BCC Minutes 06/20-21/2006 R
June 20-21, 2006
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida
June 20-21, 2006
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such
special district as has been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Frank Halas
Jim Coletta
Tom Henning
Donna Fiala
Fred W. Coyle
ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Crystal Kinzel, Office of the Clerk of Court
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
fit""'"
,/
""<';'.-.- \
~
AGENDA
June 20, 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
THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING
ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS."
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
June 20, 2006
Page 1
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 A V AILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary agenda.)
B. May 16, 2006 - BCC/EAR Based Amendments Meeting
C. May 23,2006 - BCC/Regular Meeting
D. May 24, 2006 - BCC/951 Study Workshop
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
20 Year Attendees
1) Vickie Wilson, Parks & Recreation
25 Year Attendees
1) Skip Camp, Facilities Management
June 20, 2006
Page 2
2) Joseph Corbo, Road Maintenance
3) Diane Flagg, Alternative Transportation Modes
4) Millie Kelly, Wastewater Lab
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation recognizing June 27, 2006 as National HIV Testing Day to be
accepted by Susan Craig, Director, Communicable Disease Prevention
within the Collier County Health Department.
B. Proclamation recognizing the Collier County Employee Wellness Program
and designating June 27, 2006 as Gold Well Workplace Award Day to be
accepted by Marilyn Hamachek, Wellness Program Manager, Human
Resources, Collier County Government.
C. Proclamation recognizing July 15, 2006 as Big Brothers Big Sisters
Recognition Day in Collier County.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation of recent awards and recognition received by the
Communication and Customer Relations Department
B. On behalf of the Board of Collier County Commissioners, we are
recognizing the District School Board of Collier County for enhancing their
recycling program district wide.
C. Presentation to the Board of County Commissioners by the Collier County
Airport Authority Executive Director and Airport Planning and Consulting
Design Engineer, URS, Inc. regarding the Master Plan and Planned Unit
Development (PUD) for the lmmokalee Regional Airport.
D. Request for Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board Member to Appear before The
Board of County Commissioners to present the Hispanic Affairs Advisory
Board/Collier County School Board Report.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
June 20, 2006
Page 3
A. Public Petition request by Robert Mitchell to discuss Code Enforcement.
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m., unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. This item to be heard at 1 :00 p.m. This item requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. ADA-20065-AR-9553, Rookery Bay Business
Park, LLC, represented by Roetze1 and Andress, requesting an
Administrative Appeal in regards to PUDEX-2005-AR-8478 for ASGM
Business Park PUD. Appealing the decision of the Zoning Director
(Administrative Official) on tolling of time for PUD sunset review under
Section 250-58 of the Collier County Code of Ordinances and Chapter 67-
1246, Section 16 of the Laws of Florida (the special act) appealing the
March 8, 2006 determination. This is a companion item to 8C.
B. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. CU-2006-AR-9699
Mining Venture, LLC., represented by R. Bruce Anderson, Esq. of Roetzel
& Andress, requesting a Conditional Use For (A) Rural Agriculture district
for Earth mining: excavation of fill material to a maximum depth of 60 feet,
or to the confining soil layer, whichever is less, and blasting of material in
compliance with all blasting requirements. The subject property, consisting
of 2,564+ acres, is located East of Immokalee Road, approximately 2 miles
north of Oil Well Road, 1.5 miles north of County Fair grounds, in Section
35 & 36, Township 47 South, Range 27 East, Collier County Florida.
C. This item has been withdrawn by the petitioner. This item requires that
all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members.PE- 2006- AR -9076: Sorbara Company represented by
Gianni Valle, of Naples Drafting and Design, is requesting a parking
exemption to allow a maximum of ten (10) off-site parking on a lot that is
not commercially zoned, pursuant to the LDC Section 4.05.02.K.3. The site
involves 3 C-4-lots zoned and 1 contiguous lot zoned RSF-4. The subject
property, consisting of 0.62 acres, is located at 923 Rosemary Lane,
Rosemary Heights Subdivision, Lots 8, lO, l2 and l4, in Section 22,
Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
June 20, 2006
Page 4
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Recommendation to consider Adoption of an Ordinance Establishing the
Artesia Naples Community Development District (CDD) pursuant to Section
190.005, Florida Statutes.
B. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDA-2005-AR-7858:
Abaco Bay Development, LLC represented by Clay Brooker, Cheffy
Passidomo Wilson and Johnson, LLP and Laura Spurgeon of Johnson
Engineering, Inc., requesting an amendment to the Pinebrook Lake RPUD to
remove references to rental units, low cost provisions, and lease standards,
and to update the ownership to reflect the new owner, Abaco Bay
Development, LLC. The property, consisting of9.94 acres, is located at
4635 Bayshore Drive, further described as Lot l04 of Naples Grove and
Truck Companys Little Farms No.2, in Section 14, Township 50 South,
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
C. This item to be heard followiOf! item 7 A. This petition was continued
from February 14~ 2006 and has been 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 October 8,2007. The subject property,
consisting of 40.88 acres, is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard
(CR 951), approximately ofa mile south of Manatee Road, in Section lO,
Township 5l South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of members to the Lake Trafford Restoration Task Force.
B. Appointment of members to the Contractors Licensing Board.
C. Appointment of member to the Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory
Committee.
June 20, 2006
Page 5
D. Appointment of members to the Black Affairs Advisory Board.
E. Appointment of member to the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local
Redevelopment Advisory Board.
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Report to the Board on the drainage issues associated with the Quail Hollow
subdivision as requested by the Board of County Commissioners (Joseph K.
Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development and Environmental
Services)
B. This item to be heard after item 14A. Recommendation for the Collier
County Board of County Commissioners to approve selection ofWachovia
Bank to provide a $7,000,000 Line of Credit to the CRA to purchase certain
real property within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community
Redevelopment Agency; enter into a $7,000,000 line of credit agreement
with Wachovia bank; direct the County Manager or his designee to negotiate
and prepare for subsequent approval all required enabling documents and
resolutions to pledge CRA funds as the loan repayment source; authorize the
Chairman to sign commitment letter and all documents; and authorize all
necessary budget amendments.
C. Recommendation to approve two Agreements for Sale and Purchase for
18.46 acres, known as the Milano parcels, under the Conservation Collier
Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $4,973,900. (Joseph K.
Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development and Environmental
Services)
D. Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase with
Marie C. Brochu, for 9.26 acres under the Conservation Collier Land
Acquisition Program, and a Utility Easement for the Collier County Water-
Sewer District, at a cost not to exceed $467,500. (Joseph K. Schmitt,
Administrator, Community Development and Environmental Services)
E. Recommendation to approve a Resolution and Agreement for Sale and
Purchase with the City of Naples for the sale of a 4.39-acre parcel presently
owned by the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program for $10,900,
at no additional cost to the County. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator,
June 20, 2006
Page 6
Community Development and Environmental Services)
F. Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the condemnation of fee
simple interests and/or those perpetual or temporary easement interests
necessary for the construction of roadway, drainage and utility
improvements required for the six-lane expansion of Collier Boulevard from
U.S. 41 to the Golden Gate Main Canal. (Capital Improvement Element No.
86, Project No. 60001). Estimated fiscal impact: $5,503,394. (Norman
Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
G. Recommendation to retain from active sales various properties from Avatar
Properties Inc., which are part of the GAC Land Trust.
H. Recommend that the BCC Approve Change Order 12 to the contract with
Magnum Construction Management Corp. in the amount of $2,522,000.00
for additional work on the Golden Gate Parkway, Grade Separated Overpass
Project, from Airport-Pulling Road to Livingston Road, Project No. 60006,
Bid No. 04-3653. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
I. Recommendation to approve the Transportation Service Development Grant
applications for expanded service and Lee County (Lee Tram)
interconnection and to authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to
execute the Joint Participation Agreement (JP A) with Florida Department of
Transportation if the grants are awarded. (Norman Feder, Administrator,
Transportation Services)
J. Report to the Board on the options available to be included in an RFP to
build affordable-workforce Housing on the residential portion of the
Bembridge PUD. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community
Development)
K. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt a
Resolution calling for a Referendum Election on November 7, 2006 to
determine whether the voters want adequate road capacity to exist before
new development can begin. (Leo E. Ochs, Jr., Deputy County Manager)
L. Recommendation to consider a request from Lehill Partners LLC
specifically asking to overturn a staff denial of a request to change the
County recorded name and address of the Registry Resort to the Naples
Grande Resort and Club. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community
June 20, 2006
Page 7
Development)
M. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the
County Manager or his designee to expend a maximum of $2,285,000 within
the Community Development and Environmental Services Division to
address critical building renovation needs, and to give approval for any
subsequent Budget Amendments required to fund such renovations. (Joseph
K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development)
N. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a
reimbursement of a portion of the impact fees paid for Handsome Harrys
Third Street Bistro, in the amount of$28,305.12, due to a change in the
calculation of the impact fees applicable to the proj ect and the resulting
over-payment of impact fees. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator,
Community Development)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to Approve a Mediated Settlement Agreement and a
Stipulated Final Judgment to be Drafted Incorporating the Same Terms and
Conditions as the Mediated Settlement Agreement in the Amount of
$3,087,500.00 for the Acquisition of Parcel ll9 in the Lawsuit Styled
Collier County v. Perry W. Ross, Individually and as Trustee, et aI., Case
No. 04-4174-CA (Rattlesnake-Hammock Road Project No. 60169). (Fiscal
Impact: $2, l07,000.00).
B. This item to be heard at 4:00 p.m. Provide a Status Report on F.S.
Chapter 164 Proceedings in Reference to the Inverse Condemnation Lawsuit
of Bernard J. and Helen R. Nobel, and Vincent D. Doerr vs. Collier County,
in Case No. 05-0064-CA and describe further attempts by the Staffs of the
South Florida Water Management District, The State of Florida Division of
Lands, and the County to reach an Agreement in the Matter.
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
June 20, 2006
Page 8
A. This item to be heard before item lOB. This item is the Board of County
Commissioners (BCC) acting as the Community Redevelopment Agency
(CRA). Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency
(CRA) to approve selection ofWachovia Bank to provide a $7,000,000 Line
of Credit to the CRA to purchase certain real property within the Bayshore
Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Agency; enter into a
$7,000,000 line of credit agreement with Wachovia bank; direct the County
Manager or his designee to negotiate and prepare for subsequent approval all
required enabling documents and resolutions to pledge CRA funds as the
loan repayment source; authorize the Chairman to sign commitment letter
and all documents; and authorize all necessary budget amendments.
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 that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
the County Manager or his designee to create an additional twelve
(12) permanent Full Time Equivalent (FTE) positions within the
Community Development and Environmental Services Division to
address critical immediate permitting and inspection needs, and to
give approval for any subsequent Budget Amendments required to
fund such positions.
2) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Bristol
Pines Phase II, approval of the standard form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
3) Recommendation to approve the after-the-fact submittal of an ESRI
Mobile Government Grant for the Conservation Collier program.
June 20, 2006
Page 9
4) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Juan Ramirez and Nicole Ramirez for 5.00 acres under the
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to
exceed $l81,650.
5) Recommendation to approve an impact fee reimbursement requested
by PJM Limited Partnership, LLLP totaling $239,995.20 due to the
approval of affordable housing impact fee deferral agreements.
6) Staff is requesting that the Board review staffs findings and
recommendation regarding waiving the requirement for the request for
proposal process and authorize the single source purchase of Van
Buskirk, Ryffel & Associates Interactive Growth ModelTM, at an
estimated cost of$175,000.
7) Recommendation to provide staff with clarification on Section 142-37
paragraph (b) of Collier Countys Vehicle or Hire Ordinance relating
to suspension or revocation of drivers license (operators permit) and
recommendation to authorize the County Manager or his designee to
issue Drivers Identification Cards for suspensions due to offenses
unrelated to the applicants ability to operate a vehicle for hire.
8) Recommendation to approve a Settlement Agreement and Release
relative to Sapphire Lakes Units One and Unit 3B.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment of $l 77,184 to
increase the General Fund (001) transfer to Transportation
Disadvantaged Fund (427).
2) Recommendation to award Contract #06-3944 Annual Fixed Term
Surveying & Photogrammetric Services to five (5) firms.
3) Recommendation to approve selection committees ranking of firms
from Contract #06-3947 Construction Engineering and Inspection
Services.
4) Recommendation to approve and execute a contract between Collier
County and the Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged for
June 20, 2006
Page 10
funding in the amount of$528,402 for the provision of transportation
for qualified Medicaid recipients.
5) Recommendation to Approve the FY 2006 Transit Development Plan
(TDP) Minor Update.
6) Recommendation to approve the after-the-fact submittal of an ESRI
Mobile Government Grant for the Stormwater Management
Department.
7) Recommendation to approve Change Order # II to Contract No. 97-
2715 with ABB, Inc. to provide professional engineering services
related to portions of Phase II of the Lely Area Stormwater
Improvement Project (LASIP) construction, in the amount of
$413,400, and to approve increasing the hourly rates of97-2715,
Project #51101.
8) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a
budget amendment to recognize insurance reimbursements from
Hurricane Wilma for Traffic Operations Fund (101) revenue in the
amount of $101,800 and appropriate within the Traffic Operations
Fund (101) Operating budget.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment to transfer funds in
the amount of$800,921 from the Collier County Water-Sewer District
User Fee Fund (414) Reserve for Contingencies to cover
unanticipated capital costs, and anticipated upgrades to the Bleach
Facility at the North Central Water Reclamation Facility (NCWRF)
for Project Number 73966.
2) Recommendation to approve Amendment 3 to Contract 03-3517 with
Greeley and Hansen LLC for Professional Engineering Services for
Water Main Projects in the amount of$152,535. Projects 70151 and
70152.
3) Recommendation to approve the sole source purchase of Jaeger Tri-
Pack tower packing used in dissolved gas removal and odor control
from Jacobs Air Water Systems in the estimated amount of$156,500,
June 20, 2006
Page 11
Project No. 7l005.
4) Recommendation to approve the Selection Committees
recommendation and approve a Professional Services Agreement with
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. in the amount of$753,775.00 pursuant to RFP #
06-3939 for Northeast Regional Utility Facility Program Management
and Oversight, Project Numbers 750121 and 750122.
5) Recommendation to award Work Order MP-FT-3785-06-09,
Customer Service Work Order System Geographic Information
System Integration for Collier County, with Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.,
Project 70078, in the amount of $246,000 and authorize the County
Manager or his designee to execute the work order.
6) Recommendation to convey a Utility Easement to the Water-Sewer
District for an irrigation quality water booster pumping station on
property owned by Collier county on the southeast corner of Golden
Gate Parkway and Livingston Road at a cost not to exceed $2,190.71,
Project 740761.
7) Recommendation to approve Work Order CAE-FT-3681-06-01 for
professional engineering services from Carollo Engineering for the
North Collier Reginal Water Treatment Plant Instrumentation &
control record drawing in the amout of $258,655.00, Project Number
71054.
8) Recommendation to award Work Order HA-FT-3785-06-01 to
Hartman & Associates, Inc. d/b/a Tetratech Hai under Contract 05-
3785 for professional engineering services related to the well site
evaluation and transmission main study for future water supply to the
South East Regional Water Treatment Plant in the amount of
$194,700, Project Number 70900.
9) Recommendation to award RFP 06-3932 for Artificial Reef Recycling
Construction & Demolition Waste to McCulley Marine Services,
Inc.lPine Island Towing Co. for an estimated annual amount of
$250,000.
10) Recommendation to approve the official naming of the Naples
Sanitary Landfill to the Collier County Landfill located at 3901 White
June 20, 2006
Page 12
Lake Blvd Naples, Florida.
11) Recommendation that the Board approve work order # PRMG- 262-
02-06-01, under the cooperative agreement of Martin County Contract
# 262-02 and necessary budget amendments to retain services of
Public Resources Management Group, Inc (PRMG) in the estimated
amount not to exceed $83,685 to perform the Project Feasibility
Report for Utility System Revenue Bonds, Series 2006 and Assistance
With Bond Issuance for the Water/Sewer District.
12) Recommendation to approve the purchase of a Pumper Truck from
Atlantic Truck Center on State Contract 070-700-322 in the Amount
of$169,761.00.
13) Recommendation to Approve a Change Order to Hole Montes
Incorporated Work Order HM-FT-3785-06-01 in the amount of
$52,760 under Fixed Term Contract #05-3785, Fixed Term
Professional Utility Engineering Services, for the 2006 Utilities
Standards Manual and Appropriate Budget Amendments, Projects
Number 70202.
14) Recommendation to approve AshBritt Environmental Inc. (Contract
05-3661) and Solid Resources Inc. (Contract 05-3831) as the Countys
2006 Hurricane Season debris removal and monitoring contractors for
operational readiness.
15) Recommendation to award Work Order CDM-FT-3593-06-10 with
Camp Dresser and McKee Inc., for professional hydrogeologic
services, engineering services and Program Management of the
Wellfield Reliability Improvements and Expansion Program in the
amount of$881,912, Project Number 75005.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation to convey a Deed of Utility Easements to the Water-
Sewer District for the underground utility infrastructure at the North
Collier Regional Park on Livingston Road, at a cost not to exceed
$188.50, Project 8006021.
June 20, 2006
Page 13
2) Recommendation to confirm and consent to the re-assignment of
Contract No. 05-3823, Collier County Services for Seniors from K
and G Home Care ofSWFL, LLC, d/b/a Home Instead Senior Care to
Bidwell Service Care, LLC, d/b/a Home Instead Senior Care.
3) Recommendation to Award Bid #06-3973 for Veterinary Supplies,
Medicines, and Drugs for the Domestic Animal Services Department
in the estimated annual amount of $35,000 for supplies and $52,000
for medicines and drugs.
4) Recommendation to approve purchase and installation of playground
equipment for East Naples Community Park in an amount not to
exceed $77,000.
5) Recommendation to approve purchase and installation of playground
equipment for Veterans Community Park in an amount not to exceed
$75,000.
6) Recommendation to approve budget amendment in the amount of
$8,872.07, appropriating funds from the general fund reserves to pay
for expenses associated with a cock fighting seizure for staff salaries
and overtime, food for seized birds, cage construction costs, and rental
of shade tents to house the birds
7) Recommendation to approve budget amendments in the amount of
$105,706 to ensure continuous funding of the Alzheimers Disease
Initiative grant.
8) Recommendation to approve budget amendments in the amount of
$614,132 to ensure continuous funding of the Community Care for the
Elderly grant.
9) Recommendation to approve budget amendments to reflect an overall
increase of $1,473 in the Older Americans Act programs and
authorize the Chairman to sign the agreement between Collier County
Board of County Commissioners and the Area Agency on Aging of
Southwest Florida.
10) Recommendation to approve FY 05 annual report to the Florida
Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles for the Choose
June 20, 2006
Page 14
Life Specialty License Plate.
11) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners sign an
agreement with the Agency for Health Care Administration for
$350,000 to participate in the Upper Payment Limit Program for
services provided on behalf of the Human Services Department in
order to generate an additional $61,250 in Federal matching funds.
12) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$6,594 to ensure continuous funding of the Home Care for the Elderly
grant.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Recommendation to award RFP#06-3952 to Willis of Tennessee, Inc.
d/b/a Willis of Florida, for Group Benefits Brokerage and Actuarial
Services.
2) Recommendation to approve Ford as the manufacturer of choice for
County small and medium-duty vehicles.
3) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment to the North Collier
Government Services Center project for additional equipment in the
amount of $252,700.
4) Recommendation to award bid #06-3984 "Full Service for
Professional Movers" to Schapp Moving Systems, Inc., Suncoast
Moving & Storage, Inc., and Naples Moving & Storage.
5) Recommendation to approve and execute an Agreement with the Big
Corkscrew Island Fire Control and Rescue District to provide for the
release and proper disposal of equipment previously purchased with
GAC Land Trust funds.
6) Recommendation to approve and execute an Agreement with Big
Corkscrew Island Fire Control and Rescue District providing for the
trade-in value of $4,000 for older equipment to be applied towards the
purchase of new equipment.
June 20, 2006
Page 15
7) Recommendation to approve the Collier County BCC Equal
Employment Opportunity Plan.
8) Recommendation to approve and execute an Agreement to provide the
Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control and Rescue District $21,118 from
the GAC Land Trust Fund for the purchase of a new cab and chassis
for the lightweight brush patrol/rescue vehicle, which is the balance
after the trade-in value of$7,500 is applied to the purchase price.
9) Recommendation to add Homescape SWF, Inc. to bid No. 05-3733
Handyman/Minor Carpentry Services for routine carpentry services.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Recommendation to approve Change Order #2 in the amount of
$1,920 on Contract 05-3772 with Miles Media Group for Tourism
Department Web Site Modifications
2) Recommendation to approve Change Order #3 in the amount of
$20,000 on Contract 05-3772 with Miles Media Group for future
Tourism Department Web Site Modifications.
3) Recommendation to approve the submittal of the attached Cultural,
Heritage and Nature Tourism Grant Application for Visit Florida in
the amount of$5,000 for the Paradise Coast Blueway Web Site and
future Search Engine Optimization.
4) Recommendation to approve budget amendments.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution authorizing execution of the
Collier County Airport Authoritys 2006-A Master Joint Participation
Agreement (MJP A) between Florida Department of Transportation
and the Airport Authority to fund projects at the Everglades Airpark,
the Immokalee Regional Airport and Marco Island Airport.
2) To approve and execute Site Improvement Grant Agreements between
the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency and grant
June 20, 2006
Page 16
applicants within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community
Redevelopment area.
3) Request that the Board of County Commissioners approve a budget
amendment increase in the amount of $50,000 to pay for professional
services required for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) at the
Immokalee Airport and Master Plans for the Immokalee Airport and
for the Marco Island Airport, and for pre-planning services at the
Everglades Airpark, the Immokalee Airport and the Marco Island
Airport.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Halas requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended the
unveiling of Historic Artifacts of Early Naples on June 7, 2006 at
Collier County Museum; $20.00 to be paid from Commissioner Halas'
travel budget.
2) Commissioner Coletta requests approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner
paid in advance to attend the Economic Development Council (EDC)
Trustee Post-Legislative Delegation Luncheon on June 8, 2006 and is
requesting reimbursement in the amount of $50.00, to be paid from
his travel budget.
3) Commissioner Coletta requests approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner
paid in advance to attend Lunch with Edison Interns on May 15,2006
and is requesting reimbursement in the amount of $20.00, to be paid
from his travel budget.
4) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended EDC
Post Legislative Delegation Luncheon on Thursday, June 8th, 2006 at
the Naples Sailing and Yacht Club in Naples, FL; $50.00 to be paid
from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
5) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attend F AC
June 20, 2006
Page 17
Tropical Luau on Wednesday, June 28th, 2006 at the Marco Island
Marriott, Marco Island, FL; $50.00 to be paid from Commissioner
Fiala's travel budget.
6) Commissioner Halas requests board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attending a
reception (luau) at the Florida Association of Counties Annual
Conference June 28, 2006; $50.00 to be paid from Commissioner
Halas' travel budget.
7) Commissioner Halas requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended a
luncheon for the official signing of the Sister Region Agreement with
Yantai, China on June l4, 2006 at the Florida Gulf Coast University;
$32.00 to be paid from Commissioner Halas' travel budget.
8) Commissioner Halas requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attending a
Florida Association of Counties ((F AC) 77th Annual Conference
dinner on June 27, 2006; $30.00 to be paid from Commissioner Halas'
travel budget.
9) Proclamation recognizing June 26-30, 2006 as Florida Association of
Counties Week. Board of County Commissioners Chairman, Frank
Halas, will present this proclamation at the 2006 Annual Conference
and Education Exposition beginning June 27, 2006.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) To present to the Board of County Commissioners the State Revenue
Sharing Application for Fiscal Year 20062007 and to obtain approval
for the Chairman to sign the application.
2) Recommendation that the Board Of County Commissioners Approve
an Agreement Authorizing the Collier County Sheriffs Office to have
Traffic Control Jurisdiction over Private Roads within the Longshore
June 20, 2006
Page 18
Lake Subdivision.
3) Consideration and adoption of a resolution establishing a new voting
precinct and changing the boundaries of existing precincts.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to Approve a Mediated Settlement Agreement and a
Stipulated Final Judgment to be Drafted Incorporating the Same
Terms and Conditions as the Mediated Settlement Agreement in the
Amount of $120,730.00 for the Acquisition of Parcell 03 in the
Lawsuit Styled Collier County v. Susan C. Hallock, et aI., Case No.
05-0646-CA (County Road 951 Project No. 65061). (Fiscal Impact:
$56,965.00)
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners Approve
the Proposed Joint Motion for an Agreed Order Awarding Expert Fees
and Costs Relating to Parcels 166A and 166B in the Collier County v.
Juan Ramirez, et aI., Case No. 02-5166-CA, Immokalee Road Phase
II, Project #60018. (Fiscal Impact: $7,650.00).
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners Authorize
the County Attorneys Office to Make a Counter-offer to Settle a
Claim for Business Damages by Circle K Stores, Inc. Resulting from
the Acquisition of Parcel 27T in the Case Styled Board of County
Commissioners v. Collier HMA, Inc., et aI., Case No. 06-0013-CA
(CR-95I Water Main Project No. 70152) (Fiscal Impact, if accepted,
is $10,000.00)
4) Recommendation to Approve a Stipulated Final Judgment as to Parcel
148 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v. Regent Park Cluster
Homes Association, et aI., Case No. 04-3452-CA (Immokalee Road
Project No. 66042). (Fiscal Impact: $7,050)
5) Recommendation to Approve a Stipulated Final Judgment as to
Parcels 104A, 104B, 104C and 104D in the Lawsuit Styled Collier
County v. Daniel D. Peck, Individually and as Trustee, et aI., Case
No. 05-0735-CA (Logan Boulevard Project No. 60l66). (Fiscal
Impact: $16,500)
June 20, 2006
Page 19
6) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment for Parcel
No. 28P in the lawsuit styled Board of County Commissioners of
Collier County, Florida, as the Governing Body of Collier County and
as Ex-Officio Governing Board of the Collier County Water-Sewer
District v. A.L. Petroleum, Inc., et aI., Case No. 06-0185-CA (CR 95l
Water Transmission Mains Proj ect No. 70151). (Fiscal Impact
$48,277.00)
7) Request by the Collier County Industrial Development Authority for
approval of a resolution authorizing the Authority to issue refunding
revenue bonds to be used to refinance certain outstanding bonds of the
Authority.
8) Request by the Collier County Industrial Development Authority for
approval of a resolution authorizing the Authority to issue revenue
bonds to be used to finance educational facilities for Seacrest School.
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. SE-06-AR-9209, an
Ordinance amending Ordinance 05-58, the Mercato Mixed-Use Planned
Unit Development (MPUD) to correct a scriveners error resulting from the
inadvertent use of the phrase gross leasable area instead of the correct
reference of gross floor area pertaining to the maximum permitted intensity
of both the retail and office uses as provided in Section 3.2 of the PUD
document. The property is located at the northeast corner of Vanderbilt
Beach Road (CR-862) and Tamiami Trail (US-41) in Section 34, Township
June 20, 2006
Page 20
48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
B. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Recommendation to
adopt a resolution designating 985.4 acres in the Rural Lands Stewardship
Area Overlay District (RLSA) as Lake Trafford Ranch Stewardship Sending
Area 7 (L TR SSA 7), approving a credit agreement for L TR SSA 7,
approving an easement agreement for L TR SSA 7, and establishing the
number of Stewardship Credits generated by the designation of said
Stewardship Sending Area in response to an application by Lake Trafford
Ranch, LLP.
C. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Recommendation to
adopt a resolution designating 5,299.5 acres in the Rural Lands Stewardship
Area Overlay District (RLSA) as Half Circle L Ranch Partnership
Stewardship Sending Area 8 (HCLRP SSA 8), approving a credit agreement
for HCLRP SSA 8, approving an easement agreement for HCLRP SSA 8,
and establishing the number of Stewardship Credits generated by the
designation of said Stewardship Sending Area in response to an application
by Half Circle L Ranch Partnership.
D. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-2005-AR-8561,
BRB Development, LLC, represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP ofQ.
Grady Minor and Associates, P .A. and Richard Y ovanovich of Goodlette,
Coleman and Johnson, P.A., requesting a rezone from the C-l and C-3
zoning districts to the "CPUD" Commercial Planned Unit Development
zoning district proposing a variety of retail, office, professional and business
service, and indoor self storage land uses with a maximum of 163,000
commercial floor area to be known as BRB Development CPUD. The
subject property, consisting of 3.2 acres, is located at 1025 Piper Boulevard,
Section 23, Township 48 S, Range 25 E, Collier County, Florida.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
June 20, 2006
Page 21
June 20-21, 2006
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
Jim Mudd.
And I want to welcome each and every one of you in our
chambers this morning. This is the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners' meeting, and it's now in session.
I ask that you turn off your cell phones and pagers. And at this
time if you would rise for the invocation given by Jim Mudd, followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance.
MR. MUDD: Let us pray.
Oh, Heavenly Father, we ask your blessings on these proceedings
and all who are gathered here. We ask a special blessing on this
Board of County Commissioners, guide them in their deliberations,
grant them the wisdom and vision to meet the trials of this day and the
days to come.
Bless us now as we undertake the business of Collier County and
its citizens and that our actions will serve the greater good of all
citizens and be acceptable in your sight.
Your will be done, amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We'll start off with the County Manager.
Sir, do you have any changes this morning to our 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, Board of County
Commissioners' Meeting, June 20, 2006.
Page 2
June 20-21, 2006
Item 7 A to be continued to July 25, 2006, BCC meeting. This is
a companion item to item 8C. This item requires that all participants
be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission
members.
It's ADA-20065-AR-9553, Rookery Bay Business Park, LLC,
represented by Roetzel and Andress, requesting administrative appeal
in regards to the PUDEX-2005-AR-8478 for ASGM Business Park
PUD appealing the decision of the zoning director, which was an
administrative official, on tolling of time for PUD sunset review under
section 250-58 of the Collier County Code of Ordinances, and chapter
67 -1246, section 16 of the laws of Florida, the special act, appealing
the March 8, 2006, determination. This continuance is at the
petitioner's request.
The next item is item 8A. In the executive summary under
considerations, second sentence should read: The pun is approved
for a total of 385 single-family detached residential dwelling units,
196 villa residential units, and 144 multifamily condominium
residences for a total of 725 residential units along with a recreation
facility; and that correction was caught by Commissioner Coyle, but it
says by staffs request.
The next item is item 8C. And again, I mentioned before that
this was a companion to 7A. And it's to be continued to the July 25,
2006, BCC meeting.
This petition was also continued from the February 14, 2006,
meeting and has been continued to this meeting and will be continued
again to the July 25, 2006.
It is 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 and Andress requesting a two-year
extension to the ASGM Business Center of Naples pun from October
8, 2005, to October 8, 2007.
The subj ect property consists of 40.88 acres, is located in the east
Page 3
June 20-21,2006
side of Collier Boulevard, County Road 951, approximately --
approximately a mile south of Manatee Road in Section 10, Township
51 south, Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida, and that's at the
petitioner's request.
The next item is item 10D, to be continued to the July 25, 2006,
BCC meeting. It's a recommendation to approve an agreement for
sale and purchase with Marie R. Brochu for 9.26 acres under the
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program and a utility easement
for the Collier County water/sewer at a cost not to exceed $467,500.
That item is being continued at staffs request.
The next item is item 10L, to be continued to the July 25, 2006,
BCC meeting. It's a recommendation to consider a request from
Lehill Partners, LLC, specifically asking to overturn a staff denial of a
request to change the county's recorded name and address of the
Registry Resort to the Naples Grande Resort and Club, and that item is
being continued at the petitioner's request.
The next item is item ION, to be continued to October 10, 2006,
BCC meeting. This is a recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners approve a reimbursement of a portion of the impact
fees paid for Handsome Harry's Third Street Bristo (sic) in the amount
of $28,305.12 due to a change in the calculation of the impact fees
applicable to the project and the resulting overpayment of impact fees.
And that continuance is at the petitioner's request.
The next item is an add-on item, item 100, to discuss retaining or
removing the Cypress Way east bridge as part of the Immokalee Road
widening project per board direction at the June 6th, and it should be
2006 meeting. There's a correction to the change sheet. Instead of
1006, it's 2006 meeting. And that item is at staffs request for the
add-on.
And we mentioned to the board that we'd be a little tight in order
to get the study done in order to bring that particular item.
Next item is an add-on item, 14B. This came in yesterday. I'm
Page 4
June 20-21, 2006
sorry for the short notice, but it's an opportunity to get a 414 --
$414,000 grant, that if we didn't bring it in front of the board, we
would probably lose that opportunity.
And that's a recommendation to approve a grant agreement from
the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, for $414,475 to expand the
aircraft parking apron at the Marco Island Executive Airport,
including the design phase of the expansion and the acquisition of land
adjacent to the Marco Island Executive Airport. Collier County's
maximum match for this grant is $21,814, and this add-on is at staffs
request.
The next item is to move item 16A6 to lOR. Staff is requesting
that the board review staffs findings and recommendations regarding
waiving the requirement for the request for proposal process and
authorize the single source purchase of the Van Buskirk, Ryffel &
Associates interactive growth model, ITM (sic) at an estimated cost of
$175,000. That item was moved at Commissioner Fiala's request.
The next item is item 16B 1 to be continued to the July 25, 2006,
BCC meeting. It's a recommendation to approve a budget amendment
of $177,184 to increase the general fund (001) transfer to the
transportation disadvantage fund, which is fund 427. That item is
asked to be continued at staffs request.
The next item is to move item 16B7 to lOS, and that is a
recommendation to approve change order number 11 to contract
number 97-2715 with ABB, Inc., to provide professional engineering
services related to portions of phase II of the Lely Area Stormwater
Water Improvement Project (LASIP) construction, in the amount of
$413,400, and to approve increasing the hourly rates of97-2715,
which I believe is the contract at that time, which is project number
51101. That item is being moved to the regular agenda at
Commissioner Fiala's request.
The next item is item 16C 1. The fiscal impact in the executive
summary reads, $888,921. The correct fiscal impact is $800,921, as
Page 5
June 20-21, 2006
stated in the title. Also the title and the objective should read: The
North County Water Reclamation Facility. In the document the word
County was omitted, and that correction is at staffs request.
The next item is to move item 16C 1 0 to lOP, and that is a
recommendation to approve the official naming of the Naples Sanitary
Landfill to the Collier County Landfill located at 3901 White Lake
Boulevard, Naples, Florida. That item is moved at Commissioner
Coletta's request.
The next item is 16C 1, and that item is being asked to be
continued to the July 25,2006, BCC meeting. It's a recommendation
that the board approve work order number PRMG-262-02-06-01,
under the cooperative agreement of Martin County, contract number
262-02, and necessary budget amendments to retain services of Public
Resources Management Group, Inc., PRMG, in the statement amount
not to exceed $83,685, to perform the project feasibility report for
utility system revenue bonds, series 2006, and assistance with bond
issuance for the water/sewer district. That item is being continued or
being asked to be continued at staffs request.
The next item is to move 16D6 to 1 OQ. It is a recommendation
to approve budget amendment in the amount of $8,872.07,
appropriating funds from the general fund reserves to pay for expenses
associated with the cock fighting seizure for staff salaries and
overtime, foods for seized birds, cage construction cost, and rental of
shade tents to house the birds. That item is being moved at
Commissioner Coletta's request.
The next item is to move item 16F3 to lOT. It's a
recommendation to approve the submittal of the attached cultural,
heritage, and nature tourism grant application for Visit Florida in the
amount of $5,000 for the Paradise Coast Blueway web site and future
search engine optimization. That item is being moved at
Commissioner Fiala's request.
The next item is to move item 17D to 10 -- excuse me -- to move
Page 6
June 20-21,2006
17D to 8D. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex
parte disclosure be provided by commission members. It's
PUDZ-2005-AR-856l, BRB Development, LLC, represented by D.
Wayne Arnold, AICP, ofQ. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., and
Richard Y ovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, P .A.,
requesting a rezone from the C-1 and C- 3 zoning districts to the
CPUD, commercial planned unit development zoning district,
proposing a variety of retail, office, professional, and business service
and indoor self-storage land uses with a maximum of 163,000
commercial floor area, to be known as the BRB Development CPUD.
The subj ect property consists of 3.2 acres, is located at 1025
Piper Boulevard, Section 23, Township 48 south, Range 25 east,
Collier County, Florida. That item is being moved at Commissioner
Coletta's request.
We have one time certain item, and then we have an order, a
sequential order change on the third page, and that's all I have.
We have a time certain item, and that's item 12B, to be heard at
Four p.m.; provide a status report on Florida Statute chapter 164
proceedings and in reference to the inverse condemnation lawsuit of
Bernard J. and Helen R. Nobel, and Vincent D. Doerr versus Collier
County in case number 05-0064-CA, and describe further attempts by
the staff of the South Florida Water Management District, the State of
Florida Division of Land, and the county to reach an agreement in the
matter. Again, that's at Four p.m., time certain today.
The next item is a sequential issue, and item 14A needs to be
heard prior to lOB. And the reason 14A, because the board will be
acting as the Community Redevelopment Agency, and then they will
also hear the item under lOB as the Board of County Commissioners.
And I'll only read -- and hopefully I'll only read it once. It's a
recommendation to approve selection of Wachovia Bank to provide a
$7 million line of credit to the CRA to purchase certain real property
within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment
Page 7
June 20-21, 2006
Agency, enter into a $7 million line of credit agreement with
Wachovia Bank, direct the county manager or his designees to
negotiate and prepare for subsequent approval all required enabling
documents and resolutions to pledge CRA funds as the loan
repayment source, authorize the chairman to sign the commitment
letter and all documents, and authorize all necessary budget
amendments.
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Outstanding job. I think that's got to be
a record amount of changes.
Are there any changes or corrections to today's agenda from the
County Manager (sic)?
MR. MUDD: County Attorney.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Attorney, excuse me.
MR. WEIGEL: No, nothing further. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Okay. At this time I'm going to
ask my fellow commissioners for -- also if they have any changes to
the summary agenda or any changes to the consent agenda and also to
give ex parte disclosure on the summary agenda, starting with
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I wouldn't dare make any
further changes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Some things you just need to let
go. Except I do -- I did talk to the petitioner on 17B and C, Mr.
Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you so much.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I had a meeting regarding 17 A
and a phone call, and also I had a meeting on 1 7B and C in my office,
and these are -- with the petitioner, and they're all in my files for the
Page 8
June 20-21,2006
public to view.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Of course, I think I pulled
about everything that anyone would ever want to pull. On the
summary agenda, 1 7 A, meetings, correspondence, emails, phone calls.
On 1 7B and 17C, I met with the representatives and discussed at
great lengths what their plans were for that particular item.
Other than that, that's it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I have no further
changes to the agenda, and my ex parte disclosure consists of some
meetings on 1 7 A, and I think probably those meetings applied to the
original hearing of that particular item. Nothing has been discussed
concerning the scrivener's error we're considering today.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
On 1 7 A, which was moved, I believe to 8D (sic), I have
meetings, emails and, of course, the discussion that took place last
time, and I think I also -- well, that's -- then I have, excuse me, 17D, I
believe, that was moved to 8D, I have meetings with correspondence,
emails.
And let's see, disclosures on the summary agenda. I believe that's
it. I think I've covered all the bases here.
So I would entertain a motion for the approval of today's agenda
-- regular consent and summary agenda as amended.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have a motion on the floor for
approval of today's consent, summary agenda as amended and regular
agenda.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 9
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 10
June 20-21,2006
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
June 20. 2006
Item 7 A to be continued to July 25. 2006 BCC meetina (Companion to Item 8C): This item
requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. ADA-20065-AR-9553, Rookery Bay Business Park, LLC, represented by Roetzel and
Andress, requesting an Administrative Appeal in regards to PUDEX-2005-AR-8478 for ASGM
Business Park PUD. Appealing the decision of the Zoning Director (Administrative Official) on
tolling of time for PUD sunset review under Section 250-58 of the Collier County Code of
Ordinances and Chapter 67-1246, Section 16 of the Laws of Florida (the special act) appealing the
March 8, 2006 determination. (Petitioner's request.)
Item 8A: In the Executive Summary under Considerations, the second sentence should read:
The PUD is approved for a total of 385 single family detached residential dwelling units, 196 villa
residential units and 144 multi-family condominium residences for a total of 725 residential units
along with recreational facilities. (Staff's request.)
Item 8C to be continued to July 25.2006 BCC meetina (Companion to Item 7A): This petition was
continued from February 14, 2006 and has been 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 of a mile south of Manatee Road, in Section 10, Township 51
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Petitioner's request.)
Item 100 to be continued to the July 25.2006 BCC meetina: Recommendation to approve an
Agreement for Sale and Purchase with Marie C. Brochu for 9.26 acres under the Conservation
Collier Land Acquisition Program, and a Utility Easement for the Collier County Water-Sewer
District, at a cost not to exceed $467,500. (Staff's request.)
Item 10L to be continued to the July 25.2006 BCC meetina: Recommendation to consider a
request from Lehill partners LLC specifically asking to overturn a staff denial of a request to
change the County recorded name and address of the Registry Resort to the Naples Grande
Resort and Club. (Petitioner's request.)
Item 10N to be continued to the October 10. 2006 BCC meetina. Recommendation that the Board
of County Commissioners approve a reimbursement of a portion of the impact fees paid for
Handsome Harrys Third Street Bistro, in the amount of $28,305.12, due to a change in the
calculation of the impact fees applicable to the project and the resulting over-payment of impact
fees. (Petitioner's request.)
Add On Item 10-0: To discuss retaining or removing the Cypress Way East Bridge as part of the
Immokalee Road widening project per Board direction at the June 6, 1006 meeting. (Staff's
request.)
Add On Item 14B: Recommendation to approve a grant agreement from the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) for $414,475 to expand the aircraft parking apron at the Marco Island
Executive Airport, including the design phase of the expansion and the acquisition of land
adjacent to the Marco Island Executive Airport Collier County's maximum match for this grant is
$21,814. (Staff's request.)
Item 16C1: The fiscal impact in the executive summary reads $888.921. The correct fiscal impact
is $800,921, as stated in the title. Also, the title and the Objective should read. . . the North
County Water Reclamation Facility (the word "County" was omitted). (Staff's request.)
Move 16A6 to 10R: Staff is requesting that the Board review staff's findings and recommendation
regarding waiving the requirement for the request for proposal process and authorize the single
source purchase of Van Buskirk, Ryffel & Associates Interactive Growth ModelTM, at an
estimated cost of $175,000. (Commissioner Fiala's request.)
Item 16B1 to be continued to the Julv 25.2006 BCC meetina: Recommendation to approve a
budget amendment of $177,184 to increase the General Fund (001) transfer to Transportation
Disadvantaged Fund (427). (Staff's request.)
Move 16B7 to 10S: Recommendation to approve Change Order #11 to Contract No. 97-2715 with
ABB, Inc. to provide professional engineering services related to portions of Phase II of the Lely
Area Stormwater Improvement Project (LASIP) construction, in the amount of $413,400, and to
approve increasing the hourly rates of 97-2715, Project #51101. (Commissioner Fiala's request.)
Move Item 16C1 0 to 10P: Recommendation to approve the official naming of the Naples Sanitary
Landfill to the Collier County Landfill located at 3901 White Lake Boulevard, Naples, FL.
(Commissioner Coletta's request.)
Item 16C11 to be continued to the Julv 25.2006 BCC meetina: Recommendation that the Board
approve work order #PRMG-262-02-06-01, under the cooperative agreement of Martin County
Contract #262-02 and necessary budget amendments to retain services of Public Resources
Management Group, Inc. (PRMG) in the estimated amount not to exceed $83,685 to perform the
Project Feasibility Report for Utility System Revenue Bonds, Series 2006 and assistance with
bond issuance for the Water/Sewer District. (Staffs request.)
Move Item 16D6 to 10Q: Recommendation to approve budget amendment in the amount of
$8,872.07, appropriating funds from the general fund reserves to pay for expenses associated
with a cock fighting seizure for staff salaries and overtime, food for seized birds, cage
construction costs, and rental of shade tents to house the birds. (Commissioner Coletta's
request.)
Move Item 16F3 to 10T: Recommendation to approve the submittal of the attached Cultural,
Heritage and Nature Tourism Grant Application for Visit Florida in the amount of $5,000 for the
Paradise Coast Blueway Web Site and future Search Engine Optimization. (Commissioner Fiala's
request.)
Move Item 17D to 8D: This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure
be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-2005-AR-8561, BRB Development, LLC,
represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. and Richard
Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, P.A., requesting a rezone from the C-1 and C-3
zoning districts to the "CPUD" Commercial Planned Unit Development zoning district proposing a
variety of retail, office, professional and business service, and indoor self storage land uses with
a maximum of 163,000 commercial floor area to be known as BRB Development CPUD. The
subject property, consisting of 3.2 acres, is located at 1025 Piper Boulevard, Section 23,
Township 48S, Range 25 E, Collier County, Florida. (Commissioner Coletta's request.)
Time Certain Items:
Item 12B to be heard at 4:00 p.m. Provide a status report on F.S. Chapter 164 Proceedings in
reference to the Inverse Condemnation lawsuit of Bernard J. and Helen R. Nobel, and Vincent D.
Doerr vs. Collier County, in Case No. OS-0064-CA and describe further attempts by the staffs of
the South Florida Water Management District, The State of Florida Division of Lands, and the
County to reach an agreement in the matter.
Item 14A to be heard prior to 10B: 14A reads: This item is the Board of County Commissioners
(BCC) acting as the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA). Recommendation that the
Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) to approve selection of Wachovia Bank to provide a
$7,000,000 Line of Credit to the CRA to purchase certain real property within the Bayshore
Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Agency; enter into a $7,000,000 line of credit
agreement with Wachovia bank; direct the County Manager or his designee to negotiate and
prepare for subsequent approval all required enabling documents and resolutions to pledge CRA
funds as the loan repayment source; authorize the Chairman to sign commitment letter and all
documents; and authorize all necessary budget amendments.
Item 10B to be heard immediatelv followina Item 14A: 10B reads: Recommendation to approve
selection of Wachovia Bank to provide a $7,000,000 line of credit to the CRA to purchase certain
real property within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Agency; enter
into a $7,000,000 line of credit agreement with Wachovia bank; direct the County Manager or his
designee to negotiate and prepare for subsequent approval all required enabling documents and
resolutions to pledge CRA funds as the loan repayment source; authorize the Chairman to sign
commitment letter and all documents; and authorize all necessary budget amendments.
June 20-21, 2006
Item #2B, #2C and #2D
MAY 16, 2006 - BCC/EAR BASED AMENDMENTS MEETING,
MAY 23, 2006 - BCC/REGULAR MEETING AND MAY 24, 2006
BCC/951 STUDY WORKSHOP - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
I'm looking for a motion for approval of the May 16, 2006,
BCC/EAR-Based Amendment Meeting; May 23,2006, BCC Regular
Meeting; and the May 24,2006, BCC/951 Study Workshop.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. A motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Fiala.
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.
Item #3A
SERVICE AWARDS: 20YEAR ATTENDEES - PRESENTED
And we're ready to move on here, I believe, with service awards.
At this time, if we'd, all of us commissioners would move down to the
front of the dais for the recognition of the people here with 20 and 25
years.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, this brings us to
Page 11
June 20-21, 2006
paragraph 3, which is service awards. And your first awardee is a
20-year awardee, and that's Ms. Vickie Wilson from Parks and
Recreation.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good morning, Vickie.
MS. WILSON: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Congratulations.
MS. WILSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Appreciate your service. I've got two
things here for you. Thank you.
MS. WILSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which park do you work at?
MS. WILSON: Vineyards.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Vickie, congratulations. Thank
you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll have to stop by and see you,
now that I know where you're at.
MS. WILSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Come here, we'll take a picture.
MS. WILSON: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Vickie, we'll take your picture.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, Vickie.
Item #3B
SERVICE AWARDS: 25 YEAR ATTENDEES - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Sir, that brings us to the 25-year awardees, and our
first awardee is Mr. Skip Camp, the Director of Facilities
Management.
(Applause.)
Page 12
June 20-21, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Congratulations. Thanks so much for
your servIce.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That is really good.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You brought all your staff so you'd
get a big hand.
MR. CAMP: No.
MR. MUDD: Get in the middle there, Skip. Come on in, Skip.
Get in the middle. Back up, Skip.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next 25-recipient (sic) is Joseph Corbo from
Road Maintenance.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you for your service.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The next 25 will be easier.
MR. CORBO: You know I came here with a set of hair.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what this job will do to you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Get in the middle.
MR. MUDD: We'll get you in a picture.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Get your picture, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MR.OCHS: Congratulations.
MR. MUDD: Good job.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: And the next 25-year recipient is Diane Flagg, and
she's the Director of Alternative Transportation Modes.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much for your service.
Keep them buses rolling.
MS. FLAGG: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Nice to see you with a little bit
of blush.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
Page 13
June 20-21,2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Get back there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was the escape mode.
MS. FLAGG: Yeah, it was.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Now, Commissioners, even though you don't have
any more plaques, we had one other 25-year attendee, and that's Millie
Kelly, and she can't be here today because her husband's having
open-heart surgery. So there's a good reason she's not here. She's
doing the really important stuff in her life.
Thank you very much. That ends the presentations.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well she set her priorities straight,
right?
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING JUNE 27 AS NATIONAL HIV
TESTING DAY - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to paragraph 4,
proclamations. And the first proclamation today is a proclamation
recognizing June 27, 2006, as National HIV Testing Day to be
accepted by Susan Craig, Director of Communicable Disease
Prevention within the Collier County Health Department.
And, Ms. Craig, if you could come forward, and anybody else
that came here in this particular endeavor, come on up to the front,
please.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Proclamation: Whereas, June 27
marks the 12th annual observance of National HIV Testing Day,
which reminds all Americans that HIV testing is an important step in
Page 14
June 20-21, 2006
the prevention and treatment of HIV / AIDS; and,
Whereas, new drugs and new treatments are bringing hope and
enhancing the quality of life for those who are infected with
HIV/AIDS; however, these advances can only help individuals if they
know their HIV status; and,
Whereas, an estimated 40,000 Americans are newly affected by
HIV each year, and at least one-fourth of Americans who are HIV
positive do not know it. In Collier County there are an average 70
newly diagnosed HIV / AIDS cases per year; and,
Whereas, National HIV Testing Day is an opportunity for
Americans to increase their awareness of this terrible disease and to
get tested for HIV/AIDS. By working together to end this pandemic,
the citizens of Collier County contribute to a brighter future for
themselves and for the people around the world.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that June 27, 2006, be
designated as National HIV Testing Day.
Done and ordered this 20th day of June, 2006, Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Frank Halas, Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have a motion to approve --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- this proclamation and a second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries unanimously. Thank you
so much.
(Applause. )
Page 15
June 20-21,2006
MR. MUDD: You want to say a couple words?
MS. CRAIG: I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank the
commissioners for supporting this important endeavor.
HIV testing is really the foundation of a good community HIV
Prevention Program. And this community now has rapid HIV testing.
That means any individual can get their test results within 20 minutes.
And currently that's being done at both health department sites,
and I think that's going to encourage a lot of folks, who didn't want to
wait the two or three weeks, to really get in there and get testing and
help us find those folks who are infected, help them prevent spreading
the infection, help them to keep their own health in good order, and to
help us get this epidemic under control in our community. And I
thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE COLLIER COUNTY
EMPLOYEE WELLNESS PROGRAM AND DESIGNATING JUNE
27, 2006 AS GOLD WELL WORKPLACE AWARD DAY -
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: The next proclamation is a proclamation
recognizing the Collier County Employee Wellness Program and
designating June 27,2006, as the Gold Well Workplace Award Day,
to be accepted by Marilyn Hamachek, the wellness program manager
for human resources, Collier County government.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Hi, Marilyn. If you have any
members of your staff that would like to join you up here, we'd love to
have them.
Page 16
June 20-21, 2006
MS. HAMACHEK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Please, come up front. Don't be
embarrassed. We want you to all be able to bask in the glory. And
when it comes to these proclamations, sometimes it's a mystery why
they assign them. In this case it's very evident why I got to read this
one, because -- the selection committee picked me because of my
good health and fine mental condition.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Why does that bring such a round of
laughter?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Whereas, the Collier County
Employee Wellness Program has received the Wellness Councils of
America Golden (sic) Level Well W orkplace Award on February 28,
2006; and,
Whereas, Collier County government has met a rigorous set of
criteria and has received recognition as one of America's healthiest
companies; and,
Whereas, Collier County government, in winning the Gold Well
Workplace Award has successfully built comparisons ( sic) worksite
wellness initiatives and has demonstrated concrete outcomes related to
the employee health behavior changes; and,
Whereas, the wellness program has shown savings in real dollars,
estimated to be more than one million dollars, since the start of the
program in 2001; and,
Whereas, the Collier County government has received one of the
only 20 Golden Level Awards awarded across the nation in 2006, and
only one other Florida county has received the Golden Level Award;
and,
Whereas, the award demonstrates Collier County government's
commitment to the health and well-being of its employees.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that June 27, 2006, be
designated as Golden Well Workplace Award Day in honor of
Page 1 7
June 20-21, 2006
receiving this prestigious award.
Done and ordered this, the 20th day of June, 2006, and
Commissioner Halas, Chairman, signing it.
And for that, I'd like to make the motion for approval.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I second that. There's a motion on the
floor by Commissioner Coletta for approving this proclamation,
seconded by myself.
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 so very
much.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One other thing, too. With this
goes a very, very beautiful trophy that I'm sure will receive a display
in your office in the appropriate place.
And on behalf of all of us commissioners, we thank you very
much for a job well done.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There we go. Hold the
proclamations.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Get that tag off the front.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That says return to sender.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do you want to say a few words?
MR.OCHS: Congratulations,
MR. MUDD: Super job.
Page 18
June 20-21, 2006
Commissioner, the next proclamation is --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think she's got a few words she'd like to
say.
MR. MUDD: Oh, I'm sorry.
MS. HAMACHEK: I would like to say a few words. I do want
to say that we probably wouldn't have gotten this award without the
strong support from our County Manager, Jim Mudd, and the Director
of Human Resources, Jean Merrit. And I just want to thank them for
caring for our employees and supporting the Wellness Program.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING JULY 15, 2006 AS BIG
BROTHER BIG SISTERS RECOGNITION DAY IN COLLIER
COUNTY
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, the next
proclamation is a proclamation recognizing July 15, 2006, as Big
Brothers, Big Sisters Recognition Day in Collier County. And if
you'd --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If anybody's here to receive this
award?
Whereas, Big Brothers and Big Sisters across America is the
largest provider of one-on-one youth mentoring services in the United
States and for nearly a century has been the nation's pre-eminent youth
service organization; and,
Whereas, Big Brothers and Big Sisters of America provides adult
mentors to hundreds of thousands of children in 5,000 communities
across the country with the goal to mentor one million children by the
Page 19
June 20-21, 2006
year 2010; and,
Whereas, Big Brothers and Big Sisters of America developed the
Bigs In Schools program to support Florida Governor Jeb Bush's
mentoring initiative to recruit 200,000 mentors who have offered
children individualized time and attention and -- at the children's
school for one hour a week during school year; and,
Whereas, based upon the 2003/2004 school year, children -- of
the children who were mentored, 95 (sic) percent increased their
attendance; 100 percent maintained or improved their grades; 93.7
were promoted to higher grades; and 87.9 showed improved behavior;
and,
Whereas, the national research has shown that the positive
relationships formed between youth and their big brothers and big
sisters have direct and measurable and lasting impact to children's
lives, and that mentored children are more likely to improve their
grades and the relationship with the families and peers, while being
less likely to skip school, use illegal drugs or alcohol or become
pregnant or involved in crimes (sic) activities;
Whereas, local Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Southwest Florida
is (sic) bringing a caring adult into the lives of children for the last 30
years, and it is only -- it is the only one -- one-on-one youth mentoring
program in Southwest Florida with 612 mentoring matches in place
and hundreds of additional children waiting for matches; and,
Whereas, supporting Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Southwest
Florida's ongoing efforts to recruit and to match caring adult mentors
with children in our community is an investment that will pay
immediate dividends as well as dividends in the future; and,
Whereas, on Saturday, July 15,2006, Big Brothers and Big
Sisters of Southwest Florida did host an annual summer picnic at
Fleischmann Park -- oh, I'm sorry -- it's July 15th, and will hold this
annual event, summer picnic, at Fleischmann Park from 11 a.m. until
2 p.m.
Page 20
June 20-21, 2006
During this month of -- and during the month of March 2007,
your organization will hold a series of events designating the
recognition and honor and recruitment of mentoring in Collier County.
Now, be it proclaimed by the Board of Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida, that July 15, 2006, be designated as Big Brothers and
Big Sisters Recognition Day of Collier County and March 2007 as Big
Brothers and Big Sisters Month in Collier County.
Done in this order, 20th day of June, 2006.
And Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we move this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning in regards to the approval of this
proclamation, and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
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: The proclamation carries.
Congratulations.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I thank you so very much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Appreciate what you're doing.
Thank you.
Page 21
June 20-21, 2006
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: On behalf of Big Brothers Big
Sisters, I would like to thank you for your support.
We currently have nearly 250 mentoring matches in Collier
County, and thanks to your support, we'll be able to recruit more
mentors, retain the ones we have, and recognize the current mentors.
We hope to increase our mentoring matches with our Bigs In
Schools program and our community-based mentoring program.
Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
Item #5A
PRESENTATION OF RECENT AWARDS AND RECOGNITION
RECEIVED BY THE COMMUNICATION AND CUSTOMER
RELATIONS DEPARTMENT - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: The next item on the agenda is presentations, and
the first presentation is a presentation of recent awards and recognition
received by the Communication and Customer Relations Department.
And Mr. John Torre, your Director of Communications and Customer
Relations will present.
MR. TORRE: Good morning, Commissioners. Thank you for
the opportunity to briefly present to you some of the recent
achievements of the Communication and Customer Relations
Department and also some of the departments that we've worked with
on an ongoing basis. And there are several individuals here I'd like to
recognize, too, for their work and their successes.
First off, we were just notified a few days ago that we had
received a 2006 achievement award in the National Association of
Counties for our pet adoption TV program, Happy Tails.
The NACO awards is in recognition of an innovative program
Page 22
June 20-21, 2006
which contributes to and enhances county government in the United
States. So we are very excited to receive that award.
There are also some awards in front of you that we have been
honored with in the last 12 months. From the National Association of
Telecommunicators, Officers and Advisors Organization, we did
receive a second-place award, public education for Happy Tails. We
received an honorable mention for Happy Tails for community
awareness, and we also received an honorable mention for our news
magazine program, Collier Focus.
From the City/County Communications and Marketing
Association, 3CMA, we received a -- I was excited about this because
it was right after we started publishing our community newsletter
around your community . We received a third-place award for
communications technology for this newsletter. It's designated as an
award of excellence.
And also from 3CMA we received a first-place award for most
creative activity with least dollars spent for Happy Tails.
From the Florida Government Communicators' Association,
which is a statewide group, we received a first-place award for our
World War II Capture Living History project and also a judges' award,
part of the World War II project, and we received a second-place
award for public information for Happy Tails and a first-place award
for a video series for Happy Tails.
From the Florida Public Relations Association, Southwest
Florida chapter -- they recently had their awards ceremony in Fort
Myers -- we received an award of distinction for the World War II
project, a judges' award for the World War II project, and an award of
distinction for our story about Hope, the dog, which is the story we
aired on Collier TV about DAS rescuing an abused dog and finding it
a permanent home with a Marco Island family.
And we also received from the Advertising Federation of
Southwest Florida, a Gold ADDY Award for our 2004 annual report,
Page 23
June 20-21, 2006
so we were also excited about that.
Individually I'd like to -- there are a number of people who
deserve credit for these awards, and they're here with me today.
Several are from my staff, others from DAS. Lavah Hetzel, our
Graphics Specialist; Troy Miller, our Manager of Cable Operations;
Bill Fassold, our Videographer; Sandra Arnold, who you know has
been the driving force behind the Wodd War II proj ect to preserve the
stories of Collier County's W odd War II veterans.
Also with us today, Camden Smith from the Public Services
Division for her role in hosting and promoting Happy Tails; DAS
Director, Margo Castorena, has joined us; and her staff including Paul
Morris and Tammy W olny, for their dedication and efforts in helping
us put together Happy Tails.
Also my thanks to Kady Arnold, who is recuperating from knee
surgery today, and she helps everyone look good on Collier
Television.
Thanks also to our public information coordinators with the
divisions, Connie Deane, Lisa Koehler, Margie Hapke, for their
support and contributions.
Thanks to county manager and his staff and the commissioners
and your staff. I don't think my 8th grade teacher has arrived yet, so I
can't thank her.
So with that, thank you again for your support.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'd like all those people that are
recognized to please stand for a moment for recognition.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I hope the TV camera is panning
that.
MR. TORRE: Yeah. They all do great work. And again, we
thank you for your support.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you for all your dedicated service.
We really appreciate it. Thank you so much.
Page 24
June 20-21, 2006
Item #5B
RECOGNIZING THE DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER
COUNTY FOR ENHANCING THEIR RECYCLING PROGRAM
DISTRICT WIDE - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, the next presentation is on behalf
of the Board of County Commissioners. We are recognizing the
District School Board of Collier County for enhancing their recycling
program district-wide.
And if Mr. Mobley would come forward. And, Dan, I believe
you're going to orchestrate this, correct?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning, Commissioners. Dan
Rodriguez, your Solid Waste Management Department Director. If
you want to go ahead and read the proclamation, or the presentation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We'd like to but I don't have it.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: You don't. Uh-oh. Let me hand you a copy
then. Sorry about that.
MR. MUDD: Dan, why don't you read it.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Okay. On behalf of the Board of Collier
County Commissioners, the Collier County Solid Waste Management
Department is pleased to recognize the District School Board of
Collier County for their efforts to contribute to the greater good of all
of Collier County by helping to sustain the life of the Collier County
Landfill by reducing their solid waste stream through an enhanced
recycling program district-wide.
The Collier County Solid Waste Management Department has
selected the District School Board of Collier County, Florida, as a
recipient of the WRAP Award for the expansion of the recycling and
waste reduction program.
In November 2005 the district school board implemented a
Page 25
June 20-21, 2006
recycling program to recycle paper, cardboard, glass, plastic,
aluminum, and metal cans throughout then entire school district.
The school district has reduced the use and removed dumpsters at
18 locations, saving $12,300 in garbage fees monthly.
As of February 2006, the district school board has recycled and
diverted from Collier County Landfill over 305,000 pounds of
recyclable materials. The School -- The District School Board
anticipates these amounts will increase as their employees continue to
transition towards recycling.
The WRAP Award program includes a certificate, atrophy, and a
space on the Collier County recycle's web site to showcase the school
district's waste reduction, recycling and use of the WRAP logo;
therefore, on behalf of the Board of the Collier County, the Solid
Waste Management Department congratulates the District School
Board of Collier County for their continued support in promoting
waste reduction and recycling. Their efforts will have a significant
positive impact sustaining the usable life of our Collier County
Landfill.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much.
It's my pleasure to present to you a plaque thanking you for your
contributions and another one. One for each. Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. That's a great job.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's just great. Thank you so
much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. MOBLEY: I just briefly want to say, on behalf of the
superintendent of schools, Mr. Baker, we want to thank you. And
we'll get better at it as we continue on. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Page 26
June 20-21,2006
MR. RODRIGUEZ: In addition, Commissioner, if we could, a
special thank you to the solid waste staff, Janet Go, who has managed
the program from its inception, and Judith Northiff (phonetic), who's
the -- who's participated in it as well. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They're back there.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Will they please stand to get recognized.
Thank you very much for your dedicated service. We appreciate it
very, very much.
Item #5C
PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
BY THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND
AIRPORT PLANNING AND CONSULTING DESIGN ENGINEER,
URS, INC., REGARDING THE MASTER PLAN AND PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) FOR THE IMMOKALEE
REGIONAL AIRPORT - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next presentation is a
presentation to the Board of County Commissioners by the Collier
County Airport Authority Executive Director and Airport Planning
and Consulting Design Engineer, URS, Inc., regarding the master plan
and planned unit development for the Immokalee Regional Airport.
And Ms. Theresa Cook, your director of Airport Authority, will
present.
MS. COOK: Good morning, Commissioners, Mr. Chairman. I
believe at your May meeting, you requested that the Airport Authority
update the Board of County Commissioners on the progress at the
Immokalee Airport.
So we've gotten our design engineer and consultant firm, URS, to
do a short presentation to you here today, and I want to introduce Mr.
Page 27
June 20-21, 2006
Michael Thompson from URS, and I'll summarize afterwards and
we'll take questions.
MR. THOMPSON: Good morning, Commissioners, Mr.
Chairman. My name is Mic Thompson. I represent URS Corporation
out of Tampa, Florida. Again, we're serving as general consultants to
the Collier County Airport Authority.
Today I'd like to present you some of our preliminary
recommendations and findings for the future planning of the
Immokalee Regional Airport.
The Immokalee Regional Airport today serves as one of the
state's 70 publicly-owned public operated general aviation airports. It
has two lighted 5,000-foot runways, over 60 based aircraft, depending
on what time of the year it is, that includes the typical services offered
to general aviation, such as power plant repair, which is the engines
and hull repair, and the fueling and sale of aviation fuels.
The airport has a number of designations which are unique to this
airport and place it in a prime position to attract and nurture both
aviation related and non-aviation related business enterprises.
The surrounding county and the City of Immokalee offer a
number of opportunities that this airport could be a part of. The Ave
Maria development, of course, is something new. The future of this
airport would most heavily depend on some of the local development,
and we see these developments that are occurring around the county as
being very positive for both the support and growth of airport.
Of particular interest is State Road 29 Immokalee bypass PD&E
study that the FDOT is currently initiating. We don't know exactly
when that's going to take place, but initial talks between the MPO,
FDOT and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife have looked at a number of
alternatives, one of which takes State Road 29 bypass out to the east
around the city and around the east side of the airport.
While this is very attractive for both the area and the airport,
there are some environmental concerns that have yet to be worked out.
Page 28
June 20-21,2006
The MPO placed this alternative on the table, one to the east, and
currently the fish and -- U.S. Fish and Wildlife, MPO and FDOT are
negotiating to examine the potential impacts to the panther habitat and
induced impacts to that same area.
The surrounding land uses around the airport are very conducive
to the future growth of the airport. Where many GA airports within
the State of Florida are hemmed in by incompatible land uses, you can
see from this generalized land use map that the airport is completely
surrounded, immediately surrounded by industrial or commercial
development zones.
The residential -- the low residential areas around the airport are
at such a distance that we don't see any incompatible land use or
potential takings or impacts to those incompatible land uses at this
time.
The existing conditions, as I show on this map, illustrate a former
military airport that was given to the county. It had three runways,
and for many years, was basically undeveloped. Today it has a new
entrance road and an incubator and a number of industrial
non-aviation support facilities, but more importantly, it has the
beginnings of a number of aviation-related facilities that are
developing along the north/south runway.
As part of our initial work with the Collier County Airport
Authority, URS was brought in to re-examine some of the previous
land planning that was done.
One of the first things that the planners looked at many years ago
was the need to support a number of runways. The three runways that
you have there, only two are basically needed. And the idea was to
close one of the three runways. So a decision was made to close the
one that runs to the northeast/southwest. And as you know today, that
is being used as a drag strip.
The closure of that runway gave us some opportunities, and it
gave the previous planners opportunities as well to look at what type
Page 29
June 20-21, 2006
of development might occur. Obviously it's an airport and not a drag
strip. This is making the highest and best use of the land today.
It was -- the previous plan looked at developing these facilities to
support aviation uses. It looked at setting aside a piece of the airport
for an upland management area basically to preserve the natural state
of that. That allowed them to further develop the airport, develop
aviation land uses, and also identify non-aviation land uses that would
bring revenue both to the county and the airport.
As shown on this map, the previous plan included removal of the
third runway, as I mentioned, and developing on top of that,
developing different types of pavements. The yellow areas represent
aviation-related, those that are immediately adjacent to the runway
and taxiways, identification of the infrastructure or entrance roads that
would have to come into the airport, and then clearly in the green
areas, those areas that could support non-aviation-related but
compatible land uses that would generate revenue streams.
URS came in and worked with the Airport Authority to identify
other possible alternatives to further enhance the airport's
development. First thing we recommended is that the Airport
Authority update its airport master plan. That is a plan that is dynamic
in nature, usually has a 20-year window but is updated on a five- to
seven-year career basis. It is time for that plan to be updated.
We also recognize there is planned unit development underway
for the airport and that proper planning has got to be in place for that
PUD to be effective and to shepherd the onward growth of the airport
properly.
One of the most important things we recognize is that we'd like to
reduce costs wherever possible and also make it so that the future
airport development was organized in a strategic and efficient fashion.
We recognize that there were alternatives to developing the
airport that could use the former runway pavement rather than
removing it. We looked at strategic land uses and we identified the
Page 30
June 20-21,2006
same non-aviation land uses, and we also recognized that there would
be a need in the future to extend the runway to accommodate a larger
number of the business jets that we anticipate may want to use the
airport in the future.
The current planning scheme is slightly different in the fact that
you see we're utilizing the third runway pavement, this reduced cost.
It also allows for more efficient development of the aviation-related
uses such that we can organize them in like units; in other words, like
storage units for aircraft of certain sizes, maintenance facilities in
certain areas, perhaps what we call an FPO or a GA terminal, general
aviation terminal. We wanted to make sure that the Airport Authority
had a plan in place that would show an organized fashion of
development that, when approached by an interested party could,
number one, have a plan in place to say, this is where we think you
ought to go, and we've set aside enough aviation-related land for you.
At the same time, we recognized the need for water retention and the
need to show non-aviation development opportunities as well.
You'll also see this large swath of yellow on the north side of the
airport. This is currently used for agricultural uses, but it has been
reserved, and we recommended that it remain that way for aviation
uses only.
It also shows a proposed extension of the east/west runway to the
east. There are two colors there or two shaded areas showing different
lengths. The first recommendation that we made is that you extend
the runway to a distance or to a length that would allow business jets
to use the airport more readily.
What we mean by that is, business jet usage requires certain
takeoff planes to have enough distance, for instance, to go from
Immokalee to their point of origin or their return point. We show an
ultimate extension, which is a total of 7,300 feet.
The shorter distance, 6,250, which is a 1,250-foot extension to
your existing 5,000- foot length, was predicated on the fact that we
Page 3 1
June 20-21,2006
recognize that if you extended the runway more than 25 percent, a
DRI may have to take place, which would encumber or slow down the
development process.
That DRI may not be required if, number one, the Airport
Authority has a master plan that is incorporated into the county's
comprehensive plan, and that comprehensive plan also integrates the
airport facilities with other regional transportation modes. In that
case, a DRI would not be required and that would expedite
development.
The ultimate length of 7,300 feet would accommodate between
95 and 99 percent of the business fleet. We see that as an important --
a strategic move for this airport to attract and nurture the type of
development that is compatible with this airport.
We've also recommended to the Airport Authority ideas that
would show -- and I apologize for the graphic on this screening -- but
your handouts clearly show ideas of how facilities could be developed
in an organized fashion and a strategic way at the airport to provide
the Airport Authority a game plan or a marketing plan to attract and
nurture aviation development.
This is a preliminary scheme. It does not represent an airport
master plan. It is a first stage of some recommendations to the Airport
Authority that would fall into a master planning process. The master
planning process would involve outside interest, it would have key
stakeholders, county representatives, city representatives, but it would
be a development in a cohesive and organized fashion so that at the
end of the day your master plan represents your best interests for this
airport and also provides an economic development tool.
The two proposed runways -- runway extensions, 1,250 feet and
then an additional 1,050 feet, would require the taking of additional
properties to the east. We estimate, based on the need to protect
airspace and the land uses adjacent to the airport along the flight path,
that approximately 43 acres would be required for the initial extension
Page 32
June 20-21, 2006
and approximately double that, or 86 acres, for the ultimate extension.
These are preliminary estimates at this time. They do not
represent other airport developments that may occur. It would be
compatible with the surrounding land use at this time. And, again,
these are preliminary recommendations by URS to the Airport
Authority .
The first most -- first and most important recommendation is that
a master plan be developed, that that plan be adopted by the county
and that the FAA be informed and have on file what's called an airport
layout plan, which is -- entitles them to have federal funds eligible for
this airport.
That concludes my presentation. I'm here to answer any
questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any questions from the
commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I believe we have one public speaker
that's accompanying this also.
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir; Tammie Nemecek.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. NEMECEK: Good morning, Commissioners. In taking this
in the order -- I know Theresa's got a couple more comments as well.
Tammie Nemecek, President of the Economic Development
Council. Wanted to come here today and -- you know, I understand
the update from the Airport Authority with regards to the permitting at
the airport.
As you know, we have been a partner with the Airport Authority
for many, many years. Actually creating the Airport Authority back
in 1994, came out of EDC efforts. And so we are very excited about
the opportunities that we have with the Florida Trade Port and the
Immokalee Regional Airport in order to grow jobs, grow development
out in eastern Collier County.
Page 33
June 20-21, 2006
One of the things that we continue to talk about as we try to grow
industry is putting certainty into the process. And we're here today to
support the efforts of the Airport Authority to get the Immokalee
Regional Airport off the ground, if you will, and allow for
development within -- within that park.
We've had a number of companies over the past several years
that have expressed significant interest in going into the Immokalee
Airport and sitting there. The difficulty is going through the federal
permitting progress, as we know, has been difficult.
N ow we're going through the PUD master plan update, and in the
meantime, the greatest opportunity that we've had with regards to the
development of Ave Maria, which has given validity to that airport
and the ability to attract businesses out there because the residential
development that's coupling with that business site, being able to have
places where people can live as well as work out in eastern Collier
County .
So it's important for us, coming from the economic development
standpoint, to be able to properly market the airport, properly market
the Florida Trade Port as a business destination, and get the airport
and the Florida Trade Port up and operational as quickly as possible.
URS is recognized around the country. We've recently
completed an analysis of the airport as far as what types of industries
would be ripe to attract there. And one of the questions we asked as
far as consultants that do well with developing airports -- and URS
was ranked up there at the top, so I'm really pleased to see that they're
part of this process.
I think with the development out at Ave Maria, with the
development out in eastern Collier County, it also opens up another
opportunity for us.
And something that we've discussed for several years and
discussed with the Airport Authority, is the ability to bring private
developers to the airport to help with the development.
Page 34
June 20-21,2006
I know that sometimes we're constrained with development at the
airport because we're waiting on grant dollars in order to move
projects forward. We believe that bringing in a private developer, as
has happened at several other airports around the state, could
definitely help to expedite our opportunities to put infrastructure into
the airport, to build buildings and to grow jobs out in the Immokalee
area.
So that's one thing that we would definitely like you to consider.
And if -- I've got a few more minutes, if you don't mind.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Just if you'd wrap it up.
MS. NEMECEK: Okay. But looking, again, long-term at this
airport, it's not something that's going to develop overnight, and I don't
think we all have that anticipation that it's something that will develop
overnight.
As we know in economic development, you know, it's a
significant number of years in order to put in infrastructure, get
companies interested, attract the businesses to the airport.
But with the development that's coming into eastern Collier
County, it's very important that we understand what we're going to--
what this airport is going to be when it grows up so that it doesn't
infringe on residential development around it.
And I think that's probably one of the things that we find with
other airports is that residential development comes in a lot quicker
than we can get the airports developed, and then you're stuck, and
we're interested in moving this forward as quickly as possible.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much, Tammie.
MS. NEMECEK: Thanks.
MS. COOK: I just have -- want to summarize what -- where
we're at in the airport stage. Excuse me for the Marco information.
That was backup.
Currently we have an SDP in to the county for permitting for a
lake and a taxiway. We have two consultants for the airport, and one
Page 35
June 20-21,2006
consultant, not URS, is working on this one. Response for this is a
little slow. We hope to have it back in after the first review in the first
few weeks in July, and completed up by hopefully August.
But just a summary. We've got a core permit for Immokalee in
April of this year. We have an FAA tentative allocation for the
taxiway, which is out to bid right now and should be back in, I
believe, next week.
Our taxiway construction bid closes -- I just said that.
The RFP for industrial development at the Immokalee Trade Port
will be published, hopefully, in a week, and in that we've asked for
developers to either propose development on one or multiple sites at
the Immokalee Airport for the first 20 to 30 acres that we have got our
core permit for.
We have an FAA grant award for the master plan that we expect
to see in August for approximately $150,000 at Immokalee Airport,
and our PUD application is being re -- repackaged for a proper
submittal to the county, and that should be submitted in August, and
then we have -- hopefully we'll have our land lease agreements with
those bidders for the development at the Immokalee (sic) in phase one
in August or September of this year, and start our South Florida Water
Management lake construction in November of this after we put it out
to bid.
Gives you an idea. Weare going through a lot out at Immokalee,
and it has a lot of process, but I think we're making headway.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Coletta, I believe you had some questions.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I do. I've got to be honest
with you, I wish I could say that I was really excited about everything
that's happening. I'm quite disturbed with the fact that since 1994, 12
years ago when we formed the trade port, we just seem to now be
getting interest going out there. And I'm not too sure what it's going to
take to be able to keep everything fired up.
Page 36
June 20-21, 2006
Very little has happened up to this point in time. And I know
there's all sorts of reasons why. But the reason we created the airport
authority some years ago was to come up with a private/public type of
partnership whereby the private enterprise could get involved and get
out there and make things happen much more expediently than
government.
It has been a long time. You know, 12 years has passed. We
seem to be getting to the point that we have a game plan in place now
to start moving things forward. But at the rate we're going, by the
time we get this together, I think we're going to find some of the
private business parks that are now talking about locating in the
Immokalee area are probably going to be there before the Airport
Authority will.
I just want to make sure that we have a commitment by
everybody that's out there to keep this going forward and not to find
reasons why it has to be delayed. Twelve years has been a long time.
This has been one of the -- for years we -- in Immokalee, we looked at
this as being the main leg of the stool to bring Immokalee together. It
seems like there's been a lot of disappointment.
Now, I'm sure with you aboard now, Theresa, we're going to start
to see some changes, but I would personally like to see this brought
back to us sometime in the near future with this particular screen
displayed to us and showing where we are compared to what we
originally heard we're going to get today and be able to follow that
progress as we go forward.
And this isn't meant to admonish you. It's meant to lay the facts
down. I know you're pretty new on the job, and I appreciate what
you're doing. But we need to keep going at this -- in a very
expeditious manner to keep it going forward.
MS. COOK: That is -- that's our goal. That's our number one
goal is to make sure Immokalee gets developed and get this process
moving along steady and keep it moving.
Page 37
June 20-21, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I see it as a diamond in the
rough, and it's probably going to be the mechanism for exciting new
development and -- economic development in that area. It's just very
exciting.
Being that you have a plan now for this extension, are there any
panther problems in that area that is proposed for the extension?
MS. COOK: We anticipate that there will be an impact on the
panther habitat according to the Fish and Wildlife, and we'll probably
most likely have to mitigate for that on the runway extension.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh, right, runway. And being
that you -- it's just a proposal now, I understand that, but is there a way
to start work on maybe reserving the land so nobody uses it for
something else and maybe even doing -- you know, moving forward
somehow to solve some of those panther problems before we actually
start buying up the land?
MS. COOK: The -- I've spoken with the entities that are -- that
have ownership rights on that property, and we're discussing the
amount of land that they would be willing to negotiate for. Those are
preliminary talks as we go through the master plan. Those entities
will be a part of our Master Plan Committee, along with some other
public and developers, et cetera, of the area in Immokalee.
So during that process we'll get their input, and they will get
more information on the development, and we'll lean toward
whichever direction we can with an extension of that runway,
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Last question. Do you have any
thoughts just, you know, in the back of your heads that maybe cargo
liners or something might be coming in at some point in time?
MS. COOK: We have our consultants exploring those avenues
of what type of cargo, small cargo or, you know, medium, but we
don't anticipate having large cargo at this -- in the near future due to
our proximity and our infrastructure in the roadways.
Page 38
June 20-21, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That takes a big airport too. But
yeah, thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have some questions. Can you give us
a brief update where we are as far as with the Fish and Wildlife with
the panther mitigation within the confines of the airport itself?
MS. COOK: We've -- as on our summary, first item, we received
our core permit, which is -- includes the Fish and Wildlife comments
for the Immokalee Airport. We have to still purchase what we told
them we would for the mitigation of the panther habitat, and that's
approximately the $350,000 that we've got partial funding committed
from the county, the FAA, and that should be committed. The real
estate office is dealing with that purchase right now.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can you clarify how long this has been
in front of the federal identities in regards to trying to get the permits?
How many months has this taken, this process?
MS. COOK: We received it in April, so I would -- I think it took
approximately 12 to 13 months, maybe 14 months, of actual submittal.
Before that there was preliminary environmental studies, and that
took, I believe, a couple years before I got here.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Now the preliminary
environmental studies, that is part of -- it's incorporated in regards to
getting the approval through Fish and Wildlife?
MS. COOK: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Now, what I'm -- the reason I
want to bring this on the record is to let people know that it hasn't been
held up because of something that the county hasn't done. It's been
held up because of federal requirements; is that correct?
MS. COOK: That is correct. We spent a great deal, two to three
years, on making sure that we get those environmental concerns
packaged up and studied and submitted to the Fish and Wildlife and
Corps of Army Engineers so that they can look at it for approximately
a year. And depending -- let's leave it at that.
Page 39
June 20-21, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So now we're over that largest
hurdle, and now we should move at, I guess, a good terminology
would be combat speed, right?
MS. COOK: Unfortunately, that hurdle was only for phase one,
163 acres of Immokalee Airport, of which we're getting about 30
industrial acres for development and approximately 40 of aviation
land available, so --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Now -- so what are we going to do about
-- do we have to mitigate other requirements other than buying land? I
mean, within the confines of the airport, are we -- additional
mitigation?
MS. COOK: Correct. Within the fenced area of the airport, if
we -- when we head into phase two, we'll have to -- we have a lot of
the environmental studies all packaged up, but we'll have to submit
that, let the Fish and Wildlife review the panther habitat impact, and
decide how much we have to mitigate again for those sections.
And we're just now looking at phase two, starting that process
and determining whether it's going to be a larger portion of the airport
or incremental as we started out on phase one.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do you anticipate that the time to get
this all approved is going to take the same kind of a time line as we just
experienced?
MS. COOK: I believe that we've probably taken off about a year
and a half of the timeline because we have the environmental study
already completed. So we just need to put that in a package and
package it up for Fish and Wildlife's review.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And do you feel that we'll get
taken care of, the second phase --
MS. COOK: I'm optimistic.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- within -- optimistic, within 12
months?
MS. COOK: Depending on when we start.
Page 40
June 20-21,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. What's your anticipation of
starting?
MS. COOK: We just brought it up at our last board meeting, so I
couldn't give you that time frame. It's a little bit to do with master
planning, the funding requirements. We're checking into DOT
funding to help mitigation. As you may -- DOT was very generous in
-- well, excuse me. Let me take it back.
FDO -- USDA and the rural OTED, Office of Tourism and
Development, provided $450,000 in grants each for the development
of the lake, so that's almost a million dollars right there that we got in
grant funding to offset our cost for mitigating for South Florida Water
Management, and FAA's helping to participate in the panther
mitigation, and so is one of the other grants. So those types of grants
were what we're trying to identify so we don't impact the general
funds.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, it looks like we've got the
snowball rolling downhill, and I just hope that the momentum
continues on so that we can address all the issues and get something
moving out there.
MS. COOK: That's what we hope, too.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much for all the work
that you're doing.
MS. COOK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any other questions from the
commissioners on it? If not, we'll move on to the next item.
Item #5D
REQUEST FOR HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD
MEMBER TO APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS TO PRESENT THE HISPANIC AFFAIRS
ADVISORY BOARD/COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD
Page 41
June 20-21, 2006
REPORT - PRESENTED AND MOTION TO ACCEPT REPORT -
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, the next presentation is a request
for the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board to appear before the board of
County Commissioners to present the Hispanic Affairs Advisory
Board, Collier County School Board, report. And I believe Dr. Van
Fleet is going to do that.
DR. VAN FLEET: Good morning, Commissioners. During the
fall and spring of2004/2005, the Hispanic --
MR. MUDD: Identify yourself for the board.
DR. VAN FLEET: Excuse me. I am James Van Fleet, a member
of the Collier County Hispanic Affairs Board.
During the fall and spring of 2004/2005, the Hispanic Affairs
Board conducted discussions with the various county constitutional
offices on their employment practices vis-a-vis the Hispanic
community.
During the District School Board presentation, it was apparent
that the numbers and percentages of Hispanics employed in
professional capacities was very low and was not improving.
Upon completion of the overall activity of interviewing various
government agencies, HUB requested members to seek additional
information on the status of Hispanics in the field of education. And
subsequent to that, I was appointed by the board to look into various
educational issues.
Our interest was not just in absolute numbers and percentages of
Hispanic teaching representation, but in employment trends and
obstacles to hiring Hispanics and in education questions in general.
In the first case, it is obvious that the talent pool is very shallow
and that good faith efforts are not enough to alter the situation.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Mr. Van Fleet, I think most of us -- this
is pretty much just a --
Page 42
June 20-21, 2006
DR. VAN FLEET: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- recovering the report that was
submitted to us; is that correct?
DR. VAN FLEET: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think all of us have read the report.
DR. VAN FLEET: All right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I think what we want to know is,
there is some deficiencies, but I think we really need to know, what's
the positive side; have you --
DR. VAN FLEET: Well, on the positive side, the Diversity
Committee of The School Board has adopted the report as a working
paper.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Fantastic.
DR. VAN FLEET: A number of the recommendations, very
specifically with reference to, quote, growing our own, meaning
programs that will help Hispanics in particular to become teachers and
to enter into the county school system, has been very actively
promoted.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Fantastic.
DR. VAN FLEET: And we are working extensively on that. So
the School Board, in effect, through the diversity committee, has been
very receptive to a number of the suggestions that were made in the
report.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
DR. VAN FLEET: And if there are any questions on that, I'll be
very happy to respond to them.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure. I have a couple commissioners
that have some questions.
DR. VAN FLEET: Surely.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, just one. You stated in here
that if a school is 40 percent Hispanic, then at least half or 20 percent
Page 43
June 20-21,2006
of the teachers should have Hispanic backgrounds. And one of the
things that we noticed in the schools in my area, which is East Naples,
we have schools that are over 90 percent Hispanic.
DR. VAN FLEET: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the problem that some of the
teachers have been relating to me is that because there are so many
Hispanic students there, they speak to each other in their native
language. It's more difficult for them to learn English because they
don't have English-speaking kids to interact with.
And I was wondering -- we can talk about this later. I don't want
to belabor this any. I'd be happy to meet with you -- if adding more
Hispanic teachers rather than English-speaking teachers would help
the children.
I would think what you would try to do is integrate them into the
English language so that they can better cope with living in our world
rather than have it become more Hispanic. As it is -- and as I said, the
teachers are saying it becomes a difficult problem for them to learn.
DR. VAN FLEET: Yes. It really wasn't a matter of more
Hispanic teachers in terms of communication with students.
According to Dr. Maria Torres in the School District, English is not so
much a problem with the students who do have, in most cases, say for
roughly 3,800 participants in the English language program, sufficient
ability in the language to continue their schooling activities. It's more
a matter of the cultural sensitivities and interaction with parents.
While students may speak to each other in Spanish, they don't do
so in a classroom situation. They do so outside of classroom as a kind
of special way of communicating with each other.
But in terms of communicating with parents, teachers do have
great difficulty simply because parents are the ones, most likely, not to
have a command of English.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
Page 44
June 20-21, 2006
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I don't think it's the Board
of Commissioners' obligations or duties to tell the School Board what
to do, period.
And I think the real problem is, from what I'm told, is a lot of
kids are not -- are told not to speak English at home. Speak the
language that they were born with.
So I think it's a matter of any action of employment to hire
Spanish-speaking people, whatever the employment issue area is, is
just the way to hold the people down that make a choice not to speak
English. And they cannot advance in this country, they cannot travel
in this country, without learning English and be able to communicate
with -- outside of the community. That's my opinion--
DR. VAN FLEET: Oh, yes. I totally --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're not asking us to adopt
this?
DR. VAN FLEET: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're not asking us to adopt
this?
DR. VAN FLEET: Yes, to accept the report.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's just a report and --
DR. VAN FLEET: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- I'm not going to use it -- I
don't think the Board of Commissioners should use it to interfere with
an elected body's duties, that being the School Board.
DR. VAN FLEET: I frankly don't understand the position simply
because you're dealing with individuals who are residents of this
community, thirteen and a half percent of the -- of the entire
population of our community, and it really has nothing to do with the
Spanish language. It has to do with the thorough integration of these
individuals into the socioeconomic mainstream of our community.
That's what all of the recommendations advanced.
Page 45
June 20-21, 2006
And it seems to me that that is something that ought to be of
concern, not just to one elected contingent, that is to say the School
Board, but to the entire population. The entire community really has a
responsibility to assist in this matter.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, what you stated is the
attempts to hire Hispanic teachers to communicate with parents, not so
much students, correct?
DR. VAN FLEET: That -- yes, that, indeed, would be very much
the case.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's my misunderstanding then,
because it's my understanding that the duties of a teacher of the school
is to teach the children. And I guess it's my misperception of what the
duties are, because being a County Commissioner, I don't know the
day-to-day activities and the duties of either administrators within the
school system or teachers.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It sounds like, that you -- I believe, from
what I read in your report and what I read between the lines was, that
there was some positive indications that the School Board was
working with your group and that it's a process that's going to take
time.
DR. VAN FLEET: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: But I think you've got -- I think you've
got the start of something good here, and we just want to encourage
the community to work -- and I believe that all of the kinks that I read
in the report, I think eventually those will be worked out of the
system.
But I think, as Commissioner Henning said, that one of the things
that we have to make sure is that we have the ability so that people can
speak the English language no matter where they go, and we, of
course, have some obligation to be required to know some Spanish.
But I would think that the national language here in this country
was pretty much based on the English language. I know my
Page 46
June 20-21,2006
forefathers, they came from eastern Europe, and one of the obligations
that was placed upon me as a young boy -- and my parents had come
from Europe -- was that they spoke native tongue there, and basically
we never spoke that language.
And I know that I probably lost something because there is
culture in that particular language. But they insisted, you know, in the
house that we speak English because this is where our new adopted
country was.
So I hope that -- I'm sure that we realize that we have a large
Spanish population here, and it's probably going to even get larger.
But I believe that there's obligations on both sides, and I really think
that we can work through that, and it sounds to me like there are some
positive tones from what you've just told us.
DR. VAN FLEET: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I appreciate your report. And I
think Commissioner Coy Ie has something to say.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. My ancestors were Irish,
and I've been struggling to speak English for years. It's very difficult.
I think we're confusing some things. When this issue first came
up, there was a -- in my estimate, a valid concern that one of our
advisory boards had taken on the charge of advising The School
District what they should do to resolve a problem, and I know that we
were concerned that our advisory boards not get involved in school
business even though the validity of the report is without question in
my opInIon.
And I think it's a jurisdictional issue that we're trying to resolve
here, not any resistance to achieving the improvements that you've
suggested.
So what I would suggest is that we -- and I think this is probably
all you're asking for -- is that we accept the report, that we recognize
that you have done it, that you have coordinated with the school, that
some positive things are beginning to happen from it, and we
Page 47
June 20-21,2006
appreciate that, but some ongoing work will be necessary in order to
follow through to evaluate changes that are made and make
suggestions for improvement.
What I would like to suggest so we don't get into this
jurisdictional disagreement is that if the Hispanic Affairs Advisory
Boards views this as an important issue overall for Collier County --
and I think it is -- that a separate committee be established for the
purpose of working with The School District to do things like that and
not make it part of Collier County's Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board.
Would that complicate things for you?
DR. VAN FLEET: No, I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think you've already established
the lines of communication with the school. What we're trying to do
is to make sure the school doesn't think that we're interfering in their
business. And I think if we have people who serve on both
committees -- let's suppose you establish another committee and you
also happen to serve on the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board, that
provides us an opportunity to link the two from the standpoint of ideas
and follow-up and additional studies, but it doesn't get us into this
uneasy territory of jurisdictional debates.
And so that's what I would suggest we do. I wouldn't suggest
that you stop working toward this goal, but do it as part of a separate
committee established to work directly with the school board on those
kinds of things. In fact, do they have a Hispanic Affairs Advisory
Board?
DR. VAN FLEET: No. The only board they have is the
Diversity Committee Board.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That sounds like that's a great start.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Are you on that board?
DR. VAN FLEET: Yes, I am.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That's a perfect thing. So if
you could continue working as part of that Diversity Advisory Board
Page 48
June 20-21, 2006
for the school and still serve on the Hispanic Advisory Board for the
county, it appears to me that's the perfect link there. And we -- in
fact, I would like to commend you for doing that work. I think it
provides a very valuable source of input to The School Board and to
us, as a matter of fact. But they're the ones who will have to take
action on most of these things.
DR. VAN FLEET: Oh, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I think most of the
commissioners are reluctant to get involved in that process. Although
the observations that it does benefit the community as a whole are
certainly valid, we have certain limits when it comes to other agencies
and other constitutional officers. We don't like to get involved in their
business, and they don't like for us to get involved in their business,
and they've told us so in very clear terms in the past.
So I don't know if that clarified anything or not, but --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think it did.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But can I just make a suggestion
that we accept the report of Dr. Van Fleet as a member of the school
board's diversity committee and recognize his efforts and express our
appreciation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning, I believe
you had a -- wanted to add to this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I think that's sufficient with
what Commissioner Coyle said.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would just like to add one note,
and that is, if, indeed, you decide to do something like that, maybe
you could check with the county attorneys at the time to see if
Sunshine Laws in any way playa role in this. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. That's what I was going to ask, is
to make sure that you check with the County Attorney on that.
So at that, I believe we have a motion on the floor and a second.
Page 49
June 20-21, 2006
A motion by Commissioner Coyle, a second by Commissioner
Henning ( sic), being --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner Coletta.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Coletta, excuse me. And if there's no
further discussion. This is for the approval of the report and that's
where it stands.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well--
MR. MUDD: Acceptance.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Acceptance of the report.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Commissioner Coyle,
can you restate the motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. It was to recognize the
efforts of Dr. Van Fleet as a member of The School Board.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, actually he's prepared it as a
member of the Diversity Committee of The School Board.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Because he's also a member of that
committee. But I think we also need to recognize him as a member of
the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board for taking the initiative to take
on studies of this nature, which is in the community's best interest.
So -- but I think recognizing the report as one that is prepared by
Dr. Van Fleet as a member of the Diversity Advisory Board for The
School Board is the appropriate action to take.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And that is included in your
second, sir?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do we have clarification, County
Attorney, on exactly what is put in the motion here?
MR. WEIGEL: I think you're just fine.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
Page 50
-.. '._-'---.~"'..". ".., .. --."'.-...,- T. ~ __
June 20-21,2006
If there's 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?
(No response.)
DR. VAN FLEET: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, Doctor. We
appreciate your time.
It's 10:31. We'll take a 12-minute break, or a 12-minute recess.
We'll be back here at 10:42.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mic.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, County Manager.
And we're back from recess. And I believe we have one item left
on 5 -- 5D?
MR. MUDD: No, sir. Finished that one. This brings us to --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, excuse me, 6A.
MR. MUDD: -- public petitions, 6, 6A.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep.
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION BY ROBERT MITCHELL TO DISCUSS
CODE ENFORCEMENT-CODE ENFORCEMENT TO PREPARE
A REPORT ON INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY MR. ROBERT
MITCHELL
Page 51
June 20-21, 2006
MR. MUDD: And this is a public petition request by Mr. Robert
Mitchell to discuss code enforcement. Mr. Mitchell?
MR. MITCHELL: Good morning. I'm here to -- because of a
code enforcement. Okay? They've gotten to the point of doing
nothing but harass, stalks, aiding and abetting, the whole thing.
Now, this started about six years ago. And in the first two years
they spent about 50 -- over 50 times on my property.
Now, I've gone in front of the code board -- Code Enforcement
Board, and I told them I thought that they were violating my
Constitutional rights, okay. And this was on -- excuse me -- April 26,
200l.
Mr. Laymen, who was at the head of it at the time, stopped and
told me that they did not have to follow the Constitution because the
Board of Commissioners had given them special privileges and did not
have to abide by it. I have the tapes here if you want to see it, okay.
I realized at that point, at that meeting, they're going to do what
they're going to do, and you couldn't do a thing about it.
Well, when I moved from Minnesota, I thought I moved to a
different state. I didn't know I moved to a different country. Even
today the code enforcement tells us they don't have to follow the
Constitution.
Now, I don't think that's right. I mean, after -- this is what's
supposed to be for us, but they say that they -- they lay the blame on
you because they say you give them the rights.
But my biggest thing is, what they're doing today is they're going
through every time -- and this first one in 2001, again, was anonymous
calls. You ask them who anonymous is, oh, we don't know. Well,
they could be anonymous. It's to a point where everyone in the
neighborhood is getting fed up with it, too.
So I went through, like I say, a bunch of stuff. Not only that,
once you do go to the board, like mine it says 30 days, I guess, the law
Page 52
June 20-21, 2006
says, in 30 days they have to be something completed with the code
enforcement. Well, of course, mine, I say, I have to get these permits
in, do this, do that, so they gave me 45.
At the same meeting they gave Little Italy a year and two months
to correct their code enforcement without penalty.
Now, in 2001, they've charged me like 2,500 in late (sic) because
the permits weren't ready. Now, they're in, the permits, they held
them. I had gone in, tried to get it straightened around. I got mad
because they wouldn't even let me talk to anybody. So I went back
into code enforcement, and I said the word -- said I was tired of this
shit in the --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sir, yes. Please refrain.
MR. MITCHELL: I was using this as what I said, because I just
-- what happened is, when I did this and I went back into the code
enforcement -- I mean code board and I talked them, all of a sudden
there's two officers and the guard were standing behind me. We were
getting some of the stuff solved. They asked if there was a problem
with it, she says, no, we're getting it solved.
So I said, fine. So okay, we finished. As I walked out the door,
of course, I got a year restraining order because they said you're not
allowed to say that word in county buildings.
Now, I was -- I've been in the back of the -- in back when that
building was for the inspectors and things like that, and I heard them,
they'd say -- asked me, what's this, to me when I handed them a plan
they didn't like. But it's not legal, I guess. So I found out.
So now they gave me the problem where I couldn't even go in
and out of that building even to pick up my permits. I had to go and
hire a permit company to get my permits when it was ready two weeks
afterwards. They held my permits for two weeks. I have the plans
here. The plans were ready on that date and signed.
They held it for two weeks just so they could penalize me and
fine me. Now, I don't think that's right. That's one start of it.
Page 53
June 20-21, 2006
The next thing is, again, is this anonymous. And the problem we
have with this anonymous is that these people -- the people we have in
the town or area or whatever, whatever, if -- they can have a vendetta
on you or are mad at you or whatever, so they just keep calling in and
calling in, and now all -- next thing you know, you've got code
enforcement.
I know about every two weeks -- within every two weeks, Ian has
been driving by. I've seen him at my neighbors', looking over the
fences, doing this, because the village voice, which is Poinciana
Village, says you can call anonymously.
Now, I have a right to face my accuser, so I asked him, who is it?
And he says, anonymous. I can do what I want. Well, this isn't right.
And I'm not the only one. I mean, this is why I finally wanted to get
in front of the board because, you know, I'm going to get -- I still own
-- the property's still going to be there, still doing it.
When I went in 2001, I had to put a fence. I had a fence replaced,
so I had to get a permit. Okay. So they brought up about the boat.
This happened now last -- last year, or this -- actually in 2001.
I had the boat on side of my building. My spa equipment was
behind the boat so I couldn't push it all the way to the back. The
supervisor at that time of code enforcement told me, fine. If you put
up -- get your neighbor's permission, you put up your fence so it's not
seen from the front yard, we have no problem with it. So I went to see
my neighbor, got the -- got it done, got permission. He had no
problem, or whatever.
Well, last year all of a sudden, I get a notice again. Now I have
to remove my -- I have to put my boat in the back of the property
which, again, means, okay, costs me more money. I'm supposed to
tear the fence down, do this.
So come to go in front of the board -- or what is it? Special
master's her name now. They did not notify me. It's supposed to be
10 days notice from notification, so -- but that was fine. We're all set
Page 54
June 20-21, 2006
to go in front of that board. It was the week after Wilma.
No notification. They canceled that meeting. So fine. I says,
okay. And they said, well, we'll cancel. W e'lllet you know when
we're going to have another meeting. And they brought it up -- and
they brought -- the thing on -- taped it on the window on the 9th day
instead of a 10-day notice to ask for an appeal, because the thing was
the Monday after Thanksgiving.
I had already had plane tickets to go up to Minnesota, which are
non-refundable, to see my grandbaby who was born the day after the
hurricane. And I called and explained that to them. They said, well,
we'll let you know. No, I don't think so. Tough. I said, well, what
about that 10-day notification? Tough is their attitude.
Now, I never heard anything until the middle of January, another
code enforcement -- not Ian, but another guy come -- come by and
says, you know you're being fined daily, don't you?
I says, what?
For not moving the boat. He says, yeah, don't you know that?
I says, no.
He said, well, you better call in there.
So I called in there. Oh, yes, you are.
Again, they put a lien on my property again. They have now got
a lien on my property again. I called to do it. N ope, they didn't give it
till January. They didn't even send me paperwork till the end of
January.
They then turned around and says, no, you're past the limitations
to even appeal this. This is the kind of games that are being played,
and you can understand why that would make anybody -- so I mean, I
have some suggestions on this. I mean, when I say I violated the
Fourth, Fifth and Six Amendment -- but I have some suggestions that
we should do.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sir, could you wrap up?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes. I mean, okay. I'll give you the best.
Page 55
June 20-21,2006
Okay, I think we should--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ten-minute rule.
MR. MITCHELL: My main bottom line is, I think I should be
reimbursed fines and penalties, I should have this harassment stopped.
Oh, Ian -- I had to call the police one time, he dared me to, to get him
off the property, which I did.
And he said, oh, I didn't see your no trespassing sign. It was
sitting right in the front so he could see it.
So I think the commission should warn this code enforcement
that they've got to stop or -- they have to stop this, and they should
also tell them that, you know, they don't have the right to violate our
Bill of Rights and the rights of the people.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: It should not be tolerable in this county.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MR. MITCHELL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Appreciate your time.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle had his
light on first.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I was -- Mr. Mitchell, are --
do you have all this written down? Would you give a copy to us of
everything you've said, okay?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I'd like to make that part of
the record, if you don't mind.
MR. MITCHELL: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're not going to be able to
answer those until --
MR. MITCHELL: There's more in it than I said.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But the fundamental issue is
code violations. Have you had code violations?
Page 56
June 20-21, 2006
MR. MITCHELL: Well, let's put it this way, have I had them,
yes. 2001, I had the code violation. I went through it and argued with
the board, yes, I did and that's why I had this meeting.
I did go through, get my permits and do it, okay. I take -- I tried
to take care of this.
Now, the boat problem was because if I had permission -- I had
the supervisor tell me to put a fence up and spend the money to do this
to hide the boat. I shouldn't have -- and I shouldn't have an inspector
crawling over fences asking my neighbor to take photos from the
fence. My neighbor had to tell him no.
He turned around and says, well, I saw him the next week. He's
stopping by looking in my property again.
And I says, hey, what's this going over to my neighbor's asking
permission to look over my back fence?
He says, well, that's okay. I got the pictures anyhow, which
meant he went some other place to go and look over my fence. Now,
this is in Poinciana Village. I mean, it's now out, and I think that's part
of this problem.
If he's going to start searching. This is search and seizure,
because I mean also, if you're fining me and assessing me fines and
putting liens on my property, they're searching and they're seizing my
property, because if I don't make the payment, you have the right to
take my property on fines and dues.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you're getting into legal areas
that neither you nor I are qualified to discuss.
MR. MITCHELL: Well, there's an attorney general's note here
about, it's illegal to go on property without a warrant. The attorney
general has already determined this about code enforcement,
specifically about code enforcement.
Now, it's in -- they have determined this years ago. Now, if
they've already done this and they're doing it illegal, I have to ask
code enforcement that they should -- they should be directed not to.
Page 57
June 20-21, 2006
Go get warrants if they need it, if they want to walk on -- they walked
all the way around my house 50 times before this. They walked in,
took pictures, all of my back yard and everything else, 2001. And I'm
saying it hasn't stopped. They're still going in my yard without
permISSIon.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I think we got the gist of the
thing.
And County Attorney, if you'd like to weigh in and give us some
comments on this. Obviously you've been probably involved in this
one way or another.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, actually no, the County Attorney has not
been involved in this. But the comment that I would make is that Mr.
Mitchell has brought some information forward. He has made
statements relating to purported past interactions with the Code
Enforcement Department.
It's unclear to me right now if there's a current enforcement
action against him. He has raised some issues pertaining to plain view
and walking on person's property, if it's posted or otherwise indicated
not to be there. These are things, of course, that the County Attorney
can review with the Code Enforcement Director in regard to their
current practices and advise them accordingly.
But there's really very little that I can comment on in regard to
Mr. Mitchell and the issues today.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. I think that was sufficient.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's that Attorney General's
opinion? Is there a header or a number on it?
MR. MITCHELL: It was a legal opinion, code enforcement,
search of private property. And this is the -- and Charlie Crist was the
-- they had an attorney general, Florida Office of Charlie Crist. And I
have it here, because it was about -- Polk County had questioned it,
and I have the papers here, so if anyone wants to see this, I'll leave this
Page 58
June 20-21, 2006
copy.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What -- and is that where you're
referring to your Constitutional rights?
MR. MITCHELL: Right. One of them is the Constitutional
rights of trespassing and the rights -- that was one of them going to
trespassing. The other two, of course, was -- the other two, of course,
is the Fifth and Sixth amendment. This is on the Fourth. I believe it's
the Fourth. I'm a little nervous up here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I just looked up, and I
seen the last lien against your property. And maybe the last fine --
and you'll have to correct me -- was in 2001.
MR. MITCHELL: No. They've now got one from November. I
was told it's on my credit report, things like this already. It was for
November. Let's see. Well, it was the Monday after Thanksgiving that
they made this determination, and I got notified in January that they
were going to lien my property, and I was fined $1,800 or something,
and I didn't even know about it.
I had to tear my fence down. Then I found out I tore -- I had a
fence behind and in front of my boat. I had to tear the thing down,
move all my hot tub equipment just to get the boat back so that I
wasn't being fined like 50 or $100 a day without even being notified in
the mail.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. MITCHELL: And then I've also got one going as of
tomorrow about my trucks parked on the grass. Seventeen years ago,
I moved here, I bought that property . We were allowed. We had
things that we had rights to. Every year you guys are changing the
codes, and I think there should be some kind of a statute of limitations.
Because it's ridiculous, if you buy the house being approved, then you
can't. You go out to Golden Gate Estates, acre and a quarter, they can
park it wherever they want.
If he lives on the corner, he can park it on the side of his house.
Page 59
June 20-21, 2006
If he has a carport, he can put it in the front of his house, yeah, under a
carport. I mean, some of these rules, I think have gotten a little out of
hand.
As far as parking, that's what I'm going for tomorrow. I've got
till tomorrow. They're basically telling me I have to dig up my front
yard -- dig up my front yard, put either gravel in or blacktop.
I've got one part I saw on one part that they didn't tell me on the
solution is it says turf, and I do have that turf. Well, turf is grass. And
it just says, as long as you have a designated parking area, it said.
Well, I've been parking there for 17 years. The only thing they ever
gave me one for was trying to -- I did not have a tag on a vehicle one
time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just have one more question.
MR. MITCHELL: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you feel that this is the
neighbor; the neighbor might have a vendetta?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, I do. I think it's the neighbor, and I
think it's also the whole Poinciana Village voice, because I had this
one from 2001. They have not quit. And in it, it says, you can report
violations of code, county code anonymously.
Some of the offenses are -- and this is back in 2000 -- cars not
with current tags, one-ton vehicles, and vehicles in the front yard it
said from 2001, and call them and give them the -- there is a number.
So you can -- this can be in the back of my village even, that they
can just sit there and call, and then they come in and they randomly
drive through.
And like I say, my neighbor across the street, he went looking
over a fence. He had a little kayak and he's -- and I saw him going
over, walking up, going over the fences. It's almost like he's -- he was
walking from house to house basically, Ian.
And you can understand, it's gotten to a point of being stalked,
not just by neighbors, but being stalked by our -- by code
Page 60
June 20-21, 2006
enforcement. And, you know, there's laws against stalking, and it
should include government employees also.
I'd asked him, his boss, to nicely move him to a different area,
maybe because he has that vendetta because I did call the police on
him. I asked nicely to have him moved. There's 35 code enforcers in
this town. Five, six years ago there was only five. We've now got 35.
It's a new way for Abe Skinner to get the permits so they can turn
around and he can go back and reappraise our property, and then he
can get new taxes. It's the way of circumventing the Save our Homes
amendment.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have a funny feeling there's
more than meets the eye in this. You know, we've only heard one side.
You happened to mention trucks all over your front yard. Well, you
know --
MR. MITCHELL: No, I don't.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you--
MR. MITCHELL: In a row.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You just said trucks in your front
yard. And you know, neighbors want their yard to look nice.
Neighbors want their neighbors to take care. I have no idea what your
property looks like. I will know tonight because I'll be by there.
MR. MITCHELL: Good.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just want to check that out.
MR. MITCHELL: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But you know, you said in here also
that Ian Jackson, over the last five years, has been stalking you.
MR. MITCHELL: No, I didn't say five years. I says over the last
years, not five.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, he hasn't even worked here
that long.
MR. MITCHELL: No, it's been over a -- well over a year
Page 61
June 20-21, 2006
though. It's been well over a year, let's put it that way. I said, this has
been going on since 2001 with code enforcement in general, but Ian
Jackson.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just have a funny feeling that
maybe we need to have more information about your property. I
would guess that if you kept your property neat and clean and you
abided by your neighborhood's deed restrictions and rules, I don't
think they would have a problem with you.
MR. MITCHELL: I tell you, as far as the parking thing, I have
two vehicles, and I have my other car parked. Now--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well--
MR. MITCHELL: No. The problem we have is in our whole
neighborhood they're making them tear out driveways, they're make
them do all the rest of this. Not -- code enforcement is walking in
making people dig up their front yards, doing this, where nobody had
a problem with it. We do keep our neighborhood neat. I've got a roof
problem right now, but I'm working on that, from the hurricane. I'm
still trying to get some of that. I mean --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to hear from code
enforcement actually.
MR. MITCHELL: Sure. And I'm sure he has pictures.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good.
MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, Code
Enforcement Director.
It sounds as though Mr. Mitchell has a problem with the process
and, you know, the fact that we allow anonymous complaints. That's
a policy that we've allowed for many years.
We get complaints on a daily basis from many citizens within the
county, and if we go out and we check and see that there is a violation,
we have to notify the property owner and tell them what they need to
do to comply. And if they fail to do that, then the other alternative is
the Code Enforcement Board and the Special Master, and Mr.
Page 62
June 20-21, 2006
Mitchell has been before both.
MR. MITCHELL: No. I have not been in front of the Special
Master. They wouldn't allow me.
MS. ARNOLD: But that's the process. And you know, I don't
think it's something that we want to modify at this time. Citizens have
the right to call in and voice their concerns, and if there is valid
violation, then it's our obligation to address it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. There's two
times -- and I think Ms. Arnold would agree with me -- that we get
complaints from residents out there. It's when we enforce the codes
and when we don't enforce the codes.
In both cases, you know, the public's wrath is well-spoken. And
I'll tell you something, I never would want to be a Code Enforcement
Officer. I marvel at these gentlemen and these ladies that go out there
day after day, and they don't always run into abuse, but they do run
into some people that are very strong minded and do believe their
rights are being violated.
Now, we do try to keep a strong arm and control on everything
that takes place out there. I'm not saying that occasionally there might
not be a slip. But one of the things that you mentioned early on was
that the code enforcement officers referred to the fact that the laws and
ordinances of this county are the domain of the Collier County
Commission, and they're absolutely correct.
They have no powers to be able to interpret those laws and to be
able to change them at will when they're before you. If they did, that
would be the reason for the termination of their employment.
But you did the right thing in coming here today. Weare the --
we are the people that represent the final authority for what happens,
and your voice is always welcome. And believe me, we're always
going to keep in mind what you told us today.
MS. ARNOLD: I just wanted to, if I could, Commissioners,
Page 63
June 20-21, 2006
Poinciana Village Association is very active, and we're trying to work
with them to address some of their concerns. And we do get, as he
mentioned, complaints registered through that association. They're
just trying to improve their neighborhood.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I guess the concern that I
have is one of the concerns about Constitutional rights and how we
apply it, how we apply this government. And I've heard the same
thing over and over again, where's my right? Where's my property
right?
And I would like to know what the procedure is. Is there a
written procedure of how you enter properties? We don't have to
answer that now, but I think we have to have something in writing,
because people -- people do have a right under the Constitution, the
highest document in the country here. And we must abide by it.
I -- this whole issue about anonymous, I think we need to take a
look at that. It's starting to get out of control. My feelings is, it started
out with the -- when we had a volunteer task force in Golden Gate, but
now it's spread countywide, and there possibly can be some abuse
from it.
Do you log in complaints you have, complaints, whether they be
anonymous or whether somebody gives their name?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we get a copy of that?
MS. ARNOLD: A copy of -- when somebody calls in and they
give us their names for that particular complaint, it gets placed on that
complaint. If they call in and they want to remain anonymous, there's
no name that is placed on there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would it be too much trouble to
give us a spreadsheet on anonymous and when somebody gives their
name?
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. We can do a report saying, you know,
Page 64
June 20-21, 2006
what numbers of our complaints are anonymous versus referred --
because we have different categories. They're referred by a
commissioner's office, they may be referred by other departments or
another agency or something like that, and we have that information.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it easy to compile that
information?
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. If you want me to do it for a year, I can
do it that way.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm asking for guidance here from the
County Attorney. When the code enforcement group was established,
was there any written procedures or laws that they have to follow by?
And do they also -- we make sure that we don't stop under the
Constitutional rights, or is there nothing that's written in there? And
do we have guidance from the County Attorney in regards to
procedures?
MR. WEIGEL: The answer is yes, there is periodic guidance
from the County Attorney relating to procedures. I believe really what
we're talking about here are the issues of due process typically that go
forward in regard to initiation of a complaint from whatever source,
whether anonymous or not, and then the investigation that occurs
subsequent to the complaint being registered with the department.
And from time to time the County Attorney Office is advised and
has reviewed the concepts and the requirements of appropriate due
process regarding the notifications that are made of the -- of the
review and adjudication processes that exist, whether it's the Special
Master or the Code Enforcement Board, so that, in fact, if a property
has been deemed by code enforcement to be in violation, there are two
or three, at least, different ways that have been previously determined
by case law as appropriate ways to provide notification of the
violation.
Mr. Mitchell had talked in terms of some issues he had
Page 65
June 20-21, 2006
concerning the either notification or late notification, at least to his
knowledge, of actions being taken by the Code Enforcement Board.
There are truly absolute requirements that must be met so that
people are, in fact, informed of and have the opportunity to represent
their own interests relating to code enforcement and notice of
violations or citations so that they do have due process and the ability
to defend themselves or make whatever points they wish to make to
the tribunal that's reviewing them, whether it's the Special Master of
the Code Enforcement Board.
The County Attorney Office does review these things from time
to time. More often than not it has to do with a particular -- a
particular violation or violation history that's coming through which
gives us the opportunity when it's brought to our attention to say this is
appropriate business, this is something that needs attention, or things
of that nature.
But we're also ready to review the process in general, and I do
believe that the Code Enforcement Director and the department have
heir own, in fact, rules and marching orders relating to how they
approach these issues.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do -- upon my last question, are
you telling me that we try -- we do weigh on the side of the citizen in
regards to addressing these issues?
MR. WEIGEL: No, I'm not saying that. I just said that there are
requirements -- there are requirements under the law that should be
met, and to the extent that they're brought to our attention, the County
Attorney Office attention to review, typically on an occasional case
basis, we will review those principles and advise the code enforcement
staff person or the director if they're meeting the requirement, the
issue that's been brought up in regard to the due process that's
required.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What I'm -- maybe I didn't state my
question correctly --
Page 66
June 20-21, 2006
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- is that we're not a police state, I hope,
okay, so that when there is a violation, that we try to weigh on the side
of the citizen, or do we not, in regards to, before we take action to
bring things back into compliance?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, I think that's a better question to
the Code Enforcement Department as to their approach -- their
approach to that because we advise them legally. We can't make them
implement policy, have no authority or ability to do so in regard to a
general approach. And so we tell them technically what they -- what
they should do. But we can't impose upon them the fact that they
walk an extra mile or provide a courtesy letter or things of that nature.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right.
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. Commissioner, the process is, if we --
upon finding a violation, we must notify the property owner, or if it's a
tenant or -- to let them know what the rules state. We do that verbally
very often. We also do that through the issuance of a notice of
violation, and it's an official document that explains what the codes
are, a copy of the ordinance is provided.
And we're trying to do more face-to-face contact because
sometimes it's difficult for somebody to understand, you know,
exactly, reading through the ordinance, what it means. And so we're
trying to increase our public contact and explain to the violator what
the violations are and how they can correct it.
That is done, and then time is given for compliance. And quite
often a lot of time is given for compliance before it gets to, you know,
the level of a Code Enforcement Board or a Special Master.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Last question I have for you is, the
guidelines that you follow, are these pretty much established from
community to community within the State of Florida?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes. All my investigators are also required to
go through phase certification, and they do that within certain months
Page 67
June 20-21, 2006
of hiring within the county, and these are all standard procedures, yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
Thank you, sir.
Commissioner Coyle, do you have--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I would just
like to ask that we ask the Code Enforcement Department to take the
information that the gentleman has provided us and give us a report
concerning his statements and position.
MS. ARNOLD: Sure. If I can get a copy of that, that would be
great.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure. I think he's got it right there. It's
going to be entered in the public record, so we'll have copies.
Thank you very much for your time, sir.
MR. MITCHELL: Okay, thank you. Who do I give this to?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You give it to the court reporter right
there, sir.
MR. MITCHELL: You want this, too?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. Thank you so much.
MR. MITCHELL: Thank you.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2006-150 APPOINTING MILES SCOFIELD, JON
FURY, NICOLE RYAN, CLARENCE TEARS, JAMES BYBEE,
JON IGLEHART, EDWARD OLESKY (WAVING TERM LIMITS),
FRED THOMAS, JR. (WAIVING TERM LIMITS), GARY
HOLLOWAY, PATRICIA GOODNIGHT AND COMMISSIONER
COLETTA AS BCC REPRESENTATIVE TO THE LAKE
TRAFFORD RESTORATION TASK FORCE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings to us item --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: 9A.
Page 68
June 20-21, 2006
MR. MUDD: -- 9A, which is appointment of members to the
Lake Trafford Restoration Task Force. And I believe Ms. Filson has a
clarifying statement to make.
MS. FILSON: Yeah. I understand there's been some confusion
on this. This is a 13-member committee with one county
commissioner as like an ex officio member, and the reason you're only
appointing 10 members today is because that's -- those are the only
applicants I received.
And the terms -- this is a little different than the other advisory
committees. Their terms all expired at the same time, which was April
23, 2006. That's the way they wanted it.
I believe they were established back in 1996 and then kept
renewing the resos. every two years, and so we finally asked them to
do it by ordinance, and then they wanted them, all the members, to be
four-year terms, and they all expired at the same time. So it's a little
different than some of the other committees.
So I'm asking you to consider the appointment of 10 members
today and acknowledge that Commissioner Coletta will be the
representative from the BCC on that committee.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So we've got a total of 11 members?
MS. FILSON: Well, Commissioner Coletta would be an ex
officio, so it would be 10 voting members plus the commissioner.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. FILSON: And I'm currently advertising for the other three
members.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any discussion by the
board? Commissioner Coyle, I guess.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I actually didn't have a
question, but just a comment. I will approve the appointment of these
people if you'd take Commissioner Coletta off.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll second that.
MS. FILSON: And if you do approve, section 5D of ordinance
Page 69
June 20-21, 2006
2001-55 will have to be waived for Mr. Olesky and Mr. Thomas who
are currently on more than two committees.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'll make a motion to
approve with waiver of the ordinance for Mr. Olesky.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll second it.
MS. FILSON: And Mr. Thomas.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning, I believe you
had a question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. The restoration efforts
are just about complete.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We're going to restore Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, okay. Good luck. The--
it's probably a probable -- most likely they'll come back and ask to
disband the committee within the four years?
MS. FILSON: Yeah. What they'll have to do is come back with
a final report to repeal the ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, maybe that should be part of
this motion, that they come back with a final report before the
expiration date of this committee. What do you think of that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we ought to tell the
liaison to, you know, get --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This in gear here, get this thing
finished up.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is that in your motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've got my marching orders.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is that second -- is that in your second,
sir?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I didn't make the second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, Commissioner Henning, is that in
your second?
Page 70
June 20-21, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
MS. FILSON: I just want to verify that the waiver is for Mr.
Olesky and Mr. Thomas.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, for both.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was just cleaning up
housekeeping. So on page -- the first page it says to appoint 10
members. On the second page it says to appoint 11. But you want to
appoint 10 voting members and a liaison from the commission, right?
MS. FILSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just for housekeeping.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Ten voting members and one
irrelevant member.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I appreciate the confidence that
the commission has bestowed upon me.
One question for Mr. Weigel. Since my name is on this agenda,
should I abstain or is it all right to vote in this particular issue?
MR. WEIGEL: No. It's fine for you to vote. You should vote.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question in
regards to the Lake Trafford Restoration Task Force.
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?
Page 71
June 20-21, 2006
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries, unanimous.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2006-151: RE-APPOINTING WILLIAM LEWIS,
RICHARD JOSLIN, JR., AND SYDNEY BLUM TO THE
CONTRACTORS LICENSING BOARD - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: That brings us to our next item, which is 9B,
appointment of members to the Contractors Licensing Board.
MS. FILSON: And if approved, these would all be
reappointments.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Does that mean that we have to -- this is
only their second term, or do we have to waive anything on this?
MS. FILSON: No. You don't have to waive anything on these.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. You kind of threw up a flag
there, so I want to make sure where we stood.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve the three
applicants; Mr. Lewis, Joslin and Blum.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coyle, seconded by Commissioner Henning.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, 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.
Page 72
June 20-21, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries, unanimous.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2006-152: APPOINTING JOSEPH LANGKA WEL
TO THE ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT
ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, and the next item is 9C,
appointment of a member to the Isle of Capri Fire Control District
Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve the committee's
recommendation, Joseph --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just Joseph.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, all those in favor of
appointing this individual that was the committee recommendation, 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, unanimous.
Item #9D
Page 73
June 20-21, 2006
RESOLUTION 2006-153: APPOINTING JON WALKER AND
KEITH UPSON TO THE BLACK AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD -
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 9D, appointment
of members to the Black Affairs Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve Jon Walker
and Keith Upson.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor
from Commissioner Coletta and a second by Commissioner Fiala for
approval of these two individuals for the Black Affairs Advisory
Board.
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.
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2006-154: APPOINTING ROCHELLE DOEPKE
TO THE BA YSHORE/GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE LOCAL
REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
Page 74
June 20-21, 2006
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 9E, appointment of
member to the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment
Advisory Board.
MS. FILSON: And this appointment will be made by the CRA
as opposed to the BCC.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CRA, here you go.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: May I have a motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to accept the committee
recommendation of Rochelle Doepke.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And a second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I have a second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. All those in favor, signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Thank you.
Item #10A
REPORT ON DRAINAGE ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH QUAIL
HOLLOW SUBDIVISION - APPROVE PHASE I; AFTER PHASE I
HAS BEEN COMPLETED, STAFF TO COME BACK WITH A
REPORT - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item on the agenda, we're
Page 75
June 20-21, 2006
now under paragraph 10, County Manager's report. The first item is
lOA, report to the board on the drainage issues associated with the
Quail Hollow subdivision as requested by the Board of County
Commissioners, and Mr. Tom Kuck, your Director of Engineering for
Community Development and Environmental Services, will present.
MR. KUCK: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record my
name is Tom Kuck. I'm the Engineering Director and County
Engineer in the CDS Division. I'm going to post -- I'm going to post a
drawing on the bulletin board that I'll refer to and give you a brief
history on -- what I'm going to -- I'm going to over to the drawing and
tell you what we found in response to Ms. Sharon Van Slyke's
presentation to you, the public petition on March 27th or 28th.
Can you hear me?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, we can.
MR. KUCK: Okay. Ms. Van Slyke lives in Quail Hollow. This
is Quail Hollow that I have highlighted around here. She actually
lives on this lot right here. What we did after the meeting in March, I
went out with one of the staff members and did a walk-through to try
and identify what some of the problems might be.
What we found was there's a series of catch basins along the
south side of Hollow Drive. We found that there's seven or eight of
them. Those catch basins are all plugged and the pipes that go
underneath the road to provide the drainage to take it over to the
retention area are plugged also.
We did meet with transportation, John Delate (phonetic), and he
has agreed that he will go out there, clean our the catch basins and
clean out the storm sewer pipes.
Another concern was whether or not the drainage swale that was
put in by Mandalay, which is located right here -- they were required
to put a drainage swale in along here, along here, and here,
discharging.
What we found is basically it meets the requirements. There's
Page 76
June 20-21, 2006
three or four places. One place is right in here, there's a place in here.
There's several stretches where they need to go in and lower the
ground by about three to four inches. There's some high spots. We'll
request the developer of Mandalay to do that.
Mandalay is still in the -- we still are -- they're under preliminary
acceptance. We are retaining bond. And then prior to us granting
them final acceptance, we'll ask them to do that work. I prefer to try
and contact them now before we really get a new drainage season.
The real problem though is, when Quail Hollow was developed,
everything to drain -- this is to the north -- everything including what
I've got crosshatched here in yellow was to drain, to go underneath the
road, and go up in and enter in the retention area, and then there's a
water control structure that discharges through -- where I've got it
green, there's a 12-inch pipe right here.
What happened when the builders built these homes, they didn't
follow the master drainage plan. Consequently the area I've got
crosshatched, which is like 47 of the 94 lots, instead of draining over
into this area, they are actually sheet flowing into this area here. We
believe cleaning these catch basins will help a little bit. And I'll
discuss that under phase two.
So basically what we're going to do, again, is have the developer,
Mandalay, clean up those ditches there. The County Transportation
has agreed to clean out the catch basins and the storm sewers, and
there's one other benefit. Right now the county is installing at
Rattlesnake Hammock Road, which is down along here -- all this
water from this whole area here drains down in there, and there is --
was an existing 12-foot by four-foot culvert under Rattlesnake
Hammock Road -- and they're in the process, they may have
completed it by now -- of removing that and putting two four-foot by
12- foot -- excuse me, two 12- foot by four-foot culverts under the road
which will eliminate and reduce the tail-water elevations up in this
area here, and that's what I'm recommending in phase one to be done.
Page 77
June 20-21,2006
In the event they still have problems, I've -- as is shown on the
executive summary, I would recommend going into phase two. I'm
not sure who would pay for that, if the county would like to set up an
MSTD district or if the county would help participate in it. But what
it would entail is the seven catch basins all along here, is getting them
lowered or putting windows in the catch basins so the water can get
into those, re-grading the swales along this side of the road to try and
pick up all this water here that's going in this direction to get it to go
into the retention area here up here in the preserved area.
Along with that, I would recommend that this 12-inch pipe here
be increased to 24 inches diameter pipe. You've got all these pipes
across the road. These seven locations are all 12 inch. I feel that this
is inadequate and it could be restraining, especially if this gets
corrected and we put this water into this area here.
At this time I'm open for any questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. Commissioner Coyle's first here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, just an observation. I think
we should go ahead and approve phase one and ask the staff to take
the direction they have recommended in phase one. It's
counterproductive to start speculating on what will be necessary after
that because we don't know what the improvements of phase one
really will be.
So I would suggest we approve phase one, and then once phase
one is completed, we do an evaluation to determine whatever other
action is needed at that point in time rather than try to speculate on it
now, and that way we could address this thing more specifically, and
then we wouldn't spend a lot of time debating what happens in the
future.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Right. I think that's a great idea.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. If -- as long as your direction
will be to ask the developer of Mandalay to dig that swale down a few
Page 78
June 20-21, 2006
inches, if they dug it down a little bit more, as long as they've got the
equipment there anyway, just dug it down a little bit more, would that
help?
MR. KUCK: No, it would not. You've actually got a high spot
in this swale right -- I'm going to say it's about elevation eight six.
You've got 1.2 feet of fall coming down here over into the water
control structure here, and then you've got the breakpoint in the swale
that grades down along here into the reserve area here. There's about a
one- foot fall in here. Lowering it any, you'd end up with pockets of
water.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to make a motion to
direct staff to bring back an executive summary for a budget
amendment for consideration of phase one funding of the Quail
Hollow Drive (sic) and other improvements.
MR. KUCK: Phase one will not require any funding other than
-- unless transportation's asking for money to clean out those catch
basins and swales. But it is a county responsibility. They are county
roads and dedicated to the county. There would be no charge to
having Mandalay clean up the swales there. When you get into phase
two, then you're talking, and my estimate's probably in the
neighborhood of 2- to $300,000.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct me. I'm going to
remove my motion and make a motion that we direct staff to complete
phase one.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. A motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning to approve phase one, and we have a second
by Commissioner Coyle.
Are there -- any other further discussion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I add to my second and ask
Page 79
June 20-21, 2006
Commissioner Henning if he would also add it to his motion to require
staff to come back to us with an after-action report after phase one is
completed with the description of anything else that's needed to be
done?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Through a correspondence.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Yes, that's in my
motion.
MR. KUCK: We will come back to you. And hopefully we can
get all this accomplished within the -- you know, the next month or
two, so when we get to the height of the drainage season, we can see
how it reacts to doing it. You know, doing it in the dry season, there
won't be anything to report until we get into the heavy rainfalls.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you've worked this out with
Mrs. Van Slyke, and that works to her agreement as well, right?
MR. KUCK: I believe it does. We've met several times. We
actually met yesterday morning, and she's pretty much in agreement.
Her real concern is those high spots in the swale.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great, okay.
MS. VAN SL YKE: I'd like to say that, with one exception--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Would you put your name on the record?
Ma'am?
MS. VAN SL YKE: -- he has done a wonderful job. Sharon Van
Slyke.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. VAN SL YKE: They've done a great job.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good.
MS. VAN SL YKE: And hopefully this will work, and if not, I'll
see you later.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Tom, I just want to mention real
quickly also, she's repeatedly praised you and all of the efforts that
Page 80
June 20-21, 2006
you've gone through, and she said you always return her calls
immediately and you've been ajoy to work with. And a lot of times
people don't hear that, so I just wanted to place that on the record.
MR. KUCK: Well, thank you.
And thank you, Sharon.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any other questions?
(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?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
Item #14A
RECOMMENDATION FOR THE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO APPROVE THE SELECTION
OF W ACHOVIA BANK TO PROVIDE A $7,000,000 LINE OF
CREDIT TO PURCHASE CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WITHIN
THE BA YSHORE/GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CRA APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item on the agenda is lOB.
And as you know from my change sheet this morning, that I
mentioned that we have to do 14B before we do lOB. And 14B, the
board will be acting as the CRA, and I'll read this particular item.
This item to be heard before item lOB. This item is the Board of
Page 81
June 20-21, 2006
County Commissioners acting as the Community Redevelopment
Agency.
It's a recommendation for the Community Redevelopment
Agency to approve selection of Wachovia Bank to provide a $7
million line of credit to the CRA to purchase certain real property
within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment
Agency, enter into a $7 million line of credit agreement with
Wachovia Bank, direct the County Manager or his designee to
negotiate and prepare for subsequent approval all required enabling
documents and resolutions to pledge CRA funds as the loan
repayment source, authorize the chairman to sign commitment letters
and all documents and authorize all necessary budget amendments.
And I believe Mr. David Jackson, your director of the
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle re -- Community Redevelopment
Agency, will present, if you have any questions.
MS. FILSON: Just so that I'm clear, Mr. Mudd, when you're
directing the chairman to sign, you're talking about the CRA
chairman?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MR. MUDD: In this particular case, yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And the gavel has been passed.
MR. JACKSON: Good morning, board members. David
Jackson, Executive Director, Collier County Community
Redevelopment Agency.
Previously you had approved for us to go out and to secure a loan
to purchase 17-plus acres on the Bayshore Drive area for
redevelopment purposes as part of the overall catalyst programs as
suggested in the Community Redevelopment Agency Master Plan.
We went out and did that. We used PFM, your Financial
Consultants, and we also -- we RFP'd it through the Purchasing
Department. Recommendation from PFM is Wachovia Bank that -- as
the lending institution for the $7 million line of credit.
Page 82
June 20-21, 2006
In there we need to sign a letter of commitment and then proceed.
And in the next meeting that you have in July will be where you'll
continue to finish up all the final documents. So we're asking for
approval for the County Manager or his designee to proceed at -- as
needed, to require the necessary documents, draft the necessary
resolutions through the County Attorney's Office, and present that to
you for signature for the loan.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This in no way puts the burden
onto the County; is that correct? This is strictly -- the burden's fully
on the CRA in regards to paying off the note. And maybe you can
elaborate how that note's going to be paid off.
MR. JACKSON: The note will be paid through obligation or
pledging of the Tax Incremental Financing, known as TIF, from the
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle portion of the Collier County Community
Redevelopment Agency. It has nothing to do with the Immokalee
area, okay? This money is a separate fund, it's separately budgeted,
and it -- that's where the money will come from to pay back the line of
credit.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor for
approval from Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Coy Ie.
Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we have -- the County
Attorney needs --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: No, you're fine. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Very good. Thank you.
Okay. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 83
June 20-21, 2006
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
Item #10B
RECOMMENDATION FOR COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO APPROVE SELECTION OF
W ACHOVIA BANK TO PROVIDE A $7,000,000 LINE OF
CREDIT TO THE CRA TO PURCHASE CERTAIN REAL
PROPERTY WITH THE BA YSHORE/GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE
COMMUNITY - BCC APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Stay there, David.
Okay. The next item is lOB. This item to be heard after item
14A. It's a recommendation for the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners to approve selection of Wachovia Bank to provide a
$7 million line of credit to the CRA to purchase certain real property
within the Bayshore Triangle Community Redevelopment Agency,
enter into a $7 million line of credit agreement with Wachovia Bank,
direct the county manager or his designee to negotiate and prepare for
subsequent approval of all required enabling documents and
resolutions, to pledge CRA funds as the loan repayment source,
authorize the chairman, in this case of the Board of County
Commissioners, to sign commitment -- the commitment letters and all
documents and authorize all necessary budget amendments.
It's basically an identical document that this board as the CRA
just approved, but now you're acting as the Board of County
Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
Page 84
June 20-21,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Fiala.
And we have -- a commissioner has a question. Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, this is going to obligate
the County, so it's not quite true that it's going to be an obligation by
the CRA, although I agree that it will be the funding source, but we do
have an obligation if the chairman has to sign it. I support the motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do you have anything to add to
that, David?
MR. JACKSON: The County is always responsible because
you're the parent organization of the CRA. You created it and you can
make it go away.
In there when you wrote the enabling documents, you established
that the Board of County Commissioners would be the ones who
retain and monitor the funds for the CRA, and so this is just a
formality of you, who are the treasurer for the CRA, is approving that
the CRA can do -- can go into this debt service.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. County Attorney, do you have
anything to add to this?
MR. WEIGEL: No. I think it's well explained.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a brief explanatory remark for
those who are listening. This is for money to purchase some property
within the Bayshore CRA which will be used for the improvement of
the Bayshore's CRA, Community Redevelopment Agency, and is
likely to be sold probably at a profit at some point in time. It is not
intended as a long-range acquisition in holding of property; am I
correct, David?
MR. JACKSON: Fifty percent--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: -- in that the intent, a portion of the property is
Page 85
June 20-21, 2006
to be either gifted or donated or used by the county for stormwater
management system, which is part of the redevelopment plan, and the
other part of it would be put back on the tax rolls through some type of
a request for proposal from the private sector. And the plan would be
-- the scope of work would be approved by the CRA board, and then
selection of the team would be by the CRA board, then we would go
forward. And eventually you'll put it back on the tax rolls as a
contributing portion to the redevelopment area.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: At a higher valuation, which would
generate more taxes for the CRA.
MR. JACKSON: Significant.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so it is a reasonably safe and
relatively short-term investment.
MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir, very much so.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: And just one piece, just because there has been a
little bit of stuff in the news. This is a purchase of a willing seller. It
has nothing to do with eminent domain. I just want to make sure that's
clear on the record based on some comments.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Was there any further discussion?
We have a motion on the floor, and I'll call the question. The motion
was made by Commissioner Coyle. I believe Commissioner Fiala
seconded.
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. Thank you.
Page 86
June 20-21, 2006
Item #10C
TWO AGREEMENTS FOR SALE AND PURCHASE OF 18.46
ACRES, KNOWN AS MILANO PARCELS, UNDER THE
CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM -
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item on
the agenda, which is 10C. It's a recommendation to approve two
agreements for sale and purchase of 18.46 acres known as Milano
parcels under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program at a
cost not to exceed $4,973,900. And Ms. Alexandra Sulecki, your
Conservation Collier Project Manager -- and you are the project
manager for that -- will present.
MS. SULECKI: Thank you. Good morning. For the record, my
name is Alexandra Sulecki, and I'm the Coordinator of the
Conservation Collier Program. I've been Director, I've been all--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Try Administrator.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: County Manager just can't get this
right.
MR. MUDD: The titles, they change every five minutes.
MS. SULECKI: This is brought to you this morning on your
regular agenda for a couple reasons, one, because of the value of it,
and the other is that staff scheduled it for your review prior to
receiving the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory
Committee recommendation.
And this was done in an effort to, as our lanyards say, exceed
expectations of our customers, in this case, the Milano's, and to move
as quickly and efficiently as possible, because our process is a long
one, and delaying things at the end can add an extra month or so to a
transaction.
Page 87
June 20-21, 2006
So today I bring to you the Conservation Collier Committee's
recommendation, it was made on June 12th, to approve this contract
and to purchase the property. And I've put up an aerial of the
property, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Where's the aerial?
MS. SULECKI: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
MS. SULECKI: There we go. It's the crosshatched property in
the center.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And this is right on Immokalee
Road; is that correct?
MS. SULECKI: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. What type of access are we going
to have on that property?
MS. SULECKI: Well, we will certainly have walking access and
bike access because the north side of that canal that runs along U.S. 41
is also the greenway trial, the future greenway.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. SULECKI: We have been negotiating and speaking with
the owners of the two commercial properties that are on the left, the
west of this, and they have indicated they are willing to work with us
for drive-through access if we could establish a parking lot on there in
the future. They are not able to do shared parking with us because they
need all the parking they have, but they are willing to work with us.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So there will be access by motor
vehicle some day eventually?
MS. SULECKI: We believe that, yes, that is definitely in the
future.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do you have any timeline when that
might be established?
MS. SULECKI: I don't have a time line at this point.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
Page 88
June 20-21, 2006
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, just so that you know, I do have
one speaker on this.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much. Are there
are any other questions from our fellow commissioners on this before
we call the speaker to the podium?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ifnot, if you'd call the first speaker,
please.
MS. FILSON: Brad Cornell.
MR. CORNELL: Good morning, Commissioners. Brad Cornell
on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society and Audubon of
Florida. I just wanted to -- I don't want to delay this, but I did want to
point out that this particular parcel has -- presents some unique
opportunities for the county relative to restoration and also for public
access and education because it's right across the street from a high
school and elementary school. It's very visible from Immokalee Road.
It's part of an existing wetland slough, the Cocohatchee west
slough that runs all the way from Corkscrew Swamp to the
Cocohatchee Canal and ultimately out into Wiggins Pass in the Gulf
of Mexico. So it's part of an important hydrologic system that exists
in North Naples.
It's going to be the subject of important watershed management
planning that you have already been obligated to and you've increased
your interest in that by prioritizing that through the EAR amendment
process and also through your budget process that you're going to be
looking at this week. So I think for all those reasons, this presents
some really important restoration and natural resource opportunities
for the county. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have one question for you. Is -- you
said this is kind of like a sheet flow area that's going to be used for
draining into the canal here along Immokalee Road. Isn't there
presently a berm there?
Page 89
June 20-21, 2006
MR. CORNELL: Yes, exactly, and that's part of the opportunity
for restoration. That berm, Audubon scientists have looked at this
berm. We've had a number of conversations with the Big Cypress
Basin, the South Florida Water Management District, relative to how
that berm could be modified.
If the Mirasol ditch, which has now been denied, is not dug, then
it presents an opportunity to restore flows across a wider face and
interface with the canal where now the berm prevents that. You could
do some important engineering changes to the top of the berm using
some movable weir structures or something like that to allow for peak
flows to enter into the canal and re-establish the connection on a wider
swath along the canal.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. The other question I have, it's--
you just kind of alerted me, and that is, you talked about a weir that
would be controllable. I would assume then it would be designed in
such a way so that we didn't have any flooding of neighborhoods to
the back of this.
MR. CORNELL: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. CORNELL: Correct. That would always be one of the
primary considerations in designing any kind of a restoration project
that had residential or commercial uses next to it, they would always
be looking to that end of it as well.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MR. CORNELL: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any --
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. The public hearing is closed. Is
there any final -- or any other discussions from my fellow
commissioners in regards to this?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
Page 90
June 20-21, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coyle for approval and a second by Commissioner
Fiala.
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: (Absent.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
Item #10E
RESOLUTION 2006-155 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR
SALE AND PURCHASE WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES A 4.39
ACRE PARCEL OWNED BY THE CONSERVATION COLLIER
LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Next item is item 10E, and that is -- 10D was
continued till the 25th of July, and I mentioned that earlier. 10E is a
recommendation to approve a resolution and agreement of sale and
purchase for the City of Naples for the sale of a 4.39-acre parcel
presently owned by the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition
Program for $10,900 at no additional cost to the county. And, again,
Ms. Alexander Sulecki will present.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Manager, was there a correction
on that, that the price was greater?
MR. MUDD: Nope. Alex is going to talk about that just a little
bit --
Page 91
June 20-21, 2006
Chairman HALAS: Okay, I'm sorry.
MR. MUDD: -- so that everybody understands what's going on.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, I'm sorry.
MS. SULECKI: Well, Commissioners, again, this was scheduled
for your review prior to the Conservation Collier Committee
recommendation.
And in this case, staff's recommendation in the executive
summary to approve the sale at $10,900, which was the appraised
value and the value that we paid the CDC Corporation for it, differs
from the Conservation Collier recommendation to ask instead for
$13,200.
And the reason for this is that prior to the Conservation Collier
Committee meeting, the Conservation Collier chairman requested that
I find out what a current estimated value of the parcel was. So I asked
our Real Estate Services staff, and they did provide me an estimate
based on area comparable sales.
The value was estimated to have risen slightly, $2,300 since we
purchased it at 10 thousand-nine, which was from an actual appraisal.
The 13-two, the second amount, was from an estimated appraisal.
So the Conservation Collier Committee felt that we should ask
what we might be asked if we were the purchaser. But I want to also
tell you that staff recommends we stay with the 10,900 value for a
couple of reasons; one, that was the actual appraised value and the
value that we paid and also that the difference, $2,300, would be used
up very quickly in maintenance costs in the first year or so.
So this allows us to avoid maintenance costs on a parcel that we
would like the City to acquire so it can be attached to the Pulling Park,
which is just south of there, and that was the intent from the start in
acquiring this property.
So why did -- why did we buy this property in the beginning?
We bought it because the Hamilton Harbor agreement obligated the
Collier Development Corporation to offer it to us, not the city. And
Page 92
June 20-21, 2006
there was an opportunity to buy it there, and our ordinance does allow
us to resell it for conservation purposes.
We were approached by a city councilperson very early in our
review process, and so we hoped to sell it to them all along. If not, if
something happened and we ended up with it, we still felt that it was
useful to acquire it for the purpose that Collier Development
Corporation would surely use it for mitigation purposes, and if we
were to acquire it and protect it, that would mean land somewhere else
would need to be used for those mitigation purchases or purposes. So
we felt that there was still reason enough for us to acquire.
And I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any questions by
Commissioners? Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'd like to recommend that we
purchase it at the price that staff recommends, the $10,000.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ten thousand-nine.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, whatever it is.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ten thousand, nine hundred.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think you meant to say purchase
-- sell it rather than purchase it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, I did mean to
say --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sell it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- sell it to the City of Naples for the
recommended amount that staff has in our report here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I would second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Fiala, and a second by Mr. --
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I do have one speaker.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, I'm sorry.
MR. CORNELL: I'll pass.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Pass, all right. Thank you very much.
Page 93
June 20-21, 2006
MS. FILSON: That's Brad Cornell.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Fiala and second by Commissioner Coyle in regards to
selling this property to the City of Naples for $10,900.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, 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: (Absent.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, our next --
MS. SULECKI: Thank you.
Item #10F
RESOLUTION 2006-156 AUTHORIZING THE CONDEMNATION
OF FEE SIMPLE INTERESTS AND/OR THOSE PERPETUAL OR
TEMPORARY EASEMENT INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF ROADWAY, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED FOR THE SIX-LANE
EXPANSION OF COLLIER BOULEVARD FROM U.S. 41 TO THE
GOLDEN GATE MAIN CANAL -ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, our next item is 10F. It's a
recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the condemnation
of fee simple interests and/or those perpetual and temporary interests
Page 94
June 20-21, 2006
necessary for the construction of roadway drainage and utility
improvements required for the six-lane expansion of Collier
Boulevard from U.S. 41 to the Golden Gate main canal.
It's capital improvement element number 86, project number
60001, estimated fiscal impact, $5,503,394. And Jay Ahmad, your
Director of Engineering for Transportation Services, will present.
MR. AHMAD: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
My name, again, for the record, is Jay Ahmad. I'm the Director of
Transportation Engineering and Construction Management.
Before you is item 1 OF, which are -- we're asking for your
approval of this resolution to authorize condemnation of the properties
required for the, what we call Collier south project.
Condemnation of properties is our last resort, and we are in
negotiation with all these property owners, 26 of them, and we think
we're going to have a resolution to -- if not all, almost all.
We have looked at -- and the reason we're bringing this before
you for your approval is just in case any of these negotiations fail, we
can maintain a schedule and go ahead with the project as planned.
We've considered alternate routes. And as you know, this is a
north/south important arterial for the overall massive plan that we
have. And Livingston, as you know, ends at Radio Road, and this is
the extension almost of the flow to the south to 41.
This is an important -- there is no alternative to this proj ect.
We've considered safety factors, we've used, in design of this proj ect,
all available manuals and standards of engineering practices,
MUTCD, and all (sic).
This is on the long-range transportation plan, and that was
adopted by this commission. And we've considered all environmental
factors, and we are before the South Florida Water Management
District for approval, and we expect approval in August. We've also
consulted with U.S. Fish and Wildlife and other agencies.
We hope that you grant approval for this resolution.t
Page 95
June 20-21, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Jay, do you have any aids there that you
could show us what your -- the lands that you're talking about? Do
you have anything there --
MR. AHMAD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- to show on the slides? I believe this--
MR. AHMAD: I have 26 of --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I think we just need a sample of
the reasoning that we're going to be -- what we're really looking at
here so people out there understand what the money's being spent for,
okay?
MR. AHMAD: Mr. Chairman, we're staying within the existing
right-of-way and we're widening pretty much to the center or to the
median, and at the intersection, we widen out for right-turn lanes and
for operational left-turn lanes. And for those intersections -- and Mr.
Mudd is showing on the screen -- is one of these parcels. For
example, we acquire a sliver of land just for those widening.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Back up, Jim, just to illustrate. The
part that's being acquired is really the dark portion--
MR. AHMAD: Correct, a sliver --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- there, that little tiny sliver in the
middle of that particular road, and about 50 or 40 sheets of this same
thing going up the entire stretch of the road showing tiny little slivers
of land.
MR. AHMAD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And this is what's costing the $5
million?
MR. AHMAD: Yes, sir. There are 26 property owners and -- for
the various -- and that's our estimates at this time.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I just want to make sure we got
that on the record so people understood exactly what we were talking
about and what was entailed in this process --
Page 96
June 20-21, 2006
MR. AHMAD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- in trying to widen 951.
Do I have any other discussions from commissioners or
questions?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just would like to make a
comment. I anticipate this is going to be approved. There is going to
be -- but I'd like for you to be present and pay very close attention to a
discussion we're going to have later today on 12A.
MR. AHMAD: I will be here, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it's very important that you be
available and be present for that discussion, okay?
MR. AHMAD: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll make a motion to approve this
one.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Got a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coy Ie and a second by Commissioner Henning.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Did we have anybody speaking on this?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Hearing 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: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And with that, we'll take a one-hour
break, and we'll be back at one clock. Thank you very much.
Page 97
June 20-21,2006
(A luncheon recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mic.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, County Manager.
And welcome back everybody to the afternoon session of the
Board of County Commissioners. I just want to make a statement at
this point that we will be in session until it's six clock, and then we
will reconvene tomorrow morning at nine. So I just want to let
everybody know ahead of time what our schedule is. We have a huge
itinerary, and we're going to try to address is as quickly as we can.
Thank you very much for your cooperation.
Item #7 A
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL REGARDING DECISION OF
ZONING DIRECTOR ON TOLLING OF TIME FOR PUD SUNSET
REVIEW FOR PUDEX-2005-AR-8478 FOR ASGM BUSINESS
PARK PUD; COMPANION TO ITEM 8C - MOTION TO
CONTINUE TO mL Y 25~ 2006 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us to paragraph 7,
which is the Board of Zoning Appeals. And even though we -- even
though during -- and I read that we were going to continue 7 A to 25
July to be on the -- in an abundance of caution, I would really like --
because it was an advertised public hearing -- the petitioner asked that
this particular item be continued until the 25th of July. If I could get a
board motion that basically states same, and then we'll move on to 7B,
SIr.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to continue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion to continue
Page 98
June 20-21, 2006
item 7 A by Commissioner Coyle, and a --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Coletta.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Coletta, and a second by Commissioner
Fiala. 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 #7B
RESOLUTION 2006-157 CU-2006-AR-9699 MINING VENTURE,
LLC.,REPRESENTED BY R. BRUCE ANDERSON, ESQ. OF
ROETZEL & ANDRESS, REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE
FOR (A) RURAL AGRICULTURE DISTRICT FOR EARTH
MINING: EXCAVATION OF FILL MATERIAL TO A
MAXIMUM DEPTH OF 60 FEET, OR TO THE CONFINING SOIL
LAYER, WHICHEVER IS LESS, AND BLASTING OF
MATERIAL IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL BLASTING
REQUIREMENTS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF
2,564+ ACRES, IS LOCATED EAST OF IMMOKALEE ROAD,
APPROXIMATELY 2 MILES NORTH OF OIL WELL ROAD, 1.5
MILES NORTH OF COUNTY FAIR GROUNDS, IN SECTION 35
& 36, TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY~ FLORIDA - ADOPTED W/STIPULATIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 7B. This item requires
that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
Page 99
June 20-21,2006
commission members.
It's conditional use 2006-AR-9699, Mining Venture, LLC,
represented by R. Bruce Anderson, Esquire, of Roetzel and Andress,
requesting a conditional use for A rural agricultural district for earth
mining, excavation of fill material to a maximum depth of 60 feet, or
to the confining soil layer, whichever is less, and blasting of material
in compliance with all blasting requirements.
The subject property consisting of2,564 plus or minus acres is
located east of Immokalee Road, approximately two miles north of Oil
Well Road, 1.5 miles north of the county fairgrounds in Section 35
and 36, Township 47 south, Range 27 east, Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. At this time all participants that
are going to participate in the -- in giving testimony in this, please rise
to be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you. At this time I'll ask
commissioners for disclosure, starting with Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I have met with
representatives of the petitioner, I've also received telephone calls
from representatives of the petitioner, and I've also received emails
from people who obj ect to this petition.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir. I have had meetings
with the petitioner and his representative, received a number of emails
and phone calls, and that covers it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
I've talked with staff, I've received emails and also had phone
calls on this, and that's as far as I know of my ex parte.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've had emails, phone calls, I
met with Bruce Anderson, and then later on I called Bruce Anderson
Page 100
June 20-21, 2006
with some questions that I had. Oh, I think I met with Bruce Tyson
and Bruce Anderson. Were you in my office on this one?
MR. TYSON: I was not.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, you were on another one. Sorry
about that. Just Bruce.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I did talk to Mr. Anderson, and I
received numerous correspondence from the neighboring community.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
Can we continue?
MR. TYSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Bruce
Tyson with WilsonMiller here in Naples. We are here for a
conditional use, the extension or the amendment, I should say, of a
conditional use that exists with an earth mining operation that is
within four sections of land just 'north of Orangetree.
With me today are -- is the owner's representative of this land,
Don Barber, Ben Jones and Stan Gadilus (phonetic), who are the Jones
Mining operators, we have Bruce Anderson from Roetzel and
Andress. From WilsonMiller, Jared Brown, Jeff Perry, and Brooke
Gabrialsen. Andy Woodruff is our Environmental Consultant with
Passarella & Associates. We have Dennis McCoy, who is our
geotechnical engineer, and Jeff Straw from Geosonics, who are
vibration and sound consultants.
Great. We have -- just so that you can be familiar with the
property, Immokalee Road, this is where it is going in its north/south
orientation and finally turns up on the top of the sketch here to go out
toward Immokalee. The property in question is 2,576 acres in four
sections of land.
Currently the access to this location is right here on Immokalee
Road. It's about a little -- about a half a mile, quarter of a mile
somewhat just north of the property line. You'd recognize that by an
orange or yellow flashing signal.
Page 101
June 20-21,2006
The mine itself is 626 acres that is located, generally speaking, in
the south central and eastern portion of the property.
The total parcel of land that you see is currently used for mining,
sod farming, and a pasture.
In 1999, the property received an -- the conditional use that we
are working with today. You know, at that time there was not a
sufficient demand for rock, and consequently what was applied for
was a conditional use permit that required that the -- or allowed the
operators of the pit to go in and remove the fill dirt, that surface
material that existed. And, generally speaking, that went down to an
elevation of plus or minus nine or 10 feet.
So today what you see when you look at this sketch is that you
have a situation where most of that material has been removed. We
are at an elevation that is about, again, somewhere between eight and
10 feet below the existing grade when it was started, and that's all of
the fill material that has been pulled or removed from the property.
I want to show you two sections that will kind of show exactly
what's happening with the existing and the proposed conditions. And
you'll notice that I've shown -- I've got a section line that has been cut
that shows the condition here, then there's also a section line -- let's
see if I pull this back just a little bit. There's another section line for
the property line that exists over here in that location. So I just want
you to get an idea as to what's happening.
There's an existing earth berm, which I'll highlight in orange on
this plan. There we go. Nope, the other one. Terrific.
Now, in all cases what you have is a situation where you have the
existing residential estates. That's both on the south and east sides.
There's a drainage canal in all cases that comes between those
properties and the property line where there is a fence, and then on the
other side of the fence there's a water management berm and a ditch
that has been placed in here. It occupies about 30 feet. And then it's
approximately about 1,000 feet before you get to the mine site.
Page 102
June 20-21, 2006
On the south side it's a little closer. It's about 970 feet. On the
east side it's upwards of 1,200 feet. And there is an existing earth
berm that has been constructed recently that exists between the rock
mine and any neighboring property.
Now, right now we're about nine feet, as I've shown here. We
have a permit to go to 20 feet, and the water elevation, you'll notice in
here, is probably at five plus or minus feet.
Now, what's important to recognize here is that this layer is
generally impenetrable by normal excavation. As I indicated before
when that blasting permit -- or excuse me. When the conditional use
permit was issued, blasting was not allowed.
And so what we're looking for here is to simply take that
situation, take that existing conditional use now and allow the blasting
so that we can extract the material. And I'm going to put up the
proposed section and show you exactly what wants to be
accomplished as we go through here.
What will happen here is everything, of course, up to this point is
identical. The earth berm by our proposal will be raised five feet. So
now we have 15 feet on this berm. We'll have a 20- foot landscape
buffer, which will be a type B buffer, which will wind up being a tree,
a 10- foot high tree, and a hedge, a continual hedge, put in at five feet,
and a tree every 25 feet. And then behind this we are requesting that,
with this blasting, to go to 45 feet or to the confining layer, whichever
is less.
So that's a snapshot of exactly what we're trying to accomplish.
Again, I'll put this one back up so that you can see the extent of those
berms. The prop -- just so that you're aware, this is a relatively
substantial existing grouping of trees and shrubs. We have it there.
We have a big grouping of those right in here, and then there's another
grouping up in here. So they would be a good buffer between the
properties themselves and the pit.
There's some open fields, and this is where we have almost a
Page 103
June 20-21, 2006
quarter mile between the pit and the closest home, but nonetheless,
this is where we want to place the berm and the buffer or extend the
height of the berm, I should say, and place the buffer in front of it.
I'd like to go through, if I could, if you have in your packet --
hopefully you have the conditions of approval that were placed in
front of you. I assume that you do have those, excuse me. But I do
want to make some suggestions as some modifications to those just
from a standpoint of clarification. I think it would be helpful that you
understand exactly what we're trying to accomplish.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Excuse me, Bruce.
MR. TYSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are these the recommendations from the
Planning Commission?
MR. TYSON: They are.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, thank you.
MR. TYSON: There should be -- you should have a grouping of,
if I'm not mistaken, 1 7 conditions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's correct, sir.
MR. TYSON: Okay. I think, generally speaking, they're very
clear. We don't want to make too many changes, but especially what I
just talked about, if you look at item two, I think there was a
misstatement in that from the standpoint of what's going on.
And I would recommend -- and if you would like to see a copy of
what I'm reading, I'll be happy to give it to you. But let me just read
this to you as to what we are proposing.
There is a residential -- where there are residential structures
adjacent to the property line, a 20-foot wide type B landscape buffer
shall be installed on the east and south sides of the earth berm which
borders the excavation site.
The landscape buffer may be planted with the same canopy trees
and shrubs throughout to sustain growth. The buffer may either be
irrigated with a sprinkler system and/or other means to ensure growth
Page 104
June 20-21, 2006
over the length of the project.
The earth berm will be 15 feet high. And then upon completion
of the excavation activity, the berm and the buffer shall be removed
within six months.
On item three, we would recommend, again, just so that it's clear
as to what was trying to be accomplished here -- we've recommended
it reads, an earth berm or sound absorbing material shall be installed
around the pumps and rock processing equipment if in use beyond
normal business hours of the operation up to the height of the exhaust
of the equipment being shielded.
The berm or sound absorbing material shall be installed within
six months of the approval of this conditional use.
We see nothing -- you know, item one, obviously, was fine as far
as we were concerned. Four, five, six and seven, I think, state things
that are obvious, and we will certainly recommend keeping those in
there.
Item eight, we would recommend this be changed simply to
reflect exactly what the current situation is and what the county
ordinances state, and we would recommend that eight read, the hours
of operation shall be limited to six a.m. to six p.m. Monday through
Saturday whereas authorized by the county manager to prevent
disturbance noise to the surrounding residential property owners.
Item nine, we would recommend be stricken simply because of
some facts that have come to -- we've come to learn since this -- the
hearing that we had with the Planning Commission.
One of the objections to item nine wound up being a -- from the
North Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Association, who objected to
the blasting based on the thickness of the soil. We're just trying to rip
and tear and hammer and do it that way. They subsequently have
come back to us and to the pit operators here and said, we agree with
your approach, and we would -- we would recommend that -- in fact,
that you go ahead and blast that material that you can. The other--
Page 105
June 20-21, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Bruce, nine and 12 are exactly the
same.
MR. TYSON: That is true. I mean, that's -- we'll get to that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I was going to ask questions before we
went out, because I think there are some other commissioners that
have some concerns over these items. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wasn't going to ask a question. I
was just telling him it's the same thing.
MR. TYSON: I'm not going to read this, but I just wanted to let
you know that we -- you know, in just going through everything, we
also went back and looked at an evaluation and a report that was done
by a local company, Mac Tech, when they were doing a soils
evaluation for this project in 2004.
And basically if you look down and towards about two-thirds of
the way down into this, it indicates, it is our opinion that the majority
of the moderately hard to hard rock encountered is of sufficient
hardness to require blasting to facilitate removal. Some of the soft
limestone may also not be rippable due to its depth and location
between the hard layers.
All we're doing here is simply indicating the fact that we believe,
and from all of the information that we have come to bear, collect here
to date, it's going to be far better to blast this material than it is to sit
there and try to rip it and then use a jackhammer to break it up. It's
going to be more noisy to do that than it will be to simply blast it and
then excavate it.
Item 10 is fine. Item 11 is fine. Item 12, you were right,
Commissioner Fiala. That is a duplicate of nine, and we also
recommend that that come out.
Item 13, you will notice that same language is used in paragraph
10 where they talk about, in the second sentence, blasting activities
shall not exceed eight times per month with a three-second maximum
duration with a low volume and close pattern. That says identically
Page 106
June 20-21, 2006
the same thing, so we're just recommending that it be removed.
Item 14 is fine. Item 15, we would suggest that, for flexibility,
that we add a sentence or two in there that indicates the transportation
department reserves the right to recommend alternative measures to
help ensure a safe operating solution in the event that it determines
that the passing lane is an unsuitable operational improvement.
And then all costs of the construction, you know, are -- or
alternative measures for the land in the right-of-way shall be the
applicant's responsibility.
And item 16 simply offers that flexibility without changing the
800 maximum trips. The only thing it does is indicate that those are
loaded trips, not simply a trip. We defined or helped define that that's
a loaded truck trip.
You may also have heard in the process -- if we could put the
first slide back up.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can I stop you at this point?
MR. TYSON: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think we have some questions from the
commissioners in regards to the items that were -- that you just
discussed.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Actually I have a question for
you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Being that -- your background
in l1oise, my understanding from transportation, if you put the
buffering, whether it be a noise wall or whatever, closer to the road,
you'd have more benefit from it than putting it far away.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It would -- that's true, but depending
upon where you're going to measure the noise source. You're better
off putting the buffer close to the mine in this case because it will
buffer it even more.
Page 107
June 20-21, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Because what happens is, is you
put the buffer farther away than the sound propagates out, and at that
point in time it radiates and has a better area of impacting people. So
you're better off putting it closer to the mine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I know you had some
knowledge in that, that's why I asked you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, I'd like to wait until the
presentation's finished.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But I'd like to reserve the right
to be able to come in after that, if I may.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure. Please continue then. I guess we
answered all the questions. Yeah.
MR. TYSON: Well, no. We'd just highlight one other thing for
you, and you possibly may be aware of this, that we have already
applied for an expansion to the mine. I'm just kind of going around
with a cursor to show you what the limits of that is.
And we will -- we will be back in front of you within another
three or four months once we have cleared all of the staff reviews, to
allow for this mine to be expanded as well.
So I just wanted to make it clear in your mind that we're doing
two different conditional uses here. And the reason that we're trying
to accelerate this one is because at this stage of the game, this mine is
virtually shut down until we can get some more material out of it.
But I think that's the majority of what we were anticipating
saying. So we've got a lot to -- a lot of experts that can answer
specific questions, and we'd be happy to do so.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Are there any questions at this
time for the presenter before we go on to staff?
Page 108
June 20-21,2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll listen to staff first.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Staff, could you make your
presentation.
MS. ZONE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Melissa Zone,
Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land
Development.
Pretty much what Mr. Tyson has stated today, staff has also
found to be true as in the land use locations. The area is agricultural in
the rural fringe area with the receiving lands.
And per the GMP, this area seems to be -- or not seems to be--
has been determined to be one of the better locations in Collier County
for mining excavation.
Staff reviewed this application on -- basically for the blasting
since everything else the applicant has been compliant with.
There are some of the conditional uses that I'm not against. The
most of it I'm okay with, or staff is okay with, but there are some
things that -- number two, what they're proposing on their conditional
use, upon completion, they will remove this six months -- remove the
berm, but that was part of the original conditional use that the
planning staff had imposed.
But staff is of the opinion, and Planning Commission as well, that
we want to make sure that the berms and the buffers were in place,
because the first time around they were supposed to have had that and
they didn't comply with that condition of approval.
So we stressed it again, and we put a time certain and gave them
six months after approval that these buffers -- so I would like to make
sure that that time certain is not removed from condition number two.
It would also help to ensure the residents that they are meeting
these conditions.
The other question that I might have on -- or would leave to the
board to determine but to keep in -- is with their condition of approval
number 13 with the exiting of the southbound lane. That passing lane
Page 109
June 20-21, 2006
was put in there because of the trips and the backed up traffic that the
Planning Commission felt this might -- having this passing lane would
resolve some of the congestion.
But alternative measure does not really -- is not very clear to us
as a -- what is an alternative measure? And so if they have an
alternative measure, I think that they should issue a little bit more
clear because the Planning Commission did state a southbound turning
-- or a passing lane. So those are two items that I think we need to
maybe address further.
The GMP, they meet everything with the criteria, legal
considerations. The LDC has made sure that they follow everything
that is to meet the regulations for blasting and excavation.
We have a blasting ordinance that monitors, and we have taken a
measure further than regular where a lot of the residents who were
concerned for their structures -- that the engineering staff, I gave the
list of residents who were called in, sent letters and were also at the
neighbor information (sic), and I compiled the list that we're giving to
the blaster who will go out before any blasting is done, and they will
survey each property, interior and exterior, to make sure that if there
are any complaints after the blasting has started, that we could now
make sure that that structure was sound or was not prior to the
blasting. So there are added measures that staff has taken to provide
safety for this blasting.
If there's any questions --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta, I believe, was
first.
MS. ZONE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I thank you. Yeah, I couldn't
agree with you more. That was one of the things down on my list as a
must-do to be able to take the time and go in there and videotape the
residents, their houses, the pools, whatever structures they have on
there --
Page 110
June 20-21, 2006
MS. ZONE: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- provide the homeowner a
copy of that video, and then keep another one in a safe place so -- in
the event that that problem does arise with the amounts of blasting.
I've got to compliment the petitioner in the fact that they did very
well with their community meetings. And one of the things that I'd
like Mr. Mudd to put up on the visualizer, if you would, please -- this
is from the Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Association, which
basically is the association in that particular area, and they've been
following this for some time.
Boy, that faded out to nothing.
MR. MUDD: It did. It faded out incredibly. It had everything to
do with this. I'll see what I can do, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No problem. Basically what it is
that they reviewed the whole propose, they listened very patiently to
everything that had to be offered, and they're in total agreement that
the blasting is something that will require less noise over a shorter
duration than to have heavy machinery in there breaking up rock that
is less than four feet thick, and doing this over a long process of time.
And, you know -- and that's something for some association to
weigh in on at that point. And as we all know, this rock and this fill is
very important. But then, again, too, the well-being of the neighbors
in that area is equally important.
A couple of things that I wanted to have explained to me is that
when it mentions about the berm placed up so that it is between the
mine and the existing structures out there.
MS. ZONE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, what about new structures
that come on, new houses that have built along the peripheral of this
particular excavation? Are they going to put a berm up for that also?
MS. ZONE: Well, Commissioner Coletta, that was why we--
staff had left that not for -- we kind of left it a little bit more and just --
Page 111
June 20-21, 2006
or put residential property so that in -- 10 years down the road, five
years, whatever it may be, someone does build a home, they need to
continue with that buffer and berm.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, the buffer and berm are
absolutely important. If you think about it for a minute, we only do it
for the homeowners that are there now. What about the people that
have an investment in a piece of property? Now, all of a sudden that
value of that property is going to be severely impaired by the action of
no buffer being put in place.
And I would like to see a buffer extended through the whole area
that's going to be connecting to these residential properties. That
would be one of the things that I would, you know, want to see done.
I don't want a person coming back to me five years from now or three
years from now and saying, you know, Commissioner Coletta, how
come you didn't provide for me?
MS. ZONE: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I built my home there, and
they're telling me they don't have to build it now because they built
them for the original properties and not for the one that's there now.
MS. ZONE: I couldn't agree more, Commissioner. I think that
one of the letters that we received and that's in your backup material
was someone who was from Kentucky who was concerned that this is
their property, they're looking to come down here. So it's for that
reason --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Absolutely.
MS. ZONE: -- that they were concerned. And though they
might not be as opposed to this being there, but they just wanted
added precautions. And they were very comfortable -- because we
spoke on the phone about what the county does to protect the homes
per our regulations. They were more comfortable. But still, the
visual, the sound, the buffering, was one of their concerns.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And also there was a
Page 112
June 20-21, 2006
recommendation from the Corkscrew Island Association that they
include a -- what do you call them?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Seismograph.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Seismograph on the premise
there so they could -- at any point in time our own inspectors could go
in there and check that to see if there was an abnormality as far as the
length of the blast or the size of the blast. That's one of the things I
want to know if the petitioners are going to agree to do.
MR. TYSON: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would you state that into the
mic, sir, and then we'll make sure we get it on the record.
MR. TYSON: Yes. We are planning to do that. We will
actually provide three; one to the north, one to the south, and one to
the east.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. And you also agree
to the pre-surveys to be done on all the houses and structures in the
area?
MR. TYSON: We will.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I mean the immediate area
surrounding the --
MR. TYSON : We'll certainly follow -- we'll follow the county
guidelines on that, and we will do exactly what they say and what
you've said.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And when new structures come
aboard that are built along the periphery of the pit, that you'll also do
an inspection of them at the time of the CO or shortly afterwards to
document them as far as the condition of them there?
MR. TYSON: We can do that. That's no question. As a matter
of fact, it's very good that we do.
And then just to answer your other question while I am (sic)
about the berm and the buffer, that's exactly why we've done what we
have done. We've extended that buffer so that it's not piecemeal. It's
Page 113
June 20-21, 2006
fully along the entire earth and berm so that we have not broken
anybody's view who -- we've had people saying, I want to continue to
have this view. I don't want to have something, a wall put up in front
of me. So there's a lot of people who have said, I enjoy the idea of
having 1,000 feet of open space to look at. And instead of blocking
that view right at the property line with the trees, we'll put all of those
trees right in front of the earth and berms --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think that's an excellent idea. I
don't have a problem with that, and I'm sure that's what the neighbors
want too.
Now, another question, too, if I may go on. The -- we have down
here, the conditional use permit should be reviewed every five years.
I've got a little bit of concern with that. I have no problem with the
staff review of this every year, at least for the first four, and maybe
every third year after that.
The concern is, is that five years is a lot of grace period to be able
to give someone. I was wondering if the petitioner would consider a
yearly review for the first year and then three years -- every three
years thereafter? It would be a staff review.
MS. ZONE: We would be more than happy to do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know you would.
MS. ZONE: We would be happy to. Whatever our
commissioners direct us to do, we will.
MR. TYSON: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll tell you what, rather than me
dominate this whole conversation, let me come back in a little bit. I
have two other commissioners who are waiting, and I've still got two
pages to go.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's probably good he's going to
wipe it all up after we're finished. You know he knows that stuff so
well.
Page 114
June 20-21, 2006
Yes. The first thing I wanted to know was, when does the rock
crushing begin? I know that that's coming up, right?
MR. TYSON: That is correct. That will start with the blasting
operation. It will be both of those things will happen simultaneously,
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's really noise, right?
MR. TYSON: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Rock crushing isn't?
MR. TYSON: Not with the piece of equipment that will be here.
It's relatively quiet. One of the things, again, that -- and as a matter of
fact, what Commissioner Halas with Commissioner Henning's
question, responded to is the idea of now going 15 feet with the height
of this earth berm and having those walls as steep as possible so that
they'll stand up is the best noise attenuation that we can do to that rock
mine. And this is not a piece of equipment that you may have seen
with a former Florida Rock site here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. TYSON: This you won't see because it won't have -- it's
basically contained with -- it's not much bigger than the size of the
flatbed that it's brought in on. So it's portable, it will move around the
property so it's not -- you don't have a lot of trucks taking pieces of
rock and all to a central point. It will move with -- as the process
moves.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd only heard rock crushing, I think,
twice. Man, it was nasty. So if you say that it's not --
MR. TYSON: They've made some significant advances of that,
and I can have a specialist give you that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I wanted to address the
berms and the landscaping, the type B landscaping. I really believe
that, that should be done immediately, not in six months, because what
we're trying to do here is to be -- you know, protect these landowners
that are in that area, and I think that that's really very important, if my
other commissioners would agree with me.
Page 115
June 20-21, 2006
And I had a couple other questions here. Commissioner Henning
-- or Coletta, rather, was talking about every three years. I had
marked down here that I felt that it should be reviewed every two
years. There's so much going on all the time, all the time, and this
way I think that they can keep track of what we feel -- we can keep
track of what things are going on, and we can also listen to the
neighbors and know how they feel. I think that's very important.
The next question, in here you stated that -- I thought this was
interesting. In condition 16 it says there would be 800 maximum trips,
that's loaded trips, so that means 1,600 trips a day, right? Because we
have to go back and forth. Okay, 1,600 trips a day, but just until the
southbound lane has been installed, and then you lift that, but it
doesn't say then how many maximum it is.
And yet it was interesting, just a little bit further back here, it
states -- on page 40 of 66, it states, activity is expected to remain at
existing levels, at 6- to 800 loads per day for the next two years,
followed by a gradual decline in daily activity.
And I was wondering how it could decline if you're lifting the
maximum and if you're going to enlarge the mine, and then you're
going to be blasting and then crushing rock. It would seem that you
have more trips rather than declining trips. It's a conflict in my mind.
MR. TYSON: I understand what you're saying, I think what it --
what that statement is, is from the fact of the existing mine itself. And
what has been stated there is exactly the case. It got to a peak of about
800 trips, and it has fallen off virtually to almost none right now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see.
MR. TYSON: So that's -- what happened is, is it built up over
the years, got a maximum, and now it's gone back down.
We will -- of course, when the time comes for the expansion,
that's a different project. We'll have to repackage that and come back
with some different sets of data for you.
But as far is it relates to this current mine, you know, having --
Page 116
June 20-21,2006
well, there's an interesting -- interesting side to that is that the county's
going to want a lot of material from that truck to build roads. At the
same time we recognize that there's a safety issue that could be
existing at that location, and we want to do everything we can to
alleviate that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. My last question, Bruce.
You have a few people that have written letters. We all read
everything in here. One of them was saying that the husband had a
lung transplant. And so now, you know, if there's more dust created
and more trips going and crushing and so forth, now, he's not going to
be able to sell the house because who's going to want to buy next to an
earth mine and noise all day long?
Would -- and so, you know, they'd kind of be -- they'd just be
stuck there. Would the owner of this mine or the owners of this mine
be willing to go in and buy this person's house if they want to sell it? I
don't even know who in the heck they are -- I don't mean who in the
heck. But to -- rather than suffer the consequences of what could
happen to him?
MR. TYSON: Well, that's obviously something that we'd have to
take into consideration and review.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But he can't sell it on the open
market.
MR. TYSON: You know, I think we're doing everything we can
at this stage of the game from the standpoint of placing these berms
and these buffers around the mine. What was visible in the past is no
longer going to be visible. You won't see this operation anymore.
There will be some sound, but at the same time, with all the
attenuation devices that will be in place, I think it will be a much
different operation.
In relation to dust --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. TYSON: -- I think that now what's going to happen is that
Page 11 7
June 20-21,2006
we're going to be -- a lot of this excavation will occur in wet, no
longer in the dry. I think there was a fair amount of that -- there could
have been under certain sets of circumstances. The mining operators
have been very good from a standpoint of watering the roadways.
There's the first half mile of every truck that comes in, goes out,
goes over a paved surface, so consequently, there's -- it's not like a lot
of mines that we've seen -- and they've taken and they've done a very
good job in my estimation of doing what they can to control the
amount of dust and other noise that takes place on the property.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How about if the neighbors there, if
they have any problems? Like, for instance, when they had the
problem with all the mulch and the smell that came from that? As
soon as the owner heard about it at this meeting, he said, they're gone
tomorrow, and that's great, but they didn't have anybody to contact in
the meantime.
Will you have a contact person so that if the neighbors have a
problem, rather than have it get -- you know, go out of proportion,
they would have a contact person that they could call?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may? I don't mind being the
contact person they can call.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I meant from their company.
Not from staff, I meant from their company.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, no. I know that. But I
mean, I'd just as soon it came from my office--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- back to the company.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Rather than it go to the
company and them dealing with someone they don't know. I think it
has a little more force if it comes from the Commissioners' Office.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And especially from yours.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, whatever I do I learned
Page 118
June 20-21,2006
from you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, geez.
MR. TYSON: Certainly. There's no problem with that. I mean,
from the standpoint that they can call Jones Mine -- Jones Mining,
they're in the phone book, give you the phone number, talk to
someone there. I'm sure they'll take care of the situation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, just call Commissioner
Coletta's office. That's good. I like his reasoning.
MR. TYSON: We'd prefer to keep you focused on other
important county matters, and we'll solve these issues locally.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sure ifmy office is taking
the calls, you'll solve them very quickly.
MR. TYSON: That's for sure.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I've got a few questions, or I want to -- a
few comments to make on this before I pass this on to my fellow
Commissioner Coyle.
And from what I heard from my fellow commissioners, I think
it's very important that we make sure that -- I know in order to get my
vote, we need to make sure that we have seismographs on the
premises so that we can figure out what the acceleration rates are on
the blasting.
And I believe that we need to have -- if people are willing to have
their homes photographed so we have a baseline there, and I also
believe that we need to install the vegetation prior to any additional --
excavation takes place, that that has to be in and it has to be inspected
to make sure that vegetation is there, and also the berms are
constructed in the manner that you just described prior to -- we start
getting involved in blasting.
And last, I think the most important thing is to make sure that we
have that acceleration lane, especially if you're going to have 800 trips
-- loaded trips a day. I think that will help hinder the flow of traffic,
and I think that needs to be installed, that acceleration lane, as it
Page 119
June 20-21, 2006
comes out onto the road there. So I tell you where I stand on this
project.
But I think it's very important that we address the issues of the
citizens that live around there, and it's very important to me that
they're well protected.
And at that, I'll turn it over to Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I would like to make sure
that we publish Commissioner Coletta's home number also --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- because this mining operation is
open very early in the morning, I think people should be able to
contact him anytime they've got a problem.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Not only his phone number, but his
house address.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Both, both, as a matter of fact.
Now, the other thing is, Bruce, you've presented us at this
meeting a list of changes to the conditions of approval. They're not
numbered in accordance with the numbering that we have in our book.
It's very confusing. Some of the conditions change the intent of the
Collier County Planning Commission's approval. There is no way that
we can understand the potential overall effect of these changes, and so
I will not vote in favor of this petition with those changes.
I would vote to have it be sent back to the Planning Commission
for review if you want to make those suggested changes, but I won't
vote for any modifications to it other than the elimination of 12 and
13, which are clearly duplicative, and I won't support those two. So
could we get that issue resolved right now before we go any further?
MR. TYSON: The only one that I think that, as I indicated when
I made the presentation, is we were doing things that we thought, as
we went through this and we saw the inconsistencies that came out in
the staff report, for what was stated at the Planning Commission
Page 120
June 20-21, 2006
hearing.
Commissioner Strain was contacted to help clarify some things.
He had no problem, especially with two, because of the
inconsistencies that existed with the difference between what was a
landscape buffer and what was the berm.
And when we went back and looked at the document for which --
that came from that, the recording that came from that, we found that,
in fact, what was stated was what we had now placed into the record
here, or what we were recommending goes in as two from the
standpoint of that's what we were talking about and that's what was
approved.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute. Number two
clearly changes the language that was contained in the CCPC's
recommendation. Number two says that upon completion of the
excavation activities, the berm and buffer shall be removed within six
months. The CCPC says, the berms will be installed within six
months.
So you're talking about two entirely different issues here. Your
recommendation is that they'll be removed within six months of the
completion of excavation activities. The CCPC is saying, they will be
installed along the property lines that are adjacent to residential
structures within six months of approval.
We go to number -- your number 13 and our number 16, I think it
is. Our number 16 is talking about maximum -- 800 maximum trips
per day. You have inserted the qualifier, 800 maximum exiting loaded
trucks per day. That's a very significant departure from the CCPC's
recommendation as they're contained in this executive summary.
So my point here is that either this executive summary is wrong
or your interpretation of what they said is wrong. And in either case, I
can't vote for it in those circumstances, so we've got to resolve that
very quickly.
MR. TYSON: Okay. Let me just -- I agree with you completely
Page 121
June 20-21, 2006
on item two. That should be installed within six months, and as well
as they asked that they be taken down with six months, so I have no
problem with that. As a matter of fact, we'll do it as soon as we
possibly can.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But you see, my problem is that
there are a lot of these little catch phrases floating all through these
changes you handed us right before this meeting. We can't assimilate
all this into a cohesive recommendation with stipulations at this
meeting. We would have to go through this hearing all over again to
understand how all these things fit together.
So I guess my feeling is -- and I don't want to be difficult here,
but I'm just not going to consider these, number one, because they
were just presented to us before this meeting, and number two,
because they are dramatically different from what CCPC's
recommendations are.
MS. ZONE: Commissioner Coyle, if you don't mind. I took the
excerpts from the minutes from the CCPC and wrote down everything
from what the court reporter gave us.
I wrote them and then sent them to every Planning
Commissioner, asked them to review them so that before I put them
into my packet and presented them to you, I had confirmation from all
nine members. They were comfortable with those recommendations.
Chairman Strain came back and had asked me to add one where
the -- which here on the dais you feel is redundant in away, but he felt
both of them were needed to be in there.
But I can assure you that all nine members when they read them,
none of them -- those who did not respond I assume agreed, because
when I sent them the new conditional conditions of approval, I also
sent them those minutes from that hearing so they were able to review.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Bottom line, what you're telling us
is, that what is in our executive summary is exactly what the CCPC
intended to be said.
Page 122
June 20-21, 2006
MS. ZONE: Correct, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And what is in these changes that
we've been presented here today is not what they presented to us?
MS. ZONE: That's correct. And I received some changes
yesterday -- or this morning by email. There were 14 modifications,
and then up here I was hearing you mention number 16. And Mr.
Anderson gave me a new modification. So in a way I have three here
now and I'm trying to follow all three.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's why I'm trying to simplify
this.
MS. ZONE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: As far as I'm concerned there is
only one set of stipulations, and that is contained in our executive
summary .
MS. ZONE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That is what the CCPC has said
that they wanted to see. And if there are going to be any changes to
that other than the elimination of duplications, then I'm going to
recommend that it go back to CCPC for rehearing.
MS. ZONE: Very good.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I made it fairly clear that the buffer was
going to be installed immediately and not six months, okay, so --
MR. TYSON: Let me just understand so that I can go through
here and -- so item nine dealing with the blasting --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: In the book or what you've presented us?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's difficult.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Let's go to the book. I
can't --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Our sheet, work from our sheet.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: With your executive summary, okay?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nine and 12 are duplicate. They
are exactly the same statement.
Page 123
June 20-21,2006
MR. TYSON: All right. And we would like both of those to be
stricken simply because -- that this material, as I've indicated from the
report from our soils consultant, our geotechnical consultant, indicated
that this material is not rippable, and we would -- we would like to see
those two paragraphs removed completely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Bruce, you have to understand my
position. Your report from your consultant was dated 2004, if I
remember correctly, when you threw it up on the screen.
MR. TYSON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It was available for presentation at
the CCPC meeting. If it was presented at the CCPC meeting, the
CCPC must have taken it into consideration, and they still wanted to
have that restriction on rock four feet thick. So I'm still sticking with
the CCPC's recommendation. I will vote to take out one of those
items, either nine or 12 because they both say the same thing, but I
won't vote to have them both taken out.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
MR. TYSON: Yeah. And in addition was the letter that we
received from the Corkscrew Association that was the precursor, let's
say, of that occurring that led up to that consideration, and all of a
sudden, they've turned around and they agreed with our analysis of
this to the point of saying, it's going to be better to blast this material
than it will be to try to rip it and hammer it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand, but I would like to
see the engineering certificate that is possessed by the Corkscrew
Island Neighborhood Association. Do they have an engineering stamp
that they can put on this letter? No, they don't.
MR. TYSON: I don't believe so.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So they're not engineering.
MR. TYSON : Well, there's a couple --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They're not blasting technicians.
Page 124
June 20-21, 2006
They're -- all I'm saying -- all I'm saying here is, you know, you throw
in a number of changes at us here -- and under normal circumstances
we'd just say we're not going to consider any of them at this late date.
But you're throwing a lot of changes at us here, and how are we
to know whether the neighborhood association is correct? That's why
we have a CCPC. They dig into this stuff pretty deeply and pretty
thoroughly, and I just am reluctant to start changing their
recommendations without having an appropriate hearing with them to
do that.
And I would suggest if you feel strongly about this, that we
remand this to the CCPC and let them consider your recommended
changes and see where you can go with that. That's what I would
suggest. I think that would be the easiest thing for you to do.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. You know, I appreciate
the fact -- I can't accept this particular list either. It just doesn't
correspond with anything that's in our book. It's very difficult to
follow; however, I also recognize that the Planning Commission is an
advisory board, and they do a wonderful job. They did a tremendous
job of boiling this down to a lot of particulars.
Just about everything on here I think is great, but still, there's
some oversight in it, and that's what we're digging into now, such
things as, you know, the seismograph, the pre-certifying of the houses
to what condition they're in. There's a lot of things we add to this. We
build upon what they give us.
Since that meeting -- meeting took place, the people from
Corkscrew and a number of people in that area listened to all the
testimony that was given, and they came to this conclusion based on
that testimony that they heard at this meeting, and that's where the
recommendation came from.
You're absolutely correct, they do not have a certificate as far as
an engineering degree goes. They can only rely on what they hear
Page 125
June 20-21, 2006
here at the meeting, and that's what prompted it. We do have people
here from the area that are going to be speaking to it, and maybe they
can tell us what their opinion is of the machinery doing it or having
the blasting take place a little more often to be able to remove layers
that are four feet or less.
I'm not too sure what to do. If it went back to the Planning
Commission, is it the end of the world? Probably not. But that's what
I'll -- I have some other things to go through, but I think we ought to
get on to the speakers and some of the other -- my other
commISSIoners.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What I think we try to do here is try to
get some area of -- where we can all -- hopefully we come to a
consensus on it here before I open it up to the public hearing. So I'm
relying on you. Ifwe can't come to some consensus, then that's the--
you know, I think that's the end of it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: But I think Commissioner Fiala has a
question or two.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: On your number three, you're
talking about sound-absorbing material, but it's going to be installed
on the pumps only if in use beyond normal hours of operation, and I
would think that you'd want that on there during normal hours of
operation just to buffer it somewhat for the neighbors.
MR. TYSON: Sure. The reason we put that in there is because
the sound travels much more at night and you lose that -- the ambient
nature of the trucks and equipment that's moving around the property.
Didn't even feel it was necessary during the day because we meet all
of the county requirements for that, so that's why we put that in there.
But I think -- I think in the spirit of what Commissioner Coyle
had said, we recognized the fact that this was some things that, as we
went through this, we thought it was clarifying things. Maybe, in fact,
it's confusing things.
Page 126
June 20-21, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
MR. TYSON: Let's do this: We'll withdraw all of our
comments. We will live with those comments or the conditions that
were placed in front of you, and we'll work all these issues out with
the Planning Commission in the next few months when we go back
through the process again.
so let's continue, if I can recommend doing that. The one thing
that I believe we can clarify, or the county will clarify here, is the
number of trips, the fact that was talking about loaded trips, so that it
just -- and that's what we were trying to do is eliminate any of this
confusion.
MR. MUDD: Bruce made a statement about he'd be going to the
Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: Hang on. Just so you know, they have a bigger
SDP in to cover that whole big area, okay, outside of the actual pit
that's on right now. Right now you're talking about blasting in this pit.
If there's going to be any changes to this pit operation, what he's
talking about is that bigger --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Big picture.
MR. MUDD: -- bigger zoning action he's got coming forward
through the process. Just so you know, Commissioner, that's --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that is likely to change some
of the conditions associated with this PUD approval?
MR. MUDD: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But it could?
MR. MUDD: The petitioner -- the petitioner would have to
answer that question to --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. TYSON: I always could. I mean, it becomes very
inclusive. We can. And, again, it's a conditional use.
Now, I'm going to read from the transcript that came from the
Page 127
June 20-21, 2006
court reporter from the Planning Commission hearing. They're not
numbered. This is with Commissioner Strain when he was running
through his list of items at the end.
Last paragraph is, and I think there should be a limitation right at
this particular time on the loads per day not to exceed what they
currently have as a maximum, which is 800. So we were just trying to
clarify that that was loaded, 800 loaded trucks.
Would you like to see it? >
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I'm just suggesting to you that
I could interpret that differently, but that's -- yeah, I understand what
you're saying. There is room for misunderstanding there.
MR. TYSON: And that's why we wanted to try to clarify that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If there's no further questions, I'm going
to open up the -- for the public hearing.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we have three speakers.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. FILSON: The first being David Purdie. He'll be followed by
John Solooff.
MR. PURDIE: The first thing I'd like to say -- I'd like to
apologize. The last time I was here I was pretty mad. I think you can
understand why.
I'm here fighting for my house. I live on 14th Street. I'm a
stone-throwaway from the canal. I got an in-ground pool. Nobody's
guaranteeing me anything.
Okay. I could live with that. And everything sounds good.
You've got all your ducks in a row. The bottom line is, if something
happens, still, where am I? Where's my property value? Where's my
home? I'm inconvenienced. My privacy's disturbed.
You've got to understand. I'm a little nervous right now. I'm a
very private person, and I'm a little intimidated right now.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Please don't be.
Page 128
June 20-21, 2006
MR. PURDIE: Last night I'm in the back yard working in the
yard. My wife says, Channel 7 News is here. I thought she was just
rattling my cage, trying to get a joke going.
I said, you're kidding me. No, she wasn't.
I tried to tell them I didn't want to go on television. I don't want
my 15 minutes of fame. I don't want to be a celebrity. I don't want my
house being on the news. I don't want to be in the news. I don't even
want to be here today, but I have to because I have an investment out
there that's about to go out the window.
Listen, if you want a mine, go ahead and mine, but just have
respect for the people that are already living out there. And if damage
does occur -- because in the past I've had my share of fights with
people out there.
I told you, Mr. Coletta, you were very kind enough to talk to me
on the phone the other day. I don't want to fight with nobody. I just
want to be left alone. I don't want to come home and find my walls
cracked, my floor tile cracked, or my pool cracked, because
everybody I've talked to, contractors, pool contractors, structural
contractors, there's no guarantee what's going to happen as close as I
am.
All I can say is if you're going to what you're going to do --
because I know you're not going to listen to me. You're going to do
what you want to do anyway -- just do it as quickly as possible and get
this nightmare over with for me and anybody else that lives there.
And if anything does happen, please 'fess up to it and do the right
thing. Hopefully you guys will never have to hear from me again. I'm
going to leave. Thank you and have a nice day.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sir, I'd like to ask you one question. Sir,
I don't mean to --
MR. PURDIE: No, no.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Would you be willing to have the mining
company come in and basically do a baseline of what you have for
Page 129
June 20-21, 2006
your pool and house so that way it's on record, and if there are any
damages that you incur, that then they will be responsible and take
care of it?
MR. PURDIE: Okay. I--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Would that give you some--
MR. PURDIE: That would -- that would make me sleep a little
easier at night. I mean --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's what we're here for is to try to
make you sleep easier.
MR. PURDIE: I mean, you know, I don't know how many years
this is going to go on for. So I mean, by the time I'm 50, I might look
like I'm 70, so --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm 85 myself.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but you look it.
MR. PURDIE: But yeah -- no, I would--
MR. MUDD: But Commissioner, just so you -- just so you know
-- and sir, you've got some great points. Just so you know, if you go
through that -- and let's say he has some damage and let's say he has --
does have problems with the mining company. You know, you talked
about earlier about the conditional use being reviewed more often, and
you still haven't made a decision on that point. That means their
conditional use, i.e., their operations license, is up for review on a
regular basis.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
MR. MUDD: Okay? If you do have any problems after your
certification and you get stonewalled, let's say, the worst case, then
this board has the authority, so to speak, of having a hammer over
their head to make sure they make good on their promises --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Promises.
MR. MUDD: -- today that if you do get damaged, that they'll
rectify it.
MR. PURDIE: Yeah. Like I said, I don't have a problem with
Page 130
June 20-21,2006
them coming in and if everything's going to be on the up and up, and
if something happens, whether it's minor, catastrophic -- you know,
I've spent the last five years of my life working on that house.
And a month ago I didn't even know that this was going on until
one of my neighbors told me. And I was like, oh, no. You've got to be
kidding me.
So that's why the last time I was in here I was a little angry. But
like I say, I have no problem with them as long as it's all going to be
documented, and you guys are going to give me your word that if I
call you, say, hey, I came home and my floor tiles cracked or --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Call him.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll give you Commissioner
Coyle's backup number, too, if you can't get me real quick.
MR. PURDIE: You know what it is? Don't take this the wrong
way. I hope today's the last day I have to talk to anybody. That
would be an early -- that would be my Christmas present for the next
25 years.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're not done talking yet. I
do have a question for you, too.
MR. PURDIE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, you heard the problem
we're running into as far as how they're going to handle the four feet
or less as far as using heavy machinery or using the low charge multi
charges that are out there. You probably heard more about it than we
have, being that you went to the Planning Commission meeting. What
is your own personal opinion?
MR. PURDIE: I was rather relieved when Mark Strain said that
they were going to blast only when necessary and, you know, I
understand what he's trying say, that maybe they can't do it that way.
I mean, you're asking me what's the lesser of the two evils. Let
you go in there and start blasting more and take more of a chance of
something happening -- I don't know. Or blasting, nothing happens,
Page 131
June 20-21,2006
and you get out of there as quick as possible, and all the better for
everybody else. You follow what I'm saying?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, yeah.
MR. PURDIE: I mean, I can't make that decision because I don't
-- I know something about firecrackers. I know nothing about
dynamite.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's just a big firecracker.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I --
MR. PURDIE: Yeah, but big enough to cause a lot of damage.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I make a suggestion? We
don't know which way this is going to go. It might even go back to
the Planning Commission. This thing may get passed today and it
may fail, who knows? We're still in the deliberation cycle.
If it does pass, one of the things I'm going to go ask the petitioner
to do is to bring all the interested neighbors down there into the mine
when they're ready to blast the first couple times and show them
exactly what they're doing and go through them in great details so that
there's a real understanding of what's taking place, and maybe even let
you turn the knob that sets off the charge for a kick.
MR. PURDIE: Like I said, I don't know what to -- if you want
me to do it, that I'll do it. Whatever it takes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, no. It's not me. I--
MR. PURDIE: No, I understand.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm just trying to give you as
much comfort level --
MR. PURDIE: Peace of mind, peace of mind. I understand what
you're saying. Yeah, I would move to go and see it and, you know,
assure me that this is all it's going to be, or -- you know, and like I
said, as long as you want to come -- and they want to come and they
want to look at my house and we get something in writing that if
something does happen -- because anything could happen. I don't
care. You could plan anything, you know, to a T, and then something
Page 132
June 20-21,2006
goes wrong.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If this thing does pass, what I'd
like to do is have a neighborhood meeting 11 months from the time
that their first year is up before they come back before staff for review
to be able to see in the neighborhood meeting if they're fulfilling all
the obligations that they said they would meet so that we can pass that
on to staff and very possibly bring it back to the commission.
MR. PURDIE: Yeah, you know--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There's many ways it could be
done, because I mean, this is government for the people and by the
people, and, you know, that's why we're seeking your opinion and
direction from you and your neighbors now, too.
MR. PURDIE: Yeah. I don't know how many of my neighbors
are here today. I know a couple of --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There's one.
MR. PURDIE: And you are -- all right. I don't know. They
don't live on my street, so I don't know.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But they're good people, believe
me.
MR. PURDIE: Okay. Well, hey. Like I said, I'm just --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to take a break.
MR. PURDIE: Whatever it takes. And you know, like I said,
you call me and let me know when you want to send these guys up,
and I'll allow them in the house and --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MR. PURDIE: Thank you. Have a nice day.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Next speaker, please.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is John Solooff, and followed
by Brad Cornell.
MR. SOLOOFF: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
John Solooff. I live at 2311 52nd Avenue with my wife, Patricia.
We built our house in 1997 before the earth pit went in. And I'm
Page 133
June 20-21, 2006
also the one with the lung transplant, so I appreciate your reading my
letter. And the house is for sale. It's been for sale.
My major concerns are the dust and the noise. The berm that
they've put in within the last month or so, which was -- I think
somebody said earlier, it was addressed about five or six years ago
because on their original application for the '99 or whenever they
started it, they actually -- someone actually come out to my house and
we sat down at the kitchen table, and our idea was to put a berm in
then, but they never did it, but they have on there now.
So far it's been working satisfactory. It's cut -- now, I think Mr.
Tyson said they're basically shut down, so I didn't know that because I
can't see the trucks moving around, but it was nice and quiet.
So now once they get the rock crusher going and the trucks
moving to and fro, that may change some of the noise. You know, it
will be a higher level than what I'm hearing now.
The thing on the dust, they said that, you know, they're going to
be digging into wet conditions. Most of the dust comes from the
trucks to and fro on the property. Somebody said that they have a half
mile of paved road at the entrance to it, but the trucks come in, they
come in from the west side, Immokalee Road, and then they traverse
easterly, and it's not a straight -- straight cut. They zigzag around.
And when these trucks -- they kick up that dirt. And after 800 of
those a day, that dirt is like a talcum powder. It throws it up in the air.
And if you have any kind of wind from the west, those of us on the
east, it's like living in Iraq when you have those dust storms. You just
cannot see.
I don't go outside on days like that without a mask because it's
too detrimental to me. If it's an east wind it's, you know, bad for the
people on the other side, but that's when I can do my outside work.
The noise abatement on the pumps, I think the materials that they
want to use, they use the earth in buffers -- or I spoke with Mr. Jones
earlier outside -- I hope he doesn't mind me saying that -- can I get one
Page 134
June 20-21,2006
more? He said he had a soundproofing material.
I lived on a farm where we had pumps, and we had just basically
like a little shed that we would slide in there. It was open on one end.
We would slide it in over a pump or a piece of equipment we had
running in the field and it worked wonders, and that was just -- we
used a four-by-eight piece of plywood. So if they have something
better nowadays, it should do the job.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. I think we can
probably address the other issue with the -- with the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Dust.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- dust, and that is to have them water it
down periodically or come up with some kind of dust control for that.
MS. FILSON: The next--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
MS. FILSON: -- speaker is Brad Cornell. He'll be followed by
Joseph Murro (sic).
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. CORNELL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Brad
Cornell, and I'm here on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society,
Audubon of Florida, and Audubon of Florida's Corkscrew Swamp
Sanctuary.
Audubon does not believe that there is enough assurance that
deep rock mines in general, and that this mine in particular, won't pose
a significant risk to important quality wetlands both on and off site,
including Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary.
The nature of this risk is due to several factors, as outlined by Ed
Carlson, the Director, and Jason Lauritsen, Science Coordinator--
Coordinator at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, and these include, first,
so-called confining layers or really just semi confining layers with
some degree of permeability.
Second, due to the Carse Geology of Florida and possible
existence of buried shell beds connecting the pit to off-site wetlands
Page 135
June 20-21,2006
like Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, such wetlands could be drained via
an underground hydrologic connection to the pit.
Third, interconnection of aquifers poses a significant risk of
contamination of underground water by surface pollution. Deep
excavations and lakes can and do lower groundwater levels through
evaporative losses. In other words, you cut into the ground where
otherwise water would be under the ground. You increase its
exposure to sun and air and increase evaporative losses.
There should be no off-site discharge of water from this pit due
to the harm dewatering causes to nearby wetlands. And I'm not sure,
based on my reading of that, whether that is going to be occurring.
Normally in mining you don't have dewatering. Just whatever flow
normally occurs.
There needs to be protection of the important wood stork and
wildlife usage areas on the west and north sides of this property
through conservation easement, restoration, and preserve treatment.
I also believe that an environmental impact statement is needed
due to the large scope of the larger expanded mine and the deep depth
that they're going to be going to. We've already heard that several
times, that this is not the end of this mining expansion. That it's
actually going to be expanded beyond the 626 acres that they currently
are mInIng.
So I believe that requires an environmental impact statement and
for the Environmental Advisory Council to look at the impacts in this
region, which is a sensitive area because of the wetlands and what --
Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary.
So Audubon recommends that we delay -- that you delay making
your decision until that environmental impact statement is done on the
larger mining proposal that is currently in the works rather than
making a decision based on this smaller scope, because we know the
next one is coming just in three or four months, in addressing those
issues that I've raised this morning -- or this afternoon. So thanks very
Page 136
June 20-21, 2006
much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker, Mr. Chairman, is Joseph
Murro.
MR. D'MURRO: Good afternoon, Commissioners, and thank
you for your time. My name is D'Murro, is the last name, Joseph
D'Murro.
MS. FILSON: Oh.
MR. D'MURRO: I live on 20th Street. I'm one of the fellows
that's 970 feet from the mine. I'm about as close as you can get. We're
right on the canal.
My main concern is, my well's 100 feet. These people are going
to be blasting. They have no guarantees. They cannot guarantee me
the safety of my well. They can't guarantee me the safety of my
home. My home is built on sand. Any rattling at all could be
dangerous to my home.
Now, they just did some blasting out on the East Trail by the
college where my mom works. Rattled the windows of the college. I
don't want my windows rattled. I don't think that's right.
We're already going to get a sewer treatment plant on one side of
us. We've been putting up with this mine that operates nonstop. I go
out, feed my animals Five a.m. on a Sunday morning, there's engines
running. If the wind's blowing in the right direction, I smell diesel
fuel. They shouldn't be able to run 24 hours a day.
And if they're going -- if you're going to let them crush rock, they
shouldn't be able to do that on a Saturday at all.
Eight hours a day Monday through Friday would be just fine
because we're working, most of us. But I have to put up with noise on
Saturday and Sunday. I sit on my lanai, and at midnight on a Sunday I
hear their engines running. Why do they need those things running
nonstop if it's just about closed? Because it was running Sunday.
I just don't think it's right. I think we put up with enough already
Page 137
June 20-21,2006
where we live. We moved there for piece and quiet. I'm not getting it.
I can't sell my house. I tried. Five months, not one taker, not even a
looker. They won't look at a house next to a mine. I'm stuck, so I
need your help. They did enough already.
If they bought a mine that they only got eight feet of dirt, that's
not our fault. We don't need that rock that bad. We can't go nowhere.
Our roads are 15 years behind now. Enough is enough.
That's all I need to say. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, sir.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll close the public hearing at this time.
I believe we have a -- questions here by Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. Question. On
the roads, going from the mine, if you'd be so kind. Are there any
private roads that you're using that neighbors also share with you?
MR. TYSON: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Or are they all county road,
county maintained roads?
MR. TYSON: Immediately when they come from the mine site,
they go onto Immokalee Road.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. TYSON: So there's no -- there are no -- if that answers your
question.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That does.
MR. TYSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The other one was on the dust.
That's a very big concern. Now, I do know that most places, when
they're operating any kind of large places, they always have a water
truck there and they're continuously watering the areas the trucks go
across. They provide that same services with this particular
operation?
MR. TYSON: There's a water truck on site.
Page 138
June 20-21, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Will there be a water truck on
site whenever the water operations is sending their trucks in or out?
MR. TYSON: Yeah. It's there today, so there is one on the
property .
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Is it being used?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is it working?
MR. TYSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I guess that's the next question.
Is it being used or what?
MR. TYSON: I can appreciate what's going on. I can only --
from limited experience. I was there twice, and both times I did not
experience any dust, and the roads were relatively well wetted down.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. This -- you wouldn't--
do you have any objections if this was part of the conditions of the
operation, of the approval for operation?
MR. TYSON : Well, it's all part of the inspection process that
goes on by the county anyway.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I see Joe Schmitt
nodding his head up and down, so we're already covered on that.
MR. TYSON: That's -- it already happens.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. The days of operations,
Monday through Saturday, is that a normal-- Joe, can you nod your
head from back there? Or is it normally Monday through Friday?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Joe, we've got to get your voice on
record here.
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, Community
Development Administrator. Yes, Monday through Saturday it can
operate, if they want to go -- there are specific hours of operation in
the LDC. If they want to go beyond that, they have to submit a
request through the County Manager.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I'm sorry. One more
time. Monday through Saturday?
Page 139
June 20-21, 2006
MR. SCHMITT: Monday through Saturdays, I believe, 6:30 to --
I don't have my hand on the numbers, but it's normal -- it's 6:30 in the
morning normal operation until seven at night type of operation, but I
can look it up.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Joe, we're going to take a break here.
During the break time, could you look up that information --
MR. SCHMITT: I will do that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- and get back to the board here on that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Want we continue or finish up
after the break?
MR. SCHMITT: This -- since I'm up here for the record, I want
you to know and understand Engineering Services Department, Bill
Spencer, or one of the inspectors are out there. Every time they blast I
have an inspector on site. We do monthly inspections, and then we do
an annual inspection, and also there is an ordinance for dust control.
So we're out there to validate all of that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I appreciate that. Now,
the days of operation, we understand that's Monday through Saturday.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sunday's a no-no. What about
the running of equipment late at night or on Sundays?
MR. SCHMITT: Again, they're prohibited based on those hours
of operation. I'll look up those hours.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. But again, too, it might
not cover such things as a pump or something if they're going through
dewatering.
MR. SCHMITT: Normally a pump would not. If it's below the
threshold for code enforcement, normally I believe it's 100 decibels.
If it's below the threshold, there's no prohibition. Oftentimes on a
construction site, they may have to dewater because they're putting in
pipe or sewer or whatever. Those things sometimes will run all night.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then the question would
Page 140
June 20-21,2006
be to the petitioner, at this point in time do you have insulation around
these pumps such as the one gentleman talked about, the box affairs or
something -- pumps that are out there now, are they -- presently have
some sort of soundproofing or no?
MR. TYSON: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So this is a condition that
you would abide by from here on out?
MR. TYSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I mean, you're not going to wait
six months to do something like that?
MR. TYSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is going to start when?
This would start --
MR. TYSON: As soon as you -- you know, as soon as we start
into the next set of operations. It will be done tomorrow. You know,
if you approve it today, we'll be -- we'll be doing this immediately
tomorrow.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do we have acknowledgement from the
gentleman that owns the mine?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yep.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Actually yesterday would have
been better, but you know, we'll work where we can.
Tell me about the maximum depth, 45 feet. I know before your
original request was for 60 feet or something like that, and you
modified it to 45 feet.
MR. TYSON: At the Planning Commission hearing it was
reduced to 45 feet or to the confining layer, whichever is less.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And who determines the
confining layer?
MR. TYSON: The confining layer is actually determined at the
time of drilling and blasting, because what happens is that as you go
through the process of drilling, the drill will only go so far before the
Page 141
June 20-21, 2006
resistance is no longer there. And once the resistance is not there, then
the driller knows that he's hit the confining layer.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, may I ask a question of
Stan Chrzanowski. I think he's here.
Stan, would you take just a minute? This has to do with your
expertise on confining layers. Is there a problem -- the question would
be, is there a problem, has there been a problem in Collier County
with people going past the confining layers, something similar to what
they were concerned about from Corkscrew Sanctuary?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, hi, good afternoon. Stan
Chrzanowski with Engineering Review. We've never had anybody go
through a confining layer like -- I don't remember who said it, but
most of the confining layers in here -- I think Brad said it -- are not
really confining layers. They're semi-permeable. And just north of
here, if you remember the aerial photograph, there's Long End Lakes,
they're down about 35 feet, and they're just digging in sand.
If you remember the presentation we did about where there is and
is not rock in the county, and we were trying to talk people into doing
these pits far away from civilization, but turns out that that's all in
preserves, so now we have to be near civilization.
If I remember that, this pit is right on the edge of where we
thought there was maybe rock and maybe no rock. As you get farther
down toward the south and towards the east, the rock gets thicker and
harder. And as you get up away from here, it's kind of sandier.
They're right near the edge of that. I seriously don't think that
you're going to have any problem with the confining layers here. I
think the 45 feet is where they're going to dig to.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't know if you get into this
part of it or not, but when David Perry (sic) was up here just a little
while ago and talking to us, he was concerned with how the process
worked, if he had damage to his house, and it could be attributed to
blasting. What happens in a case like that?
Page 142
June 20-21,2006
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, they should go ahead of time and
do a survey of the house with video equipment, and they'll probably
find all the cracks, videotape them all, make some kind of record.
And if he submits a claim for something that was a result of a blast
that wasn't there before, they'll go out and look at it.
A lot of times you can tell if a crack has been there for a while.
There will be moss growing out of it, or grass, or, you know, the crack
will be full of dirt, if it's something that they missed in the pre-blast
survey. You can usually tell when cracks are new. But these blasters
all have their own insurance companies. The insurance companies go
out and they determine whether it was the fault of the blasting.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. But we don't have any
oversight as the County goes other than our review taking place?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: That's right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So in other words, if someone
did screw up and there was damage and they tried to pass it off, their
insurance company would --
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Oh, I'm sure we'd get involved in it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then the other question
-- well, we've got that pretty well understood about how the process
would work if there's damage.
There was concern over the respect of the people out there and
wanting to be left alone. Of course, that's one of the things that we all
would like to have in this world if it was perfect.
But the truth of the matter is, is that this yearly review that takes
place, or the yearly review and then every two years after that, like
Commissioner Fiala suggested, could you give me some idea how this
staff review works? At that time do you take into consideration
complaints from the residents?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. We do the monthly operation
-- the monthly inspection of all commercial blasting. We're out there
for all the blasts. And then once a year we get a report from them on
Page 143
June 20-21, 2006
their progress with the blasting.
But I think what you're talking about is the renewing of the
conditional use, which would happen in one year or three years or
whatever. And at that point, the neighbors would be able to come in
and readdress this issue in front of the board, or whoever -- like
happened with Jesse Hardy when his conditional use expired.
Everybody came in and expressed what their problems were with the
conditional use. And at that point, people can decide whether or not
they want to continue the conditional use.
And I assume if you do that next year, you would want to do it
three years after that and five years after that. You know, you were
talking about that before. I assume that's what you're talking about.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. What about Joseph Murro
(sic), he expressed a concern over his well. Would that be the same
thing as a house or a sidewalk or a pool getting damaged? If a
person's well went out right after a blasting incident, is there a way
that they can recover the damage on that?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: If the well went out right after blasting,
I'm sure he'd call us -- most of those wells are cased down to a
confining layer, and this pit's going to be 40 feet deep. It could shake
the casing if we were really close. We're almost 1,000 feet away. Ifit
were to shake something, it would shake -- it could shake some
material into the well, muddy up the water. But it's kind of far away.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But there is remedies to that if
there is damage?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And also, too, there was
concern over the rock crusher that isn't there now that would be there
in the future. For the distance away it's going to be and the kind of
berms they're going to have, what would be the effect of this? I mean,
I'm concerned about the Saturdays, to be honest with you.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I'd have to take their word that this new
Page 144
June 20-21, 2006
equipment is quieter than the other, because my experience is like
Commissioner Fiala's. It's kind of loud, and you do have to put up
berms to -- if they're operating off hours, they shouldn't be.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But Saturday is the day that
they want to operate in full mode, and the concern is, that's one of the
days that most people have off and trying to enjoy the peace and
tranquility of their homes and neighborhoods. Is -- I'm interested to
find out, if that rock crusher was limited to five days a week or else if
it went to six days and if they received complaints and they were
asked to cease operations on Saturday, would the petitioner be willing
to do that?
I don't want to -- I don't want to give you a full year of these
people's lives and find out that the rock crusher was something that
was --
MR. TYSON: No, we'll be willing to do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you very much
for your help.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
MR. SCHMITT: Can I just correct for the record, you'd ask 6:30
a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. No construction
activities -- this would be related to that -- on Sundays or on the
following holidays, New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Fourth of July,
Labor Day, Thanksgiving and Christmas.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, thanks. Well, I think we
all know that we have a shortage of material here in Southwest
Florida, so either we make it easier and cheaper to get it and less
impact of residents countywide because we know that some of the
material's coming from Hendry County and Lee County.
We know that this is going to come back because they',re going to
expand the area. So why don't we approve the -- or the Planning
Page 145
June 20-21, 2006
Commission's recommendations within reason knowing that
everybody else is going to get a second shot on it, and let's move on?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: There's a motion. Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. Commissioner
Henning, if you would just bear with me for a moment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to let you make the
motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I appreciate that, and
that's -- I wanted to get to that, but I didn't want to jump in front of
anyone. Can I do it without you closing the public meeting?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure -- the public hearing's close.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala wants to
speak.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Staff asked for -- they were
concerned with what alternative measure meant, and that was never
clarified, and that was -- they had a concern with that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's not going to be in that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's not going to be part of the
motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're going to deal with the
Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I know. Alternative measure
was something that was in the Planning Commission, right? I just
wanted to know what that meant.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Where do you see that?
MR. TYSON: That was something that I introduced. That is not
part of the Planning Commission's motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Right. We're just dealing with what's on
here now.
Page 146
June 20-21, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I thought we were. I wrote it down
there. I'm so sorry.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And then the times --
according to the Planning Commission, the time started at seven a.m.
so -- and ended at six p.m. And the berm and landscaping, we talked
about doing it first rather than waiting six months, and -- let's see.
Reviewing every two years. I think when I thought of review, I
thought review to mean that -- monitoring like, just to make sure that
-- that as we review it, we monitor it to make sure that it's doing
everything they said they were going to do.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner, I thought you said you
wanted to review it after one year of operation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: After the first year for two
years.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. After the first year, then every
two years, yes, yes. And then strict hours. Somebody was saying that
they were operating after hours and so forth. I just wanted to make
sure that there was some form of monitoring to make sure that the
hours that the Planning Commission has recommended are adhered to.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I think also in the -- whoever
makes the motion, and if it's going to be --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We've got to get a motion on the
record so we can start making changes to it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, okay. Do you want to make the
motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I'll make the motion that
we approve this according to Planning Commission's
recommendations along with, and then that's where we get into all the
other things where Commissioner Fiala's suggesting that we have a
staff review on the first year after one year and then ever two years
Page 147
June 20-21, 2006
thereafter, that the -- I'm sorry. There's so many of them.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Berm and landscape.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Berm and landscape is done--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Immediately.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Prior to, is it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Instead of six months, immediately.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Immediately or -- well, you
know, within reason. They've got to get it. It takes a while to put it
together.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I, for one, would like to be able
to honor the desires of the people that live out there and allow the
blasting to take place because I've seen what's been recommended by
everybody, and no one came out opposed to it, rather than have to live
with it for a longer period of time with the use of machineries and the
noise level from it.
Also, too, the inclusion of the understanding that if there's a
complaint over the rock crusher, that Saturdays will be -- removed
from use on Saturdays if the complaints come through that the noise is
unbearable, that all the inspections be put into place through pre-
certified houses and structures in the area, and then a copy of the tape
or CD or DVD be given to the residents there, they keep one, too, to
be able to take care of future complaints, and any new people that
build in that immediate area around the mine, shortly after the time of
CO or prior to the time of CO, whatever works out best for the new
residents, also should offer the service of the inspection.
I'm going to miss a bunch of them.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can I add some, too?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, please do.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think also, as we stated earlier, the
passing lane has to be put in because of the amount of trucks there are
going to be. We don't want to impede the traffic flow.
Page 148
June 20-21, 2006
I believe also that we need to make sure that the vegetation is put
in place immediately and also the berm is put in place that needs to be
in there to make sure that we address the issues of sound and
propagation.
And again, I guess it's already been covered, and that's people
that are willing to have their properties photographed either inside or
out so that there's a record. I think that's very important.
And that's all I have to add to the motion, if the motion maker
agrees to that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I accept those changes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Commissioner, number
two is -- it talks about the buffer and the landscaping. Do we agree
that that should be closest to the operation instead of the property line?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I believe the residents have
indicated they wanted to see it closer to the operations and they had an
unobstructed view going across that expanse, and they said that the
sound could probably be better contained if it was closer to the
operation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So that's the amendment to
number two that you're talking about?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The next thing -- so you're
saying you want to remove 12?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Twelve and nine. No, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No, leave nine there and remove 12
because they're both the same, or vice-a-versa, whatever you want to
do. I think that needs to be in there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I -- Commissioner Coletta
stated that it would be less obtrusive from his understanding of the
Page 149
June 20-21, 2006
residents to use blasting instead of some kind of jackhammer.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That would go on for hours on
end and draw out the operation for a much longer time. That was --
that was the wishes of the people that I talked to. And I mean, I hope I
can get us to agree on that because that was one of the things they're
asking for.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well-- and that's part of your
motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That was part of my motion,
unless there's some discussion on it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I say one other thing?
Being that we don't have any rock here in Collier County, can you put
into your motion that the county will expedite the permits so the
operation can start at a reasonable rate?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no problem including
that language.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Providing the buffer's in place first.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That would be part of the
permitting process. You wouldn't be able to get the permit unless you
meet the requirements of this agreement.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just -- where in number three it says
a berm, it probably should say, an earth or sound-absorbent material
berm, or an earth berm or sound-absorbent material. Right?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Vegetation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, around the pumps.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, that should be -- the pumps should
be containment boxes or units that are designed for attenuating the
noise, and that's -- they can find those type of--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I just wanted to -- here they
say a berm, and then they had added in some of their material an earth
Page 150
June 20-21, 2006
berm, just to make sure it wasn't a mulch berm or something, I guess.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm lost on that. I'd have to ask
Joe Schmitt or Stan Chrzanowski.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, that's all right. That's all right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I wouldn't know where to
respond.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If you're happy with just the way it
is in three without adding that, that's fine.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What we need to do is on the large
motors that are running out there, if they can put an attenuation box
around there to -- of a sound-absorbing material, that will cut down a
lot on the propagation of sound into the neighborhoods.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make that part of the motion.
You're the engineer and I trust your opinion on it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So have we -- have we pretty
much taken care of everything that needs to be addressed here?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And do we -- I'm sure that if we tried to
read this all back it's going to be very difficult to get it back on the
record, so what has been made as the motion is that's -- is that enough
to make sure that we've covered all the bases and that it will be put
into this PUD? County Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. The answer is yes. I think it's clear on
the record. Your second will need to make sure they agree to the
motion as stated.
It's Mr. Coletta's motion. It had some assistance from a couple
other commissioners. I know -- and during part of the process,
petitioner mentioned that they would have three seismographs. That's
not apparently part of the motion at that point in time. It was a
statement made on the record that they were going to utilize that. If
you wanted to include that in the motion as well, you could, that --
because your discussion, I believe, indicated that the seismographic
Page 151
June 20-21, 2006
record would be available for people to view, including county staff.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If that wasn't put in the record, we need
to make sure that's added.
MR. WEIGEL: You can add that to your motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's added.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: And I think you've got a rather complete motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Pardon? I'm sorry.
MR. WEIGEL: Oh, I say, I think you've got a rather complete
motion, and it's on record.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I just want to make sure that
we've addressed all the issues that were presented to us today by the
citizens and that we can make sure that we've addressed those issues
and that we have some way of, a year later, coming back and
addressing this.
In fact, I believe as the petitioner said, they're bringing this back
probably within the next couple of months. So if they do get the --
hopefully they'll get the permits, they'll get started working, in
operation, and we'll have an idea of where we are as far as the baseline
is in regards to noise and dust and other concerns that came before the
commission today.
So is there any further discussion in regards to the motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah I'm going to second the
motion, but I also have a question for the petitioner.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no. That's what I was saying,
nobody seconded it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. All right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- Mr. Tyson.
MR. TYSON: Yes, sir.
Page 152
June 20-21, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you willing to live by the
conditions of the conditional use?
MR. TYSON: Definitely, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. It's just -- it's part of the
process that --
MR. TYSON: Oh, I understand. The beauty is we have the
opportunity, we will be coming back and we'll make all of those
clarifications and, you know, do it in a more effective time manner,
that's for sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I hope that we can get
some better guidance from the Planning Commission, although they
did make a lot here, but there's some duplications.
MR. TYSON: And I guess the only other question I have is,
does that satisfy -- does what we -- what you've gone through, does
that satisfy everybody? If there's anything else, you know, let us
know.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's a motion and a second.
MR. TYSON: I understand. Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So are you -- everybody satisfied with
the vote here before we take a break?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. MURRAY-ISTENES: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other discussion? Oh.
MS. MURRA Y-ISTENES: Just one comment.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. MURRA Y-ISTENES: Susan Murray-Istenes, for the
record. The process by bringing it back, Commissioner Fiala
mentioned. I just wanted to let you know, that is a formal process that
we have. So in a year's time, we will come back to you with a staff
report relative to all the conditions you approved today and then report
back to you on whether or not they've been meeting the conditions,
Page 153
June 20-21, 2006
whether we've obtained any complaints in the interim, that sort of
thing. So I didn't know -- we don't do that too often, but we actually
do have a process and a fee and a report that we will bring back to you
In a year.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: But this will be addressed when it comes
back before the Planning Commission in a few months when the
petitioner comes back for additional areas of mining.
MS. MURRA Y-ISTENES: Correct, you'll-- yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So we can address those issues
even before the year's up?
MS. MURRA Y-ISTENES: Well-- and at that time you may not
have any feedback as to some of the impacts. But I think that's what I
gathered you were looking for, and that's when -- a year from now is
generally when you'll have enough time and we'll have enough time to
accumulate some of those.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Hearing none, I'll call the
question. The motion was made by Commissioner Coletta and it was
seconded by Commissioner Henning.
All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
Thank you so very much, and we --
MR. TYSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And we will take --
Page 154
June 20-21, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: A 20-minute break.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We'll take a 15-minute break, okay?
We'll be back here at 3:00.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you would please take
your seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mic.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, County Manager.
Thank you, everybody. We're back from recess.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this is -- I just want to make sure
that everyone knows that 7C was withdrawn by the petitioner.
Item #8A
ORDINANCE 2006-33 ESTABLISHING THE ARTESIA NAPLES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (CDD) - ADOPTED
Brings us to our next item, which is 8C, and this is a
recommendation to consider adoption of an ordinance establishing the
Artesia Naples Community Development District, CDD, pursuant to
section 190.005 of the Florida Statutes.
MR. COHEN: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the
County Commission.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have to swear everybody in, don't
we, on this one?
MS. FILSON: No.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Pardon? Okay. Excuse me. Go ahead.
MR. COHEN: No problem, Commissioner. Randy Cohen,
Comprehensive Planning Director.
You have before you this afternoon a request for a Community
Development District for Artesia Naples. Just a little general
background from the beginning.
Page 155
June 20-21, 2006
The subject property is approximately 261 acres in size. The
petitioner is requesting a Community Development District that would
provide public infrastructure for this particular development.
In reviewing the criteria for community development districts,
we have to undertake a review as staff with respect to chapter 190.05,
and in particular, in CDD's that are less than 1,000 acres in size, the
criteria is spelled out in 190.005, to -- subparagraphs A through F.
And what those particular criteria ask us to do is to make a
determination as to whether certain criteria are met. And for the
record, these are the criteria: Whether all the statements contained
within the petition have been found to be true and correct; second,
whether the creation of the district is inconsistent with any applicable
element or portion of the state comprehensive plan or of the effective
local government comprehensive plan; the third criteria is whether the
area of land within the proposed district is of sufficient size, is
sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable
as one inter -- as one functional interrelated community; four, whether
the district is the best alternative available for delivering community
development services and facilities to the area that will be served by
the district; five, whether the community development services and
facilities of the district will be incompatible with the capacity and uses
of the existing local and regional community development services
facilities; and finally, six, whether the area that will be served by the
district is an amenable, separate special district government.
You have a petition in your packet as well as supplemental
materials which the staff reviewed as well. And in looking through
that particular petition, staff evaluated and found that the petition was
consistent with chapter 190.05.
From that perspective, I'm here to answer any questions that you
may have. In addition to that, the applicant's representatives, Mr. Rich
Y ovanovich and Mr. Wayne Arnold, are here as well, too, that may
answer any questions that you may have as well.
Page 156
June 20-21, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. Do I have any questions
from the commissioners before we proceed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. No questions from our
commISSIoners.
MR. COHEN: Thank you, Commissioners.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich
Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner, WCI Communities, Inc. With
me today is Dave Caldwell with WCI; Wayne Arnold and Mic Delate
from Grady Minor & Associates, and Russ Weyer from Fishkind &
Associates to answer any questions you may have.
Your -- obviously your executive summary is very detailed. And
staff actually stole some of my thunder on my presentation.
I do want to point out that there are some off-site benefits that
will come from the establishment of the CDD that was established.
We will construct improvements to both Tower Road and Barefoot
Williams Road through the establishment of the CDD, so there are
off-site improvements for the public benefit through the establishment
of the CDD.
The proposed ordinance in front of -- being presented to the
commission includes a provision addressing when residents become --
when a resident will become a member of the board of supervisors.
It's a standard provision that's been incorporated in many of your CDD
ordinances. It's also included in this ordinance. It will also record a
notice of any assessments and approval of bonds as soon as it occurs.
And WCI has a history with CDD's, so they go above and
beyond with the disclosures that that they make to perspective
purchases and include providing a brochure of what a CCD is. So
whenever anybody buys into one of their communities, they
understand what the CDD does for them and what it costs them to be
within a project that has a CDD.
So there's an abundance of disclosures above and beyond the
Page 157
June 20-21, 2006
statutory requirements in chapter 190. Your staffs recommending
approval. And with that, we would request approval of the ordinance
as well, and we're available to answer any questions you may have
regarding the CDD.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, this -- obviously you're
going to make some public improvements to public roadways. And as
long as staff has the opinion that making public improvements on
private property is part of the statute, then without any statute change
and no support from my colleagues, then I'm going to make a motion
to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor
and a second. Motion's by Commissioner Henning and a second by
Commissioner Coletta.
My concerns are, can you put on the record, Rich, exactly what
improvements you're going to make to those particular roads?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Barefoot Williams and Tower?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. I'd like to have those put on the
record, please.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'll have the engineer tell you what we're
doing regarding those two roads.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. DELATE: For the record, Mic Delate, Engineer with Grady
Minor & Associates. The improvements to air -- excuse me --
Barefoot Williams, Price Street and Tower Road include widening the
roads and actually demolishing existing Barefoot Williams Road in
front of the property because it has substandard materials there and
reconstructing the road, widening, and adding eight-foot bike and
sidewalk along the sides of the roads, and improving the drainage in
there.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is that just going to be in the front of
Page 158
June 20-21, 2006
this, or is this going to be some distance down the road to carry this
through?
MR. DELATE: It will be beyond the property limits. It will be
the entirety of Price Street and Tower Roads.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Entire -- all of Price Street?
MR. DELATE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And Tower Road?
MR. DELATE: And Tower Road, and two-thirds of Barefoot
Williams Road.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much. Any other
questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If there's no further questions, I'll call the
-- I'll call the question.
All those in favor of this motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Absent)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Carries.
Item #8B
RESOLUTION OF DENIAL 2006-158 - ADOPTED: REGARDING
PUDA-2005-AR-7858: ABACO BAY DEVELOPMENT, LLC
REPRESENTED BY CLAY BROOKER, CHEFFY P ASSIDOMO
WILSON AND JOHNSON, LLP AND LAURA SPURGEON OF
JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC., REQUESTING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE PINEBROOK LAKE RPUD TO
Page 159
June 20-21, 2006
REMOVE REFERENCES TO RENTAL UNITS, LOW COST
PROVISIONS, AND LEASE STANDARDS, AND TO UPDATE
THE OWNERSHIP TO REFLECT THE NEW OWNER, ABACO
BAY DEVELOPMENT, LLC. THE PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF
9.94 ACRES, IS LOCATED AT 4635 BAYSHORE DRIVE,
FURTHER DESCRIBED AS LOT 104 OF NAPLES GROVE AND
TRUCK COMPANYS LITTLE FARMS NO. -MOTION TO DENY
- APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, the next item is 8B. This item
requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
provided by commission members.
It's PUDA-2005-AR-7858, Abaco Bay Development, LLC,
represented by Clay Brooker of Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson, and
Johnson, LLP, and Laura Spurgeon of Johnson Engineering, Inc.,
requesting an amendment to the Pinebrook Lake RPUD to remove
references to rental units, low-cost provisions and lease standards, and
to update the ownership to reflect the new owner, Abaco Bay
Development, LLC.
The property, consisting of 9.94 acres, is located at 4635
Bayshore Drive, further described as Lot 104 of Naples Grove and
Truck Company's Little Farms Number 2 in Section 14, Township 50
south, Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. All those that are going to present
testimony, would you please stand up to be sworn in at this time.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
I'll start on my left with Commissioner Henning. Do you have
any ex parte, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have some correspondence
Page 160
June 20-21, 2006
from citizens, and that's it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I've had correspondence and
emails, and I've also talked with staff on this particular item, and that's
about all I have on this particular item as far as my ex parte.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I have had -- received
emails and talked to staff on this.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I have received emails and I
have had telephone calls concerning this.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Go ahead and proceed at this time.
MR. BROOKER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Clay Brooker. I represent the petitioner, Abaco Bay Development,
LLC, the sole member of which is a man named Michael Johnson.
We are here today on an amendment to the Pinebrook Lake PUD.
Before I get into the particulars, I'd like to introduce Laura Spurgeon
of Johnson Engineering. She deserves the credit for doing most of the
work behind the scenes. And to her left is Mic Hager, the owner,
representative, and project manager.
I placed on Elmo the aerial illustrating the location of the
property. Up along the left-hand side of the property, this is a map
oriented to the north. The top is the north. That is Bayshore Drive
coming down from top to bottom. Thomasson Drive is going from left
to right or east to west towards the bottom of the photograph. The
property is approximately 10 acres in size. It's located at 4635
Bayshore Drive.
This PUD was approved over 26 years ago. It's an old one, back
in 1980. Pursuant to that PUD it has been fully developed, as you see
in the aerial, at 16 units per acre. It was developed in accordance with
that PUD, with the existing PUD, with multifamily structures, parking
areas and a pool and clubhouse facility.
Surrounding or abutting to the north, immediately to the north, is
Page 161
June 20-21, 2006
the Botanical Place PUD, which was recently approved by the County
that contains some affordable housing, and immediately south of the
property was the -- or is the Serus Point PUD, which was also recently
approved. It also contains an affordable housing component.
The proposal before you today requests no changes to the
physical development on site. The only changes we are requesting are
text changes to the PUD document, and those changes deal with the
use of the property. The only permitted use of the property under the
existing PUD is multifamily rental dwellings.
In general what we are proposing here today is that the PUD
document be revised to allow owner occupation of the units by
eliminating all references to rental and leases or rental requirements.
Last year the State of Florida approved the condominiumization
of this property. Since then the vast majority of the units have been
sold to individual owners for prices ranging from approximately
$120,000 to $260,000.
These owners support this petition. I have delivered to the
county signatures of owners of 143 out of the 160 units, which their
signatures signify the support for the petition and authorize us to act in
their behalf.
This is the -- these are a collection I'm here today holding in my
hand of the 143 signatures. They have been already delivered to the
county staff and I ask that they be made part of the record of this
petition.
If you're wondering about the remaining 17 out of 160, we
simply couldn't reach them or we didn't hear back from them. To our
knowledge though, no unit owner has refused to sign the petition on a
basis of objection to the petition.
It is important to note that although the majority of the units are
now individually owned and although we are requesting to eliminate
the rental requirement, many of the units are still being rented today
by those individual unit owners to lessees.
Page 162
June 20-21, 2006
The condo documents that are in place and have been approved
by the state allow each unit to be leased up to four times a year with
the minimum term being 30 days and a maximum term being one
year, which obviously can be renewed.
So what we are looking for is simply an expansion of allowing
the owner occupancy, but at the same time allowing rental of the units
as they have been used for the last 26 years.
Although this is a PUD amendment, and which therefore does not
open up the entire PUD for review, we did receive some staff requests,
to all of which we've agreed. They -- the staff recommendations
basically are identical to what the Planning Commission
recommended as well.
There are three of them. One was a removal of the exotics within
90 days. We have agreed to that, and it's a perpetual obligation to
keep the property free from exotics.
A second request was for a 50-foot drainage easement to be
granted to the County without compensation to the property owner
what I'll call at the back of the property or to the east side of the
property .
At the Planning Commission meeting we agreed to that concept,
but there is some question about the width because 50 feet would
actually encroach into some of our water management facilities
existing on site.
Since the Planning Commission meeting, we have met with
appropriate county staff, and we have determined that 50 feet will--
we will be able to grant that 50 feet in width that's been requested with
the caveat that the County will come in and be responsible for
adjusting our stormwater management facilities as necessary.
We also have agreed to plant some landscaping along the
northern boundary line of our property, which is the southern
boundary line of Botanical Place PUD. This request actually came
from the developer of the Botanical Place PUD. We've agreed to do
Page 163
June 20-21, 2006
that. We're essentially matching what he has planted, the developer
has planted on Botanical Place side, and those are basically oak trees
spaced out, I believe it's every 30 feet at intervals to where he's
already planted his.
Finally the last addition, I guess -- it's not a part of a staff request
-- but early on the County notified us that it cannot locate its Master
Plan that was approved back 1980, so we agreed at our cost to go
ahead and create a new one based upon a survey, a plot survey, and
we have done so, and it should be in your packet.
Lastly there was some public input. I think three letters were
sent into the County to the county planning staff directly. I received
copies of those. We obviously request those be made a part of the
record if they are not already a part of the record.
I should tell you, though, I believe those were unit owners
already, which have turned around and signed our petition anyways,
so it might be a little bit of a duplication.
In conclusion, I don't know if any of the commissioners have
seen the property recently, but I think if you have you would agree
that it's been vastly improved compared to what it looked like about
two years ago.
Improvements include the re-siding, painting and re-roofing of
the buildings. We believe the property is now an asset to the
neighborhood which lies in an area of the Bayshore/Gateway area that
the county has been trying to improve. More importantly, we believe
that approving this petition will obviously allow owner occupancy,
which is true home ownership to many who have not been able to
afford in the past.
We, therefore, request that you approve the petition like the staff
recommendation and the Planning Commission did with the changes
noted. And I should tell you that we have been in discussions or have
actually refined the PUD document and agreed to language of
planning staff and County Attorney's Office that actually puts into
Page 164
June 20-21, 2006
words the staff recommendations that you see in your staff report.
That's already been done. It's agreed to. And if you need to see that
language, I can certainly show it to you, but it was reached in
agreement with the County Attorney's Office and staff to refine that
PUD document.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. There is some
questions, but I want to ask staff to give their presentation, and then
we'll approach all the questions. So we'll probably have you come up
once again after we hear staff s presentation.
MR. BROOKER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
MS. DESELEM: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is
Kay Deselem. I'm a Principal Planner with the Zoning and
Development Review Staff.
You have the staff report, the backup information, and the
executive summary. And staff is recommending that this project be
found compatible and consistent by policy with the Growth
Management Plan.
And we have provided findings for the PUD and the rezoning
and legal considerations in support of our recommendation. Our
recommendation is to approve this petition with the revisions in the
PUD document as requested by the CCPC.
And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to address them.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. At this time I believe
Commissioner Coletta has some questions, and I'm not sure if it's for
you or --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, whoever, just some
questions.
The petitioner is only seeking to amend the PUD wording to
remove references to low-cost rental apartments or any similar
references that limit the PUD to low cost or rental use.
I'm kind of confused why they're coming forward and they're
Page 165
June 20-21,2006
even asking for this. I mean, they've already gone forward and they
sold the units; is that correct?
MR. DESELEM: That's my understanding, yes, sir. They've
gone through the state requirements for condominiumizing it but they
wanted to remove any doubt in anybody's mind for banking purposes
or anything else as to what was allowed here, and they wanted to
remove any reference to rental so that property owners can safely buy
into it and live there without any cloud over them as to whether or not
it's rental or ownership.
My understanding in talking with some of the people that have
bought units within this property project, they ran into problems with
their financing because of the clauses within the PUD document that
said it had to be rental.
So what the applicant is trying to do, in my understanding of that
petition, is they want to remove any references so that it can be
approval for the condominiumization ownership that's been approved
by the state so that the PUD document will match the state documents
and allow people who buy units to live there without having to create
corporations or something to rent it back to themselves.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And many times now
we've had comments from the public and we've talked about the great
difficulty of the number of apartments, rental apartments, that are
turning into condos. This is the first time I ever seen one of them
reach the commission where we were asked our opinion on it. It's
kind of refreshing to know that that's happening.
I don't know if I could ever go along with this. I mean, our GMP
housing element, obj ective number one, is it require the number of
new affordable housing to be increased to 500 each year, and this is
definitely going just the other way.
The current LDC recommends that the units remain affordable
for 15 years, but that's the current one. The original laws and
regulations and rules of the PUD that they went under, didn't have it in
Page 166
June 20-21, 2006
perpetuity. There was no limit at that time when they signed it and
they agreed to do the PUD that it would remain affordable units; is
that correct or no?
MS. DESELEM: It's interesting, yes. I went and looked at
actual minutes from those meetings, and this particular petition, as
noted in the staff report, was accompanied by a request to amend the
Growth Management Plan to allow the density allowances to go from
six, plus or minus a few units, to 30 units per acre.
And this particular petition was approved for what it saw, which
was 16 units per acres, but it wasn't tied to anything particular as far as
density bonus. It was just something that was approved as part of that
Growth Management Plan.
The current way we do things is, if you get a bonus density, then
you're tied to a density agreement for a certain time period. These
people didn't sign anything like that. There was no bonus granted
based on reduce --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know that, but the thing is, is
that they did sign an agreement that stated it was low cost rental
apartments; is that correct?
MS. DESELEM: The only agreement basically was agreeing to
the PUD document the way it was submitted.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's exactly --
MS. DESELEM: There was no rental agreement or --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And we're the authors ofPUD
documents and we're the people that can change them. So the state
trumped us on this one basically; is that what we're saying?
MS. DESELEM: Well, they went through the normal procedure
to condominiumize it. But even with today's standards, if somebody
went through a rezoning, got a PUD approved and had bonus density
granted, they would be tied to that for 15 years. These have remained
affordable for 26 years.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I know. I hear you, but
Page 167
June 20-21, 2006
the thing was, is that it didn't say that they'd remain affordable for 26
years. It just said affordable, and that was the understanding when
they built, that was the understanding -- it was probably resold a
couple different times.
What happened in the Collier County Planning Commission
meeting? I know the vote was 5-3, but there wasn't any kind of
description why the three people voted against it.
MS. DESELEM: I would have to go back and look. I truly don't
remember what the dissenting votes -- what their decision was. I just
was paying more attention to what their recommendation was and to
make sure that we complied with that. And I'm sorry to say that I can't
really --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, that's okay. I wouldn't
expect you to have total recall on it. Just, I was curious. Normally
there's a little notation under that, so-and-so voted this way because of
this reason. In this case it wasn't there, and it would just give me a
little more guidance of where I'm going with it. Thank you very
much.
MS. DESELEM: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I had a couple questions
myself.
These signatures, as I was going through them, it looks like
people have bought three and four and -- two, three and four of them,
so I would guess that that means that they're not owner occupied being
that, you know, you've got a number of people that own them. Not
only that, the School District owns one, so I'm sure that they're not
owner occupied, as well as the Salvation Army owns a couple of
them.
So that means that maybe they want that restriction lifted because
they want to raise the rents. And maybe right now with the
restrictions in our PUD, it says that it should be rented to people that --
Page 168
June 20-21, 2006
you know, that need rental units rather than -- you know, I think they
want to take them off the market. My guess is they want to take them
off the market, use it as an investment, jack up the rents. And you
know, I guess that's business, but these weren't intended to do that. So
I have a problem with them.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ms. Deselem, the old
application, the original PUD, says that it's very low income housing,
low income rentals. And they just want to remove the word rental and
still provide the low cost?
MS. DESELEM: They're removing both designations as part of
the amendment. That's what's proposed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So not having the
minutes back then, did it get under approval based upon a need for
low-cost rentals at that time?
MS. DESELEM: No. In fact, in the staff report, I went back,
like I said, and looked at those minutes, and one of the -- the staff
report from the comprehensive planning staff at that time when they
were looking at the amendment, it's supported it and it said that
objective ID of the housing element encourages the development of
year-round rental housing with annual leases for all income levels.
So it's kind of difficult to ascertain exactly what the intention was
because there's another reference to moderate income. It talks about,
the minutes indicate that the purpose for the requested amendment is
to allow for the development of moderate income rental housing at 16
units per acre.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. DESELEM: So it's a little bit difficult actually to determine
since there was no agreement or anything that was signed to go with it
that limited it. It was just wording that was in the PUD document that
we don't normally have in a PUD document now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, like Commissioner
Page 169
June 20-21,2006
Coletta says, our Growth Management Plan now states to encourage
it. And is this really encouraging it?
MS. DESELEM: I would have to say that no, it doesn't. And I
do believe Cormac Giblin is here always, if you wish to speak with
him regarding his view of the affordable housing and how this
particular petition would affect what he's doing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'd just like to say that I'm encouraged--
one thing that encourages me on this is the idea of where the price
range for this is 120- to 260,000. To me that is affordable housing.
My big concern is the same concern that Commissioner Fiala
had, and that was that there's more than one owner, there's a number
of owners, and obviously they're going to end up renting these out
again and -- at a substantial increase in rent, maybe to the point where
it is not (sic) no longer affordable, but the price range of 120- is great
if it's sold to people that are going to occupy these -- this type of units.
This is something we need drastically in this county, somewheres
around 120- to 260,000. I think that's the price range that we really
need to address. It's being addressed but it's in the wrong manner,
where people are buying these and using it as a lucrative means of
obtaining rent at a high rate. That's fine. That's my biggest concern
on this.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commission Coletta, I believe you're
next, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much. I do
appreciate that.
Mr. Giblin, would you please come up front so I could ask some
questions? I think what's on the mind of all our commissioners here is
that there's a -- the loss of these rental units throughout the County has
proceeded at an unbelievable rate.
What have we been losing countywide? I know there's some
statistics out there. Do you know them off the top of your head?
Page 170
June 20-21,2006
MR. GIBLIN: For the record, Cormac Giblin, your Housing and
Grants Manager.
I have seen some reports that have estimated that more than a
third of all the rentals in Collier -- or we have lost more than a third of
all rentals in Collier County due to conversion over the past year.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, in just the past year?
MR. GIBLIN: In the past year.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And so -- now, they're talking
about the save-all is that this is going to become available for people
that can afford houses that are under 260-, and in some cases they'll be
rented back to people but undoubtedly be rented back at a higher rate.
What's happening with all the people, the service people that we
had? Where are they going now? I know that we lost all these other
units that are out there. We have that one trailer park. What was the
name of that not too far from here?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Diamond Shores.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Diamond Shores recently where
we had a total upheaval here. Everybody was evicted from their
houses or in the process of being evicted. Where are all these people
going? Where are they finding residence where they can live, or aren't
they? Are they moving out of the area? Are they doubling up
someplace else in the county, tripling up?
MR. GIBLIN: Commissioner, probably all the above, and that's
our ongoing challenge in our department is trying to keep up with the
demand.
Simply what you have before you is an existing PUD that is
mandated to provide low cost rental housing. They cannot do
anything other than that until they get your okay, and that's where --
that's what they're seeking here today is to make it market rate
residential units that could be rented, owner occupied or subleased.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But they already went ahead
and sold the units.
Page 171
June 20-21,2006
MR. GIBLIN: They have sold, I think in the record he said,
about 140 of the 160 are already sold. I was privy to one of the sales
contracts, and I can tell you that it had about aID-page disclaimed
attached to it, identifying it, that it -- although you are buying this unit,
the PUD does stipulate that it remain low cost rental housing, and in
order for you to occupy the unit on your own, you must set up one of
these dummy corporations and rent it back to yourself. It was a -- it
was quite an interesting disclaimer.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Boy, am I glad you're back from
vacation.
Now, ask (sic) me this -- now, this wouldn't be the reason I'd ever
vote or make a motion for denial, but if this was denied, this would put
a cloud on the title and very likely would cause the property values to
stay low, wouldn't it?
MR. GIBLIN: That's probably --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Of course, I wouldn't do that,
you know that. I'm not that kind of person; however, with that said,
I'd like to make a motion for denial based upon several factors, one of
them being that our GMP housing element objective number one
requires that the number of new house -- new affordable houses need
to be increased to 500 each year; also, the current LDC -- no, excuse
me.
Going right to the next one would be that the proposed
amendment has not been deemed consistent with the goals, objectives,
and policies in the future land use map in the applicability element of
the GMP, and also the land uses are not compatible with the existing
land use pattern.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, second that motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coletta for denial and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
Do we have any additional discussion or questions?
Page 1 72
June 20-21, 2006
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Hearing none--
MR. BROOKER: Mr. Chairman, may I respond to some of the
comments?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure.
MR. BROOKER: Each of these units were sold with an express
provision that they must rent. The developer today has no obligation
to be here. He's doing so for the benefit of the purchasers of those
units.
As I've mentioned, the vast majority have already been sold. He
made a representation early on that he would go in and try to help
them out by removing this rental requirement provision, and that's
why we're here today. It adds no benefit to him.
Affordable housing. This actually adds affordable housing to the
community. I don't believe the GMP says it must be affordable rental
housing. I believe it says you must add affordable housing units at
500 units per year, or whatever the language stated. This added 160 at
120,000 to $260,000 per unit, which is well within and way below
affordable housing ranges in Collier County.
If affordable housing requirements were imposed on this
developer at the time this PUD was approved, those requirements
would have to have been in place for 15 years under the current
regulations. These requirements have been in place for 26 years. This
guy's done his time.
There's been some mention about, you see more than one unit
being bought by a person. Thirty-five units were bought by Lavender
Hill Holdings, LLC. Lavender Hill Holdings, LLC entered into a
written agreement with Naples Community Hospital, the only way
Lavender Hill Holdings was going to purchase 35 units.
That written agreement stated that all 35 units must be offered for
rent at no more of a rental cost than is necessary to serve the debt for
the purchase that was incurred by the purchase of the 35 units -- so
Page 1 73
June 20-21, 2006
there's the ceiling to keep the rent low -- with the obligation that a
certain portion of those units must be offered up to the hospital or its
staff for sale within five years. All 35 units are 100 percent occupied
by hospital staff currently, and I'm told that most of them are very,
very interested in purchasing those units when they can.
So to say this wasn't creating an affordable housing opportunity, I
believe, is spinning this the wrong way. You are creating an
affordable housing opportunity for Naples Community Hospital and
its employees by that written agreement.
Finally, county ordinance and state statute prohibit a county from
applying or interpreting its land development regulations with regard
to form of ownership, specifically condominiums. The fact that this
went condominium should have no bearing whatsoever and cannot
legally have any bearing whatsoever in your deliberations. LDC
2.01.00.5, Florida Statutes 718.507, can't discriminate against
condominium form of ownership.
What we have here is a rental requirement in a PUD that was
imposed 26 years ago. That requirement has been abided by for 26
years. If you want to look at this as an affordable housing project,
they have done nearly double their time under the current regulations.
If you adopted an affordable housing project today, you couldn't
impose regulations past 15 years. What you're doing by the motion
that's currently at issue is requiring double that upon one developer.
So I ask -- those are my responses. I ask that you reconsider in
terms of the fact that we are providing affordable housing, not taking
it away.
And I also -- well, I'll leave it at that. But when you have a PUD
that simply says low cost rentals, what does that mean? I would ask
the County Attorney's Office to explain to me what number means
low cost rentals. It's not going to be easily defined.
So I would argue that the existing PUD language is void for
being vague. What we are trying to do is create an opportunity for
Page 174
June 20-21, 2006
true home ownership that will allow both owner occupation and
rentals pursuant to what that unit owner wants to do. And we already
know that this whole program has created a huge benefit to Naples
Community Hospital. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta, you're first, I
believe, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There is nothing in my motion
that restricts people from community hospital or teachers or anyone
else from buying or moving into these. I just want us to recognize the
fact that this was originally set up with an understanding that it would
be affordable housing rentals, and it didn't have a time limit to it.
It was set up by rules and regulations that were in place at the
time this was put together 26 years ago. They did not serve twice the
amount of time. That was the regulations. That was the PUD they
agreed to. That has not changed. I mean, if that was the case, we'd be
able to go back to every PUD that's now in existence and be able to
force the new rules and regulations that are on them, maybe even
charge them impact fees for houses that have been there 20 years.
That makes absolutely no sense.
My motion stands as is.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. If this was bought by
Lavender Company (sic), LLC, for the hospital and this is very, very
important to the hospital employees, why isn't Brian Settle here? I
mean, he's also the first one here, isn't he, fighting for affordable
housing? And I don't see him, and I haven't gotten a letter from him.
I don't know about anyone else, but --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, if this was important for
him -- you said you've gotten letters from what, 140 out of the 160?
We only have 60 names in here, and I don't know how many each one
owns. Not one of them live in there of the ones that are provided here.
Page 175
June 20-21, 2006
In fact, I see the county owns two of them. I don't know what we're
going do with them either. I don't even know how we got them.
MR. BROOKER: I hope you're going to rent them.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I have no idea. But if this is so
important to the hospital, why wouldn't they want to be here to tell us
why they need this change in the PUD?
MR. BROOKER: I spoke to Lavender Hill Holdings, the
managing member of Lavender Hill Holdings. He spoke to the
hospital, so I cannot say what the hospital said to him. But it was just
briefly explained to me that they thought this petition would have so
much support behind it that they didn't feel it necessary to come today.
That was the explanation given to me through Lavender Hill Holdings
by Naples Community Hospital.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Clay, I think someone said earlier
that the owner really didn't have to come here, that he really didn't
need our approval, and apparently they don't. They've been able to
sell these properties without our approval. What harm then is caused
to the petitioner if the board doesn't provide approval?
MR. BROOKER: I believe legally no harm at all besides not
being able to go through with, I guess, coming through with an
amendment to the PUD that they said they would strive to get before
the BCC. So the ultimate harm is to the unit owners, 160 unit owners.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All of whom purchased the
property with the full knowledge that a PUD amendment had not been
granted?
MR. BROOKER: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So they've worked out, apparently,
a legal way of getting around that provision. Let me -- so I don't see
any damage that is being caused by a failure of this board to approve
the petition. But let me carry it a bit further.
There seems to be an interest in creating affordable housing and
Page 176
June 20-21,2006
maybe even affordable rentals particularly for the hospital. Suppose
there were stipulations to the fact that that would be the purpose for
these rentals. The board might be more inclined to approve it under
those circumstances.
Is that a problem for you or does that create --
MR. BROOKER: In terms of the 35 units?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: In terms of all of them, I guess.
MR. BROOKER: To agree to a stipulation to keep them at
rentals? I mean, that's exactly what we're trying to change today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But I understood that a
commitment has been made to provide those -- a certain number.
MR. BROOKER: Thirty-five.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thirty-five only then. So only 35
would be kept for the hospital; is that what you--
MR. BROOKER: That's my understanding of what Lavender
Hill Holdings --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then if we limited our discussion
just to the 35, the board is clearly trying to find a way to create as
much affordable housing as possible. Since it is the intent of the
owner of at least those 35 units to keep them for use for the hospital
and keep the rents relatively low -- and you described a way to control
the rents -- if those stipulations were included in this petition for board
consideration, what would be your reaction to that?
MR. BROOKER: I would have to ask Lavender Hill Holdings if
they would be agreeable to placing their contract with the hospital of
public record. We certainly don't have a problem doing that, but I'm
not a party to that contract.
And as far as the damage goes, these units can't be homesteaded.
Financing is very difficult. The prices you saw, I explained to you,
120- to 260,00, were affordable housing. That was market.
So you're not allowing an affordable housing element to
perpetuate in the community by keeping this rental requirement in
Page 1 77
June 20-21, 2006
place.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a question. You said that the--
there is agreement with Lavender in regards to, I think you said, 134
units; is that correct?
MR. BROOKER: Thirty-five.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thirty-five units with the hospital.
MR. BROOKER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, excuse me. Can you tell me if
there's some of these units purchased, have they already been flipped,
and if they have been flipped, what's the accelerated cost been?
MR. BROOKER: We don't have that information. I think the
only way we could find that out is try to do a comparison with the
records of our sales with property appraiser records today, and we
haven't done that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. BROOKER: But there are still units available for sale by
our -- by the developer.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And they're still in the price range
between 120- and 260,000.
MR. BROOKER: I'm told they're now 200- to 260,000. Just
200,000 are the remaining. Sorry for the confusion. I don't the know
the answer to that right off the bat. But I guess the remaining units are
being sold at a price of 200,000, 190- to 200,000.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: One ninety. How many units were sold
at the price of 120, as you stated?
MR. BROOKER: Approximately -- and don't hold me to this --
about approximately 40.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Forty were sold somewheres in that price
range of 120,000?
MR. BROOKER: That's my understanding, correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And are those the units that were
contracted by the hospital?
Page 178
June 20-21,2006
MR. BROOKER: No.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. The units that were contracted by
the hospital, what did they range at, can you tell me, roughly?
MR. BROOKER: I don't know if we feel comfortable disclosing
a purchase price by a purchaser.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can you give me a ball park figure
without disclosing the exact price, or do you still want to --
MR. BROOKER: I don't feel I can legally do that without
imposing upon some sort of privacy rights of Lavender Hill Holdings
and Naples Community, or Lavender Hill Holdings.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, what I'm just trying to do is find
out what they purchased it at so that we had some idea what they're do
-- what they're going to charge for the rent. Hopefully the rent isn't
going to go up by 50 percent of what the payment of the condos is at.
MR. BROOKER: I can tell you that the sale price was less than
half of the average of the range I gave you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. BROOKER: And I really am uncomfortable going further.
I apologize, but I hope you -- trust you understand why I feel very
difficult going there.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What we're trying to do is we're trying to
get some idea of the arena of where are you with the price of the
homes, and then if we could find out about what the price range of the
rental rate is.
So we're not -- I guess where I'm stuck on this is the fact that
some people will go out and buy these units where we have a number
of rental units throughout the county, not only just this particular
person, okay, and they'll go out and they'll buy these at a substantial --
at a nice price, and it's called affordable housing.
And then what they do is turn around and rent it. And if you
looked at the house payment for this condo and if they had 20 percent
down or whatever, probably be around $1,200 a month or something
Page 1 79
June 20-21,2006
of that nature, okay, whatever. I didn't figure it all out. But yet, the
person might turn around and try to rent this thing for $1,800 or
$2,000 a month.
So that's what I'm looking at. I know that the person has invested
in something, but yet, it's to the point when you pay that kind of rent,
it's not affordable housing. Do you understand what I'm trying to get
at?
MR. BROOKER: I hear where you're coming. And I -- we're
obviously not privy to lease agreements between purchasers and
ultimate tenants, but I can tell you, as a matter of fact, with regard to
Lavender Hill Holdings, at the price range I gave to you, I think you
would be -- well, the rental rates are kept at a minimum, the minimum
necessary, to service the debt incurred by the purchase.
I was told by Lavender Hill Holdings they wanted to create a
charity to do this, but the federal regulations are just too onerous, so
they created an LLC and entered into the written agreement with NCH
system -- Home Care System, Inc.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, and I'll be brief, probably
to everybody relief. How many these units would be unsold if we
went forward with my n10tion and voted denial?
MR. BROOKER: I guess the ones that are not sold yet.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, they're unsold, I mean,
but the ones that have already been sold, which is the majority of
them.
MR. BROOKER: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How many of them become
unsold?
MR. BROOKER: Become unsold?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. In other words, they'll
come back and say, the deal's off, we didn't understand what we were
Page 180
June 20-21, 2006
doing, that you put us in a bad position.
MR. BROOKER: I don't there's any --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So nothing would change--
MR. BROOKER: -- contingency in the contract for denial of this
petition giving the buyer a right to come back and rescind the contract,
if that's the question you were asking.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So all the other parts of this
really don't matter. I think it's -- what we're looking at here is, you're
right, according to the state, to be able to do this.
As far as I'm concerned, as a county commissioner, the board that
was in power 26 years ago and that came up with the deal with the
then-there landowner did not put in there a condition of limitations. It
was a condition from there forward, it's going to be this way.
So we're trying to rewrite it based upon current conditions that
we're coming up with for people with different situations.
Also, too, when these were under one person's control, they were
probably maintained to some point. And you said you had to put
some money into them, you had to bring them together. Now you've
got a whole bunch of owners that are going to be renting them out to
other people. It might be even a little more difficult to be able to
maintain that level of alnbience that you would like to for that and the
county.
But regardless, still, our action here today, I think, more
expresses a displeasure with what's taking place out there. It does no
harm to you, as Commissioner Coy Ie said just a few minutes ago, but I
think it makes a statement as far as how this commission feels in --
regarding the conversion of apartments, affordable apartments, into
condos.
And that's the way I stand on it, sir, and I'm sorry if it displeases
you, but I have to live with my beliefs every day.
MR. BROOKER: I mean, I obviously harbor a little bit
displeasure about this, but I think the most displeasure will be
Page 181
June 20-21, 2006
harbored by the people who have bought those units and are trying to
live there under true home ownership.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. The same people that
signed an agreement saying that there was no guarantees that there
would be an approval coming --
MR. BROOKER: Because they were given an opportunity to
purchase something with the hope that the Board of County
Commissioners would agree with them and give them their home.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a question. Is this going to affect
any of the people -- first of all, let me go back here. Do you have
people that bought these homes that are actually living there full time?
MR. BROOKER: Absolutely, with kids.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is this going to affect their ability
in getting financing?
MR. BROOKER: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. How many residents are full time
that are not renting that are -- that actually own those units and are
concerned about what we're going to vote on here in regards to getting
a mortgage?
MR. BROOKER: There's no way of us knowing that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm surprised. I would think that you
would have something of this nature so that we'd have that figure,
because that weighs on, I would think, on our decision. We sure don't
want to end up displacing somebody that has bought a place and is
there living full time, especially if it's a single mother with children,
okay.
And so, to me, if all this is, is to protect the investors then I've
really got a real problen1 with this, okay, the investors that bought
these units and are going to use them for rental.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Halas, if they
bought the units already, their financing is already in place. It isn't
Page 182
June 20-21, 2006
affected by this deal.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So I don't -- I don't understand. I
don't think it can possibly be affected.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, call the question.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any further discussion on
this matter by my commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If not I'll call the question, and the
question is a denial of this, and I believe it was --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I made the motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion was made by Commissioner
Coletta, and it was seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
All those in favor of denial, 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 to carries, I believe, 5-0.
Item #8C
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
Page 183
June 20-21, 2006
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 - MOTION
TO CONTINUE TO THE JULY 25 BCC MEETING - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us -- well, let's -- in the
abundance of caution -- I've got four minutes -- 8C, in my read of the
changes to today's agenda, 8C was continued, and that was continued
at the petitioner's. Could I get a motion of the board to continue that
to the 25th of July?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. There's been a motion on the
floor by Commissioner Coy 1 e, seconded by Commissioner Fiala, to
continue this till July 25th, I believe it is.
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. I guess We're close enough that
we can have time certain, ri ght?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, I think we are.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Three minutes.
MR. MUDD: I think we are.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
Page 184
June 20-21, 2006
Item #12B
STATUS REPORT OF F.S. CHAPTER 164 PROCEEDINGS IN
REFERENCE TO INVERSE CONDEMNATION LAWSUIT IN
CASE NO. 05-0064-CA - CONTINUED TO JULY 25, 2006 BCC
MEETING - CONSENSUS
MR. MUDD: You have a time certain item today that has to do
with 12B. It's provide a status report on Florida statute Chapter 164
proceedings inn reference to the inverse condemnation lawsuit of
Bernard J. and Hellen R. Nobel and Vincent D. Doerr versus Collier
County in case number 05-0064-CA, and describe further attempts by
the staffs of the South Florida Water Management District, the State
of Florida Division of Lands, and the county to reach an agreement in
this matter.
And I believe the County Attorney has one of their attorneys to
present, along with Mr. John Dunnuck, who is here from the South
Florida Water Managelnent District, to represent their particular
interests and answer your questions, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Who's going to present here first,
our County Manager -- our County Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. County Attorney Office will present.
Our people are in the elevator. Should be here momentarily. Here we
go.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. HUBBARD: Good afternoon.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Please wait till everybody gets seated so
we can cut down -- just give us a minute or two to get everybody
seated.
MS. HUBBARD: All right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Proceed, Jacquelyn. Thank you
Page 185
June 20-21, 2006
very much.
MS. HUBBARD: All right, thank you.
Commissioner, I'n1 here along with Attorney Ellen Chadwell to
advise you regarding the progress of our negotiations with the State
Bureau of Lands and also the South Florida Water Management
District regarding the agreen1ent that was entered into by the County
some time ago.
As to the litigation, I have good news to report regarding that in
that the attorney for the Nobel and Doerr families has agreed to a
settlement of that matter, the inverse condemnation matter.
The state has agreed and has stepped up to the plate to pay for the
cost of acquiring that land. That alone has saved the county more than
$3 million. And the lawsuit will be dismissed.
There is one aspect of that lawsuit that is waiting to be satisfied,
and that is a commitn1ent that has been made by the board of the
South Florida Water Management District that they will pay the
attorney fees for the attorney that represents the Nobel and Doerr
families. And my understanding is that is somewhere in the
neighborhood of $70,000 or so. And once that is done, that matter
will be completed.
As to the land donation, Ms. Chadwell is prepared to advise you
regarding that matter. I also note that Mr. John Dunnuck is present,
probably undoubtedly on behalf of the South Florida Water
Management District, and he will probably be willing to give you an
update regarding their position regarding the land that the county
wants for A TV use.
I can tell you that the state has been diligently looking to find an
alternative site that would be acceptable, and Ellen can fill you in on
that aspect of the matter.
At the conclusion of all the presentations, if you have a question
regarding what your options would be, you know, I will be here to
answer that question, because as you know, the agreement was entered
Page 186
June 20-21, 2006
into some time ago with a promise to provide 640 acres, more or less,
to the county that was suitable for recreational purposes, including
ATV use, and that aspect of the agreement has not yet come to
fruition.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. HUBBARD: Do you have any questions regarding the
litigation aspect?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any questions from my commissioners
before we proceed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. HUBBARD: No?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MS. HUBBARD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ellen, are you going to give us a
presentation or --
MS. CHADWELL: Yes, excuse me, sir. I'm trying to review
this -- some maps that was just given to me. On the visualizer, you
should see a very large blow-up of county property. These are the two
sections that are being --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You'll have to use the remote mic. Do
you have the remote n1ic?
MS. CHADWELL: Well, I think they can pick up -- you can
pick up my voice fron1 here, right?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No, no.
MS. CHADWELL: I might break out in a song or two.
That gives you a very large blow-up. And let me narrow it down
so you have a way to locate it. This is {Sp} Sable Palm Road here
running across the tops of the properties. Those black boxes are the
two sections. Those are Section 32 and Section 33 in Township 50
south, Range 27 east.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Excuse me. Does everybody know
Page 187
June 20-21, 2006
where Sable Palm is? What road is that off of, in what area?
MS. CHADWELL: It shoots -- goes east/west off of 951, which
is also Collier Boulevard.
AUDIENCE: Which way is north?
MS. CHADWELL: North of this map is in this direction.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Up.
MS. CHADWELL: Up. You see the arrow right here, okay.
When we last spoke to you, which was about a month back, it
was two meetings prior, we didn't know much about the details of this
proposal. I forwarded a nlllnber of questions to the state, and they've
tried to do their best to give n1e some answers.
Right now they are asking for an additional 30 days. There is
some continual soil testing going on, on the site. While they don't feel
it's going to affect the ability to utilize this site for A TV use, they
would like some additional tin1e before they could come forward with
a very concrete proposal.
They've indicated that in this two-section area, that 750 acres
would be part of the proposal. You mayor may not be able -- you can
see the lighter sections in those two black boxes. Those are what's
called as Wiggins -- Wiggins fields. Those used to be agricultural
lands where they had, I don't know, harvested tomatoes and various
other crops there.
They're proposing that 500 acres be utilized for A TV use with a
250-acre buffer to the south. And what they would like to see is have
another 30 days to con1plete their evaluation of the testing, get
together with the county and district staff and go over some more of
the details as far as what type of facilities would be built and what
have you.
I would point out to the board at this point that this land that we
see here is situated in NRP A. area, is designated sending lands under
natural resource protection area.
So there would have to be a determination at some point in time
Page 188
June 20-21, 2006
that the use that's proposed there would be consistent with that plan
designation. If not, you're looking potentially at amending that plan.
So I think it's important that you know that up front.
Obviously staff doesn't have adequate information at this point in
time to render an opinion as to what they would recommend, but those
are -- those are NRP A sending lands.
As far as any other real relevant details, they're proposing a
similar trail system to that at the Crooms motorcycle area. I don't
know if you're familiar \vith that. Some of the -- some of the members
of the public here, I'm sure, are.
The land -- another in1portant matter or issue is that the land
cannot be conveyed out of state ownership. The Attorney Deputy
General Counsel for Departlnent of Environmental Protection has
indicated that the board of trustees would be will be to enter into an
amendment, either as an anlendment to this agreement or a separate
agreement, giving us sonle assurances that that land would continue in
perpetuity for that use.
The reason that would be necessary is because these -- this land
would be subject to a resource management plan and those plans are --
go up for approval, I beli eve, every 10 years. So while it's unusual
that there'd be a drastic change made to that plan, there is -- it is a
possibility unless the state were otherwise committed to it. So that
would be something we'd \vant to make sure takes place since the
county would not have any ownership or leasehold rights in the
property .
If there's any questions that I can ask (sic), I'll do my best. I'm
sorry that we don't have a person from the state here to talk about it.
Quite frankly, they don't want to be on the record for formally
committing to this until they can be assured at the end of this 30 days
that the environmental -- or the testing results come back favorably, so
CHAIRMAN HALA.S: I've got just one question. I don't know
Page 189
June 20-21,2006
whether you can answer it or not. Now you said this would be under
the state control. Who vvould this be under, Department of Forestry?
MS. CHADWELL: Yes, I believe that's what's proposed, under a
resource management plan.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any questions from
fellow commissioners.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can we hear from the representative
from South Florida Water Management and where we stand on in
issue?
MR. DUNNUCK: Good afternoon. For the record, John
Dunnuck, Director of Land Management and Operations for the South
Florida Water Management District.
I believe Ms. Chadvvell summed it up pretty well from the
standpoint of what we're asking for. We're asking for a 30-day
extension from what the board indicated as 60 days previously.
And the reason for that is -- and I'll go into a little bit more detail.
We have completed the environmental assessment on the property,
but the data just came in last Friday. We did accelerate it. We spent
$50,000 accelerating the review of it, and -- but the DEP needs a little
bit of time to review it to absorb it and make sure that before we offer
any piece of land, it's safe for the health, safety and welfare from our
standpoint.
So at this point we are asking for that extension. W e'lllisten to
any concerns today. And it's our hopes that we can put a package
together to present to the staff and to user groups in the next 30 days
that everybody will find acceptable.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Dunnuck, the state has
entered into leases, farn1ing leases and other leases. Why couldn't
they lease it to the county?
MR. DUNNUCK: Fron1 the standpoint of -- you know, until
Page 190
June 20-21, 2006
we've flushed out all the details, I think we wanted to do a, you know,
kind ofa walk-before-we-run assessment of this piece of land before
we get in those full details.
I'd be happy to take that back. But from our standpoint, the first
thing we want to do is make sure this property was accessible for the
first part of it from a testing standpoint. It is an old ago field. So we
would make take that issue back and we'd discuss it with them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. It just seems like there's
commitments in the past that has gone {SP}ary, and I think if the
County would manage it that everybody would know what kind of
activities would take place.
MS. CHADWELL: Commissioner Henning, if I might interject
myself here. It's my understanding in talking to counsel for DEP that
this land was purchased with Florida Forever funds, and therefore has
to be used for a certain purpose, and it cannot be transferred into the
hands of the County.
And I'm not -- perhaps Mr. Dunnuck knows something other than
what I know --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. CHADWELL: -- but certainly we'd pursue that if that's
available to us. But I don't \vant you to get your hopes up in that
respect because I really don't see that as a possibility.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm not talking about
transfer of title. I'm just talking about the use of.
MS. CHADWELL: Right. But I understood you asked him a
question initially about whether it could be tran -- it thought, whether
it could be transferred into the hands of the County.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no, as far as a lease. I
stated that -- I know the state leases lands throughout all of the State of
Florida. Why can't they leZlse it to the County for a long-term lease?
MS. CHADWELL: Sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's it. Thank you.
Page 191
June 20-21, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, Mr. Dunnuck, can you give
me an idea what this land could be used -- how they would use it, I
mean, under state ownership? I mean, what would be the hours of
operation? What would be the limit of use?
MR. DUNNUCK: We're not prepared to get into that level of
detail yet. What I will tell you from the standpoint of the Division of
Forestry and what the initial recommendation is, that we'd operate it
similarly to how they operate their other lands for ATV uses.
They're looking at S0111e camping opportunities, but they're
looking at hours of operation, they're looking at carrying capacities.
But all those details have hot been flushed out yet, and that's why
we're looking for 30 days.
We didn't get to that level of detail where we start so as far down
that road until we actually knew that this property was a viable piece
of property.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, the reason we're
here today is because a couple of months ago the Collier County
Commission was very disturbed with the fact that it was taking so long
to be able to come up \vith what we were promised would take place
in a certain period of tinle.
We realize there's great difficulties dealing with all this, but we
also know that sometinles a little more effort along the way goes a
long ways.
We've been waiting for years for another place to be able to go
ATV riding and being Zlble to enjoy the wilderness again. Can you tell
us what can be offered j n the interim while we're waiting for this all to
take place? Is there anything we might be able to do as far as access
back into the Picayune?
MR. DUNNUCK: We're not prepared to offer access back into
the Picayune at this tinlc.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There is nothing on the
Page 192
June 20-21,2006
short-term that you can think of that would be of --
MR. DUNNUCK: We're in the midst of permit issues and so
forth along with the project, the restoration of that area, and anything
that would jeopardize that potentially, from our standpoint, is too high
of a risk, and so we're not prepared to offer that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, the original
agreement that we Ca111e up with was for, I believe, 660 acres to be --
MR. MUDD: It's a sectional land, 640 acres
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Six hundred forty, I stand
corrected; 640 acres to be turned over, I believe, to County control for
A TV use. And, of course, you know, we'd manage it and be able to
have a level of use that our citizens would expect.
In this case we vvouldn't have that option. This would be the
State. The State would do it to whatever resources they had available.
So under that particular scenario, if we were to, down the road,
accept this particular piece of land, I hope that water management
doesn't think that would satisfy the agreement that we originally made.
MR. DUNNUCI(: Duly noted.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You state that you need another 30 days.
We've extended this. Do you think that we're close to the end of the
line here? Have we got a light at the end of the tunnel, I guess, we
could say?
MR. DUNNUCK: I believe there are viable options out there,
and I do believe there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Ultimately,
it's going to be the decision of this Commission whether the deal fits
the criteria.
Obviously from the standpoint of looking at this property, there
are some nuances that aren't consistent with the current agreement,
and so we're looking 8t, you know, how we can make that as -- most
consistent as possible, and that's to get the A TV'ers out on property
riding, which I think \vas the intent of this Commission. So we are
looking at those things. I think within 30 days we will be able to
Page 193
June 20-21, 2006
deliver something.
One of the feedback I've gotten from my discussions, because
I've kind of entered this -- this issue a little bit later in the ball game,
is, need to do a better job of communicating with the groups and the
users out there and bring them into the mix of these things. I've been
copied on emails where they've felt like they've been disenfranchised
from what we're trying to propose. And I think that within these 30
days, we can bring S0111e of that to resolution as well.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: When we're talking 30 days, we're
talking that this would be on the July 25th schedule possibly.
MR. DUNNUCK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'd really like to see us work to an
agreement on this and get this out of the way. It's been pending for a
long period of time.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would like to just clarify a
couple of things. You're here, Mr. Dunnuck, to tell us that you have
identified some land that you think, you're pretty sure, is going to fit
the bill for us, and you're just looking for 30 more days to work out all
the details, and then you'll come back to us with a final proposal.
I suspect there are a lot of people here, if I can believe what I've
been told and what I've been reading, who think that the state isn't
living up to their obligation, and they haven't up until this point. But
you are willing to do that. You are finding us the land and you are
identifying it. You've already done there soil testing, and in 30 days
you're going to be able to tell us, yes, this is suitable and we're going
to work out something to permit you to use this.
So I think a big debate today about whether the state is making --
meeting its commitnlents is really a big waste of time. I mean, that's
not the purpose for this nleeting. The meeting -- the purpose of this
meeting is only to dec i de one thing, whether we agree to give you
another 30 days to \vork out the details.
Page 194
June 20-21,2006
And I would say, what have we got to lose? I mean, if we say no,
we're going to be tied up years in a lawsuit. So the fastest way to get
the land available is to say, yes, take another 30 days and come back
to us with a good, solid plan.
Now, let me tell you what my concern is, and you know, we've
sort of discussed this a little bit, and I think it's important that you take
it into consideration as you go forward.
There are managenlent plans and then there are management
plans. We wouldn't vvallt to see one that imposes such rigid control
over this that people are deprived of the right to use it properly. And
so I'd hope that you'd be able to take that into consideration when you
come back.
So I'm beginning to feel comfortable now that the state has
finally gotten around to saying, yes, we've got some land, here it is,
and we'll give you the details in another 30 days.
But the devil is in those details, and I would encourage that in the
30 days that if there arc some representatives of the people who are
involved in using these facilities, that you would meet with those
people to gather their input with respect to what kinds of procedures
are going to be involved in the use of this land.
It would be very helpful and I think it would forestall a big battle
about this when you corne back in 30 days, you know, if we could
work those things out in the interinl. And you've done that before.
MR. DUNNUCI(: Yep.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you know how to do that.
MR. DUNNUCI(: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Is that acceptable to you?
MR. DUNNUCK: That's Very acceptable to us. As I said, you
know, we want to resolve this issue with you. And we recognize that
we're, from October 0 f last year, we're past the date when we should
have tendered the property frorTI that end of it. And so, you know, we
want to get this done and we \vant to work with everybody and resolve
Page 195
June 20-21,2006
this issue.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I know we have some speakers out in the
audience that would like to speak on this matter, but as you can see,
we're still in the negotiation process.
So if you would -- if you still want to speak, we've got a time
limit of three minutes. But as you can see we really don't -- we're
giving them the opportunity to go back and address all the issues.
And as you heard us state up here, that our belief is that they'll be
back within 30 days, and that should be on the July 25th meeting, and
hopefully we can get this to some form of resolution.
So is there still some people out there that still want to speak?
Okay. We have two people, three.
MR. MUDD: You can to call the speakers, Sue, and they can
waive if they want.
MS. FILSON: I'll call the first speaker. James Hammond.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: But I just want to let you know that
we're still in the process of negotiating this, okay, so that you
understand that we're not here today -- that we're going to come to any
kind of a resolution on this. We're still waiting with the state in
regards to this, okay? Thank you.
MS. FILSON: J8rnes Hammond. He'll be followed by Wayne
Jenkins.
MR. HAMMOND: My name is James Hammond. I represent
Southwest Florida Archaeologic Society.
I'd like to give each conlmissioner a copy of the latest
archaeologic research that's been done in Collier County. It will be in
regards to historical lllonunlented sites with accurate measurements.
Picayune State Forest is nlentioned on page 6, 7, 39 and 42, so I
think it is relevant to this discussion, if you'd like me to give you that
copy. I also have a copy for your records.
CHAIRMAN HJ\LAS: County Manager will help you with that
Page 196
June 20-21, 2006
presentation there so that --
MR. HAMMOND: What you can see here is --
MR. MUDD: Use this pointer. Nobody can see you pointing at
this thing. Speak fronl that thing. See it up here or look right here.
MR. HAMMOND: Okay, okay. What we're talking about is the
Picayune State Forest, right here. 1947 Graham Copeland came out
with a survey map. lIe was Head Commissioner here. He
archaeologically logically nlonunlented nine sites, seven in Collier
County .
One of the sites is a Table Camp Monument. That's in your C--
on your CD disk. The other nlap is for clarification to make it easier.
These nine sites are recorded on there.
I'd like to say that we did do an archaeological research out there.
The monument has been stolen. I believe that when the property was
sold out there when they acquired it, nobody knew that this
archaeological site was there.
I think they failed to not only -- to mention to the people that this
site was there, but th8t also they failed to protect it.
We'd request the COffilllissioners ask the forest officials at
Picayune why Collier County citizens were never informed about the
monument nor was there any interpretation or literature about it.
We request the County Commissioners to ask Picayune officials
what steps they took to protect the monument site and comment on the
fact the monument is now missing.
We request the Comnlissioners to ask Picayune officials why this
historical monunlent site was never put on any plans in regards to the
overflow projects.
We request the County Comnlissioners to ask South Florida
Water Management District and the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection why seven monumented historical sites in
Collier County have never been recorded on any type of surveyor
plans in regards to the overflo\y and conlprehensive restoration
Page 197
June 20-21, 2006
proj ects.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sir, if you could wrap it up. We
normally have minutes of tinle.
MR. HAMMOND: Well, that -- this information I'm reading
from is also in the right side of your book over there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sir, I've got a question. Is this
Section 32 and 33?
MR. HAMMOND: Section 32 and 33?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Of the Land that we're talking about?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The land that we're talking
about in North Belle Meade?
MR. HAMMOND: No. This is --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's stay on the topic then.
MR. HAMMOND: This is the topic. This is right in the
Picayune.
COM~1ISSIONER HENNING: We're not talking about the
Picayune.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah.
MR. I-IAMMOND: Right. Well, we're talking about 640 acres.
CHAIRMAN I-IALAS : Yes, but this is --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Then maybe you ought to make
an appointll1ent \vitl1 your Conlnlissioner. We're not talking about that
today.
MR. HAMMOND: Okay. We're talking about the 640 acres.
COM~1ISSIONER HENNING: We're talking about Section 32
and 33.
MR. HAMMOND: Right. The 640 acres as presented, but that's
the 640 acres I'd like to have for Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's not in the Picayune. It's in
the North Belle 11eade.
CHAI~MAN I-TALAS: Thank you very much for your time, sir.
We appreciate it. I really appreciate the information you brought
Page 198
June 20-21, 2006
forward to us. I'll look into this.
MR. HAMMOND: All right, thanks.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: We've grown to eight speakers. The next one is
Wayne Jenkins.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We've got -- if we can cut it off.
Normally --
MS. FILSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN I-IALAS: Or we'll be here till midnight.
MS. FILSON: Fle'll be followed by Frank Denninger.
MR. JENKINS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. my name is
Wayne Jenkins. I'nl President of Collier Sportsman Conservation
Club. I'll be real brief because I understand what Commissioner Halas
said about the negotiations part.
I will say I am surprised, happily surprised, at this selection. I sit
on the Picayune Strand Advisory Committee for Recreation when it
was formed. This was my first suggestion to DOF, Department of
Forestry, that this vvould be an ideal place for it because it is disturbed
farm lands. It would nlake an ideal A TV tract.
A year and several months later, we're right back to the -- what
was the first proposa 1. And all of a sudden it's acceptable, but I'm glad
it's worked out that \vay.
I have a couple concerns. I'm very troubled by Collier County
not holding the title to this land, and I understand we've got some
complications there. But I agree with, I believe it was Commissioner
Henning, tr.at the State does lease land. I would urge you to pursue a
lease appr03ch on this property.
And if\ve go that way, that our staff would work to make this an
ironclad agreement that it \vill be there for continuation and to
perpetuity .
The other concern I have is that -- if we can get the lease
agreement, that Collier County would manage this park, not Division
Page 199
June 20-21,2006
of Forestry, not DEP or any other state agency. I can assure you it
will be a money maker for Collier County, and I'd like to see our
citizens enjoy the benefits of this money.
As I said, these are abandoned farm fields. They are disturbed.
And I think this would be excellent place for it. And I thank you for
your time.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, sir.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Frank Denninger. He'll be
followed by -- I think it's C.E. Darst.
MR. DENNINGER: Frank Denninger here with the Everglades
Coordinating Council. I'm kind of disappointed today because I had
communicated with some staff attorneys that mentioned that there
would be tv\'o decisions -- two proposals today, either giving them 30
more or finding them in default.
I believe you nlight as well go ahead and find them in default and
go into couli bec8use setting up a Crooms style park isn't going to
happen six months fronl now, one year from now, or any other time
close to no\v.
Somebody nlay come up \vith a pie-in-the-sky idea in 30 days,
but it's years. That doesn't get planned and managed and set up any
time soon.
And Mr. Coyle nlentioned we'd be tied up in court for years.
Well, I predict this is going to take years to get done.
You've been treated ruthlessly, I feel, throughout this process.
Your roads were basically taken away from you under threat. I don't
consider th8t you \vere requested to give these roads away.
And if you had to work to rescind the agreement, either start
from scratcll, or \yhat have you. I think it would be a good thing.
And tIle 750 acres, sounds like 110 more than 640, but really the
500, in reality, for A TVs is 140 less than 640. Of course, that matches
the agreement language, 640 acres contiguous, more or less. But
guarantee it's going to be less all the way around working with these --
Page 200
June 20-21, 2006
I don't think you've got good partners. I'm sorry.
On this particular situation -- other situations things work
differently. For some reason -- and the main reason is in the folder I
gave you, the default folder.
The framework agreement of 1996 in the Picayune Strand is the
whole and only reason we're sitting in this room today because the
State sold their authority to manage their land. And I guarantee you,
it's in there. It ain't a joke. It's so rotten. It doesn't get much more
rotten in my book. I won't use the real word I think of when I think of
it because people might think I'm a little upset way more than I am.
But, you know, you all are up -- I'm sorry today. I thought -- to
be honest, I thought by talking to Ms. Chadwell that there was going
to be two proposals, you could have found them in default, which I
don't think would be a bad thing considering the way you've been so
ruthlessly treated by DEP, South Florida Water Management and the
Board of Trusses of this State. And I'm not blaming J eb Bush. It was
done before he got in. Thank you now.
MS. FILSON: C.E. Darst.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: Rick Varela?
MR. VARELA: Good afternoon, Commission. My name is
Rick Varela. I represent a large group of ATV'ers/OHV/public access
groups throughout Collier, Dade, and Lee County.
I got to say I'm extremely disappointed in the decision you took
today. I got to tell you that South Florida Water Management District
has been less than forthcoming with you guys on this issue since day
one.
If you guys would not have taken the steps you took 60 days ago,
this would all have been swept under the rug.
They've never engaged us as a user group. Now is when they
want to try to engage us as a user group since the fire's on the pan. I
ask you to please reconsider this.
Page 201
June 20-21, 2006
Look out there, look at the children of the county. Those are the
children that are being impacted. It's been two years since we were
kicked out of that place illegally, and now they're asking for another
year and a half.
And what's going to happen once that year and a half comes
around? It's going to be another year and a half?
I just find this to be unacceptable, not only for us, for the children
of this county and the children of the neighboring counties.
I ask you to please reconsider your decision, find them in default,
take them to court, hold them accountable and give us back a riding
area. Not only that, the contract stipulates that the county will be
given 640 acres, not lent 640 acres.
So please reconsider your decision and understand that the one
thing in life that can never be taken back is the time. Money comes
and goes, property comes and goes, time is gone forever, and we've
already been robbed two years.
Why don't you ask your partners of South Florida Water
Management District, how is it that a Department of Forestry truck
that weighs 7,000 pounds and can tow a 20-ton earth mover can ride
inside the streets inside the Picayune Forest but my ATV can't because
they have to do an environmental study to make sure that my A TV
where that 7,000 pound truck rides is not going to cause a disturbance
to the environment. Ask them. How is that possible? To me, that's
unfathomable.
I ask you to please reconsider your position, find them in default,
take it to court. That will give us more time. And if -- you have our
full support, but to me, this is unacceptable. We are cheating the
children of this county and the neighboring counties for, like Frank
said, a pie-in-the-sky idea which mayor may not work. And at the end
of the day, the state retains control and they're going to do whatever
they want as they've done with this county since day one.
I've said my peace, thank you.
Page 202
June 20-21, 2006
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: Ryan McMahon? He'll be followed by Lyle
McCandless.
MR. McMAHON: My name Brian McMahon from Golden Gate
Estates. I -- so happens, I serve on the Division of Forestry's
Off-Highway Vehicle Advisory Committee. I just thought that -- I
don't want to get into a lot of rhetoric, but being from Collier County
and being on this Committee and being how the Division of Forestry
is supposed to manage this, they have never yet once contacted
anyone from the advisory committee.
I have actually met with John {SP} Atlin, went up to Tallahassee
on my own time and money about a year and a half ago to discuss this
very issue. I don't know how many of you know Mr. Atlin, Head of
the Ecosystem Restoration. He's got a top-floor office. Had this very
conversation about getting user groups involved in this process a year
and a half ago, assured me that it would happen.
I talked to Clearance Tears, assured me it would happen; talked
with Janice Starnes, assured me it would happen. Every time I've ever
questioned meetings, details, they don't want to talk to anyone from
the outside.
Obviously I'm going to respect your decision to grant the 30-day
extension, but in the next 30 days, you better get ready, because if
they think that they can pull this off in 30 days, they're just now going
to talk to use groups, the plan will -- it's going to be next to impossible
to have it ready in 30 days.
Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: Lyle McCandless. He'll be followed Dr.
Christian Mogelvang.
MR. McCANDLESS: Yes. My name is Lyle McCandless. I'm
a 30-year resident of Collier County. I'm currently the President of
the Big Cypress Sportsman Alliance. That's a group we put together
Page 203
June 20-21, 2006
about six months ago addressing some concerns in the Big Cypress
Preserve.
I can sympathize with this group of people here, but we as ORV,
hunters and recreation people have been kept out of the addition lands
for at least the last 10 years by agencies dragging their feet and not
enough attention paid to getting the job done.
Now, we have a real good rapport now, my group, with Karen
{SP} Gushdone (phonetic), the current superintendent at the Big
Cypress National Preserve. We've got a good rapport going with here.
We're getting some good things done out there now.
But I can say that it appears to me that this issue here before you
today is similar to the crisis we've been through with our deal there.
It's time for somebody to say, the foot dragging has gone on long
enough. It's time for somebody to put their heads together and say, we
need to get this problem solved, we need to do this -- we need to get
some authority to make some expeditious moves to get it done in a
timely fashion so these people don't have to continue to suffer to find a
place to take their kids to recreate, and et cetera.
With that, I thank you for your time, and I wish you good luck in
your decision. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker, Mr. Chairman, is Dr.
Christian Mogelvang.
DR. MOGEL V ANG: Hi. It's good to be here. I want this to be a
very positive note, and I want to just put one more thing there. They
raised the point on the children.
The children of today are going to be our defenders of tomorrow,
and their experience, if they're kept in front of a television set or in
front of a game board, they're not going to be our defenders. But if
they can go out and be part of nature and take what nature has to offer,
they're going to turn out a whole lot different.
Page 204
June 20-21, 2006
I can say that for myself, and I'm proud to say that for my young
men. They need to get some access to these areas. They're just as
important as the animals are.
I'm a biologist, graduated from the University of Florida, studied
ecology all over the State of Florida, from Brunswick, Georgia, to Key
West to Fort {SP} Moltry, Alabama, so I'd say I covered it pretty well,
and there's not going to be irreparable harm done.
If you look at what happened in the Big Cypress when they were
making such a big deal out of it and showing these awful maps where
everybody had just been all over the place. Get a map of the place
today. It bounces back like that.
But as was said, time is gone forever, and we need to move
along. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. We obviously
have been around the horn on this a number of times. We know that if
we do go into litigation at this point in time, maybe there will be some
blood money down the road, but I can tell you it's going to be a couple
years, two, three, years probably.
County Attorney? If we -- and I realize at this point in time the
Commissioners' not directing you to do this, but if we were to go into
litigation mode, to go to court, what would be the outcome as far as
the time element goes? I mean, at this point in time, I'll be honest with
you, money means nothing. It's the lack of the resource that we're
suffering from. What would be the results as far as the time element
goes?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, obviously it's a little hard to give precision
comment here, but it's -- it'd be more than one, potentially less than
two years, I would suggest. And there are elements under the contract
that, of course, are there under contract law as elements to be -- to be
Page 205
June 20-21, 2006
contested, no question about that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What are the elements of this contract
that we could contest?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, the elements in regard to the 640 acres,
more or less, would be either specific performance, which is an action
in court, to have them perform what they have contracted and we have
relied upon for them to provide, which is the 640 acres for the
purposes, as specifically stated in the agreement, or it could be
potentially for monetary damages, that is, the money's worth for that
which we never got, which would be very expensive. It could be a
problem of proof, taking into account appraisals of potentially suitable
property, probable more than one type of location within the county
that would meet the specifications.
That would be -- again, it'd be a significant effort to foot the
information -- to have the information ready to go, but that would be
part of the research and development of the case. Probably those two
essential elements.
One other part I'd like to mention, if I could, since we're on the
subject, is that with Mr. Dunnuck talking in terms of the property
ostensibly being held by the State as opposed to leased or held and
managed on site by the County, it appears that one of the questions
that would be needing to come back in the 30-day period is, if, in fact,
the state has a contention to main -- or hold the property and
essentially manage it for the use of the residents of Collier County and
the people that would be using the property, would they, in fact, be
staffing it and providing physical facilities that are typically necessary
for a park-like operation with some of the amenities, that include, of
course, health, safety, welfare, rest room facilities, a gate or
guardhouse, gatehouse type of thing and any other facilities?
Because the County arguably, if it owned or had pervasive
leasehold privileges of the property, would potentially run it, to some
degree, like a park with the typical amenities that county citizens
Page 206
June 20-21, 2006
enjoy from county parks. So it seems to me that's another question
that should be responded to by Mr. Dunnuck when he comes back to
you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, Mr. Dunnuck, if I may.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
Mr. Dunnuck, there's some real concern. I mean, the fact that
this has dragged on so long and the fact that if we end up in the
litigation mode, everything comes to a dead stop. We know how that
works. And somewheres down the road we'd make a settlement, and
it might be for dollars and not for land, and nobody benefits from that.
Let's talk a turkey right now. I don't think we'd be here today
discussing this if the Commission didn't come forward and give you
60 days back a couple months ago to be able to get to this point. And
sometimes, you know, if you start a fire and you light a fire under
people, amazing things happen.
I know your who was office has many things they're dealing
with, many top priorities. And we just have to refigure those priorities
to realize the fact that this is a top priority for the residents of Collier
County. We're at a dilemma here.
Now, if we ever direct the County Attorney to go forward with
litigation, we're years away from any kind of settlement; however, on
the other hand, you're telling us 30 days, come back with a plan to be
able to see what can be offered.
Let me ask you this. If you we were to agree to go forward with
30 days the idea being that we'd also probably direct a County
Attorney to start \vorking on a litigation mode to see where we could
go at the end of 30 days if we couldn't get someplace, would you be
willing to hold several meetings with the user groups, not them going
to Palm Beach, but your staff coming over here and meeting with
them, including forestry, to be able to sit down and start going through
all the particulars, pull all stops, tell them the exact truth of everything
Page 207
June 20-21, 2006
they're dealing with, all the elements that are out there that are
unknown, such as -- and I'll tell you what's gotten me scared. It's not
even you. It's Fish and Wild -- it's Fish and Wildlife out there. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife has thrown the monkey wrench in so many things
that we thought we had worked out in the past. Mike Davis has
worked many times to come up different deals, and Fish and Wildlife
stepped forward.
We have to knO\V the truth in that, too, and we have to know it
sooner than later. And frankly, I'm a little disappointed that your
agency thought of this particular situation so little that they only sent
you down and not a bunch of attorneys and other people that could
advise us today, and I have to state that up front.
I'm going to hear what my other Commissioners have to say, but
I hope in the end that we understand that we're going to give you one
more chance with the conditions, that you start working with the user
groups, that the County Attorney goes forward towards a litigation
plan that he can offer us at the end of 30 days, what we should do to
be able to go fonvard if everything else is at a dead stand.
Now, that's \vhere I stand on it.
MR. DUNNUCK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, this is really not an action
item on our agenda. More of a report. The--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's exactly right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I am happy that a
non-lawyer -- they sent a non-lawyer over, and a former citizen of
Collier County and a fornler public servant.
The -- you kno\v, my thought is, government doesn't manage its
lands any better, or they don't do a good job. I think the citizens do a
better job. Something maybe we ought to consider is partnershipping
with the residents to come up with a site plan, and let them manager it.
(Applause.)
Page 208
June 20-21, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That goes right along with the
idea of the user groups, starting to meet with them to be able to pull a
plan together.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the next item?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala's got --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I'm sorry. Go ahead,
Commissioner Fi81a.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I might be opening a Pandora's box.
I love your idea, by the way. They could be working on plan for these
next 30 days, and if you haven't followed through with your
commitment, open the doors anyway and let them start using it,
because you didn't follow through.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN I-IALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That holds your feet to the fire.
CHAIRMAN I-IALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I just wanted to say, I
hope we can direct the County Attorney to be able to come up with a
plan to carry it to the next step if there is, 30 days from now or when
we meet the next tinle to discuss this situation, if nothing can be done,
nothing is being done, that we 111ay have to go the most uncomfortable
route.
And if you agree \vith rne, maybe we could give that direction to
the County Attorll ey, just to conle up with a plan that he can offer to
us.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. But we all realize that being in
this position sometinles, government -- the wheels turn slowly, but
eventually we'll get there where we need to get.
So bear with us. We've got 30 more days, we're going to see
where we're at, and I hope \ve can bring this to fruition at that point in
time.
Page 209
June 20-21, 2006
And at that, I think we've covered this subject enough. We're not
here to make a decision today. We just -- we're here to understand
where we were in the negotiations, and I want to thank everybody for
their time coming here today, thank you so much. And we'll continue
this on the 25th of July.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks, Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Could you please clear the room so we
could continue \vith your our agenda, please.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you could clear the chambers so we
could continue on, \ve'd appreciate it very, very much. Thank you so
much for your cooperation.
CHAIRMAN I-IALAS: We're at lOG, I think.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: lOG?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to deny.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Manager, we're going back to
lOG, sir?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. The next item is lOG. It's a recom -- no,
we're not.
CHAIRMAN JJALAS: Oh, I'm sorry.
Item #8D
ORDINANCE 2006-34 REGARDING PUDZ-2005-AR-8561, BRB
DEVELOPMENT, LLC, REPRESENTED BY D. WAYNE
ARNOLD, AICP OF Q. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES,
P.A. AND RICHARD YOV ANOVICH OF GOODLETTE,
COLEMAN AND JOHNSON, P.A., REQUESTING A REZONE
FROM THE C-l AND C-3 ZONING DISTRICTS TO THE "CPUD"
COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING
DISTRICT PROPOSING A VARIETY OF RETAIL, OFFICE,
PROFESSIONAL AND BUSINESS SERVICE, AND INDOOR
Page 210
June 20-21,2006
SELF STORAGE LAND USES WITH A MAXIMUM OF 163,000
COMMERCIAL FLOOR AREA TO BE KNOWN AS BRB
DEVELOPMENT CPUD. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY,
CONSISTING OF 3.2 ACRES, IS LOCATED AT 1025 PIPER
BOULEVARD - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: \Ve're are going to 8D.
CHAIRMAN T-IALAS: 8D.
MR. MUDD: We have not finished the advertised said public
hearings. We're under 8D, and that is 17 -- old 17d. That item was
asked to be brought for\vard by Commissioner Coletta.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: 8D, and this reads,
MR. MUDD: And it -- and reads, this item requires that all
participants be s\vorn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
commission menlbers.
It's PUDZ-2005-AR-8561, which is BRB Development, LLC,
represented by D. \Vayne, AICP, ofQ. Grady Minor & Associates,
P.A., and Richard Y ovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson,
P.A., requesting a rezone from the C-1 and C-3 zoning districts to the
CPUD, commerci~ 1 planned unit development zoning district,
proposing a variety of retail office, professional and business service,
and in-door self-storage land uses with a maximum of 163,000
commercial floor area, to be known as the BRB Development CPUD.
The subject property consists of 3.2 acres, is located at 1025
Piper Boulevard, Section 23, Township 48 south, Range 25 east,
Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN }TALAS: Okay. Would all those rise that are
going to come forth \vith infor111ation on this particular item, be sworn
rn.
(The speakers \vere duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN I-IALAS: Okay. At this time, disclosures, if we
have any disclosures from our commissioners?
Page 211
June 20-21, 2006
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are you ready?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I had meetings on this and met
with Richard Y ovanovich and Wayne Arnold, and emails and a phone
call, received a phone call. I didn't -- I wasn't able to return it. I
apologize for that.
CHAIRMAN l-IALAS: Okay. Myself, I've had -- talked with
staff, and this is tied in with another issue which we're going to be
discussing, which is, I believe, ION, and that's referring to the -- or
100, referring at this tinle bridge, so it's going to be somewhat tied in.
I had meetings \vith staff, I've had correspondence, and I've also
had emails and I've also talked with the president of the property
owner's association out there, and I believe he's in attendance today.
CHAIRMAN l-IALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've spoken to staff about this.
I don't believe I tal ked \vith Rich Y ovanovich, did I? Just with staff.
CHAIRMAN T-IALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I haven't spoken to anybody.
CHAIRMAN I-TA.LAS: Okay. Would you proceed?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may.
CHAIRMAN lIALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If you would -- if you don't
think it's necessary. I Inean this did go through the process, the
Planning Comnlission, there \vas no objections. The reason that I
pulled it, if I cou Id go right to it, and then you take the meeting from
there --
CHAIRMAN lTALAS: Sure.
COMMISSrONER COLETTA: -- whichever direction you like,
and I think you 81ready alluded to it, and I'm glad you caught it too. It
just happens to be that this canle at a time that we're also looking at
the possible closing of a bridge, Cypress Way, that runs down across
Page 212
June 20-21, 2006
Piper and goes to Inlnlokalee Road.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. And that particular
bridge, you have a person coming to us -- thank God they brought it us
when they did because everything just seems to tie together.
This bridge does serve a purpose, but it's a limited purpose, and it
does bring down th e traffi c flo\v to that particular area, and I can give
you all the statistics, but I don't \vant to get into it deeper than I need
to.
But the whole thing is, is that there's a direct benefit to the
petition with this paliicular bridge being maintained as a one-way
right-turn only out into Inl1TIokalee Road, tremendous benefit. It goes
from the edge ofhi~ propcliy right out to Immokalee Road.
The day it goes it's going to put lTIOre of a demand on the road
there at -- the bridge at Airport.
Eventually in the future \ve'll probably have a connection to
Livingston that will take even nlore traffic off this particular area.
So this just nlakcs sense, if the petitioner was willing to come
forward and assist \vith the 111aintenance of this bridge. It's going to
cost $50,000 to be :J ble to convert this bridge over to the point that it
can be used by the public as a one-way bridge turning to the right.
And I mentioned it to 1\1r. Y ovanovich, and he was fairly receptive,
believe it or not, and T think he could see the benefit. But with that, I'll
turn it back to hinl.
MR. YOV ANOVICI--I: I guess, good afternoon. For the record,
Rich Yovanovich 011 behalf of the petitioner.
If you have any questions beyond the transportation, Wayne
Arnold's here to ans\ver any planning questions. But yes, we did have
a conversation. We've been \vorking closely with the residents of
Palm River. They 111ade it clear that they would like the county to
keep that bridge open.
We are prepared to pay ha1 f of the $50,000 cost to assist in the
Page 213
June 20-21, 2006
county's efforts to keep the bridge there. So we would -- we would be
prepared to add a transportation stipulation to the PUD, I guess it
would become a ne\v paragraph M, obligating us to pay $25,000 when
we got the CO for the in-door self -- in-door self-storage facility.
And we hope that that shows some good faith to assisting the
neighborhood in their endeavor to keep the bridge. We don't think
we're the sole reason the bridge needs to be there. Actually we think
we're a very snlall reason that the bridge needs to be there, but,
nevertheless, \ve'll \villing to pick up half the tab of the $50,000.
CHAIRMAN I~IALAS: If I could call Norm Feder up here in
regards to delaying the destnlction of this bridge.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's on our agenda.
CHAIRMAN I-TALAS: I-Iuh?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's on our agenda.
CHAIRMAN ]-TALAS: That's on our agenda, but what I'm trying
to do is make sure that \ve tie these two things together one way or
another since the petitioner has come forward in regards to saying that
he's going to step up to the plate here and give us half of the $50,000,
which is $25,000, in regards to ll1aking whatever improvements need
to be -- to make that as :J right-only out on that bridge.
Is that the understanding that \ve have, Mr. Yovanovich?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: (Nods head.)
MR. MUDD: COll1missioner, if you -- if you accepted that
particular offer froll1 the petitioner, you would have to make it
contingent upon a board decision at another item on this agenda,
okay? So I ju~t \vant to ll1ake sure that you know that.
CHAIRMAN ]-fALAS: Okay. That's on -- on 0 then?
MR. MUDD: Th~it'S right. You'd have to make that offer
contingent upon the board's decision on 100.
CHAIR11AN ]fALAS: On O. All right. I understand, okay.
MR. FEDER: 1\1r. Chairnlan, Norman Feder, for the record,
Transportation Adnl in istrator. I'd be happy to answer any question,
Page 214
June 20-21, 2006
and we can cover what you want on 100, but I realize that's a later
agenda item.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'm just trying to make sure that
MR. FEDER: If I understood your question, first of all, there is a
cost if we do retain the Cypress Way bridge for exit-only, right-out
only, to make some modifications that we estimate at 50,000, as you
noted. There's also an added cost in the sense of delaying it's removal
because we have it mobilized right now with the contractors building
the Airport bridge. But in a later item we can go in detail why we're
recommending that we do retain it at this time.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. Then just so long as we've
covered that ground, we can go back to this item here of 8D.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: with the stipulation?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Hearing none. County Attorney,
please?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. I would appreciate if we could have
one -- the motion is in place and ready to be voted upon, but I'd like a
clarification for the record -- and in your agenda book it's page 23 of
118, question 17. These are the routine questions that are asked about
consistency and compatibility with the Growth Management Plan.
And I'd appreciate if we could have some clarification on the
record for that question -- or question and answer of 17 found on page
23 of this agenda item. Looks like staff is ready to go.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. That's the impact of the
development on the availability of adequate public facilities?
Page 215
June 20-21, 2006
MR. WEIGEL: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: You'll note in the response that it uses the word
inconsistent, and I wanted to make sure, if that was a typographical
error or not so the record would be corrected or clear.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. VALERA: If I may, Caroline Valera, Principal Planner with
Zoning and Land Development review. We did have the correction
for the record at the CCPC, and, yes, it should read consistent, not
inconsistent.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Ifwe change that one word, then
we're in compliance, right?
MS. VALERA: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So is that in the motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That is in the motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And it's in the second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second, yep.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. Is there any further
discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, County Attorney,
for bringing us up to speed on that.
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?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
Page 216
June 20-21, 2006
Item #10G
RECOMMENDATION TO RETAIN FROM ACTIVE SALES
VARIOUS PROPERTIES FROM AVATAR PROPERTIES, INC.,
WHICH ARE PART OF GAC LAND TRUST - APPROVED WITH
DENIAL OF POLICY CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that now brings us to item lOG,
and this is a recommendation to retain, from active sales, various
properties from Avatar Properties, Inc., which were part of the GAC
Land Trust.
And Commissioner, the reason -- the reason this is on the regular
agenda isn't because Toni Mott didn't follow the procedures that we've
done for years. It is because we're -- there is a recommendation from
your advisory board that basically says that reserve properties would
be sold to the School and the Fire district, and that is quite different
from what this board has done in the past with properties.
Reserve properties have been reserved, and when it was time for
the School and/or North Naples Fire and/or the Sheriff or anybody
else that met the objective of what the GAC properties were set aside
for, those properties would be transferred over to that using agency,
and then they would build a facility upon it.
It was only in an instance or two where a property was not
reserved by the ultimate users that Avatar Properties had in mind in
1983 when they made the agreement with the Board of County
Commissioners, when those properties aren't reserved and the board
declares them on the active sale list.
Once they hit the active sale list, anybody from Collier County
can buy them. And in one or two cases, the School -- I believe it's the
School, had purchased the property off the active sale list. At that
juncture, they missed their opportunity to reserve, and they did
Page 217
June 20-21, 2006
purchase it.
But that's why it's on the regular agenda because it deals with a
policy decision by the Board of County Commissioners.
Ms. Toni Mott will present at this particular time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sounds like it's already--
MS. MOTT: For the record, Toni Mott, Real Estate Services.
There is a map that has been prepared that shows the properties;
marked one are for future marketability; number two are the School
Board properties; number three, Golden Gate Fire District; and
number four is the Sheriff parcel.
And as Manager Mudd said, the policy in the past was to convey
the property at no compensation. And now the Committee is
recommending that the Board endorse their recommendation to
request 90 percent of appraised value at the time of purchase.
And I believe the Committee's intent recommending that is to
extend the longevity of the trust and the funds derived from the sale of
the lands.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The purpose of the trust was to
be able to set land aside for the different governmental entities out
there so we don't have to come back and tax payers again for it.
MS. MOTT: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ifwe have to make them buy it,
then it comes out of the millage that they pay the Fire departments or
they pay the Sheriffs departments. He's going to have to raise his
rates.
I'm trying to think what they were thinking about. Their idea was
to accumulate the money for what purpose?
MS. MOTT: I think their intent was to accumulate the money. I
have figured up what the cost of the land is for 2005. Ifwe look at the
School Board property, in 2005 these parcels appraised in-house at
$660,000. The appraisal that was done in-house last November puts it
Page 218
June 20-21, 2006
at $2.3 million for the same five parcels. So I think what they --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I see.
MS. MOTT: -- would like to do is because the cost of the land
has increased so greatly --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Inflation.
MS. MOTT: -- that they would recoup money, and then be able
to extend the trust and be able to help more people.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, that's true. I mean, the
Trust was put there for a reason, and eventually we know that it's
going to reach the end of its life. The idea is to help people by helping
our government agencies out there. I'm having a hard time finding a
reason to support this.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I just -- on the second page it
says, since the inception of the GAC land, 937 acres of the remaining
1,061 acres have been conveyed or have been sold. And it says that --
those remaining, diligently to sell the remaining 8.94 acres -- 8.94
acres. But that must be wrong, because if you subtract the one from
the other, you have 123.98 acres.
MS. MOTT: That is for the active sales. There's only 8.94 acres
available on the active list --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, it doesn't say that. Okay.
MS. MOTT: -- which is what we market.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So there are two different kinds of
lists?
MS. MOTT: Yes. It's the active list and the reserve list.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let's just remove that
stipulation, and I'll make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, what stipulation?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Stipulation that the agencies
Page 219
June 20-21, 2006
must pay for it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, isn't that the whole thing?
I'm just --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, motion to deny then.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That might make it a little easier
to understand. Was there something in here I'm missing other than --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
MR. MUDD: You're doing more things on this executive
summary than just talking about that policy.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think we better get some more
clarification here.
MS. MOTT: What staff, we're asking for, is that the Board of
County Commissioners, acting as the trustee, approve the division of
lands as outlined in the executive summary, that these parcels remain
on the reserve list for these specific agencies, School Board, Fire
District, Sheriff, and future marketability. And then the second part
was to request that the agencies purchase at 90 percent of appraised
value.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Make a motion to approve the
first part. To heck with the second part.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning to approve the first part and delete the second
part, and we have a second by Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just for everybody's
clarification, would you read the first part that we're approving?
MR. MUDD: And for the record, the Board is approving the
reserve list as presented in the executive summary, and they are -- and
they are denying the policy change where agencies on the reserve list
would have to purchase those particular properties.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So we're denying the
Page 220
June 20-21, 2006
policy change.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's what we're voting to do.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's correct, because this was going to
be a new policy change.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you..
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any further discussion or
questions by commissioners before I call the question?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Seeing none, all those in favor of the
motion that was on the floor, 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.
MS. MOTT: Thank you.
Item #10H
CHANGE ORDER 12 TO THE CONTRACT WITH MAGNUM
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT CORP. IN THE AMOUNT OF
$2,522,000.00 FOR ADDITIONAL WORK ON THE GOLDEN
GATE PARKWAY, GRADE SEPARATED OVERPASS
PROJECT, FROM AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD TO LIVINGSTON
ROAD. PROJECT NO. 60006. BID NO. 04-3653 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Brings us to our next item, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners, it's 10H. It's a recommendation that the BCC approve
Page 221
June 20-21, 2006
change order 12 to the contract with Magnum Construction
Managements Corp. in the amount of $2,522,000 for additional work
on the Golden Gate Parkway grade separated overpass project from
Airport-Pulling Road to Livingston Road, project number 60006, bid
number 04-3653.
And Mr. Jay Ahmad, your Director of Engineering and--
Construction Management, did you say before -- Construction
Management in your Transportation Department.
MR. AHMAD: Thank you, Jim.
Again, for the record, Jay Ahmad, your Director of
Transportation Engineering and Construction Management.
I have an item before you asking approval of a change order to
the contract we have with MCM Corporation, the contractor that's
building our overpass.
Mr. Chairman, when this commission approved this item, it --
they approved -- you approved it with an allowance item included in
the contract. That allowance was approximately, a little bit over 5
percent, 6.7 percent to be exact.
We still have money in the allowance, but we have been
experiencing unforeseen conditions due to unsuitable soil in the area,
mainly muck. I've have attached a couple photos actually for -- in the
executive summary. Jim, if I may.
MR. MUDD: Sure.
MR. AHMAD: It's not very clear, but what --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah.
MR. AHMAD: Yeah. Now it's a little bit better.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's beautiful.
MR. AHMAD: We have a lot of roots and organic material that
is found under the existing roadway of Golden Gate Parkway. Much
of that material is unsuitable for our construction of a bridge and
roadways. And we a decision we made is to take it out and replace it
with suitable material. That's one reason for this change order.
Page 222
June 20-21, 2006
There's also unsuitable material we're finding in the canal. When
the canal was built originally, it had a rock layer that was breached,
and the soils in that canal is unsuitable for what we -- we're trying to
build an S wall to retain the canal and the water in the canal.
We can't build that concrete S wall, we call it, with such
condition -- foundation condition. So we would also ask -- and revised
our design plans, and we looked at a bunch of options for the SwaIls.
And what we ended up with is a sheet metal -- a sheet metal type
of wall that will not require dewatering and will accelerate our
schedule of construction.
That same unsuitable material in the canal brought us some
issues with the right-turn lane on Airport Road that's being proposed
northbound. We would have to bring additional material and build
that right-turn lane.
And we are also constructing in the same area a water main for
city, a 36-inch water main that was supposed to go sub acquiesce, and
the soil material for that sub acquiesce crossing is not adequate. The
soil material is it not adequate to hold that water main.
So we're going to go aerial. It's not going to look the most
beautiful thing, but it will-- it will be similar to what you have out
there with a truss type ready-made bridge, if you will.
So all these changes that we have and we anticipate will be
approximately $2.5 million. And we would like to retain whatever left
of the allowance to date, which is approximately $637,000, for yet
unremain (sic) unforeseen conditions. If we don't use it, of course, it
will go back to the general fund.
And I would ask your approval, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I've got some questions to ask you. How
many cubic yards of this muck did they have to remove; do you have
any idea?
MR. AHMAD: I don't have it handy, but I certainly can provide
you that, Mr. Chairman.
Page 223
June 20-21, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And you're saying this was under
the existing roadbed?
MR. AHMAD: Correct. Some of it was west of Airport Road.
Early on we discovered that and we asked our designers, we were
going with -- giving our designers the responsibility why they didn't
discover the muck because it wasn't under the existing road. It was
actually on the sides.
And the borings that were taken did not show that there's muck.
And we said, why it didn't show? And it -- the answer to that is there
-- it's a bit more complicated. When this project was first foreseen, it
was at-grade intersection, and the area of control was approximately
500 feet west of Airport Road.
But when the project went to an overpass design, unfortunately
no one foreseen that there would be muck under the existing Golden
Gate Parkway, and no additional borings were taken past the 500 feet
west of Airport under the roadway.
So essentially what you have is, if it you had taken the borings, it
would have had to disrupt traffic, and I think these decisions were
made -- in hindsight we should have taken more, but it would have
disrupted traffic, and in the case of the canal, it would have required a
barge to go into the canal and dig some test pits and holes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm surprised that we didn't have a road
failure with this muck here at the time. How can you -- do you
account for not having a road failure? We were just lucky?
MR. AHMAD: We -- just lucky, and it could be that it was not
disturbed when they built the roadway initially, and this type of
material, if you aerate it and you bring some air into it, it starts to rot,
and that's what we've done, essentially expose it. And if we build a
roadway, I think, on top of it again, it will rot and you'll start having
sink holes in the roadway.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any other further
discussions by commissioners? Any questions?
Page 224
June 20-21, 2006
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Coletta and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
If there's no other further discussion -- is there anybody -- any
speakers on this?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing 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?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion carries. Thank you very
much for your presentation.
MR. AHMAD: Thank you.
Item #101
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE DEVELOPMENT GRANT
APPLICATIONS FOR EXPANDED SERVICE AND LEE COUNTY
(LEE TRAM) INTERCONNECTION AND TO AUTHORIZE
COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE THE
JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IF THE GRANTS ARE
AWARDED - APPROVED WITH STAFF TO RETURN IN ONE
YEAR WITH PROGRESS REPORT
Page 225
June 20-21, 2006
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item lOr. This
is a recommendation to approve the Transportation Services
Development Grant Application for expanded service and Lee County
(Lee Tran) Interconnection, and to authorize County Manager or his
designee to execute the joint participation agreement, the JP A, with
the Florida Department of Transportation if the grants are awarded.
And Ms. Diana Flagg, your Director of Alternative
Transportation modes and the 25-year employee, will present.
MS. FLAGG: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Basically this is
three specific proposals, two for interconnections to Lee County, one
connection at the Bonita Beach Road/41 where Lee County has a
transfer point, another connection point at the Bonita Beach
Road/Livingston Road, which would also serve the new water park,
and then the third proposal would be for extended hours, which has
been consistently showing up in our transit development plan.
If -- we've submitted for the two Lee County grants, which have
regional significant. We've asked FDOT for 100 percent funding, and
for the other one, it meets the 50/50 grant requirement. IfFDOT
agrees to fund these grants, then the grants would be effective July 1 st
of next year, but we would not implement routes until October, to be
consistent with the county budget process.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Are there any questions?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What -- are you going to be
monitoring the added time? How late is it going to go, what is it?
MS. FLAGG: Ten p.m.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just past happy hour then, right?
MS. FLAGG: The -- one of the things that consistent --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you going to be monitoring
that to see if it makes a success? I mean, these things will eventually
Page 226
June 20-21, 2006
be picked up by the general fund.
MS. FLAGG: Correct. What -- what we do with the transit
program is we do monitor not only each individual route, but also the
usage of the routes during specific time. So we will be able to
specifically monitor whether the evening hours are being used.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you also are going to be
monitoring the users for the Lee interconnection?
MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you give us a report in one
year?
MS. FLAGG: We sure can.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Of operation?
MS. FLAGG: Sure. These grants are requested for funding for
three years, but we can certainly give you annual report on the usage.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that would be important
to do so. There's all kind of wants out there, as I call them. It just
stretches it more and more and more.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Now, if we find that this isn't productive,
we've got the capabilities after three years to cut this off; is that
correct?
MS. FLAGG: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So if we look at the ridership and
don't feel like we're getting the bang for our buck in regards to trying
to keep traffic off the roads, then we can terminate?
MS. FLAGG: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good. Is there any other discussion on
this? Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So say, for instance, they connect at
one of those two connecting points, can they connect to go to
Immokalee if they wanted to?
MS. FLAGG: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
Page 227
June 20-21, 2006
MS. FLAGG: They can go -- the way the routes have been
designed is they can connect to go anywhere in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: All the way out to Marco?
MS. FLAGG: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And all the way to Ft. Myers, eventually,
what's what the intent is; isn't that correct?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Coming out of Fort Myers is what I
was --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah, and vice-a-versa.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think this is a wonderful step
to take, and I'd like to make the motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coletta for approval and a second by Commissioner
Fiala.
Is there any discussion?
(N 0 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, thank you.
MS. FLAGG: Thank you.
Page 228
June 20-21, 2006
Item #10J
REPORT TO THE BOARD ON OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO BE
INCLUDED IN RFP TO BUILD AFFORDABLE -WORKFORCE
HOUSING ON THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION OF THE
BEMBRIDGE PUD - REPORT ACCEPTED W/STIPULATIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 10J. This is a
report to the board on the options available to be included in the RFP
to build affordable workforce/housing on the residential portion of the
Bembridge PUD.
MR. MUDD: And Mr. Cormac Giblin, your Manager for
Affordable Housing, will present.
MR. GIBLIN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Cormac Giblin,
your Housing and Grants Manager.
I have a brief PowerPoint, but I think I might just throw them on
here one at a time rather than try to load the computer at this point.
This is a report back to you. We've heard about the Bembridge
PUD now. I think this is the fourth or fifth time since December that
we've had an agenda item on this particular issue.
Just to bring you up to speed a little bit, a little bit of a history.
The Bembridge PUD is owned by Collier County. It was a previous
site for a proposed emergency operations center. The EOC center was
ultimately decided to be built in a different location.
On the 40-acre site, there is an existing public school and an
EMS station that is currently under construction. The remaining
portion of this site, approximately 5.2 acres, is county surplus land at
this point.
At your last meeting where you discussed this, we had -- well,
you initially heard a public presentation from a non-profit housing
developer asking for you to donate this land to them on which to build
affordable housing.
Page 229
June 20-21, 2006
We had a couple more subsequent conversations about that, and
at your last meeting about it, instructed staff to come back after the
legislative session was over to see how the Representative Davis's bill
and any changes that that bill may have -- may caused to the situation,
evaluate that, bring it back, and then ask the board for specific
direction in terms of turning this into an RFP soliciting bids or concept
plans on how affordable housing, affordable workforce housing, could
be incorporated on the site.
To that end, your executive summary kind of weaves its way
through certain key decision points that we've put together to see if we
can end up with some general direction in how you'd like to proceed
on this matter.
And those decisions points are, do we want to move forward on
this? What do we do about the land trust? Shall we place the property
into a land trust ensuring it's affordability in perpetuity? How many
units would we like to see there? What kind of style?
Should these be owner-occupied or rental affordable housing
units? Should they be reserved for BCC employees only or available
to the general public at large as affordable housing? And what income
levels would be served by the units. These are all issues that came up
in our previous conversations on this.
And staff would recommend that, yes, we should move forward
on an affordable/workforce housing plan for this surplus property. We
should recoup at least the EMS impact fees that were originally spend
on the land, stipulate that the property will be put into a land trust,
ensuring its affordability in perpetuity, that somewhere between 35
and 75 units be built encouraging creativity and sort of a design
competition or design different proposals to be looked at, that they be
owner occupied, and that BCC employees receive priority marketing
period for any affordable units to be built on the site.
And if there are remaining units after that, that the remaining
units be open opened up to the other essential service personnel
Page 230
June 20-21, 2006
partnerships that may be out there, again, tying it into House Bill 1363
which requires the county to make certain changes to accommodate
those ESP level ideas; and that it be -- the units be reserved for a
variety of incomes, from very low all the way to gap housing.
That is, by way of background, where we are today, and we are
simply seeking your direction in how to move forward.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: On your recommendations I thought that
what we needed to do is try to address the areas of concern in the 60 to
80 percent range and more so in the 80 percent because I think there's
a lot of people out there that may be single families. I think what
you've got right now is 50 percent median, or 10 percent -- 60 percent
is 15, 80 percent may be 50 -- 30 percent, and when you get up to
median of 120 percent, cut that down to 10 percent, and then 150, that
would be -- also remain 10 percent. {huh??}
MR. GIBLIN: You're looking at staff recommendation number
6, which would be the distribution of incomes --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Right.
MR. GIBLIN: -- that would be proposed for the units, and I
believe your comment was to increase the 80 percent number and
decrease the --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The 120 percent.
MR. GIBLIN: The 120 percent number.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think we need to look at people that are
coming in as new workforce in regards to making sure that we can
accommodate them, and possibly maybe, there could be further
discussion by my commissioners, maybe we need to look at the 60
percent range, too, to increase that.
MR. GIBLIN: So to heavily -- or to more so weigh the low and
very low income.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think so, too. I think because young
people that are coming into the county area to work here, whether it's
-- whether it's in the hospital, whether it's for the county, they all start
Page 23 1
June 20-21, 2006
out at the low -- low area of the range.
The other thing I think we need to do is keep this land in a land
trust, and I think it should be sent out as an RFP so that everybody can
basically throw their ideas and comments into this thing.
And at that, who was first on the list here?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle. Was it
Henning then?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'd like to get a clarification
concerning what we can do with this property, this land. Must we pay
back the money for the impact fees? And if so, how do we best do
that? Can we actually lease it to somebody for a very long period of
time and derive lease payments from them and those least payments
go back to the EMS impact fee fund, or must we do it some other
way?
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Coyle, I think your question is aimed our
way.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep.
MR. WEIGEL: I think that there probably are some variations
on the pay back theme, although Cormac is absolutely correct that the
property, not being used for EMS purposes, to impact fees absolutely
are legally, required to go back to the fund from some source.
I would tend to say, the initial response to your question is, that
pay back sooner rather than slower is less -- has less potential for
issue. I won't call it problematic, but may have less potential for issue,
and we would probably want to report back to you with a little more
specificity than right now. I TEND to think there's some flexibility as
long as there's certainty.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. The other question is, do we
have the flexibility of paying back only that amount of money that
was used to purchase this property, or are we under an obligation to
sell this property at fair market value?
MR. WEIGEL: It's truly the judgment call of the Board. You
Page 232
June 20-21, 2006
have the option to work either way.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then what I would suggest
-- I agree with much of what Commissioner Halas has said, but my
concern is, if we start specifying the income levels that have to be
addressed, we remove the flexibility of anyone who is bidding on this
to give us proposals.
They're going to have to take into consideration the type and
quality of buildings to be provided. And if we tell them that they
almost all fall in the range of 120- to $160,000, that coupled with the
fact that we must get at least what we paid for this property out of it --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think they could still do it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I know, but is it our job to
tell them that they can do it? If we're going to ask for proposals,
shouldn't we give them the flexibility, and then it's their obligation to
give us the proposal that they think is the most attractive one to us,
and then we can select the most attractive proposals.
But I would say to you that there are not many people on this list
here who could even afford a home if you're talking about anything
less than -- less than, let's say, 80 percent of the median income.
You're talking about a median -- for one person at 80 percent of
the median income, you're talking about them being able to afford a
house of$120,000. There's nobody who makes a house for $120,000
except Habitat for Humanity, so I don't know how that person would
ever even qualify.
We have to understand that there are just some people who are
not going to qualify to buy a house, just like we didn't qualify to buy a
house when we were young and making a relatively low salary. And
if we're going to try to target this housing for those people, I think
we're not going to be able to meet our financial goals.
Nevertheless, my personnel preference would be to give -- send
out an RFP and ask people to provide a range of different homes, and
let them come back and tell us what they really can do with this.
Page 233
June 20-21, 2006
MR. GIBLIN: Commissioners, for clarification, we would not be
looking for just someone to come in and build housing units. We'd be
looking for a complete package, someone to develop the land, build
the units, qualify the owners, sell the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
MR. GIBLIN: I mean, a complete turnover.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And Habitat for Humanity would
be a qualified bidder for that.
MR. GIBLIN: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So there's going to be
considerable competition, I would guess. And I think it's going to be
interesting to see what kinds of proposals we get out of this.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We might get a real bang for our buck.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. It could be very
interesting.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Because I think that some of these
developers, we'd be surprised, maybe they can get down here in the 60
to 80 percent range.
MR. GIBLIN: If somewhere in their proposal, if they had plans
to go out and seek private grants or foundation or -- they may be --
you'd be surprised at how low someone could go if that's what they
were trying to hit.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Myself, I'd like to see a range of
different affordability, and especially since it is the county's. Ifwe
lower it, like it's being suggested, I'm not -- I don't think the neighbors
would appreciate it and I don't think the community would look at it
as, well, see what our government has done.
But one of the things that we could do, just like Commissioner
Coy Ie has stated, I mean, we all didn't start out by having enough
money to purchase a home. Maybe part of the proposal is to have
some rental mixed in with the home ownership.
Page 234
June 20-21, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think that's a great idea, as long as we
don't have to administer the rental portion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Private enterprise.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean that -- just throw it out
there. Bring it back and let's see what sticks. But I don't want to limit
it to one category. I just think that's not a very good suggestion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I don't think we want to limit it to a
particular category, just a selection.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I just add something before
we leave that topic? You know, I've been one of the proponents for
keeping this housing specifically for Collier County. You know, this
is being built next to the school. Maybe we shouldn't do that.
I just want you to know that I'm not locked in on that. If you
think it would be better to make it available to only government
workers, you know, schoolteachers, firemen, police officers, too, I'm
certainly willing to consider that, although I had originally intended
that we provide the leadership to show how we, as Collier County
government, can do that, quite frankly, with the school there, it's a
natural for schoolteachers.
MR. GIBLIN: And Commissioners, honestly that's what -- this
property and this project lends itself very nicely to fit into the essential
services personnel criteria and funding and the new affordable housing
bill out of Tallahassee.
So that's -- that was one of staffs recommendations, was that the
Board be involved in this ESP partnership, and that would be a
condition of the RFP.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta, you've been
waiting patiently. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I'm used to it, sir.
Yeah. The home ownership versus rental, thank you very much,
Commissioner Henning, I couldn't agree with you more. And you,
Page 235
June 20-21, 2006
Commissioner Halas, I think you also echoed that. I think we're trying
to fit -- we ought to try to fit the category of people that we need to
serve and identify where they are in this category. Habitat for
Humanity, if I'm not mistaken, limits their home building to people,
and I don't know if it's part of their creed where they can't move from
it. What is it, Habitat for Humanity is 50 percent of median income?
MR. GIBLIN: That's their target, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's their target. So I mean, I
don't know if they would be receptive to coming in, because then we
would have to be aiming for a particular market and below, and
hopefully our county employees are going to fit a little bit above that.
Tell me, from what you know -- and maybe you don't know --
our county, the way we're staffed, when we bring new people in, what
type of this market should we be trying to fulfill?
MR. GIBLIN: That's always been a very tough question to
answer because what we -- the data we do have is based on salaries
that we give. What we DON'T know is, does that person's wife or
husband also work, and so what is their combined household income.
So that's a tough number to put your finger on.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ifwe were to go with some
rental units, could we possibly get down to some of the original
suggested 50 percent of the income?
MR. GIBLIN: Certainly. I mean, we can get down to any
number the board desires, I believe, either owner occupied or rental.
And I think that we should leave it to the creativity of the people who
would be --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, my thought are -- I don't
know what all county employees make, but say they earn in the
$35,000 range, you know, for beginning -- they've been here a year or
two.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Higher.
MR. MUDD: The average is around 43-.
Page 236
June 20-21, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Forty-three? Well, no, that does
help a lot to be able to know what that is. Okay. So at 43-, we would
be somewheres right around the 80 percent.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sixty to 80 percent.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But now a single mother that's
earning 43-, she could qualify for even something --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Over 80.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, for the two people, 80
percent. I guess that's the thought is, what can we do to fulfill a
market out there. We're TRYING to attract new people to our county
government. Many of them aren't married and they don't have
children, but they have no place to go, unless they have family here
they can live with them. Maybe we should be looking at some of the
rentals to be able to meet that end of the market.
MR. GIBLIN: And Commissioner, I don't think that question
really needs to be answered today. What we can do is say that if
Collier County or the School Board or the Sheriffs Department sees a
desire to have a pool of 10 or 20 or 30 rental units for their beginning
employees, that those would be available to them.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, my thoughts on the
School Board and the school teachers and everything, I think that's
wonderful that we want to reach out. But we have to remember too,
the school system is coming up with their own initiative. Did that get
through Tallahassee all right where they can build on school property?
MR. GIBLIN: Yes, sir. Yes, sir, it did.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And I'm sure when they
build on school property, it's probably going to be limited to
schoolteachers?
MR. GIBLIN : Well, we've had -- I've been involved in some
discussions, and the idea is that if this essential services personal
partnership is formed --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
Page 237
June 20-21, 2006
MR. GIBLIN: -- if it's built on school property, some county
employees may be able to live there, some sheriff --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, if that's a possibility--
MR. GIBLIN: Everything will be shared.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- then I'm willing to open it up
too, go for that opportunity to be able to make it even a little broader,
and maybe together we'd solve the problem. But I can see where the
schoolteachers would fit right into something like this.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Or nurses, and so on.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Have we determined the
percentages of income that match the types of employees we're trying
to attract?
I mean, we pretty well know what categories we need to fill, and
so we would probably know what income levels we need to build in
order to match what we're trying to employ, and conversely, you
know, if we open it up to the schools or sheriffs office, they pretty
much make about the same thing that we do.
So I would think that you would already know those answers. I
mean -- yeah. And I don't know that 150 percent of median -- I don't
think we're trying to attract that many. But I would guess more in the
80 percent and 100 percent, we would -- that's where we would really
be going.
And we would hate to build something that's too low income and
then they wouldn't qualify either. We're trying to attract these people.
I knocked their lights out, right?
And the second thing -- so I would guess you'd have those
percentages available, right, of the people that we're trying to attract
and what income we'd really -- I mean, what kind of development we
really need to build for. Okay.
And the second thing is, you say, you know, depends on whether
they're single or married. You have a percentage as far as county
Page 238
June 20-21, 2006
employees go and have any -- are 50 percent married, 50 percent
single? That should also give you an idea as to what you're doing.
Should be pretty simple to work out.
MR. GIBLIN : Yeah. All this is -- all this is, the percentages laid
out in the executive summary are just a bell curve going from the low
income to the gap favoring those 80 to 120 percent unit incomes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I think that's where we need
to fill.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'll make a motion that we
authorize staff to put out an RFP soliciting proposals for the
development of the affordable housing units to include some rentals,
to address that housing market between 80 to 100 percent --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hundred and twenty.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- eighty to 120 percent, and -- with
the assumption that we would recover the amount of money that we
paid for the property.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second the motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that would be refunded to
EMS impact fee fund.
MR. GIBLIN: Commissioners, point of clarification. When you
said 80 to 120 percent, exclusively or just favoring those --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would be happy to say, focusing
on those categories, but we should give people a little -- little leeway
in making their proposal, because I think we'll get more interesting
proposals if we permit them--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'd like to exceed 60 percent, especially
young people just moving into the community and wanting to work. I
don't know what the starting salary is for -- what's the starting salary
for entry-level people here in the county? Is it similar to what the
school board is, around 33,000, 32,000?
MR. MUDD: Depends on the job, sir.
Page 239
June 20-21, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Five dollars an hour out in
Immokalee in the fields.
MR. MUDD: It depends on the job they're being hired for.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What's the -- what's the average entrance
salary here in the county; do you have an idea?
MR. MUDD: No, it depends on the job. I mean, we've got
people that are lower than the -- average is average, okay? So you've
got people that are lower than that, you've got people above it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So when you said average, you were
taking people that had two years seniority and adding them into
people that had 25-year seniority?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. We have people -- we have on road and
bridge that are out there doing landscape maintenance, they're making
about 25 K, okay, and then you have people that are making $100,000.
And when you start averaging those things together, that's what you
get.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. My concern is, I think we ought
to look at somewhere between 60 and the 120 percent. I think that's
where we need to really look then.
What do schoolteachers make, about 32,000? Okay. That's
starting salary. Police officer, sheriffs department? What's -- where
do they start?
MR. GIBLIN: About 33,000 as well.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Pardon?
MR. GIBLIN: About 33,000 as well.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, but with overtime, it's 150-.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I don't know if you'd like to
manipulate your motion. I hate to see it go way up to the high end.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you see, we didn't redistrict it
to 80 to 100 (sic). We just said, let's focus on those categories, and
they have the flexibility to come in lower and go a little higher to see
if they can give us a good proposal.
Page 240
June 20-21, 2006
You guys can write the RFP to permit that kind of flexibility,
right?
MR. GIBLIN: Right. I think the words, focusing on those, those
are adequate to give us flexibility. So was the concept of the land
trust, putting it in a trust --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, no. I think we expect to
recover the cost of the land that we -- the cost that we paid for the land
because we've got to get it back into the impact fee fund --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's either that or if we can get the cost of
the land back and put it into the kitty for the impact fees for EMS, but
we can retain that land as a land trust so it's in perpetuity as far as
controlling the housing on it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, how -- we -- how do we get
the money for the land to put back into the EMS impact fee fund?
MR. GIBLIN: Well, the 413 odd thousand dollars would need to
be included in the sales price of the units.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right, that's right.
MR. GIBLIN: But the -- that is obviously not the true market
value of the land today. So there is some increase in there which
would allow you to put these into a land trust.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Put what into a land trust?
MR. GIBLIN: The units, the land. That can be one of the
stipulations in the RFP that the people are form a land trust, put it into
a land trust, to guarantee its affordability in perpetuity.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, you mean just for this
particular development. You're not talking about taking money and
investing it in another land trust?
MR. GIBLIN: No, no, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Yeah. Well, that--
whatever is necessary to control the affordability is what we need to
do, and if that's what you're saying is that we control the affordability
by keeping it in a land trust, that's fine with me.
Page 241
June 20-21, 2006
MR. GIBLIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, and that would be included
in the -- is that's the best mechanism. There could be another
mechanism for doing this, but if -- for example, if Habitat for
Humanity purchased this land for cash from us -- and they can do that
because they've got lots of money -- then they could control this in
perpetuity without having it in a land trust.
So there are ways it can be done without doing it that way. But if
we want to require that, that's fine with me.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Before I call on Commissioner Henning,
I think the County Manager -- County Attorney has something to add
to this.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. I was just going to chime in that in
regard to the land trust, I think Mr. Coyle has captured the thought
very well, and that is, we'll investigate that in going forward with the
proposal, but he's talked in terms of flexibility or some other
mechanism that may work equally or better. And I want to, you
know, just remind us all, that when we talk about perpetuity, that's a
long time.
And we'll want to advise -- all of us will want to consider and
advise about a mechanism in place in case perpetuity isn't really what
we want after a period of years and years and years.
We may find that it's not something to continue, and there may
potentially be mechanisms in there to provide for alteration for review,
at the same time, attempting to provide to all who come forward with
enough stability that it's a fiscally feasible project to venture upon.
But there are several things we'll be looking at in looking to bring
something back to you there.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are you suggesting that the price of land
is going to decrease?
MR. WEIGEL: No, not at all. But I am saying that, if for some
reason the proj ect turns out to be a bust in the future, to the extent that
Page 242
June 20-21, 2006
the county maintains some strings of control over this property that is
selling at bargain price, we'll want to kind of consider that in the terms
of whether there is an opportunity to reserve for -- for a future board to
retrieve the property or some other aspect of the venture as opposed to
an absolute perpetuity with no controls whatsoever.
There are -- there are occasionally at least elements of review
that can be put in which don't inhibit the actual operation of the land
trust, and we want to look at those things very carefully. Flexibility is
really what we're keying off on.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Call the motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, just one comment. I need
clarification.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just want to make sure that
what we're talking about is the impact fees, to recoup the impact fees
for EMS. That's what you're talking about?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. We will need to recoup the
impact fees for EMS as quickly as possible, but we've also talked
about setting up some control mechanism that might result in the
creation of a land trust for that property, okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just want to make sure we
don't have -- we're not talking about actual value of the land or other
expenses.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We could be talking about the
actual value of the land if we set up the land trust, but we'll only
expect payment back initially from the EMS impact fee. I don't know
if that --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. My concern is if we get
too much of a price of the land --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, no.
Page 243
June 20-21, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- we're going to drive the price
up of the housing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. No. As far as I'm
concerned, the amount of money to be used for calculating the base
price of the housing will include that amount of money which
represents what we paid for the property, right?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Would you restate your motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I can't. As a matter of in fact, in 15
minutes I'm going to turn into a pumpkin, so --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I just want to make sure that we've
got everything on the record, Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'm recommending that we
publish an RFP to solicit proposals for the development of affordable
housing on this property with the primary focus on the 80 to 120
percent of median income range with the flexibility to go below that if
desired, with a component -- some component of rental units, with the
cost of the land to be figured into this -- this cost of housing to be that
amount which we owe the EMS impact fee fund, and that the
affordability of the housing would be managed by the person who is
awarded the contract for this.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's in my second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's in your second. Okay. Is there
any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's quite different than the
first motion, but I support it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, that's why I wanted to make sure
we had clarification here, Commissioner. Is there anything that you
would like to discuss about the motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I support it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. GIBLIN: Commissioners?
Page 244
June 20-21, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's move on.
MR. GIBLIN: Commissioners, along the same lines,
Representative Davis' bill, the essential services personnel, which is
now law, requires the County to evaluate certain elements in our LDC,
GMP, Local Housing Assistance Plan, and it mayor may not require
us to make certain changes. Could we get some direction to move
forward and evaluate what changes might be necessary and then bring
those back?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're going to have to come back
with the RFP anyway, aren't you? Won't you have to tell us what your
MR. GIBLIN: Well, probably irrespective of this RFP, this bill
will require us to do that evaluation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Send us an email of what
kind of changes we need to do with our growth plan.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, what he's trying to get at is, you've
told him to do some focus and some things like that, and I'm not too
sure the density that's on this particular property is going to drive -- is
going to get the marketability and the price down for that particular
unit.
And what Cormac's trying to do is find other funding sources that
would help in making it more attractive on this particular property.
And there is how many million dollars that have been set aside?
MR. GIBLIN: Fifty million.
MR. MUDD: Fifty million. And if you want to be a contender,
he has to craft that thing to make sure that we stay within the confines
of the legislation that was passed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I -- of course, yes, I'd like to
see that. But you understand that you've got to define the structure of
this private/public partnership in order to qualify for some of those
funds under that bill. So first you're going to have to find out who it is
we're going to partner with to get this done, right?
Page 245
June 20-21, 2006
MR. GIBLIN: Yes, sir. But what I'm getting at is, there are
other factors to be evaluated when you apply for this funding. It may
require changes to some parts of our Growth Management Plan, some
parts of our LDC.
I know certain parts of our Local Housing Assistance Plan
usually refers to some general guidance to go forward and find out
what those sections that mayor may not made to be amended are and
bring those back for amendment.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So if we were to say that the
motion includes guidance to staff to do whatever is necessary to
maximize the opportunities for getting grants and other financial
assistance to accomplish this project, okay, will that do it for you?
MR. GIBLIN: That's right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But then you've got to come back
and tell us what those changes are, okay? Okay?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is that in your second, too?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any further discussion? I
hate to ask that question.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'm going to call the question.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Passes. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It sounds like we don't want to go
outside with that rain coming down.
Page 246
June 20-21, 2006
Item #14B
GRANT AGREEMENT FROM THE FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION (FAA) FOR $414,475 TO EXPAND THE
AIRCRAFT PARKING APRON AT THE MARCO ISLAND
EXECUTIVE AIRPORT, INCLUDING THE DESIGN PHASE OF
THE EXPANSION AND THE ACQUISITION OF LAND
ADJACENT TO THE MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT
COLLIER COUNTY'S MAXIMUM MATCH FOR THIS GRANT
IS $2L814-APPROVED
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Manager, we have an item that
was brought to us later -- earlier this morning. It was 14B, and that's
in regards to an airplane grant. Can we cover that? And then we're
going to adjourn for the evening.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, you certainly can.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. It's 14B, and it's the Immokalee
Airport grant.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am (sic).
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ma'am?
MR. MUDD: It's 14B, it's a recommendation to approve a grant
agreement from the F ederal Aviation Administration, FAA, for
$414,475 to expand the aircraft parking A frame at the Marco Island
Executive Airport, including the design phase of the expansion and the
acquisition of land adjacent to the Marco Island Executive Airport.
Collier County's maximum match for this grant is $21,814. And
this was added at the director of the Airport Authority, Ms. Theresa
Cook, and she is here to present.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Wonderful presentation.
Page 247
June 20-21, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there anything you had to put on the
record?
MS. COOK: Actually, no. It speaks for itself.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Just -- the one thing I will say is -- it does speak
for itself. You have to understand that Mr. DeLony and the Public
Utilities Division acquired this property, this one acre, when they did
the exchange with Marco Island for the recycling center there on
Marco, and they got a smaller parcel across the way plus this one.
So Mr. DeLony needs to be reimbursed with his enterprise fund
on this particular property, and that's part of the grant award. Just
wanted to put that on the record.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, great. We've got that on the
record.
Any further discussion?
(N 0 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. And we're adjourned for
the evening, and we'll reconvene at nine clock in the morning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, can I say -- just
say one thing?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Everybody has read about
Logan Boulevard North and the lack of proper permits. It's a longer
Page 248
June 20-21, 2006
story that really doesn't need to be repeated.
But I can tell you, I have arranged a meeting with the South
Florida Water Management District and the Parklands developer that's
building the public road, and I want to find out how we can -- what we
can do to get that road project back on-line and separate the
development from the road project.
And I want to meet with that person at 8:30 in the morning. If
Mr. Feder would like to join me, I'll tell him where the details of the
meeting is.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We're going to be here -- you're going to
be here at nine?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll try.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much, and we
are --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just have one thing, one thing, one
thing.
On the -- number 7B, I forgot to declare that I had also talked
with staff members and a Planning Commission member on the -- on
the mining issue. And I thought I better put that on the record before
our meeting ends. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We're in recess until tomorrow morning.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:05 p.m.
Page 249
June 20-21, 2006
CONTINUATION
OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, FL
June 21, 2006
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the
Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such
special districts as have 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 Coyle
Donna Fiala
Tom Henning
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
Leo Ochs, Deputy County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Page 250
June 20-21, 2006
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mic.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
And it's a pleasure to be back in session here. We're out of recess
from yesterday's meeting.
Item #10K
RESOLUTION 2006-159: CALLING FOR A REFERENDUM
ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 7, 2006 TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THE VOTERS WANT ADEQUATE ROAD
CAPACITY TO EXIST BEFORE NEW DEVELOPMENT CAN
BEGIN - ADOPTED
And County Manager, I believe we're going to start on Item
10(K)?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. That's a recommendation that the Board
of County Commissioners adopt a resolution calling for a referendum
election on November 7th, 2006, to determine whether the voters want
adequate road capacity to exist before new development can begin.
And Mr. Leo Ochs, the Deputy County Manager, will present.
MR.OCHS: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
Leo Ochs, Deputy County Manager.
As previously directed by this board, staff, in conjunction with
the county attorney, has prepared a resolution that authorizes the
Supervisor of Elections to place a straw ballot referendum question in
front of the voters on the November 7th, 2006 ballot to essentially
determine the interest of the voters with respect to adequate road
capacity in Collier County.
The specific language of the ballot question is found in section
four of the resolution. That's Page four of six of your agenda
materials. And it reads as follows: State Growth Management Law
Page 251
June 20-21, 2006
permits new development to proceed under certain circumstances,
even if adequate road capacity will not exist for three to five years,
should this law be changed to require adequate road capacity before
development can begin.
Staff is recommending adoption of this resolution.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have one question in regards to this:
Should we put to be changed to require adequate road capacity to
begin two years after approval of PUDs on that particular roadway or
that particular TCMA?
MR. OCHS : Well, that's a policy decision of the Board. Mr.
Chairman, we brought this language forward, as you recall, based on
the Board direction to use this precise language in the preparation of
this resolution, based on your comments from the last board meeting.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I see one of my commissioner -- one of
my fellow commissioners is shaking his head violently, and maybe he
can give me some guidance that I might need here.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, the purpose of this question
is to, number one, get voters opinion concerning the fact that
infrastructure should be available before we begin construction.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that's really what we're trying
to do. If we start encumbering the language with two years after a
TCA or a PUD is approved or something like that, it gets really, really
messy.
But it's a straw ballot. Doesn't mean we have to implement it, but
it certainly would give us a good indication of how the voters feel
about this and hopefully give our state legislature a good idea of how
the voters feel here.
And the only change I would like to make is can we underline the
word before? Is there anything wrong with underlining or
highlighting items in these ballot --
Page 252
June 20-21, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Or bolding? Making it bolder or
something?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Bold.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, bold and underlined or
something?
MR. WEIGEL: That's a question for the Supervisor of Elections
whether we can bold or italicize or use any kind of emphasis. And
we'll address that with her.
If you make a recommendation for us, then we will have
something to carry to her in that regard.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: One other question: In the
resolution itself on Page 3 -- actually Page 5 of 6 of the entire packet
item -- there's different language. Is it necessary that that language in
the referendum mirror the exact ballot language that we are
recommending?
MR. PETTIT: Which section are you speaking of, Mr. Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It would be section seven, re:
noticing the referendum.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: To Collier County, Florida.
MR. WEIGEL: Actually, I can answer that. There's no legal
requirement that it be identical. Often it may be identical if there's --
but the notice is just a general notice about it and so it does not legally
have to reflect the same language.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think it would be less confusing if
the notice had the same language on it.
MR. WEIGEL: All right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Would the commissioners--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I agree with that.
MR. PETTIT: Commissioner, Mike Pettit for the record.
Page 253
June 20-21, 2006
It occurs to me that I've already sent the Conservation Collier
straw ballot to the supervisor with bolded language to make sure the
public understood it was a straw ballot. And I have not gotten a
response back. But we'll clarify that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's the word before, is that what we're
talking about, right?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. And I would make a motion
that we approve the language, as submitted, with the word before
underlined and bolded.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll second that, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any other further discussion in
regards to this item?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You've got to move your coffee
cup, SIr.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. My morning coffee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The language in here, you
know, I don't see any resolution of how we're going to get the
infrastructure done earlier or how we're going to change State Law.
Commissioner Coyle, would you be open to changing it as far as
the action plan there, then be it proclaimed, or whatever, the Board of
County Commissioners will petition Florida Association of Counties
for the State Law to change?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We -- I don't see that we can do
that because we don't know what the vote's going to be. If the vote is
all no or a majority is no, then we won't be doing what we said we
would do in the ballot question.
So the problem is that we have to find out what the vote is. I
think we know what the vote will be, but we have to find out what the
vote is before we can develop the action plan.
Page 254
June 20-21, 2006
And you're right, once we know what the vote is, we can develop
an action plan. If the vote is no, we're going to have to develop an
action plan for that one, too. If the vote is yes, you're right, we're
going to have to develop an action plan for that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's later down the road.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, let's say that the
answer is no, they agree with the state.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If the answer is yes, what do
you do then? I mean, I think we need to tell the voters of what we're
going to do to change it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The problem is that we can't do
that in the ballot language. We're limited in the number of words that
we can use in the ballot. So we can't have a lot of explanatory
language here to accomplish that.
And to develop an action plan at the present time when we're
right in the middle of developing a proportionate fair share ordinance
is almost impossible.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, don't you think
before November that we should have an action plan for either the
media to get out or the public information to get out as, well, if you
say yes, this is how we're going to proceed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think when we get the results of
the vote we should prepare an action plan to implement the desires of
the voters, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think the voters can
realize that we can't -- the Board of Commissioners can't change State
Law.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right, that's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But that's what we're saying,
that the State Law should be changed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, we're merely asking them if
Page 255
June 20-21, 2006
they think it should be changed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're not saying that we will
change State Law; we're merely asking them if they think that State
Law should be changed. And I think that the will of the voters should
have a bearing on all legislators, because as you've implied, I don't
think we're the only county that's going to do this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, but there's 67 out there, so
-- as a majority or what.
But we're getting beyond the means of I think there has to be
some kind of outreach to the voters of what the Board of
Commissioners of Collier County want to do if you say yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, other than getting
this on the ballot, I don't want a dollar of taxpayers money spent
supporting or fighting this particular ballot item. If the outreach
comes, it should be from the public itself or just from ourselves or our
civic associations or property owners association.
I'm a little bit nervous about that, because we have different other
valid issues that come up on a regular basis, and sometimes we can do
more harm than good by taking a side -- getting out there and
physically spending the county's money on the promotion of it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I would imagine
everybody up here wants to be unified in the message to the public.
Right now I don't know what the message is. The public asks me, so
what are you going to do about it? I'm in favor of it, so what are you
going to do?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We're going to put it on the ballot and
we're going to find out what the feelings of the people are. And then
when -- whatever we get guidance from the straw ballot, I think that's
the direction that we're going to move it in.
Page 256
June 20-21, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, so what you're saying is
the response is I don't know what we're going to do.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No, that's not the response, no.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're going to tell the public, I
don't know what we're going to do, but we'll have to figure that out.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I speak?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, you're right,
Commissioner Henning, we haven't really discussed it in great detail.
We did elude to the fact that what we'd like to do is get the voters'
mandate on this. And then the next step would be going back to the
Florida Association of Counties on our own as part of our regular
duties that we do with the Florida Association of Counties to show
them what we did in Collier County, and they might possibly want to
pick it up and do the same thing. It would become a state-wide
initiative. That's something that I think is something that's self-evident
that we're planning to go in that particular direction.
This doesn't begin and end with Collier County. If anything,
we're just the beginning point for it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just one more thing. Just asking
everybody, if you take a look at the language, the law's the law, so
either you change the law or you work within the law.
Is anybody on the Board of Commissioners thinking that we need
to work within the law by getting the infrastructure in early by raising
taxes to make that happen?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We didn't say anything about raising
taxes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-uh.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's a question to my
comments.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We're not here to raise taxes. We're here
Page 257
June 20-21, 2006
just to find out what the feeling of the will of the people here in
Collier County is in regards to addressing transportation issues that we
have, and we're trying to find some direction from the people. Maybe
they're satisfied with everything that's going on at the present time, but
they might feel that their quality of life is going downhill if we get to
the point where we can't address transportation issues.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know of any of the
public would want the infrastructure in with concurrent or prior to
development.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We're not really saying that at this point
in time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I mean, I just don't know
of a citizen that doesn't want that to happen.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I think they've got to realize that
it's not going to be in before, because you have to have impact fees or
you have to have some vehicle to put that infrastructure in. And
nobody here has even considered or talked about ad valorem taxes as
being that particular vehicle.
I think we're pretty much all in a mindset that we're going to do
this with impact fees or possibly with some other ways of attempting
to get additional fees to take care of building the infrastructure here in
Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just a question, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I'm ready to call the question.
I'm ready to vote.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I vote yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do you want to think about it?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: He voted no, did you hear that?
Page 258
June 20-21, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I can't support it because I
really believe before the ballot question we need to tell the public how
we're going to proceed if they say yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I think we will do that after the
fact.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know. I understand you're
going to do it after the fact.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, sir.
Okay, no further discussion, call the question. All those in favor
of the support of putting this on the November ballot, signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay,4-1. Thank you very much for
your time.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, for clarification, it's the approval
of the resolution with the submittal working with the supervisor of
elections that "before" be either bolded, italicized or --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Or underlined.
MR. WEIGEL: -- an emphasis, a type of demarcation. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning, I'm not sure you
were here, what we discussed in the language change, in case you
weren't here, is that the word before either be in bold print --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- or -- okay, you were here.
MR. WEIGEL: And the language of the notice will reflect the
Page 259
June 20-21, 2006
language of the ballot.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, I wasn't sure if you were here, sir.
Next item.
Item #15
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING HALDEMAN CREEK
DREDGING PROJECT AND ACCEPTANCE OF $50,000 FROM
THE CITY OF NAPLES FOR THE PROJECT - APPROVED
W/STIPULA TIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 10M. Remember
that 10L was continued, and that is to the 25th of June. That is at the
petitioner's request.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're at 10M?
MR. MUDD: We're at 10M.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I thought you were going to talk
about the other --
MR. MUDD: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- item before I leave here.
MR. MUDD: Yes sir.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Coyle had talked to you about
trying to get this particular item before he had to leave at 10:00. This
has to do with the city's contribution to the Haldeman Creek dredging
proj ect. And just to give you a brief update, let me tell you where
we've been with this.
The -- back in May -- I'm going to get this piece of paper. Back
on May 9th, 2006 at the board meeting there was an agenda Item 10H
that was approved by the board 5-0. And that history is up there in the
comer that I wrote in.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Could you make it just a little bit larger?
We're all old people up here. That's good, thanks.
Page 260
June 20-21, 2006
MR. MUDD: The -- and this was brought in front of the Board
of County Commissioners, and Norm Feder and his staff presented it.
I basically talked about the cost of dredging Haldeman Creek.
And in that process of that discussion, it was brought out how
much they needed for the particular fund, and it was also basically --
in the agreement on the second page, it basically talked about where
we got grant money from. On the first paragraph. We received
$500,000 from the Big Cypress Basin and another $500,000 from the
South Florida Water Management District.
Another piece of this particular issue was if funds are not
received from the City of Naples, that portion of the project will not
be completed. And the City's portion of the project at the time of this
-- at the time of this executive summary was around $211,000. And
that was presented to the Board.
Since that time, Mr. Feder has relayed that information to the
City Manager and the City Manager has talked with his council. And
the council at the last meeting that they had talked about -- let's talk
about the Haldeman Creek project, just to bring it into perspective for
everybody. Haldeman Creek dredging project starts over at this
particular limit at 41 and it's the yellow. And then we go to the blue --
the red area. The red shaded area is the Mr. Antaramian property
where he has agreed to let us use it for a spoils site. And then we
continue to dredge this and the fingers that are in green. They might
be hard to see on your -- they're better on your overhead than they are
on this piece of paper -- until we get to this particular point, and that's
the city line.
The project was originally scoped to include the city project, and
we've been in discussion with the City, and it may have been Jon
Steiger, when he was there, to talk about the city's contribution to their
particular area, to take it from the city line and dredge it in this
particular carrier.
Now, I want to make sure that we all understand and we
Page 261
June 20-21, 2006
remember, this is a stormwater project. This is one of those tidal
basins -- there's eight of them in Collier County -- that have silted up
throughout the years. And when you try to get people to figure out
how they're going to get it unsilted, they all start pointing fingers.
So the board decided several years ago, as part of the stormwater
ordinance program, that the tidal basins would be a 50/50 split
between the basin -- Southwest Florida Water Management District
and the County. And once that basin was dredged from the last weir
of the South Florida Water Management District, then an MSTU
would be set up mandatorily for all those people that are affected that
live along those canals. And then it would be up for them for future
maintenance of those particular canals.
Now, there's a secondary benefit to this particular project and has
everything to do with boating.
The discussion with the City, during the council meeting, they
basically designated their Manager and their Mayor to delegate
authority for them to negotiate up to $80,000 with the Board of
County Commissioners.
I had one meeting with Bob Lee where he broached the subject. I
mentioned that we're not going to go any lower than $50,000 from the
Board's side of the house, but I told him that we couldn't -- I couldn't
-- we'd have to negotiate that and I'd have to talk to the Board about it,
because I don't have your authority to do that.
There's been some preliminary conversations through a couple of
letters that have gone back and forth, one of which that disturbed me
greatly was the fact that that preliminary conversation with Mr. Lee
turned into a settlement agreement. You know, jumps right out of the
sheet on the 16th of June that says, oh, we'll take the offer of $50,000.
And I said, oh, that was really interesting. I felt a little like I was
hooked like a fish and I was being reeled in.
But all that said and done, let's talk a little bit about that $211,000
estimate of what the cost of dredging is, because I believe that's
Page 262
June 20-21, 2006
important for you to know.
We call it Reach 3. And it is -- and I'm just going to -- Reach 3 is
in the City of Naples. And I've showed you on the map what that
looked like.
The total length of feet is 1,550. When it says bottom width will
dredge out to 50 feet, okay, so the width of it will be there. And then
we'll go down minus five to meet the mean low water mark.
The volume of dredge material, our estimate is 3,962 cubic yards.
And here's how the staff, when we devised the program back in
2003 -- well, this has been going on since 2001. But when we came
up with our preliminary estimate of what the city's share would be,
there was the actual dredging at $118,000, haul of contaminated
material for 26,000, the cost share. And that is because of the reach,
they estimated the total amount -- or length of dredging, and the
amounts and it was estimated that 10 percent of the mobilization in
demo cost were basically a city responsibility. They came up with
$211,000.
Now, let's talk about adjustments. I went back in the contract and
I said all right, if we were going to do this project without the City, we
would still have the mobilization and the demobilization costs. So it's
pretty much a sung cost that's on our dime, so to speak.
So the stormwater CIP eligible expense cost share, which my pen
is pointing to right now, for 66,000 is pretty much that 10 percent that
I talked about in the previous paragraph, is pretty much a sung cost to
the County.
I also asked our staff to go back and look at the contract and look
at the borings at where all the haul-out of material -- you have to
understand, if the material is clean and it goes on Mr. Antaramian's
site and we can use it, therefore, it will be hauled off and used as fill
material, because it will be sandy and it will be good.
There were a couple areas that we tested. We wanted to make
sure there were no heavy metals. It's one of those things that you have
Page 263
June 20-21,2006
to do before you get your Department of Environmental Protection
permit. And we did those borings. And there were a couple of areas
where we had heavy metal concentrations.
And in those particular cases, we had to segregate that dredge
material into a separate pile, and we have to haul that off as a
contaminate, not as something that could be used.
In this particular reach in the City, there were no contaminated
borings so, therefore, you could assume and take the contract
reduction, no contaminated soil, $26,000 off of their fair share of the
particular project.
So if you wanted to look at their -- and when I'm talking about
bare bones, what the County has to do, and if they just wanted to
attach themselves into this particular project -- you could reduce that
$211,000 cost down to $118,000. And it's just -- the dredging cost,
cost per foot, is $76.13.
The City of Naples, after 14 June, basically talked about that they
could negotiate no greater than $80,000. And there's still a remainder
to that particular project, if that is their contribution of $38,000, in
order to complete the project, and that is up to the Board of County
Commissioners to decide what they want to do.
But with all that being said, let's blow up the reach a little bit.
And what I asked Mr. Gene Calvert, the Director of Stormwater, to do
is to break the reach down, the Reach 3, the dredge part down into -- if
it was $118,000, I said okay, Gene, it's about $20,000 sections, so that
comes up to about --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Jim, let me interrupt you a minute.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The problem is it's not $118,000.
It's $50,000 from the City, plus whatever the County is going to
allocate, if anything.
MR. MUDD: If this Commission wants to accept their offer,
okay, and I need your direction, okay, from this particular element,
Page 264
June 20-21, 2006
what I was going to talk about was if you were just going to apply the
$50,000 from the City, it would take you to approximately this
position from the City boundary down to here.
Now, one of the things that was also discussed was the Royal
Harbor Homeowners Association, Commissioner Coyle asked for a
meeting of those folks to figure out exactly what the area that was the
worst in the city, and it just so happens it's that "S" curve that's sitting
there on the map.
So to boil down what we have: We have a council direction to
Mr. Lee and the mayor that basically says to negotiate an agreement
with the County for no more than $80,000. I have a letter from--
excuse me, Commissioner Coyle received a letter from the mayor that
says we'll take the $50,000 deal. And I -- and you have that right
there. And I think you've all received a copy of this already, because
you were -- and you've seen it.
Yesterday I sent a letter to Mr. Lee, if I can find it. I sent a letter
to Mr. Lee that basically talked about the issue that neither
Commissioner Coyle nor myself were delegated by this board to
negotiate anything, and that we would have to bring it up to the Board
of County Commissioners.
So -- and there was a conversation with their Board about there
was something sneaky about the County waiting until the last minute
until they told them. That was never the case. Staff had coordinated
with their staff years ago in the attempt to doing that. And I know at
least two occasions that the commissioner from District 4 had
mentioned this to their council in 2004. So this wasn't any kind of a
last minute deal. Everybody knew it. Denial is one thing, but this was
not something that was last minute as far as the County was
concerned.
So the question in front of the Board of County Commissioners
is: Number one, do you as the board want to contribute, subsidize any
portion of the city reach? And again, I make sure that you know that
Page 265
June 20-21, 2006
on 9 May that you decided that the City should contribute. I believe
the City's coming forward with some kind of a contribution, but it is
not -- it's not the total product or the whole project within their City
limi ts.
And another question you have to say is are we going to consider
that the mob. and demob. costs are totally sung costs on the County's
side of the house, as well as the contaminated soil haul-out, which was
a $93,000 savings. So that brought it from 211 down to 118.
And so first decision is: Is the City contribution, the total project
cost in the city, at 118,000 in your eyes, because you have to agree to
that, and then you have to consider what the city has come forward
with, and if the county wants to augment that in any way. That's all I
have, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: My feeling is that we're -- we've done I
think very well with the City where we've decided to pick up the
mobilization and demobilization costs. And I think we've tried to be
as fair as possible. And my feeling is that as you brought out, and I
hope that Commissioner Coy Ie understands, that he has worked with
the City in regards to trying to come up with something that's
amicable for both parties that he has worked in the past.
And I feel that everybody has to pay their fair share, and I'm in
favor of the City stepping up to the plate and paying us the $118,000.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You know, they do pay a good
amount of taxes, thank heavens, because they do -- your light isn't on
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I know. I was just thinking about
turning it on is all. Depending on what you've said.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And we should take that into
consideration. I think that they'll add so much to our coffers.
And secondly, they've been more than cooperative with our
beach permits and -- I think their beaches are mostly used by County
Page 266
June 20-21,2006
residents anyway, and we've been very fortunate to have all the
parking there and so forth. And I think that a compromise would be
extremely good. And maybe we can split that 118 in half and each
pay half of that. But I think that we ought to be working with the City
of Naples, as they've worked with us.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala, you're absolutely
right on in regards to beach access. But we also give them a large
chunk of money in regards to that also. I think it's close to 500,000 or
450,000 every year.
Any other discussion? Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'd like to hear from
Commissioner Coyle. But the question is, is this coming out of the
general fund or the stormwater capital improvement general fund?
MR. MUDD: Sir, this would come out of the Stormwater Capital
Improvement Fund, if it comes out of anything.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So it might affect some
other project.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, what good is it
going to do to dredge east if we're not going to dredge west? I think
the question is we're not going to do that, we're going to do the whole
thing, right?
MR. MUDD: I'm sorry, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is the option just to dredge
two-thirds of it and leave one-third alone, the third that's in the city?
MR. MUDD: That's what the board's direction was on 9 May,
SIr.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, does that really
make sense? It's a question.
MR. MUDD: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So really, our option is
let's do the project. And I'm not happy with what the City of Naples
Page 267
June 20-21, 2006
leaders decision is, but the bottom line is if we want to do anything,
we've got to do it all. It's all or nothing.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: They also have a stormwater utility
themselves, so, I mean, it's not just the county's stormwater. It's the
City has -- within their boundary I believe they have a stormwater
utility. So I'm not sure how much they've got in their stormwater
utility, but I think yes, they pay taxes and everything else, but the fact
is that we've got some huge stormwater proj ects that need to be
addressed in --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understand that, and this is one
of them.
So Commissioner Coyle, tell us what we need to do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, this is a complicated
problem, and it's further complicated for me, because I don't know
how the city came up with $50,000, okay? They didn't talk with me
about it, so I don't know what the justification was for the $50,000
other than the conversation that they had with the County Manager.
And the problem that has always troubled me is that this is a
stormwater project. We've gotten a million dollars or more from the --
of state funds for stormwater improvements, and that's how we've
funded this project. Ifwe didn't have that money, we wouldn't do this
project at all, because we wouldn't have the money to do it.
The City's portion is a navigational problem. The flow of water
is not likely to be impeded if you just complete that portion of the
dredging. Although it makes a lot of sense to do the whole thing, as
you've stated. It is crazy to mobilize for a proj ect of this size and then
pull out of it without doing it.
So then it gets down to an issue of what is a fair share? Who
should pay what? And when the council suggested negotiating an
amount up to $80,000, I thought, based upon what I knew about the
cost of the project, that for $80,000 we could get most of the work
done. But when the letter showed up saying we're going to pay you
Page 268
June 20-21, 2006
$50,000, that left me in a position I don't know what we can do with
$50,000.
So either the County agrees to just do it and forget about City
participation, or you take the little bit of $50,000 and do what we can
with $50,000, or we subsidize the whole thing and we no longer care
what the City contributes.
And that's the decision I think the County Manager needs to get
from us, because we've already said in a previous motion by the Board
that if the City doesn't participate we're not going to complete that
portion of the project. And so the County Manager can't move
forward unless we change that decision.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I think that they ought to step up to
the plate to do something on this. Maybe $80,000.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just a couple of questions so I
can understand where the monies come from.
The County has a stormwater fund and the City has a stormwater
fund. The County's stormwater fund has been supplemented by a
grant from the State or Federal government, correct?
MR. MUDD: The South Florida Water Management District and
the Big Cypress Basin Board, sir, to the tune of a million dollars.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But that money was for the
County's projects in the unincorporated area of the County, correct?
MR. MUDD: No, sir. Haldeman Creek dredging project, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But it wasn't specific as far as
whose part of the property line it fell on?
MR. MUDD: No, sir, it was for the project.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then the other question
is, stormwater, the fund for stormwater, can that be used
indiscriminately for navigation?
MR. MUDD: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then this is a navigation issue.
Page 269
June 20-21, 2006
MR. MUDD: No, sir. As far as the county is concerned, it's a
stormwater issue.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just heard --
MR. MUDD: Hang on. The City's discussion that they had at
the council meeting talked about navigation, okay? Didn't talk a
whole lot about stormwater, okay? And I believe that was the whole
gist of it.
And I believe Commissioner Coyle has told them numerous
times that this is a stormwater project, okay? And so that's where we
sit in this particular -- at this point in time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But the stormwater project's
going to clear a channel for navigation.
MR. MUDD: That's a secondary benefit, sir, yes, sir. And then
it's up to those homeowners to keep it cleaned out to do whatever they
want to do recreational wise.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'd agree with
Commissioner Halas that they should pay a share. Probably 80,000
would be more in mind of what they should pay. In fact, I'll make a
motion to that effect.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you can't really make a motion --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, forgive me, I withdraw
the motion.
MR. MUDD: No, no, hang on. You can make a motion to
recommend that the City council fund $80,000, but you can't tell them
to fund $80,000.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, they told us that they were only
going to go up to $50,000 to us.
MR. MUDD: That's in a letter to Commissioner Coyle, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, let me try to explain the
argument here.
The City pays 20 percent of all the ad valorem property taxes in
Page 270
June 20-21, 2006
Collier County. So based upon the ad valorem property taxes that are
being used for the Haldeman Creek project, it is the City's contention
that they've already paid over $380,000 of Ad Valorem Property
Taxes for this project. And if it's only going to be conducted in the
County, they've paid $380,000 for the work that is being done in the
County. So they should get some benefit from that by having the
County do the dredging on the -- on the City's side of this project.
The problem arises when you've defined it as a stormwater
project and you've gotten money from State agencies for stormwater
improvements, and then you take that money and you use it for what
the City has already classified as a navigational issue. That's the
complication in my mind.
And I don't know what the legal ramifications of that really are.
But that's the City's rationale. They understand that what they want to
do is largely navigational in nature. What we are doing is largely
stormwater in nature and has always been characterized that way.
And they're willing to provide some money because of that difference.
Although they believe they've already contributed at least $380,000 to
this project through their Ad Valorem Property Taxes. And so that is
the fundamental argument here.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle, we also I believe
helped them out in regards to a lot of other areas. So I think we have a
fair cost share throughout the whole year with the city in regards to
other projects that have come up and they asked us for our guidance.
So my feeling is what Commissioner Coletta has basically said
that he was going to probably propose, and I think that's a fair share.
If we're looking at $211,000 is what the County Manager projected
would be their share of this thing, and then what we did is we said
well, we have mobilization and demobilization costs, so we're going to
take that out of the equation. And so then we got down to 118,000.
And because of the fact that it's really not a real stormwater issue, it's
Page 271
June 20-21, 2006
a navigational issue, at first I was on the tree saying that I thought
118,000 was a fair share. That's what we had come up with. And then
listening to what you had to bring forth to the table here, I felt that
$80,000 would be a fair share.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Just brief comment, and I
won't debate that. But we have been very cooperative in helping the
City of Naples in a number of ways. We've taken over responsibility
for the Depot at considerable expense, and we've helped preserve the
Depot; otherwise it wouldn't have been happening. We have made
decisions here to make sure that additional beach restoration money is
provided.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Fleischman.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And Fleischman Park. We've
provided funds for the Poinciana Golf Course entrance and the
stormwater --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- facility there.
We've improved the entrance into Royal Harbor and we've
improved the intersection of Commercial and Davis specifically for
Royal Harbor residents. We have done lots of things to benefit.
But bottom line is, no coastal community in Collier County gets a
fair deal on taxes. That's just the way it is. The coastal communities
all pay far more than they ever get back. And no matter what we pour
into it, they're not ever going to get all that money back. It's just the
way taxes work. We take in taxes and they go wherever they're
needed the most.
So I wouldn't say that we've balanced the books on that, but the
point is I think we've made a sincere effort to try to compensate for
that imbalance in tax payments and expenditures.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Manager, you had something,
before I ask Commissioner Henning --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, just one more thing, just make sure.
Page 272
June 20-21, 2006
We talked about -- we talked about stormwater and navigation
and some other issues. But from the stormwater's side of the house,
the part that's silted in is this liS" curve in here. And I mentioned to
you before, I broke it down in $20,000 sections in the process. And
that would be around $40,000.
Now, if you talk about what stormwater issues are, that first reach
-- and you remember the different -- it was $118,000. If you took
what they could negotiate up to was $80,000, you're $30,000 short,
close to the 40,000, that would get those two reaches done.
This Board could say that they would put $38,000 out of the
stormwater fund in order to get that and then leave it up to the City to
get the rest of the reach, may it be 50 or $80,000, with that contract or
with a check, and it would be up to them to discuss that with their
residents as far as what's boding or not. And then they could
determine if it's $80,000 or $50,000 or whatever they're going to put
into it.
At that particular juncture Commissioner Coyle and I are out of
the negotiations, and they can make their own decisions about what
they have to do and have this -- and have this dialogue with their
particular representatives.
And at that juncture, I believe -- by saying their sung cost, and
that was 93, get from 211, at 38,000 gets this completely done as far
as stormwater is concerned. And then it's a City's decision.
I throw that as another option that you might want to consider.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I don't want to get too far
into the debate where the monies come from supporting government,
but land use decision is a big factor here in the lack of affordable
housing, how that impacts the county.
Be that as it may, Commissioner Coy Ie, you have enough votes
up here to resolve this issue. So make the motion so we can move on
and you can go do what you need to do.
Page 273
June 20-21, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why don't we put that map back
up, County Manager.
In my conversations with the people of Royal Harbor, they felt
that the most important portion of this project was that "S" turn. And
the County Manager has marked out those increments in 40,000 --
MR. MUDD: 20,000.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- $20,000 increments. It looks to
me like we could do that entire "S" turn and maybe a little more -- you
just took it away -- that entire" S" turn and maybe a little bit more for
the $50,000 that the City has said they will pay.
So what I would suggest is that we do that $50,000 worth of
work there, get through the "S" turn and solve the problem for the
residents who have expressed a great concern about this. And if the
City wants to allocate more money to it, we can continue as far as they
want to go.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: At their cost.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: At that cost.
But what you're doing is you are granting them credit for the
mobilization cost. Because we're already mobilized, it's not going to
cost us any more money. And you're not charging them the higher
cost for disposal of contaminated soils, because we've determined
there are no contaminated soils to speak of in that area.
So I think that would be fair and reasonable. And that way it
puts the City in control of how much they want to do for how much
money. If they want to do $50,000 worth of work, then it will get us
through the most difficult portions of that proj ect. And if they want to
continue a little further, then they can tell us that also.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll support that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Very well.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's the motion then.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the motion.
Page 274
June 20-21, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: For what, just 50,000?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: For the "S" turn.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, we'll do the area, if you can
see this -- no, you can't see it if I point to it. Why not? Why can't you
see this if I point to it?
From there all the way around the "S" curve and over right there.
That for the $50,000 we will and can do that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And they want to go up into these other
finger areas?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, absolutely not. Nobody wants
to go into those fingers at all. The only thing that anybody wants to
do is continue down that orange line a little further, down to the
bottom. And if they want to allocate some more money to do that,
that would be 60,000, a little over $60,000; maybe 65, $70,000
additional money to do the whole thing.
Now, there's no indication that the whole thing needs to be done,
quite frankly. But if that's what they want to do, then we can do that.
And they still wouldn't have to pay the mobilization charges. So it's a
real bargain.
But we have to start out with what they've offered to provide,
which is the $50,000. They haven't offered to do anything more than
that.
So I would suggest we commit to the $50,000 and the limits of
the $50,000 expenditure, and then leave the door open. If the City
wants to proceed further, then we'll do it at the cost that's been
discussed here.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Where did the 118,000 come in?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the sum of the whole thing, I
think.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this is the entire reach, okay?
Reach 3 would -- and I'm pointing it with my pen right now. And it
would take you down to here.
Page 275
June 20-21, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's 118,000?
MR. MUDD: That's $118,000.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And $50,000 again --
MR. MUDD: Will get you right there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Right there, okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And where will the 80,000 get you,
down there?
MR. MUDD: 80,000 will get you right here, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But if I remember correctly, it
was stated they don't know if there's a real need for it. I'd rather see
Naples make that determination.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. And they said just the top
part of the "S" curve is the stuff that's silted over. So that's the stuff
that definitely needs to be done, so their $50,000 would do that. If
they want anything any further for navigational purposes, they can
certainly do that on their own is what you're saying.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But not on their own, but they
could fund it and then the County would do it at the discounted price,
because it's a real bargain price.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. That's exactly what I meant.
I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Call the question.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 276
June 20-21, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The only reason I voted for this is
because, Commissioner Coyle, I think that we do an awful lot for the
City, and whenever they've asked us to step up to the plate we've been
there. But I think that sometimes we have to make sure that we're
taking care of the taxpayers also.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now that that is over with, you
know, I think it is important that I tell you something.
I have been before the City Council almost once a month for the
past five years. I participate in the workshops. I have been talking
about this project since early 2004. I have the minutes of the
meetings. I have listened to the recordings of the meetings.
I was very clear back then that this was a stormwater project, and
that the City had a taxing -- special taxing district on the east side of
the bay that had excess money in it that could be used to fund this
portion of the project.
We had been told by City staff back then that we could get that
money. And so on subsequent meetings as I went before the council, I
reminded them of this. And through the discussion with one council
member -- after nothing was done, after discussion with one council
member I said look, we need to get this resolved. He took it to the
City Manager and the City Manager denied any knowledge of this
project at all.
So the Royal Harbor residents got very concerned when they
found out about our decision earlier this year about not doing the City
portion, because the City hadn't taken action to do anything about it.
So rather than contacting us to try to resolve the thing, at the
workshop meeting on Monday they brought it up with no advance
notice whatsoever. And fortunately I had found out through other
sources that they were planning on bringing this up, and I was
Page 277
June 20-21, 2006
prepared to deal with it, and I had the transcript of the meetings where
we had discussed it.
They still denied at that point in time that any -- that they knew
anything about this.
The -- that led to a meeting on Wednesday where council
members' emotions were aroused because they were told by City -- the
City Manager and the Mayor that, you know, the County was just
ramming this down their throat. And so that led to about 20 minutes
or 30 minutes of county bashing.
Now, that is the kind of thing that causes the relationships to
deteriorate. And it was totally unnecessary. It could have been solved
years ago, it could have been solved last week with a telephone call
here to either me or the County Manager. But they chose -- someone
chose, not the entire council, someone chose to bring it up as a
surprise item on the agenda on Monday morning at the workshop.
And that was totally unnecessary.
So when people start bashing the Government, either the City
bashing the County or the County bashing the City, for reasons that
could have been solved very simply, it is irresponsible, in my
estimation. And I think the public needs to understand that if there is
a deterioration in the relationships, it is because of that kind of
behavior. And I hope we don't engage in it here. There was a time I
think we did, but I don't think we do that anymore.
So with that, I just wanted to fill you in on the background of
this. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much for your
candidness, Commissioner Coyle. I think that was enlightening for all
of us to hear exactly what transpired, and I want to thank you for
being upfront and honest with the Board of County Commissioners.
Item #10M
Page 278
June 20-21, 2006
AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE
TO EXPEND A MAXIMUM OF $2,285,000 WITHIN THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES DIVISION TO ADDRESS CRITICAL BUILDING
RENOVATION NEEDS, AND TO GIVE APPROVAL FOR ANY
SUBSEQUENT BUDGET AMENDMENTS REQUIRED TO FUND
SUCH RENOVATIONS - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, that brings us to Item No. 10M,
and that is a recommendation of the Board of County Commissioners
to authorize the County Manager or his designee to expend a
maximum of $2,228,000 ( sic) within the Community Development
and Environmental Services Division to address critical building
renovation needs, and to give approval for any subsequent budget
amendments required to fund such renovations.
And Mr. Joe Schmitt, your Administrator for Community
Development, Environmental Services will present.
(At which time, Commissioner Coyle exists boardroom.)
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, good morning. For the record,
Joe Schmitt, Community Development, Environmental Services
Division Administrator.
As Mr. Mudd pointed out, this is a request, and it will be
appearing in your budget tomorrow as part of a maneuver with funds
in the '06 budget, based on your approval of $2,285,000.
Just for background, the Community Development Building was
built with development services dollars. It's not a tax -- it's not an Ad
Valorem building, per se, it's not under that funding. It's funded under
the fees that are collected for the operations that take place out there.
The lobby in the building is virtually unchanged since 1988.
Back then it was designed to handle about 6,000 permits a day -- or
6,000 permits a year. This year we expect over 50,000 permits.
We've talked about this before, but in sum what I'm looking to do
Page 279
June 20-21, 2006
is to enhance the functionality of the lobby from an employee's
perspective, eliminate the non-friendly public user features of the
lobby. I've already hired, under the professional services contract, an
architect. He's already met with all the stakeholders that use the
counter space, from the tax collector's office and many of the folks in
my building.
So we're looking at doing this basically to improve the security,
increase the work stations, make the work stations more
ergonomically effective, organize work stations to match permit flow
process.
From a customer's perspective, frankly, to upgrade the lobby,
increase more seating, install an information kiosk, upgrade the permit
forms library, increase electronic media, information and access for
the customers coming in, so computer access from the lobby.
Basically this budget request also includes $250,000 renovation
for other portions of the building, planning, engineering,
environmental, and building and planning review departments to
account or at least to meet the requirements for expansion. $100,000
in consulting, 350,000 associated for office improvements for about
100 work stations. $420,000 for roofing repair and replacement. And
$165,000 for general improvement.
Some of these proj ects of course will be done through existing
contracts, maintenance contracts through procurement, but I would -- I
need to note that anything with the lobby, it will be at the cost that will
have to come back to you for review and approval under a separate
contract when we do that.
So based on that background, I do want to note that the DSAC,
we noted approximately $200 per square foot at the June 7th meeting
to the DSAC. The DSAC recommended that we reduce that to $100
per square foot. These are capital investment projects. Either way, I
have no idea what the cost is going to be.
I'm recommending that we leave it at $200 a square foot for now.
Page 280
June 20-21, 2006
Like I said, anything with the lobby will have to come back under
contract for this Board's approval.
So based on that, I'm asking that you authorize -- the Board of
County Commissioners to authorize the County Manager to expend
these dollars and also that you give approval for subsequent budget
amendments for the CDS capital reserves required to fund such
renovations.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. Commissioner
Henning, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why wasn't this done through
facilities?
MR. SCHMITT: All of it will be done through facilities.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, why didn't -- this is a
facilities project, but the Administrator Community Development is
here.
MR. SCHMITT: It's always been funded through community
development dollars. It's the capital reserve dollars -- it's the reserve
dollars, community development dollars through permitting fees and
through land use fees. And it's in my budget. It's not part of the
facilities budget. I will move that money into facilities as a capital
project.
Facilities will actually execute the project once we determine
what we need. But frankly, it's a building -- it's -- we're working with
the architect trying to determine what we need out there. And when
it's -- when we go to contract, it will be a facilities project.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The DSAC's recommendation, I
thought -- and maybe I was just told wrong. I thought they
recommended 80,000 -- or $80 a square foot. But you're saying they
recommended $100 a square foot?
MR. SCHMITT: $100 a square foot. I was not at that DSAC
meeting. That was from the minutes I got. And Gary, $100 a square
foot? Yes.
Page 281
June 20-21, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- but if we allocate $200 a
square foot, that's what it's going to be. If we allocate $100 a square
foot, you get closer to $100 a square foot.
MR. SCHMITT: I hear what you're saying, but no, I'm not going
to -- all I'm doing is moving money into a capital proj ect account.
Any renovation proj ect as designed still has to come back to the Board
for approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. SCHMITT: As far as the contract to remodel at the cost.
Because it exceeds any of the authority that the County Manager or
the purchasing department has, I'll have to bring that back under a
separate board item.
I have no idea what the cost is going to be. The architect is still
working on the design and just started working on trying to define
what we best can do with the limited space that we have. We
estimated $200, and that is what we forecasted in our budget.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, most houses are built--
not remodeled, but most houses are built for $110,000.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why do they cost $500,000?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's maybe because of
land cost.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And profits.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, there's profits.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, personally I don't see
anything wrong with the entryway. You know, maybe you need to go
to one of the restaurants that have one of those vibrators for the next
customer to be seated or to be waited on. That's a lot of money.
Next question is how many square foot roof are we talking
about?
MR. SCHMITT: You're basically -- that is a 20,000 square foot
building out there.
Page 282
June 20-21, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But some of that's new.
MR. SCHMITT: I'm only going to be doing the old part of the
building, not the new part.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What square foot is the
old part of the building?
MR. SCHMITT: It's about 20,000. The other part of the -- about
20,000. About 18,000, the old part of the building. The new part's
about 20.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Two meetings ago that you
asked for --
MR. SCHMITT: All right, I stand corrected. It is 40,000 in the
old, 20,000 in the new. 40,000 square foot.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Two meetings ago you came to
us for -- to hire a contractor to design a second floor.
MR. SCHMITT: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No?
MR. SCHMITT: I had a contractor do a cost feasibility analysis
to design -- tell me what it would cost to put the second floor on the
building and add the fourth floor to the parking garage.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When do you anticipate the
second floor to be added?
MR. SCHMITT: I do not. I'm coming back to the Board
probably in July for you to make a decision as to whether or not we
should proceed.
The cost I was given is approximately $10 and a half million to
add another parking deck and to add basically 20,000 square feet per
second floor. That's very expensive. I could build a building next
door probably for probably a third of that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: And we're coming back on a separate agenda
item for that.
No, I hired a contractor just to do a cost feasibility analysis,
Page 283
June 20-21, 2006
which is completed. And that will be in the executive summary.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: With some alternatives?
MR. SCHMITT: Alternatives will be -- basically yes. It will be
add the second floor or look at a building with basically a lease with
an option to buy.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, forgive me if I sound a little
curt, I don't mean to do that. But will this design work in any way
help communication amongst employees in the permitting
departments so that possibly they could bring permits in, in a more
timely fashion? Right now we're having so many problems. I've got
another stack of them.
And is there something designed in here to make things more
efficient and easier for the employees to communicate with one
another and maybe go to a central point? Each one seems to have a
different idea of what the permit requires. And, you know, one place
where they'll all be able to obtain information or help these people.
It's nice to have a pretty lobby, but we need to have a functioning
organization. And I think there's -- maybe we should be thinking
about what we can put into this thing to help the employees to
function better.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, part of this is to install an information
kiosk and to have a person there that basically provides that kind of
assistance.
Normally in the permitting process -- and I'll comment on your
comment. The permitting process is complicated, and it's not -- as you
know, it's not just a single permit, it's many pieces throughout the
county. Certainly I'm the center of the hub, but it involves reviews
from other pieces of the county, whether it's fire, transportation,
utilities, parks. And of course my staff is the one that brings it all
together.
Page 284
June 20-21, 2006
The -- a part of this is to deal with what I need out there, and I'm
going to be coming back talking about space on another budget
amendment, but -- or another executive summary later this summer,
hopefully in July.
But the purpose here is, quite honestly, when you walk into the
library and -- or walk into the lobby, I think to use the words from the
architect, when he walked in, he called it professionally appalling.
That was his words when he walked into the lobby. It's just -- the
lobby is not functional, it's -- it was designed, like I said, to handle
5,000 permits a year. 50,000 permits come in there. I need more
work stations, I need better flow of product in the building, and I need
to accommodate for more staff. So that's the purpose of this.
And it's -- these are monies that are in reserves through collection
of fees because of the workload that's coming in, and we can talk
about that tomorrow during the budget. But the workload is coming in
through the front door. And these are fees that -- this is part of the --
basically the fees that have been collected.
If your choice is to leave it as is, that's fine, we will operate with
what we have.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Schmitt, if I may interrupt. The
Commissioner asked you a question and the question is, is this design
going to make it easier for people to get their permits in and for the
workflow to be efficient so that the permit approvals or disapprovals,
whatever may be, is done in a more timely fashion. And I believe --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's exactly right.
MR. MUDD: -- that's what you said.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: And Joe, in order to dig through everything you
said, you said something about efficient in the middle, but you were
all around it. Can you please answer that one question.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Yes, that's what the design is for,
basically to make the operation more efficient.
Page 285
June 20-21, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I took some time about
three weeks ago to go down to the Community Services, and I spent
about an hour and a half going from one end to the other.
Because like you, I've received some concerns over the length of
time it was taking to get service. And I can tell you, it's bedlam in
there. They're crowded, they can hardly move, they're understaffed.
It's extremely difficult.
And one thing that they probably -- all day long they're probably
looking at the clock waiting for that torture to get over with. I talked
to some people in there that were telling me that they were
understaffed to the point where they were spending as much time on
the phone as they were working on their job assignment telling people
why things were taking so long to get there. So if anything, we need
to be supportive of these type of expansions.
However, with that said there is still concerns out there within the
Building Industry. And I recently met with the -- from the Collier
Builders Association there, Brenda Talbert and the new president,
Michelle Harrison, and they asked me if I would ask you if sometime
in the near future, for the benefit of all, if we could have a workshop
on this particular issue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think that's a great idea.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Of course I know we can't do it
probably until September or October. But there's a perceived notion
out there that we're not doing everything we can do. And there's
reasons for it.
And I mean, I've looked into a lot of possibilities. I even looked
into the possibility what it would be like to privatize the industry to a
point where we've got the architects and the engineers to be able to
certify on their particular licenses and bonds that they carry.
Well, I talked to Wilson and Miller and a couple of others, and
they all told me it that was a good idea but they wouldn't do it,
Page 286
June 20-21, 2006
because they don't have the help to do it.
So we're right back to square one as far as what we're going to
do.
But I think what we need to do is bring the industry in and the
public and have a workshop so that we can go through exactly where
we were, where we are now and where we're going in the future.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, it's amazing that the industry's
upset about it. And I'm not here defending the Community
Development, Environmental Services, but when you issue 50,000
permits a year, that's pretty amazing coming out of that particular shop
in the way it's organized and was designed back in 1978. I'm pretty
impressed. And I don't think they realize the amount of permits that
are processed in a year's time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think you're right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I don't think they realize. You
know, I think because of the massiveness of the growth here, that
when they look at the overall picture, this -- we're hurting. And if we
don't have the manpower and we don't -- and if what we have for
manpower is not efficient to get the job accomplished, then we have to
look at ways of making sure that we're as efficient as possible and that
we can get things taken care of.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if I might add, that's what
we're doing here now with this particular item in adding the 12
additional positions to Mr. Schmitt's department.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, that was a consent item
that was approved. This is a different one.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I understand.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if we're talking about -- what
I'm hearing my colleagues saying is efficiencies, work space and
things like that.
Mr. Schmitt, are you agreeable to take out all kind of aesthetics --
Page 287
June 20-21, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, no.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- out of the remodeling and let's
make it a functional usable (sic)?
MR. SCHMITT: My intent is to remodel the lobby so it's
functional.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: Aesthetics. I mean, this is not going to be gold
plated. I want --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I didn't say gold plated, but if
we're doing functional remodeling, then we're not concerned about,
you know, the ancillaries of what kind of carpet it is or what kind of
tile it is and stuff like that.
MR. SCHMITT: No, I have not even got a proposal yet from the
architect as to what he believes should be built. I can cer -- that will
be part of what I'll bring back to this board as part of a contract.
You can -- we can -- so I hear what you're saying, but I don't --
I'm not prepared to discuss that right now, because I just don't even
know what he's going to propose.
MR. MUDD: We'll be glad to bring that design and everything
back to this board to make sure you're comfortable. It's not a problem,
SIr.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just don't see a function. I'm
not seeing that -- I'm seeing $200 a square foot is -- you know, you've
got a lot of bells and whistles in there, so it's not -- it's the impress the
people as they come in.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I guess what you're saying is if the
development industry votes to give them $100 a square foot because
they feel that that would provide the building for the amount that they
need, I guess they would probably know.
Is that what you're saying, really, if that's what DSAC
Page 288
June 20-21, 2006
recommended?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And I'm okay with what
DSAC recommended.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wanted to comment. I think
Commissioner Coletta has an outstanding suggestion, and I would like
to vote for that, to put together a workshop. And rather than go into
some of the things that we've just been recently dealing with again, I
think that that would be a very good idea.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Let's get on with the subject here, if we
can.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to make a motion for
approval, based upon what we have in front of us as it is, and when it
comes back we can critique the design as it is.
But I'll tell you right now, I want to make sure that that area, the
lobby area, is going to not only going be functional, but it's going to
be durable, be able to last, and it's going to be a comfortable place, not
only for the people that work for the people that we represent to be
able to come in there.
MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And they won't feel like they're
walking into some second rate facility, feel very uncomfortable. It
should be something that's spacious with plenty of room for people to
be able to move around, the right kind of chairs, and it should be
designed by someone that knows what they're doing.
MR. SCHMITT: The biggest problem I have is when people
walks in they're just overwhelmed. I need something that
owner/builder who comes in, wants to submit a permit, to help them
get through the process. Right now, frankly, that accommodates the
professional permit runner, but it does not function well for the -- for
any other citizens who walk in there and try to sort through the
process. It's just that poorly designed.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I'll second that motion.
Page 289
June 20-21, 2006
Is there any further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Not hearing any, I'll call the question.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye for the approval of this
amount to be used for Environmental Services Division that's already
in the coffers. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, 3-1.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, ION is continued to 10 October, as
mentioned before.
Item #100
DIRECTION FOR RETAINING OR REMOVING THE CYPRESS
WAY EAST BRIDGE AS PART OF THE IMMOKALEE ROAD
WIDENING PROJECT PER BOARD DIRECTION AT THE JUNE
6.2006 MEETING - APPROVED W/STIPULATIONS
Brings us to the next item which is 100. And that was a -- that
was an add-on, and that was based on direction from the Board of
County Commissioners on the 6th June.
And it is to discuss -- it's a discussion pertaining to -- it's to
discuss retaining or removing the Cypress Way east bridge as part of
the Immokalee Road widening project, per Board direction at the June
6th, 2006 meeting.
And Mr. Don Scott, your Director of Planning for Transportation,
will present.
MR. SCOTT: Based on our discussion at the last meeting, we
Page 290
June 20-21, 2006
went back and looked at the design issues, the traffic issues, the cost
issues, and came back with a recommendation per our discussion at
the previous board.
Some of the design issues: I know at the last meeting there was
discussion about trying to get a left-in, right-in, right-out. We have
issues with the left-in due to access to Greentree Shopping Center.
And also the left turn lane onto Airport would be too far back.
A right-in, there's no turn lane. Adding a turn lane is essentially
like rebuilding a bridge.
Traffic issues: When we looked at queue lengths. It is an
advantage to keeping the bridge. It cuts the queue lengths down by 30
percent. Even some of the queues in the p.m. down the street, that
will help significantly by keeping it at this point.
I looked at the life of the bridge. Its sufficiency rating is 73.2.
When it approaches 50 is when we look at replacement or rehab. It's
considered to be, by the bridge reports, in good condition.
I had one negative thing about sloughing in the canal. That's why
in the recommendation I've put that as long as it doesn't become a
blockage to the water in the canal.
Cost: At this point we have 108,249 programmed as part of the
Immokalee Road proj ect; included removing the bridge and also some
improvements on the north side. We need about 50,000 to design--
change some of the design, do some striping, some other
improvements. Obviously yesterday's meeting, 25,000 would come
up from the developer. There was discussion yesterday with BRB.
Our recommendation at this point is to delay removal until either
the bridge needs rehab -- obviously we don't want to put money into
this bridge at this location in the future, but at the moment it's looking
okay. If it becomes blockage for the canal or some other operational
change, if we get another connection -- or the other thing we can do is
after all the construction in the area is done -- this was first brought up
because of some of the commercial on the other side of the canals
Page 291
June 20-21, 2006
being done. Besides our construction, we could do an after study and
look at it at that point.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a question. What do you mean by
blockage of the canal?
MR. SCOTT: If -- for instance, from a water flow standpoint, if
the canal starts to, you know, fall down underneath, issues like that
and it becomes a blockage for the water to move out. Drainage issue,
essentially.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are you saying like pieces of concrete
that would fall off the bridge, or what?
MR. SCOTT: Or the slope. The slope, essentially.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, okay.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, we do have, if we
approve this particular item, what was it 25,000?
MR. SCOTT: $25,000.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: $25,000 was generously
donated by the developer of the storage facility to be able to go
forward with it. And I think there's been demonstrated this will serve
a real purpose and bring the -- make the traffic flow at a better
expeditious rate.
And then if we put this in place, hopefully by the time that this
bridge reaches the end of its life span, that there'll be a way to get to
Livingston Road from this area that would alleviate that problem.
I'd like to make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, and I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You take it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll take second.
Okay, is there any further discussion on this?
MR. SCOTT: Now, that would be to redesign it as a right-out
only?
Page 292
June 20-21, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Right-out only, yes.
MR. SCOTT: And obviously we tell the contractors out there
right now, because they're close to the point --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And also that--
MR. MUDD: Let me make another --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- we get the $25,000 from the--
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, one more thing. You said right-out
only.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's correct.
MR. MUDD: But you didn't specify that it would be one way.
MR. SCOTT: One way, yes.
MR. MUDD: Okay. So it would be one way going out in this
particular concept --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Westbound.
MR. MUDD: -- and your thing would be going south, and it
would be only a right out.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: In the westbound direction.
MR. SCOTT: And obviously based on our recommendation,
delays until something else happens out there.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, if there's no further discussion, I
call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
Item #10P
Page 293
June 20-21,2006
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE OFFICIAL NAMING
OF THE NAPLES SANITARY LANDFILL TO THE COLLIER
COUNTY LANDFILL LOCATED AT 3901 WHITE LAKE BLVD.,
NAPLES, FLORIDA - MOTION TO CONTINUE TO JULY 25,
2006 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is lOP, which is formerly 16C 1, and that is a recommendation
to approve the official naming of the Naples Sanitary Landfill to the
Collier County Landfill, located at 3901 White Lake Boulevard,
Naples, Florida.
This item was moved at Commissioner Coletta's request. And
Mr. Jim DeLony, your Administrator for Public Utilities Division, will
present.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, just to keep everything
moving along, it said in there, there was no financial cost. That was
one of the statements that was made in there. And that can't be true.
There is going to be cost involved with the changing of signs, there's
going to be costs involved with I imagine our documentation we have
throughout the County that has to be changed.
So that's not quite where it is. And probably I'm not too sure if
people have business cards to indicate where they work or what, but
there is going to be a cost and there's going to be a cost to Waste
Management, because they're going to have to change their whole
letterheads and whatever else they have. So there is a cost, even
though it might not be extremely high.
The other issue that I got is the fact that we mentioned in here it
was to avoid confusion. Who got lost trying to get to this location
before because of the name? I don't think there's a case in the world
where this happened.
And I kind of wonder if this is -- what purpose this is actually
going to serve. I don't see what the purpose is, the, say, changing this
Page 294
June 20-21, 2006
name is going to really make a difference to what the outcome is. It's
a landfill. And it's been identified as the Naples Landfill since day
one.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What's the City of Naples call theirs?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They use the landfill. This is
the landfill they use.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I thought they had a separate landfill.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's call it Big Jim Road.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Go ahead, Jim DeLony.
MR. DeLONY: For the record, Jim DeLony, Public Utilities
Administrator.
I feel a little bit like a pawn in a chess game right now, because I
took direction from Board at a workshop not too long ago that said
from three directions that this is the direction to take.
N ow with regard to the specific costs, if I may, we have one sign
out there at the thing that's pretty old and moldy. We will replace that
very soon. So I think any costs associated with that sign (sic).
I have not been made aware, but I haven't really asked as well,
any impacts on Waste Management with regard to anything that
would change those. And they would phase that in as old cards run
away, new cards would be ordered, I'm sure, or new stationery with
the new name.
My recommendation here I thought was from Board direction.
I do think, though, that we need a consistent name for the landfill,
whatever that name is. So I can assure as we go forward in a
permitting -- particularly that we're going to be very active in this area
potentially, depending on Board direction, and I'd like to be clear on
address, I'd like to be clear on name, just for the sake of that action.
I don't think anyone ever gets lost going to a landfill, so I don't
think that that in itself was anything that motivated this particular
Page 295
June 20-21, 2006
executive summary.
Again, that's where we're at on this. My recommendation stands
as per the executive summary.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And forgive me, this was
Commissioner Coyle's -- I think he was the one that prompted the
whole thing when we got though to this point.
And I don't know what's going to happen with the vote on this,
but I almost wonder if we shouldn't delay it until he's here. I mean,
this isn't critical that it's done today.
I mean, if you think you're going to pass it, that's fine. I'd just --
I'd hate to see, you know, two against two or three against one, and
Commissioner Coyle who had the largest say in this not present to be
able to state his mind on it.
Now, you know, however you want to do it. I mean, this isn't the
most pressing issue that we have to deal with today.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I think you have a good idea
there. As long as it was Commissioner Coyle's idea. To me I think it
sounds -- it is the Collier County Landfill and, you, know, we take
care of all of Collier County. But -- and so I'm ready to vote for that.
But if there isn't a -- if there isn't a unanimous vote here, I would say
just wait until Commissioner Coyle gets back.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I know where I stand on it. I think it
should be renamed Collier County Landfill. I mean, that encompasses
the whole area of Collier County.
But it's the wishes of any of the other commissioners. Do you --
if you want to continue, let's move on. I want to get through this
agenda.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, I make a motion for
continuing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: When do you want to continue it?
Page 296
June 20-21, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: To the next meeting.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, 25th.
MR. DeLONY: Thank you, Commissioners.
MR. MUDD: No, we need a vote first.
MR. DeLONY: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right, we're going to continue this to
the next meeting of July 25th.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you have a motion to continue. I
believe you have a second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We're going to, yes, call the question.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
MR. MUDD: So it went 3-1 ?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
Item #10Q
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,872.07,
APPROPRIATING FUNDS FROM THE GENERAL FUND
RESERVES TO PAY FOR EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH A
COCK FIGHTING SEIZURE FOR STAFF SALARIES AND
OVERTIME, FOOD FOR SEIZED BIRDS, CAGE
CONSTRUCTION COSTS, AND RENTAL OF SHADE TENTS TO
HOUSE THE BIRDS - APPROVED W/STIPULATIONS
MR. MUDD: The next item is 10Q. And 10Q is previously
16D6. And 10Q is a recommendation to approve a Budget
Amendment in the amount of $8,872.07 appropriating funds from the
Page 297
June 20-21, 2006
general fund reserve to pay for expenses associated with fighting --
cock fighting seizure for staff salaries and overtime, food for seized
birds, cage construction costs, and rental of shade tents to house the
birds.
This item was requested to be moved at Commissioner Coletta's
request and Ms. -- and your Director of the Domestic Animal
Services, and I -- it's Margo Castorena will present.
MS. CASTORENA: Yes, sir. Domestic Animal Services is
requesting a reimbursement of $8,872.07 for costs associated with the
seizure of fighting birds on April 24th, 2007 -- 2006, excuse me.
This was in support of the Sheriffs Office, and it is relating to
costs, overtime and construction materials that were used to house the
birds.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And we don't have any way of directing
this cost onto the people that were in violation?
MS. CASTORENA: Domestic Animal Services does not.
However, I guess that could be addressed by the legal department.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think we need some --
MR. PETTIT: Commissioner Halas, for the record, Mike Pettit,
Chief Assistant County Attorney.
Yes, the statute provides in a situation like this for us to go back
into the court and apply to have these costs assessed against the
persons from whom the animals were seized. We intend to do that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And are we very successful at
recouping them costs?
MR. PETTIT: Well, I can only go back in time to the situation
where we seized a number of cows, I guess it was. It's probably been
what, two years?
MS. CASTORENA: It's been about two and a half years. And
we were successful. But again, that was a very lengthy --
MR. PETTIT: It does take some time. We did probably not get
every single dollar we expended, but I think we got well over half of
Page 298
June 20-21, 2006
what we expended. There are some -- obviously you've got to prove
the costs and prove the costs are reasonable.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think the violators ought to be held to
the full cost of this. So that's my feeling.
MR. PETTIT: It's our intention to go forward on that preceding.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, and that was my concern
when I seen the agenda item. They had no mention about the fact we
were going to go to court.
However, this has gone a step further, and I'm sorry that I don't
have the print-out. It was put together for me. I think it's still sitting
on my desk in there. They did an interview last night from Channel 2
news, and the reporter happened to show up at the driveway of Mr.
Valdez, the person who -- thank you very much, Nancy.
I meant to hand these out to you at the beginning of the meeting.
I didn't. That's my fault. But meanwhile, if you'd pass that down, that
gives you a little bit of a summary. And I'll tell you what it says.
The reporter interviewed Mr. Valdez. She caught him at his
driveway. He was just pulling up, ready to go in the house. She asked
him the question about what happened, and he said he'd pay for it. He
spoke right up and said, I'll pay for this.
With that particular comment in mind, why don't we try to save
the court cost and just send him the bill? I think we did something
like this many years ago with the gentleman that caused us to do all
sorts of special testing of the wells down to Copeland, and put out all
sorts of misinformation. We billed him and he paid it.
Let's try that. And we might be able to save ourselves a
tremendous amount of time and effort and attorneys fees by just
submitting the bill. Would that be terribly wrong to do that?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Make sure the check is deposited in the
bank and it doesn't bounce.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Please, we don't--
MR. MUDD: I believe that the County Attorney and Margo will
Page 299
June 20-21, 2006
work together in order to get a letter drafted in order to request those
funds. But we don't have any -- I understand the reporter and the
person and saying that they would fund it. And hopefully that person,
Mr. Valdez, is good to his word and he will pay the check.
If that's the case, these monies will be returned back to the
general fund reserve upon receiving -- or Mr. Valdez's check will go
into the general fund reserve and replace this particular eight, close to
$9,000.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: With that in mind, I'm going to
make a motion for approval, with the caveat that we do everything
possible for collections.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commission Henning, and I believe the
county attorney has something to add to this.
MR. PETTIT: Just to clarify, there is already a court proceeding
in progress, and we have reserved jurisdiction, the court reserved
jurisdiction, so we wouldn't have to initiate a new proceeding. We
had to initiate a court proceeding to seize the birds in the first place.
But we will work -- Commissioner Coletta, as you suggest --
with Domestic Animal Services to try to do this without having to go
through a hearing process.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Of course. Anything we can do
to hold down the cost.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think they have -- they
probably have a Notice of Violation. I'm not sure if the Board wants
to get involved in that process. Because the Code Enforcement does
try to recoup the County's cost in the matters.
What caught my curiosity of this is where's the animals being
stored now?
MS. CASTORENA: The animals were being stored at Domestic
Animal Services, because they are fighting cocks. Once we got
Page 300
June 20-21, 2006
custody of the birds, many of them had to be euthanized because they
cannot be used again. They cannot be adopted out.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So they're not being stored
anywhere right now?
MS. CASTORENA: At this point, no. We kept them for over 67
days.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Great, thanks.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I ask one other question?
MS. CASTORENA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, since these birds
cannot be used anyplace else, because if they get back out to the
general public a lot of them will end up back where they originally
started off, wouldn't it be -- we couldn't euthanize them at the time that
we get them in and maybe just store the carcasses in a freezer and save
all this money and time?
MS. CASTORENA: We cannot, because they are not our
property. Once the judge signs them over to us and they become
County property, then they are euthanized as quickly as possible. But
at this point, if the judgment goes against us, we cannot repair to the
owner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, hearing no further discussion, I
call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We'll take a 10-minute break for our
court reporter. We'll be back here at 10:43, please.
(Recess. )
Page 301
June 20-21, 2006
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.
And we're --
MR. MUDD: The next item is -- I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We're back from recess.
Item #10R
REVIEW OF STAFF'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING WAIVING THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL PROCESS AND AUTHORIZE THE
SINGLE SOURCE PURCHASE OF VAN BUSKIRK, RYFFEL &
ASSOCIATES INTERACTIVE GROWTH MODELTM, AT AN
ESTIMATED COST OF $175~000 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. The next item is lOR. It used to be
16A6. Staff is recommending that the Board review staffs findings
and recommendations regarding waiving the requirement for the
request for proposal process and authorize the Single Source purchase
of Van Buskirk, Ryffel and Associates, which has the Interactive
Growth Model, the ITM, at an estimated cost of$175,OOO.
And your Director of Comprehensive Planning will present.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala, could you state
why --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, sure, I can just tell you. I
thought it was great, I read everything in here. But I think that some --
as I read, and I tried to read this very clearly, it's important that we
give them input. And I didn't see any kind of affordable housing that
was mentioned in here. And I think it's important that when we're
planning this community that we mention affordable housing and what
Page 302
June 20-21, 2006
we need necessary to sustain nearly 700,000 people, new residents and
more of them in that area. I think that's essential when we do that.
And it unctions a lot of other things.
Also, there's -- they were talking about shopping and everything,
and they didn't want people to go a great distance, but -- and that's
good. I know I'm just equating to the people that are in Golden Gate
Estates and right now they have to drive for an awfully long way to go
shopping.
So I was hoping that this input could be given to them as well.
MR. COHEN: If you recall, Commissioner, at the -- I believe it's
the May 24th, 2006 BCC workshop with respect to east of County
Road 951, Mr. Van Buskirk was here. And one of the things that the
model showed was when population started to increase in various
areas; it would show a respective need for commercial space in certain
areas of the County as well to address those needs to shorten trip
lengths.
With respect to affordable housing and your concern there,
obviously the model itself as designed does not really address
affordable housing, but what we can do is ask them to incorporate into
one of the modules an affordable housing component that probably
mirrors our LDC requirement for affordable housing, which would
address when they get to certain many units how many affordable
housing units would be necessary with that corresponding growth.
And we can ask them to do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. And as long as you're doing
that, you know, figure out what kind of growth. You know, if you're
going to be having growth in school areas and so forth, you know, you
need to build housing to accommodate that. If you -- or the
commercial, accommodate -- you know, affordable housing to
accommodate that.
I think that it's essential that if they have a plan put together and
being that they have -- you know, we're buying this, it sounds like a
Page 303
June 20-21, 2006
great study, but as I was just talking to the EDC people, you know,
you can't plan for farm workers when you're in -- you know, when
you're in an area that doesn't have farm workers. Make sure that you
plan for the type of housing that people will need to work in these
places.
MR. COHEN: And the way the model's designed, it's designed
to -- there's two components, one being a population component,
obviously, which is based on our existing T AZs, and which we'll be
updating on a regular basis. And that will allow us to know where the
growth is going and where that type of housing will be necessary.
And the other component being the Interactive Growth Model
component which will actually show when certain needs, whether they
be commercial, industrial, office are necessary. So I believe it will
address all your concerns.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's your name?
MR. MUDD: Mr. Randy Cohen is your Director of
Comprehensive Planning for Community Development,
Environmental Services.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Hi.
MR. COHEN: Hi, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We just updated the Golden
Gate Area Master Plan. And what this is saying is it's going to make
recommendations for comprehensive changes.
MR. COHEN: Well, what this will look at is -- this is a planning
tool, Commissioner, to assess various needs out in east of County
Road 951.
When population growth occurs what it will do is it will actually
forecast needs with respect to commercial needs, industrial needs,
transportation needs, public utility needs and other needs as well, too,
schools, sheriff. And identify potential areas where those potential
Page 304
June 20-21, 2006
needs could be addressed. General location, per se.
I know we talk about Golden Gate Estates in the Master Plan
which identifies some very small commercial areas which are
approximately five acres in size. Obviously the amount of
development that's going to occur east of 951 is going to require land
uses that are of a larger magnitude than five acres in size to shorten
trip length with regard to certain items like commercial development,
as well as industrial development.
And this model will act as a planning tool to assist you in your
development approval process, and also to allow you to make
informed decisions with regard to, well, when this population
increases out there, what's a rational method of actually doing a GMP
amendment, for example, to maybe put an activity center in a certain
level so we can shorten those trip lengths for that population that
develops out there.
When's a rational time to expect a fire station or an EMS station
to be built in a certain area? When should we bring our parks on line,
or libraries and the like?
So it's a tool to assist you in making an informed decision, as
well as to assist the staff in actually bringing forth recommendations
based on, you know, a sound planning mechanism. That's one of a
kind in the nation that's proven to be very effective in various
municipalities throughout the United States.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's the same thing they done
on the Master Plan Study. Transportation came in there. I mean, a lot
of those things were addressed. And I'll tell you, my thought when we
adopted that, it's not going to be enough commercial needs.
So basically what you're saying is you want to revamp the
Golden Gate Area Master Plan.
MR. COHEN: I think what will happen as part of this process,
the area out in Golden Gate east of 951 will be looked at from the
perspective of what type of development is necessary to support which
Page 305
June 20-21, 2006
we know is obvious impending residential development in the area.
Because if you look at the overall development scheme in our Growth
Management Plan, there's really not identifiable commercial industrial
property in that particular area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, we're saying the same
thing.
MR. COHEN: But in a larger scale, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, do you know the person,
this company?
MR. COHEN: Mr. Van Buskirk and Mr. Ryffel came before you
at the May 24th, 2006 vyorkshop. I don't know if you recall the
presentation Mr. Van Buskirk made, which was the computer
simulation that would show when certain things would come on line
as population occurred. I believe he used the City of Cape Coral as an
example.
Or this board, when they showed the development of Cape Coral
to build-out and when their fire stations would come on board, when
the commercial nodes would come on board, as well as schools and
other items.
Do I know Mr. Van Buskirk? I know him now, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. You didn't know him
before?
MR. COHEN: No, sir. I was familiar with the planning article
that was written in 2003, as well as presentations before the American
Planning Association, also the Florida Chapter, which was very well
received nationwide.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. COHEN: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think we're going in the right
direction with this. We take the Master Plans that are already existing
and we have to -- the problem with the Master Plans is they're
Page 306
June 20-21, 2006
inclusive only for that particular area they represent. We have such a
large expanse of area out there that if we can't make the
fill-in-the-blanks between them and find out where the resources are,
such as, you know, we're talking about commercial in the Estates,
where it's going to go. In some cases when you get out to the far
edges, it's really not going to be necessary.
We're going to have tremendous commercial in Ave Maria, we're
going to have a great amount of commercial around Orangetree. And
this has to be figured into the whole equation when you start to work it
out, and this is the reason for it.
As far as the affordable housing element, this Commission has
done amazingly in putting together the rural lands and the fringe area,
and the requirements for building there. And they've been quite
inclusive.
So a lot of the new development that's going to go out there is
going to require the elements of affordable housing that we so
desperately need in this County. But I'm sure this plan will take that
into effect. And what is missing and where it needs to be and
locations of it in relation to the work centers and the shopping areas.
I see Commissioner Fiala's light on so I'll let her make the
motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's all I wanted to assure was
that as we plan for these industrial and commercial areas which are
desperately needed out there, we also have housing to accommodate
the workforce that can make them function.
And so with that motion, I make a motion to approve this number
eight --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- 16A6.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We've got a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Fiala, seconded by Commissioner Coletta in regards to
Page 307
June 20-21,2006
this item which is estimated cost of$175,000 for this computer model.
All those in favor, signify by saying --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Discussion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any discussion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
Can we set a policy to where we're not keeping studying the
same thing over and over? Sincerely, just two years ago we adopted
the Golden Gate Area Master Plan --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I think what we're having--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and now we're restudying
this.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- here, Commissioner, if I can intervene
here. I believe what we have here is that we have new technologies
that continually come on-line. And if it's stuff that's going to affect
the way that we're going to address growth, I think anything that's new
and if it's proven, I think that we need to move in that direction, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you don't want to set a policy
to set parameters about studying the same thing?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, actually, this was all about
single source purchases for this --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We did have a workshop and we looked
at this. I think you were present at this workshop. And we approved
at the workshop to go ahead with this model because we felt that it
was one of the tools that we needed to address growth with.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You don't want to answer the
question.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think we did answer the direction at the
workshop. That's why we gave direction to bring this on the Board of
County Commissioners, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, what I'm saying is, can
Page 308
June 20-21, 2006
we set a policy, give direction to set policy so we don't study the same
thing over and over again.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I don't think we're studying the same
thing over and over.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you don't want to answer the
question.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll call the question. All those in favor,
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
MR. COHEN: Thank you, Commissioners. Then what we will
do is we'll contact the consultant and let them know to incorporate in
affordable housing element into that module.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MR. COHEN: Thank you.
Item #10S
CHANGE ORDER #11 TO CONTRACT NO. 97-2715 WITH ABB,
INC. TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
RELATED TO PORTIONS OF PHASE II OF THE LELY AREA
STORMW A TER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (LASIP)
CONSTRUCTION, IN THE AMOUNT OF $413,400, AND TO
APPROVE INCREASING THE HOURLY RATES OF 97-2715,
PROJECT #51101 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item
which is 10S. It used to be 16B7. And it reads, a recommendation to
approve change order number 11 to Contract No. 97-2715 with ABB,
Page 309
June 20-21,2006
Inc. to provide professional engineering services related to portions of
Phase II of the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project, LASIP,
construction in the amount of$413,400, and to approve increasing the
hourly rates of -- and I believe this is the contract number -- 97-2715,
Project No. 51101.
This item is moved at Commissioner Fiala's request.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And when I was talking with
the Clerk's Office and they suggested that maybe a contract
amendment rather than a change order might work on this. And I
mentioned it to Jim Mudd and I said maybe that -- you know, maybe
that would be a way to go about doing this. And he said well, you
know, maybe we could discuss that just a little bit.
MR. MUDD: I believe Mr. Steve Carnell is the person that could
discuss it.
Go ahead, Norm.
MR. FEDER: Yeah, for the record, Norman Feder,
Transportation Administrator. And I do have Steve Carnell here and
I'll let him jump in.
What I will tell you, Commissioner, either an amendment or a
change order -- and I believe the Clerk's Office concurs with us -- is a
vehicle that would allow us to do exactly what we're requesting today.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. The Clerk's Office --
MR. FEDER: So the change order is sufficient to do what we're
doing.
The key thing is, is that the original contract provided for the
implementation in phases, which is what we're doing. The
information gives you the hourly rate and the scope and recognizing
that this is actually a portion of Phase 2 of six phases.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, there's the second thing. I hate
to interrupt you, but that's where I'm going with it as well.
The Clerk's Office pointed out that it doesn't say that it's part of
Phase II; is that correct?
Page 310
June 20-21, 2006
MR. FEDER: It is in there as identified as a portion of --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But we haven't approved Phase II.
MR. FEDER: No, you haven't --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. There we go.
MR. FEDER: That's what we're bringing to you is that this is
your approval to move forward with a portion of Phase II in a
multi-phase project, based on these rates and in the scope of services,
and that's what we're doing by change order. And that is an
acceptable vehicle to do it. And the contract provided for
implementation in phases.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So then our recommendation and
our vote should actually be that we vote to move forward with this
change order, if that's it, or amendment or whatever. But for Phase II.
We need to be voting that now we're starting into Phase II in order for
the clerk's office to be better able to pay these things; is that correct,
Derrick?
MR. JOHNSSEN: Derek Johnssen.
Yes, ma'am, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And it doesn't mention that
in our recommendation. So just to keep everything, you know, clear
and clean.
MR. FEDER: We appreciate that, Commissioner. And yes, we
would -- again, as a portion of Phase II, and if that's acknowledged
with other phases, to be coming.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. So then I make a
motion to approve this amount, this change order number 11, as the
beginning of Phase II in this project.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I call the question. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Page 3 11
June 20-21,2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
Opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you know what, we could talk
about amendment and change order a little bit later. Okay, thank you.
Item #1 OT
SUBMITTAL OF THE ATTACHED CULTURAL, HERITAGE
AND NATURE TOURISM GRANT APPLICATION FOR VISIT
FLORIDA IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,000 FOR THE PARADISE
COAST BLUEW A Y WEB SITE AND FUTURE SEARCH ENGINE
OPTIMIZATION - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: This brings us to our next item which is lOT. And
it used to be l6F3. It's a recommendation to approve the submittal of
the attached cultural heritage and nature tourism grant application for
Visit Florida in the amount of $5,000 for the Paradise Coast Blueway
website and future search engine optimization.
This item was asked to be moved at Commissioner Fiala's
request.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, let me make this real clear
and simple. On this one I wanted to know what a blueway was. I
heard it was something about kayaking. And I thought, well, maybe
we all ought to know what a blueway is. And so you can just make it
real simple and tell us --
MR. MUDD: And I believe Amanda Townsend from your--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great, all right.
MR. MUDD: -- Parks and Recs. Department will present that.
Page 312
June 20-21, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I never heard that before.
MS. TOWNSEND: Thank you. Amanda Townsend with Parks
and Recreation.
A blueway is a paddling trail appropriate for canoes and kayaks.
And I've shown you here on the visualizer what we are proposing
right now for the first phase of the trail. It will cover all of Collier
County when it's completed. You're looking at the Ten Thousand
Islands area right now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great. And this is something new
that you're going to be promoting through tourism; is that it?
Partnership with you -- Parks and Recreation, rather, and Tourism?
MS. TOWNSEND: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, great. Thank you very much.
I just wanted to know what we're spending our money on.
I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, motion on the floor to approve
this blueway, $5,000. Any further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
Item #11
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I believe we're done with the
Page 313
June 20-21, 2006
regular agenda on paragraph 10, which is County Manager's report.
That brings us to paragraph 11, which is public comments on
general topics. Ms. Filson?
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have one person registered for
public comments. Denise DeWitt.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good morning.
MS. DeWITT: Hi. I'm a little nervous, bear with me.
My name is Denise De Witt. I'm the President of the
Homeowners Association of Greystone Park.
I came just to try to let you know of some of our concerns down
there right now.
I don't know if you're aware of the situation at Greystone Park,
but we all received eviction notices starting May 20th of this year. It
was a shock to all of us because there had been rumors about the park
being sold, and the owner himself told us that it was just -- to dismiss
them.
There are several people who just bought their houses in March
and April of this year, some of which took out loans to pay for their
houses and were never told of the possibility of sale.
The owner has always told us that as long as we -- as he was
alive, we would not ever have to worry about our park being sold.
There's been a lot of this going on in the State of Florida in recent
years, so we have all been concerned about it. We would like to form
a co-op and save our park for our nearly 300 residents.
Some of our residents have lived here over 30 years, which is no
longer -- I'm sorry, which is longer than this man has owned the park.
We're all family in the park.
With the current shortage of affordable housing, it's important
that we save our park. A lot of our residents are in their eighties and
nineties, and the stress from all this has put several of them in the
hospital.
This is a hardship for all, because we'll receive no money for our
Page 314
June 20-21, 2006
homes and cannot sell them, as we are being evicted November 30th.
The man who wants to buy our park wants to rezone it to be an
R V resort.
If any of you have any suggestions on saving our park and
making our community a co-op, I would really appreciate your help.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. Commissioner
Coletta, you have something to add to this?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I got your whole file of
what's taken place down on my desk. I don't know how long we're
going to be, but if you could stick around for a few minutes, I'd like to
talk to you.
MS. DeWITT: I'd be happy to.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Coletta is your
commissioner, by the way--
MS. DeWITT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- for that area.
MS. DeWITT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I assume that you don't own the parcels
in there?
MS. DeWITT: No, we own our homes. But we pay lot rent.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You pay lot rent.
MS. DeWITT: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That makes it kind of difficult.
MS. DeWITT: The owner has always been really good about
being a part of the community with us, and he loves his place there.
And it's just like it just came out of the blue.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The owner of the park that he sold this,
or what?
MS. DeWITT: No, the current owner right now. They won't
actually close on this until December. But they want all of us out of
there by November 30th.
Page 315
June 20-21, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you've already written him a
letter saying that all of the park residents who own their mobile homes
there have formed a co-op and would like to buy it, but he has a
contract on the table?
MS. DeWITT: Correct. I sent him a letter stating that we would
like to form a co-op, if he would allow us that right of first refusal.
And he also told -- we sent him an offer on the table as well, so we're
waiting to see.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Joe, have you got something?
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. Just to let you know that the owner has
a preap. today at 1: 15 to attempt to rezone this commercial PUD to
change it to a motor coach resort park. Owner is represented by Mr.
Bob Duane. And we're just in the preap. stage, so they're coming in
basically to discuss what do they need to do. And I just wanted to
make sure that was on the record so you know.
And certainly from my perspective I'm obligated to at least
shepherd them through the process. That eventually will come to you
possibly as a rezone, so I need -- from the County Attorney's
perspective need to caution you that you may be seeing this at some
future time as a rezone from -- and we don't know yet, because I'm not
sure of the use from a mobile home park to a motor coach park,
whether that will require rezone. I'm not sure.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ma'am, if I may suggest, there
are state statutes that protect your rights. In this case you might want
to seek some legal advice.
MS. DeWITT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe from legal aid or something.
MS. DeWITT: I've contacted them, and she sent me out a bunch
of applications, so I'll see what I can do with those as well.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very, very much.
MS. DeWITT: Thank you.
Page 316
June 20-21, 2006
Item #12A
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
$3,087,500.00 FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 119 IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. PERRY W. ROSS,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE, ET AL., CASE NO. 04-4174-
CA (RATTLESNAKE-HAMMOCK ROAD PROJECT NO. 60169).
(FISCAL IMPACT: $2,107,000.00) - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to paragraph 12,
which is the County Attorney's report. And the first item is l2A, and
that is a recommendation to approve a mediated settlement agreement
and stipulated final judgment to be drafted, incorporating the same
terms and conditions as the mediated settlement agreement in the
amount of $3,087,500 for the acquisition of Parcel 119 in a lawsuit
styled Collier County versus Perry W. Ross, individually and as
trustee, et al. Case No. 04-4l74-CA, Rattlesnake-Hammock Road
Project 60169. Fiscal impact to the County will be -- an additional
fiscal impact will be $2,107,000.
And I believe Ms. Heidi Ashton, your Attorney from the county
Attorney's Office, will present on this. And you also have Mr. Kevin
Hendricks who handles all the Real Property Transactions for
Transportation to help.
MS. ASHTON: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
Heidi Ashton, Assistant County Attorney.
We did mediate this parcel with the property owner, and this was
the best number we were able to get from the property owner. So if
the Board is not satisfied with the settlement, then this matter will
Page 3 1 7
June 20-21, 2006
proceed to trial. And for that reason I'm keeping my comments to a
minimum. And I'm available to answer any questions that you might
have, as well as Mr. Hendricks.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Manager, did you have some
comments that you want to put on this?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And all the Commissioners should have
noticed that Commissioner Coyle on the way off the dais basically
signaled for me to come over there, and he basically vetted his opinion
on this particular item.
He was quite concerned that the appraisals were so far off and
that this mediated settlement agreement was so lopsided. He wanted
to basically mention to the Board that he felt that in this particular case
this process is broken -- no blame on anybody else, but he's talking
about the appraisal process is broken. He was concerned that we need
-- that you needed to know that his opinion was we need to take action
to make sure that this doesn't happen in the future.
And he was quite distressed of the fact that because the appraisals
went so wrong on this, that some attorney's going to get over a half a
million dollars because of it, okay, and so taxpayers' dollars going to
an attorney that probably sat on his duff for a while, you know, seems
to be a windfall. And we need to make sure it's -- I'm using his words,
we need to make sure as a Board that this doesn't happen again in the
future.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What I'm concerned about is I believe
that there was a process here to intentionally run this property up in
value by the people that were involved in this process to the point
where we have an attorney that all he's going to do is sign a couple of
pieces of paper, and ends up because of state statute that he ends up
with almost $560,000.
To me the only thing that's missing is a gun and a mask. And to
me I think it's totally wrong, and I believe that we need to direct this to
our state legislators that this needs to be changed. This is taxpayers'
Page 318
June 20-21, 2006
money, and this is uncalled for in regards to what's happening here.
And I believe that probably the appraiser did the very best he
could. And if my understanding, which you two explained to me, that
this appraiser went out at least two times to make appraisals on this
property and that there was the flipping of other property in the area
that was driving the price up on this thing.
And originally it was on the market for $500,000, and here we
are now all the way up to $3 million on this whole project for just a
piece of portion of land here.
I hope there's gold on that land, and I hope that when we -- I
think we're going to use it for stormwater retention. Maybe if we dig
down far enough we can recoup some of our cost there in the gold or
silver that we find there.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to make a motion to
approve.
Start out with Commissioner, your comments are well taken and
I totally agree with it. But may I suggest that the Florida Association
of Counties take up this issue?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You better believe it. I will direct that.
And we will -- because this is outrageous, and it's not only happening
here in Collier County, it's happening every place in the State of
Florida. And I'm not sure what the reason was that the state
legislature came up with some guidelines in this manner. And I think
if this property had gone up a little bit more in cost, obviously the
attorney would have been entitled to even more money. And geez,
they weren't very successful; they could have pushed it a little bit
harder and maybe got more some money out of us.
But maybe you can enlighten us a little bit what we need to do to
let our legislators know and to address this with the Florida
Association of Counties in their upcoming convention that we're
having here in Collier County.
Page 319
June 20-21, 2006
MR. HENDRICKS: We'll be glad to get together and huddle up
with you and come up with some brainstorming on solutions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We need to do it quickly, though.
Do you have something that you could just offer to us here at the
dais, what direction we need to --
MR. HENDRICKS: I'd hate to do that right now. There's pros
and cons in this whole thing. There's several approaches that come to
mind.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can you tell us why this is a state statute
in regards to this?
MR. HENDRICKS: Well, in 1994 the--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If you could use your mic, please, and
identify your name.
MR. HENDRICKS: In 1994 the Governor appointed a
committee --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We'll need your name on the record.
MR. HENDRICKS: I'm sorry. Kevin Hendricks, Right-of-Way
Manager for Transportation Division.
In 1994 the Governor appointed a committee comprised of 10
individuals, five of whom were representing primarily private property
owners and five of whom were representing primarily condemning
authorities, to come up with a change to the attorney fee statutes.
Prior to that time, the attorneys fees had always been -- the fees
were -- Heidi, you can help me out here. But the fees were supposed
to be reasonable and customary fees charged for that practice.
And what the Florida Department of Transportation, who
initiated this measure, was seeing around the state was that on very
small dollar value parcels, $700 temporary easements, $2,000 little
thin strip takings, the attorneys fees were winding up being 10,
$20,000. And they wanted to put a stop to this. So that's why the
panel was put together.
And they came up with what they call a benefit formula. And
Page 320
June 20-21, 2006
now the fees prescribed by statute are -- that the attorneys are awarded
a fee equivalent to a percentage of the benefit that he or she
supposedly achieves for his client.
In recent years, with rabid inflation, the attorneys had nothing but
to sit back and wait for inflation to push the value up between the time
the condemning authority makes its offer to purchase and the time
they deposit the money into the court registry to realize a substantial
fee for actually having done nothing.
MS. ASHTON: The intent of the statute change was to
encourage quick settlements. But in counties such as Collier County
where our prices are escalating at such a rapid rate, the process now
builds in an attorney fee without the attorney even doing work. And
we're really seeing that in all of our cases because of the rapid real
estate escalation.
So we'll -- the County Attorney's Office will get in touch with the
Florida Association of Counties and we can give you a report back in
the future.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So you feel that the benefit is to approve
this, as Commissioner Henning has made the motion? Do you feel
that if we went to court, the chances of us being successful in
defending this would probably be nil?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I wouldn't say that.
MS. ASHTON: I wouldn't say nil. But we felt that by approving
this mediated settlement agreement that we were going to be cutting
the losses, so to speak, that the County would be exposed to. There is
a certain real risk that the jury would come back at a higher number.
And based on that -- you know, we sat through the mediation, we
looked at our side, we heard the other side. We looked at the facts and
circumstances that surrounded it. And we, like you, are very unhappy
with the attorneys fees in this situation, but because of the statutory
formula, we have no choice.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Attorney, do you have anything
Page 321
June 20-21, 2006
to add to this?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I would just say that again, there's a
mechanical approach to the attorney fee component of the eminent
domain action, any action that we have in this particular case.
Because the values would appear to be relatively high, it would appear
to be that way, there's just a mechanical application for the attorney
fee.
And I agree with your discussion in the sense that if they want to
create a certainty statutorily, one way to look at that would be to have
a declining rate, based upon increased values. Because as Ms. Ashton
indicated, here in Collier County particularly, when we start a process
of determining where a project's going to be and start design and they
get to 60 percent of design and then they get into the operational
aspect of acquiring land by willing buyer/seller type of thing and then
beyond that to condemnation, time is passing. And as we know,
values have gone up, you know, 20, 25 percent in the course of one
year.
The attorney ultimately, meaning the County Attorney Office,
takes the client and the situation of the particular proj ect and the land
associated with that project as it exists at a particular point in time.
Now, this particular item before you has some kind of, quote,
perfect storm characteristics to it in the sense that it was property that
was under contract, it had a certain zoning at a certain point in time.
We recognize that statutorily highest and best use, not necessarily the
static use that's in place at the time that we'd a desire for it comes into
play. Other aspects that were into play here were significantly higher
zoning densities on both sides of this project.
So this was a property that was potentially in a state of flux, and
that's why Ms. Ashton indicates that notwithstanding the value that
has been allocated pursuant to a mediation process, the fact is that
values aren't static here in Collier County, particularly the last two or
three years, and that notwithstanding initial appraisal value which is
Page 322
June 20-21,2006
given, and then that appraisal value was even different than the
assessed value at the tax appraiser's office, that this is what comes into
play when the county must go forward.
And we cannot guarantee -- we can't say that the ability to
achieve a lower number is nil in a court of law, but we cannot
guarantee, based on the dynamics, particularly real property here in
Collier County, that we can achieve a better result. And so that's why
we are obligated to come to the Board and say this is what has come
into being at this point in time through the court required mediation
arrangement. And it's for us to determine whether we want to accept
risk or not to go forward.
Either way, however, there will be a statutory application, based
on the value determined by a jury or the value that we determine here
today to apply that mechanical attorneys fee. And there's nothing we
can do about that right now.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have one other question. And when
you started the process, what was the first estimate of the land?
MS. ASHTON: The first appraisal report was valued at
$615,000.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And when the final-- the final
price of this land that you started to mediate on, what was the time
frame, from the first estimate of the 640 to where we got to what is it,
about $1.5 million, what was that time line?
MS. ASHTON: The first appraisal report was dated February of
2004, and the date of value was set on the date that the county deposits
money in the court registry, and that was February of2005.
I'd like to just voice one frustration in the process that we have
and that is that the law requires that we make a written offer before we
can file suit. That has to be made. And then we have to wait 30 days
from the date that the property owner receives it. So we're required to
make the offer that sets the baseline for the attorneys fees before we
fil e suit.
Page 323
June 20-21, 2006
And then the date of deposit comes after the suit's been filed,
everyone's been served, discovery's been exchanged, we clear a date
with the judge for the order of taking so there's time. And that's the
frustration we have with the built-in escalation of property values
between the time of the offer --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So you're telling me that this property
inflated from $640,000 in a year's time to $1.5 million?
MR. WEIGEL: Let me respond to that, Mr. Chairman.
It's not necessarily the question of inflated, it is the question of an
appraiser's opinion of value and another appraiser or multiple
appraisers' determination of value at a later point in time.
Can I tell you absolutely that the initial appraisal was correct and
the one that is the absolute through time? No, I certainly couldn't tell
you that.
As we find out in almost any court action, particularly these
condemnation lawsuits, it is a determination of estimate and expert
witness of appraiser versus appraiser and the components that they
utilized to make their initial determinations.
As I indicated to you before -- I don't want to make the case for
anybody here, particularly the property owner -- but this property that
was sitting between other properties that had different kind of zoning.
And so the question of highest and best use becomes an articulable
element of the appraisal process. And from that standpoint, there
certainly can become questions or issues as to who is right over time.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And so the price, the end price is
actually the percentage that the lawyer actually gets in this case.
MR. WEIGEL: That's correct.
MS. ASHTON: This particular case had a number of unique
facts and circumstances that evolved over time. And, you know, I've
reviewed the appraisal reports and I understand the reasonings for all
of his appraisals.
This one is unique. I can't say that the appraiser made errors in
Page 324
June 20-21, 2006
each of his reports. This is a unique parcel that evolved. And based
upon the set of facts that we were -- that evolved as this case went
forward.
Like I said, I don't want to put too much on the record in case this
matter does go to trial.
MR. HENDRICKS: Well, the property was originally on the
market listed by its owner for sale by owner for $500,000. And an
offer in December of '02 was tendered to the owner by the contract
purchaser. And in January of'03 that offer was accepted. Now, the
owner tried to get out of the contract, and -- because perhaps he
realized after our offer that maybe he'd let it go a little too low, and the
contract purchaser had to sue for specific performance to get the seller
to sell the property.
And then it was later appraised a year later for $1,500,000, or
$175,000 an acre.
Coincidentally we had another appraiser doing work on the
Rattlesnake-Hammock Road proj ect who appraised the partial taking
from Collegewood Apartments next door, also at $175,000, equivalent
to the million five deposit that we made on this particular parcel.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
Is there any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, I'll call the question. I believe the
motion was made by Commissioner Henning and seconded by
Commissioner Fiala.
All those in favor of -- it's hard to say, but all of those in favor of
this -- I call the question -- signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. Reluctantly.
Those opposed by like sign.
Page 325
June 20-21, 2006
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
We'll definitely take this up with the Florida Association of
Counties. This is outrageous.
Item #12B
STATUS REPORT ON F.S. CHAPTER 164 PROCEEDINGS IN
REFERENCE TO THE INVERSE CONDEMNATION LAWSUIT
OF BERNARD J. AND HELEN R. NOBEL, AND VINCENT D.
DOERR VS. COLLIER COUNTY, IN CASE NO. 05-0064-CA AND
DESCRIBE FURTHER ATTEMPTS BY THE STAFFS OF THE
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, THE
STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF LANDS, AND THE COUNTY
TO REACH AN AGREEMENT IN THE MATTER - CONTINUED
TO THE JULY 25, 2006 BCC MEETING - CONSENSUS AS
DETERMINED ON JULY 20, 2006
MR. MUDD: And Commissioner, l2B, the Board heard the
Nobel, Doerr settlement yesterday and agreed to let Southwest Florida
come back here on the 25th of July and gave them 30 extra days.
That brings us to paragraph 14. And you did l4A, which had to
do with the $7 million of Wachovia line of credit.
And you also did l4-B, which had to do with the airport grant for
Marco Island to the tune of about $414,000. You approved that
yesterday.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
That brings us to paragraph 15, staff and commissioners, general
Page 326
June 20-21, 2006
communications.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We'll start off with the county
manager.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. The first thing is probably going to tie
into a little bit of what I hope Commissioner Coletta is going to talk
about. I just want to remind him, the expressway authority. And they
have some budget issues that they want to present to the Board. And I
believe they're going to do that Friday at 1 :00 p.m.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. You couldn't have said it
better. And at that point in time they're going to come to you with a
presentation. They're looking for start-up funds. In order to be able to
exist and be able to run the Authority, we need the money to be able to
start up with. Later we might be able to draw federal and state funds,
but we need to be able to get to that point by coming up with sufficient
funds to begin with.
We'll have the whole thing prepared and Bill Barton will be the
one presenting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Bill Barton?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Bill Barton, yes. He's the chair
for the Authority.
And I hope that this Commission will take a look at it and weigh
it against all our needs that are out there and see what we can do for
them.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can you give us some kind of indication
what they're looking for in funding?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: For both Lee County and
Collier County, $400,000 each.
MR. MUDD: And they'll talk to you about that Friday during
public comment at 1 :00 p.m. But I just wanted to make sure that you
knew about that. And it came in rather late from the expressway
authority. It'd be added to this particular board agenda, because it was
Page 327
June 20-21, 2006
already published and there was another opportunity in front of the
board and I just wanted to make sure that you knew that they were
going to come by and talk to you. And there's some Lee County staff
that will also attend.
The other item that I have is one that Commissioner Henning
brought up, and it's something that -- and I'll just make sure I'm in a
grey area. And this has to do with the Santa Barbara Water Aquatics
Center building, office building. And that used to be Parks and Rec.,
so to speak, their department headquarters building.
That headquarters is moving out to the new water park, so it freed
up about half the billets, half the space in that particular building.
Ms. Jennifer Edwards, your Supervisor of Elections, is in around
10,000 square feet right here to in the building to our north. And your
Master Plan, building master plan, which is approved by the Board of
County Commissioners states that her end strength floor usage is
around 30,000 square feet.
She had expressed a shortage of staff space because of upcoming
elections and some add-ons to her staff where they wouldn't fit in the
existing building.
Her original budget conversation with me was she was going to
come to the Board and ask for general fund money in order to go out
and acquire rental property in order to put that particular additional
functions into it.
I had mentioned to her at that time that there was staff moving
out of one building and there might be some space in that aquatic
center and half the building in order to do it.
She also expressed a desire to use a large room, okay. A large
room was -- you know, unspecified location, in order to do training for
the poll workers.
There is a large room in this headquarters building that the staff
had used for aerobic exercises for a number of years. At the time I
thought that we could use aerobic exercises for a couple of hours and
Page 328
June 20-21, 2006
we could be doing training some other time, you know, during the off
times. That didn't seem to work. And so Ms. Edwards expressed a
desire to use the room permanently.
I didn't have much reason not to approve that, because the
aerobic trainer that we had at the time also had tenured her
resignation, okay, because she was moving to a different County and
so the class was going to end because I was out of an instructor.
So it's a temporary fix to Ms. Edwards' particular dilemma as far
as space was concerned. I made the decision, trying to save the
County some money on rent for the program. I don't believe the place
that I put her is going to be permanent by any stretch of the
imagination.
But Commissioner Henning had a good point. He mentioned to
me that that building was built as a Park and Rec. building and that
we're now using partial -- part of it for Supervisor of Elections, and I
might have went too far with that decision, so I wanted to make sure
that we brought it -- you know, we can undo it. It won't be easy, but
we can undo that decision. But I wanted to make sure that the Board
understood why I made the decision and what the rational basis was
for that decision.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do we have any other government
buildings that would function that we have some space that's not being
used in?
MR. MUDD: No, sir. I've had to move people out because of
trying to get more judges in the courthouse. I've got the public
defender now moved out into rental space. I've got the ad litem
person out in rental space or sectioned out in rental space. And we've
moved a lot of people out.
This was just one way -- I understood there was a need and there
was partial building that it was an opening for an opportunity to try to
save some money and try to fit everybody's bill, so to speak, needs,
without having to go back out and do more rental space.
Page 329
June 20-21,2006
Now, the bad news is yes, there is an aerobic exercise class that
was canceled, first of all, for instructor. That doesn't mean we couldn't
go out and get another one. But we do have other exercise classes in
the County at several locations, may they be Golden Gate City, the
Community Center there, Veterans Park. We've got them just in about
every park that we have except that one at this particular time.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think we need to
understand what temporary means. Is it just to train the poll workers
for the particular election, or is it ongoing? And is it -- would it be
more appropriate to talk to the School Board for that temporary use?
If it's just around election we're training them. Because it's an issue
that's going to keep on coming up. Every election she's going to want
to train. I'm assuming it's just the time around the training around the
elections.
MR. MUDD: Well, I believe she'll be here this week when she
comes in with her budget, and we can -- I believe it's a great question
to ask as far as temporary is concerned.
But I will tell you, based on space, in the final projection of what
she needs, she's only about half -- she's only housed in about half of
the needed square footage that's in your Master Plan.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it would be interesting to
find out what true needs are.
What -- are you saying that the only thing that's going to be
missing from this park is aerobics? The workout room is still going to
stay?
MR. MUDD: I'd have to talk to Marla. I believe that's -- the
workout room and everything else is going to be there. It's just the
aerobics class in that room. And I have saved the flooring, because
the flooring is a low-impact flooring. It has a cushion to it when you
step on it so you don't --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Who's teaching the class now?
Page 330
June 20-21,2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nobody is right now.
MR. RAMSEY: Actually, the timing was very good on our
instructor. Our instructor decided to move up north just about the
same time that the Supervisor of Elections was coming in.
So the only thing that we are losing there would be probably four
or five classes of aerobics that were being held in the back of the
room. The fitness center most definitely is still in place.
And we are looking at the Community Centers and trying to add
some additional ones to them. It's not as convenient, of course,
because if you come to the Golden Gate Community Park, you want
to do aerobics and go work out on the weights. If you have to go over
to the Community Center and then come back over to do the weights,
it's not as convenient.
But we are offering. I think we have 39 classes offered per week
throughout the system in different locations. And every community
center does have some kind of aerobic program.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What are you -- well, why don't
we discuss this when the supervisor of elections is here.
MR. RAMSEY: That's great.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this afternoon -- just as a public
advertisement, this afternoon at 4:00, the Sun and Fun Lagoon Park
will open up from 4:00 to 7:00. It will be free to the public. I saw --
to Collier residents, okay, thank you. Free to the public, Collier
residents only.
And it will be open. The grand opening, which all of the
commissioners have been invited to, is at 9:30 on Saturday morning,
this Saturday.
I saw an editorial today by Mr. Story in the paper that basically
said I want to know when I can come and walk around and whatever.
I just want to make sure everybody understands out there that it's only
the water park that has an admission fee to it. Now, there's the regular
Page 331
June 20-21,2006
membership fee that you use for the gym, but we do that in every gym
that we have in Collier County, so that's nothing different.
The fields you can play on, the park walkway around the berm of
the property is all free to the public. The only thing that has an
admission fee per se is that water park. And that's all fenced in.
So for the public out there, if they think that got to pay some kind
of a fee to get in to go look at the park, that's not the case at all.
So I just wanted to clear that up. I was a little distressed at the
editorial today, and I just want to make sure I try to clear it up as much
as we can.
And I will make sure that Mr. Torre and his group gets out
another press release to make sure they try to clear it up in any kind of
printed medium.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So a person can go in there, park their
car, get out and walk around that beautiful boardwalk and everything
else free of charge, no admission fee, okay.
MR. MUDD: Take the kids to the playground, any of that stuff.
That's fine.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, I understand where
you are, and I've received a couple of letters, like my commissioners
did, about the price. And I don't think we need to lower the price. I
really don't. We have to be able to charge a fair price for what's out
there.
I think what you're doing today, opening it up from 4:00 to 6:00
is an absolutely wonderful idea. Maybe a couple of times a year for
some special reason we might be able to have a free admission day for
Collier County residents. It's for those people that really are
financially strapped that could take advantage of this resource where
they might normally not be able to.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And I'd like to be able to discuss that
Page 332
June 20-21, 2006
with the board in September. We're going to come in and talk about
like a yearly pass kind of thing as far as a way to reduce that. And
when we have that discussion I'd also like to be able to discuss those
particular items with you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I like that. Like a family pass.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
MR. MUDD: And a free day, or whatever the Board desires.
But we plan to come back and talk to you about a yearly pass program
in September to start it for the next step.
MR. RAMSEY: Can I just add one thing on top of that? Marla
Ramsey, public services --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning, did you have--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, I'm sorry.
MR. RAMSEY: Also, if the people -- the first week or so that
we're open, we're doing a lot of tours with our staff. Our staff is
available for anybody that wants to come in and see the fitness center,
see the gymnasium, come into the exhibit hall, the water park. We
will take people around the park, we will show them what we have.
Our park rangers are on-site and available to do that so, you know, if
somebody wants to do that.
And also, don't forget that during the grand opening on Saturday,
that also is free. Anybody will be able to come in and see the facilities
during that period of time as well. So we invite and encourage the
public to come out and see what we have.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is the archeological dig a part of the
water park itself?
MR. RAMSEY: No, it is not.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So kids can come in there and dig in the
sand, huh?
MR. RAMSEY: That's correct.
Page 333
June 20-21, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Look for fossils.
MR. RAMSEY: Yeah. Calusa dig and the boulders for climbing
and playground equipment, and some of it is musical and the --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And it's free?
MR. RAMSEY: -- rest of the facility, and that's all free.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, great. So they can go on an
archeological dig for free. Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wonder how many people know all
of the things that are in the park. And it hasn't been really mentioned
in the newspaper.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, we're hoping that that grand
opening, the people go out there and take a look and see how big this
thing is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe you can mention some of
them right now so people will know to come out there.
MR. RAMSEY: You know, we've been working with the media
and trying to get the word out about the -- we're opening up all of
these various areas. But the only concentration has really been Sun
and Fun Lagoon. But there's more to the North Collier Regional Park
than just the water park. I mean, it is much more than that. It is a full
-- two full-sized gymnasiums that are indoor, air conditioned, 6,000
square foot facility for fitness. Our walking trail is about two miles
around the outside with a boardwalk down the center of the wetland
area.
We'll also open up immediately the exhibit hall. The exhibit hall
will have some educational nature-based activities there. And then of
course the meeting room facilities that can be rented for various
events. Later in the fall as we open up the ball fields, once we have
them all established. Again, that's eight soccer fields, five softball
fields, the concessions that go along with those. Picnic shelters are
located throughout the park.
So there's just a lot more to this facility than just a water park.
Page 334
June 20-21, 2006
And you really have to come and see it in order to really understand
the scope of it. It's over 200 acres in size. It is a wonderful addition to
our community.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I've been out there a couple of times
during the build process, and I was very, very impressed.
Can you also mention the fact there's been some press and there's
been some scuttlebutt out there that we've had some tremendous cost
overruns. And could you enlighten us in regards to those?
MR. RAMSEY: We have not had any cost overruns. And as
you know, we've done a number of deducts off of our -- to save the
sales tax, over $800,000 in savings just in that element. And when
you look at all of that and some of the change orders, we've probably
had a change order of about maybe $400,000 on a $53 million park.
We really think that we've done a very good job of keeping this
particular park in budget and trying to bring it in on time for the
community.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much for the
clarification on that.
MR. MUDD: That's all I have, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Attorney, do you have anything?
MR. WEIGEL: No, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Start off with Commissioner
Henning, do you have anything you want to bring?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. I did meet with -- I had a
conference call with South Florida Water Management District, and
they had the developer of Parklands, Ronto, the Ronto Group, and Mr.
Norm Feder, in a conversation to see how we can get North Logan
Boulevard back on track.
The developer committed and always committed to building
Logan Boulevard. He has committed to separate his project out from
the public facilities, the school sites and also our road in order to gain
a permit from the district, South Florida Water Management.
Page 335
June 20-21, 2006
I would like to see -- talking to Mr. Feder, actually he brought it
up, for the chairman of the Board of Commissioners to write a letter to
Southwest Florida district, asking them to fast-track this permit,
because this road is a -- designated as a hurricane evacuation. We're
going to need this road when 1-75 is under construction. And it will
be a reliever to Immokalee Road, the section that will be under
construction from a four to six-lane.
It's a needed facility. The road is going to be built. Ask them to
work with a developer to find the means to put this project back on
track as soon as possible.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Mr. Feder, do you have anything to add
to this?
MR. FEDER: No, simply that as the Commissioner pointed out,
actually, it was Mr. Brown with the permitting agency that said this
kind of a letter would be helpful. He mentioned hurricane evacuation.
I did add that the importance with the upcoming 1-75
construction with having this reliever road developed, if they could
expedite the permit issues. And I believe the developer has committed
to doing that, and I believe Mr. Brown committed to us that they
would seek to expedite the reviews and get it done.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You say it's a hurricane evacuation
route. Is that because it's going to be tied into Bonita Beach Road?
MR. FEDER: Basically it's acknowledging not only that 1-75
serves as a very, very important evacuation route that will be under
construction soon, I was raising the issue of when 1-75 is under
construction, it would be nice to have this as a reliever route. I think
he was acknowledging it's not only a reliever route for general
movement in capacity, but also it's an important evacuation route.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So are you telling me that the start of
1-75 is going to be about 2007? And are you telling me that we're not
going to be able to get the permits from the South Florida Water
Management before that point in time?
Page 336
June 20-21, 2006
MR. FEDER: No, I'm not telling you. But it was raised as an
importance to continue this process going in to get that road
completed. And again, they have to meet the permit provisions. They
were originally tied into the Mirasol flowway. As you know, issues
have changed on that and so now they're trying to look at other
options to address parklands, their stormwater, either for their overall
project, or was raised actually by the permitting agency, if they could
pull out the road and the school and do their permitting there. But
nonetheless, they're looking to amend their permit that was relying
previously on the Mirasol flowway.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can you tell me how long they've had
their permit in?
MR. FEDER: They've had their permit for quite some time now,
but it did have that caveat, the development of the flowway. Most of
the community was supporting that flowway, as you know, at one
time, all sectors of the community.
That has since changed and so now he finds himself having to
modify or amend his permit. And that's what he's in the process of
doing.
What I heard today through the Commissioners' efforts was a
commitment from Water Management District to try to help him
amend his permit appropriately in an expeditious manner.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: As I was -- what I read in the paper was
that it was only like days away that he was going to get this permit.
And that's not the case then; is that correct?
MR. FEDER: I believe what I heard in that meeting, that it could
be anywhere from two to four, six months.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Six months.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Really?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you need a letter from -- you
need us to go -- to ask our chairman to send this letter in support of,
right?
Page 337
June 20-21, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, we have a motion on the floor to
approve this -- for me to write a letter to the South Florida Water
Management to see if we can expedite the permits of the Logan
Boulevard that's being built by the developer. And we have a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Also, they're building the school
site there, too. So it's just public facilities.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, public facilities, all right. The
road and the public facilities, put that into the letter.
And we have a second by Commissioner Fiala, okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is that your motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Or in your second, I should say.
THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, who made the motion?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner Fiala made the motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, I thought it was Commissioner
Henning made it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I thought you -- we can give
Commissioner Henning the credit for that one.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Right, that's where it is then. I'm sorry.
The confusion here -- it's getting close to lunchtime.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Low sugar level.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I did make the motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Let's get this stated on the record
correctly. Commissioner Fiala made the motion, and it was seconded
by Commissioner Coletta in regards to this letter that's going to be
written to South Florida Water Management in regards to the road and
also the public -- other public facilities in this project.
Any further discussion?
Page 338
June 20-21, 2006
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
Opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: To continue on, yesterday when
the excavation permit was up for blasting, the same environmental
group that is stopping this road proj ect stated that the effects of mining
and how that affects the environment. I tell you, my feeling is the
environment -- some of the environmentalists group is not about
helping the environment, it's about stopping some of the public
facilities that we're trying to facilitate here in Collier County.
I have a real concern when we try to partnership with the
environmental communities within the greater good of the community
what the real agenda is. And, you know, my number one goal is here
to serve the public, it's not to serve a special interest group. And I'm
disappointed in some of the environmental organizations. And until
they prove there's (sic) different, that they just want to stop what we
need to facilitate for our community, that's where I'm going to be.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I think that -- I understand where
you're coming from and that's a good comment. I think we have an
awful lot of special interest groups that come before this Board of
County Commissioners. And I think that our intellect on this board is
such that we weigh all the facts and I think that we make a judgment
accordingly.
And I believe that their voice should be heard, it was heard
yesterday, but we still ended up -- we weighed all the facts. It's like a
Page 339
June 20-21, 2006
scale. And I believe we made the right decision.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Commissioner, they have
no problem coming to us to make growth management plan changes.
They have no problem asking us to use the public funds for their
cause. But when we want to build a road, they're going to do
everything possible to stop that road. And you're going to see that in
the future.
Example of what -- the statement yesterday about fill pits has
been going on here in Collier County forever. All of a sudden they're
a detriment to the environment. And we know there are no limerock
here in Collier County. And it's very difficult to get it in Southwest
Florida. So it's -- I see it as an attempt to stop roads.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can't agree with you more.
You're absolutely correct, Commissioner Henning. In fact, there are
some things that I haven't brought to your attention yet. One is the --
we got back the preliminary listing from the different environmental
groups about the -- I'm sorry to -- the Everglades Boulevard/75
interchange. And believe me, they're extremely critical, to the point
where they say no numerous times throughout it. This is just the
beginning.
I recently just got an e-mail from Sonya Durwalker, of all people,
who I thought understood what we were trying to do. On part of my
road committee, I send out some communications, and one of them
had to do with what may happen in the future plans with connection of
Golden Gate Boulevard all the way up to 29 or some other read, you
know. I mean, futuristic plans that are nothing more than discussion.
It also mentioned about the interchange. And she came out saying she
didn't see how any of those projects were ever possible. Just wrote it
right off the book.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And she's an employee
of the State of Florida.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
Page 340
June 20-21, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And these roads are existing
roads, Commissioner Coletta. And there was an interchange there at
1-75, the old Alligator Alley and Everglades Boulevard.
It's my understanding it's only your wish to reconnect those ones
that were taken out, only to be stopped by the environmentalists.
Those lands in Golden Gate Estates are platted. Growth is going to
happen out there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've been making every effort to
work with all the environmental agencies out there. Norm Feder
could tell you that too for a fact. We had meetings with them
individually. We've had community meetings, we brought them
together. And I thought we were all about on the same page, going in
the right direction. It was just a question of what we had to do to be
able to mitigate, reasonable mitigation to be able to go forward.
And I'll tell you, I was a little bit disillusioned. You know, I had
some visions of maybe getting this project off the ground in less than
eight years. But after the comments I seen, obviously there's going to
be a big fight. And when it becomes a fight, I'm going to drag every
Tom, Dick and Harry out there that has a stake in this into it, and I'm
going to let them vent their anger many, many times over at different
community meetings.
We're not going to be able to put up with it. We just can't put up
with it. You know, we have a certain population base that we have to
serve. We got 80 some percent of our County placed in conservation.
And every time you agree to a certain type of conservation element
where you're going to include it, the next thing, come back and now
we have to remainder (sic) how we're going to be able to take a
portion of that.
And it's ongoing without end. And now, I'm all for conservation,
I'm all for having an environmentalist give us some directions and
some ideas, but it's at the point where the balance is out of kilter.
We almost seen it with 951 going away, where they took over the
Page 341
June 20-21,2006
study and they almost came up with the no-build theory. If it wasn't
for a certain group of citizens rallying behind the cry to show up for
the meetings, that thing would have went down under the no-build
theory, because that's the exact way they were taking it down.
Eventually they came around and they see it as a needed facility,
provided you don't do the Coconut Road interchange. But that's
another story.
But it is very difficult. I'm glad you brought it up, Commissioner
Henning. It is a serious issue.
We do have the workshop coming up where we're going to be
talking to the Fish & Wildlife, hopefully they'll show up with the
invitations sent out, to discuss the panther situation, the mitigations
that have to take place, and maybe at some point in time we should
expand it even further so we come to a good understanding what is the
public's good and what direction is that public good best served,
environment land or building the infrastructure we need to support the
people that's here? Somewheres between there there's got to be a
middle ground and it's got to be realistic for everyone concerned.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, you've
been very supportive of the environmental community throughout the
years, more than I thought you would ever do. And I just seen what's
been happening over the years. Access. Access to the Big Cypress
National Preserve, access to this, access to this.
Now just lately we've seen, you know, no fishing on bridges.
Who's bringing this up is the environmentalists. The bottom line is the
people that live here in Collier County is in the way of the
environmentalists. And there has to be a balance. And we need to get
-- my opinion, get the environmentalists back on track of where they
should be, and let's have a great community instead of just shutting
everybody out. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah, I'm surprised that the
environmentalists are now opposed to that interchange at Everglades
Page 342
June 20-21, 2006
and 1- 7 5. Because I was under the impression that they realized that
that was going to go in.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I didn't want to
misrepresent what's happening, but it's not the environmental
community, per se, the whole thing. We have certain people aboard
that are willing to talk and being realistic, believe it or not. Nancy
Payton is one that's been willing to come forth to the meetings, and so
is Brad Cornell.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah, that's why I thought that they were
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They are. But they're only a
small part of the it. The big thing is that's out there that can stop you
in a moment's notice, and they've done it many times before, is Fish &
Wildlife. And they're an agency to themselves. They're beyond the
reach of any of our government officials out there.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I think when we need to keep our
eyes focused on that. Because they have to realize -- and like you
said, if they would come to the workshop that we're going to set up
here, that they have an understanding, and I believe we need to have
staff give them a presentation in regards to growth potential out in that
area, what needs to be done. Hopefully we can educate them and let
them understand that there is a real public benefit to the health, safety
and welfare to the citizens here in Collier County. I think that's --
hopefully that's where we need to focus our efforts on and maybe
educate them in what's going on and why this is so important.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I've said enough.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: See you tomorrow.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. I've got two
i terns I'd like to discuss.
Mr. Mudd, I couldn't see if we had the support to be able to go
Page 343
June 20-21,2006
with that workshop. Did we get that support?
MR. MUDD: No. And that's one of the things I had to have for
an alibi. I've got two Commissioners that said they wanted to have a
workshop on Community Developments in the building industry to
talk about particular process in the fall, and do I have direction from
the Board in order to do that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Did we have a workshop with them not
too long ago with the building industry?
MR. MUDD: Joe did. Joe had an open house with them and he
sat down with them. And he's done at least two of them already.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And have they had any serious
concerns with -- could you come up and tell us? Have you addressed
any other concerns or --
MR. SCHMITT: Everybody's project is the most important
project in Collier County, and naturally in the industry --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Could you give your name, please?
MR. SCHMITT: -- third one permit.
But to answer your question, yes. We meet with the industry
periodically. I had a business round table. We were committed to a
30-day review. I presented all the statistics, clearly displayed that
most often projects are in permits. Now, we're talking site plan
permits, we're talking building permits. But if we put them both
together, most often permitting delays are due to, frankly, incompetent
submittals by the applicants.
And I have the statistics to show it. I have all the statistics to
show how we review in 30 days. I can go over all that tomorrow
during the budget if you want to discuss some of that. But I certainly
will have a workshop. I'll bring the development industry. I can
present the briefings, I can talk to you about our commitments to the
industry. And--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We had those workshops with we had
them out there.
Page 344
~^'~-_.,-,,",'.",^ "~"""-<"""'""-"~'. - .,.... ._".'.
June 20-21,2006
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, you were at the one workshop. All the
commissioners were invited. You showed up to that one. I've had
workshops with the industry. I have another one scheduled for July
25th to talk about intake, the intake process, the consolidation of the
intake process, where you authorized me an additional staff. We
created the intake time, and we're going to conduct a training session
on the 25th to talk about inspections -- the inspections of the intake
packet prior to receiving. So I have another one scheduled on the 25th
of July.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And what has been the result or the
feedback from these people?
MR. SCHMITT: As always, everybody wants their permit
approved as soon as possible.
I'm not sure where you're going with the feedback. The feedback
is they're happy with the service. What they certainly would like is
for me to have more staff in order to service their needs.
MR. MUDD: We have made changes -- or Joe has made
changes, and I get briefed on them on a monthly basis, as far as
making sure that we get the evaluation of that site development plan
or that PUD through his organization in a 30-day period. And that's
basically his contract.
Now, in the fall we were woefully short in the environmental side
of the house, okay. Those -- about 50 percent of those particular
applications were late. Since the end of December, January, they have
met -- and I believe their success right now is 99 percent, making that
-- and you get a snapshot of that every week and it kind of shows you,
it's that bottom line that shows you that there's -- you know, where
there used to be 50 or 60 that were late, you're now down to zero or
one on any given week. So right now Bill Lorenz has got about a 99
percent success rate.
So he's made great changes. And then after we were done with
Bill Lorenz's shop and got him necked down to make sure that he was
Page 345
June 20-21, 2006
in the particular issue, we had a little upset in the utility side, so we
tweaked Mr. DeLony to make sure that his reviews were not the long
pole in the tent. And right now we are working on fire.
MR. SCHMITT: At any given time I have about 80 zoning
petitions going through the building at any given time. And each of
my principal planners probably have about somewhere around 40 to
45 projects, when you count rezonings and PUD, PUD amendments,
PUD extensions. And that's just on the land use side.
Of course on the building permit side, like I said, we're talking
probably almost 50,000 permits this year.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I don't want to drag this
out. Obviously I don't have three commissioners here that are
interested in it.
I had the request from the building industry to ask for this, make
this request. I personally think you're doing an excellent job with the
resources you got available to you and the facilities you're working
out of. It's just that it's always the public perception out there that
concerns me. And whenever I hear a number of people say
something, I feel it's my duty to carry it forward.
MR. SCHMITT: Understand.
Bill Hammond, my building director, meets with the CBIA
probably about every three months on a round table to address their
needs. Because they're primarily expressing angst with the building
review side. And in fact, Jim mentioned fire. Of course fire does not
work for me, they're a separate -- they work for the East Naples Fire
District, Ed Riley. But Ed sends out a weekly report on permit review
and permit processing, sends it to the industry. And it's briefed every
month to the DSAC.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I would rather see staff spend their time
on getting permits done than to tie up staff to make a general report.
I personally have not gotten a lot of e-mail in regards to it,
because at one time I was getting a lot of e-mail that there was a
Page 346
June 20-21, 2006
problem, and I believe that you're taking care of that problem or are
working on that problem diligently in your shop.
So with that, I'll turn it over to Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Okay, I wasn't going to say
anything now, I was going to just wait till the workshop. But one of
the biggest problems I still have coming before me, little mom and
pop places like Hoots Restaurant who's trying to open over at Eagle
Creek Shopping Center, they get a list of things that they need to fix in
order to get their permit. Okay, and they get their list of 23 items.
You need to fix this, this, and this and this. And they go ahead, they
hire the people, get everything fixed, they go back in and then they get
a new list of 17 more things. And then they fix those things. Then
they come back in, now they get another new list. Four lists. And this
happens over and over and over.
I don't understand why you can't have one person go out and get
one list. I mean, why do they keep -- new people find new things.
Why don't you just have one list so that the people can go out, maybe
you give that person extra time to make the complete list, saving time
for all of the other people. They don't have to keep coming in again
and again, saving time for everybody. Do it right the first place.
MR. SCHMITT: And I need to ask, are we talking about plan
review or are we talking about actual on-site inspection?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: On-site inspections.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I think you're talking about
site development plan.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Site development plan?
MR. SCHMITT: Site development plan or building permit.
They're different --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, okay.
MR. SCHMITT: Understand -- reword that question a bit.
But a comes goes in and it goes through the disciplines. It goes
through electrical plan review, it will go through mechanical, it will go
Page 347
June 20-21, 2006
through fire. Each plan reviewer, likewise, same on-site. And I
understand what you're saying, but they're separate disciplines.
Transportation look at it, environmental --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, why can't they open?
Whatever permit you need. Like for instance, IHOP who can't open,
and Hoot's who can't open.
MR. SCHMITT: I understand IHOP is dealing with a fire issue,
with a range hood. It was -- and we're dealing with that right now at
the park.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: At the new park.
MR. SCHMITT: It's a fire issue. It went all through plan review,
now it's approved through fire. But fire is separate, of course. And
then they have -- each fire district has their own fire marshal -- and I
know Commissioner Henning knows this -- and they'll go out and
inspect and say no, but I want this changed.
I have no control over that. That's the fire marshal. He's holding
up IHOP basically because the range hood doesn't meet, in their eyes,
in the field doesn't meet the requirements as specified in the code.
They have to come back in through a change order, and they have to --
through a licensed contractor or through the AE firm, have to go come
back in, resubmit the plan, go through the fire review. And I
understand, ma'am, but it's --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just -- you know, I'm working on
what, four different items right now. Four different items. I just think
that there's got to be something that we can do to make this process
not so cumbersome.
And you say that they're all different people. Well, they come
back to the same place. So maybe -- I don't know how the process
works. And these people don't either. You know, most of them are --
MR. SCHMITT: Ma'am, I'd be glad to sit and review the four
items with you. I would really like to have you understand the process
and understand who's involved in this.
Page 348
June 20-21, 2006
I had Commissioner Coletta down, we talked about it. I know
you've been down at my building.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Over and over, yeah.
MR. SCHMITT: And I would like to take these four -- kind of
peel back the onion, do a forensic analysis of the issue so you
understand.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And what I suggested to you before
is when these people just keep banging their heads against a wall, give
them somebody to say here, here's -- instead of saying no, that doesn't
work and send them on their way, help them.
MR. SCHMITT: Ma'am, we do that every time --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hopefully at least -- well, if we can
get to Lisa, you know -- and we can, she's great, then we can. But
they don't know that they have somebody that they can go to until
finally in frustration after four refusals they call saying, could
somebody please help me, I don't know what to do. And then I can --
now that I know there's a problem, I connect them.
MR. SCHMITT: We do this daily. My chiefs --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, somehow you're not doing it
daily . You know, somehow you're not doing it daily, because I'm
getting calls.
MR. SCHMITT: You get called and --
MR. MUDD: Joe--
MR. SCHMITT: You get calls based on when it --
MR. MUDD: Joe.
MR. SCHMITT: -- when there's a problem.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we'll get after it. Just in the
perspective of things, we're working on four items. There's about
50,000 permits that he handles in that particular issue, so you take a
look at the volume. Yes, we have to do a better job at the individual
sites. I'm not saying that either.
But I will tell you, you'll get the call when the constituent doesn't
Page 349
June 20-21,2006
like the answer that staff gives. And you will always be -- it's part of
being a Commissioner, you will always get that reaction, okay, from
the public. They will always go to their Commissioner. They elect
you to help them through the process.
So no matter how good he is or how good he's not, okay, and I --
and they do a pretty good job. I'm not defending them, I'm just saying
a majority of the times they do a good job. There's a couple ones that
fall through the crack and we need to get better at that, I agree with
you.
What I will tell you is, Commissioners are always going to get
the call, though, at the other end when folks aren't happy with either a
decision --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Some of those things could be
handled so simply. For instance, you have mom and pop coming in,
they don't know the first thing about getting a permit. I don't know, if
I went in there, I wouldn't know what the heck I'm doing.
So mom and pop comes in, or maybe somebody like Hoots who's
been in there, this is their fourth restaurant, but they're not really
familiar with the process. And if there were something on the
beginning process that says if you don't understand something or you
have a concern, call Lisa Keeler, because she'll help you and guide
you all the way through. She's wonderful, she'll do a marvelous job.
They just don't know to go there.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And sometimes they get different
people waiting on them each time and each person has a different
comment --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Different answer.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Different answer, right. And so
they -- there's a lot of confusion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala, maybe I can give
you some comfort here. I think we approved a budget amendment
Page 350
-"~."---~'---'""'~-"---'"'''-''''''''' '-""-~'''''-~-,..
June 20-21, 2006
today for Community Development, Environmental Services. And in
the discussion when they talked about revamping the whole front
sector of that, and I think that's the whole intent is to try to make it
more customer friendly and to make sure that we're customer driven in
that direction. And I think that was the intent --
MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- of why we came up with this budget
proposal is that we want to make sure that we can take care of the
people. And I believe that's what we're going to try to do.
And I hope that gives you some comfort. I know that -- and I
always look at when somebody sends me a complaint, I try to get
research on both sides, because there's always two sides to the story.
But I really believe that this County, we're here to try to serve the
people. The taxpayers, they're the ones that use their hard-earned
money to support us, and we're trying to make sure that we address
that. And I think with the addition of what's going to take place with
this Community Development, Environmental Services Building,
hopefully we'll get after a lot of these problems. I really mean that.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the reason I didn't say
anything about the workshop, I didn't want Mr. Schmitt to think I'm
picking on him again. Because there are many things going around
which really doesn't need to be said here. But I said a long time ago,
until you embrace the problem, you'll never fix it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's right. As long as you don't
realize --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I think he's not trying to embrace
the problem.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- you have a problem, you'll never
fix it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think we're on the right--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And whether it's the
Page 351
"'~""""-M._~_'''',,,,",,W'_''''''''__'' 0_," "_~_u,..o"._",~",,,~~,,___-,,-,v_ '..,_,
June 20-21,2006
Government's fault or whether it's the private sector fault, it doesn't
matter. As long as you don't embrace it, you'll never fix it. You'll
never find the solution.
But I hear the same thing over and over again. I get different
answers, I don't know what to do. Or I can't get any answers.
So revamping the front, I don't see what that's going to do. You
know, if we have continued growth here in Collier County, I
understand the need for more employees. But if the more employees is
just to have more scrutinies of the review -- because what I heard from
EDC person said, well, Mr. Schmitt says fast track only means you're
going to get rejection faster. So if that's the attitude --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I don't think so.
MR. SCHMITT: I have never said that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If that's the attitude, then that's
what it is.
MR. SCHMITT: And I fully embrace the process. I work with
the industry daily.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what's your solution to bad
submittals?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think he's basically said the bad
submittals are -- and he's had workshops to try to bring those people
up to speed.
MR. SCHMITT: I've been working -- I work with the industry.
You saw the eight-step improvement process I put in place. We work
with the industry. I meet with the industry leaders. We listen to their
complaints. We try and work with the industry so they can understand
the process.
These are codes that you asked us to enforce. And I know -- I
guess I have to say what is it you want from the organization?
Because the codes change, as you well know. The folks come in --
people present issues to you which then create changes to the LDC.
And we've slowed down that process, we've slowed down the LDC
Page 352
June 20-21, 2006
amendments, but it is a difficult process. I want to understand --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me just interrupt you for a
minute. You have a tremendously hard-working staff. Without
exception, I couldn't say anyone of them doesn't work their head off
and then some because their short-staffed. I understand that.
But at the top, as long as it's never your fault and as long as it's
nobody gets their submittals right, nobody is -- it's everybody else's
fault, you're going to never fix the problem.
MR. SCHMITT: I accept blame. We have put measures in place
to make corrections.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, what we're doing is
we're conducting a work house (sic) that we're not going to hold right
now. That's what we're doing. Is there anyone who wants to change
their mind on holding a workshop in the future? Ifnot, let's move on.
This is -- we're getting repetitive and we're not getting anyplace with
this.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, I think based on what I just heard,
I'm going to ask you to have a workshop, okay? Because we're never
going to get at the truth, okay? We're always going to hear about this
shot or this shot or the other piece.
Let's have this workshop and let's embrace it and let's get it out
there and let's find out what's fact and fiction. I'd like to get at that.
And I'd really like for the commissioners to understand what also is
happening out there, okay, in the community that nobody will fess up
to.
But I've had this conversation with the architects and the
engineers in the County in their society meeting when I was the guest
speaker. I said, the problem you guys -- gentlemen have, and ladies, in
this audience is your firms won't tell a potential customer no, because
you're already booked as far as workload is concerned and you'll take
their case or their project. And then you'll short-arm them and say I'm
late, I'm late, and then you will take a product that you know is not
Page 353
June 20-21, 2006
correct, okay, and you'll submit it to the county so it becomes their
problem, okay, so that you got another excuse card.
Now, Mr. Schmitt mentioned to you just a second ago that on the
25th he's going to take the development community through his new
intake process. When I had that meeting with the society, I told them,
you've worked years to make your reputation in the AE firms. And I
know that because I have friends that work in AE firms. I'm a
professional engineer myself. They spend their whole careers trying --
for instance, Wilson-Miller and what you get from those particular
folks. And he's quite proud of his particular firm and all the time he's
put in. They have a lot on the line.
And I said, you're really betting on the outcome here. And you
need to understand, everybody has that workload issue. And it would
be something that's good for the board to talk about with them, to have
them tell you what they're doing in order to do some QA/QC in their
particular organization.
You know what? I didn't have one engineer or one AE in that
room -- and I had about 100 of them -- say anything that I told them
that night was not correct. They kind of looked down in their plate and
said yep, we're guilty as accused.
But we want to talk about that. Because I believe there's more
parts to this that we need to get at.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. We agreed on the
workshop. This is where we should have that discussion. This could
go on for hours. No offense. Didn't mean to jump in front of you.
MR. MUDD: I have three nods for a workshop.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep.
Is that it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I'm sorry. Catching my
breath for a second. Very brief.
Ski Olesky, everybody knows Ski Olesky up there in Lake
Trafford Marina. The gentleman serves us on Parks and Rec. and I'm
Page 354
June 20-21,2006
not too sure what else committee. Oh, yeah, on the --
MS. FILSON: I think he serves on three or four.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- on Lake Trafford also on the
tourist --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Tourist Development Council.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- Council.
Valuable asset. He's a little bit dismayed. He's been through this
before four years ago. He's running for the -- his position there on the
Fire Commission there in Immokalee, a non-paying job. He has no
opponents. But our rules and regulations require him to resign before
he can go forward to be able -- he has to resign from all the
Committees. Then he has to step back and wait for these openings to
come up agaIn.
Here's a man that's serving the community. I don't know how
many examples we have like this. And I'm not talking about
somebody running for a representative seat or a commission seat. I'm
talking about people that run for the Fire Department, for Mosquito
Control, the soil and water.
It's -- and I can understand if they're running against somebody,
that's a whole different story. They have that problem with -- you
know, they've got maybe one up on them by the fact that they're
serving on this particular board. But when they have no opposition,
why can't we change that so this person could stay in the positions he's
in and still run for it? Nothing's served by making him resign.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, I am familiar with this. And the fact is it's
part of our Ordinance 2001-55 and, therefore, it's our local law. It has
a policy, the policy as typically, has a general application which may
run afoul of a particular circumstance such as this one and that is the
implementation of that policy had to do with committee members
appointed by our board not having the opportunity to use their
committee as a pulpit for election purposes. But it's a general policy
Page 355
June 20-21,2006
and therefore it could be amended at the Board's direction.
Our office, working with Ms. Filson particularly, could bring
back a proposal of amendment that would achieve what Mr. Coletta's
talking about in this circumstance, which is when there is an absolute
no opposition type of situation.
But there was an underlying policy. As you can see, its intent is
to take away the ability to use committee position as a place for
potential occurring political favor in the voting process.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Weigel, when would it be,
according to our rules and regulations, that he would have to resign
these boards? At what point?
MS. FILSON: When they become a candidate.
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, I believe that's right.
MS. FILSON: When they file to become a candidate.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, they have to file, I think
it's the what, 17th of next month?
MR. WEIGEL: I think you're right. It's probably mid July.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there some way that we can
waive this until we come back with an ordinance so that he doesn't
have to resign all those positions?
MS. FILSON: While he's thinking of that answer, I can also tell
you that this is a lot of work. And many times when they have to
submit their resignations, I have to go through with the press releases,
soliciting new members, and oftentimes I don't get new members and
they end up being reappointed after the election anyway.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I know that. But it's just
the fact that everybody has to go through the whole process.
MS. FILSON: And I agree.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Especially for these -- I wouldn't
call them lesser positions, but these positions on something less than a
Commissioner where they're just serving the public good, and in a lot
of cases they receive no income for it. And it's just as terrible shame.
Page 356
June 20-21, 2006
Is there any way we can accommodate Mr. Olesky for this
coming election so he doesn't have to resign, or is this process so
convoluted that we'll never get there?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, it's not so convoluted. But your next Board
Meeting is July 25th and, therefore, you wouldn't have an opportunity
to make a decision on the advertised ordinance amendment until that
date, which would appear to be a little bit late.
But I'd suggest, best I could do right now would be that if this
Board sitting here gives direction for an amendment to come back to
be heard on the 25th, I'll do a little research and be able to advise you,
as client Commissioners, as well as Mr. Olesky, if there's a possibility
for, I'll call it, a relaxation or waiver until the Board hears this item. I
can't guarantee how the board will vote.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I can't either. I don't even
know if they're going to allow -- direct this. But I would hope they
will.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have some concerns on that issue.
Where are you going to cut it off at? Mosquito control or fire --
somebody on the Fire Commission? You know, where is the cut-off
going to be? Somebody that's running for School Board or what?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can be exact on that. Apply
only fire commission, mosquito control and soil and water.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do we feel that somebody would have an
undue advantage?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They would if they had an
opponent. But this would be only if they're running unopposed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Unopposed.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Unopposed.
MS. FILSON: So then they could file to become a candidate and
then we would have to wait until after the deadline to see if they had
an opponent before they actually resigned?
Page 357
June 20-21, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah, because somebody could throw
their hat in at the last minute. I'm not too --
MR. WEIGEL: There is that possibility.
Additionally, of course, part of the concern is that is there a
utility in having to resign while the election process is going on, after
candidacy has been declared?
And of course the lining -- silver lining to the cloud is that after
election there may be a possibility to get back on the Committee. But
there is a period of time where there is a removal, self-created by the
ordinance right now.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Because the last minute, the last day of
where you qualified, somebody could walk in the door with a check
and say, okay, now you've got an opponent.
MS. FILSON: Why couldn't we just put a provision in the
ordinance to waive that section like we have for the two-term member
and the two-committee member? And you could do it on a
case-by-case basis.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What's the -- any input from my fellow
Commissioners on this?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you know, I can see what
you're talking about with like Ski Olesky. There's a few of them. I
remember when Chuck McMahan had to do the same thing and he
was running unopposed, and then he had to resubmit and go through
all of that stuff again and all the advertising and everything, when
nobody wanted those positions that he was volunteering on anyway.
I think that it would be good to work with the County Attorney
and see what can be worked out for the benefit of everyone.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I'm fine with that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We'll give you direction to do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you so much.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. We'll work with you as well as Mr.
Page 358
June 20-21, 2006
Olesky.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: As soon as he has an opponent, if he does
have an opponent --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, then it's all--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- or anybody has an opponent, they have
to immediately --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Because I just don't feel that the
process is such that we want to make sure that it's -- everybody's on
equal -- even table in regards to running for the position.
Okay, any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, we are adjourned.
*****Commissioner Coyle moved, seconded by Commissioner
Coletta and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted * * * * *
Item #16Al
COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO CREATE AN
ADDITIONAL TWELVE (12) PERMANENT FULL TIME
EQUIVALENT (FTE) POSITIONS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
DIVISION TO ADDRESS CRITICAL IMMEDIATE PERMITTING
AND INSPECTION NEEDS, AND TO GIVE APPROVAL FOR
ANY SUBSEQUENT BUDGET AMENDMENTS REQUIRED TO
FUND SUCH POSITIONS - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16A2
Page 359
June 20-21, 2006
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "BRISTOL PINES PHASE
II", APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY -
W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A3
AFTER-THE-FACT SUBMITTAL OF AN ESRI MOBILE
GOVERNMENT GRANT FOR THE CONSERVATION COLLIER
PROGRAM - TO CREATE AN INVENTORY AND TO
MONITOR CHARACTERISTICS FOR CONSERVATION
COLLIER SITES
Item #16A4
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH JUAN
RAMIREZ AND NICOLE RAMIREZ FOR 5.00 ACRES UNDER
THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION
PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $181,650-
LOCATED WITHIN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES
Item #16A5
IMPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT REQUESTED BY PJM
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, LLLP TOTALING $239,995.20 DUE
TO THE APPROVAL OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPACT
FEE DEFERRAL AGREEMENTS - FOR PROPERTIES IN THE
BOTANICAL PLACE PUD
Item #16A6 - Moved to Item #10R
Page 360
June 20-21, 2006
Item #16A7
PROVIDE STAFF WITH CLARIFICATION ON SECTION 142-37
PARAGRAPH (B) OF COLLIER COUNTY'S VEHICLE FOR
HIRE ORDINANCE - RELATING TO SUSPENSION OR
REVOCATION OF DRIVER'S LICENSE (OPERATOR'S
PERMIT) AND RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE THE
COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO ISSUE DRIVER'S
IDENTIFICATION CARDS FOR SUSPENSIONS DUE TO
OFFENSES UNRELATED TO THE APPLICANT'S ABILITY TO
OPERATE A VEHICLE FOR HIRE
Item #16A8
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE RELATIVE TO
SAPPHIRE LAKES UNITS ONE AND UNIT 3B - SETTLEMENT
WILL BE RELEASED DIRECTLY TO THE SAPPHIRE LAKES
MASTER PROPERTY OWNER'S ASSOCIATION
Item #16B1- Continued to the July 25,2006 BCC Meeting
BUDGET AMENDMENT OF $177,184 TO INCREASE THE
GENERAL FUND (001) TRANSFER TO TRANSPORTATION
DISADVANTAGED FUND (427) - USED PRIMARILY FOR
ROUTE SERVICE
Item #16B2
AWARD CONTRACT #06-3944 "ANNUAL FIXED TERM
SURVEYING & PHOTOGRAMMETRIC SERVICES" TO FIVE
(5) FIRMS - WITH DRMP, AIM ENGINEERING, RW A
CONSUL TING, CONSUL TECH AND JOHNSON ENGINEERING
Page 361
June 20-21, 2006
Item #16B3
SELECTION COMMITTEE'S RANKING OF FIRMS FROM
CONTRACT #06-3947 "CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND
INSPECTION SERVICES" - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item # 16B4
CONTRACT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE
COMMISSION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION
DISADVANTAGED FOR FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF
$528,402 FOR THE PROVISION OF TRANSPORTATION FOR
QUALIFIED MEDICAID RECIPIENTS
Item #16B5
FY 2006 TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN (TDP) MINOR
UPDATE - IN ORDER TO RECEIVE STATE BLOCK GRANTS
FOR SYSTEM OPERATIONS
Item #16B6
AFTER-THE-FACT SUBMITTAL OF AN ESRI MOBILE
GOVERNMENT GRANT FOR THE STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT - TO RECEIVE HARDWARE
AND SOFTWARE FOR THE CREATION OF A STORMWATER
ASSET DATABASE
Item #16B7 - Moved to Item #10S
Page 362
June 20-21, 2006
Item #16B8
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE INSURANCE
REIMBURSEMENTS FROM HURRICANE WILMA FOR
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS FUND (101) REVENUE IN THE
AMOUNT OF $101,800 AND APPROPRIATE WITHIN THE
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS FUND (101) OPERATING BUDGET-
FOR STREET LIGHT AND TRAFFIC SIGNAL REPAIR
Item #16Cl
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER FUNDS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $800,921 FROM THE COLLIER COUNTY
WATER-SEWER DISTRICT USER FEE FUND (414) RESERVE
FOR CONTINGENCIES TO COVER UNANTICIPATED
OPERATING EXPENSES, AND ANTICIPATED UPGRADES TO
THE BLEACH FACILITY AT THE NORTH CENTRAL WATER
RECLAMATION FACILITY (NCWRF) FOR PROJECT NUMBER
73966 - DUE TO A SERIES OF UNANTICIPATED SYSTEM
FAILURES
Item # 16C2
AMENDMENT 3 TO CONTRACT 03-3517 WITH GREELEY
AND HANSEN LLC FOR "PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING
SERVICES FOR WATER MAIN PROJECTS" IN THE AMOUNT
OF $152,535. PROJECTS 70151 AND 70152 - TO PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL WATER FLOW AND PRESSURE IN THE
SOUTHEASTERN PORTION OF THE COUNTY WATER
SERVICE AREA
Item #16C3
Page 363
June 20-21, 2006
SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE OF JAEGER TRI-PACK TOWER
PACKING USED IN DISSOLVED GAS REMOVAL AND ODOR
CONTROL FROM JACOBS AIR WATER SYSTEMS IN THE
ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $156,500, PROJECT NO. 71005-
TO MEET WATER DEMANDS AND STAY IN COMPLIANCE
WITH STATE REGULATIONS
Item #16C4
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH MALCOLM
PIRNIE, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $753,775.00 PURSUANT TO
RFP # 06-3939 FOR "NORTHEAST REGIONAL UTILITY
FACILITY PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT",
PROJECT NUMBERS 750121 AND 750122 - TO MEET
DEMANDS AND TO PROVIDE WATER AND WASTEWATER
TREATMENT FACILITIES IN THE NORTHEAST REGION OF
THE COUNTY
Item #16C5
AWARD WORK ORDER MP-FT-3785-06-09, "CUSTOMER
SERVICE WORK ORDER SYSTEM GEOGRAPHIC
INFORMATION SYSTEM INTEGRATION" FOR COLLIER
COUNTY, WITH MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC., PROJECT 70078, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $246,000 AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY
MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE THE WORK
ORDER - FOR THE UTILITY BILLING AND CUSTOMER
SERVICE DEPARTMENT TO PROVIDE EFFECTIVE AND
EFFICIENT SERVICE FOR COUNTY UTILITY CUSTOMERS
Item # 16C6
Page 364
June 20-21,2006
CONVEYANCE OF A UTILITY EASEMENT TO THE W A TER-
SEWER DISTRICT FOR AN IRRIGATION QUALITY WATER
BOOSTER PUMPING STATION ON PROPERTY OWNED BY
COLLIER COUNTY ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY AND LIVINGSTON ROAD AT A
COST NOT TO EXCEED $2,190.71, PROJECT 740761 - TO
ALLOW THE DISTRICT TO MOVE WATER BETWEEN THE
NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES OF THE COUNTY DEPENDING
UPON DEMAND
Item # 16C7
WORK ORDER CAE-FT-3681-06-0l FOR PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING SERVICES FROM CAROLLO ENGINEERING
FOR THE NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT
PLANT INSTRUMENTATION & CONTROL RECORD
DRAWING IN THE AMOUNT OF $258,655.00, PROJECT
NUMBER 71054 - TO IMPROVE THE RELIABILITY AND
OPERABILITY OF THE NCRWTP THROUGH EXAMINATION
AND UPDATED DOCUMENTATION
Item #16C8
AWARD WORK ORDER HA-FT-3785-06-01 TO HARTMAN &
ASSOCIATES, INC. D/B/A TETRATECH HAl UNDER
CONTRACT 05-3785 FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING
SERVICES RELATED TO THE WELL SITE EVALUATION AND
TRANSMISSION MAIN STUDY FOR FUTURE WATER SUPPLY
TO THE SOUTH EAST REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT
PLANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $194,700, PROJECT NUMBER
70900 - TO MEET FUTURE WATER DEMANDS IN THE
Page 365
June 20-21, 2006
SOUTHEAST AREA OF THE COUNTY
Item # l6C9
AWARD RFP 06-3932 FOR ARTIFICIAL REEF RECYCLING
CONSTRUCTION & DEMOLITION WASTE TO MCCULLEY
MARINE SERVICES, INC. /PINE ISLAND TOWING CO. FOR
AN ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $250,000 - TO
INCREASE LANDFILL AIRSPACE WHILE ENHANCING
FISHERIES HABITAT
Item #16C10 - Moved to Item #lOP
Item #16C11 - Continued to the July 25,2006 BCC Meeting
WORK ORDER # pRMG- 262-02-06-01, UNDER THE
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT OF MARTIN COUNTY
CONTRACT # 262-02 AND NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENTS TO RETAIN SERVICES OF PUBLIC
RESOURCES MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC (PRMG) IN THE
ESTIMATED AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $83,685 TO
PERFORM THE PROJECT FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR
UTILITY SYSTEM REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2006 AND
ASSISTANCE WITH BOND ISSUANCE FOR THE
WATER/SEWER DISTRICT - TO DETERMINE VARIOUS
SOURCES OF FUNDING FOR FUTURE PROJECTS
Item #16C12
PURCHASE OF A PUMPER TRUCK FROM ATLANTIC TRUCK
CENTER ON STATE CONTRACT 070-700-322 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $169,761.00 - FOR THE REMOVAL AND
Page 366
June 20-21, 2006
RELOCATION OF WASTEWATER DURING POWER OUTAGES
AND EMERGENCY EVENTS
Item #16C13
CHANGE ORDER TO HOLE MONTES INCORPORATED WORK
ORDER HM-FT-3785-06-01 IN THE AMOUNT OF $52,760
UNDER FIXED TERM CONTRACT #05-3785, "FIXED TERM
PROFESSIONAL UTILITY ENGINEERING SERVICES," FOR
THE 2006 UTILITIES STANDARDS MANUAL AND
APPROPRIATE BUDGET AMENDMENTS, PROJECTS
NUMBER 70202 - FOR UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE AND
REQUIRED LEVELS OF SERVICE
Item #16C14
ASHBRITT ENVIRONMENTAL INC. (CONTRACT 05-3661)
AND SOLID RESOURCES INC. (CONTRACT 05-3831) AS THE
COUNTY'S 2006 HURRICANE SEASON DEBRIS REMOVAL
AND MONITORING CONTRACTORS FOR OPERATIONAL
READINESS - FOR DEBRIS LOCATED IN COLLIER COUNTY
RIGHT-OF-WAYS
Item #16C15
WORK ORDER CDM-FT-3593-06-10 WITH CAMP DRESSER
AND MCKEE INC., FOR PROFESSIONAL HYDROGEOLOGIC
SERVICES, ENGINEERING SERVICES AND PROGRAM
MANAGEMENT OF THE WELLFIELD RELIABILITY
IMPROVEMENTS AND EXPANSION PROGRAM IN THE
AMOUNT OF $881,912, PROJECT NUMBER 75005 - TO
ACCOMMODATE GROWTH AND MEET THE WATER SUPPLY
Page 367
June 20-21,2006
SYSTEM RELIABILITY
Item #16D1
CONVEYANCE OF A DEED OF UTILITY EASEMENTS TO THE
WATER-SEWER DISTRICT FOR THE UNDERGROUND
UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE AT THE NORTH COLLIER
REGIONAL PARK ON LIVINGSTON ROAD, AT A COST NOT
TO EXCEED $188.50, PROJECT 8006021 - FOR THE
INSTALLATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE
UTILITIES FACILITY THAT SERVICES THE PARK
Item #16D2
RE-ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT NO. 05-3823, "COLLIER
COUNTY SERVICES FOR SENIORS" FROM K AND G HOME
CARE OF SWFL, LLC, D/B/A HOME INSTEAD SENIOR CARE
TO BIDWELL SERVICE CARE, LLC, D/B/A HOME INSTEAD
SENIOR CARE - DUE TO THE ACQUISITION OF ASSETS
Item #16D3
AWARD BID #06-3973 FOR VETERINARY SUPPLIES,
MEDICINES, AND DRUGS FOR THE DOMESTIC ANIMAL
SERVICES DEPARTMENT IN THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL
AMOUNT OF $35,000 FOR SUPPLIES AND $52,000 FOR
MEDICINES AND DRUGS - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16D4
PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF PLAYGROUND
Page 368
June 20-21, 2006
EQUIPMENT FOR EAST NAPLES COMMUNITY PARK IN AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $77,000 - FROM "GAME TIME"
Item #16D5
PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF PLAYGROUND
EQUIPMENT FOR VETERANS COMMUNITY PARK IN AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $75,000 - FROM "GAME TIME"
Item #16D6 - Moved to Item #10Q
Item #16D7
BUDGET AMENDMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $105,706 TO
ENSURE CONTINUOUS FUNDING OF THE ALZHEIMER'S
DISEASE INITIATIVE GRANT - TO ALLOW
UNINTERRUPTED SUPPORT SERVICES TO SERVICES FOR
SENIOR' FRAIL ELDERLY CLIENTS
Item #16D8
BUDGET AMENDMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $614,132 TO
ENSURE CONTINUOUS FUNDING OF THE COMMUNITY
CARE FOR THE ELDERLY GRANT - TO ALLOW
UNINTERRUPTED SUPPORT SERVICES TO SERVICES FOR
SENIOR' FRAIL ELDERLY CLIENTS
Item #16D9
BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO REFLECT AN OVERALL
INCREASE OF $1,473 IN THE OLDER AMERICANS ACT
PROGRAMS AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN
Page 369
June 20-21,2006
THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE AREA AGENCY ON
AGING OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA - FOR THE CONTRACT
PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2006 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2006
Item #16D10
FY 05 ANNUAL REPORT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES FOR THE
CHOOSE LIFE SPECIALTY LICENSE PLATE - WITH FUNDS
GOING TO THE LIFE CHOICE PREGNANCY RESOURCE
CENTER
Item #16D11
SIGNING OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE AGENCY FOR
HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION FOR $350,000 TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE UPPER PAYMENT LIMIT PROGRAM
FOR SERVICES PROVIDED ON BEHALF OF THE HUMAN
SERVICES DEPARTMENT IN ORDER TO GENERATE AN
ADDITIONAL $61,250 IN FEDERAL MATCHING FUNDS-
THESE FUNDS ARE RETURNED TO THE COMMUNITY TO
PROVIDE SERVICES TO LOW-INCOME INDIVIDUALS
Item #16D12
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,594 TO
ENSURE CONTINUOUS FUNDING OF THE HOME CARE FOR
THE ELDERLY GRANT - TO RECOGNIZE THE DIRECT
FUNDING PORTION TO THE COUNTY FOR CASE
MANAGEMENT
Page 370
June 20-21, 2006
Item #16El
AWARD RFP#06-3952 TO WILLIS OF TENNESSEE, INC. D/B/A
WILLIS OF FLORIDA, FOR GROUP BENEFITS BROKERAGE
AND ACTUARIAL SERVICES - FOR SERVICES NECESSARY
TO ADMINISTER COMPREHENSIVE GROUP INSURANCE
BENEFITS FOR EMPLOYEES
Item # 16E2
FORD AS THE MANUFACTURER OF CHOICE FOR COUNTY
SMALL AND MEDIUM-DUTY VEHICLES -TO UTILIZE
CURRENTLY OWNED FORD DIAGNOSTIC EQUIPMENT
Item # 16E3
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE NORTH COLLIER
GOVERNMENT SERVICES CENTER PROJECT FOR
ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $252,700-
FOR PURCHASES NECESSARY TO FINISH THE PROJECT
Item #16E4
AWARD BID #06-3984 "FULL SERVICE FOR PROFESSIONAL
MOVERS" TO SCHAPP MOVING SYSTEMS, INC., SUNCOAST
MOVING & STORAGE, INC., AND NAPLES MOVING &
STORAGE - TO BE PROVIDED ON AN AS-NEED BASIS
Item # 16E5
AGREEMENT WITH THE BIG CORKSCREW ISLAND FIRE
CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT TO PROVIDE FOR THE
Page 371
June 20-21, 2006
RELEASE AND PROPER DISPOSAL OF EQUIPMENT
PREVIOUSLY PURCHASED WITH GAC LAND TRUST FUNDS
- AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16E6
AGREEMENT WITH BIG CORKSCREW ISLAND FIRE
CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT PROVIDING FOR THE
TRADE-IN VALUE OF $4,000 FOR OLDER EQUIPMENT TO BE
APPLIED TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF NEW EQUIPMENT -
NEW EQUIPMENT MUST BE USED IN THE BOUNDARIES OF
GOLDEN GATE ESTATES
Item #16E7
COLLIER COUNTY BCC EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY PLAN - REQUIRED BY THE DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
Item # 16E8
AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE THE BIG CORKSCREW ISLAND
FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT $21,118 FROM THE
GAC LAND TRUST FUND FOR THE PURCHASE OF A NEW
CAB AND CHASSIS FOR THE LIGHTWEIGHT BRUSH
PATROL/RESCUE VEHICLE, WHICH IS THE BALANCE
AFTER THE TRADE-IN VALUE OF $7,500 IS APPLIED TO THE
PURCHASE PRICE - MUST BE USED IN THE BOUNDARIES
OF GOLDEN GATE ESTATES
Item #16E9
Page 372
June 20-21, 2006
ADD HOMESCAPE SWF, INC. TO BID NO. 05-3733
HANDYMAN/MINOR CARPENTRY SERVICES FOR ROUTINE
CARPENTRY SERVICES -FOR THE REPAIR AND
MAINTENANCE OF BUILDING STRUCTURES
Item #16Fl
CHANGE ORDER #2 IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,920 ON
CONTRACT 05-3772 WITH MILES MEDIA GROUP FOR
TOURISM DEPARTMENT WEB SITE MODIFICATIONS - TO
ADD A SPA LISTINGS PAGE ON THE NEW TOURISM
WEBSITE
Item # 16F2
CHANGE ORDER #3 IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,000 ON
CONTRACT 05-3772 WITH MILES MEDIA GROUP FOR
FUTURE TOURISM DEPARTMENT WEB SITE
MODIFICATIONS - USED FOR WEBSITE CHANGES AND
ADDITIONAL NEW FEATURES
Item #16F3 - Moved to Item #10T
Item #16F4
BUDGET AMENDMENTS - #06-374, #06-403 AND #06-146
Item #16G 1
RESOLUTION 2006-144: AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY'S 2006-A MASTER
JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT (MJPA) BETWEEN
Page 373
June 20-21,2006
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE
AIRPORT AUTHORITY TO FUND PROJECTS AT THE
EVERGLADES AIRPARK, THE IMMOKALEE REGIONAL
AIRPORT AND MARCO ISLAND AIRPORT
Item #16G2
SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE
COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY AND GRANT APPLICANTS WITHIN THE
BA YSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AREA - FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT 2970
SABAL COURT, 2648 WEEKS AVENUE AND 2716 WEEKS
AVENUE
Item #16G3
BUDGET AMENDMENT INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF
$50,000 TO PAY FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REQUIRED
FOR THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AT THE
IMMOKALEE AIRPORT AND MASTER PLANS FOR THE
IMMOKALEE AIRPORT AND FOR THE MARCO ISLAND
AIRPORT, AND FOR PRE-PLANNING SERVICES AT THE
EVERGLADES AIRPARK, THE IMMOKALEE AIRPORT AND
THE MARCO ISLAND AIRPORT - ESSENTIAL FOR FUTURE
PROJECTS
Item #16Hl
COMMISSIONER HALAS REQUESTS REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING THE UNVEILING OF HISTORIC ARTIFACTS OF
EARL Y NAPLES ON JUNE 7, 2006 AT THE COLLIER COUNTY
Page 374
June 20-21,2006
MUSEUM; $20.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
HALAS' TRAVEL BUDGET - TO MEET AND INTERACT WITH
REPRESENTATIVES OF LOCAL INDUSTRY
Item #16H2
COMMISSIONER COLETTA REQUESTS REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL (EDC) TRUSTEE POST-LEGISLATIVE
DELEGATION LUNCHEON ON JUNE 8, 2006 IN THE AMOUNT
OF $50.00, TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER'S COLETTA'S
TRAVEL BUDGET - AT THE NAPLES SAILING AND YACHT
CLUB
Item #16H3
COMMISSIONER COLETTA REQUESTS REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING A LUNCH WITH EDISON INTERNS ON
MAY 15, 2006 IN THE AMOUNT OF $20.00, TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - FOR
LUNCH AT FLAMBOS
Item #16H4
COMMISSIONER FIALA REQUESTS REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING THE EDC POST LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION
LUNCHEON ON THURSDAY, JUNE 8TH, 2006 AT THE
NAPLES SAILING AND YACHT CLUB IN NAPLES, FL; $50.00
TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL
BUDGET - LOCATED AT 896 RIVER POINT DRIVE
Item # l6H5
Page 375
June 20-21,2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA REQUESTS REIMBURSEMENT TO
ATTEND THE FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES (FAC)
TROPICAL LUAU ON WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28TH, 2006 AT
THE MARCO ISLAND MARRIOTT, MARCO ISLAND, FL;
$50.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL
BUDGET - FROM 7:00-9:00 PM ON TIKI BEACH
Item #16H6
COMMISSIONER HALAS REQUESTS REIMBURSEMENT TO
ATTEND A RECEPTION (LUAU) AT THE FLORIDA
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE JUNE
28, 2006; $50.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HALAS'
TRAVEL BUDGET - FROM 7:00-9:00 PM ON TIKI BEACH
Item #16H7
COMMISSIONER HALAS REQUESTS REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A LUNCHEON FOR THE OFFICIAL SIGNING OF
THE SISTER REGION AGREEMENT WITH Y ANT AI, CHINA
ON JUNE 14,2006 AT THE FLORIDA GULF COAST
UNIVERSITY; $32.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
HALAS' TRAVEL BUDGET - TO PARTICIPATE AS
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Item #16H8
COMMISSIONER HALAS REQUESTS REIMBURSEMENT TO
ATTEND A FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES (FAC)
77TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE DINNER ON JUNE 27, 2006;
$30.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HALAS' TRAVEL
Page 376
June 20-21, 2006
BUDGET - AT CAFE DE MARCO, 244 PALM STREET
Item #16H9
A PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING JUNE 26-30, 2006 AS
FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES WEEK; BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CHAIRMAN FRANK HALAS
WILL PRESENT THIS PROCLAMATION AT THE 2006
ANNUAL CONFERENCE AND EDUCATION EXPOSITION
BEGINNING JUNE 27, 2006
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 377
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
June 20, 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) Board of County Commissioners Disbursements:
(a) May 6, 2006 through May 12, 2006.
(b) May 13, 2006 through May 19, 2006.
B. Districts:
(1) Cow Slouah Water Control District: Annual Financial Report
dated September 30, 2005; Meeting dates and Budget for FY
2006/2007.
(2) Collier Soil & Water Conservation District: Financial
Statements for year ending September 30, 2005; State of
Florida Annual Local Government Financial Report for FY
2004-2005.
(3) South Florida Water Management District: Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report for FY ending September 30, 2005;
Schedule of Governing Board Meetings for 2006.
C. Minutes:
(1) Bayshore Beautification MSTU: Agenda of June 7, 2006;
Minutes of May 10, 2006.
(2) Collier County Airport Authority: Quarterly Financial Report
ending March 31, 2006; Agenda of January 23,2006; Agenda
H:\DATA\FRONT DESK - 2006\2006 Miscellaneous Correspondenee\062006 Mise Corresp.doe
Addendum of January 23, 2006; Minutes of March 28, 2006;
Agenda of May 8, 2006; Agenda Addendum of May 8, 2006.
(3) Domestic Animal Services Advisory Committee: Minutes of
May 16, 2006.
(4) Development Services Advisory Committee: Minutes of March
1, 2006; Minutes of April 5, 2006; Minutes of May 3, 2006.
(5) Collier County Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board: Notice of
February 23, 3006 meeting rescheduled to March 1, 2006;
Agenda of March 1, 2006; Minutes of March 1, 2006; Agenda of
April 27, 2006; Minutes of April 27, 2006.
(6) Collier County Library Advisory Board: Agenda of May 17,
2006; Minutes of April 26, 2006 (Corrected Copy).
(7) Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee:
Agenda for June 12, 2006.
(8) Collier County Plannina Commission: Agenda of June 1, 2006;
Minutes of April 20, 2006.
(9) Environmental Advisory Council: Agenda of June 14,2006;
Minutes of May 3, 2006.
(10) Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainaae MSTU: Agenda of
August 9, 2006; Minutes of May 10, 2006.
(11) Golden Gate MSTU Advisory Committee: Agenda of June 13,
2006; Minutes of May 9, 2006.
(12) Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU: Minutes of May 17,
2006; Agenda of June 15, 2006.
(13) Collier County Historic & Archaeoloaical Preservation Board:
Agenda of June 21,2006; Minutes of May 17, 2006.
(14) Pelican Bay Services Division MSTU: Agenda of June 7, 2006;
Minutes of May 3, 2006.
a. Clam Bay Committee: Agenda and Minutes of May 17,
2006.
H:\DATA\FRONT DESK - 2006\2006 Miscellaneous Correspondence\062006 Misc Corresp.doc
b. Budget Sub-committee: Agenda and Minutes of May 17,
2006.
(15) Collier County Productivity Committee: Agenda of April 19,
2006; Minutes of April 19, 2006; Agenda of May 8, 2006;
Minutes of May 8, 2006.
a. Library Buildings Impact Fee Subcommittee:
Minutes of April19.
b. Master Plan and Fees Subcommittee: Minutes of
April 27, 2006.
c. Transportation Budget Subcommittee: Minutes of
May 4, 2006.
d. Impact Fees for Government Buildings and Law
Enforcement Buildings Subcommittee: Minutes of May 8,
2006.
e. School Impact Fee Subcommittee: Minutes of May 8,
2006.
f. Water/Wastewater Fee Subcommittee: Minutes of May
15, 2006.
D. Other:
(1) Ideas for the Future (Public Meeting hosted by Rep. Mike Davis
and Rep. David Rivera with Commissioners Henning and
Coletta): Minutes of May 17, 2006.
(2) Public Safety Coordinatina Council: Minutes of December 15,
2005; Special Meeting Minutes of January 27, 2006.
a. Public Safety Coordinating Council
Subcommittee: Minutes of January 27, 2006.
H:\DATA\FRONT DESK - 2006\2006 Miscellaneous Correspondence\062006 Misc Corresp.doc
June 20-21, 2006
Item #16Jl
TO PRESENT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THE STATE REVENUE SHARING APPLICATION FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2006-2007 AND TO OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR THE
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE APPLICATION - IN ORDER TO BE
CONSIDERED FOR ANY FUNDS TO BE DISTRIBUTED
UNDER THE REVENUE SHARING ACT
Item # l6J2
AN AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING THE COLLIER COUNTY
SHERIFF'S OFFICE TO HAVE TRAFFIC CONTROL
JURISDICTION OVER PRIVATE ROADS WITHIN THE
LONGSHORE LAKE SUBDIVISION - COMMENCING ON THE
DATE OF APPROVAL BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
Item # l6J3
RESOLUTION 2006-145: ESTABLISHING A NEW VOTING
PRECINCT AND CHANGING THE BOUNDARIES OF
EXISTING PRECINCTS - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16Kl
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 $120,730.00 FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PARCEL
Page 378
June 20-21, 2006
103 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. SUSAN C.
HALLOCK, ET AL., CASE NO. 05-0646-CA (COUNTY ROAD 951
PROJECT NO. 65061). (FISCAL IMPACT: $56,965.00)
Item #16K2
PROPOSED JOINT MOTION FOR AN AGREED ORDER
AWARDING EXPERT FEES AND COSTS RELATING TO
PARCELS l66A AND l66B IN THE COLLIER COUNTY V. JUAN
RAMIREZ, ET AL., CASE NO. 02-5l66-CA, IMMOKALEE ROAD
PHASE II, PROJECT #60018. (FISCAL IMPACT: $7,650.00)
Item #16K3
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO MAKE A COUNTER-
OFFER TO SETTLE A CLAIM FOR BUSINESS DAMAGES BY
CIRCLE K STORES, INC. RESULTING FROM THE
ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 27T IN THE CASE STYLED BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. COLLIER HMA, INC., ET AL.,
CASE NO. 06-0013-CA (CR-951 WATER MAIN PROJECT NO.
70152) (FISCAL IMPACT, IF ACCEPTED, IS $10,000.00)
Item #16K4
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO PARCEL 148 IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. REGENT PARK
CLUSTER HOMES ASSOCIATION, ET AL., CASE NO. 04-3452-CA
(IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT NO. 66042). (FISCAL IMPACT:
$7,050)
Item #16K5
Page 379
June 20-21,2006
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO PARCELS 104A,
104B, 104C AND 104D IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER
COUNTY V. DANIEL D. PECK, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
TRUSTEE, ET AL., CASE NO. 05-0735-CA (LOGAN
BOULEVARD PROJECT NO. 60166). (FISCAL IMPACT:
$16,500)
Item #16K6
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR PARCEL NO. 28P IN
THE LAWSUIT STYLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS THE
GOVERNING BODY OF COLLIER COUNTY AND AS EX-
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
WATER-SEWER DISTRICT V. A.L. PETROLEUM, INC., ET AL.,
CASE NO. 06-0185-CA (CR 951 WATER TRANSMISSION
MAINS PROJECT NO. 70151). (FISCAL IMPACT $48,277.00)
Item #16K7
RESOLUTION 2006-146: AUTHORIZING THE COLLIER
COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO
ISSUE REFUNDING REVENUE BONDS TO BE USED TO
REFINANCE CERTAIN OUTSTANDING BONDS OF THE
AUTHORITY - THE NEW BONDS WILL BE SECURED BY
WELLS FARGO BANK
Item #16K8
RESOLUTION 2006-147: AUTHORIZING THE COLLIER
COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO
ISSUE REVENUE BONDS TO BE USED TO FINANCE
Page 380
June 20-21, 2006
EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES FOR SEACREST SCHOOL - FOR
LAND ACQUISITION, SITE PREPARATION, CONSTRUCTION,
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT AND TO EQUIP CLASSROOMS
Item # 1 7 A
ORDINANCE 2006-32: PETITION SE-06-AR-9209, AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 05-58, THE MERCA TO
MIXED-USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) TO
CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S ERROR RESULTING FROM THE
INADVERTENT USE OF THE PHRASE "GROSS LEASEABLE
AREA" INSTEAD OF THE CORRECT REFERENCE OF "GROSS
FLOOR AREA" PERTAINING TO THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED
INTENSITY OF BOTH THE RETAIL AND OFFICE USES AS
PROVIDED IN SECTION 3.2 OF THE PUD DOCUMENT. THE
PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD (CR-862) AND T AMIAMI TRAIL
(US-41) IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2006-148: DESIGNATING 985.4 ACRES IN THE
RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT
(RLSA) AS LAKE TRAFFORD RANCH STEWARDSHIP
SENDING AREA 7 ("L TR SSA 7"), APPROVING A CREDIT
AGREEMENT FOR L TR SSA 7, APPROVING AN EASEMENT
AGREEMENT FOR LTR SSA 7, AND ESTABLISHING THE
NUMBER OF STEWARDSHIP CREDITS GENERATED BY THE
DESIGNATION OF SAID STEWARDSHIP SENDING AREA IN
RESPONSE TO AN APPLICATION BY LAKE TRAFFORD
RANCH, LLP
Page 381
June 20-21, 2006
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 2006-149: DESIGNATING 5,299.5 ACRES IN THE
RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT
(RLSA) AS HALF CIRCLE L RANCH PARTNERSHIP
STEWARDSHIP SENDING AREA 8 ("HCLRP SSA 8"),
APPROVING A CREDIT AGREEMENT FOR HCLRP SSA 8,
APPROVING AN EASEMENT AGREEMENT FOR HCLRP SSA
8, AND ESTABLISHING THE NUMBER OF STEWARDSHIP
CREDITS GENERATED BY THE DESIGNATION OF SAID
STEWARDSHIP SENDING AREA IN RESPONSE TO AN
APPLICATION BY HALF CIRCLE L RANCH PARTNERSHIP
Item #17D - Moved to Item #8D
Page 382
June 20-21, 2006
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:24 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:
DWIGHT E~ BROCK, CLERK
.~~k
~,ttast as ~(M41'1111l ·
-~tQMt'Jl"fl ,,,,,,1 '1
< ....
These triifiutescal2Proved by the Board on 1-/&r-to0 , as
presented /' or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY TERRI LEWIS AND CHERIE'
NOTTINGHAM.
Page 383