BCC Minutes 11/14/2006 R
November 14,2006
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, November 14, 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
Donna Fiala
Tom Henning
Fred W. Coyle (Absent)
ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Crystal Kinzel, Office of the Clerk of Court
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
II' ...':'.'..' '.'
........,
"'.....~
,
_.... .-.,.~~ ~ .. . ~
AGENDA
November 14, 2006
9:00 AM
Frank Halas, Chairman, District 2
Jim Coletta, Vice-Chairman, District 5
Donna Fiala, Commissioner, District 1
Tom Henning, Commissioner, District 3
Fred W. Coyle, Commissioner, District 4
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM
MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER
WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE
AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL
RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY
THE CHAIRMAN.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2004-05, AS AMENDED REQUIRES
THA T ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING
ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS."
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
Page 1
November 14, 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 THREE (3)
MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODA TION IN ORDER TO P ARTICIP ATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE A V AILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of to day's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary agenda.)
B. September 7, 2006 - BCC/Budget Hearing Meeting
C. October 2,2006 - BCC/Permitting Workshop
D. October 10, 2006 - BCC/Regular Meeting
E. October 13,2006 - Value Adjustment Board Meeting
F. October 17,2006 - Value Adjustment Board Meeting
G. October 18,2006 - Value Adjustment Board Meeting
H. October 19, 2006 - Value Adjustment Board Meeting
I. October 20,2006 - Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate Meeting
Page 2
November 14,2006
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
A. Advisory Committee Service Awards
Five Year Awards
1) Mr. William R. Cadwallader, Affordable Housing Commission
2) Mr. Richard Lydon, Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory
Committee
3) Mr. Bradley Schiffer, Board of Building Adjustments and Appeals
4) Mr. Roger Somerville, Forest Lakes Roadway & Drainage Advisory
Committee
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation recognizing November 19th through the 25th as Farm- City
Week. To be accepted by Cyndee Woolley and Bonnie Fauls.
B. Proclamation designating November 15, 2006 as America Recycles Day In
Collier County. To be accepted by Dan Rodriguez.
C. Proclamation recognizing Corporal Andrew J. Pavel for his services in the
United States Marine Corps. To be received by by Corporal Andrew J.
Pavel.
D. Proclamation recognizing November as National Hospice/Palliative Care
Month. To be received by Mary Brodeur, RN and Community Relations
Manager and Barbara Miller, RN.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation of the advisory committee outstanding member award to
Sydney E. Blum, County Government Productivity Committee.
B. Presentation to Keep Collier Beautiful Incorporated in recognition of their
on going partnership with the Citizens of Collier County and to show
appreciation for their many beneficial projects including recycling and waste
Page 3
November 14, 2006
reduction initiatives.
C. Presentation of the WRAP Award, the Waste Reduction Awards Program, to
The Animal Medical Hospital of Naples in recognition of their enhanced
recycling program and positive effect on sustaining the usable life of the
Collier County Landfill.
D. Recommendation to recognize James Maulden, Senior Equipment Operator,
Solid Waste Department, as Employee of the Month for October, 2006.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public petition request by Gene Belsito to discuss a back exit from Falling
Waters (Davis Boulevard) onto Cope Lane
B. Public Petition request by Fred Koppenhafer to discuss Radio Road east of
Santa Barbara Boulevard.
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m., unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners enact an
Ordinance, implementing the Legislative mandate of 163.3180(16), F.S., and
adopting the Collier County Proportionate Fair-Share Program.
B. Recommendation to approve a resolution updating the guidelines and
procedures for the submittal, review and approval of the Transportation
Impact Statement (TIS).
C. This item reQuires that aU participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. PUDEX-2006-AR-
9610 G.L. Homes of Naples II Corporation, represented by Robert Duane, of
Hole Montes, is requesting two 2-year PUD Extensions for the Terafina
pun (Ordinance 04-15) which is scheduled to sunset on March 9, 2007. The
subject property consists of 636.8 acres and is located 1 mile north of
Immokalee Road, north of the Olde Cypress PUD and east of Quail Creek,
Page 4
November 14,2006
in Section 16, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
D. This item reQuires that aU participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-2005-AR-8147,
Vomado Development, Inc., represented by D. Wayne Arnold, ofQ. Grady
Minor and Associates, P.A. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq., ofGoodlette,
Coleman, and Johnson, P.A., is requesting a rezone from the Golf Course
(GC) zoning district to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD)
zoning district, to allow a residential development with a maximum of 3
dwelling units per acre, or 24 total dwelling units in a project known as the
Vomado RPUD. The 8 acre subject property is located off Palm Drive in the
Glades Subdivision, behind the Towne Center Shopping Center, in Sections
12 and 13, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
E. This item reQuires that aU participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. RZ-2005-AR-8039:
SJC Whippoorwill, LLC, represented by Gary Butler of Butler Engineering,
Inc. and Brian Mansour, requesting a rezone from the Agricultural (A)
zoning district to the Residential Multi-Family-6 (RMF-6) zoning district for
a project known as Cayo Whippoorwill. The subject property, consisting of
10 acres, is located at 1450 Whippoorwill Lane, approximately 3,500 feet
south of Pine Ridge Road, in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26
East, Collier County, Florida.
F. This item reQuires that aU participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition: RZ-2005-AR-
8427 Polly Ave, LLC, represented by Tim Hancock, of Davidson
Engineering, Inc., is requesting a rezone. from the Agricultural (A) zoning
district to the Residential Multi-Family 12 (RMF-12) zoning district with a
density of7 dwelling units per acre that would allow 61 multi-family
dwelling units. The petitioner is requesting the higher density based on the
residential infill provision of the Growth Management Plan, Future Land
Use Element Density Rating System. The subject property consists of8.68
acres for project known as Manus Rezone. The subject property is located
off of Rattlesnake-Hammock Road on Polly Avenue, Section 16, Township
50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Page 5
November 14,2006
A. Appointment of member to the Animal Services Advisory Board.
B. Appointment of member to the Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory
Committee.
C. Recommendation to declare a vacancy on the Hispanic Affairs Advisory
Board.
D. Appointment of member to the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board.
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. This item was continued from the September 26th. October 10th. and
October 24th. 2006 BCC meetines. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution
repealing all previous resolutions establishing and amending parts of the
Collier County Parks and Recreation Department Facilities and Outdoor
Areas License and Fee Policy and establishing the policy effective
November 14,2006 and superseding Resolution No. 2006-43 and all other
Resolutions establishing license and fee policy. (Marla Ramsey,
Administrator, Public Services)
B. Recommendation to accept changes to the County purchasing card system
and related procedures, controls and training activities. (Len Price,
Administrator, Administrative Services)
C. Recommendation to approve Collier County's 2007 State Legislative
Priorities and direct the County Manager to provide them to the county's
state lobbyist. (Debbie Wight, Assistant to the County Manager)
D. Recommendation to approve selection of Parsons Brinkerhoff Construction
Services, Inc. a Qualified Firm, and award a Contract under ITN 06-3947
CEI Services for Collier County Road Projects, for Project No. 60101
County Barn Rd. from Rattlesnake Hammock Rd. to Davis Blvd. in the
amount of $2,442,195. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation
Services)
E. Recommendation to award a construction contract to Astaldi Construction
Corporation, for Santa Barbara Boulevard Six-Lane Improvements from
Davis Boulevard to Copper Leaf Lane and Radio Road Four-Lane
Improvements from Santa Barbara Blvd. to Davis Blvd., in the amount of
Page 6
November 14, 2006
$62,051,879.48 including a reserve of $4,587,895.60 in funding allowances
Bid No. 06-4042; Project No. 62081. (Norman Feder, Administrator,
Transportation Services)
F. Recommendation to approve Contract Amendment No.6, Exhibit E, for a
Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) of $36,685,528 under Contract No. 04-
3576, Construction Manager at Risk Services for Courthouse Annex and
Parking Garage, with Kraft Construction Company, Inc. for the construction
of the Courthouse Annex floors 1-7, project number 52533. (Len Price,
Administrator, Administrative Services)
G. Recommendation to approve a change in wastewater service for the Collier
County Government Complex from the City of Naples to the Collier County
Sewer District and to direct the County Manager to negotiate an Inter-Local
Agreement Accord and Satisfaction with the City of Naples to supersede an
existing 1977 Inter-Local Agreement, as amended. (Jim DeLony,
Administrator, Public Utilities)
H. Recommendation to approve a time and materials work order under Contract
#05-3657, Project Management Oversight Services with CH2M Hill, Inc. for
project management and staff support services for the Facilities Management
Department in the estimated amount of $2,900,000. (Len Price,
Administrator, Administrative Services)
I. This item to be heard at 11:00 a.m. Recommendation to adopt
supplemental bond resolutions (1) authorizing the issuance by the Collier
County Water-Sewer District of its Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series
2006, in the aggregate principal amount of not exceeding $120,000,000 in
order to finance various capital improvements to the water and wastewater
utility system and to refinance the District's Revenue Note, Draw No. A-l-l
and Revenue Note, Draw No. A-I-2 currently outstanding in the aggregate
principal amount of $38,000,000 and (2) amending the Bond Resolution to
specifically include the Allowance for Funds Prudently Invested fees (AFPI
Fees) as a component of the gross revenues of the system, which allows such
AFPI Fees to be a part of the pledged funds supporting the payment of debt
service. (Michael Smykowski, Director, Office of Management and Budget)
J. Recommendation to approve Exhibit E, Amendment #1 to Contract #06-
3914, Construction Management at Risk Services for the Collier County
Fleet Facilities with Wright Construction Corp. in the amount of
Page 7
November 14, 2006
$9,272,741.10 for the Fleet Facility, project 52009, Phase 2 which includes
the construction of the new Fleet Management Department facility and to
approve Change #15 to Contract #02-3422, Professional Architectural
Services for New County Fleet Facility, with Disney & Associates, P.A. to
update the architects rate schedule and include additional services necessary
for construction phase 2 in the amount of $60,885. (Len Price,
Administrator, Administrative Services)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. CONSENT AGENDA - AU matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action wiU be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) wiU
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Classics
Plantation Estates Phase Four, approval of the standard form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount
of the performance security.
2) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of
Townhomes at Raffia Preserve, approval of the standard form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount
of the performance security.
3) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Liberty
Landing, approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance
Page 8
November 14, 2006
Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
4) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Artesia
Naples Phase 2, approval of the standard form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
5) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Lipari _
Ponziane, approval of the standard form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
6) Recommendation to approve the after-the-fact submittal of a National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation Grant for the Collier County Sea Turtle
Disorientation Prevention Plan and proceed with the development of
an inter-local agreement with the City of Naples subject to grant
approval.
7) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Italia,
approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
8) Request to open the 2005 cycle of Growth Management Plan
Amendments to allow a 2006 cycle petition to be moved into the 2005
cycle.
9) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the award of RFP #06-4044 to Tindale-Oliver and Associates,
Incorporated for impact fee consulting services.
10) Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Hammock
Isles Replat.
11) Recommendation to approve the Release and Satisfaction of Code
Enforcement Liens for payments received.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution superseding and replacing
Resolution 2005-379 in order to amend the commencement and
Page 9
November 14, 2006
termination of the term of appointed member, William L. Barton, to
the Southwest Florida Expressway Authority.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
one (1) Adopt-a-Road Program Agreement at no cost to the County
because of already existing signs.
3) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution superseding and replacing
Resolution 2005-361 in order to amend the commencement and
termination dates of the term of the appointed member, County
Commissioner Jim Coletta, to the Southwest Florida Expressway
Authority.
4) Recommendation to award Contract #06-3975 Annual Fixed Term
Professional Transportation Planning Consultant Services to six (6)
firms (Estimated Annual Amount $300,000).
5) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment to recognize Carry
Forward in the amount of $93,277.56 and recognize additional
revenue for the Collier County Transportation Pathways Program in
the amount of$97,889.12 for Project No(s). 690811, 600321, 690817,
690822, 600501 and 600331 for a total amount of $191,166.68.
6) Recommendation that the Board approve the maintenance of
agreement between Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)
and Collier County for landscape beautification on US 41 E /SR 90
(St. Andrews to Barefoot Williams Road) and approve a Resolution
evidencing that the Board has approved and authorized the Chairman
to sign this Agreement.
7) Recommendation that the Board approve the maintenance of
agreement between Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)
and Collier County for landscape beautification on US 41 E Phase
E/SR 90 (Barefoot Williams Road to Collier Blvd.) and approve a
Resolution evidencing that the Board has approved and authorized the
Chairman to sign this Agreement.
8) Recommendation that the Board approve the maintenance of
agreement between Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)
and Collier County for landscape beautification on US 41 N Phase 5
Page 10
November 14, 2006
(Wiggins Pass to the Collier/Lee County Line) and approve a
Resolution evidencing that the Board has approved and authorized the
Chairman to sign this Agreement.
9) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve
a budget amendment to transfer funds from County Wide Bikeway
Improvements (Project Number 690811) to Floridan Avenue (Project
Number 601201) in the amount of$283,000 and Immokalee
Sidewalks (Project Number 601202) in the amount of $300,000.
10) Recommendation to approve (1) Resolution authorizing the Chairman
of the Board of County Commissioners to execute a Local Agency
Program Agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation in
which Collier County would be reimbursed up to $330,000 for a Trail
Corridor Study along the FPL transmission lines near Oil Well Road,
Camp Keais Road and a connection to Lee County, and (2) approve
the necessary budget amendments. (Project #601203)
11) Recommendation to approve submittal ofa Targeted Watersheds
Grants Program grant application to the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) for the Gordon River Water Quality Park in
the amount of $989,727.00.
12) Recommendation to approve submittal of a Regional Environmental
Priorities (Region 4) FY 2007 application to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) for the Gordon River
Greenway Park in the amount of $1 00,000.00.
13) Recommendation to award Bid #06-4046 Pine Ridge Road (US 41
North to Logan Blvd.) Annual Landscape Maintenance Contract to
Commercial Land Maintenance in the amount of $191 ,298.15 (Project
#601521,601114 & 740461).
14) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment to transfer funds
from Fund (151) Reserves to Capital Improvements (Fund 151)
totaling $121,100; Sabal Palm MSTBU.
15) Recommendation to accept a warranty deed for the expansion of
Vanderbilt Drive right-of-way associated with the construction of an
underpass for golf carts at the Cocohatchee Bay PUD. (Fiscal Impact:
Page 11
November 14, 2006
$0.00).
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to approve Amendment No. 03 for Contract
ML040284 with the South Florida Water Management District to
reduce the scope of work and decrease the amount of the original
agreement by $25,500.
2) Recommendation to approve an Underground Distribution Facilities
Installation Agreement with Florida Power & Light Company (FPL)
and authorize payment of $20,594.66 to FPL to provide and install
underground electric service to the South County Regional Water
Treatment Plant (SCRWTP) Raw Water Supply Wells 39S, 40S, 41S,
and 42S, as Project 71051.
3) Recommendation to approve electrical utility rate agreement for the
North County Water Reclamation Facility (NCWRF) electric account
number 03677-75210 as applied for with Florida Power and Light
Company.
4) Recommendation to approve the submittal of a Florida Innovative
Recycling/Waste Reduction grant application in the amount of
$79,732 to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to
fund the Collier County Seasonal and Year Round Business How to
Recycle Videos.
5) Recommendation to approve the submittal of a Florida Innovative
Recyc1ing/Waste Reduction grant application in the amount of
$78,500 to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to
fund the Collier County School Beverage Container Recycling
Challenge Program.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation to authorize the Chairman to enter into a
cooperative agreement with the Collier County Hunger and Homeless
Coalition to continue participation in the Information Network for the
Community of Collier County (INCCC) and approve a budget
amendment to recognize revenue in the amount of $1,381.04 for
Page 12
November 14,2006
reimbursement of related computer hardware costs.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
the Chairman to sign an agreement with the Physicians Regional
Medical Center for participation in the Lower Income Pool (LIP)
programs for services provided on behalf of the Human Services
Department, Department of Health and David Lawrence Center to
generate an additional $481,250 in Federal matching funds.
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
the Chairman to sign an agreement with the Agency for Health Care
Administration for $2,750,000 to participate in the Lower Income
Pool Program for services provided on behalf of the Human Services
Department in order to generate an additional $481,250 in Federal
matching funds.
4) Recommendation to approve a Florida Communities Trust grant
contract for partial reimbursement for the purchase of Gordon River
Greenway Park (lands surrounding the Naples Zoo) and authorize the
County Manager to execute all documents in connection with each
project, as contemplated in the agreement.
5) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
Domestic Animal Services Staff to research and propose an
amendment to DAS Ordinance 93-56, as amended, and as codified as
Chapter 14, Article II, in the Code of Laws and Ordinances, which
will include micro-chipping domestic animals, dangerous dog
classifications and procedures, and the ability to revise adoption fees
by resolution of the Board.
6) To approve budget amendment to fund payment to City of Naples
from reserves and to approve the renegotiation of the Interlocal
Agreement for beach parking between the City and County.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Report and Ratify Staff-Approved Change Orders and Changes to
Work Orders to Board-Approved Contracts.
Page 13
November 14, 2006
2) Recommendation to revise award of Bid # 06-4030 - Motorola Central
Control Irrigation Supplies and Services to Ag- Tronix, Inc. and
Contemporary Controls & Communications, Inc. The annual
expenditures are estimated to be $250,000.
3) Recommendation to approve the award of work order WJV FT-3971-
07-01 under RFP 06-3971, General Contractors Services to Varian
Construction Company for the interior renovations to the Courthouse
third (3rd) floor Judges Chambers at the Collier County Courthouse,
Building "L" in the amount of $131 ,262.00.
4) Recommendation to amend contract 04-3864 to obtain services to
implement on line vendor registration, bid solicitation and bid
receiving functions.
5) Recommendation to approve a phased Work Order with CH2M Hill,
Inc., under contract #06-3929, Annual Contract for Architectural
Services, to design upgrades to the fuel facility at County Barn,
project 52009, in t.he amount of$101,850.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Recommendation to approve Change Order No.1 to Contract No. 06-
3925 South Marco Beach Renourishment/ Caxambas Pass Dredging
(Project 905001) with Subaqueous Services, Inc. for the dredging of
Wiggins Pass in the estimated amount of $682,000.
2) Recommend approval of Change Order No.1 under Contract 06-3960
with Energy Resources, Inc. for the dredging of Clam Pass in an
amount of $33 7,995 (Project No. 900281).
3) Recommend approval of award of Bid 06-4041 to Aquatic Plants of
Florida, Inc. for Dune Vegetation Repair and Rebuild on a unit-price
basis not to exceed $719,472.24 (Project No. 905271).
4) Recommendation to approve the purchase of a used Hummer brush
vehicle for $52,800 by the Isles of Capri Fire District.
5) Recommendation to approve a Memorandum of Understanding for
Expenditure of Recipient Funding from the 2003 Domestic
Page 14
November 14, 2006
Preparedness Grant, a State Homeland Security grant program.
6) Approve Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between The
Collier County Board of County Commissioners, through its
Emergency Management Department, and the Harry Chapin Food
Bank Center.
7) Recommendation to approve Budget Amendments to transfer funds
for a growth ambulance inadvertently budgeted for FY 07 in Fund 490
Emergency Medical Services to Fund 350 EMS Impact Fees in the
amount of $185,000.
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 Collier County Board of County
Commissioners approve and authorize its Chairman to execute a
thirty-five (35) year sub-lease agreement between the Collier County
Airport Authority and Salazar Machine & Steel, Inc. at an initial rent
of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000) per year for the construction of a
minimum 20,000 square foot manufacturing facility on one and one-
half (1.5) acres at the Immokalee Regional Airport/Tradeport.
3) Recommendation that the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners approve and authorize its Chairman to execute a forty
(40) year sub-lease agreement between the Collier County Airport
Authority and C- Tech Manufacturing Florida, LLC at an initial rent of
Sixty Five Thousand Three Hundred Forty Dollars ($65,340) per year
for construction of a minimum 196,000 square foot manufacturing
facility on fifteen (15) acres at the Immokalee Regional
Airport/Tradeport.
4) Recommendation that the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners approve and authorize its Chairman to execute a
thirty-five (35) year sub-lease agreement between the Collier County
Page 15
November 14, 2006
Airport Authority and Robert Forbis, Inc. d/b/a Premier Electric at an
initial rent of Forty Eight Thousand Three Hundred Fifty-One Dollars
and Sixty Cents ($48,351.60) per year for the construction of a
minimum 35,000 square foot assembly, packaging, warehousing and
distribution facility on eleven and one tenth (11.1) acres at the
Immokalee Regional Airport/ Tradeport.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Halas requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a valid public purpose.
Attended the Economic Development Council Exclusive Member
Breakfast on Thursday, November 9,2006, at The Naples Grande
Resort & Club in Naples, Florida. $35.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Halas' travel budget.
2) Commissioner Halas requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a valid public purpose.
Attending the Installation of the 53rd Board of Directors and Officers
of the Collier Building Industry Association, Inc. and the Builder &
Associate of the Year Awards on Saturday, November 18,2006 at
The Naples Grande Resort & Club. $125.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Halas' travel budget.
3) Proclamation recognizing every fourth Friday in September be
designated as Native American Day. (Proclamation will be mailed)
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) To file for record with action as directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Recommend that the Collier County Commission endorse the United
States Department of Justice/Department of Treasury Federal
Equitable Sharing Annual Certification Report.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the disposal of assets no longer deemed of value and accept the report
Page 16
November 14, 2006
regarding the recent disposition of assets for the 2006 fiscal year.
3) Recommendation to adopt the budget amendment appropriating carry
forward and expenditure budgets for open purchase orders for non-
project funds and for unexpended budget for project funds at the end
of Fiscal Year 2006.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to Approve a Mediated Settlement Agreement and a
Stipulated Final Judgment to be Drafted Incorporating the Same
Terms and Conditions as the Mediated Settlement Agreement in the
Amount of $94,000 for the Acquisition of Parcel 157 in the Lawsuit
Styled Collier County v. Helen Valent, et aI., Case No. 04-0524-CA
(Vanderbilt Beach Road Project #63051). (Fiscal Impact: $39,654)
2) Recommendation to Approve a Mediated Settlement Agreement and a
Stipulated Final Judgment to be Drafted Incorporating the Same
Terms and Conditions as the Mediated Settlement Agreement in the
Amount of$57,300.00 for the Acquisition of Parcels 110, 810,910
and 811 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v. Antone C. Mendes, et
aI., Case No. 03-2283-CA (Golden Gate Parkway Project #60027).
(Fiscal Impact: $58,113.00)
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
the law firm of Garvin & Tripp and attorney Theodore L. Tripp, Esq.
to represent both Collier County and Paul Wilson in Case No. 05-953-
CA consolidated with Case No. 05-1506-CA, also styled Paul Wilson
v. Dwight E. Brock, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County and
further authorize the County Attorney to execute the letter required for
such representation.
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
Page 17
November 14, 2006
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE QUASI-
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. This item was continued from the October 24 BCC meetinl! and is
further continued to the November 28 BCC meetinl!. This item reQuires
that aU participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Recommendation to approve Petition A VESMT-
2006-AR-9916-Imperial Wilderness Storage Maintenance Parcel to
disclaim, renounce and vacate the Countys and the Publics interest in that
portion ofa 65 foot wide drainage easement in the West one-half of the
Southwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East Collier
County, Florida.
B. This item was continued from the October 24 BCC meetinl! and is
further continued to the November 28 BCC meetinl!. This item reQuires
that aU participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Recommendation to approve Petition A VESMT-
2006-AR-I0083, The Rookery at Marco to disclaim, renounce and vacate
the Countys and the Publics interest in a portion of a fifteen-foot wide
Collier County utility easement as recorded in O.R. Book 1664, Page 1963,
Public Records of Collier County, Florida, and more specifically described
in Exhibit A.
C. This item was continued from the October 24 BCC meetinl! and is
further continued to the November 28 BCC meetinl!. This item requires
that all artici ants be sworn in and ex arte disclosure be rovided b
Commission members. Recommendation to approve Petition A VROW-
2006-AR-9674 Lucerne Road to disclaim, renounce and vacate the Countys
and the Publics interest in a portion of Lucerne Road adjacent to Block 115,
Golden Gate Portion 4, according to a map thereof, as recorded in Plat Book
5, Pages 107, of the Public Records Collier County, Florida.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
Page 18
November 14, 2006
November 14,2006
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Thank you, County Manager.
At this time the Collier County Board of Commissioners is now
in session. I ask that anyone that has a cell phone or pager, if you'd be
so kind as to turn it off or put it in silence mode.
At this time we'll have the invocation followed by the Pledge of
Allegiance. This morning the invocation will be given by Jim Mudd,
our county manager. Would you all rise.
MR. MUDD: Let us pray, oh, Heavenly Father. We ask your
blessings on these proceedings and all who are gathered here. We ask
a special blessing on this Board of County Commissioners, guide them
in their deliberations, grant them the wisdom and vision to meet the
trials of this day and the days to come.
Bless us now as we undertake the business of Collier County and
its citizens, that our actions will serve the greater good of all citizens
and be acceptable in your sight.
Your will be done, amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: At this time, County Manager, is there
any changes in regards to the -- today's agenda?
Item #2A
REGULAR CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA-
APPROVED/AND OR ADOPTED W/CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Agenda changes, Board of County
Commissioners' Meeting, November 14, 2006.
Items 2E, 2F, 2G, and 2F should read, Value Adjustment Board
Special Magistrate meeting, and that clarification is at staffs request.
Page 2
November 14, 2006
Item 8C is continued to November 28, 2006, BCC meeting, and
we'll vote on -- and you'll vote on that as a board to continue it time at
its time on the agenda.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by commission members. It's
PUDEX-2006-AR-9610, G.L. Homes of Naples II Corporation,
represented by Robert Duane of Hole Montes, is requesting a two-year
PUD extension for the Terafina PUD, ordinance 04-15, which is
scheduled to sunset on March 9, 2007.
The subject property consists of 636.8 acres and is located one
mile north ofImmokalee Road, north of the Olde Cypress PUD and
east of Quail Creek in Section 16, Township 48 south, Range 26 east,
Collier County, Florida, and that -- the petitioner is asking for that
continuance.
Next item is 8E, in a similar fashion, the board will vote to
continue this particular item when it comes up on the agenda. It's item
8E. The petitioner is asking that it be continued to December 12, 2006,
BCC meeting. It's RZ-2005-AR-8039, SJC Whippoorwill, LLC,
represented by Gary Butler of Butler Engineering, Inc., and Brian
Mansour, requesting a rezone from the agricultural A zoning district to
the residential multifamily 6, RMF -6, zoning district for a project
known as Cayo Whippoorwill.
The subject property consisting of 10 acres is located at 1450
Whippoorwill Lane, approximately 3,500 feet south of Pine Ridge
Road in Section 18, Township 49 south, Range 26 east, Collier
County, Florida. And again, the correction to what's on this change
sheet, this is at the petitioner's request.
Next item is item lOA. It's a proposed resolution shown in the
backup material as titled, resolution number, blank 2007. The correct
title should be resolution number, blank 2006. The original document
has been corrected, and that correction is at staffs request.
Next item is item 10D, to be continued indefinitely. It's a
Page 3
November 14, 2006
recommendation to approve selection of Parsons-Brinkerhoff
Construction Services, Inc., a qualified firm, and award a contract
under ITN 06-3947, CE -- CEI Service of Collier County, road
projects, for project number 60101 County Barn Road from
Rattlesnake Hammock Road to Davis Boulevard, in the amount of
$2,442,192, and that's at staffs request.
Next item is to move item 16A8 to 10K. That's a request to open
the 2005 cycle of Growth Management Plan amendments to allow a
2006 cycle petition to be moved into the 2005 cycle. That move is at
Commissioner Halas's request.
Next item is to move item 16D5 to 10L. That's a recommendation
that the Board of County Commissioners authorize Domestic Animal
Services staff to research and propose an amendment to DAS
ordinance 93-56, as amended, and as codified as Chapter 14, Article
II, in the Code of Laws and Ordinances, which will include
microchipping domestic animals, dangerous dog classifications and
procedures, and the ability to revise adoption fees by resolution of the
board. This item is being moved at Commissioner Henning's request.
Next item is to add as an add-on item, and that's 10M. That's a
recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to authorize
the chairperson of the Board of County Commissioners to execute a
memorandum of understanding between the City of Marco Island and
the Collier County Solid Waste Management Department, public
utilities division, for the acceptance and appropriate beneficial use of
milled asphalt, crushed concrete, and non-contaminated soil at the
Collier County Landfill by Waste Management, Incorporated, of
Florida, WMIF.
The fair market unit price of the beneficial use material will be
utilized to offset the total cost for the proper disposal of the City of
Marco Island's asbestos contaminated soil. And that item is being
added at staffs request. It came in yesterday from the city manager,
and we thought it best to get it on the board's -- to the board as fast as
Page 4
November 14, 2006
we could.
Next item is to add on item 16F8, and that's a recommendation to
reaffirm the board's approval at the special meeting held on November
1, 2006, as a budget amendment for reserves within the Pine
Ridge/Naples Production Park debt service fund to appropriate the
annual principal and interest payments and arbitrage calculation fees
on outstanding special assessment revenue bonds, and that item -- and
that reaffirmation is at staffs request.
Next item is item 16G2, 16G3 and 16G4. These items are being
asked to be continued indefinitely. The Collier County Airport
Authority Board met yesterday and heard all three of these new lease
agreements. They had some changes to the agreements yesterday that
could not be done in a timely fashion, so instead of these being heard
by the board, staff is asking that they be continued for a couple of
weeks until we can get all the final details laid out in the rental
agreements to bring these back to the board.
These are all three rental agreements for different companies to
rent and build facilities out at the Immokalee Airport, and that's 16G2,
16G3 and 16G4, continued indefinitely pending staff at the Airport
Authority to bring these particular items back to their board and then
subsequently back to this board.
Commissioner, we have two time certain items.
Item 10E to be heard at 11 :30 a.m. It's a recommendation to
award construction contract to Astaldi Construction Corporation for
Santa Barbara Boulevard six-lane improvements from Davis
Boulevard to Copper Leaf Lane and Radio Road four-lane
improvements from Santa Barbara Boulevard to Davis Boulevard in
the amount of $62,051,879.48, including your reserve of
$4,587,895.60 in funding allowances. It's bid number 06-4042,
project number 62081.
Next item with a time certain is item 101 to be heard at 11 a.m.
It's a recommendation to adopt supplemental bond resolution, number
Page 5
November 14,2006
one, authorizing issuance by the Collier County Water/Sewer District
of its water and sewer revenue bonds, series 2006, in the aggregate
principal amount of, not exceeding $120 million in order to finance
various capital improvements to the water and wastewater utility
system, and to refinance the district's revenue note draw number
A-I-I, and revenue note draw number A-I-2 currently outstanding in
the aggregate principal amount of $38 million; and number two,
amending the bond resolution to specifically include the allowance for
funds prudently invested fees, AFPI fees, as a component of the gross
revenues of the system which allows such AFPI fees to be a part of the
pledged funds supporting the payment of debt service.
And One last note. Minor re -- to 101, minor revisions,
incorporated bond insurance provisions, authorizing resolution for the
Collier County water and sewer revenue bonds, series 2006, have been
provided to the Board of County Commissioners on November 13,
2006, because we were basically emailed those at the same -- minutes
after we got them emailed, we gave them to the board. These
revisions were not received prior to the printing of the November 14,
2006, BCC agenda.
And that's all I have, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
County attorney, do you have any additions or corrections on
today's agenda?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, just a couple
comments.
10M, which is an add-on, indicates that the contract that the
board will be -- I should say memorandum of understanding that the
board will be signing off on, grouping with the solid waste
department, would just be clear for the record, it's a memorandum of
understanding only with the Board of County Commissioners of
Collier County through which the solid waste department will be
operating.
Page 6
November 14,2006
And Chief Assistant Mike Pettit's going to have a couple
comments as well for the agenda.
MR. PETTIT: Good morning, Commissioners. I've been asked
to read a memorandum into the record dealing with items 16F 1 and
16F2 on your consent agenda concerning a dredging project for the
county. Those are change order items that you would be approving on
your consent agenda today.
This memorandum was prepared by me and other assistant
county attorneys to address issues raised about those change orders.
And I'll proceed, and then I'll provide this to the court reporter when
I'm finished.
The issue presented is whether the two dredging projects and
change orders are legally sufficient in compliance with the county
purchasing policy and Florida law.
One, change order. Based on the information provided by the
purchasing department, it appears that the two dredging proj ects at
issue, Clam Pass and Wiggins Pass, are extensions of the original
dredging projects, Haldeman Creek and Caxambas Pass respectively.
In each case, the projects will require the same equipment, the same
services, and will accomplish the same goal of beach renourishment.
Change orders are specifically permitted by the county
purchasing policy. Under these facts, the change orders can stand
alone.
Two, Florida Statutes. Section 255.20 Florida Statutes, 2006,
dealing with local bids and contracts for public construction work does
not apply as the change orders are not for construction but rather for
dredging. This statute requires competitive bidding for construction or
public construction works and repeatedly refers to construction of
public bridges, buildings and other structures.
Construct means to build, erect, put together, make ready for use.
To adjust and join material or parts of so as to form a permanent
whole. To put together constituent parts of something in their proper
Page 7
November 14,2006
place and order. Construct is distinguishable from maintain, which
means to keep up, to keep from change, to preserve.
And if you will, I will omit citations.
Construct is -- construction is the act of building by combining or
arranging parts or elements. Construction something that is
constructed -- pardon me, is constructed; a structure or building.
Construction is also defined as the erection of buildings; the
creation of structures.
Dredge is any of the various machines equipped with scooping or
suction devices used in deepening harbors and waterways and in
underwater mining. To dredge is to clean, deepen or widen.
Dredging is scooping dirt, rocks or debris from the bottom of a
harbor or river or deepen the harbor or channel, thereby improving
navigation; opening a ditch through a swamp or other area to give
better drainage.
Giving the terms construction and dredging, their plain meanings
as required by the Florida Supreme Court pronouncements on
statutory construction, it is clear that dredging is not an activity
subject to section 255.20 Florida Statutes. When a statute and its
terms are clear, courts will look at plain meaning of the language in
determining legislative intent.
The county's interpretation of section 255.20 is subject to great
deference. Where an agency, in this case the county, is charged by
law with enforcing or implementing a statute, its decisions in that
regard are entitled to great deference and should not be disturbed
unless clearly unauthorized or erroneous. Again, I'm omitting
citations.
Three, purchasing policy. The county may also waive the county
purchasing policy which requires competitive bidding. The county
may waive the purchasing policy where it is determined to be in the
best interest of the county to do so.
In this case Collier County will save approximately $450,000 to
Page 8
November 14, 2006
$475,000. Further, the dredging will be completed without delay
without disturbing turtle nesting season.
Without limitation and for the reasons stated, it is our opinion
that the county is not constrained by section 255.20 Florida Statutes.
To allay any concerns, however, the Board of County Commissioners
may be requested to waive our local purchasing policy as being in the
best interest of the county.
And that's the end of the memorandum, and that last reference
would be that you may, as you approve these items, indicate that you
also wish to waive the local purchasing policy to remove any doubt
under that policy.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Does -- the representative from
the Clerk of the Courts, do you -- do you acknowledge what was
brought forth this morning?
MS. KINZEL: Thank you, Commissioner. We worked with
County Attorney's Office and purchasing, and we would ask that you
also waive the local purchasing policy on that item, and that's what
we've worked through with county staff.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So you have a good feeling with
regards to what has just been rendered by the county attorney in
regards to this issue?
MS. KINZEL: Yes, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MS. KINZEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. At this time I'm going to ask that
each of the commissioners come forth with any ex parte on the
summary agenda and if they have any changes to the regular and
consent agenda. I'll start off with Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Same here.
Page 9
November 14,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have one item on 17C that I
received emails on, and that is on the summary agenda. And other
than that, I don't have anything else to have ex parte on the summary
agenda.
Commissioner Coyle -- or Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No changes to the regular
agenda and nothing to declare under the summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. At this time I wish to have a
motion for today's approval of the regular consent and summary
agenda as amended.
MR. WEIGEL: And Mr. Chairman, county attorney here. I
would request that the consent agenda have on the record the
statement of the board that they are, in fact, waiving the purchasing
policy in the items that Mr. Pettit addressed.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Would the clerk please note that
in regards to the approval of the motion in regards to the approval of
today's agenda and consent agenda.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coletta and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. 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?
(No response.)
Page 10
November 14,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
Page 11
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
November 14. 2006
Items 2E. 2F. 2G and 2H should read: Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate Meeting.
(Staff's request.)
Item 8C continued to the November 28. 2006 BCC meetina: This item requires that all participants
be sworn In and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDEX-2006-AR-9610
G.L. Homes of Naples II Corporation, represented by Robert Duane of Hole Montes, is requesting
two 2-year PUD extensions for the Teraflna PUD (Ordinance 04-15) which is scheduled to sunset
on March 9, 2007. The subject property consists of 636.8 acres and is located 1 mile north of
Immokalee Road north of the Olde Cypress PUD and east of Quail Creek, in Section 16, Township
48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Petitioner's request.)
Item 8E continued to the December 12. 2006 BCC meetinQ: RZ-2005-AR-8039: SJC Whippoorwill,
LLC, represented by Gary Butler of Butler Engineering, Inc. and Brian Mansour, requesting a
rezone from the Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Residential Multi-Family-6 (RMF-6) zoning
district for a project known as Cayo Whippoorwill. The subject property, consisting of 10 acres,
is located at 1450 Whippoorwill Lane, approximately 3,500 feet south of Pine Ridge Road, in
Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Staffs request.)
Item 10A: The proposed Resolution shown in the backup material is titled "Resolution No._
2007". The correct title should be "Resolution No. _ 2006". The original document has been
corrected. (Staff's request.)
Item 100 continued indefinitelv: Recommendation to approve selection of Parsons Brinkerhoff
Construction Services, Inc. a Qualified Firm, and award a contract under ITN 06-3947 CEI Services
for Collier County Road Projects, for Project No. 60101 County Barn Road from Rattlesnake
Hammock Road to Davis Boulevard, in the amount of $2,442,195. (Staff's request.)
Move Item 16A8 to 10K: Request to open the 2005 cycle of Growth Management Plan
Amendments to allow a 2006 cycle petition to be moved into the 2005 cycle. (Commissioner
Halas' request.)
Move Item 1605 to 10L: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
Domestic Animal Services Staff to research and propose an amendment to DAS Ordinance 93-56,
as amended, and as codified as Chapter 14, Article II, in the Code of Laws and Ordinances, which
will include micro-chipping domestic animals, dangerous dog classifications and procedures,
and the ability to revise adoption fees by resolution of the Board. (Commissioner Henning's
request.)
Add On Item 10M: Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to authorize the
Chairperson of the Board of County Commissioners to execute a memorandum of understanding
between the City of Marco Island and the Collier County Solid Waste Management Department,
Public Utilities Division, for the acceptance, and appropriate beneficial use of milled asphalt,
crushed concrete, and non-contaminated soil at the Collier County Landfill by Waste Management
Incorporated of Florida (WMIF). The fair market unit price of the beneficial use material will be
utilized to off set the total cost for the proper disposal of the City of Marco Island's asbestos
contaminated soil. (Staff's request.)
Add On Item 16F8: Recommendation to reaffirm the Board's approval (at the special meeting
held on November 1, 2006) of a budget amendment from Reserves within the Pine Ridge/Naples
Production Park Debt Service Fund to appropriate the annual principal and interest payments and
Arbitrage Calculation Fees on outstanding special assessment revenue bonds. (Staff's request.)
Item 16G2 continued indefinitelv: Recommendation that the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners approve and authorize its Chairman to execute a thirty-five (35) year sub-lease
agreement between the Collier County Airport Authority and Salazar Machine & Steel, Inc. at an
initial rent of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000) per year for the construction of a minimum 20,000
square foot manufacturing facility on one and one-half (1.5) acres at the Immokalee Regional
AirportlTradeport. (Staff's request.)
Item 16G3 continued indefinitelv: Recommendation that the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners approve and authorize its Chairman to execute a forty (40) year sub-lease
agreement between the Collier County Airport Authority and C-Tech Manufacturing Florida, LLC
at an initial rent of Sixty Five Thousand Three Hundred Forty Dollars ($65,340) per year for
construction of a minimum 196,000 square foot manufacturing facility on fifteen (15) acres at the
Immokalee Regional AirportlTradeport. (Staff's request.)
Item 16G4 continued indefinitelv: Recommendation that the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners approve and authorize its Chairman to execute a thirty-five (35) year sub-lease
agreement between the Collier County Airport Authority and Robert Forbis, Inc. d/b/a Premier
Electric at an Initial rent of Forty Eight Thousand Three Hundred Fifty-One Dollars and Sixty
Cents ($48,351.60) per year for the construction of a minimum 35,000 square foot assembly,
packaging, warehousing and distribution facility on eleven and one tenth (11.1) acres at the
Immokalee Regional Airport! Tradeport. (Staff's request.)
Time Certain Items:
Item 1 OE to be heard at 11 :30 a.m.: Recommendation to award a construction contract to Astaldi
Construction Corporation, for Santa Barbara Boulevard Six-Lane Improvements from Davis
Boulevard to Copper Leaf Lane and Radio Road Four-Lane Improvements from Santa Barbara
Boulevard to Davis Boulevard, in the amount of $62,051,879.48 Including a reserve of
$4,587,895.60 in funding allowances Bid No. 06-4042; Project No. 62081.
Item 101 to be heard at 11 :00 a.m.: Recommendation to adopt supplemental bond resolutions (1)
authorizing the issuance by the Collier County Water-Sewer District of its Water and Sewer
Revenue Bonds, Series 2006, in the aggregate principal amount of not exceeding $120,000,000 in
order to finance various capital improvements to the water and wastewater utility system and to
refinance the District's Revenue Note, Draw No. A-1-1 and Revenue Note, Draw No. A-1-2
currently outstanding In the aggregate principal amount of $38,000,000 and (2) amending the
Bond Resolution to specifically include the Allowance for Funds Prudently Invested fees (AFPI
Fees) as a component of the gross revenues of the system, which allows such AFPI Fees to be a
part of the pledged funds supporting the payment of debt service.
Note: Minor revisions (incorporated Bond Insurance Provisions) to authorizing resolution for the
~r County Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 2006 (See Item 101) has been provided to
the Board of County Commissioners on November 13, 2006. (These revision were not received
prior to the printing of the November 14, 2006 BCC Agenda)
November 14,2006
Item #2B, #2C, #2D, #2E, #2F, #2G, #2H, #21
MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 7,2006 BCC/BUDGET
HEARING MEETING; OCTOBER 2, 2006 BCC/PERMITING
WORKSHOP; OCTOBER 10,2006 BCC/REGULAR MEETING;
OCTOBER 13, 2006 VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD SPECIAL
MAGISTRATE MEETING; OCTOBER 17,2006 VALUE
ADJUSTMENT BOARD SPECIAL MAGISTRATE MEETING;
OCTOBER 18, 2006 VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD SPECIAL
MAGISTRATE MEETING; OCTOBER 19, 2006 VALUE
ADJUSTMENT BOARD SPECIAL MAGISTRATE MEETING;
OCTOBER 20, 2006 VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD SPECIAL
MAGISTRATE MEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
At this time I need to have a motion for the following:
September the 7th, 2006, BCC budget hearing meeting; October 2,
2006, BCC permitting workshop; and also October 10, 2006, BCC
regular meeting; October 13, 2006, Value Adjustment Board Special
Magistrate meeting; October 17, 2006, Value Adjustment Board
Special Magistrate meeting; October 18, 2006, Value Adjustment
Board Special Magistrate meeting; October 19, 2006, Value
Adjustment Board Special Magistrate meeting; and October 20, 2006,
Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate meeting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Fiala, seconded by Commissioner Henning.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
Page 12
__"",...".,..,,,,,..~O_",_",_,..",,_.,,,",._,,,._~___.,.._,~.......
November 14,2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries. Thank you very much.
Item #3A
SERVICE AWARDS (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD
MEMBERS)
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to service awards.
It's, indeed, an honor for us today to honor some of our hard-working
advisory committee members. And all of our members today are
five-year awardee.
The first awardee is Mr. William R. Cadwallader, and he has
worked for five years on the Affordable Housing Commission.
(Applause.)
MR. CADWALLADER: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good morning, Mr. Cadwallader. Thank
you very much. Appreciate your kind service here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Go ahead and turn around and
get a picture here.
MR. CADWALLADER: Can I make a few comments?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, you may, sir.
MR. CADWALLADER: You can have your seats while I talk.
I certainly hope to come back five years from now for a 10-year
award. It's been my pleasure, not my labor, to perform the services
that I have for the county which have been mainly in housing,
affordable housing. And each and every one of you have been
involved in one way or another over the last five years with various
projects that I have tried to champion.
Page 13
November 14,2006
I'll put one more nail in the coffin. Affordable housing is most
critical, most necessary to solve, and there are still major problems in
Immokalee, in Copeland, which we are beginning to attack and solve.
But don't lose faith in the program because it is very important to this
community .
I'll see you five years from now. Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you for your service.
MR. MUDD: Our next recipient for a five-year award is Mr.
Richard Lydon, and Mr. Lydon has worked for five years on the
Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good morning, Rick. Congratulations.
You and I were on that together in the beginning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's how you started? Is it you
that got him into this?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How are you?
MR. LYDON: Don't hold my hand.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do you want to say a few words?
MR. LYDON: I might say a word or two.
Good morning. Thank you very much for this award. Actually,
it should say 20 years. My -- this celebrates my 20th year of being on
a committee of some kind in Collier County, starting with the Public
Vehicle Advisory Committee in 1986, the Transportation
Disadvantage (sic) Committee. I'm the guy that put the rocks on the
beach back with the Collier County city/county beach renourishment
committee, so it's been a lot of fun over the years, and I'd like to thank
you for this honor.
There are a couple of things I'd like to ask, if the county attorney
would move forward quickly and tell us what FP&L says is going to
be all right. We're going to try and bury some utility lines over on
Vanderbilt Beach.
And when you get around to it, Mr. Mudd, see if you can get rid
Page 14
November 14, 2006
of that $21,000 we folks in MSTUs have to pay the county every year
for the privilege of giving you more money.
Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Our next recipient, Mr. -- our next recipient is Mr.
Bradley Schiffer, and he couldn't be here today, but Mr. Schiffer has
worked for five years on the Board of Building Adjustment and
Appeals, plus he also works on your Planning Commission.
The next recipient is Mr. Roger Somerville, and Mr. Somerville
has worked for five years on your Forest Lakes Roadway and
Drainage Advisory Committee.
MR. RICHARD: Roger Somerville was not able to attend today.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there somebody that's--
MR. RICHARD: I could receive the award on his behalf.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Would you pass that on to him?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What is your name, sir?
MR. RICHARD: I'm the project manager for MSTUs, Collier
County .
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But what is your name?
MR. RICHARD: Darryl Richard.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If you'd be so kind as to maybe say a
few words in the mike as regards to -- appreciate it very much.
MR. RICHARD: I'll apologize for my inexperience at receiving
awards on behalf of committee members.
But Roger Somerville has served very faithfully on the Forest
Lakes MSTU Advisory Board and has contributed greatly to the
technical expertise of the board.
With his background in engineering, he has served to inform the
committee of technical matters related to decisions with Forest Lakes
MSTU.
And recently we have a pond issue that was passed by the voters
Page 15
November 14,2006
for the Forest Lakes MSTU which will help move forward 20 some
odd projects, which is -- I just have -- you know, I'm happy to report
that to the public, that that pond issue was passed. And I appreciate
your award -- service award to Roger Somerville today. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, sir.
(Applause.)
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING NOVEMBER 19 THROUGH
THE 25TH AS FARM-CITY WEEK - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to paragraph 4,
proclamations. And the first proclamation is recognizing November
19th through the 25th as Farm-City Week, to be accepted by Cindee
Wooley and Bonnie Fauls.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, thank you.
MR. ZINO: I don't look much like Cindee, I'm afraid.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's okay. You'll pass.
Please, come right up front here and then turn around and face
the audience.
Whereas, November 19th through the 25th is National Farm-City
Week, a time set aside to recognize the honor to the contribution of
the county's agriculturalists and to strengthen the bond between the
urban and rural citizens; and,
Whereas, in Collier County, the high point of Farm-City Week is
the annual Farm-City Barbecue sponsored by Collier County
University Extension and a committee of volunteers; and,
Whereas, agriculture is an important element in Collier County's
economic machine with total economic activity of over $300 million
annually; and,
Whereas, 22 percent of Collier County is utilized for agriculture
Page 16
November 14,2006
providing vital economic benefits, including habitat for wildlife and
recharge areas our aquifer, and,
Whereas, the Board of Collier County Commissioners supports
local agriculture through programs including cooperation with the
University of Florida, IF AS Extension Service; and,
Whereas, 2006 marks the 51st year of the National Farm-City
partnership; and,
Whereas, we encourage all citizens to pause to recognize the
contributions of our local farmers and ranchers to our economy, our
food supply, and our society; and,
Whereas, today we honor Bonnie Fauls for her numerous years
of service to the University of Florida/IF AS Extension, and the
agricultural community through her commitment and dedication to the
Farm-City Barbecue; and,
Whereas, today we honor Ronnie and Pasty Raulerson, for this
year's farm family of the year for their numerous years of tireless
commitment and dedication to Collier County and its agriculture.
And, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, that on behalf of the citizens
of Collier County, great appreciation and honor is owed to all this
county's agriculturalists and that November 19th through the 25th be
designated as Farm-City Week.
Done and ordered this, the 14th day of November, 2006, Frank
Halas, Chairman.
And I make a motion for approval.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I second it.
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?
Page 1 7
November 14,2006
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Wonderful.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'd like you to turn around and get a
picture:
MR. ZINO: Bonnie, did you want to come over here too?
My name is Bart Zino. Commissioners, thank you for
recognizing Farm-City and everything that it's done. I may be a new
face with Farm-City; however, Farm-City is certainly not new to
Collier County, this being our 51 st year here. You've seen presenters
before.
Farm-City is more important than ever, I think, in our
community. As our agriculture base changes and as our community
changes, it's important to continue to recognize what our
agriculturalists in this county do and to promote understanding by and
between the agricultural community and our -- well, our city
community, I guess you could call it.
So this year we have a token of our recognition for our farm
family, and also one for Bonnie. But let's start out with our farm
family.
If the Raulersons would come on up.
Ronnie and Patsy Raulerson have been nominated by their peers
as representing and being exemplary people in the farm community of
Collier County. And with that, we would like to present to them this
recognition for their contributions to the community. Thank you very
much.
(Applause.)
MR. ZINO: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Congratulations. Thank you for
.
your servIce.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what's that mean, you get to
donate a lot more time? You already did it. All right. Let somebody
Page 18
November 14, 2006
else do it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Turn around and get a picture.
(Applause.)
MR. ZINO: And the last thing here relates to this lady who's
next to me. Bonnie Fauls has run this barbecue and Farm-City Week
for as long as I'm sure anybody can remember who's been associated
with farm-city. And due to changes, Bonnie is not chairing this group
this year. In fact, somehow I am.
And without her, all her efforts over the years, this would not be
the event that it is. There are so many people who come out here and
say, you know, this is the only time I get to see some of my friends.
It's once a year. And this fixture in our community has grown and
maintained through Bonnie's very tireless efforts -- and I can attest to
that single-handedly now that it's me in the chair.
I've been involved for five years, and if it weren't for Bonnie, I
wouldn't be involved today in doing what I do and what I do -- what
we're all doing.
So with that, I definitely want to take time here to recognize
Bonnie for her incredible efforts in putting this thing together over the
years and keeping it going.
And, Bonnie, thank you very much. This is from all of us.
(Applause.)
MR. ZINO: Now you might have to say something.
MS. FAULS: Bonnie Fauls, for the record. I just want to thank
everyone. I certainly enjoyed over the years working and getting to
know so many members of the business and banking community in
Naples as well as the agricultural community. Count many of them
amongst my best friends, and I thank them for all the support over the
years in making not only this, but lots of other things in the
community, a huge success, so thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MR. ZINO: Thank you.
Page 19
November 14, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 15, 2006 AS
AMERICA RECYCLES DAY IN COLLIER COUNTY -
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next
proclamation, which is a proclamation designating November 15,
2006, as America Recycles Day in Collier County. It was originally
going to be accepted by Dan Rodriguez, but Dan had some emergency
gallbladder surgery, so he will be unable to attend, but Judy Nothdurft
will accept in his absence.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We've got two of them if
somebody else wants to come up. Let me go ahead and start it off.
Jodi (sic), you coming up?
Whereas, the America Recycle Day, a national volunteer
non- for-profit organization, has launched the 10th annual campaign to
promote the social, environmental and economic benefits of recycling
and buying recycling (sic) products on America Recycling Day,
November 5, 2006; and,
Whereas, the citizens of Collier County have an opportunity to
join millions of people across America to make a positive difference
in recycling -- reducing water and air pollution, conserving resources
and saving energy by recycling and buying recycling (sic) products;
and,
Whereas, the Public Utilities Solid Waste Management and
utility billing and customer service departments, under the direction of
Jim DeLony -- or the Board of Commissioners of Collier County,
have worked diligently to develop a multifaceted recycling program
and ways to preserve valuable landfill space and conserve natural
Page 20
November 14, 2006
resources; and,
Whereas, Collier County government and the Board of
Commissioners wish to recognize and commend the citizens of Collier
County for their admirable recycling efforts by positive contribution to
the preserves (sic) and natural landfill airspace -- natural -- or valuable
landfill airspace and their contribution to the conservance (sic) of
natural resources.
Now, therefore, be it done by the Board of Commissioners of
Collier County, Florida, designated November 15, 2006, as America
Recycling Day in Collier County.
I might add, Mr. Chairman, the efforts by our staff to -- for the
recycling efforts in Collier County and reducing landfill space must be
commended by the Board of Commissioners and recognized, because
without them, we wouldn't have what we have today.
Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we move this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, call the question. All
those in favor of this proclamation, signify by saying 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.
(Applause. )
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Come on down here, we'll all shake your
hand. Judy, good to see you again.
Page 21
~<.- --"._.~.~.<---_.<~~
November 14,2006
Maybe we can do a -- split the party up on each side of the bottle
so we can get a nice picture.
Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Hi, there. Job well done.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Maybe we can split the gang up, half on
one side of the bottle and half on the other side, the bottle in the
middle. There you go. That's a good pose. We need a couple more
on -- to the left side, my left side. There you go.
Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that the one you're going to put in
schools?
MS. NOTHDURFT: Yes, it is.
I'd like to say just a few words. In celebration of America
Recycles Day, we wanted to note that it's just a little over a year that
the residential single stream 64-gallon cart has been utilized in District
1, and it's been very successful.
And over that period, there has been 56 percent increase in
recycling tonnage, and we're all very pleased about that.
And a special thanks goes to utility billing and customer service
department for their behind the scenes coordination and making sure
that the residential recycling program runs smoothly.
Also a special thanks to the solid waste reduction and recycling
staff for doing an exemplary job of spreading and reinforcing the
message of recycling.
And the public utilities recycling team will continue to reinforce
the importance of preserving the life of the landfill through reduction,
reuse and recycling.
And thank you, again, Commissioners, Deputy County Manager
and County Manager and all the citizens of Collier County for their
contributions to recycling. Thank you.
(Applause.)
Page 22
November 14, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a comment. Hold on just a
minute. I have a comment by Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, just a brief one. I had an
unusual opportunity this summer. For our summer vacation we went
to the recycling center up in Orlando that waste management runs.
My wife and I got the tour. Actually -- I wanted to see what
actually happened to our recyclables when they leave Collier County.
And I can tell you that they're well taken care of, and it's absolutely
amazing to go through that facility and see how they separate it and
utilize everything that comes in.
I would recommend the tour anytime to my fellow
commissioners, maybe on your vacation next year.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That and Disney World, right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, beats Italy. It's a lot
cheaper.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much for your
comments.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Manager?
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING CORPORAL ANDREW J.
PAVEL FOR HIS SERVICES IN THE UNITED STATES MARINE
CORPS - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next
proclamation, and that is a proclamation recognizing Corporal Andrew
J. Pavel for his service in the United States Marine Corps to be
received by Corporal Andrew J. Pavel. And Corporal Pavel, if you
could come front and center, please.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's a real pleasure -- on behalf of the
Page 23
November 14,2006
Board of County Commissioners, it's a real pleasure to honor one of
our heros that protects us on a daily basis, and realizing the
importance of freedom in this country, and it gives me great pleasure
to read this proclamation.
Whereas, Andrew J. Pavel grew up in Naples, Florida. He
attended Poinciana Elementary School and Pine Ridge Middle School.
He then attended Naples High School where he was a student athlete
-- a student and an athlete; and,
Whereas, Andrew excelled in football as a defensive lineman,
and as a junior, was on the starting lineup when the Naples High
School football team played in the state championship in Tallahassee
in 2001. After the team won the championship, he was later named
defensive most valuable player by his coaches; and,
Whereas, after graduating from Naples High School in May,
2003 and spending one semester at Edison Community College,
Andrew enlisted in the United States Marine Corps in February, 2004;
and,
Whereas, after graduating basic training, Andrew attended the
Marine Corps Military Police School at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.
After graduation, he was stationed at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina,
where he began serving as a military police officer, an MPO.
Shortly thereafter, he was selected for the Provost Marshal's
Office Special Reaction Team, SRT, which is a S.W.A.T. team for the
Marine Corps; and,
Whereas, in February of 2006, Corporal Andrew J. Pavel's team
was told they needed one non-commissioned officer, NCO, volunteer
for his SRT for temporary assignment duty, TAD, in Afghanistan.
Corporal Pavel did not want any of the NCOs who were
husbands or fathers to have to go. So as a bachelor, he volunteered for
this duty; and,
Whereas, Corporal Andrew J. Pavel had earned the National
Defense Service Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal,
Page 24
November 14,2006
the Navy Meritorious Unit Commendation, and Joint Meritorious
Medal Award, the Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, and the Afghan.
Campaign Medal and is looking forward to attending Scout Sniper
school to further hone his skills as a military police officer.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that Corporal Andrew J.
Pavel, USMC, United States Marine Corps, be commended for his
duty as a United States Marine and congratulate him for his
accomplishments and willingness to put himself in harm's way to
protect our country.
Done and ordered this 14th day of November, 2006, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Frank Halas, Chair.
And I move that we accept this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Halas and a second by Commissioner Coletta.
All those in favor of this proclamation, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Corporal, it's a pleasure to give you this.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Turn around and we'll get a
picture.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Say a few words.
CORPORAL PAVEL: Good morning, everybody. I'll be nice
and short.
It means a lot for me to come back, going out to Afghanistan,
doing something like that, and have everybody's support. It means a
Page 25
November 14, 2006
lot to me.
And I appreciate everything you've done because people before
my time have done it, and I feel like I had to give something back to
them for serving for me before. Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4D
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING NOVEMBER AS NATIONAL
HOSPICE/P ALLIA TIVE CARE MONTH - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next proclamation is 4D, and
it's recognizing November as National Hospice Palliative Care Month,
to be received by Mary Brodeur, registered nurse and community
relations manager, and Barbara Miller, registered nurse.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Whereas, hospice and palliative care
provides patients and families the highest quality care during
life-limiting illness and at the end of life through pain management
and symptom control, caregiver training and assistance, and emotional
and spiritual support, allowing patients to live fully up until the final
moments surrounded and supported by the faces of loved ones,
friends, and committed caregivers; and,
Whereas, last year more than one million Americans living with
life-limiting illness and their families received care from the 4,100
hospice and palliative care programs in communities throughout the
United States.
Last year in Collier County, more than 1,600 individuals living
with a life-limiting illness were cared for by Hospice of Naples; and,
Whereas, professional and compassionate hospice staff, including
physicians, nurses, social workers, therapists, counselors, health aides,
and clergy, provide comprehensive care focused on the wished of each
individual patient; and,
Page 26
November 14,2006
Whereas, more than 400,000 trained volunteers contribute 18
million hours of service to the hospice program annually; more than
250 Hospice of Naples volunteers contributed more than 12,000 hours
of service to hospice patients living in Collier County last year; and,
Whereas, providing high quality hospice and palliative care
reaffirms our belief in the essential dignity of every person, regardless
of age, health or social status, and that every state of human life
deserves to be treated with the utmost respect and care; Hospice of
Naples believes by changing the way people die, they change the way
people live; and,
Whereas, hospice and palliative care providers encourage all
people to learn more about options of care and to share their wishes
with family, loved ones and their healthcare professionals.
Now, therefore be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that November be
designated as National Hospice/Palliative Care Month and encourage
citizens to increase their understanding and awareness of care at the
end of life and to observe this month with appropriate activities and
programs.
Done and ordered this 14th day of November, 2006, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Frank Halas,
Chairman.
And Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And I second that.
There's a motion on the floor by Commissioner Fiala in regards
to this proclamation, and a second by 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?
Page 27
November 14,2006
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Congratulations.
(Applause.)
MS. BRODEUR: Thank you very much, Chairman Halas and
fellow commissioners, for recognizing the importance of hospice care.
Hospice of Naples has been serving all of Collier County for 23
years now, and we want to continue doing that because as our
community grows, our county grows, Hospice of Naples, Marco
Island, and Immokalee will be growing.
And Commissioner Fiala did a great job reading the proclamation
and giving everybody some education for hospice, but I think it's also
important for people to realize that we have to follow Medicare
guidelines, so the guidelines say if a patient has about six months or
less of expected life to live, they should be thinking about hospice care
and their doctor should be recommending it.
We would love to have our patients for six months at least.
Usually it's only two to three weeks because sometimes the families
don't want to accept it, the patient doesn't want to accept it, or the
doctor doesn't discuss it.
So it's important to remember that anyone can make a referral to
Hospice, anyone can call our office and ask the question, is it time.
We need some help. And we're there not only for the patient, but for
family members also. And caregivers need a lot of support, and I
think that's something to really, really remember.
Thank you so much. We appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
Item #5A
PRESENTATION OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
OUTSTANDING MEMBER AWARD TO SYDNEY E. BLUM,
Page 28
November 14,2006
COUNTY GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE -
PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to our next
presentation, and this is -- we're now in presentations, paragraph 5.
And this is a presentation of the Advisory Committee
Outstanding Member Award to Sidney Blum of the Collier County
Productivity Committee. And Mr. Blum, if you could come forward,
please.
Sidney Blum has attended an impressive 31 out of 34 monthly
Productivity Committee meetings, in addition to countless
subcommittee meetings.
Mr. Blum's strong business sense, along with his desire to seek
practical solutions, has truly made him an outstanding member of the
Productivity Committee.
In addition, Mr. Blum also provides valuable service to Collier
County government as a member of the Contractor's Licensing Board.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to present to you the Outstanding
Advisory Committee Member awardee for November of 2006, Mr.
Sidney Blum.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sidney, it gives me great pleasure to
present this award to you and all your dedication on the Productivity
Board. Thank you so very, very much.
MR. BLUM: Great.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And, of course, we have a parking
permit for you for one month, okay?
MR. BLUM: That's the best part.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's the best part.
MR. BLUM: It's worth all the years.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much for your dedicated
.
serVIce.
Page 29
November 14,2006
(Applause.)
MR. BLUM: I have to tell you all, it's been a privilege for me to
serve on productivity with my fellow members, as well as the staff and
the commissioners of Collier County. And I just want to let the
citizens of Collier County know, you're all, indeed, in good hands.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Wow.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #5B
PRESENTATION TO KEEP COLLIER BEAUTIFUL
INCORPORATED IN RECOGNITION OF THEIR ON GOING
PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CITIZENS OF COLLIER COUNTY
AND TO SHOW APPRECIATION FOR THEIR MANY
BENEFICIAL PROJECTS INCLUDING RECYCLING AND
WASTE REDUCTION INITIATIVES - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next presentation is a
presentation to Keep Collier Beautiful, Incorporated, in recognition of
their ongoing partnership with the citizens of Collier County and to
show appreciation for their many beneficial projects, including
recycling and waste reduction initiatives.
I believe that Ken Resor will read the presentation to Keep
Collier Beautiful; Commissioner Henning, I believe that you're going
to present a plaque, if everything is working correctly; and Cher
Compton, the Keep Collier Beautiful executive director, will come on
up here to accept the award.
MR. RESOR: Honorable members of the Board of County
Commissioners, for 10 years Collier County has benefited from the
continuous work of Keep Collier Beautiful, Incorporated. Activities
Page 30
November 14,2006
such as the annual coastal cleanup and bay days, spearheaded by this
non-profit, public education organization brings enormous benefit to
our community.
In addition to helping keep Collier County clean, Keep Collier
Beautiful joins together with business partners and volunteers to
activity promote recycling and waste reduction due to collection of
newspapers, ink cartridges, cell phones, cigarette butts off the beach,
monofilament fishing line.
Through the years, Keep Collier Beautiful and the public utilities
solid waste management department have partnered together to
provide opportunities for citizens to participate in cleanups, recycling
-- and recycling programs that benefit neighborhoods throughout
Collier County.
Keep Collier Beautiful's newest endeavor is to bring forward a
clean builder's program, a program designed to prevent littering at
construction and demolition sites and to achieve better handling of
waste materials and recalls.
In celebration of Recycle America Day 2006 and in recognition
of the ongoing partnership between Keep Collier Beautiful and the
citizens of Collier County, we'd like to show our appreciation by
presenting Keep Collier Beautiful, Incorporated, with this plaque.
Thank you for the work you do for our community.
MS. COMPTON: Thank you.
MR. RESOR: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MS. COMPTON: I need the board to come up, too.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Bring them all up here.
MS. COMPTON: It's not just me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. You guys do all the
work.
Page 31
November 14, 2006
(Applause.)
MR. RESOR: It is a pleasure to recognize Cher Compton, the
executive director of the Keep Collier Beautiful board and the team,
including the board of directors and all the volunteers for the hard
work they do to enhance Collier County.
The presentation only mentioned a few of the projects that Keep
Collier Beautiful is involved with. Others include litter bugs me, the
student calendar art contest, the adopt-a-reef/the Collier Reef Research
Team Underwater Cleanups, the annual litter index, the adopt-a-shore,
adopt-a-canal, graffiti hurts, care for your community, and an adopt a
spod park.
Thank you again, and we look forward to strengthening our
partnership with Keep Collier Beautiful over the next year with
projects that will keep a direct positive impact on the taxpayers.
Cher, would you like to say anything on behalf of Keep Collier
Beautiful? Thank you.
MS. COMPTON: Thank you, Ken. It was very nice words.
And thank you, Commissioners, for this recognition. We really
appreciate it.
2006 is our 10th year as an affiliate of Keep America Beautiful.
And you've heard the list of projects we've got going. We really
appreciate the honor of being recognized for the work, but it's really
all of the volunteers that are getting out there and actually bending
over and picking up.
This last year we had our best cleanup ever. With coastal cleanup
we had 1,400 volunteers out in one day . We're real proud of that.
We're looking forward to bay days. Bay days will be April 21 st this
year, and we hope to see you all.
Thank you again.
(Applause.)
Item #5C
Page 32
November 14,2006
PRESENTATION OF THE WRAP AWARD, THE WASTE
REDUCTION AWARDS PROGRAM, TO THE ANIMAL
MEDICAL HOSPITAL OF NAPLES IN RECOGNITION OF
THEIR ENHANCED RECYCLING PROGRAM AND POSITIVE
EFFECT ON SUSTAINING THE USABLE LIFE OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY LANDFILL - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, the next presentation is a
presentation WRAP Award, which is a Waste Reduction Awards
Program, to the Animal Medical Hospital of Naples in recognition of
their enhanced recycling program and positive effect on sustaining the
usable life of the Collier County Landfill.
I believe Ms. Janet Go will read the proclamation, and Dr. Corbo
of the Animal Medical Hospital, are you here to accept? Please come
forward.
MS. GO: Good morning, Commissioners. We have -- there's
staff from the Animal Medical Hospital representing the clinic.
This is Erin O'Brien, and then we have Julie McNaught. Go
ahead, stand.
Good morning, Commissioners, again. The mandatory
non-residential recycling ordinance adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners on July 27, 2004, established a waste reduction
awards program, the WRAP Award right now, to recognize businesses
and institutions for enhanced and innovative recycling programs.
The Board of Collier County Commissioners is pleased to
recognize the Animal Medical Hospital of Naples for their efforts to
contribute to the greater good of all of Collier County by helping
prolong the usable life of the Collier County Landfill by reducing their
solid waste stream through an enhanced recycling program as
evidenced by implementing a recycling program in their
administration office and kennel area, placing under the desk
Page 33
November 14,2006
recycling containers for paper and cardboard inside the administration
office, initiating an extensive employee training program to transition
towards recycling.
The result of these efforts made it possible for the Animal
Medical Hospital of Naples to replace a four cubic yard dumpster with
two 96-gallon trash carts and a cardboard paper recycling container.
The Animal Medical Hospital of Naples is an outstanding
example of a business that is in compliance with the non-residential
recycling ordinance. The WRAP Award Program includes a
certificate, atrophy, use of the WRAP logo, and a space on the
colliergov.net recycle website to showcase their waste reduction and
recycling program.
Therefore, the Board of County Commissioners congratulates Dr.
Carin Corbo and staff of the Animal Medical Hospital of Naples for
their continued support in promoting waste reduction and recycling.
Their efforts will have a significant and positive effect on sustaining
the usable life of the Collier County Landfill.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It gives me great pleasure to present
these two awards to the Animal Medical Hospital of Naples.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If you'd stay right here, we'll have a
picture with your awards. Thank you.
MS. GO: Do you want to say something?
(Applause.)
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Just on behalf of Carin Corbo, the
doctor at Animal Medical Hospital of Naples, thank you very much.
(Applause.)
Item #5D
RECOMMENDATION TO RECOGNIZE JAMES MAULDEN,
Page 34
November 14,2006
SENIOR EQUIPMENT OPERATOR, SOLID WASTE
DEPARTMENT, AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR
OCTOBER~ 2006 - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next presentation is a
recommendation to recognize James Maulden, the senior equipment
operator for solid waste department, as the Employee of the Month for
October, 2006.
Mr. Maulden, if you could come forward, please.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: James Maulden is an outstanding employee.
James has been a Collier County employee since 1989; always on
time, reporting late to work only two times in his 17-year career.
In addition to his punctuality, James has never taken a single day
of sick leave, accumulating over 2,706 hours of unused sick time.
He always greets customers and co-workers with a smile and is a
pleasure to work with. James keeps himselfbusy by taking the
initiative to seek jobs to complete whether it is helping a visitor to a
center or completing daily tasks.
Whenever James is faced with an irate citizen who disagrees with
the measurements and fees assessed, James remains calm and
professional, polite, explaining the center's policy and ending the
encounter with a satisfied customer. That is hard to do.
James has traveled 1,500,000 accident-free miles on Collier
County's congested roadways. Whenever experienced -- experiencing
problems with equipment, James works hand-in-hand with fleet
management to identify and locate the problem.
James' continued diligence in these matters resulted in the repairs
of equipment after the solid waste department had experienced years
of ongoing problems that had resulted in lost work time.
After Hurricane Wilma, James was indispensable, completing
such tasks as assisting in hurricane staging areas, cleaning the debris
Page 35
November 14,2006
from the homeless camp, and removing the remains of portable
classrooms from Corkscrew Middle School.
Weare proud to work with this man whom we so highly respect.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to present to you James Maulden,
who is the Employee of the Month for Collier County for October,
2006.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wow, wow.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: James, if would you step over here, I've
got some awards I'd like to give you, but I also would like to say, the
dedication that you've put forth is the reason that you are Employee of
the Month. And thank you very much for your outstanding service
and your dedication.
I'd like to start off first with this letter of commendation. And
then, of course, there's a check here for a little extra. And of course,
here's something that you can hang on your wall at work or else at
home to be proud of. Thank you very much for your service.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Very much so.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What a glowing report. I'm so glad
your ours.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You work at the Naples facility,
right?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Turn around, sir, so we could get a
picture, and if you could show your awards. Appreciate it.
(Applause.)
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY GENE BELSITO TO DISCUSS
A BACK EXIT FROM FALLING WATERS (DAVIS
BOULEVARD) ONTO COPE LANE - DISCUSSED AND IT TO
WORK WITH STAFF
Page 36
November 14, 2006
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to our next agenda,
which is public petitions, and our first public petition today is a
request from Gene Balsito to discuss a back exit from Falling Waters,
Davis Boulevard, onto Cope Lane. Mr. Belsito?
MR. BELSITO: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Gene Belsito. I'm president of the Muriel Lakes at Falling Waters and
also on the board of directors of Falling Waters.
We have a rear exit that has been being used by the developer
that has been developed at Falling Waters, and they're about to close
the rear exit.
The petition would be to discuss, what the commission (sic) is, to
leave this exit open for the health and welfare of the people of Falling
Waters.
We also have a -- excuse me -- a permit problem. The permit
costs would be approximately $6,000. And I would like the
commissioners to get a more reasonable permit cost.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You need to speak just a little
closer. There you go.
MR. BELSITO: A more reasonable permit cost so we can afford
to go ahead with this project.
Right now the developers want to leave, and they're stressing us
to go ahead and try to get this exit open.
So my request is for the commissioners to approve this exit so we
can use it in the future.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: County Manager, or the county
attorney, can you tell us the process to make a construction entrance to
a permanent entrance?
MR. KLATZKOW: If I may, Commissioner? JeffKlatzkow, for
the record. I reviewed this PUD, and my review of the PUD indicates
that although it's not crystal clear on it, it looks like this exit was
intended to be construction-only, and then after the construction was
Page 37
November 14, 2006
ended, the exit was supposed to be closed off.
There was some discussion between the residents of the
neighborhood and the PUD, and it looked like sort of a compromise
where eventually this exit be closed off.
If this exit's going to be done as a second exit to the development,
then I think a PUD amendment's probable the best process. It would
be a public process. The residents of the community would be able to
come forward and tell the board what they thought of this, and the
residents of the community at Falling Waters can come forward,
because I don't know that we have a majority in that community either
for this project.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. County Manager, a
question. Since it will take a PUD amendment, probably limited
review, and we do encourage interconnectivity, is there a possibility to
lower the fees for such amendment?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, those fees are set by the board, and
this board can lower the fee if that's what the board's desire is. You
can do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: On a case-by-case basis?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a question. There's been a couple
of gated communities in my area that have worked by themselves --
I've given them support as far as working with agreements with
developers -- but normally I think that a gated community who's
looking forward to another exit, I believe that should be up to the
gated community and the residents there to work in that manner,
whether it's an MS TU or whether it's something that they work
together, if it's a CDD, and maybe they can work out an exit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. The exit is there. It's a
construction entrance, and the road has been improved up to county
standards.
Page 38
November 14,2006
I remember this item when it came before, and I think it was
clear to the public they were just going to use that for a construction
entrance, reviewing the minutes of the meeting.
And I guess it's up to the Board of Commissioners to -- if the
citizens are wanting a second entrance, and the request is to reduce the
fees, I think I'll put it on the -- a future agenda for the board to
consider after talking with the county manager to find out what kind
of reviews it's going to take, and put it on a number nine, so --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I would think that what they would need
to do is get a consensus of 50 plus one from the citizens in that
community before we should go forward on that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I don't know what the feeling is of
the overall consensus of the people, but I would think that they need to
take some type of a straw vote or something, that we get 50 plus one
percent before we should go forward on it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if that's what you need,
Commissioner, I'll work with the community to see the consensus of
the community before I bring it up.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure, sure. That's great.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Will you also be checking with the
people on Cope Lane?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think there definitely
needs to be a neighborhood meeting in the process with the county
involvement to see if there is any objection from the neighboring
community. But, you know, I think it's a fair statement, maybe not all
of the residents or majority of the residents are in favor of it. So let
me work with them and see what I can do.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Fantastic.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that okay?
MR. BELSITO: That will be fine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Great. I'll contact you.
Page 39
November 14,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY FRED KOPPENHAFER TO
DISCUSS RADIO ROAD EAST OF SANTA BARBARA
BOULEVARD - DISCUSSED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 6B. It's a public
petition request by Fred Koppenhafer to discuss Radio Road east of
Santa Barbara Boulevard.
MR. KOPPENHAFER: Thank you.
Honorable County Manager, members of the Board of the
County Commissioners and all other interested parties, my name is
Fred Koppenhafer. I'm a resident of Plantation Homeowners'
Association of Collier County, Inc. I have some fiduciary interest in
rental units within the Furse Lakes Community Association.
My presence here is, before the board, is to discuss the expansion
of Radio Road east of Santa Barbara Boulevard and essentially its
impact upon the personal safety and access management efficiency for
the hundreds of homeowners and tenants within the aforementioned
associations as well as the Villas of Capri who use the Radio Road
entrance at Plantation Circle daily for work-related purposes as well as
personal enjoyment.
This is the signing and pavement marking plan prepared by the
Collier County Transportation Engineering and Construction
Management Department. It's sheet number S-43.
And at this juncture here is the sole entrance to Radio Road for
the homeowners in Plantation Circle, the Furse Lakes area and the
Villas of Capri.
There are -- competent authority has advised me that there are
some 418 homeowners in this area exiting Plantation Circle.
Page 40
November 14,2006
At present we are able to make a left-hand turn -- there's no
traffic light there -- and a right-hand turn. It's a two-lane road at
present. They're going to expand it to a four-lane road shortly.
My interests, obviously, are safety and the ability of our
homeowners in this area to make a turn towards the west and not
necessarily have to go around a circle to Davis Boulevard to access
our normal shopping center at Berkshire.
Currently the Collier County Transportation Engineering and
Construction Management Signing and Pavement Plan -- I'll refer to
as the plan in the future -- provides a restrictive median that divides
east and west traffic on Radio Road into four lanes.
The plan provides for signals at the intersections of Sapphire
Lakes and Sabal Lakes at STA282 and Madison Park Boulevard and
Sanctuary Road at ST A302.
Motorists -- this is important. Motorists are not prohibited from
making an eastbound or westbound U-turn at these intersections
according to the plan.
This area here is the area of Sapphire Lakes and Sabal Lakes.
This area here I'll get to in just a moment.
In any event, exiting from Plantation Circle, we will go up this
way here, according to the plan, and at this area there's going to be a
traffic light. There will be no traffic light to afford us an opportunity
to make a left-hand turn at Plantation Circle onto Radio Road. That's
unfortunate. We've been doing it since time in memoriam.
And -- in the interest of safety and because so many of our
homeowners leave this area for rush hour and at 6: 3 0 to 8: 00 and
come back in the evening at the usual time, 4:30 to 6:00, I'm of the
opinion that what we need here are the green light -- the green arrows,
rather, at this traffic light at Sapphire Lakes and Sabal Lakes, and also
a green arrow at the intersections of Madison Park and Sanctuary.
We're talking about here at these two intersections, the
intersection of Plantation Circle and Sapphire Lakes, upwards of 1,800
Page 41
November 14,2006
homeowners. That's a small city, a small town in America, and this is
just within a couple of hundred yards of one another, so we need
safety there.
And in order to get safety, I believe it best to have a green light.
And here are the words that I've put down to explain that. I
recommend that the traffic signals at the two intersections include a
green arrow control that is time synchronized to permit a safe left turn
or U-turn flow of traffic.
I further recommend that the east- and westbound staging ramps
for these traffic signals be sufficiently (sic) in length to handle the
anticipated volume of traffic buildup at rush hours.
In other words, these charts don't necessarily show the width of
the staging ramp, but they should be sufficient to afford full security
for our motorists who are going to make a U-turn at Sabal Lakes and
elsewhere, aU-turn at Madison Park and Sanctuary Boulevard -- or
Sanctuary Road.
I think it's important for our people to be able to go to the beach
without having to go there by way of Davis and Wal * Mart and that
area. I think our intention here is safety and egressability.
You have here a pamphlet called Access Management, Balancing
Access and Mobility. But in reviewing that pamphlet, I didn't see the
word egressability anywhere.
So you -- what it amounts to is, yes, we can enter our units, but
trying to get out is more difficult.
With the approval by the council and our commissioners here
present, you'd have a light at Sabal Lakes and Sapphire Lakes and one
at Madison Park and Sanctuary. That will afford our motorists make a
safe U-turn or a safe left turn.
You don't know, if you haven't traveled on Radio Road recently,
between 6:30 and 8:00 it's a racetrack. We have elderly citizens and
we have young people who exit out of Plantation Circle.
At present -- at present the plan calls for a U-turn at marker
Page 42
November 14, 2006
STS290. This is on sheet S-45. So the present plan allows for a U-turn
here at the same time a U-turn can be made by the westbound traffic at
this same location.
I discussed some of these features with the project manager for
the construction at your county building, and --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can you wrap it up, sir?
MR. KOPPENHAFER: Getting time out?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, sir.
MR. KOPPENHAFER: Okay, all right. I'll close in two
minutes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'd like to have it shorter than two
minutes, sir, if you could, sir, 30 seconds.
MR. KOPPENHAFER: Okay. You'll have it in one minute,
because if it please the county manager, I would like to enter into the
record my outline of this talk. It gives recommendations as long as --
as well as facts.
I have made concern recommendations to you and, in the interest
of safety for our citizens in this area, I certainly hope you agree with
it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. KOPPENHAFER: If you agree with it, then there will be a
modus operandi to create a contract change order if one is warranted,
okay?
That's my presentation. I thank you for your attention.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much for your time, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question, sir.
MR. KOPPENHAFER: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you for being here. You
seem to be very knowledgeable. Do you have a background in
transportation engineering?
MR. KOPPENHAFER: I have 42 years in chasing fraud, waste
and abuse. I don't have a background in county or roadways or things
Page 43
November 14, 2006
like that, but my background does extend quite a ways.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you're an attorney?
MR. KOPPENHAFER: I am not. I am an accountant.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay. I mean, it just seems
like you've self-educated. You've done very well on your
presentation. I appreciate it.
MR. KOPPENHAFER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Were you able to make the
many design public workshops and meetings about the design of
Radio Road?
MR. KOPPENHAFER: Not at all, no.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Yeah, I know we had at
least three, if not two dozen on -- because this is a project along with a
contested Santa Barbara.
And I don't know the details of your recommendations. I
understand you want to make changes, but those changes may have
another effect on what the county transportation, along with what
WilsonMiller has told the public, this is what we're going to do.
And I'm reluctant to give direction to make changes to a design
that went to the public over and over again. But I appreciate your--
MR. KOPPENHAFER: Well, I appreciate your comments there,
too but--
,
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Transportation, could you give us some
insight into this, please?
Sir, your time is up.
MR. KOPPENHAFER: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay?
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, yes, I'll try to be brief. Let me put
a graphic on the overhead. And basically this corresponds to what was
just discussed, although they're a little bit in opposite order.
Essentially what we've got here is you've got Santa Barbara
Boulevard, you're working your way, essentially, eastbound, and then
Page 44
November 14,2006
you have Davis and the connection where we're four-Ianed today over
on the other end.
Essentially what we've got, as described, the gentleman's coming
out here where we've got dual directionals. That's the first graphic he
showed you there. We have full openings, as was mentioned, at Sabal
Lakes, and also at Sanctuary and Madison. Now, that is a change on
that one at Madison. I'll hit that in a minute.
But neither of those are signalized. They are full openings. Both
of them are unsignalized, as we have discussed in the many meetings.
The case of change is the one I mentioned at Madison. That was
originally a dual directional, actually is closed in that area, with just a
left to the north. But Madison, since we started this design, as the
commissioner mentioned, about five years ago and went through
many meetings and iterations, the development of Madison, especially
with it developing a road open to the public between Radio and Davis,
we've established that as a full opening.
Before we made that change though, we had the left to the north.
We had a dual directional here mid block between items that we set
up for people for turnaround.
What was originally in the petition that we thought we were
responding to today -- this changed a bit -- is essentially for coming
out here, if you can't make the left, as was noted, there's a concern that
they couldn't necessarily make the turn at this first opening because of
the distance in getting over the two lanes -- was that if they come up to
this area that we're establishing for dual directional for U-turns, that
they wanted to eliminate the -- what would be the westbound left turn
back to the east because they felt that that would block their view as
they went westbound to an eastbound left turn.
Now, with the opening, full opening, as I mentioned now, down
there at Madison, we're in a position -- and we concurred and thought
we were going to be responsive to at least a portion of what we saw as
the public petition -- and by saying that we can eliminate this
Page 45
November 14,2006
westbound U-turn which was in the petition.
We cannot put a flashing light there. It's not warranted by
METCD standards. But with the one modification in the plans, which
is usually received well -- it's not more restrictive, it's more open -- to
have the full opening now at Madison. That is no longer a necessity to
have that westbound U, and so we're proposing to take that out in
response to what we understood as the petition issue.
But I need to reemphasize, there are not signals slated at either of
these locations at this time until and if they ever meet warrants. I hope
that responds to the questions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sir, you had your time.
MR. KOPPENHAFER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Feder, you have the latitude
to make some minor changes. I mean, the board doesn't approve the
design --
MR. FEDER: No, understood, but we do try to stay consistent
with what we've gone to the public, as you noted.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And I asked you if you
were going to make major changes to the roadway, that you have a
public meeting and inform the public.
MR. FEDER: And we agree. And in this case, I don't think the
changes we're recommending to you are significant. As a matter of
fact, we're providing for greater flexibility by having that full opening
down at Madison as opposed to that westbound turn. As you can see,
there's nothing in between, so therefore it's serviced better by the full
opening there at Madison.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we need to thank the
residents for bringing that up to us.
MR. FEDER: And that's what we intended to do today, although
we couldn't response to the yellow flasher, we thought we were being
responsive to what we thought we heard as the original petition item.
Page 46
November 14, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: This is similar to a project that came to
our attention with the expansion of Immokalee Road, I think it was
Regents Park, in regards to where they wanted a special light, and we
had to put a brand new bridge in just down the road, I believe, at
Lakeland.
MR. FEDER: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And so this is a similar situation and --
MR. FEDER: Not just to that one. It is a similar situation to
what we find ourselves throughout the county.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Right.
MR. FEDER: We've got an arterial system with no collector
road system. We don't have a defined grid, and, therefore, we're
having to utilize access controls and balance, as was pointed out, land
access to through movement and efficiency and safety, and that's what
we're trying to do with access management.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I think that the people there in
Regents Park understood what our problem was and now have --
MR. FEDER: And just as pointed out here, I think their desire,
obviously, was for the signal, as is always the case, but that's not what
we can do for every development along the line.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Halas, I just want
to say the Board of Commissioners has limitations on what we can do
as far as traffic lights and median openings and stuff like that because
the safety --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Belongs to engineering.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, and--
MR. FEDER: And the liability issues. Every signal causes more
accidents.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And I don't want to
design things up here, but it sounds like the Plantation resident was
right in some part of his analysis, and you're going to respond to it, so
Page 47
November 14,2006
thank you.
MR. FEDER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: Time?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. We'll take a 10-minute break for
our court reporter.
Thank you very much.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, County Manager.
The Board of County Commissioners are now back from recess,
and I believe we're starting off with item 9 A.
MR. MUDD: Just so -- just for the folks out there, that items 7
and 8, which have to do with the Board of Zoning Appeals and
advertised public hearings, the zoning actions, start at one p.m.
This brings us to paragraph 9, Board of County Commissioners.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2006-292: RE-APPOINTING MARCIA
BREITHAUPT TO THE ANIMAL SERVICES ADVISORY
BOARD - ADOPTED
The first item is 9 A, appointment of a member to the Animal
Services Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve the applicant.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
Is there any further discussion?
(No response.)
Page 48
November 14, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, 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?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2006-293: APPOINTING ROBERT M.
SLEBODNIK TO THE LEL Y GOLF ESTATES
BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: The next item is 9B, appointment of a member to
the Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I make a motion that we
accept Robert Slebodnik, but we -- Ms. Kathleen Dammert they said
they had no time to interview her, so they would prefer that at this
time we don't approve here, we bring that back.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So we have a motion on the floor from
Commissioner Fiala to approve Robert M. Slebodnik, and it's
seconded by Commissioner Henning.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 49
November 14,2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2006-294: RECOMMENDATION TO DECLARE A
VACANCY ON THE HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD -
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that bring us to our next item,
which is 9C. A recommendation to declare a vacancy on the Hispanic
Affairs Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
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?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2006-395: APPOINTING ERNESTO E.
VELASQUEZ TO THE HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD
- ADOPTED
Page 50
November 14,2006
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, the next item is appointment of a
member to the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve the applicant.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion to approve
Ernesto Velasquez by Commissioner Henning and a second by
Commissioner Fiala.
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 FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us to paragraph 10, the
county manager's report.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 2006-296: RESOLUTION REPEALING ALL
PREVIOUS RESOLUTIONS ESTABLISHING AND AMENDING
PARTS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND
RECREATION DEPARTMENT FACILITIES AND OUTDOOR
AREAS LICENSE AND FEE POLICY AND ESTABLISHING THE
POLICY EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 14, 2006 AND
SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 2006-43 AND ALL OTHER
RESOLUTIONS ESTABLISHING LICENSE AND FEE POLICY. -
Page 51
November 14,2006
ADOPTED W/CHANGES
First item is lOA. This item was continued from the September
26th, October 10th and October 24, 2006, BCC meetings. For the
viewing audience out there, they weren't just continued because it
wasn't heard. Commissioners had concerns at each one of the
readings and, therefore, asked staff to come back with fixes and
explanations, and all of those particular items have been done on all
three meetings.
It's a recommendation to adopt a resolution repealing all previous
resolutions establishing and amending parts of the Collier County
Parks and Recreation Department facilities and outdoor areas license
and fee policy and establishing the policy effective November 14,
2006, and superseding resolution number 2006-43 and all resolutions
establishing license and fee policy. And Mr. Barry Williams, your
director of parks and rec. will present.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Barry?
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioners, good morning. For the
record, Barry Williams, parks and recreation director.
Commissioners, we have taken your most recent direction from
the previous board meetings and are presenting the latest version of
the park and recreation fee policy for your approval today.
You have given us directions on several items, but before I go
over those, I just want to preface the presentation by reminding you
that you have adopted the FY -'07 parks and recreation budget, and our
budget met the guidelines you established for staff.
In addition, approximately 32 percent of our budget is comprised
of user fees. These fees allow for a variety of recreational activities
that citizens pay for based upon their use of the service.
You've asked that staff reduce youth fees associated with Collier
County Parks and Recreation Department at a variety of
neighborhoods within Collier County from $30 to $10.
Page 52
November 14,2006
Staffs recommendation is, if you wish to reduce this fee, to
reduce it for the entire county. If you reduce this dollar amount, we
would ask that you not reduce the level of service and that funds be
taken from reserve to maintain the level of service established by this
user fee.
The level of service that I speak of is in regards to trophies,
T -shirts, officials who regulate play and sports equipment associated
with these leagues. Again, just to reiterate to you, it is not staffs
recommendation that you reduce this fee.
We have within this fee policy a provision that allows for the
reduction of fees based upon financial need and not on geographical
location; however, should you choose to vote to reduce this 30 to $10,
we'd ask that you would take monies out of reserve to cover the
service that are provided.
Secondly, you have asked for waiving the fees associated with
lights related to evening use of the fields. The cost associated with
user fees waived for this purpose is approximately $12,400.
And, Commissioners, I have a -- Commissioner Halas, you asked
about the cost of lights in our park system, and we wanted to provide a
graph that depicts that.
We took three of our parks and -- to give some examples. And
the average cost per kilowatt hour is roughly 25 cents. And so within
our park system, depending on the type of field that we illuminate,
will determine the price. For example, we have at Eagle Lakes, a
softball field that has 77 light fixtures so at 25 cents per kilowatt hour,
that's an hourly cost of approximately $19.25.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: An hour?
MR. WILLIAMS: An hour. We also have, with newer
technology, more efficient lighting. In fact, North Collier Regional is
shown as an example. Softball field at North Collier Regional Park, it
uses less lights because the lighting is more efficient. So it's 44 lights
at that same 25 cents per kilowatt hour. That gives you an hourly cost
Page 53
November 14,2006
of$l1.
So you can see the cost associated with the lights being on for
specific user activity has a cost, and we've asked in the fee policy for
that cost to be borne, a portion of that cost, at a $10 an hour rate;
however, in this current fee policy, per your direction, we have struck
that from the fee policy.
Next, staffhas eliminated the user fee related to fundraising
activities in the park. We have not generated any revenue from this
fee based on last year's analysis, and there is no revenue projection
that we have for this fee and frankly agree with the perception that
you have pointed out that this fee appears to reflect negatively and
impact organizations that may be involved in our park and using it for
good cause. And certainly, we don't see the point in having this
fundraising fee in, so we've -- we've struck that in this latest proposal
to you.
Finally, staff has included a description of our sliding fee policy
and the income levels that we base the discounts on. And if I may,
just to put that on the visualizer.
Commissioners, you can see from this example in terms of our
fee policy, the sliding fee scale represents discounts to families whose
household income is at or below 200 percent of federal poverty
guidelines.
These are guidelines that are established by the health and human
services, the federal government. And this is the benchmark for
determining eligibility for means tested programs throughout the
country .
And just to reiterate, we think that rather than reducing the fees, a
much better mechanism is the sliding fee policy that currently exists.
We provide discounts to hundreds of folks that approach our park
system looking to be involved in programs every year through this
income-based sliding fee scale, and we feel that this is a much better
method of encouraging youth to become involved in our programming
Page 54
November 14, 2006
versus making geographical distinctions about waiving fees.
Commissioners, just in closing, we have worked very hard to
bring you a fee policy that we hope that you can approve today . We
hope that it meets your guidelines and would ask that you make every
effort to approve the fee policy today. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: First I'd like to tell you, Barry,
I'm extremely pleased with how you've been so persistent coming
back and the patience you have exhibited to this commission as we try
to work our way through with the need of the public as -- versus, you
know, while trying to keep financial stability within the program.
Also, too, your -- I just absolutely love the user-friendliness of
the refund policy . You know, our customers are well taken care of
with the way it's worded now. It's absolutely flawless. I wouldn't
expect anything better from any other place I would ever go with my
family.
I do have some thoughts. I understand what your argument is as
far as the fee policy. We got there because of the fact that there was a
two-tier system, and Immokalee was recognized because of its
uniqueness of the situation, and lmmokalee also did not have the fee
for lighting, and that's the reason why it was suggested to make it
universal across the board.
Now, the reduction in fees, I think that does go a long way, but it
still stops short, because we have situations in Immokalee that they
fall way below these particular guidelines, you know.
And I would be agreeable, you know, for one policy that covers
all if we had a reduction in fee policy that maybe had one more tier to
it where it was just a small token fee that somebody played that was
truly indigent and unable to even make this present schedule that we
had. That would -- and I would even be able to live with that as far as
the lighting cost goes. That's my thoughts on that particular thing.
I've got some other issues, but I'm sure that Commissioner Fiala
Page 55
November 14,2006
wants to address the --
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner Coletta, if I just may point out.
I think any reduction that you request, certainly that's your right to do
so. Our only point to you is we would not want to see a reduction in
level of service. So there is a cost associated with the services in these
fees. These fees go directly to the program participants.
So if you don't wish the user to pay for the cost, we would ask
that you take funds from general reserve to continue that service.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. When I had spoken of light
fees at the time, I was actually speaking of the extra $10 you added on
if they were fundraising charitable organizations.
MR. WILLIAMS: We've struck that, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I don't -- you know, if -- I
don't know about the fees for all of the lights. I don't remember
saying that. If I did, I sure don't remember that, because I think you
have to have lights. And, you know, the teams get together and get
money for that. I just didn't feel the extra charge if they were a
fundraising group was --
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am. If you were to -- if you were to
approve this fee policy with the exceptions that you would make, I
think that would be fine for us to take this forward and it be approved.
If -- Commissioner Halas, I mean, if there was the desire to take
this fee policy with -- including allowing the users to continue to pay
for the lights, giving Commissioner Coletta the ability to have a fee
reduced in Immokalee, if you want to continue to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, if I may. I think the
hang-up was is that there's equally needed (sic) people in other parts
of the county, maybe not the same number. Rather than maybe
identify with Immokalee, if -- and I'm sorry to speak out of turn.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, that's all right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Reduction in fee, if we had
Page 56
November 14,2006
something that was 25,50 and maybe 75 that picked up an extremely
low indigent population that's out there, that possibly the one family
member has just social security and the rest of what they receive is
from social service organizations, you know, and they're just making a
go of it -- and these kind of fees, even at this, would be a burden to
them.
Now, I'm sure there's not a ton of them, but I imagine there are
some. And I think that would go a long ways towards getting us to
where we need to be with, the equality across all the county lines
would be the same, and we'd be able to recognize the uniqueness of
any particular family situation.
MR. WILLIAMS: I just would point out, your sliding fee scale
does provide that, and it gives us an opportunity to look at a person's
income to see if they are -- indeed, have a financial need, and then
make that decision to give them a reduced fee. So I would -- just want
to point that out.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think as long as that's made clear.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe sometimes, you know,
people aren't aware that that is available to them, and we all might
know it and we might have it in some written handout, but maybe they
don't get that.
And so I don't know how you can do that, but I think it's
important. You know, one of the main objectives here -- and I'm sure
that Commissioner Coletta and Commissioner Henning also would --
because we're the three that have areas where there are a lot of
children, and many of them below poverty level, and all we're trying
to do is get those kids into a healthy environment --
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- playing and -- regardless of what
the cost is because if they're in a healthy environment, they aren't
roaming the streets someplace.
Page 57
'~""'~-,_.,-,,~. ".",.., ~. . "-~'.'_'""'_'''''''''''''''__''''_'''~,A''_M'''
November 14,2006
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I think that's the main objective
here is to, you know, the parks.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I also think that we need to make
sure that people that are utilizing our facilities pay a user fee. I don't
believe it's right that people that pay taxes and do not use those parks
have to basically subsidize the park use.
And I believe there's cases where there's people that was stated
here that are below the level and they need assistance, and I think
you've taken care of that.
My problem is that we're trying to cut costs over the whole range
of everybody, and I don't believe that's correct. I believe that people
that can pay should pay because they're the ones that use the facilities.
There's other people, such as elderly people, that probably don't even
use our parks, and now we're trying to have them subsidize through
the revenues that we have to come forth on reserve funds to
supplement the loss that's going to be in the parks and recs. budgets.
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner, that's correct. And just,
Commissioner Fiala's point is a good one. I mean, if -- and if -- we
could take, with the sliding fee scale, we certainly can make that
known and do a better job. I think the question that was raised at the
last meeting was whether our sliding fee scale was user friendly, and
that's something that we can make a commitment to and ensure that it
.
IS.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I think that you work diligently to
get that across to the public. But I just am concerned of where we're
going that we're making across-the-board cuts, and then we're going to
put that back on the taxpayers themselves, so I have a problem there.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think we're all singing
the same tune on the same sheet of music. Nobody wants to give a
free ride, but we also recognize children in a healthy environment also
Page 58
November 14,2006
saves the taxpayers monies as far as the law enforcement, and
Commissioner Halas recognizes that.
So if there's no further discussion, I'd make a motion --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, just --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- after Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Yeah, I'll give it right back to
you. The other thing I had wanted to mention before, you were
talking about T-shirts and level of service and trophies and so forth.
Maybe there are some teams who already buy.
I know the Hispanic teams, they have their fundraisers right there
at their little concession booths, and that's what they do with their
money is buy the T-shirts and buy the awards and so forth. So maybe
in areas like that where they earn their own money through these
fundraisers, that then they will be paying for their own, and that
should be able to save us money here and there.
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner, if I just may clarify. The fees
that we're talking about, this $30 fee, is for Collier County Park and
Rec. leagues, and we're talking about roughly 700 folks that fit this
category, and these are people that are involved in our cheerleading
camps and our flag football and our basketball. So these don't take
into account these other folks that you're talking about.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see. Thank you.
MR. WILLIAMS : We take these fees and we put it right back
into the program. We give it to -- we give it right back to the kids in
the trophies and the T-shirts and the equipment that they need to play
the sport.
So I just, again, ask you to consider that when you're thinking
about whether to reduce the fee. And if you do reduce the fee, our --
you know, what we would ask you to do is to maintain the level of
service. It's like those things are important, the trophies, the shirts, the
identity, certainly the referees' regulating pay, all of those things are
important for us to be able to provide for those children and those
Page 59
November 14, 2006
activities.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree with you about
maintaining the level of service, however, we're talking about a unique
situation. The way we've changed this and the way it's going to be
coming out now, the residents in Immokalee, you know, are going to
take a heck of a beating in the fact now, where they didn't have a light
fee, they've got a light fee, where they had a reduced fee, now they've
got a full fee with possibly a small reduction if they can prove where
they are. They're worse off than they were before by the setup that we
have here.
I don't -- I think we've got a real problem. Now all of a sudden
we're going to have people that are no longer going to be involved in
the parks and recs. system in Immokalee that are going to be dropping
out of it just because of the matter of a couple dollars.
Now, it might not seem like that's possible to the average
consumer here in the coastal part of Collier County, but there the
difference might mean whether the family has to go without food that
night.
So you know -- I'm sorry. Commissioner Halas, this is reality.
And you know, if we're going to go into this, we have to go into it to
where -- with our eyes wide open in the fact that we are going to do
something that's going to change the balance.
Now, is it going to cause a drop in attendance to the park
function? Are we going to see the teams drop off? I don't know. I
really don't. And they might still come across, they still might be able
to find some way to make it work.
But it's just all of a sudden we went from something that was
fairly user friendly, that we try to grow it to the whole county, now we
go back to where we were plus it's more onerous than ever on
Immokalee citizens.
Now, I'm just bringing that up. That's my concerns.
Page 60
November 14,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, we have the same -- we have the
same situation, not only in Immokalee, but we have it in East Naples
and we probably have some of that up in my district. So I think it's
fair.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Commissioner Coletta, I
have no problem. I mean, if we have a -- we adopt a program to be
fair to -- for everybody and we have a drop in the use in Immokalee, I
would have no problem hearing this item again. We always have the
ability to bring it back up. Like the county manager said, it's our
policy. It's our parks.
But, you know, I kind of agree with my colleagues, is, if we
recognize the kids and families in need to assist them in some of those
fees countywide, that's a good thing, and also be accountable for the
ones that, you know, can pay for it, do pay for it.
So if you don't mind, I'd just kind of like to go down through the
list and make sure everybody's in agreement before I make a motion.
And what I think I heard is, we're going to waive fees related to
fundraising, not- for-profit fundraising?
MR. WILLIAMS: All fundraising fees, that additional fee has
been struck from the resolution.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, not all fees.
MR. WILLIAMS: Just the fundraising fee, that additional fee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: For the not-for-profits and the
charitable?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But everybody else is going to
pay the fee is -- that's what I understood.
Commissioner Halas, is that what you understood?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the -- provide additional
language to describe (sic) the sliding fee scale for low-income
Page 61
November 14,2006
individuals countywide and eliminate the fundraising fee in category
one and two users.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, that's the -- that's the
charitable and the not- for-profit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And Commissioner
Halas brought up the fact that we want these programs to pay for
themselves, you know, as far as trophies and awards and the like. Are
we in agree (sic) that we want that to be self-sufficient at this time?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'd like to see that self-sufficient and not
put the burden on the taxpayers that don't use the parks and rec.
.
servIce.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, a question I have. The
sliding fee scale that you have, is this something that's been in
existence prior or is this something that's new?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's always been.
MR. WILLIAMS : We've had it for the history -- for a long time,
yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And once again -- and I
don't want to belabor this or drag it out too long. I did offer something
that would work across all county lines based upon the -- you know, a
person's income, and I think it would have met the needs. I think this
sliding fee scale is a wonderful thing. One more tier on it that would
be able to pick up that small little group would answer all my
concerns, something that would be 75 percent range for the ultra low
income people that will never be able to afford to take advantage of it.
Where before they were able to be involved, now they're going to be
eliminated. That's the one thing I was suggesting.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What's going to happen?
MR. WILLIAMS: That's a possibility, Commissioner Halas.
And if I may just pick up on what Mr. Coletta's saying. We can take
our fee policy. We've split this. We give 100 percent -- a 25-percent
Page 62
November 14, 2006
discount for folks that are in the 100 to 200 percent income level of
federal poverty guidelines. We give a 50 percent discount for those
folks who are from 0 to 100 percent.
So with Mr. Coletta's point, you could give a deeper discount, a
75 percent discount, if you will, for those people that are 50 percent
and below of federal poverty guidelines. These are the folks that Mr.
Coletta, I think, is talking about.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Exactly. I mean, and I'm not--
the rest of the population out there can find a way to be able to meet
the financial needs to be able to put their kids in this program, but I'm
just concerned about that very low income, which is in all parts of our
county, and that would take care of the problem with the fact that the
rates are going to go up in Immokalee with the lighting fees being in
place and with the increase in the amount the kids have to pay where
they've got a special discount in Immokalee.
And I agree, I don't think that was fair that it was just in
Immokalee, identifying that as a geographic area rather than by
income. But I think this way here, if we change it so it identified it by
income, I don't think you're going to see a tremendous outpouring of
people coming out of the woodwork just to be able to take advantage
of it. I don't think we have that large population of very, very indigent
people in coastal Collier County, and I don't think that their the
dominant population in Immokalee. It's just that there are some there.
And it would meet the needs. And those numbers, I'm sure later
when we reviewed (sic) it, we'd find out that it was nothing of any
large amount.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, before I consider that in a
motion, can we get the financial implications of doing that?
MR. WILLIAMS : Well, just -- and we were doing the math real
quick right here. You know, the original fee's $30, so if you give a 25
-- a 50 percent discount, that's $15. If you're giving a 25 percent, I
believe that's 22.50. If you're giving a 75 percent discount, that's 7.50.
Page 63
November 14, 2006
So that -- and again, it's means tested. It's not just applied to a
geographic area, but it's --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Those numbers were always
there and you fit them in your equation to begin with.
MR. WILLIAMS: The only thing that we would add is a deeper
discount for, in particular areas of our county that have a larger
number of people that are below federal poverty guidelines. We think
if -- this deeper discount, if that meets Mr. Coletta's needs, I think --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I'm sorry. Once again,
you're identifying it by geographic areas. I'm not. I'm identifying it by
the person, no matter what part of the county they live in.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's just very unlikely that it
would be -- that coastal Collier County would be any large number of
them.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: My concern is the people that can pay,
why are we decreasing the amount that they pay? They should --
MR. WILLIAMS: You would decrease it only based on their
proof of income. If they're showing you that they have a financial
need based on this sliding fee scale, you would offer them a discount.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: But if they -- if they don't have a
problem with meeting the needs, then you are going to charge them
$30 and not the $20 or whatever?
MR. WILLIAMS: That's staffs recommendation, that we keep
that fee at exactly where it is and apply the fee -- the sliding fee scale.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: My concern was that we were going to
cut across the board for everybody, even people that could afford, and
then you were going to put the remaining amount of money that we're
coming up short on people who don't even use the park system.
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner, we're trying to meet your
needs with this fee policy. I think what we heard you say is that you
wanted a reduction across the board in certain areas. Staff came back
Page 64
November 14,2006
and said, we don't think that's the best way to handle it. We think a
sliding fee scale that we already have in place is a better mechanism.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. WILLIAMS: What we'd suggest to you at this time is to
use the sliding fee scale, do not reduce the fees, allow for a deeper
discount for certain income levels. We can put it at 50 percent of
federal poverty guidelines and offer a 75 percent discount, what you
see right here where you just add an additional discount, and that gives
you a fee schedule that is tiered based on a person's financial income.
If a person is very poor, they're going to pay 7.50. If they're
moderately poor, if you will, they're going to pay $15. If they don't
have a financial need, they would pay the $30.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: My other question is in regards to
lighting fees. The people that can afford the lighting fees are going to
pay for the lights; is that correct? Or are we going eliminate lighting
fees across the board?
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner, if you make a motion for the
lighting fees to be applied to all groups, we'll continue to charge that
fee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And I think we have a
consensus on that, Commissioner. Ifwe can just narrow it down,
Commissioner Coletta's asked for another tier, of $75 (sic).
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Seventy-five percent.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Seventy-five percent,
Commissioner Halas is concerned about the fiscal impacts of that. So
do you have any estimates on how that's going to affect --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Bottom line.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- the general fund?
MR. WILLIAMS: We don't have that data. We know it has an
impact, certainly. It's not -- the 75 percent discount is an additional
amount that would not be based in our current budget. I could tell you
it would be nominal though, and I could tell you it would be
Page 65
November 14, 2006
something that we could absorb.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Throw something up in the air
that we're not going to hold you to, but just give us an idea.
MR. WILLIAMS: I'm going to say if you were to look at the
population of Collier County, we know that 10 percent of the
population is at or below 100 percent of the federal poverty
guidelines, so that's 30,000 people. Thirty thousand people is 100
percent.
If we're talking about an additional discount at half of that, you're
looking probably at a total group in Collier County that's at that 50
percent of -- I would imagine 15 to 20,000 folks that are at or below
50.
So how many of those have kids? How many will be involved in
these programs? I would say it would be a nominal expense. I would
say no more than $10,000,5- to $10,000.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Marla, can you concur
with that?
MS. RAMSEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it's really nothing to the
overall -- to your budget?
MR. WILLIAMS: It isn't.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So what we're saying here is we're only
looking at a $10,000 deficit versus the $57,400 deficit?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But you're not going to add extra
charge for lights over and above the charge you already have --
MR. WILLIAMS: No, ma'am, even--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- even on the fundraisers for
not- for-profit charitable?
MR. WILLIAMS: Right.
Page 66
November 14,2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I'm going to make a motion
to approve the fee schedule with the understanding that we're not
going to charge for fundraising -- lighting for fundraising
not- for-profits.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Over and above what they already
charge.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Over and above what they
already charge. And then we add another category, a 75 percent
category to the parks and rec. program sliding fee schedule.
And what was the other thing? We want to keep --
MR. MUDD: And that 75 percent is basically 0 to 50 percent of
the federal poverty level.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. MUDD: Right. And then 50 percent would be -- the 50
percent reduction would be from 50 percent to 100 percent of the
federal guidelines, and then the 25 percent would be between 100
percent and 200 percent.
MR. WILLIAM: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we also want to, based
upon the board's input, keep the, you know, little leagues and those
programs self-sufficient to cover incidentals like trophies and others.
MR. WILLIAMS: It wouldn't be little league. It would be our
youth basketball, flag football and cheerleading programs that pay that
$30 for participating.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I think I covered all the
contested issues --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- as part of my motion, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do we have a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I just want to make sure that --
get clarification, that what was proposed to us in the agenda was a
Page 67
November 14, 2006
shortfall of$57,400. We now have reduced that down to $10,000
roughly, is that --
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Somewheres in that category --
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- 10 plus or minus--
MR. WILLIAMS: Five to $10,000.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- maybe $1,000 or whatever--
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- $2,000 each way. Okay. Is that the
understanding that I have?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you will promote or publicly,
very visibly show people that there is a sliding scale in order to
encourage some of these kids off the street and into the program?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am, we will.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just think, hopefully the
outcome of this would be the need for less law enforcement.
And Commissioner Fiala really made a good point, is, if we get
kids in good programs with supervision, then it actually does have a
savings to the taxpayer.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion on this?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 68
November 14, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We finally got it put to bed.
Thank you very much.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I think we got some clarification on
what -- the total outlay of cost. Do we have to make an amendment to
this budget or do they feel they can absorb it?
MR. MUDD: He said he could absorb it, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
Item #101
CWS RESOLUTION 2006-297(ITEM 1 LISTED):
CWS RESOLUTION 2006-298(ITEM 2 LISTED):
SUPPLEMENTAL BOND RESOLUTIONS (1) AUTHORIZING
THE ISSUANCE BY THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER
DISTRICT OF ITS WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BONDS,
SERIES 2006, IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF
NOT EXCEEDING $120,000,000 IN ORDER TO FINANCE
VARIOUS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE WATER AND
WASTEWATER UTILITY SYSTEM AND TO REFINANCE THE
DISTRICT'S REVENUE NOTE, DRAW NO. A-l-1 AND
REVENUE NOTE, DRAW NO. A-I-2 CURRENTLY
OUTSTANDING IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT
OF $38,000,000 AND (2) AMENDING THE BOND RESOLUTION
TO SPECIFICALLY INCLUDE THE ALLOWANCE FOR FUNDS
PRUDENTLY INVESTED FEES (AFPI FEES) AS A
COMPONENT OF THE GROSS REVENUES OF THE SYSTEM,
Page 69
November 14, 2006
WHICH ALLOWS SUCH AFPI FEES TO BE A PART OF THE
PLEDGED FUNDS SUPPORTING THE PAYMENT OF DEBT
SERVICE. (MICHAEL SMYKOWSKI, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET) - BOTH ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: We have a time certain at 11 a.m. It's item 101.
This item to be heard at, again, 11 a.m. We're a little bit behind.
Recommendation to adopt a supplemental bond resolution,
number one, authorizing the issuance by Collier County Water/Sewer
District of its water and sewer revenue bond, series 2006, in the
aggregate principal amount not exceeding $120 million in order to
finance various capital improvements to the water and wastewater
utility system and to finance the district's revenue note, draw number
A-I-I, and revenue note, draw number A-I-2, currently outstanding in
the aggregate principal amount of $38 million, and, number two,
amending the bond resolution to specifically include the allowance for
funds prudently invested fees, which are AFPI fees, as a component of
the gross revenue of the system, which allows such AFPI fees to be
part of the pledged funds supporting the payment of debt service.
Mr. Michael Smykowski, your director of office and
management and budget, will present. And you had a couple of
change items that I read into the record that you have received because
we received them yesterday as far as the bond resolution is concerned.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you, Mr. Mudd.
For the record, Michael Smykowski, O&B director. We do have
a proposed bond issue today. It is a bond issue of the Collier County
Water and Sewer District. The board will be acting today in their
capacity ex-officio as the governing body of the County Water/Sewer
District. It will be looking to refinance $37 million in commercial
paper that was used as an interim financing measure as well as provide
$67 million in new funds for water and sewer improvements.
It's important to note, these bonds were contemplated in the
Page 70
November 14,2006
master plan studies that the board has approved, in the utility rate
studies that the board has approved, and then ultimately in the budget
for fiscal year '07 that was also board approved.
This is our final step in executing that plan to provide
construction financing for system expansion within the water and
sewer district.
The term of the bond is for 30 years. It's important to note that
this pledges revenues of the Collier County Water/Sewer District,
which is primarily water and sewer user fee charges. It does not
pledge ad valorem taxes of the county.
We conducted, in late October, bond rating agency presentations,
and those were done to evaluate the creditworthiness of the Collier
County utility system as well as the general credit of the county.
The ratings assigned to the bonds impact the interest rates
assigned to the bonds. Obviously, the better rating equals a lower cost
of borrowing.
Two firms made site visits to Collier County, not only to tour our
water and sewer facilities -- it's been a while since we issued -- but
they're also interested and they place a strong emphasis on meeting the
management personnel. We do have a fairly aggressive program in
place to meet the growth within the water and sewer district.
And the rating agencies came down to Collier County from New
York to, again, tour our facilities, meet the staff. Commissioner Halas
participated. His participation was particularly noted as being
important by Fitch Rating Service. We did have, as I mentioned, two
firms that came down. Moody's Investors Service as well as Fitch
Rating Service.
Fitch rating, we maintained our double A rating, which is a very
strong credit. Moody's Investors Service, we actually received an
upgrade, so that's a testament I'll read very quickly . We went from an
A 1 to a double A3. And the specific quote from the report from the
rating agency is as follows:
Page 71
November 14,2006
The double A3 underlying rating and upgrade is based on the
district's well managed financial operations as evidenced by healthy
debt service coverage, ample reserves and modest operating ratios,
strong district planning to stay reasonably ahead of a rapidly
expanding service area and a strong management team. So I think
obviously they were pleased with our efforts, and our efforts were
rewarded with an upgrade in our bond rating which will ultimately
mean it will cost us less to borrow money for capital improvements, so
that's a feather in our cap to all who participated.
The board will be looking to approve two resolutions today.
There's an authorizing resolution providing for the issuance of bonds
subject to various perimeters, such as insurance that Mr. Canary will
address shortly. The loan amount is a not-to-exceed $120 million.
This resolution is really analogous to a home mortgage loan. It's
really just a long-term mortgage note. This is a long-term capital
improvements. It's going to be financed over 30 years, not unlike a
house. You typically don't -- Collier County's probably an oddity in
that regard, as a lot of homes here are paid with cash, but that's not
typical for the rest of the country. Typically people are taking out a
mortgage and paying that -- paying that back over time.
Long-term capital improvements for water and sewer system
plant expansions are of a similar nature. Obviously people who move
here 10 years from now will be benefiting and will help pay their
prorata share of that.
An undated resolution was distributed to the board yesterday, and
it was also noted in the change sheet at the beginning of to day's
meeting by Mr. Mudd. It reflects insurance information for this bond
issue that was finalized yesterday. That was a missing piece.
There's also a secondary resolution that the board is being asked
to approve today, and that changes the definition of system revenues
to include the allowance for funds prudently invested. This fee was
adopted by the board on June 6, 2006, under item 8B.
Page 72
November 14, 2006
Where impact fees address the long-term capital funding, the
AFPI fee addresses the carrying cost of debt while minimizing the
financial impact to existing ratepayers. Obviously the impact fees help
pay for the up-front growth, but since you have to build plant capacity
so we're in advance because you can't build increments to serve small
numbers of additional customers, there is a carrying cost of that debt.
So what that fee did that the board adopted in June was recognize
that that cost should not be borne by existing customers, but rather by
the new growth coming to the county. So that is in keeping with your
growth paying for growth belief.
The initial bond resolution that the board adopted did not include
that AFPI fee in the definition of system revenues simply because at
the time that initial bond resolution was adopted, that AFPI fee simply
did not exist.
At this point I'll turn the presentation to Hal Canary ofPFM.
He's the financial advisor to Collier County from Public Financial
Management. He'll address the current bond market conditions and the
recommendation relative to the bond insurance provider.
Hal?
MR. CANARY: Thank you. I'm Hal Canary, Public Financial
Management, out of Fort Myers.
Sometimes it's very helpful, as hard as you work, to be lucky, and
I think that we're timing this bond issue very well. Today's revenue
bond index is at an all-time low.
I backed up a little bit yesterday, but essentially these rates are
lower than the last two bond issues that we've worked with the county
on, and we expect very favorable rates.
Part of the impact of the -- the rating presentations and the rating
upgrade is a reduction in the cost of the bond insurance that we
purchase, and that bond insurance is extremely low at 15.8 base points
by NBIA as being the best value bid.
I'll be glad to expound on the insurance bids, but the -- there was
Page 73
November 14,2006
a caveat in our recommendation letter that we have some special
conditions for Florida issuers attached to that NBIA. The clerk's
office has reviewed that and is satisfied with those conditions dealing
with their investment of bond proceeds.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't have a question for this
gentleman.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But I do have a question --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- before I make a motion.
Exhibit A, the detail of the projects, is that going to pay for all the
costs for design and construction?
MR. DeLONY: Good morning. My name's Jim DeLony. I'm
your public utility administrator.
Sir, with regard to these funds, these funds will pay for all costs
associated with the facilities that are outlined in our master plan that
are allocated to impact fees of those which -- in terms of expansion, to
meet new customer demands in the system.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. DeLONY: Therefore, those costs would be applicable to
these funds.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. And that's -- I guess
that's in Exhibit A, all the different capital improvement projects?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. Typically, if I may, when we give out
those costs, we don't break them down by much more than total cost
of delivery of the project, be it engineering design, construction
services, real estate services, permit activities and so on. We
generally work on a lump sum basis, and then we'll work within that
lump sum, you know, in terms of our cost estimates for each one, but
that's what we're speaking to.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Are we ready for a
Page 74
November 14,2006
motion?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other discussion?
Hearing none, go ahead, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Make a motion that the board
adopts the attached supplement bond resolution authorizing the
insurance of 2006 bonds upon satisfication (sic) of certain conditions
set forth in the resolution, and that's also stating that Exhibit A in our
agenda item will pay for all capital costs and the costs associated with
those capital improvements.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We've got a motion on the floor
by Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
Y .?
es, SIr.
MR. DeLONY: I just wanted to ask if you would add to that
motion, sir, that NBIA will be the insurer of records for these bonds.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's part of my motion.
MR. DeLONY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is that part of your second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Anything else that needs to be
added?
MR. DeLONY: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Hearing no further discussion, I'll
call the question.
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?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
Page 75
November 14, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion
to adopt the supplemental bond resolutions with amendments to the
bond resolution specifically including the allowance of funds
prudently invested fees as a component of the gross revenue system
which allows the AFPI fees to be a part of the pledge funds supporting
payment of debt service.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I second that.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: There's a motion on the -- excuse me.
There's a motion on the floor by Commissioner Henning and a second
by Commissioner Halas.
Hearing no further discussion, I'll call the question. 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?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
MR. DeLONY: Thank you.
Item #10E
AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO ASTALDI
CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, FOR SANTA BARBARA
BOULEVARD SIX-LANE IMPROVEMENTS FROM DAVIS
BOULEVARD TO COPPER LEAF LANE AND RADIO ROAD
FOUR-LANE IMPROVEMENTS FROM SANTA BARBARA
BLVD. TO DAVIS BLVD., IN THE AMOUNT OF $62,051,879.48
INCLUDING A RESERVE OF $4,587,895.60 IN FUNDING
Page 76
November 14,2006
ALLOWANCES BID NO. 06-4042; PROJECT NO. 62081.-
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to a time certain at
11 :30, and it's 11 :29. By the time I get this read, it will be 11 :30.
It's a recommendation to award a construction contract to Astaldi
Construction Corporation for Santa Barbara Boulevard six-lane
improvements from Davis Boulevard to Copper Leaf Lane, and Radio
Road four-lane improvements from Santa Barbara Boulevard to Davis
Boulevard in the amount of $62,051 ,879.41, including a reserve of
$4,587,895.60, in the funding allowances bid number 06-4042, project
number 62081.
Mr. Norman Feder, your administrator for transportation services
will present, and it is at 11 :30.
MR. FEDER: Thank you. For the record, Norman Feder,
transportation administrator, and I have Jay Ahmad here with me as
well, your director of engineering and construction management.
What you have is the section of Santa Barbara from Copper Leaf,
which is just north of Golden Gate Parkway down to Davis Boulevard,
six-laning, that includes two structures, one over the canal, one over
the interstate, both of which are to be widened on both sides with the
structures remaining, as well as the four-Ianing as we alluded to earlier
in the meeting of Radio Road from Santa Barbara over to the section
that was previously four-Ianed when we realign the intersection itself.
We did put this project out to bid. We did only get one bidder, so
it is a sole bidder. We did, as we did on 951 north project not too long
ago where we only had a sole bidder, is have our purchasing
department go out, call all others who had received packages,
expressed interest, to evaluate whether or not there was anything in
the nature of our bid package, our design or items that forestalled or
prevented them from coming forth with a bid on the project.
In the case of the Collier North, we did find some issues, and as
Page 77
November 14,2006
you know, we recommended that you not accept a sole bid. We went
back out, made modifications to the bid package based on some
design changes, and then we did have three bidders that turned out.
The original sole bidder was the low bidder, and we came out
nearly the same price, not much in the way of change in cost. It was a
little bit cheaper, but also we had made some modifications to the
scope.
What we did here then, since we only had one bidder, we, again,
wanted to make sure that there wasn't something in the design itself or
in the bid process that discouraged others from bidding.
As I said, purchasing went out and spoke to folks. What we got
was responsive; it's a tough job, heavy traffic, very busy, turning away
work, having problems with utility on current projects; and another,
work very heavy, big job, skilled labor shortage, may be in better
shape in six months, but no guarantee, work load very heavy. Another
one bidding on two other projects at the same time, schedules do not
fit, starting two jobs currently, lack of skilled labor.
So effectively what we got was it had nothing to do with the bid
package itself or the design. Other firms are finding that they have
quite a bit of work, finding difficulty in getting labor in the market.
So then we went back, since we had one sole bidder. We looked
at what our engineer's estimate was and we developed an engineer's
estimate essentially based on looking at the prior bid on Collier North,
looking at what would be the most optimum bid that we would expect
based on that.
We came in basically pretty close to 60 million, just under. The
bid had come in at 63-. We sat down and negotiated with Astaldi.
What ended up with is about a million eight of reduction. Some of
that price in the item is for some of the noise wall, Countryside and
the like.
But we did have a significant reduction resulting in the current
item of 62,051,879.48 as bid for the project, which does include, as
Page 78
November 14, 2006
County Manager mentioned, just under three and a half million in
allowance funding, and that is about 2.4 percent above that engineer's
estimate that I mentioned to you as the best bid we thought we could
get on the job.
Astaldi obviously had some issues up in Lee County not too long
ago. I think that's pretty well documented. I think though, it's not
fully documented, but a lot of issues were raised.
We have them right now on Immokalee Road in our design build
between 951 and 1-75. They told us when they would start work.
They started work exactly on that day. They've done pretty well. I
would have liked to have had many more months of experience with
them, but the experience thus far has been very positive.
They've made strong commitments to the county, their intent to
do work over here. They're a large international firm that's rated very
well and publicly traded.
With that in mind, we're recommending to you that we move
forward on this, understanding that this will be the most expensive
project we've funded to date because of the escalating costs, that it
does signal probably our need to come back to you very shortly with a
new impact fee update to make sure that we have growth pay for
growth, because our lane-mile cost in the last two bids, North Collier
and now on Santa Barbara, exceed where we were with our last update
only a year ago in the impact fee process, which looks back
historically, and we're prepared to come to you in the next six months,
or as quickly as we can, with an update of the impact fee process.
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is it my understanding that we have a
firm here from Miami, and as soon as they finish up on a couple of
projects, they're not going to be bidding any more in Collier County at
this time?
MR. FEDER: I wouldn't say that they won't be bidding any
more. We thought they might bid on this project. They did not.
Page 79
November 14,2006
You're talking about MCM --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
MR. FEDER: -- that is currently doing the Estates interchange
and doing our overpass. They did not bid. Their staff right now is
coming over from Miami. They've got some of the supervisors they're
housing here, but they've got a number of additional jobs over on the
east coast, and so they've noted that right now it's very hard for them
to keep their staff coming over.
Once they finish up the interchange and the overpass, they have
quite a bit of work on the east coast. They'll probably be
concentrating there. I'd like to believe that they and/or others will be
looking at our future jobs. But yes, they did not bid on this job and
are looking at focusing their attention back over on the east coast now.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. What you're saying, that just is
one more person or one more firm that is not going to be involved in
trying to help us address our road building problems that we have here
in Collier County?
MR. FEDER: At least on this job and for foreseeable. And, of
course, we're always encouraging any and all firms that are interested
to come in, but I think your point is well taken.
With all the work efforts and with the resources here, it's getting
very difficult. With the state coming up with 1-75 soon, we expect
there's going to be a much further drain on resources and capabilities.
That's why we're trying to bring in the best firms we can and get the
work moving and under contract.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Prior to the expansion ofI-75?
MR. FEDER: And other issues, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any other further
discussion on this?
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Feder, is there going to be
milestones in this project?
Page 80
November 14,2006
MR. FEDER: There will be significant liquidated damages
established on the overall contract, but there will not be individual
milestones. What we've found -- and you'll probably be hearing from
John Carlo, who has a couple of the jobs that have milestones -- they
haven't been as successful and you can't address them until the end of
the project anyway.
So we will be working closely with the contractor as we go out,
and with the community, to look how we phase the project.
I know a significant concern to the community and the
contractors here in the audience -- I want them to hear that as well -- is
to make sure we get the Golden Gate Parkway/Santa Barbara
intersection early in the project, and we will try to work towards that.
But in answer to your question, no, there is not a separate set of
milestones.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My concern is, this is actually
two roads. You're doing Santa Barbara and Radio Road. To come in
there and tear up both those roads is really not servicing the public
good.
MR. FEDER: And as you know, in the meeting with the civic
association, I noted our interest probably in getting Radio Road open
to provide some relief, but also to make sure I focus very quickly on
that intersection at Golden Gate and Santa Barbara.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Radio Road is really a short
project.
MR. FEDER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And my perspective, I think you
would serve the greater good of the community to finish that one, at
least the lanes and stuff like that, before we move in another one. And
I mean, I have a -- I don't know how we address that here.
MR. FEDER: Well, first of all, you're getting ready to approve
the contract. I've got the contractor here. I don't know if they're in a
position to answer fully to that question right now. But if what I'm
Page 81
November 14,2006
hearing, and if it's the board's overall desire, that we note that Radio
Road be finished before we start major construction on Santa Barbara.
I don't know if the contractor's in a position to give us a feel for
that right now or --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me ask -- before he comes
up, let me ask another one. In a letter from Astaldi to the purchasing
department -- and it's -- Commissioners, if you want to follow, it's
page 20 and 21 of our agenda.
And number two -- oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Number one, the
bullet point, consideration of the county to add bonuses to the contract
if the first phase of construction -- I don't know what the phasing is.
ACC has demonstrated good faith in efforts to keep the project
moving ahead.
So what I see that is, is they want a bonus if they do a phase
completed on time, so maybe we can address that. I just have a
problem with awarding somebody extra money for doing their job
when they're supposed to do it.
The second thing is, number two, we're talking about unit pricing
and the borrowing and excavating. And then it says, this is contingent
upon our subcontractor agreeing upon the same.
Since we're not hiring the subcontractor, we only have control
over the contractor. Why would we put some kind of language in the
contract, if our subcontractor agrees?
The second thing is, number three, it looks like there -- on their
bid, there might have been a shortfall on something, and they want to
gain it with the sound barrier wall.
So those are the three questions that I have.
MR. FEDER: First of all, I'll ask that Jay Ahmad address it, but
what I will tell you is, in working through the negotiations with
Astaldi, they identified some items that they'd like to work with us on
in partnering with this project. They are not specifically part of the
contract, and they are here for informational item.
Page 82
November 14,2006
And I'll make that on the record very clear, that we have not
agreed to a bonus, and these items are not specifically part of the
contract. They were items identified in the negotiations as items that
might help further expedite the project.
And as we go through, we're going to continue to work with
Astaldi to try and expedite, but we have not agreed to a bonus
specifically. There is not a milestone, at least as exists right now, other
than the total completion of the project, which, if it's not completed on
time, there is a significant level of liquidated damages that are
established.
But Jay, can you explain further?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I just want to say, before Jay starts, that
my concern is is that we try to contain the costs, because this project is
very, very expensive. And if we can contain the costs and meet the
requirements that Commissioner Henning is -- would like to put on
this, I have no problem with that. But if we start to exceed because of
additional impact that may cause Astaldi to not be able to address all
the things under the way the contract is written now, I have some
concerns, okay?
MR. FEDER: I appreciate that. I do also need to correct the
record. I said three and a half million approximately in allowances.
It's actually four and a half. And we planned them very judiciously,
proceeding forward both in cost and time on the project.
But I also understand what I've heard from the commissioner
whose district it's in, that they'd like to see Radio Road -- he'd like to
see Radio Road, if possibly, completed before we start tearing up on
Santa Barbara.
Again, we will work with the contractor, see what our options are
there, particularly in light of just what you said, Commissioner, we
don't want to delay or increase the cost on the project. But, again, it's
not a separate milestone in the contract.
The items that you have listed here again, were items raised to us
Page 83
November 14,2006
as potential partnering to try to and bring it forward hopefully even
faster, and we're going to partner, but we didn't agree to all the
provisions. They're provided for information to you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Also, if we can address the unit
prices. As we all know, the gas prices are going down. It affects
everything in our transportation construction. Was that a part of the
consideration under the unit prices?
MR. AHMAD: Yeah. We have fuel adjustment as part of the
project.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Coming down or going up?
MR. AHMAD: It's going up.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'm saying -- I mean, you
have fuel adjustments within the contract if the unit prices go up for
fuel. Do you have it coming down in case prices come down?
MR. AHMAD: We don't have it coming down but -- as it stands.
But the prices of oil was escalating beyond our projects. And just for
the record, my name is Jay Ahmad. I'm the transportation engineering
director.
And in addressing the escalation of fuel, we attempted to take
that risk away from the contractor so we attract more contractors to
bid on this job, and we had fuel adjustment. If the fuel goes up, we
take that risk, and that's the purpose of that fuel escalation clause in
the contract.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But don't you think it would be
fair that if fuel prices go down, that they also adjust down?
MR. AHMAD: It's not part of the contract, Commissioner, but it
would be fair, I think.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
MR. AHMAD: Yeah. Just to answer a few of the questions that
you had earlier, the letter is for information purposes, the one you
were reading, from Astaldi. We sat down with Astaldi, our purchasing
Page 84
November 14,2006
department and staff, to negotiate this contract, because they were the
sole bidder on this job and on this project.
And part of the concerns or issues that we raised with them is
particularly the issue that was raised by Mr. Norm Feder, the
perception on 41 in Bonita Springs, and I wanted some assurance in
contractual form that they would have for us -- that they will finish
this job on time. Even though we have, I believe it's $18,000 in
liquidated damages per day if they finish late, I wanted, in addition to
that, that we have some kind of assurance.
And obviously their answer to that is the 18,000 is substantial
enough to have the incentive for them to finish early. And they've
asked us for -- if we could provide an incentive if they finish early in
monetary form. And we haven't agreed to that. Those are -- actually
this letter's in answer to the conditions of negotiation that we had with
them.
Another issue that we raised with them is the unit price that you
mentioned. They are an item to take material out of the ponds for
$3.40, or something like that. It's obviously if we have -- if we need
material, borrow material, if the bonds material's not adequate or if we
have -- we don't have enough material, so we have to haul material
from outside this job. In their bid it's $21 and it's a low amount,
quantity, thousand.
And also we have in the contract, if we exceed that quantity by
25 percent or more, we'd have to negotiate that quantity, and I want to
be prepared, thousand yards is a small amount. I increased it to -- in
our negotiation we increased it to 40,000 yards, and they agreed to
that. So we were trying to see where in the bid the unit price could
fluctuate, and address it in advance before we actually sign a contract
with them.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The -- we don't have the
contract in our agenda packet. It's just a boilerplate contract. But the
Page 85
November 14, 2006
unit prices are -- is a part of the contract?
MR. AHMAD: What you have in the agenda item is the actual
bid per unit price for all the items that we have on this project. And I
believe --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's a 900-day contract, as it
states in the executive summary.
MR. AHMAD: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And right now there's no
milestones.
MR. AHMAD: No milestones on this project. But to answer
some of your concern about starting on Radio Road first -- and I will
let the contractor address that -- I want to mention that season is upon
us, and I was hoping to start on Santa Barbara in season before 1-75
opens. And if we can finish that portion of that intersection before we
have that volume of traffic from 1-75 interchange open onto this
intersection, it would probably make a lot more sense. But it is your
call, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, sir. You're the expert, and
I'm sure you studied this more than I have. So if that's what you feel
-- I just don't want to start all over the place and have Bob's barricades
light up far after Christmas.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sounds to me like he addressed it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm glad that they did.
Do we have any speakers on this?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. We have one speaker, Mr. Chairman.
William Poteet.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. POTEET: Good morning. For the record, my name is Bill
Poteet, and I represent the Golden Gate Area Civic Association, and
I'm here to ask you, what happened to the rest of the road? You've
taken the project all the way up to Copper Leaf and you've not taken it
Page 86
November 14,2006
to Green as you have promised us in the past.
Eleven years ago our community went to the Golden Gate Area
Beautification Committee and asked them to landscape those medians
in that area, which we were told the Collier County transportation is
planning to improve the road, so we need to wait until the
improvements are done before we can put the plants in. So we waited.
Five years ago our citizens in the area were up in arms against
each other . We were de bating whether to four-lane or to six -lane the
road. It was very contentious.
From that, we had a citizens committee that met with
transportation. We reviewed the plans, made recommendations, and
they were implemented in the plan. Then we were told by the county
commission that we were going to do a four-lane road on a six-lane
footprint. That didn't please everybody, but the majority of the
citizens said that was a good -- a good compromise, so we were going
to get our road and the improvements that go along with it, with the
stormwater retention and the sidewalks and the other things that go
along with the project.
One year ago we were told there's a delay. Not much of an
explanation why, but we're told a delay. Today you're here to award a
contract to Astaldi for the remainder of Santa Barbara, which the civic
association is all for completing the entire road. We think it's the best
thing you can do for our area, but you're not going to complete from
Copper Leaf to Green.
You have the completion from Green to Santa -- Green to Pine
Ridge on the Logan section, which you did about six or seven years
ago. So what you've left is just a section in the middle, which is about
a mile, mile and a half long, that's going to stick out like a sore thumb.
Now, you know, we asked the commission why this decision was
made and why we're not getting the road completed as we were
promised in the past.
You know, a couple years ago the Collier County Sheriffs
Page 87
November 14,2006
Department implemented a program in our community, and it was
basically the broken window theory. And they went through and they
saw, anything that was wrong with our community, they started
working on it because that was the best way to improve it.
We have a very nice community . We're working very, very hard
on it, but we can't do it if one of our main arterial roads in the
community is, you know, our front door, and our front door is broken.
That section of our community happens to be multifamily. It's
also one of the little sections that -- in our community that has the
highest crime rate, although we're very proud of the fact that Golden
Gate, in general, has one of the lowest crime rates in Collier County.
To give you an example of how important this is, several years
ago this commissioner spent money on Bayshore Drive, and
everybody knows the story of Bayshore Drive when you did the
improvements over there. The entire neighborhood changed. Crime
went down, the aesthetics went up, and that is what we're asking for
you to do at our community, instead of just leaving this out there.
I've asked Mr. Fedler (sic), you know, when we're going to get
the completion of the road, and he's promised me that we will get the
road, but he can't give us a date. And, you know, although I trust
Norm, Norm's promises are only as good as this commission allows
him to be. And so I ask you to consider what we say today. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
Is that our last public speaker?
MS. FILSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Norm, can you address that?
MR. FEDER: Yes, I'll try to, to some degree. And I appreciate
Bill's concern, and it's one that I know his commissioner's raised to us
.
on numerous occaSIons.
As you remember, we started the design some years okay . We
did have some support from some folks and concerns from others, and
Page 88
November 14,2006
a lot of good spirited debate on how we proceed forward on this
project. That debate basically took us another year and a half to two
years in the design process to pretty much end up where we started.
And in that time, our estimate to go from -- it wasn't just to
Green, actually up to Pine Ridge. The last issue was possibly Green
four within a six-lane footprint. Bill is correct on that.
But from Pine Ridge, the original six-Ianing from Pine Ridge all
the way down to Davis, was estimated at $38 million. We find
ourselves with two years of delay doing only the section from Copper
Leaf or from Golden Gate Parkway down to Davis at $62 million.
And so what we're facing is basically prioritizes -- prioritizing
based on, first of all, need. As the new interchange comes in, there's
going to be quite a bit of demand off of that interchange, not only to
go into Naples proper as we're providing for in projects, but also to
head down, especially with the problems that we have at Davis, 1-75,
951. And so we're trying to be responsive to that first section.
Now, having said that, we've designed it, as the board knows all
too well, all the way up to Pine Ridge. Weare doing some
opportunity buy from Golden Gate up to Green, but at this time I do
not have the construction dollars in there. Bill was very correct on
that.
We see it as an important project, but right now with the overall
funding and issues -- and that's why I said to you, we're going to go
and look at updating our impact fees. So we're securing the
right-of-way, but unfortunately that intersection where there are
drainage problems, road problems, no sidewalks, no bike paths, no
lighting, we do not have programmed at this time, he's very correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What is your best guess for addressing
this if you're successful in getting the impact fees raised? Will this
have an effect?
MR. FEDER: Right now I don't have it in the five years, so I'm
somewhere out possibly in six or seven years. What I was told when
Page 89
November 14,2006
we did the studies, from four to six was going to be needed, about
2012 or 2014, if I remember correctly.
We'd probably be closer to that time frame of when the studies
said that the six lanes were needed. But I understand that the board
asked us to let the interchange open, see how that impact was before
we decided to proceed beyond any four-lane configuration. And we
wouldn't proceed on that unless that was the board direction after
community input.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So to follow up here, if we would have
addressed this whole matter over two years ago, chances are we could
have gotten the whole segment done all the way up to Pine Ridge; is
that correct?
MR. FEDER: Yes, and hopefully people would have been
driving on it already. But, again, I think it was a process that we
needed to go through and we did.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. At this time I'd like to hear from
the contractor, if we could.
MR. FEDER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
MR. MORPHONIAS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm
Robert Morphonias (phonetic). I am the chief operating officer of
Astaldi. And I'd be glad to answer any of your questions.
I know that this project is an important project to the county. It's
one of the largest ones that you've put out as a roadway project.
Weare presently working on your Immokalee Road project, and
I understand that that is one of your first design/build roadway
projects. And I can say from our standpoint, we have enjoyed the
partnering that we've had with these gentlemen, with the county, your
directors, on making that a successful proj ect and moving it forward.
We plan to do the same on Santa Barbara. And the letter that you
have in front of you is the letter that we responded back to the county
with when we were negotiating the contract with the county on Santa
Page 90
November 14, 2006
Barbara, and basically we wanted this project to be successful just like
you do.
And what we included in that letter was some bullets of things
that seemed to have worked with us in the past with other clients,
DOT being one of them.
And we recognize that some roadway projects get delayed
because of utility issues, unknowns, the timing it takes for some of the
utility companies to come in and do relocations, those types of things.
So we suggested a partnering format with the county and have
someone assigned to the project that would address those types of
issues as they come up to keep the project moving forward so it
doesn't come to a standstill at anyone point.
I also propose that we also be very involved as a -- as part of a
team effort to address the community in their concerns in any public
information that needs to come out regarding the project. We'd like to
be involved in that if we can and have input on that.
We presently have quite a few resources coming available from
some other projects that are finishing up, some very successful
projects, and we have a very good management team that we're
assembling for this project to manage it going forward.
We also understood your concerns on Radio Road, that you'd like
to have that quickly. I believe, if I remember correctly on this bid and
on this project, we -- our intent was to knock out Radio Road as
quickly as we could. I think it's available right off the bat. But we are
still subject by contract and restricted to the phasing that's in the
maintenance of traffic plans that we were furnished to bid off of.
And there is still some work on Santa Barbara. To meet the time
constraints of the project, you have some utilities there that have to be
addressed up front that needs to be worked on even while we're
working on Radio Road. But we're more than willing to work with the
directors here and see if we can possibly come up with a suggestion to
possibly revise those maintenance of traffic and phasing plans to better
Page 91
November 14,2006
suit the county . We're willing to do that, and we'll welcome any input
from you all.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, thank you, and thanks for
being here today.
Would it be appropriate to put in today's contract that you're
going to provide a separate crew for this project and will not take off
of the other project on Immokalee Road?
MR. MORPHONIAS: Crews as far as workforce you're talking
about?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
MR. MORPHONIAS: Well, workforce is difficult sometimes to
control as far as local operators and labor. As you know, the county is
very short in labor, and we are really don't have any control over those
that want to quit and go up the road and work for somebody else, then
find out that the pasture's not greener, then they want to come back,
and those types of things. We suffer that quite a bit from time to time.
As far as the management of the job, the management of the job
will be somewhat separate from what we have at Immokalee. Those
people that are on Immokalee, because it is in close proximity, will
still be somewhat involved, but we -- the management of the project
will be separate.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you're going to use the same
team?
MR. MORPHONIAS: Oh, yes. I mean, our intention is not to
pull resources from this job once it gets started to go somewhere else,
no.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we put that into the
contract; would you be okay with that?
MR. MORPHONIAS: I don't know how you would.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Really?
MR. MORPHONIAS: Yeah.
Page 92
November 14,2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I mean, I think you
have control -- I know nobody has control of, you know, giving more
money to one of your employees, but you're saying you don't have
control of your employees being pulled from another job by the
company?
MR. MORPHONIAS: Individuals are individuals. I mean,
sometimes they --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not talking about
individuals. I'm talking about your company deciding to pull crews
from one job to go to another job.
MR. MORPHONIAS: No, it's -- you know, in the contracting
business, we have to -- not all crews are continuous on a project, and
so when they finish a particular phase that we need that particular
crew for, we have to have a place for them to go. So yes, they do
move to other proj ects when they're needed.
But the answer to your question is, those people that are in the
middle of the work that is ongoing on the project will not get yanked
to go somewhere else until they finish their task.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I mean, wouldn't it be
appropriate to state that in the contract?
MR. MORPHONIAS: Again, I'm not sure how you would
structure that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We've got some very talented
people. And I understand what you're saying is, the pipelayer is done
laying pipe and he needs to go to another job.
MR. MORPHONIAS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understand that.
MR. MORPHONIAS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The second is, you're asking for
escalating costs for asphalt and fuel?
MR. MORPHONIAS: Well, presently in the contract there is an
index for fuel --
Page 93
November 14,2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. MORPHONIAS: -- as Jay explained to you. It's been
successful with other owners in that having that index in the contract,
contractors do not have to put so much contingency for fuel
escalation. Based upon the past couple of years, fuel can be a major
issue to contractors. And by having that index in there, you actually
end up getting a tighter bid from your contractor.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. But that's in case the fuel
. .
pnce Increases.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, back to your question previously.
I've been informed that the contract does provide for, if it's over 5
percent reduction, a reduction as well in the price. So if there is over a
5 percent reduction, there is a provision for reducing that fuel
allowance as well.
MR. MORPHONIAS: Commissioner Henning, it's my
understanding you're adopting the same spec that DOT has, and it
does go up and down. You have a 5 percent buffer either way.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, that's good.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I have a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I'm concerned is --
and the public sees that -- so many projects under construction and
very little working on it. I would like to have -- because of some past
media reporting, I would like to have some kind of assurance that
we're going to have working people on this project not being pulled
off when they're not completed. I mean, I'd like to see this in the
contract, and I would hope that you would agree that we can put some
kind of those stipulations in there.
MR. MORPHONIAS: Well, you talked about earlier some
Page 94
November 14, 2006
milestones and all for the project. And, you know, those are -- have
been used by other owners, and we have performed those before,
where if you have specific areas that you want expedited and you have
put an incentive/disincentive date on that, that if we don't make it
we're penalized, or we have also utilized on the end completion date
of the project date concern, no excuse bonus.
We're presently finishing one in Miami that is being considered
for a no excuse bonus because we did finish within -- earlier than
contract time. And those give contractors the incentive to, if they
want to expend the additional money and the additional resources over
and above what's normal to reach that bonus, it's out there for them.
And then the benefit to you is, you get your project that much earlier.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's in the contract
presently, a bonus to finish early.
MR. FEDER: We do not have a bonus in the contract at this
time.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'm sorry. Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: My concern is -- and I don't want to put
you in a box. A good example is we had a milestone on Immokalee
Road from 1-75 to Livingston, and it wasn't because the contractor
couldn't meet the needs. It was the fact that Mother Nature
intervened. And we ended up to where, now the contractor is coming
back to us saying that we have a problem, because I think they're
about 220 days short because we were waiting for the utility
companies to get back on the job to move the utilities to get the road
completed.
And it got to the point where the builder ended up putting asphalt
around the poles and everything else. So, you know, I'm concerned
when we try to set a milestone because there's some things that we just
don't have control over, and one of them is Mother Nature.
I understand where Commissioner Henning's coming from, but I
Page 95
November 14,2006
just want to make sure that when we do set milestones, that there's
something in there that pertains to, if it's something beyond the control
of the builder, that that's looked into also so that there isn't any hard
feelings in regards to that.
So if it's something that's out of your control, there's nothing you
can do about it. But if it's in your control, I think we need to have a
milestone set.
MR. MORPHONIAS: That's correct. There are some very
well-written specifications that the department is now using, the
Department of Transportation, that we have on some of our other
projects, and they specifically address those types of things that are
out of both the owner's control and the contractor's control. For
instance, hurricanes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I think this discussion's all
been very interesting. I've benefited from it a lot, but I think this is
more in line for the workshop than this particular contract, although I
do appreciate the questions. And I think there's enough interest here
that we may want to give serious consideration to a workshop to talk
about the contracts and how we're letting them and what we expect to
be in them.
Now, has there been a motion on this yet?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No, but I'm going to make a motion that
we approve this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I think we need to move on with
this thing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the only concern is, I'm
not sure -- and you can help me. I mean, I guess I'm going to have to
trust. Do we have enough information in the contract to make sure
that we deliver, we're responsive to the residents and their quality of
life while this is going on? Do we have an assurance that this
Page 96
November 14,2006
contractor, having two jobs going on at once, is going to finish on
time? Is there -- is there a carrot on the stick there?
MR. FEDER: Let me go through on a couple of things. First of
all, the carrot is the contract itself. The stick is liquidated damages at
a significant level if the contractor's not completed on time.
The protection of the public through this, while there are not
milestones -- and we've not had a good success in establishing
milestones. We've tried that in some projects. But we have had
success and will continue to make sure that the project -- overall
contracts are in time, within budget.
We do have, as well, provisions that require existing numbers of
lanes to be maintained open essentially throughout a project. So while
construction is obviously disruptive, we do seek to maintain lanes
open as much as possible throughout the job.
To the last issue, maintenance of effort, I find myself somewhat
agreeing with the contractor, which is not always the case, that it's
going to be very difficult based on the nature of the business where
they do have different crews and expertise and different
subcontractors that they move around.
But I understand what your interest is, and it's ours as well, that
they have a full maintenance of effort, given that this is a second job
in the county, that it not become, divide your resources in two and do
two jobs.
Everything we've seen, the staffing, what they've shown us, and
the response so far tells us that they are not approaching this job in
that manner.
I don't know how though you would specifically put in wording,
although I will, from this discussion, before we finalize the contract,
talk with our legal, as well as with the contractor, to see if there's
something we can put in that speaks to, if I'm understanding correctly,
a maintenance of effort, given that there's a second job within the
county .
Page 97
November 14,2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'm okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Halas for approval of this contract, and a second by
Commissioner Coletta.
Hearing no further discussion, I'll call the question. 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?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries, unanimous.
Thank you very much.
And we'll break for lunch, and we'll be back here at 1: 13. Thank
you very much. Make it 1: 15.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Three extra minutes,
oh.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
We're back from noon recess, and if we have any new participants
with us this afternoon, if you'd be so kind as to make sure that your
cell phones are silenced, and your pagers. At that, County -
Item #8A
ORDINANCE 2006-51: ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING THE
Page 98
November 14,2006
LEGISLATIVE MANDATE OF 163.3180(16), F.S., AND
ADOPTING THE COLLIER COUNTY PROPORTIONATE FAIR-
SHARE PROGRAM - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us to advertised public
hearings. The first item 8A it's a recommendation that the Board of
County Commissioners enact an ordinance implementing the
Legislative mandate of 163 .3180( 16) of the Florida Statutes, and
adopting the Collier County Proportionate Fair Share Program, and I
believe Mr. Jeff Klatzkow from the County Attorney's Office will
present.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Commissioners, I have the duty here to
present the state-mandated Proportionate Fair Share Ordinance. The
state has required that all counties in Collier -- all counties in Florida
adopt a Proportionate Fair Share Program no later than December 1 st.
Weare bringing this proposed ordinance to you today in case
there are any changes you want to make so we can get them back to
you for the next time so we can implement this by the legislative
deadline.
The proportionate fair share, in a nutshell, I guess, is this: One of
your responsibilities as a board is to manage growth in Collier County,
and one of the ways you manage this growth is to put together a
five-year work program for transportation so that new roads get built
or existing roads get widened, intersections get improved.
If a developer gets turned down because there isn't sufficient
capacity on the roads for him, what we call transportation
concurrency, if that -- if there is a project within your five-year
program that would give them that road space to get there, that would
give them the concurrency, that developer under this program would
write a check to Collier County to cover what his fair share costs of
that road project would be.
Page 99
November 14,2006
In simplistic terms, if this project was going to put out 1,000 cars
on the road in a day and the road project could expand the network by
10,000 cars per day, he'd write you a check for 10 percent of the cost
of whatever that project would be, and then he gets to develop whether
that road ever gets built or not. All right? That's proportionate fair
share. It's pay and go.
One of the things we did was to make sure that if he was going to
pay and go, that it would be what the actual cost of what this project
was going to be, and we did that as follows: We had an inflation
factor to the projected costs, which are Collier County based.
We also put in a bonding requirement so that we would have
sufficient resources available to know that the cost of the project
would get paid at the end.
And lastly, I put in a, what I'm going to call, a truing up process
so that at the end of the day the developer -- if the road project comes
in less than we thought, we get a credit. If it comes in more than we
thought, would have to pay us additional monies, and if he doesn't, no
development orders would issue, all right? So it would be the true
cost of the project at the end of the day.
Now, one of the benefits of proportionate fair share is that it does
apply to backlog. Again, the idea is that, if there's a project within
your five-year program, that would give him the capacity. If that
project includes fixing the backlog that's there now, insufficient
capacity, he has to pay that. So it goes beyond impact fees. It's sort of
impact fees plus.
The ordinance provides that you can say no to a developer if your
county manager tells you that he's got evidence that this would cause
significant public safety issues. And so you don't have to say yes
there if there's a significant issue.
And lastly, there's a public involvement process. We're requiring
that the proposed proportionate fair share agreement goes before the
Planning Commission, that it goes before various neighborhood
Page 100
November 14,2006
information meetings so the public understands what's going on, and
then it goes before you fully vetted so you'll understand what the
agreement would be and what the basic arrangement between the
county and the developer's going to be at that point in time.
And if you have any questions, be happy to answer.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'd just like to say there's an awful lot of
time and effort that went into this, and I feel very comfortable with
what was -- has been drafted, and I believe that we're going to protect
the citizens here in Collier County. And I just want to thank everyone
who was involved in drawing up this ordinance and who had input
into it. I really think that what I read so far and what I've asked staff
about, I feel very comfortable that we're going in the right direction.
Is there any other discussion? If not --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we have a public
speaker.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I don't -- I'm comfortable
with it also, Commissioner, but you remember Commissioner Coyle
had a lot of heartburn over this, and I'm just kind of thinking, would it
be best to put it off to get his input?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: I do note that I have communicated with
Commissioner Coyle, and to my understanding, he has no objections
to this ordinance as written.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And I have no problem
then.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Did I hear one public speaker?
MS. FILSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman, Reed Jarvi.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. JARVI: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Reed
Jarvi, professional -- excuse me -- professional engineer practicing
here in Southwest Florida.
Page 101
November 14, 2006
Just so you know, we, the transportation professionals, which are
the people that have been doing the traffic impact studies for many
years, several of them have gathered and talked about this item. I also
represent a member of the DSAC committee. I don't recommend
DSAC as such, because I'm not authorized to be their speaker for this,
but I will tell you that I have one issue that I'll talk about on this, and it
is specifically --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So you're representing your firm; is that
correct?
MR. JARVI: I'm representing myself for the purposes of this
discussion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. JARVI: Although I do have input from others on this.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. JARVI: It's section 75-202(9), which on the sheet that Jeff
gave me last week was page 4 of 8. I don't know if that's the same
page.
CHAIRMAN HALAS : Well, we've got 18 of 45. I know there's
MR. JARVI: Then it would be -- look at section 75-202.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can you tell us what page that might be
on, Jeff?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's page 3. Actually the agenda
item is page 40.
MR. JARVI: Looks like 40 of 45.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. JARVI: And it's the very last paragraph in that section.
MR. MUDD: Number 9?
MR. JARVI: Number 9. And if I could read it, it says -- once
again, this is what Jeff gave me last week. Any Documents, plans or
other information provided to the county as part of an application or
agreement for proportionate share, including but not limited to design
Page 102
November 14,2006
plans, shall, at no cost to the county, become the property of the
county regardless of whether the application is approved or denied.
We, as the transportation professionals, don't feel that's a fair or
reasonable thing to do if it's denied for no cause. We also, at the
DSAC committee, recommended, I believe it was unanimous, to take
out the "or denied" part of it.
I might suggest that if you want to refer to the section 75-104(4),
that you could do that because our fear or our concern really is that if
it's denied for no particular reason, that what could be several
thousands of dollars worth of data is given to the county and for no
value. If you denied it for a particular reason, as is denoted in section
75-104, then that probably would be adequate for our purposes.
And that's the only comment I have.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Attorney, can you opine on this?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. This provision's put in at
transportation request, and I'll have transportation explain why they
feel they need this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And what kind of plans are you
talking about?
MR. JARVI: As you look -- in this particular document, if you
were -- if the plans for a particular road project are -- excuse me. If a
road project is in the five-year plan but the plans aren't being
completed at that time, to do this particular -- to do a fair share
calculation, you would basically have to do road plans, and it could be
several millions of dollars worth of road plans. That seems to me, if
it's denied, it shouldn't be, you know, necessarily given to the county
for no value.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't dis -- first of all, Nick
Casalanguida, transportation planning. I don't see any reason why you
would be denied without cause. I don't think we could deny the
project without cause. I think it's fair to assume that if you were
denied without cause, the plans would be returned, and we could
Page 103
November 14,2006
probably address that language accordingly and refer back to page 4
and say, if denied without cause, all plans would be returned. I don't
see that as a significant problem.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Could we put that into the contract then?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, easy to do, reference back to
that paragraph 4.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And County Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, thank you. One thing that we have to
contend with is that records, really any kind of records that are
provided to the county become public records. And so the question of
giving back is really not an option to the extent that once it is given to
the county, received by any office, whether it's the commission office,
County Attorney Office, transportation, any office, it is a public
record which must be maintained for the statutorily required retention
period.
So the question may be beyond the mere fact that it's a public
record and must be kept by the county. If it's a question in regard to
the use of the value of the plan that's provided at some point, some
later point in time, that's really not reckoned with in this ordinance or
with us at this juncture, I don't think. But there would be an
impossibility. It would be a violation of law to give back the record
and not have it be part of the public record of the county, having been
submitted to the county.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would it be acceptable, say, if
the county uses the plans, that the applicant would be reimbursed?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think the fear would be that we
would deny the application then turn around and submit those plans
for permitting process and bidding process and things like that, and
I'm not sure ethically or legally you could submit someone else's plans
to a permitting agency without there being a signator as the engineer
of record, so I don't know if that would be a problem.
Page 104
November 14,2006
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Casalanguida's correct about that, that it
would be an ethical and professional problem to rely on plans that are
not created or authorized to be utilized by the submitter.
So that really, to some extent, answers the question that that
cannot happen legally and ethically, professionally, but if it were to,
Commissioner Henning, be a desire of the county to utilize those plans
-- and Mr. Jarvi may wish to comment here as well-- it certainly
would be, I think, within the realm of fair play, among other things,
for the submitter of the plans to receive a value for the value that
would have come to the county with the authorized usage of those
plans. But I think there would have to be an authorization in any event
for it to go forward in an ethical manner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For additional clarification, I think
when we present a contract for fair share, the contract is a play
document. That could be crafted into the application that said that
although the plans are for the county, they could not be used for
submittal purposes, and if the county wishes to do so, they would
reimburse the applicant or the developer of those plans.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other discussion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If Commissioner Coyle doesn't
have a problem, then I'll make a motion to approve. Of course he can't
-- he's not here to speak for himself, but it's my understanding.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I'll second that.
But Commissioner Coyle has been advised of what was in the
documentation; is that correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir. I sent an email copy of the
ordinance to him.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And you did get a correspondence back
from him?
Page 105
November 14,2006
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir. He had some questions, and I
answered them, I hope to his satisfaction.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, very good. So we have a motion
on the floor by Commissioner Henning and a second by
Commissioner Halas.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. 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?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, just one little other item. It's your
ordinance, okay, and if there's something in this ordinance that needs
to be changed at a future date, you have -- you have --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That ability.
MR. MUDD: -- the ability to do that, and it takes about 30 days
with all the advertisement and everything else in order to get that
ordinance adjusted and back and approved and do that particular item.
And I also talked to Commissioner Coy Ie about that aspect. The
deadline of 1 December though looms in order to have it, and I believe
that Mr. Feder and counsel will draft some kind of a letter to the DCA
to make sure that they understand that we have -- we have an
ordinance and we're in keeping with Senate Bill 360 in that regard, so
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
Item #8B
Page 106
November 14,2006
RESOLUTION 2006-299: RESOLUTION UPDATING THE
GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES FOR THE SUBMITTAL,
REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE TRANSPORTATION
IMPACT STATEMENT (TIS) - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is 8B, and that's a recommendation to approve a resolution
updating the guidelines and procedures for the submittal review and
approval of the Transportation Impact Statement, TIS. And Mr. Nick
-- come on, help me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Casalanguida.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Casalanguida.
MR. MUDD: -- Casalanguida, will-- senior project manager for
transportation, will present.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good afternoon, Commissioners.
Nick Casalanguida, transportation planning.
What we've done in coordination with SB360 and the
proportionate fair share ordinance is also take a look at our TIS
guidelines and procedures. We've taken recommendations from this
board, the Planning Commission, members of the public, with
stakeholders such as DSAC and the transportation professionals in the
area.
We recognize the fact that intersection analysis has become a
critical concern of both this commission and the Planning
Commission, and we've addressed that in the TIS guidelines.
We've also gone and looked at looking out, farther out
significantly by going 2/2/3; 2 percent, 2 percent, 3 percent, with the
understanding that legally concurrency is held at 3/3/5. But
operationally you have voiced concerns that we're not looking far
enough for our intersections, so we've addressed that with this
document as well, too.
Page 107
November 14,2006
We've set certain thresholds in this document for pass-by and
capture. They're not written in stone, and there's flexibility built into
that document as well too, so that on a case-by-case basis, an applicant
can sit down with staff, go over the location of the project, review the
location of the project, make certain assumptions that are reasonable
based on ITE and the local conditions, and we have flexibility to
document for that as well too.
We think the document covers the concerns addressed by the
boards, and we've spent a lot of time with the stakeholders.
So with that, I would address any questions that you have
regarding the TIS guidelines. Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: This was one of my concerns. Not too
long ago, a couple of months back, we had an issue that came before
the Board of County Commissioners where we were increasing
density on -- on or near an intersection that was failing, and I'm glad
that we have some legislation now pending here that we're going to
address in regards to that very concern.
I also hope that this tightens up the de minimis part of what takes
place out there on the roads here in Collier County.
I know that we still have that issue, but I think that this is getting
closer to addressing all of the de minimis aspects, especially when we
start addressing what's taking place at the intersection; am I correct?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It does. It takes into account
operational issues that may not be picked up for concurrency as de
minimis but will be picked up operationally.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do we have any public speakers
on this?
MS. FILSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have one public speaker,
Reed Jarvi.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. JARVI: Commissioners, good afternoon again. Reed Jarvi,
for the record. Once again, I do represent the same people, member of
Page 108
November 14, 2006
DSAC committee and transportation professional stakeholders that
Mr. Casalanguida mentioned.
I also, for one aspect of what I'm going to say, I represent Toll
Brothers, so just to keep the record clear. And that aspect is, that on
the TIS guidelines that are in front of you, we feel that there needs to
be a date of implementation. I've talked to Mr. Casalanguida about
this. I don't believe he has a problem with it in that there would be a
time, whatever that date of implementation would be, that from then
on these guidelines would be valid for new applications.
If there's an application in the pipeline, we think it would be
unfair for people that have gone maybe three quarters or 90 percent
down the road, and all of a sudden the rules have changed. Because I
will tell you these guidelines will cause a lot of money to be sent to
firms like mine because they're going to be, I estimated, 50 to 100
percent higher in the TISs that my firm will be now performing for
various clients of the county. So we feel it would be unfair that people
have to start over basically.
And I think Mr. Casalanguida, and I see a shaking of his head,
that he would agree to that for a point similar to that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: How many PUD, would this affect?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It would affect a significant amount in
various stages of application. I would agree with Jarvi. It would be
unrealistic to go back and have them reanalyze what they've done.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And how would you administer
this as we move forward on this application?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think we would implement this
almost immediately within the next week or two as far as new
applications coming in.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: New applications?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Anything that's in the pipeline
then, they would be under the old guidelines?
Page 109
November 14, 2006
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct. They're reviewed that way,
.
SIr.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any discussion from--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, just one.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What does in the pipeline actually
mean?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think for the purposes of what you're
asking, it's any application that's been reviewed once by
transportation.
MR. MUDD: And you're talking about TIS that's been reviewed
by transportation?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And maybe I should clarify that. Any
application that's been submitted to CDES, because they are in the
pipeline. So if it's been stamped in prior to the date of us going into
effect, I think it would be fair that they've already done the work,
expected to do that work and carry that date forward.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Now, what are you -- what
are you thinking, Don? He had a funny look on his face.
CHAIRMAN HALAS : Yeah.
MR. SCOTT: Well, I have a -- I guess I -- Don Scott,
transportation planning. I have a problem if there's something that's
submitted, and then two years later -- I mean, the Planning
Commission, a lot of what you see in the TIS guidelines is a response
to a lot of concerns from the Planning Commission.
And if you see something that's a year and a half later because it's
taken so long to get through the process or for other reasons, I have a
problem if it's just going to keep dragging out, even though they had
something submitted at a certain time. And I don't know what -- the
best way to handle that, but --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: What Don's referring to is an
application that was reviewed by transportation, say, a year ago and
Page 110
November 14,2006
now coming to Planning Commission. We typically have been asking
the engineers to update that. We could request them to update that as
of the past guidelines so they have current information but under the
same rules, and I think that would be reasonably consistent with what
we've done so far.
MR. JARVI: Yes. From that -- excuse me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry. Does that answer
your concern, or do you think it needs to be defined a little bit more
clearly?
MR. SCOTT: Well, obviously one of the -- you know, I think it
will probably work out, because obviously when we go to the
Planning Commission, they ask certain things to be reviewed or
looked at even further. The applicant, it's in their best interest to look
at those issues, too. So I'm hoping that, you know, we're not talking
about stuff -- I think he'll work with us to do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, see, what I was concerned
with also is, maybe they've come in and talked to CDES or something,
no TIS has been submitted but they've already started talking. Would
that then be -- even if nothing had actually been submitted, would that
be then considered to not be under this ordinance?
MR. SCOTT: I guess from that standpoint, as long as we had --
if we reviewed a TIS for whatever reason, whatever's been submitted,
then that's probably the way to look at it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, okay. So then that point
would be once you've reviewed a TIS, they would -- they would be
grandfathered in; is that what you're saying?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think -- I thought about it. I had a
chance to think about it while you were talking. We're going to
present these new TIS guidelines when we go to the initial preap.
application phase starting this week. So applicants would be told at
that phase, these are the new guidelines at the preapplication period.
Anybody that's gone past that period would have been informed of our
Page 111
November 14, 2006
old guidelines and the way they were. So that's a very distinctive
cutoff that would be fair to both the county and the applicant.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I just want to make sure that we have
protection out there for the citizens in regards to addressing
concurrency and traffic, especially at intersections that pose problems
now.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We do, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I like what Mr.
Casalanguida said, is during the sitting-down stage with the applicant,
you must go by the new guidelines. After all, I mean, you know, you
depend on government to tell you to do something, and then when you
change the rules in midstream, it's not fair.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So that's an administration
decision on how they operate, and that's the board's understanding.
So with that, I'm going to make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, you're not done yet.
MR. JARVI: I'm not done yet, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I'm sorry.
MR. JARVI: If you wouldn't mind, indulge me a few more
minutes. Thank you for that idea.
I do have four other comments, and they start on the fifth page of
the TIS guidelines. It happens to be section number five, it's titled,
internal capture. Once again, I don't have your agenda package, so it's
the fifth sheet in on the TIS guidelines, wherever they are on my --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's page 32.
MR. JARVI: And I just talked -- I believe Mr. Casalanguida said
that, you know, we can work some of these out, but we feel that this
issue, and actually the follow-on issue, which is pass-by capture, that
Page 112
November 14,2006
we shouldn't arbitrarily pick thresholds.
In internal capture it talks that nothing -- internal capture trips
should be reasonable and should not exceed 20 percent of the total
project trips. Once again, the traffic professionals don't have a
problem with the line that follows that says, internal capture rates
higher than 20 percent shall be adequately substantiated and approved
by the county staff, but we feel that the sentence prior to that could be
construed as conflicting and really doesn't -- since the second one
modifies the first sentence, that you really don't need the first
sentence.
That 20 percent -- there is data out in the -- available that does
show that in certain circumstances, that higher than 20 percent internal
capture is reasonable, and I believe that Mr. Casalanguida is willing to
discuss that, but we feel that having that sentence in there says it shall
not be or should not exceed, is contradictory to what could be the data
that's available.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Could the county attorney opine on this?
MR. KLATZKOW: This issue went before the Planning
Commission. Planning Commission felt very strongly about this,
maintaining this at 20 percent. It was Planning Commission's view
that some of these numbers in the past may have been inflated as far
as internal capture, and they may have felt that certain trips were
being generated higher than originally they were told by the
developers. So the Planning Commission was very strong on this
.
Issue.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much for your
input.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I also want to point out one thing, if I
could, sir. That last sentence in that paragraph says that we will
accept higher rates if they can be substantially backed up, so there is
that flexibility . We're saying it should be 20 percent. We think that
20 percent is a reasonable number, but if you can prove and justify to
Page 113
November 14,2006
the staff that there's this particular reason, a higher internal capture, we
will accept that, so it doesn't lock it in.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, forgive me, but I see an
awful lot of conferencing going on, a lot of discussion going back and
forth, a lot of decisions being made on the spot. Are we really ready
to bring this thing forward? Do we have that comfort level that what
we have is complete, or is this work in progress?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. I'm very comfortable with
what's here. I think this discussion that we're having right now was
had at the Planning Commission and had at the stakeholders meeting
as well, too.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. JARVI: Next item I'd like to talk about is pass-by capture,
which is the next paragraph, number six. And last week I sent you an
email, I sent all of you an email about pass-by, all the items I'm going
to talk about, except the first one, that talked about pass-by capture.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Did you discuss this with the Planning
Commission when it was there, in front of the Planning Commission
or DSAC?
MR. JARVI: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And what was the end result?
MR. JARVI: DSAC agreed that we should not artificially cap.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What about Planning Commission?
MR. JARVI: Planning Commission said we should artificially
cap.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So -- and this is what's in the
document; is this correct?
MR. JARVI: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I've got to go along with what I
believe our people who scrutinize this think.
MR. JARVI: Which ones?
Page 114
November 14, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Which ones? All of them.
MR. JARVI: I don't mean to be facetious, but I said DSAC said
one thing, Planning Commission said another thing.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'd say planning -- when the Planning
Commission goes through this thing, I think they go through it pretty
thorough, and that's why I feel that if the Planning Commission, the
recommendations that they give to us, we look at that very carefully as
a guideline for us as commissioners here.
MR. JARVI: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. JARVI: The last thing I'll discuss, and it's on -- it's section
11, which is the ninth page in, which should be about 37, I think, 36,
37.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thirty-six.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep, 36.
MR. JARVI: We, the transportation professionals, feel that the
amount of data collection is inordinate and that the data collection --
we don't mind data collection for the purposes of using it, but we feel
that there are several instances in this data collection that will be
excessive, and it will cost a fair amount of money to do it and it really
has little to no value.
So we would request that you look at that more. Once again, for
your -- before you asked (sic), DSAC said they agree that the data
collection is exorbitant. And I don't remember if there was much
discussion at the Planning Commission, but they agreed the way it
was.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: What I can convey to you from the
Planning Commission and DSAC is, throughout this document we
allow flexibility. The data collection is intended to be there for a
certain location that we feel is stressed as an intersection. We could
ask for that data collection. We can also look at an intersection that
has plenty of capacity and say, that data collection is not necessary
Page 115
November 14, 2006
right now.
But we've set guidelines for what that data collection should be,
and it's very detailed. And I think as commissioners and planning
commissioners, you will ask us questions that are detailed, and we
cannot respond unless we have the ability to ask for that information.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I mean, how do you --
how do you regulate, you know, reasonable information given when
you think that there's a problem? I mean, how do you do that? I
mean, one intersection is different from the other.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: When individual applications come in
-- I'll give you an example on Pine Ridge Road at Whippoorwill. That
intersection is struggling at best.
When applications come in -- first of all, it's an obvious
intersection problem, so that is a flag just from observation.
Second of all, you'll get various other applications submitting,
calling out problems saying a particular movement is failing.
So when a new application comes in, we say, through
observation on the ground, through submittals from other applications,
we've determined there are failing movements at that intersection. We
would like this type of data collected at that intersection. So there are
obvious things that trigger that sort of collection.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there thresholds?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure, there's thresholds, the delay,
other individual movements that go through that intersection.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But is it -- the thresholds are not
written in here on the data that -- if you meet this -- intersection meets,
it fails, or -- yeah, goes over this certain threshold, you need to submit
more information.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, one application from a prior
application said that the left-turn movement is at level OS-F. The
delay is unacceptable. That would be a trigger right there, through
Page 116
November 14,2006
observation.
I couldn't give you all the different scenarios at the intersections
of what could be failing or not be failing. You could have a through
movement that's failing, a left-turn movement that's working,
vice-versa. So it would be, you know, contingent upon the county
staff to make those determinations with the applicant.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think that's where we need to put the
responsibility is on the county staff. That's why we've hired
.
engIneers.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I agree, but I hear from
the public, you know, they -- you have a preapp. meeting and they say
they want this amount of information, then it's 30 days up, it's rejected
and they want more information. So, I mean, it goes on and on and
on.
So I'm just trying to figure out, how are we going to tell the
people and our constituents when enough information is enough, that's
all.
MR. KLATZKOW: I think that's one of the reasons we have
DSAC, and I think that if staff is being a little too difficult with the
development community, I think DSAC will let you people know that
changes need to be made.
And I just point out that this is being adopted by resolution.
Commissioners, we can easily amend this if this proves to be, you
know, little difficulties here, little difficulties there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, I viewed this as sort of like new and
improved bounty. I mean, you know, next year we might come back
and say we need a little -tweaking to make it a little better, make it a
little clearer, and we're just trying to get the right -- the right numbers
here with our procedures.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I hope tweaking it doesn't
mean more government. But bypass traffic is actually a good thing,
Page 11 7
November 14, 2006
correct? So Mr. Jarvi, what's --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- your problem with bypass
traffic?
MR. JARVI: My problem is that -- not that we should have
bypass traffic. It is a known phenomenon in traffic engineering and
traffic transportation planning. There is a fair amount of data from
ITE sources, the Institute of Transportation Engineers sources that
pass-by traffic can be higher than 25 percent, can be higher than the
45 and 50 percent of the particular uses that are in this particular
document, and there are -- there are lots of data, and that changes,
maybe not daily, but certainly yearly as more data is collected.
The 25 percent cap as recommended is based on a document that
FDOT prepared in 1999, I think it was, or 1998. And since that time
-- and that was based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, fifth
edition. We are currently on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, seventh
edition. So there's been two editions since that data was published,
and there is more data now that suggests that rates aren't as static as
staff is capping.
In addition, there is data -- if you extrapolate out just the Florida
data from the ITE manual, it shows that the data is even higher than
national averages. So we think capping it artificially is not correct.
We should be using judgment to do that, and that that amount -- that
should be left to the professional doing the study as agreed upon by
staff.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have professionals here that we hire
within the county also.
MR. JARVI: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So I would hope that the
guidance that they give us also correlates with a lot of the stuff that we
just presented here.
MR. JARVI: Sir, all I'm saying is that you shouldn't artificially
Page 118
November 14,2006
cap it. You shouldn't just take a number and say, it shouldn't be higher
than 25 percent. It should be whatever it is. It might be 5 percent, it
might be 50 percent, but it should be whatever it is with the data that
supports it, not 25 percent as a cap. That's our position.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Nick, in the simplest of layman
terms, explain to me exactly what it is we hope to accomplish with
thi s.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think we hope to accomplish that we
can clearly identify what is failing, when it will fail, what we can do to
improve it, especially with the intersections with this application. I
think that's what we're trying to do.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the petitioner's the one
that's going to bear the expense of doing this study?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How far from the actual
groundwork that they're going to be working are they responsible to
do this study, for how far back into the system?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: How far --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In other words --I'm sorry. I'm
talking about distance. In other words, if you've got a PUD at the
corner of Livingston and Immokalee Road, how far back would they
be responsible for this study? I'm still trying to get my arms around
the whole thing.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. It's based on the percent of a
service volume. If you've got a service volume of, say, 3,000 for
round numbers. Your first link would be 2 percent. Once you went
over 2 percent, you would go on to the next link.
In fairness to Mr. Jarvi, we've looked at the lower thresholds of
these rates but always have put -- and to my detriment at the Planning
Commission, they wanted the word shall instead of should, and I kept
Page 119
November 14,2006
saying, you can't do that. In fairness to the industry, there are times
when pass-by rates are higher or capture rates are higher, so if we put
should, and we put it in every single paragraph, higher rates will be
accepted by the county if they can be substantiated. So we've left that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You've got me. I'm there.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, my motion still stands, but
I just want to say, if you get a grocery store and a drugstore in Golden
Gate Estates or east of 951, it's going to have a high capture.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: More than 25 percent. So what
you just said I feel comfortable with. My motion still stands.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll second that. I don't think there was a
second on that motion, was there?
MS. FILSON: Yes, there was, Commissioner Fiala.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, sorry. It was Commissioner Fiala,
all right.
So we have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Henning and
a second by Commissioner Fiala.
Is there any further discussion on this?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. 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?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries. Thank you very much.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, Commissioners.
Page 120
November 14, 2006
Item #8C
PUDEX-2006-AR-9610 G.L. HOMES OF NAPLES II
CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ROBERT DUANE, OF
HOLE MONTES, IS REQUESTING TWO 2-YEAR PUD
EXTENSIONS FOR THE TERAFINA PUD (ORDINANCE 04-15)
WHICH IS SCHEDULED TO SUNSET ON MARCH 9,2007. THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY CONSISTS OF 636.8 ACRES AND IS
LOCATED 1 MILE NORTH OF IMMOKALEE ROAD, NORTH
OF THE OLDE CYPRESS PUD AND EAST OF QUAIL CREEK,
IN SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA: MOTION TO CONTINUE -
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to 8C. 8C I've
already -- I've read during the change sheet. Petitioner has come
forward and asked that this particular item be continued until 28
November. It's the Terafina PUD two-year PUD extension request.
In order to do that, because it was advertised for today, I need a
vote from the board to continue it until the 28th of November.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I hear a motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to continue.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor to
continue this item till November the 28th. Motion was made by
Commissioner Fiala and seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
Any other further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, all those in favor of
continuing this, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 121
November 14,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
Item #8D
ORDINANCE 2006-52: PUDZ-2005-AR-8147, VORNADO
DEVELOPMENT, INC., REPRESENTED BY D. WAYNE
ARNOLD, OF Q. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A. AND
RICHARD D. YOV ANOVICH, ESQ., OF GOODLETTE,
COLEMAN, AND JOHNSON, P.A., IS REQUESTING A REZONE
FROM THE GOLF COURSE (GC) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD)
ZONING DISTRICT, TO ALLOW A RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT WITH A MAXIMUM OF 3 DWELLING UNITS
PER ACRE, OR 24 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS IN A PROJECT
KNOWN AS THE VORNADO RPUD. THE 8 ACRE SUBJECT
PROPERTY IS LOCATED OFF PALM DRIVE IN THE GLADES
SUBDIVISION, BEHIND THE TOWNE CENTER SHOPPING
CENTER, IN SECTIONS 12 AND 13, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 25 EAST~ COLLIER COUNTY~ FLORIDA: - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: The next item is 8D. This item requires that all--
excuse me?
MS. FILSON: Oh, I was just going to let the chairman know that
we had one speaker, but they're willing to wait until it's continued.
MR. MUDD: Okay. So we're --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: A speaker on what item?
MS. FILSON: On the one you just continued.
Page 122
November 14, 2006
MR. MUDD: On the one we just did. I believe Mrs. Payton
signed up just in case the board was going to hear it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, okay.
MR. MUDD: The next item is 8D. This item requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
commission members.
It's PUDZ-2005-AR-8147, Vornado Development, Inc.,
represented by D. Wayne Arnold ofQ. Grady Minor & Associates,
P.A., and Richard D. Y ovanovich, Esquire, of Goodlette, Coleman,
Johnson, P.A., is requesting a rezone from a golf course zoning district
to a residential planned unit development zoning district to allow a
residential development with a maximum of three dwelling units per
acres or 24 total dwelling units in a project known as the Vornado
RPUD.
The eight-acre subject property is located off Palm Drive in the
Glades subdivision behind the Tower (sic) Center Shopping Center in
Section 12 and 13, Township 50 south, Range 25 east, Collier County,
Florida.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Would all those that are going to
bring forth testimony on this item, would you please rise and be sworn
in by the court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. At this time I'll ask each of the
commissioners for disclosure on this item, 8D, starting with
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I met with Rich
Yovanovich and Wayne Arnold on 11/9, and I've received
correspondence.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. On this particular item I've had
no disclosures other than speaking with staff.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioners Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've spoken with Rich
Page 123
November 14, 2006
Y ovanovich, I've spoken with staff members, I've spoken with the
county attorney, the attorney's office and members there. I've spoken
with some of the people in the neighborhood as well. I've initiated
some of those phone calls and some have called me. And I spoke to
some of the Planning Commission members as well.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Spoke to the county manager
and I drove by the site today.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, by the way, I wanted to just
make a little correction. When Mr. Mudd read where it was located, I
think he said Center Tower Shopping Center, and it's Towne Center
Shopping Center.
MR. MUDD: Towne Center.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich
Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. With me today are Wayne
Arnold and Dean Smith with Grady Minor & Associates, and they can
answer any planning or civil engineering related questions you may
have regarding the project.
As the county manager referenced, the project is located behind
the Towne Center Shopping Plaza. On your visualizer is where the
property is located. On the left side of the screen is Tamiami Trail,
and the road off of the Tamiami Trail that goes back into the Glades
community is Palm Drive. Access would be off Palm Drive.
In the yellow is the outline of the eight-acre site that the petition
seeks to rezone to PUD. As you can see, there's a county effluent tank
on the site. The acreage that includes the tank is not part of the PUD
and is not part of the eight acres, which is the project that's before you.
It's an eight-acre parcel. It's an infill parcel. As you see, it's
adjacent to the two Glades golf courses. There's the -- a smaller par 3
golf course to the top of your screen, and then to the right and to --
kind of diagonally is the larger Glades golf course.
Page 124
November 14,2006
As you can see from the screen, part of the project includes the
golf course. We worked with the owners, the Glades Country Club
people, to resolve issues related to the golf course and have conveyed
to them a perpetual easement for their golf course to remain. And it is
part of the project, but it is their golf course. It is for their use.
They asked us to install along the golf course perimeter a wall,
which we agreed to do. They wanted that for security reasons to keep
people off the golf course and keep golfers out of people's back yards,
so they asked us to go ahead and build a wall around our proj ect to
separate the golf course from the residential development we're doing,
and we agreed to do that.
I'm going to put the master plan up. You can see the project's
master plan, the access off of Palm Drive is to your left. Basically
there'll be a street that goes and bisects the project, and there'll be
residential development on both sides of the main street.
You'll see the green. That's the golf course. That's not part --
that's not part -- that has been put in a permanent exclusive easement
for the benefit of the Glades Golf Course.
The Planning Commission requested that we delete multifamily
development as an option for the project and that has been deleted
from the PUD, so the PUD would allow single-family attached or
single- family detached, it would allow townhomes, and it would allow
and two-family dwelling units.
We spent a lot of time working with the golf course,
representatives of the golf course, to again, resolve playability for
their golf course, and we believe they now -- well, there's nobody here
to oppose the project from the golf course that I'm aware of.
We worked with your utilities staff to address concerns they had
regarding the existing effluent tank. They requested that we build a
10- foot wall around the tank both for security reasons as well as, you
know, visual reasons.
We will obviously plant landscaping on our side of the fence to
Page 125
November 14,2006
hide the tank so the wall will be attractive. You basically, hopefully,
won't even notice it's there.
We also agreed, if you'll look near the canal, there's a
maintenance easement that basically runs parallel to the canal, and
that's a maintenance easement for your utility staff. They requested
that we put a six-foot high wall along that access maintenance
easement, which we've agreed to do, and that's also in your PUD
document. Those two measures provide additional security for the
effluent tank.
The existing site -- I forgot to mention this early on -- was a
sewer treatment plant for the Glades community. It's no longer
needed for that purpose, and that's why we're requesting the rezone.
We have attempted to work with the leadership of the Naples
Sunrise Condominium, and they are our neighbors. And if you see the
access point off of Palm Drive, we have an easement across their
property to get access to our site.
When the condominium was establish -- and if you want this for
your record, I'll be happy to provide it to you. When the
condominium was established, there was an ingress/egress easement
retained over the southern 110 feet of the property to provide access to
this property, and that's clearly spelled out in the condominium
documents.
We've tried to work with -- get input from the residents of the
Sunrise Condominium as to what access would look like. This is what
we're proposing as far as access to our project.
If you -- as you can see, it's nicely landscaped. It respects the
improvements that are already there as far as their carports and others,
so we're not interfering with that. It respects they're already -- their
access to their condo, so it in no way interferes with their access,
provides a nice entryway to our project, as well as, we believe, a nice
entryway to their project.
Your staff reviewed the document and made some changes.
Page 126
November 14,2006
We've agreed to all those changes, and they're recommending
approval. The Planning Commission, as they analyzed the project,
requested some changes, to which we agreed to all of the conditions of
the Planning Commission. They also recommended approval.
We're requesting approval to rezone the property to PUD for 24
units. And those are my remarks, and if you have any specific
questions regarding the project, either lor Wayne Arnold or Dean
Smith can answer them.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a question for Commissioner
Fiala, since this is in your area. And listening to what Rich has to
bring forward and what I read in the document, are the neighbors
really -- do they have any concerns about all these walls? Is there
another way of maybe -- address this, or do you feel that walls are the
way to do it? I was thinking like a heavy hedge of some kind.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No one from the Sunrise
Condominium grouping has called me at all, and I don't know
anybody there to call.
I did call a couple of people in the Glades, which is different than
Sunrise, and they didn't have any problems as long as they got -- as
long as the deal was consummated for the three holes of golf. But I've
had a lot of problems. Something -- something is bothering me about
this.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The thing is, when you've got all these
walls, it's going to look like a prison.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I've got some concerns if maybe we
could -- and that's why I'm asking you this question because it's in
your area -- if we could use thick hedges. There are gated
communities that don't get involved in fencing or walls, and they use,
you know, heavy hedges, the use of heavy hedges. And I'm
wondering if that would be more appropriate than concrete walls.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner Halas, we discussed both
Page 127
November 14, 2006
of those options with the golf course.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And they -- we basically said, what
would you prefer, and they told us they preferred the wall --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- versus the -- versus the hedge. We
said, whichever you prefer. If you prefer a hedge, we'll put a nice,
heavy vegetative buffer in. If you want --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: But the hedge can go up to about 10 feet,
correct?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Absolutely. As you know, a lot of these
ficus hedges are -- you know, they're walls, essentially.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah, you can't get through them.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And basically what they came to is, by
the time we plant the side of the wall that faces the golf course with
the vegetation, you're not going to see the wall anyway. So what it
does is it provides them the security of people not walking through the
hedge, but the wall will be masked by the vegetation that we plant on
that side. That is what they preferred, so that is -- we agreed to that. I
mean, it wasn't --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: --- it wasn't our first choice, but it is
really what the golf course wanted.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's why I asked the commissioner
from that district. Obviously she's studied this. And the only thing
that bothers me is, I hear a wall over here and another wall over here,
and it sounds to me like it was like a prison.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So that's why I asked.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I had that same -- by the time you
take out the golf course part of the property and you take out the creek
part of the property and you take out the tank part of the property,
Page 128
November 14,2006
doesn't leave much left, and maybe six acres if you're lucky there, and
then you have six acres and you have it walled in with 10- foot walls,
and then you have a guardhouse that you can put on there, and it
begins to look really scary.
And then some of -- is it even compatible with the neighborhood
anymore? And I've been concerned about that. So I want to know
what you can assure -- what you can do to assure me that the uses -- or
that -- you say now it's going to be single-family.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's not -- it's going to be either single --
the three uses we were allowed -- actually it's four. Single-family
attached, single-family detached, townhomes or two-family dwelling
units. We're not allowed to have multifamily within that project. So
we may not even achieve the full 24 units, based upon the
development standards.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But you clearly state here that this is
probably going to be a property that you flip, because that's kind of
what you say right here anyway, but then -- well, if the property is
sold -- I'll show you the page.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If the property is sold, then you
want to be able to increase the density that -- let me just get that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, let's see. I don't recall saying that,
but --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, page 16 of 141, and this is--
this is on the --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Should, yeah, the property owner --
ownership change hands.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Should the property
ownership change hands and we aren't the underlying property owner,
we may have to adjust the number of residential units proposed, things
like that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: This was the --I'm sorry. This is -- I see
Page 129
November 14,2006
where you're reading from now. Those were comments at the
neighborhood information meeting. I'm just trying to read it in
context real quick so I understand.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I had a number of concerns. I'm
glad that Joe's helping you there, but I have a problem. I need
somebody to help me on this because what I'm trying to do is protect
the property owners. And I just want to make sure -- they've had so
much to deal with in this area, I don't want to have them dealing with
anything else.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: There's no -- there's no -- I don't mean to
interrupt you. There's no question that this PUD limits us to 24 units.
We can't go higher than that. It would take a rezone.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm not questioning whether --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- okay, although it doesn't mean
that you can't sell it or anything, but -- and then they can seek a
rezone.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think it was in the context of, we
showed them one particular layout that showed all single-family
homes, and in that layout, I believe -- I don't think -- I think we
achieved, was it, 21? It was -- I think under that single-family --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Rich, something about this is
making me very nervous. I want to know what you can do to make
sure this is restricted to the same compatibility that the rest of the
Glades are, you know, single-family or townhouse, something of that
sort, and it doesn't become something that doesn't fit in the
neighborhood.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, and it can't because what the PUD
document says -- when we made that statement, we still had the ability
to do multifamily. That ability has gone away, so we no longer have
the ability to do a multifamily condominium project.
When that was made, we had the ability to do your typical
Page 130
November 14, 2006
three-story condominium building where we'd do the flats. That's
gone now, so we're limited to just -- that's the assurance I think you're
looking for in the context in which that statement was made. We had
the ability to do multifamily . We were showing them one layout,
which was single-family, but we wanted to say listen, you need to
understand if we do multifamily, we could also do multifamily there.
And that's the context --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And is that in perpetuity?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. The PUD document specifically
says we only have those four use. Unless it said we had multifamily in
it, then we -- since it doesn't say we have multifamily, we can't do it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Jim?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Manager?
MR. MUDD: I think, Rich, another issue that you might help in
the PUD, when you build these units, are these units going to be up for
public sale to the public at large, that anybody in the public can buy
them, that it's not going to be basically restricted to a certain
association or whatever?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No.
MR. MUDD: The units are going to be open to the public?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir.
MR. MUDD: So the public can buy the units, anybody in the
public can buy the units?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's a good question. Thank you
very much, County Manager. Because pictures can look pretty --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- but we've seen so many pictures
that then become something else when they flip the property.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And I think that's why the
Planning Commission said, take multifamily out of there. That's
really not what's around you. Limit yourselves to the single-family
Page 131
November 14,2006
attached, detached and townhomes. That's a better -- a better product
for that area is what the Planning Commission was saying.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Will there be any --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Last question. Will there be any
deed restrictions on this property?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we have deed -- we have agreed
also -- and thank you. I forgot to mention that. The Glades Country
Club had some concerns that somehow someone at some point could
come in in the future and ask for a rezone that would allow either a
homeless shelter or a soup kitchen.
We specifically have already imposed a deed restriction that
would prohibit those uses on the property. So those deed restrictions
are already in place to eliminate those types of uses that the Glades
community said, they absolutely wanted assurance in perpetuity that
that would never happen. So, yes, there already are restrictions on the
property .
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we put those restrictions in
the PUD saying there shall be no soup kitchen or --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We can if you want to. I mean, the
typical rule is if you don't --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We don't enforce deed
restrictions.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Absolutely. We can add that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think they have some
assurance that it was the wishes of the Board of Commissioners that
expressly wanted to prohibit --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think that's --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If it's not in there, I think we all
agree that it's not allowed.
Page 132
November 14,2006
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But if we put it in there, I think
it will give the commissioner of the district some --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll be more than happy to put a
prohibited use section in there to prohibit those uses.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But I think the section that
Commissioner Fiala was referring to was the neighborhood
information meeting --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- where it says that, and that's
what the neighbors strictly wanted. They asked you for certain things
-- to do certain things and not to do certain things --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and that's what came out of it.
But I understand Commissioner Halas's concerns, and maybe on
the wall you can have a little walkway on the top there for people to
walk around. No.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And part of -- you know, part of the walls
were requested by utilities department, which we were happy to
provide.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But I noticed that you had asked for
a deviation, asked for a six-foot wall, and you wanted to put in a
10- foot wall.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And actually that's what -- the Glades
Country Club wants it to be eight feet. So by the time you do your --
probably your little bit of a berm and you put the wall up there, it
could be somewhere between eight to 10 feet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, that was the Glades that said
eight feet, you said six feet for the other, but what you're going to is
10 feet everyplace?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. We're doing eight feet along our
Page 133
November 14, 2006
parameter, 10 feet along the effluent tank, and six feet along the
entrance -- the access easement to the effluent tank.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the wall would be a
security thing.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is the county concerned about
somebody messing with their tank?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that's why they asked us to put it in.
They wanted to make sure that there was additional security. And
frankly, I believe they were going to probably put some type of wall in
anyway around the tank, but that was at least what I understood, was
that at some point they wanted to put -- to keep people out for security
reasons, somebody not messing with --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Razor wire's not good enough.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think most people would prefer refer a
real wall with nice landscaping on the interior side of that wall.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I hear Commissioner
Halas's concerns, and sorry for the humor.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I just -- as long as the commissioner
from that district feels comfortable with the wall, I'll probably go
along with it, but I just don't feel good about walls. It seems to me
like you're ending up building a prison around this whole complex,
okay?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's how it feels to me, too.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And obviously this is what the
neighborhood has requested, and so -- is there any speakers on this
thing? So I mean, I just --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Again, we were just trying --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The Planning Commission, I think, had
-- struggled with this, too, didn't they? From what I see in my
documents, that one particular person on the Planning Commission
had some concerns about the wall.
Page 134
November 14,2006
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The wall structures around this whole--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: One did, the majority did not. And,
again, we were just trying to be respectful and responsive to our
neighbors who asked for this. You know, if you won't let me do it,
then I'm going to have to go back and renegotiate with them the
easement document that we all negotiated in good faith and came to a
resolution that at least --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I just want --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think the commissioners are with
me on this. All of this is really strange compared to other things that
usually come before us --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- so naturally it throws some red
flags on the field. It doesn't sound like a normal PUD, especially
when you dwindle it down to six acres probably, and all of this stuff,
it's just -- you know, there's a very different feel to it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And what we're all trying to do is
make sure that the end product is something that the people in the
Glades can live with and the people that are inside of that walled area
can live with.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Exactly. We understand that, and we
were -- we attempted to -- again, we know that it's going to look nice
at least facing the Glades because we're going to place nice
landscaping in front of the wall, so effectively you're not going to see
it. We're also going to do the same on our side because we're not
going to want a stark wall either for -- to be able to sell nice units, and
we want to sell nice units.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who maintains the landscaping on
the outside of that wall?
Page 135
November 14,2006
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It will be all on our property, so we will
be doing -- it will be our homeowners' association responsible for that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: On both sides of the wall?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Both sides.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Does staff have anything to add to this
before we bring closure to this?
MS. DESELEM: Good afternoon. My name is Kay Deselem,
and I'm a principal planner with the department of zoning and land
development review.
You have all the backup information. Weare recommending
approval. I'll be happy to answer any question that I can.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any questions from the
commissioners on this?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MS. DESELEM: Certainly.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I have a motion on this?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not from me.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, then obviously you don't feel
comfortable with this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, it -- you know what, I'm
waiting to hear from you guys, and if you guys feel pretty confident in
this, I'll go along with it. I know everything everybody said, it sounds
like it's going to be okay. I've just been very nervous about it. But if
-- I think everybody's asked enough questions that they would feel
comfortable with it, then you go ahead and do it, and I'll vote for it if
that's what you want to do.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But I could understand on the --
it would be -- would it be on the south side adjacent to the commercial
Page 136
November 14,2006
there that you would want something there --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and against the county's water
tank, but, you know --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Actually they have a lot of problems
with the homeless on that side by the creek anyway.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, well, great. Maybe this will
end it. But, you know, to have a wall, even though you enter into an
agreement blocking the golf course, you know, I just have some
problem with it. But you know, that's what the residents want, so
that's why I second the motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta, do you
have anything to add to that -- to this before we call the vote?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was looking for guidance from
Commissioner Fiala, and I think I got enough.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, and Commissioners. There's a
motion, there's a second, and I believe that you may be wishing to
entertain that the PUD --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can you talk into the mike?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Could you just --
MR. WEIGEL: There is a motion and a second for approval of
the PUD, and you had some discussion in part by Mr. Henning
relating to adding some restrictions in the PUD language itself, which
corresponded with the deed restrictions that Mr. Y ovanovich had
indicated were placed in private deed restrictions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. That is in my motion, the
deed restrictions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the language that's in the
Page 137
November 14, 2006
deed restrictions, because we were not enforcing deed restrictions.
MR. WEIGEL: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that language is --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We put those prohibited uses in the PUD
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Prohibit uses of a soup kitchen.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- which is a soup kitchen and a homeless
shelter.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: A homeless shelter.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And anything else we agreed to, we
would put in the PUD document so it can be enforceable by not only
the Glade residents, but the county.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's a restriction to
prohibit those types of uses.
MR. WEIGEL: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's in my motion.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's in the motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's in your second, okay.
Any further discussion on this item?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just one more little thing.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we need to put anything in there
-- Jim Mudd made a very good suggestion -- about -- being that the
units will be open for sale to the general public. Is that something that
needs to go into this to just --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We don't have any objection to adding a
phrase like that in the PUD. I will tell you in all the ones I've done, it
will be the first time we've ever had to do that, but we can do it, sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Okay, good. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That will be in my motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
MS. DESELEM: If I may. For the record, Kay Deselem. I don't
Page 138
November 14,2006
know how zoning would enforce anything like that. So I would
caution you to check with county attorney as to whether or not we can
include that in a PUD document. We don't normally have any control
over who buys and sells property as part of zoning.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. County Attorney, can you opine
on this?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I'll be a little bit glib. The petitioner's
agent has indicated that they would allow to have that in there. It
works for them. And code enforcement would do the enforcement,
not zoning, so I think it can be done.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: It's different, but if it's part of the ordinance, it
can be reckoned with in one form or another.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any further discussion on
this?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll call the question. 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?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I want to thank you commissioners
for working with me on that. I really appreciate it.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, and this was -- outside of the
Bayshore CRA, that's the -- this is probably the first infill kind of
project you've taken a look at as a board, at least since I've been the
Page 139
November 14, 2006
county manager. And as we continue to build out, okay, and there's
the last lot or the last section that isn't developed, you're going to see
more and more of these as we go along.
And I believe the questions that you asked today are very valid
questions and are important ones to the surrounding communities in
which these infill projects are going to be built. And I would ask you
to continue that due diligence as we get more and more of these
things.
And if you get uncomfortable with them and if there's something
that maybe isn't in our Land Development Code -- because remember,
we did have a workshop that said, infill. We really don't have real
good standards. I mean, everything we've done in our Land
Development Code is pretty much, here's a vacant piece of property,
and it doesn't have a lot of neighbors, and we want to develop on it.
Well, what happens when it gets in a combined space and a
development that already exists and it's surrounded by it and it's an
infill project? So I'd ask your due diligence as you think about
questions and things that come up, that we're able to address them. If
the code needs to be changed, that we keep track of those.
So as we move on and mature into this infill program, so to
speak, we'll be able to capture those things and make sure that the
code is done that way. But this is first one that I can think of that
we've had that's come in front of the board that we've had to deal
within an area that's been built out all the way around it in a small
confined space, so to speak.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I've got one thing that I'd like to mention
to the petitioner. When you -- if you get involved, and obviously you
will, in things of this nature, see if you can work with the citizens in
regards to coming up with something other than a wall. Maybe a
heavy hedge.
I just feel that the people that are -- the future people that are
going to be living in this area are going to feel that -- yeah, they're
Page 140
November 14,2006
probably going to end up buying the product, but after they're there for
a while, they're going to look at this and say, geez, I feel like I'm in a
.
pnson.
And I think there's other ways of addressing this, and kind of
think outside the box.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I can assure you, Commissioner, we
had all those conversations. The wall was not our first choice.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But we did, we suggested heavy
landscaping. And we're in the same -- we have the same issues
because, frankly, we thought that was nice views for our product as
well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They can put a window in the
wall.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: There you go, picture window. They
can knock it out with the golf balls.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I like your walk on the top of it.
That would be kind of cute.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
Item #8E
RZ-2005-AR-8039: SJC WHIPPOORWILL, LLC, REPRESENTED
BY GARY BUTLER OF BUTLER ENGINEERING, INC. AND
BRIAN MANSOUR, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM THE
AGRICUL TURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE
RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY-6 (RMF-6) ZONING DISTRICT
FOR A PROJECT KNOWN AS CA YO WHIPPOORWILL. THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF 10 ACRES, IS
LOCATED AT 1450 WHIPPOORWILL LANE,
APPROXIMATELY 3,500 FEET SOUTH OF PINE RIDGE ROAD,
IN SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
Page 141
November 14, 2006
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA: MOTION TO CONTINUE -
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is item 8E. Again, the petitioner has requested that this be
continued until the 12th of December, and this is the Cayo
Whippoorwill rezone. Again, it's 8E, and I need a board vote on this
one.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a motion on the floor. Do I have
a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning to continue this to December 12, 2006, and
it's seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. All
those in favor of this continuance, signify by saying 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. MUDD: Commissioner, this -- Commissioner, it's getting
close to 2:30, and I don't know how the court reporter's doing.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think we'll have a break here.
MR. MUDD: And it's probably a good time to break before we
get to this next one that probably could take us a little while.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm sure it's going to be a long
Page 142
November 14, 2006
discussion, so we'll take a 10-minute break. We'll be back at 2:38.
(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.
We are now back from recess. Board of County Commissioners is
now back in session,
Item #8F
ORDINANCE 2006-53: PETITION: RZ-2005-AR-8427 POLLY
AVE, LLC, REPRESENTED BY TIM HANCOCK, OF
DAVIDSON ENGINEERING, INC., IS REQUESTING A REZONE
FROM THE AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE
RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY 12 (RMF-12) ZONING
DISTRICT WITH A DENSITY OF 7 DWELLING UNITS PER
ACRE THAT WOULD ALLOW 61 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING
UNITS. THE PETITIONER IS REQUESTING THE HIGHER
DENSITY BASED ON THE RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROVISION
OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, FUTURE LAND USE
ELEMENT DENSITY RATING SYSTEM. THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY CONSISTS OF 8.68 ACRES FOR PROJECT KNOWN
AS MANUS REZONE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED
OFF OF RATTLESNAKE-HAMMOCK ROAD ON POLLY
AVENUE, SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - ADOPTED
W /STIPULA TIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is 8F. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and
ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members.
Page 143
November 14,2006
It's petition RZ-2005-AR-8427, Polly Avenue, LLC, represented
by Tim Hancock of Davidson Engineering, Inc., is requesting a rezone
from an agricultural zoning district to the residential multifamily-12
zoning district with a density of seven dwelling units per acre that
would allow 61 multifamily dwelling units.
The petition is requesting a higher density based on the
residential infill provision of the Growth Management Plan, Future
Land Use Element density rating.
The subject property consists of 8.68 acres for a project known as
Manus rezone. The subject property is located off of Rattlesnake
Hammock Road on Polly Avenue, Section 16, Township 50 south,
Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Would all those that are going to
present testimony, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. At this time I'm going to ask each
of the commissioners to come forth with their ex parte, starting with
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nothing from me.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I spoke to Tim Hancock on
this, and I've spoken to staff.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner -- yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I have no disclosures on
this item.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And I have no disclosures on this
also. I want to just check. This is item F?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Excuse me. I have emails on this, I'm
sorry .
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, and I have emails.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have emails on this, and I've also talked
Page 144
November 14, 2006
to staff. Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if I may, I have emails on
this also.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Me too.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. HANCOCK: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. My name is Tim Hancock with Davidson
Engineering. I'm representing the property owner and applicant, Polly
Avenue, LLC, who is requesting a rezone of 8.68 acres of land located
just north and west of the intersection of Polly Avenue and Sunset
Boulevard.
I ask the commission at this time to recognize both myself and
Ms. Melissa Zone as experts in the field of land use planning and
zoning, and further recognize Mr. Don Scott and Mr. Nick
Casalanguida of your staff as experts in the field of transportation
planning.
All these individuals, including me, have been tendered and
accepted as experts by this body numerous times in the past.
And I ask that either the commission take action, or without
objection, that all the individuals I mentioned be tendered and
accepted as experts in their fields.
With that, to orient you generally to the site, the property lies just
north of Rattlesnake Hammock, which is on the bottom of the screen
in front of you. And you go north on Polly Avenue. And as Polly
Avenue bends a little bit back to the east, the property is 8.68 acres
sitting as shown here.
The -- one of the important distinctions, at the very top of the
map you'll see Santa Barbara Boulevard where it currently terminates
here at Davis. Santa Barbara extension is proposed to run all the way
south right along the western border of the property and connecting to
Rattlesnake Hammock.
You may hear a little bit more about this roadway if you have
Page 145
November 14, 2006
questions of your transportation staff, but it's a critical link in the
county system that will lie immediately west to the project. And in
fact, a key component of this project, or this property, is that the
applicant has agreed not just to reserve right-of-way for Santa
Barbara, but to donate up to 70 feet along the western border to the
county at no cost as a part of this location.
This donation equals more than 11 percent of the total subject
property and will serve to keep the proposed road widening on
schedule and reduce the overall cost to taxpayers. This donation we
feel is both significant and also provides substantial public benefit
well in excess of what the petitioner would typically be required to do.
As you can see from the aerial here, the property is in a bit of a
transition and it has been so over time. Immediately to the west is the
Royal Wood PUD, which is a density of 3.34 units per acre. To the
north is a project called Waterford Estates, in this area right here. It
has a density of 3.25 units per acres.
To the general east and immediate south of the property, it's
predominantly zoned estates; however, you have some lots in here --
and they don't really show up as well on the zoning map as they do on
the aerial, but you have a lot of lots here that are about one acre in size
and preexisted the minimum agricultural size requirements.
So immediately to the east you have plus or minus one unit per
acre, and the same to the south, and other -- a scattering of two and a
half and five-acre parcels as you move back to the east. Further to the
south you'll see an RSF-5 zoning district developed as single-family.
The proposed density of this project -- and not the one that Mr.
Mudd identified. I would like, of course, to inform the board that the
advertisement for this item, by requirement, had to state what the
original application and the original notices stated as the project went
out; however, prior to the Collier County Planning Commission, the --
and after meeting with the neighbors both as a group at the
neighborhood information meeting and follow-up meetings with
Page 146
November 14,2006
individual neighbors, and also, quite frankly, reviewing the existing
market conditions, the applicant presented to the Planning
Commission at their meeting a site plan that would limit the project to
single- family construction at a density of less than 3.2 units per acre,
which would, in effect, cap the project at 27 single-family residents.
The Planning Commission agreed with the revised plan and
unanimously recommended a zoning change to a lesser zoning of
RMF-6 with a density cap of3.2 units per acre. This is a reduction
from the original amount, 61 units, of 34 units or 55 percent of the
original proposed density, and similarly, the Planning Commission
included the site plan you see here as proposed as a condition of that
approval.
The applicant has no objection on that and is looking forward to
proceeding with the development of27 single-family units on 8.68
acres.
To that end, I will enter into the record today both the site plan
before you -- I did notice that the Planning Commission, the version
the Planning Commission adopted, had an error in the total project
acreage indicating that it was 8.72. It actually is 8.68. I made that
revision only and brought copies of that for the record today for both
the reporter, the County Attorney's Office, and for staff. And I'll be
providing those.
As mentioned earlier, the original application for this project did
contemplate a multifamily project at seven units an acre. We are not
requesting that at this time. The staff report and application outlined
issues relative to the surrounding density and the consistency of that
request with the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development
Code.
Staff concluded during the review of the original application that
the project was consistent with the Growth Management Plan and the
Land Development Code, and, as such, recommended approval.
The Planning Commission recommendation of a lesser zoning
Page 147
November 14,2006
category and fewer units serves only to strengthen that
recommendation and increase the supporting compatibility statements.
The applicant is in agreement with the content and recommendations
of the staff report, wishes to enter it along with the supporting
application as evidence of the compatibility of the project and its
consistency with applicable laws and development regulations as they
pertain to this project.
The application was approved unanimously by the Planning
Commission. And absent one key stipulation that they added -- and a
lesser important one we'll discuss also. This item would have been
left on your summary agenda. Believe me, nobody likes to take
anything off a summary agenda. And I wouldn't have done it unless
it was critical to the success of the project.
So I'd like to focus really on those two stipulations rather than
taking the shotgun approach. And then if anyone has any concerns
that go to the heart of compatibility or consistency with the Growth
Management Plan or Land Development Code, I'll be prepared to
address that.
But with the chair's permission -- I'm sure you'd rather me take
the short route than the long route -- let me go ahead and address those
two stipulations.
The key stipulation that the applicant had concern with was
stipulation number eight in your executive summary. And what
stipulation number eight did is it stated that no COs for any of the
homes would be issued until Santa Barbara was completed.
The concern we have with that is twofold. The first concern is
that this applicant has agreed to donate 70 -- up to 70 feet of
right -of- way to make sure that Santa Barbara Road -- Santa Barbara
Boulevard Extension, stays on track.
Now, is part of that selfish? Absolutely. It benefits our project, it
improves our access, and that's good for us, but not all of it is.
The truth is, we recognize that the improvements of Santa
Page 148
November 14, 2006
Barbara have a twofold effect to address some of the concerns of the
neighborhood, concerns regarding drainage, concerns regarding traffic
using Sunset Boulevard. Santa Barbara will alleviate and assist -- I'm
sorry, to alleviate. It will assist in both of those areas.
But more importantly, if the project is tied to the completion of
Santa Barbara and we're only talking about 27 units here, what it does
is it puts the project in limbo. No bank will look at the project, no
bank will consider the project, so in essence, until Santa Barbara's
done, it really can't move forward.
That could put a significant delay. When, in fact, during that
two-year period that Santa Barbara is anticipated to be completed, a
year or more of that will go simply into the platting of the property.
And then as you -- as you look at how the construction schedule
feeds out, they should hit right about the same time.
But the key concern I had is that staff asked us to consider the
donation, and we did, and the applicant has agreed to that. And absent
that donation, I dare say, Santa Barbara would not be on the schedule
it's on today.
So we're simply asking that this board remove stipulation number
eight, that the project be allowed to proceed with 27 single-family
units not tied to the completion of Santa Barbara for the simple reason
that, quite honestly, we're a part of the solution for Santa Barbara. To
also make Santa Barbara our problem, I think, is unfair.
The second item that I raise issue with is not in the stipulations
put forth by the Planning Commission but is in your staff
recommendation, and that deals with payment in lieu for sidewalks
and bike paths. The client asked me, when this stipulation first came
through, why do we have to pay this? And so I read the portion of the
code, and the code is very clear. If you're on collector or arterial
roadways, you are subject to either the construction of or payment in
lieu of sidewalks and bike paths.
But I went one step further and went back to the Tindale, Oliver
Page 149
November 14, 2006
report that determined how the impact fees were to be construed and
what the amount of impact fees were. Of the -- all of the road projects
listed in the Tindale, Olive report, 10 of them at that time had been
completed. Of those 10, all of them had either bike paths or sidewalks
or both as a part of their construction.
My point being that bike paths and sidewalks are a part of our
collector and arterial road system. They are included, whenever
possible, in all future roadway plans, and they were factored into the
creation of impact fees.
To then turn around and tell a property owner, because their
property lies on a collector or arterial roadway that they have to pay
100 percent of the cost of bike paths and sidewalks for that stretch of
road in addition to paying impact fees, in my opinion, is double
dipping.
And so my request here is not to ask you to make a broad
sweeping policy change on the cuff. My request is twofold on this
item.
The first part of it is, in light of the significant donation of
right-of-way and in light of the information I just briefly presented to
you, we ask that the payment in lieu be waived for this project; at the
same time, I ask that you direct your staff to take a look at this a little
bit closer and determine if, in fact, a property owner on an arterial or
collector roadway is being hit more than once for all or part of the cost
of those improvements under the current LDC policy.
And I know that's something than doesn't happen overnight, but
that's the two-part request, and if I -- if I could establish the
importance, the request for taking stipulation eight off the board, that's
critical to the success of the project. The payment in lieu issue is a
secondary issue.
But this as far as -- on behalf of the applicant, was the only forum
available to raise the issue. I wanted to make you aware of it and ask
for your consideration in that also.
Page 150
November 14,2006
The applicant is in agreement with all other stipulations put forth
by the Planning Commission, and as such, we ask this board to
remove stipulation number eight, to waive the payment in lieu for this
project, and on behalf of the property owner, I respectfully request
your favorable consideration and would be happy to address any
questions you have at this time.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I believe that the impact fees don't just
relate to that particular area, that it -- the impact fees are for a
particular area, traffic area, okay?
So when you say that we're going to expand that particular
roadway and you're being charged impact fees, you know, the impact
fees may not go directly to that area. They're going to go within the
confines of that district, but not maybe that particular roadway, okay?
MR. HANCOCK: And I appreciate, and I do understand that,
Commissioner. When you put that in the context of the property that
is a half block off of the arterial roadway, has no responsibility other
than impact fees for that same bike path and that same sidewalk, yet
they have the same right of use, it's a fairness question. And I don't --
I will stop there and not belabor the point. If the board is not
compelled to ask staff to look at it, understood, and we'll live with --
you know, we'll take our medicine and move on, but that's the basis
for my statement, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'd like to have the county attorney opine
on this just so that we have a good clarification. My understanding is
that it's a district, traffic district, that impact fees have to be in.
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't think we have an issue with impact
fees, Commissioner. I mean, we have a Land Development Code that
requires people adjacent to certain roads put in sidewalks. I mean,
they're the ones that are going to be using the sidewalks. And the
impact fees are for a district-wide basis.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep.
MR. KLATZKOW: And I don't really -- I mean, I understand
Page 151
November 14,2006
what Mr. Hancock's saying, I just don't agree with his conclusion on
this.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question on that one.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think I was before you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't want to jump in front of
you, but I was there first.
I've got to be honest with you, Mr. Hancock, I'm having a little
problem. One of the things we've been expecting of developers for
some time was to come up with the right-of-way, and you have. You
have put that down as something you're willing to do, but it's really
not a negotiable item about how it's all going to come together.
I mean, we have a lot of things being phased in. Maybe the
phasing isn't quite right. I don't know about that. But the idea that,
you know, we -- because of the fact you're giving us the right-of-way
that we'd expect you to give us -- you want us to be able to give you
the carte blanche to be able to build these houses now rather than
when the road reaches that ability to be able to handle the capacity
you're going to generate.
I know it's only a small number of units, what was it, 27 units?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Twenty-seven.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But still, there is an impact. We
just got through with a discussion recently just today about de minimis
impact on the roads for small developments. So I'm not really too
excited.
I want to listen a little bit more to what my fellow commissioners
are going to say, and I'd like to hear from transportation. But I'm
having a little bit of a problem with that.
As far as the sidewalks go, I'd also like to hear more on that
.
Issue.
MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Commissioner. And I'd -- the
Page 152
November 14, 2006
revised traffic impact statement that reflects the 27 units our impact on
level of service B on adjacent roadways went from 1.28 percent to .73
percent.
And I understand the concept that a thousand de minimis impacts
means something; however, this request for right-of-way -- and I think
transportation staff will tell you -- is a request. It's not necessarily a
requirement, and we've honored that request. And I think in
requesting consideration of that request for something that has an
impact of .73 percent, hopefully you'll agree that it's in line, and that is
my point, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Hancock.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think, Commissioner --
or what Mr. Hancock was talking about is on the sidewalks, and
maybe it's more of a question -- and I have similar questions.
Your impact fees are going to pay for sidewalks. It's parts of the
roadway, we included sidewalks, and then you're being asked to pay
for sidewalks in lieu of on top of that; that's your whole premise,
correct?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. I do understand the difference
between district and local but --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. HANCOCK: -- but the cost of that sidewalk and bike path
are factored in.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But you also said, if adjacent to
arterial and collector, and if you don't build it, then you have to pay
for it.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. There's a window. If you're within--
and I believe -- and Trinity will correct me if I'm wrong. If you're
within a five-year window of a roadway being constructed, then you
can either install them or make a payment in lieu. And it's really the
transportation department's discretion as to which way to go, and it
Page 153
November 14,2006
has to do with timing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. HANCOCK: And so while I understand that, my issue is
really a half step back in the larger issue of, were those bike paths and
sidewalks, when impact fees were determined, factored into the cost of
the roadways that base the impact fees.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And it's a matter -- what
you're saying, and I hear you without you saying it is, you feel like it's
a double dipping. And I don't -- I think that maybe we need to address
that. Is it in the PUD that you need to do that?
MR. HANCOCK: No. It's a Land Development Code
requirement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. HANCOCK: This is a straight rezone, so we don't have the
ability to write in deviations. And I'll be honest. I really don't want the
project to live or die by this issue. It's not that big an issue, but it was
an opportunity to raise it with you from a policy standpoint and ask for
your input. You know, if that issue causes this project to go south, by
all means, leave it in there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm -- I don't think it's an
appropriate time to address it, but I will address it. And I kind of
agree. I mean, there's several correspondence about, you know,
payment in lieu of. I paid $30,000 for a sidewalk that I don't need,
and I'm not going to benefit from.
So -- but the other thing is, your main road that you're going to
impact is Rattlesnake Hammock, correct?
MR. HANCOCK: Until Santa Barbara Boulevard extension is
complete, yes, sir, the vast majority of trips from this project will go
south to Rattlesnake Hammock.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the -- and maybe I ought
to ask our transportation. But what's your understanding of the level
of service on that road today?
Page 154
November 14,2006
MR. HANCOCK: I will defer to transportation because --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it a -- is it a concern about
why we should wait till Santa Barbara's done, or do we -- should we
take under consideration -- Mr. Scott, you could help me out -- is the
donation of land, does it far outweigh waiting for Santa Barbara to be
completed?
MR. SCOTT: First part first. Rattlesnake Hammock, obviously,
is under construction at the moment, so level of service right now is
not that good. But obviously with those improvements, the level of
service is fine.
The issue wasn't actually raised by staff. It was raise by the
Planning Commission who had concerns with construction trips,
things like that, coming in off of Rattlesnake onto those local roads to
get to that development, and that's one of the things -- and we didn't
really talk about it in the TIS guidelines, but one of the things the
Planning Commission wanted to do was have more focus on
construction traffic, not just the traffic of the development once it's all
done. And obviously I don't know how much fill or whatever they
have to bring in, but their concern was that they thought it was
appropriate to have Santa Barbara extension in place before they
started having the construction traffic get to their site.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So when is Rattlesnake
Hammock going to be done?
MR. SCOTT: I think it's sometime by the end of next year.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: End of next year, 2007?
MR. SCOTT: Seven, yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And so some of the concerns that
the Planning Commission had was the competition of trucks in regards
to the building of Santa Barbara and also building of this --
MR. SCOTT: No, it was actually more of the local streets, that
once you get off of Rattlesnake Hammock to get to this property.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, they were concerned about
Page 155
November 14,2006
Polly and other things?
MR. SCOTT: Exactly, exactly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay.
MR. SCOTT: And that's why they were looking to have Santa
Barbara done, have the trucks and stuff coming from there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, how far away are
you from Rattlesnake Hammock going to -- I think it's Polly, or is it
Sunset?
MR. HANCOCK: It is less than a mile to the south. The -- when
we ran our trip generation reports and did our models, the reason the
vast majority of traffic went south to Rattlesnake Hammock instead of
going north on Sunset over Whitaker, to unpaved roads, to County
Barn, which, as you know, terminates as you go north, is -- the
distribution was such that people -- more people are going to and
coming from areas that would be accessed off Rattlesnake Hammock.
As a matter of fact, almost 90 percent of the trips would go south.
Now, if we take that same logic and apply it to the fact that, you
know, construction vehicles and so forth are going to follow a similar
pattern, the number of trips that would be on Sunset and Whitaker--
and again, those trips would be at least a year plus from now before
they would materialize because nothing can happen until this property
is platted.
One of the suggestions that, after a conversation with
Commissioner Fiala who raised another set of concerns to be
considered, was that as the property owner, one thing we can do is try
to sign and post the property that all construction traffic is required to
go south on Sunset to Polly.
Now, by posting it, it can, therefore, be enforced. And if you
wish to make that a stipulation, we would be comfortable with that
and post a site once construction activity begins. But if I'm to lay the
time frame out for you, once you plat, you then have to install your
utilities.
Page 156
November 14,2006
The water and sewer will be run north to the property. That takes
some time. Once the utilities are done, the next set of construction is
your roadway, and that takes some time.
So when you put all this together, the breadth of time before we
have daily construction activity on this roadway is roughly consistent
with when Santa Barbara comes on line.
The problem with tying the COs to the completion of Santa
Barbara is that bank financing is going to look at you and say, we're
not going to construction loan anything against something we can't --
that you can't guarantee to deliver. In other words, it puts our egg in
the county's road building basket, and it makes it very difficult for us
to move forward in any way, shape or form. So the project literally
will sit for one or two years.
And we've developed a relationship with the residents that, you
know, is usually forged out of steel, you know, when these things
occur. And I think -- and I hope you'll hear from them today that
they're comfortable with us moving ahead with the development with
these caveats, and we hopefully have addressed it. That's the best that
we can do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let's hear from the
residents.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, let's open the public speaker section
of this.
MS. FILSON : We have three speakers. Elizabeth Rhodes. She'll
be followed by John McCandless.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I just want to say that I have some
concerns. I know we discussed this morning in great detail about the
construction of Santa Barbara and how this was going to affect the
residents that are presently there. So I'm weighing that also in regards
to what we discussed earlier this morning.
Go ahead, ma'am. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, the Santae
Page 157
November 14,2006
Barbara that we're talking about here is not even in -- there's no road
there.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. That's -- well, eventually it's
going to be Polly. It's going to be Santa Barbara, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm sorry, ma'am.
MS. RHODES: No, I'm waiting for you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. RHODES: All right. Hi, I'm Elizabeth Rhodes, and I have
the property that is directly across from this project.
And considering that it is going to be developed, talking with this
developer on this project that's going in, I can say that the majority of
the neighborhood is happy with the 27 units, is happy with the way --
with the plat and everything they've decided how to do it.
We did have a concern about the roadways, but with them
agreeing to post signs that could be enforced, will help, and with the
time frame of this project going in, is going to coincide with Santa
Barbara being done. So by the time that construction vehicles are
coming in, it's not really going to affect either way.
And like Tim said, it's going to take a little while for this project
to get started. And when it does get started, it's going to coincide with
Santa Barbara. Right now the neighborhood feels that yes,
development's going to be happening, but this is the best project for
us.
And with tying the COs into the completion of Santa Barbara, it's
not going to get started. These homes can be, you know, being ready
to be built, people can come in and look at them, move in, instead of
with the 60-some units that they were asking for originally, we were
worried about all that traffic. Now with only 27 units, there's not
going to be as much traffic.
And with Rattlesnake being worked on now, yes, a lot of the
traffic does come down to Rattlesnake and go out, but with the
Page 158
November 14,2006
development being done once Santa Barbara gets done, there's more
exits -- I mean, not everybody's going to be going, you know, up
Whitaker, which is unpaved now, Sunset, which is partially paved.
With Santa Barbara coming in, that's going to be a signaled
intersection now at Santa Barbara and Whitaker, so that's going to get
paved.
So we don't have to worry about, you know, our roads
deteriorating because at the last meeting that we were at, the county
said that they were going to take care of them.
So in lieu of the last meeting that we had, you know, I would
want this development going through and having the COs done as
soon as we can get them instead of postponing.
That's all I have to say.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
MS. RHODES: You're welcome.
MR. FILSON: The next speaker is John McCandless. He'll be
followed by Rob Buckley.
MR. McCANDLESS: Hello, Commissioners. I'm John
McCandless. I have five acres at 6134 Atkins Avenue, just three
parcels in from that.
And we've fought quite a bit for different developments that have
tried to come in there. We're very happy with the 27 units that they're
planning to do. And I think that they should be able to do COs before
Santa Barbara so -- we don't want to lose this development and this
developer because we feel it's the best thing that's happened to our
neighborhood, and we're all for it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, thank, sir.
MS. FILSON : Your final speaker is Rob Buckley.
MR. BUCKLEY: Robin Buckley, 6378 Adkins Avenue. Good
afternoon, Commissioners.
Pretty much I agree with my neighbors, and I speak for a lot of
the neighbors that can't be here. We've gone through several issues
Page 159
November 14,2006
with this property on different forms of housing that is going in there.
And like I say, they originally started off with some higher units,
and we're quite happy, actually, with what we've been able to work
out and this 27 units. We were concerned a little bit about drainage
and the road traffic, construction traffic. We seem to have worked a
lot of that out, and we're afraid that if they're tied to the COs and Santa
Barbara goes the way of County Barn, this developer will move on if
it doesn't get done in a couple years, and we'll start at square one, and
we might not come out as good as we are now with these 27 units,
which we feel would be a nice transition between what could happen
at Santa Barbara and into our neighborhood, and so we'd like it to go
forward so we keep the developer we have. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. That's our last speaker?
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We're going to close the public hearing.
My concern is, can we come up with some kind of an agreement
where maybe half the units are CO'd prior to the completion of Santa
Barbara and the other half after?
MR. HANCOCK: Commissioner, as much as I would love to
agree to that, it's such a small number that a phasing of 27 units causes
the construction costs to rise dramatically. It's not like we have 100
units that you can't hit all at once.
So, Commissioner, there's only four of you up here today, and so,
you know, your vote is critical to us. I guess what I would like to
offer to you is that the development process that stands before us
today puts us out at least probably two years before a CO is even
being discussed.
The second part is that the traffic impact statement we prepared
did not assume Santa Barbara was in place. It assumed it wasn't built
and the level of traffic that would be put on Rattlesnake Hammock
was extremely low, and by virtue of the staff recommendation, at an
acceptable level. And so with only 27 units, I can only say that a
Page 160
November 14,2006
phasing plan --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Of 14 won't --
MR. HANCOCK: I'd have to defer to the property owner. And I
think the only way we can -- put it this way, they're doing floor plans
right now.
As a matter of fact, we're meeting next week to discuss the lot fits
and that kind of thing. The only way a project like this is doable
financially is to start it and not have to pull people off the job. And if
Santa Barbara got delayed for another year, it becomes a phased
project and finances -- and I'm not trying to be difficult, sir. I'm just
trying to not ignore the economics of such a small project.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Maybe I could -- did we ask
transportation what's their best guess when you're going to start this
project and the completion, with some background information?
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, transportation
administrator.
We're looking at starting at the Santa Barbara extension fall of
next year. We're looking at probably somewhere between a year to
year and a half construction phase because it is on new alignment,
therefore it doesn't have some of the delays, so that's the best answer I
.
can gIve you.
Now, having said that, as we mentioned today, we're looking at
increasing our impact fees and other things to help pay for our
upcoming work program. But we're very comfortable that we're set on
a production schedule to allow us to go late summer or fall of next
year if the funding is there to move forward.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And then you look for the completion to
be 2008?
MR. FEDER: About 15 months from there. So it would be the
beginning of2008. Ifwe're letting it next year, excuse me, fall of'07,
it would be beginning of 2009.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Does -- the first quarter of2009;
Page 161
November 14,2006
is that correct?
MR. FEDER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I kind of agree with the
residents. My fear is, if we deny it, it's going to come back as a higher
density. And you have on one side a small density. I forget the name
of the community. But on Polly, those are acreage lots.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Huntington Woods or something
like that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Huntington Woods or something
like that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I mean, that's three and a
half, I think, units per acre, or even less than that. And if Rattlesnake
Hammock is at a proposed category B, there's a lot of capacity on it.
And you know, I don't see the problem, but I fear for what could
happen if we turn it down.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner, when you say
Rattlesnake Hammock is D, is that what it's going to be--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: B.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: B.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, B--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: B as in baby.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- after we get it completed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think so.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Where are we now?
MR. SCOTT: F.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. When do you anticipate it to be
completed so that it's a B?
MR. SCOTT: Sorry. It's based on vested trips and other things.
If you looked at it from an analysis standpoint, it's an F right now, but
it will be completed at the end of 2007, beginning of 2008.
Page 162
November 14,2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it's your district, so I'm
going to wait for you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You know, I haven't had any
complaints from any of the guys, and these are people that I know, and
they're not going to let anything happen to their neighborhood or their
traffic status if -- you know, at all.
MR. HANCOCK: Commissioner, you're not kidding there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'm really heartened by that
fact. I also talked with Tim Hancock at length, asking him how he
was going to get in with construction traffic once he's got all of the
utilities in, and I was just a little concerned because a couple of those
places are still dirt roads. And I said, if they're kicking up a lot of
dust, can you water them down before you're bringing in the trucks?
He said, sure, we can do that, just to kind of help the neighbors a little
bit.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do you want to put that into the motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I don't think so. I think it will be
okay. I think that's a gentlemen's agreement. And only, only concern
I had, and he satisfied this one too, and that was, if they're taking the
back roads like Whitaker, Youth Haven is there. And I know Youth
Haven has a fenced in area for the children to play in. I just wanted to
make sure that if any construction trucks were going in that area,
cutting through there, that they safeguard the safety of those children.
These kids, you know, sometimes might want to roam lose a little bit,
and that was my big, big concern.
I always wanted to make sure that the neighbors are happy. They
are. They're even smiling. So I don't have a problem with it, quite
frankly, and they're not doing the construction right there on
Rattlesnake Hammock. It's just on the other side of Polly, so that's
even good. I didn't have a problem with it at all.
MR. HANCOCK: Commissioner Halas, if I can offer one more
Page 163
November 14,2006
thing that may be viable for your consideration. If the project were to
be phased, it may, in fact, extend the construction period, which would
extend the construction traffic, which the neighbors would have to
deal with, versus being able to get in there, knock it out and be done,
and shortening that construction time frame, that, I think, is potentially
a benefit to the residents who live close to the project.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I've been looking for
guidance from Commissioner Fiala, but my concern is, at what point
in time do we expect them to start phasing them in? What's the magic
number? If it's not 27, is it 28, is it 50?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No, the maximum is 27 buildings.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I understand that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But I mean, we're setting a
number saying that this number is de minimis, it doesn't really matter,
and it's not a negative.
At what point does the number start to kick in? We were
requiring phasing for just about everything that came down to be able
to coincide with what takes place. I'm bringing it up more as an item
of discussion and concern. You know, sometimes we say the
consistency of the commission is one thing that the developers love to
have, and this is a little bit of a break. But if the neighbors are happy,
if you're happy, I can go along with it. But what about the sidewalk?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You have a -- well, let me go back
to your first question, but that's a really good question.
Possibly in a case where we're on an impacted roadway or
something, maybe it would be more important. Being that Polly is,
you know, little traveled, really, because it doesn't extend to anyplace,
and they have some roads they can use, and the same with Rattlesnake
Hammock. It isn't overcrowded right now as it is, and it will be better
in just a year and a half -- two years, I'm sorry.
Page 164
November 14,2006
But you're right, we should at some point in time figure out
where de minimis kicks in and doesn't kick in and where we should
tier it. I don't know that it's a problem on this one, but we sure should
have, especially with impacted or congested roads.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if I may follow up with the
second part there. On the sidewalk, we required developers all along
the area, even small -- these model homes. Either put the sidewalks in
or pay for them. So now we have a problem. If we draw the line here
and say this isn't -- they're not going to have to pay for it then --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, you're right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no. We're not going there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, fine. I think we pretty
much understand how we're going, and I've got a comfort level with it,
if you do, Commissioner Fiala.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I just want to know if staff has anything
to add to this before we have a motion one way or the other.
MS. ZONE: Thank you, Commissioner. Melissa Zone, principal
planner with the department of zoning and land development.
Mr. Hancock's presentation was accurate in the land use as well
as with the Planning Commission's recommendation. There are two
things that I would do -- that I would like to bring before you, is that
the sidewalk issue is part of an ordinance, which was 2005-17. And
section 6.02.02.C, which states, payment in lieu of construction may
be authorized or required as part of any development order.
And staff is still recommending that they not only provide the
sidewalks or payment in lieu, but what we would like to -- because it's
very difficult for tracking purposes on staffs side, is that the payment
in lieu be paid within 30 days of this zoning approval, if you do
approve this, for tracking purposes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why not DO?
MS. ZONE: The development order, correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay. I thought you said 30
Page 165
November 14,2006
days from now.
MS. ZONE: Well, from the zoning. Transportation staff is
recommending, or is asking for it to be paid within 30 days of the
zoning approval, because sometimes the development order might not
come down the pike till a years, two years down the road. And so
they would like to have this paramount up front.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you mind if I hammer this
down a little bit? I mean, I can't understand -- is this a new policy
you're trying to set as far as -- because my understanding, all those
fees were paid at development order.
MS. ZONE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now you want it zoning?
MS. ZONE: No. We're not asking for zoning, but I think--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think she just got confused,
Commissioner.
MS. ZONE: Well, I think transportation pathways department
would be better, since it was their recommendation, to explain it to
you, Commissioner.
MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: For the record -- good afternoon. For
the record, Trinity Caudill-Scott, Collier County Transportation
Engineering.
We do request it within 30 days when we are doing it as part of
the development order as far as the zoning request, and we do that
because so many times, especially in this particular instance, we don't
have a PUD document. It will just become part of the stipulation.
So it is very easy for that commitment to fall through the cracks.
And as opposed to having a homeowners' association come in front of
you two years from now after it's complete and turned over, we like to
have that developer provide that within a very time-specific 30 days,
they know it's due within that 30-day time period, and then we can
wipe that commitment off the books and know that it's done and know
that it's not going to fall through the cracks.
Page 166
November 14,2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thirty days of --
MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: Following the zoning approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: And we do that based on the fact that,
when we review this, we don't know that they're going to get their
.
zonIng.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let me ask you something.
How is it going to fall upon a homeowners' association if you're
issuing a development order before they can even put the
infrastructure in?
MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: Commissioner, I would love to tell you
that these have never fallen through the cracks before, but that is not
the case. There is times when it happens, and that's why my
preference is to get a very time specific so we have no chance of it
falling through the cracks. I know exactly, I enter it in. A
development order can really fluctuate a year from now, two years
from now, when it would actually be approved. And I may not be
here. We may have another staff member. We could have four staff
members from that time, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But it's in the PUD.
MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: This is not a PUD. This is just a
standard --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Straight zoning.
MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, this is --
MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: So it's much more difficult to track.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So you don't do it at a
PUD?
MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: A PUD we also -- we are also asking
for very specific time frames as well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, maybe we have some
management problem.
Page 167
November 14, 2006
MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: But a PUD is much easier to track
because they do file annual monitoring reports.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And it's in the PUD.
MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: Yes. It's in the PUD document then.
But in this particular instance, it is very difficult to track all of this
monitoring.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. If it's -- I understand if
it's straight zoning, why you would have a problem with that. But I do
want to understand and have a dialogue about this whole discussion in
general.
MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: If you would like, I could elaborate a
little bit on the impact fees.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, we'll get together.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any further--
MS. ZONE: Yes. Just for informational purposes, it was
brought to staffs attention this afternoon prior to the opening of this
petition that there is a real estate advertisement out there to sell this
property as a whole, and there was some concern from some of the
residents who asked me to present it to you. And I just wanted you to
know that there is an advertisement out there for the selling of this
.
rezonIng.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's what we can do in
America, can't we?
MS. ZONE: It's allowed, but I did tell them I would mention it,
and so that's what I'm doing. If there are any questions, I could clarify
anything with any of you commissioners, I'd be happy to.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm glad that you brought that forward.
Thank you very much. I think it helps also in where I'm going as far
as sidewalks and who's going to pay, okay. Thank you very much.
MS. ZONE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any further questions from my fellow
Page 168
November 14,2006
commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I hear a motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Make a motion to approve,
including payment or building of the sidewalks, but eliminating the
phasing, section eight of this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For clarification, that's the
payment in lieu of the zoning approval; 30 days after the -- 30 days
after the zoning approval, there will be a payment in lieu of for the
sidewalk.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's exactly what I meant.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I think what you were talking about,
the phasing, is that we're not going to have any stipulations in regards
to when they're going to get their COs, is that what you were referring
to?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And is there a way then that we can
put this in place, so that in perpetuity, as they flip the property --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It goes with the PUD, or it goes --
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, one of the things that they -- that was said
that Mr. Hancock mentioned, that this SDP overlay that's on your
screen right there is part of the PUD. So this is --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Zoning.
MR. MUDD: This is going to be the way it's going to be
developed based on -- not PUD --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Zoning.
MR. MUDD: -- the zoning's concerned.
MR. HANCOCK: We are married to it.
MR. MUDD: So it's married. So ifit flips, they're still married
Page 169
November 14,2006
to that particular --
MR. HANCOCK: And quickly if I -- the email that was referred
to occurred and was sent from the broker without the property owner's
knowledge. And we had a very long discussion in the hallway today
about that. My client's intent is to develop this property.
But as I told the folks, even ifhe doesn't, that's why this site plan
is so important. It shows the configuration, the number of lots and all
those restrictions. But believe me, the folks had reason to be
concerned, because this is Collier County. Everybody knows a
realtor. And they got ahold of this email, and it made it look like they
were trying to flip it. It was not my client's intent that that go out.
That being said, this is what we're married to whether it's --
they're the developer or subsequent individuals.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Fiala and a second by Commissioner Coletta.
No further discussion, I'll call the question. 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.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
You lucked out.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's good words, not my client's
intention for it to go out.
MR. SCHMITT: Enough said. He said you lucked out.
Page 1 70
_._,.,.".. .... v
November 14,2006
Item #10B
ACCEPT CHANGES TO THE COUNTY PURCHASING CARD
SYSTEM AND RELATED PROCEDURES, CONTROLS AND
TRAINING ACTIVITIES.- APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is lOB, and this is a recommendation to accept changes to the
county purchasing card system and related procedures, controls and
training activities.
And Mr. Steve Carnell, your director of purchasing, will present.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: lOB.
MR. CARNELL: Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Steve
Carnell.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hold on. Wait until they clear out.
MR. CARNELL: This agenda item is a follow-up to our
previous discussion back in October regarding changes to our
purchasing policy, and it's simply a report with a little more
descriptive information about our purchasing card system.
And I wanted to take a moment just to highlight a few things and
then answer any questions any of you may have.
Specifically our -- all of our purchasing cards that are assigned to
employees have per transaction and per monthly dollar limits on them.
The purchasing department reviews those limits for each card before
they're put in place. The operating department also has to sign off --
the operating director has to take responsibility for assigning those
limits for each employee.
And the employees are required to undergo training before they
are permitted to use their cards. And I've attached in your backup a
copy of the training documents that my staff delivers to those card
users as they receive their cards.
The employees are prevented in our system from using cards that
Page 171
November 14,2006
-- for --I'm sorry, from making transactions that exceed the dollar
thresholds for which they're authorized, and they're also prevented
from making certain categories of purchases that are front loaded into
the software, and we can manage that in the purchasing department.
We can adjust those categories.
In your backup you'll see a list of more than 100 categories of
purchases that are prohibited at the present time under the use of the
cards.
The billing that takes place for the purchase cards, when a
transaction takes place, the user brings the receipt back to their
operating department, and that brings a three-prong audit process; first
one done by the auditing department, the second review by the
purchasing department on a monthly basis of each transaction, and
then the clerk's finance division as well, before payment is processed,
also audits and reviews the payment transactions.
And like any purchasing card program, or just about any program
I'm aware of, personal or corporate, there is a 60-day dispute period in
place with the bank for any questionable transactions, and we also
have disciplinary procedures in place and available in the rare
occasion where we may need to use them, should an employee use a
card inappropriately.
That's just a summary of our program briefly for you board
members, and I'll entertain any questions at this point.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I like the checks and balances.
It seems like it's a good way to do business.
I am curious, Crystal, hello.
MS. KINZEL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. On this particular item,
does the Clerk of Courts want to weigh in in any way?
MS. KINZEL: Well, thank you, Commissioner. For the record,
Crystal Kinzel with the Clerk of Courts.
Page 1 72
November 14, 2006
Steve and I worked very closely together on many of these items,
including some 1099 reporting issues. I think that's been covered in
this purchasing card.
Commissioner Coy Ie probably noted some of the concerns that
we always have. Anytime that you have a transaction out in the field,
based on the limits, you do have to monitor your controls and
spending.
But as Steve noted, his staff is reviewing it; our staff is reviewing
it. I think we do have checks and balances in place. And with this, I
think we really do have some -- I don't want to say teeth in it, but
some disciplinary actions that are specifically articulated for staffing,
and we will follow up should that occur.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Another good example of how
well we work with the Clerk of Courts.
And with that, I'd like to make a motion for approval. I'm sorry,
Commissioner Fiala, I didn't see her. I withdraw my motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, that's all right. I'll second that
motion.
I just wanted to say -- I'll just expound on what you just said and
just how pleased I was to see all the checks and balances you have
here. I think it looks great. I know I talked with Crystal yesterday
about this as well. I couldn't tell you how to fix it; it's great. Thank
you. And so my second stands.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I just want to say that I think this is the
right way to go. We have to have trust in the employees of the
county .
When I worked for a firm before I retired, all the employees, or a
majority of the employees, that had to deal with items of interest or if
they had to take care of problems, had cards, and they had a similar
situation where they had to go through a training program, such as
you've instituted here, to address the issues so they understood the
rules and regulations. If there's any abuse, they are responsible.
Page 173
November 14,2006
And I think we've established that. So I, too, am in favor of this,
and I think we're on the right path.
One of the items -- areas that I was a little concerned of was, a lot
of times we may have staff out on TDY or going to conferences, and
we've talked about possibly meals being charged, but I understand that
that poses some other problems.
So I think that the way that we now administer the funds when
people return -- bring their receipts in or whatever, we have a per diem
allowance. So I think that's all taken care of.
I feel very comfortable with the way that we've got -- or are
going to administer this program.
So any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none. We have a motion on the
floor by Commissioner Coletta and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
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?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. I want to
commend you and the clerk for working together and getting this
taken care of.
MR. CARNELL: Oh, you're welcome. Thank you very much.
Item #10C
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE COLLIER COUNTY'S 2007
STATE LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES AND DIRECT THE
COUNTY MANAGER TO PROVIDE THEM TO THE COUNTY'S
Page 174
November 14,2006
STATE LOBBYIST. (DEBBIE WIGHT, ASSISTANT TO THE
COUNTY MANAGER) MOTION FOR COUNTY ATTORNEY'S
STAFF TO DRAFT A BILL FOR STRICTER CONCURRENCY
FOR COLLIER - APPROVED; MOTION TO APPROVE
RECOMMENDATIONS - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, our next item is 10C. It's a
recommendation to approve Collier County's 2007 state legislative
priorities and direct the county manager to provide them to the county
state lobbyist. Ms. Debby Wight, the assistant to the county manager,
will present.
MS. WIGHT: Good afternoon, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
MS. WIGHT: That was easy.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Clarification.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: At our workshop, the county
manager and I talked about this also. Senator Saunders spoke about
the portability, and it was my understanding that we delegated that
authority to Commissioner Coletta to come up with a position and --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can help you with that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I don't know ifit still
stands, yeah, thanks.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I'd be happy to give you
an update.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We got together with
Commissioner ( sic) Saunders' office there, and nothing concrete came
out of it, other than the fact it was billed the last time. I can't say I'm
not getting cooperation, it's just there was so little to work with as far
as an offer of what suggestions were going to go next with it.
Page 175
November 14,2006
The only thing we have left to fall back on was the bill they had
last year, which he said he didn't want to sponsor again this year. I
wished I could offer you more. We've been in correspondence back
and forth, and that's as far as we got from that point.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I guess it's due to
change though, our position, because I remember Commissioner
Coy Ie said we need to take a position in favor of portability so we can
help guide it instead of coming out and opposing it. I mean, he said
that in -- during the last legislation.
MR. MUDD: That was the post legislative session in June, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: June, okay.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It was my understanding that -- and this
is open dialogue discussion here with the commissioners -- it was my
understanding that we'd have a portability of one time within the
county, and that's where we basically drew the guidelines of where we
were going to be, and I believe F AC even drew the same guidelines.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't remember. I'd have to
take your word for it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, if I may help you with
F AC. The guidelines from F AC is just as you stated. But may I make
a suggestion: The person that would be on this for the up to the
moment probably has already queried a number of our legislators right
here in the audience, that's Keith Arnold. He may have something to
add to this to be able to give us some idea of the direction this could
go or the direction that we might be able to influence it to go.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Keith? Do you have anything to add to
this? I know -- you can see where we stand on this item.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
board. For the record, my name's Keith Arnold, and I'm with J. Keith
Arnold & Associates in Tallahassee and represent your interest on the
legislative front.
Page 176
November 14, 2006
The -- that thing called a dialogue's very consistent with the
discussions that were had last week and previous to that leading up to
the legislative workshop you had last week with the area delegation
members.
I think what Ms. Wight was getting ready to recommend to you
was a position consistent with F AC since there was no progress in the
last week with the delegation. I think what she was going to
recommend was a position on the portability issue which would be
consistent with the Florida Association of Counties, which would limit
the portability to a one-time option, not restricted to only those
homesteaders downsizing and it would occur only within the
jurisdictional boundaries of the county.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I think that's discrimination.
I want to have an opportunity --
CHAIRMAN HALAS : You going to grow your family up?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if you talk to my wife,
yeah.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, Commissioner, he said -- F AC's
position -- I want to make sure it's clarified for a second. It's on page
7 of 36 of your packet, okay, at the top, and it's labeled number 5.
And it says, not restricted to only those homesteaders downsizing. So
when Commissioner Henning wants to buy a bigger house, he would
-- he could --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: One time.
MR. MUDD: -- somebody could use it that has a bigger family.
So one time either way, downsizing or upsizing.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner, does that fit your bill?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'll have to ask my wife.
MS. WIGHT: That's F AC's position.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any other discussion? Any other
questions in regards to the --
MR. MUDD: Yes, we need--
Page 1 77
November 14,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: --legislative agenda?
MS. WIGHT: There was also a couple of updates since the
workshop. We also, regarding the growth management bill, staff
would like your direction to move forward with the special act to
protect our concurrency program.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'm gong to need a motion for that
special act in order to get that done.
MS. WIGHT: If you recall, Senator Saunders--
MR. MUDD: Saunders said he wanted a special act because he
was of the opinion -- and since that time we have asked our county
attorney, and yeah, it was a nice letter that we got from the DCA, but
in a court of law, it's a nice letter that we got from the DCA. It doesn't
really hold much water when you get into a legal action. So Senator
Saunders' recommendation that the county go through with a special
act was a very good one in order to get us so that we could have our
concurrency system.
So in order to do that, we need a motion from you to direct staff
for that special act.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I hear a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we already got a motion
and a second on the floor.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. What I'll do is I'll pull back my
first motion, if somebody would pull back their second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I will.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I make a motion that we
ask the -- our legislative delegation to support a special act codifying
Collier County from this -- the liberal interpretation of the
concurrency and allow Collier County to be more strictive (sic) in
their transportation concurrency management system. Is that right?
No.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Attorney, can you give us some
Page 178
November 14,2006
guidance on this motion so we --
MR. WEIGEL: Well, that's right, but I'll add that it would appear
that the direction that Mr. Mudd is indicating is for you to direct the
county attorney with staff to craft a local bill that provides for Collier
County to have the ability to utilize stricter concurrency than the
statewide standard.
And with your -- with your direction for that, then County
Attorney Office will prepare one directly, because we have until the
deadline of the 17th to submit these to --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Seventeenth of what month?
MR. WEIGEL: Of November.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: This week.
MR. WEIGEL: And so it would be done immediately. We
would actually have it crafted, perhaps, through the day tomorrow.
And -- but we're looking to have the staff to have your direction as
well as Mr. Henning's indication that there should be a board -- a
statement to our legislative delegation that the board endorses to the
delegation and for the delegation, requesting the delegation to endorse
a special act for Collier County to have stricter concurrency than the
statewide standard.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, that's part of my motion
to direct staff to -- county attorney staff to draft an ordinance or
resolution.
MR. WEIGEL: Actually a bill.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: A bill -- a bill, and give it to our
delegation for a special act, to have a stricter concurrency for Collier
County .
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll second that.
Have we covered the whole area, the whole arena that we need?
Okay. Any further discussion on this? We have a--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I do have--
Page 1 79
November 14,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- just one question. When you craft
it -- and this has to be out of here before the 17th so that they receive it
on the 17th. Do you want us to take a look at it? I mean, can we at
least, you know, have a look to see what we're sending up in there?
MR. MUDD: Absolutely, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. And that way maybe we can
each just say, yeah, this is great or something by email, right?
MS. WIGHT: Commissioners, actually the deadline was
November 13th, but because of the board meeting, Sheila Jackson
gave me until the 17th to get it to her. And because of the -- it was
such a challenge to schedule the legislative workshop, November 8th
and your board meeting today, it's been a challenge. So we can
exchange emails. I'll do my best to get it to you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. We're all --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County attorney.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- in agreement, it's just I wanted to
-- I wanted to see with my own eyes.
MS. WIGHT: Exactly, and I understand that. And just as an
update, since the workshop the County Attorney's Office has already
prepared legislation on the attorney fees, the eminent domain issue to
go to Representative Davis, as well as the A TV issue, and so those are
ready to go.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And when would we --
MS. WIGHT: And I can -- I will get those off to you, too.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And when would we get a copy of the
proposed bill?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, you may get it tomorrow. Although we've
been given until the 17th, our intention is to get it up there prior to the
17th, if at all possible.
So we'll be churning tomorrow, and we'll have it probably crafted
during the day tomorrow, and I expect to be able to provide you a
Page 180
November 14,2006
copy of it by email, or however you would like, tomorrow at
sometime during the day, and we would transmit it probably, if at all
possible, no later than Thursday.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Anything else we need to add to
this discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other discussion from the
commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll call the question. We have a motion
on the floor by Commissioner Henning and a second by
Commissioner Halas. And at this time I'll call the question.
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?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
Now, we -- I'll put my other -- my first motion back on for
approval unless you have some other things that you want to bring
forth.
MS. WIGHT: No. I was going to let you know that the F AC
property tax work group is holding a meeting October 20th --
November 20th, excuse me, in Orlando. Those are in addition to
Senator Saunders' meetings that Commissioner Coletta has already
shared.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve. Oh, I'm
sorry, second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll let you do the second.
Page 181
November 14,2006
Okay. There's a motion -- any other discussion before we go any
farther?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Halas, a second by Commissioner Coletta, to approve
our agenda, legislative agenda.
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?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries. Thank you very much.
Item #10F
CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.6, EXHIBIT E, FOR A
GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE (GMP) OF $36,685,528
UNDER CONTRACT NO. 04-3576, CONSTRUCTION
MANAGER AT RISK SERVICES FOR COURTHOUSE ANNEX
AND PARKING GARAGE, WITH KRAFT CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY, INC. FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
COURTHOUSE ANNEX FLOORS 1-7, PROJECT NUMBER
52533. - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that bring us to our next item,
which is 1 OF, and that is a recommendation to approve contract
amendment number 6, Exhibit E, for a guaranteed maximum price of
$36,685,528 under contract number 04-3576, Construction Manager
At Risk Service for the courthouse annex and parking garage with
Kraft Construction Company, Inc., for the construction of the
Page 182
November 14, 2006
courthouse annex, floors one through seven, project number 52533.
And Mr. Ron Hovell, principal project manager in your facility
department, admin. services division, will present.
MR. HOVELL: Good afternoon. For the record, Ron Hovell.
This project was requested over 10 years ago. The -- one of the
design contracts was approved in June 2001, but it was stopped in
December of '0 1 before my time, so I'm not sure why. It was restarted
again in November of 2002.
The Construction Manager At Risk contract was approved by the
board in February of 2004. The site development plan was approved
for a four-story building in June of2005, and then after the budget and
scope of the project had been increased to seven stories, the site
development plan amendment for a seven-story building was
approved in July of 2006.
The building permit is still in a pending status. What you have
today is a guaranteed maximum price proposal from Kraft
Construction. They've been part of this team now, as I mentioned
before, since 2004 as the design's being developed.
Over the last couple of months they've gone out and gotten
subcontractor bids for the various subcontracts. Those books have
been reviewed by both purchasing facilities management department
as well as Clerk of Courts finance staff.
I, again, want to point out that the competition's at the
subcontractor level though. Kraft was selected as the CM At Risk
based on their qualifications to do that.
This gives you the overall project estimate and budget. The
design and permitting, for the most part, is committed funding. The
GMP is what's before you today, the other project costs of about a
million dollars, most of which has been committed and/or spent at this
point.
And then most of the things towards the bottom are future costs
that will be needed in support of this project. We'll need to upgradec
Page 183
November 14,2006
our chiller plant for the additional air-conditioning capacity, we'll need
to ultimately commission the building with things like, we'll have to
pay for builder's risk insurance, you know, getting the telephone lines
turned on, those types of things, all the IT equipment in place.
This guaranteed maximum price is for three finished floors out of
the seven that are to be constructed. So at some point we'll need to
deal with finishing out those four additional floors, and the project
contingency.
That brings the total project estimate to $54 million,
approximately, and our current budget is about $46.6 million, leaving
a shortfall of nearly $7 and a half million.
The specific plan though for where we are today is that those
items in red would be those things that need to be addressed during
this fiscal year. The items still left in white there, the commissioning,
finishing floors four to seven, and hopefully the contingency, would
be things that we could deal with, perhaps, in the next budget cycle.
So when you look at it from that perspective, for this fiscal year,
we would still have an available budget balance of just over $2
million. But, again, it's going to mean addressing that shortfall in the
next budget cycle.
So our recommendations today are to approve the guaranteed
maximum price with Kraft Construction for the $36,685,528 and
authorize the issuance of the commercial paper loan in the amount of
$13,650,000. The commercial paper loan is always part of the budget
plan for this.
Subject to any questions, that concludes my presentation.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is all of this going to be
financed with the end, the prenuptual (sic) end, if we do the bonding
and anything from general government building impact fees, or is
some of it coming from general revenue?
MR. HOVELL: I believe -- if you're talking out of the current
Page 184
November 14, 2006
approved budget 46 million, I believe there was a December, 2004,
bond amount. I think the total bond was something like $180 million
that included this project.
I'm not sure the exact amount of that bond that was meant for this
project. But based on where we are today, in order to execute this
guaranteed maximum price and have the funds available for the
expense budget of the 46 million, on top of that bond from 2004,
there's an additional 13,600,000 that will be needed out of a
commercial paper loan.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That I understand.
MR. HOVELL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But this is all going to be
eventually paid back.
MR. HOVELL: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is it going to be paid back from
the impact fee that we get from--
MR. HOVELL: I think predominantly impact fees. I think
there's some issues going on with the cash flow in that particular
impact fee, the general government impact fee. And so I think in the
short-term there's been some loans out of the general fund, but I think
the intent --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And the general fund fees will come out
of the capital general fund fees, that third of a mill that I basically
control. In the '08 budget, in order to make up that shortfall of 7.8 --
or $7.5 million that he showed you, I -- there's some debt payments
that are going to be paid off in '07. There will be some monies that are
freed up. I will take those dollars that are freed up and leverage those
into a commercial paper product to cover the shortfall not only in this
building, but in the County Barn facility that we've got right there.
There was about a $2 million shortfall that was over in the special ops
building for the sheriffs office. I believe that $3.2 million that will be
freed up over 10- to 15-year period of time, I'll be able to leverage
Page 185
~4. ........ . .~--""'
November 14,2006
about $30 million worth of extra dollars in order to make up the
shortfalls that we're going to have --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, let me go where I'm going
with this.
MR. MUDD: And then impact fees will pay us back, because
these are loans to that impact fee account.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So eventually it's all
coming from impact fees. But my concern is, is you heard alluded to
that we're getting into a real squeeze on our road program. You heard
about Santa Barbara, we heard about a couple of others down there.
We know that we're going to run into this situation.
And this commission in the past, and very recently, too, has
recognized the roads is our number one priority. That's why we were
elected, when we ran in 2000 and 2004, the roads will get built.
My concern is, I want to make sure that this money isn't going to
-- what we're doing here is not going to impact our road building
efforts. That the money that's going into it is not going to diminish that
capability in any way.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, this is the government building.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct, and that's -- I just
wanted everybody to say it out loud.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. This doesn't have any impact on your
road program based on --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Point 33 mills, I believe it is.
MR. MUDD: -- where those funds are coming from. They're
two different areas.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand, but it doesn't hurt
to say it.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I hear a motion?
Page 186
November 14, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Fiala and a second by Commissioner Coletta.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. 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?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
Item #10G
A CHANGE IN WASTEWATER SERVICE FOR THE COLLIER
COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMPLEX FROM THE CITY OF
NAPLES TO THE COLLIER COUNTY SEWER DISTRICT AND
TO DIRECT THE COUNTY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AN
INTER-LOCAL AGREEMENT ACCORD AND SA TISF ACTION
WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES TO SUPERSEDE AN EXISTING
1977 INTER-LOCAL AGREEMENT, AS AMENDED.-
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is lOG. It's a recommendation to approve a change in
wastewater services for the Collier County government complex from
the City of Naples to the Collier County Sewer District and to direct
Page 187
November 14, 2006
the county manager to negotiate an Interlocal Agreement Accord and
Satisfaction with the City of Naples to supersede the existing 1977
interlocal agreement as amended.
Mr. Jim DeLony, administrator of public utilities will start this
off, and no doubt he'll look at me and say, can you help me, because I
was in all the negotiations. We'll also bring to the board's attention
that Mr. Pettit was in all those negotiations, too.
On the 25th of July I brought a similar item to the Board of
County Commissioners except I didn't have the costs in the particular
item. And I did bring the minutes from the meeting in July. It was
item 10Q.
And the direction that I received was to go back and fine tune
those particular estimates and bring it back to the board to discuss, and
then we'll continue negotiation.
And we have a meeting on the 30th of November with the city
manager and staff in order to continue our negotiations. But I wanted
to make sure that you were apprised of what the costs were, and I'm
going to let Mr. DeLony talk a little bit about that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have one question--
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- for the County Manager before you
start --
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- Mr. DeLony. It's my understanding
that you had a meeting also that was conducted on June 15th of 2006
between the City of Naples and the Collier County manager to discuss
ongoing efforts of both parties to reach an amicable agreement on
water/sewer service to the county compound; is that correct?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And the items that are on this agenda
item were exactly what was discussed as we went through that 15 June
Page 188
November 14, 2006
meeting. It was exactly what was discussed with you in July, and I
think we just lost a quorum, so let's wait for just a little bit.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nope, we haven't.
MR. MUDD: Okay, quorum's back.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We've got a quorum.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. So--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Mr. DeLony?
MR. DeLONY: For the record, Jim DeLony, public utilities
administrator.
Commissioners, in front of you is an executive summary, and the
charts that I have and the slides that I have outline some of the
specifics with regard to that executive summary.
These are the recommendations. And we have done the cost and
the benefit analysis of this recommendation as outlined in the
executive summary, and largely because of the ability to forego a
10-inch force main that needs to be built from this facility along the
current six-inch main easement, it makes sense to look at the
interconnection coming back to the county. And the cost savings are
six-to-one with regard to that, and that largely is the difference -- is
one of the large differences between this discussion today and that
which the county manager had back as earlier mentioned.
This is some of the background that's in your executive summary,
and specifically it talks to that six-inch force main and the fact that it's
inadequate for current and our future usage and expansions here at the
complex.
All this goes back to years and years of negotiation and where we
were and where we are today with regard to this complex and the
ability to serve along that six-inch main, and that's what really is the
bundled problem here.
Of course, when we had hurricanes -- the hurricane, there were
some efforts made to make sure we could have a continuity of services
Page 189
November 14,2006
here, and some interconnects were done between the city and the
county systems, and that was taken out of commission, of course, after
the city and the county went back to normal with regard to
establishing services.
We've spoken to the many -- or several meetings between my
manager and the city manager with regard to it, and today we bring
forward many of those recommendations and these actions required.
With regard to the specifics of the interconnect, we already have
an interconnect that's in place. It's already at Horseshoe Drive and
Airport. And by using that interconnect, we can abandon the current
six-inch force main and essentially swap the flows that would
normally come out of that end of the county service area, the service
flows, for the flows that come in -- that come to the city from this
area, and that's essentially the basis of this understanding, that there
would be a balance of flow queues between the queue coming off this
complex and that which we are -- what we get in the county from the
Horseshoe area, and that's what this prescribes here in terms of this
interconnect.
We have the interconnect. It's in place. The interconnect was put
in effect between the city and the county as an emergency backup.
There's a provision for some reimbursement to the city because no
longer are we using that as an emergency interconnect, but rather as a
service interconnect.
There's some other language within the executive summary
which provides for some negotiations with regard to the wastewater
service surcharge. Some issues that will be resolved through
negotiation, we believe that the water pressure which has been
problematic here at this complex will be sustained at 50 psi by the city
water department.
And then at the end of all this, there'll be an interlocal agreement
between the county and the city with regard to these matters.
The bottom line of the fiscal impact I've talked to already, is a
Page 190
November 14,2006
six-to-one benefit in terms of actual cost. This is largely the
difference in cost to do the arrangements we need to do to do this flow
exchange vice (sic) constructing this 10-inch force main along this
current -- let's see, it's nine hundred and --
MR. MUDD: Nine thousand.
MR. DeLONY: Nine thousand. Thank you, Mr. Mudd. Yeah,
over 9,000 feet of interconnect. So that's where your big savings are.
That's where -- that's how this project really looks good from a
financial standpoint, and therefore, that's the reason staff is making the
following recommendations.
With that, I conclude my briefing, other than your questions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's other associated costs
because you're going to lose capacity, or we're going to lose capacity
once we hook up. I mean, you deal with that with impact fees. That's
not a part of the analysis?
MR. DeLONY: It's a net, net. What flows that we receive into
the district we already are receiving from the Horseshoe area, and it's a
net, net -- the key is to balance those flows so there is no impact on
capacity to the district or impact on capacity to the city, that those
flows will be balanced through this interconnect system.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So this is tied into their
annexation?
MR. DeLONY: No, sir. The annexation, by its nature, does not
necessarily involve the utilities as an annexation. This is independent
of that action, sir. But it just so happens that in that area we have the
interconnect. There's roughly equivalent flows between that area and
the county complex now and in the future, and it takes the swapping
of flows very feasible. And that's the reason we can do this without
impact on capacities.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Swapping of flows between the
city and the county?
Page 191
November 14, 2006
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the county provides flows
on service to the Horseshoe area?
MR. DeLONY: That's correct, sir, for sewer, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And now we're gaining the
county complex and the school?
MR. DeLONY: The city would retain -- the city would retain the
flows from Horseshoe and they would retain the flows from the
school. We would only swap out the flows that come here off this
complex. And we're offsetting that with the flows that we normally
receive, the district receives, from the Horseshoe area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I think, Commissioner, the other
part of the equation, too, is that with this interconnect, it's my
understandings that we won't be paying a penalty on this complex for
water that's coming in here; is that correct, County Manager?
MR. MUDD: When you say penalty, you're talking about a
surcharge.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Surcharge, I'm sorry, surcharge.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Your agreements in 1977 for -- and I've
reviewed them, as has your county attorney staff. The agreement for
water in 1977 talked about a bulk water rate with no surcharge to
certain areas of the county.
The last area in the county that's still on bulk water from the city
is this compound that's covered in that 1977 agreement.
1984 there was a sewer agreement that was done for this
compound and basically said that this compound would receive sewer
service and be charged the in-city rate, okay? No surcharge was
mentioned during that particular time.
The -- I read that and I said, we shouldn't be paying a surcharge.
I talked to the county attorney, and he said we shouldn't be paying a
surcharge. And 10 and behold, in November of 2005, after we've all
Page 192
November 14, 2006
come to that conclusion, there was a court case in Florida of very
similar nature about a prior agreement prior to the Florida Statute that
let municipalities, charter municipalities, charge a surcharge for
out-of-city services, and it basically stated that any agreement in
accord prior to the Florida Statute had to be honored, okay.
And so they basically said that the municipality could not charge
a surcharge on that prior agreement. So not only do we have an
opinion from the county attorney, not only do you have my opinion as
I read the contract, but now you have a court case --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Florida law.
MR. MUDD: -- that basically backs up that particular opinion.
So with that regard, we basically take in this agreement that
basically says that the county compound will not pay a surcharge for
water and/or sewer from hence forth, and we set that based on the first
reading that you had of this particular item on the 26th of July.
And I've had a meeting with Crystal, okay, over at the clerk's
office, that basically talks about, when do we want to stop the
surcharge, and I felt, and the county attorney was there at the time that
we talked about this, and I felt that the meeting of the 25th of July was
the appropriate time to basically stop that particular payment, and we
basically stated that through the County Attorney's Office to the city.
So that's part of the agreement.
Now, what's also part of this agreement is that this board would
forgive that charge of surcharge in past years, and I itemized the best I
could from 1997 till now. The surcharge was in being before 1997,
and that's some $650,000. So we wouldn't go back and try to collect
that from the city, but we would forgive that particular amount based
on those opinions and that court case. So that's also part of this
agreement that I will try to craft with the city manager.
I'm not asking you to approve the agreement. I'm basically
fulfilling the requirement that you told me to get as far as bring the
prices together, itemize the surcharges in the past, bring that forward
Page 193
November 14,2006
to the board. And then once you have that, then continue to proceed
with your concurrence to negotiate a final contract which will come
back to you to approve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: When do you anticipate this contract to
come before this board?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, my next meeting with the city
manager and his staff is on the 30th of November.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Now, the meeting that you had--
MR. MUDD: Now, Commissioner, I didn't answer your
question, when do I think it's going to come back. We've only been
working on this for three years now, okay? We're closer than we were
three years ago.
So I will say to you -- I'd love to be able to say I'll be able to
bring an agreement to you on the 12th of December for your approval,
but I don't know if that's going to be the case.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. In the meeting that took place
June 15th of 2006, there's a number of items that's listed on here; that's
1 through 11. Did you, at that point in time, get agreement from the
city officials in regard to all of this, or was there --
MR. MUDD: I thought we were -- I thought we were in
agreement on that particular list, and that's why I wrote the list and
sent it -- and sent it to the city manager for his review.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do the fellow commissioners have a
copy of this list right now?
MR. MUDD: Not at this second, they don't, sir, no, but I have
copies for them if they'd like.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. I think that would probably -- if
you could pass that out, I think that's information that needs to be
presented to the commissioners and to the clerk.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala, I'm sorry.
Commission Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you.
Page 194
November 14, 2006
Jim, just -- I just want to break it down into basic bite-size pieces,
just so I make sure I understand everything correctly. So what we're
doing now, we've been using city water since our agreement. We
didn't have -- we didn't have sewers back then, did we, in '77, right; is
that -- is that the case?
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, I don't know how they got rid of it in '77.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But anyway, so we've had
agreement with the city. And the reason we don't supply our own
water to our own selves is because we have this agreement with the
city; is that right?
MR. MUDD: In 1977 we did not have the ability to put water on
this compound, so we made an agreement with the city not only with
this area, but several other areas of the county.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And then we're continuing that even
though we do now have water and sewer service, because if we left
the city, it would probably hurt them; is that correct? And I'm saying
this only because I want to make sure that people understand that, you
know, we're trying to work with our city partners, and we want them
to know that we're supporting their efforts, so that's why we stay,
right?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am, plus we have an agreement that states
so.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's right. And so -- and all we're
trying to do is not pay this sewer charge -- or this surcharge anymore
because that -- we weren't supposed to be paying it at all, but we're
saying, keep the money that we've paid you. We just don't want to
pay anymore; is that correct?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
MR. DeLONY: I think that -- if I may, Mr. Mudd. There's one
other thing, and I think this is the point that I want to emphasize again.
You know, the current interconnect between the city and this complex
is serviced by a six-inch line, over 9,000 feet.
Page 195
November 14, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was getting to that one.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am. And so you said, you know, where
we're at and why we're doing it. I mean, we're at the point where
something's got to be done to upsize or provide additional capability
or capacity to serve this complex.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because the six-inch line won't do
it.
MR. DeLONY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It won't really service it anymore.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So that was my next point.
And another point, as a side note of that is, by not having a six-inch
pipe there anymore, we'll be able to have sidewalks on Linwood; is
that correct?
MR. MUDD: We believe so, ma'am. It would be less -- it would
be one less impediment from us getting sidewalks and stormwater
project on Linwood.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: On the way to Shadowlawn school,
and I noticed that in here also. And I'm saying this just because I'm
glad we're doing this. This is great. But I want the city to know, they
think that we don't give them very much, and I noticed that in all of
these things on the executive summary at the county's expense, at the
county's expense, at the county's expense.
So we're really trying to work with them, and I want them to
know that -- you know, that we're -- at county's expense, we're doing a
lot to make sure that our agreements stand tall and that we're still
paying them for the water and so forth. So I'm just putting it on the
record.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're good partners.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
I believe we have a public speaker; is that correct, Ms. Filson?
Page 196
November 14,2006
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. We have one speaker; Dan Mercer.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Director of public works for the City of Naples.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: And he lives in the county, by God.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hi, Dan.
MR. MERCER: Proud of it, too. Used to live in the city. I don't
anymore.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Give that man a gold star.
MR. MERCER: For the record, again, as Mr. Mudd mentioned,
Dan Mercer, director of public works. I'm here representing the city.
I'm not here to debate anything that Mr. Mudd and staff said,
especially from the legal standpoint. I think that's what we pay our
attorneys for in dealing with that. But I do want to make a few
statements about the executive summary and to let you know that the
county staff and city staff has been working on this issue I think very
well together for the last at least two or three years, and we will
continue to do that from a staff standpoint.
One clarification that I wasn't going to address, I'll address now,
and then I'll get to my comments on the executive summary.
But I want to make sure everyone understands that the agreement
we're talking about is the legal franchise agreement, and it does
establish boundaries for the water and sewer areas.
So even though there were a few addendums that we picked up
the services temporarily until such a time that the county could serve
them, I think all the water addendums have been taken back over, like
most of them north of Pine Ridge, the Waterside Shops and areas like
that, you all have taken back over as the agreements spelled out.
But there are -- with the --as a matter of fact, I think all the water
service areas. So the water boundaries to the -- for the water and
sewer boundaries are -- at this point are really not going to change
with the exception of what Mr. Mudd mentioned today, which is the
Page 197
November 14,2006
couple of sewer areas that we're going to talk about.
One thing to clarify, I think Jim DeLony or Mr. Mudd mentioned
that it includes the county complex for the sewer but not the
schoolhouse. I thought the schoolhouse was going to go to the county,
but that will all be worked out later. So --
MR. MUDD: Yes. In the process it would be Shadowlawn
school and the county would be metered into the county line, and the
equal amount of raw sewer product would be metered into the city at
the Horseshoe meter.
MR. MERCER: Right, so just for clarification.
As far as the -- I'm a little concerned about what -- what you
verbally discussed you're approving here today makes sense, which is
to authorize the county manager to proceed with finalizing the
. .
revIsIon.
I wouldn't really call it superseding the 1977 agreement, but
cleaning up all the addendums and amendments. So I think that's what
it needs to focus on.
The way I read it, it more or less says, you're approving to
change water or the sewer service area for the complex and to direct
the county manager to negotiate changes.
So I just the want the public and maybe you to understand that I
would have probably worded the executive recommendation different,
but it's to authorize the county manager to negotiate interlocal
agreement and changes mainly to focus at the -- boy, that was a fast
three minutes. Sorry about that. You want me to quit now?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Go ahead, continue.
MR. MERCER: So -- and another clarification on part of the
executive summary down there in the middle where it talks about
Hurricane Wilma knocked out the city's water and sewer service area
to the county complex, it really only affected the water service area. It
did not affect the sewer service area, and I want you to be clear on
that.
Page 198
November 14,2006
The sewer was connected and switched over without our
knowledge, but the water wasn't. We agreed to the water change.
You needed it. We had a lot of lines tore out by trees, but it really
didn't affect the sewer service, so I just wanted you all to be clear on
that. That's as far as my opinion.
As far as all the 12 agreement items in the executive summary
that you just mentioned, I think you said 11. I think there's 12. You
should add that that's the Collier County staffs recommendations.
I know they went back and forth with the city manager, but that's
part of what we're still negotiating and trying to finalize. So you
know, once we come to that agreement, I think everything will be
worked out and then you get a final agreement done.
And that's really all I had to bring up. I just wanted to make that
for the record.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MR. MERCER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Mr. DeLony?
MR. DeLONY: Sir, I have nothing else other than answering
your questions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, okay.
Is there any other questions from my fellow commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do you need a motion from us or
guidance?
MR. MUDD: I need a motion that the board let me continue to
negotiate. Don't change the sewer district, the wastewater/water, just
give me direction to move forward to work out an agreement based on
the information that was provided today, and we'll come back with an
agreement to this board, but --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll make a motion.
MR. MUDD: -- I gave you--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
Page 199
November 14,2006
MR. MUDD: -- the physical ramifications of what we were
negotiating.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion on the floor by
Commissioner Halas and a second by Commissioner Coletta.
Any other 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 FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries. Thank you very much.
Item #10H
A TIME AND MATERIALS WORK ORDER UNDER
CONTRACT #05-3657, PROJECT MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT
SERVICES WITH CH2M HILL, INC. FOR PROJECT
MANAGEMENT AND STAFF SUPPORT SERVICES FOR THE
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT IN THE
ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $2~900~000. - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us -- thanks, Jim.
That brings us to item 10H, which is a recommendation to
approve a time and materials work order under contract 05-3657,
Project Manager (sic) Oversight Services with CH2M Hill, Inc., for
project management and staff support services for the facilities
management department in the estimated amount of $2.9 million.
And I believe Mr. Ron Hovell, senior project manager from
Page 200
November 14,2006
facilities in the administrative services division, will present.
MR. HOVELL: Again, for the record, Ron Hovell in your
facilities management department.
The facilities management department has a number of capital
projects that seem to have created a peak for us here over the next
couple of years I think, perhaps due -- in large part due to the creation
of the general government building impact fee about five or seven
years ago, something like that.
The courthouse annex parking garage, which opens next week,
the courthouse annex, the emergency services center, the south
regional library, the Golden Gate library, the Marco Island library, the
fleet facility, EMS 75, 49, 73, two more to be determined, the Naples
jail renovations, the sheriffs special operations facility, the sheriffs
substation addition and the north transportation facility are all
assigned to myself and one other project manager in our department.
And recognizing this when I first joined the department about two
years ago --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You almost quit, huh?
MR. HOVELL: Well, that crossed my mind, but I also looked at
-- this pie chart is more just for the color effect. If you look at that
approximately two-year window from 2007 to 2008, you'll see a lot of
red lines. That's our construction phases.
Prior to that we probably were only running in the neighborhood
of two to four projects under construction at any given time. And
after that, something hopefully will start to pull in.
But right now today, after that, I'm not sure I'm going to have a
job. But in the meantime, I need to deal with this huge workload. And
so some time ago, myself and some other principal project managers
started looking at how to deal with that.
And an invitation to qualify for Project Management Oversight
Services was ultimately issued in April of2005, and the board
approved a contract in July of2005.
Page 201
November 14,2006
In the meantime, I mean, I got here, with facilities anyway, in
about October of 2004, and we had an immediate need. So we had
started using other contracts that were in existence. So whether it was
engineering services, structural engineering services for things like
threshold inspections, CEI services, what have you, we cobbled
together a number of work orders, which I'll get to in a minute, to get
by until the day that we got to the point of having this contract
organized.
Ultimately we sent out an RFP to the six firms that were selected
and approve under that contract. The six firms being CH2M Hill,
PBS&J, URS, Construction Dynamics, Parsons-Brinkerhauf, and Hery
International.
We sent out RFPs to those firms in October of 2006. We had
four firms respond, URS, Hery International, Parsons-Brinkerhauf and
CH2M Hill. The selection committee met, and the selection committee
was myself, Dan Croft from the fleet management department and Bill
Mullin, who's a principal project manager over in public utilities, and
we reviewed the various input.
And although they were all strong, which you would somewhat
expect -- they were all selected to be under this fixed term contract --
the only one with any significant county experience was CH2M Hill,
especially is you focussed on the type of work that I'm interested in,
the vertical construction.
Some of the others had done onesies (phonetic) and twosies of
road projects but really had no land development experience with
Collier County.
And based on that review, it was the unanimous recommendation
of the committee that we select CH2M Hill.
Some fiscal issues I wanted to go over. Each project that I
mentioned would cover the costs associated with oversight of that
particular project. We have a number of existing work orders which
would probably be closed, and I'll get to a list here in a second, per
Page 202
November 14, 2006
Commissioner Fiala's question yesterday.
It's a time and materials work order. In other words, all the firms
that were competing for this would be under the same rate structure,
so there was going to be no difference in fees. They're all under that
same -- you know, for instance, a project manager makes a certain
amount of money regardless of which firm we hire.
It covers both Project Management Oversight, which I kind of
equate to staff support services. We have people that actually sit over
in our office spaces and help the project managers, assistant project
managers, if you will, since they can't sign things like a county
employee can, but it's also out in the field inspection services.
And those two things together we're estimating somewhere in the
neighborhood of six or so people from CH2M Hill would help support
us over this two or so year window.
Most of the rates in that contract are in the neighbor of 70 to 120
dollars an hour. So when we talk about the $2.9 million, all those
projects I rattled off equate to about $200 million worth of work that
we need to accomplish over these next two or so years, and that's just
under 1 and a half percent of the project cost.
The typical range, perhaps, for CEI services in general tend to
run more in the neighborhood of 3 to 5 percent, so we certainly think
this is a reasonable cost to expend.
As far as the existing work orders, I've listed all of them, but the
ones in red are so far advanced that we would probably not close those
out just to roll them into a new work order. We'll just continue those
till their end, which should be in the next couple months and just close
them out directly.
But it pretty much mirrors the list of projects I rattled off earlier,
plus a few that are either recently completed or about to be completed.
The list continues here.
When I look at all those work orders together, we have -- we,
either through staff authority and/or board specific approval, have
Page 203
November 14,2006
issues $1.2 million worth of work orders to CH2M Hill already, and
we've paid about 400,000 to date.
So as we make our transition plan, whether it's that difference of
800,000 or let's say for argument's sake, another 100,000 if paid in
actual invoices before we close out the existing work orders, that
monies, whether it's 7- or 800,000, would go back into the project
budgets and be available to fund this new work order with CH2M Hill.
So out of the total $2.9 million that we're talking about, probably
about 2 million to 2.2 million is what I'll call new work, and the other
7-, 800,000 is, in essence, already approved work that we would roll
into this new work order.
So out bottom line recommendation is that we're requesting that
you approve a time and materials work order up to $2.9 million for
project management and staff support services for the facilities
management department under the contract, Project Management
Oversight Services with CH2M Hill, Inc., and authorize the county
manager or his designee to sign the work order.
Subject to any more detailed questions, that concludes my
presentation.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Are there any questions from my
fellow commissioners here?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Maybe I missed it, but what
was the -- what was the criteria that you used to choose CH2M Hill?
MR. HOVELL: I don't have the specifics in front of me, but my
general recollection was county experience, experience in this type of
construction and overall qualifications.
We struggled a little bit given that the initial selection of the six
firms that are under vertical contract was a similar process. So we
tried to pick out something that would further distinguish a bunch of
already well-qualified firms.
And as I say, I think the one that probably made the biggest
difference, I think things like staff -- we asked them to specifically
Page 204
November 14,2006
name who was going to -- I'm being handed the criteria that we used.
The grading criteria that we published in the RFP was staff
expertise being 60 percent of the score, and staff support and past
performance being 40 percent of the score.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you answered my other
questions in your presentation, so thank you.
MR. HOVELL: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions from my fellow
commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I hear a motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I guess I'm the second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Fiala and a second by Commissioner Coyle (sic).
Any further discussion?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner Coyle isn't here.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, Coletta, Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The good looking one.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They both start with C. That's close.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Coletta.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. 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?
(No response.)
Page 205
November 14, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries. Thank you. Getting to
be a long day.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're getting there; we're
getting there.
Item #10J
EXHIBIT E, AMENDMENT #1 TO CONTRACT #06-3914,
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AT RISK SERVICES FOR
THE COLLIER COUNTY FLEET FACILITIES WITH WRIGHT
CONSTRUCTION CORP. IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,272,741.10
FOR THE FLEET FACILITY, PROJECT 52009, PHASE 2 WHICH
INCLUDES THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW FLEET
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT FACILITY AND TO APPROVE
CHANGE #15 TO CONTRACT #02-3422, PROFESSIONAL
ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR NEW COUNTY FLEET
FACILITY, WITH DISNEY & ASSOCIATES, P.A. TO UPDATE
THE ARCHITECTS RATE SCHEDULE AND INCLUDE
ADDITIONAL SERVICES NECESSARY FOR CONSTRUCTION
PHASE 2 IN THE AMOUNT OF $60.885. - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item.
And we've already done 1 01. We did that at 11 a.m. That brings us to
10J.
This is a recommendation to approve Exhibit E, amendment
number one to contract 06-3914, Construction Management at Risk
Services for the Collier County fleet facilities with Wright
Construction Corp., in the amount of$9,272,741.10, for the fleet
facility, project 52009, phase 2, which includes the construction of the
new fleet management department facilities and to approve change
number 15 to contract 02-3422 professional architectural services for
the new county fleet facility with Disney & Associates, P.A., to
Page 206
November 14,2006
update the architect's rate schedule and include additional services
necessary for construction phase 2 in the amount of $60,885.
Mr. Ron Hovell, senior project manager for facilities in your
administrative services division, will present.
MR. HOVELL: And it's my last one of the day, I hope.
This item was presented at your last board meeting. I think the
only question at the time was to specifically include the Exhibit E
package in your board agenda package.
If you'd like, I'll go through the presentation again or see if you
have any questions. Your pleasure, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Let's see if we have some
questions. I think the information that was given in our packet is
sufficient unless there's something that is missing out of the packet
that you want to bring to light here.
MR. HOVELL: I don't think so, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll ask my fellow commissioners if they
have any questions at this time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the hidden information?
MR. HOVELL: I'm sorry, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the hidden information?
MR. HOVELL: I'm not sure what you mean.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I said if there was any information that
was not included that could have been hidden.
MR. HOVELL: Oh, okay.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. The one thing that we didn't say when I
gave the description is this item was continued from the last meeting
because this was an item that didn't have the contract that was
attached, and Commissioner Henning wanted to make sure that that
particular item was attached to the document before the board
approved it, and I didn't mention that in my description, and my
apologies for doing so.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So is there any other questions in
Page 207
November 14,2006
regards to this item?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How about the clerk's office; they're
okay with this?
MS. KINZEL: Thank you, Commissioner. We had no issues
with this. I've been watching it since I was at the sheriff's office, so
I'm fairly familiar with the fleet facility. But thank you for asking.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And I'll second that.
We have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Fiala and a
second by Commissioner Halas.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. 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?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, Ron. Great job.
MR. HOVELL: Thank, sir.
Item #10K
REQUEST TO OPEN THE 2005 CYCLE OF GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW A 2006
CYCLE PETITION TO BE MOVED INTO THE 2005 CYCLE -
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
Page 208
November 14,2006
which is 10K, which used to be 16A8, and this is a request to open the
2005 cycle of the Growth Management Plan amendments to allow a
2006 cycle petition to be moved into the 2005 cycle.
This item was asked to be moved from the consent agenda to the
regular agenda by Commissioner Halas.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: My question was in regards to, I felt that
there wasn't adequate information that was put into our agenda, and I
had some questions on that. So if there's someone in the audience that
would like to basically tell us -- tell me, I guess, what we need to
address here.
My concern here is, is that we have about 15 to 18 other growth
management issues that need to be addressed, and I didn't want to
continue to hold this up. And I'm hoping that whatever the request
was, that we can address that quickly and move on so that we don't
hold up the growth amendments for 2005.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner -- for the record, Joe Schmitt,
your administrator for community development/environmental
services division.
Subsequent to this executive summary there were email messages
to the applicant and between my staff, myself and the applicant.
There's a list of dates. They agreed to those dates. They're very
specific, and if they can meet the application requirements through
November and December, then we'll come back and say, this applicant
cannot slow down the rest of the other applications, and we would
want to proceed as scheduled.
So right now they're agreeing to the dates that we've imposed.
Mr. Wayne Arnold is here. He is the agent for the applicant on this
growth plan amendment. It is rather a simple amendment from a
standpoint of the amendment itself regarding simply to allow for a
conditional use to be applied for on this site.
So -- but it is -- certainly it consumes my staff time, my staffs
staff time, in order to prepare this and make sure it doesn't delay the
Page 209
November 14,2006
process.
The Planning Commission dates for the February -- for the 2005
cycle are February 5 and 6, and your dates to hear these growth
management date -- or growth management petitions are April 2nd
and 3rd.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman?
MR. SCHMITT: I don't know if you have any other questions
regarding --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner Henning has been helpful in this
regard and has made sure the petitioner understands the timeline. He's
got a tight time line in order to do that, and I believe that's why Mr.
Arnold is in employ right now by this particular petitioner.
It's very important, because this petitioner is willing to dedicate
some right-of-way to us that basically gives us some interconnection
up in the Autumn Woods area. And Commissioner Henning, I believe
I'm going to turn it over to you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. And actually Norm
Feder's working on trying to put -- provide more of a network off of
Immokalee Road, but -- and the church, the application for a Growth
Management Plan amendment, has submitted over $16,000.
And it wasn't a -- they will dedicate the possible future roadway
for that interconnection, not fee simple. They have said to me and I --
if I said differently, I apologize -- they're really willing to work with
the county to provide a facility for the community. Not only the
community, but the church.
But it's not going to be a donation. But I think that you'll see that
it's something that will be amicable with all parties.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. The deadline, did you give the
individuals a deadline in regards to when they have to submit this?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. We've communicated, set a deadline,
they've agreed to it, and we'll stick by it to ensure that the rest of the
Page 210
November 14,2006
cycle -- the cycle remains on schedule.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Halas, a second by Commissioner Henning.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. 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?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you.
Item #10L
AUTHORIZING DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES STAFF TO
RESEARCH AND PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO DAS
ORDINANCE 93-56, AS AMENDED, AND AS CODIFIED AS
CHAPTER 14, ARTICLE II, IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES, WHICH WILL INCLUDE MICRO-CHIPPING
DOMESTIC ANIMALS, DANGEROUS DOG CLASSIFICATIONS
AND PROCEDURES, AND THE ABILITY TO REVISE
ADOPTION FEES BY RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD -
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to our next item,
which is 10L, and that was previously 16D5, and that's a
Page 211
November 14, 2006
recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
Domestic Animal Services staff research and propose an amendment
to the DAS ordinance 93-56 as amended and is codified as chapter 14,
article II in the Code of Laws and Ordinances, which will include
microchipping domestic animals, dangerous dog classifications and
procedures, and the ability to revise adoption fees by resolution of the
board.
This item was brought -- or asked to be brought forward to the
regular agenda by Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- what -- this
microchipping, what do you propose that it's going to do?
MS. CASTORENA: For the record, Margo Castorena, director
of Domestic Animal Services. What our advisory board has requested
is that we bring forth a recommendation to microchip animals after the
first impound.
What we are seeing is a return of animals on a second and third
impoundment. Many times these animals are animals that are scared
by loud noises such that you would have fireworks on the 4th of July
or New Year's Eve. They're scared and they get out again.
You also have animals that are habitual escape artists, and for
this reason, we are asking that after the first impound, we be allowed
to implant microchips. This will allow our officers to be able to scan
the animals and return them to their owners in a very quick manner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you screw up once, you're
tagged?
MS. CASTORENA: Well, at this point what we are trying to do
is reunite the animal with their owner, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So how is this microchip going
to reunite the owner with their dog or cat?
MS. CASTORENA: Because what happens is, when the owner
comes to redeem the animal on its first impound, the animal will be
Page 212
November 14,2006
microchipped. And at that point, if it ever gets out again, if the animal
is found by any of our officers or by anyone who has a scanner, they
will be able to identify who that owner is and be able to return the
animal to the person.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, it sounds like
there's no room for, you know, an animal makes a mistake is -- we're
going to insert some kind of tracking device. Is there any room for
latitude is -- you know, maybe three strikes, you're out, or --
MS. CASTORENA: Well, at this point we get very few animals
on the third. What we find is that animals, once they are lost or
strayed, once they get out of their area of where they know their
environment, many times they are never reunited. A black lab looks
like a black lab, and so many times, the owner will never see that
animal again.
What we are trying to do is facilitate animals that habitually are
stray or roaming to be returned to their owners expeditiously.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Now I understand it.
You want -- you're not using this as an enforcement tool. You won't
use this -- in the ordinance it won't say, any type of -- using this device
for enforcement? It's actually just to bring families together?
MS. CASTORENA: It is to reunite the animal with their owner,
sir. It is much -- we feel that if an officer can find an animal in its
own neighborhood, we can scan the animal and find out that that
animal belongs maybe two or three houses down.
It's much more expedient and it also saves the county money to
be able to return that animal to the owner instead of returning it all the
way to the facility, and maybe that owner will not know to come to
look for his animal at DAS. At that point, no one wins.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I think I understand this
a lot better. Now, you won't use it for -- in the ordinance it won't say
you're going to use this for an enforcement action?
MS. CASTORENA: No, sir, no, sir.
Page 213
November 14, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You won't say that, okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, hold your ears for just a
second. There we go.
I kind of disagree with Commissioner Henning on this. We had a
heck of an episode with dangerous dogs. You did in East Naples, too.
Ifwe can't use this as an enforcement thing to be able to identify that
dangerous dog when he comes through -- suppose the dangerous dog
does get loose and it's captured and it's brought into the pound. If you
don't know that's a dangerous dog and you put it up for adoption in a
family with children, you may be putting them in jeopardy.
I'm kind of lost as to where this is all going. I mean, I believe in,
you know, giving people a chance. But when you've got a dog that's
dangerous, we have all sorts of laws in place to try to control that
situation.
MS. CASTORENA: The dangerous dog -- excuse me. Go
ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Go ahead. You're picking up
where I'm going with this.
MS. CASTORENA: Yes, sir. The dangerous dog -- this will not
preclude the enforcement of any laws that are already on the books.
So if a dog is out and roaming, it would still be a roaming violation. If
the animal is a dangerous dog and is out of its confinement area, that
would still be a violation. It is right now.
So it would not preclude any of the laws or the fines that are
already on the books; however, it would not be used to specifically
deal with that.
What we would be doing is be able to reunite an animal with its
owner before it ever reaches the shelter. In essence, we would not
have to take the animal out of its environment. We could walk it
down three or four houses and have a good return to their owner, a
successful return to the owner, instead of maybe having that animal
Page 214
November 14,2006
come to the facility and the owner not know where to look for his pet.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well-- and that's commendable.
But let's go back to the dangerous dog.
MS. CASTORENA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And we had some episodes of it
around this community before. This can't be used, the way you're
talking about, as a way to be able to identify that dangerous dog?
MS. CASTORENA: We would be able to identify it, but any --
whether it had its tag on or by knowing where the animal is, by where
we picked up the animal or whether the bite was near the property.
This would not be the only measure that we would use to identify a
dangerous dog.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're just putting the
microchip on a dangerous dog. Shoot to kill.
MS. CASTORENA: The dangerous dog laws would still be
enforced and they -- just like they are now, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But I mean, if you identify this
dog as a dangerous dog because it's got a chip in it, because we're
saying you can't use it for an enforcement tool, you're supposed to
ignore it? I don't think so.
MS. CASTORENA: No. We would not ignore it, but we would
also already use the laws that are already on the books that we have
now. It would not just be incumbent on a microchip.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think what you're saying basically is
that the roundabout way where, if we can reunite that particular dog,
not a dangerous dog, but that particular dog or cat, we're saving the
taxpayers money because when you pick up that dog, you take it to
the shelter, it may be two or three days, and we have to pay for the
feeding and the care of it.
MS. CASTORENA: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So what we're trying to do is avoid that
cost; is that my understanding?
Page 215
November 14, 2006
MS. CASTORENA: Exactly. The dangerous dog amendment
that is -- that is being brought to you is not in conjunction with the
microchip. These are two separate items.
The amendment to the dangerous dog law that we are looking at
is that we would like to proceed to investigate. At this point a
dog-on-dog bite cannot be investigated until the second bite.
What we are looking -- yes, because it's property-on-property.
What we are requesting is to be able to go forward to research and
make sure that we can -- you know, if there is any way to protect
animals so that we can go ahead and investigate a dangerous dog or
declare a dog dangerous after the first bite depending on the severity
of that bite. So the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're talking about bites
animal-to-animal, not animal-to-human; human, it would be one bite
and it's dangerous.
MS. CASTORENA: Exactly, exactly.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MS. CASTORENA: Okay. But on dog-on-dog, it's considered
property-on-property attack, and we can only investigate after the
second -- after the first bite. We cannot investigate on the first bite.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: But what we're discussing today has
nothing to do with any kind of an animal --
MS. CASTORENA: No. These are three different items.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. CASTORENA: The first one is to reunite animals that are
lost with their owners. The second is a -- to shore up our dangerous
dog laws, which would include dog-on-dog bites. And the third one is
to move our adoption fees to be by resolution of the board. And this
would issue in line with our license fees at -- our impound fees and
our boarding fees. We're just looking for continuity there.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a fast question. You had said
Page 216
November 14,2006
something about the officer finding a dog, and it might just live two or
three doors down, according to the microchip, and he could just walk
them there, but how would he know what the microchip says?
MS. CASTORENA: Because at this point we have scanners that
all the officers have.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you're talking about your
officers?
MS. CASTORENA: Yes, our officers. If the animal is found by
a neighbor and taken to a vet or taken to the Humane Society as well,
they, too, have scanners that are universal. You can scan the animal
and find out who that animal is registered to.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MS. CASTORENA: Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. 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?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And the county manager's got something
to say.
MR. MUDD: And this is so staffs going to go out and craft an
ordinance with the changes to it and bring it back to the board for your
Page 217
November 14, 2006
approval.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, good.
MS. CASTORENA: Thank you.
Item #10M
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO EXECUTE A MEMORANDUM
OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF MARCO
ISLAND AND THE COLLIER COUNTY SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC UTILITIES
DIVISION, FOR THE ACCEPTANCE, AND APPROPRIATE
BENEFICIAL USE OF MILLED ASPHALT, CRUSHED
CONCRETE, AND NON-CONTAMINATED SOIL AT THE
COLLIER COUNTY LANDFILL BY WASTE MANAGEMENT
INCORPORATED OF FLORIDA (WMIF). THE FAIR MARKET
UNIT PRICE OF THE BENEFICIAL USE MATERIAL WILL BE
UTILIZED TO OFF SET THE TOTAL COST FOR THE PROPER
DISPOSAL OF THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND'S ASBESTOS
CONTAMINATED SOIL - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 10M, and
10M is a recommendation -- and the reason -- Commissioners, pretty
much I could do this, but because of the last part of this statement that
I'm going to make, the title, it's because it's got some -- it's got some
high visibility right now in our county, and I wanted to make sure that
the board was aware of it, and in this way, having the chairman sign it,
this agreement, I believe it gets us the goods so that nobody can say,
well, we didn't know this and why didn't you -- why did you let that
happen, Commissioners? Well, you really didn't, okay? County
Manager did it. But in this particular case, I thought it was more
prudent to have this discussed at the board level.
Page 218
November 14, 2006
It's a recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to
authorize the chairperson of the Board of County Commissioners to
execute a memorandum of understanding between the City of Marco
Island and the Collier County Solid Waste Management Department,
public utilities division, for the acceptance and appropriate beneficial
use of milled asphalt, crushed concrete and non-contaminated soil at
the Collier County Landfill by Waste Management, Inc., of Florida.
The fair market unit price of the beneficial use material will be
utilized to offset the total cost for the proper disposal of the City of
Marco Island's asbestos contaminated soil.
This item was added -- we just found out about the agreement
yesterday. It was added at staffs request.
Mr. Jim DeLony, your administrator for public utilities division,
will present.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'd just like to say one thing. When
everybody hears this asbestos, it throws up alarm bells. It's my
understanding that our landfill is set up to accept this because of the
fact that it's lined, and then that we have the ability to cover this
dangerous item, asbestos, and it will be out of the environment; is that
MR. DeLONY: That's correct, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I just want to make sure we get
that out there --
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- because my signature will be on this
item, and it's a very hot item.
And we will dispose of this in the right manner so that it doesn't
pose a problem, health problem.
MR. DeLONY: That's correct, sir. The agreement that we're
asking you to sign is kind of a win-win. The win-win is, is there are
about 8,100 tons of usable crushed concrete, milled asphalt, and I
believe it's some clean soil that the city currently has, you know, in
Page 219
November 14, 2006
their road building project that's in the way of the road building
project.
And the reason we walked this on today was a call yesterday
evening from Mr. Moss who I said, don't come, go build your roads
and we'll work this with our board, but he really needs that moved out
of there quickly so they can proceed. You can imagine the pressure
they're getting to get on with the road job.
And concurrent to that, they've got to dispose of the asphalt
material -- I mean the asbestos material, which is a normal disposal
operation for our landfill, as you stated on the record, sir.
The reason we have to bring this to the board is not about the
asbestos at all, it's the fact that what we're trying to do is to take --
allow for a credit, a monetary credit, for the fair market value of that
8,100 tons of crushed concrete, asphalt millings and clean soil, give
the city that as a credit, and then they will use that credit to offset the
cost that they're incurring for the disposal of the
asbestos-contaminated soil. And that's the reason we're here.
I have no fee structure in the existing fees at the landfill to
provide a credit to anyone concerning anything they bring in. You
bring it across the scales, you're paying. And there are some
exceptions with regard to reef material and so on. This does not fit
that category.
So we're unable to do this without some type of direction or
approval, and that's the reason we're in here, as well as what Mr.
Mudd placed on the record with regard to making sure everybody
knows exactly what's going on.
We have worked this through the county Clerk of Court's office.
They're aware of what we're going to do. It's a -- we're going to give
them fair market value credit for those 8,100 tons as we use them.
MR. MUDD: Eighty tons?
MR. DeLONY: Eighty-one hundred tons.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
Page 220
November 14, 2006
MR. DeLONY: Eight thousand, one hundred tons.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: This is the asphalt, not asbestos?
MR. DeLONY: It's asphalt millings, crushed concrete and clean
soil, okay? And then at the same time, they're going to be bringing in
-- and I don't have the quantity here. They roughly estimate, I believe,
about 4,000 tons of contaminated soil that they're going to bring to the
landfill. That's their current estimate.
And so irrespective, it's a cash in, cash out. I just can't give them
credit for the usable material against what they're going to dispose.
We would take that material and we would charge them a tipping
fee for that material on a routine basis. As you said, we're a class A
landfill that can take this type of material. So that's the reason we're
here at the board and asking for your concurrence with the staff
recommendation.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I appreciate working with
Marco Island. You know, all those residents are still our residents,
and those people are great to work with. So thanks for bringing it to
our attention. And I'll wait for Commissioner Fiala to make a motion
to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to make a motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. One question I have. There is not
going to be any liability to the county or to Marco in the movement of
this contaminated soil from Marco to the landfill?
MR. DeLONY: Sir, with regard to liability, I'll refer -- defer to
the county attorneys. But we incur no liability for people in transport.
Our liability issues for us at the landfill begin at the time we receive it
at the scales. That transport's under their liabilities, and we would not
-- and this agreement envisions no liability on the county's part with
regard to this material.
Page 221
November 14, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What I'm trying to do is make sure that
-- what I'm trying to project here is a comfort zone for our citizens in
the movement of this contaminated material from point A to point B,
which is the landfill.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And that there will be no problem as far
as an environmental issue of transporting this material from point A to
point B.
MR. DeLONY: County Attorney's Office, have you got
anything to say before I speak to this issue?
MR. WEIGEL: You've so far stated exactly correctly that the
county is not responsible or potentially liable for the transport to the
county facility.
Jim may have some further information as to -- may have
information as to what the city intends to do and how it intends to do
it, that is the transport of this material. But it would be a city
responsibility and a city liability to the extent they endeavor to move it
to our landfill.
MR. DeLONY: With regard to that, sir --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Health, safety and welfare.
MR. DeLONY : Yes, I understand. And absolutely. There is --
and I don't mean to cause any alarm.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No.
MR. DeLONY: We do not have anything to with that matter in
this contemplated agreement. If you so direct, we could put that into
the agreement with regard to that liability issue and rest that squarely
on the shoulders of the city in terms of its transport, if that's your
.
concern, sIr.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, my -- the real concern is, because
of the fact that there are companies, law firms out there, that basically
they're like ambulance chasers. And when you deal with asbestos,
anytime they say, well, you might have been exposed to this item,
Page 222
November 14,2006
what I'm looking for is that the containments of this asbestos-exposed
dirt that we're going to move is going to be done in a manner that it's
not going to have any ramifications with anybody that's in that
pathway out transporting the material from point A, being Marco, to
the landfill. That's what I'm --
MR. MUDD: I believe Mr. Moss has hired an environmental
firm, from what I understand --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's the answer I'm looking for.
MR. MUDD: -- that basically specializes in disposal of asbestos,
and they'll take care of that particular issue.
But in the meantime, we'll give Mr. Moss a call this evening to
make sure, in fact, that is absolutely the case and that he is aware of
this board's concern about the transfer of that particular product from
that lot in Marco Island to our county lot landfill to make sure all
things are done to minimize any asbestos release while it's being
transported.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You got it. That's exactly -- I just want
to make sure --
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- that we are -- that in this discussion
process, that we're taking all precautions necessary in the transport of
this item.
MR. DeLONY: Well, I want to be clear on the record though.
We are not in the transport business. We, the county.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No, I understand that.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, as Mr. Mudd described, we will get in
touch with Mr. Moss. He's in the transport business. We will relate
your concerns and we will ensure that he gets that loud and clear.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. But the question was answered
by the county manager.
MR. DeLONY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And that is, there will be a firm that
Page 223
November 14,2006
knows exactly how to deal with the matter of dealing with asbestos to
get it from point A to point B with no problems whatsoever that will
end up being a medical problem for any of our constituents along that
pathway. That's it.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just one question. Are they now
transporting it someplace?
MR. DeLONY: No, ma'am, not to my knowledge.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see.
MR. DeLONY: I mean, they have no place to dispose of it until
we -- they could bring it to our landfill today with no agreement. I
mean, we would accept that as a normal tipping fee item. Again, my --
the reason I'm in front of you is that they also want to bring us usable
material and they've also requested, in the fact that it's usable and has
commercial value, could we not offset some of their cost with the
value of these 8,100 tons.
I think it's a win-win. I need the material for cover material, for
road building and whatever. We'll take that right off the -- whatever
credit we give Marco is something that we'll take off the Waste
Management side of the ledger in terms of operating -- their operating
fee. It's really a wash financially, but we wanted to document that
clearly on the record.
Now with these additional concerns that Commissioner Halas has
raised with regard to transport, we'll ensure Mr. Moss gets that
information as well.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I just -- and how do you cover
this material once you receive it in the landfill?
MR. DeLONY: Sir, it's done with a daily cover that we normally
do for all solid waste in Collier County landfills.
Page 224
November 14, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I just want to make sure we get that on
the record so if there's anybody out there listening, or if the newspaper
might write an article, that we've covered all aspects of this the best
we can.
MR. DeLONY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I feel comfortable with this,
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do we have any further questions from
our commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I believe we have a motion on the floor
by Commissioner Fiala and a second by Commissioner Henning.
No further discussion, I'll call the question. All those in favor,
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
MR. DeLONY: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that basically covers the regular
agenda, and now we are on paragraph 11, public comments on general
topics.
Ms. Filson?
MS. FILSON: I have no speakers.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNCATIONS
Page 225
November 14, 2006
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that -- nothing on 12, 13, 14. That
brings us to 15, staff and commissioner general communications.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. County Manager, do you have
something to bring forward? I'll let you start off.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner, I've got -- Norman gave
me the Astaldi annual report, so if you've got an interest in Astaldi,
you can -- and the firm and what they do, I've got that particular
information.
Commissioner, we're going to do some maintenance on the
elevators. We're going to start doing some maintenance on our
elevators, and we'll start on Thursday, so we'll probably -- we'll be
down to one elevator. We've got some safety things that we need to
do. The elevators have been in a long time in this building, and we
need to get at it. Elevators are an issue, as I was talking to Leo, we
probably need to have a better freight elevator system in the -- along
with passenger elevator in this building, so we're going to be taking a
look at that, but we're going to be doing some maintenance on
Thursday, so there's going to be some inconvenience.
Next meeting I will bring forward, once I receive the city's --
City of Naples' resolution that talks about the annexation of the
Commerce Park on Horseshoe Drive. Once I receive that and any
other documents, I'll come back at the next board meeting and talk to
the board about that particular item and where we go from here once
we receive it.
That's all I have, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: On that item with the Commerce Park, is
it my understanding that the city is going to come forward with an
urban services report?
MR. MUDD: I would hope so sometime, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: In the near future? Well, my--
MR. MUDD: I don't know if it's going to be in the near future. I
do have slides that basically talk to parts of that that I've picked up in
Page 226
November 14,2006
presentations that city staff has given to the city council, but I don't
believe that's the urban services report. It just talks about financials.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. County Attorney, do you have
anything to bring forward?
MR. WEIGEL: Just one thing, and that is that it's my
understanding that Commissioner Coyle, who's not here today, had
expressed an intention to bring back to the board for discussion on
December 12th a discussion of a policy consideration to have a certain
type of voting requirement potentially move to supermajority vote
related to land use issues and the settlement of lawsuits particularly
related to Bert Harris.
And additionally, as you know, on September 26th, you
approved an offer regarding settlement of a Sandalwood matter, which
was under Bert Harris concern for litigation, and also under litigation
for petition of writ of certiorari.
And I wanted to see if this board as a collective board wished to
have the Sandalwood agreement brought back for your review on
December 12th, because at the September 26th meeting, the board as a
board did not express any direction to have the agreement come back,
Mr. Pettit had responded to a question to Mr. Coletta after the vote
relating to whether the agreement would come back to the board, and
Mr. Pettit had indicated that it would come to Mr. Halas for signature
if, in fact, the agreement were consistent with the terms of the offer of
settlement that the board had just approved.
So my question to you is if you, sitting as a board, have any
desire to have the agreement for the settlement Sandalwood back on
the 12th or not at this point. I'll try to respond to any question that you
might have.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning was first.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't want to see it come back.
I think the board by a majority said, get her done and, you know, let's
move on. And I don't have a problem with what Commissioner Coy Ie
Page 227
November 14,2006
is proposing, you know, to bring back.
But I just want to point out, when you do a supermajority, if it
doesn't pass, actually the minority wins.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Say that again.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if you have two that vote
not in favor of it, that means it doesn't pass. So actually the two
descending (sic) rules the issue, and it's actually the minority that is --
that wins the vote up here.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: But if it's presented in such a manner
that you get four votes, then the majority wins.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If it wins that way. But if you
do a three -- simple majority, you've still got the same thing you -- just
with a supermajority.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But I'm fine with it. I just
wanted to point that out.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I want to play poker with both
of you. But no, I'm fine with it. I don't think there's any reason to
bring it back.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I wish that my fellow
commissioner, Mr. Coyle, was here. I'd like to bring it back, because I
feel that when we have a land issue, that normally it takes a
supermajority, and I felt the way that it was presented to me, I wasn't
presented with all the facts and the ramifications that were going to be
taking place on that particular vote, so that left information that I was
not given by the county attorney and so, therefore, I was concerned in
the way that the vote turned out. So that's where I stand on this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't care to bring it back; doesn't
make any difference to me. And not only that, but the one you
referenced with Commissioner Coy Ie wanting to bring up that issue,
the new issue that I read about in the newspaper actually and you just
Page 228
November 14,2006
kind of alluded to, that's fine with me, too.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the majority rules.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So Saddlewood (sic) is --
you're coming up with an agreement and it's dead. That's not the issue
to come back next time. But we are going to direct the county
attorney to craft some resolution policy ordinance or whatever for this
board to talk about future action whereby we get a lawsuit, and if that
lawsuit has to do with a zoning action that the board disapproved, that
it's got -- that any reconsideration of that lawsuit has to be by
supermajority vote -- settlement; is that correct?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And -- yes, right.
MR. MUDD: David?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, is the question that Jim's asking the board
for this board to direct us to prepare something now for us to bring
back on the 12th?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, make it in a motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why on the 12th? Is there
something that we want to kill by a simple majority? Why do we
have to do it on the 12th? Why don't we just do it, you know, when we
get her done, bring her back?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, my presumption is the 12th is the next
meeting when all five commissioners are here; however, in order to
draft something to bring back to the board, there are a couple ways to
look at it.
We're talking -- we're most probably talking an ordinance, which
requires advertisement. And it may be -- and I appreciate this board to
clarify -- that if you are directing county attorney to prepare
something to bring back for 12th, or whatever date, that we're bringing
it back either for merely discussion at that point or if it's being directed
Page 229
November 14, 2006
at this point for us to prepare something for advertisement to bring
forward at a date certain.
And you will know -- you can determine whether you wish to see
something first before it is advertised and takes on the formality of a
hearing, to adopt or not to adopt.
But certainly we can prepare, if you direct, something that we
can provide you, not merely on an agenda, but we can provide you
just to have ahead of time for your own individual review, a draft
ordinance that puts into place the supermajority considerations that
you're thinking about relating to the element of lawsuits that have land
use concerns.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think -- I think if we have something
that's drafted and we can take a look at it, I think that's the direction I
think we'd like to go on this --
MR. WEIGEL: All right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- and we could have it ready by the
12th. It doesn't mean it will be passed on the 12th. It just means that
it would be there for reviewing.
MR. WEIGEL: That's very good and understandable. Because
at that point you'd have a document to work from, whatever your
decision was. If the decision happened to be that or a revised
ordinance was to come from that meeting and that direction, it would
be done and advertised and brought back at a subsequent meeting.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'm fine. I agree with your
statement.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Does that sound fair enough to
everybody? Do I get nods?
Anything else? Is that it?
MR. WEIGEL: That's it from us, thank you.
Page 230
November 14,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETT A: Yes, two things, one is that on
the next meeting, on November 28th, I'm going to have to leave the
meeting at three p.m. in order to make my flight for the F AC
conference. I'll be there on county business. The problem being is that
Halas will be gone, and I believe there won't be a chair to be able to
continue the meeting, so we have to deal with that situation, who's
going to take the chair position to fill in for the remainder of the
meeting, unless the meeting ends at three o'clock.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I nominate Tom.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I nominate Donna.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, why don't we nominate Coyle, he's
not here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: He's not here.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. I nominate Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, that was easy.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Got a motion that it's going to be
Commissioner Coyle, seconded by -- the motion's made by
Commissioner Halas and seconded by Commissioner Coletta. Is that
the way it went?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Take a vote.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll call the question. All those in favor of
Commissioner Coyle sitting in as the chair, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 231
November 14,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: See, that's what you get when you
miss a meeting.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: See what --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wait till you're gone next meeting.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. That's what I'm afraid of.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the other thing that I
wanted to share with you that on the -- on this coming Thursday at
seven o'clock at the agriculture extension building, I'll be having a
special meeting with Fish and Wildlife, both federal and state,
regarding the panther. I've had some concerns about the number of
sightings that have been taking place in Golden Gate Estates, and I
want to make sure that the public's totally aware of the possible danger
that may exist, and it could be --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Microchip them.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- a very interesting meeting.
Hmm? We could microchip them, right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Dangerous dog.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And it's in the extension service
building?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: At the service building.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: At what time is it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Seven o'clock. And it should be
very interesting. We're going to talk about ways to be able to lessen
danger not only to the people themselves, but to their pets, and I thank
you for that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Question to the county
attorney. If the Board of Commissioners wants to sign a letter for all
of us to sign, let's say, a sympathy letter or a congratulation letter, is
that okay for us to do that, or --
Page 232
November 14,2006
MR. WEIGEL: The concern with the sunshine law is
communications between commissioners relating to matters that
foreseeably come before the commission.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: So if something is circulated and it has nothing
to do with a meeting or petition or, you know, a matter of interest to
come before you, as a more personal nature, I do not think that that
would be a problem.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, great. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the next thing, it was said
several times today the concern about running out of monies to build
roads because of the rising cost of -- just to build everything. I just
want to point out, we've got monies in reserves enough to choke an
elephant, and I have no problem if Mr. Feder has to get a road done, to
come to us and -- before you do any delays.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm with you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You're talking about the reserves in ad
valorem taxes; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, those are the ones --
remember we had approximately $20 million that were nonrecurring
monies? And subsequently from that, the clerk has gave some money
back, the sheriff has gave some money back and --
MR. MUDD: Thirteen million.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: Total of 13.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Additional besides the --
MR. MUDD: Thirteen million is what we got back on turnback.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we've got enough to choke a
CHAIRMAN HALAS: But I think what we need to do is make
sure that we don't spend all of that money, that we keep some in
Page 233
November 14,2006
reserve in case next year isn't as lucrative as it has been in the last five
or six years, okay?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You could also raise the millage
rate. You know, seriously, it's said many a-times that the number one
concern of the residents is transportation, getting the roads done, and I
still feel that's true. And I think my vote up here is to serve the
community by getting the roads done.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I agree with you, and I hope that our
elected legislators are listening to this because I feel that they need to
help us get some more tools in our toolbox in regards to addressing
growth and the impact the growth is going to have in the future years.
And I think a last resort should be probably getting involved in
raising ad valorem fees to address growth, that we need to address it
other ways, unless that's our only -- and that's our last resort.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I don't believe that's true.
But Commissioner Coyle made a good point is, is it a fair statement
to say that since transportation is the number one priority, that the
residents wouldn't mind us using ad valorem dollars to do that, reserve
dollars.
Now, I just want to point out before you became a commissioner,
we dedicated, was it $300 million of funds to address the backlog, or
was it a 100 million?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: A hundred million.
MR. MUDD: It was $276 million.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Two hundred seventy-six.
MR. MUDD: You bond -- you bonded 200 million, and 76
million dollars we've been bleeding off ad valorem in order to make
up that shortfall.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we've never had a resident
that I can recall say, you made a bad choice by using ad valorem
dollars to augment that to pay that bond back.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You're right, Commissioner. But the one
Page 234
November 14,2006
thing that leaves -- is in the back of my mind is, this is before, of
course, we addressed all the impact fees that we had on the ballot, a
resolution asking people if they wanted to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sales tax.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sales tax.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And they said, no, we're not
using sales tax.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Until we addressed -- I think until we
addressed all the other ideas of making sure that growth paid for
growth, and that was increased impact fees.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want to point out to you back
in the '90s why the roads wasn't done. Everything -- the plans were all
done. They were put on shelves, and it was because the staff at that
time didn't want to tell the commissioners they didn't have any money
to build the roads, and I do not want for our -- this staff, especially
Norm Feder, to say -- to feel that he can't come to the commissioners
because he doesn't have a dedicated source within his budget.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, he's done that. He's basically
come up and told us, you know, where he doesn't right now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Need some money to get 'er
done.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's go forward and get 'er
done.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Just to throw in another
thought along that process, isn't -- doesn't all of the interest that the
money collected for transportation go back to the clerk's office --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Impact fees.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and goes into general funds?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, but the interest collected
Page 235
November 14,2006
-- all interest collected goes to the clerk and comes back to the general
fund, you're absolutely correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So maybe we should keep the
interest within the transportation department, and that would be -- you
know, those funds being that it's earned on their money anyway
should stay there, and that would be another funding source.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe that's what -- we should
address that in the budget cycle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's good.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any other discussion?
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, if Mr. Feder needs money to do a
project that he's got scheduled, I can guarantee you, if he doesn't have
the money, he's going to come tell you and he's going to ask you for
money out of the reserves, okay, because Norman and I have already
had this conversation.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, good.
MR. MUDD: He is not going to stop his program for lack of
funds. He's going to go out and redo his impact fees, okay, and he
knows he's going to do that.
And the last meeting this board approved an item that talked
about Tindale Oliver & Associates, and to the tune of around
$200,000 not to exceed for this year.
Part of that is because Norman needs to go back out and take a
look, because right now, when Norman first -- if you remember way
back when Norman -- it was the first -- it was the first meeting that I
was your county manager, okay, and Norman came out and did the
first road impact fee that had been done in a decade, and I remember
how bruised I was after that meeting. And I said, well, this is going to
be an interesting concept.
But Norman at that time was talking about the lane cost per mile
of road being around $3.2 million, half of which being right-of-way,
half of which being the cost of actually building the road.
Page 236
November 14, 2006
Norman -- if you just look at what you did today for $62 million,
that's not a six-mile stretch of road and it's 62 million. So you're
paying right now about $10 million a lane mile.
So Norman's got some work to do as far as his impact fees, and
he's now got two construction contracts to back up that cost. He's got
the 951 from Immokalee Road down to Golden Gate Boulevard that
came in very, very high, plus he has this one. So things aren't going
down by any stretch of the imagination as far as road construction
costs are concerned. So it will be interesting what that impact fee
looks like six months from now.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: In our discussion yesterday with Mr.
Feder, I told him that he needed to get after it real quick to bring back
before the board in regards to impact fees so we can get those
addressed as quickly as possible.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So I -- Norm, hope you can--
MR. FEDER: Three or four months.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hopefully quicker. So I don't have
anything else.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I do.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How quickly they forget.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, I don't forget you. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to say to one and to
all, have a very happy Thanksgiving.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And the same to you and your family.
I don't have anything else. We don't have any further discussion.
County Manager?
MR. MUDD: No, sir.
Page 237
November 14,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We are adjourned.
* * * * * Commissioner Coletta moved, seconded by Commissioner
Fiala and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted * * * * *
Item #16A1
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF CLASSICS PLANTATION
ESTATES PHASE FOUR, APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD
FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY - W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A2
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF TOWNHOMES AT RAFFIA
PRESERVE, APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY - W/STIPULATIONS
Item # 16A3
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF LIBERTY LANDING,
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY -
W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A4
Page 238
November 14,2006
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF ARTESIA NAPLES PHASE
2, APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY -
W/STIPULATIONS
Item # 16A5
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF LIPARI - PONZIANE,
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROV AL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY - W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A6
AFTER- THE-F ACT SUBMITTAL OF A NATIONAL FISH AND
WILDLIFE FOUNDATION GRANT FOR THE COLLIER
COUNTY SEA TURTLE DISORIENTATION PREVENTION
PLAN AND PROCEED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN
INTER-LOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES
SUBJECT TO GRANT APPROVAL - FOR "SEA TURTLE
FRIENDLY" LIGHTING $132.196
Item #16A7
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF IT ALIA, APPROVAL OF
THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY-
W/STIPULATIONS
Page 239
November 14,2006
Item #16A8 - Moved to Item #10K
Item #16A9
AWARD OF RFP #06-4044 TO TINDALE-OLIVER AND
ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED FOR IMPACT FEE
CONSULTING SERVICES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD EAST OF OAKES BLVD
Item #16A10
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF HAMMOCK ISLES
REPLAT FOR A PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR
Item #16A11
RECORDING THE RELEASE AND SATISFACTION OF CODE
ENFORCEMENT LIENS FOR PAYMENTS RECEIVED
Item #16B1
RESOLUTION 2006-286: SUPERSEDING AND REPLACING
RESOLUTION 2005-379 IN ORDER TO AMEND THE
COMMENCEMENT AND TERMINATION OF THE TERM OF
APPOINTED MEMBER, WILLIAM L. BARTON, TO THE
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA EXPRESSWAY AUTHORITY - FOR
THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS COMMENCING ON FEB. 16,
2006
Item #16B2
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
Page 240
November 14,2006
COMMISSIONERS APPROVE ONE (1) ADOPT-A-ROAD
PROGRAM AGREEMENT AT NO COST TO THE COUNTY
BECAUSE OF ALREADY EXISTING SIGNS - LOGAN BLVD
FROM PINE RIDGE ROAD TO V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD
Item #16B3
RESOLUTION 2006-287: SUPERSEDING AND REPLACING
RESOLUTION 2005-361 IN ORDER TO AMEND THE
COMMENCEMENT AND TERMINATION DATES OF THE
TERM OF THE APPOINTED MEMBER, COUNTY
COMMISSIONER JIM COLETTA, TO THE SOUTHWEST
FLORIDA EXPRESSWAY AUTHORITY - ENDING FEB. 15,
2006
Item # 16B4
AWARD CONTRACT #06-3975 ANNUAL FIXED TERM
PROFESSIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
CONSULTANT SERVICES TO SIX (6) FIRMS (ESTIMATED
ANNUAL AMOUNT $300,000) - W/ TINDALE OLIVER, PBS&J,
DRMP~ TBE GROUP. KIMLEY HORN~ AND CHZM HILL
Item # 16B5
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE CARRY FORWARD
IN THE AMOUNT OF $ 93,277.56 AND RECOGNIZE
ADDITIONAL REVENUE FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY
TRANSPROT A TION PATHWAYS PROGRAM IN THE
AMOUNT OF $ 97,887.12 FOR PROJECT NO(S). 690811, 600321,
690817, 690822, 600501 AND 600331 FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT
OF $ 191.166.68.
Page 241
November 14,2006
Item # 16B6
RESOLUTION 2006-288: THE MAINTENANCE OF
AGREEMENT BETWEEN FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR
LANDSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION ON US 41E /SR 90 (ST.
ANDREWS TO BAREFOOT WILLIAMS ROAD) AND APPROVE
A RESOLUTION EVIDENCING THAT THE BOARD HAS
APPROVED AND AUTHORIZED THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN
THIS AGREEMENT - IRRIGATION INSTALLATION WILL
BEGIN IN APRIL 2007
Item #16B7
RESOLUTION 2006-289: THE MAINTENANCE OF
AGREEMENT BETWEEN FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR
LANDSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION ON US 41E PHASE E/SR 90
(BAREFOOT WILLIAMS ROAD TO COLLIER BLVD.) AND
APPROVE A RESOLUTION EVIDENCING THAT THE BOARD
HAS APPROVED AND AUTHORIZED THE CHAIRMAN TO
SIGN THIS AGREEMENT - IRRIGATION INSTALLATION
WILL BEGIN IN APRIL 2007
Item #16B8
RESOLUTION 2006-290: MAINTENANCE OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
(FDOT) AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR LANDSCAPE
BEAUTIFICATION ON US 41 PHASE 5 EVIDENCING THAT
THE BOARD HAS APPROVED AND AUTHORIZED THE
Page 242
November 14, 2006
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THIS AGREEMENT - WIGGINS PASS
TO THE COLLIER/LEE COUNTY LINE, INSTALLATION
BEGINNING APRIL 2007
Item #16B9
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER FUNDS FROM
COUNTY WIDE BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS (PROJECT
NUMBER 690811) TO FLORIDAN AVENUE IN THE AMOUNT
OF $283,000 TO SIDEWALKS (PROJECT NUMBER 601202) IN
THE AMOUNT OF $300~000.
Item #16B10
RESOLUTION 2006-291: A LOCAL AGENCY PROGRAM
AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION IN WHICH COLLIER COUNTY WOULD
BE REIMBURSED UP TO $330,000 FOR A TRAIL CORRIDOR
STUDY ALONG THE FPL TRANSMISSION LINES NEAR OIL
WELL ROAD, CAMP KEAIS ROAD AND A CONNECTION TO
LEE COUNTY, AND (2) APPROVE THE NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENTS. (PROJECT #601203) -FROM ORANGETREE
TO THR CREW TRUST LANDS NEAR CORKSCREW IN LEE
COUNTY; COMPLETED ON/BEFORE 12/31/07
Item # 16B11
SUBMITTAL OF A TARGETED WATERSHEDS GRANTS
PROGRAM GRANT APPLICATION TO THE UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) FOR THE
GORDON RIVER WATER QUALITY IN THE AMOUNT OF
$989,727.00. - TO PROTECT AND RESTORE WATERSHEDS
Page 243
November 14, 2006
VALUED FOR FISHING~ SWIMMING AND DRINKING
Item #16B12
SUBMITTAL OF A REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
PRIORITIES (REGION 4) FY 2007 APPLICATION TO THE
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
(EP A) FOR THE GORDON RIVER GREENW A Y PARK IN THE
AMOUNT OF $100,000.00. - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16B13
BID #06-4046 PINE RIDGE ROAD (US 41 NORTH TO LOGAN
BLVD.) ANNUAL LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT
TO COMMERCIAL LAND MAINTENANCE IN THE AMOUNT
OF $191,298.15 (PROJECT #601521,601114 & 740461). - TO
MAINTAIN APPROXIMATELY SIX (6) MILES OF
LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION
Item # 16B14
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER FUNDS FROM FUND
(151) RESERVES TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS (FUND 151)
TOTALING $121.100; SABAL PALM ROAD MSTBU
Item #16B15
A WARRANTY DEED FOR THE EXPANSION OF
VANDERBILT DRIVE RIGHT-OF - WAY ASSOCIATED WITH
THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN UNDERPASS FOR GOLF CARTS
AT THE COCOHATCHEE BAY PUD. (FISCAL IMPACT: $0.00)
Page 244
November 14,2006
- FOR SAFETY OF RESIDENTS AND GUESTS CROSSING
V ANDERBIL T DRIVE
Item #16C1
AMENDMENT NO. 03 FOR CONTRACT ML040284 WITH THE
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TO
REDUCE THE SCOPE OF WORK AND DECREASE THE
AMOUNT OF THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT BY $25.500.
Item #16C2
APPROVE AN UNDERGROUND DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES
INSTALLATION AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA POWER &
LIGHT (FPL) AND AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OF $20,594.66 TO
FPL TO PROVIDE AND INSTALL UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
SERVICE TO THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER
TREATMENT PLANT (SCR WTP) RAW WATER SUPPLY
WELLS 39S, 40S,41S, AND 42S, AS PROJECT 71051. - TO
MEET COMPLIANCY AND DEMAND
Item #16C3
ELECTRICAL UTILITY RATE AGREEMENT FOR THE NORTH
COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY (NCWRF)
ELECTRIC ACCOUNT NUMBER 03677-75210 AS APPLIED
FOR WITH FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY.
Item #16C4
SUBMITT AL OF A FLORIDA INNOV A TIVE
RECYCLING/WASTE REDUCTION GRANT APPLICATION IN
Page 245
November 14,2006
THE AMOUNT OF $ 79,732 TO FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TO FUND THE COLLIER
COUNTY SEASONAL AND YEAR ROUND BUSINESS HOW TO
RECYCLE VIDEOS. - FOR HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY
WORKERS
Item # 16C5
SUBMITTAL OF A FLORIDA INNOVATIVE
RECYCLING/WASTE REDUCTION GRANT APPLICATION IN
THE AMOUNT OF $ 78,500 TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TO FUND THE COLLIER
COUNTY SCHOOL BEVERAGE CONTAINER RECYCLING
CHALLENGE PROGRAM - TO PROMOTE RECYCLING AND
SAVE LANDFILL SPACE
Item #16D1
ENTER INTO A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE
COLLIER COUNTY HUNGER AND HOMELESS COALITION
TO CONTINUE PARTICIPATION IN THE INFORMATION
NETWORK FOR THE COMMUNITY OF COLLIER COUNTY
(INCCC) AND APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT OT
RECOGNIZE REVENUE IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,381.04 FOR
REIMBURSEMENT OF RELATED COMPUTER HARDWARE
COSTS.
Item #16D2
AN AGREEMENT WITH THE PHYSICIANS REGIONAL
MEDICAL CENTER FOR P ARTICIP A TION IN THE LOWER
INCOME POOL (LIP) PROGRAMS FOR SERVICES PROVIDED
Page 246
November 14,2006
ON BEHALF OF THE HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND DAVID LAWRENCE
CENTER TO GENERATE AN ADDITIONAL $ 481,250 IN
FEDERAL MATCHING FUNDS - TO ENHANCE SERVICES TO
LOW INCOME INDIVIDUALS
Item #16D3
AGREEMENT WITH THE AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE
ADMINISTRATION FOR $2,750,000 TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
LOWER INCOME POOL PROGRAM FOR SERVICES
PROVIDED ON BEHALF OF THE HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT IN ORDER TO GENERATE AN ADDITIONAL
$481,250 IN FEDERAL MATCHING FUNDS - TO ENHANCE
SERVICES TO LOW INCOME INDIVIDUALS
Item # 16D4
FLORIDA COMMUNITIES TRUST GRANT CONTRACT FOR
PARTIAL REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF
GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK (LANDS SURROUNDING
THE NAPLES ZOO) AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL DOCUMENTS IN
CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT, AS CONTEMPLATED IN
THE AGREEMENT - FOR LAND ACQUSITION TO FURTHER
OUTDOOR RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCE
PROTECTION
Item #16D5 - Moved to Item #10L
Item #16D6
Page 247
November 14,2006
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO FUND PAYMENT TO CITY OF
NAPLES FROM RESERVES AND TO APPROVE THE
RENEGOTIATION OF THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR
BEACH PARKING BETWEEN THE CITY AND COUNTY - FOR
FREE PARKING FOR RESIDENTS OF COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16E1
REPORT AND RATIFY STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS
AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS TO BOARD-APPROVED
CONTRACTS - FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 15 THROUGH
OCTOBER 20~ 2006
Item #16E2
REVISE AWARD OF BID # 06-4030 - MOTOROLA CENTRAL
CONTROL IRRIGATION SUPPLIES AND SERVICES TO AG-
TRONIX, INC. AND COMTEMPORARY CONTROLS &
COMMUNICATIONS, INC. THE ANNUAL EXPENDITURES
ARE ESTIMATED TO BE $ 250,000 - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item # 16E3
AWARD OF WORK ORDER WJV FT-3971-07-01 UNDERRFP
06-3971, GENERAL CONTRACTORS SERVICES TO VARIAN
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR THE INTERIOR
RENOVATION TO THE COURTHOUSE THIRD (3RD) FLOOR
JUDGES CHAMBERS AT THE COLLIER COUNTY
COURTHOUSE, BUILDING "L" IN THE AMOUNT OF
$131,262.00 - TO ACCOMMODATE THREE NEW JUDGES
SUITES
Page 248
November 14,2006
Item #16E4
AMEND CONTRACT 04-3864 TO OBTAIN SERVICES TO
FURTHER AUTOMATE VENDOR REGISTRATION, BID
SOLICITATION AND BID SUBMISSION PROCESSES - WITH
VISION INTERNET PROVIDERS, INC. ESTIMATED COST
$30.000
Item #16E5
PHASED WORK ORDER WITH CH2M HILL, INC., UNDER
CONTRACT #06-3929, ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR
ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES, TO DESIGN UPGRADES TO
THE FUEL FACILITY AT COUNTY BARN, PROJECT 52009, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $101,850 - TO MEET LDC REQUIREMENTS
AND FLORIDA REGULATION CHANGES
Item #16F1
CHANGE ORDER NO.1 TO CONTRACT NO. 06-3925 "SOUTH
MARCO BEACH RENOURISHMENT/ CAXAMBUS PASS
DREDGING" (PROJECT 905001) WITH SUBAQUEOUS
SERVICES, INC. FOR THE DREDGING OF WIGGINS PASS IN
THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $682,000 - TO ACCOMPLISH
DREDGING BY MAY 2007 TO RENOURISH BEACHES
Item # 16F2
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO CONTRACT 06-3960 WITH
ENERGY RESOURCES, INC. FOR THE DREDGING OF CLAM
PASS IN AN AMOUNT OF $337,995 (PROJECT NO. 900281) BE
Page 249
November 14, 2006
COMPLETED BY MA Y~ 2007
Item #16F3
AWARD OF BID 06-4041 TO AQUATIC PLANTS OF FLORIDA,
INC. FOR DUNE VEGETATION REPAIR AND REBUILD ON A
UNIT-PRICE BASIS NOT TO EXCEED $719,472.24 (PROJECT
NO. 905271) - DUE TO DAMAGE FROM HURRICANES
WILMA AND KATRINA
Item #16F4
PURCHASE OF A USED HUMMER BRUSH VEHICLE FOR
$52,800 BY THE ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE DISTRICT - FOR THE
REPLACEMENT OF A 1955 BRUSH VEHICLE
Item #16F5
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR EXPENDITURE
OF RECIPIENT FUNDING FROM THE 2003 DOMESTIC
PREPAREDNESS GRANT, A STATE HOMELAND SECURITY
GRANT PROGRAM - AS DETAILED IN TH EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16F6
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) BETWEEN
THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, THROUGH ITS EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, AND THE HARRY CHAPIN
FOOD BANK CENTER - FOR DISASTER AND THE POST-
DISASTER RECOVERY PERIOD
Page 250
November 14,2006
Item #16F7
BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO TRANSFER FUNDS TO A
GROWTH ABULANCE INADVERTENTLY BUDGETED FOR
FY 07 IN FUND 490 EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES TO
FUND 350 EMS IMPACT FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $185,000-
FOR THE PURCHASE OF A GROWTH AMBULANCE EXPENSE
Item #16F8 - Added
REAFFIRM THE BOARD'S APPROVAL (AT THE SPECIAL
MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 1,2006) OF A BUDGET
AMENDMENT FROM RESERVES WITHIN THE PINE
RIDGE/NAPLES PRODUCTION PARK DEBT SERVICE FUND
TO APPROPRIATE THE ANNUAL PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST
PAYMENTS AND ARBITRAGE CALCULATION FEES ON
OUTSTANDING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT REVENUE BONDS
Item #16G1
TO APPROVE AND EXECUTE SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND A GRANT
APPLICANT WITHIN THE BA YSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA - LOCATED AT 3580
BA YSHORE DRIVE; SONA ENTERPRISES AND ECHOILLC
Item # 16G2 - Continued Indefinitely
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE
Page 251
November 14,2006
ITS CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE A THIRTY-FIVE (35) YEAR
SUB-LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY
AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND SALAZAR MACHINE & STEEL,
INC. AT AN INITIAL RENT OF TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS
($2,000) PER YEAR FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
MINIMUM 20,000 SQUARE FOOT MANUFACTURING
FACILITY ON ONE AND ONE-HALF (1.5) ACRES AT THE
IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT/TRADEPORT.
Item # 16G3 - Continued Indefinitely
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE
ITS CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE A FORTY (40) YEAR SUB-
LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY
AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND C-TECH MANUFACTURING
FLORIDA, LLC AT AN INITIAL RENT OF SIXTY FIVE
THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED FORTY DOLLARS ($65,340)
PER YEAR FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A MINIMUM 196,000
SQUARE FOOT MANUF ACTURING FACILITY ON FIFTEEN
(15) ACRES AT THE IMMOKALEE REGIONAL
AIRPORT /TRADEPOR T.
Item # 16G4 - Continued Indefinitely
A THIRTY-FIVE (35) YEAR SUB-LEASE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY
AND ROBERT FORBIS, INC. D/B/A PREMIER ELECTRIC AT
AN INITIAL RENT OF FORTY EIGHT THOUSAND THREE
HUNDRED FIFTY -ONE DOLLARS AND SIXTY CENTS
($48,351.60) PER YEAR FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
MINIMUM 35,000 SQUARE FOOT ASSEMBLY, PACKAGING,
Page 252
November 14,2006
WAREHOUSING AND DISTRIUBUTION F ACILITY AT THE
IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT/TRADEPORT
Item #16H1
COMMISSIONER HALAS REQUESTS REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. ATTENDED THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL EXCLUSIVE MEMBER
BREAKFAST ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 9,2006, AT THE
NAPLES GRANDE RESORT & CLUB IN NAPLES, FLORIDA.
$35.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HALAS' TRAVEL
BUDGET
Item #16H2
COMMISSIONER HALAS REQUESTS REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. ATTENDING THE INSTALLATION
OF THE 53RD BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF THE
COLLIER BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, INC. AND
THE BUILDER & ASSOCIATE OF THE YEAR AWARDS ON
SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2006 AT THE NAPLES GRANDE
RESORT & CLUB. $125.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER HALAS ' TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #16H3
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING EVERY FOURTH FRIDAY
IN SEPTEMBER BE DESIGNATED AS NATIVE AMERICAN
DAY
Page 253
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
November 14, 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) October 7, 2006 through October 13, 2006.
(2) October 14, 2006 through October 20, 2006.
B. Districts:
(1) Parklands Collier Community Development District:: Annual
Meeting Schedule of FY 2007.
(2) Mediterra South Community Development District: Annual
Meeting Schedule of FY 2007.
(3) Fiddler's Creek Community Development District #2: Annual
Meeting Schedule of FY 2007.
(4) Fiddler's Creek Community Development District #1: Annual
Meeting Schedule of FY 2007.
(5) Naples Heritaae Community Development District: Minutes of
January 17, 2006; Agenda for June 17, 2006
(6) Heritaae Greens Community Development District: Minutes of
July 10, 2006; Agenda for July 10, 2006; Adopted Operating
Budget FY 2007.
H:\DATA\FRONT DESK - 2006\2006 Miscellaneous Correspondence\111406 mise corr.doc
- -
C. Minutes:
(1) Code Enforcement Board: Minutes of September 28, 2006.
(2) Collier County Library Advisory Board: Agenda for October 18,
2006; Minutes of September 27, 2006.
(3) Immokalee Master Plan and Visioninq Committee & CRA
Advisory Board/EZDA: Agenda for Joint Meeting of September
20,2006.
(a) Immokalee Master Plan and Visionina Committee and
Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board:
Minutes of September 20, 2006.
(b) Enterprise Zone Development Aaency: Minutes of
September 20, 2006; Agenda for September 20, 2006.
(c) Community Redevelopment Advisory Board: Minutes of
September 20, 2006
(d) Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board:
Agenda for September 20,2006.
(4) Environmental Advisory Council: Agenda for November 1,
2006; Agenda for October 4, 2006; Minutes of October 4, 2006.
(5) Collier County Parks and Recreation Advisory Board: Agenda
for August 16, 2006; Revised Minutes of August 16, 2006;
Agenda for September 20, 2006; Minutes of September 20,
2006; Agenda for October 18, 2006; Minutes of October 18,
2006.
(6) Collier County Citizens Corps Advisory Committee: Minutes of
June 21,2006; Revised Minutes of September 20,2006;
Minutes of October 18, 2006; Agenda for October 18, 2006;
H:\DATA\FRONT DESK - 2006\2006 Miscellaneous Correspondence\111406_misc_corr.doc
(7) Collier County PlanninQ Commission: Agenda for October 19,
2006; Minutes of September 7,2006; Agenda for November 2,
2006; Minutes of September 21 , 2006.
(8) Collier County Domestic Animal Services Advisory Committee:
Minutes of September 12, 2006.
(9) Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee: Agenda
for October 11, 2006; Minutes of October 11, 2006.
(10) Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board: Minutes of May
8, 2006.
(11) Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee:
Minutes of September 11, 2006.
(12) Isles of Capri Fire/Rescue Advisory Board: Minutes of October
6, 2006; Agenda for October 5, 2006.
(13) Collier County Historical/ArchaeoloQical Preservation Board:
Agenda for October 18, 2006; Minutes of September 20, 2006,
Meeting Cancelled - Lack of Quorum.
(14) Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainaoe M.S.T.U. Advisory
Committee: Minutes of October 11, 2006; Agenda for
November 8, 2006.
(15) Vanderbilt Beach M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee: Minutes of
October 5, 2006; Agenda for November 2, 2006; Final FY
October 2005 - September 2006 Budget Report.
(16) Bayshore Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee: Agenda
for November 1, 2006; Minutes of October 4, 2006.
(17) Pelican Bay Services Division Board: Agenda for October 4,
2006; Minutes of October 4, 2006.
(a) Clam Bay Committee: Minutes of August 2, 2006.
H:\DATA\FRONT DESK - 2006\2006 Miscellaneous Correspondence\111406_misc_corr.doc
(18) Collier County Public Vehicle Advisory Committee: Agenda for
November 6, 2006.
D. Other:
(1) Reoional Advisory Committee on Trauma Services: Minutes of
August 15, 2006.
H:\DATA\FRONT DESK - 2006\2006 Miscellaneous Correspondence\111406_misc_corr.doc
November 14, 2006
Item #1611
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR
REFERRED:
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by
the Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 254
November 14, 2006
Item #16J1
COLLIER COUNTY COMMISSION ENDORSE THE UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE/DEPARTMENT OF
TREASURY FEDERAL EQUITABLE SHARING ANNUAL
CERTIFICATION REPORT
Item # 16J2
THE DISPOSAL OF ASSETS NO LONGER DEEMED OF VALUE
AND ACCEPT THE REPORT REGARDING THE RECENT
DISPOSITION OF ASSETS FOR THE 2006 FISCAL YEAR - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16J3
BUDGET AMENDMENT APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD
AND EXPENDITURE BUDGETS FOR OPEN PURCHASE
ORDERS FOR NON-PROJECT FUNDS AND FOR
UNEXPENDED BUDGET FOR PROJECT FUNDS AT THE END
OF FISCAL YEAR 2006 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16K1
A MEDIA TED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND A
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT TO BE DRAFTED
INCORPORATING THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS
THE MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $94,000 FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 157
IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. HELEN
Page 255
November 14,2006
VALENT, ET AL., CASE NO. 04-0524-CA (VANDERBILT
BEACH ROAD PROJECT 3 #63051). (FISCAL IMPACT $39~654)
Item #16K2
A MEDIA TED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND A
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT TO BE DRAFTED
INCORPORATING THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS
THE MEDIA TED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $57,300.00 FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PARCELS
110, 810, 910 AND 811 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER
COUNTY C. ANTONE C. MENDES, ET AL., CASE NO. 03-2283-
CA (GOLDEN GATE P ARKW A Y PROJECT #60027). (FISCAL
IMPACT: $58.1 13.00)
Item #16K3
THE LAW FIRM OF GARVIN & TRIPP AND ATTORNEY
THEODORE L. TRIPP, ESQ. TO REPRESENT BOTH COLLIER
COUNTY AND PAUL WILSON IN CASE NO. 05-953-CA
CONSOLIDATED WITH CASE NO. 05-1506-CA, ALSO STYLED
PAUL WILSON V. DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF COLLIER COUNTY AND FURTHER
AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO EXECUTE THE
LETTER REQUIRED FOR SUCH REPRESENTATION.
Item #17 A - Continued to the November 28, 2006 BCC Meeting
AVESMT-2006-AR-9916-IMPERIAL WILDERNESS STORAGE
MAINTENANCE PARCEL TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND
VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN
THA T PROTION OF A 65 FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT
Page 256
November 14, 2006
IN THE WEST ONE-HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST
COLLIER COUNTY~ FLORIDA
Item #17B - Continued to the November 28, 2006 BCC Meeting
A VESMT-2006-AR-10083, THE ROOKERY AT MARCO TO
DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTYS AND
THE PUBLICS INTEREST IN A PORTION OF A FIFTEEN-FOOT
WIDE COLLIER COUNTY UTILITY EASEMENT AS
RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 1664, PAGE 1963, PUBLIC
RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND MORE
SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A.
Item #17C - Continued to the November 28, 2006 BCC Meeting
A VROW-2006-AR-9674 LUCERNE ROAD TO DISCLAIM,
RENOUNCE AND V ACA TE THE COUNTY'S AND THE
PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN A PORTION OF LUCERNE ROAD
ADJACENT TO BLOCK 115, GOLDEN GATE PORTION 4,
ACCORDING TO A MAP THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT
BOOK 5, PAGES 107, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS COLLIER
COUNTY~ FLORIDA
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:15 p.m.
Page 257
November 14,2006
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
FRAN~~m;
ATTESl':. '. -'~;r
DWIGHT E~J5~9CK, CLERK
~
..J/;< k
5ion,1t!lrf' Qnlll
These minutes approved by the Board on t cd L d -0 ~ , as
presented /--- or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY
COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 258