BCC Minutes 01/23 - 24/2007 R
January 23-24, 2007
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, January 23-24, 2007
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: Jim Coletta
Fred W. Coyle
Donna Fiala
Frank Halas
Tom Henning
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Michael Pettit, Chief Assistant County Attorney
Crystal Kinzel, Office of the Clerk of Court
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
tI'"
''',
~"""
, --..~'''';.::"..;~{~~;:~,
AGENDA
January 23, 2007
9:00 AM
Jim Coletta, Chairman, District 5
Tom Henning, Vice-Chairman, District 3
Donna Fiala, Commissioner, District 1
Frank Halas, Commissioner, District 2
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 PRESENT A TION 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
Page 1
January 23, 2007
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO 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
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as
amended. (Ex Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for
consent and summary agenda.)
B. December 7, 2006 - BCC/Land Development Code Meeting
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD
MEMBERS)
A. 20 Year Attendees
1) Steven Epright, EMS
2) Tracey Payne, IT
B. 25 Year Attendees
Page 2
January 23,2007
1) Sue Filson, BCC Office
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation designating January 21,2007 - January 27,2007 as
Hazardous Materials Awareness Week. Proclamation will be accepted
by Richard A. Zyvo1oski, Jf., Emergency Management Coordinator,
Bureau of Emergency Services.
B. Proclamation designating January 1,2007 through December 31,2007
as the Golden Anniversary Year for the Friends of the Library of
Collier County, Inc. and Collier County Public Library. To be
accepted by Mr. Nick Linn, President, Friends of the Library of
Collier County and Ms. Marilyn Matthes, Director, Collier County
Public Library.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Widening the existing two lane rural roadway of Vanderbilt Beach
Road to a six lane urban roadway between Airport-Pulling and Collier
Boulevard. Project has six foot sidewalk and four foot bike lanes on
both sides. This project of 5.39 miles has over 25 miles of
underground utility work.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition request by Joseph Harrington to discuss addition of a
patio enclosure to buffer noise from sewer system.
B. Public Petition request by Larry Baytos to discuss the merits of an
exploratory study of Home Rule Charter Government.
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m., unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item to be heard before Companion Item 8B PUDZ-A-2006-
AR-9021 LASIP Conservation CFPUD. This item was continued
Page 3
January 23, 2007
from the November 28~ 2006 BCC meetin2: and the December 12~
2006 BCC meetin2:. This item requires that all participants be
sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided bv 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 1 mile north of
Rattlesnake-Hammock Road, in Section 10, Township 50 South,
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion to Item 8B
PUDZ-A-2006-AR-9021 LASIP Conservation CFPUD.)
B. This item to be heard followin2: Companion Item 8A PUDA-2006-
AR-9576 Homes of Islandia RPUD. This item was continued from
the November 28~ 2006 BCC meetin2: and the December 12~ 2006
BCC meetin2:. This item requires that all participants be sworn in
and ex parte disclosure be provided bv 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 Item 8A PUDA-
2006-AR-9576 Homes of Islandia).
C. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
Page 4
January 23, 2007
disclosure be provided by Commission members. DOA-2005-AR-
8543: Airport Road Limited Partnership, represented by Karen
Bishop, of PMS, Inc., and Richard Y ovanovich, of Goodlette,
Coleman and Johnson, requesting an amendment to the Pine Air
Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Development Order to
allow an increase in the maximum development area of957,000
square footage (further limited to 707,000 square feet of retail and
250,000 square feet of office), to a maximum total of 1,075,000
square feet (further limited to 1,000,000 square feet of retail space and
75,000 square feet of office use); extend the buildout date from
October 15,2005 to October 15,2010. The subject 148.99 acres, is
located along the west side of Airport-Pulling Road, parallel to and
approximately 1,600 feet north of Pine Ridge Road; and along both
sides of Naples Boulevard, in Section 11, Township 49 South, Range
25 East, Collier County, Florida (Companion to Petition PUDZ-A-
AR-8550).
D. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-A-2005-
AR-8550: Airport Road Limited Partnership, represented by Karen
Bishop, ofPMS Inc., of Naples and Richard Yovanovich, of
Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, requesting an amendment of the
Pine Air Lakes Planned Unit Development (PUD) last revised in
Ordinance No. 94-25, to allow an increase in the maximum
development area of957,000 square footage (further limited to
707,000 square feet of retail and 250,000 square feet of office), to a
maximum total of 1,075,000 square feet (further limited to 1,000,000
square feet of retail space and 75,000 square feet of office use);
extend the buildout date from October 15,2005 to October 15,2010.
The subject 148.99 acres, is located along the west side of Airport-
Pulling Road, parallel to and approximately 1,600 feet north of Pine
Ridge Road; and along both sides of Naples Boulevard, in Section 11,
Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
(Companion to Petition DRlDOA-2005-AR-8543).
E. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition PUDA-
2005-AR-7818, Freeland and Schuh, Inc., represented by Tim
Hancock, of Davidson Engineering, is requesting an amendment to
the Pine View PUD to permit automotive sales within the PUD and
Page 5
January 23, 2007
increase the allowable building height from 35 feet to 45 feet. The
subject property, consisting of 15.58 acres, is located on the southwest
corner of Pine Ridge Road and Whippoorwill Lane, in Section 18,
Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
F. This item is a companion to Items 10E and 10F which will be
heard at 1 :00 p.m. This item requires that all participants be
sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Petition PUDZ-A-2004-AR-64 I 7 Ronald Benderson et aI,
Trustee, represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc.,
requesting to rezone from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to
Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) known as the 1-75/
Alligator Alley Commercial PUD. The proposed PUD amendment
requests the following: to reduce the size of the Preserve/Water
Management Area from 15 acres currently required by the PUD to
10.58 acres; to delete residential uses as a permitted use; to provide a
new list of commercial uses comparable to those allowed in the C-1
through C4 Commercial Districts, with SIC codes; modify the PUD
Master Plan to depict the footprints of existing land uses and
conceptual footprints for undeveloped tracts; to modify the circulation
system; to establish a maximum square footage of 265,000 square feet
of retail and office area; to relocate the existing western entrance 50
feet to the east; and to delete the 50 foot perimeter setback. The
property consisting of 40.8 acres, is located on the north side of Davis
Boulevard in proximity to the intersection of Collier Boulevard (CR-
951) and 1-75. The subject property is located in Section 34,
Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
Companion Item with Developers Contribution Agreement
G. This item was continued from the November 14~ 2006 BCC
meetin2:. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and
ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members.
PUDEX-2006-AR-9610 G.L. Homes of Naples II Corporation,
represented by Robert Duane, of Hole Montes, is requesting two 2-
year PUD Extensions for the Terafina PUD (Ordinance 04-15) which
is scheduled to sunset on March 9,2007. The subject property consists
of 636.8 acres and is located 1 mile north of Immokalee Road, north
of the Olde Cypress PUD and east of Quail Creek, in Section 16,
Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
Page 6
January 23, 2007
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of members to the Collier County Code Enforcement
Board.
B. Appointment of member to the Educational Facilities Authority.
C. Appointment of member to the Industrial Development Authority.
D. Appointment of member to the Public Vehicle Advisory Committee.
E. Appointment of member to the Ochopee Fire Control District
Advisory Committee.
F. Appointment of member to the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local
Redevelopment Advisory Board.
G. Appointment of member to the Isles of Capri Fire Control District
Advisory Committee.
H. Appointment of members to the Land Acquisition Advisory
Committee.
I. Appointment of member to the Pelican Bay Services Division Board.
J. Request Board to set the balloting date for the recommendation of
members to the Pelican Bay Services Division board by Record Title
Owners of property within Pelican Bay.
K. Recommendation to assign to the County Government Productivity
Committee the task of studying the potential benefits of a charter
government compared to our present form of government, and to
direct The Productivity Committee to report their findings and
recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners.
(Commissioner Coletta)
L. Discussion regarding Collier County's position on property insurance
legislation. (Commissioner Coyle)
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
Page 7
January 23,2007
A. This item to be heard at 11 :00 a.m. Recommendation to approve the
fourth Conservation Collier Active Acquisition List and direction for
the County Manager or his designee to actively pursue projects
recommended within the A-category. (Joseph K. Schmitt,
Administrator, Community Development and Environmental
Services)
B. This is a Companion Item to Item 14B and to be heard after Items
14A and 14B are discussed by the CRA at 4:30 p.m.
Recommendation of the Immokalee Redevelopment Advisory Board
and Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency to the Collier
County Board of County Commissioners to establish an office in
Immokalee. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community
Development and Environmental Services)
C. This item to be heard at 4:45 p.m. Quarterly Report of the
Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency to the Collier
County Board of County Commissioners of Progress Ending on
December 31, 2006 (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community
Development and Environmental Services)
D. Recommendation to approve the FY 07 agreement between Collier
County Board of Commissioners and the David Lawrence Mental
Health Center, Inc. in the amount of$1,035,600. (Marla Ramsey,
Administrator, Public Services)
E. This item to be heard at 1 :00 p.m. Recommendation to approve a
Developers Contribution Agreement (DCA) between Waterways Joint
Venture VII (The Developer) and Collier County to obtain property
for roadway water management, drainage and access easements for
the future expansion of Davis Boulevard. (Norman Feder,
Administrator, Transportation Services)
F. This item to be heard at 1 :00 p.m. Recommendation to approve a
Developers Contribution Agreement (DCA) between Benderson,
Westport and Davis Crossing (The Developers) and Collier County to
obtain right-of-way, easements drainage commitments and advanced
funding for the future expansion of Davis Boulevard. (Norman Feder,
Administrator, Transportation Services)
Page 8
January 23,2007
G. Recommendation to award Contract 07-4075 - "Lely Area Stormwater
Improvement Project (LASIP) Phase lA" to Mitchell & Stark
Construction Company, Inc in the amount of $2,459,003. (Stormwater
Management Department Project #51101) (Norman Feder,
Administrator, Transportation Services)
H. Recommendation that the Board approves prepayment of the
Caribbean Gardens Commercial Paper Loan in the amount of
$7,000,000. (Jim Mudd, County Manager)
I. Recommendation that the Board Of County Commissioners (BCC)
give direction to the County Manager or his designee on whether or
not to revoke the building permit issued for the Inglis-Spence single
family dwelling to be constructed on property located at 502 Coconut
Avenue in Goodland, Florida if it is deemed that the permit was
issued inconsistent with the Village Residential (VR) Zoning District
regulations. The BCC also directed the County Manager or his
designee to evaluate the VR regulations to determine what measures
should be taken to ensure that future development will be consistent
with the purpose and intent statement of the VR Zoning District and
with the Goodland Zoning Overlay (Joseph K. Schmitt,
Administrator, Community Development and Environmental
Services)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
A. This item to be heard at 4:30 p.m. Recommend the Board of County
Commissioners (BCC) acting as the Collier County Community
Redevelopment Agency (CRA) appoint a new Chair and Vice-Chair
for the CRA, direct the County Manager or his designee to prepare the
annual report required by Florida Statute 163.356(3)(c) by March 31
of each calendar year, and to direct the County Manager or his
designee to modify Resolution 2001-98, which requires the CRA to
Page 9
January 23, 2007
hold an annual meeting in January of each year, to make the annual
meeting requirement transpire in March of each year, when the annual
report is required.
B. This item to be heard at 4:30 p.m. and is to be heard before
Companion Item lOB. Recommendation of the Immokalee
Redevelopment Advisory Board and Immokalee Enterprise Zone
Development Agency to the Collier County Community
Redevelopment Agency to establish an office in Immokalee.
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered
to be routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate
discussion of each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the
Board, that item(s) will be removed from the Consent Agenda and
considered separately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and
sewer utility facilities for Falling Waters Beach Resort.
2) 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 Ave Maria Unit 13,
Midd1ebrooke Townhomes, approval of the standard form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the
amount of the performance security.
3) 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 Arrowhead Reserve at
Lake Trafford Block C, approval of the standard form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the
Page 10
January 23,2007
amount of the performance security
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment to recognize
revenue from a Developer Contribution for the SCOOT Split
Cycle Offset Optimization Project 601724 Fund (313) in the
amount of $90,000 and appropriate within the project. (Project
No. 60172)
2) Recommendation to award Bid #07-4074 U.S. 41 (SR 90)
Tamiami Trail East (Phase C-Rattlesnake Hammock to St.
Andrews) Irrigation and Landscape Installation to Vila & Son
in the amount of$549,015.37 with 10% contingency of
$54,901.54 for a total of$603,916.91 (Project #600261).
3) Recommendation to award Bid #07-4079U.S. 41 (SR 90)
Tamiami Trail East (Phase E-Barefoot Williams Road to 951)
Irrigation and Landscape Installation to Hannula Landscaping
Inc. in the amount of$569,627.72 with 10% contingency of
$56,962.77 for a total of $626,590.49 (Project #600451).
4) Recommendation to award Bid #07-4080U.S. 41 (SR 90)
Tamiami Trail East (Phase D-St. Andrews to Barefoot Williams
Road) Irrigation and Landscape Installation to Hannula
Landscaping Inc. in the amount of$925,396.63 with 10%
contingency of $92,539.66 for a total of $1 ,017,936.29 (Project
#600231 ).
5) Recommendation to award Bid #07-4091 Golden Gate
Boulevard Phase III Collier County Landscape Beautification
Master Plan to Hannula Landscaping Inc. in the amount of
$478,939.64 with 10% contingency of$47,893.96 for a total of
$526,833.60 (Project #600701).
6) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
approve a budget amendment to recognize revenue from
various Developers for the PUD Monitoring Program in the
amount of $ 79 ,929 and appropriate within Fund (l 01).
Page 11
January 23,2007
7) Approve a Budget Amendment recognizing an additional
$36,568.00 in Federal Transit Administration Grant Section
5311 funds for Fiscal Year 2007.
8) Approve the purchase of2.41 (Parcel #137) acres of
unimproved property which is required for the construction of a
stormwater retention and treatment pond for the Oil Well Road
widening project. Project No. 60044 (Fiscal Impact: $267,580)
9) Approve the purchase of2.41 acres (Parcel #139)of
unimproved property which is required for the construction of a
stormwater retention and treatment pond for the Oil Well Road
widening project. Project No. 60044 (Fiscal Impact: $267,580)
10) Recommendation to award Bid #07-4093 - Goodlette Frank
Road Landscape Project (Golden Gate Parkway to Pine Ridge
Road) to Hannula Landscaping Inc. in the amount of
$856,950.03.(Fund 313, Project #600054).
11) Recommendation to award Bid #07 -4073 US 41 Tamiami Trail
North (SR 45) Phase V (Wiggins Pass to County Line)
Irrigation and Landscape Installation to Hannula Landscaping
Inc. in the amount of$683.891.35 with 10% contingency of
$68,389.13 for a total of $752,280.48 (Project #600211).
12) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to
approve budget amendments to re-align the Surveying,
Underground Locates, and ROW Permitting Sections from
Traffic Operations and Stormwater Management Departments
to the Road and Bridge Department in the amount of$207,129.
13) Recommendation to approve the Collier Area Transit Substance
Abuse Policy.
14) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
approve one (1) Adopt-A-Road Program Agreement with two
(2) roadway recognition signs at a total cost of $150.00.
15) Recommendation to approve the purchase of one fixed route
bus to be operated by Collier Area Transit.
Page 12
January 23,2007
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to accept Rights of Entry required for the
replacement and rehabilitation of the Henderson Creek Park
water distribution system at a cost not to exceed $3,250, Project
710101.
2) Recommendation to award Contract 07-4071 Financial
Consulting Services to Public Resources Management Group,
Inc. (PRMG), in an estimated annual amount of approximately
$300,000.
3) Recommendation to convey a Utility and Access Easement to
the Water-Sewer District for the construction and maintenance
of raw water pipelines, and access, on property owned by
Collier County within the CR-951 Canal Corridor at an
estimated cost not to exceed $18.50, Project Number 700661.
4) Recommendation to approve the acquisition of a 50-foot by 60-
foot Utility Easement near the northwest comer of 481 Weber
Boulevard North for a public water supply well site easement,
at a total cost not to exceed $24,500, Project Number 700661.
5) Recommendation to approve, execute and record Satisfactions
for certain Water and/or Sewer Impact Fee Payment
Agreements. Fiscal impact is $28.50 to record the Satisfactions
of Lien.
6) Recommendation to approve, execute and record a Satisfaction
ofa Notice of Claim of Lien for Sanitary Sewer System Impact
Fee. Fiscal impact is $10.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien.
7) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the
Satisfaction of Lien for a Solid Waste residential account
wherein the County has received payment and said Lien is
satisfied in full for the 1994 Solid Waste Collection and
Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal impact is $20.00
to record the Satisfaction of Lien.
Page 13
January 23,2007
8) A ward annual contracts to selected firms for trenchless sewer
system rehabilitation contracting services per bid 07-4088,
project 73050.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Approve Agreement for funding in the amount of$600,000
towards costs of repairs of Everglades City Hall as approved by
the Board on November 21,2006.
2) Recommendation to Approve a Resolution Designating
February 2007 as Domestic Animal Services Senior
Appreciation Month and Providing Senior Citizens a $10.00
Discount for the Adoption of Dogs and Cats During that Month.
3) Recommendation to accept Grant Agreement #06174 from the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission for the
Florida Boating Improvement Program (FBIP) Grant to fund
the Collier County Boater Education Project in the amount of
$14,000. Approve Budget Amendments to recognize grant
funds and transfer previously recognized match/seed money in
the amount of $8,000 from Cedar Bay Marina.
4) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment recognizing
$3,300 in revenue from Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc. as initial
support funds and appropriating funds for purchase of
additional food concession equipment.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve Change Order No.8 to Work
Order #BSSW-00-07, Design of the North Collier Government
Services Center, under Contract 99-2930, Fixed Term
Professional Architectural Services with BSSW Architects, Inc.
in the amount of$45,37
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Recommendation to approve a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity for NCH Healthcare System for
Page 14
January 23, 2007
non-emergency ambulance service and approve a budget
amendment recognizing and appropriating the $250 annual
renewal fee.
2) Recommend Approval of Revised Collier County Beach
Parking Policy and authorize staff to amend Ordinance 8917
and or Resolution 2002-430 as necessary.
3) Recommendation to approve the submittal of the attached
Emergency Management, Preparedness and Assistance
(EMP A) Competitive Grant Application to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs in the amount of $24,200.
4) Recommendation to approve the submittal of the attached
Emergency Management, Preparedness and Assistance
(EMP A) Competitive Grant Application to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs in the amount of $175,000.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Halas requests Board approval for
reimbursement regarding attendance at a function serving a
valid public purpose. Attended a South Florida Water
Management District (SFWMD) reception, welcoming Philip
G. Flood, Director, Lower West Coast, on Wednesday, January
10, 2007, at the Hilton Naples, 5111 Tamiami Trail North,
Naples, Florida. $35.00 to be paid from Commissioner Halas'
travel budget.
2) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for
reimbursement regarding attendance at a function serving a
valid public purpose. Attended a South Florida Water
Management District (SFWMD) reception, welcoming Philip
G. Flood, Director, Lower West Coast, on Wednesday, January
10, 2007, at the Hilton Naples, 5111 Tamiami Trail North,
Naples, Florida. $35.00 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's
travel budget.
Page 15
January 23,2007
3) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for
reimbursement regarding attendance at a function serving a
valid public purpose. Prepaid to attend the EDC Industry and
Opportunity Tour on February 2, 2007. $20.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
4) Commissioner Halas requests Board approval for
reimbursement regarding attendance at a function serving a
valid public purpose. Attended the Naples Children &
Education Foundation's reception on Tuesday, January 16, 2007
at The Pavilion Cinemas in Naples, Florida. $20.00 to be paid
from Commissioner Halas' travel budget.
5) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for
reimbursement regarding attendance at a function serving a
valid public purpose. Attended the Right Angle Club's
Luncheon Meeting on Wednesday, January 11,2007 at The
Vanderbilt Golf and Country Club in Naples, Florida. A total of
$15.00 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
6) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for
reimbursement regarding attendance at a function serving a
valid public purpose. Spoke at the Heritage Bay Affordable
Housing Groundbreaking and attended their Luncheon on
Friday, January 19,2007 at The Heritage Bay in Naples,
Florida. A total of $16.00 to be paid from Commissioner
Coletta's travel budget to cover the cost of the luncheon.
7) Commissioner Fiala request Board approval for reimbursement
for attending a function serving a valid public purpose.
Attended the Friends of the Library Champagne Under the Stars
50th Year Anniversary on Friday, January 12th, 2007 at the
Library Headquarters; $20.00 to be paid from Commissioner
Fiala's travel budget.
8) Commissioner Fiala request Board approval for reimbursement
for attending a function serving a valid public purpose. To
Attend the Bayshore Cultural Arts HeArts in the Garden Series
on February 2nd and February 9th, 2007; $50.00 to be paid
Page 16
January 23,2007
from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
9) Commissioner Fiala request Board approval for reimbursement
for attending a function serving a valid public purpose.
Attended the East Naples Civic Association 207 Annual Dinner
on Monday, January 22nd, 2007; $35.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
10) Commissioner Fiala request Board approval for reimbursement
for attending a function serving a valid public purpose.
Attended the League of Women Voters Workforce Housing
Consensus #3 on Monday, January 15th, 2007; $15.00 to be
paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
11) Commissioner Fiala request Board approval for reimbursement
for attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Will
attend the CREW Land and Water Trust Annual Meeting on
Friday, January 26th, 2007 at The Club at Barefoot Beach;
$20.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
12) Commissioner Fiala request Board approval for reimbursement
for attending a function serving a valid public purpose.
Attended the Marco Island Area Chamber of Commerce
Installation of 2007 President on Sunday, January 14th, 2007;
$65.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
13) Commissioner Fiala request Board approval for reimbursement
for attending a function serving a valid public purpose.
Attended the League of Women Voters Workforce Housing
Consensus #2 on Friday, January 12th, 2007; $16.00 to be paid
from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
14) Commissioner Coletta requests approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose.
Commissioner paid in advance to attend the Martin Luther
King, Jr. VIP Reception on January 13, 2007 and is requesting
reimbursement in the amount of $12.00, to be paid from his
travel budget
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
Page 17
January 23, 2007
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) To obtain board approval for disbursements for the period of
December 23,2006 through December 29,2006 and for
submission into the official records of the board.
2) To obtain board approval for disbursements for the period of
December 30, 2006 through January 05, 2007 and for
submission into the official records of the board.
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
approve the attached Resolution which supports the Collier
County Sheriffs Office efforts to research and implement a
work-release program as authorized and defined in 951.24,
Florida Statutes.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to approve settlement in the lawsuit entitled
Gundeck v. Collier County, filed in the Twentieth Judicial
Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida, Case No. 06-490-
CA, for $55,000.00.
2) Recommendation to accept Respondents Offer of Judgment in
the amount of$19,000.00 for Parcel 149 and approve the
Stipulated Final Judgment in the lawsuit styled Collier County
v. Ziad Shahla, et aI., Case No. 04-600-CA (Vanderbilt Beach
Road Project No. 63051) (Fiscal Impact $6,078.00).
3) Recommendation to Approve an Agreed Order for Payment of
Engineering Fees in the amount of$1,600.00 in Connection
with Parcel 145 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v. Regent
Park Cluster Homes Association, et aI., Case No. 04-3452-CA
(Immokalee Road Project No. 66042). Fiscal Impact:
$1,600.00.
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 RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL
Page 18
January 23,2007
BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OR
OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF ALL MEMBERS
PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER
AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE
COMMENCEMENT OF THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE
ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD; AND 4) NO
INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO
THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE QUASI-JUDICIAL
IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. This item was continued from the December 12~ 2006 BCC and
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.
B. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition SV-
2006-AR-9400, for an After-The-Fact Sign Variance for the Swamp
Buggy Races/Florida Sports Park. The Sign Variance requested is to
allow the existing non-conforming (Location, Size And Height) Off-
Premises Directional Sign to remain at its existing location for a
period of not more than three-years. The subject property is Collier
County Public Right-Of-Way (Row) Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and
south Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Big Cypress
Basin Easement along Collier Boulevard (CR 951) is located on the
Southeast corner of Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake - Hammock
Road (CR 864) on property hereinafter described in 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 19
January 23,2007
January 23-24, 2007
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Mudd. I want to
welcome everybody to the Board of Collier County Commissioners'
meeting of January 23rd.
Would you all stand at this point in time and -- for the pledge.
Please face the flag.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And now the invocation today is
going to be by county -- County Manager.
MR. MUDD: Good morning, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're up, Mr. Manager. Reverend
Manager Mudd.
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen --ladies and gentlemen,
please bow your heads. Let us pray.
Oh Heavenly Father, we ask your blessings on these proceedings
and all who are gathered here. We ask a special blessing on this
Board of County Commissioners, guide them in their deliberations,
grant them the wisdom and vision to meet the trials of this day and the
days to come.
Bless us now as we undertake the business of Collier County and
its citizens, that our action will serve the greater good of all citizens
and be acceptable in your sight.
Your will be done, amen.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Amen.
Thank you, Mr. Mudd. Mr. Mudd, would you like to read the
changes into the record, please?
Item #2A and Item #2B
Item #2A: REGULAR CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA-
APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES; Item #2B:
Page 2
January 23-24, 2007
DECEMBER 7, 2006 BCC/LDC MEETING MINUTES -
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Agenda changes, Board of County
Commissioners' meeting, January 23, 2007.
First item is add on item 2C, January 10, 2007, BCC's special
meeting with the South Florida Water Management District. Minutes
-- and that add is at minutes and records' request.
Next item is item 8A. It should read, page 4, under
considerations, first paragraph, last sentence, should read, is not being
utilized since the residents are, rather than residents is, and that's
residents with a T -S, and that correction's at Commissioner Fiala's
request.
The next item is item 8C. It should read, under fiscal impact,
first paragraph, PUD amendment to be replaced with DRI amendment.
Again, good catch by Commissioner Fiala.
Next item is item 91. It will be continued indefinitely, and that
item was to appoint a member to the Pelican Bay Services Division
Board, and that continuance is asked by staff.
Next item is an add-on item 9M. The Board of County
Commissioners to consider giving staff direction to place CP-2006-06
in the 2005 Growth Management Plan amendment cycle, or to create a
special cycle for GMP amendments that provide for affordable
housing. This request is a proactive measure, given the loss of state
funding for essential services personnel, ESP personnel housing, that
was denied by the Florida Housing Finance Committee.
The specific GMP amendment will provide for 1,176 affordable
housing units on approximately 196 acres of land, which 30 percent of
those units would be for low income homes, and the balance of the
units apportioned for essential service personnel and gap housing.
That item is added by Commissioner Coletta.
Next item is to withdraw item 16C8, and that's to award an
Page 3
January 23-24, 2007
annual contract to selected firms for trenchless sewer system
rehabilitation contracting service per bid 07-488, project 730560, and
that withdrawal is at staffs request.
The next item is 16F2, and it should read under fiscal impact, the
source of funds is from general fund ad valorem taxes rather than
category A, tourist development taxes.
Also note that recommended revision to the beach parking policy
will become effective upon board approval of the required amendment
to ordinance 89-17 and/or ordinance 2002-430. In other words, we're
going to bring that change to the ordinance back to the board based on
your decision today.
Next item is to withdraw item 16H12, and that is a request
because Commissioner Fiala did not attend that particular function.
We have a certain -- time certain items today. Eleven a.m. we
have item lOA; at one p.m. we have three linked items, and those are
items 10E, 10F and 8F; and at 4:30 p.m. we have to hear items 14A
and 14B while you transition from the BCC to the CRA board, and
then you'll reconvene back to the BCC board to do lOB.
Around 4:45 p.m. we'll hear laC, which also has to do with the
Immokalee CRA. And then after 5 p.m. today, probably the last item
you'll do today, is to hear item 101.
Again, item lOA to be heard at 11 a.m., and that's a
recommendation to approve the fourth Conservation Collier Active
Acquisition List and direction for the county manager or his designee
to actively pursue proj ects recommended within the A category.
Item 10E is to be heard at one p.m. It's a recommendation to
approve a developer's contribution agreement between Waterways
Joint Venture VII, the developer, and Collier County, to obtain
property for roadway water management drainage and access
easements for the future expansion of Davis Boulevard.
A like item, item 1 OF, also to be heard at one p.m. immediately
following 10E, is a recommendation to approve a developer's
Page 4
January 23-24, 2007
contribution agreement between Benderson, Westport and Davis
Crossings, the developer, and Collier County, to obtain right-of-way
easement drainage commitments and advances funding for the future
expansion of Davis Boulevard.
Another like item, part of that trio, is item 8F to be heard at one
p.m. immediately following 10E and 1 OF. The item requires that all
participants be sworn and ex parte disclosure be provided by
commission members.
It's a petition PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6417, Ronald Benderson, et aI,
Trustee, represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc.,
requesting a rezone from planned unit development to commercial
planned unit development known as the 1-75 Alligator Alley
commercial PUD, and all three of those items have to do with
acquiring the right-of-way in order to expand Davis Boulevard to six
lanes from 951 to Radio Road.
Next item is item 14A. This will be heard at 4:30 p.m. It's a
recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners acting as
the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency, CRA,
appoint a new chair and vice-chair for the CRA, direct the county
manager or his designee to prepare the annual report required by
Florida Statute 163.356(3)(C) by March 31st of each calendar year,
and direct the county manager or his designees to modify resolution
2001-98, which requires the CRA to hold an annual meeting in
January of each year to make the annual meeting requirement
transpire in March of each year instead when the annual report is
required.
The next item to be heard right after 14A is 14B. It's a
recommendation of the Immokalee Redevelopment Advisory Board
and Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency to the Collier
County Community Redevelopment Agency to establish an office in
Immokalee.
lOB, which follows 14B, again, to be heard in and around 4:30.
Page 5
January 23-24, 2007
It's a recommendation of the lmmokalee Redevelopment Advisory
Board and Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency to the
Collier County Board of Commissioners to establish an office in
lmmokalee.
Item laC to be heard around 4:45. It's a quarterly report of the
lmmokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency to the Collier
County Board of County Commissioners, a progress ending on
December 31, 2006.
And lastly, item 101 to be heard after five p.m. It's a
recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, BCC, give
direction to the county manager or his designee on whether or not to
revoke the building permit issued to the Inglis-Spence single-family
dwelling to be constructed on property located at 502 Coconut Avenue
in Goodland, Florida, if it is deemed that the permit was issued
inconsistent with the Village Residential, VR, Zoning District
regulations.
The BCC also directed the county manager or his designee to
evaluate the VR regulations to determine what measures should be
taken to ensure that further development will be consistent with the
purpose and intent statement of the VR Zoning District and with the
Goodland Zoning Overlay.
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Mudd.
And at this time we'll go down the line, start with Commissioner
Henning, for the -- any other additions or changes to the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Let -- I want to go last. I
still need to get working here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine. We'll start off with
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I have no further
changes to the agenda. I have no disclosures for the consent agenda
and for the summary agenda. I have received correspondence
Page 6
January 23-24, 2007
concerning agenda item 17B, which is a sign variance being requested
for the Swamp Buggy Races at Florida Sports Park.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. On the consent agenda, I
have one item, and that's 16A3. I did receive emails on that through
the course of this Arrowhead being -- coming to this point in time.
On the summary agenda, I don't have any ex parte at this point,
and I don't have any changes to today's agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Halas.
And myself, I have no changes to the regular agenda. And as far
as consent agenda, A3 having to do with the Swamp Buggy -- or the
Arrowhead Reserve, I had emails and phone calls on it. It's in my file
for anyone that wishes to see it.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Well, I don't know how in
depth we wanted to go, but with the Ave Maria, although I haven't
spoken to anybody recently on this particular item with Ave Maria,
we've all participated in it a lot and gone out to see the facility and
groundbreaking and so forth. I didn't know if that needs to be on the
record or not, David, so I'm just putting it on there.
And same with Arrowhead, we've -- we've received emails, and I
went out to see the property and go through the homes there.
I have nothing on 17 A. But on 17B, Swamp Buggy Races, I've
spoken to a number of people from the Swamp Buggy Board as well
as members that participate about the sign.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. I have no ex parte
on today's consent or summary agenda, Commissioner.
On our agenda, 8F that is the Benderson property, normally what
happens when the EAC or the Planning Commission votes
unanimously to approve, it goes on the summary agenda. And with
the board's permission, or if any of the members have a problem with
Page 7
January 23-24, 2007
that, let it be known, but I think that we have a busy day today and we
deserve the public's opportunity to speak; therefore, I request that the
agenda be amended to put 8F on the summary agenda.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's fine with me if -- what did
they put it on the regular agenda for?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because it has a companion
item with the DCA, which doesn't make sense. If the board doesn't
approve the DCA, it's -- automatically we're -- it's tied to this item,
and I think at that time then we can put it on the regular agenda.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: County Attorney, can you give us
some guidance on this?
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. I think that you can -- however you
handle the two items should be handled in the same way, and so you
have the leeway to go either way that way. I hope that answers your
question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I would agree except for the
staffs statement that the petition is not consistent with policies 5.1 and
5.2 of the transportation element. I believe that might require some --
some additional explanation.
It mayor may not affect my position, but I think it would be a
good idea to consider doing things like this, and I think Commissioner
Henning has a good idea. But in this particular case I have that one
question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And then, therefore, I
remove my request to put this on the summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Henning.
Anything else that you wish to add at this point?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's it. Well, other things on
the consent agenda, but I can also reconsider that item, so I'm going to
leave it as is because of -- the agenda is so full.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. At this point in time,
Page 8
January 23-24, 2007
would someone make a motion for approval --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And also for the December 7th
BCC/Land Development Code meeting.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, we did two motions
together. Let's go back to the first one.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That includes my motion,
Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Both motions, okay. And that
includes your second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I think that was Commissioner
Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, Commissioner Halas. So we
have a motion from Commissioner Henning and a second by
Commissioner Halas for approval of both items 2A and 2B having to
do with the previous agenda, summary agendas, and the Land
Development Code meeting.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0.
Page 9
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
Januarv 23. 2007
Add On Item 2C: January 10, 2007 - BCC Special Meeting with South Florida Water Management
District. (Minutes & Records request.)
Item 8A should read: Page 4 under Considerations, first paragraph, last sentence should read:
". . . . is not being utilized since the residents are (rather than residence is) . . .." Commissioner
Fiala's request.)
Item 8C should read: Under Fiscal Impact, 1st paragraph, "PUD amendment" to be replaced with
"DRI amendment". (Commissioner Fiala's request.)
Item 91 continued indefinitelv: Appointment of member to the Pelican Bay Services Division
Board. (Staffs request.)
Add On Item 9M: Board of County Commissioners to consider giving staff direction to place CP-
2006-06 in the 2005 Growth Management Plan Amendment Cycle, or to create a special cycle for
GMP amendments that provide for affordable housing. This request is a proactive measure,
given the loss of State funding for essential services personnel (ESP) housing that was denied by
the Florida Housing Finance Committee. The specific GMP amendment will provide for 1176
affordable housing units on approximately 196 acres of land, of which 30% of those units would
be for low income homes and the balance of the units apportioned for ESP and gap housing.
(Commissioner Coletta's request.)
Withdraw Item 16C8: Award annual contracts to selected firms for trench less sewer system
rehabilitation contracting services per bid 07-4088, project 730560. (Staff's request.)
Item 16F2 should read: Under Fiscal Impact, "The source of funds is from general fund ad
valorem taxes" (rather than category "A" Tourist Development Taxes). Also note that
recommended revisions to the Beach Parking Policy will become effective upon Board approval
of the required amendment to Ordinance 89-17 and/or Resolution 2002-430. (Staff's request.)
Withdraw Item 16H12: Commissioner Fiala request Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended the Marco Island Area Chamber of
Commerce Installation of 2007 President on Sunday, January 14, 2007; $65.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Fiala's travel budget. (Commissioner Fiala's request.)
Time Certain Items:
11 :00 a.m. Item 10A
1:00 p.m. Items 10E, 10F, 8F
4:30 p.m. Items 14A and 14B and 10B
4:45 p.m. 10C
After 5:00 p.m. Item 101
Item 10A to be heard at 11 :00 a.m.: Recommendation to approve the fourth Conservation Collier
Active Acquisition List and direction for the County Manager or his designee to actively pursue
projects recommended within the A-category.
Item 10E to be heard at 1 :00 p.m. Recommendation to approve a Developers Contribution
Agreement (DCA) between Waterways Joint Venture VII (The Developer) and Collier County to
obtain property for roadway water management, drainage and access easements for the future
expansion of Davis Boulevard.
Item 10F to be heard at 1 :00 p.m. immediatelv followina 10E: Recommendation to approve a
Developers Contribution Agreement (DCA) between Benderson, Westport and Davis Crossing
(The Developers) and Collier County to obtain right-of-way, easements drainage commitments
and advanced funding for the future expansion of Davis Boulevard.
Item 8F to be heard at 1 :00 p.m. immediatelv followina 10E and 10F: This item requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition
PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6417 Ronald Benderson et ai, Trustee, represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP, of
Hole Montes, Inc., requesting to rezone from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Commercial
Planned Unit Development (CPUD) known as the 1-75/Alligator Alley Commercial PUD. The
proposed PUD amendment requests the following: to reduce the size of the PreservelWater
Management Area from 15 acres currently required by the PUD to 10.58 acres; to delete
residential uses as a permitted use; to provide a new list of commercial uses comparable to those
allowed in the C-1 through C-4 Commercial Districts, with SIC codes; modify the PUD Master Plan
to depict the footprints of existing land uses and conceptual footprints for undeveloped tracts; to
modify the circulation system; to establish a maximum square footage of 265,000 square feet of
retail and office area; to relocate the existing western entrance 50 feet to the east; and to delete
the 50 foot perimeter setback. The property consisting of 40.8 acres, is located on the north side
of Davis Boulevard in proximity to the intersection of Collier Boulevard (CR- 951) and 1-75. The
subject property is located in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida. Companion Item with Developer's Contribution Agreement.
Item 14A to be heard at 4:30 p.m. Recommend the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) acting
as the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) appoint a new Chair and Vice-
Chair for the CRA, direct the County Manager or his designee to prepare the annual report
required by Florida Statute 163.356(3)(c) by March 31 of each calendar year, and to direct the
County Manager or his designee to modify Resolution 2001-98, which requires the CRA to hold an
annual meeting in January of each year, to make the annual meeting requirement transpire in
March of each year, when the annual report is required.
Item 14B to be heard at 4:30 p.m. followina Item 14A: Recommendation ofthe Immokalee
Redevelopment Advisory Board and Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency to the
Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency to establish an office in Immokalee.
Item 10B to be heard at 4:30 p.m. followina Items 14A and 14B: Recommendation of the
Immokalee Redevelopment Advisory Board and Immokalee enterprise Zone Development Agency
to the Collier County Board of County Commissioners to establish an office in Immokalee.
Item 10C to be heard at 4:45 p.m. Quarterly report of the Immokalee Enterprise Zone
Development Agency to the Collier County Board of County Commissioners of progress ending
on December 31, 2006.
Item 101 to be heard after 5:00 p.m. Recommendation that the Board Of County Commissioners
(BCC) give direction to the County Manager or his designee on whether or not to revoke the
building permit issued for the Inglis-Spence single family dwelling to be constructed on property
located at 502 Coconut Avenue in Goodland, Florida if it is deemed that the permit was issued
inconsistent with the Village Residential (VR) Zoning District regulations. The BCC also directed
the County Manager or his designee to evaluate the VR regulations to determine what measures
should be taken to ensure that future development will be consistent with the purpose and intent
statement of the VR Zoning District and with the Goodland Zoning Overlay.
January 23-24, 2007
Item #2C
JANUARY 10,2007 BCC/SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT MEETING - APPROVED AS
PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you need to vote on 2C, which was
an add-on, and that's the BCC special meeting with the South Florida
Water Management District. That's basically the minutes from that
particular meeting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion from
Commissioner Henning, a second from Commissioner Fiala,
approving the add-on of item 2C.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
Item #3A
SERVICE AWARDS - 20 YEAR A TTENDEES- PRESENTED
Page 10
January 23-24, 2007
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Sir, we have three service awards today,
and I think you're going to do them from up there and the employees
are to come forward; is that correct?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I tell you what, I think I would prefer
to do it up front. When you have 20 and 25 years, I think that we
should be right there on a level with them.
Follow me, this way.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Follow our leader.
The awards are --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, they're on their way over at HR.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's okay. We can still proceed and
the awards will catch up with them.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The thing is that we honor them
appropriately, each one.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You can just take pictures of us if
you'd like.
MR. MUDD: We have one 20-year awardee today, and that's
Tracey Payne from the IT department. Ms. Payne.
(Applause.)
MS. PAYNE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Congratulations.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Twenty years. That's wonderful.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Great service.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Tracey, you can hang this up on the
wall and always remember how young you used to look. Thank you.
MS. PAYNE: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
MS. PAYNE: It's been a long time. And remember you did it.
MR. OCHS: I know. Thank you.
Page 11
January 23-24, 2007
MR. MUDD: I think that -- did you hire Ms. Payne?
MR.OCHS: Yes, I did.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good move.
MR.OCHS: She's never forgiven me for it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That sort of dates you, too.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Thank you very much.
Item #3B
SERVICE AWARDS - 25 YEAR ATTENDEE - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: And we have one 25-year awardee, and that's Ms.
Sue Filson, your manager in the BCC office.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In honor of this moment, the girls in
the office all dressed in black today, as you can see against the wall.
I'm so proud of you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Congratulations, Sue.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations, another 25 years.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Get real close. Make it look like a
family.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now tell us all the secrets that
happened in the past.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sue Filson has served with over half
of all the commissioners that hang up on the wall over there.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Are hanging?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hanging, that's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Flowers. We want to get a picture
of all the girls.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, get a picture.
Ms. Filson, we need you back here for a moment. We're not
Page 12
January 23-24, 2007
through with the ceremony.
MS. FILSON: You see they're all in black.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Girls stand right in the front.
(Applause. )
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: That's it, sir.
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JANUARY 21,2007 -
JANUARY 27,2007 AS HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
AWARENESS WEEK - ADOPTED
MR MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the section on
proclamations. First proclamation is a proclamation designating
January 21,2007, through January 27,2007, as Hazardous Materials
-- say it again -- Hazardous Materials Awareness Week. It's a
proclamation to be accepted by Rick, I always get it wrong. I always
call him Rick Z, but Rick Zyvoloski, Jr., of -- the emergency
management coordinator of the Bureau of Emergency Services.
Rick, come on up.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Rick, would you please come up
here and join us.
MR. ZYVOLOSKI: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's a pleasure to read this. And this
gentleman along with everyone in the emergency management
department really worked diligently in regards to protecting the
citizens here in Collier County, and this proclamation reads as
follows:
Whereas, the safe use of hazardous materials is essential to
business, industry and local governments to maintain economic
stability and to protect the citizens of the Ninth Planning District of
Page 13
January 23-24, 2007
Florida; and,
Whereas, it is essential to plan and prepare for the accidental
release of hazardous materials and to protect the well-being of all
citizens and visitors in this district; and,
Whereas, response teams, such as fire, police, and emergency
medical services, must know the types of hazardous material and
chemicals that are being used and stored in the event of an accident to
respond safely; and,
Whereas, all citizens have a right to know the types of hazardous
material and chemicals in their communities and the right to know the
proper procedure to take place of -- in case of an accident or
emergency; and,
Whereas, Southwest Florida Local Emergency Planning
Committee recognizes the importance of community awareness and
the Emergency Planning and the Community Right-To-Know Act
enacted by the u.s. Congress.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that January 21, 2007,
through January 27, 2007, be designated as Hazardous Materials
Awareness Week.
Done and ordered the 23rd day of January, 2007, Board of
Collier County Commissioners, Commissioner Jim Coletta, the Chair.
And I move that we approve this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Halas and a second by Commissioner Coyle to approve
this proclamation.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 14
January 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Congratulations. Thank you so
much.
MR. MUDD: Rick?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And a picture. Oh, no, no. Don't go
yet.
Thank you. If you'd like to say a couple words, please.
MR. ZYVOLOSKI: For the record, Rick Zyvoloski, emergency
management coordinator. Very shortly, I just wanted to highlight the
fact that I think of most importance is the fact that this is the
community's right to know about any hazardous materials that are
reportable under the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act.
And, you know, should anyone need that information, just contact our
office and we can start the process so that the community will know
what plans are in their community.
Thank you very much, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Question? Yes, go ahead,
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Rick, I have one question. Are you
the source of where all of the commercial people come to you in
regards to the materials that they have stored on their locations, and
are you the person that they would register all that material with?
MR. ZYVOLOSKI: No, sir. They register through the local
emergency planning committee, but I am the local point of contact for
directing people who have -- you know, in the facilities. If they don't
know, I can help them out or, you know, I can help the public out too,
Page 15
January 23-24, 2007
if -- should they have questions and I can, you know, direct them
toward the local emergency planning committee.
They have a right to all the material and information. There
might be charges, the LACP says, you know, for reproduction in some
materials, but you have a right to know what extremely hazardous
substances are in your neighborhood.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
MR. ZYVOLOSKI: Thank you, sir, Commissioners
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JANUARY 1,2007
THROUGH DECEMBER 31,2007 AS THE GOLDEN
ANNIVERSARY YEAR FOR THE FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY
OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC. AND COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC
LIBRARY - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, the next
proclamation is a proclamation designating January 1, 2007 through
December 31, 2007, as the Golden Anniversary Year for the Friends
of the Library of Collier County, Inc., and Collier County Public
Library, to be accepted by Mr. Nick Linn, president of Friends of the
Library of Collier County, and Ms. Marilyn Matthes, director of the
Collier County Public Library.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could we have all of the library
people up that are sitting here smiling in the audience now? You guys
have all made this library the success that it is.
Come on, Yolande, you too. Everybody come on up, then they
won't feel so lonely.
Proclamation: Whereas, in 1957, the newly formed Friends of
the Library of Collier County, Incorporated, brought a petition before
the Collier County Board of Commissioners requesting to turn the
Page 16
January 23-24, 2007
small bookroom located in the Naples Women's Club (then) new
building, into the first free public library from Collier County; and,
Whereas, said petition was approved by the Board of County
Commissioners, thereby establishing the Collier County free public
library; and,
Whereas, beginning Monday, January 1,2007, and continuing on
through December 31, 2007, Collier County Public Library and the
Friends of the Library of Collier County will commences with a
year-long celebration honoring their 50 years of service to the
community; and,
Whereas, this year-long -- this year-long celebration reflects their
continuing commitment to provide the highest levels of service
possible to county residents; and,
Whereas, 50th birthday activities will showcase the important
role the Friends of the Library and Collier County Public Library play
in the daily lives of all of our county residents; and,
Whereas, through the libraries, two regional and seven branch
libraries, patrons are able to enjoy good, enhanced literacy skills,
research health and financial issues, receive computer instruction,
access the Wodd Wide Web, download audio books to personal
computers, enjoy a first-rate classic, foreign or documentary film,
access information and services for special needs or simply visit the
past and imagine the future. 00, that gave me goose pimples; and,
Whereas, the Friends of the Library of Collier County, in
partnership with the Collier County Public Library, has been
committed to supporting quality library programs and services since
its founding in 1957; and,
Whereas, the Friends of the Library of Collier County has taken
the lead in underwriting many special programs and services,
including the adult literacy program, classic, foreign and documentary
film series, and other outreach endeavors specifically designed to
enhance and improve the quality of life of the county children and
Page 1 7
January 23-24, 2007
their families; and,
Whereas, these outreach endeavors are available to all county
residents through Collier County Public Library branches; and,
Whereas, in recognition of their 50 years of working together,
Friends of the Library of Collier County, Inc., and Collier County
Public Library have provided accessible, comprehensive
informational, educational, recreational and cultural services to the
City (sic) of Collier County, Florida -- to the citizens of Collier
County, Florida.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that January 1,2007,
through December 31, 2007, be designated as the Golden Anniversary
Year for the Friends of the Library of Collier County, Incorporated,
and Collier County Public Library.
Done and ordered this 23rd day of January, 2007, Collier County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Jim Coletta, Chairman.
And Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to approve this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Fiala for approval and a second by Commissioner Halas.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0.
Congratulations.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for all you're doing for
us.
Page 18
January 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. It's great to see people
still so giving of themselves.
Thank you, sir. The community appreciates it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for all you're doing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're enjoying what you're doing.
That's the important part.
Fine, let's go for a photo.
Thank you. Would someone care to say a couple words?
MS. MATTHES: Yes, thank you. Thank you, Commissioners,
Marilyn Matthes, library director.
In 1957, the Board of County Commissioners, the new Friends of
the Library, and Collier County residents united to form a public
library.
The library, the Friends of the Library, and Collier County
residents greatly appreciate the incredible gift and legacy of these
early pioneers in establishing a public library and constructing the first
county library building for county.
This illustrious group included a number of very familiar names.
Ben Parks, local attorney, was the first president of the library board;
Judge Ora L. Wildermuth was very instrumental in the project. The
Naples Woman's Club founded the first lending library in Collier
under the dedicated leadership of the club's first president, Doris
Gandees.
Commissioners Dick Goodlette and Henry Watkins, Jr.,
spark-plugged the project when the concept of county-supported
public library was presented. That was according to a news article.
The Collier County News was an early supporter. The Naples
Chamber of Commerce and the Exchange Club both wrote letters of
support for the new proj ect.
Page 19
January 23-24, 2007
Dr. and Mrs. Fendinand C. Lee donated the Central Avenue site
to the Friends of the Library for the construction of the first library
facility.
Barron Collier, Jr., was the general fundraising chairman for the
original building. William Price, president of the Bank of the
Everglades, was the fundraising chairman in the Immokalee area.
Paul Cooke of the Collier Company was the fundraising chairman for
the Everglades area.
E.L. Gene Turner, president of the First National Bank of Naples,
was the president of the Friends during the construction project. F.C.
McIntosh was a Friends board member.
Mrs. Mamie Tooke, president of the Bank of Naples, was special
funds chair. Ted Thorwald, publicity director. Mayor Archie Turner
of Naples was an early supporter.
Representative J. Lorenzo Walker spoke at an early meeting
discussing the need for a public library. Doris Reynolds helped
produce a fundraising fashion show at the Beach Club. The Naples
Jaycees held a telethon on WNOG radio from the library.
The Naples Junior Women's Club held a mothers' march for the
Library, and public speakers on behalf of the fundraising drive
included Glenn Allen, Francis Hennessy, Tom Pace, Ben Parks, Doris
Reynolds, Harold Smith, Judge Wildermuth, Tom Brown, Dick
Goodlette, Addison B. Miller and Bruce Mumm.
The first county library board members were Ben Parks, Mrs.
Margaret Schott, Mrs. Elva Griffis, Mrs. Doris Gandees, and Richard
E. Stanley.
We thank the board today for this honor and recognition. Both
the Friends and the library pledge our efforts to provide library
services to Collier County that continues to exceed expectations.
Thank you.
MR. LINN: Nick Linn, president of the Friends of the Library.
Friends of the Library is a very -- has a very simple mission. We're
Page 20
January 23-24, 2007
comprised of 2,300 dues-paying members who love the Collier
County library system. We respect what they do for the community,
and we want to keep it that way. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
(Applause. )
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd?
Item #5A
PRESENTATION FOR THE WIDENING OF THE EXISTING
TWO LANE RURAL ROADWAY OF V ANDERBIL T BEACH
ROAD TO A SIX LANE URBAN ROADWAY BETWEEN
AIRPORT-PULLING AND COLLIER BOULEVARD. PROJECT
HAS SIX FOOT SIDEWALK AND FOUR FOOT BIKE LANES
ON BOTH SIDES - DISCUSSED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to presentations, and
we have a presentation for the widening of the existing two-lane rural
roadway of Vanderbilt Beach Road to a six-lane urban roadway
between Airport-Pulling and Collier Boulevard project. The project
has six-foot sidewalks, four-foot bike lanes on both sides.
This project of 5.39 miles has over 25 miles of underground
utility work. And the construction contractor for this particular project
will present, and I believe you have a slide show.
MR. MUTCH: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name
is Bob Mutch. I'm the project manager for APAC Southeast on the
Vanderbilt Beach Road project.
I'm glad that Mr. Mudd had mentioned on the project there's 25
miles of underground utility work in this proj ect. This, in itself, we
never see.
We have a great deal of work that goes on. Forty-three percent of
this project is underground. That's not to include obstacles that we find
Page 21
January 23-24, 2007
along our way, which is the telephone cables, the fiber-optic cables,
TV cables. There's a great deal that no one ever sees that has to be
done before the road can be built.
In the presentation that I have, I hope to show you how we've
gotten from the beginning of the job to where we are now and how we
plan to proceed to the completion of the project, if I can make it go.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. If you can adjust that mike--
MR. MUTCH: Is that better?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- and speak right into it, sir, it will be
most helpful.
MR. MUTCH: All right. This is the sign that Commissioner
Coletta mentioned in the last meeting that will be posted on either end
of all the major projects.
The present day -- presentation date is today, the bid number, it's
Vanderbilt Beach project, project number 63051, permitted contractor
is AP AC Southeast and I am Bob Mutch.
The notice to provide date was February 2005. Original start
date, February 2005. Original completion date, November 2007.
Revised completion date is August, 2008; 280 days added to conflict
-- due to conflicts.
The current budget, the original, was 37,604,910. The revised is
37,953,771. Spent to date, 13 million, 646. That was as of November
2006.
Current project status, phase one, Airport Road to Livingston
Road.
Subsurface utilities, 100 percent complete. Surface utilities, 95
percent complete. Road construction, 100 percent complete. Road
surface, 98 percent complete.
This is ultimately what the finished project looks like.
Subsurface utilities near completion, road construction in
progress, phase two. Weber Boulevard to Oaks Boulevard.
Subsurface proposed, utilities 80 percent complete. Subsurface
Page 22
January 23-24, 2007
existing utilities is 15 percent adjusted. Adjusted is tied in or
removed. Surface utilities, 25 percent complete. Road construction,
15 percent complete. Road surface O. And that's what you see today.
Phase three, Oaks Boulevard to Livingston Road. Subsurface
utilities, 12 percent complete. Surface utilities, 5 percent complete.
Subsurface existing utilities, 0 adjusted. Road construction, 8 percent
complete. Road surface, 0 complete.
Subsurface utility production drives the project schedule.
Existing surface and subsurface utilities are normally located above
and below the new roadway excavation. All of the new surface and
subsurface utilities must be installed before the old utilities can be
removed from service. Once the old utilities are removed, the new
roadway construction can begin.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Excuse me, sir. Mr. Commissioner,
did you want to ask a question now or --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'll wait.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, fine. And do me one small
favor, during the presentations that are to be made, if you have
something you want to ask and you push the button, look in my
direction and I'll know that you want to address the situation at that
time.
Please continue, and excuse me for the interruption.
MR. MUTCH: Primary reason for scheduled variances are
conflicts, conflicts, conflicts.
What is a conflict? How did it increase the production schedule?
This is a chart that shows if it's -- if the subcontractor runs into a
conflict that's repairable it goes to the right where the conflict is -- the
conflict is repaired, notifies the utility owner, the repair crew, it's
repaired, and it goes back to the contractor, back to work.
If it's a design change, it has to go to the engineering firm or to
the CEI first, the engineering firm for resolution, back to the
engineering firm, work directives written, and then it goes to the
Page 23
January 23-24,2007
contractor.
Conflicts occur between proposed and existing utilities.
Discovery of existing active and inactive utilities. Inadequate design
plans. Changes to original design plans.
Sixty-three work directives in 23 months. A work directive is a
document that describes changes from the original scope of work. It
will answer the following questions: What, when, where and how
much.
The contractor will submit a price for the additional work. If the
price is accepted by the county, the work proceeds. If the county
disagrees with the submitted price, the work will proceed without
additional delay under time and material.
Conflicts, unmarked cable. Subsurface utility conflicts can be as
small as a telephone cable. It will stop the entire operation until it is
determined, who owns the cable? Is it active or inactive?
Unmarked utilities cause substantial delays. Completion date.
Fact: 50 percent of the utilities are installed to date. Delays and
changes have added 280 days to the original completion date.
Probability: The remaining 50 percent of the utility work may
add another 280 days, for a total delay time that could exceed 560
days.
Projected timeline. The original start to finish was February 5th
to November '07 with the utilities 280 days, that brought it to August
'08, and with the proposed delays, from August '08 to June 9th -- June
'09, I'm sorry.
Actions planned to minimize variances. Increase the number of
subsurface utility crews as design changes will permit; coordinate
investigations of all potential conflicts in future work areas;
investigate subsurface locations 30 days ahead of the utility crews
using exploratory equipment; reduce verification and approval
procedure times; coordinate with engineers/designers a method to
update and modify old drawings.
Page 24
January 23-24, 2007
And that's the end of the presentation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning, then
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Mutch, thank you for your
time. I drove VBR from Livingston -- or actually from Airport to
Livingston about seven p.m. last night. I did find that there were --
some of the surface was scratched, and it appeared to receive the final
lift of that project. From what you were -- told me, that happened
between seven p.m. and now, so I'm glad to hear phase one is
complete.
MR. MUTCH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that isn't what I seen last
night. What I heard you say is, we have possible inadequate designs.
MR. MUTCH: They create conflicts.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What -- the plans for this
project, did it show the existing utility locations?
MR. MUTCH: It shows locations that are inaccurate.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It showed -- and it had the
utilities there, but they were inaccurate?
MR. MUTCH: Yes. In some -- in some cases there are utilities
that we find that are not shown on the plans. There are utilities that
are shown on the plans, Vineyards -- parallel to Vineyards that is
shown as a 12-inch pipeline. The county's drawings, locate drawings,
show a four-inch line. When we dug it up, it was a 16-inch line.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'm not going to extend
that conversation because I'm sure that Commissioner Coy Ie has some
detailed questions and comments about that.
Watching this project and hearing complaints from residents and
what I know of the contract about the appearance and the tidiness of
the work being done -- and you're in control of the right-of-way -- my
personal feeling is that it's very sloppy.
There's a lot of piles of dirt within that right-of-way that have
Page 25
January 23-24, 2007
weeds growing almost as tall as the pile of dirt, and if code
enforcement -- if this was a citizen that done this, code enforcement
would take action on it, and I don't know why we're not taking action
to keep this project tidy.
Example is in front of Island Walk. Piles of dirt's been there for
years. Rocks -- piles of rocks been there for years. Pipe has been in
front of that community for years. Weeds have been growing in front
of that community for years. And I would ask the transportation
department to enforce the contract in this example.
It doesn't -- this contract and the delays of this doesn't help the
existing residents there to make it -- exacerbate it to have an unsightly
project. I cannot accept that.
MR. MUTCH: I agree with you. We have taken action to clean
up the area that you had mentioned. Piles have been moved. The rock
is scheduled to be crushed to be used as fill. We will continue to
remove debris from the site until it is clean.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Mr. Mutch, I know it has
-- it's better, but I see weeds that are far in excess of 18 inches. And,
again, if code enforcement took action on it, somebody would be
liable for it.
And I don't know -- I mean, you're -- in the contract you're
supposed to have a tidy right-of-way and keep it tidy, and we actually
gave -- amended the contract for you to maintain the right-of-way, and
-- but it's not being done.
I just have a disappointment. I have a disappointment of the
project delay. Don't know if it's your fault. From what I'm hearing, it
is not, but we'll let Commissioner Coyle ask those questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle's next,
and I'll follow Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Mutch, thank you very much
for your presentation.
You've brought up a subj ect which is troublesome for us all, and
Page 26
January 23-24, 2007
I'm trying to find solutions to this problem. Mislocated utilities is
costing taxpayers millions of dollars in Collier County, and, of course,
as a result of the delays in road construction, we're not getting projects
done on time.
As a person who's experienced in this matter, what
recommendations do you have for us to help us solve this problem?
What can be done either in the beginning when we're planning the
proj ect or to permit us to detect these things more quickly during the
construction process?
MR. MUTCH: Commissioner, I think the location of all the
utilities prior to the design so that they have a specific location for
each item, each turn, each elbow. As-builts are good, as-builts that we
work off are 30 years, 40 years old, and it was over there, sort of
situation. Today we can pinpoint it exactly where it is, and that's what
we are doing.
But we go along, and every couple of days you hit something
when you run it, whether it's an abandoned telephone cable that is not
shown, is not marked. Again, as in the presentation, we have to stop.
We have to find out who owns it, and is it alive, did we kill
somebody's service?
So that in itself is a tremendous frustration to those that are trying
to do the work. They would love nothing more than to have a drawing
and follow it and lay pipe, but they can't do that. They can't even do it
on a weekly basis without stopping. Two or three conflicts per week.
And I think it goes back to the beginning.
I think that the engineers are trying to work ahead of us, and they
don't stay ahead. There's a section that we're coming up to now,
they've been working on for about three months, which is west of the
1-75 bridge, and we've just received plans last week, and there's
mistakes and things that have to be redone on those. So we're kind of
held back.
Now, we've got to hold the road crews back, you know, until the
Page 27
January 23-24, 2007
utilities are done. We're able to work in an area until we hit a conflict,
then we've got to take the crew somewhere else, and that's mobe and
demobe costing the contractor every time we have to do it.
So it increases their level of frustration, not only those in the
field, but those in the office, and the CEI on the job is in the same
boat. They go -- we all go when the -- go together. Where goes one
goes all.
We have made steps to look ahead further to be able to view the
investigation, to try and locate the best we can any of these unforeseen
problems. And other than that, you know, if it's not done before the
plans are drawn, it has to be done after.
And this job, I have to say, is a designlbuildjob. We could not
take the drawings and build it as it was designed. Water lines are
moved from the north side of the road to the south side of the road. It
wasn't drawn that way.
We actually have the worst part of the entire project just ahead of
us, and that is bringing all of these lines under the 1-75 underpass and
doing it before they come in and put tiers in. We want to be there
before they are, and we have to go -- and we're currently doing the
exploration. We're more than -- more than a month ahead of the
utility crew now, and there are numerous people working on that right
now.
AP AC has devoted full time a project engineer to work with the
CEI to be able to go over these plans. We get plans or drawings that
are returned from the designers, the CEI reviews them for design, and
our people review them for constructibility. Now, this is something
that we've just started in the last three or four months that I've done
here.
I foresee -- as I mentioned to you, the worst-case scenario, why
will the conflicts be better on the last half than the first half, you
know, just so we're all aware of this. So when we have another
meeting like this in 2008, there's no surprises.
Page 28
January 23-24,2007
I can tell you that the conflicts that we've -- that we've had to
date, this 280 days, is comprised of 32 percent of changes in the work
regarding permits, and that's a total of 89 days.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me stop there, and let's pursue
that just a second. What would be your characterization of those kinds
of changes? Are they changes that should have, given reasonable due
diligence, been taken care of when the project was designed? Should
they have been anticipated?
MR. MUTCH: They were all known facts.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUTCH: There were no -- nothing hidden. I think all of
the permit applications, what was needed, could have been
incorporated into the design.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So the -- we did not submit
requests for permits?
MR. MUTCH: I'm not sure. I was not here at that time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Or someone didn't --
MR. MUTCH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- submit requests for all the
permitting that was necessary; is that essentially what you're saying?
MR. MUTCH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, with respect to design
changes themselves, are they related to permitting requirements or are
they relating to failures to clearly define the proj ect itself in the
beginning?
MR. MUTCH: They're related to not knowing where existing
utilities are. We have set spacing between utilities, between force
mains and water mains, and trying to fit all these lines horizontally
within a given space -- and you have to stack them horizontally and
vertically. And on the drawings in some cases we've missed it. I
mean, they have one line running perpendicular, running right into
another line where it crosses its path.
Page 29
January 23-24, 2007
So now is a stop -- it's not a case of just having to stop work.
Once it's located or we find that the elevation is not what was shown
on the drawings, it has to go back to be approved of the depth, what to
do, and then the change order's written. If it's priced, then it has to go
to the subcontractor, he does the price, he turns it back in, it's
approved, then goes back to do the work. There's time attached to all
of this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What technology do you have that
will permit you to detect utilities of all kinds before you dig into
them?
MR. MUTCH: My recommendation at this point and what we're
going to attempt is to go ahead of the pipe crews with the county
locate people, and we'll stake out an area prior to their getting there. It
may mean additional staking costs, they'll get knocked out, replaced,
but there's an opportunity for their radar to locate anything that may be
there. And they may find things they don't know, but we can mark
them, and at least we'll know what it is, we'll be able to dig them up
before the production crew comes to that point, be able to design the
dip before it gets there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So the radar is capable of picking
up something as small as a telephone cable or, of course, something as
large as a water or sewer pipe?
MR. MUTCH: Yes. They'll locate -- they'll find -- what it is --
you know, not knowing what it is, there are certain -- there are devices
on different lines and different frequencies that will tell you what it is.
Some of these older lines don't have it so we have to locate it. It
doesn't actually give us the depth. But as I said, we can have a crew
that will go in and will pothole that area, dig it and locate it, and
determine what it is.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you're telling me that apparently
nobody has really done this?
MR. MUTCH: It has -- it has been done on the known areas.
Page 30
January 23-24,2007
When they have our drawing and they'll locate a conflicting line,
they'll go out and they'll go to that area and they'll find it. Thirty feet
behind it or after it, no one ever checks. We have to check.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So you're suggesting that
what we should do is use the detection equipment along the entire
corridor of the improvement of the road construction?
MR. MUTCH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well in advance of the time when
you get in there to start digging?
MR. MUTCH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, okay.
MR. MUTCH: It's going to take additional survey, but in the end
it will save us time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, okay. All right. Thank you
very much. That's very helpful.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd (sic)?
MR. MUTCH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Once more I'd like to thank you for
being here today. It's only through these kind of discussions that we
can get the whole situation out in front of the public so that we have a
good understanding of what took place; however, with that said, 560
days, over a year of delays; am I reading this right?
MR. MUTCH: That's what -- that number is -- we are -- we have
50 percent of the utilities in the ground. We have a total of 280 days
that are documented conflict. So there's where -- that's where it came
from, but that can be reduced, and I can give you -- some of the things
we can control, some we can't.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I understand that, but let me go
back to it. I mean, as far as trying to micromanage this job, I'm not the
person to do that. We have experts within staff; however, getting right
back down to it, this is one of the reasons why I asked some time ago
for these signs to be put up. Even though the sign's going to look
Page 31
January 23-24, 2007
totally ridiculous, putting it up there saying a completion date which is
going to be sometime maybe in the past -- I'm not too sure how it's
going to work out -- with a year's space to the time that the new
completion date is, it's going to look bad, but I want it to look bad
because that's the kind of element that brings pressure not only upon
you, upon our staff, but upon the Collier County Commission, who's
the ultimate responsible party for what takes place.
Even though we don't personally build roads, the people up here,
when it comes down to it and there's a failure of communications,
there's a failure to do due diligence on the part of anyone, staff, you or
whoever, then it falls back on us.
So my question isn't even to you because you're not the person
that I can seek guidance from and you're not the ultimate person that's
responsible to me, but to my staff. Mr. Feder, what are you going to
do to fix this type of situation so we don't see it in the future?
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, transportation
administrator.
First of all, Commissioners, I do concur that we've had a number
of issues of utilities on this corridor. I do not concur with a lot of what
I've heard today though.
What I will tell you is, first of all, it was noted that with your
radar you can identify a line but you can't identify depth. You have a
lot of issues where we've had utilities added after the plans are
developed and as you go along because of nature of development in
the area.
None of those are in the way of excuse. It is to tell you that to
date, we've only agreed to about 116 days of that first 280, and we are
not agreeing, obviously, to another 280 days.
In answer to your question, in your design phase, you do
potholing. You can do digging up the whole corridor and evaluating
and identifying all of your lines, those that utility companies are aware
of and those that they're not, but realistically, to do that to the
Page 32
January 23-24, 2007
motoring public because you have a contractor onboard to continue
that process is probably not the best alternative. We need a
combination of both.
The key answer to this one, and one we've been doing on this
corridor is trying to get out in front of the contractor and to be able to
identify those issues where there's a design change needed, try to get
that design, go through the entities for approval because the utilities
have to approve of what we're doing in modifying items, and keep the
project going.
But to keep the proj ect going also requires staffing. And the case
here, the underground utilities is by subcontractor. What I didn't hear
in the presentation today, as told to us, that they've got a number of
concerns with their subcontractor, the underground utilities contractor.
You don't see people on the project. And in fairness, I don't see
as many AP AC people, but I'm not seeing those because the biggest
issue is the underground utilities at this point in time.
What I'd like to do is ask -- because it is not black and white
either way on this issue. I'd like to ask, first of all, our designer of
record, to speak to you, and probably our CEI folks as well so that you
get the whole picture and the full evaluation of where we stand.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So you have someone else that
you want to address?
MR. FEDER: Yes. I'd like the designer of record come to speak
to some of the issues on utilities, what we did to try to identify what
they see as some of the limitations, the pitfalls they had, because
obviously that's critical to the discussion we're having, and then also
the CEI, their understanding of what they're doing, how they're getting
out ahead, making sure that the project is moving, and their experience
relative to resources and accomplishment of this project.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. It only makes sense that the
cost that's borne on the front end as far as trying to identify anything
you can identify prior to the proj ect starting would save a tremendous
Page 33
January 23-24, 2007
amount of cost on the back end. I mean, I'm not an engineer.
MR. FEDER: You've got cost and time on both ends, and
ideally, if the technology allowed you, first of all, you'd start off with
as-builts. That's something we're not starting with in this county.
In many cases we had what was considered rural corridors, and
somewhere within that 150 feet or 160 feet, put your line down there,
and if you ran into something, you move it over.
So we do -- we hear the line's basically five feet deep, 10 feet off
of original right-of-way line. You do a few borings, it bears out.
Then all of a sudden what you don't know is further down the road
they hit a rock formation or something, they decide to veer, come a
little bit higher, go a little bit lower, or they ran into a conflict of
another utility which they didn't put on as-builts but what was out
there, so they modified their approach to it.
That as-built never showed the other utilities in there. It shows
theirs. We don't have as-builts, but what we are doing is, one,
developing utility system and distribution network, and we have very,
very accurate as-builts for GIS for my successor, I guess.
But the fact of the matter is, coming into these projects, it is that
kind of a gamble. Now, you do potholing and you do analysis up
front, you get the utilities to try and give the information of what they
have for as-builts, and you work from that in the design.
But you'd have to tear up the road literally -- and I'll invite AP AC
to tell me if I'm wrong in this. You have to literally tear up the road to
get out there to see where you are to get information, especially on
depths and other conflicts that are out there.
So if I could, I'd ask the designer of record to come up and speak
for a moment to you, and then the CEI, and then we'll all open it to
any questions you have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And we'll continue with your
questions right after that. Okay, Commissioner Halas, or did you want
to cover something before we get to that?
Page 34
January 23-24,2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I'd like to cover some things
right --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- now, if I could.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What year was the Vanderbilt
Road, this part, this extension, what year was it built? Do you have
any idea?
MR. FEDER: I do not know. I don't know if anyone else has a
better feel for it. The widening up to Airport, I believe, was in the late
'90s. This section of two lane that existed on out there, I believe,
existed before then because I think the other one went from two to
four in the late '90s.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. At that time, was there any
requirements by the county -- and I know this is before your time.
Was there any requirements by the county to make sure that utilities
that were being put in place were actually adhered to exactly to where
they were supposed to be?
MR. FEDER: I would imagine there was, but I will also tell you
the recordkeeping that I've found -- I've got a nice room of CPOs, or
as-builts. There wasn't the technology of the GIS information and
what we have today. I'll say that. I assume there was an effort to try
to get some level of as-builts, but they're not very accurate.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The question I have for you, we've
experienced Teco coming into this community the last couple of years
to place gas lines in. When they lay these gas lines, do they give you
the drawing of where these gas lines are? And how close to the
drawings are these gas lines placed?
MR. FEDER: You're probably taking one of our greatest
opportunities here, and when Teco comes in, they'll typically have
three or four different contractors working almost from both ends and
from the middle out to each and other, and somehow they'll join up.
Page 35
January 23-24, 2007
And the nature of the plans that we get back are almost that specific.
We have had a number of occasions where we're told a line is on
one side of the road, it's on another, and issues of that sort.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So is there any way that -- in the
future can we hold these utility companies, to hold their feet to the fire
in regards to where they're really placing these?
MR. FEDER: Yes. First of all, we're doing as-builts, as I said,
through our GIS. Those are out there additionally, as modifications
are coming in, we're doing extensive effort in right-of-way permitting
and in locates to make sure that we update and maintain a set of
as-builts plans. So we're in a lot better shape than we were for
whoever then has to go out and design or try to build in the future.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Mr. Mudd brought up a point, and I
just want to kind of elaborate on that a little bit. He said that you can
use an imaging radar type of system to figure out where some of these
utilities are. Can you do that even over a hard road surface?
MR. FEDER: The hardness of the road surface is not really so
much the problem. The problem we have here is the fact that we have
such a high water table that you'll get a lot of distortion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Awe. So in other words, this may
not be the fix-all that we're thinking. If you've got a high water table,
then you may not get the correct radar reflections back?
MR. FEDER: Yes. And the best answer is, obviously, when
you're digging up to know what you have down there. The best one is
to have had as-builts and to confirm those as you go ahead, ahead of
yourself, and to then adjust, as you have to, and there'll always be
some adjusting.
But if you have good as-builts, you should be confirming what's
ahead of you, your designer should have been developed utilizing that
information, and, therefore less conflicts, as was noted. But you're
going to have some.
You can do more potholing, but if you get into the point of really
Page 36
January 23-24, 2007
digging up the roadway and you have utilities, some under the existing
pavement as you're going through taking that out and getting it out
under pavement now, most of it's on the side of the road.
If you start digging that all up, then you've established a
construction site for a much longer period of time, and you don't have
the contractor there with some of the solution when you come to a
conflict.
And while it's painful sometimes for both parties, I think to try
and come to the answer to take care of a conflict to come to a solution,
it's sometimes the best to have the designer, the contractor, and the
agency there to come to a solution and get it done.
Now, as I said, that's added about 116 days, I believe, that we've
approved so far. We now just recently received a schedule that went
to 280, that original 280 you heard of. Our intent is to stay in front of
it to get the subcontractor out there moving and to keep the resources
on there so that we don't necessarily end up with a 280. But if we do
come close to that, that we don't end up with another 280.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I got just two more
questions.
MR. FEDER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The -- part of the 280 though, was
that anything to do with the events that we experienced in 2006 (sic)?
MR. FEDER: Yes, this project--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do you hold the contractor liable
for those if he's got the utility companies there and all of a sudden we
have a couple of occurrences where we have weather problems and
they have to pull all those people out?
MR. FEDER: A good portion of the days that have been
approved were related much like we had with John Carlo on the
Immokalee proj ect between 75 and Airport. There John Carlo actually
paved around the FP&L poles, if you remember, because they weren't
removed because the FP &L crews were up in -- first over on the east
Page 37
January 23-24, 2007
coast, and then later up in Mississippi and Louisiana because of the
storms.
So we had quite a bit of delay in moving utility poles out of edge
of right-of-way to new edge of right-of-way, and that was experienced
on this section as well as it was up to Immokalee Road, and it's an
issue we're continuing to work with. I know the county manager is
working with us to work with FP&L. We've seen much better
response now that the storm issues are over, but we continue to work
to try and get the utility companies, in this case, to move. When
they're underground, most of that, we end up moving. But, again, we
need a good set of initial plans. We need also responsiveness to
solution, and both of those we're working on.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is a questions for Mr. Mudd
(sic). How many counties do you service in Southwest Florida?
MR. MUTCH: We work in both Lee County and here in Collier
County.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUTCH: We have another division in Miami.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Do you -- do you -- is this
unique for this area that you run into problems like this or is this -- do
you find this in other counties also?
MR. MUTCH: I think that question is probably answered better
by either the CEI or the designer. This has been the most that any of
us have seen.
And I don't want to lead anybody astray to the fact that both the
CEI and the designers have all been working diligently to overcome
these obstacles.
The designer's representative is here. He's a -- you've got a
problem, you call him and he'll get on it. This -- you know, there are
just so many that we deal with on a daily basis.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm just -- what I meant was, do
you run across this kind of problems in other counties or is this just
Page 38
January 23-24, 2007
unique to Collier?
MR. MUTCH: Yes, not to this -- to this level.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not to this level.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not to this level.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, did you want to
go now or did you want to --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, no, I'll wait.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner Halas, if I would just follow up on
-- I need to note that this project, while we have utility issues
throughout on all of our projects, Mr. Mudd pointed out at the
beginning, this is a five-mile project with over 35 miles of utilities.
That was existing utilities, all of which are being upgraded as we
come through. So this has been a particularly problematic issue on
utilities.
And if I could, I'll ask the designer to come up.
MR. DELRIO: Hi, Gerry Delrio, construction manager for
CH2MHill.
MR. GRAMER: Bill Gramer, design engineer of record for
CH2MHill.
I'd just like to talk a little bit about the process that we've gone
through from the time that we took over design till now, and then
answer any questions that you may have.
The design that we put on plans and that AP AC bid was based on
a survey that was done in the year 2000. We started design plans
approximately in 2002, completed them in 2004. As you saw by the
exhibit, construction started in 2005.
During the time when the original surveys were done, obviously
there's been a lot of design and construction gone on on Vanderbilt
Page 39
January 23-24, 2007
Beach Road, Naples Walk, Village Walk, Wilshire, some by the
school, Island Walk, Mission Hills, St. Agnes Church. These are
things that happened either -- the whole Livingston intersection, which
was constructed as part of this project.
So it was -- what you mention, that this is kind of a designlbuild
project, I'm certain of these utilities, that's definitely apparent just
based on the changes that have occurred from the time we originally
started design.
Some of these -- the impacts that AP AC is hitting are, you know,
like Mr. Feder said, due to new utilities that are out there. Some of
them are due to utilities that are out there that were just, you know,
originally not located by as-builts in the correct locations.
The process through GIS has gotten a lot better than it had been
when these -- the time that these utilities were originally put in there.
The plans and specifications that we have and that we've put out
to bid included clauses in there for the contractor to identify these
underground utilities prior to construction, to have them marked in the
field, and to, in certain cases, identify existing elevations which we
showed on the plans which we just did not know exactly what
elevation these utilities were at over the long length of this project.
When we started the design, the intent was not to purchase any
more right-of-way in certain areas, pretty much from Oaks all the way
to Airport-Pulling Road, which means that we were required to, in a
small distance, from behind, in the back of curb and to the existing
right-of-way, to put an awful lot of utilities in a small space while
there're existing utilities out there.
The construction pains that AP AC has experienced trying to do
that are -- I mean, were known. It was foreseen that this was going to
happen. The idea of actually going out and, you know, potholing 25
miles of existing utilities or doing it by radar detection just was not a
cost feasible solution at the time.
It's just, you'd spend a million dollars locating these underground
Page 40
January 23-24, 2007
utilities, and if we did it in the year 2000, they would have changed
between 2000 and the time that they went under construction. I'm by
no means deflecting any blame by this, accepting any blame by this.
This is just trying to state the facts in terms of what happened and why
there are so many utility conflicts out there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. GRAMER: We tried to stay ahead of construction. We've
-- you know, we've assigned Mr. Delrio here to the project. Pretty
much for the last 18 months he's been at every meeting, he's been
assigned to all the proj ects, we've got a task list and schedule of, when
requests for information come in, when they come in, when we've
addressed them, when they go back out, so that's what we've tried to
do.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We thank you for that.
And I'm going to go to Commissioner Coyle. I want to remind
my commissioners that we're starting to run way behind on this
particular issue, so please pick your questions out very carefully.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think you're right. We've
spent a long time on this, but this is an important issue and it is costing
us a lot of money.
So, look, can we agree on one thing? We know that the utilities
are not located in the right place, okay, and they're not located in the
right place for the next 50 percent of the project. Let's get out there
and find them.
I could care less about what's on the current records. I really
don't care what's on the current records because it's apparent that
they're not right. Let's do the whole thing and find out what isn't on
the current records well in advance of the construction team getting
there, and I think we'll save money. Certainly we'll save a lot of time
and inconvenience for the traveling public.
So, you know, can we reach agreement on doing that? Just get
Page 41
January 23-24, 2007
out there and find it. If we have to radar the whole blasted section of
road, get out there and do it, and let's find out what's down there.
And, yes, we're probably going to miss some, but at least we will
reduce the number of problems that we have that will delay this
project.
Now, is there anybody who can tell me why you can't do that?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Everybody's in agreement
that we can do that?
MR. MUTCH: That is our plan. That's the plan for the future.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So our -- okay. If it wasn't a
plan for the future, it's a plan for the future now at least, right?
MR. DELRIO: What we've been trying to do, Commissioner, is
basically stay ahead of the game by figuring out where they're going
to be next. Basically the CI, myself, and also AP AC are working with
a good schedule now where we go ahead of schedule and figure out
where they're going to be next, and we go and we almost look at, like,
redesigning based off of what we see out in the field.
Bob Mutch here mentioned something about a -- three months it
took us to redesign a section of the Livingston. Well, it had to do for
two reasons. We looked for optimizing an easier way for
construction. The contractor came in and said, is there any possible
way that we can possibly move some of these pipes where they were?
We had some water lines on the north, we had some force mains on
the south.
And we had some crisscrossings going on throughout. This is
between the Livingston and the 75 interchange. We looked at it. It
takes a little bit because you've got to redesign it, you've got to go out
to the field, verify information.
And after we got that, we were able to come up with some
drawings which we're still modifying, but the contractor's still not
there building it, but we're looking for those.
Page 42
January 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But -- and I'd like to conclude this.
But in the past we haven't stayed ahead of the contractor; otherwise,
we wouldn't have all these delays, okay.
Now, we're going to stay ahead of the contractor for the next
portion of this project, right, so that the contractor isn't slowed down
by permitting or anything else? If we need to get six months ahead of
the contractor, that's what we ought to do.
And we need to survey that entire area for utilities and straighten
out the conflicts, do the redesigns well in advance of the time that the
contractor's going to get there so that we don't have these enormous
delays in these projects.
So I don't need any more explanations. Is there agreement that
we can do that?
MR. MUTCH: Agreed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going -- I'm going to start limiting
discussion on this. It's starting to drag out way too long, unless you're
willing to spend two more days in meetings.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd (sic), have you got explicit
instructions from this commission what we need to have done?
You're the engineer, you understand how the world's put
together. You heard Mr. Coyle. You heard the commissioners speak.
We've got a problem out there. Fix it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to make one -- now, Mr.
Coyle, or Commissioner Coyle, I think you said that you want to go
out there and radar all this for -- to find out where the utilities are.
And I believe in one of my questions I asked is about radaring areas,
and they said that because of the high water table, they don't get right
data back, so I'm not sure how we're going to address that issue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, if I may help you. That's not up
to us. That's up to them to figure it out.
Page 43
January 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, we're trying to give them
direction to go up there --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We did--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- and radar everything.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We just did. The directions --
MR. FEDER: Commissioners, we've got -- we've got -- we heard
very clearly --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We could discuss this--
MR. FEDER: -- you want us to stay ahead of the construction.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- this midnight.
MR. FEDER: We're intending to do that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think that we've covered this item
sufficiently. We've given enough directions. Radar, water, whatever,
just fix the damn problem and let's get on with the world.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Amen.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, next item.
MR. MUTCH: And I want to thank the commission for the time
to --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Mudd (sic).
MR. MUTCH: -- share our frustrations with you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You two aren't related, are you?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's spelled -- it's not.
MR. MUTCH: It's M-U-T-C-H.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's Mutch, M-U-T-C-H.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, okay. It sounded like Mudd.
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION TO DISCUSS THE ADDITION OF A PATIO
ENCLOSURE TO BUFFER NOISE FROM SEWER SYSTEM BY
JOSEPH HARRINGTON - MOTION TO TAKE NO ACTION ON
THIS PETITION - APPROVED
Page 44
January 23-24, 2007
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that bring us to public petitions.
The first public petition is a public petition request by Joseph
Harrington to discuss addition of patio enclosure to buffer noise from
the sewer system.
Mr. Harrington?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, there's two things that I want to
point out, that we are going to take a break at 10:30, we have an 11
o'clock time certain coming up, and at 12 o'clock sharp we will be
breaking for lunch.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And public petitions aren't really to
discuss. They're just to --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. Well, public petitions are for
discussion within the commission itself, but limited discussion.
MR. HARRINGTON: Yes. I'm Joe Harrington from 5021
Catalina Court in Naples. Some -- I'm going to say a little over a
month ago I applied for a permit to enclose a patio with a screen
enclosure. And I guess probably within 10 days or so I was rejected.
I inquired as to why it was rej ected. I was told that the proj ect
needed a lot line adjustment, which I went and I had talked with John
Holsworth. He gave me the paperwork to have this done.
I had my engineer question it. And it was done, and I had
brought it to planning, and then planning told me that I had to have a
site plan amendment done to it. One of the reasons was is because the
-- there's a high-pressure sewer system running through the property.
And within a couple of hundred feet of my house is a system, and
there was an air filter that was put on very recently, and it was very
nOISY.
And right behind my house is nothing but the woods from
Rattlesnake Hammock Road right down to the -- within 50 feet of my
house. The property is owned by St. Peter's Church which abuts right
Page 45
January 23-24,2007
on my property.
One of the things is, you know, after I submitted the application
here, your people, Jim DeLony and his crew came over and saw the
site. I met them at the site. They put the filter system into the ground
to reduce the noise, and within the last couple of days, they erected a
fence around it so it wasn't unsightly. I have some photos. I think I
had submitted some photos initially.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, will you assist him,
please.
MR. MUDD: Yeah. You want to put them on the overhead
again?
MR. HARRINGTON: This is the--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Into the mike.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Talk in the mike, sir, if you could.
MR. HARRINGTON: This, where I'm indicating, is showing the
filter system for the high-pressure sewer.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. HARRINGTON: And right here on top was a blower with a
filter to reduce -- if you're over there and the power went out, you
didn't want to be in the area for the odor. It was just unreal.
This is a photo of the same thing. My house is to the left looking
from Catalina Court into where the sewer system filter is. These
photos here are basically the same.
This is a photo from the property behind the filter showing my
house to the right at 5021. The house to the left is 5019 Catalina
Court. And as you can see by the photos, it's just nothing but raw
weeds and overgrown trees in the area. This next photo will show
some of the trees that --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did I hear you correctly, sir, that they
put a fence around this since --
MR. HARRINGTON: Recently, yes, they did.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You don't have a picture of that, do
Page 46
January 23-24, 2007
you?
MR. HARRINGTON: No, but --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If we could see that, not that I'm
trying to rush you along, but I really do want to be able to cover this
thoroughly.
MR. HARRINGTON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So this is the fence that's around the
filter?
MR. HARRINGTON: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So the question of it being unsightly
now, I guess it's a choice between a fence or a filter. The fence looks
a lot better.
MR. HARRINGTON: Oh, it does, definitely. And I've got
photos here of -- showing from my dining room looking out the glass
enclosure, and just looking at that filter system.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, sir, clarification. That last
picture, you were looking from your dining room towards the fence?
MR. HARRINGTON: Oh, I have it in my hand. I haven't put it
up.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. DeLONY: That was before.
MR. HARRINGTON: That's a photo looking from my dining
room to the --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But that's a picture without the fence
around it?
MR. HARRINGTON: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So it doesn't apply anymore.
MR. HARRINGTON: No, this was before just -- your people
were very prompt in coming out and doing the filter and reducing the
noise. I had to leave the hurricane shutters on my bedroom window
because that filter was very loud. Now it's acceptable. It's -- and the
same thing with the fence there.
Page 47
January 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But he really wanted an enclosure.
MR. HARRINGTON: This is another photo.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, did you want to
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. So they fixed that problem,
but what you were asking is that you wanted to have an enclosure?
MR. HARRINGTON: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And our people have said you
couldn't. Is there -- why did they say you couldn't have an enclosure?
MR. HARRINGTON: Well, they told me that I had to have, first
of all, a lot line. I own the -- I bought the development back in '88,
and I, myself, personally, I build all 11 houses on the site. The last
one I built was the house I'm living in.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, is there a way our people can
help you get that lot line adjustment?
Joe, is there --
MR. HARRINGTON: Well, it's a zero lot line, and I put a patio.
It's a 12 by 36 patio. Some years back -- some years back I --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One conversation at a time.
MR. HARRINGTON: -- I had talked to -- and I think I have a
letter from -- back in my house in Massachusetts, a letter from Ken
Beginsy (phonetic), and I asked him a question in a meeting with --
there was Bill McCanly, the engineer there, some other people from
the county -- about any event that, at a later date, that somebody
wanted to do a -- put a screen enclosure on the rear of the house if you
didn't put a lanai built into the house, and he said no problem. And I
believe I've got a letter from him stating that there would be no
problem doing that, but that goes back to into the '90s, the early '90s.
But what I wanted to do is, I still own all the property. I haven't
turned it over to the homeowners as yet, and there's nothing but
woods, as Jim will -- and George, when they come up and speak. I just
wanted to see with the commissioners can override.
Page 48
January 23-24, 2007
And I talked to the building department. They said they'd have
no problem, you know, issuing the permit for the building of the
screen enclosure, and I have -- it was absolutely nothing behind my
house but woods.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Joe, could you work with him to
help him along and we -- or should we bring this back to another
meeting? We can't make any decisions here.
MR. HARRINGTON: Oh, I don't expect you to make a decision
right here today.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But if there's something that you can
do to help him, and then just let us know how it came out.
MR. SCHMITT: I just need to explain, for the record. Joe
Schmitt, your administrator of community development/
environmental services division.
This is a rather unique project. As you can see, where it says lot
15, that is the lot in question. These are actually pods. All -- this is
not a platted lot. This is -- the only land that the homeowner owns is
the actual slab that the house is built on.
The highlighted area is the area where they want to build the
lanai and the screen enclosure. You can have a porch that protrudes
into the common area, but -- a slab, but you can't have a vertical
structure.
He basically has to amend either his property to identify that as
his own property or he has to submit a site plan to amend the site plan.
Because all the property surrounding that home is common property.
I know he's the developer, I know he's the owner, but it is legally
identified as common property, so we cannot permit a vertical
structure to be built within that -- beyond the lot line unless, number
one, that becomes legally his property or, two, he would have to
amend the SDP as well because it is in a condominium project.
So I empathize, and he's been in. He's talked to the folks. It's
just a matter, he has to go through the legal process to identify and
Page 49
January 23-24, 2007
permit it as a properly permitted structure within -- for his -- for the
property. I hope -- hopefully that answers your question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
MR. SCHMITT: I could -- certainly can assist him, but he still
has to go through the legal process in order to identify that either as
his property or that the site plan would allow this accessory structure
into the common property.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So all he really has to do then is --
the county attorney, would you like to weigh in on this? Is there
something that you might add to that, or does he just have to adjust his
site plan? What is the procedure? Can you guide him through that?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. We've already discussed that with him in
detail, that he would have to amend the site plan.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that -- is that a tremendous --
MR. SCHMITT: He has to hire a firm to amend the site plan and
submit it as a site plan amendment for this development or to basically
adjust the property line so that he owns the property that he wants to
build the enclosure on.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to make a motion the
board not take action on this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Henning, a second by Commissioner Coyle, not to take action on this
item.
Discussion?
The only thing I would suggest -- and I'm not going to put that as
part of the motion -- is that possibly Mr. DeLony could look at doing
some plantings that would be -- wouldn't require any heavy
maintenance or sprinkler system.
MR. MUDD: He's going to do that already.
Page 50
January 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, he is. Okay. Then stay back
there, Mr. DeLony.
Any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor of the
motion, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And the motion passed 4-1
with Commissioner Fiala dissenting.
And with that we're going to take a 1 a-minute break, then we'll
be right back to hear the other petition and then get right on with the
11 o'clock time certain.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have one more public petition.
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION TO DISCUSS THE MERITS OF AN
EXPLORATORY STUDY OF HOME RULE CHARTER
GOVERNMENT BY LARRY BA YTOS - DISCUSSED
The next item, Commissioner, is 6B, another public petition. It's
a public petition request by Larry Baytos to discuss the merits of an
explanatory study of the Home Rule Charter Government.
Commissioners, just so you know, you have a -- I won't call it a
companion. You have a like item, okay, under 9 --
Page 51
January 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: K.
MR. MUDD: Under 9K.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, and I believe the petitioner filed
before I put that in the --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- agenda, so I can understand why
we have a duplication of effort here. Meanwhile, you know, he has
every right to appear before us.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And hopefully he'll remain here for
the petition itself.
MR. MUDD: So my comment to the board is, Mr. Baytos sent in
a public petition, public petitioners have 10 minutes in order to do a
public petition. I would -- I would recommend to the board that you
hear that public petition.
Your discussion on a public petition is to bring it back to another
board -- another board meeting. You don't have to do that. You have
an item that's on your agenda that basically covers that today, so you
don't have that decision.
And without further ado, Mr. Baytos.
MR. BA YTOS: Thank you very much. For the record, my name
is Larry Baytos. I'm a member of the county government Productivity
Committee and wanted to provide a little bit of background about the
item that will be on the -- later on in the agenda.
The -- I wanted to give you a little perspective on the proposal
we've made. This slide was shown back in June when we gave a
report on efficiency and effectiveness of the county government. We
described -- at that time we described county government as like a
grouping of silos.
Now, each silo may serve its function very well standing on its
own, and each of the heads of those silos may be doing a good job in
their respective areas, but this does not usually work well as a
Page 52
January 23-24, 2007
management system.
These are some of the characteristics that we observed during the
efficiency and effectiveness study. N ow at the time we thought,
perhaps, we were being a little bit harsh in our judgment, but since
then I read -- here's a study that's called the History of Florida
Counties and Home Rule, describes county government here.
The fragmentation -- not Collier County, but in general, Florida
counties. Fragmentation, duplication overlap, and lack of political
accountability of the traditional structure of Florida counties have
been widely documented. So this was something that -- it just doesn't
happen here. It happens throughout Florida.
We suggested the couple dozen changes to be made in practices
and possibly organization. Most of those could not be implemented
because the -- it was outside the authority of the Board of County
Commissioners. We also briefly threw out the idea of charter
government as an option.
We -- after that meeting some of us went on further to try to
figure out how we got where we are. And if we go back to 1923 when
Collier first became an independent county, the government was
established as the only form of government available at that time.
And so it's a form of government that has pretty much stayed
with us since then, except now the commissioners don't serve as
justices of the peace. I'm sure you're glad of that.
If we fast -- that's what Collier County looked like, at least
Naples. There was about 2,500 people in the county. It was a very
simple government to serve very simple needs.
Fast forward, we now have some communities here that have
more than 2500 people, more than the entire county did back then.
Unfortunately, some of these issues of growth have created some
challenges for the government, and the government has not changed.
In our studies we looked at what's gone on in charter counties in
Florida. This was -- option was made available in 1968. Nineteen
Page 53
January 23-24, 2007
counties have it now, representing about 80 percent of the population
of the state.
It's interesting that of the 38 smaller counties, none of them have
charter government. Of the 15 largest counties, which Collier is one,
13 of the 15 have charter government. Also this is not a flavor of the
month. These governments have been in force for three to 50 years,
with a median of 20 years.
We tried to do a little reserve using a lot of information available
on the web. Some of the reasons we found for why counties have
gone to charter government -- and these are usually in their
commission papers that they filed in their commissioner hearings --
one is the opportunity that is captured by the idea of home rule. I
suspect the commissioners felt like a puppet up there last summer
when the legislators were decimating the concurrency program that we
had.
So certainly whenever we can get Tallahassee out of our hair,
that's to be desired. Our reserve would be involved talking to experts
in this to see what can be done, what potential opportunities there are
for us here.
Another issue is added voter powers to the extent that these are
sought by the voters and might be used. Again, we will be seeking the
experts' input in reporting that in some concise and cogent format.
Another issue that was of interest to our Productivity Committee
is the potential for organizing government differently. It appears that
there have been two models that emerged in Florida.
Fourteen of the charter counties have kept the traditional model
with the constitutional offices pretty much intact, not much change.
There's reasons for that which we won't have time for.
The other model is the one that looks more at productivity as the
focus. And under this model, some functions have been moved such
as finance is consolidated. All those functions moved under a chief
financial officer reporting to the county manager.
Page 54
January 23-24, 2007
What our study would try to do is to develop some matrix to see
if there is a difference in cost depending on how you govern. There is
some data available out there.
F or example, a recent study compared the number of county
employees per one thousand population, and that survey, that was
done by Leon county, I believe. Collier County, there were 17 of the
19 charter counties, had a lower ratio of employees to the population
than Collier County did.
Now, is that a matter of how government is organized or is it a
matter that we've just decided to provide a higher level of service to
our constituents? Those are the kind of issues that we're curious
about.
The commissioners would be asked in our proposal to make a
choice at this time, either tell us to forget about it without investing
any more effort, and if so, we'll pack back up our tents and move on,
or if you green-light the study, we would begin working on the kind of
issues that are listed there.
As you know, all of our deliberations go on in the sunlight. We
frequently have representatives of the constitutional officers attending
our meetings so there are no secrets in whatever our discussions are.
The second decision point would be, if you tell us to go ahead
and do this brief study, we would come back, present our findings, at
that point you could tell us, based on the information, you're not
interested in pursuing it further, or if you find the information
compelling, you would appoint a charter commission.
We won't spend much time on the next slides because there's no
decision to be made on appointing a charter commission at this time.
But I would point out, it's nothing the Productivity Committee would
present, and their report would necessarily be compelling to the
charter commission. They would decide if whatever we presented was
useful, it could start all over if they wanted to. That would be up to
the charter commission.
Page 55
January 23-24, 2007
Of course, the final point would be the voters. Also, I really
won't spend time on this because these slides are all in the hand out
package that we have. I'd be happy to address questions on these
issues later if you want to.
In summary then, trying to keep it very brief, our request is that
you authorize the Productivity Committee to begin the study,
exploratory study really. We've put together a subcommittee of about
five members who would bring 150 years of combined experience in
government, management, consulting and business. We also would
bring 10 to 15 years experience with the Productivity Committee, so
we are not novices about how government operates here, and we
would devote hundreds of hours of volunteer time.
The only commitment we request of the commissioners would be
to reimburse modest expenses we might incur. Normally we don't
incur any expenses in any of our studies. Because we would have to
be going to outside people, we, perhaps, might have to spend up to
5,000.
If we could do it for zero, we'll do it for zero. And, of course, the
other commitment would be that you'd give us a time to share our
findings at the conclusion of the study.
Thank you very much for your time and --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Baytos, don't go yet.
MR. BA YTOS: I won't.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coletta, right over
here. What I'm going to do is, we have a few minutes before our time
certain. We were going to go to this particular item. We were going
to pick people for committees and whatever. I'm going to take this
opportunity, rather than let this lie dormant and then have to come
back and get a discussion going, I think within about five, six minutes,
we can satisfy item number -
Item #9K
Page 56
January 23-24, 2007
DISCUSSTION FOR THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF A
CHARTER GOVERNMENT COMPARED TO OUR PRESENT
FORM OF GOVERNMENT - MOTION TO MEET IN
COMMITTEE TO DISCUSS CHARTER GOVERNMENT-
APPROVED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 9K.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- 9K related to charter government.
What I would suggest -- I think that the Productivity Committee has
done an excellent job of getting this forward. And we're into item 9K
now, sir. We're going to move to that item so that -- because you
made an excellent presentation.
MR. BA YTOS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And forgive me for not making the
last Productivity Committee meeting. Commissioner Henning's really
in charge, and there was some confusion.
MR. BA YTOS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I know he could do it just as well
as I could.
What I'd like to do is offer you this, fellow commissioners, this is
a serious item that requires serious discussion amongst the
commissioners so we can give a meaningful direction to the
Productivity Committee rather than just go forward and report back
again. We have the Florida Association of Counties, a lady by the
name of Ginger Delegal -- am I pronouncing it right?
MR. WEIGEL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: She's with FAC, the general counsel
in Tallahassee, and she's spoken numerous times to other counties
about charter government, giving you all the positives and negatives
of it.
Page 57
January 23-24, 2007
And what I would like to do, with your permission, is schedule a
joint workshop between the Productivity Committee and the Board of
Collier County Commissioners to have her make a presentation, then
we can give the Productivity Committee meaningful directions to go
with at that time rather than have to drag this out, now trying to hash it
all out and give them direction and have them come back and then
sending them back out with more direction. I think we'd be much
more concisive (sic) if we waited for that point in time as a workshop,
and hopefully we could plan one in the reasonable future, and I would
say less than four hours it would take to be able to complete the
presentation and give direction.
Fellow commissioners?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've got a question, I think
Commissioner Henning does too.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's start off with --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Henning was first.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Henning was first.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if that's the direction this
board is going to go is a workshop, I'm fine with that. But if not, then
I want to continue questions and comments.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine, sir. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would recommend we not do that.
The Productivity Committee is asking for our permission to conduct a
study which would logically involve coordination with the Florida
Association of Counties and any other experts who can provide them
information. Why would we interj ect ourselves into that process
before the Productivity Committee has had a chance to study it?
I would prefer to let the Productivity Committee do its job, which
would be to talk with Ms. Delegal and all others who have relevant
information, let them filter -- let them consolidate the information,
come back to us with the recommendations, and then we can
Page 58
January 23-24, 2007
concentrate on it at that point in time.
But to insert ourselves in the information-gathering process right
now, I think, is a waste of time and an interference in the Productivity
Committee's charge.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I disagree with that. I really
like to be on the beginning of the information sources because
everybody interprets differently, and what might be -- the
interpretation given to us might differ from our own interpretation if
we sat through these meetings. So I would like to participate in them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you like to make a motion to
that effect and we'll get discussion going and see where it goes, if the
motion fails or goes forward?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'll make a motion that we'll
meet in a workshop atmosphere with the Productivity Committee,
BCC, also Ms. Delegal from Tallahassee to give us the information
that we're looking for to decide whether we would want to pursuant
charter government or not.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And to direct -- be able to direct the
Productivity Committee to the next step?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, if there is one.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll second the motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If there is a next step, right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Discussion on the motion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we have any public
speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
Page 59
January 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's a surprise. Well, with that, I'm
going to call the question.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0.
Thank you very much. It was an excellent presentation. I should
have just gone ahead and worked you into the agenda item itself. I
neglected to do that, but we did save the day and you did a wonderful
job.
MR. BA YTOS: Thank you for your time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And we just finished 9K, right?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We sure did.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Commissioners, that brings us to -- oh,
what the heck. Let's see if we can't appoint of couple of members.
We've got a couple of minutes before the time certain at 11 o'clock.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2007-23: APPOINTING KENNETH KELLY AND
JERRY MORGAN AS REGULAR MEMBERS AND LIONEL
L'ESPERANCE AS AN ALTERNATE MEMBER TO THE
COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD -
ADOPTED
Page 60
January 23-24, 2007
This would bring us to 9 A, which is appointment of members to
the Collier County Code Enforcement Board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Go ahead, Mr. Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion that we appoint
Ken Kelly as the, not the alternate, but the regular member for the
Code Enforcement Board, and then I think that we can address the
other two after my motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Fiala to
appoint Kenneth Kelly as a regular member to the committee.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all in favor, indicate by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr.--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please continue, Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: To appoint -- let's see. We've
got three members, Jerry Morgan as regular on the Code Enforcement
Board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And do you have a second one?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if you want to go with the
Page 61
January 23-24, 2007
second one -- see, I have a concern with late applications, so within
my motion I'm going to appoint Lionel L'Esperance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- that motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have a motion by
Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Halas.
And any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all in favor, indicate by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
MS. FILSON: And Mr. L'Esperance would be the alternate?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct.
Go ahead, Mr. Mudd.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2007-24: RE-APPOINTING ALICE CARLSON TO
THE EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES AUTHORITY - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 9B, which is
appointment of a member to the Educational Facilities Authority.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: A recommendation or motion that
Page 62
January 23-24, 2007
we accept the committee recommendations.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The appointment of Alice Carlson.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I have a motion by
Commissioner Coyle, a second by Commissioner Henning to accept
the committee's recommendations.
Any discussions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all in favor, indicate by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2007-25: RE-APPOINTING ALICE CARLSON TO
THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is 9C, appointment of a member to the Industrial Development
Authority.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to accept committee
recommendations of --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- the appointment of Alice
Carlson.
Page 63
January 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to accept recommendations
by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Henning.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor, indicate by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
Item #10A
THE FOURTH CONSERVATION COLLIER ACTIVE
ACQUISITION A-LIST NEGOTIATIONS AS MODIFIED
W/EXCEPTION OF WINCHESTER HEAD (TO BE BROUGHT
BACK) AND FLEISCHMANN PROPERTY TO BE MOVED TO
A-LIST; MOTION TO APPROVE B-LIST AND C-LIST -
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our time certain
item at 11 a.m. It's item 10A. This item to be heard at 11 a.m.
It's a recommendation to approved the fourth Conservation
Collier Active Acquisition List and direction for the county manager
or his designee to actively pursue projects recommended within the A
category .
Ms. Alexandra Sulecki, your manager for Conservation Collier,
will present.
MS. SULECKI: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
my name is Alexandra Sulecki. I'm the coordinator for the
Page 64
January 23-24, 2007
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program.
As you know, the purpose of the Conservation Collier Land
Acquisition Advisory Committee is to assist the Board of County
Commissioners in establishing an active acquisition list with qualified
purchase recommendations consistent with the goals of the
Conservation Collier program.
For the last year your advisory committee has been reviewing
qualified parcels submitted by willing sellers in the fourth acquisition
cycle and has made those recommendations. It is my pleasure to bring
them to you this morning for your approval.
Because circumstances can change quickly in the land purchasing
business, I would like to note several changes for you that have come
about since your executive summary was prepared and also to
highlight a couple of issues.
First one I would like to highlight is the inclusion of the
Winchester Head multi-parcel project. Your direction in February of
2006 was to cease purchasing in this area, which functionally moved
this project to the B list. In the ranking for the fourth cycle in
December of 2006, the recommendation was made by the advisory
committee to place this project back on the A list.
At the point in time when I prepared your executive summary I
had 21 willing sellers in there. They're noted on the map in the
summary sheet. Today I have 23 willing sellers. Two more have
come In.
I'd also like to point out that in regards to the value of these
properties, a market analysis a couple months ago put parcels in
Winchester Head at an estimated value of 66,000 an acre. The project
cost estimates on the recommended active acquisition list were based
on that figure.
A market analysis done last week puts the value lower, at about
25,300 per acre. That -- if that value is more reflective of the current
market than the whole project, it will be less costly than we thought by
Page 65
January 23-24, 2007
about two-thirds. And I have at least one seller there who has
indicated a willingness to sell below market value.
Moving on to another -- a note I would like to make. Unit 53, the
other multi-parcel project is on the B list. That project was not
specifically ranked since you gave us instruction in September not to
bring it back for two years or until market prices really change, so it
remains functionally on the B list.
Moving on to another proj ect on the A list, the McIlvane Marsh.
We had a late application for another parcel in that area, another 80
acres that would boost the acres in the project from 282 acres to 362
acres, making it significantly larger.
This new application is criteria qualified; however, it should be
reviewed by the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee, and they
should actually make a formal recommendation to you on it. It's on
their agenda for February. Should they recommend, we would come
back to you for approval on that one as well.
Moving on to the 1-75 properties, which are on your B list. One
seller there has expressed a willingness to sell at 20,000 below what
we've estimated market value to be and asked me to relay that
information to you.
Finally, for the RR Land Trust parcels that are on the A list, I
would inform you that our office received a request for a public
records search for this file a couple of weeks ago from an attorney's
office representing a client that may have a contractual interest in the
property. The owner's agent has advised me he would be here this
morning, and he's aware of this, but does not agree that this is the case.
And so, if you have questions, we'd be here to answer them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we'll start with Commissioner
Coyle, then Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Alex, I -- with respect to
Winchester Head in particular, I am not excited about transferring that
to an A list. I'm particularly troubled by the most recent
Page 66
January 23-24, 2007
communication from the Collier Soil and Water Conservation District
which essentially says that it appears that properties purchased by
Conservation Collier will be a hinderance to stormwater management
solutions, and their acquisition activity will work as a detriment to
resolving stormwater flooding in the North Golden Gate Estates and
other areas.
The Soil and Water Conservation District requests that the
prohibition currently in place for Collier County continue and that a
revision to the ordinance be considered and permanently prohibiting
them from purchasing properties in the North Golden Gate Estates
area that could be utilized for stormwater management solutions.
Tell me about your reaction to this.
MS. SULECKI: Well, I'm actually surprised to hear that because
I have been talking to Soil and Water Conservation District people,
and we have talked about partnerships.
One of the questions that came up was whether Conservation
Collier could buy lands and dig them out to store water. And I relayed
that we probably couldn't do that. And in addition, it had been a
policy of the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee not to look at the
upland developable lots in Golden Gate Estates. So I think part of
their plan involved some upland lots.
We did, however, discuss with them the possibility of -- or the
ability through the ordinance to place a low berm around Winchester
Head to increase its hydro period which we said we could do. So I'm
surprised that they would -- you know, you would be reading this
because it seemed to me that our discussions about partnership went
fairly well and there were possibilities there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This is their study, and it was sent
out on January the 19th. I mean, that's fairly recent, so it's
understandable maybe it hasn't made its way through the process of
review. And it's very, very clear they're asking us not -- or to prohibit
you from purchasing any of the property in this area. But that doesn't
Page 67
January 23-24, 2007
mean we have to do that. But there are concerns. There continue to
be concerns.
Anytime we have an area where there are a lot of tiny little lots
and we're hoping that we're going to be able to buy them all up to
preserve the area, it's a very, very risky kind of thing, because chances
are, you'll never be able to get them all or that we're just going to
escalate the price in doing so.
The other thing that bothers me here is that the Department of
Environmental Protection has denied several permits in this area due
to cumulative wetland impacts. If nobody can build in the area, why
are we spending taxpayer money so nobody can build in the area?
MS. SULECKI: Well, I wouldn't say that nobody can build in
there. I wouldn't say that's a conclusion. I would say that the lands
are legally platted for development and that people have an
expectation to develop. And I think that if push came to shove, that
people may be able actually to develop. I don't think it's as safe as
you might think.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you're saying that even though
DEP would deny a permit, they might still be able to develop?
MS. SULECKI: Well, you could always challenge that. DEP
often denies permits because complete information hasn't been
provided. Complete information can be provided. Could be provided
through the legal system, so --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could we not deal with some of
these issues through land development planning? We're already
beginning to wonder how we deal with runoff from the development
on lots that are approved for development in this state -- Golden Gate
Estates area. So can we deal, perhaps, with some of these areas that
are particularly low lying through Land Development Code provisions
so that you don't have to worry about that particular eventuality?
MS. SULECKI: You probably could, but there still is the state
oversight of wetlands and wetland regulation that remains. And
Page 68
January 23-24, 2007
Winchester Head basically is a floodplain. And it's difficult to
mitigate outside a floodplain for impact within it, so possibly. So I
think you'd still -- building structures, is that what you're talking
about? Requiring water --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, no, I'm not talking about
building anything.
MS. SULECKI: -- to be retained?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm just -- I'm just thinking about
devising Land Development Code changes that would require people
to retain runoff on site, and if it is not possible to do so, then they can't
build.
MS. SULECKI: I suppose those things are possible. I can't
really comment on them. I know what the situation is today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's sort of what the City of
Naples is struggling now with megahomes is if you're going to build
one, you're going to have to contain the runoff on site.
MS. SULECKI: Well, I understand, but I live in the city and my
elevation's nine feet. I have a neighbor who had to build up higher.
But we're talking about a lot lower elevation in Winchester Head.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand, I understand.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's move to Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I've got some concerns. I
believe last year in our discussion of the properties, we gave direction
to your group to look at this Fleischmann property --
MS. SULECKI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- and to put it on the A list.
MS. SULECKI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And why is it now on the C list?
Could you give us any idea?
MS. SULECKI: Yes. That was a recommendation made by your
advisory committee, and it was based on the fact that the property has
been purchased by the county already for the stormwater proj ect, that
Page 69
January 23-24, 2007
there have been a number of large grants awarded, and that the
wetland area that you asked us to look at purchasing is actually part of
the project and on the South Florida Water Management District
permit. So they felt that there, perhaps, was no need for Conservation
Collier to purchase that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, the problem is that South
Florida Water Management is in the flood control, and instead of --
they're not out in the realm of buying land.
So I feel that we discussed this with you at length and we said
that we wanted you to buy this because the other funds could have
been used elsewhere in regards to managing flood control within the
county.
So I'd like to see this back on the A list. That's my
recommendation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, then I'll
go next.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. One of the things with
Winchester Head, it seems to have been so important to your
committee, and maybe there are some things that we're not
understanding as to its importance. One of them, I'm wondering, is it
part of the watershed and do they feel that that's a functioning part of a
watershed that needs to be preserved, being that it's so wet over there?
MS. SULECKI: When you say they, who are you referring to,
the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The committee.
MS. SULECKI: -- the committee? I think there are a number of
reasons, and I would hesitate to speak, you know, their minds. And
there are some committee members here and there's -- our chairman
should be here, maybe he can answer better.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, okay. Well, then the second
question is -- yeah, because I'm looking forward to hearing the
speakers anyway.
Page 70
January 23-24, 2007
The second question is, one of the things that Conservation
Collier does is remove all the exotics; is that correct?
MS. SULECKI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And then they maintain the property
afterwards to assure that no exotics grow back in.
MS. SULECKI: That's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that correct? Whereas, if the land
is left to its own growth, the exotics continue to multiply rapidly.
And, of course, with being so wet, we're going to have a lot of
Melaleucas there, right?
MS. SULECKI: It's been our experience in South Florida.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, which then just blows all over
the place, and everybody else gets the Melaleucas. I just wanted to
determine that. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have one question regarding the -- if
Collier -- if Conservation Collier secured these lands, at some point in
time if they wanted to use them for water storage, for runoff, to be
able to divert it to these lands, would they be able to do it, or are they
prohibited from doing that?
MS. SULECKI: Well, it's kind of like the question about
Winchester Head and can we put a berm around it. I think we can -- if
it's a wetland, we can add water to it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, a wetland is usually preserved
in a way that -- in accordance with nature; in other words, it dries at
certain times, it floods a little bit at other times. But I'm talking about
using it for a water retention area to be able to capture the rain -- the
excess floodwater. I mean, this is one of the intentions of what's
taking place in the county now. Water management, soil and water,
county government all looking at this possibility; however, I believe
that there might be some restrictions within the ordinance that created
this group as far as using that land for that purpose.
MS. SULECKI: I don't think that Conservation Collier lands are
Page 71
January 23-24, 2007
just for that purpose, but I think that in -- especially in the Estates
areas where we have wetlands that were historically deeper, that one
of our goals is to restore areas to their predevelopment function. So I
don't think there's a problem in the least with moving water through
these areas.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. But we're not talking about
moving it. We're talking about --
MS. SULECKI: We're retaining it. We're--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- altering the purpose of what it was
intended for to be able to capture rain and runoff. It would no longer
be a wetland with the various predictability of seasons coming and
going and the vegetation that would be there. It might be under six
feet of water sometimes.
MS. SULECKI: Maybe not in the dry season though.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Not in the dry season, no. But still, I
just -- just simply, there is nothing in there of Conservation Collier's
rules and regulations that would prohibit that from happening.
MS. SULECKI: I don't think so.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's my question. Thank you very
much for the answer.
Let's go -- are you through, Donna?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to the speakers, please.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have seven speakers. Several of
them signed up for 9 A, but I'm certain they want this item. Bernard
Oetting.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. The speakers will be limited to
three minutes. I'll ask you to please try not to be repetitive. If you
heard the person before you give the same message, you may wish to
waive at this time. Of course, you're always welcome to come up and
exercise your rights to speak before us.
MS. FILSON: He'll be followed by Chad Lach.
Page 72
January 23-24, 2007
MR. OETTING: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Bernard Oetting, and I and my wife, we own the property on 60th
Avenue Northeast, which Conservation Collier recommended to
acquIre.
When my wife and I bought the property, we thought we could,
later on for retirement purposes, build a little home out there, go more
outside of the busy Naples area. Little did we know that the DEP
didn't quite agree with us.
So all we knew, that there was the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary
someplace far away, which we visited, but we did not know that the
property in section 42 was located in the Horsepen Strand.
So if you look at the -- I don't know whether we have an aerial
view available -- the aerial view of the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary,
the Horsepen Strand is adjacent on the top on the northeastern part
directly connected to the Corkscrew Swamp and feeding the water
right down into the Horsepen Stand going directly through our
property. That would be on the front page of the Conservation Collier
report.
The DEP noted in their report in 2004 that the properties have
wet -- quote, wetlands of high quality and function and are part of a,
quote, unique cypress sequence.
The DEP also reported that permanent impact of development
would be a loss of critical habitat cover, refuge breeding, nesting and
nursery areas for wetland-dependent species, such as endangered
wood stork and also a, quote, loss of primary per (sic) activity support,
natural water storage, natural water flow attenuation and water quality
improvement.
Besides the natural beauty of the land, the following point seems
to be quite important to me and hopefully to you. The two properties
are located directly across the street from the Estates Elementary
School.
If you were to agree on the purchase, a small boardwalk could be
Page 73
January 23-24, 2007
built, the school kids would be able to do field trips by simply
crossing the street instead of having to hop on a bus and drive to
dangerous Immokalee Road out to Corkscrew Swamp.
For a reasonable amount of money, the county could build this
boardwalk and kids today, and for future generations to come, could
enjoy Collier's nature at its best.
By the way, except for a few Brazilian peppers, very few exotic
invasive plants were observed, which would limit the removal to just
about $4,000, and with very minimal upkeep thereafter. So it's
basically invasive, plant free, which I think is quite a concern with the
purchase, that the cost thereafter will not be too high.
In other words, the property would offer significant human social
values, such as appropriate access for a nature-based re-creation and
enhancement of aesthetic settings of Collier County.
Oliver Phipps (phonetic), principal of Estates Elementary at the
time of the report -- I don't know whether he's still --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir, I'm going to have to ask you to
wrap it up. You're at the edge of your three minutes now.
MR. OETTING: Okay, I'm done -- has advised Collier County
Conservation program staff that an environmental education site
would be of great value for his students. And that's -- I'm going to
wrap up, 27 seconds left. I want to leave early then.
Thank you very much for listening then. I appreciate it very
much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much. I appreciate
your participation.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Chad Lach. He'll be followed
by Bridget Washburn.
MR. LACH: Good morning. My name is Chad Lach. I'm the
park manager at Collier Seminole State Park.
One of the properties which Conservation Collier's trying to
purchase is the Hamilton tract. I am in support of this. It is within the
Page 74
January 23-24, 2007
optimum boundary of what the park would like to get at one time. It
also would allow access to other areas of the park that we can't get to.
This would allow access to that.
We could possibly put in a canoe trail that goes through there to
provide additional recreational opportunities to Collier County
citizens.
And thank you very much for your time.
MS. FILSON: Bridget Washburn. She'll be followed by
William Poteet.
MS. WASHBURN: Good morning. My name is Bridget
Washburn, and I'm representing the Conservancy of Southwest
Florida.
I would like to begin by commending your work as well as the
work of the Conservation Collier program staff. It has successfully
preserved hundreds of environmentally sensitive acres for Collier
residents.
As the program enters a new acquisition cycle, the Conservancy
would like to support the committee's December ranking that placed
the Hamilton, McIlvane Marsh project, Starnes, Wetting (sic),
Railroad Land Trust, Karen, and Winchester Head on the properties A
list to be actively pursued for acquisition.
The Conservancy strongly recommends reactivating the
Winchester Head project. The DEP has identified that target
protection area as containing important wetlands that substantially
contribute to the surficial aquifer and that playa significant role in
flood control.
This TP A contains four native plant communities and its interior
habitat is relatively free of exotics. We realize the project is on hold
due to high property values, but a close look reveals that the parcel
within the TP A are actually appraised at lower values than are the
nearby areas outside of the proj ect boundaries.
These numbers show that conservation purchases have not been a
Page 75
January 23-24, 2007
driving factor behind increased land values in the Winchester Head
proj ect area.
The Conservancy also encourages more active pursuit of
multi-parcel projects, especially those in areas adjacent to existing
conservation lands. Although associated risks may be greater,
multi-parcel acquisitions are often essential in order to preserve
critical wildlife corridors and watersheds.
We now face the closing window of opportunity in which to
protect our remaining conservation lands and their natural resource
values. If we wait much longer to secure these areas, property values
may increase, the ecological integrity of these lands may decline, and
restoration costs and needs may grow.
The Conservancy, therefore, supports the use of a phased
acquisition cycle for multi-parcel projects that would begin by
targeting a phase one core acquisition area and a second area sounding
in phase two, and so forth, which would prevent the county from
acquiring fragmented holdings of conservation land.
Finally, the Conservancy recommends transferring the Camp
Keais Strand project from the committee's suggested B ranking to the
A list. This property contains panther habitat and has been noted as a
wildlife hot spot in several reports, and it serves as an important
ecological linkage to surrounding conservation lands.
An A-2 ranking would give the committee the opportunity to
resolve any conflicting policy issues while also providing the
flexibility to begin acquisition once those issues have been resolved.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Question, if I may. In the very
beginning you were making recommendations under the list, it was
Camp Keais Stand, for several B properties to go to the A list, and you
tied them together, and I didn't catch the names of the properties.
MS. WASHBURN: Okay. I have letters of --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. We need to do it verbally
Page 76
January 23-24, 2007
because we have no time to read letters now.
MS. WASHBURN: Okay. We had Hamilton, McIlvane Marsh
project.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. I'm trying to find that one.
I can't.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: McIlvane.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: McIlvane?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: It's on your A list. The third one down in your A
list. You've got Hamilton, Karen, McIlvane Marsh, and there's about
seven property owners there.
Camp Keais Strand has -- it's on your B list, and there's two, four,
six, eight, 10, 12, 14 different property owners on that particular list.
That's on your B list. I'm on page 5 of 30 on the agenda item.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I am, too.
Okay. Thank you, ma'am.
MS. WASHBURN: Okay.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is William Poteet. He'll be
followed by Mimi W olok.
MR. POTEET: Good morning. Bill Poteet. I'm the chairman of
Conservation Collier.
I came here basically just so I could answer any questions the
commission might have, but I would like to address the Winchester
Head parcels that we have recommended.
Back in February, the county commission sent us a notice that we
should cease and desist on purchases out there because of pricing out
there, and subsequently the real estate market has dramatically
changed in our community, and it's now a buyer's market.
So our recommendation was, if it's a buyer's market, to go out
there and buy the properties that we were trying to buy. If the prices
are too high, then we would desist. And that was basically the
philosophy we were using.
Page 77
January 23-24, 2007
As per the Soil and Water Conservation, I'll be very candid.
They blind-sided us this morning. We had no knowledge of this. We
have a member of Soil and Water Conservation who's also a member
of our Conservation Collier Committee, and there was no conversation
in this regard.
So what I'd like to do on this, if the commission would deem, is
let us go back in the next month or two, have some conversations with
Soil and Water, and then determine which direction we need to do on
that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're suggesting we continue this
item?
MR. POTEET: I would do that personally if I was sitting in your
shoes, until we get all the facts, because Conservation Collier had no
knowledge of this until Commissioner Coyle read the letter today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you for that.
Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Someone else was ahead of
me, I think, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know, but you have something to
add to this comment.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Yeah, I do. I think that's an
excellent suggestion because it is serious when we've got two
governmental agencies with elected members who are disagreeing or
feel that one is interfering with the other. We need to solve that
problem and get us both working toward the same goal. And you're
absolutely right, we need some time.
I mean, I got this -- I got this yesterday myself. It was only
published and mailed on Friday. So it is late notice for you and
everyone else. But it's important, very, very important, and we need
to be working together as governmental agencies.
And I think your recommendation's good, and I'd make a motion
that we -- we do that.
Page 78
January 23-24,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Continue.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, continue it until--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just that particular item? There's
one item --
MR. POTEET: Just Winchester Head is all I was saying.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. POTEET: The rest of them are fine.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Did we receive a second
on that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was just -- I just wanted to make
sure --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Forgive me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- we're only talking about the
Winchester Head.
MR. POTEET: Just the Winchester Head till we resolve that
Issue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. Then I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to see the Fleischmann
property put back on the A list.
MR. POTEET: One of the reasons we didn't put it back on the A
rural list -- and maybe it's misinformation on our part -- is for the last
year, we haven't received any information about the actual size of the
property that we were purchasing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's 13 acres, I believe.
MR. POTEET: Well, they think it's 13 acres. Nobody could ever
pinpoint it, and there was not a survey done -- a wetland survey done
to come back to us, so that was some of the information we were
waiting for.
Page 79
January 23-24, 2007
The other thing that we had been told -- and this might be
misinformation -- is that some of -- the proj ect itself was going for
some grants and there's some money being applied to that, and we
didn't know if Conservation Collier money should be then applied to
something that you were getting other, you know, funding sources on.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Problem is, we've got a huge
stormwater issue, and South Florida Water Management shouldn't be
in the business of buying wetlands of this nature, and I think that we
basically gave you direction to purchase this a year ago, and we were
hoping that it was going to be taken care of.
MR. POTEET: Commissioner Halas, all we did is submit you a
recommendation. I mean, the County Commission always has the --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Point of order for me. You're bringing
up a very just reason. What I'd like to do is go to the rest of the
speakers, handle the motion that we have on the floor now, then we'll
come back and you make that motion, and we'll take it from there.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala? Go ahead,
please. Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Mimi Wolok. She'll be
followed by Will Kriz.
MS. WOLOK: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm a member
of the Conservation Collier Committee, and I would ask that both Unit
53 and Winchester Head be brought back online on the A list. I do
also -- I wonder if we can bring it back to the A list and get going with
acquisition if we can get these questions answered.
First of all, the Water Management District, Bill, was absolutely
correct when he said that this is the first that we've heard of it, and I
would invite the Soil and Water Conservation District to speak before
the Conservation committee -- Conservation Collier Committee.
And I had never heard that they have a multi-parcel project in
that area. The two parcels that they've purchased or are in the process
Page 80
January 23-24, 2007
of purchasing are just single events, so it would be good to know
what's going on there.
But meanwhile, I wonder if, can you put this Winchester Head on
hold and keep it on B list and bring it back in a month or two, or is this
going to be a year before you can vote on it again?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We can do whatever we want.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We can do whatever we want.
MS. WOLOK: Okay, good.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the motion maker and the second
will decide that.
MS. WOLOK: Okay. So then I would support that motion, let's
find more out about that.
Also, we had been having discussions at Conservation Collier
Committee about starting a subcommittee that looks into a phased
acquisition process, what would be best for these multi-parcel projects
because it seems like the BCC isn't quite comfortable doing, you
know, this large of a project, and if we could come back with
recommendations on how to go about purchasing under a multi-parcel
proj ect, the state has wonderful information about that and so does the
Nature Conservancy who has committed to help us in this endeavor.
Also, I did want to address Commissioner Coyle's point about the
DEP permits. In my experience it's most -- it could be that there was
-- the permits were denied because there wasn't enough information.
More than likely, it's because the people either didn't want to or
couldn't afford the mitigation fees, because DEP is not in the business
of simply denying permits. They give alternatives. And if those
alternatives were not acceptable to the applicant, than a denial occurs.
Also, I just wanted to bring some information to you about Unit
53 and Unit 65, Winchester Head. Unit 53, in 2006 the average
acquisition value for Golden Gate Estates, Unit 53, was $36,500 per
acre, which is well within the amount that has been being paid by --
you know, under Conservation Collier.
Page 81
January 23-24, 2007
And interestingly, in Winchester Head, we have been paying
$3,000 or so less than the average cost per acre outside of Winchester
Head, and I don't know if that's because these are deeper depressional
wetlands or because of the program. It's probably impossible to
separate the two.
But this information is from Roosevelt Leonard, who generously
provided it to me last week. He's with the real estate services
department. So, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Will Kriz.
MR. KRIZ: Waive.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: He'll be followed by Tim Hancock.
MR. HANCOCK: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I appear here
today on behalf of Ray Smela, RJS, LLC, who is a property owner of
two parcels within the McIlvane Marsh. The purpose for my
appearing is to convey Mr. Smela's request that you keep the
McIlvane Marsh on the A list.
Of the two parcels he owns, one of them is actually at the
terminus of an existing access road and has some upland impacts,
which could provide for long-term recreational opportunities for the
entire McIlvane Marsh piece, so it's a critical component of that larger
portion. And we just simply request that you give due consideration
to keeping McIlvane Marsh on the A list, and I thank you.
MS. FILSON: And that was your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now, discussion for the
moment's going to be limited to Commissioner Coyle's motion and
Commissioner Fiala's second, and that has to do with the continuation
of the part of this agenda dealing with Winchester Hedge (sic).
And with that -- I'm sorry. Who's first? I think Commissioner
Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Just for point of discussion.
Page 82
January 23-24, 2007
As we acquire all these lands, who is going to manage all these lands?
I believe we've got to do something here in regards to giving direction
eventually to staff in managing these lands, making sure that they're
taken care of, that they're void of exotics. Maybe if somebody could
gives us some guidance there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner, I think we already--
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, part of our ordinance on
Conservation Collier, Commissioner, has that Conservation Collier
will manage these lands in perpetuity, so there will be part of the
monies that are collected, tax monies, that will go into a, so to speak,
living trust where that money will be there, will collect interest, and
that interest monies over perpetuity will be used to maintain these
properties that you acquire.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So my next question is, they're
doing this out of the kindness of their heart, or are they paying
somebody to do this?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that's why--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, a point of order. We're
limiting discussion just to the Winchester Hedge agenda things before
us. We'll bring the other item back. We're going to get so far afield
we're going to lose the discussion or the thought process here.
Now, the next person -- do you have anything on Winchester
Head you want to cover?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ifnot, Commissioner Fiala, then--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- Commissioner--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- wanted to call for that vote so that
then I can make another motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning,
anything on Winchester Hedge?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, thank you. I heard the
Page 83
January 23-24, 2007
direction, Commissioner; I agree with it.
I did some research on the Winchester Head, and I'm glad there's
a change of the pricing on it, but here's my concern. There's a lot of
historical information that is contrary to recommendations in our
executive summary, so I'm requesting a public records request for the
last six months between the staff on Winchester Head.
The second thing is, conser -- Soil and Water District, it appears
that it's doing a better job of acquiring lands for a better price than
what was recommended, so I do have some concerns about that.
I do support the motion, but most importantly, two government
entities shouldn't be vying for the same property. And I think we need
-- if the board's willing to consider multi properties, I agree with that
one point of Ms. W olok, that we need to do something different
because it just doesn't work.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Nothing to the motion itself as
far as changing it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just one little add --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I spoke to the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And your public records
request doesn't have to be part of the motion. You just made it, and
I'm sure they're going to honor that 100 percent.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's -- I hope so --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would expect they would.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- under Florida Statute 119.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No other -- no different than any
citizen making the same request.
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I'd just like to ask that we be
invited when you get together with Soil and Conservation, if you have
some kind of a workshop, let us know when it is because maybe a few
of us would like to sit in in the background and listen in. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
Page 84
January 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a minor change to the motion
itself. I would like to have Winchester Head brought back to us, that
we will be given actual sales information on Winchester Head to other
buyers, when did they occur and how much was paid.
And secondly, I'd like for the staff to give us some indication as
to how they can do these purchases in a better way so they can
assemble a number of properties to be bought at the same time rather
than piecemealing this process, which means we merely escalate the
price by doing so. So those would be my modifications. Just request
that the staff come back to us with that information would be helpful.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. That will be in my
second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And with that, any other
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none on that motion, all
those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
Now, Commissioner Halas, you can do it either as two motions
or one, on the Fleischmann property, and then the rest of the agenda
item.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I'd like to make a motion
that the Fleischmann property be put back on the A list.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
Page 85
January 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And purchased.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. That motion will stand alone,
then we'll do another one.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion to move the
Fleischmann property back to the A list, meaning that it would be
purchased at this particular cycle. And we have a motion made by
Commissioner Halas, seconded by Commissioner Coyle.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And then I wanted to make a motion
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, please, Commissioner
Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- yes, that we approve the rest of
the Conservation Collier recommendations and pursue acquisition of
those properties.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Discussion?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Discussion? Commissioner -- well,
wait. Let's go ahead and wait for the second. We got a motion by
Commissioner Fiala as far as the A list goes, and I'll second that
Page 86
January 23-24, 2007
motion so we can get the discussion going.
Now, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The board's aware that a request
of the property owner of the Starnes property, requests to retain
keeping cattle on that property. Does anybody have a problem with
that?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there any questions you want to ask
of staff on that? Just raise your hands if you do. Okay . Would you
please -- do you want to ask the first question, Commissioner
Henning, and then we'll go to Commissioner Coyle since you brought
this up.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I asked my colleagues if
they have a problem with that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Not so much a problem, but
I'd like to know what the economic benefit is to the county for doing
that, and what is the term of the cattle lease, the grazing lease, and
what are the obligations for maintenance of fencing and other
liabilities with respect to the property for this lease?
MS. CHADWELL: Ellen Chadwell, Assistant County Attorney,
for the record.
Commissioner, I'm not sure I can speak to all those details. I
haven't been privy to staffs discussion with the owner. I only stood
up because I -- certainly staff is going to go forward and they're going
to negotiate the best deal that they can for the county, and if it's -- if a
condition of that deal is is that they lease back rights to the owner to
keep his cattle on there -- excuse me -- until such time as its death,
then that's fine.
What I would hate to see is that this commission tie our hands in
going forward with the owner by dictating that we do that. Of course,
it is ultimately your decision as you choose to --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, as I understand it, the
Page 87
January 23-24, 2007
purchase is contingent upon that lease.
MS. CHADWELL: That's not my understanding.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that not true? Okay.
MS. SULECKI: Judge Starnes is here.
MS. CHADWELL: Oh, I believe the owner of the property is
here. Perhaps he'd like to address the board.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. CHADWELL: Judge Starnes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We would welcome, if you would,
come up, sir. Of course, it's your own free will.
JUDGE STARNES: My name is Hugh Starnes, and I'm half
owner of the property. John Globetti (phonetic) is here representing
his mother-in-law, Marilyn Adkins, who owns a quarter.
This is a -- I'll put it to the staff as a druthers on my part. Myself
and my family have had a cattle operation on the land for over 50
years. It's kind of a part of my life, and it's something I would like to
see happen. I would not place it as an absolute condition.
My suggestion would be that if you're inclined to do so, you
approve the purchase of the property and leave it to the staff, together
with, I believe, the Southwest Florida Water Management District that
manage -- owns and manages all of the land surrounding this and
would probably manage this for you, to do that. It certainly does not
have to be an absolute condition nor something that would last
indefinitely without some ability of the county to use the land for
appropriate purposes they would need to.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now I'm not too sure if it's
Commissioner Henning or Commissioner Fiala who's next.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm done.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've got a follow-up.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I've already said --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
Page 88
January 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I have no objections to the
proposal to run cattle on the property, quite frankly. I'm just trying to
get the parameters of the offer. And if you're saying that we're merely
-- you're merely asking that we give the staff authorization to enter
into negotiations, that's one thing. But -- and certainly any ultimate
purchase contract would have to come back to us for final approval.
But we try to get as much information as we can here. We're
talking about Corkscrew -- Corkscrew contributing some money,
money coming from Conservation Collier. I would like to understand
from staff what the proposal really is. What is the cost to
Conservation Collier and what is -- what is the additional income that
might come from the cattle grazing lease and kinds of things like that?
What is our liability and what would be our responsibilities with
respect to that lease? And I don't have answers to those questions, and
I'm not sure you can answer them for me. But I do know more now
than I knew before.
JUDGE STARNES: I am familiar with -- in the private area. I
have lots of friends in the cattle business. And mostly, for a very
nominal cost, private landowners are leasing for the obvious
agricultural benefit, and then there would have to be, of course, a
substantial liability policy posted by the lessee.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
JUDGE STARNES: Did you have any other questions of me?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. Those are the kinds of
concerns I have. I just need to get down to a bottom-line cost so I
know what we're offering and I know what financial benefits are going
to accrue to us.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So can staff come up and answer his
question?
MS. SULECKI: Your specific question is about the value of the
cattle lease? Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's one of them.
Page 89
January 23-24, 2007
MS. SULECKI: All right. I was going to ask Roosevelt
Leonard. I know we have had some discussions about that when we
originally valued the property. Can you speak to that?
MR. LEONARD: Hello. My name is Roosevelt Leonard. This
is the first of me knowing that the cattle lease would be permanent on
the property, because that would make it an income-producing
property, which the valuation for analysis that we performed
originally was just, a person would sell the property right out. So
truthfully, we would have to go back and reassess what the overall
value would be, and also take the lease into consideration now.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may, the only problem I have
with this is that -- I don't have a problem with people grazing cattle on
a land. What problem I have is the fact that this becomes part of the
public domain. The ability of the public to be able to use this in some
way -- it might be minimal and it might be a recreational use that's a
little bit heavier -- is going to be seriously diminished by the fact that
this land can only be put into inventory and it can't be accessed by the
public. If you've got grazing cattle, it's not going to be something
you'd be able to go onto the land.
My suggestion would be, because of these coming forward in
good faith, is that we have an understanding that the lease agreement
would carry for five years, and this would give him the ability to be
able to phase out his operation in a meaningful way, give some
purpose to his life, and then go forward.
Would you be interested in putting that in the motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I would.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'll put it in the second.
Now, discussion on that?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Hearing none, I'm going to
call the motion. All--
MR. MUDD: Commissioner Coyle also asked a question about
Page 90
January 23-24, 2007
cost share partners in the price, and Ms. Sulecki's ready to answer that
question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I'll go ahead and include it in
the motion that staff negotiate something that is favorable to all parties
MS. CHADWELL: Excuse me. May I --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- for the five years of the lease.
MS. CHADWELL: Commissioner, Chairman, may I interject
something here --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You may.
MS. CHADWELL: -- before you vote.
Commissioner Coy Ie asked a very important question, one that
was, what is the liability to the county as these cattles are grazing.
These are all -- we're just coming to you at this point to put it on the
list to start this whole process.
We don't have answers to these questions because we're not there
yet. And before you tell us that we will negotiate with Judge Starnes
and the co-owner and we will give him a five-year leaseback, without
knowing the answers to all these questions, with all due respect, I
don't think is wise.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Then I withdraw that part of
the motion, I strike it, with the idea that we're directing staff to come
back with a lease. But I think we've given you guidance about the
public process, or the public use of the land we'll be looking for, and
about the longevity of the contract to be able to keep that in mind, so
when you come forward, we have something that this commission can
accept.
Does the second agree?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, yes. All we've done is given
them approval to go out and negotiate.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, is there
anything else, or ladies, anything else that you can think of that we
Page 91
January 23-24,2007
haven't covered that we should cover?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just one clarification.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: He's not a lady.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's a good clarification.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Whatever you want to call me is all
right.
Just a clarification. The motion, as I understood it, was for all of
the proposed purchases in category A --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Outside of the Winchester--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Outside of the Winchester Head.
So it's not just this particular parcel that we're voting on. I just wanted
to clarify that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we're voting for approval of all
the other --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- category A items, with the
exception of Hamilton Head (sic).
MR. MUDD: Winchester Head.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry, Winchester Head,
Winchester Head.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just wanted to clarify that, that's
all.
MS. SULECKI: Excuse me. Did you want me to answer your
question about the partners, the funding partnership?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, that would be helpful.
MS. SULECKI: Okay. We do have plans for a funding
partnership with the CREW Trust in the amount of $300,000. We
Page 92
January 23-24, 2007
have estimated the Starnes parcel at costing roughly three million in
that -- three and a half million, in that area.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Good, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
With that, I don't see any -- oh -- yeah, no more lights on, so I'm
going to call the question.
All those in favor of the motion as so stated, indicate by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0.
Mr. Mudd, we've got a few minutes before 12, can we go through
the rest of the appointments?
MR. MUDD: Alex, you don't need any recommendations on B
and C, okay? So just what's on the A list, okay.
Commissioner, that brings us to item --
MS. FILSON: 9D.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, if I could -- if I could just -- just
so I can clear up that last item. Can -- you've got B's and C's that are
left on the list. It would be good if the board basically approved the
list. You approved A --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second.
MR. MUDD: And this is what's remaining on the Band C list.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we're approving the list as
it remains.
MR. MUDD: As modified.
Page 93
January 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: As modified.
Commissioner Henning made the motion, Commissioner Coletta
made the second.
Discussion?
Yes, Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a moment. I just want to
check something.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nope. I'm okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Going to call the question.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 4-0.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2007-26: APPOINTING STEVEN QUINN TO THE
PUBLIC VEHICLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion
we appoint to the Public Vehicle Advisory Board Committee Steven
Quinn.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Halas.
Any discussion?
Page 94
January 23-24, 2007
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 4-0.
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2007-27: APPOINTING MITCHELL ROBERTS
TO THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT ADVISORY
COMMITTEE- ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 9E, appointment of
a member to the Ochopee Fire Control District.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: A motion to accept the committee
recommendations for the appointment of Mitchell A. Roberts.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Coyle, a second by Commissioner Halas for the committee's
recommendations.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Absent.)
Page 95
January 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 4-0.
Item #9F
RESOLUTION 2007-28: APPOINTING BRUCE PRELBLE TO
THE BA YSHORE/GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE LOCAL
REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
MS. FILSON: This next one -- this next one is a CRA
appointment, so it requires the CRA board to make the --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Who's the vice-chair of the CRA?
MR. MUDD: There is none. That's part of the problem.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The chair's not here.
MR. MUDD: The chair's not here, and I believe the vice-chair is
also the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The chair's here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, she's here. Hold on. I hear her
. .
VOIce comIng.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's dissolve the committee.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. I hereby turn the meeting over
to the chair of the CRA, Commissioner Fiala.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we're on 9F, which is appointment
of a member to the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment
Advisory Board.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And we have to choose a new chairman.
MR. MUDD: No, not yet, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh.
MS. FILSON: This is an appointment.
Page 96
January 23-24, 2007
MR. MUDD: This is for a member of the advisory board.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to accept committee
recommendations of the appointment of Bruce S. Preble.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, second that motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So we have a mo -- I'm
sorry. You do it. It's your -- force of habit.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a motion and a second on the
floor. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
Item #9G
RESOLUTION 2007-29: APPOINTING THOMAS DECKER TO
THE ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT ADVISORY
COMMITTEE- ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion
we approve Thomas Decker for the Isle of Capri Fire Control District
Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Coyle.
And any discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
Page 97
January 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Item #9H
RESOLUTION 2007-30: RE-APPOINTING MARCO ESPINAR,
MICHAEL DELATE AND MIMI WOLOK TO THE LAND
ACQUISITION COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion
we accept the --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That was 5-0.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- committee's recommendations
to appoint three of their recommendations for the Land Acquisition
Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The motion made by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is on 9H?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
MR. MUDD: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The reappointment of all
three of them? Is that what you're recommending?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. No other discussion?
(No response.)
Page 98
January 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor, indicate by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 5-0.
MR. MUDD: 9E (sic) is continued indefinitely.
Item #91 - CONTINUED INDEFINITELY
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO THE PELICAN BAY
SERVICES DIVISION BOARD
Item #9J
BALLOTING DATE FOR THE RECOMMENDATION OF
MEMBERS TO THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION
BOARD BY RECORD TITLE OWNERS OF PROPERTY WITHIN
PELICAN BAY - DATE OF MARCH 2, 2007 - APPROVED
MR MUDD: 9J, request board to set the balloting date for the
recommendation of members to the Pelican Bay Services Division
Board for record title owners of property within Pelican Bay.
MS. FILSON: On this one you're only approving the date of
Friday, March 2, 2007, as the balloting date.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Make a motion in regards to
reflecting the date that the election will take place.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Henning.
Page 99
January 23-24, 2007
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you've already decided on 9K.
Item #9L
DISCUSSTION OF COLLIER COUNTY'S POSITION ON
PROPERTY INSURANCE LEGISLATION - MOTION TO ADD
TO LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES AND TO HAVE STAFF DRAFT
A RESOLUTION - APPROVED
MR MUDD: Brings us to 9L, which is a discussion regarding
Collier County's position on property insurance legislation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, do you think
eight minutes would be sufficient?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Only if the board agrees with me.
If you disagree with me, then it's going to take a lot longer.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, I think it's a wonderful direction,
but I'd like you to say something about it. It's a tremendous thought
process that went into this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it's a follow-up to the
guidance that we gave our legislative delegation at our prelegislative
hearing a month or so ago.
And I recognize that there has been a bill that is probably going
Page 100
January 23-24, 2007
to be signed by the governor, but the point is that the process is not
complete and it's going to go forward. This process will -- this bill
will be tweaked and modified over the future.
We need to make it clear to our legislators what we think would
be appropriate for our constituents. And certainly consumer choice in
this selection of insured value and deductibles for hurricane/wind
coverage is an important issue. Supporting effort to create a national
wind insurance program similar to the National Flood Insurance
Program is important if people are going to get low-cost wind
coverage.
And I can go on into some detail of the others, but I don't want to
waste the time. Hardening of the structures is important. And I'd like
to see Citizens Property Insurance Corporation expand their lines of
coverage so they can offer competitive rates, but not to the point
where we're going to scare off the private sector people. So if the
private insurance companies will accept meaningful reform, then I
would accept that.
But in any event, these are -- these are the things that I think are
important. Some of them have been addressed in the current
legislation. Weare unsure yet if they have been addressed in the way
that we expected them to be addressed.
And I think the bill is being printed off right now in our office,
180 pages. We'll have a chance to analyze it. And we can make
further recommendations.
But this is just to get us some general direction. We can tweak
these. I'm not hung up on these in any real form, but --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're there. You got it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But what you need to do is make a
motion that this become part of our legislative initiative, and we can
always adjust it at that time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That sounds great. I make a
Page 101
January 23-24, 2007
motion that this become part of our legislative initiative.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I second that, but now
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Commissioner Coyle, I have
some concerns about the rollback rate. I think that that needs to be
addressed more clearly, and I also think that the private sector, there
should be something in there about cherry picking, and I hope that the
legislative body will look at this so that it's across the board, it's fair
not only to the companies, but also more fair to the residents and the
small business people here in the State of Florida.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I certainly think that's true,
and I believe the governor is moving in that direction.
Number three here addresses the cherry picking in a way. It
creates -- it keeps Florida -- the insurance companies from creating
subsidiaries within just the State of Florida to -- that serves to increase
the risk for the Florida residents, but we want to expand that, quite
frankly. We want to expand that wind insurance pool so that we
spread the risk beyond just the boundaries of the State of Florida if we
can.
But yes, you're absolutely right. And I think the current
legislation does move toward eliminating or reducing the possibility of
cherry picking.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just hope also -- just to follow up
here. I hope that Governor Crist will also look at what has been
accomplished so far and move forward because I believe there's some
consumer groups out there that weren't too sure of what was really
accomplished, and I think that the governor needs to make sure that he
does an in-depth study of exactly what took place with this work
group so that we make sure that what we think has been accomplished
is accomplished and that we can move forward onto that -- those
measures.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That is exactly the point. You
Page 102
January 23-24, 2007
know, you know as well as I do that when we have legislative changes
in Tallahassee, it doesn't always do what we think it does. And so
we're analyzing -- I've talked with representatives of our legal staff,
they're involved in analyzing it. We're all going to be taking a really
close look at it to make sure what we think it does, it really does.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we can't be sure of that yet.
But Bobbie Dusek, who is chairman of FAIR is in the back of the
room. She has been working very hard. She's spent the last week or
so up in Tallahassee lobbying for changes, and I'd like to thank
Bobbie and her organization, FAIR, for doing such a wonderful job.
Thanks a lot. You've done a great job up there.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: See if she's got anything to add.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, do you -- I'm sorry, Mr.
Chairman, would you like to ask Bobbie if she'd like to --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Bobbie, would you please come up?
We know that you have some comments. I think Commissioner Coyle
has come up with an excellent draft of some future legislation that will
give guidance to our legislators. Your comments are most welcome at
this time.
MS. DUSEK: Actually, late yesterday afternoon I received the--
what was considered to be the final bill that they had accepted. I have
a copy of it here with me. It's kind of a condensed form. But some of
the issues that you just spoke of they are considering, the one cherry
picking. They address Citizens. They are planning to make it an
all- insurance company, and the rates are going to be more
competitive, which are some of the issues we were all thinking about.
They are also not going to penalize the nonresident --
non-homestead policyholders, which is one issue that I was very
concerned about. They will address this that in 2008.
And the mitigation -- also the Florida Building Code, they are
Page 103
January 23-24, 2007
going to expect the Pan Handle to follow the Florida Building Code,
and it's going to be a form that people will have to follow and make
sure that they are doing that, so --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Bobbie, we thank you, and we hope
you'll keep working with Commissioner Coyle on these issues.
MS. DUSEK: I certainly will, and I appreciate it very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. DUSEK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And with that we'll take a vote on it.
All those in favor, indicate saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Absent.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And with that, we're going to --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, before you go.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I just correct one thing that's
said here, just for the record?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: In that first statement I say -- right
in the middle of that paragraph where I'm using this example, I say,
today the home is worth $500,000. That is not correct. It should say,
the property is worth $500,000, okay, not the home. It does not
change any of the conclusions or anything else. I just want to make
sure that you understand that I know that you don't -- you don't insure
the real estate. You insure the home, not the whole value of the
property.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. That's sufficient guidance.
Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I just want to -- you've added it to
your legislative initiatives. Your legislative initiatives have already
Page 104
January 23-24, 2007
gone to everybody that needs to get them in your -- and so if you're
going to get this to them, I would also ask the board to motion that
staff draft a resolution, okay, whereby you approve it, where these
particular --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep, me too.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Coletta,
second by Commissioner Halas.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all in favor, indicate by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Absent.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With that, we're adjourned for lunch
until one o'clock. Enjoy every minute.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please take your seats.
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Next item? I think we've got a time certain.
Item #10E, Item #10F, AND Item #8F
ITEM #10E DEVELOPERS CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT
(DCA) BETWEEN WATERWAYS JOINT VENTURE VII AND
COLLIER COUNTY TO OBTAIN PROPERTY FOR ROADWAY
Page 105
January 23-24, 2007
WATER MANAGEMENT, DRAINAGE, AND ACCESS
EASEMENT FOR FUTURE EXPANSION OF DAVIS
BOULEVARD; ITEM #10F DEVELOPERS CONTRIBUTION
AGREEMENT (DCA) BETWEEN BENDERSON, WESTPROT
AND DAVIS CROSSING AND COLLIER COUNTY TO OBTAIN
PROPERTY FOR ROADWAY WATER MANAGEMENT,
DRAINAGE, AND ACCESS EASEMENT FOR FUTURE
EXPANSION OF DAVIS BOULEVARD; ITEM #8F PETITION
PUDA-2005-AR-7818, FREELAND AND SCHUH, INC.,
REPRESENTED BY TIMHANCOCK AOF DAVIDSON
ENGINEERING, IS REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
PINE VIEW PUD TO PERMIT AUTOOTIVE SALES WITHIN THE
PUD AND INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT
FORM 35 FEET TO 45 FEET - MOTION TO TABLE ITEMS 10E,
10F AND 8F - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, we have a time certain, one clock,
and there's a series of -- and there is a series of three items that are
basically to be heard at this time.
And I'm going to read all three of these items, and then Mr. Nick
Casalanguida will start off this presentation, because I believe all three
of these particular items were staff initiated, and they were all to try to
get the right-of-way that was needed for the Davis Boulevard
improvements from 951 to Radio Road.
First item is 10E. This item to be heard at one p.m. It's a
recommendation to approve a developer's contribution agreement,
DCA, between Waterways Joint Venture VII, the developer, and
Collier County, to obtain property for roadway water management
drainage and access easements for the future expansion of Davis
Boulevard.
Next item is 10F. This item to be heard at one p.m.
Recommendation to approve a developer's contribution agreement,
Page 106
January 23-24, 2007
DCA, between Benderson, Westport and Davis Crossings, the
developer, and Collier County to obtain right-of-way easements,
drainage commitments and advancement funding for the future
expansion of David Boulevard.
Next item is 8F. This item is a companion to 10E and 10F,
which I've just read. And again, at one p.m. This item requires that
all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
commission members.
It's petition PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6417, Ronald Benderson, et ai,
Trustee, represented -- represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP, of
Hole Montes, Inc., requesting a rezone from planned unit
development, PUD, to commercial planned unit development, CPUD,
known as the 1-75/ Alligator Alley commercial PUD.
The proposed PUD amendment requests the following: To
reduce the size of the preserve/water management area from 15 acres
currently required by the PUD to 10.58 acres; to delete residential uses
as a permitted use; to provide a new list of commercial uses
comparable to those allowed in the C-l through C-4 commercial
districts, with SIC codes; modify the PUD master plan to depict the
footprints of existing land uses conceptual footprints for undeveloped
tracts; to modify the circulation system; to establish a maximum
square footage of265,000 square feet of retail and office area; to
relocate the existing western entrance 50 feet to the east; and to delete
the 50-foot perimeter setback.
The property consisting of 40.8 acres is located on the north side
of Davis Boulevard in proximity to the intersection of Collier
Boulevard/County Road 951 and 1-75.
The subject property is located in Section 34, Township 49 south,
Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida.
Again, these are also -- this is a companion to the items that I just
mentioned on 1 DE and 1 OF. These are developer contribution
agreements.
Page 107
January 23-24, 2007
Commissioner, we will ask for a separate vote on each one, but I
thought, instead of bringing it to you piecemeal, that you could at least
get an overview of the particular proj ect, and then if you have any
questions about what Mr. Casalanguida is going to present, that you
can ask them, and then if those questions -- or you want to make
changes, transportation staff can tell you which agreement that change
would be made to in order to calm any concerns that you have, and
then finally come up with three motions on the three particular
actions. Nick?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let's let him say his name.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Casalongada.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Nicola Casalanguida. And that's Irish,
for the record.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know what it means in Italian,
don't you?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Quietly relaxed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It does?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It does. And I'm not relaxed today, so
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're never relaxed.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll try and give you a little history of
what's going on with Davis and the project as well, too.
Funding was pulled from Davis in 2005, and obviously that was a
real sore spot for the county. Davis has been our highest priority for
the past five years on our MPO list, and we all obviously know the
need in that area.
DOT has come back with a proposal for $20 million in
advancement reimbursement. That doesn't begin until it's
programmed in 2013, $5 million a year.
We're competing for that money with other counties that want to,
obviously, put it on their projects. And we're number one on that list
Page 108
January 23-24, 2007
right now, but we have to do certain performance measures to secure
that funding.
Right-of-way condemnation could push the timeline out a little
bit, and part of these agreements to solve the problem is that we secure
the right-of-way for these agreements. We're going to try and tie these
agreements and the funding.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I stop us for just a moment?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Were we supposed to be sworn in
on the one that says we have to state --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Are we handling all three at the same
time, or are we going to be working one agenda item?
MR. MUDD: We're going to be doing one agenda item and
another. Nick is trying to give you an introduction to let you know
how he came up with the agreements that are being presented, and
then we'll go down each one.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: As a piggyback to that $20 million,
we have a commitment from FDOT for $28 million beginning in 2011
for roughly 5 million a year as well, too.
Our goal is to tie everything in with a commitment from DOT as
our JP A, joint participation agreement. We anticipate to bring that to
the board in the next 60 to 90 days. These agreements you see today
is part of the foundation to get that done.
Funding and costs. Currently we have about 10-plus million set
aside for 2008 construction for this project. Working on additional
agreements that we'll be bringing to the board over the next few years
to finish the funding, and they'll all be probably developer
contribution agreements.
We're going to be very clear. Many of you commissioners
expressed concerns that you like to see phasing in these agreements.
Page 109
January 23-24, 2007
That's fine. We appreciate your money to help us out for the road, but
please wait till the road's done before you bring your impacts on. So
we're very conscientious to that as we bring those forward.
We expect -- anticipated construction cost for phase one is about
$13.7 million in the current estimate, with another $7 million for the
pond site, mitigation in some additional right-of-way that's included in
this agreement. So we're shooting for the $20 million that's in the
advanced reimbursement.
Our exposure is about $10 million above that. If we can't permit
this pond site that's in one of these agreements, we could be looking at
an additional $10 million that's not in advancement reimbursement.
And I -- a little concerned if I throw that number out because it's
a high number. That's my worst case, and I'm hoping that doesn't
happen.
Project goals. We're going to break Davis into two different
distinct proj ects, from 951 to Radio Road, Radio Road to Santa
Barbara. 951 to Radio will be phase one. Radio to Santa Barbara,
phase two.
Phase one we would like to do with the 951 project north of
Davis to the canal. Our goal is to permit these projects
simultaneously, bid them out next spring, and have them completed
for construction by the end of 2009, and that's where, in these
agreements, you see that date of 2009.
Planning Commission has made some modifications to that
agreement. They have said that the additional square footage that's in
the Alligator Alley, we'd like to be changed to when the project is
complete, and the applicant has agreed to that. So that was a good
thing that came out of the Planning Commission, so we're not worried
about our timing schedule.
Phase two, Radio Road to Santa Barbara, we're going to shoot to
advance fund that over the next year or two as the first phase kicks off.
We don't have the money programmed until 2011. If we can come in
Page 110
January 23-24, 2007
at the end of 2009 with advanced funding, we'll start that proj ect right
off -- after the first one finishes.
Planning and traffic. I understand there's concerns, what will this
bring us? What improvements will we get?
The phase one improvement with the 951 south that's going to be
bid this year, with the 951 north that will come up to the canal, will
give us capacity in the mainline traffic till about 2020. We do
anticipate some intersection problems we'll have to deal with in the
interim as early as 2013 or 2015, but it's the side street approaches.
It's not the mainline.
With that, I'd like to address any questions you have regarding
these agreements, and if you want to just focus on one, we can go
from there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't see any lights on at this time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you want to start right with 10E?
I'm sorry. Commissioner Coyle, I didn't see your light. Forgive
me. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's sort of hard for me to separate
these two items. Can we talk about them both together --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- at one time?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- please do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, as I've said, with
respect to both 10E and 10F, I don't understand what the developer's
contribution really is here. It appears to me that we haven't worked out
all of the costs, because in response to one of your questions in an
email, you're saying that there are significant unknowns with the
permitting process and that there will have to be some mitigation.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I don't have a good
appreciation for the net cost impact of all those things. And my
overall concern is that generally -- and I'm mixing up two items here,
Page 11 I
January 23-24, 2007
you have to understand.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure, sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But generally -- to me this is not a
developer contribution agreement of any consequence.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's a hybrid, and I guess -- when we
look at these agreements, it could be considered a purchase agreement
with some caveats that you typically see in a developer contribution
agreement, so they were kind of mixed together.
When you see contribution of consequence, us, the county, not
having to go to condemnation, is a significant plus to this.
With the Benderson property, they have donated right-of-way on
951 prior, they have committed to the bottom end of estimates for the
square footage that they will give us -- we'll be purchasing. The
ranges range from 15 to 22 dollars a square foot, and they went with
the bottom number. They've given us an acre of stormwater
management on the Alligator Alley PUD as well, too.
So it is -- they've agreed to phasing, not phasing all the way to
the point that we don't get that additional square footage that we were
asking for until the road proj ect is done. The square footage that they
currently had is vested in prior agreements.
So it's intertwined as a purchase agreement and a developer
contribution agreement. Would I have liked to have gotten things for
free? Sure. I think the timing -- it was difficult, and I think we've
worked out a fair structured deal between the two of us.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The transportation staff, at least, is
recommending disapproval. It's not consistent with the Growth
Management Plan?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's not consistent without Davis
Boulevard, that's correct, sir. So that's why they were companion
items.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. And if it's not consistent, it
can't be approved.
Page 112
January 23-24, 2007
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, it's consistent -- 5.1 talks about
mitigation. You can approve something with 5.1 if there's mitigation
involved, and that's pretty significant mitigation, is that 20 million, 28
million, that we'll lock in with FDOT, the right-of-way, the water
management, and the phasing. Those are all the mitigation measures
that we can do in 5.1.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well-- yeah, I understand, but
there's still significant concerns about the permitting process.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's the other project. And I want to
make sure we -- although they're all companion items, I want to break
them apart a little bit.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The Benderson property has nothing
to do with that process.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They're tied into the Davis process.
The pond site that we're proposing in the back of the Mystique project
-- and I'll give you a little history so you know where we're coming
from. When DOT was doing the pond siting report, that was chosen as
the number one site for a pond site, and I have the pond siting report
here.
It ranged from -- anywhere from six million to eight million, up
to 13 million for a pond site acquisition.
At the same time they were submitting a Site Development Plan
application. So we're trying to be really proactive in planning. We
said hold the phones. This is the number one pond site. You have an
SDP coming in. Maybe we can approach the district and permit these
together.
In discussions with the district, you're looking at 100 percent
impacts on the site between development and the pond site. They
haven't said no, and they said we're (sic) working with us. We're
intending to go to the district this Thursday and to clear that up. And
Page 113
January 23-24, 2007
that's where I brought in the fact that our exposure could be as high as
10 million outside advancement reimbursement.
If this doesn't work out with permitting that pond, I may have to
approach this developer and say, you're going to put in 206 units, I
need an additional five acres, and you'll lose 100 units. At roughly 50-
to 80,000 a unit, I'm going to be paying another 5, $6 million for that
additional land.
So that's why I was -- I wanted to be clear to the board, there is
that 10 million window or ceiling that could be above this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But if we approve this today, will
you really have the flexibility to make any changes to it once you find
out the impacts --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: What I have --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- of mitigation and everything
else?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: There was a parachute clause in there
for both the county and the developer, and I have to make some minor
modifications, which I'll put on the record.
If we go through the permitting process and we cannot permit the
pond site there, we don't have to give them the 3 million in impact
fees. We still get the 50 feet of free right-of-way up front.
If the developer has significant hurdles in there and he can't
permit his site, he can come back to us and say, I have additional costs
that come in there. So we have some flexibility built into the
agreement. And I don't -- I'm not trying to get into all the details. I
have a plan C and plan D that I'm working on as well, too. It just will
cost us a little more.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, let me see if I can boil this
down to one final question.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Based upon the impact fees that are
being paid by this developer, are the impact fees -- do the impact fees
Page 114
January 23-24, 2007
cover the entire cost of mitigation for transportation and all other
impacts?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: This developer is not a zoning
application, so I want to -- I mean, he can come in as an SDP right
now, and depending on roadway capacity, he could go or not go. But
you're going to hear tomorrow in the AUIR that the impact fees and
the impact fee increase, that right now what developers pay is not
enough to fund their fair share per impact fees for roadways.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: So with the donated right-of-way,
donated easements -- I'm not paying for the easements either -- he's
mitigating for that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But is that mitigation sufficient?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's sufficient in a sense that he doesn't
have to do it. In other words, he could submit an SDP, and if I have
capacity the day he submits and he submits a complete application, he
could go, unlike Benderson who's seeking zoning. This applicant
already has zoning currently right now. So it's a -- I have the caveat,
you know, that answer.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I want to put one more comment on
the record.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This is a difficult one.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It is. You're going to be hearing
things in the AUIR tomorrow about funding. Without getting Davis
back on the work program and 951, that extension, there is a good
chance I'll be coming to the board saying, if I can't get all these
projects back online with our staff, Norman and Don, that we're going
to recommend a concurrently restriction in this area, similar to 41 and
Davis. You can call it a planning moratorium, you can call it a
concurrency restriction.
If these projects don't fall into place, I'm sure you would feel the
Page 115
January 23-24,2007
same way as I do, that we're going to have to stop development until
the funding and the road proj ects are done. I don't think we need to be
that drastic yet. I'll let you decide as you review the funding in the
AUIR, how far you'd like to go with that. But that's something we've
proposed and that we wanted to discuss with you and go into more
detail with the AUIR.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Well, I don't want to
prolong it, but let me close with one final question.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Ifwe were to use our new
proportionate fair share ordinance here, what would be the full impact
on the developer; do we know that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They would be paying more.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If it was a potential share fair (sic)
calculation, it would be more money.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why wouldn't we use that?
MR. MUDD: It's not your choice. It's the developer's choice to
use that proportionate fair share ordinance. It's not yours.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not sure of that. It seems to me
that if they don't meet the concurrent provisions, they're not going to
be able to go forward even with an SDP.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And here's the difficult part.
Benderson's property, the additional zoning that he has, would have a
problem. The past zoning would be okay, because he's vested for
concurrency.
The SDP that you're looking at -- again, he is in submittal right
now. You're walking a fine line when we put that concurrency
restriction on with when he could actually go or not go. He does not
have a concurrency reservation right now. They understand that.
They still have permitting issues with transportation and other
departments.
Page 116
January 23-24, 2007
So if we were to impose some sort of restriction, he would not be
able to go. But we are in that gray area between the AUIR and a
determination of where we are as far as roadway capacity.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Now, you just made a statement
saying that if he came in today with a site development plan, he could
go forward. He's already been--
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The Mystique project?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They could go forward after they meet
all our concurrency and transportation requirements. We have
transportation demand strategy; they're part of that area.
See, it's a funny thing. Your reservation doesn't come in until
you have a complete application. They don't have a complete
application yet. And if this board, over the next couple days and
through the AUIR, it was determined that that area would not have
sufficient capacity, then we would deny all applications similar to 951
and 41.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But through your study, do we
have the capacity?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: After the roadway project, we will
have capacity.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But up to this point we don't have
the roadway capacity, so how can he go forward with --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I have to smile because it's -- under
our current rules -- and I know we're trying to change those rules
through DCA in the EAR-based amendments. Under our current
rules, we have projects that are bid, Santa Barbara and 951 coming up,
you might be -- you might not be able to withhold his application.
And I say might. Again, timing is an issue. When does he come in?
Page 11 7
January 23-24, 2007
When does he have a complete application? What does the board
decide through the AUIR? So it's hard to answer that question,
depending on timing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, doing a moratorium is not
fixing the problem. And if we're going to give an example of U.S. 41
or at the intersection of951 and U.S. 41, that has been that way for
years and years with still no resolution to it. We need a resolution,
and I think the transportation department has provided that for us.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Working on it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So -- and continually working
on it, so I'm going to make a motion to approve this item.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. What item exactly are we
approving, the first one of the series?
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, let's take them down in order.
The first one would be 10E, which is a recommendation to approve --
approve a developer's contribution agreement between Waterways
Joint Venture VII, the developer, and the -- Collier County to obtain
property for roadway management drainage access easements for the
future expansion of Davis Boulevard.
And can you show them what exactly is in that DCA on a map or
something --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
MR. MUDD: -- so they can have that real quick, Nick?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. And then I need to add two
changes brought into the record as well, too.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My motion still stands for 10E,
but I also would like to say, if the county or the state would have to
acquire that, it would cost a heck of a lot more money through
condemnation for that piece of property, so this is a great financial
Page 118
January 23-24, 2007
benefit.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Before we proceed, do I have
a second for Commissioner Henning's motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second it for sake of discussion,
and I have a question when --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. You're next, Commissioner
Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
So from what I understand you just said, you said we can't fix the
problem until we solve these issues. We can't solve these issues in
any better way than this DCA; is that what you're, in essence, saying?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The key probably to this DCA more
than anything else is $20 million from FDOT and locking that in, and
part of that is these agreements right now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So the only way to really
lock that in is by putting together these DCAs?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Agreements, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: These three, right?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And then -- and then you're saying
that we'll be able to fix Davis Boulevard. That won't fix 951 or
anything, or the intersection there, but it will fix Davis Boulevard?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The intersection is included in this
project, so we will do that, and they will be bid as one project with
951 north, so we'll be doing it at the same time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And of course, we have to be
reasonably certain that we're going to approve all three items to make
it a workable solution.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
MR. KLA TZKOW: And just for clarification, these aren't
developer contribution agreements. These are developer agreements.
One agreement is getting us a pond site at a relatively cheap cost, the
Page 119
January 23-24, 2007
other agreement is getting us right-of-way and easements, drainage
easements, which is why I didn't call them developer contribution
agreements, which is why we don't get quite as much as you're used to
seeing on these. These are agreements with the developer that were
done in connection with the amendment you'll see in order to secure
the $20 million in state funding.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas? I'm
sorry, were you through, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, no. I'm really interested. I
want to hear what everybody has to say.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: A question I have is, on this item
that we're about to vote on --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 10E.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- 10E, does this include the
right-of-way behind that gas station also, or is that --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's in the other agreement, the
right-of-way behind the gas station, and I can show you on the viewer.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what we're looking at right now
is just the right-of-way that we see in the dotted yellow line?
MR. MUDD: Tell them what 10E is.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. 10E is the Mystique project
that's right here. 10E is the pond site that --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The pond site, okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And the right-of-way in the front, and
also a drainage easement and an access easement to get to the pond.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: So that is -- that is 10E. The other
application is the Benderson property, which is water management on
this site, roadway frontage over here, drainage easement down market
center, behind the gas station. And there's a couple of things I want to
add. That gas station is anywhere from 5 to 9 million dollars in
damages, and we are not touching one square foot of that gas station
Page 120
January 23-24, 2007
with this application because of this agreement as well, too.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I have one other question.
Now, go back to what you were saying, the pond site, you said, would
save us how much?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Anywhere from 6 to 12 million
dollars.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And we're looking at the pond site
that's in blue, is that correct, are you --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Pond site --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- including the other --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- is right here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- pond site up the north side, too?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It has not been permitted yet, no. This
would be the pond site I'm circling right here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. What is that -- what's the
condition of that land at the present time? Wetlands.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It is wetlands for a portion of it, not
the entire lot.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So we'll have to pay mitigation
costs?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Anticipated, up to the most would be
$500,000 in mitigation costs. Now with the county manager's office
and right-of-way, we have mitigation lands that we currently own that
have not been evaluated, but we're looking at it as part of this as well,
too.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd just like to clarify one point.
Although we're voting on one petition, in order for any of these to
work, you have to approve all three --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- because approving one is not
Page 121
January 23-24, 2007
going to get you the improvements you need. So this is a real package,
that's why it's hard for me, when I'm asking you questions, to
concentrate just on one property.
My overall assessment here is the developers aren't contributing
very much. Because they can't be approved right now because we
don't have the capacity, they shouldn't be allowed to go forward at all
unless they pay their proportionate fair share to cover those impacts.
But what they're really doing -- and maybe I'm mischaracterizing,
and please tell me if I'm wrong. What they're really doing is forcing us
to pay for something they should have to pay for themselves because
they know we can't get the state funding unless we do it that way.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm going to be honest with you, I
think -- usually I bring a lot more to the table when I bring an
agreement to you as a contribution agreement. This has been the most
difficult project I've worked on since I've been here.
I think in fairness to them, they could basically have turned their
back on this, and some of the proj ect development traffic could have
come through anyway.
I want to say I've strong-armed them. That's probably the wrong
choice of words. I basically told them, I need to get this road done,
work with me. And I think they've put on -- something on the table
that's important. This 20 million plus 28 locked in after this -- and I
want to make sure I get my friend Mr. Limbaugh up here on the record
pretty soon. I want you to hear him say the 20 million plus 28 is
significant. And--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, I know it's significant, but I'm
not convinced we're going to get it.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, I want him to say that on the
record, so --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I trust Johnny, but I don't
trust the people he works for ultimately. They've taken it away before,
and I'm not sure they're not going to take it away again, or be slow in
Page 122
January 23-24, 2007
getting it to us. So I'll accept Johnny's assurance, but it's not going to
change my mind much. I'm still worried about it.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, maybe there is more
on the table and, you're right, it could be there. I can tell you that
we've gone back and forth numerous days and nights hammering out
design, right-of-way, how it affected our sites. They already have site
development plans on the Benderson property. They're vested for
most of it.
Randy has donated 50 feet on the front. I have an acre of water
management from them. And the biggest thing is that additional
capacity he's asking for will not go until this project is substantially
complete. So he sits and waits with another 120,000 square feet until
that road is open.
So I've done the best I could. Maybe I could have brought a little
more to the table. It's just multiple --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nick, I think you've done a good
job. There's no criticism intended to staffhere. It's just that it's a
situation where developers have an obligation to pay their fair share to
cover the impacts of their developments, and I expect them to do that
every single time. And if impact fees don't cover it, I still expect them
to step up to the plate and do what's right.
But my only other question is, Johnny, when are we going to get
the money?
MR. MUDD: At this particular juncture, we've talked to Nick
and the board, I would feel a whole lot more comfortable, because we
have a land use item on here, that we swear people in, especially since
Johnny's going to come up and talk now.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good point.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's just swear Johnny in.
Johnny, do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the
truth, so help you God?
MR. LIMBAUGH: Absolutely.
Page 123
January 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: He's been sworn in.
MR. MUDD: I added a little quirk, but I think the court reporter
needs to do it for all the people, if you could. Anybody that wants to
talk on this particular item.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, this is for all three items?
Actually it's just for the third item we're going to be dealing with.
MR. MUDD: The third item, but we're getting -- we're getting
things mixed at this juncture for the --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This will be for all three items,
regardless of the fact, whether you're required to do it for all three or
not.
Please stand at this point in time to be sworn in by the clerk -- by
the secretary.
MR. MUDD: Court reporter.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now let me go through
disclosures from the commissioners. We'll start with Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Land use item, I talked to staff
and the petitioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've spoken to staff and the
petitioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the same with myself, staff and
the petitioner.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Bypass me till I figure out where
I'm at here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I have spoken with the staff
and the petitioner and the petitioner's agents, and I've received
Page 124
January 23-24, 2007
correspondence and I've had meetings.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which number is this, 8 what?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 8F.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: If you'd hold on. I've had no
disclosures on this item, thank you, other than talking with staff in
some detail.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Now, if I may suggest, before
we go on to Johnny, since we've got three items here that have to be
tied together to make it work, Commissioner Henning, you might
want to consider restating your motion to also include that it's subject
to approval of 10F and 8F, and then we can do that with each item so
that it's tied together, well, at least with the next item, so that we -- for
some reason this goes terribly awry between -- after the first approval,
that we've still got -- we can still work on a package, or if we don't
have a package, then we can refigure the whole.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'll amend my motion to
include --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- the approval -- contingent on
approval of the others which need to be voted on separately.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, 10F and 8F.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I ask Commissioner Henning
if you'd consider one other statement there, and that is, making it
contingent upon receiving the necessary funds from the Florida
Department of Transportation? Because we can't do anything with it
unless we get that money.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, but we need a time frame
to put that into a motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, we do. Johnny's going to
Page 125
January 23-24, 2007
commit to one right now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, great. And I'll do that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good.
Remember, you're under oath, Johnny.
MR. LIMBAUGH: Johnny Limbaugh, Florida Department of
Transportation, for the record. Yes, I understand I'm still under oath.
The -- we have in our work program right now, in 11/12, one
segment of this proj ect from Santa Barbara to Radio Road for $28
million.
Now, what we're going to have to do -- this -- the reason this is
coming before you is there's an opportunity to use -- to get paid back
for $20 million through a state statute which allows us to advance
proj ects from outside the work program.
There is a $100 million cap on that program, and this 20 million
takes us all the way to the cap, so there is no more after, I assume, we
make this deal today.
There's other counties that -- as Nick stated, there's other areas
that want to advance projects from outside the work program. I'm
getting calls on a regular basis from Tallahassee; has Collier County
acted on this yet? Are they still going? I've assured them that we're
working on -- out the details of the deal right now and that we'd be
coming forward, so that brings us to today.
We will still have to come back to this board with an interlocal
agreement with the Florida DOT and the county commission that says,
you're going to advance the 20 million, we'll pay you back and -- that
$5 million a year for three years outside of our current work program,
and that same agreement we can tie in what's in our work program, the
other proj ect, if you will, to lock that in as a proportionate share
agreement of sorts, I guess you could call it, between you guys and us,
that says, if you're advancing this project for 20 million and we're
going to pay you back, we'll lock in our project in the fifth year.
Now, there's the opportunity -- that's -- fifth year would be worst
Page 126
January 23-24, 2007
case in that scenario, where if -- we're going -- the proj ect will be
construction ready. We're going to continue to design both segments
so that they're both ready for construction. Our money is just not until
the fifth year.
Now, if the county had other resourcing and wanted to advance
that to tie it -- to come in earlier, we would still pay back in the fifth
year.
So I guess what I'm saying is, we have another agreement that --
I'll be standing in front of you again. Probably sworn in at that time as
well, but -- to have all this locked together and commit the funding
that's in our work program. So you're going to have another
opportunity to do this and lock us into payment.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Give us a time frame. When we'll
get the first -- we're going to advance the 20 million.
MR. LIMBAUGH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you're going to pay us back no
later than when?
MR. LIMBAUGH: We'll start in 1213, which is -- will be our
next -- as we go -- we just did our tentative work program. It gets
adopted in July. Right after that we start developing the new fifth,
which is -- will be 1213, so that's where we would put the 5 million--
first payment in that, the next 5 million after that, and 5 million after
that so--
,
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we're going to get phased
reimbursements six, seven and eight years from now?
MR. LIMBAUGH: Correct. Because what -- by advancing this
-- what's been pledged is future MPO dollars. Basically the fair share,
that comes to Collier County each year to develop the new fifth year
of the work program, you're pledging that money to pay back the
county for advancing the state is why.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you know how much money
we could make by investing $20 million for that period of time? Are
Page 127
January 23-24, 2007
we going to get reimbursed for our lost opportunities for investment of
that money?
MR. LIMBAUGH: We will only reimburse for what is
expended.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it will be worth 30 percent less
than it's worth today?
MR. LIMBAUGH: The project costs could also escalate even
greater than that over that same time, so --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What a deal.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You know, I came in here
thinking it was an outstanding deal, and then I -- as we were talking
here, I remember when we were number one on the list, and we were
the next to be funded because Davis Boulevard was the top priority,
and we had the money in the bag, and then all of a sudden, we had no
money. Now that's making me real nervous.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. But once again, the options
that are available to us are very limited. We pass this money up, the
other counties will get it.
What's the option? Where's the money going to come from?
We've got a situation there. Even if we don't allow this building to
take place, it's less than desirable, and there will be no opportunity to
change it, you know. That's where I am with it.
Johnny, anything else you want to add to this before we let you
sit down?
MR. LIMBAUGH: Well, right now, like I say, we have one
segment of this project in our five-year work program. There is no
guarantee when we will have the other segment, from Radio to 951.
There's no guarantee that that will be in our work program in '12/13 or
'13/14 or '14/15 for that matter. There's no guarantee that that segment
will be constructed. The only way you're going -- to guarantee that
that roadway will be constructed anytime soon is to go through with
Page 128
January 23-24, 2007
this agreement and get it on the ground.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I got a question. I don't know if
you can answer it or not. But under this Growth Management Plan,
360, the Senate bill, there's supposed to be over a billion dollars that
was supposed to be let out for transportation funds. Where in the hell
is the money?
MR. LIMBAUGH: Hundred and six million dollars of it went to
1-7 5 six-laning, the design/build finance proj ect --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: A billion dollars.
MR. LIMBAUGH: It went statewide. A billion sounds like a
lot, but in reality, it's -- a hundred million of that was spent just on
1-75. There's a couple State Road 80 projects in Hendry County at 30
and 40 million dollars apiece, so it went rather quickly.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just one last question. We were
promised a long time ago for $30 million. It was taken away from us.
N ow today you're telling us, if we're -- if we're lucky, we might see
something of$5 billion (sic) payback in 2011 or 2013?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 2013.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 2013. Something's wrong with this
picture.
MR. LIMBAUGH: Not enough money to go around.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, but the problem is, we were
give -- we were basically told that we could go ahead with our
planning and development along this segment of roadway, and we
took you for your word, okay? I know you're under oath today, but
we took -- we took the state for their word, okay? And we thought
that we were going to get this money, and then all of a sudden, it
disappeared.
Now you're here before us today telling us, hey, you know what,
I think this is a good plan. You need to go ahead with this plan. But,
oh, by the way, you can't advance us the money any faster than 2013.
Page 129
January 23-24, 2007
There's something wrong.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You may be right. I'm going to ask
Mr. Feder to come up for a moment. This is the man that's been on the
cutting edge of it for a couple of decades now. And if there's anybody
that can explain it to us -- and tell us what our options are if we don't
want to go along with this.
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, transportation
administrator. I think you pretty well have covered them. Essentially
what you have is a situation of unacceptable conditions today. That
was brought about because a proj ect that was top priority since 1999
for this MPO was programmed then subsequently removed from the
program. So development patterns have been created out there.
What you've got is a situation where the best we can do in trying
to get reinstatement of that was to have the statement that outside the
program they would commit future revenue stream, which is an option
they have, as they mentioned to you, and that the 28 million that they
have programmed the fifth year, they'd guarantee that it didn't see the
same fate as our prior fifth year item two years ago.
So based on that, we then tried to evaluate what are the options?
And Nick has done an awful lot of work to try and bring forward our
ability to advance the 20 million, not impact other proj ects, and be
able to get the improvements made.
As has been pointed out, it's not necessarily as good a developer
contribution agreement as we typically will bring to you, basically in
many senses, because a lot of that development is already authorized
or vested to a degree. Some of it is not and, therefore, wouldn't be
able to move.
And so what we've gotten is the financing of it, you've gotten
some right-of-way provided, some stormwater and some question in
one stormwater, and the ability to get that project moving fairly
quickly, utilize that 20 million that we have to advance with the idea
we'll get paid back.
Page 130
January 23-24, 2007
Our other option is to wait for the state. They've already told you
that out through '13 they have 28 million on a portion of the project
but not the other, and they don't have other issues like U.S. 41 that's
growing in need in the East Trail other issues, and our allocation is not
that great that we can expect that they're going to be forthcoming.
So then the question is, do we take on the responsibility to make
these improvements without any commitment or payback, and that's
where we may end up.
Even if we go into a concurrency situation, eventually we have to
find a solution to it, and then the question, does that solution come
solely to us, or does it come with the state participating in it?
I acknowledge the frustration I've heard, and that is that the
money was removed, that the state is not handling their portion of the
system here in Collier County, but nonetheless, that's what we're faced
with, and either we respond to that with this effort today or we pull
back and lobby for them to do so, but thus far we haven't been able to
get them to be responsive to those needs.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Mr. Feder, I'm going -- and
one more time. I understand where the reluctance of my
commISSIoners --
MR. FEDER: As I do.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- is at this point in time. They're
very unhappy with the state. They're unhappy with the fact that the
developers for these particular plots have worked out a deal that seems
to be a little more favorable to them than it is to the commission.
MR. FEDER: I think it's for both.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: For them to proceed, would they have
to have the improvements to the road? If we do a moratorium, they
can't go anyplace, and neither can anybody else.
MR. FEDER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Another option--
MR. FEDER: And we don't solve a problem we have.
Page 131
January 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is it an option for this commission to
consider sending it back to staff to try to work out a better deal, that
we're not happy enough with what we've got? Is that an option also?
MR. FEDER: Every option is available to this board, and we'll
follow whatever direction you give us.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I think Commissioner
Henning's next, and then Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I haven't heard a better
solution yet.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I haven't either.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's my concern. We can
delay it. I don't feel comfortable of tying my motion to the state's
commitment because what I understand is, we could get that road
done a heck of a lot quicker than what we heard, the commitment
from the State of Florida.
I think we're here to solve problems. So if the board doesn't feel
comfortable enough to get this improvement done, then I'll remove my
motion, or if you want to go ahead and call a motion, let's vote on the
motion and see where it goes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Are you removing your
motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I think it's fair to --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. That's fine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's vote on it and let's see
where we go.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And Commissioner Fiala, did you
accept those additions to the motion as far as, that the thing's all
inclusive; in other words it's contingent upon --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. But just because I seconded it
for discussion doesn't mean I have to vote that way.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. And you can even remove your
second if you want.
Page 132
January 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I won't. I can let it go to the
vote.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. But there was a couple
elements that we added to the motion that we didn't get your approval
with.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. They can be added into my
second.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, may I? One point of
clarification, if I could. Two recommendations. One would be that
you subj ect all these approvals to the JP A coming forward, make it a
little more comfort level.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Say it again now.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You subject these approvals to the
joint participation agreement coming forward within the next 90 days,
that these approvals are contingent on that, the zoning, things like that,
that way you'll get a little more comfort level that we come back with
the state and have an agreement brought forward that ties in this
money, because you're voting on projects that you really can't take
back.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That really hammers it down.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, it does.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's included within the
motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. Second part is I have two
exhibit changes, and they're minor. The development plans were put
in Exhibit A and B, and I'll put them in for the record -- were modified
to more accurately reflect what they are.
I'll just show them to you real quick. They've very similar to
what you've seen, drainage easements, access easements, pond sites
right-of-way. Again, same thing. We just got an exhibit cleaned up.
Page 133
January 23-24, 2007
In the Mystique agreement is -- the only change in the agreement
we have is that we have an impact fee assignment, impact fee credit
assignment that we didn't put in that we'd like to put in for the record,
and we gave the county a parachute clause that we didn't have; in
other words, if we can't permit this thing, we're not giving 3 million
for the 10 acres.
So I'd like to introduce this to the record as well, too, and be able
to eliminate those modifications.
Any other questions, sir, ma'am?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I could, I'd like to go to
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just -- before you vote I just want
to make a couple of observations. Commissioner Henning is
absolutely right, if we approve this, we can go ahead faster and,
perhaps, get this problem solved. My problem is with respect to what
it's going to cost us to do that.
I think we know for certain that this job cannot be done for $20
million. It can't be done for $30 million. We know that the bids are
going to be way high and that the proj ect is going to be way late, as
they always are. And the state is going to be paying us back
two-thirds -- or a third less than we're really spending because they're
going to give us $20 million back in six, seven, and eight years from
now, which is really about $14 million in today's money.
So we're not only spending $6 million more because we're
accepting it back in phased reimbursements sometime in the future,
but we're exposing ourselves to huge additional costs with respect to
the contract bids and potential contract delays.
I really do not believe that the taxpayers of Collier County should
have to accept those risks themselves. These are improvements that
are being required because of the heavy development in that area, and
I don't see anybody stepping up to the plate to really help us deal with
that in a way I think they should.
Page 134
January 23-24, 2007
So I likely will not vote for it. Although it might get us there
faster, I think the cost is way too great, and I think it's far easier to just
declare a moratorium and our way out of moratorium is when the state
gives us the money to do it, we do it.
But if you can -- if the motion passes, you're home free. You can
go do what you want to do with it. If it doesn't pass, perhaps we
should consider letting you spend a little more time evaluating ways
perhaps you can expand the developer contribution -- or participation
agreements or agreements, however we phrase them, because there are
other people who want to develop out there, and it seems to me they're
not going to be able to if that concurrency problem continues to exist.
So that's all I have to say, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll just make it brief. Depending
upon how this motion goes, I hope that the developers along this
corridor realize that we mean business in regards to figuring how
we're going to finance this, and I hope that the representative of FDOT
realizes that we're between a rock and a hard place and we need to
figure out how we're going to get the roads taken care of here in all of
Florida, not just Southwest Florida.
We've got a real serious problem here, and I hope the legislature
gets with the program and comes up with some additional funding on
how this House Bill 360 that was supposed to be so great for us.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I need someone on staff to be
able to address a very simple question. If the motion fails, what is the
alternative and what's the timeline before we could start the road?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'd like to talk about it with my bosses,
but my recommendation would be, if the motion fails, we're going to
want to push forward, then you'd -- we'd look at a restriction, a
concurrency restriction, a moratorium, that brings everybody to the
tab Ie.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Feder, I'd like your two cents on
Page 135
January 23-24, 2007
this, because this is a major issue. It could -- one way or another, we're
in a bad position.
MR. FEDER: I think Nick has correctly stated it. We're in at
least a concurrency restriction, if not, a natural moratorium, stated as
such, and obviously, depending upon the direction from the board,
from what I've heard so far, we note that our solution out of that is
Florida DOT unless somebody else wants to step forward.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There's one other thing we could do
at this time. I mean, this is a very contentious issue. It could mean a
detriment to the whole road corridor in that area. We don't know what
could go wrong. We don't know what can go right even if we
approved it. We don't know what can go wrong. Another option
would be, is to continue the whole thing for one month while staff gets
together with transportation, gets together with developers.
MR. FEDER: Obviously we'd be fine with that. I think the
question though is whether or not --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the--
MR. FEDER: -- the state will stay with us on the 20 million.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, you can't continue an item once
you put the motion on the floor and it's voted on. If it fails, then that
ends everything, then we have to take it to the next step.
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Was there any discussion about the
possibility of the continuance to another month to give everybody a
chance to be able to get this deal to the point where it's more
understandable, more palatable to the commission.
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Feder?
MR. FEDER: What I would ask, especially while he's still under
oath, if Johnny Limbaugh can give you an idea of what issues we're
facing relative to that 20 million if we do defer for whatever period of
time this board has.
Page 136
January 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please. That's important, because that
money -- even though it's a ways off, I'd hate to lose it.
MR. LIMBAUGH: Especially since I'm under oath. I cannot
commit that that 20 million will be there. I'll have to go back and
report to Tallahassee that no action was taken today, and I can ask
them to delay moving that funding somewhere else for a period of
time, and I guess that's what --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Could you do that with a phone call if
we just continued this item on the agenda for a short while? I see Mr.
Feder nodding his head up and down. He can advise you how.
MR. LIMBAUGH: Assuming -- assuming, yes, that I can get
through, I think -- I would definitely give that a try.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. If there's no objection, I'd like
to continue this item just for a brief period of time. We can go on to
another agenda item and come back to it till we hear what -- the final
solution.
Any obj ections from the commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, we'll continue this
item.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, County Attorney has --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Table. Table's the name, right?
MR. WEIGEL: Could be. You do have a -- if you move to
table, a table will take precedence over everything else, so the other
motion still exists but it's waiting till the matter comes back when it
comes back on the table, or if the prior motion is removed or the
second removed and the motion goes away, then you can just go to a
continuance.
I was actually raising my hand more additionally for the
comment that if Mr. Limbaugh goes back up the chain at Tallahassee,
Page 137
January 23-24, 2007
it would be preferable, certainly, that he not merely says that the board
did not take action on this, but that he describe the kind of discussion
that the board had so that they, in fact, have a continuing action on this
and that the matter is coming back, because I would be concerned if
his description to you was actually this -- significant with the
description that went back up the chain of information saying the
board just didn't take action today. I would hope that his discussion
and description would be more indicating the very issues --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Limbaugh, would you consider
having somebody from the County's Attorney's Office and some
members of transportation with you on a conference call when you
make it?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
MR. LIMBAUGH: If that's the desire of the board. It's going to
be a simple call, but I can explain that I'm at a board meeting right
now and this issue's come up.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Motion to table.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Now, this is just item 10E, you know, at
the present time?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's just -- well --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We've got a motion on the floor.
You've got to remove that one.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, table takes precedence.
MR. WEIGEL: A motion to table will take precedence over any
motion that's on the floor.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: A motion to table all three items till
we hear back.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I have a second from
Commissioner Coyle.
MR. WEIGEL: It's lOE, lOF and--
Page 138
January 23-24, 2007
MR. MUDD: 8F.
MR. WEIGEL: -- 8F.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 10E, 10F and 8F, yep, all three. And
with that, I have a motion by myself, a second by Commissioner
Coyle.
Any discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none -- and your motion still
remains, Commissioner Henning.
Hearing none, I'll call the question. All in favor, indicate by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0. Good luck,
Johnny.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is Nick still quietly relaxed?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. He's walking on his tiptoes.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't take it personally,
Commissioners. You know, we'll try and bring you a better
agreement, but --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think you did as well as you can
do, Nick, you know. There's no criticism intended here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Not at all.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, not at all, not at all.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's not over yet, Nick.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: In fact, I think this might give you
more ammunition, some hammer to work out some additional points
Page 139
January 23-24, 2007
that need to be brought out.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: My only comment -- and I won't be
here tomorrow, but when they -- you discuss the A UIR -- I'm going to
Boston for a few days.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We don't blame you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would significantly consider our
comments as far as, if we're going to take this action, that we take a
very strong action and decisive actions because if we just waffle a
little bit, I think we're sending a wrong message. If you choose not to
do this, then let's say that pretty strongly then and --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I got the vibes from my
commissioners that they're ready to reject it. This is what I'm feeling
from what I'm hearing. So I think that's about as strong a message as I
can send.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And I mean with reference to the
AUIR and our roadway capacity, any declarations that we make
tomorrow as you go forward, that they should also be as strong so that
we can work toward a solution. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you, Nick.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: That brings us to --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd?
Item #8A
ORDINANCE 2007-04: SEEKING REMOVAL OF 99 ACRES
FROM THE ORIGINAL PUD AND REDUCE THE NUMBER OF
ALLOWABLE DWELLING UNITS FROM 49 TO 28, CHANGE
THE NAME AND RECREATION REACT AND A COMMON
TRASH COLLECTION AREA AS REQUIRED - ADOPTED WITH
CHANGES
Page 140
January 23-24, 2007
MR. MUDD: -- 8A. This item to be heard before companion
item 8B, PUDZ-A-2006-AR-9021, LASIP Conservation CFPUD.
This item was continued from the November 28,2006 BCC meeting
and the December 12, 2006 BCC meeting.
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.
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 recreational tract in a common
trash collection area as requirements.
The subject property is 155.3 acres with a proposed density of
.18 units per acre, and that's about one dwelling per five acres. And
it's located on the west side of Collier Boulevard, County Road 951,
approximately one mile north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road in
Section 10, Township 50 south, Range 26 east, Collier County,
Florida.
And, again, this is a companion item to the next item, 8B, which
deals with that 99 acres that he's getting rid of out of this PUD.
Mr. Michael Fernandez?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. All those that have something
to say in this, please stand at this point in time to be sworn in by the
court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And disclosures on the part of
the commission.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Received a correspondence
from Melissa Zone.
Page 141
January 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've had meetings,
correspondence, emails, calls, I've spoken to many people in Naples
Lakes, and I've talked back and forth with staff, and I think that's
about it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You covered it quite well. And I met
with Mr. Fernandez and Susan Farris (phonetic), and also talked to
staff and received emails on it.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, thank you very much. I had
meetings with staff, had meetings with the petitioner, and also
received emails on this, on both 8A and 8B.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have received correspondence
and emails concerning this, and I don't recall discussing it with staff or
the petitioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion as long as I
can add -- well, let's see. Is this the one that I need to add something
to? It's real simple. Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion and second.
Commissioner Coyle, you're first, then I'll go next.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a quick question. The county
engineers had a problem with respect to the difference in the NGVD
datum for the two proj ects, the approved South Florida Water
Management District permit for this particular project and our own
similar project for the LASIP. They do not coincide. That's sort of a
. .
senous Issue.
And I know that our staff is saying that we can ignore the
Page 142
January 23-24, 2007
engineering staffs recommendations until review of the first
development order. I don't buy it. You know, I think we ought to get
this resolved now. It's simple enough. It's common sense enough. I
don't know why the petitioner wouldn't agree to it. Let's just put it in
there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Petitioner? Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Commissioners, Michael Fernandez
representing the applicant.
On that matter I have correspondence here, 15 copies from South
Florida Water Management District saying that there is no need to
change our control structure, and I believe you have a staff member
here present from your water management department who originally
placed and asked for that stipulation in the approval that has
confirmed that with a conversation with the lead reviewer at South
Florida. And So I think we're all on the same page now on that matter.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I'm concerned with the
county engineer who said that we ought to have to -- we need to do
this. Who is that person? Oh, it's you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Robert Wiley.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, get up here, Robert, and tell
us what you think now.
MR. WILEY: For the record, Robert Wiley with the engineering
services department. I'm the one that put the comment in because I
know that downstream from this control structure at nine zero, we are
having a proposed weir at nine four. What that will do is will leave a
deficiency in the amount of water quality treatment volume within the
development per South Florida requirements.
We've been in touch with South Florida. They have no problem
leaving it as it is. I said, if they have no problem, then I have no
problem.
Effectively, what you do is you leave it at the nine four
downstream, they're at nine zero upstream. There's a lot of wetlands
Page 143
January 23-24, 2007
between the two that the water's flowing across. They think it's going
to work about the same. They knew it heading into the LASIP permit
approval that we had this conflict. They said they would handle it in
the future. Their choice is leave it alone. Effectively I think they end
up with more water quality than they would if we had them raise it up
higher. So if they're fine with it, I have no objection to it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may go next?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir, one question. Is there anything in
here that addresses affordable housing?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, sir. This is a 10-year-old PUD that
was approved for 49 units. The plat has been approved and, of course,
the lots -- the individual lots are built. The areas that are common
areas have now been turned over to the homeowners' association. And
we are actually reducing the number of units, of course.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But you're going to be building units?
MR. FERNANDEZ: There's still some homes to be built, yes,
SIr.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Cormac Giblin, could I ask you a
couple questions? We have no requirements in the county as far as
affordable housing donations go. I don't want to, you know, let you
think in any -- give you any mismessage that there's a requirement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I'm removing my
motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Giblin?
MR. GIBLIN: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is this -- we've had numerous
petitioners come before us in the recent past who have made voluntary
donations of their own good will, which we greatly appreciated and
don't hold that in any way for or against their final decision that's
made.
Page 144
January 23-24, 2007
In this particular case, what exists with this PUD and the fact
they're still building houses, have we had like situations where those
people have volunteered funding towards the affordable housing
element, or is this quite a bit different than anything else we have
encountered?
MR. GIBLIN: Commissioner, for the record, Cormac Giblin,
your housing and grants manager.
I have not reviewed this particular PUD. This -- I typically only
review ones that do make contributions or involve affordable housing.
But I think to get to the heart of your question, for the past 18 months
or so, virtually every PUD that's been approved that either includes
some commercial or residential square footage has voluntarily made
some type of contribution.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Giblin.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I had -- being I have no
engineering background at all and it hasn't even rubbed off on me, I
can just ask you. What's the difference between the four inches?
Does it make that much of a difference in the flow of water?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, ma'am. It has significant
consequences, and I think that after South Florida reviewed it, they
agreed with us that it would have those kind of consequences where a
lot of landscaped areas would have been impacted. The community
would have changed character, and those would have had financial
repercussions to the homeowners.
And so once they reviewed that and they understood that there is
a significant amount of wetlands between us and the nearest control
structure they determined that the differential is very insignificant for
them --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see. Okay.
MR. FERNANDEZ: -- but significant for us.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much.
Page 145
January 23-24, 2007
And how many homes have you built and how many do you --
you have 28 that you're going to -- all told in the little community.
How many of those 28 have you already built?
MR. FERNANDEZ: I believe there's a total either in place or
under construction of eight. So there's still 20. There may be two or
three permits that are in progress right now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Any further question? Any
speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir, no speakers.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I -- at this point in time -- now,
I understand, if I may, that the contribution that your client is making
for the public good is a right-of-way that measures 50 by 50 to access
a plot of land that will be used for drainage; is that correct?
MR. FERNANDEZ: That is one of the things that we've done.
Our client has been working well with staff and, for instance, they
needed right-of-way easements along 951 and they were the first to
step up and provide those to the county. That's not part of this.
They've already utilized those to put infrastructure along 951.
Again, it's -- this PUD is 10 years old. We're actually seeing a
reduction in the number of units. We're at a density of .18, which is,
you know, less than one per five per (sic) acre, so it's extremely low
density.
By not building those additional 21 units, we're actually reducing
the amount of homes that were going to be built and then the
affordable housing need in our community because we're actually
removing density from our community. And these are permitted units.
This PUD essentially is, in large part, an accommodation to allow
the county to remove the 99 acres that's to our south, remove those
portions of it that are linked to this PUD, remove facilities, including
some -- a tennis -- a recreational track and a refuge that is no longer
Page 146
January 23-24, 2007
required because of the reduction. So that's -- you know, this is
largely an accommodation to allow for the county to create a
conservation PUD adjacent to this project.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But -- and that conservation land we
already own, and what we're going to do is get access through your
property to it, is that what it is? I'm sorry.
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's -- you're talking, I believe, in
reference to a 50-by-50 easement that we're providing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right.
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's accessing a third parcel that's not
part of either this zoning or the future zoning that you're talking about.
It's 10 acres that's located to the west, and it is providing you access,
which will allow you to do additional mitigation and stormwater
management off site.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, isn't it true that by--
MR. MUDD: That 10 acres is right here.
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct.
MR. MUDD: That square box.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, and that's the public benefit
we're getting is that little corner, that small little bit of access to that
10 acres. Where's the other -- one more time, what's the other public
benefit? Because we've said numerous times before, if there isn't
enough public benefit, we don't need any more development.
MR. FERNANDEZ: We're reducing the amount of
development, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's not a positive. That to you,
would be a very big positive because that brings the cost up for the
price of the housing. The less housing you have, the more land.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But we're not voting on this
development.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know, I know. Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're voting on this 99 acres, right?
Page 147
January 23-24, 2007
Just -- it's going to be a --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, it's still going to be houses
going into it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. No, no, no houses at all. This
is just going to be parkland.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's part of the LASIP project
problem --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, this is--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- property.
MR. MUDD: If I could -- if I could help just a little bit. Let me
try to give you some clarification, because I believe we're at ends.
What's in yellow and what's in red on your screen is the PUD.
We are separating what's in red from the yellow part, okay, in this
particular issue. So the only thing we're talking about right now is
what's in yellow.
The petitioner's coming forward, is reducing his density from 48
to 29. He's already building eight of those 28 units right now. He's
asking that the tennis court and the common refuge place be deleted in
the property, and he's giving us access to 10 acres that is over to the
side of that particular yellow diagram.
Commissioner, I will tell you that on the 13th of this February,
this board is going to get the opportunity to do a linkage fee, okay, and
it's going -- it's -- excuse me. It's going to be on the 14th at one p.m.,
at which time, if the board decides to have a linkage fee that's tied to
residential houses, the other 20 homes that he has to build yet will pay
a linkage fee on what's remaining, and that, I believe, will get at what
Commissioner Coletta is trying to get at right now.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I could, Mr. Schmitt -- and I will
try to keep this short.
Mr. Schmitt, when you're on the way up, I'll explain what I'm
going to ask. If we do pass a linkage fee, there's going to be a delay of
about 90 days where people could rush to the store and pick up all
Page 148
January 23-24, 2007
sorts of permits; is that correct?
MR. SCHMITT: There will be a -- for the record, Joe Schmitt.
There will issue a 90-day period that will be part of the ordinance that
we would be proposing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And is there a possibility--
MR. SCHMITT: -- that we would be proposing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- that this --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- petitioner could come forward with
the remainder of his permits and be able to beat the linkage fee by
applying for those permits within that 90-day period?
MR. SCHMITT: To answer your question, yes. But the product
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And so--
MR. SCHMITT: -- that they're selling here--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- if there -- the other people that have
done it before have donated $1,000 per unit which was going to be
applied towards any linkage fees that may come up or, if there was no
linkage fees, it was still $1,000.
So in this case, there's the possibility that they would never have
to contribute anything, so it's kind of a moot point.
MR. SCHMITT: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's all I wanted to point out.
Now, we don't have a motion the floor. Would someone care to
make a motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion that we approve
this petition and it's -- let's see. Staff said, what, excluding number
two. Is that what staff has said?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, ma'am, that issue's been resolved, I
believe.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, that -- okay, fine. Thank you,
Melissa.
Page 149
January 23-24, 2007
So I make a motion to approve this petition with CCP (sic)
stipulation, excluding number two of the recommendations.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Fiala and a second by Commissioner Henning for
approval.
Now, let's just -- wow, we've got some lights up here.
Commissioner Henning, Commissioner Fiala. Did you address
everything you needed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Also tied with this is -- the next
item that we're going to discuss is the 99 acres; is the true?
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that's where you're giving us
that land to take care of some --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- LASIP --
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, sir. We're--
MR. MUDD: You purchased that property for over $4 million.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Excuse me. I take--
MR. FERNANDEZ: It's a requirement that you get both of the
rezones, and we're basically segregating out the two parcels.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I understand now.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When government asks for a
donation, it is not a donation. It is an exaction. And I will not
participate in those actions.
I will support the motion on the floor. And like the county
manager said, we're going to address those issues next month, so let's
move business.
Page 150
January 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's what we're in the process of
doing right now, Commissioner Henning.
Any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And hearing none, I'll call the motion.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you.
Item #8A & Item 8B
ITEM #B: ORDINANCE 2007-05: TO INCLUDE THE
RESTORATION, PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION OF
NATIVE VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES AND WILDLIFE
HABITAT THAT IS CURRENTLY GOVERNED BY A
CONSERVATION EASEMENT - ADOPTED WITH A CHANGE
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is the companion, which is 8B. This item to be heard following
companion 8A, PUD-2006-AR-9576, Homes of Islandia RPUD.
This item was continued from the November 28,2006 BCC
meeting and the December 12,2006 BCC meeting. This item requires
that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
commission members.
It's PUDZ-A-2006-AR-9021, LASIP conservation, CFPUD,
Page 151
January 23-24, 2007
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 -- no. It's not currently, you just
passed the other one. So it used to be part of the Club Estates PUD.
That PUD is being amended concurrently to remove the 99.3 acres
that are the subj ect 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, preservation of
native vegetation 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.
And Mr. Fred Reischl will present.
You need to swear in and --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He's got his hand up anyway.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, please. Everyone that wishes to
be sworn in at this time that will participate, please stand.
Would you please swear them in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now disclosures from the
commissioners. Let's start with you, Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't think I have a disclosure for
8B. I do have some correspondence.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I covered that on my other ex parte,
but just to reiterate, on B I had meetings and emails in regards to this,
and I also talked to staff.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Myself, the same thing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yep, meetings, correspondence,
Page 152
January 23-24, 2007
emails, phone calls, talked a lot with staff, back and forth, and with
residents of Naples Lakes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I had some correspondence with
Ms. Melissa Zone. And with that, I'll make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have a motion for approval by
Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any comments?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I have one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If I just may. I've stated before to
the people that I've spoken with and -- but I just wanted to put this on
the record, and that is, as they build the boardwalk through there, if
they could build it as far away from the homes as possible. They've
been having a homeless situation in there, and we're going to try and
keep these people as safe as we can.
MR. REISCHL: Yes, Commissioner. Fred Reischl, Agnoli,
Barber & Brundage representing transportation division. That was
brought up at the Planning Commission, and it's -- just for your
understanding, it's not going to be a boardwalk. It's a trail at grade. It's
basically a dirt trail, and --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, they'll make their own then.
MR. REISCHL: But, but we were -- we heard folks at the
Planning Commission talk about the vagrant problem, and we -- the
Planning Commission made a motion to move the trail a minimum of
50 feet away from either property boundary and --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. And they were hoping, just
as far away as you can, you know. If you could get it 200 feet, great.
MR. REISCHL: Right. It depends on the exotic removal. When
the exotics are removed, they don't want to remove any other native --
any native vegetation, so they'll meander the trail through what's there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And staff has explained that. I just
Page 153
January 23-24, 2007
wanted to make sure that's on the record to protect those people that
live close by. Thank you.
MR. REISCHL: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there any speakers?
MS. FILSON : No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That stipulation was included in the
motion --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- that it be a minimum 50 feet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, thank you. I will include that.
MR. REISCHL: And it's in the PUD.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that's included in--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You betcha.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Gotcha. Just to cover it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, you made the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, he did. You're including it in
your second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I included it in your motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just like a woman.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You have to have a sense of humor
Page 154
January 23-24, 2007
in this job, really.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, or you could give him a good swift
kick.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, okay. I have permission.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Feder, are we anywheres on those
other items?
Item #10E, Item #10F, and Item #8F
ITEM #10E DEVELOPERS CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT
(DCA) BETWEEN WATERWAYS JOINT VENTURE VII AND
COLLIER COUNTY TO OBTAIN PROPERTY FOR ROADWAY
WATER MANAGEMENT, DRAINAGE, AND ACCESS
EASEMENT FOR FUTURE EXPANSION OF DAVIS
BOULEVARD; ITEM #1 OF DEVELOPERS CONTRIBUTION
AGREEMENT (DCA) BETWEEN BENDERSON, WESTPROT
AND DAVIS CROSSING AND COLLIER COUNTY TO OBTAIN
PROPERTY FOR ROADWAY WATER MANAGEMENT,
DRAINAGE, AND ACCESS EASEMENT FOR FUTURE
EXPANSION OF DAVIS BOULEVARD; ITEM #8F PETITION
PUDA-2005-AR-7818, FREELAND AND SCHUH, INC.,
REPRESENTED BY TIMHANCOCK AOF DAVIDSON
ENGINEERING, IS REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
PINE VIEW PUD TO PERMIT AUTOOTIVE SALES WITHIN THE
PUD AND INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT
FORM 35 FEET TO 45 FEET MOTION TO CONTINUE ALL
ITEMS #10E, #10F and #8A TO THE NEXT BCC MEETING
FEBRUARY 13.2007 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I think it's time to untable 10E,
10F and 8F.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Consider it done.
Page 155
January 23-24, 2007
Okay. You're smiling, so it must be nothing but good news.
MR. FEDER: Definitely. For the record, Norman Feder,
transportation administrator. Went out with Johnny, and we did speak
to Florida DOT. They are willing to give us the opportunity to come
back at the next board meeting, reluctantly it seems. They claim they
can't wait longer than that.
Before you proceed on that though, I would like to cover a
couple of things and recommend just a little bit of time, and I know
that's precious right now. But I do need to point out to you that if this
proj ect doesn't go forward -- just to make sure that we understand that
we have conditions there that are problematic today. You've got some
of this development that's under discussion, some 300 square feet that
can be still built even if we put in a planning moratorium, but at the
same time, I understand the issues that you've raised.
What I would tell you is, I understand that there's been some
input from the development community that they might try and assist
a little further. Rather than necessarily extending this for two weeks
and asking staff to try and go back and see if we can secure those
issues -- because I don't think from Florida DOT the issue changes any
-- I tried to get some change on that discussion out there, and I don't
get the impression that's going to change. The only question is if we
can even keep that issue going -- you might want to bring the
developers up here or their representatives, and maybe have them
discuss.
I know Mr. Benderson or his representative has already
expressed some interest on something that might be a little bit better in
the deal, and maybe have them have the opportunity to talk to you and
see where we go from there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I can tell you that, like I
mentioned before, the vibes I was getting from both sides of -- my
right and left, was going to be for denial.
Rather than prolong this meeting for a couple of hours talking to
Page 156
January 23-24, 2007
the developers about every little inch of the way, I think this
commission would probably be more inclined to have you do the
negotiating and come up with a package that would be more in line
with what they'd like to see.
MR. FEDER: Be happy to do so. I just thought that since they
had already started that discussion out in the hall, that it might be
viable for them to relay that to you and for this board to understand
where they're coming from on the deal. But I leave that at your
discretion and your direction.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, shall we--
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you have a motion. You untabled.
You still have a motion on the --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We've still got a motion and a second
on the floor for --
MR. MUDD: For approval of 10E.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- for approval.
MR. MUDD: Contingent upon --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The other.
MR. MUDD: -- 10F and 8F.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to remove my motion
because it sounds like we're going to continue this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I was hoping you would.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just -- I need to know where we're
going here.
Are you suggesting, Norm, that the developers come back in and
tell us what they're willing to do and then we make an agreement
today on the fly or -- if it can't be an ironclad agreement today --
MR. FEDER: It needs to be in writing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- we're going to have to bring it
back anyway. So we may as well just --
Page 157
January 23-24, 2007
MR. FEDER: We would come back to you next board meeting if
that's your--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, I think it would be
better to bring it back, and that way you get all the loose ends tied up,
and if we can get something that's reasonable, then we can maybe
work it out.
MR. FEDER: Fine.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I make a suggestion before we
get a motion for continuance? And believe me, I'm not trying to
saddle you with more work, Commissioner Coyle. But I think it
would be absolutely wonderful if we had a representative from this
commission to be able to sit in on the discussions, and Commissioner
Coyle, I think, would be the proper one for that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll go for that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Then I'll make a motion for
continuance, and appoint Commissioner Coyle to work with the
petitioner and staff to move this forward.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, we're going to have an
overpass there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I can see it now.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I think you need to talk to your
attorney.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think we do too. There's a little
bit of a concern, I think.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Go ahead. What's that, Mr.
Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, if the board makes a designee of another
board member to function on behalf of the board at the meeting, I
think we may have a sunshine issue there. You can go that route, of
course, but there's that protocol of notice and public participation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I withdraw that part of the
motion and just make the motion simply that we continue this to the
Page 158
January 23-24, 2007
next meeting.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If I wanted to sit in on the meeting
MR. WEIGEL: Anyone can do a voluntary action of their own,
that's right. If two or more commissioners get together, County
Attorney Office always likes -- at an event or function or meeting,
County Attorney Office likes to know, so that if appropriate, we'll put
out kind of a hybrid notice in that regard. It doesn't mean you're
meeting to vote or anything like that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle would have
been the only one under my original proposal.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay, yeah. And additionally, is the motion to
continue all three items; is that correct?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. So that's IDE, 10F and 8F, and it's to the
next board meeting date of February 14th?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's the next meeting, correct?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
MR. FEDER: And Mr. Chairman, if I could, I might recommend
that you hear from Johnny and confirm that Florida DOT will keep
their issue on the table until that meeting date.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: He's still under oath, too.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
MR. LIMBAUGH: Mr. Feder was correct, we talked with the
powers to be and have agreed to delay removing the funds until next
board meeting, after the next board meeting.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sounds fine. There's a motion on the
floor by myself. I don't know if I got a second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have a second from Commissioner
Fiala.
Commissioner Coyle, did we satisfy what you wanted to talk
Page 159
January 23-24, 2007
about?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, you did.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I only hope, too, that -- Johnny,
that hopefully you can take back a message that we need to make sure
that we can expedite that funding a lot quicker than 2013 and -- I
would hope anyway, and I understand that you're under pressures too
to meet the budget, but we've got some serious concerns here in
Collier County in regards to this.
MR. LIMBAUGH: I will definitely relay the concerns expressed
here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. Wonderful person to
work with, Johnny.
Okay. With that, no other comments, I'm going to call the
motion. All those in favor.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor, indicate by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0. Thank you very
much, ladies and gentlemen. I appreciate your time.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is 8C. This item requires that all participants --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before you start, let's go ahead and
take a break now rather than go another half an hour. Every hour and
Page 160
January 23-24, 2007
a half we agreed to do it for the court reporter.
MR. MUDD: Ten minutes, sir.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now, thank you very much,
Mr. Mudd.
Commissioner Henning has a question he'd like to ask.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I was
approached by a member of the public here, 8G, Terafina, and I would
just like to ask who is here to address the board or hear interest in the
item, please stand.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, I could stand, too.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, to serve the
public, I think it's in the best interest that we hear item 8G as our next
item.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So be it. 8G's the next item.
Thank you, Commissioner Henning.
Item #8G
RESOLUTION 2007-31: G.L. HOMES OF NAPLES II
CORPORATION REQUESTED A 2-YEAR EXTENTION FOR
THE TERAFINA PUD WHICH IS DUE TO SUNSET ON MARCH
9, 2007 - MOTION TO RECOGNIZE PETITIONER'S REQUEST
THAT THEIR PROJECT BE TOLLED UNTIL LAND OWNER
OBTAINS PERMITS - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: 8G, Commissioners. This item continued from the
November 14,2006 BCC meeting. This item requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
commission members.
Page 161
January 23-24,2007
It's PUDEX-2006-AR-9610, G.L. Homes Naples II Corporation,
represented by Robert Duane of Hole Montes is requesting two
two-year PUD extensions for the Terafina PUD, ordinance 04-15
which is scheduled to sunset on March 9, 2007.
The subject property consists of 636.8 acres and is located one
mile north of Immokalee Road, north of the Olde Cypress PUD, and
east of Quail Creek in Section 16, Township 48 south, Range 26 east,
Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All right. And this is not -- oh, wait.
We do have to swear the people in that are going to be --
MR. MUDD: You have to swear in --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- participating.
MR. MUDD: -- and have you to do ex parte.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would ask that everyone that wishes
to participate in this agenda item, to stand at this point in time and
raise your right hand to be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. And disclosure from the
commissioners, starting with Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I -- besides
what's in our agenda packet, I received a correspondence, like all
commissioners, from the Audubon Society. I did take the -- talk to the
petitioner and the petitioner's representative. I talked to the Saturnia
Lakes Homeowners' Association, I talked to members of Longshore
Lakes' association, Oaks Advisory Association, I talked to my wife
about this one, and the other correspondence are in -- within my ex
parte folder.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have a folder full of
correspondence and phone calls and so forth that I've received. I've
also had meetings with the -- with the petitioner as well as with staff,
Page 162
January 23-24,2007
and -- but I didn't talk to my husband about it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I also met with the petitioner, I
met with Nicole Ryan, Brad Cornell, a whole bunch of individuals out
there, correspondence, emails, and it's quite lengthy, and it's all in my
file for anyone that wishes to see it.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much. I received
letters and emails in regards to this item, and I also talked with staff on
this. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have had meetings with staff, I
had meetings with the people who were both opposed and supportive
of this petition, I've had correspondence, emails and telephone calls.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Mr. Mudd? Start with--
okay, Mr. Yovanovich.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich
Y ovanovich, impersonating Bob Duane for a little bit.
With me today on this petition are Ken Ratteree from G.L.
Homes; Bob Duane, of course; and George Hermanson from Hole
Montes & Associates.
I wanted to start off with a discussion of the possibility that we
probably have not even triggered the sunsetting provisions yet under
the county's Land Development Code. And I've put on the visualizer
the three-year sunsetting provisions that are currently in the Land
Development Code.
And as you can see, item C basically talks -- and I think we've
been calling it a tolling, that for the period that you're going through
the Corps and Water Management District permitting process, that is
not counted against the three-year construction period requirement.
We submitted our petition to extend the Terafina PUD in March
of2006. Since that time last summer, the Board of County
Commissioners heard another PUD extension petition that was in a
Page 163
January 23-24, 2007
similar situation to our petition. It was the Rookery Bay Business
Park.
And on July the 25th, the Board of County Commissioners
considered, what exactly does the provision on the visualizer mean?
And in that particular hearing, you had a petitioner who came to the
Board of County Commissioners who was stuck where a lot of
petitioners are. They were dealing with the Corps of Engineers and at
that time were unable to get their Corps permit.
And the Board of County Commissioners -- and I'll put into the
record the minutes from that meeting -- interpreted the Land
Development Code to provide that if you were delayed because of
Corps permitting and presumably Water Management District
permitting, that was not held against the developer of the project. And
in particular in that case, the -- that particular developer had not even
applied for the PUD -- I'm sorry -- the permitting until 14 months after
the PUD was approved.
And four of the commissioners voted in favor of the
interpretation that that particular project had not sunsetted because of
the Corps permitting issue. So if I can -- and I'll give a copy to the
court reporter and everybody else, enter into the record copies of the
minutes. And if the board wants any, I have enough for everybody on
the board and staff.
We believe, and I think factually it is true, that we, too, have not
commenced the sunsetting or the three-year time period. The Terafina
PUD -- and I also have to hand out to the board -- and by the way, I've
discussed this with both the county attorney and Susan Murray and
Joe Schmitt about the permitting history and the issue of tolling.
The PUD was originally March -- on March 9, 2004. And even
prior to committing the PUD to the county, the developer had applied
for the Army Corps of Engineers permit as well as the Water
Management District permit. And also, again, for the record, I'll hand
this out.
Page 164
January 23-24, 2007
And you will see that the Corps permit, when G.L. Homes
became interested in the property, they revised their application to the
Corps in August, 2003, and in revising the application, it was to take
out the golf course. They had also modified an already approved
Water Management District permit in -- July 9, 2003, to remove the
golf course.
The South Florida Water Management District permit was
approved on March 10, 2004, actually the day after the PUD was
approved.
As you know, the Corps permit has had a history. This is the
Corps permit that involved a channelized flowway, and that Corps
permit for that project was finally issued on June 2, 2006. There have
been no challenges to that Corps permit, so that Corps permit is issued
and a valid permit.
On July 13, 2006, a permit modification was submitted to the
South Florida Water Management District to remove the conveyance
canal or channel from the Water Management District permit to make
it consistent with the Army Corps of Engineers permit.
The governing board of the Water Management District approved
the modified permit; however, the Conservancy has filed a challenge
to the permit; and, therefore, under district rules, the permit is not yet
in effect.
So we believe that based upon the precedent set by the board of
July 25, 2006, when it considered the Rookery Bay Business Park
PUD, that we also are tolled. We've talked -- again, I mentioned I've
spoken to Susan Murray and to Joe Schmitt -- I believe Joe Schmitt
agrees with our conclusions -- that we are, in fact, tolled. I believe it's
a decision ultimately for the Board of County Commissioners to
decide how to apply that.
But we are requesting at this point that the Board of County
Commissioners recognize that our three-year period has not yet
started, and that when we get our permit finally resolved by the Water
Page 165
January 23-24, 2007
Management District, then that time period would start.
You will see from this permitting history summary that we
applied for it before the PUD was even approved, we've been
diligently trying to get the permits, and in fact, we were successful in
getting a Corps permit that wasn't challenged. We were successful
when modifying a Water Management District permit, will be
consistent with that Corps permit, and for matters that are beyond our
control, the Water Management District permit cannot yet be
finalized.
And we don't believe that we should, in fact, be penalized for that
under the county's LDC provisions. And, in fact, you've felt on other
-- you have found in other petitions that the property owner is not
penalized, and that's what the tolling provision's for.
And with that we'll answer any questions you may have on the
tolling arguments.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'd like to hear from our
county attorney to see if he agrees this fits with the provision of our
Land Development Code, and also, is there any similarity to the
business park that Mr. Y ovanovich is bringing up.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I'd like to note that this comes very
late in the proceedings. Previously when you heard this type of issue,
it was an application for the tolling. A lot of evidence was submitted
with it. Staff had the chance to look at it and then discuss the issue
with you. I got a phone call from Mr. Y ovanovich yesterday on it. I
haven't seen any documentation whatsoever.
Having said that, I would say that the language specifically says
that in the event of a moratorium -- which has not happened here -- or
any action of government. One could argue that the problem that this
particular petitioner is facing is that he's trying to develop an
environmentally sensitive area and that's why he's in the pickle that
he's in.A
Page 166
January 23-24, 2007
I don't believe that the other one had those issues that this one
does, so that although I believe it's absolutely in your discretion to
hear the evidence and decide whether he falls under it, I do not believe
it is a matter of law that Mr. Y ovanovich is right that he's entitled to
this. I think this is a decision for the board, having weighed the facts.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Klatzkow, the minutes
reflect when Mr. Bruce Anderson petitioned the board for his client,
he was in -- on the same scenario in the permitting stage from the Feds
and the water management, and that was July 25, 2006.
I guess there probably could be a motion, a board determination
that this is tolling, and if it doesn't pass, then we can go with the issue
of the extension of the PUD.
MR. KLATZKOW: You have that prerogative.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman or anybody else
have a problem with that?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One more time, Commissioner
Henning. Go ahead and make the motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why don't you go ahead and just
make the motion and we'll --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I'm going to make a motion the
Board of Commissioners finds this item is -- is 8G provided under the
board's laws of code (sic) that this is deemed tolling. The property
owner has -- has been stopped by government action or a lack of
action. And, again, if it doesn't -- if it doesn't go anywhere, then we
can get right into the issue of the PUD extension.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So you're looking for a finding
from this commission that says that basically the developer has been
stopped by the lack of government?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or the lack of -- you could say
lack of government action or action of the government.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And then -- I'm kind of
Page 167
January 23-24, 2007
curious why you're separating, but that's okay. I mean, it's your
motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's not a separate -- oh, you
mean between the extension and this one?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah.
MR. WEIGEL: That's true.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's a matter of, it has every
similarity to the action that we took July of last year.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, and to add some clarity to the
separation. If the board says that this particular PUD is being tolled, it
means this PUD hasn't started yet. Even though it's three years old or
about to be three years old, it hasn't started yet, so therefore there's no
need for an extension because he hasn't started his three year initial
yet.
And so that's the significance to the board saying it falls under
the tolling provision because they haven't been able to start because
they haven't been able to get all their permits, and when they do get
their permits, they get somebody that's trying to stop them in the court,
so that's where --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But doesn't the time period that we
allow people include the time to get permits?
MR. MUDD: Under normal situations. I don't believe that a
three-year -- three-year delay to get a permit outside of LASIP is
normal.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I understand what you're saying.
Now, give me one second. I may end up seconding your motion, but
we have something from Mr. Y ovanovich.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, I want to -- I want to clarify
something that was said by Mr. Klatzkow. First of all, the distinction
between us and Rookery Bay Business Park was that Rookery Bay
Business Park, they had panther issues and they didn't yet have a
Corps permit. In our particular case we've resolved all the
Page 168
January 23-24, 2007
Corps-related issues and actually have a permit.
Secondarily, we've gone to the Water Management District and
we resolved all those issues and have a permit that is being
challenged. We have gone well beyond what your previous petitioner,
Rookery Bay Business Park, was able to do.
So regarding that tolling period, we're a cleaner case than the
Rookery Bay Business Park because we have, in fact, satisfied the
agencies. We haven't satisfied someone who challenged that agency
action, and that is the group that's going to be holding us up and
stopping us from being able to meet the requirements of your LDC to
do the construction.
So it's because of the agency's rules that won't let the Water
Management District permit become finalized, that it's the government
action. And that's exactly the same situation, but even better, than
what you approved for the Rookery Bay Business Park.
And if we need to spend more time working with your county
attorney on that issue, I'd rather have that resolved than rush to
judgment on such a critical issue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. For discussion purposes, I'm
going to second Commissioner Henning's motion. And we're going to
go to Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There are several interpretations
that can be applied to this, depending upon your viewpoint, of course.
Certainly our -- our procedures were never intended to apply when a
developer submits an unacceptable request for permit to the Corps of
Engineers. Weare not responsible for that, and essentially, that is
what happened. The Corps of Engineers did not accept your original
proposal; is that not true?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That is not true. The water -- the Corps
has accepted our proposal.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: After modifications?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That is typical. When you go through a
Page 169
January 23-24, 2007
process with the Corps, there is a process that you go through. I
would -- I'd venture to say one in a million gets through the Corps
process exactly like you originally submit it. So you do go through a
process, and we were successful in getting through that process, so we
did have an acceptable plan to the Corps.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But you made a substantial change
in the submission, right?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, Commissioner, I find it ironic that
we accommodate the Corps' request on someone else's permit and take
the channel out. It was the Water Management District that insisted
that we put the channel in in the first place, so we did that to
accommodate the Water Management District.
The Corps said, we don't want it in there, take it out. We did
that, got the permit approved, nobody challenged it.
We go back, Water Management District says, we agree with the
Corps, the Corps said that, we'll take it out as well, and we get a
challenge. And now we're going to be told you did everything the
way we told you to do it, you went through the process, got it
approved, and sorry, tolling doesn't apply to you, meanwhile, someone
else who had panther issues went back and forth through the
negotiating process, hadn't reached conclusion yet, and this board said
it's okay. Don't worry about it. You didn't submit something that was
originally okay with them, but we're all right -- we're going to go
ahead and let you continue on with the process.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It exemplifies why we should
never approve these until all the permits are approved. We shouldn't
even consider them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Somebody has to start it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not us.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Could you -- could -- Jeff
Klatzkow, could you please explain to me just so I understand totally
Page 170
January 23-24, 2007
and completely what tolling actually means in this case on this thing
in comparison to extending?
MR. KLATZKOW: Think of it like a car. With tolling you're
parked. You're not going anywhere. You're just staying -- staying
there. With the extension, his time keeps on rolling, and eventually
he's going to run out of time. He's asking for two two-year extensions.
When those are up, he's done. With the tolling, you never get there.
It's -- everything is in stasis. Everything stays the same. So he's
parked, and time goes on and he's parked. He doesn't have to do
anything.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman and Mrs. Fiala, I'm going to add a
little bit, if I may, and that is, again, the concept of tolling in regard to
this land development matter before you is one where, through no
inattention, lack of due diligence, attempted progress to go forward on
behalf of the developer or developer's agents, has this not come
forward to this point in time.
And the argument or issue of tolling that Mr. Y ovanovich has
brought up has been recognized by the board previously. And I will
state there are significant similarities, in fact, to the prior recognition
that the board brought to this. It is not inappropriate for the board to
consider tolling.
As Mr. Y ovanovich and Mr. Klatzkow have indicated, the
tolling, in effect, means that they couldn't go forward, and the typical
time run that the extension process that we have applies to, our
extension process where we review, according to sunsetting, is to
determine if there, in fact, has been due diligence by the
petitioner/developer, to go forward with the project that was approved
two or four years before, and that's really the element that is looked at
is a good faith effort and, in fact, activity going forward toward the
development.
And in the case of permitting by other agencies it's been actively
engaged in early on in good faith and permits acquired and a challenge
Page 171
January 23-24, 2007
that comes thereafter, that's exactly what you're considering right now.
And so Mrs. Fiala, you do not actually have a two-year or two
two-year extensions to consider based on the motion of Commissioner
Henning. It is a question of recognition that a tolling has occurred
based upon these other circumstances that the developer has been
caught up with.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But then when -- when does the
tolling finish?
MR. WEIGEL: Well--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I --
MR. WEIGEL: I'll answer, I guess, first.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to put it into my
motion; the tolling will end once the landowner gets all his permits,
and that will be at the end of the challenge of the South Florida Water
Management permit.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see. Okay. And then my last --
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Yovanovich may want to clarify in the sense
that he may have the permits, but it's under challenge by an outside
source, I think, is what he wishes to indicate.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. We have our administrative
hearing scheduled for February, so hopefully we're going to have a
decision from the administrative law judge relatively quickly.
We anticipate by the time we get the hear -- you know, we get
the written order and go through the process of going back to the
Water Management District Board for the adoption of the final order,
it's probably in the July/August time frame, that that will be finally
resolved, but our hearing is upcoming in February.
So we have been working hard to try to get this finalized. We
have clearly not been sitting back and waiting to get our permits.
We've been diligently --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll hold my other question until
after the speakers.
Page 1 72
January 23-24, 2007
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That might be a good idea. Just one
concern -- we could probably address it later -- is the word permit. It
could be a house permit. That last house to --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, no, no. It's a district permit. As we
understand it, is we have to have the district --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sure then we'll clarify that in the
motion when the time comes. But let's do this at this point in time.
That's not the way you turn it on. It's that way.
Let's go ahead with the speakers. We have how many, 36?
MS. FILSON: Thirty-two.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Before we start, I just want to
say a couple words that might help guide you along. We're glad
you're here. The fact there's so many of you speaks volumes for
where you stand.
When you get up to talk to the commission, you have three
minutes, and we'd love to hear from each individual. It's your right to
be up here. In fact, you should exercise your right. However, with
that said, if it gets to be repetitive and you're going to repeat the same
thing that the person before you said, at that point you can do a very
noble thing, and that's called waive, where you say, I waive, and we
understand where you are because of the fact that the other person said
the same thing.
If you feel like you want to repeat the same thing, that is still
fine. But just to move the process along, you might want to give that
consideration.
Please call the first speaker. Before you do, Commissioner
Halas, did you have a question now or do you want to wait?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll just add -- like to chime in my
concerns on this. I understand tolling and I believe in it so long as it's
involved with the county government, that we have held up their
permits or we have held them up in that regard.
Page 173
January 23-24, 2007
When it comes to other governmental agencies, I don't have any
control over them, so that's where I stand on that. I don't have any
initiative to direct those governmental agencies on what's correct or
what's not correct.
And, obviously, we've caught a lot of flack saying that we're
slow in getting permits. Well, a lot of times it's not us. It's the other
governmental agencies that are involved in this. So I just want to
make sure that the record's straight. I believe in tolling as long as it's
the county --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. And this is going to -- and
Commissioner Henning's going to respond, and that's going to end it
until after the speakers.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Mr. Chairman, let's vote
on the tolling issue on this item, and if that fails, let's go to the PUD
extension --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and the public will know what
we're talking about with the PUD extension.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's -- does (sic) my
Commissioners agree on that?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, if you vote on the tolling, are
you going to have to go through the public hearing process and let all
the public speakers speak to these issues?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, that would have been my
assumption, although I think what we're trying to do is set the stage
for the vote that's going to take place on the actual PUD extension.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, not necessarily. If the
motion passed, then these people can go back to their business. If
there ( sic) doesn't, they want to address the board on the issue and
how it affects them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But we might have a fairness issue
Page 174
January 23-24, 2007
here in the fact that some people may want to address the idea of
tolling. We just had Commissioner Halas bring objection to the
definition that was in front of us.
So that's my only concern is that -- I know where you're going.
If we had a -- we call it a straw poll, whatever, you'd have an idea
where this commission stands. I have no idea at this point in time
which way they're going to go on it, which leaves the whole thing
open. And I feel very uncomfortable taking a vote that sets the stage
in asking you to go ahead and comment, because we kind of commit
ourselves once we vote the first time.
So I think what we're going to do -- you know, unless someone
disagrees with me and they want to discuss it, let's go with the public
speakers with the same parameters that I already suggested to them,
hear them out, and then go ahead and take a vote on that.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Bob Walker.
MS. GOLDMAN: If I could -- and I apologize. I am Ellen
Goldman. I'm an attorney with Porter, Wright, Morris and Arthur and
I represent I'd say --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, ma'am.
MS. GOLDMAN: -- most of the people who are here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know that. I'm going to ask for you
to wait to be recognized and called just like anyone else would.
MS. GOLDMAN: Okay. No problem.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. I just can't permit you to
walk out of the audience and take the podium like that.
MS. GOLDMAN: I understand.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. GOLDMAN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir?
MS. FILSON: Bob Walker. He'll be followed by Meggan
Davis.
MR. WALKER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Bob
Page 175
January 23-24, 2007
Walker. I live on Oaks Boulevard, and my interest here is the
completion of Logan Boulevard along with the honesty and good
dealing of the county and the taxpayers.
I think Rich made a good point, and I don't see any way around
that. But I would like to encourage you folks to try and look over the
top of all the technicalities and the opinions and the arguments and all
of the things that go into this and just look at where you think the
county's best position would be after today.
And I think if you approach it that way, I think it's plain to see
the county would be in a better position, or the best position, number
one, if the road can continue to be built like it is today, and that
doesn't have to stop; the county and the taxpayers don't have to fund
that road right now, which I don't think can be done. I think it's asking
more than Norm Feder can possibly do; and I think that putting things
like this off -- this is just an example -- puts the county and the
taxpayers exactly on the opposite side of the affordable housing
question than they should be.
All of this, all of these peoples here -- people here, as it pertains
to this project -- I know this is not a low-income project -- but it does
drive the cost of property up, and it spreads.
But everything -- everything that happens here today must be
paid for by the people that buy these lots, and there's no two ways
about that.
And I guess that's all I have to say. I think the county would be
in the best position if they extend this PUD, let these people work it
out. They've already been told, I read in the report from staff, that the
staff knows about it, they say they can handle it, they say they will
handle it. I just see no reason to put us in a position where we could
find ourselves having to defend it at a very high cost. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Meggan Davis. She'll be
followed by Joseph Leone.
Page 176
January 23-24, 2007
MS. DAVIS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Meggan Davis, and I'm here representing Longshore Lake
Homeowners' Association. The Terafina/G.L. Homes project will be
our neighbor, and we support the extension to their PUD, or the
tolling, whichever -- I'm confused which we're addressing right now,
so I'll say either one. We support the extension of the PUD or their
tolling.
When the project was approved in March of 2004, it met all the
requirements set out by the county's land development plan. It
received a favorable approval from the Planning Commission and you
also approved the proj ect.
At that time the commission included in the PUD stipulation,
stipulations which protected Old Cypress, Longshore Lake and Quail
Creek from the section of Logan Boulevard that's to be built by Ronto
between Immokalee Road and Bonita Beach Road. This road snakes
between established communities, and G .L. Homes has three separate
arrangements with each community included in their PUD.
In the case of Longshore Lake, we are to receive nearly one-line
long fence, landscaping, a possible egress, an irrigation well. We had
already signed a maintenance agreement with the county to maintain
that section of Logan Boulevard.
I assure you, as a community, we're not in the financial position
to build a fence to mitigate against that traffic. We rely on the board
to advocate for us.
If this extension is not granted, we lose our fence. We lose our
mitigation. As a Collier County taxpayer, I would also be extremely
unhappy to have to repay G.L. Homes for the section of Logan
Boulevard between Vanderbilt Beach Road and Immokalee with a
price tag in excess of $8 million, which is nearly completed, if the
extension is not granted.
I was surprised when this item got on the consent agenda. What
has intrinsicly changed since your first approval process? Not the
Page 177
January 23-24, 2007
density, the roadway, or the other items that the county looks at.
G .L. Homes has secured the necessary permits from the Army
Corps of Engineers and Southwest Florida Water Management,
though their Southwest Florida Water Management permit is being
challenged by the Conservancy.
The water quality and those related issues are being looked at by
another governmental agency. The Conservancy certainly is entitled
to challenge that permit, but I ask, what is their standing in this PUD
extension?
I stand before you here as a resident and a taxpayer. After all, the
Conservancy is a special interest group which has their agenda, and I
appreciate that, but unfortunately it happens to be incompatible with
my community's best interest.
We ask that you grant to G .L. Homes the extension for their
project. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Joseph Leone.
MR. LEONE: I have the same concerns, so I waive my
comments.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: Patrick White.
MS. GOLDMAN: Okay. I'm here on behalf of Patrick White, if
I could.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You may.
MS. GOLDMAN: He's my law partner, and he is officially a
grandfather as of today, and that's why he couldn't be here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Your name, please?
MS. GOLDMAN: He apologizes for that. I'm Ellen Goldman.
MR. MUDD: State the firm that you're in, please, too, ma'am.
MS. GOLDMAN: Porter, Wright, Morris and Arthur. And I
apologize for coming up here before, but what I was trying to do then
is just kind of tell you that I represent over 30 people who are here
today from Saturnia Lakes Homeowners' Association, tell you that we
Page 178
January 23-24, 2007
are in favor of tolling, of course, if that will get us the roadway that we
need for our alternate access to Saturnia Lakes, and then say that we
would reserve the rest of our comments until after the vote, and then
with, of course, the opportunity to come up and speak if necessary if
that vote didn't pass, which is what we would propose right now.
But just quickly, we are -- I do have a petition with me that the
homeowners got together within the last 48 hours of over 100
signatures, which we will turn in, and the board voted and is in
support of the -- either the tolling or the extension of the PUD so as to
be able to get the access onto Logan Boulevard for security purposes,
for convenience purposes, for purposes of not having to pay back the
monies that have been expended by G.L. Homes.
So very quickly, that would be my proposal, with your
permission, that we reserve the rest of our comments until after the
vote.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If you don't mind, I'm not going to
repeat the whole process twice. We've got one agenda item that might
be broken down into two motions. We're going to hear everyone one
time. They know what the subject matter is. After this motion is voted
upon, we're not going to have another public go-round where
everybody gets to speak up again.
Another thing I want to make sure is, are you registered as a
lobbyist?
MS. GOLDMAN: Yes, I am.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Very good. Thank you for
that.
MS. GOLDMAN: And I also want to let you know that we are
going to limit our comments to six. I know that we had about 30
people register, but I think that was just because of a misunderstanding
of what the process was, and that would be my fault, too, because, of
course, I'm just a dirt lawyer. I'm not a land use lawyer. I'm here for
Patrick on very short notice.
Page 179
January 23-24, 2007
So we're going to -- please don't think that we're going to take up
all of that time. We're going to limit it to about six.
We speak in support of the motion. As I said, we have over 25
people with us who are in support of the motion and a petition with
over 100 signatures so far. They're coming in by email even as we
speak.
We -- our residents and constituents who travel on the county's
roads rely on the services provided by the road network. They would
suffer unnecessary risks from the delayed opening of Logan, including
the school buses, EMS, law enforcement and fire. They would not
have the planned and bargained for benefit of the two means of ingress
and egress and access to the development, which is now built out and
provides a home for 580 families in Saturnia Lakes.
In addition --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm just going to interrupt you for one
second.
MS. GOLDMAN: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I realize that your time has run out.
You are speaking for a number of people that won't be speaking, so I'll
allow you to continue for another three minutes.
MS. GOLDMAN: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I didn't want you to be intimidated by
the blinking light.
MS. GOLDMAN: I didn't even notice the blinking light, so that's
how inexperienced I am --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's starting over, so pay attention.
MS. GOLDMAN: -- at doing this. So thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's going to be blaring horns the
next time.
MS. GOLDMAN: Additional negative impacts would be
suffered because of other projects that would have to be delayed,
including -- well, Immokalee Road's median could not be closed,
Page 180
January 23-24, 2007
which I understand is in the works, or diminished, as it would have to
continue to serve as the sole access for this project.
Similarly, Oaks Boulevard's median could not be closed as well,
which I know that is proposed, or planned.
There would be unavoidable delays that would result from the
county having to follow its own procedures and regulations for
rebudgeting and rebidding to complete the remaining work, not to
mention the added public burden, and the undesirable uses of the
roadway as it now stands incomplete, largely unlit at night and a
magnet for illegal activities.
The -- going forward with the road construction, of course, would
further the residents' security needs at Saturn Lakes. The developer,
G.L. Homes, has agreed to over 140,000 in improvements to that
Logan Boulevard access, providing additional security for the
residents, and it would avoid -- of course, what has been mentioned
before -- the unnecessary public expense in giving that money back to
G .L. Homes for money it has already expended.
With that, I'm going to give the floor up to the speakers from
Saturnia Lakes who are here with us today.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And what we'll have to do is probably
go down through in order. Those people that are the designated
speakers, when you're called, please come up. Those that aren't and
don't wish to speak -- you're still free to do so -- you may waive.
MS. FILSON: Michael Moore. He'll be followed by Jonathan
White.
MR. MOORE: Good afternoon. My name's Michael Moore.
I'm a resident of Saturnia Lakes.
Your roles as stewards of the environment superimposed on your
roles as managers of growth, create a situation which, on the surface,
looks to be seriously conflicted. But the apparent conflict of ideas
can't be perceived as an either/or type of proposition.
Page 181
January 23-24, 2007
We have to proceed to do the best we can in striking a balance
between those two major responsibilities. They're not mutually
exclusive.
To help you try to find that balancing point, Collier County has
in place staff personnel who provide background information,
technical assessments, and analyses on the tough questions of
environmental protection and growth management.
These are highly skilled and dedicated professionals who have
done their part in trying to help you with the difficult choices you
face. They have made a recommendation.
I think the county commission is to be commended for
formulating creative ideas including the development of partnerships
between the public and private sectors for the purposes of leveraging
Collier's limited resources in providing critically needed
infrastructure.
The agreement with G.L. Homes is a good example. This type of
progressive approach is going to be essential if we're to avoid future
gridlock, both figurative and literally.
To deny the Terafina PUD extension is to deny future use of such
creative partnering tools in helping to solve the problems and meet the
challenges.
One of the underpinnings of any such agreement is that all the
parties must act in good faith. And it seems to me that to deny the
Terafina PUD extension is to acknowledge that Collier County is
choosing to not operate in good faith.
How can we expect others from the private sector to ever trust
the county and future if we reneg on this agreement? And don't
forget, approval of the extension does not eliminate all the
mechanisms of ground -- of gate keeping during the long and arduous
process of approval and permitting of building people's homes.
My family and I implore you to follow the recommendations of
staff, honor the agreements that Collier has already entered into,
Page 182
January 23-24, 2007
approve the PUD extension and keep the existing funding in place to
complete the construction of our long-anticipated and desperately
needed Logan Boulevard.
Thank you for listening.
MS. FILSON: Jonathan White. He'll be followed by Victoria
Pizzi.
MR. WHITE: Good afternoon. I've been a resident of Naples for
22 years and have seen amazing growth; 15 of those years in North
Naples.
We moved to Saturnia Lakes three years ago. And we all
expected to have a road on Logan Boulevard a long time ago.
We've had issues with our developer, G.L. Homes. Those are
normal. We're working them out. We respect them as an organization
and we look forward to settling those differences.
I just can't conceive of the county commission not allowing this
PUD to go ahead. G.L. Homes has acted in good faith. They've built
a road. It's almost finished. And because of permitting delays, they're
not able to get started on their new development. Not only that, the
North Naples community and the whole of Naples need that road.
Many of you don't have to travel on Immokalee Road, but
believe me, it gets worse every day, and we do have major safety
Issues.
So I implore you to move ahead with this, hopefully on the
tolling motion, but if not on the extension of the PUD.
Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Victoria Pizzi. She'll be followed by Jay Mosley.
MS. PIZZI: Good afternoon. I am here to speak to you this
afternoon about School Bus 690. School Bus 690 in Saturnia that
carries our precious children. It accommodates 73 children at the
Ivory Cane bus stop and 72 at the clubhouse bus stop. Collier County
granted us the largest school bus you have to accommodate so many
Saturnia children.
Page 183
January 23-24, 2007
Miss Cindy, our bus driver, navigates that bus, making a
left-hand turn on Immokalee going across the oncoming traffic to get
into our entrance. She dodges dirgly (sic) barriers and speeders
coming down that road to deliver our children safely.
Without the completion of Logan and that light to slow up that
Immokalee traffic so she can get across Immokalee is going to be
impossible for her. Every day I greet Miss Cindy saying, how was
traffic today? How did you get across Immokalee? She shakes her
head.
She has the largest school bus. We have precious children that
have to get in and out of Saturnia. And if you don't put the completion
of Logan together with that stop light, she will never be able to cross
Immokalee Road with dump trucks and people speeding 60 miles an
hour. There is no break in that traffic. She has nowhere to go. She
sits out on Immokalee waiting for someone to desperately stop so she
can get across.
So I am here for bus 690 and those children to say, please, let us
get home safely. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Jay Mosley.
MR. MOSLEY: I'll waive.
MS. FILSON: Michael Manganaro. He'll be followed by Walter
Cary .
MR. MANGANARO: I know it's not an easy name. It's Mike
Manganaro.
I am a resident of Saturnia Lakes and have been since they first
started closing on homes in 2001; also a highly respect business owner
in the building and major financial institutions of this area.
And I wanted to speak actually about G.L. Homes. I have seen
their presence on the east coast in the early '90s, when I used to live
over there, and how they positively affected the community both in
safety and in a very valuable environmental and positive effect to the
whole community.
Page 184
January 23-24, 2007
I believe they're one of the best and most reputable builders that I
have seen on both coasts and that their presence is a positive thing for
this county, as they've already expressed and have shown in Lee
County, where they're currently also building.
They have gone above and beyond to help the people of the
community, and especially where they build. Going back a few years
when we were facing our first major hurricane threat in the area, there
was actually representation on a Friday evening after hours ofG.L.'s
top people because when homeowners first pulled out shutters, they
realized they didn't have all of them. Granted, it is our responsibility.
They stepped up, they called in a team from the shutter company,
custom made and cut and delivered and personally helped put up
shutters till two a.m. to make sure that their community was safe.
I'm here today to ask that, you know, you all up there being
highly respected community leaders, grant the extension, and if
possible, I'm sure there can be some type of amicable contingencies to
keep Naples heading in the right direction in the importance of that
road.
And on another issue, with that road being so far completed and
along, in the back of your mind, I think you would have to also think,
will the cost of securing that area completely even be more than the
cost to complete the road? Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Walter Cary?
MR. CARY: Yes, thank you. My topic was on safety, and I
think that has been fairly well discussed, so I waive.
MS. FILSON: Russell Stanley?
MR. STANLEY: I waive.
MS. FILSON: Harold Bretner?
MR. BRETNER: Based upon the previous speakers and
everything that has been stated to you, I agree with everything that has
been said, therefore, I will waive.
MS. FILSON: Joshua Bislek?
Page 185
January 23-24, 2007
MR. BIOLEK: Biolic, but I waive.
MS. FILSON: Thomas Avallone?
MR. AVALLONE: Avallone. I waive also. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Enrichetta Rizzo?
MS. RIZZO: I waive. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Mary Headley?
MS. HEADLEY: Thank you, I waive.
MS. FILSON: Mary Jane Cary?
MS. CARY: Yes. I would like to say that I agree with all of the
comments that have been put forth by the Saturnia Lakes
Homeowners' Association, and I waive.
MS. FILSON: Betty Di --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Excuse me just one second. I want to
make sure we don't get into trouble with the court reporter. In order
for her to hear the comments when you get into detail, other than
saying I waive, you almost have to come up to the mike to do it, or
else she can't pick it up as part of the public record.
And don't be -- don't hold back from doing that if you feel like
you want to come up and waive and just step up and say it. But a
simple waive will do fine from the back. I think you can catch that,
right. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Betty DiAndriole?
MS. DiANDRIOLE: I waive. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Frank DiAndriole?
MR. DiANDRIOLE: Waive, thank you.
MS. FILSON: Kathy Luperini?
MS. LUPERINI: Luperini, I waive.
MS. FILSON: Marie Sullivan?
MS. SULLIVAN: I waive, thank you.
MS. FILSON: Edward Sullivan.
MR. SULLIVAN: I waive, thank you.
MS. FILSON: Neil Herrick?
Page 186
January 23-24, 2007
MR. HERRICK: I waive, thank you.
MS. FILSON: Verl Headley?
MR. HEADLEY: I waive, thank you.
MS. FILSON: Ben Rizzo?
MR. RIZZO: I waive, thank you.
MS. FILSON: Bob Prussack?
MR. PRUSSACK: Thank you, I waive.
MS. FILSON: Maurice Steiner?
MR. STEINER: I waive, thank you.
MS. FILSON: Nancy Dalaskey?
MS. DALASKEY: I waive, thank you.
MS. FILSON: Chris Straton?
MS. STRATON: I don't waive.
MS. FILSON: Chris will be followed by JoAnne Day.
MS. STRATON: Thank you. My name is Chris Straton. I'm
here as the president of the League of Women Voters of Collier
County, and I have copies of a letter that I sent via email to you.
I'm very sympathetic to the dilemma that has been presented to
you with respect to roads where there's a perception that we will lose
funding and we will lose out on Logan Boulevard and Saturnia Lakes.
And, you know, I know that's a major issue in this community to
make sure that we have adequate roads, but this community also needs
to make sure that projects follow the procedures appropriately, and
when there are substantive changes, that we recognize that.
So the League of Women Voters of Collier County asks you
deny G.L. Homes of Naples' extension request for the Terafina PUD.
We ask that you deny this request for an extension and require the
project go through PUD amendment based upon new information. I'm
sure that many of the conditions that were in the original PUD can
certainly be addressed again at the time of the amendment.
Substantial changes have been made to the project since the
approval in 2004, including the removal of the Mirasol flowway ditch,
Page 187
January 23-24, 2007
which are not reflected in the PUD.
The League believes that this public hearing process is a key
component of open and transparent government. And in order to
allow the public to provide input on the changes made since 2004,
amendment is necessary. We, therefore, request that you require G.L.
Homes to amend this soon-to-be sunsetted Terafina PUD.
You will have the benefit of reviewing the project of information
received since 2004, and in addition, the public and residents that may
impacted downstream will have the opportunity to provide input.
It is essential for the community to be able to participate in their
local government, which is going on right now.
If the Terafina PUD is merely extended, there will be no avenue
for additional public comment. With the magnitude of changes
between the approved PUD and the reality of the proj ect, the League
requests that the full review and public hearing process afforded
through PUD amendments be required for T erafina.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is JoAnne Day. She'll be
followed by Bridget Washburn.
MS. DAY: JoAnne Day. I had intended to waive, but since she
spoke, I won't. I will just say that I would request that you pass this
proposal. I live in Saturnia Lakes, and we would appreciate it.
Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Bridget Washburn.
MS. WASHBURN: Good afternoon. I'm Bridget Washburn
representing the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And I, too, would
like to say that I'm sympathetic to the road issues, and I hope that any
safety conflicts can get cleared up. But today I want to address the
natural resource issues and the Growth Management Plan.
The Conservancy asks that you deny the request for extension of
the T erafina PUD and instead require the PUD to go through the
amendment process. This project has changed substantially since you
Page 188
January 23-24, 2007
approved the PUD.
With the denial of the Mirasol core 404 permit, the supposed
benefits of the flowway ditch were pure bunk. Terafina has now
substantially modified their project to eliminate the ditch.
While this PUD does allow for some minor adjustments to the
preserve, there has been a complete overhaul and redesign of the
stormwater system. This is not minor.
N ow your staff report states on page 2, the district has approved
the environmental resource permits for this PUD with the flowway
because it is still being required by the South Florida Water
Management and the United States Army Corps of Engineers as
natural flowway; however, it's important to point out that there will
not be a flowway ditch.
And the staff report does acknowledge on page 4 where it states,
the modification alters the ERP permit by removing the flowway from
the east preserve area and proposing a revised surface water
management system.
Stormwater and runoff from the redesign proj ect will be
channeled to the wetland preserve and will be discharged into the
Cocohatchee Canal through a 48- inch pipe. This is more than a minor
modification, and this is an important point to bring out because it is a
major reconfiguration of the stormwater system.
These changes deserve to be vetted through the public process,
and the only way to do this is to require the PUD to go through
amendment. This would not mean the PUD is denied today. It would
just mean that it's open to review public input and commission input.
Remember, a lot has changed since it was approved.
We were a bit surprised by the discrepancy between the current
staff report and the staff report attached to this item on the November
14, 2006, agenda. There was significant environmental
inconsistencies and incompatibility with the GMP discussed in the
November staff report, yet these concerns have been eliminated from
Page 189
January 23-24, 2007
the current staff report.
Since there has not been any change to the project, it seems
surprising that these environmental concerns are no longer present.
Another portion of the staff report we want to mention is under
the fiscal impact section at the bottom of page 5. It states that if the
extension is denied, Logan Boulevard from Vanderbilt Beach Road to
Immokalee Road would not be funded. That makes it sound as if your
vote today is to deny the project, but it's not.
A denial of the extension would mean G .L. Homes would need to
go through the PUD amendment process, a process where your
advisory committee and the public will have the opportunity to review
and comment on the redesign project and its consistency with GMP.
The bottom line is that the T era fin a PUD has changed
dramatically since it was approved with the Mirasol drainage ditch.
The supposed benefits of the ditch have now been invalidated.
The Conservancy would ask that you deny extension of the PUD
and have it go through amendment. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. Before we do that, Mr.
Y ovanovich, I have two commissioners that have some questions or
some comments.
Commissioner Henning, then Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll wait for mine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know, I find it quite
interesting, the environmental community didn't want the Mirasol
ditch and now they do, so I'm really confused on really what they
want. They challenged the Corps -- or they were in correspondence
with the Corps and the Board of Commissioners, they didn't want the
Mirasol ditch.
So with that, my motion stands, and let's address it. If it doesn't
pass, we'll get to the agenda item.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion by
Page 190
January 23-24, 2007
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Coletta.
Is there any questions?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor of the
motion indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I voted aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, there was two ayes. For or
opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I voted aye to approve it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: To approve it. So the motion--
carried.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The motion carries.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion carried. Sorry for the
confusion. I just couldn't quite hear the ayes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us -- that brings us to
our next --
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're not quite there yet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I mean, you have -- still to go
with the original --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, no. What happens is the
Board of Commissioners determined that because of government
action, this PUD doesn't sunset. It's not ready for sunset. So the
motion being passed, you don't have to --
Page 191
January 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I just want to make sure. Does the
county attorney --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ask the county manager.
Thanks, Mom.
MR. MUDD: The board's -- the board's motion was to basically
-- that the petitioner asked that his particular PUD be tolled. The
board voted 3-2 that it be tolled.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So that took care of exactly
what they were looking for. That satisfies everything.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. So the key is, they haven't -- they really
haven't started their sunset -- or excuse me -- they haven't started their
PUD yet. They still have three years, and then they have the ability to
come in and get two two-year extensions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. You can applaud and jump up
and down now.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That was fun.
Okay. Next item?
Thank you very much for being here today.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 8C. This items
requires that --
Ladies and gentlemen, if you could leave quietly, that would
really help us.
Can we take a couple minutes just to let the room clear?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We sure can.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please take your seats and we'll
proceed.
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats
agaIn.
Again, we have a hot mike.
Page 192
January 23-24, 2007
Item #8C & Item #8D
ITEM #8C DOA-2005-AR-8543: AIRPORT ROAD LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, REPRESENTED BY KAREN BISHOP, OF PMS,
INC., AND RICHARD YOV ANOVICH, OF GOODLETTE,
COLEMAN AND JOHNSON, REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT
TO THE PINE AIR LAKES DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL
IMP ACT (DRI) DEVELOPMENT ORDER TO ALLOW AN
INCREASE IN THE MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT AREA OF
957,000 SQUARE FOOTAGE (FURTHER LIMITED TO 707,000
SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL AND 250,000 SQUARE FEET OF
OFFICE), TO A MAXIMUM TOTAL OF 1,075,000 SQUARE
FEET (FURTHER LIMITED TO 1,000,000 SQUARE FEET OF
RETAIL SPACE AND 75,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE USE);
EXTEND THE BUILD-OUT DATE FROM OCTOBER 15,2005
TO OCTOBER 15,2010 (COMPANION TO PETITION PUDZ-A-
AR-8550) ITEM #8D PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8550: AIRPORT ROAD
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, REPRESENTED BY KAREN BISHOP,
OF PMS INC., OF NAPLES AND RICHARD YOV ANOVICH, OF
GOODLETTE, COLEMAN AND JOHNSON, REQUESTING AN
AMENDMENT OF THE PINE AIR LAKES PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD) LAST REVISED IN ORDINANCE NO.
94-25, TO ALLOW AN INCREASE IN THE MAXIMUM
DEVELOPMENT AREA OF 957,000 SQUARE FOOTAGE
(FURTHER LIMITED TO 707,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL
AND 250,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE), TO A MAXIMUM
TOTAL OF 1,075,000 SQUARE FEET (FURTHER LIMITED TO
1,000,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE AND 75,000
SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE USE); EXTEND THE BUILD-OUT
DATE FROM OCTOBER 15,2005 TO OCTOBER 15,2010-
MOTION TO CONTINUE - APPROVED
Page 193
January 23-24, 2007
This bring us to our next item, 8C. This item requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
commission members.
It's DOA-2005-AR-8543, Airport Road Limited Partnership,
represented by Karen Bishop ofPMS, Inc., and Rich Yovanovich of
Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, requesting an amendment to the
Pine Air Lakes development of regional impact, DR!, development
order to allow an increase in the maximum development area of
957,000 square footage further limited to 707,000 square feet of retail,
and 250,000 square feet of office, to a maximum total of 1,075,000
square feet, further limited to one million square feet of retail space
and 75,000 square feet of office use; extend the buildout date from
October 15,2005, to October 15,2010.
The subject 148.99 acres is located along the west side of
Airport- Pulling Road parallel to and approximately 1,600 feet north of
Pine Ridge Road and along both sides of Naples Boulevard in Section
11, Township 49 south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida.
This is a companion item to petition PUDZ-A-AR-8550. And,
Commissioners, I'd like to read this particular item so that you could
hear them both, because they're going to talk about the same items,
and then you can take them in separate -- as separate items.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we're covering both 8C and
MR. MUDD: 8D. And then at the end of the presentations and
the public petition process, we'll ask the board to take a separate vote
on 8C and then 8D.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. But we can swear people in
for both items at the same time and make our public disclosures for
both.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. 8D, this item also requires that
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
commission members.
Page 194
January 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right.
MR. MUDD: It's PUDZ-A-2005-AR-8580 (sic) Airport Road
Limited Partnership represented by Karen Bishop of PMS, Inc., of
Naples, and Richard Y ovanovich of Goodlette Coleman and Johnson
requesting an amendment to the Pine Air Lakes planned unit
development last revised in ordinance number 94-25 to allow an
increase in the maximum development area of 9 -- 957,000 square
footage, further limited to 707,000 square feet of retail and 250,000
square feet of office, to a maximum total of 1,075,000 square feet,
further limited to one million square feet of retail space and 75,000
square feet of office use; extend the buildout date from October 15,
2005, to October 15, 2010.
The subject 148.99 acres is located along the west side of
Airport- Pulling Road parallel to and approximately 1,600 feet north of
Pine Ridge Road and along both sides of Naples Boulevard in Section
11, Township 49 south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. All those wishing to
participate in items 8C and 8D, please stand at this time and be sworn
in by the court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And disclosures from
commissioners on both C and D, starting with Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And this is 8C and D?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: On 8C I have had meetings and
correspondence, meetings in particular with the petitioner and his
agent, Mr. Yovanovich, and the same on 8D.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I've had discussions with
staff, I've had meetings with the petitioner, I've had correspondence on
this, and also some -- I think a phone call or two, and that would fall in
Page 195
January 23-24, 2007
line with item D.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And I also--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: C and D.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- received emails, had meetings, met
with the petitioners and their agents on both items.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've had meetings with the
petitioner and his agent, and also I've met with transportation staff and
sought a lot of answers to questions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, this was on the
Regional Planning Council agenda, which I am a member, and I
briefly spoke to Mr. Y ovanovich.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And I have had contact with
the same people through the Regional Planning Council that -- all the
same players.
And with that, I think we're ready to go. Mr. Yovanovich?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. Good afternoon. For the
record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner.
With me today are Harold Freed and Jason Wagner with Landon,
who is the owner of the property; Karen Bishop; Ted Treesh, our
transportation consultant; and Russ Weyer, who has done economic
analysis for us on this project.
Before the commission today are two requests basically
addressing the same topic. You have an amendment to the Pine Air
Lakes PUD and an amendment to the Pine Air Lakes DR!
development order.
On the visualizer is a location map for the project. As you can
see, this is actually the activity center number 13 map, and you can
see that our proj ect is the loop road from Airport Road that loops to
Pine Ridge Road, and that project is wholly within the activity center.
The current approval for the proj ect is the PUD for our roughly
150 acres. The current approval is for 707,000 square feet of retail
Page 196
January 23-24, 2007
and 250,000 square feet of office, for a total of 957,000 square feet.
We're requesting a change to that approval. The PUD has been in
existence for, you know, many years. In 1994 there was an
amendment to the PUD to have it in its current state as far as the
square footage of retail and square footage of office.
Honestly, we've had no takers on the office square footage, so it
made sense to come in and request a modification to the PUD that
would make some sense for how the PUD is kind of actually
developed.
And I'd like to put on the visualizer an aerial that shows the
current development and approved users for the site as well as the
vacant parcels that are left and one of our proposed users, which is
Kohl's.
As you can see, the project has had roughly 557,000 square feet
of the retail built and completed, and roughly 29,500 square feet of the
office completed. In permitting right now with the county is retail
square footage of about 59,500 square feet.
So to date retail completed or in permitting is roughly 617,000
square feet, and the office completed or in permitting to date roughly
29,500 square feet.
So we do have quite a bit of development to go, but we only have
retail left of roughly 90,000 square feet and we have 220,000 square
feet of office. And as I mentioned, in the past 12 years, we really
haven't had a large demand for the office space that's been available.
Weare requesting a change to the PUD that would increase the
retail to one million square feet and reduce the office to 75,000 square
feet, for a total of 1,075,000 square feet. That is an increase of
roughly 118,000 square feet, so there is an increase; however, there's
also -- it's not as large as it would appear.
The number one issue as we've gone through this process -- and
you know this has been a lengthy process. We've met with your staff
on several occasions, we've met with the commissioners, we've met
Page 197
January 23-24, 2007
with your Smart Growth Committee. We've spent a lot of time trying
to figure out and address the issues that we've heard, and to nobody's
surprise, the number one issue we heard is, what are the traffic impacts
of your proposal.
And we have included in our PUD several commitments, traffic
commitments, and all of those commitments are in addition to the
amount of impact fees. So the improvements we're talking about
making are, I would call -- my client won't like this word but are free
improvements to the county. They cost my client a lot of money, but
they're free improvements to the county.
We have -- in meeting with the Smart Growth Committee, staff,
our neighbors to the north, which is the industrial park, and the
commissioners, there was concern about how can we interconnect our
project with the industrial/office park to the north and the
industrial/office park to the west.
Well, for the industrial/office park to the north, we have
committed in the PUD document to construct an interconnection.
That would allow people who are in the industrial park to get to
Naples Boulevard, come to use the services there without ever having
to get onto Airport Road to get there. So we have that interconnection
in place to keep traffic off of Airport Road.
We have provided an opportunity, as you can see from the master
plan, to allow interconnection to the west industrial park as well. That
will require the county to do some permitting, but we wanted to make
sure that we had that interconnection on the master plan so you
wouldn't have to come back in the future and attempt to amend the
master plan to allow for that interconnection to occur.
So we -- that was a primary concern of the Smart Growth
Committee's and others, and we've accommodated that on our plan
and will make the interconnection occur to the north. I believe Tim
Hancock is here, who represents the Dodge dealership to the north.
We're partnering with them to make sure that that interconnectiono
Page 198
January 23-24,2007
does, in fact, occur.
We're also providing for internal interconnection, and I think the
master plan does a really good job of showing you what we're doing.
We have interconnected all the uses on the south side of Naples
Boulevard so you can go from one use to the next use without ever
getting on Naples Boulevard, and likewise on the north side of Naples
Boulevard.
And if you've been out there lately, you know, there's Costco,
which everybody knows about, and there's a little strip retail that's
going in right now, and behind that strip retail is a road that will
connect, I call it the Costco road, to the Lowe's road so you'll be able
to go behind that strip shopping center without ever having to get on
Naples Boulevard.
And actually where the Lowe's road, the Lowe's road aligns with
the movie theater, and that's where your interconnection's going to
align with. The interconnection's going to go through the parcel that I
showed you, which is the Kohl's parcel, connect up to the Lowe's road
that's already stubbed out, and will bring you right to that intersection,
and that leads me to another commitment we agreed to, is that we
were going to put a traffic light at the future -- the Lowe's stub out,
which will become the interconnection road, and the movie theater.
So we will be paying for and building that traffic light, and I'm
assuming it's going to meet warrants pretty quickly, so we'll be
building that light quickly.
We've also agreed, where you see as you're getting a little bit
closer to what is Pine Ridge Road on the Naples Boulevard loop, you
see two arrows that are kind of pointing in this direction, in here.
That's the approximate location of the second traffic light that we
agreed to construct on Naples Boulevard. That will be constructed,
you know, when warranted. Right now there's really not a need to
construct that, but we have committed to building that as soon as the
county asks us to put it in.
Page 199
January 23-24, 2007
The developer has also agreed to contribute $50,000 to the
SCOOT program. I believe it's for Airport Road, which will help
synchronize the lights to increase the carrying capacity of Airport
Road. We have agreed and we'll do that within one year of PUD
approval.
We will construct a bus shelter for CAT or we'll provide a park
and ride opportunity within one year of the PUD approval.
We will be adding a third left turn lane that heads north on
Airport. So we'll be building another turn lane here to allow traffic to
go north on Airport Road.
We will be providing $400,000 worth of landscaping on Naples
Boulevard.
At the planning commission we were requested to extend these
dual turn lanes -- they go into the center now -- to extend them as far
as possible permitting-wise with the county. We've agreed to extend
those turn lanes as well on our -- for our proj ect.
And we agreed at the Planning Commission to limit our -- what
we can construct at this time to 805,000 square feet until all of the
improvements I just discussed were completed, most notably, the
interconnection, the additional turn lane heading north on Airport
Road, the dual turns coming into our site, and the traffic light. We
agreed to do all of those improvements prior to -- before we can go
beyond 805,000 square feet, which is less than our currently approved
957,000 square feet in the project. And if the approval is given, that
will be a million 75.
So you will see that the developer has quite a large carrot out
there, which is the additional development to go out there and make
sure all those improvement occur quickly.
We also have agreed to pay $206,424 for affordable housing as
part of the DRI process. That is basically a partially retroactive
application of the affordable housing standard because we are paying
impact fees, or this fee, on currently approved development but not yet
Page 200
January 23-24, 2007
permitted. So we're going retroactive for a few hundred thousand
square feet development and prospective for the new square footage
that we're asking for.
Because this was a -- this is a DR!, we had to go to the Regional
Planning Commission. They considered our request, I believe voted
unanimously to support the request with really no comments, and fully
supported our request.
Your staff is recommending approval of our request. I think
we've resolved the one remaining issue which dealt with the potential
loss of parking spaces if and when the interconnections are actually
built.
Our concern was, if we have -- if you already had -- and mainly
it's on the interconnection to the west -- that if the site plan goes
through, that site's developed and the county comes through later on
and wants to build the interconnection and we lose a few parking
spaces, the use of that site, obviously, permitting for the building
would be conditioned upon the number of parking spaces we could
provide.
If we lose those parking spaces, we would theoretically have a
non-conforming use on the site. We wanted to make sure that we were
not somehow punished, if you will, for accommodating
interconnection.
So we wanted to make it clear in our PUD that if we lost the --
those parking spaces, we didn't create a nonconforming use situation.
You all recently amended the Land Development Code to make
it clear that if that situation occurs, you don't have a -- you have a
legal use, not a legal nonconforming use. My concern is that some
day in the future, the Board of County Commissioners might revise
the land development code and take that provision out. We wanted to
just basically include that Land Development Code provision in our
PUD text to make sure that we were covered and there wouldn't be a
change in the future that would somehow catch us by surprise.
Page 201
January 23-24, 2007
I believe that's okay with transportation staff to include the
language that's in the LDC, and I believe your planning staff as well.
So if that's acceptable, that would resolve our need to ask for a
deviation. We would simply just put that condition in our PUD
document, and we would no longer need that deviation request.
Weare requesting that both the PUD and DR! petitions in front
of you be approved by you all, and we're available to answer any
questions you may have regarding both petitions before you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning, then
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I am so confused about all the
numbers that you threw out there.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. Sorry about that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's permitted today, 975-?
MR. YOVANOVICH: 957-?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 957-, and you're asking for a
total of --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: A million 75.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, what a deal.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's 118,000 new square feet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Okay. How much is
built on the ground today?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Built on the ground today is 557,154
square feet of retail and 29,489 square feet of office.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the total?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That would be about 586,600.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. How could it be 500 when you
started out with 557-?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Plus 29,000, would be 580-. Yeah,
29,000 of office gets added to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So the total is about 586, five.
Page 202
January 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You've still got 2,500 -- 25,000
square feet to go before you have to do the improvements.
MR. MUDD: 250,000.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 250,000, 250,000. Put the aerial
map back on there. And that's what's there today.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Except for the parcel that's labeled Kohl's
on the north side right here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not within your project?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That is within our project, but it's not
constructed today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So you could get to a
point where you reach that -- another 250,000 and the whole project's
built out.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, the problem we have,
Commissioner, is of the remaining square footage, which is roughly
310,000 that we have left, 90,000 of it's retail, 220,000 square feet of
it's office. And since 1994, we haven't been successful in marketing or
having any office users come take that square footage.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, yeah, I understand that. I
just want to know what you're asking. There's so much numbers
thrown out here.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure, I understand that, and I'm sorry
about that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And when is this infrastructure
going to be added?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We are -- if I may.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Weare willing to limit our total project
to 805,000 square feet until we build the additional infrastructure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understand that, and you did
say that, right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, yes.
Page 203
January 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But the problem is, I think
you're at half a million now on the ground?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're over that. We're almost -- we're at
586,000 square feet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And so looking -- getting
stuck in the traffic over there, knowing what's there and what's left,
knowing that you have surface water management and that, are you
going to be able to put it above that 250,000 threshold? I don't know.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We have looked --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's a mess today.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well -- and what we're talking about, our
transportation improvements that we're -- are not currently
requirements of the PUD today. So we're taking -- we're basically
going back and fixing --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- an older PUD, and this is an older
PUD . We're fixing that situation. And to answer your question, can
we fit the request? I'm told, yes, we can fit the request.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: On the project.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just don't know if I agree with
that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That we can fit it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You can fit an extra, I don't
know, 500,000 or whatever more retail there, basically double what
you have on the ground today.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. But I am told -- my client tells me
that it will -- we will fit it on the site, meet all the development
standards, meet all the parking requirements. And if we don't, then
we've asked too much and we will have left it on the table, if you will.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know, and then the
interconnections will never be built.
Page 204
January 23-24,2007
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. I have to build those before I get
anything new. Before I get beyond 805-.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, anything new. I thought --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Anything over 805- -- anything over
805,000 square feet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if I understand correctly,
Mr. Y ovanovich --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I have to build the interconnection.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- you're not at 850- today.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I see what you're saying,
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So when you reach 850-, you
might not have anything on the ground left to build on.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand your concern.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Then the interconnect doesn't
happen --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I agree.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's a problem today.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You want to make sure that the
interconnection gets built before we move forward; is that -- is that a
fair synopsis?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think it's a reasonable request.
I don't know if I'm going to vote for it or not personally.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let's go to Commissioner Halas,
and he might help us make up our minds. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much. I need
some direction here from Nick, our transportation engineer.
Nick, in our packet on page 38 of 159, it basically -- if you'd look
-- I don't know if you have --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't have that in front of me, sir, no.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I showed you this the other
day where it was the traffic impact of this Pine Air in regards to a 25 --
or excuse me, 26 percent increase on Pine Ridge Road.
Page 205
January 23-24, 2007
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I believe there's a 20 percent -- 26
percent total impact on Pine Ridge Road for the whole DR!, not a 26
percent increase.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, okay. Then still a 20 percent
-- 26 percent increase on the road.
I look back past the intersection of Airport Road and Pine Ridge,
and I see there's a 14 percent increase, okay, from this DRI; is that
correct?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If I'm referring to the document you
showed me that said 14 percent impact, the entire DR!?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It says 14 percent, exactly.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. Not an increase though, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, where I'm going with this is
that we have worked very hard, and I think the transportation
department has worked very hard, in addressing issues on Pine Ridge
Road.
As you know, we've got a PUD that was before us a couple of
years ago, and it's located in the southwest corner of Pine Ridge Road
and at Goodlette Road, and it's just finishing up, and there's also some
additional building that's going to go up.
On the northeast corner of Pine Ridge Road and Goodlette,
there's also another PUD that's being built out.
My concern is that we've worked -- everybody's worked
diligently on trying to do the timing of the lights, then we put SCOOT
in, and I believe the end result was we had a 6 percent increase in
traffic flow.
N ow we're looking at increasing the retail at this location and not
really addressing what's going to take place on Pine Ridge Road so it
doesn't -- isn't a detriment to the traffic flow.
The stacking lanes that head east and make a turn north on
Naples Boulevard, those are built out to the max.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct.
Page 206
January 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That intersection where
Naples Boulevard intersects with Pine Ridge, there's no way that we
can address that as far as intersection enhancements?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We are right-of-way constrained at
this location, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. We're constrained. Now
we're looking at taking and looking for another access to the -- from
the north onto Corporation Boulevard, which leads us into J &C, which
is nothing but a heavy industrial area with cement trucks and all this
other stuff, and we're saying that that's going to be an avenue that
we're going to be able to shuttle people out so that they can go down
Shirley Street or Taylor Street. And if we do, there's no way you can
make intersection improvements there.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And as a correction. It's not meant to
divert traffic to those roads. It's meant to facilitate the traffic between
industrial park and the commercial development.
For instance, I'll give you an example. I work in the industrial
park and I need to go to Staples and I want to grab some lunch. Right
now you need to go out to Airport Road or Pine Ridge, come in, come
back out through those intersections and back to the industrial park.
The idea would be that if you work in that area, now you can get to
the industrial park without ever hitting the two arterial roadways.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But you're also using this as an
avenue because you know that the intersection of Naples Boulevard
and Pine Ridge right today is a congested area and it's very difficult to
get out of that area?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So all we're going to do is
exacerbate the problem when we add additional development that's
retail, and retail draws people, lots of people.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: What we've done when we looked at
that and when we discussed it a little bit further is, when you look at
Page 207
January 23-24, 2007
office trips during the day, they're typically condensed to an hour
period. You know, they typically start at the same time, leave at the
same time. The daily interactions, you may have, depending on what
type of offices, you'll have daily interaction as well, too.
Commercial traffic is typically spaced out more. Especially
some of the retail that's going in now doesn't begin to go until later in
the morning, so you've avoided the a.m. peak. You'll have more daily
trips.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: More daily trips.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And when we reviewed this thing, the
p.m. peak trips that they're asking for is higher, so what we've done as
staff have said, how can we mitigate that roughly 10 percent increase
in p.m. peak trips?
We've said the interconnection will probably relieve anywhere
from five to 10, and we've said conservatively five. We've got the
operational improvements to the eastbound lefts, northbound lefts, the
SCOOT, would mitigate for the other trips that were coming in as
well, too. So we've looked to mitigate for those things as part of this.
So that's what we've done as part of our recommendations.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Another concern I have, the
stacking lanes that are heading south at the intersection of Pine Ridge
and Airport, there's no way we can extend those stacking lanes for
people that want to go in the easterly direction onto Pine Ridge?
Yeah, on Pine Ridge, excuse me, yes.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You might have -- I'm going off of
memory.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: There's -- right now there's two
stacking lanes that make a left-hand turn to head eastbound.
MR. SCOTT: Not without taking a left out.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. You'd be removing a left, and
if I'm looking at that aerial correctly, you might have 40 to 50 feet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what we have at Pine Ridge
Page 208
January 23-24, 2007
and Airport-Pulling is what we have.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You could squeeze a little more out of
there, but you've pretty much wiped out all the landscaping on that
section of roadway.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. So what we have is what we
have to live with. And my concern is, is that we have additional
development that's scheduled to come online. It's already been
approved on Airport, just north of Orange Blossom, there's a big
development that's going on there, and then we've got some other infill
that's taking place, we're in the process of finishing up another activity
center at Vanderbilt Beach Road and Airport, and then we have -- also
have to figure out what we're going to do as far as with all the Estates
traffic that is going to be coming in as that gets built out, because
that's going to be using Pine Ridge, and obviously Immokalee loop
road, and it's going to be using Vanderbilt Beach Road. But the
impact is going from where we are today to 90,000 to 125,000 people
coming into this area to go shopping.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The only thing I can say, my concern
isn't as much Airport Road. We've had a significant reduction with
the opening of Livingston. I think Airport Road and the infill you
have left would be okay. Pine Ridge Road is a concern.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's a big concern.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We anticipate -- we're optimistic at 10,
maybe 15 percent reduction with the interchange opening up.
Obviously the closer you get to the interchange, you'll see more of that
reduction coming off. But we anticipate that will be a significant
drop-off as well, too. In the days when I visited Collier County, my
frustration with trying to leave, and my only way to the highway was
Pine Ridge and that area. So I hope that the Parkway will take some
of that off, and that's opening soon.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. My biggest concern is the
stretch of Pine Ridge from Goodlette-Frank Road to Airport, that's a
Page 209
January 23-24, 2007
huge bottleneck, and I think that all we're going to do is compound the
problem because I don't believe we've got any room in there to do any
stacking, additional lanes or extending the stacking lane for people
that want to turn north and either go into Home Depot or into this
complex.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The transportation element, if you
don't have commercial in a certain location, people have to drive back
past that location to get to another location. In other words, if you've
got residential areas that are developing nearby, how much farther will
they have to drive to get to the commercial that's needed to be able to
sustain them?
And I thought that, you know, we were supportive in the past of
trying to concentrate the commercial in given areas so that it would be
-- and meet the needs. I mean, here we have a project that it's got that
road that goes through there. You couldn't ask for a better setup.
What better place for commercial than right there?
Drive down the road a little farther, it's less likely to be able to
work. I have reservations on not putting it there, to be honest with
you.
The transportation staff, did they concur with the Regional
Planning Council? Staff, transportation?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We've talked with them, sir, and yes,
we agree on the mitigation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What was the final outcome of all
your discussions back and forth in your agreement?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We had similar discussions about
agreeing that it was a commercial center and that the trip mixing and
the balancing between the different commercial uses would be better
suited, and they were supportive of our mitigation request that we put
on as the proposals in the recommendation for approval.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Commissioner Halas sparked
Page 210
January 23-24, 2007
a -- something as far as I'm concerned when he mentioned about the
developments that have already been approved in that area and haven't
even been built yet, and I'm wondering -- I'd really like to see what
else we've got even pouring into that area. That could be a real
dangerous area.
And I wondering also what transportation feels. You know, Pine
Ridge can't be changed any more. You can't fit anything more on
there, and it's always a parking lot anyway. I don't care what time of
day you're there, it's always a parking lot.
How do you feel that this is going to impact Pine Ridge Road?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Again, our concern when we looked at
it is, your typical office is more condensed in the a.m. and the p.m.,
most of your traffic complaints come in, that a.m. or p.m. complaint is
that, I can't get to work, that's my time I go to work or that's the time I
leave work, and office space tends to exaggerate that because they all
come into work about the same time.
And commercial, although it may add trips, it's more spaced out
during the day . My wife said, I hope you support it. I want to see
more shopping there because she goes during the day, and it's not
during that a.m. peak or the p.m. peak.
So from our point of view, you supported the conversion to
commercial. We went above and beyond again getting as many
mitigation measures as we could from them, so we feel that that's a
better use of that area, and with the mitigation, the interconnection, it
would help facilitate things like that.
The signal, I know Mr. Y ovanovich had mentioned the
interconnection. The biggest complaint we have is from people trying
to get out of that commercial development.
Quite honestly, I don't -- I'm not concerned with that as much as I
am Naples Boulevard and even more concerned with Airport and Pine
Ridge.
So I think we've asked for appropriate mitigation. You all make
Page 211
January 23-24, 2007
the decision, but we're supportive of this switch to commercial.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you happen to know what other
development is going to take place right on that -- right in that, say,
one-mile radius there?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I know that in that Goodlette corner
PUD there's a medical center, retail, specialty retail shopping, the one
that's on the northeast corner of Goodlette. And on Pine Ridge Road
there's a Sweetbay and a bank, local uses.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: There's a nursery. I think there's a
nursery also that was -- went through a PUD process, and that's going
to be both mixed use there, I believe.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And King Richards, too, right?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, that's going to be coming up
in the near future.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other comments, questions?
Motion?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, if I may.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Speakers?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If I can, if we could continue this for a
couple of weeks, I'd like to get some additional information on some
of the questions that were just asked so that we could provide --
provide that information to the commission and address other
concerns that were raised during the discussion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'd like to step off the dais
and show the board my concerns, and I think it can be addressed. If
you don't mind?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Real quick.
This piece and this piece and this piece is the only one to be
developed, what I see. And if it's true that they could build another
Page 212
January 23-24, 2007
250,000 square feet of retail, that will happen in here, and you'll never
get the interconnections. I think the interconnections, in my
perspective, it needs to go in a time frame or when A, B or C parcel is
built upon. That's all.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Well, the petitioner has asked
for a continuance so they could come back and address the issues in
the peripheral area around their development to be able to see what all
the repercussions would be.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to continue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I second that.
And hearing that, we've got a motion to continue and a second.
Any discussion?
MS. FILSON: Do you want to do the speakers?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, you've got
your light on.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You can turn it off.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We've got -- excuse me. We do have
two speakers, and we're going to hear them first before we vote.
MS. FILSON: First one is Tim Hancock.
MR. HANCOCK: I waive.
MS. FILSON: Followed by Allan Jones.
MR. JONES: I'd just like to address the one, and it's been
brought up already, that one --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Name, please.
MR. MUDD: State your name for the record.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: State your name for the record.
MR. JONES: My name's Allan Jones.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. JONES: The intersection of Naples Boulevard and Pine
Ridge Road -- and I live just to the west of this area. I'm in and out of
that area frequently different times of the day. It's always a horror
show. And it's -- as I see it now, it's only 50 percent occupied or at--
Page 213
January 23-24, 2007
activity right now.
When you're coming out of there -- well, first of all, when you're
going in, that stack lane is full frequently all the way out. There's no
additional space there.
You get in there, the first obstruction you have is you're crossing
the traffic trying to go in and out of Home Depot, and this begins with
the craftsmen going in there in the morning to pick up supplies, goes
all day long. You have to go past this traffic. They're trying to get
out, you're trying to get past. This goes on.
You go down in here. Now, I won't talk too much about other
than it's a horror show throughout all of Naples Boulevard, but Rich
talks about other roads might improve it, maybe.
When you're coming out of Naples Boulevard and you get back
up to that intersection, now you're in another line of traffic to make the
right-hand turn if you're going to go west on Pine Ridge Road. That
traffic now backs up and blocks the driveways coming out of that little
center that's there at the corner of Naples Boulevard. It's an old
established center there. Blocks their driveway.
It extends back to the Naples hospital spot there, blocks their
driveway, it also impedes the traffic that still wants to come out of
Home Depot. You can't come across Naples Boulevard unless you've
got a place to go.
So people are getting frustrated, and they're taking any opening
that comes and they're jumping out. To me, that's just too much
hazard to bring into the picture, to add it, and we're only 50 percent
done. It's -- I just can't see it.
A couple of other points. In recognition of the intensity brought
by retail, there's a formula. You can exchange office space for a -- in a
4-1 ratio with retail. You can get one-fourth the retail for the office.
Now, are you going to surrender some office space here? But
you're not doing it at a 4-1 ratio, from what I can see.
My own personnel opinion, I think what would be west in there,
Page 214
January 23-24, 2007
you put your retail and you put your office space the way it was
originally thought of, and this was even before Pine Ridge Road and
Airport became what it is today, this is back in '85 when we were
talking about not east coasting the west coast. That's gone too.
Go back to that formula and that mix and then up over the office
space put some apartments. Make it a proper use of the area and the
people working in there, as well as the industrial behind, could live in
the apartments. That would resolve another problem.
I'll continue at the continuance.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Very well put. We do appreciate it.
Mr. Y ovanovich, please be brief.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I will. I just wanted to clarify that the
actual continuance is probably going to take 30 days for us to --
MR. MUDD: 13 March.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- get the information to staff and them
be able to put it in your agenda packets. So I think I said two weeks
earlier. I think I've been told three.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You need every minute of every -- of
the day that you can get ahold of to be able to come back with a
package that's going to sell this commission, I can tell you that. So 30
days sounds realistic to me, and would you want to include that in the
motion, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: March 13th.
MR. MUDD: March 13th.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: March 13th, okay.
Commissioner Henning, any -- you're shaking your head no.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't have anything else.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. With that, is there anything
else to add?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing nothing, all those in favor of
the motion to continue, indicate by saying aye.
Page 215
January 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0. Thank you very
much.
MS. FILSON: Is that for both items, Commissioner?
MR. MUDD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Both items, yes.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're going to take a break right
now, short break, because it's time.
MR. MUDD: Why?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Every hour and a half, a break. We
made a deal in the contract with the court reporter that we'd take a
break every hour and a half.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And it's been two hours.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And it's been two hours.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Commissioner, this brings us to a time certain item that's at 4:30,
and it -- and we'll -- and it's under section 14. And right now you have
to convene to the CRA board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: The meeting will come to order for the
board of the CRA.
Item #14A
Page 216
January 23-24, 2007
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BCC) ACTING AS
THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY (CRA) APOINT A NEW CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR
FOR THE CRA. MAKE THE ANNUAL MEETING
REQUIREMENT TRANSPIRE IN MARCH OF EACH YEAR -
MOTION TO KEEP DONNA FIALA AS CHAIRMAN -
APPROVED; VICE CHAIRMAN IS JIM COLETTA - APPROVED
MOTION TO MOVE ANNUAL MEETING TO MARCH -
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Okay. The first item is 14A. This item to be heard
at 4:30. Again, it's to recommend the Board of County
Commissioners, acting as the Collier County Community
Redevelopment Agency, appoint a new chair and vice-chair for the
CRA, direct the county manager or his designee to prepare the annual
report required by Florida Statute 163.356.3.C by March 31 of each
calendar year, and to direct the county manager or his designee to
modify resolution 2001-98, which requires the CRA to hold an annual
meeting in January of each year, to make the annual meeting
requirement transpire in March of each year instead when the annual
report is required so that you'll have something to talk about at your
annual report.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: This is really a two-part issue, right?
First we need to elect our chair and vice-chair.
MR. MUDD: That's the first thing.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And then we need to change the annual
meeting --
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. I think you--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- so that we're all in agreement.
MR. MUDD: -- pretty much cover it, and we do the annual
report every year.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure. That's a good thing. Okay, fine.
Page 217
January 23-24, 2007
So may I hear a motion --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to have Donna Fiala
stay as the --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- chair.
MS. FILSON: Who did the second?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That was so fast, I could still see smoke.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we didn't want you to get
up and walk away.
MS. FILSON: Who made the second?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Frank Halas.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
MR. MUDD: Vice-chair.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And then vice-chair. I would like to
nominate Jim Coletta as vice-chair.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. You have CRAs in your district,
too, you know.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Page 218
January 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. We have a chair and a
vice-chair.
And now we want to talk about the meeting, and very good
points. I'm sure everybody's read it, so we don't even need to go
through it, and that is, being that the reporting period is really in
March, we should really change our annual meeting to March.
May I hear a motion to do so?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I hear a motion on the floor from
Commissioner Halas and a second from Commissioner Coletta.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, I've got everything I need on 14A.
Item #14B
AN OFFICE TO BE ESTABLISHED IN IMMOKALEE BY THE
COLLIER COUNTY CRA FOR THE IMMOKALEE
REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD AND IMMOKALEE
ENTERPRISE ZONE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY - APPROVED
Brings us to 14B. This item to be heard at 4:30 p.m. It is to be --
Page 219
January 23-24, 2007
and is to be heard before companion item lOB. This is a
recommendation of the Immokalee Redevelopment Advisory Board
and Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency to the Collier
County Community Redevelopment Agency to establish an office in
Immokalee.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
MS. FILSON: I have speakers.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I still make a motion to approve.
Forget the speakers.
MR. MUDD: And Mr. Thomas Greenwood from community
development's environmental services compo planning, will present.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're going to talk us out of it,
huh?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. You've already got everything
that's in that 14 -- what is it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: B.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 14B. Everything's already intact. Do
you really want to talk about it?
MR. GREENWOOD: That's up to the commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, no. It's up to you.
MR. GREENWOOD: I don't need to talk about it. If you have
any questions --
COMMISSIONER HENNING; I do.
MR. GREENWOOD: -- this is Fred Thomas. And Fred is the
chair of the three groups out there in Immokalee Master Planning
Envisioning Committee.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't have any questions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I do.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning.
MS. FILSON: What was your name, sir?
MR. MUDD: Tom, state your name for the record.
Page 220
January 23-24,2007
MR. GREENWOOD: Oh, my name is Tom Greenwood. I'm
comprehensive planning department.
MR. THOMAS: And as part of the program, my name is Fred
Thomas. I'm the chairman of the Immokalee Master Plan Envisioning
Committee and the CRA Advisory Board.
I want to pass out some documents to board members.
MS. FILSON: So is he going to speak first?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know he does.
Commissioner Henning, anytime you want to drop your question,
I'm sure that they'll hear you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. First question, who's the
chair of the -- of this item?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I am --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- because this is still CRA business.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So I guess you're
recognizing me, and --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, yeah. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Forgive me. You're right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And are we --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Force of habit.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I was speaking --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we approving attachment
A?
MR. GREEN: Tom Greenwood again, comprehensive planning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is the motion, Madam Chair,
included in approving attachment A?
MS. FILSON: Commissioner Coyle, you made the motion.
MR. GREENWOOD: No. The recommendation from the CRA
Advisory Board in Immokalee and the Enterprise Zone Development
Agency was to establish an office in Immokalee that would operate
similar to the Bayshore Development Triangle office. The office
Page 221
January 23-24, 2007
would be proposed to be in leased or rented building space there. And
whatever staff that would be authorized would also probably be in the
same office where the Chamber of Commerce is and also Enterprise
Zone Development -- I should say the Collier County Economic
Development Council office would be.
The recommendation from the advisory board in Immokalee was
to fund the office with 50 percent fund 186, which is TIF revenues,
and 50 percent general revenues.
The staff recommendation, however, is to fund the office entirely
with TIF revenues, or fund 186 revenues. And attachment C is a
five-year projection of revenues. There's also an attachment B.
The bottom line is that the TIF revenues can, as proj ected, fund
the office out there and still have funds available to basically target
and carry out plans and programs that are being talked about right now
in the Immokalee --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe I should direct my
question to the motion maker. Are we approving staff
recommendations --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, to fund it through tax
increment and financing funds.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And this is for the joint
office?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And nothing more?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. You've answered my
question. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Question I have is, you're talking
about an office. Where's this office going to be located? You going
to rent an office in downtown Immokalee?
MR. THOMAS: Let me start out at the beginning.
Page 222
January 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Your name, for the record.
MR. THOMAS: Fred Thomas, the chairman of the Immokalee--
I mean the CRA Advisory Council. That's the hat I'm wearing at this
particular time.
I passed out an attachment to you folks. If you look on the third
page of this attachment, you'll see a map of Florida with some red
counties in the middle of it.
Those red counties are part of that area of critical rural economic
concern, and Immokalee is a part of that zone. That zone is the zone
in which we are going to be competing to develop in Immokalee, a lot
of industry, high-tech industry and whatnot, that has a joint venture
that's consistent with the memorandum agreement that you approved
at a recent meeting.
In order for us to be able to compete -- we're not competing with
coastal Collier County. We're competing with other counties within
the central part of the state that are working very hard to do that.
Also understand that while staff is looking at us to be padding a
lot like the Bayshore group, we're significantly different from the
Bayshore group in that we have in our community a state enterprise
zone, a federal empowerment zone, the area of rural economic
concern.
And for many years you all have been funding our state
enterprise zone with $150,000 a year out of the regular funds. We
would like to keep those funds coming because we know that by using
those funds to help implement the incentives under the state enterprise
zone, we can increase the tax base for Collier County by having more
industry come to us.
But we have to -- we have to do a couple of things first. We have
to change our land development code so we can compete with Central
Florida, encourage more businesses, encourage more housing for all
ranges of the housing service because as many of you know, 80
percent of our schoolteachers don't live in Immokalee, and they don't
Page 223
January 23-24, 2007
live in Immokalee, not because we haven't got the housing for them,
but we haven't got the support of services.
But with the advent of Ave Maria and other programs like that,
we'll have more of those big boxes, movie theaters and stuff like that
to make it work. But we also have to do things to attract industry to
our area, to attract industry.
And with our tax increment funds, we may have to use those to
help develop some of the land out there by putting some of the roads
in. This is what other communities do around the country to
encourage the development to come to put us in a position to compete.
So we would like to see the staff out there that could be dealing
with Immokalee, working in close conjunction with the Chamber of
Commerce, the EDC, the state enterprise zone, the federal
empowerment zone, and I said Chamber of Commerce. In fact, we
have in the office, in the room now, Ms. Terri Williams from the
Williams family who has a perfect location in the northern part of
Immokalee to house all these as she's making that -- going to make
that space available for us, the chamber and whatnot, to co-locate in
that particular location.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I have any other questions,
Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You've got Commissioner
Halas.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I just don't -- I can't turn the button off.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. That's right, you
can't. You instruct me to.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a couple questions. Oh.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: After you, after you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: First of all, I think it's an outstanding idea
to have an office of your own. You need to have that in order to move
forward and for people to have a place to call on you. I think it's also
an excellent idea to have an executive director, somebody just totally
Page 224
January 23-24, 2007
focused and dedicated on that initiative.
Now, in this -- in this executive summary and in the back pages, I
didn't see anything about what kind of TIF funds are coming in right
now and if you have any record of what came in last year and what's
coming in this year so we have an idea of what we're talking about,
and also what the county -- you were saying the county puts in
$150,000 every year for -- from general fund for the enterprise zone?
MR. THOMAS: The state enterprise zone, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And do you get any money from
federal money in dollars?
MR. THOMAS: Not right now, no, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But you're poised and hoping to get
something?
MR. THOMAS: We're poised and hoping to get some of that
through the area of critical rural economic concern.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. THOMAS: Why don't you answer the -- he's got the details
for the questions for --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great. Maybe he could put them in
the projector. Jim, could you -- if those are the -- are those the figures
for the TIF funds that have been received?
Great. Just curious.
MR. GREENWOOD: I've actually put a circle around the
numbers, but right in the revenue area, there are proj ected transfers
you can see for the next five years, and it ranges from just over
800,000 to over a million dollars. Those numbers were prepared by a
budget analyst.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So this is what you project to get this year
is 800,000, right?
MR. GREENWOOD: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. THOMAS: And the quicker we attract industry, the higher
Page 225
January 23-24, 2007
that number would go up and make it possible to provide other
services and whatnot in our community.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much.
Mr. Thomas, this money at this present point in time is being --
coming from the county to pay for the funds of the redevelopment
agency, correct?
MR. THOMAS: No. Just for the state enterprise zone, the
$150,000 state enterprise.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: With the state enterprise zone.
That comes from the county already?
MR. THOMAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And now when you start your
CRA office over there and you're doing that, you're also going to take
over that duty; is that correct?
MR. THOMAS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And so your justification is, is
that you're assuming that duty, and it's going to be drawing down your
revenue you can use to be able to grow the mission?
MR. THOMAS: Yes, sir. Can you imagine an office where
anybody that's interested in development in Immokalee can come to
an office, learn what the master plan's all about, learn what incentives
there are from the state, what incentives there are from the Feds, the
foreign trade zone, get some help from EDC, even start the
development process right in that office with our own Land
Development Code to make things happen so it all is happening just
like it happens in the other counties that we're competing with.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We know what an office will do.
Yeah. I hate to cut you off, but we're -- go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may. Mr. Thomas, I
understand about that $150,000. I do support you on that. I would -- I
Page 226
January 23-24, 2007
would -- I can't force the motion maker to include it, but my
justification would be, if we could do it for one year as the transition
period is taking place, this will allow them to be able to not only just
cover the cost of an office, but be able to keep the mission intact to be
able to go forward. It would make all the difference in the world.
And the savings later will be $150,000 the following year that we
would have been paying out of our general fund to be able to cover the
cost. So could the motion maker give consideration to $150,000 for a
year?
Boy, the silence is deafening.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is that over and above the 150,000 we
give them now?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no, no. That would -- the
$150,000 is going to cease when they get their office together, the
CRA office, and they'll have to take it from the TIF funds that they've
got. And so this would help to offset it for one year so they could get
-- I'm sorry, Mr. Mudd, you've got something to say?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I've got -- I've got an issue. This
$150,000, staff -- I can't get anybody in staff to tell me that $150,000
goes anywhere, okay? I know of no $150,000 that goes to the state
enterprise zone out in Immokalee.
Fred, I'm -- I've asked it at the staff meeting.
MR. THOMAS: You are very right, Mr. Mudd, and that's why
that enterprise zone has not flourished like it is supposed to flourish,
given the incentives to get businesses to come. That's exactly what
the problem has been.
MR. MUDD: Okay. I'm just -- right now you give nothing to
the Immokalee Enterprise Zone. I just want to make sure you
understand.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, it makes it a little more
difficult with the argument, but --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, it doesn't. It makes it real
Page 227
January 23-24, 2007
easy.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It does for me.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's tax increment financing. It
indicates there's enough here to do the job. Let's use it to do the job.
That's what it's here for. We're going to have to treat all of the -- all of
the CRAs equally.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle addressed
it, so I'm going to call the motion.
MS. FILSON: I have speakers.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, ma'am.
MS. FILSON: You want to hear the speakers?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay. I'm so sorry, yes. I didn't
realize there were --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would have told you, but I'm
not the chair.
MS. FILSON: Robert Mulhere. He'll be followed by Richard
Rice. And I had Fred Thomas, but he spoke.
MR. MULHERE: Good afternoon. For the record, Bob
Mulhere, here this afternoon on behalf of the EDC in support of this
item.
Just to be brief, I'm not -- certainly not going to get into the
discussion of how the funding should occur. I think it's an important
thing, and the EDC thinks it's an important thing that there be an
office and that we create some synergy and some teamwork out there
to forward this initiative. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Richard Rice.
MR. RICE: I'm Richard Rice, the executive director of the
Immokalee Chamber of Commerce. And I only want to throw our
endorsement into this proj ect because as we look to eastern Collier
County to the growth area that's going to be corning out there, we have
to be in the forefront and be ready to meet that growth, and the only
Page 228
January 23-24, 2007
way we're going to be able to do that is to establish those entities
offices that could help facilitate that. So I wholeheartedly endorse
this.
MS. FILSON: That's your final speaker, Ms. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Okay. All those in favor,
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Motion is carried.
May I turn the meeting back over to you, sir?
MR. THOMAS: Thank you very much, Commissioners. Thank
you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You did such a wonderful job. I hate
to take it back.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, go ahead.
Item #lOB
AN OFFICE TO BE ESTABLISHED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IN IMMOKALEE FOR THE
IMMOKALEE REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD AND
IMMOKALEE ENTERPRISE ZONE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AS REQUESTED BY THE CRA - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Next item is lOB.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, 1 OB. You go back to the Board of
County Commissioners, and this is the companion item to the one that
Page 229
January 23-24, 2007
you just approved, l4B, and it's a recommendation of the Immokalee
Redevelopment Advisory Board and Immokalee Enterprise Zone
Development Agency to the Collier County Board of Commissioners
to establish an office in Immokalee, and Mr. Thomas Greenwald (sic)
in staff will stand there and answer any questions you have.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Am I conducting this one again?
MR. MUDD: No, ma'am, you're not.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: The CRAjust ended.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This is -- the CRA has sent the
recommendations on to the commission. Now the commission has to
duplicate it all over again. Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have a motion to approve from
Commissioner Coletta, myself, and from Commissioner Coyle, a
second.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. The ayes have it, 5-0. Thank
you very much for coming all the way from Immokalee.
MR. THOMAS: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
Item #lOC
Page 230
January 23-24, 2007
QUARTERLY REPORT FROM THE IMMOKALEE ENTERPRISE
ZONE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO THE COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PROGRESS
ENDING ON DECEMBER 31. 2006 - ACCEPTED
MR. MUDD: Well, they could stick around just a little bit
longer. We've got a 10:45 (sic) for them. The next item is lOCo This
item to be heard at 4:45. It's the quarterly report of the Immokalee
Enterprise Zone Development Agency to the Collier County Board of
Commissioners of progress ending on December 31, 2006.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They left.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think they misunderstood that that
item was here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Go get them out there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, hey, stop them at the elevator.
Cut them off at the pass. Bring them back in here.
MR. MUDD: That's what I was getting at. That's why we
bunched all these together --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's right.
MR. MUDD: -- so the Immokalee folks could listen to them
both.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. The item number again,
please, the number.
MR. MUDD: This is number 10C, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who's giving this quarterly report?
Oh.
MR. MUDD: I believe it's Tom Greenwald (sic) again.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: You can never sit down.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's do it.
MR. GREENWOOD: Tom Greenwood, again, comprehensive
Page 231
January 23-24, 2007
planning. This really is a quarterly report of the Enterprise Zone
Development Agency, and it's required by ordinance 95-22. I don't
know that historically this has come to you every quarter, but it's just a
summary of some of the activities of the enterprise zone.
I might also mention that I've worked with Immokalee for
probably the last seven or eight months, and it's mostly in the area of
updating the master plan out there with the consultant, which is under
contract with the county, and in the rural land stewardship area and
with them in respect to the Enterprise Zone Development Agency
activities and their CRA advisory board activities.
And really that's the only report I have for you. And if you have
any questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there any speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve. I'm sorry, go
ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Do we still own -- I'd
understood we owned three acres out there. Are they still under
negotiation?
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, you're talking about gold number two,
number two?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, gold number two.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir -- ma'am, we're still under negotiation
trying to figure out how one stop is going to fit in there and how
they're going to do it. We've had -- Leo's had a meeting with Mr. Joe
Paterno and group. You want to --
MR.OCHS: For the record, Leo Ochs, deputy county manager.
Yes, Commissioner, we've met with officials from both the
school district and the Workforce Development Board, Mr. Paterno
and Mr. Berryman, and we're continuing the discussions with them to
outline all of the options before we bring back recommendations to
this board.
Page 232
January 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
I'm sorry, Commissioner Fiala, are there any other questions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm finished, no.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Is the motion to accept
the report or approve the report?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: To recommend that the -- to approve
the report. Why wouldn't we approve it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because -- it should be
accepting because you're just -- somebody's just come up here giving
you a status report, you accept it saying, hey, thank you very much,
we accept your report, blah-blah-blah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I amend my motion to
accepting the report.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And did you get a second?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, I didn't.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Coletta to
accept the report, seconded by Commissioner Halas to endorsing it.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
Page 233
January 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it. Thank you. You
can go now.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you know, we're back on
advertised public hearings, but I don't know if you can -- we'll see
what happens.
Item #8E
ORDINANCE 2007-06: REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO
THE PINE VIEW PUD TO PERMIT AUTOMOTIVE SALES
WITHIN THE PUD AND INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE
BUILDING HEIGHT FROM 35 FEET TO 45 FEET. LOCATED
ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PINE RIDGE ROAD AND
WHIPPOORWILL LANE - ADOPTED W/CHANGE (WITHOUT
ITEM # 1)
MR MUDD: Brings us to our next item which is 8E. This item
requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
provided by commission members.
It's petition PUDA-2005-AR-78l8, Freeland and Schuh, Inc.,
represented by Tim Hancock of Davidson Engineering is requesting
an amendment to the Pine View PUD to permit automotive sales
within the PUD and increase the allowable building height from 35
feet to 45 feet.
The subject property consisting of 15.5 acres is located on the
southwest corner of Pine Ridge Road and Whippoorwill Lane in
Section 18, Township 49 south, Range 26 east, Collier County,
Florida.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. All those wishing to
participate, please stand at this time to be sworn in by the court
reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
Page 234
January 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And we'll-- disclosures now
from the commissioners, starting with Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Doesn't look like I have any of
them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: On 8E.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 8 Edward?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Edward.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've had a meeting with the
petitioner's agent, and I've also spoken to the transportation
department.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have spoken to staff and I met with
Tim Hancock and Ben Freeland.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I've had email. I've spoken to
staff on this particular item, and I believe that's all of my disclosures at
this time.
MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name's Tim
Hancock with Davidson Engineering, agent for the applicant, Freeland
and Schuh, the property owner, or as I know him, Ben Freeland, who
has owned and operated Naples Nissan for some time.
The Freeland family and the automotive industry in Southwest
Florida has a longstanding history. Ben Freeland is here today and has
been sworn in and can provide any question -- or answers to questions
you may have.
In addition, along with our team, we have Mr. Clay Brooker
who's counsel for the applicant present; we also have Mr. Reed Jarvi,
P .E., a transportation engineer with Vanasse Daylor, who has prepared
a lengthy and diligent report that your staff has reviewed, and I think
we'll get to the crux of any issues that surround this particular
application.
Page 235
January 23-24, 2007
The nexus of this application to amend the Pine View PUD was
very simple initially. We have an existing approved commercial
planned unit development that allows for retail and office
development at Whippoorwill and Pine Ridge. The zoning exists,
there's no cap on square footage. Realistically, you could look at
approximately 150,000 square feet of retail at this corner under the
existing zoning.
When we filed the application, we had one goal in mind, add
automotive retail facilities, period. Two years later, here we sit. And
there's been a number of reasons why it's taken this long, but the
bottom line is, that the Naples Nissan has outgrown their existing
facility on Airport Road.
They are an existing business in Collier County, an existing
employer with a great track record. And without this amendment,
there's really not too many places in Collier County, as Mr. Freeland
found; basically nowhere to go. And so he's got all his eggs in this
basket, and I ask you to keep that in mind as we go through the proj ect
today.
In the interest of time and understanding that you have citizens
here on another matter, I will be as brief as I can and try and hit on the
key points that I think are going to be raised and may be of concern to
you.
This aerial paragraph simply orients you to the property. Pine
Ridge Road is to the north, I - 75 is to the east. This is Livingston Road
to the west, and you can see the property identified right here. And
Whippoorwill Lane extends from Pine Ridge south to the terminus
down here where development has occurred.
More to the point, or closer to the property, again, here's the
intersection of Whippoorwill and Pine Ridge, which will be the
primary point of discussion on the transportation side of things.
There's a Chevron gas station on this corner, the entrance to the rear of
that gas station is Dudley Drive.
Page 236
January 23-24, 2007
Our friends at Seagate Baptist Church are further down the road
here. Hospice of Naples is to our rear, as I'm highlighting here. And
across Pine Ridge Road you have a myriad of commercial activity to
the north.
This is a map of activity center number 10. Before Mr. Freeland
purchased this property, he met with county comprehensive planning
staff, received a fairly innocuous, you know, nod that this is an
interchange activity center, this is exactly where more incentive uses
are supposed to be and that what he is proposing was at least
compatible with the permitted uses. The fact that the property is
already zoned for more intensive uses, I think, is a critical point.
The proposed plan is to place the automotive dealership on the
forward one half of the property. There's an interconnection that is
proposed to the Kraft property to the east that was a requirement of
your transportation staff, and a perpetual use easement will allow that
traffic to move over and through the Naples Nissan site to
Whippoorwill.
I would like to correct something that's very important from the
transportation standpoint that is in your staff report. Page 4 of 5 of
your executive summary says that this project is inconsistent with
policies 5.1 and 5.2. If you notice on page 2 of 5 it states that it is
consistent with 5.1. I've confirmed with Mr. DeRuntz that the second
statement of inconsistency is a typo. This project was deemed by staff
to be both -- consistent with both policies 5.1 and 5.2.
In accordance with other elements of the Growth Management
Plan, particularly those focusing on economic development, this
project has two primary facets. One is the retention and expansion of
an existing viable business in Collier County, Naples Nissan.
The second -- and a member of the EDC is here today to speak to
it if you have questions -- is that this building will also house on the
second floor a Mobile Net, Internet technology company that has
qualified under the EDC for high-tech, high-wage job creation.
Page 237
January 23-24,2007
So the two combined, I think, are one silver bullet that addresses
a lot of elements within your economic element of the Growth
Management Plan.
Ifwe may, let's get to the key issue here, which for all-- all day
on every project you've looked at has been transportation today. I
think if you feel there's anything that Mr. Casalanguida failed to
extract from prior applicants, you're going to find them in this
application.
Ben Freeland is about 20 pounds lighter than when we started
this process, and the main reason is that while proj ects continue to be
approved on Whippoorwill Lane, the intersection at Pine Ridge and
Whippoorwill here is not working well, period, and there are two
elements necessary to make that intersection work better. One is land
and two is improvements.
This application before you today as presented and supported by
your transportation staff will provide both of those. Even though --
that Mr. Freeland's application is for a use that is less incentive, that
produces less traffic than the existing approved uses would, he has
agreed to the following stipulations that are key.
Number one, he's agreed to donate -- no impact feet credits -- a
l2-foot strip of right-of-way from Pine Ridge Road all the way back
to the project entrance you see here. That donation has a
six-figure-plus value to it. He's not seeking impact fee credits for it.
And as you can imagine, that wasn't something he gave up lightly.
But the reason that donation is so important is because no
improvements can occur to this intersection unless more land is made
available. So Mr. Freeland has agreed to donate the land to allow for
the intersection improvements.
Step two is that a traffic study prepared by Mr. Reed Jarvi -- and
I'll ask Reed to corne up and really focus on this a little bit more to
answer any questions you might have -- took a holistic view of this
intersection, not just the impacts that Naples Nissan are presenting, but
Page 238
January 23-24, 2007
what are the current conditions, the current constraints, and the
long-term issues this intersection faces?
Those proposed improvements have been broken into two phases.
Phase lA that results -- that is allowable because of the donation of
right-of-way is the addition of another northbound left turn lane on
Whippoorwill. Currently there's only one.
In essence, what will happen is -- and this has to be done prior to
certificate of occupancy for Mr. Freeland's dealership -- is this second
turn lane has to be constructed, in place and operating. It's going to
double the capacity of the northbound to westbound turning
movements that have been problematic at this intersection.
Combined with that are the fact that Mr. Freeland will have to
provide turn lanes into his project, and there is a turn that starts right
here that services Dudley, so that will allow the through movements to
continue southbound on Whippoorwill unimpeded.
One element of this design, as directed by staff, is that there will
be a median or divider, albeit small, separating these lanes. What
those will do is those of you that have tried to get in and out of that
Chevron station there know that if somebody's going south on
Whippoorwill and they go to make a left into that Chevron station, it
can back people up onto Pine Ridge Road.
By putting a divider in, that immediate left turn movement is
gone; however, they can still turn left on Dudley Drive and access the
station. Well, what it does, again, is it maintains an open flow on
Whippoorwill, which doesn't exist there today.
The second part that Mr. Freeland has to complete prior to CO of
his building is an extension of the westbound to southbound turn lane
on Pine Ridge Road. This will, in essence, more than double the
stacking of people turning left on Whippoorwill.
Again, while I'd love to say that Naples Nissan is the reason for
all these improvements, it really is not. It's, in essence, correcting a
deficiency that exists today. Mr. Freeland, through his donation of
Page 239
January 23-24, 2007
right-of-way -- and now these improvements, he has to provide them
and make them available; however, he is receiving impact fee credits
for his portion of the design and cost of these improvements.
Nonetheless, if you put the whole ball of wax together, it runs 5- to
$600,000 to make all this happen. And to front that kind of
expenditure when you're a local business owner is not something that
you take lightly or is done easily.
So when I say Mr. Casalanguida has done his measure, I think I
speak for Mr. Freeland very clearly on that.
The key is that those intersection improvements will allow this
intersection to operate much better. But there's work that needs to
come down the road. And what Mr. Jarvi's study has indicated is that
a second phase will consist of additional lanes of improvement for
really servicing the commercial properties on the north side. And you
can see it includes the extension of a turn lane that is eastbound to
northbound, as well as an additional area providing more turning
movements in a southbound direction to Pine Ridge Road.
What Mr. Casalanguida has proposed is that those improvements
will come under an MSTU or subsequent mechanism and all the
commercial properties that contribute to that will fund that. And on
behalf of Naples Nissan, whatever share of our traffic is a portion of
that, we will be a part of that MSTU.
With that, what I'd like to do is -- I may have stolen Mr. Jarvi's
thunder, but let me at least ask Mr. Jarvi to step up here to address any
of the transportation issues that I may have left out and to answer any
questions you have in that regard.
MR. JARVI: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name's Reed
Jarvi, as you know, I'm a professional engineer with the firm Vanasse
Daylor.
I did -- or we did prepare the traffic impact statement for this
project. I'll go through some of the highlights of it briefly. Tim did
pretty much summarize the conclusions, so I won't get wrapped up in
Page 240
January 23-24, 2007
those too much.
Basically with the Naples Nissan site as a car dealership, it is not
significant on Pine Ridge Road. It is only significant by definition on
Whippoorwill Lane; however, we are looking at a situation that
currently is problematic at best, and with any addition of traffic, could
be more of a problem.
As such -- or in regards to that, we've talked extensively with Mr.
Casalanguida, come up with solutions, and the solutions are basically
as Tim outlined.
Now, this was part of -- or it's important to know, this was part of
what we call an area wide study, which was a buildout study for this
intersection. This intersection looked at all the vacant properties to the
north and some of the vacant properties to the west of this intersection
being along that gas station. I think it's a Racetrac gas station. There's
three or four parcels to the east towards 75 that aren't built. We
assumed they would be built with typical intersection -- or interstate
commercial. There's some other parcels back there that are being built
or SDPs are in. We assumed those are built. The Kraft area to the
west of us. And then there's a piece of land that currently Mr. Caparo
(phonetic) owns that looks like it's getting ready to be zoned in the
near future. So we put all those in the mix to come up with this
solution.
Those haven't been finalized, but that's where it looks like it's
going. So it's important to note that we are part of the solutions. We
are adding capacity to this intersection in what is now considered a
deficit. Cars back up there westbound to southbound. Quite often
people have a problem getting out. You probably have heard from
your people that that's an issue.
Another thing to note here, it's very important that in the next
month or so, depending on what FDOT does and what the county
commission does, the Golden Gate interchange is scheduled to open.
But it will open in the near term, whether it's next month or the month
Page 241
January 23-24, 2007
after, but it's in the near term.
The intersection justification report that was done for that
intersection several years ago showed roughly a 14 percent -- little
over 14 percent diversion from Pine Ridge Road to Golden Gate
Parkway when that intersection opens. So Pine Ridge Road traffic in
this area in the very near term should be decreasing substantially.
Second piece of information that's very positive for this area is
that Mr. Casalanguida has worked with other developers on the
Whippoorwill corridor down at the very end, southwestern end -- and
he can talk about it better than I because I wasn't involved -- but they
are providing a connector road that runs from Livingston Road to the
south end of Whippoorwill Drive -- excuse me Whippoorwill Lane.
That's scheduled right now to be completed somewhere about a year.
So prior to the time Naples Nissan effectively could be open
even, you'll have the interchange done, you'll have the connector road
probably done, you'll have the northbound left turn -- second
northbound left turn lane in place, you'll have significant
improvements to this area, some of which are sponsored directly by
Naples Nissan, some by other people, but it will be an improvement
within the next year or so that should help everybody in this area.
With that, I'll end my presentation and answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. It's my understanding that
under phase lA, that Mr. Freeland's going to take on the
responsibilities of all those; is that correct?
MR. JARVI: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. JARVI: Well, let me rephrase that. There are some
possible other participants on the south side.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
MR. JARVI: The Kraft people.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And the phase 2B, those -- or lB,
Page 242
January 23-24, 2007
excuse me -- those are going to probably be eventually done by an
MSTU of all the business community in that general area; is that
correct?
MR. JARVI: I would not confirm that it's necessarily an MSTU.
It will be some funding mechanism. Basically the 1 B improvements
are for the parcels on the north, and the 1 A are for the parcels on the
south.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you. I understand. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, then
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What -- the existing approved,
have you taken a look at those traffic impacts versus what's being
proposed?
MR. JARVI: For this particular project, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
MR. JARVI: Yes, sir. We looked at it actually as office rather
than commercial, and the office is about 10 percent more than a car
dealership. If you would go into even light retail, it would be
significantly higher.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. If you went into retail, it
would be even higher?
MR. JARVI: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you used the conservative --
MR. JARVI: Yes. To compare, we were conservative to
compare what it could be.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. Then afterwards I
have a question for our transportation staff.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did you want to ask that now?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, yeah. I mean, there's a lot
of assumptions, and what I hear is, should remove traffic from Pine
Ridge once the interchange opens on the Parkway. I don't know if
Page 243
January 23-24, 2007
that's a scientific factor which they go by under our concurrency.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Could I kindly request that they quit
calling me Mr. Casalanguida. Just call me Nick. They butcher my
name all the time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I didn't say it.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, not you. Scientific, yes. There
will be a reduction on Pine Ridge from the interchange opening up.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the percentage?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, it's an estimate, but it would be
between 10 and 15 percent in that area. We're assuming it would be as
much as that much at that location.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's scientific? It's not a
guess?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Based on modeling.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So the bottom line on
this project, we're going to reduce traffic, what's being requested?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: From what they've shown as what
could be put there, that's correct. Now, I can tell you -- you know, I'm
oh for two today on my recommendations, so I'm a little hesitant to
say anything today. We worked really hard on this one because I need
that intersection improved.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I know that, and it looks
like you did a good job.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My opinion. But I just want to
know about the overall traffic impacts on Pine Ridge.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You've seen -- I wouldn't say it's
comparable, but Airport Road had a significant reduction when
Livingston opened up, and we expect the interchange to open up,
you're going to see those people that use Pine Ridge interchange drop
off in that area that will go to that Golden Gate interchange, so you
will see a reduction at that location.
Page 244
January 23-24, 2007
Consequently as well, too, you will also see when the back
access is opened up through Livingston, you will see the southbound
demand that comes from that location filter off of Livingston as well,
too.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I just
stepped out of the room briefly and I didn't have my ex parte
disclosure. I think it might be appropriate that I do that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It would. Would you please do that
now?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. I have talked with Mr.
Hancock and the petitioner, and I have received correspondence
concerning this item.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. Do you have anything, any
questions that you want to ask?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I was listening to the
presentation while I was away.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nick? I can say it, Casalanguida.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Perfect.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Transportation element, in this
paragraph, page 2 of our executive summary, the last sentence in there
said, however, several intersections will not function at acceptable
levels of service with both background traffic and the additional
project trips.
Does that mean if this is built, this will make that happen, will
not be functioning?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The funny part is, the other
developments that are applying right now throughout the site
development process -- I held a bunch of applications back. As a
matter of fact, yesterday I was with Norman and the phone rang, and it
Page 245
January 23-24, 2007
was another person saying, why can't I go forward.
This proj ect itself will clear up more than, I would say, 300
percent of their specific impacts above and beyond theirs. There will
be other developments in different movements that will not work
coming out of the north side of the commercial property that's there
that have to make improvements. But as far as your question is
concerned --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- the mitigation for this project is way
above and beyond what they're putting on the roads.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see. So in other words, this is
actually a help, not a hinderance?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Significantly, significantly.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The other intersection I referenced
was northbound approach from Livingston to Pine Ridge. We are
getting back one of our through lanes by putting an additional right
turn lane, and that is a county project that we're working on.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do I hear a motion at this time? I see
there's no more questions.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion to approve
by Commissioner Halas and a second by Commissioner Henning?
MS. FILSON: Coyle.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Frank Coyle, excuse me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd just like to ask one more
question.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm over here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You certainly may.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Staff has recommended that
Page 246
January 23-24, 2007
deviation number one not be approved. Which way does your motion
read?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: To include that, that's not in that--
yes?
MR. Hancock: If I may, Commissioner. The quick justification
for that, the reason we're requesting the deviation from 20 to 10 feet is
because of the donation of right-of-way, and it squeezed the front of
our site a little bit. But we are planting the exact same plantings in
that 10 feet that's required in the type D buffer.
It's a lesser width, but it's the same visual coverage, same
plantings, and that was kind of an offset that transportation staff
offered us for consideration when we first began talking about this
donation, and we -- it's important to us -- it's not a deal breaker, but we
are planting the same plantings that are required in a type D buffer,
and that's for a stretch of about 3- to 400 feet.
I would appreciate your consideration, and I thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. If I could just add to that. I
was also concerned about that until I found out that what would
happen under normal circumstances is that 10 feet would be used for a
swale. There would be no landscaping there anyway, and then the
landscaping would be on 10 feet, so -- because you couldn't put it in
the swale.
In this case they're not going to have a swale because they're
accommodating the runoff in a different manner so they're able to use
the 10 feet which would be essentially the same 10 feet of landscaping
that you might use otherwise. And I felt that because of the generous
donation in this particular case as compared to the problems we had
earlier today, that it warranted some flexibility.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I want to restate my motion just for
the approval, and leave item number one left out of the motion, okay?
MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, sir.
Page 247
January 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is that agreed with the second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a speaker?
MS. FILSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have one speaker, Glenn
Wiggins.
MR. WIGGINS: Good afternoon. I thank you for taking your
time to hear what I have to say. I'm Glenn Wiggins and I'm from the
Seagate Baptist Church, which is the church on Whippoorwill Lane.
We've seen a real increase of traffic since all the new projects
have come in on Whippoorwill Lane. I spoke to the lady at Hospice
today and a couple of the other neighbors.
We're all in agreement that there is a lot of traffic that is picked
up there, and the congestion is just unbelievable.
And no matter if Naples Nissan is coming in or somebody else is
coming in, that intersection definitely needs to be fixed.
And I did speak to Mr. Hancock, I believe it is. He did tell me
they were going to be doing some improvements which need to be
done. Of course, our concern, too, is we have a church and school
with the big trucks coming in and out, and I think those things needs
to be addressed.
Along with Dudley right there, it's a private road, very skinny,
falling apart, and a lot of traffic will be going on that road, too.
Traffic does back up in the morning all the way to our church and will
probably back up again there.
We're not opposed to Naples Nissan. The trips that they have,
the traffic coming through will probably not be as much, we
understand that, but we would just want to make sure that what they're
proposing as far as doing all the changes happen either before or at the
same time they are going to construct, or anybody else who goes in
there also.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And with that, we'll close the public
Page 248
January 23-24, 2007
hearing.
Any other comments? Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: One question -- there's probably
nobody here to answer it -- and it's about the EDC incentives, and was
that -- it was on the board -- the board approved an EDC incentive for
Naples Nissan a while ago. Is it for this -- is it for this site or is it --
MR. DeRUNTZ: This is a project that has been identified -- has
been approved for EDC fast track.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Well, we gave them
money. It's not a fast track I'm talking about.
MR. DeRUNTZ: It is for high-tech Internet wireless connection.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's on the second floor.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. It's for this site that's on
our agenda today, and it wasn't their existing site; is that what it was?
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because that was on our agenda
like a year ago.
MR. DeRUNTZ: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, good.
MR. DeRUNTZ: For the record, Mike DeRuntz, department of
zoning and land development review.
If I may add to the record that we have found that this is
consistent with the Growth Management Plan with the exception of
the deviation for the landscaping, and that's why staff had that
recommendation. We believe it's compatible with the adjoining land
uses.
If you have any other questions, I'd be more than happy to try to
address those.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, I'm going to call the
question.
Page 249
January 23-24,2007
All those in favor of the motion, please state aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Mudd, we've still got a little more time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are we adjourning at six?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are we adjourning at six?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Where are we in the agenda? What do
you estimate we have left?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I would -- I would suggest that you
go to six o'clock, and you do one more item, and that has to do with
Goodland, because there's a lot of people from Goodland --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, by all means.
MR. MUDD: People from Goodland, can you raise your hand?
See, you've got Goodland folks here, and that's --
MS. FILSON: Nine speakers.
MR. MUDD: -- and that's the item that was supposed to come
after five, and it is after five, and I believe that will pretty much take
you to the end, and I would -- I would suggest that at -- right after you
finish with this item, that you continue this meeting tomorrow till nine
o'clock.
You're advertised for an AUIR meeting tomorrow at nine o'clock.
What we'll do is the first hour or so we'll finish up the items that we
have left on our agenda, including your addition, 9M, that's there, and
then go right into the A UIR.
Page 250
January 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Well, let's go with the
Goodland agenda item.
Item # 10I
DISCUSSION REGARDING THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED
FOR THE INGLIS-SPENCE SINGLE F AMIL Y DWELLING ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 502 COCONUT A VENUE IN
GOODLAND, FLORIDA; MOTION MADE TO PUT TOGETHER
AN AMENDMENT TO THE OVERLAY, GET A 50% + 1
MAJORITY OF GOODLAND RESIDENTS IN APPROVAL AND
BRING FORWARD AN ADVERTISED PETITION TO THE BCC -
MOTION TO TAKE NO ACTION ON THE PERMIT-
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: This is lOr. It's a recommendation that the Board
of County Commissioners, BCC, give direction to the county manager
or his designee on whether or not to revoke the building permit issued
for the Inglis-Spence single-family dwelling to be constructed on
property located at 502 Coconut Avenue in Goodland, Florida, if it is
deemed that the permit was issued inconsistent with the village
resident (sic) zoning district regulations.
The BCC also directed the county manager or his designee to
evaluate the VR evaluations to determine what measures should be
taken to ensure that future development will be consistent with the
purpose and intent statement of the VR zoning district and with the
Goodland zoning overlay.
And Mr. Joseph Schmitt, your administrator for community
development's environmental services, will present.
MR. SCHMITT: Afternoon again, Commissioners. Again, the
objective here was for the Board of County Commissioners to give
direction to staff as to whether to revoke the building permit that was
Page 251
January 23-24, 2007
issued to the Ingle-Spence family for a dwelling unit constructed at
502 Coconut Avenue of Goodland.
And if you deem that to be appropriate, in doing so you would
basically make a ruling that this permit was issued inconsistent with
the Village Residential Zoning District regulations as defined in the
Goodland Overlay in the Land Development Code.
In addition, we're here today to discuss any of these
recommendations. We provided in the executive summary proposals
for -- to amend village residential development standards and the
applicable regulations, what revisions and other measures you want
staff to work with the Goodland community in regards to amending
the Village Residential Zoning District Overlay for the Goodland
Zoning Overlay.
In a nutshell, Prime Contractors and Associates representing
Martha Ingles-Spence and Harry Booting (phonetic) Spence submitted
the building permit, and that was 2006081072. That was the building
permit number for a residential dwelling on August 9,2006.
On August 30th the building department, after completing its first
review, rej ected that permit, basically deemed that the application was
a duplex and, of course, submitted and filed a resignation -- or rejected
that submittal.
Staff noted in its remarks that the village residential district for
duplex, the front was a 35-foot setback; side, 15 feet setback; and rear,
30.
On September 25, 2006, the contractor resubmitted, and we,
again, rejected that permit. Again, basically citing that it was a duplex
and advised the applicant that it didn't meet the setback requirements.
Based on staffs assistance that the proposed structure was
deemed to be duplex and after a series of discussions with the architect
and the staff, the contractor resubmitted plans for a single-family
dwelling by removing the wall partition, which basically separated the
dwelling units that, in fact, created the duplex.
Page 252
January 23-24, 2007
The removal of a wall allowed the proposed dwelling to be
considered a single-family dwelling, subject to the VR development
standards.
Note that the Florida Building Code does not restrict the number
of bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchens of a dwelling unit. The building
code only requires that these utilities be placed to meet the definition
of a dwelling unit.
Further in section 4.01.02 of the Land Development Code, it
states and does allow, that any unit over 2,500 square feet of living
area or greater can have a secondary kitchen.
On November 22, 2006, the building department approved the
plans in consultation with the zoning department as a single-family
dwelling since the proposed dwelling is consistent with the
requirements of the Florida Building Code and the development
standards in VR Zoning District and other applicable requirements of
the LDC, and that included the maximum building height of 30 feet
measured from the base floor elevation of 12.3 feet and the minimum
yard setback requirements for a single-family home of 20 feet for the
front, side yard setbacks five feet, and the rear 20.
I do want to note that we do recognize certainly that the language
in the VR overlay defines what is called nonprescriptive standards.
There is no prescriptive or dimensional standards that were defined in
the LDC to prohibit or allow staff to, again, deny this permit. As a
result, the building permit was issued December 7,2006.
So that's kind of where we are with the building permit. Before
we go into any discussions as to where we want to proceed on the
village residential or any amendment to the zoning overlay associated
with the Goodland community, does the board want to ask any
questions of staff regarding the validity and the issuing of this building
permit?
With me today is my zoning director, Ms. Susan Murray Istenes;
my building director, Mr. Bill Hammond. Ray Bellows is with me as
Page 253
January 23-24, 2007
well. Ray was involved intimately in the development of the zoning
overlay. So the staff is here to answer any of your questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll start off with Commissioner
Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'd just like to ask a couple.
I'd really like to hear from everybody who has signed up to speak.
But you were saying the building height maximum is 30 feet from
12.6 or something like that?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, ma'am. That is the base flood elevation as
determined by the FEMA maps or the flood insurance rate maps.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can you tell me, please, how tall the
building actually is from ground level to the top of the roof?
MR. SCHMITT: Do we have that in the plans, Ray?
I know I did -- you asked me that yesterday.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. SCHMITT: Do you have the actual height from the floor of
-- the actual height --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Truth in advertising.
MR. MUDD: Hang on. Let me get you the visualizer.
MR. SCHMITT: I don't have that.
MR. HAMMOND: For the record, Bill Hammond, director of
the building department. It's going to be 30 feet plus 12.3. Brings you
up to, you know, 42.3. Then you have a 6/12 roofpitch. Thirty feet is
measured to the mean roof height, you know, and -- you know, and
that's probably going -- that's probably going to add about another--
probably -- probably seven to eight feet to the mean roof height
because that is --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So it's about 50 feet tall really from
MR. HAMMOND: From the ground -- from ground level up to
the -- probably the ridge of the roof, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And I wanted to know how
Page 254
January 23-24, 2007
tall that was. Can you tell me how many square feet? Now this is
supposed to fit into the small village character. Can you tell me how
many feet under air this house has, square feet under air?
MR. HAMMOND: I believe it's about 6,800 square feet under
air, I do think.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And can you tell me what the entire
footprint is, please?
MR. HAMMOND: The entire footprint is about 5,400. Actually
there's -- the actual footprint of the building is smaller than what's
under air because there is some overhang from the second floor and
the third floor. The lot size is approximately 11,700 square feet, and
we have 46 percent lot coverage based off of --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Total square footage is l4,333? Is
that what I understood? Not under air, but, you know, including the
pool and the garage and porches and so forth?
MR. HAMMOND: No, that would exceed -- that would exceed
basically the lot size. There's -- you know, the footprint of the
building, including the pool is the 5,400.
MR. SCHMITT: I think, Commissioner Fiala, what you're
asking, are the two habitable floors, the garage floor, the pool area, the
lanai, those three floors would probably end up, when you calculate
all the square footage, yes, it would be close to that. I believe
counting the pool area, the lanai and whatever else there is in regards
to the -- all -- the -- basically the garage floor and then the two
habitable floors.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll just throw this in -- and of course
I do want to hear from the speakers. But one of the things I'm terribly
concerned with is, with the l4,333-square-foot building, I'm afraid
that that's going to set the standard for what small village residential
means, and that is my greatest concern.
The reason the people in Goodland had put together their original
overlay was to try and keep the small village character within their
Page 255
January 23-24, 2007
community. It's just a tiny community, and -- but they never thought
that they needed to specify feet, and I guess that's what we're doing
here today.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, ma'am. And we would have to deal with
that -- well, on where we go today would be the guidance that you
want to provide in regards to amending and providing any guidance to
the staff to amend the overlay and whether you want to restrict square
footage or lot coverage ratio or any of the other suggestions that we
made in the executive summary.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that's good. I want to hear
from the speakers before I have any other questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Well, we have a couple more
commissioners that want to talk. There's Commissioner Halas, then
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Joe, in the Land Development
Code of changes a couple of years ago, we worked diligently to put in
there the actual true height of the buildings.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why isn't this put on so that we
have an understanding? I think we addressed that as truth in
advertising.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir,
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Like saying, well, we're going to
fudge, we're going to use this as the height of the building, and not
really put down the full height. All you've got to do is add one more
dimensional drawing on a drawing.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, and we do that with all-- any
commercial that we're coming to you for a rezoning. It is not part of
the plans that they submit because it is not something that we review.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But don't you think it would be--
don't you think that would be advantageous in -- when we're building
these megahomes and changing neighborhoods, that you come up with
Page 256
January 23-24, 2007
the actual overall height from the ground level, and then you can
always put in there 12 feet or 13 feet of FEMA, but then have an
overall dimensional height on the building?
MR. SCHMITT: I can add that requirement to all residential
requirements.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that's why we worked so
hard --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- as a Board of County
Commissioners, and I assumed it was not just going to be on
commercial, that it was going to everything, so that people had an
understanding, so the public could -- if it's public information, they
can go get that drawing and find out exactly what the height of that
building is.
MR. SCHMITT: We can make that as a requirement.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I'd really appreciate it. I
think whatever the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- my other commissioners feel, but
I think it's important that we really know what the real height of a
building is.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How high is this lot going to be
built up above the properties on each side?
MR. SCHMITT: The property's zoned on each side and --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not looking for zoning. I'm
looking for the height of the pad itself and how much fill is going to
be put in there to get it up to the required FEMA elevation.
MR. SCHMITT: On this home there will be no fill. This is a--
two stories over parking, the garage. So the house will be built --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So it will be on exactly the
same grade --
Page 257
January 23-24, 2007
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- with all of the other homes.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. That will be at grade. The home will
actually be built up over the parking, the garage, which will be on, in
essence, what we would describe as the first floor.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. The -- that's not consistent
with some of the drawings that some of the people who are opposed to
this house have provided us. But nevertheless, if you are certain of
that and if that is included in the approvals, then that will answer my
question.
Even the elevation that is provided by the architect shows a
considerable slope on each side of the house, so I still question this.
MR. SCHMITT: Again, Commissioner, that's not an element of
review for a residential home. If there were -- there were -- there were
two, as I understand, a double wide and a trailer on site. They did have
a permit, a demolition permit on site so to remove that. There may be
some what I would call ancillary fill or fill just to come in and bring
the -- to grade, to level. But as far as I know, there's no fill
requirement.
We don't have a specific site plan, and that's something that is not
reviewed, but it is not an area where they can bring fill in, because of
the location, it requires that they elevate the structure and build the
first floor with frangible walls to allow for storm surge.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, we have talked on numerous
occasions about the problem with stormwater runoff into adjacent
yards.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we've required people to
contain stormwater runoff on their own property. With a five-foot
setback from the property line, that is, in my opinion, almost
impossible. Of course, particularly if you have a significant overhang
at the roof at the eaves. I -- apparently we haven't reviewed that.
Page 258
January 23-24, 2007
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, your guidance was to develop
an LDC amendment for that. We're looking at developing that coming
forward, but the bottom line is, today they cannot create any -- cannot
put any incremental --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Water.
MR. SCHMITT: -- water on adjacent property. There are gutters
required on the side of the home. The home has to deal with that water
and has to move that probably to the rear of the yard, which would be
to the canal.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The water, yeah. But we don't
have any assurances that that's going to be done because there's been
no one who's reviewed it from that standpoint.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, Commissioner, yes we do. That's part of
my 800 series inspections. When we go out and do final CO, the
engineering service department does go out and check that to ensure
that there are adequate measures in place on site. It's not -- it doesn't
come in under review, but the final CO, that is something that is
evaluated to ensure that the gutters are in place, that the downspouts
are in place, and that the water is not being directed onto the
neighboring property.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And they would be legally liable --
MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- if that actually does that, right?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, let's move to septic tank
approval, and I know they have an aerobic treatment -- anaerobic
treatment plan here. Can you give me how many bathrooms our staff
used in order to calculate the adequacy of the drain field for the
septic?
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, if I could direct this question to
the health department. It's -- the health department will have to
answer this question because they're the permitted agency for the
Page 259
January 23-24, 2007
septic system.
MS. NEAL: For the record, Chris Neal (phonetic), department of
health, Collier County.
We sized the septic system either between square footage or
number of bedrooms. And our original sizing of this was for 7,456
square feet. It includes -- for our calculations we include under air, and
then on the bottom level where the garages are, the space in between.
It doesn't matter if it's heated or cooled, we calculate that as potential
living area, and we calculate it for eight bedrooms. But we size it for
a thousand gallons a day, which would give you up to 10 bedrooms
you could have in that -- that establishment. It would -- that would
cover that.
Do you have any other questions?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you have that formula handy --
MS. NEAL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- that you used? Can you show
me the formula that you used to calculate the thousand gallons per day
MS. NEAL: Thousand gallons per day.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- based upon eight bedrooms?
MR. WEIGEL: It's 10 actually.
MS. NEAL: Okay. It's either based upon square footage or
bedrooms, whichever is greater.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But you said you sized this one for
eight bedrooms.
MS. NEAL: It was sized -- the sizing for the square footage
outweighed the sizing for the number of bedrooms.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. NEAL: So that -- the range for a thousand gallons per day is
7,050 to 7,800 square feet, which the 7,456 fell within that range.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, here's my problem.
Let's suppose that in a 7,456-square-foot home --
Page 260
January 23-24, 2007
MS. NEAL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- you could have three bathrooms
MS. NEAL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and toilets, or you could have six
bathrooms and toilets. I don't understand how the square footage
helps you determine how many gallons per day of sewage and/or other
wastewater is going to be coming out of the home.
MS. NEAL: That's the way the code is written. It's actually
bedrooms. They don't even size it by bathrooms. They interpret it as
being about two person occupancy per bedroom, and then it's also
restricted by the square footage. That's just the way the code is
written.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I -- that causes me a lot of
difficulty. It doesn't make sense. But --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you think it's high or low?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think it's way, way, way low.
Here's the problem as I see it. If you have a home which is clearly
designed as a duplex and it was clearly submitted in the beginning as a
duplex and the architect and/or engineer said, this is a duplex, you're
obviously planning on having more than just a single family, average
family, occupying this facility.
If you're going to use the wastewater for irrigation of the lawn, it
means you've got it retain it in the septic tank for some period of time
before you can actually spray it out on that lawn.
MS. NEAL: Well, it's not sprayed out on the lawn.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: According to this plan, that's
exactly what -- it's going to drip out --
MS. NEAL: It goes out to a--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- drip lines, drip lines --
MS. NEAL: Right, goes to drip line emitters.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- out onto the line.
Page 261
January 23-24, 2007
MS. NEAL: Which is -- okay, underneath.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MS. NEAL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. And so are you telling me
that it's going to be okay to just drip raw sewage out into the front
lawn?
MS. NEAL: No, it's not raw sewage. It's treated in a tank first.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. NEAL: And--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How long does it take to treat it in
the tank?
MS. NEAL: I don't have those numbers specifically.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's got to be in there for a while. If
you have an excessive usage, you're going to overflow the treatment
tank, and it's going to start dripping into the lawn.
MS. NEAL: It's sized for a thousand gallons per day, which is
very significant. Most four-bedroom houses are 400 gallons per day,
and you can double that to 800 gallons per day. We sized it for the
maximum amount that was allowed for this lot. A thousand gallons, it
should cover adequately up to 20 people living in the house. About
two persons per bedroom if you had 10 bedrooms, which would
equate to a thousand gallons per day.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'm not too sure where we're
going with some of this. You know, I mean, we've got certain rules
and regulations that we've got in place and certain guidelines we
follow. Ifwe want to change them, fine. But meanwhile, we can only
live with what's there.
Commissioner Henning, then you can -- Mr. Schmitt, then we'll
listen to what you have to say. Commissioner, you've been waiting
very patiently.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's a crappy job, but
Page 262
January 23-24, 2007
somebody's got to do.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Say again?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, he's talking about sewage.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The bottom line is, that's a state
permit. What our staff has provided us on their review and what our
code says, I can't see where they faltered in their final conclusion. If
anything, we failed. We failed. If it was the anticipation by some of
the residents in Goodland that this should not happen, then we failed
to put those guidelines within -- within the code.
The example between a single lot and a double lot, a person that
has a double lot, you -- government needs to provide them to use their
property, you know, at a reasonable rate.
You know, I go down there, there's a person who has a beach
settling on his one lot, he owns the one lot, but his home is on the
other lot. And his home -- and I just looked it up. It's about,
approximately 5,000 square foot total.
So if we want to set some standards, fine, I'm okay with that. But
if you compare what -- that example that I just gave you and what
we're told on this double lot, what I see is somebody could have built
10,000 square foot on that house (sic) going back to the marina, and
what is being built here is about 6,000.
If the residents want something different, I have no problem
saying, let's not allow splitting of lots, let's set some criteria for those
lots, but also let's not restrict them to the same size you can build on a
single-family lot, what's out there today, because that's not fair.
But I'm not going to vote to tell the community that our staff was
wrong. I don't believe they were.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And if I may chime in, and I've been
quiet for a little while. I agree with just about everything you said.
One of the things I'd be very supportive, is when they want to come
back for the overlay correction. Anything you want is fine by me. I
don't care. I mean, as long as -- the will of the community, and we'll
Page 263
January 23-24, 2007
go through that lengthy process of the community meetings and
everything else to be able to establish what it is.
If anything came short, like Commissioner Henning said, shame
on us for maybe not doing a better job identifying what the parameters
were, what you could build or you couldn't. You know, it's a little too
vague.
So when you come forward and you're looking for that help --
but there's another problem that exists. Not everybody in Goodland's
on the same page. It's obvious by the phone calls I'm getting and the
emails I'm receiving. There's a certain element out there that's on the
other side that wants that particular homeowner to be able to build.
And the fear is is that the exposure that we're giving Goodland
right now is inadequate to make these kind of decisions. I can almost
feel the makings of another Naples Park or some of these others where
you're absolutely convinced that you're doing the right thing, you're
going forward, and then all of a sudden out of the clear blue, you find
that there's a whole contingent to say, these people don't represent us.
And that's the reason why you go through the process with the
Land Development Code changes, with the overlays. You've been
through them before. We need to go through them again and we need
to do them right this time.
And when that happens, you know the community all had their
input, you know everything's been met, and we can go forward.
Meanwhile, I'm with Commissioner Henning. I think that what was
there was vague, and what staff made their findings on was right
where they should be.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, let me just --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- jump in here and say that I think
the speakers will tell you what they plan on doing and how they are
working together. I think we probably should hear from them. I
would insert something else now, but I'm not going to. Thank you.
Page 264
January 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's go to Commissioner
Halas because he isn't here, so we'll skip over him and go to
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just one final question. There's no
question in anybody's mind that this was originally submitted as a
duplex.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now a --
MR. SCHMITT: There is none.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There is no question?
MR. SCHMITT: It was submitted twice as a duplex.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You've made it very clear and it's
supported by the record that it was submitted as a duplex. A duplex
could not be approved with these side yard setbacks.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct, the front -- well, all the setbacks.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All the setbacks?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So what assurance -- or what
method do we have to assure that once a certificate of occupancy is
issued that that partition wall is not reconstructed converting it into a
duplex?
MR. SCHMITT: Go ahead, Bill.
MR. HAMMOND: The revision that the architect submitted
basically fundamentally joined some of the functions of the first floor.
In order to split those back out again, they would have to come back
in under a permit to reinstall that, and at that point we would -- you
know, we would know that they were -- that it was doing that.
You know, if -- you know, if the question is, you know, all things
not being -- you know, being kept at completely legal status, I could
have -- I have to question a lot of certificates of occupancy that are
issued, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I could put up a new partition
Page 265
January 23-24, 2007
wall over the weekend.
MR. HAMMOND: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, it wouldn't be a
problem at all, and I think that's what's going to happen here.
MR. SCHMITT: But I did note and I made it very clear to the
applicant that this could never be -- if they put the partition in, we
don't know about it, but it could never be a duplex, it could never be
rented as a duplex, it could never be -- legally become a duplex. It
may be two families or two -- brother and sister who own it, which is,
I believe, the situation here, I believe. And their attorney can explain
what I believe, that this property is going to be in the family for
perpetuity the way -- the way the legal document's been set up, but it
could never be a duplex, it could never be rented as a duplex. If it is,
it would be a code violation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But you have no way of enforcing
that.
MR. SCHMITT: I do want to put something on for the record,
Commissioner. Your concern about the septic system, the -- it is a
prescriptive requirement. It's a state code. It's inspected twice a year
by a licensed contractor and inspected once a year by the health
department. So it has to function as designed. If it doesn't, it will
have to be replaced, modified or whatever. So it is -- it is that type of
a system that's been installed.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We've got Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to get some clarification.
I've got a blueprint here that says the -- under air size of this building,
6,836 feet. There was some testimony put out that we have a building
that's over 7,000 square feet. What is the real square footage under
air?
MR. HAMMOND: Commissioner, once again, for the record,
Bill Hammond. The footage under air is the 6,800 number. Ms. Neal
was referring to, that for their calculations, she's has to use a storage
Page 266
January 23-24, 2007
area on the ground floor that's not air-conditioned. But for her
purposes of calculating the size of the septic and drain field, she had to
use that number as well. That number raised it up to the 7,400 square
feet, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much for the
clarification.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think it's about time that we get a
motion here.
MR. WEIGEL: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, let's hear from the speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry, you're right. Let's do
that. How many speakers do we have?
MS. FILSON: Ten.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ten, fine. Please feel free to come up
and speak. We're looking for your opinion. If you find that it's being
repetitive, you may wish to waive at that time, although you don't
have to. We welcome everyone.
MS. FILSON: First speaker is Jim Inglis. He'll be followed by
Alex Dusek.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Either side.
MR. INGLIS: Not that I'm anxious to get up here and speak but I
did want to -- you know, this is hard, sorry.
MR. MUDD: State your name for the record.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Your name, please.
MR. INGLIS: Oh. My name is Jim Inglis. I'm the person that
wants to build the house there, so I'd like to -- before the three minutes
start, can I just make two little statements, is that okay?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine, sir. It's your three
minutes.
MR. INGLIS: No. Can I have my three minutes after the
statements, or does it have --
MS. FILSON: Your clock's running.
Page 267
January 23-24, 2007
MR. INGLIS: Sorry, okay. I'm here--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Start time over again. That discussion
took a little bit more than it should have.
MR. INGLIS: I'm here because I have a permit for a house and
it's under construction, and I'd like to ask you all to please let me
continue building my house.
Thirty-seven years ago my dad bought a lot in Goodland. He put
up a single-wide trailer. The next year he bought the lot next door.
During those 37 years, my family and, including myself, have
been going to Goodland on weekends, vacations, holidays, special
events. We had my mom's 85th birthday there. When we have
company, we go to Goodland. So we have been using this place like
that for the last 37 years, and you don't have to worry about any kind
of laws or who's going to ensure this. That's how we've been using it.
That's how we're going to keep using it. My word's better than
anything else. That's how it is.
A couple years ago -- this trailer's 37 years old. It's a single-wide
trailer, and something had to be done. It had to be replaced. So I
talked with my family about what we ought to do given that we want
to continue going here and using it, and our family's bigger now. You
know, I'm married, my sister's married. We have kids.
Before we had to stay in the pink motel, the little yellow house
over there, and it was very hard to get together and be like a family.
It's harder today. I have my niece is -- and daughter's out here running
in the aisle, she's screaming now. She can't even come in, which is
great, you know. We want to keep all that screaming inside our
house.
So what we did was we came up with a house we'd like to build,
went to the Marco area and found a prominent architect and contractor
building beautiful, high-quality, substantial homes. So what we'd like
to do -- we came down here with the planning and zoning department,
Collier County, and said, here's the big picture, okay? They said,
Page 268
January 23-24, 2007
yeah, in principle, okay.
So I signed up, gave him some money, said, go design the details.
They designed the details, and I submitted as a single-family home,
period. Now, the people at the county looked at it and said, looks like
a duplex to me. So that discussion went on. Whatever they asked us
to do, I said okay. Then the architect would call, Jim, they don't like
this, they don't like that, great, you know. I just want to build a house,
I want to go fishing, want to enjoy myself, and that's what I want to
do.
So based on that, we got a permit to build a house. And first they
said -- but they said first before you can actually have the permits, you
have to tear down your trailer and have it inspected and make sure you
did that correctly, so they took down my trailer, took out electricity.
So then they gave us the permit, and we started construction.
And we're pretty far along, money-wise, house-wise. So that's kind of
where we are.
Just -- I want to state a couple of facts. Our lot's 14,000 square
feet, not 11-. The lot's already graded. You can go look at it. It's
level with my neighbors. That's already done. Both houses on either
side of me are three stories, I'm three stories.
And let me just tell you a little bit about our neighbors, who've
also been there forever --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You may continue, sir, for another
minute, but I'm going to have to ask you to wrap it up then.
MR. INGLIS: Okay. Well, you know, next to -- we first moved
in 1960 -- 1970. The Calverts came next. They've been there ever
since. Their family's still there. We love each other. We work
together. We built the boathouse together, we dredged the canal out
together, we fish together. Alex is here, going to talk today.
The other neighbors that came next were the Salgises (phonetic).
They put up a nice two-story house. I helped him put in a hydraulic
lift to get his refrigerator and stuff up and down. The Salgise family is
Page 269
January 23-24, 2007
still there. This is on our cul-de-sac. These are all big houses.
The next house that came along was Pat Patterson's house. He
put up a nice two-story house, he lived there his whole life. He had
the marina. We used a chit sheet with him. We never charged
anything. Just take what you want. I'll send you a bill each month.
He's since passed away.
So in conclusion, you know, I just wanted to put a house up for
our family. I followed all the rules. I got a permit, started
construction. We've made major commitments, and I'd just like to ask
you to please let us continue. Weare Goodland, and we'll be good
neighbors.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: Alex Dusek. She'll be followed -- I mean he'll be
followed by Connie Stegall.
MR. DUSEK: My name is Alex Dusek, and if I can give you
just two quick pictures here that show the diversity of buildings that
are in Goodland.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir, could I ask you to come over here
and place them on that board. Staff will assist you.
MR. DUSEK: I'll be brief. I want to speak on behalf of Jim
Inglis, who is the neighbor. We have a home -- I should say my wife,
her two sisters, and her brother share a home that was built by their
father, Art Calvert. He built that house by hand, and we are the
immediate house to the west of where Jim Inglis wants to build his
home. We've been friends with the Inglises and their family for 40
years. If you look in the dictionary for a good neighbor, you'd find a
picture of Jimmy.
I've been involved in the history of Goodland and the character of
Goodland for at least the past 15 years, and I was chairman of the
architect -- or the Historical and Archaeological Commission for the
county .
I care about Goodland. I care about what it is becoming. I love
Page 270
January 23-24, 2007
it. I'd like to say that Jim Inglis is the kind of neighbor that all of us
would like to have. His character, integrity and humility are beyond
reproach.
I guess it comes down to the fact that he is going to be an asset to
the community. And if you're going to draw a line on building rules,
you don't draw the line after a person has cleared, demolished his
house, and begun building another one.
It's like -- you know, we're coming up to the Super Bowl, and the
last thing I want to say is, it's like the Super Bowl coach who has
played by NFL rules for all of his football career, and he goes in this
Super Bowl, and half-time comes along, and all his players have been
taught the rules, and then the referee comes in at half-time and says,
oh, your rules are going to change for your team. All the other rules
have, you know, gone before you, but for your team we're going to
change the rules in midstream. I don't think it's fair.
So I hope that you'll allow Jimmy to build his dream house.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Connie Stegall-Fullmer. She'll be followed by
Richard Pappy.
MS. STEGALL-FULLMER: Good evening, Commissioners.
My name is Connie Stegall-Fullmer. I'm here representing the
Goodland Preservation Coalition, and I did hand out some packets a
little earlier with some statistics, and that's kind of what I'd like to
review with you tonight.
Greg put up here the front elevation floor plan of the Inglis
property.
But what I would like to talk about mostly is the character of
Goodland and to express that to you in some statistical information.
A call to the property county appraiser's office resulted in my
obtaining a listing of all the properties in Goodland. The listing
provides many informational categories which tell us much about
Goodland. And having spent just a short amount of time in some
Page 271
January 23-24, 2007
calculations, I was able to discern what the character of Goodland is as
it relates to height and building size as referred to in the purpose and
intent statement of VR and of the Goodland Zoning Overlay when we
speak of low profile and small building footprint.
In the -- these are single-family residences in the VR and RSF-4
districts of Goodland. What I have quoted here is square foot under
air. On the left-hand column is number of units in the community. A
hundred and one of the units in the -- out of 329 are from zero to 500
square foot under air. That averages to 331 square feet. That's 30
percent of the village of Goodland.
Forty-two percent of the Village of Goodland, or 137 lots, are
average, 727 square feet under air; twenty-one percent, or 69 units,
average 1,254 square feet under air; sixteen units, or 5 percent,
average 1,636 feet under air; and six homes, or just a little under 2
percent, average 2,546 under air.
The overall average for buildings in the Village of Goodland is
only 795 square feet under air. And I recognize that we're -- are
looking at some numbers from the Property Appraiser's Office, and an
assimilation of that is fairly easy to calculate what the character of
Goodland is.
The proposed house is 6,856 square feet under air, with a total
square footage on their reports they say 14,333.
There are four residences in Goodland that are two over one, and
the Calvert's home is one of those. And the Calvert's home next door
to the proposed property -- that was three minutes already?
(N 0 response.)
MS. STEGALL-FULLMER: This is next door, and then off to
the right, the picture that you see up here that Greg is putting is the
Calvert's home in comparison to the home that the Inglises wish to
build. The square footage for the Calvert's home under air is 1,796,
according to property appraisers.
And then I'll just show the one other picture on the opposite side
Page 272
January 23-24, 2007
of the proposed home that you can see there on the left, and the -- that
home is 1,444 square feet under air.
When you look at it from the visualizer, it looks like a pretty
good size home. That's one of the large homes that is right on the
cul-de-sac immediately to the left of the proposed development.
And if you look at them here, our purpose and intent statement in
our overlay zoning is very specific about low profile and small
building footprint as it relates to the Village of Goodland. This does
not relate by any calculation.
Our village residential purpose and intent does specify that it has
to relate to the village of Goodland.
So that's my comment. Those are statistics. And I'm very
concerned that you would consider that. I recognize that staff has
standards that they have to go by, but one of those standards is the
village residential intent and purpose that is -- very clearly says as it
relates to the footprint that is what is in Goodland. Those statistics on
that form I gave you tells you what the character of Goodland is.
Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Richard Pappy.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Could I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, please. Go ahead,
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just a quick question. Do you have
an architectural board established in Goodland so that residents that --
after they get approved by the county, the architectural board will look
over the plans and approve them or not approve them?
MS. STEGALL-FULLMER: We don't at this time. That is one
of our requests for you as a board, to --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's something that the
homeowners ought to get together--
MS. STEGALL-FULLMER: We don't have a homeowners'
association. We have a civic association and the Goodland
Page 273
January 23-24, 2007
Preservation Coalition. But we would ask that we have an advisory
board that's approved by this county commission so that the people in
Goodland with -- chosen folks, will have an opportunity to look at
everything that impacts Goodland. So that is one of our requests in --
through this amendment process.
I'll go ahead and pass then.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Richard Pappy. Followed by Edward Fullmer.
MR. PAPPY: Good afternoon, everybody. I'm Rich Pappy. I
live in Goodland. I sit on the Board of the Goodland Preservation
Coalition. I'm a member also of the Goodland Civic Association.
We have a dilemma. I feel very badly for the situation that the
Inglis family is in. I just met them recently and I really believe that
they are people of good will who are moving forward in good faith.
But I have to beg their forgiveness because I am opposed to the
idea of megahomes in Goodland, and this certainly qualifies as a
megahome. I think everybody would agree with that.
There are a few things that I would like to point out. One is that
there's no contention that I know of about the home not meeting the
regulations, the development standards. Initially we thought that they
did, but that turns out not to be the case, at least from our limited point
of view.
But we do believe that there is an abrogation of the village
residential character which is defined as of 1999. It is the village
residential character which is generally low profile, relatively small
building footprints the current appearance of Goodland and Copeland.
That last phrase, which is generally low profile, relatively small
building footprints, was added by staff in 1999 and approved and
formed the foundation of a subsequent vote in November of 2000 by
this commission; five to nothing voted unanimously to support or to
reject the Dolphin Cove in Goodland because it did not fit the
Goodland residential character. And I propose that the definition of
Page 274
January 23-24, 2007
village residential character could not have been unknown for that
vote to have taken place. And it was upon that that that decision was
made.
Additionally, there is a question about whether or not the word
current that is used in that definition, as in current appearance, is -- is
actually a rezone by the approval of a megahome, and the rezone
would be -- amount to a de facto change to the LDC. LDC says,
current generally low profile, relatively small building footprints as
currently in Goodland. And if we allow megahomes to come in, then
there is a de facto violation of the zoning.
Purpose and intent has sometimes been characterized as not the
important element of these decisions, that the decisions about what
type of development is going to be permitted is based on the
development standards, what we call the regulations.
But in fact, in November of 2000 -- I'll wrap this up. In
November of 2000 the BCC decided on the basis of the purpose and
intent language that had been modified the year before to allow that
sort of interpretation in the matter of Dolphin Cove.
So I had more, but I appreciate the time that I have. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Edward Fullmer. He'll be
followed by Greg Bello.
MR. FULLMER: My name's Edward J. Fullmer, and I'm past
vice-president, president, treasurer. I've been an officer in Goodland
for over seven years. I am now the current secretary -- I'm treasurer of
the Goodland Preservation Coalition.
Back in 2000 in that -- November 2000, three of you
commissioners were sitting on the board at the time when you voted to
protect Goodland. Now, I hope the three of you vote that way again
today, and plus the two new commissioners. We had a 5-0 vote then
to protect Goodland.
This is not protecting Goodland. This belongs in Port Royal or
on Gordon Drive. You see the two houses that are two of the biggest
Page 275
January 23-24, 2007
houses in Goodland on either side of it, and that looks like a hotel.
That's big.
I think Mr. English (sic) made a mistake when he said he applied
for a residential pass, single-family. They applied twice for a duplex.
It's a duplex, it's a duplex. It's a duck, it's a duck.
I think this house was manipulated by staff to get the setbacks in,
because initially he was told he couldn't build it the size they wanted
to build it because they didn't meet the setbacks for a duplex.
Between the architect and staff, they took the wall out, they kept
the five foot in that, at that time when he had passed seven years ago,
was for the trailers, for the non-conforming of 251 in Goodland so the
trailers could have room on the 45-foot lots -- there's 50-foot lots, and
there's 60-foot lots -- but not on combining lots and going all the way
to the edge of the property with 10 foot on one side and five foot on
the other side.
I think staff did a bad job in their estimation, and I believe you
county commissioners should support us in this decision and help us
redo our zoning so this never happens again.
I have a letter from the architectural conservatory. And you
remember -- we read this into the record in 2000. It's from Bob Carr
about preserving Goodland. And one sentence I want to say here.
The Village of Goodland is a unique historic resort, compressing the
highest concentration of historic structures per square mile in Collier
County.
You know of all the 100-year-old houses that were moved over
off of Marco to Goodland so they could develop Marco. Well, good.
Develop Marco. Put that in Marco, but please don't put it in Goodland.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Greg Bello. He'll be followed by
James Graham.
MR. BELLO: My name is Greg Bello, for the record. I have
property in Goodland. I've been a property owner of Goodland for
Page 276
January 23-24, 2007
approximately 10 years. I currently live full time in Vanderbilt Beach
up by Commissioner Halas's district.
As Commissioner Halas will reassure you that what I'm saying is
true, we have megahouses up in Vanderbilt. These houses mostly are
on lots that are approximately 80 feet wide, therefore, the megahouse
in Vanderbilt Beach is the maximum width of approximately 65 feet.
Now, if you drive down some of the streets in the streets that I
live on and you look at what a 65-foot wide three-story tall megahouse
looks like, it will disturb you; however, we're eight or 10 houses away
from l2-story condominiums and it seems to be tolerable.
This house that's being built is -- the maximum width of the
house, I believe, is approximately 125 feet. Now, that is like two of
these megahouses stuck together going a full three stories and actually
measuring probably a little taller than the houses are in the area where
we live.
The thought of having two houses conjoined measuring 125 feet
sitting on a piece of property in Goodland is very upsetting. This isn't
a personal thing against the Inglis family. This is about maintaining a
sense of community, tropical, casual, laid-back, the feeling you get
when you go onto Goodland.
We understand that progress is inevitable. We understand that
people will build homes bigger than the 800-square- foot home that
exists there right now. It's what -- it's what's going to happen, and
we're okay with that. What we're trying to say is we don't want to be
having our new setbacks abused by a creative approach to combining
two lots.
By combining two lots, you've allowed for a much larger
residence. You've eliminated the whole middle section that would
normally be somewhat green space. Although it be small, it would
still be a sense of green space and it would allow for the breaking up
of these -- of this big structure.
Now, I do understand that the lots are not equal, that one lot has
Page 277
January 23-24, 2007
an excellent view and the other lot has a good view, a very good view;
however, one lot is exceptional.
By combining these structures and making one structure, you're
definitely allowing for both families to enjoy the better view, which I
can understand. I would probably want that for myself; however, by
doing that and by taking advantage of these smaller setbacks, you're
actually ending up with a bigger megahouse than you allowed up in
Vanderbilt Beach, a lot bigger. And for us, that's disturbing.
We love Goodland the way it is. We didn't buy any property in
Marco Island because we love the feel of Goodland. And this,
unfortunately, is going to bring Marco right into Goodland. Thank
you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is James Graham. He'll be
followed by Debby Paddy (sic).
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All right. We've got -- Commissioner
Halas wants to ask a question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I -- Commissioner Henning
had his light on first.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, he does too, but I think he
wanted to wait. He did. If you want to go next --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I'd just like to bring up a
fact that I think what really needs to be done here, instead of putting
what -- putting us in the position of what you want for your town --
and this is basically what it amounts to -- you as a group in Goodland
need to put together a group and then hire yourself a product planner
to sit down and figure out exactly what you want your town to look
like, and then bring that before the planning -- the county's planning so
they can work with you.
And then when you get that all taken care of and come before the
Board of County Commissioners, then we'll approve it. But I think
you as the citizens need to really figure out what you want your town
to be and you need to hire a planner to help you. That's what
Page 278
January 23-24, 2007
happened in Vanderbilt along the shoreline when they had the
Vanderbilt Overlay.
Now, too bad that we didn't continue that overlay to where we
could address megahomes, okay? And that's why we got the problem
up in Vanderbilt. But this is your opportunity now to figure out what
you want to do for your community and what you -- how you want
your town to look.
But you need to get together with somebody who is in planning
and can sit down with you and you can work together and you can
come up with exactly what you want your town to look like, and then
that puts down the rules and regulations exactly how you want them,
then you bring them before the county. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is James Graham. He'll be followed
by Debby Paddy (sic).
MR. GRAHAM: My name is James Graham. I'm a member of
-- I live in Goodland. And I was a board member for the civic
association for seven years, and I'll be going back on the board for the
civic association this coming month.
So with that said, I thought I was going to speak two minutes
ago, but now I'm really nervous, you know, really.
Here's what I got to say, okay. We all know that Goodland is a
tourist area, okay? It's a jewel of Southwest Florida. I know this.
And that happens on a Friday night, Saturday and a Sunday, and then
Goodland goes back to be the Goodland the other way. It has like two
heads. You've got to wear two hats all the time there. So a lot of
people get confused.
But I got to tell you something. Everybody in Goodland are
neighbors. You know why we're neighbors? Because we have no
choice. Because Goodland is, I think, is roughly maybe a little bit --
half a mile by a half a mile, and look at the -- all the people that live in
Goodland. We're really pretty close.
And I got to tell you something, you know, this overlay thing
Page 279
January 23-24, 2007
here that was done, was very well done -- well, with all the help and
the public -- by the way, we do it with the public, you know, forum.
There's an intent with this overlay, and the intent was to go by -- per
the intent, to preserve Goodland.
And obviously there was something missing in it, but the word
intent. There was an intent to save Goodland to keep it the way it was.
As far as I'm concerned and as far as those I've talked to in Goodland,
because we're very close neighbors, that's -- that house, it just does not
fit. It doesn't fit.
And how possibly, with this turmoil going on, can this be good
neighbors? When you really think about this -- and Commissioners,
this is your opportunity to save a jewel in Goodland. This is your
opportunity.
Step out there, take a chance. We take a chance. I've been
coming here for about 10 years with this Goodland business. It's all
about my heart. And I know most of the people in Goodland -- I
know you get phone calls, you get this, you get that, they all have self
interests, but I can tell you where my heart is.
When I went to Goodland, I didn't have -- want Goodland to join
me. I joined Goodland. That's where my heart is, if you can
understand that.
And I've got to tell you something else, too, what I bought --
what my whole belief is, I know there's going to be change and I
understand economics rolls over communities, but I know one thing,
with the people of Goodland and how we are together and how we
love our neighborhood and how we love each other, there's one thing I
know, we want to have an input on how it is going to change. And
right now, today, we need your help, and that's a fact.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Debby Paddy. She'll be followed
by Richard Karnes.
MS. PAPPY: How do I make this go on?
Page 280
January 23-24, 2007
MR. MUDD: Okay. What do you want to do?
MS. PAPPY: VCR.
MR. MUDD: VCR.
MS. PAPPY: Good evening. My name is Debby Pappy, and I'm
a resident of Goodland. In just a moment we will view part of a video
from a November 28,2000 meeting of the BCC sitting as the Zoning
Board of Appeals supporting the Land Development Code covering
Goodland.
You will see where purpose and intent and maintaining the low
village profile was applied to revoking a permit issued in error by
county staff to a project now known as Dolphin Cove.
What I need to do is find that VCR. And he told me I needed to
press the screen.
MR. MUDD: Hang on. We're playing now. Is it in there?
MS. PAPPY: Yes.
MR. MUDD: That's the fastest board meeting I've ever seen.
Let me try it again. Rewind just a little bit.
MS. PAPPY: Well, this is a VCR -- this is a video, and it's a
shame, but I would encourage each of you to go and review the DVD.
Basically what happened is that the board sitting --
MR. MUDD: I'm working on it.
MS . PAPPY: See, I'm glad I'm not the only one handicapped
that way. I meant that in a nice way.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Zing.
MS. PAPPY: Basically what we would have seen on that video
is what we sent to you on the DVD. And in 2000 on that day, you
found that the head of planning and zoning at that time, who was Mr.
Mulhere, had made a wrong interpretation and that purpose and intent
was important. It was important in the area of maintaining the village
character.
I -- and you did this as a judicial board. And it was actually the
first meeting that Ms. Fiala, Mr. Coletta and Mr. Henning sat at in this
Page 281
January 23-24, 2007
capacity of board.
And they decided unanimously that the purpose and intent was a
use -- as a use in maintaining the village character.
In December of 2000 the county added to the LDC by adopting
the GZO. We did get together as a community. You petitioned us
back and even included in the executive summary where 152 people
responded. And what they overwhelmingly said is, they want a low
profile, they want it preserved, they want it protected, and they don't
want -- and they gave you a lot of other direction of where we have
added to the GZO.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to give you just a little bit
more. Please wrap it up.
MS. PAPPY: Thank you, I am. The GZO continues to establish
the importance of maintaining a village character by lowering heights
to two over one, adding clamming as a viable business, storing crab
traps and parking commercial vehicles on properties, parking in
swales, the non-conformance of commercial signage, storage sheds
and golf carts have been added which all establish the uniqueness of
Goodland from the rest of Collier County.
I urge you today to take the appropriate action in recognizing that
a mistake in permitting has occurred insofar as the criteria ofVR has
not been met. And I quote, the village residential character which is
generally low profile with relatively small footprint as the current
appearance -- that is in 1999 when the language was written -- is that
of Goodland and Copeland.
Additionally, I ask you to continue a stoppage of all building
permits on lots that have been combined until additional amendments
to the GZO have been adopted into the LDC. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. We're going to take a
short break. It's been -- we've been running over the hour and a half
by one heck of a lot. I don't think anybody anticipated it was going to
keep on going this long. But that's no problem. We're here until we
Page 282
January 23-24, 2007
reach that point.
So a 10-minute break, and we'll be back here in 10 minutes and
go forward.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Please take your seats.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please call the next speaker.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Richard Karnes. He'll be followed
by Clay Brooker.
MR. KARNES: Hi. My name's Richard Karnes. I live at 627
Palm Avenue East. I share the same canal as Mr. Inglis, my wife and
I do, are residents. Been here in Collier since '81.
And I have no affiliation with any group, I have no business
dealings with Mr. Inglis, nor future or present.
My relationship with Mr. Inglis is because of the project that's
going on on the end of Palm. That's how we met, on the end of our
street. That's how Mr. Inglis and I met, because we share the same
canal.
My opinion here is based on my years of experience as a
consultant, a design consultant here in Collier County, which totals
almost 20 years right here in Collier.
And I've seen a lot of growth. I've seen a lot of changes. And I
can't see where it's going to stop. The home sizes have changed. I'd
like somebody to really give me a clear definition of what megahomes
are now versus 20 years back. There's a huge, huge -- 30 years back. I
mean, there's a huge difference between the term megahome now.
The elevations my wife and I both viewed -- we looked at the
footprint of the home. I believe it didn't even take up more than 50
percent of the allowable space on the property. Our home under air
takes up more space than that, and we've just got a little fishing camp.
My other view is, all communities have some degree in variation
as far as home size just based on geographically where those homes
are in the community. Mr. Inglis's property and the adjacent
Page 283
January 23-24, 2007
properties along that river front are going to hold larger homes than
interior homes or homes that don't have the deep water. I mean, that's
just a fact. I mean, you can look at that in Naples of how divided it is
geographically.
My understanding, that the contract construction documents were
created by the homeowner, a registered architect. They meet all of
Collier County's current codes. They meet all the current overlays,
and we support it.
The bigger issue is square footage. I don't have a problem with
the square footage. It's going to happen. It's going to come.
And as far as lot size, the lots are going to be combined. There's
so many non-conforming lots that aren't even buildable, there's not
going to be a choice but to combine them.
One thing I'd like to -- two things I'd like to bring up real quick
that's beyond -- I'm done other than two things that were brought up
by the commissioners.
One was an architectural review board. I brought that up a long
time ago when I was going to one of the groups' meetings. I think
that's an outstanding -- just an outstanding idea, to have an
architectural review board with qualified individuals that are making
the decisions.
The other concern is, Commissioner Coyle brought up about -- as
time goes on, from what I've seen, new properties are only going to be
required to bring in more fill. And the more fill that's going to be
brought in, that means the higher the elevation is going to be. You
can't cut down the size of the home because you're bringing in more
fill, and that's always going to be an issue. So I hope you keep that in
mind.
And runoffs a concern, I mean, but I'm sure people will be
required to take care of their own runoff so it doesn't disturb the
neighborhoods.
Thank you.
Page 284
January 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: That -- your final speaker is Clay Brooker.
MR. BROOKER: I'm sorry. I didn't hear my name called
earlier. Name, for the record, Clay Brooker. I'm with the law firm of
Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson and Johnson, represent the Inglis family in
this matter.
We do appreciate the opportunity to speak. We've had 10 days to
prepare as opposed to about at least a minimum of 10 weeks that the
people who are opposing this project have had.
We do want to continue to build. We believe our permit meets
all codes, all prescriptive standards that are in the Land Development
Code today. As a matter of fact, there has been zero evidence
presented to you today that shows this house violates any prescriptive
standards in the Land Development Code.
There's been a lot of talk about the purpose and intent, the low
profile, relatively small footprint language in the Village Residential
District. The problem with that language, and the law clearly held, the
law in Florida has been well settled for decades that that kind of
general, vague language is unconstitutional if applied because if I
came up to each one of you commissioners and asked you, what does
a relatively small footprint mean, I would be willing to bet I get a
different answer from each one of you; and therefore, that kind of
discretion has been deemed by the courts as arbitrary,
unconstitutional, invalid are words that have been used by Florida
courts prior to today, and those cases have been upheld.
You have the county attorney's memorandum. I don't need to
repeat that. One quote from one of the cases is, property owners are
entitled to notice of conditions they must meet in order to improve
their property in accordance with the existing zoning and other
development regulations of the government.
Those conditions should be set out in clearly stated regulations.
Compliance with those regulations should be capable of objective
Page 285
January 23-24, 2007
determination -- no discretion, obj ective determination -- in an
administrative proceeding, which is not what we're doing today.
So when someone takes a permit and goes down to the building
department, that building department, in order for your codes to be
legal, it must be able to be determined objectively whether that permit
application meets the code.
And I'm telling you today that if a court reviewed relatively small
footprint, that's unconstitutional. That can't be the governing standard.
I understand that may have been the purpose and intent. It may is -- it
may be actually the purpose and intent on the Village Residential
Zoning District in Goodland. And if that's the case, there needs to be
some changes to the code because right now, as we speak, we are fully
legal, fully compliant, zero evidence to the contrary.
Duplex issue. We submitted as a single-family home.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir, I'm going to have to ask you to
wrap it up.
MR. BROOKER: I'll ask for a little bit of lenience, but I will
wrap it up.
I will submit to you for the record the county document that
shows that we submitted as a single-family residence. The design has
always been, the intention has always been as just their family home.
We have told some of you commissioners in meetings that we're
willing to sign a deed restriction to that effect, and that offer remains
valid today. It is going to be a single-family home, not a duplex.
Construction has begun after demolishing the existing structure
in accordance with the county's direction to us. So we demolished in
accordance with.
There are seven letters of support. I also want to make those
parts of the record today. Again, that's about 10 days of work.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Please wrap it up.
MR. BROOKER: We ask that you do the legal thing today. We
all know -- we've heard about Dolphin Cove. We all know what
Page 286
January 23-24, 2007
happened after Dolphin Cove was revoked. Therefore, if Goodland
wants to pursue changes, we're perfectly fine with it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much for sharing that
with us.
MR. BROOKER: We just ask to be able to continue to build.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that was the last speaker?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I guess I walked away
with this was a Board of Zoning Appeals hearing, which actually it is
not. Nobody petitioned the board for the interpretation of our
planning department.
What Commissioner Coyle asked to be on the agenda is to get
staffs response on there, and that's what we have. But what I heard
from the residents is, we want to stop this megahome, and we can't
decide that today, and I will have no part of that.
What I think, Commissioner Halas brought in a good topic is, we
all -- I guess we all played a part in this, but we're under the direction
of the residents of Goodland of what they want in this overlay. So I
agree with him and encourage the Goodland residents to petition to
change the Land Development Code of what you want in the Land
Development Code.
And we all do know what happened with the previous action on
Goodland, the taxpayers own that property. And I've asked Ms.
Fullmer, well, if the board denies the permit, can we put -- would it be
okay to put a marina there, and they said no. So I'm asking the
question now, is anybody here willing to have a marina on this
property, please raise their hand. I'm not asking -- just raise your
hand.
MS. STEGALL-FULLMER: I'm unclear what you're talking
about.
Page 287
January 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Are you willing to put --
if the board asks to put this on the Board of Zoning Appeals agenda,
are you willing to put a marina there?
MS. STEGALL-FULLMER: I think you have to ask the
question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, okay. Nobody raised their
hand, and that's what happened on the other property in Goodland.
So I'm not going to encourage anybody, and I will not vote to
take this person's property rights away.
So I make a motion not to do anything on this item.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I could second the motion if it was to
direct staff to start working with Goodland to start correcting the
overlay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that's what I wanted to do
here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That's--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'm not going to second that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What I said -- I agree
with Commissioner Halas, if we do what we did before, we're going to
have the same outcome as we do today. There's going to be another
issue. If the Goodland residents petition the Board of Commissioners
to change their overlay, who's in control? At least the county and our
staff will not be blamed for any mistakes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. First of all, a major issue is,
we need to set up definitive standards. We -- nobody realized that
small village character wasn't a definitive standard, so we need to put
that together.
And it isn't the county that needs to do that. It's the Goodlanders.
They need to put together an overlay that includes dimensions, what
they want to do. I'm sure that there are cases where they want to join
lots. Some of the lots are what, 25 feet wide, and so there will be
Page 288
January 23-24, 2007
times, but they need to tell -- I'm not going to tell them what they need
in Goodland. I want them to tell us what they need in Goodland, and I
want them to do that amongst themselves, and they can work with
staff.
I think -- I sat in on some of those meetings with Ray Bellows,
and he was beautiful. You ought to give him many gold stars. He was
a joy to work with. And even thought the Goodlanders at times were a
little rough on him, he walked away with a smile and they all walked
away friends. And so I'd love to see that continue, that process.
That's number one.
Number two, I think until that is in place, we should stop any
further permits for anything over, I don't know, 2,000 square feet, until
they know what they want to do. And then -- and then anything below
that, if anybody's coming in to build something below that, fine, just
keep it going. It's not a moratorium or anything. It's just that before
anybody else begins to build large properties and call them -- because
now this is setting a standard. This says now that small village
character is 14,333 feet. We can't do that and retain Goodland as a
small fishing village. We just can't do that.
So I suggest -- I will make a motion, first of all, to have the
Goodlanders work together with our staff to bring back an overlay that
meets all of the objectives, and secondly, to stop any permitting of any
buildings larger than 2,000 square feet under air until they have their
Good -- their overlay completed. That's my motion. That's -- I'm only
addressing this issue because these are the simple ones.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. There is no--
MS. FILSON: You already have a motion, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That -- unfortunately, that is not
the subject of this item, but okay. I would agree with the motion, but
the subject of this item is to provide the staff guidance on whether or
not we're going to require that this permit be rescinded.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, that is true, but it also says in
Page 289
January 23-24, 2007
here that, you know, these things need to be established--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We can always have two motions,
you know --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- that's no problem. As far as I'm
con -- I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. That's okay, please. It's getting
late, and anything you can offer to this to bring it to a conclusion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I have a second on the
motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sure, sure. But I'd like to ask for a
clarification.
But let me say something else about the specific issue. Ray,
you're a really good guy, but you're not beautiful, okay? And you do
a good job, we're proud of you --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's in the eyes of the beholder.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- but I don't think you're beautiful.
To clarify this issue, the people in Goodland have to work with
the staff, as you've said. But let's learn from the experience we had in
Naples Park. People worked with the staff then. They worked a lot
harder than we imagined, and they had a consultant involved, and
what we failed to do is to make sure that the majority of the people
supported it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Dover-Kohl.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Dover-Kohl study.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, gee.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that got us into a lot of
trouble. So what we've got to do is, whoever works with the staff
doing this, that's fine. But before I'm going to support it, there has to
be a poll of all the property owners in Goodland to make sure we've
got at least 50 percent plus one who support that.
Page 290
January 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll add that to my motion --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Please do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- because I think that's very
reasonable.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, if you would do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Properties owners.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I'll, of course, second your
motion.
Now, let me go to the issue itself. I did, as Commissioner
Henning suggested, ask that this be brought back with information
concerning certain issues because I was concerned that the permit had
not been issued in accordance with our law, and if that were the case, I
would be voting to have it withdrawn. I cannot find anything where
the staff violated the code.
The -- I don't agree with some of the interpretations, but the point
is, the county attorney has told us that it is the prescriptive standards
that govern, not the intent of the law. That seems to be pretty clear,
and I'm going to accept that advice.
It also seems to be clear that the septic system was properly
inspected and certified and it met the requirements. I can't find
anything illegal or any law that was violated in issuing this particular
permit, so consequently, no matter how you feel about it, we can't
withdraw it. There's no basis for withdrawing it.
So with that, I'll end my comments. I'll tell you that I'm going to
support your motion, and I'd like -- really would like either to make or
have somebody make a motion --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that we will not --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, we've got a motion on the
floor and a second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The motion on the floor is to direct
Page 291
January 23-24, 2007
staff to start working with Goodland to try to bring some sort of
resolution to this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And also added the point that
Commissioner Coyle brought up, that he wants to -- when they reach
something in the way of resolution, that there's some sort of poll that's
taken of the community to make sure it's 50 percent plus one --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- that they can support this to avoid
-- but one good thing about Goodland, it's a small community and it's
pretty compact.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And they all have to go to the same
post office. They don't have a mailbox there on the island. And the
third point of that was to stop any permitting of any large buildings
until this is accomplished. There are a couple more that are waiting in
the wings, and this same fiasco can happen if we allow that to move
forward.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That might create another legal
problem because on what basis under law --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's not a moratorium. It's just to stop
any permitting from over 2,000 square feet.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to the county attorney.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, thank you. In regard to the last part of the
motion regarding not allowing for permitting for structures over 2,000
square feet, in essence that would be a moratorium, and a moratorium
is a -- would take the equivalent of a hearing like an -- for the adoption
of an ordinance in the sense it would need to be an advertised hearing
for the board to put that regulation into effect, which is really what it
is is a regulation which prevents the normal administration of
applications for construction for a period of time.
Page 292
January 23-24, 2007
So that's inappropriate, and I could not -- I could not advise you
that that's legally sufficient, and it might expose the board --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, but Mr. Weigel, there's got to
be an answer so that this now has not set the standard and people can
corne in until they've got this thing put together.
MR. WEIGEL: That's true.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What can we do to prevent that from
happening?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I'm going to continue here. I want to -- I
want you to make the decisions that you can so that you're not putting
yourself in legal jeopardy.
But additionally, as I did discuss with some of you
commissioners prior to the meeting, if the board were, for instance, to
give specific direction for a standard today or at a future meeting to be
brought back by staff with assistance of legal review for the next
available Land Development Code amendment hearings, then that
particular specification or prescriptive regulation would be -- and
could be -- and I would advise you. I would have the recognition of
the zoning in progress, which is a judicially recognized standard, even
prior to the formal adoption of that regulation or prescriptive
requirement.
Now, an example -- and I'm just providing as an example--
would be that we have not struggled, obviously, with the combination
of lots in Goodland heretofore. Back in 2000 and 1999 it had to do
with multi-family residences with four stories -- four stories within 35
feet, which sounded very difficult, but you may recall that was what
was proposed at that time. It did not contemplate the combination of
lots which is before you today for the first time.
Conceivably, if you wish to retain this -- I'm not suggesting that
you must. But to achieve the zoning in progress type standard, you
could conceivably say that for a combination of lots, that the setback
-- side yard setback -- minimally side yard. You may not want to talk
Page 293
January 23-24, 2007
about the front and rear setbacks, but the side yard setbacks should be
increased to 10 feet just to pick a standard.
And why is there a relevance for 10 feet? Well, as pointed out
during the discussion of one of the speakers, 10 feet of side yard
setback is lost because of the combination of lots that would otherwise
be there that allows for a view through the parcels.
I mean, that is the kind of thing that you could do to achieve near
instantaneous prohibition of a -- the kind of construction which does
not seem to comport with the purpose and intent language that you
already have.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you're saying we can't limit the
square footage or the floor area ratio --
MR. WEIGEL: No, I didn't say that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- until --
MR. WEIGEL: You can do that if you give the staff the specific
direction for that or the standard that I mentioned or both standards.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I mentioned 2,000 feet.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, you said -- you said to not do any
permitting until staff comes back, but you didn't say that that was the
standard that the staff would come back with.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I don't know what the standard
is that staff and Goodlanders -- you know, I have no idea, and I'm not
going to tell them what they should come back with. I'm just saying
that we shouldn't permit anything above 2,000 square feet, but
anybody who wants to build anything less, you know, just have at it.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, it's certainly a logical thing to say, but it
does not achieve the judicially recognized standard of zoning in
progress. It is, in essence, a moratorium till some zoning standards
come back and are discussed and are either voted up or down.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So what you're--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can you help me out?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think -- I think it would be
Page 294
January 23-24, 2007
best to take that particular issue and have a separate motion that says,
let's schedule a public hearing where we can discuss this particular
problem as a zoning principle and then provide staff with appropriate
guidance and call that zoning in progress, and that way we do it at a
public hearing that's advertised for that purpose.
Because right now that isn't advertised here. There's no
opportunity for people to come in and comment on that.
So if we were to take that particular issue that you want to raise
and bring it up at a future publicly advertised meeting, board meeting,
then we can provide guidance to the staff that could be -- could be
classified as prospective zoning and --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel, does that get us there?
MR. WEIGEL: That certainly does. And particularly if we
advertise, then that would -- you'd put us in line for probably two
meetings from now, which I believe Jim indicated was March 13th.
MR. MUDD: Two meetings from now would be in February.
MR. WEIGEL: Pardon me. We're in January. Probably
February 13th.
MR. MUDD: February 27th.
MR. WEIGEL: February 13th -- the 27th, okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I have a question then. You
were mentioning before, so when they realize that this might be
coming down the pike, will they run in and put their permits -- or their
request for permits down before this happens and then say, well, I've
already got it permitted?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't think you're going to get
anything permitted in that short period of time, but nevertheless.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, once the permit application gets
in there, I think they're kind of --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Grandfathered in.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- grandfathered in to the laws that
exist at the time they --
Page 295
January 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, that's what we're dealing with
right now.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But I mean, there's only so many
ways you can do it. We found that we can't do it by just making an
edict here today. We have to go through a process. It's always that
way.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But isn't there something else that
we have in our quiver that can -- that can hold us at bay from
happening again?
MR. WEIGEL: Well--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right now, today.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, what I could recommend is, you may wish
to -- and I think the idea is a very good one, to have the advertised
hearing at the next available period, which would be two meetings
from now.
It's still not improper, if the board wished to, to, in fact, direct a
standard even right now, if that standard -- you know, and that could
be the direction to staff to initiate zoning in progress. Remember, it's
telling the staff to come back at a future properly advertised Land
Development Code amendment time. But the staff is given a specific
direction of what you want to have come back, and it could be further
embellished or even altered at the next meeting --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I'm going to interrupt.
MR. WEIGEL: -- as far as that goes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion on the floor and
we've got a second, and that motion there -- I think we've got it down
to the point where we need to get that off the table, and then we can
have a motion made and take it from there. Because we've got
something that we have to finish business with first.
So the motion that you've got on the floor at this point in time,
Commissioner Fiala, and then we're going to corne back to the other
part.
Page 296
January 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that was part of the motion
though.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Then I won't be able to
support it because we can't -- we don't have any legal sufficiency to be
able to deal with it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So then I'll withdraw my
motion. And then -- and I'll start one thing at a time, then, just the
overlay. We're all in agreement that we want to allow the
Goodlanders to put together an overlay which will then direct the
future building requirements in Goodland and that they -- when
they've finished putting their overlay together and have 50 percent --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, public meeting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- yeah, approval from the
Goodlanders, that they'll present it to us and we'll put it in the Land
Development Code.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. We've got the first part of this
done now. Is there any other discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We have to vote on that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have to vote on it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question on the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So are you saying that the
Goodlanders petition the board to amend the land -- LDC?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know how they do an
overlay. I thought they just have an overlay, they voted on it and --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They have an overlay. You're
saying to --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Amend.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- amend the overlay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The overlay, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, are you saying that the
Page 297
January 23-24, 2007
Goodlanders petition the Board of Commissioners to amend the
overlay through an LDC amendment?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know. Is that what we have
to do? I mean, as far as I'm concerned, they can just amend their
overlay as long as it then is the ruling factor.
MR. MUDD: You have to -- if you amend the overlay, the way
you amend the overlay is you change the Land Development Code.
That's what --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. MUDD: -- amends it. And so you have to go through a
Land Development Code cycle in order to do that. You need a
petitioner for it, and in this particular case, the petitioner would have
to be Goodland. That's the appropriate way to do it. And in this
particular case --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, amend the Land Development
Code and meet all the legal sufficiency that's required to do it, that
covers it. I mean, we could -- we can't reinvent it. It exists as is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right, whatever -- whatever we
need to do is fine. It's going to take a least a year then to do that. So
by the time they get all of their -- all of their things together and then
we want to get --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that's what we're going to deal
with on the next motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have a motion and we
have a second.
Any other comment?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor of
that motion, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 298
January 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it.
Okay. Now the other part of the motion, so we can get that out
of the way, has to deal with the -- how we're going to be able to bring
some sort of finality to this for the moment at least, or some
momentary pause in time. You've got a choice between a moratorium,
which is pretty darn drastic, or you have to go through a couple of
meetings at least to be able to get, what do you call it, permitting in
progress?
MR. MUDD: Well, can I get some clarification from legal real
quick?
MR. WEIGEL: Sure.
MR. MUDD: This is one of those special-- special times
between now and the next meeting we have in February that it really
is three weeks. So it's 21 days from today when you'll have the next
meeting.
David, does that give you what you need for advertisement?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, we will get a legal advertisement in the
newspaper. I think we can do -- I think that working with the clerk
and the newspaper, one can get in prior to the meeting. It will be an
advertisement. It's not necessarily a 10-day advertisement, such as for
an ordinance typically, but it's an advertisement. I think that will pass
muster.
What I did want to counsel again is, is that, between now and
then there will be nothing. If you chose to -- if you did choose to give
staff direction on a standard today, that standard would be a standard
that you would be going forward to amend into the overlay regardless
of what happens in the meantime, but it would give you the, call it,
Page 299
January 23-24, 2007
absolute protection that applications aren't going to come in in the
meantime.
As Marjorie notes to me, that if it was a standard that the
Goodlanders didn't want, it still, to have that legal protection of zoning
in progress, would have to be implemented into the next amendment
and then, perhaps, taken out because they didn't want it at a
subsequent amendment --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This is dragging it out too long. I
need for you to help Commissioner Fiala get that motion together so
that we can get on with our lives.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I was just trying to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll help you.
MR. WEIGEL: -- explain the difference between instant relief
and waiting a month. That's the choice that you have. And if you
don't wish to declare a standard now, which is perfectly reasonable,
then it will be the next meeting three weeks from now, I guess.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Go ahead, Tom.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Someone that's got some -- you going
to try it or --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Tom was ahead of me, so let him--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, Tom, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, why are we telling -- or
trying to figure out what they want? There's public petition. They
could give us guidance.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But that's three weeks away.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: From now till then, to put something
in place.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, your suggestion to limit to
a 2,000 square foot house on a million dollar lot is totally ridiculous.
I'm sorry, but --
Page 300
January 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that's just for this temporary
time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- so -- yeah. And I -- you
know, you're going to have your constituents -- you're hanging from a
tree. So why don't you let your constituents tell you what you want?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're not getting there.
Commissioner Coyle, it's your turn.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Make a motion, do you --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Let me try something --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- okay? We don't really have in
our Land Development Code, and didn't anticipate, the combination of
lots in Goodland. So would it be sufficient for us to give guidance to
staff that no permits should be accepted or approved for the
combination of any lots in Goodland until such time as we have
completed the revision of the Land Development Code to describe
how we're going to handle it? What does that do? No?
MR. WEIGEL: You can do that if you -- at the moratorium
hearing, but you can't do that today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: At the hearing, okay.
MR. WEIGEL: You can't do that today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You can't do that today, okay, all
right. Well, we could do that in three weeks.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Tell me -- tell me Goodlanders --
Connie, get up. Tell us -- tell us what you would like to hear of a
motion that temporarily helps us at some kind of a limit.
MS. STEGALL-FULLMER: Well, maybe he doesn't want that.
We need some kind of protection, Commissioners, between now and
when the press comes out and you schedule us to discuss this.
Please find away, a motion, if it's -- I don't know if -- County
Attorney Weigel, I thought you said that you could put a standard in, a
stopgap standard, that you could use for 2,000 square feet.
Page 301
January 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what I thought.
MS. STEGALL-FULLMER: And Commissioner Henning, it's
not stopping someone from having a million dollar lot and not putting
something there. It's just holding them up until they have a chance to
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That is not realistic.
MS. STEGALL-FULLMER: But is our goal-- is our goal to still
protect Goodland? That's the goal, and we need your help in doing
that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That might not be the view of
all the residents in Goodland either.
MS. STEGALL-FULLMER: Fifty plus one is what you need.
And there always has to be someone representing coming and asking
that. And you have the GCA and the GPC.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I better stop, Connie.
MS. STEGALL-FULLMER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Let me -- let me -- let me see
if I can make this motion that will meet legal sufficiency. I would like
to make a motion that no permits are granted for building megahomes
any larger than 3,000 square feet in Goodland until we have -- until
we have a revision to the overlay in place.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We've got a motion from
Commissioner Fiala. And do we have a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You can't do that?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know it's perplexing as anything.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It is, it is, because now we're -- it's --
we're -- our standards have all changed for Goodland, and we can't
protect them.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Commissioners, if I might. When
you say that you can't do something until you impose a standard, that's
a moratorium. And there's case law right from our neighbor to the
north, City of Sanibel versus Bent Rock case, where a board cannot
Page 302
January 23-24, 2007
just do a moratorium on the spot, but it has to meet the advertising
requirements as you would do for the Land Development Code, and
that's established in case law. It's not something that we came up with
here.
There's another case also in this district, Smith versus City of
Clearwater, that allows for zoning in progress. But to a -- and that is
where you do -- the official mind has changed and you direct that a
standard go into the Land Development Code, and it, indeed, needs to
go in the Land Development Code, but it has to be a standard that we
can apply or else you run into the same problem that you run into in
trying to apply purpose and intent language.
So that's why we need an objective standard, a numeric standard,
if you will, that we can apply. And that -- those are the constraints of
the law because we're under the Constitution and a person has to be
placed on notice.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, but how do we get there? How
do we -- what can we do right now? I don't care about all those
standards. Tell me how to get there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: She just did basically.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I had stated that if you come up
with a standard.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I tried.
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: And you direct that it be in the
next available cycle of the Land Development Code, that standard can
be applied right now because the official mind has changed to any
building permits that come in. But it needs to find its way into the
Land Development Code. That doesn't mean you can't change it after
the residents of Goodland come in with what they want. You could
amend that out. But at least you have the standard in the code and you
have something you can use right now to apply to any building
permits that might come in.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But 3,000 square feet wasn't a
Page 303
January 23-24, 2007
standard?
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: That's a decision up to the board to
make and with possibly some input from our planning staff. That's a
policy decision for you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I tell you what, we're at an impasse
here. We're not going anyplace.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't even understand it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're not going anywhere.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're going to have to bring this to
an end. We're going to have to try to expediate the process to make all
legal sufficiency because we're going to do nothing but get into
trouble on where we're heading with it. I can see it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I've got a way.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If there was a way we could go--
you've got one last idea?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Make a motion we take
no action on the Ingles permit.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: For what?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That the board takes no action
on the Ingles permit.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's the item on the agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I understand, I understand.
Okay. So we have a motion by Commissioner Henning and a
second by Commissioner Coy Ie that we take no action on the permit.
And with that, any other comments on that particular thing with
the motion itself?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No comments. Then all those in
favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 304
January 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Loud and clear; we heard you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the next item?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We've got one last item, Mr. Mudd.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, how--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I thought we were going to quit at
seven o'clock --
COMMISSIONER FIALA; Oh, yeah. We were done at six.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- or six o'clock.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We were going to quit at six, but we
had to finish the people's business. And we've got one thing. It's just a
-- it's a very important issue.
Item #11
PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS
MR. MUDD: We had one request from Bill Klohn who couldn't
be here tomorrow for public comment, he basically said that he would
like to try to set the record straight on the CWHIP application for
affordable housing that got denied from the state, and he just asked for
three minutes in order to try to --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And he told me he could do it in two.
Bill, you're on, and make it two.
MR. KLOHN: Thank you for the time. For the record, my name
is Bill Klohn. I'm president of MDG Capital Corporation.
As you know, MDG Capital is the private partner of the
public/private partnership regarding the CWHIP application that went
Page 305
January 23-24, 2007
to Tallahassee.
I wanted to tell you thank you for your past support endorsing the
alliance between ESP Group and MDG, and thanks to County
Manager Mudd and his staff for helping us through the application
process.
The -- in the last two days I've spoken with the Collier County
school system, NCH, the sheriffs office, Physicians Regional
Hospital, and the City of Naples. And while we're all very
disappointed as to what happened in Tallahassee, the group has said,
you know, we've -- you get kicked, you don't fall down. You get back
up. And we remain as enthusiastic as we did back on November 28th
when we started this application, and we will be moving forward to
what we hope will be a second application for the CWHIP funds, and
we think that that's going to be this coming summer sometime.
It's unfortunate that out of the 33 applications, 22 of them failed.
Our application was one of them. It failed for unjust reasons, in my
opinion. I traveled to Tallahassee on one meeting, and my CFO
traveled to Tallahassee on another meeting. And some of the things
that we found were very painful.
In this RFP, it was a very poorly crafted RFP. It did not fit the
intent of what Representative Davis was trying to do. We knew that
some of the categories -- by the way, MDG Capital and its partners
and its professionals were contributing over $5 million to make this
project happen. That's in addition to the CWHIP money. That's a big
number to say I believe in affordable housing.
At the bottom of our financials we put a catchall, a disclaimer in
there that basically reads that if you don't like the contributions that
we've identified, increase our land donation because we're happy to do
it because we don't want to blow our 15 percent.
The scoring committee in Tallahassee didn't see that footnote or
they chose to ignore it despite our constant reminders.
So we felt that the 15 percent was there. Do I wish that we had
Page 306
January 23-24, 2007
waivers in Collier County? Yes, I do, but we don't, and we'll work
through that together.
Another thing that happened, the RFP -- the RFP typically would
include an opportunity for staff in Tallahassee to write a letter saying,
Mr. Applicant, you have three deficiencies, you've got three weeks to
fix them. The RFP was deficient that it didn't have that cure period to
fix.
As you can see some of the items, missing dates, signatures
missing, and they all could have been corrected by applicants, beyond
our Collier application, in three short days.
Last item. The RFP was oftentimes in conflict with itself. Many
-- this program was implemented for public partners to go forward
with the private sector. In the document of the verification of water,
sewer, electric and so on, there's a certification at the bottom that says,
it may not be signed by the applicant or any other parties which are
benefiting from the application.
The City of Tallahassee had -- it was the public partner in the
public/private partnership. They provided the infrastructure. When
they signed the application providing water and sewer, based on the
documentation and the way that the RFP's structured, the application
would have been voided. My point is, it was a poor RFP. We gave it
our all. We're going to give it our all again.
And Mike Davis is working very hard up in Tallahassee to
straighten out the RFP because it was flawed. And, you know, we
should have had it. We're all very sorry, but we're not giving up.
Thank you very much for the three and a half minutes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Bill.
With that, we'll continue this meeting tomorrow morning.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I ask a question about that?
Just very quickly.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Very quickly,
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How can we get the names of the
Page 307
January 23-24, 2007
people on the committee who did this, where they're from, and what
applications were approved and for whom?
MR. KLOHN: I can get that for you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can you do that?
MR. KLOHN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would very much appreciate a
copy of it.
MR. KLOHN: I'll say one more quick one. Even sadder, this
committee who's managing $50 million, they deliberated for about 30
minutes because an application -- not our application -- an application
didn't have enough money to complete the construction. The
committee didn't know the financial term of a construction revolver.
Construction revolvers go up and down, and it was sad.
But anyhow, I'll get you that information. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you for sharing that with us,
Bill.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The construction revolver's what
you hold to your head when you get behind schedule.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Continue tomorrow morning at nine
o'clock.
MR. KLOHN: That was in this past Sunday's newspaper.
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m., to continue January 24, 2007, at
9:00 a.m.
Page 308
January 23-24, 2007
DAY 2 - January 24, 2007
Meeting reconvened at 9:00 a.m. on January 24, 2007 with the
following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Jim Coletta
Tom Henning
Fred Coyle
Donna Fiala
Frank Halas
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
Leo Ochs, Deputy County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney
Page 309
January 23-24, 2007
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, take your seats, please.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mic.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. This meeting is
reconvened from yesterday, Board of County Commissioners.
Mr. Mudd, what's the next item on the agenda?
Item #9M
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS WERE TO PLACE CP-2006-06
IN THE 2005 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT
CYCLE, OR TO CREATE A SPECIAL CYCLE FOR GMP
AMENDMENTS THAT PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING -
MOTION TO ADD TO 2005 GMP CYCLE W/LIMITATIONS-
DENIED
MR. MUDD: Sir, it's 9(M), and that was an add-on by you. It's
the Board of County Commissioners to consider giving staff direction
to place CP-2006-06 in the 2005 growth management plan amendment
cycle. The board had created a special cycle for GMP amendments
that provide for affordable housing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'd like to move that for later on the
agenda a couple of items away. I'm looking for a person or two to
show up from that particular group.
Oh, you're here. No, we're right on. Okay, fine.
MR. MUDD: This request is a proactive measure given the loss
of state funding for essential service personnel housing that was
denied by the Florida Housing Finance Committee. And you got a
quick briefing by Bill Klohn last night. Last thing you heard last night
was how they did and why and what some of the issues were.
The specific GMP amendment will provide for 1,176 affordable
housing units on approximately 196 acres of land, of which 30 percent
of those units would be for low-income homes, and the balance of the
Page 310
January 23-24, 2007
units, a portion for essential service personnel and gap housing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine.
Mr. Nadeau?
MR. NADEAU: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
F or the record, my name is Dwight Nadeau. I'm representing the San
Marino J oint Venture, LLC in this application request. We are in
currently the '06 amendment cycle.
This is the San Marino Growth Management Plan amendment
that was transmitted to DCA back in 2004. It failed to have the
number of votes necessary to adopt that growth management plan
amendment.
Effectively, this growth management plan amendment is only
going to be adding a legal description to the future land use element
that would allow the property to be eligible to come back to you for a
rezoning at up to six dwelling units per acre.
Now, that 1,176 units, 30 percent of those units are required to
be affordable housing. They will be for very low-income housing,
those 30 percent.
The balance of those units -- the difference between the '04
application and this '06 application is that the remaining units of 70
percent would be going towards gap housing or below.
Now, using your existing density rating system that was recently
adopted for affordable housing, it would qualify for 12 dwelling units
per acre, if it was anywhere else. This is six dwelling units per acre.
Now, the timing is short. With the loss of that state grant money
from the housing development -- from the state agencies, we felt, as
you did, that it may be appropriate to try and advance this affordable
housing project into potentially the '05 cycle or potentially a special
cycle for CWHIP-type projects or affordable housing projects.
Now, I've had discussions with Mr. Schmitt. He feels that it's
going to be very difficult to meet the notice requirements and the
sufficiency findings. I told him that this is basically a dust-off petition.
Page 311
January 23-24, 2007
The petition was found sufficient previously, it was transmitted
previously. I do have the county's documents that I can provide to
staff.
We would just like your consideration and potential direction to
staff to either allow this to go into the '05 cycle, for which I will do
everything that's necessary by code, I'll work with staff, I will have
my neighborhood information meeting, and I can get all of that done
by March 5, the first planning commission meeting.
The other alternative would be to have a special cycle for
CWHIP-qualifying projects, or other affordable housing projects. And
that would be your second amendment cycle that's statutorily
permitted for Collier County.
If it were not CWHIP, I say that would be your second, the
ramifications for that would be that the '06 amendments that were filed
last April would be delayed until 2008.
So with that information for your consideration, we'd like to see
if the board has any consensus as to whether they'd like to move this
petition forward.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We do have commissioner questions.
Before we go to them, Mr. Weigel, you just heard what's being
proposed. And I'm not too sure what dust-offmeans. As far as legal
requirements go, could we possibly meet it?
Oh, there we go. Marjorie?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, I think I'll let Marjorie respond.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, for the record, Marjorie
Student-Stirling.
There's a limitation -- and I was back talking to staff on the fact
that we can have compo plan amendments go through twice a year, and
then there's certain limited exceptions, and I don't know of one for
affordable housing.
I do recall that this amendment carne through before, and if staff
is willing, I think the better thing to do -- it is a dust-off. And what he
Page 312
January 23-24, 2007
means is it came through here before and didn't get a recommendation
at that time. If memory serves me correctly, it was off of 951, wasn't
it?
MR. NADEAU: Yes, actually, it is.
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: So I think if staff is willing, and if
we could meet notice requirements, that it would be appropriate to try
to get it in the '05, what we call '05 cycle, which would be coming to
you in March, if staff is willing.
MR. MUDD: Let's make sure, you know, on
CP-2006-humpty-bump, okay, let's make sure this board understands
what project this is that you're dusting off.
Could you please tell them that, Mr. --
MR. NADEAU: Absolutely.
Commissioners, this is the San Marino Growth Management
Plan amendment. It is 196 acres. It is on the east side of Collier
Boulevard.
As you can see on the vicinity map, it is just slightly north of
Rattlesnake Hammock Road, which is also on the south side of
Rattlesnake Hammock extension, is the new Physicians Medical
Center.
The opportunities for housing in this area are going to be for
workforce affordable gap housing. And this area is going to be a dire
need.
There's very few locations left in Collier County other than
Immokalee that these types of land uses can be provided for, and we
feel that this property is ripe for at least having the opportunity to
request the entitlements from you. We're not requesting anything other
than the opportunity to come back to you to ask for the project and the
density.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Mr.-- Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I'm not sure I understand
fully what we're going to gain over what we failed to approve the last
Page 313
January 23-24, 2007
time, except that you're just converting it all to affordable housing?
MR. NADEAU: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's not going to be a market
rate component, you're going to convert it all to affordable housing.
MR. NADEAU: That is accurate, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How is the density likely to
change?
MR. NADEAU: The density could be as high as six dwelling
units per acre.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And what was it before?
MR. NADEAU: Currently the urban residential fringe has a
density limit of 1.5 dwelling units per acre, unless you bring in
transfer of development rights.
The growth management plan future land use element has
provisions in it to provide for density bonuses for affordable housing
up to six dwelling units per acre.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So tell me why you
couldn't accomplish the same thing under the existing proposal, the
proposal that was rejected last time?
MR. N AD EA U: Well, because there were -- at that time there
were market rate units that were included.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, but you could have changed
those at any point in time.
MR. NADEAU: We could have -- well, actually there was no
gap provisions back in 2004. The new opportunity for gap, or as it's
called in the Land Development Code, affordable housing, that
opportunity was not there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I understand. But you could
have called them whatever you wanted to call them. You're the one
who is responsible for setting the price of the product you're going to
sell; is that not correct?
MR. NADEAU: Well, actually, not myself, but my client, yes,
Page 314
January 23-24, 2007
SIr.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But your client.
MR. NADEAU: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So I don't understand why even
under the current circumstances you can't bring in a proposal to do
affordable housing, make it entirely affordable housing and have us
consider that without going through the growth management plan
provISIon.
What is the difference? What is happening here?
MR. NADEAU: The future land use element has a specific
requirement that a legal description be added. And that would be
similar to the Mansar PUD that was originally done. That legal
description is in the future land use element.
It is a site-specific density bonus, and I could not achieve that
same density under a 1.5 dwelling unit per acre, or even try to bring in
TDRs, because then that would increase the cost of the housing by
having to purchase TDRs within a very select area to transfer into the
urban residential fringe.
So the only opportunity to provide for this is through the growth
management plan amendment.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You couldn't come in and ask for
affordable housing density bonuses?
MR. NADEAU: I could not do that, not in the urban residential
fringe.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You cannot do that.
MR. NADEAU: It must be done through a GMP amendment.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I only have one final question.
MR. NADEAU: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What makes anyone believe that if
the density that was proposed previously was considered excessive for
the conditions on 951, that the conditions for adding substantially
more density will now be accepted?
Page 315
January 23-24, 2007
MR. NADEAU: Well, actually, back in 2004, as you know, we
were operating under different concurrency requirements. And we ere
analyzed for the full 1,176 units. We were found to be consistent and
to be able to transmit, and we were found consistent to be able to get a
recommendation of approval to transmit the adoption of that growth
management plan amendment.
We failed to get the votes, based on transportation concerns. But
we were following the letter of the law.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But there are still transportation
concerns.
MR. NADEAU: Absolutely there are transportation concerns.
But now we've got a transportation program that is funded and is
about ready to commence construction on Collier Boulevard south.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Maybe, maybe not. But okay. I
think I understand.
County Manager, what impact is this going to have on other
growth -- or changes to the growth management plan we might wish to
make?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, first of all, adding it to the cycle is
going to be difficult, okay, if it truly is a dust-off. If it truly is a
dust-off, then we can do that pretty quick.
Now, all the neighborhood information meetings and stuff like
that, Mr. Nadeau and his team is going to have to be quite diligent
with the things that they need to get back to us. Staff doesn't have time
to so-called hold his hand, or his client's hand, okay, and shepherd
them through this thing.
I would recommend that you do not start a special cycle, because
that basically closes off your opportunity for a second cycle. And you
have things that are basically ready to do that.
This is not a CWHIP project. CWHIP was mentioned. CWHIP is
that affordable housing initiative. In the bill it talks about a cycle. But
when you talk to the DCA staff, the DCA staff says that doesn't give
Page 316
January 23-24, 2007
you the right to have a free cycle. It has to be one of the cycles that
you legitimately have when you bring them forward. You kind of go,
well, what good is that? So you're kind of stuck trying to fast track a
CWHIP application.
The other piece I will tell you is Mr. Klohn has no intention of
stopping his project because of his denial. And I believe you heard
that last night from him.
So you also understand he's going to continue to move forward
on his proj ect. He might dust off his CWHIP application and get it
ready for next year again to see if he can find those dollars from the
state.
But again, the onus is pretty much on Mr. Nadeau and his client.
If he wants to get at it, staff will look at it. And if it indeed is a
dust-off, then we'll see that. But if he starts making it -- makes major
changes and muscle movement to the particular document, we're
going to tell you it's not going to make it. My recommendation is that
it get moved back to the 2006 cycle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But you're suggesting that
we not create a special cycle for this particular thing.
MR. MUDD: No, sir. If you're going to do this, and Mr. Nadeau
has basically told you what it is, a dust-off, I'd say add it to the cycle
that you've got right now. Staff will take a look at it. If it is indeed a
dust-off, that's fine. If it's not, then we're going to tell Mr. Nadeau he
needs to come back in the 2006 cycle, which will be heard in 2008.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we will get a chance to
review that before it is submitted?
MR. MUDD: Oh, yes, sir. Yes, sir. You're going to review all of
this stuff. It's going to the planning commission, and then you've got
all of these compo plan amendments by petitioners coming before you
here this spring, the early part of summer. So you're going to get to see
every one of these things before you transmit them.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just so we have a complete
Page 3 1 7
January 23-24, 2007
exchange of information, one of the things I'm going to be very, very
concerned about is the capacity on 951 to accommodate this additional
density.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Absolutely. That's why I'm--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Before it's transmitted anywhere.
I'm going to be interested in hearing about that.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Staff will be able to give you the nuts
and bolts of that particular issue, and if there's anything that's changed
on 951.
I remember that dialogue, and I also remember that's why I
asked Mr. Nadeau to try to put a name and a place to the particular
number that you've received on this particular item so that you'd all
understand and it would bring back some memories, may they be
good or bad.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I had a couple of questions
really for Joe Schmitt, as well as for Norm Feder.
The first question is we have another one looming out there, it's
called Toll Brothers. We're going to have 2,000 units-- 2,000 acres. If
we allow an increase in density, because I understand that they're
trying to also increase their density, will this set a precedent for them?
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, for the record, Joe Schmitt,
your administrator of community development, environmental
services division.
To answer your question, the precedence, I can't say that it
would set precedence. There are other petitions pending for
development in that area. You mentioned Toll Brothers, which I'm
assuming you're talking about the sports park and that development.
I do have another project that already had a pre-ap which wants
to come in under the CWHIP project, community workforce housing
initiative partnership. That is a valid application. Probably will be in
the 2006 cycle, trying to compete for that program in the 2008
Page 318
January 23-24, 2007
program under the state out in Section 20. I believe that's Lennar
Homes, looking at trying to compete for that. Mr. Klohn is also trying
to come in for a CWHIP.
To clarify the record, for the CWHIP program, when the law
was passed for the affordable housing bill that was passed, it did say
that CWHIP would have a fast track. But the state never clarified what
that meant. So we are stuck with two cycles a year. And I want to just
paraphrase what the county manager said, basically is yes, this -- if
you allow a special cycle, this consumes one of the cycles that we
have for the year.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What I'm trying to get at is the
urban fringe.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. The reason we have that
there of course is because of the impact to the environmental --
MR. SCHMITT: Right, it was a density blend, and you go from
four units an acre to 1.5 an acre. Then you get into the rural fringe.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. But if we allow this and we
allow Toll Brothers and we allow I don't know who else is waiting in
the wings, then we don't have an urban fringe, right?
MR. SCHMITT: The -- well, I can't -- you're asking me a
question to make a conclusion. The urban fringe says 1.5 units an acre.
Then we get into rural fringe mixed use district and that's where you
have TDRs and that's where you're supposed to have clustering and
the type of -- village-type environment.
So our growth plans today very much control how growth will
be established through that -- at least through that density band and
into the urban fringe.
And I want to peel back the onion a little bit on this project so
you know the history of it.
The density in the area that Dwight is talking about, this section
here, that land was used to justify the density to build the San Marino
Page 319
January 23-24, 2007
apartments. You recall this was supposed to be a golf course.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: There's only two units left on that;
is that correct?
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. There are two units left. This
growth management plan was to come in to now convert what was,
quote, once going to be a golf course to allow for affordable housing,
six units an acre.
This original plan sets a density bonus of six plus the 1.5 to
allow for 7.5 units an acre, and my math, 1,178 units to be built there.
Now, that's what that 2004 submittal was.
So to answer Commissioner Coyle's question, when you said
what's changed, well, why can't you do it today? They can't do it
today because basically, quote, that density for that land has already
been used to build the San Marino apartments, which is right on 951.
N ow they want to come in and up the density for that urban
fringe for affordable housing to bring the total up to at least 7.5.
That's what we had from this 2004 cycle.
And that's what this proposal is. The question here is to bump it
into the 2005 cycle right now -- the neighborhood information
process, you all directed that we do neighborhood information
meetings for all the GMPs. It has absolutely been astounding the
number of people that have been involved in the NIMs.
I commend for directing us to do that. That has gotten the public
involved early. We've had 50 to 60 members of the public attending
almost every one of these neighborhood information meetings. In fact,
we had to delay your cycle. We've scheduled the planning commission
for a minimum of five meetings. We have 15 -- Randy, 15 or l6?
Sixteen. Sixteen private petitions for GMP amendments in this cycle
right now moving through the process. We have planning commission
meetings set for March 5th, 22nd, 29th, and then April 2nd and 3rd.
You're scheduled June 4th and 5th for these submittals.
If you were to bump this into the 2005 cycle, I told Mr. Nadeau
Page 320
January 23-24, 2007
he would have a minimum -- or a maximum of no more than 14 days.
I would even probably say less.
His application is not complete, it's not sufficient, he would have
to schedule a neighborhood information meeting, and that packet has
to be complete, because I have to put the books together, I have to
distribute them in mid-February to the planning commission. They
need at least two to three weeks prior to their first public hearing
March 5th.
So it does put a tremendous amount of responsibility on the staff
to carry this forward.
If you direct it, we'll try and make it happen. But it's really
going to depend on what he can do to get this package ready.
They've had a pre-ape meeting, and that's about it. We haven't
even done a sufficiency review on this application.
So with that information, I don't know if you have any other
questions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I had one for transportation as well.
Norm, when you figured out the level of service on 951 and the
expansion of 951, as well as Davis Boulevard, were you using the
dwelling units that were figured for urban fringe, 1.5, or were you
figuring for -- when you figured how much capacity you'd have.
MR. FEDER: I'll let Don go through the detail on that since he
keeps the books.
But essentially we go based on the projects that are approved,
and bringing those through and then the added acreage. I'll have Don
go through that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, transportation planning.
What we've assumed in there for -- depending on whether you're
using the model. If you're using the model, it's probably around the
one and a half to two units per acre.
But what we did in the past for some of these things that are
Page 321
January 23-24, 2007
coming forward is look at obviously what's vested out there for Lely,
Fiddler's Creek, some of the background in that area, and then looked
at some of the ones that have been coming on lately, and when we're
widening 951 how much capacity that adds on.
And I heard you talk about Toll Brothers. Toll Brothers, what
we've been saying is if we can't get a parallel road for 951, I don't see
that able to go.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
MR. SCOTT: Because, you know, at some point all that other
development's going to go in down there and we have no other
solution if there's not a parallel road.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And how does Davis Boulevard--
now that we're having this problem with funding Davis Boulevard,
how is that affected with not only this particular one, but for instance,
Toll Brothers?
MR. SCOTT: Well, we're going to talk about that some more
with the A UIR, because I went back and this morning was talking to
staff about the TCMA. Because if you look in the book, I think it said
like 87 percent of the lane miles were still okay for the TCMA. But we
had some more developments to be booked for Golden Gate Parkway,
which had like 46 trips left. With that out of there, I think that's going
to lower that; that TCMA is going to fail.
So obviously we need Davis to bring that back up, or if it doesn't
happen, then we're hit by link -- essentially when the TCMA fails,
anybody that comes in has to do link-by-link analysis. If they're on a
failing segment, they can't go.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Coming back to me for a moment.
I'm glad you're here, because the road situation is of primary
importance. We want to make sure. No matter where we're going to
build, anything that has to do with any kind of density, we're going to
have to make sure the roads are there. Whether it be way out into the
Page 322
January 23-24, 2007
agricultural area or the Estates or Immokalee itself, the roads have to
be there.
Now, I do understand a couple of things that are evident. We do
have some improvements coming forward. We also have a checkbook
concurrency in there that allows us to be able to make sure that they
can't exceed what's already.
And I assume that your proj ect would be under the checkbook
concurrency rules if we moved everything forward. In other words, it
would have to be road capacity coming up, even though if we're ever
going to build a proj ect, something for gap housing to be able to take
care of the hospital and the other entities around there would be the
most deserving.
MR. NADEAU: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we're absolutely cognizant
of the concurrency requirements and the consistency requirements of
the county, as you may change them through your EAR amendments
or as they may be at the time that the rezoning comes forward if you
choose to allow this to proceed.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we have projects out there today
that are sitting in limbo until the road capacity can kick in. All of a
sudden we have some tremendous incentives out there for people to
come forward. And we seen some examples just yesterday, going to
give us the right-of-way, going to give us the area for ponds. The
incentive's there if they know they can do it if the road's there. So
we've got willing partners willing to come in.
So I see no harm in moving this thing forward with the idea
being they can't go unless the capacity's there. That road that goes
through the back area is going to need right-of-way from you to be
able to happen, too. Why would you be a willing player if you don't
have something in there that's going to be up to it?
If we ever get to the point that it comes before this commission
and we put it to a vote, that's going to be one of the conditions that we
have to approve conditional upon da da da, da da da happening. So I
Page 323
January 23-24, 2007
don't see where the road is going to be an overwhelming thing.
Now, let's get down to what the actual benefits is.
One more time, how many gap houses would this provide?
MR. NADEAU: Of the 1,176 units that would be the bonus
units, 30 percent, or 353, would be for very low income. The
remaining 70 percent, or 823 units, would be in the gap price range.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that percentage is, by the need
that's out there, is really off. But I'm not going to argue it, because
there's a lot of people that -- especially the hospital. I know there's a
lot of people who come into play to be able to support this if we ever
get it to the point that it reaches the commission and gets passed.
Meanwhile, you're getting back to the fact, if you're going to be
on the '05 cycle and you're going to disrupt the schedule staff has in
trying to fit you into it -- and I mean I wouldn't even consider this if it
wasn't anything but affordable housing. It wouldn't be worthy of the
time of day. And I could give a darn about any of the other housing
out there. But this is of utmost importance.
Would you be willing to accept responsibility to take on more
than your fair share of work to get it through? And if it doesn't get
through, if staff can't make it because they got other obligations or if
you fall short, you understand you're going to have to move from the
'05 to the '06?
MR. NADEAU: And we would stay in the '06 cycle. And I
absolutely acknowledge that.
I will -- we will be able to get our neighborhood information
meeting completed prior to the planning commission meeting.
We will be able to assist staff with the previous review materials
so that they can find their old documents, analyze -- it's an exact same
application it was in '04. And that's why I'm saying it really is a
dust-off.
I will make the effort, and if it doesn't work we will --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to see if I can move this
Page 324
January 23-24, 2007
along.
MR. NADEAU: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With those particular facts in mind,
I'm going to make the motion that we direct staff to put you in the '05
cycle with the limitations that I just mentioned. In other words, your
performance is going to be dependent upon them getting to there and
the fact that you're going to pick up the slack.
And if staff cannot perform because of the fact that you don't
have everything together and it's more than a dust-off, it automatically
goes to the '06.
MR. NADEAU: Understood. And I'll give staff a very large
data dump before the end of the day of all the materials from the '04
petition so that they can have that available to them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Nadeau. Let's see if I
get a second to my motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Henning.
Okay. I'm sorry, Commissioner Coyle, then Commissioner
Halas, is that the right order?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess so.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I really don't see the benefit for
pushing this thing and rushing ahead so quickly. There's just too much
of an opportunity for us to do something wrong or to fail to gather all
of the input that we need from the communities. Trying to rush this
thing through in 14 days in my opinion is just inviting us to make
some errors and to ignore input.
I do not understand the need for such emergency measures. And
I don't understand why we cannot do this in our normal cycle.
Affordable housing is being built today at a faster rate than ever in the
history of Collier County. So I don't know that rushing this thing
ahead on a very limited time schedule is going to benefit any of us.
And I just -- I just simply don't understand why we're trying to
Page 325
January 23-24, 2007
push this thing through so quickly at such great risk.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just so I have an understanding of
what you consider very low income, what's your definition of very
low income?
MR. NADEAU: Those homes would be constructed as the--
through the partnership with Waterways Joint Venture and Habitat for
Humanity, and those would be below 50 percent median income.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think it's 60.
MR. NADEAU: Below 60 percent median.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What are we talking price range?
MR. NADEAU: Honestly, I don't know the price range of a
Habitat unit. I know the dimensions --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: About 80,000, 90,000.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry, Habitat, yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Habitat, yes.
And what are you looking at at gap housing? Price range.
MR. NADEAU: The gap housing would range anywhere
between 81 percent and 150 percent of the median income.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So we're talking about $300,000?
MR. NADEAU: Less than about 310.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's not gap housing, as far as
I'm concerned. People keep telling me this gap housing is 300,000.
Let me tell you, young people coming into the community cannot
afford a $300,000 home. And you want to add a density bonus on this
project. I've got a problem.
MR. NADEAU: Understand, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I've got to make a correction. You
cannot charge more than 30 percent of a person's income for the
housing in order to qualify for affordable. So if a person's earning
$90,000 a year to, what, 27 -- 270 -- 27,000?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 270.
Page 326
January 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 270--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 270,000 or less.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right, would be the limits of it.
But then again, too, gap housing goes all the way up to 150 percent of
the average, which would get you up into the higher income homes.
The trick's going to be if you do get that opportunity to come
back before us, is to make sure that you can give us insurance that all
the houses aren't going to be in the 150 percent affordable range to
meet that high end of the market, which is basically just regular
housing, as far as I'm concerned. It would have to have some sort of
mixture going all the way from the 80 to the 150.
MR. NADEAU: Mr. Chairman, you just broadcast your
development intent to my client. So if we have the opportunity to
come back, we will have to put together a package that is acceptable
to you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now, Commissioner Coyle
brought up a good point about, you know, rushing to judgment, the
fact that we push something through, there might be ways to make
mistakes.
Would you like to comment on that? Because he does have some
very good concerns, and he's seen some good examples in his many,
many years of life. I didn't want to say that you're old.
(Laughter. )
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Many, many, many, many years.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Being that he's old, he'll forget what I
said in a few minutes.
MR. NADEAU: I'm sure that Commissioner Coyle's wisdom
comes from his vast experience.
Yes, there's always an opportunity. We try and have
redundancies in our procedures to minimize the mistakes that are
made.
We did have a very thorough review in 2004. I'm sure we'll still
Page 327
January 23-24, 2007
have a very thorough review for this 2006 amendment.
The only reason why I'm here, Commissioner, is that we thought
that this had a public benefit. And I can't tell you all of the public
benefits that will come out of the project because I haven't -- I don't
have the opportunity to put the package together for you.
But what I can say is that I will commit to you that I will put the
resources on this necessary to provide staff the information that they
need to make a value judgment. And I accept that if staff says that
they don't have enough material to allow it to go into the '05 cycle,
that's it. I stay in queue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You go to the '06.
MR. NADEAU: Well, I am in '06. I would just stay in queue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to amend my motion to
give Commissioner Coyle that element of comfort that he needs. I'm
going to make this contingent upon staffs determination as you get
into it.
In other words, if your dust-off is more than a dust-off, if the
requirements are not being met to the letter of the law or there's a lack
of comfort on the part of staff, that you stay in the '06 cycle.
MR. NADEAU: We accept that, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. That's my amended motion.
How about Commissioner Henning, can you accept that in the
amended second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sounds great.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing -- yes, do we have speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, I'm just looking to see how the vote goes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're not going to tell you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This is a secret vote.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could you add something to that
Page 328
January 23-24, 2007
with regard to the Davis Boulevard --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, I'm more than happy to. But
let's cover this, more than Davis Boulevard, that it meets the necessary
road contingencies as prescribed under our growth management plan
-- excuse me, land development codes as far as the -- what is it,
contingency on the road?
MR. NADEAU: Consistency.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Consistency.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, let's not go down this far, okay? I
mean, we're right on the edge of doing a public hearing on a land
development item, okay. I'm very uncomfortable here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We already have that safeguard in
there, so I'm not going to add that at this time. I don't know how I can.
With that, any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMICOMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Sorry, you're still in the '06.
MR. NADEAU: Thank you, Commissioners, at least for your
consideration.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much for trying.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I interject something here?
Are we -- not for you really. Not for you at all, Dwight.
Is there something we can do about other things that are coming
up that are -- that have many, many units that can truly impact that
road?
Page 329
January 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You could turn it down.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: AUIR.
MR. MUDD: Sir -- ma'am, you're asking if the county can
reserve things for proj ects that --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How do we protect that urban
fringe is what my question is, really.
MR. MUDD: So I guess what I would say to you is the way
your system is set up, it's kind of what I call a fi-fo; it's first in, first
out. First in basically will take the units away from the road, your
capacity. And if somebody's later on you don't have capacity, then so
sorry, we don't have it, you aren't going to go forward.
And so trying to decide which proj ect you like better so that you
reserve it so you deny somebody, I would suggest -- I would highly --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not that so much as, you know, I'm
hearing of, you know, quite a few thousand coming up in one project,
and I'm very concerned with that.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. And if you don't have capacity on
your roads, then I would suggest that you deny it. And we have to go
through that analysis to see what it comes and see what road projects
are there, and that's the whole program that you've set out in your land
development code and your growth management plan, along with your
checkbook concurrency for transportation. It's probably one of the
better systems in the state.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: One more question. IfTDRs are
involved, do they automatically get that density, or can we vote on
that?
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, if they -- that's a question I can't answer
with certainty, so I'm going to ask Mr. Cohen or Mr. Schmitt or the
County Attorney.
The question that was asked is if they have TDRs and they buy
TDRs, does that automatically give them the density, or can the
board kind of notch off some of that density because it just doesn't
Page 330
January 23-24, 2007
seem to fit?
So I guess what the question really is, is the TDR program, when
you buy it, is it automatic density by right?
MR. SCHMITT: TDRs, yes. There's no amendment to the
compo plan. They still have to still come in and do -- potentially have
to do a rezoning, could do a rezoning. If it's a rural village town or
hamlet, it still would come in for a rezoning. But the compo plan
already allows for those transfer of development rights, so it wouldn't
be a compo plan amendment.
But it depends on the product that come in. There are some
products that come in today, if the density is at the density authorized
within the growth management plan, it would not even require a
rezoning. This proj ect that Lennar is offering in Section 20 could
come in today and go through the administrative process without even
going through the rezoning process.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't really know which the
Lennar is that you're talking about --
MR. MUDD: Gentlemen, is the TDR program -- when they
purchase the TDRs, is it density by right?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what I'm asking.
MR. KLATZKOW: They come in every day to my office and
it's an administrative process. If they meet the requirements, they get
it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're getting far afield now, but we
do have one more comment from Commissioner Coyle and we're
going to move on.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Actually, a question.
The answers are beginning to bother me a little bit. And I'm not
sure that we're answering the right question. You can't just take a
bunch ofCDRs because you buy them and get density on zoned
Page 331
January 23-24, 2007
property unless it is permitted at that density.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You can't increase your density on
the property merely because you buy more TDRs.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I got the opposite answer --
MR. SCHMITT: That is correct, there are limits, but --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the limits are designed by
what it's zoned to.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, by what's defined in the rural fringe
mixed use district. It's one unit per 40 acres without the TDRs, one
unit per five acres with TDRs. If you amass enough land you can--
you basically can build the product.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Build it, what, the product?
MR. SCHMITT: At the density by bringing in the transfer of
development rights, one unit per --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Per five acres.
MR. SCHMITT: -- per five acres, that's right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You can't buy 10 acres and put 10
units on that five acres. That's what Commissioner Fiala's question
was.
MR. SCHMITT: No, you cannot. You have to have enough
land to -- basically the aggregate has to come up.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You said density by right.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, it is by right up to a certain point.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Up to the limit of its zoning.
MR. SCHMITT: Up to the limits that's defined in the
comprehensive plan.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, comprehensive plan.
So right now that means in the fringe, no matter how many
TDRs people buy, they can't build more than one unit per five acres.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. Well, there is a half a unit
bonus for affordable -- there's some bonuses for affordable housing
Page 332
January 23-24, 2007
and some other things, yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: They can also group the houses
together.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, they can group the houses together, but in
the aggregate you still have to end up with --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The total amount--
MR. SCHMITT: The total.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's move on to the next item.
We've got a lot to cover today.
Item #10D
THE 07 AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY BOARD
OF COMMISSIONERS AND THE DAVID LAWRENCE
MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF
$L035,600 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to Item 10(D). This
is a recommendation to approve the FY'07 agreement between Collier
County Board of Commissioners and the David Lourdes Medical
Health Center, Inc. in the amount of $1 ,035,600.
Ms. Marla Ramsey will present. This is our annual contract and
it's also a state-stipulated requirement that we have a medical health
program in the county.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We've got a motion for approval by
Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Halas. Great
presentation.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 333
""'~--'''-----'"""'' ,.".__..".,.~
January 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMICOMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it. Thank you.
Item #10G
AWARDED CONTRACT 07-4075 - "LEL Y AREA
STORMW A TER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (LASIP) PHASE
lA" TO MITCHELL & STARK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,459,003 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 10(G). It's a
recommendation to award Contract 07-4075, Lely Area Stormwater
Improvement Project, LASIP Phase lA to Mitchell and Stark
Construction Company, Inc. in the amount of $2,459,003. And Mr. --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion for approval by
Commissioner Coyle, a second by Commissioner Henning.
Any discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMICOMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Page 334
January 23-24, 2007
Opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 5-0. Thank you
very much.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that approval is a momentous -- in
the history of Collier County, and at least in this proj ect. This has
been 16 years in the making, okay, and finally we get moving on it.
Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Did it take that long to get it
through Joe's shop?
(Laughter.)
MR. MUDD: No. No, sir. Joe was rather quick on that 16-year
process. It was the Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, along with Fish & Wildlife.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Were you guys still at the Corps
when they were --
MR. MUDD: Joe was.
Item #10H
PREPAYMENT FOR THE CARIBBEAN GARDENS
COMMERCIAL PAPER LOAN IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,000,000
- MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF DIRECTION FOR STAFF AND
CLERK TO BRING FORTH ANYTHING OVER $1 MILLION-
APPROVED
MR MUDD: Brings us to 10(H), and it's a recommendation that
the board approves prepayment of the Caribbean Gardens commercial
paper loan in the amount of $7 million.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to -- second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion for approval by
Page 335
January 23-24, 2007
Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Coyle.
Any discussions?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I'd like to add one more thing to the
recommendation, that if we find ourselves in similar situations where
we have extra money that exceeds the principal and interest payment
on the particular loan, that we payoff this loan early, and you give the
county manager and the clerk the authority in order to do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I want to see these items.
These items need to come before the Board of Commissioners.
MR. MUDD: Even if this is a referendum and the monies that
the voters basically approved and the only monies that are going to
prepay the loan are the monies that we receive from that particular
millage?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I am not going to delegate my
authority. I think it's the right of the Board of Commissioners to know
the expenditures or the change of any contract agreement, bond or
whatever.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Discussion? Hearing none, we
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I do have a discussion, just
so that I understand. This is the money that everybody has voted to
pay into it, and if the money comes in faster than what we thought,
what you're asking -- in other words, property values go up or more
people move in or whatever so we get an extra amount of money over
and above, we pay it off faster.
Is that what you're saying?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And then you would let us know
that that's what you're doing, right?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, yes.
MR. MUDD: See, we've never--
Page 336
January 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't understand that --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't have a problem with it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'd like to add something. How
much money per month or week is the savings? In other words, on the
interest --
MR. MUDD: By this particular action, you'll save about
$23,000 a month.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So in other words, suppose
we're on summer recess or something and this came up and we had to
wait a whole month before it could back to the commission, it would
be $23,000 we'd lose?
MR. MUDD: It could be, depending on the prepayment amount
that you --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I understand where you're coming
from, Mr. Mudd. While I had some reservations at first, I don't know
with that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We have a motion on the floor
that doesn't include that direction.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine. You're absolutely correct,
Commissioner Henning.
Does the second still stand?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. The motion fails for lack ofa
second. Giving him a dirty look.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You had a motion to approve it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. It was your motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry, I thought it was your
motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you're removing it?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, you -- didn't -- no, I seconded
it.
Page 337
January 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I thought that you had
modified the motion to say that you wouldn't accept the county
manager's addendum to the motion to permit them to do this as a
normal course so that they could pay it off earlier and save interest
money. And at that point in time I got concerned.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My motion stood on the item of
the request.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Of the recommendation to approve
it as stated. You got me, I'm there, I'll vote for it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, so you still have a second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Still got a second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that's the motion that does not
include the county manager having the ability to be able to apply the
funds --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And as far as I'm concerned, if
somebody wants to make an additional motion to provide guidance --
to provide that for the county manager, we can do that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, that's fine.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could you all just repeat that
motion so we all understand?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve staffs
recommendations. It's in the -- the backup is in our material in the
executive summary.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I understand exactly where
everyone's coming from.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to make sure. I didn't
mean to make you mad.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'm not mad at all. I think
it's very clear.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, we got a motion.
Page 338
January 23-24, 2007
Any other discussion on that motion, with the understanding we
can come back with another motion if we want to.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor, indicate by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMICOMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 5-0.
Now, a second motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, you want to make a second
motion?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, I'd be more than happy to, that
we direct the county manager that when funds come in for this
particular account that they be applied as promptly as possible to save
the taxpayers the interest.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Does that sound correct?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
You also need to look at the clerk. You notice who signed this
executive summary, it was Derek Johnssen from the clerk's office. It's
under the county manager. Should be under the clerk's item. And they
need some guidance when the dollars come in in order to pay it.
We have in the past always have paid these off through the clerk,
and the clerk has done this as a process of paying off the particular
loans. But in this particular case, they believe they needed to have
direction. And I'm trying to get that direction so that we can be more
efficient as far as --
Page 339
January 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I hear you. Let's see if we got that
direction.
MS. KINZEL: For the record, Crystal Kinzel with the clerk's
office.
The reason we asked to bring it back, Commissioner, was
exactly that, that the combined amounts of the preliminary payoff
seemed to exceed the originally authorized budget. So, for example, if
you had a budgeted payoff annually of 11 million and then that
amount came in, that would be authorized by budget and it would
indicate the board's intent.
I think it's a little ambiguous if you just say as the money comes
in we pay it off. I still think we would prefer that that have a board
action, which is why we drafted this executive summary to come
forward for the board to identify the exact amount that they're
authorizing to be paid off.
And we can do that by either consent, we can do it however
recording mechanism you would prefer, but I think as the clerk's
office, we would like to see an amount defined.
And we can report to you through either the finance committee
meetings when we get an accumulated amount that seems a
reasonable pay-down amount, put it on as an executive summary
under consent and get your authority for each amount. We would
prefer that, I believe.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, my problem with that is the
fact that there's a delay, and that delay can amount to tens of
thousands of dollars in interest paid.
MS. KINZEL: I'll be honest, Commissioner, we don't have to
have a delay like that. We can anticipate pretty much the pay-downs
and the revenues that we're going to receive from these tax inflow.
Right now the reason we put it on the agenda is we were kind of
waiting to get that last little bump from the tax collector's office. So
we know about when these revenues are coming forward. And I think
Page 340
January 23-24, 2007
we can anticipate that in time that you're not going to lose any
valuable interest.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, I understand. I'll withdraw my
motion.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, can I at least get some direction
that the particular item be reported by the clerk and be put on the
consent agenda so that you know that it's there in this particular thing
in order to pay off the loan? Because right now if it's over a million
bucks I automatically bring it on the regular agenda.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I make a motion? That we
direct our staff and ask the clerk's office to whenever you find the
savings to early pay bonds, bring it to the Board of Commissioners as
soon as possible, put it on the consent, whether it is over a million
dollars or not.
And not in the motion, if the board has any concern, then we can
pull it. And this way we won't delegate our authority and the board
approve it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just one point. Why did you specify
a million dollars?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, like the county manager
said, if any amount is over a million dollars, he automatically puts it
on the regular agenda. What I said in my motion, if it's over a million
dollars, just keep it on the agenda -- on the consent agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In other words, regardless of the
amount?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, I understand. I thought you
were saying not to do anything until you reached a million dollars.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
Page 341
January 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, I understand. Thank you,
Commissioner Henning.
We have a motion by Commissioner Henning, a second by
Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, anything else from the
clerk's office?
MS. KINZEL: No, thank you, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMICOMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 5-0.
MR. MUDD: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
Item #11
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
MR. MUDD: The next item is -- we did that item.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Public comment?
MR. MUDD: That brings us to public comment on general
topics.
MS. FILSON: I have no registered speakers.
Item #15
Page 342
January 23-24, 2007
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, then that moves us to county
attorney. Do you have anything for the comments under the agenda?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, one thing, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm going to make a request for a closed session with the Board
of County Commissioners at our next meeting, which I believe will be
February 13th for noontime in relating to our two cases involving the
clerk of courts. And Chief Assistant Mike Pettit will read the notice
into the record, if we may.
MR. PETTIT: Notice is hereby given that pursuant to Section
286.0118, Florida Statutes, the Board of County Commissioners will
meet in executive closed attorney-client session on Tuesday, February
13th, 2007, in the commission conference room, third floor, West
Harmon Turner building, Collier County Government Center, 3301
East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida.
In addition to board members, County Manager James Mudd,
County Attorney David C. Weigel, Chief Assistant County Attorney
Michael W. Pettit, Assistant County Attorney Jacqueline Williams
Hubbard, and attorney for the board, outside counsel, Theodore Tripp
will be in attendance.
The board in executive session will discuss settlement and
strategy relating to litigation expenses in the pending litigation case of
Dwight E. Brock, Clerk of Courts v. Collier County, Florida, Board
of County Commissioners of Collier County, as ex-officio governing
board of the Ochopee area fire control and emergency medical care
special taxing district, a/kia, the Ochopee Fire District, Linda T.
Swisher and Paul Wilson, Case No. 04-941-CA, consolidated with
Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida versus
Dwight E. Brock, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County,
Florida, Case No. 05-953-CA, consolidated with Case No.
Page 343
January 23-24, 2007
05-1506-CA.
And I think that as Mr. Weigel indicated, Commissioners, I think
normally Mr. Mudd schedules these at 12:00. And I'll arrange that
with Mr. Tripp, if that's acceptable.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Does that conclude your
MR. WEIGEL: It does. Thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: I only have one thing, it talks about the same
meeting. The way the things are scheduled on your agenda, there is
one controversial item -- there's one significant controversial item
that is coming before you on the 13th of February, and that has to do
with linkage fees.
So I've taken the liberty to talk with Ms. Filson and your
assistants to schedule your calendars for the 14th of February, okay, at
1 :00 p.m. to hear this one particular item.
So then on the 13th we can get on with the agenda. Because I'm
fearful that if you hear that item any time during the 13th, that whole
agenda for the 13th will go askew and we could be at the meeting for a
week.
So the 13th we do our regular agenda minus linkage fees; 14th
at 1 :00 p.m. we come back again and hear the one item, linkage fees,
and any public comment that comes about, and I believe it will be
significant.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, the agenda for the 13th,
how is that shaping up?
MR. MUDD: It's doable, minus the linkage fees. But my fear is
if you put linkage fees in there and it gets round robin, you'll never get
through it, and it will push everything off. For order of the agenda, I
think that's the best way to do it.
And I will remind you that the 14th is also Valentine's Day. So
there should be a reason to move that agenda item along with public
comment along through that afternoon so that people can get home by
Page 344
January 23-24, 2007
6:00, 6:30. I know Commissioner Coyle normally has a date around
6:30 on that particular day. At least he has had over the last five or six
years that I know of.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 6:00, I'm gone.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, may I add to Jim's comment?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Where are we going now?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wherever you want to go.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, what did you say?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Just to let you know that if the
board accepts Jim's recommendation for the mitigation fee ordinance
hearing to be on the 14th at 1 :00, we're already in the advertising
process, and so let it be known today, if you accept, as well as during
the meeting on the 13th of February that at the close of the meeting --
at the close of the day of work on the 13th that you're merely
adjourning the continuation of the meeting to the 14th. It is not a
separate meeting of the board.
I just wanted to make that on the record now and we'll keep that
in mind as we process forward with the meeting on the 13th.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Weigel.
Anything else, Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. The Board of
Commissioners received a correspondence from Sons of American
Revolution. What they would like to do is to place a liberty tree on
public grounds. I'm sure everybody's seen it.
I would like to -- and this came from James Van Fleet, chairman
and chapter secretary. Or more information can be provided by Don
B. Cahill.
I would like the board to direct the county manager to work with
Sons of American Revolution to find the appropriate spot for this
Page 345
January 23-24, 2007
liberty tree.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Coy Ie.
Is there any questions? Any comments from the County
Manager?
MR. MUDD: No, sir. You have a process where you go by for
monuments on county compounds, and you've done that policy.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is -- I'm not sure if this is a
monument. I think it's a tree.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: One of the planning concepts
includes some kind of a monument with a configuration of trees. But
it's -- you're right, it's more of a planting, a natural kind of thing than a
big monument or memorial.
But, you know, it's something I think we need to consider.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Any other--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We haven't voted on that one, on that
particular item.
All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMICOMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, as far as the linkage fees
being on the next agenda, we could just give direction to kill it. And
Page 346
January 23-24, 2007
I'll make that motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I -- yeah, can we talk about
that for a minute?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Of course you can.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think the community does not
need that kind of a hit right now. I think it is such a huge impact on all
segments of our local economy that it is very dangerous to start
imposing fees like that at this point in time.
Government has a tendency to always be several steps behind
what's happening. Ifwe had talked about this a year ago or two years
ago -- and we did, by the way, but we really didn't have a study that
gave us the details that we have today -- it might have been a different
story .
But now with high impact fees, high taxes, high insurance rates,
although we're getting some reductions, but we still have high
insurance rates, to hit people with very, very high linkage fees is going
-- it might be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
And I would suggest at the very least that we postpone this for a
while, because we are getting an affordable housing bill, people are
taking the incentives and they are doing something with it. And there's
even an organization that's moving ahead without getting a state grant.
I can't imagine how they can do that, but I applaud them for doing it.
There are people moving ahead with this.
And I just have the feeling that if we go ahead with this linkage
fee thing, we're not only going to get a lot of people upset, but we're
going to further depress a market that is already depressed in Collier
County, and it's not going to help our local economy and/or property
values.
So I think there's some benefit. And it's a concern I've held since
the county manager alerted me to these very, very high increases.
And I think maybe now is just not the time to hit the community with
that sort of increase.
Page 347
January 23-24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas, and I -- go
ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was next.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. You should go.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm glad you brought the subject up,
Commissioner Henning.
One of the things that I've been thinking is when Wal-Mart
comes into a town, they put all of the small businesses out of business,
all the mom and pops. Well, I think this is even a faster way to put all
of the small businesses out of business, to charge them this exorbitant
fee. I don't think that they can survive.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't either.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And my second point is, we want to
amass this money for what? What we need is land to build the stuff
on. And I think an inclusionary zoning ordinance that's written
properly will accomplish that and will get the affordable housing built
a lot faster if it's included in whatever is to be built.
So I don't agree with the linkage fee at all.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have some concerns about the
linkage fee. I also have some concerns about where everybody feels
that it's government's responsibility to take care of affordable housing.
I don't have control over land prices, I don't have control over people
hyping up the sale of homes. And obviously it's put a lot of our
residents out of the reach of purchasing homes.
But yet they come to the county or the government and say it's
our responsibility. Well, if you get the government involved, there's
going to be some strong medicine that you're not going to like. And I
think this is a good case in point.
So I think that the way that we need to look at if you want to
address affordable housing, I'd like to see the private sector get more
involved in it. And obviously that's taking place. We heard that today
Page 348
January 23-24, 2007
-- in fact, yesterday. And I think that's the direction we need to go.
I believe the other way would be, as Commissioner Fiala talked,
and that is inclusionary housing. I think that's probably a way to
address it.
The other thing is, it would be nice if one of these large
landowners here would donate some land, because we have a fair
amount of money. If they would donate the land, then we could put
that into some kind of a land trust and get on with building housing.
We're acquiring quite a bit of money to build more housing, but I
really believe that if somebody would step up to the plate and donate
the land so that it can be put in a trust, we can get on to building
affordable housing.
And it looks to me like also that we've got a lot of stuff that's on
the books that hasn't actually -- hasn't come to the point of that it's a
rooftop. So I think that there's a lot of affordable housing out there that
also needs to be built.
And I hope that as these products come on board as far as PUDs,
that we can get the affordable housing issue addressed.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, Mr. Weigel, has some
comments.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
Well, I just wanted to indicate that the draft ordinance that's been
created at this point in time has a methodology which, as you have
seen, has a residential component and a commercial component.
The outside consultant, expert in the field, we've used him for
other things before, Dr. James Nicholas, has shown in fact through his
study that these are, you may say, upper limits of what the
methodology, the rational nexus would show. And there's no
requirement that the board, if it were to go forward with an ordinance,
adopt those upper limits at all.
One thing to keep in mind, I would suggest, is the fact that
inclusionary zoning -- and there is an inclusionary zoning ordinance
Page 349
January 23-24, 2007
that's coming through in near parallel fashion -- but inclusionary
zoning typically, and think of your own processes here of approvals, is
relating to residential projects that come forward, often PUDs, things
of that nature.
But we I think can all accept the fact that it's not all merely
residential that may cause a need for the service and other type of
workforce that's necessary. There is a commercial component that
might and perhaps should be recognized as well with an appropriate
fee, if it's to be -- if you're to implement a program at all. Because
individual homes that are coming on board, as well as the PUD
projects lend themselves for residential.
And the commercial things, such as the big box and strip centers,
they will also require more EMS and fire and some of those personnel.
They may not require school teachers for the business, but then again
they may, because the facility themselves require protection and the
people within there may have other services that are needed as well.
So it was brought forward as a rational review of both the
commercial and a residential element. And just as with your impact
fees in the past, you were given sort of a palette of an upper fee that
may be imposed -- and you've not always chosen that upper fee,
you've chosen something you thought was fair in relation to the
timing, as well as the need of the community.
So from that standpoint we do have a couple of things coming
forward, and that is on the 29th of January is to be a discussion by
the attorney and consultant for both Board of County Commissioners
that wish to come, the productivity committee, DSAC, CBIA. It's a
public meeting, so anyone can come and ask questions at that point in
time.
Then of course the hearing would be on the 14th, as Mr. Mudd
has indicated.
So with that information in mind, I wanted to let you -- and
additionally, an ordinance in place provides legitimacy to a type of
Page 350
January 23-24, 2007
receiving of what heretofore have been called donations and things of
that nature. And so from that standpoint that's an aspect to be
considered as well.
So obviously the board even at the hearing can say we don't
want to go forward or the timing's not right, but prior to the hearing
there is this 29th informational meeting that may also be of some
importance.
And of course whether now or at any other point in time our
office, Joe Schmitt's office, Cormac and the consultants that have
assisted this project would be available for any questions that you
would have individually.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Weigel.
And to say I'm disappointed by what I heard here today, that
would be an understatement. We've been two years in the making
trying to get to this particular point. There's always going to be factors
out there that we have to consider.
No, the answers haven't been solved. We've seen before us today
a movement to try to move an item from the sixth cycle to the fifth
cycle. There was all sorts of comments brought up about the
negativity of that particular project. Given what I heard when it does
come before us, I think it's got very poor chances of passing.
Numerous times we keep running into these obstacles. The only
thing that's happened out there has happened by -- most of it by
developers' contributions that took place. And we kept saying well,
when we get to the linkage fees and we get to the inclusionary zoning
element we won't have that problem anymore, it will be plainly
spelled out for the developer so he knows where he stands, and they'll
be able to make those donations. Habitat for Humanity benefited
greatly by Heritage Bay coming across with 40-something acres and
$450,000 of money.
We've seen Barbara Caccione's Empowerment Alliance in
Immokalee. Never would have got the kick-start ifit wasn't for the
Page 351
January 23-24, 2007
developers' contributions.
But you can't do it that way. Commissioner Henning brought it
up earlier when we were talking about the developers' contributions
that were taking place and I asked him if they were doing anything for
affordable housing, and he said that's an extraction.
And he said stand back, we've got linkage fees coming up and
we'll be able to address it then. Well, we're addressing linkage fees
now and not at that meeting that has been two years in the making.
Are the amounts that's on those numbers, are they realistic?
Absolutely not. They're off in the stratosphere. I wouldn't argue with
that one bit. It would decimate the industry if you ever adopted
something in the $40, 35, $40 range. There's no way anybody could
ever agree to that. But that was the numbers they could justify.
And your instructions in the past to staff was to go out there and
find the highest linkage fee, the highest impact fee that were
defendable by law. And so they're bringing something forward that
meets that description, and it would be up for you to make that
decision how it takes place.
N ow yes, the industry out there is going through a rough period.
Land values have reached a high. We can't control the price on that.
What can we control? Very limited spectrum within what we can
cut for impact fees, what we can do. We found it doesn't work with the
rules that we make here as far as the bonuses go for development for
affordable housing. We cut them back on it. We have concerns on
them every time they come up. And we exercise our discretions to cut
them back to the point where affordable housing doesn't exist.
So within that limited way that we can work, we can get there.
Now, we hear out in the horizon there's a very positive group of
people that are working to build a conceptual city of affordable
housing; affordable, gap housing, whatever, out in the rural areas of
Collier County. They haven't come forward yet. But when they do,
they're going to be asking for all sorts of special considerations, way
Page 352
January 23-24, 2007
over and above, where in effect the taxpayers will be underwriting the
cost of it.
What better way to have a pot of money to be able to help these
things reach their entity. A small pot, something to be able to work
with.
If impact fees are too high and we have to do something, let's go
back and take a look at maybe putting a cap on impact fees for a year,
to the point where we got them steady. And maybe even addressing
some of them to reduce them down so we can pick up something for
affordable housing.
But I heard four commissioners speak here today and I'm not too
sure where it's going to go, but I got a feeling that two years worth of
work is going to be put by the wayside. We're not even going to have
a chance to be able to evaluate what's there, but we're going to dismiss
it out of hand.
And Commissioner -- who's next?
Oh, I know, you're next.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I think that I'm open for the
open dialogue. When I looked at the maximum amount for
commercial, that was pretty stunning. So I'm willing to listen to the
dialogue and maybe we can come to an agreement or come to a point
where it's going to be favorable for everybody.
Because let's face it, if you don't have people to work in the
department stores, supermarkets, et cetera, you're not going to have
the quality of life that we expect here.
So people always think it's the government's problem. And it's
not always the government's problem. It's a partnership between
private sector and the government.
So hopefully we can come to someplace in the road where
everybody can come to an agreement so that we can address whatever
the problem is.
But coming out with a statement of $48 a square foot I think is
Page 353
January 23-24, 2007
pretty --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, it's more than just having a
linkage fee. It's that -- I don't -- and I'm not going to try to argue with
the economist who came up with these things. But I find it difficult to
justify it on the basis that it is being presented to us.
Let me give you an example: Let's suppose we have a 100,000
square foot high technology building that is being built for a company
that wants to come in here and bring in high-paying jobs with a
median income of $75,000 a year. What impact are they having on
affordable housing?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: $75,000 a year, that puts them in
the gap housing mode.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, no, no, that's individual
income. It's the family income that determines those categories. So
someone that is making 75 -- one employee that is making $75,000 a
year, if both partners are employed, you could be talking about
incomes of well over $100,000.
So if we have somebody who wants to come in and diversify
our economy and bring in higher paying wages, why would we
charge them exorbitant linkage fees on their commercial square
footage?
Now, if you have a Wal-Mart that's coming in and their median
income is going to be 20,000 or $25,000 a year, are they going to have
an impact on the affordable housing market or problem? Yes, they
will.
But the point is not -- is that it is not the square footage that
creates the impact. It is the salary that's being paid to the employees
that causes the problem.
And in those cases where I've seen a linkage fee implemented, it
is implemented based upon salaries being offered, not square footage.
And I have a fundamental disagreement with going in that direction.
Page 354
January 23-24, 2007
Now, since the county manager brought this other issue up, I
think it is a good thing to have an ordinance that provides for the
opportunity to receive donations and other things, because we
apparently don't have that supported by law right now. But if we have
that ordinance implemented, we at least have a way to handle it so that
it is not an extortion of any kind or can't be interpreted as that, and it is
probably accounted for.
So I could accept an ordinance that would prescribe that. But it
seems to me -- and I have heard no organization in Collier County that
supports this, none. I haven't heard from a single one that supports this
particular proposal. I think that now is the wrong time to be talking
about charging people more taxes at a time when we're trying to do
everything to reduce them.
And that's what this is. It is a tax. And it is a tax that in my mind
does not get at the root of the problem. And I believe there are some
other alternatives that we could pursue that would get this done
without all the turmoil and consternation that it is going to cause by
having this hearing on this particular issue.
If there are things that are desirable, then I would recommend
that we consider those things separately. But at least the commercial
portion of the linkage fee I think is not -- this is not the right time to be
talking about that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Which brings us to: We've all
heard repeatedly, we've seen it written in the papers that we're in a
crisis mode. We're in a crisis mode for affordable housing.
Why are we in a crisis mode? Because we need 30,000 units is
what we've been told.
Now, I go back to a couple of years ago when that very inflated
and bloated report came out that said we were 30,000 units short, right
that day. And then we needed 5,000 units a year. Okay, fine.
As I thought about the 30,000 -- and I asked the question, do you
Page 355
January 23-24, 2007
mean we need 30,000 homes to be built right now? Yes, was the
answer.
Figuring three people per home, that's 90,000 without a home.
It's more than the City of Naples and the City of Marco combined, and
they have to be someplace, I thought.
So I went to start checking their figures. And as I checked the
figures on this report that said we're 30,000 units short, I noticed that
there was nothing in the City of Golden Gate that was mentioned on
this report. But the City of Golden Gate has affordable housing all the
way through it.
I noticed that 95 percent of Immokalee was not in this report.
And yet Immokalee is affordable housing.
I noticed in East Naples, neighborhood after neighborhood, and
I'll just mention a few, Thomas and Bayshore, Naples Manor, none of
them were in this report.
So I started adding up some of these things, and guess what I
found? I found the 30,000 units that were missing.
When I asked the question, why aren't these on this report that
you sent then to Shimberg for them to give us a report back? And the
answer was, we had to have some baseline.
I understand that. And I said, so the baseline is? And they said
SHIP funds. SHIP funds.
I said, well, SHIP funds weren't created until 1996. These were
all the homes that were built before 1996. They're not in the report.
It's where the 90,000 people are living.
So how many houses -- I come to you and ask, how many
houses do we need? How short are we really when this report was not
accurate or even close to being accurate? What do we really need?
I think until we know what we really need -- I look at the places
now that are for rent, and I'm sure that all of you have seen these.
There's For Rent all over the place. I'll tell, you my own, For Rent. I
advertised it every week, all the time, five days -- seven days a week
Page 356
January 23-24, 2007
for two and a half months. I couldn't rent it for $1,100. Two bedrooms,
two baths, swimming pool and tennis courts. I couldn't rent it and I
couldn't sell it for $245,000.
Why aren't they selling? Well, maybe there isn't as dire a need
as we're hearing. When I hear people saying we really need places -- I
just was talking to Johnny Nocera and he said his guys all need places.
I said, where are they living now? Well, they have places but they'd
like to buy something new or something different.
I said so they're living someplace right now but you're saying
they want to upgrade? Yes.
I said, have they been looking at the market? The market is just
loaded with places for sale. Well, you know, they wanted something a
little bit different.
Well, see, that's the thing, what do we really, really need? We're
trying to charge a linkage fee for what?
I think until we figure out what we need and what we are going
to need and what kind of businesses we're going to be bringing in so
that we know what kind of housing to build, I don't think we can
really move forward.
Enough said.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think we just had that theory,
didn't we?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's the problem. Without the
public, without staff. And we don't even have anybody from
affordable housing here to be able to come up with any of the -- refute
anything or add anything to it.
What we're doing is we're trying to make a judgment based upon
a very limited spectrum of what's in front of us. Over two years has
been spent to get us to the point to be able to get to linkage fees. And
we are going to dismiss it out of hand at this point in time, we're not
going to carry it forward.
If this goes through, I think the next motion should be from here
Page 357
January 23-24, 2007
is that the commission says that they don't recognize affordable
housing, there is no need for affordable housing in Collier County.
And then we can have it off our agenda forever.
And anybody comes forward and they say why aren't you doing
something for us, we can say well, we determined some time ago in a
meeting that there was no need for affordable housing, all the needs
are met, the public sector is responsible, government has absolutely no
responsibility, it's on your back, go away and leave us alone.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner, I don't think
anybody is saying that at all. I'm saying give us some correct figures.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's the idea. What to do is you
have this meeting, you go through it. Rather than dismiss the whole
meeting and forget to do it, give staff direction to bring it back at a
point in time where they can make all these particular corrections,
where they can be able to meet the needs.
We mentioned $100,000. Commissioner Coyle brought up a
very good thing. And I can't tell you they haven't addressed it in
there. But $100,000 jobs that are out there, high tech industry coming
in, should they pay linkage fees? Probably not.
Well, are we going to get the chance to even be able to say that
to the staff and direct them to come back with something that we can
take a look at?
Right now there's a voluntary contribution -- by the way, a
couple of them didn't do this last time -- of fifty cents a square foot.
It's a small little pittance to be able to move the issue forward to the
next step. I don't think we're going to be able to do that anymore.
I'm very disappointed. I don't know where this is going to go.
But if we dismiss the review of this particular ordinance at this time or
the linkage fees and decide we don't want to hear it, we've done a
tremendous disservice to our society.
I'm sorry, Commissioner Henning, then Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, it was my time to speak.
Page 358
January 23-24, 2007
I don't know -- I apologize that I asked such a simple question.
We have spent at least 30 minutes on this topic.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just had a couple of items. I
apologize for bringing this topic up.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, don't apologize, it's still a motion
we've got on the floor.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There wasn't a second, so --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There was a second.
MR. MUDD: Yes, there was a second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There was a second. All right.
Well, I call the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, Commissioner Fiala gets to
speak, and then I get to make a final comment, too. If anyone else
wants to, I'll keep the flow moving. It's too big of an issue to just
dismiss out of hand.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, we've approved a lot of
affordable housing units to be built which haven't been built, which is
very, very discouraging. I thought that that would be part of our war
chest of affordable housing.
And I asked some realtors recently in a group that I was
speaking to why aren't they building? They said there's so much on the
market right now they're not building others because they can't sell the
ones that they have.
So that -- you know, again, we need to know what we have on
the market, what we have coming and what we need.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a quick observation.
It appears that the median home price has declined from a high
of almost $500,000 last year to around $400,000 this year.
Page 359
January 23-24, 2007
Let me remind everybody what a median home price of
$400,000 means. It means there are just as many homes selling for
$400,000 and less as there are selling for $400,000 or more.
Now, think about that for a minute. Of all the homes that are
being sold, there are as many that are being sold for $400,000 or less
as there are being sold for $400,000 and more.
Now, if that is the case, there is a supply of affordable -- at least
gap housing. It might not be the best housing in the world, but it's
within the price range. So let's not pretend that there is not an
improvement in the situation.
We have built affordable housing on Bayshore Drive. We have
approved at least two fairly substantial affordable housing projects
there.
We have approved one on Airport and Davis, which clearly,
from a transportation standpoint, is not a good place for it, but it was
better than commercial.
We have approved a fair amount of affordable housing at 951,
and certainly out in Immokalee. So affordable housing is getting built.
Weare not ignoring the problem. The situation is actually getting
better.
So let's not create a catastrophe out of what we've really done.
We've built more affordable housing in the last four -- we've approved
more affordable housing in the past four or five years than was
approved in Collier County in the previous 10 years, I believe. But
nevertheless, okay. I'm through, too.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas, your light's not
on, but I want to make sure you had an opportunity to say anything
final. And then I'm going to just make one small comment and then
we'll get on with --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Once again, I don't think -- I'm not going to beat this to death. I
Page 360
January 23-24, 2007
appreciate the commission's time on this and we'll go to a break right
after this.
But just restate the motion, Commissioner Henning, and I'll call
it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't remember it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The motion was that you wanted to
see the linkage fees raised to $150 per square foot.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who seconded the motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you remember what it was?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What you were suggesting is that
we just cancel that hearing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Cancel or defer it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Or defer it. I would prefer a
deferral.
Yeah, I think it's only going to result in a lot of consternation
and arguing and everything else and it's not going to get approved. So
we'll have to send it back and say come back in with a more
reasonable proposal and we'll do it again.
And I don't see the point in doing that. If we can solve -- or keep
the public from getting all upset and bent out of shape about this and
get something that makes some sense --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just the motion. We're just looking
for the motion, that's all. The motion is to cancel the hearing.
MR. WEIGEL: Cancel or defer. Because if you defer --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You got to be exact. Give him a
direction. The motion's got to be one way or the other.
MR. WEIGEL: You want to just put it off for an indefinite
period of time? Just put it off?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How about deferral?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's my motion, okay? Don't
tell me what my motion is.
Page 361
January 23-24, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: He's getting testy now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's to cancel. That's what my
motion was. Thanks for reminding me what my motion was.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is that still your second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, so we have a motion to cancel
the meeting.
With that, I don't think there's a need for anymore discussion.
There is no more discussion.
MR. MUDD: I don't think it would -- I need some clarification.
You just said cancel the meeting. I think Commissioner Henning said
-- I wrote down kill linkage fees is when you originally wrote ( sic) it,
that's what I wrote on my piece of paper.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Don't you think it's the same
thing?
MR. MUDD: The Chair said cancel the meeting. I don't think
that's what your motion was. I think it was to cancel linkage fees,
okay? In other words, stop it. And --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is that correct?
MR. MUDD: -- stop the process. I believe that's the case. And
I just wanted -- the Chair added a word, cancel the meeting. There's a
difference between canceling a meeting and canceling the process.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, cancel the process.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Cancel the linkage fees; is that
what we're saying?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You have my second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So if we're all in agreement
that the motion is to cancel the linkage fees, with that, did we give you
enough? We're clear on this now.
With that we're going to take a vote. All those in favor of
Commissioner Henning's motion and Commissioner Coyle's second,
Page 362
January 23-24, 2007
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMICOMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Okay, all those in favor of a break, go ahead and get up and
I eave.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, we still have in the works this
29th informational meeting. And by virtue of the vote just taken, do
you wish for us, staff, to cancel the meeting with the DSAC, the
board, and the productivity committee for a discussion on this --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Since it was my motion and I
spoke the last, why don't we send out a public release that the board
has canceled the linkage fees and also canceled the November (sic)
29th meeting.
MR. WEIGEL: January 29th, yes. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, you're right.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't think we need a new motion
on it, you agreed to that.
MR. WEIGEL: Just needed to know.
MR. MUDD: Taking a 15-minute break, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fifteen minutes. Then we'll come
back, everybody.
(A break was taken.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mic.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, we still have a little bit here.
Commissioner Henning's revelation, the first person. We never went
to the next person and on down the line --
Page 363
January 23-24, 2007
MR. MUDD: I don't know if Commissioner Henning was done.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't know ifhe is. Let's give us a
try. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I don't dare.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I take it that you're --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks for asking.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I had two.
The first one is we never did get the specific costs for burying
the FP&L lines. Remember, I had asked Grover Whidden for those
specific costs? He had given us some inflated costs that none of us
could believe. I just wanted to get those in place.
So -- and I talked a little bit to our transportation department and
-- but I'm -- would you like to talk about that, Norm? It doesn't make
any difference.
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, transportation
administrator.
When we brought Grover Whidden back and some of the
information you asked for, we got a fairly wide range of what the
costs may be, and we showed you by different typical segment.
But what they made clear to us is without us paying for specific
studies they could not give us anything beyond that sort of wide range
of ballpark figure.
We are checking with the folks down in Marco Island now,
trying to get an assessment of what they paid relative to that effort to
put it underground.
I know that there's effort to try to get meetings with FP&L both
on their moving of utilities and the issues of burying underground and
see if we can get further information.
But we did come back to you from the first request, but
unfortunately without a lot of detail we could not get the specifics.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, as I told him then and I'll just
Page 364
January 23-24, 2007
repeat now, when you've got everything dug up and they have to
remove their lines because we're widening the road and we've got the
trenches dug, you know, I think it would be far easier to just put the
stuff right in there instead of -- I don't know how much they charge us,
$750,000 a mile or something like that. But anyway --
MR. FEDER: They noted additional costs plus they need
additional right-of-ways for pole stations, ten-by-tens and other issues.
But we'll continue to look at it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great, thank you. Because I think
that would be a great thing for our community to be doing, especially
being in a hurricane area, that we get some of these things buried. Just
like Marco Island is doing now. What a difference it makes.
My second thing is I read in the newspaper that the Toll
Authority is going to be hiring a public relations firm to promote the
tolling of the six lanes.
And for those of us who don't agree with tolling all six lanes, I
wonder if we also get a public relations firm to counter that. Just want
to throw that on the table.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I need -- please, you go ahead,
Mr. Scott.
MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, transportation planning.
The toll -- the board had decided that they needed to do some
public involvement. It's still an issue whether it's going to be four
general purpose lanes and six toll lanes or six general purpose lanes
and four toll lanes.
There are some big decisions coming up, and I was actually
trying to call them this morning about some stuff. Lee County,
obviously working with Lee County.
And I know we had a presentation at the last board, but there are
a lot of things happening pretty quickly out there.
The next time we get together as a whole group, they're planning
a presentation to the joint MPOs in March, but there might be some
Page 365
January 23-24, 2007
issues that we need to talk about ahead of time, particularly if there are
some concerns as to how we're going to go forward.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And we don't get to vote on
whether they hire a public relations firm or not, right? That's included
in the money we already gave them?
MR. SCOTT: Well -- and this is one of the issues. Obviously,
you've approved a budget to a certain point, and what I recall was
150,000 for Collier and 150,000 for Lee. But depending -- and I know
they've gone after some state money essentially for toll feasibility, but
those -- you do vote on their budget.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may, sitting on that board, I can
give you a little more perspective of where it's going.
One, the Florida Department of Transportation will not change
their plans unless the Collier County Commission and Lee County
Commission and the public out there endorses any other changes as
far as toll lanes go, beginning and end of it.
Number two, this particular public process, it's not to sell to the
public, it's to give the public their opinions on it to be able to then
make their decisions. They're going to be having community meetings
all over, they're going to come before the commission.
Because here's the matter is, and you heard our chairman, Bill
Barton there tell you that it will not happen unless -- nothing will
happen without the Collier County and Lee County's permission and
blessing.
That's not part of the enabling ordinance that the state put
together. But he did make that statement, and he did make it and we'll
live by it.
So there's along ways to go. It's just that the simple part of the
whole thing, we still got to get all the facts together to be sure. You
know what we're going through to be able to secure money for roads
today. Davis Boulevard, for example. It's like that all through the state.
The costs went up, the revenue coming in is not as much as it wasy
Page 366
January 23-24, 2007
before as far as it has to go, the dollar's devaluated. So everything's
being moved off into the future.
Case in point, the Everglades interchange during the best of
years when gas tax money really meant something took 25 years from
conception to completion, and it's not even quite there yet. True with
any major highway.
Extra lanes. We happen to be very, very fortunate that we had a
bunch of planets and stars lined up just right to be able to get us the
money. That big -- what was that 600-some million dollars?
MR. SCOTT: For what's in there now?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: For going in, two lanes.
MR. SCOTT: 465 million.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 465 million. That took quite an effort
on the part of a lot of people to get there. That money won't reoccur
again for many, many years.
If we look at the possibilities of tolling, of course there's still a
lot to consider, the tolling would enable you to have a revenue source
to be able to write off against it.
Problem being is that Lee County and Collier County combined
does not have the bonding capacity to be able to do something like
that. You have to have outside sources.
The good news is, is that the thruway authority, who before was
giving us kind of a cold shoulder on everything as it was coming
down saying it would be economically unfeasible to be able to do toll
lanes there where they pay for themselves. And if toll lanes won't pay
for it, I don't know how we get anything else to pay for it.
They have now taken a different perspective and they're looking
at it positively. And that's something we didn't really anticipate was
going to happen.
And it is like Mr. Scott said; we are in the process of discovery.
There is a whole bunch of things. And I hope very shortly at an MPO
meeting that we have a presentation similar to what we had where
Page 367
January 23-24, 2007
they get into where we are.
And the problem with the board is that they're very reluctant to
give information because it's underway. But I say give out everything
as it comes up. And then as new information comes up, we can share
that also.
MR. SCOTT: Well, next month will be very telling. The bids
for 1-75 come in, so we'll see how close it is to actual money that's in
there. They've been directed, both the turnpike and the consultant to
the expressway authority, to come back and look at segments of
roadway, you know, what's possible between certain areas that might
be phased in over time, questions that came up from the board.
And following that, I think probably at the joint MPO meeting, if
that's the next opportunity, is where a lot of those issues can be
discussed with both boards.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, and the public needs to be
aware of the fact that this extra lane that's going to be put in, when it's
completed the road will be failing when they complete it. That's how
much traffic there is. So there's a lot of factors out there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What I had read, and this could be
wrong, you know, I believe I read that they were going to six-lane --
they were going to toll all six lanes, and that was what was disturbing
to me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, there's no intentions -- it will
always be under any scenario they're looking at, there will always be
four free lanes.
MR. SCOTT: Some -- yeah, some combination.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, yeah, four free lanes.
MR. SCOTT: I think if we're talking -- I mean, obviously I
think Bill Barton and staff will -- if you want to, if there's questions
you specifically want answered from us, we have no problem coming
and talking to you. Or just e-mailing us questions or whatever.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I didn't want to take
Page 368
January 23-24, 2007
anymore time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, no, that's fine, that's what this
time is for.
Commissioner -- I'm sorry, are you through, Commissioner?
Commissioner Coyle? No, we're going to go to you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're going to go to me, okay.
Couple of items, the board was kind enough yesterday to
unanimously support the proposal with respect to insurance guidance,
our positions on insurance issues, property insurance issues that the
legislature has been considering.
Since that time, I have had an opportunity to review that bill, and
I am pleasantly surprised. There are good things in that bill. There are
things in there that we have asked for that we asked for back in
November.
And I would like to have the board's permission, if you don't
mind, to participate with the county manager and the county attorney
and Ms. Filson to have some input into the resolution that you directed
be brought back to the board for approval, and to make some minor
changes to reflect reality rather than just ignoring the fact that the
legislature has in fact taken some action on some of these things that
in my opinion are good.
If I could do that, I think we could bring to you a resolution that
would be more accurate and complete.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think just the nods of the head will
suffice. We have everyone in agreement on that. Please proceed. And
we appreciate you putting your time in it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, the other question has to do
with the topic we spent a lot of time talking about a little while ago,
and I don't want to resurrect that.
But tell me, County Manager, how do we collect and account for
whatever donations we do get from people who want to contribute
things for affordable housing?
Page 369
January 23-24, 2007
MR. MUDD: Okay. Right now Mr. Schmitt has a spreadsheet
that basically has identified all of those contributions, okay. The clerk
of courts has opened up a fund site where we can receive those
particular items. And that's where we stop, okay.
The linkage fee piece was to put together how we collect and the
validity of those collections, and then we were going to work on how
to disburse those particular issues.
After your particular vote just a while ago, I went to Mr. Schmitt
and I said we need an ordinance in front of this board to at least
legitimize the collection and/or disbursement of those particular
dollars.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that's where I'm going with
this question.
MR. MUDD: And so what I told him to do was get that in front
of the board as fast as we can.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good. I just wanted to make
sure that hadn't fallen through the cracks --
MR. MUDD: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- when we took the action we did
just recently. Okay.
Could we -- with the board's permission, could we say in that
ordinance that it would apply to any kinds of contributions or fees
collected as a result of that? So that if we do in the future add
something to that we will have an ordinance which permits us to
account for it properly.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Ma'am.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that okay?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't understand what you're
asking.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Right now we don't have an
ordinance which actually legitimizes what some people would call
extractions from developers, like the $1,000 per home that we
Page 370
January 23-24, 2007
frequently get from people who want to give us some money for
affordable housing. We don't have a way to legitimize that as far as its
collection, its timely payment, its accounting and how we disperse it.
And I'm just suggesting that we need to have one.
I think the County Manager had made that statement earlier on
during that discussion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just for clarification, those are
just for those fees that were collected up to this point, or committed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, no, it would include any that
might be contributed in the future.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think the county
attorney needs to be involved --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- in that kind of process,
because if it comes up within a zoning action, it's really not a
contribution.
So I'm sure the county attorney will assist to keep us safe.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would the clerk be involved, too?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then hopefully the
ordinance will be -- well, of course it will be written with input put
from the County Attorney.
MR. MUDD: He'll write it. We'll have staff there with him, and
we'll make sure that the clerk is involved in that particular issue,
because he's going to have to talk about disbursement. And we're
going to have to have some rules about that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. And that's it, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Couple of items, I need some
guidance from the County Attorney. The vote that we took in
communication, that wasn't an advertised item. Do we have the
authority to come up with a vote of that nature?
MR. WEIGEL: I believe you do. Now, obviously as you note, it
Page 371
January 23-24, 2007
in essence takes the aspect of an agenda item without public
participation because there's not public participation under staff
communication. But it is -- you do have an agenda with a board and
staff communication element to it. And my review over years of
government in the Sunshine Law indicates that the absolute
requirement of public participation as opposed to mere observation
has not been determined to be absolutely required.
So I think the answer is yes, that it is legal.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But if somebody wants to give
testimony from the audience, are they allowed to do this?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, by board rule there is no public -- or
speaker participation during board and staff communication.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, but we still made a vote on
something that wasn't advertised as such.
MR. WEIGEL: That's true. And if you wish to as a board look
at the policy of -- and concept of board communication and define it
or delineate it as direction to staff as opposed to operational on other
typical agenda matters, you may do so. But you don't have that
distinction in place at the present time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I just felt uncomfortable
with the way that the proceedings were, and that's why I asked you
this question. I'm not an attorney, so I'm asking you for the guidance.
And if you say that everything was according to the law, then
you've taken care of that feeling that I -- that uncertainty that I have
within me at this point in time.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, I appreciate that. I would advise you
otherwise, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The other concern that I
have is that I got a message from F AC, F AC, this morning in regards
to that there is workshops that are scheduled throughout the State of
Florida in regards to looking at other ways of addressing taxation.
There's a lot of rumors out there that property taxes may be
Page 372
January 23-24, 2007
capped, also spending caps, and that there might be some thought
about increasing sales tax.
So I think we need to keep our eyes and ears open in regards to
where this is going. And I would highly recommend the
commissioners to read their e-mail. I think most of them probably got
that e-mail, to get involved in some of the process as far as public
workshops to have an idea of where this may go.
Whenever the legislature gets in session and starts talking about
changing the ways that people are taxed, whether you're a resident or
non-resident, and also small businesses, I am concerned about where
this may lead. So I would hope that people would keep our eyes and
ears open in regards to this matter.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Halas.
And yeah, I do have a couple of comments. Question first to the
County Attorney.
You said that the process by our own rules does not allow for
public comment -- or public input during commissioners' comments; is
that correct?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, it's always been my understanding, and I
think that the history of the operation has been under staff comment
and board comment that that is between board and staff and is not a
speaker sign-up item.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, I understand that. But does
the commission have the right to be able to allow somebody to speak?
Because we do have one person that would very much like to be able
to put their input into what took place in today's proceedings. And the
public comment's already passed, but this followed public comments.
And it's just a matter of procedure, you know. y concern, like
Commissioner Halas, is that maybe we're obeying the letter of the law,
but we might be shorting the public process of the whole thing to
satisfy ourselves.
Could the commission allow that to happen?
Page 373
January 23-24, 2007
MR. WEIGEL: Absolutely, you can.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I have had a request from Janet
Vasey to be able to address us. And with your permission, I'd like to
bring her up to be able to do so.
MR. WEIGEL: You don't need my permission to do that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, not yours, sir. I had my head
turned towards Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're the chairman.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And I'll exercise my
powers as chairman.
Janet Vasey, would you please come up and we'll give you that
opportunity to speak that you requested.
MS. VASEY: Thank you very much. Janet Vasey for the
record.
The issue of linkage fees is a very, very important issue. And I
really think that a vote on that should be taken after this item has been
publicized as an agenda item. It's too important to just cover as a last
minute thing under Commissioner Comments.
There's been a lot of work done on this. I think somebody
mentioned that the contract for this was $150,000. A couple of years
time.
You haven't heard from the staff as to what alternatives you have
to the document that is currently in existence. You haven't heard from
anybody who's reviewed the document.
As a member of the productivity committee, I've reviewed the
document, and so have my other -- the other members on the
committee. And we're going to -- we were planning to attend the 29th
meeting.
We have a lot of issues with what that document says. The
numbers definitely appear too high, they're in outer space. There are
some logic problems. There are some other issues with the document.
But that doesn't mean that the idea of linkage fees should be
Page 374
January 23-24, 2007
abandoned. It's -- linkage fees are a very good way at getting at
commercial impact. The inclusionary housing does the residential just
fine, but the commercial has a big impact that nobody is considering.
Now, it's not going to be $48 a square foot or, you know,
anything -- 1,000 square feet. But it's -- it needs to be looked at. And
you can always take a look at what the final document is and tweak it
if it's not -- if it doesn't make sense, or cut it in half if it's too big an
impact for the community at this time.
But the concept is good. You've talked about it a long time. A lot
of work's been done. It seems like this process should be allowed to
run to its conclusion, and you get a legitimate document in front of
you with recommendations from your committees, affordable housing,
DSAC, productivity committee. You've got the people who are really
working on it. And planning commission would get into it before you
saw it. What you get would look nothing like what we're looking at as
a draft. This is a draft.
And I really think you're making a mistake to terminate the
process before you get a chance to look at what would really come to
you for consideration.
And you've heard from the development community, they've
been screaming, but you haven't heard from the people who, if you
don't do something, will end up paying through our taxes.
So I would really -- what I wanted to do in speaking to you was
recommend first that you don't make any real decisions without
having it be an agenda item.
But secondly, that you let this process go through to its
conclusion so you can get something that -- you know, you've got a
kernel of a good idea here. It's not great the way it is right now, but
that's not the way you'll see it when it comes to you.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much, Ms. Vasey.
We realize there's been a tremendous amount of pressure exerted upon
Page 375
January 23-24, 2007
the commission by many groups out there. Politically, be it what it
may be.
I see Commissioner Coyle's light on, so I'm going to go back to
him now, then I have one last comment.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would never argue with Janet,
since we agree 99 percent of the time. But let me provide a slightly
different perspective.
First of all, I believe that it is our responsibility to decide when
an issue is ripe for decision. You know as well as I how many times
we have gotten embroiled in public controversy, Riviera Golf Estates
as an example, when a staff proposal becomes public -- is developed
in the public because it has to be and people begin to think that is the
will of the commission, and everybody gets all worked up about it.
I think it's our obligation to save the public that kind of anguish,
if we can. And certainly by letting them know of our misgivings about
the ranges of the study, it solves that problem, or at least addresses it.
The other point is that I really don't like to get incomplete
proposals or studies. I like to get studies that have evaluated what is
reasonable. I like to get studies where all of the logic problems have
been worked out. And then we bring them to the commission for
policy, for implementing. That doesn't mean we can't exercise some
discretion in what we approve, but when people present to us a
complete range of values and they say here, pick one, they haven't
completed the process.
If they make the observation that if you pick the highest one,
you're likely to have catastrophic consequences; if you pick the
lowest one, you won't have any revenue to do the job, so here's what
we think would work best.
I don't think we have that. And until we do, I don't think we
should be forced into this kind of melee where the public comes in and
beats up on us and we have arguments over things that we know going
in we're not going to approve. So let's narrow the thing a bit and then I
Page 376
January 23-24,2007
think it might get wider acceptance.
But I certainly think we have the right and responsibility to try to
make these kinds of things easier on the public. And if they
understand the reasonable parameters and we understand reasonable
parameters, then we are a lot closer to agreement on this sort of thing.
So that's all I have to say about it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas has got a
comment.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, there's been a lot of pressure
put on me from the lobbyists and it's been from the building industry.
Now, if that's all the public, I hope it isn't. I look at all avenues. And
even the e-mails I've been getting deal with the building industry.
Everybody clamours that we have a housing problem and they
always look at us to find a solution. I think we need to vent this in a
public process. And I think from venting it in a public process we can
find the middle of the road where everybody will come to an
agreement of what's required or what's needed. And we'll find out
from the public if we really have a problem with housing, or if this is
just smoke and mirrors.
I'd like to get this issue out and find out exactly how bad it is.
And the partnership between the private sector -- could be the builders
-- and the Board of County Commissioners, figure out what we need
to do to get this thing taken care of once and for all.
So that's where I stand on it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel? And I've got to do this,
and it will take a moment and we're out of here. For reconsideration, it
has to be somebody who was voting and with --
MR. WEIGEL: With the majority.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With the majority. Of course that
would be Commissioner Halas or my self.
MR. WEIGEL: No, you voted in the minority.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So the people in the minority could
Page 377
January 23-24, 2007
not bring it back for reconsideration?
MR. WEIGEL: No. I'll lend this to all the commissioners.
Reconsideration could be done at the same meeting before its
adjournment. Otherwise there is a process, as you know, working with
the county --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know that. But I'm talking about
right now, this point in time.
MR. WEIGEL: It would take a member of the majority that
voted to reconsider the vote.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't hear anybody say anything or
pushing any buttons, so I don't think that's going to happen. Wait, I see
Halas' light on. Wait, no, you're the wrong one, I'm sorry.
Okay, with that --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Halas spelled C-O-Y-L-E.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, with that, who can say we
didn't try. Maybe it will be a better day for the rest of the day. We
still have a -- we're going right from this meeting to another one. So
this meeting is adjourned.
* * * * * Commissioner Henning moved, seconded by Commissioner
Halas and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted *****
Item #16Al
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR FALLING WATERS BEACH RESORT-
W/RELEASE OF THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A2
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF AVE MARIA UNIT 13,
Page 378
January 23-24, 2007
MIDDLEBROOKE TOWNHOMES, APPROVAL OF THE
STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE
PERFORMANCE SECURITY - W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A3
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF ARROWHEAD RESERVE
AT LAKE TRAFFORD BLOCK C, APPROVAL OF THE
STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE
PERFORMANCE SECURITY - W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16Bl
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE REVENUE FROM
A DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION FOR THE SCOOT SPLIT
CYCLE OFFSET OPTIMIZATION PROJECT 601724 FUND (313)
IN THE AMOUNT OF $90,000 AND APPROPRIATE WITHIN
THE PROJECT. (PROJECT NO. 60172) - FOR THE TRIANGLE
PARCEL AND THE GATEWAY SHOPS AT NORTH BAY
Item #16B2
AWARD BID #07-4079 U.S. 41 (SR 90) TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST
(PHASE C-RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK TO ST. ANDREWS)
IRRIGATION AND LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION TO VILA &
SON IN THE AMOUNT OF $549,015.37 WITH 10%
CONTINGENCY OF $54,901.54 FOR A TOTAL OF $603,916.91
(PROJECT #600261) - THE PROJECT IS SCHEDULED TO
BEGIN APRIL 17, 2007
Page 379
January 23-24, 2007
Item #16B3
AWARD BID #07-4079U.S. 41 (SR 90) TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST
(PHASE E-BAREFOOT WILLIAMS ROAD TO 951)
IRRIGATION AND LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION TO
HANNULA LANDSCAPING INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF
$569,627.72 WITH 10% CONTINGENCY OF $56,962.77 FOR A
TOTAL OF $626,590.49 (PROJECT #600451) - THE PROJECT IS
SCHEDULED TO BEGIN APRIL 17,2007
Item # 16B4
AWARD BID #07-4080 U.S. 41 (SR 90) TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST
(PHASE D-ST. ANDREWS TO BAREFOOT WILLIAMS ROAD)
IRRIGATION AND LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION TO
HANNULA LANDSCAPING INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF
$925,396.63 WITH 10% CONTINGENCY OF $92,539.66 FOR A
TOTAL OF $1,017,936.29 (PROJECT #600231) - THE PROJECT
IS SCHEDULED TO BEGIN APRIL 17,2007
Item #16B5
AWARD BID #07-4091 GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD PHASE
III COLLIER COUNTY LANDSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION
MASTER PLAN TO HANNULA LANDSCAPING INC. IN THE
AMOUNT OF $478,939.64 WITH 10% CONTINGENCY OF
$47,893.96 FOR A TOTAL OF $526,833.60 (PROJECT #600701)-
THE PROJECT IS SCHEDULED TO BEGIN APRIL 17, 2007
Item # 16B6
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE REVENUE FROM
Page 380
January 23-24, 2007
VARIOUS DEVELOPERS FOR THE PUD MONITORING
PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $79,929 AND APPROPRIATE
WITHIN FUND (101)
Item #16B7
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING AN ADDITIONAL
$36,568.00 IN FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION GRANT
SECTION 5311 FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 - FOR A
TOTAL AWARD OF $184,150
Item #16B8
THE PURCHASE OF 2.41 (PARCEL #137) ACRES OF
UNIMPROVED PROPERTY WHICH IS REQUIRED FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A STORMW A TER RETENTION AND
TREATMENT POND FOR THE OIL WELL ROAD WIDENING
PROJECT. PROJECT NO. 60044 (FISCAL IMPACT: $267,580)-
BETWEEN IMMOKALEE ROAD AND CAMP KEAIS ROAD
Item #16B9
THE PURCHASE OF 2.41 ACRES (PARCEL #139) OF
UNIMPROVED PROPERTY WHICH IS REQUIRED FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A STORMW A TER RETENTION AND
TREATMENT POND FOR THE OIL WELL ROAD WIDENING
PROJECT. PROJECT NO. 60044 (FISCAL IMPACT: $267,580)-
BETWEEN IMMOKALEE ROAD AND CAMP KEAIS ROAD
Item #16BI0
AWARD BID #07-4093 - GOODLETTE FRANK ROAD
Page 381
January 23-24, 2007
LANDSCAPE PROJECT (GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY TO PINE
RIDGE ROAD) TO HANNULA LANDSCAPING INC. IN THE
AMOUNT OF $856,950.03.(FUND 313, PROJECT #600054) - THE
PROJECT IS SCHEDULED TO BEGIN APRIL 17,2007
Item #16B 11
AWARD BID #07-4073 US 41 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH (SR 45)
PHASE V (WIGGINS PASS TO COUNTY LINE) IRRIGATION
AND LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION TO HANNULA
LANDSCAPING INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $683.891.35 WITH
10% CONTINGENCY OF $68,389.13 FORA TOTAL OF
$752,280.48 (PROJECT #600211) - THE PROJECT IS
SCHEDULED TO BEGIN ON APRIL 17,2007
Item #16B12
BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO RE-ALIGN THE SURVEYING,
UNDERGROUND LOCATES, AND ROW PERMITTING
SECTIONS FROM TRAFFIC OPERATIONS AND
STORMWATERMANAGEMENT DEPARTMENTS TO THE
ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPARTMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$207,129 - FOR THE TRANSFER OF STAFF SALARIES AND
OPERATING FUNDS FOR THESE SECTIONS
Item #16B13
THE COLLIER AREA TRANSIT SUBSTANCE ABUSE POLICY
- AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16B14
Page 382
January 23-24, 2007
ONE (1) ADOPT-A-ROAD PROGRAM AGREEMENT WITH
TWO (2) ROADWAY RECOGNITION SIGNS AT A TOTAL
COST OF $150.00 - WITH AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE
Item #16B15
THE PURCHASE OF ONE FIXED ROUTE BUS TO BE
OPERATED BY COLLIER AREA TRANSIT - TO REPLACE A
BUS THAT WAS DAMAGED IN A VEHICLE ACCIDENT IN
DECEMBER 2006 AT A COST OF $335,326
Item #16Cl
ACCEPT RIGHTS OF ENTRY REQUIRED FOR THE
REPLACEMENT AND REHABILITATION OF THE
HENDERSON CREEK P ARK WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $3,250, PROJECT 710101 - TO
REPLACE AND REHABILITATE THE SUBSTANDARD WATER
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM WITHIN THE HENDERSON PARK
SUBDIVISION
Item # 16C2
AWARD CONTRACT #07-4071 FINANCIAL CONSULTING
SERVICES TO PUBLIC RESOURCES MANAGEMENT GROUP,
INC. (PRMG), IN AN ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF
APPROXIMATELY $300,000 - USED BY PUBLIC UTILITIES
FOR IMPACT FEE AND USER RATE STUDIES
Item #16C3
CONVEY A UTILITY AND ACCESS EASEMENT TO THE
Page 383
January 23-24, 2007
WATER-SEWER DISTRICT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE OF RAW WATER PIPELINES, AND ACCESS,
ON PROPERTY OWNED BY COLLIER COUNTY WITHIN THE
CR-951 CANAL CORRIDOR AT AN ESTIMATED COST NOT
TO EXCEED $18.50, PROJECT NUMBER 700661 - TO PROVIDE
FOR ACCESS TO THE WELL SITES AND WATER PIPELINES
ALONG WEBER BOULEVARD NORTH
Item #16C4
THE ACQUISITION OF A 50-FOOT BY 60-FOOT UTILITY
EASEMENT NEAR THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 481
WEBER BOULEVARD NORTH FOR A PUBLIC WATER
SUPPLY WELL SITE EASEMENT, AT A TOTAL COST NOT TO
EXCEED $24,500, PROJECT NUMBER 700661 - TO
ACCOMMODATE A NEW PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY WELL TO
MAINTAIN THE EXISTING GOLDEN GATE WELLFIELD
Item #16C5
SATISFACTIONS FOR CERTAIN WATER AND/OR SEWER
IMPACT FEE PAYMENT AGREEMENTS. FISCAL IMPACT IS
$28.50 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN
Item # 16C6
SATISFACTION OF A NOTICE OF CLAIM OF LIEN FOR
SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEE. FISCAL IMPACT
IS $10.00 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN
Item # 16C7
Page 384
January 23-24, 2007
RESOLUTION 2007-18: APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF
LIEN FOR A SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT
WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND
SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1994 SOLID
WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS $20.00 TO RECORD THE
SATISFACTION OF LIEN
Item #16C8 - Withdrawn
ANNUAL CONTRACTS TO SELECTED FIRMS FOR TRENCH-
LESS SEWER SYSTEM REHABILITATION CONTRACTING
SERVICES PER BID 07-4088, PROJECT 73050 - W/REYNOLDS
INLINER, AMERICAN INFRASTRUCTURE CORP., MILLER
PIPELINE CORP. AND HERC PRODUCTS, INC.
Item #16Dl
AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR FUNDING IN THE
AMOUNT OF $600,000 TOWARDS COSTS OF REPAIRS OF
EVERGLADES CITY HALL AS APPROVED BY THE BOARD
ON NOVEMBER 21,2006 - DUE TO HURRICANE WILMA AND
THE BUILDING'S AGE
Item #16D2
RESOLUTION 2007-19: DESIGNATING FEBRUARY 2007 AS
DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES SENIOR APPRECIATION
MONTH AND PROVIDING SENIOR CITIZENS A $10.00
DISCOUNT FOR THE ADOPTION OF DOGS AND CATS
DURING THAT MONTH
Page 385
January 23-24, 2007
Item #16D3
ACCEPT A GRANT AGREEMENT #06174 FROM THE
FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION
COMMISSION FOR THE FLORIDA BOATING IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM (FBIP) GRANT TO FUND THE COLLIER COUNTY
BOATER EDUCATION PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $14,000.
APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO RECOGNIZE GRANT
FUNDS AND TRANSFER PREVIOUSLY RECOGNIZED
MATCH/SEED MONEY IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,000 FROM
CEDAR BAY MARINA - TO FUND THE COLLIER COUNTY
BOATER EDUCATION PROJECT
Item #16D4
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING $3,300 IN REVENUE
FROM PEPSI BOTTLING GROUP, INC. AS INITIAL SUPPORT
FUNDS AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR PURCHASE OF
ADDITIONAL FOOD CONCESSION EQUIPMENT - TO SELL
FOOD, DRINKS AND SUPPLIES TO THOSE VISITING
SUNNY'S SNACK FOOD CONCESSION STAND AT THE
SUN- N- FUN LAGOON
Item #16El
CHANGE ORDER NO.8 TO WORK ORDER #BSSW-00-07,
DESIGN OF THE NORTH COLLIER GOVERNMENT SERVICES
CENTER, UNDER CONTRACT 99-2930, FIXED TERM
PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES WITH BSSW
ARCHITECTS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $45,375 - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 386
January 23-24, 2007
Item #16Fl
A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY FOR NCH HEAL THCARE SYSTEM FOR NON-
EMERGENCY AMBULANCE SERVICE AND APPROVE A
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING AND
APPROPRIATING THE $250 ANNUAL RENEWAL FEE
Item #16F2
REVISED COLLIER COUNTY BEACH PARKING POLICY AND
AUTHORIZE STAFF TO AMEND ORDINANCE 89-17 AND/OR
RESOLUTION 2002-430 AS NECESSARY -AS DETAILED IN
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16F3
THE SUBMITTAL OF AN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT,
PREPAREDNESS AND ASSISTANCE (EMPA) COMPETITIVE
GRANT APPLICATION TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS IN THE AMOUNT OF $24,200 - TO
SUPPLEMENT FUNDING OF PUBLIC OUTREACH AND
EDUCATION ON EMERGENCY AND DISASTER
PREPAREDNESS IN MULTIPLE LANGUAGES
Item #16F4
THE SUBMITTAL OF AN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT,
PREPAREDNESS AND ASSISTANCE (EMPA) COMPETITIVE
GRANT APPLICATION TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS IN THE AMOUNT OF $175,000 - FOR
Page 387
January 23-24, 2007
NECESSARY FUNDING FOR THE NEW EMERGENCY
SERVICES COMPLEX BROADBAND TELEVISION SYSTEM
Item #16Hl
COMMISSIONER HALAS' REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR HAVING ATTENDED THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SFWMD) RECEPTION,
WELCOMING PHILIP G. FLOOD, DIRECTOR, LOWER WEST
COAST, ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 10,2007, AT THE
HILTON NAPLES, 5111 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH, NAPLES,
FLORIDA; $35.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
HALAS' TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #16H2
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR HAVING ATTENDED THE SOUTH
FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SFWMD)
RECEPTION, WELCOMING PHILIP G. FLOOD, DIRECTOR,
LOWER WEST COAST, ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 10,2007,
AT THE HILTON NAPLES, 5111 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH,
NAPLES, FLORIDA; $35.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #16H3
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT TO ATTEND THE EDC INDUSTRY AND
OPPORTUNITY TOUR ON FEBRUARY 2, 2007; $20.00 TO BE
PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
- TO TOUR A WIDE VARIETY OF BUSINESS EXPANSION
Page 388
January 23-24, 2007
OPPORTUNITIES IN OUR AREA
Item #16H4
COMMISSIONER HALAS' REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR HAVING ATTENDED THE NAPLES CHILDREN &
EDUCATION FOUNDATION'S RECEPTION ON TUESDAY,
JANUARY 16,2007 AT THE PAVILION CINEMAS IN NAPLES,
FLORIDA; $20.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
HALAS' TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT 833 VANDERBILT
BEACH ROAD
Item #16H5
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR HAVING ATTENDED THE RIGHT
ANGLE CLUB'S LUNCHEON MEETING ON THURSDAY,
JANUARY 11,2007 AT THE VANDERBILT GOLF AND
COUNTRY CLUB IN NAPLES, FLORIDA; $15.00 TO BE PAID
FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET-
COMMISSIONER WAS A SPEAKER
Item #16H6
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR HAVING ATTENDED THE HERITAGE
BAY AFFORDABLE HOUSING GROUNDBREAKING AND
LUNCHEON, WHERE HE WAS A SPEAKER, ON FRIDAY,
JANUARY 19,2007 AT THE HERITAGE BAY IN NAPLES,
FLORIDA; $16.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED IN NORTH
NAPLES
Page 389
January 23-24, 2007
Item #16H7
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR HAVING ATTENDED THE FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY
CHAMPAGNE UNDER THE STARS 50TH YEAR
ANNIVERSARY ON FRIDAY, JANUARY 12TH, 2007 AT THE
LIBRARY HEADQUARTERS; $20.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - 2385 ORANGE
BLOSSOM TRAIL AT 5:00 P.M.
Item #16H8
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
TO ATTEND THE BAYSHORE CULTURAL ARTS HEARTS IN
THE GARDEN SERIES ON FEBRUARY 2ND AND FEBRUARY
9TH, 2007; $50.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - 4820 BA YSHORE DRIVE
Item #16H9
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR HAVING ATTENDED THE EAST NAPLES CIVIC
ASSOCIATION 2007 ANNUAL DINNER ON MONDAY,
JANUARY 22ND, 2007; $35.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - HELD AT THE
NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY CLUB
Item #16HI0
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR HAVING ATTENDED THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
Page 390
January 23-24, 2007
WORKFORCE HOUSING CONSENSUS #3 ON MONDAY,
JANUARY 15TH, 2007; $15.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - HELD AT THE
NORRIS CENTER, 8TH AVENUE SOUTH
Item #16Hll
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
TO ATTEND THE CREW LAND AND WATER TRUST
ANNUAL MEETING ON FRIDAY, JANUARY 26TH, 2007 AT
THE CLUB AT BAREFOOT BEACH; $20.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - 105 SHELL
DRIVE, BONITA SPRINGS
Item #16H12 - Withdrawn
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR HAVING ATTENDED THE MARCO ISLAND AREA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE INSTALLATION OF THE 2007
PRESIDENT ON SUNDAY, JANUARY 14TH, 2007; $65.00 TO
BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
- HELD AT THE ISLAND COUNTRY CLUB ON MARCO
ISLAND
Item #16H13
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR HAVING ATTENDED THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
WORKFORCE HOUSING CONSENSUS #2 ON FRIDAY,
JANUARY 12TH, 2007; $16.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - HELD AT THE
COLLIER ATHLETIC CLUB, 710 GOODLETTE ROAD NORTH
Page 391
January 23-24, 2007
Item #16H14
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING THE MARTIN LUTHER
KING, JR. VIP RECEPTION ON JANUARY 13, 2007; $12.00 TO
BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL
BUDGET - HELD AT FGCU NAPLES CENTER, 1010 FIFTH
AVENUE SOUTH
Item #1611
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR
REFERRED:
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 392
January 23-24, 2007
Item #16Jl
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF DECEMBER 23, 2006
THROUGH DECEMBER 29, 2006 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J2
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF DECEMBER 30, 2006
THROUGH JANUARY 05, 2007 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J3
RESOLUTION 2007-20: SUPPORTING THE COLLIER COUNTY
SHERIFF'S OFFICE EFFORTS TO RESEARCH AND
IMPLEMENT A WORK-RELEASE PROGRAM AS
AUTHORIZED AND DEFINED IN 951.24, FLORIDA STATUTES
- FOR THE EMPLOYMENT OF ELIGIBLE OFFENDERS
Item #16Kl
A SETTLEMENT IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED KELLIE
GUNDECK V. COLLIER COUNTY, FILED IN THE TWENTIETH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, CASE NO. 06-490-CA, FOR $55,000.00
Item #16K2
ACCEPT THE RESPONDENT'S OFFER OF JUDGMENT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $19,000.00 FOR PARCEL 149 AND APPROVE
THE STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE LAWSUIT
Page 393
January 23-24, 2007
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. ZIAD SHAHLA, ET AL., CASE NO.
04-600-CA (VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD PROJECT NO. 63051)
(FISCAL IMP ACT $6,078.00) - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16K3
AN AGREED ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF ENGINEERING FEES
IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,600.00 IN CONNECTION WITH
PARCEL 145 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
REGENT PARK CLUSTER HOMES ASSOCIATION, ET AL., CASE
NO. 04-3452-CA (IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT NO. 66042)
FISCAL IMPACT: $L600.00
Item#17A
RESOLUTION 2007-21: PETITION A VESMT-2006-AR-9775,
HANSON TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE
COUNTY'S AND THE PUBLIC'S 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
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2007-22: PETITION SV-2006-AR-9400, AFTER-
THE-FACT SIGN VARIANCE FOR THE SWAMP BUGGY
RACES/FLORIDA SPORTS PARK. THE SIGN VARIANCE
REQUESTED IS TO ALLOW THE EXISTING NON-
CONFORMING (LOCATION, SIZE AND HEIGHT) OFF-
PREMISES DIRECTIONAL SIGN TO REMAIN AT ITS
Page 394
January 23-24, 2007
EXISTING LOCATION FOR A PERIOD OF NOT MORE THAN
THREE-YEARS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS COLLIER
COUNTY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) COLLIER
BOULEVARD (CR 951) AND SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SFWMD) BIG CYPRESS BASIN
EASEMENT ALONG COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951) IS
LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF COLLIER
BOULEVARD AND RATTLESNAKE - HAMMOCK ROAD (CR
864) ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA - W/CONDITIONS
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :23 a.m.
Page 395
RECEf\/ED
FFR 1 ',: ,Offt"'
'CO,""'"' ' -;"-, ....uv
January 23-24, 2007
Board of <>)ur:t'y' C>~tnnli~';Slofier::;
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
~~
JIM C - LETT A, Chairman
ATTEST:
DWIGI};rcE.'.BROCK, CLERK
, , " (
~:"J',r~~~,~~;, 3.~l.,'.-tJ Cb41
s :fi'~aturtohl"c"
These minutes approved by the Board on ~.yb Z
as presented ~ or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM.
Page 396