc., representing Woodfield Builders, LLC,
requesting a rezone from A rural agricultural to RPUD, residential
planned unit development, to be known as Rockedge RPUD, subject
to the approval of an affordable housing density bonus agreement
authorizing the developer to utilize affordable housing bonus density
units in the amount of 111 units at a 7.5 bonus density units per acre in
the development of this project for low income residents.
The 76.46-acre subject property is located on the east side of
Collier Boulevard, County Road 951, approximately six-tenths of a
mile south of the intersection with Rattlesnake Hammock road in
Section 23, Township 50, range 26 east, Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Would those all that are going to be
giving testimony in this, please rise to be sworn in at this time.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
Page 215
June 6-7, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. At this time I'll ask the
commissioners to my far right if they have any ex parte, starting with
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. I have had meetings, emails,
telephone calls with representatives of the petitioner and the petitioner,
and I've also talked with staff.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. And I've had meetings
with Bruce Anderson, Bob Mulhere, and Margaret Perry, phone call
with Kara Kennedy from NBC-2 news, which obviously she made and
I never returned because I don't recall it. But it's down here, so it must
be fact. And that's the extent -- and other emails and phone calls.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Myself, I've had meetings and --
with Bruce Anderson on this, and I also have -- also had emails and
I've discussed this at some length with staff.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've met -- we, of course,
discussed this one other time. We just didn't come to any conclusions
then. I've had meetings with Bruce Anderson and Bob Mulhere, and I
met with the Naples Lakes people and the petitioner, Brian -- oh, I
hate -- I'm going to slaughter your name, so I won't -- pretend it just
starts with an M, and Bruce Anderson, and I've met with staff.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Same three emails I received
yesterday on the other ones, and we heard this thing, this item before,
so let's not spend too much time on there, and get to some of the
residents that have been sitting here all day.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So Mr. Anderson?
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record,
my name is Bruce Anderson from the Roetzel & Andress Law Firm.
And as was duly noted, this is a continuation of the public hearing on
this PUD that was held on February 14,2006.
Page 216
June 6-7, 2006
I would ask you to accept into the record the prior county
commission hearing minutes and Planning Commission hearing
minutes, I would ask you to accept those into the record along with the
complete agenda packet on this item, 8F, which is pages 1 through
246.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any other -- does that -- staff
have anything to add to this?
MR. DeRUNTZ: For the record, Mike DeRuntz, Principal
Planner with Zoning and Land Development Review. No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do we have any -- oops,
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We have public speakers. I'll wait
for public speakers.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I believe -- public speakers. Okay.
We'll open --
MR. ANDERSON: I have more to say, I just wanted to put that
in the record.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, well, all right. Continue, sir.
MR. ANDERSON: I'll be brief.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: This is not going to be an all-day
filibuster.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, anybody feel free to interrupt me with
a motion for approval.
Since the original hearing, there have been two important new
developments, one is that the client has proposed a stricter new
construction phasing schedule for the product than had been
recommended by the Planning Commission, and that new phasing
schedule has been well received by the civic and property owner
associations that had expressed concerns at the prior hearings about
the timing of construction for the homes and the timing of
construction for surrounding roads.
Page 217
June 6-7, 2006
The other new development is that my client has signed a right of
first refusal agreement with his new neighbor, Collier Regional
Medical Center.
I would like to read the one paragraph agreement into the record.
And I have distributed a copy of that to the commissioners and to the
court reporter.
It reads, Woodfield Builders, LLC, its successors and!or assigns,
owner of the real property proposed to be developed as the Rockedge
RPUD hereby grants to Collier Regional Medical Center or its income
qualifying employees the right of first refusal to purchase any or all of
the multifamily dwelling units in the Rockedge PUD, which are to be
set aside for sale to households earning 80 percent or less of the
median earned income for the Naples/Collier metropolitan statistical
area.
Collier Regional Medical Center hereby supports and encourages
Collier County to approve the Rockedge RPUD application and agrees
to work cooperatively with Woodfield Builders to seek approval for a
pedestrian and! or vehicular interconnection between its property and
the Rockedge RPUD.
At the time Woodfield Builders offers to sell a unit to Collier
Region Medical Center or its qualifying employees, said right of first
refusal shall be valid for the period of 15 days, after which the right of
first refusal to purchase shall expire as to such units, and Woodfield
Builders may offer the units for sale to others.
Just a reminder, this project is a mix of market rate homes and
homes set aside for sales to households who earn 80 percent or less
than the median income. These units -- the affordable units would be
constructed first and they would be located together at the front of the
development.
And Rockedge has a higher percentage of homes dedicated to
affordability than is typical. Thirty percent of the homes are set aside
for affordable housing. That's 111 homes out of a total of 400.
Page 218
June 6-7, 2006
I'll be glad to continue talking, but I'd rather not. And I'll ask Mr.
Mulhere to come up and briefly explain the phasing program that has
been negotiated with some of the civic associations, and he and I and
the other parties will be happy to answer your questions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'd like -- at this time I think we'll
bring the public speakers up, okay. And if there's any additional
information -- Robert, how's that sound?
MR. MULHERE: Well, that's fine, Commissioner Halas. I'djust
wanted to explain the different phasing schedule, which is
significantly different, and that really hasn't been put on the record
yet.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, all right.
MR. MULHERE: Just take a couple minutes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right.
MR. MULHERE: Just as -- to refresh, the Planning Commission
had proposed a phasing schedule that allowed 250 units up front, of
which all 111 affordable would be built, and then 75 in '08 and 75 in
'09.
After we met with representatives of the East Naples Civic
Association as well as some of the neighboring groups, they suggested
that it would be better in their mind if we deferred that schedule,
pushed it back a little bit so that we could be sure that Collier
Boulevard improvements would be in place for the majority of the
units.
And that schedule, we went and met with transportation staff.
Something unique about this segment is that it was designed for six
lanes. There's no utility relocates, there's no right-of-way to be taken.
It's a relatively easy construction process that should be done
according to transportation staff, and we can certainly confirm that,
within 24 months. So the proj ected completion is February of '09.
What we proposed was to revise that phasing schedule but,
Commissioner Coy Ie, to still include 50 percent of the affordable units
Page 219
June 6-7, 2006
to be built with market rate in each of the first two phases so that we
would be allowed to build 80 units up front, of which at least 50
percent would be the affordable units, and then the second phase we
would be able to build 142 units, of which all of the units necessary to
complete the 111 would be constructed -- whatever was remaining,
would be constructed in that phase.
So you'd have 222 units through '08, and then the third phase
would be the remaining 178 units which we indicated shall not be
granted COs prior to February of 2009 when Collier Boulevard
improvements should be completed.
So that's -- I mean, I think it's important just to let you know that
there was a change in the phasing schedule, and we have not
thoroughly shared that even with staff at this point because it's been
sort of a negotiation that's come up just through the last few days.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I was under the impression we were
going to try and get all 111 units up and running first.
MR. MULHERE: We were when we were allowed to do 250,
but now we're -- based on the recommendations in the neighborhood,
they've asked us to push that back into two separate phases. So we're
still doing the same thing, we're just building 50 percent in the first
phase affordable and 50 percent in the second phase affordable. It's
pretty much the same thing, it's just pushed it back a little bit.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle, did you want to
ask your question, or did you want to wait until after we get the public
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I'll wait until after the public
speakers.
MS. FILSON: Do you want to hear from the speakers prior to
staff then?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I think staff has already given their
recommendation, didn't -- right?
MR. DeRUNTZ: No. I would like to -- we would like to say
Page 220
June 6-7, 2006
that -- you know, you do have a copy of the report, the staff report, the
executive summary, and the application.
The Planning Commission did have, you know, two conditions,
and one was the phasing which was modified and the other one was
1,000 square feet for each of the units minimum areas, and that has __
that is in the revised PUD and that hasn't changed. And we found this
to be compatible with the land use development code and consistent
with the Growth Management Plan, and we're recommending
approval.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, you have two speakers. The first
one is Michael Mastej.
MR. MURRAY: Michael Mastej is gone. I'll represent him.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Your final speaker then will be Bob
Murray.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. MURRAY: Good eventide, Commissioners. My name is
Bob Murray, and I'm here representing the East Naples Civic
Association, and I'm very pleased to be able to bring to this meeting
what I believe is good news.
As you may know, as Planning Commissioner I was the sole vote
against Rockedge, and I did so because my concern was, and will
continue to be, route 951 and the other roads that are ancillary to that
area; however, there is a balancing act that everything needs to have
attended.
And so I was asked to, and I attended a meeting and was joined
by Ken Drum and Ted Biessler (phonetic) and Mike Mastej, and we
sat and we discussed the issue, and we considered some of the
implications. And, of course, the concern was about the roads. What
could we do to make sure that we both get affordable housing units
and satisfy the need not to overburden the roads especially while
construction is going on?
Page 221
June 6-7, 2006
And so I believe the developers have indicated to you through
their representatives that they will defer, they will work out a plan that
will be -- well, they have stated a plan that will make it more effective
and minimize the implication -- the impact on the roads rather.
And inasmuch as this is workforce housing, the other fact that
was -- they shared with us that they had entered into a right of first
refusal agreement with Mike Mastej who, by the way, his apologizes.
He had to first meet with Mike Davis, and then he had another
meeting. And I asked him if I could represent him here, and he said,
yes, please do.
And he was most positive. He entered into this agreement. And
I posed the question; is it logical for you to accept all 111 units? And
he didn't -- he didn't think so.
My suggestion was that they offer all of these rights of first
refusal to the fire department, to NCH, to everybody and anybody
who represents an employer here who can benefit from such a thing.
Because they were already in agreement with Mike Mastej, they found
that a difficult thing to change.
Although Mike expressed to me, he didn't care. That would be
fine. He doesn't think he would take 111 units, and they were open to
that and enthusiastic for that.
So, quite frankly, given that these folks went through the process
of a Growth Management Plan amendment and all of its expense of
time and everything else and that it was approved, it was difficult for
me to have said no previously, but I have a very happy yes now and
urge you to go along with this and to let these folks go forward.
The hospital can certainly use those people and probably will
take a number of those homes. But quite frankly, East Naples Fire
Department could use those homes. And I say -- and I say that not
sarcastically, NCH could certainly use those homes. They also need--
we need staff. We need people here, the deputies, et cetera. And with
that I'll end it. Thank you.
Page 222
June 6-7, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's our final speaker?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Public hearing is closed.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I need to pursue the
phasing. Would you go through that with me one more time?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, sir. What we're proposing is, first phase
would limit COs prior to 2008 to 80 units, of which we would commit
to 50 percent of those being -- a minimum of 50 percent being the
affordable units.
Usually, you know, if you have eight-unit buildings, you may
have to actually build more than 50 percent affordable, but a minimum
of 50 percent.
And the second phase, which would be pushed back to 2008 for
COs -- and again, this was at the request, I think, of, as Mr. Murray
indicated, certain associations in the area -- would be limited to 142
units, but during that phase we would build all of the remaining
affordable to reach our 111 that were required.
So, again, it's a little bit different than what the Planning
Commission recommended. By pushing that back a little bit, you
don't have as much impacts in the beginning, the first year.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But you said the phase one
was FY -08, 220, or --
MR. MULHERE: Phase one is 80 units.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Eighty units.
MR. MULHERE: Phase two limits COs to '08, and that's 142
units, so during --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you'd be building 72 market
and 70 affordable housing?
MR. MULHERE: Correct, correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So the -- are you talking about the
end of 2008 for phase two?
Page 223
June 6-7, 2006
MR. MULHERE: I'm actually assuming in 2008 that we would
probably be able to get COs probably closer to mid 2008.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, phase one you said
2008, are you talking about --
MR. MULHERE: No, actually phase one, I didn't -- there was no
limitation. The Planning Commission had no limitation on phase one.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: Which was 250 units. There was no
limitation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So anytime you can do --
MR. MULHERE: Correct
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- phase one, and you're going to be
building 80 units, 40 market and 40 affordable housing?
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, minimum of 40.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And then phase two, sometime by
mid 2008, you would be able to build 72 market and 70 affordable
housing?
MR. MUDD: Seventy-one and seventy-one.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, 72 and 70.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah, because it's -- well, it's 111.
MR. MUDD: It's 111.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, it's 111.
MR. MUDD: Yeah, 71 and 71.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, 71 and 71 then. Okay. I
thought it was 110. But okay.
MR. MULHERE: And then the third phase would be all of the
remaining units no sooner than February of 2009.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, I need staff to tell me
about the completion of construction on the road.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And have them address Rattlesnake
as well.
Page 224
June 6-7, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, yeah.
MR. SCOTT: Bob had it pretty much correct. The bids are going
out this fall, which started early 2007 construction and complete in
early 2009, which he references February.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Early.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So we're going to have --
MR. SCOTT: That's for Collier.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- two, maybe -- maybe three years
construction going on in this development before the completion of
the 951 improvements?
MR. MULHERE: Starting February '07.
MR. SCOTT: You're not going to get going that fast either.
MR. MULHERE: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. What do you think the
schedule's going to be?
MR. MULHERE: Well, we don't have an ERP permit, but we're
close, I hope. We have not submitted for a Site Development Plan.
So off the top of my head, you're talking in the neighborhood of 60
days to prepare that and probably six months to do a review, which
should be expedited because it's affordable. So that's eight months,
and then you have your vertical -- your site improvements to
complete. So you're probably talking about another probably five or
six months in that process. You're probably talking about -- and then
actual construction, and then the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we're talking about mid 2007 __
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- to start construction?
MR. MULHERE: That's an assumption. Could be a little bit
faster or a little bit slower, yes. It probably depends on certain
permitting.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not with our permitting
department, you're not going to go faster.
Page 225
June 6-7, 2006
MR. MUDD: It was faster when he used to work here, but that's
okay.
MR. SCHMITT: Depends on the quality of submittal.
MR. MULHERE: I knew Joe had to throw that in there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We know where that's going to go,
right?
Okay. So you expect to start construction around 2007. You'll
have the first ones coming out of the ground, first phase one, you're
going to be completing probably starting January -- or starting close to
2008 or earlier?
MR. MULHERE: I think a little bit earlier.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Fall of2007?
MR. MULHERE: Yes. I think that's what we anticipated, yes,
SIr.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So we're maybe looking at a
year and a half to two years before we get CR 951 --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Widened?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- completed.
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are we in agreement there?
MR. SCOTT: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, what can we do to get closer
together?
MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean, I think we've deferred the
majority of the market rate until February of'09, so you're really -- I
think you're only talking about less than half of the impacts would
typically be associated during the construction process.
Our concern is that it's getting more expensive every day. We
really need to get in and build the affordable. To build the affordable,
you need some market rate. I know you already heard that on the last
petition, but it is a fact, and that's why we've pushed -- we've reduced
that now to 222 maximum in those first two phases.
Page 226
June 6-7, 2006
But, I mean, beyond that, I think we're probably -- you know,
there are a couple of things that are different about this, if I could just,
again, put them on the record.
Our project -- right now there are trips left on that four-lane
segment of Collier Boulevard, and we do not exceed the county's
concurrency -- consistency policies; in other words, we're consistent
with the Growth Management Plan right now.
We do not -- there are trips left. And as long as we can come in
and consume those trips fairly quickly, we shouldn't have a problem at
concurrency either.
So it is a little bit different than the other project where the
roadway's failing; plus, this is already a four-lane segment. And,
again, I already, I think, did a brief discussion about why the
construction should be easier here than in the other segments where
you've got to shift traffic because you've got utility relocates and
things like that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You -- well, let Don Scott deal
with the issue of concurrency. Theoretically, except for those items
that are -- or those units that are vested because of payment of impact
fees, if we don't have the capacity they can't go ahead anyway?
MR. SCOTT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, I know you've told us in the
past that there is capacity remaining on certain segments of 951.
When do you expect 951 to be in failure in the zone of impact of this
particular development?
MR. SCOTT: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No?
MR. SCOTT: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I asked when.
MR. SCOTT: Oh, when; sorry, sorry. I thought you said, did
you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's a good answer.
Page 227
June 6-7, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's getting a long day, isn't it, Don?
MR. SCOTT: You know, based on the submittal to DCA right
now, it's obviously within the two years. After the submittal to DCA,
depending on how DCA rules on what we've sent up, that might be
outside of the two-year window too, but --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What do you mean by outside of
the two-year window?
MR. SCOTT: Because this is one of the projects where we
pushed it out two years for the submittal to DCA until we have a
contract. Now, we might have a contract by then too.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Which means you can move it up if
you want?
MR. SCOTT: Yeah, exactly.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. SCOTT: I would guess next year probably, based on __
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So next year we will start to fail?
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So in 2007 we're going to start to
fail, but there are going to be two years of construction even under
failing circumstances?
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that what we're saying?
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then theoretically they won't be
able to proceed.
MR. SCOTT: Just depends on when they get their site plan
approved, essentially, is what he's saying too.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So if -- but even then they
will only get -- if they pay 50 percent of their impact fees with the
submission of the site plan and we accept them, then they can only
build 50 percent of their units?
MR. SCOTT: Well, they can build -- they can build what they're
Page 228
June 6-7, 2006
-- the 50 percent they pay --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. SCOTT: -- will be whatever they're building at that point, I
mean, if they're platting off the first part of it. So, yeah, by the time
you get to the second part maybe there won't be. Obviously we'll still
have the project. It will be under construction, so __
MR. MUDD: Once they pay that SDP, they're vested.
MR. SCOTT: Yeah, they're vested.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Fifty percent or all of it?
MR. SCOTT: The thing -- they're going to submit only the first
portion?
MR. MUDD: No. When you come in with an SDP, let's say he
comes in with the SDP on phase one and he pays 50 percent at the
time that he brings in that SD P, at that particular juncture, his phase
one has 40 units -- excuse me -- has 80 units, okay, 40 of which are
affordable, he's vested for those 80 units.
The only way he gets unvested is three years from the date that
he pays, from that first initial payment, if he doesn't pay the second
part. At that particular juncture, he basically gives up what he's paid
before and he's no longer vested in the unit and he has to start all over.
MR. SCOTT: We'll assume he's done by then anyway too.
MR. MUDD: Well, I'd hope so. That's a good assumption.
MR. SCOTT: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So what we will be doing is
accepting impact fees for 80 units that will be constructed by 2008;
am I right?
MR. SCOTT: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And then we will be accepting,
presumably, some impact fees for another 142 that will be completed
by mid 2008?
MR. SCOTT: As long as the -- I would assume by that point, as
long as the project's under construction.
Page 229
June 6-7, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So we're talking about 232
units that will be built before we have completed the construction on
951, and it will be failing for almost all of that period of time; is that a
correct statement?
MR. SCOTT: You know, I'm guessing next year, but yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. But unfortunately that's
what the law says, right?
MR. SCOTT: Correct, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So what alternative do we have?
MR. SCOTT: Even if the first part of it, I don't think DCA
accepts what we sent up to them.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. SCOTT: From the first step, but--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And DCA is the state agency that
has to rule on what we're doing?
MR. SCOTT: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And there's not much likelihood
that we have a choice on this issue?
MR. SCOTT: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You finished?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I was trying to think of a
solution because I can see we're all struggling. We'd all like to see this
happen and it sounds like a really good proj ect. At the same time we
know not only is 951 under construction, but Rattlesnake Hammock is
also under construction for that same time period, and on top of that,
the light over by the hospital leads to -- down the road to Edison
Community College, which is where we're going to be building the
library and the EOC at the same time we're doing all of the rest of this
stuff. It's going to be a quagmire of traffic.
And the only solution I could think of was a connection road.
Page 230
June 6-7, 2006
And I thought, if we could -- we could have some kind of a frontage
road or a connecting road, just a simple one, nothing -- you know,
nothing -- not a highway, not sidewalks and all of that business, just a
connecting road so that vehicles could go out to the hospital, and then
at the light be able to turn one way or another, and maybe that would
lessen some of the impact or at least help that impact to some degree.
I've talked with the guys about that, with the developer and with
his attorney and with Bob Mulhere, and I said, you know, if we could
get this thing done -- and I think we've all talked about it, but nobody's
ever taken that step. But Bob Mulhere guaranteed me that now that
he's got it in his craw, he's going to tackle it, and I think that that
would help a lot. It's -- you know, a lot of words mean nothing until
somebody takes some action.
MR. MULHERE: Well, we've already taken some action,
Commissioner Fiala, and we've -- Brian of -- my clients, Brian
Mansour and Brian Yeomans, have actually already talked to the
landowner.
The situation is, as you're aware, there's going to be connectivity
from the north, Rattlesnake Hammock, heading south through the
FP &L easement, through the commercial property to the hospital. So
you're going to have that; that's going to occur.
What you're talking about is creating a vehicular connection from
our property to the north so that our people could reach the hospital
and ultimately Rattlesnake Hammock Road.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Exactly, yes.
MR. MULHERE: And we think it's a great idea.
As I mentioned to you, our one concern is that unfortunately we
don't own -- this is the hospital's property, which is immediately
adjacent to ours, but that's their preserve, so we can't go through there.
That's conservation land.
We believe we'll be able to go through this FP &L easement here,
just as is being the case from the north to the south. But the big
Page 23 1
June 6-7, 2006
difference between us and them is the commercial property to the
north of the hospital and the hospital are adjacent. There's no
intervening property owner.
In our situation, unfortunately, we have an intervening property
owner. We've already had some discussions with this property owner,
and we'll continue those discussions. But what we can't agree to is a
condition that says that we can't move forward because, frankly, that
puts us in an intenable position where this property owner has 100
percent total leverage on us because we need the approval from him to
be able to go forward.
And I think it would be probably more likely that would result in
no interconnectivity than interconnectivity. I think we're better off
negotiating in a free market system without that condition on us. And
believe me, I took your recommendation to heart, and we talked about
it, and we actually talked to this landowner already, and we're going to
continue to do it, and I gave you my word on that, and I __
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, you did.
MR. MULHERE: -- still give you my word, as I stand here
today, so do my clients.
What we would recommend is that we do go forward and attempt
to make that interconnection. If we cannot make that interconnection,
we would work with transportation staff potentially to get their
assistance.
Because let me just tell you that when the county wanted potable
wells, they went in, and through eminent domain, got a piece of that
easement to the north to put eminent -- to put wells in, potable wells.
So if this connection is important, and maybe it's important even
further south to Sable Palm, then we may need the county to help us
get that connection.
And, you know, we see the benefit clearly. We've talked to the
hospital-- to the Collier Regional Medical Center, they see the
benefit. But I'm just a little bit concerned that to put a condition in
Page 232
June 6-7, 2006
there could put us in an intenable position that we would be put at a
disadvantage.
We'll work towards it. If we can't get it, we'll come back to you
and tell you we may need the staffs help. And I think I've talked to
Don about that, and I think the staff has suggested they're willing,
under those circumstances, to reevaluate and look at another potential
way to make that happen.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. You know, normally I
wouldn't believe anybody when they say, we'll work on it, but I'm
going to believe you because you've never let me down.
MR. MULHERE: I'm going to try to make it happen.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I'm going to put my faith in you
MR. MULHERE: Thank you, phew.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- that you will carry through.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's a lot of pressure because you
have to keep coming in front of me again and again.
MR. MULHERE: I know. I know I'll be in trouble for a long
time if I don't make it happen.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, and you live in my district as
well.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's incredible, accepting the
word of a land use planner.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, boy, I'll tell you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's almost as bad as taking the
word of an attorney.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll tell you, I don't know if I
could ever top that one.
But I'd like to have a summary of where we are now. We've
taken the basic recommendations of staff, we have worked the phasing
Page 233
June 6-7, 2006
issue back and forth several times.
Could somebody please give me a summary? If we're getting
close to it, I'd like to make a motion, but I'd like to know where we are
and then what's missing from it.
MR. MULHERE: I think we agreed with the Planning
Commission's stipulations, which was a 7-1 vote now, sort of almost
an 8-1 ( sic) but not quite.
And the phasing schedule was 80 units in the first phase of which
50 percent would be affordable; 142 units for which no COs could be
issued prior to 2008, of which whatever the remaining affordable units
to reach 111 that were not built in the first phase. We're going to
assume 40 and 40, but it could be 42.
You understand that's why I worded it that way. It might actually
not be 71 units. It could be 69 or 67 or 68 units, but whatever's
necessary in that second phase to meet our affordable, we'll build that.
And then the last phase is no COs until February of 2009.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And does that agree with
what you were talking about just a little while ago?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. The numbers are all
consistent with what we were told earlier, and it is an improvement
over the prior schedule.
I just -- I just continue to be frustrated that we're being put in a
position where construction of homes and, in fact, the completion of
homes and the certificates of occupancy of homes can take place a full
two years during which this road is in failure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And it's interesting --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's frustrating.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The reason is, if it was regular
market rate homes all the way, nobody would have a problem.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I wouldn't.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But every time they throw in the
affordable housing, all of a sudden it changes, doesn't it? And so
Page 234
June 6-7, 2006
that's -- I think that's key with anybody that's coming before us, they
pull that little twanger, Froggy and -- for anybody who's old enough.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the reason, too, is that we
all know it's important, and that's why we indulge the petitioner to the
point that we do and we go back and forth on it.
I think that deep down we all want to be able to reach an
understanding and an agreement. Of course there's that little level of
uncertainty of where it's going to take us. Anything could happen, and
I think this is one of the things that Commissioner Coyle has been
pointing out.
We don't know if we're going to run into an economic slowdown
to the point where we won't be able to build the roads. We have no
idea what's going to happen out there as far as our tax revenue coming
in for any given year. So there's always a certain amount of
uncertainty .
But, however, on the other hand, we have a chance to be able to
do some public good. And I think this is where we've been many
times in the recent past where you say, show us the public good that's
going to come from this.
Well, you're showing us the public good, and we can also see
some of the disadvantages that are there, but we've obviously come a
long way. I don't see a tremendous amount of people here today
willing to speak against the project like we've seen in the recent past.
So obviously there's been a lot of work that's been done out there with
the public and the local communities around there.
I was going to make a motion, but I've been -- been asked to hold
off just a few minutes on it. I understand Commissioner Halas has
some more questions he would like to ask. And I'll wait, because I
don't want to complicate a motion and keep remaking it over and over
again, if I can help it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I need to have Don Scott come up
here for a minute just to get a clarification in my mind.
Page 235
June 6-7, 2006
Don, my concerns are, at present we're working on Rattlesnake
Hammock Road. Where are we in regards to the completion of that or
where are we in the build process at the present time; can you tell us?
MR. SCOTT: It's going pretty well right now. That will be done
by the beginning of2008. And one thing I should have bought up too
-- because Commissioner Fiala was talking about interconnection on
the east side of the road -- obviously the Lely connections up to
Rattlesnake and through will be open before 951 is completed, and
that will help also.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good. Okay. Now, the construction of
the Rattlesnake Hammock area, is that -- is that being addressed at __
near the 951 --
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- junction? So that area will be done
earlier than the whole road itself?
MR. SCOTT: Earlier than 951, yes. The whole section from
Rattlesnake over will be done by early 2008.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. But what I'm saying is that
intersection of 951 and Rattlesnake, will the section that you're
working on on Rattlesnake right now, will that be -- are you working
at the 951 end of it, or where are you working at this?
MR. SCOTT: At the moment they're working on the whole thing
with the box culverts they're putting in. I don't know if it's -- Jay, do
you know if it's got any milestones?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What I'm trying to do is to try to figure
out in my mind if the part of Rattlesnake Hammock that's closest to
951, will that be done sooner than the rest of all nine fifty -- of
Rattlesnake?
MR. AHMAD: Commissioner, there is no milestones for this
proj ect. What the contractor is now focusing on is constructing the
box culverts which he is hoping to complete before the rainy season.
There's massive box culverts, if you drive down there, six by eight
Page 236
June 6-7, 2006
large box culverts being installed as we speak.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. But what you're -- what you did
say is that the interconnection with Lely in that particular area, that
will -- that will help alleviate the congestion that we're concerned
about on 951?
MR. SCOTT: Yeah. That will help some. And obviously when
I project, talking about when I think failure is, that will take some
traffic over, particularly like the Lely traffic going down -- coming
down County Barn, Rattlesnake, and then down there. And it looks
like it's pretty -- I don't have a schedule on that. It looks like it's pretty
close to being opened.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle, I believe
you were next.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't think so. I think -- I think I
answered all my questions, I think. That was left on from last time.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala then.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And I just want to -- this isn't
even a question for you guys. Actually it's probably for Susan or Joe.
But I just want you to rest at ease also because although we're
very, very concerned about affordable housing, they're right now
building Sierra Meadows, right, and there's hundreds of them over
there. I don't know how many though.
I was going to ask you if you can remember. That's Rattlesnake
Hammock, too. Four hundred fifty? I don't know. Yeah. That's all
right. You shouldn't have the -- so I mean, at least we're moving
forward.
You know, one of the things we've been concerned with is so
many have been approved and nothing's being built. Well, here's
some being built right there to serve the hospital as well.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And they should be opening in time
to serve the hospital, so that's good news.
Page 237
June 6-7, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Yeah, it is. There's a
tremendous lead time. But anything that's approved, it's going to be
many years before it comes forward, we all know that. We've heard
many times about the many, many --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They're building it now. They're
building it now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And it takes a while. It's
happening. It is going to happen. And I hoped today was going to be
putting some more of the inventory forward.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would just like to make an
observation because it appears that there might be enough votes here
to approve this petition, but the concept of having a company buy
affordable housing that is covered by an affordable housing agreement
is something new, and I don't know how we can legally handle that. I
think it's a good idea.
I like to see these people working out partnerships and mutually
-- mutual assistance pacts of some kind, but I'm not sure that's legal,
quite frankly, under our laws, because we use federal and state money
in some cases to finance this. So in any event, Bob Murray is holding
his hand up.
MR. MURRAY: If I might, please?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You have to get the permission of
the chairman to do this.
MR. MURRAY: May I, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, go ahead.
MR. MURRAY: And I don't mean -- I try not to be
presumptuous here to suggest I have a legal answer for you, but what
the intent was was to focus on an employer. The employer themselves
would not have -- would not purchase. They would have candidate
employees who then would be eligible to purchase.
Not knowing who those persons were, the initial action which
Page 238
June 6-7, 2006
was taken before I got involved in it, was to find an idea, in this case
Mike Mastej, who represents Collier Regional, and so that was the
beginning of the process.
How else can you reach all of the employers except to find the
central character who can bring you the persons who should be
qualified. That was the intent. Because we have needs associated
with our sheriffs deputies and with our EMS people, with our teachers
and all of those folks, so that was the intent.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And Bob, wasn't also the intent to
make sure that they weren't snapped up by investors?
MR. MURRAY: That's particularly the reason -- well, they
shouldn't be able to be snapped up because they're in the 80 percent
and there is a Growth Management Plan amendment, but what it is __
to fix it so that the right people got that first choice. That was the
intent. And they should be able to speak more clearly to the legal
issue than I certainly could.
MR. MULHERE: I would just add, if I could, two quick things.
Number one, we've been working with Cormac to address those
issues. And I think that that's a very good question, so there are some
nuances that would need to be addressed.
And then the second thing is, we've already made contact with
several other particularly public employers, school board, sheriffs
office, talked to Jim Mudd, maybe, you know, to be able to have a
subsequent first right of refusal. I mean, we are very interested in that
because we have to qualify people to buy those units, and that is job
number one when you're building something and you're not making
money on it, you know. So--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if I may?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And I probably weighed
into this a little bit earlier than most. I talked to Mr. Mastej -- from __
excuse me.
Page 239
June 6-7, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: HMA.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- HMA sometime ago, just as I
talked to the fire department and the Naples Community Hospital and
the school system. And I told them that Collier County government's
not going to be building the housing for them, that they're going to
have to partner up with the developers out there.
The only thing Collier County government can do is what they're
doing right now. They can make it user friendly. Well, you might
disagree with that; right, Bob?
But we can attempt to make it user friendly to the point where
these type of things will happen and private industry will step forward
and do what private industry does best, provide a product that the
public needs and they want.
And I think that's where we are at this point with it. And I'm
very proud with what my commission has done -- commissioners have
done so far today. It seems to be a -- really bantered as far as the
approval of affordable housing projects. I hope we're on a run at the
moment.
With that in mind, because it is my district, I would like to make
a recommendation for approval with the inclusion of the phasing in
that we previously agreed to and Commissioner Coyle so skillfully
worked out with the developer. I'm not too sure what else we need to
add to that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: A second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coletta and a second by Commissioner Henning.
Is there any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Seeing none, I'll call the question. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 240
June 6-7, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Mr. Chairman, we also need to approve the
affordable housing density bonus agreement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: And if I could -- thank you for reminding me.
I'm sorry, but that will have to be amended to reflect the phasing
schedule that you just approved, that affordable housing density bonus
agreement. So we will make sure that they're consistent, both
documents are consistent.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So we need another motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You have it, and I've got a
second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
MS. FILSON: Who did the motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that what you did already?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I though I seconded the
motion, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, did he do it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't hear you. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. I didn't hear him either. Okay.
Commissioner Henning made a motion, and it was seconded by --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Coletta.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- Commissioner Coletta. Any further
Page 241
June 6-7, 2006
discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll 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: Okay. And that's it. Thank you very
much.
Yeah, why don't we -- why don't we --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Take a 30-minute break and then
we'll adjourn.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Before we continue on, obviously these
are taking a lot more time than I had anticipated, so why don't we
adjourn for today and we'll start bright and early at nine o'clock.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wait a minute, wait a minute,
wait a minute. You have residents here who have been here all day,
and we need to address them.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't think it's going to be that
long. If we could go to that and come back --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Which one is this now? We're talking
about 8G; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we're talking about -- if I
may. I'm sorry. I don't mean to interrupt. We talked about it before
we went to break. It was first the one dealing with Santa Barbara, and
the one person there for the negotiations that were taking place, and
the second --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, what I am -- all I want to know is
what item--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I got it right here, sir. And
Page 242
June 6-7, 2006
forgive me for addressing you behind your back.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's lOA.
MS. FILSON: lOA I have three speakers, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Let's go to lOA, let's get it
wrapped up, and then we're going to adjourn --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What's the other one?
MS. FILSON: I have one speaker for 8G.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that's important, too.
MS. FILSON: One speaker for 10E, and one for public
comment.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I'm not going to stay here all night.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 2006-142: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
ACQUISITION BY GIFT OR PURCHASE OF FEE SIMPLE
INTERESTS IN THE PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY, AS WELL
AS PERPETUAL, NON-EXCLUSIVE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY,
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS, AND TEMPORARY
DRIVEWAY RESTORATION EASEMENTS, AND TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS, WHICH WILL BE REQUIRED
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROADW A Y, DRAINAGE AND
UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS TO V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD
EXTENSION FROM C.R. 951 TO WILSON BOULEVARD _
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is item number lOA.
It's a recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the acquisition
by gift or purchase of fee simple interest in the proposed right-of way
as well as perpetual non-exclusive road right-of-way drainage and
utility easements and temporary driveway restoration easements and
Page 243
June 6-7, 2006
temporary construction easements which will be required for the
construction of roadway, drainage and utility improvements to the
Vanderbilt Beach Road extension from County Road 951 to Wilson
Boulevard, project number 60168, and Mr. Kevin Hendricks, the
manager for --
MR. HENDRICKS: Right-of-way acquisition for the
transportation division.
MR. MUDD: Thank you.
MR. HENDRICKS: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners,
we routinely take these gift and purchase resolutions which we
requested you to approve at the inception of every transportation
right-of-way acquisition project and put them on the consent agenda.
Today, however, we have a number of issues, as I'm sure many
of you have been talking about with your constituents regarding the
Vanderbilt Beach Road extension project.
And so do -- we have people that have requested that we
purchase their homes that aren't necessarily in the right-of-way but
they're going to be pretty close and affected by the road.
We have a lot of media attention. This project has gotten a lot of
media attention and people have been talking about low-balling offers,
and I think it would be important to maybe have a discussion about
that.
We -- you know, typically we hire appraisers that are on our
approved list and send them out and they do their appraisal thing.
And, you know, we encourage them to come in as high as possible
because it does us no good at all to have them come in at low-ball of
property .
This time around we're thinking about doing things like going out
-- and I've already -- in fact, we've already gone out and gotten a list
of appraisers that work primarily for local lenders and have no
affiliation to us at all, the same appraisers who would appraise your
house if you went to get it refinanced.
Page 244
June 6-7, 2006
And we're thinking about just letting owners pick an appraiser
from that list and negotiate from there just so that these people will
know that there's no affiliation and with -- between Collier County
and the appraisers.
There's been discussion about a revolving fund to purchase some
of the houses that are adjacent but not directly in the path. There's
been discussion about what do we do to reimburse people for the loss
of the Save our Homes exemption?
And we've got some direction there from the Department of
Revenue, but I think it's -- and there's a recent court case up in -- a
DOT case up in the central part of the state where -- it's not an
appellate case, but it is a case where the court ruled that the loss of the
Save our Homes exemption is -- must be compensated when the
property is taken.
And I know that some of you have talked with people about
compensating people for the loss of this -- what the court calls an --
and I'm not going to try to tell you what the court calls it -- incorporeal
hereditament -- and just -- and the loss of which deserves
compensation from the condemning agency.
And I know that many of you talk to people about going ahead
and making a payment to compensate people for the loss of this when
there's a voluntary sale. It shouldn't have to come down to the
property being taken by eminent domain.
So there are anum -- and there have been also discussions with
some of your constituents about issuing free rent, going ahead and
purchasing the property and then giving them some kind of nominal
rent or a moderate rent or even free rent until such time as they can
find replacement housing.
And we've been advised by the County Attorney's Office that we
shouldn't get in a position of purchasing properties and becoming
liable for things that could happen to the property during the time that
the residents live on it.
Page 245
June 6-7, 2006
And so there are a number of issues that I thought that you might
want to discuss, and there are people here ready to answer questions
on, and I'm here ready to answer questions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, I -- this is something
that disturbs me greatly. These are policy issues. And, you know,
communications such as this, in my opinion, should only be made to
the public once the board has approved a policy.
Because what's going to happen now is that the people do not
understand that any of the purchase proposals have to be approved by
us. And if they have these ideas in mind and we disapprove them for
whatever reason, then they are going to be led along a path that isn't
going to end happily with them or with us, and I am very, very
concerned about this.
What -- the suggestions you've made are excellent suggestions,
but I have a real problem communicating those to people as if that's
what the board is going to approve, because you don't know that, and I
don't know that, they don't know that.
The one thing that people need to understand is that the laws of
the State of Florida for purchasing land under eminent domain are
very, very protective of the property owner and they are designed to
protect the rights of the property owner to make sure they get full
value along with any damages associated with the taking.
But I am very concerned that we're talking about offering figures
above fair market value and compensating for relocation and possibly
taxes on the new property. This gets very, very complex. We don't
know where those people are going to move. They might move to
Tennessee or North Carolina. Are we going to pay the taxes up in
Tennessee and North Carolina and Cal-- you know, how do we do all
that?
MR. HENDRICKS: I have no idea.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It gets -- it gets really complex, and
Page 246
June 6-7, 2006
this bothers me that we're getting involved in this and we don't have
to.
What we need to do is inform the people that we're not trying to
hurt them. We have ajob to do, and the only way we can do the job is
the way we've made the decision to do it, and it was a tough thing to
do. But the last thing we'd want to do is hurt them.
But I am very concerned about getting into this kind of detail and
correspondence to specific individuals about this sort of business. I
think it's going to get us in a lot of trouble and lead us to a lot of
disappointments.
We need to get some policies to do this approved if that's what
we're going to do.
MR. HENDRICKS: That's why I brought this to you today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. But this is a letter sent out
to them?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no, no. That letter I handed
to you. Joe Quinty sent it out.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, yeah, but it's been sent out to
a resident saying, hey, this is what we're going to try to do to you -- do
for you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may? This is nothing more
than what we originally talked about in passing conversation during
Vanderbilt and during other issues. You didn't pick this up out of the
aIr.
MR. HENDRICKS: I haven't seen the letter you're referring to.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, this letter here reflects
some of the things the commission said. It's from Joe Quinty. Here's
some copies. If somebody'd be so kind to --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Joe Quinty sent this out?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Don't you want a copy for
county manager?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Who told him to send it out?
Page 247
June 6-7, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't know. Well, he was
answering -- I sent an inquiry to him from a constituent asking him to
reply, and that's the reply that went out.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, these are policy issues. They
shouldn't go out to anybody unless the board agrees on this stuff. That
gets us in a lot --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we haven't agreed. That's
still left up to us as a policy issue, is absolutely correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But it's been communicated to a
constituent. What does the constituent think now? They think we've
just made an offer to do this. And if we don't do it, we've disappointed
them.
It's just like the three cat minimum that somebody talked about.
It was never brought up to anybody. It never came to the board. It
was never a proposal, but yet it created expectations --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, it says, and also possible
to offset.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The problem is, people don't read the
possible.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. That's bad business.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We made comments during the
Vanderbilt Beach Extension meeting that were in line with some of
the things that are here. But let's -- that's one of the reasons why we're
here today is to be able to talk it -- talk about it.
Now, I agree, it's late in the day. There is an awful lot of
unchartered ground that we're going to be covering in the short period
of time. But still, I've got concerns. We have never in Collier
County's history taken a home by eminent domain, and I'm kind of
hoping that we can come up with a package that the commissioners
can decide on a case-by-case basis that will offset the cost to the point
where people will want to make settlements rather than go through
eminent domain, and the only people that get rich at that point in time
Page 248
June 6-7, 2006
is the attorney.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So you can look at it any way
you want. Staff has not made any determinations. They're here to ask
you what you want to do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, the point is that we approve
these kinds of requests from staff almost every meeting. There is
nothing unusual about this request. They're generally on the consent
agenda.
This is not the time to debate what we're going to offer people.
This is merely the time to say, yes, staff, you have the right to go out
and start negotiating to get property for a decision we've already
made.
What goes into that package is something that only the board can
finally approve, and that, perhaps, is a subject of another meeting, but
this particular topic is not subject to this kind of discussion. We have
to advertise this kind of discussion if we're going to have it. We
haven't advertised here that the board is going to discuss the kinds of
costs that we will reimburse people for when we engage in an eminent
domain action. That hasn't been advertised here. I'd be willing to bet
we'd have the whole place packed if we advertised something for that
discussion here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What exactly did the agenda
item say?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's lOA.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's the same -- the standard --
standard authority we give to staff every time they do this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right, uh-huh. One of the --
one of the differences between the time we're coming to you with this
gift and purchase resolution and the time that we typically do is
typically we don't begin right-of-way acquisitions until we have 60
Page 249
June 6-7, 2006
percent plans.
We don't even have a designed contract right now, and yet, I
think it's the consensus of the board, at least -- I know from some of
the commissioners I've talked to, it's the consensus we need to go out
there now and begin inquiring what property that we can, especially
where the whole property's going to be taken so these peoples' lives
are not held in limbo.
So we're coming to you at the earliest possible time, having been
-- having identified those properties that will be whole takes or pretty
much they're going to be wiped out. If there's any left over, it won't be
worth much. And just -- we're telling these --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I could add to that.
MR. HENDRICKS: -- the residents out there are calling us
daily. I speak at least once a day with these people.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I still haven't been able
to finish. I got interrupted every time I tried to talk, and I just want to
finish another statement, since I'm the one that seems to have a special
interest in this. And I'll be happy to turn it over, Commissioner
Henning, but just one more moment, please.
We have people that are held in limbo right now. They can't sell
their property because it's going to be taken over at some future date
by Collier County.
Generally the average person moves every seven years. There's
people, just as a matter of course, were planning to move. Now
they've found themselves held hostage with the fact that they can't sell
their property unless they want to sell it to a speculator at a loss to be
able to move on and get on with their lives.
That's not sending the right message of government. And with
that, thank you very much for your patience, Mr. Henning, please.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, thank you. I have a
question for you now. What is your interest?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My special interest is the people
Page 250
June 6-7, 2006
that we represent in Collier County to try to make them as whole as
possible. That's the simple part of the whole thing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What I heard is you have
a special interest in this project, Vanderbilt Beach.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: A special interest in the fact, the
people that I represent, yes, but I also have a special interest in Santa
Barbara, which I don't represent as a commissioner but I still represent
as the whole.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I misunderstood. Thanks
for the clarification.
But these -- the things in this email, I remember one
commissioner talking about it.
Let me tell you what a perpetual payment of property taxes
Increase.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, please.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If we start that, we might not
have enough monies to do other things. I mean, if you think about it,
the benefits from roads that we expand, all the taxing districts enjoy.
And what we really need to do is make this a F AC item, Florida
Association of Counties, and a delegation item to where, you know, if
it's -- if it's an eminent domain case, particularly in that, that they do
have the right to have that portability within the county, plain and
simple.
Court has already ruled on that. And the -- if we -- if we have to
continue to pay that, the county, of building transportation that the
school enjoys, the fire department enjoys, so on and so forth, we're
just digging a big hole, and it should be a collaborative effort with all
the counties within the state.
MR. HENDRICKS: We have owners coming to -- talking to us
every day who say they're bombarded with advertisements from
attorneys, and they would rather just deal with us. They don't know if
they want to go through dealing with an attorney.
Page 251
June 6-7, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we have to deal would
these issues.
MR. HENDRICKS: And get some direction from the board as
to, you know, to go and study these particular issues and come back
with a report.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. And, you know, if
we're going to have early acquisition, maybe the compensation should
be allowed that they stay in their house until we go to construction.
And if you take a look at rents of $1,200, maybe that's the average, is
that equal compensation. But the gift that keeps on giving, that's a real
slippery slope, and we need to address it through a statutes
amendment, my opinion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Look, we are way, way off base
here. If we want to help these people, we need to approve this item
right now as it is, forget about this letter, forget about all the promises
in this letter, and have our staff go out and talk with these people and
say, what is it that you need? What is reasonable? What are your
special circumstances? Are we taking your entire property? Do you
want to sell your entire property? Do you only want to sell part of
your property? Are you interested in leaving right now? Or do you
want to live in it for X number of years until we get ready to do
something?
We can't do that. That's what staff does. And we can't sit here
and set a standard template for what you offer everybody, because
everybody's circumstances are different, their needs are different.
The only thing we can say here is, yes, you're authorized by
acquisition by gift or purchase of simple interest in the proposed
right-of-way to go ahead and do what we authorize you to do every
single week, and let's approve that and go do it.
And then you bring the proposals back to us, and we'll say, yeah,
this seems reasonable, or, no, it doesn't seem reasonable. And the
Page 252
June 6-7, 2006
person who is selling the property can come before us and say, look, I
don't think we've gotten a fair deal on this and we can make some
decision, or they can hire a lawyer and they can take it to court. That's
what's going to happen so that their interests are protected.
But for us to sit here and say, here's what we're going to give
you, is a really, really bad thing to do.
MR. HENDRICKS: I'm not asking that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I know you're not. And see,
that isn't even on this agenda. That isn't on this agenda, that's why we
shouldn't even be talking about this.
We should be talking about lOA, which is your authorization to
go out and get this property by talking with the owners and being fair
to them, and that's what you want to do, too.
MR. HENDRICKS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I make a motion we approve
lOA.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. County Attorney, do you want to
add anything to this discussion so that we make sure that we're clear?
We have some speakers.
MR. PETTIT: No, I have nothing to add.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I covered it rather well.
MR. PETTIT: I mean, I think the executive summary is as
Commissioner Coyle described it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Would you call the public
speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have three public
speakers. Marlaine Reick. She is not here. Sara Timmons. She'll be
followed by Peter Gaddy.
MS. TIMMONS: I'm Sara Timmons. And on behalf of all my
neighbors -- and I know that they would agree with me -- we will give
the road up and let you all put the road out in Immokalee. But anyway.
Page 253
June 6-7, 2006
Since I know that the Vanderbilt Beach Road is a done-deal, it's
going to happen, we can't stop it, I'd just like the county to get on with
dealing with us.
I have family that I want to move closer to. And my house has
been on the market. I had a buyer. They were working on getting
financing and so forth for it. And then we found out about the road,
and they said, thank you, but no thank you.
So the sooner you all can make a decision or the county can let
me know what they're going to do about my property -- they're not
slated to take my home. I wish they would. Then it would be a
no-brainer. I'd know that I had the house sold.
I only own the most beautiful piece of property in Golden Gate
Estates. But I really would like it if you all would just -- if the county
could get on with it. I'm living in limbo. I can't sell my house.
Nobody wants to build a house knowing that a road's going in unless,
like Commissioner Coletta said, we lower the price. And until I know
what the county's going to pay me, I can't lower the price on my
property. I just -- I can't make that work. I'm not going to give it
away. Like I said, it's the best piece of property out there.
So thank you very much. And I -- this has really been an
interesting day sitting here. This could almost get addictive. It really
could, almost.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I wish we could say that.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I want to thank you very much for your
comments, really.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker, Mr. Chairman, is Peter
Gaddy.
MR. GADDY: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
Peter Gaddy on behalf of concerned citizens.
I guess what I would encourage is, I would encourage the
commissioners to set up a standard and a policy for a generous
Page 254
June 6-7, 2006
compensation for a couple of reasons.
First of all, that's what was promised during the Vanderbilt Beach
Road proceedings. The second reason is, otherwise, if you don't do
that, you're going to be involved with 450 different lawsuits, and that's
going to be very expensive and time-consuming.
Some suggestions. Most enlightened counties and condemning
authorities adopt a multiplier. I'm not going to say what number is
appropriate. It could be one and a quarter times market value, it could
be one and a half times, but you need to adopt a policy.
You need to consider very carefully in the Estates the damage to
the remainder. Many of your takings are going to be partial takings.
And as a consequence, some homes are going to be rendered
worthless.
I think you should compensate for giving -- Kevin, I guess it's
incor -- incorporeal hereditament.
MR. HENDRICKS: Hereditament, yes.
MR. GADDY: You're going to have to do that. That's the current
law.
You're going to have to consider cost of relocation. And I think
you really do need to be fair to your citizens. They're making a big
sacrifice. You need to have a policy. You need to have a generous
one.
One final comment. If the road should not be built for whatever
reason, I would ask that you put provisions in your final judgments or
your sales contract that the property be returned to the original owner.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Public hearing is closed.
And Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I think some of the
points I was trying to make got lost in the shuffle.
I just wanted us to keep an open mind. I'm sure -- but the
Page 255
June 6-7, 2006
instructions given to staff does not allow them to go any farther than
what would standardly be done anyplace else in the state.
Of course, the petitioner could come forward and ask at the time
that it comes back to us, but do they really know what questions to
ask?
Just for argument's sake or discussion's sake, I believe that there's
been some research done as far as the 10 years of taxes, what it would
be between two different prices, the price of what it would be for --
their paying now and what they would do if they lost the homestead
exemption regardless of where they move.
The number that I heard before was not unrealistic. Has someone
got those numbers?
MR. HENDRICKS: One method that's been used is to figure the
difference between an individual's existing taxes and what those taxes
would have been if it did not have the Save our Homes exemptions,
and then capitalize that difference or that value, if you will, that
number, 10 years out into the future and then apply a discount for time
value of money. That's one method. It's one of many methods.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that's a method. Have you
applied it to any particular numbers?
MR. HENDRICKS: I think that Commissioner Coyle said, well,
how do we know they're even going to move and stay in Florida?
You don't.
There are a number of issues that were brought up in the
respondent's opposing brief that was filed with the court in the DOT
versus Lounders case up in the middle of the state, and those are some
of the issues that the DOT brought up.
I mean, what is their life expectancy? How long would they have
lived anyway? I mean, there are -- actuarial (sic) tables would have to
be consulted. It's -- you know, there are a lot of things, and that's kind
of what we're swimming with right now.
People are asking questions, and we don't have the answers. All
Page 256
June 6-7, 2006
we're telling them is we're trying to do the best we can. We're going
to go to the commission, we're going to ask the commission to make
the decisions.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the decision will be just
limited to what we see on the agenda item today.
MR. HENDRICKS: Good.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Of course. But it doesn't
include such things as the actuary tables, how you arrive at it, a fair
settlement for somebody that's going to be displaced in life.
MR. HENDRICKS: And all the things Mr. Gaddy talked about
are routinely done. Sometimes we've added a multiplier, sometimes
we haven't. I'm not sure that we've done it enough times on enough
projects that are apples to apples for comparison's sake, but we can tell
there's not -- whether it's made a difference because in general, no
matter what we offer, no matter how high we allow the appraiser to
go, the other side hires an appraiser who can say, oh, you know --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's the way the systems go.
MR. HENDRICKS: Yeah. And severance damages, if we --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I mean, ifit was your
house or my house, you would want to get the very best possible deal
you could get.
MR. HENDRICKS: And relocation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And we have seen hundreds, if
not, a thousand of these come through in the past five, six years for the
properties that we have settled on for the building of roads. Never a
home, but properties. And we've seen them come over on the consent
agenda and we've settled them.
I think a couple case -- I don't know if we ever made eminent
domain on some of the property itself, but we have had -- seen
numerous of them come through. We never negotiate them. We just
settle them right then and there.
My concern is that 20 -- or 19-some homeowners that are out
Page 257
June 6-7, 2006
there that are going to lose their homes through no fault of their own
and how we're going to be able to reach that level of composition that
makes me feel comfortable.
And I know, this might -- this is the difficult part to deal with,
and I'm not through yet on it. And I don't think we've given
instructions to staff.
I think what we need to do is work with the public out there so
that they're aware of their rights and the fact that if there is going to be
an offer made to them, they can show up here at the meeting and we
can discuss it, discuss it in great detail, and we can weigh out what the
eventuality would be if we carried it to the full end where they took it
to eminent domain and we hired the attorneys and we paid for the
attorneys, and we made that eventual smaller settlement and paid off
everybody's attorneys, how many dollars that would be against an
early settlement up front where everybody reaches an agreement
they're happy with and we don't set -- upset a part of the population.
What we're dealing with here is just the tip of the iceberg. We
have a large number of people out there that we don't know who they
are yet that live on such places as Wilson, that live on other roads that
are going to be seriously impacted.
And when that happens, we're going to have this going
continuously. And if we can't deal with it now, then we're not going
to be able to deal with it later.
That's where I am with it.
MR. HENDRICKS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I -- you know, we're just
belaboring this thing too much. Nothing is going to get done until you
get the authority from us to go out and talk with these people. We just
have a motion on the table to do that.
It's fairly easy for those 19 people, just contact them, say, come
Page 258
June 6-7, 2006
in let's sit down and talk. If you want to bring your lawyer, that's okay
too. And just sit down and talk and find out what their needs are. And
you do -- you've done this before.
MR. HENDRICKS: Twenty years, more than 20 years.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. You've calculated the
damages and the inconvenience and the costs and the severability
issues and all those kinds of issues. The law sets the standards for
that. We know what -- you know what we should be paying for.
The people who are going to be displaced know what they think
they ought to be paid for, and you always reach a settlement. Even if
it goes to court it is solved one way or the other, and it's almost always
solved to the benefit of the property owner.
So we know how to do that. Let's just give them authority to go
do it and let's get it done with.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Let's try to stay on task,
the item in the agenda.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This has gotten -- this is not a
productive time to talk about other roadways. I'm concerned, it
sounds like a stump speech. Let's move on.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further questions? If not,
I'm going to call the question.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just one last comment.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Make it short, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm leaving.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I will.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Me, too.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm going to vote against it for
the simple reason that I think we're falling short on it. I'm for
maximum compensation where we can get it, and I'll work with them
individually.
Page 259
June 6-7, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'm going to call --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, wait a minute. Wait a
minute. If a commissioner gets involved in going out and telling them
how they can squeeze taxpayers for more money --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, that's not what I said.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- you're violating your
responsibilities here. So let's make sure that you aren't going out and
telling people how they can maximum squeezing money out of the
other taxpayers. That's not our responsibility.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll do it from the dais up here
when they show up. And then I'll work with them.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's not our responsibility. We
know how to -- the law treats people fairly.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Let's call the question, then I think it's
time to go home for the day.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Similar situation right here,
want to take her, Santa Barbara? She's been waiting all day.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well--
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, how did it go? Did it go 5-0 or did
it go 4-1 ?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: 4-1.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, are you adjourning this meeting
until tomorrow morning?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, I am.
MR. MUDD: Reconvene at nine in the morning?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, we are, nine o'clock in the
Page 260
June 6-7,2006
mornIng.
(The proceedings adjourned at 6:05 p.m., to reconvene at 9:00
a.m. on June 7, 2006.)
*****
DAY 2 - June 7, 2006
Meeting reconvened at 9:00 a.m. on June 7, 2006 with the
following members present
CHAIRMAN:
Frank Halas
Jim Coletta
Fred W. Coyle
Donna Fiala
Tom Henning
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
Michael Pettit, County Attorney
Crystal Kinzel, Office of the Clerk of Court
Page 261
June 6-7, 2006
(Continued from June 6, 2006.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. Mr.
Chairman, you have a hot mic.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. Good morning,
ladies and gentlemen. We're back in session from over the evening.
And I believe we're starting off with Item 8-G.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
Item #8G
RESOLUTION OF DENIAL 2006-143: PETITION: PUDEX-2005-
AR-8649 HAMMOCK PARK PUD, JOSEPH A. FILIPPELLI, FOR
SEMBLER FLORIDA, REPRESENTED BY DWIGHT NADEAU,
OF RWA, REQUESTING A 2-YEAR PUD EXTENSION TO THE
HAMMOCK PARK COMMERCE CENTRE PUD MASTER PLAN
AND PUD DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO LDC SECTION
10.02.13.D.5.A. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF
18.15 ACRES, IS LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
COLLIER BOULEVARD AND RATTLESNAKE-HAMMOCK
ROAD, SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST;
AND SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY~ FLORIDA - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: And that was previously 7-A. And it reads (as
read): This item requires that all participants be sworn -- be sworn in
and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members. It's
Petition: PUDEX-2005-AR-8649, Hammock Park PUD, Joseph A.
Filippelli for Sembler Florida represented by Dwight Nadeau of R W A
requesting a two-year PUD extension to the Hammock Park
Commerce Center PUD Master Plan and PUD document pursuant to
Land Development Code 10.02.13.D.5.a. The subject property
Page 262
June 6-7, 2006
consisting of 18.15 acres is located in the northeast comer of Collier
Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock Road, Section 14, Township 50
South, Range 26 East; and Section 23, Township 50 South, Range 26
East, Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those that are going to be giving
testimony in this please stand and rise to be sworn in.
(The oath was administered to all speakers.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle, do you
have any ex parte on this particular item?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. I have had meetings with the
petitioner's representative concerning this item. And I've also talked
with staff about it -- about this.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. On the former 7-A I met
with Bruce Anderson on 6/6 and talked to staff about it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. The only ex parte I have on it is
that I talked with staff on it. I didn't receive any other correspondence
on this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I met with the petitioner and
met with staff.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I did speak to the county
manager on this.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much. You may
proceed.
MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson from the
Roetzel & Andress Law Firm on behalf of the applicant.
Before beginning the substance of the presentation I have a
couple of procedural matters to address. Mr. Mudd is passing out to
you two pages of the PUD extension application which needed to be
corrected. They would replace pages 14 and 15 of your agenda packet
Page 263
June 6-7, 2006
on this item. I will also provide a copy of these amended pages to the
court reporter.
The amended pages make references to Ordinance No. 2004-68
which is also attached to the amended pages and was also included in
your agenda packet. This ordinance amended the legal description for
this PUD property to correct an error in the legal description. The
amended pages to the application also state that the correct date that
this PUD will be sunseted is three years from when Ordinance
2004-68 was adopted. So the correct PUD sunset date would be
October 20, 2007. The amended page also notes that this application
is submitted under protest and the reason for the protest is because the
PUD has not yet sunseted. I will get into more detail on that point in
the substance of the presentation.
The second procedural matter is to ask the commission to accept
into evidence in the record the entirety of your agenda packet for this
item, pages 1 through 97, as amended this morning.
Also I need to correct a misstatement in the staff report. The
misstatement says that no development approvals have been sought
for any portion of the PUD. My client just purchased the property in
September. And they did, in fact, seek development approval for a
site development plan for 160,000 square feet of commercial uses;
however, staff felt that they had to refuse to accept the site
development plan application pending the outcome of this hearing.
But my point is that ever since my client has acquired the property,
they have pursued development diligently or tried to.
My client's position may be summarized with three major points.
Number one, the PUD does not sunset until October 20, 2007.
Number two, Transportation Element Policy 5.1 does not apply to
PUD extensions. Number three, even if Transportation Element Policy
5.1 was to be incorrectly applied to this PUD sunset, the policy
authorizes mitigation as a way of complying. And my client has
offered mitigation by a 20 percent reduction in intensity and impacts
Page 264
June 6-7, 2006
from that authorized by the PUD.
As to the first major issue, the PUD sunset review and extension
regulations in the Land Development Code recognize two different
classes of PUDs; those approved before October 24, 2001, and those
that are approved on or after that date. The difference in the treatment
of PUDs that are approved before October 2001 is that those are
subject to a five-year period within which to commence development.
And the commencement of development is measured by different
standards than if the PUD was approved after October 2001. The
PUD that's approved after October 2001 is subject to a three-year PUD
sunset review.
The Hammock Park PUD was originally approved before that
magic date of October 2001; however, it was later discovered that
there was an error in the legal description for the property that's within
the PUD. And on October 26, 2004, the PUD was amended to correct
the legal description and the name of the proj ect.
I put up here on your visualizer the pertinent portion of the PUD
sunset regulations. They state that any PUD approved before October
24, 2001, that receives subsequent amendment. approval shall be
subj ect to the development criteria and time limits established for
PUDs approved on or after October 24,2001. So the bottom line is
because this PUD was, in fact, amended after October 2001, it became
subj ect to the new measurement standards and a new three-year
commencement of development requirements standard. This PUD has
one more year to go to commence development before it becomes
subject to sunset. And -- and besides the plain and clear language of
your code on this point, as a legal matter development couldn't have
gone forward on this PUD with every -- with everybody knowing
there was an error in the legal description. That wouldn't have been
right. So they couldn't have commenced development until the PUD
had been amended to correct the error.
I would ask you to take a close look at the plain language and ask
Page 265
June 6-7, 2006
you to make a finding that the PUD will not become subject to sunset
until three years after the last PUD amendment as the Land
Development Code provides for. If you make that finding, it will be
unnecessary to address the other two major issues.
Your transportation staff -- let's go to the second one, the second
issue, then. Unless the county attorney wants to respond.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'd like to have the county attorney -- the
county attorney respond in regards to exactly when is the
establishment of this PUD and also I'd like some clarification in
regards to the scrivener's error -_
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- and how that affects the PUD.
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Thank you. For the record, Margie
Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney.
It is the position of our office that the language that Mr.
Anderson cited does not include a scrivener's error. And a scrivener's
error would not stop the time from running on this particular PUD and
be considered the type of amendment envisioned by the language in
the land code. And that is because it is just a scrivener's error. And
one little piece of description was left out, but the -- what really starts
it is the approval of a PUD with a substantive provisions in it for the
development of the project.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. My other question is, would the
scrivener's error cause the -- in the case that the attorney over here is
stating, would that cause that there would be no development that
could take place with the scrivener's error?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I don't think so. Staff may wish to
weigh in on this. But it was merely the addition of one little provision
of the legal description. And the legal description would be in the file
for the PUD. And the PUD would also be shown on our zoning Atlas
map. So I think that that is more of a form-over-substance argument.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So it would not deny the ability to have
Page 266
June 6- 7, 2006
this PUD go forward, is that correct, with development?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I don't believe it would. Staffmay
wish to weigh in on this because they're the ones that review the
developments coming in under the PUD.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'd like to get this cleared up. Go ahead,
staff.
MS. MURRAY: Good morning. Susan Murray. I stand as the
zoning director.
No. We would -- recognizing that there was an error in the legal
description, I don't think that would stop us from accepting a
development order application as long as we were assured that the
scrivener's error was being pursued and later corrected through the
PUD.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I've got to have something more definite.
You said, "I think."
MS. MURRAY : We would not. We would not refuse __
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. MURRAY: -- the application.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning.
MS. MURRAY: We would not approve the application until the
scrivener's error was corrected, but we could accept the applications
concurrently.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. If the scrivener error was there,
how soon can you get the scrivener's error taken care of?
MS. MURRAY: As long as we meet the advertising
requirements, it's a very short period of time.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So--
MS. MURRAY: Probably about --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- it's not five years or --
MS. MURRAY: Oh, no.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- three years or two years; is that
.
correct?
Page 267
June 6-7, 2006
MS. MURRAY: Once we found out about it and once we got the
corrected legal description and then properly advertised the hearing,
we could schedule it. It's not a major -- like Marjorie said, it's not a
major event. You're looking at probably six to eight weeks.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So you're telling me it would not have
any effect in regards to starting this PUD?
MS. MURRAY: No.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, a scrivener's error doesn't
require to go through the Environmental Advisory Counselor the
Planning Commission. It's just something that goes on our summary
agenda?
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yes. It doesn't go through the
Planning Commission. And just to put it on the record, the scrivener's
error involved the title of the PUD document which I would submit
would not impact developability to go forward with development.
And also what was left out was of the southwest quarter of the __ of a
section. And as Susan Murray stated that staff would catch that and
ask that the scrivener's amendment be processed. But in the
meantime, they would be looking at the development order
application.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So -- I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So this is a scrivener's error. Is
it actually a PUD amendment or is it a--
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It's an amendment. A scrivener's
error amendment, though.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Just to correct what was originally
contemplated in the approval. But because somebody left some
language out or put the words together wrong, it constitutes a
scrivener's error.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
Page 268
June 6-7, 2006
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It's a form type of amendment
rather than a substance type of amendment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I'd like to hear
from the applicant on -- on what kind of permits that he's applied for
in that time frame, then.
MR. ANDERSON: The -- the then property owner, because my
client only acquired property this past September, but the prior owner
had been pursuing their environmental permits. And I've just been
handed a copy of the -- is this the ERP permit -- issued for the project
in -- and it's dated April 2005.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Any others?
MR. ANDERSON: And applications are pending for the Army
Corps permit as well for this property.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Part of the ERP. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that answered part of my
question. Ms. Murray, could I -- could I just pursue something with
you, please.
You haven't received any applications of any kind, have you?
MS: MURRAY: Not to my knowledge. Melissa Zone is the
planner assigned to that. And she informed me that the applicant had
a pre-application meeting, but we have not received any formal
application.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: When was the preapplication
meeting?
MS. MURRAY: I think November or December of -- November
of2005.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 2005. And -- and that would have
been the new owner or the first owner? So it was the new owner?
MS. MURRAY: I'll have to ask.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, I think that answers
my question. Thank you very much, Susan.
Page 269
June 6-7, 2006
Now with respect to the sunseting provisions, the change in
ownership has absolutely nothing to do with any of this; right?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I mean, when -- when a new owner
buys the property, they have -- they have the responsibility to do due
diligence.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so they understand what the
potential sunseting requirement is __
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- right? Okay. All right.
MR. ANDERSON: My point was simply that my client hadn't
sat on it for five years. That was __
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I understand. But I think--
I think staff is addressing it from the standpoint of the PUD itself, not
-- not who owns it.
MR. ANDERSON: Oh, sure. Sure. Sure. But the question is
always, well, why haven't you acted on the PUD and r wanted to try to
answer that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. ANDERSON: And -- and I was not at the pre-application
meeting. But it is my understanding that at the pre-application
meeting that was held for the SDP on this property, that they were told
at that pre-application meeting that the county would not accept the
SDP.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But they were told that because it
was the staffs belief that its PUD had already expired.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And -- and if the county
attorney's interpretation is correct that a scrivener's error does not in
itself extend the PUD, the staff was perfectly right.
MR. ANDERSON: Oh, yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
Page 270
June 6-7, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any other questions? Proceed.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, sir. Your transportation staff
points to Transportation Element Policy 5.1 as the basis for their
recommendation of denial on this PUD extension request. And the
language of this policy states that it applies to rezones, SRA
designations, conditional uses, and future land use element
amendments. These are the only four types of application that this
policy applies to. These -- those applications are specifically listed,
but a PUD extension is not one of the applications listed in this policy.
I would suggest that if staff wants to make PUD extensions
subject to Policy 5.1, then the comprehensive plan needs to be
amended to add that to the list that are in there or either to say in the
comprehensive plan 5.1 applies to all land use applications and not
specify, you know, just three or four. That can be done as part of the
evaluation and appraisal report amendments, but it doesn't apply
today.
Now, staff will probably also tell you that PUD sunset language
states that we have to measure the extension request against
concurrency requirements and, therefore, we need to apply Policy 5.1
anyway even ifby its terms it wouldn't otherwise apply. And that it's
necessary to eliminate some inconsistency between the Land
Development Code and the Growth Management Plan. However, the
Growth Management Act states that where there's a conflict or an
inconsistency between your plan and your Land Development Code,
that the Growth Management Plan controls. And, again, the Growth
Management Plan doesn't mention PUD extensions as being subject to
that policy.
Even if you apply Transportation Policy 5.1 to this project
incorrectly, it does authorize mitigation as a way to satisfy the policy.
My client has offered a mitigating condition in order to make this
PUD extension comply with Policy 5.1. My client offered to reduce
Page 271
June 6-7, 2006
permanently the building square footage that he can build on this
property as a part of this PUD extension and/or SDP submittal if one
would finally be accepted. My client will reduce from 200,000 square
feet to 160,000 square feet the amount of commercial building on this
PUD. That's a 20 percent reduction in intensity and impacts. And
with this reduction the level of service triggers that are in Policy 5.1
are no longer triggered by this PUD. Not only is Policy 5.1 complied
with as a result of that reduction, but the mitigation itself removes the
PUD from tripping the trigger on Policy 5.1.
Now, I understand from prior conversations with the County
Attorney's Office that they may tell you that you can't attach any
conditions to a PUD extension. But that ignores precedent that has
been previously set wherein at least one instance that I know of
personally because I was involved in it, commissions in the past have
been permitted by the County Attorney's Office to attach conditions to
a PUD extension resolution.
I'd like to distribute, introduce into the record a copy of
Resolution 97-72 which amended the Imperial Lakes PUD subject to
certain specified future SDP amendment conditions which are set forth
in the resolution. In addition to the condition that I offered up about
the permanent reduction in square footage, my client is also willing to
add a further condition that they will not build in excess of 120,000
square feet until Davis Boulevard is six -laned.
Now, the reason that I've been -- oh, lastly, I'd like to read into
the record and distribute a copy of a letter of support from Collier
Regional Medical Center, Chief Executive Officer Mike Mastej. It
states -- this is addressed to Joe -- Joseph Filippelli vice president of
the Sembler Company. (As read): Dear Joe, this letter is to confirm
our recent conversation with you regarding the future retail medical
offices proposed at Hammock Park Commerce Center at the corner of
Collier Boulevard, County Road 951 and Rattlesnake Hammock Road
in Naples, Florida. Collier Regional Medical Center is very interested
Page 272
June 6-7, 2006
in seeing the development of retail stores and office space to include
medical offices.
As you know, we are very near completion of our hospital and
anticipate our opening our facilities in the first quarter of 2007. Our
medical facilities will serve the surrounding communities and will
employ hundreds of employees which will include doctors and
medical personnel. Your proposed project will provide many services
to our employees as well as hospital visitors. You indicated that you
have interest from banks, restaurants, convenience stores, drugstores
as well as office space. The project would be very complementary to
our hospital since there is a serious lack of services in the immediate
area.
We look forward to the opportunity to work with you and we
hope to potentially lease some of the medical space you will provide
as our office needs will soon outgrow our facilities. If Collier
Regional Medical Center can be of assistance, please don't hesitate to
contact us.
I'm -- and I'm going to have an exhibit put up on the board here
that shows the distance between Collier Regional Medical Center and
this PUD. And it also shows an interconnection easement that exists
that would enable the hospital to directly access the traffic light at
Rattlesnake Hammock Road. If you would, point out the easement.
Thank you.
I would respectfully ask you to extend the PUD for at least two
more years with or without the condition that my client offered and
will live with regardless of whether you make it an express condition
of the PUD extension approval. County attorney says you can't do
that, fine. We'll go ahead and tell you that we'll do that anyway. And
Reed Jarvie is here to testify about the reduction in square footage and
how that would affect transportation Policy 5.1 if you wish to hear that
or have any questions.
Thank you. And I'll be happy to answer any questions you might
Page 273
June 6-7, 2006
have.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Anderson?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're not sure when, if you do
get permission to go ahead and if you do do this project when it would
be built. I mean, do you have any idea on the timetable?
MR. ANDERSON: Oh, just as soon as we could get SDP
approval and the other permits.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that's how long? Just -- I
mean, just on the outside. I -- I realize you can't be held to other
people's actions.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay. Fifteen -- an estimated fifteen more
months of permitting.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. ANDERSON: And then the construction would be -- begin
after that and would take approximately nine months. So we're talking
two years.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now, one of my
concerns is we are -- we're in the process of coming up with a linkage
fee. And it hasn't passed the commission, but when it comes to them
it may pass. And the idea of the linkage fee is to be able to come up
with a mechanism to be able to come up with funds for affordable
housing.
Would this approval today in any way prohibit us from being
able to collect that linkage fee in the future?
MR. ANDERSON: No, sir. It would just depend how you word
the ordinance and when you apply the linkage fee payment. I would
anticipate that you would do it the same way you do impact fees and
you collect it at the time of building permit.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Was there a way that -- I'm
sorry. Forgive me for these questions, but I'm trying to find a way to
Page 274
June 6-7, 2006
ensure that when we get down the road that this isn't one that slips by
us. Is there a way that a condition could come by where it would be
recognized that the C.O. if it wasn't in process -- in place at the time of
permitting? I just want to see if there's some mechanism where we
can collect it. And I hate to miss it by a matter of weeks or months
because of some oversight on our part here today.
Is there something the County Attorney's Office can offer on
this?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I -- I was having a little sidebar
here with Mr. Pettit for a moment. Could you state the -- restate the
issue for me again, please. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ms. Student, what I'm
concerned about is the fact that a linkage fee that we mayor may not
pass from this commission, if we do pass it, my concern is that we
may do something here today that would inhibit our ability to collect it
from this particular project. Is there something that we could do at
this time to ensure the fact that we would have that right to collect it?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, I think that goes back to
putting conditions and a resolution that would extend the PUD. And
our concern all along about that was having a couple documents
around that deal with this development rather than having it in a PUD
document. And we also have a provision in our code that say that any
text amendments to the PUD have to go through the process that you
go through to amend the PUD. So when you get further down the
field with this, you know, then it becomes more of a text amendment
to an existing PUD. And our concern, again, is putting these things in
a resolution and having, you know, several documents or more than
one document that governs development.
And I would submit that any substantive -- Mr. Anderson's first
proposal was to bring in a site plan for 160,000 square feet instead of
200,000 square feet. Now, that can live -- can live under the
provisions of the PUD because the PUD has a maximum of200,000
Page 275
June 6-7, 2006
square feet. So you could go less than that and still be consistent with
that PUD document.
So our concern there about putting that in a resolution was truly a
concern about having, you know, more than one document develop __
running around that governs development. But when you get into
these other issues about linkage fees and about mitigation in terms of
roadways that are going to be constructed, in my opinion you
definitely get into text changes to a PUD document and it would be
my legal opinion that that can -- definitely cannot go in a resolution
and needs to go in a PUD amendment.
And I would also like to address a couple of the points that Mr.
Anderson raised, if I might, about 5.1. The Land Development Code
specifically refers back to the comp plan. And it talks about
concurrency requirements. It doesn't say specifically, but it says
concurrency requirements. And I understand Mr. Anderson's
statement that Policy 5.1 only calls about four types of development
orders. But consistency with the comp plan as it's defined in the code
talks about land use density and intensity. So I would submit that
these other things are ancillary to that because it refers back to
concurrency, that our 5.1 is our first look at concurrency at the rezone
level. Then we get further into the development, we apply the
adequate public facilities ordinance for concurrency. I would also
submit that if you hadn't developed anything yet or much of anything
yet, as would happen that would trigger you to have to come back here
because you hadn't developed to get an extension, that you would
never be looking at those. The other concurrency requirements that
you look at site plan platting or building permit, you never would have
gotten there yet. So then it wouldn't make any sense to write this into
our land code unless you were looking at this -- if you want to call it
up- front concurrency requirement.
And I also want to state that when you're extending a PUD, while
it's not exactly a rezone, it operates like you're giving them -_ you're
Page 276
June 6-7, 2006
giving them an extension of a rezoning that you granted. So
operationally it is like a rezone.
And I also want to address the resolution that Mr. Anderson
passed out from 1997. The first three conditions were standard
conditions that just go with PUD -- at that time that just went with
PUD extensions. And the fourth one has to do with a site plan, a final
site development plan that had -- had apparently already been
approved and was just a condition to clarify what provisions of the
land code that site plan would be subject to. Because it was approved
in '89 and we did changes to our land code, massive ones, in 1991. So
it was just a clarification. And I would argue that that's very
distinguishable from this situation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I'm sorry. Let me --let
me sum this up really quick. The recommendations from County
Attorney's Office are?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That would be to do a PUD
amendment to put these conditions -- mitigation conditions that Mr.
Anderson is offering up in a PUD amendment.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. That has to be in another
time? It couldn't be done today?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: No. It has to be reviewed by staff
and advertised and go through the Planning Commission and the
county commission.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Your recommendation is to
denial?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It would be -- the recommendation
for these extra conditions would be if you want these extra conditions,
you'd have to do a PUD amendment.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's a different question, but __
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Ijust want to clarify his question. I
don't think -- there was a -- I think he was asking what your
Page 277
June 6-7, 2006
recommendation is on the extension of the PUD, not on these other
items.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, my recommendation on the
extension, if you just want to extend it without the __
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. No. No. He -- I think he was
just saying, is there a reason to extend this PUD?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay. If you just look at that
issue, that's a finding the board must make based upon the criteria.
You have a staff recommendation of denial for failure to meet
concurrency requirements. I believe that's a correct analysis by staff.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I think you're there.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: If you want to -- you have to break
this down because it's not exactly a black-and-white answer. If you
want to just look at whether to approve or deny, then you need to look
at these three conditions and what staff has to say about whether or not
those conditions were met. And the board makes that decision based
upon what you hear today and whether or not the condition is met.
If you want extra conditions that deal with the roadway, that deal
with linkage, I would say absolutely that has to go into a PUD
amendment because that would be a text change and our code requires
that that type of thing go through the PUD amendment process. And I
think that's a little bit -- that's a little bit of an ancillary issue to the
issue of whether to extend or deny. So that's why I'm saying, it's not
as simple as just a black-and-white answer.
MR. ANDERSON: May I comment, please? The kind of
conditions that we're talking about that my client has voluntarily
offered, no ones imposed it on him, are the -- exactly the kinds of
conditions that staff imposes every day on site development plans. So
you strip away everything and their position is that the boss can't do
what the underlings can.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Who are the bosses and who are
the underlings?
Page 278
June 6-7, 2006
MR. ANDERSON: You are the boss.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No, we're the underlings.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
MR. MUDD: Some would say you are.
MR. ANDERSON: We're looking for a practical solution to
satisfy what are real needs in this surrounding area. And, you know,
whether it's with a wink and a nod or however you want to do it, my
client's willing to live with 160,000 square feet which brings us below
the 5.1 threshold. And, you know, they want to get their SDP in and
get on with the program. So please extend this PUD and I promise
you you'll see an SDP for only 160,000 square feet.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I really wanted to talk to
transportation for a minute. One of the things that I was very
concerned with is if this is -- if this is no longer consistent with the
current transportation element, some of the things that I read
throughout this thing where they were talking on page 15 of 97 that
the only zoning that had been -- zoning changes that had been
approved and they went on with the medical center and Hammock
Park or -- and Naples Lakes. But since then the super Wal-Mart's
been built and with a crushing blow of traffic from that, we're going to
be having Davis Boulevard. I'm sorry. Davis Boulevard isn't going to
be widened nor is the intersection going to be repaired, but
Rattlesnake is under construction. 951 will be under construction as
will County Barn Road which all relate to this area. Sierra Meadows
is now being built. We have EOC and the library going in right down
the street as well.
We're going to -- you know, we can't keep approving things on
this road when nobody's going to be able to move. I -- I realize
everybody would like to see all of these things coming, but we have to
think of what we're doing to 951. And what we're going to have to
live with forever after. And it concerns me deeply. What do you say.
Page 279
June 6-7, 2006
MR. SCOTT: Our specific review was based on their percent
impact was significant on 951 and we always keep going with the next
links until they're not significant anymore. That touches on Davis
Boulevard. I don't know when Davis Boulevard's going to be
widened. I know it's failing. That's why we said -- why we put the
response that we did for denial.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And from what I understand
previously, this road that we're talking about, 951, even though we're
going to be repairing it is -- is -- will be in failing mode, what was it,
2012 or 2014?
MR. SCOTT: Well, that was a projection previously.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
MR. SCOTT: It wasn't a model projection. Hopefully it will not
be in that kind of time frame, but you are touching on -- you know, the
beginning of the conversation you touched on; they were approved
previously with certain conditions just like Lely was at one time with
proj ections of traffic and now that traffic is much higher than was
originally --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
MR. SCOTT: -- projected.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. And we've been doing all of
our projections even now on one-seventh per year. And -- and I'm just
-- I'm terribly worried. If we don't start reigning in some of this
development, we're not going to be able to move. And we're going to
have another Immokalee Road. So I -- I'm just looking. Do you feel
that this is a good thing to approve, keep on going or do you think we
need to be readjusting it to today's current transportation element?
MR. SCOTT: I'm -- should they reduce it and come in? I'd like
to have -- make the improvements first like we were talking about
yesterday and then deal with the property, but that's my preference.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh. And you did recommend
denial; correct?
Page 280
June 6-7, 2006
MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, transportation planning. Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you did recommend denial?
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I think this did answer most of
my questions. They had an analysis here on page 55 and it talked
about the directional split at the new trip supplied and sited generated
traffic. Were all of the previously approved PUDs included in this
analysis or only that particular one?
MR. SCOTT: For a directional split at that project it's -- it's their
project, not everybody else's.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Okay. I think that -- yeah. I
think that that's all. I asked you the other things in my office the other
day. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Scott, now, please don't go
away. Is it true that if they do under 60 square foot, they go below the
threshold?
MR. SCOTT: What would happen is that the percent impact on
951 would drop below 3 percent. Now, obviously, that's not with
what we submitted to DCA, but 3 percent's what our current rules are.
It would drop below 3 percent. And then we wouldn't look at the next
segment, which would be the Davis Boulevard. And so at the moment
you would say, okay, it's consistent.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wait a minute. Okay. I can't
hear. Sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Say it again.
MR. SCOTT: Essentially dropping the 20 percent lowers the trip
impact on 951. If it's lower than 3 percent, you -- you look at that
link. Then you don't look at the next link. That's where the Davis
Boulevard and the failure comes in.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So policy - interesting
discussion of the sunset on this. And you're saying that we cannot
Page 281
June 6-7, 2006
arbitrarily say that you can only go up to 160,000 square feet and that
would have to be a PUD amendment?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Could I clarify that? It wouldn't be
illegal to put a provision like that in the resolution, but the difficulties
that could arise from it is having a PUD out there that -- I'm talking
about practical difficulties that could arise with a 200,000-foot
maximum. And that's in an ordinance. And then you have a resolution
with this condition that it's 160,000 square feet.
And the idea just being proactive and looking up front that if it's
sold again or they want to come in and amend and maybe put more
square footage than the 160,000, then, oh, you look at the PUD and it
says, oh, well, you can do up to 200,000 square feet. And then we
have this other resolution out here that conditions that -- that they're
only going to do 160,000, but that's nowhere in the PUD document.
And could that somehow -- mistakes happen. Oversights are made.
Could that resolution somehow not be reviewed by somebody in
planning. And then a change would be made that would violate the
condition, the resolution, but still be consistent with the PUD. So that
was our concern.
MR. ANDERSON: That could be easily remedied by simply
recording the resolution. That puts the world on notice.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it does put the world on
notice, but I'm not sure if our staff and community development reads,
goes into the clerk's recording. But if -- if the intent is to remove the
threshold so we don't take a look at the links, the transportation links, I
personally have a lot of concern about that. You know, it's -- it
impacts on all our roads. We don't know when Davis Boulevard is
going to be an improved at this time, so...
MR. SCOTT: I'd say in fairness they're saying we're also
lowering our impact, but that's --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are you done?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. Thank you.
Page 282
-."-",,,.._ -v- 'T" ~o~,. ^
June 6-7, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. And Ijust want to follow
that point just a moment. That -- that's the reason during the EAR
report we lowered the thresholds in our submission to DCA. There
are two reasons for that. That reason, first of all. The other reason is
that 2 percent or 3 percent of a two-lane road impact is a lot less than 3
percent of a six-lane road impact. So we're going to more six-lane
roads, so it's logical that we adjust the percentage. Otherwise, huge
impacts can occur and fall under the threshold.
But now I just want to make sure that I understood the full
implications of what Mr. Scott said. If it -- if the impact falls within
the 3 percent, the current 3 percent threshold on the primary impacted
facility, that means you don't consider its impact on secondary
facilities that might already be in failure.
MR. SCOTT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So -- so what we're saying is that if
you meet the 3 percent threshold on -- on Collier Boulevard, you don't
even get to use that impact to take into consideration what's happening
at Davis Boulevard or the Davis intersection.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that is just lunacy; right? And
we've got to -- we've got to deal with that. And -- and we're -- I
suspect that's one of the things Mr. Scott was saying yesterday, that
DCA is not likely to -- to approve for us. Which means we're going to
have to go head to head with DCA at some point on these issues if it is
through a lawsuit or some other process.
MR. SCOTT: And you're absolutely correct about it. One of the
-- I -- I was reviewing yesterday in a development that's on a certain
roadway and they said our biggest impact is down the road. But
because it's on a two-lane roadway, even though they're on a soon to
be if six-lane roadway, you can have large numbers at 3 percent for
six lane.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
Page 283
June 6-7, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do we have a report from staff on this?
MR. ANDERSON: What -- what would you want us to amend
the PUD to say? If you want us -- if we're -- if it's your
recommendation that we be required to submit a PUD amendment.
MR. SCOTT: Well, I'm going -- I'm going based on our
conversations yesterday. I would assume by what we're talking about
we would say that you wouldn't be able to develop until Davis
Boulevard is at least near-term or I would think some of the
conversation yesterday may be under construction or even completed,
but --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Complete sounds real good.
MR. SCOTT: -- but I'm going by direction.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can we have presentation by staff now,
please?
MS. ZONE: Good morning, Commissioners. Melissa Zone,
Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land
Development and Review.
F or clarification on some issues that were discussed earlier this
morning, the S -- SDP for Hammock Park was brought in. I was the
planner reviewing back in November of'05. No one in that review
process told the applicant that they could not submit the SDP, though
they were aware because the PUD extension was also under review.
But no one told them that we would not take the application or we
would not review it. So I just want to make sure for clarification that
that was noted.
You know where the subject location is and the map here -- thank
you. And we review -- the staff reviews PUD extensions on three
criterias. And it's part of the LDC, Section 10.02.13 of the LDC. And
what we review is the consistency with the current Growth
Management Plan density, intensity and concurrency requirements.
This PUD meets everything but the concurrency with traffic. The
intensity, the density of the location around the compatibility all meet
Page 284
June 6-7, 2006
except for traffic concurrency.
Staff is -- is under the impression if you were to review PUD
extensions similar to a PUD amendment, then I would think that we
would have to amend the criteria in the LDC on how we review PUD
extensions. And that would concern me, you know, doing reviews that
are not set up under our LDC.
The second criteria is a compatibility which, of course, the PUD
meets compatibility with the surrounding area.
And the third criteria if approved with this development in or by
itself affect public facilities, the roadways, of course, being one of
them. PUD document has language that does address the other public
facilities. So the criteria being here transportation which, you know,
because of deficiency on the county roadways is why they have
recommended denial and staff has supported them. I don't know if
you have any other questions on how we reviewed it or the SDP.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions? Commissioner
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just one question. Was it your
belief at the time you were meeting with the -- the petitioner that the
PUD had already expired in October of last year?
MS. ZONE: Well, because of the criteria in the LDC and the fact
that they were in for PUD extension already, their application, we did
not deny them in any way anything we offered to any of the other
applicants in the review process. But we haven't seen -- though they
came in for the preap, they've never submitted. So we couldn't even
say we denied this pre -- or this submittal because they never
submitted. It might be the applicant or their agents who recommended
them not to submit it until this was fulfilled. But we ourselves in
zoning did not see the full application.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Let me pursue it just a little
bit further. You continued to talk with the petitioner and answer their
questions?
Page 285
June 6-7, 2006
MS. ZONE: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Even beyond the point in time
when you thought that the PUD had expired?
MS. ZONE: We -- we've had open dialogue all along and county
staff has been willing to review. You cannot finalize the development
order to the PUD extension, but the willingness -- the willingness to
review it, to have the open discussion has always been there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions? Ifnot, I'll ask for
public hearing to be opened.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have one speaker, Bob Murray.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. MURRAY: Good morning, Commissioners.
Mr. Filippelli who represents Sembler contacted me as
representative of the East Naples Civic Association and sought
counsel and assistance in going forward with this. I've learned some
things this morning listening to what's going on. I hadn't become
familiar with all the particulars because my concern wasn't there for
that. And I want to just cover something.
On the board over there is the properties. And we see a line that
is indicative of a proposed roadway. And in the course of my
conversation, I determined, learned from Mr. Filippelli that the space
between his property and the hospital, for instance, and -- is of the
Toll Brothers Commercial which they have unified control. They
have the complete control to develop that so that they have a right to
run a road through there. And the conditions that I put on for
providing assistance of the East Naples Civic to come here and speak
on their behalf was that if they were to obtain approval, that we
certainly need help on the roads. And the interest that we have is to
try to take and alleviate some of the traffic. And by having that road
in the back, using, I believe, the FP &L easement and other property,
they can certainly help in that regard. And that is why I'm here this
Page 286
June 6-7, 2006
morning. I'm not familiar with the particulars of why it is going to
expire and all the other things about it.
Now, I do know that Mike Mastej and I in a conversation he also
expressed to me his desire to see, because Mr. Filippelli said he'd be
very happy. If you look at that parcel, the above parcel which is the
parcel in question, he intends to provide office space which Collier
Regional definitely will need. And so with additional restaurants and
things of that nature on behalf of our communities and good growth,
planning for a, if you will, a proper division of opportunities for
people in the commercial -- commercial interests, restaurants, dry
cleaner, but various types of services that should be available there,
there are none in that general area.
Now given that you decide to -- whatever you do or even for the
future, I would hope that you would make it an inclusion that that road
be a part of it. And that's my particular interest in this. And it is on
behalf of the communities.
And I thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. Close the public
hearing at this time. Are there any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there a motion?
MR. ANDERSON: Well, I wanted to -- I wanted to make
another proposal to you. And that would be to extend the PUD. We
will agree to file a PUD amendment. And the combination of these
two would allow my client to file their SDP and get it in process and
get it, you know, ultimately approved. But it would accomplish -- we
could put in those conditions that we've offered up, if that will make
the county attorney happy, that we've gone through that hoop.
We do have a need for these services out here and I ask you to
keep -- keep that in mind as well.
Page 287
June 6-7, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we don't know what kind
of services you're going to be providing. That's -- PUD is not detailed
enough to know what's going to be on the ground.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, we know that we'd have --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't understand what you're
asking. If we sunset it, you got to -- you amend the PUD anyway.
You have to come back in for a PUD. The PUD and, correct me if I'm
wrong, really doesn't go away. You just have to come in and renew it.
So what's the difference of what -- if we sunset it versus what you're
suggesting?
MR. ANDERSON: Well, it would be -- let me find out. Maybe
staff will agree that they will accept the SDP and process it while the
PUD amendment is -- is being renewed.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County attorney.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't think they -- they will do
that. Is that the issue is submit the SDP?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County attorney, can you give us some
advice --
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- and shed some light on that for us?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: If -- if the PUD is sunseted, then
the staff -- you can't get any development order approvals under a
sunseted PUD. And nothing would happen until they came back for
the amendment. I'd like staffs input. What we might be able to do is
not -- and this would be a procedural thing, again, so we're not putting
substance in a resolution. But not sunset it and approve the extension
condition upon a PUD amendment that would do certain things. So
they could have the ability to bring in their development order and
have it under staff review. And then any amendments to the PUD
could be caught in the site development plan and that wouldn't hold
Page 288
June 6-7, 2006
them up for that time that they have to do the amendment.
Now, I'm going to defer to staff here and see if they can -- if live
with something like that, but that would have the effect of making it a
conditional extension so they could submit their site development plan
and have it be reviewed rather than be sunseted and they're dead in the
water until the PUD amendment's done.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What's the difference if that -- if it's
sunseted and they come back in? They just have to follow the
guidelines that we now have on our Land Development Code; right?
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: If it's sunseted, it's -- the PUD is
there, but you can't do anything with it till you do the amendment
codes. The sunseted PUD you can't do -- approve development orders
under it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there -- is there any criteria that
if we sunset this that there's some -- that there's criteria that they have
to bring up-to-date in regards to what may have changed in our Land
Development Code and comp plans?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: When they do the amendment--
when they do the amendment that -- that would typically be done. But
what I'm trying to say is there is a way to get there, I believe, and I
think you should take comment from staff, but that would be to extend
the PUD with the condition that they come in with an amendment to
do these certain things. And that way you could get the site
development plan review going rather than have them being dead in
the water. That's my -- and I'd like staff to opine.
MS. ZONE: Thank you, Margie. For clarification, if it's the
PUD extension, if it's approved or denied regardless of that decision
today, the applicant comes back and applies for a PUD amendment
which is pretty obvious they are going to need to do. That the zoning
department will review not only the PUD amendment, but we also will
review the SDP. The SDP would be held and approved if they meet
all of the criterias that are set forth in the LDC upon the approval of
Page 289
June 6-7, 2006
the PUD amendment. But we can do that simultaneously. And that's
not a problem. That's a policy that the zoning department does.
The issue here is the PUD extension, if you're going to approve it
or deny it. And based on the criteria, that's set forth.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think that pretty much
answers -- answers my question. They could do simultaneous review
while they amend the PUD even if we sunset it. So it's -- it's really no
-- no difference.
MS. ZONE: Correct. We just wouldn't approve the SDP until
the PUD amendment was approved. And the applicant would be
aware of that. But that, you know, we would not stop their process so
they could move forward. And knowing what issues are out there
with transportation, would the SDP be approved anyway. You have to
question -- question that as well.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think the county attorney--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not done yet.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I just --
MS. ZONE: I'm sorry. Sorry, Commissioner.
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Just for clarification, I talked to
Ms. Murray and she stated what Ms. Zone said that if they got the
PUD amendment in, even if it had been sunseted, if they got the PUD
amendment in, they would process the -- you know, they would accept
the SDP.
MS. ZONE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- is there different
requirements for a review whether it's an amendment or a sunset?
MS. ZONE: Well, in our LDC there's certain requirements. And
depending on what they're asking for in the PUD amendment sets
forth certain criterias to review. The SDP has a more stringent review.
And I think with concurrency for a PUD extension, PUD
amendments, we look at five years and SDPs, and Don Scott would
Page 290
June 6-7, 2006
correct me, but I think we look at even a shorter time frame for
development orders because that's more of an immediate development.
And so their criteria would actually be more stringent.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: More stringent which way?
MS. ZONE: As in shorter time frame for roadway
improvements.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It would be more stringent
under a --
MS. ZONE: Shorter --I'm sorry, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Amendment or a sunset?
MS. ZONE: No, during the development order which would be
the SDP. So--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And you do that
in-house?
MS. ZONE: . Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. MUDD: I mean, basically under -- runs it under the
concurrency rule and take a look at your development.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Okay. Yes. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Does the petitioner want to say
something before I ask my question? Is that --
MR. FILIPPELLI: Yes. If I could have a moment to speak.
And I'd very much like to clarify.
My name is Joe Filippelli. I'm with the Sembler Company. And
if you would give me a few moments, I'd like to clarify some various
items that have been discussed and kind of explain our plan over here
and answer some of the questions I've heard that I haven't had an
opportunity to speak, if you don't mind.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll hold off on my question.
MR. FILIPPELLI: First thing I want to explain to you is that it's
-- it's our opinion that the hospital right now has a recorded easement
Page 291
June 6-7, 2006
to contact -- to connect to Rattlesnake. We actually recorded that
easement. And provided we did an SDP, this Rattlesnake extension
road here is just a gravel, slash, some pavement road. And the bridge
here is in a state of disrepair also.
And when we -- if we were to get a SDP approved, we would,
you know, replace that bridge. We would build the road to at least
this location which would allow this interconnect. And from what I
understand, the development down south yesterday was even looking
at the interconnect. I mean, what we were trying to accomplish was to
have, you know, some connection -- connectivity with the hospital off
of 951. And the folks at the hospital could then get to Rattlesnake and
make their turns and make their movements without ever addressing
951. And that's one of the reasons that HMA has been so cooperative
with us on -- because right now they have two points and they're just
on 951.
And HMA had explained to me that they have a need for 270,000
square feet of medical office building for their development for their
hospital. And they're building approximately 80,000 square feet
today. And that 20,000 square feet of that 80 will not be used for
medical office. It will be their own in-house office. Therefore, it
leaves another 200,000 square feet of need to support the hospital.
And -- and that's what we were trying to do. That's -- we've been in
negotiations with them on potential medical office buildings. There's
a lot of ancillary services to a hospital.
When you go to the hospital -- my -- my son banged his head real
bad. And I was up in the Naples -- Naples Community Hospital up in
NCH up in Immokalee. And, you know, my wife and kids were in the
waiting room while I'm in the other -- you know, in the doctor's office
for a couple hours. And what happens is if you have these services,
those people -- according to that example, one of many examples, can
go and -- you know, go to a restaurant or after they get their
prescriptions or, like, get an ice pack, they can go to the drugstore.
Page 292
June 6-7, 2006
You know, that's what we're trying to provide here. And we do have
commitments from every one of those types of users right now. And
so we could -- we could -- we could move forward. That's why we
want to move forward with our SDP.
That's kind of our grand scheme of what we want to do there just
to answer your question. I also wanted to mention that it's my
recollection that we submitted our -- we had a preapplication in the
first week of November. And the -- the later part of November is
when we actually, you know, would have sunset based on, you know
-- you know, overlooking Mr. Anderson's points. I believe that's
correct. I mean, if the staff -- I just wanted to make sure that you
understood we did get in before it sunset. And we did talk about
submitting the SDP.
And it's my recollection also that Nick in the traffic department
indicated to us that, you know, we couldn't submit our SDP because of
the sunset. I mean, we -- that's my recollection. I'm not trying to pick
a fight with the -- the county. But we were under that impression. We
have prepared a complete set of plans for an SDP submittal. We were
prepared to submit them.
Another couple of clarifications. I was in the hearing yesterday
and it was educational. And I appreciate and understand your
concerns about 951 and the different road -- roads out there. In
addition to what Mr. Anderson has been authorized to offer up as
potential conditions to our extension, I would even propose that
anything over 80,000 square feet within our -- our development would
have to be postponed until I believe mid 2008 is when the 951 is
scheduled to be complete. And I understand your -- you know, the
commission's desire to phase projects in with the road improvements.
And I'd -- I'd like to put that out there for consideration or an addition.
And we would also be fine with adding the -- the linkage -- the
potential linkage of the linkage plan that you have going on as a
condition to our PUD extension or if you wanted to do an extension
Page 293
June 6-7, 2006
and add these to a PUD amendment, we'd be happy to, you know,
address each and one -- each one of these items and add it to our -- our
proposed amendment.
I don't do this as frequent as Mr. Anderson so I think that covers
what I wanted to mention. And I just -- I appeal to you-all to, you
know, looking at this from a practical standpoint. And that we
purchased the property knowing there was problems. We worked on
those problems as quick as we could. And, you know, we -- we felt
like we would be able to obtain an extension to the amend -- to the
PUD and move forward. And now we own this property and we'd like
to move forward. And we are developers. We are not speculators.
And we have been in the business for 43 years and plan to continue
and plan to be here. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MR. FILIPPELLI: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I was just going to make an
observation. The -- the item before us today has to do with one thing
and that's an extension of a PUD that we believe has expired. It -- it's
not about modifying the PUD. It's -- it's not about anything else that
I'm aware of. It's about extending it.
We have rules with respect to the extensions. I am -- I'm -- I'm
worried about getting involved in the discussions about PUD
amendments because PUD amendments are things that should be
publicly discussed and that -- this item isn't -- isn't advertised for that
purpose. It doesn't say to make amendments to the PUD. So anybody
who might have concerns about what those amendments might be,
would have no reason to be here.
And -- and I am also concerned with -- with the board and the
staff and the petitioner trying to design these PUD changes and
updates while we're here at this particular hearing because that isn't
the purpose for this particular hearing. Although I agree with -- with a
number of the things they want to do, that simply isn't the purpose
Page 294
June 6-7, 2006
here for this item.
And I think we need to act on the issue of whether the PUD
should be extended or not. And then if we decided it should be, the
course is clear for the petitioner. If we decide that it should not be, the
course is clear for the petitioner. And we can deal with those issues --
that hearings that are properly advertised for their purpose. So that's
where I am with thing.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle made a
very good point. We haven't advertised the issues. I like where we're
going with it, though, as far as the concessions and the phasing in.
You couldn't ask for a better setup to be able to hold back on it and the
interconnectivity. Although I question the interconnectivity being that
it's on Toll Brothers property and the hospital has the right to do it,
won't it happen regardless if this PUD goes forward or not? There'd
still be a reason to do it because it takes you over there to the
extension for Rattlesnake. So I'm not too sure how that weighs into it.
I'm sure that if the petitioner has agreed to build it, it's going to happen
a lot sooner than sometime in the future.
However, with all that said, I -- tell me exactly again, if
somebody could. Probably I think our staff, if we refuse this today,
where does this set the petitioner as far as -- putting the petitioner as
far as coming back to us? Can they still come back for a PUD
change?
MS. ZONE: Well, in a PUD amendment certainly. They have
from today's date they have up to six months to file a PUD
amendment and bring it in front of the board for approval.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that PUD amendment
would -- would have all these particulars listed in it and we'd duly
advertise it and be able to get there at that point in time?
MS. ZONE: Certainly. And it -- not only could we do that, I
mean, we would bring that forward in the PUD amendment open for
Page 295
June 6-7, 2006
discussion, review -- and staff would review it for that purpose under
that criteria.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But the petitioner is not starting
over from square one. They have already accumulated some work.
That work is already underway so that there's not going to be a
setback. And the time --
MS. ZONE: Absolutely not. And as I -- we had stated before,
staffwill still review the SDP. And the SDP since it was through me
and being here today that if they modify from the preap to make some
of the additions that were discussed today that will be part of the PUD
amendment, it will just make the process smoother for the applicant.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Based on what you told me and
this isn't a put-down of the petitioner. I want to encourage them to go
forward with this --
MS. ZONE: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- as fast as possible, but I'm
going to make -- I'm going to make a motion that we follow staff
recommendations of denial.
MS. ZONE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I second that. Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Call the motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We did. Okay. Do you have any
questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Call the question. All those in favor for
denial signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
Page 296
June 6-7, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries. Thank you very much
gentlemen, ladies.
Item #10C
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE REVENUE
RECEIVED FROM THE JOHN EASTERN INSURANCE
COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,068.85 DUE TO
HURRICANE WILMA CLEAN UP - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to Item 10-C which
used to be 16- B-1. It reads (as read): This is a recommendation to
approve a budget amendment to recognize revenue received from the
John Eastern Insurance Company in the amount of$4,068.85 due to
Hurricane Wilma.
And that item was moved at Commissioner Fiala's request.
MR. SCOTT: Any questions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hold on a sec. Thank you. Hold on
just a minute. I'm sorry it's taking me so long to get there.
Yeah. I spoke with staff a little bit about this before, but I just
wanted to put this on the record. One of the things that we seem to
need to improve just a little bit is communication between our
operation and the clerk's operation when it comes to insurance money
coming in and FEMA money coming in, applications, whenever we
apply. I think we probably need to -- and you probably have a plan
already because I've spoken to all of you -- we need to send a copy of
the applications to the clerk's office so that they know that we've
applied for insurance benefits or FEMA benefits or whatever. Then
Page 297
June 6-7, 2006
when we get the money in and -- and -- and then we expend it, I think
we just need a process whereby we have more of an inclusionary
communication.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. One of the -- one of the after
direction lessons learned from Hurricane Wilma and -- and the major
reconstruction and cleanup that we went through was the fact that we
need to tighten up our procedures in purchasing from the clerk's side
of the house and our OMB side of the house to make sure that it's a
focal point.
Mr. Carnell, the Director of Purchasing, Mike Smykowski and
one of Crystal's staff persons and Crystal's overseeing that particular
element are in -- are in conversations right now to update those
procedures and get them squared away so we don't have this problem
in the future if we have another major hurricane.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, great. Oh, great. And so -- then
I make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do we hear a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion to approve. Any further
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none or seeing any -- not seeing
any. 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: Opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Carries.
Page 298
June 6-7, 2006
Item #10D
WAIVE FORMAL COMPETITION AND APPROVE PURCHASE
OF PANTHER HABITAT UNITS, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$276,945, AS MITIGATION FOR ROAD CONSTRUCTION
IMPACTS. PROJECT 62081 - APPROVED W/LETTERS TO BE
SENT TO LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVES
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to our next element
which -- or our next agenda item which is 10- D and that used to be
16-B-2. That's a recommendation to waive formal competition and
approve purchase of panther habitat units in the amount of $276,945
as mitigation for road construction impacts Project 62081. And that
item was moved at Commissioner Halas's request.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. And what my concern is, this is
on a roadway that's already presently there, isn't it?
MR. DUGAN: Correct. Yeah. For the record, I'm Kevin
Dugan. I'm Project Manager with Transportation.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is it -- and this road is existing
and all we're doing is widening this road; is that correct?
MR. DUGAN: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Then why do we have to mitigate for
panthers for a road that's already there?
MR. DUGAN: Good question. To widen that road, we still have
to go through permitting procedure.
MR. MUDD: Which road?
MR. DUGAN: This is Santa Barbara Road from Davis to, I
believe, it's up to Pine Ridge. We have to get as part of the ERP
permit it's -- the Army Corps permit is involved with that. And
because of that being a federal permit, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Agency steps in as consultation.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So do we have to build a runway also for
Page 299
June 6-7, 2006
the panthers in this area?
MR. DUGAN: The -- on -- on the visualizer you can see what
they call the panther consultation area. Okay. Excuse me. The project
limit went to Golden Gate Parkway. But -- however, anything with
inside that consultation area is open to review by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Every project that goes through that, we have to
prepare a biological opinion. This is 109 pages of opinion that, like I
said, each project I'm sure these, you know, developers here are doing
the same thing that fall with inside this -- this area.
Now, normally in the last few years when we've been doing the
panther mitigation, it's been part of the wetland mitigation. The two
banks that we deal with are the wetland mitigation. Their credits are
also worth so many panther habitat units. Because this particular road
project did not have wetland impacts, we had to find a bank that sold
just panther habitat units.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. But -- did -- when we originally
built this road, did we have to pay into this mitigation bank? All we're
doing is adding an extra lane on this road, each side; right?
MR. DUGAN: Commissioner, I agree. When that road was
built, I believe it was just -- it was some sort of wetland mitigation that
was done. I don't believe there was any wildlife issues there at the
time.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I guess what I'm trying to go at
here is, I don't understand. Has there been sightings of panthers on
this road? Are we going to have to put up signs that says there's a
possible panther crossing?
MR. DUGAN: I don't believe telemetry shows panthers in -- in
this particular area.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do we have to build runways for
panthers in this?
MR. DUGAN: No. In the crossways or the crossways or the
animal things that are built, generally in rural areas we don't want to
Page 300
June 6-7, 2006
be sending panthers from one residential area to another residential
area.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: This is all residential. I guess that's the
point I'm getting at. This is a -- this is an urban area. And I don't
understand how -- how the federal government is getting us involved
in panther mitigation for a road that already exists. And all we're going
to do is just add lanes to it and it's in an urban area.
MR. AHMAD: Commissioner, for the record, Jay Ahmad. I'm
the director of transportation. You hit on some of the issues that we
face in getting our projects approved. And we're going through the
permits process and this is a permit through the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. They refer that condition, the panthers or fish and wildlife
or anything to do with habitats to U.S. Fish and Wildlife. And
through that process, although they're working with us recently at --
very well, we go through these issues. And -- and through the permit
process, they require us to go through and obtain panther mitigation
credit because it is on the consultation map. We've been talking to
them to move that consultation --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah.
MR. AHMAD: -- line. We've had meetings with them. And
Paul Sousa, who's their Director, is receptive to the idea, but they
haven't done it. And we face whether we move forward with the
project and obtain this and get our project built or get bogged down
with this issue for possibly months or years.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I would think with the amount of Corps
people that we have hired here in the county that they would be able to
help us out on this thing.
MR. MUDD: No, sir. The Corps of Engineers defers to the Fish
and Wildlife Service on every one of those calls. And if -- if anyone
of those federal agencies basically put up a red flag, the Corps does
not issue that permit. And that's basically the rules that they go by.
The Corps permitting authority has been delegated by the
Page 301
June 6-7, 2006
Environmental Protection Agency to them. And those are the
stipulations that they must adhere to.
MR. AHMAD: If you recall, Commissioner, we spent 18 months
on Rattlesnake Hammock Road to get it built and fighting them too.
And what we ended up with is exactly what you mentioned earlier,
three signs that says panther crossings.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So we've got to do that on Santa
Barbara?
MR. AHMAD: That's not the condition of Santa Barbara, but it's
a condition to buy mitigation credit through the mitigation banks that's
available.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Unbelievable. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You've hit upon a really good
point, Commissioner Halas. And I don't think we -- we should stop
here. Did we pay any panther mitigation credits for -- or mitigation
for --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Rattlesnake.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. For Collier Boulevard?
MR. DUGAN: The different --like, 951 North there were
wetland issues there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just -- just panther mitigation.
That's all I want to know. Did we--
MR. DUGAN: Panther mitigation was included with the wetland
mitigation credits.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: For 951 ?
MR. DUGAN: For 951.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And Rattlesnake wasn't?
MR. DUGAN: Rattlesnake Hammock as well. County Barn.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, we need to put a stop to
this. You know, this is $275,000 of taxpayer money that's just being
flushed down the drain by some bureaucrat who doesn't even know
where Santa Barbara road is. And -- and for us just to accept that
Page 302
June 6-7, 2006
recommendation -- and I understand it's -- you're interested in getting
the project going. It's not your fault. Okay. But we don't have to
accept that. And if it means we should go to our congressional
legislation and have them talk with the Fish and Wildlife people to try
to get their heads screwed on properly, I think we ought to do that.
Because it's worth a little expenditure of our time and a congressman's
time to save the taxpayers of Collier County hundreds of thousands of
dollars and perhaps millions of dollars considering all of the projects
we've got going here. There's no excuse for this.
I -- I would like to see their telemetry data on -- on panther
habitats to see the last time they've ever had a panther tracked west of
951. I -- I just can't believe that -- that that data exists, quite frankly.
But, nevertheless, Mr. Chair, I would make a recommendation
that we write Congressman Mario Diaz Val art and -- and any of the
other and Connie Mac and ask for their immediate assistance because
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Martinez.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- yeah -- and Senator Martinez,
too, to ask for their assistance in getting the Fish and Wildlife Service
to make an appropriate review of this area and stop charging the
people of Collier County hundreds of thousands of dollars. And, of
course, we don't want to delay the projects. So -- so it's sort of urgent.
And I'd like to get -- I'd like recommend that we do that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We can do that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I got direction from the Board of
County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You got one nod here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. You got a nod big time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does that mean we don't pay them
anything?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No. No.
Page 303
June 6-7, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. No.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What we're going to do is try to solve the
problem. We're going to work through this process, but we're going to
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- on future projects hopefully we can
get this taken care of so that we don't get held up at the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'll tell you the way -- way
we should approach that so that we don't slow down the project, we go
ahead and do what we've got -- what they told us we have to do, but
then ask for credits on any future items for those that are determined
that were paid unnecessarily. And -- and that's what we should get our
congressman to lobby for.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I really think we need to have staff
involved in this to show that the area of concern is in an urban area
and not a rural area. Because I think the buildout here, I mean, it's
amazing. I could see it 20 years ago, but today because of the fact that
the boundaries have moved and they're moving more to the east.
MR. AHMAD: You're absolutely correct, Commissioner, and
we had -- as I mentioned we had Paul Sousa in our offices here and we
explained to them exactly what you're talking about and the issues that
you just mentioned. And he's receptive to moving that line east of
951, the lines as shown. To move those areas of consultation from the
urban area essentially to where really the habitat lives. And, to date,
obviously, we haven't seen it. And I'm sure he's going through a
process to accomplish that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, maybe if we send some letters to
our elected officials, maybe it will kind of jack things up a little bit.
MR. AHMAD: Absolutely. I appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'd add one more thing to basically
asking the congressmen for an appropriate review. Ask for credits on
Page 304
June 6-7, 2006
further proj ects because of the payment. But also send a letter as we
purchase these units, panther mitigation units, to send a letter to Fish
and Wildlife and say we are acquiring the units under protest.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There you go.
MR. MUDD: And then if you do all those and connect all those
dots, I think -- I think you'll get the point across so then they could
basically get credit for the proj ect. But if you just pay them and buy
them and don't tell the Fish and Wildlife Service that you're doing it
under protest, then I don't think you'll get credit for that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good point.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Very good. Okay. Yeah, Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is in a secondary panther
zone. Any -- anything east or west of 951 is considered secondary
habitat, you know, and I'm sure our -- our environmental community
had -- had something to assist with this. And the residents in Collier
County get to share in those same things. I mean, you live east -- west
of 951, Golden Gate Estates and you want to impact wetlands, you
have to do the same thing. You have to go to the Fish and Wildlife.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I can see wetlands, but I can't see
panther mitigation, Commissioner, in regards to in an urban--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It still has to go to -- the Corps
sends it over to Fish and Wildlife for their review just because you
submitted an application. So if we're going to do it for ourselves, we
should do it for our residents. And that's the -- you know, the bigger
picture type thing.
MR. DUGAN: Just to clarify. The graphic that we put up there,
that's the primary and secondary habitat within the county. The gold
color is the primary habitat and the brown color is secondary.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it doesn't come anywhere near
Santa Barbara?
Page 305
June 6-7, 2006
MR. DUGAN: Well, that's correct. But, see, it's still within the
consultation area. Now, if we were building in primary and secondary
habitat, the amount of habitat units we would need is a lot more than
what it is in just the consultation area.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The white's the consultation area?
MR. DUGAN: Pretty much all-- just about all of the county. 41
is approximately the limit of the consultation area.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can I ask this question: Is the mitigation
the same pricewise if we're into a primary area versus a consultation
area?
MR. DUGAN: No. The number of units -- the formula that they
use if you were in the primary or the secondary would be far higher
than what it is in just the consultation zone. There's a multiplier that
they use.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. DUGAN: It's like, you know, condition of wetlands.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm so glad that you brought this
up. You -- you -- this has been the most miserable experience of my
life when it comes to dealing with government. Believe me, I met
with Mario many times on this very issue. It doesn't seem like it's
going anywhere. It's like an agency above everything. This is the
very reason why Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas refuse to accept any of
the surplus panthers. Because it's not the panther that's the problem.
It's the people that are regulating it. What they do to stop the process.
This is the reason why we lost our -- all the efforts we put into
bringing the Polish companies here. Broke the ground. Had the
investors and everything. Everything got held up because of a panther
study that was required for the airport and Immokalee surrounded by
fence because a panther can jump a fence and get inside the airport.
It's unbelievable. Everything that we're trying to do there's going to be
a mitigation of a million-some dollars or more for a Habitat for
Page 306
June 6-7, 2006
Humanity project going in to the other side of Farm Workers Village
all because of the panther.
You're going to run into major obstacles when you get ready to
do the Everglades Boulevard. Our local environmental groups are all
coming aboard. And they're pretty understanding what it is. We've
met with everyone. The only one that's going to give you a hard time
is going to be Fish and Wildlife.
May I make a suggestion that we might want to consider this for
an agenda item sometime in September where we can invite the
people from Fish and Wildlife here to explain exactly where they are
and maybe the representative of our congressman can also be here in
the audience and we can approach this in a more logical matter . Your
letters are going to be not ignored, but nothing's going to happen with
them.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, we'll use the letters as a way of
opening the door and then we'll letter -- later on send letters and ask
them to join us in our -- in our open discussion here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I love it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So that'll be -- let's have two sets of
letters.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. But let's keep our options
open for that for a meeting agenda item or a workshop in
September/October because this is crippling us. And it's starting to
make people look at this area in a different light. I mean, they're even
requiring us to put up signs on Rattlesnake Hammock panther habitat.
The only way they'd sign off on the permit. I mean, tell me if this isn't
ridiculous. People driving down Rattlesnake Hammock are going to
see these signs, panther habitat, to be able to satisfy some bureaucracy
in Washington, D.C., that seems to have the final call on anything
that's going to happen down here.
Page 307
....,._--~._~-~..~~ .,............, ...., ...-,
June 6-7, 2006
MR. AHMAD: The signs, Commissioner, actually they require
them on Collier Boulevard for Rattlesnake as part of the permit. And
Collier Boulevard, they state that there were a couple kills, panther
kills on that road just --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't know what language
they're putting them in, but I'll tell you right now the panthers can't
read them.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I make -- okay. I'll make a motion for
approval of this and with the stipulation that we're going to send
letters to Washington.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And also plan a workshop for the
fall.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. We'll get something in the fall.
We'll have to find out what the schedule is because, obviously, all the
elected officials will be going back to Washington to work on the
budget, finishing up on that. So we'll have to figure out the time line.
It may end up to be after they approve the budget in Washington;
right?
MR. MUDD: Sir, they're going to be -- they'll go back in
September, latter part of August. But you can still get their
representatives here from their local offices so they can hear the
particular process.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. It'd be nice if we could get a
couple of those here. So maybe if we could -- we'll -- we'll figure out
the time line. If we have a better chance of getting the elected
officials here in November after every -- all the hustle and bustle in
Washington, we'll see. Okay?
Okay. We have a motion on the floor and we have a second. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 308
June 6-7, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Passes unanimously. Let's take a
ten-minute break -- ten-minute break.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What happened to 12?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, we can have a 12-minute break.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We'll be back at 10:47.
(Short recess was taken.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats. Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mic.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, County Manager.
We're back in session. And I believe we're on -
Item #10E
THE PURCHASE OF 2.674 ACRES OF IMPROVED PROPERTY
OF WHICH 0.372 ACRES ARE REQUIRED FOR ROAD RIGHT
OF WAY FOR THE SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD
EXPANSION PROJECT. PROJECT NO. 62081 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: 10-E, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: 10-E. Okay.
MR. MUDD: Okay. It used to be 16-B-3.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: And this is a recommendation to approve the
purchase of2.674 acres of improved property of which 0.372 acres are
required for road right-of-way for the Santa Barbara Boulevard
Page 309
June 6-7, 2006
Expansion Project, Project No. 62081. The estimated fiscal impact is
$621,925. The item was moved at Commissioner Fiala and
Commissioner Coletta's request. And Mr. Kevin Hendricks, your Real
Estate Manager in Transportation, whatever your title is, will present.
That's what you do.
MR. HENDRICKS: Okay. Commissioners, do you have
questions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I do.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Go ahead. You first.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have a couple of them and that is--
I need my glasses first.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Underneath?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. Here they are in my pocket.
Excuse me. Jim, go. I mean, Commissioner Coletta, go ahead first
until I find my glasses.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Well-- and start off by
saying I'm sorry I caused some of my fellow commissioners some
distress last night at the end of the meeting. That wasn't the intent. If
it was, I would have done a much better job of causing it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You did a real good job.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I love you guys.
But what -- what I wanted to do, I was kind of hoping that this was
going to hit before the Vanderbilt one. You know, we have to be
cognizant of two things. One, the people that are out there that were
displaced and, two, the taxpayer. And Commissioner Coyle was right.
You know, we can't give the county store away. We have a
responsibility to the taxpayers. However, we sit up here as
commissioners to sit in judgment of everything that comes before us.
And I'm sure that this is probably about the first one we're ever going
to see where we're going to have them coming up.
Now, am I really interested in hearing every Tom, Dick and
Harry out there that got a piece of property with no house on it coming
Page 310
June 6-7, 2006
before us and arguing his case? No. I think the compensation is more
than adequate that's out there. And in most cases, you know, I -- I
don't think that anybody can fault the system. It's -- it's definitely
been very, very generous to the people that own the land. The process
works well, for the most part.
My daughter had her home taken on about three, four years ago
in Bonita for the extension of the Three Oaks Parkway. And I went
through the whole process with her from the anger to the resentment to
the acceptance of the negotiation. And she ended up doing very well.
However, you know, I -- I just -- I try to find my own comfort level
because this is something that I had to wrestle with when I first
became a commissioner. How do I deal with this taking of a person's
home? Never been done, but I knew it was going to happen some day.
And I seek counsel on it early on. So when the day did come, I could
start to work with the process. And how you work with the process is
you work with the individuals and you listen to what they have to say.
And you -- you weigh all the facts, all the circumstances to make sure
that the settlements are just, the taking of homes.
And -- and that's why -- that's one of the reasons why I pulled it.
But in all honesty, I think that if you'll check my record, any time I've
had a request from anyone regarding an agenda item, I've always
asked for it to be pulled just to be able to give that person a chance to
speak. And I do thank you for the time.
And, once again, I'm sorry about last night for the distress I
caused you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I think some of the problem is that
each of us commissioners we can't go out on our own without some
direction from the board, general consensus. And I think that's --
sometimes we overstep our bounds, okay, of what we can really do
without, first of all, coming to the board and getting direction to see if
that's possible. Okay.
So as an individual commissioner, we have to be careful that we
Page 311
June 6-7, 2006
don't go down the slippery slope in regards to what we're going to
promise or promises or things of this nature. And I'm very concerned
about that as a commissioner that we make sure that we are unified
and we know exactly what is going to transpire and that we get the
guidance not only from the county attorney and the county manager
and also from the other staff before we even get involved in any type
of negotiations.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, and I -- and I haven't done
that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I understand.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Everything I'd ever do would be
right here at the dais with my fellow commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, the only thing was I think there
was a -- it led to some suspicion with the letter that you gave us
yesterday.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That was an Aim's (sic) issue. It
was the result of an Aim's issue which is totally within the confines of
what we're allowed to do. I do know I asked staff for -- I gave them
no directions. That was sent on an inquiry from a person about
Vanderbilt. What's next? What's happening? That was sent on
verbatim the way it was through the Aim's issue. That was the reply
that came back.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But nothing was generated by
me to bring that reply the way it was.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. That's what I --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- the way I read the reply was that I felt
that there was some undue pressure put onto someone. And that's why
the letter came back as it did.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I was concerned about that.
Page 312
June 6-7, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let me get you the full Aim's
issue so you can follow it. I should have done that the first time, but I
didn't want to burden you with all the preambles of Aim's issues and
everything that goes below it. I just gave you the meat of it which was
the reply back.
(Multiple voices.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The meat of it, that's what caused the
problem. Okay?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. But I -- I try to work
within the confines. And I realize that my power as a commissioner is
only limited to what happens up here on the dais.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Okay. So when we buy this
property -- back to this issue. When we buy this property and we have
a house on it; right?
MR. HENDRICKS: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are we -- are we thinking of
keeping it and, if so, will we be leasing it out at fair market value?
MR. HENDRICKS: No. I planned on putting it on the market
and selling it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Selling it?
MR. HENDRICKS: We don't have property management staff
here, you know -- you know, in Collier County to manage properties
so -- but I was going to sell it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So we're not going to rent it
out, lease it out at all?
MR. HENDRICKS: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And so you're going to resell it. I
think that's the -- that's the big thing. You've pretty well explained
what you wanted to resell it for and to actually you would -- we would
do okay on that. So that was my question. I -- I didn't know if we
were going to keep it in our inventory for a while.
Page 313
June 6-7, 2006
MR. HENDRICKS: I had not intended to.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Question's answered.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I was -- I was just trying to keep
us on task to the item on the agenda. That's all.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I -- I agree. I think we're on
-- on track here now. And I -- just one comment. I think we ought to
take note that it is true that Commissioner Coletta can cause more
consternation by accident than on purpose. And -- and I think maybe
the next time what we need to do is impeach him if -- if he -- if he
does this. And--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I make the motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: To impeach.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: To impeach.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. No. No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It was to impeach.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sorry. No. On 16-B-3 make a
motion.
MS. FILSON: And Mr. -- Mr. Chairman, I do have a speaker.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, okay.
MS. FILSON: Are you ready for the speaker?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, please bring the--
MS. FILSON: Bonnie Roth.
MS. ROTH: I am Bonnie Roth. I am the property owner of the
property in question. And several of you know me. One has known
me for a long time.
My concern and which I --I'm sorry I generated the hullabaloo
because I wrote an e-mail to every one of you commissioners asking
you for some consideration. We do have an agreement that we have
signed. But we have asked for some consideration on what it's going
to cost us taxwise.
Page 314
June 6-7, 2006
As you-all know property values have grown tremendous. We
have lived in Collier County for 25 years. This house we've lived in
for over 12 years. We've been benefiting from Save Our Homes. But
for us to move to a smaller home that we don't have to take care of the
yard because my husband's disabled. I'm partially disabled. It's going
to cost us at least three times as much in property taxes. And that's
what I had asked because I'm told by everyone as we've gone through
the process, originally it was said that we could maybe -- that they
would buy it and we could lease it for so many months. County
attorney says, no, we cannot do that because of the liability.
So now this has been going on -- we have been talking about this
since November. We've gone through -- I don't know how many
revisions that they did on the agreement. I've seen two or three
because I did have an attorney review it so that I was not going into
something that we didn't -- that we weren't being protected by. But
that's the only process I had the attorney do was to review things. So
my husband and I have been dealing with this. And now we're at the
point where we need to know what money we're going to have to
work with to buy another house. Because per the agreement, we need
to be out of our house by September 1 st. And without monies and
knowing what I'm going to have to work with, I can't buy something
else. So I'm asking for some consideration on taxes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I wish we had -- we had had this
discussion before the agreement was -- was written. You know, the
problem that we have now, you know, we have -- we have the
obligation not only to treat you fairly, but also the taxpayers who are
helping buy your property fairly. And -- and if we -- in my opinion, if
-- if we have an agreement on the purchase and it's been properly
reviewed by you and your lawyer, and then we arbitrarily decide we're
going to give you some more money on top of that, I think we're
violating our fiduciary duty to the taxpayers whose funds we are
Page 315
June 6-7, 2006
responsible for -- for managing.
So I had -- had I been involved or had I been asked an opinion
about the question of taxes before the agreement were written, I would
have been -- been in favor of it. I -- I think we should do whatever we
can to help minimize the impacts. But -- but I presume that our people
have followed the law. We have a very well defined legal process to
protect everybody's rights. And I presume that the law has been
followed and we have a legal agreement.
MR. HENDRICKS: Yes. That's correct. And something I
should point out and I think you -- you touched on there is that, you
know, the agreement was reached. There were two appraisals done as
the executive summary says. Each appraisal was prepared and
developed based upon an analysis of the sale prices that sellers were
willing to accept for their homes right here in Collier County, you
know, in the surrounding neighborhood. And those sale prices or the
price that the seller agreed to take was probably reflective of the fact
that they were going to lose their -- their home's exemption on that
property that they were parting with. And so, you know, we must
assume that the buyers and sellers or at least the sellers had to take that
into account and let their property go.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. HENDRICKS: A couple other things too I was asked to
point out. This is -- of course, this is a willing sale. You know, we're
not condemning this purchase -- this whole property isn't being
purchased under the threat of condemnation. But the property will be
very close to the expanded Santa Barbara Boulevard after we acquire
the right-of-way and build the road. And the other thing is that this is
-- we're -- we're buying this under the assumption that it's a public
purpose and that the public has benefited because we think this is a
good agreement that the county actually will save money on by not
paying severance damages and by moving the property after we
purchase it and flipping the remainder. And I would remind the board
Page 316
June 6-7, 2006
that this purchase price exceeds the average of the two appraisals and
is in excess of $500,000. And so it's going to require a super majority
vote of this board to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One more time.
MR. HENDRICKS: Huh?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One more time, sir.
MR. HENDRICKS: All of that? No. This will require a super
majority vote of the board because the purchase exceeds $500,000.
And the purchase is in excess of the average of the two appraisals that
were obtained for the property per statute.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So what was the -- what was -- what --
what did the appraisal of the home come out as?
MR. HENDRICKS: We had one appraisal at -- one appraisal
was done back in September of 2005 at $570,000.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. HENDRICKS: Another appraisal was prepared in
December of2005 for--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Six twenty-two.
MR. HENDRICKS: Six hundred and three thousand dollars.
Now, if we took the -- no. I'm sorry. The second appraisal was
prepared in February of 2006. But if we go back and take the oldest
appraisal of September 2005 and we were to increase it, the rate the
appraiser said properties were appreciating at that point in time and we
inflate that property to December of 2005, that appraisal which was
$570,000 would have been 622,000, almost 623,000 as of December
of 2005. Still the average of the -- the appraisals that were brought
forward, the purchase price still exceeds the average of those two
appraisals.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. HENDRICKS: The board is required by statute to approve
that purchase if you so choose by a super majority vote.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Super majority.
Page 31 7
June 6-7, 2006
MR. HENDRICKS: Uh-huh.
MS. ROTH: If I may, we -- I did discuss with Debbie Armstrong
on staff about the tax situation. And she said at that time there was
nothing that she could do, but it was said to me that the county
commission had the final decision which is why I'm here.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The concern that we have here is we--
we can't set a precedence, ma'am. The problem is is that -- not a
problem. We're hoping that the legislative up in -- the legislative body
up in Tallahassee, our local officials, this would be a good thing for
you to get ahold of Mike Davis and also Representative Dudley
Goodlette in regards to what this is. The -- how this is being --
coming about in regards to someone taking your road, taking the
property for a road.
And I know that's one of the things that the legislative body in
Tallahassee is going to probably address or try to address this year in
regards to making sure that if something like this does occur where the
property has been taken by eminent domain, so that you as a citizen
when you move within the county that you can take your homestead
with you. And this is where we need to work with you and the elected
officials here to impress upon them the importance of trying to get this
legislation through. Not only just for you, but we have other people in
Collier County that needed to address this and actually throughout the
whole state of Florida. Because we're going to have an increase of
double our population what we have in Florida today. So there's
going to be many, many people that are going to be -- that this is
going to hit upon because as we expand roads or transportation
networks here in the state of Florida, this is going to be a big factor.
MS. ROTH: Thank you. I know that I am the guinea pig, so to
speak, for Collier County. And this is the first house I'm being told
that they plan to resell. But this is going to put that road within 20 feet
of my bedroom. And if you know what the sounds are on Santa
Barbara with boom boxes and trucks, it wakes me up every morning
Page 318
June 6-7, 2006
now at 5:30 in the morning.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I've got a --I've got a question I'd like to
ask the county attorney. And that is, let's say this -- this lady here, she
sells her property to the county. Okay. Let's say the next legislative
session in Tallahassee that they pass this --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Reportability.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- reportability of the homeowner -- the
exemption act. Can we -- there's a possibility -- if that does take
place, is there a possibility that we can include this -- this lady here in
regards to her home?
MR. PETTIT: Well, Commissioner, if I understand your
question, you're asking can -- can the Board of County Commissioners
include it, would it be state legislation?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, what I'm asking is if it is passed by
the state legislation, can we go back and include her in as a retro?
MR. PETTIT: I'm not sure that the county could under those
circumstances. It would depend on how the legislation was passed.
Whether it was intent -- whether the legislature expressly set a time
period backwards when the legislation would apply. In some
instances, although it's been a while since I've researched this issue,
certain kinds of remedial legislation can have a retroactive effect. So
to some degree it would be contingent on how -- on the bill that the
legislature actually adopted. I don't think that the county would have
a power independent to confer that benefit unless there was something
in the legislation allowed that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's the question I have. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, you did. You turned it
off. Thank you. This has been a very, very healthy discussion. I
really appreciate it. This is the reason why it's in front of us. The
negotiations took place with staff and the owner of the property.
Those were all contingent upon approval of the Collier County
Commission. That's why we're here today. And I know that there's
Page 319
June 6-7, 2006
probably not a lot of excitement to support this. And I agree that the
easiest way that we could ever deal with this is have them handle it on
the state level or specifically to the county. However, it did pass this
year. There's no guarantee it's going to pass next year.
Now, here's some thoughts that I wanted everybody to weigh in.
I don't -- and I'm -- I'm very leery about not approving this for the
simple reason that if it doesn't receive at least four votes, then this
whole thing is dead in the water and you don't get to sell your home
and move on as you'd like to. So there's not going to be an advantage
in this case to say no. But the thing is is that by willfully coming
forward and selling the home now rather than waiting for that time
where we have to go through the foreclosure and the eminent domain
process and pay everybody up front, there's quite a cost that's incurred
with that.
Can you give me some idea from this day to the day of
foreclosure what that cost would be to the county and difference in
price? I mean, just round numbers. I have no idea. Would it be 10
percent more? 5 percent more.
MR. HENDRICKS: The county's cost for the partial taking ofa
property just required 54 feet of right-of-way required to widen Santa
Barbara Boulevard would be as much as as $277,000 including fees
and costs and damages.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that -- that wasn't the
question, sir.
MR. HENDRICKS: I'm sorry. What was the question?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The question would be is the
settlement that we're making now based upon everything that's done in
the Florida statutes which basically is a fair settlement, you know, in
all intents and purposes, you know. And under some cases it might
not be if the person is being actually forced out. And if they went to
eminent domain, where we are now going to eminent domain, if this
petitioner had the opportunity to stick by and follow the thing to the
Page 320
June 6-7, 2006
end of the course, another year or two years from now, whenever it
would be --
MR. HENDRICKS: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- what kind of costs would
there be for the county over and above what we're selling now?
MR. HENDRICKS: I think an additional fifteen to twenty
thousand dollars in fees and costs above the land improvements and
severance damages which would be all that we could condemn. You
know, if you're asking what our costs would be if we're in a
condemnation posture, we could only condemn that which is expressly
needed for the road.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I understand. I understand.
Forgive me.
MR. HENDRICKS: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm going --I'm going a step
beyond here today. And I know somebody's going to say this doesn't
have to deal with the issue that's in front of us. And they're absolutely
correct. But I'm still going to ask the question.
If this was a taking of the property, forget the fact you're just
taking the front part there. We did give you direction that if it
impacted the property sufficiently that we would entertain coming
before the commission to purchase the whole thing. Forget that. We're
taking the whole thing. If we were, the difference in cost for the
taking of the whole property the way we are now by settling it through
this process or going to eminent domain, how much more cost would
the county incur.
MR. HENDRICKS: It's my estimate that you'd probably be
spending at least another $50,000.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And at least another $50,000.
And there's a possibility that the person may get even more than that?
No. And I just want to leave these thoughts.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's the lawyers that get this.
Page 321
June 6-7, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Exactly. That's the point. That
if something could be agreed on that would be a settlement, in other
words, if we -- and I don't know. You have to tell me. The county
attorney has to jump in on this. Please. Listen to me. Hear me out.
And at the end you can throw a cup at me or whatever.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's word shopping.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can we have the ability from
the commission to judge these things on a case-by-case basis? In
other words, if somebody comes forward and they want to make a
settlement before going to eminent domain, could we give that person
X number of dollars more for whatever reason and then if they went to
eminent domain, the person that's going to eminent domain can't come
back and say, well, you settled for so-and-so for this amount, we want
at least that amount plus our eminent domain money?
MR. PETTIT: Okay. Commissioner, I'm going to let --let Ms.
Chadwell jump in, but I'm going to try to answer the -- at least the first
question. I think you -- this board has the power to settle disputes for
a valid public purpose, period.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right.
MR. PETTIT: Whether it's eminent domain or some other kind
of dispute. So my -- the answer to your first question is yes. You're
going to have to repeat the second question. The second question was
beyond --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In other words, eminent domain.
If someone here is coming to -- has got an eminent domain case
against us and it's going through the court system, can they stand by
and say, okay, the early settlement that they had with these people
here, they picked up an extra $10,000 or $12,000 to settle, we want
that plus. Can they -- can they hold that against us?
MR. PETTIT: That has two -- that has two ramifications and I'll
let -- I'll let Ellen talk to both, but I believe that if, generally speaking,
settlements are not admissible in evidence in a court proceeding.
Page 322
June 6-7, 2006
There are, obviously, like there is in everything in law exceptions to
that. So my initial answer would be arguably they couldn't use it
against us in a court proceeding. Could they then use it in their own
settlement discussions with our attorneys?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: With discussions, yes.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then now -- now I--
now, this is exactly what I'm getting at. So the thing is that if we can
settle with individuals before eminent domain, we're better off
financially as far as the taxpayers are concerned?
MS. CHADWELL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor.
Did we have a second on that?
MS. FILSON: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Was it a motion for approval?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Fiala and a second by Commissioner Coyle. Ifno
further discussion, I'll 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: Those opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, when is she going to get her
money?
Page 323
June 6-7, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
MS. ROTH: Closing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: When is that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Next item. Call the motion.
MS. ROTH: They're telling me not till August.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
Item #10F
APPROVAL OF EXPENDITURE OF $25,000 TO REPAIR A
FAILING CULVERT LOCATED UNDER 10TH STREET SE
OVER THE C-l CANAL (PROJECT NO. 51022). - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 10-F and it used to
be 16-B-4. And it reads -- it's a -- it's a recommendation to approve
the expenditure of $25,000 to repair a failing culvert located under
Tenth Street Southeast under the C-1 Canal, Project No. 51022. And
Mr. Gene Calvert, your Director of Stormwater, will present.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What's this number again? I'm so
sorry .
MR. MUDD: This is 16-B -- excuse me. 16-B-4. It -- it was
Item 10- F. And the -- and the item was asked to be brought forward
by Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor
for approval and a second. All those in favor.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's no discussion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just a question. Just a question.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is this going to be a filibuster?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, if a filibuster lasts a
minute and a half, yes. Do school buses use this crossing?
Page 324
June 6-7, 2006
MR. CALVERT: For the record, Gene Calvert, Stormwater
Management Department.
No. The school buses do not use this crossing. It is a private
crossing at this time. School buses actually pick up property up the
street on Tenth -- on Tenth Street Southeast.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Call the question.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. 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: Okay.
MR. CALVERT: Thank you.
Item #10G
WAIVE THE FORMAL COMPETITIVE BID PROCESS AND
AUTHORIZE PURCHASE OF OUTDOOR POOL DECK
FURNITURE FROM CONTRACT FURNISHINGS
INTERNATIONAL, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $85,616-
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item
which is No. 10-G which used to be 16-D-2. And it was asked to
come forward by Commissioner Henning. And I'll read it. It is a
recommendation to waive the formal competitive bid process and
authorize purchase of outdoor pool deck furniture from Contracting
Furnishings -- Furnishings International, Inc., in the amount of
Page 325
June 6-7, 2006
$85,616.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Barry Williams, your director of parks and
rec, will present.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I just want to know if
this is a new park that nobody knew or is this the same old park that's
been going on since 1999?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, it is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. WILLIAMS: It is. And an explanation is -- is in order. We
had felt that the furnishings with our contractor included the pool
furniture. And when we were going through our due diligence of
making the furniture selection in the last few months, we determined
that that wasn't the case.
Our intent was for this pool furniture to be delivered just in time.
We didn't want to order it, store it, incur costs with that. So as we
were moving forward with purchasing the pool furniture, we realized
that it wasn't part of our existing agreement. So we needed to go
through the process of a competitive bid. Unfortunately, what we
found with that process and the time that it takes to go through the
competitive bid process that we had run out of time. So our staff had
done a very good job of doing an analysis of the best quality, best
price furniture. We had gone through with the understanding that we
would be purchasing it through our contractor. But when we found
that out, we had -- we had good prices. We had good quality. But we
didn't have enough time to go through the competitive bid process.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And just that explanation
of, you know, we made a mistake. We thought it was included. If it
was in the executive summary, I probably would accept it. And if we
could just have a little bit more clarification it would help. And I want
to welcome you as the new addition as the parks and recs director. I .
Page 326
June 6-7, 2006
have a lot of confidence in you to bring some great things to parks and
rec.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We already had motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We did?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was it -- was it a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It was -- yeah. We didn't have a
second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We didn't have a second so--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Coletta made the
motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll take the motion from Commissioner
Henning and the second by Commissioner Fiala on that. And this is
for the new water works park; is that correct? We got a clarification --
what was brought up in the discussion was the park that we've been
working on since 1999. So I want to make sure that we got that on the
record that this was the new park up in the North Naples area.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. With no further discussion I'll
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: Opposed by like sign.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion carries.
Page 327
June 6-7, 2006
Item #10H
APPROVAL OF EXPENSES NOT TO EXCEED $4,000 FOR
COLLIER COUNTY TO PROVIDE BUS SERVICES FOR
ELECTED OFFICIALS FROM OTHER COUNTIES TO TWO
EVENTS SCHEDULED JUNE 27 DURING THE FLORIDA
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES 2006 ANNUAL CONFERENCE
IN COLLIER COUNTY AT THE MARCO ISLAND MARRIOTT-
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 10-H. It was
formerly 16- F -1. The item was asked to come forward by
Commissioner Henning. And it reads (as read): A recommendation to
approve expenses not to exceed $4,000 for Collier County to provide
bus services for elected officials from other counties to two events
scheduled June 27th during the Florida Association of Counties 2006
Annual Conference in Collier County at the Marco Island Marriott.
And Ms. Debbie Wight, assistant to the county manager, will present.
MS. WIGHT: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm sure you
know about the Florida Association of Counties Conference coming
June 27th through the 30th. Do you have -- so far this week the
Florida Association of Counties officials that I spoke to said that the
Marriott is booked. They've got at least 400 people coming. And
we've been having regular meetings. Commissioner Halas has been
involved in those meetings with those officials planning the event.
These buses are for -- in your executive summary it explains an
event called the county exchange which they first instituted at the
conference in Stuart in Martin County. And it involves taking of
county officials from other -- from other counties to facilities. And
we've selected the new Collier -- the new North Collier Government
Center, the Headquarters Library and the new North Collier Regional
Page 328
June 6-7, 2006
Park. And we're going to take those officials in a bus from the
Marriott. And we -- we thought that Collier County would provide
that transportation and that's what we're asking the funding for.
We're going to take them. We're going to provide --
Commissioner Halas will be on the bus and -- and provide them
information from the Marriott to the facility. When they get to the
facility, we're going to have Skip Camp provide a guided tour of the
new government center. Marla Ramsey's going to provide a guided
tour at the park. And we're going to have Marilyn Mathis provide a
guided tour at the Headquarters Library.
Not only is the intent educational, we're going to share
information, like, construction detail and operational information and
the public services we provide to our community. But it's also we're
very proud of the facilities that we provide to -- to Collier County
citizens. So it's also to showcase the fine facilities we have here. It's
-- it's just something in Martin County. The county also paid for those
buses. So we just thought that this was something that we could do.
And I don't know if there's more information that you'd like me--
MR. MUDD: We'll be using those buses after we have them
after they get them back at five -- five o'clock or so.
MS. WIGHT: Five o'clock. We also are bringing them for -- to
downtown Fifth Avenue. We also -- so on June 27th there are the two
events. The one to five is the county exchange. And then from one to
five we're bringing them to Naples to Fifth Avenue to do a restaurant
tour. And then we'd -- also we're going to encourage them, if they
have time, to take a walk down to -- to see the beach where we
recently completed the nourishment project.
Weare going to have county staff accompanying -- accompany
them on the buses for both -- for both trips just to make sure that --
that their travels are comfortable and safe and reliable. And we just
thought that this was a good gesture. We -- and, again, the intent is
educational and informational, the exchange. And we also want to
Page 329
June 6-7, 2006
show Collier County at its best. It is their -- the fact officials are very
pleased. The turnout. They've sold out at the Marriott. They get --
everybody wants to come to Collier County.
Do you have any questions or --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning has some
questions.
MS. WIGHT: Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did you get a -- how'd you
come up with a figure of $4,000?
MS. WIGHT: We -- at this point we don't expect it to cost
$4,000. We're getting four quotes -- three quotes. I'm sorry. And I
consulted with the purchasing director who immediately called
finance and told us we need to go out for three quotes. And I've
contacted three bus vendors. We're getting motor coaches. And so
they'll have air-conditioning and a rest room on the bus. And we -- we
don't expect it to be that much. But, Commissioner, at this point, we
don't know if we're going to have 50 people, 100 people or 25 people
on the buses. And we don't want to -- I don't want to embarrass the
county and not have enough seating or too much. So I'm trying to be a
good custodian of taxpayer funds as well. I don't expect it to be that
much. I just want to have enough.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did you get any of the bids in?
MS. WIGHT: I've got a few in, yes. I don't expect it to be
$3,000 even. I just don't want to have to come back and ask for more
money.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, okay. What did you base
-- base it upon, the -- the number of people or the number of buses that
you're going to need or request?
MS. WIGHT: When I talked to --I've got --I'm --I'm hope--
the bus -- the passengers -- the buses hold 55 passengers. And the best
guess the Florida Association of Counties could give me was 40 to 80
people. So I had to go on that. They can't tell me how many people
Page 330
June 6-7, 2006
until probably June 16th.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I see.
MS. WIGHT: They've sold out 400 people. I just don't know
how many people --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You may end up with three buses.
MS. WIGHT: Exactly. And I do -- with the venders I've had to
ask them, Are you going to be able to -- if I have 150 people show up
at the Marriott to go on the county exchange, can you send me another
bus at the last minute? So that's been one of the questions I've asked
the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. WIGHT: -- the venders.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It just seems like you can go a
long way for $4,000 for what was explained here.
MS. WIGHT: I don't -- I don't expect to spend that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But I understand. Okay. I'll
make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion on the floor for approval and
there's a second. Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none I'll 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: And a motion of denial.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
Page 331
June 6-7, 2006
MS. WIGHT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, just what we'll do after -- after this
thing gets locked in when we finally figure out how many attendees
we'll get, we'll give you a memo and tell you the exact cost of those
particular things with the -- with the bids and we'll tell you what the
cheapest one was and whatnot and give you those details and let you
know what they are.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And Ms. Wight did a wonderful
job.
Item #11
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
MR. MUDD: The next -- the next item, Commissioners, is it's 11
paragraph, public comments on general topics. Ms. Filson.
MS. FILSON: And I do have our one speaker, but he doesn't
seem to be here, Kenneth Thompson.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think we should give him a call.
Item #14A
THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA)
APPROVE APPLICATION FOR CORPORATE MEMBERSHIP
OF $200 TO BAYSHORE ARTS, AND APPROVE A DONATION
OF $300 TO BAYSHORE ARTS, A 501C3 ORGANIZATION,
FROM THE BA YSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE TRUST FUND
(FUND 187) FY06 BUDGET AND DECLARE THE DONATION
SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE: MOTION OF DENIAL -
APPROVED
Page 332
June 6-7, 2006
MR. MUDD: That brings us to paragraph 14 which is the
Airport Authority or the Community Redevelopment Agency. And--
and there is an Item 14-A. It used to be 16-G-1. And it reads (as
read): Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency,
CRA, approve application for corporate membership of $200 to the
Bayshore Arts, and approve a donation of $300 to the Bayshore Arts,
a 501 c3 organization, from the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Trust
Fund, Fund 187. It's in the FY'06 budget. And declare the donation
serving a public purpose.
And -- and this item was asked to be moved at Commissioner
Halas's request.
MR. PETTIT: Chairman Halas, and if I may, Mike Pettit for the
record.
Before we begin discussion on the side I might want to have a
brief discussion with Commissioner Fiala. It's my understanding
you're a member of the board --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I am.
MR. PETTIT: -- of the Bayshore Arts. And are a dues-paying
member also.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. PETTIT: In light of that, I'm going to recommend that you
abstain from voting under 286.012. I do not believe there is a conflict,
but because of the possibility of a conflict, I think that would be your
better course.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I feel better about that as well.
MR. PETTIT: You may participate in discussion, though.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. Even an appearance
might shade it. So thank you very much, Mike.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: My concern is -- is getting involved with
-- or the county is getting involved with 501 c3 'so We have one or two
that are presently that year after year they come before the public
trough and I think we're trying to work through the process to where
Page 333
June 6-7, 2006
we're trying to make sure that they are a 5013c (sic) and that they
don't come before us to look for public money from taxpayers. So
that's one of my concerns.
Does this -- I got a question here to ask the county attorney.
Does this fit the criteria? Do you see a problem with us being
involved with giving money to a 501c3?
MR. PETTIT: Commissioner, again, Mike Pettit for the record.
In my opinion, if you determine there is a valid public purpose for this
donation, I don't see a problem with it. I know the clerk had a
question. I never really -- was really clear on the question. Do you
have any issue that --
MS. KINZEL: Excuse me. For the record, Crystal Kinzel. I
think we were looking for a couple of items. Whether the CRA had
the ability under their structure to contribute to another entity in that
manner and the public purpose. And just to get that on the record,
those two issues associated with that.
MR. PETTIT: I think 1'11-- I will opine that there isn't an issue
either under the -- acting as the CRA or as for a public purpose.
Under Chapter 163.335 there's broad latitude for a CIR -- CRA board
to expend public money to address issues of blight and to rehab and
rehance -- and enhance an area. So this is, I believe, within your
purview. If you find there is a public purpose for the donation. That's
a separate question from any policy the board wishes to follow,
whether as acting as the CRA, as you are here, or as the board
generally as to -- as to such donations.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: My concern -- and I'm going to ask
Commissioner Fiala, I don't mean to put you on the spot.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: But is there a possibility that the
community out there -- that would be donors that would donate the
$500?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Um--
Page 334
June 6-7, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Or do you have a way of -- of maybe
charging an entrance fee for the artists, a small fee that would offset
the cost of this?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, David Jackson's here. He
might be able to come up.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have to tell you I'm not real, real
familiar. But what I can tell you is that I know that the Bayshore Arts
Association is planning a series of festivals of different types to try
and to bring different forms of art onto Bayshore which, of course,
will ultimately, hopefully help in the -- in the redevelopment of the
area and also bringing up its -- its appearance.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I wasn't trying to put you on the spot.
David, maybe you can shed some light on this. What I'm looking at is
instead of using taxpayers' dollars, if there's a way that maybe you
could have an entrance fee, nominal entrance fee. I don't know how
many exhibits you plan to have or maybe you have people in the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: One thing. See, that's the thing.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. Maybe you can give me some
guidance here.
MR. JACKSON: David Jackson, Community Redevelopment
Agency Executive Director. Yes, sir. The -- the financial donation
along with the membership which is a corporate membership which
comes right out of our membership line item is -- the local advisory
board is very interested in supporting this organization just as they are
anybody else that's within our boundaries that is going to be a good
community partner in the future to get us out of the blight mode.
Weare planning on bringing to you this fall a recommendation
and resolution to create an arts district. And to do that by resolution
and that will open up many doors for us and to redevelop the area and
to bring these kind of venues to the area and organizations to
cohabitate in that Bayshore area that we're looking for. This donation
Page 335
June 6-7, 2006
is to assist the organization just to keep it alive. And it's not to go to
any specific event or activity. It's to help them get their bylaws
established and some creativity to going and -- and the reorganization
that they're going through right now.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is this going to be a yearly thing?
MR. JACKSON: No, sir. This is a one -- one time.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: One time? Okay. Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. Membership is a membership. This
is a donation. This is a financial stipend. And in other CRAs we've
been to we've given as much as a $10,000 start-up grant to a
mainstream organization. And that's -- probably will be forthcoming
also in the near future. And you get that start-up and you're allowed to
do that with CRAs to foster giving -- things to get going. Not any
different than the grants we give to people to improve their homes or
their businesses, the payment of impact fees. And these go to personal
people. These are allowed to be determined and provided to the
organizations and private companies from the CRA.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, my concern is when we start
something or we give a donation to a 501c3, how -- then it seems like
it's something -- it's a gift that keeps on giving. And that's where I
don't want to get involved here where we continually do this year after
year after year.
MR. JACKSON: No. No, sir. Your local advisory board has no
intent on that. And just to give you an example. Two years ago they
gave $5,000 to an art festival. The next year they said, We're not
giving you any more. That was a first start-up. And the same thing on
this one. This is a first time to help you get going and then we're
going to move on.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Fantastic. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This -- this is a little tricky. Who--
who is it that is going to have the corporate membership? Is it the
CRA?
Page 336
June 6-7, 2006
MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. The CRA is, of course, us.
MR. JACKSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's -- let's for a minute step back
and say -- let's suppose someone would come before the Board of
County Commissioners and say, We want you to buy a corporate
membership in Friends of the Library. And we want the Board of
County Commissioners to donate some money to the Friends of the
Library. That would probably cause us all to stop and say, Whoops,
we don't -- I'm not sure that's a business we as a board should be in.
And I reach the same conclusion with respect to the -- the CRA board.
It would be better in my mind if you could find a way to donate
to an improvement proj ect which you're doing all the time right now
anyway and you're authorized to do that. And rather than -- than
assisting an organization to write its bylaws. And -- and I also think
that -- that maybe corporate membership in the organizations you're
responsible for administering, approving grants for and that sort of
thing is not a good idea. I think it gets you too close to that
organization. And you've got to keep an arm's length relationship with
-- with those, I believe. At least that -- that would be my gut feel for
all of this.
And I would -- I would like to find better -- another way to do
this. I -- I don't want to be stingy about helping people improve the
Bayshore area. It is, after all, your money. That is Bayshore area's
money. They're the ones that put the money in there. They should be
able to spend it for the improvement of their area and that's why it was
-- it was set up. It's just that involving the board becoming a member
of -- a corporate member of an organization that the board might
ultimately be bestowing funds on is a really slippery slope I think. Is
there another way we can solve this problem?
MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. I have many venues and different
ways that we can spend this $500 and more to assist in the cultural arts
Page 337
June 6-7, 2006
district that we're planning on building in that area in the next couple
years. If the board so chooses to disapprove the corporate
membership and -- and the donation, there'll be other ways they we
will be able to assist and aid. And we can do that. And that's our full
intent. This was just the local advisory board looking at it and says,
We just don't want this organization to crumble yet before we really
get the rest of the area up on -- on its feet, you know, help bootstrap
any other organization that may be in there just like we do the private
parties.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. JACKSON: So there -- yes. There -- the assistance will not
cease.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: So this will not -- I mean, it'll be a bank
account blow, but it won't -- for the organization. But it won't be an
organization creation and fostering blow to them because the CRA
will continue to do that and all the other organizations that are in the
CRA.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I hear a motion?
MR. PETTIT: May -- may I comment, Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. PETTIT: I don't mean to be a -- I guess I was asleep at the
wheel, but I agree with Commissioner Coyle. I -- as he was stating his
concern, I think legally you can become a member, but then what
happens if this organization appears before you for an approval of
some sort, I think that could be problematic so...
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion -- motion for denial.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Second that.
MR. PETTIT: That -- that only goes to the corporate
membership issue. I'm not addressing the donation issue. I think
that's fine.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think you can get that job done,
Page 338
June 6-7, 2006
can't you, David?
MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. I'll talk with the -- the board. In fact,
they have a meeting next Monday. And I'll go to them and give them
other opportunities in which they can get some assistance with the aid.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I can tell from your past
experience that -- that -- that Commissioner Coletta has been willing
to fund efforts like that out of his own pocket. He has, in fact, given
people a $100 bill to do certain things like that that couldn't be
approved otherwise. And I've seen it with my own eyes. And he'll be
the first one to tell you that he thinks that's the right thing to do.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. You let the cat out of
the bag. I've been trying to keep this quiet for a long time, but --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Call the motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. All those in favor signify by
saying aye for denial of this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: And that carried 4 -- 4 to O.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Correct.
MR. MUDD: For the record.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not kidding you. You ought to
get your money from the guy.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMINCATIONS
Page 339
June 6-7, 2006
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to communications,
staff and commissioner general correspondence.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Starting with Commissioner Coyle. Do
you have anything to bring to the board?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. It's getting late. It's close to
lunchtime. Let's go. I'm all finished.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I thank you. This won't take more
than ten minutes. I just -- I just wanted to tell you that I am just so
proud of this commission and how we got going forward on the
affordable housing issue. You're a wonderful bunch of people and I
love you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I wish we could say that about you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have -- I know this is not
going to make anybody happy, but I have a few fast things.
First one is nice and easy. Happy birthday day before yesterday
to Jim Mudd and happy anniversary to Jim and Toni Mudd. I just
thought we ought to say that. We -- we won't sing.
The second thing is I know I mentioned at one of these sessions
that I thought maybe we ought to investigate possibly buying the
Riviera Golf Course as a public golf course. And -- and I was
wondering if we have -- have done that or not? And if not maybe
could we just at least take a look at that? We've been talking about a
public golf course. And it was mentioned that there's not even really
any improvements or anything to make there. It wouldn't cost us a
bunch to do that. I was -- I just thought maybe it would be something
to investigate.
MR. MUDD: Board's desire? Do I have three nods?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No? No?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We've evaluated that. We've had
Page 340
June 6-7, 2006
parks and recs people evaluate that operating a golf course and they've
always advised us that it's a losing proposition. If it could be operated
profitably as a golf course, it would be operating profitably as a golf
course right now. And I don't think changing ownerships is going to
make any difference. We'll wind up subsidizing it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know if it's been operating at
a loss.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I really don't know that. I know the
Lakewood one they were saying was, but then their figures were so
outlandish and they weren't even close to the actual figures. I could
understand why they programmed that one to be losing, but I don't
know about this one. But if you -- if that's your wishes, well, then
fine. So nobody agrees with me. Okay.
Also I would like -- I would like us at some point in time as
commissioners to have the opportunity to sit down and -- and try and
make a decision if we -- if we are planning to approve all affordable
housing components, any PUD that comes up regardless of whether
they're on congested roads or failing roads or before improvements are
completed. Because I know we've got a big guilt complex going. We
better approve one or else. And that's a great thing for any -- any
developer to come in, just put a little component in there of affordable
housing. Guilt everybody. And then we put it on anything regardless
of whether it makes sense or not. And I'm very, very concerned with
that. And I think we ought to discuss it at some workshop or
something.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're right. I fully support you on
that. Because it's a very, very dangerous thing to do. The problem is
we're caught right now between existing law, our -- our land
development codes and recommendations that we've made to try to
solve this problem. And you're right. We need to discuss it in detail
at a later point in time.
Page 341
June 6-7, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But it is a serious problem.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because we're now planning for the
future of our entire community. And -- and -- and what we do now,
everybody has to live with from thereafter.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If I could just add one thing in
support of you. Our Land Development Code right now specifically
says that rezones are subj ect to contingent -- or concurrency
evaluations. So if -- if we do not believe that we have capacity and it
talks about its impact on the entire system, if we don't believe we have
the capacity, we have every right just to refuse the rezone, end of
story .
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But what's going to happen when
proportionate share kicks in? It seems then that we have no right to
vote on anything.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Staff -- that -- that's right, but staff
is working on that. And if they are successful and they will be only
temporarily, we can -- we can hold it down. But next legislative
session they will change it so that we don't have as much control over
it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: This brings up another question. And I--
I was directed to this to you yesterday when we had that item before
us. And that is where somebody wants to take advantage of the
density as high as possible. And I don't believe that we're here to
make sure that the developer, the person who's got that land gets
maximum value out of it.
And I was concerned about the density that was approved
yesterday. The only reason that I approved it was because of the
affordable housing. But I really felt that the density in that particular
area because of the fact that the intersection is failing at Airport and --
and Davis Boulevard, I was very, very concerned about that. And it
was -- I think that when we look at this, we have to be more open in
Page 342
June 6-7, 2006
regards to saying, well, I'm only going to give you X amount of
additional density and not the full -- full --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: See, that's another thing to -- for us
to discuss.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And like they also told us, now we
-- we approved it because we knew it was a good project. And -- and
we knew it would answer some -- some need. Yet at the same time
we were told that they probably can't get out of there to go to work
because they're going to be lined up in traffic just trying to get out of
their -- their -- their developments because there's such a problem
there already. So, you know, I think we don't need to discuss it
anymore now. But I think we should hold some type of a workshop to
discuss it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're right, absolutely. I agree
with both of you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta, you had
something to add to this?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think it's great that we're going
to discuss it. I do think that we always have to keep in mind as we
mentioned before several of the staff about the -- the possible benefit,
public benefit. So I hope we always have that latitude to be able to
take things on a case-by-case basis too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. But, you know, we also,
when we talk about public benefits, we -- is the public benefitting by
us overcrowding the streets so they can't move? You know, that's--
that's another section of that. Okay. Enough of that.
The last thing I wanted to know is if you would agree that
possibly we need an ordinance, Commissioner Coyle, you brought this
up last time, addressing impact fee deferrals and grants for down
payment assistance and home repairs and so forth that should be given
Page 343
June 6-7, 2006
only to legal residents with certified valid identification. We have
nothing in our -- in our statutes right now that says that. And -- and I
think that maybe we need an ordinance to say that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I -- just one question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We really -- right now we're
granting -- we're giving this money to people that aren't legal
residents?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, there's nothing there that -- it
only says that if they're eligible to work, SHIP funds can go to
anybody if they're eligible to work and if it's -- if it's evidenced by --
by, like, a Social Security card. You can get that. You know, you
hear of people that have ten of them all with the same Social Security
or a green card, but they can go down and buy that on Bayshore --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. I hear that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- for fifty bucks in twenty minutes.
I just want to make sure that our taxpayer dollars are going to pay for
people who pay -- pay taxes, you know.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, pay taxes or--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And Social Security.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- they're legal people
recognized in this country.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's right. That's right. Okay.
That was -- that's all for me. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: And -- and just for the folks out there in the
audience, Commissioner Fiala has a great point. From the county's
side of the house, we don't have that check and balance. But what
we've been -- what we've been counting on when you do SHIP, it's
normally an augmentation to a mortgage that they have to get from a
-- a lending institution in Collier County or in Lee County. What they
go through for background requires them to be a legal worker to pay
the taxes and those particular issues. But this is a -- this is a good way
Page 344
June 6-7, 2006
to make sure that we have something in our ordinance to make sure
that there's another avenue in order to make that change.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If I could just add something.
Remember that we are also giving grants to people from CRA money
to do certain things both in the Immokalee CRA and the Bayshore
CRA and the Mini Triangle CRA. But we need to make sure that that
money is going to --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Citizens.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- yeah, legal residents.
MR. BAKER: And there's one other area. Denny Baker for the
record. Excuse me for interrupting, but economic incentives we give
-- we give monies to employers who are creating jobs. Those jobs
created would be much in the same vein as what you're saying.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, good point. Yeah. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Anything else?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. That's it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning, do you have
anything?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I didn't pull one item on
-- on the agenda. That's the change orders. But I did notice that at
least one of them was an aftereffect approval. So I know the board
said don't do that. So I hope you keep a closer eye on that.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Manager, I overlooked you. Do
you have anything to bring before us?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And the first thing is that the government
center -- the north government center on -- off of Airport Road next to
our new library opened up on Monday. The first day we had 190
customers served of which 109 had driver's license services. Marriage
licenses were twenty-nine, sixteen utility bills, eight beach stickers,
ten property appraiser services, eight traffic fines. We won't go into
who came in to get that fixed, and ten miscellaneous.
Page 345
June 6-7, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: How about divorces?
MR. MUDD: Didn't get into that. But I will tell you that they're
busy, that they are open. And it's -- and they're providing a wonderful
service for our community. But I'll just give you a heads-up on that
particular problem. And I won't go through all the pictures.
The next item is we received notice on June 2nd, 2006, from
NCH that they're giving us their 30-day notice where they're not going
to participate -- be our agent for the Upper Payment Limit Program.
And -- and that causes us a bit of issue. So we are going to take a look
at their -- if there are other -- and the Upper Payment Limit is now
called been renamed the Low Income Pool Program, the LIP program.
And we are looking at other agents to see if they can do it for us to
stay within the -- the statutory limitations that are set upon us by
Tallahassee.
What does it mean? What does this mean to us this fiscal year?
That means that we're looking for $50,000 within the budget in -- in
human services. In order to get that done I think we'll -- we'll have --
if we have issues, we'll come back with that. Of a bigger issue is it's a
half a million shortfall in our '07 budget. And we're actively trying to
remedy that particular issue. But I thought I'd bring it to your
attention. It is a mutual agreement with us. There are things in the
agreement that says within 30 days -- a 30-days notice that they can --
they can pull out of that. We're also going to have conversation to
figure out what exactly caused NCH to get out of this particular
program with us. We are also going to talk to HMA to see if -- if they
can take over in this particular instance, but I'll let you know that
particular item.
There is -- there is also a lawsuit between CBIA and Collier
County that's out there. It has to do with government building impact
fees. I believe within the next couple of weeks that will be totally
dismissed on a mutual agreement; is that right?
MR. PETTIT: Yeah. I believe the stipulation may have been
Page 346
June 6-7, 2006
signed already by our attorney.
MR. MUDD: Okay. So that -- that's good news. In other words,
they dropped the lawsuit.
The next item, last but not least, and I hate to have you go before
twelve o'clock but we need to get a read, and Leo's been working on
this particular item. The board has told us to come up with straw--
straw ballot language for the November election. It basically talks
about adequate road capacity before development to get a feeling of --
of what the voters' desires are. There's two -- there are two sample
questions ballot -- referendum questions before you on a piece of
paper that Leo's passing out. And I have them on -- I have them on
the overhead.
What we were trying to -- to get an idea is to figure out which
one you would prefer and then for the next meeting have the
referendum language and the, you know, resolution and the -- and the
executive summary all before you so that you can discuss it. But--
but I -- but to sit there and try to craft it during that meeting makes it
kind of tough too. But one of these questions was provided by
Commissioner Coyle, but I won't tell you which one so...
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's the one that says "yes." Yeah.
No. I -- yeah. Just being fair and impartial here, I like No.1 because
it explains the situation. Number 2 does not. Number 2 doesn't really
tell you what the problem is and how it can best be changed or best be
solved.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I agree with you there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Number 1 is, in my opinion, the
best one. It's clear. It's explanatory.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The other one's too vague.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Way too vague. I agree with the -- with
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question.
Page 347
June 6-7, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if the people say on the one
on the top say yes, what does that mean? We can't change state law.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: But I think what it means here is that
then we as the Board of County Commissioners, we have to make sure
that we have the concurrency, the road capacity.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the final question is the
last sentence, Should this law be changed to require adequate road
capacity before new development begins?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the answer -- if the answer is
yes --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- what it does is it sends a very,
very clear message to state government including our legislators and
to us, as a matter of fact, that -- that says that the -- the -- the voters of
Collier County expect that concurrency will be maintained in Collier
County. And -- and -- and they would expect to hold us responsible as
well as the state legislators responsible. I think that's -- that -- that is a
very clear statement that -- that, quite frankly, we don't even seem to
be able to agree on.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, what you're saying with
that since the majority of legislators in Tallahassee don't serve Collier
County, they're not elected by the people, what -- what -- what kind of
-- what kind of statement are you saying to our delegation? You're--
you're unelectable --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- if they can't change it?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. But that's one thing they are to
be fighting for.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think they -- they have
in the past, especially in this last session they tried to. But just like
none of us, not one person up here are king, neither is our delegation
Page 348
June 6-7, 2006
in Tallahassee. There are other people, other -- other lawmakers that
weigh into it. And they're going to pay whatever particular -- they're
going to vote the way they think they're serving their district the best.
And this might not serve their area the best.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So are you -- you telling me that
you don't want the people, the voters of Collier County to have a voice
and to express their opinion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They always do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I haven't heard them say this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You haven't heard them say
what?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I haven't heard the voters of Collier
County say, We want state law changed so that we can have adequate
road capacity before you develop it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, okay. Maybe it's a
subliminal message that we're trying to send to our delegation, but
that's what I read out of it. I just want to give you my thoughts.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. As I look at it I thought, you
know, maybe they don't change the law to' require. But the second one
says that then we would have the ultimate legal authority. That
means, no matter what exists, we would then have the ultimate legal
authority to require adequate -- adequate road capacity?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But -- but you see the second one
doesn't --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I was thinking of--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- shouldn't even be there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was thinking of adding that instead
of under the first one just, you know, get the explanation there and
then put the -- should the Collier County Commission have the
Page 349
June 6-7, 2006
ultimate authority. After you explain to them what the state law says,
then do you want us to have the ultimate authority to require adequate
road capacity before?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that -- I think if the state law
is changed to require that, then it solves the same problem.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. But what I was thinking of
is, if we can't get them to change it, then -- should we, then, kind of
have our people saying --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, the -- the point of all this is
to -- is to begin a process that hopefully will result in a change. First,
we have to have a recognition that we're not permitted to do some of
these things. Okay?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: People don't understand that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree with that. I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And -- and, secondly, I
think we have to understand that there might come a time when we've
got to pursue legal means to preserve our rights. And when we have a
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Backing from --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- the backing from the voters, our
position is strengthened dramatically. Because it is clear that we're
acting on -- in the interest of our voters. So -- so I believe the first one
does exactly what we want to do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Two things. I think we
got some good wording here. Just that the assumption is that our state
legislative people wouldn't be supportive of concurrency in a tighter
fashion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're only talking about three out
of one hundred and twenty. That's what I'm referring to.
Page 350
June 6-7, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think we've got very
supportive legislative people.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And this might -- let's --let's
approach it with the idea that we're trying to give them the tools to be
able to reach out even further. And we might be able to take this and
sell it to the Florida Association of County (sic) maybe at the end of
this month when they come here as being an idea that they might want
to pass on to their legislative delegation which has been the problem
up in Tallahassee, not ours. But the only -- the real issue that I got
with this is the fact that this hasn't been duly advertised. And if we
make a decision here today without having the chance for public
input, would we really lose any advantage if we brought it back at the
next meeting?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, just tell me if you're -- all I'm
trying to do is give -- give me some direction and which one is the
better of the language and then you can craft around it at the next
meeting. And it doesn't mean you approve this at all.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Fine. Okay. We're all on the
same page, then.
MR. MUDD: Yeah. No. We're going to advertise it and bring it
forward, get everybody to it. I just -- if we don't do this, then I'm
going to have to go through --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: -- and set up two different--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's take the first one and then
when we come back if we have -- we have plenty of time to study it.
We can get some public input and then we can go ahead and lay it out.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Got direction.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But also I kind of hope before
we go any farther, too, we might be able to direct the chair to write a
letter to our legislative delegation telling of our intentions to bring this
Page 351
June 6-7, 2006
before on our agenda --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We can tell them Friday.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- at the next meeting.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We can tell them Friday. We're
having a workshop Friday.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yup.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was just thinking of the
formality of the letter. But that's okay if you think the workshop is a
sufficient avenue to reach out to them.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We can -- we can tell them Friday and
then we can follow up with a letter.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think you need to do both.
There's no guarantee we'll have everybody at the workshop as much as
we would like them.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then in that case, then, let's just do
it by letter. That -- that means we notify them all at the same time so
the people at the workshop don't get notified earlier than the other
people.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. We'll do it with a letter.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I suggest we -- we also put
in that we thank you for your past support, something to that nature
and make it a positive letter.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why change our past practice?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No. We'll make sure it's -- we'll soften
it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll give you a $100 bill.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. County Attorney, do you have
anything?
MR. PETTIT: Just -- just briefly. I just -- I had an opportunity
to speak with Mr. Weigel during a break. His surgery went relatively
well and he anticipates being back next week.
Page 352
June 6-7, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks for giving us that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I don't have anything else to add to this
other than the fact that what I stated earlier that we as commissioners
have to work together. And if there's an issue or an item that
commissioners feel is important that I believe that needs to be brought
to the board before any further anything is done with that item with
the particular commissioner so that we have a heads up and we can
either give approval or denial in that regards.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, it might be appropriate
at some point in time just to have a workshop on that too. Because I
think there are -- there are a number of things that we could do. I
believe that the chair really has the ultimate authority for
communicating with -- externally to this office to other elected
officials. And I -- I believe that it -- it's the only way we can
accurately convey to other people and other agencies what the
majority support of the board really is. If we have individual
commissioners writing people and providing them direction, they have
no way of knowing whether or not that's an official board direction.
And their --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's true.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and their natural inclination is,
okay, that's what the board wants to do. And that -- that might not be
true. And it undermines our ability to -- to implement and support
majority positions. So I think maybe --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You're right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- we might want to consider a
policy which says that -- that any letters concerning board positions
would be written by the -- the chairman. But if an individual
commissioner wishes to write a letter and exercise his -- his right of
expression, he must specifically state that -- that he's writing only on
Page 353
June 6-7, 2006
his own behalf.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And not on the board's.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And not on behalf of the board.
But I think that would be a good safeguard because, otherwise, we
send a lot of confusing, mixed messages to people.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. One of the things,
whenever I'm communicating with somebody I always try to make it
very plainly it's my own opinion. I don't want to ever get to the point
where I can't express my own personal opinion on matters that I -- the
people I represent. We do have to talk as a unified voice in some
degrees. But other degrees I think it's extremely healthy to be able to
have various opinions out there, to be able to discuss them and argue
them. We're reasonable people. We do change our minds as we go
through the process.
One of the things I do on a regular basis, I try to get people to
bring issues forward. Probably half of all the people who come here
on public petitions come at my invitation. Some items such as the No
Fishing signs that are coming forward, that they're talking about on 41,
I asked that to be brought forward to the MPO meeting this Friday.
It's on the agenda. This is something. I would never try to rule
separate from this board and try to assume authority as the only source
of information or anything. But I -- I reserve the right to express my
opinion whenever I think it's appropriate.
I agree with you that it should be worded in any way or form that
indicates that it is the desire of the board. And I -- I think that when I
put in there I use the word "continuously" and I -- I'm very careful
with the selection of my words because I've served on numerous
boards.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You don't have a chair complex, do you?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. No. I'm just running out of
money to give away, though.
Page 354
June 6-7, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It hasn't stopped you from trying.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No. I think what we try to do is just get
-- make sure that --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's okay. Let's have a board
meeting.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let -- let -- let me just add
something to it. It -- it -- it really is -- is important that we do more
than just say "I." It's important that you say, I am not writing on
behalf of the --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Board of County Commissioners,
exactly, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Or you can even say, I disagree
with the majority opinion of the -- of the Collier County Board. And
-- and you can communicate in those ways. But it -- it should be very,
very clear to people that you're not giving a direction or official policy
statement. And any official policy statement should come from the
chair, end of story.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do you have anything to opine to this,
County Manager -- County Attorney.
MR. PETTIT: I know we've been asked by different
commissioners at different times about this exact issue. And I think it
would be helpful to have a discussion on the issue.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Good.
MR. PETTIT: I could get into ethics and commission opinions
and all those kinds of things.
MR. MUDD: Can we do it as a workshop? I mean, I've got --
I've got three topics for workshops, okay, out of today.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's do it this afternoon.
MR. MUDD: One of -- one of which is with the Fish and
Wildlife Service and have them come forward. And that will take
about an hour. We'll figure out where they're coming from. Another
Page 355
.. ..........- I
June 6-7, 2006
one is to talk about policies as far as commissioners' correspondence,
okay, which you're talking about right now. And then -- and then a
workshop on rezones with affordable housing and density. And I
believe when we talk about that I'm going to have staff bring that up. I
want to bring up the words. I'm going to quote you, Commissioner
Fiala. Okay. And I'm going to bring up those words. And I'm going
to let the commissioners talk about it. Because I really think that's
what you want to do. You don't want staff to come talk to you about
density and affordable housing and whatnot.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But we can never talk to one another
otherwise.
MR. MUDD: That's right. And you really just want to -- here's
the -- here's the subject. You wanted to have an open dialogue
between the five commissioners about this topic. And then just open
it up. I believe we could have that workshop if it's all right with you
in September on all three topics and do it over a four-hour period of
time. And I believe it gets at what you want. You might even get
done sooner than that, but is that okay?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, fat chance.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, right.
MR. MUDD: Did I -- did I catch your meaning a little bit?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. I think that's the right thing to
do.
MR. MUDD: All right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: September mayor may not be
right, but you need to check it.
MR. MUDD: September, October, we'll get it -- we'll get it right
in that neighborhood and we'll put all three subj ects on the same one
and get after it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good. If there's nothing else, we are
adjourned.
Page 356
..'"-__.......__~__.."."'"_'^~'r._.M
June 6-7, 2006
***** Commissioner Coyle moved, seconded by Commissioner
Fiala and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted *****
Item #16A1
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF MARSALA AT TIBURON,
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY -
W /STIPULA TIONS
Item #16A2
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF HAMPTON VILLAGE AT
AVE MARIA PHASE 1, APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD
FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY - W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A3
ACCEPTANCE OF A DONATED PUBLIX GIFT CARD IN THE
AMOUNT OF $75.00 TO BE USED TO PURCHASE
VOLUNTEER LUNCHES AT THE OTTER MOUND PLANTING
DAYS - ON JUNE 17~ 2006 AND JULY 15~ 2006
Item #16Bl - Moved to Item #10C
Item #16B2 - Moved to Item #10D
Page 357
June 6-7, 2006
Item #16B3 - Moved to Item #10E
Item #16B4 - Moved to Item #10F
Item # 16B5
REJECT ALL BIDS SUBMITTED FOR BID #06-3909, "TRAFFIC
OPERATIONS ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS" - TWO BIDS
RECEIVED WERE EITHER INCOMPLETE OR EXCESSIVE IN
COST AND WOULD NOT PROVIDE A GOOD VALUE FOR
COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16B6
REJECT BIDS SUBMITTED FOR BID #06-3917, "ROADWAY
LIGHTING COMPONENTS" - BID RECEIVED FROM MAYER
ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY WAS INSUFFICIENT
Item #16B7
RESOLUTION 2006-136: AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF THE
TRIP AND EQUIPMENT GRANT APPLICATION WITH THE
FLORIDA COMMISSION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION
DISADVANTAGED (CTD)
Item #16B8
AUTHORIZE THE DISPOSAL OF CERTAIN COUNTY-OWNED
PROPERTY THAT IS WITHOUT COMMERCIAL VALUE - FOR
ASSET #960882 TOSHIBA FAX MACHINE AND ASSET
#960894 HP LASER JET 5M PRINTER
Page 358
June 6-7, 2006
Item #16Cl
CHANGE ORDERS TO GREELEY AND HANSEN LLC WORK
ORDERS GH-FT-05-07 IN THE AMOUNT OF $47,250 AND GH-
FT-05-08 IN THE AMOUNT OF $41,304 UNDER FIXED TERM
CONTRACT #00-3119, FIXED TERM PROFESSIONAL UTILITY
ENGINEERING SERVICES, FOR THE 2005 UTILITIES WATER
MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND THE 2005 UTILITIES
W ASTEW A TER MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND APPROPRIATE
BUDGET AMENDMENTS, PROJECTS NUMBERS 70070, 73066,
AND 75007 - TO ACHIEVE COMPREHENSIVE AND CURRENT
2005 MASTERPLAN UPDATES FOR WATER AND
WASTEWATER
Item # 16C2
PURCHASE OF AN AQUATECH MOBILE CATCH BASIN AND
HIGH VELOCITY COMBINATION SEWER CLEANER TRUCK
FROM PAT'S PUMP AND BLOWER ON STATE CONTRACT
070-700-322 IN THE AMOUNT OF $196,572.80 - TO REPLACE
ONE 11-YEAR OLD VEHICLE
Item #16C3
AWARD CONTRACT 06-3901 "LOAN/GRANT ACQUISITION
AND COMPLIANCE SERVICES" TO ANGIE BREWER &
ASSOCIATES, LC, AS PRIMARY, AND TO PUBLIC UTILITY
MANAGEMENT & PLANNING SERVICES, INC., AS
SECONDARY, IN AN ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF
APPROXIMATELY $1 ~OOO~OOO
Item #16C4
Page 359
^__".~_"'"",~~~~~~__"".M_._._. T
June 6-7, 2006
AWARD CONTRACT 06-3977 TO VACCARO CONSULTING,
INC. FOR "CONSULTING SERVICES AND PLANNING
ASSISTANCE" - TO PROVIDE STAFF ACCESSIBILITY TO A
LEVEL OF EXPERTISE IN THE PROCUREMENT OF UTILITY
SOFTWARE APPLICATIONS NOT AVAILABLE FROM IN-
HOUSE STAFF
Item #16D1
LIMITED USE LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE NAPLES
JUNIOR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, INC., APPROVING USE
OF SPECIFIED COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTY FOR
CONDUCTING A JULY 4TH FIREWORKS FESTIVAL - TO BE
HELD AT SUGDEN PARK AND IN-KIND PAYMENT FOR THE
RENTAL FEE FOR THE USE OF THE PARK WILL BE IN THE
FORM OF ADVERTISING AND COLLIER COUNTY WILL BE
RECOGNIZED AS A CO-SPONSOR OF THE EVENT IN ALL
PROMOTIONAL EFFORTS
Item #16D2 - Moved to Item #10G
Item #16E1
PHASE I AND PHASE II OF WORK ORDER #SCD-FT -3850-06-
01, ISSUED TO SPILLIS CANDELA DMJM (ARCHITECTS), IN
THE AMOUNT OF $368,730.00, FOR THE DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT OF THE NAPLES JAIL
IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECT - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 360
____~.,._.."<_.._"..~H_ ._~ ,
June 6-7, 2006
Item #16E2
FUNDING FOR EMERGENCY GENERATOR UPGRADES AND
ASSOCIATED WORK IN THE AMOUNT OF $408,538-
AUTHORIZE STAFF TO BYPASS THE NORMAL PURCHASING
POLICY AND UTILIZE A QUOTE SYSTEM FOR RESERVING
AND RENTING GENERATORS AND ASSOCIATED
EQUIPMENT (PHASE ONE OF THE COMPLEX'S EMERGENCY
POWER SERVICE PLAN)
Item #16E3
REPORT AND RATIFY STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS
AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS TO BOARD-APPROVED
CONTRACTS - FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 15, 2006 THROUGH
MAY 17~ 2006
Item #16F1 - Moved to Item #10H
Item #16G1 - Moved to Item #14A
Item #16G2
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA)
APPROVAL OF THE EXPENDITURE OF $5,701.50 OF
BA YSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE TRUST FUNDS FROM
FY06 FUND 187 BUDGET, TO PAVE CATHERINE AVENUE, A
LIME ROCK RESIDENTIAL STREET WITHIN THE BA YSHORE
GATEWAY TRIANGLE CRA BOUNDARY, AS PART OF
FLORIDA HIGHWAY PRODUCTS SOLE SOURCE CONTRACT
APPROVED MAY 9, 2006, AND APPROVE ALL NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Page 361
,"
June 6-7, 2006
Item #16H1
COMMISSIONER HALAS' REQUEST FOR BOARD APPROVAL
TO ATTEND A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. ATTENDING THE GULF OF MEXICO ALLIANCE
ON JUNE 21,2006 AT THE ROOKERY BAY NATIONAL
ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE ENVIRONMENTAL
LEARNING CENTER; $30.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER HALAS' TRAVEL BUDGET- FROM 5:00 TO
7:00 P.M.
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 362
r- --'-'
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
June 6, 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) April 15, 2006 through April 21, 2006
(2) April 21, 2006 through April 28, 2006
(3) April 29, 2006 through May 5, 2006
B. Districts:
(1 )
Immokalee Water & Sewer District: 2005 Public Facilities
Report.
(2)
Port of the Islands Community Improvement District: Agenda of
February 24, 2006; Minutes of January 27, 2006; Agenda of
January 27, 2006; Minutes of February 24, 2006; Revised
Notice of Meetings FY2006.
.~~.
Big Cypress Basin Board of the South Florida Water
Management District: Minutes of February 24, 2006.
C. Minutes:
(1) The Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board: Minutes of
April 10, 2006.
(3)
(2) Coastal Advisory Committee: Minutes of April 13, 2006.
(3) Collier County Plannina Commission: Revised Agenda for
May 18, 2006.
(4) Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee:
Minutes of April 1 0, 2006.
H:\DATA\FRONT DESK - 2006\2006 Miscellaneous Correspondence\060606 Misc Corresp.doc
~"""-r-"_.'-"""~'--^-'
(5) Collier County Domestic Animal Services Advisory Committee:
Minutes of April 18, 2006.
(6) Lelv Golf Estates Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee:
Agenda for May 17, 2006; Minutes of April 20, 2006.
(7) Parks and Recreation Advisory Board: Agenda for May 17,
2006; Minutes of May 17, 2006.
(8) Pelican Bav Services Division:
(a) Clam Bav Subcommittee: Agenda for May 17, 2006;
Minutes of April 13, 2006.
(9) Collier County Government Productivity Committee: Agenda
for March 15, 2006; Minutes of March 15, 2006; Minutes of
March 23, 2006.
(a) Library Impact Fee Subcommittee: Minutes of March 23, 2006.
(b) The Collier County Productivity Sub-Committee on Rules
and Procedures: Minutes of November 14, 2005.
(c) School Impact Fee Subcommittee: Minutes of April 6, 2006.
(d) Transportation Impact Fee Subcommittee: Minutes of
April 10, 2006.
(10) Vanderbilt Beach M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee: Agenda for
June 1, 2006; Minutes of May 4, 2006
H:\DATA\FRONT DESK - 2006\2006 Miscellaneous Correspondence\060606 Misc Corresp.doc
June 6-7, 2006
Item #16J1
(THIS ITEM CONTINUED FROM THE APRIL 11,2006 BCC
MEETING). AUTHORIZE THE CLERK'S OFFICE TO FILE THE
STATE OF FLORIDA ANNUAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT
FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 AS
REQUIRED BY FLORIDA STATUTE 218.32 - TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES
Item #16K1
MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND A
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT TO BE DRAFTED
INCORPORATING THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS
THE MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $80,400.00 FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PARCELS
119, 121, 821 AND 921 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER
COUNTY V. ROBERT J. DERR, ET AL., CASE NO. 03-2196-CA
(GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY PROJECT NO. 60027). (FISCAL
IMPACT: $47~286.75)
Item #17A
RESOLUTION 2006-137: PETITION SNR-2005-AR-9467, BY DY
LAND ASSOCIATES, LTD., REPRESENTED BY MARK W.
MINOR OF Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P.A.,
REQUESTING A STREET NAME CHANGE FROM CLEAR
MARSH CIRCLE TO A VIAMAR CIRCLE FOR PROPERTY IN
FIDDLERS CREEK PHASE 5 UNIT 1 - A VIAMAR, LOCATED
WITHIN SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST
- THE PETITIONER WILL BEAR THE COST OF REPLACING
THE STREET SIGN(S)
Page 363
June 6-7, 2006
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2006-138: PETITION SNR-2005-AR-9468, BY DY
LAND ASSOCIATES, LTD., REPRESENTED BY MARK W.
MINOR OF Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P.A.,
REQUESTING A STREET NAME CHANGE FROM LAUGHING
GULL COURT TO MARENGO COURT FOR PROPERTY IN
FIDDLERS CREEK PHASE 5 UNIT 1 - A VIAMAR, LOCATED
WITHIN SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST
- THE PETITIONER WILL BEAR THE COST OF REPLACING
THE STREET SIGN(S)
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 2006-139: PETITION SNR-2005-AR-9469, BY DY
LAND ASSOCIATES, LTD., REPRESENTED BY MARK W.
MINOR OF Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P.A.,
REQUESTING A STREET NAME CHANGE FROM WADING
BIRD COURT TO SERENA LANE FOR PROPERTY IN
FIDDLERS CREEK PHASE 5 UNIT 1 - A VIA MAR, LOCATED
WITHIN SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST
- THE PETITIONER WILL BEAR THE COST OF REPLACING
THE STREET SIGN(S)
Item #17D
RESOLUTION 2006-140: PETITION SNR-2005-AR-9470, BY DY
LAND ASSOCIATES, LTD., REPRESENTED BY MARK W.
MINOR OF Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P.A.,
REQUESTING A STREET NAME CHANGE FROM SKYLARK
COURT TO SERENITY COURT FOR PROPERTY IN FIDDLERS
Page 364
June 6-7, 2006
CREEK PHASE 5 UNIT 1 - A VIAMAR, LOCATED WITHIN
SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST - THE
PETITIONER WILL BEAR THE COST OF REPLACING THE
STREET SIGN(S)
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
Regular meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:09 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
~~/
FRANK HALAS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:.~.~tcv.tk
DWIGHT E.BROCK'Ahl-s~~ ChliruR ,
.' ,igoatun (I~ll11
These minutes;appr,9Ved by the Board on {j&r-(6C:O
as presented./ or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS AND
CAROL YN J. FORD, RPR.
Page 365