BCC Minutes 12/12-13/2006 R
December 12-13, 2006
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida
December 12-13,2006
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such
special district as has been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Frank Halas
Jim Coletta
Fred W. Coyle
Donna Fiala
Tom Henning
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
December 12,2006
9:00 AM
Frank Halas, Chairman, District 2
Jim Coletta, Vice-Chairman, District 5
Donna Fiala, Commissioner, District 1
Tom Henning, Commissioner, District 3
Fred W. Coyle, Commissioner, District 4
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM
MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER
WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE
AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED.
ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES
UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2004-05, AS AMENDED REQUIRES
THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING
ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS."
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
Page 1
December 12, 2006
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBA TIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3)
MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
T AMI AMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Swear In Commissioner Frank Halas by Judge Ramiro Manalich.
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 consent and
summary agenda.)
B. November 14,2006 - BCC Regular Meeting
C. November 15,2006 - Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate AM and
PM Sessions
D. November 21, 2006 - Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate AM
Session
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
4. PROCLAMATIONS
Page 2
December 12, 2006
A. Proclamation recognizing Max Mayfield and all personnel at The National
Hurricane Center and National Weather Service serving in a variety of roles
for their unselfish dedication to Florida's residents and visitors. To be
accepted by Mr. Max Mayfield.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation by Dewberry and Davis and Collier County Emergency
Management on the findings of the abbreviated hurricane evacuation re-
study.
B. Presentation by MCM, Inc. on the status of the Airport Road Overpass and
six-Ianing of Golden Gate Parkway project.
C. This item to be heard at 11 :00 a.m. Recommendation to hear a
presentation from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the use of
the Panther Consultation Area in reviewing land development activities in
Collier County.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition request by Alana Giannone to discuss Collier County being
added to the Kyoto Protocol.
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 D.m., unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners review and
approve an Ordinance Creating the Naples Park Lake and Cul-De-Sac
Municipal Service Taxing Unit; providing the authority; providing for the
creation; providing a purpose and governing body; providing funding and
the levy of not to exceed three (3) mils of Ad Valorem Taxes per year;
providing for the collection of taxes; and providing for an effective date;
providing for duties of the County Manager or his designee; providing for
conflict and severability; providing for inclusion in the Collier County Code
of Laws and Ordinances; and providing for an effective date.
Page 3
December 12, 2006
B. This item was continued from the September 12. 2006 BCC meetin2: and
has been requested by the petitioner to be further continued
indefinitely. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members.:. Petition: PUDZ-A-2005-
AR-8438: Lakeview Drive of Naples, LLC, represented by Clay Brooker, of
Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson & Johnson, LLP, requesting a rezone from the
Residential Multiple Family-6 (RMF-6 & RMF-6(3)) zoning districts (a
portion of which is subject to a Special Treatment Overlay (ST)) to the
Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) by amending the approved
Winds tar PUD to add the subject 20.52 acres and its additional residential
units thereby allowing a maximum of 584 residential units on 341.1 acres.
The subject property is generally located on the west side of Bayshore Drive,
approximately 0.6 miles south of the Bayshore Drive and U.S. 41 (Tamiami
Trail East) intersection in Sections, II, 14 and 23 Township 50 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
C. This item was continued from the November 28. 2006 BCC Meetin2:.
Recommendation that the Board review and approve an Ordinance Creating
the Haldeman Creek Maintenance Dredging Municipal Service Taxing Unit;
providing the authority; providing for the creation; providing a purpose and
governing body; providing funding and the levy of not to exceed three (3)
mils of Ad Valorem Taxes per year; providing for the collection of taxes;
Providing for creation of the Haldeman Creek Maintenance Dredging
Advisory Committee, Appointment and composition; Providing for the
terms of office of the Advisory Committee; Providing for the officers of the
Advisory Committee, quorum and rules of the procedure; Providing for
functions, powers and duties of the Advisory Committee; Providing for the
duties of the County Manager or his designee; Providing for the review
process of the Advisory Committee; Providing for conflict and severability;
Providing for inclusion in the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances;
Providing for an effective date.
D. This item requires that all 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
Page 4
December 12, 2006
East, Collier County, Florida.
E. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition PUDZ-2003-
AR-4988: Waterways Joint Venture V, represented by Dwight H. Nadeau, of
RWA, Inc., and Richard D. Yovanovich, of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson,
P.A., requesting a rezone from Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Rural
Agricultural (A), to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) for a
project to be known as Summit Lakes RPUD, to allow development of a
maximum of968 single-family attached or detached dwelling units, multi-
family dwelling units, and associated accessory uses and consideration and
approval of an Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement authorizing
the developer to utilize affordable housing bonus density units (in the
amount of 415 units at 3.0 bonus density units per acre) in the development
of this project for low-income residents that will include a maximum of 10
percent of the total number of residential units for Workforce Housing and
10 percent for Gap Housing units. Access to the property will be from
Immokalee Road (County Road 846). The property is located approximately
mile east of the intersection of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) and Immokalee
Road (C.R. 846). The property is in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range
26 East, Collier County, Florida, and consists of 138.3 acres. (Companion
to Item 10E Summit Lakes RPUD)
F. This item to be heard before Companion Item 8G PUDZ-A-2006-AR-
9021 LASIP Conservation CFPUD. This item was continued from the
November 28. 2006 BCC meetin2: and is requested to be continued
indefinitely. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition: PUDA-2006-AR-
9576 The Club Estates II, LLC, represented by Michael Fernandez, AICP, of
Planning Development Incorporated, requesting a PUD Amendment to
change the Club Estates Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Homes of
Islandia Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD). The proposed
amendment seeks to remove 99 acres from the original PUD, reduce the
number of allowable dwelling units from 49 to 28, change the name and
remove a recreation tract and a common trash collection area as
requirements. The subject property is 155.3 acres, with a proposed density of
0.18 units per acre, and is located on the west side of Collier Boulevard
(C.R. 951), approximately I mile north of Rattlesnake-Hammock Road, in
Section 10, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
Page 5
December 12, 2006
(Companion to PUDZ-A-2006-AR-9021 LASIP Conservation CFPUD)
G. This item to be heard followin2: Companion Item SF PUDA-2006-AR-
9576 Homes of Islandia RPUD. This item was continued from the
November 2S. 2006 BCC meetin2: and is requested to be continued
indefinitely. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-A-2006-AR-9021
LASIP Conservation CFPUD Collier County Transportation Division,
represented by Fred Reischl, AICP, of Agnoli Barber & Brundage,
requesting a PUD to PUD Rezone (The Club Estates) to PUD (LASIP
Conservation Area). The CFPUD is currently part of The Club Estates PUD.
That PUD is being amended concurrenlty to remove the 99.3 acres that are
the subject of the petition. The LASIP Conservation Area CFPUD is owned
by Collier County. The site is currently governed by a conservation
easement. The proposed uses include restoration, protection and preservation
of native vegetative communities and wildlife habitat; a necessary use of
passive recreation is also described. The subject property is located along
Collier Boulevard, south of Club Estates Drive and north of Naples Lakes
Country Club, in Section 9, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida (Companion to PUDA-2006-AR-9576 Homes of Islandia)
H. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners conditionally
approves Petition A VROW-2006-AR-9918, which seeks to vacate the
Countys and the Publics interest in Gulf Shore Court and a portion of Center
Street, according to the plat of Vanderbilt Beach Center, as recorded at Plat
Book 3, Page 16, Public Records of Collier County, Florida, and as more
specifically described in Exhibit A.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of members to the Golden Gate Community Center Advisory
Committee.
B. Appointment of members to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board.
C. This item continued from the November 28,2006 BCC Meeting.
Appointment of members to the East of 951 Infrastructure and Services
Horizon Study Public Participation Master Plan Committee.
Page 6
December 12, 2006
D. Appointment of members to the Collier County Citizens Corps.
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to approve Professional Service Agreement No. 06-4000
for engineering and permitting services to be provided by CH2MHill, for the
design of Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension to be constructed from Collier
Boulevard to Desoto Boulevard, Project #60168, in the amount of
$5,650,000. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
B. This item to be heard at 4:00 p.m.. December 12.2006. Recommendation
that the Board of County Commissioners accept the Annual Report on the
activities related to the Job Creation Investment Program, the Advanced
Broadband Infrastructure Investment Program, the Property Tax Stimulus
Program, and the Fee Payment Assistance Program. (Joseph K. Schmitt,
Administrator, Community Development and Environmental Services)
C. This item to be heard followin2: Item lOB. This item was continued from
the November 2S. 2006 BCC Meetin2:. Recommendation to approve the
application by C- Tech Manufacturing Florida, LLC for the Job Creation
Investment Program and the Fee Payment Assistance Program and to
consider all four Economic Incentives as one budget. (Joseph K. Schmitt,
Administrator, Community Development)
D. Recommendation to approve a Developer Contribution Agreement (DCA)
between Cameron Partners, LLC and Collier County to obtain right-of-way
for the future expansion of the intersection of Immokalee Road and Collier
Boulevard. (Nick Casalanguida, Transportation Planning Department)
E. This item to be heard directly followin2: Item SE. Recommendation to
approve a Developer Contribution Agreement (DCA) between the developer
of Summit Lakes RPUD, Waterways Joint Ventures V (Developer) and
Collier County (County) to construct the Tree Farm, Woodcrest and Massey
alternative roadway project (Project). (Companion to Item SE Petition
PUDZ-2003-AR-49SS) (Nick Casalanguida, Transportation Planning
Department)
F. Recommendation to award contract #07-4082, Golden Gate Library
Expansion to DeAngelis Diamond Construction for the construction of the
Golden Gate Library, project 54261, in the amount of$4,879,000 and
Page 7
December 12, 2006
approve the necessary budget amendments.
G. Report to the Board of County Commissioners providing the findings of the
survey of businesses bounded by Pine Ridge Road, Airport-Pulling Road,
Taylor Road and Trade Center Way; designated Urban-Industrial District on
the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan; and, zoned
Industrial. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development and
Environmental Services)
H. To provide information to the Board of County Commissioners outlining the
extent of changes, time schedules, issues and ramifications that can be
associated with applying concurrency at the time of rezoning in order for the
BCC to discuss and provide staff the appropriate direction. (Joseph K.
Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development)
I. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners provide direction
to the County Manager or his assigned designee to change population
methodology as requested by staff and suggested by the Florida Department
of Community Affairs (DCA). (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator,
Community Development and Environmental Services)
J. Presentation of Community Development and Environmental Services
Division (CDES) reorganization as directed by the Board of County
Commissioners based on goal to provide more focus on the core mission
functions of the organization. (Kim Grant, Senior Operations and
Management Consultant)
K. Recommendation to approve Contract Amendment No. I, Exhibit E, for a
Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) of$6,740,820 under Contract No. 04-
3609, Construction Manager at Risk Services for the Collier County
Emergency Operations Center, with Kraft Construction Company, Inc. for
the site work portion of the construction of the Emergency Services
Complex and South Regional Library, project numbers 54003 and 52160.
(Len Price, Administrator, Administrative Services)
L. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the
County Manager or his designee to expend a maximum of $1 ,285,000 within
the Community Development and Environmental Services Division to
address critical building renovation needs, not to include any lobby
expansion at this time, and to give approval for any subsequent Budget
Page 8
December 12, 2006
Amendments required to fund such renovations. (Joseph K. Schmitt,
Administrator, Community Development)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. This item to be heard at 1 :00 p.m. Recommendation for the Board to make
a written settlement offer as provided by Section 70.00 1 (4)(b) of the Bert J.
Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act to settle Case No. 05-962-
CA currently pending in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit
in and for Collier County, Florida and also to resolve all claims including,
without limitation, claims under the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property
Rights Protection Act that relate or refer in any way to the May 10, 2005
PUD Amendment denial relative to what is sometimes referred to as the
Cocohatchee Bay Project (Planned United Development Ordinance No.
2000-88).
B. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners discuss and give
direction to the Office of the County Attorney concerning an ordinance
amendment to provide for super-majority voting for purposes of approving
certain types of settlements of land use disputes and land use litigation.
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Page 9
December 12, 2006
1) Recommendation to approve the Release and Satisfaction of a Code
Enforcement Lien against Larry & Correna McVey for payment
received.
2) Recommendation to name certain acquired Conservation Collier
Preserves.
3) Recommendation to approve a modified resolution opposing the de-
designation of the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC)
and direct the County Manager or his assigned designee to provide the
resolution to the Office of the Governor, the Florida Administration
Commission and the Florida Department of Community Affairs.
4) Recommendation to approve an amendment to the Local Housing
Assistance Plan (LHAP) for fiscal years 2004-2005, 2005-2006 and
2006-2007, to implement required technical revisions received from
the Florida Housing Finance Corporation.
5) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water utility
facility for Ascot at Lely Resort.
6) Recommendation to approve the Release and Satisfaction of Code
Enforcement Liens against Lonnie A. Grey and Claude E. LaRue for
payments received.
7) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission Members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve
for recording the final plat of Independence Phase Two-A, approval of
the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and
approval of the amount of the performance security.
8) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission Members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve
for recording the final plat of Vercelli, approval of the standard form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount
of the performance security.
Page 10
December 12,2006
9) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission Members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve
for recording the final plat of Piacere - Pavia, approval of the standard
form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the
amount of the performance security.
10) Request for authorization of the use ofa temporary sales center for
Pulte Home sales in the town of Ave Maria at an existing Pulte
Homes sales facility located within the Orange Blossom Ranch PUD.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Approve the purchase of 5.15 acres of improved property of which a
portion is required for road right of way for the Vanderbilt Beach
Road extension project. Project No. 60168 (fiscal impact:
$851,730.00)
2) Recommendation to approve the Amended and Restated Agreement
for Haldeman Creek Disposal with Lakeview Drive of Naples, LCC, a
Florida Limited Company.
3) Recommendation that the Board authorize the County Manager, or his
designee, to execute a revised License Agreement between Collier
County and individuals or businesses licensed to practice surveying
and mapping in the State of Florida to allow access to the County's
Global Positioning System (GPS) Network for the purpose of
surveying and mapping allowing for a two year (2) contract period
and a twenty dollar ($20.00) per month rover access fee.
4) Recommendation to approve a 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 $405,000 for paved
shoulders on Immokalee Road (CR 846) from north of Platt Road to
east of Corkscrew Lane/Sanctuary Road. (Project # 60016)
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
Page 11
December 12, 2006
1) Recommendation to approve contract 06-3991 with Perkin Elmer in
the amount of $210,000 for Specifications for a Laboratory
Information Management System and approve the necessary Budget
Amendment.
2) Recommendation to approve Change Order Number One to Work
Order UC-189 in the amount of $18,767.68 and Change Order
Number One to Work Order UC-233 in the amount of $9,924.46 with
D.N. Higgins Corporation for the repair of one potable and one
irrigation quality water main failure in the Collier County Water-
Sewer District.
3) Approval of an agreement with the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection to conduct ambient air quality monitoring
within Collier County.
4) Approval of an inter-local agreement with the Collier County School
Board to retain ozone and PM2.5 monitoring equipment at Laurel Oak
Elementary School to conduct ambient air quality monitoring for the
urban area of the County.
5) Recommendation to convey a Utility Easement to the Water-Sewer
District for five public water supply well sites, associated pipelines,
and access on the Collier County Fairgrounds property at an estimated
cost not to exceed $61.00, for the North East Regional Water
Treatment Plant Well field, Project Number 70899.
6) Approval of agreement with the South Florida Water Management
District to monitor ground water in Collier County in the amount of
$337,601 and the associated budget amendment.
7) Recommendation to approve the Selection Committees
recommendation for Project Management Oversight Services and
approve time and material Work Order No. URS-FT-3657-07-03 with
URS Inc. in the amount not to exceed $405,660 for Solid Waste
Capital Projects.
8) Approval to transfer funds and the associated budget amendments for
Agreement ML070554 and ML040284 with the South Florida Water
Management District (SFWMD) from Miscellaneous Grant Fund
Page 12
December 12, 2006
(116) to Water Pollution Control Fund (114).
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation to authorize a budget amendment to place $31,500
awarded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Public Access
Hardware Upgrade Grant in Fund 129 so that funds can be expended
by December 31, 2006.
2) Recommendation to authorize the Chairman to sign the agreement
between Collier County Board of County Commissioners and the
Area Agency on Aging for Southwest Florida, Inc., approve the Older
Americans Act continuation grant in the amount of$858,413, and
approve budget amendments in the amount of $443,904.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve the donation of surplus items to the
Sheriffs Ranches Enterprises.
2) Recommendation to revise award of Bid 06-4048, Quick Copy
Services from Cecil's Copy Express and Ray Lepar Printing to Cecil's
Copy Express and Pro Print of Naples, Inc. for Section II (letter size,
collated multiple originals) of the contract.
3) Recommendation to reject all responses received under Bid 06-4052,
Marco Island Library Rose Hall Addition, Project #54004.
4) Report and Ratify Staff-Approved Change Orders and Changes to
Work Orders to Board-Approved Contracts.
5) Recommendation to award Bid 07-4078 "On Call Mechanical
Contractor Services" to United Mechanical, Inc. as primary, Cortez
Commercial Systems as secondary and CNS Industries as the third
option for Mechanical Engineering and Contractor Services.
6) Recommendation to award Work Order No. PBS-FT-3971-07-02
under Contract No. 06-3971, Annual Contract for General Contractors
Services, to Wall Systems, Inc. of Southwest Florida,
d/b/a/Professional Building Systems (PBS) for renovations to the third
Page 13
December 12, 2006
floor of Building H for the Collier County Health Department, in the
amount of One hundred eighty nine thousand, nine hundred
($189,900.00) dollars.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Recommend Approval of Bid #06-4003R Artificial Reef Mitigation
Project to Center Contracting Corporation for total base bid amount of
$998,898.00 (Project No. 905271).
2) Recommendation to approve a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity for the Collier County Emergency Medical Services
Department at a renewal rate for FY 07 of $250.00.
3) Recommendation to approve a Florida Emergency Medical Services
County Grant Application, Grant Distribution Form and Resolution
for Training and Medical/Rescue Equipment and Supplies in the
amount of$163,419.00 and to approve a Budget Amendment to
appropriate additional grant funds in the amount of $63,419.00 which
is the difference between the $100,000 budgeted for FY 07 and the
$163,419 deemed by the State of Florida as the grant award.
4) Recommendation to approve spending up to $30,000 for appraisals
and pre-contract expenses associated with the potential purchase of
the Holland Salley Warehouse located at 2231 Linwood Avenue.
5) Approve budget amendments.
6) Recommendation to Approve a Budget Amendment Appropriating
Additional Revenue in the Freedom Memorial Trust Fund.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) To approve and execute a Site Improvement Grant Agreement(s)
between the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency and
a Grant Applicant(s) within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle
Community Redevelopment Area.
Page 14
December 12, 2006
2) 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.
3) 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.
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 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.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a meeting serving a valid pubic purpose. Attended the
Marco Island Kiwanis Club Annual Meeting on Saturday, November
11 th at the Marco Island Yacht Club; $50.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) To file for record with action as directed.
Page 15
December 12, 2006
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Recommendation to create a Magistrate and Case Manager position
for the Courts. (FY07 costs of $150,000)
2) Recommendation to increase the hours for the Citizen's Foster Care
Review Panel (CFCRP) Director (FY07 costs of $21,132).
3) Recommendation to approve Change Order #1 to add $404,405 to
Contract #03-3497, Auditing Services for Collier County, with KPMG
LLP, in order to reflect total services contracted through November
28, 2006.
4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners accept the
report of Interest for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006
pursuant to Florida Statute 218.78. Interest paid for the fiscal year
included two payments: one in the amount of $32,031.08 to Douglas
Higgins, Inc., Project Number 73086 and one to AMJ Equipment
Corporation in the amount of$267.91 for a total of$32,298.99.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to Approve an Agreed Order for Payment of Expert
Fees and Costs in Connection with Parcels 110 and 710 in the Lawsuit
Styled Collier County v. Salvadore Villanueva, Jr., et aI., Case No.
05-1000-CA (CR 951, Project No. 65061) Fiscal Impact: $8,539.00.
2) Recommendation to Approve an Agreed Order Awarding Expert Fees
and Costs in Connection with Parcel 119 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier
County v. Perry W. Ross, Individually and as Trustee, et aI., Case No.
04-4174-CA (Rattlesnake-Hammock Road, Project No. 60169) Fiscal
Impact: $13,950.00.
3) Recommendation to Approve an Agreed Order for Payment of Expert
Fees in Connection with Parce1140 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier
County v. Rosa A. Hernandez, et aI., Case No. 05-1033-CA (CR 951,
Project No. 65061) Fiscal Impact: $26,368.00.
4) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment for Parcel
122 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Village Walk HOA of
Page 16
December 12, 2006
Naples, Inc., et aI., Case No. 04-345-CA (Vanderbilt Beach Road
Project No. 63051). (Fiscal Impact $6,857.00)
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDA TION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE QUASI-
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL P ARTICIP ANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. An Ordinance of Collier County, Florida, amending Collier County
Ordinance No. 2001-75, as amended, the Public Vehicle for Hire Ordinance,
deregulating charter service rates; Authorizing discretionary increase to the
taxi base rate by 25 cents per trip; Prohibiting rate discounts for taxi trips
that begin and end in Collier County except for senior citizen passengers;
Prevent vehicle inspection by an individual who is biased in favor of the
vehicle passing the inspection; Staff must disregard operator's permit
suspensions that are not related to driving a motor vehicle; Expand list of
disqualifying criminal convictions and status as a criminal; Increase
minimum insurance requirements by $25,000 for bodily injury to one
individual; Authorize appeal to PV AC if staff denies an application for a
driver's ID; Increase some fines; Provide for inclusion into the Code of Laws
and Ordinances; Provide for conflict and severability; Provide the effective
date.
B. This meetin2: has been continued to the December 12. 2006 BCC
meetin2: and is further continued to the January 9. 2007 BCC meetin2:.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
provided by Commission members. Recommendation to approve Petition
A VROW-2006-AR-9477, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT 95 to
disclaim, renounce and vacate the Countys and the Publics interest in a 60
foot wide right of way easement known as 7TH Avenue NW (Cherrywood
Drive) over portions of Tracts 15 & 16, Golden Gate Estates Unit 95,
Page 17
December 12, 2006
according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 45, of the
Public Records of Collier County, Florida, and more specifically described
in Exhibit A, and to accept a 20 foot wide alternate drainage easement and
two 10 foot by 10 foot alternate drainage easements over portions of Tract
15, as more specifically described in the attached exhibits.
C. This item has been continued to the December 12. 2006 BCC meetin2:
and is further continued to the January 9. 2007 BCC meetin2:. This item
requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided
by Commission members. Recommendation to approve Petition A VESMT-
2006-AR-9775, Hanson to disclaim, renounce and vacate the Countys and
the Publics interest in the south 30 feet of the South half of the Southwest
quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 24,
Township 48 South, Range 25 East, 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
December 12, 2006
December 12-13, 2006
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
The Collier County Board of Commissioners is now in session. I
would ask that each and every one of you that has a cell phone or
pager, if you'd please put it on the silence mode.
And at this time if you'd all rise for the invocation, followed by
the Pledge of Allegiance.
Today the invocation is given by County Manager Jim Mudd.
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, 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 the 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: Thank you very much.
Item #IA
SWEAR-IN COMMISSIONER FRANK HALAS BY JUDGE
MANALICH - SWORN IN
At this time do you want me to -- our I'll have the judge ask for
me to step down or --
MR. MUDD: That's you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You go down there.
Page 2
December 12-13,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep.
JUDGE MANALICH: All right. Let me just make a couple of
comments, Commissioners. Am I at the right mike? All right.
Wonderful.
Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen, Members of the Board,
Mr. Chairman, County Manager Mudd, County Attorney Weigel,
members of the public. This is truly a happy and a proud occasion, and
I'm very honored to be here to swear in Commissioner Halas. It's a
happy occasion for Commissioner Halas on his re-election to a
position of public trust and leadership, and I note that this is a
reelection in which he's continued to earn the public trust.
We're proud of Commissioner Halas for his body of work in the
previous term, and we look forward to his work in the coming term.
It's also a time to note that we should be proud as Americans and as
citizens of Collier County for our legal and our political system
assuring that the people choose their leaders.
I'd like to put this occasion in context by offering the thoughts of
the -- two of the greatest framers of our constitutional democracy.
First of all from Thomas Jefferson. Governments are instituted
among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed. And I have had the personal privilege of seeing that in
action here in Collier County through the Canvassing Board, which
Commissioner Fiala assisted with, in certifying the results of the latest
elections, and now today we see that with the swearing in of
Commissioner Halas.
Now, I've recently been very interested in reading the book by
David McCullough, 1776, about the revolution and our nation's
greatest American, George Washington. And in his words he once
said, let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair.
The rest is in the hands of God, and that is what the public requests
and expects, Commissioner Halas, from you based on your past
performance and our confidence in your abilities for the future, that
Page 3
December 12-13,2006
you will lead with the knowledge that you have acquired of this
community and with the ethics which this board has adopted.
And lastly, before I administer the oath, I think, again, referring
to Washington, I think it's important to put that in context and why it
is that Commissioner Halas takes this oath today.
And as Washington said, the basis of our political system is the
right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of
government, that the Constitution, which at any time exists, till
changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is
sacred, obligatory, upon all. And that is the context in which we are
here today.
Commissioner? And I should note a double privilege to have
Mrs. Halas here holding the Bible in which Commissioner Halas will
be sworn.
Please raise your right hand. Repeat after me. I.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I.
JUDGE MANALICH: Frank Halas.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I, Frank Halas.
JUDGE MANALICH: Do solemnly swear.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do solemnly swear.
JUDGE MANALICH: That I will support.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That I will support.
JUDGE MANALICH: Protect and defend.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Protect and defend.
JUDGE MANALICH: The Constitution and government.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The Constitution and government.
JUDGE MANALICH: Of the United States.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Of the United States.
JUDGE MANALICH: And of the State of Florida.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And of the State of Florida.
JUDGE MANALICH: That I am duly qualified.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That I am duly qualified.
Page 4
December 12-13,2006
JUDGE MANALICH: To hold office.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: To hold office.
JUDGE MANALICH: Under the Constitution.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Under the Constitution.
JUDGE MANALICH: Of the state.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Of the state.
JUDGE MANALICH: And that I will well and faithfully
perform.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That I well and faithfully will (sic)
perform.
JUDGE MANALICH: The duties of county commissioner.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The duties of county commissioner.
JUDGE MANALICH: For Collier County.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: For Collier County.
JUDGE MANALICH: On which I am now about to enter.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: On which I'm about to enter.
JUDGE MANALICH: Very well. So help me God.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So help me God.
JUDGE MANALICH: Congratulations.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Welcome back.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Four more years.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Four more long years.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those that attended the proceedings,
thank you very, very much. And I just want to say -- I want to thank
everyone in Collier County for their -- their respect of me, and they
proved that at the voting booths, and I appreciate it very much. And I
look forward to serving each and every one of you another four years
here in Collier County.
Thank you very, very much.
Item #2A
Page 5
December 12-13,2006
REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA-
APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
At this time, County Manager, do you have any changes to
today' s agenda?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Agenda changes, Board of County
Commissioners' meeting, December 12, 2006.
Continue item 5C to 13 February, 2007 BCC meeting. It's a
recommendation to hear a presentation from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service regarding the use of panther consultation area and
reviewing land development activities in Collier County.
And if you remember correctly, this is the second briefing. Mr.
Sosa was here before, briefed you and said he would work with staff
to work on the consultation area, and I believe that has been adjusted,
and he will brief you on that particular outcome on the 13th of
February .
The next item is to continue 8B to February 13, 2007 BCC
meeting. The agenda had it to be continued -- be continued
indefinitely. So, again, it's continued until the 13th of February.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by commission members. It's petition
PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8438, Lakeview Drive Naples, LLC, represented
by Clay Brooker ofCheffy, Passidomo, Wilson and Johnson, LLP,
requesting a rezone from the multi-residential, multifamily 6, RMF -6,
RMF-6(3), zoning districts, a portion of which is subject to a special
treatment overlay to the residential planned unit development, RPUD,
by amending the approved Windstar PUD to add the subject 20.52
acres and its additional residential units thereby allowing a maximum
of 584 residential units on the 341.1 acres when it's combined.
The next item is item 10C, and it's continued indefinitely. This
item was continued from the November 28, 2006 BCC meeting.
Page 6
December 12-13, 2006
Recommendation to approve the application of C- Tech Manufacturing
Florida, LLC, for the Job Creation Investment Program and a Fee
Payment Assistance Program and to consider all four economic
incentives as one budget. That item was asked to be continued at ED
-- at the EDC's request.
Next item is to add item 10M. It's a recommendation to approve
an agreement between Creative Differences Production, Limited, the
producer, Discovery Communications, Inc., the company, and the
Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, to
authorize entry upon the premises of the District 20 Medical Examiner
of Collier County to film and photograph for the purpose of creating a
documentary for distribution on the Discovery Channel and other
media. That item is an add-on at staffs request. It came -- the request
came in at the last minute, that's why we were unable to get it in the
regular printed agenda.
Next item is to move item 16A2 to lOP. It's a recommendation to
name certain acquired Conservation Collier Preserves. That item is
being moved at Commissioner Coletta's request.
The next is to move 10 -- excuse me -- move 16A 10 to ION, and
that is a request for authorization of the use of temporary sales center
for Pulte Home Sales in the town of Ave Maria at an existing Pulte
Home Sales facility located within the Orange Blossom Ranch PUD.
That item is moved at Commissioner Halas's and Commissioner
Coyle's request.
The next item is to add on item 100, and that is a
recommendation to authorize the County Attorney's Office to prepare
and advertise an ordinance amendment increasing the maximum
additional homestead exemption for low income seniors from 25,000
to 50,000 dollars. That item is added at staffs request.
We got a query from the Property Appraiser's Office, and we're
seeking your direction on what to do, if you want us to do the
ordinance or not, to be presented at the 9 January meeting.
Page 7
December 12-13, 2006
Next item is item 16C5. It's continued to the January 9, 2007
BCC meeting. It's a recommendation to convey a utilities easement to
the water/sewer district for five public water supply well sites,
associated pipelines and access to the Collier County Fairground
property at an estimated cost not to exceed $61 for the Northeast
Regional Water Treatment Plant Wellfield, project number 70899.
That item is being continued at staff's and Commissioner Coletta's
request.
The next item is to continue item 16C6 to the January 9, 2007
BCC meeting. It's an approval of an agreement with the South Florida
Water Management District to monitor groundwater in Collier County
in the amount of $337,601 and the associated budget amendments.
That item is being continued at staffs request.
The next item is to continue item 16C8 to the January 9, 2007
BCC meeting. It's approval to transfer funds and the associated
budget amendments for the agreement ML070554 and ML040284
with the South Florida Water Management District from
miscellaneous grant funds, which are funds 116, to the water pollution
control fund, which is fund 114. That item is being continued at staffs
request.
The next item is item 16G2. In the title at the top of each page of
the sublease agreement, page 1 through page 27, the date should read
December 2006 rather than October 2006, and that correction's at
staff's request.
The next item is 16G3, and that item is asked to be withdrawn.
That is a recommendation that the Collier County Board of
Commissioners approve and authorize its chairman to execute a
35-year sublease agreement between the Collier County Airport
Authority and Robert Forbis, Inc., Premier Electric, at an initial rent of
$48,351.60 per year for the construction ofa minimum 35,000 square
foot assembly, packing warehouse (sic), distribution facility on 11.1
acres at the Immokalee Regional Airport/Tradeport. And that item is
Page 8
December 12-13,2006
being withdrawn at the petitioner's request.
The next item is item 16G4, and the title at the top of each page
of the sublease agreement, page 1 through page 27, the date should
read December 2006 rather than October 2006. That clarification is at
staff s request.
The next item is item 17B. The title on the index should read,
"this item" rather than "this meeting," has been continued to the
December 12, 2006, and that clarification is also at staffs request.
I just received one item that's not on your sheet, and the petitioner has
asked to withdraw item 6A today. The petitioner will not be here
today and is asking to withdraw 6A, and 6A was a public petition
request by Alana Giannone to discuss Collier County being added to
the Kyoto protocol. Again, that item is being withdrawn.
We have two time certain items today on today's agenda. The
first is item 12A, and it will be heard at one p.m. That's a
recommendation for the board to make a written settlement offer as
provided by section 70.00 1 (4)(b) of the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private
Property Rights Protection Act to settle case number 05-962-CA
currently pending in the Circuit Court of the 20th Judicial Circuit in
and for Collier County, Florida, and also to resolve all claims
including, without limitations, claims under the Bert J. Harris, Jr.,
Private Property Rights Protection Act that related or refer in any way
to the May 10,2005 PUD amendment denial relative to what is
sometimes referred to as the Cocohatchee Bay project, planned unit
development ordinance number 2000-88.
And the next time concern item is item lOB to be heard at four
p.m. It's a recommendation of the Board of County Commissioners to
accept the annual report on the activities related to the Job Creation
Investment Program, the Advanced Broadband Infrastructure
Investment Program and the Property Tax Stimulus Program and the
Fee Payment Assistance Program.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, that's all I have today.
Page 9
December 12-13,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. County Attorney, do you have
any changes today, on today's agenda?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just one item to
note, and that is that Jim had noted an add-on item, 100, relating to
authorization from the board to direct the County Attorney Office to
draft and to advertise an amendment relating to an increase of
homestead exemption for low income seniors.
This is pursuant to the recent November election in which a
constitutional amendment was approved. And our office has touched
base with the sponsor, the author of the bill, that went forward to be
the amendment, and they've indicated that there is some enabling
legislation which must be adopted by the new legislature, state
legislature, this coming session.
And so with your authorization we will draft the amendment,
however, it may have to follow the enabling legislation which will be
adopted sometime in the new year.
And so we may not be bringing if forward on January 9th. That
may be premature. Ifwe were directed to bring it forward on January
9, my expectation at this point would be that we would be indicating a
continuance to a later date.
But with your authorization, we'll bring it forward, coordinating
as closely as we can with the legislature at the most appropriate date.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: And I don't want to have an argument here, but I
want to make sure that everybody understands that this legislation that
was passed talked about a 1 January, 2007, enactment.
With the conversation I've had with the property appraiser, he
will accept an ordinance, okay, so that he could adjust the tax rolls
back to 1 January as an exception, but I don't believe he'll go any
deeper into that. So if you go with the enabling ordinance that -- and
you wait till after 9 January, he's of the opinion that it wouldn't be
available for the tax rolls until November of 2008.
Page 10
December 12-13, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: 2008.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And that's probably what's going
to happen because of the fact that the legislature doesn't reconvene
until March. So that will probably take place.
At this time I'll ask each of the commissioners if they have
anything in regards to approving -- or coming forward with ex parte or
if they have any items of discussion on today's -- before we come
forward and approve today's agenda, and I'll start with Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No changes and nothing for the
summary agenda, no declarations.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, okay.
MR. MUDD: You also have to declare on the consent.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Right.
MR. MUDD: Remember we've got the things on 16A when they
have to do with final plat.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: At this -- I'll check on mine, but I have
no items for ex parte either on the consent or the summary agenda,
and I have no changes to today's agenda.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no disclosures and no
additional items to change on the agenda.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I have no further
changes to the agenda, and I have no disclosures for either the consent
or summary agendas.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I entertain a motion for the
approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved.
Page 11
December 12-13,2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coyle 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 COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
Page 12
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
December 12. 2006
Continue Item 5C to the February 13.2007 BCC meetina: Recommendation to hear a presentation
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the use of Panther Consultation Area in
reviewing land development activities in Collier County. (Petitioner's request.)
Continue Item 8B to the February 13. 2007 BCC meetina (rather than continued indefinitelv as
stated in aaenda index title): This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition: Petition: PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8438:
Lakeview Drive of Naples, LLC, represented by Clay Brooker, of Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson &
Johnson, LLP, requesting a rezone from the Residential Multiple Family-6 (RMF-6 & RMF-6(3))
zoning districts (a portion of which is subject to a Special Treatment Overlay (ST)) to the
Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) by amending the approved Windstar PUD to add
the subject 20.52 acres and its additional residential units thereby allowing a maximum of 584
residential units on 341.1 acres. The subject property is generally located on the west side of
Bayshore Drive, approximately 0.6 miles south of the Bayshore Drive and U.S. 41 (Tamiami Trail
East) intersection in Sections, 11, 14 and 23 Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,
Florida. (Petitioner's request.)
Item 10C continued indefinitelv: This item was continued from the November 28,2006 BCC
meeting. Recommendation to approve the application by C-Tech Manufacturing Florida, LLC for
the Job Creation Investment Program and the Fee Payment Assistance Program and to consider
all four Economic Incentives as one budget. (EDC's request.)
Add On Item 10M: Recommendation to approve an Agreement between Creative Differences
Productions, Ltd. (the "Producer"), Discovery Communications, Inc. (the "Company") and the
Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida to authorize entry upon the premises
of the District Twenty Medical Examiner for Collier County to film and photograph for the purpose
of creating a documentary for distribution on the Discovery Channel and other media. (Staff's
request.)
Move 16A2 to 10P: Recommendation to name certain acquired Conservation Collier Preserves.
(Commissioner Coletta's request.)
Move 16A10 to 10N: Request for authorization of the use of a temporary sales center for Pulte
Home Sales in the town of Ave Maria at an existing Pulte Homes Sales facility located within the
Orange Blossom Ranch PUD. (Commissioner Halas' and Commissioner Coyle's request.)
Add On Item 100: Recommendation to authorize the County Attorney's Office to prepare and
advertise an Ordinance Amendment increasing the maximum additional Homestead Exemption
for low-income seniors from $25,000 to $50,000. (Staff's request.)
Item 16C5 continued to the January 9.2007 BCC meetina: Recommendation to convey a utility
easement to the Water-Sewer District for five public water supply well sites, associated pipelines,
and access on the Collier County Fairgrounds property at an estimated cost not to exceed $61.00,
for the North East Regional Water Treatment Plant Wellfield, Project Number 70899. (Staff's and
Commissioner Coletta's request.)
Continue Item 16C6 to the January 9 2007 BCC meetina: Approval of agreement with the South
Florida Water Management District to monitor ground water in Collier County in the amount of
$337,601 and the associated budget amendment. (Staff's request.)
Continue Item 16C8 to the January 9.2007 BCC meetina: Approval to transfer funds and the
associated budget amendments for Agreement ML070554 and ML040284 with the South Florida
Water Management District (SFWMD) from Miscellaneous Grant Fund (116) to Water Pollution
Control Fund (114). (Staff's request.)
Item 16G2: In the title at the top of each page of the sub-lease agreement, Page 1 through Page
27, the date should read "December 2006" rather than "October 2006". (Staffs request.)
Withdraw Item 16G3: 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
AirportlTradeport. (Petitioner's request.)
Item 16G4: In the title at the top of each page of the sub-lease agreement, Page 1 through Page
27, the date should read "December 2006" rather than "October 2006". (Staff's request.)
Item 17B: The title on the index should read: "This item" (rather than "This meeting") has been
continued to the December 12, 2006 . . . . .. (Staff's request.)
Time Certain Items for December 12,2006 BCC meetina
Item 10B to be heard at 4:00 p.m. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
accept the Annual Report on the activities related to the Job Creation Investment Program, the
Advanced Broadband Infrastructure Investment Program, the Property Tax Stimulus Program,
and the Fee Payment Assistance Program.
Item 12A to be heard at 1 :00 p.m. Recommendation for the Board to make a written settlement
offer as provided by Section 70.001 (4)(b) of the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights
Protection Act to settle Case No. 05-962-CA currently pending in the Circuit Court of the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida and also to resolve all claims
including, without limitation, claims under the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights
Protection Act that relate or refer in any way to the May 10, 2005 PUD Amendment denial relative
to what is sometimes referred to as the Cocohatchee Bay Project (Planned United Development
Ordinance No. 2000-88).
. '-''''-"'"".,.....,,_,_~._-_..,_.-..~~._._.__.~_'_T.'
December 12-13,2006
Item #2B, #2C and #2D
MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 14, 2006 - BCC REGULAR
MEETING, NOVEMBER 15, 2006 - VALUE ADJUSTMENT
BOARD SPECIAL MAGISTRATE AM AND PM SESSIONS AND
NOVEMBER 21, 2006 - VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
SPECIAL MAGISTRATE AM SESSION - APPROVED AS
PRESENTED
Entertain a motion for November 14, 2006 BCC regular meeting;
November 15, 2006 Value Adjustment Board Special Master's a.m.
and p.m. session; and November 21, 2006 Value Adjustment Board
Special Master's a.m. session.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve the minutes for
those meetings.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coyle and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
Okay. County Manager?
Page 13
December 12-13, 2006
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING MAX MAYFIELD AND ALL
PERSONNEL AT THE NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER AND
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SERVING IN A VARIETY OF
ROLES FOR THEIR UNSELFISH DEDICATION TO FLORIDA'S
RESIDENTS AND VISITORS. TO BE ACCEPTED BY MR. MAX
MAYFIELD - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that would bring us to
proclamations. We have one proclamation today, and it's a
proclamation recognizing Max Mayfield and all personnel at the
National Hurricane Center and National Weather Service serving in a
variety of roles for their unselfish dedication to Florida residents and
visitors. And this proclamation's to be accepted -- and we are honored
that Mr. Max Mayfield is here to accept it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Mr. Mayfield, if you'd step up here.
MR. SUMMERS: Commissioner, Dan Summers, Director of the
Bureau of Emergency Services, Emergency Management. And Ijust
had to jump in here because we're going to embarrass Max just a little
bit because he glows when we brag of him -- when we brag on him a
little bit.
And just to -- by way of recognition, my fellow emergency
managers are here from the region as well.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Could they all stand up to be recognized,
please.
MR. SUMMERS: Let's recognize them.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: This is a great day.
MR. SUMMERS: We're all 21 years old, but there's a thousand
years of hurricane experience in here. Thanks to all of our emergency
managers that joined us.
(Applause.)
Page 14
December 12-13,2006
MR. SUMMERS: Commissioner, there are a few challenges in
emergency management and few hero's when we are up against
Mother Nature, but one of our champions is here today, and he's going
to be retiring after a tremendous year of public service, years of public
.
serVIce.
And I have to tell you the story, that every time an emergency
manager gets a call from Max Mayfield, it's a little bit like that feeling
of being in fifth grade and getting called to the principal's office. You
know, chances are, at least in my case, it wasn't for academic
performance.
But at any rate, Max has always made us feel comfortable, he's
kept us on the straight and narrow, and he's pulled every rabbit out of
a hat with technology and expertise to guide us in the right decisions,
and I'm certainly very proud of him.
And to carry that one step further, I have about a minute and a
half little DVD here I want to show you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Great.
(The video was played as follows:)
"UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Finally tonight our Person of the
Week, and he is especially important to the country on a night like
this. He is not a household name, but you have likely seen his face
over the past few weeks. And it is no exaggeration to say that over the
last few days, our Person of the Week has helped save many, many
lives.
MR. MAYFIELD: There's a lot of pressure, but you really can't
take the time to dwell on that. As long as you focus on, you know,
saving lives, everything else seems to fall into place.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You might say Max Mayfield is
always in the eye of the storm.
MR. MAYFIELD: Do you know what is left out here --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He is the Director of the National
Hurricane Center in Miami, Florida.
Page 15
December 12-13,2006
MR. MAYFIELD: I've been here for 33 years, and I guess I've
spent most of my adult career trying to prevent a large loss of life.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Max Mayfield leads a team of
forecasters. They've been tracking Hurricane Rita 24 hours a day.
MR. MAYFIELD: I told you everything I know.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He works the phones, updating
officials in Texas, talking to the new director ofFEMA.
MR. MAYFIELD: I got a called from Dave Paulson.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Taking a moment to call his son
who, on Thursday, was in Texas.
MR. MAYFIELD: Hey, Lee, this is Dad.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: In the path of the storm.
MR. MAYFIELD: Even if you make a perfect forecast, if you
can't get people to take the appropriate action, it's all for nothing.
Maximum sustained winds of 145 miles per hour.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: So a big part of the job involves
warning the public. He will do as many as 100 interviews with
television stations in a single day.
MR. MAYFIELD: This is Max Mayfield reporting for the
National Hurricane Center in Miami.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Max Mayfield was born in
Oklahoma. He is passionate about Oklahoma football and respectful
of the power of nature, having grown up in tornado alley.
MR. MAYFIELD: You know, I remember the tornado warnings
when they would go off, and we'd get into the closet and, you know,
hunker down there. And so I'm sure there's always that fascination.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mayfield's wife, Linda, is a
School Librarian. They have three grown children. Tonight he is
mindful of families in harm's way, but mindful, too, that science gives
him a chance to warn them.
MR. MAYFIELD: A few days out of the year you really feel
like you make a difference, and that difference comes in saving lives,
Page 16
December 12-13,2006
and I'm just glad to be a small part of the nation's hurricane warning
program.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: And so we choose Max Mayfield.
And we asked Mr. Mayfield what his favorite part of the job was.
December, he said, when hurricane season is over."
(The video concluded.)
(Applause.)
MR. SUMMERS: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, thank you. Before I read this
proclamation, I see that we have an awful lot of media with us this
morning. And after the proclamation -- and we're going to also have
an update on our here hurricane study that was recently done about
evacuation routes and so on -- Mr. Mayfield will meet with everyone
down in the first floor in our EOC building.
So like I said, I see an awful lot of media here. I'm looking for
the Weather Channel. I'm not sure if we have anybody from the
Weather Channel. I noticed it started to cloud up outside, and I was
wondering if Jim Cantorre was in the area.
But anyway, Mr. Mayfield, it's a real pleasure to read this
proclamation. And I can say that when I became -- came onboard as a
county commissioner, one of the first things that I felt was important
was to go to FEMA schools to get an understanding of what I was up
against as an elected official and so, therefore, I went to Emmitsburg,
Mary land, and took two courses there, one on preparation and one on
mitigation of hurricanes. And I think that every elected official, it
behooves them to go to that school and get an understanding.
So at that, I'd like to read this proclamation, and --
Whereas, Max Mayfield, the director of NOAA's Tropical Prediction
Center, National Hurricane Center, which saves lives mitigates
property loss and improves economic efficiency by issuing the best
watches, warnings, forecasts and analyses of hazardous tropical
weather, and by increasing understanding of these hazards; and,
Page 1 7
December 12-13,2006
Whereas, Mr. Mayfield has played a key role in forecast and service
improvements over his 34-year career; and,
Whereas, Mr. Mayfield's contributions to improving accuracy of
hurricane forecasting has saved countless lives and property; and,
Whereas, Mr. Mayfield has been claimed -- and reassuring presence
on television, helping millions of Americans prepare for the
potentially deadly hurricane; and,
Whereas, Collier County Emergency Management works in
partnership with Mr. Mayfield and the National Hurricane Center for
hurricanes for preparation predictions and safe -- life safety; and,
Whereas, it is critical that the general public be made aware of -- and
understand and support the life safety efforts of the National Hurricane
Center and local emergency management; and,
Whereas, Mr. Mayfield is retiring in January after 34 years of
dedicated and unselfish public service; and,
Whereas, recognition is due to Mr. Mayfield and all personnel at
the National Hurricane Center and the National Weather Service
serving in a variety of roles for their unselfish dedication to Florida's
residents and visitors.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that December 12, 2006 be
designated as Max Mayfield Day.
Done and ordered this 12th day of December, 2006, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Frank Halas, Chair.
And, Commissioners, I move that we approve this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have a motion to approve this
proclamation and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 18
December 12-13,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's unanimous. Congratulations.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Max -- I also have a plaque here in
recognition of Max Mayfield for the contributions to Collier County
Emergency Management and dedication for life safety through
enhancement of tropical weather predictions and warning presented by
the Collier County Board of County Commissioners and the Collier
County Emergency Management, this 12th day of December, 2006.
Thank you very much for your service.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: When you're retired, will you be
volunteering over there?
MR. MAYFIELD: May I say a few words?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, please do; please.
MR. MAYFIELD: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MR. MAYFIELD: You all are way too kind here. Usually I'm
the guy that brings the bad news every time I'm on television there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No more.
MR. MAYFIELD: No more, thank you.
I have always said that the nation's Hurricane Warning Program is a
team effort with the forecasters at the National Hurricane Center, our
local forecast offices, all of our friends in emergency management at
the local, state and federal levels, and the media. We can't get that
message out without the help of the media.
I will say one thing for Collier County. I'm not quite sure how
you recruited Dan Summers down here. But you know, Dan had gone
through, I mean, from Gloria to Bertha, Fran, Dennis, Florid
(phonetic), countless other hurricanes in North Carolina, and was
Page 19
December 12-13,2006
already one of the nation's most respected emergency managers
anywhere on the coastline. And to get him down here in Collier
County, I'm not going to worry about you all, I can assure you of that.
And I'm really honored that my other friends in emergency
management from the other counties have made the trip over here
today, too, so -- and again, I can't thank you enough. Don't worry
about the Hurricane Center. My replacement is -- will be very well
accepted by everyone, and the staff there is just outstanding.
And this has never been about one person, you know, Max Mayfield.
It's always been about the team effort. And I'm just glad to be a small
-- small part of that team. Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Once again, after the presentation of the
study of our hurricane preparedness, Mr. Mayfield will be down in the
EOC to answer any questions, and I believe the media will also be
down there so they can also quiz him also.
So thank you very much, and it's been a pleasure.
Item #5A
PRESENTATION BY DEWBERRY AND DAVIS AND COLLIER
COUNTY EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ON THE FINDINGS
OF THE ABBREVIATED HURRICANE EV ACUA TION RE-
STUDY - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: The next item on your agenda, Mr. Chairman, is a
presentation by Dewberry and Davis and Collier County Emergency
Management on the findings of the abbreviated hurricane evacuation
research.
Mr. Summers?
MR. SUMMERS: Commissioners, Dan Summers, Director of
the Bureau of Emergency Services, Emergency Management. It's
Page 20
December 12-13,2006
great to be with you, once again. And by coincidence, we want to do
another update.
We're presenting to you today simply findings. These are hot off
the press. Two years ago, following Hurricane Wilma, we sought
funding for you to do sort of an intermediate or abbreviated hurricane
evacuation study.
Essentially the State of Florida had carried the burden of some of
those studies and provided that data. The data that we were working
with in this last rash of storms is really 1999 evacuation data, and we
need a lot of that in our -- at the staff level for grinding our evacuation
timing elements and those type of things and staying current.
It appears right now that the State of Florida and FEMA may do
another evacuation study, but that may put us somewhere with study
results by 2008 or 2010. I'm not comfortable having that large -- with
all the growth, I'm not comfortable in having that large window
without some relevant information.
This is just a presentation of findings today . Your agenda's full.
We'll do our best to keep it a quick present -- an informative
presentation. We will spend the remainder of the time between now
and June taking a look at this, and really, it's designed to help us
formulate some decisions and recommendations in the Emergency
Operations Center.
I'll introduce Bill Massey, who will introduce his team and make
their presentation. Mr. Bill Massey, who is a principal with Dewberry
and Davis. Bill?
MR. MASSEY: Thank you, Dan. Board of Commissioners, it's a
pleasure for me to get a chance to present the results of this
abbreviated study. As Dan made a point, that it is a very quick
analysis of your existing study. There was not a lot of resources to do
modeling, to do surveys, so we're taking a look at what's there and
trying to bring you an update with some of the information.
I want to stop to say I appreciate very much -- I want to
Page 21
December 12-13, 2006
commend the board on the proclamation for Mr. Mayfield, because
the nation's hurricane program has been truly honored by his presence,
and I think that the board making this proclamation was very nice.
And I just want to, again, thank you very much for that, because --
knowing Max for 30 some odd years, as I have.
Today we wanted to -- as Dan said, we know you have a very full
agenda. I wanted to talk about some of the findings that we have --
we've taken a look at. I'm with Dewberry and Davis, 30 some odd
years with the federal government, 25 years as a FEMA hurricane
program manager in Atlanta with region four.
Betty Hearn Morrow, from social research, Miami, is an
international behavioral expert. Has done many, many, many
behavioral surveys and is a national name, international expert in the
field in behavioral responses.
Craig Miller is not with us today. Eric Reed is from
TranSystems, an International Transportation Firm, has done a lot of
work for the State of Florida DOT and did the hurricane evacuation
transportation analysis for the Florida Keys and a lot of other work in
Florida, so we bring together a team that has some experience and
some expertise in this field.
Hurricane plan, obviously, as Dan stated, is never finished. It is a
living, breathing document. So we were asked to do an analysis of the
2001 study. And by the time the 2001 study was presented and
completed, as you can imagine, it was based on older information.
We were asked to make recommendations so that the county
could possibly come up with some recommendations about changing
an evacuation timing, update evacuation routes, some alternate routes,
some supplemental traffic control measures, traffic impacts, and some
kind of host sheltering issues, additional signage information, assist in
the implementation of GIS activation and GIS use for evacuation
planning.
One of the things we were asked to look at is, after the 2004/2005
Page 22
December 12-13,2006
hurricane seasons, there was a lot of real-time information that was
done in the post-environment about what people actually did. That
was not available to you in the original study.
So we had the opportunity to look at brand new behavioral
analyses and post-storm surveys to take a look and see how that might
have affected the evacuation and the behavioral trends in Collier
County and help the county try to improve the efficiency of their
evacuation. That's the whole idea behind this, and more to come.
I'm going to turn the podium over now to Betty -- Dr. Betty Hearn
Morrow to talk about the behavioral assessment portion of this
assessment. Thank you.
DR. MORROW: Good morning. Thank you.
As Bill mentioned, we mostly used information that was -- in
fact, all of it was secondary data analysis that we looked at. Some of
it from your own Collier County comprehensive planning department,
also relied very heavily on the Bureau of Economic and Business
Research at the University of Florida, because they constantly do
updates related to demographics, particularly in economics and
business, and, of course, some U.S. Census data, which we know--
especially with a fast-growing county like this -- is already out of date.
But the main points on the population part were that -- first of all,
I think you know, you're one of the fastest growing counties. Twenty
percent growth between 2000 and 2004. That's unprecedented.
Your permanent population right now is estimated at around 334,000.
Now, the 2001 update had made a lower projection when they
projected for 2006. But as I -- you know, as I mentioned, growth has
been beyond what was even expected.
You have about a 32 percent seasonal increase with your winter
residents. And one of the big questions is, how many of those are here
during the hurricane season. That's some of the data we don't really
know, when they start arriving.
We do know, after the last -- after the 2004 season, and 2005, we
Page 23
December 12-13, 2006
have a greater appreciation for late season hurricanes and so,
therefore, it is important to know what your population is in
September, October and even into November, and we don't have a real
good sense of when your winter visitors arrive.
We projected about a 4.5 percent growth over the next four years,
and so that would bring your population by 2010 close to 400,000.
About -- we figure about 397,000 was, I think, BEBR's best estimate
of that.
As far as factors affecting vulnerability, obviously, you know,
these are common sense things. But when you talk about -- one of my
areas that I spend most of my time in is looking at very vulnerable
populations, particularly social and economically vulnerable
populations.
But let's first start by looking at -- looking at geographic location.
Of course, we know that is the number one factor of vulnerability.
And look at Collier County. So we know where you stand on that
one.
Type of structures, of course, is another issue affecting
vulnerability, and I'll come back to that in a minute.
Also, tenancy. In other words, the number -- we do know that
renters tend to be more vulnerable during hurricanes. And some of
this has to do with the fact that they have very little, if any, control
over mitigation of the facilities. Typically rental property does not
have shutters.
And if you look at disaster after disaster after disaster, you find
that the majority of people who are dislocated and have to have
temporary housing tend to be renters, so that's one of the vulnerability
factors we look at.
Of course, the physical disabilities or limitations of citizens are
important. But one of the things I focus on are the social and
economic factors, things like limited resources. And by resources, I'm
not just talking about money, but I'm talking about transportation, as
Page 24
December 12-13,2006
we saw in Katrina. I'm talking about being able-bodied in order to get
-- do what's needed to respond.
The importance of social networks when it comes to
vulnerability . We know -- for example, one of the areas I study is
family and family networks. And we know that in response to a
disaster, beforehand preparation response evacuation as well as
afterwards, that family networks are extremely important.
So it extend -- the extent to -- and social networks of all kinds,
the extent to which your citizens are integrated into the community.
The more they are integrated, the more likely they are to be less at
risk. They'll have more resources.
Education literacy, of course, is a resource, as well as political
infl uence.
And so using those factors in looking at your county -- let me
first say something -- and I'm sure you're well aware of -- and that is,
you are the most affluent county right now in the State of Florida. The
market values of your homes have increased about 22 percent between
2004 and 2005 alone.
I don't know how much of that is holding right now, but I know -- in
general it tends to be -- the prices tend to be holding in the State of
Florida, it's just property's not selling quite as quickly. I'm not sure
that that is even the factor in Collier County.
You have about three-quarter homeowners, and that's a high
percentage. In other words, you do not have that many renters. You
are about 10 percent above average in single residence -- owner
owned and single-family residence, excuse me. You have only about
80,000 renters, which is pretty low compared to most communities of
.
your SIze.
You have about 5,000 households without cars. Again, that is
low compared to other communities. But nevertheless, there's 5,000
people. And we're very well after Katrina -- aware after Katrina what
happens to the car-less population if they are not provided for.
Page 25
December 12-13,2006
You tend to have an older population, and that tends to make
people more vulnerable; however, in general, your elders are in good
health. They tend to be affluent, they tend to have better healthcare,
and they tend to be a little less disabled than others in their age bracket
might be.
You have about 20 to 25 percent of people who, according to the
census, have some sort of disability.
We know that children are an effect to evacuation rates. People
with children are more likely to leave, to evacuate. You have fewer
households with children than most communities. You have fewer
single parents. And we know single parents are at a real disadvantage
when it comes to responding to a hurricane.
About 23 percent of your population now says that Spanish is
their first language, and that certainly has been increased. You have
fewer African-Americans than most communities of your size.
Now, when we look at your population, the most vulnerable area in
your county tends to be the Immokalee area, as you well know,
particularly the farm workers there, and the farm workers do vary with
the season.
We were given the estimate of about 2,200 in the months of July
and August. Those are low months for them. Now, we don't know to
what extent September and October starts that to increase, so that's
something that needs to be studied further. They're likely very
underreported.
We know farm workers tend to be single men, they tend to not
have transportation, and most of them have no place to go and so,
therefore, they're without refuge and they need shelters.
So that brings me to, who will evacuate? In general, higher income
households and homeowners are less likely to see the need to
evacuate; in other words, they tend -- especially if they're more
affluent. They tend to be in houses that are better built and they tend
to not perceive the risks to be as great as others might; therefore,
Page 26
December 12-13, 2006
because of that, they're not as likely to evacuate.
However, if they do perceive they are at risk, they're more likely
to evacuate, of course, than people without resources. So all things
being equal, people with resources are more likely to evacuate if they
feel that they're unsafe or they perceive that there is some risk.
Elderly are more reluctant to evacuate, and that just comes up over
and over and over in every study we do. Older people just don't want
to leave, and there's lots of reasons for this. Sometimes they'll say
things like, look, if the Lord wants to take me, he can take me, you
know?
They know that it's going to be very uncomfortable, particularly
if to have to go to a shelter. It's not going to be comfortable. It's
going to be very disruptive to them, and so there's a lot to think about.
And given that, it's often they have to really be persuaded. And even
then, as we know, again, with Katrina, the elderly people are more
likely to resist evacuation, so that's something, of course, that needs to
be considered.
And the other things is, most Collier County residents lack any
real hurricane experience. You know, we've had a lot of -- we've had
misses. We've certainly watched a lot of hurricanes in the last few
years, and sometimes that gives us what we call almost a virtual
.
expenence.
People see this happening on TV, they know that it's happened
near them, and so if anyone asks them, have you been through a
hurricane, oh, yeah, yeah. I've been through a hurricane.
I mean, we still have people in North Dade County on our
surveys who tell us they went through the middle of Hurricane
Andrew, and they weren't even close, you know. But the wind blew,
so they think they've been through a hurricane. That kind of false
experience can really cause people to not weigh the risk the way in
which they should.
Now, what rate then of your people will evacuate? When I
Page 27
December 12-13, 2006
looked at the behavioral studies, there very -- there's really only one or
two that actually had real experience in Collier County of people who
evacuated. And I know in Hurricane Georges, your evacuation rate
was 24 percent.
And on this -- in your book it has these other numbers, which I
know are hard to see up there, but it tells you where these people
tended to evacuate; however, the hypothetical behavioral surveys that
we do, social scientists do, asking people, would you evacuate, we
know that people tend to overemphasize. They over-say they will
evacuate.
So we know the actual rates are never as high as those rates they
give you when they're saying, oh, yeah, if one comes, I'm out of here,
you know. When it comes down to it, fewer people leave.
So we think that the 25 percent is probably a reasonable
assumption for most hurricanes. Now, for heavier ones, it could be as
high as 50 percent. So it's really -- we have -- since we don't have
much behavioral data just on Collier County, then it's very difficult for
us to know for sure.
So what I've done is I have actually given you -- I'm going to
skip over this next one which tells you the type of refuge, by the way.
We know that, for example, Collier County residents are not likely to
go to shelters. I mean, that's one of the things that these hypothetical
studies have shown us.
When people have other options, they would rather go with
family and friends, no matter what their economic level. That tends to
be your first choice. Second choice, if you have the money and
resources, you could go to a hotel or motel or paid lodging someplace.
So shelter's a last -- you know, last choice. Consequently, we think
your shelter use will be quite low; we have estimated maybe as low as
5 percent in a storm where you have about a 25 percent evacuation
rate.
And so given that, then we had the numbers that you'll find in
Page 28
December 12-13, 2006
your booklet that we've -- that result in these numbers. And so, for
example, we feel to the 25 -- with your current population with a 25
percent evacuation rate, you're talking about 83,000 people; 50
percent would be double that.
And we give you the number of households, the number of
shelters -- number of vehicles and sheltered use would be about 5,000
people if you're talking about 25 percent.
And, again, as I say, we're having to base this on a lot of
hypothetical( s) because one of the recommendations we make -- really
two kinds of recommendations we're making. One is that we
definitely need a Collier County behavior study, a study that really
does focus on your county because it's grown so fast. There are so
many new residents. We also don't know the effects of what's
happened over the last two seasons that they watched, including
Katrina, the Katrina effect, on people as far as their statements as to
what they plan to do.
So we do think you do need a rural behavioral study just for this
county. The other thing is, we really know that we don't know enough
about the farm workers.
And so I've talked to several people. The Florida Catholic
Conference was very useful in helping me in trying to get a handle on
that, and they would be a good resource if you were to do some
fieldwork among the farm worker communities to see, you know,
more closely what those numbers really are.
And then closely you need to monitor the upcoming, you know,
hurricane evacuation studies that are going to be done statewide.
Thank you.
MR. MASSEY: Eric Reed from TranSystems.
MR. REED: Well, thank you. Obviously you can see my name's
not Craig Miller. I'm Eric Reed with TranSystems. I work with Craig
Miller, and I will be presenting the transportation review and
assessment.
Page 29
December 12-13, 2006
In 1982, hurricane evacuation studies presented a clearance time
to safely evacuate Southwest Florida at 27 hours.
In the following study in 2001, this evacuation time increased to
60 hours. This is a far cry from the desired rate of a 24-hour clearance
time.
The conclusion of these two studies and this abbreviated HES
show that for safely evacuating Southwest Florida, the times are
completely unacceptable. We recommend improving traffic --
improving traffic capacity coupled with the demand management
strategy to achieve our goal of a 24-hour clearance time for Southwest
Florida.
The recent improvements to Golden Gate Parkway and the new
interchange connecting Golden Gate Parkway and 1-75 are significant
first steps in reducing this overall clearance time.
A new study using better methodologies and testing better evacuation
tactics is needed. Here's some just methodical recommendations for
our new study.
First and foremost, Collier County cannot be studied in isolation,
but from a transportation aspect.
Collier County's part of Southwest Florida and is a part of the
counties to the north and to the east. So any hurricane evacuation
study on a transportation level needs to take that into effect.
The first thing also is another link-by-link analysis. Once you're
studying all the counties in Southwest Florida in whole, once a
bottleneck neck is discovered, you improve traffic capacity at that.
On a model level, you take that and you test it again until the
bottleneck is solved. Once that bottleneck is solved, you go to the next
one. There's going to be more. And you keep doing that until you get
to your acceptable clearance time of 24 hours.
Here's some of the -- we've developed some tactical
recommendations based on Collier County's needs and
recommendations. One of the -- one of the first things that we really
Page 30
December 12-13,2006
like is that -- the use of default signal timing plans compared to police
officers.
These are specially prepared signal timing plans that put more
movement on the evacuating traffic, giving more green time to -- let's
say to the northbound and eastbound directions.
Oh, one thing I'd like to state, that Collier County traffic operations
and EOC have already started putting some of these recommendations
and changes into place.
The signal timing plan can be combined with closed circuit TV.
This will allow -- closed-circuit TV will allow the traffic engineers in
the traffic control center to remotely adjust signal timing in real time
to effect actual real-time events. This will allow signal timings to be
adjusted remotely without having to go out there and put police
officers there.
We also recommend closed circuit TV on all primary evacuation
routes. All 1-75 interchange signals, all key feeder routes, all U.S. 41
feeder routes, and all critical intersections. These signals on 1-75 and
U.S. 41 should be put into the central computer system immediately.
We also like the idea of a 12- fit -- 12 feet expanded shoulders on
the northbound lanes on 1-75. Currently on Alligator Alley -- I
measured it yesterday -- it was 10 feet. Twelve feet will simulate a
lane. These lanes can be used as auxiliary lanes for merging traffic.
Another tactical recommendation is the highway advisory radio
system. In the event of a hurricane coming from an adverse direction,
we recommend hurricane advisory radio flashes be installed to alert
motorists to tune in and get alternative directions, if needed.
Hurricanes mostly come in from the south and the west, but they can
come in from adverse directions, and these flashes need to indicate to
people which station to turn into to get the directions to properly
evacuate.
The hurricane advisory radio can also accommodate longer
messages and could be both -- broadcast in multiple languages. It is
Page 31
December 12-13,2006
important for me to stress to you that all forms of media, not just
radio, are important in any hurricane evacuation.
Okay. Contra-flow. Impor --I'm sorry. To properly evacuate
Southwest Florida, a suitable and comprehensive contra-flow plan
must be enacted. It is important to note here that there will be close
consultation with the governor's office for any and all contra-flow
decisions.
The first and best recommendation is to activate the contra-flow
plan ASAP. Contra-flow initiation modeling is very important and
will aid in knowing when exactly to initiate the contra-flow plan
coming out of -- coming out of an actual emergency.
This -- Houston taught us this lesson after improper deployment of
their contra-flow plan was a dismal failure. Contra-flow initiation
modeling is needed.
The second contra-flow recommendation is to extend U.S. -- the
end -- eastern terminus from U.S. 27 to 1-595. This will allow the
users evacuating to the east not just to get off on U.S. 27, but to
actually get off on 1-95 and Florida's turnpike.
More contra-flow exits are needed, however, intermediately, not just
at the end and beginning. This will allow evacuees to pull off on the
side of the road to use (sic) gas, bathroom, et cetera.
Also, there is no contra-flow plan between 1-75 -- or on 1-75
between State Road 80 and U.S. 17. This link is very important in
getting to Tampa up north. This will add high capacity terminus to the
end, which will also increase the amount of evacuees we can flush
through. Thank you.
MR. MASSEY: Thanks, Eric. I know we're running late, but this
will be very quick. We're almost finished here. We've just got a few
sample recommendations to -- and there are more in the report.
But basically the county's been doing a wonderful job, and we
need to keep up the job of the annual hurricane exercises, the training
for the county staff, continue the early evacuation recommendations
Page 32
December 12-13,2006
and notices.
That's the best way, whether or not you order -- you call it a
mandatory, voluntary whatever, try to get people moving early. And
that's one of the best things you can do, not wait till the last minute to
have everybody on the road at the same time.
Strongly-worded evacuation notices or orders or something that's
-- we've learned across the country that those really are effective.
One of the things that our studies in the past always tell us -- but
whether you believe it or not in a normal day-to-day situation -- is that
local officials are the ones who the community and the residents listen
to the most.
The commissioner talked about the Weather Channel this
morning, Jim Cantorre. I've known Jim for many years. He's always
out there in the middle of the storm it seems. People look at him, they
watch CNN, they watch all these things, but they listen to the
recommendations of the commissioners and the local officials.
You don't know how much effect you have your citizens because they
do trust you, believe it or not. That's borne out in every post-storm
study we ever do.
And so that's one of the things. And one of the things about--
that we had -- been asked to take a quick look at, is that evacuation
and land use issues always seem to be tied together with growth
management.
You're always going to have some percentage of the population
that are going to refuse to evacuate, and Jim Cantorre's going to find
that guy and interview him, I'm telling you.
The more development, obviously, the more people at risk.
Obviously some in-place sheltering options and density limitations in
the coastal high hazard areas are one of the things you could do.
But the analysis we did was not adequate to take a real hard look at
growth management versus clearance times. The regional study
situation is what you've really got to do.
Page 33
December 12-13, 2006
And there is news on the forefront. One of the things that is
coming on is that after the aftermath of the 2004 hurricane season,
FEMA put a lot of money in the State of Florida's hands from the
Hazard Mitigation Program. Governor Bush, Lieutenant Governor
Jennings, put together a real -- a strong package to do a lot of changes
for the State of Florida.
Any day now the State of Florida's going to be coming out with a
request for proposal to the consultants of the world to do lidar work,
which is airborne radar, which is new topographic data for the coastal
areas of the State of Florida. They're going to -- and redo all of the
storm surge models, all the slosh models, to get brand new
information using this new lidar, so we've got better technical data. I
know there's been a lot of lidar work already done in Collier County.
So that information is going to be coupled with the storm surge
models to get you better and more detailed storm surge information.
And then the following thing is going to be an analysis and an update
of all of the regional hurricane evacuation studies. And a decision at
this point has been made that that information, that work will be given
to the regional planning councils again.
So I think, Dan, that concludes our presentation. If you've got
questions or if we have time for that -- we'll certainly be working with
the staff over the next coming months to talk about and discuss these
recommendations.
Dan?
MR. SUMMERS: Commissioners, I'll close briefly -- Dan
Summers -- and just tell you that we got an awful lot of value out of
this report. There's a lot of things that our planning staff and
emergency management will go and take a look at.
We also uncovered some areas -- pardon me -- with some other
departments and divisions that we need to lock arms with and do some
additional review. We know that.
So thank you for your support of this project. We got good value
Page 34
December 12-13, 2006
and a new direction in continuing to hone in on this very challenging
evacuation process. We know the impacts are sensitive to that in the
community and we work very hard to give you our very best
recommendation when the wind starts to blow.
Commissioners?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much for your
presentation. At this time I have some commissioners that have some
questions, and I also have some questions myself.
Start off with Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Summers, before you make
any recommendations, what -- on how we change plans and that,
would you bring this to the Planning Commission and let them view it
so they understand what we're up against?
MR. SUMMERS: Certainly. Be happy to do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. SUMMERS: Be happy to share that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not sure what kind of
vacancy rate has been taken under consideration since the U.S. Census
reported that Marco Island has a 55 percent vacancy rate. We don't
know what kind of structures here in Collier County -- being a young
community, as some people view it -- of the hardening of those
housing areas that evacuate, how many people are there historically.
We know that planting starts in October in Immokalee. What do
we need to do in Immokalee? Those type of things.
MR. SUMMERS: We're -- a couple things. I'd like to address
those. Number one is, that one sort of advantage, I guess, with that
vacancy rate is that we always -- we're trained to plan at the
worst-case scenario, so we are taking the high side of numbers always
because Mother Nature is the variable in all of that.
So if we're high on some of our estimates and we gain some
breathing room with vacancy, then that's okay. We've -- what we
have done, we've -- we've responded safely. So we kind of like that
Page 35
December 12-13,2006
vacancy buffer. We're aware of that. We'll probably continue to take
the high side of those numbers as we roll into that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine. I don't think it's
good to -- for people to evacuate out of county -- experience of
Wilma, and 1-75 -- and all those routes jammed up because you had
the whole west coast of Florida evacuating all at once. I think it's
more important to see what we can do in county.
MR. SUMMERS: And I think the consultants pointed out to me
that we've been very lucky and somewhat skillful in some of our
voluntary precautionary evacuation because of our mobile population.
And I worry, frankly, too about some of the 1-75 construction
planned in the years to come. I think we're going to need to lock our
arms in the emergency management and the transportation folks so
that we make sure that as we get into that peak part of hurricane
season, we're looking at strategies for as much capacity as we can.
Thank you, sir. Point well taken.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. Yeah, once
again, I appreciate the efforts that are being done to provide for the
migrant laborers in Immokalee. And eventually at some point in time
I'd like to hear about the plan. We've got a very special class of
people that do not communicate well with the news medias that are
out there, and we have to make sure that we provide for them so they
don't get caught out in the fields.
The other big concern is one that has to do with the mobility,
especially in the Estates, the far eastern part of the Estates. We have a
serious problem with trying to get out from such places as DeSoto and
Everglades Boulevard.
And as you're well aware, our number one legislative initiative is
the interchange at either Everglades or slightly to the -- what would it
be, the north, I believe, for the location of it, and that's still a time off.
But we do have south water -- South Florida Water Management
Page 36
December 12-13,2006
District building a temporary exit with the taxpayers' money at
Everglades to be able to accommodate moving their equipment into
the south block to be able to put the pumps in and build the pump
stations there for the restoration of the Everglades.
They've made it very plain numerous times that that will only be
for their construction equipment and that, if necessary, they'll post
armed guards at these locations to keep people from using this.
Now, Mr. Summers, in case of an emergency where people's
lives are in danger, is there anything that's been done to work out an
arrangement with water management to make this exit available to the
general public?
MR. SUMMERS: Sir, I don't have any particular response plan
in place to address that, but I think what could be done is
communicating that, and it's something we want to work out in
advance.
But one option that I have in those scenarios is, go directly to the
state EOC, ask the governor to intervene in those areas and provide
assistance from the governor's office or Florida Department of
Transportation for any emergency opening or any emergency egress.
The scenario -- there's lots of give and take there in terms of road
quality, road safety, and, you know, is it a fire trail or is it a road in
which high volumes of traffic can pass at a certain speed? All of those
criteria would have to review with transportation.
So we would be very open to looking at that, but we have not
drilled into that of any magnitude. We know it's there. I would like to
address it in two capacities, not only for hurricane, but I would also
like to address it from the wildfire perspective as well. So, sir, I think
you've opened up an area that we need to take a much harder look at.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Summers.
MR. SUMMERS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Summers, I think the best
Page 37
December 12-13, 2006
plans can be developed when you have the most accurate information.
I am a little concerned that we do not have actual evacuation data
related to Hurricane Wilma which occurred barely a year ago. We're
basing our assumptions in this particular phase of this study on
hypothetical hurricanes that might have occurred rather than basing
the information on what really did occur with Hurricane Wilma.
Certainly we must have some data somewhere that we can access
that will give us an idea about how many people evacuated, generally,
estimated numbers, and when did they evacuate and how long did it
take us. I know we staged those, we phased them over -- we have a
lot of advance notice, thanks to the weather forecasting that we got,
which was, by the way, amazingly accurate even a week before the
hurricane struck. So it would be helpful, I think, if we had that
information.
And secondly, with respect to our seasonal population, we're
making assumptions about who is here and who isn't here. I don't
know why we have to make assumptions. We have -- we have data
from the Tourist Development Agency, we know how many hotel
rooms are occupied during these periods of time, so that tells us about
tourists. We should be able to gather data from our own traffic counts
and from sales tax increases relating to residents who are not
considered tourists but are actually part-time residents.
So with an accumulation of this data, it appears to me we should
be able to get a more accurate account -- count of the numbers of
people who are here during the traditional hurricane season, so -- and
then we should be able to take those numbers and put them into our
traffic model and come up with an updated evacuation time.
Making decisions based upon an evacuation time that was
developed five years ago when we had not begun to develop the road
network we have now is leading us to the wrong conclusions, and we
might find that it's worse or better than we expect, and I'm not sure
which way it goes.
Page 38
December 12-13, 2006
But I think it's essential that we get that data and, at least from
my viewpoint as a layman, it is not that difficult to get that data. At
least it is relatively easy to get data which is more up to date than what
we see presented in this particular report.
So I would encourage that we spend some time trying to pull
some of this data together so we'll have a more accurate basis upon
which to make the recommendations.
MR. SUMMERS: Sir, very good. And let me make a brief
response. And your point's well taken. Emergency management has
not, as a profession and a trade -- it needs to get out more with the
transportation people and get that data not only real-time, but do better
predictive modeling.
We struggled -- quite frankly, we struggled with data from
Florida DOT on traffic counts on the interstate because there was no
automation on 1-75 . We had to send a fire department runner out there
to go read a counter. We didn't have clickers or counts for many other
surveillance points that would help us amend our plans during that.
So our new area is transportation and those counts and those model
numbers. And as you know, a lot of that traffic modeling is very, very
expensive activity. And as we get into that, we want to partner more
with our transportation folks and see if we can get more. But your
point's well taken.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. The transportation folks are
monitoring those data counts all the time because they have to develop
and maintain levels of service, and we have to develop a capital
improvement program that assures compliance with those levels of
.
servIce.
So I would -- I'd like to think that Norm Feder could provide you
that information fairly readily. And I believe that the state
Department of Transportation has similar data and levels of service
information.
So I think you're right. It's a matter of -- you can't do this by
Page 39
December 12-13, 2006
yourself. But it's a matter of getting with some of the other agencies.
And if you have difficulty getting responses from those agencies, even
our internal agencies, I think if you bring it to the board, we can try to
help smooth the way for you.
MR. SUMMERS: Good, sir. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'd like to say that I think each year
people are coming back here earlier and leaving later. That seems to
be the trend that I've noticed in the last few years. And as early as
September the 1 st, I see haul-aways coming back from up north
loaded with cars.
So I think that we need to find out what the population increase is
per month, especially for the months of September, October and
November.
And some of the things that concern me is that, with the advent
of 1-75 that's going to be under construction -- and we were talking
about sheltering. I think people that are going to have a tendency -- if
they have to leave, they may end up using more shelters.
And I think that we're lacking in that area, and I know that you're
working on that to try to get additional sheltering in the eastern part of
Collier County.
Getting to the contraflow modeling. I think that's a task that has
to be taken by the state and maybe in conjunction with our
transportation in regards to letting them know about what the density
of traffic is on our roads presently.
And I know we have a concurrency law here, but it seems that
the amount of road building that we're doing, and then the amount
PUDs that are coming in front of us, are quickly going to fill up the
rate of roads that we have at the present time, the capacity. And so,
therefore, I think that's something we need to keep our eye on.
Even though hurricanes come off season, we're having more and more
residents that live here year round, so I think that's one of the areas.
Page 40
December 12-13,2006
But the contraflow point, I think the state needs to get after this
and figure out how they're going to administer this, and they have to
provide the resources to get the people out there to set up the
contraflow lanes.
We can assist, but we can't take on that total responsibility. And
knowing the state, they're always trying to pass down additional
mandates.
So I think that they have a huge undertaking here, and I think
they have to look at all aspects of how they're going to address this
contraflow, especially in the next three or four years as we're building
1-75.
Closed circuit television. I know that we have a policy that
whenever there's a pending storm, the first thing that we do is go out
and start removing some of the traffic signals and also some of the TV
cameras so that we don't lose those assets and that we can readily put
them back up after the storm passes.
So I'm not sure how closed circuit television is going to work
unless we come up with different mounting scenarios in regards to
closed circuit television so that we can leave them up there through
the whole length of the storm so that up until the storm hits, that we
can use that to make sure that we have traffic flowing in the direction
that we need to.
And I believe, from what I read in the report, we also need to
make -- have signage, more additional signage to let people know
whether they're residents or whether they're visitors.
I know there's a lot of people here that are residents that have no idea
which direction to take to evacuate, and I think that's something that
we need, to have more signage and make it very clear and maybe have
some additional information, whether it's printed material or whatever,
indicating the areas of -- where the evacuation routes are and how to
get from point A to point B, also maybe using the secondary roads that
we have as a means of evacuating people so that we can get them to
Page 41
December 12-13,2006
29, and then from there up to 27 and points north or points south or
whatever, or points east to the other side of the coast.
So I think our -- I think your job, and emergency management, I
think they've got a lot of undertaking. They've got a lot of research to
do in trying to address all of these.
And if population projections hold as they seem to be, the whole
State of Florida is going to be under a huge challenge. We're going to
probably almost double our population in the next 20 years or 25 years
here in the State of Florida.
So I think there's a huge undertaking here by all parties to figure
out how they're going to address this issue.
MR. SUMMERS: Sir, thank you very, very much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I was just going to
discuss some questions on contraflow as well, so you've taken care of
that. Thank you.
MR. SUMMERS: Thank you, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
MR. SUMMERS: Commissioners, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much for your
presentation, and thank you, staff. And once again, Max, happy
retirement.
MR. MAYFIELD: Thank you, sir.
MR. SUMMERS: Thank you.
Item #5B
PRESENTATION BY MCM, INC. ON THE STATUS OF THE
AIRPORT ROAD OVERPASS AND SIX-LANING OF GOLDEN
GA TE P ARKW A Y PROJECT - PRESENTED AND TO RETURN
Page 42
December 12-13, 2006
AT THE JANUARY 9,2007 BCC MEETING WITH ANOTHER
DETAILED SCHEDULE UPDATE
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to 5B, which is a
presentation by MCM, Inc., on the status of the Airport Road overpass
and six-Ianing of the Golden Gate Parkway project.
MR. MENIA: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen,
Commissioners. We -- my name is Juan Menia (phonetic), and I
represent --I'm the Vice-President ofMCM, Corp. We're doing the
elevated overpass for you all here in Collier County. This is Jeff
Smith, the Project Superintendent, that is responsible for the
day-to-day operations on that project.
First of all, I want to just say that this idea of having contractors
come forward to do presentations to the board, I think, is an excellent
idea. It opens the air and it eliminates any possibility of any
misunderstandings.
Our conversations with your staff have always been positive, and
we think we've always been forthright in everything we've done, and
it's actually been a pleasure.
We were provided with -- or we were requested to make this
presentation, and I would imagine that you all have the contractor
presentation form that I was provided with. I would imagine so, but if
not, I have -- I will give you a brief summary of what we feel the
project is. And how I've broken it up is a brief summary, a budget
analysis, and a schedule analysis, and there's no formal presentation.
This project was originally bid in July of '04 and was awarded in
September of '04. We figure that the project will finish between June
or July of '07, which means we've been here approximately three
years.
And it's been -- we have endured a project that has lasted 36
months at probably the most impacted time of the construction
industry, at least since we've been in business for 25 years. We've had
Page 43
December 12-13, 2006
to do a tremendous amount of housing from -- we're a Dade County
based company . We've had -- that Southwind Apartments. We're
probably their largest tenant with about 20 two-bedroom, two-baths to
house the folks we have because of the shortage of manpower and the
shortage of materials during the '04 to '06 time frame.
It's had a significant impact on the profitability of the project, but
we're committed, as we've always been, to not be an impact here and
to do a fine job for Collier County.
With respect to the budget, this budget started at 30 --
approximately 30 -- $35,400,000. It's, right now, up to close to $38
million. Your allowance account and -- I don't know, I would imagine
you know this. This is information discussed with your staff on a
regular basis.
Your allowance account on the project has a little bit less than
$200,000, and your engineering along with your staff have determined
that to finish the proj ect with the impacts that we know exist will
require about another million four, more or less.
Potential other impacts that we see could be the extent of the
muck that we have in one of our walls that still has not been removed
and material increases that we have, certain vendors and
subcontractors for material increases since the contract should have
expired in September of '06, and now it's being prolonged almost a
year.
With respect to the schedule, we feel that the -- you know, again,
the original completion date was September of '06. The final
completion date is floating right around June to July, depending on a
couple of other potential impacts that we know exist and the county
knows exist, which we have -- there's been a redesign on the crossing
of the water main where the pipe that was anticipated to use in a
significant piece of work has been changed. And now we a 90-day
lead time, which all the material's been ordered and it may not -- these
are potentials so that we can -- you know, so everybody's aware. It
Page 44
December 12-13,2006
may not be an impact to the schedule but it was an impact to that piece
of work.
We have lighting at the interior of tub girders that are still an
undefined component, and the extent of the muck to us is an
unforeseen that we don't know how to measure just yet.
So with that, I offer -- that's the extent of what my presentation
was to give you an update on where we're at with this project.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a question. What's your best
guess for what the final figure is going to come in at for this overpass?
MR. MENIA: I was -- I had put approximately close to $2
million on top of the 37, 9- because I don't like to, you know -- and
again, it depends if anything else comes forward as a resigned or a
modification to a design. I think we're far along enough to feel that
with another $2 million, it should do it.
But these are not caused -- these are not items created by us. I
just want to be very clear. You know, these are add-ons to our
contract.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: When do you anticipate that we're going
to start flowing traffic over the overpass itself?
MR. MENIA: We had -- I had made a commitment to the county
to do my best to get -- to get traffic flowing over by February 5th. We
don't see that that's going to be achievable, it's cost prohibitive to get
the amount of resources that I need to get on the bridge component.
What we do feel, that -- in the month of March.
We're still going to push hard. We know the urgency that the
county has to get traffic flowing through -- over the bridge.
Our big concern that I really didn't take into full consideration when I
had talked about that date was, the moment we allow the county to put
traffic on that bridge, all the remaining work on that bridge will be
significantly impacted.
We will -- because the bridge will not be 100 percent complete.
There's landscaping, there's paving, there's a barrier wall. And so nowa
Page 45
December 12-13,2006
we're going to go ahead and let the county occupy the bridge, and then
we're going to have to do all this external work at a huge cost to
basically our company.
So I think -- and we've discussed this, and we have options and
things that we can discuss, but I would say March -- March, April is
when you would have traffic over the bridge.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So now you're hedging to -- we started at
February, and you went to March.
MR. MENIA: March.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Now we're going to April.
MR. MENIA: Well, it all depends. I have -- understand that part
of this bridge, to put the bridge operational -- and I don't want to say
something here that I will regret in 60 days.
We have under -- under one quarter of the bridge, if you will, of
one of the walls, we have a -- an undetermined amount of muck. The
last time that we had muck, we thought it would be resolved with
about $50,000. We've spent close to half a million dollars on muck,
and we don't know the extent of what's on the other side.
So in the perfect world, if everything were to go smooth, it could
be -- it could be earlier, but then at the same time, this is uncontrolled.
Nobody knows the extent of what I have under there.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I've taken a tour over there, and I go by
there each day, and I notice that we only end up with maybe eight to
10 people working on this whole project. I know you have a
subcontractor that's been trying to build a wall to the north of the
bridge along Airport, and I was wondering when that was going to be
open so that we can open up that bottleneck that we have that's under
the bridge at the present time for northbound traffic.
Can you tell me if you're going to take assets off of the
interchange when that's completed and put those assets to get the
completion of this overpass done?
MR. MENIA: I can guarantee you that we're doing that. We
Page 46
December 12-13,2006
have had this -- I put -- I gave notification when I was going to do the
assets, as you call them, that we have --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: People.
MR. MENIA: The people, the assets, the resources. We have a
completion date of the 10th of January. Our resources or our assets
are already, if not yesterday, today, predominantly there. Not only are
we going to leave the assets that were there, the resources that we
originally had in the interchange are not going back to Miami. They
are going to stay here and we are going to basically try to -- we're
going to attempt to flood your project so that we can get out as soon as
possible.
It does us no good to stay any longer. And that's why at the
beginning, I just want to identify these things that have pushed us to
June of '07 are not components derived by MCM. It's just -- but yes,
we have a great interest in completing this project.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. Well, my concern is that for a
long period of time we've only had a limited amount of assets on that
project, and most of them have been down at the interchange. So I'm
hoping that things will change.
And I know you've got some big projects in Miami, and I'm
hoping that you're not going to start sneaking those people out and
forgetting about us here in Collier County.
MR. MENIA: By no means, by no means.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sir, thank you for your time
today, and welcome to the best coast of the State of Florida.
MR. MENIA: It is a beautiful coast. And I just had to tell you
that the moment -- the way you started your morning, what a great
morning, a prayer, an invocation, a service award. Fantastic statistics
on what's happening in our beautiful state. You all do a fine job.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, thank you. The question
is, we talked about the muck and the 90 days. What were you given
Page 47
December 12-13,2006
for the hurricane; do you remember?
MR. MENIA: Let me see. Fifty-two, if I'm reading correctly.
These are not my -- this is not my document, I think. This was
provided -- this was provided to us.
You did not prepare this, right?
MR. SMITH: No.
MR. MENIA: I think it just says here, hurricane and weather
days starting in March, four change orders added 52 days for weather.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Fifty-two.
MR. MENIA: Over the course of, I guess -- this was over the
entire project. This was for '04, '05, and '06.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the original completion -- the
total completion was supposed to be September '06. That's what you
stated.
MR. MENIA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You got 90 days plus another
month and a half. So we're really behind on the project.
MR. MENIA: This isn't -- this -- the things that have pushed us
behind on the project are not related to us. This is a complete redesign
of your S walls. I don't know how in tune you are to what is going on
there. These are not that we're behind. These end dates are pushing
our project. They're forcing us to stay here much longer than we
would like. We had -- even right now we have the conditions that I
told you that are potential delays to the project. These are potential
delays that could affect your June '07 date.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why are we forcing you?
You're saying we're forcing you.
MR. MENIA: Well, when you add a scope because -- I'll give
you an example.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you have to accept it? Are
we forcing you to accept those terms?
MR. SMITH: Well, these are components of this project.
Page 48
December 12-13,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sir, if you'd step up to the mike and
identify yourself, sir. Thank you.
MR. SMITH: Jeff Smith. These are components of the project
that must be designed differently or addressed, and not by us. We're
the contractor. These are the owner's problems, quite frankly. You
can't complete the project without the changes that have been made.
It's not that we don't accept it. We -- first of all, when you direct us to
work, we work. So these changes came about not by our wish or
anything we have done.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But it's unforeseen conditions,
and I don't --
MR. MENIA: And I apologize for the -- if I said force.
Obviously nobody's forced us. You know, we're in a partnership
when we come here, and --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sir, step up to the -- if you'd get up to the
mike, sir. Thank you.
MR. MENIA: The owner needs additional services from us, they
get their engineers to modi -- to enact the modifications to the design,
they give us the drawings, we price the drawings, and we say, this is
going to take X amount of money and X amount of time. But these
are driven by design components and not by the contractor, you know,
just wanting more time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe I don't understand all the
changes of time.
MR. MENIA: Well, there's -- this has -- this has a very -- you've
got the S wall change order, which was a -- it was close to a $2 million
impact to the budget, was -- that was the largest single impact to the
schedule of the job.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Schedule, okay.
MR. MENIA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks.
MR. MENIA: Which is what pushes the end date.
Page 49
December 12-13,2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm concerned that, based upon the
information we have, that with the redesign of the S wall and the
resolution of the muck problem and so forth, that we're still looking at
a completion date of June the 15th, 2006 (sic), but you've said that
there are other considerations that will even endanger that completion
date.
Now, staff hasn't told us about that. Can you elaborate on that a
little bit?
MR. MENIA: To me, when I say endanger, these are potential
things. We have a -- we have what we call our critical path is taking
us through the middle of June or early June presently. I see here 6/3; I
thought it was 6/17. But it seems like it's going to be June 3rd. When
we input -- when we get resolution to the things that are outstanding,
we update our schedules, which is -- it's relatively technical, and we
see if that is a concurrent delay with what we've already experienced
or if that's going to conceivably push our project further out, and then
we try to mitigate any impacts that could have to the schedule and
bring it back in.
We have no interest in being here -- we don't want to be here
through June. We feel conceivably -- we're confident we can pull it
earlier. But I was -- my mess -- my mission here is to put you all
abreast of what is happening and what could conceivably be
happening.
This S wall, you know -- and for whatever reasons, it took a long
time to get resolved. These things, everybody's much more motivated
right now to make sure that all of these issues are getting resolved, so
your staffs all over these issues. So hopefully they will not be an
issue, but they are potentially issues.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I'm still confused. Let me go
through this one more time. With the addition of the 1 77 days for the
Page 50
December 12-13,2006
redesign of the S wall and the 51 weather delays ( sic) and whatever
other delays have actually been approved by the staff and -- from my
standpoint, if the staff has approved it, then they must recognize that
it's necessary.
MR. MENIA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Otherwise they wouldn't have
approved it. So -- and with that, we have been presented with a
completion date of June 15, 2006, which is about 10 months later than
we originally anticipated.
But you have said that if you permit the overpass to be open for
traffic in March that that's going to have an impact on the other work
you have to do which would endanger even that June the 15th date,
and then you've also said that there are lighting issues that haven't
been resolved.
You know, we haven't -- at least I haven't been advised of
anything like that, and I need to understand that so that we can resolve
any problems or conflicts between you and the staff to try to get this
project back on -- closer to schedule.
MR. MENIA: Let me, if I could, first the -- maybe I said it
incorrectly. If we open the bridge to traffic, it will affect not the end
date of the job -- or not this schedule, it will affect us. It will affect
our costs because if I have the entire bridge to work on to do my
landscaping on the bridge, my brick pavers, my barrier wall, my
lighting, my signage, everything that goes on that bridge without
having cars coming by at 50 miles an hour next to our working people,
I can get my work done much more effectively and much more cost
effectively.
If we tried to -- and it's been something I've been dealing with
because I did -- I have met with your people and they're wonderful
folks, and we have been -- you know, they had a vision of the
February date, and I had a vision of the February date.
But as the date gets closer, it's just -- and as I talked with -- you
Page 51
December 12-13, 2006
know, with my general superintendent and we go and see the job,
there's just a lot of things that go on that bridge so I can get your
traffic up, but then now I have all of these other considerations that I
will be -- that I will be dealing with. And it's -- that's where I said it's
not cost effective for us to do that.
But no, if the bridge delays a little bit, that will not push your
June date out. Nothing here can push your June date out unless
resolution to a couple of issues which just became apparent in the
meeting -- we have progress meetings on this job, and we had one the
other day, and there were issues, you know. I don't even look at them
as significant issues because June is pretty far out there. We feel that
we can overcome just about anything that's thrown to us, within
reason, by June, but I'm bringing it as a possibility or a potential
situation.
And all I can -- all I can think of are three, which is pretty good.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. If you open the bridge to
traffic in March, what is it you -- what is your intent at that point in
time? You say it's going to make things more difficult for you. Are
you going to ask us for more money for the project if you open the
bridge for traffic on March, or are you not going to ask us for more
money?
MR. MENIA: If it -- if the county wants us to open the bridge
earlier than we are able to open the bridge complete and that is
something that's going to cost us a significant amount of money, we
would then tell the county before they ask us that that it's going to cost
them additional money.
I think if we push it to March -- or that's why I said a little bit
later, we will be 100 percent complete with the bridge and all the work
associated with the bridge, and it won't push your end date of the
project back, but we will have finished the bridge component in its
entirety and it won't cost us additional money.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, when is that bridge
Page 52
December 12-13, 2006
component with the project going to be completed?
MR. MENIA: In the normal-- in our regular aggressive format
that we've had out there, I would say March -- March, you know, in
the month of March.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So the bridge is going to be
completed in March?
MR. MENIA: I would say right around March, depending on
what we find in the muck on the wall.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And when will you know that?
MR. MENIA: In two weeks. We should be -- in two weeks or
right at the first week of January we should know what we're going to
expect under the wall in the area that we know presently contains
muck.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right. So the other time, from
March until June 15th, will be spent doing what?
MR. MENIA: All the auxiliary road work. There's a lot of other
stuff --
MR. SMITH: It's basically all the peripheral work that's
remaining on the job. It will be finishing the ramps, putting in
landscaping, all the finishing touches on the canals. It's basically the
work that -- some of that can be done now, and it's a continuing
process till the end of the project.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, none of that will
impact the traffic flow at that intersection substantially? I mean, the
intersection will be open to traffic flow during the process; is that
correct?
MR. SMITH: Once the bridge is open, you'll have traffic flow
east and west. Now, there was one component that was mentioned
earlier that is affected by that construction and has a delay. The -- we
have a water main that goes across the canal that was under redesign
that can't be attached because of materials until February, March.
That affects one ramp on the project, which is what we call ramp C.
Page 53
December 12-13, 2006
Now, it's possible to put the bridge and the roadway in east/west, but
that ramp C probably will not be open until April sometime. So there
will be a time where the traffic will not be able to head eastbound
from Airport-Pulling, and that will be a matter of a month to a month
and a half impact, and that may be mitigated somewhat, but it's around
a month to a month and a half.
So other than that, there will be complete traffic flow through the
project, even during our finishing phases, until June.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, rather than
continuing this questioning, it seems like there are a number of items
that have to be resolved between the staff and the contractor.
Could I suggest that we ask the staff and the contractor to come
back to us in those two weeks when you will know what will be
necessary to open the bridge and complete the bridge and give us a
complete schedule of when the bridge will be opened for traffic, when
the project will be depleted in its entirety, and what will be the
associated costs with doing that? Because I don't think we can get
those answers here today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's pretty mucked up.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now -- and just one closing
comment. From our standpoint, it would have been far better to
complete this overpass before the interchange on the interstate was
done because all that traffic now is going to be getting off there and
coming into an uncompleted intersection at Airport and Golden Gate
Parkway. It is going to be an absolute nightmare.
And I have been particularly disappointed for some time at the
pace of activity that I've seen on the construction site. I also
frequently go by there.
As a matter of fact, yesterday morning I went by there at 8:20,
and I really could not see a single worker anywhere. The equipment
wasn't moving. I don't know if there were people somewhere on that
site, but I sure didn't see them.
Page 54
December 12-13, 2006
And I am -- I am worried that your pressures to complete the
state portion of the job is causing us not only additional delay, but
additional cost.
And I would feel a lot better about this if I saw some urgency in
trying to get this project completed. And I guess I don't see that, but I
do understand the complications caused by change orders.
But what I really would like to see is a little more urgency with
respect to getting people on the job and getting some things completed
for us.
Okay. Thank you very much, and I appreciate you coming here
today. Thanks for the opportunity.
MR. MENIA: Just so -- you know, the people that were there
yesterday -- not to debate it -- but they're working on the bridge. The
earth crews are the ones that we pulled out which are already back. So
you will see that sense of urgency, I can --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I find myself to go with our
transportation director probably every three or four weeks and just see
what the progress is.
When I went over there weeks ago and looked at what was --
what had to be done, my best guess is, I don't think you're going to get
that project done till August. That's just my guess. I'm not a civil
engineer, but my engineering background in other areas, I look at that,
and I just look at the -- unless you put a tremendous amount of assets
in there -- and to get after it. If it's going at the same rate that it's been
going, I figure it's going to be about August.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. Now, I do want
to thank you, one, for making the bid, and I hope that when this is all
over, that you make future bids in Collier County for the roads.
And what I'd like to do is address my questions, instead of directly to
you gentlemen, to Mr. F eders (sic), who is the person that's
Page 55
December 12-13,2006
responsible to the county manager and ultimately to the commission
for the answers on this.
Mr. Feder, the contract that we have with this company, does that
take care of these entities to the most part? Or where does the
commission come in when the decisions have to be made? It's
possibly it would be with the opening being March or being June? I'm
not too sure. Would you weigh in on this?
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, Transportation
Administrator.
Essentially you agreed to a contract. Weare administrating that
contract for the board. There have been some issues, as have been
discussed today, both in the canal, the S wall, and the water main, as
well as muck, as well as some hurricane days, particularly in '04 and
some in '05 that we've had to grant.
Those are added on to the contract. The unfortunate part is the
accelerated schedule, as was noted here under the schedule of
activities, hasn't been met based on the resources that have been
placed on the job. We're behind on a couple of late schedules. We've
been hearing for quite some time the resources will come off of the
interstate job over to the overpass project. That hasn't materialized. I
assume, given the look of what's happening on the interchange and
knowing that more resources tend to flow over there of recent late
(sic) instead of the other way, that they're nearing the level of
completion on activities that will bring those resources back.
I'm looking for that to happen and for the project to move forward.
They do have, contractually -- because of the requirement to grant
days because of change order -- unexpected changes that had to be
redesigned and new resources ordered -- because of that, they do have
until June 15th for final; May 15th for substantial. There are
liquidated damages associated with anything later than that.
Unless we're required and we look at every issue that comes up to
grant any additional days, that would be our intent, to hold to those
Page 56
December 12-13, 2006
days, if we do grant any additional, and make sure that this board is
aware of that. But our intent is to encourage them to complete before
then.
The issue of opening the overpass to traffic, which will restrict --
and I hope maybe -- I think the board did, but I want the public to
understand that if we do open the overpass earlier than that completion
of substantial May 15th and final June 15th earlier, let's say in March,
then we will not be able to allow southbound lefts or northbound
rights because you will have that overflow traffic and the traffic on the
north side to the south side where the water main is.
On -- the east side of Airport is not going to be open, so you
won't be able to allow those movements at that time until the
substantial is done, as I said, right now for May 15th.
The other thing I'll point to you, Commissioner, is that we have
100,000 of the funds that you gave when we had the issue of the wall
and the maintenance of traffic that were geared to what they told us
they could do, which was 5th of February opening. That 100,000 will
not be provided unless, of course, the bridge is opened by that time.
I think they declared that it's not financially feasible for them to do
that, and that's fine. We will hold to the contract provisions.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Feder, I do appreciate the
weekly reports that your department has been sending out on this and
the hoities (sic) that you follow. And hopefully there'll be additional
information concerning what we talked about today so that we can
follow the progress in those reports.
MR. FEDER: And I hope to tell you that all those resources or
assets that we're looking for will be on the site and the progress will
start moving even faster right now. They have the capability to be
gone before the substantial May 15th and the final June 15th. It's all a
matter of what they're able to do on resources on the project.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. If -- any other questions? If not,
we're going to have them come back in three weeks to give us an
Page 57
December 12-13,2006
update of what's going on.
MR. MUDD: I've got it at 9 January.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, great. At that time -- let's take a
break for our court reporter, and we'll report back here at 11 o'clock. I
believe we've got a time certain at 11.
Thank you very much. I appreciate your candor on this particular
item.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, County Manager.
And at this time I think we're starting off with, what, 9 A?
MR. MUDD: 9A, sir. The 11 o'clock time certain had to
withdraw because, number one, he was sick, and that's Mr. Sosa, and
that was the presentation for the Fish and Wildlife. And I mentioned
that during the --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: -- when I did the changes for the agenda. 9A. It's
appointment of members to the Golden Gate Community Center
Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve Vicki
Clavelo, William Arthur, Ernie Bretzmann and waive the competitive
bid for Vicki Clavelo and Bill Arthur.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Competitive bid?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The reappointment section of
the ordinance.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Competitive bid.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Coletta.
Page 58
December 12-13, 2006
Any further discussion on these appointments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Excuse me. I don't mean to
interrupt, but we can't go on to the next item because it would require
a unanimous vote of the commission to be able to approve --
MS. FILSON: Actually the one you just did also requires a
unanimous vote.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, it does?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The ones present or --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The one we just did?
MS. FILSON: The one you just did is a unanimous note to waive
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: We need all five.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion that we recall
that last vote; is that the correct language?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Rescind the last vote.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Rescind the last vote.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'll second that.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Absent.)
Page 59
December 12-13,2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Where's Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Shall we send the deputy for
him?
MS. FILSON: I think Mr. Mudd went to get him.
THE SHERIFF: Manager Mudd went to get him.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You got the gun though.
MS. FILSON: Actually you can do item 9D. It doesn't take a
unanimous vote.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, hopefully we can find the missing
commissioner here so we can proceed.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why don't we do 9D?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Item 9D?
MR. OCHS : Yes, sir.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2006-322: RE-APPOINTTING RUSSELL RAINEY,
DEBORAH HORVATH, ALEJANDRO CASTILLO, DOUGLAS
PORTER AND JAMES ELSON TO THE COLLIER COUNTY
CITIZENS CORPS - ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion
to appoint members to the Collier County Citizens Corps, the
following members, Russell Rainey, Deborah Horvath, Captain
Castillo, Douglas Porter, James Elson, and the sheriffs office
representative to be named at a later date.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'll second that.
There's a motion on the floor by Commissioner Henning,
Page 60
-- ._.__..~-""._~,-,,~-..__.._-~,..."._.-.,... _/'" ,-""""-"-'-""<<"'" --,".--""'----'
December 12-13,2006
seconded by Commissioner Halas, in the appointment of the persons
for the Collier County Citizens Corps.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2006-323: RE-APPOINTTING VICKI CLA VELO
(W AIVER OF TERM LIMITS), WILLIAM ARTHUR (WAIVER
OF TERM LIMITS), AND ERNIE BRET AMANN TO THE
GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY
COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, going back to
9A, appoint members to the Golden Gate Community Center, I make a
motion that we appoint Vicki Clavelo, William Arthur, Ernie
Bretzmann, and waive the ordinance 2001-55 for Vicki Clavelo and
Bill Arthur.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second the motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by
Page 61
December 12-13,2006
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Fiala in
regards to this appointment of the Golden Gate Community Center
Advisory Committee.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2006-324: RE-APPOINTTING FRANK DONOHUE
AND EDWARD OLESKY (W/W AIVER OF TERM LIMITS) AND
APPOINTING SARAH GEROY TO THE PARKS AND
RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
Now we can go to 9B.
MR. MUDD: And that's appointment of member to the Parks
and Rec. Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, I'll make a motion for
the first three, Edward Olesky, Frank Donohue and Sarah Geroy.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Also, does that include waiving--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that includes waiving the
fact that Olesky has already served two terms.
Page 62
December 12-13, 2006
MS. FILSON: Also you need to waive section 5D of2001--55
for Mr. Olesky for serving on more than one board.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I also include that in my
motion.
MS. FILSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I hear a second?
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, call the question. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I appoint the
remainder of Charles Slaght and Charles Martin.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. Where are we?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We're on 9C, aren't we?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I'm sorry.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2006-325: RE-CONFIRMING CLARENCE
TEARS, JR. AND RICHARD RICE, RE-APPOINTTING MARK
TEATERS AND MICHAEL DEDIO TO THE EAST OF 951
Page 63
December 12-13, 2006
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES HORIZON STUDY
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MASTER PLAN COMMITTEE-
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Yes. The item's continued from the November 28,
2006 BCC meeting. It's appointment of members to the East of 951
Infrastructure and Services Horizon Public Participation Master Plan
Committee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I'd
make a suggestion. I'd like to make two motions, one would be -- the
first motion would be to reappoint the -- not reappoint, to reconfirm
Richard Rice and Clearance Tears, which are important members of
this committee, and it will take a unanimous vote to keep them on that
committee. All five commissioners need to vote for it. I'd like to
make that as the first motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do you want to state the next
motion or you want --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, one at a time, one at a time.
MR. WEIGEL: One at a time.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coletta and a second by Commissioner Fiala in regards
to the vote on the East of 951 Infrastructure and Services Horizon
Study Group.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll call the question. All those in favor,
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 64
December 12-13, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries. Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second motion would be to
appoint for the remainder two ones, Michael -- how do you pronounce
't?
1 .
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Dedio?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Dedio and Mark Teaters.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor
for the appointment of Michael Dedio and Mark Teaters, and we have
a motion and a second.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
Item #10A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT NO. 06-4000 FOR
ENGINEERING AND PERMITTING SERVICES TO BE
PROVIDED BY CH2MHILL, FOR THE DESIGN OF
V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD EXTENSION TO BE
Page 65
December 12-13, 2006
CONSTRUCTED FROM COLLIER BOULEVARD TO DESOTO
BOULEVARD, PROJECT #60168, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$5,650,000 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item on
the agenda, which is lOA. This is a recommendation to approve
professional service agreement number 06-4000.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What about 9D?
MS. FILSON: We did that one.
MR. MUDD: We did that one already.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. That's right.
MR. MUDD: Sir -- okay, I'm going to say lOA again. It's a
recommendation to approve professional services agreement number
06-4000 for engineering permitting services to be provided by CH2M
Hill for the design at Vanderbilt Beach Road extension to be
constructed from Collier Boulevard to DeSoto Boulevard, project
number 60168, in the amount of$5,650,000.
And Mr. Norman Feder, your Administrator for Transportation
Services, will present.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, what we're asking is that we move
forward on the negotiated contract for design services, a little over 10
miles on this project.
The project price was negotiated down from the original
estimates that we received, and we believe that we have a good
contractor to proceed with this design.
As you know, we have a 200-foot corridor that's been identified.
Our desire is to get the design work, see what we can do to pull down
that corridor as much as possible as we continue to progress towards
right-of-way acquisition in this area.
Based on the board's direction, our initial focus -- and you've
already approved it under the consent agenda to -- was to purchase the
19 homes that were directly impacted. One of those we've already
Page 66
December 12-13,2006
addressed, and we're continuing in that process.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commission Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Mr. Feders, it's important
__ and I think you can't elaborate on it enough. There's all sorts of
rumors that we're not going to continue with this project, that it's
falling by the wayside, that it's -- it would be financially infeasible to
be able to carry through.
By the actions today, what does this mean?
MR. FEDER: What this means is, first of all, we're continuing
our commitment on this project. It's essential in the east/west and
overall county movements.
We have, as you're quite aware, this board's aware, all of
Immokalee Road, at least up to the fairgrounds, under construction.
Once that's completed and even six-laned, we could not -- with that
and the four-Ianing on Golden Gate Boulevard, even when we extend
in other issues -- meet our needs without an alternate east/west, and
Vanderbilt Beach Road is that alternate east/west that's essential for
use.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's disappointing, that I see
correspondence that this corridor was for the stewardship districts.
And, you know, I remember in 2001, I believe it is, when we put it on
a long range plan, before we even had any knowledge that Ave Maria
was going to be there.
MR. FEDER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's quite disturbing. We all
know that the vast area -- I think it's 200 square miles of Golden Gate
Estates -- that has been platted and has been there for a long time. It's
building out. We need to service this community. So I'm going to
make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that motion.
Page 67
December 12-13, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Coletta. My
concerns are the 5,000 -- or $5 million. That's basically just to do a
study and an acquisition of the land?
MR. FEDER: No. That is actually just for the design, sir, and
acquisition of permits and to address all the issues associated with this
corridor.
We did a planning level study for the corridor identification.
This is actually going through and physically designing the structures
and the roadway that would be needed.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And this is going to take us to--
just to -- all the way through to DeSoto, or just to Wilson?
MR. FEDER: That's correct, all the way to DeSoto.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
MR. FEDER: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item on the agenda is lOB,
but that's got a four p.m. time certain.
Item #10C
THE APPLICATION BY C-TECH MANUFACTURING
Page 68
December 12-13,2006
FLORIDA, LLC FOR THE JOB CREATION INVESTMENT
PROGRAM AND THE FEE PAYMENT ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM AND TO CONSIDER ALL FOUR ECONOMIC
INCENTIVES AS ONE BUDGET - CONTINUED INDEFINITELY
And I'll move to the next item, which is 10C, and on the change
sheet that was requested by the petitioner to -- or from the EDC to be
continued indefinitely.
Item #10D
A DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT (DCA)
BETWEEN CAMERON PARTNERS, LLC AND COLLIER
COUNTY TO OBTAIN RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE FUTURE
EXP ANSION OF THE INTERSECTION OF IMMOKALEE ROAD
AND COLLIER BOULEVARD - APPROVED
We are now on 10D. This is a recommendation to approve a
developer contribution agreement, DCA, between Cameron Partners,
LLC, and Collier County to obtain right-of-way for the future
extension of the intersection of Immokalee Road and Collier
Boulevard.
And Nick Casalanguida, the Transportation Planning
Department, will present. Was I close?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Very close.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there anything you want to put on the
record before we go through this?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, it's a critical
intersection, and I think it's a very good agreement and protects that
intersecti on.
Page 69
December 12-13,2006
Other than that, sir, if you have any questions, I can answer them.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can I make a comment?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, if I may. This is
wonderful in the fact it's forward thinking. We have heard many,
many times, why didn't Collier County plan for the future? This is
exactly what we're doing in this case.
This is not an interchange that's going to be built in the next
couple of years. This is to assure that when that time comes, we don't
run into a meltdown like we have at other intersections in this county
where they didn't do sufficient planning to put the right-of-way aside
for that overpass, that which is very much needed. It can't take place
in some areas because of the fact that people were allowed to build in
what would be the right-of-way, and the costs have become
prohibitive to be able to continue.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Coletta.
Hearing no further discussion, I'll call the question. All those in favor,
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, Commissioners.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item on your agenda is
10E, but that's a companion item with 8E, and that will be heard later
Page 70
December 12-13,2006
on today.
Item #10F
AWARD CONTRACT #07-4082, GOLDEN GATE LIBRARY
EXPANSION TO DEANGELIS DIAMOND CONSTRUCTION
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE GOLDEN GATE
LIBRARY, PROJECT 54261, IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,879,000
AND TO APPROVE THE NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENTS - APPROVED
That brings us to 10F, which is a recommendation to award
contract 07-4082, the Golden Gate Library expansion to DeAngelis
Diamond Construction for the construction of the Golden Gate
Library, project 54261, in the amount of $4,879,000, and approve the
necessary budget amendments.
And Ms. Len Price, your Administrator for Administrative
Services, will present.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have some questions. When we started
with this project, it was at 17,000 square feet, and then we believed--
the commissioner in that district brought the -- said that he wanted to
redesign this because it was going to be cost effective. And then we
end up paying an additional $1.5 million. Where did we save money
in regards to looking at making this a simpler design?
MR. HOVELL: For the record, Ron Hovell, Principal Project
Manager in Facilities Management. That wasn't my recollection of
the rationale for changing the design, so I'm not sure how to answer
your question.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I thought it was that it was -- we
wanted to cut down on the -- what the -- the facade. We wanted to
Page 71
December 12-13, 2006
make it a more plain building, is my understanding. Am I right on
that or am I wrong on that assumption?
MR. HOVELL: I don't know if it was to save money or if it was
just -- didn't like the looks of it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. HOVELL: I'm not sure.
MR. MUDD: But you didn't bid -- you didn't bid out that design,
so you wouldn't know what the construction costs would be?
MR. HOVELL: That would be correct, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I stand to be corrected. I thought
that we had already bidded that out.
MS. PRICE: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, there was a projected cost on it,
wasn't there?
MR. HOVELL: At every phase we're often updating project
estimates. And I know in this most recent budget cycle, back in about
Mayor so when we put the budget together, I think the estimate at the
time was about $5.8 million for the total project, and now, the way the
bids came in and all the other costs on top of it, I think we're at seven
point almost three million dollars, so --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Right, okay.
So we have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Henning and
a second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, we'll call the question.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed?
Page 72
....... ..._.____......."..,-""....-'~-.A,..-~'
December 12-13,2006
Aye.
Motion carries.
Item #lOG
REPORT PROVIDING THE FINDINGS OF THE SURVEY OF
BUSINESSES BOUNDED BY PINE RIDGE ROAD, AIRPORT-
PULLING ROAD, T AYLOR ROAD AND TRADE CENTER
WAY; DESIGNATED URBAN-INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT ON THE
FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT
PLAN; AND, ZONED INDUSTRIAL - APPROVED
W/STIPULATIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is lOG. It's a report to the Board of County Commissioners
providing the findings of the survey of the businesses bounded by Pine
Ridge Road, Airport-Pulling Road, Taylor Road and Trade Center
Way designating urban industrial district on the future land use map of
the Growth Management Plan and zoned industrial.
And Ms. Michelle Arnold, your Director of Code Enforcement,
will present.
MS. ARNOLD: Good morning, Commissioners. On -- excuse
me -- October 10th, you all heard a public petition from Richard
Gazzerro and Thomas Ramsey, and this was in relation to a code
enforcement case that we had against the antique mall located at 5510
Shirley Street.
The petitioners at that particular time asked the board to -- for
additional time so that they could consider their legal remedies for the
situation. But after much discussion amongst the board, staff was
directed to look at the industrial areas and determine whether or not
there was other uses or other businesses in the area that had similar
circumstances.
Page 73
'....",...--""'--..;~,,-"'" -. ..-,.""'.....,----..,--,.."..--...--.
December 12-13, 2006
In response to that direction, staff looked at the industrial zoning
district and identified what -- the intent and purpose of that zoning
district. It's been identified for you in your executive summary
identifying manufacturing processing, storage and warehousing,
wholesaling and distribution, as the primary uses for that district.
Additional commercial activities are permitted within that zoning
district, but only ancillary or an accessory to those primary principal
uses.
Additionally, there's restrictions within that district to the amount
of gross square footage that would be allowed for retail if that was an
ancillary use or accessory use to a principal uses within that zoning
district.
We went out -- my staff went out to the industrial area and
surveyed every business within that area, identified what their
principal uses were, noted whether or not they had accessory use that
were retail in nature.
The conclusion of the study showed that less than 5 percent, a
very small portion of the businesses within the industrial area, had
retail establishments associated with their businesses that exceeded the
permissible square footage within that industrial zoning district.
Staff also looked into the availability of commercial square footage
within the county and showed that there is in excess of 200,000 square
feet available for commercial businesses, such as retail uses, also
looked towards a study that was performed by the Economic
Development Council which identified a deficit within -- of industrial
zonage within the county, and in the future in excess of 3,000 acres
would be a deficit as their study concluded.
The subject area is designated -- not only zoned industrial, but it's
also designated industrial on the future land use map. That
designation, again, would limit the uses within the area to industrial
uses in nature, prohibiting retail as a primary use within that zoning
district.
Page 74
December 12-13,2006
The antique mall has -- we've identified five separate options for
them to comply with the code. Because the use -- and I just want to
back up. Our code is citing them for their occupational license. They
have an occupational license that says wholesale only. They've
identified for you all at the October 10th meeting that they are a 100
percent retail operation.
In order for them to comply with the zoning and stay, which is
what -- their desire, they would have to rezone their property, would
be one option. A rezone of their property would also entail an actual
compo plan amendment, because as identified for you, not only has it
got industrial zoning, it also has -- these are the options. Not only is it
industrially zoned, but it's also designated industrial on the future land
use map. Yes?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: My concern is that we have very little
industrial area in Collier County and it's getting more and more
difficult to get. And as you brought up, the EDC has made a study,
and I believe we're going to be shy in the near future of close to 3,700
acres of industrial land.
I'd like to make a motion that this business relocate to a
commercial area and that they be given six months to find a new
home, and I believe that this area needs to be brought back into
compliance so that we can take care of heavy industry. So that's my
motion.
MS. ARNOLD: That is obviously an option to them. We could
have them go through the due process and bring this issue to the Code
Enforcement Board and have them come up with recommendations as
well, or this board obviously can take a position on what you'd like
staff to do.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Obviously the motion died
because of a second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I just wanted to hear some
more suggestions from others.
Page 75
December 12-13, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. ARNOLD: Another alternative to them is to amend the
Land Development Code to allow antique malls or similar uses as a --
either principal permitted uses or a conditional use. The difference
would be, principal permitted use would allow them to, as a right,
exist in that zoning district.
As a conditional use, they would have to go through a public
hearing process that would allow more input, public input, and to
determine whether or not there is a compatibility issue of concern.
Another option would be for them to relocate, as mentioned by
Commissioner Halas. The other would be for them to convert their
business back to an operation that's permissible. Primary use would
be wholesale and limit the retail portion of their business to 20 percent
of the square footage.
And finally, I think I -- did I note it's -- all five? I think I did. I
said that they can go through the due process, they can relocate their
business to retail, they can also modify the business, get a Land
Development Code amendment or get a compo plan amendment.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do I understand the report to tell us
that after your survey, fewer than 5 percent of the businesses in the
area are probably violating this particular law?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes. And we don't have a definitive number on
that because additional research would be required. We'd have to
actually go in and measure the square footage to determine -- some of
these businesses weren't open at the time of our survey, so we'd have
to look into additional information on that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: From a practical standpoint, what
is the difference between retail and wholesale?
MS. ARNOLD: I'm going to have Susan Murray Istenes -- I said
it right, too.
December 12-13, 2006
MS. ISTENES: Hi. Susan Murray, zoning -- or Istenes, Zoning
Director. I can't even say it right. Oh, boy.
Practical standpoint, you were looking at increased traffic, you're
looking at kind of a different user.
And I noted when Michelle talked about conditional use as an
option through amending the code, ironically when I was thinking
about that, normally in a conditional use you're looking to protect
surrounding properties or to enhance compatibility of surrounding
properties from the proposed use.
In this case it would almost be the opposite because you've got --
obviously in a commercial use you have just a lot of the public/retail
customers coming to the site, very high trip generation, very much a
lot of activity. Those people would be surrounded by primarily
industrial uses.
So there's kind of a compatibility factor there where you would
actually almost be protecting the proposed commercial business from
surrounding industrial because industrial uses are typically more
intense, not necessarily from a traffic standpoint. It just might be a
different type of traffic, like heavy trucks and equipment, noise, dust,
odor, that sort of thing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there any indication that the
increased traffic from this retail operation is causing any difficulty
with other businesses in the area?
MS. ISTENES: Michelle might be better off to answer that
because she's studied the area more.
MS. ARNOLD: We looked at this particular use basically based
on the zoning and its occupational license. We didn't do an analysis of
the traffic that came, you know, from that particular property, and we
didn't compare it with other uses within the area, so I wouldn't be able
to answer that particular --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Can someone tell me what
is involved from the standpoint of expense in amending the Land
Page 77
December 12-13,2006
Development Code to add antique malls as a permitted principal use?
MS. ISTENES: $3,000 is presently the base fee for that. There's
no guarantee that they would get that. You all would have to make a
consistency finding with the Growth Management Plan, as well as the
Planning Commission, for that amendment to be approved.
Essentially as it's structured right now in your code, that is a
commercial use. And I'll point out some examples that may be
affected as well. For example, the St. -- and I don't know the name of
their business, but the St. Matthews' House, kind of retail business.
It's -- generally this business appears to be kind of sale of secondhand
goods, commercial -- retail sale of secondhand goods, and you've got
that similarly for the St. Matthews' House project on Airport Road,
and also Habitat for Humanity, I think, runs a very similar commercial
operation, and those are located in commercial zoning districts.
Oh, and another one on Radio Road and Davis. That's true.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And those aren't being required to
relocate. They are in a commercial zoning district.
MS. ISTENES: They're in -- correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. What flexibility does the
board have -- and this is a legal question -- does the board have in
granting a significant period of time for these businesses to either
come into compliance or relocate?
My objective is to try to solve this without putting small business
owners out of business. I don't see any purpose that's being served.
I think what we -- what you have told me is that you have not found
any harm being caused by this retail operation at this location.
Nobody's being harmed, the neighborhoods aren't being harmed.
There is no health, safety, welfare problem for the public. There
appears to be nothing really wrong except they don't comply with the
code, and that's important. I mean, you have to enforce the code.
So I'm trying to figure out if we can solve this problem without
putting small business owners out of business.
Page 78
December 12-13, 2006
MS. ARNOLD: We -- the harm would be the inconsistency. I
think that Susan mentioned that we have other businesses of a similar
nature that are complying with the code. They have all located in the
appropriate zoning district.
They -- and our recommendation is not to put them out of
business. Our recommendation is to do certain things so that they can
comply with what the existing codes would be, because surely we
wouldn't -- I totally agree with you, we don't want to put small
businesses out of business.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But if they're selling secondhand
goods to end consumers, they can't do anything about coming into
compliance with the code because that's not what the code requires.
So they are -- they're forced into a situation where they have to
close their shops there and go try to find some space somewhere else
to open another shop. That mayor may not be possible from an
economic standpoint to permit them to continue in business, I don't
know.
MS. ISTENES: Commissioner, I just -- appreciate your point. I
just want to make sure another -- that you're aware of -- another thing
we'll probably run up against is, commercial development standards
are different from industrial development standards, and this is -- the
building essentially is an industrial building.
I mean, it's a large metal building with very few windows, and
they're going to have difficulty meeting parking requirements and --
all the other parking requirements that go along with commercial uses,
so that might necessitate a variance or some other type of mechanism
that they may have to come through you for to get approval so that
their site can come up to compliance as well.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Well, I didn't give the
attorneys a chance to answer my other question. What can we do with
respect to granting people a significant amount of time to find an
alternative or to come into compliance, David?
Page 79
December 12-13, 2006
MR. WEIGEL: What you can do is you can indicate as a board
that an application of prosecutorial discretion of the code enforcement
would be appropriate. And staff, who brings forward code
enforcement matters before the Code Enforcement Board, would
understand that the board has given a direction and an authorization to
back off for a period of time based on the premises that you're
discussing, which is that certain activities or applications would
prospectively be tended to during the time period that you indicated
would be a time not to go forward and prosecute.
One other question that I'd like to raise, or clarification, is I
believe the report indicated that no more than 5 percent of businesses
were -- were commercial rather than industrial within this -- within
this industrial area.
If I understood correctly -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- I
believe you maybe were indicating that there are other businesses
other than the antique mall that are operating from a commercial
standpoint such as the antique mall, and, therefore, as the board looks
at this, are they looking at other businesses at other locations within
this zoning district as well as the antique mall, or is this board solely
going to talk about the antique mall because it was the subject of a
complaint and other businesses operating similarly were not?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, my -- I'm leading up to a
motion here, if I -- and my intent would be to try to deal with the
entire situation rather than just picking out a single situation and trying
to deal with it.
But where I'm trying to go here is to put people on notice, all of
the businesses on notice that are not in compliance with the code, that
they will have to become compliant with the code as of some specific
date and give them sufficient time to work out the business issues of,
perhaps, selling and buying or leasing and relocating and all that sort
of business over a period of time, because otherwise we're going to
have a procession of requests for Land Development Codes and
Page 80
December 12-13, 2006
expenditures by each of those property owners of several thousands of
dollars, and there's no assurance they will even get approved by the
board.
MS. ARNOLD: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So I think it's in the best interest of
all the property holders if -- owners if we were to say, you know,
you've got a specified period of time to come into compliance and see
what that does for them. I don't know how many of them are here to
speak today. How many speakers?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We don't have speakers.
MS. FILSON: I don't have any speakers.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, that's right. Okay, okay. But
my proposal would be --
MS. ARNOLD: They're here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, we do have some but they're
not registered to speak because they didn't get here in time.
MS. FILSON: I don't have any slips.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, you don't have any slips. Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we won't be able to hear from
them, and that's unfortunate, but nevertheless __
MS. ARNOLD: We can surely look at that as an option to give
notice to those businesses at whatever time period the board may feel
is appropriate.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I know how difficult it is for
a business that has an established location to move someplace else and
communicate with all of their clients and make sure that their business
follows them.
I'm thinking in terms of three to five years. So I would like to see
them be given plenty of time to do this since there is no harm,
apparently, being caused by this. And unless someone can tell me that
there is a health, safety or welfare problem that requires immediate
Page 81
December 12-13,2006
resolution, I would make a motion that we grant them a minimum of
three years to come into compliance or to relocate.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second that motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Say that motion one more time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: My motion is to permit -- David,
what was the official term?
MR. WEIGEL: Prosecutorial discretion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. Issue a -- would it be a letter
or certificate or just the guidance to the --
MR. WEIGEL: This would be just guidance at this point to the
code enforcement. Code enforcement then, in its own administrative
way, would get -- establish the communication with the respective
commercial businesses in the industrial zone to inform them of, you
might say, the initial plan or program that these businesses need to
look into.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then my proposal would be
to provide guidance that the code enforcement agency employ
prosecutorial discretion in enforcing this code for a period of at least
three years and that you will bring this issue back to us at the end of
that period with a report as to what the property owners have done at
that point in time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion.
MS. FILSON: We have a second, and we already had a motion
on the floor.
MR. WEIGEL: My understanding is that there was a motion but
possibly not a second on the floor.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: But there was no second; it died for a
second.
MR. WEIGEL: And therefore, it would die for lack ofa second.
We officially recognize that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I was going to ask, ifit were
Page 82
December 12-13, 2006
remanded to code enforcement, what method would they take to
dealing with this?
MS. ARNOLD: Well, we would notify the property owners that
they have three years, essentially, to comply.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay, so about the same as this
motion is.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, yeah, the --
MS. ARNOLD: Well, no. Ifit were remanded to the Code
Enforcement Board?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. This -- number one says,
enforce the code providing that the respondent has due process before
the Code Enforcement Board. I mean, what would that entail?
MS. ARNOLD: Well, we would bring the matter before the
board. We would present our side. They would present their side.
They would make a determination as to whether or not a violation
exists. And then if they were to find a violation did exist, then they
would give them time to comply. What that time would be, I don't
know.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see. Okay. Thank you. That's
all I wanted to know.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The question was asked about
the harm, what is the harm for them to be there? I've had -- gotten
complaints from business owners in that area. You had retail
businesses complaining about an industrial use, such as an asphalt
batching plant. They didn't want that asphalt batching plant to be
there or a junk yard or similar uses. So there is an effect by putting
incompatible uses in one spot. That's my opinion.
I agree with the motion. I think it's a great way to resolve it. But
I do have a question. In these industrial parks you have restaurants.
What -- do you consider that a retail use or a use that should not be in
the industrial park?
Page 83
"""_..,-,,.,.,~-,-----;-,~-><
December 12-13, 2006
MS. ARNOLD: That's one of the uses that is permitted in the
industrial zoning district, and they would have to go through the site
plan requirements and -- that's a part of the site plan requirements is to
address some of those compatibility issues with non-like uses. And
most of the restaurants that are located in the industrial zoning districts
are the ones servicing the businesses within that particular area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I had a question. You said there's -- how
much additional commercial space is available at the present time?
MS. ARNOLD: Over 200,000 square feet.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So as far as them being able to find
commercial, that -- there seems to be excess of commercial at this
point in time for them to relocate instead of staying in an industrial
zone -- heavy industrial zone; is that correct, would you think?
MS. ARNOLD: Well, there seems to be ample commercial
space available within the county. And as mentioned, there is the
opposite with the industrial areas within the county. There's limited
industrial for the uses that are the intent and purpose of that zoning
district.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Heavy industrial uses are very limited.
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: But the commercial is -- we have
adequate supply.
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do you have any idea of what they are
paying presently per square footage?
MS. ARNOLD: I have no idea.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do you know what square footage is
going for in commercial?
MS. ARNOLD: I think it's --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I know it's variable. It depends upon
where you're located. It's location, location.
Page 84
December 12-13,2006
MS. ARNOLD: My boss tells me about 25 to 30 bucks a square
foot, but I don't know.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. Yeah, I hear the
motion, I understand where you're coming from, but a couple of things
just don't quite line up. And one of them was yesterday I met with
Tammie Nemecek and we talked about a bunch of issues, and this
wasn't one that she had -- an issue that she brought up on.
I don't see Tammie Nemecek. I don't see the Chamber of
Commerce here ready to speak on behalf of the lack of this particular
instance out there. I think we've got a very unique situation here where
what took place took place over a period of time. They've been
operating on the other side of what is considered to be the code
enforcement there. They got away with it. They've been living with
this situation.
I kind of wonder, what harm is being done by this particular
operation where it's located now? Maybe somebody could tell me that,
Mr. Schmitt or Michelle? Or probably you, Mr. Schmitt. You might
have a little more into this.
MR. SCHMITT: Again, for the record, Joe Schmitt, your
Community Development Administrator -- Community
Development/Environmental Services Administrator.
We talked about this yesterday, of course. The harm would only
-- could be a perceived harm that others who had to comply with the
code actually had to build similar to St. Matt. or the Shelter for
Abused Women. They run their similar type of operation -- or
Habitat.
But in the same vain, and I mentioned yesterday, I went over
there and visited on Sunday just to walk around, and it -- it is an
operation that's been in existence. The harm only is in the fact that
there was a code case that was called in, it was investigated, and we've
basically followed the code and are attempting in some way to at least
Page 85
December 12-13, 2006
enforce the code.
You certainly are taking, in a compassionate form, trying to
resolve the issue, and I commend you for that. I think that's maybe __
would be a way to approach this, but with the understanding you are
allowing this business to stay there.
We would -- and I mentioned to the gentlemen who operate and
own the facility, if it's allowed to stay, we would just want to make
sure that if it remains, quote, a commercial type operation, that they
comply with the requirements for commercial, even if it's simply, to
ensure that they have ADA accessibility, American Disabilities Act
accessibility, and that they have proper parking at least for
handicapped, some of those minimum requirements to ensure that they
are not -- we are not creating some kind of a -- oh, I guess an
opportunity for someone to come back at the county in some manner
or form.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand. In other words,
I'm calling this a very specific situation that is different than anything
else we've dealt with --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- where you have the whole
unit which is basically broken up into how many different subunits.
MR. SCHMITT: It is --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ten, 15, whatever.
MR. SCHMITT: -- basically consignment.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And every single one of them is
basically mostly retail; some wholesale, but mostly retail, correct?
MR. SCHMITT: And all of it secondhand, and there's -- then
there's some argument that secondhand furniture is really more a
wholesale operation than a retail.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And forgive me, but I'm
going to ask the Chair to reconsider allowing the couple people that
are here to speak to be able to really hear the human element that's
Page 86
December 12-13,2006
involved with this whole thing. I'm not saying that what we're
.
proposIng --
CHAIRMAN HALAS : We have laws that -- we have
regulations.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The Chair has the ability to be
able to alter that if it sees fit.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I think we're leading on to a
discussion here that's close to some type of resolution.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I understand that.
MS. ARNOLD: Can I just -- Commissioner, can I just also
mention that the motion wasn't limited to this particular use. It was
limited to all uses in similar character, and the harm would be you're
potentially -- well, you would be reducing the square footage available
to the industrial zoning district for these uses. And if we were to
expand on that, you're making the recommendation or the study of the
EDC, you know, even --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand. The EDC didn't
seem to be concerned. My concern, too, is that when you've got a
three-year sunset on a particular business entity, you're going to have
some people saying, well, three years isn't going to work. I'm going to
leave now. I'm going to leave later. And the whole thing's going to
just dissolve in a short period of time.
I don't think these people stand a running chance to be able to do
it. And I'm sure if we heard from them today, we'd probably hear
some similar concerns. If we're going to go with three years, maybe
we could consider a higher number or something where we'd have the
option to increase it after two years to maybe another three years.
In other words, two years, look at it with the idea that it's going to be
three years out, but also look at it with the idea that we might have to
have a transition period of another two years to be able to get to where
we need to be.
I'm very concerned about the human element and what we're
Page 87
December 12-13, 2006
going to do to this limited number of people. They were allowed to
operate without interference until just recently for a number of years,
and all of a sudden the strong arm of the law is there, and we're trying
to find some way to be able to be fair, but I think we're falling a little
short.
MS. ARNOLD: Well, I would just ask for clarification, too, so
that it would be limited to those uses that are currently there, because I
could foresee other uses similar -- or other retail uses __
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can understand that.
MS. ARNOLD: -- moving into the industrial zoning district
because of the position that's been taken.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can understand, you know,
limiting it to the people that are there, you know, grandfathering them
in or something, but not allowing it to continue.
I just feel that with three years, as generous as it may seem, it's
got a -- it will stifle the business atmosphere of that whole enterprise.
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, it just makes our job a little bit more
difficult to verify with certain businesses in certain locations,
particularly when they don't have occupational licenses.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sure the commission in its
infinite wisdom will figure this one out.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: My problem is that we have laws. We
have areas where businesses are concentrated, certain businesses. I'm
concerned that we're limiting our possibilities in regards to industrial
parks, industrial areas.
And I think maybe if -- if there's no concern over this, maybe we
ought to just have that whole area rezoned for commercial and forget
the industrial portion. I mean, to me -- but that doesn't seem to be the
fair way of doing it.
That was originally an industrial park. It should remain an
industrial park. And yes, we should give those people some time, but
I'm thinking that three years, that's like saying, continue on what
Page 88
December 12-13, 2006
you're doing. You're not -- because of the fact that they didn't abide
by the laws. They even admitted it in front of us. So I have some real
concerns on this.
And I'll tell you, I can't go along with the way the motion has
been put on the floor.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Call a motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I'd like to address a couple
of questions that have been raised. First Michelle has asked for
clarification about the applicability, and I agree, Michelle, it should be
applicable only to those people who are actually located there at the
present time and would not include anyone who wished to move in
there after the date of this motion or date of effectiveness -- effective
date of this motion.
The other thing has to do with a loss of industrial space. There's
no practical impact here. Those people who need or want industrial
space can easily make offers for purchase or lease of those facilities.
And if, in fact, industrial space is so much more valuable, the owner of
those facilities would be logically inclined to take a higher offer for
leasing or renting or purchase. So there are ways that people can take
advantage of the industrial square footage in that area.
And I don't know that any of these business owners or the owner
of this building has ever been approached by anyone wanting to buy it
or lease it or rent it for industrial purposes, so I see no problem there.
Now, with respect to the motion itself, please let me remind you that
the motion said that you will use prosecutorial discretion for a period
of three years and you will bring a report back to the board as to what
has happened, right?
MS. ARNOLD: Right. And can I --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And at that point in time the board
can say, okay, we've given people enough time and you're going to
start enforcing the law, or we can say, we have run into some
Page 89
December 12-13,2006
additional complications and there's some considerations that we did
not understand at the time, and we might want to allow more
flexibility .
But I would certainly hope that the businesses involved in this
situation would move quickly to rectify it, because beyond our
control, there are potential bad effects on those businesses if they
continue to operate in violation of the law, and they can include exit
and entry from buildings for large groups of people, disabilities act
ramifications, fire code ramifications.
There are all sorts of things that can work to damage the business
if it continues to exist in violation of the law for a longer period of
time. So there's every motivation for the business owners to try to get
this resolved as quickly as possible, and those are all effects that are
beyond our control. We cannot waive any of those.
So it's -- this is -- this is an attempt to help small business owners
because the EDC and the Chamber of Commerce are not in here.
They're not a big portion of the business community, but they're
people who deserve to be helped, just like the underprivileged in our
community deserve to be helped. And I think it's the compassionate
thing to do, and I think it would be reprehensible for us to take action
that will result in their loss of income and livelihood.
MS. ARNOLD: Can I ask for one other clarification,
Commissioner? The antique mall had an occupational license for
wholesale. There are businesses in the industrial park with no license
at all. Would this allow them to continue as well, or should we look at
similar situations where their occupational license probably does not
meet what their actual operation would be, and then we would allow
them to fall within this three-year time period?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: My feeling is if you have a
business that's operating there, they should have a license to operate
there.
MS. ARNOLD: Okay.
Page 90
December 12-13, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If they've been located in that
operation for some time and have been operating a business there, I
would not deny them a license nor would I want to kick them out
immediately, but they should fall under these provisions.
MS. ARNOLD: Okay. So regardless of whether or not they
have a license, it would apply?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. But they must get a license;
you understand what I'm saying?
MS. ARNOLD: That would be somewhat awkward because we
would then be asking -- you're asking your staff to give a license to
someone that is illegal.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I? You wouldn't do the
same thing for somebody who's running an illegal business out of a
home --
MS. ARNOLD: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- for a home occupational
license. I think we should be equal in that. If they don't have a
license, same way with several other factors within county
government of what you need to get.
But would you be okay -- if they don't have a license, they don't
comply with the zoning -- that they're going to have to find another
place? Obviously they wanted to circumvent the process, I would
assume, just like somebody running certain businesses out of their
home that has no business in a residential community.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I tend to agree with you.
Would this imply also that, perhaps, they have not been collecting
sales tax and remitting it to the state?
MS. ARNOLD: I can't answer that question, but __
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's another department that
enforces that.
Page 91
December 12-13,2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we've talked about this
enough. Give some direction, and I'm ready to vote.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll be brief. You know, after
listening to everything that just took place, when the license issue
came up, I started to see all sorts of flags going up. I would never
condone a business being able to operate without a license. Totally un-
excusable.
When I was in business, if someone came in and competed with
me without the proper license, without Workman Compensation,
without paying sales tax, I turned them in. It's that simple.
You've got to have a level playing field out there or it's not fair. So if
the person isn't licensed, they should not be allowed to remain there,
because one, they probably are running a cash business and everyone
else is supporting the shortfall that comes from it.
Two, they probably have people employed there that aren't
getting adequate wages or are not being covered by Workman Comp.,
so there's all sorts of negative fallouts from it.
So I tell you what, I'm going to support the motion because what
could come out of this if we fail to pass it would be a lot worse than if
we -- than the three years. It would just be an automatic turnout of
code enforcement to put everything exactly right the way the codes
read.
But I'm in total agreement about the license factor. You don't
have a license, you don't deserve to be in business. And that sounds
really tough. I mean, I'll go to the end of the earth to try to make life
happy -- willing -- happy for people and easy, but I will not excuse
anybody operating a business without the proper license.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Could I have the motion maker
restate the motion, please.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. The motion is that the board
Page 92
December 12-13, 2006
would direct the code enforcement department to exercise
prosecutorial discretion for a period of three years for all businesses
that are properly licensed and currently located in this industrial park.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Properly licensed.
MS. ARNOLD: Not properly, just licensed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, licensed to do business in
this industrial park for a period of three years, and that you will bring
to us a report of the disposition of all of those businesses at that point
in time.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do we need any -- any other clarification
from the county attorney before we vote on this matter? Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: I don't think so.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We've got a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coyle and a second by Commissioner Fiala (sic).
Hearing no further discussion, I'll call the question.
All those in favor, signify by saying.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed, by like sign?
Aye.
And the reason I oppose is because I made it fairly clear that this
is an industrial park and not a commercial area. Thank you.
MS. ARNOLD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: At with that, why don't we recess for one
hour. We have a time certain at one o'clock, and we're going to recess
for lunch for one hour.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Page 93
December 12-13, 2006
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, County Manager
Jim Mudd.
Ladies and gentlemen, we're back from the noon recess, and I
believe we have a time certain. It's 12A.
Item #12A
A WRITTEN SETTLEMENT OFFER AS PROVIDED BY
SECTION 70.001 (4)(B) OF THE BERT J. HARRIS, JR., PRIVATE
PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT TO SETTLE CASE NO.
05-962-CA CURRENTLY PENDING IN THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND ALSO TO RESOLVE ALL
CLAIMS INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, CLAIMS
UNDER THE BERT 1. HARRIS, JR., PRIVATE PROPERTY
RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT THAT RELATE OR REFER IN
ANY WAY TO THE MAY 10,2005 PUD AMENDMENT DENIAL
RELATIVE TO WHAT IS SOMETIMES REFERRED TO AS THE
COCOHATCHEE BAY PROJECT - APPROVED W/CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. 12A is one p.m. This item, again, to be
heard at one p.m. It's a recommendation for the board to make a
written statement offer as provided by section 70.00 1 (4)(b) of the Bert
1. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act to settle case
number 05-962-CA currently pending in the Circuit Court of the 20th
Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida, and also to resolve
all claims including, without limitation, claims under the Bert J.
Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act that relate or refer in
any way to the May 10, 2005 PUD amendment denial relative to what
is sometimes referred to as the Cocohatchee Bay project, planned unit
development, ordinance number 2000-88.
Page 94
December 12-13, 2006
And I believe Mr. Mike Pettit, your deputy county attorney -- did
I get it right?
MR. WEIGEL: No.
MR. PETTIT: I think it's chief.
MR. MUDD: Okay -- chief assistant county attorney, will
present.
MR. PETTIT: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mudd. For the record,
Mike Pettit, Chief Assistant County Attorney.
I'm going to introduce this item. And I think the board may be
aware, this has been an item in flux for some days now, and I think
there may still be changes yet that you are unaware of.
What I will tell you is that this comes to us as an item required by
statute. The statute requires that when a party files a Bert Harris Act
claim against a local government such as this, that within a certain
statutory period of time, 180 days, the local government needs to
make a written settlement offer.
The package that was put into the -- or the information that was
put into your package, agenda item, was a settlement document that
the staff and the County Attorney Office believed or had been led to
believe was something the developer in this case, Lodge Abbot &
Associates, LLC, would accept to resolve its claims against the
county .
Let me back up and make two points. We have two real claims
here. One is a petition for certiorari, which is the subject of a court
case that's currently pending, filed in the local court.
If the county were to prevail on that case, that would essentially
be the end of that case unless the developer chose to appeal.
If the county were to lose on that case, the likely relief granted
would be that the matter would be returned to this board for another
hearing. The Bert Harris Act notice is not a lawsuit yet. It's a notice
that if this doesn't get resolved, they will proceed, presumably, to file
an action in court for damages.
Page 95
December 12-13, 2006
As your executive summary shows, the claims -- and all claims
are disputed at this point by the county -- that they have been damaged
in the amount of approximately $239 million as a result of this board's
decision on May 10, 2005 to deny a PUD amendment involving the
Bald Eagle Management Plan amendment on the property.
Now, going back, as I said, the information in your packet is
information that, as of approximately Wednesday last week, our office
and Mr. Schmitt's staff were lead to believe was something that would
be acceptable to resolve this matter on behalf of the developer, who's
also the claimant.
This is your offer. I want to make that real clear. You are the
ones making an offer of settlement. There is no settlement at this
point. We are not recommending any particular settlement agreement
at this point.
We are coming to you for direction to make the written
settlement offer that you must make under state law to the developer
on this claim. And as you know from reading your executive
summary, and I think from past experience in these types of claims,
you could make an offer of -- we are not going to change the position
we took previously -- that likely would lead to a lawsuit, or you can
make an offer of a variety of things, which might include allowing the
Bald Eagle Management Plan to go forward, and that would be in the
nature of a PUD amendment.
Now, I have been given this morning -- and I haven't had a
chance to really speak since then with the attorney for the developer,
Mr. Y ovanovich -- a draft settlement agreement has some changes
from the settlement agreements you have in your package. And as I
read it, I think the three principal ones are as follows:
First, the developer has now indicated that rather than use a 15
percent wetland impact as a springboard for coming back before our
EAC and EIS, they are prepared to follow what I understand to be our
LDC requirements -- and Ms. Student, you can correct me if I'm
Page 96
-----"....-----...
December 12-13, 2006
wrong about that -- of 5 percent. So they have -- they have reduced
their demand in that regard, and that's in paragraph 3 of a revised
settlement.
In paragraph 6, the developer is now essentially agreeing to apply
the five-year sun-setting provisions for this PUD once the SDPs are
approved, and so that is different.
As you recall, there was -- I think initially, at one point in time,
there was a request for no sun-setting provision to apply. Then there
was a request for a 20-year period, and now it's been reduced back to
five, which is close to, if not equivalent to what's required by our
LDC.
Finally -- and I think this is important -- transportation had
requested an alternative contribution or response from the developer in
what was paragraph 8 of the settlement. At one point in time the
developer offered to contribute $500,000 for the county.
Transportation is now -- has come forward and made some requests,
and the developer is willing to agree, and I'll read that to you in the
record.
In paragraph 8, as the developer has now proposed, it says,
transportation requests the following alternative commitment: The
developer building a 10- foot pathway along the western side of
Vanderbilt Drive consistent with the Comprehensive Pathways Plan
adopted earlier this year in lieu of building the Wiggins Pass Road
sidewalk and the sidewalk on the east side of Vanderbilt. That was a
request transportation made, and the developer's willing to offer that.
I believe that pretty much sums up the changes in the settlement
document. I know that the developer's here and I know that Mr.
Y ovanovich, the attorney that's been representing the developer, is
here, and it may be that some of you now have questions of them or of
our office or of Mr. Schmitt's staff of this matter.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'd like at this time to tell the side
of the story, that I've been working with the developer and one of his
Page 97
December 12-13, 2006
associates in regards to this.
We opened some dialogue up in this -- and I'm bringing this
forward to my fellow commissioners so they understand and have the
full story -- of how we could get something started in regards to
addressing this PUD.
And upon opening up talks, we talked about a number of things,
but one was there was some concern from the residents of having the
golf course -- having structures on there, homes. And through the
process, there was one homeowners' group that was adamantly
opposed to any building of homes.
And we came to an agreement which was very difficult for me,
because I think my fellow commissioners understand where I am as
far as building heights. And in order to take the pressure off of this
golf course area which is located on the east side of Vanderbilt Drive,
I said that what we could do is add two stories to the IS-story
building.
They, in turn, said -- and I told them that I needed something for
public benefit for the community, not only in District 2 but all of
Collier County because there's a lot of people that drive back and forth
on Vanderbilt Drive.
And one of the issues that I think you know I've been working on
when we've discussed projects with the MPO -- and that is the
replacement of the bridge that's up there over the Cocohatchee.
The developer said, with the two stories they would come forward
with bridge enhancements and road enhancements, and that's as far as
I'll carry that so we don't get ourselves into some other problems here.
So it was road and bridge enhancements, I believe, for $3 million.
Also as each tower is going to be built, the developer said that they
were going to put $600,000 towards affordable housing to be used
wherever we want to have affordable housing, which would end up
being a total of $3 million.
And then, of course, we had discussions, as the county attorney
Page 98
December 12-13, 2006
brought up, about -- where they wanted 20 years sunset on the -- on
one of the items. There also was talk about additional tearing up of
wetlands.
I met with them as late as Sunday . We sat down as three
gentlemen. There was no lawyers involved. It was just -- we're -- it's
kind of the old way of doing business where you sit down and try to
discuss things, and I think we came up to -- to get this resolved to
where, as the county attorney brought forth, that we're going to abide
by the Land Development Code as far as the wetlands, and for sun-
setting of this PUD would be five years. So I just want to bring all of
this out to light.
I know there's been other items that have been discussed, but I
believe a lot of these items can be covered at site development -- at the
Site Development Plan. And I'll ask Joe Schmitt to probably give us
some direction as we discuss this whole process.
So I just wanted to bring this all out to everyone on the dais here
so they knew exactly what transpired. There was -- also the developer
had made a number of commitments to other homeowner groups.
That's not involved in this process. Whatever transpired is up to the
developer and the surrounding homeowner groups within District 2 up
there in the north area.
So at that, I'm going to -- if there's any question -- oh, excuse me.
Commissioner Henning, you had a question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I have a question, couple
questions. But -- I don't see a lot in here about the eagles, but I do -- I
hope that we can settle this in the benefit of the taxpayers. Two
questions. One is about a 10- foot pathway. Is -- the understanding is,
where does it end and where does it start?
MR. PETTIT: Commissioner, I'm going to have to defer to Mr.
Scott. This was language that he suggested as an alternative to the
monetary contribution.
MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, Transportation Planning. It's along
Page 99
December 12-13, 2006
their frontage. It's in lieu of six feet, which is in their site -- you know,
their approved site development plans, but it's consistent with the
pathways plan. It's also in replacement of -- essentially along Wiggins
Pass. We looked at cost estimates for doing a sidewalk there, and our
cheapest is 1.7 million.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, great. The second
question is, the settlement we first do -- the Site Development Plan __
actually three of them -- but it's not included in our packet. And
should it be included in our packet?
MR. PETTIT: Commissioners, I understand that those Site
Development Plans have been submitted and are under review. And I
don't know whether Mr. Schmitt wants to address that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Here's what it says. The
settlement agreement is contingent upon the SDP already submitted to
the county to be approved by the county. So it's contingent upon the
approval of these three SDPs or site plans.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, for the record, Joe Schmitt.
The language basically says that, and that's the way it was written __
that upon approval of the site plans -- which are still under review.
There's three site plans; two having to do with the west side and one
with the golf course, east side.
All three are pending based on what agreements will be reached
in this settlement agreement. In fact, I would, for the record, want to
clarify that any changes today in this settlement agreement may make
some modifications to these site plans, so this -- there is a kind of a
quid pro quo here.
The site plans have to be approved, and that's what the petitioner
is asking, that the site plan be approved to effectively enforce or to __
just for this to become acceptable to the applicant, but at the same
time, whatever is decided today may -- and I only use the word may __
require some changes in the SD P.
And that's -- but those are minor, minor in nature. But to answer
Page 100
December 12-13, 2006
your question, should they be here for the -- part of this packet?
They're not included as part of the packet because that is an
administrative process. If you want it as part of the packet, we would
have to bring all those plans back and include them as part of the
settlement agreement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, it is a part of the
settlement agreement because it refers to it. Contingent upon.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, it says, it is contingent upon, meaning
that the applicant is looking for assurety that the site plans will meet
the administrative review process before this plan is actually executed.
And I understand exactly your logic.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The only thing is -- and
it may be a representative of the property owner needs to give us some
information --
MR. SCHMITT: Yep.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's what I --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- on how we can come to this
conclusion. Since it's in here, we don't want any surprises and for this
to come back, so we have a full understanding of what we're doing.
MR. SCHMITT: I'll turn it over to Mr. Y ovanovich, but we
certainly can bring the plans back.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no.
MR. SCHMITT: They're quite large packets.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think what we're trying to do is get
something rectified here, okay? Rich? And then maybe somebody
else would like to speak to this.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure. We have a presentation we'd like
to make. It's not very long, but let's go specifically to the SDP issues.
The three SDPs are SDPs that are in, have been reviewed, and my
understanding is, the sole remaining comment is, they're inconsistent
with the Bald Eagle Management Plan.
So if the Bald Eagle Management Plan is changed pursuant to
Page 101
December 12-13,2006
this settlement, then those other three are ready to be approved.
We do know that we'll have to come back and amend one of the SDPs
to address the increase in height from 15 stories to 1 7 stories, but we
know that's an amendment that will have to occur. It's not tied to the
approval of these first three.
And one of the -- one of the SPDs -- and we haven't figured out
which one yet. We have to go back and look. But one of the SPDs
referred to the 35 boat slips, and we didn't want -- wanted to make it
clear that none of the SDPs were approving any of the 35 boat slips.
We still have to go through the full county review process for the boat
slips, and that's why we had that one paragraph in there saying,
notwithstanding SDP, blank. We're not approving the boat slips. So
we have to figure out which one of those three has actually referenced
the boat slips. So that's the blank that's still there. And with all the
last -- with all the negotiations that were going on, we just didn't get
that number in the agreement yet. So that's what that blank is related
to.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What about the -- there's
new issues with the property about the bald eagle going from its home
to finding a new home. Is this playing a factor in our decision? And
some do. Is it something in the settlement that may be reached by
your client?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That will be something that will be
addressed later depending on what does or does not happen with the
permitting we're going to go through and also what does or does not
happen with the federal regulations that will be applicable to the
delisting of the bald eagle.
But right now, the proposal in front of you -- and you know, we
stand here in front of you willing to settle. You know, we agreed to
stay everything while we tried to work everything out, and I think
there's been a tremendous amount of community involvement to get to
where we are today.
Page 102
December 12-13, 2006
But yes, we'll still need to resolve some permitting issues related
to both the existing nest and the relocating for the eagles that are also
on site.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner, I believe my
understanding of this is, whatever the authorities, other than Collier
County -- because we just follow whatever the state mandates and the
federal government mandates. They have to go along with those items
in regards to the management of the bald eagle.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we're obligated to bring that to the
county and let them know, here are the revisions that the federal
agencies made to our plan, and we have to live with whatever changes
they make.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. You got anything else that you
wanted to --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. Commissioner, again, we think the
various neighborhoods that we met with -- and there were a lot. And
it looks like there's 15 of them that we met with to let them know what
was going on. We appreciated their input.
We do think that this was a -- this is a win-win-win agreement for
everybody. I think it's good for the taxpayers, good for the residents,
and it's also good for Lodge Abbot.
We -- you highlighted all the public benefit related to the
agreement. We hope that you will make the offer back to us that is set
forth in your packet as revised with the changes that were discussed.
We would like to address any further comments from the commission
either now, or if there are public comments that spark questions, we
would appreciate the opportunity to respond to those. But with that
said, we appreciate your kind comments and we hope that you can
move forward with an approval of the settlement offer to us as set
forth in your packet.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: One other thing -- while you're there at
Page 103
December 12-13, 2006
the podium, one of the other things that was discussed in the last
meeting that I had with the developer, and that was if there was a
third-party challenge. And if they're willing -- and if you still can
build, that the agreements that you made with the county would still
be upheld as long as you can build.
If you can't build, well, then, of course, then all of the money
that's given to the county has to be returned. But if there's any
third-party challenges, we still -- we, as the county, on the agreements
that we discussed, would still have those -- those monies coming
towards us for affordable housing and for enhancements and road
enhancements and the sidewalks and the other things that were
discussed.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The way the agreement currently reads __
and it's patterned after the agreement for the Vanderbilt Inn -- that if
there's a third-party challenge that prohibits us from moving forward
and building, if that happens, then there will be no release.
If there's a third-party challenge and ultimately the agreement is
not upheld, then the monies would be returned to us if we're not
allowed to go forward with our project.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's exactly right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. Do we have any speakers on
this?
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have seven speakers.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Would you call the first speaker?
Joe, did you want to add anything to this?
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. I just want to make sure--
Commissioner Henning asked a question, and I just want to make sure
everybody understands. And I'm going to refer you to page 7 of 54,
paragraph 2, and this has to do with the question Commissioner
Henning asked regarding any movement of the eagle.
Rich made a comment, but I want to make sure everybody
Page 104
December 12-13,2006
understands. Any amendment to the plan approved by the Florida
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, shall be
automatically incorporated into the plan without further action by
Collier County.
So what that means is, basically we will seek technical
assistance. That technical assistance will be passed to the applicant,
and it will be administrative in nature. It will not require an
amendment to the Bald Eagle Management Plan to come back before
this body.
And I just want to make sure that the board understands that, that
this will not require another public hearing. It's just, simply, we defer
to the state and federal agencies. That technical assistance will be
passed to the applicant, and if need be, the applicant will adjust its
phasing, its distance, other types of requirements associated with -- as
mandated by that -- by either the state or federal agencies.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Ready? First speaker is Joe Wood. He'll be
followed by Nancy Payton.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Each speaker has three minutes.
MR. WOOD: My name is Joe Wood, and I live at 669 Mainsail
Place in Tarpon Cove. I'm also the President of the Board of Directors
of Tarpon Cove Community Association, and I would like to say that
our neighborhood supports this project, if we have a couple
clarifications.
The clarifications that we would look for is that the 590 units that
are approved to be built, we would like to know if that is a lock, or is
that -- is there a possibility that at some point in time that could be
renegotiated and reopened up and something could change there.
That's one of the issues.
And the other thing is the green space that's at the golf course.
The language in the document is a little bit ambiguous to us. We're
Page 105
December 12-13, 2006
not really lawyers. And as we look at it and read it, we look at -- some
things seem good and some things don't sound so good.
So if it's possible, I would like somebody on the board to make a
statement on the record where you stand on that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Well, let me tell you --let me tell
you what I know of, is that, as you know, there will be two homes __
MR. WOOD: On the golf course.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- on the golf course and that is it. What
we worked through -- and that's something that we're going to have to
clarify with the language here today -- that if -- when the golf course,
for whatever reason, is not -- that the golf course is not going to be in
business any longer, that that space becomes -- there was talk about a
preserve, but I think it needs to be -- remain as a green space, and we
can come up with -- hopefully we can discuss that amongst the Board
of County Commissioners and hopefully get a buy-in from the
developer exactly what it's going to be.
I believe right now in the language it's called passive recreation
or something of that nature --
MR. WOOD: That's right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- which would be pathways and trails of
this nature, but nothing more would be developed at that point in time
that -- and my understanding is -- that the developer, as he puts each
tower up, that one-fifth of the golf course will then go into perpetuity
as green space, or however we figure out what the language will be in
this final document in regards to the green space so that there will be
no chance of having development on there at a later date as long as
they have the five towers.
MR. WOOD: Okay. If you could do that, that would really
make us feel good about it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, that's what we're here for.
MR. WOOD: And the other thing is, the 590 units, if we could
be assured that at some point in time it doesn't get opened up that
Page 106
December 12-13,2006
there's going to be another 200 or 300 units added someplace on this
property, that would be important, too.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, that's why we're saying that this--
as each tower goes up, then one-fifth of that land will be put into
perpetuity .
MR. WOOD: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Am I clear on that? Okay. I just want to
make sure all parties understand what we're talking about.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, let me -- let me make sure for the
record that -- you know, I heard you say, in answer to questions, okay,
but the other side to this agreement didn't answer that question on the
record. And I -- for this particular settlement for you, for whatever the
board's going to get, I would think from the county attorney's side of
the house, that he would like those statements on the record; is that
true, Mr. Pettit?
MR. PETTIT: Yes. In fact, I just wrote the words, have Mr.
Y ovanovich explain. So you're reading my mind, Mr. Mudd.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner Halas, you're absolutely
correct that there is a phase-in schedule for this restrictive covenant,
that as each residential tower is constructed, one-fifth of the golf
course property will have a restrictive covenant on it that basically
says, in perpetuity, you can only have two units, and also if the golf
course uses ever go away, or the uses in the golf course district ever
go away, it can only be open space and passive recreation.
So that is -- that is a true summary on how that all works. Oh, on
the 590? Also, I guess since -- and we need to make sure that this gets
into the settlement agreement. It is a -- it is our commitment to limit
the density to 590, and we will not come in and ask for an amendment
to increase that density. And that will need to be added to the
Page 107
."-~".".__._-",,,.._,-~_...
December 12-13, 2006
settlement agreement or the PUD -- I'm sorry -- the development
standards document, whichever place the county is comfortable
putting that we're comfortable putting that so there's no question that
that is there -- that is, in fact, a commitment.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Nancy Payton. She'll be
followed by Judith Hushon.
MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, representing the Florida Wildlife
Federation.
In listing the win-win-win, Mr. Y ovanovich forgot to include
there is a win for bald eagles on this. And so I think we need a fourth
win there, and I'm here to speak to that win for the bald eagle.
In spring of2005, Florida Wildlife Federation supported the
amendments to the Bald Eagle Management Plan, which included
purchase of wildlife habitat -- that was a precedent setting
consideration in that proposed management plan -- and also the
construction and monitoring of an artificial tree, which we thought
was a creative and innovative way to deal with maintaining certain
wildlife species on the coast, particularly bald eagles and possibly
others.
We supported those amendments in 2005, and we're here today to
support them as we understand they're included in this proposed
settlement.
I want the record to reflect -- because I'm not very happy with
how we've gotten to this point of doing right by eagles. Florida
Wildlife Federation received no commitments in giving this testimony
supporting the amendments. We received no money, no big donor
asked us to be here to take this position. We did it and we're doing
because it's right for the bald eagles.
Lastly, the only agreement that we have with the developers,
Signature, is that we would like to provide input, along with Collier
Audubon, on the gawking clause, that is the clause that allows people
Page 108
December 12-13, 2006
to go in and look at the birds. We have concern about that, and we're
very comfortable working independent of any settlement agreement
with Signature to resolve the guidelines on how that observation will
be done.
So please put Florida Wildlife Federation down in support of the
amendments to the Bald Eagle Management Plan. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Judith Hushon.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I just wanted to ask a fast
question. You're in support of building this fake tree. How do the
eagles know to move their nest over there?
MS. PAYTON: Well, we don't know whether it will work or not,
but the beauty of this is that it's done on the developer's dime, not on
taxpayer money or limited private money available for conservation
purposes.
It is an experiment, but I think it's an appropriate one to try
because we ought -- we do have some pressure on wildlife species on
the coast. And if this is a way that we can attract and keep -- or keep
and attract, however you want to look at it -- eagles and other wildlife,
then why not try it, and why not let them shoulder the burden of this
expensive undertaking? We thought it was an innovative approach to
deal with the problem which will work beyond Cocohatchee,
hopefully. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Judith Hushon. She'll be
followed by Nicole Ryan.
MS. HUSHON: I'm Judith Hushon, and I'm here wearing my
EAC hat kind of saying that we heard this argument as we did last
spring, and we had recommended 9-0 against approval, and you
upheld that approval.
The plans have changed; the eagles have moved, but our
obligations as a county haven't changed. The eagles are still there and
Page 109
"._"_""-'~'""'~-~_......,_.""-,.,_."..,,,",,.,...,.,"....,.....,~ ,.,....., "~,.,._".,"..,."'"_,_,._....__..,,~..u,,
December 12-13, 2006
we still need to protect them.
What I'm relying on are some things that I didn't see in their
Eagle Management Plan that we actually laid on the old Wiggins Pass
Marina to rebuild the site that we were handling just about the same
time.
One thing I would request is that they build the furthest away
from the nest first. In other words, have that be where their entrance
to the site occurs, where their construction entrance is, have that be
where most of the off-loading, storage of equipment, storage of all
kinds of stuff occurs as far from that nest as we can. I haven't seen a
good map, a redo map, so I'm just kind of reiterating not exactly
knowing where they've moved.
Second, limit it to the building (sic) season. They've offered to
do that, to the non-nesting season. Reducing noise. They have not
built that in. Our other people were going to suppress noise on the
dump trucks and actually have noise monitors on site making sure
things were -- the noise was actually being kept as low as it could be
on a building site but keeping it down.
The eagle monitoring during construction; yes, that's there. What
is not there in the language that they put in was that the eagle
monitoring would occur by an independent third party from the
builder, and that if they felt that the eagles were going -- being
stressed, showed signs of what they term stress, work could be
stopped. That doesn't really show up in the way it's worded in that
plan, at least to my satisfaction.
Finally, we ought to consider whether or not we need to build in
that primary zone. They're proposing five buildings with one a few --
60 feet away or something like that. I'm not sure what the exact
distance is now.
It was much closer before. But we're still within that primary
building zone. Maybe we ought to talk about going back and putting
some density along that R-2 area, which was on that original plan,
Page 110
December 12-13, 2006
some of the density that was going to go up in this zone.
Finally, I would ask that -- I don't know which building, whether
it's the one near the birds or the ones far (sic) the birds that are getting
the extra two stories, but let's not have the building near the birds.
Let's put that on the other side, the extra two stories.
It's a matter of principle that things haven't -- that things haven't
changed. You approve their request as written, we may as well have
-- not have environmental standards. We need to have environmental
standards that we apply uniformly.
We're not honoring our role to protect the environment,
especially endangered species. We've also set a precedent of a
buy-out for a pair of eagles at $3 million.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Nicole Ryan. She'll be
followed by Donna Caron.
MS. RYAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
Nicole Ryan, here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
And I first want to begin by reiterating the Conservancy's position that
we do not believe the county should settle with Lodge Abbot. This
was a self-imposed restriction, and it is a restriction that is no longer
there.
The eagles have vacated the tree in question, and the basis for the
lawsuit, we now believe, is a moot point. The county should offer no
more than the ability for Lodge Abbot to proceed forward with a PUD
amendment through that process, since they are no longer bound by
their previous statements.
That being said, I did want to speak specifically to the assessment
and some of its attachments. At the May 2005 BCC meeting, Lodge
Abbot was very specific that the only portion of the PUD under
consideration was the Eagle Management Plan.
Since Lodge Abbot was only interested in amending the Eagle
Management Plan and that portion of the PUD at that point, the county
should not be considering unrelated land use decisions within the
Page 111
December 12-13, 2006
settlement discussions.
And this proposed settlement contains numerous land use
concessions that have nothing to do with the Eagle Management Plan.
It also contains development standards as an attachment that
essentially would replace the PUD. And if these development
standards are now the guiding document, how will the county regulate
this new category of land use?
An example of the changes between the PUD and the
development standards include the fact that docks were added to the
accessory use for the residential development, and it brings forward a
couple questions.
First of all, why was this change made, and why was it not
clearly pointed out? Some of these changes were not even pointed out
through a strike-through and underline copy. So you don't know what
they are, we don't know what they are, staff may not know what they
are.
And the second question is, if this language is being added to the
residential section, how does it reflect upon the Eagle Management
Plan, which is the basis for the Bert Harris claim?
And finally, what other development standard changes make changes
to the PUD that we don't know about? There's certainly one within
the environmental section.
What started out as a grievance regarding an eagle nest and a
promise made and whether it was binding or not seems to have turned
into a free-for-all.
This proposed settlement goes far beyond compensation for the
alleged grievance and is not in the best interest of the county.
The Conservancy believes the commission acted properly in the denial
of the Cocohatchee PUD amendment. We believe that settlement of
this claim will send the wrong message to the community that if land
use changes are not granted through the land use process, then they
can be obtained with additional land use modifications not even
Page 112
December 12-13,2006
initially asked for by a lawsuit and settlement agreements.
In a case where the reason for amendment denial, being the nest, is no
longer an issue, Collier County should offer no more than the ability
for Lodge Abbot to apply for the PUD amendment, which is now
allowed due to the nest being vacated. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Donna Caron. She'll be
followed by Doug Fee.
MS. CARON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Donna Caron,
for the record. I have just a few comments about the proposed
settlement agreement.
It seems to me that it is really not ready for prime time here.
There are several inconsistencies involved in the agreement. For
example, R-2, which is residential 2, does not show on the proposed
mas -- new revised master plan that they've submitted, but it is
referenced in settlement point number four. And I don't know how we
balance those two things.
Some of these -- some of my issues may have been addressed,
but I would really like to have them on the record. The citizens of
North Bay think that they are getting green space on this golf course in
perpetuity. What -- in fact, all this settlement agreement says so far is
that they are agreeing to get open space, and those are two different
things here in Collier County and everybody needs to be aware of that.
The citizens want it to be green. They want preserve. They -- I also
had an issue that I brought up to Joe Schmitt and his team, that the
county appears to be giving up its right to review at the SDP level by
accepting condition number three, because in simple language, the
settlement says it's contingent upon those -- upon what has been
submitted being approved, and I'm not sure that we want to do that as
a county.
Fourthly, the issue of the boat docks. I don't know where boat
docks came into a Bald Eagle Management Plan, but it needs to get
Page 113
December 12-13,2006
out of there. That should not be a part of this settlement agreement. If
and when they think they can come before -- forward and get boat
docks, that's a totally separate issue.
Number -- point number 15 of the agreement is probably the
most disturbing because it says that if the F eds do anything different,
if they change the Bald Eagle Management Plan -- bald eagle
management requirements in any way and Lodge Abbot or their
assignees don't like it, this settlement agreement is out the window.
They don't have to abide by any of it if they don't like what the Feds
do, and I don't think that's a good way for us to be settling agreements
here in the county.
I think we should take time to see a strike-through and underline
version, and it probably is that we're just not at that place yet. But
before anything is finally approved, it should be strike-through and
underline.
And finally, what is going to take precedence here in the end? Is
it going to be these new development standards, or.is it going to be the
PUD? I'm not sure that I know how that works in the county, and I'd
certainly like the answer to that, as a Planning Commissioner. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can the county attorney give us some
direction on that?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. For the record, Marjorie
Student-Stirling.
Under Bert Harris laws, it gives us great latitude to vary from the
codes and so forth, so settlement -- what's in the settlement agreement
would prevail over what's in the underlying, you know, PUD
document, and that would be enforced. The question came up about
enforcement, and we'd go to court to enforce a settlement agreement,
so there is a method of enforcing.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I also believe that we, the Board of
County Commissioners, can dictate what we want to put into that
Page 114
December 12-13, 2006
settlement agreement; is that right?
MR. WEIGEL: Absolutely, Commissioner. As Mr. Pettit
indicated, this is your offer of settlement, notwithstanding that there's
been substantial dialogue back and forth as to elements that might be
contained in the settlement.
Back to your question and Ms. Caron's discussion as well in
regard to format of a settlement agreement. We know that, in fact, it
can take -- it can take a varied form and that there can be a settlement
agreement. We've see that there has been a -- there is a PUD, of
course, that's currently in place, a Bald Eagle Management Plan that
was a proposed amendment to the -- to the PUD that came before you
a year ago.
And Mike, what's that other agreement that they're providing.
The standards, the development --
MR. PETTIT: Standards.
MR. WEIGEL: -- the standards agreement. Ultimately what's
most important is that there is an identity, an identification of what
your offer is going to be. And, of course, it would be nice to know on
the record of what they will accept even today, if possible, if it goes
forward to a determination stage today.
But whether it's in a development standards agreement or merely
in a settlement agreement with a development standards agreement as
an attachment to the settlement agreement, the identification of the
features and the specifics that make up your offer are what are -- are
what are critical and important for all to know very clearly.
And so from the standpoint that a PUD document continues to
exist as a PUD document with a settlement agreement that modifies it
is not a problem. To the extent that there is a PUD document and a
settlement agreement which references a development standards
document, which may, in fact, reflect specifically to alter some of the
elements of the PUD, that's not a problem.
It's just having the clarity and the specificity, hopefully, from any
Page 115
December 12-13,2006
determination the board makes today, for all the parties to go forward
and be implemented in some kind of form is what is important. I think
I've pretty well covered what I wanted to say right now.
MR. PETTIT: Just let me add, Commissioners, to what Mr.
Weigel said. I'm not in disagreement with one of the comments Ms.
Caron made here about the documentation. And thinking back about
another matter we've just gone through, if we can come up with the
terms of a settlement offer today, even if accepted by Lodge Abbot,
you may wish to ask us to bring the final document back to you, not to
vote on whether you've settled, but to vote on whether the document
says what you believed you offered. And I think you can do that and
just give us the direction to do that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Doug Fee. He'll be followed
by Gary Eidson.
MR. FEE: I think the key word here today is great latitude.
Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Doug
Fee. I'm president of North Bay Civic Association, but today I'm here
representing only myself.
Commissioners, as you know, I've been involved in this project
from the very beginning as a neighborhood citizen and a community
leader. I attended the three rezoning hearings back in December 2000.
I heard all that was said on the record by both the developer and the
staff members involved. I read all of the reports and the executive
summary prepared for those meetings, and I supported the master plan
and the development strategy as it was approved. I'm not against this
project. It's going to be a wonderful project for our neighborhood.
I was thrilled to have 85 percent of the land in -- and water in open
space. And, of course, I believe that what was near and dear to our
neighborhood, the eagles would have protection.
As you know, the GMP was changed and created a mess in the
situation. I support the county having a say in these wildlife issues.
Page 116
December 12-13, 2006
There are three of you who also voted to retain these rights.
Having said that, we're here asking for Bert Harris settlement. . What I
want to point out is, in this process, I believe there's no required
neighborhood informational meeting. There's no hearing before the
Environmental Advisory Council. There's no hearing before the
CCPC. There's no hearing before the Board of County
Commissioners to take into account these advisory board
recommendations.
This process allows a PUD master plan change. This process
allows a text change to the original PUD document and ordinance
replacing with a new Exhibit 1. These changed documents were
released to the public on Thursday with underlined additions, changes,
deletions, which could not possibly allow any neighborhood
association the ability to sit down with our county commissioners, the
county staff or association members, to give input.
I'm not even sure that the citizens are able to discuss these legal
matters with our commissioners, staff, without an attorney present.
The changing of the neighborhood zoning is discussed behind closed
doors out of the sunshine with attorneys. The executive summary in
your hands states, under the growth management impact -- I'll just
read it real quick -- the proposed Bald Eagle Management Plan and
the future handling of the plan are deemed not consistent with the
county's Growth Management Plan; however, the Harris act allows
such deviation where a local government determines that the public
interest in the ordinance at issue is still protected by the terms.
The document unfairly allows this PUD to not be subject to
sunset. Why? It also grants a right to not use any prior discussions,
agreements and statements made in past hearings. There's the
exchange of money for whatever purposes, whether or not beneficial
to the public, and it should not be a factor in this decision.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: How far are you --
MR. FEE: I'm almost through.
Page 11 7
December 12-13,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, thank you.
MR. FEE: I ask that you reject the proposed settlement offer and
allow this landowner to proceed with a new PUD amendment with the
final outcome based on the new set of circumstances with public
involvement. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Gary Eidson. He'll be
followed by Dick Klaas.
MR. EIDSON: My name is Gary Edison. I live on Glen Eden
Drive, which is adjacent -- across the street from the project in
question. I am a member of the North Bay Civic Association as a
board of director, but I'm here speaking for myself. I have been one of
the people who spoke with the developer, and the reason -- well, I
wanted to speak to one particular issue, which was the one-fifth --
one- fifth deal at the end where we were trying to get the land.
There was a question that came up from the developer and he
said that he just absolutely wasn't going to put himself exposed. And I
was concerned that we would lose that preservation land or that, call
it, green space land.
And today it was mentioned that it was open space versus green,
and I think that is a concern. We do want it to be green and we do
want it to be protected.
For those of us that live directly adjacent to that golf course, the
idea of having 10- or 15-story buildings in there would be devastating.
It would -- it's a concern.
The other thing is, when this proposal was made originally when
there really wasn't any talk about waiting 10 years, which was a
surprise to me, which is why we talked about this a little bit more. But
in the beginning there was no 10-year limitation.
I was surprised at it and offered the idea of the one-fifth just to
preserve the idea. But I really would hope that -- the green space idea
is somewhat of an offset for the eagle in that it gives us more places
Page 118
December 12-13, 2006
for the wildlife to be. And we're driving it out. We're seeing more
iguanas, we're seeing more -- all kinds of wildlife being driven into
our home -- into our residential area because of the disturbing of that
land. So we do want to see it preserved as best we can even if it is a
golf course.
The eagle has been amazing. I don't know what to think of next.
I don't know if it was because the real estate market is so soft that
they took advantage of moving closer to the water, but it's truly
amazing that they have shown the resilience that they have.
There is some question as to whether they won't wind up living
on top of one of these buildings, and I don't know what's going to
happen during the building at that time. But I would say that there's a
spirit here.
I am distressed by the Bert Harris process. I am distressed that
public information isn't really openly involved. Although we're doing
it here today, but it's a very bizarre process. It seems like the rules
exist, and then suddenly they don't. We can vote -- it's 4-1, then it's
3-2, and I just don't get it. I think that's been expressed from the dais
before by some of the colleagues -- by some of the commissioners,
certainly to my immediate left.
And we hope that the perpetuity exists. We hope that -- there
was discussion about an observation where we are granted the right to
come in for observation. I don't -- that hasn't been talked about here
today, I haven't heard it, but we did have -- it had been discussed. Is
that still in ? Yeah, okay. Good.
You know, citizens can come in and see what's going on with the
eagle, and we can do that through the association, and I think that's
important.
So in -- my main concern is the perpetuity and that it not be
compromised any more than it has to be, but we want to have it. I
thank you for letting us speak today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, can I ask Mr.
Page 119
December 12-13, 2006
Eidson a question, please?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Eidson, do you consider
golf courses green space?
MR. EIDSON : You know, I do under this circumstance, I really
do, because it was proposed originally, and I don't want to -- I don't
want to go against that original proposal. So -- but I think that it -- I
think it does. I think wildlife will come to it. I've played enough golf
to see alligators, and I've seen deer and I've seen, you know, wildlife
that's staying there. So it would, to me, be, but that's just one guy
talking.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just wanted to get your
perception.
MR. EIDSON: That's right. Well, you got it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I appreciate it. So if it's not
a golf course, you want it something similar --
MR. EIDSON: That's going to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- to a golf course that may
attract wildlife?
MR. EIDSON : Well, a golf course is a groomed environment. I
would hope that it would be a -- you know, it would be a parklike
setting. It would be something that would attract wildlife. I wouldn't
want to see it just left sand and not attracting wildlife. I would hate to
see it a parking lot, for example.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I don't know if that's
considered open space. I don't think it is. I think a golf course is
considered open space.
MR. EIDSON : Well, I guess my vision of open -- I don't -- I
don't have the technical expertise to answer that question. All I know
is that I envision grass, trees and bushes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. EIDSON: That's what I envision.
Page 120
December 12-13,2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's what I wanted to get
your perception on, what it is.
MR. EIDSON: I mean, a golf course has flags on it and a couple
of other things, but I see grass, bushes, trees, an invitation -- water, an
invitation for wildlife, and I would hope that that would be there
whether they build a golf course or not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. EIDSON: Does that help?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It helps me out a lot. Thank
you.
MR. EIDSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Attorney, what is considered
open space in our Land Development Code?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where's our expert?
MR. WEIGEL: Let Margie answer you.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I'm going to defer to planning
staff. But what is in the settlement agreement as open space, it talks
about passive recreational uses.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. ISTENES: Susan Murray Istenes, Zoning Director. I can
actually bring the language up to you. It's on my computer right now.
But there are three definitions of open space.
One I would describe as a very general definition that refers to
areas unoccupied by buildings and also references passive type of
recreation uses; one that talks about common open space that's
accessible to members of a community, for example; and another talks
about usable open space, and it further clarifies the definition of usable
open space.
If you want the details, I'd be happy to pull that up here and read
them to you. But I guess what I would recommend is if the intent is
that this open space be accessible to all members of the development,
or what have you, that that be clarified in the settlement agreement
Page 121
December 12-13,2006
because there have been more than a few arguments about what open
space is even to the extent of trying to count open space as yards
within personal residences, which obviously wouldn't be accessible to
open space, and I'm not sure how much that would apply here so
much.
But anyway, my point is that open space is fairly broad. And if
there's a particular thing that you think it ought to be, I would
recommend that you define that very clearly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that gets at Mr. Eidson's
concerns. There's not going to be buildings on it; it could be a park-
like setting. It could be several things. It can't be a parking lot.
MS.ISTENES: Correct, cannot be a parking lot, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think the only thing they're --
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- asking is two homes, and that's it on
that. Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, to, perhaps, assist further there. I
think the thought in mind -- and now being expressed a little more
clearly -- is the fact that the idea of green and open space go together.
At the same time the element of passive recreation was to allow that
open space to have a limited utility, the people that enjoy the open
space greenness.
I would suggest and see if the developer and their agents would
accept language such as vegetative open space subject to -- with the
element of passive recreation.
Bearing in mind that this is only as a follow-up to a golf course
that may be there for many, many years. But in the event that the golf
course were to no longer be in existence as a golf course, that -- the
golf course area that -- no longer used as a golf course, that it would
remain at that point vegetative open space with elements of -- or
subj ect to elements of passive recreation, which would mean pathways
and things of that nature.
Page 122
December 12-13, 2006
And as Ms. Murray indicated, that's not for the public at large
necessarily. It's for the people that reside within the subdivision, if it's
a closed subdivision. Suggestion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do we have anything -- is that the
last public speaker?
MS. FILSON: No, sir. I have one additional speaker, Dick
Klaas.
MR. KLAAS: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Commissioners.
I'm here as an individual. I'm not being paid by anybody. I am
friends of the developer. I can draw a little parallel for you. Years ago
in 1983 to '89, I was president of the Lely companies in the United
States, and we had a monumental battle in this room over developing
Barefoot Beach.
The county commission approved it 4-1. The Conservancy sued.
They felt they were right. We felt we were right. We beat each other
up a little bit, and then we settled this thing.
When the matter was settled, I can tell you that the project was
built, everyone was happy. And the key point here is that a settlement
is plenty enforceable. The Conservancy watched that development
very closely, as they should.
Secondly, I've been honored to be on the county Planning
Commission. I was on the Regional Planning Council. N ow I'm on
the Planning Advisory Board in the city, so I've seen a whole bunch of
zonings over all these years.
And here's a project that's low density. It's like one per acre or
something. You think about the economic impact of 591 units in that
area at a million five average, is going to be a billion dollars, about 15
or 18 million a year in taxes.
The overriding consideration here, as far as I'm concerned
relative to money, is that there's no school children to speak of that
live in projects such as this. There's not many school buses stopping
around.
Page 123
December 12-13,2006
The open space, somebody said, was 85 percent. I knew it was a
tremendous amount of open space, but it's 85 percent.
And relative to the eagle, I think it's important that the county is
always deferred to the Fish and Wildlife Service on the eagle. The
federal government has stringent rules. It turns out now they're going
to be changing. But whatever they are, the developer is going to have
to live with, and they will watch out for the eagles.
Parenthetically, I've lived in Park Shore and/or the Moorings for
29 years. There's an eagle that lived in Dave Shanard's tree in the
Moorings. It came down every day into the bay, grabbed a fish, and
sat down and ate on the shore. Lived right amongst us. Nobody
bothered it and it didn't bother us. It was a beautiful thing for
everybody to see.
I understand that there's just a couple days left on some kind of a
time line, artificial or otherwise, to work this matter out. So I would
really, really ask you to here, now, today, end this thing. I've seen the
changes in the agreement. The whole agreement has been agreed to
with the exception of some changes; they are minuscule and can be
worked out by this group. And I implore you to work this out today.
Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: That's your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. The public hearing is closed.
Any discussion from fellow commissioners?
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I just had a couple of
questions, so many points were brought out.
This -- but nobody said this. I think I read it in the paper this
morning, so I just wanted to ask to see if there was any basis to this. It
said something about, if we -- if we granted approval to take down the
old dead tree that has the old nest in it that nobody's living in right
now, would that give them the ability then to build in that area and
maybe protect the tree; no?
Page 124
December 12-13,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Attorney?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: For the record, Marjorie
Student-Stirling again.
It's my understanding on the federal regulations that that tree
could not be touched, nor the nest, for five years, because under
federal law, it's not deemed abandoned until the passage of five years,
and anything that would be done to it would be considered, you know,
molesting, or whatever, the habitat of the eagle because it would be
before the five-year period.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So now when we grant this approval
today or make some kind of settlement agreement, no matter what we
do here, do the trees then, both eagle trees, still need to exist for five
years?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It's my understanding, as the
federal regulation, that the nest that was, if you will, abandoned by the
eagle is considered an active nest for five years from the date of the
abandonment under federal law . So that would -- that would stay, as it
would -- as I understand it, the federal agency would still, you know,
have an interest in that nest.
Then they would also be looking at the second nest where either
those eagles went or another pair went -- I think the assumption is that
the eagles moved -- and that's what would be coming up later on in the
paragraph of the Bald Eagle Management Plan that's been referenced
about where there may be changes, and then these -- information
would be provided to the county.
Mr. Schmitt alluded to that, but they wouldn't be coming through
the process here necessarily to change anything, but it would be sort of
a deferral to the federal agency.
So my opinion -- and I'm not a representative of either Florida
Wildlife or the federal agency, but based on my knowledge -- is that
for now both nests would be, you know, looked at by those agencies.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see. And then they would have the
Page 125
December 12-13, 2006
final say over whether they're torn down or not, right?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. That would depend on what's
in the permit. I don't know that they would allow for one to absolutely
be torn down, but they may allow some type of activity within the
cones around the nest, such as a phasing schedule that's in the Bald
Eagle Management Plan that you have here and certain restrictions on
construction within certain distances from the nest in the nesting
season as opposed to the off-nesting season.
And I would think that those might remain as to that nest known
as CO-19 that was abandoned until it's legally abandoned after five
years.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And they've already agreed to start
at the far end of the property and work their way toward the active
nest; is that correct?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That's in the phasing schedule and
in the Bald Eagle Management Plan as it exists presently.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mike Pettit, you were saying -- you
were saying after this agreement is already drawn up and so forth, you
think it would be a good idea for it to come back to us so we could see
the final agreement. Does that mean if for some reason it was written
in a way we didn't think it was supposed to be written, do we change
it, or is it final today?
MR. PETTIT: My belief would be that if you authorize us to
make a written settlement offer today and we carefully define those
terms and those terms are accepted by the developer, that we have a
settlement agreement.
The suggestion I made was to address concerns that Ms. Caron
brought up, and that I think have been brought up by this commission
in the past, that you then finally have a clean document -- this
document that you've got in your package and things that have come
forward have got strike-throughs and mark-ups and comments -- that
you then get to see a clean document, even though certainly in the past
December 12-13, 2006
we've proceeded under the assumption that our office would make a
recommendation, that it was prepared for the chair's signature and the
chair could sign it.
But if you would like to have that document brought back, it can
be placed on the consent agenda; each of you can look at it. If you
think it conforms with the terms that you offered today, it simply
would be approved at that point; the chairman would sign.
But what you would be approving on that day would not be the
settlement agreement. It would be document, the documentation of
the settlement agreement.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So--
MR. PETTIT: I want to make that clear. I think if we settle, we
settle. And then its up to the lawyers to craft a document. And I just
want to make sure you have a document you're comfortable with. For
example, the discussion about the open space, we could say, green
open space.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Or vegetative, as David suggested.
MR. PETTIT: And I have a couple other questions once all the
commissioners are done that -- as we get to a point where you want to
instruct us that I'll probably want to bring up with Mr. Y ovanovich
and maybe Mr. Schmitt on the record.
But that would be the reason I suggested that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. But you don't mean
suggesting bringing it back so we can see it to -- if we thought there
was a misunderstanding? It can't be changed? Once we settle today,
that's it?
MR. PETTIT: I think your terms are the terms. If you look at it
and you say, gee, I don't think the lawyers did a good job putting this
together, you could send this back and say, that's not quite what was
intended. But I think the terms are the terms. We would have a
settlement agreement on basic terms.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. My last question is -- and
Page 127
December 12-13, 2006
this isn't one for you. Originally when we were talking about this
afford -- I'm sorry -- this PUD, I think it was Jim Coletta that said that
there needed to be an affordable housing component in here, and
before he would ever come to an agreement with it, he got an
agreement from the developer. This is the very first one you ever did,
isn't it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I was just wondering if there's
going to be that affordable housing agreement in place. I don't know
what you --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Three million.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, they're not going to be putting
any houses there instead?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, they're not. I'll be honest
with you, $3 million way offsets it for what it would be. That element
doesn't raise a problem for me. Maybe it does for Cormac Giblin.
You might want to ask him.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. You were the one that made the
agreement.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that agreement was in lieu
of any money . You're talking about condominiums in the back of the
tower where it was supposed to be part of it and it was supposed to be
affordable housing for the people that worked there. Yeah, but there
was no money attached to that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. It was just more or less, you
know --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Housing, right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and inclusionary zoning.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. You're right, Donna,
that's an excellent way to do it, too. In this case, $3 million kind of
outweighs it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
Page 128
December 12-13, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I thought sure you had
specified that the house on the golf course and the extra two stories on
the buildings would all be for very low income housing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just the top 20 floors.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, here's your opportunity.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Go for it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, they seem to agree to it.
They were all laughing, so I presume it's okay.
DR. BING: I think the eagle should have it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. This is difficult to get your
arms around, but if I could make a couple of observations and maybe
see if I could understand exactly what the parameters are, and then
maybe we can thrash out a motion here of some kind.
But let me say this. It's my recollection that one of my biggest
concerns about going ahead with this project was that the developer
had clearly stated on the record that they would not begin building
until the eagle had left the nest, and I believe the board's concern was
that in order to preserve the integrity of the public hearing process, we
had to hold the developer to that promise.
Now, in fact, the bird has left that nest. The developer did not say
that they would wait for five years after that bird left the nest before
they would start building. They said they would wait until after the
bird had left the nest. So the bird has left the nest.
Consequently, if we use the original PUD as a guideline, it would
appear that all substantive issues have been removed with respect to
the approval of this process except for the fact that there is a valid Fish
and Wildlife Service take permit for the eagle, which doesn't mean
you kill the eagle. It means that you can build, and if the eagle leaves,
that's okay.
And we as commissioners, I think, have always taken the
position that although the federal government might feel that taking or
forcing an eagle to move is acceptable, we take on some
Page 129
December 12-13,2006
responsibility, I think, for preserving eagles in Collier County, even
though they might be removed from the endangered list nationwide.
But with respect to the agreement itself, I'm going to have to ask a
series of questions, and I'll need answers from staff and from the
petitioner. And I'll try to get through these as quickly as possible.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's what we're here for.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. The payments that you're
going to be making for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, for
Vanderbilt Drive improvements, and the obligation to construct a
sidewalk, when will those payments be made? What is the trigger for
the making of those payments?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. Let's -- if you look at paragraph 4,
that addresses when we will pay the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What page are you on?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry, page 3 of 6.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Page 3 --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry. Of the agreement itself.
MR. SCHMITT: Eight of 54.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. I don't have -- okay. Eight of 54?
All right. Let me --
MR. SCHMITT: Page 8 of 54 of your actual packet.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Page 8 of 54.
MR. SCHMITT: Page 3 of6 of the agreement, so it's--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right. I've got page 8 of
54.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is this the latest agreement that's been
brought to --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: What you have in your packet is the
latest agreement except for the change from 15 percent down to 5
percent, the change in the sunset schedule from -- that it starts after the
SDP. And Mike took you through those changes earlier on.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
Page 130
December 12-13, 2006
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But in answer to Commissioner Coyle's
question, yes, it's the same. Paragraph 4 says, will be made --
$600,000 payment will be made for each of the five residential towers
at the time the building permit is pulled, so that addresses the
affordable housing.
The Vanderbilt Drive improvements and bridge enhancements of
$3 million that goes towards that, that's covered in paragraph 5. That's
paid within 15 days of the approval of the latter of the three SPDs that
are already in. Hopefully those will be approved quickly.
And the last -- the sidewalk, which is paragraph 8. We're
required to build the 10-foot pathway. Now, we went with the -- in
your packet there was an alternative. We went with the county's
transportation staff alternative, their preference.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now let's go to the approval
of SPDs. You're also suggesting that if there is a challenge to this
process, that the county is supposed to return money.
It's entirely possible if you give us money for the purpose of
making certain improvements at the time of the SDP that we might
proceed with doing those improvements and a challenge might occur
later or the outcome of the challenge may not occur until later.
So the significance of that is that, when you say that in the event
there's a successful challenge by a third party, we have to give all the
money back. Can we specify that we give all unexpended or un-
obligated money back?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Because we might have done
something in good faith expecting this to have been approved, and we
have no control over a third-party challenge.
The -- I need to ask the staff about what the staffs understanding is.
We went through a very complex discussion of changing our Growth
Management Plan some years ago with respect to whether or not we
would accept only the Fish and Wildlife Services letters as adequate
Page 131
December 12-13, 2006
for making a decision.
Is that the staffs recommendation? Is that consistent with the
staffs recommendations on other projects? And will be -- will we be
working in a consistent manner if we proceed with that policy?
MR. LORENZ: Yes, sir. For the record, Bill Lorenz,
Environmental Services Director.
Yes, the technical assistance we receive from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service is what we will apply to this project and what we've
applied to other projects to ensure consistency with the Growth
Management Plan.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. There's a suggestion here
that the county will not require an environmental impact statement.
Should that really say, we will not require that you do an additional
environmental impact statement? We certainly want to require one.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we've already done one.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The point is, we wanted to make --
they're good for five years. And since this process has drug out past
five years, we didn't want to have to do a new one unless there's a
substantial change, which we've defined as a greater than 5 percent
impact to wetlands now.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then we should change that to
state, a new or additional, an updated or whatever, okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine. That's what -- that was the
intent.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you're going to agree to the 5
percent environmental impact.
The five-year sun-setting provision, I think, is reasonable, as
Commissioner Halas has stated earlier. There are good reasons for
that because you have been delayed because of actions by
government, and we traditionally permit extensions of PUDs where a
petitioner has been delayed because of actions by government. So I
Page 132
December 12-13, 2006
do not see that to be inconsistent with our existing policy.
The artificial nest tree and an off-site mitigation area, I think, is
appropriate. The approval of the three SPDs, what you're really
suggesting is, if we don't approve any of the three SPDs -- no, if we
don't approve all of the SPDs, this agreement is null and void?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we refund the monies?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You won't get any money until.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, until they get approved, that's
right.
The provision that says that if the settlement is successfully
challenged by a third party, the release of the county shall be null and
void, I'm not sure I'm going to buy that one. I think if we make an
agreement, we need to be held harmless, and if there's a challenge by a
third party, I don't think we should be held responsible for that.
I don't want to be looking at another legal action associated with the
Bert Harris Act because of some action of a third party. So I think
you need to think about that one.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If I may? That has been a provision that
basically started with Vanderbilt Inn as the very first one recognizing
that we -- we, the county, need to work together to uphold this and
need to have an equal stake in the outcome of what happens, and it's
kind of -- it's kind of hard to say, you know, county, you've got to
fight the good fight, but there's no consequence to you if you don't
really do a hard -- or if you don't really fight hard.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I like it that way.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know you do, but it's kind of hard for us
to say, listen, this is a mutual benefit to both of us that this be
resolved. Fight hard as the government when talking to a judge
because you've got something significant to lose if you don't fight
hard, and that's really the purpose of that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not sure I'm convinced, and I
Page 133
December 12-13, 2006
think -- I don't think Commissioner Halas is either. I think in his notes
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nor am I.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- he specifically noted that --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: One sided liability.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right, yep. So if you're not
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Third-party act.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. If you're not ready to deal
with that right now, let me get through these others, and then you can
talk and huddle about it.
Next is a comment by staff, I believe, and it's contained under the
note on page 3 of our executive summary. And it's italicized down
around two-thirds of the way down that paragraph. It says that there
will be no further amendment of the Bald Eagle Management Plan.
I don't think that's your intent. I don't believe you can get away
without amending your Bald Eagle Management Plan. There is
another eagle at another location here, and you're going to have to
amend your Bald Eagle Management Plan, it seems to me, to
recognize that fact and develop procedures accordingly.
Now, is the staff incorrect in making this assumption?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You're reading from the note?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. We know we have to -- I think -- we
know we are going to have to deal with the agencies if there are
changes on site. What that means is we don't have to do a formal
amendment to the document attached to the development standards
document called the Bald Eagle Management Plan.
What it means is once we -- whatever the agencies tell us to do, if
they say, reorder your buildings, instead of one, two, three, four, five,
five, four, three, two, one, yes, we will make those changes. We will
come tell staff, here's what the court has told us we have to do, and we
Page 134
December 12-13, 2006
will make those changes.
So, yes, there'll be revisions, but there won't be a formal process
of going through and amending this document to reflect those
changes, is what -- is how I understand the document will work.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're saying you won't have to go
through amending the document that is submitted as part of a legal
settlement?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But you will have an amended
updated Bald Eagle Management Plan with your PUD document, I
presume?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Commissioner, if I could clarify. I think
that would be better to state without any further formal amendment,
because a formal amendment to the Eagle Management Plan is legally
an amendment to the PUD which would require a public hearing
similar to what we did like two years ago, I believe. It would -- it
requires a board action.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How do we determine --
MR. SCHMITT: This could be done administratively.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How do we determine the
adequacy of that amendment if there is no review process?
MR. SCHMITT: There would be a review process. They would
submit -- we could get the technical assistance, we would apply that
technical assistance, then we would inform the applicant that they
would have to modify their plans accordingly. It may require an
amendment to the SDP to show a different phasing sequence or some
other process there. But, again, that would be done through
administrative --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Staffwill have an opportunity to
review it --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir. That would be done by staff --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- for adequacy. Okay.
Page 135
December 12-13,2006
MR. SCHMITT: This is meant that it would not be a public
hearing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, the other questions
I'm going to lump under one question, and it's a question about the
memo from Mike Pettit and Mrs. Student to all of us concerning an
update that was done on December the 11 tho
It lists eight things concerning updates and revisions to this
agreement, most of which I think we've talked about in some way.
But there are a number of references to modifications of the original
PUD or development standards.
And I want to make sure that we're not accepting money or
donations of any kind to permit someone to circumvent development
standards or the original PUD. I don't know that we've taken up any
of those formally in a public hearing, and I am very reluctant to get
involved in that. And I would expect that any settlement we agree
upon here is, with one exception, entirely consistent with the PUD, the
original PUD, as it currently stands.
MR. PETTIT: Thank you, Commissioner. That was one of the
things I was going to bring up when you all got done, so this is a good
point.
I have concerns about the development standards document as it
currently exists and is drafted in at least several areas, one dealing
with the hedge issues in paragraphs 2.1, 2C and D, and in a second
place on the calculation of lands for purposes of the boat docks or boat
slips. And I think that's at 6.9.
Now, some of those other items you mentioned, Commissioner,
would be placed where we would just simply make that document
conform to the terms of the settlement agreement.
But in those two areas -- I don't know whether Mr. Schmitt wants
to help me with this or Mr. Y ovanovich, but we identified those as
potential deviations. And I wanted to make sure that you as a board
knew that was buried in that document.
Page 136
December 12-13, 2006
Certainly one way to approach this -- and I'll let Mr. Y ovanovich
address this possibly, which you kind of suggested is -- we could rely
on the original PUD, the express settlement agreement in the Bald
Eagle Management Plan as amended, and maybe -- I don't know
whether it's possible to do away with that document and just use the
PUD, and I'll let you respond to that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. That is exactly the point. I
would suspect that neither staff nor the petitioner has -- well, I don't
know. The petitioner's agent is craftier than we are, so maybe he has
done this. Maybe he has reviewed this in great detail to determine
what changes are really going to occur to the development standards
specified under the PUD, but it would make it a lot easier for all of us
if we were to say, the existing PUD remains unchanged except as it is
specifically indicated in the following list, okay. And that removes
any ambiguity about that issue, and it saves us from any liability of
our failure to understand or relate the meaning of some of the changes.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: And, Commissioner, if I may,
Marjorie Student-Stirling. I think that could work, and we could
identify the number of stories which, you know, change from 15 to 17
on the one building, and then also where you're going to have the two
residential units on the golf course and the R-2 is gone, and those
could all be expressed, I believe in the text of a settlement agreement
without having to do the development standards document.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That makes it a lot easier for me.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And don't even bring the --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Just so you know, that's how I submitted
it originally, and then I was told, it really would probably work better
if we moved some of the stuff out of the settlement agreement to show
-- and put it in the development standards document to show how it
really works. So I don't mind undoing what we've done, but I can't tell
you today, you know, are we going to catch everything on the list?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you won't have to catch them
Page 137
December 12-13, 2006
all. But you understand, it's not our job to make things easy for you.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, but it is to make me do this
(indicating), I know.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Yeah, I understand.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So the boat docks, that's not on this issue
at all? That's going to be taken --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And it's never been.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: They never have.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, it's listed on this document here.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It clarified -- it clearly says that we're not
asking for boat docks.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I've really
completed all of my questions. Thank you very much for the time.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there -- yes?
MR. SCHMITT: Go ahead. You make a proposal. I want to put
the preserve thing to bed, but go ahead.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. You know, at the risk of -- the
issue came up with green space, and what are we going to do if the
golf course district uses ever go away on the golf course district
property? And there's a question, what's open space; what's not open
space?
I have a simple revision to paragraph number 7 and basically it
would say, if the golf course uses in that golf course district ever go
away, what we will have is the uses allowed in the preserve district in
either the PUD or the development standards document. So the uses
in the preserve district would be the uses allowed on what is currently
known as the golf course property, if that's acceptable to everybody. I
would hope so. Because if the preserve uses aren't appropriate when
everybody said they thought it would become a preserve, then I don't
know how to fix that ambiguity.
Page 138
December 12-13, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is Susan here to give us some
clarification on this?
MS. ISTENES: Yes. Commissioner, for the record, Susan
Murray Istenes. Yeah, I think that would cover what I understood,
perhaps, your concern and members of the public's concern was, that
that was specific in terms of what that property would be used for, so
I'm satisfied with that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So in other words, if that golf
course for whatever reason fails and there -- and that's going to be put
into perpetuity so that they can't come back 20 years from now and
say, now we want to put some more buildings in there --
MS. ISTENES: Well--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's going to be--
MS. ISTENES: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: In perpetuity, it's going to be green
space, whatever, with trees and bushes, pathways for the community,
that gated community?
MS. ISTENES: Right. On page 34 of 54 in the PUD document
under section 5.3, there is a list of uses permitted, and its principal use
is listed one through eight, and I believe that's what Rich was referring
to would be the list of permitted uses for that golf course should the
golf course ever go away.
So in other words, trade the golf course for anyone of these lists
of permitted uses.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Biking paths, natural trails, golf cart
paths, wildlife sanctuary, et cetera, right?
MS. ISTENES: Yeah. One or a combination of all would be
acceptable. So you would have a definitive list of permitted uses
there, and that was the point I was trying to make to you earlier was,
open space tends to be pretty broad in the code, and if you had a
concern of having very specific uses, I would recommend a list.
You've already got a list here, and I think from what I heard from you,
Page 139
December 12-13, 2006
that probably meets your intent. That would be for you to decide, but
there's the list there.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala, did that meet --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, it sure does.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm fine.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. What are we going to do now.
Just to reiterate and wrap this up, if we make some type -- if
somebody makes some type of a motion, then the documentation --
we're going to approve this today; is that correct? And then the
documentation comes back for us to review to make sure all the areas
of concern that were addressed today comes back for us for final
approval, whether it's on the regular agenda or the consent agenda; is
that correct?
MR. WEIGEL: That's correct. And again, you are making an
offer to the extent that the developer and his agent respond to the offer
on the record today to say that they accept. You're looking for an
offer and an acceptance to be commemorative in -- to be
commemorated in the documentation which, at your desire, can come
back for your review and approval.
But the settlement offer is what you would be voting on today.
And to the extent -- again, as I state, to the extent that the developer
and developer's attorney and agents indicate on the record today
acceptance of the offer, you will have an acceptance, or if they should
provide a written acceptance to the county shortly thereafter, you will
have an acceptance. But the offer is what you are doing today.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So we have to be very specific in
regards to what is put into the motion; is that correct?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, the specifics--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Or the stuff that we discussed, is that
Page 140
December 12-13,2006
part of the motion?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, there have been times when the board has
indicated everything that we discussed is our motion, and that's not as
clear as we'd like it.
I think that if at all possible, with the assistance of the county
attorney staff, if you -- you or Commissioner Coy Ie, whoever would
make a motion, or together as you make a collective motion under the
name of one motion maker, it will add in -- add one onto the other the
elements that are there, we will assist to remind you to make sure that
that motion is complete, and someone else will chime in, perhaps, if
something additional would appear to be left out or need further
discussion. But if you make the motion, we'll assist.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Attorney, what I'm going to ask
of you and your staff --
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. We could do it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- as we go through this -- you've heard
the items that were discussed on both sides.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I want to make sure that any of the items
that were discussed, if -- whoever makes the motion, if some items
aren't brought into that motion, if you would be so kind or your staff
would be so kind --
MR. WEIGEL: You bet.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- as to make sure that those items are
put into the motion.
MR. WEIGEL: We will assist, yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, except we didn't -- there was
one that was really not answered, and that was the issue when
Commissioner Coy Ie brought up and I had on my list to bring up,
about the null and void if someone else challenges this. So after we
hammer this out and it's fine and we all approve this, then if someone
Page 141
December 12-13,2006
else, whoever it may be, comes in and challenges it, our -- I feel
reluctant to approve anything if it says that then our -- our agreement
here becomes null and void because someone else challenges it.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, remember, this is your offer, and so you
fashion the offer as you wish. Mr. Y ovanovich, on behalf of petitioner,
did indicate -- and Mr. Coyle indicated to him that he could think
about it and come back and discuss or respond, which Mr.
Y ovanovich may do or he may elect not to do. I expect he will
respond.
But ultimately, it's your offer and you craft the offer as you wish.
And if you wish that element not to provide one where the settlement
agreement is null and void upon the contingency of a successful
third-party claim, you may make your offer that way, and that is the
way the offer will be.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. ISTENES: Are we going to have a chance to take a little
break so I could take advantage of the offer?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. We're going to take a 10-minute
break anyway. I've got to do some signing of some documents, plus
the court reporter needs to take a break, and the Board of County
Commissioners need to take a break.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me get this in before we
take a break.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Go ahead, Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: As far as ifit is challenged, the
person -- the people that are going to be challenged is the Board of
Commissioners. It's not going to be Signature Properties. And how
you resolve that is, in that language we need to say, the property
owner will assist the county in the event there is a challenge.
And you know, why would anybody accept an agreement if the
county is not -- doesn't have a stake in it?
Page 142
December 12-13, 2006
We get to keep all these bennies that have been negotiated out
somewhere and somehow. There's no benefit for the property owner in
that way. We need to have some kind -- something for them to -- and
how we do it is we bring them into the lawsuit and ask them to help
defend it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No, no. It wouldn't be challenging us. It
would be challenging the developer.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, it would be challenging us.
That's -- if somebody challenges, it's going to challenge the Board of
County Commissioners that made this agreement; am I correct?
MR. PETTIT: Commissioner, I think it's a good point. I mean, I
think that I would argue certainly that they would be an indispensable
party to a challenge to the validity of the settlement agreement, which
would bring them in, but it would be a lot easier if we simply agreed
that they would be in it and defend, and I think we can work that out
without a lot of difficulty.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's how you settle it. But
you can't ask anybody to say, well, you know, we're going to get all
these bennies here, and they're going to stay here, but we'll defend it.
Don't worry about it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No. I think the way that it was
discussed, Commissioner -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- is that I
think in early on discussion, if they fail -- let's say, for instance,
somebody challenges them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Challenging us.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No challenging --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: They would be challenging them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it us or is it --
MR. PETTIT: Well, I think it -- I suppose it could in two ways.
It could come simply as a challenge to the county in its exercise of
authority or it could come as a challenge to both parties to the
settlement agreement.
Page 143
December 12-13,2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And then we're both in it
in that case, but otherwise it's going to be challenging of the Board of
Commissioners to settle it, that settles the --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. This is a good argument. This is
a good discussion. And I think what the intent here is, that if they're
challenged and if they end up to build, then they still owe the county
money. If they don't --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think you need talk to the
county attorney so you have an understanding, okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If I could just make one
observation before we leave this.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Remember that what this is,
it's a release, among other things, from claims under the Bert Harris
Act. In other words, the developer under this case is going to have it
both ways.
If the developer -- if the county is successfully challenged by a
third party and the developer cannot build there, then the developer
can turn right around and sue us under the Bert Harris Act, and I'm not
interested in a settlement that exposes us to that.
So either we settle this Bert Harris Act now or we don't settle it at
all because it will still be hanging over our head for as long as some
third party wants to challenge this thing. And I don't think we need to
-- we need to saddle the taxpayers with that kind of a liability.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Break time.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Let's take a break, and then we'll come
back and discuss this.
MR. PETTIT: Let me have an opportunity to discuss this with
you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good.
Page 144
December 12-13, 2006
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
We're back from our afternoon recess.
And at this time we're still discussing this item 12A. And have
we got everybody back? I hope. Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. We're working it, I think.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't think Rich Y ovanovich is
back.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: He took off.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We should leave again for a few
more minutes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No, no.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are they still out in the hallway,
Mike?
MR. PETTIT: Maybe. I'll look.
MR. WEIGEL: I think they left.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. They conceded?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any other questions that my
fellow commissioners have for legal staff before we proceed on this?
MR. PETTIT: They're apparently downstairs and are on their
way up. I do want to add something.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good.
MR. PETTIT: In conjunction with Commissioner Coyle's
concern about the provision on the release in the event of a challenge,
keep in mind there's also what I call the escape hatch provision, which
is if the federal government imposes a stricter bald eagle management
requirement under an older law, not the endangered species act, there
is a provision in here that would also release the developer from the
settlement agreement and also would require us to refund -- I guess
Page 145
December 12-13,2006
they've now agreed pursuant to your discussion, any monies that are
not obligated or spent, we would have to refund those monies.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, my concern is, we don't have any
control over what the federal agencies do.
MR. PETTIT: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So I'm not sure that I can take on
that responsibility.
MR. WEIGEL: It is your offer to make.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, and I agree with that.
I -- you know, not setting precedence before, we had a settlement
agreement on Vanderbilt Beach -- Commissioner Halas can help me --
and we entered into a settlement agreement to where if it was
challenged, the parties would defend that challenge and no action was
going to take place until that -- there is a challenge period; am I
correct?
MR. PETTIT: I can't recall off the top of my head what it was,
but there was a defined period. And I think there's a defined period in
this as well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And that's what we
ought to, in my opinion, do, is defend it; both parties will defend it and
-- until that challenge is gone, or that challenge time is gone, and that's
when the clock starts on those other things that you were talking
about, affordable housing monies and other things.
MR. PETTIT: I think what you had indicated, Commissioner
Coy Ie, is you were unhappy with any provision that would restore the
Bert Harris Act claim.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. What we have to keep
in mind -- is it my turn?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, it is.
Page 146
December 12-13,2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Did Commissioner Henning finish?
Okay.
We have to remember that this is a proposal for settlement of a
Bert Harris Act claim. Now, if something happens that changes the
fundamental process of the PUD approval, that we did not precipitate,
I don't know why we want to leave ourselves open to reinstatement of
the Bert Harris claim.
This is a settlement of a Bert Harris claim. That's all it is. And if
we agree to the settlement of the Bert Harris claim, there should be no
provision other than a default on our part which would permit the
petitioner to reinstate the Bert Harris claim.
Now, if the federal government does something and some third
party does something that changes the fundamental approval process
of the PUD, then we give them their money back. They don't have to
agree to any of the conditions. We cancel the whole thing, but the
Bert Harris claim goes away because that's what this is, a Bert Harris
claim settlement agreement. And that's where I'm going.
I'm not interested in trying to penalize and extract things from the
petitioner under those circumstances. They should get what they've
given us back if we haven't already spent it on improvement of the
property or adjacent facilities.
So that's why I think it's important that we -- if we're going to
engage in a Bert Harris settlement offer, then that offer should settle
the Bert Harris claim, end of story, if it's acceptable to the petitioner.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: When's that second elevator going to get
fixed?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We've got the stairs.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know. We just did, so -- that's the
oldest trick there is.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Rich, we didn't know the first
elevator was working.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Give us no time to discuss. We're waiting
Page 147
December 12-13,2006
for the elevator.
Commissioner, we understand what you're saying and we
understand where you want to be. There's kind of a fairness issue here,
and we've got hopefully what would be an acceptable compromise
position. But just -- and I'm just going to -- I'm going to pick on Doug
Fee because I like to pick on Doug.
If -- what's to stop Doug, once he knows that the county cannot
be harmed because the Bert Harris release is final and forever gone,
what's to stop him from taking a shot at taking away the settlement
and all the nice win-win-win-win -- did I have four wins in there -- the
four wins away from the community because he just wants to take that
shot.
And that's why we think Collier County needs to be invested in
this and the community needs to be invested in this to fight the fight.
What we would propose is that the release would be nonreturnable to
us when we start construction on the first building, first residential
tower, whichever the government -- federal government tells us needs
to be the first one. Then it becomes non-returnable.
We don't think at any point will a judge undo a settlement if
we've started construction on the first building, and we're willing to
take that risk. So we would hope that that would be a fair -- you
know, get you to where you want to be, give us a little certainty
through the process, and also let those who decide to challenge know
that there is a chance that they're going to take away some of the
win-win-win-win for the community and have them think twice about
whether or not they want to make that challenge as to whether this has
been beneficial to the community or not.
So we would -- hopefully getting started on the first building
would be sufficient and give you enough comfort that that claim's
going to go away.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I still don't like the idea that we are
Page 148
December 12-13,2006
making a proposal for the settlement of a Bert Harris claim, which we
think has no merit, and you accept it, you accept the terms, and then
because of the intervention of some third party, you now can turn
around and sue us again under the Bert Harris provision. That's what
bothers me.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I understand that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if we're not going to dispose
of the Bert Harris suit through this Bert Harris settlement agreement
offer, then why make the offer at all? Why don't we just go back to
the original issue --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, one of the things we did in
Vanderbilt Inn, if I can go back to that one -- because this is the same
provision that's in the Vanderbilt Inn settlement, and the Vanderbilt
Inn settlement says, once we get the building permit, the release is
provided to the county and it's forever final unless someone brings an
injunction that stops the issuing of the building permit.
That's what's in the Vanderbilt Inn agreement today, including
the refunding of monies if there's a successful challenge. And we've
already paid you, I think it's $500,000, under that one. We're asking
for the same provision because it's fair, and so far nobody's
challenged.
Also one thing you did is, I remember Dr. Bing was one of the
vocal opponents on that one, and yet you flat out asked him, is this
settlement okay with you? Are you going to challenge? And he says,
we're not going to challenge.
I've heard several people speak saying they don't think this is a
good idea, so I think there's a substantial likelihood that there may be
a challenge. So I'm reluctant to give up that valuable, you know, right
we have if there's going to be -- if somebody's waiting there to
challenge.
You know, I don't know. Maybe those people would publicly
say -- where are we? Maybe they'll tell us, yeah, we're going to file a
Page 149
December 12-13,2006
challenge or, no, we won't, and we can better evaluate our risk. And,
perhaps, you might want to ask them to say on the record, you know,
where are we going to be, because that might help all of us get to a
position where we can assess risk a little bit better.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, my understanding is, if this gets
challenged again, then all bets are off.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, not all bets because you want to --
you want us to give up the ability to continue on with the Bert Harris
claim, and we don't want to be. We want to know that until we get the
first building permit, we have a viable Bert Harris claim.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm saying under what you just said
earlier, that if this is challenged on a period of time, and it's
challenged, then the residents ought to realize that anything that was
discussed right now as we go through this process, that all that is
wiped off the table.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Including a claim for 230 million -- $239
million. We don't want to -- we need to know that that claim is still
out there while they're deciding whether or not they want to challenge.
This is what we're suggesting.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that's exactly how the Vanderbilt
Inn deal was structured. That's exactly how the Sandalwood deal is
structured. This is how every deal has been structured to where you've
said, the release isn't final until we've made progress on our building
permits.
I think that's reasonable. I mean, we're going to move through
the process and try to get this stuff done, and we just need to know, is
someone there just waiting to --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there a time line that we can put in
there that -- for a challenge?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wouldn't the time frame be
when they could get their first permit?
Page 150
December 12-13,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Go ahead, Mike.
MR. PETTIT: I think, if the question is, can we put a time after
which no challenge can be brought -- I mean after which the
settlement agreement will always remain in effect, I think the answer
is yes. That wouldn't necessarily mean there might not be a challenge.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The release would always be in effect.
MR. PETTIT: But the lease would remain in effect for us. My
only issue -- now that this has been brought up. We have settled along
the terms that Mr. Y ovanovich has brought up before. My problem
with the notion of the construction of the first building, quite frankly,
is when; when is that?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And--
MR. PETTIT: And rather than have that, I mean, if you're even
going to entertain this, we may want to look at a date definite.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: At the time of first issuance of
permit, because we have control of that.
MR. PETTIT: But that could be months and months and months.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Years.
MR. PETTIT: Years.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could be five years from now
because we're giving them a five-year extension on the sunsetting.
To boil this whole thing down, it would be far better for us, rather than
making a settlement agreement, is just entertain a PUD amendment --
because the primary cause for objection in the beginning has pretty
much evaporated -- and just have it come through for a PUD
amendment and just have another public hearing and make a decision.
DR. BING: No. No deal.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I mean, that's simpler for us.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's simpler for you, but we're still in a
situation where -- and I know -- I don't want to argue the case.
Page 151
December 12-13, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We obviously believe we have a strong
case. Had we gotten our PUD amended in May 2005, I'd be -- we
would be 18 months further along in the process, including we'd have
SPDs approved, probably have our building permit approved and have
commenced construction.
And we will be less -- a lot -- there would be a lot less
uncertainty involved with our project if we had gotten approved as we
believe we were legally entitled to then. We've lost 18 months.
So a proposal we would make is, we would -- we will submit our
building permit application within 12 months of the SPDs being
approved, and it probably will take us six months to go through the
process of review if everybody responds timely.
So we're talking about an 18-month period from SDP approval
that will either get -- not later than building permit approval,
commencing construction, or 18 months from SDP approval, the
release would be --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How long does it take for the
approval?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, that hopefully will be pretty quick.
I mean, I think we're down to just --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You fast track it and you can get it
done in two years.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, don't fast track us. We'll take the
regular process then.
No. I mean, with all seriousness, I think we're down to just the
Bald Eagle Management Plan, if I'm wrong -- am I right, Joe?
Where'd Joe go.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's what we're here -- basically here
for today is the Bald Eagle Management Plan.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Rich, I don't want to be
obstinate, but I'm not interested in playing Russian Roulette with the
Page 152
December 12-13, 2006
taxpayers' dollars.
You know, we're going to make a proposal to settle the Bert
Harris claim. You accept it. The Bert Harris claim is settled. What
happens after that, we're both going to have to live with.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand that. You've asked us if you
make -- you're asking us, if you make a proposal to us --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- that the release is basically effective
upon the signing of the agreement. We're not going to accept that
term.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And you've asked -- what I'm saying is,
we will accept something that gets us a little bit further along, with the
issuance of the building permit and commencing construction.
And we're willing -- what Mike's concern was, is there an outside
time? So that you know, we can't just say, well, you know what.
We've decided not to apply for a building permit for three years. I
understand that concern.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Well, all I can tell you is I
can't support it, okay?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And I can understand
some of those concerns that we're talking about here. Where were we
before when -- if we had passed it at the beginning? The difference is
18 months of time. The rejection could have come from another
agency just as easily then as it is now. They might not have been at
the point of doing it.
So I can understand where Commissioner Coyle's coming from
on the whole thing. Although on the other hand, I feel fairly confident
if we did go to court, we'd probably prevail, but I think it's going to be
a tremendous expense that we would have to endure, give or take on
the whole thing.
Page 153
December 12-13, 2006
I'm not too sure how you reach a middle ground where you feel
safe. I don't want this to become a marriage of convenience where if
the real estate market goes completely sour, this is the way to be able
to turn around and maybe be able to try to get a suit in front of the
court system with the idea that we're going to make a settlement for an
amount to maybe bring them back to where they were before they
started the whole project. That's a concern.
CHAIRMAN HALAS : Well, we heard from the neighborhood,
people from the neighborhood, different homeowner groups, I believe.
And I think that most of them are in concurrence with this. Some
have concerns, and I think we've addressed those concerns. I'm
hoping that those neighborhood groups are not the ones that are going
to get involved in a third-party suit.
And I think that's -- they realize that if this goes to court, the end
result is, there's not going to be anything that's going to be gained
from this.
Right now we've -- you've worked through the process with the
developers, each and every one of you, in regards to items that you
felt was important to your neighborhood and how it was going to
affect your area.
So I would hope that we can come to some resolution here. And
I think that -- I would hope that the people that spoke are basically the
majority of the people that live in those communities that realize that
they've got something to gain from this if there is no challenge.
So that's where I stand on this. Commissioners -- Commissioner
Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You mean Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, your light was on.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Your light was on again.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It just springs up there by force of
habit, I think.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I watched you push the button.
Page 154
December 12-13, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I did too. I seen--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then I'll be truthful, I forgot what I
was going to say.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. I do have a question. If
there -- we're talking about this challenge. So if this was settled today,
I mean, if they agreed to this settlement minus the reverting back to
the Bert Harris Act, and then if there was a challenge, most likely
they'd challenge both of us anyway, and so we'd all be having to fight
the same fight if that be the case. But if that be -- if that was the case
and we didn't remove that, then not only would we be fighting that,
we'd also have to be paying the Bert Harris act, or this Bert Harris
lawsuit as well, so we would be -- we would be totally --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Boxed in.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Boxed in.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Boxed in, yes. We wouldn't have
any way out. That's my big concern.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I'm going to make a motion that
what was discussed today, that working with the county attorney, that
we put together some type of an agreement here. And we'll see if we
get a second on it, and then we'll go from there.
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: May I read into the record some of
the notes that I have for clarification purposes to see if the board
agrees with that?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: The first would be that there would
just be a settlement agreement and the original PUD document, and
the settlement agreement -- so in other words, there wouldn't be any
development standards document.
And then the settlement agreement would contain in it the
development standards as it would vary from the original PUD, which
I think was ordinance 2000-58 or something like that.
Page 155
December 12-13, 2006
And that would include the number of units and the idea that it's going
to be 590 units and no more ever, that the height of the building five
would be 1 7 stories or 175 feet. I t would contain the two residential
units in the golf course area and the removal of the R-2, and the
development standards for those residential units including setbacks --
the maximum height of those would be 18 feet -- and any other
development standards pertaining to lot size and so on that would need
to be in there for those two lots. And, again, as I stated, removal of
the units -- the R-2 that would go on the golf courses.
The Bald Eagle Management Plan, there would be no -- if there
were any changes as a result of technical assistance from the federal
government, there would be no formal amendment process that would
come back before the board through a public hearing. It would be
administratively done with the developer having to notify our
development services department and then their application of the
technical assistance to Site Development Plan amendment that would
come through them.
Let's see. The golf course. If it's ceased to be a golf course, then
the uses on there would be the same as the uses in the preserve that are
set forth in the current PUD document.
And then as to the EIS, I think there's language already in the
document that talks about an existing environmental impact statement
but that no additional updated EIS would be required so long as that 5
percent impact to the wetlands wasn't tripped. Just clearing that up.
And then as to the escape hatch provisions and the reinstatement
of the Bert Harris, we would take that out. And my notes on this page
indicate that the time period that Mr. Y ovanovich suggested -- and the
board does not agree with -- would be 18 months from the commit --
approval of a building permit or commencement of construction of the
first building, or 18 months, whichever came first. That's the Mr.
Y ovanovich issue.
The board, on the escape hatch, wants the settlement to be done
Page 156
December 12-13,2006
as of -- as of today, and no reinstatement of the Bert Harris claim as --
in two scenarios, if there's a third-party challenge or if the Feds delist
the eagle and there's more stringent federal requirements, because
there's two provisions -- escape hatch provisions in there.
And that's what my notes reflect. If there's anything additional, I
would appreciate the board's assistance there.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: How about the --
MR. WEIGEL: Additionally, of course, are the financial
aspirations of the potential offer and settlement --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: -- Mr. Halas, in case you wish to go forward, or I
will, in that regard.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. That was the $3 million for
affordable housing and to be broken up as each tower is built. That
would be $600,000, okay.
MR. WEIGEL: $600,000, which would be paid, I think, at the
issuance of building permits --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Permits.
MR. WEIGEL: -- for each of the towers.
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: If I might, I meant the other things
that are set forth in the settlement agreement and the B-E-M-P, or the
BEMP, as you have them in your packet with the modification that I
read into the record. I'm sorry that I didn't make that clear. But that
would include those payments for the bridge enhancements and the
time when it has to be paid, the affordable housing payments and
sidewalk.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I make a suggestion on Mr. Coyle's
issue? I think -- my client whispered in my ear. I think what we
would propose is that if there's a successful third-party challenge, you
get to keep the release, we get the money back that we've paid to you,
and we still get the approval of the revised Bald Eagle Management
Page 157
December 12-13,2006
Plan because it seems like the challenge is going to be to the non-Bald
Eagle Management Plan related settlement terms.
So we would get all those other issues. In exchange for that, we
would get to keep our approved Eagle Management Plan that's
attached, and you get to keep your release.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
MR. PETTIT: Would the money, Mr. Yovanovich--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We get the money back.
MR. PETTIT: All the money regardless of whether it had been
obligated or spent?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, yeah, that's only fair. I mean,
when we said you can keep what you spent, it was before we were
then told, oh, by the way, your third-party challenge provision was
going to be removed from us and the federal provision was going to be
removed from us. I think that is only fair.
So maybe you should hold off on spending the money for a few
months to see if there's any challenges.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, we actually do have control
over when we spend the money, so I guess that could be workable.
The problem is, what happens if somebody challenges the Bald Eagle
Management Plan?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we'll take that risk, if they
challenge the Bald Eagle Management Plan.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But if -- so what you're really
saying is, that you get to keep your exist -- or revised Bald Eagle
Management Plan, and then you release us from all Bert Harris
claims?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you do that upon acceptance
of this agreement?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. And then if there's a successful
Page 158
December 12-13,2006
third-party change, whatever money we've paid to you would come
back to us, and whatever deed restrictions are on the land would be
lifted up. Because, you know, the bottom -- you know, that's what's
fair, right? We've agreed that we would undo everything but the
approval of the Bald Eagle Management Plan, and in return for that,
you've gotten your -- basically your unconditional release.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that means you will give up
your PUD?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we'll have the same PUD we have.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll have the same PUD but with the
revised Bald Eagle Management Plan.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And no Bert Harris --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No Bert Harris --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- claim? I don't see a real risk
there as long as we can control the scheduling of -- we can control the
scheduling --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, yeah. You obviously can do that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- of the improvements.
MR. PETTIT: Yeah. Just to clarify, Mr. Y ovanovich, there are
three financial outlays you're committing to, as I recall. The money
for the affordable housing, the money for --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Bridge enhancements and road --
MR. PETTIT: -- bridge enhancements of the building of a
pathway.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, that one we control. We just won't
build it until we get further along. But as far as -- cash that we're going
to pay to you all is the $3 million for the road and bridge
enhancements and $600,000 for each building permit towards
affordable housing. That would all be --
MR. PETTIT: With the understanding that if you're asking to
have that back in the event of a successful challenge, you still may be
Page 159
December 12-13, 2006
subject to a mitigation fee if that's --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, yeah. We -- yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: And I have one other thing in the
revised paragraph 8, and I'm reading this very quickly. But we need
to probably set a time frame for when that sidewalk would be built. I
don't think it says anything right there -- or the pathway.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: First building permit.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aren't we the ones that are going to
decide when it's built? They're giving us the money.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, we're building the sidewalk.
Transportation wanted us to build the sidewalk.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: They're doing the sidewalk, so we
need to know when they would start.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: When the first building starts to go up.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That sounds good.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: How about, the time frame for building
the sidewalk is after we get the first building permit to start
construction on that building.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner, you all done?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's okay with me.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Just for clarification. We
spoke before of a few words that were inserted, and I'm sure you said
they were taken out, but I just wanted to make sure that they were
taken out.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Which words were those, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And this was in the PUD, okay. On
page 30 of 54, under accessory uses, and added back in was docks,
and that -- but that wasn't --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's--
Page 160
December 12-13, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But that's eliminated. I just wanted
to clarify to make sure that it's on the record. I know Rich said that. I
just wanted to make sure Margie knew that too. And also -- do you
see it, Rich?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I see it. I don't remember saying that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You said they're not going to be
docks, right? Or--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. I said -- no. I said, we have to still
go through the permitting process. It's an allowed accessory use, but
that doesn't mean I get it automatically. I still have to go through the
full-blown permitting process.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to make sure of that.
What is -- now, let me see. There was the other one that, Mike, you
mentioned on page, what, 41 of 54, under environmental, B, in the
event that the property is not platted; is that what you were
mentioning?
MR. PETTIT: No, Commissioner. Actually what I was referring
to is the reference that was in the developmental standards document,
which I understand we're going to not use.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Right.
MR. PETTIT: But there is a reference there to the effect that
there would be an ability of the developer to put boat docks or boat
slips along or among mangroves, and that was problematic.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Where's that?
MR. PETTIT: This is a reference the environmental staff picked
up. I think it was at 6.9B in the --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, it doesn't say we can build them
along there. What it says is -- and you know what? Maybe somebody
can answer the question for us -- is we're being told that if we impose
a conservation easement on our land, somehow waterfront property no
longer is waterfront property for purposes of calculating shoreline for
how many boat slips we get.
Page 161
December 12-13,2006
I don't know where that is in the LDC. If someone could tell me
where it says that -- because my understanding of the law is, just
because I impose an easement on it, it doesn't change what I own.
So we basically -- what that provision says, it's still considered
shoreline, even though there's a conservation easement on it, for
purposes of calculating how many boat slips we have the right to ask
for.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, that's--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Ask for. Not that you're going to give it
to me, but I have the right to ask for it. What they -- what they're
telling me is the minute I put the conservation easement on the
property, I no longer -- I no longer have shoreline. I can't find that in
the LDC, and that's the reason we put it in the PUD is because that just
made no sense to us.
If you all tell me, Rich -- on the record, because it all counts
whether it's in writing or not -- that you don't have to worry about that,
you still get to count the shoreline even if there's a conservation
easement on that shoreline property for calculating the number of boat
slips, we can take that out.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think just for--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Just tell me on the record that that's the
correct interpretation before I take it out.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'd really like -- would not like to go
there. I think what we need to do is you need to go through the
process. We're trying to make this thing as simple as possible, and
we're getting more and more mired down into this thing to the point
where we may not get it -- I mean, we may not have the votes here.
So that's up to you what you want to do.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I'm just -- again, I've kind of been
through the process. I know -- I know what's going to happen when
we get there.
All right. We're not going to make it an issue.
Page 162
December 12-13, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I just want to clarify, your
motion is to make a settlement offer, what's in our packet, and
including what Margie Student said and including what -- as far as the
challenging period of what Mr. Y ovanovich said. Is that in your
motion?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's in the motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's in your motion, Mr.
Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, that's the motion, my motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. But I -- the other thing
about this shoreline and docks, sounds like somebody's making a law,
because even if you put a conservation on it, you own it; you still own
the property. It's still part of the calculation.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Let's -- we just want to drop -- I think
they want to drop that and I think --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know, hooey. I don't
want to drop it because this happens every day, and somebody needs
to get charged here, grab a hold of this issue. Not -- several issues.
We make laws, not our staff.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Why don't we just say to the
staff, look, when you bring this document back to us, give us an
interpretation on that issue, okay? Answer that question; is that fair
enough?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep. That's fair enough.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. We make laws, not our
staff.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, but if they come back and say
the law doesn't say that at all, then we know that it's okay. If they
Page 163
December 12-13,2006
come back to us and they say, yes, our law does say that, then we've
got something to think that.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: If I might, I'd just like to offer a
little bit of elimination. I think we'll offer more when we come back.
But many times our PUD documents say that there'll be a conservation
easement similar to or per Florida Statute section 704.06, and in that
language there's a list of things that you can prohibit or limit, and it
says limit or prohibit in the state law.
So I would want to chat with staff about their interpretation of
any LDC provisions. But I think in state law, it makes it clear that you
can either prohibit it or limit it, and limit it is different than prohibit.
And I also want to add here that this is -- again, it's a settlement of a
Bert Harris claim, so notwithstanding what might be in the Land
Development Code as part of the settlement, we can vary those
standards, and that's under state law, you know, in Bert Harris as long
as, you know, public interest and so on is being met. I just wanted to
put that on the record.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further discussion?
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Halas, I think that you have many elements
there to put the flesh on the bone of your motion, but one last question
that I had, I guess, for you personally was, your understanding of the
time period within which the potential would exist --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Eighteen months.
MR. WEIGEL: -- before return the money.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Eighteen months, eighteen months.
MR. WEIGEL: Very good.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. So there is a motion on the floor at this
point made by Mr. Halas.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We said 18 months from the approval of
your site development?
MR. WEIGEL: No, no. It's--
Page 164
December 12-13, 2006
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, no, no. You get the release now.
You get the release now.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If there's a third-party challenge, we get
all our money back, whenever that happens.
Now, before you vote, my understanding is you've given
direction to what the settlement agreement is. If we accept that terms,
whatever Mike sends me in a letter, we accept that, we're done for
purposes of the settlement. It may be brought back just to make sure
we wrote it up appropriately, but we have a settlement. And I guess
for informational purposes, you want to know if the imposing of a
conservation easement on your land somehow makes you no longer a
waterfront, because we don't want to tie the settlement to that. But we
would like you to know from an informational standpoint.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. That's not tied to the agreement,
but it's for information, yes. Okay. Wow.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: By the way, I'll second your
motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You'll second my motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can we go home now?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can we go home. Is there -- yes, there is
further discussion?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. Just for clarification. As I
mentioned earlier, there's two escape hatches here. There's if the
federal -- the birds de-listed and if there's a third-party challenge.
So I just want clarification that what Rich said as to, you know, the --
we get to keep the release, and then the money goes back to them if
this happens. But we control that, so that shouldn't be such a problem.
He gets his approved of the Bald Eagle Management Plan, and the rest
of this goes by the board, so that's in both eventualities. The
third-party challenge and if the federal regulations change, i.e., the
delisting of the bird -- because there's two escape hatches in here right
Page 165
December 12-13,2006
now.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: They both go away.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. There should not be any
escape hatches here.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, no, there won't be if--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. As far as the Bert Harris
claim is concerned, there should not be any escape hatches.
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Right. I just wanted to clarify it
for both instances, because we've been talking about the third party.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's in the motion.
MR. WEIGEL: And Mr. Y ovanovich has indicated for the
record that the Bert Harris claim goes away under both circumstances.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Call for the question. All those in
favor of this item, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries, 5-0.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Now, Commissioner, just to make sure I've got
this right, they're going to -- oh, no, no, no. I don't care what --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sit down for a minute
MR. MUDD: I don't care about the specifications. I just want to
make sure that I've got it clear that we're to bring back this agreement
for the board's review after we've got it all done, and --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's either put on--
Page 166
December 12-13,2006
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you'll get it on the particular issue.
It will probably be --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Consent agenda or --
MR. MUDD: It will either be on consent or it could be on the
regular agenda depending if something comes up that's controversial.
But we're bringing it back to you is what I just wanted to make sure
was clear.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now we need another break.
Item #8A
AN ORDINANCE CREATING THE NAPLES PARK LAKE AND
CUL-DE-SAC MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT;
PROVIDING THE AUTHORITY; PROVIDING FOR THE
CREATION; PROVIDING A PURPOSE AND GOVERNING
BODY; PROVIDING FUNDING AND THE LEVY OF NOT TO
EXCEED THREE (3) MILS OF AD VALOREM TAXES PER
YEAR; PROVIDING FOR THE COLLECTION OF TAXES; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; PROVIDING FOR
DUTIES OF THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE;
PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY;
PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE COLLIER COUNTY
CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING FOR
AN EFFECTIVE DATE - MOTION TO CONTINUE
INDEFINITELY - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us -- that brings us to
our first land use advertised public hearing type petition, and that's 8A,
and this is a recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners review and approve an ordinance creating the Naples
Park Lake and cul-de-sac municipal service taxing unit; providing the
Page 167
December 12-13, 2006
authority; providing for the creation; providing a purpose and
governing body; providing funding and the levy of not to exceed three
mills of ad valorem taxes per year; providing for the collection of
taxes; and providing for an effective date; providing for duties of the
county manager or his designee; providing for conflict and
severability; providing for inclusion in the Collier County Code of
Laws and Ordinances; and providing for an effective date.
And Ms. Diane Flagg, your director of alternative transportation
modes, will present.
MS. FLAGG: Good afternoon, Commissioner. I'll be brief.
When this item was brought before the board, we had a majority of
property owners that supported the formation of the MS TU. This
morning I received three affidavits of property owners that are
withdrawing their petition of support so, therefore, they do not have a
maj ority of the property owners interested in forming the MS TV.
I will tell you that, just as a brief history, this is a private lake.
Because of the rats and the weeds and the cattails and the algae and
odor, the board made a decision to declare it a public health, safety
and welfare for the formation of the MSBU, the municipal services
benefit unit.
The MSBU was formed. The work is done. The balance of the
work, which is the maintenance and the addition of the chemicals to
the lake, will end in -- excuse me -- July of2007.
Without the formation of this MSTU, there will be no continuing
maintenance through any funding by the county; however, we've
encouraged the folks that we spoke to this morning to work with the
people who actually do own the property around the lake to, again, try
and get that group to form a homeowners' association or to pass the
hat because I would hate to see all the money that the MS TU has been
__ put into this project -- and the lake is in a much better condition than
it was before -- to see this money wasted by not having the funds to
continue to maintain it.
Page 168
December 12-13,2006
But I'll, again, state that based upon the petition process, they do
not have a majority now supporting the formation of the MSTU.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do we have any speakers on this?
MS. FILSON: We have six speakers.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Alan King. He'll be followed by Susan Baraban.
MR. KING: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Alan
King, and I am here representing my mother-in-law, Mrs. Lucylle
Bidelman, who lives at 869 North 1 07th Avenue in Naples Park.
She has lived in her home bordering the body of water referenced in
the petition continuously since 1971, and which is the following to be
heard by the commissioners.
As Naples Park Lake has no water supply other than rainfall and
no water outflow other than evaporation, it fails to meet the definition
of a lake and is instead a retention pond.
This retention pond has existed since the early 1950s in its
current form. The items described in the petition are a significant
upgrade to the pond, making it into a year-round artificial lake with
the referenced pumps, fountains, benches, landscaping, et cetera.
Are the -- is the levy of three mills actually able to cover these costs
both initially and on an ongoing basis?
The lake is approximately 1.6 acres in size and will require about
71,000 cubic feet of water to replace the water loss due to evaporation
in the dry season. For every one foot, the lake level drops.
The level appears to have dropped in the neighborhood of six feet
already, or an equivalent to about 426,000 cubic feet of water. Where
will this replacement water come from and, again, are these costs
comprehended in the three mills?
Based on these issues, as well as the fact that there are no longer
a majority of petitioners in favor, Mrs. Bidelman urges the
commissioners to delay passage of this ordinance, and if possible, visit
the site personally during the dry season to assess the progression of
Page 169
December 12-13,2006
the pond, how it dries up.
We feel the proposed ordinance is designed to benefit property
owners desiring to sell their property, while at the same time, down
playing the potential long-term cost for those who have no plans to
leave.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Susan Baraban. She'll be
followed by Barbara Bateman.
MS. BARABAN: Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak.
My name is Susan Baraban. I'm a homeowner in Naples Park. And I
actually own a home on the lake.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. BARABAN: I'm here -- one of the reasons I'm here is that I
originally signed the petition for the Naples Park Lake, and I have
changed my opinion on that, and I'd like to tell you why.
I spoke in front of this commission -- I'm not sure how many
months ago, or maybe it was two years ago -- when the whole idea of
the -- sorry, I'm actually a little bit nervous -- the Dover-Kohl came
up.
And I said at that point -- which I'm going to actually reiterate
today -- that is that I bought a home in Naples Park because I think
Naples Park is a unique area in Naples. It's diverse, it has age
differentials, and it has cultural differentials. It has affordable homes,
which is what I could afford, and it doesn't have a homeowners'
association, and that was really important to me.
I worry about Naples Park because I think it's under pressure to
be developed. And it's not that I don't want change. It's just that my
goals for the lake were simpler than I think the actual Naples Park
recommendation states, and that's the reason I'm changing.
I'd like a simple solution, and that is a healthy lake. I'm not really
looking for beautification and I'm not really looking for planned
growth, because planned growth, to me, unfortunately -- not that it is,
Page 170
December 12-13, 2006
but could smack of what I think was the Dover-Kohl project.
So those are my reasons for changing. I do know, however, that
the lake needs a solution. And so I believe that if some of the wording
were changed, for instance, not necessarily beautification and no
associations with be planned growth, but a healthy lake, that I would
seriously sign up for that.
And I also know that we need to step up to this. And so if this is
not approved, then I would feel that I had to get involved in an
association to try and bring a solution to the lake. And thank you very
much for the opportunity to speak.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can I ask you a couple of questions?
MS. BARABAN: Yes, you can.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The reason that you would establish an
MSTU is then you have a voice on what you want to do. I believe
what was given to you is some ideas, but when you put together an
MS TU, you have a chairperson, and you have at least four other
people that are involved in this, so you are the guiding light of what
takes place in this MSTU. And then you can decide what millage rate
you want to establish.
MS. BARABAN: Understood.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So you don't have to go with the
three mills. That was only to look at what needs to be done with the --
what was put in front of you, okay?
MS. BARABAN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If you want to keep a beautiful lake and
don't worry about the vegetation around the outside of it or the
landscaping, you have that right as an MSTU.
MS. B ARAB AN : I understand that, Commissioner Halas, I do. I
think one of the things that would be important to me, I really would
want to know it's stipulated down on paper what it was actually going
to cost me to do that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, that's why, if you do form an
Page 171
December 12-13,2006
MSTU, you can -- I think you can talk with some of the staff that
assisted in trying to clean up the lake the first time, okay, when --
MS. BARABAN: I did speak with them. They spoke with me,
yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So, you know this has nothing to
do with Dover-Kohl. All it is is the people that live around that lake,
there was some concern that they would like to restore that lake,
okay?
Now, as far as putting water into it, I don't think there was ever
any talk about putting water into it. It's a lake, and it's going to
fluctuate as the season -- as you get a wet season, the lake will fill up.
As you get a dry season, obviously it -- the water evaporates or it goes
down into the soil of the aquifer.
So I just want to -- what I'm trying to do is give you an
understanding of what an MSTU is, that you as the people, if you
decide that you want to go this way, that you are the governing body
of what takes place, okay?
MS. BARABAN: I hear you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
MS. BARABAN: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Barbara Bateman. She'll be
followed by Carolyn Pierce.
MS. BATEMAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Barbara Bateman, and I am a property owner in Naples Park for 30
years. I don't live around the lake, but I did want to lend my support,
and I'm speaking for myself, not for the Naples Park Area Association,
of which I am a board member, and I am also on the civic committee.
But when I heard what was happening to a number of the property
owners that have lived there for 35 years and have dedicated their hard
work, contributed to the community, contributed their taxes, and I
heard at the last board meeting of November the 28th -- Jeannette
Showalter had addressed the commissioners in stating that the
Page 1 72
December 12-13, 2006
petitions that were signed setting up the ordinance and the MS T -- the
MSTU had some broad, broad language.
And when Julie Parada and myself revisited these homeowners,
they had no idea what they had signed. They didn't know that it was
going to be an ongoing taxation on them.
One gentleman said, he understood that it was only a one-time
bug spray. He had no idea. And he had -- the fact that they have
already advanced -- the county has already advanced $40,000 for the
assessment that they're doing now that will end in July, and now
they're being taxed again.
It is a tax burden for a number of the people that are around there
that have established themselves for what, 30, 35 years.
Of those 29 homes, 17 of them are owned by people who do not live
there. They're there for investment purposes, and the homeowners
there that have been established feel they're being pushed out, and
they never signed a petition with the idea that they were going to be
signing for beautification and the potential for planned growth.
Now, if that could be re-addressed -- yes, if that could be re-
addressed and it be more specific -- and if I can make some statement
__ I believe Commissioner Coyle had said it earlier -- about the best
results that we want -- we want to be accurate in what we're doing and
have more information.
This is kind of vague. These people had no idea as to what they
were signing. And if they want to readdress it, dismiss it today, come
back at another time where each of these property owners that signed
it and they changed their mind, that they can go ahead and have more
specific information spelled out as far as cost, as far as exactly what it
is, and take out the loophole for future -- future planned growth.
And I'm not -- I hear a comment in the back. So I'm here today to
ask for your considerations. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I just want to also clarify the record that
those people that have lived there for 31 years or whatever --
Page 173
December 12-13,2006
MS. BATEMAN: Whatever.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- yeah, I'm sure they're all homesteaded
and are also in the Save Our Homes, so they're probably -- their
assessed values are a lot lower than some of the people -- newer
residents. And so the people that are newer in the neighborhood are
going to pay the larger amount of the burden in regards to this lake, so
I just want to get that straight on the record.
MS . BATEMAN: I understand that, Commissioner Halas, but I
also want to -- if I have the opportunity to state that, over a period of
time -- they did not sign these petitions knowing that this was going to
be an ongoing tax for them.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. BATEMAN: And that was not -- that was not right. If you
could have -- could that have been specified that it's going to last --
and it's going to be a continuance (sic), and over a period of time
improvements will be made, then I'm sure those costs are going to
increase. Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much for your
time.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta, did you have
something to say or did you want to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, if I could.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just -- you know, I'm going to
give an observation. This is what I see. We're at the last meeting of
the year. If it doesn't happen now, it's not going to be able to happen
for a full year.
All of a sudden, there are -- some of the residents are having
buyers remorse over buying into this. That's fine. All we can do is
represent the will of the people. I don't know why we're going to drag
this thing out for an hour or two with the lengthy discussions when in
Page 174
December 12-13,2006
the end we're going to vote what the residents want and not do it, then
they've got another whole year to be able to think this out and come up
with something that they think is more agreeable.
That's where I see this going. And if we can cut to the chase and
bring it to that point, we might be able to make a lot of people happy
in this room, and, of course, staff will have a lot more work for
another year to try to come up with some sort of resolution if they still
want to work on it.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if --let me just interject for a
second. What I heard earlier from Ms. Flag -- and I believe that Scott
Teach will validate that, is with the three affidavits that came in that
said they want to withdraw their votes, they no longer have the 50
percent plus one for this MSTU.
Unless this board is going to declare this MSTU as a mandatory
MSTU -- and I don't believe based on what I'm seeing as far as nods
are concerned, that that's going to happen -- then this item can be
continued indefinitely.
And staffs not going to do anything until the people around the
lake come in with the petition. Staff doesn't go out and collect
petitions from those folks when they want to go do something. They
have a special assessment for $40,000. They'll be assessed their part
of that $40,000 to pay that bill.
At this juncture, this MSTU is dead as far as staff is concerned
until we get 50 plus one to come back again and say they want to start
up again, and then we'll come back to this board prior to the start of
the new year.
So there's no -- there's going to be no MSTU assessment that can
be made based on the denial of this particular petition today for the
November tax collection, and it won't be until November of 2008, if
they come back with this MSTU prior to 1 January of2008, that
they'd have any tax obligation with an MSTU in mind.
They still have to pay back that special assessment, and I believe Mr.
Page 175
December 12-13,2006
Klatzkow has been involved in that, along with Ms. Flagg, in order to
clean up this lake in its state that it was before. And the board has
been actively involved in that.
But right now, I don't believe you have the votes, Commissioner
Halas, to do a mandatory MSTU. And I would say to you, continuing
to listen to the public speakers at this juncture is going to be your
choice, but it doesn't -- it doesn't have the votes for a voluntary one.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, is there anybody in favor of this?
Well, see, we've got two sides here. But I think the end result is go
ahead and let them speak, and then we'll take a vote on it.
MS. FILSON: Carolyn Pierce. She'll be followed by Lloyd
Bowein.
MS. PIERCE: Thank you very much.
My name is Carolyn Pierce, and my husband and I reside on the lake,
and we have been there for about five years, and we do not have any
intentions to sell our property in the near future. Actually, we are
constantly improving our home.
And while I understand the concerns of the other speakers, some
of them do not live there. They say they represent them, but, you
know, I'd like to see the bodies here.
My main concern -- excuse me. I have a cold -- is the safety, the
health and the welfare of our area. We have a problem with the things
that have been mentioned; the trash has been thrown in the lake, the
rats, the overgrowth. It's become a cesspool.
Had it not been for Jeannette Showalter and Tom Mooney, who
has since moved -- but they did a lot to get the lake cleaned up.
As she mentioned, we spent $40,000 collectively to get it clean, so
why not maintain it? We're just going to get right back to where we
started, and then we're going to be right back here again asking for it
to be cleaned up and spend $40,000.
Now, I do understand maybe not wanting to spend money on
beautification to the extent of benches and whatnot, but we need to
Page 176
December 12-13,2006
keep it clean. This is a health issue. We have children that play around
the lake. I have actually seen children in the lake. And I think the
county collectively, the commissioners, have a duty to look into this,
look into the health hazards that are there.
Now, we need -- the only way -- you know, we've tried, you
know, to do this privately, to form an association, but we have no
luck. The only way we're going to get this done is to establish a
vehicle, an authority through the county to keep this lake clean.
We've already recognized the need because we've already spent the
$40,000. We need to keep the ball rolling, we need to keep it clean,
and keep it -- I'm all for the all-natural look. That's fine, you know,
and I'd be willing to resign a petition that maybe is a little bit
modified.
But the people that are claiming they didn't know what they
signed, I'm sorry, but if you can understand and read plain English --
and if you can't understand what's stated, you should not sign it.
That's what attorneys are for, that's what making phone calls are for to
the county and getting a full explanation of what you sign.
The property owners have a duty, just like they do with code
enforcement rules. You keep your yard mowed, you keep -- you
follow the code enforcement rules. If you don't, your neighbor can
call the code enforcement board. Well, who can I call when I have
trash piling up in the lake, when I have neighbors who let their
vegetation -- they just throw it into the lake? Who can we call? There
is no one. We have to have people go out and clean it themselves.
So I just wanted to let you know that I am for this, and this will not
die. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What you need to do is get -- go out in
the -- around -- the community around the lake and get the 51 plus --
50 percent plus one.
MS. PIERCE: We will.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
Page 1 77
December 12-13,2006
MS. FILSON: Lloyd Bowein. He'll be followed by Michael
Gatz.
MR. BOWEIN: Yes. My name's Lloyd Bowein, and I own one
of the properties around the lake. I do want to mention that Tom and
Jeannette physically took a lot of the stuff out of there above and
beyond the 40,000 that was spent.
What we did have, the MSTU petition comes after that MSBU,
which was the 40,000, which was signed and agreed and understood
that it would be followed by the MSTU which the county drafted. We
went to the county. They drafted it. So if its expanse is more than
some of the property owners now want to do, you know, that's just the
way the county directed us to draft it.
Again, like Commissioner Halas said, that what -- the extent of
the improvements is going to be up to the board that is in charge of
spending the money and setting the millage. Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think what we can do right here --
we've got both sides of the argument. I think what we'll do is, I'll
make a motion that this be continued till you get 50 plus one percent.
MR. BOWEIN: Well, could I say just a couple more things?
Number one is, when we did the petition, the petition was scrutinized
by the supervisor of elections and the signatures were validated, and
the petition went on. These affidavits that came in today have no -- I
don't -- no authentication that they're even from the homeowners. I
don't know why you would even consider those affidavits today.
The affidavits were generated by people that don't even live around
the lake, that are -- have this theory that it's Dover-Kohl all over again.
They've got this conspiracy theory going, and that's why the affidavits
were brought forward.
And I don't see how they can be valid and say that we don't have
50 plus one when you have in your packet a petition that is signed by
50 plus one, authorized and verified by the supervisor of elections.
And if it dies at this point, I don't think it's going to come back again
Page 178
December 12-13,2006
because Tom and Jeannette aren't going to do it again. They've had
enough. And -- which means it's going to be up to code enforcement
to come in and give 34 citations to the property owners when this lake
goes back to the way it was.
CHAIRMAN HALAS : Well--
MR. TEACH: Commissioner, I was just going to say, I've
reviewed the affidavits, and they appeared before a notary public and
they comply with Florida Statutes, so they are valid as far as they're
sworn and subscribed to.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And they're property owners around the
lake?
MR. TEACH: And they are the three property owners around
the lake. And I will give a copy to the court reporter as an exhibit
today.
MR. BOWEIN: And that's been verified with the tax assessor
that they still are current owners?
MR. TEACH: They are still current owners.
MR. BOWEIN: Oh.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know what I hear here? I think
that a lot of people don't understand an MSTU. I think that the
problem is that somehow -- you know, it -- we don't have anything to
do with it at all except that we're granting you -- if you want us to help
you, we will. You have to ask us, and we will.
And you decide -- it's your own board. We don't have anything
to do with your little board. And, you know, they get five or seven
people, however much you want on, and you say, well, I don't -- I
think we just want to have the chemicals poured on there and the grass
mowed. That's fine, so then you charge yourself a quarter of a mill.
If you find out that that's too much the next year, you reduce that. If
you find out maybe you want a couple trees planted, you plant your
trees, so then you charge yourself maybe a tenth of a mill more. But
we have nothing to do with it. It's all just for you, and you decide
Page 179
December 12-13,2006
what you want, you vote on it, and that's what everybody does.
But if -- I think the biggest problem here seems to be anger even,
is that they didn't understand what an MS TU was in the first place.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, they brought up the fact that they
thought this was Dover-Kohl all over again, and it's not.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Your light was on.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I make a motion to continue
indefinitely.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Second.
MS. FILSON: Commissioner, I have one more speaker.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. BOWEIN: I hadn't finished my turn either.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I think we know where this is
leading, sir, and I think it's -- we don't have the 50 plus one. We can't
go any farther until we get a consensus from the people that live
around the lake.
MR. BOWEIN: I just have one question for clarification. When
you say it's continued indefinitely, does that mean that if we can get,
say, the three affidavits, those people to revert back to agreeing with
it, that we can go with this petition or --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's right.
MR. BOWEIN: -- do we have to start back at square one?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No. That can be brought back.
MR. BOWEIN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's being continued indefinitely until
you --
MR. BOWEIN: Call and say we have--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- you garner the support--
MR. BOWEIN: -- fifty plus one.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Right. And you garner the support and
Page 180
December 12-13, 2006
people understand what the MSTU is, then I think -- then we'll be
ready, okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And sometime maybe you ought to
have a meeting with everybody, because if you call one by one, then
they tell their neighbor, who tells their neighbor who tells their
neighbor, and it's amazing, but it isn't the same thing by the time
everybody else has heard about it; whereas, if you all sit in the same
place and you all discuss it, and maybe you have somebody educated
in the MSTU vernacular, you can discuss it together, ask questions,
and then --
MR. BOWEIN: Yeah. Tom and Jeannette have been doing this
for four years now.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And they've worked very hard.
MR. BOWEIN: And I think this would have gone through had it
not been for the conspiracy theory of Dover-Kohl, then it would have
been passed today. But as a result of that, that's why we have to go
back and reeducated those people that have been brainwashed on
Dover- Kohl.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Please be quiet, okay?
Okay. Any other discussion from my commissioners? Commissioner
Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I really -- I don't know. This
is deja-vu all over again. I don't know why we keep doing this. You
know, we try to help neighborhoods, and, you know, it just -- we
waste hours and hours and hours. We get people angry and neighbors
fighting among each other.
You know, I don't want to participate in this process. I don't even
want it to come back, I really don't. In fact, I don't even want you to
spend the money doing what you're doing right now because it's going
to be all undone by the time this ever gets worked out. You ought to
terminate the project right now and send the money back to the
taxpayers, and let's just forget it.
Page 181
December 12-13, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The money's all been spent.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All of it?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The 40,000, yeah.
MS. FLAGG: With the exception of the continuing maintenance,
which will end in July of'07.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The difference between this one
and the one we heard last month --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm talking about the one we heard
the last time we did something with Naples Park.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, well, Naples Park, yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, yeah. I mean, we just keep
doing this. I don't know why we bother, quite frankly.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I got a motion on the floor, and I
believe I have a second to continue this --
MS. FILSON: You were the second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- until they can come up with -- and
hopefully they can work through the process here. So I'm going to
call the vote.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So there's the marching orders.
Thank you very much for being here most of the day.
Item #10B
THE ANNUAL REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES RELATED TO
Page 182
December 12-13, 2006
THE JOB CREATION INVESTMENT PROGRAM, THE
ADVANCED BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT
PROGRAM, THE PROPERTY TAX STIMULUS PROGRAM,
AND THE FEE PAYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM _
APPROVED W/STIPULA TIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 8 -- excuse me.
That brings us to a four o'clock time certain, and this is lOB.
This item to be heard at four p.m., December 12, 2006. It's a
recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners accept the
annual report on the activities related to the Job Creation Investment
Program, the Advanced Broadband Infrastructure Investment
Program, the Property Tax Stimulus Program, and the Fee Payment
Assistance Program.
Mr. Denny Baker, your director of operations for community
developments' environmental services, will present.
Several commissioners asked why this was a four p.m. time certain. It
had to do also with C- Tech, which has been continued now, which
was 10C, and it was because Ms. Tammie Nemecek, your director of
EDC, wasn't at the board -- at the board meeting at the time that the
C- Tech was heard last board meeting.
And in order to give them the opportunity, the business
community, to be here in order to speak in front of the board, that's
why you have four p.m.
Mr. Baker?
MR. BAKER: Hi. Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, Denny Baker, Director of Community Development.
The BCC approved our four economic incentives in November of
2003. The four incentives were the job creation, the advanced
broadband, the property tax stimulus and the fee payment assistance.
You know, the purpose of these ordinances are to promote economic
diversification and to create high-wage jobs. These ordinances were
Page 183
December 12-13, 2006
created for a five-year period, so they're sunsetting in October of
2008, unless the board chooses to extend them.
This annual report is designed to give you a -- an overview where
the projects -- the incentives are on a today-basis. And I do want to
point out that the -- in the handout in table one and two, that you
probably have looked at and we're going to refer to, it contains
C- Tech.
I have removed C- Tech from the calculations, and I want to show
those to you without C- Tech because, as you know, C- Tech was
scheduled last time. It was withdrawn. It was going to be on the
agenda today and was also withdrawn.
But the time element required me to go ahead and include
C- Tech because I anticipated it would be approved.
If they can turn to -- if I can show you table number one without
C- Tech, which is similar to the one you have in your annual report,
this is -- on your visualizer, you can see that we have the companies
going down the left-hand side.
The date -- and there are 14 companies total. The dates that will
be approved by the BCC, the locations in the county, the type of
incentive that the company was awarded by the board, the total value
of those incentives, the capital and investment that the company
committed to make, the number of jobs that were -- that were
committed to the created, and the annual payroll of those jobs.
So if you go down to the bottom, you can see that I have shaded,
the total amount of the incentives are $2.9 million. The capital
investment that the company's committed to make are $52 million,
and they also committed to create 384 jobs with a payroll of$17
million. That gives us an annual payroll -- an average payroll of about
$494 -- 490 -- excuse me -- $45,900.
A couple things I want to point out is that the most popular
incentive that the companies are choosing to take are -- is the fee
payment assistance incentive that is a payment from the general fund
Page 184
December 12-13, 2006
at the time they pulled the building permit, the one that -- the
broadband is -- and the job creation of the next most two popular ones,
and we only have one applicant for the Property Tax Stimulus
Program.
I'm -- if -- an interesting calculation is, I made the assumption
that the 384 jobs would allow 100 individuals to buy homes at
$300,000. The incremental ad valorem from those homes plus the
incremental ad valorem from the capital investment would pay back
the general fund in about eight to nine years. So the incremental ad
valorem would pay back the $2.9 million that the general fund has
paid out within the eight or nine-year period.
I'll go to the -- table number two, which is the same 2. -- if you
look in the lower right-hand corner, you'll see the same amount of the
incentives, which is $2.9 million. And basically what this table does
is it takes the same companies down the left-hand side and it drops
them into the fiscal year that we expect the expenditures to take place.
Now, obviously these were our best guess because the fee
payment assistance is paid when the building permit is pulled, and the
job creation is paid when the jobs are created.
So there is some variation here, but these are our best guesses as
to the fiscal year that the payments will fall into.
And down at the bottom, again, in 2007, you see that we have
commitments of $760,000 for the 14 companies that have been
approved by the board. The budget this year is $1.4 million. At this
point in time we have about $697,000 available for future applicants
this fiscal year.
Are there any questions at this point?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Oh, I think Commissioner
Henning was first though
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ladies first.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh.
Page 185
December 12-13,2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Always.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to ask -- I realize you
don't have it in this report. But in future reports, could you give me --
give us, please, the wage categories, say, by $5,000 increments or
something so that we know what percentage falls in each of these, and
also possibly could you add a column that tells us whether they will be
providing healthcare for their employees?
MR. BAKER: That's a good point, Commissioner. I know you
ask that question almost every time I get up here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sorry.
MR. BAKER: As a matter of fact, I revised the C-Tech
application to include that specific information. So if you saw it
before it was pulled, it does contain that information. But I don't have
it in the macro at this level. But we do intend to include it in all the
applications going forward.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think it's a stretch about
the housing and employees. You don't know if they're going to live in
Collier County or not, and it might be a good thing because probably
most of those employees require more service than the average
householder in Collier County, you know, the ones that only come
here four months of the year, the average. They don't require that
much service, but the ones that work in our community probably have
kids in the schools and require other government service.
But I think it's a fair assessment on the investment, capital
investment. You're going to get sales tax from that, which is not a part
of the calculation. I just can't comprehend why we're allowing Sano
and Associates, which we set aside a half a million dollars, and they
haven't even submitted a site plan.
MR. BAKER: That's correct, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's September 2005.
Guadalupe Center hasn't reported, Pace Center hasn't reported. And
Page 186
December 12-13, 2006
did I see Naples Nissan on here?
MR. BAKER: Yes, you did, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And I understand that
they're coming for a land use change on Pine Ridge Road.
MR. BAKER: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I mean, this is
terrible that we're holding back money. Naples Nissan is scooting out,
going -- coming to us and asking for something else. It will be an
issue -- it will be an issue at the rezone.
MR. BAKER: Yes. Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Hancock, I'm sure, will
know that.
MR. BAKER: And this is our best guess of where these -- best
estimate of where these projects are at this point. But, you know,
when this was prepared -- and this is always changing. It's a work in
progress.
The Naples Nissan, I believe, is associated with Mobile Internet
Technologies, which I understand -- and Tammie Nemecek is here.
Perhaps she can clarify that -- is a subsidiary of Naples Nissan. I think
that's the connection. But I think it's going to be in the same location.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you need some direction on
these issues of -- as dedicating monies --
MR. BAKER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- that no activities have been
taking place?
MR. BAKER: Yes. And I'm going to touch on that next.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: My concern is the broadband money that
we give to groups. It was my understanding or my impression that the
broadband monies that were going to be given were going to be for
start-up companies, and here we have people like NCH Healthcare,
Hole Montes, that is involved in -- it's like a free gift to them, and
Page 187
December 12-13,2006
they're an established firm. Why should we give them the ability for
broadband? I think it's just money that's -- I've got some real concerns
with that.
MR. BAKER: Well, the -- we have to apply the ordinance as
written, Commissioner, and the ordinance does not prohibit these
well-established companies from applying for this at this point in time.
As a matter of fact, Naples Community Hospital has three locations
that they have -- their plan is broadband, too. And Tammie can talk to
the reasons, why we wanted to do that at the time. But -- Tammie,
would you like to come up?
MR. MUDD: No, I want to make sure you clarify something,
Denny. I don't think you've said this on the record today.
Every one of these applications that are on this chart, this board's
approved. Every one of them has come in front of this board to get
approval, and it talked about NCH being an established company.
And I remember that Mr. Morton was here and he talked about that
particular issue, about why he needed it in order to do that. Denny is
just reporting back what's there.
Commissioner Henning has a good point in the fact that, hey,
we're holding money and it's obligated with a firm because they put in
an application, the board has approved it, and they haven't, in good
faith, performed like they said they were going to perform.
How long do we obligate those dollars before we recirculate it in this
pot of money in order to get it done? But Denny's just basically
giving you a snapshot of what's already been approved by this board
in an annual report.
MR. BAKER: That's correct. That's correct, Jim.
And I might add to that there are several companies that we actually
pulled the applications and voided the applications because they were
non-responsive. They had been -- they had come to the board, been
approved. They had not been -- they had not responded in due time,
so we eliminated them from our list. There were several of those that
Page 188
December 12-13, 2006
we eliminated.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are we also looking at companies that
we have given incentives to and to see if they're living up to their --
MR. BAKER: Yes, sir. As a matter of fact, just last week, I was
at a March performance auditing their payroll records to determine
that they qualified for the job creation incentive that they were
awarded. They were on your list. I think they were number one on
your list because they were the first one to be approved by this board.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And--
MR. BAKER: And Commissioner, no dollar of taxpayer money
will be spent, I assure you, without a thorough audit by myself or
someone on my behalf.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. BAKER: I have two others scheduled in January, NCH and
Advocate Aircraft. When I say scheduled, I mean scheduled to be
audited by myself.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have to say, that's comforting. I
think that's great that you're going out and make -- you know, actually
looking at the books.
MR. BAKER: I'm kicking the tires, auditing the original records,
looking at the personnel files to see where they live and so on.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So if there's no other further discussion
from the commission, I think we have public speakers.
MR. BAKER: Commissioner Halas, could I respond to
Commissioner Henning --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure.
MR. BAKER: -- by showing one more thing?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'm sorry.
MR. BAKER: This -- on your screen is a total, the one million
Page 189
December 12-13,2006
458 budget that I mentioned. And the $800,000 was budgeted for fee
payment, the broadband was 237-, property tax 21-, and job creation,
400,000.
You can see that I have in ital -- italics that the broadband, out of
237-, we would forecast to use 83,000 this fiscal year, and only 54,000
of the job creation.
So what I'm asking the board to do is to allow staff to consider --
and I think Jim Mudd mentioned this last meeting when we talked
about C- Tech -- is to consider the one million 458 as one budget pool
to apply to the incentives, too, because it's very, very difficult to
anticipate who is going to apply for what.
So at this point in time, I would ask that the board allow us to do
that, and, perhaps, when we get into the budget cycle for '08 -- or '07,
we can have another discussion about the incentives.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I believe we have public speakers.
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. I have one public speaker.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Tammie Nemecek.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. NEMECEK: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. Tammie Nemecek, President of the Economic
Development Council of Collier County.
Thank you very much for the support that you've given to our
community with regards to economic development. With the ability
for businesses to grow here, expand here, and be recruited to the
community, is an integral part of our economic diversification
priorities, and the ability to have jobs in the community is extremely
important, so I thank you for that.
There are some clarifying points with regards to the program.
When we started this back in 2002, actually, and the discussions about
Page 190
December 12-13,2006
incentives, there was some tweaking of the program at that point in
time as far as location of the businesses and average wages and how
the programs actually work.
With the broadband program, it is actually a program that was
available to both existing as well as new companies coming into the
community put together specifically for the need of improving the
broadband infrastructure in the ground.
As we had learned over an analysis period doing connecting
Collier County as a regional basis with Lee County and Charlotte
County, knowing that the telecommunications businesses would not
build it, the fiber-optic infrastructure, up front, but that there had to be
the demand there for it, so the ability for the community to invest the
small amount of money with the broadband infrastructure program
over and above the investment from the private sector was an
important step in order to advance that infrastructure within Collier
County .
As you've noted from the information provided for you by Mr.
Baker, the programs have been extremely successful. We also would
like to note that these programs are performance based. As you've
seen with the comments from Mr. Baker, the company records are
audited to ensure that the jobs are created.
But up front, in order for the companies to make a decision
before they move to the community, we are asked -- we ask them to
apply for that before the decision is actually made to move here.
And so you will see some lag time because they will apply for the
incentives, know that they are approved for it, and then will make the
decision of where they're actually going to locate, and then have to go
through either rezone process or permitting process in order to get up
and operational.
So there is a natural progression of time between the application
and approval time by you as the Board of County Commissioners and
the time that the companies actually do come forward.
Page 191
December 12-13, 2006
Weare sensitive to the fact that those funds are there because they are
limited and work closely with these companies to make sure that they
are coming forward in a timely manner.
We do have an issue with regards to additional funding for these
programs. And if we were to have companies come forward that
would deplete the funds, the question to the Board of County
Commissioners would be -- is whether or not these funds would be
replenished in that particular fiscal year.
And that -- that would be either something that might need to be
brought back or something that might possibly could be discussed here
today as far as what we would like to do with these incentive dollars
going forward and whether or not we'd like to keep those funds
available for businesses that we'd like to either help expand here or
recruit to the community.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Mr. Baker, I like
your recommendations and I like the recommendations to hold off till
the next budgeting season to reevaluate the process.
I also would like for -- and I don't know if you need it -- as far as
a motion, I don't like the fact that we have some monies holding for
people and there hasn't been any response. Can we give you direction
on that, or do you need that in the motion?
MR. BAKER: I just need direction that we take a more
aggressive approach and provide a drop-dead date, if you will, to these
companies to respond. And especially with the budgeting cycle, you
know, just around the corner, I'd like that direction and --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, there's different things
here, because you have, like SDP, or have -- has not requested an
audit.
MR. BAKER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Those are two different things,
Page 192
December 12-13, 2006
two different issues. I don't know how to address that, except for the
SDP. You know, if they haven't submitted within a year --
MR. BAKER: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- it goes back in the kitty.
That's part of my motion. The rest of my motion is to accept your
presentation and recommendations under that. You know, put that
back into the pool and come back in next year's budgeting season and
gi ve us recommendations on that.
But I don't know if I need to put it into the motion about these
requesting for audits for like broadband or job recreation or whatever.
MR. BAKER: Well, I could do it a couple different ways. I can
put together a proposal to County Manager or back to the board
suggesting that certain companies be removed from the program if
they have not responded within a particular amount of time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's part of my motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'll second.
MR. BAKER: Joe Schmitt is saying that we should bring it back
to you since the board --
MR. MUDD: You approved it this way. If you're going to deny
it because of lack of performance or -- then you need to be the person
to do it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that hasn't happened in the
past as far as I understand.
MR. BAKER: No, it has not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. BAKER: Commissioner, let me clarify that. We have had
companies voluntarily remove themselves because we've pressured
them, if you will, to respond.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. BAKER: And there have been several voluntarily remove
themselves, but not on our part.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's a unique way of saying
Page 193
December 12-13, 2006
that.
MR. BAKER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala.
MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, could I ask Commissioner
Henning to also address the issue of the pooling of the dollars?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. That's -- was a part of my
motion --
MR. BAKER: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- is to pool those dollars.
MR. BAKER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That was going to be my
clarification.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any other discussion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Other than, did the second
agree?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Not hearing any further
discussion, I'll call the question.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
MR. BAKER: Thank you.
Item #8B
Page 194
December 12-13,2006
PETITION: PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8438: LAKEVIEW DRIVE OF
NAPLES, LLC, REPRESENTED BY CLAY BROOKER, OF
CHEFFY, PASSIDOMO, WILSON & JOHNSON, LLP,
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM THE RESIDENTIAL
MULTIPLE FAMIL Y-6 (RMF-6 & RMF-6(3)) ZONING
DISTRICTS (A PORTION OF WHICH IS SUBJECT TO A
SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLAY (ST)) TO THE
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) BY
AMENDING THE APPROVED WINDSTAR PUD TO ADD THE
SUBJECT 20.52 ACRES AND ITS ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL
UNITS THEREBY ALLOWING A MAXIMUM OF 584
RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON 341.1 ACRES. THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE
OF BA YSHORE DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 0.6 MILES SOUTH
OF THE BAYSHORE DRIVE AND U.S. 41 (TAMIAMI TRAIL
EAST) INTERSECTION IN SECTIONS, 11, 14 AND 23
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA - MOTION TO CONTINUE TO THE FEBRUARY 13,
2007 BCC MEETING - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to advertised public
hearings. I need a -- just a vote real quick from the board on 8B to
continue to 13 February, if -- it was asked to be continued --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved.
MR. MUDD: -- by the applicant.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have a motion on the floor to
continue this item, 8B, till 13 February by Commissioner Coletta,
seconded by Commissioner Henning.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
Page 195
December 12-13, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
Item #8C
ORDINANCE 2006-60: AN ORDINANCE CREATING THE
HALDEMAN CREEK MAINTENANCE DREDGING
MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT; PROVIDING THE
AUTHORITY; PROVIDING FOR THE CREATION; PROVIDING
A PURPOSE AND GOVERNING BODY; PROVIDING FUNDING
AND THE LEVY OF NOT TO EXCEED THREE (3) MILS OF AD
VALOREM TAXES PER YEAR; PROVIDING FOR THE
COLLECTION OF TAXES; PROVIDING FOR CREATION OF
THE HALDEMAN CREEK MAINTENANCE DREDGING
ADVISORY COMMITTEE, APPOINTMENT AND
COMPOSITION; PROVIDING FOR THE TERMS OF OFFICE OF
THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE; PROVIDING FOR THE
OFFICERS OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, QUORUM AND
RULES OF THE PROCEDURE; PROVIDING FOR FUNCTIONS,
POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE;
PROVIDING FOR THE DUTIES OF THE COUNTY MANAGER
OR HIS DESIGNEE; PROVIDING FOR THE REVIEW PROCESS
OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE; PROVIDING FOR
CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR
INCLUSION IN THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND
Page 196
December 12-13, 2006
ORDINANCES; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE -
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us to 8C. The item was
continued from the November 28, 2006 BCC meeting. It's a
recommendation that the board review and approve an ordinance
creating the Haldeman Creek Maintenance Dredging Municipal
Service Taxing Unit; providing the authority; providing for the
creation; providing a purpose and governing body; providing funding
and levy of not to exceed three mills of ad valorem taxes per year;
providing for the collection of taxes; providing for creation of the
Haldeman Creek Maintenance Dredging Advisory Committee,
appointment and composition; providing for the terms of office of the
advisory committee; providing for the officers of the advisory
committee, quorum and rules of procedure; providing for functions,
powers and duties of the advisory committee; providing for the duties
of the county manager and his designee; providing for the review
process of the advisory committee; providing for a conflict and
severability; providing for inclusion in the Collier County Code of
Laws and Ordinances; providing for an effective date.
Mr. Norman Feder, your Director of Transportation, will present.
MR. FEDER: Commissioners, I'll be fairly brief since you've
addressed this already.
As you know in forming the stormwater provisions of .15 mills,
we had a lot of discussion from people in tidal influenced areas that
were concerned that they were not getting a response, they felt, from
either the county or Big Cypress Basin for what they saw as sediment
that, through the storm water system, had impacted some of their
navigation issues in the tidal areas.
The first one we went forward on -- this after we were told that
the policy was that we needed to address these one time, and then they
became navigation issues once we resolved anything that may have
Page 197
December 12-13,2006
been in the way of sediment that came down -- was that they be 50
percent county, 50 percent Big Cypress Basin.
We do the initial improvement, and then it gets addressed through a
mandatory MS TU, whatever gets addressed in the future for
navigation.
On this area, we went through Haldeman Creek, we brought that
to you as one of these tidal projects. We are completing our
improvement. Ms. Margaret Bishop's here if you have any questions
on the project itself. What is in front of you is to format the mandatory
MS TU. Again, as was discussed last meeting, they do not have to
establish any millage rate. That is their decision. But in the future,
should they have improvement needs relative to navigation, which is
essentially what they have -- since we've addressed any issues that
may have come from prior sedimentation -- that is something that they
now have a vehicle to address it with.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So I want to get this clear. This wasn't a
stormwater issue; this was a navigation issue.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nope.
MR. FEDER: No, that's not what I said, Mr. Chairman. What I
said was, when we set up these tidal areas, the stormwater system
outfalls into these tidal areas. And there was a lot of discussion that
development, over time, and the operations of the stormwater systems
that have been some sedimentation in these areas, everybody was sort
of finger pointing, who's role, who's responsibility is that?
What was decided by that board is we would go in based on 50
percent county, 50 percent Big Cypress Basin, address any of the
stormwater issues for outfall, any of the sedimentation that had been
caused by the stormwater efforts, resolve that, and then from further
more, it would then only be a navigational issue and, therefore, the
mandatory MSTU to address those as they saw fit in the future.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The reason this was continued from
Page 198
December 12-13,2006
our last meeting -- this is the second time we've heard this -- is
because there was considerable debate about what the limits of the
taxing unit should be. Do we have any changes in recommendations?
MR. FEDER: No, not at all. The limits should be only abutting
waterfront property, because as we said, it is not a stormwater issue;
therefore, there should be no increase in boundaries to try and make it
a stormwater item. The stormwater issue that was has been addressed
through improvement. Any issue now, and the reason for the
mandatory MSTU, would be a navigational issue, therefore, abutting
property owners.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And the board will consist
of people from those affected properties?
MR. FEDER: Yes. And as you noted previously, they do not
have to impose anything. This allows them to. It's a vehicle, an
opportunity for them. It's their decision, should they find they want to
do something in the future or they want save up for issues in the
future. That's their choice.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second it.
MS. FILSON: I have five speakers.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Let's go ahead with the
speakers.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are we going to hear anything
different than what we heard last time?
MS. FILSON: Ron Townsend.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would like to remind the
speakers, we welcome you, we'd like to hear what you have to say, but
if it gets to be repetitive, please show a little bit of mercy on everyone
in the room.
MS. FILSON: He'll be followed by Robert Smith.
MR. TOWNSEND: My name's Ronald Townsend. I've lived on
Collee Court, 3324, since 1962, I think, is when it was, and I've
Page 199
December 12-13, 2006
watched the Haldeman Creek fill in with mud.
And when you're talking about navigational, you can't navigate in
mud. It just don't work with the boat. So right now that's what we've
still got behind our house is a big mud pile.
And there is a little trough down through the middle, but it's still
full of mud, too. And before we set this here, what you call -- MS --
what it is? Before you set that, I'd like for it to be cleaned where it can
be navigated.
And as far as setting that up, if this is going to go to the other side
of the bridge, I really am not interested in it. I don't want to be taxed
for it, and I think my part of the taxes would be somewhere about
$1,000 a year just on one lot. So that's -- you know, and I can't even
put a boat at my house, so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe for all of our benefit, could
you tell us where Collee Court is?
MR. TOWNSEND: Yes, ma'am. It's just right behind
Courthouse Shadows. I am the first house on the creek from the
bridge, going -- it would be going west, and I got 220 feet there. I got
two lots. And it's all mud behind my house.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Townsend, don't -- your
house, do -- you have a dock right now, correct, and a boat?
MR. TOWNSEND: Don't have no dock. If I put a dock up, I'd be
out in the middle of the creek before I ever got to water. I thought
about putting docks there. I thought they was going to clean it out,
and I said, well, if I do that, I might could rent some, but you can't do
that if you can't get to the water. I don't believe they would let me put
a dock that far out there.
Any more questions? Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Robert Smith. He'll--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, Norm?
MS. FILSON: -- be followed by David Woodward.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Norman Feder. Hold on just a minute.
Page 200
December 12-13, 2006
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, if I could. First of all, we haven't
finished all the project on the east side. As I said, Margaret Bishop
could probably answer that. Plus we're only doing the 40- foot wide
channel. There's areas where, obviously, it's wider than that.
But again, this was not a navigation project. It's a stormwater
project, although it will provide the opportunity for navigation in the
area for them to maintain in the future. But 40-foot wide, and we
haven't done some of that work on the east side. We've not completed
that yet.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir.
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Commissioners. My name is Robert
Smith. I live at 3312 Collee Court. I've lived there for 25 years. I
would like to begin by saying that we need an SPU -- MSTU, I'm
sorry. We want an MSTU, but we don't want or need this MSTU.
I believe it is a piece of bad legislation and that the purpose, which is
very specific in the MS TU, is not fulfilled in our section of the canal,
and the scope of the MS TU is very restrictive. It is inequitable, and it
may harm some while benefiting others.
The dredging of Haldeman Creek has left us east of the Bayshore
bridge with a mess. And I think all of the commissioners have
received pictures of what we are faced with. And that is something
that this MSTU cannot fix. There has to be a better solution, and I ask
that you give us the time to work it out. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: David Woodworth. He'll be followed by Douglas
Smith.
MR. WOODWORTH: Hello. My name is David Woodworth. I
was at the informational meeting held this last week, and we were told
that the -- the structures that empty into the creek were not addressed.
They were not cleaned out. They were not leveled. This was not in
their plan, that was not in their permitting, and it hasn't been done.
And we have drainage issues off of -- in the Bayshore area, in the
Haldeman Creek basin. And I -- this really -- you have had -- youu
Page 201
December 12-13,2006
know, I've been living where I am for over 25 years. We have
flooding on every street, not maybe in front of my house, but down
the street.
And I have properties on both sides of the bridge, on the east side
and the west side. And the one on the east side is, there's no way that
you could ever get a boat there, okay?
Now, on the west side, I can get out at high tide, but that doesn't
address the other thing, the clam -- you know, all those oyster bars and
things. Getting a little bit of silt off the top or in the middle of the
canal is not helping navigation.
What needs to be done is the whole creek, a good portion of it
has to be restored, especially on the east side of Bayshore Drive, so --
at this time I think we really need to find out what actually is the state
of the canals after the dredging is completed because supposedly they
keep saying that the silt on the sides is going to filter and -- but boat
traffic is going to make it so that the bottom is more uniform, and that
would be nice to know if that's what is going to happen, you know.
I don't think there's any big rush. Like I said, I bought boats that I
could use it right the way it is, you know, but I mean, I can see a need
for something, but I don't think this is the right one. You know,
limiting it to just navigation is not -- I mean, we have some drainage
problems, and if the county cannot solve our problems, then we have
to solve -- you know, solve these problems ourselves. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: Douglas Smith. He'll be followed by Roy
Wilson.
MR. SMITH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Thanks for your
time. I've -- I'm a property owner on Lakeview Drive. I've owned this
property for over five years. I love this community. In fact, I wanted
to move down here and eventually homestead the house. And I'm pro
growth, by the way, and I'm glad that they, you know, made an
attempt to dredge out Haldeman Creek.
Page 202
December 12-13, 2006
However, I think the property taxes are somewhat out of control. And
accountability is really, really important to me. The MSU (sic), I
think, needs to be tabled to discuss it more and to inform the people
more of what's going on.
And I think that the millage rate, it really scares me or concerns
me, you know, up to three mills, you know, that it should be held to a
tenth of a percent, if anything. I was told or explained that this was
just to fund 15 years from now as an ongoing point but this dredging
was covered and we would not be taxed for that, and I'm not real clear.
I was told that, and maybe I misunderstood -- but 15 years from now,
you know, that there would be the potential MSTU set up to collect
those, you know, funds for that.
And I just think with, you know, your consideration, that it be
tabled and -- to next year -- we're about the end of the year -- but
where there could be more discussion about it and be sensitive to your
time. I know you're busy, too. And you know, that way we can talk
amongst us and everything else.
Again, I'd love to see the area progress and, you know, I'm all for
that. Thank you very much for your time.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Roy Wilson.
MR. WILSON: Roy Wilson, 336 Pier C. I've attended a lot of
meetings on this, or several meetings on this, and it's really a naughty
issue. It appears by my observation that there's a distinct difference
between east and west of the Bayshore bridge. Most of the opposition
to this MS TU appears to be coming from west of the Bayshore bridge
because of, I think, part of what's been explained here today, are some
other problems, a very wide creek bed with just water in the middle
and now with some deep water in the middle of that creek bed.
I've heard different explanations of, there's ordinances and there's
some enforcement things that can be done, but there are certainly
some issues there that need -- that the residents need help with, and I
Page 203
December 12-13, 2006
don't know whether it's within the county manager's purview to work
with his staff to look at those specifically. Private outfalls that aren't
maintained. I've just heard all sorts of things. Code enforcement of
seawall maintenance.
Now, let me speak about the west side. It seems like the MSTU
is the answer. Some way, shape or form the ongoing maintenance is
going to have to be done. And I've always been in support of that. I
think probably some of my emails to Commissioner Coyle may have
said something a little bit different, but the more I listen and
contemplate this issue, while I've always been in favor of the MSTU, I
don't see any harm, quite frankly, in approving it now if some of these
other issues -- and I know that's a big if for the residents on the east
side of Bayshore -- if some of these issue others would be taken care
of.
There was one motion that maybe we needed two MSTUs, one
for the east side and one for the west side. I would make my
observation by looking at the taxable property and everything, that
might be foolish for the people on the east side because most of the tax
valuation is on the west side and, therefore, even if it's only the middle
of the creek that's being maintained by this MSTU in the future,
proportionately the funds will be coming from the west side of the
bridge.
With all that said and done, I'm in favor of it. I think it can be
passed now with this big "if' that somehow there's some help for these
problems that -- I've listened to the people. There are problems on the
east side of the Bayshore bridge that need to be addressed. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: That's your final speaker.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Close the public hearing.
Is there any questions from commissioners to staff in regards to
this item?
Page 204
December 12-13, 2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to hear from Margaret.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can you tell us how --
MR. MUDD: Give her the status.
MS. BISHOP: Okay. The project is approximately 60 percent
complete.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Margaret, could you give your name for
the record.
MS. BISHOP: Margaret Bishop, Stormwater Management
Department, Transportation Services Division.
The project is about 60 percent complete. We do have problems
on the east side of Bayshore Drive. The contractor will come back
and address those issues, and we have a game plan when our surveyor
comes back. The final completion date is April 1 st for the entire
project.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do they expect to have the mud that
the residents were talking about cleared out?
MS. BISHOP: Now, there are a couple issues that we're talking
about here. What the contractor's going to come back and readdress is
the sediment that was left. The permits are issued for Haldeman
Creek itself to be a 40- foot wide width, and the depth on the east side
of Bayshore is to minus two mean low water or until you hit cap rock.
So those areas that we haven't gotten to cap rock and there is
sediment, then that will be removed. So that's really the issue. The
other issue is, some areas of the creek are up to 100 feet wide. And,
again, the only area that we are dredging is the 40- foot width in the
center of the creek.
Does that answer your question?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any other questions? Do I hear--
MR. MUDD: I have one. Margaret, can you tell me how much
the project costs, total right now?
Page 205
December 12-13, 2006
MS. BISHOP: Just -- it's just under $3 million.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Wow.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And if we establish an MSTU
today, from what I understand, we just establish the vehicle, and then
the residents have to get together probably with Diane Flagg, who will
then explain to them what all is involved in an MSTU.
MS. BISHOP: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And it will be those people who are
in the parameters of that MSTU, right?
MS. BISHOP: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then they can decide if they want to
move forward with it, if they want to wait a few years, if they want to
wait five years, if they want to do something more, if they just want to
maintain. That will all be up to them; is that correct?
MS. BISHOP: Correct, it will be up to the MSTU committee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: And this $3 million, this is cost that the county and
the South Florida Water Management District bore for this project,
and it will not be assessed to the MSTU. The MSTU is set up looking
to the future to make sure that they maintain their canals for
navigation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm glad you clarified that, too.
Thank you, for those that didn't understand.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think it's worth
emphasizing. We were very lucky to get $3 million to do this job. If
we hadn't gotten $3 million and a lot of financial assistance from Big
Cypress Basin for a stormwater project -- it is not a navigational
dredging project. It was never intended to be a navigational project.
It's not going to become a navigational project.
It is unfair for the people of Collier County to spend general tax
revenues to improve navigation in your neighborhood. End of story. It
Page 206
December 12-13, 2006
doesn't happen anywhere else, and it's not going to happen in
Haldeman Creek. It doesn't happen in my neighborhood. We have
special assessments for all of that sort of stuff. We didn't have Big
Cypress Basin come in and dredge ours.
So we're very lucky to have been able to get that project done
under the circumstances so that you didn't have to pay a penny to get
where we are now.
The MSTU -- and I'm going to vote in support of it, because it is
a vehicle to help you, because you're in charge of it. You're likely to
be on the board. It's the people who are interested who want to serve
on the board of the MSTU who makes the decision about what the
MSTU's going to do, what is the MSTU going to tax, what level of tax
is it going to collect? How long is it going to collect it?
It's the MSTU board that would then decide, what is the biggest
problem and what are we going to do about it, and you decide. It's not
us. We're just giving you the opportunity to serve on the board so you
can bring the community together and get these problems solved. You
know, you've had this problem for a long, long, long, long time, and
nobody in the community has sat down to get it resolved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are you going to make a motion,
sir?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I just want to make sure
there's a clear understanding of what this is, okay?
MS. FILSON: You made the second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I wasn't -- a motion's on the
table.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But it's just important that people
understand where we are because if you don't set up the MSTU, it's
not going to get solved for you, and you'll be sitting here 15 years
from now and you'll be faced with the same problem. So I'm going to
vote for the MSTU.
Page 207
December 12-13, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Who made the motion? I was--
MS. FILSON: Commissioner Coyle made the motion. It was
seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Fiala.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, very good. So I think that's--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Call the motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- very well clarified. At this time --
Commissioner Coyle made the motion and Commissioner Fiala
seconded for this MS TU.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the motion. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion Carries.
Item #8D
ORDINANCE 2006-61: 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-FAMIL Y-6
(RMF-6) ZONING DISTRICT FOR A PROJECT KNOWN AS
CAYO WHIPPOORWILL. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY,
CONSISTING OF 10 ACRES, IS LOCATED AT 1450
Page 208
December 12-13, 2006
WHIPPOORWILL LANE, APPROXIMATELY 3,500 FEET
SOUTH OF PINE RIDGE ROAD, IN SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 49
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA -
ADOPTED W/STIPULATIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 8D.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. This will be probably the last one
of the day.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I would think, because it's five o'clock.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to disapprove.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I want to make sure -- is this the
last item, 8D?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, because I'm sure it's going to take
us till six o'clock.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Commissioner, 8D, this item requires that
all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
commission members.
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.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Would all those that are going to
give testimony, please rise and raise your right hand. And would the
court reporter please administer the oath.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
THE COURT REPORTER: I'm going to need a break.
Page 209
December 12-13,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. All right. We'll take a 10-minute
break. We're all sworn in.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike. Ladies and
gentlemen, please take your seats.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, County Manager
Mudd. I have a note here that I want to -- item 8E, the Summit Lakes,
RPUD, and 8H, vacation of the Gulfshore Court, that will be heard at
10 o'clock tomorrow morning, and we will be reconvening this
meeting at nine a.m. So we will adjust the schedule accordingly to
meet the needs of the petitioner on this particular item. Okay?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we're item -- just on 8D.
Everybody's been sworn in, and this is Cayo Whippoorwill.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I've got to get disclosures from
the commissioners, starting with Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I received a letter from Roetzel
& Andress --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 8D?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- stating that they represent the
petitioner.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. This is on item 8D. I have no
disclosures at all on this.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I received correspondence,
and it's in my file for anybody that wishes to see it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I have met with Mr.
Pritt, agent for the petitioner, and I have received correspondence from
Mr. Pritt concerning this item.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We'll proceed, and as
Page 210
December 12-13,2006
Commissioner Fiala gets here, we'll have her give her ex parte when
she arrives on the dais here. If you could proceed, sir.
MR. PRITT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
commission. My name is Robert Pritt with the law firm of Roetzel &
Andress, 850 Parkshore Drive, Naples, Florida.
With me are Brian Mansour, who's the owner of SJC
Whippoorwill, LLC, owner of the property, and Gary Butler, right
here; he's with Butler Engineering, the applicant. He's a licensed
engineer in the State of Florida and in this county for 26 years.
With your permission, I'll give a brief introduction, then turn it over to
Mr. Butler for a presentation. Mr. Mansour is here to make any
comments that you feel -- or to answer any questions you feel are
necessary to have answered, and I'd like to reserve a few minutes after
Gary is finished, or after the county's case is finished, if I may.
This is an application for rezoning of a 10-acre parcel -- technically
it's 9.854 acres -- at 1450 Whippoorwill Lane -- that's about 3,500 feet
south of Pine Ridge Road -- from agricultural to RMF-6.
The application will allow for the development of up to 59
residential of multifamily residential housing, and that's just under six
units per acre, and it's actually lower than the seven units per acre that
otherwise would be allowed under the Growth Management Plan.
The proposed rezoning of the property will result in development, and
it will be compatible and consistent with the surrounding developed
property in that which is undergoing development.
Since I took the photographs, I'll go ahead and testify as to the
photographs. I took 37 of them, but I got them down to about six, if I
may. And I'll go through them very quickly.
On the visualizer, you have a picture of the property as it sits. It's
a vacant property. And in the background you can see Mariposa,
which is immediately to the north of this property. The units that are
going to be put on this property will be very similar, very much in
conjunction with the rest of the neighborhood. If I may move over
Page 211
December 12-13, 2006
here.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. While you're doing that, I'd like
to have Commissioner Fiala come forth with her ex parte.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Thank you very much,
Commissioner Halas. I don't have too much to declare except I did
have a meeting with Bob Pritt, and I received a letter from Bob Pritt as
well. And I spoke with staff.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I have a --I've got to reclarify. I
did have a meeting with Bob Pritt early on in September, I believe, on
this issue.
MR. PRITT: That's right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So I was misguided by some people. So,
yep, I did -- ex parte, I did meet with Mr. Pritt.
MR. PRITT: Thank you. It has been a long day for you.
So to the north -- this is looking north of the property from the
property, and on the right you can -- well, in the center of the road you
can see the -- barely see the intersection of Pine Ridge Road and
Whippoorwill Lane, so that will give you an idea of where that is.
On the right-hand side in the trees there, that is, I believe, the sign for
Mariposa, and that's on -- as I said, that's on the north. And again,
that's at six units per acre.
And the next one is looking to the south from the property. And
this is a development down at the end of the cul-de-sac. That vehicle
you see is at the end of the cul-de-sac, and then there's construction
that's very consistent with this -- with what we have proposed for our
property. Down the street and to the right. That's undergoing
construction right now.
And on the left, just this side of that traffic light, is Stratford
Place, and the next one, and the next one --
MR. MUDD: Is Stratford Place.
MR. PRITT: The next one is Stratford Place. This is -- this
would be the next -door neighbors to the south. And once again, that isr
Page 212
December 12-13, 2006
__ by the way, that's called Whippoorwill Woods, but it's known as
Stratford Place, 84 acres, multifamily. The density is just about six per
acre -- just under six units per acre.
And then on the west is a photograph of part of the Arlington
Lakes PUD, Andalusia, about -- this is 98 acres, multifamily, density,
six units per acre.
And again -- this is further up the street up to the north, closer to
the light at Whippoorwill Way (sic) and Pine Ridge Road. This is--
that sign there on the right is Nighthawk, so -- for those of you who
are familiar with this area.
And again, you can see that the construction on both sides of the
road is very similar, very -- to what we have proposed for the subject
property .
MR. MUDD: And on the right is Mariposa; is that right?
MR. PRITT: I'm sorry? Oh, this is Mariposa. This is -- this is
the one immediately to the north, and this is what the entrance to
Mariposa looks like. And this would be the closest neighbors. So--
thank you very much. You do good work.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We kept him on.
MR. PRITT: I appreciate that. The staff report for the Planning
Commission hearing, as well as the report for this hearing, recommend
approval with the condition for a survey for air plants, and we asked
that these reports be part of the record.
In addition, let me just tell you what happened. The staff report
was positive all the way through, and the matter went to the Planning
Commission. The Planning Commission, some of the commissioners
had some issues on the -- at the May 4th hearing, and they wound up
with a vote that was a 4-4 tie -- for approval. There was a 4-4 tie.
Then they had further discussion, had another vote, and then they
moved to deny it, and that passed on a 6-2.
The issues -- there were essentially two, I believe. And I do have
the transcript of the hearing. I don't know if you've had it or had a
Page 213
December 12-13, 2006
chance to look at it.
But essentially, it was -- some of the Planning Commissioners
raised concerns about traffic concurrency and -- with regard to a
southern access to Whippoorwill Lane. On that one photograph where
I showed you where the cul-de-sac was, that is eventually going to go
through. And so there were some issues that were raised concerning
that.
Although the transportation staff had concluded that the
development is consistent with the GMP, the commission used that as
the primary reason for denial, and I think that will-- that's borne out in
the record itself. The -- there are three points on that that I would like
to bring up for your consideration. First of all, concurrency is a
condition of all development and should not be a prerequisite to
approval of the zoning itself. And I think that that's consistent with
the -- with the staffs conclusion.
Secondly, since that time, since May 4th, a couple of things have
happened. The plans for the southern access to Livingston have
further crystallized. And I've asked -- and I asked Gary Butler to
explain that, but I think Mr. Scott, hopefully is still here, can also
explain what has happened since May 4th. And the plans for that
southern entrance are -- that southern road entrance to Whippoorwill
are further along, much further along.
And thirdly, since -- for better or for worse -- I hate to bring it up
but I will because I have to, I guess. But for better or for worse, the
issue concerning concurrency, this was -- this occurred in May 4th,
which was during the legislative session. And you all know better
than anybody, there were issues concerning concurrency with Collier
County and the state, and those were resolved. Whether they were
resolved to your liking or not, there was -- kind of resolved, and you
have now done your proportionate share ordinance, and I think that's
in effect.
So we feel that, you know, any issues concerning the
Page 214
December 12-13,2006
concurrency can be handled and will be a condition of any approval
anyhow by state law and I think by your local ordinance. So we
would ask that that not be -- that that issue not be part of the
discussion as to whether or not to approve the petition that we have
here today.
Secondly, one of the members of the Planning Commission
raised the issue of affordable housing and they asked whether or not
any affordable housing would be provided. Mr. Butler had indicated --
and by the way, that's page 6 of the transcript. I have no idea if you
have the transcript or not, but it was on page 6 where the question was
asked. And the answer was, from Mr. Butler, that there was no plan
for workforce housing due to the fact that the anticipated price points
of the proposed development would be fairly close to the workforce
level anyway.
Anyhow, since one or more of the Planning Commissioners
seemed to want that commitment and since we perceived that this
commission is interested in having evidence of a public benefit, we set
about the process of trying to figure out whether or not we could
provide for workforce housing. And as disclosed, I had some
meetings with some of the commissioners, and we proposed to allow
up to six units of workforce housing to be put on the property.
That ran into a bit of a problem because of -- concerning the
neighborhood meetings. Maybe the neighbors did not think that -- or
did not know and were not told that there would not be workforce
housing. As a matter of fact, I think Mr. Butler had indicated that
there would not be.
So what we're proposing -- and I appreciate staff helping us write
this up. But what we're proposing is as follows. This would be a
voluntary public benefit, a voluntary contribution, and it would read as
follows. I'm not sure I can read it off the visualizer. Maybe I can just
put it up there.
MR. MUDD: Sure.
Page 215
December 12-13,2006
MR. PRITT: Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy
for all units, the developer or its successors and assigns shall pay to
the Collier County Affordable Housing Trust Fund the sum of $1,000
for that unit. The payment of this sum set forth shall reflect a credit to
the project's obligations to pay fees that may be adopted in the future
by the county relating to the provision of affordable or workforce
housing. So we're willing to make that commitment, and that is
memorialized in number one there.
Just for your interest, number two has to do with the air plants
issue. That was a condition that was referred to in the staff report and
presented at the Planning Commission hearing, and we have no
objection to that condition either. So we would propose the voluntary
contribution and also be happy to satisfy condition number two.
Other than that, we agree with the staff report in the executive
summary, and we respectfully ask that we -- that you approve the
.
rezonIng.
I'd like to have Gary Butler get up and speak as soon as you're
done with your question, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. I've got a question, then I think
Commissioner Henning has a question.
MR. PRITT: Okay. Oh, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: In regards to when this was brought
before the Planning Commission, what other items were they worried
about other than the transportation? Was that the biggest issue that
they had was transportation?
MR. PRITT: Transportation, and the question was asked about
the affordable housing.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MR. PRITT: I don't recall there being any others.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Now, since this came before the
Planning Commission, you said that you've made some progress in
regards to providing exits or entrance from the south?
Page 216
December 12-13,2006
MR. PRITT: Yes. The county has -- and Mr. Butler is here to
explain that. If I may turn it over to him. Would that be all right?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well--
MR. PRITT: And I know Commissioner Henning has a question.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning, and then
Commissioner Coletta also. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Pritt, you said about the
affordable housing, our price points are going to be close to that --
MR. PRITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- anyways. Can you show me
what page that is in the PUD document, where you're saying the price
point --
MR. PRITT: I'm sorry. This is not -- this is not a request for a
PUD -- or for a PUD.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was this a straight rezone?
MR. PRITT: Right, it's a straight rezone, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So -- but there's nothing
MR. PRITT: No. I believe that -- Mr. Butler, I think you had
said something to that effect before the Planning Commission
meeting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So that could be a condition on
the approval is the price points?
MR. PRITT: Well, we would ask that that not be since this is a
straight rezone, but we're willing to make a contribution in lieu of --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So that's just hearsay, correct?
MR. PRITT: Well, no. Mr. Butler did make -- I mean, he did
not put down -- say what the price points were, but as I recall from the
transcript at the Planning Commission meeting, he did indicate that
those were not that far off.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if it's not in the--
MR. PRITT: He can correct me if I'm wrong.
Page 217
December 12-13, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If it's not in the approval -- your
client's not going to build it, come on. Let's be honest with
everybody.
MR. PRITT: Well, what he has to build is very consistent with
what's in the neighborhood, and --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He's just going to flip it
anyways. We all know that. So let's
MR. PRITT: I'm sorry. I don't know that, but--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ifwe're going to say that it's
going to be close to the price points, unless we can write it down
somewhere, it doesn't mean anything, okay?
MR. PRITT: Well--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it's just hearsay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning just
about touched on just about everything I wanted to do about
affordable housing. It's a little bit up in the air where it's coming from.
I just wanted to make sure the county attorney, that the language that's
there protects us when we put our ordinances in place as far as picking
up the difference, if it would apply at that time, and if this isn't all
inclusive, but $1,000 would be the final number that they'd be
obligated for.
MR. PETTIT: I believe it was structured as a credit only, so it
would be $1,000 if the fee was higher. They would owe -- they would
owe the difference. But I need to see the language again, if you
wouldn't mind, Mr. Pritt.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: While he's getting that up, did I
meet with you, sir? I didn't have it on my --
MR. PRITT: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I didn't think I did.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I met with him way back in September,
so I forget.
Page 218
December 12-13, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I definitely would have
forgotten.
MR. PRITT: I did try to set something up, but you were not
available.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that's unusual, too, by the
way.
MR. PRITT: No, I know that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thought I'd get that in real
quick.
MR. PRITT: Yes. I -- I just didn't want you to think I didn't try.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
MR. PETTIT: I think it is -- it's fairly clearly stated that it's a
credit only. So the delta, as some people like to say, between that
$1,000 and any fee that's higher than that would still remain their
obligation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And also, while I have your
attention for the moment, Commissioner Henning brought up a good
point about the statement that was made regarding the -- it would be
close to the price break for what -- workforce housing I believe it was?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He said affordable.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Affordable housing. Is there
some way that that could become part of this agreement, or is that a
far reach from where we are now?
MR. PRITT: Could I correct something? Maybe I heard the
question wrong. It was workforce.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wrote it down when he said it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Workforce, okay. I guess we're
back --
MR. PRITT: What was called gap housing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, gap housing, okay. So that
would be up to 150 of the medium income.
Page 219
December 12-13, 2006
MR. PRITT: Right. And this was -- hang on. Mr. Mansour --
MR. MANSOUR: Excuse me. Brian Mansour. It was not a
commitment to offer gap housing. What we were suggesting, because
the question came up, is the price points. Price points we figured are
going to be in the gap housing range, and never had we stated that
they would be the affordable housing range.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, GAP housing would be
150 percent of the medium income, or $90,000 for a family of four. Is
that right, Cormac? Maybe Cormac could give us some insight on this
so we might be able to grow this into something that would be
meaningful.
MR. GIBLIN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Cormac Giblin,
your Housing and Grants Manager.
Just to kind of put everything in perspective on this petition, the
petitioner's agent was correct that after the Planning Commission they
did contact me about including some -- six, or 10 percent of the units
to be built, affordable or workforce or gap or some type of restrictive
units within the overall development plan.
It was later pointed out that during their neighborhood
information meeting that occurred months prior to that, a specific
statement was put on the record that this development would not
include any affordable housing set aside units. And so it was
determined then that if they wanted to include some lower priced
units, they essentially would have to go back to a neighborhood
information meeting and kind of backtrack and lose some time.
So rather than include the units, which honestly is what would be the
preferred option here, they opted to go to the payment in lieu to be
credited to a -- to an Affordable Housing Trust Fund or credit against
the future housing fee.
To your question on what is the price points of specific income
ranges, gap housing, 150 percent of median income, translates to
about $100,000 income per year, which would be a price -- a home
Page 220
December 12-13,2006
priced in the low 300s; workforce housing at 80 percent of median
income, a family of four, income of about $56,000 a year, would be a
home priced in the low 200s. So those are just real ballparks.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, the homes that are in this
particular area surrounding your development, are they considered like
gap housing now or are they more upscale?
MR. BUTLER: Some more.
MR. MANSOUR: It varies. Some are what I would consider to
be gap housing ranges. There's some detached product over there that
would be, obviously, a little bit higher.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I appreciate you bringing it up,
Commissioner Henning. I'm not too sure where to take it from this
point.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a question There was some talk
about $1,000 per each unit you built. Is that the $1,000 for this other
stuff that's not considered gap?
MR. PRITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And then the gap housing--
MR. PRITT: What we were -- what we were proposing --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Tell me what you're proposing.
Clarify that.
MR. PRITT: Rather than try to provide the units on site, we said,
okay, we will make a contribution, voluntary contribution, of $1 ,000
per unit to your program, and I think that's commonly done. We were
trying to accommodate the concern that we had about, there was
nothing for the workforce housing program. So we came up with this
idea of the payment.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So you're going to have 60 units on this,
and then with the $1,000 for each unit, then gap housing disappears.
Is that --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
MR. PRITT: That's correct.
Page 221
December 12-13, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's what I--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry.
MR. PRITT: We're not making a commitment to both the
housing on the site and the money.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. That's the clarification that I
wanted to make.
MR. PRITT: Originally we said we'd try to put that on the site,
however, we got into problems concerning the neighborhood
meetings, et cetera, and the need to proceed. And we said, okay, in
lieu of that, we'll make a vol -- instead of that, we'll make a voluntary
contribution to your program.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Tell me about the back entrance
from Whippoorwill to Livingston -- or back connection to
Whippoorwill and to Livingston.
MR. BUTLER: My name is Gary Butler with Butler
Engineering, representing the petitioner.
The map that Mr. Mudd is showing has a blue line on it that runs
north and south that abuts our tract, the orange tract. The blue line
across the bottom of the page is the proposed alignment for Green
Boulevard. And that's been in the master plan forever. It's not
committed to time-wise or anything else.
At the time that we went to the Planning Commission, there was
no commitment to put the portion of that road in from Whippoorwill
over to Livingston. We talked about it, we said we'd pay our fair
share of the cost of construction, but we're a small guy and we don't
have the ability to make that commitment to build that road ourselves.
We continued our meeting with you all because that issue was not
resolved. It has been resolved right now. That segment of the road
from Livingston to Whippoorwill and the extension of Whippoorwill
down to that point -- because there's a small gap there too -- has been
committed to, I believe with Livingston Village, the project to the
Page 222
December 12-13,2006
south of that, and they're going to use that as their main alignment.
That has been approved. It's in the design phase.
And my understanding, from talking to Don Scott, in the next 18
to 24 months, that will be operational. That solved the concern--
which was really the primary concern that was brought up during the
Planning Commission meeting -- that our single access onto Pine
Ridge Road was going to be congested. This actually cuts that
problem in half. So there should be no concurrency issues in the
future.
The staff has found this project consistent with the Growth
Management Plan on all points right now. And the only thing that I
wanted to mention that Robert hasn't mentioned is that this is
distinctly an infill project. It's surrounded by other projects of the
exact same density, and basically it's -- we're at 59 units, not 60.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And how does the development
schedule relate to the completion date of the back entrance?
MR. BUTLER: We'd be willing to commit to not having any
COs until that's open, or to be honest with you, it's going to take 18
months plus to get to the point. So I suspect the road will be open
before we can start CO'ing units no matter what we say today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we could agree on a phasing
schedule that would make that --
MR. BUTLER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- back entrance --
MR. BUTLER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- necessary for your first CO,
right?
MR. BUTLER: Absolutely. And can I go back to the affordable
versus the workforce/gap housing? We talked about doing affordable
housing before we ever submitted anything on this project, and it was
decided, because of the configuration of the project, it really wouldn't
work with affordable, and we had neighbors that were close on all
Page 223
December 12-13, 2006
sides.
When we met with the Planning Commission and they talked
about the workforce housing, I brought up the point that, you know,
the product in there right now is selling in the low 300s. All of our
neighbors are selling in the low 300s unless they're the detached units.
So without any commitment, in order for us to market our product, we
were going to be in the same niche that everybody was asking about.
So I thought it was a moot point.
The only reason we brought it back was because of those
comments, but I don't think they raised it as a significant issue. The
only significant issue was the transportation issue, and that was
something that a couple of neighbors had complained about. And
evidently they're happy because they have not reissued any complaints
since that time. And that's why we continued from June until today.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'm sorry to keep going
back to the affordable housing issue.
Cormac, would you, please? If I understood this correctly, what
Commissioner Halas was saying and what the petitioner came back
and said, is that if they build a unit that falls within the high end of the
gap, they're excluded from the $1,000 payment; is that what they said?
MR. GIBLIN: No, sir, I don't believe so. What they're--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I misunderstood. Sorry
to jump on that one and come down so quick. So every single unit
will have a minimum of$l,OOO, and maybe then we'll have the
ordinance in place so that we'll be picking up whatever the fair share
is?
MR. GIBLIN: That's correct. That's what they have committed
to.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. And the ordinance is going
to require payments of what, $25,000 per unit?
Page 224
December 12-13, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct, at least, at least.
Just kidding.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I would like to hear from --
MR. PRITT: I'm not sure I want to come back.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'd like to hear from transportation staff
in regards to making sure we've got all the issues addressed here,
okay?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida,
Transportation Planning and Development Review. I was one of the
original reviewers on the project.
This is one of those funny situations where without the back
connection, the project would be considered consistent with the
opening of the interchange in the parkway but wouldn't be concurrent
because there's no capacity on Pine Ridge Road, and we would have
operational problems at that intersection as well, too.
With the consideration I brought to DCA to the board probably
about a month and a half, two months ago from Marbella Lakes to do
the -- to build the back access to Whippoorwill onto Livingston Road,
so that's being -- in the design phase right now, that's correct, and I'm
glad the applicant is willing to hold off until that connection is
completed.
I've also spoken to the attorney, I believe, on the phone once, and
__ to Gary Butler, and I asked, it would be reasonable to say you'd pay
your fair share for those improvements as we are giving impact fee
credits to the other developer to do that. So the county's out of pocket,
per se, for that.
We are also -- we're requesting that we improve the intersection
of Pine Ridge Road and Whippoorwill. That intersection fails. And
it's by our new TIS guidelines and procedures that you recently
adopted, if we have failing movements at an intersection, that need to
be addressed before development is approved. So we'd ask the
developer to consider fair share for that as well, too.
Page 225
December 12-13, 2006
Sixty units, fair share, it's not going to be a lot of money because
it's based on units for traffic going through the intersection. Maybe
his exposure is 25- to $50,000, but it's reasonable to ask that any
development that comes on line would pay their fair share to fix these
two project entrances onto the main arterials.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So with the addition of putting the rear
gate in, does this still -- does this alleviate the failure of that
intersection, or is it still failing?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It would still fail, sir, I believe.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nick, I -- your assumption is
that Pine Ridge Road traffic will get to a level of service once the
Golden Gate Parkway interchange is opened?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The modeling shows approximately
10, maybe more, percentage drop in traffic on Pine Ridge Road.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we count on that as far as
planning an approval and -- or is it just an assumption?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: When we review applications, we run
a model, and the model that was run -- I mean, we have technical
standards of reviewing an application and modeling. When that's
done, that's an assumption, I can only say in a range. That's what the
model shows will be the drop. I can't guarantee if it would be 8 or 15
percent.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I guess we can -- we can
assume that the state's going to finish that project?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would hope so.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's not like Davis Boulevard.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. That project is to be completed
fairly soon, in the next six months.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I -- I mean, you know, I can
understand where the Planning Commission's coming from--
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
Page 226
"" -"".........,.'q......,<.^.... "","~,~.~-'~.>~~"^",."--,....
December 12-13, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- but with that said, I didn't
know until we spoke the other day about -- Green Boulevard was a
part of that DCA.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And Commissioners, that is
going to be a reliever for a failed intersection at Whippoorwill and
Pine Ridge.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It will help.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, people have choices
when they get out of there, if they want to go to the City of Naples or
even Pine Ridge, that they can take that instead of waiting at that
traffic light.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The units are comparable and
compatible to the neighboring area. If it wasn't for this DCA, I don't
know how we would -- we can approve it.
But I'm going to make a motion for approval, but we need to
have fair share contributions on that Green Boulevard connection, and
that's going to be a part of my motion, and also -- and also the turn
lane onto Whippoorwill.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: At Pine Ridge?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, Whippoorwill and Pine
Ridge. So Mr. Chair, I'll make that motion to approve with those two
conditions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have a motion on the floor here
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Fiala seconded
that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning, and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
Page 227
December 12-13, 2006
MR. MUDD: Are those two -- are those two conditions in your
proposal?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I don't like that, but
if the second's going to twist my arm, I'll do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You mean about allowing the Pine
Flatwoods and $1 ,OOO?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, number one, but yeah, I'll
put that --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Number one.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Number one. And number two
is, prior to allowing clearing of Flatwood Pines --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They're just going to move the air
plants.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: There we go.
MR. MUDD: And there's one more that they mentioned.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Any listed -- listed as far as
listed plant species?
MR. MUDD: Air plants.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Air plants.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are they listed plant species, or
is this just a whim?
MR. BUTLER: Yes, they are, and it's a very minor problem
because we have very little native habitat on the site. Primarily this
site was cleared with Melaleuca, so it's a very small area. We would
be saving almost all of the area that is native habitat.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, that's -- both of those
conditions are in my motion.
MR. MUDD: One more, Commissioner. If you'd just beg my
indulgence -- if you'd indulge me one more time. The applicant did
state to Commissioner Coyle's question that he would not get a CO
until the Livingston/Green connection is made to Whippoorwill.
Page 228
December 12-13, 2006
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's a part of my motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is that part of your second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, good.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
And we will be adjourned until tomorrow morning at nine a.m.
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:34 p.m., until 9:00
a.m. on December 13, 2006.
Page 229
December 12-13,2006
CONTINUATION
OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, FL
December 13,2006
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the
Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such
special districts as have been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR
SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples,
Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Frank Halas
Jim Coletta
Fred Coyle
Donna Fiala
Tom Henning
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
Leo Ochs, Deputy County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Crystal Kinzel, Office of the Clerk of Court
Page 230
December 12-13, 2006
(Continued from December 12, 2006)
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, good morning.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
We are reconvening the Board of County Commissioner meeting from
yesterday.
At this time I will turn this over to County Manager Mudd.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, yesterday's meeting at the close the
petitioner asked if 10-E and 10-H could be heard at 10:00 today. And
what I would like to do -- as we try to move along on that, item 8- F
and 8-G the petitioner basically had a death in the family. And I just
need some votes on 8-F and 8-G just for -- just to make sure we close
all the doors on it if you want to continue these particular items
indefinitely.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to continue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Shall we take these --
MR. MUDD: Each one separately.
Item #8F
PETITION: PUDA-2006-AR-9576 THE CLUB ESTATES II, LLC,
REPRESENTED BY MICHAEL FERNANDEZ, AICP, OF
PLANNING DEVELOPMENT INCORPORATED, REQUESTING
A PUD AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE CLUB ESTATES
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) TO HOMES OF
ISLANDIA RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(RPUD). THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT SEEKS TO REMOVE
99 ACRES FROM THE ORIGINAL PUD, REDUCE THE
NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE DWELLING UNITS FROM 49 TO
28, CHANGE THE NAME AND REMOVE A RECREATION
TRACT AND A COMMON TRASH COLLECTION AREA AS
REQUIREMENTS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS 155.3 ACRES,
Page 231
December 12-13,2006
WITH A PROPOSED DENSITY OF 0.18 UNITS PER ACRE, AND
IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF COLLIER BOULEVARD
(C.R. 951), APPROXIMATELY 1 MILE NORTH OF
RATTLESNAKE-HAMMOCK ROAD, IN SECTION 10,
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA. (COMPANION TO PUDZ-A-2006-AR-9021 LASIP
CONSERVATION CFPUD) - MOTION TO CONTINUE
INDEFINITEL Y - APPROVED
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 8-F, motion to continue.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coletta and a second by Commissioner Fiala to
continue 8- F -- indefinitely?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Indefinitely.
Any further discussion?
Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
(Chorus of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oppose by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
8-G. I need a motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to continue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Same.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's to continue indefinitely?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Indefinitely.
Item #8G
PETITION: PUDZ-A-2006-AR-9021 LASIP CONSERVATION
CFPUD COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DIVISION,
REPRESENTED BY FRED REISCHL, AICP, OF AGNOLI
Page 232
December 12-13,2006
BARBER & BRUNDAGE, REQUESTING A PUD TO PUD
REZONE (THE CLUB ESTATES) TO PUD (LASIP
CONSERVATION AREA). THE CFPUD IS CURRENTLY PART
OF THE CLUB ESTATES PUD. THAT PUD IS BEING
AMENDED CONCURRENTLY TO REMOVE THE 99.3 ACRES
THAT ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE PETITION. THE LASIP
CONSERVATION AREA CFPUD IS OWNED BY COLLIER
COUNTY. THE SITE IS CURRENTLY GOVERNED BY A
CONSERVATION EASEMENT. THE PROPOSED USES
INCLUDE RESTORATION, PROTECTION AND
PRESERVATION OF NATIVE VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES
AND WILDLIFE HABITAT; A NECESSARY USE OF PASSIVE
RECREATION IS ALSO DESCRIBED. THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG COLLIER BOULEVARD,
SOUTH OF CLUB ESTATES DRIVE AND NORTH OF NAPLES
LAKES COUNTRY CLUB, IN SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 50
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
(COMPANION TO PUDA-2006-AR-9576 HOMES OF ISLANDIA)
MOTION TO CONTINUE INDEFINITELY - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have got a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coletta, seconded by Commissioner Fiala to have 8-G
continued indefinitely.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
(Chorus of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oppose by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
Item #10H
TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY
Page 233
December 12-13, 2006
COMMISSIONERS OUTLINING THE EXTENT OF CHANGES,
TIME SCHEDULES, ISSUES AND RAMIFICATIONS THAT
CAN BE ASSOCIATED WITH APPLYING CONCURRENCY AT
THE TIME OF REZONING IN ORDER FOR THE BCC TO
DISCUSS AND PROVIDE STAFF THE APPROPRIATE
DIRECTION - DISCUSSED AND STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO
PROVIDE MORE ACCURATE PROJECTIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner that would bring us to 10-H. That
is to provide information to the Board of County Commissioners
outlining the extent of changes, time schedules, issues and
ramifications that can be associated with applying concurrency at the
time of rezoning in order for the BCC to discuss and provide staff the
appropriate direction. Mr. Randy Cohen, your director of
comprehensive planning and community development and
environmental services will present.
MR. COHEN: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Commission. For the record, Randy Cohen, Comprehensive Planning
Department Director.
As you probably recall going back to one of your workshops in
the fall, you directed staff to take a look at the issue of consistency
versus concurrency as part of that workshop. And you were provided
with a fairly succinct memorandum that explained how consistency
works in the comprehensive plan pursuant to 5.1 of the transportation
element, as well as our concurrency mechanism as well with regard to
vesting or allocating trips.
I'm not going to get into the details of that. You have that in your
packet and it was fairly succinct. And I am sure you recall the
direction that you provided to us.
As a result of that, what your direction was, was twofold. One,
to provide you with some time parameters if a growth management
plan amendment was necessary and Land Development Code
Page 234
December 12-13,2006
Amendments were necessary if we change the mechanism from
consistency or some derivation of concurrency as part of the Growth
Management Plan. That time frame is provided to you in the
executive summary, which is fairly lengthy obviously. You would
have the right possibly to expedite that or move that forward as part of
the 2006 GMP amendments, if you so directed my staff to do so.
I wanted to kind of briefly touch on the lengthy legal opinion.
It's about an eight-page opinion that was provided by Nabors, Giblin
and Nickerson with respect to the issue of rezoning and concurrency
as they intertwine and more specifically concurrency at the time of
.
rezoning.
Just to point on out that Nabors, Giblin did an exhaustive analysis
of concurrency at the time of rezoning looking at it from a perspective
of: If we did concurrency at the time of rezoning based on the
existing methodology as we have in place right now, which would, in
fact, allocate our best units at that time, what would transpire?
And as you probably can read from that memorandum that there
is some fairly severe ramifications that would be associated with that.
I just wanted to kind of point out that is like the worst case scenario.
This body, as a Board, has the ability also within its action to
possibly look at some other derivations of concurrency at the time of
rezoning. And you probably would like to discuss what those options
may be.
Also, from our perspective, just to kind of give you some
background and answer some questions with respect to that analysis, if
you decide to go another direction, our legal staff is here -- Ms.
Marjorie Student and Mr. JeffKlatzkow -- to weigh in on the various
factors that are available to you.
Prom the analysis, from the executive summary, you will see
there is really no recommendation from staff because this is more or
less a BCC policy directive telling us, "Staff, this is where we want
you to go with this item."
Page 235
December 12-13, 2006
There is an exhaustive analysis before you. There are some time
parameters that are there before you. But you asked us to afford you
the opportunity to take a look at, one, can you do concurrency at the
time of rezoning and, two, what would be the ramifications potentially
associated with that.
And with that, what I basically want to do is kind of open up the
floor to questions and let you go ahead and ask what you would like to
ask and whether or not there is derivations that you would like to see
potentially of the methodology and the analysis that was done by
Nabors and Giblin. Maybe myself or our legal staff can comment on
that, as well, too.
With that, your questions.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much for your
presentation.
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I believe that this is
one of those cases where we ask the wrong question and we get the
wrong answer. Nobody ever asked that we evaluate the probability or
possibility of issuing a certificate of availability of public facilities at
the time of rezone, nor did we ever raise an issue of trying to allocate
capacity at time of rezone.
The only question that we raised was: Do we have the ability to
consider the adequacy of public facilities at the time of rezoning?
And, fortunately, the -- the legal response we have happened to touch
upon that. And I will quote from it. It says, "The growth management
plan transportation element, Policy 5.1, prohibits the County from
approving a rezone request that significantly impacts a roadway
segment already operating or projected to operate at an unacceptable
level of service within the five-year planning period, unless specific
mitigating stipulations are also approved."
Now, quite frankly, we haven't been doing that, in my opinion.
We are presented during the AUIR reports with maps which clearly
Page 236
December 12-13,2006
show those segments that are logically going to fail or operate below
the level of service over the future period of time covered by that
report. And we have also decided that we are not going to put
anything in the five-year plan for construction unless we have an
absolute assurance that it can be constructed within that period of
time.
Consequently, you have answered my question. We certainly
can refuse a rezone request if we believe that a roadway segment will
or is operating or is proj ected to operate at an unacceptable level of
service within the five-year planning period. And, by the way, if we
want to develop a longer planning period we can do that, too. So it
seems to me that the answer has been given to us fairly clearly that we
can, in fact, do that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle, I have a question.
Recently what came before this Board was a rezone of some property,
I believe, in regards to some property that was located on Airport
Road and Davis Boulevard. It was told to us that that intersection we
know is failing. Yet, we approved some of the rezoning up to ten
units per acre.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I -- you know, I voted for it, but I
felt very uncomfortable about it at the time. And we ended up with de
minimis traffic. And I have a problem with de minimis traffic. And
I'm not sure how we can address this because each of these little
segments of de minimis traffic pretty soon adds up and it becomes a
huge impact. And I'm not sure how we can address this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I agree with you on both
counts. And I -- we do have a change in for consideration for our
growth management plan on the de minimis traffic. I don't know what
DCA's reaction has been to that, but three percent de minimis level is
absolutely intolerable, particularly when we are increasing the roads to
six lanes in some cases.
Page 237
December 12-13, 2006
Three percent increase on a two-lane road is relatively small. A
three percent increase on a six-lane road is absolutely huge. And so I
think that -- I would agree with you on both points and that's one
reason that I brought this up. I think we need to establish the policy
and we need to adhere to it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The other question I have, just to throw
it out here to my fellow Commissioners, and that was in regards to a
rezone from ag to residential. And there was a segment of road that we
know is failing. We discussed it at the MPO. And that was in regards
to a northbound loop on 1-75.
And as we keep adding more and more density into this
particular area and we're not sure when we are going to get this taken
care of, we turned down the rezone, but then it came back to us and
got passed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It got passed by way of legal
settlement, if I remember correctly.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It bypassed the super majority. But
we'll deal with that later today in another item on the agenda. But
those are all reasons why I think this policy is important and we need
to proceed with implementing it and adhering to it, end of story. And
it appears to me that it is a very, very clear statement.
MR. COHEN: Commissioner, you quoted a very integral part of
that particular opinion. I think it would be very important for Don
Scott to elaborate exactly on what that means at this point in time.
MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, Transportation Planning. Obviously
the second part of that, the mitigation. When we look at consistency
within the five years is what the projects are coming forward within
that time frame that you're looking at that might improve the capacity
enough for that development to go through.
The other side of this is we did move out projects, but that hasn't
been accepted by DCA yet. The two percent I don't think we have
Page 238
December 12-13,2006
actually got specific comments on yet. The moving of the projects out
I think you got roundabout questions towards it that we're responding
to and then we'll see what the next response back is to that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I don't doubt that we'll get
some resistance on that.
MR. SCOTT: I am sure we will.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The issue still is this though, Don.
We have a responsibility for assuring that the capacity exists. And we
cannot assure that the capacity exists if we depend upon estimates.
We need to have something fairly clear and specific with respect to
how much the project is really going to cost. It's not how much is
budgeted because we have experienced those problems before and we
have had to postpone the projects.
We need to know exactly when a -- not exactly . We need to
know when a project is likely to be completed. And we can only do
that if we have got it under contract. So I believe that this proposal is
entirely consistent with what we have decided to do with the A UIR,
with what we have decided to do with the capital improvement
element.
And I think that it provides us better control over the process, not
less control. And, after all, our ultimate objective is to assure that
adequate public facilities do, in fact, exist. We can't assure that if
we're using a crystal ball to make our projections and that crystal ball
is not accurate.
MR. SCOTT: You're touching on one aspect of it. Obviously
when we say this project is coming in and it might be a parallel route,
for instance. From a model we say, "Okay. We assume this much
traffic is coming off that route."
Is that a known? No. That is an estimate. And I think that
probably changes some of those the way we would look at those
projects.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, okay. But what you must do
Page 239
December 12-13, 2006
when you come before in AUIR you must have very, very specific
information that identifies those segments that are failing or are likely
to fail or fall below an acceptable level of service within the agreed
time frame. It can't just be a guess.
MR. SCOTT: Well, what I did for this AUIR this year -- and
you haven't seen it yet, but the Planning Commission has. I looked at
the last couple of years. Not only the increase in traffic or if it hasn't
increased. There is less of that than the others, plus what would be the
increase of trips. Essentially what developments happened in that area
and trend those out over time and stay away from the model for that
purpose.
Now, in some of the opposite side what do I think might happen
for those road's improvements. We'll talk about this parallel route or
this widening should help in this area. Are we positive that those
happen? No. But that's what the model projects and that's why we are
doing some of those projects.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then the only thing I would say is
that you have to either move that projection out on the schedule so that
you can be assured that it is going to get done or you have got to
present us evidence that we have the money and we have the
contractors who can do it within the budgeted amount and on the
schedule that we have projected.
MR. SCOTT: Right. I think that's what you're touching on is
that it's a projection. Even though it's within five years, it's a
mitigation there. If it's a projection, but it's a failure now and you're
projecting it out you're saying those aren't ones that we should allow
to go.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's correct.
MR. SCOTT: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And then we can take it a step
further. If the petitioner for the rezone wants to obligate themselves to
assure that that gets done by funding it through a developer's
Page 240
December 12-13,2006
contribution agreement that should be a permissible act also.
MR. SCOTT: And more power to them.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. That's right. And so
that gives us the opportunity to do it at a time when this project is
coming into the pipeline.
Because doing it the way we have been doing it the pipeline just
keeps getting longer and we keep getting further and further behind on
providing the facilities.
MR. SCOTT: Well, direction by the Board and actions by us to
push projects out I think is a positive step based on, you know, what
we have seen and what you're talking about with increase in projects
and can we deliver all of what we're talking about in a certain time.
Unfortunately, what we're caught in now is between what we want to
do and what final approval is of our growth management plan.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I'm saying to you that I
believe that we can do this under our existing growth management
plan provisions. That if we make a reasonable -- we can't fudge on
this. If we make a reasonable determination that there is going to be a
road segment affected by this rezone which will fall below the level of
service that we consider acceptable, we don't have to ask anybody's
opinion. We can turn it down right then. That's what it says.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: But then you have a--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't think there is one.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I could. You're hitting on
some of the right directions, Commissioner Coy Ie. What is it; 5.1 or
5.2?
MR. SCOTT: It's the same --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 5.1. That gives you the ability
-- even though you may have staff come back and tell you -- we have
seen this. The Planning Commission has done it. We have done it.
The Commissioners have done it.
They say , "We just don't believe what staff has come up with.
Page 241
December 12-13, 2006
We don't trust the numbers. We don't trust the figures. We're
interpreting it our own way."
As rational human beings, we have a right to be able to do that.
We do not believe this meets the requirements of 5 .1. And for that
reason we could not approve it.
Now it is up to the petitioner if they want to take it to court and
try to prove the Commission wrong. My concern is that we are going
to draw this thing out.
One of the things in here that just scares the daylight's out of me
is the fact that this will -- this is under financial impact. There will be
an attendant costs associated with the two to 300 hours of staff time
associated with the GMP amendment and another two to 300 staff
hours associated with development and implementation of the
subsequent LDC amendment.
I don't -- I hope we don't have to go there. I think I'm getting the
point from Commissioner Coy Ie that what we have is already there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. That's right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Something has to be slightly
massaged to be able to change it. I hope it isn't going to be changing
the level of service to something that is up there in the stratosphere
and make nothing happen because that would be the same as a
moratorium.
If we take with the level of service now as D and move it up to B
or something, to be able to say, "Okay. You're not going to meet that
level of service," we can do it. But at that point in time we have raised
it to the impossible level that means that, in effect, we have put a
moratorium in place.
There is a lot of issues here. I don't know if we are going to be
able to get to them all today in one agenda at one meeting.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have got another meeting today and
tomorrow.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I hear you loud and clear. I
Page 242
December 12-13,2006
mean, possibly this should be a special workshop where we can really
hatch it out. I mean, there is a lot of elements here to be considered.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just wanted to ask Don Scott
how does the percentage that you use of the -- of each development
figure into all of this?
MR. SCOTT: Obviously what is out there right now is three
percent and we are trying to get that lowered to two percent. But as
Commissioner Coyle is touching on, you know, two percent of a --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But, I mean, they are divided --
MR. MUDD: How do you bring them on per year?
MR. SCOTT: We have them in there at essentially one-seventh
per year and adding that throughout the area. You know, obviously it
is problems -- it is more problems in some parts of the County than
others.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was just wondering how that
figures into what we are talking about now. Have you found that it
works well? Does it need to be adjusted?
MR. SCOTT: Well, when everybody was building fast about a
year ago or so, obviously it seemed like it was working pretty well. I
think some of them are building slower than that now again so it
doesn't come on at that rate. But I don't think it is a bad way of
looking at it either.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Scott, how far out do you
reach in the transportation network when you have a rezone petition?
Is there a set formula of the impacts?
MR. SCOTT: Well, we look at either -- either one of two things.
We either look at -- for the consistency, five years. But if your
build-out is, say, 11 years from now, we look at conditions 11 years
from now as it fits into it.
Now, obviously bigger projects we put into the model and you're
Page 243
December 12-13,2006
-- you're looking at the long-range transportation plan and how that
fits in. Let's just sayan average project coming in it depends on what
their build-out is versus the five-year time period.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that -- that's at the time of
rezone, correct?
MR. SCOTT: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And what -- I think what we're
asking is to -- a more detailed analysis; is that right, Commissioner
Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not so much a more detailed
analysis. Actually, I would continue to do the same thing. It's just
that they need to provide a probability of achieving the estimated
goals really.
If they don't have -- they can put anything on a schedule, but if
they don't have reason to be able to guarantee with some degree of
accuracy that we have got the money to do it or that we have got a
contractor who can do it within the period of time, then we need to
have more flexibility on that schedule.
Because if they say it is going to be done in three years and it's
really not done until seven years, that puts us in a real bind because we
will have made decisions that will overcrowd the road for those years.
And the taxpayers are going to get very angry at us.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What I heard, Commissioner is
Scott takes a look at the five-year capital improvement plan. And
that's something -- what I heard you say is you really can't depend on
that because you don't know if you're going to get a contractor to start
it at the date that is in our CIE. So how would you do it?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The way I think we do it is the way
we have proposed doing it. If that is approved by DCA we will be
okay. We put money for project planning and environmental
assessments early on in the plan so that we can get an estimate and
understand what is involved in the project. And then when that is
Page 244
December 12-13, 2006
completed and we know what it's going to cost and perhaps we have a
better feel for the number of bidders that might be available, then we
can start scheduling it for construction.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We don't need DCA's approval
for that. We just do it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You just don't plug in the
construction within our CIE.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. But, you see, my fear
is that DCA is going to say that isn't a financially feasible plan.
MR. SCOTT: That's kind of what they're heading on by their
comments.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that right?
MR. SCOTT: And we'll be dealing with that in January what our
response is back.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think we cannot depend
upon -- because of the pricing, we can't depend on it.
MR. SCOTT: It's not even just us. It's also the state side of it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that is true. But also we
can't depend upon whether the workforce is going to be there to do it.
We're only getting bids -- one bidder on projects right now. So I
would say the future is uncertain at this time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if you don't mind me speaking
out of turn, Mr. Chairman, just to answer that specific point.
Commissioner Henning is absolutely correct and he just
introduced a proposal at the metropolitan planning organization where
we adopt the same strategy that the department of transportation is
adopting where they will -- they will reject a bid if it comes in over
their budget if they don't have the money budgeted to do it.
Because by accepting bids that come in over budget on a regular
basis, we are merely encouraging bidders to bid higher prices. So
Commissioner Henning is absolutely correct. And if we don't do
Page 245
December 12-13, 2006
something, we are just going to continually escalate these prices for
construction and we're all going to be in real trouble.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I have got a trouble. That is kind
of the analogy that was used back in the mid '90s. If we don't build
roads, then they will-- what we'll end up doing is not building
anything because we'll say it is over the bid and we're not going to get
anything accomplished and people are still going to be coming.
And I have got another concern when -- I just want to get
something clear with Commissioner Coletta here. He said that -- I
think he said something to the effect that we always don't believe the
information that staff gives us in regards to capacity of the roads. And
if we make a decision up here, then we can easily be challenged in a
court of law.
And we found that to be so because we felt that there was a
possibility that the roads could not take -- a particular area that was
going to be rezoned and we were challenged and immediately we
folded our cards. So I'm concerned about -- when we say that we can
make laws and we can overrule what staff gives us, as far as the
capacity of the roads. So I'm concerned on that area.
Commissioner Coy Ie I think was next.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me try to address that, if I can.
Remember what we're doing here -- well, were you supposed to be
next?
Did you want to speak?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no. I was just wondering which
one he was referring to.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sandalwood.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me try to address both of those
issues. Remember what we are doing. We are not saying that we
don't accept the staffs evaluation. We are merely saying that we
recognize the staffs evaluation is based upon assumptions that we
might not feel are realistic.
Page 246
December 12-13, 2006
And if we know what we know about the cost escalation, we
know what we know about the budget, we know and we see every day
delays in getting projects done. So when somebody makes a
presentation and says, "We are going to have this road widened within
the next three years so there will be enough capacity to handle it," and
we say, "Wait a minute. Based upon our observations and our
experience, we think that is too -- that is not sufficiently conservative."
And under those circumstances, I believe we're justified in
making decisions that we think are appropriate based upon those
evaluations. We're not obligated under any circumstance to accept
everything that the staff tells us because they are no more perfect than
we are. So that is one thing.
The other thing is about stopping the building of roads. That's
not really what FDOT does and it's not what we would propose to do.
We're just saying that if we have a budget for a project and it is $30
million and someone comes in with a $50 million bid, we're going to
say, "We'll do $30 million worth of work. We'll scale this project back
and we'll do $30 million of work."
And we might leave out something initially, some landscaping
and stuff. We'll make preparations for them, but there are ways to do
that. Or we can shorten the segment and we can do them in shorter
segments and do them over a longer period of time, rather than just
doing them all at once and paying this huge premium to the contractor.
Now, the third point is that we're talking about a well coordinated
and logical decision-making process. If we continue filling up the
pipeline with rezones and we are met with escalating prices for
construction and delays by contractors on the other end, we're really
putting the taxpayers of Collier County in a difficult situation and
ourselves in a difficult situation.
What we are proposing here is that we slow down that pipeline
based on our projection of what facilities -- public facilities are likely
to be available. And if we slow down the pipeline, there won't be so
Page 247
December 12-13,2006
much construction. It's not like it is going to be overtaking us. Right
now we are getting run-down because we are trying to cross the road.
If we provide some brakes in that road, we can cross the road without
getting killed.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think you're going to end up with a lot
of disenchanted developers saying, "You're hindering my ability to
develop. I'm going to help pay for the road, but I want my land
rezoned even though it may not meet all the criteria for addressing all
of the transportation issues."
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me read from the legal opinion.
"A property owner does not have a vested right to any particular
zoning classification."
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Guess what happens?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, that's okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's okay. I believe that we have
laws that we can adhere to. And I think somebody will complain, yes.
But the point is we're doing it in a very logical way and we're doing it
with good reason.
We have about 60,000 approved housing units that have not yet
been constructed. At the current rate that is going to take us about ten
years to even flush out the existing pipeline. So I'm not concerned
that there will be a slowdown in construction to the point where it's
going to have an adverse economic impact.
But, you know, we have got a choice. We continue doing things
the way things are being done now and we keep getting deeper in the
hole or we change our procedures and we try to do it right.
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, if I could. For the record, Norman
Feder, Transportation Administrator.
Just a couple of points. I think it's a very good discussion. I do
want to just add a couple of items to that discussion. First of all, what
I think I'm hearing is that we need to expand our efforts to make sured
Page 248
December 12-13, 2006
that all of our assumptions and issues in our presentation to you are
clearly identified so that you have a very good feel and can work from
that. And we're going to make sure that we're doing just that.
That doesn't change -- make a lot of change. I think we have
heard that very clear. There is a need and we are going to do that.
I think also the fact that while we are continuing the production
process, we are not until we have a contract utilizing that capacity.
And, therefore, while we are continuing production and have the
ability to move them maybe in sooner if, in fact, I get a contract that is
reasonable and approved by this Board, we are not using that capacity
initially in that process. We have already gone to that.
I think a lot of what we are doing is getting at some of these
points. I think we just need to make sure that we are fully
communicating that to you as we go through the process. I will tell
you that we will expand our efforts at the rezoning clarification of
what our assumptions and our issues are, our best shot at probability
and then this Board's own analysis of those issues.
But, again, I think to the point we have already taken the action
that we're not incorporating that capacity -- because while we're going
to production, until I have a contract this Board can approve, that
capacity is not in the first three years of our work program I think is
already addressing a lot of what the concerns are.
So I think this Board has taken a very aggressive role in
concurrency. That's what we are trying to maintain, in spite of360.
And we're going to continue to do so. But what I did want to add to
the conversation is we are going to make sure that it is fully
understood by this Board. And anytime we don't feel that that is the
case, we need to know it and what our assumptions and our issues are.
I think that's what is being discussed.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala. Thank you for
waiting so long.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all right.
Page 249
December 12-13, 2006
I brought up the subject and I sent all of you a message about
density bonuses. I think maybe this was -- this would be an
appropriate time to talk about those with regard to -- with regard to
our roads.
If a developer comes in and plans to build affordable housing
within his development, we have been up to this point giving him for
his entire acreage eight extra units per acre. I feel that he should get
all of the units he needs to build the affordable housing component if
he wants to build 20 percent or 30 percent, whatever he wants to do,
and that should be a given. But instead of giving him eight units for
the entire acreage, one extra unit after he has gotten all of his
approvals for affordable housing.
And that might help lessen the impacts that some of these
developments would make on an already overburdened road and allow
us to deal with it a little bit more reasonably . Yes, he would still -- he
would get his four units by right anyway. He gets extra units because
he is adding an affordable unit component, which we would give him,
as far as the density goes, and then he makes one unit extra for his
entire acreage. So he's still getting his bonuses.
Say, for instance, on 100 acres he has got 100 extra units for all
that has taken place. And that is a pretty decent profit just one unit per
acre. So I would hope that maybe sometime we can address that and
maybe that would help this problem a little bit.
And I am going to go to the second one and that is -- in the
beginning, Commissioner Halas, you mentioned -- it was you or
Commissioner Coy Ie about the Airport Road and Estey A venue and
how we approved it even though we knew that it was going to be --
that people wouldn't be able to get out going to work in the morning
and maybe have to wait 15 minutes before they could get out of their
development is what we were told waiting in line. And, yet, we
approved it because we felt -- we felt a need to do that because of the
affordable housing component. And how are we going to deal with
Page 250
December 12-13, 2006
that?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good question.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This change will deal with that if
we do this.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know, whether it is a
mansion or a Habitat, it still needs to meet our transportation
concurrency bottom line. And I'm looking forward to your analysis on
what you're proposing.
I don't know. I don't know anything about land development or
what it costs to develop land. I have no idea.
I know there are some people out there that can do that. You
know, put the pricing in and put the impact fees and the road--
internal construction and stuff like that. That's very important when
we make a decision to change how we govern land.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, like, for instance -- you
said Habitat. So I will mention that one. It wouldn't affect them
because they don't -- they don't ask for extra density.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All I'm saying is our
transportation concurrency applies to any density. It applies to any
land use.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But if an acreage -- say we are
going to have 400 units, it would apply differently than if it were
going to have 1,200.
Am I saying that clearly? No, huh?
Okay. Say you have 100 acres; you get four units per acre
normally.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's a base.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Base. Mr. Developer says, "I
would like to build 100 extra units for affordable housing."
Good. Put that in. So now you have 500 units.
Right now we added extra 800 units as a bonus. Eight units per
Page 251
December 12-13,2006
acre at 100 acres, that's another 800 units. Well, if we added one unit
per acre it would be 100 units, which maybe would allow us to then
approve something. Whereas, otherwise it wouldn't.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, from what I understand,
you're tying affordable housing to transportation and what is going on,
on the roads.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, not so much affordable
housing as the density bonuses that are given. The eight extra units
per acre they are given if somebody would build them.
As I said, it doesn't apply to Habitat For Humanity because their
whole thing is affordable housing. So that doesn't kick in to an extra
eight units per acre over and above.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, can I make a point
of order here? We have a separate section in our agenda for the
discussion of this issue that Commissioner Fiala wants to talk about. I
don't want to detract from our discussion about this -- of this rezoning
consideration. But your points are exactly on target.
And if we deal with this rezoning issue and provide direction to
staff -- and I would like to do that. I don't know. You don't need a
formal motion because there is no change to the land development
code. There is no change to the growth management plan that is
necessary. There is no expenditure of staff time that is associated with
this.
All we're going -- all I'm going to ask the Board to do is to affirm
to the staff that they must give us accurate projections of roads and
road segments that are likely to fall below the level of service if a
rezone is approved. And those estimates must be based upon
information, revenues and work schedules that are reasonably accurate
and guaranteed. And if the Board would affirm that as guidance for
the staff that will solve this particular issue.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I agree with you.
Page 252
December 12-13,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: My concern is I've always felt that the
information that staff has given me has been complete. And if there is
anything that I thought was missing, I would ask staff and they would
give me additional information that I requested and pretty much told
me where we were.
So I'm not sure -- I don't think we're here to micromanage. They
are the ones that -- this is their forte. They sit down, they look at all
sorts of different modeling.
And I believe that -- maybe I'm wrong. I have always -- when I
have worked with staff, with all the modeling and everything else that
they have available to their -- to their work, they always end up giving
me the right information I always thought.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me try to explain it. I'm not
talking about the staff trying to deceive us. I don't think they do that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't think they try to provide
incomplete information. Let me use one example we're all familiar
with. The staff was projecting that the intersection at Davis Boulevard
and Collier Boulevard was going to be done in a certain time schedule.
It was in our plan. It was in our capital improvement element.
We approved developments based upon that improvement. The staff
had no way of knowing that the state was going to withdraw $12
million from that project.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: $30 million.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Originally it was scheduled for 12
million, wasn't it?
MR. FEDER: 30 million. They removed 30 million.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: $30 million. The staff had no way
of knowing that. Why? Because there was no guarantee that that was
going to happen. They had made assumptions. We probably -- well,
we certainly --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We made assumptions, too. I thought
Page 253
December 12-13, 2006
that was --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But, see, when you compound that
with all of the other things that you and I know are happening -- we
know there are contract delays. We dealt with one. It is a year late
already . We have had contractor delays on lots of road segments
because of all sorts of reasons. It has nothing to do with staff.
We're just saying that, look, we have to be more conservative
with respect to when we expect these things to be completed and we
have to have a clear budget allocation that we can depend upon and
we have to have a contractor that can do the work within the specified
period of time.
MR. FEDER: Commissioners, if I can, what I will tell you is
hopefully that's what we have always provided to you. What I think
I'm hearing is not that you're now asking us to, for a change, provide
accurate information. You're asking for us to clearly identify any
assumptions in the information we are giving you. So, therefore, you
can weigh those assumptions.
I would have made the assumption in this example that, in fact,
the state was going to move forward since after five years they finally
put that other 30 million into that project, into their work program and
would have made that assumption. I think we identified it. What I'm
saying now is we will identify that assumption, its capacity as part of
our analysis and our statement to you and then you can weigh that
assumption.
I wouldn't have known until they took that action not to have
assumed that in there. Again, what I think I'm being asked for is not
necessarily more accurate information, but rather more details on the
assumptions associated in any data that we provide to you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I would just like to add to this that we're
assuming that 1-75 is going to get started being widened sometime in
2007 . We shouldn't even take that assumption.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
Page 254
December 12-13, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Something may come up and all of a
sudden the state comes by and says, "Guess what. We are going to
pull the funding on the widening of 1-75 and it may not be done now
until 2015."
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. And we are at the other end.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know what we should be
doing? We should be taking that experience and applying it to every
one of our future jobs and our projects. Ifwe say, "We think this is
going to start in 2010, but based upon our experience these things
have been delayed in the past by as much as two years, so we are
going to schedule it for 2012." That's what we should be doing.
We should not ignore the failures of the past whenever we are
trying to make projections for the future. And we just have to be more
conservative in those kinds of projections.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, one way you can -- I had my hand
up, unless you have more lights on.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have one more light. Go ahead and
give us some information.
MR. MUDD: One way you can help yourselves for that
guarantee, okay, is if you zone based on everything you have got there
and there are some assumptions that you're questioning, you can --
you can zone that thing and say no COs until this particular segment is
open just like you did yesterday to a particular development that said,
"Until that road opens up" -- see, Commissioner, you're asking for a
guarantee for funds.
What happens if you zone it and something happens that the
money gets pulled or you get three estimates and road contractors that
come in at double the amount of money that you have on that road
segment and there is no way to break it down into phases logically?
Your choice then -- if you want to guarantee it, you could raise
taxes. I don't believe that is tenable at all with the present --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It is not my turn to speak, so --
Page 255
December 12-13,2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll be just a second. I'm just
going to lead into what you want to grab hold of, Commissioner
Coy Ie.
I hear what you're saying, Mr. Mudd. I think that your idea has a
lot of merit. What scares me with the other idea that we try to build in
additional time with the fact that we expect contracts will not
complete at a certain amount of time. We're admitting defeat before
we even get to it.
I'd rather hold these people to the date's -- the particular dates
that we have in the contract and then battle with them all the way
through. I'm almost scared that if we say, "Okay. You're telling us
you're going to get done six months from now. Well, we don't know if
you can or not, so we are going to say eight months, but we still
expect you to do it in six months."
The confusion lies there. How far can we go? Actually the
deadline they are going to say is probably eight months because that's
what you told us and you implied that.
The idea of working with the COs at the time of the -- in other
words, if the segment isn't done or not completed, then you can't be
granted a CO. So now you have put it on the contractor to be able to
time their completion to be able to be when the road segment is
completed or the --
MR. MUDD: I wasn't arguing with Commissioner Coyle on
what he talked about extending the past on the time frame. You can
do that also. But when it gets down to the point of time that you
rezone, if the Board has -- the Board can say no and that's fine.
But you have another mechanism to help you guarantee.
Guarantees are hard, especially when you're dealing with the future. I
don't know of anybody out there that will guarantee anything for
anybody five years from now. It gets very different.
If I could read the tea leaves that well, I would be a wealthy man
today and wouldn't be here. What I have to say to you is: If you're
Page 256
December 12-13, 2006
trying to get certainty, you need to add more things in your toolbox in
order to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The objective that we're trying
-- I'm going to take just one second. The objective we're trying to
come up with is to make sure that we don't have homes coming
on-line before the roads are completed. I mean, there are roads every
which direction we're looking. Everything else seems to be pretty
much taken care of.
We have certainties, as far as sewer and water go. You can't get
your CO if there isn't sufficient capacity. Beginning and end. Why
shouldn't the same thing like you just suggested -- your statement -- be
for roads?
We keep it as close as we can to that and now it becomes the
responsibility of the builders and everything to keep an eye on what is
taking place out there and to phase it in in such a way that it happens
so they don't have a commodity that is finished waiting for a purchaser
to be able to move in. They can start to plan it out ahead knowing that
this is the policy that the County has. I think that's a wonderful idea.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The problem is we don't -- we take each
development and we don't use the same analogy for each
development, as far as phasing it in and in regards to roads. I think
what we need to do is if we're going to give somebody the ability to
build that we hold the guidelines -- set up some kind of guideline.
You've got a third now, a third later, and a third upon completion of
the road.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Same thing.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, what happens is we don't follow
that guideline. We ended up with -- an area where we got insufficient
road capacity. We were challenged and we ended up giving this guy
almost all of his units to get -- and build them immediately and we
don't even have the road -- the intersection taken care of.
So that's why I have got some concerns. As long as we set up
Page 257
December 12-13, 2006
some guidelines and we're consistent with those guidelines.
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We are mixing up a whole bunch
of things here. Some of you are talking about a development order.
I'm talking about a rezone, okay?
At the rezone we are not talking about phasing. The rezone we
are merely changing the designation of the land to another zoning
category, unless it is a PUD rezone.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: PUD rezone.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, the important factor to
remember here is that we don't get involved in making those kind of
phasing -- phasing decisions, except in a PUD rezone. If we are
rezoning from agriculture to residential, we don't get involved in that
sort of stuff at that point in time.
So Commissioner Coletta's concerns about phasing a contract for
construction of a road does not apply to this issue. And let me try for
just a minute to explain that.
I'm not talking about going to a road contractor and saying, "We
don't think you can do the job in the time specified so we are going to
give you two extra years." That's not what we are talking about.
Weare talking about when we are getting involved in a
long-range capital improvement plan. We're saying we don't know
who the contractor is. We don't know how many bidders we are going
to have. We don't know whether we have a guaranteed funding source
for these things or not. So we can't establish an absolute date for the
completion of this project.
So what do we do? We wait until we do have a contractor
identified and we do have a funding source guaranteed and then we
hold that contractor to getting it done as quickly as we possibly can
get it done. So that's what we're talking about.
We're not talking about giving a contractor extra latitude or
anything else. So -- now, please, look at the effect of rezones. You
Page 258
December 12-13,2006
wonder why land values are going up so much? It is because we grant
a rezone from agriculture to residential with a density of eight units
per acre and we don't evaluate what it is going to do to the roads.
Guess what happens? You get that rezone, you flip the property.
The value goes from a million dollars to $20 million and then
somebody buys it for development and they have to build more
expensive homes there to get the money out of it and justify the
investment of the property. We have to pay more money for
right-of-way to build the roads and it just keeps going and going and
.
gOing.
And as long as we continue doing that, we are contributing to the
inflation of property values in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think that is called free enterprise.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I think it is called good
government. And I think we have an obligation to consider the effect
of rezoning property on the citizens of Collier County and on our
ability to deliver the appropriate infrastructure.
And we simply are not doing that by closing our eyes at the time
of rezone and saying, "Whoops. I can't take into consideration what
this is going to do to the County at this time, so we'll just go ahead and
approve it." That's crazy.
Now, everybody on this Board has said they want to assure that
we have adequate road capacity . You can't get adequate road capacity
by continuing to rezone the way we have been rezoning and with the
density that we have been rezoning to. The only way we can do it is
to begin to establish some appropriate controls that recognize the
impact on our taxpayers and on the property values and the
availability of public facilities.
So I will, once again, appeal to this Board to please join me in
supporting guidance to the staff which will assure more accurate
projections and a clear identification of assumptions associated with
the traffic impacts at the time of rezone.
Page 259
December 12-13, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I would just like to add that you're
absolutely right what you're saying, but the buck stops here. Weare
the ones that make that decision.
Now, if we have some land development attorney come in here
and whine and cry and tell us how we are going to impede his
progress because he's got this huge development out there with tons of
homes, we sit here and listen to him and he is a good salesperson and
he ends up and he all of a sudden hits on our heartstrings and says,
"Well, I'm going to give you 300 homes. I'm going to build a
development of 3,400 homes and I'm going to give you 200 homes of
affordable housing," we immediately buckle and say, "That is the
greatest thing going," and we approve it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then the buck stops here and we
get thrown out of office. That is exactly what should happen.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're both right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can we stop arguing about this and
get this done? You agree it is the right thing to do, right?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm not sure how we are going to attack
this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's simple.
MR. MUDD: Can I help a little bit on how we tackle it? I would
like to take that phrase that Commissioner Coy Ie read out of the
attorney's opinion and craft it into a question, okay, to be added to the
rezone packets that we have, staff analysis and in your executive
summary and then have transportation answer that question for you as
you get that executive summary. And they will get as specific as they
can with whatever projection they come up with and the assumptions
that led to it.
So that gives you everything you need and it's more than what
you have been getting. I believe that's the first step. As we get there,
okay, and you see it and if you want to get it more specific than that or
get it better, we will. And that's the first step. But I think we can do a
Page 260
December 12-13,2006
better job specifically at that language that Commissioner Coyle stated
from the County attorney's opinion that had to do with 9.J.5.
Let's put that in there as a section so that you can see it and staff
analyzes it and Don Scott will do that. And we'll give it our best shot
and give you as much information as we can in order to make your
decisions in that particular regard.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: So are we going to come up with some
different modeling techniques; is that what we're saying?
MR. MUDD: Well, Commissioner, we are going to take a look
at what we have, okay? I didn't say we were going to jump on a new
model or models. I said that we were going to layout the assumptions
that Don and crew use when they plug in so you know exactly what
they are, okay? And we are going to take a look at what is in our
five-year plan and try to get that as concrete and as good as we can for
you.
I'm not saying we have not done that in the past. I just don't think
you have had visibility on that process like you should. I believe that's
what Commissioner Coy Ie is saying. He wants it more out front so
you have it so you can make the best decision that you possibly can up
there.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a question to ask the County
Attorney. Is this going to build more challenges into the system?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: For the record, Marjorie
Student-Stirling. I don't think so. I think it is just going to be in a
different place in your executive summary and staff report. Because
they do talk about 5.1 in the staff report and executive summary. And
I think it might contain some more detail. So it could actually help us
if there was a challenge.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Is that the direction of the Board?
I just need three nods.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You have got one nod here.
Page 261
December 12-13, 2006
MR. MUDD: I have four nods. We'll go do it and we'll start at
the next meeting. And that's basically what we needed on that
particular item.
It is now 10:00 and you have a time certain item.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Right. If we start this time certain item,
we will break at 10:30 so our court reporter can catch her breath. Just
to let her know ahead of time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What is this item?
MR. MUDD: This is 8-E.
Item #8E
ORDINANCE 2006-62: PETITION PUDZ-2003-AR-4988:
WATERWAYS JOINT VENTURE V, REPRESENTED BY
DWIGHT H. NADEAU, OF RWA, INC., AND RICHARD D.
YOV ANOVICH, OF GOODLETTE, COLEMAN & JOHNSON,
P.A., REQUESTING A REZONE FROM PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AND RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A), TO
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) FOR
A PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS SUMMIT LAKES RPUD, TO
ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A MAXIMUM OF 968 SINGLE-
F AMIL Y ATTACHED OR DETACHED DWELLING UNITS,
MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS, AND ASSOCIATED
ACCESSORY USES AND CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL
OF AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS
AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING THE DEVELOPER TO UTILIZE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BONUS DENSITY UNITS (IN THE
AMOUNT OF 415 UNITS AT 3.0 BONUS DENSITY UNITS PER
ACRE) IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROJECT FOR LOW-
INCOME RESIDENTS THAT WILL INCLUDE A MAXIMUM OF
10 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL
UNITS FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING AND 10 PERCENT FOR
Page 262
December 12-13, 2006
GAP HOUSING UNITS. ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY WILL BE
FROM IMMOKALEE ROAD (COUNTY ROAD 846). THE
PROPERTY IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY MILE EAST OF
THE INTERSECTION OF COLLIER BOULEVARD (C.R. 951)
AND IMMOKALEE ROAD (C.R. 846). THE PROPERTY IS IN
SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND CONSISTS OF 138.3
ACRES. (COMPANION TO ITEM 10E SUMMIT LAKES RPUD)-
ADOPTED
Okay. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex
parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. It's Petition
PUDZ-2003-AR-4988, Waterways Joint Venture V, represented by
Dwight H. Nadeau ofRW A, Inc. and Richard D. Y ovanovich of
Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, P.A. If you could please turn off
your cell phones. I would appreciate it.
They are requesting a rezone from the planned unit development
PUD and rural agricultural A to residential planned unit development
RPUD for a project to be known as Summit Lakes RPUD to allow
development of a maximum of 968 single-family attached or detached
dwelling units, multi-family dwelling units and associated accessory
uses and consideration and approval of affordable housing density
bonus agreement authorizing the developer to utilize affordable
housing density -- excuse me -- affordable housing bonus density units
in the amount of 415 units at three bonus units per acre in the
development of this project for low-income residents that will include
a maximum of ten percent of the total number of residential units for
workforce housing and ten percent of gap housing units.
The access to the property will be from Immokalee Road, County
Road 846. The property is located approximately one mile east of the
intersection of Collier Boulevard, County Road 951, and Immokalee
Road, County Road 846. The property is in Section 26, Township 48
Page 263
December 12-13, 2006
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida and consists of 138.3
acres.
This is a companion item to 10-E, which is the Summit Lakes
RPUD. And that's the developer contribution agreement, which will
get heard right after this particular item.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. All those that are going to be
coming forward with information on this particular item, would you
please rise and raise your right hand and the court reporter will
administer the oath.
(All participants were sworn in by the court reporter.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: At this time I'm going to ask for
disclosure by the Commissioners, starting with Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have received correspondence on
this item. I have also talked with the petitioner and the petitioner's
agent concerning this petition.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I had a meeting with the
petitioner's agents. I also received correspondence on it. And my file
is here for anyone that wants to see it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I myself have talked to staff
about this. I have had e-mails and I also talked with some people on
the Planning Commission with regards to this.
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have had a meeting with
Rich Y ovanovich, Richard Davenport, Bob Miller, Dwight Nadeau. I
have received a few e-mails.Ihavemetwithtransportationstaff.as
well as other members of the staff. And also I have spoken with a
couple of members of the Planning Commission.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I spoke to Mr. Nadeau and one
Planning Commission member. And I received an e-mail from Mr.
Brian Suttle.
Page 264
December 12-13, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
At this time would the petitioner present.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich
Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. With me also today are
Richard Davenport and Bob Miller with Waterways, Dwight Nadeau
and Jamie Anderson from RW A, Reed Jarvi from Vanasse and
Daylor, and Mike Myers from Passarella and Associates, who can
answer any questions.
I am going to do a brief overview of the project and then Mr.
Davenport is going to make a brief presentation to you all. And then,
finally, Reed Jarvi will make a presentation on the transportation
aspects of this particular project.
I know you're going to take separate votes on both the PUD and
the developer contribution agreement. But if it's okay with you, I will
just combine the two presentations since they are intermingled on
many of the issues.
As the County Manager pointed out, the project is approximately
138.3 acres located on Immokalee Road and W oodcrest. On the
visualizer you will see to the top of the page, which is to the north, is
Immokalee Road and to the east is W oodcrest. That is part of the
bypass road. The W oodcrest down to Treefarm connection over to
Collier Boulevard and then ultimately -- it will also interconnect with
Massey, which will actually let people go from Immokalee Road all
the way down to Vanderbilt Beach Road and avoid 951 altogether if
they choose to do that.
The request is for 968 residential units, which is a residential
density of seven units per acre. I believe this is first project to use the
new LDC matrix for affordable housing density bonuses, which
includes the gap category for affordable housing. The base density
under the comprehensive plan is four units per acre. My request is for
three additional bonus units under the affordable housing program.
The way those additional bonus units would be allocated, they
Page 265
December 12-13, 2006
will -- it generates 415 bonus units. Of the 415 bonus units, 100 of
those units will go to the workforce category, which is the 60 to 80
percent income category. Another 100 of those bonus units would go
to what is the gap, 81 to 150 percent. And we also agreed at the
Planning Commission to put an additional 100 units to be gap priced.
So of the 415 bonus units, 300 of those units will serve gap
housing for less, as far as the affordable housing matrix goes. So
essentially 72 percent of the entire bonus units will be affordable.
Another way to look at it is of the three bonus units over -- it is
approximately 2.2 of the bonus units per acre will be affordable
housing. Only.8 of the bonus units -- a .8 of the unit per acre will
actually be market rate. So if you look at that, it's truly a tremendous
project for affordable housing with a very minimal incentive to the
developer because there is less than one unit per acre is actually going
to market rate units.
The other public benefit from this project, as you know, is
Waterways has enjoyed a successful relationship with Habitat For
Humanity over the years. And this -- through this PUD and this
project we will be providing -- their treated water will pass through
our project. We will be bringing water and sewer utilities to their site.
That is approximately a $365,000 donation, if you will, to Habitat for
Humanity by bringing these services to them.
So they won't have to expend those costs, as well. As well, we
will be providing them access across our property on W oodcrest
Drive. So they can actually get all the way up to Immokalee Road.
We also -- and Mr. Jarvi will get into the more detailed aspects of
the transportation benefits associated with this project. We're--
concurrently with this is a developer contribution agreement between
the County and the developer for the construction of this bypass road
that you have heard on many occasions for several different projects.
Bristol Pines is one of them and Warm Springs is another that you
have heard that this bypass road, which is the W oodcrest to Treefarm
Page 266
December 12-13, 2006
and all the way down to Massey Road will -- this loop will essentially
reduce the traffic in that intersection of 951 and Immokalee Road by
approximately 5,000 to 7,000 trips.
And it will be the only bypass road for that intersection between
Wilson and Collier Boulevard. So it provides another north-south
alternative for trips, besides Collier Boulevard. The -- it is my
understanding that without the developer contribution agreement this
bypass road is probably at least seven years away from the County
being able to do it. In addition -- and I will tell you that negotiating
this developer contribution agreement was -- was consistently a work
.
in progress.
And your staff on more than one occasion changed the terms on
us. And we understood why. They had some experiences with other
roads where they wanted to make sure they were protecting you. So
as recently as three weeks ago they said to Richard Davenport he has
to assume the risk that the road increases in cost. The County is not
going to assume that risk.
So we have essentially agreed to cap the County's exposure for
impact fee credits on this road to $5.1 million. So if the road costs
more than $5.1 million, it is out of our pocket. The County doesn't
have to give us any more impact fee credits or give us any cash for
that.
Hopefully we can get it done for that number, which I think your
staff will tell you is probably $1 million plus less than what it would
cost you to try to build it yourself. So we think we are saving the
County probably a million, million two in construction costs. We are
bringing that road to the residents of Collier County much quicker
than they could expect it if it went through the normal permitting
process and your allocation of dollars. You have a lot of expenditures
you need to deal with and we can bring the road quicker to the
residents.
The good news is -- the good news and the bad news is there is
Page 267
December 12-13, 2006
already a lot of improvements in that area. Immokalee Road is under
construction now to go to six lanes. Collier Boulevard is under
construction to go to six lanes. Vanderbilt Beach Road is under
construction to go to six lanes.
So approximately when our project gets off the ground all these
roads are going to be fixed, if you will, and fully accommodate our
traffic. And we can go into the details of how we're -- we will be okay
with the projected improvements that are already under construction,
plus our improvements.
We also agreed to a phasing schedule as part of the project. And
we also know that we have some risks if we don't get that road done.
We only get half of our project until we get that bypass road done. So
we have a lot of units sitting out there waiting on our getting that road
done. So we have a lot of financial incentive to make sure that that
bypass road gets done.
We have a lot of -- we are working on our water management
district and our Corps permitting. Part of the project is the old
Outdoor Resorts R V Resort. So there is some permitting in place that
we'll be modifying. We are adding additional acreage to the Outdoor
Resorts PUD, but minimal impacts to the project and then we're
adding additional acreage. We're adding almost 45 acres and only
increasing wetland impacts by one acre.
Your Planning Commission heard our petition and recommended
approval. Your staff is recommending approval. We are -- you
should have some letters from Brian -- I think Brian Suttle sent you a
letter from the hospital. They are looking forward to our being able to
provide some much needed housing for their workers. We believe
others, such as the School Board, Sheriff and the County would all
benefit from the housing that we will be providing.
With that, I'll turn it over to Richard Davenport to make some
statements to you and then have Reed Jarvi give a little bit more detail
about the traffic.
Page 268
December 12-13, 2006
At the Planning Commission it was interesting. We didn't have
anybody objecting to us, which was nice. Hopefully we're doing a
good job of keeping the neighbors informed. And this is actually a
project that the surrounding community supports by their silence.
And with that, I'll turn it over to Richard.
MR. DAVENPORT: Thank you, Rich.
Rich is so used to getting beat up in meetings, he loves it when
nobody is there to object.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, we won't disappoint him
today.
MR. DAVENPORT: For the record, Richard Davenport. Mr.
Chairman, Commissioners, I'm glad to speak to you today. And I
would like to just amplify on a couple of points that Rich has already
made so well.
One issue that we've discussed and negotiated amongst ourselves
in how to present this project to you today is the extra 100 units of gap
housing that the Planning Commission requested and we agreed to do.
The issue at hand is why we want to do the extra 100 units as gap
priced, but not gap compliant, if you will.
It is a matter of two things. Number one, we would like the
flexibility because we are in this as a for-profit operation. Weare not
accepting donations of any sort. We expect to make money on the
project in the long run.
More importantly, the County and other arms of government
when they deal with programs like this that involves deferral of impact
fees, perhaps shift down payment contributions has to be very careful
in spending the public's money. You have ironclad rules in place and
you don't vary from those rules.
Some of those rules though are really unfair. At our Bristol Pines
project, if I can digress just a minute, we had a nice couple -- older,
retired couple that lived primarily on Social Security and a very small
pension. They qualified for the program. They were looking forward
Page 269
December 12-13,2006
to getting into their house. We are building the house. We get fairly
close to closing and the Federal government in their infinite wisdom
passed a cost of living adjustment to every single pensioner receiving
Social Security income.
That extra $18 a month disqualified this nice couple from buying
a house. A house they sorely needed. And your rules don't allow any
latitude. It just doesn't work.
Now, another concern is that we'll sell these units to very wealthy
speculators who just come in and buy all the low-priced units, flip
them before their contract even closes. We promise we'll not do that
because we have an interest in not having speculators in our project,
too.
This is a large project. We are going to be there for a number of
years. We don't want a speculator selling a product that we sold a
year ago against us in the second year. So we will voluntarily put
anti-speculation requirements into our contracts. For instance, we
might require someone closing to hold that unit for a couple of years
before they sell it. We think that is a reasonable thing to do.
In summary, I think this is really a litmus test for the County of
the level of your commitment to affordable housing. All that said and
done, I don't think you can characterize this project as an affordable
housing project. It is not.
When you drive into that project you're not going to be able to
tell a house that got the benefit of the affordable housing bonuses and
such from the other product. Every house will be concrete block
construction, a tile roof, all the amenities you'd normally expect to see
on the inside, paver driveways and walkways and such like that,
extensive landscaping. This is truly inclusionary zoning. And I think
it will be a project the County can be proud of.
In addition to the phasing restrictions that Rich discussed, we are
going to do some commonsense things during the development
process. First of all, our project is more or less fill balanced. We're
Page 270
December 12-13, 2006
not going to have a whole bunch of big fill trucks running down your
nice new six-lane Immokalee Road dropping stuff and obstructing
traffic. We will have to import fill primarily just for the road rock.
That's it.
We are going to restrict those trucks to be delivering either before
or after rush hours. Not during rush hours. In the same way, before
we start any vertical construction we will have completed all the turn
lanes so that any trucks delivering at those points in time will be able
to get off the road and out of traffic before they approach the project.
We believe this project has the support of the entire business
community. We think it's important to the business community. Most
of the business community is focusing on the gap housing because
they have trouble attracting professionals, engineers, teachers. At the
pay levels that they can afford to offer, those people can't afford to
live in our County here.
If you could fly in a helicopter over 1-75 in the early morning,
most of the traffic is coming south. And if you fly over in the
afternoon when it's not stopped dead, most of it is flowing north. It's
because people are looking for a more affordable place to live.
The people are already here. We are going to put them in a well
located project close to employment centers where they will stay off
the road and they will be living in a house that they can be proud of
and that I, as a developer, can drive by in five or ten years and say,
"We built that," and I will feel proud about it.
So I hope you will join us. We look forward to delivering this
project. We know there are some difficult decisions and trade-offs for
you as Commissioners, but we hope you will do the right thing. Thank
you.
(Commissioner Coletta left his seat.)
MR. JARVI: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Reed
Jarvi. I am a professional engineer with the firm Vanasse Daylor.
And I prepared or had prepared the traffic impact statement for this
Page 271
December 12-13, 2006
project. In addition, I prepared a bypass study for this project. And I
will briefly touch on both of those in an overview situation. And if
you have any questions, I will be happy to address those.
Basically we have been working on this study -- the traffic
impact study -- for this project for well over a year now. Probably
about a year and a half. During that time it became a requirement by
your staff to look at the comprehensive nature of the area for the
bypass road. This is the roads that Rich alluded to -- W oodcrest that
we front on our eastern boundary, Treefarm midway down about a
mile south of Immokalee Road and then Massey, which would be the
extension of W oodcrest down to Vanderbilt Beach Road. This is a
requirement by staff.
It caused a lot of heartache from our standpoint, but we gladly
went through and produced the study to show the improvements and
what the impacts of the projects in the area would be.
(Commissioner Coletta returned to his seat.)
MR. JARVI: The study showed that the construction ofa bypass
road would improve the traffic congestion in the area. It makes sense
that if you add more roadways that you have more options and you
can have traffic going different ways. The study which used the time
delay formulas for the roadway, where people would go, try to even
out or balance where people would go on a congestion management
standpoint shows that between five and 7,000 daily trips will not go in
the -- or should not go on the Vanderbilt -- excuse me -- Collier
Boulevard/Immokalee Road intersection. That they will be diverted
along Woodcrest down Massey or down Treefarm Road and get away
from that intersection.
I think that is very important because this roadway network is
basically built with minimal County dollars. They are doing staff
time, they are doing design time, but the whole network will be
completed, as Rich said, probably five to seven years before the
County would ever complete it. It is done pretty much all by
Page 272
December 12-13, 2006
developers of the area.
This particular developer has a big stake in it doing design and
construction of W oodcrest Road. And it will improve the area
drastically in the near and medium term from a traffic congestion
standpoint. It also provides a great bypass just from a safety
standpoint.
If there would be an accident or some kind of problem at the
Collier Boulevard/Immokalee Road intersection right now, there is no
alternative. You have to go down Golden Gate Boulevard and drive
about five or six miles east to go to Wilson to come back or go down
Vanderbilt Beach Road and go down to Logan or -- it's currently Oaks
soon to be Logan -- to get around this intersection. And that doesn't
really get you around it. That gets you back to where you started
from.
Having this bypass road from a safety standpoint will give
alternative path -- alternative access to police, sheriff, emergency
management vehicles, school buses if they have to reroute. So it gives
the people in the neighborhood a very close to immediate bypass that
will be very important for all the emergency services.
Briefly, I am going to talk about affordable housing. Obviously
not really my bailiwick, but there has been a study that was done by
the FDOT called the Interstate 75 Origin and Destination Technical
Memorandum. It was prepared by Post, Buckley, Shoe and Jernigan
in 2001. And I'm going to quote something from it. This is -- Richard
Davenport touched on this and it's pretty obvious to everybody, but I
want to quote from it.
It says, "The trends in affordable housing in the two counties --
meaning Lee and Collier -- seem to indicate that the situation of
workers living in Lee County and -- the workers living in Lee County
and working in Collier County will be getting worse over the next
several years."
I think that is a fairly obvious statement with what we see on the
Page 273
December 12-13, 2006
roads right now. The data that was presented in this particular study
shows that in excess of 16 percent of the vehicles traveling on 1-75 in
the morning are workers, workers coming from Lehigh Acres, coming
from parts north going into Collier County. That equates to roughly
10,000 vehicles per day on 1-75 alone. And all that traffic goes
through our streets, our roadway system.
If we can put in affordable housing in convenient areas what it
will do is shift that traffic that actually is already on the road to a more
localized situation. And those trips that are now 25, 30 miles long
might be five miles long or eight miles long. And it will greatly
increase their access -- the people using the affordable and gap houses
to their work in the area.
I think it is very important to know that the shortening trips will
actually improve or certainly has the potential to improve the overall
transportation system by putting the people that are working closer to
the jobs that are actually here now. So I think that is important.
The road construction in the area, Rich talked about it briefly. I
think you all know about it, but I will just highlight that. The
widening of Collier Boulevard from Golden Gate to Immokalee Road
was recently awarded. It either just started or is about to be started.
Projection right now of completion in mid-2009. Widening
Immokalee Road from Collier Boulevard to the east well underway.
And projection is spring of '08 for that to be complete. And the
widening of Immokalee Road, 1-75 to Collier Boulevard, has been
awarded and actually has been started. Projection is completion in
spring of '09. So those are the roads in the immediate neighborhood
that will be affected by this project and others.
The last thing I'm going to talk about briefly is the developer
contribution agreement. I know Rich said you will be voting on that
separately. Just to highlight parts that this particular developer is
doing. 1.5 acres for the right-of-way for W oodcrest Road. Important
to note that this is for this bypass system. Accept the stormwater from
Page 274
December 12-13, 2006
W oodcrest; design and permitting of W oodcrest from Immokalee
Road to the southern boundary for Habitat For Humanity, construction
of the same portion of W oodcrest in lieu of the impact fees that Rich
talked about.
So they are actually going to be building this bypass road. They
are going to be designing it, constructing it and it's real important for
their project, along with the rest of the County in this particular area.
If you have any questions, I will be happy to address them.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What is your consensus on -- when you
get this built the impact that it is going to have on Immokalee Road
and 951?
MR. JARVI: Immokalee Road and 951 when this project is built
in accordance -- when those projects are built, it will be well within
standards that are --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What is that standard?
MR. JARVI: You want numbers or level of service?
CHAIRMAN HALAS : Well, the percentage of impact that this
project is going to have with --
MR. JARVI: Give me a moment. I have that information.
This project with the bypass network is projected to have -- the
highest number I see is 2.8 percent.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: 2.8 percent. Does our transportation
department concur with that figure?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida
with transportation planning development review. I just want to look
at the document just to confirm it is the same one we saw before.
Within ten percent error I would say he is correct, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Within ten percent of an error?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ten percent of the three percent. I
would say he is accurate.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: While you're up there, what would be the
traffic impact if we looked at 1,383 homes?
Page 275
December 12-13,2006
MR. CASALANGUIDA: An additional probably 30 percent on
what they have right now. You would be over three percent probably.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Over three percent?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. The reason I ask that question is
that they are giving us 300 units of affordable housing and I was
wondering if they have -- they could go up to a density bonus of
another three units per acre. What would be the possibility of giving
them the added density and then looking at possibly having homes that
would be built in the price range of 120 to $140,000?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, I will let them speak
to that, but I don't think they could fit that on their site.
I don't think you could put that on your site.
MR. MUDD: Nick, it's not your choice to -- it's not your answer.
Come on over here.
MR. DAVENPORT: I have heard of dealer's choice, but I have
never been offered this hand before.
Mr. Chairman, I think the thing is, is that there would have to be
a different product type. We are doing single-family, fee simple
townhouses at this point in time. And all of the units that we're
proposing for affordable and gap would be three-bedroom, two-bath
and you would own the land underneath it. You own the whole
building.
In order to go to a higher density, we would have to change
product types and go to a condominium form of ownership and
probably go to a three-story stack flat condominium similar to what
MGD is proposing for another project, which is also a worthy project.
And we probably also would have to drop in some two-bedroom
units and maybe even some one-bedroom units to achieve that type of
density. There is a demand for it. If it is the Commission's desire that
we do that, we would attempt to revise our plans and see if that is
feasible.
Page 276
December 12-13, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, my concern is that we look at gap
housing -- and let's be realistic. There is not very many people in the
working class that can really afford gap housing, unless you're making
close to $100,000 a year. And I'm not sure how many people are
making that kind of money. When you look at it, the school teacher
that just comes out of college or somebody out of the medical field
that gets out of college, they have huge amount of student loans and
the problem is we don't address that particular group of people. And
that's really the workforce that is coming here to Collier County.
So I am looking for something in the area -- with the added
density, it would seem to me that the developer could come up with a
product that would be in the price range of 120 to $140,000 for these
type of people.
MR. DAVENPORT: It would have to be a condominium
product and much smaller than the three-bedroom, two-bath units we
are discussing. But, yes, we could come up with something that is
affordable by people in the lower income brackets.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And giving you ten units per acre?
MR. DAVENPORT: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We'll take a break for our court reporter
and then you're first.
(A recess was held from 10:29 a.m. until 10:46 a.m.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Commissioners, you have a hot mic.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ladies and gentlemen, we are back in
session. At this time I believe Commissioner Coletta's light is up.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner
Halas. I appreciate the time.
I'm going to ask a series of questions of three different people,
but I will be as quick and as brief as I can be.
First, the petitioner. I have got one thing I would like to be able
to check on and be able to see why the wording is the way it is and
Page 277
December 12-13, 2006
possibly it should be changed. And it's probably just a minor change
.
Issue.
In our executive summary at the very top it says, "For
low-income residents that will include a maximum of ten percent of
the total number of residential units," and from there it goes on. The
word maximum, shouldn't that word be minimum?
In other words, that would be the minimum amount that you
would subscribe to doing in this particular case. It is a play on words,
but I just want to make sure that we are not leaving something that
isn't completed. That's it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If you look at the agreement -- the
companion affordable density housing bonus agreement, it says that
we have to do a minimum often percent in each of those categories.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Fine. It is explained in
the document.
It was just kind of a contradiction in there. I just wanted to bring
it up for the record.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If you don't mind, I would like
to ask some questions of Mr. Giblin.
Mr. Giblin, this particular project that we are looking at, the 100
affordable, the 100 houses for gap and additional 100 for gap, but at
the sellers' discretion of where in gap he sells them for, what does this
mean for the affordable housing effort in Collier County?
MR. GIBLIN: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Cormac Giblin, your housing and grants manager. This is probably I
would say the most comprehensive affordable workforce housing
development that has ever come before you in Collier County.
Previous to this it would have been something along the
magnitude of an Ave Maria where 20 percent of everything in Ave
Maria is affordable or workforce or gap. This project has exceeded
that where 30 percent of everything is considered affordable or
Page 278
December 12-13, 2006
workforce housing. And they have literally spanned the entire
spectrum of affordability, including an in kind donation to Habitat For
Humanity next door who does very low-income units. They are doing
the workforce category units on-site and gap and market rate all on
one site. This is a totally inclusive development.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Inclusionary zoning; is that
what you would call this particular one?
MR. GIBLIN: This is a first step in inclusionary zoning the likes
of which Collier County has not yet seen. And the developer is
commended for that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just received an e-mail a short
while ago from one of my constituents. They brought up a very good
question and I would like to ask you. They are saying with the current
market situation the way it is and the -- some of the house prices
coming off to a point is there still a need for affordable and gap
housing?
MR. GIBLIN : Well, it is probably making reference to for sale
listings in the Naples Daily News or in the Naples MLS listings of
certain number of units listed for under a certain price. For the most
part or the majority of those are what -- we have seen a tremendous
increase in the number of rental apartment conversions to
condominium, bringing a lot of units to the market, probably glutting
the market with these multiple-story apartment-type dwelling units for
sale in what would be called an affordable price. The question comes
down to one of value.
When someone sees a $250,000 recycled apartment on the
market for sale now, it doesn't -- when someone goes to use their
money to buy a home, they don't necessarily want to spend a quarter
million dollars on a recycled apartment. What this developer is
proposing to build is all brand-new construction, all inclusive
amenities of a very high quality and all fee simple ownership with
front yards, backyards, various amenities.
Page 279
December 12-13,2006
Commissioner Coletta and I have recently toured a recently
completed development by this same builder, Bristol Pines, and we
were very, very impressed with the quality of the finishes, how the
affordable units blended into the overall community. It really created
a real sense of place. And it -- and it is not one of those couple
hundred recycled apartments that are now on the MLS.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, Commissioner Halas
brought up the point about the wages that a nurse makes or a teacher
makes and what would be considered affordable for them. What kind
of breakdown is there in the income ranges of affordable and the gap
to be able to cover what ranges?
MR. GIBLIN: The affordable housing the income ranges from
about $40,000 for a single person to about close to $60,000 for a
family of four. And for the gap housing it is about $70,000 for a
single person and up to $100,000 for a family of four.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What assurances do we have
that all this housing with the exception, of course, of the last 100 that
the petitioner graciously added to the mix -- but of the 100 affordable,
100 gap, some number close to that, what assurance do we have that it
is going to cover a broad spectrum of the ranges of affordability and
gap, rather than be at the high end of both?
MR. GIBLIN: Every one of those 200 units that are included in
the density bonus agreement is going to be governed by a recorded
deed restriction on each unit that says that this unit must remain
affordable in accordance with the County's terms for a minimum of 15
years. If for some reason before 15 years expires, there are severe
penalties that kick in and the County is essentially made whole on that
unit no longer being affordable.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You anticipated my second
question. My first question was: Is the range of affordability for
affordable and gap -- in other words, so it just isn't all at the high end
Page 280
December 12-13, 2006
MR. GIBLIN: How do we know that everything is going to
come gap and that there will be --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, not everything gap. Gap
is, what, 80 percent to 150?
MR. GIBLIN: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Affordable is like --
MR. GIBLIN: Less than 80.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How can we be assured that all
the affordable housing won't be 78 to 80 and all the gap housing won't
be 147 to 150?
MR. GIBLIN: Well, it could be. The requirement we have now
is that it be less than 80 percent or less than 150 percent. Technically
everything could come in at 79.99 percent of median or 149.99 of
median.
Typically we don't see that happen. We see -- people's incomes
are not that exact. We see people -- the units will be priced
accordingly to allow people who fall reasonably anywhere within that
range or within that range to be able to afford to buy them.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Because the situation differs by
the amount of children you have. I mean, you could apply for the 80
percent with a lower income if you have a larger family. And so they
would have to be able to meet that criteria or they just come up with a
number for -- I am not too sure how they reach the price point that
they are going to get to.
MR. GIBLIN: The market really reaches the price point. The
developer looks at his product. If these are all going to be
three-bedroom, two-bath, you can assume it is going to be more than
just a single person buying that home. It will be maybe two, three,
four or five household members in that household.
The developer then looks at the maximum income limit of the
people who he is allowed to sell them to, looks at the market, what
current interest rates are, what lending practices are, and determines a
Page 281
December 12-13,2006
reasonable price that he sells them for. Ifhe prices them too high for
those people within those income guidelines to sell them, he won't sell
them. If he prices them in the right area, he will sell them all day
long.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. The flexibility of the
extra 100 gap, what is your understanding exactly what that is all
about?
MR. GIBLIN: That they will be priced in accordance with what
people in the gap income range income can afford. Essentially the
same kind of pricing structures as the one he is required to track, but
that we would not look at the income of those -- of the people buying
them.
Mr. Davenport made a good point in his other project. When we
are forced to impose the income limits on a unit that income limit may
be $30,000 for the household. Well, if they make $30,010, they don't
qualify and we do not have the latitude. Unfortunately, the Federal
government and the state government are the ones who set those
limits. We, as staff, do not have latitude to make an exception for $10
or even $1.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much, Mr.
Giblin.
I would like to ask Mr. Feder some questions regarding
transportation.
MR. FEDER: Yes, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Feder, the developer -- what
they are proposing, what will this do to offset the development -- with
the bypass, the 951/Immokalee bypass, if they contribute that to it, the
size of their development, what they are planning to do, will that be a
fair offset for what the impact is going to be?
MR. FEDER: They will still have some impacts on Immokalee
Road, but they will have done a lot to mitigate that impact. As was
noted, between 5,000 and 7,000 trips at that 951/Immokalee
Page 282
December 12-13, 2006
intersection will be addressed. A big part of that also is because the
Heritage Bay DRI directly to the north off of Immokalee, one of its
major access points is directly across from this W oodcrest access point
and, therefore, may well become a directional item that will encourage
people to come down there either to Treefarm or to Vanderbilt Beach
Road as opposed to heading basically west on Immokalee to 951 or
further on Immokalee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Feder, yesterday this
Commission had the foresight to set aside land at the interchange there
for 951 and Immokalee --
MR. FEDER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- for a futuristic overpass at an
undetermined time. Is it a possibility that if this bypass is put in place
that overpass could happen later, rather than sooner and the need for it
wouldn't be quite as great?
MR. FEDER: Yes. And also that overpass -- and I like the word
futuristic. It is out into the future. We needed some of that
right-of-way to line up 951 to the north consistent with the property
that we did get off of the Heritage Bay DRI. It provides the other side
of that roadway across from 951 north of Immokalee for servicing
particularly Heritage Bay DRI onto 951 and other development in that
area.
But the provision that you took yesterday was to go beyond just
that roadway need to other right-of-way for the prospects of a future
interchange when and if it becomes necessary. And in answer to your
question, yes, that would be further out with this bypass route.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My last question -- and I
appreciate the Commission's indulging me at this time.
Would you explain to us again the phase in and how that would
work, as far as the construction improvements to Immokalee Road and
951?
MR. FEDER: I'm going to have staff direct that before I say
Page 283
December 12-13,2006
something incorrectly. As I understand it, they can only build half of
their units until the road is done. But they have also deferred their
initial work and come on monthly after that with units.
I will ask Nick Casalanguida who worked on this more directly
to give you the specifics before I give you something incorrect here at
the podium.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, we hear you loud and
clear when we discuss phasing with our road projects. So they are not
going to CO a single unit until mid '08. Thereafter, we wanted to tie
in the completion of that road project so they had incentive. They
wouldn't get more than half the units until that bypass road was
complete.
Mid '08 allows for Immokalee Road both east and west of951 to
reach substantial completion. It also allows for Vanderbilt Road to
reach substantial completion. And it allows for Collier Boulevard to
be far along the way before these projects or these trips hit the road.
So we phased that in the contract and took that accordingly into that
negotiation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta, that was one of
the reasons that I thought that we needed to see if we could increase
the density to the maximum because you related to the product
quality .
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may respond to that, too,
when you get through.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And as was brought up, that a lot of
these conversions that are being done by apartments and into condos
are nothing but a recycled product and the quality is not there. So
that's why I have concerns on some of the recycled products.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, as far as increasing the
density, we couldn't do it here. We would have to force them to come
Page 284
December 12-13, 2006
back again. I can assure you at that point in time the irate of the
community would come around. They understand it is going to be of
a mixed use with inclusionary zoning where you are going to have
everything from upper, moderately priced housing right down to
affordable.
If we grow it to the point where it becomes a very dense,
affordable undertaking, I don't know where it is going to go at that
point in time. I, myself, feel very comfortable. The residents in that
area feel quite comfortable with it. There has been next to no
complaints, other than that one I just received this morning. I don't
know where to go from there.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would like to ask Nick and Norm
to come back down just a minute. I would like to clarify some things.
We were talking about a traffic impact of something in the range
of three percent or perhaps less. Does that mean a three percent
impact of the fully expanded six-lane road?
MR. FEDER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That is a pretty big increase.
MR. FEDER: Yeah. It's a little under three percent, but it is of
the six-lane roadway, that is correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If you were talking about the
current roadway, it would be substantially greater?
MR. FEDER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you're making the assumption
that Immokalee Road, both east and west of Collier Boulevard, will be
completed before the first CO is going to be granted; is that true?
MR. FEDER: Yes. And right now you have -- of course, AP AC
has been under construction for sometime from 951 up to 43rd. They
are slated spring of'08. There has been some discussion that they are
pursuing faster, but I would like to see the crews working a little bit
Page 285
December 12-13, 2006
harder on both that and Vanderbilt. But they do have contractually
and the claim they are going to come earlier than the spring of '08 on
that.
We have Astaldi under the design build, which is from 951 over
to 1-75. Their first part of the project has been on this end at the 951
end. Right now they have been moving very, very rapidly . We are
comfortable that fairly soon they will have some of the work over to
Logan. And Logan is under construction, as well, and will be opened
fairly soon. That connection between Vanderbilt and Immokalee.
The one that probably will be further out will be 951. Better
Roads has that project. It only started up a little while ago. About a
two and a half year project. So it will be about mid 2009 for
completion. They have made good progress so far, but I will tell you
that I would assume that is going to be mid 2009.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And what will be the expected date
of the first COs in this Summit Lakes or Waterways project?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: June 2008, sir. Thirty a month at that
pace.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: June 2008. But 951 will not be
completed --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- until 2009? There will be a year.
You're making the assumption that the improvement of
W oodcrest to Treefarm will relieve that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That and Logan. But the timing of the
Treefarm/Woodcrest project is going through design and permitting.
We talked with design engineers and feel we can design and permit
that within 12 months. And we have to produce a buildable project or
permitted project with the developer by spring of '08. I think that
connection could be done in six to twelve months. At least to Massey.
Pretty quick as a two-lane road.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So the Woodcrest and Treefarm
December 12-13, 2006
connection would be prior to any COs?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. Only half of the COs is tied to
that project so there was an incentive for them to move quickly.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, there is a segment of
Treefarm Road that I understand is not as wide as the remainder.
What are we doing with respect to that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. The first half mile of
Treefarm proceeding east from Collier Boulevard is in our design
construction project right now as a two-lane collector. The second
segment to the east we still have remaining right-of-way. The County
is committed to picking up that right-of-way by April of 2008.
We are going to get it earlier than that. That is our goal. And
we'll have to provide that right-of-way for them to proceed with
construction.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And there are going to be traffic
lights at W oodcrest and Immokalee and Treefarm and Collier
Boulevard?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Those would meet design warrants,
sir. They meet our one mile spacing, as well, too.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, I notice in our executive
summary a statement that one of the Planning Commissioners raised
some questions about the petitioner's lack of any confirmation on the
provision of water and sewer service for this project. Can you
elaborate a little bit on that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would let them --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You can't. We'll get the right
person to that can.
MR. ANDERSON: Roy Anderson, engineering utilities director.
Regarding water and sewer for this project, there is adequate
infrastructure capacity in the area. The developers are engaged -- the
six developers in this whole area have engaged -- with our guidance
have engaged in an engineering study to define the privately
Page 287
December 12-13, 2006
constructed infrastructure requirements in the area. And that is on
track. So when that system is done that will be conveyed over to us.
And there will not be any COs issued until the infrastructure --
the interior infrastructure, if you will, is in place.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, we are not going to wind up
with a hodgepodge of three or four water/sewer plants in this area, are
we?
MR. ANDERSON: No. This is a coordinated study to have a
logical water and sewer extension in the area.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're going to have a central
waste management facility there, too; solid waste management facility
there?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this is kind of --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It is just a joke. It is a joke.
MR. ANDERSON: This whole area is within our master
planning and water/sewer district. It was fully contemplated in the
master plan that you approved last June of '06.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, we need to move on
to density issues and I will need Cormac back up here.
I just want to make sure that we don't have any misunderstanding
concerning the 100 gap priced units. I am going to make a statement
and I want you to tell me if I'm right or wrong.
That is largely irrelevant because it doesn't stay gap priced once
it is sold to the first person. It can be turned over, sold at a much
higher rate. There is no controls whatsoever. It does not stay in the
gap inventory of affordable housing for Collier County.
Is that a true statement?
MR. GIBLIN: That is correct, other than the statement that Mr.
Davenport put on the record that he would put in an anti-flipping
clause in the first contracts.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Did that clause include only those
100 units or does that clause apply to all units?
Page 288
December 12-13, 2006
MR. GIBLIN: Most developments encumber their entire project
with an anti-flipping clause.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what I thought. He doesn't
want people competing with him in the sale of his new product. I
understand that.
So I would presume it would include all units in his property and
not just those 100 units. That's his decision, not ours.
I just wanted to clarify that that extra 100 units that are gap
priced is irrelevant to our affordable housing inventory in Collier
County for future planning.
MR. GIBLIN: They would not be units that we could put on any
list of certified, deed-restricted affordable or gap units, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So that brings us to the
point where there are really 200 affordable housing units being
provided in this particular project. The base density for this project is
554 units. They are asking for 968 units, which is a bonus of 414
units to provide 200 affordable housing units.
And while I could -- I think I could argue that the cost to provide
100 workforce housing units, the lower-income categories, should
have a higher density bonus than the gap units, the fact that the
developer is going to develop 100 additional gap priced units
voluntarily demonstrates that the developer can do that profitably
without losing money.
My question then would be: Why does the developer get an
additional bonus to develop the 100 workforce units that will be
included in our inventory? I'm sorry. The gap price units to justify a
density.
MR. GIBLIN: Sure. Commissioners--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can you talk with us about that?
MR. GIBLIN : Yes, sir. This goes back to our affordable
housing density bonus chart that is in the LDC.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand.
Page 289
December 12-13, 2006
MR. GIBLIN: This Commission had some input into it earlier
this year when the gap housing category was added. We -- at your
instruction, we engaged Fishkind and Associates to develop an
economic model to determine appropriate densities for appropriate
incomes and house prices and land costs. And that was a very
comprehensive model.
The output of that model is the density chart that we now have in
the LDC and of which this developer is the first one to make it through
the system using the new chart. The chart does provide a lesser
density bonus for gap units and a greater density units for the
lower-income units that --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You see, that's where I'm going
with that. Our earlier discussion -- and you answered some questions
about how do you determine if a unit is going to be priced at 79.99
percent of the lower-income workforce housing and how do you
control that. I'm wondering what data we used to allocate the density
bonuses for each of those two categories of gap -- or categories of
affordable housing.
MR. GIBLIN: Sure. The data was a complete development
model using then current land prices, infrastructure prices,
construction prices and then counterbalancing that with the maximum
incomes of the various categories and what those people could
actually afford. There was a delta there between what it cost to
produce and what the people can afford to buy.
So based on that shortage, extra densities were added to make the
developer whole or to make him reasonable profit.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand. That's exactly what
you should do. What I'm asking is: How much density bonuses were
added for each of those two categories of affordable housing?
MR. MUDD: Do you want me to put this thing up?
MR. GIBLIN: Sure.
I'm afraid I don't follow the question. Are you asking --
Page 290
December 12-13, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There is 100 gap housing units.
According to this table, we would have allocated one additional bonus
unit.
MR. GIBLIN: I understand. One additional bonus unit for ten
percent gap housing and an additional two density bonus units for ten
percent workforce housing, which is what this development includes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, if that were the case, we
added 300 bonus units for affordable housing; is that correct?
MR. GIBLIN: No, sir. We added three units per acre for
affordable housing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That is right.
MR. GIBLIN: Which is 414 units.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That is right. But those weren't
414 bonus units because they include the 200 --
MR. GIBLIN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- affordable housing units.
So there was really 214 bonus units awarded in addition to the
200 affordable housing units that were agreed to be built?
MR. GIBLIN: Correct. And that gets us very close to that
one- for-one relationship that Commissioner Fiala alluded to.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The question I have for you is:
Recognizing that the developer is building gap priced units of his own
volition means he's not doing it at a loss, he is going to make some
money off of it. It would say to me that there is no reason then to give
a bonus unit for the gap affordable housing products that are going to
be included in our inventory. And perhaps there isn't a bonus unit
there. That's what I'm trying to get determined.
Was there two bonus units essentially or more given for the
workforce, lower category housing and no bonus units given to the
gap housing or is it two-to-one or some fraction thereof?
MR. GIBLIN: I'm not quite sure you can make that assumption
that the gap units are profitable and thus don't deserve a density bonus.
Page 291
December 12-13,2006
There are other ways that the developer can voluntarily include more
gap units while still maintaining his bottom line. He could increase
the price of all the other market rate units and essentially buy down --
keep everything even according to the bottom line so that not be a
direct correlation in terms of that progression of thinking.
The gap bonus line on the chart here, all of those things of
development costs, housing prices and incomes were all taken into
account by the Fishkind study. We'll be happy to take any direction.
And at your -- I believe at your -- Commissioner Coyle's
recommendation, this chart was adopted with the caveat that these are
maximum bonuses. And it may be up to each applicant to make their
case on why they feel they deserve the maximum bonus.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: If my memory serves me correct, when
we were discussing this and we realized we had a problem with the
gap housing area because the standard price or average price of homes
here in Collier County was $500,000 -- and I think that's what we
were trying to do is stimulate interest to get housing down around
250,000, $300,000. And I think that's what stimulated our interest
here on the Board because we realized that the average price of homes
was $500,000. So we were trying to get some kind of a stimulus to
address that concern.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I think the object of that in
this chart was to make sure that we didn't give away the store in order
to stimulate that. I mean, there were times when we were giving away
pretty high densities that in my estimation were not justified for what
we were getting in terms of affordable housing. But I think you have
answered my question.
And with respect to higher densities, I would say that if there is
any thought of increasing the density and developing a different
product, you're going to have to start back at the beginning and go
through the whole process all over again. You couldn't do that here
Page 292
December 12-13, 2006
and you would have to go back through the CCPC and work with staff
and everything else. It would be a whole redesign of another product.
But, nevertheless, I understand what is being requested. Thank
you very much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala. You waited so
long.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. And patiently, I might
add.
First of all, I think this is a great project. It seems to answer
everything we have all been looking for. And I think it sets a fine
example for what we would like to do in the future.
But the next thing -- Commissioner Coyle brought up something
just at the tail end of what he had said. And I would like to ask the
County Attorney: If extra density was added to this project, would it
have to then go back to -- because it wasn't advertised that way or
anything. Would it have to go back to public meetings and so forth?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, it would. And that was just
alluded to. It would have to go back to the CCPC. That wasn't
considered at the neighborhood information meeting or anything like
that. And it probably would involve some retooling of the master plan
and everything else on the project.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The question I have: Why doesn't the
process have to take place if we decrease the density on projects?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Because you have advertised for a
maximum number and anything under that would have lesser impacts.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Got you. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was a good question, too.
My second thing was -- and this is just by way of explanation.
Awhile back when we first were thinking about the gap housing, we
were -- I was. I can't say for everybody else. Just me. I was trying to
put a price on the houses, rather than a percentage. I felt if all the
houses were built between 180,000 and 250 or even 275 that would
Page 293
December 12-13, 2006
answer the need.
And I was -- even though I kept pushing for it, it never went
through that way. They said you needed to figure it on a percentage
so it drove the prices up a lot higher, which I wasn't happy about.
That is by way of explanation of how that gap stuff worked out.
And the next thing I wanted to know was: Does this pricing or
the percentage -- Cormac, does that percentage of pricing for these
different levels take into consideration insurances, taxes and
maintenance fees?
MR. GIBLIN: Yes, ma'am. That's a complete monthly payment.
It must include principal, taxes, insurance and homeowners'
association fees.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great.
MR. GIBLIN: The entire cost of ownership.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great. I have heard sometimes
where they couldn't pay the maintenance fees so they couldn't buy
them. That is just wonderful.
Will we be opening the new road? The only thing I was shocked
about was the location of all of these units. 1,000 units right there on
Immokalee and 951. I really balked at that.
When it was explained to me and I did a lot of talking with other
people about it that the road would then be built to accommodate not
only the traffic from there, but also from Heritage Bay that was a
relief, as far as I was concerned.
Will that road be in place enough as they are beginning to open
their 30 units per month where it won't impact 951 and Immokalee
Road?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can't guarantee that that road will be
in place before they start to CO those units. Ideally our goal is to have
a permittable project by January 1, '08. I would guess based on the
length of the road and what kind of road it is you could have
something connected within six to ten months.
Page 294
December 12-13,2006
So I would think if we start January 1, '08 -- and it is a guess
based on permitting -- then by the fall of '08 as they start to CO those
30 units they will be connected all the way down to Massey through
that intersection into Treefarm. But we restricted that -- and much to
their chagrin. They did not want to do it.
It was a negotiating tool that we used. They would get no COs
until mid '08 to allow for a lot of those roads to be substantially
completed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And they are supplying their own
fill so that should make it a lot easier; is that correct?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. Mostly.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Other than the stone that was
mentioned earlier.
And the tiered pricing, will you have on the -- three different ten
percents, so forth?
Will that be like a tiered pricing so at the -- at the workforce
housing maybe it would start at -- I don't know. Whatever it is. 150
and go up to 180 or would it be tiered in like the EDC suggested?
I realize you already have tiering in here, which I'm excited
about, but I was just wondering how that would really work.
MR. GIBLIN: Commissioners, our agreement does not specify
any tiering of pricing within each category. It would be up to the
developer to come up with a product and price it accordingly so that it
would be affordable to people within the category. Whether it's that --
like we said 79.99 percent of the category or some at around 70
percent, some at 75, some at 79, that would be up to the developer.
Normally when a project includes different unit types, different
number of bedrooms that tiering of pricing automatically works out.
But when this development uses all one product type and all one
number of bedroom type, that might not be as easy.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And I have to just add that --
what a great location because as we are expanding east and businesses
Page 295
December 12-13, 2006
are going to be cropping up and so forth. I'm just excited that this will
be able to work in with that atmosphere so it will take some of the
drive out of the commuting to and from work. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, this project has a little bit
of everything of what we demanded. It has inclusionary zoning. It
has a vehicle to -- that the developer pay into affordable housing
ordinance that we haven't even created yet. And it has an agreement
to help us resolve some of the issues with the roads by providing
somewhat of a grid system in there at a lesser of a cost than we can
build it. Approximately a million and a half.
Richard Davenport has been providing a type of housing for the
needed public out here. I don't think he has ever built a million-dollar
home in our community. It has everything for everybody and
addresses all our concerns.
I am just going to make a motion to approve so we can get on.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I will second that motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have got some public speakers, I
believe, also.
MS. FILSON : Yes, ma' am. Yes, sir.
MR. MUDD: Sir, can I just get Kay to come up and put the
County position on the record.
MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, my name is
Kay Deselem. I am a principal planner with the zoning department of
the community development division. And I just wanted to make sure
that you understand that the executive summary and all the backup
information is a part of the record.
Staff is recommending approval of the petition. And it is actually
a three-part petition that will require three votes; one for the zoning,
one for the affordable housing agreement, and one for the bonus
density for the DCA.
We will have to make some modifications to the PUD document
Page 296
December 12-13,2006
based on commitments made today. I don't know exactly what the
wording will be, but I did hear Richard Davenport make some
commitments about the flipping. And since that is a commitment
made here as part of the zoning, we can include something in the
zoning in the PUD document that will tie the County to that
requirement.
And they also talked about the fill trucks and when those would
be on the road and how that would work to lessen the impact of the fill
trucks on the road. So we will have to add something to the PUD
document. I don't know exactly what the language will be, but we will
address that in the PUD document.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who is going to enforce that?
Is the planning department going to enforce that?
MS. DESELEM: If it becomes part of the PUD document, ifit
becomes a zoning issue, code enforcement would enforce it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Just something more that
they need to do.
MS. DESELEM: That's correct, sir.
I would be happy to address any questions that you have.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There are eight stipulations by the
Collier County Planning Commission. And I would ask if the motion
includes those eight stipulations.
And before I get an answer to that, let me draw attention to the
staffs comment that the petitioner has notified staff -- or the agent has
notified that the petitioner does not agree with the affordable housing
contributions for each market rate unit platted.
We need clarification on that, I would guess, before we have a
vote on this motion.
MS. DESELEM: As far as the eight stipulations, with the
exception of the last one, which I know the County Attorney's Office
has been working with the petitioner's agent to work through, the other
Page 297
December 12-13, 2006
ones have been incorporated in the PUD document as is indicated in
the executive summary.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But the question would be: If the
motion includes those eight stipulations and also if stipulation number
eight, which addresses the contribution to the affordable housing fund
for each market rate unit platted -- if that is going to be agreed to by
the petitioner?
MS. DESELEM: I will turn to the Assistant County Attorney
Marjorie Student. She informed me that they are working on some
other language that will address this.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. Mr. Pettit and I have been
working on this. And it was thought that we would probably be able
to do this as long as there was a tracking mechanism and the developer
would open their books to make sure that we could track those
expenditures. And Mike may wish to --
MR. PETTIT: Excuse me. Let me add, Commissioners. For the
record, Mike Pettit.
When this got brought to my attention, my thought was -- and
Mr. Weigel and I worked on this together also.
Our thought is that the issue here is not a contribution to an
entity, which would simply be between the developer and the entity.
The issue here is the developer is looking to have this contribution, if
you will, credited against some potential future fee that he would -- it
would otherwise owe to the County.
It is my belief that you can determine that there would be a
public benefit or a public interest in allowing this procedure, but you
need to have a tracking mechanism. Let me outline some of the
thoughts I had.
I think either an independent auditor or the Clerk would need to
advise the Board and the staff that the three -- approximately $365,000
contribution -- that's what it is estimated at -- had, in fact, occurred.
That that is what its value was and that Habitat For Humanity was
Page 298
December 12-13,2006
benefiting in the provision of affordable housing as a result of that
contribution.
If you have got all of those things, I can see a way to make a
credit against an opposed fee. Absent those things, how would we
know that there should be given a credit against the fee?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, they are just trying to make
sure they don't get hit twice.
MR. PETTIT: I understand.
MR. GIBLIN: Just to clarify, the developer does not -- I believe
does not have a problem contributing the $1,000 per unit to the
County and have that credited against a future housing fee. The issue
here is whether that $365,000 in kind donation to Habitat may also
qualify as a credit against a future County fee.
And the County Attorney's Office has opined that perhaps with
appropriate tracking and auditing of that $365,000 in kind monies that
it mayor -- may be acceptable.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm a little confused here. It seems
to me to be real simple. You pay $365,000. It goes into a fund. And
then if we assess some future fee against you, we subtract $365,000
from it.
What is the problem?
MR. GIBLIN: They are not paying $365,000 to a fund. They
are building a road essentially valued at about $365,000 for the benefit
of Habitat For Humanity. They would like the value of that road to
credit against a future County affordable housing fee.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But this says the developer shall
contribute $1,000 for each market rate unit platted.
MR. GIBLIN: That is one issue. Then the second issue is that
they would also like the value of the road to credit against a future fee.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And utilities.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand. That gets a bit more
complicated.
Page 299
December 12-13, 2006
MR. PETTIT: Commissioner, what we saw -- call it an in kind
contribution. But if you're going to give somebody a credit against a
fee, we would have to have some way to say that there was a
dollar-to-dollar relationship.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Match-to-match relationship.
MR. PETTIT: I don't think we want to just have it that we are
going to give it to you and drop it there. I think we would have to have
some sort of auditing mechanism.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I don't have a problem
including that into my motion.
Does the Clerk of Court have any problem with monitoring the
infrastructure put in?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: At the request of the
Commission.
MS. KINZEL: I think Commissioner -- Crystal Kinzel, for the
record.
These are some of the issues in tracking and auditing that have
arisen in prior transactions that we are concerned about. I would work
with legal staff and we could ferret out this. But we have not looked
into this particular -- we would have to look at the construction costs
and make sure those construction costs, in fact, came up to a $365,000
value.
Once that value is established, then whatever ends up in the
linkage fee agreement we would have to know if that was a legal --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It can be done though, right?
MR. PETTIT: It can be done and this Board could direct either
an independent audit or the Clerk to do it. I don't think this is like
anything that exists that has been before this Board before. Weare
asking for a credit against a fee that may be imposed. I think that is
different than a donation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's a direct benefit to affordable
housing, instead of sitting in a fund collected by government. It is
Page 300
December 12-13, 2006
actually being utilized.
Commissioner Coyle, that is staff -- or the Planning
Commission's stipulations are in my motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'm fine.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta and then we'll get
the public speakers.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, that
does include working with either the Clerk or an independent auditor
to be able to find a mechanism to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And a part of my motion is to
direct the County Attorney's Office to work with the Clerk of Court to
see that there are checks and balances on this contribution to Habitat
F or Humanity. I should say the work performed for Habitat For
Humanity.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: For reimbursement, correct?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. For the reimbursement
of any future exactions of government.
MR. PETTIT: It really would be to determine whether when
they begin paying the $1,000 a unit they have a $365,000 credit on the
books.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's it. Establish that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second agrees.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Start our public speakers, please.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we have four public speakers.
Some of them are left over from yesterday, so I'm not sure if they are
here.
Michelle Harrison. Shannon Chesser. Susan Winchell. She'll be
followed by Sam Durso.
MS. WINCHELL: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and fellow
Commissioners. My name is Susan Winchell. I'm an economic
diversification manager with the economic development council of
Collier County. And today I speak on behalf of the organization.
Page 301
December 12-13, 2006
The EDC fully supports the development of affordable housing
for our community. The increasing deficiency of workforce housing
is real, complex and a threat to maintaining our community's vitality.
Access to housing has a great influence on the stability of the labor
force and is essential for our sustainable setting in which people can
live, work and play.
Both the business and the public service sectors have a vested
interest in the well-being of our community. If the elements of this
project include providing our workforce with housing options and
complies with the affordable housing program requirements, the EDC
encourages you to support this rezone request accordingly. Thank
you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Sam Durso.
MR. DURSO: Good morning, Commissioners. It has been a
long time since I have been up here. We've missed it.
I'm Sam Durso. I'm the president of Habitat For Humanity of
Collier County. I speak here as an expert on affordable housing.
Habitat For Humanity will benefit from this project. We have an
II-acre parcel on W oodcrest Road, eight-tenths of a mile from
Immokalee Road.
We will be coming before you in February for a rezone. We plan
to build 66 units -- townhouses there. Those will be for people less
than 60 percent of median income.
So if you add our 66 into what they're doing, you have got the
entire spectrum covered. They are going to provide us with water,
sewer and drainage. And, you know, we think it is a tremendous
product and we strongly support it and hopefully you will vote for it.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We will close the public speaking forum.
We have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Henning and a
Page 302
December 12-13, 2006
second by Commissioner Coletta. Is there any further discussion?
MS. DESELEM: If I may, please. Can I verify which motion?
You do need three motions.
Is that for the rezoning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It is for the rezoning and I will
make a motion on the affordable housing agreement and so on and so
forth.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any further discussion?
County Attorney, have we got everything covered here?
MR. WEIGEL: We think you do.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: At this time I will call the motion. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
(Chorus of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oppose by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion
we approve the affordable housing agreement attached to this zoning
action.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Coletta in the
affordable housing agreement. Is there any further discussion?
Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
(Chorus of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oppose by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries.
Item #10E
Page 303
December 12-13, 2006
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A DEVELOPER
CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT (DCA) BETWEEN THE
DEVELOPER OF SUMMIT LAKES RPUD, WATERWAYS
JOINT VENTURES V (DEVELOPER) AND COLLIER COUNTY
(COUNTY) TO CONSTRUCT THE TREE FARM, WOODCREST
AND MASSEY AL TERNA TIVE ROADWAY PROJECT.
(COMPANION TO ITEM 8E PETITION PUDZ-2003-AR-4988) -
APPROVED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion
to approve the developer contribution that goes along with this zoning
action.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. That is item 10-E in your packet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 10-E.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Fiala. Any
further discussion?
Not hearing anything, I will call the question on this. All those in
favor, signify by saying aye.
(Chorus of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oppose by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion carries.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you, Mr. Davenport.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you very much.
Item #8H
RESOLUTION OF DENIAL 2006-326: PETITION A VROW-2006-
AR-9918, WHICH SEEKS TO VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND
THE PUBLICS INTEREST IN GULF SHORE COURT AND A
PORTION OF CENTER STREET, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT
Page 304
December 12-13,2006
OF V ANDERBIL T BEACH CENTER, AS RECORDED AT PLAT
BOOK 3, PAGE 16, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners that brings us to the next item,
which is 8-H. It's a recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners, conditionally approves A VROW -2006-AR-9918,
which seeks to vacate the County and the public's interest in Gulf
Shore Court and a portion of Center Street, according to the plat of the
Vanderbilt Beach Center as recorded at Plat Book 3, Page 16, public
records of Collier County, Florida and is more specifically described
in Exhibit A. And I believe --
MS. FILSON: And, Mr. Chairman, if I may, this item requires
ex parte and sworn in. It wasn't put on the index, but I believe you
have your ex parte.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those that are going to be talking on
the subject, would you please rise and raise your right hand to be
sworn in by the court reporter.
(All participants were sworn in by the court reporter.)
CHAIRMAN HALAS: At this time I will start off with
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I did speak to the petitioner and
his hired hands. Let's see who else I talked to.
I think that was it. I did talk to staff.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I spoke with the petitioner and
his representatives, as well as the staff members. And, I believe, I
even spoke to a County Attorney about this.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I met with the petitioner and
talked with staff on this. And I believe that's all of my ex parte, I
hope.
Commissioner Coletta.
Page 305
December 12-13,2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I also met with the
petitioner and talked with staff.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have met with the petitioner and I
have discussed it with staff.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I believe we are ready to move
forward.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It is my turn. Good morning. For the
record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. With me today
also to answer any questions are Dwight Nadeau and Jamie Anderson
with RWA.
This petition actually goes back to April 26, 2005 when there was
a lease agreement entered into between the property owner and Collier
County for the County to use a portion of the property owner's
property for parking as they were constructing the parking garage and
doing some beach renourishment. Exhibit A to the lease agreement,
which is in your packet -- and I understand it's difficult to read.
But Exhibit A to the lease showed a gray crosshatched area that
identified that two roads were going to be vacated -- Center Street and
Gulf Shore Court -- for the petitioner's redevelopment project in the
area to go forward.
Originally the County offered my client $50,000 as a lease
payment for the land and our client said, "No. We have helped you out
in the past with parking for beach renourishment projects. We'll work
with you again on this -- on the beach renourishment issues and
constructing your project, but we'll work together towards vacating
Center Street and Gulf Shore Court."
And also in your packet you will see a letter that was executed by
three of your division administrators about a month before the lease
was entered into basically agreeing that they would work with us in
good faith to vacate Center Street.
We submitted an application -- we submitted a couple of
Page 306
December 12-13,2006
applications. We submitted an SDP on our project, as well as the
parking project for Collier County. And the SDP could not be
approved obviously until the vacation occurred. The vacation of
Center Street and Gulf Shore Court.
In the meantime, the County did use our property as the lease
provided. They used it for parking and used it for beach
renourishment. I don't think there is any question about that. Even
though the executive summary doesn't say that you, in fact, did use the
property .
There was a mention that we had not stabilized the property, but
you did use it anyway. Under the lease you had two options;
terminate the lease or use the property. And you chose to use the
property even though the stabilization didn't occur. Because the
stabilization was related to the SDP that was being held up because
the vacation had not occurred yet.
One of your requirements on a vacation application is you're to
get letters of no objection from property owners. Well, one of the
property owners refused to provide a letter of no objection. So this
could not be vacated administratively. It had to come to you all to get
the vacation of the street done.
In order to try to do this vacation in the simplest or easiest
manner, there was a modification to the vacation petition. And instead
of vacating the entire Center Street, we are going to vacate a portion
of Center Street and all of Gulf Shore Court.
And on the visualizer what you see is -- the grayish area is the
portion of Center Street that will remain. And it's in front of the
property owner who did not want to provide a letter of no objection.
So that portion of Center Street will stay.
A private road -- meaning private for purposes of maintenance --
will be constructed by our client. It will be open to the public to use,
but the access way, which is in yellow, will be constructed by our
client and the public will be available to use that access way.
Page 307
December 12-13, 2006
Instead of Gulf Shore Court where it currently lines up -- you can
see it on the visualizer. That portion of Gulf Shore Court will go
away . We will shift access to the east in the yellow. So it will now
line up with the County's parking garage. So essentially the access
that is there today will be there tomorrow after -- if the vacation of the
roadways are approved.
A couple of public benefits that go along with this if it's approved
is, one, we will be obligated -- the roads there don't have the best
drainage. We will be resolving some drainage issues for Southbay
and roads in that area, including Center Street. That is part of this
project. That's Mr. Vukobratovich's project and his SDP.
We will be building sidewalk improvements as mentioned in
your executive summary. We will be providing two parking spaces to
the County for its beach renourishment program. And now the access
will be maintained at the developer's expense and no longer
maintained at the County's expense.
We have agreed -- we will agree to all of the stipulations in the
executive summary, except for one. And that is the requirement that
the developer provide indemnification to the County for the County
rightfully approving the vacation of the street.
There is a couple of reasons we don't think that is appropriate or
fair to our client. First of all, we don't think that is keeping with -- in
the spirit of the letter of the County working with us and using its best
efforts to vacate the street.
Second, I'm not aware of any other road vacation that has
occurred where you require of the petitioner to provide an
indemnification.
And, three, and I think most importantly, by requiring the
indemnification you're almost saying to somebody, "We think what
we are doing is wrong. We are not sure what we are doing is right,
therefore, Mr. Developer you better indemnify us against that."
And for those reasons we don't think you should set that
Page 308
December 12-13,2006
precedent. It is either appropriate to do it -- and obviously if there is
any litigation that arises, we are going to join in and help defend the
County because we have an interest in that. We are going to want to
be there with the County protecting the County from any challenges
on this. (Commissioner Coletta left the Boardroom.)
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So with that, we are requesting that the
Commission approve the petition to vacate a portion of Center Street
and all of Gulf Shore Court with the stipulations set forth in the
executive summary, except for the indemnification provision.
And with that, I am available and Dwight and Jamie are available
to answer any questions about the petitioner request.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a question and I have a concern.
If we go through this process and -- today you're all nice about saying,
"Well, we are going to build a new road and it is going to be public
access." What happens in four or five years from now you come in
here and want us to -- you want to close that road off like Fox Fire? I
have a problem.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: First of all, the vacation is conditioned
upon our maintaining that public access.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I realize that. But you still have
ownership of this new road and you could -- you or whoever owns that
particular property down the road can come back to us and say,
"Guess what. It is our private road. We are closing it off." And there
goes the public benefit.
(Commissioner Coletta returned to the Boardroom.)
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I'm assuming that staff would point
that out and say the original vacation was conditioned upon --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I don't believe it is.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It is. It is a stipulation.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Attorney.
MR. KLATZKOW: One of the conditions that the County
Attorney's Office is assisting on is that we get easements that will be
Page 309
December 12-13, 2006
recorded that will be in perpetuity. Those roads that we are vacating
we will be getting easements in perpetuity for public access through so
that everything there that is in yellow -- it is a hybrid.
It will be a privately owned road, privately maintained, but the
public will have a right-of-way through that road in perpetuity. And
this deal is conditioned upon our getting those easements in recordable
form.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Now, what happens if we get -- change a
Commission over the years and this developer comes back and says, "I
would like to have this closed off," so we don't end up with another
Fox Fire.
This won't happen?
MR. KLATZKOW: I cannot tell you what another Commission
is going to do, sir. You could do that now with various easements. In
fact, in essence, you are doing this right now by this request. We have
public roads here and you're being asked to vacate them.
Years from now another Commission may vacate this. That is the
prerogative of the County Commission.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Don't move yet, Jeff.
The indemnification, this particularly concerns me a little bit. In
other words, the petitioner is stating the fact that we don't need to be --
to be removed from the possibility of lawsuits. Is what it is?
Please explain what he is asking for.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I see the owner of the restaurant and
his attorney in the room. I am sure they will want to speak to this.
Our policy on vacating roads is that the applicant come forward with
letters of no objection from everybody. This way we know that the
community wants this.
They didn't do that here. When Rich says, "Nobody has ever
asked us before," that's because nobody has ever come before without
granting the letters of no objection. That's why you have never seen
Page 310
December 12-13, 2006
this process before. It is always done on an administrative level.
I am concerned when I have somebody saying, "I am objecting to
this," that the County is going to get sued. Now, whether or not they
have a viable claim, I don't know. Frankly, I don't care.
The primary beneficiary of this is going to be the developer. He
is the one who is going to be able to develop the property in the
manner that he deems most profitable. Since he is the one who is
getting the primary benefit of this, he ought to pay all the downside, as
well.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Why don't we hear the public speakers at
this time.
How many do we have?
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have two speakers. The first one
is Grace Bolen. She'll be followed by Ted French.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. BOLEN: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Grace Bolen.
I'm representing the owners of Daruma's Japanese Steakhouse, which
is located, as you see, adjacent to the public right-of-way petitioned to
be closed. Because my parents do not speak English well, I will be
speaking on their behalf.
My parents migrated to Naples over 26 years ago. And as small
business owners, they definitely can appreciate the amazing economic
growth within Collier County. Of course, they are not opposed to a
new development and community growth. However, they are
opposed to closing of these two public right-of-ways, especially when
there are no public benefits to be gained. And they, as property
owners, only to give up their property rights.
My family purchased the Daruma property in 1980 when this
property was far from the center of town. They had faith that the
beauty and charm of Vanderbilt Beach would attract people to come.
And they were dedicated and invested much of their money to making
it work. After many years of perseverance, Daruma's has become an
Page 311
December 12-13, 2006
entertainment attraction to many locals and vacationers alike. And
during the last 17 years they have provided many jobs to the
community and proven their commitment to the neighborhood.
They knew at the time of purchase they did not have frontage on
Vanderbilt Beach Road. But with access to their restaurant from both
Gulf Shore Court and Commerce Street, they were certain that the
property would be viable for their business. Therefore, they urge the
Commissioners to reject the closing of these two roads, which, if
approved, will most likely result in their loss of business. And also
they plead the Commissioners to preserve their right as property
owners and maintain the infrastructure around their restaurant as it is.
Furthermore, they fear the closing of these two roads will result
in some public detriment. Limiting access to the restaurant from Gulf
Shore Court would definitely force their customers, employees and
most importantly daily semi and commercial delivery trucks to use the
Commerce Street by directing more traffic towards Commerce Street
and Vanderbilt Beach Road intersection. This would definitely have a
negative impact on the residents of Commerce Street and traffic safety
to the public.
It is obvious that closing these two public roads will only benefit
the developer. We suspect keeping these two public roads will
interfere with what is probably their most profitable business plan.
However, with all the professional, expert and financial resources, we
are confident that the petitioner will be able to come up with a plan to
best use the land that they own without imposing on adjacent owners
and residents to sacrifice their rights and enjoyment of their property
and expecting them to bear the burden for the developer's financial
gain. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Ted French.
MR. FRENCH: Good morning. My name is Ted French. I'm an
attorney from Sarasota and I represent the Chang family and Daruma
Page 312
December 12-13, 2006
Restaurant.
And I would like to speak to the petitioner's first remark with
regard to the parking garage. And, evidently, it didn't work out well.
And in your outline it says, quite frankly, that County's staff position
is that the owner did not provide the stabilized parking area promised
in the agreement. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame
on me.
Secondly, I would like to take us back to July 7th. I believe you
have a letter in your packet to Dwight Nadeau from Mr. Klatzkow that
says fairly -- essentially that a requirement for this to take place is a
letter of no objection from each of the adjacent property owners and
specifically prohibits a half or partial street, except where it is
essential to the reasonable development of the property. Those two
conditions. He tells him July 7th, "You can't go forward without
them. "
As we sit here today, those two requirements have not been met.
On October 1 Oth this was supposed to come before a hearing on this
Commission. And I drove down here from Sarasota, which yesterday
was a five-hour drive, I might add, from Sarasota to here thanks to our
interstate system.
And Mr. Klatzkow again in his executive summary
recommended that you not pass this due to Section 6.06.01 of the
development code which specifically prohibits a half or partial street.
And for the fact that it failed to include the letter of no objection and it
seeks a vacation of a half street, he said, "Don't pass it."
He then goes on, if you will look at your October 1 Oth summary
to say, "I want to give you a synopsis of the Attorney General's
opinion that says a right of access to one's own property is a property
right. Hence, an abutting fee owner may be entitled to compensation
from a public body when it closes or vacates a public street for the
consequent loss of such access on the theory that a property right has
been taken without compensation."
Page 313
December 12-13, 2006
That's what -- that's what they are asking you to do here today. I
was then amazed. Because when they withdrew the petition, I
thought, "Well, that's it. I'm not going to be back here."
Well, three days ago, I believe, December 6th or so, I get Mr.
Klatzkow's new executive summary. And what does it say? Well, it
doesn't answer any of the first two things that were in the first letter,
but somehow it says, "All right. Let's go ahead and give it to him."
It again cites the Attorney General opinion that says, "If the
general public is using roads or streets in question, then the County
should not close or vacate the roads or streets in question if such a
vacation would be injurious to the public welfare or violate individual
property rights." Individual property rights being access to Mr.
Chang's property.
To the extent -- and then he goes on to say that if you look at his
first exception --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sir, your time is up.
MR. FRENCH: Could you give me two minutes? I have two
other people out here and this is very important. Two minutes.
He says that he will forever maintain that portion of Center Street
remaining in the County's ownership. Well, how can you have any
portion of Center Street remaining in the County's ownership if that
would be only a partial taking?
I am going to ask you today -- and I'm going to sit down right
now. The hold harmless agreement, I totally agree. The hold
harmless agreement says, "We are about to do something wrong and
we want somebody to step up."
Well, that is not going to replace Mr. Chang's restaurant of20
years. No amount of money is going to do that. His family won't be
able to run it the rest of his life if you do this and it causes it to go
under.
So we are just asking you to do what is right and what is fair.
Thank you.
Page 314
December 12-13, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, sir.
Is that the last public speaker?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. That was the final speaker.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. At this time I'm going to make a
motion for denial.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor in
a denial.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't get to respond?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. Go ahead.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm a little taken aback by some of the
comments by Mr. Chang and his representative because I think we
have shared letters with you about -- that there are some conditions on
which he would agree to the vacation of this road. And they were all
monetary on his part, as well as signage goes.
I would submit to you that there was consideration given for this
vacation and that was the lease. There was a lease that was entered
into with the County agreeing to move forward and using its best
efforts to vacate the road. If the County is not going to follow-up with
those commitments to our client, well, then we'll have to deal with that
and address that.
But to say that there is no public benefit, that is not true. You
had a lease. You got to use our property. You utilized the property.
There is going to be drainage improvements that are going to occur.
You are going to have the public sector -- excuse me -- the private
sector taking care of maintenance and you are going to have access
replaced.
We don't believe there is going to be any harm to Mr. Chang.
We think they are, frankly, just blowing smoke. They want to make
an argument because we would not give them the compensation that
they wanted to get that letter of no objection. We hope that you will
follow through with the commitment that we believe was made to us
Page 315
December 12-13, 2006
to go ahead and vacate that road.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would like Mr. Klatzkow
to address some of the issues that were brought up by opposing
counsel.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. There was a different feel that was
going forward to the Board before -- when we were recommending
denial on. And that deal had two problems to it.
The first problem to the deal was that -- you can see what they
wanted to do was vacate sort of half of Center Street and leave the
Daruma half alone. That would have created an illegal half street,
which the LDC does not allow.
So we were recommending denial in the executive summary
based on the fact that that particular configuration is unauthorized by
the LDC. And the reason, by the way, they did that is because when
you vacate right-of-way, half the right-of-way goes to one side and
half the right-of-way goes to the other side in fee, which is why they
wanted it that way. So we got rid of the LDC argument.
As far as the argument with respect to my letter, yes, the
procedure on getting an administrative vacation is that you must have
letters of no objection. They never got one. And so we were faced
with a portion of, "Well, how do we get out of this we can't move
forward mess?"
And so we decided we would just take it to the Board and let the
Board hear this. There is authorization in the Florida statutes for this
process. And that's why there is -- the issue was the letter of no
objection. That's why we are here. We couldn't do it administratively.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Again, explain to me how -- what
we are considering today that denies access to Daruma Restaurant and
how does it harm any other property holder?
MR. KLATZKOW: They think it harms them. They have been
saying that since day one. They are the business people. They are the
Page 316
December 12-13,2006
ones who invested the blood, sweat and tears in this property all these
years.
You know, the way we set this up with the public access, do I
think that it will harm them? No. But that's not relevant. I mean, I'm
not the one with the blood, sweat and tears in this property. They are.
I'm not going to say they are wrong. I will say I have a different
opinion than they might have, but I don't have the equity in it that they
do.
MR. MUDD: Now, the Daruma property is right here; is that
correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, there is a motion on the -- on
the table here. I may as well wait to see how that turns out.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any further discussion?
MR. WEIGEL: Commissioners, the County Attorney would like
to mention to you that for vacation, two things. One is to -- for the
Board to move to vacate public right-of-way the Board would be
making a finding with the motion that there -- that it is in the public
interest to do so. Now, that is not the motion that is before you right
now.
Additionally though, whichever motion you should make,
whether to approve a vacation or deny the vacation petition, it merely
takes a mere majority vote. It is not a super majority vote, just to let
you know.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: My concerns on this project is that --
property rights. And I feel that these people have put a lot of -- as the
County Attorney said, a lot of blood, sweat and equity into this thing.
And I think that there needs to be some negotiation before we close
off any public streets. And I feel strongly. I just don't want to be
trapped again.
We have had a number of public streets that have been closed
off. And to try to get those reopened is almost next to impossible. Soe
Page 31 7
December 12-13, 2006
that's how I feel on this whole project.
At that, if there is no further question, I will call the question. All
those in favor of this denial, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oppose by like sign.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do we have -- was it four?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It was 4-2 or 3-2.
MS. FILSON: Who was the two?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Henning and I.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I just want to make sure. So it did pass
3-2.
MS. FILSON: It was denied.
MR. MUDD: It was denied 3-2.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: 3-2 denial.
We will take a one-hour break. We will be back here at 12:05 or
1 :05.
(A lunch break was taken at 12:05 p.m.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, commissioners, you have a hot mic.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, County Manager
Mudd.
We are back from our noon recess.
Item #101
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS PROVIDE DIRECTION TO THE COUNTY
MANAGER OR HIS ASSIGNED DESIGNEE TO CHANGE
Page 318
December 12-13, 2006
POPULATION METHODOLOGY AS REQUESTED BY STAFF
AND SUGGESTED BY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (DCA) - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to Item 10(1) on your
agenda.
And this is a recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners provide direction to the county manager as assigned
designee to change population methodology as requested by staff and
suggested by the Florida Department of Community Affairs, the DCA.
And Mr. Randy Cohen, your director of Comprehensive
Planning, Community Developments and Environmental Services will
present.
MR. COHEN: Thank you, Mr. Manager.
Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, the reason that this
particular item is before you is a by-product of the evaluation and
appraisal report of the comprehensive plan; more specifically, the
Department of Community Affairs and its objections,
recommendations and comments report, which shall probably be
referred to as the ORC, question the county's population methodology.
More specifically, what -- what the Department of Community
Affairs did is they took a look at the adopted methodology, which has
been in effect in Collier County since probably 1989, and reviewed it
from the perspective of whether or not it adequately addressed the
population needs within Collier County itself.
From a -- from a unique perspective, in 2003, the county actually
added some additional language in its population methodology with
respect to water and sewer to account for some of the deficiencies that
occurred in -- in 2001 or 2002 with regard to sewer capacity to address
some of those issues that would not take place in the future.
One of the things that became apparent in the review process of
the existing methodology is adopted by this board, as well as the
Page 319
December 12-13, 2006
methodology which was added in 2003, was that DCA probably did
not take a really good look at it.
And from that perspective, what I mean is under -- under Florida
Statute and under the Florida Administrative Code, the Department of
Community Affairs determines whether or not a county or city in the
State of Florida has a professionally accepted population
methodology.
They had that absolute right to determine that. Not only that,
they have the right to revisit it.
And what transpired as part of the evaluation and appraisal report
process was, is they took a look at Collier County's methodology and
said, whoa, what is this methodology?
And if you look at the -- the visualizer, you'll see on the top right
there a methodology which depicts the existing population as we
project it now.
And that methodology basically is using the high BEBR numbers
as projected by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research for the
State of Florida, who is charged with that responsibility by statute.
And then there's an adjustment that's based on seasonal
population. And one of the things that DCA pointed out was, is that
they used a formula here in Collier County, and what the heck does
that formula mean?
And to be very frank with you, when I looked at the formula, I
kind of said the same thing.
And when I say that, we have a seasonal adjustment that we look
at in the comprehensive plane where it says our seasonal population is
33 percent of what our permanent population is.
But when you use that -- that seasonal population adjustment
factor and the existing methodology and that formula, all it does is
account for 11 percent of the seasonal population.
So, DCA, in looking at the population from Collier -- for Collier
County in terms of its projections looked at it from two perspectives.
Page 320
December 12-13, 2006
One, we were using the high BEBR numbers and over the past
probably nine or ten years when we -- when we looked at the data
going out and extrapolating it out, our numbers actually had
approached those high numbers, have been pretty much right on
target.
However, when you look at what the Bureau of Economic
Business Research does with respect to extrapolating the projections
in the future, they do kind of expedientially and they get on a straight
line trend analysis, and as we all know, when we start getting on a
trend analysis with respect to high growth, if that growth doesn't
continue or if you extrapolate it out, the numbers continue to get
higher and higher and higher.
And what we've seen here in Collier County is a bit of an
economic downturn. Not only that, in looking at the building permit
data and also the Certificate of Occupancy, our numbers actually
approximate the medium BEBR numbers.
Not only that, the projections for this past fiscal year, which are
basically estimates of what would transpire, when we got the reality
numbers that came on in from -- from the Bureau of Economic
Business Research actually showed a decrease of3,000 people based
on the downturn that we incurred with respect to building permits and
COso
So, in looking at the numbers, it became very apparent that the
medium BEBR numbers approximated what we were going to foresee
in the foreseeable future.
And as a result, the recommendation from DCA came back, said,
you know, you need to be using the medium numbers. The high
numbers are going to basically resolve and you're providing too much
infrastructure sooner than it's needed.
In looking the numbers, our staff has agreed, yeah, that is the
case.
The other thing they pointed out was, is that your seasonal
Page 321
December 12-13, 2006
adjustment factor is a little off. And they said, your comprehensive
plan says you have a seasonal population of 33 percent.
Well, if you look at the second part of the graphic that's up on the
visualizer, if you use the medium BEBR numbers and you use that 33
percent adjustment factor, you see population growth and the
provision of services are going to occur at a very large scale compared
to the existing methodology.
To be very frank, that brought into -- to immediate concern, well,
you know, what's wrong with the methodology, because obviously
we've been pretty much right on track with providing our water and
sewer services, projecting that growth, so we knew that 33 percent
was probably off.
Fortunately in its proposal, I wanted to put up on the visualizer
some language that DCA provided to us just to give you an idea where
we're coming from and where this is going.
MR. MUDD: Let's make sure they understand which is proposed
and which is the existing, okay, because they're both black lines.
MR. COHEN: Okay. The one that's on the top is the existing
methodology.
MR. MUDD: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The top in the top chart.
MR. MUDD: Now, which one are you looking at? You're
looking at this one.
Okay. So, we're going to county-wide permanent population.
The one on the top is the existing, the one at the bottom is the
proposed methodology.
MR. COHEN: That's correct.
MR. MUDD: Correct?
And now you're talking about seasonal, which is the second chart
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Right.
MR. MUDD: -- and the proposed methodology is on the top and
Page 322
December 12-13, 2006
the existing methodology is on the bottom.
MR. COHEN: So, what you'll see is you'll see a very large gap
that's going to occur in terms of increasing the population with the
new methodology.
I kind of want to leave that chart behind because what I want to
tell you right now is that's not where I'm going, okay, with this
presentation.
I see the commissioner chuckling. I'm -- he's saying that's not
where you're going and there's a reason why. It's just a starting point
to show you that that's why we had a problem as well.
If you look at the visualizer and you take a look at the language
that's in red, one of the things that -- that the state has done in
changing the methodology is, first, they've told us to use the BEBR
mid range population.
And from our perspective we have no problem with that.
The next thing it says, as adjusted to account for seasonal
population. And when you take it a little further, it says, these
projections may be adjusted annually to reflect new BEBR projections
or more recent information regarding seasonal population rates.
And I think it's key. When you look at the last phrase, it says,
adjusted annually to reflect new BEBR projections or more recent
information.
And when I -- when I emphasize that, the reason I'm emphasizing
it is because the comprehensive plan says we have this 33 percent
seasonal population in here that we provide services for. And that's
not the case.
One of the things in the correspondence from DCA is that you
need to take a look at your seasonal population and you need to
provide us with data analysis pertaining to seasonal population rates.
And that's what I have my staff working on right now. But I just
wanted to show you where we're going with this because you're going
to get a very big bite of this apple whenever the year based
Page 323
December 12-13,2006
amendments come back to you in January 25th and 26th.
Today what I'm asking you for is just to provide us with a
direction to move forward with that because I don't want basically to
drop this all on you on January 25th and 26th and say, here you go,
you haven't seen this before, where is this coming from?
I think you need to know what we're doing and where we're
going and why we're doing it to kind of get us in the right direction,
and at the same time to afford my staff the ample time to provide the
data and analysis to give you a comfort level with respect to any
population methodology that we may provide to DCA with the year
based amendments.
I need a comfort level. My staff needs a comfort level. You as a
__ like the -- obviously need a very strong comfort level with any
change in the population methodology.
One of the things the Planning Commission raised as -- as an
issue was from -- from the perspective of most of our capital
infrastructures, you don't provide it to the City of Naples or Marco
Island. Very good point.
That was -- that was something that we had to take into
consideration.
But one of the things I realized when taking a look at our existing
population methodology, and I ran through the same scenario with the
Planning Commission last week just to give them an understanding of
__ of where we're going and not asking for any absolute direction from
them. Bear with me a second.
If you go to the line under housing occupancy on the visualizer,
which is near the bottom of that particular chart, you'll -- you'll see a
number there that talks about seasonal population rates.
And I believe it's 20 -- 23.4 percent or 23.8. I can't recall right
offhand.
What was done in this county before in terms of -- of looking at
population rates for seasonal is they didn't use the seasonal population
Page 324
December 12-13, 2006
rate as a starting point. They used the overall vacancy rate as a
starting point.
And then what they did is they added on a hotel-motel factor and
brought it up to that 33 percent.
To be very frank with you that methodology is flawed. From our
perspective, I think the important thing to do is first is to take a look at
the seasonal population from the standpoint of, well, what does the
census data say the seasonal population is for unincorporated Collier
County, which is that 23 point -- point four percent.
That methodology in itself is flawed because what it does it
doesn't take into account the fact that the overall incorporated -- oh,
excuse me -- the overall county seasonal population rate is skewed by
the City of Naples and the City of Marco Island.
So, what I went ahead and did is I had my staff take a look at the
total number of units in Collier County itself and the percentage of
housing units that were actually seasonal, and then I had them factor
in the City of Naples and also the City of Marco Island.
And what you'll see on that graphic right there is when you factor
out the City of Naples and the City of Marco Island out of the
equation, it reduces the seasonal population rate to 19.4 percent.
So, that gives us a very good starting point from the staff
perspective of where we're going with regard to seasonal population.
One of the things that doesn't factor in and one of the things it
does assume is that a hundred percent of those units are occupied at
any given time, so there's no adjustment factor built into that process
to basically discount the fact that we know that every seasonal unit at
any given time is not occupied.
And it's up to us and it's incumbent upon us as a staff to work on
coming up with some type of discounting factor to account for, well,
what is the -- the -- you know, highest percentage of occupancy?
And we'll be working on that as part of the year based
amendment process before coming back to you on January 25th and
Page 325
December 12-13,2006
26th.
The other thing that I have my staff working on right now is
taking a look at the hotel-motel units. The -- the same problem exists
from a geographic perspective with respect to where those units are
actually located.
In the past we accounted for a hundred percent of those in -- in
the equation. Obviously that's flawed.
It's incumbent on us to actually go into the geographic database,
come up with a percentage of the units that are actually in the
unincorporated rate port -- part of Collier County and not the
incorporated cities of Marco Island and Naples.
Obviously we serve Everglades City with a lot of our services
and that's why we haven't factored those out and then discount that as
well, too.
So, right now we're working on a geographic allocation of -- of
motel and hotel units as well, too.
MR. MUDD: Why are you discounting the City of Naples and
Marco Island for emergency management services, for roads and
everything else? And what they discounted for water and sewer, I can
understand that, but what about landfill? Everybody throws their
garbage in our landfill, so when you start excluding them, you've got
to be real careful about what you're excluding them for.
If you're excluding them for parks, yes, they have their own
water and sewer service, but there's a lot of things that they depend
upon the county for in order to get to it and I believe you've got to be
careful with that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You've got--
MR. COHEN: We are, and that's one of the things that we have
to look at. There's also a difference between Category A and
Category B facilities as you see them in the AUIR.
The only facilities that DCA will be reviewing, and I want to be
really careful with this, is that we're reviewing potable water, sanitary
Page 326
December 12-13,2006
sewer, as the county manager indicated, solid waste, parks and
recreation and transportation.
The area where it's problematic again is in solid waste. We have
to be very careful with respect to how we allocate our population in all
these different areas to make sure that -- that we take into account all
impacts.
And the problem associated with that is, is that DCA has also told
us you can only have one population methodology.
Well, you can only have one population methodology, but they
haven't told us whether or not we can use just one seasonal adjustment
factor.
And the county manager kind of beat me to the punch right there.
The reason I say that is up in Lee County, for example, Lee County
doesn't apply seasonal population rate whatsoever to parks and
recreation.
What they do do though, it's kind of interesting is, is that they
have planning communities that pertain -- that provide services to
water and sewer districts and they allocate different percentages to
each one of those. A lot of them are served by private providers, so
they have a mixed bag.
So, we really don't know what's going to be acceptable to DCA
in terms of the seasonal adjustment factor, but what we do know is
that it could be very problematic if we err on the side of the up side
with respect to, say, solid waste but we know we have to provide for
that entire population.
But at the same time we don't provide enough -- if we use that
same formula, we would be providing scenario where we potentially
could be over building for potable water and sanitary sewer as well as
for parks and recreation facilities.
And I know that's not the direction that the board has given us in
the past with the AUIR.
So, what I'm here today asking you for today is, one, obviously
Page 327
December 12-13,2006
we've got a population methodology that DCA says is flawed.
The high BEBR numbers provided by the state clearly indicate
that we won't meet those projections. The Planning Commission
concurred with that. The medium BEBR numbers are on target.
The next thing that I'm asking you to do is the seasonal
population rate, because it says it's 33 percent in the comprehensive
plan.
Ifwe were to factor in that 33 percent as written in the
comprehensive plan, you're going to see that wide disparity in
population growth that you saw in that first graphic, which basically
tells you you're going to be building facilities that you really don't
need sooner than you need them as well, too.
So, I'm at the point right now is in -- before you in asking for
direction to have you -- have us revisit the population methodology
from two perfect perspectives: One, to use the medium BEBR
numbers, which adequately reflect the growth that's occurring in the
county; and, two, to take a look at the seasonal population rate and
adjust it accordingly based on the number of factors which will come
back to you in the form of data analysis as part of the year based
amendments.
And if you like it, dislike it, or ask us to do anything else, you
can do so at that time.
But as a staff we didn't want to come forward with you as part of
the year based amendments with a methodology that, one, it's
approved by you as it exists today, but we know it's flawed, we know
it's not going to be accepted by the state, and we know if we move
forward, one, it's going to run into a situation where we're find --
found with a notice of intent to find us in noncompliance with regard
to the year based amendments.
And, two, it doesn't reflect the population as it actually is
growing in this county, also as is suggested for by -- by a seasonal
variation as well.
Page 328
December 12-13, 2006
So, we want to be right on top of this and we wanted to be up
forward -- up front with you to let you know that the methodology
needs to change, but we needed your direction to go forward and
move forward with it.
The Planning Commission in its review said, the high BEBR
numbers are too high, you know, the medium ones basically is where
we need to go.
The next thing was is we don't like the seasonal population rate.
It needs to be changed. You need to get the data analysis to validate it.
The third thing they said was we want you to validate what the
state has done with regard to establishing our permanent population.
It's a very difficult thing to do. The reason for that is it's an
established methodology that the state has.
By statute the Bureau of Economic and Business Research is
charged with that right to establish population rates and permanent
population for this county, the starting point being the 2000 census
and then building on our CO date of building permit date and
electrical connections from there.
But they ask us to do that anyway, which is a very arduous task.
So, I guess from my perspective and from my department's
perspective as we move forward with the year based amendments is to
get that direction from you, which is one, to move forward with the
medium numbers and, two, to come back with a viable, seasonal
adjustment rate that's supported by data analysis that the Planning
Commission can buy off on and that you feel comfortable with
making an informed decision as part of the year based amendments.
And with that, if you have any questions, I'll be more than happy
to answer them.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much for your
presentation.
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Cohen, I endorse your
Page 329
December 12-13,2006
recommendations. I think they're right on target; you know, seek and
verify, looking at, see what our seasonal population is.
And I think at a certain point that we need to understand what
population applies to our CIE because not all does. And I don't think
we need to do that here today.
But I do need to understand some statements that you made.
MR. COHEN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: On the chart, on the top chart,
you said that it was high, the high BEBR, and then use seasonal
projections.
MR. COHEN: We got a case of the vanishing chart here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's all right. I think we all
have it in front of us and I'm sure you know it.
MR. COHEN: Well, the first -- the first one showed the existing
methodology --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. COHEN: -- okay?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The existing one. And you said
we've been using high, then add seasonal. But BEBR does different
population stats.
Now, on those stats, what is considered high as far as how you
report to the board of commissioners when you have seasonal,
weighted and permanent.
MR. COHEN: Well, one of the things that BEBR does not do is
they do not provide a seasonal rate. They provide three different
population projections and they all pertain to permanent population.
They do a low estimate, they do a medium estimate and they do a high
estimate.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does that depend on occupancy
of the units?
MR. COHEN: They do that for every geographic unit in the
State of Florida, and what they do is they -- they take a look -- and the
Page 330
December 12-13, 2006
starting point is always medium. They assume that your growth is at
the medium number.
And what they do is -- with that starting point being medium,
they'll take a look at what your past trends in -- in history has been
based off the last census, the last census for us being the 2000 census.
If you looked at our numbers from 2000 moving up until 2004,
we had a very high growth rate which approximated the high numbers
that they had projected out for us. So, they felt pretty comfortable
with that.
When we got into this last cycle right here, and looking at the
data that we have, they realized that we -- we down turned into the
medium projection.
So, they -- they do it based off of your existing population and
then they take a look at what your trends have been with regard to
building permits and certificates of occupancy over the -- over years
and that's how they -- they make their projections.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So, to answer my question,
medium, high and permanent has nothing to do with how many
people. It's projections of what your growth is?
MR. COHEN: It's only a projection of the permanent population
and --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What your growth is?
MR. COHEN: Well, it's the growth based off the census year,
the 2000 census year.
We haven't established the population in 2000 that the U.S.
census provided to us. So, what happened in 2001, as an example, and
I'll just do a hypothetical.
Say, there were 2000 units that came in that were CO'ed in 2001.
And we have a -- we'll just assume for practical purposes a person per
household rate of 2.5.
So, what they would have said is 2.5 times -- times 2,000, you
grew by 5,000 permanent population, you know, in -- in terms of
Page 331
December 12-13, 2006
permanent population.
That would assume that none of that was seasonal. But they
would adjust the number of units by that 23.4 percent seasonal rate
that we have and then -- and then drop it back down.
That way they're making sure that they're not double counting
permanent population with seasonal. So, they would always discount
the total number of units by the seasonal adjustment rate.
The thing that we have to do is we have to be very careful once
they've adjusted down to make sure that we re-allocate in the seasonal,
depending on where it's in and what services are that we're providing
to those seasonal residents.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. COHEN: And that's the careful-- that's the part where we
have to be very careful.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we are very unique here in
Southwest Florida in particularly Collier County because we are very
seasonal.
MR. COHEN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I guess it's okay to change
the procedure for county population, but I -- I begin to get concerned
about what you do after that.
And like the county manager, I am very worried about adjusting
that by taking certain municipalities out and I'm not really sure that
population is necessarily the best indicator as to the -- the need for
future public facilities.
And let me give you an example. If -- if we used population as a
means of measuring what we need from a standpoint of solid waste
space for a dump, and we used that ten years ago, we would have
arrived at an entirely different requirement than we would today
because we have diversion programs and recycling programs and that
Page 332
December 12-13, 2006
sort of thing.
So, I am sure that what we do or should do is we get the most
accurate population data and then we use that population data to
calculate what facilities we need based upon the measures that are
currently applicable, the amount of solid waste generated per person
today.
Now, we can determine, I believe, the number of people in motel
and hotel units and rental facilities that we govern. What we cannot
tell is how many people drive into Collier County to spend a day and
they use water, they use the toilets, they use -- they create waste, they
drive on the highways.
How do we calculate that?
Well, I think there are a couple of ways we can do it. We can use
the -- the visitor data to tell us the things that we can measure, but we
also need the traffic counts that will help us establish the trends on a
monthly basis so we know when we're beginning to experience higher
volumes of traffic on our roads.
The significance of this is we have all agreed that it is wasteful of
taxpayer money to try to build for one or two peak months of the year.
But the reality is we're getting a longer tourist season now -- now
days than just one or two months. We're getting maybe a six-month
tourist season now. Maybe it's longer.
And for that reason I think we must accurately calculate our
visitor load in Collier County, whether it is people staying in hotels
and motels overnight, or people just driving on our roads during the
day.
And I think the combination of the two will help us arrive at a
better -- better figure.
And that just brings me to a final conclusion. I am not at all
interested in what DCA wants us to do with this. As long as we've got
a good reason for doing it, I think we ought to do it.
And if we can generate -- if we can substantiate our reasons for
Page 333
December 12-13,2006
doing it, then I really believe DCA will accept it if we've got good
reasons to do it.
But I don't want to start from the standpoint that DCA wants us
to do it one way.
DCA doesn't live here and they're not responsible to these
taxpayers. And I think we should go back to DCA with whatever we
think is right and I hope we come up with a fairly -- fairly good --
good approach.
The objective is, as you've already stated, is to get it right, get the
most accurate projection you possible can get, and I encourage you to
go do that and I would support the motion.
MR. COHEN: Commissioner, just to address your first concern,
obviously we had a presentation earlier today where one of the points
that was brought out that 12 percent of the traffic coming into the
county on 1-75 was -- was worker traffic.
Well, are we accounting for that in our -- in our modeling? No,
we're not.
And Sarasota County, they -- they encounter a similar type of
influx of workers as well, too. And do they account for it?
I think a lot of counties that do have a seasonal adjustment rate
will build in a couple percentage points, you know, and a little fudge
factor in that just to make sure that they adequately account for those
additional impacts because it's very hard to measure those and
quantify them in exact percentages, so they just want to make sure
they have adequate facilities.
As far as your comments with respect to DCA, your -- your
comments are very well founded with respect to what DCA wants.
As far as the methodology goes, my department will not provide
you with a methodology to review that we do not feel comfortable
with, whether or not DCA buys off on it with regard to supporting
data analysis.
Where we have to feel comfortable with it, you have to feel
Page 334
December 12-13, 2006
comfortable with it, and that's what you'll see as part of the CIE when
you see your -- see the year based amendments.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good. Thank you.
MR. COHEN: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Thank you.
Let's go back and talk about a specific instance -- instance.
Landfill. We've been discussing that recently . We know the
landfill is projected to go out to a certain point in time as far as
available air space that's there.
If we use this particular graph, I mean, numbers are -- our
estimations are always going to change depending on factors out
there; how many people are moving down, they're -- they might be
cycle items more frequently, they may come up with more user
friendly packaging, who knows what.
But in any case with these new numbers, if we adopt them, and
there's a slight decrease in what the population estimates are, does that
mean then that it would be plugged into like the landfill expectancy
and the number might go from -- I think with the all the
improvements, we're possibly looking to do from 2045 to maybe
2055? Is that a possibility?
MR. COHEN: What I want to anticipate, commissioner, is, you
know, I can't tell you whether or not the numbers will go up or
whether or not they'll go down.
To be very frank with you, probably they'll be fairly similar. I
don't -- I don't see there being much of a -- of a disparity once we get
into inaccuracies in the population figure, because I think the numbers
that we've been using, although the methodology may be flawed, for
whatever reason it's been approximating pretty much the impacts on
our capital infrastructure, which has been a good thing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But give me a -- give me an
exact. The difference between those two graphs, what percentage
Page 335
"~...~.....,__"._..,,~,~__~ ~~___.,,_,_.,_,,_.,._o,_.....
December 12-13, 2006
exist?
MR. CO HEN: Right now in the beginning portion, and like in
the beginning year, we're talking an increase of -- I think it's 80,000
people in that initial year, which is huge, when you go to that 33
percent adjustment factor.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Increase or decrease?
MR. COHEN: Increase in population of 33 percent. Of -- of --
excuse me -- of eighty -- of 80,000 people in that initial year, which
would -- which would be a tremendous impact on -- on what you
would have to expend as a -- as a political body and what your impact
would be on public facilities.
And, obviously, when we look at what we've been providing in
terms of various services, we know that those numbers aren't correct,
so --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand that, but I want to
make sure I understand.
The graphs that you showed, if you could put that back up again,
please.
They're all pretty similar but --
MR. MUDD: Do you have a colored version of it, Joe?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It doesn't matter. Black, white,
colored; it doesn't matter.
And I appreciate you bearing with me on this one.
MR. SCHMITT: Actually there's a green line on there. It shows
black on this, but it is green.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Looking at this graph,
the lower of the two numbers, the bottom -- the bottom line that you
see, graph line, is that the one where we're proposed to go to?
MR. COHEN: If you look at the top graph, that's the existing
methodology as it exists today.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's -- that's correct.
MR. COHEN: Okay.
Page 336
December 12-13, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So, if we go with the new one,
that's going to show a decrease in the number of people.
MR. COHEN: If you went to the new one, if you look at that top
number --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Uh-huh.
MR. COHEN: -- you'll see that increase in the first -- in 2005
going up to four hundred and eighty -- 438,000. And right now--
MR. MUDD: Okay. Right here. He's basically -- he's talking
about this right here.
Remember, I mentioned to you that the existing and the proposed
reverse on this, okay, it's -- is our -- our existing system is higher, is
the high line on the first chart.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right.
MR. MUDD: Okay? Our existing system is the low number on
the second chart, so if you go to where DCA is asking us to go, they're
basically saying take into account the number 75,000 people in the
high season, and that's the difference between this line and this line
right here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And if we do that, then
on the other end we can adjust the numbers by just saying -- by going
back and taking an actual figure of what we're -- people are generating
in waste to where they might be generating per person 20 pounds.
The other way they might be generating 17 and a half pounds.
Am I correct? I just -- I think I've got a grasp of where we're
going with this.
MR. COHEN : Well, I think we're talking two factors here,
okay? One, we're talking in terms of population and then we're
talking in terms of actual use of different types of facilities, which is --
which is another issue that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But you have to correlate the
two together.
MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. And as a matter of fact, that's something
Page 337
December 12-13, 2006
that we -- we do and they end up taking an inventory report in the
AUIR.
And what would happen is, is the new methodology, as you see it
-- as you'll see it as part of the year based amendments would then be
reflected in every subsequent AUIR that you see.
You won't -- you won't see it this year.
MR. MUDD: Starting in 2007-2008.
MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. You would not see it in the AUIR for
this year, but any subsequent ones, once it becomes adopted by this
board, you would see that methodology consistently, but as you read
the language by DCA as adjusted annually, because what's going to
happen in this county, just like in any other county, your permanent
population rates are going to fluctuate.
And not only that, your seasonal population rates are going to
fluctuate and on an annual basis it's incumbent on us to take a look at
that and to provide you with the most current data.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm going to take advantages of
Commissioner Coyle's offer to support the motion and make the
motion for approval.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. So, now you've got a first and
a second on that; right? Okay.
I had a question. When we speak of seasonal, does seasonal
include tourists, winter residents, families staying with families?
What all does seasonal account for?
MR. COHEN: The seasonal rate itself, when we look at the
adjustment, does two things. One, it takes a look at the vacant units
that are established by -- by the U.S. census.
And those are units that we know that are normally vacant, but
for some part of the year, are occupied by seasonal residents.
It could be anywhere from -- from -- from one week up to nine or
ten months. But those are units that they factor in -- in that manner.
Page 338
December 12-13,2006
The other thing that's not in the census data that we have to factor
in is the hotel-motel occupancy rate.
The one scenario that's not factored in in terms of impacts and it's
the scenario that you just mentioned right there is, well, what about
the people that come and stay with other people?
And it's not factored in the U. S. census and it's not factored into
any other data that I'm aware of.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And what about when the residents
who have a residence here, but only occupy that place four months a
year?
MR. COHEN: That's the problem that I was talking to you about
where we start assuming that a hundred percent of that -- the 23.4
percent seasonal units are occupied at any given time, that's where you
have to work up a dilution factor in finding out, well, what's the
maximum occupancy at any given time of those seasonal units?
And to be very frank with you, what I've seen in some of the
projections in the fiscal impact analysis, and I'll give you an example
that's not before you yet, but in Immokalee Road South, it's a project
that's -- that's -- you're well aware of that's the -- in the rural fringe.
As part of that fiscal impact, there's an assumption in there that
20 percent of those units aren't going to be occupied. You know, the
max will be 80 percent occupancy at any given time.
So, there's -- there's various factors, but the question that you run
into is from -- from geographic area to geographic area, that can
change. Your occupancy may be a lot different along the beach in the
condos than it is inward in other geographic region.
I guess a good example would be like Orange Tree, when we
took a look at the seasonal population rate. In Orange Tree itself, it's
less than 2 percent, whereas the county-wide percentage is 23.4.
So, we have a lot of disparities within the county. That's some of
the things that my staff has to look at.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And the last question is
Page 339
December 12-13,2006
when you -- when you figure it on empty rooms, vacant rooms, in
hotel-motels and so forth, and if there -- if year-round they have at
least a 40 percent occupancy rate.
So, that 40 percent is figured in as what?
MR. COHEN: We have the occupancy rates by month for
hotel-motels county-wide. The peak month is February where we
have a 91 percent occupancy rate.
Ironically, normally the peak season for seasonal units, which are
the housing units that are vacant is usually January, and for whatever
reason, our occupancy rate in January is around 75 percent.
So, what we'll do is we'll take a look at the occupancy rates over
the six-month period of time, which Commissioner Coyle indicated
which approximates our basic season, and try to factor in that
adjustment accordingly while taking into consideration what units are
served, you know, by facilities, by Collier County and which ones are
not, obviously solid waste being at issue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Boy, that -- that -- the figuring of
that is really like a moving target all the time, isn't it?
MR. COHEN: It's extremely complicated. The main thing that
we need to be concerned with, and one of things that I do have my
staff doing also was a specific analysis of the water district and the
sewer district to take a look at each block within there and
determining what the total units are within each one of those blocks as
well as the seasonal rate in there because I don't want to be off target
with that with respect to Mr. Delony's (phonetic) operation.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have -- that's my big concern is to have
a cushion for the spike phenomenon that may occur, and I think that's
what got us in some trouble a few years back.
And the other thing is to make sure that we have an accurate
account of motel rooms and hotel rooms.
Then I think the other thing that we have to consider is how are
the data -- the data that we're going to get from rental agencies that
Page 340
December 12-13,2006
rent out condominiums, because a lot of times these condominiums
are vacant during the summer, but then they start to ramp up, let's say,
September, October, and that goes through the whole period.
So, we have to have some way of making sure that we keep track
of that so that we don't get into a spike problem.
MR. COHEN: Yeah. And one of the things that we do know,
commissioner, I talked at length with Dr. Smith with the Bureau of
Economic and Business Research who's obviously the predominant
expert on demographics and population within the state.
And I talked to him specifically not only about the permanent
population methodology that we used because I wanted to verify that,
but I also spoke with him with regard to seasonal population rates as it
affects this county, because we have a such a large influx of -- of
seasonal residents as well as hotel-motel occupancy as well, too.
And what he indicated to me that probably your best bet to do in
the future would be some type of random geographic sampling to
determine what your actual season rate is to determine what that peak
occupancy is during the season, and if something probably is part of
next year's budget, we'd be coming to you to ask you to do.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Again, I'm very
comfortable with your recommendations.
In this coming -- upcoming AUIR, could you tell us how difficult
it would be to do head counts on CIE elements for the following year,
door counts for those, like -- like what transportation does.
You know, they monitor those -- those traffic elements four times
a year.
MR. COHEN: This year's AUIR is -- is going to be a lot
different than -- than -- than most. And I guess I need -- I can explain
this now probably if the county manager doesn't mind.
The AUIR this year is based on the old population methodology.
That's because that's the methodology you've adopted by -- as a board
Page 341
December 12-13, 2006
and we -- we have to move forward with.
At the same time we're going to be proffering to DCA a
methodology that's different than that, that's more accurately reflects
the population as it exists in this county.
The AUIR this year would be primary used as a planning tool for
-- for your use in making informed decisions as the part of the -- the
upcoming budget year in terms of your capital infrastructure.
As the county manager indicated in the 2007 AUIR, you going to
see an adjusted population methodology which would be used for CIE
purposes.
I think it's probably in our best interest to provide DCA with a
CIE that's part of the year based amendments and -- and to avoid
providing them a CIE based on this year's AUIR that uses a -- a
population methodology that they're not going to accept.
The -- the one benefit that we do have is that we're going to be
doing a subsequent AUIR based on April 1, 2000 census data
immediately after the adoption period for the year based amendments,
so we're going to be piggybacking it right afterwards with an adopted
methodology which you deem to be acceptable, hopefully DCA will
deem be acceptable as well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a quick footnote. Remember
that much of the information you're going to be developing here will
be of great use for our emergency operation center in -- in forecasting
population during hurricane seasons, so please do share that with them
because they need that information.
MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. And it will be shared with every entity
that -- that -- that takes part in the A UIR and they take part in that
process as well, too.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. COHEN: Thank you.
Page 342
December 12-13, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other discussion on this?
Do we need a motion on this or just a nod of heads?
MR. MUDD: Motion, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We had a motion on the floor. Who
made the motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I did.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta and seconded by
Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Coyle--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Coyle. Okay. Motion -- motion was by
Commissioner Coletta and the second was by Commissioner Coyle.
Any further discussion on this?
Hearing none, I'll call the question.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
Opposed by like sign?
Motion carried.
MR. COHEN: Thank you, commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you.
Item #10J
PRESENTATION OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION (CDES)
REORGANIZATION AS DIRECTED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BASED ON GOAL TO PROVIDE
MORE FOCUS ON THE CORE MISSION FUNCTIONS OF THE
ORGANIZATION - APPROVED
Page 343
December 12-13,2006
MR. MUDD: Commissioner that brings us to our next item,
which is 10(J), the presentation of the Community Development
Environmental Services Division. Reorganization is directed by the
Board of County Commissioners based on goals to provide more focus
on the core mission functions of the organizations.
Miss Kim Grant, your Senior Operations and Management
Consultant will present.
Now, there was -- there was some confusion by a couple of board
members that talked about consultant.
Okay. That's her -- that's her title, okay. She works for us full
time. It isn't a contract. She's a regular county employee. And -- and
Kim works out of the Office of Management and Budget.
MS. GRANT: Good afternoon, commissioners.
Thank you for that clarification. I actually get that question a lot.
I appreciate your time and attention this afternoon. I'm here to
present the findings and the recommendations associated with the
potential reorganization of the Community Development and
Environmental Services Division.
You will certainly recall that you asked the county manager to
evaluate whether there were any options to remove functions to help
improve focus on the core mission functions of the organization.
During the study that was conducted, I spent a great deal of time
with staff and management making sure that I understood what all the
functions being performed were and to what extent they related to the
core mission functions of the organization.
And I do want to take the opportunity to thank staff and
management for their extensive time and being very professional
during which you can imagine has been a difficult time for them.
Let's see here.
In taking a look at this from a high level view, there are really
two strategies that we took a look at. Assuming the objective is to
Page 344
December 12-13,2006
gain more focus on the core functions, the first thing, of course, we
wanted to look at were, are there any opportunities for taking
functions away from the organization?
The other thing we also wanted to look at is what could we do to
apply additional resource towards improving the operations?
Starting with what CDS looks like today, and let's start with this
as our starting point. They're organized and staffed right now to
develop, interpret, apply and enforce all aspects of the codes that are
listed there, and in addition they also have some operational functions,
which include operational support in housing and the natural -- some
of the natural resources, functions that are performed in the
organization.
I want to make the point that there's nothing that's being done in
that division right now that's completely irrational or not tied to the
Community Development Commission.
However, of course, what we're asked to do here was take a look
at is there a different way we can look at this operation and can we
really be clear about what the core functions are and what
opportunities there are for movement.
So, what we ended up with is taking a look at the organization in
two components. The first is regulatory and planning, which is the
development, interpretation and application of the various codes, and
this includes your land use petitions, your building permitting, all
those activities, and then operational functions, the enforcement
function and the operational functions I mentioned before.
Now, clearly, the regulatory and planning are core functions.
That means that the operational functions became the ones we were
candidates to take a look at whether there was, you know, a reasonable
basis for moving them out of the organization.
From an organizational chart perspective, here are the groups that
I'm going to talk with you about today; natural resources, which
include sea turtle monitoring, Conservation Collier and Waterways
Page 345
December 12-13, 2006
programs, the housing and grants and affordable housing functions
and the code enforcement functions.
What I'm going to do is I'm going to take each of these
components one by one and talk briefly about the pros and cons for
leaving in or removing them from the organization.
Again, I just mentioned the three components of national
resources. Taking the sea turtle programs first, this is primarily an
operational function, and one of the opportunities is that should they
be removed from community development, we have the opportunity to
align these functions more closely with other water related functions
being performed in the county.
Also this program is quite autonomous due to the expertise and
experience of the supervisor and the staff involved in the program.
Now, in the con side, the first two, by the way, will apply to each
of the environmental components. There is an environmental
management expertise currently in community development.
We just want to put on the record that we do not assume any
natural resource function move that that same management expertise
would be available in a receiving organization.
Also, the natural resources function's staff worked quite
interdependently. They share expertise across the various components
of expertise.
They also share staff time. For example, for sea turtle monitoring
folks, when it's the off season for monitoring, they apply some of their
time available to helping with Conservation Collier and the other
programs.
Should we move sea turtle programs out of Community
Development and Environmental Services, we need to make sure that
we do maintain the checks and balances function between the sea
turtle monitoring function and any beach project such as beach
renourishment or dredging projects.
And today, the -- this group does perform some regulatory
Page 346
December 12-13,2006
functions that associated with beach lighting and vehicle on the beach
permits.
The county manager recommendation is to remove these
programs from Community Development and Environmental Services
and move them to Public Services.
The next component is Conservation Collier. Again, primarily an
operational function in the areas of land management and land
acquisition, and the opportunity here is that there is potential synergy
with other similar functions being performed around the organization.
On the con side, again, the first two apply to all three, with a little
unique here is that there is potential concern from the environmental
community, in particular, associated with whether if we move
Conservation Collier out of Community Development, whether their
mission will be preserved; mission, being the preservation of lands.
And we also want to point out that by pulling any of the
environmental components out of Community Development and
placing them elsewhere, you also have the situation where you've got
something that's alike; Le., environmental being performed in various
organizations around the county.
And when you're looking at organizations, you have to make an
evaluation as to which is most important, which is most effective.
I do want to say though regarding the potential mission conflict
that Conservation Collier ordinance is quite clear and should there be
conflicts, there are already methods and -- and opportunities for
resolution of those issues.
The county manager recommendation is to move Conservation
Collier from CDES to Administrative Services.
The next component is the waterways vessels. This is derelict
vessels and reefs, artificial reefs primarily.
The pros for moving these functions are again operational, again
an opportunity for some synergy and similar functions with other
waterways, projects and maintenance things going on.
Page 347
December 12-13,2006
The functions here also benefit recreation activities.
And the last bullet point is now specifically for this, but should
all three of these components be removed from Community
Development, we do have the tangible benefit that the director will
have approximately ten to 20 percent of his time available to focus on
core mission functions.
On the negative side, again, the two things we've talked about
and just a comment that we do need to continue to have environmental
expertise for redesign.
And the county manager recommendation is to move this
function from Community Development and Environmental Services
to Public Services.
Now, that finishes up -- us up on natural resources and brings us
to Operation Support and Housing.
There are two components in this department. The first is
Affordable Housing and Grants Administration and the second is
Operational Support.
Now, the Operational Support are things like a telephone system,
the switchboard, the records room, things that apply to everyone in
this CDES organization.
Regarding Affordable Housing and Grants Administration, again,
this is primarily an operational function with one exception, which I'll
get to in a moment.
Should this organization be moved, it affords an opportunity to
reclassify a position to a deputy position to provide more focus on the
core mission. And I will talk more about that in just a moment.
There are also potential synergies with Grants Administration
and grants financial functions that are performed in other sections of
the organization. They're not exactly the same, but they are some
similarities.
Likewise, there is some overlap with a customer contact base.
The last bullet here, Maintain Continuum of Services is not really
Page 348
December 12-13,2006
a pro for moving, but should it move, we want to recognize that the
organization has developed an effective continuum of services starting
with the -- the Land Development Code creation and components, all
the way out to putting people in affordable housing.
So, should we consider moving this organization, we would --
may want to consider keeping them together to retain that continuum
of services.
Now, on the flip side, there is one person in this organization
who is very clearly pretty much a hundred percent in planning and
regulatory functions, and that is the affordable housing manager, the
person who was up here this morning talking about affordable housing
.
Issues.
And, so, there is the regulatory and planning tie back to our core
thought process with that function.
There's also a potential to reduce the visibility of the affordable
housing function if it's separated from Community Development.
We want to recognize that because of the regulatory and planning
overlap, should it be removed to another organization, we do add
some overhead just with different organizations, different management
structures, you know, working through issues if there are any.
And, finally, the group has worked very hard over the past few
years to improve their sophistication associated with financial
management and reporting on the grant side.
I mean, we just want to be certain that should it removed or
moved to a different organization that we focus on that and make sure
there's no backsliding.
The county manager recommendation is to move the Affordable
Housing and Grants Administration from CDES to Public Services.
The support operations, as I mentioned earlier, are supporting the
rest of the division so the recommendation is that they stay within
Community Development, of course, and report to the deputy.
Moving on from Affordable Housing, the next component up for
Page 349
December 12-13,2006
consideration was, of course -- or is, of course, Code Enforcement.
Again, primarily an operational function enforcing the codes that
are -- have been established, today there's an effective director and
management structure in place, so should the organization move
would be able to retain that effective operation from that perspective
and a division administrator would no longer be responsible for
resolving code issues raised.
However, I'd like to point out that it's very likely that the division
administrator and staff would still be involved, which brings me to the
first con, which is that the Code Enforcement group does have
frequent interaction with other departments and community
development.
F or example, when there are conflicts over how to interpret a
code in terms of what's being enforced and what was expected, they
would be working with the zoning and planning department to work
out what the appropriate thing to do is.
So, just a recognition that there are services being performed.
Should the function move out of the organization, we may have to
work on a -- an arrangement to pay for those services that would still
be needed.
We would lose a direct link to the division that's responsible for
creating the codes. So, we would need to make sure that there was
effective communication and mechanisms so that what was being
enforced is consistent with what was intended in the development.
And according to a legal opinion we received, the BCC retains
responsibility for enforcing the county ordinances.
As was in the Executive Summary, we certainly have the ability
to essentially delegate the -- the activities, but the ultimate
responsibility ability remains with the Board of County
Commissioners.
And the county manager's recommendation is to move Code
Enforcement from Community Development and Environmental
Page 350
December 12-13,2006
Services to the Sheriffs Office should they accept the offer that has
been made.
Now, what I've been talking about so far is the first of the two
strategies potential divestiture options, things that we can move out of
the organization.
I'm going to shift focus now and talk about the other side of the
equation. What might we do to apply more resource to reviewing and
approving the operations?
And here's the assertion that I am making. We need to make it
somebody's job who is at the right level of authority, has the right
ability and background and has the right amount of time to oversee the
daily operations and look for and implement improvement
opportunities.
Why is this important? Well, if you're looking for improvement,
you are automatically talking about change. And for change to be
effective, it needs to be multi disciplinary, at least involving all the
components of the organization that are affected.
And the way that we're organized right now there's only one
person in the organization who has that purview and authority and that
is the administrator of the division. And the administrator of the
division is -- has so many demands on his time that it's not practical to
expect the person to be able to fill this role and fill the other demands
of the role.
So, let me be a little specific here about what this person would
actually do. The first thing is, where -- the recommendation is that
this person would oversee all internal operations.
They would also further the efforts that have -- that are already in
place to develop and manage the division level reporting on key
measures.
We know that has been something that's been ofa concern over
the past few years. We're making progress, but this person would
really be responsible for furthering this.
Page 351
December 12-13,2006
Utilizing the information from the improved information and
other means; Le., the oversight responsibility to identify and follow
through on opportunities to make things better, they would delegate
and manage changes appropriate.
In addition to that, they would measure the effects of changes
made and continue to make improvements and continue to refine and
improve the operations. And, of course, they would be supported with
directors in fulfillment of each of their functional missions in the
department.
I think it's equally important to describe to you what we're not
expecting this person to do. We're not talking here about adding a
layer of overhead to everything. It's very, very important that we
convey that.
We're also not suggesting that this person be involved in
everything that the administrator's involved in although there will
surely be some overlap.
So, for example, we would not expect this person to be involved
in the LDC and the GMP language development, the hearings, the
meetings, all that side of work, probably not involved in making
decision other the various code interpretations or issues. We're talking
about a real separation here.
And we also want to be clear that if this -- a recommendation is
accepted and this person comes in, that we are not expecting every
problem that might ever happen between applicant and the division to
be resolved.
There will still be differences of opinion and so forth that will
happen throughout this process.
And what we do want to do is take the issues out of the process
that are causing problems on a routine basis for people trying to get
their work through the division.
What outcomes do we expect? Clear definition of success,
forward division that we all agree on. This person would be working
Page 352
December 12-13,2006
to eliminate the internal boundaries that can cause friction as the
customers are trying to go through the process, obviously, improved
results.
We would expect a stronger, more flexible organization, able to
meet demands that change in volume and other demands.
I mean, we'd continue what we reported to you in October as a
systematic program to evaluate the processes and the operations
looking for ideas for improvements and making those improvements.
So, the recommendation of the county manager is to create a
deputy administrator role from the reclassified operations and support
-- support and housing director position.
The last component in the recommendation set is to create a
coastal zone management function in the Public Services Division.
The idea here is that there are, again, disparate but related
functions going on in the county associated with our beaches, with our
waterways and the projects associated with those geographic areas.
And by bringing them together under our coastal zone
management function, we can improve the effectiveness of the
planning and the execution and the management of those resources.
And this was a recommendation made by the Coastal Advisory
Committee in 2004.
And the county manager's recommendation is to create the
coastal zone function in public services.
So, in summary, the county manager recommendations to
improve focus on the core mission functions of community
development are first of all to create a deputy administrator position
via a reclassification to relocate the Natural Resources functions,
Housing and Grants functions and Code Enforcement, should the
Sheriffs Office be willing to accept, and what I don't have up here,
also to create a coastal zone management function.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much for your
Page 353
December 12-13,2006
presentation. It was well presented.
At this time Commissioner Coy Ie.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would -- would just like to say
that I don't want to -- to get into a discussion of -- of how -- how the
county manager decides to organize. We asked him to conduct a
review. We didn't tell the county manager how he should organize. I
don't think we should tell him how to organize.
We hold him responsible for the efficient management of his
organization.
And I would just like to say to you, I think it's a good review. I
appreciate the information.
I do believe that -- that the county manager is -- is making
decisions which are logical and which will improve the visibility of
certain elements of our -- our Conservation and Natural Resources
Management functions and -- and as we move forward in this
direction.
And, again, I would like to lend my support to the county
manager on -- on doing these things but -- but we -- we need to -- need
to understand that -- and I'm -- it's implied, but I'm not sure that we've
__ we've clearly stated it, that it would be, I think, my objective that --
that the changes be designed to improve the efficiency of the existing
organization and to actually elevate and improve the effectiveness of
any organizations that are being re-aligned.
There's no -- I hope there's no intent to diminish the importance
of the Natural Resources, Housing and Grants and Code Enforcement
functions. I'm sure that there is not.
We all have the same goal in mind and that is to make all of these
function more effectively in Collier County government.
So, that's pretty much it for me, Mr. Chairman. I support the
county manager's recommendations and I think he should be left to do
with the organization what he feels is appropriate to get his job done.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala.
Page 354
December 12-13,2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. This all started years ago
when we started -- well, I'll just say I started, but others, too,
complaining about the time it took to get through a permitting process.
We complained to the county manager and we said this needed to
be improved and -- and the problem still lingers.
I think there have been some improvements, but the problem--
you know, we still hear it coming up all the time. So, maybe that's
why we decided to make the, you know, readjust some of these things.
As I look at them, first of all, housing, to have housing move out
of Community Development where they're already a part of the
zoning process doesn't seem to -- in my own head doesn't seem to
work very well.
I know we used to have an environmental services division at one
point in time, didn't we? And I don't ever know what happened to that
division. I don't know how that changed around, but maybe that
would be another effort instead of breaking up some of the parts that
seem to belong into Community Development. Maybe create or re --
re -- let's see, reignite that particular department, but bring it alive
again, Environmental Services to include all of the environmental
services, not only the ones we've just spoken of today, but all of the
other ones and have the county manager reorganize that. That's a
suggestion.
Code Enforcement, I would just hate to see -- they wouldn't be
our employees anymore. I would hate them to see them go to the
Sheriffs Office because when we're having problems, we wouldn't
even be able to call them. They wouldn't be ours any longer.
Not only that, but they work closely -- closely with CDES as well
as Environmental Services and they wouldn't be ours.
So, I -- I have a problem there, but I would love to have the
county manager think in his own wisdom, maybe reorganizing -- that's
the word I was just searching for before -- a -- an environmental
services department or a division might -- might work well instead,
Page 355
December 12-13,2006
and that would still take the pressure off of Joe.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'd like to add that every corporation,
whether it's governmental or whether it's a private sector, periodically
has to look at itself and see if -- if there's any areas of improvement.
And I think that's what we're all here for is to make sure that we
get a up-to-date analysis of what's taking place in that particular area
or department.
And I commend you for the in-depth study that you made. I
don't think anything's broke. I think what we need to do is make some
changes where they need to be changed, but I think we also just need
to make sure that if there are some rough areas, that we need to take a
file and kind of file down the rough areas, and I think we can get
everything else to fit in the puzzle.
So, I -- as I look at this, and as I listen to your report today, I
think that we're on the right track and I think that we definitely have to
give Community Development Environmental Services the --
whatever's needed to make sure that we filed on the rough edges, and I
believe that will be administered by the county manager.
That's his jurisdiction, to make sure that we have the -- the
necessary personnel and the assets in place to make sure that we
function very properly.
And thank you again for the well detailed report, and I believe
Commissioner Coletta has something to add.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I appreciate this
opportunity .
Once again I -- you did an excellent job. I mean, you just go
right down the list and the responsibility falls on our shoulders and
eventually the county manager, too, is what we do with these finds
that you did, they were very logical.
However, with that said, we don't want to ever forget why we're
at the point we're at now. It's not that the system is broke. It just
doesn't work as well as it should.
Page 356
December 12-13,2006
We have a limited number of code enforcement Officers out
there. We don't seem willing enough to be able to get a real
contingent of people out there to be able to do the work.
Weekends, we have one, two code enforcement officers to cover
the whole county. Nights, we got one code officer to cover.
The -- the response of our citizens out there has been less than
favorable with the length of time it takes to respond to different
situations.
While there's numerous Sheriffs deputies, that if they could be
cross-trained, there would be a tremendous benefit to the public.
Now, one of the concerns I got and I know every one of the
commissioners here also have is the fact that what happens to these
employees that we have in here, the people that have donate -- put all
-- put all these years into Collier County that have stayed with a job
that's been extremely difficult to begin with.
I don't know about you, but I'd never want to be a code
enforcement officer. It's got to be the most difficult thing in this
world. And it doesn't pay as well as it should pay. Let's be honest
about it.
I, for one, don't want to see any county employees all of a sudden
put out to pasture because of a change that's taking place.
I would assume that the Sheriffs Department could absorb the
vast majority of them. And let's -- let's talk -- let's be a little honest
now.
The Sheriffs Department has done one heck of a job, and we
complained it about time -- times about what they pay their employees
and also the benefits.
So, it wouldn't be a case of them taking a step down if some
people were absorbed into the Sheriffs Department to make this go
forward.
Now, with the exception of code, all the rest of the ordinances we
pass are enforced through the Sheriffs Department.
Page 357
December 12-13,2006
So, let's go back to being logical. All we're talking about is -- is
asking the Sheriffs Department to do their duty and to be able to
enforce that other end of the ordinances that we do with our codes.
And I'm sure they could it in a -- in a way that would be
comparable to what we're doing now. They would probably use the
employees we got and there's no reason why we couldn't -- we have
good correspondence going -- good relationships with the Sheriffs
Department now.
I know every one of us have a -- worked with special deputies
out there, the division commanders. We got relationships with them.
I know I joined Scott Stamets quite often for breakfast and meet him
at different meetings and we're always exchanging information.
There's no reason why this couldn't continue.
So, what I'm saying is it doesn't mean that this is a negative thing.
It could be a positive thing if it's approached in the right direction.
And I don't want to leave Jim Mudd with the idea, you know, that
we're going soft. We just need to be able to arrive at the best possible
conclusion that we can arrive at based upon the information received
today and the information we're going to receive in the future.
Now, this isn't going to be an overnight thing. It's going to have
to take awhile to be able to get there. But we do this all the time in
government, do it in business where we're always reorganizing to try
to get the top efficiency out of the -- the entity that we exist for.
In business they do it as a regular course of events. And there,
they're a little bit crueler. They just automatically make cuts, they
move people out to pasture and they keep going forward.
We have a little bit more heart. We make sure that the people
that have done well by Collier County are always going to be taken
care of. And I don't see where that's going to change.
Thank you for the time.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I believe we have some speakers signed
up for this?
Page 358
December 12-13, 2006
MS. FILSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have five speakers.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Would you like to call them forward?
MS. FILSON: The first one is Brad Cornell.
And some of these are left over from yesterday as well.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. FILSON: And he'll be followed by Judith Hushon.
Is Judith here?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No.
MS. FILSON: Nicole Ryan?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No.
MS. FILSON: David Addison.
Okay. Go ahead.
MR. CORNELL: Good afternoon, commissioners. I'm Brad
Cornell here on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society, and I
appreciate the opportunity to address you about this reorganization set
of recommendations and the study that you just discussed and heard.
I want to say first that we -- we disagree with the
recommendations on reorganization of Environmental Services. We
also disagree with saying that the core mission of the Community
Development and Environmental Services Division is only regulatory,
which ignores a very proactive planning for natural resource
protection, water quality and flood prevention function in the
Environmental Services Department.
Environmental Services is technically unique and vital to many
aspects of county government. It dependents on essential technical
staff communication and coordination.
And we believe that scattering that staff across the governmental
landscape would severely impede that function. You've got some
synergy of technical expertise in one place. If you scatter it, you're
going to lose that.
Protections for Collier County's unique natural resources,
wetlands, water and wildlife will significantly deteriorate if we
Page 359
December 12-13, 2006
implement disintegration of the Environmental Services Department.
Conservation Collier, which was just re-approved by 82 percent
of the voters will be hamstrung by this change, increasingly so as land
management and planning are increasingly important in that program.
Watershed Management Plan, including wetland and water
quality protection and flooding prevention will be set back
significantly.
In fact, I think there's an argument for consolidating all of the
Watershed Management Planning functions in county government,
including stormwater management under Environmental Services.
I think we need to move forward aggressively on Watershed
Management Planning to -- particularly with regard to water quality
and flood prevention. And sea turtle monitoring and protection will
suffer away from the technical core staff.
Collier County Audubon Society believes that reorganization of
the Environmental Services Department will cripple its core mission
of planning, regulation and technical operations for natural resource
protection.
And that would violate the Growth Management Plan,
Conservation -- Coastal Management Element Policy 1.1.3, which
states the county will have in place an appropriately administered and
professionally staffed governmental unit capable of developing,
administering and providing long term direction for the Collier County
Environmental Resources Management Program.
We believe that that's what Environmental Services is all about
and we think that consolidating the functions of that -- that policy are
important to put in one place, and we highly recommend going
forward with that.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Dave Addison and he'll be
followed by Christen Steele.
Page 360
December 12-13, 2006
MR. ADDISON: For the record, my name is Dave Addison.
I first read about this in the paper a few days ago, the proposed
reorganization of the Natural Resources Department and it didn't seem
to make a whole lot of sense to me.
I've been around the county for a long time and probably have --
oh, I just was doodling around down -- you know, before I came up,
and I've either known or worked with the -- the staff in that
department for a total of something like 90 years when I add it all up.
It's a long.
So, I know what they do and I know the caliber of the work they
do and they're good people.
So, while I was out -- when I came in this morning, I read some
of the justification for the -- for the reorganization, and it said,
improve and renew on the duration of permit renewals, eliminate
internal boundaries and increase knowledge and sharing information.
Well, that -- first of all, the Natural Resources people, meaning
the people that are in the waterways, the sea turtle project, and the
Conservation Collier don't issue permits.
So, the problem doesn't lie with permitting as far as they are
concerned. They also work together synergistically. And there are no
internal boundaries because they're cross-trained. They work with
each other, they share information, they share equipment, they share a
library and they share storage space.
So, if you start scattering that out in other departments, that
becomes much more inefficient and it's counts to what Miss Grant
said.
In fact, some of her cons, if you look back at the cons for moving
these and disbursing these people, they pretty much fall right in line
with what some of the stuff that I'm saying here involves.
Let me see if there's anything else I wanted to add here.
Nothing that I can think of offhand, other than the fact -- I'll
reiterate what I said before. I think if you scatter these people and lose
Page 361
December 12-13,2006
this synergy among these people who share information and also
occasionally are able to help each other out, if somebody needs to go
out and, say, survey for turtle nests or do something on the reef and
someone else isn't there to do it, somebody within that department,
you just say, hey, can you make it out tomorrow and we can do it.
And that to me is efficient. So, I think if you disburse this, you're
going to lose efficiency and it's probably going to cost the taxpayer
more than, than it would if you leave these people where they are.
They've worked there a long time and they -- they really do know
what they're doing and do a great job.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, sir.
MR. ADDISON: Any questions?
MS. FILSON: The next speaker--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have some questions, but we'll taken
them after all the speakers are done.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Christen Steele.
MS. STEELE: Good afternoon. I'm Christen Steele. I'm with
the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
I'm going to begin by saying that the Conservancy supports
efficiency in government and in the necessary reorganization when
there are proven ways to make programs and departments function in
a more cost beneficial manner.
However, we also support the rule of thumb that if it isn't broken,
then don't fix it.
And there are departments that contain programs and core
functions that may not appropriately be shifted or removed from their
current department.
A component of the CDES assessment has been the -- the
potential restructure of the natural resources programs within the
Environmental Services Department.
In the county where the Environment and Natural Resources are
Page 362
December 12-13, 2006
a key consideration in almost every decision that is made, the
Environment Services Department needs to remain intact.
Therefore, the Conservancy requests that the Natural Resources
Programs remain together within their current location as a component
of Environmental Services.
These programs include the sea turtle program, the artificial reef
program, exotics removal and Conservation Collier.
Moving these programs from their current location to other
county departments would hamper the cross-utilization of staff,
equipment and other shared resources.
One reason for the effectiveness and cost efficiency of these
Natural Resource programs is the ability for their staff to cross-train
and offer technical assistance between programs so they do not work
strictly within their own programs.
Staff are cross-trained to assist each other, which equates to more
work being done with fewer people and a definite cost savings to
Collier County.
However, if these programs are split up and reorganized to other
departments, such cross-program assistance would be impossible,
resulting in inefficiencies that would cost the county money.
In addition to shared staff, these programs also share resources
such as boats and lab equipment, GPS and lab -- library resources.
F or example, boats used by the sea turtle program are also used
by Conservation Collier, the exotics removal staff and those people
working on artificial refers.
Because of this efficient sharing of resources, fewer boats must
be purchased, maintained and stored by the county.
If the purpose of the contemplated reorganization is to streamline
and increase three of which the permits are reviewed and issued,
movement of these Natural Resource programs, which are not part of
the permit review process is unnecessary and will not expedite the
permitting process.
Page 363
December 12-13, 2006
The Natural Resources programs are currently fulfilling their
mandates and functioning in a cost effective manner.
Thus any reorganization of these programs to other departments
is unnecessary and would create inefficiency.
The Conservancy requests that these programs remain within the
Environmental Services Department and Environmental Services
remain a intact functioning department.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, ma'am.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have some questions starting
with Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion that we support
and adopt the county manager's recommendations.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Getting pretty close. I was just
going to make some very brief comments regarding the assumption of
some people that if you have people working in different departments,
that they can't correlate things together still. I mean, that's a fallacy.
I mean, right now we have code working with the Sheriffs
Department to a degree, we have pollution control working with the
Sheriffs Department and Code.
You have numerous examples throughout county government
where agencies continue to function. The idea is not to try to demean
something. It's try to -- to try to improve upon it.
And the truth of the matter is the county manager comes up with
it, is it going to be absolutely perfect? No. We'll never to get to that
po int.
But if it has to be adjusted again later, it could be.
And I am for -- I take it your motion is to the county manager to
determine at what level and when he -- he brings the -- the
Page 364
December 12-13, 2006
reorganization on and how he goes about doing it.
Is that correct; Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, in our Executive
Summary, I am saying that we're -- my motion is to accept the
recommendations and endorse.
It's up to the county manager on how he does that --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- as far as the timeline.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm going to give you my vote
on that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We've had a presentation by
Miss Grant, a very good presentation. These are the recommendations
of the county manager and that's my motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And somewhere along the line
we'll get a progress report, I would assume. I don't even know if we
even have to make that a part of the motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm sure we'll get a progress report.
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would like to emphasize
that we have an obligation, both as part of our Growth Management
Plan, state law, our own ordinances and the taxpayers to develop and
enforce appropriate environmental protection measures in Collier
County .
The -- the fact that there's going to be an organization,
reorganization or realignment suggested by the county manager does
not relieve us of those responsibilities, and to suggest otherwise is -- is
-- is really not true.
No obligation is diminished as a result of any realignment.
The county manager knows more about what goes on in his
departments. He knows more about the capability of his
administrators and managers than anybody in this room.
And for people to suggest that they understand better how the
Page 365
December 12-13, 2006
county manager should do his job and organize his organization is
presumptuous and arrogant.
The county manager has a very, very difficult job, as do the
division administrators. And it is the county manager's responsibility
to make sure that there is a balance between management capability
and organizational functionality.
And he's done a very, very good job here in this county -- and
this Board of County Commissioners has been more environmentally
sensitive than any Board of County Commissioners that anybody in
this room or this audience, including the television audience, can ever
identify .
More has been done under this administration to help our
environment than ever in the history of Collier County.
So, to suggest that it's all going to disappear and everything is
going to collapse and nobody's going to pay attention to it anymore is
offensive to me.
And I -- I am very supportive of the county manager in his
management functions and I also will support the motion to -- to
endorse his recommendations and -- and help him with them.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, county manager, if your
endorse -- or, rather, if your reorganization plan includes moving our
Code Enforcement people out of the county and over to the Sheriffs
Office, what happens to their seniority?
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, that's to be worked out with an agreement
with the Sheriffs Office ifhe should accept.
And we're in negotiations with that particular issue, but that
inter-local agreement will have to come back to you for approval.
Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Secondly, right now the Sheriffs
Office, for instance, when -- when we have problems, and other
commissioners might not have these problems, but, for instance, I've
Page 366
December 12-13, 2006
had a tremendous problem with the homeless and the problems that
they're incurring, and our Code Enforcement people, thank heavens
they've been there at my beck and call and at others' beck and call in
the area who've had to deal with some of the problems we're dealing
with, and now those problems are strengthening as the season comes
back in.
I -- I won't have them to call anymore or to ask to assist me, and
like the Sheriffs Office has told me, and rightfully so, they only have
so many people that can come out and, you know, they can pass by
every so often, but right now our Code Enforcement people go in there
and -- and -- and get things cleaned up --
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, I don't think that's--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and worked out --
MR. MUDD: Going to stop.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- with the store managers and so
forth.
MR. MUDD: I don't think that's going to stop because you've
got to understand the Code Enforcement function in Collier County is
funded by 111 funds, not by the general fund.
The Sheriffs Office is funded besides some other trusts and
things and grants that he receives. He is funded primarily by the
general fund; 001.
That 111 fund and the bodies that go with it will transfer over to
Sheriffs Office, and we have to work out details, and we're still
talking about this particular issue.
And the Sheriff has to accept this, so we're going to still negotiate
through this process.
But I don't see -- I don't see the importance, the viability or
anything in that program diminishing, and I believe those people will
still be there in order to help you with that particular issue, because
Code Enforcement is a little bit different than certified deputies.
Okay?
Page 367
December 12-13, 2006
And, so, I believe there's some synergy in between, but you're
still going to have that -- that process where you're going to be able to
get at those folks.
And I believe he will assign them, just like he does his
neighborhood deputies to areas like we have to a certain extent, so I
think this will be able to get those.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So, will they also be assigned
through the Sheriffs Office to -- to work on Code Enforcement
environmentally related issues --
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- which they don't do now. I mean,
code -- I mean, our code does, but the Sheriffs doesn't.
MR. MUDD: Our code does and they'll still have that
responsibility, ma'am, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Through the Sheriffs Office.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And our people -- they'll be able to,
you say, retain at least or get raises if they're moving over there?
They wouldn't be losing money, would they?
MR. MUDD: No, ma'am. I don't see any employee losing their
job, nor getting a diminished pay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Or losing their seniority.
MR. MUDD: I don't see that either, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And -- and the last thing, when --
with noise levels, right now when we call the Sheriffs Office, they
cannot respond to that because they -- they always say, call Code
Enforcement because they don't have the equipment to do that.
Will they now be able to respond to things that we have,
especially like in -- like Naples Manor and stuff, where they have to
respond to those noise level things.
Will they then be able to --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir -- yes, ma'am.
Page 368
December 12-13,2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- do that?
MR. MUDD: All the equipment that we have in Code
Enforcement will be transferred.
Again, there's -- there's not -- it isn't like I'm giving it to some
other agency and we're just trying to cut it out.
I'm not -- all we're -- in this particular movement of things, it was
to take the distracters out of Code Enforcement from the permitting
business that -- that -- that Code Enforcement -- excuse me --
Community Developments Environmental Services does.
And if you take a look and if you follow the -- one of the ways
that you can take a look at it very shortly is follow -- follow the dollars
in how people are funding, how Joe funds his department that
basically does Community Development's permitting and -- and -- and
Zoning Review and SDP review, he funds those folks and his -- his
engineering folks through 113 and 131. Those are the two funds that --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. We're just in -- we're just
concerned of getting the permitting improved, right? I mean, this is
all going toward getting our permitting process improved. That's what
started this whole thing; right?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. That--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: That was one of the -- that was one of the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But wonder if we don't see that
improvement.
MR. MUDD: Well, you already have, ma'am. You already have
seen the improvement.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not that I know of.
MR. MUDD: You've had over 40,000 permits that have been
issued this last year and I just got the AIMS report. There were only
56 AIMS queries on permits that -- that -- that we received.
That's less than a two one-thousandth rejection rate, you know, if
you want to use it in a business firm.
Page 369
December 12-13, 2006
There are businesses out there who would love to that rejection
rate. That's -- that's a super success rate as far as that's concerned.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And with the Environmental
Services, if you are considering possibly making a division, would
you possibly include like stormwater and watershed management all
under that same heading with -- so that you have a whole
Environmental Services division or--
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, at this time I'm not looking at an
Environmental Services division.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: The county manager have been involved
in the public sector where large corporation and -- and got involved in
some major changes, and we found out that major changes didn't
work, so they had to reconsolidate some areas.
We have that option open for you. Is that correct?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. There's nothing that's proposed to you
today that's irreversible if it doesn't work out.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's good. That's what I want to hear
because if it's -- if you can't reunite it after you find out it's not
working as good, I'd like to have that opportunity open, that door
open.
Okay. Commissioner Coy Ie.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Just a brief comment
concerning Code Enforcement. Code Enforcement is a very, very
difficult job and it can be a dangerous job.
They have been threatened by some people who try to go out and
-- and enforce codes. And they do in fact call police officers to
accompany on occasion to some of these locations.
So, it's a logical marriage, I believe, and -- and particularly if you
have a lot of, you know, people making a lot of noise, you know. The
Code Enforcement people can write a ticket.
I mean, a Sheriff can shoot them. Okay. So, I mean, we'll --
Page 370
December 12-13,2006
we'll put a stop to some of this stuff pretty quickly that way.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. If there's no further questions, I'll
__ any further questions by our fellow commissioners, I'll call the
question on this.
All this -- all those in favor of this -- supporting this amendment,
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
Opposed by like sign?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I think that carried four one.
At this time we'll take a 12-minute break. Okay?
(A recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, commissioners, you have a hot mic.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, county manager.
The Board of County Commissioners is back from recess, and I
believe we're on Item -
Item #10K
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE CONTRACT
AMENDMENT NO.1, EXHIBIT E, FOR A GUARANTEED
MAXIMUM PRICE (GMP) OF $6,740,820 UNDER CONTRACT
NO. 04-3609, CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK SERVICES
FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY OPERATIONS
CENTER, WITH KRAFT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
FOR THE SITE WORK PORTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF
THE EMERGENCY SERVICES COMPLEX AND SOUTH
REGIONAL LIBRARY, PROJECT NUMBERS 54003 AND 52160
Page 371
December 12-13, 2006
- APPROVED
MR. MUDD: 10(K).
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- 10(K).
MR. MUDD: This is a recommendation to approve a contract
amendment, Number 1, Exhibit E, for a guaranteed maximum price,
$6,740,820, under Contract Number 04-3609, construction manager at
Risk Services for the Collier County Emergency Operation Center
with Kraft Construction Company, Inc. for the site work portion of the
construction of the Emergency Services complex and the South
Regional Library, Projects Numbers, 54003 and 52160.
And Mr. Ron Hovell, Senior Project Manager, Facilities
Management, Administrative Services Division will present.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion
we approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there anything you want to put
on record.
MR. HOVELL: No, sir. I don't believe so.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We've got a motion on the floor
by Commissioner Henning, and a second by Commissioner Coyle.
Any further discussion?
Commissioner, do you have any items that you want to bring up
on 10(K).
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-uh.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Hearing none, I'll call the
question.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 372
December 12-13, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
Opposed by like sign?
Motion carries.
Item #10L
RECOMMENDATION AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY
MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXPEND A MAXIMUM OF
$1,285,000 WITHIN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION TO ADDRESS
CRITICAL BUILDING RENOVATION NEEDS, NOT TO
INCLUDE ANY LOBBY EXP ANSION AT THIS TIME, AND TO
GIVE APPROVAL FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT BUDGET
AMENDMENTS REQUIRED TO FUND SUCH RENOVATIONS-
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 10(L). It's a
recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
the county manager or his designee to expend a maximum of
$1,285,000 within the Community Developments and Environmental
Services division to address critical building renovation needs not to
include -- not to include any lobby expansion at this time and to give
approval for any subsequent budget amendments required to fund such
renovations.
Mr. Joe Schmidt, your administrator for Community
Developments and Environmental Services will preside.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. There is a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coy Ie and a second by Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
Page 373
December 12-13,2006
MR. MUDD: Commissioner Fiala seconded it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Fiala seconded it, yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think Henning was the one that
made the motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No. Coyle down here made the motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, Sue.
MS. FILSON: I have one speaker.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have one public speaker.
MS. FILSON: And I believe this was left over from yesterday.
Michele Harrison.
MR. SCHMITT: Michele is not here. She was here yesterday.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So, let's get this correct.
Commissioner Coy Ie made the motion and I know that
Commissioner Henning was in there, so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Go ahead, give him.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't care.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I don't -- I just want to make sure
it's fair to everybody, so Commissioner Henning made the second.
Okay?
Is there any further discussion?
Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
Those opposed by like sign?
Motion carries.
Just to clarify. This is to get everything back on track and make
sure we pay our creditors. Is that correct?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Page 374
December 12-13, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Good.
Item #10M
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AN AGREEMENT
BETWEEN CREATIVE DIFFERENCES PRODUCTIONS, LTD.
(THE "PRODUCER"), DISCOVERY COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
(THE "COMPANY") AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA TO
AUTHORIZE ENTRY UPON THE PREMISES OF THE DISTRICT
TWENTY MEDICAL EXAMINER FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY
TO FILM AND PHOTOGRAPH FOR THE PURPOSE OF
CREATING A DOCUMENTARY FOR DISTRIBUTION ON THE
DISCOVERY CHANNEL AND OTHER MEDIA - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 10(M). 10(M) was
an add-on item. And I -- and I -- I apologize to the board for that. I
had two add-on items and they came in at the last minute, but I
thought they were important and -- and we have the Christmas holiday
coming up, and we didn't have a lot of time, so I added 10(M),
provided each one of the -- the Executive Summary to all the
commissioners at least a day prior to this meeting, and there are
additional copies of that particular Executive Summary either out in
the back or at the Board of County Commissioner office or the county
manager's office.
10(M) is the recommendation to approve an agreement between
Creative Differences Productions, Limited, the producer, Discovery
Communications, Inc., the company, and the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida to authorize entry upon the
premises of the District 20 Medical Examiner for Collier County to
film and photograph for the purpose of creating a documentary for
distribution on the Discovery Channel and other media.
Page 375
December 12-13,2006
The item is being added at staff s request.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion
to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion on that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just one question. They named --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They named a person in here and,
I'm sorry, I don't remember her name, that was going to be involved in
this, but I know it wasn't Marta.
Is she an assistant with Marta or is she somebody that they're
bringing in?
MR. MUDD: Jim.
I don't know the -- I don't know the answer to that question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, I'll have that answer for you at the end of
the meeting though. Mr. Summers is coming in.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Great.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any further discussion?
Hearing none, I'll call the question.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
Opposed by like sign?
Motion carries.
Page 376
December 12-13, 2006
Item #10N
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION OF THE USE OF A
TEMPORARY SALES CENTER FOR PUL TE HOME SALES IN
THE TOWN OF AVE MARIA AT AN EXISTING PUL TE HOMES
SALES FACILITY LOCATED WITHIN THE ORANGE
BLOSSOM RANCH PUD - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 10(N). And 10(N)
is the -- is the movement of the consent item, Item 16(A)(10) to the
regular agenda at the request of Commissioner Halas and
Commissioner Coyle.
This is a request for authorization of the use of a temporary sales
center for Pulte Home Sales in the town of Ave Maria at an existing
Pulte Sales facility located within the Orange Blossom Ranch PUD.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion
to -- that we accept staffs recommendations.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I want to discuss this.
I believe that there's some problems here with the Land
Development Code, and that's why I pulled this from the agenda.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll remove my motion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: And it was also brought up by the
County Attorney, and my understanding is that normally PUDs that
are -- that are approved will build the sales office prior to a lot of
times in building.
And when we were out there in February for groundbreaking,
that should have been the time that they were doing some
groundbreaking in regards to a sales office.
And I'm concerned because in other areas like Golden Gate
Estates, we've had problems with the sales offices and trying to get
them taken care of at a later date. So, that's what my concern is.
Page 377
December 12-13,2006
Commissioner Coyle or Coletta. Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. Coyle first.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I am concerned that there's a
difference of opinion between the staff and -- and the attorney's office
and that it was put on the consent agenda. I -- I don't like to see that
happen, and that's why I joined Commissioner Halas in having this
pulled.
But -- but I would like to understand something. This is a
temporary request because lots of people are visiting out there at Ave
Maria. It's creating a potential health, safety and welfare problem.
My -- my question to you is, does -- does the Board of County
Commissioners not frequently permit variances for a specified period
of time to certain ordinances.
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmidt, your Community
Development Environmental Services Division Administrator.
Commissioner, this -- to answer your question, yes, but in this
case the PUD at Orange Blossom specifically prohibits off-site sales.
Mr. Varnadoe came to me as well as two other folks from the Ave
Maria, and -- and Mr. Arnold discussed this with me.
I said, you know, it is a -- it does make sense. It's a practical
request. It's a six-month period. We originally talked six months.
I got a letter basically extended beyond that and they said -- I
think six months is about the best I could do to bring it to the board.
Beyond that, I think you'll have to take other measures.
There is an existing sales office at the Orange Blossom PUD on
their homes. I can --I'll let Wayne or George talk about that, but the
-- the issue here, and my good friend, the County Attorney, can
certainly -- he disagreed because of the -- I believe the way it was
requested, that we would suspend any -- any enforcement.
But in this case, it seemed to make some -- just common sense.
We had a lot -- we have a lot of traffic going up that road. This is a
temporary measure.
Page 378
December 12-13, 2006
Commissioner Halas, to answer your question, they're already
building the Visitors' Center.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: But they didn't build it in February when
they should have and they could have taken care of this problem on
their premises.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct and that's -- I think that's -- I
need to point that finger at them and -- can I take your finger and point
it at them?
But the -- the issue here is the request came to me, I said they
could have come and petitioned you directly, and I think that's the
issue with the County Attorney. They could have came during public
comment period or sent a note to the manager and petitioned, which
we would have had to come become anyway in the Executive
Summary .
I said, just give me it. This is the last meeting of the year. I'll put
it in the Executive Summary, get it to the board.
Frankly, the discretion lies with the board in this regard. We--
we -- we thought since there's an existing sales office, it's merely just
handing out -- directing people to that sales office, if they want to pick
up brochures rather than attempt to negotiate and drive down into the
Ave Maria construction site.
I'll turn it over to Wayne or George. I don't know. I guess
maybe I did carry your petition for you, but let me turn it over --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I guess you -- I was going to say it
sounds like you were schlepping for the developer.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you.
For the record, I'm Wayne Arnold.
I think maybe I have some photos. I don't know how recently
any of you have been out to the Ave Maria site, but it is a very active
construction site.
The university is under construction, the church facilities are
under construction as is the Pulte Homes portion of this project.
Page 379
December 12-13, 2006
And part of the reason, Commissioner Halas, that -- that this
portion of the project where Pulte Homes will be building residential
structures could not be constructed simultaneously with the other parts
of this was simply because there was an Army Corps of engineers
permit that was still pending for the portions that encumbered the
residential component of the project, so they couldn't get started at the
same time they could for the other part of the university.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: No. I'm getting at they could have had a
sales office right at the comer of the road that leads in in Oil Well
Road.
MR. ARNOLD: And I think this -- this is a long view of what's
going on. You see the entrance road in the foreground of that. You
see the residential component. That is far under construction.
And it's anticipated that the model home and sales center for
Pulte will be available in approximately six months and possibly less.
But I think I'd like to show you a couple of other photos.
I think photos like this start to put it in perspective just how much
is under construction.
And it wasn't very visible from what Joe was showing you on the
matrix, but the -- the guard and the Barron Collier Companies were
collecting data over the last month and there were approximately a
thousand vehicles in a month approaching, over a hundred a day in
some cases, in which they were simply sightseers looking for
information, trying to find a place where they could go and gather
information on home sales, looking at just what was going on.
And it is becoming a safety issue, because there is a couple
thousand construction workers on this site at times, and getting in the
way of all the activity that's going on simultaneously.
We think we could take care of a good portion if we could simply
stop them three miles short of the Ave Maria facility where Pulte
currently has a sales center and allow them to get their literature,
brochures, look at a model there as opposed to driving on into this
Page 380
December 12-13, 2006
active site.
And I'll show you another photo. I mean, that's a close inversion
of a lot of what's happening at the corps. And you just see how active
that is. And it's really not an environment to try to attract more people
to be there.
And it's certainly not one that we want people just trying to pass
through and observe what's going on.
So, in this context, I think, too -- I know that Joe mentioned that
the Orange Blossom Ranch PUD specifically prohibited sales centers,
but I think it's -- it's a little less clear than that to me.
The code provision generally talks about temporary uses and --
and model homes and sales centers. And it implies that they're located
in PUD in which those sales are to occur.
But it's not that explicit. And I know that -- that there is a
concern and I think that's why Joe wanted to bring that to the board
because this seems to make sense.
It's for a very limited amount of time, six months, and we think
that it takes care of a potential problem and we'd like to head this off
before there is a problem out there, so we would ask for that
consideration.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, you could have had a sales office
at Camp Keias Road but -- Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And thank you very
much for this opportunity to speak.
As the commissioner of the district, I can tell you I don't want a
sales office at Camp Keias Road. It's a very remote location. People
are going to have a hard time finding it. It's a two-lane highway that's
very much impacted by what's taking place.
This place at Orange Blossom we're talking about will have a
tendency to dampen the effect.
And as far as them being able to put it down at the intersection
that they're building with Oil Well Road, that's a construction site --
Page 381
December 12-13, 2006
they haven't even got the thing completed and they're going to be a
number of months before they finish it.
Meanwhile, we've got an entity in there that's underway and it
employs a lot of people. The thing is functioning very well.
If I can hold off the traffic from going all the way back there, I'm
better off for it at this point in time.
It's going to be a problem when they start construction of
Immokalee Road, but at this point in time, let's not exaggerate the
situation any farther and get that sales office at -- at that -- at Orange
Blossom for that six-month period of time.
Past that point in time, I'd say it's up to them to make sure they
locate it on the premise and away and also have signs in place to be
able to make sure people get directed to the right place.
MR. VARNADOE: Mr. Chairman, if I might, just--
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have problem with having this as a
special privilege, okay? That's what I look at this as.
Yes.
MR. VARNADOE: If I might, Mr. Chairman, for the record
George Varnadoe.
The -- if you might remember, we had a preliminary
development agreement that allowed the university in the town core to
get started. That did not cover the outlining areas where the project
next to Camp Keias or next to Oil Well Road.
We thought we were going to get our 404 core permit in time for
Pulte to sell out of their different neighborhoods, which was their
intention and it is still their intentions.
Unfortunately that core permit was not forthcoming until August.
As you can tell, we have a lot of construction out there. We got
2,000 men every day, about 200 delivery trucks, and we're
documenting at the construction entrance 865 vehicles trying to enter
the site to get sales information or sightsee. And that's at the
construction entrance, not -- it doesn't count the main entrance off of
Page 382
December 12-13, 2006
Oil Well Road, which they don't document to try to keep it closed.
So, I think we are dealing with a little bit of a special
circumstance and we'd ask your indulgence for a six-month period,
and I know that some of you might have concerns that we will be
back.
I will tell you we will not be back at the end of six months. It's
just a one time shot to get us through the season.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We had a motion on the floor, but
it was pulled.
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I never did get a chance to ask my
question.
Jeff, tell me what is wrong from a legal standpoint and what
would be the adverse impact of a temporary permit to do this?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, first of all, from a common sense
standpoint, I -- Jeff Klatzkow for the record.
From a common sense standpoint, I mean when Joe first came to
me, I said, of course, we can do this. Why not?
Then I went into the code and I couldn't find any mechanism for
it and then I went to some of Joe's staff and they couldn't find any
mechanism for it.
And we've got a situation that makes all the sense in the world,
but we don't have a road to get there, so that there is no process for
this board to say, yes, we will give you a variance because there's no
variance procedure on this.
I suppose if the board truly believes that this is really a matter of
public health and safety here, we could direct staff to exercise
prosecutorial discretion and just, in essence, allow them six months to
be there.
But on the other hand, you know, it's really -- it's a special
circumstance, but you can also say, well, we're only doing this
Page 383
December 12-13,2006
because this is Ave Maria as well.
And I don't know. I -- I have discomfort with this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My -- well, my -- my concern is
that what we're really doing is making a change to the Orange
Blossom PUD, not making a change or granting a variance for the Ave
Maria PUD.
Is that a correct assessment?
MR. KLATZKOW: That's one way to look at it, yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, where is the Orange Blossom
PUD petitioner? If we're going to change their PUD to permit a
temporary off-site sales center, shouldn't they be the ones who would
be here?
MR. ARNOLD: If I might, Commissioner Coyle, our firm
represents Pulte Home Corporation in several other projects, and we
are the engineer of record for the Orange Blossom Ranch PUD as
well.
So, in that respect, we're here with Pulte Homes' endorsement to
do so in their existing sales facility that's there.
One of the other things, if I might, didn't know which direction
this was going, but if you really look at the Orange Blossom Ranch
PUD, there is a language in there that says that -- that the board can
approve other uses that are compatible, comparable in nature.
It's similar language that you find in other PUDs. And I think
you can find that, if you wish to, in the PUD to approve something
like this for a temporary period of time.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, as it was pointed out, it is
a public health, safety and welfare.
If we have residents going out there that cannot be stopped in a
construction area, we don't want anybody to get hurt. And I find -- I
find this a public health, safety and welfare item and I make a motion
to approve the Executive Summary.
Page 384
December 12-13, 2006
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And I'll do a second
.
agaIn.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further discussion?
Hearing none, I'll call the question.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed by like sign? Aye.
Motion still carries.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I -- in one of those pictures,
you had kind of strange looking building. Could you tell me what that
building is?
MR. MUDD: It's the auditorium.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Auditorium.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, is it really? With that overhang
there?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. I was borrowing it. I was so
impressed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He was taking it. That's what he was
doing.
MR. MUDD: You're talking about -- you're talking about this
building right here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: That's the auditorium.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You could see that from Camp
Keias Road.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No kidding.
COMMISSIONER COLETT A: You could see it from
Immokalee Road in some cases. Certain places you can see it from
Immokalee Road.
Page 385
December 12-13, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Next item?
Item #100
RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO PREPARE AND ADVERTISE AN
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT INCREASING THE MAXIMUM
ADDITIONAL HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION FOR LOW-INCOME
SENIORS FROM $25~000 TO $50~000 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 10(0) on that, and
that is also an add on.
Again, my apologies, because this one was a request by the
Property Appraiser's office.
It's a recommendation to authorize the County Attorney's office
to prepare and advertise an ordinance amendment increasing the
maximum additional homestead exemption for low income seniors
from $25,000 to $50,000, and Mr. Mike Smykowski, your director of
your Office of Management and Budget will present.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Mr. Chairman --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion by Commissioner
Henning and a second by Commissioner Coyle.
Is there anything you have to put on record?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Only, sir, that I did speak with the property
appraiser relative to implementation and their concern, the
applications for the additional homestead go out in mid January
because those are due back to the property appraiser's office by March
1 st, so time is of essence certainly toward getting this implemented an
ordinance adopted in order that this would be effective for tax roll
2007 or the county fiscal year 2008 for the next upcoming.
Page 386
December 12-13,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Isn't there some concerns here that this
hasn't been approved. It's got to go to the state legislature first?
MR. MUDD: No. The implementation instructions on this
particular item is still going to be debated by the Florida legislature
and the County Attorney mentioned that to the board yesterday when
we talked about this particular thing.
Now, and I believe on 9 January, as he comes forward with this
ordinances, he's also going to let the board know his concerns about
implementation of this particular process.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. All right.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: I did speak with the fact representative as
well. They are beginning to get besieged with requests for
information relative to the enabling legislations, so their take on this
they wouldn't be surprised if the legislature meets to address insurance
issues in the short run, that this wouldn't be taken up in the short run as
well.
Obviously, you know, the County Attorney would have to craft
an ordinance that would leave some flexibility and, David, obviously,
I'm not an attorney, so I can't dispense legal advice, but you will need
potential -- the ordinance that would be adopted be brought forth on
January 9th would need to leave some room obviously for a potential
change based on whatever -- if there would be any nuances in the
implementation legislation that the legislature would enact.
But I think the important thing to note, too, is that the
constitutional amendment specifically said that this additional
exemption would take effect on January 1, 2007.
So, I think there is -- there is at least some belief that, you know,
the desire was to enact as quickly and for fiscal year 2008.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much for the
clarification.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: If David has any comments? Or we'll save
that until January 9th. That may be more appropriate.
Page 387
December 12-13,2006
MR. WEIGEL: I'll just quickly say that, you know, Mike's
talked to Fak (sic), I've talked to -- our offices talked with the sponsor
of the constitutional amendment.
And my only comment yesterday was that Jim's request was to
the board that it would be -- specifically would be January 9th, and as
of yesterday, I couldn't tell you that we would have enough
information to make it January 9th, but that the legislator had told us
that legislation will be coming that will make it work no matter what
date.
It appears right now though that, you know, we'll be working
closely with Abe Skinner, so that we'll have -- we've have a vehicle
for you on January 9th.
And as Mike indicated, if it needs to be revised pursuant to the
legislation, we'll do that, too.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: You have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning, and I believe the second is by Commissioner
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. Coletta.
MS. FILSON: Coyle. It was Mr. Coyle.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Pardon?
MS. FILSON: It was Mr. Coyle.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It was Mr. Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I thought it was.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, I thought it was, but I hear voices
over here a lot of times.
So, hearing no further discussion, I'll call the question. All those
in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 388
December 12-13, 2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
Opposed by like sign?
Motion carried.
Item #10P
RECOMMENDATION TO NAME CERTAIN ACQUIRED
CONSERVATION COLLIER PRESERVES - APPROVED WI
WAIVER OF POLICY REGARDING NAMING
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item 10(P). And 10(P)
was asked to be moved off the consent agenda. It used to be 16( A)
(2). It's a recommendation to name certain acquired Conservation
Collier preserves, and Commissioner Coletta asked that this item be
moved to the regular agenda.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much. And I do
appreciate this opportunity. And I'm going to be brief.
I'd like to make a motion for approval of Item 16(A)(2) with one
exception; the school board property to be named Nancy Paton
Preserve in honor of a person that was very instrumental in getting that
property set aside for that conservation use.
And I think it's about time that we start recognizing the people in
our community that make supreme efforts in this way to be able to get
us to where we need to be.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aren't you going to jinx her?
She might get run over by a car or hit by a --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Panther.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- Redheaded Cockaded
Woodpecker and fall over and smash her face in or something like
that? You would hate to see that, wouldn't you?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't know the connection, but
in any case, that's my motion.
Page 389
December 12-13,2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
MR. MUDD: Can I get the name one more time, just so it
doesn't get confused with Payton Place?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Fred's front forty.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Nancy Paton Preserve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Zinger.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. And commissioners.
F or the record, and I think for clarification, the county does have
a policy through resolution in regard to the naming of places,
structures, addresses, things of that nature.
I think to be consistent for the record of what you're purporting to
do right now, it would be appropriate for you to waive the policy in
place relating to the naming of structures in places, which my
recollection is, relates to either a petition process or for deceased
persons only.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Well, I waive the policy
or I'll declare her deceased, one or the other.
I make that part of my motion, to waive the policy.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I have a second on that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Part of my second.
MR. MUDD: I'm giving you the policy right now --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: -- so you know what you're waiving.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further discussion?
Hearing none, I'll call the question.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 390
December 12-13, 2006
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
Opposed by like sign?
Motion carries.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to public comment.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, it doesn't.
MR. MUDD: All right. It brings us to 12 --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: 12(B).
MR. MUDD: Well, if you -- if you follow the agenda, Paragraph
11 precedes Paragraph 12. So, it brings us to our public comments on
general topics.
Item #11
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
MS. FILSON: And, again, this public comments speaker is from
yesterday, Dr. Mogelvang, and I don't believe he's here.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
Item #12B
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS DISCUSS AND GIVE DIRECTION TO THE
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY CONCERNING AN
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE FOR SUPER-
MAJORITY VOTING FOR PURPOSES OF APPROVING
CERTAIN TYPES OF SETTLEMENTS OF LAND USE
DISPUTES AND LAND USE LITIGATION - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner that brings us to our next agenda
item, which is 12(B). It's a recommendation that the Board of County
Page 391
December 12-13, 2006
Commissioners discuss and give directions to the office of the county
attorney concerning an ordinance amendment to provide for
super-majority voting for purposes of approving certain types of
settlements of land use disputes and land use litigation.
And, Mr. Michael Pettit, your chief --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Chief.
MR. MUDD: -- Chief Assistant County Attorney will present.
MR. PETTIT: Good afternoon, commissioners. I think the
Executive Summary is self-explanatory and I think you're acquainted
with the issue from prior discussions. I just want to make a few
observations.
It arises because of the potential, especially under the Harris Act,
which as we've talked about at length yesterday, requires you to make
an offer any time somebody files a Notice of Claim.
The potential under that act to enter into settlement agreements
that have the effect of a certain type of land use decision or a
development order that ordinarily you would have to have a super
majority vote to acquire.
And I -- I've given the opinion earlier. Of course, we know about
the Sandalwood project, that because this is in the nature of a
settlement agreement, when these settlement agreements come before
you, and especially when they're tied to another pending lawsuit as
they often are with these Petitions for Certiorari, that it's a three-vote
rule, and nothing in -- in the law would appear to require otherwise.
And your own procedures ordinance talks in terms of a majority
of the board.
Now, obviously, there are places in general law such as certain
kinds of property acquisitions, and also your special act for rezoning
where super majority requirements are imposed.
Now, that's how the issue comes to you. Commissioner Coyle
was interested in it, wanted it to be brought back, and the question we
were asked in our office is, could you as a board change your -- your
Page 392
December 12-13, 2006
procedures ordinance and adopt a requirement that says that in these
land use situations where it would ordinarily take a super-majority
volt to obtain the relief sought in the settlement agreement.
Let's talk about yesterday. It's an easy example.
PUD amendments require a super-majority vote --
Now, there was a -- I think there was unanimity on the board
yesterday, but I would have told you, had there not been unanimity on
the board, that at the end of the day your offer could have been
binding based on a three-two vote.
But can you change that rule to deal with this glitch, if you want
to call it that, and my opinion is, and Ms. Belpedio and I researched
this pretty extensively, is, yes, you can.
And I want to give you -- I'm not going to say they're caveats, but
there are two buts.
The first one is this is novel. There are not many places and not
many situations in local law around the state where other commissions
are binding themselves to super majorities.
And it is possible that somebody who was a disappointed Harris
Act claimant in particular would make some sort of an argument, if in
fact they could not garner a super majority, that this was somehow
violative of the Harris Act.
I just -- they can make that argument. I -- I look at that, and at
least the way I approach something like that is, can I stand in front of
a judge with a straight face and make the counter-argument? Can I
defend your decision if you decide to adopt the super-majority vote?
Yes, I can. I would rely on the home rule powers because there
is nothing in the Harris Act that says that we have to have any specific
type of procedure.
This wouldn't contradict the Harris Act and research that -- that
Jennifer Belpedio did tells us, and I agree with the research, that the
only time you've got a -- the home rule power would be trumped as if
the ordinance were inconsistent with general law and the general law
Page 393
December 12-13,2006
and the ordinance could not co-exist.
Well, obviously, you can still have settlements under the Harris
Act, whether they're voted in by three votes or by four votes.
That's a pretty simple argument to make. I think it's defensible. I
can't guarantee you'll win, but I'm happy to make that argument. It
doesn't make me uncomfortable at all.
Now, the other but would be that -- and this, I think, is probably
self-evident to all of you whenever you have a super-majority vote, to
some degree, you -- you limit your flexibility and you hamstring
yourself a little bit.
But that's -- that's for you to decide as a board and talk about
among yourselves, I think, after I'm done talking.
What I've attached to your Executive Summary is not the end
all-be all here if you decide to direct us to adopt an ordinance. It's an
example.
And let me tell you why I set it up the way I did. It's an
amendment of you -- of what I call the procedures ordinance. It deals
with your meetings. And it has a super-majority vote exception.
In the ordinance language, and we discussed this, Mr. Weigel and
Mr. Belpedio and I discussed this to some extent. We decided not to
amend the ordinance only to deal with this situation.
What we've done is created flexibility in that ordinance for you to
adopt a resolution to impose super-majority requirement on whatever
subjects you can under general law.
Then I proposed in connection with that a resolution that deals
with this specific situation that brings us here, which is the Harris Act
type situation that the land use type settlement where you would be
authorizing as a remedy or as a part of the settlement consideration of
the develop -- what is in effect a development order.
Now, why did I do that? Because I think it gives you the
flexibility to change your mind later on without having to go through
an ordinance then or process.
Page 394
December 12-13, 2006
And I -- and I get the idea from -- it's something Steve Carnell
came up that I thought was pretty ingenuous, and he must have come
up with it. He's been here for about a million years. So, how long --
however long it's been, he's been here for awhile.
He has a purchasing ordinance, and when he needs to make
changes in the ordinance, he's got the ordinance set up to authorize
you, board, making changes by resolution.
And, so, that gives you a little more flexibility. You don't have
to go through the time procedures of getting an ordinance amended.
I think all -- from my point of view, we really are done. We're
here just getting direction and you need to talk about it among
yourselves.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I -- I just would like to
provide the board with assurance that this will not affect any decision
that we, the board, has made in the past such as the Sandalwood thing.
It doesn't try to overturn it or prohibit it or anything of that
nature, nor does it affect any particular issue, that I'm aware of, that is
likely to come before the board.
There -- there is no hidden intent here. It's just to resolve what --
what appears to me, and I think it appears to you, to be a glitch in the
law that would permit a developer to circumvent the majority vote rule
by filing a lawsuit or challenge of any kind, and then getting it --
getting it approved by a simple majority.
So, that's all it's designed to do is to prevent that, and it would in
fact do that.
Have I mischaracterized this in way, Mike?
MR. PETTIT: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And, so, I would like to
make a motion that we -- we approve this resolution or have the
attorney come back to us --
MR. PETTIT: What we would need to do is -- I recommend we
Page 395
December 12-13,2006
do this by ordinance amendment and we would advertise an ordinance
amendment and bring it back. I think we can do it on the ninth. I
think time would permit it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would -- I would make a motion
that we do that.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'll second that.
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What other actions that we take
that requires the super majority?
MR. PETTIT: The ones that I know of, and I know Jeffs here or
Mr. Schmitt's here, and they maybe able to fill in some that I don't.
The two that I know of are rezones and conditional uses and in
addition -- and Growth Management Plan Amendments, which
actually we've -- we do that by resolution. There's not a ordinance.
And then there is a fourth one that I know from general law ,
which is where you have a situation where you want to buy property,
that is, I think, exceeds the average of two appraisals. I think that
requires a super majority.
So there--
,
MR. MUDD: Tourism.
MR. PETTIT: -- there may be some others.
MR. MUDD: Tourism is the other issue and then I think he's
covered the whole.
MR. PETTIT: And Jeff and --
MR. SCHMITT: LDC amendments.
MR. PETTIT: LDC amendments.
MR. SCHMITT: Conditional use, conditional use extension,
conditional use rewrite.
Yeah. Rezones we talked about.
MR. MUDD: Tourism.
MR. SCHMITT: Okay.
MR. PETTIT: Ms. Belpedio reminds me that you just passed an
Page 396
December 12-13, 2006
exceptional --
MR. SCHMITT: It's another --
MR. PETTIT: -- benefits ordinance.
MR. SCHMITT: -- nondescript, street name changes, some of
those things. But primarily the big issues are --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, besides land use, there's
tourism, budgeting amendments; correct.
MR. MUDD: That's the ordinance, sir. You have to -- when you
do a tourism ordinance issue and that gets into where the moneys go,
you do that by super majority.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, why don't we say
and on super-majority votes where there is an amendment to that
process, like a tourist development budget amendment, why don't we
say that takes a super maj ority .
And that's -- then you're just saying everybody -- you're being
fair across the board about all your super-majority votes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I don't--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it only would apply to that.
It wouldn't apply to Land Development Code amendments because it
requires a super majority anyways.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, no. It would require to any
legal challenge associated with it. For example, if you have a Land
Development Code amendment that we passed by super majority and
somebody wanted to sue us about the Land Development Code
amendment --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- then they could come before us
and get -- get it done, which a vote of three people.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we wouldn't want that to
happen. So -- so, you're right. It should apply to everything that we
do, but anything we do by super majority could not be circumvented
Page 397
December 12-13, 2006
by a lawsuit that would get a majority --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- simple majority. And that's all
this does.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Or an amendment to -- to the promises
where --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Or any of it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- where it comes in like tourist.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that part of your motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's -- that -- that, I thought, was
the intent of this process. I think you said it's any -- any --
MR. PETTIT: I think in the -- under the ordinance -- in the
proposed ordinance amendment, we give you flexibility to apply to --
to more broadly the resolution that was in your package that you
would adopt with the ordinance. That would probably take two votes,
a vote for the ordinance, a vote for the resolution.
It specifically addresses the Sandalwood type issue. It does not
address the issue -- the other issue.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can we -- can -- then that's the
resolution only.
MR. PETTIT: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can't the resolution be -- be
broadened to include all matters that require a four-fifth majority
vote?
MR. PETTIT: As this -- as this was drafted now, just let me read
it, the exception we were going to put into the ordinance which would
be the amendment is, whenever provided by general law, special law
or as specified by resolution, adopted by a majority of the full
membership of the board and notwithstanding Subsection 1 (F), which
is the -- what I call the majority subsection, a motion legally binding
document or resolution may be required to be adopted by an
Page 398
December 12-13, 2006
affirmative vote of four- fifths of the full membership of the board.
Now, I think -- I think, as I read that, we've captured all the
things that we already do by super majority . We just kind of reiterate
it there, whenever as required by general law, special law, or specified
by resolution. I probably can include ordinance.
In addition, then we have the resolution. It only addresses the
land use disputes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well -- well --
MR. PETTIT: I can make it --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, yeah. I'm wondering--
MR. PETTIT: I think I understand what you're trying to get at
and we can work on it. But I think what you're trying to get at is on
amendment in a resolution that would simply say whenever we're
subjected to a legal challenge on a matter requesting relief that would
otherwise require a super-majority vote, the settlement itself will
require a super-majority vote.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: A super-majority vote. It covers
everything equally.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that isn't what I meant.
MR. PETTIT: Okay. Just -- just any super-majority vote, like a
tourist development amendment.
If -- if there's a challenge to that, or amendment to their budget,
I'm saying it should require a super-majority vote.
And it just helps you in your argument if you have to defend a
Bert Harris Act, just saying the board applied it unilaterally across the
board.
Any settlement where the underlying remedy would require a
super-majority vote, I think.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not any settlement. Any action
that we do. If we -- if we take an action that requires a --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: A super majority.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- super majority, any amendment to
Page 399
December 12-13, 2006
whatever it is would require it, too.
MR. WEIGEL: It probably already does, of course. An
amendment to an ordinance is the same --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I just want to make sure
that we capture it.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And -- and, you know, we'll talk
to you later, I think, so you'll really understand.
MR. PETTIT: We'll bring this back obviously after it's
advertised and you'll have an opportunity to look at it. You can
always make changes on the floor because it's simply a notice to the
public that there's an ordinance on this subject.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MR. PETTIT: And if you've got other ideas, e-mails or let us
know.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you know what --
MR. PETTIT: But I think I know where you're going.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know what Commissioner
Henning is getting at and I agree with it.
MR. PETTIT: Yeah. Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I'm going to probably be
the odd one out on this one.
I -- I do have problems, and it goes back even though we say it's
not Sandalwood.
Sandalwood was the only exception I can think of would be the
reasonable why I couldn't be able to support this.
If Sandalwood went through -- unlike the -- the Cocohatchee
settlement that we reached today, I think we could have won that. I
think we could have won just about the majority of the other ones that
were down the road.
Sandalwood, I'm convinced, and still to this moment in time, that
Page 400
December 12-13, 2006
we would have lost, and we would have lost big time for the taxpayers
of Collier County.
And this is the reason why I have misgivings with doing this. If
it wasn't for Sandalwood, I would have no problem supporting it.
But after going through that and that vote coming down three to
two and realizing what could have happened, and then that's -- that's
the problem I'd have, and I can understand this going forward, that's
fine.
You know, let's get the public input in here where it's going to
go, but at this point in time I have reservations.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just have one more question.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does this ordinance and
resolution take a super majority to pass?
MR. PETTIT: Well, we anticipated that somebody would bring
that up, and let me tell you what we did. I -- I -- somebody had told
me that former County Attorney, now City of Sanibel attorney, Ken
Cuyler, had dealt with that issue and had done some research.
So, I called him and he spoke with us and he did not -- he said he
had looked at that and he had never found anything that prohibited a
majority of a board from imposing a super-majority requirement.
I had a similar conversation, much more informal, with Mr. Pritt,
who often is the city attorney for Naples, same answer.
We then -- I said, you know, we better research this. We can't
fine any -- there's not a lot that even comes close to it.
We haven't found anything that says that a majority vote cannot
impose a super-majority requirement.
Now, I will tell you, as I drafted this, I did think about one
situation, which is, there are three commissioners here. Do you really
want two of them imposing a super-majority requirement?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well--
Page 401
December 12-13,2006
MR. PETTIT: And I -- so, the way this was drafted,
commissioner, for you as a board to adopt a resolution imposing a
super-majority requirement on any particular subject matter, you have
to have three affirmative votes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just want to say that a Marco
Island city councilman told me they don't do super majority on their
land uses, and I don't believe they do.
But he did tell me, he says, I don't like super-majority votes,
because in this case, if it's a three-two, then the minority rules.
But that's just a sideline and I'm ready to vote.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I'd like to interject some things
here, that I believe that the scale here is tipped towards the developers
in -- throughout the whole State of Florida.
And I think that we, making sure that we have a super majority,
kind of balance the scales so that we do things in the right manner.
And I go along with this ordinance change and I hope that we can
draft some legislation.
It's not just because of Sandalwood. It's because we found a loop
-- there was a loophole that was found.
And just so that no matter what comes up in -- in the future, that
if it takes a super majority to address that, then it should take a super
majority to address the amendments or any other changes to it.
And I just feel that we're here for the benefit of the citizens. And
a lot of times their voices aren't heard because they're the silent
majority, and I think that's what we're here for, is to make sure that the
scale is somewhat in the -- in the level position, okay, for all.
So, I am for this, so I believe that Commissioner Coy Ie made the
motion and I seconded it, and if there's no further discussion, we'll
vote on this.
All those in favor of this resolution -- is this what we're voting on
first of all?
MR. PETTIT: No. What you're voting on is to have us come
Page 402
December 12-13, 2006
back an ordinance advertisement -- an ordinance amendment
advertisement, and I believe I would bring back a resolution to deal
with the very specific issue.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So, this is just to build a -- come
up with an ordinance.
MR. PETTIT: To come up with the ordinance amendment to
allow you then to make this requirement in the future.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Now that we've got that straight
on record, I'll call the question.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye.
Those opposed by like sign?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I think the motion carries.
MR. PETTIT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to staff and
commissioners' general communications.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We'll start off with the county
manager.
What have you got to bring forward, sir?
MR. MUDD: Oh, commissioner, a couple of things.
First of all, I received a letter yesterday, at least that's when I read
the letter, yesterday, and it basically says at the top, we are pleased to
Page 403
December 12-13, 2006
present to you with a copy of the November 2006 Florida metro
forecast published by the University of Central Florida's Institute of
Economic Competitiveness.
And -- and this showed up, and what I did is I extracted the page
that had to do with Naples and Marco Island MSA, and it goes
through --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What's MSA?
MR. MUDD: I think it's metropolitan service area -- statistical
area, excuse me.
And it basically talked about Naples and Marco Island and it
talks about what the population is, but what I thought was very
interesting was the short-term outlook.
And just for the folks out there that think the sky is falling,
Naples, along with Orlando, is expected to have the highest growth
rate and personal income at 7.2 percent. This figure is 60 basis points
above the state average.
Over the next three years, the sector with the most annual growth
will be the construction and mining at 4.6 percent, leisure and
hospitality is predicted to grow by 4.1 percent, and the professional
and business service sectors are expected to grow by 4 percent.
Naples is the only metropolitan statistical area in the state that is
expected to continue to have an increase in housing starts. Housing
starts are expected to grow at an average of 1.7 percent over the next
three years.
This figure is in stark contrast to the predicted 6.7 percent decline
in housing starts for the state.
The unemployment rate in Naples is predicted at a average of2.7
percent. Naples is also averaging the highest rate of population
growth at 3.2 percent.
And that's from the folks that actually watch it. I thought that
was interesting, as that came to me yesterday, I was reading my inbox.
The next thing I would like to talk about is the proposed joint
Page 404
December 12-13,2006
agenda with the -- with the city, and I'm sorry I broke it apart, but we
were -- we were trying to come up with -- with things to talk about at
this particular time.
And I'll -- I'll get to nine, ten and 11 in just a second.
Set the agenda, the City of Naples wanted to talk about
annexation. One of the things that the county, at least county staff,
has been trying to do with the City of Naples for awhile and haven't
been able to get an inter-local agreement, it has to talk about mutual
review of land use items on the city-county boundary.
That's important probably to follow that annexation discussion,
because if you're going to annex areas, or whatever, you would hope
that they would be compatible in nature so that you don't have a stark
contrast between when you leave the city and when you get into the
unincorporated part of the county.
So, we have an inter-local agreement right now with Marco
Island. They look at our zoning issues that are on their particular
boundary and we rook at theirs and we provide professional comments
back to them as far as a critique based on that zoning as it -- as it
applies to the county's Land Development Code Growth Management
Plan.
The next item that is proposed would be to talk about
federal-state lobbyist for the city-county funding request. This is a
city item that they would like to talk about.
They would also like to talk about the Naples Bay. This is a
significant impacted waterway that's been declared as a category -- as
a category. They would like to talk about that and get an update from
the Big Cypress Basin, in particular, Clarence Tears.
The next item that they would like to talk about is the
preservation of Keewayden Island.
Okay. One of the things that I've had commissioners ask me
about in the past was, they'd like to be updated on the Fifth Avenue
Community Redevelopment Agency, specifically about expenditures
Page 405
December 12-13,2006
for that particular CRA.
It's been in existence now, going on its tenth year, has another 20
years to go before it sunsets, and you provide as a board significant
amount of general fund money to that particular endeavor.
Nine --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Will we have those figures that we
will be able to produce that day? Is --
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, they're going to provide us a read ahead.
And we provided the information that we have from the staff and
they're collecting all the other presentations to provide you a read
ahead prior to your Monday afternoon meeting.
The ninth item was city service fees and county subsidies for
capital improvements in the city, and that has a lot to do with -- with --
I believe the funding requests that the city had for Fleischmann Park.
They want to talk about either that and/or future particular
endeavors that they have capital improvements for the city to see if
they can get the county costs share agreements to those particular
capital improvements in the city.
Last but not least, we'll talk from a county perspective, from a
transportation perspective, we would like to get an update on the city's
plans for the four corners bypass.
This is one of those issues when we had the conversation about
the overpass. We -- there was a question from this board to the then
city mayor, and that, God bless her soul, was Bonnie Mackenzie.
And she basically said that there would be no constriction of
traffic at that particular corner that would -- that would impact traffic
on 41 or on Goodlette Frank that would -- would cause traffic to be
diverted over the overpass.
And -- and I -- I believed it was a good time that the board get an
idea.
You've seen what stories are in the papers, but you haven't been
presented with anything upon that critical area in the county.
Page 406
December 12-13, 2006
I thought it would be a good idea that you got that so you could
see how it meshes up with the traffic flow -- the future traffic flow that
we were going to have.
And the last item that the city wanted to put on was city-county
relations.
That's the -- that's the agenda that's being proposed.
I guess what I'm asking you, as a board, are you okay with that
particular agenda, and if you are, then we'll moved forward with it; if
you're not, if you want something to change, then I can bring that
forward.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: What's the flavor of the commission?
Go ahead, commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we need an update on the
Naples boat base speed?
That's probably -- probably not. That's a litigation type item.
MR. KLATZKOW: Still awaiting a decision.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: I think he's doing it by hand.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: As long as he's doing it.
MR. WEIGEL: No decision means that the old standards remain
in place.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Okay.
MR. MUDD: So, that was on my list, but when I talked with the
County Attorney we were still in litigation, so I believe it was a good
thing not to talk about it.
Everybody's okay with it?
CHAIRMAN HALAS: I don't hear any objections.
Is there any additions? Want to be heard on this, Jim? I guess
not.
MR. MUDD: I think we're okay.
And last but --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hold on. Commissioner--
Page 407
December 12-13,2006
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me just ask.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- Fiala.
MR. MUDD: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. They had -- they had
mentioned and this might be imbedded in this somehow.
They had mentioned something about county residents, county
children, using their parks and -- and so forth.
Is that somehow located in here?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. It's city service fees and county
subsidies for capital improvement. That's exactly what they're --
CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's hidden in there.
MR. MUDD: -- going to talk about, yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle, you were gone. Is
there any change --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I -- I heard it. I heard the
discussion.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't have any problem at all.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So, we'll-- we'll go with the
agenda as -- as you provided there.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
And the one thing I just wanted to clarify, and I didn't mention it
when we were discussing the community development reorganization,
Mr. Schmitt has been sitting on a number of positions that the board
has deferred until after the particular agenda item today.
Mr. Schmitt will come forward to the board with those
appropriate additions to his staff that he's been asking for that have
been in abeyance at the next board meeting, and I just wanted to make
sure that was there, that nobody confuses that with, well, he
reorganized and all the head counts going up. No, that's not today
case.
That's all I have, sir.
Page 408
December 12-13,2006
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay.
County Attorney.
MR. WEIGEL: I've got one thing. Thank you.
Mr. Pettit.
MR. PETTIT: I just wanted to get on record that we will have an
item on the January 9 agenda for -- to look at the lobbyist ordinance.
We've had some direction on that. It's taking us a little time to
complete our research, but we'll come back, and if you wish to direct
us to make an ordinance amendment, we'll do so.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Does that pertain to lobbyists that come
to us?
MR. PETTIT: Yes. It pertains to the local lobbyist law.
There was some questions raised by Miss Payton regarding
disclosures.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Anything else from the County
Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: No. That's it.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle, do you
have anything?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing at all.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Nothing to add, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I just want to say that it's been a
pleasure to be your chair, and I think at the next meeting we'll
probably change that position.
And I also want to thank each and every one of you for your
perseverance the last two days. It's been a heavy agenda.
And I also would like to wish each and every one of you a Merry
Christmas and a Happy New Year.
And with that, I'll turn it over to Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
First of all, I just wanted to comment that Commissioner Henning
Page 409
December 12-13, 2006
made a cute little statement yesterday and it's -- he called it the best
coast instead of the west coast, and I thought, gee, that's something we
could use every so often. I got a kick out of that. I wrote it down so I
wouldn't forget to say.
The second thing I wanted to say is I wanted to thank everybody
__ everybody who has been so kind to send -- send some really nice
remarks about my husband. He's doing better.
He -- hopefully, he'll be out of there pretty soon and feeling
really good. And I just wanted to thank a lot of people that sent me
notes and I thank everybody for that.
And, lastly, Merry Christmas to everybody.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I have Commissioner
Coletta's time, too?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's two hours.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Well, I'll shorten that up
then.
I had an exciting weekend last weekend. I went to Immokalee,
my family and I, spent about a half a day out there and picked up
some vegetables and ate lunch out there.
But one of the -- the purpose that I went out there, I wanted to see
what kind of housing is out there, and see, you know, how Code
Enforcement and others are doing.
You know, my perspective, it's -- we have some progress there,
but what I really noticed was Arrowhead, and it's built out, and a lot of
those houses are empty, waiting for new workers to move in there.
So, you know, I didn't really have any hesitancy about C- Tech,
but this is encouraging, that a company could go in there and there's --
there's housing there, waiting for the work force for their jobs and
housing.
Page 410
December 12-13, 2006
So, the other thing is, I want to wish everybody a very Merry
Christmas. I know that this will be very exiting for myself and my
wife because, you know, Darson, her office is just about four years
old.
So, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: There's nothing to be added to this, we
are adjourned for the year.
* * * * * Commissioner Coy Ie moved, seconded by Commissioner
Coletta and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved andlor adopted *****
Item #16A1
THE RELEASE AND SA TISF ACTION OF A CODE
ENFORCEMENT LIEN AGAINST LARRY & CORRENA
MCVEY FOR PAYMENT RECEIVED
Item #16A2 - Moved to Item #10P
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 2006-318: A MODIFIED RESOLUTION
OPPOSING THE DE-DESIGNATION OF THE BIG CYPRESS
AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN (ACSC) AND DIRECT
THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS ASSIGNED DESIGNEE TO
PROVIDE THE RESOLUTION TO THE OFFICE OF THE
GOVERNOR, THE FLORIDA ADMINISTRATION
COMMISSION AND THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
Item #16A4
Page 411
December 12-13, 2006
RESOLUTION 2006-319: AN AMENDMENT TO THE LOCAL
HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN (LHAP) FOR FISCAL YEARS
20042005, 2005-2006 AND 2006-2007, TO IMPLEMENT
REQUIRED TECHNICAL REVISIONS RECEIVED FROM THE
FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION - TO PROVIDE
FUNDING TO LOCAL COMMUNITIES THROUGH A
DOCUMENTARY STAMP TAX ON REAL ESTATE
TRANSACTIONS TO PROMOTE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Item #16A5
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER UTILITY FACILITY
FOR ASCOT AT LEL Y RESORT - WlRELEASE OF THE
UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A6
THE RELEASE AND SA TISF ACTION OF CODE
ENFORCEMENT LIENS AGAINST LONNIE A. GREY AND
CLAUDE E. LARUE FOR PAYMENTS RECEIVED
Item #16A7
FINAL PLAT OF INDEPENDENCE PHASE TWO-A, APPROVAL
OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY -
WISTIPULATIONS
Item #16A8
FINAL PLAT OF VERCELLI, APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD
Page 412
December 12-13, 2006
FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY - WISTIPULATIONS
Item # 16A9
FINAL PLAT OF PIACERE - PAVIA, APPROVAL OF THE
STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE
PERFORMANCE SECURITY - WISTIPULATIONS
Item #16A10 - Moved to Item #10N
Item #16B1
THE PURCHASE OF 5.15 ACRES OF IMPROVED PROPERTY
OF WHICH A PORTION IS REQUIRED FOR ROAD RIGHT OF
WAY FOR THE VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD EXTENSION
PROJECT. PROJECT NO. 60168 (FISCAL IMPACT: $851,730.00)
_ LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE
PLANNED V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD EXTENSION AND
WILSON BOULEVARD
Item #16B2
THE AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT FOR
HALDEMAN CREEK DISPOSAL WITH LAKEVIEW DRIVE OF
NAPLES, LCC, A FLORIDA LIMITED COMPANY - FOR A
SOIL DISPOSAL SITE LOCATED SOUTH OF THE MAIN
CHANNEL
Item #16B3
Page 413
December 12-13,2006
AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE,
TO EXECUTE A REVISED LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND INDIVIDUALS OR BUSINESSES
LICENSED TO PRACTICE SURVEYING AND MAPPING IN
THE STATE OF FLORIDA TO ALLOW ACCESS TO THE
COUNTY'S GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (GPS)
NETWORK FOR THE PURPOSE OF SURVEYING AND
MAPPING ALLOWING FOR A TWO YEAR (2) CONTRACT
PERIOD AND A TWENTY DOLLAR ($20.00) PER MONTH
ROVER ACCESS FEE
Item #16B4
RESOLUTION 2006-320 : 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 $405,000
FOR PAVED SHOULDERS ON IMMOKALEE ROAD (CR 846)
FROM NORTH OF PLATT ROAD TO EAST OF CORKSCREW
LANEISANCTUARY ROAD. (PROJECT # 60016) - TO
IMPROVE SAFETY ON THIS SECTION OF IMMOKALEE
ROAD
Item #16C1
CONTRACT 06-3991 WITH PERKIN ELMER IN THE AMOUNT
OF $210,000 FOR SPECIFICATIONS FOR A LABORATORY
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND APPROVE
THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT - TO IMPROVE
THE OVERALL EFFICIENCY AND ABILITY TO MEET
REGULATORY STANDARDS FOR THE PUBLIC UTILITIES
Page 414
December 12-13,2006
LABORATORIES
Item #16C2
CHANGE ORDER NUMBER ONE TO WORK ORDER UC-189 IN
THE AMOUNT OF $18,767.68 AND CHANGE ORDER NUMBER
ONE TO WORK ORDER UC-233 IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,924.46
WITH D.N. HIGGINS CORPORATION FOR THE REPAIR OF
ONE POTABLE AND ONE IRRIGATION QUALITY WATER
MAIN FAILURE IN THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER
DISTRICT - THE MAIN BREAKS WERE LOCATED AT
CYPRESS WAY AND FAIRWAY COURT IN PALM RIVER AND
THE INTERSECTION OF US 41 AND RATTLESNAKE
HAMMOCK
Item #16C3
AN AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AL PROTECTION TO CONDUCT AMBIENT
AIR QUALITY MONITORING WITHIN COLLIER COUNTY -
TO COMPLY WITH THE CLEAN AIR ACT (USC 7401) AND
TITLE 40 CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS(CFR) - FOR A
PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS
Item # 16C4
AN INTER-LOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE COLLIER
COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD TO RETAIN OZONE AND PM2.5
MONITORING EQUIPMENT AT LAUREL OAK ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL TO CONDUCT AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
MONITORING FOR THE URBAN AREA OF THE COUNTY -
THIS SITE PROVIDES AN EV ALUA TION OF THE OZONE AND
Page 415
December 12-13, 2006
PARTICULAR MATTER CONDITIONS IN A CENTRALIZED
PORTION OF THE URBANIZED AREA OF THE COUNTY
Item #16C5 - Continued to the January 9, 2007 BCC meeting
THE CONVEYANCE OF A UTILITY EASEMENT TO THE
WATER-SEWER DISTRICT FOR FIVE PUBLIC WATER
SUPPLY WELL SITES, ASSOCIATED PIPELINES, AND
ACCESS ON THE COLLIER COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS
PROPERTY AT AN ESTIMATED COST NOT TO EXCEED
$61.00, FOR THE NORTH EAST REGIONAL WATER
TREATMENT PLANT WELLFIELD, PROJECT NUMBER 70899
_ TO SUPPLY RAW WATER TO THE NORTH EAST
REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT IN ORDER TO
MEET THE DEMAND IN THAT AREA OF THE COUNTY
Item # 16C6 - Continued to the January 9, 2007 BCC meeting
AN AGREEMENT WITH THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TO MONITOR GROUND WATER
IN COLLIER COUNTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $337,601 AND
THE ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENT - TO MONITOR
SEVENTY THREE (73) GROUND WATER SITES
SEMIANNUALLY FOR THREE YEARS
Item #16C7
THE SELECTION COMMITTEES RECOMMENDATION FOR
PROJECT MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT SERVICES AND
APPROVE TIME AND MATERIAL WORK ORDER NO. URS-FT-
3657-07-03 WITH URS INC. IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO
EXCEED $405,660 FOR SOLID WASTE CAPITAL PROJECTS-
Page 416
December 12-13, 2006
TO MANAGE ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THE SOLID WASTE
CAPITOL PROJECTS AND MEET THE COUNTY'S SCHEDULE,
BUDGET AND QUALITY EXPECTATIONS
Item #16C8 - Continued to the January 9, 2007 BCC meeting
TO TRANSFER FUNDS AND THE ASSOCIATED BUDGET
AMENDMENTS FOR AGREEMENT ML070554 AND ML040284
WITH THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT (SFWMD) FROM MISCELLANEOUS GRANT FUND
(116) TO WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FUND (114) - FOR
OPERATING EXPENSES AND TO FUND TWO (2) CURRENT
LAB TECHNICIAN POSITIONS
Item #16D1
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO PLACE $31 ,500 AWARDED BY
THE BILL AND MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION PUBLIC
ACCESS HARDWARE UPGRADE GRANT IN FUND 129 SO
THAT FUNDS CAN BE EXPENDED BY DECEMBER 31,2006-
TO UPGRADE THE PUBLIC ACCESS COMPUTER
EQUIPMENT
Item # 16D2
THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AND THE AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST
FLORIDA, INC., APPROVE THE OLDER AMERICANS ACT
CONTINUATION GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $858,413, AND
APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$443,904 - TO PAY FOR IN-HOME CARE, TRANSPORTATION
Page 417
December 12-13, 2006
AND SENIOR MEAL PROGRAMS
Item #16E1
THE DONATION OF SURPLUS ITEMS TO THE SHERIFFS
RANCHES ENTERPRISES - SOME ITEMS WILL BE USED FOR
OPERA TIONAL PURPOSES AND SELL THE BALANCE
THROUGH THEIR PROFIT THRIFT STORES
Item # 16E2
TO REVISE AWARD OF BID 06-4048, QUICK COpy SERVICES
FROM CECIL'S COpy EXPRESS AND RAY LEP AR PRINTING
TO CECIL'S COpy EXPRESS AND PRO PRINT OF NAPLES,
INC. FOR SECTION II (LETTER SIZE, COLLATED MULTIPLE
ORIGINALS) OF THE CONTRACT - FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF
PRINTING SERVICES ON AN AS NEEDED BASIS, EFFECTIVE
DECEMBER 18~ 2006
Item # 16E3
RECOMMENDATION TO REJECT ALL RESPONSES
RECEIVED UNDER BID 06-4052, MARCO ISLAND LIBRARY
ROSE HALL ADDITION, PROJECT 54004 - FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A MEETING ROOM ADDITION
Item #16E4
REPORT AND RATIFY STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS
AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS TO BOARD APPROVED
CONTRACTS - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Page 418
December 12-13, 2006
Item #16E5
AWARD BID 07-4078 "ON CALL MECHANICAL
CONTRACTOR SERVICES" TO UNITED MECHANICAL, INC.
AS PRIMARY, CORTEZ COMMERCIAL SYSTEMS AS
SECONDARY AND CNS INDUSTRIES AS THE THIRD OPTION
FOR MECHANICAL ENGINEERING AND CONTRACTOR
SERVICES - FOR THE MAINTENANCE, REPAIR AND
REPLACEMENT OF ALL COUNTY OWNED AIR-
CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT
Item #16E6
AWARD WORK ORDER NO. PBS-FT -3971-07-02 UNDER
CONTRACT NO. 06-3971, ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR
GENERAL CONTRACTORS SERVICES, TO WALL SYSTEMS,
INC. OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, D/BIAlPROFESSIONAL
BUILDING SYSTEMS (PBS) FOR RENOVATIONS TO THE
THIRD FLOOR OF BUILDING H FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY
HEALTH DEPARTMENT, IN THE AMOUNT OF ONE
HUNDRED EIGHTY NINE THOUSAND, NINE HUNDRED
($189,900.00) DOLLARS - TO ACCOMMODATE BOTH THE
VITAL STATISTICS AND EPIDEMIOLOGY DEPARTMENTS
Item #16F1
BID #06-4003R ARTIFICIAL REEF MITIGATION PROJECT TO
CENTER CONTRACTING CORPORATION FOR TOTAL BASE
BID AMOUNT OF $998,898.00 (PROJECT NO. 905271)-
LOCATED IN APPROXIMATELY ONE-HALF MILE OFF
NAPLES BEACH OPPOSITE 3RD AVENUE NORTH AND
Page 419
December 12-13, 2006
COVERS 1 ACRE
Item # 16F2
A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY
MEDICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT AT A RENEWAL RATE
FOR FY 07 OF $250.00 - RENEWALS ARE REQUIRED EACH
YEAR
Item #16F3
RESOLUTION 2006-321: A FLORIDA EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES COUNTY GRANT APPLICATION, GRANT
DISTRIBUTION FORM AND RESOLUTION FOR TRAINING
AND MEDICALlRESCUE EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES IN THE
AMOUNT OF $163,419.00 AND TO APPROVE A BUDGET
AMENDMENT TO APPROPRIATE ADDITIONAL GRANT
FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $63,419.00 WHICH IS THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE $100,000 BUDGETED FOR FY 07
AND THE $163,419 DEEMED BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA AS
THE GRANT AWARD
Item #16F4
SPENDING UP TO $30,000 FOR APPRAISALS AND PRE-
CONTRACT EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH THE POTENTIAL
PURCHASE OF THE HOLLAND SALLEY WAREHOUSE
LOCATED AT 2231 LINWOOD AVENUE - TO BE USED FOR
AN EMS TRANSPORT UNIT BASE, EMS SPECIAL
OPERATIONS STORAGE AND AN EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT LOGISTICAL SUPPORT AREA
Page 420
December 12-13,2006
Item #16F5
BUDGET AMENDMENT - TO REPLACE A 1998 FORD
TAURUS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
Item #16F6
A BUDGET AMENDMENT APPROPRIATING ADDITIONAL
REVENUE IN THE FREEDOM MEMORIAL TRUST FUND - TO
ALLOW INVOICES FOR PROJECTS EXPENSES TO BE PAID
Item #16G1
A SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT AGREEMENT(S) BETWEEN
THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY AND A GRANT APPLICANT(S) WITHIN THE
BA YSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AREA - SITE LOCATED AT THE
AMERICAN LEGION POST 135~ 2296 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL
Item #16G2
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 AIRPORTI TRADEPORT
Page 421
December 12-13,2006
Item #16G3 - Withdrawn
A THIRTY-FIVE (35) YEAR SUB-LEASE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY
AND ROBERT FORBIS, INC. DIBIA 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 AIRPORTI TRADEPORT
Item #16G4
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
AIRPORTITRADEPORT
Item #16Hl
COMMISSIONER FIALA REQUESTS REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A MEETING SERVING A VALID PUBIC
PURPOSE; ATTENDED THE MARCO ISLAND KIWANIS CLUB
ANNUAL MEETING ON SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 11 TH AT
THE MARCO ISLAND YACHT CLUB; $50.00 TO BE PAID
Page 422
December 12-13, 2006
FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #1611
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED ANDIOR
REFERRED:
THE FOLLOWING MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE, AS
PRESENTED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
HAS BEEN DIRECTED TO THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS AS
INDICATED:
Page 423
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
December 12, 2006
J 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:
~ November 4, 2006 through November 10, 2006.
~ November 11, 2006 through November 17, 2006.
~ November 18, 2006 through November 24, 2006.
B. Districts:
~ Port of the Islands Community Improvement District: Minutes
and Agenda of July 14, 2006; Minutes and Agenda of August
11, 2006; Adopted Budget FY 2007; Meeting Schedule of
October 2006 through September 2007.
C. Minutes:
Jrf
~
Ji)
Collier County Planninq Commission: Agenda for December 7,
2006; Minutes of October 19, 2006.
Collier County Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board: Minutes of July
27,2006; Agenda for July 27,2006; Minutes of August 24,
2006; Agenda for September 28, 2006; Minutes of September
28,2006; Agenda for October 26,2006.
Collier County Code Enforcement Board: Minutes of
September 25, 2006 Workshop.
H:\DATA\FRONT DESK - 2006\2006 Miscellaneous Correspondence\121206_misc_corr.doc
4 Vanderbilt Beach M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee: Agenda for
December 7, 2006; Minutes of November 2, 2006.
I The Bavshore/Gatewav Trianqle Redevelopment Area
Community Redevelopment Aqencv: Agenda for September 5,
2006; Minutes of September 5, 2006; Agenda for October 3,
2006; Minutes of October 3,2006.
\9Y Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee:
jMinutes of October 9, 2006.
J(l) Domestic Animal Services Advisory Committee: Minutes of
October 17, 2006.
H:\DATA\FRONT DESK - 2006\2006 Miscellaneous Correspondence\121206_misc_corr.doc
December 12-13, 2006
Item #16JI
THE CREATION OF A MAGISTRATE AND CASE MANAGER
POSITION FOR THE COURTS. (FY07 COSTS OF $150,000) - TO
ASSIST WITH MOVING CASES THROUGH THE CIVIL COURT
SYSTEM
Item # 16J2
RECOMMENDATION TO INCREASE THE HOURS FOR THE
CITIZEN'S FOSTER CARE REVIEW PANEL (CFCRP)
DIRECTOR (FY07 COSTS OF $21,132) - TO PROVIDE
ADEQUATE ASSISTANCE TO THE PANEL WHICH OVERSEES
JUVENILE DEPENDENCY CASES FOR THE COURT
Item # 16J3
APPROV AL OF CHANGE ORDER #1 TO ADD $404,405 TO
CONTRACT #03-3497, AUDITING SERVICES FOR COLLIER
COUNTY, WITH KPMG LLP, IN ORDER TO REFLECT TOTAL
SERVICES CONTRACTED THROUGH NOVEMBER 28, 2006 -
AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16J4
ACCEPT THE REPORT OF INTEREST FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 PURSUANT TO FLORIDA
STATUTE 218.78. INTEREST PAID FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
INCLUDED TWO PAYMENTS: ONE IN THE AMOUNT OF
$32,031.08 TO DOUGLAS HIGGINS, INC., PROJECT NUMBER
73086 AND ONE TO AMJ EQUIPMENT CORPORATION IN THE
AMOUNT OF $267.91 FOR A TOTAL OF $32~298.99
Page 424
December 12-13, 2006
Item #16K1
AN AGREED ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF EXPERT FEES AND
COSTS IN CONNECTION WITH PARCELS 110 AND 710 IN
THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. SALVADORE
VILLANUEVA, JR., ET AL., CASE NO. 05-1000-CA (CR 951,
PROJECT NO. 65061) FISCAL IMPACT: $8,539.00 - FOR
APPRAISAL AND PLANNING FEES
Item #16K2
AN AGREED ORDER AWARDING EXPERT FEES AND COSTS
IN CONNECTION WITH PARCEL 119 IN THE LAWSUIT
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. PERRY W. ROSS,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE, ET AL., CASE NO. 04-
4174-CA (RATTLESNAKE-HAMMOCK ROAD, PROJECT NO.
60169) FISCAL IMPACT: $13,950.00 - FOR APPRAISAL AND
PLANNING FEES
Item #16K3
AN AGREED ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF EXPERT FEES IN
CONNECTION WITH PARCEL 140 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. ROSA A. HERNANDEZ, ET AL., CASE
NO. 05-1033-CA (CR 951, PROJECT NO. 65061) FISCAL
IMPACT: $26,368.00 - FOR THE RESPONDENTS' APPRAISER,
ARCHITECT AND BUSINESS DAMAGE FEES
Item #16K4
A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR PARCEL 122 IN THE
Page 425
December 12-13, 2006
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. VILLAGE WALK
HOA OF NAPLES, INC., ET AL., CASE NO. 04-345-CA
(VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD PROJECT NO. 63051). (FISCAL
IMP ACT $6~857 .00) - FOR ATTORNEY AND APPRAISER FEES
Item #17A
ORDINANCE 2006-59: AN ORDINANCE OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-75, AS AMENDED, THE PUBLIC
VEHICLE FOR HIRE ORDINANCE, DEREGULATING
CHARTER SERVICE RATES; AUTHORIZING
DISCRETIONARY INCREASE TO THE TAXI BASE RATE BY
25 CENTS PER TRIP; PROHIBITING RATE DISCOUNTS FOR
TAXI TRIPS THAT BEGIN AND END IN COLLIER COUNTY
EXCEPT FOR SENIOR CITIZEN PASSENGERS; PREVENT
VEHICLE INSPECTION BY AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS BIASED
IN FAVOR OF THE VEHICLE PASSING THE INSPECTION;
STAFF MUST DISREGARD OPERATOR'S PERMIT
SUSPENSIONS THAT ARE NOT RELATED TO DRIVING A
MOTOR VEHICLE; EXPAND LIST OF DISQUALIFYING
CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS AND STATUS AS A CRIMINAL;
INCREASE MINIMUM INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS BY
$25,000 FOR BODILY INJURY TO ONE INDIVIDUAL;
AUTHORIZE APPEAL TO PV AC IF STAFF DENIES AN
APPLICATION FOR A DRIVER'S ID; INCREASE SOME FINES;
PROVIDE FOR INCLUSION INTO THE CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES; PROVIDE FOR CONFLICT AND
SEVERABILITY; PROVIDE THE EFFECTIVE DATE
Item #17B - Continued to the January 9, 2007 BCC Meeting
Page 426
December 12-13, 2006
PETITION A VROW-2006-AR-9477: GOLDEN GATE ESTATES
UNIT 95 TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE
COUNTY'S AND THE PUBLICS INTEREST IN A 60 FOOT
WIDE RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT KNOWN AS 7TH AVENUE
NW (CHERRYWOOD DRIVE) OVER PORTIONS OF TRACTS
15 & 16, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT 95, ACCORDING TO
THE PLAT THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 9, PAGE
45, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AND MORE SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED IN
EXHIBIT A, AND TO ACCEPT A 20 FOOT WIDE AL TERNA TE
DRAINAGE EASEMENT AND TWO 10 FOOT BY 10 FOOT
ALTERNATE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS OVER PORTIONS OF
TRACT 15
Item #17C - Continued to the January 7, 2007 BCC Meeting
PETITION: A VESMT -2006-AR-9775, HANSON TO DISCLAIM,
RENOUNCE AND V ACA TE THE COUNTY'S AND THE
PUBLICS INTEREST IN THE SOUTH 30 FEET OF THE SOUTH
HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 24,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
Page 427
December 12-13, 2006
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:50 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALSIEX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
~~/
FRANK HALAS, Chairman
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
By: :.~ ~.c.
"1Qf1atllN onlw
These minutes approved by the Board on -.J -'1 - 2i60 1- , as
presented V- or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY
COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY KELLEY NADOTTI
AND ROSE WITT.
Page 428