BCC Minutes 07/25/2006 R
July 25, 2006
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, July 25, 2006
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such
special district as has been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9: 00 a.m., in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government
Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Frank Halas
Jim Coletta
Fred W. Coyle
Donna Fiala
Tom Henning
ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager
Michael Pettit, Chief Assistant County Attorney
Crystal Kinzel, Office of the Clerk of Court
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ti~.r
...._,...........:::::.:::--::-;::'"":',.
AGENDA
July 25, 2006
9:00 AM
Frank Halas, Chairman, District 2
Jim Coletta, Vice-Chairman, District 5
Donna Fiala, Commissioner, District 1
Tom Henning, Commissioner, District 3
Fred W. Coyle, Commissioner, District 4
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM
MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER
WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE
AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL
RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY
THE CHAIRMAN.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2004-05, AS AMENDED REQUIRES
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,
Page 1
July 25, 2006
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5)
MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMP AIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Pastor Josh Perez, New Hope Ministries
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of to day's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary agenda.)
B. May 31, 2006 - BCC/District 5 Townhall Meeting
C. June 6-7, 2006 - BCC/Regular Meeting
D. June 9, 2006 - BCC/Post-Legislative Workshop
E. June 13,2006 - BCC/PUD Monitoring Workshop
F. June 13,2006 - BCC/Productivity Committee Workshop
G. June 20-21, 2006 - BCC/Regular Meeting
Page 2
July 25, 2006
H. June 22, 2006 - BCC/Budget Hearing
I. June 23, 2006 - BCC/Budget Hearing
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
A. 20 Year Attendees
1) Leo E. Ochs, Jr., Deputy County Manager
2) Jon Flomerfelt, Wastewater Lab
3) Marc Stephenson, Water
4) Bobby Paul, Wastewater Collections
5) Jesse Komorny, Water Distribution
B. 25 Year Attendees
1) Daniel O'Brien, Transportation Road Maintenance
2) Daryl Hughes, Transportation Engineering Services
3) Millie Kelley, Wastewater Lab
4. PROCLAMATIONS
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. The Collier County Emergency Medical Services Department has adopted
the PHOENIX AWARD to recognize those EMS Paramedics, Firefighters
and Sheriffs Deputies, who through their skills and knowledge, have
successfully brought back to life individuals who had died. The "Phoenix" is
a mythological bird that died and rose renewed from its ashes.
B. Presentation from Senator Burt Saunders to Mr. Larry Rice for Governor's
Points of Light Program.
C. To Recognize Mike Ossorio, Contract Licensing Officer, Building Review
and Permitting Division, as Employee of the Month for July 2006.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition request by Mr. & Mrs. Charles O'Conner to discuss
permitting of pool enclosure destroyed by Hurricane Wilma.
Page 3
July 25, 2006
B. Public Petition request by James Marshall to discuss lien on property at 820
20th Avenue NW imposed by the CEB.
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 D.m.. unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. This item to be heard followiD!?: Item 8A. This item was continued from
the June 20, 2006 BCC meetin2. 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.
B. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. CU-2005-AR-8046,
Oliva Mulching and Recycling Facility; Jaime and Demarys Oliva,
represented by Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., requesting a
conditional use for a horticulture recycling and mulching facility in the "A-
MHO" Agricultural with Mobile Home Overlay zoning district pursuant to
LDC Section 2.03.08.A.3.a(3)(g) which allows facilities for the collection,
transfer, processing, and reduction of solid waste in the Rural Fringe Mixed-
Use District, Neutral Lands area, consistent with the Future Land Use
Element of the Growth Management Plan. The subject property, consisting
of 10.04 acres, is located three-quarters of a mile east of Immokalee Road
(CR 846) at 1340 Wild Turkey Drive, in Section 26, Township 47 South,
Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida.
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item to be heard before Item 7 A. This petition was continued from
February 14, 2006 and was further continued to June 20, 2006 and has
been further continued to the July 25, 2006 BCC Meetin2. 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
Page 4
July 25, 2006
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 one-quarter ofa mile south of Manatee Road, in
Section 10, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
B. This item to be heard at 1 :00 p.m. Recommendation that the Board of
County Commissioners adopt an Ordinance amending Schedule Nine of
Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and
Ordinances (The Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance)
providing for the incorporation by reference of the impact fee study entitled
Collier County General Government Building Impact Fee Update Study
dated May 8,2006, amending the General Government Building Impact Fee
Rate Schedule to reflect the amended rates set forth in the impact fee study,
providing for incorporation of requirements of the Florida Impact Fee Act,
specifying that only citizens of the United States or legal aliens who are
permanent residents of the United States can qualify for Impact Fee
Deferrals, increasing the number of impact fee deferrals permitted at any
single time for an individual developer and/or developments that are under
common ownership and providing for a delayed implementation date for the
change in the General Government Building Impact Fee rates of November
1, 2006.
C. This item was continued from the June 20, 2006 BCC meetint! and is
further recommended to be continued to the September 12, 2006 BCC
meetint!. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-2005-AR-8833,
Collier Publishing Company, Inc. d/b/a Naples Daily News, represented by
D. Wayne, Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., and R.
Bruce Anderson, Esquire, of Roetzel & Andress, L.P .A., requesting a
Business Park Planned Unit Development (BPUD) rezone from Rural
Agricultural (A) and Creekside Commerce Park PUD for project known as
Naples Daily News Business Park Planned Unit Development (BPPUD).
The subject property is located in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 25
East, Collier County, Florida. (This is being submitted simultaneously with
the Creekside Commerce Park PUD as a Fast Track). (Petitioner's request.)
D. This item was continued from the June 20, 2006 BCC meetint! and is
further recommended to be continued to the September 12, 2006 BCC
Page 5
July 25, 2006
meetint!. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDA-2005-AR-8832,
Creekside West, Inc., represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, ofQ. Grady
Minor & Associates, P.A., and R. Bruce Anderson, Esquire, of Roetzel &
Andress, L.P.A., requesting a PUD Amendment to the Creekside Commerce
Park PUD. This amendment proposes to reduce the area of the Creekside
PUD by approximately 2.32 acres and rezone the area from Creekside
Commerce Park PUD to Naples Daily News Business Park PUD. The
subject property, consisting of 105 acres is located in Section 27, Township
48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (This application is being
submitted simultaneously with the Naples Daily News Business Park PUD
and will be considered a Fast-Track). (Petitioner's request.)
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of member to the Habitat Conservation Plan Ad Hoc Advisory
Committee.
B. Appointment of member to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board.
C. Appointment of member to the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning
Committee.
D. Recommendation to declare a vacancy on the Development Services
Advisory Committee.
E. Appointment of member to the Collier County Housing Finance Authority.
F. Appointment of members to the Emergency Medical Services Advisory
Council.
G. Appointment of members to the Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development
Agency.
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. This item continued from the June 20/21, 2006 BCC Meetint!.
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-
Page 6
July 25, 2006
Sewer District, at a cost not to exceed $467,500. (Joseph K. Schmitt,
Administrator, Community Development and Environmental Services)
B. Recommendation to adopt a resolution ordering and providing for holding a
ballot referendum election to determine if the freehold electors of the Forest
Lakes Roadway and Drainage Municipal Service Taxing Unit of Collier
County, Florida approve the issuance of $6,250,000.00 in bonds in order to
finance the provision and maintenance of improved roadway lighting,
roadway-related drainage and roadway restoration within the Forest Lakes
Roadway And Drainage Municipal Service Taxing Unit, and purposes
incidental thereto, payable from ad valorem taxes levied on all taxable
property within the municipal taxing unit not exceeding four (4) mills.
(Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services.)
C. This item was continued from the June 20,2006 BCC meetint!.
Recommendation to approve the official naming of the Naples Sanitary
Landfill to the Collier County Landfill located at 3901 White Lake Blvd
Naples, Florida. (Jim DeLony, Administrator, Public Utilities)
D. This item was continued from the June 20, 2006 BCC meetint! and is
further continued to the September 12, 2006 BCC meetint!.
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
Development and Environmental Services)
E. Recommendation to award Bid #06-3982 for Surfacing & Maintenance of
Limerock Roads in Collier County to 1) Primary, Florida Highway Products,
Inc. 2) Secondary, E.J. Breneman 3) Tertiary, NR Contractors for a
minimum annual amount of $1,700,000 and a maximum amount of
$10,000,000. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
F. Recommendation to approve an alternative road impact fee calculation and
resulting rate of $3,850 per 1,000 square feet for the proposed City
Furniture/ Ashley Furniture store, and to provide staff direction to contract
for consultant services for additional studies to obtain sufficient trip
characteristic data to facilitate adding a Furniture Store category to the road
impact fee rate schedule. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation
Page 7
July 25, 2006
Services)
G. Recommendation to adopt the Proposed FY 2007 Millage Rates. (Michael
Smykowski, Director, Office of Management and Budget)
H. Recommendation to approve a financial commitment of $775,000 in the first
year and $625,000 in the second year to the Southwest Florida Expressway
Authority to cover an operating budget that will be repaid to the County with
future surplus toll revenues. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation
Services)
I. Recommendation to approve an agreement for the purchase of right-of-way
required for the six-laning of Collier Boulevard from US-4l to the Golden
Gate Main Canal (Capital Element No. 33, Project 6000l). Estimated Fiscal
Impact: $l,285,087.61. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation
Services.)
J. Recommendation to award a construction contract to Better Roads, Inc., in
the amount of $40,556,620.32 for Collier Boulevard Six-Lane
Improvements, Golden Gate Boulevard to Immokalee Road, Bid No. 05-
388lR; Project No. 65061, CIE No. 37. (Norman Feder, Administrator,
Transportation Services.)
K. This item to be heard immediately followin2 Item 14A. Recommendation
to approve a Resolution authorizing the Collier County Community
Redevelopment Agency (CRA) to enter into a $7,000,000 Line of Credit
Agreement with Wachovia Bank; approving the actions taken by the CRA
with respect to its approval of the Line of Credit Agreement; and authorize
all necessary budget amendments (Companion Item to Item l4A.) (David
Jackson, Executive Director, Bayshore/Gateway CRA.)
L. Recommendation to approve the partial re-bidding of Contract Amendment
No.2, Courthouse Annex Building, under Contract No. 04-3576,
Construction Manager at Risk Services for Courthouse Annex and Parking
Garage, with Kraft Construction Company, Inc. (Kraft) for the construction
of the Courthouse Annex floors 1-7, project number 52533. (Len Price,
Administrator, Administrative Services.)
M. Recommendation to approve a budget amendment to transfer funds from
County Wide Bikeway Improvements (Project Number 6908ll) to
Page 8
July 25, 2006
Livingston Greenways (Project Number 690817) in the amount of
$l,l98,987.00 and Lely Mitigation (Project Number 6908l6) in the amount
of$30l,Ol3.00. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services.)
N. Recommendation to: (l) approve unfunded requests (UFRs) in the Public
Utilities FY 07 Proposed Budget for ten (10) FTEs, (2) permit recruiting and
hiring to begin immediately upon approval, and (3) approve the necessary
budget amendments. (Jim DeLony, Administrator, Public Utilities.)
O. Recommendation to award Work Order DDC-FT-3887-06-0l in the amount
of $2,289,000 to Diversified Drilling Corporation (DDC) under Fixed
Annual Term Contract 06-3887 for the South County Regional Water
Treatment Plant four new raw water supply Wells 39S-42S, Project 71 05l.
(Jim DeLony, Administrator, Public Utilities.)
P. Recommendation to award a construction contract for the South County
Regional Water Treatment Plant 20 Million Gallons per Day Wellfield
Expansion to John Reynolds & Sons, Inc. Bid 06-3992, Project Number
70892l for $47,958,450.00. (Jim DeLony, Administrator, Public Utilities.)
Q. Recommendation to approve a change in sewer service for the Collier
County Government Complex from the City of Naples to the Collier County
Sewer District, Project number 52005.
R. Recommendation to approve award of Bid 06-4023 Purchase of Fleet
Vehicles to Tamiami Ford, Inc., Naples, Florida to exceed $lM. (Len Price,
Administrator, Administrative Services)
S. Recommendation to implement for fiscal year 2007 pay ranges for non
bargaining unit classifications that are 10% above median market data. (Len
Price, Administrator, Administrative Services)
T. Recommendation to approve Bid 06-3925 to Subaqueous Services, Inc. in
the amount of $l ,58l,400.00, plus fuel escalation for renourishment of the
South Marco Beach and dredging of Caxambas Pass Project No.
90500 l.(Gary McAlpin, Costal Projects Manager, Tourism)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
Page 9
July 25, 2006
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. This item to be heard at 3:30 p.m. This item was continued from the
June 20-21, 2006 BCC Meetin2. 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 the South Florida Water Management Districts
obligation to convey 640 acres to the County.
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY ANDIOR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. This item to be heard AIO 1 :00 p.m. after Item 8B. Recommendation for
the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) to approve a
Resolution approving the form ofa $7,000,000 Line of Credit Agreement
with Wachovia Bank to purchase real property and finance various capital
improvement projects within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA;
authorize the CRA Chairman to sign and make draws against the Line of
Credit as needed; pledge Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Tax Increment
Funds (TIF) as the loan repayment source; and authorize all necessary
budget amendments (Companion to Item lOK)
B. Recommendation to approve Contractorworx, Inc. right of way
improvement contract, after the fact, to prepare three Hallendale Subdivision
streets and right of ways for a Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA funded
cold-mix paving project; approve a budget amendment to accept private
donations; approve payment from private donations to Contractorworx, Inc.
for work completed; and return a pro-rata share of the remaining $lO,l47.00
in private donations to those who contributed to the project
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.
Page 10
July 25, 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve a Resolution which will supersede and
replace Resolution 1998-465 in order to amend the policies and
procedures for vacating rights of way and other easements which have
been dedicated for public purposes.
2) Recommendation to approve the recording the final plat of Quail West
Phase III, Unit 7, 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 a United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Derelict Vessel Removal
Grant in the amount of $3l ,000
4) Recommendation to approve a Satisfaction of Lien due to a change in
qualified applicants and the subsequent recording of a new impact fee
deferral agreement in accordance with the Immokalee Residential
Impact Fee Deferral Program, as set forth by Section 74-20l (g) of the
Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances.
5) Recommendation to approve and authorize its Chairman to re-sign an
Interlocal Agreement between the Board of County Commissioners of
Collier County, Florida and the City Council of the City of Naples,
which Agreement supersedes several separate prior Impact Fee
Interlocal Agreements between the parties and provides for (1) the
collection of Collier County Impact Fees by the City, (2) the
remittance of collected impact fees to the County by the City, and (3)
the re-negotiated annual administrative fees to be retained by the City.
6) Recommendation to approve a Satisfaction of Lien, in accordance
with the provisions the Summer House Settlement Agreement and
Mutual Release, for impact fees that have been paid in full, as
stipulated by the agreement.
7) Recommendation to approve, and authorize the Chairman to sign, a
Resolution accepting three (3) Continuum of Care homeless assistance
Page 11
July 25, 2006
grant awards from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) totaling $622,52l; and approve a budget
amendment of $622,521 recognizing the approval of these three grant
agreements.
8) Recommendation to approve an Interim Management Plan for the
Collier Development Corporation property under the Conservation
Collier Land Acquisition Program.
9) Recommendation to approve the application by Anchor Health
Centers for the Job Creation Investment Program, the Advanced
Broadband Infrastructure Investment Program and the Fee Payment
Assistance Program.
10) Recommendation to approve an application to the Florida Boating
Improvement Program for the removal of derelict vessels in Collier
County.
11) Recommendation to approve a Resolution of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, directing the County
Manager to establish a Floodplain Management Planning Committee.
12) Recommendation to waive the competitive bid process to award a
contract to Mote Marine Laboratory in the amount of $42,630 for
gathering manatee and boating activity data.
13) Recommendation to terminate a contract with the Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) that allowed Collier
County to maintain FWCC waterway signs and approve all necessary
Budget Amendments
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment to recognize
additional revenue for the Collier County Transportation Pathways
Program in the amount of$383,829.20 for Project No(s). 600321,
60050l, 6908ll, and 690822.
2) Recommendation to approve the installation and landscape
maintenance agreement between Port of the Islands Community
Page 12
July 25, 2006
Improvement District and Collier County for beautification on US 4l
/SR 90 ; approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a Landscaping
Installation and Maintenance Highway Agreement (Agreement) with
the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for median and
roadside landscape improvements along SR 90; and approve an
FDOT -required Resolution evidencing that the Board has approved
and authorized the Chairman to sign this Agreement.
3) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign (l)
First Amendment to State of Florida Department of Transportation
Highway Landscaping Installation and Maintenance Agreement for
landscape improvements along Pine Ridge Interchange; and (2) a
Resolution evidencing that the Board has approved and authorized the
Chairman to sign this Amendment.
4) Recommendation to approve the after-the-fact submittal of a Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Emergency
Hurricane Supplemental Grant in the amount of $50,000
5) Recommendation to (l) approve a Resolution authorizing the
Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to execute an
amendment to Local Agency Program Agreement with the Florida
Department of Transportation in which Collier County would be
reimbursed up to $420,000 of the total estimated cost of $542,600 for
the design, construction, engineering and inspection of Sidewalks
Various Locations and (2) approve a budget amendment reducing the
amount of funds to be reimbursed by FDOT.
6) Recommendation to approve Change Order # 1 to TBE Group, Inc.
having Work Order TBE-FT-05-0l (RFP/Bid #Ol3290) for additional
service work tasks and additional days for the Fish Branch Basin Box
Culvert Extension Project Site in the amount of$ll7,78l and approve
the Design Professionals Service Task costs involving Immokalee
Water and Sewer Districts existing facilities with consideration of a
future reimbursement to Collier County.
7) Recommendation to adopt an amended resolution to correct a
scriveners error in the legal description for Parcels l22 and l23 in
Resolution No. 2006-39 authorizing condemnation of right-of-way for
County Barn Road from Davis Boulevard to Rattlesnake Hammock
Page 13
July 25, 2006
Road. (Capital Improvement Element No. 33, Project No. 60101).
Estimated fiscal impact: $0.
8) Recommendation to approve the budget amendment for RFP #05-
3770, Design-Build for Immokalee Road from 175 to CR 95l Collier
Boulevard, County Project No. 66045 for $lOO,OOO.OO for STIPEND
payments for unsuccessful firms.
9) Recommendation to approve an Interlocal Agreement with the School
Board for payment of$l39,5l1.00 to construct a portion of the
Veterans Memorial Boulevard.
10) Recommendation to execute a Work Order to TBE Group, Inc., using
Contract 0 l-3290 Agreement for Fixed Term Professional
Engineering Services, Work Order #TBE-FT-06-02, for the
preparation of a Structures Preliminary Engineering Report and
Recommendation Report for the widening of Randall
Boulevard,County Project No. 60065, in the amount of$l66,936.
11) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment of$345,700 to
increase the General Fund (00 l) transfer to Transportation
Disadvantaged Fund (427).
12) Recommendation to approve Change Order #2 to Q. Grady Minor &
Associates, P.A. having Work Order QGM-FT-04-08 (RFP/Bid #Ol-
3290) to adjust and add service work tasks, additional days to the
Tract N Lake & Ibis Way Road Crossing Project, include the Cypress
Way East Road Drainage structure design replacement, and
modifications to Tract N Lake Drainage Improvements in the at
amount of $99,450.
13) Recommendation to approve Agreement with Countryside Master
Association, Inc. for the construction of a noise wall as part of the six-
lane improvements to Santa Barbara Boulevard Project #6208l,
conditioned on the Associations donation of a Temporary
Construction Easement and payment from the Association in the
amount of$9l4,000.00.
14) Recommendation to award bid #06-4009 Collier County Highway
Scenic Enhancement at Port of the Islands landscape and irrigation
Page 14
July 25, 2006
installation to Hannula Landscaping, Inc. with a base amount of
$l97,020.45 and alternates in the amount of $40,041.00 for a total of
$237 ,06l.45. (Project #60052l)
15) Recommendation to authorize the execution and recording of two
corrective deeds and a Declaration of Right-of- Way relative to GAC
Land Trust property on Immokalee Road (Project No. 60018). (Fiscal
Impact: $72.50)
16) Recommendation to approve the Project Agreement Amendment with
the Natural Resources Conservation Service in Support of Hurricane
Wilma Recovery Efforts in Collier County, and approve a purchase
order to Crowder-Gulf, Inc. in the amount of$397,000 plus a lO%
contingency of$39,700 for canal debris removal for a total of
$436,700 and approve a purchase order to R.W. Beck, Inc. in the
amount of $27,040 for monitoring of disaster generated debris
management plus a 10% contingency of $2,704 for a total of $29,744,
approve the necessary Budget Amendment and segregate all cost for
hurricane canal debris removal from Hurricane Wilma expenses.
17) Recommendation to award Bid #06-39l 0 Lely Golf Estates MSTU
Roadway Beautification Renovation (St. Andrews Blvd. At US 4l), to
Vila & Son Landscaping Corporation with a base amount of
$74,995.45 and 10% contingency of $7,499.54 for a total of
$82,494.99
18) Recommendation to award a construction contract to Bonness, Inc.,
for Livingston Road (CR 88l) Intersection Improvements at Golden
Gate Parkway (CR 886), Bid No. 06-4002, Project No. 66065, in the
amount of$9l5,659.27
19) Recommendation to award Contract #06-3980 Annual Fixed Term
Traffic Engineering Consultant Services to five (5) firms.
20) Recommendation to approve an Amendment to the Agreement for
Haldeman Creek Disposal with Lakeview Drive of Naples, LLC, a
Florida Limited Company and accept funds for the Haldeman Creek
dredging project.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
Page 15
July 25, 2006
1) Recommendation to award Work Order CDM-FT-3593-06-08 with
Camp, Dresser, and McKee, Incorporated, for professional services
for Existing Wellfields Operational Support in the amount of
$196,820 - Project Number 75005.
2) Recommendation to approve a Resolution to authorize the County to
submit a State Revolving Fund (SRF) lowinterest rate construction
loan application and to authorize a loan agreement with the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), for Lower
Hawthorn Wells 18N, 19N, and 20N, Project, 7l006.
3) Recommendation to award Bid Number 06-3958 for laboratory
chemicals and supplies to VWR International and Hach Company in
the anticipated amount of $200,000.
4) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to set the date, time and place
for an Advertised Public Hearing where the Board of County
Commissioners will adopt Fees (Special Assessments) to be collected
on the Property Tax Bills for Curbside Trash Collection Services for
the 2007 Budget Year, approve the notification to customers and
approve the necessary budget amendment.($54,600)
5) Recommendation to award Work Order UC-235 under Contract 04-
3535 to Kyle Construction, Inc. in the amount of $279, l80, for the re-
routing of the Lely High School Force Main, and a budget amendment
to incorporate additional funds, in the amount of $278,000, from the
Collier County School Board for the South County Water
Reclamation Facility Reliability Improvements Project, 72508.
6) Recommendation to approve the sole source purchase of chemical
equipment and supplies from the AMJ Equipment Corporation in the
estimated amount of $300,000, including the payment of Invoice
2006-0653 in the amount of$6,598.
7) Recommendation to approve the use of a 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,
Page 16
July 25, 2006
Series 2006 and Assistance With Bond Issuance for the Water/Sewer
District.
8) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfaction of
Lien for a Solid Waste residential account wherein the County has
received payment and said Lien is satisfied in full for the 1994 Solid
Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal
impact is $20.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien.
9) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfaction of
Lien for a Solid Waste residential account wherein the County has
received payment and said Lien is satisfied in full for the 1995 Solid
Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal
impact is $20.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien.
10) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfactions of
Lien for Solid Waste residential accounts wherein the County has
received payment and said Liens are satisfied in full for the 1996
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
Fiscal impact is $40.00 to record the Satisfactions of Lien.
11) Recommendation to approve, execute and record a Satisfaction of a
Notice of Claim of Lien for Sanitary Sewer System Impact Fee. Fiscal
impact is $lO.OO to record the Satisfaction of Lien.
12) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution approving Special
Assessment Hardship Deferrals for certain Sewer Special
Assessments for the 2006 tax year. The fiscal impact is $18.50 to
record the Resolution.
13) Recommendation to approve and execute a License Agreement with
The School District of Collier County, Florida for the use of its
property for storm debris collection and processing.
14) Recommendation to accept a full settlement for Oil Spill Liability
Trust Funds from the United States Coast Guard National Pollution
Funds Center in the amount of$375,l22.91.
15) Recommendation to approve an agreement with the South Florida
Water Management District to Continue participating in the surface
Page 17
July 25, 2006
water monitoring of Big Cypress Basin in the amount of $499,456.
16) Recommendation to award Bid Number #06-3953 to Godwin Pumps
for the purchase and delivery of eleven (ll) generators by the
Wastewater Department in the amount of$390,587.
17) Recommendation to approve an Easement Agreement and accept a
Utility Easement and Access Easement necessary to upgrade the Lift
Station existing at Buena Vida Retirement Home at a cost not to
exceed $l2,400, Project 634999.
18) Recommendation to authorize a budget amendment in the amount of
$llO,OOO and award Contract #06-3997 to E. B. Simmonds Electrical,
Inc. to construct the Tamiami Wells 6 through 27 Electrical Upgrades,
in the amount of$508,450.00, Project 7l038.
19) Recommendation to authorize renting of three (3) new Pitney-Bowes
Documatch Integrated Mail System Machines and one (1) new
Postage System Effective October l, 2006 for a three year period,
based on State of Florida Contract #600-760-00-1. Combined annual
rental cost is $98,4l2.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve an Amendment to the Second Paragraph
of Article 5 in the License Agreement with the Marco Island
Historical Society Which Designates Land for a Future Museum on
Marco Island.
2) Recommendation to approve and execute the attached Lease
Modification Agreement with Randall Benderson and David H.
Baldauf, Trustees, relating to a Lease Agreement approved by the
Board of County Commissioners on April 12, 2005.
3) Recommendation to approve an Interlocal Agreement with the City of
Everglades City for fund sharing for park improvements for $50,700.
4) Recommendation to enter into an Interlocal Lease Agreement with
The School District of Collier County and to approve a project in the
amount of $64l ,000 to install additional equipment to improve
Page 18
July 25, 2006
existing facilities associated with property adjacent to Immokalee
High School.
5) Recommendation to approve purchase and installation of playground
equipment for Immokalee South Park in an amount not to exceed
$4l,000.
6) Recommendation to approve an agreement with the District School
Board of Collier County for transporting school-age recreation
program participants not to exceed the budgeted amount of $36,000.
7) Recommendation to authorize the Chairman to sign the Grant
Agreement for Collier County Library Public Library Construction
Project Number 07-PLC-04, permitting the Collier County Public
Library to receive $500,000 awarded by Grant for construction of the
South Regional Library.
8) Request to reimburse John Veit for out of pocket expenses in the
amount of$928.00 paid to Naples Transportation & Tours.
9) Recommendation to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with
Westat to conduct the National Survey of the Use of Booster Seats
(NSUBS) at Veterans Community Park, East Naples Community
Park, Max Hasse Jr. Community Park and Vineyards Community
Park
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve a $199,268 change to contract #03-3489,
Professional Architectural and Design Services for Addition to And
Renovation of The Golden Gate Library, with Barany Schmitt
Summers Weaver and Partners, Inc. (BSSW) to modify the scope to
design a l7,000 square foot building rather than a 12,000 square foot
building, project 5426l.
2) Recommendation to ratify additions to and modifications to the 2006
Fiscal Year Pay and Classification Plan made from April l, 2006
through June 30, 2006.
Page 19
July 25, 2006
3) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment and Change # 1 to
Work Order BSW-02-06 under contract #Ol3235 Annual Contract for
Architectural Services to update the design of the Sheriffs Sub-Station
Addition to EMS 12 located in the Golden Gate Estates area on
Immokalee Road, project 5201l, in the amount of$57,900.
4) Recommendation to waive formal competition and enter into an
agreement with SAP Public Services Inc. To conduct an assessment of
the Countys current SAP configuration in anticipation of upgrading
the software in the next fiscal year in the amount of$7l,504.
5) Recommendation to approve a phased Work Order with CH2M Hill,
Inc., under contract #06-3929, Annual Contract for Architectural
Services, to design upgrades to the fuel facility at County Barn,
project 52009, in a total amount to be negotiated not to exceed
$60,000.
6) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment to increase the
FY05-06 Fleet Management Fund (52l) operating budget
expenditures and associated revenues by $l45,000.
7) Recommendation to approve award of Bid 06-40l0 24-Hour Towing
Services to Naples Towing LLC., dba Bumper to Bumper Towing and
to Coastland Towing and Recovery, Inc., as stated in the Executive
Summary.
8) Recommendation to approve conveyance of an Easement to Florida
Power & Light Company (FPL) for providing electric service to the
EMS-75 Facility at 4590 Santa Barbara Boulevard, at a cost not to
exceed $l8.50, Project 52007-1.
9) Recommendation to award Letter of Interest No. 006-3990 Catering
Services to; Artichoke & Company; Gee's BBQ; Silver Platter
Catering; Candito Management Group; Carrabba's Italian Grill;
Country Cater BBQ, Inc.; and Russell's Clambakes.
10) Recommendation to approve a change to work order #CH-F-05-04
under contract #01-329l, Annual Contract for Construction
Engineering Inspection Services, with CH2M Hill, Inc. to provide
Page 20
July 25, 2006
additional inspections services for the Annex Parking Garage, project
520l0, in the amount of$33,085.
11) Recommendation to approve the after-the-fact submittal of an
International City/County Management Association Center for
Performance Management/Public Entity Risk Institute Grant
Application, in the amount of$5,000.
12) Report and Ratify Staff-Approved Change Orders and Changes to
Work Orders to Board-Approved Contracts.
13) Report to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the recent
disposition of assets no longer deemed to serve a useful function or to
have commercial value
14) Recommendation to approve a Work Order with CH2M Hill, Inc.,
under contract #0 l-3292, Annual Contract for Professional Structural
Engineering Services, to provide threshold inspections for the
Emergency Services Center, project 52l60, in the amount of
$lOI,580.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Board ratification of Summary, Consent and Emert!ency At!enda
Items approved by the County Manat!er durint! the Board's
scheduled recess. Per Resolution Number 2000-l49, "Approval of
this Agreement by the County Manager is subject to formal
ratification by the Board of County Commissioners. If the decision by
the County Manager is not ratified by that Board, this Agreement shall
be enforceable against Collier County only to the extent authorized by
law in the absence of such ratification of that Board."
2) Recommendation to accept a grant award in the amount of $5000
from Visit Florida for the Paradise Coast Blueway Web Site and
future Search Engine Optimization.
3) Recommendation to award Bid # 06-4006 for the purchase of
janitorial supplies to E & R Industrial Sales, Inc., Pyramid II, Inc.,
Dade Paper Company and Corporate Express for the Emergency
Medical Services Department for an estimated cost for FY 06 of
Page 21
July 25, 2006
$21,000.
4) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution fixing the date, time and place
for the Public Hearing for approving the Special Assessment (Non-ad
valorem Assessment) to be levied against the properties within the
Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit.
5) Recommendation to approve Budget Amendments.
6) Recommendation to award Bid #06-40 II in the amount of
$200,000.00 for Pelican Bay Streetscape Irrigation System Phase V to
Stahlman-England Irrigation, Inc.
7) Recommendation to approve a Budget Amendment to fund collection
service commission fees for Emergency Medical Services Ambulance
Billing in the amount of $68,000.
8) Recommendation to approve expenses not to exceed $lO,OOO for
Collier County to provide aerial over-flights of eight Collier County
projects in the Fiscal Year 2007 Federal Agenda to two United States
Senators and two United States Congressmen.
9) Recommendation to approve Rules of Procedure Governing Meetings
of the County Productivity Committee as authorized by Section Five:
Officers; Quorum; Rules of Procedure of County Ordinance No.
200l-37, as amended.
10) Recommendation to approve an Agreement between the Florida
Department of Community Affairs and Collier County accepting
$8, l43 for the preparation of Hazards Analysis Reports for facilities
storing extremely hazardous substances within the County and
approve the Budget Amendment necessary to recognize and
appropriate $8,143 as revenue.
11) Recommendation to approve budget amendments for the Isles of
Capri Fire District to purchase hose testing equipment in the amount
of$3,857.
12) Recommendation to approve the submittal of the attached Emergency
Operation Center Construction and Improvement Initiative Grant
Page 22
July 25, 2006
Application to the Florida Department of Community Affairs in the
amount of$6,091,Ol5.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY ANDIOR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation to approve the relocation of the Bayshore Gateway
Triangle CRA office, approve a new office lease with a new landlord,
authorize the Chairman to sign, and approve all necessary budget
amendments to cover the lease terms and relocate the office.
2) Recommendation to approve and execute Site Improvement Grant
Agreements between the Collier County Community Redevelopment
Agency and grant applicants within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle
Community Redevelopment area.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Recommendation to approve written policies for the day to day
business of the BCC Office.
2) Commissioner Fiala requests for Board Approval for reimbursement
for attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended the
Florida Association Counties Dinner hosted by RBC Capital Markets,
Tuesday, June 27th at Caf De Marco, Marco Island; $30.00 to be paid
from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
3) Commissioner Halas requests Board approval for payment by the
Clerk to attend a function serving a valid public purpose. Attending
the Florida Forum for County Leaders, a series of 3 seminars in Lake
County and other locations in Central Florida; $450.00 to be paid
from Commissioner Halas' travel budget.
4) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended the
Naples Press Club Dinner on Wednesday, June 2lst, 2006 at the
Collier Athletic Club; $25.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's
travel budget.
Page 23
July 25, 2006
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$88,000, which is the total amount of funds projected to be collected
in excess of the amount currently budgeted, to pay for legal aid
services costs incurred for legal services provided for qualified Collier
County Indigents pursuant to state mandated statutorily-defined
procedures.
2) Recommendation to approve settlement prior to completion of
discovery in the lawsuit entitled Lauretta Barker vs. Collier County
Board of Commissioners filed in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and
for Collier County, Florida, Case No. 05-l559-CA, for $17,500.00.
3) Recommendation to authorize the County Attorney to file a lawsuit,
on behalf of Collier County Board of Commissioners, against B & G
Underground Inc., in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier County,
FL, to recover repair costs incurred in the amount of $l7 ,000.
4) Recommendation to approve a Mediated Settlement Agreement and
Stipulated Final Judgment as to Parcels l15 & 715 in the lawsuit
styled Collier County v. Rafael Liy, et aI., Case No. 05-752-CA
(Collier Blvd. Project No. 6506l). (Fiscal Impact $56,452.65.)
5) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment for Parcel
No. l48 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Ziad Shahla, et al.,
Case No. 04-600-CA (Vanderbilt Beach Road Project No. 63051).
(Fiscal Impact $7,9l1.00)
6) Recommendation to approve the Proposed Joint Motion for an Agreed
Order Awarding Expert Fees and Costs Relating to Parcels l66A and
166B in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Juan Ramirez, et al., Case
Page 24
July 25, 2006
No. 02-5l66-CA, Immokalee Road Phase II, Project #600l8. (Fiscal
Impact: $12,000.00).
7) Recommendation to authorize the County Attorney to file a lawsuit,
on behalf of Collier County Board of Commissioners, against Ocean
Gate Contractors, Inc. and/or Rookery Bay National Estuarine FDEP,
to recover costs in the sum of$7,500.
8) Recommendation to authorize the County Attorney to file a lawsuit,
on behalf of the Collier County Board of Commissioners, against
Donnie E. Morgan in Collier County, Florida, to recover repair costs
incurred in the approximate amount of$3,700.00.
9) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment as to Parcel
l40 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v. Rosa A. Hernandez, et aI.,
Case No. 05-1033-CA (CR 95l, Collier Boulevard, Project No.
65061) Fiscal Impact: $855,200.
10) Recommendation to consider Approval of a Resolution to Reinstate
the Membership of Qualified County Advisory Board Members
During the 2006 Election Process.
11) Recommendation to grant the Conflict Waiver requested by
Grayrobinson, P .A. and waive the Provisions of Paragraph 8 of an
agreement for Legal Services between Collier County and
Grayrobinson, P .A.
12) Request by the Collier County Educational Facilities Authority for
approval of a resolution authorizing the Authority to issue revenue
bonds to be used to finance educational facilities for Ave Maria
University.
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
Page 25
July 25, 2006
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. Recommendation to adopt a revised post disaster recovery ordinance to
provide for the establishment of the Post-disaster Recovery Task Force, the
establishment of the Emergency Review Board, the County post-disaster
build-back policy, emergency permitting system and guidelines for declaring
a post-disaster building and zoning moratorium, and repeal Ordinance No.
98-62 and Ordinance No. 93-20.
B. Recommendation to approve adoption of an Ordinance amending Chapter 49
of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, as amended, regarding
Economic Development Incentives; adding a new definition for jobs into
sections 49-22, 49-32, 49-42 and 49-52 to require that each incentive
fulfillment job be performed only by permanent legal residents of the United
States, and applicably maintained as such; providing for inclusion in the
Code of Laws and Ordinances; providing for conflict and severability and
providing for an effective date.
C. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDEX-2006-AR-
9571: Two Lakes of Naples, LLC, by Brian Howell of Phoenix Associates
of Naples, Inc., requesting a two-year extension to the Two Lakes Plaza
PUD from October 24, 2005 to October 24, 2007. The subject property,
consisting of 19. 9 acres, is located on the east side of Tamiami Trail North at
15000 Tamiami Trail North, in Section 9, Township 48 South, Range 25
East, Collier County, Florida.
D. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. SV-2006-AR-9l60:
WR Development, LLC, represented by Richard Y ovanovich, of Goodlette,
Coleman & Johnson, P.A. requesting sign variances for two ground signs in
the Riverchase Commons Office Park. The sign located at the southwest
entrance or corner of the property would require a change in setback from 10
feet to 4.24 feet; the sign located at the southeast entrance would require a
change in setback from 10 feet to 0.l5 feet. The signs are located at 1 00 I
Crosspointe Drive, in Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 25 East,
Page 26
July 25, 2006
Collier County, Florida.
E. Recommendation to approve a resolution establishing the Horizon Study
Public Participation Ad Hoc Master Plan Committee for Phase Two of the
East of County Road 95l Infrastructure and Services Horizon Study.
F. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition SNR-2006-AR-
9159, Elaine Sorrell, requesting a street name change from 10th Avenue
S.W. to Boxwood Way for property located east of Logan Boulevard in
Golden Gate Estates Unit 34, Section 16, Township 49 South, Range 26
East.
G. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. Petition SNR-2006-AR-
9161, Steven H. White, requesting a street name change from l4th Avenue
S.W. to Hawthorn Woods Way for property located east of Logan Boulevard
in Golden Gate Estates Unit 34, Section 16, Township 49 South, Range 26
East.
H. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition SNR-2006-AR-
9l62, Carol Monk, requesting a street name change from lOth Avenue S.W.
to N apa Woods Way for property located west of Logan Boulevard in
Golden Gate Estates Units 33 and 34, also Michels Estates, in Sections l7
and 16, Township 49 South, Range 26 East.
I. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition SNR-2006-AR-
9163, Joy Runyon, requesting a street name change from l2th Avenue S.W.
to Dogwood Way for property located west of Logan Boulevard in Golden
Gate Estates Units 33 and 34, Sections 17 and 16, Township 49 South,
Range 26 East.
J. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition SNR-2006-AR-
9164, Karen Wess, requesting a street name change from 14th Avenue S.W.
to Lancewood Way for property located west of Logan Boulevard in Golden
Gate Estates Units 33 and 34, also Margaret Acres, in Sections 17 and 16,
Page 27
July 25, 2006
Township 49 South, Range 26 East.
K. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. Petition SNR-2006-AR-
9165, Gail Geary, requesting a street name change from l2th Avenue S.W.
to Tallowood Way for property located east of Logan Boulevard in Golden
Gate Estates Unit 34, Section 16, Township 49 South, Range 26 East.
L. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. CUE-2006-AR-9424,
American Dream Builders, Inc., represented by Edward B. Hanf, requesting
a one-year extension of Conditional Use CUE-2003-AR-4799 for a Model
Home and Sales Center of the Estates Zoning District located at 4050 l3th
Avenue S.W., for property hereinafter described in Section 15, Township 49
South, Range 26, Collier County, Florida.
M. Recommendation to adopt an ordinance amending Collier County Ordinance
No. 2001-43, as amended (Vanderbilt Beach Beautification Municipal
Service Taxing Unit); by amending Section Three, Purpose and Governing
Body; providing for conflict and severability; providing for inclusion in the
Code of Laws and Ordinances, and providing for an effective date. (Adding
burying power lines to charter.)
N. Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance amending Collier County
Ordinance No. 2001-37, as amended (the County Government Productivity
Committee Ordinance) by amending Section Two, Appointment and
Composition; amending Section Four, Removal from Office, Failure to
Attend Meetings; amending Section Seven, Functions, Powers and Duties of
the Committee; amending Section Eight, Duties of the County Manager's
Office and the Clerk of Courts; providing for conflict and severability;
providing for inclusion in Code of Laws and Ordinances; and providing for
an effective date.
o. Recommendation to consider Adoption of an Amendment to Subsection
Five E of Collier County Ordinance No. 200 l-55, the General Advisory
Boards Ordinance, to Allow Certain Candidates Running Unopposed for a
Non-Remunerative Political Office to Remain Serving on County Advisory
Boards.
Page 28
July 25, 2006
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
Page 29
July 25, 2006
July 25, 2006
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
It's a pleasure to see each and every one of you here. The Collier
County Board of County Commissioners is now in session.
I'd like to ask at this time, if you have pagers or phones, if you'd
please silence them. And we'll have at this time the invocation and the
Pledge of Allegiance. The invocation is given today by the Reverend
-- Pastor Josh Perez of the New Hope Ministry.
Would you please all rise. Use the mike there, sir.
PASTOR PEREZ: Father, we come before you right now in the
name of Jesus and, Lord, we ask you for your presence in this place.
We ask, God, that you would fill us today with the knowledge of your
will and your understanding and your wisdom, God.
Lord, that our thoughts would be your thoughts, that our words
would be your words, that everything that would be done in this place,
God, everything that would be accomplished; everything that would
be said would be according to your will. And we give you praise, we
give you glory in all honor.
In Jesus' name we pray, amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. Please be seated.
County Manager, do we have any changes on today's agenda,
sir?
Item #2A
REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA-
APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES (MINUS
ITEM #17H) - 5/0; MOTION TAKEN TO APPROVE ITEM #17H -
ADOPTED - 4/0 (COMMISSIONER HENNING ABSTAINING
Page 2
July 25, 2006
MR. MUDD: Yes. Agenda changes, Board of County
Commissioners' meeting, July 25, 2006.
Item 7B is continued to the September 12, 2006, BCC meeting.
It's conditional use 2005-AR-8046, Olivia Mulching and Recycling
Facility; Jaime and Demarys Olivia, represented by Coastal
Engineering Consultants, Inc., requesting a conditional use for
horticultural recycling and mulching facility in the A-MHO,
agricultural with mobile home overlay zoning district pursuant to
Land Development Code section 2.03.08.A.8.(3)(g) (sic) which allows
facilities for the collection, transfer, processing and reduction of solid
waste in the rural fringe mixed-use district, neutral lands area,
consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth
Management Plan.
The subject property consisting of 10.04 acres is located
three-quarters of a mile east of Immokalee Road, County Road 846, at
1340 Wild Turkey Drive, in Section 26, Township 47 south, Range 27
east, Collier County, Florida, and that continuation is at the petitioner's
request.
When we get to that particular item, I'll ask the board to ask for a
vote on the continuance because it was advertised.
Item 8B. In the background section, section 4, section 74-401,
(a) (2) (c), should read: The maximum income level of the owner is a
developer or builder, the income level of the household to which the
dwelling unit is, and there was a misprint and had "it" in there. "Is" is
the correct word. And that correction was at Commissioner Fiala's
request.
The next item is item 10S. The executive summary under
considerations should read: A recent internal study performed by the
human resources and using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
BLS, showed that, in general, wages paid by Collier County, and there
was a misprint in there. There was an "R" in the word county; it made
it country. So it is county, and, again, catch was at Commissioner
Page 3
July 25, 2006
Fiala's request.
The next item is an add-on item, 13A. It's to request the board
approval of the proposed price of $447,500, for the FY -2006 audit, for
contract number 03-3497, auditing services for Collier County, with
KPMG LLP, and that add-on is at staffs request, and each
commissioner has received this particular item.
The next item is item 16Al. On page 5 of6 (sic), second
paragraph, and second sentence under three should read: The
petitioner shall, rather than may, be placed on the BCC agenda to
establish a time and date for a public hearing by resolution pursuant to
section 336.09, Florida Statutes, and that fix was at Commissioner
Henning's request.
Next item is to move item 16A11 to 10V, and this is a
recommendation to approve a resolution of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, directing the County
Manager to establish a floodplain management planning committee,
and that move was at Commissioner Henning's request.
The next item is to move item 16B6 to IOU, uniform. This item
to be heard at 4:30 p.m. today. It's a recommendation to approve
change order number one to TBE Group, Inc., having work order
TBE-FT-05-01 RFP/bid number 013290 for the additional service
work tasks and additional days for the fish branch basin box culvert
extension project site in the amount of $117,781, and approve the
design professional service task costs involving the Immokalee water
and sewer district's existing facilities with consideration of a future
reimbursement to Collier County. That item was pulled and time
certained at Commissioner Coletta's request.
The next item is item 16E7. The following to be read into the
record: The recommended secondary awardee, Naples Towing, LLC
d/b/a Bumper to Bumper, has notified staff that they are withdrawing
their bid for consideration for award.
Staff will issue a supplemental invitation to bid to obtain
Page 4
July 25, 2006
secondary services and will obtain BCC approval once that process is
complete, but the staff is asking that the board approve the other two
vendors that are on the list minus this one. And this change is at staffs
request.
The next item is 16E9, to be read into the record: When
submitting invoices for payment under this contract, supporting
documentation related to the specific event, purpose and number of
meals served will be provided. That clarification is at staffs request.
The next item is item 16F9. The objective in the executive
summary should read: For the Board of County Commissioners to
provide the rules and procedures propose by the county government
productivity committee as adopted by a majority vote on December
21, 2005, rather than the 2006 that's in your packet.
Also, the second paragraph in the resolution should read:
Whereas, on December 21, 2005, again, rather than 2006 that's in that
particular resolution. And that clarification is at staffs request.
The next item is item 16K1. The title of the item should read: A
recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$81,549 rather than the $88,000 that's printed in that recommendation.
All backup material relating to this item is correct, and that
clarification is at staffs request.
And you have a series of time certain items today. The first item,
8B, to be heard at one p.m., and that's a recommendation that the
Board of County Commissioners adopt an ordinance amending
schedule nine of appendix A of Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code
of Laws and Ordinances, which we refer to as the Collier County
Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, providing for the incorporation
by reference of the impact fee study entitled Collier County General
Government Building Impact Fee Update Study dated May 8, 2006,
amending the general government building impact fee rate schedule to
reflect the amended rate set forth in the impact fee study; providing
for incorporation of the requirements of the Florida Impact Fee Act,
Page 5
July 25, 2006
specifying that only citizens of the United States or legal aliens who
are permanent residents of the United States can qualify for impact fee
deferrals, increasing the number of impact fee deferrals permitted at
any single time for an individual developer and/or developments that
are under common ownership and providing for a delayed
implementation date to the change in the government building -- the
general government building impact fee rates to November 1,2006.
Some time certain items and sequencing. Item 8A will be heard
before item 7 A.
Item 14A to be heard immediately following 8B, which I just
read, and this is a companion item to 10K.
Item 10K to be heard immediately following 14A, because you're
doing one as the CRA and then you're doing the next item as the BCC.
Item 10H to be heard at 11 :45 a.m., and that is a recommendation
to approve a financial commitment of $775,000 in the first year and
$625,000 in the second year to the Southwest Florida Expressway
Authority to cover an operating budget that will be repaid to the
county with future surplus toll revenues.
The next item is item 12A to be heard at 3:30 p.m. today. This
item was continued -- yeah, I'll read this again. This item was
continued to provide a status report on Florida Statute Chapter 164
proceedings 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 the South Florida Water
Management District's obligation to convey 640 acres to the county.
And last but not least, item 1 7H needs to have a separate vote
from the other items on the summary agenda because we have one
commissioner conflict with that particular item. And what I would
recommend in this particular item, when you approve the regular, the
consent, and the summary agenda, you can basically say, and we
acknowledge that it's minus 17H. And as soon as that's done, you take
a vote on 17H, and then we proceed with the regular agenda.
Page 6
July 25, 2006
That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
County Attorney, do you have any additions or corrections?
MR. PETTIT: I have nothing to add at this point.
Regarding the conflict, I assume that will be disclosed at the
point of the vote?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Say again, please.
MR. PETTIT: Regarding the conflict on 17H, I assume that's
going to be disclosed at the point of the vote.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. At this time I'm going to ask each
of the commissioners to come forth with ex parte on the summary
agenda and see if there are any changes to the consent agenda, starting
with Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I have no
changes to today's consent agenda.
If you want ex parte on the summary agenda, I have
communication on item 17C, also on 17F, H, I, and J.
Mr. Chairman, I do have a conflict on 17H. 17H is names to be
changed of a street which I -- my family live on. There have -- a
financial burden and benefit may be perceived, therefore, I want to
abstain from voting on this item.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, Commissioner.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. On the summary agenda, I
have emails on item 17C. I've also -- I have no disclosures on D and
F, although I spoke with Jim Mudd just a little bit about them
yesterday, so maybe you could say I spoke with staff about them.
Let's see.
And on 17 I -- J, I have emails, and that's -- and I have no
additions or corrections to the agenda.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
Myself, starting off on the summary agenda, I have email on item
Page 7
July 25, 2006
C, and also have email on item F of the summary agenda, and on H, I
have email in regards on item H, and item I, I have correspondence
and mail. On J, I have email only, and that's it for my ex parte of the
summary agenda, and I have no additions or corrections on today's
agenda.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. I have no
additional changes to the agenda. And as far as the ex parte on the
summary agenda, on item 17C in my file there's emails.On17D.no
disclosures. 17F, I've received emails.andthey.rein my file for
anyone that wishes to see it. G, no disclosures. On H, on the
summary agenda, I have received emails. On I, I have received
correspondence and emails. And on J, emails, I've received some
emails there. And on K, I have no disclosures. And on L, there were
no disclosures for that particular item. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any changes to today's --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no changes. Thank you very
much, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I have no further
recommended changes to the agenda, but I have ex parte to report on
17C, an email, which was just received yesterday, I believe, and also
1 7F, 17H, 1 7 J, and -- or 1 7I and 1 7 J, and I have no disclosures on the
remaining items.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. At this point I'd ask for a motion
to approve today's regular, consent and summary agenda less item
17H, which is -- Commissioner Henning is going to abstain from that
vote.
So the rest of the consent agenda will be approved, and today's
summary agenda and any changes to today's full agenda.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
Page 8
July 25, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coy Ie 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: At this time we'll have the -- I need a
motion for 17H, which is on the summary agenda, and Commissioner
Henning will be abstaining from this vote.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make that motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner 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.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I abstain, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. I put that in the motion, sir.
Page 9
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
Julv 25. 2006
Item 7B continued to the September 12. 2006 BCC meetina: CU-2005-AR-8046, Oliva Mulching
and Recycling Facility; Jaime and Demarys Oliva, represented by Coastal Engineering
Consultants, Inc., requesting a conditional use for a horticulture recycling and mulching facility in
the "A-MHO" Agricultural with Mobile Home Overlay zoning district pursuant to LDC Section
2.03.08.A.3.a(3)(g) which allows facilities for the collection, transfer, processing and reduction of
solid waste in the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District, Neutral Lands area, consistent with the Future
Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. The subject property, consisting of 10.04
acres is located three-quarters of a mile east of Immokalee Road (CR-846) at 1340 Wild Turkey
Drive, in Section 26, Township 47 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. (Petitioner's
request.)
Item 8B: In the backup material, SECTION FOUR, Section 74-401, (a) (2)(c) should read: "The
maximum income level of the owner is a developer or builder, the income level of the household
to which the dwelling unit is (rather than "it"). . ." (Commissioner Fiala's request.)
Item 10S: The Executive Summary under Consideration should read: "A recent internal study
performed by Human Resources and using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
showed that, in general, wages paid by Collier County (rather than Country) . . .." (Commissioner
Fiala's request.)
Add On Item 13A: To request Board approval ofthe proposed price of $447,500.00 for the FY-
2006 Audit per Contract #03-3497, "Auditing Services for Collier County", with KPMG LLP. (Staff
request.)
Item 16A1: On page 5 of 16, second paragraph, second sentence under 3 should read: "The
petition "shall" (rather than "may") be placed on the BCC agenda to establish a time and date for
a public hearing by Resolution pursuant to Section 336.09, Florida Statutes." (Commissioner
Henning's request.)
Move Item 16A11 to 10V: Recommendation to approve a Resolution of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, directing the County Manager to establish a Floodplain
Management Planning Committee. (Commissioner Henning's request.)
Move Item 16B6 to 10U: This item to be heard at 4:30 p.m. Recommendation to approve Change
Order #1 to TBE Group, Inc. having Work Order TBE-FT-05-01 (RFP/Bid #013290) for additional
service work tasks and additional days for the Fish Branch Basin Box Culvert Extension Project
Site in the amount of $117,781 and approve the Design Professionals Service Task costs
involving Immokalee Water and Sewer Districts existing facilities with consideration of a future
reimbursement to Collier County. (Commissioner Coletta's request.)
Item 16E7: The following to be read into the record: "The recommended secondary awardee,
Naples Towing, LLC, d/b/a/ Bumper to Bumper has notified staff that they are withdrawing their
bid from consideration for award. Staff will issue a supplement Invitation to Bid to obtain
secondary services and will obtain BCC approval once that process is complete. (Staff's
request.)
Item 16E9: To be read into the record: "When submitting invoices for payment under this
contract, supporting documentation related to the specific event, purpose and number of meals
served will be provided. (Staff's request.)
Item 16F9: The Objective in the Executive Summary should read: "For the Board of County
Commissioners to approve the rules of procedure proposed by the County Government
Productivity Committee as adopted by majority vote on December 21, 2005 (rather than "2006").
Also, the second paragraph in the Resolution should read: "WHEREAS, on December 21, 2005
(rather than "2006"). . ." (Staff's request.)
Item 16K1: The title of this item should read: "Recommendation to approve a budget amendment
in the amount of $81,549 (rather than $88,000). . . ." All backup material relating to this item is
correct. (Staff's request.)
Time Certain Items:
Item 8B to be heard at 1 :00 p.m. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
adopt an Ordinance amending Schedule Nine of Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the Collier County
Code of Laws and Ordinances (The Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance) providing
for the incorporation by reference of the impact fee study entitled Collier County General
Government Building Impact Fee Update Study dated May 8, 2006, amending the General
Government Building Impact Fee Rate Schedule to reflect the amended rates set forth in the
impact fee study, providing for incorporation of requirements of the Florida Impact Fee Act,
specifying that only citizens of the United States or legal aliens who are permanent residents of
the United States can qualify for Impact Fee Deferrals, increasing the number of impact fee
deferrals permitted at any single time for an individual developer and/or developments that are
under common ownership and providing for a delayed implementation date for the change in the
General Government Building Impact Fee rates of November 1, 2006.
Item 8A to be heard before Item 7 A
Item 14A to be heard immediatelv followina 8B (companion to Item 10K)
Item 1 OK to be heard immediatelv followina Item 14A
Item 10H to be heard at 11 :45 a.m. Recommendation to approve a financial commitment of
$775,000 in the first year and $625,000 in the second year to the Southwest Florida Expressway
Authority to cover an operating budget that will be repaid to the County with future surplus toll
revenues.
Item 12A to be heard at 3:30 p.m. This item was continued from the 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 the
South Florida Water Management Districts obligation to convey 640 acres to the County.
NOTE:
Item 17H: Needs to have a special vote from the other items on the summary agenda. (A
Commissioner conflict.)
July 25, 2006
Item #2B, #2C, #2D, #2E, #2F, #2G, #2H and #2I
MINUTES OF THE MAY 31, 2006 BCC DISTRICT #5
TOWNHALL MEETING; JUNE 6-7,2006 BCC REGULAR
MEETING; JUNE 9, 2006 BCC/POST- LEGISLATIVE
WORKSHOP; JUNE 13, 2006 BCC/PUD MONITORING
WORKSHOP; JUNE 13, 2006 BCC/PRODUCTIVITY
COMMITTEE WORKSHOP; JUNE 20-21,2006 BCC REGULAR
MEETING; JUNE 22, 2006 BCC/BUDGET HEARING AND THE
JUNE 23, 2006 BUDGET HEARING - APPROVED AS
PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Now I need a motion for the following:
The May 31, 2006, BCC District 5 Town Hall Meeting; June 6th and
7th, 2006, BCC Regular Meeting; the BCC Post-Legislative
Workshop, which was held June 9,2006; the June 13,2006, BCC
PUD Monitoring Workshop; the June 13 BCC Productivity
Committee Workshop; the June 20th, 21 st, 2006, BCC Regular
Meeting; the June 22 2006, BCC Budget Hearings; and the June 23,
2006, BCC Budget Hearings.
Do I have a motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. There's a motion on the floor to
approve these following (sic) meetings that were listed, by
Commissioner Fiala, and a second by Commissioner Coyle.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
Page 10
July 25, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I believe at this time we are going
to have service awards.
County Manager Mudd?
Item #3
SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD
MEMBERS)
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. We're going to have service awards, sir,
if you'd like to come down. You have a number of service awards
today. Twenty-year and 25-year, and we'll start with the 20-year
awardees.
The first 20-year awardee is Leo Ochs, who's the Deputy County
Manager.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I can't read them. They're upside down.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: He doesn't have one.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: There it is. Thank you very much.
Appreciated your service.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Great job.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No hugs.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We don't do hugs.
(Applause. )
MR. MUDD: The next 20-year awardee is John Flomerfelt from
the wastewater lab.
(Applause.)
Page 11
July 25, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: John, thank you very much for your
dedicated 20 years of service.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for 20 years.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good to see you again.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: John, thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next 20-year awardee is Marc Stephenson
from the water department.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good morning, Marc. Congratulations
for 20 years of dedicated services.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You must have fun working in that
water department.
MR. STEPHENSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're welcome.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Congratulations. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next 20-year awardee is Bobby Paul from the
wastewater collections department.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Bob, thank you so much for your
dedicated service.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Congratulations. Thank you very
much.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Here you go, Bob.
MR. MUDD: Bob, let's get a picture.
MR. PAUL: I feel like something special.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You are something special.
Page 12
July 25, 2006
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next 20-year awardee is Jesse Komorny from
water distributions.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: There you go, Jesse. Thank you, sir.
MR. KOMORNY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're also a water guy?
MR. KOMORNY: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good stuff down there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good retention there. Thank
you very much.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Got a lot of old people down there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: He looks pretty young.
MR. MUDD: I don't know. Jesse looks pretty young.
MR. OCHS: It must be something in the water.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You look too young to be 20
years. Must be drinking the water.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're likely not drinking the water.
MR. MUDD: And this will bring us to the 25-year awardees, and
the first 25-year awardee is Daniel O'Brien from transportation road
maintenance.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good morning, Daniel.
MR. O'BRIEN: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Congratulations for 25 years of
dedicated service.
MR. O'BRIEN: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for keeping it
together. You're a lifesaver.
MR. O'BRIEN: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good to see you again.
Page 13
July 25, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Congratulations. Thank you.
MR. O'BRIEN: God bless you.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next 25-year awardee is Daryl Hughes from
transportation engineering services. Excuse me --
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Daryl Hughes is the next awardee, but he works
for Community Development's Environmental Services Engineering
Services, so correction.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you so much for your service.
Appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much.
Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right here.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: And the next 25-year awardee is Milly Kelley
from the wastewater's lab.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you for your service.
MS. KELLEY: I appreciate that. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hi, how are you? Thank you so
much.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Another water person, huh?
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, I believe that completes our
awards. Now there's an extra one that's there.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Vicky Wilson. Do we have a Vicky
Wilson present?
MR. MUDD: Is Vicky Wilson -- she's a 20-year awardee. Is she
Page 14
July 25, 2006
here?
(N 0 response.)
MR. MUDD: We'll do that another time, Commissioner. And
that completes our service awards.
Commissioners, there are no proclamations today, and this will
bring us to paragraph 5, proclamations. Excuse me. Paragraph 5,
presentations, and it's 5A.
Item #5A
PRESENTATION OF THE PHOENIX AWARD RECOGNIZING
COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
DEPARTMENT PARAMEDICS, FIREFIGHTERS AND
SHERIFF'S DEPUTIES WHO THROUGH THEIR SKILLS AND
KNOWLEDGE HAVE SUCCESSFULL Y BROUGHT BACK TO
LIFE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAD DIED - PRESENTED
It's, the Collier County Emergency Medical Services Department
has adopted the Phoenix Award to recognize those EMS paramedics,
firefighters and sheriffs deputies who, through their skills and
knowledge, have successfully brought back to life individuals who
had died. The Phoenix is a mythological bird that died and rose
renewed from its ashes.
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner, Les William, Collier County
EMS captain.
As Mr. Mudd announced, the Phoenix is a bird that rose from its
ashes, and the EMS department has adopted the Phoenix Award.
There are some 30 recipients at this presentation that
successfully, through their knowledge and skills, have brought back
individuals that were technically dead.
Due to staffing and vacations and people working today, we have
10 of those recipients here we'd like to honor. So as I call your name,
Page 15
July 25, 2006
if you'd come up.
Sheri Rapisarda, Melanie Heweker, Michael Cossick, all from
EMS.
From the City of Naples Fire Department, Austin Green and
Steve Kofsky.
From the Collier County Sheriffs Department, Carol Nimnuan
and Christopher Knott.
From Golden Gate Fire Department, Brian Heath.
From North Naples Fire Department, James Varon.
Also accepting for a dozen or so more, North Naples Fire
Department, is Jerry Stanford, their PIO.
Collier County --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Could we have a round of applause for
all these people?
MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, I'm sorry.
(Applause.)
MR. WILLIAMS: Collier County EMS is proud to announce
that for the third quarter of this year, 43 percent of the patients found
in a non-pulse-producing life threatening cardiac rhythm of ventricular
fibrillation or ventricular tachycardia arrived to the hospital with a
pulse.
The citizens and visitors of Collier County have truly received
world-class patient care due to the dedication, desire and
determination of local law enforcement, fire department, and EMS
personnel.
Commissioners, county personnel, and visitors of today's
meeting, I am honored to present you today's heroes.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Now, the most difficult part of this presentation is
to get so we can take a picture, and then the second most difficult part
is to get everyone to smile. This is something to be rejoiced. You did
a great job. Thank you.
Page 16
July 25, 2006
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How are you? It's good to see you.
Item #5B
PRESENTATION FROM SENATOR BURT SAUNDERS TO MR.
LARRY RICE FOR THE GOVERNOR'S POINTS OF LIGHT
PROGRAM - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: The next presentation today is 5B. It's a
presentation from Senator Burt Saunders to Mr. Larry Rice for the
governor's Points of Light Program.
(Applause.)
SENATOR SAUNDERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
committee members.
As I was listening to you handing out the 25-year awards
certificates, I was thinking, that's an awful long time, and I just
realized that this is my 24th year here in Collier County in working
with either the county or the state, so time does fly when you're -- I
guess when you're having fun.
This is a tremendous honor for me to be able to present this
award to Laurence Rice. And if Laurence Rice is here, I assume --
Laurence, if you'd come up, and why don't you face the audience, and
let me read to the commission, to you, and to the audience what this is
all about.
This is a press release. Governor Bush presents the Points of
Light Award to Laurence Rice. Governor Bush announced and
recognized Laurence Rice of Naples as the recipient of the Points of
Light Hurricane Hero Award.
Mr. Rice, in conjunction with the Fort Myers Church of Latter
Day Saints, has provided steadfast relief to Collier County citizens
during the last two hurricane seasons.
Page 1 7
July 25, 2006
Through the church, he has organized more than 275 volunteers
who have dedicated more than 3,000 hours to helping Floridians
impacted by the storms and to recover and rebuild.
Governor Bush goes on to say, quote, I thank Laurence for
helping his neighbors in Collier County rebuild their homes,
community and lives following the storms.
And let me go on and talk a little bit about what some of the
specifics are. Prior to Hurricane Wilma, Laurence Rice organized
volunteers to assist first responders. Under his leadership, the
volunteer work crews took on more than 1,630 recovery projects,
including tree removal and tarping roofs.
The church also donated seven semi trucks to distribute relief
supplies to local communities affected by the storm.
As a state humanitarian specialist and liaison for the Fort Myers
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Rice formed a partnership
with the Bureau of Emergency Management Offices and continues to
donated resources and lead humanitarian relief efforts in Collier
County .
Again quoting, Mr. Rice coordinated volunteers to assist first
responders, immediate family, elderly and disabled individuals with
home repairs and debris clean-up in the aftermath of the storm,
according to Collier County Bureau of Emergency Services director,
Dan Summers.
When Hurricane Wilma made landfall in Collier County, Mr.
Rice and his volunteers worked tirelessly to help the community
recover.
Mr. Rice, it's an honor for me to present to you the governor's
Points of Light Award. The award states, this certificate is presented
to Laurence T. Rice, hurricane hero, in recognition of exemplary
efforts that not only benefit your local community, but also lend truth
to the belief that all citizens of Florida can make a difference in the
lives of those they serve.
Page 18
July 25, 2006
Along with that, there's a letter from Royal Caribbean Lines that
is a sponsor of the Points of Light Award and also a letter from the
governor.
(Applause.)
SENATOR SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rice does have a
few comments to make, but I want to say one thing before he gets up
here.
The Florida legislature has -- we're talking about hurricanes, and
just real briefly. I want you to understand and the community to
understand that we are prepared for whatever Mother Nature sends our
way this hurricane season.
We have more reserves than we've ever had set aside for
hurricane relief, and we take that very seriously. And with the efforts
of folks like Laurence Rice, we can be -- our citizens can be assured
that there will be relief on the way in any event -- any storm event that
we have this hurricane season.
And Mr. Rice has asked if he could say a few words.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure, please.
MR. RICE: Commissioners, I just wanted to give thanks to the
local EOC, Mr. Summers, and Lilla Demasco (phonetic), who's no
longer with the county.
Most of all, to my mother and to the church. If it wasn't for the
gospel in my life and the family members I have present, I wouldn't be
able to serve. And it's been an honor to be able to serve first-time
responders and to be able to assist in the great effort that was led by
these gentlemen and ma'am.
Most of all, just -- there's nothing more important than being able
to serve in our community. And I think you guys head it excellent,
and our local EOC is probably one of the best around. Thank you,
once agaIn.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
Page 19
July 25, 2006
Item #5C
RECOGNIZING MIKE OSSORIO, CONTRACT LICENSING
OFFICER, BUILDING REVIEW AND PERMITTING DIVISION,
AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR JULY, 2006-
PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next presentation is 5C. It's to
recognize Michael Ossorio, who's the contract licensing officer for
building review and permitting division, as Employee ofthe Month of
July 2006. And if I could ask Mike to come forward.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, there he is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't see him back there.
MR. MUDD: Last year Mike Ossorio assisted 20 homeowners
who had financial problems with licensed and unlicensed contractors.
In all cases Mike went above and beyond the call of duty to assist
these taxpayers. He was able to return $51,436 to these homeowners.
One unlicensed contractor had taken deposits in both Collier and
Lee Counties in the amount of $28,567.
Mike was able to locate the unlicensed contractor and have all of
the deposited money returned to the Collier County customers as well
as the Lee County customers. In all cases, the homeowners were
advised by their local sheriffs department that this was a civil matter
and that they could not help them.
Mike's numbers for 2005 are 289 unlicensed contractors cited;
$86,700 in fines. He also returned $154,517 to homeowners in
contract disputes that he mediated.
Mike recommended Saturday patrols and works -- recommended
Saturday patrols and works closely with the City of Naples building
department checking job sites for unlicensed activities and contractors
working without permits.
Page 20
July 25, 2006
Mike is an incredible investigator and excellent county
employee. Mike constantly goes the extra mile to help people that
should be --and he should be recognized for his efforts.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I present to
you Mike Ossorio, Employee of the Month for July, 2006.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Mike, if I could get your attention.
MR. MUDD: Mike, got to turn around. I think the
commissioner's going to give you a couple things.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, I'd like to give you this plaque, and,
of course, I think there's a little something nice in here, and then here's
copy of today's summary in regards to that.
MR. OSSARIO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Congratulations. Thank you very much
for your service.
MR. OSSORIO: Mike, you're so cool.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I can't wait till the end of the
year. I want to hurry up and give it to you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mike, I'd like to give you
Commissioner Henning's parking spot.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good job, Mike.
MR. MUDD: Mike, we've got to get a picture now, if we could.
MR. MUDD: Congratulations.
(Applause.)
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY MR. AND MRS. CHARLES
O'CONNER TO DISCUSS PERMITTING OF POOL ENCLOSURE
DESTROYED BY HURRICANE WILMA - DISCUSSED AND
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS PETITIONER PROCEED WITH
THE VARIANCE PROCESS
Page 21
July 25, 2006
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to paragraph 6,
public petitions on your agenda. And the first public petition is a
public petition request by Mr. and Mrs. Charles O'Conner to discuss
permitting of pool enclosures destroyed by Hurricane Wilma.
Mr. and Mrs. O'Conner. Go on either podium that you prefer.
MR. O'CONNER: This is fine.
MR. MUDD: And just please state your name for the record, sir.
MR. O'CONNER: Good morning. My name is Charles
O'Conner. This is my wife Thelma.
One of the beauties, one of them, of growing older, is short
thought processes. And in that vein, I have committed my remarks to
__ pretty tight. And with your permission, I will read from a prepared
list.
Again, my name is Charles O'Conner. I am a citizen and
property owner within Collier County residing at 4821 Devon Circle.
My wife Thelma and I purchased our home on 1/19/73 from Max C.
and Wilma Jones. One of the reasons we selected this home was that
it had a pool and it was enclosed.
On 10/24/2005, Hurricane Wilma struck our home, severely
damaging it and destroying the pool enclosure, collapsing it, the
flailing metal beams creating punctures and scratches along the way
down.
It took a few weeks to sort the damage with our insurance carrier,
but on 11/15/2005, we began signing contracts to repair the damage.
The pool and pool deck were completed late December. The screen
enclosure contract was sign 11/30/2005 with a caveat that construction
would begin in four to six months. The contractor would obtain all
necessary permits.
They sought the permit in early April. It was discovered that the
structure, though original and 36 years of age, was, indeed, two and a
half feet beyond utility setback. The permit was denied.
Page 22
July 25, 2006
We produced a copy of application for permit, including the
permit number, but alas, records did not go back that far. Personnel at
permits suggested various options, but as a disrating, none of the
documents discovered in county archives has proven acceptable.
Weare at an impasse. What are we to do? Is it the county's
position to stand adamant until the error is corrected? I can't do that.
That mistake, if there was one, was of another time and well
intentioned people, but somehow it fell undetectably through the
cracks. I did discern the contractor is deceased and the business gone
to dust. If there were culpability, it perished with him.
Can we not move beyond this? It was a question groped with by
a group of people that decided in the end to abolish those records and
move on. Perhaps, deciding it more important to concentrate their
energies on the future than the past.
In the final analysis, what is gained -- what is to be gained versus
lost? Purity of definition and compliance for the county. In my case,
perhaps my wife's fragile health, bridging brain hemorrhage in 2003.
She suffered a stroke and brain hemorrhage in 2003, and after
exhausting all rehabilitation benefits, relied on our pool for exercise
and rehabilitation.
Without the pool enclosure, she fears the many snakes accessible
because pool height is just inches. She moves so slowly. The pool is
ready, but she won't go in.
This enclosure is five feet within a permitted perimeter fence that
is 16 feet high and gated at both ends. My insurance carrier has
agreed to the terms of repair, and the contractor is ready to proceed.
I ask that you please grant us the right to reconstruct this
structure. The contractor assures me he will design it in any way the
county wishes within the allotted space. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sir, thank you very much. I think one of
the avenues that is still left open for you is -- and that avenue is to
acquire a variance and bring it back before the board, and I think that's
Page 23
July 25, 2006
probably the way to approach this problem, sir.
MR. O'CONNER: Thank you, very much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta, did you have
something to add?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I do. I took a great interest
in what your plight is, and I understand that you walked into this
situation without knowledge if the permits existed or not.
Mr. Schmitt did share with me some records that were found. I
don't know why they weren't shared with you sooner.
But Mr. Schmitt, would you go through what you have
uncovered from permitting as far as this particular situation goes?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. For the record, Joe Schmitt, Community
Development/Environmental Services Division Administrator. And
I'll go through these. I'll hand them to Jim, and maybe ifhe can put
them on Elmo for me.
Here's the original permit record from 1966. I shared these with
Mr. O'Conner. He and I had a discussion yesterday on the phone as
well.
That's the inspection card from '66. And then '69 -- back in '68
he had an enclosed porch, permit record. And I'm going to put this on
there, the yellow portion is the enclosed porch area. Note at this time
that it was a 15- foot setback. I have all the permit applications for
those.
In 1969, then there was a pool added. And basically let me show
this. This is the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. Before you go any
farther, Mr. Schmitt, could you go back to that one. And maybe you
could tell me what that says. I couldn't read it. Go back.
MR. SCHMITT: That's a pool permit.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And what does it say? It says,
pool, and that's highlighted in yellow. But what's next to it? I can't
make that out.
Page 24
July 25, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not ready.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Not ready.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: That was just basically for a pool permit. And
we have --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How come over in the frame
part it's got $3,000?
MR. SCHMITT: That's the contractor cost at that time. That is
the cost that was basically submitted.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But that would be the cost for
the swimming pool. In other words, it follows across. That's not the
cost of the screen enclosure?
MR. SCHMITT: No, no. That's just -- that was just for the pool.
It's basically our records we pulled, then we went to the property
appraiser's. This is very difficult to read. But in this area here, it
shows all the permits.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah, there we go.
MR. SCHMITT: And then the highlighted area down in the
bottom shows pool screen added in 1970, but there's no permit for the
pool screen.
The __ this basically is the structure now. The -- this area was the
screened- in porch which now, I believe, is an enclosed room, and this
area is where the pool screen is, and that encroaches into the -- which
is now a 10- foot rear yard setback, approximately two and a half feet.
When his contractor came in to apply, we have no option but to
deny the request until a variance is sought.
I really would like to help out Mr. O'Conner. This structure has
been up for, what, 36 years, but it's beyond my authority to approve
this. And you certainly are aware of the history of pool cages. And I
__ my staff cannot -- does not have the authority to, at least, grant this.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Joe, it was also -- at the time that the
pool was constructed, there was a 15- foot setback?
Page 25
July 25, 2006
MR. SCHMITT: At one time this was what was considered
SF-5, which was a 15-foot setback. That has since changed to 10 feet.
All we --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: But the pool still encroaches; is that
correct? This setback is still not sufficient?
MR. SCHMITT: I have to evaluate that. I do not think it does. I
think the only thing that encroached was the pool cage itself.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning, I believe
you were next.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. The -- could it be possible
in 1969 it wasn't required to get a screen enclosure permit as part of
the pool?
MR. SCHMITT: To the best of my knowledge, no. I have
employees that have been with the department for 30 years, and it's
always been a separate pool cage permit and then a pool permit.
They've always been separate.
But there is a possibility that our records do not -- are not
complete, and I cannot -- but I cannot find the pool cage permit. I just
__ we've searched the records. One can conclude that it's missing or
one can conclude that it was put up without a permit. That was prior
to Mr. O'Conner purchasing the home. The pool cage went up in
1970. He purchased it in 1972.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think the property
appraiser's card, they recognized it in 1970.
MR. SCHMITT: They recognized it as an addition. There's no
__ there's no indication of a permit for the pool cage, a separate permit.
They list all the permits, except they -- but they do not list the permit
for the pool cage.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. But nobody really knows
whether it was constructed in 1970, the pool enclosure; it's just the
time that the property appraiser caught it on that property; is that
correct?
Page 26
July 25, 2006
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That was my point.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It could have been done
simultaneously.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. We do not know.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Well, it's concerning that
a statement would be made that we don't know for sure if there was a
permit or not.
MR. SCHMITT: That's the permit for the pool. There's no
separate permit for the pool cage. It just lists pool.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay. The next question is,
back then it had a 15- foot setback.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would it meet the setbacks if it
was still 15 feet?
MR. SCHMITT: Today, no, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It still would not?
MR. SCHMITT: It would not. It would encroach even more.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, wait a minute.
MR. SCHMITT: It's a 10-foot set back now. At one time it was
15. I did not evaluate when it changed to 10. It's somewhat irrelevant
now because it is 10. He has an encroachment -- or the distance is 7.3
feet, so it's approximately two and a half feet encroachment into the
rear yard setback.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Today's standards.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: With today's --
MR. SCHMITT: With today's standards.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. If the setbacks were
15 feet, say they did not change --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- would it be in violation of the
Page 27
July 25, 2006
setbacks?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It still would be?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
MR. MUDD: Yeah, it would be--
MR. SCHMITT: It would be more so.
MR. MUDD: It'd be even more. It would be like seven feet.
MR. SCHMITT: It would be seven feet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, yes. I got you.
MR. MUDD: So the setback is less than it was in the olden time.
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. He'd be a seven and a half foot
encroachment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Under the provisions of
the code that -- the administrator has the ability to waive minor
setbacks.
MR. SCHMITT: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you feel that, in this case,
that you have that ability?
MR. SCHMITT: No, sir, not -- you made a ruling that pool
cages are considered accessory items. In accordance with the County
Attorney now, I think we can only waive something administratively
in the neighborhood of six inches.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Six inches.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: That is not deemed part of the principal
structure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: And that was a policy decision based on a
previous ruling.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I'm sorry I have to agree
with the chairman.
MR. SCHMITT: I mean, there's certainly very substantial
Page 28
July 25, 2006
evidence to warrant staff recommending approval for a variance in this
case. And as I offered to the commissioners, one possibility -- and I
mentioned this to Mr. O'Conner -- we would issue his permit --
certainly would be at his risk -- and hold the -- have a TCO pending
the results of the variance, and that way his contractor could proceed,
then he could go through the administrative process before the
Planning Commission and before the Board of County Commissioners
to receive a variance.
And, again, I believe -- certainly it's 36 years, it establishes a
justification in itself that there is no -- from a neighborhood
perspective, there's no real impact, and we could process this as
expeditiously as possible, but we still have to meet those requirements
for public meetings.
So I mean, that would be one offer, proceed and then withhold.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would you need our approval?
MR. SCHMITT: I would appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no problems with
recommending that. I would -- just a -- you don't need a normal vote
though, just a direction?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, that way --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The direction--
MR. SCHMITT: That way you wouldn't commit yourself -- put
yourself in a position of being -- feel like you're being forced --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But the direction is is that we
wouldn't have any problem with the petitioner proceeding at his own
risk with the idea that, based upon what we know at this point in time
__ and we don't know if we know everything -- that a variance most
likely would be granted.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So he should go the path of pursuing a
vanance.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, but meanwhile--
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. We would issue the building permit
Page 29
July 25, 2006
predicated on, that he will complete the application for a variance and
go through that process.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do my fellow commissioners
agree --
MR. SCHMITT: And frankly, that would clean up his land use
records as well.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So long as we're under the
impression that --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- he's going to be able to get a variance
and proceed, and come back to the board.
MR. SCHMITT: And I would note, there is a fence. A fence is
already up. He already has a permit for the fence. The fence,
certainly from the neighbor's perspective, the pool cage going into the
rear yard setback is going to be inconsequential.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. O'CONNER: Excuse me. Is the cost for that variance still
$10,000?
MR. SCHMITT: That variance is $2,000, and you have to pay
the advertising fees.
MR. O'CONNER: Okay. Somebody said it was $2,000 every
six inches.
MR. SCHMITT: No, no.
MR. O'CONNER: Well, we could probably manage that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. O'CONNER: Thank you, Commissioners. I do appreciate
your time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY JAMES MARSHALL TO
Page 30
July 25, 2006
DISCUSS LIEN ON PROPERTY AT 820 20TH AVENUE NW
IMPOSED BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD -
DISCUSSED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, the next public petition is 6B.
That's a public petition request by James Marshall to discuss a lien on
the property at 820 20th Avenue Northwest imposed by the Code
Enforcement Board.
Mr. Marshall, if you'd just give us a couple minutes. If you'd just
give us a second or so, and we'll clear it out, and this way there'll be
no distractions for your particular issue.
MR.OCHS: Is Mr. Marshall here?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. Mr. Marshall, did you want to
proceed, sir?
MR. MARSHALL: Yes. For the record, my name is James
Marshall, and I'm appearing pro se, unrepresented.
My wife and I would like to thank the County Manager for
placing this petition on today's agenda. We also very much appreciate
the board's prudence in beginning its proceedings with an invocation,
and we would like to reassure you, each of you, that we, too, have
sought guidance from our Creator in dealing with this problematic
issue, which is the subject matter of this petition.
We've petitioned this board to resolve a matter resulting from
what we have perceived as to be a breakdown or malfunction in the
quasijudicial system utilized by Collier County's Code Enforcement
Department and Board.
The problem began with Investigator Letourneau who obviously
knew very little about the restraints imposed upon him by the Collier
County code and the United States Constitution as it related to
property rights. The law is good only when a man uses it lawfully,
and in this case Investigator Letourneau did not.
Apparently no other investigator or supervisor at the department,
Page 31
July 25, 2006
member of the board or Assistant County Attorney was familiar
enough with the sections of the code that we have cited in our petition
to have prevented the deprivation of our rights that we have suffered at
the pleasure of the Code Enforcement Board.
It is also evident from the record that Director Arnold was
pleased to misinform Chairman Flegal about a notice of hearing in this
case only to exacerbate the deprivation of our rights.
In our experience, the Code Enforcement Department and Board
operated outside the rule of law and often without logic or reason.
This Board of Commissioners is, as it were, the forum of last resort
where an impending action for damages against Collier County can be
prevented.
It is our prayer that this board, with the divine guidance that it
seeks, will conclude that the lien on our property not be foreclosed,
and that said lien be vacated and! or released.
Any questions from the board?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We need some guidance here from the
County Attorney. Could you -- because I believe there is some
litigation on this presently; is that correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, that's correct. We're presently in
litigation on several fronts. We have a case pending in the Circuit
Court that's awaiting decision. I understand Mr. Marshall has asked
for a rehearing for the Code Enforcement Board for this Thursday.
There is no proceeding as to foreclosure of a lien, by the way.
That's never been on the table. We always go to you first before we
institute for permission before we foreclose.
The issue here is actually pretty straightforward. We have a
partially built structure -- and I'm going to ask that it be shown -- that's
basically been seemingly abandoned, and all we've asked of Mr.
Marshall is to either complete the structure and get a CO or to knock it
down.
That's all we've asked. That's all we ask today, one or the other,
Page 32
July 25, 2006
because we're concerned for the public safety and health here that a
structure of this nature would be a magnet for homeless people to
congregate or drug issues or teen-agers or God only knows what out
there. It's a rather remote area with the property, and it's just -- it's --
quite frankly, it's dangerous like this right now.
We're not asking for foreclosure. We're not trying to extract any
monetary sum from Mr. Marshall. All we really want is compliance
here. And we've been trying to work with Mr. Marshall for quite
some time, and so far we've been unsuccessful in those efforts.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: But you're saying that this is presently
under litigation in the courts; is that correct? So I don't feel that we
need to get into this particular venue at this point in time; is that what
you would recommend to us?
MR. KLA TZKOW: I would recommend that we defer this issue
at this time, yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any discussion from my
fellow commissioners?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just a little bit curious. I'm--
what is this structure supposed to be, Mr. Marshall?
MR. MARSHALL: It was permitted as a residence.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: There's a couch in there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, it's a little different. Is
there any reason why you can't complete it? Is there -- and you know,
take out the due permits and everything?
MR. MARSHALL: Well, there had been vandalism at the
property. My understanding is, this is just a permit issue. There's not
a health and safety issue raised in the code enforcement proceedings.
We had applied for permits. Our permits -- our plans and the fee
for the re-permitting was in the office when the Code Enforcement
Department brought us before the board. At that point in time we
withdrew the permit, and we're taking a stand on our rights.
Page 33
July 25, 2006
I don't believe at that point in time that the Code Enforcement
Board has the authority to order us to finish the house. There's some
conflicts with prior codes. I brought them to the board's attention in
my position -- excuse me -- in my petition; specifically would be
exhibit number 5.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Marshall, I don't mean to
interrupt you --
MR. MARSHALL: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- but I really do want to -- I
wish there was some way this could be resolved. I'll tell you what, no
one ever wins when it goes through the courts. County spends money,
you spend money in the end, whether you win or lose. Nothing is
really accomplished.
Rules and regulations are put out there to be followed across the
board by everyone. I mean, would you reconsider possibly taking out
a permit if you were allowed to do so and finishing the structure and
maybe ending all this nonsense?
MR. MARSHALL: Well, at this point, you know, there, you
know, is a lien on our property, and that poorly reflects --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The lien is the result of--
MR. MARSHALL: The order becomes a lien on our property.
So I mean, that's reflected on our credit record already, so we've been
damaged there. We've suffered damages. And I guess if you're asking
me to wait and trust that code enforcement will not foreclose on the
property, I don't know that we can do that at this point.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's go back. I'm sorry. I don't
mean to take the commission's time on this, but I think there's a little
bit more here than meets the eye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would the County Attorney
please tell me exactly how this all fits together? In other words, could
he go to the -- get a permit now and somehow maybe stop the action
Page 34
July 25, 2006
on the part of the foreclosure?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: There's no foreclosure.
MR. KLATZKOW: We haven't started -- there is no foreclosure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I hear there's no foreclosure
taking place. They haven't reached anywhere near that.
Tell me this. If Mr. Marshall did get a permit and wanted to
proceed, how would this affect the ongoing actions that are taking
place? Would it put a hold on it?
MR. KLA TZKOW: The purpose of code enforcement's
compliance -- Mr. Marshall was proceeding towards compliance, the
code enforcement actions would be held in abeyance, he would get
into compliance, and then we would come back to this board on the
issue of the lien as to what this board wanted to do with the lien,
whether to waive it entirely or just partially, what have you. The idea
is compliance.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think what we really need to do is let
this go through the process, because it's gone to the point where I
believe it's going into the court of law, and I think that's where it needs
to go at this point in time, and then --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Regrettably, you're probably
right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think that's the direction it needs to go.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I was going to make the
same observation. It appears to me that the petitioner has had ample
opportunity to proceed with the construction ifhe wanted to do so. It's
his perception that his rights are being violated in some way, and
there's no way we're going to change that perception, and the court is
the proper way to reach an appropriate conclusion, so I would
recommend we let it go.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep. Thank you very much, sir. We
appreciate your time.
Page 35
July 25, 2006
Item #9 A
RESOLUTION 2006-189: APPOINTING MICHAEL SEEF TO THE
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN AD HOC ADVISORY
COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item on the agenda is 9A,
and that's appointment of a member to the Habitat Conservation Plan
Ad Hoc Advisory Committee.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I have a motion for approval
of someone to fill for the Habitat Conservation Plan and Ad Hoc
Committee (sic)?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve Michael Seef,
the recommendation by the committee --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor
for Michael Seefby Commissioner Fiala and a second by
Commissioner Coyle.
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 #9B
RESOLUTION 2006-190: APPOINTING BETH BARTH TO THE
Page 36
July 25, 2006
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 9B. It's
appointment of a member to the Parks and Recreation Advisory
Board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'd like to make a
recommendation, or rather nominate Beth Barth.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We have one member to fulfill.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Right. Do I have a second on that, or do
I have another motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. I take it that Beth
Barth is known to you as being a person that would be able to fill the
responsibility in this position?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second your motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Fiala for the appointment of Beth Barth and a second
by Commissioner Coletta.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
Item #9C
Page 37
July 25, 2006
RESOLUTION 2006-191: APPOINTING WILLIAM R. O'NEILL
TO THE IMMOKALEE MASTER PLAN AND VISIONING
COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 9C. It's
appointment of a member to the Immokalee Master Plan and
Visioning Committee.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to make a motion that
we go with the committee's recommendation for William O'Neill.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, and I'll second that.
We have a motion on the floor for the appointment of William
O'Neill to the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee.
Motion was by Commissioner Coy Ie -- or Coletta and seconded by
Commissioner Halas.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(N 0 response.)
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2006-192: DECLARING A VACANCY ON THE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE-
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 9D. It's a
recommendation to declare a vacancy on the Development Services
Page 38
July 25, 2006
Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion by Commissioner
Henning for approval of this removal 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?
(N 0 response.)
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2006-193: APPOINTING MICHAEL J. CARR, SR.
TO THE COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY
- ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: The next item is 9E. It's appointment of a member
to the Collier County Housing Finance Authority.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Make a motion that we appoint
Michael Carr, Sr.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion.
Could I ask a question on this one?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we have an attendance record?
I'm sure it's outstanding, but I just wondered if we did.
Page 39
July 25, 2006
MS. FILSON: Actually this committee is an authority created by
statute, and Don Pickworth, the attorney, he hasn't given -- I can ask
for those in the future for the authorities, if you'd like.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning and second by Commissioner Fiala in regards
to the Collier County Housing and Finance Authority.
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.)
Item #9F
RESOLUTION 2006-194: APPOINTING NANCY C. LASCHEID
AND DR. CHRISTOPHER HAMANN (REPRESENTING THE
PHYSICIANS REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER) TO THE
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ADVISORY COUNCIL-
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 9F. It's
appointment of members to the Emergency Medical Services
Advisory Council.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Make a motion that we appoint
Nancy Lascheid.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'm proud to make that
motion.
Page 40
July 25, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
MS. FILSON: And we also need to confirm Dr. Christopher
Hammond representing --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's part of my motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm sorry. What?
MS. FILSON: And we also need to confirm Dr. Christopher
Hammond who's going to represent Physicians Regional Medical
Center.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you say that's part of your
motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's part of my motion, Mr.
Chair.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Then it will be part of my
second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor
from Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Fiala in
regards to the Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council.
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 #9G
RESOLUTION 2006-195: APPOINTING RICHARD RICE
(IMMOKALEE CHAMBER) AND DENISE LUJAN BLANTON
Page 41
July 25, 2006
(LOCAL BUSINESS IN ZONE) TO THE IMMOKALEE
ENTERPRISE ZONE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 9G. It's an
appointment of members to the Immokalee Enterprise Zone
Development Agency.
MS. FILSON: And Commissioners, on this one, if I can make a
couple of comments. I provided each of you with a new executive
summary and a new memo from staff. They had accidentally put the
wrong --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: A little closer to the mike, Ms.
Filson.
MS. FILSON: They accidentally put the wrong person with the
wrong category, so the recommendations are going to change.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What were the
recommendations?
MS. FILSON: I just want to confirm--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The recommendations presently are
Richard Rice, Immokalee chamber, expires on April 4, 2007.
MS. FILSON: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And Denise --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Blanton.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- Blanton, local zone and zone -- local
business zone, expiring on April 4, 2007.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's the current
recommendations.
MS. FILSON: That's the current recommendations.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then I make a motion that those
two be approved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion. And may I
ask a question?
MS. FILSON: Sure.
Page 42
July 25, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: With Mr. Bernardo Barnhart, it says
he's a current member, and --
MS. FILSON: And I can explain that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
MS. FILSON: The Immokalee EZDA was created by ordinance,
and the Immokalee Redevelopment Zone was created by resolution.
And it says that it -- that the Immokalee EZDA also serves as the
Immokalee Redevelopment Board, and he thought they were two
different boards, so he applied to serve on this. And so -- and I didn't
want to omit him from the executive summary because he did apply.
So I did call him and explain to him that he serves on both boards.
They're one board actually.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. At this time we have a motion on
the floor by Commissioner Coletta and a second by Commissioner
Fiala on the -- regards to the two people that were discussed for this
appointment.
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 #lOA
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AN AGREEMENT FOR
SALE AND PURCHASE WITH MARIE C. BROCHU, FOR 9.26
ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND
Page 43
July 25, 2006
ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AND A UTILITY EASEMENT FOR
THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT, AT A
COST NOT TO EXCEED $467,500 - APPROVED W/CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item on our agenda, we go
to the County Manager's Report, and it's item lOA. This item was
continued from the June 20, 21 st, 2006, BCC meeting.
It's a 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.
And Ms. Alex Sulecki, your manager for Conservation Collier --
did I get it right?
MS. SULECKI: Coordinator.
MR. MUDD: You're a manager now -- manager for
Conservation Collier -- will present. Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: There's a pay raise going with that,
Alex.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I ask one question? Do we
have any speakers on this item?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there anything that you wanted
to bring forth before we vote on this?
MS. SULECKI: No. I was here basically to answer any
questions that you might have.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So we have a motion on the floor
by Commissioner Coletta and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
All those in favor --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Comment.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'm sorry. Commissioner
Page 44
July 25, 2006
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't feel it's a -- appropriate
to use Conservation Collier properties for easements for the purpose of
future growth. I don't think that's the intent or the understanding of
the voters.
There's a campaign out there saying these lands will be saved for
__ from future development, and I can't support the motion because
what the well site will do would support future development.
And I think some of the public would be very upset if we did
something like that. So I'm not supporting the motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think that's a good
observation, and I agree with the intent of it.
There is a complicating factor here, however, and that is that
what this -- this partnership is doing is it is reducing the cost for
Conservation Collier to acquire this land.
I believe the cost for the easement is essentially the same cost as
if you purchased the property. So you're paying a premium for
participating in this partnership and you're also doing some other
things that would be beneficial to the conservation of that entire
parcel.
But we do need guidelines for doing this in the future, otherwise
we're going to get into that sort of problem that Commissioner
Henning is concerned about -- excuse me. And I believe that the staff
is coming to us with proposals concerning such partnerships in the
future.
But in this case, if it were not -- if we did not partnership, or
partner in this effort, it would seem to me that the taxpayers would
really be paying twice. The taxpayers would be paying for the
purchase of the conservation land, and then the taxpayers would be
paying again for the acquisition of some wellsites somewhere else.
And I think we -- we're hitting taxpayers twice.
Page 45
July 25, 2006
If we can partner on these kinds of things and reduce the cost to
the conservation purchase program, I think we're probably doing a
service to the taxpayers in total.
But there is that fine line that we've got to deal with. And
hopefully when you get some guidelines to us for consideration, we
can try to avoid this in the future.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, not all taxpayers are in the
water and sewer district, so there is an option, is for the water and
sewer district to purchase the property instead of Conservation Collier.
You know, our transportation department has done that and is
continuing to do that to where it -- slicing out part of it is not -- it's
more feasible to purchase the whole property and utilize it instead of
part of it.
I just don't agree with the policy, and you know, I'm just going to
state my opinion and why I'm voting no for it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I can appreciate that,
Commissioner Henning, where you're coming from. My viewpoint is
slightly different in that I see a tremendous public benefit. Now,
whether we bought the whole property -- if we bought the whole
property, we'd probably utilize it for other things in the future.
By just separating a small part to something that's very non-
intrusive -- once it's on there, it requires maintenance just
occasionally. It's not going to require trucks be parked there on a
regular basis. It will be screened off from the rest of it, and it serves a
tremendous public purpose, and the net gain is that money is freed up
for Conservation Collier to move forward on other parts of the
property.
But I agree with you as far as coming up with a clear, defined
direction that defines what we can do. One of my biggest concerns, as
you probably can remember before, we purchased the school property
Page 46
July 25, 2006
across from the canal just over there on the other side of 951 one mile
to the east there. When we purchased that, I mentioned several times
about the right of access for 16th sometime in the future. Very, very
big concern of mine. I would have never voted for the property if we
couldn't separate that particular access for 16th because it would
hamstring the whole estates area sometime in the future without that
ability to be able to move through part of that property.
So I think we have to have something that's very well spelled out.
And I know the county is working on a particular ordinance that's
going to be brought to us, I believe it's this fall. And I don't know if
anyone's listening at this point in time. Is that correct, Mr. Pettit?
MR. PETTIT: Yes. I believe it's going to come back to the
advisory committee in September. The advisory committee doesn't
have a meeting in August. And then it will be coming up to you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And at that point in time we'll
be able to come up with more defined parameters they're going to
work with so that all the players out there understand where we're
going with this.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Could I have some comments there from
either Jim DeLony--
MR. DeLONY: Sir, I was just waiting for the question, quite
frankly.
Jim DeLony, public utilities administrator. I'm listening very
carefully to the discussion today. I think that the bottom line of this
thing, we don't need to be in competition for these lands or any lands
for the multi-purposes we have to serve our clients, be they for
conservation purposes or water and sewer district purposes.
I believe staff should work very hard with guidance from you, of
course, that you concur with this position that we find win-wins.
I don't see -- if there's competition, fine, I mean, if that's the
desire of the board that we go out and we compete for these lands.
There's only so much land that I can come forth and either find a
Page 47
July 25, 2006
willing seller or even come to you for rights of condemnation for
future water supply for the county.
We're going to need about -- well, our current plans in our AUIR
is somewhere about 200 wells in the out-years. I mean, if you look at
our current AUIR and our population for the water/sewer district,
remain as projected -- and those plans will come back every year--
we're looking at over 200 water wells to be in place.
Now we've got -- we're almost a third there. And we'll-- and
today you'll produce -- you'll approve 23 more -- actually 27 here, so
we're going to be halfway home here in terms of what's demanded and
what's needed in terms of raw water supply of wells for our utility
district.
That's no different than probably Mr. Feder's concern for
rights-of-way or Ms. Ramsey's concerns for parks, or any of -- or Mr.
Mudd's concerns for making sure we have the right infrastructure for
government services as we move east.
My goal is to work with not only just Conservation Collier but
anyone moving in -- working in the east and having real estate to try
to find a win-win for this water supply issue.
As you know, you just don't get a well everywhere. I mean, it's a
matter of access, it's a matter of the underground conditions, it's a
matter of South Florida Water Management District and FDEP's
permitting actions whether or not a suitable site or a perspective site
will be permitted for water supply.
So it's almost a -- it's just a tough fit in a lot of respects. And I
just believe that if we can find ways to be compatible and work
together, that we all in-state will have a better solution for what is
really inevitable.
We currently are condemning property this side of 951 -- you
participated in that recently -- where we had not in the past properly
prepared ourselves for real estate needs for raw water supply well.
And you can remember two years ago when we did that condemnation
Page 48
July 25, 2006
how difficult that was. That's what we're trying to preclude.
And with your guidance and directions through the A UIR and
then moving forward with a water supply plan that's in conjunction
with our master plan, I think we can find some better-fit solutions than
going to that means.
Now, there is certainly, you know, competition of some kind, but
if we can have win-wins, I would like to have the opportunity to do
that as we have with the Brochu property.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. I was -- I
understand that you're having an ordinance come up this fall?
MR. PETTIT: Commissioner Fiala, for the record, Mike Pettit.
There -- I don't want to get too expansive here about it, but there are
three ways this can work. Conservation Collier program was adopted
by referendum and you can't change basic goals and purposes in the
ordinance without a second referendum. And we began struggling
with some of these issues early on after we recognized that language.
If transportation or public utilities can demonstrate that they can
put infrastructure on Conservation Collier property consistent with the
goals and objectives of the program, that's certainly legal.
A second way they can -- and that can -- and there are certainly
rare instances where that could occur. For example, if we don't have
access and transportation wants right-of-way along the edge of an
already acquired property, there could be a pretty good argument that
they've met the goals and purposes of the program because the
program requires ultimately reasonable public access to these
properties.
Secondly, public utilities or transportation can do what's
occurring here, which is, these lands are identified and they can say, at
this corner or along this edge, for example, we would like some
right-of-way or we would like to place a well. And the reality is, they
are not using Conservation Collier Trust Fund monies. They're using
Page 49
July 25, 2006
public utility monies to acquire this strip. And I believe that that is
legal.
And with all due respect, Commissioner Henning, I'm very
sensitive to the concerns you bring up. That's why I'm going to kind
go into this in a minute.
Third, there are going to be situations, we hope few, years from
now when many of us may no longer be sitting here, where we'll
identify that we've acquired a property, put it into the Conservation
Collier program, it's protected, and we are going to -- and we are
going to need to use some of that property for public infrastructure.
Just absolutely have to because it's just not predictable at this point in
time, and that will be the purpose of the exceptional benefits
ordinance, which is really a different concept than we are here today
on.
I hope that answers your question. I don't want to be too
long-winded, but that will come back in September.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I wasn't aware that you were
going to do that until Commissioner Halas mentioned that. And being
that I've heard some concerns presented here, I would hope that if you
-- that you would talk with some of the people on the commission to
get their input before it's a completed --
MR. PETTIT: Staff and our office will certainly do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Call the motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any other questions or concerns
from my fellow commissioners?
Yes, I'm sorry. Go ahead.
MS. SULECKI: Excuse me. I appreciate the discussion and that
you're ready to move on this, but as the liaison for the committee, in
your executive summary I did tell you I was going to present their
recommendation to you, and I have not done that yet.
Page 50
July 25, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Please do.
MS. SULECKI: So I would like to do that. Their
recommendation to you is to approve the purchase of the Brochu
property with the wellfield easement, but also encourage you to
require the water/sewer district to allocate a parking site for
Conservation Collier and have the exotics removed on the entire
property, less any grants receipt.
Now, this differs from staffs recommendation, so I wanted to
present that to you, give you an opportunity to hear that. And I had
contacted the committee members and invited them also to appear
here, if any chose to, to explain their reasoning to you.
Our recommendation differed somewhat, and it was that the
water/sewer district would provide site improvements on its own
portion and commensurate with its own needs that will allow for
shared parking access for the Conservation Collier site.
Also that exotics, trash and debris on the water/sewer district
portion would be removed in coordination with the removals done by
Conservation Collier on its own portion, and that any code required
landscaping on the easement site would be accomplished with site
appropriate native plant species. That is staffs recommendation.
So when you move and approve, if you could just differentiate.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Incorporate that into the motion.
MS. SULECKI: If you could, please.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
MS. SULECKI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is that into your motion--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's included.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- Commissioner Coletta? And your
second, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
Page 51
July 25, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If not, 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.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion carries. Thank you very
much for your time.
Item #1 OB
ORDERING AND PROVIDING FOR HOLDING A BALLOT
REFERENDUM ELECTION TO DETERMINE IF THE
FREEHOLD ELECTORS OF THE FOREST LAKES ROADWAY
AND DRAINAGE MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA APPROVE THE ISSUANCE OF
$6,250,000.00 IN BONDS IN ORDER TO FINANCE THE
PROVISION AND MAINTENANCE OF IMPROVED ROADW A Y
LIGHTING, ROADWAY -RELATED DRAINAGE AND
ROADWAY RESTORATION WITHIN THE FOREST LAKES
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING
UNIT, AND PURPOSES INCIDENTAL THERETO, PAYABLE
FROM AD VALOREM TAXES LEVIED ON ALL TAXABLE
PROPERTY WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL TAXING UNIT NOT
EXCEEDING FOUR (4) MILLS - MOTION TO TABLE UNTIL
LATER IN THE MEETING - CONSENSUS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is item lOB, and this
is a recommendation to adopt a resolution ordering and providing for
holding a valid referendum election to determine if the freehold
Page 52
<~__u... _ ._0'...__
July 25, 2006
electors of the Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage Municipal
Services Taxing Unit of Collier County, Florida, approve the issuance
of $6,250,000 in bonds in order to finance the provision and
maintenance of improved roadway lighting, roadway-related drainage
and roadway restoration within the Forest Lakes Roadway and
Drainage Municipal Services Taxing Unit, and purposes incidental
thereto, payable from ad valorem taxes levied on all taxable property
within the municipal taxing unit not exceeding four mills.
And Ms. Diane Flagg, your director for alternative transportation
modes, will present.
MS. FLAGG: Good morning, Commissioners. It's exactly as the
manager said. It's just to adopt the resolution so that the qualified
voters within the Forest Lakes --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Diane, could you put your name on the
record.
MS. FLAGG: Diane Flagg, Director of Alternative
Transportation Modes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
MS. FLAGG: This is so that the voters within the Forest Lakes
MSTU boundary may vote whether bonds be issued in order to make
the improvements now so they can pay today's cost rather than
multi -year costs later.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question for the County
Attorney.
The countywide stormwater improvement, capital improvement,
moneys set aside, I think it's .33. No, it's .015.
MR. MUDD: Point 15 -- .15 mills, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: These residents within this
MSTU, could those funds be used to assist in making those capital
improvements?
MR. PETTIT: Commissioner, I'm going to -- I would have to
Page 53
July 25, 2006
research that. I'm just going to be blunt, unless Mr. Teach has a
thought on it.
MR. TEACH: Scott Teach, Assistant County Attorney.
Commissioner, I agree with Mr. Pettit, we would have to -- we'd have
to take a separate look at that issue.
We do have a time limitation, I should explain, with the
referendum. If it doesn't get approved today, we have to get to the
supervisor of elections by September 6th to get this on the November
ballot. This is an issue where the freehold electors of the MSTU
would be paying for this themselves, and there is sufficient -- the mills
are sufficient now to cover this bond issue. But your issue, I really
don't have an answer as I stand here today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I think it's
important because they do share it, and I think they ought to benefit in
it also, but I don't know how my colleagues feel. And if you want to
put this item off until later on the agenda so you can do some research
on it.
MR. PETTIT: I was going to suggest that. That may be
something we could do and come back to you with an answer later in
the afternoon or in the morning even.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do we have anybody from the MSTU
that represents the MSTU?
MS. FLAGG: No, sir. What I would offer is that the MSTU did
meet with the stormwater department to ask them if some of these
improvements could be included, and the stormwater departments
indicated that they could not. And maybe Mr. Feder would like to go
further into that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Either that or Gene Calvert, whose --
either one of you, I guess, can probably help us out here.
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, Transportation
Administrator. And I will rely on Gene if he can add some more to
this.
Page 54
July 25, 2006
What I will tell you is that we do not maintain the roads within
private developments that the roads have not been accepted, nor do we
maintain the drainage. In this case, that is the situation, and that's why
they formed the MSTU to address their road and drainage issues.
The .15 mills was set up for stormwater countywide. Yes, they
pay into it, and yes, they receive benefits based on the countywide
stormwater. But within their development itself, as in many gated
communities in private areas around the county, we do not go in and
use the public funds to go in and manage their roads. They determine
to keep them private. Calvert.
MR. CALVERT: For the record, Gene Calvert, Stormwater
Management Department. That is very correct. What we've looked
at, our funding over the next five years, is looking at projects that are
maintained by the county, by the road maintenance forces so that
those systems are maintained by the county, or at least have a
structure set up to -- whereas the new MSTUs may maintain them,
such as the Haldeman Creek where we did some of those
improvements.
Now, there are situations where we do improve private systems,
if you will. But we have a structure with our one-third policy where
we set that into consideration as well.
r might add also that our five-year budget is very tight. We have
allocated or identified projects over the next five years, primarily
some of the larger projects, LASIP, some of those, trying to get some
of those done, Gateway Triangle as well.
MR. FEDER: The last thing I will add, the nature of an MSTU is
to do very site-specific improvements above and beyond, and that's
basically what is being asked by this MSTU, that they get an
opportunity to go back to the electorate and decide by referendum if
they do want to bond and move forward with these improvements on
an earlier basis.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So what you're saying -- to wrap this up
Page 55
July 25, 2006
in conclusion -- is that this is a gated community, it's private roads,
and, therefore, these people have elected themselves to apply -- or
would like to apply a tax on this to take care of their stormwater
problems that they have within that community.
MR. FEDER: Yes. And they utilize an MSTU, unlike some
gated communities that have set up a homeowners' association; just do
special assessments. The MSTU is a vehicle that's been provided to
allow them the opportunity to collect the funds, governing their own
determination to use and to apply it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's not a gated
community. It's just the fact is --
MR. FEDER: Private roads.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- we haven't accepted the roads.
The public can drive in there in, I think, every aspect of the
community.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I hear -- what's our wishes
here, Commissioners? Do we want to put this off to a later date, or do
we want to address this now with the information that's been presented
to us?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd rather just hear it toward the end
of the day so that the attorneys can research that a little bit. My
opinion so far is, I know with the Bayshore MSTU, so I can only
judge with that.
They wanted to be able to tax amongst themselves to make any
type of improvements they wanted. I mean, they've done things like
flags on the light posts and changed the light posts and so forth, and I
wouldn't want to deny them that ability. But at the same time, I think
we should hear from the attorneys to answer the questions from
Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We'll table this then till later on today
and bring this back, okay?
Page 56
July 25, 2006
Item #1 OC
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE OFFICIAL NAMING
OF THE NAPLES SANITARY LANDFILL TO THE COLLIER
COUNTY LANDFILL LOCATED AT 3901 WHITE LAKE BLVD
NAPLES, FLORIDA - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 10C. This item
was continued from the June 20, 2006 BCC meeting. It's 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.
Mr. Jim DeLony, your Administrator for Public Utilities, will
present.
MR. DeLONY: Commissioners, the executive summary you
have -- wow, excuse me. For the record, Jim DeLony, Public Utilities
Administrator. The executive summary you have before you is the
exact same executive summary we had at the last meeting. I am here
for your questions.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. If I may, Mr. DeLony, I'm
the one that seemed to have raised some questions, and then I asked
for it to be continued because Commissioner Coyle had to leave a few
minutes early, and I thought that he should be here for it, since he was
the person who seemed to have the most interest in this name change.
One, I do believe that there is a cost associated with it. Even
though it may be small I do think that has to be taken into
consideration as far as the final outcome is. That cost would be
related not only to signs, but possibly even recordkeeping. I'm not too
sure what else, business cards, stationery. There may be some cost
incurred to Waste Management.
And second, there was reference made in the summary agenda
about the confusion that arises with the name being the Naples
Page 57
July 25, 2006
Landfill. I don't know of anyone that ever got lost going to it, and I'd
like to know if you could elaborate on either one of those two points.
MR. DeLONY: Sir, I'm looking at the executive summary. I
don't know if we've got a comment here to confusion. We do have
some permit documents that have evolved over the years with various
names for the landfill, to include Collier County Landfill, Naples
Landfill. I mean, it's just a lack of precision up till now, I think, in the
recordkeeping between us, the DEP and others. The thought here is to
establish a name, correct the record as required, and then move
forward.
Again, we discussed at the last meeting any incremental costs. I
believe they're just that. I don't believe there's significant cost. Again,
there will be some, but it will not be significant. Our signage there is
quite poor. It will be replaced. When we replace it, we would like to
replace it in a posture that will stay permanent with regard to the
naming without a doubt.
And so that's the explanation I have in response to your question,
sir, unless I missed something just glancing at the executive summary.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I like the idea of changing the name.
I think if it's a duck, you ought to call it a duck, and it's Collier County
Landfill, so let's call it the Collier County Landfill. So I motion to
approve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I'll second that.
Any other discussion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, one comment. My
ultimate hope was eventually if we kept the name Naples Landfill, that
eventually the City of Naples would annex it, but I guess that won't
happen.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think you'll have to wait a long
time. The only alternative I have is to name it the Coletta Memorial
Landfill.
Page 58
July 25, 2006
MR. DeLONY: Memorial would be a little premature at this
time, would it not?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd love to accommodate you,
but in this case it's no.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not necessarily.
MR. DeLONY: We could defer this to later in the day.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. You've got a motion and a
second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We've got a motion. There's a motion on
the floor by Commissioner Fiala and a second by Commissioner Halas
to change the landfill from Naples to Collier County Landfill.
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: And at that --
MR. DeLONY: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. And at that, we'll
take a 12- minute break.
(A brief recess was taken.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, County Manager.
Board of County Commissioners is now back in session.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item on our agenda is
10D, and it's just a note on this item, and it reads, is continued until
September 12, 2006, and that's the issue renaming the Registry Resort
Page 59
July 25, 2006
to the Naples Grande Resort. Again, continued until 12 September,
2006, and that was at the petitioner's request.
Item #10E
RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD BID #06-3982 FOR
SURF ACING & MAINTENANCE OF LIMEROCK ROADS IN
COLLIER COUNTY TO 1) PRIMARY, FLORIDA HIGHWAY
PRODUCTS, INC. 2) SECONDARY, E. J. BRENEMAN 3)
TERTIARY, NR CONTRACTORS FOR A MINIMUM ANNUAL
AMOUNT OF $1,700,000 AND A MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF
$10,000~000 - APPROVED
The next item on your agenda is 10E, and that's a
recommendation to award bid number 06-3982 for surface (sic) and
maintenance of lime rock roads in Collier County to, number one,
Primary Florida Highway Products, Inc., the second is E.J. Breneman,
the third tertiary is N .R. Contractors, for a minimum annual amount of
$1,700,000 and a maximum amount of $10,000,000. And Mr. Norman
Feder, your administrator for transportation services, will present.
MR. FEDER: Thank you, Jim. For the record, Norman Feder,
transportation administration. And I have John Vliet, your road and
bridge superintendent, here as well, if we get into more in-depth
questions.
What I will tell you, in general, this has gone out to bid. We
went out with packages to over 100 firms. Based on the response and
the bidding, we have three firms identified.
The primary firm is who we would seek to give the work to, they
are the lowest bidder, but we also experienced in the past where the
low bidder either cannot perform the level of work and isn't ready, and
in many cases we find ourselves without a secondary or tertiary not
being able to deliver on the program. That's why we're asking you to
Page 60
July 25, 2006
establish them in that rank, order and to accept all three under this bid.
I'm open for any questions if you have them.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any questions or concerns
from my fellow commissioners?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I hear a motion to approve.
Do I have a motion for a second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion on the floor for -- in
regards to the resurfacing of lime rock roads. The motion is by
Commissioner Fiala, is seconded by Commissioner Coyle.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Seeing none or hearing none, I'll call the
question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: (Absent.)
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.
Item #10F
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AN ALTERNATIVE ROAD
IMPACT FEE CALCULATION AND RESULTING RATE OF
$3,850 PER 1,000 SQUARE FEET FOR THE PROPOSED CITY
FURNITURE/ASHLEY FURNITURE STORE, AND TO PROVIDE
STAFF DIRECTION TO CONTRACT FOR CONSULTANT
SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL STUDIES TO OBTAIN
Page 61
July 25, 2006
SUFFICIENT TRIP CHARACTERISTIC DATA TO FACILITATE
ADDING A FURNITURE STORE CATEGORY TO THE ROAD
IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: The next item is number 10F, and that is a
recommendation to approve an alternative road impact fee calculation
and resulting rate of $3,850 per 1,000 square foot for the proposed
City Furniture/Ashley Furniture store, and to provide staff direction to
contract for consultant services for additional studies to obtain
sufficient trip characteristic data to facilitate adding furniture store
category to the road impact fee rate schedule.
And, Mr. Phil Tindale, your impact fee rate schedule manager in
transportation, will present.
MR. TINDALE: Good morning, Commissioners, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Phil Tindale, for the record, Transportation Planning
Department.
Mr. Nunner, the consultant for City Furniture/Ashley Furniture
contacted us in April of this year with the proposal to do a study to
determine the trip characteristics for this particular furniture store,
reason being is we really don't have an appropriate category if our fee
schedule for a furniture store, and it's something that's been
problematic, and we've been wanting to deal with it for quite some
time.
This -- and there's really no available Florida data to base a
furniture store category on. So what we want to do with this is use
their data to start developing a database for which we can update our
fee schedule and add that category, do some more studies based upon
furniture stores in Collier County. And in the next -- probably before
the end of the year we could get this done but actually update our fee
schedule so we can actually have an appropriate rate in the future to
assess for furniture stores.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
Page 62
July 25, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion on the floor to approve by
Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries. Thank you very much
for your presentation.
MR. TINDALE: Thank you very much.
Item #10G
RESOLUTION 2006-196: RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT THE
PROPOSED FY 2007 MILLAGE RATES - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is lOG, and that's a
recommendation to adopt proposed FY -2007 millage rates, and
Michael Smykowski, your director for Office and Management and
Budget, will present.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Michael Smykowski.
We're at an important stage in the TRIM, or truth in millage
process. In the board's action today, you're being requested to adopt
the proposed millage rates as the maximum property taxes to be levied
in fiscal year 2007.
Page 63
July 25, 2006
We have until August 4th to provide the property appraiser with
the various tax levies approved by Collier County for fiscal year 2007.
He, in turn, then uses that information from our tax rates as well as
those adopted by each of the other governmental jurisdictions in
Collier County, the school board, the water management districts, the
municipalities and the like, to prepare the TRIM notice or notice of
proposed taxes, which will go to each homeowner in Collier County.
And what that does is it shows each property owner the impact of
both the proposed tax rates by all of the governing bodies as well as
the updated taxable valuation of each individual property so each
property owner understands the impact of the proposals before their
respective governing bodies. That also serves as our official notice for
the first public hearing in September, which is scheduled for
September 7, 2006, in this very boardroom.
It's important to note that during the September budget hearings,
the board has the latitude to maintain or lower the millage rates at the
-- based on the rates that were -- that will be approved today.
The rates cannot be raised subsequent to the adoption today
without meeting some fairly onerous public notice and advertising
requirements, and they are so onerous as to make the likelihood of
being able to do that virtually impossible. You're talking about
sending Certified Mail to all the property owners in the county.
Obviously that is not something that you want to do.
So at this point this serves as basically the worst-case scenario to
the taxpayer because, again, the board will have the latitude, and not
only this board but each of those, fire district boards, school district
boards, and the like, will have the latitude at their public hearing to
maintain or lower the millage rates.
Some of the highlights. The proposed general funds millage rate
is 3.579. And let me just tell you what Mr. Mudd has. Based on the
June taxable values, we were at a proposed millage rate of 3.5912.
That was based on the June 1 cer -- the June 1 preliminary valuation
Page 64
July 25, 2006
of property by the property appraiser. The board's policy direction
this year relative to the general fund millage rate was to cap the
increase in taxable value at 16 percent.
What we've done based on July 1, we get the final certified value
upon which the property tax rates before you today are based, and that
changed slightly, so now you're at -- the proposed rate would be
3.5790, and then just a little further down it shows compared to the
3.8772 that's been levied in the past, it's a decrease of $29.82 per
$100,000 of taxable value or a decrease of7.7 percent.
In raw dollar terms, in June we had talked about an overall
general fund millage -- or tax dollar rollback of approximately $22
million. At this point, given the change in the taxable value, the
rollback would be slightly in excess of $23 million. So that's basically
where we're at today.
The staff recommendation at this point is to adopt the proposed
millages as contained in the handouts following your direction at your
budget workshops in June, and then you'll have ample opportunity to
hear from the public either as a result of the TRIM notice process --
and the public is also afforded an opportunity to speak at each of the
respective public hearings. Our public hearing dates are September
7th and September 21 st.
With that, I'll entertain any questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. While I've still got
concerns about reserves for roads, I do understand that we've heard
numerous times from transportation that they h.ave adequate funds to
continue the program as it's so planned.
In light of that and the fact that this commission has given
direction to staff before, I'd like to make a motion to approve staff
recommendations.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second with the emphasis that
Page 65
July 25, 2006
this is a 7.7 percent reduction in the tax rate.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir, $23 million.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Seven point seven percent
reduction in the tax rate. And that is the minimum amount. We are --
we're establishing the maximum tax rate, which means that is the
minimum amount of the reduction. If we decide to go lower than that
before we approve the final budget, we can do that.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. In addition, in preliminary
discussions with the school board, they were looking at in the ballpark
range of about three-tenths of a mill reduction on their operating side
as well. So, you know, the cumulative impact is not only of the taxes
levied by the Collier County Board of Commissioners, but also by the
other varying jurisdictions, and we're expecting a reduction there as
well, which obviously leads to a greater overall reduction per 100,000
of value for each and every property owner in this community.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And would that not approach 14 to
15 percent reduction in the tax rate?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So overall the taxpayers of Collier
County are getting roughly a 14 or 15 percent reduction in the tax rate
this year?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's counting the schools?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: County school boards.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And we're still going to be able
to hold with our schedule as far as building the infrastructure that's
needed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's exactly right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mike, have you heard anything
from the fire districts whether they will seek a decrease in millage?
Page 66
July 25, 2006
MR. SMYKOWSKI: I have not, sir. At this point, again, just
because of the TRIM compliance perspective, everyone has to -- not
only us, but each of the other government jurisdictions, will have to
provide the property appraiser with their respective mill ages by
August 4th. So we'll know very quickly what each of the other
respective governmental units are doing relative to their millage.
Again, that would be a worst-case scenario for the taxpayer
because there is that latitude to make further changes at the final
public hearing as well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Not hearing any further
discussion, we have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Coletta
and a second by Commissioner Coyle.
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 very much.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you.
Item #10I
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A FINANCIAL
COMMITMENT OF $775,000 IN THE FIRST YEAR AND
$625,000 IN THE S~COND YEAR TO THE SOUTHWEST
FLORIDA EXPRESSWAY AUTHORITY TO COVER AN
OPERATING BUDGET THAT WILL BE REPAID TO THE
COUNTY WITH FUTURE SURPLUS TOLL REVENUES -
Page 67
July 25, 2006
APPROVED W/STIPULATIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us to our 10H. If you
remember from the change sheet, it has a time certain of 11 :45, then
we go to 101.
It's a recommendation to approve an agreement for the purchase
of right-of-way required for the six-laning of Collier Boulevard from
U.S. 41 to the Golden Gate Main Canal. It's capital element number
33, project 60001, the estimated fiscal impact is $1,285,087.61.
And Norman Feder, your administrator for transportation
services, will present.
MR. FEDER: Thank you, Commissioners. Norman Feder,
transportation administrator, for the record.
This is our project from 41 up to the Golden Gate Canal, the
southern section of 951, from our perspective. This represents
negotiated settlements based on two appraisals and acquisition of the
rights-of-way needed on that project that we're getting ready to let late
this calendar year, and I would ask you to move forward on the
recommendations as cited.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coyle, a second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any other discussion?
MR. PETTIT: Commissioner Coyle, your motion is -- includes
all the items in staff recommendation?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is that--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Also in my second, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Call the question. All those in
favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 68
July 25, 2006
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, Norm.
Item #10J
RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD A CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT TO BETTER ROADS, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF
$40,556,620.32 FOR COLLIER BOULEVARD SIX-LANE
IMPROVEMENTS, GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD TO
IMMOKALEE ROAD, BID NO. 05-3881R; PROJECT NO. 65061,
CIE NO. 37 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is number 10J. It's a
recommendation to award a construction contract to Better Roads,
Inc., in the amount of $40,556,620.32, for the Collier Boulevard
six -laning improvements, Golden Gate Boulevard to Immokalee Road,
bid number 05-3881R for project number 65061, CIE number 37.
And Mr. Norman Feder, your administrator for transportation
services hasn't moved, and I think he's going to present.
MR. FEDER: I'll be very brief, and I also have Jay Ahmad here
to support with any further discussion necessary.
This represents the northern section of 951, actually going to
construction. As you know we brought this to the board a little under
a year ago. At that time we only had one bidder, and that bid was
decidedly over our engineer's estimate, and we recommended to you
to rej ect that bid.
What we have, fortunately, today is a situation where we had
Page 69
July 25, 2006
three very qualified bidders. We are recommending the low bidder.
In this case it is Better Roads, who was previously the bidder on the
project. They did come in a little bit lower than their previous bid,
and we have all permits and all right-of-way in hand and need to
proceed on this very important project. And we're open to any
questions you might have.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion on the floor by Commissioner
Halas, 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. Thank you.
MR. FEDER: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item on the agenda packet
is item 10K, but you remember during the change sheet I mentioned
that this item would be heard around one p.m. And based on my
calculations, it will be about 1 :20 or 1 :30 this afternoon.
Item #10L
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE PARTIAL RE-
BIDDING OF CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.2,
Page 70
July 25, 2006
COURTHOUSE ANNEX BUILDING, UNDER CONTRACT NO.
04-3576, CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK SERVICES
FOR COURTHOUSE ANNEX AND PARKING GARAGE, WITH
KRAFT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. (KRAFT) FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE COURTHOUSE ANNEX FLOORS 1-
7. PROJECT NUMBER 52533 - APPROVED
That brings us to our next item, which is 10L on the agenda,
which is a recommendation to approve the partial re-bidding of
contract amendment number two, courthouse annex building, under
contract number 04-3576, Construction Manager at Risk Services for
courthouse annex and parking garage with Kraft Construction
Company, Inc., Kraft, for the construction of the courthouse annex
floor one through seven, project number 52533.
And Mr. Peter Hayden, the senior project manager for facilities
management, will be present.
MR. HAYDEN: Good morning. Peter Hayden, Senior Project
Manager with Facilities Management.
Today I'm bringing back an item that the board had seen last July
at this time. Initially we had phased the project into two different
phases; phase one, which would have been -- which you had seen in
July, which was the annex floors one through four, three floors
finished and one shell.
At that time it was competitively bid with Kraft Construction,
and we awarded a guaranteed maximum price in the amount of
$20,646,800, get that out right.
Since then, we've been working on completing our Site
Development Plan and building permit for the whole building, which
is a seven-story building.
Just recently we obtained our Site Development Plan amendment
for the full seven-story building, and we're still in for our building
permit.
Page 71
July 25, 2006
In discussions with purchasing, the County Attorney's Office, and
the Clerk of Courts, we felt it was best to come back to the board to
actually re-bid -- partially re-bid the project instead of just negotiating
for the top three floors, five through seven.
So at this time we'd like to keep the foundation contractor, which
has already done some test piles for us, and the underground
contractor.
So basically what I do -- once I get the approval today, we'd like
to go back, we'd re-bid in the month of August, and then we'd come
back with a new revised GMP to the board in September/October for
the full seven-story building, which will be competitively bid.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I really preferred, as staffs
recommendation, number two, but I just wanted to check with the
clerk's office to make sure that it passed their --
MR. HAYDEN: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- review as well. I spoke with
Crystal Kinzel yesterday, and she said they have reviewed it, and it is
okay with the clerk's office.
MR. HAYDEN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And so I would like to recommend
that we select option number two. In fact, what I'll do is put that in the
form of a motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do we have a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further discussion?
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, option number two is use
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's the one that staff
recommended, right?
MR. HAYDEN: Right. That's staff recommendation, correct.
Page 72
July 25, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Are we showing in the
top floors or --
MR. HAYDEN: Correct. Right now, we're -- at this time --
actually you've approved money for the fourth floor finish.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. HAYDEN: So it would be four floors finished, top three
floors. But the fourth floor at this time, we just got that money last
October, and I still haven't got that design completed. So we'd still
have to come back competitively with another GMP for the fourth
floor finish, not the shell. Right now this enables us to finish three
floors, build a full seven-story building.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, got ya, great. Support the
motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Fiala and I believe we have a second by Commissioner
Coyle; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. I was the second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta is the
second, excuse me.
Any further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll call the question. All those in favor,
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries. Thank you.
MR. HAYDEN: Thank you.
Page 73
July 25, 2006
Item #10M
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER FUNDS FROM
COUNTY WIDE BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS (PROJECT
NUMBER 690811) TO LIVINGSTON GREENW A YS (PROJECT
NUMBER 690817) IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,198,987.00 AND
LEL Y MITIGATION (PROJECT NUMBER 690816) IN THE
AMOUNT OF $301.013.00 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us to our next item,
which is 10M, and this is a recommendation to approve a budget
amendment to transfer funds from countywide bikeway improvement,
project number 690811, to Livingston Greenways, project number
690817, in the amount of$I,198,987, and the Lely mitigation, project
number 690816, in the amount of$301,013.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coletta and a second by Commissioner Henning.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries. Thank you very much.
Page 74
July 25, 2006
Item #10N
RECOMMENDATION TO: (1) APPROVE UNFUNDED
REQUESTS (UFRS) IN THE PUBLIC UTILITIES FY 07
PROPOSED BUDGET FOR TEN (10) FTES, (2) PERMIT
RECRUITING AND HIRING TO BEGIN IMMEDIATELY UPON
APPROVAL, AND (3) APPROVE THE NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENTS - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is ION, and it's a
recommendation to, one, approve unfunded requests, UFRs, in the
public utilities' FY -'07 proposed budget for 10 FTEs; two, permit
recruiting and hiring to begin immediately upon approval; and three,
approve the necessary budget amendments.
And Mr. Tom Wides, your director of operations for public
utilities, will present.
MR. WIDES: Commissioners, good morning. For the record,
Tom Wides, Operations Director, Public Utilities.
Excuse me. I just got off the tram. Just a little out of breath.
This morning, again, as we've noted, this is a request for the
FY - '07 budget for unfunded UFRs that we're asking for in advance
approval to hire.
The -- in your workshop on June 22nd, public utilities presented
its FY -'07 budget, along with a request for unfunded additional 10
FTEs.
At the workshop no action was taken on this request. Weare
here today to request approval to include these positions in our current
FY -'06 budget and have that move forward into '07. This will be a
necessary budget amendment to make that happen.
Hiring of these positions will reduce the FY -'07 budget by
approximately $592,000, and it will avoid the use of outside
contractors to do the work that needs to be done.
Page 75
July 25, 2006
At your preference this morning, I can take you through the
presentation with input from our impacted department directors or we
are prepared to answer any questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. If you would, please,
help me with this issue about the UFR. You want to -- you want to --
you're asking for something from the UFR funding now rather than at
the end of our budget process like we normally do?
MR. WIDES: Yes. Commissioner, that is essentially the case.
Now, in the case of public utilities, as we work through our master
plans and our rate studies, we included these positions in those studies
and also brought that to you at the time of our workshop in June, okay.
And what we've realized is we need these people on board, and
we'd like to go ahead now, right now, and start interviewing
candidates and bringing them on board as soon as we possibly can.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I understand where you're
coming from. My concern was, the UFR list, we've always treated it
as one entity so that we could pick and choose through the whole
thing. But help me with this now. Your funds are totally coming
from ratepayers, correct?
MR. WIDES: That's correct, Commissioner. None of these
fundings are coming from ad valorem taxes. This is all coming from
the water/sewer district rate base, user's fee rates.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So in other words, this comes
from the UFR part of the list that would be under your particular
ratepayer; is that part of the budget that comes from the ratepayers?
MR. WIDES: That is correct, Commissioner. We would not be
competing with the rest of the UFRs that are coming from the ad
valorem list.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What exactly were you
competing with within that same line? I have no problem with what
you're asking for, I'm just trying to put it all in perspective.
Page 76
July 25, 2006
MR. WIDES: We were not competing, we were just -- we were
operating under County Manager's guidance, okay, of any additional
FTEs that we needed, that they would come under your -- under your
approval level.
So there is no competition here. This had been contemplated in
the rates we set. And, yes, normal process would be to wait till the
September final approvals; however, we'd like to move forward. We
have the revenues, unlike -- you know, the competition for other
unfunded positions.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And these positions will
actually be an ultimate savings to the ratepayers?
MR. WIDES: They will be a -- they will be savings in the year
FY -'07 and going forward. These are long-term type positions. And
the alternative is to go outside to get outside contractors to do the
work, and that always comes at a premium. There are not short-term
type positions.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand. Thank you very
much for that explanation.
MR. WIDES: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Permit -- or pretreatment
inspectors, they're really code enforcement officers; is that right?
MR. WIDES: I'm going to ask George Yilmaz, our director of
wastewater, if he's here this morning, to speak to that. Okay.
MR. DeLONY: For the record, Jim DeLony, Public Utilities,
speaking for Dr. Yilmaz.
They're a combination of two things. They're there for ordinance
enforcement, as required, but they're primarily there also for education
and outreach associated with facilities which have a potential for
introducing fats, oils and greases into our waste stream.
They help people with regard to how to manage those wastes,
dispose of them properly through proper grease trap maintenance, and
Page 77
""...,<--..--""...-""
July 25, 2006
at the same time, do a great service in protecting us from plan upsets
because of the introduction of those heavy solids, so they're a
combination of ordinance enforcement and education and outreach,
sir. And that's our job.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And this will be in addition to
how many staff members doing this presently?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. I have -- currently have two staff
members doing that for the utility, with 240 square miles of service
area, and we're looking somewhere about 2,600 planned, or double our
inspections this year just to keep up with the number of establishments
in town. That's our potential service level for this particular activity.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Could they be trained to do
other things?
MR. DeLONY: They're trained to do what they are. They're
usually licensed in the water or sewer business. They're there to help
me for a lot of other reasons, but this is pretty much a full-time job for
them to do this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The answer's no?
MR. DeLONY: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The answer is no?
MR. DeLONY: Sir, I didn't say no. I said they are -- they can be
trained to do other things if required, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm just, I mean, seeing,
basically we have two different code enforcement operations going on
within, maybe more.
MR. DeLONY: And I understand that that might be observation.
This is not something you just walk up and can observe. You engage
the business owner, normally go deep into his -- into his business to
find the grease trap, you speak to him about his processes and
contributions.
So instead of maybe a code enforcement, which is an observation
without direct influence or direct contact with the customer, this is a
Page 78
July 25, 2006
different type of enforcement. But to say there couldn't be a twofer
there, potentially, yes. I just want to tell you, there's 2,600 of these
inspections to do, and we really need this done as programmed to get
the savings and the benefits to the water and sewer district in terms of
protecting our plants and our pipes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Is this the person or persons
who inspect before receiving a permit in restaurants that are just being
built as well as old restaurants that are being updated?
MR. DeLONY: The approval process for plan review goes
through community development and the county engineer. We have a
utility ordinance that prescribes what those grease traps were to be and
how size and -- if there was a deviation -- for example, I could give
you an example of where we've had some approved deviations. We've
prescribed __ if you have a kitchen, you have to have a grease trap, but
like a clubhouse who does no -- minimum food preparation, no oils,
no grease, we've looked closely at that, and we've helped the county
engineer craft a permit for that deviation. He always refers those
deviations to us to work with him on those.
So yes, ma'am, that's what they do. Where we find these folks
being most helpful is in the -- prior to our utility standards ordinance
coming into effect, working with these retrofits that you suggested,
and also with education and outreach, because of the, you know, the
challenge we have and treating those, once again, in the waste stream.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Kind of like an ombudsman? What
I'm asking is, sometimes permits get held up for quite a lengthy time
because of grease traps, and maybe if this person is somewhat like an
ombudsman to that -- to that effort as well, they might be able to guide
the people who are building their kitchens.
MR. DeLONY: I think we've been a good help with that. I think
up till now __ and I'm not -- I'm sorry if I'm not aware of any permits
held up because of grease traps. I know we've had some challenges
Page 79
July 25, 2006
with fire hoods and other issues associated with prepared restaurants.
Grease traps I'm not aware of one. We try to work quickly on those
deviations if they're requested.
So yes, ma'am, I think we could help people out if that is an area
of concern that they have as to, there may be a hold-up in a permit
delay __ because of, you know, something to do with their grease trap,
yes, ma'am, I think we can do that, working with the county engineer.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm going to make a
motion to approve, but I really would like the Productivity Committee
to take a look at how we can -- example, GIS engineer. I mean, there's
several of them in the different departments. How can we get
everybody together in one area to provide to the different departments
for efficiency?
MR. DeLONY: Sir, if I may -- and I'm not going to speak to the
specifics of what you bring us because we do work off a
hub-and-spoke arrangement for that. We'll be more than happy to
work with you or anyone else that can help us do it cheaper, better,
faster.
Staff works hard to do that before we come up here. In these
particular cases, we did review these hiring positions with
subcommittee appointed by the Productivity Committee that was
detailed to look specifically at the utilities budget and utilities request
for personnel.
And then as stated in your executive summary, both members of
that subcommittee agreed that the hiring of the FTE requested to
perform these in-house, represented a best value proposition compared
to utilizing outside contractors, and that was for aU 10 positions.
So we've gone through some of that step, but certainly I look
forward to working with productivity or anybody else that can help
me keep these rates down.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other further discussions?
Page 80
July 25, 2006
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do we have a motion on the
floor?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I made a motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You need a second?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, I'll second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. That's what I'm looking for. We
have a motion on the floor for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I believe I seconded it, didn't I?
Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Did you second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Commissioner Henning
made the motion, I seconded it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We'll get it corrected here. We're
in the training program here.
The motion was made by Commissioner Henning and seconded
by Commissioner Fiala.
Is there any 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: Those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think the biggest thing is--
MR. DeLONY: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- that you brought forward is that we
Page 81
July 25, 2006
have almost $561,000 savings on this, so I think we're moving in the
right direction.
MR. DeLONY: Thank you, sir.
Item #100
RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD WORK ORDER DDC-FT-
3887-06-01 IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,289,000 TO DIVERSIFIED
DRILLING CORPORATION (DDC) UNDER FIXED ANNUAL
TERM CONTRACT 06-3887 FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY
REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT FOUR NEW RAW
WATER SUPPLY WELLS 39S-42S, PROJECT 71051 -
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item on
the agenda, which is 100, and this is a recommendation to award
work order, excuse me, DDC-FT-3887-06-01 in the amount of
$2,289,000 to Diversified Drilling Corporation, DDC, under fixed
annual term contact 06-3887 for the South County Regional Water
Treatment Plant, four new raw water supply wells, 39S through 42S.
It's project 71051.
And Mr. Pete Schalt, Senior Project Manager for Public Utilities
Engineering, will present.
MR. SCHALT: Good morning, Commissioners. Peter Schalt, for
the record.
Staffs recommendations are to award work order
DDC-FT-3887-06-01 to Diversified Drilling Corporation in the
amount of $2,289,000, to approve the necessary budget amendment,
and to authorize the County Manager or his designees to sign the
standard work order after approval by the County Attorney's Office.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm just curious. You received nine
Page 82
July 25, 2006
bids, but seven of them didn't even provide quotes for the two major
components of the contract. Why do people submit bids if they don't
provide quotes for the amount of money to do the job?
MR. SCHAL T: This was actually fixed annual terms contracts,
and seven of them did not submit. They were no quotes. I just
received two bids for this thing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh. So you really didn't receive
nine bid responses?
MR. SCHAL T: I sent out nine proposals and only received two
back, so seven of them were no-quotes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. The executive summary
says nine bid responses were received. I would suggest we be more
specific in these things to alleviate any confusion, okay?
MR. SCHAL T: Seven of them did respond as no-quote, so that
IS a response.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's not a response to me.
MR. SCHALT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If you can't make a decision, it's
not a response.
MR. MUDD: Pete, if you would just talk a little bit about your
fixed term contracts. You have nine contractors that have been
awarded a fixed term where they could -- that they can have county
work, and they've already been pre-qualified.
So once you have those nine awardees, you go out to those nine
awardees to get a bid on a particular job that fits in their category of
indefinite delivery, indefinite quality. In that particular case, all nine
of those pre-awardees, you went out to them, and all of them
responded. Seven of them said, we don't want this work, we're not
going to give you a quote for it because we're busy at this time, and
two on your list did provide a bid, and this is the low bidder; is that
correct?
MR. SCHALT: That is exactly correct, Mr. Mudd. By contract,
Page 83
.-..",,,,.,,,,---..,..-'>-.
July 25, 2006
I have to go out to all nine under that category, and they either have to
respond with a bid or a proposal or a no-quote, so I received seven
no-quote -- written no-quotes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other discussions?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coy Ie for approval and a second by Commissioner
Fiala.
Seeing that there's no discussion on this, 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, like sign?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much for your
presentation.
MR. SCHAL T: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #lOP
RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD A CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER
TREATMENT PLANT 20 MILLION GALLONS PER DAY
WELLFIELD EXPANSION TO JOHN REYNOLDS & SONS, INC.
BID 06-3992, PROJECT NUMBER 708921 FOR $47,958,450-
APPROVED
Page 84
July 25, 2006
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is number lOP, and
this is a recommendation to award a construction contract for the
South County Regional Water Treatment Plant, 20 million gallons per
day wellfield expansion to John Reynolds and Sons, Inc., bid number
06-3992, project number 708921, for $47,958 -- excuse me--
$47,958,450.
And Phil Gramatges, who's the Senior Project Manager in
Engineering, I believe --
MR. GRAMATGES: Principal Project Manager.
MR. MUDD: Okay -- in public utilities division, will present.
MR. GRAMATGES: Hi, good morning. Phil Gramatges, Public
Utilities Engineering.
The staff recommendation is to award this bid, 06-3992, to the
lowest responsible and responsive bidder, which is John Reynolds and
Sons, Inc. Any questions at this time?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: My question is, you're spending $47
million. Is this for the actual structure of the plant, or is this just for
the internal workings of the RO system?
MR. GRAMATGES: Neither one, Commissioner. The contract
for the construction of the plant itself was awarded last year. And, in
fact, that project is in progress right now and scheduled for
completion, as scheduled. This is for the wellfield that will supply the
raw water that that plant will process.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much. That's $47
million just for the -- for the expansion of the wellfields and the piping
that's going to the plant itself; is that correct?
MR. GRAMA TGES: That's correct, sir. It's closer to 48 million.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That gives us some idea of what it costs
us to get water.
MR. GRAMATGES: Oh, yes. And it's getting more expensive
every day.
Page 85
July 25, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And this particular contractor, what
has been our experience with this contractor? What do we know
about the contractor's ability to deliver?
MR. GRAMATGES: We don't have any direct experience with
this contractor. This is a large contractor. Their headquarters are in
Atlanta, Georgia; however, we do have their subcontractors. We know
them all. We know them to be competitive. And we, with our
engineer of record, have conducted some studies, some due diligence
research on them, and we consider them to be competent in this area.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And I'll second that.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coyle and a second by Commissioner Halas.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries. Thank you so much.
Item #10Q
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A CHANGE IN SEWER
SERVICE FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
COMPLEX FROM THE CITY OF NAPLES TO THE COLLIER
COUNTY SEWER DISTRICT, PROJECT NUMBER 52005 -
Page 86
July 25, 2006
MOTION TO WORK WITH THE CITY AND BRING BACK TO
THE BOARD AT A FUTURE DATE - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is 10Q, and this is a recommendation to approve a change in
sewer service for the Collier County Government Complex from the
City of Naples to the Collier County Sewer District, Project Number
52005.
Commissioner -- and I'm going to be present on this particular
item since I'm the one -- and Mike Pettit are the ones that have been
trying to come to some reasoned agreement with the City of Naples.
We've been working on this particular agreement now for the last
two years. It could be close to five depending on when you want to
talk about when the conversation started about when you were going
to upgrade a particular sewer line going down Linwood Avenue and
connecting to the lift station at Commercial and Davis.
Our contractors that we've had that work our utilities here on the
compound for over 10 years now have told us that the line that goes
down Linwood Avenue that I just described, would have to be
upgraded to a 10-inch line. It's a six-inch line today.
There's a series of agreements that are on the books between the
City of Naples and Collier County that go back to the 1970's talking
about the water and sewer service on this particular compound and
who provides that.
At this particular time, according to those agreements, the water
and sewer for this compound is provided by the city.
So the Linwood line comes under question, who owns it, who put
it in there, and who is responsible for the upgrade. All of those things
are still out there as far as agreement type questions that we have.
And, you know, I get a little -- I point to them, they point to me,
say, we're not going to pay it, you're going to pay it.
Well, let's talk about the line upgrade. The cost of the line
Page 87
July 25, 2006
upgrade is over $2 million, and it's probably gone up since I had my
estimate done over six months ago. That's $2 million that probably
could be spent a whole lot better if we didn't have to do that.
I also bring to your attention that we had over a $400,000 CDBG
Grant to provide stormwater improvements and sidewalk
improvements on Linwood, and that was over a year, year and a half
ago, but what precluded us from using that was a certain six-inch
sewer line that fed the county sewer service and the cost of taking up
that line and, again, who is going to pay for that particular
improvement.
Another question, okay, and a deferred action as far as the board
was concerned. Now, the good news is, if you remember correctly
from 18 months ago or thereabouts, that 400,000 some odd thousand
dollars was kind of reserved, and we kind of had a bookmark in there
that said, when you're ready, you can come get this money again. So
we'll reapply based on your direction today if that's appropriate.
Over the last couple of years, the facilities folks have talked
about the lack of water pressure on the compound. That was another
issue to be addressed. Well, all of these discussions were transpiring
through 2005. And then on October 24,2005, an event happened to
us, and that was Hurricane Wilma, at which time we had water
disruptions and sewer disruptions on the city side that precluded water
and sewer service for this compound.
And at that time emergency actions were taken to put this
compound on county water and county sewer. Those connections
were claimed and were reimbursed by the federal emergency
management group, FEMA. And we have those connections; they're
still in place.
We stayed on that particular service until the city got back on
their feet, and then we started talking about, let's make sure we get
water pressure in the county, and we got the city water pressure. They
had some fixes out on Airport Road. But we have had consistentw
Page 88
July 25, 2006
water pressure now for the last two quarters, I believe, up to 450 psi
on a constant basis, and that's good, and that's kind of what we asked
the city to provide, and that has happened.
We have had -- so that part's been fixed, and the water is going.
Now, we are in the city's water district in this compound.
The next issue remains sewer and how do we get that resolved?
Well, we could spend two plus million dollars to do that line and
figure out who's going to pay what and still argue about it, or we can
use __ and my recommendation is that we use the interconnect that was
put in because of Wilma, and we basically trade sewer product with
the City of Naples.
We send the county compound sewer product to the county and
the county sends a sewer proj ect untreated through the interconnect
line that's on Horseshoe Drive that we just installed at 50/50 cost share
with the city. In other words, the county paid half ofthe price and the
city paid half of the price, and the cost of that was about, almost
$140,000. It was about 69,000 each, and some change. So that exists.
So by trading sewer product and not really figuring out exactly
where it came from, we can also avoid an impact fee, to have to pay
an impact fee to the county because they don't take on a new customer
unless you pay an impact fee, but because they're not processing a
product, all they're doing is exchanging a raw product at two different
locations in equal amounts, then there is really no impact to the sewer
system outside of maintaining a line. And we'd be willing to pay that
particular cost, and that will be determined in the future.
The next issue, if you're going -- if that is okay, in order to vacate
the Linwood line, which is over 30 years old, okay, there's one other
customer on the Linwood sewer line, and that's the Shadowlawn
School. They sit close to a county sewer line, so we could connect
that facility to the county sewer line, and we could also pass their raw
product through that interconnect down Horseshoe, okay.
So we'd avoid a $2 million cost for a very minimal cost, and I
Page 89
~---~~---_._.-_.~ "-
July 25, 2006
don't believe anything that I've talked about so far is over $250,000 in
order to make happen. And again, Skip Camp and the county facility
budget is prepared to pay those particular costs.
Now, we interconnect Shadowlawn School and put a meter on it.
We put a meter on our interconnect to the county for sewer so we can
add those two meters together to figure out what our daily load that
we're passing to the county is so that we can transfer that same daily
load to the Horseshoe interconnect, which we put a meter on also.
Now, the other thing that we have to talk about in those particular
terms is, we did a 50/50 cost share on that interconnect, and we were
supposed to use that interconnect for emergencies.
Now, in no stretch are we going to be using the full capacity of
that interconnect on Horseshoe Drive, but because that Horseshoe
Drive was supposed to be for an emergency but now we're going to
use it on a daily basis, I would recommend as we craft this agreement,
that we reimburse the city for that $69,000 that they paid because we
are going to use that on a daily basis in order to pass that sewer
product, and I believe that's fair.
Now, there's one other big issue here -- and I've just described the
water and I've just described this dialogue over two years or so and the
final outcomes of it for the sewer product and how we get to it -- and
that has to do with billing.
The agreements that we've reviewed -- and Mr. Pettit has been
my counsel on this at every meeting that we've been to. The
agreements on the water and sewer side basically talk about -- on the
water it talks about providing the county customers with a wholesale
rate.
The only county customer that still takes a bulk water service is
this compound. All the rest are individual residences. So they still
have to provide a bulk rate to the county for that particular issue.
Now, in no way, shape or form or anytime in that contract for
water did it talk about a surcharge. And as you know, the county--
Page 90
July 25, 2006
the city charges a surcharge for customers that are outside ofthe city
boundaries, and that surcharge is 25 percent on their water and their
sewer bill.
So based on -- based on our research and guidance from Mr.
Pettit, the County Attorney, we basically told the city that the
surcharge charge to the county for water was inappropriate based on
prior -- on prior bills, and prior years also.
Now, let's talk about the sewer agreement. Now, I'm going
through a document this fast and basically summarizing it for you the
best I can.
Commissioner, if I could just finish the sewer piece --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure.
MR. MUDD: -- and then I'll take questions, just so I don't lose
my train of thought and have to repeat any of that stuff.
And now on the sewer side there's a separate agreement, but it
kind of ties in because water and sewer tie in, and it basically says in
that agreement that the county would be charged a sewer rate that's the
same sewer rate as city customers, but there's a surcharge on our sewer
rate and has been for some 17 years or so.
We believe, and our County Attorney has stated, that we believe
that that surcharge bill is incorrect. This has been a recent case that
was decided in a Circuit Court on the east coast between two folks like
the county and the city that basically said that agreements that
preceded the Florida Statute for surcharges take precedence over the
Florida Statute, so therefore, what's ever in that agreement stands, no
matter what the Florida Statute says as far as the availability of
surcharges for municipalities or for utilities providing services to
customers outside of their district boundaries.
I am recommending in this particular -- and this is a draft of an
agreement. We'll work through the agreement, and we'll bring that
board -- and we'll bring that back to the Board of County
Commissioners and to the council for the City of Naples as we work
Page 91
July 25, 2006
through this particular issue, is that the surcharge charge on water and
sewer not be paid and cease in that agreement from this time forward
and that the preceding years of surcharges that were charged to the
county and paid be forgiven.
I will also bring to your attention that there is case law that
basically talks about statute of limitations and that statute of
limitations being four years. Our calculations on four years of
surcharge is around $400,000. Seventeen years, we're closer to two
million, and that was an estimate that I've received from the clerk, and
we're still going back to pull all the bills out of archives to get that so
it's a definitive amount.
In essence, Commissioners, that's the agreement that we've come
up with, that the surcharge is not collected from this time forward and
that a new agreement be crafted so that we don't have to go through 30
years worth of agreements and changes and amendments trying to
figure out, where was that shopping mall that they said they were
going to provide service to it, and did they change the name and
nobody put down a grid coordinate or a GIS.
So you have to go back in memories, and can anybody remember
that? And that's kind of where we've been on this one, looking at
meeting minutes and everything else, going through their archives on
the records.
I believe this will clear up any -- any misinformation that's out
there. We'll get some clarity on the thing. We'll get a more recent
document that's laid on, and we will -- we will have the best service
that we can, water and sewer service, to this compound that we can get
for a very, very good rate.
And that's all I have, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: A question I have is that you were
negotiating the water rates and sewer rates with the government
compound here. What about the residents that surround this
compound that are still on city water and sewer, do they -- are they
Page 92
July 25, 2006
still mandated to pay the 25 percent surcharge or are they --
MR. MUDD: No, sir. I'm not addressing those customers. And
I did mention on the water side, the only bulk rate customer is the
county compound, so all the water customers that they have are
residential.
And at that particular -- our particular opinion on the water side
is that they would pay the 25 percent on the water. The sewer
particular issue is up to that individual customer and up to the city on
what they want to charge them, and they're going to have to wrestle
that particular issue to the ground.
But in this particular case, we're only discussing the county
compound.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. The other question I have, is
there federal standards in regards to water pressure?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And what is that federal standard; do you
know?
MR. MUDD: I believe -- that 50 psi that we're getting provided,
okay, at our particular issues, does satisfy the federal standards. I
have looked at that. But you're asking me to remember something that
I reviewed about four months ago. But Mr. Paul Mattausch is here,
and he can help.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. MATT AUSCH: For the record, Paul Mattausch, Director of
the Water Department.
The minimum standard under EP A is state is 20 psi delivered to
the customer at maximum flow conditions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: And maximum flow conditions is, they're fighting
a fire on the same line and you're still getting 20 psi.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. MATTAUSCH: That's correct.
Page 93
July 25, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So right now we're getting water at 50
psi. Does that mean that if this was a fire or an issue of this nature,
that we'd still maintain 50 psi or we'd drop down to the 20 psi?
MR. MATT AUSCH: I -- that's very difficult to answer without
the actual flow conditions and the proper testing.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I was just -- because I know that
our standards are quite a bit higher, I believe, right?
MR. MATTAUSCH: Well, we have the exact same set of
standards that we have to meet. By county ordinance we've
established a higher set of standards, yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have a higher set of standards, yeah,
that's what I'm trying to get at.
MR. MUDD: We're pushing about -- how much you -- what's
your pressure coming out of your plants, Paul?
MR. MATT AUSCH: Right now between 85 and 90 psi out of
the plants. That means at the customer's tap, we're somewhere around
50 or 55, depending on the size of line, depending on the location.
But under fire flow conditions, our minimum standard is 45 psi in the
water plain providing service to the local area.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. When you talk about county
complex, are you also talking about county property such as Sugden
Park? Will that also be included in this?
MR. MUDD: No, ma'am. All I'm talking about is this
compound and the agreements that we have in place that talk about
this compound.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see. Now, say, for instance, you
know, I was __ I was questioning also with the county residents. This
whole area is all on city water. And you say that, according to law, I
guess, they don't really have a right to be collecting a surcharge. Can
residents say I don't want to pay the surcharge anymore and just --
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, what I stated was on the water side they
Page 94
~._-~_. .~._-
July 25, 2006
have no choice, okay, because there is no prior agreement that I can
see on the water side that would -- that would preclude the city from
charging that surcharge on water, because that water contract talks
about bulk services, okay, and large quantities of water being
provided.
Again, you have to remember when this was done was back in
the '70s and the county was quite different from what it is today.
On the sewer side it's a little bit different. I believe there is a
question about customers that are on the city sewer and the legality of
a surcharge for those customers. But that's something that that
customer and the city need to resolve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There are a lot of changes taking
place here and some trading going on. I've talked with the County
Manager about reducing this to some net financial impact.
You know, it's impossible, at least in my estimation, at the
present time to determine whether we're going to be paying more or
less under these sets of terms and conditions.
I suspect we're paying less, and that's what I suspect the point
was in the County Manager trying to negotiate these things. But I
would really not like to be placed in the position of approving a set of
guidelines without understanding what the net cost impact is on the
county.
Is there some way we can do this contingent upon the
presentation of the cost -- net cost amount?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Before anything is locked in place
with the city, I think we must find out what the net cost impact is
going to be on the county for doing all these things.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I just need to -- you know, if I'm going to
find out exactly what it costs to connect the Shadowlawn School to
our sewer, you know, I want to make sure that I'm on firm ground
Page 95
July 25, 2006
with you so that I can get out there and get an estimate done. It's
going to cost us a little bit of money in order to have an engineer go
out there and look, and I don't want to go out there and expend those
dollars unless I've got you so that you're kind of agreeing in concept
with what we're trying to do, and then I will bring back all of those
financials to you and let you know exactly what our first time -- our
initial costs are for those interconnections and those meters, and then I
will give you an estimate of what the yearly savings are for our
water/sewer bills without the 25 percent surcharge so that you'll get to
see that. You'll also get to see where, in time, if it's not the first year,
it will be the second year where those particular initial costs will be
paid for because of savings. And I will provide that information to
you.
But I don't want to get too far ahead of this unless I talk to you
about this particular concept so that everybody is aware of it, that I've
laid it all out to you so that you know about it, and so that Mr. Lee and
the city council folks know that I've talked to you about it, as Mr. --
Dr. Lee provides the same information and talks this dialogue with the
city council.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, if I could just finish this
thought. I would be happy to support a motion for guidance to the
County Manager to proceed along these lines but to calculate those
exact costs, and then we could provide for a formal approval of the
contract and the costs, the interlocal agreement at a later point in time.
I just hate to lock ourselves in on a concept. Although I know the
County Manager's been working in the best interest of the county, it's
important that we get those costs nailed down before we take final
action.
MR. MUDD: I don't expect this to be the last time I come to you
about this particular item.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: We have to have -- we have to have an updated
Page 96
July 25, 2006
contract laid out, I need to layout all the specific costs for you, those
work orders and everything else, for your approval as we go forward
with this, and that's absolutely -- and I wouldn't ask the board to do
that without having all those things.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. And I would make a motion
that we provide the guidance to the County Manager to proceed along
this course and give us the final cost for approval when he gets the
final contracts drawn up.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I'll second that.
My question is, in this motion, at this time should we also include
the 69K that's scheduled to go to the city?
MR. MUDD: That will be part of that contract that--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We won't even talk about money at this
time, okay.
MR. MUDD: You'll get to see everything.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. So as the motion stands by
Commissioner Coyle, that's all the guidance that you need at this point
in time; is that correct?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And the second that I provided.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And we'll start drafting up that
agreement, have a couple more meetings with the city, get our
engineer to look at the interlocals and talk about meters on things and
make sure everything is lined up from an engineering standpoint in
order to pass our -- to pass the sewer product from one place to the
other, and we'll get all that resolved, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is this any other further
discussion on this?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. All
those in favor of the motion that was put on the floor by
Commissioner Coyle and seconded by Commissioner Halas, signify
Page 97
July 25, 2006
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 passes, unanimous.
I believe we've got a time certain.
MR. MUDD: We have a time certain item, and that--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: On 10Q, we gave direction on
further action, but did we really take a vote on 10Q?
MR. MUDD: No, sir. You basically told me what I needed to
have in order to proceed forward. The County Attorney can now get
his staff helping me with the contract, I'm going to be meeting with
Mr. Pritt from the city. I can at least get some engineering estimates
on costs in order to bring that back to the board and tie this all into a
package that you, as a board, can approve at a future date, or
disapprove, depending on your desires.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So 10Q's coming back with
some other --
MR. MUDD: Oh, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, yes.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, absolutely.
Item #lOH
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A FINANCIAL
COMMITMENT OF $775,000 IN THE FIRST YEAR AND
$625,000 IN THE SECOND YEAR TO THE SOUTHWEST
Page 98
July 25, 2006
FLORIDA EXPRESSWAY AUTHORITY TO COVER AN
OPERATING BUDGET THAT WILL BE REPAID TO THE
COUNTY WITH FUTURE SURPLUS TOLL REVENUES -
APPROVED W/CHANGES
. Sir, we have a time certain item that's at 11 :45, and that is item
10H. And this is a recommendation to approve a financial
commitment of $775,000 in the first year and $625,000 in the second
year to the Southwest Florida Expressway Authority to cover an
operating budget that would be repaid to the county with future
surplus toll revenues.
And Mr. Norman Feder, your Administrator for Transportation
Services, will start the presentation.
MR. FEDER: Thank you. For the record, Norman Feder,
Transportation Administrator. I'll be very brief. I want to hand this
over to the Expressway Authority itself.
As you remember, they came during our budget review and
presented a request for some funding up-front from Collier as well as
they're doing with Lee County to allow the authority to staff up and
start moving, with the idea being that once, and if the toll starts paying
off, that that money would be repaid.
I'll let them make their presentation to you. Mr. Bill Barton, who
is the chair of the Expressway Authority, is here today, as well as I see
Amy Davies, who is the Finance Manager for Lee County DOT,
Eileen Webster, who, along with Dave Loveland, as well, as well as
Don Scott and Barbara Chesney from the county, have served as staff.
As well, you've got here authority members, Bruce Anderson, and
sitting at the podium, of course, Commissioner Coletta.
So with that, I'll hand it over to the authority themselves to
present their issue.
MR. BARTON: Thank you, Mr. Feder. Commissioners, I'm Bill
Barton. I'm here before you in my capacity as chairman of the
Page 99
July 25, 2006
Southwest Florida Expressway Authority, and I appreciate Mr. Feder
introducing some of our lonas (sic) staff, and one of our other -- two of
our other authority members.
The commission, I understand, has a number of questions on this
item, and rightfully so. If the commission would give me about 10
minutes of your time and let me walk through this for you, I hope to
be able to answer, if not all, at least most of those questions.
As Mr. Feder has expressed earlier, this Expressway Authority,
through its enacting legislation, did not provide funding for the
authority's expenses, and it also limited the authority's objective to a
single item, and that is to attempt to expedite the toll road facilities
within the corridor of I - 7 5 in Lee and Collier County through a
35-mile stretch of land.
The -- let me spend a couple of minutes first and ask the question
of ourselves, why is the authority even bothering to move down this
path, in light of the fact that as we stand here today, we know that we
have earmarked for six-laning of this highway approximately $470
million which mayor may not be enough to get the entire project
accomplished, but likely enough to get most of the six -laning
accomplished.
I'll answer that question by pointing out a few things, most of
which you probably know. Firstly, FDOT tells us that the day that the
six-Ianing project is completed, thought to be late 2'09 or 2'10 two
segments of that road will be at level of service D on the day it opens.
Very quickly thereafter, as one would expect those segments will fall
into F service category. And, of course, as we all know, F is failing.
As a consequence, that highway will not be a great deal better off
at the end of construction than it is today.
Secondly, FDOT has estimated that in the event that we are able
to find a means to construct four lanes of toll facility instead of the
six-lane project, that four-lane facility will cost us about $250 million
less than if the six-lane is completed followed by the four-lane.
Page 100
July 25, 2006
And I'm not -- I'm not putting inflation dollars into this. There's
__ I'll be happy to spend some time with any or all of you to explain
that, but when we follow the six-laning, we actually don't have to
build four -- a total of four lanes for tolls. We have to build a total of
six, because we're going to lose one lane to medians, and that's the
reason that number kicks up so high.
The other point I would make is that the four-lane toll road would
give us eight lanes, obviously, at the conclusion of construction. And
we would expect those eight lanes to provide us level of service C
well into the 2010 decade, likely in the 2017 or '18 time frame before
we began to fall back into level of service D.
And the final point I would make and one of the things we would
hope to do in a traffic and revenue study that we are proposing is take
a look at, if we do build the four-lane toll facility first, that is in lieu of
six-laning, at which point in time might we expect some of the
revenues off of that toll facility to begin to spin off greater than the
amount required for debt service, because we could then begin to look
at that source of revenue as at least a partial funding for the final two
lanes, that's lane nine and 10. And as all of you know, this facility
was initially planned to be a 10-lane facility through that 35-mile
stretch.
Having said all that, I, for one, believe that it is wise and prudent
of this authority and this commission and the Lee County
Commission, to give serious thought to moving forward with a traffic
and revenue study to determine if the four-by-four is financially
feasible, number one, and how much delay would we have in the
construction project if we shifted gears from a six-lane, which is well
underway right now as far as design and bids are concerned, to instead
a four-lane toll facility construction program?
From my point of view, that study is critical to this whole
process, and the results of that study will, in my opinion, dictate where
we go from where we are into the future.
Page 101
July 25, 2006
If, as a for instance, that study comes back and tells us, yes, the
toll -- four-lane toll facility is a viable project that could be done now
and the revenues from the tolls plus the $470 million -- and obviously
there would be some work to make sure that that 470- was secure, we
would have to do that.
But if it comes back and tells us that, then my perspective is that
we, the authority, would come back first to Collier and Lee County
Commissions. Because if this looks viable to our body, to your body,
to the Lee County Commission, and we move jointly toward
convincing FDOT that that is a better plan of action, then I think we
have a reasonable opportunity for success in that.
But Southwest Florida is going to have to be convinced that that
is the right thing to do. We can't even begin to do that without the
traffic and revenue study. That's the first issue.
Now, that brings me to the item before you today. Some of your
questions, I'm sure, are, well, if we commit to $775,000 in this coming
year, what are we going to get for that?
I would tell you that, first of all, I don't expect this authority to
spend any meaningful money -- and when I say meaningful, I'm
talking about tens of thousands of dollars, not hundreds of thousand
dollars -- other than the traffic and revenue study until those results are
back.
Until we have those results in hand, there's no reason for us to be
spending a lot of money on other issues because we don't know
whether the other issues are worth spending money on.
I would not expect to hire an executive director, I would not
expect to seek office space, I would not expect to do a lot of those
things that we have shown you in the budget unless and until we get
the results of a traffic and revenue study that are favorable. And even
at that point, it would then be my intent, and I feel comfortable that
the authority would agree, that we come back to you, share those
results with you, share our thought process with you in an effort to go
Page 102
July 25, 2006
forward with a united front on that decision-making and on future
expenditures of dollars.
That being the case, one might ask, well, why do we need to
approve a $775,000 budget if the only issue before us right now is a
traffic and revenue study which may cost something in the range of a
quarter of a million dollars?
I would answer that by telling you this: That in the event
collectively Southwest Florida makes the decision that the four toll
lanes is a more appropriate and viable process to follow, then we have
to act fast, because at that point every single day that we're not acting
is another day of delay, and all of us will agree that delaying that
project is something that is not in the best interest of Southwest
Florida.
So if we're going to delay it, it better be for a good reason,
number one, and it better be for the very shortest period of time
possible. So the authority is looking for commitments from you so
that we can be comfortable that if we collectively decide to go down
that path, then we do have an annual budget.
We can hire an executive director quickly, and we're not going to
wait until then. We're already advertising for an executive director.
We don't intend to hire one until we make a decision collectively to go
forward.
But we can't treat this like a normal proj ect, that is to say, one
step after another. If we do, then my guess is that it never happens,
because if we are sitting here in March of next year and we don't have
dollars committed for a budget, if we're not in a position to
immediately hire an executive director, if we're not in a position to do
those things that day, then we're going to lose another 90 to 120 days
trying to get all those things accomplished.
So basically that's our thinking on this issue. We ask that you
consider item number 10H before you and show favor to that.
And with that, let me conclude my remarks and answer questions
Page 103
July 25, 2006
if I may.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a question--
MR. BARTON: Commissioner Halas?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- before I turn it over to the other
commissioners that already had their lights us.
I just want to make sure that if we slow the process down that's
moving ahead at the present time, and that's the expansion of
six -laning instead of going with the idea that you're coming up with,
that we don't jeopardize these federal funds.
MR. BARTON: Commissioner, right now there is no intent to
slow the six -laning down.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. BARTON: That is on a course right now, and we have--
we have specifically said to FDOT, do not slow down.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. BARTON: Continue exactly what you're doing. The time
frame on that right now is FDOT's expectation for final bids is
somewhere late March, early April of next year. It will take a -- some
period of time following that before they could actually begin
construction, so we're still seven or eight months away from that final
decision having to be made.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. BARTON: I think that to slow that down at this point in
time would be a miscarriage of justice. We've got to keep on the
course we're on until we make a decision not to.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So the choice that we have today
is we're going to continue on with the six-laning or we may change
horses in the middle of the stream here and go with four-laning for--
that will be part of the tolling of the expressway.
MR. BARTON: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I believe Commissioner Fiala was
first.
Page 104
July 25, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Can you tell me where the toll
facility or the toll road will begin and end?
MR. BARTON: Right now it would plan to be the full length of
the 35-mile stretch. That is to start at the interchange immediately
south of the Caloosahatchee River and come to Pine Ridge Road.
That is basically the 35-mile corridor that we're looking at.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Bill, I apologize; I'm still confused.
We had a traffic and revenue study at the very beginning of this
process conducted by the Florida Tollway Authority, if I remember
correctly.
MR. BARTON: Yes, sir, but that was for a toll road following
the six-lane construction.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And what was the result of
that study?
MR. BARTON: The result of that study is that if the toll road --
four lanes of toll follows the six-lane project, it would be unreasonable
to expect those tolls to generate sufficient revenue to begin a toll road
project earlier than probably 2016, probably closer to 2018.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So are we trying to determine the
traffic and revenue that we would generate with four lanes of tolls
without the two lanes that are proposed to be built by the state and
federal government with their funds?
MR. BARTON: Yes, sir. In other words, this traffic and revenue
study will look at four lanes of toll road competing with two -- or four
lanes of, we'll call it free -- none of these highways are free, but from a
toll point of view they will not be tolled. Obviously when you look at
four lanes of optional toll being offset by four lanes of un-tolled
roadway, your toll revenues are going to go up more quickly because
more users will opt to use the toll facility.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we would propose that the four
toll lanes replace the two lanes the state and government is planning to
Page 105
July 25, 2006
build?
MR. BARTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, when do you expect the state
and federal government to be ready to start construction?
MR. BARTON: Their timetable right now is talking April or
May of 2007.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Completion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, completion in 2009 or'lO.
MR. BARTON: Yeah, '9 or '10, right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the traffic revenue study that
you proposed would be completed when?
MR. BARTON: And I may recommend to the authority that we
even spend a little extra money to expedite that. Weare in the process
of putting out an RFP right now as we speak. In fact, I have some
questions in to your attorney on that subject in an effort to try to speed
that up.
But in our negotiations with the successful firm, one of the things
we're going to put on the table is, this has got to be expedited. So in
answer to your question, once we're under contract, it would be my
hope that we could have some fairly decent results back within 90
days.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And then you're going to have to
go through the design process. I mean, presuming this is a feasible
alternative, you're going to have to go through the design process?
MR. BARTON: PD&E process.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. BARTON: My anticipation is, just as FDOT is currently
doing with the six -laning, they are doing a design build finance
project. I would see the four-lane toll facility being no different. I
would see it as a design build finance project.
So from that standpoint, we're not looking at a design period that
Page 106
July 25, 2006
you would normally think in terms of designing an entire highway.
We would have to do the PD&E first, which would take some time,
but not the full design proj ect.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then when do you think that
project would be ready to start construction?
MR. BARTON: Hard to give you exact dates, obviously. But let
me reverse it and answer it in this way. From my perspective right
now, anything greater than a two-year delay in construction start
would not be feasible.
If we could get that closer to a one-year delay, then I think,
presuming that the finances were in order, I would rather see
Southwest Florida absorb a 12-month delay in construction start in an
effort to see that interstate system serve us throughout almost all of the
2010 decade rather than start the six -laning quickly and be in failure
mode throughout most of the 2010 decade.
And that's -- I view this -- that's what I view as the alternatives,
because I truly believe if we do the six -laning, you're not going to see
any more pavement hit the ground before 2018, probably not
completed before 2020, and that means we're going to have almost a
full decade of level of service F on at least a portion of the segments
of that interstate.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, if the traffic and revenue
study indicates that the proposal you're suggesting is feasible, a delay
will be inevitable.
MR. BARTON: It will, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's no question about that.
MR. BARTON: It will.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What do you think the federal and
state governments will do then, divert the money that they previously
had allocated to this project and then turn the responsibility totally
over to the Expressway Authority?
MR. BARTON: I think not. Our goal and objective would be to
Page 107
July 25, 2006
do a very sincere and diligent effort of lobbying both the state and
federal governments to allow -- to be a partner in this, and they should
be a partner because just because they can build six lanes today
doesn't eliminate their responsibility for creating a functional, safe
interstate system.
And they will be the first to tell you when the six -lane is in place,
it's going to begin to fail pretty quickly. Well, why want they would
to be a partner?
So it's my hope that we would be able to go to the federal and
state governments and keep that $470 million in place, use it for such
things as the stormwater management system for the entire 10-lane
section for interchange improvements that will have to be done to
acquire some right-of-way within the interchanges that have to be
improved.
The corridor right-of-way is in place. We don't have to buy
anything there, but that 470 million would be eaten up just in those
things I just mentioned. That would then say that the toll road
facilities themselves would be what the toll revenues would -- a bond
indebtedness would pay for.
So I see it as a team effort, not the 470 million going away. Let
us keep it an extra year, and use it for -- in fact, if we go in this
direction and everyone is committed to go in this direction, many of
those things, the construction could begin very early, because FDOT
right now has already told us that it is their intent to build the 10 -- the
10-lane section, stormwater management system, first.
Now, there's a good reason for that. They want the bureau
material. What's bureau material costing in today's world? In Collier
County right now it's costing us about $30 a cubic yard. Well, that
highway, I can tell you, is going to take millions of cubic yards. So if
they can pull most of that out of the building of retention ponds
adjacent to the highway, saves a lot of money.
That work is already basically designed. We could start work on
Page 108
July 25, 2006
those kinds of things very, very quickly.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm beginning to understand the
concept a little better now. Just an observation.
It seems to me that trying to pursue these projects sequentially
will be an absolute disaster. We will, number one, have to redesign
things to make the toll lanes work if the state moves ahead with their
additional two lanes. But secondly, the roads will be under
construction for a much longer period of time, at least an additional
year, probably two years or three years longer, maybe longer than
that.
MR. BARTON: During the entire window of time, you're
absolutely right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. It's going to be an
absolute disaster if we do it sequentially. The risk of doing it together,
which in my estimation is the right way to do it as partners, is that I
don't trust the state or local gover -- federal governments to keep that
money there --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- in view of all of the pressure
they've got for competing projects. I am really concerned that they
will divert that money and send it somewhere else.
And they've already reneged on their funding requirements under
their recently passed Growth Management Plan in the State of Florida.
We were supposed to have gotten almost a billion dollars, $450
million of one-time money and half a billion dollars of recurring
moneys, and we've actually experienced a decrease in state allocations
for infrastructure.
So I don't think they're going to do that. I wouldn't trust them to
do it. But if there's anything we can do collectively to get them
committed to doing that, I would be real happy to proceed with this.
MR. BARTON: Commissioner, I'm where you are in that
certainly a commitment would be necessary before the decision is
Page 109
July 25, 2006
made to go forth with the four lanes of project.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. BARTON: You'd have to have commitments from both
federal and state governments on the funding that's in place right now,
and it will be our intent, ours being the Expressway Authority, to
begin that process just as quickly as we see that the four-lane facility
is a viable project.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then let me make this
suggestion: There's money in this -- in this budget for a lobbyist and
advertising, public outreach, special events and things like that.
Certainly those are required, but not before you determine if there's a
traffic and revenue feasibility.
MR. BARTON: I think you're -- I think you're wasting money--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. BARTON: -- to go down a course of action before you feel
comfortable that the course you're pursuing is viable.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. And so what I would
suggest is that we agree to fund, along with Lee County, a traffic and
revenue study, expedite that funding as quickly as possible. If we
have to pay a premium, we pay a premium, but expedite that funding
as quickly as possible, and then at that point in time the two counties
or any county involved in the tollway authority by that point in time,
could -- could have a course of action, and then we could allocate the
monies more specifically to achieve the objectives that we have
determined are appropriate as a result of the traffic and revenue study.
If the traffic and revenue study says, hey, you don't stand a chance of
making this thing work, then we've got nowhere to go.
MR. BARTON: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But if they do say it will work but
it won't work if the state builds the two lanes first, then we go to the
state and the federal governments and we, perhaps jointly, try to
convince them to lock up that money, let it be part of a partnership, let
Page 110
July 25, 2006
us proceed with this thing, and do it together, okay?
MR. BARTON: I understand, Commissioner. One thing I might
also point out to you is that you may recall that we are also making
applications to the FDOT revolving trust fund, and actually those
dollars are the ones that are intended specifically to be used for the
traffic and revenue study, and if that comes forward in that fashion,
then Collier and Lee County, up until the point that that traffic and
revenue study is completed, will have very little invested in this
project from a dollar standpoint, which I believe is appropriate.
I would love to have you, though, commit to -- just as you said a
moment ago, you never can tell quite what the state government's
going to do. If this board saw fit to commit to funding for us to fund
at least half that traffic and revenue study, that would be -- that would
be something that would be well worthwhile for us.
And if we have to come back to you for the balance of this
approval, I don't have a problem with that because we're committed to
come back with you -- to you with the results of that traffic and
revenue study anyway.
If you, as a board, are not convinced and we, as an authority, are
not convinced and Lee County's commission is not convinced that
doing the four-by-four is an appropriate course of action, then my
estimation is, it will not go forward.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, that's my feeling, too. And I
think that's the first step. Let's find out where we can take it by getting
that study done as quickly as possible. What's your estimate for the
cost of doing the traffic and revenue study?
MR. BARTON: We're -- typically that study in its total would
be about $250,000, but they generally come in phases. To get the first
phase done, which is the one that's going to be most interesting to us,
my expectation is, we would not spend more than 150 total.
So that might be -- if we were looking at Lee and Collier County,
we might be looking at a commitment of something in the order of 75-
Page 111
July 25, 2006
or $85,000 apiece to help fund at least the first phase of that.
And the contracts for these are written in such fashion that they
are broken into stages so that we can give authority to the successful
professional, do phase A. That's what you're authorized to do right
now. Phase B, C will be later authorizations if there's reason to do so.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle, if I could--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- give some time to some of the other
commissioners, and I'll come back to you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just to get it right, what it would
look like, what you're proposing is an eight-lane segment, four would
be toll and four would be free?
MR. BARTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Which segments --
where would be the segments that would fail or be at a D --
MR. BARTON: D level.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- D level after construction?
MR. BARTON: Let me pose that question--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know what, that's not
important. Forget that question.
MR. BARTON: Candidly, Commissioner, I'm not sure exactly
which two segments they were. One of them, as I recollect, was right
near the airport, and I think the other one was closer to Naples, which
is kind of what you'd expect, the two ends of the project.
But don't hold me to that because I haven't looked at the map to
see which two segments FDOT was talking about,
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And I'm glad we hear
concerns about delay of the six-lane. That's one of my biggest
concerns.
MR. BARTON: Right now there's nothing out there delaying
Page 112
July 25, 2006
that six-lane process.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. First question is ofMr.
Pettit. When this issue comes before the commission or other related
issues, we're dealing with the authority, Transportation Authority. My
position on that, does that preclude me from being able to vote on
those issues?
MR. PETTIT: For the record, Mike Pettit. No, sir, unless there is
a special pecuniary gain or loss to be realized from your vote, and I
don't believe that would be the case.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: A personal gain.
MR. PETTIT: It would have to be personal to you, your
employer, or a relative.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, it's very important to my
constituents, but I think that's probably going past the point.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You'd have to give back all that
money you've been getting from them.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Watch it. See if I donate to
. .
your campaIgn agaIn.
Okay. The other thing I wanted to mention is, I know there is
concern, and that was a great concern of mine is, are we doing
anything to impede the direction as far as the six -laning goes? But
let's be honest about it, the money was given to us to install two more
free lanes. That's what the intent of this money was in the beginning.
Not to say that you can't rethink it down the line.
So before we made a -- took a vote on it from the authority to be
able to move forward, I asked Mr. Cann, from the -- Secretary Cann
from the Department of Transportation if anything that we did would
impede the ability to be able to put those two free lanes in, and he said
absolutely not, that we're proceeding regardless of whatever your vote
is, whichever way it goes.
Page 113
July 25, 2006
So in other words, by going forward with this particular study,
there would have to be extremely convincing evidence to be able to
turn the mindset that's out there.
But I've got to warn you, politically what we're telling the public
is, you're going to have to wait a little bit longer for something that
may possibly be better, but it won't be free lanes, it will be toll lanes,
and this is going to be very difficult.
So this study here is going to have to be extremely convincing for
the public when the end result comes out. Then, again, too, that's what
a study's all about, it's to be able to see where we are and where we
possibly can go. And I'm always willing to look at the options, but I
don't want to lose out on these free lanes, and we're not going to.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Now, I had understood that we
would lose out on the two lanes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No? And he said we would lose --
use the 41 7 million some other way.
MR. BARTON: I'm not sure I'm following the question now.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No, I think what--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. The state is supposed to
start construction on the additional two lanes on 1-75 next year, June,
right?
MR. BARTON: Sometime around that time, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That would never stop?
MR. BARTON: No. In the event that the decision was made
collectively by Southwest Florida, we would go -- we would then
prevail or attempt to prevail upon FDOT not to build those two lanes
COMMISSIONER FIALA: See, that's what I thought.
MR. BARTON: -- but instead to allow us to build four toll lanes
in their place.
Page 114
July 25, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So we've got -- right now we've got four
free lanes, and you're talking about, with your study, and you get the
possibility of coming in saying, instead of getting an additional lane
on each side, which makes six lanes, take -- put that money off to the
side, which is $490 million or $470 million, and then you're going to
come in and say, we're going to put in four toll lanes instead of an
extra three lanes?
MR. BARTON: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I've got a problem with that
because there's been a lot of people that's worked very, very hard to
get that $470 million, and we sure don't want to lose it.
And then are you sure that the study is to look at the four toll
lanes that you put in --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I haven't finished my questions, by
the way.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, but -- I'm sorry. But the four toll
lanes, you're saying that that's going to pay for all the infrastructure
like putting bridges in and overpasses and everything?
MR. BARTON: No. My hope is that the $470 million would be
retained and be used as a part of the four-toll-lane project, because
we've got right-of-way to buy, we've got interchanges to rebuild,
we've got a stormwater management system to be built. And the 470
would not be built on the toll lanes themselves, it would be build on --
used up on ancillary issues that cause the whole thing to work.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala, please finish up.
I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks, okay. I just wanted to
make it clear the way I had understood this would -- if you went
through with yours, that would eliminate the two lanes that they're
starting to build next year, right?
MR. BARTON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
Page 115
--,,----.-....~ ~~."
July 25, 2006
MR. BARTON: And instead we would replace them with four
toll lanes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Instead with four toll lanes that
would begin the following year if you could get it done, or the year
after that.
MR. BARTON: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that would be three years down
the road, and we wouldn't have the widening next year at all?
MR. BARTON: That's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then you said, if we did have the
six lanes, if they did proceed with building those two lanes next year,
you said that we would have to wait until maybe 2018 to put the four
lanes in toll. Why?
MR. BARTON: Because the toll revenues won't support them.
Keep in mind that then --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So people would be hamstrung to
use them, in other words? And the tolls never go away, correct?
MR. BARTON: Probably never go away, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And when you -- when you -- by the
way, with the 470 million, you ought to see how quickly we lost even
just 30 million for Davis Boulevard, just like that. Even though it was
on their list for five years and it was the priority -- number one
priority, we lost it in a second. It was -- so we don't -- we don't have a
lot of faith in promises.
The last thing I wanted to say is, will your traffic and revenue
study be targeted to prove the suggestions you're just offering?
MR. BARTON: Well, prove is a tough word.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Well, you know what?
Many, many studies, we give them a target. Here's what we want you
to discover, and then they go out and do it. And if we don't get the
right company to do it the way we want it, we hire another company
until they come up with the answer we want to hear. And I would
Page 116
July 25, 2006
love to see an unbiased and impartial answer.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. BARTON: Okay. Commissioner, we're going to be
looking for the professional's answer, not our own. And I can tell you,
I personally have really mixed emotions about how I want this study
to come out.
On the one hand, I'd like to see it come out showing that the
four-toll-lane facility is viable. Why? Because I think that is the best
solution for Southwest Florida over the next decade.
But if it comes out that says, no, it doesn't appear to us that that is
viable, boy, am I going to have a lot less work to do over the next year
or two or three.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think we're really off the track here. I
think all we're here for today is approve to put money forth on this
expressway toll, Expressway Authority, and I don't think we really
should be getting involved in --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I could, I think I can sum it
up.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- involved in how we're going to do this
plan and everything until that point in time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We put money aside for the plan.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No, no, no. We're putting money aside
for the Expressway Authority to do the study and all that other stuff.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But the study's two-pronged.
And if I may, in the first place, the authority does not have the
authority to be able to take the money that's already dedicated for free
lanes. That does not exist. They don't have that power. We don't
have that power. That's totally been within the state.
The state would have to have a convincing argument above
anything that this would be in the best interest of everyone to do it.
They're not -- they're going ahead. They're not planning to stop for
any reason unless this particular study justifies it.
Page 11 7
July 25, 2006
Now, the study's going to be two-pronged; is that correct? It's
going to cover the eventuality of building the four toll lanes later and
the two free lanes now, which is already covered, and that's out of the
jurisdiction of this authority.
The four lanes are going to be studied, and it's also going to be
studied, if they don't build those two lanes and if they put the money
into it, what would be the ultimate results. So it's two-pronged.
Meanwhile, the state is going forward with the two free lanes,
and they're not going to stop unless there's a compelling change to this
study here that absolutely justifies it. And believe me, I'm having a
hard time with toll lanes and not free lanes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And we're not at that issue, but I
have no problem with studying the issue and having the numbers in
front of me so we know that we're dealing with fact rather than fiction.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've just seen so many studies come
up, and they've sent them back again and again until they say what
they're hoping to say.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that's true, you're
absolutely correct.
MR. BARTON: The beauty of this instance, Commissioner
Fiala, is there's not time to do that. We're going to get one shot at this,
and the answer is the answer, because if the answer is, no, this doesn't
seem feasible, the six lanes are going to start, asphalt's going to start
hitting the deck.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I sure hope so.
MR. BARTON: So we only have one shot at this study, and the
answer is going to be the answer. There's not going to be opportunity
to redo it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle, if we can wrap
this up.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, a couple quick comments,
Page 118
July 25, 2006
then I'd like to make a motion. The thing we have to be aware of is
that if -- when the state begins their two -- their two-lane construction,
you may as well scratch the tollway authority.
MR. BARTON: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's all over.
MR. BARTON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You just disband it and walk away
because it's not ever going to happen. If the state begins their two-lane
construction and we proceed with the tollway authority and its
construction of two lanes later on, even if it were financially feasible,
it would be so disruptive and expensive that nobody in their right
mind would proceed with it. Certainly I wouldn't, based upon what I
know now.
So the issue really is, you either do it together as a total project
and you get it done properly and quickly, or you're not going to ever
have a toll lane on this road. And so that's the bottom line. I think
Bill agrees with that.
So my recommendation is, my motion is, to approve funding 50
percent of the traffic and revenue study itself to get an answer as
quickly as we possibly can about what can -- what is possible, then we
could go to FDOT and present the results of the study, see if there's a
partnership opportunity that we could enter into that would not delay
things appreciably, and we can move along together, or if that doesn't
work, we just have to drop the toll idea, end of story, and depend upon
getting as much money as we possibly can from the federal and state
governments.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll second that motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think it's very responsible to
do that, and let's see what the answer is.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. BARTON: Yeah.
Page 119
July 25, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's key.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: But I think in the motion, do we put in
the dollar amount and the proposed -- what the recommendation is is
that the first year we put in $775,000, and the second year we put in
$625,000.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I did not include that because
there's no reason to have a lobbyist, there's no reason to have
advertising and public outreach, there's no reason to have special
events, there's maybe no reason to even have a director at $210,000
until we've found out if this thing is feasible.
MR. BARTON: This is not.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So I'll --
MR. MUDD: Mr. Barton stated that he estimated the study
would cost -- and he said that there were several phases to it, but he
said that the study would cost around $250,000 in phases, but he also
stated in his testimony that he wanted to speed it up, so that's going to
cost him money, and it will probably cost you about 50K on top of the
250.
MR. BARTON: Could be.
MR. MUDD: So Commissioner, I would recommend with that
motion that you put a figure not to exceed $150,000 on it, and then he
could work the other half from the Lee County Commissioners, and
then you've got it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would support that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm kind of reluctant to do that
because, I mean, we're just throwing out numbers right now, and we
want to -- if we want to speed up the process, because if we put a
limitation on it, then you're going to have to come back to us. You see
what I mean, Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Why don't we say, up to 600,000 or
something, you know. I think we ought to give him some leeway that
they can spend up to. They have to itemize what this money's going to
Page 120
July 25, 2006
be spent for and how it's going to be spent.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you want to put a -- the
motion maker want to put a limitation on it, up to?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: A hundred and fifty- thousand
dollars, and then get another 150,000 from Lee County, would that do
it for you?
MR. BARTON: I think that would do it for us. And
Commissioner Henning, in the event that we find that it's running
more than that, we'll just come back.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, the problem is, I don't think we
want to -- the time -- you're in a compression mode right now.
MR. BARTON: But I'm going to know -- I'm going to know
pretty quickly whether or not that amount is yes or no. And if this
commission feels strongly, we could probably even put it on a consent
agenda item if it runs a little more than that. I don't think we'd lose
time that way.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Bill, we won't be back till
September.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep.
MR. BARTON: I won't have it done by September.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, fine.
MR. BARTON: I've got to put a -- I've got to devise an RFP,
I've got to then have responses to that RFP, select a firm, and negotiate
a contract. So it will eat up the month of August with that question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Fine.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So 150,000, half of it, the
price, gets you 300,000 to do that process. If that's the first phase,
okay? We'll just deal with the rest of it later?
MR. BARTON: That's fine. I have no problem with that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So the limit of 150,000; is that in your
Page 121
July 25, 2006
motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, that's it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do we have any further
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none. We have a motion on the
floor --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do you have a speaker?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Excuse me?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I thought she had speaker.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do we have speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coletta and we have a second by -- or Coyle, excuse
me, and a second by Commissioner Henning, and the -- and that is to
allow $150,000 in regards to Expressway Authority for a study.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. I just -- I just have a problem.
I see wings on those two free lanes for all of the workforce and they're
going to either be forced to pay for a toll every day -- and we're going
to have trouble getting workforce here. I just can't see the study
coming out to say, yes, build those two lanes. I'm voting against it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So the motion carries at 4-1.
MR. BARTON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MR. BARTON: Thank you, Commissioners.
Page 122
July 25, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. And at this time we're going
to be running a little late, we're going to take a lunch break, and we'll
be back at 1 :39, okay.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, County Manager.
Board of County Commissioners is back from lunch recess, and I
believe we start with a time certain item.
Item #8B
ORDINANCE 2006-40: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
SCHEDULE NINE OF APPENDIX A OF CHAPTER 74 OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES (THE
COLLIER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE
ORDINANCE) PROVIDING FOR THE INCORPORATION BY
REFERENCE OF THE IMP ACT FEE STUDY ENTITLED
COLLIER COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUILDING
IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY DATED MAY 8, 2006,
AMENDING THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUILDING
IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE TO REFLECT THE AMENDED
RATES SET FORTH IN THE IMPACT FEE STUDY, PROVIDING
FOR INCORPORATION OF REQUIREMENTS OF THE
FLORIDA IMPACT FEE ACT, SPECIFYING THAT ONLY
CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OR LEGAL ALIENS WHO
ARE PERMANENT RESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES CAN
QUALIFY FOR IMPACT FEE DEFERRALS, INCREASING THE
NUMBER OF IMP ACT FEE DEFERRALS PERMITTED AT ANY
SINGLE TIME FOR AN INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPER AND/OR
DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP
Page 123
July 25, 2006
AND PROVIDING FOR A DELAYED IMPLEMENT A TION
DATE FOR THE CHANGE IN THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT
BUILDING IMPACT FEE RATES OF NOVEMBER 1, 2006-
ADOPTED W/STIPULATIONS
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, and there's -- and there's a total of three of
them back to back. We'll start with 8B, and this an item to be heard at
one p.m. It's a recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners adopt an ordinance amending schedule nine of
appendix A of chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and
Ordinances, which is the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee
Ordinance, providing for the incorporation by reference of the impact
fee study entitled Collier County General Government Building
Impact Fee Update Study dated May 8,2006, amending the general
government building impact fee schedule to reflect the amended rates
set forth in the impact fee study, providing for incorporation or
requirements of the Florida impact fee act, specifying that only
citizens of the United States or legal aliens who are permanent
residents of the United States can qualify for impact fee deferrals,
increasing the number of impact fee deferrals permitted at any single
time for an individual developer and/or developments that are under
common ownership and providing for a delayed implementation date
for the change in the government building -- the general government
building impact fee rates of November 1, 2006.
And Ms. Amy Patterson, your coordinator for impact fees?
MS. PATTERSON: Impact Fee Manager.
MR. MUDD: Impact Fee Manager --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Administrator.
MR. MUDD: -- will present.
MS. PATTERSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, I'm Amy Patterson, Impact Fee Manager, from Community
Development/Environmental Services.
Page 124
July 25, 2006
These are -- what we're doing today is kind of broken into two
parts, the first part being the general government building impact fee
update and the second covers a couple of administrative issues. And if
it's okay with the board, we'd like to start with the government
buildings impact fee study.
We have Mr. Steve Tindale here from Tindale Oliver to answer
any of your questions and go through the technical aspects of the
study, and then staff is here to answer questions on the Florida Impact
Fee Act, any of the issues about the residency requirements and the
referral agreements.
So with that, if it's all right with the board, I'll turn it over to Mr.
Tindale.
MR. TINDALE: Well, good afternoon. Again, Steve Tindale
with Tindale Oliver & Associates. This is an update to the
Administrative Billings Impact Fee. It's not a new fee. I guess I could
go through -- it's kind of your choice, go through a detailed
presentation or just kind of summarize where we are and what we've
done as far a presentation.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What's the choice of the board?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I go for a summary.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Summarize, sir, if you would.
MR. TINDALE: The major items we updated is -- one is capital
costs. Across the board whether it's this facility or any other facility,
within the last year, year and a half to two years, construction costs for
anything went up from 50 to 100 percent. Your roadway cost of
construction, your land value as you're going up. And building
construction, I've seen go from 100 to 150, and now we're anywhere
from 300 to 350 a square foot to build a building in any type of
building you're building.
So the major adjustment to this fee has been the increase in
construction costs in terms of the modification of the fee.
We did also adjust the credit. Your original fee was the initial
Page 125
July 25, 2006
adoption. We were extremely conservative and overestimated any
potential revenue you might ever spend on buildings in terms of a
credit. We actually looked at what you are going to spend in taxes for
your credit and adjusted the credit. That actually came down a little
bit from the impact fee credit. So between the construction costs up
and putting a real credit in, the fee is adjusted dramatically.
We also adjusted the fee in terms of how we assigned it. It was
an issue in terms of the residential versus the commercial in terms of
the actual assignment of the impact, and that also adjusted the
residential up quite a bit.
So your commercial and other ones actually were not raised, but
the residential went up. And I've got a detailed explanation of what
we did there that might bore you, but I can clearly explain that. I'm
not sure I need to go through that.
But those are the major adjustment. I'd like to remind you that
this does not -- your water, your sewer people, your billing,
community development, anybody who is charging a fee, assessing
anyone, these are not those buildings. These are all the buildings that
are the exception buildings that are general support and do not have
any type of revenue in terms of fees or assessments, so it is a general
administrative building.
We also -- we were very careful with the inventory in which
buildings we chose to put in for the impact fee. With that I'd open up
for questions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any questions? Yes,
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question for Mrs.
French- Patterson. What do you anticipate with this substantial
increase of collection, one-year collection?
MS. PATTERSON: We're anticipating about a 92 percent
increase in collections, but the thing is, that won't be in the first year.
What -- it takes some time for the older permits to age through the
Page 126
July 25, 2006
system. Those that have applied for before the effective date of this
ordinance, they will fall under the old fees, and then the new fees will
apply to everything applied for on or after November 1 st of 2006. So
what we've found typically is there is about a six- to nine-month lag in
actually collecting the revenue in the executive summary. I can just
check to see what we estimated the new revenue to be.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess I should have read that
in more detail.
MS. PATTERSON: We estimated an additional $2.4 million per
year of revenue associated to this impact fee increase.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I guess the question to the
County Manager, can we expect $2.9 ( sic) million decrease in
property tax --
MR. TINDALE: I could probably help you with that one.
MR. MUDD: You're asking if there's a one-to-one correlation
between the increase from impact fees and the ad valorem decrease? I
don't think so, sir. If you remember your general -- your general
government impact fee, this board decided two years ago to come in at
75 percent of the impact fee that you could take, then it went to 85
percent, and we're now at the 100 percent level.
So those particular percentages that you didn't go full up on
impact fees, you had to get them from general fund, and your
construction costs are increasing. And I will tell you this snapshot on
general building impact fees will probably hold steady for about a
month, and then you'll see the increases continue, and, again, we'll to
come in with another update so that you have those off-cycle issues.
And the other thing I will tell you is if this board -- this board --
the board previous had kept up with the building, okay, in the past that
was supposed to happen during the master plan, I would agree with
you, Commissioner. At this particular juncture, you could do a
one-to-one correspondence cut, but I don't think we're there, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you expect any -- any less
Page 127
July 25, 2006
property taxes being used for general government buildings?
MR. MUDD: No. Commissioner, what we basically take a look
at during -- on your UFR list you'll notice that there's an $8 million
request for -- to finish out the last three floors of that annex building.
There is a dollar amount that's associated with fleshing out the
courthouse complex for your additional judges that are coming in over
time, and you have all of those particular issues.
So if we do put any ad valorem dollars against this particular
issue, we do it on a loan basis so that we don't basically credit the
impact fee in the future to artificially lower the amount of the impact
fee that can be assessed.
Did I miss anything, Mr. Tindale?
MR. TINDALE: I'll give one comment I had, and this was an
interesting thing. I just went through this. And you're not using 50
percent taxes and 50 percent impact fee, but I had one community that
they were spending about 50 percent of their capital with impact fees
and 50 percent taxes, and it cost double.
And they said, okay, County Manager wants to know if we
double the impact fees, we're not going to reduce our program.
I said, wait a minute. The cost of everything just doubled.
You're going to double half your revenues. You're not doubling the
other half. So rather than cutting your projects by 50 percent, if you
double impact fees, you're only going to have to cut them by 25
percent.
So you clearly -- you clearly don't gain any ground with the
construction costs doubling. You're not gaining any ground against
any tax base that you also happen to be using because whatever you're
using for tax bases, even if it's only 15 or 20 percent, if we double the
impact fees because costs can double, and you were using 15 percent
taxes, you need to double the rate of the tax rate for the 15 percent.
So with this kind of construction going on, no one's gaining any
net ground with impact fees against taxes. The best they're doing is
Page 128
July 25, 2006
just reducing the number of projects they're going to have to reduce --
reducing the numbers that they're not going to be able to bill or was
going to bill. So you're in the same mode.
What this will do is it will help absorb, you know, the
construction costs to a great degree, but you still won't even maintain
ground with this type of doubling of construction costs.
So talking about reducing taxes is not what most people having to
do -- in terms associated with capital.
Now, you may have other opportunities with operating costs, but
the capital cost, it's not happening all over the state.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I hear a motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, we're just talking about the
impact fee; we're not talking about the second part, right?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm talking about the whole thing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, well, I'm not.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think the County Attorney's got
something to interject here.
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. Mrs. Fiala had had a question for the
County Attorney Office, and we'd researched it, so if it's appropriate
now to pursue it --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, sure.
MR. WEIGEL: -- and then the board can consider the discussion
that we'll provide.
MR. PETTIT: Commissioner Fiala, I believe you had asked a
question. In this ordinance it limits deferrals to persons who are
citizens or legal aliens, and then in addition, it refers to legal aliens as
either a lawfully admitted permitted resident or permanently residing
under color of law, and you had asked me what that phrase meant.
Page 129
July 25, 2006
And I've consulted with Mr. Palmer about that. And his research
indicates that that's a status of person in the -- under the INS view,
they come here, they get here, I guess you would say illegally, they're
here, and then they apply for political asylum.
And what happens, apparently, with some frequency, is those
applications simply aren't ever resolved.
So they are not hiding, they are not -- they're out in the open.
They're here. People know they're here. The officials know they are
here, but they are never deported or -- nothing happens.
And that's -- and that is a status that the INS, apparently cases
that have arisen in immigration law, have recognized. So that's the
answer to what that phrase color of law means.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Joe Schmitt and Jim Mudd sent me
about nine pages. I read every word of them. And it was talking
about how is -- how is it determined. And one of the things it says is,
if you have been able to escape capture as an illegal alien and have
been able to give birth to a U.S. citizen or be so debilitated that you
can collect SSI or for other health reasons or had somehow illegally
obtained a job and got laid off or fired and have benefits coming to
you or you are in the process of filing complaints to obtain benefits
from Aid to Families and Dependent Children or Supplemental Social
Security, that's how they can determine this. This is what this says.
But then it goes on to say -- this is from the Department of Labor.
It goes on to say that if an alien has filed for any status whatsoever but
only has filed and they have not received their permission, then they're
not eligible. It goes on to say that -- I guess the INS is the one that
you have to check with to certify if they are, indeed, actually eligible.
They're the only ones that can tell you for sure.
So I was going to say -- and there's a lot of things that actually go
down to determining this as long as you're not a criminal, you know __
or a criminal of record, and so forth.
So I thought maybe when we put this in, when we -- when we
Page 130
July 25, 2006
submit this, I would like to say that persons specifying that only
citizens of the United States or legal aliens who permanently reside,
and then you say, or permanently residing under color of law, but then
I would like to say something in there, and certified or verified, I don't
know, so that we don't just take their word from them or they produce
a green card that isn't worth anything.
I would like some type of certification to make sure that that
30,000 impact fee deferral is being deferred to somebody who is
legally here. Can we do something like that adding that to the --
MR. PETTIT: Surely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- something to the -- the
certification through INS or whatever?
MR. PETTIT: Surely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. It's the vagueness of the INS
process that causes us to be where we are now with so many
unaccounted-for residents and illegal aliens in the United States.
I wonder if we can simplify the process and say, look, if you can't
prove that you're a citizen or a legal resident of the United States, you
don't get it, and you place the responsibility on the applicant to
affirmatively demonstrate that they are a legal resident under the law
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, so that--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and not in some holding capacity
where INS has failed, as they frequently do, to take any action at all
against people.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well -- but the thing is, they can
produce easily a social security card and a green card because 10 other
people have the same ones. I mean -- you know that too, I'm sure. I
mean, they're very easy to obtain but they're not legal, so if they're
asked to produce one and they can, it really isn't -- we're not actually
Page 131
July 25, 2006
certifying that they really are a legal resident.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I guess we could decide what
constitutes legal residency, you know, what documents have to be
presented in order to do that.
It's our -- it's our program. We're the ones who are granting the
deferrals. And if they don't meet our requirements, I don't much care
whether they meet INS requirements or not, I really don't.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Well, I don't know how to
certify that they are, you know. I just feel that it should be whatever
we're doing. I'm happy to give away $30,000 in deferrals to anybody
who's legally here. I'm sure that that helps them a lot in purchasing a
house, I just don't want to give it away so that then -- to somebody
who isn't legal so that when somebody who is legal wants it, we don't
have it anymore.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I agree.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Attorney, can you maybe give us
some additional direction of how we can tighten up that ordinance?
MR. PETTIT: Well, I guess -- I know that Mr. Baker had shared
with me before we began this item some information that he's obtained
from the INS, but I'm not sure it's his -- I'm not sure it addresses
Commissioner Fiala's concern. I mean, you can proceed, if you want.
MR. GIBLIN: Commissioners, Cormac Giblin, your Housing
and Grants Manager, for the record.
Another thing to keep in mind is, this is just one additional step
that we would implement to ensure that the people using this program
are, in fact, here legally in some respect. Everyone who gets an
impact fee deferral must have a job, must have a social security
number, must register the property as their homestead and must have a
mortgage, a home ownership mortgage. And you may find that the
federal banking laws may be more stringent on illegal aliens than even
the INS.
So these all are other checks that come into this program, this last
Page 132
July 25, 2006
one being, you know, another step in that process.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, the reason I'm even concerned
with this is someone I know was asking about a relative of hers who
wanted to buy an affordable housing unit, and the person needed some
help.
And I said, is she here legally? And she said, well, no, but she
said, my other two cousins both own homes already, and they're not
here legally either. And I thought, whoa, you know, maybe __
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What are their names and
addresses?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I thought --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We can have two vacant homes
available.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Somewhere in this particular
document that Joe Schmitt sent me it says that they -- these applicants
receive some kind of a letter from INS that actually states that they are
here legally, and maybe that would be your proof.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Boy, I would hate to depend upon
anything issued by INS.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah.
MR. GIBLIN: Commissioners, on the visualizer is a checklist of
sorts from the -- from INS. And if we're looking for some type of
criteria or documents to verify citizenship, this is what the federal
government would use. It's a -- either one item in list A or a
combination of different items, but in there is that letter that
Commissioner Fiala just referenced.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just something that's legal that can't
be reproduced, you know.
MR. BAKER: Commissioner, let me -- Denny Baker. These are
documents that are required when a potential employee fills out their
I9 for their employer. These documents must be shown to their
employer to establish that they are a legal resident.
Page 133
July 25, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. But you know we have a lot
of people that work illegally here, you know.
MR. BAKER: I know.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. It's not that everybody
presents those documents.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How about if you just decided that
the first three items in category A, one of those would be required to
get the deferral, end of story.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You have a U.S. passport, a
certificate of U.S. citizenship, or a certificate of naturalization. That
would not cover --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Cover the gambit.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That wouldn't cover guest workers,
however, who are here legally. Maybe you could select one other.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, are guest workers, are they going
to be here full time or are they just going to be here part time?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Part time probably. They probably
wouldn't qualify anyway.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, they wouldn't, according to this.
They'd have to be a legal-- what does it say, permanent resident--
MR. PETTIT: As drafted right now, it says, a legal alien who
permanently resides in the United States.
MR. BAKER: I think one, two and three, Commissioner, would
not include legal residents.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, it wouldn't. What would?
What can we add to this to include legal --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Birth certificate.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
MR. KLATZKOW: This is a hard issue. I will tell you that one
of the reasons it was drafted the way it was drafted was, my concern
anyway, that a civil liberties group might take umbrage with our
Page 134
July 25, 2006
trying to parse out who's here legally, who's here illegally and
whatnot, which is why we tried to tie it into the INS.
You do understand the concern that the INS tends to be a little bit
loosey-goosey about this. I don't know. Are we going to require a
birth certificate from somebody to show that they're aU. S. citizen or
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Either that or a passport.
MR. KLA TZKOW: -- driver's license, a passport? I mean --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Driver's license, they're almost
worthless.
MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, I don't know what to tell you, sir.
It's --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'm not concerned about
civil liberties, quite frankly. This is our program, we're allocating our
taxpayer dollars to support this program. If somebody doesn't like it,
tough. That's my position on it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Would a birth certificate suffice?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it wouldn't -- if it were a
birth certificate from Guatemala, it wouldn't suffice.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No, a U.S. birth certificate.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But that wouldn't cover -- that
wouldn't cover someone who is here -- who has immigrated to the
United States legally. They wouldn't have a U.S. birth certificate, but
they should have --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: They'd have a naturalization or--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They should have one of those
things. Hey, I'm willing to go with one to three in list A.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So if you're not a citizen, that's
what you need?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. You either have a U.S.
Page 135
July 25, 2006
Passport, a Certificate of U.S. Citizenship, or a Certificate of
Naturalization.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How about if they're in the
military and -- they're serving in the military and they're here on
leave?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, they wouldn't be buying a
house then, would they?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: They wouldn't be buying a house on
leave.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's true. But then again they
might -- I don't know. They might want to relocate their family. I
know this list is pretty detailed. There must be a reason for it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, the reason for it is so that
INS and other -- and employers who hire illegal aliens can get as
many illegal aliens into the country as they possibly can.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So they've got more work to do?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, sure, exactly.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's like stocking a pond?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, that's right; that's exactly
what it's all about.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But I'd make a motion we go with
one to three in category A. And if somebody wants to fight about it,
then let's get at it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. PETTIT: Just let me add, Commissioner Coyle, I'm not
sure that one to three reach a legal alien. I mean, as I read it, you're
either --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not sure I really care at this
point.
MR. PETTIT: Okay. I just want to make sure that everybody
Page 136
July 25, 2006
understands.
MR. KLA TZKOW: And I take it, just for staff administrative
purposes, we'll be looking at birth certificates as well, just to
demonstrate United States citizenship? U.S. birth certificates?
Because people come, and we have no idea who they are or where
they're from.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Do we bother to verify the
birth certificate? Birth certificates can be -- can be borrowed, stolen
and changed.
I'll tell you what other state and local governments are doing with
respect to this. They're taking those birth certificates and they're
calling the clerk in the city where those birth certificates were issued
and they're verifying the validity of those things, and they won't
accept photocopies. They want originals.
So there are people who are getting very, very tough about
checking these things. Even people who come in with driver's
licenses, the people who are processing them are calling the state
driver's license bureau from whence those licenses were issued to
verify the validity and even the description of the person whose
photograph appears on that driver's license.
So people are getting really tough about this in other parts of the
country, and I think we need to do the same thing here.
MR. KLATZKOW: This is a good discussion, Commissioner.
F or staff purposes, would a certified birth certificate suffice, raised
seal?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think so, sure, yeah. I think so.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Certified, definitely. Okay?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Not really. No, I'm not
comfortable. I don't think we're covering all the eventualities. I think
we've got a lot of holes in this. I see a list that consists of about 30
some items, and we're telling them that we're only going to accept
three. I don't know. At some point in time are we going to have
Page 137
July 25, 2006
somebody that we disenfranchise that should be included in it because
they are a legal alien and they wouldn't accept this particular
document or that?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think if we do, it should be
brought to our attention and we can modify it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'll give you an example.
I just got through touring Italy and visiting the home towns where my
grandparents came at the turn of the last century. In Compobasso, I
couldn't get the records from my grandfather or my grandmother
because they were destroyed in the war.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, you know, they're long
dead so they don't have to prove anything, but it's just a case in point.
I'm just -- I'm uncomfortable where we're going with this.
You've got the right idea, believe me, you do. I just think that we're at
a crossroads here by trying to draw this up on the fly and that we're
going to leave it wide open to the point where people are going to
come in and they'll say, well, we're sorry . You may have sufficient
documentation but it's not what the Collier County Commission has
authorized us to work with.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, why don't we -- why don't
we let our staff take a look at how things work. And if you run --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sounds good.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- into a situation like that and you
say, this person really should be eligible, and you bring it to us and we
change the law -- we change the rule and --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I love it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and let it get fixed, that we just
improve on it as we go forward, but we start with something that
seems to make sense.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That sounds good.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. We can bring unique circumstances
Page 138
July 25, 2006
back to the board.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good, good, good.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. BAKER: I feel compelled to mention that we're operating
on two standards because the incentives that we approved this
morning required a legal resident. Did not require the more strict
conditions that you're setting out right now. So we do have a disparity
there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Give us --
MR. BAKER: But that's an employer situation, not -- creating a
job as opposed to us funding deferrals.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
MR. BAKER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
MR. BAKER: Just wanted to make sure you understood.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. And you might want to try
to tighten up on that one some way or just loosen the ones we've just
talked about. But we're searching for ways to do it properly and
fairly. We're not looking for ways to just --
MR. BAKER: For my own self, in my area, if we feel like we're
out of balance, we'll come back to you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's good.
MR. BAKER: And we may --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That sounds good to me.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Just one more.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Somewhere in here, I don't -- and I
don't know where it is right now, but it said -- we were increasing --
and maybe it was this morning, and I should have asked this then. We
were increasing the amount that we could permit from 30 to 50, and
just -- you know, especially if it's under one owner and so forth. I was
Page 139
July 25, 2006
just wondering -- I would guess it's like two months ago, we approved
in our agenda 100 of them. How did that happen?
MS. PATTERSON: Oh, let me turn that over to Cormac Giblin.
He manages that program.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, it's in 8B.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, is it there? Okay.
MR. GIBLIN: It is in this item, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I knew I read it someplace.
MR. GIBLIN: Again, Cormac Giblin, Housing and Grants
Manager. It's on page 5 of 8 of the actual ordinance amendment. It's
item number seven, changing it to read that no more than 50 deferral
agreements are permitted at any single time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I don't have a problem with
that at all. I mean, I'm not --
MR. GIBLIN: The way the deferral program works is that we're
allowed to defer impact fees up to 3 percent of the previous year's total
impact fee collections. That translates into roughly about 150 to 200
homes per year we have budgetary authority to defer impact fees on.
The reason a limit was put in there in the first place was to defer
one developer or two developers from coming in on day one of the
fiscal year and saying, give me 125 impact fee deferrals and another
guy saying, give me 75, and then that's the end of the program for the
whole day, and then all that's done has been to the benefit of just two
developers.
So we put in the initial cap at 30 per developer at anyone time.
But as we've seen more and more larger affordable developments be
approved, like the one that you've referenced just recently of the 101
spot, we do see a need to allow the flexibility for a developer to do a
little bit more than 30 at a time.
And so they can come in and now get 50 at a time, and then
somebody else can get 50, somebody else can get 20, and the program
Page 140
July 25, 2006
has enough capacity to handle that increase.
It just -- for paperwork sake, for the flow of the way things
develop, it's a lot easier for a developer to come in and get a couple
master permits and get impact fee deferrals on a whole block or a
whole community rather than just doing it at 30 at a time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So that brings up two more
questions then. One is, how did we have 100 on that particular one?
Was that a bunch of them gathered together at different times, or -- I
don't know --
MR. GIBLIN: I think you're referring to rezone that approve 100
new affordable units to be built.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no, no. I was referring to --
MR. GIBLIN: Oh.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- impact fee deferrals, 100.
MR. GIBLIN: I'm sorry, yeah. That was Botanical Place
Condominium on Bayshore Road. There were 64 affordable units --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I counted them. They were 100 and
they were all in Immokalee, it said.
MR. GIBLIN: That was an Immokalee one?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I don't know what it was. It
didn't say where they were living or what they were doing. I was just
wondering, if it says 30 to 50, how did we get 100? You see my
question?
MR. GIBLIN: Yeah. That was not within the purview of this
program. It might have been a different program, but it was not the
countywide impact fee deferral program that we're talking about.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You submitted them, I believe, so I
would think that they were yours. But anyway, we voted on them. I'll
have to look it up. I'll have to go back. It was a couple meetings ago.
Anyway, I'll look that up. I was just concerned -- curious as to how
that happened.
Let's see. There was another thing that we were talking about,
Page 141
July 25, 2006
darn it, and I can't remember it now. Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any other questions from
Commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I believe we have a motion on the floor.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We have a motion to approve with
the stipulations that we have discussed for eligibility.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That was part one and part two, correct?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That was for the impact fee and the other
part, all right, and that was by Commissioner Coyle. I believe it was
seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
Is there any other further discussion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just to make sure I understand.
What we did is direct staff to come up with a perimeter? Okay.
Good, I'm there.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Everybody on board?
Okay. 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. Thank you very much.
MS. PATTERSON: Commissioner Fiala, just a minute. We can
look into those 100 that you're speaking about and report back to you
on what they are --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
MS. PATTERSON: -- just to clarify that matter.
Page 142
July 25, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It gave us a list of them. It didn't
number them. I had to count them, and they were -- each family's
name was there.
MS. PATTERSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay?
MS. PATTERSON: We can find out for you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great. Thank you very much.
MS. PATTERSON: You're welcome.
Item #14A
CRA RESOLUTION 2006-197: COLLIER COUNTY
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA)
APPROVING A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FORM OF A
$7,000,000 LINE OF CREDIT AGREEMENT WITH W ACHOVIA
BANK TO PURCHASE REAL PROPERTY AND FINANCE
VARIOUS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS WITHIN THE
BA YSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE CRA; AUTHORIZE THE
CRA CHAIRMAN TO SIGN AND MAKE DRAWS AGAINST
THE LINE OF CREDIT AS NEEDED; PLEDGE BA YSHORE
GATEWAY TRIANGLE CRA TAX INCREMENT FUNDS (TIF)
AS THE LOAN REPAYMENT SOURCE; AND AUTHORIZE ALL
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item,
which is 14A, and this item to be heard on or around one p.m. after
item 8B, which you just heard. It's a recommendation for the Collier
County Community Redevelopment Agency, the CRA, to approve a
resolution approving the forming of a $7 million line of credit
agreement with Wachovia Bank to purchase real property and finance
various capital improvement projects within the Bayshore/Gateway
Triangle CRA, authorize the CRA chairman to sign and make draws
Page 143
July 25, 2006
against line of credit as needed, pledge Bayshore/Gateway Triangle's
CRA tax increment funds, TIF, as the loan repayment source and
authorize all necessary budget amendments.
This is a companion item to item 10K, which you'll hear right
after this. And Mr. David Jackson -- and I believe you have some
folks to help you here.
MR. WEIGEL: And Madam Chairman, as the case may be.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, Madam Chairman.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: I would suggest, Commissioners, that
Commissioner Halas as chairman of the board and commissioners,
place the board in recess and then Ms. Fiala, as Chairman of the CRA,
will initiate the item for 14 on behalf of the CRA board.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. At this time the BCC is in recess,
and we're going to convene the CRA board. And I'm turning the gavel
over to Commissioner Fiala.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. And the CRA
Board is now in session.
MR. JACKSON: Good afternoon. David Jackson, Executive
Director, Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency.
The item has been read to you in background. The authority to
enter into debt and purchase property is under Florida Statute 163, and
the funding source to obligate the tax incremental financing comes
under Collier County Ordinance 2000-42.
On May 9th and on June 20th, you had two pre-meetings talking
about how to get to where we are today. Today is the end of the road,
and the train stops here for the signatures of all persons associated
with it.
We're asking for you to pass the CRA Resolution, authorize the
chairman to sign the line of -- letter of agreement and make any
authorized draws on the line of credit, to pledge tax incremental
financing funds for repayment source in all budget amendments.
Page 144
July 25, 2006
As another associated item which wasn't detailed in this
executive summary and has come to light since then, in the contract
agreement there was to be a letter from the CRA Chairman
acknowledging the difference in the appraised value of the property
and in the purchase price so that the seller can get a tax deferment or
donation on it. And also in there it came to light that there is a certain
place in certain documents where I, the executive director, must sign,
and without that signature authority, we'd like to put that into this
approval for me to sign and for the chairman to also sign that letter
acknowledging the donation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we do that at this time, David?
MR. JACKSON: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right at this time? Do you want to -- do
you want to say what they are or put it into the record? I don't
understand. You don't have his letter, so did you want to just state
what it was for the record so that he can use that or --
MR. JACKSON: Correct. I have -- it's a draft letter and it will
be presented to you. Essentially it's acknowledging that we went into a
contract/agreement, and in the agreement/contract it stated that
whatever the appraised price of the property was, which ended up
being the average of two appraisals, came out to $6,785,000. We end
up purchasing the property for four million six, and the difference is
$2,185,000 that he will credit himself as a donation.
It's nothing out of our pocket. It's something that he does on the
back side of the taxes bases there, and we just acknowledge that -- the
difference between the appraisal and the purchase property -- the
purchase price.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you. Okay. We have that
on the record.
Yes, Marjorie?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. And Madam Chair, as part of
the upcoming closing on property to be acquired by the CRA, it may
Page 145
July 25, 2006
be necessary for me to sign some documents as part of that closing,
like the closing statement on behalf of the chair. So I would just like a
nod from you, the chair or the CRA as a whole, giving me the
authority to do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You certainly have my approval.
MR. JACKSON: That will prevent you from having to go to the
closing, ma'am, and also the closing will be on August 2nd.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll be out of town, so thank you very
much. They'd have to fly up to Amish country. Okay, thank you.
Yes, you certainly have my approval, and I saw some nods over
here as well.
Okay, David, I hear that there's one speaker on this. Would you
like to call the speaker?
MS. FILSON: Yes. We have one speaker, Madam Chairman,
Robert Brian Crim.
MR. CRIM: I'm not sure that this is something that -- I thought it
might be something else, so I'm not really certain that I have anything
that's relevant to say on this matter.
MS. FILSON: Do you want to speak on 10K as well?
MR. CRIM: Let me hear it and then we'll see.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Okay. Any comments from
the board members?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Halas, a second by Commissioner Coyle.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Page 146
July 25, 2006
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Absent.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It passes, 4-0.
MR. JACKSON: And Madam Chairman, before you leave town,
there are several documents we would really like you to sign --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I already signed them.
MR. JACKSON: -- today or as soon as you can.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I did already.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And then right from there we
go on to --
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, I think you need to -- I think you need to --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Recess the CRA, is that correct?
MR. MUDD: You're going to -- I don't know if you're going to
have another CRA agenda item, but I don't think -- I don't think 14B is
that -- more board issue. So I believe you can --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aren't we supposed to -- oh, okay.
MR. MUDD: You can -- David?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, if 14B is not considered a CRA item, then
Ms. Fiala --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, 14A, right?
MR. WEIGEL: You're on 14A.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We just completed that.
MR. WEIGEL: But if you have no further business as the CRA,
then the CRA will adjourn.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: What is 10K?
MR. WEIGEL: And Mr. Chairman -- and Mr. Halas will bring
the Board of Commissioners back into --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. See, I don't want to give this up
until I find out what 10K is.
Page 147
July 25, 2006
MR. WEIGEL: 10K?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No, 10K was also authorizing--
MR. MUDD: No. Is 14B a CRA Board item?
MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Then I would suggest while you're in the
CRA, get to 14B.
MR. WEIGEL: Stay in the mode and follow all the way through
then, and then the Board of County Commissioners can come back
and pick up each of those items that they need to tend to that the CRA
has worked on. Works for me.
Item #14B
APPROVAL OF CONTRACTORWORX, INC. RIGHT OF WAY
IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT, AFTER THE FACT, TO
PREP ARE THREE HALLENDALE SUBDIVISION STREETS
AND RIGHT OF WAYS FOR A BA YSHORE GATEWAY
TRIANGLE CRA FUNDED COLD-MIX PAVING PROJECT;
APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO ACCEPT PRIVATE
DONATIONS; APPROVE PAYMENT FROM PRIVATE
DONATIONS TO CONTRACTORWORX, INC. FOR WORK
COMPLETED; AND RETURN A PRO-RATA SHARE OF THE
REMAINING $10,147.00 IN PRIVATE DONATIONS TO THOSE
WHO CONTRIBUTED TO THE PROJECT - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: 14B, it's a recommendation to approve Contractor
Works, Inc., right-of-way improvement contract after the fact to
prepare three Hallendale subdivision streets and rights-of-way for
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA funded cold-mix paving project,
approve a budget amendment to accept private donations, approve
payment from private donations to Contractor Works, Inc., for work
completed, and return a prorated share of the remaining $10,147 in
Page 148
July 25, 2006
private donations to those who contributed to the project.
And again, Mr. David Jackson, your Director of your CRA, will
present.
MR. JACKSON: Good afternoon again. The background, in
March and April of this year we had meetings as the CRA in which
we approved the CRA to pay for a sole source contractor to pave the
dirt roads or limerock roads within the CRA boundaries, and that has
been accomplished.
As part of that though, the residents in the Hallendale
subdivision, which is the south end of Bayshore Drive -- there's three
streets. Each one is about a quarter mile long, and they were rather
rural in nature in that there was a lot of growth on the sides that were
moving in on the right-of-way and getting close to the road.
The people took it upon themselves to donate money out of their
pocket and pay for the cleaning and grubbing of the right-of-way so
that they'd have a better street and that the long-term success of the
paving proj ect would be ensured.
They collected that money. They didn't have an -- they do not
have a homeowners' association. They asked if I could be the holder
of those funds and that they would select their own contractor to do
the work.
They went out and found their contractor, got three quotes,
selected their contractor, collected the funds, and I accepted the
money in check form per lot, and that was deposited into the CRA
funds.
What we need here today is to recognize those private
contributions as revenue, to recognize that that revenue which is
private money, would pay for their private contractor as detailed in the
enclosures here, and then to return prorate shares by contributor that
money back to them, so it ends up being a zero sum gain for the CRA.
No tax monies were spent or will be allocated for that portion of
it. It's merely an acknowledgement. It came in, pay this gentleman,
Page 149
July 25, 2006
and refund the money back and it will be a zero sum game.
So we're asking for permission to do that after the fact.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I've got some real problems
with this. It borders on the gray area, because I believe that to do
business right, everything has to be in the sunshine, and I think that
this had to be brought before the board before you made that decision
on your own.
I look at this as like, Let's Make a Deal with Monty Hall, and I
don't think that's the correct way to proceed on issues like this.
So I would hope that if we decide to pay this off, that this won't
happen again, because we've worked very hard to make sure that
everything that this board does is done aboveboard, and this here
borders on areas that I think that your authority kind of -- you
superseded your authority on what we really expect out of the CRA.
So I hope you understand where we stand on this.
MR. JACKSON: That was acknowledged in the last paragraph
in my consideration at the top of the second page of the executive
summary, SIr.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I just want to make sure that
we understand that.
MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Mr. Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And if I may, what he's
referring to, I believe, is typically -- the second page there -- typically
a purchase of this magnitude would have been procured through
formal competition. Of course, that wasn't done.
But then also too, the further statement is that all future initiatives
of this nature will be coordinated through the purchase department,
and that's important, very, very important.
Now, I'm not going to belabor this too long, but we don't need
criticism brought down on the CRA or the commission. You know,
Page 150
July 25, 2006
it's a momentary lapse, I think, of what was supposed to take place.
But in the future, stay with the procedure and we won't have any
problems.
I'm going to vote for this but I still think that we're reaching the
end, but through the back door. I still think we went about it the
wrong way, but to vote against it would be counterproductive after it's
been done. I think you've been duly admonished by this commission
for this oversight and that we won't see anything quite like this happen
again in the future.
MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I hope not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or from the government.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Or from the government.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we have a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion to approve from
Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Coyle.
Any further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any all those in favor, signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much, David.
MR. JACKSON: That's all the CRA items we have today.
Page 151
July 25, 2006
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Very good. CRA Board Meeting
is closed.
I'll pass this gavel back to our chairman, Commissioner Halas.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The Board of County Commissioners is
now reconvened.
Item #lOK
RESOLUTION 2006-198: AUTHORIZING THE COLLIER
COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA)
TO ENTER INTO A $7,000,000 LINE OF CREDIT AGREEMENT
WITH W ACHOVIA BANK; APPROVING THE ACTIONS
TAKEN BY THE CRA WITH RESPECT TO ITS APPROVAL OF
THE LINE OF CREDIT AGREEMENT; AND AUTHORIZE ALL
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next item,
10K. This item is basically a companion to the $7 million line of
credit that you just heard on 14 A, but in this particular case you are
acting as the Board of County Commissioners lending your approval
to that particular action.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Coyle for
approval.
All those in favor, signify by saying.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 152
July 25, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
Item #8A
RESOLUTION 2006-199: 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
ONE-QUARTER OF A MILE SOUTH OF MANATEE ROAD, IN
SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY~ FLORIDA - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to land use petitions.
And we have -- we have two items before you today, and we'll start
with 8A and that's at petitioner's choice, because he would like to do
8A first, and if need be, go to 7 A.
Number 8A is, this item to be heard before item 7 A. This
petition was continued from the -- February 14, 2006, and was further
continued to June 20, 2006, and has been further continued until this
meeting, July 25, 2006.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by commission members.
It's PUDEX-2005-AR-8478, Rookery Bay Business Park, LLC,
represented by Wayne Arnold of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A.,
Page 153
July 25, 2006
and R. Bruce Anderson of Roetzel and Andress, requesting a two-year
extension to the ASGM Business Center of Naples PUD from October
8, 2005, to October 8, 2007.
The subject property consisting of 40.88 acres is located on the
east side of Collier Boulevard, County Road 951, approximately one
quarter of a mile south of Manatee Road in Section 10, Township 51
south, Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I see Mr. Mudd's hand went up
first.
MR. MUDD: No, I'm just -- I'm done reading.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Swearing in.
MR. MUDD: You can swear in. You've got to get ex parte
disclosure.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, I'm sorry. I was just trying to get --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He was enamored with his little
lights here. He was just playing.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. Okay. All those that are going to
give testimony in this case please rise to be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. At this time any disclosures by
the commissioners, and I'll start with Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I have had meetings with
the representatives of the petitioner, I also have received
correspondence, and the correspondence is in my file available for
inspection.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. And I have also met with
the petitioners, Mr. Anderson and Mr. Arnold, and have received
emails, which are in my file for anyone that would like to see them.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. On item A, I only received
emails and phone calls, and I've talked with staff on this.
Commissioner Fiala?
Page 154
July 25, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've received phone calls, I've
met with the petitioner's agents a few times, I've called a couple of
them just to ask some questions. I've spoken to staff and I've spoken
to the petitioner.
I think I've got everybody.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I spoke to, briefly, Mr.
Anderson and received a correspondence from Deborah Wright.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Please proceed.
MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson from the
Roetzel and Andress law firm, and I represent the applicant. One of
their principals is here with me today, Maury Daily. Also present is
Wayne Arnold; Reed Jarvi, the transportation planner, Andrew
Woodruff, the Senior Ecologist with Passarella & Associates, and my
partner, Doug Lewis.
Agenda items 7 A and 8A are companion petitions for this
business park PUD. I would note that it is the only business park PUD
approved in the county since the Growth Management Plan was
amended in the early part of this decade to specifically encourage
business parks.
This business park was approved in October 2002, but someone
forgot to attach the PUD master plan to the PUD ordinance, and so the
PUD had to be amended six months later in April 2003, to attach the
required PUD master plan to the ordinance. And we believe that the
PUD sunset time period is measured from that April 2003 amendment
when the PUD master plan was added.
Between the two companion petitions, a PUD extension request
and the separate one, an appeal of an interpretation, there are three
issues that are scheduled to be heard today; however, one of the issues
is a basic preliminary issue that, depending upon how it is decided, the
other two issues could become moot and would be withdrawn by my
Page 155
July 25, 2006
client.
The basic preliminary issue is whether the three-year time period
for this PUD has been tolled or suspended since January 2004 when
the property owner filed a joint environmental permitting application
with the Army Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water
Management District.
The Land Development Code requires that these permits be in
hand before you can get approval of a Site Development Plan, much
less a building permit.
My client has provided the county with copies of all the
permitting documents for these two agencies, including revisions,
correspondence, et cetera, a total of more than 30 documents, the most
recent of which is dated June 14, 2006, and it is the permit for this
project finally issued by the South Florida Water Management
District.
The Army Corps application is under, hopefully, final review,
and that permit is expected to be issued this fall.
The issues that have caused the environmental permitting delays
are, surprisingly enough, wetlands and panthers.
As staff states in their second supplemental executive summary,
quote, the timeline provided indicates that the applicant did diligently
pursue environmental permits by responding to comments timely and
by contracting for appropriate wetland mitigation credit, unquote.
It's my understanding that staff has separately provided you with
copies of the time line summary that my client had filed. If by any
chance you don't have that with you and you want a copy, I have extra
copIes.
The PUD sunset regulations for all three-year PUDs like this one
state, quote, if in the event of a moratorium or other action of
government that prevents the approval of any final development order,
the duration of a suspension of the approval shall not be counted
toward the three-year sunset provision, unquote. That's language only
Page 156
July 25, 2006
a lawyer could love.
The LDC does not prohibit the staff from making this
factually-based tolling determination; however, based on a prior
county commission workshop from May 2002, it appears to be staffs
understanding that the BCC desires to make this factual determination
on a case-by-case basis instead of allowing staff to do so first, and
then only bringing a tolling determination before the board if the staff
and the petitioner disagree. In this instance, I think we are in
agreement.
Weare asking you to recognize that the time period where this
property owner has timely pursued its state and federal environmental
permits, which are under review but delayed, is a quote, action of
government, unquote, that prevent the approval and submission of a
Site Development Plan and that the time period has been -- has tolled
and is not counted towards the three-year sunset limit.
Our clients submitted extensive detailed information and
documentation regarding and demonstrating the delays, given the
significant environmental issues.
I have with me today at least three witnesses who are able to
testify about the actions of the federal, state and county governments
that have prevented the PUD from commencing development, and we
ask you to simply recognize that the time clock for this PUD has been
suspended since January 30, 2004, the date that those environmental
applications were submitted, and that the time clock remains
suspended until the Army Corps of Engineers permit is issued for this
project, which, as I stated earlier, is anticipated to be later this summer
or fall.
And depending on where you measure the PUD time line from, if
you measure the PUD time line from the original adoption date of
October 2002, the owner has already used up 14 out of the 36 months.
That means there's less than two years left on the PUD.
Ifhowever, you measure the PUD time line from when we got a
Page 157
July 25, 2006
full PUD approved, when the master plan was approved as an
amendment, the owner would have consumed only eight months out
of the 36 months, and that would allow an extra six months within
which to commence development.
I and my witnesses are able to answer any questions that you
may have now or later. I appreciate your attention and respectfully
request your favorable finding.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I -- being what it may be
as far as our ordinance goes and the way it's written, I don't see how
we have any other choice than to grant the applicant's request as far as
the -- our own staff comes out and says the applicant provided
additional information to staff on June 30th documenting the extensive
environmental resource permitting process undertaken by the agent for
PUD owner.
So obviously the rules and regulations that we had set up for
them to follow, they have followed. Staff recommendation was not to
refuse this request, it wasn't to grant it either. They left it up to our
own determination.
I, as one commissioner, can see the logic between accepting this
and would like to make a motion at this time that we recognize the
fact that the tolling on this particular item stopped at a point in time
that I'm having a hard time identifying what it should be.
But I do think that we do need to do that so that -- it went beyond
their control and we recognize that in our regular ordinance that at that
point in time is when it should have been froze. Now, I can't tell you
what that date is. If someone could tell me that, I'd be happy to include
it in my motion for possible second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'll give you a second on that
because I totally agree. I was impressed with the difference in the
staffs summary this time, once they'd receive the volumes of
information that they had, which verified all of the time that the
Page 158
July 25, 2006
applicant spent trying to get the permit, so I'll second that motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can someone go over it one
more time what the choices is -- are for the -- when the tolling stopped
on this particular item or would have stopped? I'm not -- that's one of
the things I'm not sure of.
MR. ANDERSON: I wasn't -- I wasn't, perhaps, clear enough.
The tolling period, it would be our request that you find that it was
January 30, 2004.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why?
MR. ANDERSON: Which is the date that the applications were
submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers and the South Florida
Water Management District permit. The thing that I think was
confusing is, I talked about when you start counting from when the
PUD sunset time started running.
And my request was that you start counting from April 2004,
which is when the PUD master plan was formally officially approved
and attached to the PUD ordinance that had been adopted six months
earlier. We only had a half a PUD.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then I'll insert the date of
January 30, 2004, in my motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'd like to ask guidance here -- or ask
some guidance here from the County Attorney.
When we make up an ordinance and we say the government,
we're basically including just the county, and I don't see how we can
be held accountable for what goes on in the federal government. Can
you give me some guidance on this?
MR. WEIGEL: I believe -- someone else may chime in, but I
believe that in this instance, as in others, that we're talking about all
government permitting that may be required because we recognize
that their permitting, quite often, is several jurisdictions, local, state
and federal.
Page 159
July 25, 2006
MR. KLATZKOW: The workshop that led to this ordinance,
Commissioner, the discussion with federal inaction and state inaction
was specifically discussed by this board, and some of the
commissioners did express actual frustration with how slowly the
process could be from their end.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think fundamentally we probably
have to grant some kind of extension here, but I am -- I'd like some
clarification on the wording.
When we're talking about unreasonable delays by governmental
agency, I think it's necessary that we give some consideration to what
really was the period of the unreasonable delay. The unreasonable
delay can't really be calculated from the day you submit the
application because if you submit the application and it's processed on
a timely basis, let's say within four to six months, that wouldn't be
counted as an unreasonable delay.
So we're left with trying to determine what is a reasonable period
of time to either toll or extend this particular PUD. And I'd like to
pursue that just a little bit further.
Mr. Anderson, you said that the applications were submitted on
January the 30th, 2004, and I think you're suggesting that the applicant
-- that the PUD was approved, I believe, in October 2003.
MR. ANDERSON: 2002.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 2002. And so I think you're
suggesting that if we use January of2004, then the applicant would
have used up roughly 14, 15 months of the time. If you use April
2004 -- I'm not sure why we would use April of 2004. Can you tell
me?
MR. ANDERSON: Oh, that was -- when the PUD was originally
approved, the master plan was not attached to the ordinance that was
filed with the secretary of state.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. But that didn't slow down
Page 160
July 25, 2006
your application for your Corps of Engineering permit?
MR. ANDERSON: No. They were preparing -- busily
preparing, you know, the engineering drawings and everything like
that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So that would have been irrelevant
to any unreasonable delay in getting your permits; is that true?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, but it would be relevant to when you
start counting the PUD sunset time clock, the three years.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. Well, you see -- my position
would be, since the failure to attach the Growth Management Plan
provision to the PUD did not in any way delay you in applying for
your Corps permit, that shouldn't extend or change the PUD total
three-year time limit, sunsetting time limit. And what I would suggest
is that we operate from October 2003 as to the time when the PUD
was approved --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: October 2002 when it was --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- October 2002 when it was
approved and understand that you submitted your applications for
approval on January 30, 2004.
Now, what portion thereafter was an unreasonable delay, I guess,
is really my question? What would you have expected to be a
reasonable period of time to be able to get that processed? Don't say
three days, but --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good point, Commissioner.
MR. WOODRUFF: For the record, Andy Woodruff with
Passarella & Associates, environmental consultants for the proj ect.
I couldn't stand up here and tell you what's reasonable to expect
any more on any particular project, especially if it involves Corps
permitting and if it involves U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
involvement or EP A involvement on a project. It just can go on --
we've got projects in-house that I've been working on for years,
literally, I mean, three, four years on a project trying to get resolution
Page 161
July 25, 2006
on issues with these agencies, so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sixteen years on LASIP.
MR. WOODRUFF: You know, we like to tell the client that,
sure, you know, if you follow the district's timelines, you should
expect to get out of this within a year, year and a half, but there are so
many unknowns to the permitting process anymore, that trying to
create a timeline that's reasonable to expect -- and we involve these
other agencies, and ultimately you're trying to get one permit that
matches, you know, each of the different agencies' requirements that,
at the end of the day, you've got to come up with a plan that works for
everybody.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, based upon what you just
said, it would appear to me that a year and a half of that time has been
unreasonable. For example, you should have been able to get your
permit within a year after submission. Let's use that as a basic
premise. That means you should have gotten your permit by January
30, 2005, so from that time until this time, or until the time the permit
is issued would seem to be an unreasonable period.
So I guess what I'm really getting at is, if you were delayed a
year and a half in your permitting and we were to grant you a year and
a half extension on the PUD, where would that get you?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if I could just -- while they're
having a moment there to discuss it, just for clarification on your
comment. You know, you say giving an extension. If you're talking
about tolling, you're basically -- you're giving them a date that it was
tolled. In other words, their sunset in abeyance as of that time, and it
continues until they get that permit that they have applied for. So I
don't believe they have their permits yet.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, they don't.
MR. MUDD: And so to continue them by 18 months and they
still don't have their permit, they're still in the tolling time. So you'd --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, but you see, I'm thinking
Page 162
July 25, 2006
about an alternative to the tolling, and I'm just trying to explore some
alternatives here to see if we can't resolve the issue in a way that
makes some sense.
We haven't reached a decision.
The one thing you need to take into consideration is, it's going to
t~ke you at least three years to get your permit through our planning
department, too.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What have we improved?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What have we improved?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, yeah, okay. Maybe I'm wrong.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I've got a question here. Ifwe approved
this in October 2002 and they didn't start working on this till January
2004, I don't understand what the problem is here because I don't think
it's -- if you submitted your permits at the time that the PUD was
approved and then you came to the board at this point in time and said,
this is an undue course of time and we still haven't got our permits,
then I would look at this wholeheartedly and say, yeah, you probably
have some injustice done to you.
But when you didn't start at the point in time when the PUD --
because you're -- whatever took place, that you didn't do anything for
two years, that gives me a real concern.
MR. ARNOLD: I'll try to address that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's where I'm trying to get to.
I'm trying to calculate into whose delay was what and how long it
took.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. So, I mean -- and I can't be liable
for federal government as far as delays. I mean, I don't have any
control over them, just like you don't, but we do have laws here within
Collier County that makes a strong stipulation of, you know, what we
are entitled to. And obviously you've got some real serious situations
out there. You didn't get your permit because it has to do with
Page 163
July 25, 2006
probably mitigation of wetlands.
MR. ARNOLD: If I can I'll try to address that. I'm Wayne
Arnold with Q. Grady Minor & Associates.
Our firm and Bruce Anderson and Andy Woodruff have been
involved in this project from its inception from initial zoning phases
right up through where we are today, trying to obtain that Army Corps
permit.
And keep in mind, this was the first business park proj ect brought
before you. Our client did not release us to spend significant
engineering and environmental dollars to prepare the environmental
resource permit until they knew they had the zoning underway.
We then worked toward doing that, and that's not a set of plans
that you prepare in 30 days; that takes months, and it takes you
deciding on a real land plan that you think you can get permitted
through the agencies. And if you look at the detailed chronology and
hear what Andy Woodruff has expressed to you a few moments ago,
this is a lot of give and take and negotiation even before you file an
application about what might be acceptable to those agencies.
The other thing that I think's important in this timeline is that
even though it took us over a year to get that application filed, you
know, after submittal we ended up with an issue of panther habitat,
which is relatively new to those of us in the process that the agencies
were looking for that. So that, again, was a separate series of
negotiations that was new to all of us, and it took a significant amount
of time in this process negotiating with those agencies.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: How many times did this PUD change
hands? Has it been by the same owner since its inception?
MR. ARNOLD: It has changed ownership once since the
original zoning approval.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So has that been also a hindrance
in regards to moving forward on this?
MR. ARNOLD: It probably was a slight setback in the respect
Page 164
July 25, 2006
that new ownership interest had to be comfortable with the plans that
we had previously submitted to the agencies, but the ownership
change did occur after submittal of the plans to South Florida and the
Army Corps of Engineers.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I need to continue the line of
questioning.
County Manager, we had discussion concerning whether or not
tolling -- the tolling process applied only to three-year PUD terms, or
does it apply to PUDs of any kind?
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, last night I sent an email out, to
answer your question, and I copied all the other commissioners. The
tolling provision only applies to three-year sunset PUDs. It does not
apply to the five-year PUDs.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That's what we thought,
okay. Then if we were to look at it this way, 15 months elapsed from
the time that the PUD was approved until the time you actually
submitted applications for Corps of Engineers permit. You would
have expected approval of the Corps of Engineers permit within 12
months. You didn't get it.
So anytime after that, let's suppose we considered, was
unreasonable, and we, therefore, were to toll the PUD from a point in
time 27 months after the PUD approval of October of 2002.
Now, where does that get you?
MR. ANDERSON: Well, it leaves us still in the toll position, as
Mr. Mudd mentioned, but it only leaves us -- once the tolling ends,
that leaves a nine-month window to comply with the construction plan
requirements.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, but that really means that
you only have to make acceptable progress during that period of time
to qualify for another extension; is that not correct?
MR. ANDERSON: I'd like for someone from staff to address
Page 165
July 25, 2006
how they, in fact, administer that.
MS. ISTENES: Good afternoon. Susan Murray-Istenes. I'm the
Zoning Director. In the case of this PUD -- and this is a
non-residential PUD -- and I'll read directly from the Land
Development Code.
The owner entity shall initiate physical development of a
minimum of 15 percent of the authorized floor area when approved on
the basis of a defined amount of floor space by the third anniversary of
the PUD approval.
In the event floor area is not the defining intensity measure, then
25 percent of the land area, to include some representative portion of
the building space, shall be constructed by the third anniversary of the
PUD approval date, and then the same amount of development shall
be required every year thereafter up to an amount representing 75
percent of the authorized buildable area and floor area.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if they were making
acceptable progress at that point and the three-year window closed,
what would be the action you would recommend?
MS. ISTENES: It would really have to be evaluated at that time.
Again, you're going to have a different set of circumstances and facts
at that time, but your criteria used to be evaluated against would be
just what I read to you in the record. So -- but the option would be to
get an extension from that point in time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So here's the way I think we
solve this problem. What I don't think we want to do is just have an
open-ended period of time waiting for the Corps to do something, but
if you've got a nine-month window and during that -- you can't do
anything anyway because of the concurrency problems. You're still
going to be held up because of that, right?
So you don't even meet the requirements under the transportation
provisions to begin work on this unless there is a development --
developer agreement, contribution agreement, which helps solve that
Page 166
July 25, 2006
problem. A developer contribution agreement that helps solve the
problem then provides us the opportunity to extend whatever we want
to in the developer contribution agreement, I would hope, to permit
this problem to be resolved. Does that make sense?
MS. ISTENES: That makes sense to me. I'm not sure of the
legalities of an extension through a developer's contribution
agreement, but I would look to the County Attorney to comment on
that.
The other thing possibly is -- and I don't want to speak for
transportation -- but your pay-and-go program may be implemented at
that point, too. So you know, there's a lot of different things that can
change even between now and next March.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I understand the concern
about contract zoning here, and I don't want to get close to that. But if
there is a way to solve that problem in that manner, it would -- in the
manner I suggested, it might make some sense because we can't let
you go ahead anyway without resolving the concurrency problem.
MS. ISTENES: Right. That still remains the issue at least to this
point.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. So we're not going to get
you any further down the road unless we also address the concurrency
problem, and if you can find a way to address the concurrency
problem, maybe we can find a way to tie that with an extension of
some kind so that, you know, if you're going to be contribute to
solving the concurrency problem, why wouldn't we give you an
extension to the PUD?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I still feel comfortable in the
motion as its' made, and I'll tell you because of the tremendous
problems just in order to get the paperwork together to be able to file,
as they said, to file for a permit. As they have mentioned, and we all
know, just to get all of that paperwork together and the studies
Page 167
July 25, 2006
together, that's going to take them, you know, almost a year to do,
then they submit it.
I know with us on Rattlesnake Hammock Road, boy, we had so
many problems. And why? Because we had panther mitigation. All
of a sudden we couldn't get approval from the state because of
panthers, and we're talking Rattlesnake Hammock Road when there,
you know, there aren't any panther's running around there, but we had
a problem.
And with LASIP, with that Lely Area Stormwater Improvement
Project, 16 years we waited just for the Army Corps permit, 16 years.
And so I think there's so many things that can hold us up, and -- so I
feel very comfortable with the information that we've received with
the documentation of how many permits and so forth they've gone to.
I also weigh a little bit heavy on the EDC letter that we have here
that was enthusiastically supporting building a business center or
business park. She's saying that we don't have many opportunities to
build a business park, and she felt that this is one of the few
opportunities in that whole area. So that weighed heavy with me also.
So my second to Commissioner Coletta's motion stands.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'd like to call the question, if I
may.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, if I could just make one more
quick comment. What we're doing is making a decision that can cause
serious consequences later on. And if we say to someone, it's okay if
we approve your PUD in October of 2002 and you wait a year and
three months later before you begin applying for a permit, I think
that's bad policy, and I think it opens the door to a lot of other
extensions that, perhaps, should not be granted.
The other thing that we have to be careful of is that our
proportionate fair share contributions will come into effect in just five
or six more months.
Now, that means that someone can pay a proportionate fair share
Page 168
July 25, 2006
and just proceed whether concurrencies satisfied or not. We don't like
that happening, but in this case you'll have no control over it.
So the -- so my final observation is, this is one of those cases
when we knew there was a concurrency problem and we granted the
rezone anyway because we said, we're not going to take -- we're not
going to address concurrency until it gets time to apply for a permit,
and then we'll address concurrency, and you see where it's gotten us.
So I would suggest to you in the future, we don't do a rezone if there's
a concurrency problem, end of story, and we'll never get here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I totally, totally agree, but I don't
think in 2002, we had concurrency in place yet, did we?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think we were just working on it
then.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, might have been, might have
been, yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So this isn't something that we
approved over concurrency. We -- but we surely knew that we needed
concurrency and we were working on it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, the other thing I would ask
you is to -- is to deal with the tolling rather than an extension, okay?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think that's the motion though.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It is.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're sure it's tolling?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the tolling is from what time?
The time, January --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: January 30, 2004.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, all right. Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And if I may, just a
couple of short comments. I know we -- you're right. You're
absolutely right to bring all these issues up. If anything, we need to go
Page 169
July 25, 2006
back and look at how we have it structured, but the way it's structured
right now, it's very plain with the way it's worded.
And I mean, these -- petitioner comes to us with an expectation
that we're going to follow the rules and regulations we put together.
And I agree with you as far as proportionate fair share, that the place
to deal with it is back with that ordinance when the time does come.
I'm glad you brought that all up.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any other further questions?
MR. MUDD: Okay. Just so -- I want to be specific. You
basically said January 30, 2004. This PUD expired, okay, as it sits
right here without your action, on October 8, 2005; am I correct?
MR. ANDERSON: That's staffs position.
MR. MUDD: I'm just reading the executive summary, okay. So
you basically told them -- and so if you count the days, we're talking
about 20 months and eight days, okay? I just want to make sure that
you're aware, 20 months and eight days is -- so when you get your
permit, then the time starts again and you basically have 20 months
and eight days to get the sufficient construction done in order to
continue your particular --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And that is in your motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That was the motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that's a tolling, not an
extension?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
MR. MUDD: That's a tolling.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you want him to repeat the
motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do you want me to bite you?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You have the motion written down.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, yes. Say yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by
Page 170
July 25, 2006
Commissioner Coletta and a second by Commissioner Fiala in regards
to the tolling, 20 months and eight days.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: A date, go with the date,
January 30, 2004 --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- is when they started the--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: They started their paperwork, okay.
I'll call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed by like sign?
Aye. And the reason being that there was no -- there was no
initiative taken from the time that the PUD was started at 2002 in
getting those permits in, and that's where I stand on that.
Thank you. I believe it passes.
Item #7 A
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 - MOTION TO WITHDRAW AT
Page 171
July 25, 2006
PETITIONER'S REQUEST - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Mr. Anderson, I'd ask you a question. Are you --
are you withdrawing 7A?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Commissioners, I'd like to have a vote that
this is -- this item is withdrawn by the petitioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to withdraw it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion to withdraw 7 A; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion on the floor to withdraw 7 A. I
have a motion by Commissioner Coletta and seconded 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: Passes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would you like to withdraw
anything else? We have a few others here to pick from.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Let's take a -- let's take a 10-minute break
or 15-minute break for our court reporter. We've been going since is
1 :30 and she's earned a break.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 1 :39.
MR. MUDD: We're going to what time, sir?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We're going to be back here at 3:26.
(A brief recess was had.)
Page 1 72
July 25, 2006
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your sits --
seats.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Take your sits.
MR. MUDD: Seats, I'm sorry. 3:25 or is it 3:26.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Twenty-six.
MR. MUDD: We're close. We're ready.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, County Manager.
We're back from recess. And--
MR. MUDD: Let's do a couple housekeeping things first, if I
can, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And then after the housekeeping
things --
MR. MUDD: We have a time certain.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, and then Commissioner Henning
had a request, okay.
So let's get the housekeeping items out before.
Item #7B
CU-2005-AR-8046, OLIVA MULCHING AND RECYCLING
FACILITY; JAIME AND DEMARYS OLIVA, REPRESENTED
BY COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.,
REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE FOR A HORTICULTURE
RECYCLING AND MULCHING FACILITY IN THE "A-MHO"
AGRICUL TURAL WITH MOBILE HOME OVERLAY ZONING
DISTRICT PURSUANT TO LDC SECTION 2.03.08.A.3.A(3)(G)
WHICH ALLOWS FACILITIES FOR THE COLLECTION,
TRANSFER, PROCESSING, AND REDUCTION OF SOLID
WASTE IN THE RURAL FRINGE MIXED-USE DISTRICT,
NEUTRAL LANDS AREA, CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE
LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT
PLAN. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF 10.04
Page 1 73
July 25, 2006
ACRES, IS LOCATED THREE-QUARTERS OF A MILE EAST
OF IMMOKALEE ROAD (CR 846) AT 1340 WILD TURKEY
DRIVE, IN SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH, RANGE 27
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - MOTION TO
CONTINUE TO SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 BCC MEETING-
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Okay. 7B there was a request by the petitioner to
continue until the 12th of September, and because it was advertised for
today, if I can get a motion from the board to continue.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion to continue this item.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I made the motion and it was
seconded by Commissioner Henning.
All those in favor, signify saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Item #8C
PUDZ-2005-AR-8833, COLLIER PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC.
D/B/A NAPLES DAILY NEWS, REPRESENTED BY D. WAYNE,
ARNOLD, AICP, OF Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P.A.,
AND R. BRUCE ANDERSON, ESQUIRE, OF ROETZEL &
ANDRESS, L.P.A., REQUESTING A BUSINESS PARK
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (BPUD) REZONE FROM
RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A) AND CREEKSIDE COMMERCE
PARK PUD FOR PROJECT KNOWN AS NAPLES DAILY NEWS
Page 174
July 25, 2006
BUSINESS PARK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (BPPUD).
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN SECTION 27,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA. (THIS IS BEING SUBMITTED SIMULTANEOUSLY
WITH THE CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK PUD AS A FAST
TRACK). (PETITIONER'S REQUEST.) - MOTION TO
CONTINUE TO THE SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 BCC MEETING-
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is 8C. Again, you have a petitioner that requested a
continuance on this particular item until the 12th of September. It was
advertised for today's meeting. If I could get a motion to do so.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner, we have a--
yeah. We have a motion here to continue this to September 12th by
Commissioner Henning and seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
All those in favor, signify 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: Carries.
Item #8D
PUDA-2005-AR-8832, CREEKSIDE WEST, INC.,
REPRESENTED BY D. WAYNE ARNOLD, AICP, OF Q. GRADY
Page 175
July 25, 2006
MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P.A., AND R. BRUCE ANDERSON,
ESQUIRE, OF ROETZEL & ANDRESS, L.P.A., REQUESTING A
PUD AMENDMENT TO THE CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK
PUD. THIS AMENDMENT PROPOSES TO REDUCE THE AREA
OF THE CREEKSIDE PUD BY APPROXIMATELY 2.32 ACRES
AND REZONE THE AREA FROM CREEKSIDE COMMERCE
PARK PUD TO NAPLES DAILY NEWS BUSINESS PARK PUD.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF 105 ACRES IS
LOCATED IN SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. (THIS APPLICATION IS
BEING SUBMITTED SIMUL T ANEOUSL Y WITH THE NAPLES
DAILY NEWS BUSINESS PARK PUD AND WILL BE
CONSIDERED A FAST-TRACK) (PETITIONER'S REQUEST)-
MOTION TO CONTINUE TO SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 BCC
MEETING - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, again, that is another item. 8C and
8D are pretty much linked. Again, the petitioner requested a
continuation until the 12th of September for 8D, if I could get a
motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning, seconded 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: All those opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
Page 176
~,~,,-"- .-,..--"
July 25, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that gets us out of land use.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, great. Commissioner Henning--
MR. WEIGEL: And Mr. Chairman, I would note also on these
items that have been continued, to the extent that any of those are over
five weeks to the next date, which would appear they are --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: They have to be re-advertised.
MR. WEIGEL: -- at petitioner's request, it's petitioner's
responsibility to pay for re-advertisement.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning, you had
a request.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chair, because of -- it looks
like a very long schedule on September 12th and also the fact that we
will be on recess for over a month, I had a request to consider the
settlement agreement of Sandalwood PUD added onto today's agenda.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That hasn't been properly advertised.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we've added things on the
agenda several times without it being advertised. I guess we have to
ask the County Attorney --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- whether that's appropriate.
MR. PETTIT: Commissioner Henning, the settlement proposal
relates to two items, as I understand it. It relates to a petition for
certiorari that's now in the court challenging the board's denial of that
rezone, and we also have received recently -- and Ms. Student is on
her way back in because she's the attorney handling this in court.
We've received recently a Bert Harris Act claim notice. And it is
an issue of first impression under Florida law, which is lawyer speak
to say, there's no case on it, but there would be an argument, and
probably I believe a pretty good argument but it's untested in the
courts, that in a Bert Harris Act situation, if that is part and parcel of
the settlement, that advertisement may not be required. That
Page 177
July 25, 2006
obviously is a risk that the person seeking the settlement and the
petitioner would be taking because they are the ones that desire -- or at
this point are proposing the settlement and desire to move forward
with this development.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we have no risk?
MR. PETTIT: Well, we have risk if we -- if we would put this
item on the agenda today and this board would approve a settlement
and one argued that it was in the nature of a rezone, I suppose there is
a risk that someone else could challenge it because it wasn't properly
advertised and a court decide somewhere that that was correct. I'm not
__ I'm not sure how the county's interest would be harmed per se there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. PETTIT: But as I said, I mean, I'm of the opinion -- and
most lawyers I've talked to about this issue is that the advertisement in
a Bert Harris context, we are -- we are statutorily authorized to settle
those matter. But that is not -- no one has -- there is no case that's
tested it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Bring that back at a later date.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I mean, it just --
we are supposed to seek a settlement, and we're not going to be
convening for another -- it would be seven weeks, and I think that's
the reason I brought it up. But if none of my colleagues are interested
in contemplating a settlement, then it's a moot point.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, Commissioner, if we
could, I'd love to get rid of something too, but I don't have anything to
read, I don't have any background information or anything. I would
feel uncomfortable about doing that without preparing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What was the name of it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sandalwood.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think at this time we'll move on to -- if
there's any other discussion on this? If not we'll move on to our time
Page 178
July 25, 2006
certain, I believe, 3:30.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What is it?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's the off-road thing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 12A.
Item #12A
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 THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT
DISTRICTS OBLIGATION TO CONVEY 640 ACRES TO THE
COUNTY - MOTION TO DECLARE THE AGREEMENT IN
DEFAULT-APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, it's 12A. It's got a 3:30 p.m. time
certain. This item to be heard at 3:30 p.m. This item continued from
the June 20th, 21 st, 2006 BCC meeting, provide a status report on the
Florida Statutes Chapter 164 proceedings 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 the
South Florida Water Management District's obligation to convey 640
acres to the county.
Ms. Jacqueline Hubbard will present from the County Attorney's
Office.
MS. HUBBARD: Good afternoon, gentlemen and lady, ladies.
I'd like to hand out to you, if I may, a memorandum that I have
prepared regarding the lawsuit, and I'll explain that to you after I pass
it out.
The first thing I'd like to let you know is that the -- and I'm very
pleased to announce this to you, and that is that the litigation that was
Page 179
July 25, 2006
filed by the Doerrs and the Nobels against the county has been
resolved quite favorable to the county.
And this settlement agreement, or rather the dismissal of the case
against the county, has resulted in a savings to the county of
approximately $3,070,000.
So I want to make sure that you understand that the county was
sued in an inverse condemnation action and that our office took the
position that since we did not, on our own, vacate the roads in
Southern Golden Gate Estates, that we did so at the request of the
South Florida Water Management District and also at the state in an
effort to help them along in their Everglades Restoration Proj ect, that
we were of the impression that if any litigation resulted from the
vacation of those roads, that the state and the district would hold us
harmless and indemnify the county.
As you will recall, when served with notice requesting that
indemnification and hold harmless, the district and the state refused to
do so. So our office decided to file a third-party complaint and bring
the district and the state into the lawsuit essentially alleging that if we
were found to be liable for any damages resulting from the vacation of
the roads, that the true parties at fault were not -- was not the county, it
was the state and the district. And so we filed and brought them into
the lawsuit.
We also invoked at that time the Chapter 164 proceeding, which
was, by the way, requested by the district and the state after they were
joined in the lawsuit.
Now, Chapter 164 does not specifically speak to third-party
complaints where you bring in the other parties to a litigation. But
rather than fight about that matter, we agreed to participate in the
mediation-type process of Chapter 164; however, we insisted that if
you're going to talk about the problems that we're having with the
district and the state, we need to also include the 640-acre issue in the
164 proceedings.
Page 180
July 25, 2006
And if you will recall, when you authorized that, we included
both the litigation and the issue regarding the contract, the contractual
promises that were made by the state and the district.
And since that time, since we instituted the 164 proceedings,
every single time that I've appeared before you I have requested a
continuance and an extension of that proceeding so as to make clear
that we've never waived our rights under it even though they requested
it.
So that leads us to where we are today. I'm pleased, as I said, to
announce that the state stepped up to the plate and the state took over
the inverse condemnation action and acted and indemnified the county
and purchased that land outright, and I understand that the attorney fee
request which was in the neighborhood of $70,000 was also paid.
Now, whether it was paid by the district or the state, I'm not sure.
But in any event, we are out of it, and we didn't have to expend any
money other than the cost of using the County Attorney's Office. So
that takes care of the litigation, which was the major cost-saving issue.
The next issue is the 640 acres, more or less, that was promised
to the county by the district under an agreement that was signed by
both the district and the state.
As you well know, since October of last year, we have been
appearing before you, and the state and the district have been
requesting continuance after continuance to try and locate a suitable
site for the 640 more or less acres that were promised to you under
that agreement when we agreed to vacate the roads.
We have been in constant communication with the state more so
than the district, and the state has attempted, at least on one occasion,
which was reported to you by Ms. Chadwell, to locate an alternative
site because the 640 acres that was contemplated has been used to
store the dredged material from Lake Trafford, and a preliminary
environmental study of that dredge material has shown the presence of
arsenIC.
Page 181
July 25, 2006
And so until that site has been cleared as being safe for A TV
uses, which it apparently is not currently, an alternative site has been
sought by the state and the district.
As of today's date, we have not been provided with an alternative
site or any site; however, a request has been made by the state for an
additional 30 days' time under the 164 proceedings and also before
you declare a default under the contract.
And I believe that there's someone here from the South Florida
Water Management District -- I see Mr. Tears in the background there
__ who would make a presentation to you regarding the 640-acre
promise, so I would yield the podium to that person.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. BARNETT: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I
am Ernie Barnett. I am the Director of Policy and Legislation with the
South Florida Water Management District.
And before I jump into this issue, I did want to just give you a
very brief background about myself. I worked for the Department of
Environmental Protection for 22 years and actually headed up the
state's Everglades Restoration Program for probably the last 15 before
coming to the South Florida Water Management District, and have
personally worked on this issue, Picayune Strand Restoration dating
back to its inception in the early '90s.
Also want to share with you, I'm a former Collier County
resident, so I hope you'll treat me kindly as an alumni of your
wonderful county, and I had the good fortune for working at Rookery
Bay Preserve in the mid '80s and enjoyed my tenure here in Collier
County because it's a beautiful, wonderful place to live.
With that as a backdrop, I will tell you we take the obligation we
have to the county very seriously. One of the dilemmas that we have
faced is quite frankly, finding 640 acres in a very rapidly growing
county where real estate values are extremely high and valuable.
Weare going to fulfill the obligation to get the function of a
Page 182
July 25, 2006
recreational piece of property to the county to your satisfaction. One
of the things that we face in Collier County is that any single large
piece of property, really 640 acres or larger, trips you up into
endangered species act issues.
We have found a site that is the Wiggins field. It is in part of the
Picayune Strand Forest in the Belle Meade property. The good news
is, the environmental risk assessment has come back positive. We
believe we could build a site on there that would protect public health,
not be a public health risk from the former ago practices there. We can
work around that and restore the site and also add in an amenity of an
OHV parcel.
The difficult issue we have faced though is that in our dealings
with trying to secure the permits and the section seven consultation
with Fish and Wildlife Service, they have raised panther issues that we
have to work through.
I don't want that to deter us. I can't stand before you today and
tell you that we can work that out because we are dealing with the
federal act, the endangered species act. It is very protective, and it is
__ anywhere in that area is going to -- we're going to have to deal with
the Florida Panther.
If we m~ve to other areas, we're running up against scrub jays
and other pieces of parts -- other particular endangered species we're
going to have to deal with.
But the main reason I'm here today is to tell you that we do take
the obligation serious. We want to continue working. I would ask that
before you move to find us in default, we follow what I think your
county counsel is telling you, reporting on a very good process with
Nobel and Doerr where I think we were able to resolve issues working
at the staff level.
I don't think we've exhausted all of those discussions at a staff
level before we elevate it to the chapter 164 proceedings to find us in
default because, in fact, we do have land that we can offer.
Page 183
July 25, 2006
Everywhere we offer land, we're going to continue to run into these
particular problems, but I think working together, locking arms and
making sure that we provide the citizens of this county the appropriate
recreation, we're fully committed to doing.
Right now, our biggest hurdle -- the site that I would stand before
you today and tell you that we had found a site, is if we can get
through the endangered species act issues on that particular site, and
we haven't resolved that either.
I commit to you, the district and our board will go all the way to
Washington, D.C. to make sure if we can find a way to work out
endangered species acts on that site. If we can't resolve it on that site,
we'll move to another site until we fulfill this obligation. And I'm sure
that litigation is going to modify our behavior because our behavior is,
let's resolve this, fulfill our obligation. The county did its part by
vacating roads. We need to do our part by providing what we
promised.
Be glad to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Barnett, I hear you, and I
hear it loud and clear, and basically what you say is true. But the
obligation was made up front, and there was an agreement made in
this very room back a number of years ago that we would give up the
rights of our citizens to be able to interact like they have in the past in
the south block so that we could start the restoration of Everglades. In
exchange for that, the promise was to provide the 640 acres.
At that time I raised considerable doubt that it could ever be done
because of environmental concerns, and I'm going to re-express those
doubts now.
I don't think you're ever going to get past Fish and Wildlife. I
don't think that they're ever going to move. I don't think they're going
to move until we start to apply pressure from this end through the
legal parts of the court.
Page 184
July 25, 2006
The issue has not been resolved. It doesn't seem to be anywhere
near being resolved. You've got to remember, I deal with a political
entity out there. I deal with people that are, every day, deprived of the
privilege of being able to use these lands in a manner that they're used
to doing for generations.
And with that said, I can tell you that these people are very
unhappy with the fact that they've made the investments in their
vehicles, and they've been promised over and over again that results
were coming, they're just around the corner.
And the state's got involved, everybody's got involved.
Everybody's been pushing in the same direction trying to come up
with a solution.
With that said, the solution isn't there, and it's still not there, and
then we even got to the point where we're dealing with the political
entities on the whole thing. I asked for water management to meet
with the user groups out there, and I was hoping they'd do it in a
timely fashion, and that timely fashion was set up days before this
meeting. They were going to have a meeting, then that was cancelled.
So I think that we're dealing with an element in less than good
faith, and I don't think that you're agency is the lead agency on this,
and I don't think you've got the power to be able to carry through. I do
think we can help you, and I think we can help you by bringing a --
declaring that you are in default and maybe even going so far as to
have an injunction put against the removal of any more of the roads
that are out there in the south block.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now stop that.
Now, the south block -- I don't need any help on this, and this is a
forum that we're going to handle with all the form that we need to.
Getting back to it. Out there in the south block. The issue isn't
being resolved. I'd like to see it be where we go right across the
board. We stop the restoration of that particular piece of land because
Page 185
July 25, 2006
the water management has not followed through with their promises.
And possibly when that happens, that may help you to get the
Federal Fish and Wildlife, the Army Corps of Engineers, and every
one of the agencies that are out there that are supposed to be working
with you and with us, to come to some sort of resolution to this
problem in a shorter order than we've been now. Too much time has
passed, and there just doesn't seem to be any immediate solution.
So after we listen to what has to be said by everybody here, I am
going to entertain a motion with my fellow commissioners that we do
follow the legal ends that we can to the full extent of the law to see if
we can see enough pressure to bear that will give the results that we
need.
MR. BARNETT: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, sir.
MR. BARNETT: If I may respond. I appreciate the dedication
and commitment you have to your citizenry and fulfilling of the
promIses.
My only concern is this, is that stopping the restoration of
Southern Golden Gate or Picayune Strand is, I think, a disservice to
the citizens of the State of Florida and the county.
We have worked probably for 20-plus years to acquire the
property, individuals have made personal sacrifices, individual
homeowners have been displaced. We, as a water management
district, have secured the funding, the permits, the appropriate steps to
get that restoration project done.
Rather I would propose that you allow us the 30-day extension to
work with county staff, to continue to -- we're not the problem. We
are here to -- you know, we are hung up on an endangered species act
issue that is a national problem -- from a federal problem. It's not
from a lack of sincerity, willingness and commitment on our part to
fulfill the obligation.
And what I'm telling you is we're committed to not stopping and
Page 186
July 25, 2006
not resting until we do. And we have the Big Cypress Basin Board
fully behind us. Clarence Tears, who you all are very well aware of,
our legal team in West Palm Beach, and our political will, whatever
we have, can use with our governing board members and others, we
will go to -- up the chain of command through Fish and Wildlife
Service to have them help us find a site that's suitable, if not this site,
and I'm not convinced this site can't be worked as well to this point.
I'm not willing to give up.
But, you know, litigation is only going to divide us. I think this
is a point in time where the county and the water management district
and the basin board and others need to unite, work together, and
deliver the services you want to desperately deliver to your people.
And putting us into adversarial corners and having us to not be
able to discuss, meet and share information and ideas because we're in
a litigious mode, to me, doesn't solve the problem. It prolongs and
protracts a potential solution.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I hear you, and I'm not
going to take too much more time because I know my fellow
commissioners probably would like to speak.
But I'd like to remind you that your success for getting the
permitting to be able to do the restoration is well noted. If only we
could apply the same kind of energy and efforts into securing the land
and the right of the people to be able to recreate on it like we have for
the restoration efforts, I think that would be commendable if we did.
MR. BARNETT: I understand.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I wouldn't recommend that
we do this in an adversarial position, but to help you. Sometimes the
court system can be a -- can be a -- can be the ticket to move things
forward.
I don't mean this to be negative, but I'm telling you, sir, we're
past the point where 30 more days is going to solve anything.
If we had met with the user groups out there numerous times in
Page 187
July 25, 2006
the last month or last six weeks that we had, and they might have
come to some sort of agreement with them, I might be a little more
understanding of where we are, but even that didn't take place.
And with that, I'll turn it over to whoever else wants to speak.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, back when we were
discussing the vacating of the roads, I think that we were under the
impression that A TV use, camping and other things would be allowed
in the restoration area. A TV s are not, and that's what the people were
told from the forestry and other folks.
I kind of -- I seriously doubt that this other acreage can be
utilized to what ATV'ers have historically used in Collier County
because of where the monies came from. And I think all those things
could have been flushed out if the agencies would have met with the
citizens.
So I guess where I'm at right now, I'm with my colleague, is, you
know, enough is enough, but I appreciate your time here today.
MR. BARNETT: I would like to add one other -- one other
comment, and obviously you've put a great deal of thought into this,
and I appreciate that this is an issue that is of high importance to the
county .
But my only plea is this, is that if, in fact, I were standing before
and you saying, we don't want to do this, I could understand you
trying to use litigation to motivate us.
I'm telling you we do want to resolve this and we have wanted to
resolve it, and we'll do whatever's within our power.
The fact of the matter is, you've just discussed earlier today
proj ects you had worked for years trying to get through the permitting
process because of endangered species issues in Collier County. It's
one of the wonderful things we love about this part of the state, it's
rich by diversity, and it is the last few places certain animals can live
on this earth, and that's a wonderful thing.
Page 188
July 25, 2006
But with that said, we need to work with you, and attorneys will
tell you this. If you begin litigation, we have -- we are now put in a
defensive posture. We certainly are going to continue to be
cooperative. We're not going to stop working with you because there
is a threat of a lawsuit or actually we're invoking mediation heading
toward, you know, a potential lawsuit. I would never say that.
But my point is, we have to be -- we can't be as open and free in
the dialogue because we're at risk. You're exposing us to be at risk
and not -- because we -- that's what litigation does.
And all I'm telling you is that I'm committed to working with
you. I work directly for the executive director. I'm a senior manager,
serve at the will of the board. I am committing the resources of
whatever we can do to resolve this. We're here to resolve it. But I
don't see that litigation solves anything from our perspective because
the way -- where I stand, we're not holding this up.
And you can go back and say that there are things that we could
have, should have, might have done differently. But the fact of the
matter is, as I stand here today, we are committed to resolving this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let me ask you just one
more question. Why were you unwilling, the agency, unwilling to
meet with the residents, the users?
MR. BARNETT: We were not unwilling. We are not the
landowner of the site in question. And our staff was asked on behalf
of the landowner, the department, the division of state lands as staff to
the trustees, to not have the meeting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that was the same people
that requested us to vacate the roads, okay?
MR. BARNETT: Which is an interesting element, because we're
resolving -- we're curing a fix that, you know, we didn't ask for the -- I
mean, I'm telling you, we're partners in the restoration and stand side
by side with DEP, so I don't want to put any light (sic) between us on
the restoration plan, but it was pretty much the water management's
Page 189
July 25, 2006
district good faith to try to resolve that issue at the time that made the
640-acre commitment.
I will also, you know, point out that we've agreed to do other
things for the county as compensation, which is providing assistance
on the secondary canal systems and also even picking up the financial
burden of that to offset the financial loss that the county -- asset that
the county has given up.
So you know, I think -- I think mediation and potential litigation
will bear out that you have a partner in the South Florida Water
Management District that has shown a great deal of good faith and
will continue to show good faith to resolve this issue.
And at the end of the case and the balance of the equation is
we're asking for 30 days to continue to work with the county, which
I'm not contending is an unreasonable request.
So I appreciate your time and look forward to working with you
all.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle, I believe,
may have a question for you, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. Actually I want to thank you
for coming here, and I appreciate your sincere efforts.
I don't think any of us have a problem with what Big Cypress
Basin or the water management district has been doing. Clearance
Tears has been very, very supportive and helpful.
It's my belief that it's way out of your hands, that you don't have
the authority to make these decisions. And the only way we're going
to get this resolved is to get to the people who do have the authority to
do it.
And if the landowner had been in here talking with us and telling
us what they were going to do, I think we'd all feel more comfortable,
but what happens is, we have people who are sincerely interested in
resolving it like you who are here telling us that you want to resolve it,
but you're not the landowner, and you really can't force the landowner
Page 190
July 25, 2006
to do anything.
Well, maybe we can. And it's not a reflection on you or the
organization you represent. It's merely a fact, it's been three years,
and we had a deal, and nobody's proposed any solutions for us,
nobody has given us any hope that your -- that the people who come
here to talk with us have the authority to make the decisions to get it
resolved.
And the only thing we can do is try to find a way to get to the
people who have the right to make the decisions.
And I am fully in support of the other two commissioners who
have spoken here, and I would vote to declare this agreement in
default. And it's not out of anger. It's out of frustration. We've just --
we've done this for three years. We've gone through, I think three
successive extensions of this process, and you're asking for another
one with no -- absolutely no hope of anything being resolved in that
30-day extension period.
So I think we've reached the end of the rope for Collier County,
and I don't see that we have any other alternatives.
And I would just like -- you know, this is a very busy day, we
have a lot of stuff to do. There are people in the audience who have
been here before.
How many of you want to see us take legal action to solve this
issue? Okay. How many of you do not want to see us take legal
action? Clarence Tears, okay. I had it pretty much counted already,
didn't I?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle, I'd like to have the
County Attorney also chime in on this, and maybe we can hopefully
come to an agreement here, what direction we're going to go. County
Attorney?
MR. BARNETT: Could I ask one more question, Mr. Chairman,
if I may?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, sir.
Page 191
July 25, 2006
MR. BARNETT: I do think you're bypassing an important step,
and I think if nothing else, there was a lesson learned in the way that
Nobel and Doerrs was handled, and we made a decision as the South
Florida Water Management District to support resolution of that
particular lawsuit knowing that the only leverage we really had on this
piece of information was that issue, and until that liability was
released by this -- from the state to this board, we could have held on
to that.
We chose not to because we're partners. And we said, you know
what? We're going to let the county be released of its liability, not use
that as a leverage to resolve this issue because we're good faith
partners and we're going to continue.
The motto learned in that effort was that the staff gets together,
exhausts all options, and then move to the commission and move to
our board to resolve it if you can't.
That step is being bypassed. If you go directly to a default today,
that step is being bypassed because those discussions focused on the --
well, yeah. And what we would -- what I would request instead of
finding us in default, directing staff to follow the good work efforts
that the partners and selling parties had in resolving the Nobel/Doerr
case that you just got the good news reported on and allow us the
opportunity to do that.
And I'd respectfully request the extension on those grounds.
Thank you for your time. And I really appreciate the predicament
you're in and the situation you're in, and I'm in it with you and would
like to resolve this in a very positive light for all of us and for the folks
here to have the opportunity to do what they want to do. Thank you
for that plea, and --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: I'm going to make a comment, and then I'm
going to ask Jackie Hubbard to follow up a bit on that, and that is that
the Chapter 164 proceedings that Jackie spoke about before,
Page 192
July 25, 2006
ultimately when initiated, required the respective boards of the state
agencies,' state and county agencies, to meet and that is early on in the
process.
And in light of the fact that we are in the summer recess period, it
may be likely that such meeting would come later rather than sooner
in that process anyhow, and it would seem to me that if we did initiate
that process and the boards did meet at whatever time was ultimately
determined to be the time, that upon an inability to come to
arrangements, agreements, enough light at the end of the tunnel to
agree not to default, that it would be at that time that the board would
make the decision to default the agreement, and that as a follow-up to
the 164 proceedings, there is the ultimate ability to proceed in court.
It always must be preceded, however, between government agencies
with the 164 proceeding.
So to the extent that Mr. Barnett has indicated that these are
opportunities -- may be opportunities to continue to work together, I
was going to suggest that among other things, that he tell us now,
perhaps, even if he can, how we can work together with him, with
whom to facilitate favorable action toward the ultimate goal of the
acquisition of this property that can be -- can be used for the purposes
desired. And so maybe he can respond to that, but Jackie also may
have some additional thought in regard to a potential direction to staff.
MS. HUBBARD: Do you want me to speak, David?
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. Go ahead, Jackie.
MS. HUBBARD: All right. In terms of where the board is right
now with this matter and the continuances that have occurred, I need
to inform you that in terms of the 164 procedure, we're toward the end
of the road there. We have had the public meetings; the County
Manager's been present, staff from the district and the state have been
present and, therefore, where we are ready to proceed at this point,
which staff from the district and the state are aware of because we've
discussed it with them, is one or two things.
Page 193
July 25, 2006
The board, if it chooses, can declare a default now in the
contract. If you declare a default now in the contract, that means that
you have essentially said that they've breached the contract. That's
done and that's the end of it. Or you can proceed as David Weigel
suggested, which is, you can -- in any event what has to happen on the
164 is that before we actually go in and litigate, we have -- there's a
provision that says that the next step is for the Board of County
Commissioners and the boards of the other local governmental entities
must meet.
Now, when -- if you call a meeting and you invite the boards of
the South Water Management District to attend and you invite the
state to attend it, I can tell you that the state's attorney has indicated
that they feel that they have fulfilled their portion of the agreement
and they would not attend. That would leave a meeting between
South Florida Water Management District's board and the Board of
County Commissioners.
What Mr. Weigel suggested was that if you call the meeting,
which you should do on the 164, the joint meeting, you set a date, that
you can wait until that meeting to declare a default or you can declare
the default today and still set the meeting, but the meeting has to at
least be set prior to us proceeding in court. So that decision and that
direction should come from the commissioners. Yes?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I'm a little bit
disturbed with the thought that we can sit down with water
management and reach an agreement when they said that the state is
the ultimate power, the landowner, they're the ones that own the land,
and then you've got Fish and Wildlife that can still determine whether
that is official use of the land and bar our use of that land by the fact
that the panther inhabit it.
MS. HUBBARD: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And we've seen that this is--
Page 194
_."--~." "-'--'---"<"
July 25, 2006
and it's been pretty continuous from the Fish and Wildlife as far as
how they've been reacting to any kind of development or anything
taking place in lands that the panther may live in or may not live in.
I don't see where we're going to go with that. I mean, we're
going to sit down with some very nice people who have been
wonderful partners on a lot of local ventures, but in this case they just
said that the state holds the power, they also admitted that Fish and
Wildlife are the ultimate decision makers that can kill or make it
happen. So I don't see where we're going to gain anything. Can you
tell me where I'm wrong with this analogy?
MS. HUBBARD: No, you're not -- I'm not saying that you're
wrong with your analogy. I'm just saying that the state and the water
management district invoked chapter 164, and we have been
proceeding under that chapter, which has a series of things that have to
occur between local governmental entities before a local government
can proceed to sue another local government.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And how long do we have to
proceed to be able to fulfill whatever state regulations it is?
MS. HUBBARD: Well, you would just have to call that final
meeting inviting the boards of the affected entities to attend. Doesn't
mean that they have to attend, but they should attend.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can we make that meeting for
five o'clock this afternoon?
MS. HUBBARD: No. I think we'd have to give them reasonable
notice.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, the reason -- where I'm
going with this is we're not going to have the opportunity to meet for
__ how many weeks is that, Commissioner Henning, five, six weeks?
MS. HUBBARD: Right, but --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we always have an
opportunity, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand.
Page 195
July 25, 2006
MS. HUBBARD: As I said before, you don't have to -- you don't
have to wait to declare the default until then, but you will have to wait
until then to direct the County Attorney's Office to proceed to
litigation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So be right up front with me.
What you're saying is we legally can't declare a default today?
MS. HUBBARD: No, you could declare a default today, yes.
But we can't go into court tomorrow.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I understand that.
MS. HUBBARD: Okay. We can go into court after we set the
meetings with the other entities' boards to try to resolve it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Like an arbitration. We say --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand, and we're going to
be sitting down with a board that has no power to be able to resolve it.
MS. HUBBARD: Well, it was the attorney for the state that
made that -- that indicated that his board wasn't coming. Now, maybe
when you --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, this is the same attorney
that pulled the rug underneath the meeting with the user groups out
there, too.
MS. HUBBARD: No, that was the district.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh. No, that was the state.
MS. HUBBARD: That was the state?
MR. BARNETT: Yeah, can I add one more thing that I think
might be helpful?
MS. HUBBARD: Yeah, go ahead.
MR. BARNETT: I apologize.
The -- what I envision, if we sit down prior to determining a
default, you're going to have a different dynamic between us and the
board because we're still cooperative and collegial. We're not in a
defensive posture.
Secondly, we have the power to -- if this site's not going to work,
Page 196
July 25, 2006
we will not be dealing with trustees' land, and the landowner issue
goes away. We would use the financial resources and the land base
that the water management district has to hopefully bring something
that we could mediate and collaborate on a solution.
So the -- we ended up heading down this path because the
original site was in Southern Golden Gate and their property. We
moved to another site that was on trustees' land. We've offered a site
that is on district land that we would not need the state to be present in
those discussions, and we would also be able to hopefully maybe work
toward some other type of financial arrangement or other mediated
settlement that gives you the resources to acquire the land that you
need.
So we have the obligation and are not -- and are unwavering in
resolving that. It doesn't have to involve the trustees to resolve it. But
I will reiterate once again, to me, I don't see -- I don't see any effect
other than tainting the future discussions by declaring a default when
you have an opportunity in front of you to end up with the exact same
result, have a board-to-board meeting, and hopefully find a way to
resolve this issue to the satisfactory of both parties.
We're all here to serve the citizens of the state and the county,
and we want to resolve it. And if the resolution that involves the state
and the trustees is too difficult to get there, there's other options, and
there's a whole suite of potential things that we and the county can
agree upon as a reasonable cure for the potential default that you
would never have to get there, and that is my offer.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I had -- when I spoke before I'd mentioned
if Mr. Barnett may, in fact, tell us in a 30-day period how we, working
with them, might achieve a favorable -- or work toward a more
favorable result, if there are any for instances, examples you could
gIve us.
A second thing I might say is that if the board should entertain
Page 197
July 25, 2006
his request for a 30-day extension to work together -- and I would, as
an aside, indicate that it's probably really more than 30 days since this
board doesn't come back and meet for a period after that, but that the
board could today, for instance, authorize the chairman, working with
the County Attorney Office and any other County Manager's staff
appropriate, but perhaps through our office, authorize the chairman to
be empowered to write any correspondence germane, relating to this
effort and this measure, to achieve the result that is part of the
agreement that we're waiting to have realized, as well as communicate
or meet if the ability and occasion arises with anyone during the
course of the next several weeks, again, to facilitate and more quickly
achieve the result that Mr. Barnett has indicated that he and his -- and
his department, his district, are fully committed to do.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'd be willing to do that if -- but it's up to
the board's decision.
MR. WEIGEL: Right. And perhaps Mr. Barnett does have some
further thoughts as to what might we all do together during this next
30 days. Maybe these are things that he has to talk about maybe more
privately in regard to putting leverage on this person or that agency or
something of that nature. But ifhe has anything further, I would
invite him to tell us anything further right now.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta, you had
something to say?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. I was just going to say after
Mr. Barnett responds to that, maybe we could get to the speakers and
then we can reach a final conclusion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. That was the main road that I was
going to take.
MR. BARNETT: As with any regulatory issue, endangered
species included, there's opportunities to mitigate. We would look at
whatever we could do for the site that we have chosen. If we've made
it over the environmental assessment hurdle, we would look at what
Page 198
July 25, 2006
we could do to mitigate and offset those endangered species issues,
which means joint dialogue with the county and the district and the
state unified, working through issues with Fish and Wildlife. That's
what we would do in the next 30 days.
And we would look at potential other sites as well that we may
have to not use a trustee-owned site, use a site that's owned by the
district or use resources of the district to probably try to acquire
through land exchanges or some other option. I think there are other
parcels that have potential.
I will harken back to my initial comments. Any time we get to
those large sections of land, you have endangered species issues, but I
think we can work with Fish and Wildlife Service, find the appropriate
mitigation for the existing site or alternative sites. And we're -- you
know, we're willing to roll up our sleeves.
I will also answer your general counsel's question, I'm going to
be the point of contact. We -- our board has elevated it up to the
executive director's office, and I will be the point of contact. We have
full faith and confidence in Clearance Tears and our other staff and
employees, but we're elevating it to the highest level in our district to
resolve this issue.
So with that, I think I answered both your questions, and I --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a question.
MR. BARNETT: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Why did it take this long to get to this
point?
MR. BARNETT: Up until late last week, we thought we had a
site and we thought it was doable, and we were awaiting the results of
the environmental assessment, which was great news, came back to be
doable, and now we have a regulatory hurdle that in any public works
or infrastructure or building something, a park, a recreation area, a
new building, you have to deal with the regulatory aspects and the --
quite frankly, I think we have some continued evaluation and work to
Page 199
July 25, 2006
do with Fish and Wildlife Service.
But I'm not here ready to stand before you today and say that
site's unacceptable yet.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, my concern is, as you've heard,
we've been working through this process for three years, and I'm
willing to step up to the plate and do whatever needs to be done to see
if we can get this to fruition.
My question is, it's only been in the last 30 days or so that we
finally have gotten enough heat applied to this that you, yourself,
came before this board and said, we're here to work with you and we
want to work with you.
My question is, why did it take three years before we really got
someone's attention in regards to what needs to be done here to
provide a recreation site?
MR. BARNETT: I mean, I will, you know, counter with, you
know, our best and brightest have been working on this, and the fact
that we could have handed over the 640 acres of land outright in that
parcel, and you would be sitting right where you are today with -- no
closer to an OHV site than we are.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well--
MR. BARNETT: And the fact of the matter is is that I think
we've made good faith efforts and I think we've offered real estate,
640 acres for 640 acres. We've done those things.
The difficult situation we're in is we have some regulatory
problems in that a particular portion of the state that we have to
continue to work on.
I think that there are some, you know, opportunities to sit down
with staff and provide some viable potential alternatives that can get
us there. I can't, before you today, tell you precise locations and sites,
but I can tell you that we're committed to doing it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I understand where you're coming from,
okay? But it's the idea that when we've had people here from the
Page 200
July 25, 2006
Southwest Florida Water Management -- South Florida Water
Management, when they came before us, they didn't go into detail and
let us know through lines of communication exactly what the holdups
were. It was like it was -- they left us in a fog, okay? And I think
that's where all the mistrust started from is because we really didn't
know where we stood in the process. There wasn't any open dialogue
between your -- your group and the board here or even any of the
county staff in regards to where we were on this whole issue.
And today you're here before us telling us that you want to work
in good faith and that you're dedicated in trying to find an area of
recreation for these people.
And I'm asking you, that if you want us to extend that trust, then
you have to be up-front with us and tell us everything that's going on,
and you have to tell these people, and if they ask for a meeting, you
have to respond to these people and let them know exactly what is
going on in the process so they're not left in the dark and they're not
left with suspicions that they're not going to get what was promised
them. You understand?
MR. BARNETT: Absolutely. Mr. Chairman, those are fair
requests and reasonable requests, and I will-- we're personally
committed to doing that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I think we have a couple more
speakers.
MS. FILSON : Yes, sir. We have two speakers, Frank
Denninger. He'll be followed by -- he'll be followed by Jose Varela.
MR. DENNINGER: Hello. Frank Denninger here. I'm here
with Everglades Coordinating Council. And I've sat here and listened
to a lot of things. I've heard them all before.
I know this was many, many -- the district and many other
agencies has exhaustingly searched for a piece of property. There was
lots of meetings held many different places. Public didn't get to go. I
heard about them. I interviewed attendees of these meetings. I don't
Page 201
July 25, 2006
know where else they could look for land between here and Fort
Myers, or Orlando or Dade County. Maybe they'll find a piece of land
for Collier County's A TV people, but the panther's going to come
square in the middle of it every time.
And if -- what I see here is 600 acres being offered, bottom line,
in replacement of 60,000. And I would say the activity in 600 acres
mitigates the activity in itself. We're taking the activity of the 60,000
acres to give the panther more land to live on without being bothered
by noise or anything else.
But even in the Picayune Restoration, Fish and Wildlife Service
comments that, why would you want to put an ATV area north of the
pump because we're going to flood two-thirds of the panthers' existing
habitat down there?
So a lot of what's gone on here is human activity, A TV activity,
being kicked out of an area really to mitigate the construction in the
restoration, and there's a lot of evidence to support that.
And the 20 million that Mr. Barnett mentioned was part of the
deal originally, 20 million plus the 640 acres. And it's just that, you
know, there's not -- it's not going to be -- or let me see here. And it's
just time to do what you all probably know you need to do. It's sad,
but true. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Jose Varela. He'll be
followed by Fred Thomas.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is that the last speaker?
MS. FILSON: Fred Thomas is the last speaker, sir.
MR. VARELA: Good afternoon, County Commissioners. Well,
here we are, three years later, and we're still waiting.
South Florida Water Management District tells us, yeah, we're
going to meet with the user groups. Still waiting. There's -- actually
should have met with us before they actually entered into this
Picayune restoration program.
Page 202
~-~-~- ".~,.,.~,,"....._--"
July 25, 2006
As a matter of fact, if you look in their own -- their actual -- the
beginning of their documentation, historical and cultural uses were
going to be preserved out in the Picayune.
I have a website that shows -- excuse me -- swamp buggy trails
taken from the U.S. Geological Society with fly-overs in 1940 with
swamp buggy tracks out in the Picayune.
We're aware today swamp buggies are not allowed in Picayune
even though it is a historic and cultural use.
Bottom line is, Commissioners, it's all been fog and mirrors since
day one. That's all it is. They come up here and they tell you, we're
going to do this, we're going to meet with the users group. We're
trying our very best.
South Florida Water Management has 312,000 acres directly
under their proprietorship. The land is there. Point is, they don't want
to give it away.
You want to find us a solution to this problem? It's very simple.
There's 276 miles of trails inside the Picayune Forest. Let us use
them. Meanwhile, you guys continue to work on the other proj ect.
I think that's a fair resolution to this issue. After all, we've
already been made to wait three years while my kids continue to grow.
So what I would like for the citizens of the county is that you do
find them in default, you do file an injunction, then you get together
with the board and see what happens. Unless you apply the political
pressure, this will never get resolved. Whether they ask for 30 days or
30 years, we'll still be coming here in front of you asking for the same
thing.
Thank you for your time.
MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is Fred Thomas.
MR. THOMAS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I came here
on another matter, but since I'm here -- there's another piece of land in
Collier County that's about 200 acres, true, but it's got two
100-plus-foot hills on it, two 100-plus foot hills on it. Run ATVs on
Page 203
July 25, 2006
them and have fun on them.
It was used as a landfill up until 2004. We welcome you all to
Immokalee with your ATVs, okay? Thank you.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion that we find the
agency in default of the agreement and start the 164 proceedings.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I second that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Coletta in
regards to finding the agency in default of 164 agreement, the statute
164.
Any discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll call the question. All those in favor,
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
Aye.
Motion carries.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us -- David, go ahead.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, this would give an opportunity for you at
this point to discuss a date for the j oint meeting, which will ensue with
the initiation of the 164 proceedings. If you want to provide a date or
dates or potential time frame week or weeks.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: September 5th.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Why don't we make it September the
15th or sometime around there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why don't we have our aides take a
look at our calendars and --
Page 204
July 25, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Find out what we've got available
sometime --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Staff? Yeah, somebody.
MR. WEIGEL: In September in any event.
MS. FILSON: I can tell you that you have a budget meeting
September 7th at 5:05. You might be able to do it prior to that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then we're going to have a lot of
preparation for the September 12th meeting.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. Let's do it sometime after the
September 12th meeting, if we can. Find out what's good on our
calendars.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MS. HUBBARD: Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Now, did you empower your chairman so that he
could write that letter once the dates --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved.
MR. MUDD: -- gets resolved so that he can send that and get
with the County Attorney and then mail that out?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that was the action of the
board.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ifwe wanted to--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We don't have to empower
them. We did by our action, my belief.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I thought the empowerment would be to
work out an agreement. That's what my--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That was in the motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. You're saying within
the motion, we empowered the chair to work out an agreement?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I said --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No.
Page 205
July 25, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- we empowered the chair
through a default of the agreement and instituting the Chapter 164.
I'm saying, okay, that the chairman sets in the motion to write the
letter because of the board's action, correct?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is that sufficient, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: That's fine. In fact, Ms. Hubbard will work with
the chair in regard to who sends the letter under what signature. It
might be a joint letter even as far as that goes. But that would be just
fine with that authorization. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do we need a motion or just a nod of
heads?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think that's -- you're just indicating that
that's the understanding of the motion already had.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right.
County Manager?
Item #10R
AWARD OF BID 06-4023 PURCHASE OF FLEET VEHICLES TO
TAMIAMI FORD, INC., NAPLES, FLORIDA TO EXCEED $lM-
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: lOR.
MR. MUDD: -- lOR, and that's a recommendation to approve
award of bid 06-403, purchase of fleet vehicles to Tamiami Ford, Inc.,
Naples, Florida, to exceed $1 million.
And Mr. Steve Carnell, your director for purchasing, will present.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have a motion on the floor--
Steve, it looks like you made a heck of a good presentation -- by
Page 206
July 25, 2006
Commissioner Henning and second by Commissioner Coyle.
Any other further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll call the question. All those in favor,
signify saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: (Absent.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
MS. FILSON: What item number was that?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: lOR.
MR. MUDD: That was R.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It was in regard to purchase of vehicles
from Tamiami Ford.
Item #10S
TO IMPLEMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 PAY RANGES FOR
NON BARGAINING UNIT CLASSIFICATIONS THAT ARE 10%
ABOVE MEDIAN MARKET DATA - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is 10S. It's a recommendation to implement for fiscal year 2007
pay ranges for non-bargaining unit classifications that are 10 percent
above median market data.
And Ms. Len Price, your Administrator for Administrative
Services, will present.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Recommend approval.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'll second that.
Page 207
July 25, 2006
We have a motion on the floor for approval of this item. Motion
by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Halas.
All those in favor --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: By doing this, that would affect
existing employees. The ones at the bottom of the pay raise (sic)
would be getting a pay raise?
MS. PRICE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I just have concerns is -- I
mean, I'm more in favor of, worthy of a raise instead of automatic,
here it is.
MS. PRICE: Sir, we've done extensive market surveys to
determine what the competitive ranges are. And then in addition to
that, our Productivity Committee has recommended, and we're very
supportive of their recommendation, that we move the pay ranges to
10 percent over market. We've been trying to stay about 5 percent
over market. And we've started to lag a little bit in that as well in
certain areas.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let me ask you something.
With that said, the people on the low part of the scale, that's an
automatic pay raise. What does it do to the good employee that's in the
middle of the pay raise, middle of the range?
MS. PRICE: This doesn't impact the good employee in the
middle of the range. This is simply to get our ranges in line.
Of course, we've got COLA coming up at 4.7 percent, assuming
that you approve that in next year's budget. We've also got the merit
pay raises based on evaluations. That, again, will be calculated out,
assuming that you approve that, you know, when we adopt the budget.
That deals with employees and their performance.
What we're trying to do here is there are certain employees who
may be earning less than their job is valued despite and, you know,
Page 208
July 25, 2006
aside from the actual performance of that job, and that's what we're
trying to correct in this action.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. PRICE: As you know, I've been before you on a number of
occasions this past year trying to work on areas where we can improve
our retention rate. This is simply one more of those.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So 5 percent, this action,
4.7 COLA, correct? Is that what you said on the COLA?
MS. PRICE: COLA is scheduled to be 4.7 percent, correct.
Now, this is not necessarily a 5-percent move where -- because of the
balancing that we're doing, but it would be approximately a 5-percent
move in the range.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And I understand what
you're doing, but I just want to make a point that the people that's
doing their job at the bottom of the range will actually receive,
between COLA and this action, almost 10 percent, and the people in
the middle of the range would be receiving 4.7.
MS. PRICE: Sir, when we do the calculations, we will first
calculate the COLA. We will then calculate the merit pay. If anybody
falls outside of the bottom of the range at that point, we will make an
adjustment to get them up to the range, so it does not necessarily
compound.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's just to take care of new
employees and the people at the bottom of the range?
MS. PRICE: At the bottom of the pay range.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I understand.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. The
motion's on the floor by -- made by Commissioner Coyle and
seconded by Commissioner Halas.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Page 209
July 25, 2006
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: Motion carries. Thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is item 10 --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hold on. I think the County Attorney
has something to say.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's just to indicate
that the County Attorney Office, with its employees, will be bringing
forward a consistent resolution at the next meeting. Consistency, that's
all.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. County Manager?
Item #10T
BID 06-3925 TO SUBAQUEOUS SERVICES, INC. IN THE
AMOUNT OF $1,581,400.00, PLUS FUEL ESCALATION FOR
RE-NOURISHMENT OF THE SOUTH MARCO BEACH AND
DREDGING OF CAXAMBAS PASS PROJECT NO. 905001 -
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is lOT, and that's a
recommendation to approve bid 06-3925 to Subaqueous Services, Inc.,
in the amount of $1,581,400 plus fuel escalation for nourishment of
the South Marco Beach and dredging of C axamb as Pass, Project
Number 905001.
And Mr. Gary McAlpin, your Coastal Project Manager, will
present.
Page 210
July 25, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll second that.
There's a motion on the floor by Commissioner Coyle and
seconded by Commissioner Halas to approve this $1.58 million fuel
escalation to be added to the cost of dredging Caxambas Pass and
putting sand on South Marco Beach.
Any further discussion?
MR. MUDD: Just to clarify. I want to make sure I heard what
you just said. The contract amount is $1.5 million and change.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And that's for fuel --
MR. MUDD: And there is a fuel --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Escalation clause.
MR. MUDD: -- escalation clause in the contract.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Exactly.
MR. MUDD: Okay. But it doesn't have anything to do -- it's not
part of that figure of 1.5 million.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: And our project manager says that based on
current prices, that escalation clause could be worth about $100,000.
MR. McALPIN: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Now, that we've got that clarified
on the record, any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(N 0 response.)
Page 211
July 25, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, Mr. McAlpin mentioned to me
earlier, and we have a couple things -- we have a time certain at 4:30
__ mentioned to me earlier that if -- there are several projects that we
have in the coming year along our coastline that are small projects,
and he will try to get the best price. It might behoove us with this
contractor, since he's already mobilized, to see if we can get a
reasonable price without any mobe and demobe in there, for a cubic
yard of sand. And he'll try to do that and come back to the board if he
is successful.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Sounds great.
MR. McALPIN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
Item #10U
CHANGE ORDER #1 TO TBE GROUP, INC. HAVING WORK
ORDER TBE-FT -05-01 (RFP/BID #013290) FOR ADDITIONAL
SERVICE WORK TASKS AND ADDITIONAL DAYS FOR THE
FISH BRANCH BASIN BOX CULVERT EXTENSION PROJECT
SITE IN THE AMOUNT OF $117,781 AND APPROVE THE
DESIGN PROFESSIONALS SERVICE TASK COSTS
INVOLVING IMMOKALEE WATER AND SEWER DISTRICTS
EXISTING FACILITIES WITH CONSIDERATION OF A
FUTURE REIMBURSEMENT TO COLLIER COUNTY -
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our time certain
item for 4:30, and that is IOU, and that used to be 16B6, and that
reads: It's a recommendation to approve change order number one to
TBE Group, Inc., having work order TBE-FT-05-01, which is RFPlbid
number 01-3290, for additional service work tasks and additional days
Page 212
July 25, 2006
for the fish branch basin box culvert extension project site in the
amount of $117,781, and approve the design professional service task
costs involving Immokalee Water and Sewer District's existing
facilities with consideration of a future reimbursement to Collier
County.
And Mr. Gene Calvert, your Director of Stormwater for the
Transportation Division, will present.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ifwe may, please. We do have
some speakers on this. There's some issues they wanted to talk about.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: How many speakers do we have?
MS. FILSON: I have three speakers.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker's Fred Thomas. He'll be
followed by Jim Jack.
MR. THOMAS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. The hat I
happen to have on now is as vice-chair of the Immokalee Water/Sewer
District.
And when I understood about what was going on here, I was a
little concerned. Under the best circumstances, we're talking about the
Immokalee Water/Sewer District, which is a special independent
district in the State of Florida, just like the county is. But unlike the
county, we don't have taxing authority. We have -- you know, we
have user fees that we charge our clients in order to provide the
services to them.
From time to time, just like here, in the future, roads need to be
widened and other things need to be done by the county that will run
contrary or require the moving of some of our lines. And we
understand that that's an impact, and you all typically have the utilities
to do this.
But as another government agency, we can't predict our income
Page 213
July 25, 2006
well enough to be able to respond quickly to those kinds of issues.
We know, however, that we have to playa role, and we think that
there should be some sort of an interlocal agreement between the
water/sewer district and the county that says, whenever our lines have
to be removed, that our engineers that we use all the time would locate
the lines, come up with an engineering design to how you move the
lines, and that supervise the moving of the lines with the county
handling the actual move, okay?
F or example, in this bill, from what I'm understanding, talking to
our engineers -- oh, I'm sorry. I meant to say something else.
Along with me is our chairman Anne Goodnight, another board
member, Ray Holland, our executive director, Eva Deyo, and she's
had an accident recently so she can't be on her feet too long, and the
gentleman in the middle looking very humble is our engineer, Jim
Jack, okay.
He's prepared a -- based on the $117,000 that they said they want
to bill us, he is pointing out that of that total amount of money, the
only costs associated with the actual moving of the line runs about just
a little over $26,000. That's the engineering actually moving the line.
Am I saying that correctly, Mr. Jim Jack?
MR. JACK: Yes, sir.
MR. THOMAS: So my concern is, we have nowhere to go to get
$100,000, you understand? There should be an interlocal agreement.
We're trying to serve a certain client base, you understand? You
know, we agree, we need to provide the engineering services, we need
to show you where the lines are, we need to engineer how the lines
should be moved, and we need to supervise their movement. But the
rest of their construction should be as a part of the normal road
construction.
And we ask you to be -- to ask your staff to sit down with our
staff to come up with an interlocal agreement that allows this to
happen in the future. Thank you.
Page 214
July 25, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You don't want us to approve this
$117,000?
MR. THOMAS: Ifwe have to pay it, no, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute. This is not an item
to develop an interlocal agreement. This is an item to approve the
$117,000 work order.
MR. OCHS: That's correct.
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, I think maybe I can help on that.
First of all, the 11 7 - you're being asked to approve on the design
service is only identifying 17,000 that are related to the Immokalee
sewer and water. So it's even less than their estimate.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, okay.
MR. FEDER: So the thing I want to point out just to make very,
very clear on the record on this issue, because I know it was raised
previously, first of all, utility, public and private, are allowed to use
the state and the county's roadway right-of-way, and that makes it
cheaper for them to conduct their services. They utilize the facilities
on the roadways.
They are required, whether they be public or private though, to
move those utilities when there is an improvement either on the
roadway or in this case a drainage easement or canal, that they move
them at the time the improvements need to be made, and that's what
we're trying to do.
We require that of county utilities, not just of private utilities, but
also the county utilities, and either that is done through our impact fee
if it's major capacity change, or it's done through the utilities user fees.
They do not have ad valorem and utilities that I'm aware of either.
So this isn't something we're doing differently with them. We'd
be happy to work with them. If their interest is to try and do these
things in advance of projects, as long as it's timely, we have no
problem with that.
Again, we require FP &L, Sprint, everybody else who uses the
Page 215
July 25, 2006
right-of-way to either contract with us and remove them, or they move
them themselves in many cases before jobs.
MR. THOMAS: But as a government utility representing the
lowest income folks in your county and anticipating some major road
works that may talk about more than just a little fish grant, we could
be bankrupt very quickly if we had to do the whole move ourselves.
We're not a strong enough base of population to pay for it. So we're
saying, yes, we know we have to, you know, take care of your
engineering and whatnot. But the actual construction, we wish to be
paid by all of the taxpayers in the county.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what this says.
MR. FEDER: And that's what this says, and we've noted that
17,4- that would be the issue right now to the Immokalee utilities, and
we've been saying that we're going to move forward and seek
reimbursement on that, rather than putting the burden on them up front
to make sure that this project gets moving.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just one quick question. Is the
possibility of the efforts that they're willing to put forward as far as the
engineering and all that could be considered towards that $17,000?
MR. FEDER: We'll be happy to sit down with them and evaluate
that. But from a practical sense, it's going to be very difficult to get
two people designing it. And I think by their own estimate, it was
higher. If you have it done separately, it's probably going to be more
expensive. But we'll talk to them, obviously, at any time.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: They estimated 26-, and you came up
with 17-.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, in any case, you'll talk to
them and see what might be able to be done that it would work out for
the best of both parties.
MR. FEDER: Of course.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Jim Jack. He'll be followed
Page 216
July 25, 2006
by Raymond Holland.
MR. JACK: Thank you very much. For the record, I'm Jim Jack.
I am the district representative engineer, been this for a couple years,
and I'm with LBFH, Incorporated, Engineering.
On this particular project, it's been ongoing for a little while. We
were requested by their department six months ago to provide, if we
could, what's called engineering plans for the relocation of all the
utilities, and we have done that. We've provided that to their
department probably four months ago, signed and sealed construction
plans for the relocation.
And that's what we're saying. We're noticing that many of these
items are coming up again in this change order. I have no particular
problem per se with the change order engineering, but I did notice a
duplication of efforts that we have already provided to your
department, signed and sealed drawings, specifications, plans, twice.
Mr. Pritt's asked for them again here a few months ago because
they have misplaced them the first time, so we've done that.
Generally speaking, I want you to know we have a great -- really,
I feel that we've got a great spirit of cooperation usually with all your
staff. So there really usually isn't, just once in a while a few things
like this might come up.
So we've already done most of the engineering for the relocation,
which would come off from some of that tab. And yes, we do have
some concerns in the future of what -- you know, I would say that
Collier County Commission has been great for the city of -- the
community of Immokalee. I've seen a lot of great projects done there,
and some of the drainage proj ects, you know, that have occurred.
But we have concerns as a community. Honestly, we're
concerned in the future as to what some of these road projects would
be as like, you know, can we afford them? I mean, what's going to be
the real cost to us, the community? And I don't think that that feeling
occurs throughout a countywide basis.
Page 217
July 25, 2006
If you come in and solve a drainage problem, that particular
locale of your county, everyone's just ecstatic about it, you know,
except for, perhaps, that inconvenience of what occurs during
construction. Nobody likes that. But when it's done, your whole
community is, you know -- and they don't feel that there is an
associated cost to them because it's kind of spread countywide.
In our community, in our close community, you know, these
costs are much more meaningful. And you know, I'll tell you, the
sewer and water bill is a major component of our constituents' cost
every month, that bill that they pay. It's a big thing.
And now we see the potential for increases down the road, and
that's what we're talking about, that, perhaps, we'd like to see a look at
the future of some kind of an interlocal agreement to help us out, as
we have been helped out in the past.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Raymond Holland.
MR. HOLLAND: Thank you. Raymond Holland. I'm one of the
commissioners on the Immokalee Water and Sewer District.
And I rise in support of what Fred said. The thing that I'm
thinking here is that there may be some confusion over the amount of
money they're talking about being 17,000 and the work we've already
done, and that's the point I think we're trying to make is we've already
done a bunch of engineering work.
Immokalee Water and Sewer District is already responsible to
pay for that. And some of what's in the plans now would call for that
to be paid for again.
So whatever you decide, we would -- we'd really like for you to
decide something that would mean that we didn't have to pay for
something that the county's doing that we've already paid to have done
and supply to the county and at the end have actually paid two bills.
And then the agreement that Fred handed out is something that
Page 218
July 25, 2006
we would like to see looked at in the future. You probably don't want
to bother with doing that today, but at some point in the future we'd
like to have it set where we all know going forward what's going to
happen and what we have to be prepared for and what we have to be
prepared to pay for.
We do a budget once a year, and so we have to do our very best
to figure what kind of charges we'll be doing in Immokalee for the
upcoming year and forward after that. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a question for Norm Feder. Are
we billing these people twice?
MR. FEDER: No, Commissioner. Typically what happens --
and to clarify is -- if we have a utility out there, we'll ask them to
move the utilities. They usually then design it, and then either they
are charged by us to make the alteration or the change or they move it
on their own even before we come.
In this case, we were told -- they were told that we had to have
the utilities moved. They went to design it, and then they sent us the
bill for the design fees. Typically if they're using the county's
right-of-way, they design it, and then they either pay in our contract,
because sometimes it's economy of scales to do it that way, or they
move it on their own cost ahead of time, they being any utility.
Our county utilities, as an example, typically will pay us for the
design and the construction. If it's a user fee item or out of our impact
fees, it's a capacities expansion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. The question I have for you is,
this gentleman just stated that the engineering work was done by
them.
MR. FEDER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And so -- and they billed you for
that or whatever; is that correct?
MR. FEDER: No. See, that's the issue. Typically they would
design it and then move it on their own ahead of time or pay us to
Page 219
July 25, 2006
move it as part of our contract when we do our work. Instead, they
designed it and then sent us a bill.
Now, having said that, where we are right now, what I just asked
Gene and we're going to look at, if we can take that design and use it
within the design that we're doing, we're going to seek to do that
because we don't want to design it twice, and we want to utilize their
design. But again, what we're trying to say is that to design it and then
send us a bill is not how typically we work with utilities within the
county rights-of-way.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So you're going to move this.
And is that -- the $17,000, is that then going to be put towards --
MR. FEDER: No. That was only towards the design. There's a
cost for the movement if we have to do it, and the quick estimate I got
was about 50,000 on the construction as well.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And are they going to get billed that
50,000?
MR. FEDER: If they don't move it and we have to move it as
part of our project, yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So it would behoove them to
move that proj ect if they can do it cheaper?
MR. FEDER: And that's why we got with them originally and
said, if you can move your utilities, we're coming in with a proj ect. At
that time they weren't prepared to move it. Then we said, well, these
utilities are going to have to be moved. I guess they got with a
designer. The next thing that we were cognizant of is, rather than
going with a designer and moving on their own or paying towards us
to move it, they got their own designer, and sent us the bill.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So if we have other items like this and
obviously they have a problem meeting the obligation because they
don't have enough users on their water system to take care of this, how
are we going to work this in the future when we're going to expand
roads and stuff?
Page 220
July 25, 2006
MR. FEDER: Now, that will be direction from the board. Now,
what we will do, based on what they request, and we'd be happy, is to
identify everything we can in the future that might impact them so that
they can do their forward planning and analysis of cost and what
approach they want to take.
As far as whether or not they are in a position financially to meet
basically the obligation that exists on all public and private utilities in
use of the county's right-of-way and they want some process like to
pay over time, that's basically what we brought to you in this item
today, was our understanding that because of their limiting funding,
that we were going to try and proceed and find some way to get
reimbursed in the future.
I think we've got probably a problem to single out one utility,
public or private, and say that they don't have to pay; however, we
also don't want to put an undue burden on them and are at whatever
the board's direction is in how we address this.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I understand where you're coming from.
Okay. We have a motion on the floor on this. I believe it was by
Commissioner Henning.
MS. FILSON: The motion was Commissioner Coyle, and--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And Henning was the second. Okay, I'm
sorry .
Is there any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just wanted to thank my fellow
commissioners for allowing me to pull it from the consent agenda and
listening. I want to thank the members of the sewer and water board
for coming out today.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, since we pulled it from the consent
agenda, you're buying dinner tonight.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Everybody in the audience.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Crackers and pepperoni.
Page 221
July 25, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any other further discussions?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ifnot, I'll call the question on this. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries. Thank you very much.
Item #10V
RESOLUTION 2006-200: DIRECTING THE COUNTY
MANAGER TO ESTABLISH A FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT
PLANNING COMMITTEE - ADOPTED W/CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is 10V, and that used to be 16A11, and that reads: It's a
recommendation to approve a resolution of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, directing the County
Manager to establish a Floodplain Management Planning Committee.
And that item was pulled to the regular agenda by Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioners, the reason I
pulled this, this committee will be made up of county staff. And if
you look at the resolution, it's page 4 of 4.
Section three, it's calling for the officers in the quorum and the
compensation. I just have a concern if we're going to ask our staff to
sit on a committee without compensation, my concern, is if they meet
Page 222
July 25, 2006
during the day, they're being paid to do their job.
So if they -- this committee gets together during the day, does
that constitute that they can't get paid their regular pay for meeting, or
even after hours? Is that reasonable to ask our employees not get paid
to sit on a committee?
MR. WILEY: For the record, Robert Wiley with your
Engineering Services Department.
Upon looking at the wording in the proposed resolution, what we
can do is before we actually present it for the official signature, is in
that last sentence where it currently says, the members of the
committee shall serve without compensation -- what's really intended
is that it's the members of the public appointed to serve on that
committee will serve without compensation.
So we have proposed that it be revised to say the members of the
public appointed to the committee or to serve on the committee will
serve, so that it's clarified there. We understand that. That was the
intention all along, but we appreciate the clarification there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. I do have a
question. In section one it's saying, establish the guidelines in section
511 and a bunch of stuff after that. I don't know what 511 or that stuff
after that is. What manual are we talking about?
MR. WILEY: Section 510 is the CRS Coordinators Manuals,
Community Rating System Program. It's a document put out by
FEMA, and that is the coordinators manual that they published that we
use to implement the Community Rating System Program.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Is this going to be
implementing some sort of regulation on land or the use of land?
MR. WILEY: What this will do, this will establish a committee
in the CRS Coordinators Manual. It goes through the process they
want you to use to establish your Floodplain Management Plan. And
one of the main emphases in there is to get lots and lots of public
support and a very broad direction from all entities involved in local
Page 223
July 25, 2006
government.
And so they, as a part of their program, give you extra points on
your CRS score if you have a resolution approved by your board to
officially establish a committee to prepare said plan and also to review
it and update it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I guess the only question
is, if there's going to be any regulation of the land or the use of, you'll
come to the Board of Commissioners for approval, correct?
MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. That would all come to you in the form
of ordinance and resolutions. This is just a document that identifies
what are the floodplain areas and issues involved within them. That's
all. It's just a document to basically identify and inform the public of
floodplain issues within the county.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I just want to point out, the
last time we came with the pointing -- ranking system, and the whole
menu of what we can do, we also asked to go to the Planning
Commission and get their recommendations.
MR. WILEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It even provides that in the state
statutes that they can do that.
The -- so I'm going to make a motion to approve the resolution,
and recognizing that the compensation is for the public -- and the
non-compensation is for the public and not the staff members that it --
of the county that will sit on this.
MR. WILEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. The
motion was made by Commissioner Henning and seconded by
Commissioner Coyle.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Page 224
July 25, 2006
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 #11
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 13 -- 13A.
MS. FILSON: What about II?
MR. MUDD: Oh, excuse me. I'm sorry, Sue. Thank you very
much.
Paragraph 11 is public comment on general topics. Ms. Filson?
MS. FILSON: Kenneth Thompson?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ken left, and he said to tell --
MS. FILSON: Jeannette Showalter?
(N 0 response.)
MS. FILSON: No public comment.
Item #13A
REQUEST BOARD APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED PRICE OF
$447,500 FOR THE FY- 2006 AUDIT PER CONTRACT #03-3497,
"AUDITING SERVICES FOR COLLIER COUNTY" WITH KPMG
LLP. - APPROVED
Page 225
July 25, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
Item 13?
MR. MUDD: And then after we're done with 13A, we have the
one clarification issue that goes back to the Forest Lakes MSTBU.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: TU.
MR. MUDD: And this is -- the next item is 13A. This was an
add-on. It's to request board approval of the proposed price of
$447,500 for the FY -2006 audit for contract 03-3497, auditing
services for Collier County with KPMG LLP.
MS. KINZEL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
Crystal Kinzel. I'm here to answer any questions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Too late.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I would agree with this if
we'd ask the -- if the clerk would chip in and pay for that additional
$400,000 or so.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: $40,000.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: $400,000.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion on the floor by Commissioner
Henning, I believe it was, and seconded by me.
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.)
Page 226
July 25, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, Crystal.
MS. KINZEL: Thank you.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 2006-201: ORDERING AND PROVIDING FOR
HOLDING A BALLOT REFERENDUM ELECTION TO
DETERMINE IF THE FREEHOLD ELECTORS OF THE FOREST
LAKES ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE MUNICIPAL SERVICE
TAXING UNIT OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA APPROVE
THE ISSUANCE OF $6,250,000.00 IN BONDS IN ORDER TO
FINANCE THE PROVISION AND MAINTENANCE OF
IMPROVED ROADWAY LIGHTING, ROADWAY-RELATED
DRAINAGE AND ROADWAY RESTORATION WITHIN THE
FOREST LAKES ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE MUNICIPAL
SERVICE TAXING UNIT, AND PURPOSES INCIDENTAL
THERETO, PAY ABLE FROM AD VALOREM TAXES LEVIED
ON ALL TAXABLE PROPERTY WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL
TAXING UNIT NOT EXCEEDING FOUR (4) MILLS - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us back to item lOB,
and it was tabled, and it was to be the last item that we were going to
talk about today, and you had some questions, and this was basically a
recommendation to adopt a resolution ordering and providing for the
holding of a ballot referendum election to determine if the freehold
electors of the Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage Municipal
Services Taxing Unit of Collier County, Florida, approve the issuance
of $6,250,000 in bonds in order to finance the provision and
maintenance of improved roadway lighting, roadway-related drainage
and roadway restoration within the Forest Lakes Roadway and
Drainage Municipal Services Taxing Unit, and purpose -- and
purposes incidental thereto payable from ad valorem taxes levied on
Page 227
July 25, 2006
all property within the municipal taxing unit not exceeding four mills.
And I believe Ms. Diane Flagg, your director of alternative
transportation modes --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: At this time we're bringing lOB off of
the table and now we're -- and we'll be discussing it. Thank you.
MS. FLAGG: And your question was directed to the County
Attorney. I believe Mike Pettit's going to respond.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. PETTIT: I had a response hours ago, but I don't know that I
remember.
Commissioners --
MR. MUDD: And you forgot?
MR. PETTIT: I think I forgot it. But Commissioner Henning,
you had asked staff and us, our office, whether the stormwater utility
funds could be used to perform some of this roadway drainage work,
and my opinion, based on what I now understand, is that I would
recommend against it unless this board were to find this were a
specific public purpose, because the drainage -- the stormwater utility
funds, as I understand it, are ad valorem, and there is a procedure
pursuant to which those are portioned out over all county residents
that pay them, and it's for a proportionate benefit.
As I understand this project and what's desired here, we're talking
about drainage coming off of private roadways that would essentially
benefit, if not exclusively, primarily and substantially, the residents of
this Forest Lakes MS TU area.
So my answer, to make it short is, I recommend against using
those funds.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I have another
question then. Since the people in Forest Lakes pay into the
stormwater improvement countywide, what is their benefit to pay into
it?
MS. FLAGG: I can answer.
Page 228
July 25, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The statutes must say the
taxpayers must receive a direct benefit.
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, Transportation
Administrator. Essentially they are benefited universally by
improvements by the county drainage system. In particular, they're
receiving quite a bit of assistance and they're using as outfall
improvements, including Gordon River, the water quality park, and
other issues where stormwater utility fees are being utilized.
Much like the roadways where you have an area of private
roadways within a neighborhood, they are receiving benefit even
though they pay into the gas taxes and the county impact fees and a
little bit of ad valorem when they travel out on the rest of the roadway
network.
This is an issue where they're looking to improve the drainage
within their own community, they've formed an MSTU to do so.
They are simply asking for the ability to bond so that they can do
more of that work earlier rather than spreading it out over time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Okay. Sorry for the
delay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's okay. I need a motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coyle for approval of this bond issue and seconded by
Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
Page 229
July 25, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're finished.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, and that brings us to Staff and
Commissioner General Communications.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. County Manager, we'll start off
with you, sir?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I'm going to try to make this as quick as I
possibly can.
First, we've had -- we've got two congressional visits that are
basically scheduled, and commissioner -- and you had an agenda item
on the consent agenda that talked about that particular item.
There were four letters sent to our two Congressmen and our two
Senators. So far our two Congressmen have replied. Congressman
Connie Mack will be here on 3 August, and Congressman Mario Diaz
Balart will be here on the 21 st of August. I believe Commissioner
Halas will be here in order to escort those two Congressmen to show
them the eight prioritized projects that we have in Collier County that
the board voted on.
I will tell you that three of those projects made the earmarks from
the House side. None have made it from the Senate side. It now goes
to committee, so it's important for us to show off our projects so that
we can get those earmarks and get those dollars back to Collier
County .
Page 230
July 25, 2006
The next item I would like to report, the board asked me at the
last -- well, during the budget workshops to take a look at Joe
Schmitt's operation, and we are in the process of doing that.
We have laid out a prioritized list, and I've had Kim Grant and
Joe and Leo and myself take a look at his particular operation.
And I will tell you, from the very top of the list, I've identified
the fact that he needs a deputy and he also needs to hire an
ombudsman, and I'd like to add those two particular positions to the
UFR list. I don't want you to say yes or no until we see the full-up
descriptions on those particular issues, but add those to the UFR list
that you'll take a look at during September in the budget workshops.
We've also taken a look at his organization to see if we can get
some of those, for lack of better words, call it distracters from his
primary mission, reassigned someplace else in the county.
We have taken a look at code enforcement because it's basically a
111- funded organization. We find that it does provide a feedback
mechanism to the Land Development Code that the board approves to
make sure that it's enforceable and that there isn't something out there
that's an unintended consequence. But I'm having trouble trying to see
where it fits in the other organizations of the county.
I will tell you, in the next item I'm going to talk about, is the
board directed me to meet with the sheriff, the undersheriff, to see if
we could work on some deficiencies. I have broached the subject of
the sheriff taking on code enforcement. I haven't got an answer one
way or the other, and that will be a discussion item that we'll talk
about in the future.
But there are a lot of counties in the State of Florida where the
sheriff oversees code enforcement, and it does provide -- it's a logical
link, okay, and it has an enforcement issue to it, so I will mention that
one.
The other two areas that we find that could be separable from Mr.
Schmitt's organization is housing and grants and the coastal section,
Page 23 1
July 25, 2006
you know, the Marla Trouses (sic) of the world, we'll be looking at
turtles and how we basically rake the beaches and those particular
issues and how we put out the navigational markers plus exactly, you
know, what does Gary McAlpin do with his beach renourishment
section and his monitoring section.
And I will tell you you've had a recommendation from your
Coastal Advisory Committee to establish a coastal engineering or a
coastal section in the county, and we don't have all of that stuff in one
place, so we're taking a look at that.
So I'm looking at those things that are just -- well, could be taken
out of the community development's environmental services division,
and the two things that I've seen of great need right now are the deputy
and the ombudsman.
And I would like your permission to at least add those to the
UFR list for a future decision by the board when I can provide you the
descriptions for those particular entities, which I've seen in draft form,
but I don't have them for perusal, nor would I do this in such short
notice.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a question and Commissioner
Henning has a question, so does Commissioner Coyle.
My question is, what is going to be the responsibility of this
ombudsman?
MR. MUDD: And that person is the person that gets the phone
call from a petitioner that -- where is my permit? How do I get a
permit? Who do I go see? What things do I need to get done in order
to get a permit?
And Commissioner Fiala has mentioned some items where you
get the mom and pop that don't know where they're supposed to go
next. And plus we've had the person that's come up on the net and
says, what's the status of my permit? What's taking it so long? I've
provided this, where is it -- in order to get that done to cut through
some of that red tape that exists.
Page 232
~._.,."---"'-
July 25, 2006
Now, Mr. Schmitt does have a fast-track ombudsman so to speak
that's on staff right now and does that. This person would be more of
a general nature for somebody that isn't fast-tracked in order to get
through that. And I've heard several commissioners mention that they
believe that this is a needed entity. And Ms. Grant basically confirms
that in her evaluation.
Now, the last piece that I have that I've done over this last month,
the board told me to go meet with the sheriff and talk about
efficiencies. And Leo and I have had that meeting over in the sheriffs
office. And we've met with the undersheriff and Chief Smith, and
we've talked about efficiencies, and we're working on a draft kind of a
strawman right now that basically talks about increasing the HR
visibility for applicants so that if somebody applies for a sheriffs
position but they don't have that vacancy or they fill it but it's still a
viable applicant, that applicant will then become visible for the clerk,
the supervisor of elections, the property appraiser, the tax collector
and the County Manager's organization and Ms. Filson, if she has a
vacancy, and also trying to develop an HR web site for county where
somebody can apply for a job and be -- and get locked in.
It's kind of like a My Florida website. You go to My Florida and
it gives you visibility on every job on the state side of the house that
you can go in there and make that kind of application. It kind of ties in
with that visibility.
We talked about coming up with a combined purchasing issue.
You know, when you buy -- when you buy 10 cases of paper, you
know, I'm going to need in my -- in our purchasing side, we're
probably going to need a truckload, and you might need half a
truckload for the property appraiser over a given year. Why don't we
go out and do a mass bulk on paper, for instance, or cleaning supplies,
for instance, or whatever, in order to try to get a better price, and we'll
work on that particular issue.
We also talked about establishing a housing referral office. And
Page 233
July 25, 2006
if, for instance, a person wants to be able to rent a place where it will
already be certified in this particular office and there will be a list of
those places that have already been looked at that are okay to look at,
they're -- you know, they're not in any kind of a backlog maintenance
issue, that it's a good place to live, that kind of thing, where somebody
could come in and say, I need to rent a place, and you already have a
list of those things that have already been precertified for that
particular office. That would not only serve the -- our agency, but any
one of county government.
And those are the things that we talked about from the sheriffs
side of the house in our first initial meeting, and we'll continue to have
meetings to basically put some more details on those particular first
initial movements toward efficiency, and we'll take off our caps, and
everything is open on the table to try to get -- and find some more
things that we can work on.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning had a question.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you're -- no, just
responding to the County Manager's question about adding two people
to community development.
I was encouraged by Commissioner Coyle's recommendations to
take a look at how we could take some of that off, some of those
duties off the administrator.
I think we ought to try that first before we even consider anybody
__ adding any additional staff beyond what was already on our -- on
our budget.
I can tell you, I'm going to, if they do stay on there, I'm going to
have a lot of comments at the budget when this item does come up,
because I think there are still things that can be corrected over there to
be responsive to the customers over in community development.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's exactly my comment, too. I
Page 234
July 25, 2006
think it's almost impossible to decide what duties should be and how
many people should be added to perform duties until you've decided
what the organization looks like, and at that point in time, it might be
appropriate to consider that.
But I really think the first thing you need to do is take a look at
the organization and find out how you can make it more efficient.
And then after that, we talk about personnel. But I agree with
Commissioner Henning wholeheartedly on that issue.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I've been kind of pushing for
an ombudsman for a while, and the reason I've been doing that is I felt
that we needed to have -- when there's holdups, I don't care who it is
in the whole -- you know, whoever's getting a permit, whether it's
mom and pop for a shed or whether it's a developer and they're having
some problems, a restaurant that wants to open, they don't have a
person to call. They don't have a person to get them through that
process.
And I just felt that that would make a smoother process and a less
frustrating one, and I felt that it would be far more efficient. So I'm
really in favor of an ombudsman.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How about answering the
phone?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: People that just answer--
directors that would answer the phone?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you know what, an
ombudsman would be responsible for always answering the phone,
never using a -- yeah, I agree with that, because it's difficult to get
through to anybody. But, you know, that could be part of that
responsibility .
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do you have anything else to
bring forward?
Page 235
July 25, 2006
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, last but not least. What I did is,
about a month and a half ago I sent a letter to the mayor of Everglades
City basically asking the mayor if there's anything that I could do to
kind of try to resolve the particular issues that he's having with
Copeland and the sewer payments, if he would like me to take a look
at the meter.
There was some disagreement between Copeland residents and
Everglades City about the accuracy of the meter that reads the sewer
flows.
Mayor Hamilton called me about a week or so ago and said, you
know, I'm kind of at wit's end. I mean, you know, they're not paying
their bills, they owe us some $40,000. What do you think?
And I said, Mayor, let me check the accuracy of your meter, I
mean, because that -- that is right at front stage as far as the
disagreement is concerned because Copeland is saying that your meter
is 60 percent off. So in other words, your bill is 60 percent too high
and you're saying that it's right. You need to have an honest broker
take a look and make sure that the meter is correct.
I first initially recommended that he go to the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection and talk to Dr. Amati (phonetic) in the Ft.
Myers office to see if they could take a look at -- the state take a look
at that meter and determine its accuracy, but Dr. Amati doesn't have
the folks in his shop in order to do that.
When that reply came back in from the mayor, we sent our folks
out to take a look. And we have looked at that meter. That meter is
accurate, and it has measured an accurate reading when we went out
there and did the test. And I had numerous people out there checking
the accuracy of that meter.
I will relay that information back to Mayor Hamilton. I tried to
make contact with him today, but he wasn't there. But I'll get with
him in the next day or so in order to try to get that resolved.
Now -- at least give him that information, and then I'm going to
Page 236
July 25, 2006
ask him if there's a way that we can try to find and pay this bill back
by Copeland in digestible doses instead of one time without shutting
the sewer service off from that community, and there's some 60 people
that live on the other end of those sewer lines.
Commissioner -- Commissioner Coletta has said he would help
me and he will take -- because he knows the people in Copeland more
than I do -- and he will try to get their commitment to take on that bill
in digestible doses, and I'll try to work that through the mayor of the
City of Everglades in order to see if we can find a mutual agreement
where we can get -- put this issue behind us and get some resolution
done in the relatively near future.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Was there some indication that they may
have some seepage into the lines that may be causing --
MR. MUDD: Oh, Commissioner -- Commissioner, I'll tell you
right now, based on -- based on the flows and what we see, what they
have historically sent through the meter and what they're sending
through right now, there's infiltration all over that system that they
need to take care of.
But part of that agreement is, the thing on the Copeland side of
the meter is Copeland's responsibility. So the 1&1, that's what we call
infiltration and intrusion into those lines, is their responsibility to take
care of.
So we're trying to identify if there was some work that was done
in the last year or so that might have hit a sewer line that caused
stormwater seeping through the ground to get into that sewer line, so
__ and when we popped the manholes down there and took a look, we
had clear flow. So that tells me that we've got a stormwater flow in
there instead of sewer flow that's going through the line, and they've
got a problem.
They need to get that addressed, because right now they're
paying more for their sewer service than they need to, but they haven't
taken care of their 1&1 in their lines. And I believe Commissioner
Page 237
July 25, 2006
Coletta will also take care of that particular item once I give him all
the pies and stuff that we've -- all the pictures and stuff that we took
from that investigation.
And that's all I have, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You're going to be our attorney, huh?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Not quite an attorney, just --
you've got to remember what we're talking about is really a
government authority. Copeland co-op is basically a government
authority that's been elected by the people there. But being a small
town and everything, they're having difficulties. They're going to get
over it. They're going to get through it. And I'm sure in the end that
Copeland and Everglades City will work this issue out, with a little bit
of help.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do we have anything else from the
County Manager?
MR. MUDD: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: How about the County Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Pettit has one item for you.
MR. PETTIT: Commissioners, I'll make this quick. I need to
request advice on a proposed settlement and strategy related to
litigation expenses in the case entitled Lodge Abbott versus Collier
County, 05-967, now pending in Circuit Court in a related Bert Harris
Act notice.
You know this case by the name of Cocohatchee. And I am
anticipating receiving, along with Ms. Student and Ms. Hubbard, we
are anticipating receiving a settlement proposal from Mr. Y ovanovich
and Ms. Cooper, the attorneys for the developer there, sometime over
the next 10 days, that we would then want to place on the September
12 agenda, and we would like to meet in the shade and then come out
on regular session.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. PETTIT: If I've got three nods, we'll have the County
Page 238
July 25, 2006
Manager --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep. Do you have anything else?
MR. WEIGEL: No, that's it. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I see Commissioner Coyle's in a hurry,
so I'm going to take, so I'm going to overstep and keep you here a little
bit longer.
As you know, you gave me the authorization to write a letter to
the Clerk of the Courts in regards to asking for some information that
should be public information, and that letter was written, and it's been
over a month, well over a month, and I still haven't gotten anything
back.
And so I just want to see what the Board of County
Commissioners wants to do at this point in time now.
I did receive some communications from the County Attorney
stating that the attorney for the clerk was on vacation and that he was
to return back from vacation on July 24th, which was yesterday.
As of this moment I haven't received any information back from
the Clerk of Courts in regards to the request, so -- I don't know why
I'm getting hoarse here. But anyway, I'm asking what the board would
like me to go do from this point on. So I'm looking for suggestions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ask and plead.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I could do that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you can confine Crystal to
the boardroom until you get the information.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Hold her ransom.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What is the normal procedure,
County Attorney, when you don't get responses in a timely manner?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, the -- the public records law is that--
public records request is to be responded to within a reasonable time.
Reasonable time has been defined in the courts as that which is
necessary to find the record and provide it.
A record may be very accessible in a nearby file and can be
Page 239
July 25, 2006
provided and made accessible to the requester very easily. Sometimes
a record may be in archives or off site, mayor may not be the case
here, in which a reasonable time to obtain and provide the record to
the requester is what the law provides.
Ultimately, if a record is not provided, there is the legal ability to
file an action in court, which is a demand and -- as well as, it may
include damages as far as that goes, and attorney's fees.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, based upon the type of
information that was requested, what do you think is a reasonable
period of time, and has that expired?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, my understanding is that the information
requested related to expenditures of the clerk for outside counsel costs
in a particular matter, and I guess I won't say that those things are hard
to come by because outside counsel costs are typically -- they're billed
monthly, and the matter at issue has been very lengthy over a period
of time. So it would appear that some of the records, if not the very
last records, would be available and also available very quickly.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why don't we take whatever action
is provided by law or else send a follow-up?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I ask a question? What was
the purpose of the request?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The purpose of the request was to ask
the Clerk of the Courts -- because in his budget there was no line item
stating what the costs were for legal fees that he was spending in
regards to litigation, whether it was between the County Manager and
the Board of County Commissioners or whatever, but there was really
no way that we could determine in his budget what he was spending
for legal fees.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In his existing budget?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: In his existing budget, that's correct.
And we felt that that was something that needed to be brought forth.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I -- well, you know, do we
Page 240
July 25, 2006
really know what the sheriff is spending in legal fees?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I think -- I'm not sure. We'd have
to ask the budget manager.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think it's the privy of the
constitutional officers that they move money around. They don't need
the permission of the Board of Commissioners.
I mean, this -- if it's the litigation between the Board of
Commissioners and the Clerk of Courts, I'm sure the clerk would be
offended by the question, if you want to know what the legal costs are.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Attorney?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: These are all public records. Any
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Got to be.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- resident in Collier County has a
right to get this information.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: As a matter of fact, anybody who
walks in here and asks us what our legal expenses are or what our
overtime costs are, just as we did with the sheriff, we required detailed
information on it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just want to know, what was
the purpose of the question? I mean, I don't want to get -- personally,
as __ this commissioner doesn't want to get involved in those type of
things.
A citizen -- like you said, a citizen can go make a request. And if
he doesn't provide it, the courts --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's what we did was we wrote a letter
asking him to provide that information.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I didn't do it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I was given direction by the board
here to write the letter.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That slips my mind.
Page 241
July 25, 2006
Does anybody else remember that?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You do? Well, I don't want to
do anything. That's my answer.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: County Attorney, what do we do?
MR. PETTIT: The only comment I would add is that the time
does allow for the governmental entity, in this case the clerk,
reasonable time to review the records requested for exemptions.
These records were -- I think the request was made in the middle
of June. We're at the end of July. I think it's -- at this point we
certainly have had reasonable time, I believe, to respond. I'm not here
to recommend that we multiply the litigation, but would like some
direction or -- at this point from the board.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Why don't we just write him another
letter asking him if we would address the issue of the first letter that
we sent, see what happens from there?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And then ask for an estimate as to
when a reply can be expected, and then you can decide from that
whether or not that's adequate.
MR. WEIGEL: This being a board request for records in the first
instance, is the discussion now then for the chairman to write another
letter on behalf of the board asking, as you just indicated, when the
records will be available, et cetera? Do you want the attorneys to be
involved to write the letter?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think you better document it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Could you write the letter, because you
know the --
MR. WEIGEL: We could write--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- manner in which it could be presented,
and I'll sign it.
Page 242
July 25, 2006
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. And we--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Does that clear it up?
MR. WEIGEL: We can write, you know, a diplomatic request.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And maybe because we have a
representative from the Clerk of Courts, we may not have to go that
course, just out of the kindness of her heart she'll provide this for us.
Anyway, that's what we'll do. That's the direction that we'll go.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I heard her say sure.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle, do you
have anything?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing, absolutely nothing.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I move for adjournment.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I'll take Commissioner
Coyle's time, if you don't mind.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Well, you're buying dinner
anyway.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's true, that's true.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now I'm leaving.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no, no. You can stick it out.
You've got the whole day free tomorrow. You can handle it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Not you. It's booked solid right
through. No, I just appreciate everybody's efforts today.
MS. FILSON: You have a joint MPO meeting--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Pardon?
MS. FILSON: You have a joint MPO meeting tomorrow.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Go ahead, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I'm done.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning, I'll start
with you.
Page 243
July 25, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, just one thing. There was
an item on the agenda about the helicopter tour of the congressional
delegation, whatever it is. It seemed to be quite excessive. I wasn't
going to pull it off and vote no on it, be a 4-1 vote again.
But I request that you ask the county or the sheriff, if you're
going to spend $10,000 taxiing around the congressional delegation,
you use the sheriffs helicopter. Might as well try to keep it in-house.
That's all I have. Have a nice summer.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Same to you, sir.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Well, we still have a few
meetings left. I'll see you all tomorrow at the MPO meeting, right?
And transportation, I hate to do this, if anybody's going up there,
can I ride with you to that MPO meeting tomorrow? You don't have
to come down, just a nod or something.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd be happy to give you a ride
and bring you back.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't we all ride together.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You've got to bring sandwiches.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, I will not be going up, but I know
Brandy is. I'll try to get with Brandy and have her call you first thing
in the morning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, great. Thanks so much. And
with that, great meeting. I can't believe, we had scheduled for
tomorrow as well, and we're out of here today. And I want to thank
you for running such a good meeting.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. I just want to say that we
had a great turnout with the F AC organization here in Collier County,
County Manager and myself, and Debby Wight.
We took a tour with the other commissioners that wanted to see
what we -- what we're doing here in Collier County. And I can tell
you that I think they left very, very impressed in regards to what we're
Page 244
July 25, 2006
doing and how we're initiating the impact fees and how the impact
fees are being addressed.
They were very, very much impressed, and they asked many,
many questions, and they requested information. And I believe all
that information is being sent to them.
But the general comments of the convention were that it was
outstanding, that the grab bags that were given away, everybody was
pleased. They liked the hospitality of the hotel. They liked
everything about the ambience of Naples and of Collier County.
So I think hats off to us. And they were amazed at the -- all of
the beautification of our medians. That really caught their eye.
So I think we'll probably have other people coming down. In
fact, when we were explaining to them exactly what we've
accomplished in a period of about five, six years, there were many
commissioners that said they were ready to move out of their counties
and run for commissioner down here because they couldn't believe
what we've accomplished in five to six years.
So I just wanted to pass that on to you that they were very, very
much impressed about what's going on here with the county
commission and also the staff personnel that we have here.
With that, we are adjourned.
***** Commissioner Coyle moved, seconded by Commissioner
Fiala (without agenda Item #17H) and carried unanimously that the
following items under the Consent and Summary Agenda be
approved and/or adopted; A second motion was made by
Commissioner Coletta and seconded by Commissioner Fiala for
Agenda Item #17H and approved 4/0 (with Commissioner Henning
abstaining) * * * * *
Item #16A1
Page 245
July 25, 2006
RESOLUTION 2006-160: SUPERSEDING AND REPLACING
RESOLUTION 1998-465 IN ORDER TO AMEND THE POLICIES
AND PROCEDURES FOR VACATING RIGHTS OF WAY AND
OTHER EASEMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN DEDICATED FOR
PUBLIC PURPOSES
Item #16A2
THE RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF QUAIL WEST
PHASE III, UNIT 7, APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROV AL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY - W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A3
THE AFTER-THE-FACT SUBMITTAL OF A UNITED STATES
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (USFWS) DERELICT VESSEL
REMOVAL GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $31,000 - TO ASSIST
THE TEN THOUSAND ISLANDS NATIONAL WILDLIFE
REFUGE
Item #16A4
A SATISFACTION OF LIEN DUE TO A CHANGE IN
QUALIFIED APPLICANTS AND THE SUBSEQUENT
RECORDING OF A NEW IMP ACT FEE DEFERRAL
AGREEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE IMMOKALEE
RESIDENTIAL IMPACT FEE DEFERRAL PROGRAM, AS SET
FORTH BY SECTION 74-201 (G) OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES
Page 246
July 25, 2006
Item #16A5
THE BCC CHAIRMAN TO RE-SIGN AN INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPLES, WHICH
AGREEMENT SUPERSEDES SEVERAL SEPARATE PRIOR
IMP ACT FEE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE
PARTIES AND PROVIDES FOR (1) THE COLLECTION OF
COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES BY THE CITY, (2) THE
REMITTANCE OF COLLECTED IMPACT FEES TO THE
COUNTY BY THE CITY, AND (3) THE RE-NEGOTIATED
ANNUAL ADMINISTRATIVE FEES TO BE RETAINED BY THE
CITY
Item #16A6
A SATISFACTION OF LIEN, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THE SUMMER HOUSE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE, FOR IMP ACT FEES
THAT HAVE BEEN PAID IN FULL, AS STIPULATED BY THE
AGREEMENT - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item#16A7
RESOLUTION 2006-161: ACCEPTING THREE (3) CONTINUUM
OF CARE HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANT AWARDS FROM
THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT (HUD) TOTALING $622,521; AND
APPROVING A BUDGET AMENDMENT OF $622,521
RECOGNIZING THE APPROVAL OF THESE THREE GRANT
Page 247
July 25, 2006
AGREEMENTS: SHELTER FOR ABUSED WOMEN &
CHILDREN ADMINISTRATION, ST. MATTHEW'S
HOUSE/WOLFE APTS. ADMINISTRATION, AND HMIS
EXP ANSION RENEWAL ADMINISTRATION
Item #16A8
AN INTERIM MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE COLLIER
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PROPERTY UNDER THE
CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM
Item #16A9
THE APPLICATION BY ANCHOR HEALTH CENTERS FOR
THE JOB CREATION INVESTMENT PROGRAM, THE
ADVANCED BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT
PROGRAM AND THE FEE PAYMENT ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A10
RESOLUTION 2006-162: AN APPLICATION TO THE FLORIDA
BOATING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE REMOVAL
OF DERELICT VESSELS IN COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16A11 - Moved to Item #10V
Item #16A12
WAIVING THE COMPETITIVE BID PROCESS TO AWARD A
CONTRACT TO MOTE MARINE LABORATORY IN THE
AMOUNT OF $42,630 FOR GATHERING MANATEE AND
Page 248
July 25, 2006
BOATING ACTIVITY DATA. - TO OBTAIN BACKGROUND
INFORMATION ON VESSEL TRAFFIC PATTERNS WITHIN
THE WATERWAYS OF COLLIER COUNTY FOR USE IN
POSSIBLE REVISIONS TO THE COUNTY MANATEE
PROTECTION PLAN (MPP)
Item #16A13
TERMINATING A CONTRACT WITH THE FLORIDA FISH
AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION (FWCC)
THAT ALLOWED COLLIER COUNTY TO MAINTAIN FWCC
WATERWAY SIGNS AND APPROVE ALL NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENTS - THE STATE WILL NOW
CONTRACT OUT THE MAINTENANCE STATEWIDE WITH A
PRIVATE CONTRACTOR AND NO LONGER REQUIRES THE
SERVICES OF THE COUNTY, THUS NECESSITATING THE
TERMINATION OF THE EXISTING CONTRACT
Item #16Bl
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE ADDITIONAL
REVENUE FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
PATHWAYS' PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $383,829.20
FOR PROJECT NO(S): 600321~ 600501~ 69081 LAND 690822.
Item #16B2
RESOLUTION 2006-163: THE INSTALLATION AND
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN PORT
OF THE ISLANDS COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR BEAUTIFICATION ON US 41
/SR 90; APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN
Page 249
July 25, 2006
TO SIGN A LANDSCAPING INSTALLATION AND
MAINTENANCE HIGHW A Y AGREEMENT (AGREEMENT)
WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
(FDOT) FOR MEDIAN AND ROADSIDE LANDSCAPE
IMPROVEMENTS ALONG SR 90; AND APPROVE AN FDOT-
REQUIRED RESOLUTION EVIDENCING THAT THE BOARD
HAS APPROVED AND AUTHORIZED THE CHAIRMAN TO
SIGN THIS AGREEMENT
Item #16B3
RESOLUTION 2006-164: AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO
SIGN FIRST AMENDMENT TO STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIGHWAY
LANDSCAPING INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT FOR LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS ALONG
PINE RIDGE INTERCHANGE.
Item #16B4
RESOLUTION 2006-165: THE AFTER-THE-FACT SUBMITTAL
OF A FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND
CONSUMER SERVICES EMERGENCY HURRICANE
SUPPLEMENTAL GRANT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000. - TO
IMPLEMENT THE EXOTIC VEGETATION REMOVAL PHASE
OF THE LEL Y AREA STORMW A TER IMPROVEMENT PLAN
(LASIP) MITIGATION PROJECT
Item #16B5
RESOLUTION 2006-166: AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN OF
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO EXECUTE
Page 250
July 25, 2006
AN AMENDMENT TO LOCAL AGENCY PROGRAM
AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION IN WHICH COLLIER COUNTY WOULD
BE REIMBURSED UP TO $420,000 OF THE TOTAL
ESTIMATED COST OF $542,600 FOR THE DESIGN,
CONSTRUCTION, ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION OF
SIDEWALKS VARIOUS LOCATIONS AND (2) APPROVAL OF
A BUDGET AMENDMENT REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF
FUNDS TO BE REIMBURSED BY FDOT.
Item #16B6 - Moved to Item #10U
Item #16B7
RESOLUTION 2006-167: AN AMENDED RESOLUTION TO
CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S ERROR IN THE LEGAL
DESCRIPTION FOR PARCELS 122 AND 123 IN RESOLUTION
NO. 2006-39 AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION OF RIGHT-OF-
WAY FOR COUNTY BARN ROAD FROM DAVIS BOULEVARD
TO RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD. (CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT NO. 33, PROJECT NO. 60101).
ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT: $0.
Item #16B8
THE BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR RFP #05-3770, DESIGN-
BUILD FOR IMMOKALEE ROAD FROM 1-75 TO CR 951
COLLIER BOULEVARD, COUNTY PROJECT NO. 66045 FOR
$100,000.00 FOR STIPEND PAYMENTS FOR UNSUCCESSFUL
FIRMS: HOLE MONTES / PHOENIX CONSTRUCTION AND
JOHNSON ENGINEERING / AP AC.
Page 251
_.___..~.__ . "_~_____.~ ____,~_"_w_.
July 25, 2006
Item #16B9
AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD
FOR PAYMENT OF $139,511.00 TO CONSTRUCT A PORTION
OF THE VETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD - TO BE
BUILT BETWEEN OLD US 41 TO LIVINGSTON ROAD, JUST
SOUTH OF MEDITERRA DEVELOPMENT
Item #16B10
A WORK ORDER TO TBE GROUP, INC., USING CONTRACT
01-3290 "AGREEMENT FOR FIXED TERM PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING SERVICES", WORK ORDER #TBE-FT-06-02,
FOR THE PREPARATION OF A STRUCTURES PRELIMINARY
ENGINEERING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REPORT
FOR THE WIDENING OF RANDALL BOULEVARD, COUNTY
PROJECT NO. 60065~ IN THE AMOUNT OF $166~936.
Item #16Bll
A BUDGET AMENDMENT OF $345,700 TO INCREASE THE
GENERAL FUND (001) TRANSFER TO TRANSPORTATION
DISADV ANT AGED FUND (427) - FOR THE PURCHASE OF
TWO-PARA-TRANSIT BUSES WHICH WERE ORDERED IN
FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 BUT PAID FOR IN FISCAL YEAR
2005-2006
Item #16B12
CHANGE ORDER #2 TO Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES,
P.A. HAVING WORK ORDER QGM-FT-04-08 (RFP/BID #01-
3290) TO ADJUST AND ADD SERVICE WORK TASKS,
Page 252
July 25, 2006
ADDITIONAL DAYS TO THE TRACT N LAKE & IBIS WAY
ROAD CROSSING PROJECT, INCLUDE THE CYPRESS WAY
EAST ROAD DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN
REPLACEMENT, AND MODIFICATIONS TO TRACT N LAKE
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE AT AMOUNT OF
$99~450.
Item #16B13
AGREEMENT WITH COUNTRYSIDE MASTER ASSOCIATION,
INC. FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NOISE WALL AS PART
OF THE SIX-LANE IMPROVEMENTS TO SANTA BARBARA
BOULEVARD PROJECT #62081, CONDITIONED ON THE
ASSOCIATIONS DONATION OF A TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT AND PAYMENT FROM THE
ASSOCIATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $914,000.00. AND TO
AUTHORIZE THE CLERK OF COURTS TO ESTABLISH AND
MAINTAIN AN INTEREST BEARING ACCOUNT FOR THE
DEPOSIT OF THE MONIES FROM THE ASSOCIATION AND
FOR ALL ACCRUED INTEREST TO BE PAID TO THE
ASSOCIATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AGREEMENT
Item #16B14
AWARD BID #06-4009 "COLLIER COUNTY HIGHWAY
SCENIC ENHANCEMENT AT PORT OF THE ISLANDS"
LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION INSTALLATION TO
HANNULA LANDSCAPING, INC. WITH A BASE AMOUNT OF
$197,020.45 AND ALTERNATES IN THE AMOUNT OF
$40,041.00 FOR A TOTAL OF $237,061.45. (PROJECT #600521)-
TO PROVIDE LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION
INSTALLATION ON US 41
Page 253
July 25, 2006
Item #16B15
THE EXECUTION AND RECORDING OF TWO CORRECTIVE
DEEDS AND A DECLARATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY
RELATIVE TO GAC LAND TRUST PROPERTY ON
IMMOKALEE ROAD (PROJECT NO. 60018). (FISCAL IMPACT:
$72.50 FOR RECORDING FEES) - DUE TO SCRIVENER'S
ERRORS IN THEIR LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS
Item #16B16
PROJECT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT WITH THE NATURAL
RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE IN SUPPORT OF
HURRICANE WILMA RECOVERY EFFORTS IN COLLIER
COUNTY, AND APPROVAL OF A PURCHASE ORDER TO
CROWDER-GULF, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $397,000 PLUS A
10% CONTINGENCY OF $39,700 FOR CANAL DEBRIS
REMOVAL FOR A TOTAL OF $436,700 AND APPROVAL OF A
PURCHASE ORDER TO R.W. BECK, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF
$27,040 FOR MONITORING OF DISASTER GENERATED
DEBRIS MANAGEMENT PLUS A 10% CONTINGENCY OF
$2,704 FOR A TOTAL OF $29,744, APPROVING THE
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT AND SEGREGATE ALL
COST FOR HURRICANE CANAL DEBRIS REMOVAL FROM
HURRICANE WILMA EXPENSES.
Item #16B17
AWARD BID #06-3910 LEL Y GOLF ESTATES MSTU
ROADWAY BEAUTIFICATION RENOVATION (ST. ANDREWS
BLVD. AT US 41), TO VILA & SON LANDSCAPING
Page 254
July 25, 2006
CORPORATION WITH A BASE AMOUNT OF $74,995.45 AND
100/0 CONTINGENCY OF $7,499.54 FOR A TOTAL OF
$82~494.99
Item #16B18
AWARD OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO BONNESS,
INC., FOR LIVINGSTON ROAD (CR 881) INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS AT GOLDEN GATE P ARKW A Y (CR 886),
BID NO. 06-4002, PROJECT NO. 66065, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$915,659.27 - TO IMPROVE TRAFFIC FLOW, SAFETY AND
CAPACITY AT THIS INTERSECTION
Item #16B19
AWARD CONTRACT #06-3980 "ANNUAL FIXED TERM
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANT SERVICES" TO FIVE
(5) FIRMS: VANUS, CH2M HILL, TBE GROUP, PBS&J, AND
WILSON MILLER
Item #16B20
AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT FOR HALDEMAN
CREEK DISPOSAL WITH LAKEVIEW DRIVE OF NAPLES,
LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED COMPANY AND ACCEPT FUNDS
IN THE AMOUNT OF $40,000 FOR THE HALDEMAN CREEK
DREDGING PROJECT #510111.
Item #16C1
AWARD WORK ORDER CDM-FT-3593-06-08 WITH CAMP,
DRESSER, AND MCKEE, INCORPORATED, FOR
Page 255
July 25, 2006
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR EXISTING WELLFIELDS
OPERATIONAL SUPPORT IN THE AMOUNT OF $196,820-
PROJECT NUMBER 75005 - FOR ANNUAL MAINTENANCE
INSURING RELIABILITY OF SUPPLY WELLS
Item #16C2
RESOLUTION 2006-168: AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY TO
SUBMIT A STATE REVOLVING FUND (SRF) LOW INTEREST
RATE CONSTRUCTION LOAN APPLICATION AND TO
AUTHORIZE A LOAN AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP),
FOR LOWER HAWTHORN WELLS 18N, 19N,AND20N,
PROJECT, 71006 - AT A COST OF $6,844,682 TO CONSTRUCT
THREE NEW WATER SUPPLY WELLS
Item # 16C3
AWARD BID NUMBER 06-3958 FOR LABORATORY
CHEMICALS AND SUPPLIES TO VWR INTERNATIONAL AND
HACH COMPANY IN THE ANTICIPATED AMOUNT OF
$200,000 - TO BE USED BY VARIOUS PUBLIC UTILITY
DEPARTMENTS
Item # 16C4
RESOLUTION 2006-169 (DISTRICT 1) AND RESOLUTION
2006-170 (DISTRICT 2): TO SET THE DATE, TIME AND PLACE
FOR AN ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING WHERE THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WILL ADOPT FEES
(SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS) TO BE COLLECTED ON THE
PROPERTY TAX BILLS FOR CURBSIDE TRASH COLLECTION
Page 256
July 25, 2006
SERVICES FOR THE 2007 BUDGET YEAR, APPROVING THE
NOTIFICATION TO CUSTOMERS AND APPROVING THE
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT ($54,600) - NOTICES TO
BE SENT TO APPROXIMATELY 105~000 HOUSEHOLDS
Item #16C5
AWARD WORK ORDER UC-235 UNDER CONTRACT 04-3535
TO KYLE CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF
$279,180, FOR THE RE-ROUTING OF THE LEL Y HIGH
SCHOOL FORCE MAIN, AND A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO
INCORPORATE ADDITIONAL FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$278,000, FROM THE COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD
FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION
FACILITY RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, 72508-
TO PROVIDE A RELIABLE AND SAFE WASTEWATER
COLLECTION SYSTEM
Item #16C6
THE SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE OF CHEMICAL EQUIPMENT
AND SUPPLIES FROM THE AMJ EQUIPMENT CORPORATION
IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $300,000, AND TO
INCLUDE THE PAYMENT OF INVOICE 2006-0653 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $6,598 (+ $267.91 INTEREST DUE TO THE
VENDOR) - TO MEET THE WATER DEMANDS OF
CUSTOMERS
Item #16C7
THE USE OF A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT OF MARTIN
COUNTY CONTRACT # 262-02 AND NECESSARY BUDGET
Page 257
, '_'_~'_""--"'.'_"_"'_'"_"_P__...._...._,..__.,._~_,>,."___;"_,,,,,-,-"'''_.~~M''''
July 25, 2006
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 - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16C8
RESOLUTION 2006-171: FOR THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN
FOR A SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT WHEREIN
THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS
SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1994 SOLID WASTE
COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT - FISCAL IMPACT IS $20.00 TO RECORD THE
SATISFACTION OF LIEN
Item #16C9
RESOLUTION 2006-172: FOR THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN
FOR A SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT WHEREIN
THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS
SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1995 SOLID WASTE
COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS $20.00 TO RECORD THE
SATISFACTION OF LIEN
Item #16C10
RESOLUTION 2006-173: FOR THE SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN
Page 258
July 25, 2006
FOR SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN
THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS
ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1996 SOLID WASTE
COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS - FISCAL IMPACT IS $40.00 TO RECORD THE
SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN
Item #16C11
RECORD A SATISFACTION OF A NOTICE OF CLAIM OF LIEN
FOR SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEE. FISCAL
IMPACT IS $10.00 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN
-LLOYD G. SHEEHAN FOR FOLIO #62257440008
Item #16C12
RESOLUTION 2006-174 CWS 06-01: SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
HARDSHIP DEFERRALS FOR CERTAIN SEWER SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS FOR THE 2006 TAX YEAR. THE FISCAL
IMPACT IS $18.50 TO RECORD THE RESOLUTION. - FOR
ACCOUNT NUMBERS: 255651~ 230605~ 361655~ 450508~ 406808
Item #16C13
A LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA FOR THE USE OF ITS
PROPERTY FOR STORM DEBRIS COLLECTION AND
PROCESSING - AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE
INTERSECTION OF 47TH AVENUE NE AND IMMOKALEE
ROAD
Item #16C14
Page 259
July 25, 2006
TO ACCEPT A FULL SETTLEMENT FOR OIL SPILL
LIABILITY TRUST FUNDS FROM THE UNITED STATES
COAST GUARD NATIONAL POLLUTION FUNDS CENTER IN
THE AMOUNT OF $375,122.91 - A RESULT OF HURRICANE
(WILMA) DAMAGE IN THE CHOKOLOSKEE AREA
Item #16C15
AN AGREEMENT WITH THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TO CONTINUE PARTICIPATING
IN THE SURF ACE WATER MONITORING OF BIG CYPRESS
BASIN IN THE AMOUNT OF $499,456 - FOR AN
ADDITIONAL THREE YEARS
Item #16C16
AWARD BID NUMBER #06-3953 TO GODWIN PUMPS FOR
THE PURCHASE AND DELIVERY OF ELEVEN (11)
GENERATORS BY THE WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT IN
THE AMOUNT OF $390,587 - TO MAINTAIN COLLECTION
SYSTEM RELIABILITY DURING INCLEMENT WEATHER
EVENTS
Item #16C17
AN EASEMENT AGREEMENT AND ACCEPT A UTILITY
EASEMENT AND ACCESS EASEMENT NECESSARY TO
UPGRADE THE LIFT STATION EXISTING AT BUENA VIDA
RETIREMENT HOME AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $12,400,
PROJECT 634999 - WITH CITATION MORTGAGE VIII
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AND OREGON LIMITED
Page 260
July 25, 2006
PARTNERSHIP
Item #16C18
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $110,000 AND
AWARD CONTRACT #06-3997 TO E. B. SIMMONDS
ELECTRICAL, INC. TO CONSTRUCT THE TAMIAMI WELLS 6
THROUGH 27 ELECTRICAL UPGRADES, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$508,450.00, PROJECT 71038 - TO IMPROVE OVERALL
WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM RELIABILITY AT TWENTY-TWO
WELL SITES
Item #16C19
RENTING OF THREE (3) NEW PITNEY-BOWES DOCUMATCH
INTEGRATED MAIL SYSTEM MACHINES AND ONE (1) NEW
POSTAGE SYSTEM EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1,2006 FOR A
THREE YEAR PERIOD, BASED ON STATE OF FLORIDA
CONTRACT #600-760-00-1. FOR A COMBINED ANNUAL
RENTAL COST OF $98,412 - USED TO PREPARE AND
PROCESS 800~000 UTILITY BILLS EACH YEAR
Item #16D1
AN AMENDMENT TO THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF
ARTICLE 5 IN THE LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH THE
MARCO ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY WHICH
DESIGNATES LAND FOR A FUTURE MUSEUM ON MARCO
ISLAND - TO CONSTRUCT A MUSEUM ON COUNTY
PROPERTY THAT IS ADJACENT TO THE MARCO ISLAND
BRANCH LIBRARY
Page 261
July 25, 2006
Item #16D2
LEASE MODIFICATION AGREEMENT WITH RANDALL
BENDERS ON AND DAVID H. BALDAUF, TRUSTEES,
RELATING TO A LEASE AGREEMENT APPROVED BY THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON APRIL 12, 2005 -
FOR OFFICE SPACE LOCATED IN GOLDEN GATE CITY TO
BE USED FOR THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT'S WIC
PROGRAM
Item #16D3
AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF
EVERGLADES CITY FOR FUND SHARING FOR PARK
IMPROVEMENTS FOR $50,700 - FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT
MCLEOD COMMUNITY PARK
Item #16D4
TO ENTER INTO AN INTERLOCAL LEASE AGREEMENT
WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF COLLIER COUNTY AND
TO APPROVE A PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $641,000 TO
INSTALL ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT TO IMPROVE EXISTING
FACILITIES ASSOCIATED WITH PROPERTY ADJACENT TO
IMMOKALEE HIGH SCHOOL - FOR A PERIOD OF TWENTY
YEARS
Item #16D5
PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF PLAYGROUND
EQUIPMENT FOR IMMOKALEE SOUTH PARK IN AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $41 ~OOO - FROM PLA YMORE
Page 262
July 25, 2006
Item #16D6
AN AGREEMENT WITH THE DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD OF
COLLIER COUNTY FOR TRANSPORTING SCHOOL-AGE
RECREATION PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS NOT TO EXCEED
THE BUDGETED AMOUNT OF $36,000 - FOR THE PARKS
DEPARTMENT AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM
Item #16D7
THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE GRANT AGREEMENT FOR
COLLIER COUNTY LIBRARY PUBLIC LIBRARY
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NUMBER 07-PLC-04,
PERMITTING THE COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY TO
RECEIVE $500,000 AWARDED BY GRANT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE SOUTH REGIONAL LIBRARY -
LOCATED AT 2385 ORANGE BLOSSOM DRIVE
Item #16D8
REIMBURSEMENT TO JOHN VEIT FOR OUT-OF-POCKET
EXPENSES IN THE AMOUNT OF $928.00 PAID TO NAPLES
TRANSPORTATION & TOURS - FOR PROVIDING
TRANSPORTATION DURING THE FOURTH OF JULY
FESTIVITIES HELD IN EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK
Item #16D9
TO ENTER INTO A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
WITH WESTAT TO CONDUCT THE NATIONAL SURVEY OF
THE USE OF BOOSTER SEATS (NSUBS) AT VETERANS
Page 263
July 25, 2006
COMMUNITY PARK, EAST NAPLES COMMUNITY PARK,
MAX HASSE JR. COMMUNITY PARK AND VINEYARDS
COMMUNITY PARK - FOR CONDUCTING A BRIEF SURVEY
DURING THE PERIOD OF JULY 17-30, 2006 ON THE SAFETY
OF CHILDREN IN PASSENGER VEHICLES
Item #16E1
A $199,268 CHANGE ORDER #1 TO CONTRACT #03-3489,
PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECTURAL AND DESIGN SERVICES
FOR ADDITION TO AND RENOVATION OF THE GOLDEN
GATE LIBRARY, WITH BARANY SCHMITT SUMMERS
WEAVER AND PARTNERS, INC. (BSSW) TO MODIFY THE
SCOPE TO DESIGN A 17,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING
RATHER THAN A 12,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING, PROJECT
54261 - TO MEET GROWTH BY INCREASING LIBRARY
SP ACE
Item #16E2
TO RATIFY ADDITIONS TO AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE
2006 FISCAL YEAR PAY AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN MADE
FROM APRIL 1~ 2006 THROUGH JUNE 30~ 2006
Item # 16E3
BUDGET AMENDMENT AND CHANGE #1 TO WORK ORDER
BSW-02-06 UNDER CONTRACT #01-3235 ANNUAL
CONTRACT FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES TO UPDATE
THE DESIGN OF THE SHERIFFS SUB-STATION ADDITION TO
EMS12 LOCATED IN THE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES AREA ON
IMMOKALEE ROAD, PROJECT 52011, IN THE AMOUNT OF
Page 264
July 25, 2006
$57,900 - WITH BARANY, SCHMITT, SUMMERS, WEAVER
AND PARTNERS~ INC.
Item #16E4
TO WAIVE FORMAL COMPETITION AND ENTER INTO AN
AGREEMENT WITH SAP PUBLIC SERVICES INC. TO
CONDUCT AN ASSESSMENT OF THE COUNTY'S CURRENT
SAP CONFIGURATION IN ANTICIPATION OF UPGRADING
THE SOFTWARE IN THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR IN THE
AMOUNT OF $71,504 - TO MAINTAIN AND ENHANCE
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Item # 16E5
A PHASED WORK ORDER WITH CH2M HILL, INC., UNDER
CONTRACT #06-3929, ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR
ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES, TO DESIGN UPGRADES TO
THE FUEL FACILITY AT COUNTY BARN, PROJECT 52009, IN
A TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE NEGOTIATED NOT TO EXCEED
$60~000 - TO SATISFY LDC REQUIREMENTS
Item # 16E6
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO INCREASE THE FY05-06 FLEET
MANAGEMENT FUND (521) OPERATING BUDGET
EXPENDITURES AND ASSOCIATED REVENUES BY $145,000
- TO COVER COSTS OF PARTS FOR THE REMAINING
FISCAL YEAR MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR
Item #16E7
Page 265
July 25, 2006
AWARD OF BID 06-4010 24-HOUR TOWING SERVICES TO
NAPLES TOWING LLC. D/B/A BUMPER TO BUMPER TOWING
AND TO COASTLAND TOWING AND RECOVERY, INC. - FOR
TOWING SERVICES EXCEEDING $30~000 ANNUALLY
Item #16E8
CONVEYANCE OF AN EASEMENT TO FLORIDA POWER &
LIGHT COMPANY (FPL) FOR PROVIDING ELECTRIC
SERVICE TO THE EMS-75 FACILITY AT 4590 SANTA
BARBARA BOULEVARD, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED
$18.50~ PROJECT 52007-1
Item #16E9
AWARD LETTER OF INTEREST NO. 006-3990 CATERING
SERVICES TO ARTICHOKE & COMPANY; GEE'S BBQ;
SILVER PLATTER CATERING; CANDITO MANAGEMENT
GROUP; CARRABBA'S ITALIAN GRILL; COUNTRY CATER
BBQ, INC. AND RUSSELL'S CLAMBAKES - FOR COUNTY
EVENTS INCLUDING EMERGENCY NEEDS
Item #16E10
CHANGE TO WORK ORDER #CHM-FT-05-04 UNDER
CONTRACT #01-3291, ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING INSPECTION SERVICES,
WITH CH2M HILL, INC. TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
INSPECTIONS SERVICES FOR THE ANNEX PARKING
GARAGE, PROJECT 52010, IN THE AMOUNT OF $33,085 - TO
PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CEI SERVICES AND TO EXTEND
THE COMPLETION TIME AS A RESULT OF DELAYS IN
Page 266
July 25, 2006
ATTAINING A SPRINKLER PERMIT; COMPLETION IS
EXPECTED OCTOBER, 2006 - FOR FIELD INSPECTION
SERVICES, OFFICE ENGINEER SUPPORT AND
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
Item #16E11
AFTER-THE-FACT SUBMITTAL OF AN INTERNATIONAL
CITY/COUNTY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION CENTER FOR
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT/PUBLIC ENTITY RISK
INSTITUTE GRANT APPLICATION, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$5,000 - TO ENHANCE BENCHMARKING AND THE
DEVELOPMENT OF VARIOUS PRACTICES, PROCEDURES
AND WORKFLOW PROCESSES THAT SUPPORT RISK
MANAGEMENT
Item #16E12
THE REPORT AND RATIFICATION OF STAFF-APPROVED
CHANGE ORDERS AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS TO
BOARD-APPROVED CONTRACTS. - DURING THE PERIOD
OF MAY 18~ 2006 THROUGH JUNE 30~ 2006
Item #16E13
REPORT REGARDING THE RECENT DISPOSITION OF
ASSETS NO LONGER DEEMED TO SERVE A USEFUL
FUNCTION OR TO HAVE COMMERCIAL VALUE - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16E14
Page 267
July 25, 2006
WORK ORDER WITH CH2M HILL, INC., UNDER CONTRACT
#01-3292, ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SERVICES, TO PROVIDE
THRESHOLD INSPECTIONS FOR THE EMERGENCY
SERVICES CENTER, PROJECT 52160, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$101,580 - LOCATED OFF LEL Y CULTURAL BLVD., NEAR
EDISON COMMUNITY COLLEGE
Item #16F1:
BOARD RATIFICATION OF SUMMARY, CONSENT AND
EMERGENCY AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY
MANAGER DURING THE BOARD'S SCHEDULED RECESS.
PER RESOLUTION NUMBER 2000-149, "APPROVAL OF THIS
AGREEMENT BY THE COUNTY MANAGER IS SUBJECT TO
FORMAL RATIFICATION BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS. IF THE DECISION BY THE COUNTY
MANAGER IS NOT RATIFIED BY THAT BOARD, THIS
AGREEMENT SHALL BE ENFORCEABLE AGAINST COLLIER
COUNTY ONLY TO THE EXTENT AUTHORIZED BY LAW IN
THE ABSENCE OF SUCH RATIFICATION OF THAT BOARD"
Item #16F1-A
RELEASE AND SATISFACTION OF CODE ENFORCEMENT
LIENS FOR PAYMENTS RECEIVED - TOTAL COST OF $40.00
FOR RECORDING THE DOCUMENTS
Item #16F1-B
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $56,248 TO
REALLOCATE FUNDS WITHIN THE WATER DISTRIBUTION
Page 268
July 25, 2006
COST CENTER FOR PAYMENT OF SPARE MOTORS FOR THE
NORTH HAWTHORN AND TAMIAMI WELLFIELDS
Item #16F1-C
RECOMMENDATION OF REJECTING BID NUMBER 06-3996
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE CR 951 WATER MAIN FROM
DAVIS BOULEVARD TO US 41, PROJECTS #70151 AND
#70152 - THE PROJECT WILL BE RE-BID AT A LATER DATE
Item #16F1-D
CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS (BCC) AND THE INTERNATIONAL CITY
MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION RETIREMENT
CORPORATION (ICMA-RC) FOR THE LATTER TO PROVIDE
DEFERRED COMPENSATION (457 PLAN) SERVICES TO
EMPLOYEES - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16F1-E
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $621,925.00 FOR
THE PURCHASE OF 2.674 ACRES OF IMPROVED PROPERTY
OF WHICH 0.372 ACRES ARE REQUIRED FOR ROAD RIGHT-
OF - WAY FOR THE SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD
EXPANSION PROJECT, PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON JUNE 6TH, 2006 -
TO PAY FOR LAND ACQUISITION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
BY THE BOARD
Item #16F1-F
Page 269
July 25, 2006
BUDGET AMENDMENT: #06-406
Item #16F2
TO ACCEPT A GRANT AWARD IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,000
FROM VISIT FLORIDA FOR THE PARADISE COAST
BLUEW A Y WEB SITE AND FUTURE SEARCH ENGINE
OPTIMIZATION - FOR WEBSITE DEVELOPMENT, SEARCH
ENGINE OPTIMIZATION AND PROMOTION FOR THE
ANTICIPATED PARADISE COAST BLUEW A Y PADDLING
TRAIL RUNNING THROUGH COLLIER, LEE AND
CHARLOTTE COUNTIES
Item #16F3
AWARD BID # 06-4006 FOR THE PURCHASE OF JANITORIAL
SUPPLIES TO E & R INDUSTRIAL SALES, INC., PYRAMID II,
INC., DADE PAPER COMPANY AND CORPORATE EXPRESS
FOR THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
FOR AN ESTIMATED COST FOR FY 06 OF $21,000 - FOR
JANITORIAL SUPPLIES
Item #16F4
RESOLUTION 2006-175: FIXING THE DATE, TIME AND
PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPROVING THE
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT (NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT)
TO BE LEVIED AGAINST THE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE
PELICAN BAY MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT
UNIT - TO BE HELD THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2006 AT
5:05 P.M. IN THE BOARD ROOM
Page 270
Item #16F5
July 25, 2006
BUDGET AMENDMENTS: #06-419 FOR OCHOPEE FIRE
CONTROL DISTRICT (146) AND #06-427 FOR MSTD
GENERAL FUND (111) - TO COVER THE COSTS FOR NEW
FIRE APP ARA TUS EQUIPMENT
Item #16F6
AWARD BID #06-4011 IN THE AMOUNT OF $200,000.00 FOR
PELICAN BAY STREETSCAPE IRRIGATION SYSTEM PHASE
V TO STAHLMAN-ENGLAND IRRIGATION~ INC.
Item # 16F7
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO FUND COLLECTION SERVICE
COMMISSION FEES FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
AMBULANCE BILLING IN THE AMOUNT OF $68,000 - AS
THE RESULT OF PAYMENTS NOT RECEIVED FOR
DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS
Item #16F8
EXPENSES NOT TO EXCEED $10,000 FOR COLLIER COUNTY
TO PROVIDE AERIAL OVER-FLIGHTS OF EIGHT COLLIER
COUNTY PROJECTS IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2007 FEDERAL
AGENDA TO TWO UNITED STATES SENATORS (BILL
NELSON AND MEL MARTINEZ) AND TWO UNITED STATES
CONGRESSMEN (CONNIE MACK ON AUGUST 3, 2006 AND
MARIO DIAZ-BALART ON AUGUST 21, 2006) - AS DETAILED
IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 271
July 25, 2006
Item #16F9
RESOLUTION 2006-176: RULES OF PROCEDURE
GOVERNING MEETINGS OF THE COUNTY PRODUCTIVITY
COMMITTEE AS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION FIVE:
OFFICERS; QUORUM; RULES OF PROCEDURE OF COUNTY
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-37~ AS AMENDED
Item #16F10
AN AGREEMENT (#07CP-11-09-21-01-XXX) BETWEEN THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND
COLLIER COUNTY ACCEPTING $8,143 FOR THE
PREPARATION OF HAZARDS ANALYSIS REPORTS FOR
FACILITIES STORING EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCES WITHIN THE COUNTY AND APPROVING THE
BUDGET AMENDMENT NECESSARY TO RECOGNIZE AND
APPROPRIATE $8,143 AS REVENUE - FOR THIRTY THREE
(33) EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES SITES WITHIN
COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16F11
BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR THE ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE
DISTRICT TO PURCHASE HOSE TESTING EQUIPMENT IN
THE AMOUNT OF $3~857 - TO HANDLE NEW GROWTH
Item #16F12
THE SUBMITTAL OF THE EMERGENCY OPERATION
CENTER CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENT INITIATIVE
Page 272
July 25, 2006
GRANT APPLICATION TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,091,015 - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16G1
THE RELOCATION OF THE BA YSHORE/GATEW A Y
TRIANGLE CRA OFFICE, APPROVING A NEW OFFICE LEASE
WITH A NEW LANDLORD, AUTHORIZING THE CRA
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN, AND APPROVE ALL NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO COVER THE LEASE TERMS
AND RELOCATE THE OFFICE -AT 2740 BAYSHORE DRIVE
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. APPLICANTS: EDWARD
RICHARD/SHELLY CARINI-NAPIER (2937 POPLAR STREET),
ROBERT WOOD (DBA MURPHY BED CENTER), AND CLOE
WATERFIELD (2432 LAKE AVENUE) - TO PROVIDE AN
INCENTIVE TO REVITALIZE THE AREA BY PROVIDING A
MATCHING GRANT
Item #16H1
WRITTEN POLICIES FOR THE DAY TO DAY BUSINESS OF
THE BCC OFFICE AS PREPARED BY THE EXECUTIVE
MANAGER TO THE BCC - APPLIES TO EMPLOYEES
WORKING UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE EXECUTIVE
Page 273
July 25, 2006
MANAGER
Item #16H2
COMMISSIONER FIALA REQUESTS REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING THE FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
DINNER HOSTED BY RBC CAPITAL MARKETS ON
TUESDAY, JUNE 27TH AT CAFE DE MARCO, MARCO
ISLAND; $30.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S
TRAVEL BUDGET - 244 P ALM STREET~ MARCO ISLAND
Item #16H3
COMMISSIONER HALAS REQUESTS PAYMENT TO ATTEND
THE FLORIDA FORUM FOR COUNTY LEADERS, A SERIES
OF 3 SEMINARS, THE FIRST SEMINAR TO BE HELD IN LAKE
COUNTY AND THE OTHERS TO BE DETERMINED AT A
LATER DATE; $450.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
HALAS' TRAVEL BUDGET - SEMINAR 1, AUGUST 23-24,
2006; SEMINAR 2, JANUARY 18-19,2007 AND SEMINAR 3,
MAY 10-11~ 2007
Item #16H4
COMMISSIONER FIALA REQUESTS REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING THE NAPLES PRESS CLUB DINNER ON
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21ST, 2006 AT THE COLLIER ATHLETIC
CLUB; $25.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S
TRAVEL BUDGET - 710 GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD
Item #1611
Page 274
July 25, 2006
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH
ACTION AS DIRECTED.
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 275
, ,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
July 25, 2006
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS
DIRECTED:
A. Clerk of Courts: Submitted for public record, pursuant to Florida
Statutes, Chapter 136.06(1), the disbursements for the Board of
County Commissioners for the period:
(1) Board of County Commissioners Disbursements:
(a) May 20, 2006 through May 26, 2006
(b) May 27, 2006 through June 2, 2006
(c) June 3, 2006 through June 9, 2006
(d) June 17, 2006 through June 23, 2006
B. Districts:
(1) Heritaae Greens Community Development District: Agenda for
February 6, 2006; Meeting Minutes of February 6, 2006.
(2) Naples Heritaae Community Development District: Meeting
Minutes of March 13, 2006; Agenda of March 13, 2006.
C. Minutes:
(1) Collier County Airport Authority: Quarterly Financial Report
ending March 31, 2006.
(2) Bayshore Beautification M.S.T.U.: Agenda for July 12, 2006;
Minutes of June 07, 2006.
(3) Bayshore/Gatewav Trianale Local Redevelopment Advisory
Board: Agenda for April 4, 2006; Meeting Minutes for April 4,
2006; Minutes of May 8 & 9, 2006 for the Bayshore/Shadowlawn
Corridor Traffic Study Public Workshop; Agenda for May 2,2006;
Meeting Minutes of May 2, 2006.
H:\DATA\FRONT DESK - 2006\2006 Miscellaneous Correspondence\072506 Misc Corresp.doc
".
.
(a) CRA-AB Goal Session: Goal Session Agenda for April 25,
2006; Meeting Minutes of April 25, 2006 for Annual Goals
Workshop; Agenda for May 15, 2006 Joint Workshop
Between CRA Board and Local Advisory Board; Meeting
Minutes of May 15, 2006 eRA Board and CRA-AB Annual
Goals Workshop.
(4) Coastal Advisory Committee (CAC): Agenda of June 8,2006;
Minutes of May 11,2006.
(5) Citizen Corps Advisory Committee: Agenda for May 17, 2006;
Meeting Minutes of May 17, 2006; Meeting Minutes for June 21,
2006; Agenda of June 21, 2006.
(6) Collier County Planning Commission: Revised Agenda for
June 15, 2006; Meeting Minutes for May 4, 2006; Agenda for
July 6, 2006; Meeting Minutes of May 18, 2006; Agenda for July
20, 2006; Meeting Minutes of June 1, 2006.
(7) Collier County Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board: Agenda for
May 25, 2006; Meeting Minutes of May 25, 2006.
(8) Environmental Advisory Council: Agenda for July 5, 2006
(9) Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee: Agenda
for June 22, 2006; Meeting Minutes of June 22, 2006.
(10) Golden Gate M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee: Agenda for July
11, 2006; Meeting Minutes of June 13, 2006.
(11) Lelv Golf Estates Beaufication M.S.T.U.: Special Meeting
Agenda for July 6, 2006; Agenda for July 20, 2006; Meeting
Minutes for June 15, 2006.
(12) Immokalee Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee:
Agenda for August 16, 2006; Meeting Minutes of May 17,2006.
(13) Collier County Library Advisory Board: Agenda for June 28,
2006; Meeting Minutes of May 17, 2006; Amended Meeting
Minutes of April 26, 2006.
H:\DATA\FRONT DESK - 2006\2006 Miscellaneous Correspondence\072506 Misc Corresp.doc
'J '
(14) Parks and Recreation Advisory Board: Agenda for June 21,
2006; Meeting Minutes of June 21, 2006.
(15) Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee:
Meeting Minutes for May 8, 2006; Agenda for July 10, 2006;
Meeting Minutes of June 12, 2006.
(16) Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U.: Agenda for September
19, 2006; Meeting Minutes of June 20, 2006; Meeting Minutes
for May 16, 2006; Agenda for June 20, 2006.
(17) Southwest Florida Expressway Authority: Agenda for June 15,
2006; Meeting Minutes of May 18, 2006.
(18) Vanderbilt Beach M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee: Agenda for
September 14, 2006; Meeting Minutes for June 1, 2006.
D. Other:
(1) Collier Park of Commerce: Notice of Annual Meeting of the
Members, July 17, 2006.
H:\DATA\FRONT DESK - 2006\2006 Miscellaneous Correspondence\072506 Misc Corresp.doc
July 25, 2006
Item #16K1
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $81,549 WHICH
IS THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF FUNDS PROJECTED TO BE
COLLECTED IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT CURRENTLY
BUDGETED, TO PAY FOR LEGAL AID SERVICES COSTS
INCURRED FOR LEGAL SERVICES PROVIDED FOR
QUALIFIED COLLIER COUNTY INDIGENTS PURSUANT TO
STATE MANDATED STATUTORILY-DEFINED PROCEDURES.
Item #16K2
SETTLEMENT PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF DISCOVERY IN
THE LA WSUIT ENTITLED LA URETTA BARKER VS. COLLIER
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FILED IN THE
TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, CASE NO. 05-1559-CA, FOR $17,500.00.-
AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16K3
AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO FILE A
LAWSUIT, ON BEHALF OF COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, AGAINST B & G UNDERGROUND INC., IN
THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, COLLIER COUNTY,
FL, TO RECOVER REPAIR COSTS INCURRED IN THE
AMOUNT OF $17,000 - FOR DAMAGE TO A SIX FOOT SEWER
LATERAL LINE AT 509 CYPRESS WAY EAST~ PALM RIVER.
Item #16K4
A MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND
Page 276
July 25, 2006
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO PARCELS 115 & 715
IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V RAFAEL LIY,
ET AL., CASE NO. 05-752-CA (COLLIER BLVD. PROJECT NO.
65061). (FISCAL IMPACT $56~452.65.)
Item #16K5
A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR PARCEL NO. 148 IN
THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V ZIAD SHAHLA,
ET AL., CASE NO. 04-600-CA (VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD
PROJECT NO. 63051) (FISCAL IMPACT $7~911.00)
Item #16K6
THE PROPOSED JOINT MOTION FOR AN AGREED ORDER
AWARDING EXPERT FEES AND COSTS RELATING TO
PARCELS 166A AND 166B IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
COLLIER COUNTY V JUAN RAMIREZ, ET AL., CASE NO. 02-
5166-CA, IMMOKALEE ROAD PHASE II, PROJECT #60018.
(FISCAL IMPACT: $12~000.00)
Item #16K7
AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO FILE A
LAWSUIT, ON BEHALF OF COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, AGAINST OCEAN GATE CONTRACTORS,
INC. AND/OR ROOKERY BAY NATIONAL ESTUARINE
RESEARCH RESERVE FDEP, TO RECOVER COSTS IN THE
SUM OF $7~500.
Item #16K8
Page 277
July 25, 2006
AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO FILE A
LAWSUIT, ON BEHALF OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD
OF COMMISSIONERS, AGAINST DONNIE E. MORGAN IN
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO RECOVER REPAIR COSTS
INCURRED IN THE APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $3~700.00.
Item #16K9
A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO PARCEL 140 IN
THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. ROSA A.
HERNANDEZ, ET AL., CASE NO. 05-1033-CA (CR 951, COLLIER
BOULEVARD, PROJECT NO. 65061) FISCAL IMPACT:
$855~200.
Item #16K10
RESOLUTION 2006-177: TO REINSTATE THE MEMBERSHIP
OF QUALIFIED COUNTY ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS
DURING THE 2006 ELECTION PROCESS - TO ALLOW
QUALIFIED ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS TO REMAIN
SERVING ON BOARDS DURING THEIR CANDIDACY
Item #16K11
GRANTING THE CONFLICT WAIVER REQUESTED BY
GRAYROBINSON, P.A. AND WAIVING THE PROVISIONS OF
PARAGRAPH 8 OF AN AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES
BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND GRA YROBINSON, P.A. -
DIRECTING STAFF TO SOLICIT COMPETITIVE PROPOSALS
FOR ANNUAL LEGAL SERVICES RELATED TO EMINENT
DOMAIN WORK.
Page 278
July 25, 2006
Item #16K12
RESOLUTION 2006-178: AUTHORIZING THE COLLIER
COUNTY EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES AUTHORITY TO ISSUE
REVENUE BONDS TO BE USED TO FINANCE EDUCATIONAL
FACILITIES FOR AVE MARIA UNIVERSITY - FOR PHASE I
OF THE PERMANENT CAMPUS LOCATED ON OIL WELL
ROAD.
Item #17A
ORDINANCE 2006-35: REVISING THE POST DISASTER
RECOVERY ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE POST-DISASTER RECOVERY
TASK FORCE, THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE EMERGENCY
REVIEW BOARD, THE COUNTY POST-DISASTER BUILD-
BACK POLICY, EMERGENCY PERMITTING SYSTEM AND
GUIDELINES FOR DECLARING A POST -DISASTER
BUILDING AND ZONING MORATORIUM, AND REPEAL
ORDINANCE NO. 98-62 AND ORDINANCE NO. 93-20.
Item #17B
ORDINANCE 2006-36: AMENDING CHAPTER 49 OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, AS
AMENDED, REGARDING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
INCENTIVES; ADDING A NEW DEFINITION FOR JOBS INTO
SECTIONS 49-22, 49-32, 49-42 AND 49-52 TO REQUIRE THAT
EACH INCENTIVE FULFILLMENT JOB BE PERFORMED
ONLY BY PERMANENT LEGAL RESIDENTS OF THE UNITED
STATES, AND APPLICABLY MAINTAINED AS SUCH;
PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND
Page 279
July 25, 2006
ORDINANCES; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND
SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 2006-179: PETITION PUDEX-2006-AR-9571:
TWO LAKES OF NAPLES, LLC, BY BRIAN HOWELL OF
PHOENIX ASSOCIATES OF NAPLES, INC., REQUESTING A
TWO- YEAR EXTENSION TO THE TWO LAKES PLAZA PUD
FROM OCTOBER 24,2005 TO OCTOBER 24,2007. THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF 19.9 ACRES, IS
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH
AT 15000 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH, IN SECTION 9,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA.
Item #17D
RESOLUTION 2006-180: PETITION SV-2006-AR-9160: W.R.
DEVELOPMENT, LLC, REPRESENTED BY RICHARD
YOV ANOVICH, OF GOODLETTE, COLEMAN & JOHNSON,
P.A. REQUESTING SIGN VARIANCES FOR TWO GROUND
SIGNS IN THE RIVERCHASE COMMONS OFFICE PARK. THE
SIGN LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST ENTRANCE OR
CORNER OF THE PROPERTY WOULD REQUIRE A CHANGE
IN SETBACK FROM 10 FEET TO 4.24 FEET; THE SIGN
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST ENTRANCE WOULD
REQUIRE A CHANGE IN SETBACK FROM 10 FEET TO 0.15
FEET. THE SIGNS ARE LOCATED AT 1001 CROSSPOINTE
DRIVE, IN SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25
EAST~ COLLIER COUNTY~ FLORIDA.
Page 280
July 25, 2006
Item #17E
RESOLUTION 2006-181: ESTABLISHING THE HORIZON
STUDY PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AD HOC MASTER PLAN
COMMITTEE FOR PHASE TWO OF THE EAST OF COUNTY
ROAD 951 INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES HORIZON
STUDY.
Item #17F
RESOLUTION 2006-182: PETITION SNR-2006-AR-9159,
ELAINE SORRELL, REQUESTING A STREET NAME CHANGE
FROM 10TH AVENUE S.W. TO BOXWOOD WAY FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF LOGAN BOULEVARD IN
GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT 34, SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP
49 SOUTH~ RANGE 26 EAST.
Item #17G
RESOLUTION 2006-183: PETITION SNR-2006-AR-9161,
STEVEN H. WHITE, REQUESTING A STREET NAME CHANGE
FROM 14TH AVENUE S.W. TO HAWTHORN WOODS WAY
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF LOGAN BOULEVARD IN
GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT 34, SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP
49 SOUTH~ RANGE 26 EAST.
Item #17H
RESOLUTION 2006-184: PETITION SNR-2006-AR-9162,
CAROL MONK, REQUESTING A STREET NAME CHANGE
FROM 10TH AVENUE S.W. TO NAPA WOODS WAY FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF LOGAN BOULEVARD IN
Page 281
July 25, 2006
GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNITS 33 AND 34, ALSO MICHELS
ESTATES, IN SECTIONS 17 AND 16, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST.
Item #171
RESOLUTION 2006-185: PETITION SNR-2006-AR-9163, JOY
RUNYON, REQUESTING A STREET NAME CHANGE FROM
12TH AVENUE S.W. TO DOGWOOD WAY FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED WEST OF LOGAN BOULEVARD IN GOLDEN GATE
ESTATES UNITS 33 AND 34, SECTIONS 17 AND 16,
TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH~ RANGE 26 EAST.
Item #17J
RESOLUTION 2006-186: PETITION SNR-2006-AR-9164,
KAREN WESS, REQUESTING A STREET NAME CHANGE
FROM 14TH AVENUE S.W. TO LANCEWOOD WAY FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF LOGAN BOULEVARD IN
GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNITS 33 AND 34, ALSO
MARGARET ACRES, IN SECTIONS 17 AND 16, TOWNSHIP 49
SOUTH~ RANGE 26 EAST.
Item #17K
RESOLUTION 2006-187: PETITION SNR-2006-AR-9165, GAIL
GEARY, REQUESTING A STREET NAME CHANGE FROM
12TH AVENUE S.W. TO TALLOWOOD WAY FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED EAST OF LOGAN BOULEVARD IN GOLDEN GATE
ESTATES UNIT 34, SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST.
Page 282
July 25, 2006
Item #17L
RESOLUTION 2006-188: PETITION CUE-2006-AR-9424,
AMERICAN DREAM BUILDERS, INC., REPRESENTED BY
EDWARD B. HANF, REQUESTING A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION
OF CONDITIONAL USE CUE-2003-AR-4799 FOR A MODEL
HOME AND SALES CENTER OF THE ESTATES ZONING
DISTRICT LOCATED AT 4050 13TH AVENUE S.W., FOR
PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN SECTION 15,
TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA.
Item #17M
ORDINANCE 2006-37: AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-43, AS AMENDED (VANDERBILT
BEACH BEAUTIFICATION MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING
UNIT); BY AMENDING SECTION THREE, PURPOSE AND
GOVERNING BODY; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND
SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE
OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE. (BY ADDING BURYING POWER LINES TO
THE CHARTER.)
Item #17N
ORDINANCE 2006-38: AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-37, AS AMENDED (THE COUNTY
GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE ORDINANCE)
BY AMENDING SECTION TWO, APPOINTMENT AND
COMPOSITION; AMENDING SECTION FOUR, REMOVAL
FROM OFFICE, FAILURE TO ATTEND MEETINGS;
Page 283
July 25, 2006
AMENDING SECTION SEVEN, FUNCTIONS, POWERS AND
DUTIES OF THE COMMITTEE; AMENDING SECTION EIGHT,
DUTIES OF THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AND THE
CLERK OF COURTS; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND
SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN CODE OF
LAWS AND ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Item #170
ORDINANCE 2006-39: AN AMENDMENT TO SUBSECTION
FIVE E OF COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2001-55, THE
GENERAL ADVISORY BOARDS ORDINANCE, TO ALLOW
CERTAIN CANDIDATES RUNNING UNOPPOSED FOR A NON-
REMUNERATIVE POLITICAL OFFICE TO REMAIN SERVING
ON COUNTY ADVISORY BOARDS.
*******
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:28 p.m.
o
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
c>~~
".-_.';;'~.:>'~'~~ --"'"
FRANK HALAS, Chairman
AUb 1 v 2006
floara of CO'JrltyGommlSSloners
'.
ATIEST:
DWIGHT E. 8ROCKtCL~RK
~~~. ~~\I.{,O~.
. Oeput Cl rk
Att.st lito ~h.'~ s
s1gnltw.... onl..
Page 284
July 25, 2006
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on
presented or as corrected
, as
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY
COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI
LEWIS.
Page 285