BCC Minutes 09/12/2006 R
September 12-13, 2006
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, September 12-13, 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 (via telephone initially)
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Derek J ohnssen, Office of the Clerk of Court
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
tI""
'"
"
,...- \'-
-~~
AGENDA
September 12, 2006
9:00 AM
Frank Halas, Chairman, District 2
Jim Coletta, Vice-Chairman, District 5
Donna Fiala, Commissioner, District 1
Tom Henning, Commissioner, District 3
Fred W. Coyle, Commissioner, District 4
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM
MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER
WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE
AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL
RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY
THE CHAIRMAN.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2004-05, AS AMENDED REQUIRES
THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING
ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS."
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBA TIM RECORD
Page 1
September 12,2006
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5)
MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary agenda.)
B. July 25,2006 - BCC/Regular Meeting
C. July 26, 2006 - BCC/Value Adjustment Board Meeting
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
A. 5 Year Awards
1) John Domenie - Pelican Bay Services Division Board
2) James Burke - Pelican Bay Services Division Board
3) Thomas Franchino - Historical! Archaeological Preservation Board
4) Ronald Fowle - Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment
Advisory Board
Page 2
September 12, 2006
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation recognizing September 18-22, 2006 as Industry Appreciation
Week and urging all residents to salute our industries and their employees
for their contribution to the community. The proclamation to be accepted by
Beth Skotzke, EDC Events and Communications Manager, Tammy
Nemechek, EDC President, and Dick Grant, incoming EDC Chairman of the
Board.
B. Proclamation recognizing the Collier County Parks and Recreation
Department and its staff for their dedication and commendable service on
behalf of the county's children and families. Mr. Barry Williams, Director,
Collier County Parks and Recreation Department will accept this
proclamation.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation of an award by the Florida Association of Counties to
Representative Mike Davis.
B. Employee of the Month Recognition for the August EOM - Lavah Hetzel.
C. Recognize Steve Messner, North County Regional Water Treatment Plant
Manager, as the 2006 Doctor Robert O. Vernon Award winner from the
American Membrane Technology Association.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition request by Rose and Leszek Adamusik to discuss a left hand
turn on 33rd Avenue NE coming north on Immokalee Road.
B. Public Petition request by Ellen Neil to discuss Vanderbilt Beach Road
Extension.
C. Public petition request by Ty Vigil to discuss Immokalee Road Expansion.
D. Public Petition request by James Swigert to discuss design and construction
of Immokalee Road.
Page 3
September 12, 2006
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m., unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. This item was continued from the July 25. 2006 BCC meetine and the
petitioner has reQuested that this item be continued to a future date.
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 at 1:15 p.m. This item reQuires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Petition: PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8438: Lakeview Drive
of Naples, LLC, represented by Clay Brooker, of Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson
& Johnson, LLP, requesting a rezone from the Residential Multiple Family-
6 (RMF-6 & RMF-6(3)) zoning districts (a portion of which is subject to a
Special Treatment Overlay (ST)) to the Residential Planned Unit
Development (RPUD) by amending the approved Windstar PUD to add the
subject 20.52 acres and its additional residential units thereby allowing a
maximum of 584 residential units on 341.1 acres. The subject property is
generally located on the west side of Bayshore Drive, approximately 0.6
miles south of the Bayshore Drive and U.S. 41 (Tamiami Trail East)
intersection in Sections, 11, 14 and 23 Township 50 South, Range 25 East,
Collier County, Florida.
B. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Planning Development
Incorporated representing Arboretum Development, LLC, requesting
Page 4
September 12, 2006
approval of a Mixed Use Project (MUP) in the Bayshore Drive Overlay
District, proposing 447 residential units and 150,000 of commercial floor
area to be known as Arboretum Village. The subject property, consisting of
37.26 acres, is located at the northwest corner of Bayshore Drive and
Thomasson Drive, Section 14, Township 50, Range 25, Collier County,
Florida.
C. This item was continued from the June 20.2006 BCC meetine; and was
further recommended to be continued to the September 12.2006 BCC
meetine;. 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. )
D. This item was continued from the June 20. 2006 BCC meetine; and was
further recommended to be continued to the September 12. 2006 BCC
meetine;. 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, ofRoetzel & 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.)
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Page 5
September 12, 2006
A. Resolution urging the Florida Legislature to call a special session to study
and enact legislation addressing the insurance crisis in Florida
(Commissioner Coletta).
B. Appointment of members to the Habitat Conservation Plan Ad Hoc
Committee.
C. Appointment of member to the Public Vehicle Advisory Committee.
D. Appointment of member to the Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory
Committee.
E. Appointment of members to the Affordable Housing Commission.
F. Appointment of member to the Collier County Airport Authority.
G. This item to be heard at 1 :00 p.m. Appointment of members to the East of
951 Infrastructure and Services Horizon Study Public Participation Master
Plan Committee.
H. Appointment of member to the Emergency Medical Services Advisory
Council.
I. Appointment of member to the Animal Services Advisory Board.
J. Discussion on public input for future usage of the Manatee Park site.
(Commissioner Fiala)
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution (Initiating Resolution) of the Board
of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, pursuant to Part II of
Chapter 171, Florida Statutes (Florida's Interlocal Service Boundary Act) to
commence the process for negotiating an interlocal service boundary
agreement regarding 98.69 acres of land, more or less, described as the
Collier Park of Commerce, proposed to be annexed into the City of Naples.
(Jim Mudd, County Manager)
B. Report to the Board of County Commissioners by the Director of the Collier
County Traffic Operations Department regarding the completion and
Page 6
September 12,2006
efficacy of the recent implementation of a Split Cycle Offset Optimization
Technique (SCOOT) System on Pine Ridge Road from Goodlette-Frank
Road to Logan Boulevard. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation
Services)
C. Recommendation to approve a Resolution superseding Resolution 2006-201,
which resolved to hold a ballot referendum election to determine if the
qualified 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 general obligation 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, to: (1) substitute the word registered
for freehold electors as referenced throughout the Resolution, (2) revise
section three to reflect the actual composition of the canvassing board and
(3) incorporate a title to the official ballot in section four. (Norman Feder,
Administrator, Transportation Services)
D. This item was continued from the June 20. 2006 BCC meetine: and is
further continued to the September 12.2006 BCC meetine;.
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 for the Board to: (a) allow Waste Management, Inc. of
Florida (WMIF) to present information to the Board concerning WMIF's
petition for reimbursement of unusual and unanticipated costs for soil used
at the Collier County Landfill; and (b) authorize staff to negotiate the terms
of a settlement agreement, which will be presented to the Board for its
consideration and approval in the future, and which will address WMIF's
petition and other landfill issues. (Jim Delony, Administrator, Public
Utilities)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
Page 7
September 12,2006
A. Recommendation to Approve Four Settlement Agreements and Stipulated
Final Judgments to be Drafted Incorporating the Same Terms and
Conditions as the Settlement Agreements in the Aggregate Amount of
$1,322,075 for the Acquisition of Parcels 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, and 127
and the Purchase of the Remainder Tracts in the Lawsuit Styled Collier
County v. Alan D. Moniz and Ines E. Moniz, Individually and as Trustees, et
aI., Case No. 06-0560-CA (Santa Barbara Blvd Project #62081). (Fiscal
Impact: $1,322,075) (Heidi Ashton and Kevin Hendricks)
B. Recommendation to Approve a Stipulated Final Judgment as to Parcels
103A, 103B, 103C, 103D, 103E and 703 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier
County v. Cullen Z. Walker, et aI., Case No. 05-0728-CA (Logan Blvd.
Project No. 60166). (Fiscal Impact: $3,523,600). (Craig Willis, Esq.)
C. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners give direction to
the Office of the County Attorney concerning the settlement offer required
by Section 70.00 1 (4)(c), Fla. Stat., in response to the purported Bert Harris
Act Claim asserted by Lodge Abbott Associates, LLC - the alleged owner(s)
of the Cocohatchee Bay Planned Unit Development. (Mike Pettit and
Marjorie Student-Stirling)
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of North Naples Medical
Page 8
September 12,2006
Park. The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately
maintained.
2) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Indigo Lakes Unit Six.
The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately
maintained.
3) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Hammock Isles. The
roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained.
4) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Treasure Point. The
roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained.
5) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Hemingway Place. The
roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained.
6) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Treasure Point.
7) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Fiddlers
Creek Phase 5 A viamar, Unit Two, approval of the standard form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount
of the performance security.
8) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
facility for Indigo Lakes,Unit 6.
9) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Reflection
Lakes at Naples Phase 2F, approval of the standard form Construction
and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
10) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Hammock Isles.
Page 9
September 12,2006
11) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Briarwood Unit Five. The
roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained.
12) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Briarwood Unit Six. The
roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained.
13) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Briarwood Unit Seven.
The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately
maintained.
14) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Briarwood Unit Eight. The
roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained.
15) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Briarwood Unit Nine. The
roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained.
16) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Briarwood Unit Ten. The
roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained.
17) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Briarwood units 9 and 10.
18) Recommendation to execute the annual Certification for
Implementation of Regulatory Reform Activities form required by the
SHIP program.
19) Recommendation to approve the after-the-fact submittal of the 2006
State of Florida Challenge grant application to the Department of
Community Affairs Office (DCA) on Homelessness.
20) Recommendation to approve a grant agreement amendment to extend
an existing U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) Continuum of Care (CoC) grant for $440,000 for an
Immokalee housing development.
Page 10
September 12, 2006
21) Recommendation to approve a grant agreement amendment to extend
the timeframe of an existing U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) Continuum of Care (CoC) grant for $142,895.
22) Recommendation to authorize the Chairman to sign Modification No.
1 to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Cooperative Agreement
No. 401815J021 to fund habitat restoration at Otter Mound Preserve
in the amount of $3,500.
23) Staff is requesting that the BCC review staffs findings and
recommendation regarding the proposed attached Request for
Proposals for consultant work for fulfilling the requirements of Senate
Bill 360 mandating the incorporation of a Public School Facilities
Element to the Growth Management Plan by March 1, 2008.
24) Recommendation to approve the after-the-fact submittal of a 2005
Disaster Recovery Initiative (DRI) grant to the Department of
Community Affairs (DCA) to fund disaster relief and the restoration
of housing and infrastructure related to the effects of the 2005
hurricane season.
25) Recommendation to approve the after-the-fact acceptance of the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) entitlement
funding agreements for Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) and Emergency
Shelter Grant (ESG) funds for FY 2006-2007.
26) Recommendation to approve an agreement between Collier County
and the Economic Development Council of Collier County (EDC) for
continuation of the Economic Diversification Program and provide a
contribution to the EDC of up to $400,000 for fiscal year 2007.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve the purchase of Right-Of-Way Parcel
#113B and Temporary Construction Easement Parcel #713B which
are required for the expansion of the County Barn Road Project
#60101 and accept Conservators Deed for same. Total Fiscal Impact:
$1510.00.
Page 11
September 12, 2006
2) Recommendation to approve Donation Agreements and accept
Drainage and Utility Easements for the 14TH Street Outfall
Improvements Project (Project # 510059), at a cost not to exceed
$100.00.
3) Recommendation to approve a Budget Amendment recognizing
revenue for funds recovered from vehicle accidents where County
traffic signals and streetlights sustained damages ($68,527.61).
4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a
Resolution authorizing the Chairman of the Board of County
Commissioners to execute a Local Agency Program Supplemental
Agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to
remove the replacement of the existing paved shoulder along
Gulfshore Drive from Vanderbilt Beach Road to approximately 1,600
feet north. (Project #690821)
5) Recommendation to authorize the use of Transportation
Disadvantaged Funds (427)in the amount of$75,244 for the purchase
of three (3) Paratransit vehicles.
6) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$129,127 for funds from the Federal Transit Administration for the
Collier Area Transit (CAT) system.
7) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$25,184 to recognize additional State Block Grant funds awarded
through Florida Department of Transportation.
8) Recommendation to approve an Interlocal Agreement between the
School District of Collier County, collectively referred to as "District,
and Collier County, herein referred to as County, for possible future
intersection improvements on the corner of 18th Street N. E. and
Everglades Boulevard.
9) Recommendation to award RFP #06-3965, Fixed Term Professional
Land Planning & Forensic Engineering Services for Right of Way
Acquisition to the following consultants: Hole Montes, Inc.,
Engelhardt, Hammer and Associates, Inc., Diaz Pearson & Associates,
Page 12
September 12, 2006
Inc., Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., CH2MHill, Inc.
(estimated annual amount $400,000).
10) Recommendation to award Bid #06-4014 Golden Gate Boulevard
(951 to 11th Street SW and 13th Street) Annual Landscape
Maintenance Contract to Advanced Lawn and Landscaping in the
amount of$140,856.50 (Project #630413 & 600221).
11) Recommendation that the Board reject Bid #06-4005-Purchase &
Delivery of John Deere 332 Skid Loader due to non-responsive bids
and approve the purchase of the John Deere 325 Skid Loader under
State Contract #760-001-06-1 in the amount of $54,764.
12) Recommendation to approve submittal of a Hazard Mitigation Grant
to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of
Homeland Security for Traffic Signal Mast Arm Rebuilds in the
amount of $258,491.
13) Recommendation to award bid #06-4028 Everglades City Sidewalk
Improvements for construction of a sidewalk along CR 29 from
Broadway Avenue to Begonia Street & pathway improvements on
Copeland A venue from Broadway to Camelia Street to Quality
Enterprises USA, Inc. in the amount of$297,996.55 and 10%
contingency in the amount of$29,796.66 for a total of$327,793.21.
(Project # 690812)
14) Recommendation to approve selection of AIM Engineering Inc. a
Qualified Firm, and award a Contract under RFP #06-3985
"Consultant Services for Collecting Data to Develop a Survey Base
Map with Elevations of Roadways in the Golden Gate Estates" in the
amount not to exceed $674,060.00.
15) Recommendation to award bid #06-4029 Pedestrian Sidewalks
Golden Gate City for construction of sidewalks in various locations
within Golden Gate City to NR Contractors, Inc. in the amount of
$607,888.75 and 10% contingency in the amount of$60,788.88 for a
total of$668,677.63. (Project #690821)
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
Page 13
September 12, 2006
1) Recommendation to approve a Budget Amendment in the amount of
$170,000 to reallocate funds within the Water Impact Fee Capital
Projects Cost Center to finance Change Order No.1 for Project No.
70097; South County Regional Water Treatment Plant 12- Million
Gallons per Day Reverse Osmosis Expansion.
2) Recommendation to approve a Budget Amendment in the amount of
$43,900 to transfer funds from County Water/ Sewer Fund (408)-
Reserve for Contingencies to fund salaries and wages in the Public
Utilities Engineering Cost Center.
3) Recommendation to approve a Budget Amendment to recognize grant
funds received from the South Florida Water Management District
(SFWMD) Alternative Water Supply (A WS) Agreement No.
DG061166 in the amount of $1 ,000,000 as partial funding for the
construction of two Hawthorn wells projects 71011 and 71006,
respectively.
4) Recommendation to approve a Budget Amendment appropriating
additional revenue received in the Mandatory Trash Collection Fund
for trash collection services and Collier County Landfill tipping fees
during FY 2006. Fiscal impact to Fund (473), Mandatory Trash
Collection, is $399,500.
5) Recommendation to approve a Budget Amendment in the amount of
$80,000 to reallocate funds within the Water Impact Fee Capital
Projects Cost Center to finance Project No. 71016; South County
Regional Water Treatment Plant Noise Study.
6) Recommendation to approve a Budget Amendment in the amount of
$456,400, allowing a transfer of funds in the amount of $376,000
from the Collier County Water-Sewer District Operating Fund (408)
Reserve for Contingencies and of $80,400 from the South County
Water Reclamation Facility (SCWRF) Cost Center for unanticipated
operating expenses incurred by the North County Water Reclamation
Facility (NCWRF), the SCWRF, the Wastewater Laboratory and
Wastewater Collections Cost Centers.
7) Recommendation to approve Budget Amendment to transfer funds in
the amount of $700,000 from Project 739661, North County Water
Page 14
September 12,2006
Reclamation Facility (NCWRF), Bleach System Reliability Upgrades
to a new Project 739662, NCWRF Bleach System Compliance
Upgrades and to sole source the purchase of standardized new
equipment for the NCWRF Bleach System.
8) Recommendation to approve a Budget Amendment to transfer funds
in the amount of$75,125 from the Collier County Solid Waste
Management Fund (474) Reserve to cover Construction Engineering
Inspection services at the Collier County Landfill Scalehouse Project,
Project Number 59005.
9) Recommendation to approve the after the fact payment for services
rendered, to Scott Paint Inc. in the amount of$9,632.34 for ten (10)
invoices from three collection sites for June through July 2006, for the
increased recycling of paint collected from Hurricane Wilma and
enhanced recycle center services.
10) Recommendation to convey a Utility Easement to the Water-Sewer
District to provide additional easement area to an existing well site
easement on property owned by Collier County in a cost not to exceed
$18.50 for recording, Project 71051.
11) Recommendation to approve a Budget Amendment in the amount of
$16,700 to transfer funds from the Solid Waste Disposal Fund (470)-
Administration Cost Center for the payment of salaries in the County
Water/Sewer Operating Fund (408) - Public Utilities Engineering Cost
Center.
12) Recommendation to approve a Change Order to Work Order CDM-
FT -04-02 with Camp, Dresser, & McKee Inc. in the amount of
$87,204 for additional engineering services associated with upgrades
and modifications to the Lime Softening Water Treatment Plant
Process at the South County Regional Water Treatment Plant, Project
700571.
13) Recommendation to authorize conveyance of an Easement to Florida
Power and Light Company (FPL) for the installation of electric
facilities to provide electric service for the four sustainability wells
39S, 40S, 41S, 42S in the South County Regional Water Treatment
Plant (SCRWTP).
Page 15
September 12,2006
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation to authorize the Chairman to sign the Agreement
with the Florida Division of Library and Information Services Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation Grant permitting the Collier County Public
Library to receive $31,500 awarded by the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation Public Access Hardware Upgrade Grant.
2) Recommendation to rescind approval of South Florida Water
Management District Local Governmental Agreement No. OT060l23
as approved by the Board of County Commissioners on December 13,
2005 and provide after-the-fact approval for a corrected version of the
agreement signed by the County Manager in the Boards absence.
3) Recommendation to approve a Restrictive Covenant between Collier
County, the Florida State Division of Cultural Affairs, and the
Children's Museum of Naples, Inc. in conjunction with the issuance of
a $500,000 grant from the Division of Cultural Affairs to the
Children's Museum of Naples, Inc. for the construction of a Children's
Museum.
4) Recommendation for approval to establish a Limited Capacity
Hurricane Evacuation Pet-Adjacency Shelter program and for
approval ofa Budget Amendment to fund the purchase of Pet-
Adjacency Shelter supplies and equipment in the amount of
$24,500.00.
5) Recommendation to accept the Library Long Range Plan and
Technology Plan, including the current year Action Plan and authorize
the Chairman to sign the FY 2006-2007 State Aid to Libraries Grant
Application for Florida Department of State, Division of Library and
Information Services, permitting the Collier County Public Library to
apply for in the State Aid to Libraries Grant Program.
6) Recommendation to approve a request to apply for a Florida
Recreation Development Assistance Program Grant in the amount of
$200,000 for improvements to Delasol Neighborhood Park.
Page 16
September 12, 2006
7) Recommendation to approve a request to apply for a Florida
Recreation Development Assistance Program Grant in the amount of
$200,000 for improvements to Golden Gate Community Park.
8) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment transferring
$100,000 from Bayview Dredging (Project #80003) to fund an
environmental permitting and construction of boating docks at
Bayview Park. (Project #80045)
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve Phase II Design & Development of the
Enterprise Content Management Strategy, Project 500421, in the
amount of$155,000.00.
2) Recommendation to approve and execute an Agreement to provide the
Golden Gate Fire Control & Rescue District $2,900 from the GAC
Land Trust Fund for the purchase of educational materials and
supplies to compliment the lessons of teaching fire safety and disaster
preparedness to children located in Golden Gate Estates.
3) Recommendation to award Contract #06-3971 Annual Contract for
General Contractors Services to the following firms: Lodge
Construction, Inc.; Professional Building Systems, d/b/a Professional
Building Systems; The Chris-Tel Company and Wm. J. Varian
Construction Co. Inc. Estimated annual amount $1,000,000.
4) Recommendation to establish an informal program for the recognition
of "above and beyond" performance of Collier County employees.
5) Recommendation to approve a change to work order #UC-131 under
contract #04-3535, Annual Contract for Underground Construction,
with D. N. Higgins, Inc. to provide additional services for the Collier
County Government Force Main Addition, Project 52005, in the
amount of $45,918.49.
6) Recommendation to approve the award of Bid No. 06-3993 to
Commercial Land Maintenance for "Grounds Maintenance for Collier
County Government Facilities" in the amount of$502,8l2.
Page 17
September 12, 2006
7) Recommendation to approve the award of Bid No. 06-3956R for the
purchase of Hardware and Related Items to Sunshine Ace Hardware,
Inc. and Grainger.
8) Recommendation to approve and execute the attached First
Amendment to Lease Agreement with Nextel South Corp., for ground
space required in order to install an emergency generator to service
communications equipment on the roof of Building L.
9) Requesting BCC approval for staff to utilize State Contract and GSA
Pricing to purchase technology hardware, software and services.
10) Report and Ratify Staff-Approved Change Orders and Changes to
Work Orders to Board-Approved Contracts.
11) Recommendation to approve submittal of grant applications to the
Florida Department of Community Affairs for the Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program (HMGP), totaling a request of$457,675.
12) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving the 2007 Fiscal
Year Pay and Classification Plan, providing for a general wage
adjustment and merit increase effective on September 16, 2006.
13) Recommendation to award Contract #06-3987 Fixed Term
Professional CEI Services to the following firms: AIM Engineering &
Surveying, Inc.; CH2M Hill, Inc.; MACTEC Engineering and
Consulting, Inc.; Construction Dynamics Group, Inc., an ARCADIS
Company; Boyle Engineering Corporation, and Post, Buckley, Schuh
and Jernigan, Inc.(PBS&J).
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) 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."
Page 18
September 12, 2006
2) Recommendation to approve the after-the-fact submittal of a
Volunteer Fire Assistance grant application to the Florida Division of
Forestry for required wildfire protective clothing.
3) Recommendation to approve a three (3) year renewal of a Technical
Service Support Agreement with Medtronic Emergency Response
Systems, Inc. for the period October I, 2006 through September 30,
2009 for the maintenance and upgrade of Lifepak Monitors for the
Emergency Medical Services Department at an annual cost of
$34,683.
4) Recommendation to approve the annual five percent (5%) increase in
Consultant Fees for the Medical Director of Emergency Medical
Services as described in the Emergency Medical Services Medical
Consultant Contract for a total of$95,700 for FY 07.
5) Recommendation to approve and execute an Amendment to License
Agreements extending the allowable period of use ofWal-Mart's four
Naples stores' parking lots to include the 2006 hurricane season. The
lots are used for distribution of disaster relief supplies to the public.
6) Approve award ofRFP #06-3978R Beach Maintenance Activities to
Lightner Contracting, Inc. for an estimated amount of $197,000 per
year on a unit price/time and material as-needed basis.
7) Recommendation to approve a Tourist Development Category A FY
06-07 Tourism Grant Applications and Agreement submitted by the
City of Naples for Category A City of Naples Projects in the amount
of$15l,200.00. Approval of this item will be contingent on final
adoption of the FY 06-07 budget by the BCC on September 21, 2006.
8) Recommendation to approve a Resolution to update user fees for
Collier County ambulance services, which Resolution supersedes and
replaces Resolution No. 2005-224, resulting in revenues of
approximately $12,397,532 in FY 07.
9) Recommendation for approval of a Budget Amendment to fund the
purchase of vehicle for Emergency Management and equipment in the
amount of $45,300.00.
Page 19
September 12,2006
10) Approve Budget Amendments.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) To approve and execute Site Improvement Grant Agreement between
the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency and a grant
applicant within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community
Redevelopment area.
2) Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
approve four Local Advisory Board members and CRA staff
attendance at Florida Redevelopment Association 2006 Annual
Conference; authorize payment of attendees registration, lodging,
travel and per diem from the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Trust Fund
(Fund 187) travel budget; and declare the training received as serving
a valid public purpose
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Coletta requests approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner
paid in advance to attend the ULI Southwest Florida District Council's
Public/Private Partnerships Conference on September 14, 2006 and is
requesting reimbursement in the amount of $20.00 to be paid from his
travel budget.
2) Commissioner Halas requests Board approval for reimbursement to
attend a function serving a valid public purpose. Attending the
Southwest Florida Blue Chip Recognition Breakfast at the Hilton
Naples & Towers on November 2,2006. $10.00 fee to be paid from
Commissioner Halas' travel budget and required to be submitted prior
to the end of FY 2006.
3) Commissioner Halas requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended a
commemoration ceremony on the 5th anniversary of 9/11 at the
Naples Italian American Club on September 11,2006; $5.00 to be
paid from Commissioner Halas' travel budget.
Page 20
September 12, 2006
4) Commissioner Halas requests Board approval for reimbursement to
attend a function serving a valid public purpose. Attending the Florida
Sea Grant reception on September 14, 2006 at the Rookery Bay
National Estuarine Research Reserve Environmental Learning Center;
$10.00 to be paid from Commissioner Halas' travel budget.
5) Commissioner Halas requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attendance at a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended a
reception, hosted by Waste Management, at the Florida Association of
Counties (F AC) 77th Annual Conference and Educational Exposition
in Marco Island; $17.00 to be paid from Commissioner Halas' travel
budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Recommend that the Board Authorize the Extension of the Tax Roll
Before Completion of the Value Adjustment Board Hearings Pursuant
to Section 197.373, F.S., and Tax Collectors Request.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to Approve an Agreed Order for Payment of Expert
Fees in Connection with Parcel 103 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier
County v. Susan C. Hallock, et al. Case No. 05-0646-CA (County
Road 951 Project #65061). (Fiscal Impact: $7,596.55)
2) Recommendation to Approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the
Amount of$89,359.00 for the Acquisition of Parcels 105 and 705 in
the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v. Raymond A. McCauley, et aI.,
Case No. 05-0633-CA (County Road 951 (CR 951) Project #65061).
(Fiscal Impact: $63,583.00)
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners Approve a
Mediated Settlement Agreement and a Stipulated Final Judgment to
be Drafted Incorporating the Same Terms and Conditions as the
Page 21
September 12, 2006
Mediated Settlement Agreement Relative to the Acquisition of Parcels
110 and 710 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v. Salvatore
Villanueva, Jr., et aI., Case No. 05-1 OOO-CA (County Road 951 (CR
951) Project #65061). (Fiscal Impact: $46,024.50)
4) Recommendation to Approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the
Amount of$55,000.00 for the Acquisition of Parcels 111 and 711 in
the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v. Raymond A. McCauley, et aI.,
Case No. 05-0633-CA (County Road 951 (CR 951) Project #65061).
(Fiscal Impact: $24,439.00)
5) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment for Parcel
No. lOT in the lawsuit styled BCC v. A.L. Petroleum, Inc., et aI., Case
No. 06-0 185-CA (CR 951 Water Transmission Mains Project No.
70151). (Fiscal Impact $750.00)
6) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment for Parcel
No. 801 in the lawsuit styled CC v. James M. Brown, et aI., Case No.
06-0525-CA (Santa Barbara Boulevard Project No. 62081). (Fiscal
Impact $9,789.00)
7) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment for Parcel
No. 131 in the lawsuit styled CC v. West Coast Development
Corporation of Naples, Inc., et aI., Case No. 06-0708-CA (Santa
Barbara Boulevard Project No. 62081). (Fiscal Impact $208,520.99)
8) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment for Parcel
No. 132 in the lawsuit styled CC v. West Coast Development
Corporation of Naples, Inc., et aI., Case No. 06-0708-CA (Santa
Barbara Boulevard Project No. 62081). (Fiscal Impact $225,694.40)
9) Recommendation to approve the Settlement Agreement relative to the
acquisition of Parcel 97/714 in the lawsuit entitled Collier County v.
Anthony M. DAntuono, et aI., Case No. 91-3983-CA (Naples
Production Park MSTU Project) and the physical appropriation of
other easements. (Fiscal Impact $3,800.00)
10) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt a
Resolution establishing the Collier County Special Master Review
Page 22
September 12, 2006
Board pursuant to Ordinance 2004-46, the Collier County Code
Enforcement Special Master Ordinance.
11) Recommendation to approve settlement in the lawsuit Randall
Hubbard, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Pamela S.
Hubbard, et al. v. Collier County, filed in the Twentieth Judicial
Circuit, Case No. 04-l676CA, for $100,000.
12) Recommendation to approve an Agreed Order Awarding Appraisal
Fees for Parcel 148 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Ziad
Shahla, et aI., Case No. 04-600-CA (Vanderbilt Beach Road Project
No. 63051). (Fiscal Impact $1,400.00)
13) Recommendation to approve settlement in the lawsuit entitled Maria
T. Paniccia, et aI. v. Schwab-Ready Mix, Inc., et aI., filed in the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida, Case
No. 03-3231-CA, for $200,000.00.
14) Approve formal response by the Board of County Commissioners to
the August 14, 2006 letter from the South Florida Water Management
District regarding the Lake Trafford spoil site and authorize its
execution and delivery by Chairman Halas.
15) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a
resolution approving the 2007 Fiscal Year Pay and Classification
Plan, providing for a general wage adjustment (COLA) and merit
increase for the Office of the County Attorney, effective on
September 16,2006 (the first day of the first pay period in fiscal year
2007).
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDA TION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
Page 23
September 12, 2006
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE QUASI-
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Recommendation to
approve Petition A VPLA T -2006-AR-9960 Victoria Falls to disclaim,
renounce and vacate the Countys and the Publics interest in a portion of a 12
drainage easement across Lot 1, Block C, Habitat Village as recorded in Plat
Book 37, Page 48 -51 of the Public Records Collier County, Florida.
B. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Recommendation to
approve Petition A VESMT-2006-AR-9436 Office Depot to disclaim,
renounce and vacate the Countys and the Publics interest in a ten foot wide
public utility easement lying in part of lots 11, 12, 13, 14,49,50,51 and 52,
Block 7 of Naples Park Unit 1, as recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 106 of the
Public Records Collier County, Florida; and all of that 7.5 foot wide public
utility easement lying over the east 7.5 feet of lots 11, and 52, block 7 of
Naples Park, Unit 1, as recorded in Plat Book I, Page 106 of the Public
Records Collier County, Florida.
C. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Recommendation to
approve Petition A VROW-2006-AR-9221 to disclaim, renounce and vacate
the Countys and the Publics interest in a 10 foot utility easement located on
Tracts 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28, a 15 foot drainage easement located on Tract
26, and a portion of a 60 foot right-of-way known as Tollhouse Drive Tract
A according to the plat of Tollgate Commercial Center Phase Three as
recorded at Plat Book 22 Pages 95 through 100 Public Records of Collier
County, Florida.
D. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Recommendation to
approve Petition A VESMT-2006-AR-9540 to disclaim, renounce and vacate
the Countys and the Publics interest in two right-of-way easements located
in Section 18 Township 49 South Range 26 East and as shown on the plat of
Anda1ucia as recorded at Plat Book 43 Pages 95 through 97 Public Records
of Collier County, Florida.
Page 24
September 12, 2006
E. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. SV-2006-AR-9662:
Collier Regional Medical Center, represented by Trent Eckfeld, of
Architectural Identification, Inc., requesting a variance to the maximum
allowed number of directional, ground/pole, and wall signs allowed under
Section 5.06.05 of the LDC. The subject property is located at the east side
of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Lely Cultural Parkway, in
Section 23, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
F. Recommendation to adopt resolutions approving the preliminary assessment
rolls as the final assessment rolls and adopting same as the non-ad valorem
assessment rolls for purposes of utilizing the uniform method of collection
pursuant to Section 197.3632, Florida Statutes, for Solid Waste Municipal
Service Benefit Units, Service District No. I and Service District No. II,
Special Assessment levied against certain residential properties within the
unincorporated area of Collier County pursuant to Collier County Ordinance
2005-54, as amended. Revenues are anticipated to be $15,776,100.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
Page 25
September 12, 2006
r
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
Seotember 12. 2006
Item 8B: Page 5 of 71, second to last bullet, Bayshore Boulevard should read "Bayshore Drive".
(Commissioner Fiala's request.)
Item 80: Correction - Line 7 of Page 2 of 271 change from, "The maximum height in a Business
Park or Industrial zoned district is 50 feet." to "The maximum height in a Business Park is 35 feet
and in an Industrial zoned district is 50 feet."
Also Item 80: Under "legal Consideration", 4th paragraph. "Con", line 6, change from, " . . . the
maximum building height of 75 feet exceeded the maximum height for business parks and
industrial districts of 50 feet." to, " . . . the maximum building height of 75 feet exceeded the
maximum height for business parks of 35 feet and 50 feet for industrial districts." (Staff's
request.)
Item 12C continued indefinitelv: Recommendation that the BCC give direction to the Office of the
County Attorney concerning the settlement offer required by Section 70.001 (4)(c), Fla. Stat., in
response to the purported Bert Harris Act Claim asserted by lodge Abbott Associates, llC - the
alleged owner(s) of the Cocohatchee Bay Planned Unit Development. (Request by the Claimant's
attorney.) .'
Item 16A17: For clarification: Paragraph 6 under "Considerations" ofthe executive summary
should state: "The Utilities Performance Secu'ritY (UPS), will now be returned to the developer as
he has fulfilled his obligations." (Staff's request.)
Move Item 16E9 to 10F: Requesting BCC approval for staff to utilize State Contract and GSA
Pricing to purchase technology hardware, software and services. (Commissioner Coyle's
request.)
Item 16F1: Please note on the attached sheet the correct numbering for those items approved in
the Board's absence for August 22,2006. (Staff's request.)
Item 16K9: Part 1 of Recommendation should read: Approve the proposed Settlement Agreement
contingent upon presentment of properly executed easements from Respondents and IEC
Rentals to Petitioner's attorney to be held in escrow pending performance in accordance with
agreement. (Staff's request.)
Move Item 17F to 8E: Recommendation to adopt resolutions approving the preliminary
assessment rolls as the final assessment rolls and adopting same as the non-ad valorem
assessment rolls for purposes of utilizing the uniform method of collection pursuant to Section
197.3632, Florida Statutes, for Solid Waste Municipal Service Benefit Units, Service District No.1
and Service District No. II, Special Assessment levied against certain residential properties within
the unincorporated area of Collier County pursuant to Collier County Ordinance 2005-54, as
amended. Revenues are anticipated to be $15,776,100. (Commissioner Henning's request.)
Time Certain Items
Item 8A to be heard at 1:15 p.m. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition: PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8438; Lakeview
Drive of Naples, LLC, represented by Clay Brooker of Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson & Johnson, LLP,
requesting a rezone from the Residential Multiple Family-6 (RMF-6 & RMF-6(3)) zoning districts (a
portion of which is subject to a Special Treatment Overlay (ST)) to the Residential Planned Unit
Development (RPUD) by amending the approved Windstar PUD to add the subject 20.52 acres and
its additional residential units thereby allowing a maximum of 584 residential units on 341.1
acres. The subject property is generally located on the west side of Bayshore Drive,
approximately 0.6 miles south of the Bayshore Drive and U.S. 41 (Tamiami Trail East) intersection
in Sections 11, 14 and 23 Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
Item 9G to be heard at 1 :00 p.m. Appointment of members to the East of 951 Infrastructure and
Services Horizon Study Public Participation Master Plan Committee.
Item 12B to be heard at 11 :00 a.m. Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment as
to Parcels 103A, 103B, 103C, 1030, 103E and 703 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v. Cullen Z.
Walker, et at, Case No. 05-0728-CA (Logan Blvd. Project No. 60166). (Fiscal Impact: $3,523,600).
(Craig Willis, Esq. Presenting).
September 12-13,2006
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
The Board of County Commissioners for Collier County is now
in session. I ask that anyone that has a cell phone or a pager, if you
could please at this time turn it off, and we'll rise for the invocation
and also the Pledge of Allegiance.
MR. MUDD: Let us pray.
Oh, Heavenly Father, five years ago and a day, we were
assembled in this board room and we watched the horrific acts of 9/11
unfold, as we couldn't concentrate on the agenda and we had to break
for around an hour.
I still remember where I was, and I still remember how
awe-struck in a very, very negative way that I was.
Please, Lord, as we commemorate this fifth year, let us never
forget the sacrifices of those Americans on that day and those
Americans that have given their lives over the last five years to protect
our freedoms.
We also ask your blessings on these proceedings and all who are
gathered here. We ask a special blessing on this Board of County
Commissioners, guide them in their deliberations, grant them the
wisdom and the vision to meet the trials of this day and the days to
come.
Bless us now as we undertake the business of Collier County and
its citizens, that our actions will serve the greater good of all citizens
and be acceptable in your sight. Your will be gone done, amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Halas, before we go
anything further, may I make a little announcement?
Just to -- an apology to my fellow commissioners and to the
county manager. I must leave at five to 10. At 10 o'clock we have a
canvassing board meeting, and by law, I must be there. I hope to be
back in 20 minutes. Thank you.
Page 2
September 12-13,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. Sue --
MS. FILSON: Commissioner Henning, are you there?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, I am.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, great. He's with us on the phone.
Good morning, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: At this time, we'll have the county
manager give us a briefing in regards to changes that are on today's
agenda.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Agenda changes Board of County
Commissioners' meeting September 12th, 2006.
Item #2A
REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA-
APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
Item 8B. On page 5 of71, second to the last bullet, it says
Bayshore Boulevard. It should read Bayshore Drive, and that
correction is at Commissioner Fiala's request.
The next item is item 8D. There's a correction. On line 7 of page
2 of 271 pages on the change form, the maximum height in a business
park or industrial zoned district is 50 feet, and it should be changed to,
the maximum height of a business park is 35 feet and in an industrial
zoned district it's 50 feet.
Also on item 8D under legal considerations, the fourth paragraph,
under con. Line 6, it should be changed from the maximum building
height of 75 feet exceeded the maximum height of business parks and
industrial districts of 50 feet, and it should be changed to the
maximum building height of 75 feet exceeded the maximum height
for a business park, which is 35 feet, and 50 feet for an industrial
district, and that correction is at staffs request.
Page 3
September 12-13,2006
The next item is item 12C, and it's continued indefinitely. That
was a recommendation that the BCC give direction to the office of the
county attorney concerning the settlement offer required by section
70.001(4)(C) of the Florida statutes and respond to the purported Bert
Harris claim -- Bert Harris Act claim asserted by Lodge Abbott
Associates, LLC, the alleged owners of the Cocohatchee Bay Planned
Unit Development. That request to be continued was of the claimant's
attorneys.
Item 16A 1 7, for clarification, paragraph 6 under considerations
of the executive summary should state, the utilities performance
security, UPS, will now be returned to the developer, as he has
fulfilled his obligations. And that correction is at staffs request.
The next is to move item 19E9 to 1 OF. Requesting BCC approval
for staff to utilize state contract and GSA pricing to purchase
technology hardware, software and services. That item move is at
Commissioner Coyle's request.
Next item is item 16F 1. Please note on the attached sheet the
corrected numbering of those items approved in the board's absence
for August 22,2006. And again, on the third page of this change sheet
is a new index that's been numbered as the -- as the executive
summaries appear behind it.
The next item is item 16K9. Part one of the recommendation
should read, approve the proposed settlement agreement contingent
upon presentment of properly executed easements from respondents
and IEC Rentals the petitioner's attorney to be held in escrow pending
performance in accordance with agreement that, and that correction is
at staff's request. .
The next item is to move 17F to 8E, and that's a recommendation
to adopt resolutions approving the preliminary assessment rolls as the
final assessment rolls and adopting same as the non-ad valorem
assessment rolls for purposes of utilizing the uniform method of
collection pursuant to section 197.3632 of the Florida statutes for solid
Page 4
September 12-13,2006
waste municipal service benefit units, service district number 1 and
service district number 2, special assessments levied against certain
residential properties within the unincorporated area of Collier County
pursuant to Collier County ordinance 2005-54 as amended. Revenues
are anticipated to be $15,776,100, and that move was at Commissioner
Henning's request.
We have a number of time certain items here today. The first is
item 8A, and that will be heard at 1: 15 p.m. That item requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
commissioner members. It's petition PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8438,
Lakeview Drive of Naples, LLC, represented by Clay Brooker,
Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson and Johnson, LLP, requesting a rezone
from the residential multiple-family dash 6, RMF-6, RMF-6(3)
residential district, a portion of which is subj ect to a special treatment
overlay, to the residential planned unit development, RPUD, by
amending the approved Windstar PUD to add the subject 20.52 acres
and its additional residential units thereby allowing a maximum of 584
residential units on 341.1 acres.
The subject property is generally located on the west side of
Bayshore Drive approximately .6 miles south of Bayshore Drive on
U.S. 41, which is Tamiami Trail East, and it's an intersection in
section 11, 14 and 23, Township 50 south, Range 25 east, Collier
County, Florida.
The next time certain item is item 9G to be heard at 1 :00 p.m.,
and it's appointment of members of the East of 951 Infrastructure and
Services Horizon Study Public Participation Master Plan Committee.
And the last time certain item is item lOB (sic) and that's to be heard
at 11 a.m. this morning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that lOB or 12B?
MR. MUDD: I'm sorry, ma'am, 12B. Item 12B to be heard at 11
a.m. That's a recommendation to approve a stipulated final judgment
as to parcels 103A, 103B, 103C, 103D, 103E and 703 in the lawsuit
Page 5
September 12-13, 2006
styled Collier County versus Cullen Z. Walker, E- T, case number
05-0728-CA, and it's Logan Boulevard, project 60166. The fiscal
impact is $3,523,600, and Craig Willis, Esquire, will be presenting.
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much. At this
time I'll ask the Board of County Commissioners in regards to __
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. I'd like to put a word in as well in
regard to the agenda and the proceeding this morning, if I may.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure, please do.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, Jim Mudd has certainly covered the
agenda with the changes very well. With Mr. Henning participating by
telephone, by opinion of the attorney general, it is necessary for our
Board of County Commissioners to consider to make a motion, a
second, and adopt a statement indicating that it is an extraordinary
circumstance that prevents him from being here so that he may
participate by telephone.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to make that motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coletta and a second by Commissioner Fiala that
we're going to acknowledge the fact that Commissioner Henning is
calling in by phone and that he will be part of the group here this
morning on the dais.
MR. WEIGEL: And the motion also by Mr. Coletta indicates
there's an extraordinary circumstance requiring this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's -- my motion includes
that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Your second includes that?
Page 6
September 12-13,2006
Okay. At this time, any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify
by sigh aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries unanimously.
MR. WEIGEL: You're ready to go. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much, County
Attorney. Appreciate it very much.
At this time we're going to ask each of the commissioners -- to
ask if they have some concerns on the consent agenda and also to give
ex parte on the summary agenda, and we'll start at this time by -- with
Commissioner Henning, who is at home.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I have no further
concerns or additions or corrections to the consent agenda, and I have
no ex parte on today's summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. County Manager, can you turn
the volume up here on the dais here? I don't think we have anything
up here on the monitors.
Thank you very much, Commissioner Henning.
And we'll go to Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Thank you. I have nothing to
add or change on the consent agenda.
On the summary agenda, 1 7 A, which is the habitat village,
Victoria Falls, I've had meetings and emails.
Page 7
September 12-13, 2006
On subject B, which is Naples Park, meetings. Number C, that's
Tollhouse Drive, I have nothing to disclose. D, nothing to disclose,
and E, nothing to disclose.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, thank you very much.
At this time as far as my ex parte, I have nothing to bring off of
the consent agenda.
On the summary agenda, I received -- meetings, had
correspondence and also emails and phone calls in regards to item B,
which is the Office Depot. Item number C on the summary agenda,
I've had correspondence and emails, and that's in regards to the
10-foot easement, on the Tollgate Commercial Center. Item D on the
summary agenda, I've had nothing, and also, on item E of the
summary.
And all of my ex parte is located here -- up here if anybody
would like to look at it.
And at this time, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you sir. On the
consent agenda, while I have nothing to pull, I'd like to bring your
attention to item 16F5, which is a good-news items, a license
agreement to use Wal *Mart's four lots for distribution in case of a
hurricane. I think that we should direct the county manager to make
sure a news release is put out recognizing the efforts of Wal *Mart and
our staff putting together this particular deal. There was no money
involved. They did it out of their own -- goodness of their heart and
for the community, the betterment of the community.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'd like to chime in and say that if the
board member approves, the board here, that I would send a thank you
letter to the Wal * Mart corporation in regards to addressing this in case
we need the parking lot for an emergency.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would -- put my name down
on there as being one to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You've got another vote.
Page 8
September 12-13,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And as far as the -- I'm sorry. I
didn't mean to --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, that's good.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: As far as the summary agenda, I
have nothing to declare.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the
agenda I have no further changes.
And on the summary agenda, I have ex parte disclosure only for
17B. I have had meetings and I have received emails concerning this
subject and they're contained in my public records file.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. At this time I'll entertain a motion
for approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as
amended.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor
for the approval by Commissioner Coyle and a second by
Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none. All those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign.
Commissioner Henning, are you there with us, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, I am. That was an aye,
Page 9
September 12-13,2006
affirmative.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much, sir.
Page 10
September 12-13, 2006
Item #2B and #2C
MINUTES FROM THE JULY 25, 2006 BCC REGULAR MEETING
AND MINUTES FROM THE JULY 26, 2006 BCC/V ALUE
ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEETING - APPROVED AS
PRESENTED
At this time I entertain a motion for the approval of the July 25,
2006, BCC regular meeting; July 26, 2006, BCC Value Adjustment
Board meeting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion made by
Commissioner Fiala, 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 #3
SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD
MEMBERS)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I believe that takes us to item
number 3, special awards. County Manager?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And we have -- and we have two
five-year special awards for your advisory board members. And do
Page 11
September 12-13,2006
you want to do it from up there or do you want -- you can do it -- you
can do it from up there.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We can do it from up here.
MR. MUDD: Okay. And the first -- and the first awardee is
John Domenie, and he has served five year on your Pelican Bay
Services Division Board. Mr. Domenie, can you please come
forward.
(Applause.)
MR. DOMENIE: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. Would you like
to say a few words, John?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for all your service.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If you'd like you could say a few words.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Congratulations. Thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We need to get a picture.
MR. DOMENIE: Thank you. I was asked to say a few words,
but I'd just like to thank you for the cooperation that we've had in
Pelican Bay from all the commissioners with any problems which we
may have had. And I invite you to look at the mangroves where we
have recuperated 45 acres of mangroves, and new mangroves are
sprouting up all along the berm now. Thank you very much for your
help. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Your next awardee is Mr. James Burke and he has
also served five years on your Pelican Bay Services Division Board.
Mr. Burke?
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't know about the mangroves.
Page 12
September 12-13, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank for your five years of
servIce.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you for being here.
MR. BURKE: I'm -- I fully support what John said, and I want to
add that the cooperation we have received from this board, your board,
has been excellent. I thank you, and we appreciate it.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that completes our service awards
for today.
That moves to us proclamations, paragraph 4 on your agenda.
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING SEPTEMBER 18-22,2006 AS
INDUSTRY APPRECIATION WEEK AND URGING ALL
RESIDENTS TO SALUTE OUR INDUSTRIES AND THEIR
EMPLOYEES FOR THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO THE
COMMUNITY - ADOPTED
The first proclamation is 4A. It's a proclamation recognizing
September 18th through 22nd, 2006, as Industry Appreciation Week,
and urging all residents to salute our industries and their employees
for their contribution to the community.
The proclamation to be accepted by Beth Skotzke, EDC events
and communications manager; Tammie Nemecek, EDC President; and
Dick Grant, incoming EDC Chairman of the Board.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Would you all come up to the front here
for acceptance of this proclamation.
It gives me great honor to read this proclamation in regards to
how well we're trying to work at diversifying the economy here in
Collier County.
Whereas, the industry in Collier County is vital to the community
Page 13
September 12-13, 2006
economic health; and,
Whereas, the Collier County existing industries are the key to a
prosperous future; and,
Whereas, Collier County's industries help sustain our quality of
life, exemplifying high standards of excellence and a positive
responsible approach to economic diversification and community
enhancement; and,
Whereas, public knowledge of this contribution made by industry
is essential to maintain -- to the maintenance of good community
industry relationship.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that September 18th
through the 22nd, 2006, be designated as Industry Appreciation Week,
and urge all residents to salute our industries and their employees for
their contribution to our economy.
Done and ordered this 12th day of September, 2006, the Board of
Collier County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, Frank
Halas, the Chair.
And I move that we vote on -- vote positively on this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. All those -- any discussion?
(N 0 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: Thank you very much, and it's a
pleasure.
(Applause.)
Page 14
September 12-13, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Wait here and we'd like to get a picture.
Do you want to say a few words?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Grant, it's good to see you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Did you want to say a few words,
Tammie?
MR. GRANT: I've been elected. Thank you for recognizing the
importance that business and industry bear on the quality of life in our
community and our economy. It's an important thing to all of us, and
we thank you for recognizing it.
I would like to say that this is the 30th year of the Economic
Development Council being in existence in Collier County. That's not
an insignificant accomplishment. There aren't too many things that
have been around 30 years in Collier County.
It is also the 10th year of the public/private partnership between
the Board of County Commissioners and the EDC. We commend you
for doing that and working with us and for continuing it. It's been a
good relationship, and it's important to our community that we keep
doing it.
So thank you very much, and we appreciated it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE COLLIER COUNTY
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT AND ITS STAFF
FOR THEIR DEDICATION AND COMMENDABLE SERVICE ON
BEHALF OF THE COUNTY'S CHILDREN AND FAMILIES-
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, the next proclamation is 4B. It's a
Page 15
September 12-13, 2006
proclamation recognizing the Collier County Parks and Recreation
Department and its staff for their dedication and commendable service
on behalf of the county's children and families.
Mr. Barry Williams, the Director of the Collier County Parks and
Recreation Department will accept this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And it's my honor to read this
proclamation. Please, all come up. Let's not be bashful.
Commissioner Halas does not bite.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Contrary to popular opinion, right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But watch Commissioner Coyle.
Good morning.
Whereas, thousands of working parents in Collier County rely on
child care providers during the summer when students are on break
from school; and,
Whereas, the Collier County Parks and Recreation Department
provides summer camp for children ages five to 18; and,
Whereas, Collier County hosts children at 15 different summer
camps locally; and,
Whereas, this year the Collier County Parks and Recreation
Department provided fun, learning opportunities for 2,727 children;
and,
Whereas, the county's nine-week long full-time summer camp
called Camp Collier followed the theme around the world and taught
children about life on different continents; and,
Whereas, Collier County Parks and Recreation Department
provided summer fun activities for children in additional specialty
camps, including sailing, skiing, sports, no school fun camp, and many
others; and,
Whereas, Collier County Parks and Recreation Department hired
115 counselors to accommodate the department's summer camp and
60 food workers to provide the annual free summer food program for
children in Collier County.
Page 16
September 12-13, 2006
And, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the Collier County
Parks and Recreation Department and its staff are recognized for their
dedication and commemorable service on behalf of the county's
children and families.
Done and ordered this, the 12th day of September, 2006, and
signed, Frank Halas, Chairman.
And I make a motion for approval.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Second.
Okay. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries unanimously. Thank you
very much.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Congratulations. Thank you very
much.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I really appreciate what you did.
You make Collier County a very special place.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Was it fun?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You look like one of the kids in
summer camp.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Williams, did you want to
make some comments?
Page 1 7
September 12-13,2006
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. Thank you.
Commissioner, I just wanted to say thank you for the
proclamation. On behalf of our summer counselors for our summer
program, we had a great year.
And I wanted to point out one thing that we did, some of our
counselors did. They sent a series of letters and cards to some folks in
Iraq. And I just wanted to mention, for the record, a response that we
got from one of the soldiers in Iraq.
He said, thank you for sending us the thoughtful greetings. Your
students helped bring a bit of home to our base in Iraq. The cards
remind us of home and bring a little break in the daily routine.
We thank you and your students for your patriotic spirit and
support.
That was Staff Sergeant Jeremy Judmin (phonetic). And like I
say, thank you for the proclamation, and we thank you for supporting
our summer programs. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that finishes proclamations, and it
moves us to paragraph 5, presentations.
Item #5A
PRESENTATION OF AN AWARD BY THE FLORIDA
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES TO REPRESENTATIVE MIKE
DAVIS - PRESENTED
And the first presentation is an award by the Florida Association
of Counties to Representative Mike Davis.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Please go ahead, Palmer. Identify
yourself.
MR. MASON: All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Palmer
Mason, Florida Association of Counties. Again, thank you, Mr.
Page 18
September 12-13, 2006
Chairman and Commissioners.
It's a privilege to be here. I get the chance to advocate on behalf
of this county and 67 others up in Tallahassee, and I also get the
opportunity, obviously, to work with a great deal of legislators.
And I want to tell you that your Mike Davis, Representative
Mike Davis, stands out, and we want to recognize him for his
contributions to local government.
From the day that Mike Davis got to Tallahassee, he's been
looking out for local governments, particularly county government.
I think Representative David, you got the Freshman of the Year
Award from the Association of Counties his first year, and he really
hasn't slowed down since.
I think you all are well aware of some of his signature issues like
affordable housing, a big issue in this community, and now a big issue
all throughout the state. And Representative Davis continues to work
very hard on that issue.
He passed a very important bill this year on affordable housing.
He convinced the Speaker of the House this summer that the issue was
important enough, and there was still work to do, that he had the
speaker create a select committee on affordable housing that's meeting
next week, and they're continuing to work on that issue. So he's really
put his stamp on that one.
Re also worked a great deal with the association on --
Association of Counties on another issue that was important to us.
There is a redevelopment tool out there called community
redevelopment agencies. It's been a very successful tool, but the way
the law was written is, it's very unfair to counties in terms of ad
valorem taxes.
So Representative Davis brought us and the League of Cities
together and worked through that issue. I'm sure it was a painful
experience, he'll tell you, but we were able to come up with a
collaborative piece of legislation that really will help us in the future
Page 19
September 12-13, 2006
and will be very important to a number of counties.
And I could go on and on about the things that Representative
Davis does, but we felt like it was important to recognize him for his
service. So this year we want to award him a 2006 County Partner
Award. This is for somebody who has consistently worked on behalf
of county government throughout Florida. And thank you,
Representative Davis.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wow.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Thank you, Palmer.
(Applause.)
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Thank you. Thank you all very
much, and thank you for your hospitality in providing the opportunity
for Palmer to come down and present the award here, which is
important to me, right here in my own back yard.
As you both -- as you all know, as Palmer mentioned, affordable
housing is something that -- all those ideas came out of Collier
County, and a lot of the good work --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wonderful work.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: -- has been going on here. I've
had some in-depth conversations with some of you sitting up there on
the dais. As you know, I carried those good ideas to Tallahassee. I did
take credit for them, you might have noticed. That's the way it works
though --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Gets it done.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: -- as you -- as you all know, too.
And I look forward to continuing the work.
The Florida Association of Counties does a great job for you all
in Tallahassee. I know that you've all been involved with F AC in one
form or another and know that as well, and I know they'll continue to
do so. There's some top-notch people to work on -- to work with
depending upon the issue.
The CRA issue was one that I talked a lot with your county
Page 20
September 12-13, 2006
manager about. And I do think with the bill we sponsored this year,
we've gotten counties in a much better position when it comes to those
TIF funds and some of the things that, as Palmer said, I think maybe
the county's got the short end of the stick originally, but we're working
to rectify that.
So I enj oy the work, as you know. I look forward to doing it __
continuing to do it and focusing my efforts on local government.
And with that, I don't see a pitcher up there for me to spill, so I think
we're set.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's a private joke.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: You remember that,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
(Applause.)
Item #5B
LA V AH HETZEL - EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH RECOGNIZED
FOR AUGUST - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next
presentation, which is the Employee of the Month recognition for the
August Employee of the Month, and that's Lavah Hetzel. And Lavah,
could you come forward, please.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Though you may not know the county employee,
Lavah Hetzel, you probably have seen her work. As the only graphic
designer of the county, Lavah spends most of her time working with
various departments to produce county brochures, logos and
newsletters.
Through her -- though her job technically ends once she
completes a design, Lavah often goes one step further and prints
Page 21
September 12-13, 2006
hundreds of the completed projects in-house. By doing so, Lavah has
already saved the county nearly $10,000 this year in printing and
production costs.
Often in the past, Lavah would be given a project that contained
poor quality photos for use in a brochure, and there were numerous
other examples. Instead of choosing to pay for stock photos, Lavah
decided to learn photography so that she would produce images at a
lower cost to the county while still producing a high-quality product.
Lavah has become so proficient in photography that she has had
numerous photos published in local newspapers, in the Florida
Association of Counties 2006 calendar, and the 2005 Collier County
Government Annual Report.
As a direct result of Lavah's graphic design skills, the
communications and customers relations department has been
recognized and awarded for various projects.
It is not uncommon for Lavah to serve as an instructor for other
Collier County employees when they are having difficulties
navigating their design software. She often advises employees on
which software to purchase and then volunteers to help them via the
phone or by dropping by their office for a one-on-one lesson once they
received their order.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to present to you the Employee of
the Month, Lav -- Employee of the Month for August 2006, Lavah
Hetzel.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I also have a plaque here for you. And
we appreciate all your service. And, of course, most importantly,
here's a little extra for you. Thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Really appreciate
it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Lots of good work.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We'll have to take a picture.
Page 22
September 12-13,2006
MR. MUDD: It's you're time to get a picture.
MS. FILSON: Hold your plaque up.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'd just like to say it's great to give out
awards like this. This ought to let people know that we have some
very, very dedicated employees that work for Collier County, and they
go a lot of times above and beyond the call of duty, and we really
appreciate all their efforts. Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
Item #5C
RECOGNIZED STEVE MESSNER, NORTH COUNTY
REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT MANAGER, AS THE
2006 DOCTOR ROBERT O. VERNON AWARD WINNER FROM
THE AMERICAN MEMBRANE TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION _
PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: The next presentation is to recognize Steve
Messner, the North County Regional Water Treatment Plant Manager
as the 2006 Dr. Robert O. Vernon Award winner from the American
Membrane Technology Association.
Paul, are you going to come up and --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hi, there.
MR. MUDD: Do you want to read a little bit about this, Paul,
please.
MR. MATTAUSCH: Yes, sir. For the record, Paul Mattausch,
Director of the Collier County Water Department.
We're here to recognize Mr. Messner for receiving the Dr. Robert
O. Vernon Award. Dr. Vernon was a pioneer in membrane treatment
technology, and this award was established nearly two decades ago.
This award is only given once every two years nationally to a leader in
Page 23
September 12-13,2006
membrane technology and membrane technology education.
Steve is on the board of directors of a Southeastern Desalting
Association, which is an association part of the American Membrane
Technology Association.
Steve is also the acting editor, or I should say the editor, of the
SDA, or Southeastern Desalting Association newsletter.
Steve accepted this award at the American Membrane Technology
Association biannual conference last month in Anaheim, California, in
front of over 500 of his peers, and not to mention nine of his family
members.
This is -- this is a very significant award in the field of water
supply.
And Steve, on behalf of the Collier County water department and
Collier County Public utility division and Collier County government,
you have our sincere thanks and appreciation and recognition of this
award.
Congratulations, Steve.
MR. MESSNER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. I'd like to -- I'd like to read
what it says on this plaque before I present this to Steve.
This is the American Membrane Technology Association 2006
Robert O. Vernon Award awarded to Steve Messner, Collier County
Utilities, in recognition of his outstanding accomplishments in plant
operation and conclusion to the membrane and desaltization industry.
The date is July 31, 2006, 2006 Biannual Conference and Exposition
at Anaheim, California.
Steve, congratulations.
MR. MESSNER: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's really impressive. Thank you
so much.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Steve, it's wonderful to have
people like you in Collier County government.
Page 24
September 12-13,2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much.
MR. MESSNER: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Picture time.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Picture time.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that finishes our presentations and
moves us to public petitions, paragraph 6.
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY ROSE AND LESZEK
ADAMUSIK TO DISCUSS A LEFT HAND TURN LANE ON 33RD
A VENUE NE COMING NORTH ON IMMOKALEE ROAD -
DISCUSSED
Your first public petition -- and we had a phone call around nine
o'clock that said a couple of our public petitioners weren't here and
they were on their way. And I'm going to call them out, and if they're
here, fine. And then the people that aren't here, I'll go back at the end
and see if they've come in since that time.
The first is 6A. It's a public petition request by Rose and Leszek
Adamusik to discuss a left-hand turn on 33rd Avenue Northeast
coming north on Immokalee Road. Is Rose and Les Adamusik here,
please? Come forward.
MS. ADAMUSIK: Yep.
MR. MUDD: Come forward.
MS. ADAMUSIK: I would like to ask to postpone because our
spoke --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Could you go up to the mike, ma'am.
MS. ADAMUSIK: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. That way we can get it on public
record. And please identify yourself, ma'am.
Page 25
September 12-13,2006
MS. ADAMUSIK: Hi. I'm Rose Adamusik, and I would like to
postpone this till probably about 11 o'clock because our spokesperson
isn't able to attend. Would you be able to do that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I, sir? I hope we can make
a special exception this time. I would appreciate it so much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think that we have a time certain at 11
o'clock.
MR. MUDD: Yes, we do, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So that's one of the conflicts, unless we
can fit it in after the 11 o'clock, okay?
MS. ADAMUSIK: That would be fine, yes. I will give our
spokesperson a call and see if he'll make it here after 11. That would
be great. I do appreciate it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY ELLEN NEIL TO DISCUSS
V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD EXTENSION - DISCUSSED
MR. MUDD: The next public petition is a public petition request
by Ellen Neil to discuss the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension.
MS. NEIL: Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members
of the board. I'm an attorney representing some property owners on
the southern side of the proposed Vanderbilt Beach Road extension,
and these are some homeowners who have consistently been opposed
to the building of this road. They've been a part of a stop-the-road
group. Their names are Chris and Rick McAleer, Debbie and Scott
Ritter, George Grasuski (phonetic) and Rita Caskey.
But now in light of the decision that the board has made to go
forward with the road, they've gone back and reevaluated their
position and looked at the alternatives for the proposed road extension
Page 26
September 12-13, 2006
in their area and, therefore, they filed a petition asking the
commissioners to consider the adoption of the alternate route BCB in
their area, which would be the southern route between approximately
17th Street and 11 th Street, and the reasons are twofold.
One, looking at it, they realize the cost of construction to the
county if the road goes to the north in this area is going to be
approximately $3 and a half million greater than if you go to the
south, and that's because there are two wells that would have to be
removed if you take the northern route in this area.
And also, because -- regardless of which way the road goes, the
location is going to be so changed that it won't be the neighborhood
that they built their homes in to begin with, and they would just as
soon leave.
They're by no means volunteers. They're just recognizing the
inevitable. And they're not in a position to donate their property but
they do believe that this is the better alternative, and they wanted to be
on the record to let you know that, provided they're treated the same as
any other owner and paid constitutional compensation, they would not
object to the adoption of route BCB.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
Do you have any comments from our transportation director in
regards to what was brought up in front of us?
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, none specifically. When we were
approached previously we noted that any change to the alignment
approved by this board would have to come to this board under public
petition.
We are not advocating that. We were requested by this board to
look at an alignment that minimized any conflicts or impacts to
property owners.
We believe we've presented that to you and you've already
approved that alignment, and we are now in the process of moving
Page 27
September 12-13, 2006
forward on design since we did a worst-case of a 200- foot corridor and
seeing if we can restrict down the width of that corridor as well. So
we're continuing based on your prior direction and, of course, will take
any direction provided by the board.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much, Norm.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I have received a
letter from the -- Franklin and -- I'm sorry. What'd I do with it? Right
here -- Franklin and Kathy Adams, who are neighbors to this property,
and I think this would be an indication of what we could expect.
Mr. Adams is pretty much in the know as far as what's coming up
on the agenda, so he's out in the forefront. I'm sure if more people
thought we might even consider it, you'd probably have a new
backlash with the fact that now you'd be imposing the road on a whole
new group of people. So that does raise a problem, and that's
something in our future deliberations we always have to keep in mind.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
Any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
Item #6C
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY TY VIGIL TO DISCUSS
IMMOKALEE ROAD EXPANSION - MOTION FOR STAFF TO
WORK ON ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS REGARDING THE
IMMOKALEE ROAD EXPANSION - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next public
petition, and that's 6C, and it's a public petition request by Ty Vigil to
discuss the Immokalee Road expansion. Mr. Vigil?
Page 28
September 12-13, 2006
(No response.)
MR. MUDD: Okay. And I think maybe Mr. Vigil was that
spokesperson that Ms. Adamusik talked about earlier. So we'll
assume that that's after 11 a.m. also.
Item #6D
PUBLIC PETTITON REQUEST BY JAMES SWIGERT TO
DISCUSS DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF IMMOKALEE
ROAD - DISCUSSED AND STAFF TO WORK WITH
HOMEOWNER - APPROVED
The next public petition is a request by James Swigert to discuss
design and construction of Immokalee Road.
MR. SWIGERT: Good morning. My name is James L. Swigert,
and I live at 11680 Immokalee Road. Been a resident there for nearly
20 years and a resident of Collier County for -- since 1968.
I'm here today to request some relief that has resulted in the
flooding of my area, my entrance area to my home as a result of
construction of Immokalee Road.
If you look at the handout, it's my primitive attempt that a cross
section of Immokalee Road which is -- about 14 foot of it is the
walkway and about 26 feet of it is a concrete apron, all of which was
constructed as part of the Immokalee Road expansion. The 12 acres --
or the 12 feet is the loose rock, and the rest of it is self-explanatory.
Item number two is looking down the concrete apron, which is
the 12 feet, and you can see a little bit of the slope and a little bit of a
problem that has resulted from the runoff of that apron. It floods my
area where my gate is so anytime I need to go in and out of my
driveway, I'm basically walking through water to open or close my
gate.
Three shows you a little bit of where the section of the loose rock
Page 29
September 12-13, 2006
is. The drop-off there, you can see, has caused some problems going
in and out with vehicles, wear and tear, and damaged my vehicle.
Item number five is looking from the driveway to the north into
Immokalee Road. You can see this is taken in pretty much a dry
period when there's not too much water there. And, of course, now I
really do have a small lake. And looking up towards the concrete
apron and the new construction of Immokalee Road.
This has really resulted because Immokalee Road now is so much
higher in elevation than what it originally was. When I came out my
driveway prior to the construction, there was a simple shot right out
onto the road. N ow my car is at an incline going out and, of course,
this has caused the runoff.
And I think that the solution is fairly easy. We need another
concrete apron, approximately 12 feet more, to run to the end of that
slope, and a graded drain in there that will shoot the water back into
the existing culvert.
I think the bottom line is that, as I understand it, a neighbor
cannot alter his property to the point where it adversely affects the
other neighbor. In this case, Collier's the neighbor and it's my
property that's been adversely affected.
And I appreciate your time and consideration in this matter. And
if you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer them.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Actually, I've got some
questions. Don't go away, sir. But I'd like to ask staff a couple
questions, if I may.
Jay, are you representing the county?
MR. AHMAD: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Jay
Ahmad. I'm with the Transportation Department. I'm the Director of
Transportation Engineering and Construction Management.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much. Some
questions I have on this because we've had quite a few reports, and
Page 30
September 12-13, 2006
you've been very diligent in reporting this as progress went forward,
and I appreciate the detail of your reports, and that's why I suggested
you come before the commission, because I, by myself, can never
direct staff. But if there's something that can be done that we are at
fault, I'm sure this commission would do the right thing.
However, with that said, let's go with the apron that's existing
now, that goes to the end of the right-of-way, is that what it is?
MR. AHMAD: Commissioner, it goes to the street to--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I mean, I know that, but it starts
at the end of our right-of-way to the road.
MR. AHMAD: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And now, does it slope
towards the property or towards the road? Can you explain how that
works for drainage purposes?
MR. AHMAD: Yeah. If I may explain, I don't know if the
visualizer is working now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Working fine.
MR. AHMAD: Commissioner, what you're looking at is looking
down at Mr. Swigert's?
MR. SWIGERT: Yes.
MR. AHMAD: Apologize if I mispronounce it.
MR. SWIGERT: Correct.
MR. AHMAD: This photo is taken recently after the rains. And
what Mr. Swigert's property has is essentially a lot of cypress trees,
and it does flood, as you can see from this photo. We -- and it is -- our
-- the apron does slope toward Mr. Swigert's property.
I'll have another photo --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Well, that's part of the
answer I'm looking for, but let's talk about that for a minute. And I
don't know what the norm is considered. But if the apron slopes
towards his property, what provisions are made at that point to be able
to redirect the flow off the apron and back into the drainage ditch?
Page 3 1
September 12-13, 2006
MR. AHMAD: I'll lead with the next one.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good. I think I'm asking the
right questions, huh?
MR. AHMAD: What we have along Immokalee Road is a
drainage swale that takes care of the water for -- for Immokalee Road
drainage, and there's a culvert under that swale --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right.
MR. AHMAD: -- under that driveway. So what water Mr.
Swigert gets is from essentially the length of his apron. That's all the
water from -- that he gets from the street, just as any other driveway
would. None of Immokalee Road drainage drains toward Mr.
Swigert's property other than the apron size of that.
And I'll show another --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. Are you saying that the apron
-- because of the area of the apron and also the road, that the water
running down from that area is the one that puddles into his -- into the
low area of his property?
MR. AHMAD: Some water comes from the apron, but the
majority of the water is essentially drained as you saw in the first
photo I had.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I guess the question would be,
is, prior to this Immokalee Road construction, would the apron of this
type slope towards the road or would it still slope back to the
property?
MR. AHMAD: He had -- and I have a photo of the before
condition as well, so it did slope toward his property as well, but not
as steep a slope as we have now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there any simple remedy that
can be done to the end of the apron to redirect the water back to the
swale?
MR. AHMAD: As you see, the -- there is -- I mean, we could
continue down with the apron as far as you could, then basically you
Page 32
September 12-13, 2006
would be transferring that problem down further, further, further, and
more water. Now there's more impervious material.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you could -- you could set up a
drain at the end of the -- at the end of the concrete pad right at the base
before it turns to limerock where you could put in, let's call it a half
culvert with a drain -- with a metal drain on the top in order to catch
that water and push it back to the swale, yes, you can.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is that expensive, very
involved? Would it be a simple maneuver to do to try to bring some
fees to this situation?
MR. AHMAD: It isn't very expensive. It's just, there are many
driveways along that roadway and we would have to do it, if that's a
solution this commission directs us, we'd have to do it everywhere
else.
And that's not the normal construction process. Essentially that
amount of water -- just to explain to you, Immokalee Road itself has
curbing, and all that roadway drainage comes to the curbing, comes to
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right.
MR. AHMAD: -- manholes and it drains away.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It drains away, right.
MR. AHMAD: It's only the apron size. And most of these
driveways did have, as a before condition, they had a sloping down
toward their property. And what we've done, we haven't changed
much, we've just made it steeper because we lifted Immokalee Road a
little bit higher. And we paved -- as you can see from the photo, we
paved their apron for -- up to where we have our right-of-way. And in
this case we even went further with some stones to kind of help him
out.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Of course, the stones got
washed away or moved out of the way with --
MR. AHMAD: No. There's still the stones out--
Page 33
September 12-13,2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I know that, but I mean,
we do have a -- we do have a situation here that I'm not too sure what
the county's responsibility is but I do know that this is raising concern.
Are your neighbors also having the same concern, Mr. Swigert?
MR. SWIGERT: There's not that many neighbors out there on
the south side of the road in that area. I haven't seen anybody with
severe runoff that I have. My elevation is so much higher than any
other area of the Immokalee Road construction. As I said, I used to be
able to stand in my driveway and look right out on Immokalee Road.
Now it's up here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm satisfied if there's enough
information here that we should bring this back for consideration.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that motion, if that was a
motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's a motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. AHMAD: We'll do that, sir.
MR. MUDD: No. You need the direction yet from the board.
Stand back.
MR. SWIGERT: I'd like to make one other comment. As far as
flooding on my property, I've lived there for 20 years. My driveway
has never had any continuous water on it except two times; one right
now because of the severe rains we've had, and about 15 years ago.
So it's not a piece of property that is prone to flooding.
The old house that was there on the property when I moved there
has basically no fill, and nothing was required then. That was 40
years ago. One step and I'm in my house. I've never had any problems
with water. I do now at the beginning of my driveway.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I hear you, and that's why I
made the motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I think we should make that
right. I'm sorry.
Page 34
September 12-13,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Let me just make a
comment. It might solve the problem. We could give guidance to
staff to conduct a demonstration project just on this one driveway to
put in essentially a French drain at the end of the concrete driveway
and direct the water back into the culvert area, the swale, and then we
would know if that solves the problem without spending a lot of
money and without setting a precedent that we would have to repeat
with every other property owner.
My real concern here is that a lot of that water is coming from
somewhere else and putting that drain there won't solve the
gentleman's problem. That doesn't mean that it's his problem. It could
very well have been caused by the elevation of Immokalee Road
throughout area. You know, there could be drainage problems caused
somewhere else that results in this. But all I'm suggesting is, rather
than bring it back --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree. You're right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- maybe just give direction to the
staff to conduct a simple, inexpensive demonstration project, put a
drain at the end of the concrete driveway --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I withdraw my motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and then put the water back into
the swale.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think that's a good idea. We need to--
MR. SWIGERT: I'm willing to try anything, but you have to
understand that there is a hole there now that has been created from
the water, me driving through three and four times a day. So if you're
going to look at this, you really need to have that hole filled first to see
if any water then does run back into that area.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'm sure staff doesn't want
this to come back, and they'll probably, whatever, you know,
Page 35
September 12-13, 2006
reasonable way they can settle this thing, and -- well, like
Commissioner Coyle suggested, a -- what'd you call it?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Demonstration project.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Demonstration.
MR. SWIGERT: As I said, I'm willing to try anything--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I think this would be a
wonderful step, and it keeps us from going to another meeting where
we make this an hour issue. We might be able to solve it right now.
I'm not saying that the results will be satisfactory, but I think it's a
wonderful first step.
MR. SWIGERT: It's got to be an improvement.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think the other thing we need to do is
get a lidar report of your particular area of that location and see where
it stands as far as elevation also. I think that's another --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, yeah. I mean, once we--
the drain's in place, any other water that pools is coming from his
property, and that's another responsibility that falls on the petitioner.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Right. And I think we have to get some
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's a whole different issue.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- get some additional information.
MR. MUDD: Before you leave the dais and you do this
demonstration project, I need to have the petitioner give us a
construction easement, because this is his driveway. This isn't a
public road. This is his driveway we need to do work on, so I need to
have his permission, and our legal firm will come up with a form so
that you'll let us do that.
MR. SWIGERT: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. You need a motion on this?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just direction, I guess. That was
Commissioner Coyle's suggestion.
MR. MUDD: I've got three nods? Three nods.
Page 36
September 12-13, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good. Thank you very much, sir.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2006-230: URGING THE FLORIDA LEGISLATIVE
TO CALL A SPECIAL SESSION TO STUDY AND ENACT
LEGISLATION ADDRESSING THE INSURANCE CRISIS IN
FLORIDA - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 9A, and
that's a resolution urging the Florida legislature to call a special
session to study and enact legislation addressing the insurance crisis in
Florida. This item was asked to be on the agenda and a resolution
drafted at Commissioner Coletta's --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I thank you for that, Mr.
Mudd, for getting it on the agenda.
And fellow commissioners, I don't think there's a one of us that
hasn't been receiving numerous phone calls regarding the insurance
rates, especially those related to hurricane insurance.
We hear people complain about taxes, but in all reality, the
insurance rates have far exceeded taxes, and they don't offer a
homestead exemption. And it's having a tremendous effect upon the
residents of Collier County.
And this particular petition, I'm not -- or resolution, I'm not going
to read it. I'm sure you've all read it. I'm hoping that you support it
and that we'll be able to send a clear message.
By the way, I did talk to Mike Davis about this this morning, and
he supports it also. And he said the state legislative body will be
working on this issue again.
So by approving this particular resolution, we can be offering
support to our legislative delegation and move forward on it. And I
make a motion for approval.
Page 37
September 12-13, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, and I'll second that.
I'd just like to say that I think I've been one of those people that
have been hit pretty hard with insurance, especially when you get a
Dear John letter stating that you're no longer covered by your primary
insurer, and when you go out and start hunting for additional
insurance, you find out the impact that it's going to have on your
pocketbook.
And I know that the governor has called together a special
legislative session, and I believe that's probable going to take place
after the general election so that it doesn't become a political football.
But I think all of us realize that, if we've been here for any length
of time here in Collier County, that the insurance companies for 40
years or so have taken a lot of money out of the State of Florida.
And then, of course, we've had two disastrous seasons that we
have no control over as citizens, obviously, and now we've got into a
situation where not only the people, the residents, but the small
business people -- and they're being hurt immensely in regards to
what's taking place here in the insurance industry.
And at that, I'll turn this over to Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to
add something to that. It goes beyond insurance rates. As most of us
know, the insurance companies have increased deductibles to the point
where most of us had to payout of our own pocket for the damage by
Hurricane Wilma.
And so not only have we incurred huge increases in premiums,
but we have had huge increases in deductibles.
So quite frankly, I think most of the expense of Hurricane Wilma
fell upon the residents of Collier County rather than on the insurance
companies, but yet the insurance companies are charging us huge
sums of money for that purpose.
And I think this is a very important piece of legislation and I
think we must watch it very carefully because it has the potential for
Page 38
September 12-13, 2006
addressing a flaw in the way insurance companies administer their
business.
An insurance company, as I understand, can set up a separate
corporation in Florida and thereby not spread the losses to other -- to
other elements of the company in the United States. The purpose of
the insurance is to spread it across all risks, and I would hope we
would begin to deal with that issue, and I hope our legislature would
deal with it too. So I'm strongly supportive of this.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. If there's no further discussion, I
entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I did make a motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have a motion on the floor --
MS. FILSON: Commissioner Halas seconded.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- and we have a second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, Commissioner Coyle.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And all in those favor, signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And we heard the aye from
Commissioner Henning there also.
Thank you.
Item #9B
Page 39
September 12-13, 2006
RESOLUTION 2006-231: APPOINTING RICHARD A. STONE,
JERRY BRESHIN AND RICHARD GILL TO THE HABITAT
CONSERVATION PLAN AD HOC COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item, and
that is appointment of members to the Habitat Conservation Plan Ad
Hoc Committee.
MS. FILSON: And Commissioners, on this one I inadvertently
left out two of the members' applications, which I believe I furnished
to each of you.
And I've been contacted by staff indicating that in the interim
another person has resigned. So since they recommended all of these
applications in the order they have on the agenda, they were
wondering if they could all be appointed. Or if you choose not to do
that, I can put the other name back in when I advertise.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So what's the wishes of the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would recommend we appoint all
three members since we currently have three vacancies, rather than
delay and advertise again.
MS. FILSON: And actually, I received another resignation
yesterday, so I have to advertise it anyway.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve Mr. Richard A.
Stone, Mr. Richard C. Gill, and Mr. Jerry Breshin for appointment to
the Habitat Conservation Plan Ad Hoc Committee.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, and I'll second that.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. All
those in favor of approving the three that are listed, Richard A. Stone,
Richard C. Gill, and Jerry Breshin? All in favor, signify by saying
Page 40
September 12-13, 2006
aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2006-232: APPOINTING THOMAS W. LUGRIN
TO THE PUBLIC VEHICLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE-
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: That brings us to our next item, and that is 9C. It's
appointment of a member to the Public Vehicle Advisory Committee.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Make a motion we approve
Thomas W. Lugrin.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. 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: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
Page 41
September 12-13, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2006-233: APPOINTING MCBETH COLLINS TO
THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT ADVISORY
COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is 9D, appointment of a member to the Ochopee Fire Control
District Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sir? If I may, I'd like to make a
motion that we readvertise this. In talking to members of the
government in Everglades City, they would -- they feel that this came
at an inopportune time during the summer when some of the
applicants that have a great interest in this particular position weren't
available.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Commissioner Coletta, if I may. This is the
appointment Everglades City gets to make.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
MS. FILSON: And this is -- and so they have made this
appointment and they want --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, they haven't.
MS. FILSON: Well, they're asking you to confirm their
appointment. So if you do not, then I can go back and ask them to
submit another name.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. It's quite confusing
because Everglades City does not recall in their council meetings
making this appointment.
MS. FILSON: The mayor did.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The--
Page 42
September 12-13, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Could we have some direction here from
maybe the county attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So that we don't get ourself into a
problem here.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I don't think there'll be a problem, but --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Forgive me. I withdraw that.
There's two items from here. It has to do with the Everglades
Airport Authority. Whole different issue.
And in this case, I'd like to make a motion for approval. How
was that for a quick turnaround?
MS. FILSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Boy, did we convince him.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Just got the attorney in here to get things
straightened around.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Where's Donna when we need
her?
MR. WEIGEL: I said there was no problem.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve? Is that what
you had?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'll second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So we have a motion to approve
this appointment by Commissioner Coletta and second by
Commissioner Coyle.
Is there any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 43
September 12-13, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2006-234: APPOINTING CHRISTINE D.
STRATON, GEORGE R. SMITH AND MIGUEL CASTILLO TO
THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMISSION - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: The next item is 9E, appointment of members to
the Affordable Housing Commission.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve committee's
recommendations.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor
for the approval of the three names that were appointed by the -- or
asked -- appointed by the committee -- committee's recommendation,
excuse me.
Christine D. Straton, George R. Smith, and Miguel Castillo.
Are there -- any other discussion on this?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none. We have a motion on the
floor by, I believe, Commissioner Coyle and a second by
Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Other way around.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just the opposite.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Just the opposite, okay. We have a
Page 44
September 12-13, 2006
motion by Commissioner Coletta 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: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
Item #9F
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO THE COLLIER COUNTY
AIRPORT AUTHORITY - MOTION TO RE-ADVERTISE-
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we have the next item, which is
9F, and it's appointment of a member to the Collier County Airport
Authority.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to readvertise.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor to
readvertise this appointment for the Collier County Airport Authority.
Any other discussion on this?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Call the question. All those in
favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
Page 45
September 12-13, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion carries.
MR. MUDD: The next item is a time certain, one p.m.
Item #9H
RESOLUTION 2006-235: APPOINTING JOHAN DOMENIE TO
THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ADVISORY COUNCIL
- ADOPTED
That brings us to 9H. It's an appointment of a member to the
Emergency Medical Services Advisory.
MS. FILSON: Okay. And Commissioners, if I can interject, I
have some comments on this one as well.
Down where it says committee recommendation, I inadvertently
put August 31, 2006. It should be 2009.
Also, when the committee considered the applicant for
recommendation, they were under the impression there was only one
at-large member vacant and, in fact, there are two at-large members
vacant, so that's why they're only recommending one. So I've taken
the other applicants and put them back through the process so they can
make a recommendation at their next meeting for the additional
member.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I make a recommendation that John
Domenie be appointed to this commission.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I guess not.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion was made by
Page 46
September 12-13,2006
Commissioner Halas and second by Commissioner Coletta.
Any further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
Item # 9I
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO THE ANIMAL SERVICES
ADVISORY BOARD - MOTION TO CONTINUE - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: The next item is item 91. It's appointment of a
member to the Animal Services Advisory Board.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I have a motion on that?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I make a motion we accept the
committee recommendations and readvertise.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner Henning is --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. I'd like to discuss this
item, if you don't mind.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, sir. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And also ask Sue Filson for her
Page 47
September 12-13, 2006
input. I personally have contacted this applicant. The reason the
animal control director is asking to readvertise is a lack of contact
from the applicant.
I can tell you that this person is available by phone, same phone
number as her home, as her work and also available by email, and I
just can't understand why our staff at Animal Control Services can't
contact this person for an interview when I see that it's no problem.
And I would ask Sue Filson to also share her experience in
contacting this applicant.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Actually I contacted her several times
when I first got the application because my memo came back from the
elections office saying that she wasn't registered, and I always do that
as a courtesy in case they don't have their name exactly like it is on
their card. As it turned out, she was registered.
And then when I got the recommendation back from animal --
DAS, I called her and she answered and said that no one had contacted
her, but they said they've tried numerous times to contact her and
couldn't.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I have concerns
that we want to select the people from our community to sit on this
advisory board and this person fits the qualifications. I don't see a
problem with it if -- if it is that the -- someone wishes to have certain
members on this board, I would -- I would be very concerned about it.
And the fact is, if that's the wishes of the advisory board, I'm not
sure if it really serves the valid public purpose.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I wish not to readvertise this
position, that's my personal feeling.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Appreciate that. My fellow
commissioners, now that we've heard some additional information,
has there been a change in readvertising of this? Commissioner
Coyle?
Page 48
September 12-13, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: A question. These are supposed to
be committee recommendations, not staff recommendations, and I'd
like a clarification on that. Is this a situation where the staff is
influencing the recommendation rather than the committee?
MS. FILSON: I can't answer that question, but I can tell you that
I have received another application for this position after I did the
executive summary, and I called that person to see how they found out
about the vacancy, and they told me DAS.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Well, that is a little
troubling. Of course, if the DAS is operating as staff support for the
committee, I can understand that, but it should be the committee
making these recommendations, not the staff.
MS. FILSON: And there is a memo in your backup from the
staff indicating that the committee made the recommendation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But did anybody from the
committee attempt to contact this applicant; do we know that?
MS. FILSON: I can't answer that question.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, okay. Well, that goes back
to my concern all along that committees should be more involved in
making recommendations concerning these applicants. They know
what the experience requirements are and whether or not the people
they're talking with are capable of doing the job.
Like Commissioner Henning, I'm a little concerned about staff
deciding who sits on those committees rather than the committee
itself.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Mr. Chairman, may I
clarify that?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah -- oh.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Please do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think it's the staff liaison
to any committee's responsibility to contact any applicant for
interview for the recommendations. I'm not saying that our staff is
Page 49
September 12-13,2006
trying to have a friendly person or tried to choose. I'm just -- I don't
know what it is.
All I'm saying is, I didn't see any problem. I haven't had any
problem contacting this person. So I don't see any reason, valid
reason, why we shouldn't because the excuse was that either the staff
liaison or the committee could not interview because they couldn't
reach this person. I don't see that as an issue.
So either we appoint this person or I think we seriously need to
take a look at, does this really serve a valid public purpose, this
committee? To move it along, I'm going to make a motion that we
approve the applicant as presented to the Board of Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We've already got a motion on the floor,
Commissioner. My concern is that this isn't being done by staff. This
is being done by a committee, and the committee is the one that
interviewed this applicant. And why would the staff have to interview
this applicant? Could you give me some clarification on that,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I don't think -- maybe I
didn't clarify that. It's up to the staff liaison to the committee to
contact the person or the applicant to come down to be interviewed by
the committee. That's the way I understand it. I don't think it is,
historically, that the committee contacts the applicant to come in for
an interview.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may? Marla, this is most
disturbing the way this is starting to come out. Could you please try to
shed some light on this situation?
MS. RAMSEY: Yes. For the record, Marla Ramsey, Public
Services Administrator.
I don't have all of the answers to the questions that are posed here
today other than to say that the applicant was contacted by staff to
attend an advisory board meeting. And I believe that this application
has been around for a while, so I'm not sure if it was one board
Page 50
September 12-13,2006
meeting or two board meetings that they requested that she attend, and
she did not come to those mainly because they couldn't contact her,
and I think the advisory board suggested that we try another applicant
to see if there was someone that can meet that time frame on a regular
basis. And I just think it's very simple in that regard.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I suggest that we -- the
motion right now that's on the floor is to readvertise. Possibly instead
of readvertising, we might just want to continue this and give the staff
the opportunity -- not staff -- but the committee one more opportunity
to try to meet with the applicant?
MS. RAMSEY: That would be fine with us, sir. We're on a tight
time frame on these. We're supposed to turn them around in a certain
period of time, and when we can't get the applicant to -- you know,
when we only meet once a month, it's difficult for us sometimes to
turn around if they unable to make it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand, but we're very
concerned about procedure here and the fact that we might be leaving
somebody along the way that wants to volunteer. And, of course,
there's always that perception that possibly we're trying to manipulate
the system to avoid a certain person, even though that hasn't been said
by anyone person. It may be perceived by that -- by the public. And
that's one of the reasons why I think we should continue this item and
give everybody a chance, and not to readvertise, even if there is
another applicant out there.
I am uncertain to what took place and what didn't take place. Mr.
Henning said that he had no problem reaching her, and that's enough
reason for concern. So I withdraw my second to the motion.
MS. RAMSEY: Commissioners, just one more time. On this
one on this particular committee, you know they're very specific in
who will sit in certain chairs, and sometimes it's difficult to get an
applicant. So if we have the opportunity to interview this applicant,
we would appreciate that.
Page 51
September 12-13, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I -- Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because of that statement, I
really, really have a concern about that. I think you heard from our--
the Board of Commissioners' office manager that she didn't have any
problem contacting this person, and to readvertise it, it just maybe
validates my concern is, we want to have a person on this board that
agrees with everybody else.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, what I
was suggesting was, is that we not readvertise --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I like your suggestion,
Commissioner. And if that's a motion, I will second it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that's a motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's a motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I've got a motion on the floor.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. He removed his second, so
now he's made another motion so -- and I would agree with that
motion too, Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So we -- the first motion dies.
And do I have a motion --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, you do have a motion?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And you do, Commissioner
Henning.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- to--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: To continue.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- continue this until we find out more
information in regards to this particular person that's been appointed to
this position.
MS. RAMSEY: Commissioner, what I would suggest is that we
will invite her to come again to the next DAS advisory board meeting
Page 52
September 12-13,2006
and ask the advisory board to do the courtesy of the interview so that
they can make a recommendation to be brought forward to you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any other further discussion on
this?
(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: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And why don't we take a 15-minute
break for our court reporter, and we'll reconvene at 10 -- yeah --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 10:34.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: 10:34, yep.
(A brief recess was had.)
Item #9J
DISCUSSION ON PUBLIC INPUT FOR FUTURE USAGE OF THE
MANATEE PARK SITE - TO BE BROUGHT BACK WHEN
COMMISSIONER FIALA RETURNS
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.
And we're --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item on your agenda is 9J,
Page 53
September 12-13, 2006
and it was a discussion on public input for future usage of Manatee
Park site, and I believe Commissioner Fiala wanted to talk about that
particular item, and that was put on the agenda at her request.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could we move that?
MR. MUDD: Ifwe could continue that item until she gets back
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
MR. MUDD: -- from the canvassing board.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: That would probably be very appreciated.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 2006-236: A RESOLUTION (INITIATING
RESOLUTION) OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
PURSUANT TO PART II OF CHAPTER 171, FLORIDA
STATUTES (FLORIDA'S INTERLOCAL SERVICE BOUNDARY
ACT) TO COMMENCE THE PROCESS FOR NEGOTIATING AN
INTERLOCAL SERVICE BOUNDARY AGREEMENT
REGARDING 98.69 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS,
DESCRIBED AS THE COLLIER PARK OF COMMERCE,
PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY OF NAPLES -
ADOPTED
So that brings us to our next item, which is lOA, and this is a
recommendation to adopt a resolution which is an initiating resolution
of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida,
pursuant to part 2 of chapter 171, Florida Statutes, which is the
Florida's Interlocal Services Boundary Act, to commence the process
for negotiating an Interlocal Services Boundary Agreement regarding
98.69 acres of land, more or less, described as the Collier Park of
Page 54
September 12-13, 2006
Commerce, proposed to be annexed into the City of Naples, and it's
my item as the county manager.
Commissioners, if you -- you'll notice on this agenda item I
attached a letter that I received from -- and I'm turning to it right now
-- that I received from a --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: September the 8th; is that correct?
MR. MUDD: Well, this one is July 27, 2006, that I received
from a Thomas "Chad" Lund, Vice-President of Collier Park of
Commerce Owners' Association, in which he basically discusses the
Collier Park of Commerce annexation into the City of Naples.
I am sure you are aware -- and then he basically talks about, it will go
to the advisory board on September 6; the first reading to city council
on September 20. Second reading to take place 10 days later with an
annexation to be effective.
And then I basically called over to the city and said, hey, I
haven't received anything as far as a packet is concerned. Received a
packet and took it upstairs to the County Attorney's Office for their
reVIew.
You, as a board, have a right under chapter 1 71 now of the
Florida Statutes to become a participant in an annexation proceeding.
Prior to this last legislative session, you did not have that option at all.
You just basically, as a board, sat on the sidelines and watched it
transpire.
In this particular case you can become a participant in this
particular resolution. We asked that the East Naples Fire Department
also become a co-participant because it's their fire district that's being
annexed to discern how their particular participation, or future
participation, is as the fire provider in that particular area.
So that's why the resolution is on your agenda today. I need to
know if the board wants to become a participant in this particular
annexation issue. If so, once you pass the resolution, I'll provide that
to the City of Naples through our County Attorney's Office, and then
Page 55
September 12-13, 2006
we'll probably see how this new legislation works.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any comments from the
commissioners? I think that this is a great idea. I believe that all
parties need to sit down at the table and be part of the discussion in
regards to any properties that are going to be up for annexation, and I
think this is a great step forward in regards to addressing a lot of
Issues.
Commissioner Henning, are you with us?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. I'll make a motion to
approve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor
for approval of this by Commissioner Henning and a second by
Commissioner Coyle.
Any further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It carries unanimously.
Item #10B
REPORT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BY
THE DIRECTOR OF THE COLLIER COUNTY TRAFFIC
Page 56
September 12-13,2006
OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE
COMPLETION AND EFFICACY OF THE RECENT
IMPLEMENTATION OF A SPLIT CYCLE OFFSET
OPTIMIZATION TECHNIQUE (SCOOT) SYSTEM ON PINE
RIDGE ROAD FROM GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD TO LOGAN
BOULEVARD - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item on the county
manager's report is item lOB, and this is a report to the Board of
County Commissioners by the director of the Collier County traffic
operations department regarding the completion and efficacy of the
recent implementation of a split cycle offset optimization technique,
which is SCOOT system, on Pine Ridge Road, from Goodlette- Frank
Road to Logan Boulevard.
Mr. Bob Tipton, your Director of Operations for the
Transportation Division, will present.
MR. TIPTON: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Bob, for the record, Bob Tipton, Traffic Operations Director.
I'm here to report on the completion of the SCOOT
implementation project that we started about two years ago.
The -- this all started with the implementation of the advanced
traffic management system, what we called the A TMS, and installed
software that we were supplied by Eagle Signal Company. It is called
ACTRA, which is advanced control traffic responsive algorithm, and
the video for arterials along the way.
Phase one started in the western part of the county and was
completed in 2003, which included the traffic management center and
installation, placed 55 intersections on-line under the ACTRA system
that had been provided.
Phase two, again in 2004 with construction that has recently been
completed in the eastern urban area of the county, which has added
another 50 intersections and brought 27 cameras on-line for video
Page 57
September 12-13, 2006
monitoring of the arterials.
The improvements that were brought about by ACTRA included
the ability to monitor traffic flow on the arterials and to remotely
adjust the signals when needed from the traffic management center.
We also receive notification when there is a problem with any of the
signals out on the intersection.
But the main benefit of the system and the whole reason it was
installed was to reduce driver delay to the congestion on the roadway
by better coordinating the signals.
Industry standard for these type of installations are 10 to 15
percent, which we feel that we accomplished; however, we had a new
challenge that came about because even though traffic delay was
reduced by ACTRA, the Pine Ridge Road was slated to become very
congested.
It was already running optimized and it already had the heavy
traffic, but with the increased demand placed on this roadway due to
the growing population in the Estates, the increased traffic coming in
from Lee County, and then combining that with construction activities
that were causing traffic shifts and even detours of people from
Immokalee Road, Vanderbilt Beach Road, Golden Gate Parkway, we
were losing a lot of our east/west capacity in the county. We decided
we had to do something.
True to projection, in 2005, fourth quarter, we were running
71,600 vehicles a day across Pine Ridge Road, which is a substantial
amount of traffic to run on a six-lane roadway.
We researched, and the proposed solution we came up with was
to change to a better control strategy for the traffic signals, and we
suggested a traffic adoptive control, which is a system that produces
timing plans, collects data, runs those numbers, and develops the best
timing plan for that moment in time for the entire corridor. We felt
that that would improve conditions considerably.
We looked around, there were several available. As it turned out,
Page 58
September 12-13,2006
the one we thought was the best and the easiest to implement was the
SCOOT system. It's sold by Siemens International, an English firm,
and coincidentally at -- shortly before we made this selection, they had
become the parent company of the same Eagle Signal Company which
sold us our controllers, so it was a great compatibility there.
As I'm sure everybody knows, SCOOT stands for split cycle
offset optimization technique. A fancy way to get an acronym into a
useful word there. But they do have a proven success record. It's
worldwide, and also in the United States they're getting to be more
popular.
There was one other in Orlando in the International Drive that we
looked at before making the selection. It utilizes the existing
communications backbone that we have, including the same -- some
of the same computers that we use on the ACTRA system, and it
operates using existing Eagle controllers, which saved about $3,000
per intersection on the installation.
The Pine Ridge Road corridor was chosen because it's in the
middle of the county, and as we said, it's running tremendous volumes
through there because of traffic being diverted, and the interstate.
There's a map.
And so we implemented this. We brought it on-line using the
consultants from England that came in and set it up for us. But at the
same they were setting that up, we were using our own timing people
to optimize the existing signal along the way, the signal timings, using
ACTRA.
We wanted to make sure we got a comparison of apples to apples
when we looked at this and didn't just go out and say, well, what
would we do with this.
But our timing engineer spent about 50 hours out there on that
corridor trying to make it the best that he could using the ACTRA,
while the English people came in and installed the SCOOT system so
that we could run these comparisons.
Page 59
September 12-13, 2006
We ran the comparison on three peak hour periods of the day; the
morning, midday, the afternoon. And what we did is we went out and
drove the intersections, the entire length of the corridor in teams
tracking with stopwatches. We knew how long it should take given
free- flow conditions, we measured how long it did take, and we
compared the two. We also took into consideration the volumes that
were in effect during each of those periods.
Most dramatic results that we found were in the p.m. peak hours.
We got very good progression in the p.m. peak, traffic moving east,
and -- worked very well.
It worked better with SCOOT in the morning but not as
dramatically so as in the evening. The problem you've got on Pine
Ridge Road is the westbound traffic in the morning. You've got all
this traffic getting off the interstate. This is combined with all the
traffic coming in from the Estates. And when those two get together,
you're running at full capacity no matter what system you're using.
Overall, we came up with a 6.2 percent reduction in arterial delay
versus the ACTRA system, which was optimized as well as we could
get it. And this we found to produce a savings of 86.4 vehicle hours
during those six hours, we extrapolate this to, easily, 100 vehicle hours
per day during the business day.
This also included -- we had no way of measuring it, but we
noted the benefits including reduced delay on the side streets,
especially on I-75 which was set up to -- so that it would not back up
out onto the interstate. It automatically flushed the ramp whenever it
gets close to the point of backing out onto the interstate.
Whippoorwill Drive was dramatically improved, according to the
people that live there. Phones used to ring off the hook down in that
location. Livingston Road, our own people use that daily to travel to
and from work, and they've reported less delay there, as with Airport
Road.
Additional benefits from the SCOOT system that we've found is
Page 60
September 12-13,2006
massive data. We have all these data collection points out there
collecting traffic, timing and to delay, and it brings it all back into an
archive that we can access in many ways. We've also been able to
utilize this to replace two of our count stations so that we don't have to
spend -- send the technicians out there to put hoses in the road. We
can collect it through the system, and we can even collect turning
movement counts at a number of the intersections. All this information
will be used by the operations department and the planning
department.
Some of the gee-whiz stuff that doesn't show up very well here.
This is a link congestion map. It's a real-time map that we have up in
the traffic management center every day. It will actually change
colors. It tells us where the congestion is. If there's blockage or
anything, it shows bright red at those points, and we can act
accordingly.
We can also go into the archives and start comparing data. This
graph shows the total stops in the network, and it's a -- you can
compare those by day of week, month, year, whatever. You just go in
and pick the time periods that you want to compare.
This is delay by time of day. And what we were looking at is the
delay on this corridor between Sunday and Thursday, the days Sunday
through Thursday. In looking at this, we thought we had an anomaly
there. There was something that happened at three o'clock in the
morning. We couldn't understand why there would be so much delay
until we finally realized that that was the morning that we shut down
two of the traffic signals so that we could install UPS systems. It was
reflected in the data that was collected.
Also you can compare longer time periods. This is a comparison
of delay from seven a.m. till seven p.m. That happens to be from the
last Thursday in May to the last Thursday in August. So you can
compare the two. This will be especially useful once we get seasonal
data this season.
Page 61
September 12-13, 2006
As far as cost benefit of SCOOT, considering reduction of 100
vehicle hours per business day, we're looking to recover $795,000
cost. We're using $22 per hour as the cost of congestion delay -- this
is from the literature -- 240 business days per year brings to $528,000
us in savings to the motoring public.
Even though we must spend $54,000 a year for maintenance on
this system, we're still looking at $474,000 savings to the public which
would recapture the cost in less than two years; 1.7 to be exact.
Looking into the future, a large part of that 795 -- 795,000 included
the non-recurring costs of the start-up, software license, central site
equipment such as that, so that would not be included in any future --
in its expansion of the system. Therefore, the proj ected cost for the
SCOOT system expansion we're estimating would be recaptured
within a year.
It is noteworthy that these benefits were made in the reduced
congestion and accomplished without any additional right-of-way,
drainage sites, no additional dump trucks or environmental permits.
This was just a clean project that was able to produce a savings to the
public.
Weare proposing that there are three locations in the county that
we would like to do additional projects. One's on Airport Road North,
north of Pine Ridge, Airport Road South, which would be south of
Pine Ridge, and especially on Golden Gate Parkway, which is an area
which would be especially made for the SCOOT system with all those
smaller intersections there.
There are also some intersection projects that are underway here
in the county that we would like to supplement those proj ects to
include facilities so that we can bring SCOOT on-line as a part of
those projects. That would be the lmmokalee Road from 41 even out
to Logan, and Vanderbilt Beach Road from Livingston to 951, Collier
Boulevard from Vanderbilt Beach Road up to Immokalee.
Additionally, down in the south when the upcoming Collier
Page 62
September 12-13, 2006
Boulevard six -laning proj ect is brought forward, we would like to
include SCOOT in that, and then also there's some work being done
currently by a developer down in the 41/951 area that we would like
to attach to.
So, our recommendations are to implement SCOOT projects on
the north and south Airport Road and the Golden Gate Parkway and to
supplement the projects that we have going up in the northern part of
the county, as well as including SCOOT in Collier, and to allow the
developers to mitigate their congestion on the system by the use of
SCOOT in their area of impact.
We have had several developers come forward. They are
interested in doing this. They see it as a good way that they can
mitigate some of their problems, and they're certainly willing to
contribute to the county to help out on this.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Very good explanation, Bob. We really
appreciate the time and effort that the transportation department is
putting forth in trying to make sure that we can alleviate as much
congestion as possible on our streets. And it looks like you had kind
of a good -- feel good success story in regards to what you've been
addressing as far as the traffic on Pine Ridge. We really appreciate it.
MR. TIPTON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any discussion from our -- who was first
here?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Coyle.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I, too,
appreciate what the transportation department's been doing about
improving situations for traffic flow in Collier County. I have to
admit a degree of disappointment with respect to the results of
SCOOT. I can remember the time when we were considering the
implementation of this plan, and we were told we would get at least a
20 percent increase in traffic flow over our current methods, and to
Page 63
September 12-13, 2006
find that we're getting only a 6 percent increase is disappointing in my
opInIon.
I understand the elements of your cost justification. I do not
accept them. I don't believe that a $22 cost per vehicle hour is
applicable in a retirement community if you're allocating cost for
people's time. Certainly it doesn't cost anywhere near that much.
But nevertheless, I would hope that as we go forward, that there
will be improvements that might achieve a larger incremental
Increase.
From my standpoint spending that kind of money for a 6 percent
incremental increase is questionable. But nevertheless, I'm willing to
see where we go with this in the future. I hope there will be further
improvements.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You were talking about data
that you have collected. Does it reflect the number of red light
runners?
MR. TIPTON: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Does it reflects the number
of accidents?
MR. TIPTON: No, not as such. It would -- the system wouldn't
know a crash from a stalled vehicle. It just knows that a lane is
blocked.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Bob, I've got a question to ask you. Do
you feel that with any update in software that you may become more
efficient in regards to moving traffic, or do you think that you've
pretty much optimized what you can expect from the system that we
have in place on Pine Ridge?
MR. TIPTON: I think on Pine Ridge, although we will still be
consistently tweaking it, that we're approaching what we can do.
There are a number of intersection improvement projects that
would help some, extending some turn lanes here and there, adding a
Page 64
September 12-13, 2006
right or left -- an additional right or left turn lane and such minor
project. But as far as software, I think we're approaching it, other than
tweaking what we have.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I probably have put you on the spot here,
but as we advance and get into other segments of the road system in
Collier County, do you feel that the benefit will improve on some of
the roads, say, for instance, Pine Ridge, when you address other issues
on other road surfaces that you put into your synopsis here? Do you
think that it would have an effect on Pine Ridge that would get even
better improvement as we integrate this system farther into the
transportation network?
MR. TIPTON: As far as its effect on Pine Ridge, I think when
the other -- our arterials are completed, of course, it's going to lighten
some of the traffic on Pine Ridge.
As far as installing SCOOT on Immokalee helping Pine Ridge? No.
As far as the feeders, such as Airport Road or Livingston, yes, it
would help the traffic on Pine Ridge because you're controlling the
traffic approaching that arterial. But once you start building out a grid,
it's going to help.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So are you saying that you
foresee that we will have a benefit as we expand this -- and you just
related to Airport and Livingston Road -- and you feel that this may
have an improvement on the Pine Ridge sector that you've got this
system set up on?
MR. TIPTON: I think it will help Pine Ridge, yes, not as much
as it's going to help Airport, but it will help Pine Ridge.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, just one final comment
concerning Pine Ridge. I continue to express disappointment that we
are not seizing on opportunities to interlink some of the road streets
north of Pine Ridge Road in the industrial area.
I think there have been in the past numerous opportunities where
Page 65
September 12-13, 2006
we could have linked some of those to Collier Boulevard. Collier
Boulevard was originally designed for the purpose of accessing much
of that, and we have let those opportunities slip by.
I continue to be disappointed that we're not looking at those
opportunities. I believe you could achieve great improvements if
you'd start linking some of those properties, and I believe with some
of the commercial development on Collier Boulevard, we could get
some of the developers to cooperate in doing that.
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, Transportation
Administrator.
Commissioner, I appreciate what you're saying. Naples
Boulevard, with all that development going on, we're looking at that
and we're trying to make some connection to the north to J &C and
Trade Center Way.
We agree with you that that would be opportunity for us,
although with all that growth on Naples Boulevard, I'm not sure how
much we're going to get out of that, but we're continuing to pursue
that.
I did want to fully recognize that as the commissioner pointed
out, that first of all, we're going to strive to get as much out of the
systems and the efforts we're pursuing as we can.
SCOOT has been -- and I don't want that to be misunderstood in
all this discussion -- has been a huge success in the sense that it wasn't
just a statement of 6.2 percent increase. It was 6.2 percent over the
automated computerized system which we installed at the same time.
When there were discussions of 20 percent increase, if you look
at what we got out of the automated computerized system, which is
traditionally 10 to 15 percent, in this case we were very comfortable
that we got the full 15 percent out of that system because we had all
the engineers tweaking that system before SCOOT was installed so
that we had a true basis of knowing how much SCOOT gave us over
even the automated computerized system which allowed us to
Page 66
September 12-13, 2006
interconnect the signals and establish the best progression under that
technology, which is the traditional technology used throughout the
U.S.
So SCOOT was able to take that 15 percent and still add another
6.2 percent of improvement above it. So we are pretty close to that 20
that we were talking about in the beginning. Both were being
implemented at the same time.
So if we confused anyone with that 20 percent discussion purely
on SCOOT, then I do apologize. But to get 6.2 after you've fully
optimized, about 15 percent improvement is very significant. And
you look at the cost of what it's costing us right now for improvement
of lanes. You still need the expanded roadways for the through-put.
But to be able to get the best use out of them is what we're trying
to do, because we've gone to our six -lane standard pretty much on our
rather broad grid that we have in this county without collector roads,
so that's why we're pursuing it. And I want to tell you that SCOOT
has been very, very successful. But of course, we'll always try to
tweak it and see what opportunities there are to expand it even further.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And thank you for recognizing that
I was talking about Naples Boulevard rather than Collier Boulevard as
I had stated, so --
MR. FEDER: Before it's over with, it may become Collier
Boulevard.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you for clarifying that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I think there was a -- I don't know
if there was a report but let me go to exactly what the recommendation
was and what staff is trying to get at --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah, I want to know.
MR. MUDD: -- as an action on that particular one. It was
basically, it's a recommendation of the traffic operations department
that the Board of County Commissioners direct the continued
Page 67
September 12-13, 2006
operation of the existing SCOOT adaptive traffic control system and
direct the county manager or his designees to take steps to expand the
system to appropriate inclusion into county roadway projects and
developer distributions for capacity enhancement and roadway trip
mitigation.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I would make a
motion to accept and approve that recommendation with one addition,
that the staff would give us a report on the anticipated improvement of
those projects.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I travel Pine Ridge. I live right
off Pine Ridge Road, and I experience it on a daily basis, and I'm
going to share Commissioner Coyle's concerns about the benefit of it.
And although I agree with the recommendation, I'm going to
cautiously agree to it because I feel that it's important that we have a
cost benefit to traffic improvement. I do have confidence in our
transportation department that they're going to do the best they can,
but I have a concern about that cost benefit.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I appreciate your input on that,
Commissioner.
Any further discussion on this?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. I
believe that the motion was made by Commissioner Coyle and it was
seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any further discussion?
Page 68
September 12-13, 2006
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries. Thank you very much.
Item #12B
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A STIPULATED FINAL
JUDGMENT AS TO PARCELS 103A, 103B, 103C, 103D, 103E
AND 703 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
CULLEN Z. WALKER, ET AL., CASE NO. 05-0728-CA (LOGAN
BLVD. PROJECT NO. 60166) - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us to time certain item
of 11 a.m., and this is item 12B. This is a recommendation to approve
a stipulated final judgment as to parcel 103A, 103B, 103C, 103D, E,
and 703 in the lawsuit styled Collier County versus Cullen Z. Walker,
et ai, case number 05-0728-CA, Logan Boulevard, which is project
number 60166. Fiscal impact of this action is $3,523,600.
And I believe that Mr. Craig Willis, Esquire, from the County
Attorney's Office, will present.
MR. WILLIS: Yes. For the record, Craig Willis, Special
Counsel to Collier County on certain eminent domain actions.
This item comes before the board for approval of a mediated
settlement agreement and a stipulated final judgment in the lawsuit
Page 69
September 12-13,2006
styled Collier County versus Cullen Z. Walker. This was a
condemnation action in which the county acquired 11.6 acres of Mr.
Walker's property for purposes of extending Logan Boulevard.
I acknowledge, for the record, that Mr. Walker and his counsel,
Brian Patchen (phonetic), are here today.
This case was -- involved a significant amount of money,
obviously. And I'm not going to get into a lot of the details of the
facts of the case unless the commission has a desire to do that.
This mediated settlement agreement that -- there was a large
number of staff input into this. I have litigated some of these cases all
the way through to a jury verdict on behalf of Collier County.
It would be my recommendation, as well, that this is in -- this
mediated settlement agreement is in the best interest of the county. It
is a significant amount of money, but it would be, I believe, even more
money involved at the taxpayers' expense if this matter were to
proceed to a jury verdict.
And accordingly, I, as well as the staff that worked on this,
recommend that the board approve this settlement agreement.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any discussion? Commissioner
Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have
discussed this at length with our legal counsel and staff, and I've also
asked for an analysis of some of our other similar settlements.
And I can tell you that I am extremely disappointed at the
amount of money going to statutory attorney fees. In this particular
case, $637,000 --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Fifty-seven.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Six hundred fifty-seven thousand,
seven hundred dollars is being paid to the opposing attorney purely
because of state law and has no relationship whatsoever to the time
expended.
And I am, quite frankly, outraged at this process, and I've
Page 70
September 12-13, 2006
conveyed that to staff and our attorney representing these cases, but
they have correctly stated -- pointed out to me that we're looking only
at those that are contested.
There are a number of acquisitions by county that are not
contested and do not have these kinds of things. But of those that are
contested, 20 percent of all the money we spend acquiring land goes to
attorneys; 20 percent.
And I would like to recommend approval of this particular
settlement because I think we don't have any alternatives, but I would
like to attach to that approval a request for guidance to staff and
guidance to the attorney to pursue whatever measures are necessary to
reduce the amount of money we've having to pay for attorneys in such
cases, including petitioning our legislators for a change in state law.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I just want to chime in here also that I
believe the county manager brought this forth with our past
conference that was held here in Collier County whereby the county
manager brought this issue up to other county managers, and
everybody in the State of Florida, other counties, are experiencing this
same dilemma.
And I believe that as we expand roads out into the Estates area,
that we may even encounter other costs similar to what we've
experienced here. And also, the Florida Association of Counties, this
is on their radar screen, and I believe that they're going to lobby
heavily in the upcoming legislative session to see what can be done to
address this very issue.
I have the same concerns as Commissioner Coyle when I look at
$657,000. If I am reincarnated, I hope I come back as a land use
attorney because obviously they do well.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May you burn in hell.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I have talked to 30 of the 67
Page 71
September 12-13, 2006
county managers on this particular item, including F AC. They are --
the people I talked to were very supportive.
It really gets into an area where your original appraisal is done,
and then through the process and timing of it, because you have
escalating property values where you really get yourself in this Catch
22 -- and it burns you pretty bad as far as attorney fees are concerned.
What I found out from the meeting of the county managers down
on Marco Island was the fact that it's just -- it's just not a coastal
county problem. It even happened to land on the Hendry County
Airport as their county man -- so it's even an internal -- the interior
counties have the same kind of problem, and they were very, very
receptive.
We will -- with your recommendation, we'll get back with the
county attorney, make sure that we've dusted off everything that we
had done. At that particular time I will add it to your priority list as
the Board of County Commissioners so that you can ultimately vote
on that, and it will be an item of discussion at your prelegislative
conference that you have with local legislators.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If I could, Mr. Chairman, just make
one last comment concerning that. I think we all understand why that
law exists, that it exists to keep a governmental agency from make a
low-ball offer for property, so it protects property owners.
But there's no reason for property escalation to become part of
that consideration. It is not our fault that the property is escalating, and
it merely increases the motivation for the selling party to delay the
process until the property increases to a value that results in a higher
penalty to us. So I think there is a way to deal with that and still be
fair to the property owners.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further discussion?
Commissioner Henning, do you have anything to offer to this
discussion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I fully agree with the directions.
Page 72
September 12-13,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. At this time is there any other
discussion on this?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ifnot, we have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coletta and a second by--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no, no.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- Commissioner Coyle, and a second by
Commissioner Fiala.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
MR. WILLIS: Thank you.
Item #6A and Item #6C (continued from earlier in the meeting)
PUBLIC PETTION TO DISCUSS A LEFT-HAND TURN ON 33RD
AVENUE NORTHEAST COMING NORTH ON IMMOKALEE
ROAD AND THE EXPANSION OF IMMOKALEE ROAD-
BROUGHT BACK AT BOARD'S DIRECTION- STAFF
DIRECTED TO WORK AT OTHER AL TERNA TIVE SOLUTIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that would bring us back to public
petitions. At the board's direction, there were two -- there were two
petitions that were carried till after 11 a.m.
The first item is 6A, and it was a public petition request by Rose
and Leszek Adamusik to discuss a left-hand turn on 33rd Avenue
Page 73
September 12-13, 2006
Northeast coming north on Immokalee Road.
Okay. And this -- and just -- Ty Vigil, is that you?
MR. VIGIL: That's right.
MR. MUDD: Okay. And the other one that we continued was a
public petition request by Ty Vigil to discuss Immokalee Road
expansion, and I believe that both items are talking about the same
place.
MR. VIGIL: Same subject, that's correct.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
MR. VIGIL: Thank you, Commissioners, for allowing us the
time to, on relatively short notice, to speak to you on some concerns
that we have regarding the Immokalee Road expansion project,
particularly north of Oil Well Road.
First I want to thank Fred Coyle, your inspiring speech last night
at the First Baptist Church of Naples was wonderful, and I appreciate
your comments and your support.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you for being there.
MR. VIGIL: Yeah, it was nice.
I do have a petition here to present to the board with signatures,
and if I could give that to the manager.
What concerns us -- and I don't know if Jay is here. Is Jay here?
Maybe -- he's got some maps that will probably help delineate what it
is that we want to do here.
Does that make that -- okay, great.
As Immokalee Road turns to the north -- let me get my bearings
straight here. You can see as Immokalee Road bends to the north -- I
don't know if you can see from my angle here. So Immokalee Road
bends to the north. There's Oil Well Road, and just north of Oil Well
Road --
MR. MUDD: Don't point to that. Nobody can see that. You
have to come over to the visualizer.
MR. VIGIL: Okay.
Page 74
September 12-13, 2006
MR. MUDD: Use the portable mike. We've got it set up.
MR. VIGIL: You guys are high tech. All right.
So if you see just north as Immokalee Road bends and goes
north, we'll bypass Wilson and Randall and Oil Well Road, and then
there's a succession of avenues of 33rd, 35th, 37th, 39th, 41st, and all
the way to Shady Hollow.
As we understand it, I think the original proposal with the
expansion project was going to include a turn lane or a turn-around
lane, a U-turn lane on 35th, with no turn on lane 33rd, going into 33rd
Avenue, all the way to the Twin Eagles working compound where
they have their trucks and where they serve Twin Eagles.
And 37th would have no turn lane; 39th, if I'm understanding this
right -- 39th would have a turn lane and a turn-around lane; 41 st
would have nothing, and then I haven't investigated so far as to Shady
Hollow, where we're at.
What concerns us, and with respect to the petition, is the
homeowners that live on 33rd, the homeowners that live on 35th,
homeowners that live on 37th would have one ingress/egress.
And barring just the demographics associated with those roads -- I
know on 33rd there's probably, ah, somewhere in the tune of about 30
residence -- 30 homes. I would imagine 35th and 37th would be
similar counts. Husband and wives drive. There could be 180 cars
using 35th, plus whoever's working at the Twin Eagles. Of course,
they're going to have to get access to that.
What concerns us also, too, is that if you look at EMS, EMS
down here by Randall Road, there's a police substation there with
maybe a half dozen units and EMS personnel. And in order to get to
us at 33rd, they'd have to actually pass 33rd, make a U-turn with their
big trucks, come back to 33rd, and then service us, and they'll have to
do a U-turn with possibly three lanes of oncoming traffic. And I'm
just -- I'm no attorney, but I would imagine the liability exposure
would be great.
Page 75
September 12-13, 2006
I think what concerns us at 33rd is not necessarily a turn-around
lane, because I understand as you're coming southbound on
Immokalee Road and wanting to make a left-hand turn, there's
probably going to need some easements there to allow a left-hand --
does that make sense -- a left-hand turn to get onto Well Road.
So I think our concern is that 33rd might necessarily come to a
stop sign and want to make a left. We can do that at 35th quite easily
if we wanted to go to the Collier County Fairgrounds or enjoy
Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary . We can certainly go to 35th, although
it's a little bit further away from that intersection, and make our
left-hand turn, if that makes sense.
But I think our concern here is, at least on 33rd, at minimum, just
a turn lane, left-hand only, not necessarily a lane to turn completely
around. If we do -- if anybody needs to make a complete turnaround,
they can get a little bit further away from that intersection.
If they get a little bit further away from that intersection, then
they can do their turnaround on 35th as opposed to 33rd.
There's other -- there's other issues associated with 35th. It's a
little bit more wet than 33rd. We certainly want to allow workers to
get into Twin Eagles and that sort of thing. Our thinking is -- and I
don't know if there's demographics or studies associated with it. I'm
sure we'll resort to some kind of engineering study, but I would
imagine the homeowners that live here and the homeowners that live
on 35th and the homeowners that live on 37th and the working
compound with the workers that work at Twin Eagles, we're just
feeling that 35th Avenue is going to be with some heavy traffic.
So I would ask the commissioners -- I would imagine there's a
footage easement, whether that's 660 feet or 560 feet, whatever that
requirement that was depicted by county commissioners. We're just
asking for a variance so that at minimum we can have a left-hand turn,
not a U-turn, but just a left-hand turn coming from the City of Naples.
So I don't know if Rose or if anybody else has any more
Page 76
September 12-13,2006
comments, but I think that's kind of the gist of where we're going. A,
we want to make sure that EMS can get to us without having to go all
the way to 35th and regress. That's important.
And certainly, you know, we want to make sure that 35th is not
so heavily traveled to absorb the traffic of 3 -- people who live on
37th, 35th and 33rd. You can imagine if we just made a left-hand
turn, had to go to Wilson, then come south on Wilson, and then go
east on Wilson when we just have a simple two-car left-hand turn only
on 33rd Avenue.
Does that make sense? Is there any questions? Am I--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a question. If you were coming
from the Naples area --
MR. VIGIL: Whoops.
MR. MUDD: I'm going to orient it the right way. I know
Norman's been busy, but this is -- north is now going to the north.
MR. VIGIL: There we go.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. If you were coming from the
Naples area, I believe there's a left-hand turn lane at Wilson. So why
couldn't you use Wilson to where you -- to make a left-hand turn?
MR. VIGIL: It doesn't -- I'm sorry to interrupt. It doesn't
connect. There's no bridge. There's a canal that separates Wilson.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, okay.
MR. VIGIL: So when you make left into Wilson, it will be a
dead-end.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh. I assumed from this drawing here
that it might have been -- was intersected.
MR. VIGIL: Yeah. Wilson--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It should be.
MR. VIGIL: Wilson has a canal right about here where that dark
line is.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I didn't see that. All right.
MR. VIGIL: So when you make your left, the homeowners here
Page 77
September 12-13, 2006
don't have that flexibility, and nor do I think they would be really
interested in it.
If the commission wants to plan that, that would be the subj ect
for another meeting. But just to kind of answer that, some of our
residents in some of the meetings that we'd had have suggested that
southbound on Immokalee Road, those that are coming into Naples --
and in order to avert the light at Oil Well and avert the light at Randall
and avert the light at Wilson, they could make a left-hand turn and
cross over that bridge, and suddenly our traffic on our roads is much
more intense. I think the purpose of Immokalee Road is to handle that
artery, so --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I'm going to leave that up to when
we have the traffic director come up and give us some ideas because
they're the traffic engineers --
MR. VIGIL: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- so I'll listen to that.
So at this time I'll turn it over to Commissioner Coyle -- or
Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I was going to address
some questions to Norm, if I could.
Mr. Feder, you heard the concern. I think we've heard similar
concerns on just about every road that we have changed to meet the
traffic patterns of the expanded roadways in Collier County at one
point in time.
From what you hear, the suggestions that are made, what's the
feasibilities of those suggestions?
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, first of all, what I want -- for the
record, Norman Feder, Transportation Administrator.
We have a couple of issues here that I do want to touch base on.
First of all, we've got 33rd, which is only about 564 feet north of Oil
Well. Oil Well and Immokalee are very significant facilities, very
limited arterial system that we need to address and we're in the
Page 78
September 12-13,2006
process, as you're quite aware, of doing at this time.
We are in a six-lane section actually where it's tapering from six
to four in this 500-plus feet. And as you see in the graphic that I just
put up and that will be handed to you very shortly, we have the turn
lane for basically southbound Immokalee or westbound, however
you're looking at it, basically goes past 33rd to provide the appropriate
deceleration and storage levels.
And with that requirement, what we would be looking at if we
tried to even establish a northbound or an eastbound left turn onto
33rd as is being requested, is you would have to go across the
deceleration and the storage for the left turn onto Oil Well, and so that
is not a safe or viable operational feature.
I would note that, as was noted, that every other of the streets are
being retained open for U-turns or for access. Depending upon where
you are, even the development further down as was noted, you can go
to 35th, access Wilson, and that gets you to flow within the
neighborhood or within the community itself for some limited number
of homes, albeit important homes, but nonetheless the volumes that
we're expecting on Immokalee Road and the safety factors associated
with the request are of concern.
I think it is interesting though that Commissioner Halas asked a
question about Wilson, because one of the things that we're looking at
is out in the Estates, we have more of a grid pattern of local streets
than we have mostly around the county. The only difficulty in that
grid pattern of local streets is somebody putting canals so we could
have lot sales up north and we could drain it enough so that we had a
lot to sell.
And in those canals, unfortunately, we ended an awful lot of that
grid pattern of streets, and Wilson is a good example of that. And
with Wilson Boulevard being a primary road facility, you've got the
option, with a bridge there, to provide access around the intersections
of Wilson, Randall and Oil Well, which basically, based on our
Page 79
September 12-13, 2006
projections of what we're seeing growing out in the area, may be one
of the few sections I ever come to you and talk about an eight-lane,
much like you have over the Gordon River Bridge, just because of
volumes that eventually we're going to face out there with three
signals that close to each other.
So any alternate around it, for instance, something up here up to
47th and maybe an alternate, would be something we should look at.
But even if we didn't try to open it up further, as the concern is to an
alternate, it does provide good access to everybody back in that
community down to Wilson and to avoid all of that congestion that is
going to continue with growth on Oil Well and Randall off of
Immokalee.
Bottom line though, from the graphic we gave you, it's much too
close. It's only 560 some feet from Oil Well itself. We need that for
the left-turn lane. What little bit of median you have left, which
would have to be used for the storage, even if you wanted to allow one
storage or a turn to cost (sic) for storage in the deceleration of another
-- which I will not recommend to you -- in the future we're probably
going to need dual lefts onto Oil Well and, therefore, would not be
able to retain it.
So for those reasons we, unfortunately, don't feel that we can
work with the request that's been presented.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I know our purpose is not to try to
solve the problem today, but I'll just ask you a quick question.
MR. FEDER: By all means.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What would happen if you were to
put a bridge at Wilson over that canal but make it one way? So people
could not use it as a cut through, they could use it as a way to get to
33rd, but you could not use it for a way to go south from 33rd. You'd
have to go out to Immokalee Road to do that. So that gives the people
coming from the east an opportunity to get into 33rd, and maybe even
Page 80
September 12-13, 2006
some others, but it would prohibit a lot of cut-through traffic through
the neighborhood that they clearly do not want.
MR. FEDER: And your point is very well taken because if they
want to get out, their ability to take a right out of every one of those
streets is not restricted.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is fine. But it's the left that creates
the problem. Now, I understand why you can't design a left with the
configuration of Immokalee at that intersection. But if you could
provide that as a one-way bridge -- just the bridge itself being one
way. Wilson Boulevard will stay exactly the way it is -- and it
wouldn't increase the traffic for the people on Wilson Boulevard that
dramatically, so it might be a good solution for everybody.
MR. FEDER: It's a very good--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Ty, how do you feel about that?
MR. VIGIL: I mean, what I feel and what our community feels
may be two different things. But I think at least we're having some
open dialogue in discussing it and trying to troubleshoot a situation, I
think is applauding.
I understand that there are other areas within Collier County that
kind of mirror what it is that we're suggesting of the people who live
on 33rd and 35th. And I understand there's some areas in the
southwest section of Golden Gate and 13th Avenue Southwest where
it is -- kind of mirrors what it is that we're suggesting.
So if it's happened once already, I would imagine that we could,
you know, visit this and see if we can come up with a plausible
resolution.
To suggest that it's unsafe to make -- to make a left on 33rd, I
would also debate that it's also unsafe for EMS to make a U-turn on
35th to come back to 33rd, and subsequently, you know, taking --
adding some time for the people who live on 33rd who need EMS
assistance.
So again, I don't think that we're suggesting that coming out of
Page 81
September 12-13, 2006
33rd to make a left to go to University of Florida's Outreach Center or
to Collier County Fairgrounds or to Corkscrew -- you know, making a
left is not an issue.
It's, you know, going northbound on Immokalee. It's making a
left from Immokalee to get to our home. So if we can visit that, and
maybe the engineers can make some suggestions as to make a
left-hand turn only on 33rd without having to widen that to make it
U-turn accessible, humbly, I think that that would be a plausible
resolution.
You know, engineer studies -- and I would imagine they would
count how many cars are accessing that, you know, area and come up
with their suggestions to the respective board.
But, you know, I'm getting a sense that's how our community
feels.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Feder, is something like that
possible or even, you know, worth approaching as a possibility?
MR. FEDER: Again, we could not provide for the northbound
left turn across the storage and deceleration lane for Oil Well. Now,
having said that, I think that the commissioners pointed out, as we're
looking at, how do we provide further access into the area, the
prospects of a bridge or even of our one-way bridge that allowed
basically, I'll call it, northbound movement, might well address a lot of
their concerns because that would take care of the left turn request
where the right turn out is already accommodated. And we'll continue
to talk to the community about those issues.
We have a good safe record and we've shown it with turnarounds.
You're talking 1,300 feet additional to get to 35th, so it's not a long
distance. It's a quarter of a mile, which is basically the spacing that
we try to do directionals here leaving it full for U-turns and the like.
I'll also point out that EMS basically comes from the north off of
Immokalee Road to this area, although you do have the fire station, as
was pointed out. Your actually EMS service is coming off the other,
Page 82
September 12-13, 2006
although we have areas throughout the county where the U-turn
provisions are required and necessitate really to maintain safety so we
don't call out EMS more often.
But we will be happy to work with Mr. Vigil and the community
and see what options there are. This is in our original design, and the
reasons we've already stated.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Mr. Feder, you stated that at the present
time you have one left-hand turn lane, and you anticipated with the
growth that's going to take place out there, that you may end up with
two left-hand turn lanes; is that correct? Is that the statement that I
heard?
MR. FEDER: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: That's going to Immokalee Road onto Oil Well.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oil Well Road.
MR. FEDER: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I have some real
concerns that we're redesigning roads after letting the contract. I
know that there were public meetings to show the design of the road,
probably three in this case, no different than others, and then plenty of
other public meetings to discuss this.
If we allow these changes, then we must allow a work order to --
or a change order for the contractor to build any other improvements,
and I think it's very dangerous to go down that road.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think you're absolutely right,
Commissioner, and I also think that the thoughts here on this dais is
that we need to make sure that we address the health, safety and
welfare of people who are going to be traveling on this road. So I
believe that we try to cover basically what your thoughts are, as you're
Page 83
September 12-13, 2006
there where you're at at the present time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Just one more comment,
if I may.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I think that there's
absolutely no harm in having Mr. Feder trying to work on innovative
solutions for this particular problem, with the idea that, you know, we
haven't given the license to go out there and amend any contracts, but
to just see what can be done to work with the neighborhood. It might
be the bridge, it might be a one-way street that's behind everything.
Our plans for the travel grid through this area is not all
conclusive with the finish of Immokalee Road. It's going to include
many other elements, so this may be a step -- the next step that we're
looking at to be able to reach out a little bit farther.
And Mr. -- and we always have to keep the needs of the citizens
and their concerns in mind as we move forward. But I don't see this as
a license to amend the plans that are already in existence.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. I think that as you brought up, the
fact that if we cut down the stacking lane, that we may incur other
problems that are going to be associated with the movement of the
traffic.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I think that's really off the
table, that particular option. I do think there's other options that are
out there. Yeah, we wouldn't want to do anything to endanger the
traveling public, but we want to make sure we provide for the
neighborhoods, possibly that idea Mr. Coyle had with the one way
taking back through and the bridge at Wilson.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'm just going to say that I
would support any motion that would encourage the staff to work with
the neighborhood to try to solve the problem without redesigning
Immokalee Road at this point in time. But if there are some
Page 84
September 12-13, 2006
alternatives to doing that, I think it would be an appropriate thing for
the transportation staff to do, take a look at how --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think you worded that very
wonderfully and elegantly, and I'm going to second your motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further discussion?
Commissioner -- or Norm Feder, did you have anything else to add?
MR. FEDER: No. We very much understand your direction.
We do need to do more projects and we'll continue to work, and I
think that was said very appropriately. While Immokalee cannot
handle it, we need to continue to look at all of the improvements out in
the Estates and around the county.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning, do you have
anything else to offer?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So at this time we have a motion
on the floor to direct staff to work at other alternative solutions out
there, and the motion was made by Commissioner Coyle and a second
by Commissioner Coletta.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, call the question. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I just want to make sure, for the
Page 85
September 12-13, 2006
record, that we've got the concerns of Mr. and Mrs. Adamusik, that
they were covered by Mr. --
MS. ADAMUSIK: Yeah, I just want to --
MR. MUDD: Come on up to the podium and basically state your
name, ma'am.
MS. ADAMUSIK: Sure. Rose Adamusik.
I just want to mention one thing. Originally when -- before the
construction on the road, we did have a left-hand turn there, okay?
And I understand you're looking for the future, but we're looking for
the future, too, okay?
We're looking at -- you know, there's going to be a lot of other
houses built. There's some still going on there now. You know,
there's a lot of empty land. There's new houses going up, and I don't
think that was took into perspective, okay?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, that's what I think we've -- ma'am,
I think that's one of the reasons why we gave staff direction to
possibly look at --
MS. ADAMUSIK: Right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- building a one-way bridge.
MS. ADAMUSIK: Right. No, I just want you to understand
that, that the left-hand turn was there prior to the road construction,
okay? We did have a left-hand turn, and it wasn't any danger to
anybody.
And I would think making a U-turn or a left-hand turn on 35th
Avenue would be a lot more dangerous because the oncoming traffic
is coming a lot quicker towards you.
I mean, I've done that, you know, with the road construction now,
and I know making a turn on 33rd, everybody slows down because of
the light on Oil Well. And I think you're going to have a lot less
accidents out there, and possibly save a lot more lives if you really
think about it, okay? Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. Commissioner Fiala?
Page 86
September 12-13, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I was just going to add, but it's
probably not -- you know, right now you can make the left-hand turn
but that's because they haven't widened the road or put a stacking lane
in, and that's going to change the whole configuration, and I think
that's the real concern is once you've got stacking lanes in there and
you've got people backed up while they wait to get through the light,
and as Oil Well opens, it's going to open to a flood of traffic. It will
probably be safer for you to go beyond and make a U-turn.
MS. ADAMUSIK: But we currently don't need that much
stacking room right now --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Currently.
MS. ADAMUSIK: -- so why would we need it later on down the
line? People that are using 33rd Avenue Northeast are only the
residents there.
So, you know, I don't know if any sort of environmental studies
have been done prior to the -- you know, the road construction. I'm
sure you have something, and that's sort of my argument with it.
MR. VIGIL: For the record, Mr. Feder was good enough to give
me his business card, so we'll have some dialogue and see if we can
work through the problem, and maybe we can corne up with some
alternative proposals for the board to look at, and then we can address
it at a later date.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would you keep me in the loop,
Ty?
MR. VIGIL: Absolutely. I've got your email, so we'll stay in
touch. Thank you for your time.
MS. ADAMUSIK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Manager, do we want to go back
to the item on the-
Item #9J (continued from earlier in the meeting)
Page 87
September 12-13, 2006
DISCUSSION ON PUBLIC INPUT FOR FUTURE USAGE OF
THE MANATEE PARK SITE - DISCUSSED: COUNTY
MANAGER DIRECTED TO WORK WITH COMMISSIONER
FIALA - CONSENSUS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us to 9J.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Okay? And that is a discussion on public input for
future usage of the Manatee Park site. This item was asked for by
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. I've written out
some remarks so that it's easier for me to read.
I've corne to you before, Commissioners, regarding Manatee
Park, and at that time we discussed a remote controlled airplane flying
club and possibly designing a park that would have had a remote
control theme to include boats and cars, which is something unique for
our community.
I explained it wouldn't -- it would be for those people who don't
or can't participate in active sports, and it would make a great place for
boys who don't have fathers close by to mentor with the pilots and
mechanics of those planes.
It was also a great place, is a great place, for handicapped kids or
adults who can't participate in any other type of sports.
I felt I received a good response from all of you, as well as the
county attorney, who was very familiar with the site.
Afterward I was told it couldn't be done and it wouldn't work and
the area was planned for a soccer complex.
Many people have asked me since why I have to ask or implore
staff to consider an idea and then get turned town. Who's the boss?
I've been asked, and I began to wonder myself.
I wondered especially because staff is planning on putting a
Page 88
September 12-13, 2006
soccer complex in a park surrounded on three sides by retirement
communities and Fiddler's Creek, plus nearby developments like
Eagle Creek, Artesia, and soon Treviso, which just don't seem to be
soccer communities.
Why would you put a soccer park in the middle of retirement
communities? And I speak of a number of mobile home parks right
there that are 55 and older that surround this.
When soccer is played in the evening, they need bright lights to
light up the field, the players bring in special loudspeakers and sound
systems, the cars corning and going are playing loud music along with
the deep bass bumping continuously, and also after 10 p.m. Why
would anyone want to do this to a community -- to communities who
don't even use soccer fields?
I was told because they are needed. Yet the administrator of the
parks and rec. department has said to build parks to complement the
surrounding neighborhoods. I truly feel there is land just a little
farther north -- or I'm sorry -- east near the growing fields that would
make fine soccer fields, and located closer to the players.
I have made it clear that I've been concerned with this issue for
well over a year yet I have been excluded from the planning.
I feel the surrounding community, the taxpayers who support this
park, ought to play an integral part in the planning.
You've probably already read that the subject was brought up at
the P ARAB, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board in August, while
everyone was out of town even though I had requested the subject to
be delayed until I was back from vacation and until I had a chance to
call a town hall meeting with the residents in the area.
I understand now that the plans have been scrapped and they're
starting out with a clean page. I didn't know that either until I
questioned. Probably because I've made so much of a stink is why
they've done that.
I've been told a survey has been sent out. Although I haven't seen
Page 89
September 12-13, 2006
the surveyor results, I have seen the address list and copies of the
return envelopes.
Well, I feel anything like a large park or a regional library ought
to have neighborhood input, not people five miles away, but the
people who have to live with the results.
The same thing happened at the south regional library regarding
architectural design. For years, even before becoming a commissioner,
while John Jones was still with us, the East Naples Civic Association
had been requesting the old Florida sty Ie architecture. It was even
stated as such in the RFP, but the firm selected specializes in Sarasota
modem; a far cry from old Florida.
When the model was presented to the East Naples Civic
Association Board, they were horrified. We were told it would hold
up the project if we changed the style, for which I replied, well, we're
going to have to live with this for many years to corne, so let it be
delayed a few months.
There have been no revisions since. One looked like a western
barn, others looked like a woodsy, long square dance hall. Apparently
this firm doesn't really know how to do old Florida style.
So, Commissioners, I'm asking for your support as I hold a town
hall meeting with the people near the park to determine what they
would like their park to contain.
I'd also like to investigate the idea of a remote control park a little
bit further. They only operate during the daylight hours, no lights are
needed at night, no sound systems required. And I'd also like your
approval to have another architectural firm redesign the exterior of the
library, as this firm seems to be totally lost.
And I'm sorry to bring this out in the public, but it doesn't seem
like I can do it quietly with staff.
And by the way -- no, I won't say any more. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
Page 90
September 12-13, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I did a little
research. And back in 2000 when Donna Fiala was elected by the
people in District 1 -- by a wide margin, I think it was like 80 percent.
Back then it was the highest candidate in all three districts to get the
most votes.
And I think it's a mandate by the people in District 1 that Donna
Fiala represents the people in East Naples and has the voice, and I
think she's done a well (sic) job. She didn't have any opposition in
2004.
And, Donna Fiala, District 1 commissioner, is the voice, is the
liaison between the residents and government.
And my concern is, that she hasn't been heard on her issues with
services to the East Naples and Marco Island residents.
So, therefore, I ask the county commissioner of District 1, what
do you want to see in the East Naples park and what don't you want to
see in the East Naples community park?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, Commissioner. I
appreciate that.
Right now, I'll tell you, I might be the voice of East Naples, but
I'm the voice only because I listen to what they have to say and then I
follow through, and I'd really like to know what the people want. Not
what I want and not what the parks and rec. department wants, but
what the people want.
I've scheduled a meeting with the people in that area in a hall that
will hold 300, but I don't know that we'll be able to fit them all in. We
might have to hold a second. But that meeting is for November 6th so
that I can get input from the surrounding community and then move
forward.
I love the idea of a flying club, but I don't know that that's what
everybody wants -- of a remote control park. I think it would be ideal.
But, you know, that's my own personal opinion, so I want to hear what
everyone else has to tell me.
Page 91
September 12-13, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I wish that
the board grant the wishes of Commissioner Fiala. I think she has a
lot of validity of what she's saying. And if she wants to delay any
action until she gets the consensus of her constituents, I think that's a
reasonable request.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, and I would agree. I also
would like some additional information from staff concerning the
decisions with respect to soccer fields.
And there's a nagging concern, I think, among a couple of
commissioners, at least from their expressions in the past, are we
building soccer fields for Collier County residents or are we building
soccer fields for the Miami-Dade residents?
And it would be very helpful if we had some concrete
information concerning the frequency of usage, a list of the
organizations and/or teams utilizing the soccer fields and that sort of
thing so that we can make a reasoned judgment as to whether the
demand is for soccer fields, or is it for something else?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Baseball, softball.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, yeah. So I would request
that information. I would support Commissioner Henning's proposal.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. What does staff have to offer to
this conversation?
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, Barry Williams, for the
record, Parks and Rec. Director. Certainly that's something that we
can go after. We work with the soccer leagues that play in our fields.
And just to mention, soccer is such a popular sport, our fields are
used quite extensively, and we have a good relationship with the
soccer teams that play there, so we can get that information and be
happy to do that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. The other thing that concerns me
is that recently I've been receiving e-mails in regards to possibly not
Page 92
September 12-13,2006
having adequate softball or baseball fields, I guess basically baseball
fields for the young leagues, the Babe Ruth leagues and stuff of this
nature. Could you shed any light on that?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. It's a nice problem to have. We
need more sports fields than we -- we have a lot of people playing
sports, and the field use is maximized. In North Naples Little League,
for example, they use four of our fields, two at Osceola, one at
Veteran's and one at Star Garpetti, and we're in constant
communication with the North Naples Little League to make those
fields available for their league.
There is a question of North Collier Regional Park. As you
know, North Collier Regional Park, the softball fields, the soccer
fields, they're not quite done. They're almost done. And the intent of
those fields is for them to be used for tournament play and games.
And so we think that that's going to take some of the pressure
away from the field use that we have. Once those fields become
available, the tournaments, the games that will play there will help
alleviate some of the pressure that we feel on the other fields.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. But getting back to the item on
the floor here in regards to addressing some of the concerns that
Commissioner Fiala has--
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. First of all, I'd like to apologize to
Commissioner Fiala. We were in communication with you but
misunderstood your intent and understand totally your desire to have
these meetings within the scope of the winter when some of our
northern folks come back.
We do -- I just want to point out though, Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board, your board does meet on a monthly basis. It takes a
variety of public input on subjects that we're dealing with, and
Manatee Park did come up in August.
And I just wanted to say that we wanted to keep you in the loop
with that, in that discussion coming up.
Page 93
September 12-13, 2006
There was a survey that we sought that was an unscientific
survey. It was just an attempt to continue to get input. And it's
always an issue for us of how to get community, what's the best
method.
Surveys are often something that we can use. Many of the grant
programs that we go after, our ability to document survey use is
critical. So it's kind of a way of us doing business.
The survey results, we attempted to get the five-mile area around
the park. We took a random selection of people in those
neighborhoods, and we're gathering that information. But we want to
hold back until the public meeting that you mentioned occurs and get
that process in.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Barry, you know, I think that, first
of all, when the P ARAB met they had no idea that all of this had been
taking place or that it had been discussed for such a long period of
time. And so I think that, you know, the reason I knew about it two
weeks in advance is because I asked you.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you replied to my email. Had I
not asked you -- and I just did it on a fluke -- I would have never
known it was being brought up. Although, you weren't here so you
maybe don't know how important this is to that community.
I would suggest to you that we could work together before my
town hall meeting -- I would be delighted to have you there -- and
work out a questionnaire or a survey, whatever you want to call it, to
be handed out at the door to each person that comes in.
I don't -- I haven't seen your survey, but, you know, we can work
together on putting something together so the people who actually will
be affected by this park and/or using it will be able to have particular
input. And I think that by doing that, we'll have a community park,
okay?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am.
Page 94
September 12-13,2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And my second question has
nothing to do with you. It's the library, and I am still concerned.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner Fiala asked in her comments if the
board give board direction to go out with a second architectural firm to
get an old Florida -- at least an old Florida design that is in keeping
with old Florida, and she'd like a second opinion, so to speak.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And let me say just a little bit
further, thank you, Mr. Mudd. The reason that this has been important
is what we're trying to do in the entire community is set a theme, set a
tone. As we now redevelop and build, what we're wanting to do is
look a little bit different than other parts of the community. And as
has been stated many times, old Florida seems like a warm,
welcoming type of a style saying, we want you here, you're welcome
here. And we're hoping that this library will set the stage for others to
follow.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I just want to
point out to my colleagues, the discussion of the design, architectural,
for the south regional library and what Commissioner Fiala is asking
already came to the board. I don't see what the problem is, why it
wasn't granted of the East Naples Civic Association president, and
again, the commissioner of the district. Why are things changing?
That direction was given a long time ago.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, that is true. And we were -- we
were extremely surprised to see what came out of all of the -- from the
RFP as well as all the previous discussions for years. And so -- and I
hate to bother you with all of this, but it needs to be settled, please.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, if I could finish.
Can we direct the county manager to work with the
commissioner of the district and resolve these issues? These two
issues were brought up to us in the past, at least my impression, that
Page 95
September 12-13, 2006
these issues was resolved, but only to find out that they haven't been.
So, Commissioner Fiala, in my opinion, is in the steering seat of
these issues, and the county manager needs to correct what, my
perception at least, is, her considerations and concerns hasn't been
addressed and they need to.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I think Commissioner
Henning is putting this conversation in the right context in that we've
got an issue of the level of control that's coming from the County
Manager's Office on down through.
And the commissioner of that district isn't being brought into it
at, what do you want to call it, at a time -- in an element that allows
for consideration of other ideas and what the public is.
I'll be honest with you, when it comes to the opinion of what the
district wants, I would trust that commissioner more than I would trust
the opinion of staff, you know, as far as -- because they've got the feel
of what the public's all about.
They're putting their life on the line every time they make -- well,
they're putting their career, their political career on the line every time
they make a decision. If they want to run contrary to public opinion,
they're going to pay the price.
And we've seen that before working from the civic association
where we had to bring these things to fruit (sic). And when we had a
politician that wasn't listening to what we were doing, we usually
moved towards the direction of replacing them. So her concerns are
very well founded.
And I think the county manager needs to work closely with
Commissioner Fiala to be able to find out where everything went
astray, to be able to see what we need to do as far as the community
meetings coming up, what we need to do for reconsideration, who was
in the loop when it came time to make the decision, the advisory
group that made this decision? Was that advisory group something
Page 96
September 12-13,2006
that was countywide or was is some district-wide?
A lot of questions have to be answered. I prefer they work first
with Commissioner Fiala and then possibly the county manager when
he has his one-on-one with the commissioners and give us a briefing
on where everything was, where we are now and where we're going to
go in the future.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And thank you, Commissioner
Henning, as well. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do we have nods to direct this?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Great, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. Why don't we take a lunch
break and return at one o'clock.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: An hour and three minutes?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: An hour and three minutes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do you want to think that over a
little? Do I hear a motion?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So we'll recess until one o'clock. Thank
you very much.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
(Commissioner Henning is present in the boardroom.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
Before we start the afternoon's proceedings, if everyone that has
pagers or cell phones would please turn them off, I'd appreciate it very
much.
And I believe we have a time certain for one o'clock.
Item #9G
Page 97
September 12-13, 2006
RESOLUTION 2006-237: APPOINTING G. ALLEMAN, L.
HARTMAN, T. JONES, K. V ANLENGEN, K. LYNCH, W.
MCDANIEL, T. NANCE, S. PRICE, R. PRIDDY, D. RANKIN, R.
RICE (W/WAIVER), C. SPILKER, C. TEARS (W/WAIVER) TO
THE EAST OF 951 INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES
HORIZON STUDY PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MASTER PLAN
COMMITTEE - ADOPTED WITH MOTION TO CHOOSE 13 TO
COMMITTEE, SAVE 2 AL TERNA TE SPOTS FOR A LATER
DATE AND TO RE-ADVERTISE
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, and that is -- and that is item 9G. This
item to be heard at one p.m. It's an appointment of members to the
East 951 Infrastructure and Services Horizon Study Public
Participation Master Plan Committee.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We'll lead this off with
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I make a motion we continue this
to another day --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and readvertise it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That sounds good to me.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can we readvertise all these?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: As long as this doesn't turn into a
three-day session.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, we'll continue this
tomorrow morning.
Yes. I thank you very much for giving me the opportunity for a
lead- in, and I'm trying to stall long enough to get my glasses, and
there they are. Thank you.
I know that everyone here has certain people's names that stood
Page 98
September 12-13, 2006
right out and they were very impressed with. I did spend a
considerable amount of time going over this particular list of 33
applicants. And it's absolutely wonderful that there's that much citizen
interest out there in what's taking place.
What I did do -- and it's purely for discussion purposes. I would
like to tell you the 15 people that I personally selected and the reasons
why, and then we can take it from there, if I may, Chairman Halas.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Starting right off
with the list, and I'm working there from the page there, agenda page 4
of 91, it continues over to 5 and then to 6.
Going down the list, and I'll give you the reasons why I came up
with this particular -- some of these people I really don't know other
than the fact that I read their resumes.
The first one would be Jeanne Alleman, A - L- E- M -A - N --
A-L-L-E-M-A-N, Forest Glens Golf and Country Club, which gives
one part of the area that's represented.
From there all the way down to Linda Hartman, who's been very
involved in the civic association. And the Estate represents something
like about 40 to 50 percent of the total area as far as population goes.
And from there -- and I -- the order is just following these
particular sheets. Tom Jones from Barron Collier Company. They're
big players. They really need to have a seat on the proceedings.
From there down to Kris Lengen, L-E-N-G-E-N, Bonita Bay Group.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Kris Van Lengen.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Lengen.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Kris Van Lengen.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I'm having a hard time
with the size of these letters. From Bonita Bay Group. Once again,
big players in this particular area.
Then Kenneth Lynch, who is Waterways/Orangetree area, and
Bill McDaniel, who's very, very involved in the Corkscrew
Page 99
September 12-13,2006
Association.
Then from there, Tim Nance, who's the Belle Meade area,
represents that area quite well and been very active with their civic
association.
Then down farther, Stephen Price. Mr. Price, of course, I think
you all know him from Immokalee. He's very, very involved in there.
Been a player for years.
Russell Priddy, who is in the farming industry out there in the
eastern part of Collier County and a large landowner.
Douglas Rankin because of his involvement in Golden Gate
Estates. Richard Rice from the Immokalee Chamber of Commerce
who has a very good idea how the world's put together in that
particular area.
On the next page, Christian Spilker.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Spilker.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. A strong
environmental background, and of course, Collier Enterprises. The
other was Barron Collier, and they're two separate companies.
Clarence Tears, Big Cypress Basin. Obviously Clarence is going
to be in a very important element, because one of the -- one of the
things we're going to be dealing with with this particular study, of
course, is going to be the drainage of the area. What better person to
have on there but a person that's totally involved in that from the
beginning.
Mark Teaters from Golden Gate, which gives us complementary
of three people from that area with the heavy population.
And then the last person would be Scott Truesdell. Am I
pronouncing it right, Donna?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Truesdell, yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Truesdell.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. No, that particular
name is struck out. That takes us to 16. Toll Brothers didn't quite
Page 100
September 12-13, 2006
measure up as far as the other developers went.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So that name's off?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That name's off. That would be
my 15 for suggestions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was 14 now that you took that
one off.
MS. FILSON: I have 14.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I think it was 16 for that
one, if I'm not mistake.
MS. FILSON: I have 14.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Fourteen?
MR. MUDD: I have 14.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You've got to pick one more.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And we said Tim Nance, didn't
we?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Phil Brougham is part of the
Fiddler's Creek community who dips way into that area. Would that
be something you would consider, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that's east of951, that's
the problem. I mean, they are -- they are technically available to be on
the committee, but they -- Fiddler's Creek, if I remember correctly --
yeah, wait. It does reside east of 951. No, I wouldn't have any
objection if that's your recommendation.
MS. FILSON: What was that name?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Phil Brougham.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I see it right there.
MR. MUDD: Six down from the top.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's 15.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yep. That would be a good
blend.
MS. FILSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
Page 101
September 12-13, 2006
MS. FILSON: May I ask a question, Commissioner? One of the
candidates that you picked is a candidate.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's true. And I read that
particular document which says -- he's a candidate for Mosquito
Control. And it says here that no member of any county board shall
become a candidate for an elected political office and continue to
serve on such board during his or her candidacy unless the board
member/candidate is running unopposed for a non-remunerative
elected position or an elected position receiving nominal
remuneration.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Remuneration.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Remuneration, such as
Mosquito Control, and that particularly was mentioned, and that's the
position he's running for. So if I'm reading this correct, he would be
eligible. If I'm not reading correct, then we'll remove his name.
MS. FILSON: He is opposed.
MR. WEIGEL: He is opposed?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Did you want to see this?
MS. FILSON: Does he have opposition, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, he does.
MR. WEIGEL: I would suggest that if the board wants to further
elucidate the policy or make it clearer than what it states in the
resolution -- the resolution is based upon the prior discussion of the
board, as you know.
And we talked about unopposed candidates and the fact that our
prior policy was that you could not be a candidate, opposed or
unopposed, and have the opportunity to be on a committee or advisory
board. So we got past that with the idea of saying, if it's unopposed
then it's not an issue and/or -- and it was a non-remunerative position.
You may want to read that again at the last part regarding
remunerative position, but it appears to me the idea was that if it was
remunerative position, that alone would not be a problem for the
Page 102
September 12-13, 2006
appointment and by virtue of the fact that Mosquito Control is
mention.
We wanted to say that those minimally paid elected positions
were also not non-starters for people to have the opportunity to serve
on a committee. But it's not -- it did not appear clear to me from the
policy which we, I think correctly have stated in the resolution, that it
refers to where there is opposition and/or it happens to be Mosquito
Control Board in this case, which is remunerative, but nominally so.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It mentions Mosquito Control as
an example.
MR. WEIGEL: Right. The prior -- the prior to -- based on this
resolution, which is the current policy of the board, there were two
avenues. One was unopposed and unopposed if it was a position of a
very low remuneration, such as Mosquito Control. I don't think it's
any clearer than that.
The board could indicate even today that it wishes the
clarification that even if it's opposed and it's one of these
low-remunerative positions, that the board does not have a problem
with a person being a candidate in such a situation and being on a --
being placed on a committee or advisory board. I don't think you've
quite stated that previously.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can you find another applicant in
that bunch?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'm sure we could if
there's any possibility that we're not happy with that particular
individual because of the possibility of unfair advantage. I just took it
word for word from the resolution that we put out.
So -- and I'll be honest with you, the -- the one that I think, past
that, that I would recommend would be Patricia Couture because of
her involvement in the past with the Golden Gate community. It's
been very, very strong. It's good to see her coming back into the fold
of taking an interest with what's taking place. She's very
Page 103
September 12-13, 2006
knowledgeable about the historical part of Collier County government
and how everything came to be in that particular area.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so who do we strike off then?
Who was running for office?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. We took off Mark
Teaters.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Mark Teaters.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mark Teaters, okay.
MS. FILSON: If I could make one more comment, please.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm next.
MS. FILSON: Two applicants on here already serve on two
committees, so you'll need to waive section 5D of ordinance 2001-55
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ifwe get to that point.
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Who's that applicant though?
MS. FILSON: Well, there's two of them. Richard Rice. He
serves on the Immokalee EZDA and the Immokalee Master Plan, and
Clearance Tears serves on Lake Trafford and the Immokalee Master
Plan.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, regarding the policy on
candidates and appointed board positions, I must point out, it is the
board's policy, and I think the board can deviate from the policy. I
think the intent of the policy was so candidates don't use that for their
benefit of their campaign.
In this case, of Mark Teaters, he is an existing president of the
Golden Gate area -- Golden Gate Estates Civic Association and very
much involved in that association.
I think it would be imperative to have his input as a member on
this committee. So I would like to see him put on there.
Page 104
September 12-13,2006
Also I'd like to -- I don't think this -- unless it is a consideration
for a taxing district, I think whatever services the committee
recommends is going to affect all the citizens in Collier County, and it
should be a broad based, but heavily to District 5.
Michael Dedio is a former -- past planning board member and
former elected official in a New England state. I know him well, and I
think he would be a great addition to the committee as far as input on
planning for services in -- east of 951. So I hope that the motion
maker -- I think it's a motion -- would consider that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I appreciate your input. I
hadn't made it to a motion at this time, but I think it might facilitate us
moving everything forward if I did.
The ones that I recommended with the elimination of Mr. Teaters
-- and I agree with you, Mr. Henning, he's a tremendous asset, but if
there's any level of un comfort on the commission with it, I'd just as
soon not pursue that particular thing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I just have a comment yet,
because my little button is on before you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, forgive me. I didn't mean
to talk over you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If you don't mind.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: He was -- yeah, I think he was
answenng.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll stop.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And what I wanted to say was,
because I totally agree with both of you, possibly we could -- you
know, depending on how you want to vote, like Commissioner
Henning said, it is a board rule anyway, and we can -- you know, we
can modify that. If you don't feel comfortable doing that, we can
always put that one aside until after the election, so I think we can do
it either way.
Page 105
September 12-13,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think that would be a good way.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And with this Michael --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: After the election.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- Dedio, possibly we could -- if we
could create an alternate position as well so -- you know, for one of
them, either he or Mark Teaters, so that they would have some input.
I agree that we should have people from other areas, especially with
expertise. So those are some things to be considered. I hope I didn't
jumble it up too much. But I think you're right. I think Mr. Teaters
definitely should be there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, let me -- help me with this
just a little bit. You think that the recommendations should be made
contingent upon Mr. Feeders (sic) being able to join this committee
after the September -- or November 2nd election?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. The committee would
kick into play at what time? I'm curious. Anybody know? It might
not even be an issue.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Let me see if I could
facilitate this. Why don't we appoint 13 members today and postpone
the appointment of the other two until November; is that okay?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's a wonderful idea.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that way you're not making a
preselection. If you make a selection today, you're going to violate
the policy unless you change the policy. So if you select 13 members
now and then you select two more members in November, then you
can add whoever you like to that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then I make a motion
that we do just that. Is there something wrong with that, Mr. Weigel?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, why don't you--
Page 106
September 12-13,2006
MR. WEIGEL: I'm not saying anything.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think before we make a motion, we
should have some further discussion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We should figure out who the 13
are.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. I think we ought to figure out
who the 13 are.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I've got some -- I was wondering about
this George Ski (sic). He's a business owner and owns Gulf Port
Motors. I think he lives out in that area, doesn't he? He's also an
engineering person. I think that that might be a pretty good person.
About how Patricia Humphries? Do you have any knowledge of
her?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, no. Patricia Humphries is a
tremendous asset, but there was already three -- three or four people
from the same Golden Gate Estates Civic Association.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Because she was one of my
original selections, and I started seeing I had too many people from
one organization. That's the reason why I didn't --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do you have -- another person that was
-- that's quite an activist, Ty Agoston.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, Ty has been, but he hasn't
been for some time.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm glad you're asking these
questions, because I gave quite a bit of thought before I made these
recommendations.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Another person that I was looking at was
this Richard Smith. Do you have -- what's your concerns?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, once again, he is involved
Page 107
September 12-13, 2006
with Golden Gate Area Civic Association, which brings us very heavy
in that direction, and he also lives in Belle Meade, and we already
have one person from Belle Meade in the form of Tim Nance.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, you did give this a lot of
thought.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: As much time as I spent on the
rest of the agenda I spent on this list.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do we have any other suggestions from
our commissioners in regards to names you want to throw in the hat
before we sit down and pick 13 of them that we're going to vote on?
Any suggestions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If not I'll turn this over then to
Commissioner Coletta. And why don't you name off the 13 at this
time --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- that we'll decide --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And do we--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- whether we're going to vote on.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do we have to name the
alternates, or does that come back to us later?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Why don't we have that -- have that as
later.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Bring it back later, yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We'll just get the 13.
MS. FILSON: Can I ask one additional question?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then it would be G.
Jeanne Alleman, Patricia Couture, Linda Hartman, Thomas Jones.
Am I going too quick? Kris Van Lengen, Keith Lynch, William
McDaniel. Too fast? Tim Nance, Steve Price, Russell Priddy, Doug
Rankin, Richard Rice, Christian Spikler -- Spilker.
Page 108
September 12-13, 2006
MR. MUDD: That's 13.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is that 13?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, that's 13.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I'm sorry. I obviously
have -- I've got a couple names I've got to remove from here to make
it work because I've got to have Clearance Tears on there, and I'll take
anybody -- I'll take somebody else off. So I've got one too many.
Well, I'm going to take off Patricia Couture for the simple reason
that I have adequate representation at this time from Golden Gate
Estates.
MS. FILSON: You didn't name her that time, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I didn't name her?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, you did.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, he did.
MR. MUDD: Yes, he did.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Pat Couture.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: She's right under Cheryl Couture.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
MS. FILSON: Did you name Cheryl?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I did not.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: He's got 13.
MR. MUDD: He has 13 right now.
MS. FILSON: So after we make these 13 appointments, then
you'll direct me to bring the applicants that weren't appointed back the
second meeting of November to choose two additional members?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct. And I wouldn't
recommend readvertising.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I throw in a little suggestion
also? When you write the letters that say, you know, at this time
you're not appointed to that committee, could you invite them to
Page 109
September 12-13, 2006
attend these meetings so that -- because some of them, I'm sure, have
very good input.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: They've got great ideas.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, yeah. We need them all.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So you decided to drop Patricia--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Couture.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- Couture and put Clarence Tears on; is
that correct?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So that's your motion. And do we have a
second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion on the floor of the 13
that's been discussed. Motion is made by Commissioner Coletta and
seconded by Commissioner Coyle.
MS. FILSON: That's including waiving section seven five--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct, waiving it for
those individuals.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And that is in your motion.
Commissioner, is that in your second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign.
Page 110
September 12-13, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. You have four and one. Thank
you very much.
We'll move on to the next item.
Item #7A
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
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 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to another time
certain item, and that is -- no, excuse me.
Commissioners, item 7 A was advertised for this meeting, and the
petitioner came forward and asked that this particular item be
continued to a future date. And this had to do with the Olivia
Mulching and Recycling Facility. Does the board want to continue
Page 111
September 12-13,2006
this item because it was advertised --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motions to continue.
MR. MUDD: If it does --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
MR. MUDD: -- I need a motion to do so.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion to continue
this item by Commissioner Fiala and a second by Commissioner
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ms. Filson, is there any
speakers?
MS. FILSON: No; no, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just making sure.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there 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.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
Item #8A
PETITION: PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8438: LAKEVIEW DRIVE OF
NAPLES, LLC, REPRESENTED BY CLAY BROOKER, OF
CHEFFY, PASSIDOMO, WILSON & JOHNSON, LLP,
Page 112
September 12-13, 2006
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM THE RESIDENTIAL
MULTIPLE FAMIL Y-6 (RMF-6 & RMF-6(3)) ZONING
DISTRICTS (A PORTION OF WHICH IS SUBJECT TO A
SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLAY (ST)) TO THE
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) BY
AMENDING THE APPROVED WINDSTAR PUD TO ADD THE
SUBJECT 20.52 ACRES AND ITS ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL
UNITS THEREBY ALLOWING A MAXIMUM OF 584
RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON 341.1 ACRES. THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE
OF BA YSHORE DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 0.6 MILES SOUTH
OF THE BAYSHORE DRIVE AND U.S. 41 (TAMIAMI TRAIL
EAST) INTERSECTION IN SECTIONS, 11, 14 AND 23
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA - CONTINUED TO THE OCTOBER 10,2006 BCC
MEETING, WITH A TIME LIMIT OF 45 MINUTES - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our time certain
item of 8A. This item is to be heard at 1: 15 . We're running about 10
minutes late.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by commissioner members. It's petition
PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8438, Lakeview Drive of Naples, LLC,
represented by Clay Brooker of Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson and
Johnson, LLP, requesting a rezone from the residential multiple family
6, RMF -6 and the RMF -6 slash 3, zoning districts, a portion of which
is subject to a special treatment overlay to residential planned unit
development, RPUD, by amending the approved Windstar PUD to add
the subject 20.52 acres and its additional residential units thereby
allowing a maximum of 584 residential units on 341.1 acres.
The subject property is generally located on the west side of
Bayshore Drive, approximately .6 miles south of Bayshore Drive and
Page 113
September 12-13, 2006
u.s. 41 intersection, in Sections 11, 14, and 23, Township 50 south,
Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. At this time all those that
plan to give testimony in this, would you please rise to be sworn in by
our court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: At this time I'd like to ask the
commissioners to come forth with their ex parte, starting with
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I have had
meetings, telephone calls and correspondence concerning this issue.
I've also spoken with staff about this petition. And all of those
communications are contained in my public information file.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I've had meetings, emails
and phone calls, and it's all contained within my public information
file.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I also have received
correspondence, emails and phone calls on this particular item, and
they're here sitting on the dais here for people to inspect if they need
to.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I, too, have had meetings,
correspondence, spoken with staff, emails, phone calls. I've tried to
speak to everybody that I could to do as much background research as
possible.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I received some emails written
correspondence, and I also talked to -- briefly to the CRA director on
this issue, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. We need a
presentation from staff.
Page 114
September 12-13,2006
MS. DESELEM: Good morning. Or, I'm sorry. Good afternoon.
For the record, my name is Kay Deselem, and I'm a Principal Planner.
And I know the petitioner is going to make his presentation first,
however, it came to my attention this morning that what's included in
your packet is not a strike-through underline of the PUD document, so
it doesn't actually reflect the proposed changes. Somehow there might
have been a glitch in transferring the documents and you did not get
the strike-through underline version.
In addition to that, I noticed that there were like multiple page 9s.
I don't know why. So I have prepared another PUD document that
you can follow the petitioner's presentation. That's why I wanted to
give it to you first.
The middle portion of this document is dated in the footer
9/12/06. So there's no difference as far as the text, but like I said,
what I understand you got did not reflect the strike-through underlines.
So if I may, I'll bring this to you now.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm kind of curious. Why was this just
found this morning and not found prior to this going to the printer or
even after we received our agenda package?
MS. DESELEM: When I submitted the information into the
county electronic system, I had no way to know that the strike-through
underline didn't come through until I saw a printed copy of what you
got in your packet this morning. This morning was the first time I saw
that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. DESELEM: With that, I'll let Clay Brooker, the applicant's
representative, do his presentation.
MR. BROOKER: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. My name is Clay Brooker. I'm with the law firm of
Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson and Johnson here in Naples, and we
represent the petitioner, Lakeview Drive of Naples, LLC.
I was unaware of this strike-through underline glitch. For the
Page 115
September 12-13, 2006
record, I submitted strike-through underlines to the county. Most
likely it will have very little effect because we're not changing that
PUD document very much whatsoever. We're simply adding some
land into the existing Windstar PUD document, and we will subj ect
ourselves to the vast, vast majority of those regulations as they exist
today.
Prior to starting for conflict of interest purposes, I'd like to give
you the names of the individuals who are behind or at the bottom of
the various entities that own an interest in Lakeview Drive of Naples,
LLC.
Those individuals are Jack Antaramian, Fred Pezeshkan, Robert
Carsello, Iraj Zand and Raymond Sehayek. And I'll be happy to give
the spellings to the court reporter because I know those names might
be difficult.
To start with an overview, I'd like to show you an aerial of
Windstar and the subject property.
A lot of times when I use this little pointer the whole screen goes
blank, so bear with me if it does that.
The subject 20.52 acres, as indicated here, I'm showing with the
arrow on Elmo, that is the subject 20.52 acres. The remainder in the
dashed red is existing Windstar.
To orient yourself, Bayshore Drive is in this location running
along the top of the aerial from north to this direction, south. So north
is this way, the East Trail is off to the left of this aerial.
The proj ect is, as I mentioned, what I'll describe as a request to
annex this 20.52 acres into the Windstar PUD. I'm not talking about
an annexation into the City of Naples, but just folding this property
into the existing Windstar PUD within the county.
It does abut, as the aerial shows, the northeast corner of Windstar
PUD. Many people, including ourselves, we consider Windstar PUD
to be the jewel of East Naples, if not the jewel, one of the premier
developments of the East Naples community.
Page 116
September 12-13, 2006
It was initially approved some 25 years ago by the county in
1981 for an initial density of749 units. It remains today, I think,
without any question, a successful, beautiful golf course and
residential development.
We are very excited at the prospect of joining this community
and believe that this request, this annexation request, will be good for
everyone.
The Windstar Master Association and the Windstar Golf Club
fully support this petition, and agreements have been entered whereby
this 20.52 acres would become a full dues paying member of the
master association and would provide the golf club with an infusion of
new members.
You should have received letters of support from the presidents
of both the master association and the golf club, as well as from other
Windstar residents. I believe I can represent that the vast majority of
the Windstar residents favor this petition.
We also believe that this petition is good for the community in
general. We are part of the Bayshore community redevelopment area.
And after making a presentation to the CRA advisory board, they
voted unanimously in favor of this project.
In essence, we see this proj ect as being an integral part of the
overall revitalization of this redevelopment area.
Finally, approving this project will help with improvements to
Lakeview Drive itself. I'll give you more details in that regard in a
minute. But we have listened to the concerns of our neighbors to the
east of20.52 acres. We have planned the development in a way to
minimize the impact upon them and have agreed to contribute
roadway improvements to Lakeview Drive. Again, more details in
that regard in a minute.
In the end, we've strived to be a good neighbor to all of our
adjoining neighborhoods.
The property, as I mentioned, is 20.52 acres. To the north of the
Page 117
September 12-13, 2006
property just off the aerial here where I'm showing with the cursor
pointer, is multi-family zoned and mobile home zoning.
To the east, this community here, is a single-family, residential
single-family. First of all, there's a canal immediately to the east, 50
feet wide, followed then to the east by a single-family neighborhood.
To the south is existing Windstar and a residential multi-family
district, and to the west, of course, is the Windstar community.
The 20.52 acres is zoned residential multi-family. So
single-family and multi-family structures are allowed as a matter of
right today.
Under this zoning classification, we could build 72 units on the
property today. The height limitation would be 35 feet of zoned
height in the rear yard setback, and I'll get more into detail about why
I'm picking that one out in a minute. But the rear yard setback in RMF
is 20 feet.
I should also mention, to close with regard to just describing the
property in general, that this is the property the county has -- or will
utilize to place the spoil from the Haldeman Creek dredge project on.
Lakeview Drive of Naples, LLC, was approached by the county to
offer its land for disposal purposes in terms of taking the spoil out of
Haldeman Creek and the adjoining canals and placing it on property
temporarily to be moved further. And I understand that dredge project
should be underway any day now.
The petition, as I mentioned, is to fold this into the Windstar
development and develop another clustered neighborhood within the
Windstar community.
As you can see, Windstar has been developed over the years with
several clustered developments, I believe there are 11 of them,
throughout the community separated by water features and the golf
course fairways and so forth.
This 20.52 acres would simply be another cluster development
within Windstar, and we would subject ourselves to the exact same
Page 118
September 12-13, 2006
regulations that apply to all of those other neighborhoods that already
exist in Windstar.
The uses proposed are single-family, multi-family, townhouses,
that sort of things, residential. Just like all the other neighborhoods in
Windstar are subject to those permitted uses. And by the way, that is
exactly what is permitted in the existing RMF zoning district as well.
So no changes are being proposed in terms of permitted uses.
The height -- the proposed height is 40 feet. That's exactly what
is permitted in Windstar and has been permitted in Windstar since
1981 when it was initially approved. That 40 feet -- if you recall me
talking about RMF just a minute ago, 40 feet is a five-foot increase.
We're asking for a five-foot increase in zoned height from what is
permitted today in the RMF zoning.
However, with respect to that increase, that request for that five
feet of increase and respecting the single-family community to the east
in an attempt to minimize our visual impact upon that community, we
have agreed to the following, which are some of the staff stipulations
in the executive summary in the staff report.
First, an increased setback along the east canal. This is what I'm
referring to, is the east canal here, instead of the existing 20 feet which
exists today for RMF. We have agreed, it was brought up in a
Planning Commission meeting for 25 feet, and we have agreed to do
that.
In addition, we have agreed to double the number of plantings
required for the landscaping buffer along that east side. Again, the
east side here. Along this area we have agreed to double the plantings
required by the Land Development Code.
By way of example, I believe -- I'm not certain -- but I believe a
type B landscape buffer would be required here. That requires again,
by way of example, trees planted every 25 feet. So when we say we'll
double the plantings, we would plant a tree every 12 and a half feet.
Finally, with respect to the height, we will agree -- this was again
Page 119
September 12-13, 2006
brought up in the Planning Commission -- to an actual building height
of 50 feet. That is the height. If you stand at ground after the building
is constructed and placed a ruler up against the wall, to the topest (sic)
__ to the highest structure on that building, no more than 50 feet.
And the reason why there's a difference between the 40 feet and
the 50 feet is -- you've probably heard it before but -- the Land
Development Code measures height by -- from FEMA, to the deck
line of a mansard roof, and that's what we are proposing to place on
this property. So we would comply with that 40- foot zoned height, but
in addition to that, we will make sure that we do not exceed 50 feet
actual building height, as you and I may understand it in laymen's
terms.
The density proposed for this petition, our proposal seeks to keep
that Windstar density the same, which is 1.71 units per acres after
folding this property into the Windstar development.
The density of 1.71 units per acre will remain exactly the same.
The overall units for Windstar will increase from the currently
approved 549 to a total of 584. This is a 35-unit increase.
At 35 units is basically the 20.52 acres multiplied out by the 1.71
units per acre that we're agreeing to keep stable across the board.
There has been some confusion about how we've -- how you
calculate all this and what does this ultimately mean as to what can we
develop on the 20.52 acres. And I put together a little table that I'm
hopeful will lead us through that.
I'm going to try to blow this up so everyone can see it.
MR. MUDD: Is that good?
MR. BROOKER: A little bit more, and I'll start at the top and go
to the bottom. There. I'm hoping everyone can see that on the screen.
Under current zoning, the first numbers you see are the Windstar
PUD. This is the approved units, 549. I mentioned back in 1981 the
county initially approved this for 749. In 1993 that was reduced by
200 units to the currently existing units. That number, 549, has
Page 120
September 12-13, 2006
existed since 1993, or for 16 years.
The Fisherman's Village, which is the 20.52-acre track, that
zoning today allows 72 units. So if you added under current zoning
today, if you add that currently approved 549 and that 72, you get a
total possible potential of units in this area when you look at the two
properties combined of 621 units. That's not what we're proposing,
however.
Under our proposal, you again take the approved units for
Windstar. That's 549 there. The Fisherman's Village tract, that 20.52
acres, that 1.71 units an acre -- per acre will render 35 units additional.
You add the 549 and the 35, you get to the 584 that I just
mentioned.
That is our proposal. A total density of 584 units for all of
Windstar which, when divided by the new acreage of Windstar, about
340 acres or so, you remain stable at 1.71 units per acre.
Note that under the current zoning, when you compare current
zoning today versus what we are proposing, we are proposing a net
reduction of 37 units for this area.
Now, what can we place under this proposal on the 20.52 acres?
Again, we start off with the 549 that's approved, but what has actually
been developed in Windstar is 438 units.
If you do the subtraction, the difference there is 111 units the
county has approved but they are unused at this time. They are sitting
there in a bank. They are an asset of the Windstar Master Association.
Those units, again, approved by the county, factored into the road
network system by transportation so they exist -- they're treated by
transportation as if they're there, but they simply have not been used
yet.
In a little bit you'll most likely hear from the president of the
master association, and he will tell you that 111 units is a value asset
to them and that they've always considered using that at the right time,
either internally or when they can join up with someone next door,
Page 121
September 12-13, 2006
such as us, to utilize those units.
When Lakeview Drive of Naples approached the master
association, they thought, this is a good match. And that's --
agreements have been entered whereby we, Lakeview Drive of
Naples, are able to utilize that unused, yet approved by the Board of
County Commissioners in 1993, density for a number of units.
So if you take that 111, unused but approved, and add the 35
units that are comprised by the Fisherman's Village tract, you get a
total addition of 146 units.
So theoretically we could place, under this proposal, a total of
146 units on the Fisherman's Village 20.52-acre tract. We are not
proposing to do that. The proposal will call -- pure math calls for that,
but we are agreeing, as the last line of my little table says, we are
agreeing to limit it to 137 units, and that's what our conceptual site
plan shows.
As part of every rezone we're required to submit a conceptual site
land. It's not supposed to be binding on the petitioner, but just to give
an idea to the county staff and to the county and tell them what could
possibly go on this property if your petition is approved. This was the
conceptual site plan we have submitted, and it does show 137 units on
the tract.
To orient you, this is kind of flipped around from the aerial.
Lakeview Drive comes in from the bottom of the aerial moving west
here. The north side is up here, Haldeman Creek is to the right,
Windstar is throughout here, the single-family development to the east
is here, and there's the canal separating it.
What this conceptual site plan shows is a link-up to Lakeview
Drive here and a connection to the Windstar existing development
there. Please note that we have placed the structures here as far -- we
pushed them as far west as we could to minimize the impact on the
community to the east, and we've actually, you see, we've kind of
angled them to reduce the mass or bulk effect rather than having a
Page 122
September 12-13, 2006
straight line of buildings kind of looking like an army barracks. We've
angled them to create better views for the buildings and to minimize
the bulking impact on the views from the east.
As I've mentioned, we have committed -- the Planning
Commission asked us to commit to the site plan in terms of general
layout. And I want to be very careful that we are committing to this,
but this has not gone through the SDP level of review to make sure we
comply with all Land Development Code provisions.
So when we say we commit to this, we commit to where the road
is located and the general layout of the buildings, certainly the number
of units would be maximum, but that's what we committed to.
And I should also tell you that the docks shown here are, again,
conceptual. The number, location, and configuration of those docks is
going to be subject to the Land Development Code and the Manatee
Protection Plan. So, again, I want to be very careful that while we
commit to the site plan, there are going to be changes to comply with
the Land Development Code and the Manatee Protection Plan, but not
to the general layout of the street and the buildings.
The master plan -- with regard to traffic. The master plan and the
conceptual site plan show a link-up here with Lakeview Drive, as I
already mentioned, and a link-up with Windstar here. As a side note,
the connection here -- this is Haldeman Creek Drive here as it extends
through Windstar -- the connection to this Fisherman's Village tract
piece of property was actually approved by the county in a plat
approved 20 years ago in 1986.
For various reasons -- I think the predecessor owners of the
various tracts had a falling out -- and the development overall did not
take place. But it was always envisioned for at least two decades to
link these two properties up. And the current approved plat for
Windstar does, in fact, show that link-up to this property.
We have learned from -- in a neighborhood information meeting
and I've had -- personally I've had conversations with some of the
Page 123
September 12-13, 2006
residents to the east, the Lakeview Drive residents, I'll call them, that
their primary concern is the traffic on Lakeview Drive, and we
understand that.
And we have attempted to address it, that concern, in a number of
ways. First we have worked closely with the Bayshore CRA to
coordinate this proposal with the CRA's plans to streetscape Lakeview
Drive.
You'll hear more, hopefully, from David Jackson, the executive
director of the CRA. But he has indicated that they -- the CRA plans
to hold neighborhood meetings or vignettes with the residents to
determine exactly what they want to see done to Lakeview Drive.
In conjunction and in coordination with the CRA, we are
agreeing to contribute to improvements to Lakeview Drive. Primarily
it's a $200,000 contribution. That $200,000 number came from your
own staff at the county -- at the Planning Commission meeting.
That number is broken down into two components; the cost of a
sidewalk extending out to -- along Lakeview Drive from the property
out to Bayshore, as well as widening Lakeview Drive from 18 feet to
22 feet.
There is a timing consideration though with regard to, do we
actually do the construction ourselves or -- which we're happy to do,
or do we pay the money into a CRA trust fund to allow David Jackson
and the CRA to administer that money in the best way they deem in
their own opinions.
We're happy to do either. At the Planning Commission meeting,
a lot of residents spoke that, for safety purposes, they would prefer to
see the sidewalk there before the first construction truck comes down
that roadway, so we're happy to do that. We will, of that $200,000
contribution, we will take part of that out and build the sidewalk
ourselves prior to the first dump truck or construction truck coming
down the roadway.
Having said that, we want to make it very clear that we will put
Page 124
September 12-13, 2006
that sidewalk exactly where the county tells us to put it.
And the reason why I have to make that clarification is because
Lakeview Drive is, I believe, a 60-foot platted right-of-way, and it's
not -- there's not that much asphalt there, and many of the residents
have their mailboxes and perhaps some landscaping and so forth and
so on within the plat of right-of-way, and we personally would not like
__ it would be very awkward if we got into a dispute about putting a
sidewalk down and mowing over someone's mailbox. So we would
prefer to have the county tell us where to put it, and we will build it.
The county staff has told us that the cost of that sidewalk --
again, those are numbers dictated to us -- is $45,000. So the
remainder of that, if you do the math, 200,000 less 45,000 would be
155; 155,000 we would then pay money into a CRA trust fund
designated exclusively for improvements to Lakeview Drive.
Again, those are options we offer at your discretion. We're
agreeable to doing whichever way you want to go, but those were the
directions we sensed from the Planning Commission meeting, to
actually build the sidewalk ahead of time and pay the remainder of
money into a trust fund because it makes no sense for us to widen the
road and then the CRA comes in and tears up all the asphalt that we
just placed when they do their streetscape project.
We have also agreed to alleviate or attempt to alleviate some of
the drainage problems on Lakeview Drive. The CRA has asked us to
accept stormwater runoff from Lakeview Drive into our water
management facility, which is right here, located on the aerial.
The amount of stormwater runoff that we can accept is
undeterminable at this time because the control elevations for that
particular structure are at the discretion primarily of Southwest Florida
Water Management District.
The County Attorney's Office has had some input as to some
language that we would make that determination -- we're happy to
take whatever we can, but that determination would be made at the
Page 125
September 12-13, 2006
time of SDP approval for the project. But that is another way we're
trying to alleviate the impact on the Lakeview Drive residents is by
accepting some of their stormwater down -- and have it flow down to
the west and into our stormwater management facilities.
We have also on our -- on our own site, we have designed this
roadway to be curvilinear in shape. Some of our initial drawings had
a straight line road and, frankly, had some structures way over here
right up close to the east side of the property, but after hearing the
concerns, we decided to design this in a curvilinear fashion with
parking on both sides, and it will be imposed with a 15-mile-per-hour
speed limit.
The idea is to discourage overuse. The connection of this will
allow other Windstar residents to come through and use this Lakeview
Drive access, and that was a point raised by the Lakeview Drive
residents. They were concerned that now this is going to become the
main entrance to Lakeview -- to Windstar.
So what we've done is we have designed this as a way is -- as a
way to discourage the use of it and hopefully make sure that it's not
disproportionately burdened compared to the other entrances and exits
into and out of Winds tar.
Finally, we have entered into a subsequent agreement -- after the
Planning Commission meeting we entered into a subsequent
agreement with the master agreement whereby the master association
would not -- or would be precluded from what I'll term as
overburdening this access at the -- at the new Lakeview Drive access.
At the Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Strain
asked a question. Well, what kind of protections are in place if after
everyone's -- all the construction is said and done for the master
association requiring any future construction use or delivery trucks to
use Lakeview and overburden Lakeview Drive access?
Our response was, we didn't have one in existence at that time,
but a Windstar representative mentioned, we will put one into place.
Page 126
September 12-13, 2006
Commissioner Strain ended up -- with regard to a motion to approve at
that Planning Commission, he ended up voting against. It ended up in
a 4-4 tie at the Planning Commission, so we have no recommendation
either way from the Planning Commission.
But we have since entered into just that type of agreement with
the master association which says that all the entrances to Windstar
must be treated exactly alike. If certain traffic is allowed in one, that
traffic must be allowed in the others; therefore, they are precluded
from overburdening this new Lakeview Drive access.
In speaking with Commissioner Strain after the Planning
Commission meeting, he indicated to me that he would support the
project and he does support the project with that agreement in place. I
have forwarded that agreement to him, and he has raised no objections
to it. I don't know if he's in the crowd today or not, but that was our
conversation.
In conclusion, staff has recommended approval with several
stipulations, all of with which we agree as clarified during my
presentation, most specifically with regard to the timing of the
sidewalk and so forth and so on.
We also agree to voluntarily contribute to the county's affordable
housing fund $1,000 per unit permitted on the Fisherman's Village
tract. We believe this tract, with the various commitments discussed
here, will infuse a high-quality development along with a new breath
of life and money into an area the county has been trying to
incentivize for some time now. We, therefore, respectfully request
your approval of this petition, and I'm happy to answer any questions
you may have. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Lakeview is not connected to
Windstar presently, correct?
MR. BROOKER: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where is it being proposed for a
Page 127
September 12-13, 2006
connection?
MR. BROOKER: Ifwe're going to become part of the Windstar
Master Association and pay our dues, which would go to landscaping
around the community, maintenance of the roadways around the
communities and so forth, getting to and from the golf clubhouse and
those sorts of things, we think it's not only logical but necessary that
we connect up to the Windstar development.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I'm sorry. Why do you
have to connect to Lakeview?
MR. BROOKER: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why can't you just use the roads
in the Windstar community?
MR. BROOKER: I guess technically that is possible. We could
use those roads, the existing main entrance in. It would be a very
circuitous route.
I don't know if the fire department would agree to it; emergency
services would agree to that. As it sits today, Lakeview Drive is our
only access to this property. Without this petition, we will be
connecting up through Lakeview anyway.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. It's part of the plat, you
already stated. It's part of the plat for interconnection.
MR. BROOKER: That's -- the plat actually connects the
Windstar parcel up to the Fisherman's Village tract.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Windstar, right.
MR. BROOKER: Windstar, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So where was the decision to
connect to Lakeview Drive? Where'd that come from?
MR. BROOKER: From the very beginning since this was our
only access to the property to begin with.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Even though the plat says that
you have a roadway from Windstar, that's your only access? Is that
your legal access?
Page 128
September 12-13, 2006
MR. BROOKER: No. Our legal access is Lakeview Drive.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. BROOKER: We have entered into cross access agreements
with Windstar Master Association whereby Windstar will have a right
to use our property and we have a right to use their property. That's
the only legal means by which the two properties can be joined up is
through that agreement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. BROOKER: Our legal access to the property from the
standpoint of the county is Lakeview Drive.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. Maybe I
misunderstood. I thought you said in the plat it shows in Windstar -- a
connection of your property to Windstar.
MR. BROOKER: The plat shows this roadway, Haldeman Creek
Drive --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. BROOKER: -- extending right to here and terminating.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Terminating?
MR. BROOKER: Yeah. If you see -- if you look at the
Windstar plat today, the right-of-way is platted to exist all the way
right to our boundary line.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. BROOKER: And then terminates, correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. My
misunderstanding.
MR. BROOKER: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What -- we're amending this
PUD. And during the amendment, you have to come up -- comply to
new Land Development Code regulations. Does that mean that the
whole Windstar has to comply?
MR. BROOKER: It does not, and we relied on the county
attorney's participation in that regard. Because this is a PUD
Page 129
September 12-13, 2006
amendment and because the Windstar community is aged, it's been
there for over a decade and a half now at least, if you attempted to
apply all today's codes, you would create almost an entire community
that's non-conforming to today's code.
So in conjunction with the County Attorney's Office, this became
a strike-through underline -- which apparently you guys didn't get --
strike-through underline PUD amendment whereby you only open up
those portions that are related to the part that you're amending. You
don't open up the remainder to bring them up to code. And by doing it
that way, we eliminate or we avoid creating 320 acres of
nonconformities.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, we'll get
clarification from the county attorney on that.
The buildings on the viewer now that -- you're saying they're a
zone height from FEMA flood level, which is 13 feet; is that correct?
MR. BROOKER: FEMA is nine feet at this location.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, nine feet. And then
another additional 50 feet on top of that?
MR. BROOKER: No. Let me try to -- I'll show you a diagram
that hopefully will explain that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You can just tell me nine plus,
equals?
MR. BROOKER: Nine plus 40 --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Equals?
MR. BROOKER: -- would go to the deck line of the mansard
roof. That's this level here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. BROOKER: This is how height is measured per the Land
Development Code. You have 40 feet of zoned heigh from FEMA to
the deck line of a mansard roof.
What we are proposing in addition to do -- and this is exactly
what's permitted in Windstar. What we are proposing to do in addition
Page 130
September 12-13, 2006
to that is limit it to 50 feet maximum measured from grade side of the
building, up to the very highest structure of the building, to be no
more than 50 feet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And obviously this is
multi - family?
MR. BROOKER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the zoning on the other
side of the canal?
MR. BROOKER: Single-family.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Single-family.
MR. BROOKER: On--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the average height of
those single-family homes?
MR. BROOKER: I believe in the single-fam -- I don't know the
average height. I didn't go out there and calculate that average height
of them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Two-story, are they two-story
single-family, some of them?
MR. BROOKER: I don't even know, but I think they're
permitted at 35 feet in the single-family district.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And the only other
question is about the PUD amendment that the county attorney can
answer later on. That's the only questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. Any other questions? If not,
we'll hear staffs report.
Thank you very much.
MR. BROOKER: Thank you.
MS. DESELEM: Good afternoon, again. For the record my
name is Kay Deselem, and I am a Principal Planner with Zoning staff.
And you have hopefully now in front of you the executive
Page 131
September 12-13, 2006
summary and the backup documents and the strike-through underline
PUD, which I apologize that you did not get earlier.
And in the executive summary it does summarize staffs position,
and you will see that we used the 26 units that would result as the
additional number of units based on the petitioner's agreement to limit
the Fisherman's Village to 137 units.
Staff has provided you with the fiscal impact analysis, the growth
management impact analysis, the environmental analysis and the
Environmental Advisory Council's analysis, the Planning
Commission's recommendation, the legal considerations to support the
recommendation, and the proposed conditions that came forth from
the discussion at the Planning Commission.
As noted by the petitioner, there was no vote coming forth from
the Planning Commission, as everything ended up in a tie so there was
no recommendation.
But as noted by the petitioner, those recommendations would be
modified in number four depending upon what your pleasure might be
as far as when you want the sidewalks completed and those street
improvements and the traffic calming devices to be completed.
And as you noted the water management provisions, it would be
difficult to have those done prior to knowing what the SDP, the water
management -- you know, what the requirements would be. They just
don't know at this time.
And the Planning Commission had recommended that those
things all be done up front, which, in reality, is going to be kind of
difficult to do.
And in item number 6 on page 8 of the executive summary, it
does talk about a bulkhead setback, and there was some discussion
that that was somewhat confusing, which it is. It talks more of
building setback along that canal as the petitioner's agent explained.
But with the agreement the petitioner has offered that they would
be amenable to limiting this particular project to the layout shown on
Page 132
September 12-13,2006
the conceptual site plan, indeed, there would be an additional setback
because there would be the separation of that internal roadway as well
as the building configurations shown as far as reduction in massing
that the applicant's agent spoke of.
I did also want to note that there is an ST. designation on the
Haldeman Creek portion of the site, and that would go away as part of
this rezoning action for that 20.25 acres because the environmental
impacts have been addressed elsewhere on the site.
And I did hear the applicant's agent make a reference to donating
money to the affordable housing fund, and I just wanted the board's
clarification if, in fact, you were to include that in a motion, that you
stipulate whether there would be a credit against any ordinances that
later might be adopted to address that situation or how you might wish
that to work in this situation.
Other than that, that's my presentation. If you have any
questions, I would be happy to address them.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do we have any questions from
commissioners before we open this up to public comment?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none -- how many speakers do
we have?
MS. FILSON: We have 16 speakers.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sixteen speakers, okay.
Okay . We'll start off and we'll see how this shakes out.
MS. FILSON: Rich Sawicki. He'll be followed by Kyle
Jameson.
MR. SAWICKI: Richard Sawicki, 3150 Lakeview Drive. Mr.
Chairman, I ask that in order to keep this proceedings moving, several
residents are willing to donate their time to my time. I'm not asking
for a half hour, but maybe a little bit more than the three minutes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, how many residents are requesting
to relinquish their time for this gentleman to speak on their behalf?
Page 133
September 12-13, 2006
MS. FILSON: I have three.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We've got about four or five. How about
if I give you six minutes. Will that get you -- six minutes, is that --
MR. SAWICKI: That should be fine. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good. You think you can get your point
across by then?
MR. SAWICKI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. SAWICKI: Regarding the matter before the Planning
Commission of Collier County as it pertains to the zoning of
approximately 20 acres of land located at the end of Lakeview Drive,
our position is as follows:
Weare a group -- we as a group ask the commission to turn down
the request of the position -- petitioner. Our position and
understanding of the project are as follows:
We welcome the fact that development is occurring in our
neighborhood and along Bayshore Drive. As with any development, it
brings both positive and negative changes.
The positives are increased property values, safer neighborhoods,
new businesses, new amenities.
The negatives are increased traffic and changes for long-time
residents.
Changes are inevitable. Weare in no way denying or are
opposed to some type of development occurring on the 20 acres. We
believe in the personal property rights of all.
Our position is very clear. If the project is added to the Windstar
PUD, it should not be and needs not be accessed via Lakeview Drive.
The main entrance of Windstar and the road network can more
than accommodate the extra traffic. No roads would have to be built,
widened or improved. We have not been presented with any evidence
to the contrary.
Approval of this expansion of the PUD will establish -- we have
Page 134
September 12-13, 2006
not -- approval of this expansion of the PUD will establish criteria and
has potential to expand any other adjoining land to any PUD with
excess building capacity in the county. The developers will, in effect,
be dictating zoning boundaries.
The petitioner is asking to have it both ways; all the benefits of
the PUD without any negative impact on its residents, residents of
Windstar. Windstar receives all the benefits. Lakeview residents
receive none.
The contribution by the petitioner for street improvements are, in
our opinion, insignificant compared to the negative impact of our
community. We would gladly forego them to keep the access off
Lakeview for the expanded PUD.
We have no opposition whatsoever to the access via Lakeview
Drive for the current zoning of approximately 72 units, not the 137
proposed. Lakeview access is needed simply because the residents of
Windstar do not want the additional traffic through their development
either.
The issue of interconnectivity of developments does not apply
here because there will be a gate at the entrance of Lakeview Drive to
Fisherman's Village, thus cutting off any interconnectivity.
Regarding traffic patterns. It is uncommon for a development of
this size to use a residential street to access -- for access and egress.
We are aware of plans to widen the street and install sidewalks and
believe that they are mandatory.
Regardless of the outcome of your vote, sidewalks are needed to
be installed. Widening the existing street, however, will lead to an
increase of traffic. We ask that the street be made no wider than 21
feet.
We have reviewed a traffic impact study that was prepared by
Vanasse Daylor, specifically PUDZ-A-2005. Two issues need to be
addressed. Some of them were addressed by the petitioner. My letter
was drafted a week ago.
Page 135
September 12-13, 2006
On that report, they did -- it states that the access from Lakeview
shall be for Fisherman's Village only. That conclusion is based on the
assumption that no traffic from Windstar shall use Lakeview Drive.
To our knowledge, there is nothing that would prevent Windstar
residents that live on the northern side of that development to use
Lakeview as a shortcut rather than using their main entrance. That
issue needs to be addressed. Once again, we receive the negative
impact of the development.
There is also a marina that's going to be proposed and an
additional 1,000 units, a portion of which have been approved or are
in the planning stages along Bayshore.
This brings us to the conclusion that a major traffic study needs
to be done for the entire area. Our CRA has done several workshops
on this matter, and the results are forthcoming.
We feel that if that access is allowed through Lakeview, that we
will become the service and delivery entrance for all of that -- for a
portion of Winds tar.
We request the reason behind this zoning change. There's no
proof of any hardship on behalf of the petitioner to develop the
property. The property, with its current zoning, is a viable project.
There have been issues raised that because of the changing market
conditions, need to increase density will be required to make it a
feasible project.
We argue that it is not the responsibility of government to make
zoning changes based on whether a developer makes a profit or not.
But for the sake of discussion, I'd like to illustrate a point. At the
current zoning of 75 units, we estimate that the project would yield a
profit of approximately $24 million, plus or minus 10 percent based on
the following: Land cost of 2 million; permit fees, impact fees, 2
million; site \vork, 3 million; building costs, 1 7 million based on 75
units, 1,500 square feet, $150 per square foot; sale price of all the
units, $48,750,000 based on a sale price of$650,000 per unit. That
Page 136
September 12-13, 2006
would yield an investment of almost 50 percent, less holding costs and
sales commissions.
The primary plans for the development at one time showed a
mixture of one-use (sic) villas and two-story buildings with a gradual
lower density moving towards single-family residential homes on
Lakeview Drive.
What we believe is being proposed here are nearly 60- foot tall
buildings with some clarification just as of this meeting. This would
be as tall or taller than any other buildings in Windstar. Typical
planning generally places buildings -- places the tallest buildings and
the most density away from single-family homes. This development
does just the opposite.
I have some pictures to illustrate --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: How much more time do you need, sir?
MR. SA WICK!: I'd say two minutes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And how many people -- raise your
hands again, that -- okay. I'll give you two more minutes.
And if you would be so kind, I'm going to trust you that when
your name is called, if you'd just say that you pass, okay, because this
gentleman is taking up the time, okay? Thank you very much.
MR. SAWICKI: The tallest one -- this would be an example of a
proposed 50-foot tall building. The second, this would be -- these are
the buildings that are currently on Lakeview Drive. Again, there's a
big discrepancy in the size of those buildings.
In conclusion, the zoning change has no legal merit or need,
offers no benefit to the neighborhood. It's specifically benefiting only
the petitioner. It amounts to nothing -- to nothing more than spot
zoning. That's a loophole in the zoning code governing Windstar's
PUD.
The zoning change, if approved, will place undue hardship on the
residents of Lakeview Drive in the form of decreased property values
and quality of life.
Page 137
September 12-13, 2006
I thank you very much for the opportunity to speak in front of
you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Kevin Sieg.
MR. SIEG: I give my time.
MS. FILSON: Sheri Heilser -- Heiser.
MS. HEISER: I pass.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Rich Sawicki.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He just spoke.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Did Kyle Jameson speak?
MR. JAMESON: Pass.
MS. FILSON: Okay. David Woodworth.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. FILSON: And he'll be followed by Jack Fink.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. WOODWORTH: Good day. I live on Lakeview Drive.
MR. MUDD: State your name, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Your name, sir?
MR. WOODWORTH: My name is David Woodworth.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
MR. WOODWORTH: I did send everyone an email. And I'm
just concerned about the intersection, Bayshore and Lakeview Drive.
At that intersection we have redevelopment of a Gulf Shore Marina
into a marine clubhouse for a community that is east -- on the East
Trail.
There's also a convenience store. And for whatever reason, most
of the traffic that goes into the convenience store turns onto Lakeview
Drive. And then straight across the street from Lakeview Drive is
Naples 701, and that is the Old Crooked Lake. There's 177 homes
there, all right?
At present time -- I went back and counted mailboxes again this
Page 138
September 12-13, 2006
morning, and there's actually 63 homes on Lakeview Drive right now.
That's the whole street. There's about -- with vacant property -- there's
some multi-family and single-family lots -- there's five, that would
allow maybe 50 more homes, okay, either -- either detached or, you
know, attached.
The property that is known as Fisherman's Cove is zoned for 72
units right now. If you added those units and everything else, plus --
you would end up with 373 homes.
If you combine this with Windstar, you'll end up with 885 homes
going into that one intersection. And what are you going to put, a
four-way stop there? I don't know what you're going to do.
Are you going to change the sign at the end of the street saying,
no outlet? Because there will be an outlet for some people. Some of
us are going to have a badge saying, we're privileged, and other people
are going to be unprivileged.
I -- you know, either the property -- they renegotiate their
contract and become part of Winds tar with no access to Lakeview, or
they become part of Lakeview with access with their 72 homes or
whatever. That's all I have to say.
Numbers are sometimes --
MR. MUDD: How's that?
MR. WOODWORTH: That's not -- it's that clear, but that's --
there's a big difference between what -- if Fisherman's Cove is
developed on its own, and -- yeah, it's time, I guess.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate
it.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Jack Fink. He'll be followed
by John, and it's S-O-L-L-E-C-I-T-O.
MR. FINK: Sollecito.
MS. FILSON: Thank you.
MR. FINK: Good afternoon, Chairman Halas and
Commissioners. My name is Jack Fink. I'm the president of the
Page 139
September 12-13,2006
Windstar Master Association. I'm a full-time resident of Florida and I
have been for 11 years, and I've been involved with Windstar Master
Association for the last eight years.
I think I know something about this project, and I will briefly
describe something and tell you, some other folks are coming behind
me with some other information.
The Windstar Master Association represents 15 residential
associations, an 18-hole golf course, clubhouse amenities, tennis,
fitness, and a 72-slip deepwater marina, a unique thing that we have in
East Naples.
We have 557 residential dwelling units on over 320 acres on
Naples Bay. Approved back in 1981 was the Windstar PUD.
In the year 2001, we began discussions about the property on our
northern boundary, approximately this 20.25 acres, that could be
added to the Windstar PUD and could provide additional dwelling
units for additional density that we would like to have and would take
__ make use of the units that were never built, the -- either 111 or 105.
Some of us get different calculations on the precise number.
But those are valuable units, and we do want to build and have
access to those units, and at the same time, want it to maintain the
original Windstar PUD requirements, the building specifications, all of
those requirements, and that's what this whole plan is to do.
This zoning request provides Windstar the opportunity to fully
develop the additional property that is a natural extension of Windstar,
and, in fact, enhances the security of our northern boundary since we
have a canal at the end of the property as opposed to just a fence.
We ask your support also because we believe these additional
development steps continue the overall upgrade of the entire Bayshore
community .
Dramatic changes have been made throughout the Bayshore area,
and we are proud of these improvements that have been essentially
driven by our tax dollars from the community through the MSTU and
Page 140
September 12-13, 2006
the CRA.
We strongly recommend approval of this zoning request so we
can continue the progress being made in the Bayshore community.
The following speaker, John Sollecito, is in charge of access
control for Windstar and will describe our intention of how we intend
to have access through all of the gates at Windstar and do not plan on
any disproportionate amount of traffic down Lakeview Drive.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is John Sollecito. He'll be
followed by John Mitchell.
MR. SOLLECITO: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. My name is John Sollecito. I am a resident of
Windstar and live on Haldeman Creek Drive, which is within
Windstar. I am also a board member of Winds tar Master Association
and the chair of the safety and access control for the Windstar Master
Association.
The purpose of my testimony is to explain what has already been
implemented and what will be implemented if the Lakeview addition
to Windstar is approved.
Once the construction is completed on the project, traffic flow in
and out of all of Windstar will be routed through the access gate
closest to its destinations.
The access control officer will be given post orders explaining
what access to be used. All country club traffic will be accessed
through the main gate, which is also manned. That gate is on
Bayshore Drive. This is both for commercial and private traffic.
The gate at Lakeview will be remotely operated by the main gate
personnel. We have cameras and we have remote controls to open and
close the gates.
All Windstar Marina traffic, which will be -- will use the gate
that's on Fern Street. As you know, the Windstar Master Association
Page 141
September 12-13, 2006
has signed a statement that will not direct all commercial traffic to
Lakeview.
Many residents, such as myself, on Haldeman Creek had the
same concerns. And as you also noticed in the drawings that were
submitted by the attorney, the road is a serpentine road. Most
commercial traffic will not want to make that their main access going
into the master association.
But we will control it by our access officers directing them.
They will not be allowed to use this exit if their destination is other
than in the Lakeview area.
I assure you I will personally monitor the traffic flow. I am also
concerned about all traffic on all the roads of Windstar and will have
all traffic go through the entrance which will give them the most direct
route to its destinations.
I strongly recommend approval of this project. Thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you sir.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is John Mitchell. He'll be
followed by John Cochrane.
MR. MITCHELL: Good afternoon. My name is Tony (sic)
Mitchell. I have resided at Windstar and been a member of the golf
club since 1991.
For the last three years I was on the board of directors, and its
vice-president for the last two years. I am currently the chairman of
the long-range planning committee for Windstar Golf Club and a
member of the landscape committee for the master association.
I'm here to speak in favor of the Fisherman's Cove project. We
feel this upscale project will add significant value to both Bayshore
and to Windstar. A question might be asked, why is Fisherman's Cove
important to the Windstar community? We believe our first-class
Tom Fazio golf course and our beautiful new clubhouse will add value
to Windstar homeowners.
Page 142
September 12-13, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have to stop. We've lost our
quorum. If you'd just hold, and we'll put you on timeout.
In fact -- in fact, why don't we take a 10-minute break for our
court reporter. I think this is a great time, okay? So we'll be back here
at 2:40.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ladies and gentlemen, we're back in
session. If everyone would take their seats so we could continue,
we've got a busy agenda today. Thank you very much.
I believe we're still with public speakers.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Mitchell. Yeah, Mr. Mitchell has two
minutes, 11 seconds left.
MR. MITCHELL: I can handle that, that's not a problem.
MR. MUDD: Let's--
MR. MITCHELL: You want me to repeat what I said?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Just reset the clock.
MR. MUDD: Let him start again.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. And start with your name, sir.
MR. MITCHELL: My name is Tony Mitchell. I've resided at
Windstar and have been a member of the club since 1991.
For the last three years I was on the board of directors and as
vice-president for the last two years. I'm currently the chairman of the
long-range planning committee for the Windstar Golf Club and a
member of the landscape committee for the master association.
I'm here to speak in favor of Fisherman's Cove project. We feel,
I feel, this upscale project will add significant value to the Bayshore
area and to Windstar.
A good question is, why is Fisherman's Cove important to the
Windstar community? We believe that our first-class Tom Fazio Golf
Course and our beautiful new clubhouse add value to Windstar
Page 143
September 12-13, 2006
homeowners; however, to be a viable club, we need a full golf
membership, which is not the case at this point in time.
As I'll explain later, we do not have mandatory membership as
being a home ownership. The best way to accomplish this objective is
from within and as the course and clubhouse are attractors to buy
within Windstar.
The addition of Fisherman's Cove will add 137 units to
complement our currently 550 doors, if you will, within Windstar.
That's going to average, let's say, around 675, 700. Our long-term
hope is that we can maintain 350 members of that 700 as golf course
members. That makes Windstar viable, allows us to keep the golf
course in first-class condition, and draw people in to replenish as we
continue to go through the years. So to me, this whole development is
very essential to maintaining that membership.
Now, also in this area, there is a tremendous amount of
competition for golf courses. We have not only the existing courses
like Wyndemere and others fighting for memberships, we have new
ones, like Traviso Bay coming in, we have Hamilton Harbor coming
in, et cetera. And all of these are bidding for new membership.
So therefore, if we can supply our membership from within and
not be dependent on that, we have a better chance of stabling our
position at Windstar and the values of the property.
At this time, we have added 30 memberships through the
Antaramian negotiation and 25 social memberships. My hope would
be, as the 137 come in and they see the category of the quality of the
Windstar development, that they will want to join the golf course as
part of that, helping us sustain that 350 crucial membership balance.
And I think that is one of the key points that I would like to make.
In addition, in Florida, unfortunately, we do have a 7 to 8 percent
attrition value every year where just normal turnover takes place, and
we need to keep replenishing those memberships.
Now, what happens if we don't do that? Well, obviously our costs
Page 144
September 12-13, 2006
go up. We have to increase our dues, we become non-competitive, so
it's a cat and mouse situation.
So our strongest situation is to enhance our property position,
increase the value, and have people want to come to Windstar to live
there. With that --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MR. MITCHELL: Thank you for your time.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is John Cochrane.
MR. COCHRANE: Cochrane.
MS. FILSON: Cochrane, I'm sorry. He'll be followed by Ali
Vaughn.
MR. COCHRANE: Commissioner, good afternoon. My name is
John Cochrane. I reside at Windstar. I've been there 18 years at 3660
Haldeman Creek Drive. Built the place.
I express no opinion pro or con about this proj ect.
The threshold question for this commission was a voting
procedure and the legality of that under the state statutes and the
procedure required by the declaration of condominium by the
Windstar Master Association.
Now, you have had an email from me which I advised you that
the matter is now pending before the Department of Business
Development, division of land sales. And under the statutes, they are
required to render an opinion on the matter in 90 days.
Weare a community of laws. We all must obey the laws and
regulations, and it is a question of whether or not that was done here.
I disagree strongly with Mr. Brooker who says that the majority
of the people of Winds tar approved this project. He doesn't know, I
don't know, because they didn't have the right to vote on it as yet,
which the declaration requires them to have.
Secondly, Mr. Henning, I would like to just clear up a point,
contrary to Mr. Brooker's representation. There is a plat, it does show
an abutment of the road, but there was also litigation over that point,
Page 145
September 12-13,2006
and the 20th Circuit Court of Appeals ( sic) held that there was no right
of ingress or egress by Lakeview over that, that it terminated at the
boundary line.
My suggestion, that this board, commission -- as a state official,
I'm serving on the current board -- have a quick view as to whether or
not legal procedures were followed in this proceeding, whether or not
this board can go forward without a review of that issue by the
Department of Business Regulation in amending the PUD.
You originally -- the commission here originally put in the PUD
in '81, revised and amended subsequently thereto. You're governed by
that PUD, I'm governed by that PUD and the declaration. And it is
necessary, I think, to ascertain whether or not proper voting
procedures were followed. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Ali Vaughn. She'll be followed by
Joyce Zirkle.
MS. VAUGHN: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, thank you for
the opportunity to be here this afternoon.
My name is Ali Vaughn. I'm a Florida resident, a Windstar
resident, and currently a board member of the master association
board of directors.
Our members are in favor of the zoning request and continued
improvement of the Bayshore area. I have a lot of comments here, but
in the spirit of time and the number of speakers, I would simply like to
say that we respectfully request approval of this zoning so we can
continue the progress being made in the Bayshore community. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Joyce Zirkle. She'll be followed by Vicki Tracy.
MS. ZIRKLE: Good afternoon. My name is Joyce Zirkle, and
I'm the chief operating officer at the Naples Botanical Garden.
The Bayshore area is in the midst of a Renaissance. Windstar
was an early participant that proved the viability to other investors that
Page 146
September 12-13,2006
the area, one with challenges, was worth the investment of time and
resources.
As a representative of the Naples Botanical Garden, I can say that
we too have a great deal invested in the Bayshore area community and
are pleased with how the Renaissance is progressing.
The Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA and others have made
significant investments in the area, and continued commitments for
improvement such as Fisherman's Cove can only maintain the
momentum of this transformation.
The Naples Botanical Garden supports the Fisherman's Cove
project and views it as another positive step in the overall upgrade of
the Bayshore community. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Vicki Tracy. She'll be followed by Mike Heiser.
MS. TRACY: I'm Vicki Tracy. I live at 38 -- or 32 -- I forget
where I live -- 3266 Lakeview Drive. I'm 29 years in Naples. My
husband was born and raised here.
I am very active in our community. I'm one of the 65 people who
live on Lakeview. Many of you know me. I'm here to reiterate on
behalf of the homeowners. We are not against the project. We want
you to carefully look at the PUD issues, look at the street. I want to
thank you for allowing us to communicate with you.
Many people I know on staff, well-meaning, and other people
within the county have said they're speaking for us, and when we
found out that that wasn't the case, I encouraged all of our neighbors
to call you. I apologize for the bombardment of emails, but when we
can't have access to our commissioners, then we have a problem.
My husband and I support the redevelopment. We're part of the
redevelopment efforts in East Naples. And, again, out of 65 residents
on that street, 64 are not objected (sic).
Mr. Henning's questions were right on the money. We want you
to continue to look at the big picture, and we'd like to invite you to the
street so you can see what's happening. We want to be and continue
Page 147
September 12-13, 2006
to be good neighbors with Windstar. We love all of the
redevelopment. We just want it to be of fair value and look what the
impact is doing so we can work together so we can continue to do
what Donna and definitely Fred have started a long time ago. Thank
you.
MS. FILSON: Mike Heiser. He'll be followed by David
Jackson.
MR. HEISER: Hi, Mike Heiser. I live at 3305 Lakeview Drive.
I've been on the street for 30 years. I've raised my two sons here, my
wife and I did. And now my son's raising his son, which is my
grandson.
And what I'd like to have from you is if you have any questions.
I've been over every bit of this whole area. I've been up and down
every street. Do you have any questions for me that aren't getting
answered as far as what this development -- what's happened to it?
(N 0 response.)
MR. HEISER: Okay. During this time -- I've lived there for 30
years -- we had three children killed on this street, and nothing has
been done since those three children was killed 20 years ago. We
asked for stop signs, we asked for sidewalks, we asked for speed
bumps. They says, oh, no. You live in East Naples. We can't do that.
So those blood stains are still on that street. All of a sudden,
Antaramian and his group come in, and all of a sudden we want to
widen the street, we can put streetscape in, we can do everything you
want to do. And the whole reason behind this was not to beautify this
area, not to make it nice for us. It's so he can have 22-foot wide
streets so they can put a gate out there. You have to have a 22- foot --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sir, if you could speak into the mike.
MR. HEISER: You have to have a 22-foot wide street before
you can put a gate down there, and that's what this whole thing was
about, so he'd have that street 22 feet wide.
The next thing is, I haven't had one of Antaramian's group people
Page 148
September 12-13, 2006
call me, so I'd appreciate it if you all wouldn't speak for me.
The next thing we have here is the acreage thing. Any way you
cut it, this man has 20 acres to build on; lO buildable acres. That's all
he has. So we're talking about eight to 16 units per acre.
Now, I know you all just voted recently to only have four units
per acre. Now, if you put them in Windstar's PUD, you're sneaking
them in the back door through a loophole in the industry -- in our laws
here.
And you know as well as I do if he's going to build eight to 16,
that's not four per acre. Right now if you leave the project the way it
is, he's allowed to build three units per acre.
Bayshore is at three -- I mean, all of Lakeview's at three units per
acre. Windstar's at 1.1 per acre. That's perfect for our area.
He'd be more than glad to become part of our neighborhood. We
look forward to his -- he does a nice proj ect. Build his 60 to 72 -_
now, I don't know where this 72 units came up, but that's a little fuzzy
math, that 72. Three times 20 is 60 in my book. Somewhere along
the way they came up with some fuzzy math here with the 72.
And the next thing is, if he builds there, he'll become part of our
neighborhood. No -- no gate, no gate. He becomes interconnected
with Bayshore -- with Lakeview Drive and with Gulf Shore. If you
put him in Windstar's PUD and you let him build six -- eight--
between 18 (sic) and 16 units per acre, then let him just become part
of Winds tar's PUD, shut down Lakeview Drive. No more -- no more
Lakeview Drive. Everything has to go through Lakeview Drive (sic).
And I go into all the communities -- because that's the kind of
business I'm in. I go in all the closed communities, and I don't know
of any community between here and Fort Myers, that any of these
closed communities go through a residential area. None of them.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, sir.
MR. HEISER: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker's David Jackson. And
Page 149
September 12-13, 2006
Commissioner -- Chairman, Commissioner, the next speaker is John
Sollecito and it's a different address as the first one, but I think it
might be the same person.
MR. SOLLECITO: Yes, it is. I yield.
MS. FILSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good, thank you. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Okay. And after -- after David Jackson will be
William Mears.
MR. JACKSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. David
Jackson, the Executive Director for the Collier County Community
Redevelopment Agency.
I'm here to speak on behalf of the advisory board and as a staff
member for the CRA board, and I'm speaking to you as the Board of
County Commissioners before -- of this project and the zoning.
This is a good quality project, no doubt. It's expensive and it's
going to be new and it's going to be meeting code. But the CRA
involvement has been working with the petitioner and it's been good.
We've been working with the Lakeview residents, and that has
been good. We've kept the lines of communication open on both
sides.
The subject that was brought up about the traffic at Lakeview and
Bayshore intersection, the CRA has funded a corridor study in
cooperation with the transportation division, and that study's ongoing,
and we're going to look at that and take care of it. That's part of our
job. So, I mean, the jury is still out on that.
The CRA, as part of the redevelopment plan, has targeted
Lakeview Drive for improvement because of the development impact.
Okay. You have the impact at the end of Lakeview Drive, and at the
beginning of Lakeview Drive there's another major development
going on there, and there's also the possibility of, across the street, that
little gas station is going to get redeveloped also. So because of that
we wanted to target it and see if we could make it better.
Page 150
September 12-13, 2006
In September of2005 it came before the CRA board, and I was
tasked by the -- as the CRA staff to talk to the residents and gain their
support for the redesign of the street, and I've done that. And in fact,
today two of their street captains are here listening and participating.
They are informed and they are very involved.
The design guideline workbook that we have also commissioned,
which will help us design streets and help residents put their streets
together in a neighborhood feel that what they want is 60 percent
done. It will being completed by the end of October, and then we will
be doing streetscapes neighborhood by neighborhood, and this is all
part of the participation where the property owners step up to the plate
in the CRA system in making a better neighborhood.
The CRA advisory board that I work with every month, and I
come and report to you about when you have your other hat on as the
CRA board, is -- they're based on the CRA charter and the
redevelopment plan, which is what they are charged to do within their
1,720 acres.
They approve of this project in concept as it is designed. They
recommend to the Board of County Commissioners to allow and
accept, if you approve the project, the developer's contribution and to
put that money into a CRA trust fund line item to go towards building
a better street as envisioned by the neighborhood residents and
property owners, and that part of it is what we will take care of.
The rest of the money that comes in as a match comes out of the
CRA fund, which is a capture of the tax incremental funding, and
makes it better for the whole street.
Now, Lakeview Drive, if you've seen on the diagram, is impacted
on the traffic part of it on only one portion of it, about half of it. The
other half is a dead-end cul-de-sac street. Weare looking to do
redesign and develop on the entire half-mile street.
So with that, the recommendation is coming from your advisory
board to accept and -- to accept the contribution, and let us know what
Page 151
September 12-13, 2006
you want for further tasking and we'll be working with the
neighborhood.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is William Mears. He'll be
followed by AnnMarie Shimer.
MR. MEARS: Good afternoon. My name is William Mears. I
am secretary of the Windstar Club as opposed to the master
association, and also a full-time resident of 3804 Clipper Cove Drive
in Windstar.
The club board of directors, by a vote at its last meeting, firmly
supports the plans for this development as they have been presented to
us.
We feel it will be an important improvement to the area, and we
also believe that adding this property under the Windstar Master
Association will facilitate its development in the best possible manner.
It will tend to optimize benefits both to the outside neighborhood
and within Windstar. Because we all know that sooner or later this
property will be developed, and we believe our standards will help
with the process. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is AnnMarie Shimer. She'll be
followed by your final speaker, Bill Neal.
MS. SHIMER: Hi. My name's AnnMarie Shimer, and I live on
Lakeview.
And at -- the subject that we're here for today is taking the PUD
of -- that they know as Fisherman's Cove and incorporating it into
Windstar. And I think I can say for most of the residents on
Lakeview, that that is not the issue we have.
As this gentleman brought up, it's like the question is, and
nobody has yet to substantiate the reason behind needing to use
Lakeview Drive as an access point.
There has not been one suggestion or comment on why, except I
Page 152
September 12-13, 2006
think the representative said something about the emergency medical
people having to access that. With the windy road it is, they probably
would rather use the four-lane road coming in.
So we're not against the development. The developer does
wonderful work. We welcome it to the neighborhood. He should be
-- if it's going to the PUD into Windstar, they should access that, and
that's perfectly fine. If they want to stay on Lakeview, that's perfectly
fine with us, too.
But to take the street of Lakeview that's -- actually we're talking a
quarter-mile long where I have my child, we've got other children on
the street that's going to be directly impacted, it's not one of the
reasons why I bought there.
Yes, I knew about the land on the end of it, but not opening it up
to all of Winds tar for the possibility, coming and going. Also,
nobody's addressed that the Windstar -- the Fisherman's Cove is going
to have a marina in there. Those boat slips are to be bought by the
Windstar community. Those people, not only in addition to the 137
units, will be using the Lakeview Drive as a place to enter and exit.
The point of Traviso Bay going at the corner of Lakeview and
Bayshore is also going to be a direct impact against us as well. Their
main entrance is supposed to be on Riverview, which is the one street
to the north of us. So you're going to have two major traffic
congestion areas that's happening, and I really just stress, please take a
look at all these issues before making a decision.
We love the idea of Jack Antaramian developing in our
neighborhood. It's beautiful. He does great work. Let him be a part of
Windstar. Windstar is a beautiful community. There's no doubt about
that. We need the growth.
But I think making that access and egress on this street, which is
now 18 feet wide, is basically something that, really, I don't see how
it's going to enhance anything that has to do with Windstar.
And I think if you suggest to an owner, that is what it sounds like
Page 153
September 12-13,2006
for the traffic studies, that's the road that they're going to require the
Windstar owners to go through to get to that residential because that's
the closest way, not allowing them to use the main entrance, which if I
was buying into Windstar, I would want to be able to use that main,
big, beautiful entrance to go in through, too. You know, so there are
some points.
The CRA, I just spoke to David Jackson, too . Yes, he is working
with our street owners for the redevelopment only. He and his
comments do not represent any of what the Lakeview owners believe
to be a part of the project, so I just wanted to clarify that.
If for some reason you do put Windstar -- allow this PUD to go
into Windstar, maybe the simple suggestion and solution is, allow that
place to be an exit only. I do believe there are locations within
Windstar that are exit-only areas. You cannot go in to every exit
point, but can you exit that. That might be a fair solution. And if there
has to be that opening there, let it be an exit-only.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, ma'am.
MS. SHIMER: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker, Mr. Chairman, is Bill Neal.
MR. NEAL: Good afternoon, Commissioners, I'm Bill Neal. I'm
chairman of your MSTU on Bayshore, and I'm also chairman of the
redevelopment agency as the advisory committee.
I hope that we can all look at this in a bigger view. This morning
driving down Bayshore I saw several families, mothers with children
rolling baby carriages down. If you recall a number of years ago,
you'd never see anything like that on Bayshore.
You may recall that I've been working to help improve the
Bayshore area for over a decade. A lot of things that we've done,
there's only been a few people to participate.
The MSTU was formed because the county would not give help
to us to improve this area in Bayshore. People wouldn't drive down to
Bayshore. Certainly people wouldn't walk on Bayshore.
Page 154
---. ---"---.-.--.
September 12-13, 2006
We started the program to improve it ourselves. There was a
handful of people that taxed themselves to stars improving Bayshore.
Some of the people that are living with the benefits of this right now,
and some of the old folks -- pardon, not old in age, but old in
residence -- did not contribute and did not help in many ways to
improve Bayshore.
So what we've seen happen over -- in the past few years is a
totally different area for Bayshore. It's a model of what's happening.
We -- we, the MSTU people -- put in a request for the CRA, and
you're very familiar with what the CRA is doing. It's tax dollars,
personal tax dollars. I've been called the mayor of Bayshore through
all the results of this. I've also been called three-mill Bill because our
MSTU taxed three mills, the highest MSTU rate that was ever taxed in
this county, and a lot of the folks didn't participate in that because
they're not -- they don't have to pay the taxes because of homesteads
and other things.
So I -- what is exciting about this whole discussion is not the
differences that the communities have about how what's going on,
what is exciting is that we're looking at improvements going on in this
area that's attracting people from everywhere.
I know that we compete with Third Avenue (sic) and Fifth
Avenue in Naples as their shining light in the city. I want to tell you
that this area has the opportunity to be the shining light in Collier
County, and they're leading the parade.
I want you to recognize that the residents -- the majority of the
residents of that area really support the redevelopment, the
beautification and the proj ects that are going on in the Bayshore area
today.
There's going to be a number of these particular discussions
about traffic, about sizes of houses and density and all these things for
now and for the next 10 years, I hope, and you're going to have to
come to some good guidelines and good decisions, which I know you
Page 155
September 12-13, 2006
will, that incorporates the best way you can to satisfy the majority of
the people.
Unfortunately, most of the minority's voices are heard louder
than those of us who are in the majority who want improvement. I'm
just saying to you, we've fought hard to improve the area; it's
happening. We need your support to continue it. And I hope you see
the nice big scene that I have in my mind, the dream of Bayshore
being the answer to the downtown Naples area in the future. Thank
you.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, that was your final speaker.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
At this time we'll close the public comment and we'll now have
discussion by the Board of County Commissioners here on the dais,
starting with Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Several questions, but I would
like the county attorney to clarify the PUD amendment and whether
the rest of the PUD has to come up to the new Land Development
Code.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: For the record, Marjorie
Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney.
This PUD, without the increased acreage that's the subject of the
rezone part, is built out. And we typically, when we have an old PUD,
and this is one of the oldest ones in the county, that is substantially
built out, we do the changes by strike-through and underline, as we've
done in this document.
A recent example is Lely Barefoot Beach, which you heard
earlier this year. Another example are -- were the amendments to
Pelican Bay, which you heard in the fall of 2004, and those PUDs
were substantially built out and were done in the same manner as this
one.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. In other words, you're
saying -- I hope you're saying they won't find anything in the Land
Page 156
September 12-13, 2006
Development Code or the Growth Management Plan that speaks
different to that?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Oh, correct. This has been our
policy.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it a written policy?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: No. It's been the policy that I've
used based on the -- I guess you could say it is written in a sense
because we had memo -- I don't have it with me today -- from Nancy
Lanan who was outside, about the dangers of opening up already
built-out zoned PUDs and creating non-conformities, that unintended
consequence and so on. So it was based on that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I think that -- was
that based upon the Board of Commissioners or government opening
up the PUD, or was it based upon the PUD amending the PUD?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: We -- it was based upon the
situation where we would do a PUD to PUD rezone. And in many
instances it was an older PUD that had quite a bit of it built out and
what the possible unintended consequences of rewriting the whole
PUD might be, as to its effect on those pieces that were built out.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And then after that I
have some questions from staff.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Staff members.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, okay. I have one question before I
turn it over to Commissioner Fiala.
Are you telling me that these units here are ghost units then?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: The units that have not been in the
existing PUD are ghost units.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I think Commissioner Henning
still had other questions. Go ahead.
Page 157
September 12-13, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not of the county attorney. I'll
wait.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay, fine.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mr. Neal said something about, you
know, how much they wanted to improve Bayshore and so forth. I
don't -- I didn't hear anybody on Lakeview Drive say they were
against the project, by the way. I think everybody is not only pleased,
but delighted to have Jack Antaramian come into the area. It's kind of
like sticking the golden toe in and saying, okay, you've made it.
I think the only problem is the entrance and exit, and I would
suggest that if we just had the entrance and exit through Windstar,
who holds the PUD anyway, then everybody could be happy.
Windstar would still have them as part of the PUD, the Lakeview
people will be protected, and Jack Antaramian can build.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Brooker, can you show us
the site plan again and point out where the clubhouse is?
MR. BROOKER: It's actually -- Clay Brooker for the record.
It's actually not the site plan, but it's the aerial.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aerial.
MR. BROOKER: And I'll show it to you.
Okay. Here again for orientation purposes, is the subject 20.52
acres. This is the main entrance into Windstar. The clubhouse is in
that direction -- that location right there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So somebody coming in
there, a member of the golf course that doesn't reside in the
community, would probably use the main entrance.
MR. BROOKER: I think what we heard today is, they would be
directed and mandated to use the main entrance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The -- a good point
about the slips, the boat slips. On your conceptual plans, do you have
Page 158
'-'---"-" ,-..,...- '~~.','",_.."..--,. ..------,-..--.
September 12-13, 2006
parking for those?
MR. BROOKER: We do. Again, this plan is conceptual __
certainly conceptual in light of the number of slips and their location,
but the parking is accounted for in this area here. There is parking
under each of these buildings that would serve the residents. And the
parking there for the slips is allocated in the additional parking shown
in this area here, but this conceptual site plan doesn't, in fact, show
adequate parking for the number of slips shown.
And if I can correct, I believe -- I don't know if it was a
misrepresentation or just an inaccurate statement --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's the only question I had.
MR. BROOKER: Sorry.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do we have a motion in regards to this?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, this is a question
that really is going to have to be answered by the petitioner, but my
reading of what the discussion of commissioners has indicated is that
there are not four votes here to approve this in its current form.
Do you want to continue this process until such time as some of
these concerns can be worked out with commissioners, or do you want
to go ahead and take a vote?
MR. BROOKER: Under those circumstances, we would like to
take the opportunity to speak to you individually, whomever it may
be, to work out any concerns you may have, and if that requires a
request for a continuance, then we would avail ourselves of that
opportunity .
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, if you don't
mind. My policy is, I don't meet with anybody on rezones, and I'm
ready to vote on it. But if somebody else wants to continue it -- and
that's what I hear, what you would like to do to address some of these
issues -- I'm fine with that, but nobody needs to knock on my door.
Page 159
September 12-13, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'm just trying to save some
problems here. If it's turned down, it's turned down for a long time. If
it -- if there's a way that the commissioners can resolve their problems
with the PUD before that vote is taken today, I think that's a wise thing
to do.
It is clearly a project that is important to the community, in fact,
both sides of the community. But there are differences, and I think
based upon what I've heard commissioners say here today, there's
some concerns that commissioners have about all of the details of this
thing.
And if there's an opportunity to solve the access issue and
thereby get approval here, I think that's a wise thing for us to continue
doing today. But if there's not an opportunity to solve that today, then
I think it's wise to have a continuance.
MR. BROOKER: And I think we'd like to proceed on that road
because we are in a difficult position. We have a binding agreement
with the master association that requires that access to be there, so we
cannot answer to you, as one half of the parties to that agreement, yes
or no on an access issue, because if we say one way or the other, then
we get sued for breach. So we would prefer a continuance to work it
out, not only with the commissioners, but also the parties to whom we
have made binding commitments to.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I can tell you that I have some real
concerns about the congestion of the traffic on Lakeview, and to me,
that renders deeply, especially when I read something in our
documents on page 6 of 58, where the Windstar RPUD is located in a
tropical storm surge zone which requires evacuation during most
hurricane/tropical storm events.
Adding to the residential units in this area further taxes the
already tight evacuation and sheltering situations within Collier
County.
While there is currently no impact mitigation required for this, it
Page 160
September 12-13,2006
should be noted that the approval of this RPUD increases the
evacuation and sheltering requirements of the county.
And at the present time I believe we have well over 100,000
people that are in the coastal high hazard area, and we only have
sheltering for 30,000. So I think that weighs heavily in regards to
using one road as the only ingress and egress out of this area, so I have
some concerns, okay?
MR. BROOKER: And we'd be happy to discuss those with you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then, Mr. Chairman, under those
circumstances, I would make a motion that we grant the petitioner's
request for a continuance to try to deal with some of those concerns,
because we won't be able to get the answer today.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, the concern that I had is that if we
felt that, going into this, that we didn't have the necessary votes -- here
we spent about two and a half hours on this before we came to this
resolution. I feel that we owe this -- the citizens that have been sitting
here for a number of hours and listening to all of this and listening to
all the public speakers, and then we end up with this -- into there area.
I feel it's an injustice to the people that have been waiting here and
we've got a huge docket, so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I second the motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it's the only chance we'd had
to determine whether or not there's any objection. I had no idea what
your concerns were, and the only way we can determine if there is
general agreement on this board is to have a discussion like this.
There's no other way we can reach this point. If we can talk with each
other, that might solve it, but we can't do that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just to further discuss the
motion. The only objection I've heard from the residents -- the main
objection, I should say, is -- residents on Lakeview, is the traffic issue.
So I don't think they're objecting to the project.
Page 161
September 12-13, 2006
And to me, I think we need to -- need to address this. And I --
when you come back maybe you can tell me whether these dockside --
or the docks are -- is for the use and the use only for the residents in
Windstar, or is it going to be allowed to be leased out to outside?
MR. BROOKER: I can answer that now, but when we -- the
answer is only Windstar residents.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And I don't know what
you can put in a 60-foot right-of-way with sidewalks and acceptable
roadway width to carry the load that could be anticipated there in the
stormwater surge. I'm going to support the motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion for a continue -- for -- to
continue this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So we have a motion on the floor. Is
there any other discussion before we call the question on this?
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for you --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, sir, please.
MR. WEIGEL: -- if I may, and that is you have a motion to
continue with a second. Is the motion for a date certain to bring it
back within an advertising period or an indefinite -- a motion for
continuance whereupon the petitioner would have the obligation to
readvertise and bring it back at their time?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll let the motion maker make that--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. My position would be that
we do it on a date certain. Will you be able to do this within --
MR. MUDD: By 10 October?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 10 October?
MR. MUDD: 10 October's the first -- the next meeting is
horrendous as far as land use is concerned so 10 October is a good
meeting to put this in, if that's convenient.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, honestly, I don't know
why we've got to repeat this, you know. I don't know why we have to
Page 162
September 12-13, 2006
go through all this all over again. We've heard it. The only thing
you've got to address at the next meeting is the access issue, I think.
That's what it would take probably to get --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I would like to put a time limit on it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, that's right, yeah. That's not
a bad idea.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Have a time limit of 45 minutes max,
and that's it -- if can't get it done in 45 minutes, then it's going to have
to come back at a different meeting. But I would hope that you could
address the issues and get this taken care of in a short period of time,
because we've gone through a lot of time here in regards to this.
MR. BROOKER: We appreciate that. And we're not opposed to
a date certain and a time limit of 45 minutes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. October the 10th, was it,
County Manager? Then that would be my motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. October the 10th and the time
limit, are you going to put that in your motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would -- my motion would
be that you come back and not repeat the stuff we've talked about
today, but only to address the resolution of the primary conflict
between residents and Windstar and Lakeview development, and
resolve that access issue. And I think that will resolve most of the
problems that this board had.
MR. BROOKER: Fully understood, agreeable.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And it will be 45 minutes or less.
MR. BROOKER: I'll keep it as short as I can. Trust me, I don't
want to be up here any longer than you want me to be here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I think he means not just your
time, but everybody else's time, too. You're not going to get 45
minutes.
MR. BROOKER: I understand. Forty-five minutes total.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We've got that clear. Okay. So
Page 163
September 12-13, 2006
we have a motion on the floor to bring this back, I believe, October
the 10th, and that you're going to resolve hopefully these issues that
we discussed, and there was a time limit of 45 minutes or less in the
motion. And the motion was made by Commissioner Coyle and it was
seconded by, I believe, Commissioner Henning.
MR. WEIGEL: No, Mrs. Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He has a high voice.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm sorry, Fiala. All right. It's been a
long day already.
So any further discussion in regards to this motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MR. BROOKER: Thank you for your time.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, as a postscript to the motion and
the vote, I would indicate, and for the petitioner and petitioner's
attorney, that although you've been charged to come back with
particular information for discussion for the board, this does not
prevent any individual board member from having any questions if
they wish to ask at that time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What that means is we can take
three hours if you want to.
MR. BROOKER: In other words, it's a one-way street going this
way.
Page 164
September 12-13, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right, that's right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle, I don't think so.
Item #8B
RESOLUTION 2006-238: PLANNING DEVELOPMENT
INCORPORATED REPRESENTING ARBORETUM
DEVELOPMENT, LLC, REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A
MIXED USE PROJECT (MUP) IN THE BA YSHORE DRIVE
OVERLAY DISTRICT, PROPOSING 447 RESIDENTIAL UNITS
AND 150,000 OF COMMERCIAL FLOOR AREA TO BE KNOWN
AS ARBORETUM VILLAGE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY,
CONSISTING OF 37.26 ACRES, IS LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF BA YSHORE DRIVE AND
THOMASSON DRIVE, SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50, RANGE 25,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - ADOPTED W/STIPULATIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that bring us to item 8B. This item
requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
provided by commission members. Planning Development,
Incorporated, representing Arboretum Development --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Arboretum.
MR. MUDD: -- LLC --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Arboretum.
MR. MUDD: Arboretum, I got it -- Arboretum Development,
LLC, requesting approval of a mixed-use project, MUP, in the
Bayshore Drive overlay district, proposing 447 residential units and
150 -- 150,000 of commercial floor area to be known as Arboretum
Village.
The subject property consisting of 37.26 acres is located at the
northwest corner of Bayshore Drive and Thomasson Drive, Section
14, Township 50, Range 25, Collier County, Florida.
Page 165
September 12-13, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, County Manager.
At this time, all those participating in this item before the Board of
County Commissioners, please rise to be sworn in by our court
reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And we'll start off this time with
Commissioner Henning. Do you have any ex parte as far as
disclosures in this particular item, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. I received some emails on
this topic, some phone calls, some unsolicited information from Mr.
Fernandez, and I did not talk to staff on this. That's it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've had meetings,
correspondence, emails, calls, spoken to staff, and I sat in on a couple
CRA meetings while they were discussing this.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Myself, I've received
correspondence, emails, and some phone calls on this, and all of my
information is here for public -- for public viewing.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I've had meetings and
received email.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have met with representatives of
the petitioner and staff, I have had correspondence, and I have
received emails.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
Staff? If you would --
MS. VALERA: Caroline Valera, Principal Planner with the
Department of Zoning and Land Development Review.
Since this is a very new process, I would like to give a brief
overview of what it is and how it came about.
Page 166
September 12-13, 2006
In the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle redevelopment overlay, our
Future Land Use Element identified 388 units that are available within
the overlay.
Last year, through the amendment process, the board approved
the MUP, the mixed use process. By this process, the board can
relocate some of these units that are available and as an incentive to
redevelopment -- for redevelopment of the Gateway overlay.
This is not a rezone process. The zoning has already -- is already
there. There's commercial, there's residential. So we're not rezoning.
It's not a process to rezone property. It's a process by which an
applicant can achieve two things; one, to be able to redevelop
commercial with a mixture of residential and, two, to be granted units
in addition to the underlying zoning that they have. So those are the
two basic items that the board can -- will allow a petitioner to have.
And so with that, I will let the petitioner give you an overview of
what they're proposing.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a question.
MS. VALERA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Couple of questions. In regards to the
density, is there any way that we can limit the amount of density?
That's number one.
Number two, what was the amount of units that was stripped off
of the Botanical Gardens, and that's my understanding, that's where
the density's coming from?
MS. VALERA: That is correct, 388 --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And the third part of the question is, why
didn't this go before the Planning Commission?
MS. VALERA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right.
MS. VALERA: Three hundred eighty-eight units do come from
the Botanical Garden. Those the ones that are available for
reallocation to any petitioner that qualifies for the mixed-use process,
Page 167
September 12-13, 2006
and those are properties that are both neighborhood/commercial, that I
identified as neighborhood/commercial and waterfront. Those are the
only two types of properties that can qualify for this mixed-use
process.
In regards to -- I'm sorry, the -- the other questions?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The other question is, why didn't this go
to the Planning Commission.
MS. VALERA: Oh, okay. The Planning Commission did
review this mixed-use process as part of the amendment last year and
recommended to the board approval of this process knowing -- they
didn't know at the time that it will be a process that will go directly to
the board.
Now, keep in mind that once you -- if the board approves any
mixed-use process, they have to meet the Growth Management Plan.
They have to meet the Land Development Code with their design. So
they're not asking for any additional units. They're not asking for any
-- additional units that are within the overlay. And they're not asking
for deviations from the code or the GMP or exemptions from the code
or the GMP.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And the third question and I think you
probably -- probably answered it is, I believe this particular project
has two units -- or excuse me, 12 units per acre, and we -- do we have
the ability to lower the density on this?
MS. VALERA: You may allocate -- you can grant up to 12 units
per acre, but you can -- yes. I mean, it is up to the board to decide how
many units they will grant to the petitioner --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. VALERA: -- but the GMP, actually, that's why we have the
number, the number 12, because that is the number of units that the
Growth Management Plan will allow for those -- for the Gateway
overlay to have.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. But we do have the discretion to
Page 168
September 12-13, 2006
lower it if we so desire?
MS. VALERA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And you said there's a total of
388 units. How many units is going to be stripped from the 388 that
are going to be used on this proj ect?
MS. VALERA: Two hundred thirty-two.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Two thirty-two, okay.
Are there any units out there that are also using the units off of
Botanical Gardens, or is this the only PUD that's come forward so far?
MS. VALERA: We have, in process, one more MUP, and that
petition, so far they have not asked for any additions -- any units from
the pool of units.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
MS. VALERA: You're welcome.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Good afternoon, Chairman Halas,
Commissioners. My name is Michael Fernandez for the firm of
Planning Development, and I'm here to represent and present to you
the Arboretum Village mixed-use.
As stated by Carolina, this is the first MUP to come before you,
and I'm very happy to do so. We think we have an outstanding project,
and I'll get right into it.
It might be best at first to start with the context of where this is
located. This is essentially a square parcel that includes an existing
five-acre SDP commercial piece that has no buildings on it at this
time, and the Bayshore Club Apartments, which has 200 apartments
on it, and a six-acre water -- or water feature, which was actually and
originally a borrow pit.
It's surrounded by roadways. To the east it has Bayshore Drive,
to the south it has Thomasson, to the west is Pine Street, and to the
north is the main entry drive to Windstar, thereby eliminating a lot of
conflicts you have potentially with adjacencies and compatibility.
The six-acre borrow pit that's located on the site currently
Page 169
September 12-13, 2006
provides no water management for the site. It has a perimeter
elevation of three. And during large rain events, it tends to spread out.
It wasn't designed as a water management lake.
The 200 apartments from the Bayshore Club were built
approximately 25 years ago. They are not compliant currently with
the flood elevation requirements nor with the hurricane building code.
They have served a useful life, and those that may have gone through
or who have lived there know that they're in need of significant repair
and reinvestment.
Originally this parcel was looked at as a condo conversion,
however, the CRA staff and advisory board talked to the current
owners and suggested to them that they may benefit and the
community may benefit in terms of looking at it as a potential
mixed-use project.
They retained our firm, and we have developed a master plan
jointly with the CRA advisory board, with CRA staff. This particular
application has been reviewed by the CRA advisory board in six
meetings, two that were solely for the purpose of discussing this
project. It's had a significant public participation through that process.
In addition to that, we had 15 meetings with staff. We also held,
as required, a neighborhood information meeting, which was well
attended and generally favorable.
This is a true mixed-use project. By that, what I'm talking about
is that there's a true integration of residential and commercial. The
vast majority of the buildings here -- in fact, all but the ones in the far
corner adjacent to Winds tar are mixed use in nature, and by that I'm
saying that they have a combination of residential and commercial.
It's also a very open project. It's essentially a nongated
community except for those 40 units, again, that snuggle up to
Windstar back in the northwest corner of the site.
The lake that currently exists is proposed to be reconfigured into
two separate lakes, approximately three acres apiece. It will be
Page 1 70
September 12-13, 2006
reconfigured and designed so that it would be able to maintain the
water management requirements that are required by our community
for a 25- and 100-year storm. The elevations of the project will be
brought up to the required elevations of the new flood code.
When we met with staff originally, they said, if you're going to
build in the coastal high hazard area, we really strongly recommend
that you consider building those residential units above the flood
elevation and even more so above the -- above parking.
We have done so. Every unit that we are proposing to be built on
this site will be above parking or above a commercial level, except
potentially for one unit that may be required to meet the ADA code.
That will place the units well above the flood elevations. And, of
course, they will be built to the current hurricane standards.
This project will also includes 150,000 square feet of
neighborhood commercial. The neighborhood commercial will be just
that. It's not proposed or anticipated that it would support a Baby Gap,
Victoria's Secret or those kind of national chains.
It doesn't relate to pass-by traffic as projects do on U.S. 41.
Instead, it's located interior to the community and it will be absorbing
trips and it will be serving the neighborhood, its own neighborhood,
and the adjacent neighborhoods.
The largest unit, commercial unit, on this proposed development
is proposed to be 30,000 square feet as a maximum, and that's
approximately half the size of a neighborhood Publix, and we are
targeting a neighborhood grocer for that purpose.
The rest of the commercial is integrated throughout the
mixed-use project in units that are approximately 3,000 square feet
and can be further broken down. And so we are looking at
accommodating neighborhood uses in terms of offices such as real
estate, insurance agents, doctors, dentists, people that would work and
live in that particular community.
There will also be some restaurants. Ifwe have nationals, or
Page 171
September 12-13, 2006
national chains, they'll probably be in terms of coffee shops and the
like.
The project has been designed to be uniquely stratified from -- in
terms of compatibility and also intensity. In the far northwestern
corner of the site, as I indicated, is the singular proj ect or the singular
building of singular residential, and then -- and these will be the
largest and the most expensive units, and then they'll gradually go
down in size and in price until you reach the corner.
So we're looking at a nice economic mix. Prices starting at the
low end just below 300,000, and at the high end, starting around
$800,000, with a good variety in between.
As part of the commitments we made going through the process
and negotiating with the CRA advisory board, we won their
unanimous favorable approval for the mixed-use project and nearly
unanimous approval for the allocation of the 232 bonus density units
we are requesting.
We had originally proposed 30 units for gap housing level at 150
percent of the median income. They request 15, and we met that
request.
We've had further conversations since that point with them as
well as some commissioners, yourselves, and we're here to also
propose that we would provide $1,000 per unit above existing 200, so
that would generate potentially as much as $247,000 in addition to
that 50 cents per square foot which would generate an additional -- of
the commercial, it would generate another 75,000.
We've talked to Cormac Giblin upon suggestion. And one of the
reasons our client feels comfortable in making these proposals is that
these funds would be targeted or earmarked for the people that live
there who may be displaced.
There's 200 residents -- or 200 units right now. Some of those
will probably meet the requirements of affordable or gap housing, and
those funds would be first prioritized for their use. And we're going to
Page 1 72
September 12-13, 2006
be working with Cormac to create that fund and to make sure that
allocation works appropriately.
So in addition to that, we'll have the 15 percent of the gap -- of
the bonus density units; at 232, would be 35 units would be in that
housing range.
We've gone beyond the traditional look of looking at
affordability, and we've also, as I said, stratified the project in terms of
cost, and that's reflected in, perhaps, also the amenities that we are
offering.
For instance, the lake amenity that's going to be closer and more
-- closer proximity to the more expensive units will also have the
largest proportionate share requirement of the association fees.
And as I had stated earlier, most of those units -- or all those units
are going to be raised; 382 of those units are designed to be above
parking, above the secured reserve parking. Those units will have also
a larger association fee to be paid.
So we're looking at the smaller units and the more affordable
units, the ones that -- the ones that are closer to the more intense areas
of the development to be designed in terms of walk-up or loft units
where essentially we can limit common facilities and thereby lowering
the cost of the association fees.
So there's a nexus between that price range and those association
fees, therefore, addressing another issue that isn't currently addressed
by the programs that Collier County has.
This project also is very unique in that it is going to extend the
public realm, and I think that's one of the reasons it's been very, very
well received. And that's because it has opened itself up, it's
non-gated, there's no large parking lot, and, in fact, the grid system
that's been designed into the project actually allows closure of the
small park, which would allow it to facilitate art events, craft shows
and the like, something that we need in our community.
This board will hear, we believe next month, a petition or a
Page 173
September 12-13, 2006
resolution to proclaim this an arts district. And I think this is one
project that's going to help facilitate that theme for this entire district.
The art show that -- the Haldeman Creek festival that's previously
been held there on Bayshore has a unique opportunity to move its --
move that event to this location and also to have winter festivals, fall
festivals and the like.
In addition to that roadway, we also have designed the proj ect,
and if someone has seen the iterations or the changes that this has
gone through, you will notice that we have a larger area here that is
available for public happenings for larger stage events.
So we're looking at this to be not only be a unique mixed-use
development, but one that becomes the heart of this particular district,
a real anchor. This particular site -- and I think one of the reasons that
we had the support of the advisory board is that this particular site was
identified as one that they wanted to see an anchor occur on, a catalyst
project, if you will, and a facilitator.
One of the other items that the CRA advisory board requested of
us is potential accommodation of a garage. We looked at the
opportunity, we studied it, we modified our plan slightly, and we've
been able to identify a location for that potential garage.
In this graphic in this corner, you can see the -- two areas of the
public use. One is the linear system, the boulevard that can
accommodate the art festivals, and then the square that's closer to the
corner had -- potentially would accommodate a parking garage of
about 150 parking spaces per level.
The Bayshore overlay would require such a parking garage to be
above commercial. Our client would be providing the commercial and
the county would be looking at doing the garage above that.
We have agreed to allow two years for the county to make the
decision on whether or not they wanted to pursue a garage. And my
understanding, the idea of the concept is that you would have a series
of garages from this site northward that then would be linked by some
Page 174
September 12-13,2006
kind of facility, as far as transportation facility, that would
accommodate events and basically transporting people from one area
to another, facilitating, again, the concept of the arts district.
So we've made that commitment. Prior to the SDP we'll formally
enter into that agreement with the county that would allow that
election within the two-year period. If the county does not elect to do
it, then we have those additional stories to provide some of the
residential units above those considerations.
This, as I had mentioned, is a grid project, and that's one that is
really supported and encouraged in the Bayshore overlay district, and
as such, allows for a lot of interconnection.
We've proposed that the county's CAT system can utilize that
same interloop; would be a nice place for them to locate a facility to
allow people to get off and load, that is off the basic boulevard. So,
again, it's facilitating good transportation.
The mixed-use that we're proposing here is very conscious or it
actually is very good in terms of capturing trips. The trips that will be
utilizing the commercial component of this are trips that would
ordinarily probably have to go out to U.S. 41.
So we're facilitating -- maintaining the comm -- maintaining the
trips along 41 by having them redirected internally into the project.
We think it's a very special project, it's well located. We're
happy to address any issues that you may have.
I guess one last point would be the name of Arboretum. We
chose that name, our clients came up with it, because of it's adjacency
and their commitment to vegetation and trees and being adjacent to the
Botanical Gardens.
There's a further commitment in our MUP application that we
will provide a minimum of 40 percent open space on the project with a
full 133 percent of the required 30 percent. So that shows -- in
addition to the graphics that we have provided, that shows the
greenways and pedestrian ways within the development, our
Page 175
September 12-13, 2006
commitment to a project that has significant green space, open space,
and pedestrian- friendly atmosphere.
With that, I'd be happy to answer any of your questions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have one question.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: On this diagram that you have in front of
us, where is the gated units going to be located?
MR. FERNANDEZ: The only gated units are the 40 units --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And on that diagram, could you show
me?
MR. FERNANDEZ: On this diagram?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Back here. This is Windstar and this is
Pine Street. It's--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Move it down a little.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I can't see it.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm sorry. It's this section right here on the
other side of the lake. It's only those 40 units. They do not interfere
with the general grid circulation system of the rest.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So you've almost got like a mote
there, huh?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Drawbridge.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And that's less than 10 percent of the
overall units.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. The property is, what, 37
acres; did you say?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Thirty-seven point two six, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you were saying like 40
percent is green space. I would guess green space includes the lakes.
Page 176
September 12-13, 2006
MR. FERNANDEZ: Open space, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Open space. I'm sorry.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, open space. And I'm
wondering, if 40 percent of the 37 acres is dedicated to open space,
how many acres left will you have to put 447 units on? How tall will
those buildings be?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, the provisions in the code allow for
total of four stories. Weare providing three stories of residential for
the residential component as a maximum. We're limited by the
Growth Management Plan to four stories.
Weare also limited by the Growth Management Plan to the
relationship between the residential and the commercial, the
commercial being on the first or second level. Over 50 percent of the
parking is actually below the building, and that is how we really free
up a lot. And it's actually, again, very consistent with what staff and
FEMA have recommended and that those units be built above parking
facilitating green space.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me see if I understood what you
just said. So the parking is underneath the buildings -- which is a
great idea, by the way -- would be part of the consideration for open
space?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Excuse me?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The parking underneath --
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- the buildings would be considered
open space?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Oh, absolutely not. They're very much
covered. We have a diagram here on sheet five of five that's in your
packet. There's actually four diagrams. You'll see in the second
diagram over here with all the green space, and that's open space,
green space, public open areas. There's a significant amount of open
Page 1 77
September 12-13, 2006
space on this site. Again, it's a commitment to 133 percent of what the
minimum requirement is for a mixed-use project.
Weare not asking for any variances relative to building heights
and we couldn't be granted any anyway because the Growth
Management Plan specifically limits us to four stories.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me just ask one more question.
I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No, no, that's good.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So from the ground were I'm
standing, not FEMA or anything, from the ground to the tippity-top
(phonetic) of the elevator shafts and so forth, what is that height?
MR. FERNANDEZ: I could -- let me show you this graphic that
actually comes out of the Land Development Code. This is actually in
the Gateway overlay. And it's showing a total of four levels. And
essentially what we're allowed to do is 56 feet for a four-story
building, 42 feet for a three-story building to the tippy-top to, you
know --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: All the roof accouterments.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Roof accouterments as much as 70 feet
would be the total maximum building height including any kind of
roof forms.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ah.
MR. FERNANDEZ: What we have done -- and I'll show you a
sketch of this.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'd like to say that, you know, one of the
things that we did change in the Land Development Code was that we
wanted truth in advertising.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And so I think instead of showing where
you can put -- what the zone is, the real thing when you bring things
before us, you can use the zone, but also be up front and tell us exactly
what the real height of the building is. I think this is very important.
Page 178
September 12-13, 2006
MR. FERNANDEZ: Truth in advertising, I agree.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Exactly, okay.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And we're not -- we're looking to meet the
code requirements, and it's 70 feet for a four-story building; 56 feet for
a three-story building.
As you can see from that sketch, we actually have some lower
commercial components to individual buildings, and then you have
the residential components that are part of that same building located
behind it. This project and the way it's designed actually is very fluid
in the way that it distributes commercial and residential.
Again, it's a very true mixed-use development, and it allows for a
significant change. It will avoid any kind of canyon effect that you
would normally see. And we're committing to 96 feet between the
closest buildings on either side of our boulevards that we've provided
for. And in that regard, it's a very sensitive design.
If you look at projects across the way, the Botanical place, that's
the same standards they lived with as far as the building heights. Ours
will actually be more varied in that we're looking at having one-, two-,
three- and four-story buildings. So you'll have modulation throughout
the proj ect.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If there's no other questions, we'll have
staff make their presentation, and then we'll open it up for public
comment.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you very much, Commissioner. I'd
like to reserve the right to come back and answer any of the additional
questions or any issues that may arise from our comments from the
public. Thank you very much.
MS. VALERA: Again, Carolina Valera, Principal Planner with
the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review.
As noted in our executive summary, the proposal of this
mixed-use development or the petition is for two things; one, to allow
the mixed use and one to -- they're requesting 232 units from the pool
Page 1 79
September 12-13, 2006
that exists for the overlay, for the Bayshore overlay.
This process, as I said before, it's unique, and it's only for this
area. We -- and you, the board, have approved this process as a way
to create incentives of redevelopment in that -- in that area.
We looked at the criteria that we have for the mixed-use process,
and -- which are outlined in pages 3 and 4 of the executive summary.
And as noted in the executive summary, we are recommending
approval of this MUP.
With that, if you have any questions, I'll be glad to address them.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a couple questions and the
petitioner might have to get involved in answering these questions.
First, how do we get a commitment on the price ranges for the
affordable housing? That is a big issue here, and they've committed to
having them starting at less than 300,000. How do we get a
commitment to do that?
MS. VALERA: I'll let the applicant respond to that.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Commissioner, it is -- we are happy to
enter into any kind of agreement or to amend the approval resolution
that basically would state, we will have 15 percent of our gap housing,
or 15 percent of the bonus density units allocated to be at a price point
no more than 150 percent of median income, and then that provides a
definitive number depending on when they come on-line, whether it's
this year or next year or the following year.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How much is 150 percent of the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you're talking about 150
percent of median family income, which is roughly $75,000, I
believe?
MR. FERNANDEZ: If I remember correctly, and Cormac's here,
and he can probably address it better than I can. That 150 percent
came out to around a $300,000 unit, and that's what we're committing,
that they would start at that price range. But none of those 15 percent
Page 180
September 12-13, 2006
would exceed 150 percent of that number.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are you saying -- excuse me. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. Go ahead. I have --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are you saying that somebody that's
making $75,000 can afford a $300,000 mortgage?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, sir. I'm not saying that. I'm basically
making a commitment to that 15 percent of those units being allocated
no more than 150 percent, which would meet your gap guidelines.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What he's really saying is 150
percent of the median. So 75 plus 150 -- 50 percent of 75 is going to
get you up to about 110,000. And generally the guideline is that you
can afford a house that is about three times your annual income. So
that gets you up to about $330,000.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I think Cormac might be best to address
that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And that's including insurance,
especially in this area.
MR. GIBLIN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Cormac Giblin,
your Housing and Grants Manager.
I put on the visualizer our current income limits. And this
applicant has agreed to provide 15 percent of the bonus units, so 35
units -- let's just say the number -- as gap housing.
And we typically -- this is not a new concept. We typically have
requirements in many PUDs that -- we monitor them to be sure that
they are sold to people meeting those income limits that I've put on the
screen at the 150 percent adjusted for family size.
The price of the unit and what insurance is or what taxes are need
to be taken into account by the seller to be sure that it's priced within
the affordability range of people in those incomes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: With the insurance?
Page 181
September 12-13, 2006
MR. GIBLIN: Yes, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And taxes.
Now, if I could continue with a couple of other questions. Let's
talk about the parking building. It's two -- it's a possibility of two to
three levels over commercial.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How tall is that going to be?
MR. FERNANDEZ: It would need to meet the same
requirements of 56 feet. It could be no higher than 56 feet and by --
you know, as far as the actual height, that is 70 feet by the code.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, wait, wait, wait, wait. You
can't tell me you're going to have a three-story parking level over
commercial that's going to be 70 feet.
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, sir. I don't really anticipate that. I
would not anticipate that we're going to hit that 56 feet, as far as the
zoned height either. That's just the maximum. That project -- that
particular building, of course, hasn't been designed. Especially when
you go to parking, those parking levels will probably be, including the
structure, about 10 feet floor to floor. So you would have three floors
at 10 feet, which would be 30 feet, plus the first floor, which has a
minimum ceiling requirement by the overlay district of 12 feet. So
say a minimum -- so you'd end up maybe with 15. So about 45 feet
measured height would probably be something that's a reasonable --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's back up.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The top floor isn't covered, so
you've only got two gaps, 10 feet and 10 feet. That gives you three
levels, okay?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. Now, the code, I think, would
require us in this particular area to meet the architectural design
standards that are applicable. It probably would have some kind of
Page 182
September 12-13,2006
architectural finish and some roof form that would actually provide
something. So it might go a little higher in this particular -- in this
regard.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So we're talking about
maybe 45 feet?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Max. Now, what is the setback at
that point?
MR. FERNANDEZ: The setback -- that particular building we're
showing is approximately 80 feet off the property line.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And what do you do with respect
to vegetative buffers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: In that particular area, we have a 20-foot
buffer, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The actual code for this Bayshore overlay
district actually does not require us to have a buffer along the
perimeter roadways; however, in this project, we understand the
sensitivity. We also understand that there's some issues with
transportation. What we've done is internalized that movement, and
that allowed us to provide a 20- foot buffer at that edge.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, the -- is that going to
be a type B buffer?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, sir. In our application, I believe on one
of the sheets we actually detail what that is in terms of number of
shrubs, numbers of trees and so forth, and that's articulated in there,
and it's far above what the code requirements would be.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would just like a comparison of
between what you're providing and, let's say, a type B buffer.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I think it's probably closer to a type D
buffer, which is what's required adjacent to right-of-way, and it will
exceed that requirement.
Page 183
September 12-13, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And that -- that's all clearly
spelled out?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir, it is.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Staff happy with that?
MS. VALERA: Commissioner, they do need to meet the
minimum code of the overlay. They have to. They cannot -- we
cannot allow them to -- the code wouldn't allow them to ask for any
exemptions from minimum code. Anything above that, we'll being
happy to take.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. You understand that I'm not
interested in minimums.
MS. VALERA: Understood.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This should be a quality
development, it should be well screened. You're going to have some
pretty tall buildings.
What's the height of this building?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Again -- sorry, Commissioner.
Again, what we're locking about is depending on whether or not
it's a parking garage, or a parking garage that the county elects. And
the county doesn't have to elect to put three levels either there.
And if there is no garage, then we're probably look -- we're just
looking at two stories, not --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you're not going to take the
option of building those two or three levels if the county refuses to
exercise the option?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No. There's a slight possibility we might
do one level, but not two. We have right now the ability to
accommodate all our parking on grid, either below the existing
buildings or along the edges.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that specified in the PUD, Staff?
If the county fails or refuses to exercise its option for the two to
three levels, that the number of parking levels there will be restricted
Page 184
September 12-13,2006
to one parking level?
MS. VALERA: I don't believe it is. Again, I mean, when they
come for site development plan, they will have to show that they do
meet all the requirements, including parking. But again, I mean, we
cannot attach any conditions that will be different from what the code
would allow unless it's above what the code requires.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sure, we can.
MS. VALERA: Above what --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We attach conditions all the time.
The deal is that you're going to give the county an option to build
two or three levels. If the county doesn't build the option, what are
you going to do?
MR. FERNANDEZ: We'll limit it to three stories maximum,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Three stories maximum.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that could be residential?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Which is fine, you know. Nothing
wrong with that.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So would you specify that in the
PUD -- or MUP?
MR. FERNANDEZ: We're more than happy to make that as a
condition of approval.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. FERNANDEZ: We'll stipulate to that.
MS. VALERA: If I may --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So if the county doesn't agree to
build the parking levels --
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- or exercise the option to build
Page 185
September 12-13, 2006
the parking levels, you have the right to build another level of
residential there.
MR. FERNANDEZ: It would just simply be a reallocation from
one area to another, but no more --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It wouldn't be increased density?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, it would not, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner, I'd like to see us -- see if
there's any possibility of any rental units that may be in that
development. Not everybody can afford to jump into buying a unit
there.
Is there any possibility that there would be some rental units that
would be available?
MR. FERNANDEZ: We did look at that possibility and we
discussed that at length with the advisory board. It does get
problematic. It's very difficult in a mixed-use development like this,
and we decided to only have condominium units in this one as
opposed to rentals.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. The last I'd heard on this
subj ect actually -- and this is what I was going to ask as well is -- I
understood that you were setting aside a few units, I think five at the
time -- and I realize it's been a while since we spoke -- that were going
to be rental units for -- hopefully for artists in the area. That's what I
had remembered seeing.
And, of course, you can't just stipulate artists, but they were
saying that, and they were going to be a fixed rate rather than, you
know, to be able to be sold and resold and resold to the point where
nobody could afford them anyway.
MR. FERNANDEZ: We did look at a variety of options, and we
did discuss that, including with the CRA advisory board. The
discussion of an artist community certainly was something that was
Page 186
September 12-13,2006
considered and certainly something that they considered. Again, it
became very challenging when somebody came up and started saying,
well, who determines who is an artist? What is an artist?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I heard that conversation, yeah.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And what are they going to do? And it
became -- to the point where it's like, no, we don't want to get into that
business, whether it's the CRA -- because at one time we had said that
some of that allocation would be allocated actually to the CRA if they
wanted to utilize the space above that garage and put some residential
units above that. We were giving them that opportunity or that option.
But we didn't want to get into the business of trying to determine
who's an artist, who's not an artist, if they're practicing or not
practicing.
If that was an option that was desired, we were more than happy
to provide that option to the CRA for them to construct some of our
allocation over the garage, and that was something we looked at. But
the CRA advisory board, I think, recognized, once we got into that
discussion, some of the challenges that would entail.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That would have been good at a
fixed rate rent.
Second thing is, I know CRA has a -- has an architectural design
and have -- I think you and I spoke about it in the past. And you're
moving along in that direction to set the tone there for the area?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Absolutely. And as you know, one of the
architects is David Humphrey, who you're aware of, and we're
working with him on an old Florida and West Indies combination
look, and we're very happy with the way it's going at this time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If there's no further questions, we'll open
this up for public comment.
MS. VALERA: If I may, Commissioner, I would like to just
clarify something real quick.
Page 187
September 12-13,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. VALERA: Thank you. This is not a PUD, and because of
that, we cannot attach any conditions that are above code to the
document because there's no such document. We will put it in the
resolution. Just wanted to clarify for the record.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Mr.--
MR. WEEKS: Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Mr. Weeks, did you have something?
MR. WEEKS: I sure do, Commissioner. David Weeks of your
Comprehensive Department.
Just need to advise you of a couple of changes that are needed to
the resolution. For clarification, there's some possible discrepancy or
issue between staff and the petitioner as to how many base dwelling
units are assigned to this property.
This does not change their request for 232 bonus units from that
density pool. The concern is that the petitioner's asking for a total of
447 dwelling units. Staff believes that may be a little bit high by as
much as 21 dwelling units.
But we're not ready to -- we haven't resolved this and we don't
need to do this in front of you. But what I would like to do then is
change the resolution as follows:
The title of the resolution on the seventh line from the bottom --
page 8 of your packet. Again, the title of the resolution, the seventh
line from the bottom contains the number 447. Right before that I
would like to insert the words, quote, up to a maximum of, end quote.
On the next line behind the word units, insert, quote, as determined
through the SDP process, end quote.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What is that now, again?
MR. WEEKS: Behind the word units, insert, as determined
through the SDP process. SDP stands for Site Development Plan.
Their next step in this process.
Page 188
September 12-13, 2006
And then under the second whereas paragraph following the title,
again, right before the word -- the number 447 -- that's the next to the
last line in that paragraph -- insert the words, quote, up to, end quote.
What this is doing is simply clarifying that what you are doing today,
if you approve this as requested, is granting the 232 bonus units, but
that the total number of dwelling units will be determined at the time
of the Site Development Plan stage, but it will not exceed 447
dwelling units. It simply may be less.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Less sounds better.
MR. WEEKS: The other information I simply wish to put on the
record -- I'm not raising an issue here. I just simply want the
commission to be aware that the original density pool, as has been
noted earlier today, is 388 dwelling units. A handful of units -- and I
can't tell you how many exactly -- but I would say roughly 10
dwelling units have recently been approved from that pool by one or
two previously approved Site Development Plans. They predated this
mixed-use project process.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So what does that leave us in the pool?
MR. WEEKS: Subtracting the 232, that would leave us
approximately 146 dwelling units.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And minus the other ones that have been
taken from this pool, right?
MR. WEEKS: That included those.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, it did.
MR. WEEKS: So the 388 minus approximately 10, minus 232,
leaves a balance of approximately 146 bonus pool units, and those can
be assigned through this process, you know, subject to your approval,
through the qualifying properties either within the Bayshore
mixed-use district, which this property lies within, but also applies to
the Gateway triangle mixed-use development as well. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I don't -- I understand the process
of where these units come from in regards to the Botanical Gardens,
Page 189
September 12-13, 2006
but I have some real concerns, especially this being in a coastal high
hazard area.
And so we're addressing this as we're going through, but I hope
we don't get ourselves in another bind like this later on down the road
because of the fact that --
MR. WEEKS: If you'll allow me to respond--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- especially with the advent of -- excuse
me -- more and more population coming in here to Collier County, I
think we're going to have some other issues to address later on.
MR. WEEKS: Briefly, Commissioners. The genesis of this
zoning overlay goes back to the year 2000 when we adopted an
overlay into the Future Land Use Element of our Growth Management
Plan, and that overlay included this creation of this density pool of388
units.
I can tell you that when we first transmitted the Growth
Management Plan amendment that proposed to allow for additional
density for mixed-use projects within this Bayshore/Gateway area, the
Department of Community Affairs objected because it did not start out
as a pool. We were simply going to allow for a density increase.
But their very issue was, Collier County, you're raising density
within the coastal high hazard area. Generally speaking, that's a line
in the sand that they do not want crossed.
At the adoption stage then is where we created this density pool,
which the Department of Community Affairs did not object to because
it is reallocation of units that had already been approved in the coastal
high hazard area, not an increase.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much. At this
time we'll open -- did you have something?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I just want to emphasize
that point. If we were increasing the density in this area, I would not
support this project. But we're not increasing the density. We're
keeping the density exactly where it was in the beginning.
Page 190
September 12-13, 2006
And so in that way we are being true to our coastal high hazard
area zoning and sensitive to evacuation because those density units
had already been approved and they were already a right to somebody.
And so as long as we don't increase them, I feel comfortable. But if
we were merely using these units to increase density, I wouldn't be
supporting it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I understand where you're coming
from. Let me just add, in the prior subj ect matter that was before us,
we discussed in regards to the size, the width of the streets, and that
type of an issue, so that's where I'm leaning in this.
And I understand where you're coming from. It's just the idea that
we want to make sure that we don't impede the ability for people to
get out of that area.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right, yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So I guess now we're -- if we don't have
any more comments from the --
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have five speakers. The first one
is Robert Crim. He'll be followed by David Jackson.
MR. CRIM: I'm going to talk about artists. Can you see that?
Not very well.
My name is Robert Crim. I've been here before. Most of you
recognize me, I think. I live in the Bayshore Club at 4460, number
234. Have been there in my current location about a year, and was
there previously in another apartment, about two years previously to
that.
You might wonder why the little train there has relevance here.
Everything you see in black, I started with. Everything you see in
brass -- doesn't come up very well-- I put on there with a gas torch.
I'm the artist. I'm the person they're kicking out.
So the idea that this is going to be some kind of rich man's life
among the artists, I think there's something a little bit -- on the sly
there.
Page 191
September 12-13, 2006
I don't know of any artist, other than maybe Tom Clancy or
Danielle Steele who could have afforded the original proposal, which
was between 500,000 and $900,000 per unit. Apparently they have
come down a little bit on some of them.
A good friend of mine, the man I'm replacing temporarily from
one of my jobs, has a unit for -- they're currently selling for about
three and a quarter in Lely, which is a duplicate of my apartment at
Bayshore Club, except it's newer, it has a gate, it has a garage.
They're not really giving up anything by coming down to 300,000.
That's basically what the market says these units are really worth.
Everything else is the exclusivity of putting it deeper into the unit or
surrounding it with a mote.
Now, all of this is kind of interesting because when I went to the
planning and zoning commission over on Horseshoe Drive, they gave
me a document which indicates that the eligible density bonuses for
the CHHA include only affordable housing density bonus. That
density bonus, as I understand it, is six units per acre.
If they go from what they have, which is 200, up to what they
want is to double it, more than double it, it seems to me that the
affordable housing should be that extra amount.
They found a way to get around that by going to the power
broker, Mr. Jackson, who's your next speaker, and getting him to
transfer all of these unincumbered units from the Arboretum.
Now, this is a policy decision on the part of Mr. Jackson. He is
determined that we're not going to have affordable housing in this
area. We're going to have instead a rich man's place for whatever artist
can afford it. It's certainly not going to be me.
Now, for this reason I think that this is a totally improper process
because it's not just that they're transferring units and keeping the
density the same -- I don't know whether that's legitimate or not. I
wasn't here when that was actually debated or done and have nothing
to do with any of the other state agencies.
Page 192
September 12-13, 2006
But I guarantee you that a policy decision like this is really a
zoning change. It requires a supermajority vote from this commission.
And I deny that Mr. Jackson or his agency or any of the others--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sir.
MR. CRIM: -- have any authority --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Your time--
MR. CRIM: -- to do that on their own. You need to do it
yourselves.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is David Jackson. He'll be
followed by Karen Beatty.
MR. JACKSON: Good. Thank you. David Jackson, Collier
County Redevelopment Agency.
The advisory board has had numerous meetings with the
applicant, and it also had community meetings in which they were
open to the public, and we had many people come to those meetings
and feud what was going on. And in that conversation and in that
process, a lot of things changed and a lot of things moved around.
I'd like to cover a couple of items. We did recommend rentals,
and that was a process where they looked at where they would be and
what they would do and how they would fit.
They offered to the CRA to have about 30 units that we would
manage, but we're not in the housing management process. So we let
that one go.
The parking garage. We looked at it as a great opportunity for
the CRA to provide public parking spaces for large events and
activities above and beyond what they've met in the requirement.
Commissioner Coyle, that two levels, we didn't expect to go
more than two levels in the parking garage, maybe even only one
would be required. A lot of it has to do with cost, and also what we
wanted was the option that if, within the next two years as the area
gets built out, if there is a commitment and a requirement for it, that
Page 193
September 12-13, 2006
we would step up to the plate and do that.
The developer would build it for us. We would just fund it. And
we'd have to, obviously, bring it to the CRA board and look for
approval on that.
The 388 density bonus units, I am very glad that Mr. Weeks and
Commissioner Coyle did point out, you are not increasing the density
in the area. Every one of the 388 units came out of the flood zone, the
coastal high hazard area. They're all going to go right back into it.
And why? Because the entire CRA boundary is within the coastal
high hazard area where they can go. All you're going to do is you're
going to spread them around.
We have no problem in the CRA advisory board and me as your
executive director for the CRA, letting them have up to the 232 units.
And the reason is, it builds a very good project. It is needed in there.
It reduces trips. It keeps people in the area. They don't have to now
get out on 41 and Airport-Pulling to go to a store, to go to the services
that they require.
You're looking at it in the coastal high hazard -- I mean outside in
the area there of providing those kinds of services. Well, this does
there, and it keeps it in there where people can walk, bike, live, walk,
play.
And it's a very good project. We do support it wholeheartedly,
and we have no problem with the 232 units.
The remaining, as I now found out, is 146 instead of my
computation of 156 units left. If you did the math on that, you know,
taking away one in the coastal high hazard when you have four units
authorized by land, take one away, you have three. You do the math
out of it, we would have to have another 20-acre project in order to
use up the rest of those units.
There isn't 20 acres available out there that have a commercial
component on it. We have two five-acre parcels that may ask for a
portion of it.
Page 194
September 12-13, 2006
So by just the fact of land, the way it's built, and the parcels out
there, you're going to see that the rest of the units are going to get
spread out into the Gateway triangle area and along Bayshore, so that
kind of a density will not be happening.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Karen Beatty. She'll be followed
by Steve Main.
MS. BEATTY: Chairman and Commissioners, I am on the board
of the Community Redevelopment Agency Advisory Board, and I've
lived in the Bayshore Drive area since 1984.
I am thrilled to death about this Arboretum Village. I think it's a
wonderful thing and it's a long time coming.
The principals of the Arboretum Village have had many options
of what they could do. They bought this property in -- eight years ago
before the CRA was even developed, and they had original intentions,
from what they've told me, to make this a condo conversion. That
would mean the comer property that was for sale by Poteet Properties
for a long time would have gone to someone else and it would have
been separated.
They also could have done many other things. They could have
made it into a gated community or possibly applied to have it annexed
into Windstar. There's a number of things that they could have done.
What they chose is very congruent with the redevelopment
agency, the Botanical Gardens. It rounds off and balances out that
corner very well. It integrates with the community. It -- as David said,
it keeps people in the area.
I'm very excited about having local grocer and other small stores
there. I think it's a great concept. They're creative thinkers. They
have come up with an architectural theme there. It's out of the box.
It's not in the box. It's not cookie cutter, and it's very green, which is
wonderful. That connects very well with the Botanical Gardens next
door.
Page 195
September 12-13, 2006
So I vote a big yes for this, and I hope that you're congruent for
it, too. And I'm glad that Mr. Coyle mentioned about the density and
the evacuation and how that ties in. I see that that's true, and I'm glad
that you brought that up. That's a very important idea to bring up to
everyone.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Steve Main. He'll be followed by
Bill Neal.
MR. MAIN: Thank you. My name is Steve Main. I'm also a
member of the CRA Advisory Board.
We have been working through several of our meetings, have
been many neighborhood information meetings and other meetings
that took place with the developer.
I, too, am extremely thrilled about the opportunity that we have
here with this parcel of property and what it can do in terms of
providing sort of a beacon and a catalyst project for the redevelopment
of our area there.
I'm also a business owner in the Bayshore area currently on
Bayshore Drive and moving up to U.S. 41. So I hope that you, too,
will support this proj ect in the way that we have.
Talking a little bit about the parking garage. We had looked at
that as a great opportunity. The builder and developer has been
extremely open with this and providing that opportunity if we take it
and avail ourselves of the opportunity to have parking there for some
of the things that we see in the future for the area.
So, again, I urge that you support this project and help us with
the redevelopment in the Bayshore area. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Bill Neal.
MR. NEAL: Thank you, again, Commissioners, I'm Bill Neal,
your Advisory Board Chairman.
I could almost sing the same song and second versus up here
Page 196
September 12-13, 2006
again. As I said earlier, the things that we're doing in Bayshore is the
dream and the plan that we have to improve that area.
I don't think any of you live in Bayshore, and I don't say that
derogatory. I say that we live there. We're trying to improve our area.
And everything we bring to you is brought to you based on the rules
and regulations that we have to operation under.
And again, not to beat a dead horse, but density, we're not
violating the density program that we have. As a matter of fact, we're
bringing to you some property that we're going to ask for your help to
turn into a park that will reduce density. This is coming to you later.
So we're still looking at the big picture.
I encourage you -- as I said earlier, each of these individual
projects is forcing us to not look at what we're trying to accomplish in
the Bayshore area. Please try to keep that vision that we have that
we've submitted to you, the overlay and all the things that we want to
make this a better place for all of us that live there to live in. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, that was your final speaker.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning has a
question, and then I'd like to take a break for our court reporter. She's
been here almost -- pretty close to two hours, okay?
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, not a question. I'm just, you
know, remembering, we did approve a lot of affordable housing in this
area. What I see is what's being proposed is a great mixture of the
community. And I personally think it's a great plan. I'll support any
of the commissioners that are familiar with the CRA in favor of the
project.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta, and then
we'll take a break.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, sir. Thank you. I just
September 12-13, 2006
want to say that I had great concerns over the -- how this was going to
work out, the fact that we were having units built, that so much
high-end development's been taking place in this area, about the
people that have to service the area. What put me at rest was the fact
that the petitioner has come forward and is willing to come up with a
fund that will be able to help some of those people that aren't being
displaced.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. At this time we'll take a
10-minute break, and I ask my commissioners if they hopefully hold --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Be prompt, right?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah, be prompt, please. We've got a lot
to do. Thank you very much.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, County Manager.
If everyone would take their seats.
Before we proceed, we're going to --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, let the court reporter take her seat.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, I'm sorry. The most important
person.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Before we carry on, I just want to let
everybody know that I'm sure that we're going to be running into
tomorrow, so we'll probably cut this off at 6:30 tonight in regards to
this because we've been here since nine o'clock this morning.
So we're going to work through this as diligently as we can, and
at 6:30, we're -- or thereabouts, we're going to recess until tomorrow
morning. So I just want to let everybody know at this point in time.
So I believe we're in the process of discussion in regards to the
item that we just heard.
So at this point in time, is there any further discussion on our --
Page 198
September 12-13, 2006
from commissioners in regards to this item?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ifnot, I entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is Commissioner Coyle's
district.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe he wants to --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, can we find where Mr. Coyle is?
MS. FILSON: I know where he is.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You do?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He'll be here in a minute.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You called?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What an entrance.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We just discussed that we're to the point
now --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep, I got it. We're going to
adjourn at 6:30 or thereabouts --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and then we will continue.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's correct. And we're -- at this point
we're out of discussion and so we're looking forward to a motion one
way or another, on the item that we just discussed before the break.
So I --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could we review that, please?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Short memory. Okay. Does anybody
have a --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do we have--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. We have a motion on the floor
Page 199
September 12-13, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does the motion include the
changes to the resolution, the header --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: By David Weeks?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep:
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- that was put on the record by
David Weeks?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And it also includes the
commitments that were made by the petitioner on the record --
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- with affordable housing, and the
parking levels.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Excuse me, Commissioner. The assistant
county attorney asked me to read into the record these items, if you
would like me to, that we made a commitment to. Is that all right?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good. Yes, please do, that way we'll
make sure we get it in the record.
MR. FERNANDEZ: It's so it can be attached to the resolution.
Item one, a minimum of 40 percent open space. Item number two, a
20- foot type D buffer with CRA hardscape along the Bayshore and
Thomasson Drives we're abutting the garage structure on the corner,
or potential garage structure on the corner.
Item number three, 15 percent of the bonus density unit shall
have price points of less or equal to 150 percent of the gap definition
of median income or appropriate for them as worked out with the
county's housing staff.
Number four, $1,000 per unit above the base 200 units and 50
cents per square foot of developed commercial due at closing or per
Page 200
September 12-13,2006
the housing program that will be developed jointly with the county to
addressing the needs and targeting those individuals that are residents
of the current development.
Number six, if no public garage in the comer is developed with
the county, then that structure shall be limited to three stories.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. County attorney, did we cover all
items of interest in this motion?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I believe you did.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is that in your motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It is, but I'm not sure that you
mentioned the limitation of 447 units, up to.
MR. FERNANDEZ: We concur with the amendments that were
put on the record earlier by staff.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good, good. Then I think that
covers everything.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I thought Commissioner Henning
had alluded to that, but I may have been in error. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And that's in your second,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Yes, County Attorney.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. In regard to the affordable housing
and all that's been stated thereupon, if the county should develop and
approve an affordable housing or mitigation fee related to affordable
housing, I would ask that the board recognize or consider that
everything that has been stated by Mr. Fernandez on behalf of the
client be taken into account in regard to crediting toward any fee in
case there's disparity that should come into play in future months here.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do you agree with that?
MR. WEIGEL: Margie says she thought that was already stated,
Page 201
September 12-13,2006
but --
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I thought that was already stated. I
thought that had been said by Mr. Fernandez.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I just want to make sure we get
everything in the motion and it's on record.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good. I'm okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you very much, Commissioners.
Item #8C
ORDINANCE 2006-41: PUDA-2005-AR-8832, CREEKSIDE
WEST, INC., 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 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
Page 202
September 12-13, 2006
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 - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, this brings us to our next item
which is 8C and 8D, and I'll read them both.
Both items were continued from the June 20,2006 BCC meeting,
and they are further recommended to be continued until today,
September 12, 2006.
This item requires -- these items require that all participants be
sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission
members.
It's 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 and 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. That part is at petitioner's request.
And then I'll go to 8D. Again, all participant need to be sworn in
and ex parte disclosure be provided. This is PUDZ-2005-AR-8833,
Collier Publishing Company, Inc., d/b/a Naples Daily News,
represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, ofQ. Grady Minor &
Associates, P .A., and R. Bruce Anderson again, Esquire, of Roetzel &
Andress, L.P.A., requesting business park planned unit development,
BPUD, rezone from rural agricultural and Creekside Commerce Park
Page 203
September 12-13, 2006
PUD for project known as the Naples Daily News Business Park
planned unit development.
The subject property, again, is located in Section 27, Township
48 south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida.
Again, this is a companion item to the previous 8C.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. At this time would all those that
are going to be giving testimony -- are we going to cover both of these
items at the same time or are we going to --
MR. MUDD: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And are we going to vote on the
land use first and then into the other item, the PUD itself; is that what's
our intent?
MR. MUDD: Sir, they have to be separate votes on each one, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So at this time if everyone that's
going to give testimony would you rise and the court reporter will
swear you In.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. At this time I'm going to ask for
guidance by our county attorney in regards to some items or an item
that was published in the paper in regards to endorsement that I, the
chair, had received, and we're going to see if I have to recuse myself
on this vote or we can proceed.
So, County Attorney, if you'd give me some guidance in regards
to this and maybe you could help us out before we proceed.
MR. PETTIT: Yes, Chairman Halas. For the record, Mike Pettit,
Chief Assistant County Attorney.
The question as to whether you would need to recuse yourself
under any of these matters really relates to the fact that during the
election season, apparently the paper endorsed you in your candidacy.
And to get to a short answer, the mere endorsement by the
Naples Daily News of your candidacy does not create a voting conflict
which prohibits you from voting on any of these land use matters.
Page 204
September 12-13, 2006
I'll elaborate only briefly to say that we not only arrived at that
opinion in our office independently by looking at commission ethics
opinions in the statute, but also we obtained a brief informal opinion
from the commission on ethics' staff attorney to that effect.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And that was up in the State of Florida?
MR. PETTIT: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Okay. I think we've got that
pretty well clarified.
At this point now I'm going to ask each of the commissioners for
their ex parte on this particular item, starting with Commissioner
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I have had
meetings with the petitioner and the petitioner's representatives, I've
discussed this with staff, I've received correspondence, emails and
telephone calls, and all of those records are contained in my public
records folder.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. And I have
also had meetings with the petitioner, with staff, received
correspondence, emails and phone calls.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I, myself, on both 8C and 8D
have been involved in meetings, correspondence, emails and phone
calls.
And Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I, too, have had meetings,
correspondence, emails.this is on both subjects, calls. I've spoken to
Pelican Marsh representatives, staff, and actually just general public in
passIng.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I spoke to a Planning
Commission member, received correspondence from Grady Minor &
Associated, received some other miscellaneous correspondence
Page 205
September 12-13, 2006
through an email and regular mail, briefly spoke to Mr. Anderson, I
spoke to Paul Marinelli, and nobody tried to bribe me.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. At this time we'll have the
petitioner step forward and --
MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, commission
members. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson from the law
firm of Roetzel and Andress representing the landowners and the
contract purchaser, Collier Publishing Company, Inc., which publishes
the Naples Daily News and the Collier Citizen, among others.
I'll address the Creekside amendment and the Daily News PUD
together since they are companion items.
The other members of the project team that are here to answer
questions are my co-agent, Wayne Arnold, planner with Q. Grady
Minor & Associates; Mr. Tom Sewell (phonetic), the operations
director for the Naples Daily News; Dade Bordon, Barron Collier
Companies, which include the Creekside and Ocean Boulevard
partnership entities that own the subject property.
Also here today as part of the project team are Reed Jarvi,
transportation engineer with Vanasse Daylor & Associates; Gary
Sebian (phonetic), an acoustical engineer with Sebian and Associates
of Gainesville; Chris Hagan, a civil engineer with Johnson
Engineering; and Rick Barber, a civil engineer with Agnoli, Barber
and Brundage.
Also with us today is the publisher of the Naples Daily News,
Mr. John Fish.
The amendment to the Creekside Commerce Park PUD seeks to
rezone 2.3 acres at the northwest comer of that PUD. That would be
added to the Naples Daily News Business Park PUD.
The reason for this amendment is purely a technical and legal
one. It provides direct access to Immokalee Road, an arterial
roadway, and thereby eliminates the need for a separate new
additional access point on Immokalee Road for the Naples Daily
Page 206
September 12-13, 2006
News PUD.
The transportation department likes to minimize the number of
curb cuts on the roadways to help with traffic in that way. It also
helps the Naples Daily News PUD to meet the minimum 35-acre size
for a business park.
The only changes to the Creekside PUD are to amend the legal
description, to remove that small 2.3 acre parcel, and to show that the
Creekside Way would be extended to connect to Creekside Boulevard,
and that was at the request of the transportation department, and the
revised PUD for Creekside would also show that Creekside Boulevard
now extends west beyond the Creekside PUD.
Now, as to the Naples Daily News PUD, the remainder of the
property that's included in this PUD for the Naples Daily News is
zoned agricultural, and it includes two development parcels, A and B.
And the remainder of the PUD consists of road right-of-way, water
management preserve and landscape buffers.
There is a lake on this irregularly shaped parcel that is used for
and has a water management district permit to store stormwater from
parcels A and B. So whatever gets built on these parcels will use this
lake for water management.
The Planning Commission held a lengthy hearing on this PUD
and recommended approval. And with regard to the conditions for
approval recommended by the Planning Commission, my clients are
in agreement with those conditions.
As noted in the staff report, the PUD has received letters of
support and no objection from the property owners' associations for
the closest residential areas, Bay Colony and Pelican Marsh and
Collier's Reserve.
My clients began working with these property owners'
associations more than a year ago and the Pelican Marsh CDD also to
address all concerns of area residents. Any that have been brought to
our attention, we've diligently tried to address.
Page 207
September 12-13, 2006
And in that vein, the Naples Daily News and the Barron Collier
interests took the extra steps and engaged the services of a noise
expert to measure the sounds coming from the existing newspaper
operations and to extrapolate those measurements at the proposed new
location to determine if additional measures were needed at the new
location to comply with the county's noise ordinance.
A copy of the noise study was forwarded to you by the county
planner assigned to this project, Mr. DeRuntz.
It was determined as a result of the study that there was a
potential for reducing any noise resulting from the Naples Daily News
loading dock by relocating that dock and the delivery exit drive to the
west boundary of the new PUD to connect with the existing service
drive on the east boundary of the Granada Shops PUD. This would be
the new exit drive.
One of the steps that will be taken will be a requirement that
between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6:59 a.m., which are the hours that I
take from your noise ordinance, the Daily News delivery trucks will
be prohibited from utilizing Creekside Boulevard or Creekside Way
and would instead enter and exit through the relocation driver exit
connection to the Granada Shops service drive, and from there they
would turn onto Immokalee Road. This would be added as a new
requirement, new stipulation, in the PUD.
Another effort that was made was with regard to lighting. As
part of the negotiations and discussions with the property owners'
associations, lighting restrictions were agreed to and are contained in
the PUD.
For example, the only outside architectural lighting that is
allowed on parcel A will be on the north side of the building where the
Naples Daily News would be located, nor can there be any lighted
signage on the 75- foot print press building.
Also there will be no outside lighting on the southern side of any
building constructed on parcel B and no lighting of parcel B's parking
Page 208
September 12-13,2006
lot, except to the extent that the county may require it. And to the
extent that the county requires it, cut-off type fixtures with shields will
be used to direct the light downward into the parking lot.
There are also other requirements in the PUD as a result of
consultations between my clients and the property owners'
associations.
Clearly the Barron Collier Company and the Naples Daily News
have reached out to be good neighbors and gone beyond the minimum
public outreach required in the Land Development Code.
This PUD has neighborhood support, community support,
Planning Commission support, staff support, and it deserves your
support today, too, to keep an 83-year-old community institution in
the community.
I'd like to ask Wayne Arnold to come up and briefly address
some planning issues. Then we'll be available for any questions.
MR. ARNOLD: Good afternoon. I'm Wayne Arnold with Q.
Grady Minor & Associates, and I wanted to address a couple of
aspects of the proj ect that are important considerations and technical
in nature, but primarily I wanted to talk to you about your Growth
Management Plan consistency.
We qualify to seek the business park in the urban area under your
business park subdistrict for the Growth Management Plan, and it
contains several numerical criteria that you have to meet to qualify for
them, including the 35-acre minimum and encouragement of a PUD
rezone, which we have. We've gone through all the various standards,
we meet those.
A couple of things that we've done. One was the inclusion of the
Creekside Way property on our property boundary so that we can
meet the direct connection to an arterial roadway. That is one of the
requirements in the Growth Management Plan.
Secondly, staffhad, early on, asked a question about, there's a
statement in your sort of introduction to your business park that says
Page 209
September 12-13, 2006
they're going to be parklike, and it's not really a defined term, but in
response to that --
MR. MUDD: Turn it this way.
MR. ARNOLD: Okay. That's fine.
We came up with a concept called parklettes, and this was a
series of small park type features that we were willing to locate on the
property as part of a condition of this project's approval.
It also -- I think one of the features that's going to be most
prominent was the creation of linear park along Immokalee Road. We
had originally sought a deviation from your strict criteria for the
landscape buffer requirements for the business park so that we could
have a like buffer to that of Creekside and a similar buffer to that of
Granada Shops to give it more of a softer feel along Immokalee Road.
At the end of the day after Planning Commission, we agreed to
have a linear park that could include landscaping, some hardscapes,
and really add some visual interest to the front of this building, which
is the business side of the Naples Daily News building. We think
that's a positive thing and it addresses your parklike setting statement
that's in the plan.
So having said that, we believe we're consistent with your
Growth Management Plan, I think staff finds that, and we would hope
that part of your finding for our approval today includes a statement
that we're consistent with the Growth Management Plan in that regard.
We worked hard, I think, as Bruce said, prior to and after the
Planning Commission meeting to address various issues that came up.
A lot of the issues were, I think, compatibility related, and Planning
Commission, I think, did a very good job.
I don't know how closely you all may have followed that at the
time, but the Planning Commission spent several hours debating this
project. They redistricted several of the uses on our parcel B, which is
the southern most parcel in the project, and they agreed with some of
the conditions that were requested by the Bay Colony association in
Page 210
September 12-13, 2006
terms of restrictions and included those in their recommendation for
approval.
The Planning Commission also increased the property and
building setbacks for the proj ect. They also increased the buffers that
we had proposed for the proj ects to make them a minimum of 25 feet
in width. The only deviation would be from a requirement to build a
wall within each of those buffers, especially adjacent to the industrial
park of Creekside and the existing Granada Shops where the inclusion
of a wall didn't seem to make a lot of sense.
Again, Pelican Marsh CDD was represented at the Planning
Commission. We worked with them even after the Planning
Commission, and the staff report reflects it and the PUD includes the
recommendations of the CDD board at Pelican Marsh for issues
related to water management.
As Bruce mentioned, one of the other conditions that was
imposed by your staff was the extension of Creekside Way, which is
the north/south entrance to Creekside Commerce Park and the Naples
Daily News Business Park to make that extended all the way south to
the east/west Creekside Boulevard, which sort of creates a
transportation network that they've been encouraging and one that
we're certainly willing to do.
I think with that I can wrap up and just let you know that we
worked hard to address all the compatibility issues that we've been
approached with, and we've dealt with the compo plan consistency
issues, we believe, successfully. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Are there any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a couple of questions in regards
to, what came to light today is the fact that a business park is not
considered 50 feet. A business park is actually 30 feet. And so we're
looking for a pretty large variance now from 35 feet or 30 feet all the
way up to 75 feet, and I'm not sure how that's going to shake out into
Page 211
September 12-13, 2006
this whole issue.
One of the other concerns that I have is that you have talked with
the president of the homeowners' association, which is -- that's closely
in the proximity of this PUD.
I've found in the past, representing District 2, that not in all cases
because -- that you get a letter of recommendation from either the
board of the property owners' association or a foundation, that that
really actually is the full intent of the citizens that live in that area.
And I'm just bringing this up as a -- so that people understand
that are sitting on the dais here where that leads to. Obviously, we've
had a number of issues in District 2, one being, of course, the Cap
d'Antibes in Pelican Bay that was approved prior to me sitting on this
dais.
And, of course, we've had some serious ongoing discussions
where everybody in the foundation and people that were associated
with that in Pelican Bay obviously didn't get the full feeling of the
citizens because they weren't included in the public meetings. And, of
course, we ran into some situations.
And just recently we had another item that came before the board
whereby it was in regard to the Waterside Shops. And, again, we had
an outpouring of support for this and it was approved, but little did
someone know that there was a homeowners' association that was kind
of left out in the -- in, within Pelican Bay, that was left out of the
process, and, of course, that has caused some undue concern for me,
again, and whereby we had to sit down with those people and explain
exactly what's going on. So I just want to make sure that we have this
out in the open.
And what concerns me is the fact that you state that you've been
working for over a year with the citizens, but yet when it came to
having a neighborhood meeting, the meeting didn't take place until
May the 16th, I believe it was, and most of the residents that will be
greatly affected weren't there for the information meeting, and I have
Page 212
September 12-13, 2006
some concerns about that, okay? I believe there's only two people that
showed up for that.
And, of course, most of those people leave sometime around --
on or before Easter. So that leaves me some concern, even though we
did get a letter of recommendation.
The other thing that concerns me is the area where this is located.
And we went through a situation here not too long ago, this
Board of County Commissioners, in regard to our emergency
operations center.
And we, at that time, said that -- we were told that this was the
only place that was at all feasible, and that was at the Bembridge
property.
And we found that because of the reluctance of people around
that area, that we could find another place within Collier County to
locate our emergency operations center.
I think it's very important that we retain the jobs here in Collier
County at all costs, but I also think that we need to make sure that we
-- as we go forward in the process here, that there are no other places
that are available in Collier County, and I have some very, very deep
concerns in regards to that because of the compatibility of this proj ect.
And at that, I think Commissioner Fiala has some concerns or has
something to bring to the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yes, first of all, people that I've spoken to -- and I haven't had
anybody opposed to it. I went out and saw a couple newspaper
facilities, actually not here, but elsewhere, and I've never had a
complaint from anyone clustered around the property downtown as far
as noise or anything goes. I'm glad to hear you've done a noise study
out here, too.
I know that you back up to a shopping center. And I think, you
know, between Immokalee Road and the shopping center, it doesn't
seem to be that there could be too, too much of a problem there. I'm
Page 213
September 12-13, 2006
glad you're concerned anyway.
I've spoken to the people at Pelican Marsh who, at one time, had
some concerns, but they said they've worked them out with you.
We talked about the stormwater and managing the stormwater on
their property, and I thought it was a good idea. I only wanted to
make a suggestion -- how good this suggestion is though, I don't know
-- and that is, I understand that you'll be cleansing that water and then
moving it on to the Cocohatchee. And I thought -- or is it the
Caloosahatchee, excuse me.
MR. ARNOLD: It goes indirectly into the Cocohatchee.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Cocohatchee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I thought, gee, you know, if
there's ever any way that our stormwater people can work with the
Pelican Marsh people, maybe they could take that water after its
cleansed and use it as reclaimed water on their golf courses or
something. I just thought, rather than dump it into the river, it might
just be a great use for that water. So those are just my comments.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I agree that it's a
wonderful proj ect. And I'll tell you, I think we see out here in the
audience, some of the leaders from all of Collier County who are
going to -- given the opportunity, are going to say the same thing.
It's good for business, you know. It's just one of those things. The
Naples Daily News grows, the business element in Collier County
grows. It offers new opportunities.
There is one thing, and I did notice and I do want to ask you
about. First off, I want to thank you very much for stepping up to the
plate without being coerced or asked and offering the element there
for affordable housing of 50 cents per square foot, which will probably
fall very much in line with our ordinance that we're working on at this
point in time. And for that I thank you. I think it's wonderful. It's
reassuring to see people do that.
Page 214
September 12-13, 2006
However, there's one part down at the very bottom of it, and I'm
referring to page 116; 116 of271 and -- under 6.8 affordable housing.
And it says that the payment of this contribution shall fully satisfy the
project's obligation to pay affordable or workforce housing fees that
may be adopted in the future by Collier County.
I then -- this is almost like a get-out-of-jail-free card, you know.
Forgive me. Fifty cents a square foot probably will be what it will end
up being, but I don't know that. It may be any number of things. And
to be able to say this would completely meet that need and that you
would be exempt if it was 75 cents or if there was an additional part
maybe, on the -- and I really don't know what it's going to be in the
end -- but on the office space, which there is no allowance for it here,
then you would be exempt if we agreed to it by that.
Would you please comment on that?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. Bruce Anderson, again, for the
record.
We're prepared to change the wording on that sentence and delete
"fully satisfied" and instead it would be read, shall be credited to. So
the sentence would now read, the payment of this contribution shall be
credited to the project's obligation to pay affordable or workforce
housing fees that may be adopted in the future by Collier County.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And everything that's in this
whole document from one end to the other, there was nothing else that
raised any red flags for me. That was the only thing. You remove
that, I have no problems.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, in an attempt to be
constructive here, could I ask a question? There are eight speakers.
How many people here are opposed to this project? There's one.
Well, you're not going to make any difference.
Okay. I just wanted to know, because everybody seems to be
Page 215
September 12-13, 2006
happy with this. But I was going to make a motion to approve, but I
will wait until I hear the concerns.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think we have to listen to public
speakers.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, okay.
MR. EIDSON: 8C or 8D?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Both of them.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Both of them.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have eight speakers.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Do you want me to call them now?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, please.
MS. FILSON: David Weston. He'll be followed by Mike
Reagen.
MR. WESTON: Good evening. For the record, my name's
David Weston. I'm here this evening as the chairman of the Collier
Community, Business Community, BISPAC (phonetic). The
BISP AC's objective is to be in support of and educate our constituents
regarding public policy matters that affect our ability to live and work
here in Collier County.
The BISP AC has an affinity relationship with organizations like
the Naples Area Board of Realtors, the Collier Building Industry
Association, and the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce.
We subscribe to the premise that if something's not good for
business, it's not good for the community, and, likewise, if it's not
good for the community, it's not good for business either.
It's -- I would submit to you that approving the rezone petition
that's in front of you today is both good for business and good for the
community. Although the issue before you today relates to a specific
rezone petition, I'm also here on behalf of the Collier BISP AC to
appeal to your consideration for an action in support of the broader
public policy that supports local business health and enhance the
Page 216
September 12-13, 2006
economic diversity.
While any number of us -- and myself particularly, may have
issues from time to time with an editorial position of the Naples Daily
News, we do not believe it is important -- it is important, however, to
maintain and continue a local newspaper.
Over the past 58 years, the Naples Daily News has become a part
of the fabric of our community, employing hundreds of individuals,
and we suggest that it be allowed to continue to do so for years to
come.
It is clear that the location of the proposed facility has been
thoroughly vetted, has been conscientiously coordinated with the
project's neighbors, and the economic and symbolic significance of
locating our newspaper within our own community cannot be
overstated.
On behalf of the business community, we urge you to support the
sound public policy represented today through the rezone question and
approval. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Mike Reagen. He'll be
followed by Tammie Nemecek.
MR. REAGEN: Mr. Chairman and ladies and gentlemen of the
commissioner, my name is Mike Reagen. I'm with the Chamber of
Commerce, and I urge your unanimous support of this wonderful
project. And I yield the rest of my time to your economic
development president, Tammie Nemecek.
MS. FILSON: Tammie Nemecek. She'll be followed by Richard
Botthof.
MS. NEMECEK: Good afternoon. Tammie Nemecek, President
of the Economic Development Council,
Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, thank you again for the
opportunity to speak on behalf of economic diversification here in
Collier County and our public/private partnership with you, the Board
of County Commissioners.
Page 217
September 12-13, 2006
In working with this project with Naples Daily News -- typically
EDC does not get involved in land use issues specifically, but what we
do is we work with companies in trying to find specific sites for those
companIes.
And we have been involved with the Naples Daily News and
finding appropriate sites in the community, and it's difficult. As you
know, land availability in the coastal area is dwindling. We are
working on land availability out in eastern Collier County, but that
was part of the reason why we had prompted looking at a land use
study here in Collier County was the inability for us to find sites not
only for Naples Daily News, but for other projects that we're working
on.
So finding these sites are few and far between. And land
availability in Collier County is an issue for us, and that is why this
land use analysis came forward prompting us to understand what our
needs are in the future.
But knowing this company is here in the community already and
needs to be protected, needs to be kept in the community, and the
ability for that company to grow is a top priority.
The company currently employs over 250 people. They're going
to grow to over 300 individuals. They do meet the requirements of
our fast track program and economic stimulus program employing
these individuals at over 150 percent of Collier County's average
wage. That means they're paying nearly $52,000 as an average wage
within that company.
This higher qualification is something that is kept strictly for
western Collier County because we know the housing affordability
issue is on the table and companies that need to pay this higher wage
so that their employees can afford to be here, and Naples Daily News
is doing that.
The direct economic impact. In the first year alone of this
company building this building, employing over 300 people, is over
Page 218
September 12-13, 2006
$111 million. That is a huge economic impact.
First and foremost, we need to protect the businesses that are
already here. Eighty percent of the jobs that we're going to create
through our economic diversification programs are going to come
from the businesses that are here, but only if they can remain here. If
we cannot keep those companies here, what message will we send to
the other companies that are looking to relocate here in order to
diversify, in order to be able to recruit those companies if we can't
keep the companies here that are already here? Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Richard Botthof. He'll be
followed by Jim Burke.
MR. BOTTHOF: Thank you. My name is Richard "Dick"
Botthof. I know many of you and appreciate the time. Appreciate
even more what a mind-numbing experience this must be for you. It
certainly is for me.
Having said that, I am the executive director of the Regional
Business Alliance, and what we address is the creation of high-wage
jobs, work very closely with Tammie and the EDC folks. I am a
former two-time chairman of the EDC, so this is a passion of mine
that's been around for a long time.
And I'm obviously speaking in favor of this project. And frankly,
with all due respect, I can't imagine anyone being opposed to it. You
know, the area is compatible with the surrounding uses. It is a
beautifully done project.
I'm not meaning to be redundant, but 300 jobs, 150 percent of our
average wage here in Collier County right now. That's significant.
And I would say to you that everybody's looking at us, not just
internally, but externally, too. And when we're talking about creating
high-wage jobs, which impacts education, which impacts the future
leadership of this community in terms of our young folks coming back
here and having a place to sustain a livable wage, those are the future
leaders, those are the people that are going to be sitting in your seats
Page 219
September 12-13, 2006
20 years from now.
So I would respectfully request that you approve this. All that
being said, Naples Daily News is an exceptional corporate citizen and
has been since 1948. What's not to like? It's kind of like being against
motherhood to be against this.
So thank you very much for your time. Appreciate it.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Jim Burke. He'll be followed
by Tony Pires.
MR. BURKE: Commissioners, thank you for the time. My
name is Jim Burke, and I'm a resident of North Naples, Pelican Bay to
be specific, a fact I want to mention because it serves as a basis for my
references.
I have no comments on the merit of this proj ect. I think if I -- if I
found out more about it, I'm sure I'd be for it, like everybody else. But
I do live in a community that does have at least a five-year history
with projects that are very good for the community but didn't get
proper public input.
And my introduction to activity in Pelican Bay was the Cap
d'Antibes project. And I'm not too sure how many dollars that's costs
us now. There are people in the room that would know better than I,
but it's pushing $2 million, and there's no end in sight to the appeals
and the legal fees. There was no public input on that.
I've lived with the fact that ever since then, that had somebody in
Pelican Bay grabbed hold of that thing early and we didn't negotiate
through lawsuits, maybe that money and the anguish that's been
caused in Pelican Bay ever since could have been avoided.
We recently -- Commissioner, you just mentioned it. We
recently had another event come up, and I was involved with it early
on, and we had people beating Cap d'Antibes war drums. They were
ready to hire a lawyer and stop the Waterside proj ect.
Now, this project, I believe, is very good for business, it's good
for jobs, it's good for Collier County. But on a smaller scale, if
Page 220
September 12-13, 2006
Waterside didn't get that parking structure, they wouldn't get
Nordstrum's, and there'd be no Waterside. We'd have K-Marts in
there. That's an exaggeration, but it's not too far afield.
But we got involved, we got our District 2 commissioner, Mr.
Halas, involved, and the public, who we were all told had input,
apparently they didn't. And through using the commissioner and
others, we got the community involved. The developer made some
slight concessions. Not everybody's happy, but everybody got a little
bit, and we've got that thing under control.
This, I think, is a much bigger proj ect. But I get around; I hear a
lot of things essentially because I don't have anything else to do, but --
and a lot of what I hear might be anecdotal in nature, but I get the
feeling there's some people who think they haven't been heard that live
somewhere in that community. So I want to thank you for your time.
MS. FILSON: Tony Pires. He'll be followed by Gary Eidson.
MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, members of the board, my name is
Tony Pires with the law firm of Woodward, Pires, Lombardo, and I'm
district counsel for the Pelican Marsh Community Development
District, which part of the property lies within the boundaries of the
Pelican Marsh Community Development District boundaries.
The CDD, as other community development districts, has
responsibilities for infrastructure needs and providing infrastructure
such as roads, utilities at times, water management features,
landscaping, access control, as does the Pelican Marsh Community
Development District.
The district board, based upon the revisions to the PUD as agreed
to by the petitioner that are embodied within documents that are
before you today as to water management issues and language also
involving use in the preserve area, has indicated no objection to the
PUD document.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
Page 221
September 12-13, 2006
MS. FILSON: Gary Eidson. He'll be followed by Ronald
McGinty.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Gary, I hope you know I was just
kidding about my earlier remark.
MR. EIDSON: I appreciate the cordial welcome that I've
received here today. My name is Gary Eidson. I'm a North Naples
resident.
My purpose in being here is that of a concerned citizen. My
experience as a past president of a homeowners' association, I'm also a
community representative on the District 2 advisory committee. I've
been on that for four years, and I'm a director with the North Bay
Civic Association, but I'm here as a citizen.
My experience has taught me that community input is vital.
While I might echo some things, it's about process. I think this is a
wonderful project. I do believe in motherhood.
And I do think that if we don't get the citizens involved, we've
got a problem. And I'm hearing, again, anecdotal, but I did hear from
Ms. Rosoff today who lives in Collier Preserve (sic), they didn't know
that there was going to be any traffic going onto Immokalee Road
about this, and that was a big thing. Great that it's going there because
it's going to get the noise away, but it's also putting traffic in a place
where it wasn't agreed.
Now, you're going to have how many people in Collier's Preserve
(sic) that will be coming -- running down -- Collier Reserve, running
down and creating time with the commission.
As a -- I know that the president of the homeowners' association
was really positive about that. I think he's with Bay Colony.
Presidents of homeowners' associations, having been one and having
been around them for the past seven years, they tend to take liberties
with their authority. They tend to represent, more than, perhaps, they
hear, and they feel that they're empowered to do that. Maybe they are
when they have to make a decision about money, but not about
Page 222
September 12-13, 2006
attitude.
So there's some things here that trouble me. The process is not
perfect. You've got a great project. I mean, you've spent a lot of
money. I don't know if you exhausted all the places to put this thing.
It's odd that we're putting a manufacturing facility that close to a
residential area.
You talk about, the noise is going to be good, but, you know, I
don't know how you run a newspaper and back up trucks and not get
ding, ding, ding. It just doesn't make sense to me. I don't know how
you do that unless you muffled the sound, and then I guess you've
muffled the EP A.
So I would hope that out of this that there's a better way to
proceed. I don't like the idea of fictitious representation of the public,
and I don't like it being represented that way, and I think it has been.
I think that sometimes we operate not as much in the sunshine as we
need to. It troubles me because Collier County has a history of doing
that.
I see District 2 has to live with a lot of problems. We've had -- I
think the most famous was -- Bellagio was certainly an interesting
experience in the absence of community involvement.
Vanderbilt overlay. All of these were done in the summertime.
Why do we do things in the summertime? Oh, I remember. The
citizens aren't here. Something's wrong with the process.
I would hope you'd give consideration to that. I think that you
maybe want to delay this until that could be done.
And with that, I will conclude my remarks. And thank you for
your time.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Robert McGinty. Mr.
McGinty is your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
MR. McGINTY: I guess some of my glamour just went away
Page 223
September 12-13,2006
because I'm the president he was talking about. But Ron McGinty
with -- President of Bay Colony Community Association.
And, Commissioners, I appreciate your time. And, Chairman, I
truly appreciate your call, because you gave me a personal call and we
chatted about a few things over the phone.
And I'm in my third term as president of the community. And
why the last one, I'm not sure, but I accepted the last time.
But anyway, to make it real quick, I think what we looked at, the
noise, the light issues, the view of the building, and a three-acre
parcel, which is right butting up against our property.
And the people that I talked to in the community were the ones
that were going to be most affected right behind the building. And, in
fact, one of the people is on my board, and he called me one night and
he said -- he said, Ron, he said, I'm just opposed to this complete
proj ect. And I said, Charlie, I said, I'm not sure if I'm for it or against
it, I said, but I'm going to get more information.
One other neighbor right on the side of him called me and he
said, I would also like to know what really has gone on, because I'm
going to be the most affected. I am directly behind it.
So with that being said, we started meetings over a year ago, and
every time we had a meeting, we got tighter and tighter as far as what
we were going to require to approve -- well, not approve it, but to give
our endorsement.
And with that, I have to say that good neighbors are very hard to
find and that the newspaper and the Barron Collier Enterprises stepped
up to the line and gave us exactly what we wanted without exception,
and I have had no one that I've talked to in my community that has
refuted what I've told them we've gotten out of the deal. And, in fact,
they think that they're very impressed with what we did get.
The biggest concern that we have is that we have the buffer of
trees between us and the whole shopping mall and where the
newspaper's going to go. And if we have a hurricane, that's a huge
Page 224
September 12-13, 2006
expense for us. You're talking about several hundred yards of trees.
And Barron Collier has said that they -- put in writing to us --
that if it has less than -- if we lose 40 percent opaqueness, if we can
see through it, they will replace it. To us that's huge. That takes care
of the noise, takes care of the view, takes care of the lights.
The other thing is that the building that we were most concerned
with -- because if you take a laser from -- and I have to go on
accepting engineering designs -- that the building, the 75 part is to the
front, and the trees, if you look at it, maybe from the second story
you'd see it, but from the bottom we're not going to see it, and from
our golf course also.
Well, the building that was -- could be 35 feet, they agreed that
they would not put it above 25 feet, and to us, that was a huge
concession also.
So I think just in wrapping up, this was not a casual thing
representing our community. And we negotiated, and it's not only me,
it was also the president of our homeowners' -- not -- I mean our golf
course, and the general manager of our golf course is also affected.
We have 300 golf members. And they were in the meetings and they
agreed with me that this was not only acceptable, but was a good deal
for Bay Colony.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MR. McGINTY: A good deal for us. Thank you.
And just in passing, I think that the newspaper is a viable
community asset and we need to have it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. Hey, the right person
stepped up to the plate.
The question about the Creekside Business Park, we're taking
approximately two acres from that. Does that make that any way
non-conforming?
Page 225
September 12-13, 2006
MR. DeRUNTZ: No, sir. For the record, Mike DeRuntz,
Principal Planner with Department of Zoning and Land Development
Review. No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Now, parcel A and
parcel B, do we have any height on both the parcels, the height that
would be allowed, what's being proposed?
MR. DeRUNTZ: On parcel A we have a maximum of 75 foot
height, and this is -- and that's in this larger -- where the newspaper
press is going to be.
And I believe that they could speak to that. Because of the
technology that they're going to be using, they're going to change
presses and they're going to go to a state-of-the-art press, and they
need that height. That was what was explained at the Planning
Commission meeting.
The last speaker was correct, in parcel B here that -- which is
closest to Bay Colony, which is -- adjoins it to the south, they're
limited to 25- foot height.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Now I see the green
space on the lower right-hand side of the thing.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yep. Does that meet the intent
of the Growth Management Plan?
MR. DeRUNTZ: The idea is to be a park-like setting, and the--
there was a percentage that was identified in there between 25 and 45
percent -- or the building coverage only 25 to 45 percent, and then
around this they would have a park-like setting. And they are meeting
the open space requirement and the preserve requirements. This area
here is actually --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Could you point out the area that you're
talking about?
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes. This area to the -- here's my pointer here.
It's shaded right here. Right at -- this area here along the roadway
Page 226
September 12-13, 2006
would be accessible to the people here in the park. This area back
through here would not be accessible because there is a berm and a
buffer area as part of the Pelican Marsh development.
And actually that area is secured, of course, the security as far as
Bay Colony. So the employees here and any visitors would not have
access into this area. But they are trying to provide a park-like setting,
as Wayne had mentioned, with these park, parkettes -- did I say that
right, or parkettes, or parklettes? These little star areas here.
Also in the language that was discussed in the Planning
Commission, that this area to the south of parcel A here -- and you can
see where originally they had this -- the loading dock coming off the
south side of it. Now that's been moved and -- that's been removed,
and now all the access to this building is from the west side.
And it was -- one of the conditions in -- from the Planning
Commission, that this south side of the property be heavily planted
with trees and landscaping to help not only ameliorate some of the
noise in the site, to also provide a park -like setting. And so I would
say yes, sir, they are trying to meet the intent of the code.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Of the Land Development
Code?
MR. DeRUNTZ: And the Growth Management Plan.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. DeRUNTZ: That's where the business park comes from.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The part of the business park
come from?
MR. DeRUNTZ: The Growth Management Plan.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. And I was just looking
for that -- trying to look for that language on-line. I couldn't find it.
Is there any separation or -- what is the criteria for a business park?
What is the exact language in the Growth Management Plan?
Page 227
September 12-13, 2006
MR. DeRUNTZ: Well, it's a -- if I could read this. And it's in
the executive summary here, but it's -- you know, it's in the urban area,
it's urban mixed-use, urban residential subdistrict, the business park
subdistrict is a tax base provision allowing -- allowed throughout the
urban designation that allows a mix of industrial uses and
nonindustrial uses, designed in an attractive park-like environment
with low structural density where building coverage ranges between
25 and 45 percent and where landscaping areas are provided for
buffering and enjoyment by the employees and patrons of the park.
So this is the criteria that we had that -- comprehensive planning
had to review this and the Planning Commission had to review this
and make a recommendation to the board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. There's no separation
requirement for business parks in the urban area like there is
commercial centers and their separation activities?
MR. DeRUNTZ: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. DeRUNTZ: That's why they have minimum standards and,
therefore, 25-foot wide buffers along the perimeter of the property.
And originally this was one of the deviations that the petition had
-- petitioner had requested, and they -- through the discussions with
the Planning Commission and is actually one of the conditions that the
25-foot buffer would be retained with the exception of the one along
Immokalee Road, which would match what is existing in Creekside
and also Granada Shops. They only have a 25- foot wide buffer along
Immokalee Road.
And then the area -- well, also within this, when you're -- in this
buffer area, they were talking about having a six-foot high wall to
separate these uses. And placing a wall along Immokalee Road and
along this commercial development of Granada Shops and Creekside
was felt that that was not -- would not be necessary.
There's an existing berm along this side here. And then putting
Page 228
September 12-13, 2006
this -- a six-foot wall through this area here and -- which is, you know,
in an easement agreement upon this property, and there's a golf course
and park paths that go through here, you know. And putting those
walls up there would be quite a hazard, you know, when you're
playing through and tough to get your car turned around.
So it was -- it was kind of felt that that wasn't necessary, so that
was one of the deviations that was requested and was also --
recommended approval by the Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Next question. What does it say
in the Growth Management Plan about height?
MR. DeRUNTZ: It doesn't say anything about height. Where
the height was -- and I apologize for the typographical error that I had
in the executive summary. The height limitations are in the Land
Development Code.
Industrial is limited -- has a maximum height of 50 foot and has a
35-foot height for business park.
What -- when Creekside commercial, which is up in this area
here, was approved, this was one of the things that was discussed.
And in their -- the PUD that was approved, they had a 35-foot
height limitation put on them, so the buildings there are limited to 35
feet.
The Planning Commission tried to, you know, take that into
consideration, and -- but they knew that there was a need for this
height for the operation of this -- the press, the technology for the
press, and they incorporated language in there relating to -- that the
building height would be set back at a 2-1 ratio for -- structures over
50 foot will be two-foot horizontal to one-foot vertical setback so you
don't have the massing right upon the street. At your setback line it
will be pushed back a little bit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And this may be not a
question for you, but just to kind of clarify. The fast track process --
because it is wage incentives to retain and expand, it qualifies for the
Page 229
September 12-13,2006
fast track.
MR. DeRUNTZ: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'm sorry, somebody
mentioned something about --
MR. DeRUNTZ: A hundred fifty percent over the mean salary,
that's correct. For -- there's different criteria that qualify projects for
fast track.
You can have additional employees, but those employees would
have to, you know, have an income that would be 150 percent above
the mean salary, and that's the most restrictive because it's on the
western part of the county. As we go further east it becomes less until
we go all the way to Immokalee, and there's hardly any of those
incentives like that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner, can I ask a couple more
questions here?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: One more question?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How many jobs do they
anticipate?
MR. DeRUNTZ: They're proposing to have 300 jobs at this site,
which was an increase of 50, I believe. There's, I think, 250 at the
present site.
And the interesting thing, they're expanding to be a multi-modal
site. They're, you know, expanding on their technology, going
Internet and other types besides just printing papers. And so there's --
you know, that's where the growth of the employment is coming from.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, the high tech thing.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I've taken up too much
time.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have some questions. You state
that we have about five different properties that are incorporated in
Page 230
September 12-13, 2006
this business park.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I'm not sure if we're setting a
precedence here in regards to this carrying on in other areas of Collier
County, so I have some real concerns.
The other concern that I have is, you brought up the fact that this
is a business park and yet there's areas that are restricted that people
can't get to. So I'm not sure how that falls in with the Land
Development Code if you can't access those particular areas.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Well, it's similar to just a preserve area where
you don't have a lot of access to -- or a water management area that
you don't have an access to.
In the land development -- or the Growth Management Plan, it
states that you have to have a 35 - foot minimum area.
And they assembled the five parcels of property and they had to
get the addition property from Creekside Commercial, that two-plus
acres, to hit that threshold, so they're meeting that guideline of the
code.
And so they're utilizing what they can of that property. There's
an -- and recognizing that the balance of the property that's made up of
-- well, there's, you know, roadways in there. There's Creekside
Boulevard that runs through there and, you know, there's a buffer area
that's existing for Pelican Marsh already that's a part of this property.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: But you've gone through that.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yep.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do we have a buffer area that's going to
be established between Granada Shops and this project?
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And what's the size of that
buffer?
MR. DeRUNTZ: Twenty-five foot.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is this the minimum requirement, or is
Page 23 1
September 12-13, 2006
this an enhancement between that?
MR. DeRUNTZ: That's the minimum requirement for a business
park. They originally wanted the deviation to only have 10 foot there,
and we said -- the staff was saying, we need to see the full 25 foot and
the Planning Commission said the same thing, and so they withdrew
that request of that deviation.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is that going to be an enhanced
buffer?
MR. DeRUNTZ: They're going to -- they're going to have a
double row of trees plus a double row of hedges through there, so it's
meeting, you know, that buffer requirement. They're not adding any
additional along there. If you'd be kind enough --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. That -- I think you've answer my
question, okay?
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The other question I have -- and this is
for hopefully our engineering staff in the stormwater area.
When we look at this whole area and we're looking at the -- go
back to that one picture we had, please, I think that was the --
MR. DeRUNTZ: This one?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: There we go.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We're looking at the 2.32 acres that's tied
in with Creekside. Is this pond that's present there, is that going to be
part of the water retention area for this project?
MR. KUCK: I don't believe so. We haven't seen -- the actual
Site Development Plan has not been submitted, but Chris Hagan was
here.
MR. HAGAN: I'm behind you, Tom.
MR. KUCK: Okay. And he can probably give you more
information on the stormwater management plan than we can at this
present time.
Page 232
September 12-13, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Chris, can you--
MR. HAGAN: Yes, sir, just a moment.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'd rather go back to that one picture. I
think that was -- that was -- will pretty much clarify where we were
trying to go here.
MR. DeRUNTZ: That one back there?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No, keep going back.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Go back some more?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, please. Right there.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The parcel we're talking about is up in
the upper left comer as I look at this. That's -- the two acres that we're
looking for, is this -- is this to add to the den -- or to the piece of
property or is this to be used as stormwater retention?
MR. HAGAN: For the record, Chris Hagan. This is excluded
from the water management system for the business park. It will
remain in the Creekside water management system and is acreage, I
believe, just to accommodate density and other business park
requirements.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. This kind of is a flashback of
something I ran into when I first was on the Board of County
Commissioners where we had a proj ect in the Vanderbilt area. It was
called the Manatee, and we needed to extend the property to make
everything in compliance, and we had to move the property line out
into the center of the road. So this is basically what we're doing is
we're moving the property line so that we can accommodate the
necessary needs for 35 acres; is that correct?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. I said that in the beginning of my
presentation. It's to meet the 35-acre minimum requirement and to
provide access to Immokalee Road so we didn't have to ask for a
separate curb cut.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And the other question I have is
Page 233
September 12-13, 2006
that we have a large area that's going to be covered by the construction
of the building and plus the parking lot. How do we -- how are we
going to accommodate the stormwater issue? I assume that the pond
that is located presently in Pelican Marsh is going to be used for
stormwater retention; is that correct?
MR. ANDERSON: It will continue to be used.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is that -- who's the stormwater authority?
MR. HAGAN: Yes, sir. It will continue to be used.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. My question is, with the ad--
with the advent of this building being put there along with the parking
lot, right now we've got somewheres around, what, 25 acres that is
encompassing just that -- where the building's going to be?
MR. HAGAN: Roughly.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That tomato field basically is about 25
acres.
My concern is, you've already got a lake that's already being
utilized. And with -- now this is being -- the tomato field was imp --
or is pervious to the water. Now we're going to make it impervious.
My question is, are we going to have enough volume in that lake
to take care of that or are we going to have to build dikes?
MR. HAGAN: It will be adequate. The stormwater management
system, generally speaking, for a commercial property requires
roughly 20 percent of the site be set aside in lakes or water
management area, and this more than exceeds that requirement.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Even though the lake is presently being
used?
MR. HAGAN: That lake is not presently being used for anything
other than the treatment for the east/west roadway.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And how do you -- what's your
thoughts in regards to maintaining the water flow and to meet a
three-day or 25-year event?
MR. HAGAN: We will follow all the standard procedures and
Page 234
September 12-13,2006
requirements of the LDC and South Florida Water Management
District, which would include some pretreatment for water sent to the
lake, where it would be stored. The stormwater would be attenuated
and discharged.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: My understanding is that South Florida
Water Management District isn't going to probably get involved in
this.
MR. HAGAN: We will probably need to go to the water
management district on this proj ect because of the wetlands on site
that are part of the property.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And where are the wetlands located?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In the lake.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. HAGAN: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Are we going to discharge any
water at all in the preserve there?
MR. HAGAN: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I think that's tied in with the DR!
with Pelican Marsh; is that correct?
MR. HAGAN: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. My only concern, as I said
earlier, is that I'm not here -- I feel that the best thing is that we need
to preserve the jobs here in Collier County.
But I have some, really, concerns in regards to the placement of
this building in relationship to how it's going to back up to the
residential community.
I can tell you that because of the fact that there was only two
people that showed up basically that live in that area for the
information meeting, I have some very, very strong concerns because
I feel it's very, very important that the public understand exactly
what's going on.
And I had a telephone call during a break that people that -- that
Page 235
September 12-13, 2006
one of the persons that lives over in the Collier Reserve didn't realize
that this was coming before the Board of County Commissioners
today.
So I just hope that whatever way this goes, that the people realize
-- that my fellow commissioners realize that it's important that we
have the public input, and we discussed an item this morning in
regards to making sure that we had adequate public input during the
season when people are here.
So that's one of my very strong concerns that I don't believe that
there was adequate participation by individuals in this area that it's
going to directly affect, and possibly across the road.
And at that, I'll -- I think Commissioner Fiala was next.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I find that sometimes when
people are notified of a public -- a neighborhood information meeting,
if they have no problems, they don't bother to show up. So that does
happen anywhere, I guess.
But my question is building heights. We were talking building
heights. I think we mentioned 35 and 75. Are those actual building
heights? I mean, from where I'm standing on the ground to the top of
the accouterments on the roof.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Right. Well, there is a flood zone through
there, and they would have to build above that 100-year flood zone,
and then the 75 feet would extend from that point where --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And are there any accouterments on
the roof as well?
MR. DeRUNTZ: One of the things that the Planning
Commission incorporated is that they would not incorporate towers on
the top of the building. There's multi levels on this proposed building,
and they were going to have the dishes on the lower level of this -- of
the newspaper building on parcel A.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So tell me how tall the building
actually will be.
Page 236
September 12-13, 2006
MR. DeRUNTZ: It will be 75 feet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Even with the build-up of ground
underneath it?
MR. DeRUNTZ: Well, that's from the -- where it gets above the
100-year flood elevation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. But how much do you have to
build it up in order to get there?
MR. DeRUNTZ: Well, the -- let's see if I've got -- I have that
zoning. The flood elevation here is 11, so -- I'm not sure what the -- so
they have to raise the existing ground three feet so that the ground
elevation there is at eight and the flood elevation is 11, so they will
have to raise it three feet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. What I've found in some
instances was, although there was like a 72-foot acknowledgement of
height, by the time you added on the accouterments on the roof and
they built up on the bottom to reach FEMA levels, all of a sudden it
was 102 feet. And so I just wanted to make sure that we got that right
out in the open.
And what about the 35 foot?
MR. DeRUNTZ: The building on parcel B, the -- that is only 25
feet there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, is it?
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir -- yes, ma'am. And then they'll raise
that up three feet again.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. but nothing on the roof or anything
MR. DeRUNTZ: But they can't have -- they could have a radio
antenna, you know, for the work that they dispatched and things. But,
you know, when you -- once you get anything, I think it's 25 feet, then
you have to have a conditional use and it would have to be brought
back to the board again for something like that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I just wanted to understand
Page 237
September 12-13,2006
that. Let's see. Oh. And height has always been a concern, I think,
especially with all of us because we know it affects neighbors.
But many times they want to increase the height just to build
more units so that they can make a better profit; whereas, in this case
they have to have it in order -- the reason they're moving is because
they need this equipment. So I think that that allows us to understand
a little bit better why it's there.
MR. DeRUNTZ: This is -- what we have on the visualizer is a
rendering of what the building would look like, and this we would be
facing --
MR. SCHMITT: Mike, use the mouse.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Use the mouse. Okay. Along here would be
Immokalee Road, and there would be this -- a green space buffering
along there with this park-like setting. Their entryway. And you can
see how this is going to be set back here from Immokalee and
Creekside Way. Creekside Boulevard would be back here, and then
Bay Colony would be behind that. Their loading docks would be over
here, office space here -- along here.
MR. SCHMITT: Mike, point out the 75 foot.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes. The 75-foot area is this section right
through here where the locations of the presses would be.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have one question. When this was
presented to the homeowners or the people that did show up, did they
realize that this is going to be a 24/7 operation and that deliveries are
going to start at midnight and probably continue on till four o'clock in
the morning?
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: As you know, I have some issues at the
present time in District 2 with noise, and that's the Krehling cement
plant. And, of course, it was there a number of years before the
residents moved in.
So I just want to make sure that -- this is one of my concerns that
Page 238
September 12-13, 2006
we make sure that that information did get out to the people, that they
understand that this is a 24/7 operation, and that the time of the most
activity is going to be from midnight till four in the morning, and
that's one of my concerns.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes. And I believe I had -- this was identified
in the staff report. There was like seven items that was addressed, and
the hours of operation, it was a seven-day-a-week operation, 24 hours
a day. So that was addressed at the neighborhood information
meeting. And the -- I don't have -- can you -- could we go to the
podium?
MR. MUDD: Sure you can.
MR. DeRUNTZ: I wanted to bring this up here. This is a
property notification map. And this is -- the properties that are
highlighted in the purple is the location of the subject property, and
the area that's tan are properties that were notified both by the
petitioner for the neighborhood information meeting and also by the
county when advertising the public hearing that we are having today,
or, you know, for the Planning Commission, and then the previous
meeting that was scheduled.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioners Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd just like to get a clarification
concerning the sequence in which we should be taking these. Is 8D
likely to be the first item?
MR. DeRUNTZ: 8C.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: 8C.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You want to do it 8C and then 8D,
okay.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yep. And if I can, if we're getting close to that
point, I just wanted to, for the record, state that, you know, we did
have the neighborhood information meetings and those were on May
the 10th going before the Planning Commission on November the 3rd
and for --
Page 239
September 12-13, 2006
MR. MUDD: Excuse me. What date was that? Planning
Commission was when?
MR. DeRUNTZ: November the 3rd. No, no, excuse me.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: June.
MR. MUDD: Excuse me. What day was the Planning
Commission?
MR. DeRUNTZ: May the 10th. No, no, no. That was -- June
15th, excuse me. Thank you. Sorry. Sorry about that.
The Planning Commission did vote unanimously for approval of
the Creekside Commercial Park PUD. There was three conditions on
there, and those -- that's identified in the executive summary.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thirty-four, wasn't it?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's for D.
MR. DeRUNTZ: That's for C.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: C, okay.
MR. DeRUNTZ: For -- and with the same dates for the
neighborhood information meeting, and for the Planning Commission
for the Naples Daily News Business Park PUD. There -- at that time,
as mentioned, there was 37 conditions that was identified with the
Planning Commission, and each of those have been addressed in the
PUD document that you have before you.
We do want to make a -- if you -- for your consideration that
we're revising that -- the one section, 6.8, I believe it was, for that
verbiage change for the affordable housing as was mentioned by the
applicant.
And if there's any other questions, I'd be more than happy to
address those.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any -- Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I -- one more declaration. I did
speak to Russell Tuff on this item, and he didn't try to bribe me either.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think he had to recuse himself on
Page 240
September 12-13, 2006
section D, didn't he?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, yeah. I just wanted to
give my ex parte communication.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Are there any other questions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Which one you going to approve?
We've got to start --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we're doing the 8C one first, and
that's the transfer of the 2.32 acres.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. MUDD: For Creekside PUD to this particular one.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do we have a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So on agenda item number 8C --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You've got a second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- 8C, I make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. On 8C, which is in regards to the
2.32 acres to be annexed into this park, we have a motion on the floor
by Commissioner Fiala and a second by Commissioner Coletta. Is
there any other -- any other discussion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That includes staff and CCPC
recommendations?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yes, thank you. Including staff
and CCPC recommendations.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Not hearing any, I'll call the question.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 241
September 12-13, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign. Aye.
Because I feel that what we're doing here is basically trying to extend
-- get a gerrymandering of land here to get what we need to get
accomplished here.
Item #8D
RESOLUTION OF DENIAL 2006-239: 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
AGRICUL TURAL (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 - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is 8D. This is the second part of this particular item. And this
is the actual Naples Daily News Business Park planned unit
development.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I make a motion to approve 8D
with all of the additions from the Collier County Planning
Commission, as well as staff.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'll make--
Page 242
September 12-13, 2006
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- a second to that. And also to
include the changes to 6.8, affordable housing, as noted by the
petitioner.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. County--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that will be included in my
motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. County Attorney, do have you
something to add?
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Coletta just added it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'll call the question. All those in
favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. Again -- did I hear two nays on
this?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And the reason is because I felt
that we didn't have enough input from the neighborhood meetings, and
I have some real concerns in regards to -- I really believe that we need
to save the jobs here, but I really think that there's other areas in the
county that we can place this building. And I think one area that we
should look at would be White Lake Park. I think that would be a
great industrial center, would be White Lake, if that would be
possible.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, Mr. Chairman, I don't
believe that is a reason for denial, but I would say the reason I voted
Page 243
September 12-13, 2006
against it, because it doesn't fit our Growth Management Plan intent of
the business park of having 20 to 30 percent of building mass, or it's
supposed to have multiple buildings, and I only see one building here.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It does not fit our Growth -- or
our Land Development Code. I think there were many provisions
within here, not only the one that -- I mean, it deviates from the code
and -- about the walls and the buffering, and I don't think that should
be accepted. I mean, there's just too many things.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. ANDERSON: If I may, the evidence was that they did meet
the building coverage, the 25, 30 percent number. That was met, and
there was a mistake -- mistaken statement. The buffers, the landscape
buffers, along all four sides are 25 feet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it's supposed to have some
walls, and I see where the walls are gerrymandered. Also, we have a
height restriction within the business commercial that does not meet
the code, and I know this board has been diligent about amending the
code to lower the height within the commercial districts.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, there is if we looked at strictly the
generic general Land Development Code and not PUDs, there's only
one commercial district, C-4, I believe it is, that even permits a
building up to 75 feet, but unfortunately it doesn't allow the kind of
uses -- newspaper publication uses.
I would ask that you please reconsider and give us a chance to try
to address those concerns better.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I'm a little bit put offby
the delay of the questions and the comments until we reached the end
of the vote rather than during it when we could have had a meaningful
Page 244
September 12-13,2006
discussion and possibly all arrived at the same conclusion, who
knows.
With that said, I'd like to make a motion to reconsider and then a
motion for continuance until these questions can be answered. There's
been too much that's been put into this to have it end now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Commissioner, I did ask
the questions, you know, particularly about the Growth Management
Plan and the Land Development Code, and it was stated about the
height within the business code. It was stated about the distance
between the buffers; it was stated about the intent of the business park
within the Growth Management Plan. So I based the decision on the
evidence before us today.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second your motion,
Commissioner Coletta, and I second that because I feel that our
purpose up here is to make decisions, to make decisions when there
are variances, when there are other concerns with the property to make
sure that a building or a PUD is compatible to the surrounding area.
We've got concurrence from the neighbors and from the general
vicinity. We know that we're not impacting the shopping center at all.
We find that this roadway -- of course, it won't be adding any traffic.
They've only got 250 employees. We don't have to worry about
traffic limitations, so I make a second to your motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not sure. I think we better talk
with an attorney. We've got a motion on the table that, as far as I
know, hasn't been withdrawn and yet another motion has been.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, it has passed, it passed. I
mean, it failed. It's over.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That part of it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then in that case, I'm not going to
say any more about it.
Page 245
September 12-13, 2006
MR. MUDD: I just need to -- I really believe that you need to
talk to the county attorney about this motion to reconsider. It has to
do with losing sides, I believe. David, maybe I'm off on this one.
I know what happens when -- he has the right to write me a letter
after this proceeding is over and ask it to be reconsidered, and then I
basically send a letter to the commissioners that voted in the minority
to see if they want to reconsider.
But I'm going to -- but before that, I'm unsure, so I'm going to
have to look to the county attorney and ask him for his opinion.
MR. WEIGEL: Are you ready?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. We're reexamining the reconsideration
ordinance right now for precision, but Mr. Mudd is correct, that
typically in land use or rezoning and quasijudicial actions, the
reconsideration procedure is one where the petitioner writes a letter or
memorandum request, makes a request to the county manager, who
then has to send a request on to the commissioners who voted, in the
case of rezone or land use, quasijudicial action, who voted against.
And it is those commissioners who voted against who may, in
fact, indicate in writing to the county manager that, in fact, they would
like to reconsider.
Now, we have another part of the reconsideration ordinance,
which Margie's looking at right now rather quickly, which is the A
part which talks about reconsiderations of matters generally.
Typically that has been the one, however, that does not apply to the
land use and petition aspect.
I want to be absolutely sure before I turn you lose that you have
-- that there's an inability to reconsider at this meeting. So if you
would give me one moment or a minute.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Would you like a short break?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, that would be fine, five minutes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We'll take a 10-minute break. We'll be
Page 246
September 12-13,2006
back at 6:26.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Thank you.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, County Manager,
and I think we're waiting for the attorney to give us some guidance
here.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, it's -- it is as I stated, and that is that in
regard to quasijudicialland use rezones, things of that nature, it is a
process where the petitioner must, in fact, communicate the desire for
a reconsideration subsequent to this meeting to the county manager,
who will make a communication to the commissioners who voted
against the rezone or quasijudicialland use decision.
It's up to those commissioners upon due consideration to indicate
within 15 days of receipt of the request from Mr. Mudd pursuant to a
request by petitioner to indicate to the county manager, one or the
other, of a request for reconsideration.
At that point the matter would come forward for a vote for
reconsideration at a future meeting. The vote on reconsideration is not
to vote on the -- vote on the elements of the land use decision itself,
but merely to reconsider or not.
If the board as a board should pass a motion to reconsider
brought forward by one of the commissioners who had voted against
the project in the first place, then it will be advertised and set for a
hearing at a future date.
Mike, that future meeting date is when?
MR. MUDD: It's got to be 30 days within the time the board
decides to reconsider.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Mike, can we bring it back for
consideration on the next meeting?
Page 247
September 12-13, 2006
MR. WEIGEL: No. It will depend upon the timing of the
request for reconsideration by the petitioner to Mr. Mudd, who will
communicate forthwith with the commissioners.
So it may well not be the next meeting. It may more probably be
the following meeting. And then if there is, let's say, a successful vote
as a vote in favor of reconsideration at that meeting, then it will be
advertised and come back at a subsequent meeting, probably two
meetings therefore.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, there is only -- there is only a
request for reconsideration if one of the two commissioners that voted
against this particular parcel or this particular PUD, decides that they
would like to reconsider, and that's when it comes forward. If I
receive no answer from either one of the commissioners in the
affirmative that they want to do that, then it dies.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a question for the county attorney.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If the petitioner basically says that he
would like a reconsideration and it has to deal with the possibility of
looking elsewhere within the confines of Collier County, can that be
considered a reconsideration for bringing this back with the idea, with
the intent that they'll look for another location within the confines of
Collier County?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, it's an interesting question, but the answer
is actually no because this agenda item is site specific and so it's --
although even in the course of the discussion you had a few -- you
know, a few minutes in the past hour relating to potentially a different
site, it would have not been achievable with this item today for the
board to have agreed and approved on a different site.
Their are elements regarding any site that have to be reviewed,
you know, from the staff level, the Planning Commission level,
conceivably the EAC, perhaps, before it would come back to the
board in regard to a different site. So the answer is actually no in that
Page 248
September 12-13,2006
regard.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And I have the same
considerations or kind of concerns as Commissioner Henning had, and
I'd like to read into the record that this proj ect is -- no park-like
atmosphere is required in a business park proposed for three little
parklettes, where we had parklettes in here, and I didn't think that met
with our Land Development Code also.
And the amount of open space, I thought, was too restrictive and
it wasn't accessible to the employees. So that's my concern.
And also the height in regards to -- in a business park it's limited
to 35 feet. In here we were looking for -- it wasn't just a small portion,
but it was in regards to 75 feet, and I'm not sure how that fit into the
confines of our Land Development Code, so --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, it is now 6:30, and you had
mentioned earlier that you -- at 6:30 you were going to adjourn--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We are adjourned.
MR. MUDD: -- until tomorrow morning.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep We are adjourned.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Nine o'clock.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Nine o'clock.
*******
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:30 p.m.
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 249
September 12-13, 2006
DAY 2 - September 13, 2006
Meeting reconvened at 9:00 a.m. on September 13,2006 with the
following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Frank Halas
Fred Coyle
Jim Coletta
Donna Fiala
Tom Henning
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
Leo Ochs, Deputy County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Page 250
September 12-13, 2006
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mic.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
We're reconvening from last night's meeting with the Board of County
Commissioners.
At this time we'll all rise and say the pledge.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, before we start on the agenda, I had
a request last evening from the petitioner on 10(D). Because they
have some conflicts over at City Hall, Naples City Hall today, they
asked if they could start this continuation of yesterday's meeting off.
And 1 O(D) is the name change on Registry Resort to the Naples
Grande. If that's the board's desire.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, we'll hear it.
Item #10D
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 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: The next item on our agenda is 10(D). This item
was continued from June 20th, 2006 BCC meeting. And it's further
continued to the September 12th, 2006 BCC meeting.
It's a recommendation to consider a request from the 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.
And I believe Mr. Dennie Baker, your Chief of Operations for
Page 251
September 12-13, 2006
Community Development, Environmental Services will present.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, I don't know if you
have to read something into the record, but when I seen the
recommendation from the fire chief of East Naples that it be allowed
to go forward as a necessity for business, and it wouldn't impact them
in no way, that removed any objection I had.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I don't think it was East Naples, I think it
was North Naples.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: North Naples, forgive me.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah, North Naples Sheriffs
Department, so --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And with that in mind, unless
there's -- you know, I'd like to entertain the motion for--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I'll second it.
MR. MUDD: So the recommendation was to do what, sir?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Recommendation was to allow
for the name change.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, and note my second.
MR. BAKER: Just one comment, Commissioners, before you do
that. There has been some improvement in technology to 9-1-1
identification of addresses. And also, there are some things in this
ordinance that we need to bring back to you for practical application.
So we're going to bring this back to you at a later date to improve
the application of this ordinance.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, you want to bring this
petition back?
MR. BAKER: No, not the petition --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No, no --
MR. BAKER: -- just the ordinance.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- the ordinance itself.
Page 252
September 12-13, 2006
MR. BAKER: There have been advances in technology that we
need to incorporate into the ordinance.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, what we have in the
packet is North Naples Fire District is opposed to the name change.
You received correspondence?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We received correspondence that the fire
chief also said that they would go along with it. And I believe the
Sheriffs Department, I'm not sure --
MR. BAKER: We did receive correspondence from both North
Naples Fire District and the Sheriffs Office --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Right.
MR. BAKER: -- are reversing their opposition to this and
approving the name change.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So that would be the
main objection would be, you know, the emergency responders.
MR. BAKER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's exactly how I looked at this. If
the fire department or EMS or the Sheriffs Department were not in
accordance with this, I sure wouldn't be supporting it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Because it wouldn't -- it would detour
the health, safety and welfare of the citizens or the people here that
visit Collier County and reside here. And since there is no opposition,
the change in venue from the Sheriffs Department and the EMS said
that they would not have a conflict with this, I felt better about the
whole thing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Great. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: So sir, you have a motion on the floor and a
second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have a motion on the floor and a
second. Motion was made by Commissioner Coletta and a second by
Page 253
September 12-13, 2006
Commissioner Halas.
All those in favor, signify by saying 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.
MR. BAKER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
Item #8E
RESOLUTION 2006-240 AND RESOLUTION 2006-241: THE
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLLS AS THE FINAL
ASSESSMENT ROLLS AND ADOPTING SAME AS THE NON-
AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT ROLLS FOR PURPOSES OF
UTILIZING THE UNIFORM METHOD OF COLLECTION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 197.3632, FLORIDA STATUTES, FOR
SOLID WASTE MUNICIPAL SERVICE BENEFIT UNITS,
SERVICE DISTRICT NO. I AND SERVICE DISTRICT NO. II,
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LEVIED AGAINST CERTAIN
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES WITHIN THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY
PURSUANT TO COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 2005-54, AS
AMENDED - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us back to where we
left off yesterday, and that is under advertised public hearings. And it
is Item 8(E), and it used to be 17(F). And it reads: The
recommendation to adopt a resolution approving the preliminary
Page 254
September 12-13, 2006
assessment rolls as the final assessment rolls and adopting same as the
non-ad valorem assessment rolls for purposes of utilizing the uniform
method of collection pursuant to Section 197.3632 of the Florida
Statutes for solid waste municipal services benefit units, service
district number one and service district number two. Special
assessment levied against certain residential properties within the
unincorporated area of Collier County pursuant to Collier County
Ordinance 2005-54, as amended. Revenues are anticipated to be
$15,776,100.
This item was asked to be moved off the summary agenda to the
regular agenda by Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Mr. Y onkosky,
what can we do for properties that have a guest house on it? I think
that's the biggest objection that I've heard. They feel that they're being
double dipped for services rendered.
MR. YONKOSKY: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is John Yonkosky. I am your Utility Building and
Customer Service Director.
Commissioner Henning, the guest houses, there -- what we did
with the change in the ordinance last year was to set up a billable unit
standard. And when we did that, we have always had guest houses on
the roll. The guest houses that were greater than 40 percent of the
square footage of the primary structure have always been on the roll.
There are mobile homes and cabanas that are on the roll also.
But guest houses that had -- that were less than 40 percent of the
primary structure were not on the roll because when the roll was first
put together in 1990, this process for -- and I do not recall the reason
that guest homes that were less than 40 percent of the square footage
of the primary structure were not on it. It specifically stated that in the
ordinance.
With this ordinance, since we have about 5,000 multiple billing
Page 255
September 12-13, 2006
units, that includes guest homes where there's more than one structure,
that includes guest homes, mobile homes and cabanas that had
facilities.
(At which time, Commissioner Coyle enters the boardroom.)
MR. YONKOSKY: And the definition of it means if it has a
separate entrance, separate cooking, separate bathroom facilities, then
it's designated as a guest home for a cabana or mobile home.
There was approximately 1,500 guest homes that were added to
the roll this year. And of those 1,500 that were less than the 40
percent, there was about 2,000 that were greater than 40 percent. The
1,500 that were on, we have received to date 39 calls complaining
about the fact that -- and some of the discussion was that I only have a
limited number of people that live in my home and sometimes I don't
have any that live. I keep my home as a guest home.
And basically the concern that we have is that the home could be
sold tomorrow or next week, and there could be two families that
move into those. We can't really administer an assessment roll based
on the number of residents. It's something that we just can't do.
And our discussion and what we recommended to the board last
year was to put all the guest homes on because we would define
billable units. And that's basically the facts that are behind it right
now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Have you identified properties
that have mother-in-law suites?
MR. YONKOSKY: What we did, Commissioner, was we took
the information from the property appraiser's system, from the
community development system, and information that we knew. We
merged those into the roll this year. So if there is a mother-in-law
suite that's inside the primary structure, no, sir, we did not. Unless it
has a separate facility or separate entrance and separate kitchen
facilities. Those that -- so those were not part of it. And I don't know
how many there are of those. I don't know how we would go about
Page 256
September 12-13, 2006
defining them. But if it's a separate structure attached by a walkway,
then we believe that we have captured those.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And I don't see how that
you can capture it. But you could parallel a guest house to a
mother-in-law suite. Because you actually do have two families living
in it.
Would it be a better way to assess these properties by how much
they use? Let's say if they have two containers, assess them for two
units? I don't know, could we do that?
MR. YONKOSKY: That could be done, but -- that system could
be designed and implemented. One of the concerns about it is is that
we rolled out the CART program in 1997. There are three different
sizes. So in order to be fair, you would have to develop a method of
charging them by the size of the can that they had and the number of
cans that they had. And you provide unlimited -- in your ordinance,
you provide unlimited. So -- and a lot of those cans where there's
multiple cans are out in the Estates area, and they were purchased by
the individuals, knowing that they had unlimited garbage service, they
could set their cart out and the excess in a bag, but the animals would
get to it. So they opted to buy the extra cart, and -- but the point is that
everybody has unlimited service right now, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the point for that is, I
believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, is so that we don't have people
dumping on vacant land, you have the unlimited service. You want to
get that out there so we don't have illegal dumping.
MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, sir, that is absolutely correct. Before
the Board of County Commissioners adopted a mandatory process in
1990 that went into place in fiscal 1991, one of the primary reasons,
the drivers for that, was the fact that people would dump their garbage
in somebody else's unimproved land, in dumpsters downtown or in
their neighbor's, or just leave it on the right-of-way.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I mean, I just know of two
Page 257
September 12-13,2006
guest houses in particular that nobody lives in them. And would that
be -- in my opinion, that wouldn't be a fair charge for that type of
servIce.
And also, I don't want to exacerbate the illegalness (sic) of
renting out guest houses by saying okay, well, we're going to charge
you an assessment for your guest house for picking up garbage. And
we all know that renting out guest houses are legal.
I'm just trying to be, you know, fair to certain circumstances
where at a time guest houses were built because either a mother or a
mother-in-law or a father-in-law or whatever, it was fitting to have
that guest house there for caretaking of that resident.
Now that family member has been passed off and it doesn't -- it's
not a useful thing to use by that particular residence. And now that
we're charging more and more, I would hate to encourage people to
rent out those guest houses.
MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm just trying to find a way that
-- how we can, you know, provide fairness through -- how many
canisters you've got setting out. And if that's a possibility, if we can
do that without too much problems, I think would be a great service to
the community.
MR. YONKOSKY: It can be done. But the practicality of it, the
administration of it, because once you go -- it's sort of like a slippery
slope. Once you do that for the guest homes and base it on how many
canisters they have, how do you compensate for the fact that you're
providing unlimited garbage service to all the residents? And some of
them will have smaller cans, some of them have medium size cans. It
could be done, but I think the administration of it would be cost
prohibitive and a not -- less value.
On the other side, those instances that you talked about where
people had a guest home for an in-law and the in-law is no longer
there, we have an option for that. If they will remove the capability of
Page 258
September 12-13, 2006
generating the trash, for example, the toilet facility or the kitchen
facility, we go out and check it, and if it's been removed then we take
them off the roll. And this is --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay.
MR. BAKER: So that's --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if somebody takes out the
toilet, somebody just takes out the toilet, just removes the toilet --
MR. YONKOSKY: And the--
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, why don't we set up a -- instead of
doing this draconian stuff, why don't we set up a policy that basically
says if your property is empty as of the time of the tax roll, if that
particular resident would sign a sworn statement that says there's
nobody living in that particular home, then these folks could make that
adjustment. And when they send their reminder out for next year,
they basically say remember, you signed a sworn statement that said
that this is still vacant. If it's not vacant, please get in touch with us so
that we take this off. Because at this particular time your sworn
statement still stands that it's vacant and therefore we're not going to
collect that. And at that particular juncture, we get it -- get your
particular issue.
And I think that's probably the easiest thing. It's like a homestead
exemption, they come in with a sworn statement that says it's vacant.
But a sworn statement, it's notarized, it's their thing on the line, and if
they lie, well, then we'll go back and get back taxes from them.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Either that, but also that they don't have
power connected to the place. It's not being used.
MR. MUDD: Well, that makes us go out on somebody's
personal property and go check this stuff, and --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't want that.
MR. MUDD: -- that's another issue too.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Here's the problem --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Mr. Coletta.
Page 259
September 12-13, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- with everything you're
suggesting right now. And I do appreciate you bringing this up. If
you didn't pull it, I would have, because there is people that have a
concern.
If we get to the point where we ever say okay, if you can prove
it's not being used, then we've got numerous residents out there that
only occupy two months a year. Why would those people show up
and start saying, well, wait a minute now, you're giving the guest
house preferential treatment. We also deserve that treatment for 10
months of the year that my place is vacant. That's what, probably
about 40 percent of the people in Collier County.
I know there's a tremendous amount of people that are just
seasonal residents. Now you'll have to make an adjustment there, so
we have to go back and take and refigure the whole bill out for
hauling the waste to be able to come up where it's going to be
equitable across the whole board. So it does become problematic.
Now, what you said, John, I kind of questioned a couple of
things. Now, we have a lot of out-buildings where people have
workshops and they store stuff, maybe a game room in there and
they're definitely not living quarters. And they might have bathrooms
in them. And if we were to say that, you know, if you have a
bathroom then you're considered a guest house, that might not be
applicable. But it for sure would be a kitchen facility. In other words,
if they had the ability to be able to prepare food there and a sink to be
able to do it and a room to be able to place a bed, that automatically
becomes susceptible to being a guest room.
So rather than removing a bathroom, which doesn't make sense,
because, I mean, a lot of people use these things for studios. And they
may just -- the bathroom in there gives them the ability to do it.
If they were just to remove the kitchen, would that -- in other
words, the ability for the kitchen to function, maybe cut off the sink
such a way that the pipes going to it, be able to remove it to a point
Page 260
September 12-13, 2006
where it's not a real functional unit, would that suffice for removing
that from the tax rolls of the guest house?
MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, Commissioner, it would. If the kitchen
and the sink are the primary reasons that they're going to have the
capability of generating trash. I said bathroom, because bathroom
facilities are in the overall definition, but if they were to remove their
kitchen, the stove, the sink -- or just the stove, because that's a primary
generator, and -- we would take them off and give them the relief.
On the other side, when you mentioned the people that have
outhouses or garages that are separated --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, not outhouses--
MR. YONKOSKY: Out-buildings, yes, sir.
When those people call in, and of those 39 calls that we've
received, or 37 calls that we've received, we go and visit every one of
those. And if what they're telling us is accurate, then we remove
them.
So some of those people that have called in that said I've got an
out-building here and it doesn't really -- it's not living quarters, when
we go and visit it we discover it's not living quarters, we take them off
the roll.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now, let's go to the other
side of the coin, the flip side. We make this our policy. What's to
prevent seasonal residents from taking a stove out of their house and
just putting a microwave in and eating out every night to be able to
avoid garbage collection fees and then accumulating the trash and
dumping it? So I don't know the answer to this, and I don't know if
anyone's given it any thought.
MR. YONKOSKY: No, sir, I just -- your comments about the
seasonal residents is accurate. A lot of the homes have people that
live in them only a small time of the year or six months out of the
year. They call us and want a credit, a half price on their bill too, and
we do not give it to them.
Page 261
September 12-13, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
Well, the policy and the ordinance for mandatory garbage
pickup's been in place a long time. And some of the initial
underpinnings of the mandatory waste pickup were a few of these that
I'm going to mention to you, and that is: One, there was an economy
of scale that came with capturing essentially all residential units.
Now, I'm not talking about the guest houses at this first juncture here,
but all residential units.
And we knew in Collier County, as well as other places in
Florida, that the use of residences would vary, whether it's full-time
usage or part-time usage during the year.
And one of the reasons that the county has been able to boast the
lowest or near lowest rates in the state for full-fledged garbage pickup
has been the economies of scale that came with not differentiating
between someone that was here four months -- using the residence as a
residence four months a year or eight months a year or 12 months a
year.
Additionally, it removed or reduced some of the administrative
work or nightmare that would come from the investigation that comes
from individual sites.
So there were some early decisions made to achieve a lower rate
for everyone based upon putting everyone in the mix.
The change in policy a year or so ago in regard to true guest
houses and not mere out-buildings or recreational sheds and things of
that nature, that's a policy that seems to be maybe coming into playa
little bit more today with your analysis of the agenda item. And it
may be that something akin to the 40 percent rule relating to square
footage of the principal structure may have been more workable and
less of a problem than going to kind of a general situation of
applicability of an additional fee to all residential units that are in the
form of guest houses on the property.
Page 262
September 12-13,2006
And I think we want to avoid unintended consequences, but also
recognize that there has been a lower rate generally by a general
application to all properties.
I would suggest for consideration that Jim Mudd's staff, working
a bit with the county attorney office, that we could put together I'll call
it a treaties or paper that indicates the pros and cons of several choices
that might be made for a policy decision to be implement in an
ordinance, potentially.
And that doesn't take you away from the question that Mr.
Henning and Mr. Coletta raised today about the role and how it would
affect guest houses right now. The ordinance is the ordinance in place
right now. And the staff has prepared the assessment roll figures
relating to the local law that exists.
And unless John has some other thoughts in that regard, I tend to
think that we're in a place right now where we're looking to merely
apply the assessment roll to the law that exists, and the change would
probably be better made for the next year out.
Jim, did you have any further thought on that?
MR. MUDD: No, I think you pretty much hit it on the head,
David.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Coyle.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, I think we've got to step
back and take a dose of reality here.
Every solution that has been proposed and discussed while I've
been here will cost the taxpayers more money than you're collecting
from this process. I mean, it's ridiculous. There is nothing equitable
about the fees we charge. Why does an elderly retired couple pay the
same fee as a family of four? You know, that's where we're going.
We want to individually apply these fees based upon the special
circumstances of every family in this county? That's crazy.
Page 263
September 12-13,2006
The people who are concerned about this have a solution ready at
hand. They should not force the other taxpayers in Collier County to
go to extraordinary measures to put in enforcement systems that take
into consideration their individual circumstances. If they have a
situation where they are not generating the garbage, their guest unit is
not being utilized, they have a way to solve that problem. It exists
right now. Put the onus on those people to notify us and prove that it's
not being used, and you take the assessment off. It's that simple.
But to put in some kind of vast enforcement process and
reporting requirement that takes staff time and is not going to be
perfect at all is absolutely ludicrous.
So I move we approve this item and get on with it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's a motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do we have a second? I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Before you do, you have
speakers.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have two speakers.
MS. FILSON : Yes, sir. Robert Rossomando. He'll be followed
by Jose Barrantes.
MR. ROSSOMANDO: Good morning, Commissioners. I
recently received a notice of assessment of trash collection in which I
was assessed for two units. I called the number given to question this
assessment on August 30th; was told that since I have a guesthouse on
my property they're allowed to charge for two units.
I built the guest house in 2004 as an apartment for my elderly
mother-in-law. By code I'm not allowed to rent my guest house, nor
do I intend to. There are a total of three people in my household: My
wife, myself and my mother-in-law. We put out one trash container,
one recycling container usually once per week. I think it's outrageous
that we be charged for a second unit.
Several years ago the state voted and approved for an additional
Page 264
September 12-13, 2006
tax exemption for people who put additions to their houses for elderly
housing. On that basis we built the house for my mother-in-law on
our property.
On completion of that house, I asked about that exemption and
was told that although it was approved by the state, the County
Commissioners had to approve it. So not only did we not get the
exemption, but now we're being charged twice for trash collection.
This is unfair.
I understand that Waste Management is trying to fairly assess
property owners for the amount of trash collected, but I don't think this
is the way to do it. It unfairly burdens the honest household that
doesn't rent out their guest house, while not truly assessing people for
the amount of work Waste Management has to do or the amount of
trash that's deposited in the landfill.
I think the basis for assessment should be the number of
containers that Waste Management has to pick up. Waste
Management provides these containers, so they should be able to track
how many are provided to each property owner.
They probably aren't currently doing this, but they could do so in
the future. They could get a count of the current containers by
counting the number of containers put out over, say, a one-month
period. I understand that this is initially more complicated, but once
set up would provide a fairer assessment without additional cost.
In conclusion, I think the county commissioners should rej ect
assessing property owners for additional unit for a guest house. This
will only encourage owners to illegally rent out their guest houses.
I also think the commissioners should consider a tax exemption
for providing housing for the elderly. Thank you for your
consideration.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Jose Barrantes.
(No response.)
MS. FILSON: These speakers were left over from yesterday, so
Page 265
September 12-13, 2006
they may not be here.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner
Coyle, you made some very good statements, but it wasn't included in
your motion. The statement that really caught my eye I think would
solve the problem is put the onus on the landowner to prove that it's
not being utilized. If you make that part of the motion, we really solve
that issue.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I will do that, but I'll change just
one word, that it cannot be utilized.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And can you expound upon that,
please?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, that we would take the
action that staff already has specified, which would assure that it could
not be utilized. That would remove a big enforcement problem.
We shouldn't have to go into people's homes and inspect things
and make sure that they're not utilizing them from time to time. So I
know there are people abusing this process, and you do, too. I think
we all understand that, and we see it frequently. And if we make an
exception for one or a handful of residents who have valid concerns,
then we've just made exceptions for those people who abuse it.
But yes, I would be happy to amend the motion to specify that if
a resident can demonstrate in accordance with the county's existing
procedures that the facility cannot be utilized for living purposes, then
they will be exempted from that assessment.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So my second.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, what if? I mean, if that's
specific just to the Estates, this is pretty general. So in other words, if
you have a house out there that's only utilized maybe two weeks a
year, they're going to come in and claim -- they might be able to try to
pull the same type of exemption. Do you want to limit it just to the --
Page 266
September 12-13, 2006
to homes on Estate lots?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What is the average annual
assessment for these --
MR. YONKOSKY: The average annual -- well, the assessment
is $161 for this coming year, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: $161 for the entire year.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The whole year.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't believe that anyone in order
to avoid $161 a year would go through the process of removing a
kitchen facility in one of these units to demonstrate that it cannot be
used. I don't think they would go through that, although I could be
wrong.
But at least it's a partial solution. Let's face it, if people are
willing to do that, then it indicates that they are very serious about not
paying that $106, was it?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: 161.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: $161 a year. But -- okay, I won't
go any further into that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, Commissioner Coyle?
I think you're on the right direction. I don't think you can stop short
of a stove. They could bring in a toaster oven --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- and different appliances. It
would have to be the refrigerator, the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, no, it'd have to be a sink and a
stove, I would presume that would have to be removed.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Physically removed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Physically removed, yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So refrigerators are permissible,
because people could be using them for recreation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You could use a refrigerator just
for storage. You know, I happen to have a freezer somewhere other
Page 267
September 12-13,2006
than in my primary living area.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County attorney, I think we need a little
guidance here. We might be getting off on the wrong track here.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
Well, I think you're close to the right track, but I just wanted to
make sure we're clear that -- or not in regards to Mr. Coyle's motion,
and that is, is he referring merely to secondary or a guest house
structure as opposed to the primary structure?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There you go.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm referring primarily to the guest
house structures.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, good.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Does that suit you, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine. I think you
addressed everything.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right, good. And my second remains
the same.
We'll close the public hearing at this time. Is there any further
discussion by the Board of County Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We did go through all the
speakers.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, we did.
If there's no further discussion, 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 by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
Page 268
September 12-13, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 2006-242: RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A
RESOLUTION SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION 2006-201, WHICH
RESOLVED TO HOLD A BALLOT REFERENDUM ELECTION
TO DETERMINE IF THE QUALIFIED 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 GENERAL
OBLIGATION 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, TO: (1) SUBSTITUTE THE
WORD REGISTERED FOR FREEHOLD ELECTORS AS
REFERENCED THROUGHOUT THE RESOLUTION, (2) REVISE
SECTION THREE TO REFLECT THE ACTUAL COMPOSITION
OF THE CANVASSING BOARD AND (3) INCORPORATE A
TITLE TO THE OFFICIAL BALLOT IN SECTION FOUR-
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to Item 10(C). This
is a recommendation to approve a resolution superseding Resolution
2006-201, which resolves to hold the ballot referendum election to
determine if the qualified electors of Forest Lakes Roadway and
Drainage Municipal Service Taxing Unit of Collier County, Florida
Page 269
September 12-13, 2006
approve the issuance of a $6,250,000 in general obligation 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 proposes incidental thereto, payable from ad valorem taxes levied
on all taxable property within the municipal taxing unit not exceeding
four mills to: Number one, substitute the word registered for freehold
electors, as referenced throughout the resolution.
Number two: Revise section three to reflect the actual
composition of the canvassing board.
And number three: Incorporate a title to the official ballot in
section four.
And I believe --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do we need to put anything on the
record before we vote on this?
MR. MUDD: No, I don't believe so.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, we have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Coyle.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries, thank you.
Item #10E
Page 270
September 12-13, 2006
RECOMMENDATION FOR THE BOARD TO: (A) ALLOW
WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. OF FLORIDA (WMIF) TO
PRESENT INFORMATION TO THE BOARD CONCERNING
WMIF'S PETITION FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF UNUSUAL
AND UNANTICIPATED COSTS FOR SOIL USED AT THE
COLLIER COUNTY LANDFILL; AND (B) AUTHORIZE STAFF
TO NEGOTIATE THE TERMS OF A SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT, WHICH WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD
FOR ITS CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL IN THE FUTURE,
AND WHICH WILL ADDRESS WMIF'S PETITION AND OTHER
LANDFILL ISSUES - APPROVED W/STIPULATIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item, is
10(E), and this is a recommendation to the board to allow Waste
Management, Inc. of Florida, which is WMIF, to present information
to the board concerning WMIF's -- just Waste Management's--
petition for reimbursement for unusual and unanticipated costs for
soils used at the Collier County Landfill. And authorize staff to
negotiate the terms of a settlement agreement which will be presented
to the board for its consideration and approval in the future, and which
will address Waste Management's petition and other landfill issues.
Mr. Dan Rodriguez, your Director of Solid Waste and Public
Utilities Division, will present.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Dan Rodriguez, your Solid Waste Management Department
Director.
This morning, Commissioners, the Waste Management
Department is requesting an opportunity to present to the board the
request to have the county pay approximately $1,059,121 to Waste
Management as a reimbursement for the cost to Waste Management
that they've incurred when buying soil for the Collier County Landfill
as cover material.
Page 271
September 12-13, 2006
County staff has not paid the sum to Waste Management because
the payment exceeds the amount authorized by the general provisions
of the county landfill's operating agreement to Waste Management.
Since the county staff does not have the authority to pay the
amount requested, Waste Management, Inc. of Florida is petitioning
the board for extraordinary relief pursuant to Section 5.4 of the landfill
operating agreement.
Here representing Waste Management, Inc. of Florida is Mr.
Chuck Deitz (phonetic). He's the area district manager for Southwest
Florida.
MR. DEITZ: Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez.
Good morning, Commissioners. F or the record, my name is
Chuck Deitz. I'm the Southwest Florida market area manager with --
obviously for Waste Management. Weare very pleased to have the
opportunity to address you today.
As referenced in the agenda, there are two matters that should be
discussed. One deals with the unusual and unanticipated soil costs,
which we are suffering. And one concerns a variety of other issues
related to the landfill operations.
First, let us give you some background on the soil issues, and it
starts with odor control. Odor control is the top priority for both
Collier County and Waste Management. As a matter of fact, just a
reminder, Collier County was awarded by SW ANA in January, 2002
for excellence in landfill gas control at the Collier County Landfill.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could you tell me what SW ANA is?
MR. DEITZ: Yes, ma'am. Solid Waste Association of North
America. It's kind of a trade industry. It really focuses more on
county and municipal governments. And it's kind of a national
organization.
In 2001 Collier County and Waste Management entered into an
agreement designed to aggressively address odor control. The
agreement, as it stands today, is limiting. Soil cover is the only
Page 272
September 12-13, 2006
reimbursable material. Soil pricing has tripled over the past two years.
Unusual and unanticipated soil costs have become significant.
What current soil availabilities -- what is the current soil
availability status as we stand here today? The soil must be suitable
for cover material. Viable dirt pits in Collier County are no longer
available. Soil is now imported from out of county. These conditions
have increased the cost of cover soil, creating longer transportation
distances, complicated by traffic congestion.
The chart before you illustrates the increasing costs of soil. Since
2001 the soil cost was relatively flat until July, 2004 when the
escalation began. Price trends started escalating beginning July, 2004
and continues today. As you can see, July, 2004, the cost of soil was
$6.96 per yard. In July, 2006, it was $16.87 per yard.
Under the guidelines of the current agreement, soil is the only
reimbursable material allowed for cover. Also under the guidelines of
the agreement, the reimbursement rate for soil is capped. The
reimbursement rate does not fluctuate with the true cost of soil.
We are before you today under the provisions in the agreement
for unusual and unanticipated costs to request an adjustment for the
cost of soil cover.
This next slide will show the large variance between the
maximum reimbursable rate that is capped and the actual cost that is
incurred by Waste Management.
The blue line shows the maximum reimbursement at the cap rate
for the soil. The red line is the actual out-of-pocket cost per ton to
Waste Management. Again, as you can see, there is a large variance.
Commissioners, let me reassure you that odor control remains
our top priority.
So far we've discussed the problem of increasing soil costs. But
for every problem, we should try to find a solution. And that's my
next topic: A potential solution with alternate daily cover.
Waste Management would like to conduct a pilot program using
Page 273
September 12-13, 2006
alternate daily cover. John Wong, our area landfill director for
Southwest Florida, Waste Management, is going to hand out some
samples so everyone can see the materials that we'll be discussing that
we're actually calling ultimate daily cover.
John? These are two items: It's crushed concrete and what we're
going to call Posi-Shells.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I've got a question.
MR. DEITZ: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: On one of your drafts here, you show the
purchase trend of$16.87 per cubic yard, and then your actual expense
is $6.68. What did you do there in that point in time when you had the
escalation in price to actually drop what it's costing you per cubic yard
-- oh, that's per ton, okay.
So what did you do to cut down your costs?
MR. DEITZ: We have very limited -- what chart are we--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, you've got one that says
reimbursement rate versus actual expense, okay? And then you've got
the soil price trend.
MR. WONG: This is John Wong, Waste Management, Inc.
Commissioners, to answer that question with regards to the
graph, we tried to find the most economical source of dirt. We go out
to bid essentially every single month. So for that particular month we
found a lower source -- or lower cost of soil cost for that month. So
that's why it fluctuates a little bit.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, you've got per cubic yard you're
saying it was $16.87.
MR. WONG: Right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: When I look at this other chart, an actual
expense rate, you're down to $6.68 per ton.
MR. WONG: Okay, okay, now I understand your question.
The way our agreement reads is that we get paid or reimbursed
by the ton of waste that we receive at the Collier County Landfill. So
Page 274
September 12-13,2006
the reimbursement rate is per ton basis. So we're showing you the
price trend of per cubic yard that's purchased at the current market
rates. And then the way we get reimbursed from Collier County is by
the waste tons that we receive at the landfill.
MR. DEITZ: If you call the dirt pit, they quote you on a per yard
basis. And what we tried to do was basically transfer that into actually
how we get paid. That's what that graph shows in the variance of the
cap and what we actually paid for it.
But we had to keep it apples and apples on that graph, because
that's how we get paid. So we converted that into a per ton basis.
That was a good question. We probably should address that,
because that is -- I'm not sure some days I 100 percent understand it,
so that was a great question.
But the pilot program will begin this year, 2006, for 90 days, and
monitor on a daily basis how it's proceeding. We're going to use
Posi -Shell and crushed concrete, which both examples you have up
there that you're reviewing now.
A University of Florida study provides scientific data that
crushed concrete provides at least the same or better odor control than
soil. The rising cost of soil affects both the county and Waste
Management. The use of alternate daily cover could result in savings
of as much as 50 percent. And one of the biggest benefits of using
alternate daily cover is the potential opportunity to extend the life of
the landfill.
MR. MUDD: Can you address how it's going to save four years
in the landfill?
MR. DEITZ: Yes, sir. If you look at the sample of the
Posi-Shell, as we apply that on what would -- it's going to be used as
cover material on the working face slopes, and then crushed concrete
will be provided, you know, on the sides and where the trucks actually
travel.
What it does is that right there, what you see, the thickness of
Page 275
September 12-13, 2006
that Posi-Shell is the actual application. So your air space that you're
taking up for cover reduces tremendously.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What's the downside? When you've got
a positive side, you've also got some downsides to it.
MR. DEITZ: This is an actual used technology, but we know
that in different areas sometimes things change and it reacts
differently. So that's why we're recommending a pilot program. We
see no downside at this time, but in order to really test it at Collier
County and how it actually operates, we wanted to do a pilot program
so we can collect information and provide that to the commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, I have one other question: In
regards to odor control, have you had any experience in regards to
how this particular product reacts to odor control --
MR. DEITZ: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- versus the soil?
MR. DEITZ: Yes, sir, that's a good question.
It actually -- it's also as good or better than soil, because it truly
seals the waste. There's nothing -- what you do is when you apply it,
it actually -- it turns out just like that. So there's no way odors can
come up through. And the next day when you get ready to start
operating your facility, you roll over it with your compactor and break
it back up and then start dumping waste in the area again. So, you
know, it serves the purpose of soil and certainly has the same benefits,
if not better, because it's totally sealed.
John, you might --
MR. WONG: It's John Wong again.
Commissioner, to answer your question, Posi-Shell is not a new
technology, per se. It's been used at 50 landfills across the country.
And some of the landfills have been using this product since 1992.
For example, Albany, New York there's a landfill up there that uses
that.
What we're seeking today is that we already obtained DEP
Page 276
September 12-13, 2006
approval to have a pilot program to use Posi-Shell at the Collier
County Landfill.
And furthermore, we picked this particular product because this
is a cement based mixture. So it hardens up like cement. We actually
purchase cement bags to mix it up and apply it on our slopes, on our
waste.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I look at a pilot program as an
experimental program. Am I right in my assessment?
MR. WONG: You know, that's a good question, Commissioner.
The reason why we're proposing a pilot, because N ew York has
different weather programs than Collier County. And the
manufacturer -- or the sales folks of this product claims that it's going
to work just as well in N ew York compared to Collier County . We
want to really test this material out in our weather pattern, in our
particular landfill. I don't want to go to New York and see how it
works there. I want to see how it works in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I guess where I'm going with this
is if you have a number of areas that you're using as product, you're
telling me that this is not a warm and fuzzy feeling, that this is still
experimental and we really don't know if it's going to do the effects
that we want it to do here in Collier County.
MR. DEITZ: Commissioner, because of the sensitivities to odor
control, we want to make sure we cross the T's and dot the I's. It is a
proven technology. Crushed concrete is approved by FDEP, and also
is Posi-Shell. But we wanted to make sure that we crossed the T's,
dotted the I's. Weare very sensitive to odor control. It's our number
one priority. And we want to make sure beyond a shadow of a doubt
that this is at least as good or better than our current materials used,
which is soil right now. And that's the only reason.
We don't want to take other people's data, even if it's in north
Florida. We want to test it at our facility and give you some good
information on how we proceed. We don't want to take anything for
Page 277
September 12-13, 2006
granted.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I'm sure we'll have some good data
from the residents that the live around that area.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You brought up some very good
points. Back five years ago I'm sure Commissioner Henning could
testify to this very well because he was very much involved in the
process. We had a landfill that was totally out of control, and we were
told that's just the way it was. We were told that the only reason why
bought property within a six-mile radius of it was because we got our
property cheap because the landfill was there. The problem never
existed until they stopped using the cover that they normally used.
The Commission I guess agreed with Waste Management that
they wouldn't put a cover on every single night, they would use a
plastic tarp to be able to space cover. And it took a long time to be
able to get that turned around.
Commissioner Henning was really the civic leader that carried
that to a completion where they did get that change. Under no
circumstances do we ever want to go back to those days where the
complaints were numerous all the way through East Naples, Golden
Gate City, Golden Gate Estates, and a lot more people live in that area
than ever lived there before.
So whatever we undertake has to be taken with certain guidelines
and has to be assurances that if it does fail, that immediate action will
be taken to replace the dirt for whatever is down there to be able to
give the cover -- adequately covered to be able to do it.
First priority is the odor. Second priority is to be able to reduce
the amount of fill that's in the landfill so we got more air space to be
able work with and of course be able to extend the life of this valuable
resource.
With that said, you're showing us the price of dirt. And I think
it's an example to be able to justify going to these alternate materials.
Page 278
September 12-13,2006
If you go to these alternate materials, you're not going to be talking
about reimbursement for dirt, because you won't be using dirt.
So the ideal of having to give you -- or even consider increasing
the amount of money we pay for the service would no longer be there;
is that correct.
MR. DEITZ: What needs to be done, and I'll finish this next
slide and I think that will answer your question, but I'll revisit it, sir --
Commissioner.
First, we were seeking approval for a pilot program using ADC
that is eligible for cover reimbursement.
Second, we're -- Waste Management is seeking an opportunity to
work with staff on the following four points. One, an equitable
adjustment from April, 2004 for soil cover reimbursement pursuant to
Section 5.4. That's the unusual and unanticipated cost, and that's
basically things that have happened in the past that we have the ability
to -- it's called the true-up on an annual basis. We're requesting
compensation for that additional variance from the cap to what we've
actually paid.
And then second, which I believe addresses your question,
Commissioner Coletta, is an equitable adjustment method for soil
reimbursement to account for future market conditions and alternate
daily cover, which is -- so we don't have to, you know, go through this
every year. Because soil won't be 100 percent eliminated. There will
still be some soil used by -- in the process.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand that.
And the second part of my question, I'm not saying that I would
even agree to this reimbursement, you know, although it may be
justified, it's up for discussion.
MR. DEITZ: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ifwe went the other way where
soil fell in price and this particular material you're going to use brings
down the cost, will we see a reduction or a refund from you?
Page 279
September 12-13, 2006
MR. DEITZ: It actually -- right now it would actually, if we
looked at the materials, as we speak today, would stay within the cap.
So it would basically -- we would be paying for the materials living
within the current cap.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I don't want to delay it, but
I'm sure Mr. DeLony will have some comments that he'd like to bring
in at some point in time.
MR. DEITZ: Yes. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala, I want to get your
question here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I just want -- thank you
very much, Commissioner Halas.
Let's see, you had said Posi -Shell. What is Posi -Shell made
from?
MR. WONG: Commissioner, Posi-Shell is a mixture of
cement-based product. We purchase the materials and it's mixed
on-site and it's applied on the working face at the end of the day. So it
hardens --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But other than cement -- the reason
is, you know, Commissioner Coletta made reference to how it smelled
before. And of course we know that they were covering it with -- I
guess it was ground up wallboard and stuff, which really stunk to high
heaven.
I was just wondering what all is in this Posi -Shell.
MR. WONG: I do have some information sheet I could hand out
to the board. It's a materials safety data sheet that shows what's in --
what's the makeup of it. But like I mentioned before, it's a
cement-based mixture. There are other products out there. There are
cellular-based, meaning paper-based. We don't want to try that
product in our weather pattern, simply because as you know, in
three-inch rain, that paper-based mixture will be gone. So we
identified that Posi-Shell is suitable to try out at the Collier County
Page 280
September 12-13, 2006
Landfill.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'm sure that Jim DeLony's
already checked through that. But I was just curious.
And you said also that it breaks up the next day when they drive
the trucks over it so that it doesn't remain a hard surface; is that
correct?
MR. WONG: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you were referring to soil
before, but you kind of meant soil or sand or, you know, sugar sand or
whatever; is that correct?
MR. WONG: The soils that are available that we could purchase
around this area, or actually out of county, it's a sandy type material.
We would like to see clay type material for cover, but that's not
available in this area.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And the last thing is, as we
were passing this down and even in my office when I met with you
guys, that stuff kind of stinks. And it's just in a small container. I
mean, there's a smell to it. And I was wondering when you put a large
amount on something what the smell would be like, especially
between rain and sun and heat. I'm really concerned about that.
MR. WONG: Well, we -- there are other chemicals. For
example, the representative told us that we could mix, for example, a
citrus mixture as we mix this batch of Posi -Shell, we could put
whatever flavor that we would like to try, okay? And he suggested
that. And quite frankly, I have not physically seen how this is used.
And we would like to get approval from the board to have a pilot and
give our folks some training to use the Posi-Shell in this pilot period.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, when would you start
applying that? I mean, if all approvals were given today, when would
you start buying it?
MR. DeLONY: Good morning. Jim DeLony, Public Utilities
Administrator.
Page 281
September 12-13, 2006
When we're ready. What would I do if I get direction today to do
a pilot study and it is an experiment? I will carefully sit down with
these men here and their engineers, and we'll lay out a protocol. And
once that's done, we'll begin. I want --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me ask --
MR. DeLONY: -- to do this study -- I'm sorry, ma'am. Excuse
me, I didn't mean to interrupt.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me just mention, the reason I
ask the question is our weather changes --
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- in the middle of October. And so
if we're there for 90 days and the weather is cool and balmy rather
than hot and steamy, it might not give you the same effect for the 90
days.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am, first of all that's exactly where I
was going is I want to look at this in our wet season and our dry
season. So coming up with where we're at now, and given the
opportunity to do this, we would essentially do a dry season pilot.
And then we would use those results, and if they're positive we would
continue with our operations of Posi-Shell through the dry season.
Starting late season we would run another pilot and see ifPosi-Shell
will work through the wet season.
But if at any time, dry or wet, we get results that are not
satisfactory, and we know what definitely satisfactory is versus
unsatisfactory -- and Mr. Dietz here is committed to the fact we're not
going to have an odor problem out there at the landfill, we'll stop and
we'll go back to our current methodology. And that's the end of it.
But that would be the sequence that I would propose to do if you
were giving me the authority to do same.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I appreciate the concerns
of my colleagues and great questioning, but I think what's most
Page 282
September 12-13, 2006
important, and I'm ready to make a motion, if Mr. DeLony would
assist me in what should be in that motion, and also the
recommendations of vanilla bean or citrus peel would -- if it's
appropriate, so --
MR. DeLONY: Sir, I'd like to do the following: First of all, I'd
like to conduct a pilot program to evaluate Posi-Shell as an alternative
daily cover. I'd like to do that with the -- of course Waste
Management's input on a protocol and with oversight by our
operations function at the landfill, our pollution control team and also
FDEP. And I'd like to run that both for dry season and for wet season,
and then look at those, evaluate that and see if we have an alternative
which is not only effective in terms of odor control, but gives us the
benefit of best value in terms of air space saved and also economics.
So that would be the first part of the motion I'd like to see, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's the first part of my
motion.
Now, the second part of the motion dealing with the contract.
MR. DeLONY: With regard to the contract, we've got several
items that we need to clean up. I guess that's the best way to state it.
This contract was built -- help me David -- I believe we started the
contract 1995; it's amended twice since then. And we would be in the
process, in my view, of negotiating a third amendment to that contract.
In that third amendment to the contract, we would simply true it
up to today's standards, solve some shortfalls that we have that we see
in the initial contract, the second amendment and the first amendment,
as well as address the situation that they've requested today in terms of
this equitable adjustment as part of that comprehensive settlement in
terms of that agreement. That's the way I'd like to handle that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's the second part of my
motion. Is there anything else I'm forgetting?
MR. DeLONY: Sir, I think that that gives me the flexibility to
come back to you in that settlement agreement potentially as a
Page 283
September 12-13,2006
settlement agreement or as an amendment to contract or both. Because
there could be disputes that cannot be arrived within an amendment
that we may have to come back.
So we would be coming back potentially with an amendment to
the contract and potentially a settlement agreement on any disputes.
We have a dispute here of course as to this reimbursement that's been
requested today. I wouldn't necessarily say it's a dispute, but it's a
finding of fact that they believe they need an equitable adjustment, per
the clause of the contract. We need to decide that with the help of
legal counsel.
We have nine items that we have put them on notice through the
terms and conditions of the contract in terms of the landfill operating
agreement that we're concerned about in terms of cure that we want to
see them to do different or better. And we want to make sure those are
taken care of.
Those could be addressed by amendment or they could be
addressed by settlement, or they may not be addressed by either, if I
may, David, and we may be in disputes.
But I'd like to have the ability to work all that to find the best
way home for the future of our landfill operating agreement, and bring
all that back to you for your approval before anything happens, or
anything goes into effect.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Would the motion maker be willing
to include a program which would permit the residents around the
landfill to select the flavor of the day?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We've got to find out what the buzzards
like.
MR. MUDD: No, but Commissioner, I think based on what they
just gave us about -- it might not be the flavor of the day, but let's
figure out what thing is more pleasant and what works better in the
Page 284
September 12-13, 2006
Posi -Shell -- I was going to say posi smell --
MR. DeLONY: That would be fine, Mr. Mudd.
MR. MUDD: -- and figure out which one is the best in case there
is an off-site that it is pleasant. And, you know, vanilla bean up close
and personal might be really good, but when it gets far out there might
smell something different, like it came of off the manure pile. I don't
know, but we want to take a look at that and make sure that's part of
the pilot so that we can make sure that we have everything at the
optimal level here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I'm supportive of the motion,
so I'm ready to go.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: One of the concerns I have is that
hopefully with the cement, when it gets wet and dries out and gets wet
again, that it won't start collecting odors. That's my concern.
And then when he was talking about coating the pit each day and
then breaking up the material to add more in the landfill the next day,
that it isn't going to offset a lot of gasses that would escape from that
and cause an odor problem. Can we have any assurance on that?
MR. DeLONY : Well, that -- I can tell you this: I'm going to
have to tell you I'll have to just perform and I'll give you reassurances
through performance. But we're going to have to take a little risk to
get to the results.
This will be a no pain exercise, with potential gain. No pain is, is
that we're not going to -- if we have an incident and we can directly
attribute that incidence of odor to this alternative daily cover
methodology, we stop the test and we go back to our current
methodologies.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good.
MR. DeLONY: And one last thing, sir, if I may, and I just want
to make sure I get to it.
One of the things in the landfill operating agreement, it only
provides that I can pay Waste Management under the current landfill
Page 285
September 12-13, 2006
operating agreement for soil reimbursement. We and FD EP and the
University of Florida believe that soil mixed with concrete is an
effective daily cover, but I'm not able to reimburse them by contract
for the use of crushed concrete. And I'm talking about what's going on
today. I mean, it's going to take us a month or two or even longer.
Whenever we're ready. And so we're going to continue to be using soil
every day to cover -- you know, every day per the contract.
But I believe it's reasonable to reimburse for crushed concrete,
even though it's not currently provided in the contract. Again, one of
the things that we want to settle or fix in our amendment number
three. Because I believe it's an effective daily -- alternative to soil for
daily cover. This has nothing to do with Posi-Shell, this is just using
crushed concrete mixed with soil. And I'd like to make that part of the
motion as well, Mr. Henning, if I could, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's an amendment to the
motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, my second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Fine, we've just about got there
for the question I was going to ask. I guess the only thing that's left as
far as the cost, we're approving an unknown cost, or is this something
that comes back to us?
MR. DeLONY: Right now we're going to conduct the Posi-Shell
and all this under our current contract conditions, current contract
enumerations. And then at the time that we get to a point -- as he's
already stated, if we are able to go with Posi-Shell, the contract limit,
the amount of money we pay won't change. We may have to have
some specifications in the language, Robert, that provides for this.
But as he said, we should stay under that cap.
But again, let me refer to counsel and see if there's anything
we've left out in terms of language.
MR. ZACHARY: Robert Zachary with the County Attorney's
Page 286
September 12-13, 2006
office.
As I understand it, this use of Posi-Shell, we would stay under
the cap, but we would still reimburse Waste Management for that
extraordinary cost that came about from the second amendment for
odor control. That's my understanding.
MR. DeLONY: That's correct. Again, we're not going to do
anything different in terms of reimbursement for any of these matters
that we brought forward than what we currently have. It's just that in
the payment for daily cover, I want to be able to pay them for a
mixture of soil and cement, not just for soil. And I need to have that.
The clerk is very specific in what we're able to pay and not pay,
as he should be. And we're working with the clerk on this as well, so I
want to be very clear that when they give me a bill for soil and
concrete, that I'm able to pay for it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I believe that was part of the
motion.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
MR. ZACHARY: Mr. DeLony and Mr. Chairman, I just want to
remind the board that under this contractural clause, 5.4, the unusual
increase in cost, paraphrased a little bit: The contractor could come
back and ask you for an adjustment in fees. Any such petition shall be
supported by full documentation establishing the increase in operating
costs and the reasons therefore. The county shall be entitled to audit
the contractor's financial and operational records to verify the increase
in operating costs and the reasons therefore. And the only obligation
that the county has is to consider that petition and advise the
contractor, Waste Management, within a reasonable time of your
decision. You can grant the petition in whole, in part or deny it in its
entirety, and it's at the sole discretion of the county.
That's the simple language of the contract that we're -- that Waste
petition is under today.
MR. DeLONY: And as we stated, we won't be addressing that
Page 287
September 12-13, 2006
equitable adjustment today . We'll be taking it within the
comprehensive settlement -- or comprehensive amendment number
three to the contact. So we will not be addressing that today.
Mr. Coletta, did I answer your question, sir--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You sure did.
MR. DeLONY: -- with regard to cost?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, last two.
Number one, I see that you apply this with this machine. Do we
have to buy those machines?
MR. WONG: Commissioner, yes, we -- it's our responsibility to
secure that equipment. It's going to take eight weeks, approximately.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So we don't buy from the county,
that will be the property of Waste Management?
MR. WONG: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And secondly and last,
mitigates odors. Mitigates doesn't say eliminate or whatever, it just
says mitigate. And, you know, when we mitigate panther rescue or
whatever, we move it from one place to another.
So I think it's going to be good that we have a test to see what it's
going to do in our type of weather. And I'm sure that we'll have a lot
of people letting us know what they think as well.
But the mitigate part I thought was interesting verbiage.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am. As you know -- and just indulge
me for a moment to remind you that, you know, you have this cover,
plus you also have the vacuum system on the hill. So in that case I
would like that the mitigate would be an appropriate term. But it
doesn't matter. If it doesn't work, we're not going to do it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, any other further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, call the question. The motion was
Page 288
September 12-13, 2006
made by Commissioner Henning, and it's a very detailed motion, and
it was seconded by Commissioner Fiala. And I believe the court
reporter's got all that information in regards to the motion.
So hearing no further discussion, I'll call the question. All those
in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
And thank you, gentlemen, for --
MR. DeLONY: Thank you, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- your guidance.
Item #10F
STAFF TO UTILIZE STATE CONTRACT AND GSA PRICING
TO PURCHASE TECHNOLOGY HARDWARE, SOFTWARE
AND SERVICES - APPROVED W/STIPULATIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this bring us to our next item
which is 10(F). It used to be 16(E)(9). It's requesting BCC approval
for staff to utilize state contract and GSA pricing to purchase
technology hardware, software and services.
This item was asked to be put on the regular agenda by
Commissioner Coyle. And Mr. Steve Carnell, your director of
purchasing, will present.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's no need for a presentation.
I may as well just tell you what my concern is.
Page 289
September 12-13, 2006
My concern is that if we approve the right to use the state
contract in GSA pricing, which I think we should approve, the staff
also interprets that as approval to just go purchase whatever they think
they need, provided they've got money in the budget to do so.
I have a problem with that. I would like to be informed as to
what purchases are being made and for what purpose, whether it's in
the contract -- or in the budget or not. And I think that's consistent
with the way we do most every other thing.
But I asked the question, if we approve this, does the staff expect
that they can just -- they have approval to proceed purchasing
hardware and software? The answer I received was yes.
MR. CARNELL: Yes, sir. For the record, Steve Carnell.
That is correct, provided that budget is appropriated in place.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I guess my feeling is I would
like to track that a little more closely.
MR. CARNELL: Okay.
If I could -- and I appreciate your concern. What I would like to
do is ask the board's indulgence to approve this as requested today and
to come back to you within 60 days with a solution that specifically
addresses your concern, Commissioner Coyle.
And the reason I want to do it that way is I'm preparing to come
to the full board with some recommended changes to the purchasing
policy overall. I think you all would benefit from looking at the
bigger picture first before we make a final decision on this. And I
believe we can come up with a solution that would satisfy
Commissioner Coyle's concern regarding accountability and reporting
of the purchases.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's fine. You're absolutely
right. You're on target. It's the big picture I'm interested in. And I
don't feel I have that. I don't understand fully what systems we're
having to support and interface. I'm not -- don't understand what
platform strategy we are pursuing to make sure that we do effectively
Page 290
September 12-13,2006
interface with all of the other systems we need to interface with. I
don't understand that full strategy.
So if somebody can come back to us with that and explain what
they need to purchase and how much and why, that would solve my
concern.
MR. CARNELL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I would be happy to
recommend approval of this under those circumstances.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Henning.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, call the question. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
Item #11
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is public comments on general topics.
Ms. Filson, do we have any speakers?
MS. FILSON: I have no speakers, Mr. Chairman.
Page 291
September 12-13, 2006
Item #12A
FOUR SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS AND STIPULATED
FINAL JUDGMENTS TO BE DRAFTED INCORPORATING THE
SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENTS IN THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF $1,322,075
FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PARCELS 122, 123, 124, 125, 126,
AND 127 AND THE PURCHASE OF THE REMAINDER TRACTS
IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. ALAN D.
MONIZ AND INES E. MONIZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
TRUSTEES, ET AL., CASE NO. 06-0560-CA (SANTA BARBARA
BLVD PROJECT #62081) - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item on
the agenda, which is on Paragraph 12 under County Attorney's report.
It's 12(A). It's a recommendation to approve four settlement
agreements and stipulated final judgments to be drafted, incorporating
the same terms and conditions as the settlement agreements in the
aggregated amount of $1 ,322,075 for the acquisition of parcels 122,
123, 124, 125, 126 and 127, and the purchase of the remainder tracts
in the lawsuit styled Collier County versus Alan D. Moniz and Ines E.
Moniz individually and as trustees, et al. Case No. 06-0560-CA,
Santa Barbara Boulevard project No. 62081. Fiscal impact,
$1,322,075. Ms. Heidi Ashton of your County Attorney's office and
Mr. Kevin Hendricks of your Transportation Division will present.
MS. ASHTON: Good morning, Commissioners. We had
provided a visual aid that shows the subj ect property, which is the
comer of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard.
We're talking about today six different lots. Out of the six lots,
three of the lots are owned by one person and the remaining three lots
are owned by different parties. The remaining three are each under
Page 292
September 12-13, 2006
different ownership.
The subject property is part of the Parkway Center PUD.
Currently there are some residential structures on two of the lots, but
the property is currently zoned commercial.
And we have been negotiating -- Kevin from the transportation
department and I have been involved in negotiations with the attorney
representing all of the property owners. They've approached the
county with the interest of selling the entire remainder tract, as well as
the parcel to the county.
And we're here today to recommend that the board consider that,
because the taking eliminates an access easement that provides access
to each of the individual lots. And it also reduces many of the lots
below the minimum lot size under the PUD. So what that means is in
the partial take scenario we have exposure for significant damages,
severance damages, for partial acquisition.
Our appraiser has valued the damages at half a million dollars.
And we're anticipating, after discussions with the attorney and the
appraiser representing the property owners, that we can expect
damages well over a million dollars.
So for the proposal of a total purchase price of about $2.1
million, we would then have property that we would have for the road
project, as well as a remainder parcel of 1.75 acres, which could be
used for county purposes or could be resold on the market where we
would recoup some funds.
The total taking is .59 acres, and it takes about -- in most areas
about 35 feet on average from the property owner.
Kevin, did you have any additional comments?
MR. HENDRICKS: No, you did a good job. Summed it all up.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have some questions. What's the
average dimension of these lots?
MR. HENDRICKS: Approximately 125 by 135, with the
addition of the vacated 10- foot easement that runs behind them.
Page 293
September 12-13, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And so where you've got the line, that's
the right-of-way that we really need for the road?
MR. HENDRICKS: The orange line, correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And then of course -- do we have
right-of-way that's going to encompass this for sidewalks?
MR. HENDRICKS: That's all inclusive within the orange line.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, that's within the orange line.
MR. HENDRICKS: All the proposed improvements for Golden
Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard interchanges.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So what could you sell this property for,
and what could it be used for?
MR. HENDRICKS: I don't know. Perhaps -- I hate to make a
comment on the record right now of what we expect to get out of it.
Because if we wanted to sell it, of course, we would want to go
back and do an appraisal to make a minimum bid proposal to the
board before we put it out for sealed bid.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: But if you tried to sell it, what could it be
zoned for?
MR. HENDRICKS: Well, our appraisers think it still has utility
as a commercial site, but rather limited utilities. So they've not -- they
have appraised it at a higher unit value -- the remainder property, they
have appraised at a higher unit value than the owner's appraiser has
appraised it for. The owner's appraiser claims it has almost zero utility
in there for -- they were claiming damage in excess of a million
dollars.
And my proposal here, that at least if you're going to pay
$500,000 to a million dollars or more in severance damages, that the
board come away with a piece of property that we can perhaps utilize
for county purposes. It's the gateway into Golden Gate.
A lot of the landscaping in the median is going to be destroyed or
removed to make room for the extra lanes and the concrete traffic
separator.
Page 294
September 12-13,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: But you still didn't answer my question.
If we tried to sell this, what could we zone it for, if it was to be put on
the market?
MR. HENDRICKS: Well, it is zoned commercial.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: But you don't have enough -- once you
take the 35 feet that you need off of it, then you can't use it for
commercial, can you?
MR. HENDRICKS: Our appraisers believe that the property is
worth, what is it, $11.33 per square foot?
MS. ASHTON: About that.
THE COURT REPORTER: Could you please speak into the
microphone?
MR. HENDRICKS: Our appraisers believe that in the after
situation the remainder property is worth $11.33 per square foot.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: But what can you use it for?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this is -- we're in a negotiation to
try to divide parcels of land. You're asking a question that could
potentially jack up the price for the county, and I will tell you, it's
limited at best. You know, I look at it, and I look at it as a dry
retention ditch, okay, or a concept --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Then maybe that's what it's going to be
used for.
MR. MUDD: It could be, sir, yes, sir.
But I will tell you, what we will do is get rid of those dilapidated
houses that are sitting there at the comer that are an eyesore.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think you answered my question.
Because what I was trying to drive at, if you take away all of the
potential for the sale of this thing, then what can you use it for? And
the answer is A, we might use it for a dry retention area, stormwater
management. That's fine, okay? I guess that's where I was going at.
Because what else could you zone it for?
MS. ASHTON: Well, it's zoned for commercial. And we
Page 295
September 12-13, 2006
currently have the belief, although we don't have verification from a
planner, that there is enough room to put some type of commercial on
there. But it's going to be very small, it's very limited as --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's the answer I was looking for.
MS. ASHTON: -- I suppose.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, it could end up as a linear park like
we did up on Connors Park, which is a wonderful benefit to the
community and it really adds to the ambiance of that particular area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Put shopping carts there.
MR. MUDD: Sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Shopping carts.
MR. MUDD: I wasn't planning on that, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Others might be.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Have we got a motion on this? Do we
have a motion on this?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Second by Commissioner Henning.
Okay, any further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, we got those taken care of.
Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that basically completes the
Page 296
September 12-13, 2006
agenda, unless I've missed something, and I don't think I have. I've
got everything crossed off.
So this brings us to staff and commissioner communications.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, County Manager?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'd like to talk about three items
today. The first is I want to talk about a request that I received
specifically from one of the commissioners that has an issue where
they would like to have an audit of the county's affordable housing
program. Right now we are in the process of having our external audit
of KPMG take a look at the county overall with all the constitutionals
included in that particular annual audit, as it is every year.
But I believe that the audit request, number one, needs to come
from the commission of that particular audit. I also believe that the
audit request had been made to the clerk.
What I will also say to you is because of the lawsuit, that puts us
in a precarious position.
And now I'd like to turn that over to the county attorney's office
to help a little bit on some legal advice.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Jim.
What Jim has stated succinctly is of some concern. And that is
one, a request for an audit under the considerations of the lawsuit of
the board with the clerk is that the clerk should be directed by the
board to perform an audit. In this case we have a request from an
individual commissioner toward that event.
What Jim is suggesting is if there is a desire for this board to have
an audit performed by the clerk relating to the housing authorities, I
believe, that the board make such a request to make it consistent with
Page 297
September 12-13,2006
the legal position that the board has had all along with the lawsuit.
Additionally, as Jim indicated, KPMG is and does perform audits
for the county of entire budgetary area, including looking at
constitutional officers, as directed by the board, and could be in fact
requested by this board, if a desire was made by the board, of a
specific audit of the affordable housing entities with whom the board
has provided funds at one point or another.
From that standpoint, we believe it was important to let the board
be informed of the request and then try to entertain any question from
the board relating to the request that was made by the individual
commissioner, if the board wishes to endorse that request as a board to
the clerk, or if the board wishes to utilize KPMG to perform an audit
or not to perform an audit at all as a board directive. And--
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, from a staffs
perspective, we don't have a problem with anybody coming and taking
a look at our stuff. And right now everybody in the world is in there
because of the annual audit and the lawsuit.
I would also recommend to keep this as clean as possible, okay,
so we don't have differing opinions and things that we -- that the
recommendation would be that our external auditor perform that audit
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's where I think we should go, with
just the external auditor to perform this.
MR. MUDD: So there's two things that I would like to get
accomplished with this discussion item. One is that the board
understand that if we're going to declare audits, okay, that it needs to
be a policy decision by this Board of County Commissioners, okay?
And you're going to talk about this during the workshop about
commissioner correspondence, okay, and this could be another item
that you might want to talk amongst yourselves about when we have
that workshop. But that's the first thing, that if you're going to declare
an audit, you declare it as a body, okay?
Page 298
September 12-13,2006
And the second piece is that in this particular case, because of the
extenuating circumstances that we're into right now, that the external
auditor, KPMG, be the firm that performs this particular audit.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have -- and I was the one that initiated
that, because I was concerned about -- upon reading different
newspaper articles in regards to what was taking place in other areas
of the country with affordable housing commissions and making sure,
not so much what is taking place within the government, but what's
taking place outside that area.
And I asked -- and I'll be up front with every one of you so that
you understand who I am and what I stand for, and that is that I as a
citizen and as a Commissioner in District 2 asked that we could have
an audit.
Now, it was not to circumvent what we're trying to accomplish
here at the present time, but I felt that the only way that I could
approach this was probably through the Clerk of Courts. And I was
told afterwards that we have an outside auditor that can get involved
in this. And so upon talking with our legal staff, I felt that this would
be the best way, that way we wouldn't dirty up the waters here, okay?
So I think Commissioner Henning was first on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I don't see where the
Clerk of Court -- asking the Clerk of Court to take a financial audit of
the housing authority would dirty up the waters. In fact, I think it
would be in the best interest of the board in the community's eyes, is
reaching out to the Clerk of Court to perform his duties.
But whatever the majority of the board wants to do. If the
majority of the board wants to go to an outside auditor, I just can't
support that.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I believe the request that
Commissioner Halas had was not only to do a financial, but was also
to do an overall management control environment -- to also examine
the overall management control environment in place in affordable
Page 299
September 12-13, 2006
housing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, see, and this is the whole
point --
MR. MUDD: I believe you get into a performance piece at that
particular --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But this is the whole point about
the Clerk of Court and the difference of opinion of his role. It's the
same thing that he was trying to do, in my opinion, and we just have a
problem with that. So we're doing what we told the clerk we don't
want him to do on something that is connected with the board but not
directly.
So I think if we're going to do anything, let the Clerk of the Court
audit the housing authority. So --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I agree with much of what
has been said, but I do have some disagreement.
I don't believe that our current argument with the Clerk is about
auditing at our request any department of government. I think our
primary concern is the Clerk's demands to audit people over which we
have no control and the records for which we do not have.
But I believe our role is to direct the Clerk of the Courts to
conduct audits as we see fit of any Collier County government
agency; is that not correct, Jackie?
MS. ROBINSON: Good morning, Commissioners.
Yes, our position in the lawsuit can be summarized as follows,
and it is consistent with your statement: The Clerk of Courts has a
Florida constitutional and statutory pre-audit function. However, the
Clerk of Courts cannot perform audits of Collier County departments
and divisions without the express consent of the Board of County
Commissioners.
So it's really a decision that you make. If you wish to have the
outside auditor do it or if you desire to have the clerk do it, as long as
Page 300
September 12-13, 2006
it's a decision that's made by the board as a whole, it's consistent with
the litigation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, then that's what I wanted to
clarify, because here is the fundamental question -- or statement: We
are paying KPMG to do audits. We are going to pay them to do an
audit of us, of one of our agencies.
Now, to the public it seems to me that that raises a potential
conflict of interest. The Clerk is an independent auditor.
MS. ROBINSON: No, it's just the opposite. KPMG is selected
by everyone, including you and the Clerk and the sheriff and everyone
else, and KPMG is the independent auditor.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: For everybody --
MS. ROBINSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- including the Clerk.
MS. ROBINSON: Right. The clerk is not independent in the
sense that the Clerk manages all of the payroll, all of the payments for
the county, keeps the books for the county, keeps all of the bank
accounts for the county. And so the Clerk is really a part of county
government in that he handles the finance department. He doesn't
have --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me dig a little further then.
That means the Clerk has actually been involved in writing the checks
that the affordable housing agency has been authorizing.
MS. ROBINSON: That's correct. And keeps the bank accounts.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So you're absolutely right, it
would appear that we would best get an external auditor.
MS. ROBINSON: Well, that's the decision that you can make. I
mean, you are the governing body. And if you wish to have the Clerk
perform an audit, our position is that you can. But if you want to have
an independent audit performed, then that's why you have retained
KPMG. They are completely independent of you and the Clerk.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then I change my position. I
Page 301
September 12-13, 2006
understand it more clearly now. Because the Clerk is really an
integral part of that entire process. And so it would appear to me that
if we're going to get a truly independent audit to look at the entire
process, including the public/private partnership that we have
established with the Collier County Housing Corporation, it would be
best to do so with KPMG. So I would tend to agree with that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I will make that a motion, yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I -- being that KPMG did an
audit, an overall audit, and I understand that it was just, you know, a
blanket audit, the thing that pops into my head is it's kind of like
inviting the fox into the henhouse, they've already done it. So, you
know, they're -- they already -- I think if you're going to have
somebody, you should have somebody that is -- well, that hasn't
already done it, you know.
Secondly, if the Clerk happens to be writing all of the checks and
having all the paperwork, I would think he'd have those things right in
his possession and it would be much easier for him to scrutinize
everything that he has coming into his office. And, you know, we all
know he really digs in depth to whatever he's looking at. And I think
that we should be able to come out with a good audit through the
Clerk. And it wouldn't even cost us a lot of extra money for whoever
it is to have to fly down here and go through all of the records,
because the Clerk has them right in his position.
MS. ROBINSON: Well, for your information, KPMG is here
now at the county performing audits.
The other issue is that -- which really isn't related to me at all.
I'm sure Mr. Baker can inform you of that. There are other audit
requirements that are required by both the county staff and also by the
financing agencies, which in this case is primarily HUD.
But in terms of an audit, which is a specialized type of report, the
Page 302
September 12-13, 2006
only independent auditor that you have is KPMG. That's the one that
you have selected to do the independent audit work for Collier
County .
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What we want to do is make sure that
even the checks that the -- even the checks that the Clerk cuts, that that
money is being directed in the area that it's supposed to be directed to.
All it is just to make sure that we have assurance that everything
is on the up and up. Doesn't mean there's anything there, we just want
to make sure that when the clerk cuts the checks and he's got control
of that -- because a lot of times the money comes down directly from
Washington, and that he gets that to dispense, and we want to make
sure that the trail all the way to where the finished product is ends up
going to where it's designated to go.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree, that should definitely be
done.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's discuss the parameters of the
audit. Now, there has been some valid criticism before that KPMG
doesn't look at anything less than what, $100,000 or so?
MS. ROBINSON: I don't know the answer to that question.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But is that going to be the case in
this particular audit? Are we --
MR. MUDD: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- going to look at --
MR. MUDD: We're going to get specific with it based on the
things that need to be looked at. And that's what we'll direct them to
do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Everything.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Down to the penny.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And also, it will be a performance
Page 303
September 12-13, 2006
audit, okay, not just a financial audit. It would be a performance audit,
right?
MR. MUDD: Based on this request, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then my motion stands. I
think it is probably the most thorough and impartial way to do it.
MS. ROBINSON: I would also like to state, you know, just for
your information that the Clerk I think has taken the position that he
cannot perform performance audits.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. All right. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, any further discussion?
Yes, David.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, this may be separate from your motion, or
could be included, but that is if the board goes forward with Mr.
Coyle's motion relating to KPMG, it's understood then that the board
is, I'll say, expressly directing that the clerk not perform the audit
request that Mr. Halas had requested previously.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's correct.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's the understanding of the board. Is
that --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, he can continue to do his own
audit, though, can't he?
MR. WEIGEL: No, well --
MR. MUDD: His pre-audit functions? Yes, ma'am. By staff
what he's authorized to do.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We're not trying to tie his hands --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I don't want to do that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- in the function that he's doing, we're
just -- okay, any further discussion? Have we got clarification?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, all those in favor, signify by
saYIng aye.
Page 304
September 12-13, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, we have 4-1.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item I'd like to talk about
is something that's rather timely, or something that we need to get
done in time.
House Bill 7079 was passed this legislative session --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can we take maybe a 10-minute break
for our court reporter?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah, I think it's time.
(A recess was taken.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mic.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank very much, County Manager?
And we'll continue on with the House Bill 7079.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. The second item of the three that I'd like
to talk about today is House Bill 7079. Section 316.2123. Operation
of A TV on certain roadways.
The law was passed this last section -- or this last session. 7079
is about 90 pages. But this is something that's imbedded in it. The
operation of an ATV is defined in Statute 317.0003. Upon the public
roads or streets of this state is prohibited except that an A TV may be
operated during the daytime on an unpaved roadway where the posted
speed limit is less than 35 miles per hour by a licensed driver or by a
minor under the supervision of a licensed driver. The operator must
provide proof of ownership pursuant to Chapter 11 7 upon request by a
law enforcement officer.
Page 305
September 12-13, 2006
Number two, the county is exempt from this section if the
governing body of the county by a majority vote, following a noticed
public hearing, votes to exempt the county from this section.
I will tell you that this law takes effect, and I'll read it, on Section
51 on Page 97 of 97, except as otherwise expressly provided in this
Act, this Act shall take effect on October 1, 2006.
What I'm asking the board is would you like me to bring this
particular item back to the Board of County Commissioners for the
next meeting? Because that will be before October 1. If this board
takes no action whatsoever, every dirt road in Collier County can be
used by A TV drivers as per this section. Because I've talked to
Norman, and Norman's posted speed limits. For something that's not
posted is under 30 miles an hour; is that correct?
MR. FEDER: That's correct.
MR. MUDD: It's 30 miles an hour. And that means that every
limerock road and dirt road in Collier County that's in public hands is
going to be used for ATV.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I asked Mr. Mudd to bring
this up at the meeting for very good reason. We know Collier County
is suffering a severe deficiency of area for people that ride their A TV's
on. I'm sure that none of us ever anticipated the fact that the
legislative body would ever, through oversight, think that private -- or
not private, but that county maintained roads, we have residencies of
as many as 30 per street, would suddenly permit this type of activity.
You know, to suddenly say this is an all right thing and to --
people would bring in their children from great distances, dropping
them off on these roads to recreate, much to the displeasure of the
people that have been living there with the understanding that this was
an illegal use of the road.
It's going to come before us. Hopefully you agree that (sic) bring
it back for the next meeting so we can take action.
Page 306
September 12-13, 2006
However, there's one important element to this you have to be
aware of. For some time we have had an ongoing dispute with the Big
Cypress Preserve over the county roads that are in there. And the
technicality that the dispute is leveled on is that they say well, you
realize of course that it's illegal for people to ride the A TV's and the
swamp buggies on those roads. Turn the roads over to us and we'll
make it legal. Of course the big dispute then was is the fact you got
innholders (sic) in there, they don't want to be under the jurisdiction of
the park system.
And so we agreed to keep those roads under county control with
a minimal amount of maintenance, and it's worked out very well.
However, at any point in time, Big Cypress could drop the other shoe
and say okay, since it's a county road we have to follow the
ordinances and laws of the State of Florida, no ATV's, no swamp
buggies.
So when this discussion comes up, I'm going to hope that we'll
separate the Big Cypress Preserve and possibly some other roads and
some other parts of the county that go through a preserve type area
from that distinction, and that would remove a problem area for it.
I do appreciate you bringing it up, and I hope my fellow
commissioners will agree to bring this back at the next hearing.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I don't know if we have
any public roads in Big Cypress Preserves, but --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- there's public roads in the
Southern Golden Gate Estates or the Picayune. Are we saying we're
going to exempt those roads?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'm not suggesting anything. I'm
just trying to get the board to tell me to bring this item back for your
discussion to either exempt them or not.
I believe I've asked the county attorney's office if we can
Page 307
September 12-13, 2006
discriminate about what roads that we open and which ones we don't
open or prohibit, based on this particular legislative act that was
passed. And I would ask the county attorney to please interject
himself at this point.
MR. PETTIT: Commissioners, for the record, Chief Assistant
County Attorney Mike Pettit.
We looked at this legislation yesterday, Assistant County
Attorney Scott Teach and 1. And at this point we believe -- and
obviously it's not been tested in any court, we don't have any
legislative history -- we believe that the intent is to either allow this
activity on all unpaved county roads posted under 35 or none.
Obviously it might be more ideal if there was some flexibility for the
commission. And we'll continue to study the legislation.
But at this point we think the plain language would suggest that
the intent is to have an all or none approach. And it simply requires if
you want to exempt yourself out and continue under the laws as they
exist today, you have to have a notice of public hearing, which we
could get the advertisement or notice out and bring this back before
you at the September 26th meeting, as Mr. Mudd said.
We may revise our opinion regarding the flexibility, but based on
what we know now, we're not sure that flexibility exists.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do you need a motion on this, or just
nods?
MR. MUDD: Sir, I just need some direction to bring this back at
the next board meeting so that we can advertise it. And if not, the
board --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Let's get it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I'm supportive of
Commissioner Coletta's request.
MR. MUDD: The next item that I'd like to talk about, and the
last of my three, is a Tropical Storm Emesto update, so to speak.
Page 308
September 12-13, 2006
Basically how we did on the tropical storm. And Dan, I asked him to
do this to give you an update because we received a lot of rain after
Emesto already left. And we thought we were done with it, but we
weren't really.
MR. SUMMERS: Commissioners, good morning, Dan
Summers, Director of the Bureau of Emergency Services/Emergency
Management.
Allow me to give you a little bit of a kind of a summary situation
report on Emesto and our subsequent rain.
I want to be careful here that I don't want to -- although the state
right now is looking that Emesto and the subsequent rainfall and the
impact that that rainfall had on the inland counties, the Governor is
still compiling information from the counties. We've been very
forthcoming in providing the expense and associated impacts to the
Governor.
He has not made a disaster declaration request yet related to
Emesto, but I do know his staff is compiling that data in an attempt to
make that request to the White House.
However, I really don't know. While Broward and many of the
counties, as you have read about, spent significant monies in
preparation activity, that overall determination has not been made yet
as to whether it will come close to some of the FEMA thresholds for
declarations. So let me just mention that right up front that that
process is still underway.
Now -- and also, let me clarify that we don't know the time
window, the beginning point and the end point, between Emesto and
any subsequent rain that might be eligible in that presidential disaster
declaration with the Governor's office. We've been in contact with
them almost daily and they're working that issue.
Let me go through a couple of real -- points here quickly with
you. First of all, the good news in Collier County, no direct -- no loss
of life related to our Emesto activity, whether it was a voluntary,
Page 309
September 12-13, 2006
precautionary evacuation, et cetera.
As a result of the subsequent rainfall, there has not been any
mandatory -- I'm sorry, mandatory relocations related to the flooding
event in some of the rural parts of Collier County and the associated
rainfall.
Back during Hurricane -- Tropical Storm Emesto, our special
needs shelter and general population shelter operations went very
well. We did house 19 special needs individuals and 95 individuals in
the general population shelter for one night.
So far throughout Emesto and the subsequent rain event, none of
our fire, EMS or law enforcement services have been impeded by the
high water for the ultimate delivery of service. They were able to
adjust, change from an ambulance as a first responder in to an SUV or
high clearance fire truck versus a typical urban fire apparatus. So
everybody was able to adjust accordingly.
American Red Cross continues to have disaster assistance teams
on necessary -- on standby as necessary. If in the subsequent rain
event there were any particular homes or families that were at high
risk, their disaster team would get involved. And much like their fire
program, if they needed to put them in a hotel room one night until the
situation stabilized, Red Cross was able to do that. And again, that's a
high-risk client or high-risk family on a case-by-case situation.
Since the storm we've had almost daily conference calls with a
number of emergency responders. Some of the commissioners joined
us on those conference calls to make sure that all the parties were
poised and had good situational awareness as to what was going on in
there, if we had to make adjustments to our response.
We and the EOC, subsequent to Emesto and the flooding, put out
about 16 news releases related to everything from, you know, making
sure there was surface water infiltration on your well, that you had
your well tested and be aware of changing the water levels on some of
the roadways, we addressed that.
Page 310
September 12-13, 2006
We had continuous communication with Collier County district
schools, and they reported to us no significant challenges during that
operation for some of their bus operations.
I do want to go on the record and publicly thank the Sheriffs
Office. Their midnight shifts worked diligently to validate some of
the road areas that had standing water, reported that to us. We shared
that with all the parties, did some GIS mapping ourselves to our
limited capability in the EOC, and shared that information with other
departments for engineering and future preplanning.
We also referred the general public, as requested by South
Florida Water Management, to their citizens hotline, which they
activated their EOC -- had a partial activation of their EOC and were
able to take calls from the general public.
We did video that area. As you are aware, we did video that, so
we have some visual documentation as needed. We did not correlate
ground truth. It doesn't have GPS, but it is a very quick broad flyover
of that area. And we captured that information for historical purposes,
if it can be of benefit to us with FEMA down the road or any of our
other organizations.
We did assist one special needs client on Rock Road associated
with a trip for dialysis. They had some difficulty with their private
vehicle in a non-emergency capacity. We brought them out to high
ground, family members picked that particular client up, and moved
forward with him for dialysis treatment. We've maintained constant
contact with that client throughout the event.
Presently we don't have any requests for EOC services in the
queue related to the event.
I will tell you that both internal and external to Collier County,
and that's the fire districts, law enforcement, the City of Naples, we
have reported to the state that about $180,000 cumulative has been
spent on preparation and initial response related to Emesto and the
subsequent rain. And that's important for the Governor to have as he
Page 311
September 12-13, 2006
moves forward towards his disaster declaration request.
Today we have been in contact with Clarence Tears at South
Florida Water Management. Mr. Tears indicated to me this morning
that his canals are doing very well. His levels continue to drop. He
has offered to do some pumping, now that he has canal capacity,
storage capacity and movement capacity, he's offered to do some
pumping in the Rock Road area. We echoed our support for that
request, copied the State EOC, and South Florida Water Management
is in the process now of coordinating to do some pumping to try to
expedite that drawdown in the Rock Road area and see if he can't get
some water out of that particular area there that's been around for too
long.
So again, just a very quick overview of how things are, and I'll
stop and see if you have any questions.
MR. MUDD: Would you summarize the disaster declaration,
where we are with the White House?
MR. SUMMERS: We are -- have submitted all of the
appropriate data on behalf of Collier County, both Collier County
government proper, as well as the external, the municipalities and
independent fire districts; submitted those cost estimates to them
related to preparation.
The Governor is accumulating those costs for the entire state, and
again in the process of preparing what we hope will be a request to the
White House for a presidential disaster declaration, just for the first 72
hours, what we refer to in the Stafford Act as Category B, which is
emergency preparedness action, first 72 hours. So we hope the
Governor will be able to accumulate enough data and enough
justification for that request to the White House.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you.
I think one of the things about this storm that's quite unusual is
the fact that it was fairly localized. While the coastal area of Collier
Page 312
September 12-13, 2006
County only had a couple inches, for some places in the interior part
of Golden Gate Estates, they had as much as 20 inches. It was a
colossal rain event in some areas.
My home, which is in the Estates close to 951, some standing
water in the ditch and that's about it. It was a minor consequence
compared to past storms.
However, that said, some of the areas in the interior part of the
state, especially when you get out towards Waterway and Orangetree
and back towards Rock Road, they seemed to take the brunt of the hit
of this particular rain event.
And it comes to the fact that Rock Road itself was probably the
focal point of the main part of the disaster. They're still suffering from
it today. And probably rightly so, they feel that they're ignored or left
out.
And I have a letter here I'd like to read in part to you from Reggie
Malone who lives on Rock Road, one of the community leaders out
there. He said, our flood waters have been shown to contain human
and animal feces material, and we and our animals are living in
extreme unsanitary condition. Could you please see if the County
Manager Mr. Mudd or Southwest Florida Water Management have
addressed this problem further. Today I tried to find out through Mr.
Gregosser (phonetic) if the county or someone is still checking the
weirs. My calls have not been returned.
And that's understandable, it takes a while to return them.
Some of our residents have been stranded in their homes for nine
days now. And individuals with businesses have been unable to even
get out of our road to go to work. People are expressing extreme
frustration with the county, and rightly so -- that's his words. We have
virtually been abandoned by the county, who just doubled most our
taxes. We need help. We'd like to know if Collier County is going to
respond to this emergency, and if so, when.
Well, you know, this is extremely localized. I can tell you right
Page 313
September 12-13, 2006
now, this isn't the whole Collier County; it's the area around Rock
Road that seems to be affected. And they've been flooded before, but
not to this extent for so long. I even had a niece that lost a car out
there. But it's still flooded and they're still unable to move.
Now, in some other counties, our neighboring counties, they have
declared an emergency. That emergency allows them to go in on
these roads and do minimal repairs to be able to get people in and out.
There's large potholes on these roads. It requires some gravel. It
would require a little bit of maintenance, just to make it passable. I'm
not saying we can remove the water.
But I would like two things: One, that we declare the present
situation as an emergency and direct the county manager to do
minimal work on Rock Road and the side roads. This work would be
limited to filling in the deepest holes and use of the county equipment
to reach that end.
And two, to bring back at a future BCC meeting the option of a
forced MSTU on the Rock Road neighborhood that would allow for
revenue to be collected that would help to maintain the road in a
satisfactory condition. Not up to county standards, just general
maintenance.
The problem now is when it comes to maintaining the road, they
go around, they solicit contributions, two or three people contribute
and the rest of them stand by to one side. An MSTU very similar to
what we have for Sabal Palm Road, which has worked wonderful.
They collect a minimal amount of money. In this case they even rent
equipment and do it themselves to keep the costs down. They manage
the fund to a point where they bring it to us when they need that and
we have to prove it and then the money's released.
And I would like to see us take that situation under control so that
this situation doesn't continue into the distant future. I do -- while
they do not have enough people on this road to ever bring that up to
county standards, as far as an MSTU goes, as far as taxing goes, they
Page 314
September 12-13, 2006
certainly got enough people on that road that could be taxed a minimal
amount to put into a special fund that could cover this cost in the
future.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does an MSTU -- you say a forced
MSTU. That means they don't have to vote 50 percent plus one,
right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, but they would have, you
know, control to a point over it where they would meet yearly to
decide how much they're going to raise and bring it back to the
commission and how that money would be spent.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sounds good.
MR. MUDD: Rock Road is a private road, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, it is a private road?
MR. MUDD: Oh, yes. If it was a public road, we wouldn't be
having this discussion about MS TU.
The road has been a problem, especially seasonal problem; rainy
season for school buses, for garbage collection and other things. And
I believe that Commissioner Coletta's recommendation for a
mandatory MSTU would get that road where it gets at those particular
services. And as far as the emergency repair to get the potholes so it's
passable and whatnot. I just talked to Mr. Feder, and that is doable.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. How many residents are on this
road, roughly?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, the road itself and the side
roads, I'd say you've probably got -- what would you say, about 50?
MR. SUMMERS: Sir, that would be my rough estimate, about
50.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mine, too. I don't have an exact
number. But just judging by what I seen show up at neighborhood
meetings before.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'd like -- I guess I'm ignorant to the fact
Page 315
September 12-13, 2006
that whereabouts is Rock Road in relationship to geographically
located here in the county?
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, Rock Road runs north and south
off of Immokalee Road, generally in the area of about the Twin Eagles
development, which is --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right across from Twin Eagles.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, okay. It's south then from
Immokalee Road?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's -- yeah, you would go
Immokalee Road. From here, you'd be going to the north -- or east
and then north.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, then north. Okay, I thought it was
south of Immokalee Road. It's north of --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I'm sorry--
MR. FEDER: South of Immokalee Road.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- it's south of Immokalee Road.
I thought you meant how to get to it from this location.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No, no, no, I just wanted to know where
it was -- okay. So it's south of the Immokalee Road that's across from
Twin Eagles. I think now I seen the road, yeah. Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But it's two things I'm looking
for. One of them would be to bring it back at a future meeting for the
MSTU. Nothing can be done for this year. It's definitely gone by as
far as getting it into our budget. But it would give us enough time to
be able -- even though it's a forced MSTU, it would be something for
community meetings and everything else to take place, discuss what
the parameters would be, how much it would be. And then I'm sure
the community leaders would come through here endorsing it in the
end. But that --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sounds like a solution.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- one part.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Suits me.
Page 316
September 12-13, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then the other part would be of
course for the emergency declaration to be able to do minimal repairs
to make the road just passable.
MR. MUDD: Well, the first one, the direction for the MSTU, I
just need direction. The last one you --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You're going to need a vote on it.
MR. MUDD: -- I need a vote on.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, I make a motion that we
declare an emergency for the Rock Road area relating to the present
rain event, and that we authorize the County Manager to direct staff to
do minimal repairs to that road to make it passable.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second the motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do we have to have -- in the minimal
standards, do we have to have --
MR. MUDD: He said to make it passable.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Just make it passable. Okay.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question for the County
Attorney.
Are we setting precedence over maintaining a private road?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, that's a very good question. I think that in
the motion you need to indicate it's for the public health, safety and
welfare, which indicates kind of a special relation to the event that Mr.
Coletta mentioned, the recent rain event. From that standpoint, it is as
precedential as you may wish to make it at some point in the future.
But I think you're trying to articulate it to the specific
circumstances that have created a problem, and for health, safety and
welfare reasons, notwithstanding it's a private road, that the county is
taking this action. And I think that makes it appropriate for any
expenditures of human resource and the limited physical costs and
other resources that you're going to put there.
Secondly, I wanted to mention that if we are to create an MSTU
Page 3 1 7
September 12-13, 2006
here, the forced MSTU, it would behoove us probably to have that
done prior to December 31 st of this year so that if there were to be a
possibility of having some kind of a tax assessment on the roll for next
year, it would be there. Because if we don't adopt the MSTU until the
new year, it can be problematic and it will be a following year before
you'd be able to develop a budget and put it on the tax roll.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So we've got to have it done before
December 31 st of this year?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, under the regular circumstances. And
certainly the county attorney working with staff can come forward and
do that. Because we've worked with Rock Road and the Rock Road
people in the past.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second question. Is there going
to be a fiscal amount on this vote? Fiscal cap?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Feder, can you help?
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, Transportation
Administrator.
I'm not sure I could give you what that figure would be for you to
establish it now. But I think we understand the direction is simply to
make it passable for emergency vehicles and for egress and access
generally to the residents in the area.
You've got about 40 feet of width there. The crown of the road's
a little higher, it's out of water now. Sections of the road are out of
water. What you have got is about three-foot holes in there that are
going to require some rock put in and dirt.
And I will tell you, I believe the MSTU is important, because
even if you put fill in in the rock, it's not going to stay there, and that's
the problem they've had in the past.
So over time they're going to have to do something to even
limerock it and get it into some of that condition and then ongoing
maintenance and grading over time.
But in answer to your question, I'm not sure I can give you a
Page 318
September 12-13, 2006
dollar amount at this time. We would seek to minimize the dollar cost
to the public on a private street under this emergency declaration. But
the key would be to try to fill in some of those three-foot holes and
hope that all the drainage work give us the ability to get in there and
be able to act accordingly.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If not, I'll call the question. All those in
favor -- we've got a motion on the floor by Commissioner Coletta and
a second by Commissioner Fiala. All those in favor, signify by --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we're not going to declare
this as a public health, safety --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, yes. I'm sorry, you're
correct, we didn't do that. And my motion includes that statement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- you know, this issue with
Rock Road has came ( sic) up before, and there wasn't a willing
participant for people to tax themselves.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Not quite correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not quite correct?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, they were more than willing
to do it. They couldn't quite get the 51 percent. They were like two
people short that were absentee people. Lot of interest in that
neighborhood for it.
And I've talked to several of them about a forced MSTU, and of
course they want to know what the parameters are going to be, but
generally they think that's the best way to go, too.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. But not the majority of
them, obviously, so --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, the majority are
landowners. But the thing is, sometimes we have to take
Page 319
September 12-13, 2006
responsibility as a government entity to do the right thing. And we'll
have them here before us to be able to argue the case nay or for.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And I'm just concerned
when we get our backs up to the wall and those people are up here that
are we really going to do this, or is this just a Band Aid for relief for
the -- for this roadway?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Exactly, Commissioner
Henning. And that's the reason why I used the word minimal repair
and then the forced MSTU. Because when we get through with it, if
for some reason they totally reject it, they don't want the forced
MS TU, I think the word is that they want to be at their own peril for
what happens in the future.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You just clarified that we don't
have the gumption to force the MSTU. If you have residents not --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're going to find support. I
wouldn't be taking this on if I didn't think that the majority of the
leadership of that area supported it. And I'm sure they do.
But we'll find out at the meeting. If there's any question that
comes up and they're unified against the MS TU, then we just have to
let them know that in the future the responsibility of their health,
safety and welfare falls on themselves.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is not a good precedence to
set.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, to your question before, I would
assume that, like I said, we've been asked to do minimal. But I would
assume that I'm talking low thousands. If we're talking anything near
100,000 or greater --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, no.
MR. FEDER: -- we're going to come back to this board. So if
that helps the perspective, I'm talking about --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What would you say--
MR. FEDER: -- thousands and less than 10,000.
Page 320
September 12-13, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- 10,000 or below?
MR. MUDD: No, Commissioner, I wouldn't go down that road.
I would say this could be someplace between 50 and $100,000 in
order to make this road do what it's got to do.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I hope it's considerably less than
that.
MR. MUDD: Sir, hope is not a method. But what I will say to
you is that's the kind of window that I just talked to Norman about.
And if that's what you want us to do, there's some fairly large holes in
this road that he's going to have to put in there in order to get that
done.
And the other piece that I want to make sure in your resolution,
that this is stormwater flooding because of Tropical Storm Emesto.
You've got to make it tie in together --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct--
MR. MUDD: -- just in case we --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- I add that to the motion also.
MR. MUDD: -- that we get funding that we can tie this event to
it so that we can get some reimbursement.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, I think we'd better restate the
motion on the record, if we can, so that we make sure that we got all
the clarification included in here. And I think that's very important,
that last statement, whereby if hopefully we can get -- we can get
reimbursed for this event, since this is a private road.
So you want to go ahead and restate that one?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I always love to do this. Thank
you so much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's important.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And County Attorney, if you could assist
us in this motion to make sure we've got everything taken care of.
MR. WEIGEL: I sure will.
Page 321
September 12-13, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Declare that the present
situation as an emergency and direct the county manager to have staff
do minimal work on the Rock Road and its side road. This work
would be limited to filling in the deepest holes and the use of county
equipment to reach that end.
And two, we're doing this because it serves a public purpose.
MR. WEIGEL: Health, safety and welfare.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It has to deal with health, safety
and welfare. And that -- I'm sorry, what was the last part? Oh, we
recognize this to be related and --
MR. MUDD: And caused because of Tropical Storm Ernesto.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right, Tropical Storm Emesto.
And that covers it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Does that cover everything here, County
Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: I think it does.
The other direction, aside from that motion, is that I think that
staff will be coming back with an MSTU for this board to consider.
And by the way, an MSTU can be created with no obligation,
because the obligation really comes with the analysis and application
of a tax assessment that would come later. But if you put the
mechanism in place before the end of the year, at least you've got the
mechanism in place for talking purposes later.
MR. MUDD: But the motion is for the emergency situation, and
then I'll come back to the MSTU for direction.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Right. And--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's my second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. All
those in favor of the motion as stated by Commissioner Coletta and
seconded by Commissioner Fiala, signify by saying aye.
Page 322
September 12-13,2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Commissioner, now I'd like to get some
direction about the mandatory Rock Road MS TU before 31
December. Do I have three nods for that particular item?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Definitely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Nods head affirmatively.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: (Nods head affirmatively.)
MR. MUDD: I do, thank you very much.
That's all I have, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. County Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay, well one item, if you will, that is -- that
relates to a request I made to sell some of my universal leave about
five weeks ago, and it was processed by a char, but the clerk did not --
clerk's office didn't process it, raising a question. And they indicated
that I need to -- a clarification with the board in that regard.
As you know, both Jim Mudd and I have in our contracts a
provision providing for universal leave, which we don't receive sick
days, we don't receive personal days or vacation, as stated. It's called
just universal leave. And all county employees generally can sell their
vacation back at any time during the year.
I had wished to sell part of my universal leave back, which
obviously serves as my vacation as well. Pay some bills and stuff.
And the clerk's office had indicated that since universal leave is not
specifically mentioned in the vacation sell-back policy that they would
need a clarification from you for me to do that.
As an addition, both Jim's and my contract does provide that on
an annual basis of our anniversary date, mine being in November,
Page 323
September 12-13,2006
mid-November, that any universal leave over a certain amount of
hours is reimbursed at that point anyway. But other parts of our
contract indicate that we have all the benefits that other employees
have.
So I would appreciate it if the board would approve my selling
back some of my universal leave which shows up in my paycheck,
both denominated as universal leave and vacation, at any time during
the year, as well as the fact of the automatic payout provisions that
exist.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CLERK'S OFFICE: So we do have that clarification?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I believe so. We have a motion on the
floor by Commissioner Fiala --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, Henning.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Or Henning, excuse me. And a second
by Commissioner Fiala.
CLERK'S OFFICE: Commissioner, would it be possible to get
the contract language amended so that we didn't have to do this again?
MR. WEIGEL: You know, I think the contract was between the
board and me, and I think that the clarification ought to be sufficient
so that it can be processed based upon what I had stated.
I would hope that a formal amendment to the contract would not
hold up the ability to process what the board has indicated the contract
should be and I've indicated what the contract should be.
Derrick?
CLERK'S OFFICE: Well, I meant for future payments.
MR. WEIGEL: If the board has clarified their understanding of
the contract, why should it have to be amended?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me just say in the motion,
motion to approve a time-to-time payout of universal leave to the
Page 324
September 12-13, 2006
county manager and to the county attorney's contract. That's the
clarification of the contract that the board is in agreement that's what it
does state.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does that work, David?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, it works for me. And that was my
understand, having talked with Crystal previously.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then that will be included in my
second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you very much. And that's it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, Commissioner Henning, do you
have anything to bring up?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If I did, I forgot about it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. First thing, and what I
consider the most important, I hope everybody heard Commissioner
Coyle's speech or read it in the paper, even though it was just a partial
speech there, but it really outlined very well what he had said. It was
the most stirring, powerful, memorable speech I'd ever heard, and I
just wish everybody around the United States could hear that speech.
They would know what we're doing in the Middle East and understand
it a lot better.
Page 325
September 12-13, 2006
Anyway, I just wanted to thank you again for that powerful
message.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was my first thing that was
very senous.
The next thing is kind of fun. Guess who we have working for us
in the clerk's office? I'm just delighted to tell you. Gina Edwards.
She has come to work for us. I found her in the elevator the other day.
I mean, honest to goodness. And of course she's delightful anyway.
So I'm just delighted to have her there.
And the last thing I just wanted to mention --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute, is she doing an
expose on the clerk or is she --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, she's going to be his P.1.0.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, she's going to do the expose on
us. Okay, I understand. All right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the last thing is I had spoken
with Jim Mudd in my office the other day. I was -- we were talking
about change orders and work orders and so forth. And I asked Jim if
at the end of each contract that we, each commissioner, would be
copied in on a complete expense report. How much we bid it out for,
how many change orders we had to have and what they were for.
Work orders, the same thing. Reductions in the price where we've
gotten to buy something tax free or whatever. So that we all can see--
we just see it piecemeal here and there. I'd like to see the whole
record.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think it's a great idea.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And Mr. Mudd thought so too, and
he said he can do that for us. So I just wanted to make you aware that
I've done that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Coletta has had his
Page 326
September 12-13, 2006
turn and finished, I hope?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, no, no.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I was going to start down that way
and work --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good, good. Thank you very
much. Then I'll leave promptly after.
Just two items. Both of them have to do with city/county affairs.
The first is a letter that has been received from the City Manager Dr.
Lee, sent to County Manager Jim Mudd.
It concerns a request for additional funding for the Pulling Park
proj ect. You'll recall that the Pulling Park proj ect is going to be a
facility which of course is open to both the city and the county. The
city had originally estimated that project at about $800,000 and we
had agreed to pay 50 percent of that.
It appears that the cost has escalated now to 1.4 million. And the
county is asking us to consider --
MR. MUDD: The city.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry, the city is asking us to
consider increasing that amount, that authorization, to 50 percent of
the $1.4 million. So it would be a $300,000 increase to the
commitment we've already made.
I would argue in favor of it, that the city is agreeing that they will
not have a two-tier use or admission fee for this particular park, and it
might be a concept we can apply to some of the other city parks to
assure that our city residents or county residents are treated the same.
And so I would consider -- I would argue that we should go
ahead and fund the additional $300,000 for the Pulling Park project.
Although I do believe we should have some role in taking a look at the
final contract price to make sure that we haven't overpaid the 50
percent.
But in any event, I bring that to your attention.
And the second -- do we need to take any action on that, County
Page 327
September 12-13, 2006
Manager?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I think that's an item that you'll
discuss on the 21 st during your unfinanced requirement issue, so you
can take it in whole at the board's desires. And in this particular case,
that hearing is advertised. It's been said numerous times that that's
when you take care of it, this particular item you're asking to be added
to the list, I believe.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good.
And the last item I have is something that was prompted by a
recent city council meeting. It seems to be their perception that we as
a county commission refuse to meet with them. That is not my
perception, I don't think it's your perception, but it certainly is one that
appears to be widely held by the members of the city council.
I seem to recall that we have always agreed to meet with them as
long as there's a substantive item on the agenda to discuss. And I
think the misunderstanding might have come from the fact that the
board probably did refuse to agree to regularly scheduled quarterly
meetings, because there were not sufficient items to warrant that many
meetings.
But there are a number of items of concern that probably should
be discussed. Items that the county's concerned about, items that the
city's concerned about that relate to both of us.
So I would like to ask if the board would be agreeable to offering
to meet with the city council to discuss issues of mutual interest. We
could both suggest topics and agree upon an agenda, and we could sit
down and talk about those concerns and hopefully resolve them.
Now, I do recognize that there are some things that are
constrained by legal issues, and it might not be acceptable for us or for
them to sit down and talk about it in a meeting. But nevertheless, we
can certainly find some items of common ground here, and I'm
wondering if the board would be willing to ask the -- authorize the
chairman to send a letter to the city -- to the mayor and the city
Page 328
September 12-13,2006
council, offering to sit down and talk with them about items of mutual
interest and asking them to suggest some topics and we could suggest
some topics.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: In a meeting like once or twice a year?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Whenever it's justified. We don't
have to make any predetermined schedule, but if there's enough issues,
we probably should sit down and talk.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Definitely.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I'm glad to brought this to our
attention. First of all, I thought we had a lovely rapport with the City
of Naples. I really did. And I didn't realize there was any kind of
conflict whatsoever. I'm disappointed to hear that. I wish I would
have known sooner.
But I think as our liaison to the City of Naples, any time you feel
there's an issue, or a few issues that need to be addressed by both
boards, I think you could call for one of those meetings. You know,
rather than set every six months, maybe it will be eight months one
time and three the next, but at least we could have those meetings. I'm
certainly not only willing but happy to meet with the city council. I'm
so sorry they've come to that impression.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I'm surprised, too. But
really, a surprising number of the city council members had the same
perception and so something must have caused that. And I think that
it would be good if we tried to reassure them that we're willing to talk
with them at any time.
One brief comment. I generally attend workshop with the city
council once each month. And I quite frankly believe that that
impedes the resolution of problems that might exist between the city
and the county.
Very quickly, what happens is that the city council looks to me to
solve those problems, or they will direct the city manager to contact
Page 329
September 12-13, 2006
the county manager to resolve the problems. Well, they don't have the
authority to do those kinds of things. Only the elected members have
authority to do that. And I don't have the authority to resolve the
problems they bring to my attention during the workshops because it
takes three votes on this board to do it.
So it probably gives them a false sense of security and
accomplishment if they relate their problems to me at that meeting and
then they assume they've been taken care of. And nothing could be
further from the truth.
So I think by having the bodies themselves meet together and
talk about these issues, it will give them an opportunity to present to
you their arguments and their perceptions about these things, and then
you can react to those and reciprocate.
So it will help us all communicate better and resolve problems. I
would say to you that it is not my impression that there are good
relationships between the city and the county. And it's all because of
these perceptions that tend to be generated because they don't talk.
And so we need to talk.
And that's all I'm trying to do is just encourage a dialogue. And I
will leave it up to the Chair to decide when that would be appropriate
and what topics might be appropriate to discuss. And I will interface
with County Manager Mudd to give him the --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Some ideas what we could discuss.
Okay, Commissioner Coletta?
MR. MUDD: Wait a minute. He asked for an authorization from
the board for the chairman to write the letter. And I haven't seen any
nods except --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, wait till we finish the
discussion here, because there may be some other information that
comes forward before we bring it to a close. No offense.
And I support you. I take it back. I take it back.
Thank you. No, I think this is wonderful. You're right, we need
Page 330
September 12-13,2006
to interface with all entities out there in the county. I just would
propose a friendly addition to your motion, that we expand that to also
include Marco Island and Everglades City with a letter. Although I'm
sure that Everglades City would be a rare occurrence, but that could
happen also where they would like to interface with us for a meeting.
But it would show a good willingness on the part of us across the
board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It sounds fair.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Have we got three nods, four nods?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Anything else, Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, that's it for me.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, thank you. Here we go
again. Flooding. Let's talk our favorite subject. Water management.
As you know, we've had some very interesting episodes with
them in the recent past, and I expect that we're going to have more in
the future where we possibly may be going to court over some action
regarding the ATV's.
I must tell you that there's extreme distrust on behalf of people
that live out in Golden Gate Estates in the agricultural area regarding
Water Management's performance during the last storm event.
Now, with that said, I'm not saying they did anything wrong.
The system is 40 years old, it was an exorbitant amount of rain in a
small area. However, with that said, a lot of people are saying that
some of the weirs were closed and never opened. One rumor that's
going around is that a weir was welded shut and they couldn't get to it
to cut it loose.
A number of people come back, and there may be good reason
for it, and said that the water had reversed its flow from what was
normal. It was flowing in one direction for years, it suddenly reversed
Page 331
September 12-13, 2006
during the storm event and then it stopped and then gradually after a
number of days started flowing very slowly in the other direction.
Because of all this public input that I've been receiving, I have
made a public request on my own, and I made sure that my request
mentioned the fact that I wasn't doing this on behalf of the Collier
County Commission, that they supply to me all the telemetry data
regarding the opening and closing of the weirs and the water flow.
And this is all very good and they're very willing to do it, and I
assume that they're putting it together at this time.
The problem is that when I receive this data, I'm not an engineer.
I'm at a complete loss of what to do with it or how to decipher it to be
able to tell everybody that Water Management, one, performed just as
they should and they did everything they could with the system, or
two, there was an anomaly that took place and you should know about
it.
With that, I kind of hope that this commission will support me
and direct the county manager to allow our staff to go through the data
and be able to render an opinion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: My question is that some of the areas out
there that were inundated with water, I happened to be in the -- this
area in 1995 when we had another event just similar to what took
place, and this was before we had the large influx of homes. And
there was many, many areas out there that were under water.
And when you look at the topography of that area out there,
there's an awful lot of areas that have cypress trees. And even though
the cypress trees aren't standing in water, that soil is somewhat wet.
And then when we have an event like we did, then that becomes a
holding area for ponding of water.
And I understand the concerns and the situation arises, but I don't
know how South Florida Water Management or anybody can address
that type of mass flooding and that type of rainfall over a short period
of time when you have areas that -- basically that is all flat land out
Page 332
September 12-13,2006
there except for depressions whereby that there's cypress or swamp or
whatever, and then so therefore that's going to be the area that the
water is going to flow to. And that could have been some of the
reasons that the water was running in the wrong direction, because it
was seeking areas that were low and so that it could retain the water.
So it's a massive problem and of course it's even going to get
worse as that area gets built out. And what I think we need to do is
make sure that -- I'm not sure how we can direct it, because it's not up
to the government to do this. But people have to realize when they go
out there and buy property, the best time to buy it is at the wettest part
of the season so they have an understanding of what they're really
getting themselves into.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I respond?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
You're right. I mean, everything you said is true. However, it
still leaves us with the fact that we represent the population out there.
And when the people express a concern, we have to be able to answer
them reasonably, yes, we looked into this and there is no substance
what you said or yes, we looked into it and there's reason for concern.
And that's the only thing I'm asking for, is just a determination
from staff that Water Management had performed the way they said
they did.
And to be honest, I really think they probably did. I don't think
they did anything that was malicious. However, there's too many
people out there that think that they did, and this is just to be able to
substantiate it one way or the other.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, to get the topic on the
hand -- at hand, is it your understanding that Commissioner Coletta
has asked the whole board to take a look at information and for our
staff to disseminate it?
Page 333
September 12-13, 2006
MR. MUDD: Sir, what I think -- I know is Commissioner
Coletta asked under the Freedom of Information Act asked the South
Florida Water Management District for the data on how their system
was working during this flooding event, okay? I believe they're going
to provide him that data. I do not know what that data is going to look
like when I get it -- or when he gets it. And what I think he's got on
the table is he wants Robert Wiley, Stan Chrzanowski, Jean Calvert to
sit down and take a look at that data and see if it was fully opened and
it was operating as planned.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me ask the question: Do you
think it's up to the whole board to give you that direction, or do you
think that Commissioner Coletta could just ask that without -- ask it of
you to direct your staff to take a look at it?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, in this particular case I think it's
going to be some work. It's going to take days in order to take a look
at that. And again, it depends on what kind of data I'm going to get.
Am I going to get every 10 minutes of how it's flowing and the cubic
feet per second? They're going to have to take a look at that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. Thank you for the
clarification. Because I've asked for a public records request on the
new weir on the Golden Gate canal, and I was going to hand it over to
you for staff to take a look at it and see if what we're being told is
what's being permitted.
MR. MUDD: Sir, would you like to add this to this thing?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like to add it to you.
And let me just tell you that I trust what Clarence Tears tells me, very
much trust him, but I would just like some verification.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You got it. That's exactly the
way I feel, Commissioner Henning. I got the greatest respect for
Clarence Tears.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
Page 334
September 12-13, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: As I understand it, these requests
were made as individuals, so I presume that our policy of having the
individual's -- the costs associated with review will be charged to the
individuals who have requested the work from the county government.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll put it on my wife's
Mastercard.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Put it on your expense account.
MR. MUDD: Well, Commissioner, I think this is important,
okay? I mean, we also have to understand that South Florida Water
Management District gives this county a lot of money on grants,
okay? And when you scrutinize their particular operation -- and it was
a conversation piece I had with Commissioner Coletta, I said I don't
think we can go out there and get a -- an outside consultant to take this
on, because they also have a lot of money that they work with with the
South Florida Water Management District.
And this is something that the board has to decide. I think it's
important. Because if what we find is an error in their protocol as far
as operation is concerned, we're going to bring that forward in a public
forum. That could put a very negative aspect on our relationship,
okay, which could cause you to lose -- for the taxpayers of Collier
County which could lose monies that they provide back to Collier
County.
So I think it's an important aspect that this board discuss and they
know exactly what they're getting into and what some of the
consequences may be. It's like biting the hand that feeds you, okay,
it's a very dicey issue. But you have to do what's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't see it as biting the hand
that feeds you. It's more like if we find something wrong and point it
out and they rebel by not giving grants, it's more like I'm taking my
marbles home.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, possibly they'll have the
attitude, you know, you can't fix it if you don't know what's broken.
Page 335
September 12-13, 2006
So if we can identify some blips along the way and just give some
guidance, it might make it easier for them.
I know I always look at it optimistically, but I can't help it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Norm Feder, do you have something to
add to this discussion before I turn this back over to Commissioner
Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, no, no, no, you're not turning it
over to me.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Your light's on.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If you do, I'm going to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let me help you. There you go.
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norm Feder, Transportation
Administrator.
What I just want to share to this discussion is first of all what I
understood the request to be, if in fact that comes from the board, is
something that we already planned on doing and that is to try and do
an analysis of the event and see what we can learn from it.
As far as the issues with the Water Management District, I need
to tell you first of all what we did in the county and we're very
comfortable about and we're checking a little bit further at is look at
all of our culverts, clean them out before the storm event, the
hurricane event came to us, tropical storm.
We also attended the issues shortly after as we found out the rain
event and the nature of its implications and its very localized nature.
We brought all of our resources from different districts into the same
area to address as best we could. And we worked with the Water
Management District in helping them with some cleaning of canals.
But what we found throughout is, is that we opened our weirs
very quickly. Everything we found it appears that the weirs were
opened by the Water Management District and parties acted
appropriately as they should in the occasion. But we'll be happy to
look at any data and make sure as we look at our own further that we
Page 336
September 12-13, 2006
evaluate that along with the Water Management District.
The only thing I will caution you on now is the Water
Management District is trying to, as we are to a degree, although we
tend to open our weirs a lot faster and a lot quicker, is trying to
manage a stormwater resource. During the wet season they're trying
to keep some of it held back. That's why you have weirs to begin
with, not to overburn with fresh water the bay and the estuaries.
And also to make sure that during the dry season that the water
table has been recharged to some degree.
So if you see that the weirs are holding back a level of water,
what we need to evaluate, is that appropriate at what level and that
management plan strategy, and that's always an ongoing basis and
tweaking. And could somebody have been surprised by 20 inches in a
short period? That's what we want to look at and what are the
implications.
But having said that, I know for a fact that Water Management
District was out there, was opening the weirs, was seeking to find
relief. And other than the canals overflowing their banks for a short
period of time, we did end up with a situation where it started moving
freely and went to recede.
So we are working with them, we're looking at everything on our
end, we'll work with them on their end, but there is a management
level, and that's the only reason you have weirs to begin with. But
then we need to make sure that we're protecting everybody and that's
what we're looking at.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So have we pretty well beat this horse?
What kind direction do you need?
MR. MUDD: I need three nods.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Three nods, okay.
Anything else? I don't have anything. So I think we're
adjourned.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: One thing the county manager
Page 337
September 12-13, 2006
reminded me of, a conversation we had. Potential ordinances
governing and affecting some cases that Code Enforcement Board
might hear or might not hear, and I thought it would be important
before we consider it is that we get their input on those proposed
ordinances before the board takes it under consideration. And -- but
that takes a nod of three commissioners.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, I need a little more
discussion on it to really understand what you're looking for.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, there's some proposed
ordinance dealing with code enforcement and ultimately what the
Code Enforcement Board may -- cases may be or may not be. And I
know that they see these cases all the time. And I think that they
could give us better guidance, whether it's an appropriate thing to
adopt or it might not be able to adopt.
This is board directed on -- I think it was statute of limitation was
one, and I know there's -- David, help me, there's another one, isn't
there?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, that essentially was it. We talked about a
period of repose in regard to those real old situations where documents
and records would not necessarily prove or disprove the
appropriateness of a change that was made to property under the
regulations that existed long ago.
And Mr. Henning is mentioning he recognizes that the code
board, in its duties, hears cases. He is asking if the Board of County
Commissioners would like for them to provide a review and advisory
opinion to the board relating to a proposal that may provide some
limitations on some of the enforcement actions relating to old matters.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The only concern I have is that it's not a
process where somebody's going to try to do something and then hope
that they don't get caught and then they get to the point of time
limitations and say, hey, guess what, now I'm protected because the
time limitations ran out.
Page 338
September 12-13, 2006
MR. WEIGEL: All of that will be there for review and
discussion when it does come to the board.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Because I think what we're trying to do
is make sure that everybody plays on a level playing ground and
everybody tries to adhere to all the rules and regulations, and that this
isn't used as a way to circumvent the process.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're just asking for
suggestions --
MR. MUDD: But I asked Commissioner Henning -- I don't want
to put words in your mouth, you're asking that before that ordinance
comes to the board that it goes in front of the Code Enforcement
Board asking for their recommendation?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What's wrong with that? That
sounds like an excellent idea.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry I didn't make that
clear.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That wasn't clear to me.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, it wasn't. Well, I think you
did say it, it just had to be said in a couple more words. That northern
accent of yours, you know.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think it's a good idea.
MR. MUDD: I have three nods? Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: While we're ahead, let's quit.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, Mr. Coyle's got something.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If nothing else, we're adjourned.
***** Commissioner Coyle moved, seconded by Commissioner
Fiala and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted *****
Page 339
September 12-13, 2006
Item #16Al
RESOLUTION 2006-209: APPROVAL OF THE ROADWAY
(PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
FINAL PLAT OF NORTH NAPLES MEDICAL PARK-
W/RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 2006-210: APPROVAL OF THE ROADWAY
(PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
FINAL PLAT OF INDIGIO LAKES UNIT SIX - W/RELEASE OF
THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 2006-211 : APPROVAL OF THE ROADWAY
(PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
FINAL PLAT OF HAMMOCK ISLES - W/RELEASE OF THE
MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 2006-212: APPROVAL OF THE ROADWAY
(PRIV ATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMEMTS FOR THE
FINAL PLAT OF TREASURE POINT - W/RELEASE OF THE
MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A5
RESOLUTION 2006-213: APPROVAL OF THE ROADWAY
(PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THR
Page 340
September 12-13, 2006
FINAL PLAT OF HEMINGWAY PLACE - W /RELEASE OF THE
MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A6
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR TREASURE POINT - W /RELEASE OF THE
UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A 7
FINAL PLAT OF "FIDDLERS CREEK PHASE 5 A VIAMAR,
UNIT TWO" - W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A8
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER
FACILITY OF INDIGIO LAKES, UNIT 6 - W/RELEASE OF THE
UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A9
FINAL PLAT OF "REFLECTION LAKES AT NAPLES, PHASE
2F - WITH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT AND PERFORMANCE SECURITY -
W/STIPULATIONS (REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS NEEDS TO
BE MADE BEFORE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY CAN
BE ISSUED)
Item #16Al 0
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITY
Page 341
September 12-13,2006
FOR HAMMOCK ISLES - W/RELEASE OF THE UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16All
RESOLUTION 2006-214: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF BRIARWOOD UNIT FIVE - THE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE
PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED
Item #16A12
RESOLUTION 2006-215: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF BRIARWOOD UNIT SIX - THE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE
PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED
Item #16A13
RESOLUTION 2006-216: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF BRIARWOOD UNIT SEVEN - THE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE
PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED
Item #16A14
RESOLUTION 2006-217: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF BRIARWOOD UNIT EIGHT - THE
Page 342
September 12-13, 2006
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE
PRIVATELY MAINTAINED
Item #16A15
RESOLUTION 2006-218: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF BRIARWOOD UNIT NINE - THE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE
PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED
Item #16A16
RESOLUTION 2006-219: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF BRIARWOOD UNIT TEN - THE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE
PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED
Item #16A17
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR BRIARWOOD UNITS 9 AND 10 - W/RELEASE
OF THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A18
ANNUAL CERTIFICATION FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF
REGULATORY REFORM ACTIVITIES FORM REQUIRED BY
THE SHIP PROGRAM - PARTICIPATION IN THIS PROGRAM
WILL HELP TO ENHANCE THE DEVELOPMENT OF
AFFORDABLE WORKFORCE HOUSING
Page 343
September 12-13, 2006
Item #16A19
AFTER-THE-FACT SUBMITTAL OF THE 2006 STATE OF
FLORIDA CHALLENGE GRANT APPLICATION TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS OFFICE (DCA) ON
HOMELESSNESS - TO ASSIST LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS
THE SHELTER FOR ABUSED WOMEN AND ST. MATTHEWS
HOUSE WITH FUNDING FROM THIS GRANT
Item #16A20
GRANT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT TO EXTEND AN
EXISTING U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT (HUD) CONTINUUM OF CARE (COC) GRANT
FOR $440,000 FOR AN IMMOKALEE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT - TO HELP FACILITATE EFFORTS TO MEET
THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES SET FORTH IN
THE HOUSING ELEMENT
Item #16A21
GRANT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT TO EXTEND THE
TIMEFRAME OF AN EXISTING U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) CONTINUUM
OF CARE (COC) GRANT FOR $142,895 - TO HELP
FACILITATE EFFORTS TO MEET THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES
AND POLICIES SET FORTH IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT
Item #16A22
AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN MODIFICATION
Page 344
September 12-13, 2006
NO.1 TO U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (USFWS)
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 401815J021 TO FUND
HABITAT RESTORATION AT OTTER MOUND PRESERVE IN
THE AMOUNT OF $3,500 - TO CONTINUE TO IMPLEMENT
PROGRAMS THAT CONSERVE AND PROTECT
ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE SPECIES
Item #16A23
A REQUEST THAT THE BCC REVIEW STAFF'S FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE PROPOSED
ATTACHED REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR CONSULTANT
WORK FOR FULFILLING THE REQUIREMENTS OF SENATE
BILL 360 MANDATING THE INCORPORATION OF A PUBLIC
SCHOOL FACILITIES ELEMENT TO THE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN BY MARCH 1, 2008 - AS DETAILED IN
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A24
AFTER-THE-FACT SUBMITTAL OF A 2005 DISASTER
RECOVERY INITIATIVE (DRI) GRANT TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (DCA) TO FUND
DISASTER RELIEF AND THE RESTORATION OF HOUSING
AND INFRASTRUCTURE RELATED TO THE EFFECTS OF THE
2005 HURRICANE SEASON - FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS
PROVIDE THE FUNDS BE DIRECTED TO THE "MOST
IMPACTED AND DISTRESSED" AREAS
Item #16A25
THE AFTER-THE-FACT ACCEPTANCE OF THE U.S.
Page 345
September 12-13, 2006
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
(HUD) ENTITLEMENT FUNDING AGREEMENTS FOR
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG),
HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS (HOME) AND
EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANT (ESG) FUNDS FOR FY 2006-
2007 - FUNDING FOR JULY 1~ 2006 THROUGH JUNE 30~ 2007
Item #16A26
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF COLLIER
COUNTY (EDC) FOR CONTINUATION OF THE ECONOMIC
DIVERSIFICATION PROGRAM AND PROVIDE A
CONTRIBUTION TO THE EDC OF UP TO $400,000 FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2007 - TO PROMOTE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES THAT DIVERSIFY THE
COUNTY'S ECONOMY, CREATE HIGH-WAGE V ALUE-
ADDED JOBS, AND ENABLE ALL COUNTY RESIDENTS TO
HAVE MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY FOR UPWARD
MOBILITY
Item #16Bl
THE PURCHASE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY PARCEL #113B AND
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT PARCEL #713B
WHICH ARE REQUIRED FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE
COUNTY BARN ROAD PROJECT #60101 AND ACCEPT
CONSERVATORS DEED FOR SAME
Item #16B2
APPROVAL OF DONATION AGREEMENTS AND ACCEPT
Page 346
September 12-13, 2006
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS FOR THE 14TH
STREET OUTFALL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (PROJECT #
510059), AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $100.00 - THE
CURRENT DRAINAGE SYSTEM IS INADEQUATE TO
CONVEY STORMW A TER RUNOFF FROM THE RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENTS IN THIS AREA TO THE GOODLETTE-
FRANK ROADSIDE DITCH, RESULTING IN FLOODING AND
HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS
Item #16B3
A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING REVENUE FOR
FUNDS RECOVERED FROM VEHICLE ACCIDENTS WHERE
COUNTY TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND STREETLIGHTS
SUSTAINED DAMAGES
Item #16B4
RESOLUTION 2006-220: AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN OF
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO EXECUTE A
LOCAL AGENCY PROGRAM SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT
WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
(FDOT) TO REMOVE THE REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING
PAVED SHOULDER ALONG GULF SHORE DRIVE FROM
VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD TO APPROXIMATELY 1,600
FEET NORTH - TO BRING THE CURRENT SIDEWALK
DESIGN TO MEET WITH THE AMERICANS WITH
DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) SPECIFICATIONS
Item #16B5
AUTHORIZING THE USE OF TRANSPORTATION
Page 347
September 12-13,2006
DISADVANTAGED FUNDS (427) IN THE AMOUNT OF $75,244
FOR THE PURCHASE OF THREE (3) PARATRANSIT
VEHICLES - TO REPLACE EXISTING VEHICLES
Item #16B6
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $129,127 FOR
FUNDS FROM THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
FOR THE COLLIER AREA TRANSIT (CAT) SYSTEM - FOR
THE PURCHASE OF A NEW TRANSIT BUS OR TOWARDS
THE PURCHASE/RETROFITTING OF THE TRANSIT
FACILITY/TRANSIT DEPOT
Item #16B7
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,184 TO
RECOGNIZE ADDITIONAL STATE BLOCK GRANT FUNDS
AWARDED THROUGH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION - TO ASSIST IN THE PROVISION OF
FIXED ROUTE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
Item #16B8
AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SCHOOL
DISTRICT OF COLLIER COUNTY, COLLECTIVELY
REFERRED TO AS "DISTRICT, AND COLLIER COUNTY,
HEREIN REFERRED TO AS COUNTY, FOR POSSIBLE
FUTURE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ON THE CORNER
OF 18TH STREET N. E. AND EVERGLADES BOULEVARD-
TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF
MIDDLE SCHOOL EE
Page 348
September 12-13,2006
Item #16B9
AWARD RFP #06-3965, FIXED TERM PROFESSIONAL LAND
PLANNING & FORENSIC ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR
RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION TO THE FOLLOWING
CONSULTANTS: HOLE MONTES, INC., ENGELHARDT,
HAMMER AND ASSOCIATES, INC., DIAZ PEARSON &
ASSOCIATES, INC., COASTAL ENGINEERING
CONSULTANTS, INC., CH2MHILL, INC - TO PROVIDE
SERVICES FOR MULTIPLE PROJECTS WITHOUT ISSUING
INDIVIDUAL REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
Item #16B10
AWARD BID #06-4014 GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD (951 TO
11TH STREET SW AND 13TH STREET) ANNUAL LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE CONTRACT TO ADVANCED LAWN AND
LANDSCAPING IN THE AMOUNT OF $140~856.50
Item #16B11
REJECTION OF BID #06-4005 - PURCHASE & DELIVERY OF
JOHN DEERE 332 SKID LOADER DUE TO NON-RESPONSIVE
BIDS AND APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF THE JOHN DEERE
325 SKID LOADER UNDER STATE CONTRACT #760-001-06-1
IN THE AMOUNT OF $54,764 - THE JOHN DEERE
CORPORATION HAD IMPLEMENTED TERRITORIAL SALES
RIGHTS AND ONLY ALLOWED ONE (LOCAL) OFFICE TO
SUBMIT A BID FOR THEIR PRODUCT
Item #16B12
Page 349
September 12-13, 2006
APPROVAL OF THE SUBMITTAL OF A HAZARD
MITIGATION GRANT TO THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAST ARM REBUILDS IN
THE AMOUNT OF $258,491 - DUE TO THE EXPERIENCE
WITH RECENT HURRICANES
Item #16B13
AWARD BID #06-4028 EVERGLADES CITY SIDEWALK
IMPROVEMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SIDEWALK
ALONG CR 29 FROM BROADWAY AVENUE TO BEGONIA
STREET & PATHWAY IMPROVEMENTS ON COPELAND
AVENUE FROM BROADWAY TO CAMELIA STREET TO
QUALITY ENTERPRISES USA, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF
$297,996.55 AND 10% CONTINGENCY IN THE AMOUNT OF
$29~796.66 FOR A TOTAL OF $327~793.21
Item #16B14
APPROVAL OF THE SELECTION OF AIM ENGINEERING INC.
A QUALIFIED FIRM, AND AWARD A CONTRACT UNDER
RFP #06-3985 "CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR COLLECTING
DATA TO DEVELOP A SURVEY BASE MAP WITH
ELEVATIONS OF ROADWAYS IN THE GOLDEN GATE
ESTATES" IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $674,060.00-
FOR PROFESSIONAL SURVEYING AND MAPPING SERVICES
Item #16B15
AWARD BID #06-4029 PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALKS - GOLDEN
GATE CITY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS IN
Page 350
September 12-13, 2006
VARIOUS LOCATIONS WITHIN GOLDEN GATE CITY TO NR
CONTRACTORS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $607,888.75 AND
10% CONTINGENCY IN THE AMOUNT OF $60,788.88 FOR A
TOTAL OF $668~677.63
Item #16C1
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $170,000 TO
REALLOCATE FUNDS WITHIN THE WATER IMPACT FEE
CAPITAL PROJECTS COST CENTER TO FINANCE CHANGE
ORDER NO.1 FOR PROJECT NO. 70097; SOUTH COUNTY
REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT 12-MILLION
GALLONS PER DAY REVERSE OSMOSIS EXPANSION - TO
EXP AND THE REVERSE OSMOSIS WATER TREATMENT
CAPACITY AT THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER
TREATMENT PLANT BY 12 MILLION GALLONS PER DAY
(MGD) TO A TOTAL OF 20-MGD
Item #16C2
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $43,900 TO
TRANSFER FUNDS FROM COUNTY W A TER/ SEWER FUND
(408) - RESERVE FOR CONTINGENCIES TO FUND SALARIES
AND WAGES IN THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING
COST CENTER - FOR SALARY INCREASES AND TO COVER
OVERTIME THAT EXCEEDED THE BUDGETED AMOUNT
Item # 16C3
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE GRANT FUNDS
RECEIVED FROM THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SFWMD) ALTERNATIVE WATER
Page 351
September 12-13, 2006
SUPPLY (A WS) AGREEMENT NO. DG061166 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $1,000,000 AS PARTIAL FUNDING FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF TWO HAWTHORN WELLS PROJECTS
71011 AND 71006, RESPECTIVELY - TO PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL RAW WATER SOURCES TO MEET
INCREASING WATER DEMANDS, WHILE BEING IN FULL
COMPLIANCE
Item #16C4
A BUDGET AMENDMENT APPROPRIATING ADDITIONAL
REVENUE RECEIVED IN THE MANDATORY TRASH
COLLECTION FUND FOR TRASH COLLECTION SERVICES
AND COLLIER COUNTY LANDFILL TIPPING FEES DURING
FY 2006. FISCAL IMPACT TO FUND (473), MANDATORY
TRASH COLLECTION, IS $399,500 - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item # 16C5
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $80,000 TO
REALLOCATE FUNDS WITHIN THE WATER IMPACT FEE
CAPITAL PROJECTS COST CENTER TO FINANCE PROJECT
NO. 71016; SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER
TREATMENT PLANT NOISE STUDY - TO COMPLY WITH
NOISE REGULATIONS AND KEEP WITH THE DIVISION'S
COMMITMENT TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR
Item # 16C6
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $456,400,
ALLOWING A TRANSFER OF FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF
Page 352
September 12-13, 2006
$376,000 FROM THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER
DISTRICT OPERATING FUND (408) RESERVE FOR
CONTINGENCIES AND OF $80,400 FROM THE SOUTH
COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY (SCWRF) COST
CENTER FOR UNANTICIPATED OPERATING EXPENSES
INCURRED BY THE NORTH COUNTY WATER
RECLAMATION FACILITY (NCWRF), THE SCWRF, THE
WASTEWATER LABORATORY AND WASTEWATER
COLLECTIONS COST CENTERS - FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED
WITH CHEMICALS AND ELECTRICITY TO A NEW WELL
AND VARIOUS PLANT NEW PLANT PROCESSES WHICH
CAME ONLINE IN FY06
Item #16C7
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER FUNDS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $700,000 FROM PROJECT 739661, NORTH
COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY (NCWRF),
BLEACH SYSTEM RELIABILITY UPGRADES TO A NEW
PROJECT 739662, NCWRF BLEACH SYSTEM COMPLIANCE
UPGRADES AND TO SOLE SOURCE THE PURCHASE OF
STANDARDIZED NEW EQUIPMENT FOR THE NCWRF
BLEACH SYSTEM - TO PURCHASE PUMP SKIDS ON A SOLE
SOURCE BASIS FOR STANDARDIZATION AND EFFICIENCY
Item #16C8
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER FUNDS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $75,125 FROM THE COLLIER COUNTY SOLID
WASTE MANAGEMENT FUND (474) RESERVE TO COVER
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING INSPECTION SERVICES AT
THE COLLIER COUNTY LANDFILL SCALEHOUSE PROJECT,
Page 353
September 12-13, 2006
PROJECT NUMBER 59005 - TO CONSTRUCT A SUITABLE
SCALEHOUSE TO ACCOMMODATE THE INCREASED
PROCESSING AND TRAFFIC THAT IS RECEIVED ON A
DAILY BASIS
Item #16C9
AN AFTER THE FACT PAYMENT FOR SERVICES RENDERED,
TO SCOTT PAINT INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,632.34 FOR
TEN (10) INVOICES FROM THREE COLLECTION SITES FOR
JUNE THROUGH JULY 2006, FOR THE INCREASED
RECYCLING OF PAINT COLLECTED FROM HURRICANE
WILMA AND ENHANCED RECYCLE CENTER SERVICES -
FOR LATEX P AINT THAT HAS BEEN COLLECTED
INCOMPLIANCE WITH THE HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS
WASTE COLLECTION PROGRAM
Item #16C10
TO CONVEY A UTILITY EASEMENT TO THE WATER-SEWER
DISTRICT TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL EASEMENT AREA TO
AN EXISTING WELL SITE EASEMENT ON PROPERTY
OWNED BY COLLIER COUNTY IN A COST NOT TO EXCEED
$18.50 FOR RECORDING~ PROJECT 71051
Item #16C11
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $16,700 TO
TRANSFER FUNDS FROM THE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
FUND (470) - ADMINISTRATION COST CENTER FOR THE
PAYMENT OF SALARIES IN THE COUNTY WATER/SEWER
OPERATING FUND (408) - PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING
Page 354
,-~,,~ j . ....,,~.,..-.-
September 12-13, 2006
COST CENTER - FOR SALARY EXPENDITURES FOR WORK
PERFORMED FOR SOLID WASTE
Item #16C12
CHANGE ORDER TO WORK ORDER CDM-FT-04-02 WITH
CAMP, DRESSER, & MCKEE INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF
$87,204 FOR ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
ASSOCIATED WITH UPGRADES AND MODIFICATIONS TO
THE LIME SOFTENING WATER TREATMENT PLANT
PROCESS AT THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER
TREATMENT PLANT, PROJECT 700571- TO IMPROVE
SAFETY OF PLANT PERSONNEL, ENSURE COMPLIANCE,
ENHANCE OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES, IMPROVE
RELIABILITY TO THE EXISTING LIME SOFTENING WATER
TREATMENT PROCESS AND INCREASE DISTRIBUTION
PUMP CAPACITY
Item #16C13
AUTHORIZNG CONVEYANCE OF AN EASEMENT TO
FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (FPL) FOR THE
INSTALLATION OF ELECTRIC FACILITIES TO PROVIDE
ELECTRIC SERVICE FOR THE FOUR SUSTAINABILITY
WELLS 39S, 40S, 41S, 42S IN THE SOUTH COUNTY
REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT (SCRWTP) - TO
IMPROVE SERVICE AND SUSTAINABILITY TO ENSURE THE
ABILITY TO MEET PEAK WATER DEMANDS
Item #16D1
AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT
Page 355
September 12-13, 2006
WITH THE FLORIDA DIVISION OF LIBRARY AND
INFORMATION SERVICES BILL AND MELINDA GATES
FOUNDATION GRANT PERMITTING THE COLLIER COUNTY
PUBLIC LIBRARY TO RECEIVE $31,500 AWARDED BY THE
BILL AND MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION PUBLIC ACCESS
HARDWARE UPGRADE GRANT - FOR UPGRADING THE
PUBLIC ACCESS COMPUTER EQUIPMENT
Item #16D2
RESCIND APPROVAL OF SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT NO. OT060123 AS APPROVED BY THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON DECEMBER 13, 2005 AND
PROVIDE AFTER- THE-FACT APPROVAL FOR A CORRECTED
VERSION OF THE AGREEMENT SIGNED BY THE COUNTY
MANAGER IN THE BOARDS ABSENCE - TO CONSERVE
WATER RESOURCES WHILE MAINTAINING THE HIGHEST
QUAIL TY PARK FACILITIES AT THE LOWEST COST BY
UTILIZING AVAILABLE GRANT PROGRAMS
Item #16D3
A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY,
THE FLORIDA STATE DIVISION OF CULTURAL AFFAIRS,
AND THE CHILDREN'S MUSEUM OF NAPLES, INC. IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE ISSUANCE OF A $500,000 GRANT
FROM THE DIVISION OF CULTURAL AFFAIRS TO THE
CHILDREN'S MUSEUM OF NAPLES, INC. FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A CHILDREN'S MUSEUM - TO BE
LOCATED AT THE NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL PARK
Page 356
September 12-13, 2006
Item #16D4
ESTABLISHMENT OF A LIMITED CAPACITY HURRICANE
EV ACUA TION PET -ADJACENCY SHELTER PROGRAM AND
FOR APPROVAL OF A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO FUND THE
PURCHASE OF PET -ADJACENCY SHELTER SUPPLIES AND
EQUIPMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $24,500.00 - TO SUPPORT
EV ACUESS AND THEIR PETS IN COUNTY EVACUATION
SHELTERS
Item #16D5
ACCEPTANCE OF THE LIBRARY LONG RANGE PLAN AND
TECHNOLOGY PLAN, INCLUDING THE CURRENT YEAR
ACTION PLAN AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN
THE FY 2006-2007 STATE AID TO LIBRARIES GRANT
APPLICATION FOR FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
DIVISION OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICES,
PERMITTING THE COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY TO
APPL Y FOR IN THE STATE AID TO LIBRARIES GRANT
PROGRAM - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16D6
A REQUEST TO APPLY FOR A FLORIDA RECREATION
DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM GRANT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $200,000 FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO DELASOL
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK - FOR A PLAYGROUND AND
EQUIPMENT, PICNIC SHELTER WITH SITE FURNITURE,
PATHWAYS/SIDEWALKS, FENCING, SIGNAGE AND EXOTIC
REMOV AL
Page 357
September 12-13, 2006
Item #16D7
A REQUEST TO APPLY FOR A FLORIDA RECREATION
DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM GRANT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $200,000 FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO GOLDEN
GATE COMMUNITY PARK - FOR IRRIGATION
IMPROVEMENTS, FRESH WATER BOAT RAMP WITH
PARKING, LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS, FENCING
IMPROVEMENTS AND A P A VILLION
Item #16D8
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERRING $100,000 FROM
BA YVIEW DREDGING (PROJECT #80003) TO FUND AN
ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING AND CONSTRUCTION OF
BOATING DOCKS AT BA YVIEW PARK. (PROJECT #80045) -
FOR THE DESIGN OF A COURETSY DOCK AND A
HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE DOCK
Item #16E1
APPROVAL OF PHASE II DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT OF THE
ENTERPRISE CONTENT MANAGEMENT STRATEGY,
PROJECT 500421, IN THE AMOUNT OF $155,000.00 - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item # 16E2
AN AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE THE GOLDEN GATE FIRE
CONTROL & RESCUE DISTRICT $2,900 FROM THE GAC
LAND TRUST FUND FOR THE PURCHASE OF EDUCATIONAL
MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES TO COMPLIMENT THE
Page 358
September 12-13, 2006
LESSONS OF TEACHING FIRE SAFETY AND DISASTER
PREPAREDNESS TO CHILDREN LOCATED IN GOLDEN GATE
ESTATES
Item # 16E3
AWARD CONTRACT #06-3971 ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR
GENERAL CONTRACTORS SERVICES TO THE FOLLOWING
FIRMS: LODGE CONSTRUCTION, INC.; PROFESSIONAL
BUILDING SYSTEMS, D/B/A PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
SYSTEMS; THE CHRIS-TEL COMPANY AND WM. J. VARIAN
CONSTRUCTION CO. INC. ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT
$1,000,000 - FOR GENERAL CONTRACTOR SERVICES ON AN
AS NEEDED BASIS
Item #16E4
ESTABLISHMENT OF AN INFORMAL PROGRAM FOR THE
RECOGNITION OF "ABOVE AND BEYOND" PERFORMANCE
OF COLLIER COUNTY EMPLOYEES - TO PROMOTE
POSITIVE BEHAVIOR AND BOOST MORALE
Item # 16E5
A CHANGE TO WORK ORDER #UC-131 UNDER CONTRACT
#04-3535, ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR UNDERGROUND
CONSTRUCTION, WITH D. N. HIGGINS, INC. TO PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL SERVICES FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY
GOVERNMENT FORCE MAIN ADDITION, PROJECT 52005, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $45,918.49 - FOR ACCELERATING THE
WORK RIGHT AFTER HURRICANE WILMA AND FOR THE
EXTENSION OF THE 8" RE-USE LINE THAT WAS
Page 359
September 12-13, 2006
ENCOUNTERED DURING CONSTRUCTION
Item #16E6
AWARD OF BID NO. 06-3993 TO COMMERCIAL LAND
MAINTENANCE FOR "GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FOR
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT FACILITIES" IN THE
AMOUNT OF $502,812 - TO ENSURE COUNTY PROPERTIES
ARE KEPT NEAT, CLEAN, AND PROFESSIONALLY
LANDSCAPED
Item #16E7
AWARD OF BID NO. 06-3956R FOR THE PURCHASE OF
HARDWARE AND RELATED ITEMS TO SUNSHINE ACE
HARDWARE, INC. AND GRAINGER - FOR THE
MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF COUNTY -OWNED
STRUCTURES
Item # 16E8
FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT WITH NEXTEL
SOUTH CORP., FOR GROUND SPACE REQUIRED IN ORDER
TO INSTALL AN EMERGENCY GENERATOR TO SERVICE
COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT ON THE ROOF OF
BUILDING L - FOR INSTALLATION OF CELLULAR
COMMUNICATIONS ANTENNAS ON THE ROOF OF THE
MAIN COURTHOUSE
Item #16E9 - MOVED TO ITEM #10F
Item #16E10
Page 360
September 12-13, 2006
REPORT AND RATIFY STAFF - APPROVED CHANGE
ORDERS AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS TO BOARD -
FOR PERIOD OF AUGUST 8, 2006 THROUGH AUGUST 17,
2006
Item #16E11
APPROVAL OF SUBMITTAL OF GRANT APPLICATIONS TO
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
FOR THE HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM (HMGP),
TOTALING A REQUEST OF $457,675 - TO FUND THE
REDUCTION OR ELIMINATION OF THE LOSS OF LIFE AND
PUBLIC PROPERTY DUE TO NATURAL AND MAN-MADE
DISASTERS
Item #16E12
RESOLUTION 2006-221: A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
2007 FISCAL YEAR PAY AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN,
PROVIDING FOR A GENERAL WAGE ADJUSTMENT AND
MERIT INCREASE EFFECTIVE ON SEPTEMBER 16~ 2006
Item #16E13
AWARD CONTRACT #06-3987 FIXED TERM PROFESSIONAL
CEI SERVICES TO THE FOLLOWING FIRMS: AIM
ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, INC.; CH2M HILL, INC.;
MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING, INC.;
CONSTRUCTION DYNAMICS GROUP, INC., AN ARCADIS
COMPANY; BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION, AND
POST, BUCKLEY, SCHUH AND JERNIGAN, INC.(PBS&J) -
Page 361
September 12-13, 2006
FOR MULTIPLE PROJECTS WITHOUT ISSUING INDIVIDUAL
REQUESTS FOR PROPOSAL
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
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER $74,000 FROM
GOVERNMENT SECURITY PERSONNEL SERVICES TO
GOVERNMENT SECURITY OTHER CONTRACTUAL
SERVICES TO COVER THE OPERATING COSTS OF
CONTRACT SECURITY SERVICES
Item #16F1-B
THE COUNTY MANAGER, IN ABSENCE OF THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, APPROVES AWARD OF BID #06-
4022 "PURCHASE OF ONE (1) 4500 GALLON FUEL TRUCK"
TO HEINTZELMAN'S TRUCK CENTER~ INC.
Page 362
September 12-13, 2006
Item #16F1-C
APPROVAL OF A PAYMENT TO VENDORS FOR REVIEW
AND APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT
Item #16F1-D
ACCEPTENCE A GRANT OFFER FROM THE FEDERAL
AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA) AND AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE GRANT AGREEMENT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $105,308 AND APPROVE ALL NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENTS. THIS GRANT IS PROVIDED TO
UPDATE THE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN STUDY FOR THE
MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT. COLLIER
COUNTY'S MAXIMUM MATCH FOR THIS GRANT IS $5~542
Item #16F1-E
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $166,396 TO
FUND 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,
APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ON JULY 25~ 2006
Item #16F1-F
AWARD CONTRACT(S) #06-3970 "FIXED TERM
Page 363
September 12-13, 2006
PROFESSIONAL MECHANICAL-ELECTRICAL
ENGINEERING" TO THE FOLLOWING FIRMS: CH2M HILL,
INC.; MATERN PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING, P.E. AND
ANCHOR ENGINEERING CONSUL T ANTS~ INC
Item #16F1-G
APPROVAL OF A BUDGET AMENDMENT WITHIN THE
HURRICANE WILMA COST CENTER
Item #16F1-H
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $66,000 TO
REALLOCATE FUNDS WITHIN THE WATER
ADMINISTRATION COST CENTER AND TRANSFER FUNDS
FROM THE WATER DISTRIBUTION COST CENTER FOR THE
PAYMENT OF SALARIES IN THE WATER ADMINISTRATION
COST CENTER
Item #16F1-I
RESOLUTION 2006-202: A RESOLUTION PROHIBITING THE
OPERATION OF TRUCKS AND OTHER COMMERCIAL
VEHICLES HAVING A GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT IN EXCESS
OF FIVE (5) TONS FROM THROUGH-MOVEMENTS ON
ORANGE BLOSSOM DRIVE AT A COST OF $1200
Item #16F1-J
A GRANT AGREEMENT OFFERED BY THE FEDERAL
AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA) IN THE SUM OF
$750,039, AND TO APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO
Page 364
September 12-13, 2006
FUND THE COUNTY'S LOCAL MATCH IN THE SUM OF
$22,958. THIS GRANT IS PROVIDED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
THE EXTENSION OF TAXIWAY "C" AT THE IMMOKALEE
AIRPORT, INCLUDING LIGHTING, SIGNAGE, AND
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
Item #16F1-K
A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING CARRY FORWARD
AMOUNTS FROM FY 04-05 BUDGET FOR THE PUD
MONITORING PROJECT (69124) WITHIN THE
TRANSPORTATION SUPPORTED GAS TAX FUND (313) IN
THE AMOUNT OF $122~065.80
Item #16F1-L
A GRANT OFFER FROM THE FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION (FAA) AND AUTHORIZE THE BOARD'S
CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE GRANT AGREEMENT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $149,435 AND APPROVE ALL NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENTS. THIS GRANT IS PROVIDED TO
UPDATE THE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN STUDY FOR THE
IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT. COLLIER COUNTY'S
MAXIMUM MATCH FOR THIS GRANT IS $7~865
Item #16F1-M
THE AFTER-THE-FACT EXPENDITURE OF $244,897.50 AND
TO WAIVE THE COMPETITIVE PROCESS TO REIMBURSE
FOR THE REPAIR OF DRIVEWAYS IN GOLDEN GATE
ESTATES
Page 365
September 12-13, 2006
Item #16F1-N
APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Item #16F1-0
REPORT AND RATIFY STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS
AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS TO BOARD-APPROVED
CONTRACTS
Item #16F1-P
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE ADDITIONAL
REVENUE FOR VARIOUS PROJECTS WITHIN THE
TRANSPORTATION SUPPORTED GAS TAX FUND (313) IN
THE AMOUNT OF $369,500 FOR PROJECT NO(S). 60169, 60066,
60062~ AND 60044
Item #16F1-Q
A BUDGET AMENDMENT APPROPRIATING THOSE
REVENUES RECEIVED FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF
OPERATING EXPENSES INCURRED FOR BUILDING
MAINTENANCE AND CUSTODIAL SERVICES KNOWN AS
SPECIAL SERVICES
Item #16F1-R
AN UPDATED RENEWAL AGREEMENT FOR DELIVERY AND
REUSE OF RECLAIMED WATER, AND TERMINATE THE
EXISTING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY
WATER-SEWER DISTRICT, AND THE CLUB AT PELICAN
Page 366
September 12-13, 2006
BA Y~ INC
Item #16F1-S
TO FIND A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE FOR THE PAYMENT OF
$2,230 FROM FUND 131 FOR THE PURCHASE OF 400
HYGIENE KITS DISTRIBUTED TO THE HOMELESS IN
JANUARY 2006
Item # 16F2
THE AFTER-THE-FACT SUBMITTAL OF A VOLUNTEER FIRE
ASSISTANCE GRANT APPLICATION TO THE FLORIDA
DIVISION OF FORESTRY FOR REQUIRED WILDFIRE
PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
Item #16F3
APPROVAL OF A THREE (3) YEAR RENEWAL OF A
TECHNICAL SERVICE SUPPORT AGREEMENT WITH
MEDTRONIC EMERGENCY RESPONSE SYSTEMS, INC. FOR
THE PERIOD OCTOBER 1,2006 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30,
2009 FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND UPGRADE OF LIFEPAK
MONITORS FOR THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
DEPARTMENT AT AN ANNUAL COST OF $34,683 - THIS
PIECE OF EQUIPMENT MONITORS THE ECG
CONTINUOUSLY MEASURES THE LEVEL OF OXYGEN IN
THE BLOOD AND ALSO PROVIDES DEFIBILLATION AND
PACING TO HELP TO MAINTAIN THE HEART'S RHYTHM
Item #16F4
Page 367
September 12-13,2006
APPROVAL OF THE ANNUAL FIVE PERCENT (5%)
INCREASE IN CONSULTANT FEES FOR THE MEDICAL
DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AS
DESCRIBED IN THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
MEDICAL CONSULTANT CONTRACT FORA TOTAL OF
$95~700 FOR FY 07
Item #16F5
AN AMENDMENT TO LICENSE AGREEMENTS EXTENDING
THE ALLOWABLE PERIOD OF USE OF W AL-MART'S FOUR
NAPLES STORES' PARKING LOTS TO INCLUDE THE 2006
HURRICANE SEASON. THE LOTS ARE USED FOR
DISTRIBUTION OF DISASTER RELIEF SUPPLIES TO THE
PUBLIC - FOR THE PUBLIC IN THE AFTERMATH OF A
MAJOR DISASTER
Item #16F6
AWARD OF RFP #06-3978R BEACH MAINTENANCE
ACTIVITIES TO LIGHTNER CONTRACTING, INC. FOR AN
ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $197,000 PER YEAR ON A UNIT
PRICE/TIME AND MATERIAL AS-NEEDED BASIS - FOR
BEACH TILLING REQUIRED BY FDEP PERMITS,
ESCARPMENT REMOVAL, AND GRADING AND MAJOR FISH
KILL REMOVAL
Item # 16F7
A TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY A FY 06-07
TOURISM GRANT APPLICATIONS AND AGREEMENT
SUBMITTED BY THE CITY OF NAPLES FOR CATEGORY A
Page 368
September 12-13, 2006
CITY OF NAPLES PROJECTS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$151,200.00. APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM WILL BE
CONTINGENT ON FINAL ADOPTION OF THE FY 06-07
BUDGET BY THE BCC ON SEPTEMBER 21~ 2006
Item #16F8
RESOLUTION 2006-222: A RESOLUTION TO UPDATE USER
FEES FOR COLLIER COUNTY AMBULANCE SERVICES,
WHICH RESOLUTION SUPERSEDES AND REPLACES
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-224, RESULTING IN REVENUES OF
APPROXIMATELY $12,397,532 IN FY 07 - AS DETAILED IN
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16F9
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO FUND THE PURCHASE OF
VEHICLE FOR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND
EQUIPMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $45,300.00 - TO MAINTAIN
OPERATIONS ON A DAILY BASIS AND DURING TIMES OF
EMERGENCIES
Item #16F10
APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENTS - #06-527, FOR
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR RANDALL
BOULEVARD ROAD WIDENING AND #06-564, TO COMPLETE
THE RESTORATION AND RENOVATION WORK ON THE
CHURCH BUILDING AT ROBERT'S RANCH
Item #16G1
Page 369
September 12-13, 2006
APPROVAL OF SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND A GRANT APPLICANT
WITHIN THE BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA - TO PROVIDE AN
INCENTIVE TO REVITALIZE THE AREA BY PROVIDING A
MATCHING GRANT TO ENCOURAGE THE PRIVATE SECTOR
TO INVEST IN THEIR PROPERTY
Item #16G2
THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA)
APPROVAL OF FOUR LOCAL ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS
AND CRA STAFF ATTENDANCE AT FLORIDA
REDEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION 2006 ANNUAL
CONFERENCE; AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OF ATTENDEES
REGISTRATION, LODGING, TRAVEL AND PER DIEM FROM
THE BA YSHORE GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE TRUST FUND (FUND
187) TRAVEL BUDGET; AND DECLARE THE TRAINING
RECEIVED AS SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16H1
COMMISSIONER COLETTA REQUESTS APPROVAL FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING
A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. COMMISSIONER PAID IN
ADVANCE TO ATTEND THE ULI SOUTHWEST FLORIDA
DISTRICT COUNCIL'S PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS
CONFERENCE ON SEPTEMBER 14,2006 AND IS
REQUESTING REIMBURSEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $20.00
TO BE PAID FROM HIS TRAVEL BUDGET
Page 370
September 12-13, 2006
Item #16H2
COMMISSIONER HALAS REQUESTS BOARD APPROVAL FOR
REIMBURSEMENT TO ATTEND A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. ATTENDING THE SOUTHWEST
FLORIDA BLUE CHIP RECOGNITION BREAKFAST AT THE
HILTON NAPLES & TOWERS ON NOVEMBER 2, 2006. $10.00
FEE TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HALAS' TRAVEL
BUDGET AND REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE
END OF FY 2006
Item #16H3
COMMISSIONER HALAS REQUESTS BOARD APPROVAL FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING
A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. ATTENDED A
COMMEMORATION CEREMONY ON THE 5TH
ANNIVERSARY OF 9/11 AT THE NAPLES ITALIAN
AMERICAN CLUB ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2006; $5.00 TO BE
PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HALAS' TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #16H4
COMMISSIONER HALAS REQUESTS BOARD APPROVAL FOR
REIMBURSEMENT TO ATTEND A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. ATTENDING THE FLORIDA SEA
GRANT RECEPTION ON SEPTEMBER 14,2006 AT THE
ROOKERY BAY NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH
RESERVE ENVIRONMENTAL LEARNING CENTER; $10.00 TO
BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HALAS' TRAVEL BUDGET
Page 371
September 12-13, 2006
Item #16H5
COMMISSIONER HALAS REQUESTS BOARD APPROVAL FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION
SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. ATTENDED A
RECEPTION, HOSTED BY WASTE MANAGEMENT, AT THE
FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES (F AC) 77TH ANNUAL
CONFERENCE AND EDUCATIONAL EXPOSITION IN MARCO
ISLAND; $17.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HALAS'
TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #1611
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR
REFERRED:
THE FOLLOWING MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE, AS
PRESENTED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
HAS BEEN DIRECTED TO THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS AS
INDICATED:
Page 372
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
September 12, 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) June 24 through June 30, 3006
(2) July 1, 2006 through July 7, 2006
(3) July 8,2006 through July 14, 2006
(4) July 15, 2006 through July 22, 2006
(5) July 23, 2006 through July 28, 2006
(6) July 29, 2006 through August 4, 2006
B. Districts:
(1) Big Cypress Basin Board of the South Florida Water
Manaqement District: Meeting Minutes of March 31,2006;
Meeting Minutes for April 27, 2006.
(2) Heritaqe Greens Community Development District: Meeting
Minutes of May 17,2006; Agenda for May 17, 2006.
(3) Port of the Islands Community Improvement District: Meeting
Minutes of March 10, 2006; Meeting Minutes of April 14, 2006;
Meeting Minutes of May 12, 2006; Agenda of March 10, 2006;
Agenda of April 14, 2006; Agenda of May 12, 2006.
C. Minutes:
(1) Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory
Board: Agenda for July 11, 2006; Meeting Minutes of
June 6, 2006.
(a) Bayshore/Shadowlawn Corridor Traffic Study Public
H:\DATA\FRONT DESK - 2006\2006 Miscellaneous Correspondence\091206 Misc Corresp.doc
Workshop: Meeting Minutes of May 8 & 9, 2006.
(2) Coastal Advisory Committee: Meeting Minutes of March 9,
2006; Meeting Minutes of April 13, 2006.
(3) Collier County Airport Authority: Agenda for August 14, 2006;
Meeting Minutes of June 12, 2006.
(4) Collier County Code Enforcement Board: Meeting Minutes of
January 26, 2006; Meeting Minutes of February 23, 2006;
Meeting Minutes of March 23, 2006; Meeting Minutes of April
27, 2006; Meeting Minutes of May 25, 2006; Meeting Minutes of
June 22, 2006.
(a) Collier County Special Master: Meeting Minutes of January
6, 2006; Meeting Minutes of February 17, 2006; Meeting
Minutes of March 3, 2006; Meeting Minutes of March 17,
2006; Meeting Minutes of April 7, 2006; Meeting Minutes of
April 21, 2006; Meeting Minutes of July 7, 2006; Meeting
Minutes of July 21, 2006; Meeting Minutes of May 5, 2006;
Meeting Minutes of May 19, 2006; Meeting Minutes of June
16,2006.
(5) Collier County Citizens Corps Advisory Committee: Agenda for
July 19, 2006 Meeting; Meeting Minutes of July 19, 2006;
Meeting Minutes of June 21, 2006.
(6) Collier County Planning Commission: Agenda for August 3,
2006; Meeting Minutes of June 15, 2006; Agenda for August
17, 2006; Meeting Minutes of July 6, 2006.
(7) Collier County Contractors' Licensina Board: Agenda for
July 19, 2006.
(8) Historic and Archaeoloaical Preservation Board: Agenda for
August 16, 2006; Meeting Minutes of June 21, 2006; Notice of
Meeting Cancellation for July 19, 2006 due to staff unavailable.
(9) Development Services Advisory Committee: Meeting Minutes
of June 7, 2006; Agenda for August 2, 2006.
(10) Golden Gate M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee: Agenda for
H:\DATA\FRONT DESK - 2006\2006 Miscellaneous Correspondence\091206 Misc Corresp.doc
August 8, 2006; Meeting Minutes of July 11, 2006.
H:\DATA\FRONT DESK - 2006\2006 Miscellaneous Correspondence\091206 Misc Corresp.doc
(11) Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee: Agenda for
March 27, 2006; Meeting Minutes of March 27, 2006; Agenda
for May 22, 2006; Meeting Minutes of May 22, 2006; Agenda
for June 29,2006 Special Meeting; Minutes of June 29,2006
Special Meeting.
(12) Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board: Agenda for June 22,2006;
Meeting Minutes of June 22, 2006.
(13) Immokalee Beautification M.S.T.U.: Agenda for September 20,
2006; Meeting Minutes of August 16, 2006; Meeting Minutes of
July 17,2006.
(14) Immokalee Master Plan and Visionina Committee: Agenda for
January 4, 2006; Agenda for March 1, 2006; Agenda for April 4,
2006; Meeting Minutes of January 4, 2006; Meeting Minutes of
March 1, 2006; Meeting Minutes for April 4, 2006; Agenda for
January 18, 2006 IMPVC & CRA Advisory Board Joint Meeting;
Agenda for February 15, 2006 IMPVC & CRA Advisory Board Joint
Meeting; Agenda for February 22,2006 IMPVC & CRA Advisory
Board Joint Meeting; Agenda for March 15,2006 IMPVC & CRA
Advisory Board Joint Meeting; Agenda for April 19, 2006 IMPVC &
CRA Advisory Board Joint Meeting; Agenda for May 17, 2006
IMPVC & CRA Advisory Board Joint Meeting; Agenda for June 21,
2006 IMPVC & CRA/EZDA Advisory Board Joint Meeting; Agenda
for July 19, 2006 IMPVC & CRA/EZDA Joint Meeting; Meeting
Minutes of January 18, 2006 IMPVC & CRA Advisory Board Joint
Meeting; Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2006 IMPVC & CRA
Advisory Board Joint Meeting; Meeting Minutes of February 22,
2006 IMPVC & CRA Advisory Board Joint Meeting; Meeting
Minutes of March 15, 2006 IMPVC & CRA Advisory Board Joint
Meeting; Meeting Minutes of April 19, 2006 IMPVC & CRA
Advisory Board Joint Meeting; Meeting Minutes of May 17, 2006
IMPVC & CRA Advisory Board Joint Meeting; Meeting Minutes of
June 21,2006 IMPVC & CRA/EZDA Advisory Board Joint
Meeting; Meeting Minutes of July 19, 2006 IMPVC & CRA/EZDA
Advisory Board Joint Meeting.
H:\DATA\FRONT DESK - 2006\2006 Miscellaneous Correspondence\091206 Mise Corresp.doc
(15) Isles of Capri Fire/Rescue Advisory Board: Agenda for August
3, 2006; Agenda for July 6, 2006; Agenda for June 1, 2006;
Agenda for May 4,2006; Agenda for April 6, 2006; Agenda for
March 2, 2006; Agenda for February 2, 2006; Agenda for
January 5, 2006.
(16) Lely Golf Estates Beautification M.S.T.U.: Agenda for July 20,
2006; Minutes of July 6, 2006 Special Meeting; Meeting
Minutes of July 14, 2006 Special Meeting; Agenda for July 20,
2006.
(17) Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board: Meeting Minutes
of December 12, 2005; Meeting Minutes of April 10, 2006;
Meeting Minutes of October 10, 2005.
(18) County Government Productivity Committee: Agenda for
June 21, 2006; Meeting Minutes of June 21, 2006.
(a) Impact Fees for Government Buildinas & Law Enforcement
Subcommittee: Meeting Minutes for May 17, 2006.
(b) Administrative Services Budget Review Sub-Committee:
Meeting Minutes of June 21, 2006.
(19) Parks and Recreation Advisory Board: Agenda for August 16,
2006; Meeting Minutes of August 16, 2006.
(20) Pelican Bay Services Division: Agenda for August 2,2006;
Meeting Minutes of June 28, 2006
(a) Clam Bay Subcommittee: Agenda for August 2, 2006;
Meeting Minutes of May 17, 2006
(21 ) Public Vehicle Advisory Committee: Agenda for September 11,
2006; Meeting Minutes of February 6, 2006; Meeting Minutes of
March 6, 2006; Meeting Minutes of April 3, 2006; Meeting
Minutes of May 1, 2006; Meeting Minutes of June 5, 2006;
Meeting Minutes of July 10, 2006.
(a) Public Vehicle Advisory Committee Workshop: Meeting
Minutes for May 1, 2006.
(22) Southwest Florida Expressway Authority: Request for Legal
H:\DATA\FRONT DESK - 2006\2006 Miscellaneous Correspondence\091206 Misc Corresp.doc
Advertising of Public Meeting and Proposed Agenda for May
18,2006.
(23) Tourist Development Council: Meeting Minutes of May 22,
2006; Meeting Minutes of April 24, 2006; Meeting Minutes of
March 27, 2006; Meeting Minutes of January 23,2006.
H:\DATA\FRONT DESK - 2006\2006 Miscellaneous Correspondence\091206 Misc Corresp.doc
September 12-13, 2006
Item #16J1
AUTHORIZING THE EXTENSION OF THE TAX ROLL BEFORE
COMPLETION OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
HEARINGS PURSUANT TO SECTION 197.373, F.S., AND TAX
COLLECTORS REQUEST - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16K1
AN AGREED ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF EXPERT FEES IN
CONNECTION WITH PARCEL 103 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. SUSAN C. HALLOCK, ET AL. CASE NO.
05-0646-CA (COUNTY ROAD 951 PROJECT #65061) - FOR
EXPERT APPRAISAL FEES AND DEPOSITION COSTS
Item #16K2
A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$89,359.00 FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PARCELS 105 AND 705
IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. RAYMOND
A. MCCAULEY, ET AL., CASE NO. 05-0633-CA (COUNTY
ROAD 951 (CR 951) PROJECT #65061) - WITH THE
CONDITION THAT FPL RELOCATES ITS TRANSMISSION
LINES AND POLE WITHIN SIX MONTHS
Item #16K3
A MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND A
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT TO BE DRAFTED
INCORPORATING THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS
THE MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RELATIVE TO
Page 373
September 12-13, 2006
THE ACQUISITION OF PARCELS 110 AND 710 IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. SALVATORE
VILLANUEVA, JR., ET AL., CASE NO. 05-1000-CA (COUNTY
ROAD 951 (CR 951) PROJECT #65061) - W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16K4
A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$55,000.00 FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PARCELS 111 AND 711
IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. RAYMOND
A. MCCAULEY, ET AL., CASE NO. 05-0633-CA (COUNTY
ROAD 951 (CR 951) PROJECT #65061) - W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16K5
A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR PARCEL NO. lOT IN
THE LAWSUIT STYLED BCC V. A.L. PETROLEUM, INC., ET
AL., CASE NO. 06-0185-CA (CR 951 WATER TRANSMISSION
MAINS PROJECT NO. 70151) - W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16K6
A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR PARCEL NO. 801 IN
THE LAWSUIT STYLED CC V. JAMES M. BROWN, ET AL.,
CASE NO. 06-0525-CA (SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD
PROJECT NO. 62081) - WITH ADDITIONAL EXPERT
APPRAISAL AND ENGINEERING FEES AND STATUTORY
ATTORNEY'S FEES
Item #16K7
A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR PARCEL NO. 131 IN
Page 374
September 12-13,2006
THE LAWSUIT STYLED CC V. WEST COAST DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION OF NAPLES, INC., ET AL., CASE NO. 06-0708-
CA (SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD PROJECT NO. 62081) -
AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16K8
A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR PARCEL NO. 132 IN
THE LAWSUIT STYLED CC V. WEST COAST DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION OF NAPLES, INC., ET AL., CASE NO. 06-0708-
CA (SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD PROJECT NO. 62081) -
W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16K9
THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RELATIVE TO THE
ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 97/714 IN THE LAWSUIT
ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V. ANTHONY M. DANTUONO,
ET AL., CASE NO. 91-3983-CA (NAPLES PRODUCTION PARK
MSTU PROJECT) AND THE PHYSICAL APPROPRIATION OF
OTHER EASEMENTS - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16K10
RESOLUTION 2006-223: A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE
COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MASTER REVIEW BOARD
PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE 2004-46, THE COLLIER COUNTY
CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL MASTER ORDINANCE - TO
RECOMMEND APPOINTMENT FOR THE SPECIAL
MASTER(S) AND REVIEW THE PERFORMANCE OF THE
SPECIAL MASTER(S) TO THE COMMISSION
Page 375
September 12-13, 2006
Item #16K11
A SETTLEMENT IN THE LAWSUIT RANDALL HUBBARD, AS
PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF PAMELA
S. HUBBARD, ET AL. V. COLLIER COUNTY, FILED IN THE
TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, CASE NO. 04-1676CA, FOR
$100~000 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16K12
AN AGREED ORDER AWARDING APPRAISAL FEES FOR
PARCEL 148 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY
V. ZIAD SHAHLA, ET AL., CASE NO. 04-600-CA
(VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD PROJECT NO. 63051)
Item #16K13
A SETTLEMENT IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED MARIA T.
PANICCIA, ET AL. V. SCHWAB-READY MIX, INC., ET AL.,
FILED IN THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CASE NO. 03-3231-CA, FOR
$200~000.00 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16K14
A FORMAL RESPONSE BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS TO THE AUGUST 14, 2006 LETTER FROM
THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
REGARDING THE LAKE TRAFFORD SPOIL SITE AND
AUTHORIZE ITS EXECUTION AND DELIVERY BY
CHAIRMAN HALAS
Page 376
September 12-13, 2006
Item #16K15
RESOLUTION 2006-224: A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
2007 FISCAL YEAR PAY AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN,
PROVIDING FOR A GENERAL WAGE ADJUSTMENT (COLA)
AND MERIT INCREASE FOR THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY, EFFECTIVE ON SEPTEMBER 16, 2006 (THE
FIRST DAY OF THE FIRST PAY PERIOD IN FISCAL YEAR
2007) - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #17A
RESOLUTION 2006-225: PETITION A VPLAT-2006-AR-9960
VICTORIA FALLS TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE
THE COUNTYS AND THE PUBLICS INTEREST IN A PORTION
OF A 12 DRAINAGE EASEMENT ACROSS LOT 1, BLOCK C,
HABITAT VILLAGE AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 37, PAGE
48 -51 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2006-226: PETITION A VESMT -2006-AR-9436
OFFICE DEPOT TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE
THE COUNTYS AND THE PUBLICS INTEREST IN A TEN
FOOT WIDE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT LYING IN PART
OF LOTS 11, 12, 13, 14,49,50,51 AND 52, BLOCK 7 OF
NAPLES PARK UNIT 1, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1,
PAGE 106 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA; AND ALL OF THAT 7.5 FOOT WIDE PUBLIC
UTILITY EASEMENT LYING OVER THE EAST 7.5 FEET OF
Page 377
September 12-13, 2006
LOTS 11, AND 52, BLOCK 7 OF NAPLES PARK, UNIT 1, AS
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 106 OF THE PUBLIC
RECORDS COLLIER COUNTY~ FLORIDA
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 2006-227: PETITION A VROW-2006-AR-9221 TO
DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTYS AND
THE PUBLICS INTEREST IN A 10 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT
LOCATED ON TRACTS 24, 25, 26, 27, AND 28, A 15 FOOT
DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED ON TRACT 26, AND A
PORTION OF A 60 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY KNOWN AS
TOLLHOUSE DRIVE TRACT A ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF
TOLLGATE COMMERCIAL CENTER PHASE THREE AS
RECORDED AT PLAT BOOK 22 PAGES 95 THROUGH 100
PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY~ FLORIDA
Item #17D
RESOLUTION 2006-228: PETITION A VESMT-2006-AR-9540 TO
DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND V ACA TE THE COUNTYS AND
THE PUBLICS INTEREST IN TWO RIGHT-OF-WAY
EASEMENTS LOCATED IN SECTION 18 TOWNSHIP 49
SOUTH RANGE 26 EAST AND AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF
ANDALUCIA AS RECORDED AT PLAT BOOK 43 PAGES 95
THROUGH 97 PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
Item #17E
RESOLUTION 2006-229: SV-2006-AR-9662: COLLIER
REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, REPRESENTED BY TRENT
Page 378
September 12-13, 2006
ECKFELD, OF ARCHITECTURAL IDENTIFICATION, INC.,
REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED
NUMBER OF DIRECTIONAL, GROUND/POLE, AND WALL
SIGNS ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 5.06.05 OF THE LDC. THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE EAST SIDE OF
THE INTERSECTION OF COLLIER BOULEVARD AND LEL Y
CULTURAL PARKWAY, IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50
SOUTH~ RANGE 26 EAST~ COLLIER COUNTY~ FLORIDA
Item #17F - MOVED TO ITEM #8E
Page 379
September 12-13,2006
~~C
***** ~I'O' OCl t? "$iV-I:'-.
0/'(.... 9 <J <....()
0(f.fJ~ ~
00
"1)0.'
~o
There being no further business for the good of the County ~~the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:00 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL.
~~e/
FRANK HALAS, Chairman
ATTEST:
~~~/~
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
,jttl't IS to Ch&1na&n ,
. . . ,
. s 1 q,ri It ;Jf".)(\ :
...."o"i':.,
" .
ft, . .,,'
/DjID/6Co
These minutes app~y the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM.
Page 380