BCC Minutes 02/27/2007 R
February 27, 2007
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, February 27, 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
Tom Henning
Donna Fiala
Frank Halas
Fred W. Coy Ie
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~>'
"-
I
~,... \
. -~=-
AGENDA
February 27, 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 PRESENTATION OF THE
AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL
RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY
THE CHAIRMAN.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2004-05, AS AMENDED REQUIRES
THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING
ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS."
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
Page 1
February 27, 2007
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. January 24,2007 - BCC/AUIR Meeting
C. January 25,2007 - BCC/EAR Meeting
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation honoring Veterans Transportation Program to offer
appreciation and thanks to the volunteer drivers, office staff, and their
families for their efforts in making the quality of life better for veterans in
our community. To be accepted by Mr. Jim Elson, President, Collier County
Page 2
February 27, 2007
Veterans Council.
B. Proclamation designating February 2007 through April 2007 as Celebration
of Children and Families Months. Multiple local and statewide non-profit
organizations representing many different childrens issues are participating
in the celebration, providing a holistic approach to the well-being of
children, and encompassing all issues which impact Floridas children and
families. To be accepted by Barbara A. Saunders Executive Director, Early
Learning Coalition of Southwest Florida.
C. Proclamation designating March 2007 as National Purchasing Month to
celebrate the importance of the purchasing profession in general and the
Collier County Purchasing Department in particular. To be accepted by Mr.
Steve Carnell, Purchasing, General Services Director.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Thanks to the continued support of the Board, the public Automatic External
Defibrillation (AED) Program, here in Collier County has been a model that
other communities have attempted to duplicate. Through this AED Program,
thousands of citizens, not in the medical profession, have been trained in
CPR and how to operate an AED if an emergency should ever arise. On
Tuesday May 2,2006, at the Golden Gate Fitness Center such an emergency
arose. A member of the fitness center, while using a treadmill, lost
consciousness and went into cardiac arrest. A group of citizens responded
accordingly and we want to thank them today.
B. Contractor Presentation for South County Regional Water Treatment Plant
12 mgd.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public petition request by Neil Spirtas to discuss the purpose of STOP! Red
Light Running Coalition and request financial support.
B. Public petition request by Richard Greco to discuss the Vanderbilt Beach
Road Extension.
Page 3
February 27, 2007
C. Public petition request by Roberto Leon to discuss property at 1071 16th
Street NE and the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension.
D. Public Petition request by Greg Bello to discuss the Goodland Zoning
Overlay.
E. Public petition request by Mona Casey to discuss a safety refrigerant locking
cap Ordinance.
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 D.m., unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. PUDZ-A-2006-AR-
9403 Toll Brothers, Inc., represented by Walter Fluegel, AICP, of Heidt &
Associates and Richard Y ovanovich, of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson,
P.A., requesting a PUD to RPUD rezone. The approved zoning classification
is currently Recreational Theme Park known as King Richards. The
proposed use of the property is multi-family residential (133 multi-family
units) to be known as the Princess Park Residential Planned Unit
Development (RPUD). The subject property, consists of 11.3 acres, and is
located on Airport-Pulling Road North, in Section 1, Township 49 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
B. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. CU-2006-AR-I 0550:
Collier County Department of Facilities Management, represented by Heidi
Williams, ofQ. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., is requesting a conditional
use in the Estates zoning district pursuant to Section 2.01.03. G.1.e and
Section 10.08.00 of the Collier County Land Development Code to allow a
Safety Service Facility that will be limited to an Emergency Medical
Services for a project to be known as the EMS Station #73. The subject
property, consisting of 2.23 acres, is located at 790 Logan Boulevard North,
in Section 4, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
Page 4
February 27, 2007
C. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. RZ-2005-AR-7271:
Collier County Public Utilities Department, represented by Fred Reischl,
AICP, of Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc., requesting a rezone from the
Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Public Use (P) zoning district limited
to Essential Service use only. The subject property, consisting of 42.2 acres,
is located at 1300 Manatee Road, in Section 10, Township 51 South, Range
26 East, Collier County, Florida.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of member to the Pelican Bay Services Division Board.
B. Appointment of member to the Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory
Committee.
C. Request Board to set the place and time for the Clerk, with the assistance of
the County Attorneys Office, to open and count the mail ballots of the
nominees to fill the vacancies on the Pelican Bay Services Division Board.
D. Discussion of proper actions under Public Comment or Commissioner's
comments at future Commissioner meetings.
E. That the Board of County Commissioners consider adopting a resolution
pertaining to the citizens of Collier County and their right to the use of any
and all Collier County Facilities.
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Report to the Board of County Commissioners on the blasting activities at
the Jones Mine Commercial Excavation site. (Joseph K. Schmitt,
Administrator, Community Development and Environmental Services)
B. Recommendation to award Work Order HS-FT-3785-07-03 in the amount of
$2,846,000 to Hazen and Sawyer, P.C. (H&S), for professional engineering
services to expand the North County Water Reclamation Facility (NCWRF)
to 30.6 million gallons per day (MGD) maximum month average daily flow
(MMADF), as Project 73950. (Jim DeLony, Administrator, Public Utilities)
Page 5
February 27, 2007
C. Recommendation to adopt a superseding resolution authorizing the
condemnation of fee simple interests and/or those perpetual or temporary
easement interests necessary for the construction of roadway, drainage and
utility improvements required for the six-lane expansion of Collier
Boulevard from U.S. 41 to the Golden Gate Main Canal. (Capital
Improvement Element No. 86, Project No. 60001). Estimated fiscal impact:
$5,000,000.00. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
D. Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the acquisition by gift or
purchase of fee simple interests and/or those perpetual or temporary
easement interests necessary for the construction of roadway, drainage and
utility improvements required for the extension of Tree Farm Road from
Davila Street to Massey Street and W oodcrest Drive from Immokalee Road
to Tree Farm Road. (Project No. 60171). Estimated fiscal impact:
$1,200,000.00 (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
E. To seek Board approval of a State Infrastructure Bank Loan Agreement in
the amount of $12,000,000, the amended Locally Funded Lump Sum
Agreement and a resolution authorizing the Chairman to enter into and
execute these agreements with the Florida Department of Transportation to
be used for the I-75/Immokalee Road Interchange Loop Project. (Norman
Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
F. Approve a Budget Amendment to move excess landscape maintenance funds
in the amount of$I,148,493.03 from Fund 112 to the Transit Operations
Facility for Repairs and or Renovations needed at the site. (Norman Feder,
Administrator, Transportation Services)
G. That the Board of County Commissioners adopt policies to be used in
developing the Collier County Government budget for fiscal year 2008.
(Michael Smykowski, Director, Office of Management and Budget)
H. Recommendation to award Work Order UC-280 in the amount of$997,252
to Mitchell and Stark Construction Company, Inc. to demolish the concrete
structures and utilize the existing oxidation ditch structure as an irrigation
quality water storage tank, establish eligibility for a SFWMD grant of
$224,000, and to waive the work order threshold requirements under
contract 04-3535 Annual Contract For Underground Utility Contracting
Page 6
February 27, 2007
Services, Project 72501. (Jim DeLony, Administrator, Public Utilities)
I. Recommendation to approve the award of RFP #07-4092 SAP Upgrade
Project to Labyrinth Solutions, Inc (dba LSI Consulting)in the amount of
$1,209,999. (Len Price, Administrator, Administrative Services)
J. Recommendation to award Bid #07-4072 "Collier County Irrigation Quality
Water Project" to Douglas N. Higgins, Inc. to provide the installation and
hookup of new Irrigation Quality (IQ) water lines to both the irrigation
system and the chiller plant cooling towers on the Main Government
Complex located at 3301 Tamiami Trail East in the amount of$I,183,500.
(Len Price, Administrator, Administrative Services)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. CONSENT AGENDA - 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) This item reQuires that ex parte disclosure be provided bv
Commission Members. Should a hearinl! be held on this item~ all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of Turnbury Preserve, approval of
the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and
Page 7
February 27, 2007
approval of the amount of the performance security.
2) Recommendation to approve the Release and Satisfactions of Lien for
payments received for the following Code Enforcement actions.
3) This item reQuires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission Members. Should a hearin2 be held on this item~ all
participants are reQuired to be sworn in. Recommendation to grant
final approval of the roadway (private) and drainage improvements
for the final plat of Britney Estates. The roadway and drainage
improvements will be privately maintained.
4) This item was continued from the February 13~ 2007 BCC
Meetin2. This item reQuires that ex parte disclosure be provided
by Commission Members. Should a hearin2 be held on this item.
all participants are reQuired to be sworn in. Recommendation to
grant final approval of the roadway (private) and drainage
improvements for the final plat of Veronawalk Phase 1 B. The
roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve the purchase of 1.14 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: $125,610.00)
2) Recommendation to approve a Novation Agreement adding
conditions and replacing a previous agreement with Countryside
Master Association, Inc. for construction of a noise wall as part of the
six-lane improvements to Santa Barbara Boulevard Project #62081.
Estimated fiscal impact: ($0)
3) Recommendation to approve the purchase of two (2) Crew Cab Flat
Bed Dump Trucks in accordance with Collier County Bid #04-3591
from Wallace International Trucks in the amount of$139,495.14.
4) Recommendation to approve the purchase of two (2) 20-CY Diesel
Powered Dump Trucks in accordance with Collier County Bid #05-
Page 8
February 27, 2007
3731 from Wallace International Trucks in the amount of
$208,059.54.
5) Recommendation to approve a work order in the amount of $484,660
to Aquagenix for the 2007 Australian Pine Removal Project (Project
Number 51501) under Contract 03-3568 Annual Contract for
Countywide Exotic Vegetation Removal. This $484,660 includes a
10% contingency of $44,060.
6) 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.
7) Recommendation to approve a contract with Cambridge Systematics
for Phase I ofRFP-06-3999 for the Toll Feasibility Study for the SS
Jolley Bridge in the amount of$481,823.
8) Recommendation to approve Change Order No.2 to Contract No. 03-
3473 with HDR Engineering, Inc. - Consultant Services for
Preparation of a Land Development Overlay for Bayshore/Gateway
Triangle Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) District
supplementing civil engineering design and surveying services in the
amount of $162,560 for the Gateway Triangle Drainage Improvement
Project, Project Number 51803.
9) Recommendation to approve a Developers Contribution Agreement
(DCA) between SEMBLER FAMILY PARTNERSHIP #42, LTD.,
(The Developer) and Collier County to acquire right of way and fund
roadway improvements. The Agreement is a companion item to the
Hammock Park PUDA-2006-AR-l 0030, Item 17C.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to approve the acquisition of a 60-foot by 60-foot
Utility Easement near the northwest corner of3898 1st Avenue SW
for a public water supply well site easement, at a total cost not to
exceed $27,000, Project Number 700661.
Page 9
February 27, 2007
2) Recommendation to approve the acquisition of a 50-foot by 60-foot
Utility Easement near the southwest corner of 341 Weber Boulevard
North for a public water supply well site easement, at a total cost not
to exceed $24,500, Project Numbers 700661 and 701581.
3) Recommendation to approve the acquisition of a Utility Easement for
a 50-foot by 60-foot public water supply well site near the southwest
corner of 611 Weber Boulevard South, and associated pipeline and
access area, at a total cost not to exceed $52,700, Project Number
700661.
4) Recommendation to award Work Order HM-FT-3785-07-04 with
Hole Montes, Inc. for professional services for Modifications to
Collier County Water Department Raw Water Booster Pump Station
in the amount of$600,600, Project 710041
5) Recommendation to award annual contracts to selected firms for
trenchless sewer system rehabilitation contracting services per bid 07-
4088, project 73050.
6) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment to transfer funds in
the amount of $250,000 from the Collier County Water-Sewer District
User Fee Fund (414) Reserve for Contingencies to Project 743131,
Northeast Irrigation Quality Pipeline, in order to purchase 9,720 feet
on 24 irrigation quality pipe from the Transportation Department in
the amount of $355,725.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve the submittal of a 2007 ESRI Grant
Program for 4-H (U.S.) Introductory-Level Grant Application to the
ESRI Grant Assistance Program and National4-H GIS/GPS
Technology Leadership Team for the integration of geographic
information system (GIS) software in Collier County 4-H clubs and
schools.
2) Recommend Approval of a $40,000 Time & Material, Not- To-Exceed
Professional Services proposal from PBS&J to have Dr. David
Tomasko perform a Sea Grass Study on Lower Clam Bay identifying
Page 10
February 27, 2007
die-off factors, contributing relationships and outlining mitigation
strategies and costs.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve the sale of surplus assets from the North
County Water Reclamation Facility project.
2) To obtain approval from the Board of County Commissioners to
authorize a sale of Collier County surplus property on March 24,
2007.
3) Approval of an Agreement between the Board of Commissioners and
AIS Risk Consultants, Inc. to provide actuarial support services to the
group, Fighting Against Insurance Rates, a/k/a FAIR in an annual
amount not to exceed $75,000.
4) Report and ratify Property, Casualty, Workers Compensation and
Subrogation Claims settled and/or closed by the Risk Management
Director pursuant to Resolution # 2004-15 for the fourth quarter of FY
06.
5) Report and ratify Property, Casualty, Workers Compensation and
Subrogation Claims settled and/or closed by the Risk Management
Director pursuant to Resolution # 2004-15 for the first quarter of FY
07.
6) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment for on-site grant
training in the amount of $15,500.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Recommendation to authorize the removal of$570,992.54 from the
Accounts Receivable Control Account and a like amount from the
Allowance for Doubtful Accounts Control Account in the Emergency
Medical Services Funds General Ledger for the time period of
October I, 2003 through September 30, 2005.
Page 11
February 27, 2007
2) Recommendation to approve an Emergency Services Memorandum of
Understanding between Collier County and Moorings Presbyterian
Church.
3) Approve Budget Amendments
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation for the CRA Board to approve the lease of
additional office space for Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA
operations, approve new office lease with landlord, authorize the CRA
Chairman to sign, and approve all necessary budget amendments
2) To approve and execute Site Improvement Grant Agreement(s)
between the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency and
Grant Applicant(s) within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle
Community Redevelopment area.
3) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency to
approve the purchase of a residential (mobile home) lot in the
Bayshore area of the CRA as part of a CRA residential infill project;
to approve payment from and authorize the CRA Chairman to make a
draw from the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Wachovia Bank Line
of Credit in the amount of $90,000 plus cost and expenses to complete
the sale of subject property; and approve any and all necessary budget
amendments. Site address: 3148 Van Buren Avenue
4) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency to
approve an extension of Site Improvement Grant Agreement 02/2006
between the CRA and Mr. Peter Canalia due to certain construction
and permitting delays.
5) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency to
approve the purchase of a vacant residential (mobile home) lot in the
Bayshore area of the CRA as part of a CRA residential infill project;
to approve payment from and authorize the CRA Chairman to make a
draw from the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Wachovia Bank Line
of Credit in the amount of $90,000 plus cost and expenses to complete
Page 12
February 27, 2007
the sale of subject property; and approve any and all necessary budget
amendments. Site address: 4048 Full Moon Court.
6) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency to
approve the purchase of a vacant residential (mobile home) lot in the
Bayshore area of the CRA as part of a CRA residential infill project;
to approve payment from and authorize the CRA Chairman to make a
draw from the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Wachovia Bank Line
of Credit in the amount of $90,000 plus cost and expenses to complete
the sale of subject property; and approve any and all necessary budget
amendments. Site address: 3252 Lunar Street.
7) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency to
approve the purchase of a residential (mobile home) lot and abutting
vacant lot in the Bayshore area of the CRA as part of a CRA
residential infill project; to approve payment from and authorize the
CRA Chairman to make a draw from the Bayshore Gateway Triangle
CRA Wachovia Bank Line of Credit in the amount of$235,000 plus
cost and expenses to complete the sale of subject properties; and
approve any and all necessary budget amendments. Site address: 3008
Van Buren Avenue
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Coletta requests approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner
paid to attend the New Hope Ministries 25th Anniversary Celebration
luncheon on February 11,2006 and is requesting reimbursement in
the amount of $22.00, to be paid from his travel budget.
2) Commissioner Coletta requests approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner
paid to attend the Know your County Government Teen Citizen
Program Luncheon on April 10, 2006 and is requesting
reimbursement in the amount of $9.00, to be paid from his travel
budget.
3) Commissioner Coletta requests approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner
Page 13
February 27, 2007
paid to attend the Board of Directors of Leadership Foundations of
America Board Meeting on February 22,2007 and is requesting
reimbursement in the amount of $30.00, to be paid from his travel
budget.
4) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended the
League of Women Voters Concierge Medicine in Collier County
Luncheon on Monday, February 19,2007, at the Vineyards Park
Community Center, Naples, FL; $15.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
5) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Will attend the 5th
Annual Women in History Luncheon on Friday, March 30, 2007 at
the Naples Hilton & Towers; $75.00 to be paid from Commissioner
Fiala's travel budget.
6) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended the
Cleveland Club's 9th Anniversary Celebration on Wednesday, January
31, 2007 at the Naples Elks Club; $28.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
7) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Will attend the
2007 Lincoln Day Dinner on Saturday, March 3, 2007 at the Naples
Beach Hotel; $125.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel
budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) To file for record with action as directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) To obtain board approval for disbursements for the period of February
03,2007 through February 09,2007 and for submission into the
Page 14
February 27, 2007
official records of the board.
2) To obtain board approval for disbursements for the period of February
10, 2007 through February 16, 2007 and for submission into the
official records of the board.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a
budget amendment in the amount of $1 0,000 to fund the cost of
supplements to the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances and
the Collier County Land Development Code.
2) Recommendation to approve Agreed Order Awarding Expert Fees and
Costs for Parcels 737R, 937R, 738R, 838, 938R, 746R and 946R in
the lawsuit styled Board of County Commissioners v. Willow Run
Land Trust, et aI., Case No. 05-1036-CA (South County Regional
Water Treatment Plant RO Well field Expansion Project No. 70892).
(Fiscal Impact $37,879.29)
3) Recommendation to Approve a Mediated Settlement Agreement and a
Stipulated Final Judgment to be Drafted Incorporating the Same
Terms and Conditions as the Mediated Settlement Agreement in the
Amount of$215,000.00 for the Acquisition of Parcel 118 in the
Lawsuit Styled Collier County v. David Lawrence Mental Health
Center, Inc., et aI., Case No. 06-0567-CA (Santa Barbara Boulevard
Project No. 62081). (Fiscal Impact: $99,541.20)
4) Recommendation to approve an Agreed Order A warding Planning
Fees for Parcels 131 and 132 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v.
West Coast Development Corp., et aI., Case No. 06-0708-CA (Santa
Barbara Boulevard Project No. 62081). (Fiscal Impact $14,500.00)
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDA TION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
Page 15
February 27, 2007
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. SNR-2006-AR-I0898 Jon Ogle, representing the CRA Bayshore/Gateway
Triangle, has submitted a street name change application. The request is to
change the names of two streets, Francis Avenue and Pine Street, to
Linwood Way. The new street, Linwood Way, would include Francis
Avenue, south of Linwood A venue to the dead-end intersection with Pine
Street, and Pine Street, North of Francis to Linwood Avenue, in Section 11,
Township 50, Range 25, Collier County, Florida
B. Recommendation to adopt an ordinance amending Collier County ordinance
No. 2001-13, as amended (The Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee
Ordinance) by amending article two, impact fees, section 74-202, payment
and section 74-203, use of funds; amending article three, section 74-302,
special requirements for road impact fees; providing for conflict and
severability; providing for inclusion in code of laws and ordinances; and
providing for an effective date.
C. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition: PUDA-2006-
AR-I0030 Sembler Family Partnership #42, L TD, represented by Bob
Mulhere, ofRW A, Inc., requesting a PUD Amendment to reflect the current
LDC sections which was recodified in 2004 in the Hammock Park
Commerce Centre PUD Document. The subject property is 20.23 acres, and
is located on the Northeast corner of the intersection ofCR 951 and
Rattlesnake Hammock Road in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26
East, Collier County, Florida. This is a companion item to l6B9.
D. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. RZ-2005-AR-7445, D.
Wayne Arnold, AICP, Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. requesting a
rezone from the Conservation Zoning District with an Area of Critical State
Concern and a Special Treatment Overlay (Con-ACSC/ ST) and the Village
Page 16
February 27, 2007
Residential Zoning District with an Area of Critical State Concern and a
Special Treatment Overlay (VR-ACSC/ST) Zoning District to the Village
Residential Zoning District with an Area Of Critical State Concern and a
Special Treatment Overlay (VR-ACSC/ST-4) Zoning District for Property
Located in Section 12 and 13, Township 52 South, Range 29 East, Collier
County, Florida. (Copeland)
E. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-2005-AR-7820
Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, represented by Laura Spurgeon, of
Johnson Engineering, is requesting a rezone from the Agricultural - Mobile
Home Overlay (A-MHO) zoning district to the Residential Planned Unit
Development (RPUD) zoning district to consist of an affordable housing
residential neighborhood of 400 single-family, zero lot line, two-family or
duplex dwelling units in a project to be known as the Kaicasa RPUD. The
subject property, consisting of 100 acres, is located along the north side of
State Road 29, east of Village Oaks Elementary School, and is
approximately 2 miles east of the intersection of State Road 29 and County
Road 846.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
Page 17
February 27, 2007
February 27, 2007
(Commissioner Coy Ie is absent from the commission meeting
until indicated.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Mudd.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome. February 27th, Board of
Commissioners' regular meeting.
At this point in time I'm going to ask everyone to stand, and Jim
Mudd, our county manager, will do the invocation.
MR. MUDD: Oh, Heavenly Father, we come to you today as a
community thanking you for the blessings that you have so generously
provided.
Today we are especially thankful of the dedicated elected
officials, staff and members of the public who are here to help lead
this county as it makes the important decisions that will shape our
community's future.
We pray that you will guide and direct the decisions made here
today so that your will for our county would always be done.
These things we pray in your holy name, amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd?
Item #2A
REGULAR CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA - APPROVED
AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, agenda
changes, Board of County Commissioners' meeting, February 27,
2007.
Withdraw item 6B. This is a public petition request by Richard
Page 2
February 27, 2007
Greco to discuss the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension. That item is
being withdrawn at the petitioner's request.
Next item is to move item 8B to 7 A. This item requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
commission members.
It's conditional use 2006-AR-1550, Collier County Department of
Facilities Management, represented by Heidi Williams of Q. Grady
Minor & Associates, P .A., requesting a conditional use in the Estates
zoning district pursuant to section 2.0.03.G.l.e (sic), and section
10.8.0 of the Collier County Land Development Code to allow a
safety service facility that will be limited to an Emergency Medical
Services for a project to be known as the EMS station number 73.
The subject property consists of 2.23 acres. It's located at 790
Logan Boulevard North in Section 4, Township 49 south, Range 26
east, Collier County, Florida. That item is moved at staffs request.
Next item is item 9E. Remove the word whom in the first line of
paragraph one and two. The last paragraph of the resolution should
read, the citizens of Collier County who, and that change is made at
the executive -- the BCC's executive manager, Sue Filson's, request.
Next item is to continue item 10C to March 13, 2007, BCC
meeting. It's a recommendation to adopt a superseding resolution
authorizing the condemnation of fee simple interests and/or those
perpetual or temporary easement interests necessary for the
construction of roadway, drainage and utility improvements required
for the six-lane expansion of Collier Boulevard from u.S. 41 to
Golden Gate main canal.
The capital improvement element is number 86, project number
60001. The estimated fiscal impact is $5 million. That continuance is
at staffs request. And we had a legal description issue that's being
resolved, and it will be back next meeting.
Next item is to add an item 10K, and that's to accept $1,510,094
in general revenue funds, and one million six hundred and --
Page 3
February 27, 2007
1,633,000 -- we've got to fix that. We've got a mistake on the thing.
It's $1.6 million in hazardous mitigation grant program, HMPG (sic)
funds towards the construction of new Collier County Emergency
Operations Center, EOC.
And I'd ask Leo to go back to the executive summary, get the
figure for me. And as I continue, we'll come back and correct that
particular total. I'm sorry about that.
Next item is to withdraw item 16C5. It's a recommendation to
award annual contracts to select firms for trenchless sewer system
rehabilitation contracting services per bid 07-4088, project 73050.
That item is being withdrawn at staffs request. We have a bid protest.
Next item is item 16C6. In the title of the executive summary,
the project number should read, 743111 rather than 743131. Also,
under considerations, the third sentence should read, public utilities
has an opportunity to purchase 9,720 linear feet of 24-inch reclaimed
pipe from transportation department for $36.59 rather than $36.00 in
the executive summary per lineal foot.
Also under fiscal impact, project 743111, Northeast Irrigation
Quality Pipeline is to install an irrigation quality water line along
Immokalee Road from Collier Boulevard to the new northeast plant.
Collier County Transportation Division has excess irrigation quality
pipe -- that's reclaimed water pipe. That's pantine (phonetic) purple --
that public utilities can purchase at reduced cost.
However, the project budget presently does not have sufficient
funding to cover the purchase of this pipe. Please see the table below.
The current budget is $225,450. The budget amendment to
increase that particular budget item by $250,000, which would give
you a sum of $475,450. The cost of the pipe to be purchased is
$355,725, which will leave a remaining sum, balance left in the
project,of$119,725.
The remaining balance of $119,725 remaining in the project
budget after the purchase of the pipe is needed to cover additional
Page 4
February 27, 2007
services, such as field surveys, field coordination and design.
The next item is item 15 -- Leo, did you have a correction on that
particular number?
Yeah, Commissioners, so to fix that one item on that add item
10K,just before we turn the page, the correct figure is $1,639,225.
We just have an extra three in there; if you'd just take that out, thank
you.
Brings us to our next item, which is item 16E2. In the date
received column on page 3, items 202 through 209; page 4, items 301
and 302; and page 7, items 802 and 803, the date should be the 26th of
January, 2007 rather than the 26th of November, 2007, and that
correction is made at Commissioner Fiala's request.
The next item is to move item 16E3 to 10L. It's approval of an
amendment between the Board of County Commissioners and AIS
Risk Consultants, Inc., to provide actuarial support services to the
group fighting against insurance rates, ald/a FAIR in an annual
amount not to exceed $75,000, and that item's being moved at
Commissioner Fiala request.
The next items, item 16G3, 16G5, 16G6 and 16G7, which will be
-- 16G7 will be moved to 14A, and we'll talk about that next -- the
approvals of these items is subject to receiving an appraisal that meets
or exceeds the staff or independent appraisals. And I believe those
appraisals came in late last night.
However, 16G7 does not meet or exceed the asking price. So
remove 16G7 to 14A. It's a recommendation for the Community
Redevelopment Agency to approve the purchase of a residential
mobile home lot and butting vacant lot in the Bayshore area of the
CRA as part of a CRA residential infill project; to approve payment
from and authorize the CRA chairman to make a draw from the
Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA, Wachovia Bank line of credit in the
amount of $235,000 plus costs and expenses to complete the sale of
subject properties and approve any and all necessary budget
Page 5
February 27, 2007
amendments.
The site address is 3008 Van Buren Avenue. That item is being
moved at staff s request.
Next item is to withdraw item 16H4 and 16H7. Both particular
events Commissioner Fiala will be -- doesn't want to claim. One she
won't make, and I'm not too sure about the other. But she wants them
both withdrawn.
The next item is item 17 A. It should include ex parte disclosure
on that particular item. And this item requires that all participants be
sworn and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members.
It's SNR-2006-AR-10898, Jon Ogle, representing the CRA
Bayshore Gateway Triangle, has submitted a street name change
application. The request is to change the name of two streets. Francis
Avenue and Pine Street to Linwood Way. Again, there needs to be ex
parte disclosure on that particular item.
Next item is item 17C. Under staff comments, the first par -- the
first paragraph on page 5 of the executive summary should read that
Naples Lakes Country Club is west, not east, of the subject site.
Also under staff comments, third paragraph on page 5 of the
executive summary, note that the 50,000 square feet of office space
that may be converted is from the retail and office area that is being
reduced to the 160,000 square feet. And that clarification was asked
for by Commissioner Fiala.
And you do have one time certain item today, Commissioners.
No, I have one more change.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, sir.
MR. MUDD: And it's not on your change sheet, but it was
brought to my attention on the Habitat for Humanity item, which is
17E. And sixth line down in your -- the description of the item on
17E, where it says 400 single-family zero lot line two-family or mul --
you put in the word multifamily duplex dwelling unit. Multifamily is
the missing word in that particular piece, and that was the clarification
Page 6
February 27, 2007
that was asked for by the petitioner.
And you do have one time certain item today, and that's 9D, and
it's to discuss -- a discussion of proper actions under public comment
or commissioners' comments at future commission meetings.
That's all I have, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What time is that again?
MR. MUDD: Eleven.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Mudd.
Now, we'll be going down and getting commissioners'
disclosures on consent and summary agenda items and also any
changes to the agenda.
We'll start with Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I do have questions on
today's agenda. Has 17E been advertised correctly, being that we
have a clarification on the agenda item?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, during -- in the executive summary
it talks about multifamily or duplex, so it was heard with that
particular thing. But for clarification, the petitioner thought it would
be better just to make sure that the multifamily piece is in there so you
didn't have to wait until the executive summary.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think we're asking the wrong
person.
Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. The question is whether the
advertisement is correct, that is, inclusive enough to be appropriate to
go forward today. And what I would suggest is that you leave the
item on at the present time. We'll check that rather quickly and get
back to you so that the chair, or the board, can make any further
declaration in regard to that at the present -- you know, shortly into the
meeting.
I just can't tell you definitively without looking at the
advertisement for a few minutes here and comparing. But we can do
Page 7
February 27, 2007
that pretty quickly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. And at the time, the
board may choose to pull it off the summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I suggest that we pull it off until
we get a determination, then we can add it back on, if we find there's
no objection?
MR. WEIGEL: That's fine. What I would suggest, Mr.
Chairman and the board, is if you pull it off summary agenda, which is
-- would appear to be the appropriate thing to do under the
circumstance, after I or a member of my staff have informed the board
its status on this, if it should go forward, it could be treated on the
regular agenda as -- or at any earlier point in time as a summary item
and dispatched with rather quickly.
But you're -- Mr. Henning is correct that it would not be
appropriate, of course, to leave it on the summary agenda, which will
have a decision -- a vote taken by the board rather quickly here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, where would it go?
MR. MUDD: 8D, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. You want to give the full
description, 8E (sic), it would be -- and it's 17 --
MR. MUDD: 17E would move to 8D, and I'll read it. This item
requires that all participants be sworn and ex parte disclosure be
provided by commission members. It's PUDZ-2005-AR-7820,
Habitat for Humanity of Collier County represented by Laura
Spurgeon of Johnson Engineering, Inc., is requesting a rezone from
the agricultural mobile home overlay, A-MHO, zoning direct to the
residential planned unit development, RPUD, zoning district to consist
of an affordable housing residential neighborhood of 400
single-family zero lot line, two-family, or multifamily duplex dwelling
units in a project to be known as the Kaicasa RPUD.
The subject property consisting of 100 acres is located along the
north side of State Road 29 east of Village Oaks Elementary School
Page 8
February 27, 2007
and is approximately two miles east of the intersection of State Road
29 and County Road 4 -- or excuse me -- County Road 846.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And being that that is a land use item,
it will be -- come back to us at one o'clock. I'm sure by one o'clock,
Mr. Weigel, you'd be able to have an answer for us?
MR. WEIGEL: Oh, certainly. I though, perhaps, if you wished,
we'd have an answer for you, you know, within the hour, so if you
wish to try to take care of that item through the regular agenda in a
summary fashion, you -- clearly by one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. But once again, it's now a land
use item, and we deal with them after one o'clock.
MR. WEIGEL: That'd be fine.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll try to keep some regularity to
this.
Commissioner Henning, anything else?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's it. I have no ex parte on
today's --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Consent or summary.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- summary agenda or consent,
16A, or any changes to today's agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. On the summary agenda I
have spoken to the agent for 17C, which is the Hammock Park
Commerce Center, but I have no other disclosures on the summary
agenda -- let's see -- nor on the consent agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good morning, ladies and
gentlemen. On the consent agenda, I have nothing on 16Al nor do I
have anything on 16A3. I do have disclosures on -- wait a minute
here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Take your time.
Page 9
February 27, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. 16A4, I don't -- I don't have
any disclosures on. On 17 A, I have no disclosures on that; on 17C, I
have had meetings, and I believe that's it for this point in time.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And I have nothing to change
on the agenda itself, but on the summary agenda, on item 17C, I've
had meetings with Bruce Anderson, Karen Bishop and Richard
Y ovanovich; on 17E, I've had correspondence, and that concludes
that.
So at this point in time, do I hear a motion for approval of today's
regular --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second it as long as it
includes the amended -- the word amended, as amended.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. It's in my motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion and a
second for the approval of today's agenda.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor, indicate by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 4-0.
Page 10
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
February 27.2007
Withdraw Item 6B: Public petition request by Richard Greco to discuss the Vanderbilt Beach
Road Extension. (Petitioner's request.)
Move Item 8B to 7 A: This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure
be provided by Commission members. CU-2006-AR-10550: Collier County Department of
Facilities Management, represented by Heidi Williams, of Q. Grade Minor & Associates, P.A., is
requesting a conditional use in the Estates zoning district pursuant to Section 2.01.03.G.1.e and
Section 10.08.00 of the Collier County Land Development Code to allow a Safety Service Facility
that will be limited to an Emergency Medical Services for a project to be known as the EMS
Station #73. The subject property, consisting of 2.23 acres, is located at 790 Logan Boulevard
North, in Section 4, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Staff's request.)
Item 9E: Remove the word "whom" in the first line of paragraphs 1 and 2. The last paragraph of
the Resolution should read, "The citizens of Collier County, who (remove "whom") . . .." (BCC
Executive Manager Sue Filson's request.)
Continue Item 10C to March 13. 2007 BCC meetina: Recommendation to adopt a superseding
resolution authorizing the condemnation of fee simple interests and/or those perpetual or
temporary easement interests necessary for the construction of roadway, drainage and utility
improvements required for the six-lane expansion of Collier Boulevard from U.S. 41 to the Golden
Gate Main Canal. (Capital Improvement Element No. 86, Project No. 60001). Estimated fiscal
impact: $5,000,000.00. (Staff's request.)
Add on Item 10K: Acceptance of $1,510,094 in General Revenue funds and $1,6339,225 in Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funds towards the construction of the new Collier County
Emergency Operations Center (EOC). (Staff's request.)
Withdraw Item 16C5: Recommendation to award annual contracts to selected firms for trenchless
sewer system rehabilitation contracting services per bid 07-4088, project 73050. (Staff's request.)
Item 16C6: In the title ofthe executive summary, the project number should read "743111"
(rather than 743131). Also, under Considerations, the third sentence should read: "Public
Utilities has an opportunity to purchase 9,720 linear feet (If) of 24" reclaim pipe from
Transportation Department for $36.59 (rather than "$36") linear foot". Also, under Fiscal Impact,
"Project 743111, Northeast Irrigation Quality Pipeline, is to install an Irrigation Quality (IQ) water
line along Immokalee Road from Collier Boulevard to the new Northeast Plant. Collier County
Transportation Division has excess IQ pipe that Public Utilities can purchase at reduced cost.
However, the project budget presently does not have sufficient funding to cover the purchase of
this pipe. Please see the table below:
$225,450
+ $250,000
Current Budget
Budget Amendment Request
$475,450
- $355,725
Cost of pipe to be purchased
$119,725
Balance left in the project
The remaining balance of $119,725 remaining in the project budget after the purchase ofthe pipe
is needed to cover additional services such as field surveys, field coordination, and design."
Item 16E2: In the Date Received column on Page 3, items 202 through 209, Page 4, items 301 and
302, and Page 7, items 802 and 803, the date should be 1/26/2007 (rather than 11/26/2007).
(Commissioner Fiala's request.)
Move Item 16E3 to 10L: Approval of an Agreement between the Board of Commissioners and AIS
Risk Consultants, Inc. to provide actuarial support services to the group, Fighting Against
Insurance Rates, aldlal FAIR in an annual amount not to exceed $75,000. (Commissioner Fiala's
request.)
Items 16G3, 16G5, 16G6. 16G7 (14A): The approval of these items is subjectto receiving an
appraisal that meets or exceeds the staff or independent appraisal. (Staff's request.)
Move 16G7 to 14A: Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency to approve the
purchase of a residential (mobile home) lot and abutting vacant lot in the Bayshore area of the
CRA as part of a CRA residential infill project; to approve payment from and authorize the CRA
Chairman to make a draw from the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Wachovia Bank Line of
Credit in the amount of $235,000 plus cost and expenses to complete the sale of subject
properties; and approve any and all necessary budget amendments. Site address: 3008 Van
Buren Avenue. (Staff's request.)
Withdraw Item 16H4: Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended the League of Women Voters
Concierge Medicine in Collier County Luncheon on Monday, February 19, 2007, at the Vineyards
Park Community Center, Naples, FL; $15.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
(Commissioner Fiala's request.)
Withdraw Item 16H7: Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function service a valid public purpose. Will attend the 2007 Lincoln Day Dinner on
Saturday, March 3, 2007 at the Naples Beach Hotel; $125.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's
travel budget. (Commissioner Fiala's request.)
Item 17A should include ex parte disclosure: "This item requires that all participants be sworn in
and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members." SNR-2006-AR-10898 Jon Ogle,
representing the CRA Bayshore/Gateway Triangle, has submitted a street name change
application. The request is to change the names of two streets, Francis Avenue and Pine Street,
to Linwood Way. The new street, Linwood Way, would include Francis Avenue, south of Linwood
Avenue to the dead-end intersection with Pine Street, and Pine Street, north of Francis to
Linwood Avenue, in Section 11, Township 50, Range 25, Collier County, Florida. (Staff's request.)
Item 17C: Under Staff Comment, the first paragraph on page 5 of the Executive Summary should
read that Naples Lakes Country Club is west and not east of the subject site. Also under Staff
Comments, third paragraph on page 5 of the Executive Summary, note that the fifty thousand
(50,000) square feet of office space that may be converted is from the retail and office area that is
being reduced to 160,000 square feet. (Staff's request.)
Time Certain Items:
Item 9D to be heard at 11 :00 a.m. Discussion of proper actions under Public Comment or
Commissioner's comments at future Commissioner meetings.
February 27, 2007
Item #2B and Item #2C
MINUTES OF JANUARY 24,2007 - BCC/AUIR MEETING;
JANUARY 25, 2007 - BCC/EAR MEETING - APPROVED AS
PRESENTED
Now for approval of the January 24th--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You have -- the county attorney
has a question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, sir.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Henning.
Just to note for the record that the approval of the agenda, today's
agenda, includes the board acting and sitting as the CRA board for
items under 16G on the consent agenda. Those matters under 14,
CRA, the board will be acting as a CRA board when it comes up at
that point in the regular agenda. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Weigel.
Now I'm looking for an approval for today -- for the January
24th, BCC, AUIR meeting, the January 25th BCC/EAR meeting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Fiala, a second by Commissioner Halas.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 4-0. Thank you.
Page 11
February 27, 2007
Service awards, Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we have any? I don't think we do.
Probably right to proclamations.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we have no service awards.
Brings us to proclamations.
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION HONORING VETERANS TRANSPORTATION
PROGRAM OFFERING APPRECIATION AND THANKS TO
THEIR VOLUNTEERS. STAFF. AND FAMILIES -ADOPTED
Proclamation 4A is a proclamation honoring Veterans
Transportation Program to offer appreciation and thanks to the
volunteer drivers, office staff and their families for their efforts in
making the quality of life better for veterans in our community, to be
accepted by Mr. Jim Elson, president, Collier County Veterans
Council.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Ladies and gentlemen, it gives me
great pleasure to read this proclamation. This is in regards to veterans
watching out for veterans. It's a great brotherhood.
And at this time I'd like to have all the people that are involved in
the community here with -- that are drivers for the veterans if you'd
come forward.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Who are involved in the program.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, that are involved in this
program. Please come up forward to the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They're streaming on in.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Whereas, the Veterans
Transportation Program is a cooperative effort between Collier
County Board of County Commissioners and Collier County Veterans
Page 12
February 27, 2007
Council; and,
Whereas, the purpose of the transportation program is to provide
free transportation for Collier County veterans to VA healthcare
facilities in Fort Myers, Bay Pines, Tampa and other facilities in South
Florida; and,
Whereas, the drivers in this program are all volunteers who
donate their time and effort to see that our veterans receive needed
healthcare in a timely manner; and,
Whereas, the families of these volunteers also contribute to the
success of this program by supporting the volunteers and the goals of
the transportation program; and,
Whereas, in fiscal year 2007, our volunteer drivers have to date
donated 799 hours and have made 264 trip to VA medical facilities
and have transported over 94 percent of all veterans who have
requested the services of our transportation program.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that we offer our
appreciation and thanks to the volunteer drivers, office staff and their
families for their efforts in making this quality of life better for the
veterans in our community.
Done and ordered this 27th day of February, 2007, Board of
Collier County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, James
Coletta, Chairman.
And Chairman, I move that we accept this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Halas for acceptance and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 13
February 27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 4-0. Thank you
very much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's do the photo op.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Shouldn't we get that gentleman up
here, too?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, please.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Thank you for what you
do.
MR. PEACOCK: As you can see, I'm not an army person.
Capital Elson was unable to make it this morning. My name is Don
Peacock. I'm the treasurer of the veterans council, and I'm pleased to
accept this proclamation on behalf of the drivers.
If I may read the names of all the drivers. Many were not able to
make it today. Arlie Cantrell, Duane Bordaus (phonetic), Steven
Driscoll, William Hock, Roger Johnson, Richard Kline, Jr., Bill
Geery, Kenneth Mabuchi, Don Milkey, Arthur Pope, Paul Seday,
Herb Soren (phonetic), Ellis Swett, John Welch and James Wiley.
If -- we certainly appreciate all of their efforts, and for those of
you who might -- you don't have to be a veteran to participate in this
program. So if you or anyone you know would like to be a volunteer
driver to help our veterans, why, please contact the veterans' service
officer, Peter Kraley.
Once again, thank you very much, Commissioners. It's an honor
to accept this award.
(Applause.)
Item #4B
Page 14
February 27, 2007
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING FERUARY 2007 THROUGH
APRIL 2007 AS CELEBRATION OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
MONTHS - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, your next proclamation is 4B. It's
designating February 2007 through April 2007 as Celebration of
Children and Families Month.
Multiple local and statewide non-profit organizations
representing many different children's issues are participating in the
celebration, providing a holistic approach to the well-being of children
and encompassing all issues which impact Florida's children and
families.
To be accepted by Barbara A. Saunders, executive director, Early
Learning Coalition of Southwest Florida.
Come on up.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please, right up front. Bring the
children. There is nothing more important than children and families
in this world. I mean, that's what we're all here about today and every
day of our existence. And rightly so, this is the longest proclamation
I've ever had to read because I don't think you could ever say enough
nice things about children and family (sic).
Oh, this is so beautiful. I absolutely love it when we get children
here.
MS. MILLER: And that's actually Barbara Saunders' substitute
today. She couldn't make it.
But on behalf of the Early Learning Coalition Board, my name is
Sheila Miller, and these are some of my students that are citizens of
Collier County that benefit, and those members of the Childcare
Southwest Florida that benefit from everybody being aware of how
important they are to us.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's absolutely wonderful to have
Page 15
February 27, 2007
children on that side of the dais also.
Whereas, the 12th annual --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Also.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let me start over again.
You're going to get me laughing, Donna, and this is going to -- this is
going to take a while.
Whereas, the 12th Annual Children's Week Celebration parents
and children will take place in Tallahassee from March 25, 2007, to
April 1, 2007, bringing thousands of parents, children, professional
community leaders and concerned citizens together to share valuable
knowledge and information about children issues across the state and
in our capital city; and,
Whereas, the purpose of Children's Week is to create a shared
vision of the State of Florida's commitment to its children and family
(sic) to engage a long-term process to develop and implement
strategies from moving the shared faith forward and does so by
encouraging Children (sic) Week activities to occur locally in all of
Florida's counties to strengthen and enrich our families and our
community; and,
Whereas, Children's Week has teamed up with the Association of
Early Learning Coalition, the Florida Department of Health Step Up
Florida Program, Preventative Child Abuse Florida Winds of Change
Campaign and dozens of leading statewide non-profit organizations to
expand the network of community involvement and advocates on a
wide arrange (sic) of children and family issues at a local level; and,
Whereas, the Early Learning Coalition of Southwest Florida is
one of 31 early learning coalitions in the State of Florida legislatively
mandated to manage and oversee state and federal funded early
education and care programs in Hendry, Glades, Collier and Lee
County, so that children will have the optimal health, education and
care they need to promote early learning so they can be successful in
school and in life; and,
Page 16
February 27, 2007
Whereas, Step Up Florida is an annual statewide health initiative
developed by the Florida Department of Health to promotes the
importance of daily physical activity and highlights the variety of
physical activity opportunities available for all Florida residents by
hosting local events throughout the month of February.
Step Up Florida activities are coordinated by the local chronic
disease health promotion and educational coordinators in all 67
counties; and,
Whereas, in recognition of Child Abuse Prevention Month,
Prevent Child Abuse in Florida in partnership with the Ounce of
Prevention Fund and the Florida Department of Children and Families
is launching a state public awareness and educational campaign during
April of 2007 with the campaign theme, Winds of Change - Turning
Choice into Change, and is symbolized by the pinwheel representing
this shift or wind of change; and,
Whereas, multiple local and statewide non-profit organizations
representing many different children's issues are participating in the
celebration of Children's Week in each county providing a holistical
(sic) approach to the well-being of children and encompassing all
issues which impact Florida children and families; and,
Whereas, local Children's Week Celebration in the month of
February through April in Collier County will include Docs for Tots;
Naples Children's Education Foundation; Winter Wine Festival; Early
Learning Provider Celebration and Children's Handprint Art
Collection events throughout Collier County in partnership with the
Collier County Health Department; Healthy Families Collier County;
the Early Learning Coalition of Southwest Florida; United Way;
Childcare of Southwest Florida; the Naples Children's Educational
Foundation; the Naples Alliance for Children and all early learning
programs, children and family (sic) in Collier County.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida that February 2007 through
Page 1 7
February 27, 2007
April 2007 be designated as Celebration of Children and Family (sic)
Months.
Done and ordered this 27th day of February, James Coletta,
Chairman. And I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion for approval by
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You should have seen the audience.
Everybody was smiling.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Everybody was loving it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor, indicate by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 4-0. Thank you very
much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Would you like to say a
couple words?
MS. MILLER: Okay. I'll make it brief. But we just appreciate
the fact that Collier County has taken this proclamation to recognize
children and its youngest citizens who are in great need of help from
the county to make sure that they become successful, because they are
our future, and we appreciate you acknowledging this.
Thank you, on behalf of the Early Learning Coalition.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Page 18
February 27, 2007
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MARCH 2007 AS NATIONAL
PURCHASING MONTH - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, that brings us to our next
proclamation designating March 2007 as National Purchasing Month
to celebrate the importance of the purchasing profession in general,
and the Collier County purchasing department in particular.
To be accepted by Mr. Steve Carnell, purchasing, general
services director for Collier County.
MR. CARNELL: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
board. While a few of my best friends are coming forward here, I
wanted to just tell you briefly about some things going on with
Purchasing Month.
First off, I want to thank the board, County Manager, and all of
you who support our function and efforts day in, day out, as well as
for this recognition today.
This group works very hard. This isn't everybody, but it's almost
everybody on the staff here. Others are running around doing other
things today and couldn't be here.
But this group works very hard. We save you and the people you
serve several million dollars a year in cooperation with our operating
departments, and just even year to date we estimate we've saved about
$2 million, just since October 1 st with the different contracts we've
placed and work that we've done and this group has done.
We're very excited about Purchasing Month and some things that
are coming forward. As I told the board in the fall and during our
budget process last summer, we're going to be implementing an online
bidding system in March and April. It's going to make it a lot easier
for our vendors to tender bid offers to us.
We're also going to be modernizing our SAP software solution
Page 19
February 27, 2007
here, and there's many, many other business practices that we're in the
process right now of updating to be more efficient and effective in
serving you and the citizens of Collier County.
We're also going to be taking part, as part of National Purchasing
Month, in a presentation to the Southeast Chapter of the National
Institute of Governmental Purchasing that's this week, and we'll be
making an appearance with -- at the F APPO state conference, that's
the Florida Association of Public Purchasing Officers in April, and
we'll be conducting here at home a little open house for everybody
later in the month of March to demonstrate our online bidding process
on some other things we're doing.
So we do appreciate your time and recognition this morning.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I will go ahead and proceed
reading the proclamation.
Whereas, purchasing professionals playa significant role in
efficient and effectiveness in both government and business;
Whereas, purchasing professionals and their combined
purchasing power spend billions of dollars each year and have a
significant influence over the economy conditions throughout the
world; and,
Whereas, the purchasing --
Whereas, Collier County Purchasing Department provides an
added-value service, such as contract negotiation and administration,
vendor management and training; and,
Whereas, Collier County Purchasing Department and the
professional purchasing associations throughout the world engage in
efforts during the month of March to inform the public about the
important role by the purchasing professional (sic) businesses,
industries and government; and,
Page 20
February 27, 2007
Whereas, the importance of purchasing professionals (sic) in
general is recognized in Collier County Purchasing Department in
particular.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Commissioners
of Collier County, Florida, that March be designated as National
Purchasing Month.
Done on this 27th day of February, 2007.
Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we move this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Henning
and second by Commissioner Fiala.
All those in favor of the motion, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 4-0. Thank you so
much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you so much for what you do
for Collier County.
Are we going to have a party with that $2 million?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's good to see you again.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you for ajob well done.
Item #5A
PRESENTATION THANKING THE BOARD FOR THEIR
CONTINUED SUPPORT FOR THE AUTOMATIC EXTERNAL
DEFIBRILLATION (AED) PROGRAM - PRESENTED AND
RECOGNIZED
Page 21
February 27, 2007
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item -- we're to
presentations now. SA, thanks to the continued support of the board,
the public Automatic External Defibrillation Program here in Collier
County has been a model that other communities have attempted to
duplicate.
Through this AED Program, thousands of citizens not in the
medical profession have been trained in CPR and how to operate an
AED if an emergency should ever arise.
On Tuesday, May 2, 2006, at the Golden Gate Fitness Center
such an emergency arose. A member of the fitness center, while using
the treadmill, lost consciousness and went into cardiac arrest. A group
of citizens responded accordingly, and we want to thank them today.
The Collier County Emergency Medical Department adopted the
Phoenix Award to recognize local first responders who, through their
skills and knowledge, have successfully brought back to life
individuals who have died; however, at times citizens whose
occupations may be far from the medical realm can make the
difference in an emergency during the first few minutes prior to the
arrival of the EMS department.
Today we would like to honor a group of those citizens.
Les?
MR. WILLIAMS: Les Williams, Collier County EMS.
Thank you, Mr. Mudd.
Employees -- you see four groups of -- four people up here,
citizens of Collier County that, as Mr. Mudd spoke of, jumped into
action in May of 2006.
Employees of the fitness center, Robert DeCamp and Susan
Calvani, quickly recognized something was wrong, and without
hesitation, jumped into action, having recently taken it upon
themselves to review the training materials aided in their ability to
remaining calm and form the necessary skills.
Page 22
February 27,2007
As Susan went to get the AED, Robert was joined by Sherrie
Baker, an off-duty dental hygienist, and Jamie Popoil, an off-duty lead
mechanic for East Naples Fire Department, who were both exercising
at the center.
As a team these four citizens quickly began CPR, rapidly
deployed the public AED and activated the EMS system. The victim
was successfully resuscitated and is alive today as a direct result of
their efforts.
Robert, Susan, Sherrie and Jamie, we thank you for your
willingness and ability to respond and congratulate you on a job
superbly done.
(Applause.)
MR. WILLIAMS: The American Heart Association is giving
this lifesaving award to these citizens and would like to say
something.
MS. STEWART: Hi. Good morning. I'm Louise Stewart. I'm
with the American Heart Association, and I can tell you a public CPR
save is like the most adrenaline pumping exhilarating experience, and
congratulations to all of you.
The AED program in Collier County, you should be extremely
proud of that because we are outstanding in the whole State of Florida
in putting AEDs in public locations and also in first responder
vehicles.
And the Heart Association is raising more and more money to
complete that, to get an AED in every first responder's vehicle --
excuse me -- in the Collier County area. It does not eliminate the need
for CPR and education in CPR.
And one of the programs the Heart Association is about ready to
launch is to teach every sixth grader in Collier County schools CPR so
that our young citizens will learn and maybe even teach parents and
inspire them to learn this process so that we can save more lives.
Congratulations to all of you.
Page 23
February 27, 2007
(Applause.)
MR. WILLIAMS: Was the parks going to say something?
BARRY WILLIAMS: Thank you. For the record, just briefly,
Barry Williams, parks and rec director. I just wanted to express my
gratitude to our staff and their abilities, and with the training that
they've been provided, we are very fortunate to have folks on our staff
who not only are conscientious about the training, but able to execute.
And just on behalf of all the parks and rec., we just want to
express our appreciation to those staff members, and thank you.
MS. CAL V ANI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #5B
PRESENTATION BY CONTRACTOR FOR THE SOUTH
COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT -
PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Next presentation is 5B, and it's a contractor
presentation for the South County Regional Water Treatment Plant, 12
million-gallon-a-day expansion.
The contractor for the project is Poole and Kent, and I believe
Mr. Phil Gramatges, your senior project manager for public utilities,
will start the presentation.
MR. GRAMATGES: Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. I'm Phil Gramatges, principal project manager,
public utilities engineering, and I'm here to present Mr. Patrick Carr.
Mr. Carr is executive vice-president, CEO of the firm Poole and Kent,
who's the general contractor for this project, the South County
Regional Water Treatment Plant, 12-million-gallons a day reverse
osmosis expansion. I'm pleased to introduce Mr. Carr.
Page 24
February 27, 2007
MR. CARR: Good morning. I'm glad to be here because
fortunately we have only good news to present to you on this project.
As Phil mentioned, the project is a 12-MGD expansion to an
existing plant obviously constructed by others.
The project is located right off of 1-75 and Collier Boulevard,
which I think is mile marker 101. So you may have been to the -- I
don't know how many of you have been to the project site or not, but it
is right off 1-75.
The scope of the project -- it's a phased project. The main focal
point is what we call phase one, which is the expansion of the plant
from eight MGD to 20 MGD. It's a 12-million-gallon-per-day
.
expanSIon.
And the second phase of the project involves electrical work,
construction of additional upgrades to the lime plant. But it is a -- it is
a phased project where the first phase involves the water supply
upgrade.
This is a site aerial photo. Again, I don't know how many have
been to this site. But, again, the project is off of 1-75.
The project timeline -- this may be hard for you to read, but I will
-- I'll try to summarize it for you in that it is one of the most
aggressive schedules that we have ever seen.
If you look at the project timeline when we came into the picture,
and that is the construction phase, what stands out with me is that we
had just been hit with Hurricane Wilma. I came to the preconstruction
meeting where I didn't have power in my house and our
superintendent didn't either, and we had a meeting with Collier
County and the water director, and he said, hey, we have to have water
on this plant. It is critical. We need to give you an NTP. You've got
to get going. And the schedule of the project had us producing water
in February of this year.
And from a timing standpoint, it was rough on us in that we were
still recovering from the hurricane, but nonetheless, we moved
Page 25
February 27, 2007
forward with it. But I will tell you that the schedule was as aggressive
as anything that we've seen.
The progress to date. I can be as pleased to tell you that actually
the slide you're looking at has a mistake, but it's a mistake in a good
way. It says that three skids are complete and operational. Actually all
six skids are complete and producing water, and that was as of last
night. The -- which basically completes the first phase of the project.
And the second phase of the project, as I mentioned to you, are
electrical and other upgrades to your line facility, and that is on
schedule to be completed in August of this year.
What I will tell you is that the Poole and Kent company has built
more of these plants than anybody in the country. This is a
state-of-the-art in water treatment, this reverse osmosis system. And
this project has set a new standard in terms of the speed of the delivery
of the project for an upgrade of this size. It is the quickest that we've
ever seen, it's the quickest that we have done, and it's a project that we
will hold out as a benchmark for how to do it right.
With that said, if you have any questions, I'll be glad to --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, Commissioner Henning, please.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
Sir, you're not an employee of the county, correct?
MR. CARR: No, no. I'm a Poole and Kent employee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Then maybe you can't
answer this, but I believe that plant was just expanded upon in 2004.
MR. GRAMATGES: Commissioner, Phil Gramatges again.
You are correct, yes. At the end of 2004 the reverse osmosis plant
was completed. That's the first part of this plant, eight MGD.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And now we're -- what is
the projected capacity, years of capacity, before a new skid would
have to be built or redistribution of the delivery from another plant?
MR. GRAMATGES: This plant would be built out at the time
that this expansion is completed in April.
Page 26
February 27, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. GRAMATGES: I mean, in -- I'm sorry, in August.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what do you project the
capacity -- how long will that capacity last; how many years?
MR. GRAMA TGES: That capacity will last roughly three to
four years. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead.
MR. MATTAUSCH: For the record, Paul Mattausch, director of
the water department. When we looked at the AUIR, Commissioner,
the next expansion is scheduled for the Northeast Water Treatment
Plant, and that is in 2012.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 2012.
MR. MATT AUSCH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 2012, okay, wow. That's not too
far out.
MR. MATTAUSCH: No, this is 2007. We're looking at -- we're
counting them on one hand now, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And then we're adding
the wells to service this new plant?
MR. MATT AUSCH: Yes, sir. And that is currently being
constructed right now, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. Wow. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much. I don't see
any other questions at this time.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to public petitions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know what I'd love to add?
Just six short years ago as we were running for office and then finally
got in, we were served with a consent order and our sewer plants were
seeping and we were having so many water problems, and look at us
today, we're ahead in the game and preparing for the future, and I'm
really proud of you guys.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
Page 27
February 27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. I thought I seen you reach
for your button. We're -- go ahead, Mr. Mudd.
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION TO DISCUSS STOP! RED LIGHT RUNNING
COALITION PRESENTED BY NIEL SPIRT AS -
COMMISSIONER COLETTA TO WORK WITH THE COALITION
AND PREP ARE A PROCLAMATION/RESOLUTION OF
SUPPORT - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next section is public petitions.
The first public petition is a petition request by Neil Spirtas to discuss
the purpose of STOP, Red Light Running Coalition, and requests
financial support.
Mr. Spirtas.
MR. SPIRT AS: Thank you. Commissioners, good morning. I
think it's appropriate we follow the presentation on your AID (sic)
efforts and defibrillation efforts. Congratulations on that, but we're
about saving lives as well, our coalition.
I'm vice-president of the Manatee Chamber of Commerce. My
specific responsibilities deal with governmental affairs in small
business development. I am also an officer -- actually the treasurer of
the STOP Red Light Running Coalition of Florida, Inc.
And with me Melissa Wandall. Melissa is the founder of the
Melissa Wandall Foundation. Mark -- I'm, Mark Wandall Foundation,
and she is the president of the STOP Red Light Running Coalition.
What we're here to talk to you about very briefly is to secure
your support in a threefold effort. One is to engage you in the effort
of becoming a partner in this red light running coalition effort. We're
very aware that there's been a number of your constituents concerned
about it, and that's why we thought we would come down here.
Page 28
February 27, 2007
Secondly, actually you have a signed proclamation that you're
seeing. There's a cover letter, and then the second item in your packet
is a proclamation that we have actually about 200 various
organizations, businesses, units of government already signed. And
we know you voiced your concern about this issue, but that's our
means of getting people publicly involved.
And then thirdly, the process politically of advocating this issue
in Tallahassee. We've been working on this issue for some time.
Actually, the coalition started in March of last year.
And just a very noted history of this effort, six years ago in the
Senate this issue came to the floor, and one of the -- I guess the
industry representers, the manufacturers of the photo enforcement
systems, the cameras, actually were asked how much money that they
would get for every camera, every fine that was enforced. And they
said, one dollar -- or 50 percent of every dollar; 50 cents of the dollar.
There was too much of that effort at the time where industry was
spending their dollars and lobbying efforts, and that's when our
coalition thought, we need a unified voice in the State of Florida that's
made up of citizens. Of these 200 groups that have signed the
proclamation, 25 of them are units of government, 15 are law
enforcement, another 15 percent are state and national groups.
I will ask Melissa to say a few words to you at this point in time.
She has a personal plight in this concern and has a good story that
she'll share with you.
MS. W ANDALL: Thank you very much for allowing us to
speak today. I am Melissa Wandall, and I am with the STOP Red
Light Running Coalition.
And I think that pretty much by now everybody knows that we're
trying to get the cameras, to be able to have the cameras up at specific
deadly intersections in Florida. I think that everybody knows that
nowadays everybody's pretty much running red lights. It's not one car,
it's the two or the -- the second or the third car that's going through the
Page 29
February 27,2007
light now.
And we're trying to educate the public on these cameras, trying to
let them know that this is not -- this is a safety issue, that these
cameras do not take pictures until after the back tires are above that
white line. That means you have to blatantly be running a red light,
not a yellow light. And we're also trying to bust the myth that these
are money makers.
The Mark Wandall Safety Act is actually -- would do just that, it
would allow for camera enforcement systems to be put up in Florida.
Now, the cameras are name after my husband who was killed
three years ago at 30 years of age, two weeks before our daughter was
born, a mile and a quarter from our home. And unfortunately, it hasn't
stopped. I mean, I've been, since that day -- I promised my husband
that night at that site, even though he couldn't hear me, that I would
make sure that his death was going to be for something. You know,
something good is going to come out of this.
And the more I've been out here the last three years, the more I've
talked about it, the more I've tried to educate on it. My daughter
deserves for a good mom, she deserves for a happy life, so my plight
is to try to make the roads safer for all of us.
And I think it's very important -- in my plight and in educating, I
have had -- I have to tell you that most people everywhere I go, I hear,
oh my gosh, it's the worst in our place, it's the worst in our place.
Well, the most citizens that have contacted me had been right here in
Collier County, and that's where I've heard the worst tragic stories.
Children being killed by red-light runners, husbands, wives, you
know.
And I've -- last year, we did an editorial, and I got about 17 from
this county alone on people that have been -- that have been affected
personally by red-light running. No near misses. It happened to them.
So I'm not a victim. My husband was a victim. My brother was a
victim. He happened to be the driver, unfortunately, and he has to live
Page 30
February 27, 2007
with that for the rest of his life. It wasn't his fault. Somebody with 10
points on her license and six violations ran that light when the last
thing that she was ticketed for was for running a red light.
And there's no law out there that says that she gets -- she doesn't
get a manslaughter charge. She gets nothing but a $500 fine and a slap
on her wrist because that's what the Florida law states.
So for now the biggest thing is to try -- we all know that nobody
likes to get caught, so the biggest measure, the safest measure right
now that's been researched, are trying to find a way to get these
cameras up at the worst intersections so that we can stop some of this
madness.
So I appreciate your time, and we're open to any questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Melissa, I'm going to go first, if you
don't mind, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. This information is so helpful,
but it would have been great if I could have had this to be able to
study over the weekend.
MS. W ANDALL: I understand.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: A little more time would have been
wonderful. But going through it very quickly, I noticed that you're
missing the endorsement of the Florida Association of Counties,
which is quite surprising. I take it you haven't tried to reach out to
them yet. That's the association for the commissioners of all of
Florida.
MR. SPIRT AS: We haven't solicited any -- them specifically,
but a number of groups, but we will. Florida League of Cities, I know,
is actively --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. I see League of Cities down
there, but what I'd like to do is assist you with that. Now, I don't know
if this commission's ready to commit to money to something that we're
not too sure how it's going to be spent on. But if you would like, I'll
Page 31
February 27, 2007
personally work with you through the Florida Association of Counties
to bring it before them and see if we can get their enforcement.
MR. SPIRT AS: We appreciate it.
MS. W ANDALL: Absolutely. Any help that we can get. You
know, it's pretty much the two of us. We have a coalition, but you
know how that goes. And there's only so much time that people have.
So as many people that we can get ahold of and contact, that would be
absolutely wonderful.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Be more than happy to work as an
individual commissioner --
MS. W ANDALL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- to help you with that.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. The other area that you
probably should explore would be the association of Florida sheriffs
because I think that -- I know our sheriff, Don Hunter, is a strong
advocate for putting -- getting camera systems available, but it has to
be passed through the state legislature.
So I would hope that you can work in regards to the sheriff
associations.
MS. W ANDALL: We do have them, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good. And as Commissioner
Coletta said, the other avenue would be Florida Association of
Counties. Both of us are actively involved in that group, and I know
that that's been on their agenda for a number of years, but we haven't
had enough oomph to get it out of committee and actually get a vote
on it.
So anything that we can do to help you in that regards to work
with the Florida Association of Counties, I think, would be very, very
beneficial to all citizens here in the State of Florida.
MS. W ANDALL: Thank you very much. We certainly
appreciate it.
Page 32
February 27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. The Florida Association of
Counties will then pass the word to all of the counties and all of the
county commissioners, and that's why they're stressing it so strongly.
Did you want our signature on this, or did you want our name to be
included?
MR. SPIRT AS: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is there a fee with that?
MS. W ANDALL: No.
MR. SPIRTAS: No.
MS. WANDALL: No, there's not. And just so you know, with
the coalition, what we're trying to do, the reason why we're trying to
raise funds, we're raising funds to education, we're also raising funds
for legislation, trying to get to Tallahassee, trying to see how far this
bill goes. It's supposed to go through this week. It's supposed to be
filed. And we're trying to get some, you know, possibility, get some
lobbying help to get up there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So in other words, if we wrote a
letter, whether it be from the whole board -- and we'd have to vote on
that but -- or just from us personally, just speaking for our own selves,
would that be of any help to you?
MS. W ANDALL: Absolutely, absolutely it would be of help.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Could you clarify a point, please?
MS. W ANDALL: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is this on the legislative agenda now?
Is there a bill in the House and the Senate to be able to match what
you're trying to do?
MS. W ANDALL: It's called the Mark Wandall Safety Act.
MR. SPIRT AS: It's -- Representative Ron Reagan is our sponsor
on the House side. Luce Carlton, for one, is helping us on the Senate.
That's where -- the real work will happen in the Senate.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And there's a possibility you might
Page 33
February 27, 2007
pull it off, but generally these things take a couple years before they
bear fruit.
What I would suggest is that we also, as a commission, discuss
this when it comes next year, time for our legislative agenda to maybe
include this. We had something like a couple years ago, 500, wasn't
it?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this is a priority on your legislative
agenda for this year.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But the fine is. I don't know if -- was
it the camera, too?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
MS. WANDALL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Then we're already there and
we can discuss that when we go to Tallahassee.
MR. MUDD: And two years ago you did a proclamation at the
urging of Sarasota County about red-light running. If you would, like
by next meeting we can resurrect that proclamation and make sure we
get it current for the board's consideration.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, for the sake of uniformity, let's
take a good look at the proclamation that's been given to us so that we
can all be speaking in tune with everyone else that's out there and
weigh one against the other and put it on the next agenda.
Do you agree, Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MS. W ANDALL: If I may say, that proclamation is pretty much
the same thing. The numbers have changed just a little bit. I actually
was the speaker for Sarasota County three years ago. That's when my
husband was killed. So it's been -- it's pretty much the same petition
as it was back three years ago.
Page 34
February 27, 2007
And the only reason why it didn't go through last two last two
years is because Allan Bense was against the cameras. So now they're
hoping that it will see committee. It's been -- it was filed the past two
years, but it didn't go through committees.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. That's -- I wanted to
make that motion to direct the office manager of the Board of
Commissioners to prepare a proclamation in support of the
organization, STOP running light -- STOP Red Light Running
Coalition of Florida, to be included in the -- where we're for the Board
of Commissioners (sic).
And let's take a look at the previous proclamation and the
proclamation of this organization, combine it and for -- the Board of
Commissioners of Collier County to have its own proclamation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we just got through directing
the county manager, but you know, a motion is fine, you know, in any
case. But in other words, you're suggesting we don't necessarily adopt
the proclamation that's within the packet that we have now, that we
look at our own?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nor the one that we passed in
the previous.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Was that a proclamation or a reso?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I finish, please?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah. I just --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We want to combine all these
things together to say what the -- what the wishes of the representation
of Collier County and the support of this organization. I think that's
most important that we have our own and send that to our legislation
delegation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to second that, but was it a
proclamation or -- I thought you said a resolution?
MR. MUDD: You did a resolution or proclamation. I don't have
Page 35
February 27, 2007
it with me at this particular juncture.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
MR. MUDD: About two years ago -- basically at the bequest of
Sarasota in order to support them in their particular efforts to push this
Issue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: We will resurrect that, we will compare it with this
particular item, and Sue Filson and Deb Wight will work together to
get that proclamation to you for your next meeting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Just to give you some area of
comfort, Commissioner Coletta and myself will both work in regards
with the Florida Associations of Counties in regards to this serious
problem that bestows not every -- not only Collier County or Manatee
County or Bradenton area, but also is throughout the whole State of
Florida.
So I know that's on the agenda for -- not only for us, but I know
it's on the agenda for the Florida Association of Counties, and they
just need some more push to get this thing through hopefully, get it out
of committee and get it on the floor for a vote.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. W ANDALL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just so we clarify the motion now, the
original direction we gave was to -- I think, did it mirror the motion or
was it different? I'm still a little bit lost on what's the motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. The direction and the
motion is the same, it's just, by the board taking action on a motion, it
pretty -- makes it clear what the direction was given.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Mr. Mudd, you're clear on the
motion?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Page 36
February 27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, one more question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, please.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Could we also, while we're up
in Tallahassee next month, talk to our legislators about --
MR. MUDD: It's on your -- it's on your southwest consortium
priority list, too, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, thank you.
MS. W ANDALL: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we haven't taken the vote yet.
Maybe it will go the wrong way. Who knows?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hold your breath for a moment.
MS. WANDALL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor, indicate by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 4-0. Thank you.
MS. W ANDALL: Thank you very much. We appreciate your
time.
MR. SPIRT AS: Thank you.
Item #6C
PUBLIC PETITON TO DISCUSS PROPERTY AT 1071 16TH
Page 37
February 27, 2007
STREET NE AND V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD EXTENSION
PRESENTED BY ROBERTO LEON - PRESENTED AND STAFF
TO COME BACK WITH UPDATE ON PROGRESS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 6C. It's a public
petition request by Roberto Leon to discuss property at 1071 16th
Street Northeast and the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension.
Mr. Leon?
MR. LEON: Good morning, and thank you for having me out
here today, and I want to start this very simple. I'm going to read my
writing.
MR. MUDD: State your name for the record.
MR. LEON: My name is Roberto Leon. This is in reference to
my five-acre property at 1071 16th Street Northeast.
With great respect, the reason of this letter is to seek your
attention to my situation. I listed the above property for sale with
Nancy Lewis from Realty Select, Remax. She sold it to Waterways in
2004, but a few days after the contract was signed, the buyers
cancelled the contract.
The purchase -- cancelled the purchase because they had to wait
a few months for the DEP to issue a building permit, and they didn't
want to wait the long.
After my listing agreement in December 1, 2005, I gave it to
Select Properties, Mr. Carl Stephen. He said, yes, that in order to
make the sale more attractive to buyers and save them the waiting
time from the DEP, I should apply for a building permit myself for an
approximately 4,000 square feet home.
I contacted Ms. Brooke Beardsley from Tropical Environmental.
It took a few months to get everything done. Finally I got the permit.
At that time is when the big problem started. May 2006, my
salesman and I heard and read in the newspapers about the Vanderbilt
Road extension. Prospective buyers were not there anymore. Instead,
Page 38
February 27, 2007
I was being placed in a very serious and sad situation.
I went right away to see Mr. Joseph Quinty of the transportation
department. He gave me maps and informed me it was true, that my
property would be used and affected by 100 feet on the 660 feet length
but that the city (sic) could work with me to buy all the five acres, that
it was perfect for some type of a water installation, which I really don't
know what it was.
After a while, I was notified it was no longer working for the
county. I started receiving letters from various attorneys to represent
me with my lot. I was really lost, and I assigned it Roetzel & Andress
in Fort Myers, Mr. Ken Jones.
In approximately three to four months after I got nowhere not
getting answers, I called Ms. Debbie Armstrong of the transportation
department. She told me that if I wanted to be able to talk to her about
my property, I had to cancel my representation with the law office.
I called my attorney and explained to him I could not wait for
them, that my situation was serious, and I could not be sitting and
waiting forever. Two days after that they gave me the release.
I made an appointment with Mr. Jay Ahmad, Mr. Debbie
Armstrong, Mr. Kevin Hendricks on December 7,2006, and I gave
them the copy of the attorney's release.
At that meeting I was told that early 2007, they would be
working with the engineers to see exactly the -- if my land will be
affected by 100 feet or more or less.
That same day I met Commissioner Mr. Jim Coletta. He, after
that meeting, he suggested I should talk with Mr. Matthew Hotson
(phonetic), a realtor. He visited my land and got acquainted with the
situation. His answer to me was, 10 days ago, that with that
Vanderbilt Road project, the value of my lot had been cut down 50
percent and he doubts anybody would buy under the circumstances.
I also visited Dave at the tax assessor's office to try to get time
(sic) payments on my tax bill. The lady told me nothing could be
Page 39
February 27, 2007
done, that the assessed value was 330,000 and my tax bill was 3,900,
to be paid by March 2007.
My situation is clear. I am 67 years old. My health is not good.
My son and three grandchildren lives in Atlanta, Georgia. I had plans
to move near them. My condo in Broward was destroyed by
Hurricane Wilma. We had no home for 11 months. My retirement
life is being destroyed. Our retirement income is only $1,500 per
month for me and my wife.
I left my country, Cuba, 49 years ago, and I feel a terrible control
of my life at this time here in this country, and I refuse to think this
way. There must be a way out for me and my wife so we can finish
our days with liberty and justice. We need your help.
I appeal to all of you and all the pertinent departments and
authorities to revise my case and find a solution to our lives because
we're trapped. I need to put an end to this nightmare. My health
problems are getting worse and are being affected by so much stress. I
am being treated now by three doctors.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Leon, that was -- that was very
compelling. That's the reason why I asked you to come forward today
under public petition. There's a lot of things that can always be done
differently or possibly be done even better to expediate it.
Whatever's being done -- even though Florida is a generous state
when it comes to reimbursement for taking a right-of-way, when
you're the person that owns the property, it's never fast enough and it's
never enough, and that's something that I wanted my fellow
commissioners to be able to hear from you.
There's a lot of issues here that has to do with the taking of land.
Before you we had a Mr. Greco that was going to come. Regrettably
he cancelled out. I'm not too sure the reason why . Maybe his attorney
recommended it.
He had a home built on his property and even more compelling
issues than what we're hearing about yours. He had a lifestyle that
Page 40
February 27, 2007
was greatly disrupted by what took place. He's looking for some
avenue to be able to bring this all to a settlement.
The process is underway. I don't know if the process is totally
sufficient that exists, but I don't think there's been enough discussion
or explanation as to how the process works and how we get from point
A to point B.
With that, I'm going to ask the commissioners' indulgence for a
moment, and I'd like someone from transportation or from property
acquisitions to come forward to be able to discuss the particulars of
how this whole situation works, where we are now, where we're going
with it.
Mr. Feders (sic) or Jay?
Don't go too far.
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, transportation
administrator.
First of all, Commissioners, please be assured that we are
following every process and doing every due diligence to make sure
that we give a fair but an appropriate response on all of our acquisition
of right-of-way. We realize it's a taking. We realize we're impacting,
and particularly on the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension corridor,
which is rather unique for this county.
What I will tell you though is there's a lot of issues we're dealing
with. The corridor, once it was established by this board, was about
the time of the peak in the real estate market here in Collier County.
We've had a level of correction I think most people have recognized.
That correction hasn't happened just on this corridor because of
the identification of this project. It's happened countywide and yet a
lot of the response to our efforts to try to negotiate acquisition is an
assumption that those increasing values have continued to increase
rather than having corrected, and so that's some of the difficulty.
We are going to mediation with Mr. Greco, you mentioned, who
pulled out from the discussion before. But just to give you a frame of
Page 41
February 27, 2007
reference, we had a situation where we do an appraisal, we send out a
letter to folks, telling them to go get their own appraisal and we'll pay
for it, particularly on the 19 where we're taking the homes.
I'm going to go ask Jay to go through some details on where we
are on those so you understand that we're working aggressively to try
to resolve those issues.
But I need to point out that when we did our appraisal on that
home, we're basically in the area of 900,000 after at $8,800 appraisal
on a residential property, which we found rather excessive.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're talking about Mr. Greco's
property?
MR. FEDER: Yes. We found that his price range and his
requests were basically in the $1.9 million range. We have been
negotiating with him and his attorney. We're going to go to
mediation. We're going to try to find a way to resolve it.
One of the major concerns we had on that issue was major
comparables that he was utilizing with Livingston Woods. And I
think while Livingston Woods is technically zoned estates, I think the
values of properties in Livingston Woods are far different than the
values of the properties along this corridor.
So that's some of the difficulties we're having. We're continuing
to negotiate. What I'm going to do, as I said, is have Jay give you an
idea on the -- first of all, on the 19 homes where we are, but I'll also
point out to you, in the process of designing the corridor, we went
through, did a lot of work in identifying down in the planning for the
corridor, but now we're doing the design.
And once we have the design, we'll have a better situation to deal
with a lot of folks like Mr. Leon in the sense that we can identify
exactly what we need. We know that we did a 200-foot wide corridor.
We're not going to go outside that envelope. But what we're trying to
do is lessen that impact, try to get it down maybe 165 feet, and
identify exactly what we need in a property take.
Page 42
February 27, 2007
We do not need whole takes on all the corridor out there, but we
need to reduce the take down as much as we can, and later this year
we should know where we stand on the design to be able to work with
issues, particularly between 951 and Wilson, and then where there's an
opportunity by the need, as with Mr. Leon, may be out on the eastern
part of the county as we can.
But I'll ask Jay to give you an idea where we stand on the 19
homes. We stand ready for any questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, but just one question before
you back off from the mike, Mr. Feders. Are we in continuous
negotiations with those people that want to talk to us?
MR. FEDER: Yes, we are, and that's what I'm asking Jay to go
over for you on the 19 homes in particular, which is the first area of
focus.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Yeah, go ahead. I'm
sorry, Commissioner Halas. I didn't mean to ignore you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Norm, in regards to this particular
piece of property --
MR. FEDER: We're talking about Mr. Leon's?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I believe he said there was
five acres of property that he presently owns.
MR. FEDER: I believe that's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is the take going to be on the front
of the property or on the back of the property?
MR. FEDER: Put that up on the teleprompter.
Can you identify the lot there and the area of possible take.
MR. AHMAD: Mr. Chairman, good morning.
MR. MUDD: Turn it on.
MR. AHMAD: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
My name is Jay Ahmad. I'm the director of transportation
. .
engIneenng.
Good morning, Mr. Leon.
Page 43
February 27, 2007
I met Mr. Leon in December, and I explained to him exactly
what he stated. This lot is east of Wilson, and it's defined as you can
see it, it's defined by this layout.
And our project is where the crosshatch is going to pass through
this area roughly. So about 100 feet of Mr. Leon's property is destined
for acquisition for the Vanderbilt Beach Road project.
Obviously we have a tremendous amount of vacant properties
east of Wilson and along this entire corridor. And it's not our intention
-- and as we were directed by the board -- to acquire every property, I
believe, full take if only we need a portion of the property for
Vanderbilt, and it isn't our intention to acquire this full take for this --
for Mr. Leon.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How much property does he have
left out of the five acres?
MR. AHMAD: I believe over three acres.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. You answered my question.
Thank you.
MR. AHMAD: You're welcome. Mr. Feder asked me to run --
I'll go use this other microphone, sir.
Nineteen homes are to be acquired for this corridor for
Vanderbilt Beach Road, and we have been in contact with every
property owner along that corridor. And I'll just briefly state, 14 of
these 19 homes are west of Wilson and five east of Wilson.
We have closed on one property, Goodman, and we brought it
before the board, and that property is the county's property now.
Another contract is going to be presented before you on March
13, '07, for the -- Hernandez -- Hermanson.
Weare also scheduled on March 28, '07, with Mr. Greco. He's--
his lawyer asked for mediation, and we obviously offered him a
million dollars for his property, and he's staying about 1.4, and we
can't seem to agree on a price. So we -- his lawyer asked for
mediation, and I believe that's the reason he cancelled this -- his1
Page 44
February 27, 2007
presentation this morning.
We have an agreement also with Waterways, Jean of Waterways.
We will bring that before you. Those are out of the 19 homes that
we're talking about.
We are also in negotiation with Mr. Breen for two parcels. We're
about half a million apart from our appraisal and his appraisal. We are
also in negotiation with Mr. Tomke (phonetic). We're about 165,000
apart between his appraisal and ours.
We're also in negotiation for two properties for Mr. Hartman, Mr.
and Ms. Hartman, and we're awaiting their appraisal.
We're in negotiation with Mr. Coughlan, and he wants to sell
after July of '07. He -- for some personal reason.
We also are in negotiation with Mr. Hernandez. We're waiting for
their appraisal. We pay for their appraisal, they hire their own
appraisal, we hire our own appraisal, and we compare the two.
The three property owners west of Wilson, they don't wish to --
we have sent them letters. They haven't contacted us. They showed
no interest of selling to the county.
East of Wilson, three out of the five wants to sell to the county.
Two we have no contact to date.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. AHMAD: So we -- Mr. Chairman, we are in negotiation
with almost every single property owner out of the 19, and that's our
priority now because we are impacting a full take, and we're
essentially taking their homes.
And we have been -- and the rest of the properties, the partial
takes, we plan to be -- a notice to proceed to the consultant. We've
been in negotiation with the consultant and we've selected a
consultant, and we brought that before you in the previous meetings.
And we have CH2M Hill onboard to design the corridor. And once
we define that corridor better, we should able to move on the
remaining. We cannot -- we need a survey of the property before we
Page 45
February 27,2007
actually acquire how much we need from them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Could we have something in writing,
possibly put together a draft, of what you suspect a reasonable
time line would be to be able to move forward through all this? It'd be
great to have that if we could share that with the public, and then if we
start to fall behind there has to be good reasons why.
And then possibly, too -- I'd love to see this come back as a
report like we've been doing with the different road projects that we
have out there. We get a report on Immokalee Road, we've had them
on 951, and the commissioners are aware of how it's coming together.
And I'd love to see this come back as a half-an-hour report,
whatever it takes to be able to give us an update somewheres in --
probably in the end of May. By then you should have made
considerable progress to be able to bring around some resolution to the
problems.
MR. AHMAD: We -- in March we'll give a notice to proceed to
the consultant. Our schedule today is 30 percent completion by late
August, early September. And in approximately by February, March,
we will have about 60 percent design plans and at that stage -- and
when we actually get an accurate picture of what we need to acquire
from those partial takes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. When -- again, when would
that be that we'd be there when we have the actual picture?
MR. AHMAD: We will have information by September on 30
percent of preliminary design, conceptual design plans, and we will
have a very accurate mapping by March '08. And I believe by March
'08 we will be able to move on the remainders of these parcels. We'll
be in negotiation with Mr. Leon and others.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're still in negotiations with a
bunch of people out there, and I really don't want to wait to December
or March of the following year to be able to get a report. I'd like to
see something a little more -- little more often than that so we can
Page 46
February 27, 2007
keep the appraisal of where everything is.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, we'll be happy to keep you
advised. I'd recommend that possibly we provide you sort of a written
update to all the commissioners periodically. But I'll also tell you that
if you look at this fall, it might be a good time for a presentation on
where we stand both on acquisitions through negotiation as well as our
30 percent plans so that you get a feel for where we stand on that
design process and that schedule.
So my recommendation would be that, obviously we do whatever
this board requests, but that we look at this fall to come back to you,
show you the 30 percent plans, progress, and report on where we are
in the negotiations for acquisition.
Weare still active and we're going to continue to move on the
negotiation end, but agreed to get the design to try and work with the
partial takes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And you'll put this in that report that
you're going to send out to the commissioners --
MR. FEDER: That would be fine.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- with your recommendations?
MR. FEDER: And whatever your schedule, you tell us to do,
we'll obviously do at your disposal.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas, then
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This photo that's being presented
on the overhead, I take it this is a current GIS photo?
MR. AHMAD: Yeah. This photo is taken from the Collier
County appraisal site, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So if I look at this photo,
we're not taking a home on this piece of property, right? There's no
home being taken? All there is just land?
MR. AHMAD: That's correct. It's a vacant property
approximately five acres, and we're taking the north portion of it.
Page 47
February 27, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So -- all right. You've
answered my question. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You said it's a vacant
property. I thought it was a home above it.
MR. AHMAD: No, ma'am. The property line is -- I'm going to
point to it. This is the property line, north property line, and this is the
amount we're taking from him.
MR. MUDD: Where is the bottom of his property?
MR. AHMAD: This is the bottom.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see. Okay. I needed that
clarification. Thank you. I had a different question but it doesn't
apply anymore.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh. Mr. Leon, we appreciate very
much you coming today. As times goes along, I expect that we're
going to be hearing from more and more people. When this report
becomes available to me, I'll get it to you, and this commission will
keep a close eye on how the process is working to see what we can do
to try to move it along at a more expeditiously pace.
MR. LEON: Thank you very much --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you for being here.
MR. LEON: -- to all of you, and my great respect to all of you,
too. Thank you. God bless you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
Item #6D
PUBLIC PETITION TO DISCUSS GOODLAND ZONING
OVERLAY PRESENTED BY GREG BELLO - TO BE BROUGHT
AT THE BACK MARCH 13,2007 BCC MEETING WITH
CERTIFIED SIGNATURES OF 51 % OF PROPERTY OWNERS -
APPROVED
Page 48
February 27, 2007
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next public
petition, which is a request by Greg Bello to discuss the Goodland
Zoning Overlay.
Mr. Bello?
MR. BELLO: Good morning, Chairman Coletta and fellow
commissioners. Thank you for allowing me to have some time today
to talk.
A brief history of why I'm here.
MR. MUDD: State your name, sir, just --
MR. BELLO: Oh, I'm sorry. Greg Bello. I own property on
Palm Point in Goodland.
The Goodland Zoning Overlay was created in 1999 to protect this
small fishing village which measures approximately one-half mile by
one-half mile, and to allow nonconforming properties to have reduced
setbacks that would allow homeowners to rebuild following fire or
other natural disasters. It was not intended to allow for the largest
homes to be built on a five-foot setback situation which could occur
when combining lots.
January 23rd meeting, the results of the meeting galvanized the
Goodland community and brought them together for the common
good of the island, more so than we've seen in many years. A survey
was formulated which was performed and sent out to the homeowners
that asked questions as to whether they would desire to preserve this
historic fishing village and its character.
The results of the survey came in greater than 85 percent
supporting this premise. An independent committee was formed
which involved five members of the community. One member was
from Drop Anchor, one from Calusa Village, one was a resident at
large who is a multi property owner, one was the Goodland Civic
Association, who also was a multi property owner, and a Goodland
Preservation Coalition member.
Page 49
February 27, 2007
So five members chaired three town hall meetings that were held
in Goodland since that day. An open discussion of issues concerning
residents occurred and people were able to speak freely.
A new survey was then formulated which involved nine
questions that was sent out approximately one week ago to property
owners. The results are due in approximately March 6. The survey
responses will be tabulated using the same process which was used by
the county during the Goodland Zoning Overlay work done in 1999.
Two additional town meetings are scheduled to occur before the
March 13th meeting.
My purpose today is to ask the commissioners to bring back the
item on March 13th meeting, at which time we will present our survey
results, the issue the property owners want to be addressed. We also
ask the commissioners to then vote to put in place a standard to protect
the village from uncharacteristic development while the zoning is in
progress, the LDC cycle.
By taking our amendment we will be present and apply it as a
prescriptive regulation for zoning in progress as described by Mr.
Weigel and Mrs. Stirling -- Student-Stirling in our January 23rd
meeting.
We feel this will properly protect Goodland until the amendment
becomes law . We ask you today for your guidance for what you will
be looking for March 13th in order for you to vote for a legislative
standard to protect Goodland while zoning is in progress until your
October meeting for your final vote on the LDC amendments.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner Henning, then
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I would like the March 13th
meeting. I think it's a great idea.
As you probably heard, the community, from all sides of that
Page 50
February 27, 2007
community, are working together. And I was really impressed when I
learned that their first meeting -- I wasn't at the meeting, but when I
heard that it was an overflow crowd, a lot of people curious, a lot of
people angry, and the anger subsided almost immediately when they
learned what was going on.
Their second meeting was not an overflow crowd anymore. It
was just -- just residents that were concerned or interested, and that's
what they've had ever since. There's been no more anger. It's like
somebody put the fire out. And I was happy to hear that. I'm glad to
hear that you're doing so well.
And I would suggest -- I would like to bring this back, if my
other commissioners will agree, and I would suggest that when you
come back with it, if you could have a petition signature list or
something just so that everybody signs so that we can see that most of
the fishing village is in agreement with what you're doing.
One of the things that has happened to us up here time and time
and time again is people come up and say they're representing their
community, and 10 and behold, they're representing their community
of five people and the other 4,000 aren't contacted and then it's blown
up in our face. So that would help us a lot.
MR. BELLO: We'll have -- at that meeting we can have all the
survey results which are signed by these property owners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And also, I think the board in --
to take action on what you're asking us to do -- is zoning in progress --
I think the board needs to have in writing what the language of the
Land Development Code would be for the community of Goodland.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'm sure you can look to
Margie Student to help you with that. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
Page 51
February 27, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
I think you've heard a little bit of the concerns that we as
commissioners have had in the past. This -- the signatures need to be
property owners and they need to be certified by either the county
attorney or by the tax assessor that these people own the property, and
we need it to be at least 51 percent of the vote before we'll go forward
on this, okay?
MR. BELLO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And if I may, my question is,
is we're talking about getting the overlay corrected that's in place --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- and trying -- we're not trying to go
back in time and stop someone?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
MR. BELLO: No, that's not--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, if that was a motion, then I
second it, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh. Yes, it was a motion. Thank
you. No, nobody's -- we're going forward, yep.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Mr. Mudd, do you have the
direction of the motion?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. The only question I have right now is
one that's legal in matter, and the county attorney needs to clarify. If
this comes on and you are going to consider this as zoning in progress,
does the item come back to you as an advertised item on your agenda?
And it's an advertising legal question that I have for the county
attorney.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Jim. The answer is, if the board
should take an action and give direction, specific direction, regarding
changes in the Land Development Code and/or the Goodland Overlay,
those specific directions are -- can be considered, and we would
certainly make it clear on the record that that is zoning in progress
Page 52
February 27, 2007
pursuant to the case law that has recognized that concept.
However, that is different and distinguished from a moratorium.
And a moratorium, as we have indicated before, would, in fact, require
an ordinance that's advertised ahead of time and brought forward, and
that is not -- do not understand that to be the suggestion at this point in
time.
The zoning in progress would be particularized in regard to those
specific developmental changes, the amendments that are potentially
to be adopted. The board's authorization, determination, its vote, if it
should take a vote at the March 13th meeting, would be specific
enough to indicate that, and we would implement that those elements
for change are the elements of change, and that is what would be
effectuated in regard to any applications that were to come through the
pipeline to the county in the meantime.
I hope that's clear for you all.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I have it. It's coming back as an
item number 10 for the next meeting.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What I was going to ask is, through
all that verbiage that you came forth with, is that telling me that you'll
be able to certify all the signatures prior to the March 13th meeting?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I really wasn't addressing that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, that's one thing that we need
to have is the certification of the signatures.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I can tell you about -- I can do that. I've
had the meeting with Mr. Bello and Ms. Lake, and they have their
marching orders and understanding of what we will be looking for
relative to the signatures of owners.
We've discussed the concept of single ownership of property,
multiple owners on property, entity ownership of property. And we'll
be looking very closely at that. And I think with the assistance of our
office, we'll able to provide the Board of County Commissioners I will
Page 53
February 27, 2007
call it a cross-section of opinion, in fact, relating to the ownership
desires of Goodland.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I just want to make sure that
we're not getting into a -- the middle of --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Friendship Park?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. Well, that and--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Dover-Kohl.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- the overlay, the Dover-Kohl,
okay? And I just want to make sure that we've got the general
consensus of that community before we step forward on this, okay?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I just want to -- because I
don't think any of us want to go through that --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That Dover-Kohl thing again, no.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. So that's all I'm trying to do
is make sure that we've got --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Protection.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- clarification on the record.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Here's the only concern I got with the
signature list, the petition. You're going to have a lot of people that
are property owners and taxpayers that aren't on the tax -- that aren't
on the elections office roll that are going to be -- and some people that,
even though they're property owners, invested here, they're not
registered. So we've got a real problem if we're going to try to get
down this road trying to verify signatures.
I would say that if we got the name and the address and the
signature, it gives us guidance. I don't know how else we can handle
it. This is going to be a process that's doomed to failure. I mean, we
would have to be doing checks throughout the country to verify if the
person's signature is legal.
I got enough faith in the community to think that if anything
happened, it might be an individual or two that's going to try a fast one
Page 54
February 27, 2007
rather than somebody's going to manipulate a list just to be able to
make a list for us. Because I'm sure that if it's got the signature and
the address on it, we can always do our own checking.
Commissioner Fiala can make a couple phone calls and I may do
the same to verify it. But if you've got the name, the address and the
telephone number, then to me that's all I think we need. I'm scared if
we get into the other end of it, we're going to just disenfranchise a
whole bunch of people that should be able to have their name on there.
Somebody may even be a renter. Shouldn't they be eligible also?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
MR. WEIGEL: No.
MR. BELLO: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They don't think so.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. BELLO: Yeah. We're going to -- what we're trying to do is
get this out. I mean, people are aware of it, it's here. It's going to be
out in the community again. We're having two more meetings before
the 13th. You know, people are aware of what's going on. So, you
know, if somebody were to contest their signature, you know, then we
can deal with that as a one-by-one situation, but --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have a tendency to agree.
Commissioner Fiala? It's your motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I totally agree, yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: My second stands on that, too. I can
understand Commissioner Halas's reluctance after what we've been
through, and especially him representing the district of -- excuse me,
Naples Park.
MR. BELLO: Right. I can understand.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But I think I got enough confidence
in it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And we're going to take every
precaution to make sure because, you know, anybody else seeing that
Page 55
February 27, 2007
list that would be in Goodland that maybe would be in opposition
would certainly be testing the list as well.
MR. BELLO: Sure, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And so, I mean, it's open for public
record. So, you know, it's going to be -- they are going to strive to be
as accurate --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And might I add that there's nothing
to prevent somebody to running an opposition list to be turned in, too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure, sure.
MR. BELLO: You know, we want to do what's right for the
community. That's really truly what we want. If the community
wasn't for it, then we're -- you know, it's a dead issue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you.
MR. BELLO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions or comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 4-0, and we're going
to take a 10-minute break.
(A brief recess was had.)
(Commissioner Coy Ie is present.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. Appreciate it.
Next item, Mr. Mudd?
Page 56
February 27, 2007
Item #6E
PETITION TO DISCUSS SAFETY REGRIGERANT LOCKING
CAP ORDINANCE PRESENTED BY MONA CASEY -
COMMISSIONER HENNING TO CONTACT AN AC
PROFESSIONAL FOR POSSIBLE PRESENTATION TO THE
BOARD
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is still under public
petitioners, it's 6E. It's a public petition request by Mona Casey to
discuss a safety refrigerant locking cap ordinance.
Ms. Casey?
MS. CASEY: That information I -- my daughter handed out is
just to further convince you about the need for this ordinance.
MR. MUDD: State your name for the record, ma'am.
MS. CASEY: My name is Mona Casey.
Good morning, everyone. Thanks for having us here. We really
appreciate it. We're here today because five months ago -- sorry --
five months ago we experienced the loss of our son, Charles Gray.
Sorry.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's okay. You take your time.
MISS CASEY: He was a sophomore at Naples High School. He
was young and happy, full of potential and promise. He -- and he
loved life, that is until one dreadful day in September when our lives
were.
MS. CASEY: Abruptly changed forever. On that tragic day, we
lost our son at the tender age of 15.
MISS CASEY: To the lethal chemical Freon.
My husband came home from work and found him hunched over
an AC unit completely unresponsive when he was black and blue and
he wasn't breathing, his heart had stopped and his pupils were dilated
Page 57
February 27,2007
and fixed with practically -- and fixed. He was practically dead.
MS. CASEY: Unfortunately tragedies like this are happening
more and more these days. People, mainly children between sixth and
eighth grade of all ethnic backgrounds, particularly white and
Hispanics, are turning to everyday household products like Freon to
get high for several reasons.
One is because it's legal. Because it's a household product, they
perceive it to be harmless because it cannot be detected in any drug
test, because it's readily available and easily accessible. They do it out
of boredom, and they succumb to peer pressure. They also do it for
the instant gratification.
Because intoxication from Freon lasts only a few minutes, abuser
tend to repeatedly inhale Freon to prolong their high. Each time they
do so, they put their lives at risk.
Huffing Freon is like playing Russian roulette. You can die from
it the first time, the tenth time or the hundredth time you inhale.
There's no question that it will kill you, because it will. The question
is, when will it kill you?
Look at it this way. When you get Freon on your hand or your
finger, you instantly suffer freezer bum. Just imagine for a minute
what it will do to your internal organs.
Sorry. I'm taking up too much of your time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, no. Our time is your time.
Please proceed, and take your time.
The effects from Freon -- the effects of Freon on the body are,
but not limited to, vomiting; suffocation; asphyxiation; ear, eyes, nose
and throat and skin irritation; collapsed lungs; kidney failure; liver
damage; arrhythmia; pulmonary edema; cardiac arrest; seizures, loss
of consciousness, brain damage; brain death; coma and death, which is
also known as sudden sniffing death syndrome.
Some of the long-term symptoms are weight loss; muscles
weakness; disorientation; inattentiveness; lack of coordination;
Page 58
February 27, 2007
irritability; depression; kidney stones; memory loss; slurred speech;
sight disorder; hallucinations; learning disability; personality change;
psychological and sensory disorder; and leukemia.
Freon is highly addictive and is considered a gateway drug
because users often progress from inhalants to illegal drugs and
alcohol.
Although I have more statistics on this on a national level, I'm
going to try to stick to the ones that are relative to Collier County.
In Collier County alone the use of inhalants in middle schools
has doubled in two years. Every three days a child is taken to the
hospital because of a drug overdose. Eighty-five percent of all
juvenile criminal cases are substance related.
The average child or age of a child that starts using drugs or
alcohol is just 12 and a half, and deaths due solely to drug toxicity
increased 76 percent between 1998 and 2005. The results for 2006 are
not in yet.
In just one week and one day, we have collected over 500
signatures. This is a testament to our citizens' concern regarding this
Issue.
My proposal will be able to prevent such tragedies. What I am
proposing is very simple. And at 20 to 30 dollars, very affordable and
very essential to the safety of our citizens, especially our young
children.
Right now you have a cap similar to -- on your AC valve similar
to that that you have on the tires of your car. We all know that that's
very easy to remove.
What I'm proposing is a locking cap for your AC unit. This
locking cap, like the other cap, is easy to screw on, but once it's on, it's
-- it cannot be removed without this special tool. And this tool, as it
should be, is currently only available to licensed technicians.
The other thing I am proposing is the lockup of refrigerant
projects in stores. Currently Freon products are available right off the
Page 59
February 27, 2007
shelf and for anybody to purchase. A lockup must be
all-encompassing in order for this proposal to work.
Commissioners, I beg your compassion on this issue. Please
implement this ordinance so no other family would experience the
devastation of losing a loved one to this senseless tragedy, because
more and more families with young children are moving to our area.
And as you said, Mr. Chairman, there's -- children are more
important than anything else. Please do it for -- so that my son's dealt
is not in vain and please do it because a permanent solution is the only
solution to this problem.
I would like to thank all of those who helped me with this
petition and supported it. I would also like to thank the National
Inhalant Prevention Coalition for educating the public about this
horrible problem, and the Substance Abuse Coalition of Collier
County for working hard to reduce the availability of and demand for
drugs in our community.
And I'd like to thank you, Commissioners, for protecting our
citizens. I welcome any discussions, questions or advice you may
have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ms. Casey, before I go to Donna
Fiala and Commissioner Henning, I want to tell you that I am going to
go on line to sign that petition, and I'm going to urge everyone out
there to do the same.
MS. CASEY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. We're so sorry to
hear of your son's tragic death.
MS. CASEY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I know that other children are
all involved in that same practice because it is so easy. And I've heard
that myself. And actually it has touched my family in a way.
And I see here what you want is to support your mission by
Page 60
February 27, 2007
signing this petition. What will you be doing with the petition then?
MS. CASEY: Well, I was hoping that we can enact an ordinance
in our county that will require all new installations of AC units to be
outfitted with the locking cap and all existing AC units to be
retrofitted within five years.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Have you contacted any of the AC
companies to ask them about this?
MS. CASEY: I have contacted an AC company to ask if they
know of an existing ordinance somewhere else. I have also contacted
an AC company to give me more information on the locking cap, but I
have not asked them for any assistance or anything like that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did they ever hear of another
ordinance?
MS. CASEY: The one that I contacted said no, they have not.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Have not, yeah. I don't know how
much we can get into the private sector. Can we do something like
this?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, it would be kind of hard for a
locality that's isolated as much as Collier County, because many of our
suppliers bring in their supplies from distributors from other parts of
the country, and they're directly shipped to the homes. If anything it
would have to probably go through the state. I would -- the state or
the federal. Probably even the federal because --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know what you're talking about.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- of the magnitude of it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're talking about locally. I'm
trying to -- I don't even know what we can do.
MS. CASEY: It is my understanding that when new
constructions are built, that they send out inspectors to inspect it, you
know, to make sure that they are, I guess, properly built.
Is this something that can be worked into that inspection?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you have any advice for us,
Page 61
February 27, 2007
Bill?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd's got his hand up. Maybe
we can recognize him first.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, does he. I'm sorry. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then we'll come to you,
Commissioner Henning. Sorry to make you wait.
MR. MUDD: Bill, if I say anything wrong, you're going to
correct me, right?
What this would require would be an amendment to the Florida
Building Code. You can make an amendment locally to the Florida
Building Code. When the new revision of the Florida Building Code
comes out, it basically zeros out your amendments to the old code, and
then it's the new code. And then either the new code, Florida Building
Code, has this in it or you have to do another amendment.
The Florida Building Code gets revised every three years on a
three-year cycle. So that would take care of the new construction, and
the new construction for AC units being retrofit.
The best way to do this is to get the Florida Building Code
changed, and this way you take -- you take it on at a larger area as far
as what's going on and how it -- and how it basically impacts the State
of Florida, because the second piece that she's asking for is all the old
units be retrofitted. That's beyond what we've got locally for the
county, so that causes some great, great concern.
And I believe in order to get at those particular items, those two
particular items that she's looking for, we need to get the Florida
Building Code changed. And the Florida Building Code could have
something in it that says, all new construction has the cap, and all
units after such and such or reinstallations will have the cap. And over
a period of time, you will have those things with the locking caps on
them, because your air-conditioning units --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They keep making -- I'm sorry. I
did it again. I interrupted at the end of your sentence. I'm sorry.
Page 62
February 27, 2007
MR. MUDD: That's all right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe at this point in time -- we
have a reporter right here in the audience, maybe she can report on
this, and the need for people who -- who already have an
air-conditioner and if they -- you know, if they desire, where they can
buy these caps, these locking caps, and suggest to them that it would
be important, even though they don't have any children, so that kids
don't come over to their air-conditioner and start huffing. So that's a
suggestion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it -- it might be something
that the industry would welcome, something like this, and they might
champion it.
I have a good friend who owns an AC company. Why don't--
Commissioners, if I give them this presentation, this packet, ask them
to do a presentation before the Board of Commissioners and to see if
there's any interest in making a statewide regulation and how that
would work.
MS. CASEY: How do I make a statewide -- or how do I go
about getting that done?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to do it for you.
MS. CASEY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Let's see -- the thing is,
how you make law is, make sure that you get a lot of -- a lot of
support throughout the State of Florida. And if you have one
organization that opposes what you're asking, that might be
detrimental to your final go.
So let's see what we can do as a board to reach out to find out the
interest of this through the industry. And I think the board and all of
us need to be educated on the equipment out there and the possible
deadly chemicals within them, because they have changed.
MS. CASEY: Right. I also understand that right now there are
Page 63
February 27, 2007
some chemicals that have to be kept behind counters already.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MS. CASEY: How difficult is it to add Freon to that list?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think the Board of
Commissioners can provide a local ordinance to do that, but let's find
out what -- which one -- besides the refrigerants, some of them are
detrimental to the atmosphere in the layer that protects us, so let's get
educated a little bit by a professional, and then I think the Board of
Commissioners can determine what is the best way to proceed.
So I will coordinate with the county manager, get this
presentation to the industry, your presentation, and --
MS. CASEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- ask the -- and coordinate with
the county manager for the board and the public to have a presentation
on what you're recommending.
MS. CASEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Excellent.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas? Coyle?
I'm sorry. How you doing, Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm doing fine, I just -- I support
Commissioner Henning's motion, and I would just like to clarify one
thing.
There's two components to this. One is, what does the industry
think about it? How are they prepared to help us implement it? And
the other part is, what kinds of laws can we pass? Could -- I think I
understand what you're saying, is get the industry representatives with
staff, have them prepare something for us, then they can come to us
and tell us what is logically supportable and how we can get it into
law, right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Right, okay. I would support that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the second thing I think -- I
Page 64
February 27, 2007
know they would support some kind of restrictions on the availability
of refrigerants to the public.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sure. And these tools would not
exist if they were not already being used by many installers for the
purpose of locking those valves.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. In my opinion --
MS. CASEY: I believe those were originally created because
people were --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Stealing Freon --
MS. CASEY: -- stealing Freon.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- because of the expense.
In my opinion I think it would be very easy to install these
antitheft devices during services. But again, we need to get --
MS. CASEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- everybody onboard to do that,
and it takes education and sometimes arm twisting.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yep. There's some comparison
between what we're looking at here and what they've gone through
over the past 20 years as far as handguns and guns in people's homes.
And I know at several different times local law agencies have come up
with locking devices that go on the trigger mechanisms to prevent
unauthorized use, especially children getting ahold of them.
It might be a possibility, Commissioner Henning, that when you
brief your friend on this particular issue, you might ask them, that
maybe the industry might want to look into something where they
would help to offset the cost, and they could even have a voluntary
program to get it going where possibly they might be able to provide
so many units for people, especially people that are young families
that have children, or a particular neighborhood, maybe target some
particular area that could benefit from it. Just a thought. Just wanted
to pass that on.
We thank you very much for being here today.
Page 65
February 27, 2007
MS. CASEY: Thank you. Don't forget to sign my petition.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, but the thing is, if it's directing
the county to come up with an ordinance --
MS. CASEY: Yeah, that's true.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- I wouldn't be able to do it till after
the commission passed it. I thought it was in support of doing
something as far as a directive for the safety devices. But we'll be
dealing with that. Meanwhile, your petition's out there. It will give us
guidance as time goes along. But thank you for being here.
And Mr. Mudd, I believe we've got an 11 o'clock time certain.
Item #9D
DISCUSSION OF PROPER ACTIONS UNDER PUBLIC
COMMENT OR COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS AT FUTURE
BCC MEETINGS - DISCUSSED
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. That brings us to 9D, time certain, 11
a.m. It's to discuss improper actions under public comment or
commissioners' comment at future commission meetings, and I believe
this item is yours.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, and this is one that I asked to be
added to the agenda. Let me get to my notes on that. If we could --
this gave me a little bit of concern, and I want to, first off and
foremost, say that I don't believe that we've ever done anything wrong
in the past as far as ethics go, as far as sunshine whenever it came to
votes that we have taken. I mean, this has been a -- the commission
has never had a policy in this direction in the six years that we've been
here. And even as recently as the one issue that was in question, I
have to admit freely that I voted for it to go forward.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I did, too.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think we did. I think we were
Page 66
February 27, 2007
unanimous in that. And -- but if it wasn't for Mayor Barnett bringing
up the issue and taking a look at it and realizing that it deserves
consideration and discussion of this commission, that if it wasn't for
Mayor Barnett, I don't know if we'd be at point A right now. We
wouldn't even probably be discussing this.
But it's a fairness issue as far as, what is it that we should notify
the public to be able to give them the opportunity to be able to speak
at the appropriate time to be able to weigh in?
And if an issue of great community importance comes up at that
point in time then we're going to try to make a decision on the fly, I
got a feeling we're not serving the public well.
Although with that said, I do think that whatever we agree to do,
we have to take into consideration a couple of things; one, there's
going to be times of emergency that we need to act without having to
go back out to the public and holding a meeting in the future.
Just about everything else could be moved forward to another
agenda with due public notice so that we can be able to do it. And if
something comes up that falls between an outright emergency and the
two weeks away to another meeting, we can agree to be able to have
another meeting in several days and call a special meeting that would
be duly noticed out there to be able to do the issue out there in front of
the public.
And with that, we're going to go through all the commissioners
one time, then we're going to call on the speakers, and then, if so
desired, we'll give the -- give Mr. Mudd directions.
Let's see. I didn't catch the order, but I'm going to say
Commissioner Henning, Halas and Coyle. I believe that might have
been the order you came up.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I have a question
for you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What was your understanding of
Page 67
February 27, 2007
the direction that the Board of Commissioners made under a public
comment?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, the direction was, is that we
were in agreement that the signs needed to go up, but we wanted to
have the signs designed and brought back to us. I might be missing
part of it --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- but that was the main part of it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just for everybody's
information, the Board of Commissioners gave direction to staff to
bring back to the board an application to the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Commission. That is no different than any city, Naples City
councilman to bring up an idea or a city resident to ask their elected
officials to take action to bring back on a future agenda.
Time and time again, local government gives directions to benefit
the citizens of that community. That is no different. I think that the
people in Collier County elected the board individually to represent
and to take action on their behalf.
And I think what you're suggesting -- and correct me if I'm
wrong -- is not to allow the privilege of an elected official to give staff
direction or take action to represent the public.
And if that's so, are you suggesting that the Board of
Commissioners should not take action under county manager's
comments or county attorney's comments?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If it hasn't been duly advertised and
it's an issue of community importance, no, I think that the direction
should be moved off to the next meeting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Let me tell you
something, what we have on the agenda today, that was added on by
our staff, and very appropriately, that is to accept a grant of $3.5
million?
MR. MUDD: $3.1 million.
Page 68
February 27, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: $3.1 million grant from the
State of Florida that has time certains on that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But it's on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that was not advertised.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, in that point and case, we have
to discuss what the parameters are that we can work on this and what
we can do to have some public involvement in it.
My whole concern, Commissioner Henning, is very simple.
They elected us to represent them, but they have due recourse to be
able to come before their elected officials and be able to speak when
they think it's necessary.
Now, where that line is drawn is something we need to determine
here and now, and that's what this discussion is all about.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, may I point out to you the
memo by the County Attorney's Office. I'm not sure if you read it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, I have.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The Board of Commissioners'
meetings are advertised. It's advertised with 17 items on there. The
Board of Commissioners takes action on those 17 items.
And the county attorney -- and Mr. Weigel, why don't you help
me by stating what the purpose of the open public meetings are.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, thank you. The public meetings -- I think,
first, the question has been relative to the sunshine requirements and
what is -- what is government in the sunshine, the law, and how it
applies here, and of course it's actually fundamental and simple.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, Mr. Weigel. I just got to
correct one thing. I want to make sure that -- one point. At the very
beginning of my statement I said I didn't think there was any ethics
violations or sunshine violations, and I need to get that straight right
now for the record.
So Mr. Weigel, if you're implying that I am saying that --
MR. WEIGEL: Absolutely not.
Page 69
February 27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- I want you to correct that.
MR. WEIGEL: No. I was just attempting to respond to the
question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You need to -- he was
responding to the question about the purpose of the meeting --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and what it says of items on
the agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel, proceed.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay, thank you. And I think that what I'll be
saying is consistent both with Mr. Coletta's initial comment there as
well, and that is, the requirements of the law are three under the
sunshine law, and that is that there be adequate notice of a meeting
given, that the meeting be held in a public facility or with access to the
public and that minutes of the meeting be taken.
Now, as Mr. Henning indicated, we do have an agenda. This
was, in fact, a regularly noticed meeting. But under the sunshine law,
a meeting can occur when two or more commissioners or committee
members, that have their sunshine law requirements, when two or
more members actually get together.
But that's not before us today. It's really the procedures at a
regularly scheduled meeting. And the essential elements of the
sunshine law have been met. We're fastidious about assuring that that
occurs.
And obviously, really what you're boiling into here is the
elements of policy relating to what you want to discuss, and when, and
the direction that may be given, and how, to staff when elements of
interest, public interest, board interest, come up.
And -- but there -- I think it is agreed by all that there is no
question in regard to the adherence to the sunshine law as far as that
goes. And so any inferences from outside this chamber that there's a
violation of sunshine law is incorrect, and that, I think, was the
Page 70
February 27, 2007
purpose of the memo that was provided.
If you have any other questions, I'll try to respond as best I can.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think it's important to
point out during your correspondence and our conversation, the
meetings are noticed for the public to watch government in action.
That's part of the -- to participate and watch government in action.
MR. WEIGEL: Correct. Observa -- it's the observation of
government is what the sunshine law is all about, that every aspect of
governmental decision making should be observed and participated in
to the extent that the board has local procedure.
The attorney general opinions and some of the case law indicate
that the participation, in fact, may be a matter of local policy regarding
amount of and the entry points of participation. And to the extent that
there would be an issue relating to sunshine law, of course, County
Attorney Office would always be advising you in the course of
meetings as well.
Again, I've tried to answer the questions in the broad sense. I'll
certainly answer if you should have any further questions in any
specific areas you wish to delve into.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I do, Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sunshine laws aside and everything,
this commission, at various times, has agreed to do such things as have
a supermajority placed upon certain types of voting to move certain
agenda items, land use items, to the afternoon.
So it's within the rights of this commission, if they so determine
the public's best interest is served, to adjust the rules to be able to
serve that public interest. There's nothing stopping us from doing that,
is there?
MR. WEIGEL: Absolutely not.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, thank you. That's all I wanted
to say, and that's where I am coming from. I'm not making any claims
Page 71
February 27, 2007
as far as violations of sunshine or ethics.
Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much. When a
particular item or items come before us, I have a concern because I
feel that as a county commissioner, I like to hear both sides of the
story, and when you have a special interest group or special interest
groups that come before us and there's no opposition because it's not
been advertised, I don't think it's a fair way to conduct government in
the sunshine.
And I had some very strong concerns about if there was going to
be any type of education that was going to be put forth in regards to a
request that was asked of us. I looked around the room and, of course,
nobody that was property owners that may be affected were here.
So I had -- I had to make in-depth questioning of the group that
was before us in regards to what they were going to do to help
alleviate the problems whereby there might be some properties being
damaged, so that was my concern.
Commissioner Coletta, I want to thank you for bringing this back
before the Board of County Commissioners. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think we have to place this in the
proper context. I believe that most of the concern about what
happened is the result of a misunderstanding about how the process
works for the county commission. There is a very prescribed
sequence of actions. We followed the proper sequence of actions.
There is absolutely no question about that.
We give guidance every single day to the staff to bring
something back at an advertised public hearing that will then be
debated with people who are interested in it. That's what happened in
this particular case.
There was not agreement on the sign itself that was proposed. I
specifically raised questions about the sign and what the sign said. I
Page 72
February 27, 2007
cautioned that if you're going to do this, you have to do something that
is reasonable. And it's not appropriate to go to extremes on this.
And what we did was to say to the staff, bring something back to
us in a public hearing that is advertised that we then will debate and
make a decision on.
We didn't do anything more than that, did we, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's exactly what we did. We do
that all the time. The problem is that some people who are not
familiar with the process jump to the conclusion that we had agreed to
send something to Fish and Wildlife Service without a public hearing.
That did not happen. It is not going to happen. It is coming back to a
regularly scheduled agenda for public comment and debate, which is
exactly the right thing to do.
Now, there is another issue that had been used to allege that we
took action inappropriately, and that was the linkage fee. That was
not an inappropriate action. That was a continuation. We continue
things time and time again without advertising we're going to continue
it.
I t was on an advertised agenda. We looked at it and we said, we
think we don't need to consider this right now. It's continued. We will
bring it back at some future point in time whenever we think it's
appropriate to do that.
It was an incomplete study. It did not provide the basis for us to
make a decision about an appropriate linkage fee. It did not provide
an economic assessment of the impact of charging these very large
commercial linkage fees for affordable housing. How could we
possibly have made a decision on that?
Take, for example, if we did proceed with that and we did have
that hearing, and then we have 50 people come before us and make
comments, and then the commissioners say, we don't have enough
information to make a decision.
Page 73
February 27, 2007
Now, what sense does that make? We've wasted everybody's
time, and then we send the staff back to get us the proper information,
and then we schedule another hearing and we do it all over again.
That is nonsensical. Government cannot work that way. And so what
we did was we took the proper action in both cases. It has merely
been misinterpreted.
So I just wanted to make sure we set the stage for this situation
and make sure people clearly understand that no decision was made to
send anything anywhere. It was guidance to staff to come back with a
proposal at a regularly scheduled meeting properly advertised.
And that's what you're going to do, I presume; is that not true,
Mr. Weigel?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did you understand that?
MR. WEIGEL: That is correct, with the boat fees on Naples
Bay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, no, talking about the linkage fees.
MR. WEIGEL: The linkage fee, the direction essentially was --
to staff was to -- not to bring it -- not to bring it forward and advertise
it for the ordinance at that point in time, so --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We continued it to when, Mr.
Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: No. There was no continuation to a further date.
Further board direction could indicate for staff or County Attorney
Office to, you know, work further on it, but it was not continued to a
specific date at all.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So in fact it was -- ceased to exist at
that point in time unless we brought it back with a new proposal?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Continued indefinitely.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. So I mean, the idea that it was
continued wasn't correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, yes, it is. If you don't take--
if you don't take action on it, you haven't voted it down, you haven't
Page 74
February 27, 2007
rejected it. Your only other option is a continuation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What was the vote for it?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Vote for the --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What was the word -- what did we
vote for as far as the linkage fee?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Was not -- we specifically said,
now is not the right time to bring this before the commission and,
secondly, it is not a complete study and we don't have all the
information necessary to make a decision. We can always bring it
back whenever we've got that information.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, Commissioner Coyle. I
must have been asleep at the time this came up.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sure that was the case.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, it must have been.
Mr. Weigel, do you recall that kind of wording?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I thought it was killed.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, the motion was to kill the ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So I wasn't wrong? We -- without
public discussion, public input, killed the motion. The public never
got a chance to weigh in on it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute, wait a minute. You
can't kill -- you can't kill an ordinance if no ordinance exists.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, what came first, the chicken or
the egg? I'm sorry. I'm having an awful hard time. I'd love to think
that we --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The point is --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- continued it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The point is, if you want to have
that ordinance reconsidered --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- anybody can do that. We can
Page 75
February 27, 2007
bring -- we haven't done anything with the study. We haven't burned
the study and ripped out the memory of all those people who
participated in it. It hasn't been destroyed. It's still there. You can do
that next meeting if you want to. Just get the right information.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you. I see where you're
coming from now.
MR. WEIGEL: If I may, Mr. Chairman, to continue to address.
I think there is essential correctness in all statements made here
because Jim Mudd had brought up the ordinance in regard to the
meeting that was coming up, and he'd noted that he was looking to put
that on the ordinance discussion on February 14th rather than 13th, so
it came up in terms of timing and placement on the agenda.
And the board moved from there to determine not to bring it
forward, and so I think both county manager and county attorney
understood the motion that was adopted to not bring anything forward.
I clarified on the record that that indicated as well not to come
forward with the informational discussion that was preliminarily set
for January 29th where we were going to bring Affordable Housing
Commission, Productivity Committee and the Board of County
Commissioners to -- as well the public, to look at it.
So, in essence, the direction to staff was interpreted to be to stop
going forward in each of the areas that we were utilizing to ultimately
bring it to the board in an advertised fashion on February 14th.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I think you misunderstood, Mr.
Weigel. Commissioner Coyle just explained it very clearly, that this
is still open for consideration and that we can bring it back at a time
that we think's appropriate.
MR. WEIGEL: And that is correct as well.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning, then
we're going to go to the speakers.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. I believe it was at a public
meeting the board directed staff to create a linkage fee. I don't think it
Page 76
February 27, 2007
was -- I don't think it was on the agenda as an advertised item, just a
point of clarification.
You know, I believe we're going down a slippery slope. Here is
the board representing one vote; one vote, one voice, and here we are
to serve the public, and times that -- we need to make decisions on the
fly for the best interest of the public.
What I'm hearing is, that isn't what we want to do. We only want
to do things -- items that are advertised even though that -- we're on
our legal parameters to do so, take action under each item, one
through 17, on the agenda. And what this has caused is a member of
the public accusing county commissioners of violating law, actually
calling county commissioners criminals.
Now, this whole discussion has really got out of line because
people don't understand the law, making accusations of the Board of
Commissioners, and I think that is wrong, and there needs to be a
retraction.
Ordinances on how this board governs are in effect, and I will not
stand for an ordinance change not to serve the public in the best
interest. I will not stand for an ordinance change.
I think that we need to take action on the behalf of the public
whenever the opportunity arises, just like the acceptance of the grants
with the county manager, had the most right, and the Board of
Commissioners voted on placing that on the agenda.
Now, many a times the county manager, during his comments,
the board gives direction and actually takes final action on what he has
to say. Same way with the county attorney . We give a vote and take
final action on what he has to say, and we do that because things
arised (sic) that necessarily doesn't have to be an agenda-specific item
because it's already on the agenda, staffs comments. And if we did
not take that action properly, then I think that would not be serving the
public.
And furthermore, these are -- these are elected -- we are elected
Page 77
February 27, 2007
officials. The county attorney and county manager are contract
employees. I will not stand for any commissioner giving contract
employees more rights than the elected officials of Collier County.
That's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. And you were clear to
the end and then you lost me a little bit, but we'll come back to that
later.
We're going to go to the speakers now.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we have six speakers. The first
one is Allen Wallburn. He will be followed by Tim Nance.
MR. W ALLBURN: Thank you, Commissioners. I thank you for
allowing me the opportunity to speak.
The reason I'm here is because I understand Commissioner
Coletta's concern about you guys doing something that might have
been under the cloak of suspicion or being disingenuous as a
commission, but the fact of the matter is, you folks, as a body, had no
knowledge, no advance knowledge, of the request that was made of
you. There was a request made because it was timely in necessity. It
could not warrant a date certain in the future because it was a
timeliness request.
And I don't -- I don't want to come here and lecture you folks, but
I want you to understand my position, and I'm going to be as clear as I
can -- and some people accuse me of being brutally honest, but I'm
going to tell you my position.
I don't think you should try to reinvent the wheel. State statutes
govern your actions on a daily basis or on a minute-by-minute basis.
In my opinion, what you did was no different than Manager Mudd
asking you for guidance on an issue.
I've listened to numerous governmental bodies saying, can we get
a consensus for some action that wasn't on the agenda? That's the
only time you folks have a chance to discuss things. If I want
something done, I can't necessarily go lobby each one of you, telling
Page 78
February 27,2007
you I want to get this done and then have somebody go and ask it be
put on an agenda because the timeliness could have evaporated.
I would tell you this. If I were in your position and an issue came
up, I would evaluate, what's the public gain, what's the public
detriment on any particular issue. And if you didn't feel like it was
warranted, you easily had the vote to say, we don't want to take this
forward, bring it back to us in a proper fashion, but we don't want to
hear it.
But the case was presented, it was timely, and you felt the need
to act. You acted unanimously. And even though the assertion has
been made that you did something wrong, you did nothing wrong.
You asked your staff to develop a plan, duly notice it, it could be
advertised, both sides could advocate their position, could come in and
vote it up or down.
So I would ask you to govern yourself by state statutes. Don't try
to reinvent the wheel here. Don't lock yourself into future decisions
that you may not can anticipate this. It's already been done, it's
legislated, and I would ask you to kindly continue doing a good job
and don't try to do too much.
Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Tim Nance.
MR. NANCE: I pass.
MS. FILSON: Phil Osborne. He will be followed by Chris
Straton.
MR. OSBORNE: Afternoon, Commissioners -- morning, excuse
me. Phil Osborne, for the record Marine Industries Association of
Collier County.
I just wanted to -- I can't speak to the linkage fee issue because I
wasn't party to that. But relative to the Marine Industry (sic)
Association's recent request at the last meeting as done through public
comment, there seems to be an assertion that there was some sort of
underhanded collusion that this -- our initiative be done under public
Page 79
February 27, 2007
comment kind of like under the cloak of darkness rather than through
public petition.
And I want to be clear that I personally met with Commissioner
Coyle prior to that meeting on the 13th to get instructions on how to
properly bring this motion to this board. And I left -- I was instructed
by Commissioner Coy Ie at that meeting to contact County Manager
Mudd and to request that it be put in under the public petition portion
of your all's agenda.
I left that meeting and called commissioner -- or excuse me --
County Manager Mudd and was told, unfortunately, that I had missed
the cutoff. There's a law. I think it's 13 days prior. I had missed it by
one day.
The sense of urgency that the Marine Industries Association had
to bring this issue before this board is so that we get some positive
movement on our motion prior to the FWC making its ruling on the
city's request for the signage application, and that is simply and purely
why we chose then. The next avenue to get it out in front of you was
through public comment, period.
We were not directed -- and I want the record to reflect that we
were not directed by anybody on the commission that the MIACC,
again, act in some cloak of darkness position to bring this thing forth.
We understand fully that bringing this forth under the public
comments sections was simply going to get it out on the table for
discussion and serve notice, and it would then be put on the agenda for
the next meeting for the public to come and have their comments.
So with that, I'll thank you for hearing me again.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Chris Straton. She'll be
followed by Bill Barnett.
MS. STRA TON: Thank you. My name is Chris Straton. I'm
president of the League of Women Voters of Collier County. The
League of Women Voters is committed to openness and
responsiveness in government. You, this commission, have worked
Page 80
February 27, 2007
very hard to gain and maintain the public trust. In fact, you've
demonstrated time and time again how you value the input from your
constituents in your decision making.
And that was why we were dismayed to see the openness of
county commission proceedings appear to be compromised recently
when votes were taken that had not been specifically advertised as part
of the agenda and thus precluded the public's ability to provide you
with the input that you so desire.
The League has no position on linkage fees or boat speeds. Let
me repeat that. The League has no position on linkage fees or boat
speed limits. The issue to the league is one of openness in
government.
We have been and will continue to be advocates for an open and
responsive government. We have spoken out on this because we wish
to see the BCC operate fully and openly with advance notice to the
public so the public has the opportunity to provide input into your
decision-making process.
We believe it's far better to postpone the people's business and
have it duly noticed than for the people to lose an opportunity to
petition their elected officials.
We urge you to ensure that in Collier County, the people's
business is not only conducted in accordance with a letter of the
Florida sunshine law, but also with the spirit of the law.
We are pleased that you're considering this subject and urge you
to take action as soon as possible to prevent any more votes from
taking place in circumstances when your usual public notice and
public hearing processes have not occurred.
You have made a point of providing detailed opportunities and
agendas for the public's benefit. We urge you to continue to do that.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have two commissioners that
have indicated they wanted to speak. I'm going to ask you if you
Page 81
February 27, 2007
wanted to speak now, or can you wait till the speakers finish?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In our advertised agenda it was
noticed that all persons wishing to speak on the agenda must register
prior to speaking. The speaker must register with the county manager
prior to the presentation of the item.
The question for Ms. Filson is, has anybody signed up for this
item prior to -- or after this discussion started?
MS. FILSON : Yes, sir. One person.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Barnett.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, are we going to -- Mr.
Chairman, are we going to follow the board's ordinances or are we
going to allow that?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner -- or excuse me. Ms.
Filson. Is that a directive as far as an ordinance, or is that at the will
of the chairman? I know in the past the chairman set the amount of
time that people could speak, allowed people to sign up before. And I
have no idea who it is that's signed up.
MS. FILSON: I'll defer that to the county, however, I don't think
so, but it is listed on the front of the agenda.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Sue.
It's policy of the board. And obviously, the chair works with the
prerogative, and the board as a board has the opportunity to take
motion and vote in regard to procedure as well.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I have exercised in the past
that whenever we had people sign up late that I allowed them to keep
taking them. I think Ms. Filson would agree with that, that's been the
policy since I became the chair. If somebody would like to address
that differently, I'd be happy to talk about it. But in this case, if it is
the prerogative of the chairman, then I would -- whoever that speaker
Page 82
February 27, 2007
may be, for or against the item, I would still like to give them the
opportunity to be heard.
Commissioner Coy Ie, then Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'd like to ask Ms. Straton a
question, please. We still seem to have a disagreement here. You
seem to think that we did something that prohibited and bypassed
public comment, and I do not believe that's the case, and I think we
need to get to the bottom of that issue.
You understand that we have scheduled this for a public hearing,
don't you?
MS. S TRA TON: Scheduled this item right now?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. We scheduled the item that
you complained about, the boat speed, Naples Bay boat speed.
MS. STRA TON : Yes, I understand that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so we're not shortcutting any
public input. People will have an opportunity to see what it is we are
suggesting, and they will have a chance to provide us with input and
we can get reactions from the public. So there is no attempt here or
nor was there attempt at that meeting to shortcut public input.
MS. STRATON: Commissioner Coyle, I am responding to what
was reported and the comments that were provided through the quotes
in the newspaper. Since this was not an advertised subject, I did not
have the -- was not able to watch the entire commission meetings
where the actual item was discussed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. STRATON: So I am responding based on what was
reported that happened in your meeting, and also the correspondence
between Commissioner Coletta and Mayor Barnett.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. The -- with apologies to the
newspaper, it is impossible for them to report all of the nuances of
what we do here from time to time --
MS. STRATON: Oh, certainly.
Page 83
February 27, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and making judgments about the
ethical conduct of commissioners based upon those kinds of media
descriptions is sometimes very dangerous. But if -- do you accept the
fact that it is coming back for public review and comment?
MS. STRATON: That is my understanding from the discussion
that's gone on today, that it will be coming back for public review and
comment.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that was the decision we made
back at that meeting, that it would come back for public review and
comment. So that's not something we've done just as a result of the
controversy. That was the original intent of the vote was to bring it
back at a regularly advertised public hearing for debate.
MS. STRATON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So that's what we're doing, that's
what we did at that time. So we didn't do anything wrong.
MS. STRA TON: And let me clarify . You know, I'm not -- and
the League is not saying that there has been an ethical or a legal
problem. What we are saying is that you have worked so hard to
establish trust and -- with your constituents, your town hall meetings,
you go out of your way to provide advertising, very detailed agendas,
the availability of all of the backup material on the Internet.
You have done an outstanding job, but there were issues that
happen very quickly where it appeared that the public did not have an
opportunity to know that a specific item was going to be addressed
and, therefore, the public did not have that opportunity to present you
with the information representing all the sides.
Collier County is very far ahead of other counties in terms of its
openness. All we're saying is, you have such an outstanding track
record. You're doing a good job. We would like to see that that
continue and that issues of critical importance to the community don't
get handled under something called Board of County Commission --
and I can't even remember the terminology.
Page 84
February 27, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Correspondence, I think --
MS. STRATON: Correspondence.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- or public comment, either one.
MS. STRA TON: Or public comment. So that's the concern, is,
you know, we would like you to -- to continue to embrace the
openness that this county commission has, and we just felt that, you
know, it warranted a timeout. Let's look at it.
And I know by virtue of the questions that were raised by the
county commissioners at the time of the linkage fee, there was
concern expressed at that time.
And so, you know, it was when -- several things got reported, so
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Just quickly, and then we'll
move on. But you understand that we don't want our hands to be tied
in -- from a standpoint of being able to serve the public. Let me tell
you that on many occasions under public comment a citizen will come
in here and complain about something, whether it's garbage pickup,
it's noise at night. We constantly make decisions based upon those
things without public hearing, and we want to have the flexibility to
continue doing those things.
We will frequently say to the county manager, instruct Waste
Management to stop picking up the garbage before four o'clock in the
morning in these neighborhoods. We do that all the time and we do it
for the public -- the ability to respond quickly to the needs of our
constituents. We don't want to restrict our ability to do that.
Following the logic in this case, we would have to take that item,
we would then schedule it, perhaps, two weeks from now as a public
hearing, and then we would have a public hearing on whether or not
we could give direction to the staff to solve the problem. It is an
unnecessary delay in responding to the citizens' needs, and that's what
we do not want to see happen.
MS. STRATON: Nor do we.
Page 85
February 27, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that's exactly what this was.
MS. STRATON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And it's coming back for a hearing.
There is absolutely no problem with that. The problem is, people do
not understand the way the process works. We do provide
opportunities for this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'm going to interrupt for a
moment here because this conversation is getting dragged out and a
little repetitive. Let's take it back to the linkage fee. And I apologize
so much for the misunderstanding. I thought for sure at the point in
time that came down the directive was to kill it, to end all things. I
didn't realize we were moving it forward. And with that in mind, I
owe everybody here an apology.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, let me say that it was very,
very clear that I said now is not the time to burden the community
with these huge additional charges. We've got an economic problem
here in Collier County. Now is not the time to do it.
And I further added, we don't have all the information. And so,
yes, we voted to kill the scheduling of the hearing that was proposed.
Never did anybody say that you can never bring up a linkage fee
.
agaIn.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And if I may?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This is one of the things that's driving
this whole process, as you can almost guess. The linkage fee that we
had, that study that was done by Dr. Nicholas, was, what would be the
amount that would be legally defensible, because that's previous
instructions we gave with all impact fees.
The number came off in the stratosphere. I would have been
very happy with an amount of $4 a square foot, but we never got the
chance to discuss it. I'd like very much the permission of this group to
bring it back so that we can at least hear from everyone and be able to
Page 86
February 27, 2007
discuss some of the merits of what can be done.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: With one provision, I would agree
with that. Let's have somebody do an economic analysis of the effect
of the linkage fee and provide us a reasonable range that they would
recommend as acceptable considering the economic conditions in
Collier County and the size of the impact fees and everything else.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'm going to jump in front of
you, Commissioner Coyle. I love where you're going. If you're
making a motion to move that to a future agenda --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's not on the agenda so we can't
do that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, but we can move it to the next, an
item for discussion. If you're making a motion to move it to a future
agenda, the next one or one after, to be able to discuss it, I'd be very
supportive of it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I would -- I would be willing
to support it whenever we get a complete study that contains the
information that --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We've got to give directions on that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I don't have a problem
doing that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Then if that's a motion to
move it to the next -- a future agenda, then I'll second your motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But I don't -- I don't know
that we need motions. We just --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Direction.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You just decide on direction.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You got it. But it's going to a future
agenda for discussion. Do we have another commissioner that agrees
with it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't want to hear it until after we
heard inclusionary zoning. I stated it that day.
Page 87
February 27, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then put that as a qualification.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, put that as a qualification.
You agree to that?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would, but please understand that
what we're asking for is a complete study that evaluates the economic
impact in Collier County and a reasonable range --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- that would not adversely effect --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Amen.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not a stupid --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- the economy.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- amount that nobody could even
think of.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, yeah. And Commissioner Coyle,
you're a genius. And I second exactly what you said --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- with what Commissioner Fiala --
not second. Direction. Pick up the direction. I agree with your
direction. And Commissioner Fiala, obviously you agreed with it
because you're the one that put the words into it. Am I putting words
in your mouth?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll agree to it as long as that's the
case.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What's that?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just say yes, and I'll let you go to
lunch in a couple minutes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, I didn't know whether you
were calling --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, you're out of sequence, but go
ahead for a brief statement on this particular direction.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I'd like to have the county
Page 88
February 27, 2007
attorney -- on that item that came up on communications in regards to
the linkage fees, I'd like to get a copy of the minutes of that, okay?
MS. FILSON: I can do that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Myself.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But that's kind of past now, that's
okay.
Now we got some direction out there. I'm feeling a lot more
comfortable that the process is being solved on a lot of things. We've
still got speakers to go.
Commissioner Fiala, let me go to Commissioner Henning. He's
been waiting the longest --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He's the one --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- then we'll come back to you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You can wait till after the speakers
for me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question for Ms.
Straton. Since you base your information on the Naples Daily News,
did you read in the Naples Daily News the controversial workforce
housing tax gets axed by Larry Hannon on January 25, 2007?
MS. STRATON: I probably read the Naples Daily News. I read
it every day.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. At that time, Mr.
Hannon said in his article, Commissioner Halas -- Commissioner
Coletta expressed some unhappiness about the commissioners taking a
stand when it wasn't on the commissioner's agenda.
MS. STRA TON: Well, I'm taking off my League of Women
Voters' hat.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. You're here on behalf of
the Women League (sic) of Voters, and I just want to further say, in
that article it says, the county attorney, David Weigel, said the Board
of Commissioners could vote to kill the linkage fee even though the
Page 89
February 27, 2007
issue was not on the agenda. You do recognize he's an attorney, right?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're repeating ourselves,
Commissioner Henning. Please get to the point.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, sir. This person has named
me as a criminal.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Took in criminal actions in your
editorial, and it needs as to be retracted. And I will not stop here
about that issue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. If I may help a little bit,
Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Even though you clarified your
statement, it is not a retraction in the publication that you put your
guest editorial in.
MS. STRATON: Commissioner Henning, I really don't know
how to respond to it. I'm sorry you took that article as accusing you of
being a criminal. That was never the intent and, you know, I'm
surprised that it came to that point.
If it would make you feel better, I'd be glad to say it was never
our intent to accuse you of being a criminal.
We do think that openness in government is important and that
openness is allowing the sun to shine on --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me quote --
MS. STRA TON: -- specific things.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- from your guest editorial, that
these two actions were not done in the sunshine.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, you've made
a point, a very valid point.
MS. STRA TON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. Now, I am not going to
allow somebody to accuse Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner
Coletta, Commissioner Halas or myself, Commissioner Coyle, of
Page 90
February 27, 2007
taking action out of the sunshine.
I will send the League of Women Voters an official request for a
retraction.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I think that's your right to do
that, Commissioner Henning.
MS. STRATON: I think that's fine. All right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I think we have explored this
thing. We have dissected it to the nth degree. I still have other
speakers to speak. You have made very good points, and I don't think
there's a commissioner here that didn't agree that those comments
were appropriate. And I made that in my opening statement and
several times during the statement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I hear you, Commissioner Henning,
but I want to be able to bring this to some sort of conclusion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understand that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're repeating yourself over and
over again, and I hear you. And give them a chance to be able to
respond after they take it back to their meeting --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ms. Straton did respond.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would expect a group response
would be more appropriate, because you've got the written article in
the paper that they've written, and at that point in time you can make a
judgment decision, and if you want to bring it back before the
commission, that is your prerogative. Or if you want to take
independent legal action, that is your prerogative. But at some point
in time, we have to get on with this meeting.
Meanwhile, you have exercised what you believe to be your right
of free speech. Now, where the civil ends of that go, I can't tell you.
There are certain things that you can do and you can't do. And I'm an
Page 91
February 27, 2007
attorney and I'm not going to advise you on it.
But I'm going to end this conversation between the two of us, and
if you want to conduct it outside, that's fine, or if you want to do it
with open correspondence back and forth, that's fine. But I think all
the points have been made by everybody concerned, and I'm going to
excuse you from the podium at this point in time.
And we're going to call the next speaker.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Mayor Bill Barnett. He will
be followed by Nicole Ryan.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Barnett, it's indeed a privilege to
have you here today.
MA YOR BARNETT: It is indeed my privilege to be here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Are your council meetings this much
fun?
MAYOR BARNETT: You know, I thought so for a minute, but
then I'm not feeling that good right now. Thank you.
I do appreciate the fact, Chairman Coletta, that you did bring this
up. I think the bottom line issue and why we had this -- our
correspondence was it's really under public comment.
And Fred Coyle, I can't disagree with you. Of course we'd take
action if somebody calls and said, you know, change the garbage
pickup or they're waking me up at four a.m. in the morning, but those
kinds of actions are basically -- and as you well know from serving on
the city council, and the same as you, you just look over at staff and
say, address this, please, and it's taken care of.
The -- and again, I want to stick on this. It is not the issues,
okay? It is not about the Naples Bay drafting. And obviously that
was an important issue, so to speak, during public comment, otherwise
I don't think we would have had two public speakers here today
defending the timeliness, et cetera, of that issue.
So all I'm asking is, certainly think a little bit during public
comment of what the consequences could be, because it happens to us
Page 92
February 27, 2007
as well, that someone might have very well weighed in on that
particular point we're talking about today and said, well, here's why
you probably -- or might not have asked the county attorney or staff to
draft whatever it is that they're drafting.
It's not about the issue. It's just about the public. And basically
that's what I wanted to say.
Also, Commissioner Henning, with all due respect, I understand
your frustration to some extent, but you also mentioned my name in
an email that said, it appears the Women League (sic) of Voters and
Naples Mayor and others want to stifle residents of Collier County, et
cetera.
Certainly that is not my intent. Once again, my intent was, that's
certainly not stifling anybody, it's just simply thinking about only
during public comment taking action. That's all. And of course, you
have to be the determinant of what action you take.
That's all I have to say. I really appreciate you bringing it up,
and thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: And the next speaker is Nicole Ryan. She will be
followed by Chuck Mohlke.
MS. RYAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
Nicole Ryan, here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
And I'd like to thank the commission for taking this item off as a
procedural policy issue. I was not here when the discussion on the
specific boat speed zone issue came up. I didn't know it was going to
come up, so I was not attending the meeting.
I can't comment on what went on. I will make the general
observation that though you didn't take final action, staff direction was
given and, perhaps, if others had been aware of the issue, different
perspectives could have brought in and that might have changed your
staff direction. I don't know, but I just bring that up on that issue.
But looking at this issue as a more procedural policy level
Page 93
February 27, 2007
discussion; one of the most important aspects of open transparent
government is the ability for the public to have notice that items are
going to come up for discussion and for vote by the commission.
The Conservancy, in our obligation to represent our 6,000
members, we rely not just upon county staff communication and
communication with commissioners to know that agenda items are
coming up, but also to be able to look at the agenda and see what
specific items are going to be discussed so that we can give input
through written correspondence and through attending the public
hearing.
There are always instances where, under commission
correspondence or public comment, items will come up, and that's
certainly not illegal. It certainly isn't appropriate. But it's really fair to
the public for that to be brought forward for the discussion on a
regularly scheduled agenda.
We don't believe that the public should have to attend every
meeting, wait till the end of the agenda, find out if there are new issues
coming up to be voted on, and then try to get their public comment in
and react on the fly.
So we believe that there is a process in place. It's through the
public petition, and we also believe that there's a process where
commissioners can bring things up on the agenda for a future agenda
date.
An item that is important enough to be voted on really should
have the proper vetting through that public process, and we ask that
you discuss ways to not hamper government but be able to really
make this more of a public vetting so that everyone can give their
perspective to help you make a fully informed decision.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Chuck Mohlke.
MR. MOHLKE: Commissioners, honoring Commissioner
Henning's point of privilege, I will not repeat my remarks at this point
Page 94
February 27, 2007
in time. I've submitted them in email form to you, Commissioner
Coletta. And I wonder if you will share them with --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll send them forward.
MR. MOHLKE: I believe that would be entirely appropriate.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, if I may?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I agree, I don't think it's the
privilege of the chairman. I think it's the privilege of the board to
deviate from the procedures as set out in the ordinance. I agree that
we should allow it. My only point was that we're not going by our
agenda, that's all.
So I wish that you would ask Mr. Mohlke to speak on the item on
the agenda, what he has signed up for.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. What item were you
talking about? You were referring to the agenda item when you -- the
communications, which I haven't seen yet, by the way.
MR. MOHLKE: My name is Chuck Mohlke. I'm a resident of
District 4. I'm going to read these comments, if I may. They are, I
think, on the point that commissioners have put on the agenda today
for considerations.
If it pleases this honorable commission, I appear here to share my
concern with board members regarding any future -- any future board
actions that may be taken on matters of considerable public interest.
The current interest and votes taken by commissioners on
subjects that had not been advertised specifically, specifically, on
regular commission agendas raises another important question, and the
question is, how can county residents propose independently an
ordinance or a resolution for consideration and adoption by the Board
of County Commissioners?
Currently, persons petitioning the board at its meetings during the
public comment period have no assurance that any board action will
result from their efforts to urge the board to consider those matters
Page 95
February 27, 2007
only the Board of County Commissioners can act on.
In Florida, residents of counties like Collier County with no
charter provision for citizen initiatives do not have a clear path for
proposing ordinances or resolutions for enactment by their Board of
County Commissioners.
It's my hope that commissioners will provide county residents
with specific guidance as to how reasonable, well-crafted ordinances
or resolutions proposed by residents can be given some guarantee that
their proposals will be brought before the board at an advertised
meeting for public discussion and board consideration and action.
And I thank the board in advance for consideration of this
proposal. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Fiala, and then I have some brief comments. And
I thought this was a wonderful discussion, by the way. I gained a lot
from it.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, when something is brought up
under commissioner -- or rather under public comment, I think that we
always discuss it. We listen, we discuss. Many people can't even get
up to talk in other parts of the state and other parts of the country
because they -- nobody is even allowed to point, you know, present
their own comments.
When something is brought up to us and it's confrontational, we
discuss it a little bit, and we always try and bring it back. When -- or
-- and we'll continue to do that, I think, forever. That's the way our--
that's the way we operate.
In other cases where it's brought up from the community and
there's a time limitation and it's for the benefit of the entire
community, we take action immediately rather than lose an
opportunity, such as this -- Jim Mudd is bringing up today. There's no
way we could have advertised that in advance. We know it's good for
Page 96
February 27, 2007
everybody. It's the best thing all the way around for our taxpayers, so
naturally we're going to hear it and vote on it.
We advertise the public hearing to hear our constituents'
concerns, and if needed, to take action, and that action can, and most
of the time is, to bring it back, as in the best speed speech -- or the best
spode beat (sic) issue.
Yes, we wanted to hear from our people, and there was a time
limitation, and, yes, we told our county manager to put something
together so we could come back and advertise it and hear it.
So I think that there was maybe a misunderstanding as to our
action being final and nobody allowed to weigh in on it. We always
want to hear from the city on these things, especially because it affects
them. That could be confrontational, so we've just asked to bring it
back.
We did not make a decision as to what the final outcome would
be, but we wanted to see what the information was.
And the same, we had long discussion about the linkage fee. I
personally said on the record there that it would be the thing -- it
would put young businesses, mom and pop businesses, out of business
faster than a Wal * Mart could. I remember saying that on the record.
And I had grave concerns with the amount that was presented,
and I wanted to hear the other housing issue, inclusionary zoning first.
That doesn't mean that it's dead. It just means at that time we were
killing it so -- until a more appropriate time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it's not dead yet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But it's not dead yet. That just says
we're bringing it back at another time. Fred Coyle on the record said
that day he wanted to make sure that we had all the information. I
think Commissioner Henning said something about the information,
but I know I did, too.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well -- and I'm going to jump in front
of Commissioner Coyle for just a moment. I gained a lot from this
Page 97
February 27, 2007
particular exchange. I really did. One thing, we have exercised
considerable due process in the past, and we will exercise even more
due process in the future. I don't think we need to be able to have to
write down rules and regulations to the nth degree where we --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're already doing them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- have to look at them and -- well,
when you write them down to the point, you can never cover all
eventualities that are going to take place.
But this has been extremely healthy in the fact that it made us
aware of the fact that if we do vary from the process, that there's
people out there that feel like they've been lost.
The biggest thing that happened today was the fact that we have
a very good understanding of what took place at that one meeting with
the linkage fees. As you well realize, that was a very contentious
issue for me to deal with, even though I never would have agreed to
anything near that number.
And the fact that we agreed, the fact that it's going to be coming
back in the future for discussion at a well advertised meeting, to me
that's a tremendous step forward, the fact that we know that we have
to do due process on everything we're doing.
And so I'm very, very pleased with this commission. I'm sorry
Commissioner Henning got his feathers ruffled today. I'm sorry that
the League of Women Voters had to go through a third degree, but I
think we're all a little smarter and a little richer for it, for what we all
had to endure.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, something really very
interesting just happened. Mr. Mohlke made a perfectly valid
observation and a request. We can't, under your procedures, even
consider a discussion of it right now. We cannot provide staff with
guidance to even research it.
So now, if you want us to consider it, Mr. Mohlke, you've got to
Page 98
February 27, 2007
come back in a public petition, and then you tell us the same thing,
and then we can provide guidance to the staff. But we can't provide
guidance now under the provisions that you have suggested to us. Just
an example of how difficult and delaying and inefficient your
suggestions and operations -- suggestion of our operations are.
So that's where we are. It exemplifies the entire issue. And if it's
something that you're really interested in, it's not going to get done
anytime soon. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 1: 15 we're going to come back from
lunch. We're breaking now . We'll be back at 1: 15.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
Commissioners, this brings us to our p.m. advertised items.
Item #7 A
RESOLUTION 2007-45: CU-2006-AR-I0550 - COLLIER
COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FACILITIES MANAGEMENT,
REPRESENTED BY HEIDI WILLIAMS, OF Q. GRADY MINOR
& ASSOCIATES, P.A., IS REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE
IN THE ESTATES ZONING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO
SECTION 2.01.03. G.1.E AND SECTION 10.08.00 OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW
A SAFETY SERVICE FACILITY THAT WILL BE LIMITED TO
AN EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES FOR A PROJECT TO
BE KNOWN AS THE EMS STATION #73, THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY CONSISTING OF 2.23 ACRES, IS LOCATED AT 790
LOGAN BOULEVARD NORTH- MOTION TAKEN TO ACCEPT
CCPC RECOMMENDATIONS AND ADD EMS POLICY FOR
SIREN USE AND TO BUILD A WALL ALONG WITH A
Page 99
February 27, 2007
LANDSCAPE BUFFER ON SOUTH SIDE OF PROJECT -
DENIED; ADOPTED W/STIPULATIONS
The first item is 7 A; used to be 8B. This requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
commission members. It's conditional use 2006-AR-l 0550, Collier
County Department of Facilities Management represented by Heidi
Williams of Q. Grady Minor & Associates P .A., is requesting a
conditional use in the Estates zoning pursuant to section 2.01.03.G.1.e
and section 10.8.0 of the Collier County Land Development Code to
allow a safety service facility that will be limited to an Emergency
Medical Services for a project to be known as EMS station number 73.
The subject property consisting of 2.23 acres is located at 790
Logan Boulevard North in Section 4, Township 49 south, Range 26
east, Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Would all those that wish to
speak to this subject, I'm going to ask them to rise at this time, be
sworn in by the clerk -- I'm sorry -- the reporter. Please stand.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. And no disclosures are
required on the part of the commission on this -- no, I'm sorry. This
one here.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Ex parte, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, it is.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Forgive me. Okay. We'll start off
with Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 8B.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I have received
correspondence from members of the Vineyards Community
Association and I have talked with staff about this item.
Page 100
February 27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. The ex parte I have on this is,
I had correspondence, talked with staff, and also had some emails, and
anybody that's interested, it's in my folder here. Thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I also received correspondence
on this.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, correspondence, emails and
spoke with staff.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Thank you.
MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you. Good afternoon, Commissioners.
We're here this afternoon to discuss conditional use
2006-AR-I0550. This is a request for a Collier County EMS station
number 73.
My name is Heidi Williams. I'm a senior planner with Q. Grady
Minor & Associates in Bonita Springs, Florida. Also with me today
are representatives from Collier County EMS, Collier County
Facilities Management, and Q. Grady Minor & Associates. We have
Ron Hovell with facilities management, Michael Delate with Q.
Grady Minor.
The property that we're here to discuss today is located on the
southeast comer of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Logan Boulevard.
The property is 2.23 acres that is currently zoned Estates and is also
located in the Estates future land use district.
MR. MUDD: Want it on now?
MS. WILLIAMS: Yeah, thank you. You have a conceptual site
plan in your public information materials. Some of the factors that we
considered are, the site itself is partially impacted. It's the previous
location of a single-family home that has been removed.
The facilities management and EMS require a 5,000 square foot
Page 101
February 27, 2007
station that has two vehicle bays, bunk rooms, kitchen facilities and
offices in support of one emergency response unit.
We are proposing one access point onto Logan Boulevard, we are
proposing a native vegetation preserve area that far exceeds the
county's 10 percent requirement for this site, and we are also noting on
our conceptual plan that any clearing that is not necessary for exotic
vegetation removal or site development will not be removed.
There are four criteria to consider for every conditional use
approved in Collier County. The first item to consider is consistency
with the GMP and the Land Development Code. Based on this
location in the Golden Gate Estates, it is covered by the Golden Gate
Area Master Plan, and that plan does allow EMS stations by
conditional use.
The Land Development Code further allows those by conditional
use, and all of the structures that we propose are going to be consistent
with all of the development standards contained within the Land
Development Code.
The second criteria to consider are ingress and egress to the
property. We feel that the full vehicular access will allow full turning
movements onto Logan Boulevard from this site, and those will be
adequate for the call volume anticipated from this location.
Our trip generation and studies that are provided -- or
information provided by EMS is that there will be an average of five
emergency response calls to this site per day plus our normal coming
and going of employees, which I think is an average of 10 trips per
day. So this access should fulfill all the -- all the need for access to
the point -- to this site.
Regarding potential impacts to neighboring properties. Of
course, the big one is noise. And that is a little difficult to read, so I
apologize for that.
It is our assertion that the five emergency trips per day will have
a minor impact on -- regarding noise on neighbors. They will be
Page 102
February 27, 2007
isolated and brief impacts and only when absolutely necessary . We
had lengthy discussion with both neighbors and the Planning
Commission regarding this, that it is EMS policy that sirens are not
used every time the vehicle leaves the station. They are only when
required, such as when traffic needs to be cleared in front of them, but
certainly not in the middle of the night.
We do have adequate buffering proposed.
Regarding glare, all lights on site will be required to shine on the
site itself and not into neighboring properties.
There are no anticipated impacts from economic or odor, any
factors from those.
The final criteria that the board needs to look at is compatibility
with adjacent properties. We have seen across the county that EMS
stations and fire stations, and in neighborhoods across the country
actually, are good neighbors to residential developments. They are an
essential service for the county, and so we do feel that they're
compatible.
This area is located in a very transitional location. Although it is
the Estates districts, on one side we've got Island Walk, which is a
relatively dense community. We have two major roads that border the
site, and on actually the east side of this property is a Collier County
sewage pumping station. And the fact is that more growth is
anticipated for this area.
We'd like to thank staff and the Planning Commission both for
their recommendations of approval. Planning Commission actually
was unanimous in this recommendation.
There are several stipulations that went back and forth, and we
just would like to put on the record some clarifications.
The first item is number three in your executive summary, and it
is regarding the access point. Collier County transportation staff
would -- has requested an access point onto Vanderbilt Beach Road.
EMS does not feel this is necessary for their operations, the safe
Page 103
February 27, 2007
operation of their vehicles or their employees. And I have an exhibit
that I'd like to put on the visualizer showing the travel movements
from this site.
It's a pretty basic diagram, but it demonstrates that all of the
movements from the site can be accommodated from this one access
point.
A secondary access would be egress only for eastbound
movement onto Vanderbilt Beach Road. And we feel that's a -- really
an unnecessary cost to the project. Anyone using that would have to
circle the entire building on site and then turn east, when you can see
that it's -- it is accommodated by turning into the turn lane right onto
Logan and east on Vanderbilt.
I know that staff is not in agreement that that's unnecessary, and
I'm sure they will want to respond to that.
The Planning Commission did recommend removal of that
stipulation, so that would be left for you to decide today.
The next stipulation is one that staff had in place and was -- the
Planning Commission recommended removal of the stipulation. It has
been removed, and I just wanted you to be aware that it was included.
Our discussion centered on this being, again, an unnecessary cost.
Staff had requested an additional mast arm signal, and that was
approximately a $100,000 additional cost to the project. And so we --
I wanted just to highlight that that was in, but it has been removed.
The third condition I wanted to talk about is number six in your
packet regarding the landscape buffer located along the south side of
the property.
The site is bordered by a residential home. The proposed EMS
station and the existing home are in very different locations, and I'd
like to put an aerial up for you to look at.
In this aerial you can see the impacted area where the
single- family home on our site used to lie, and you can see the
existing single-family home.
Page 104
February 27,2007
Our impact area is largely going to be centered as far west on the
site as possible. Staff initially recommended a six-foot high wall
along the entire property line to go beyond the single-family home to
the south.
During the Planning Commission meeting, we discussed the fact
that there are wetlands that occur very near that property line and that
we are trying not to go through any South Florida review if possible.
And an agreement was -- well, the Planning Commission came up
with some revised language.
And we wanted to put on the record today that EMS really
anticipates following the Land Development Code regulations when
they're budgeting for their sites. They would prefer that no wall be
required at all, that a hedge -- a six-foot hedge be, you know, per code,
be allowed to be in that location. They feel that this provides an
adequate buffer. They feel that it is more ecologically friendly;
however, the compromise is acceptable if you feel that it is necessary
to have the wall up to the jurisdictional wetland line.
There were three conditions that were added by the Planning
Commission. One was that our site plan be revised to address the
clearing impacts, what would be cleared and what wouldn't. And we
have placed a note on our conceptual plan.
One was to limit the height of our garage doors to 12 feet, and we
are amenable to that. And the third was that if this station were ever to
be used for a non-EMS function, such as fire, that that would require a
conditional use amendment, and we were also amenable to that.
So in summary, we request your favorable review of this petition
today. It is consistent with the Collier County Land Development
Code and GMP. We feel that it is compatible with the area, and we
certainly think it's necessary to provide good EMS response for the
citizens of Collier County, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We'll start off with
Commissioner Fiala, then Commissioner Henning, then Commissioner
Page 105
February 27, 2007
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Now, you say that you project
about five trips a day. One of the letters that we received from
someone, Laura Pacter, said that this station is going to be built within
100 feet of the North Naples Fire Station. Why, to handle five trips a
day, wouldn't we just tuck that in as part of the North Naples Fire
Station and save the taxpayers oodles of money?
MS. WILLIAMS : Well, respectfully, I believe that letter is
referring to a proposed station where the fire district only just
purchased the property located at Oakes and Vanderbilt Beach Road.
That is significantly further than 100 feet. We recognize that --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How much further?
MS. WILLIAMS: It might be a quarter mile.
So when we were -- when -- and I might have to refer to EMS to
answer this question. But I know that EMS is a service that is
countywide, and fire stations are broken down into different districts.
And sometimes their stations can overlap in functionality, and there
are stations that do that; however, in this particular instance, it was not
something that could be agreed upon.
We've been moving through this process for six months now, and
the current calls in this location are not -- the intended response time is
eight minutes or less. And there are a lot of calls in this area that are
not meeting that right now, so this was a critical location for EMS to
move forward.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm not arguing that EMS move
forward or that they're in this location or even safety for all of our
residents and as quickly as possible. You have five calls a day -- you
project five calls a day. That's five people that they're going to get to
faster.
I'm just saying, couldn't we conserve our dollars and put them
together, is my point. Maybe there's something that isn't being said
here, something that I don't understand. Okay. Thank you. I've
Page 106
February 27, 2007
gotten a nod from somebody who knows. Thank you.
MS. WILLIAMS: Well, if you'd like, Chief Page is here from
EMS, and he could respond to that further.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Do me a favor and swear in Mr. Page, first.
(The speaker was duly sworn.)
CHIEF PAGE: For the record, Jeff Page with EMS.
We had purchased this property in mid March. It's 2.4 acres.
And the price was 250,000 that we purchased it from transportation.
In March 30th, we informed the fire chiefs at the fire chiefs'
meeting that we had this property and we identified both Golden Gate
and North Naples the opportunity to collocate.
Originally they both indicated they were very interested. In late
June we met with North Naples, had some design changes. September
they sent a letter indicating that they were prepared to draw a lease
together, and then in October they indicated they had purchased this
other piece of property. So we feel if we were to change this now, it
would set us back maybe as much as a year.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHIEF PAGE: And also, I draw -- if you can see the -- if I can
intensify that somewhat. The dots around that station where the star
is, that's where our call volume is exceeding our response time limit.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Which star are you talking about,
Jeff?
MR. MUDD: This is the star where you're going, and all of these
brown dots are where you're having problems with times; is that
correct?
CHIEF PAGE: That's correct. Their station is further down
Vanderbilt west of that. And I'm not sure exactly the mileage, but I
think it's in excess of a mile. I'm not sure what conditional use
problems they may encounter where they're going. But we're so far
down the line. We still offered that opportunity to them as recently as
Page 107
February 27, 2007
October.
But part of the issue with North Naples is, that location is not in
their district and they wanted to purchase land that was inside their
district.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
believe I needed to give disclosures.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Since I was late. I did receive a
letter from the Vineyards homeowners' associations, I did speak to a
resident on this issue, and I've received some correspondence from our
staff. I talked to Mr. Page and Mr. Summers on this issue.
But I want to expand upon what was said. The board hasn't
approved a potential conditional use for North Naples Fire Department
nor do anybody -- I'm sure anybody here doesn't know whether they
submitted a petition for a fire station.
But I want to speak about the response times. And I have three
points here that I need to cover, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to see the map on the response times. It's showing the --
and correct me if I'm wrong. The response times on Immokalee Road
is exceeding the standards that the board has adopted? Mr. Page?
CHIEF PAGE: Yes, sir, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Now, North Naples has a
fire station on Immokalee Road. Do you not have a unit in that
station?
CHIEF PAGE: No. We were not able to collocate with them
there. We're currently seeking to buy some property right at
Immokalee Road and Goodlette.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Wow. That is a
problem. Is it true that the -- there is a policy for -- as far as EMS
stations or ambulance, how they respond to it, whether they use the
emergency sirens or not?
Page 108
February 27, 2007
CHIEF PAGE: There is a general order addressing that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Is that a board policy?
CHIEF PAGE: It's not an ordinance, no.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The board doesn't adopt
that, so that could be changed at any time, correct?
CHIEF PAGE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's what I thought. The inters
__ is -- when talking to transportation, are you aware if that
intersection is going to be approved -- improved on Logan Boulevard
and Vanderbilt?
CHIEF PAGE: I wouldn't have that information.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Number three, your
consultant stated that the board -- the Planning Commission changed
their minds about the transportation's request for another entrance on
Vanderbilt. Did I hear that right or --
MS. WILLIAMS: I can clarify that. Heidi Williams, for the
record. Staff had recommended an egress point onto Vanderbilt
Beach Road, and the Planning Commission recommendation of
approval removed that stipulation; however, transportation staff still
does request that stipulation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Here's what it says,
number three. The -- and it is the Planning Commission's
recommendation. I think they took a vote on it. The application shall
coordinate with transportation staff. Install an egress point from the
site of Vanderbilt Beach Road during the SDP process. So you're
saying that's not true?
MS. WILLIAMS: Let me look at the executive summary. The
executive summary -- and I could go back to the minutes as well of
that meeting. The commissioners discussed staff recommendations
and voted to eliminate the following recommendations. The applicant
shall coordinate with transportation planning department staff to
install an egress point from the site to Vanderbilt Beach Road at the
Page 109
February 27, 2007
time of SDP review.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MS. WILLIAMS: So they did vote to remove it, however, it is
remaining in your draft resolution because staff would still like to see
that in there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So it's just reported
wrong in our agenda? I guess.
MS. WILLIAMS: I think it's one thing that we need to clear up
with any motion made today, is whether or not this board agrees that
should be remaining as in the resolution or not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And then the -- I guess
the site plan could change, correct or -- unless we put it in the
ordinance of where the location of the fire -- or the EMS station is on
the property. I agree with your statement about -- you know, question,
whether there really is a need for the wall. But I guess there would be
a need for the wall if there was -- EMS station was further back.
MS. WILLIAMS: This is largely the location that would be
allowed. Any major modifications would require an amendment to
the conditional use. The Land Development Code contains some
criteria of how much modification can be made administratively.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. WILLIAMS: There are notes on here regarding the
preserve, the acreage is calculated, notes regarding clearing.
Substantial changes would not be --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Is this an exhibit?
MS. WILLIAMS: This is an exhibit to the resolution. Any
changes based on any action taken here today would be modified
before the resolution was recorded. So this may not be the final
attachment, but this is our most current.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Great, thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I guess we just need to clarify the Planning
Commission's recommendations from our staff, or per the county
Page 11 0
February 27, 2007
attorney's.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you want to request that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, they haven't got up to
speak yet, and I just -- I think it's important that they clarify it. I'm
sure they will when our staff member on this item will come.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Rather than wait, Commissioner
Henning, would you like to address that now?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, we can wait.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm ready.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What we'll do is, we're going to go to
Commissioner Coyle. We do not have any speakers on this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I would like to get those
clarified, but could you please put that diagram or that aerial
photograph on the overhead and indicate to me where the
jurisdictional wetland line is.
MS. WILLIAMS: This isn't an aerial, however, this is an exhibit
that we have showing the site and Logan Boulevard being --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that orange line is a
jurisdictional wetland line?
MS. WILLIAMS: This is not actually verified by the Water
Management District, which is why it's not on the conceptual plan, but
you can see how close it comes to our estimation. Based on
environmental reports and based on engineering information, how
close that does come to our intended impact area.
Ifwe cross into jurisdictional wetland, we go through a much
more extensive permitting process that we're trying to avoid. So we
would propose that the wall end and not impact those wetlands. That
would just delay any approval for use of the site. And, you know, we
don't want the environmental impacts either.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now tell me where you think the
wall would terminate. It would start out on the left -- lower left-hand
Page III
February 27, 2007
corner somewhere and then it would go where? Can you indicate on
this diagram generally where that wall will terminate?
MS. WILLIAMS: (Indicating.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It would terminate there just at the
beginning of the arc for the -- for the property that is to be developed,
right?
MS. WILLIAMS: It is difficult to indicate, because that is an
estimation of the wetland line. And until that is verified, it's difficult to
commit how far that wall would go.
We can put it on the edge of the pavement. I think we've talked a
lot back and forth whether it would go in the IS-foot landscape buffer.
If it does, I don't -- if it needs to be in that IS-foot landscape buffer, I
don't think it serves the purpose because it obviously would end much
closer to Logan.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the purpose is to provide
buffering to the house -- the property south of this station. Now, if
you can get me that aerial photograph there, let's try to -- yeah. Do
you have something you can put on the visualizer?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Let's try to transfer the start
point and the end point of the wall to this particular photograph. Can
we estimate that?
MS. WILLIAMS: You can see this is where the single-family
home ended. Our impacts would go a little further. I am not exactly
sure where the wetland line would be on this aerial, but it is down in
this location.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. WILLIAMS: The single-family home to the south is much
further east than our intended impacts.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, has anyone talked with the
owner of the single-family home to find out if a wall that terminates at
that point would serve any purpose whatsoever?
Page 112
February 27, 2007
MS. WILLIAMS: We've not had any requests for this wall from
anyone other than staff. We have not had any correspondence from
this property owner whatsoever.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, is that because staff feels it is
necessary in order to be in conformance with our Growth
Management Plan and the Land Development Code?
MS. WILLIAMS: I would actually defer to staff to answer that
question.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, I'm Nancy Gundlach, principal planner for the zoning and land
development review department.
And regarding your question about the wall, it is a minimum
code requirement.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Well, let me just give you
my reaction here. If it's a minimum code requirement, we're obligated
to require it. On the other hand, if the property owner to the south
does not think it is necessary and we could do it with a buffered hedge
of some kind, then I'd be consider -- I'd be willing to consider some
kind of variance. But I wouldn't do that without hearing from that
property owner.
MS. GUNDLACH: I don't know if it's helpful for you to know
this information, but I was out there probably about six weeks ago,
and that particular property is up for sale.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it's still important.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's going to be important to
somebody there, either the seller or the new owner. And until I can
make a decision on waiving that requirement, I would have to hear
from the owner of that property.
Now, let's very quickly go through these stipulations, because as
Commissioner Henning has pointed out, they are very confusing. And
Page 113
February 27, 2007
I'm going to try to make it -- simplify this a bit.
We have a list of nine recommendations on page 4 of the
executive summary. Item number three is supported by staff but it is
not supported by the Planning Commission.
MS. GUNDLACH: Actually item number three is not supported
by the Planning Commission -- I'm sorry. It's not supported by the
Planning Commission but transportation staff desires that
ingress/egress onto Vanderbilt Beach Road.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's just what I said, okay.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And then four and five are
supported by both the Planning Commission and the staff. Number
six is merely a limitation on the length of the particular wall.
Seven, eight and nine are supported by both the Planning
Commission and the staff, but the commission voted to eliminate one
recommendation which talks about a preemptive signal system, which
is not mentioned anywhere at all in these recommendations. So either
we must add that to these recommendations or overrule the CCPC
recommendations.
MS. GUNDLACH: I believe on the page before that it talks
about staff -- transportation staff and the CCPC being in agreement
about eliminating that particular condition for approval.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So both the staff and the
CCPC have agreed?
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The only point of disagreement
then is what is numbered number three on page 4 of the executive
summary?
MS. GUNDLACH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we only have to resolve that one
contradiction?
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes.
Page 114
February 27, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we have to pick a side. Okay.
MS. GUNDLACH: We have transportation staff available today
to discuss this with you if you would like.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Right. And still item six is -- I
don't know how we resolve that because we don't have the information
necessary to reach a final conclusion in my opinion, but nevertheless.
Okay, that answers all of my questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I'm sorry. What still troubles
me is that we don't have any type of a policy to like collocate any of
these facilities. We keep talking about consolidation of fire and EMS
and how we're trying to encourage that and how we hope that's
happening, but yet we're building more EMS stations instead of
collocating them to the people that they want to become a part of
anyway.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to jump in. I'll come right
to you, Commissioner Coyle.
I agree with you. This is one of the concerns I mentioned to Mr.
Mudd when I got a preview on this. Here we're trying to give reasons
for the fire departments to merge to consolidate, meanwhile we're
operating outside of the spectrum and we're not really forcing the issue
together.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. lfwe started--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You've got a good point,
Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: --- consolidating them --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- now so that when the
consolidation of fire stations take place and then -- and EMS becomes
a part of it, they'll already be collocated. And now we find that they're
Page 115
February 27, 2007
going to build -- or looking to go shop at another piece of the property
yet, at Goodlette Road and Immokalee, and so we're going to build
another one where there's possibly a fire station within close distance.
I just think it would be such a better policy.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I agree. Commissioner Coyle, go
ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Clearly it would be. The point is,
we have no control over the fire departments. The fire departments
are independent. They have refused so far to consolidate. They have
refused to show any progress whatsoever in pulling together to
consolidate EMS. We cannot wait for them to provide adequate care
for the people of Collier County.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying,
why don't we put together a policy or at least a thought to go forward
to try and collocate these?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We have done that and we can't
force them to agree with it. If they want to do something different,
they do it. We have no -- we can't write a policy that controls the fire
departments.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Fire district.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Or fire districts. They're
independent. We can't write a policy that requires them to
consolidate. If -- we've offered them the opportunity to consolidate.
We have the land to consolidate on, and they did not accept that.
They might have good reasons for that, I don't know. But the point is,
we can't allow ourselves to get involved in a debate with the fire
district before we take action to try to provide adequate EMS services
to our population. People can die during the process.
I would -- I would prefer that we proceed as quickly as possible
to get adequate coverage everywhere we need it in the county, and we
should continue to offer the fire districts the opportunity to consolidate
with us. But if they choose not to consolidate with us, there is nothing
Page 116
February 27, 2007
we can do about it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They've done such a good job over
there across from Grey Oaks.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But we've got them consolidated. I
know that EMS works out of some of the -- some of the East Naples
stations, and they work so well together, and there's always harmony
there. I just felt it was such a tax savings. But okay, fine. I'll--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'm going to weigh in one more
time. I don't think you're off the mark. At some point in time we've
got to massage this thing, if not necessarily force it, to start coming
together. Ifwe keep building these stations far removed from EMS
stations, that's going to be a -- from fire stations, that's going to be an
argument when it comes down for consolidation that it won't work
because you're spread out across the map.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And because it's costing more
money because they have to buy the stations or something then.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. I agree with you. It's a real
Issue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for the agreement.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead with the presentation.
MS. WILLIAMS: I was all finished.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, you've still
got a question. You want to save it a little longer or did you get -- no,
you haven't got the light on, but you mentioned it earlier, and I wanted
to make sure you --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was answered.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Is there anything else that you would like to --
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. There's something I'd like to place on
the record. I have a correction I need to make.
In regards to the question about whether or not the wall is
Page 11 7
February 27, 2007
required by minimum code. I just remembered the base zoning here is
Estates. A wall's not required because the base zoning is Estates.
Normally in another district it would be required because you have a
non-residential use next to a residential use. In this case it's not.
Staff requested it because we felt that it would help make this
particular emergency management services station more compatible
and have less negative impacts on that neighbor to the south.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's close the public portion
of this meeting.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then I -- just on that one issue,
then I would suggest that we save the money, not build the wall, but
make sure that there is a good vegetative buffer between this building
and that private home. I mean a really, really good vegetative buffer.
MS. GUNDLACH: Our minimum code does require a type B
buffer, which is that six-foot tall hedge with trees 25 feet on center. In
my professional opinion, that would work well, too.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'm sorry, Commissioner Coyle,
are you --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm finished.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You were. Before we go to
Commissioner Henning, I'm going to make a comment, and then we
can get discussion going further.
Commissioner Fiala, I do share what you're saying, very much
so. And I also have a concern over providing adequate protection.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But somewhere along the line we've
got to have a balance. The truth of the matter is, we know that
everyone's got a little beast to mount there, and we've got one here in
the county with our independent fire districts and with our own EMS.
They're very, very protective of what they've got, and this is never
Page 118
February 27, 2007
going to take place in a willful merger when the time does come
unless there's certain criterias and elements in place to make sure it
happens.
And I'm sure that down the road very shortly we're going to be
talking about it on the '08 ballot maybe having an issue about
consolidation, but we're not even close to that. But meanwhile, I'm
still troubled by this. I would even entertain discussion over the
possibility to continue this while staff goes back to see if they can
bring some reason to this to bring our fears down.
It's going to take a supermajority vote to pass this, correct?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. That's where I'm leaving the
discussion at the moment.
Commissioner Henning, then Commissioner Coy Ie.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, see, I personally have a
problem with that because you don't know the schedule of the fire
department. We cannot hold the fire department to come to the board
at a certain time for a conditional use. In the meantime, we have a
health, safety and welfare in this area.
I t was mentioned that it would take a conditional use to change
the use of this building. Now, there are many needs, public needs.
Could it be used for something else? I don't know. But it's really not
something to be discussing now. But it's really not a waste if the
board approves for an EMS station.
I do have concerns. I hope it will be addressed in the motion.
But I think it's prudent that the Board of Commissioners move forward
with that project for the health, safety and welfare of the citizens in
this area.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Are you making that a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, here's my concerns before
I make a motion. There's a policy by EMS about how the staff uses
the emergency sirens. I would like to see that policy a part of the
Page 119
February 27, 2007
stipulations of the conditional use because the board has no control
over that, and there is concerns that was relayed to I think all the board
from the Vineyards. That's one thing.
The other thing is, this site, the station is going to be forwarded --
is at an intersection. That intersection is going to produce traffic. That
intersection, I would imagine that the EMS vehicle would have to try
to clear that traffic with the siren.
So I agree with you, you know, some vegetation. I believe that
we need some kind of vegetation just because of this case, vegetation
of a wall, to help buffer that noise.
And I would think it would have to be at the fairly westerly side
of the building to the property line further west. That's one thing that I
would see.
And I think that we need to stipulate the building, where it's
going to be on the site, because that can change, and I want to make
sure that what is stated, what the feeling is, is where the building's
going to be located, is part of the record and part of the conditional
use.
So with that, I make a motion to approve with the Planning
Commission's recommendations, that the policy of EMS be attached
to the conditional use, and that is the use of emergency sirens, that a --
that a wall buffer be part of the landscape buffer from the end of the
westerly part of the building to the west of -- to the west of the
property line, and that would be on the south side of the property.
Nancy, is that understandable?
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And that's part of my
motion, and I'm willing to add anything else.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Two points of egress?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The two points of egress -- you
know, I don't know if that's a real concern because at -- Logan
Boulevard they could get to all different ways. They could go south,
Page 120
February 27, 2007
north, east or west. If an egress is on Vanderbilt Beach, then they can
only go east. So I'm not -- I don't know if that's really necessary and
also, it is taxpayers' money that we're using to do this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner, I have a question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Could we try for a second first?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, that's what I'm -- that's
where I'm going.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're going towards it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're saying in your motion that
you want to put up a concrete wall also; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Correct. Okay. I will second that
with that because that combination of concrete wall and buffer
vegetation, I think, will enhance the property to the south here so that
this person doesn't get hit with a lot of noise, if there is any siren
noise. So I will second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, fine. We've got a motion and
second. And let's see. You were next to speak, Commissioner Halas,
or is that what you wanted to speak about?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We've got everything taken care of.
That's -- my question was the wall buffer.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Commissioner Coy Ie?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would have supported the motion
except for that. A six-foot wall is going to do absolutely nothing with
respect to siren noise coming from an ambulance. And furthermore, it
will delay the approval of this project an unspecified amount of time
because of the wetland impacts and it will dramatically increase the
costs, not only the capital costs of building a concrete wall for that
entire distance, but it will also increase the ongoing maintenance
because we'll have to maintain the wall, we'll have to maintain the
Page 121
February 27, 2007
vegetation of the wall. It just complicates things for no discernible
reduction in noise. So I -- if it gets -- well, I'm not going to vote for it
because of that reason. I think it's an unnecessary expenditure of
taxpayer money.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And Commissioner Henning, before I
go to Commissioner Fiala, did you want to address that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I do. And if Heidi -- if
you can put in the exhibit of the site plan. And let's put that exhibit
into the -- part of the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second agree?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, if you take a
look -- Commissioner Coyle, if you take a look at what I'm proposing
-- and Heidi, if you could help me, or Nancy, the far west of the
building, would you point that out?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, that's east.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. To the property line,
which would be at the right about there, if we deviate from the code
because it -- actually, the landscaping buffer needs to be around the
perimeter of the building, correct? Nancy, can you help me?
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, there is some buffering around the
building, and there's always buffering required along that southern
property line between the EMS station and the residents to the south.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. Then can we -- can the
board deviate in the motion by saying the landscaping buffer to the
north is not required, and would that help Commissioner Coyle in his
decision in this process? Because if you eliminate a -- actually the
landscaping is more maintenance intensive than a wall. You see what
I'm saying?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Let me make sure I
understand. The wall you're talking about -- and by the way, the wall
is not required by code?
Page 122
February 27, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That's something we're
adding here. But the wall that you're suggesting will go from the
dotted line on the left side of this diagram to the, you said, western
side of the building.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Which would be about right where
it is now?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where the pen is, yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. Now, that would serve -- and
in my opinion, it would serve no useful purpose because the homes
that we're buffering are much further to the right, and so it would not
provide any help at all to the homeowners.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But what we're doing is
buffering the noise.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Coming out of the building.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Halas is an
expert in sounds. Oh, he is. I'm serious, he's an engineer in sound
noise. And taking education from Commissioner Halas, you want to
put the buffering at the point of the noise emitter.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, experts or no experts, I can
tell that you a 30- foot wall is not going to buffer that siren.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thirty-foot wall?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, that's about what it's going to
be.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Length, the length.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The length of it, yeah. Maybe 30
feet high and 30 feet long might.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I thought you were referring to a
30-foot wall. When you said a 30-foot wall, I was considering that
you were talking about height.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. What's going to happen is this
Page 123
February 27, 2007
fire truck is -- or the ambulance is going to be coming out of the
driveway and they're going to take a look at the traffic on the road.
They will be well out of the entrance to this property and well beyond
the wall, then they start sounding a siren, and they're only going to do
it hopefully if there's traffic there, and I just don't see the point of the
expenditure of a wall. It just doesn't serve a purpose.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ifwe could, we're assuming things.
Mr. Page, would you step forward, please.
Is that correct, the siren wouldn't be turned on till you got to the
road?
CHIEF PAGE: Well, one of the things that we agreed with
transportation is to have a preemption device in that signal there at
Vanderbilt and Logan which would give them a green so there
wouldn't be a need to break that traffic with the siren.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So then they wouldn't be using
the siren regardless. So what we've got here is where we won't use the
siren and a wall that people haven't asked for on the other side; is that
correct?
CHIEF PAGE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I've got to agree with Commissioner
Coyle. You know, we -- I think it would be an unneeded expense that
will do nothing to add to the dimensions of the living conditions of the
people around there.
Commissioner -- let's just see. Commissioner Fiala, who's been
waiting very patiently.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, Jeff?
CHIEF PAGE: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, I was just going to ask the
commissioners -- never mind. I was going to ask the commissioners if
they would have waited till next meeting so we could hear from North
Naples Fire Department and find out why they didn't want to work
with us.
Page 124
February 27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There you go.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I thought that would have been a
good idea, but I'm just --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You know, all of a sudden, I'm
beginning to think that you might have something. Make everybody
think about it one more time. Why wouldn't we want to do that?
Anyone give me a reason?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, on the agenda six months
ago the board approved part of a settlement agreement that -- giving
the option for North Naples to locate at this station. They chose not
to. They chose to buy a house on three acres for a million dollars
down the street. That was their choice. So obviously they're not
interested whatsoever to locate there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Have you directly talked to them?
Who communicated with them?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, I didn't, but why would
they purchase a piece of property for a million dollars just a quarter of
a mile only to collocate in this one? That doesn't make sense to
buying that million-dollar piece of property. They're not going to
locate there. Now, they might if you turn down their conditional use
and it hasn't been applied to yet. I don't know.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In other words, force the issue?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I'm going to amend
my motion. Does anybody have a problem with locating all the
landscaping on the south side?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd like to see some -- it's important
to landscape on the street side. Maybe not as much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So you want to pull your motion as
far as the sound wall in regards to just landscaping?
Page 125
February 27, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I just see it not going,
and I think the most important part is health, safety and welfare issue.
That is the most important part, and I'm going to do what I need to do
to get that put in here, because it is needed.
MS. GUNDLACH: Commissioners, may I interrupt? I just had a
point I wanted to make about the wall and the landscaping. The
original intent of why we put that -- we requested this as part of this
conditional use was not just because of sirens. I mean, you're going to
hear sirens over that wall anyway. This is a 24 a day -- 24-hour,
seven-day operation, and it will have impacts on the neighbors, and
the wall will help in terms of mitigating for that 24/7 day -- 24-hour,
seven-day operation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wouldn't an extensive vegetative
buffer do the same thing?
MS. GUNDLACH: Well, the -- what we originally had was a
wall with landscaping, a wall with a hedge and trees, and we requested
that because we felt that that was best.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: A wall that's really not needed
because the sirens won't be going, the neighborhoods haven't
requested, that might be better? I'm--
MS. GUNDLACH: Well, you know, there's glare and light
impacts. It's an operation that's going on through the night.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Noise.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know, but then again, too, a
vegetative buffer could be six-feet high in time, eight feet, you know,
without too much difficulty. I don't know.
Commissioner Coyle, let's hear from you. You're the one that
started this conversation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This is getting more and more
complicated. I'm almost in Commissioner Fiala's camp in saying, hey,
forget this. Come back some other time. I don't feel like talking about
it much longer.
Page 126
February 27, 2007
There's a wall because it's required by code. Now it's not required
by code. Now it's because we thought it would be nice. But we're still
not going to build it along the entire southern boundary which means
it really won't do what you want it to do. You're only going to build it
to the back of the building. That doesn't protect the homes from the
south because the south homes are beyond the site line of that
particular wall. You know, this makes no sense to me, and we're
wasting a lot of time. And either we get to the bottom of this thing and
get it approved or I'm going to vote just to continue it till we get our
stories straight.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We've got a motion on the
floor by Commissioner Henning that includes a vegetation buffer in
place of a wall, also it incorporates all the Planning Commission's
motion -- or recommendations along with staff recommendations. Am
I correct, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. The original motion stands
because I did not remove that motion and we didn't confirm from the
second one -- the second whether he agrees to the amended motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My motion stands as stated.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So the motion is for the wall?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The motion is -- and I'll restate
it -- Planning Commission's recommendations for the policy statement
to be attached to the conditional use, for the site plan exhibit to be
attached to the conditional use, the wall from the westerly side of the
building to the westerly property on the south side.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And I -- before I go to you,
Commissioner Halas -- Mr. Weigel, if this motion fails, it doesn't
prevent a second motion being made that might have a different
element to it; is that correct?
MR. WEIGEL: That's absolutely correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
Page 127
February 27, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just wanted to make sure that we
still had the wall in there and the vegetation, a combination of the two.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. That's fine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, then hopefully
we'll be able to take a vote on it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Just one quick question.
What is the cost of building that wall?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's a hundred dollars a linear
foot.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And how many linear feet are we
talking about?
MS. WILLIAMS: We haven't measured. For the record, Heidi
Williams with Grady Minor. But from the property line to the
building itself, it has probably 70 feet, and I believe somewhere in the
range of $100 to $200 per lineal foot. So it is -- we certainly will
build that if it is your desire, but I think I agree that that is not going to
change the impacts to the general area.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we're talking about at least
$7,000 for something that you don't think will really benefit anything.
Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have a motion by
Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Halas.
We heard everything we're going to hear on it and everyone has
spoke their piece. No other comments. Good.
All those in favor of the motion, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 128
February 27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. The motion fails. Do I hear a
second motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve with a type B
vegetative buffer on the south side of the property line from the west
most edge of the property line to the beginning of the jurisdictional
wetland line. All other vegetative buffering as prescribed by code and
with all of the recommendations on page 4 of our executive summary,
with the exception of number six, would be included.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And do I hear a second? I'll
second it for conversation.
Commissioner Henning, what's missing from this other than the
wall?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's missing the policy
statement.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would add that, all right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's missing the site plan exhibit.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MS. GUNDLACH: Commissioner, the site plan's automatically
included as part of this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: As an exhibit?
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would be happy to include the
policy on the use of the siren, if that's what you had in mind.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the second includes it also.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was just a question by
Commissioner Coletta. I don't know if I'll support it. I find it ironic
that the petitioner would jeopardize a majority vote by a statement of
objecting to a wall, but that's my opinion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I like to save taxpayer money, if I
can.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I understand that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And for the record -- and forgive me.
Page 129
February 27, 2007
I didn't state. The people that voted in opposition to Commissioner
Henning's original motion was myself, Commissioner Fiala, and
Commissioner Coyle. I got that right, right? Okay. Good. I'm sorry I
didn't get it to you sooner.
Okay. Now we have the motion by Commissioner Coyle, it's
seconded by myself, Commissioner Coletta.
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 HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it 4-1, with
Commissioner Fiala being the dissenting vote. And Commissioner
Fiala, that was because of the lack of --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted communication from
the North Naples Fire Department.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I, myself, would like to put
staff on notice and my fellow commissioners says that the next time
an EMS unit comes forward, I want to have details and details of
exactly what kind of correspondence, what kind of negotiations took
place with the local fire districts.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'd like them represented here
to make sure that we --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And represented also.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- the same story comes forward on
both sides.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Would you expect to ask the same
Page 130
February 27, 2007
questions when the fire department comes in with a --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- conditional use as to why they
didn't want to consolidate and -- okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because there's two sides to every
story, and --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- it's amazing how different sides
have different interpretations.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we have agreement to this for the
county manager to be able to send it forward on it?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And we--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That wasn't on the agenda, by the
way.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. We're just giving him direction.
We're not doing anything of any consequence.
You're going to get on top of me, I'll get the League of Women
V oters after you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And Chuck Mohlke.
Item #8A
PUDZ-A-2006-AR-9403: TOLL BROTHERS, INC.,
REPRESENTED BY WALTER FLUEGEL AICP, OF HEIDT &
ASSOCIATES AND RICHARD YOV ANOVICH OF GOODLETTE,
COLEMAN& JOHNSON, P.A., REQUESTED THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF 11.3 ACRES, AND IS LOCATED
ON AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD NORTH, IN SECTION 1,
TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, A REZONE FROM PUD TO RPUD TO BE KNOWN
Page 13 1
February 27, 2007
AS PRINCESS PARK - MOTION TO CONTINUE - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Maybe Carla Dean, too.
MR. MUDD: -- under advertised public hearings. It's paragraph
8, 8A. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by commission members.
It's PUDZ-A-2006-AR-9403 Toll Brothers, Inc., represented by
Walter Fluegel, AI CP, of Heidt & Associates, and Richard
Y ovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson P .A., requesting a
PUD to RPUD rezone, and the approved zoning classification is
currently the recreational theme park known as King Richards.
The proposed use of the property is multi-family residential, 133
multi - family units, to be known as the Princess Park residential
planned unit development, RPUD.
The subject property consists of 11.3 acres and is located on
Airport-Pulling Road north in Section I, Township 49 south, Range 25
east, Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would all those wishing to participate
please stand at this time to be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Disclosure on the part of the
commissioners, starting with Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I received some correspondence
from residents in the area with their concerns of this project, and also
correspondence with a news reporter.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've met with the petitioner
and his agent, and I've gotten quite a few emails on this, which I have
in my file for public viewing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I met with the petition and his
representatives and received emails on this also.
Page 132
February 27, 2007
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I received correspondence and
emails, and I also talked with staff on this particular item.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have met with Mr. Y ovanovich,
the agent for the petitioner, and with representatives of Toll Brothers.
I have also received emails from constituents who objected to the
density and height of the buildings proposed, and that's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Mr. Mudd, who comes up
first, Mr. Y ovanovich?
MR. MUDD: The petitioner. Mr. Y ovanovich, I believe.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Y ovanovich, may I suggest that
you keep this to a condensed version. And if the commission has
questions, they'll be sure to ask them over and over again.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich
Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. I have a lot of people here
with me. They will not be speaking unless you have specific
questions, but I will introduce them.
David Torres and Gary Hains and Brock Fanning from Toll
Brothers; Bob Bickel, the owner of the property; Walter Fluegel with
Heidt & Associates, the planner on the project; Wayne Hook, who's
the landscape architect; Suresh Karre, David Plummer & Associates,
our transportation consultant; is it Bob Melzer from Heidt, he's
another landscape architect; Richard Ibach from Heidt, he's our
engineer; and Chris Smith from Passarella.
The property is on the -- I don't know where it is, but -- I thought
it was going up on your screens but it's not. The Princess Park PUD is
an II.3-acre parcel located on the east side of Airport Road north of
Pine Ridge Road and just south of Orange Blossom.
The existing zoning is PUD and the uses within the existing
zoning are an amusement park. In its day King Richards was a very
popular place for young people to go and enjoy themselves; however,
Page 133
February 27, 2007
today there is a new competitor in town, and that new competitor in
town is Collier County and the county's North Regional Park.
Since the county opened its park, King Richards' revenues have
drastically fallen. During the summer months, which is the months
that King Richards has its peak, the few months that you were open
during the summer, the revenues per month have fallen by about
$100,000 per month. At that rate, you know, the park can't make a
financial go of it.
We can't compete with the county. You have more money. You
don't need to make a profit. So we have requested a rezone of the
property to a residential rezone.
The project is basically an infill project and its consistent and
compatible with what is around it. If I could walk over to the big map.
The -- what we're requesting is an 11.7 unit per acre project on
the property . We have to the south the Willow Park PUD, which is an
office/commercial PUD. To the north you have the Walden Oaks
development. It was approved at 6.46 units per acre, and an --
additionally it has approximately two acres of office development
within the project. Sorry.
MR. MUDD: I'm going to help you here, Rick.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You're going to give me something to
point with.
MR. MUDD: Yeah. That doesn't help us much. You can't see a
thing. All I see is the waves going up and down.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: This is the property. I'm going to break it
down.
MR. MUDD: Like an attorney with three arms.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: This is the project I was talking about.
The Willow Park PUD that I was pointing to, and left off at Walden
Oaks. This property is a 6.46 unit-per-acre project, and this is the two
acres of office that's also within the project.
Directly across the street is the Arbor Walk apartment complex.
Page 134
February 27, 2007
It is recently converted to condominium. I don't know the name of it,
but it is 11.9 units per acre.
This is the Bear Creek apartment complex. It is developed at 14
uni ts per acre.
If you go a little bit further to the north at the intersection of
Orange Blossom and Airport Road, you have another PUD that's a
mixed use PUD that has been -- it's called the Long View Center
PUD, which is approved at IS units per acre and 143,500 square feet
of retai I.
So as you can see, the request that we have is compatible and
consistent with the projects around us.
And the Planning Commission was not certain as to whether or
not the commercial conversion provisions within the comprehensive
plan applied to this particular project, nonetheless, there was a
majority vote in favor of the project.
My interpretation of the events was that one Planning
Commissioner clearly was opposed to the project. The three other no
votes were concerned about whether or not the conversion criteria
actually applied. One commissioner said he had no issues with the
proposed project. It was just a concern of whether or not the
conversion criteria apply.
Your staff report goes into great detail about the conversion
criteria. And interestingly enough, the Willow Park PUD relied upon
the determination of this board that the King Richards PUD is, in fact,
a commercial use when it approved the Willow Park PUD under the
commercial infill provisions of the comprehensive plan.
In order for Willow Run to have been zoned commercial, it had
to be adjacent to a commercial use, which in that particular case was
the King Richards PUD.
So the board has already determined that the King Richards PUD
is a commercial use. And if you look at your own Land Development
Code, if you want to do an amusement park, you either have to have
Page 135
February 27, 2007
C-4 or C-5 zoning and you have to get a conditional use under that --
those two zoning districts.
We've done some research around the state. Most jurisdictions
require that you have commercial zoning to do an amusement park, so
we believe the amusement park is clearly a commercial use, and,
therefore, eligible to request a density of up to 16 units per acre.
It seems the concerns that we're hearing have been related to
traffic, and I'd like to go through some of the facts related to traffic.
Airport Road has an adopted level of service of E. It is currently
operating at level of service of C.
The requested project is less than one percent of the adopted
level of service of Airport Road, and what we're assuming is that you
don't count any of the traffic that's already there from King Richards.
We looked at it as a brand new project as if there's no development
already on the property.
The weekday trips, the weekday daily trips, Monday through
Friday, will actually decrease by 38 trips if this project is approved as
requested. The weekend daily trips will decrease by 1,127 trips, and
the weekend peak hour trips will decrease by 132 trips.
So from a transportation standpoint, we believe the requested
project of 133 units is beneficial to the transportation network.
The project has had a history with the residents of Walden Oaks.
Several years ago the PUD master plan was being amended. The
residents of Walden Oaks opposed the amendment to the PUD master
plan. Their concern was compatibility of having an amusement park
next to them. We resolved that, that lawsuit. But now, as times have
changed, we're coming in and requesting a residential use, which I
think we would all agree is compatible with a residential
neighborhood.
Early on in the process of going through the PUD amendment
process, we met with various members of the master property owners'
association and the condominium association in that area of Walden
Page 136
February 27,2007
Oaks, and that is actually our neighbor, the residential units most
closely to our project.
This is a proposed site plan for the project. As you can tell, the
parcel is a very narrow parcel. We have -- basically we have a
cul-de-sac that splits the property with buildings on either side of the
cul-de-sac.
One thing that we took great care in addressing and I'm going to
-- and I'll leave that up, but I'm going to flip back over to the aerial for
a minute -- is you can see from a -- well, from the site plan, we have at
least a 300- foot separation from our residential buildings to these
residential condominiums over here.
Now, these condominiums are oriented where the front doors are
over here facing the street, and the rear, obviously, takes advantage of
the lake. So we're not interfering with where people are going to live
in these condominiums by the orientation of our buildings.
Also, if you'll notice on the site plan, we have buildings going
across the northern property line. And what you have over here, you
don't have any residential adjacent to the northern property line. You
have the office in this area, and then you have the amenity area.
We have agreed to increased landscaping along the northern
property line to help shield the visibility of the buildings, and we've
taken great care to try to design the site to be compatible and sensitive
to our neighbors to both the north and the east.
To the south is an office park, and we will have buildings across
here, but we will screen ourselves from the office park to make sure
that we don't have any complaints.
At the Planning Commission, there was -- I don't believe there
was any opposition raised to the project. We have not heard any
complaints. I've had some emails shared with me since meeting with
some of the commissioners yesterday.
There was -- particularly there was one email from somebody
who was -- lives at 7042 Lone Oak Boulevard, which is actually along
Page 137
February 27, 2007
the northern property boundary of Walden Oaks, so it's not even
adjacent to our proposed project.
Your staff is recommending approval, the Planning Commission
recommended approval, and we are requesting approval of our project,
which is 133 units on 11.3 acres.
And with that, I hope that was quick and brief enough, and we're
available to answer any questions you have regarding the project.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My question is, why are you
requesting 133 units on this?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're requesting 133 units based upon
market conditions and how we could make the project work from a --
it's supposed to be an incentive to convert commercial to residential up
to 16 units per acre. We didn't ask for 16 because we couldn't fit 16.
We can fit the 11 point --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: If you could have fit it, you would
have asked for it?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We might have, we might have.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's consistent with what's around us, but
we also felt that 12 or 11.7 -- and I'm rounding up -- was more
compatible with what's around us and we could design a good quality
project to be compatible with our neighbors.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How about seven units per acre?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Seven units per acre doesn't work from a
financial standpoint.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's not my -- it's not--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's not for me to make sure that
your project works.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we have to look at what the
Page 138
February 27, 2007
concerns are of the residents around there.
And how many residents are there from this area. Is your
concern density? Raise your hand.
Is your concern building heights?
THE AUDIENCE: Yes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Are you going to let them talk?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I'm just trying to get a
consensus here, okay? My concern is, when I talked to staff, they
weren't sure about the 77 -- or the 57 feet, whether that was the zoned
height or was that the actual height from ground to the very top? And
I think staff told me that it was zoned height.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's correct. The original request was
65 feet zoned height. At the Planning Commission we made it clear
that it was 57 feet zoned height.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So we're looking at all appertinents
such as an elevator shaft and everything else? This -- these buildings
could probably be as high as 75 feet?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I mean, we can -- I don't think -- I
don't believe so, no.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, it's going to be somewheres
between 65 and 75 feet.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's going to be three floors over one of
parking.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I can tell you that I'm not going to
approve this. It's got a transportation problem there. I think that with
the advent of transportation, you're taking one unit off because of
impacts in the transportation area. So I look at this whole project as --
I can't go above seven units per acre with the one unit off for
transportation, so that tells me six units per acre.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, that's not compat -- that's not the
numbers of the surrounding development. The surrounding
developments are all above that, including Walden Oaks to our
Page 139
February 27, 2007
immediate north.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, that's where I stand unless
you can convince me differently.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. Well, let me answer the
transportation question first. Factually your statement's not correct.
Airport Road is operating at a level of service C. After the project is
completed, there will still be 1,350 peak hour trips available on
Airport Road. There is currently peak hour trips being generated by
the project. We are increasing the peak hour trips by 31 peak hour
trips; however, the overall daily trips are actually being decreased.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Let me read this to you. It says, the
density rating system provided for eligible density of four units per
acre throughout the urban mixed-use district except for the urban
residential fringe, capped at 1.5 units per acre.
The subject site is eligible for a base density of four units per
acre; however, because the site is within a traffic congestion area, this
-- it is subject to one-unit-per-acre reduction.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Did you want to continue on reading
where it says about the commercial conversion where it says it's
eligible to also ask for 16 units --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct, but also I think that
when our -- when this was written back in 1989, I think they were
looking at where commercial conversion basically was strip malls and
areas of blight, and this is not an area of blight.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, it probably will become one.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, it's not right now.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Listen, the -- if you look at your
comprehensive plan and you look at your maps, it says that it was
found consistent by policy, which meant when you adopted your plan
in 1989, this property was not supposed to be commercial.
Your comprehensive plan said it was found to be consistent by
policy because it was already improved. So factually your
Page 140
February 27, 2007
comprehensive plan said, no, commercial is not supposed to be here,
and you determined that, in fact, that that conversion factor does, in
fact, apply to that particular piece of property.
Now the question becomes, if -- there's supposed to be a financial
incentive to convert commercial to residential. The question becomes,
is seven units an acre or six units per acre enough of an incentive for
this project to convert to residential? The answer to that question is,
no, it's not enough of an incentive for the developer or the owner of
the property to convert.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's go to Commissioner
Fiala, then we'll come back to you, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, quite frankly, Commissioner
Halas, I was going to go for three. I think --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They -- I believe that's what they
would be allowed in a traffic-congested area. And Rich pointed out,
of course, that the other places already have II or whatever, but they
were built before we had concurrency, they were built before this road
was so congested. And as it says in a couple of our letters, they can't
even get out of their places as it is. Why would we want to add more
traffic to it. That's my point.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good point. If I may weigh in just a
little bit. I hear you. I hear what both of you are saying. I'm going to
ask a question now since you already started it.
How many people would prefer to see a residential development
rather than an amusement park there?
See, you got a little bit of an impasse here. The way this is going
at the moment, if this goes to a vote, it's going down in flames, and it
means that this whole thing goes back through the process. You might
have a couple years of an amusement park there till somebody figures
out a way to make it work.
My suggestion, then I'm going to turn it back to Commissioner
Page 141
February 27,2007
Halas, would be continue this with the idea that the developer go back
to the community and with the commissioner and see if we can come
up with a working arrangement as far as density and height goes.
And I give it back to you, Commissioner Halas, then we'll go to
you, Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Also -- getting back to the
discussion you and I had, also, it's not -- it's up to us to determine what
the density will be in that area, and whether it meets the criteria of the
developer, that's one thing. I didn't tell the developer to go out there
and purchase the land with the intent of putting this type of density on.
And as Commissioner Fiala brought forth, that a lot of this
density was put in before we had concurrency. Now, the only one that
we had under concurrency was the item -- or the project that is
currently just north of the -- of the library up there. I think that's the
area we're talking about mixed-use up there.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, no, if I may. Bear Creek was
approved after 1989.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, no. I'm talking about --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Hang on. You're saying that this is the
only one. Actually I'm just point out, no, Bear Creek was after 1989,
14 units per acre. Long View Center, both -- which is on the corner of
Orange Blossom and Airport Road, approved after 1989 at 15 units
per acre. Caddy corner, near the library, was just recently approved at
9.8 units per acre, plus a couple hundred thousand square feet of office
and retail.
So there have been a lot of projects that have been approved at
above, Walden Oaks, since the advent of your comprehensive plan,
and I just want to get that on the record.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. And I want to get it on the
record also that those weren't approved while I sat here as a
commissioner either.
(Applause.)
Page 142
February 27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Y ovanovich, I hope we don't
draw this meeting out forever. Suggestion on continuance was made,
and if somebody wants to pick up on it, fine. If not, then maybe --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner, I'm happy to do that ifit
will be productive. We'd love to meet with the neighborhood. We
thought we had and -- but I mean, if it's -- if we're going to stay at
seven, we're not going to get to reach an agreement.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, you're not into that point where
you're negotiating with them. But I'd like that motion to come from
Commissioner Halas because this is his district.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why don't we go to Commissioner
Coyle and see what he's got to put in for input here before we --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, fine--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- take the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, but let's not
drag their out forever. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. In view of the discussion
you've just had, I'm not sure it's even relevant that I make any
comments.
Obviously there are some residents who are concerned about this
and you need to take some time to do that. I think I would just like to
make a general statement that density bonuses for conversions from
commercial to residential are certainly available subject to our
decision. And there is nothing that says that we are obligated to
approve a density bonus which maximizes the density or maximizes
the traffic in the area.
We can certainly approve anything. We're not obligated to
approve something that gives you the maximum amount of density. If
we decided we wanted to preserve some of that capacity for other
logical developments in the area, we have the right to do that.
And so I think it is incorrect to assume that because the density
bonuses are available that we should give them all to you or give you
Page 143
February 27, 2007
most of them. I understand you can request 16, but that doesn't mean
that we're obligated to give them to you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're preaching to the choir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I'm preaching to him. He's
definitely not the choir. He's the other end.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: He probably wrote part of these rules
when he was the county attorney.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, that's probably true. So
anyway, I just wanted to reiterate that I don't think the board is being
unreasonable in this respect. We're just trying to make some logical
decisions about the future use of land, and this is not the only
redevelopment that is going to be requested in this area. And at one
point in time we're going to get right up to the door, we don't have any
more capacity left, and what are we going to do? I don't know. And
we've had this conversation before. So that's all I really wanted to say.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I have -- if I can ask just for five or 10
minutes, because I've got a contract purchaser and I've got a property
owner that I need to consult with on the continuance issue, and I might
be able to meet with their representatives here to resolve this quickly
without the need for a continuance, if that is okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're running late on our break, so
what we're going to do is give you 10 minutes and we're going to take
a short break. Commissioner Henning, can you hold your question
until then, or did you want to use it to give guidance?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'djust use it right now. A
density bonus in any condition is not a given. I can't support anything
that is market rate housing above the base density . We're in a
different time. There is needs out there. I think it's up to this board to
take a look at those needs and try to fill those needs. I just can't see
myself doing that in the future either. So I apologize, but --
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, it's good guidance, good
Page 144
February 27, 2007
guidance. Meanwhile, we'll leave you to your resource here to see
what you can do.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because I'm ready to make a
motion to continue this item and talk with the residents.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Give them 10 minutes. We've
got to take -- ran a few minutes late, and I apologize for that.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. When we left off,
Commissioner Henning was next to speak, and we bailed out of here
before he had a chance to. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I already said it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, fine.
So, Mr. Y ovanovich, where are you? There he is. Looks very
confident. I think he's got it all figured out.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I know I'm not in the choir. I
figured that out.
We were not able to work something out with our neighbors. At
this point we'll either request a continuance indefinitely to see if we
can work it out -- one of our problems is, we will lose our buyer by a
continuance, and we have to figure out if that makes sense or if a
continuance, if you don't vote to continue it, then we'll have to
withdraw and continue to stay the amusement park. Your call.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion for a continuance on this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Halas,
second by Commissioner Fiala for a continuance.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
Page 145
February 27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Before we take a vote, I just want
to make sure that there's due diligence done by the petitioner to talk
with these people to see if you can come up with something that's
compatible and also you have to realize that I think the message has
been fairly clear to you that -- in regards to density, so --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, and thank you for stopping me
for a moment. Do we have speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. I have six.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I hope since we're continuing
this that those speakers want to waive, but we've got to wait to see if
they -- we're going to call your names off and you can waive or you
can come up here and maybe we'll go ahead and approve it.
Go ahead, call it out, Commissioner (sic).
MS. FILSON: Ron Cleminson.
MR. CLEMINSON: Could you review that for me? Did you say
waive our presentation? For now.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: For now.
MR. CLEMINSON: Yes. I see no need for us to proceed, given
your vote.
MS. FILSON: Paul Muller?
MR. MULLER: I'll waive for now.
MS. FILSON: Chris Branston?
MR. BRANSTON: I'll waive for now.
MS. FILSON: Joshua Rudnick?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Not present.
MS. FILSON: Robert Bickel?
MR. BICKEL: I'll waive for now.
MS. FILSON: Frank Amesan, Amesono?
MR. AMESAN: Waive.
MS. FILSON: That's it, sir.
Page 146
February 27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Thank you very much.
N ow, with that, is there --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Close the public hearing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We did close it a little while ago.
And with that, I'm going to call the motion.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And the -- let the record show
that it was 4-1 with Commissioner Henning being the dissenting vote.
Thank you.
Mr. Mudd, next item.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that goes to -- we go to 8C.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why don't we give them just a second
to leave. You sure you don't want to stay? We've got some interesting
items coming up.
Item #8D
PUDZ-2005-AR-7820 HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF COLLIER
COUNTY REPRESENTED BY LAURA SPURGEON OF
JOHNSON ENGINEERING IS REQUESTING A REZONE FROM
THE AGRICULTURAL - MOBILE HOME OVERLAY (A-MHO)
ZONING DISTRICT TO THE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT TO CONSIST OF
AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESIDENTIAL
NEIGHBORHOOD OF 400 SINGLE-F AMIL Y, ZERO LOT LINE,
TWO-FAMILY OR MULTI-FAMILY DUPLEX DWELLING
Page 147
February 27, 2007
UNITS IN A PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE KAICASA
RPUD. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF 100
ACRES, IS LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF STATE
ROAD 29, EAST OF VILLAGE OAKS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL,
AND IS APPROXIMATELY 2 MILES EAST OF THE
INTERSECTION OF STATE ROAD 29 AND COUNTY ROAD
846- MOTION TO CONTINUE - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Sir, we can do one piece of admin business, okay,
while they're getting done, and that's 8D, and that was I7E. That had
to do with the Habitat development and the omission of multi-family
in the description. It is the attorney's opinion that that needs to be
readvertised and Habitat for Humanity has agreed.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So what do we have to do, make a
motion to continue?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Or approve the request.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Speak up, Commissioner
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're approving the request for a
continuance.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Somebody requested it be
continued.
MR. MUDD: Because we're going to readvertise it correctly
without the omission.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve the request for
continuance.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Coy Ie for a continuance, second by Commissioner Halas.
Page 148
February 27, 2007
Good catch, Commissioner Henning.
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 it was unanimous.
Item #8C
RZ-2005-AR-7271: COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES
DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY FRED REISCHL, AICP OF
AGNOLI, BARBER & BRUNDAGE, INC., IS REQUESTING A
REZONE FROM THE AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT
TO THE PUBLIC USE (P) ZONING DISTRICT LIMITED TO
ESSENTIAL SERVICE USE ONLY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY,
CONSISTING OF 42.2 ACRES, IS LOCATED AT 1300
MANATEE ROAD, IN SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - MOTION TO
CONTINUE INDEFINITELY - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us now to 8C. This
items requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure
be provided by commission members.
It's RZ-2005-AR-7272, Collier County public utilities department
represented by Fred Reischl, AI CP, of Agnoli, Barber & Brundage,
Inc., requesting a rezone from the agricultural A zoning district to the
public use P zoning district limited to essential services use only.
The subject property consisting of 42.2 acres is located at 1300
Manatee Road in Section 10, Township 51 south, Range 16 east,
Collier County, Florida.
Page 149
February 27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. All those wishing to participate
please stand at this time and be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Now we'll have
disclosures by the commissioners, and we'll start with Commissioner
Coy Ie, you ready?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have no disclosures except I have
talked with County Manager Mudd about this item.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have no disclosures on this item
other than the fact that I've talked with staff on this at some length.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And I have, of course, talked
with staff and had emails and phone calls.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've had some emails on this,
and also I've spoken with a number of staff members, one that's
nodding right there at the microphone, as a matter of fact.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I -- the board
heard an EAR-based amendment for this particular property in the
coastal area, whether that's disclosure or not, that's all I have. But
with that said, it's the board's charge to provide public facilities where
needed. The board has owned this property for a number of years, and
I think it's our duty, or at least it's my duty, to make sure these
facilities are available for the residents in Collier County. So I'm
going to make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that, but I would like to
have some stipulations, please, okay?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, great.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Henning, a second by Commissioner Fiala. And now for discussion.
How many speakers do we have?
Page 150
February 27, 2007
MS. FILSON: Are you on item 9E?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 8C.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 8C.
MS. FILSON: I have no speakers on this item.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle, or did
you want to hear from staff first?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I just want to ask a question.
Our attorney has recommended that this item be continued until the
adoption of the Growth Management Plan amendments. Has that
recommendation change?
MR. WEIGEL: No, it has not.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Actually it's the EAR-based
amendments; is that correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, can -- would it be -- put
the stipulation on that that we can --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That it would be subject to?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Approve -- a stipulation would
be that as long as the EAR-based amendments for this particular
amendment is approved as far as the amendments? Would that be
sufficient?
MR. KLA TZKOW: I think the better course of action, we'd
simply continue this to see whether or not the EAR-based
amendment's, in fact, adopted.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to remove my motion
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and make a motion that we
continue this item indefinitely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
Page 151
February 27,2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Henning,
second by Commissioner Coyle, to continue this item indefinitely.
Did we cover everything? Anything that should be added?
MR. DeLONY: I think we're fine, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let's address --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to add a couple things.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: On here, I just want to dot our I's
and cross our T's. Staff has explained to me fully that this is going to
be a water treatment plant. I'm fine with that. The residents are fine
with that.
I always am impressed with what they did with the water --
wastewater treatment plant right in the middle of the neighborhood in
Lely. There are houses backing right up to it and yet our people in
Lely who back right up to it, who used to have a lot of complaints,
now, since you've taken over, do not complain. It's been built bigger,
and you've been a really good neighbor. So I wouldn't have a problem
with that at all, as I told you.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: A couple things that I do have a
problem with though is, a couple things were mention in here like a
sewage plant. That's -- that comes along with this part of that --
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
MR. DeLONY : Yes, ma'am. There's probably about five or six
other things under P zoning --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Communication towers.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And when you put this together for
us -- they're all in here now. I would want to make sure, even though
you've assured me, I'd love to see it in writing because we might not
Page 152
February 27, 2007
be here when they build it.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to make sure that
they're eliminated because, as it said in here, the project planner -- oh,
somebody -- let's see. It was the applicant's agent said, please note
that even with an unlimited P zoning, a water treatment plant would
still need to undergo a CU process. There was the thought of limiting
the P zoning on this site to only water treatment and related uses.
The project planner, Kay Deselem, indicated that this specific
limitation was not possible. So I wanted to make sure that --
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- we do have that in place.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Also, instead of chain link fence --
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- we do something.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am. We'll-- ma'am, let me see if I can
help a little bit. First of all, Kay was right in her determination as I
understand the rules. Irrespective of your action -- let's say you
approve the P zoning. Irrespective of that, we still have to come back
to you, the board, for a conditional use permit for any of those uses.
So if we wanted to put something other than a water plant there,
you would still have another -- or a predi -- or a successor board
would still have another bite at the apple, so to say, to turn down that
use, because P is only a zoning. It's not a use without additional
approval by the board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But a lot of times --
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- with the commercial zoning --
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am, I understand.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- we say, everything but a homeless
shelter and a soup kitchen and a pawnshop, right? Well, I would like
Page 153
February 27, 2007
to say not to include a communication tower, a sewer plant, or what
was the other one?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Homeless shelter.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no, no. This was a recycling --
a resource center.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am. Let me be specific for this 40-acre
site. The activities that will be on this site, and the conditional use
permit that we hopefully will bring back to you subsequent to your
approval of this zoning action, subject, of course, to the DCA, will
only deal with those activities and supporting activities that deal with
the production of water to potable water.
Now, the communications tower will not be a communication
tower in general. It would be any towers associated with that water
plant. Now, we've -- the Planning Commission did have some
concerns about heights and all that. We'll work through all of that at
conditional use time and deal with all that at that time, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Say, for instance, we find that we
can buy that property over at 6 Ls and we do put together something
similar to the North Collier whole treatment plant for water and
wastewater on one property, and if we're lucky enough to get that and
we can combine them, now we have this property vacant. And I
wanted to make sure that it didn't then convert to a wastewater or a
resource center -- it mentioned in here resource center -- or something
like that.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am. For sure--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: People are so close. They're right up
against that fence.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am, I understand. We're absolute (sic)
sure from a regional perspective, there is no requirement or should
never be a requirement for a wastewater treatment plant in this
location.
Our plans call for that plant to be properly located a little bit
Page 154
February 27, 2007
further to the north and to the east.
You mentioned that property that we're looking at now. Just
haven't got it. I mean, and certainly, you know, we will continue to
evaluate. But per the annual utilization and inventory report approved
by this board as well as the 6 June 2006, master plan for our water
supply and our water treatment, this plan is currently scheduled to be
online at 2014.
Now, we'll look carefully at that over the next couple of years.
But as I note, we're within that eight-year window that I always talked
to you about in terms of how long it takes us to move a capital project.
At some stage of the game, ma'am, we'll have to make a decision
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
MR. DeLONY : -- what is the optimal course of action. So I just
-- I agree with you that there is some -- there ought to be some
concern, and I think we can address that. The water is held by the 6
L's sewer district. And so you as the district board, sitting here today
-- well, I guess you've got your other hat on right now, but your other
hat.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Or whatever else you choose, just so
that it isn't some of these that are mentioned in here. You can just
remove those, right?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am. At the time --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. That's all my concern is.
MR. DeLONY: We certainly will, yes, ma'am,
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good point. Once again, we're
looking for a continuance here.
Commissioner Halas, I see your light on.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I have one question for staff.
This continuance, will this prohibit what you want to move forward
with in regards to this?
MR. DeLONY: No, sir. I've got some time on the schedule.
Page 155
February 27, 2007
The good news about planning the way we're planning now, we've got
some time to do the kinds of things that show the kind of diligence and
the opportunity range of getting ahead of the game versus responding
to it. And certainly at this stage of the game, we can take this delay or
this standby, and I'll get back to the board as soon as we get an answer
from DCA.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And with that, if there's no other
discussion, all those in favor of the motion to continue, please say so
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.
Thank you very much, Mr. DeLony.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2007-46: APPOINTING MARY ANN WOMBLE TO
THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 9A, and that's
appointment of a member to the Pelican Bay Services Division Board.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Motion to approve Mary Ann
Womble.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Halas to approve the committee's recommendation, second by
Commissioner Coy Ie.
Page 156
February 27, 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: 5-0, thank you.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2007-47: APPOINTING WILLIAM CONRAD
WILLKOMM TO THE BA YSHORE BEAUTIFICATION MSTU
ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 9B. It's
appointment of a member to the Bayshore Beautification MSTU
Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to accept the committee
recommendation for William Conrad Willkomm.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Coyle to
accept the committee recommendation, second by Commissioner
Fiala.
Any discussions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 157
February 27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
Item #9C
BOARD TO SET THE PLACE AND TIME FOR THE CLERK,
WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE TO OPEN AND COUNT THE MAIL BALLOTS OF THE
NOMINEES TO FILL THE VACANCIES ON THE PELICAN BAY
SERVICES DIVISION BOARD -TUESDAY MARCH 6TH AT 2
P.M. LOCATED ON THE 5TH FLOOR OF THE COURTHOUSE, IN
THE CLERK'S CONFERENCE ROOM - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 9C. It's to request
the board to set the place and time for the clerk with the assistance of
the County Attorney's Office to open and count the mail ballots of the
nominees to fill the vacancies on the Pelican Bay Services Division
Board.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
MS. FILSON: And can I just--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
Page 158
February 27, 2007
MS. FILSON: -- mention that date and time and place, sir, so
that everyone knows.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
MS. FILSON: That they'll count the ballots on Tuesday, March
6 at two p.m. on (sic) the clerk's conference room of the fifth floor of
the courthouse.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2007-48: A RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO THE
CITIZENS OF COLLIER COUNTY AND THEIR RIGHT TO USE
ANY AND ALL COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 9E, that the Board
of County commissioners consider adopting a resolution pertaining to
the citizens of Collier County and their right to use any and all Collier
County facilities.
Commissioner Henning's request.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. The reason I put this on
the agenda, during our TDC workshop it was stated that time slots
would be set aside for tournaments. I don't have a problem with that
whatsoever, but I can tell you I take my son up to North Regional Park
quite frequently for the playground and observe the activities over
there at the ball fields, and a lot of times they are vacant.
In talking to some of the -- some of the residents -- in fact, I had a
phone call yesterday from a resident of Naples who said, I went over
there on the weekend, and I just wanted to kick a ball around with my
son, and a staff member came out and said, you can't do that. That
field is set aside for tournament play.
Page 159
February 27, 2007
I think it is important for everybody to understand that the
residents, through their impact fees, have paid for that park, and the
residents continue paying for the maintenance of it through their taxes,
and the residents pay for it through fees.
And I think it's important that the board adopts resolutions to
make it clear what the understanding is from the Board of
Commissioners in this case to how to use the facilities in the parks and
rec.
And that's why I put it on the agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Before we -- get to Barry
before we go to you. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll wait till Barry gets done with
the presentation, and then --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you for being here.
MR. WILLIAMS: Sure. For the record, Barry Williams, parks
and rec. director.
And I just wanted to say, certainly Commissioner Henning's
point is well taken, that our commitment at parks and rec. is to serve
Collier County citizens. And it's unfortunate that -- the phone call. I
did talk to that gentleman actually today. And we have some things
that we're correcting within North Collier.
We have people that show up and they want to use green space,
and we certainly welcome that. The communication that was given to
that particular gentleman, again, is something that is not our intent to
keep people off.
I did want to share with you commissioners just some of the
statistics that we have about North Collier Regional Park and talk a
little bit about the tournament play, and that is something that we've
followed and heard.
Just in terms of the percentage of time -- and one thing to
understand is North Collier Regional Park, the second phase, the
fields, have only been open since November. And so we're just now
Page 160
February 27, 2007
seeing full -- increased utilization of those fields.
But just with the statistics that we have today -- if I may. Just a
graphic. You can see the numbers, a little bit small, but we have right
now about an 80/20 split of locals using the fields; 80 percent are
locals, 20 percent are folks from -- that are coming in for these
tournaments you're hearing about.
I'm not sure that that's significant. Again, we've only had a
couple months of utilization. So for us, a real good term will be about
six months to a year to see what's the total utilization.
But this doesn't take into consideration our entire capacity . We
still have capacity at the fields, as Commissioner Henning points out.
I do want to share with you a little bit about what types of
tournaments are coming in. And I'll share another -- just some of the
soccer tournaments, softball tournaments that are coming in the future,
just to share with you, you can see, we have a number that are
scheduled.
For the most part they're youth events. An important thing that
we want to let you know about the tournament events -- and we
encouraged some of this with North Naples Little League when they
came before you recently and asked for a complex to play and to
attract tournament play.
What North Naples Little League described to you and what
we've heard over the years is, there's the desire to host tournaments for
our local teams to be able to play and host in tournaments rather than
to travel to Tampa, travel to Sarasota or throughout the county --
throughout the state, their ability to host these local -- or the
tournaments and bring people from around the state that they can
compete with and remain competitive is an important thing.
So some of the tournaments that we have scheduled, you can see
this. We've had some tournaments scheduled, and we do -- we do
have some numbers on economic impact. And again, not to suggest
that the economic impact takes away from the need for us to provide
Page 161
February 27, 2007
for our local youth, but you can see some of the dollar amounts that
generate. It's an economic engine in a lot of ways.
When you have people coming to our community, spending their
dollars in our hotels, spending it on restaurants, playing our children
on the local teams and our adults, that's a positive impact for our
community. So you can see some of the dollar amounts.
And just to share with you the formula that we use to generate
that economic impact, it's a fairly standard one. I don't have it for you
today, but it is a formula that we apply to the number of people that
participate in these tournaments.
Finally, if I may, just to share with you, when I first came aboard,
one of the first things that I was involved in was through the support
of a sports marketing person. And we have a gentleman, Ralph Prior,
that works with us. And in May of 2006, the BOCC voted to cost
share with TDC to hire the sports coordinator, and that person has
been responsible for recruiting a lot of these tournaments that you --
that I'm explaining to you today.
And it is a -- it is a model that is fairly consistent throughout the
state. Communities use this type of model. You develop amenities
that provide for the local citizens, but at the same time you use a little
bit of the capacity to bring in outside dollars to offset your cost of the
residents. So that's the model that we're following.
Lee County has done this for a couple of years, and some
statistics that Ralph provided were generated 80,000 hotel room nights
from sports events in 2005.
I will tell you that one of the things that we're hearing through
some of the discussions about North Collier Regional Park -- one of
the things that you've heard is, again, North Naples Little League and
their desire to have a complex, a Little League complex, and staff is
working per your direction on developing that complex.
We have some parks that are coming online in the very near
future, and we're looking at the possibility of providing that element,
Page 162
February 27, 2007
that park element of the Little League complex in one of those parks.
We are also hearing from folks the need for practice, and that's
the other thing I think that you may be hearing. Folks need places to
practice soccer.
And certainly we've been talking to officials in the local youth
teams about that possibility . We are working very closely with the
school board to develop those joint opportunities, and certainly that's
good business sense for us to develop that with the school board where
you have the ability for the fields to be used during the daytime for
school children and used at night by public.
We actually have an arrangement that's coming online in August
where the Elementary School I on Livingston Road is coming
available. We've worked with the school board for them to develop a
green space, so that's going to create some more soccer capacity for
practice for us.
Just to finish, I do want to say I appreciate the intent of the
resolution. I do feel that our commitment is to Collier County
citizens, to youth and recreation, and certainly, we are very interested
in how best to do that. So thank you. And if you have any questions,
certainly be available to ask (sic).
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Barry. Don't move too
far. We're starting off with Halas, we're going to Henning, Fiala and
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. One of the people that I felt
was instrumental -- should have been here today -- and that's
superintendent Ray Baker. As you know, all of us pay close to six
mills for school tax, and those are public schools and that means that
they should be open for everyone.
I have some concerns when the people from North Naples Little
League tell us that one of the schools, Osceola, I believe, it was, where
there's inadequate provisions for people that want to practice and not
being able to use the rest rooms, and those are tax dollars that people
Page 163
February 27, 2007
paid for. And there's no reason why the school board can't help us in
finding practice fields for the people here in Collier County.
And I was hoping that Superintendent Ray Baker would be here
today and maybe we could have him get involved in this, because the
same children that go to these public schools -- and we pay dearly for
those schools -- I think that the opportunity should be there where the
people -- the students and the children to use them after hours, so that's
where I stand on this issue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And if I may add, you've got a
wonderful idea there and you're right. I've got a meeting set up March
14th, if I remember correctly, with Ray Baker and Steve Donovan,
that's one of the things I'm going to have put on the agenda to start the
discussion going forward so when we have a joint meeting, we'll have
this issue down to the point where we've got discussion points to work
with.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Williams, you remember
my statement that I don't want to kill the tournament in the beginning?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I do believe it, and I'm
sincere about that. It's the policy and maybe that you're not aware of,
that the average citizen can't use the field because it's set aside for
tournament play or a league can't use it, a local league, taxpayers of
Collier County, can't use it because it's set aside for tournament play,
and that is the reason why this is on the agenda. It's not to stop the
tournaments.
MR. WILLIAMS: No, sir. It did take us aback a little bit with
the resolution in particular. And when we schedule a tournament,
again, we schedule tournaments that local teams are often playing in.
Ifwe make an obligation to have a tournament, the due notice that we
would have to give to allow a Collier County citizen to take over that
field was one that concerned us of how we would operationalize that.
Page 164
February 27, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And it's -- you know,
you schedule these, and I think it's good to have these tournaments
locally, you know, but when a kid can't kick a ball on a field the day
before the tournament or years before the tournament or never do it, I
have a concern.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, and we do too. And I have to say,
we -- just in starting up, I think that that's something -- and we learned
a lessen yesterday . We will make a commitment to find space for
people that come by. And we talked about that some yesterday about
what we needed to do to allow for a field to be available for those type
of folks that drop in.
I just want to say though, in doing that, what we're trying to do is
to maintain the integrity of the fields. We have a lot of people that tell
us how wonderful it is to play on such pristine fields. And to maintain
the fields, we do try to limit teams that are in the community from
practicing on that and make practice available in other parts of our
park system.
And what we've heard from the people that use our fields for
game play is that that's an advantage. They want to play on those type
of fields that are maintained and ready for game use, so that's what --
that's what we're attempting to do with that.
But we can find capacity in our park system, we can find
capacity at North Collier Regional Park for a son to come -- a father
and son to come by and throw the ball around. That's not an issue for
us.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, how many fields do you have
there?
MR. WILLIAMS: The North Collier Regional Park, there are
five softball fields there; eight soccer fields.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Isn't there a way that you can set
aside one of each for local citizens to -- whether it's to play on or to
Page 165
February 27, 2007
practice on or whatever, so that -- I mean, do all eight have to remain
pristine? I would guess that when you have a tournament, you don't
use all eight.
MR. WILLIAMS: It depends on the size of the tournament. But
we talked about that yesterday . We do think that we can make
available a field for local play. I mean, that's what we came up with.
That was --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: One of each, right?
MR. WILLIAMS: We talked about softball in particular.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you have eight soccer fields and
no local people can play on them except in tournament play?
MR. WILLIAMS: The locals play --
MR. MUDD: Barry, let me ask you something. You keep using
tournaments, okay? I think it gives a bad -- a tournament in terms of
what I think of a tournament -- and let's make sure we at least
understand the terminology we're using.
The tournament play that they're talking about is only 20 percent
of the time, okay, and that is where you've got county teams playing
outside county teams. That's a tournament. League play is 80 percent
of the time, and that's intercounty teams playing each other on those
particular fields.
So this is for -- this is for games, okay. When you have two
teams competing again each other. That's what the fields were set up
for.
Now, if we want to change that, we can. But I just want to make
sure, when you talk tournament, it gives -- it gives this impression that
you're talking about out-of-county guests coming in playing county
teams. That happens 20 percent of the time based on that particular
chart that was put up. The rest of the time it's for games. So if you
had --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But not for practice?
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct, not for practice, but for games.
Page 166
February 27, 2007
And just to clarify a little bit more with that, and I'll give you a
specific example.
Naples Youth Soccer, which has about 200 children in our
community who are competitive soccer players. There might be one
team under U9, UIO boys in our community, and they then play
within a region of soccer teams, and they will play home games and
they play away games. So every time our youth play at North Collier
Regional Park, which is their home field, they are playing children
from outside of Collier County, and they are also included in that
yellow pie that I showed you a few minutes ago, so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are they allowed to play other local
teams, I mean a local team playing a local team?
MS. RAMSEY: Sometimes if there are enough children playing
against each other, yes. But remember, it's not just the children. We
have adult soccer leagues that the county runs, we have over 80
softball teams right now playing at North Collier and other places
around. So our league play, our local people are playing on those
fields playing their games, but not their practices.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I just want to make sure I
understood what you just said, that local teams, and whether they're
adults or middle-aged or young, or children, can play each other, local
teams? I mean --
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- one school can play another?
MS. RAMSEY: Most definitely. This is a game facility. They
just would not do their practices. Their practices might happen at
Veterans or Vineyards or out at Max Hasse or maybe out at
Corkscrew or Sabal Palm or some other location.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Or the new one you're building at
East Naples Community Park.
MS. RAMSEY: That's -- correct, correct. And they would
practice in those fields, and then a lot of their games are played at
Page 167
February 27, 2007
North Collier. Not every league chooses to do that. Optimist does
not. Optimist chooses to play at the Vineyards yet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wait a minute. Let me see if I had
another question. Oh, yeah. Are these tournaments that we're
attracting people to, are they mostly held in high season or out of
season?
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, we've only been open since November.
And, again, part of what we're looking to ascertain is the utilization.
We have had some tournaments that are being -- that have been
conducted the last few weeks in high season.
What our attempt to do though is to schedule tournaments on the
off season. I mean, that's the advantage. And part of what we were
looking to do with this joint sports market position is to attract
business outside of tourist season.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure. That's why I asked the
question, but I don't have any idea what time of the year soccer is
played. Maybe it's played all year round. I don't know that. And I
know that the major league players play baseball in the summer, but,
you know, I don't know about tournaments.
MR. WILLIAMS: Soccer varies. You have levels of soccer.
You know, elementary soccer is played typically fall/spring, but you
do have some soccer teams, the more advanced players, that are
playing year round, so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, then
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm confused. We establish the
number of recreational facilities based upon a level of service that we
determined multiplied by our population.
MR. WILLIAMS: You're speaking of the AUIR process?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
Page 168
February 27, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, how is it that we wind up
with recreational services that can accommodate 20 percent
out-of-county users and still fully accommodate all of the in-county
users?
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, the number that you're referring to is an
80/20 split based on current utilization. It does not take into
consideration --, we've not maximized capacity at that site yet. We've
only been in operation two or three months.
So 80/20 is based on -- for example, if we're only 50 percent
used, of that 50 percent utilization, 80 percent is local, 20 percent is
out-of-towners.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Maybe I'll try it differently.
Ideally what's going to happen is that you will have, if you follow our
guidelines, exactly the number of recreational facilities to meet the
need of the county residents. You're not going to have an excess and
you're not going to have a shortage.
MS. RAMSEY: Ideally, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, it appears to me that
we're anticipating an excess of facilities because we are encouraging
and actually marketing these fields for use by out-of-county users.
MS. RAMSEY: Yes, and let me explain that a little bit, because
our seasons run pretty consistently from year to year. There will be a
fall league -- and if you want to just stick with soccer for the minute --
there is a fall league in soccer that's a little smaller.
Optimist runs during that period of time N aplesY outh Soccer is
running, then there's a break. They break about the first week of
December. And then they're on break until February or March, and
they'll come back in with a six feet -- six league or some other leagues
like that, which will go until probably the end of May.
And so there's varying seasons, and so there are periods of time
when the league is not in play or in session, and that is the ideal time
that you would like to bring in your tournament play so that you could
Page 169
February 27, 2007
fill in those areas when you're not into league play.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. You're bringing from
outside out-of-county users, and that is benefitting primarily the tourist
business.
MS. RAMSEY: And us because of concessions. I mean, this last
weekend we had the regional cup for Naples Youth Soccer, the U I 0
boys program here, of which there are one team here in Collier
County who is eligible to play in that tournament, and they did. They
then advance off of this tournament to another location. We did
$5,800 in concession which stayed in parks and recreation coffers.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And how much money do you get
from the TDC for supporting and maintaining these fields?
MS. RAMSEY: Specifically I couldn't tell you. For maintaining
the fields, nothing. For advertisement of the facilities, they do
contribute some in that regard.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. They contribute --
MS. RAMSEY: And 20,000 --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They contribute money to get more
out-of-county users here, but they don't contribute any money to help
maintain or build the fields; is that correct?
MS. RAMSEY: That would be correct, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that's the fundamental flaw
in all this business.
MS. RAMSEY: We would welcome additional TDC funds if
you would like to allocate them, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Well, that's up to the
chairman to the TDC and the TDC board members.
But, I, like other people on this board, particularly Commissioner
Henning, do not like the idea that we are marketing and advertising
the recreational facilities we built for the citizens of Collier County
and we're marketing and advertising them for the use of people outside
the county. Because no matter how you explain it, what we have done
Page 170
February 27, 2007
is we have invested in excess recreational facilities so we can use
some of them to attract additional tourists.
Maybe that's not bad, but it is repugnant to me. I do not like the
idea even of funding someone for the purpose of promoting that
process. If we've got recreational facilities and our teams want to play
in tournaments, I'm perfectly happy to try to facilitate that. But to
actively go out and advertise to promote tourism, and encourage
out-of-county users to come and use our facilities, I do not like it.
MS. RAMSEY: I can understand that, and there are two phases
to this. There are those where you are out and soliciting tournaments
that you may not have any local involvement in. But for the most
part, what you see on that list, there is going to be local involvement
in those tournaments, especially in those youth tournaments.
And just an example of that, is that when you travel, there's a lot
of out-of-pocket that goes from the families who are involved in that
travel, and the goal when we started this back in 1997, was to allow an
opportunity for our families, our players, our children, to be able to
host the tournament here to save those dollars. They can go home and
rest in between, that should give them an advantage in the tournament
play, and give them an opportunity to playa different level of
competition, and that was really the genesis of it.
Other tournaments coming in, I understand what you're talking
about as far as those that may not have any local involvement. But I
do think there are two types of tournaments, and I wouldn't want to
necessarily put them both in the same basket, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I agree with that observation. But
if you were to limit the advertising and promotions for those where
our local residents -- our residents were involved in the tournament
play itself, I have no problem with that. But I also know that you must,
in order to have fields in good condition, you must hold them out of
play and practice for some period of time.
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct.
Page 171
February 27, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that means we're depriving
our citizens from using those fields, and it goes back to my earlier
point, we are overbuilding recreational facilities so we can
accommodate these kinds of activities. And I think we have to take a
real hard look at that AUIR the next time. But I just don't like the idea
of marketing the recreational facilities of our residents for the purpose
of generating tourism revenues.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Before we go to you,
Commissioner Halas, we're going to go right there. We have three
speakers.
MS. FILSON : Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: After Commissioner Halas, we're
going to go to the speakers, and then we'll continue the dialogue.
Commissioner Halas?
I want to remind everyone we're going to get through this
agenda. We haven't got tomorrow to fall back on. So talk as long as
you want, but you better have a pillow.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Gee whiz.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: These -- I guess what we need to
do is look at the big picture here, and I believe that Barry brought up
the fact that we're trying to address tournaments on the off season.
And I believe that there's a user fee that these people that come to our
facilities, whether it's in county or out of county, they pay a user fee;
is that correct?
MR. WILLIAMS: That is correct, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. What benefit does that give
the parks and recreation as far as meeting the goals of their budget?
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, it -- Commissioner, our budget is driven
by user fees. About 30 percent of our budget comes from user fees.
And just one other thing, I may mention, is that the utilization of
our system changes, in particular, when you think of aquatics.
Page 1 72
February 27, 2007
Floridians don't swim much in the winter, however, tourists do. So if
you have the ability to take excess capacity in the sense that your
citizens aren't using a spot and make it available to the tourists. I
guess I'm just trying to appeal to Commissioner Coyle's comments
with that. But 30 percent of our budget is user fees.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So what you're saying is if
we decide to vote on this and eliminate any tournament play in here,
that you're looking -- you're going to be coming back to the board for
a budget variance, right?
MR. WILLIAMS: That would be correct. That would be the
fiscal impact, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Since this -- you're trying to
stress this to be off season, my concern is that this provides jobs not
only for the county, but it also provides jobs in the community for
people who work in housekeeping, waiters, and so on; is that correct?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Would you say that -- that was part
of your presentation on the amount of money that comes -- the influx
that comes into Collier County?
MR. WILLIAMS: Tourism is major industry here, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And so what we're trying to do is
make sure that we employ these people all year round because it's
very difficult to get people to work in these type of jobs. So if we can
maintain these people in jobs year round, then it's easier for our
business community not to have to go out and hunt, is that correct,
hunt for additional help.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. That's the economic impact that we
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And as I said earlier, we've got a
couple of things here that drive the economy and also take -- we need
to take care of the residents here in Collier County, and that's why I
hope that Commissioner Coletta is very successful in addressing some
Page 1 73
February 27, 2007
of the needs with the school board because I think they have the
facilities whereby -- practice fields.
Now, we don't have a running track, and I'm sure there's a lot of
people that are interesting in having a running track, but high schools
have a running track, and it would be nice if they would open those
tracks up for people who like to run.
So I think there's some other areas here, and I don't think we're
over capacity on parks. I think it's the idea that we need to figure out
what helps everybody in the community, not only the residents and the
young children, but also the business community.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. And with that we're going to go
to the public speakers, and then we'll continue the dialogue.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have three speakers. Paul Nyce.
He will be followed by Larry Maybin.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We thank you for waiting as long as
you have to speak.
MR. NYCE: My pleasure. I have just a statement I'd like to
read. It may just slightly go over three minutes.
Good morning -- good afternoon to all. I'm a bit under the
weather. My voice is not as loud as usual. Some of the people I'm
friendly with that are here in the room this morning are probably
smiling about this.
I want to first start out by reading from a letter that was recently
submitted to the editor of the Naples Daily News written by --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And your name?
MR. NYCE: Paul Nyce. The new park. As the public -- ask the
public and what do you hear? Some may say what a beautiful
addition to Collier County. We love it. Others may say, it doesn't
benefit the residents of Collier County.
I happen to be in the youth soccer community and spend my
spare time creating soccer leagues and camps that directly benefit the
youth of Collier County.
Page 174
February 27, 2007
In the past I've been a senior administrator and president of a
local soccer club, volunteering hundreds of hours a year for the
community.
During this time and prior to the new park opening, I can't
remember a derogatory word being said about the building of a
game-only soccer and softball facility. I think most people are proud
to boast that a new facility would be opening in Collier County.
In the past month, both of my daughters played at the soccer
tournament at the new park against teams from different cities and
counties.
As a volunteer for one of these tournaments, I was able to glad
hand with some of the guests from other areas. The reaction to our
new park was that it was beautiful, magnificent, well-built and
convenient. There was always a comment about how their community
needed a similar facility.
Now that this facility has been built, we can boast to Naples that
we have completed the cornerstoning foundation to support the
infrastructure of the youth and adult sport community in Naples.
I propose at this time to share with the public the future plans of
Collier school government, the school board and the parks and
recreation department to rejuvenate and enhance some of the existing
parks and schools.
If a plan is not in place yet, will these responsible governmental
entities conduct a feasibility study to discover cost-effective ways to
satisfy the needs of our growing community by utilizing existing parks
and schools?
This letter was written several days ago in response to the
growing awareness surrounding the lack of suitable and convenient
field space for organized youth and adult sports. Since then, even
more different and respectable ideas and opinions have been formed.
This meeting is about the resolution that was formed recently in
response to the growing awareness. I believe this resolution to be
Page 175
February 27, 2007
vague and ambiguous. I also believe that some type of resolution
needs to be created. Much like long-term plans are created for the
roads and commercial and residential zoning in our community, a
long-term plan for the growing need for the young and adult athletes
in community needs to be created.
North Collier Regional Park is a tribute to the economic growth
and the future of Collier County. Let us not open up these particular
fields to every and any persons with $25 in hand and subject them to
the same abuse as all the other parks have dealt with in the past.
Let us find a way to accommodate all of the needs of our
residents while at the same time preserving a local and regional
attraction.
Everyone who is a resident deserves to have the ability to reserve
space, but it should be at the discretion of the administrators who
manage these facilities. This is a delicate process.
A lot is involved managing the climate change and field pressure.
My opinion is that the addition of new lighted fields and the
rejuvenation of existing parks will serve every organized league and
club's purpose while also providing the current fields the refs
necessary to manage the climate change and field pressure.
It is my opinion that organized groups and clubs benefitting
youth and adult sports should have the first priority to have convenient
and suitable space to conduct their programs. Let me say this
important point again. Organized groups and club benefitting youth
and adult sports should have the first priority to have convenient and
suitable space to conduct their programs.
My last words are the most important. Please hear these most of
all, my pleas to the members of this commission to organization and
mediate an action plan between parks department and the schools.
This plan should include enhancing all elementary and middle schools
with light and suitable turf or other appropriate surface area. This plan
should also include rejuvenating existing park facilities.
Page 176
February 27, 2007
Please amend your resolution. A resolution of this magnitude
should not cause the destruction of the foundation and cornerstone of
Collier County sports. Instead it should cause for our community to
immediately begin the construction and renovation of the supporting
infrastructure.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Larry Maybin. Mr. Maybin
will be followed by Len Stout.
MR. MAYBIN: Hi. My name's Larry Maybin. Thank you for
giving me this opportunity to speak to you.
In today's Naples Daily News, Mr. Chairman, you were quoted
as saying, this is about Little League. This is not about Little League.
This is about putting Collier County children and families first and
the taxpayers first.
As you know, North Collier Regional Park was built with impact
fees from Collier County residents, and it's the Collier County
residents who need this facility.
Recently your sports coordinator, Ralph Prior, was quoted as
saying they have scheduled 33 various sports tournaments at this
facility. It's only been open four months and already they've got 33
tournaments scheduled. How long before they fill in the other 19
weekends in a year?
Tourism director Jack Wert is quoted as saying event organizers
are calling him. Why are event organizers calling the Tourism
Development Council for field space?
Because the word is out, a $50 million plus facility unmatched by
any municipality in the State of Florida is available for their use.
I grew up here in Collier County and have been involved in many
youth and adult sport activities. In that time I've noticed one
reoccurring theme, lack of practice facilities.
We're being told North Collier Regional Park is to be used only
for games and tournaments. Why? We've heard CCPR's reason. That
Page 1 77
February 27, 2007
reason is to keep them in pristine condition.
So if we follow that logic, that means that our various sport
organizations are practicing on worn-out fields. Worn out because
they're being overused. They're overused because there's not enough
of them.
Rotate the use of all the facilities to include North Collier
Regional Park, and by doing so, every field in this county can be a
game-quality field. Why just limit it to eight fields and one facility?
The reason we're being asked to be kept off these fields is so that
these 33-plus tournaments will have these pristine fields. The needs of
our sport organizations are not being met.
Just recently you had Little League in here looking for space.
The Collier County Parks and Rec. Advisory Council minutes from
November of 2006 show a football program looking for space. Soon
you're going to have lacrosse in here looking for space.
The club I'm currently involved in has been begging for more
space for years, practice space. Some will say we need the
tournaments to offset the costs associated with this park.
The tournaments Collier County Parks and Rec. are hosting now
make little to no money. That's because CCPR is hosting them.
They're not running these tournaments. They're just providing the
field space and renting the fields out.
The registration fees are going to private organizations, not into
our coffers. Three to five tournaments that were just put on the board
are tournaments that are not open to the general Collier County public.
You just can't put a team together and go play there.
So locals are not being allowed to fully utilize this facility, and
CCPR is not nearly making enough money to offset the
inconveniences us locals are being asked to bear.
So who is benefitting? Hotels, restaurants and event organizers.
This park was paid for by Collier County taxpayers, we should have
first priority. After our needs are met, then begin to host the
Page 178
February 27, 2007
tournaments.
With the majority of the -- and one final thought that I just
noticed, that if the majority of the users of this particular facility are
the locals, then why is Collier County Parks and Rec. against this
resolution?
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The final speaker is Mr. Len Stout.
MR. STOUT: Good afternoon. My name is Len Stout. At a
recent BCC meeting there was a discussion, if our youth teams were
all paying the same fees to use our county parks. I feel that children
and your constituents should all be treated equally. They should not
pay any fees to use our parks.
For, you see, Commissioners, we struck oil here in Collier
County . We have a new regional park. And just like the folks in
Alaska where they pay minimal taxes, with the millions of dollars
flowing in from our water park and from our visitors to use our fields
through tournament entry fees, concessions, and at our local
restaurants and hotels, the children are your constituents, and their
teams should no longer have to pay any fees to use that park.
Put it on, please. Many in the community feel that they've been
steam rolled by what they consider to be a secret organization. It's
called the Collier County Sports Council, and their goal is to market
Collier County as a destination for sports at the regional park and to
market Naples as a tourist destination.
Question. Who are the members on this sports council and the
businesses they represent? Have their meetings been advertised and
their meetings minutes been made public?
Considering the regional park was built with impact fees of your
constituents, are their voices being heard on this sports council as to
how to use this park? Is a representative from each of the youth sports
organizations a member on this council?
Last weekend the regional park hosted 103 soccer teams. That's
Page 1 79
February 27, 2007
over a thousand players. Now, out of this thousand, how many of the
players were children of your constituents? Ten. And many areas of
the field were turned to mud.
A soccer tournament is scheduled in April with 31 teams, 560
players, of which 18 will be Collier residents.
Don't be fooled by all their rhetoric. The entire economy benefits
from these tournaments. What happens is, their businesses expand,
they hire more employees that can't afford to live here, which
increases our traffic problem, and if they do want to live here, it
acerbates (sic) our issue with affordable housing.
So to allow the children of your constituents and their team to no
longer have to pay any fees to use our parks, I have three
recommendations.
One. When adult leagues use our parks for their games or
tournaments, have them pay a handsome user fee for staff expenses
and field maintenance; two, for every tournament solicited by the
parks department and TDC, the team entry fee should include an extra
$50 in addition to what organizers already give the parks department.
This extra money goes directly back to the parks department for field
maintenance. Last week with the 103 teams, that would have yielded
$5,100.
Three, for all tournaments solicited by the parks department and
the TDC -- I've got about two paragraphs left. For all tournaments
solicited by the parks department and the TDC, for every team from
outside Collier County, the TDC should contribute up to $100 to the
parks department to help maintain our fields.
When these large tournaments bring in hundreds of non-Collier
residents' families, it's the hotels and restaurants that benefit. And
that's okay. I agree with that. But they should be ready to step up and
contributed to help maintain our fields that have been trampled on by
their guests.
The TDC has taken over our parks for their benefit. It's their
Page 180
February 27, 2007
economy that benefits from these tournaments. And what they're
doing right now is laughing all the way to the bank.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning,
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'll make a motion to
move this resolution. Again, the residents of Collier County paid for
parks and rec. through impact fees and to deny the public to use those
fees, is a legal challenge, and I don't want to go there.
I am for the tournaments. I'm not, again, asking, since it was
repeated again that -- to kill these tournaments. When I voted for the
cost sharing of that in the budget, I was fully aware of what was going
on, but the fact is, the citizens of Collier County pay for not only the
fields, but they also pay for the concession stands, and I think our
citizens should utilize those.
And I think you've got the message. But I think that everything
that we do -- of importance should be memorialized in either an
ordinance or resolution so it can be carried out.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I made a motion to approve the
resolution.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We've got a motion by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Coyle.
Go to Commissioner Fiala, then I got a question or two.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Just a couple more fast
questions. So from what I understand now, we don't -- we don't get
enough -- we don't get anything from the Tourist Development
Council, but we don't even get enough from the tourists who use the
fields that we save for them to maintain them all the while we're
Page 181
February 27, 2007
saving it for them to use; is that right?
MS. RAMSEY: Well, there's a couple of things. First of all, I
wish Jack was here because he could speak to the sports council a
little bit better than I can. But I do believe that there is some
stipulation in the council that the hotels do need to kick back some
dollars per bed night relationship to tournaments. What that amount
is, I can't tell you as I stand here today, but there is some fee
associated with that.
And then I'll let Barry comment.
MR. WILLIAMS: This past weekend we had Sun-N-Fun open.
We had 1,700 people that were there. And, again, we would not have
had Floridians swimming that number at the park. And for the most
part, these were fo lks that were at the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But they paid to get in.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And, you know, I'm just wondering,
how much do they pay you -- first, how much do they pay for the use
of this field?
MR. WILLIAMS: The user fees with the fields, I don't have that
dollar amount. I know 1,700 folks times $10 is $17,000. I know we
brought in $12,000 in concessions. We brought in $29,000 this
weekend. I know that just from the concession in Sun-N-Fun. I can get
that number for you as far as what we generated from revenue. I'm
sorry I don't have that right now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I just meant for the fields. I
just -- I would like to know that. And when -- if they do have some
kind of money collected from the hotels and so forth, does that come
to you guys, or does it go in the tourism department?
MS. RAMSEY: No, it should come to parks and recreation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You said it should. Does it?
MS. RAMSEY: I don't know that I -- if Barry has seen any of
that yet because we're so new in the tournament field itself. I'm not
Page 182
February 27, 2007
sure when they submit that or if, in this particular instance, you know,
if -- how many bed nights were actually utilized.
I would also state that this particular tournament was probably
co-sponsored by Naples Youth Soccer, and the fees that the youth
pays, we keep it as low as we can, and a lot of that just goes back to
pay for officials to come onto the field so that all of the children in the
region for the Naples youth soccer can participate in the program.
So this one's -- this one's kind of co-sponsored by the Naples
Youth Soccer Club in order to bring it in. And we have worked this
tournament for a number of years, and it used to be played at
Vineyards. Different age groups and different years, whatever we've
been able to secure from the region itself.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm just going to speak as a taxpayer
now. I don't have any kids in the parks and I don't have any kids using
the pools or anything, but I, as a taxpayer, am happy to pay the pay
that -- the maintenance of all of those things so that our youth do
enjoy it.
What bothers me a little bit is that these fields are being reserved
for others, and they're not paying their fair share while we maintain
the fields as taxpayers for those people that don't even live here, and
then if you guys don't get enough money back to help maintain them,
that means we get to pay it, and that's what bothers me.
One more question -- or two more. Is there room in this park to
build a Little League complex?
MS. RAMSEY: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You have no room left in there?
MS. RAMSEY: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That isn't planned for or you have
no room?
MS. RAMSEY: We have no room.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. What are we going do about
Little League who doesn't have a place to play, or the North Naples
Page 183
February 27, 2007
Little League teams?
MS. RAMSEY: Well, now, I don't believe that at the meeting,
that we discussed this, that there was an issue with the Little Leagues
having a place to play. I believe that the issue was that there wasn't a
complex, there wasn't a Little League complex.
And the direction that we received from the Board of County
Commissioners was to try and locate a four-field complex for Little
League play, and we are currently in the midst of doing that.
Barry is trying to get ahold of -- there are seven districts in
Collier County. He's trying to get all of the presidents to come into a
room together -- and, of course, this is their main season, so he's
having a little time (sic) getting them together -- and then bringing in
the district representative to sit down and have a conversation as well.
From that, then we'll have some direction as to what they're
looking for, what kind of space availability we have available
currently. And Commissioner, there are three fields -- there are three
pieces of land that we currently have; Manatee, of course, as you
know; the Kaufman property, which is off the Vanderbilt extension;
and out in the Orangetree area. Those are the only three pieces of
property that we currently have that are undeveloped.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see. Okay. I think that's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You got another one?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I'm done.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Help me with this just a little
bit. If we go with this particular resolution, what is the short-term and
the long-term effect of what's been put together? Would it mean
cancellation of events that have already been planned?
MS. RAMSEY: Well, I guess I would have to turn to the Board
of County Commissioners to help me with a couple of things, and the
very last whereas has, whereas, with due notice, the citizens of Collier
Page 184
February 27, 2007
County shall have first consideration of the use of the Collier County
facilities.
And I will tell you that the Region Cup C that you hosted this
weekend, we've already preserved the Region Cup C for next year,
March of '08. So if you're telling me, you know, that you want me to
continue with the youth tournaments and not do tournaments that don't
have any local play in it, then we would be looking at cancellations. If
you're telling me -- if you could explain to me or give me some
guideline of what due notice means, I could help answer those
questions a little more clearly.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And I'm sure that's going to
come up to give you a little clearer guidelines. But I got great
concerns that we're moving on this a little too fast. I mean, the end
results we're looking for -- tell me if it's not correct -- is to be able to
provide a place for Little League play; is that right?
MS. RAMSEY: I wouldn't say Little League play because I
think we're talking about all kinds of play, from lacrosse to everything
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. But for the younger people in
Collier County, the regular residents that are the taxpayers, their
children, to be able -- for them to have enough fields for them to be
able to recreate on.
MS. RAMSEY: That is our --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I believe that's --
MS. RAMSEY: That is our ultimate goal, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct. Now, there is an
imbalance as far as the use of the fields against funds that we get back.
I agree with that. One of the things that -- you know, of course, if this
is already killed and we don't have a chance to look at the possibilities
of where we're going to get the funds -- I'd like to go to the TDC to
tell them that we've got a real problem. We have to come up with
dollars that we can be able to use to offset what's taken place, we can
Page 185
February 27, 2007
rededicate towards --
MS. RAMSEY: Maintenance.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- maintenance for fields, probably
for new fields, too, maybe for that Little League park. If we're paying
for it out of the general revenue to keep this going and we're not
getting reimbursed plus a little bit extra, then shame on us, and I can
understand that 100 percent.
Now, you know, disrupting the whole fabric at this point in time
that we've got put together without trying to come up with a better
answer, I don't think that's it. If anything, I'd like to see us give you
marching orders to come back and work with the TDC, work this all
out, and come up with a plan of action that gets us where we need to
be.
But meanwhile, you have acted in good faith and upon the
direction of this commission. You've taken reservations for those
fields. People have already booked rooms. They've put in their
family vacations around it. And so now we're going to -- talking
about the possibility of just pulling everything from underneath these
people, and they might not be residents. Some of them might have
relatives here; some of them may be playing locally in these games --
and saying, well, this is all over with because we're going to take these
fields, reconfigure them, and make them now into Little League fields
or whatever to be able to meet local needs.
It's something that we have to do to a point where we've got to
figure out an answer to it. But I kind of hope that we don't do
something that we're going to stand back later and say, well, maybe
we acted inappropriately. Maybe we took and we gave direction.
Who is going to trust Collier County in the future when we go
and we plan some event, be it a convention or whatever, when they
look back at this and they say, well, you know, this was planned at
one point in time. We arranged it. We made -- paid for everything,
put everything on the line, and look what Collier County did, they
Page 186
February 27, 2007
pulled the rug from underneath us.
It may all of a sudden be a detriment to the whole industry.
That's my concern. That's where I'm coming from. It's not that I'm
not -- I'm against Little League fields. I'm not. And I think this is a
tremendous mechanism to get to where we need to be financially.
But I think that if we pass this particular motion the way it's
worded now, that it's going to be pure bedlam.
Okay. Let's go to Commissioner Coyle, then Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, there's a relatively simple
way to solve that, I think, and that is to permit you to continue the
ones that you've already booked but not to book any more, and that
way you won't inconvenience anybody. You won't have to pay any
damages or refunds, but just don't do any more except on a
space-available basis.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, that doesn't work,
Commissioner Coyle, because a space-available basis, anyone that
books it, they can be trumped by somebody coming down the bike
from a local group that wants that facility. They'll make the
reservations and then, on a local-needed basis, those -- somebody
could come forward and say, now we want it, and here you've got
reservations --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But the first -- my first suggestion
would address all of your concerns, which is not to make it
retroactive, make it effective as of today. You won't book any more
tournaments or play for out-of-county groups. Let these continue that
have already been booked and just don't do any more.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And you're getting closer to it, but
what are you going to do about groups here in Collier County that
want to have tournament games against people from other counties,
where they go there and they play, they come back here and they
play?
Page 187
February 27, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think we've already said that
those are permissible, when we have teams playing or sponsoring the
event, that that should be permissible.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't think we've given this enough
thought. I agree with you that there's a lot of things you're coming up
with that sound very good to be able to get closer to it. I would feel a
lot more comfortable if we brought it back so that we have everything
outlined, and maybe between now and the time they come back, staff
might have better appreciation of the problem.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This resolution is nothing more
than a statement of intent. You can pass the statement of intent and
then ask the staff to come back and give us the implementing
guidelines to accomplish this, that way we don't have two hearings on
these things. I mean, why repeat all this stuff again? I mean, we keep
wanting to bring things back, bring them back, bring them back.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We don't have any answers. That's the
only reason why.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you don't have the
implementing answers, but you don't have implementing answers for
hardly anything that we do.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But the ordinance we have in front of
us --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's not an ordinance. It's a
resolution.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The guideline. It's all inclusive. The
way it's written, it's -- it's the end of the ability to be able to even
negotiate and be able to do something. It's the end of a dollar source
that we could use to build the Little League parks. I can see
tremendous possibilities now. I mean, the TDC's been very lax.
They've taken advantage of us.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, then why don't you just vote
against it and let's call the question. Get this thing done.
Page 188
February 27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we will. We will call the
question, but first we've got to go to Commissioner Henning, then
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, look, would it be helpful
if we removed the word first and now there be it claimed (sic)?
MS. RAMSEY: Well-- and my real one is the due notice. And
part of my concern is, is that if we had the tournament that we had this
weekend and another team came up and said, I want field, you know,
three and four, what does that truly mean to us? And I think the due
notice has to be defined, and that was my concern with that particular
whereas. Right, first right. That was -- my concern with the last
whereas had to do with the undefined due notice.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And I think that you
need to bring back something to us to accommodate.
MS. RAMSEY: Most definitely, I can do that, as long as you
give me some opportunity here, you know, so that I can come back to
you with some other opportunities because there still are some times
when our regular league seasons are not in play. And if you're open to
hear some of that, you know, I would appreciate to be able to come
back with you with some of those tournament plays that are happening
in July when our leagues are totally non-existence at that point in time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I heard you say that, and I
don't have a problem with that. And it's not to cut out the visitors. I
think it was, clearly, I said that. I don't know why we're continuing to
discuss this. It's very simple.
MS. RAMSEY: I believe that the intent that I'm hearing from
Commissioner Henning is our intent. Our intent is to make sure that
every league in Collier County that wants to play at these facilities has
that opportunity to do that. I think we've done a really good job at
that. I think our numbers show that. And so if you just want to
solidify that, this staff has no problem --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ms. Ramsey, it's also the little
Page 189
February 27, 2007
boy that wants to kick the ball on that field that was turned away.
MS. RAMSEY: I agree. And you know what?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And they had to be given
direction by somebody above to make that happen, because this
happened more than once.
MS. RAMSEY: Our -- we have two different definitions.
Pickup game versus practice. And what we have said, if it is a pickup
game, a family has a picnic, they want to toss the ball around, Dad
wants to go out with his three children and kick around on the soccer
field, we have no problem with that.
If that is not clearly defined down to the, you know, on-site
people, then we will take care of that issue. But we definitely believe
that if they're out there having a good time, I don't see a reason why
they can't fly a kite. Why they can't, you know, throw the ball.
There's no reason that they can't do that. And if that is not clearly
being stated, then we will definitely make sure that it is.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, whatever you do on your motion,
we will come back with implementing instructions for you, and you
can look at them in finite detail and talk -- instead of talking about
examples that are popping up, we'll go down that list with you, and
you can concur with it or you can tell us how you want to change it.
We'll do whatever you want,
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the way we do with all the
resolutions.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the way we do it. And
there's nothing different. We've been debating it for an hour now, and
it's exactly -- you're exactly right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's get to Commissioner
Fiala. We'll--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. This is fast. I just -- I heard
somebody say -- I think it was Commissioner Henning -- just take out
Page 190
February 27, 2007
"first" as far as considerations go, and the other thing is, you wanted to
define due notice. I think that's pretty simple. I would like to wait to
hear you do that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So in other words, we're
sending this back and it's going to come back to us to make some
minor corrections --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We have a motion on the floor.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- and we're going to be dealing with
the issue again when it comes back.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There was a motion --
MR. MUDD: Motion -- you have a motion on the floor --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- to approve the agenda.
MR. MUDD: -- and a second on a particular thing to accept the
resolution as written.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's go--
MR. MUDD: You have to call this question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Mr. Mudd, I appreciate your
help on that very much. I really do. If it wasn't for you, I wouldn't
know what to do next.
And with that, I'm going to call the question. I've been instructed
fully how to do it by the county manager.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. All those in favor, indicate by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. It passed 4-1.
Page 191
February 27, 2007
Item #1 OA
REPORT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON
THE BLASTING ACTIVITIES AT JONES MINE COMMERCIAL
EXCAVATION SITE - APPROVED; STAFF TO CHECK PUD TO
MAKE SURE THAT ALL IS BEING DONE AS PROMISED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us to our next item on
the agenda, which is lOA. It's a report to the Board of County
Commissioners on the blasting activities at the Jones Mine
commercial excavation site.
Mr. Tom Kuck, your county engineer, will present.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to accept the report.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, no, no.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Don't go away.
We've got a motion by Commissioner Coy Ie and a second by
Commissioner Henning. And I really need for this report to be read
out. There's a lot of concern in the area around Jones Mine over
what's taken place there.
MR. KUCK: Again, for the record, Tom Kuck, county
engineering and engineering director in community development. I
should say, good afternoon, and it's been a long day for all of us.
I'm going to do a little bit of a backup. At the November 28,
2006, board meeting, Mr. Joseph Dimurro, a neighbor to the Jones
Mine who resides, I think, on 20th Street Southwest, under public
petition 6A, voiced concerns and alleged damages to his residence.
As a result, the board requested the engineering department to
provide a report on blasting at the second meeting in January.
Subsequently, Mr. Dimurro requested the report be delayed until
today's meeting. He wanted it to be postponed until the second
meeting in February.
Page 192
February 27, 2007
One interesting thing that you may not be aware of is on
February 19th the county manager and myself received an email from
Mr. Dimurro that he was withdrawing his filed public petition, so he
will not probably be here today. I just wanted to add that so you
would know.
Attached to this executive summary are two reports related to the
blasting at the Jones Mine site, and I don't -- you've got them attached.
And I don't know if you want them on the screen or if you just want
to follow them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If you wouldn't mind, maybe you
could give us a condensed version from what they were blasting with
before to what they're blasting with now, why the situation has
improved. Hopefully it has. Has it improved as far as the residents in
the area are concerned?
MR. KUCK: It seems -- I don't think there's been a whole lot of
blasting since the first of the year, to be real honest. One of the
complaints we did receive, and that was back -- oh, I've got it
somewhere -- we had numerous calls on -- about blasting, and we
traced it down. And we -- there were no -- there was not any blasting
done on that date. It was all a result of a couple military jets breaking
the sound barrier, and we've had that happen in the past. You know,
that creates a similar vibration to what blasting does.
But going back to the report number one -- I'll go over that
briefly with you -- that's the blasting log from the Jones Mine. And it
shows the trip number. And we've done like 25 trips. There's been --
25 blastings have been performed. I've got listed inspection dates,
when that would be -- when the blasting occurred.
I've got the name of the on-site inspector from my department
who's there to monitor the blasting. I've also included the number of
holes that were shot that day, and pounds per charge in the hole, and
then followed by that is the seismograph readings.
And on the vibration, our regulations say they cannot exceed 0.5
Page 193
February 27, 2007
inches per second, which is kind of a technical term. But it's
interesting to note -- and you can follow that column down -- the
largest vibration on the register was .32. And then I took an average
all the blasts, and it comes out about 0.12, way below what the
county's regulations are.
And that -- the same is true on the -- for the decibel -- the air
blast noise, and that's in the last column. And I didn't average those.
But looking at it, it would probably average around 112 or 113. The
allowable is 133.
Now, I'll go on. First I'll ask if you have any questions on that
particular log.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The -- let me put it in a different
context. The people out there that were complaining -- and I'm sorry,
Commissioner Fiala. I'll come right to you -- that were complaining,
from what I can see here, the blasts back in the earlier part, back in
last August, September, seemed to have heavier charges; is that
correct?
MR. KUCK: Yeah, that's correct. The blasting contractor
voluntarily -- I think it was after the -- shortly after the board meeting
that we had in November, he reduced his charges down in the
neighborhood of 20 to 30 percent.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. We started off--
MR. KUCK: And he did that -- he did that voluntarily.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We start off with 14, we go to 10,21,
23, and then towards the bottom of the list, you look at it and it starts
to get reduced, six, eight, three.
MR. KUCK: And that --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Vibrations, dealing with the
vibrations, because I don't know for sure what you would -- other than
that to judge it on. You've got to have some matrix to be able to
measure with.
MR. KUCK: Yeah. Those were all --
Page 194
February 27,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So I mean, this is the reason why
we're not getting complaints now, hopefully? Or do you think they
just gave up? There was a tremendous amount of complaints at the
beginning.
MR. KUCK: Commissioner, I'm not really sure. We -- again,
they haven't done a lot of blasting in the last month and a half, and that
-- if they're not blasting, we're not going to get complaints, so -- but I
also think that when they voluntarily reduce the poundage, that that
probably had an impact on reducing down the vibration.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So I understand where you're
coming from. So this has been dormant for a month and a half. When
they start back up again, we're going to have to deal with the situation
one more time to see where it's going to go. Hopefully they keep the
charges low. They deal with this in a humane manner rather than how
they did it for a while.
MR. KUCK: Yes. And after I complete my report, I think Rory
Simon, the president of the blasting company, is here, and he may be
able to address some of the questions also on what their future plans
are.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, that I might ask some questions
of, but right now, Commissioner Fiala --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, no, no. That's from before.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, that's from before?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let me go to Commissioner Halas,
then I'll go ahead and ask questions afterwards.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You've got a scale here that says
not to exceed 133 decibels.
MR. KUCK: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Are you basing, that 120 decibels is
one G?
MR. KUCK: Is one what?
Page 195
February 27, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: One G or one gravitation -- or
gravitational measurement?
MR. KUCK: I'd have to ask the blasting contractor to address
that. We--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're not dealing with sound here.
You're dealing with vibration.
MR. KUCK: No. The vibration is the -- picked up on the
seismograph. It also records --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, I see.
MR. KUCK: It also records at the same time, simultaneously,
what the noise level is, and that's the decibel.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. You're measuring -- okay, I
got you now. It says, do not exceed .5, which is .5 G's; is that correct?
MR. KUCK: Yes, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So this -- this is really what
we should be looking at is the vibration that's being transmitted across
-- through the ground?
MR. KUCK: That's true. The higher the vibration level, the
more chance you're going to have for damages to structures.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So what you're doing here,
from what I can see on this scale, is that the amount of G's that are
being generated are being -- are less since they've changed their
charge?
MR. KUCK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So therefore, we're
imposing problems, vibration problems, to the homeowners around
that area?
MR. KUCK: Well, they'll be probably feeling some of the
vibration even with those lower levels. I've done a lot of research, you
know, in other states and even other countries, but we're far below in
our requirements than these other states, even the counties here in
Florida, and some of the foreign countries.
Page 196
February 27, 2007
I read an article or pulled it up on the web that the permissible
average level for the vibration limits in the United States varies from 1
to 1. 5.
Years ago we had a requirement that they had to be -- couldn't be
over one, and then I rewrote the blasting ordinance, oh, 10 years ago
or so, and I copied a lot of information that was being used at that time
in Dade and Broward County and adopted our blasting ordinance, and
since that time there's been numerous counties that adopted the same
ordinance that we have and -- go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that's where you're saying, do
not exceed a half a G?
MR. KUCK: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Gotcha.
MR. KUCK: And if they exceed 80 percent of that halfG, which
would be .4, they have to stop blasting and come and tell us what
they're going to do. And it's kind of a warning. We'll allow them
within 80 percent of that .5, but if they hit .4 or .41 or whatever, they
have to stop blasting and come to the engineering department and tell
us what they're going to do by reducing their charges or whatever.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's measured at their property
line; is that correct?
MR. KUCK: This is -- normally they're recorded at the nearest
structure to where the blasting is occurring. There's some cases in the
past where we've -- I think the blasting contractor has set up a
permanent seismograph at locations where we've received a lot of
complaints as well as having another seismograph recording where it's
going to close -- the structure where it's closest to the actual blasting
occurrence.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Why don't we go to the
speaker, and then if there's any other discussion, we'll --
MS. FILSON: You have one speaker, Mr. Chairman, and I
Page 197
February 27, 2007
believe his name is David Purdie. He can correct that when he comes
up.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: State your name for the record.
MR. PURDIE: Oh, Dave Purdie. I'm sure you guys remember
me.
I don't know when the last time they blasted. The last time I was
home when they blasted was on the 29th of November, and it was
quite an experience. I was really waiting for my windows to break
and my walls to crack. The statement that I have here that I wrote for
you guys -- do you want one?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no. Speak into the microphone.
MR. PURDIE: Oh, I'm sorry. Sometimes I don't like to hear
myself talk.
Anyway, everything here that's happened since the blasting
started -- I gave a brief summary here. You can read it if you like, put
it on public file.
I have cracks in my home. They weren't there before this
blasting started. They're there now. I'm not here to argue with him,
them, or anybody else. There's cracks in my home. What do we do
now?
I mean, to you -- Rory came and looked at them. Rory Simon's a
very nice guy. I got to -- I got to say that. He's always answered my
calls. Came to my house, looked at it. The one -- in the one bedroom,
I've never seen a crack like that before, okay. It's not like a regular
hairline crack or settlement crack. It's like the whole ceiling moved.
I'm not trying to assassinate your project out there, but come on, man.
Gi ve me a break.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good question, but it isn't our project.
MR. PURDIE: Oh, you know what I mean.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The people that have the project are
going to be responsible to answer, and that's the reason why we're here
today is, we had an issue over the complaints that were out there, and
Page 198
February 27, 2007
that's why we scheduled this particular meeting.
And I'm looking back on the record. On the date you talk about,
11/29, it shows that the vibrations were .12. Prior to that, going back
to -- just to give you a comparison, 11/17 they were .10, then they
went down on 11/20 to .8 -- .08. After they did the monstrous .12 on
the 29th that you're referring to, on the -- December 6th, it went down
to .06; the 20th it was .08; and then on the 16th it was a low .03. So
you're observations on one particular day agree with the chart that's in
front of me.
Now, who's here from the company itself, from Jones Mining?
Anybody?
MS. COOK: Nobody here's from Jones Mining, but Jones
Mining's blasting contractor, Rory Simon, is in the back and would be
available to answer any questions you have of him. And he is also --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, my question is, who's going
onto his property to check out the damage?
MR. PURDIE: No, Rory --
MR. KUCK: When we get a -- when we receive a complaint, we
will desig -- Bill Spencer receives those complaints. He gets ahold of
Rory and instructs Rory to get ahold of the property owner and make a
meeting to go out and look at the alleged damages. And on top of
that, we do have videotapes that were taken of all the properties prior
to any blasting, and that's a requirement that we have.
But sometimes, I'm not saying -- it's possible, you know, after
those videotapes are taken, that you could have a crack show up in a
side wall or in plastering, and it may not really be related to the
blasting.
There's like four different things that contribute to cracking of
plaster and to cracking of sidewalks, which include, I just happen -- a
lot of places have a lot of fill put in, four, five or six feet of fill, and if
that's not properly compacted, it's like being on jelly, and you get a
vibration, and it's going to move something, and a lot of that's caused
Page 199
February 27, 2007
by improper compaction when the homes are built.
Another thing is improper curing. The contractors have a
tendency to pour the concrete and, you know, walk away from it, but
you should be using curing compound installing the joints, and it's the
same way with plastering. They want to slop it on there sometimes,
but you get too much moisture, you're just defeating the whole
purpose, and that can lead to cracks also in plastering.
MR. MUDD: Yeah, but Tom -- let me interrupt for just a second.
Commissioner, if they went out prior to the blasting started and they
looked at the condition of the properties and the properties are such
and such on the video, and after they started blasting, they go back
and they look at the properties and the properties have some damage
to it, you know, then that's the blasting company --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then who's re --
MR. MUDD: Oh, the blasting company has that responsibility.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The blasting company. I could care
less about the cured concrete --
MR. MUDD: Because when the blasting company started, they
went out and they inventoried those homes, okay, and what their --
and what their conditions were. They knew that when they started the
blast, if there was any condition change to those homes, that they were
going to be responsible for it, and that's the bottom line.
I've done lots of blasting projects in my life, and I'm telling you,
every time we've gone out there and we've inspected, they knew the
day that they started that they were going to be responsible for the
damage if it looked like it had to do with -- anything with the
vibration, and that's the price they pay for opening up a mine.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, how do we get these people to
do what they should have done? Can we pull their license? I'm for
pulling their license right now; I really am.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
MR. KUCK: Well, one of the problems we have is that we did
Page 200
February 27,2007
not issue the blasting permit here in the county. That responsibility
was given to the state fire marshal in the year 2000. And the only
reason we're out here observing these blasts is because the board
directed us to do inspections on it.
And the developer, the owner of the mine, and the blasting
contractor agreed to pay our inspection fees, which amounts to $200
each time we're out there. They wouldn't have had to have done that
because --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, the end results is--
MR. KUCK: We're out -- we're pretty much exempt from what
the blasting permit is.
I'm going to recommend that we enter into an interlocal
agreement possibly with the state fire marshal where they give us the
responsibility to take and make the inspection and where we can
legally collect a fee on it, and then when there's complaints, we will
fire those back to the state fire marshal's office.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And it goes through the whole
rigamarole. It gets held up with bureaucracy.
Is there anything, Mr. Weigel, we can do under the PUD to exact
something from these people to make them do what they promised to
do when they were before us?
MR. WEIGEL: Only if it's already in the language of the PUD,
and, of course, we'd have to look at that and report back to you.
MR. MUDD: I believe this was a conditional use, David.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. We're being told that it could be, that the
conditional use could be withdrawn. I'd have to, you know, look at
that a little further myself, but that is a thought. The mining is under a
conditional use. The mining's under a conditional use permit.
MR. KUCK: And we've talked about that. Our only leverage is
to try and rej ect the --
MR. MUDD: Conditional use.
MR. K U CK: -- conditional use on it.
Page 201
February 27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Come on, fellow commissioners.
Help me with this one. We've got a promise that was made before us
that they would not be doing what they're doing, that they were going
to tape it, that they were going to take care of the residents, and they're
not doing it, and now we're hearing about the fact that the fire marshal
controls the blasting element. We've still got the PUD in our corner.
I'd like to see us direct the county attorney to come back and tell us
legally what we can do. And I'd like to see us follow through on it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree.
MR. KUCK: I'll give you a little bit of history why it went to the
state fire marshal, if you want to know the reason for it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: To be honest with you, I don't. I just
want to know what I can do to exact the -- extract from these people
what they need to do to be able to make us whole and my residents
whole.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think the county manager hit
upon it, and that is, they went in there, they took pictures, and then the
blasting started, then obviously this gentleman's got a problem. The
end result is, that's who's responsible to repair this man's house. End
of story.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're right, but you got to be able to
exact it some way. They're not doing it. They're finding every reason
in the world not to.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, if you'd limit -- if you stop
the amount -- if you stop trucks from going in and out of there, they
can't sell their fill. Guess what? They're going to have to address the
.
Issue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we have to make sure we're
within our legal framework to be able to do this.
MR. KUCK: And I recommend that they do file a complaint
with the state fire marshal and --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This gentleman here?
Page 202
February 27, 2007
MR. KUCK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why should he? I'll be honest with
you. The deal was struck in this room with Jones Mining that they
would not do what they're doing now and that they would take care of
it. Why should we make this man responsible to go to the fire marshal
and try to go through the whole thing at the state end when the
promise was made to this commission that they would perform a
certain way and they haven't done it?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Then we have the county go to the
fire marshal. They've got the evidence.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, I'd suggest you give some
direction to staff, either myself, the county attorney, in concert, to
basically research the ability of the county to revoke the conditional
use, go through the proper steps to advertise this in order to go through
it. And we'll come back at the next meeting and basically discuss that
particular item with you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Meanwhile, the issue before
the -- I've got to see if my fellow commissioners agree to that, then
we'll go to the motion that's on the floor.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I agree, but maybe the county
attorney can give us some guidance. He's the one that maybe should
just write the information to go to the fire -- state fire marshal in
regard to this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's not going to work. The state
fire marshal's not going to work, believe me. It's still -- it's the whole
bureaucracy that's over and above everything we're here with. We've
got a PUD that these people promised to perform, it's with the Collier
County Commission, not with the state fire marshal.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. What's the motion on the
floor?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, the motion on the floor is to
Page 203
February 27, 2007
accept the report as is. Now, that's a separate thing altogether, the
report. The report is factual. It's nothing more than what actually
happened as far as blasting and the powers. That's no problem. The
direction we give to the county manager is another thing. The county
manager just made a suggestion, and I kind of hope that I can get three
commissioners to agree with me to have him work with the county
attorney and see what's possible.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Fine.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I agree.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, great, okay. So there's the
verbal direction. Now we've got the motion on the floor as far as the
report. The motion was made by Commissioner Henning, a second by
Commissioner Coyle.
MS. FILSON: It was made by Commissioner Coyle and
seconded by Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I got it backwards.
Commissioner Coyle -- and that's the first time today I got it wrong.
Commissioner Coyle was the one that made the motion,
Commissioner Henning with the second.
Any other comments on it as far as accepting the report? The
report has nothing to do about what we're talking about.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That gentleman was raising his
hand.
MR. SIMON: Any response by the public?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You were supposed to sign up, sir.
I'll have to -- I'm going to allow you to come up here. You're the
blasting person?
MR. SIMON : Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. I'm going to have you talk to the
county attorney and the county manager afterwards and then you can
work out the details. I don't want to hear why it can't be done. I just
want to know how it can be done.
Page 204
February 27, 2007
I'm sick and tired of sitting down here, coming to an
understanding with the developer or a mine and then finding out that
they got reasons why they're not going to perform after they made
promises to do so.
So with that, we've still got the motion on the floor. Motion is
different than the direction.
All those in favor of the motion to approve the report that we
have in front of us, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 4-0.
Thank you very much. Maybe we can set a fire under everybody
and something will happen now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He wants to know what we just did.
MR. PURDIE: Yeah, what -- exactly.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We directed the county attorney and
the county manager to get together and see what we can do under the
PUD as far as what they promised they were going to -- that Jones
Mining was going to do when they were before us, if they violated the
PUD, to come back before this commission and tell us how we can
shut them down for nonperformance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And fix his house.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, they've got to fix his house to
be able to get out of this whole thing. You've got to fix everybody's
house they did damage to. But no, we don't know where that's going
to go yet. We're going to --
MR. PURDIE: Am I going to have to come back here?
Page 205
February 27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. You don't have to, but I would
love to see you here.
MR. PURDIE: Yeah. I've made so many good friends here, I --
you know, I just want to come back.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're part of the family now. We
don't want you gone too long now.
MR. PURDIE: Well, maybe one of these days I'll have my name
up there. You won't know what I'm talking about, but maybe it will be
up there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's okay.
MR. PURDIE: I thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you so much for dealing with
this. I know it's probably a little difficult at times.
MR. KUCK: A report is very easy to put together. It's -- you
know, it's the controversy over the blasting and everything, and we're
-- as I said, we're limited in what we can do on the blasting. Looking
at it from a conditional use, that's another story.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
Mr. Mudd, what's next?
Item #1 OB
A WARDED WORK ORDER HS-FT-3785-07-03 IN THE AMOUNT
OF 2,846,000 TO HAZEN AN SAWYER, P.C. (H&S) FOR
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES TO EXPAND THE
NORTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY
(NCWRF) TO 30.6 MILLION GALLONS PER DAY (MGD)
MAXIMUM MONTH AVERAGE DAILY FLOW (MMADF), AS
PROJECT 73950 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Next item is 10B. It's a recommendation, sir, to
award work order HS-FT-3785-07-03 in the amount of $2,846,000 to
Page 206
February 27, 2007
Hazen and Sawyer, P.C., which is H&S, for professional engineering
services to expand the North County Water Reclamation Facility to
30.6 million gallons per day maximum month average daily flow as
project 73950, and Mr. Peter Shalt, principal project manager for
public utilities, will present.
MR. SCHAL T: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I have a
presentation prepared or I can answer any questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why don't we go to the questions at
hand, and then if we need more information, we will.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Under -- the protocol for a work
order in this case -- is up $3 million?
MR. SCHAL T: Three million is the limit, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And this is opening up a
new work order for this?
MR. SCHAL T: This is a brand new work order under that fixed
annual term contract.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Well, based upon
historical information, there'll be change orders. So what happens
when it goes above $3 million?
MR. SCHAL T: We've been assured and we've negotiated
properly where there will not be change orders. The only method that
will result in a change order is if there's unforeseen conditions. We
don't anticipate that. That's why we hired this firm. They have the
most experience with this plant. They've been out there 15 years and
they're intimately familiar with it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you have any contingencies
in this work order, financial contingencies? I know Mr. Feeder puts
like a 10 percent contingency on it.
MR. SCHALT: We typically don't on design contracts. When
we go to construction, we'll formally bid that. We will have
contingencies in that for construction, but we typically don't do that in
Page 207
February 27, 2007
design contracts.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just don't see it coming back
without a change order.
MR. SCHAL T: If it should, in the unforeseen case, we will bring
it back to the board and we'll present that to you for approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You'll have to.
MR. SCHAL T: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The thing is, is what to do when
it goes over $3 million? You say, well, you need to go out to bid?
No, we're too for down the line.
MR. CARNELL: Steve Carnell, purchasing director.
Commissioner Henning, your question, we spent hours on that,
Mr. Schalt and my staff, that very question. Now, this contract did
contemplate work up to $3 million.
But we went through all the questions of what could possibly
happen to drive it over the 2.8 and cause change orders. And as Mr.
Schalt has said, we have looked at every scenario we could come up
with. We'd evaluate it from an operational standpoint with the
wastewater department as well as with the project management staff,
and we've -- at this point, it's our good faith best knowledge that we
can hold to this 2.8 million.
We've had conversations in depth with the consultant. And as a
matter of law, if we go over the $3 million, which could happen under
the scenario of an unforeseen condition, the board can waive and
approve additional work.
Now, I don't want to say that lightly as though we are planning
on doing that. The intent of your staff here is to follow the 2.8. The
consultant understands that the target is to stay right within the
number or come in possibly a little bit under it.
But there is -- it's not a legal issue in terms of coming back to the
board. We would have to justify the increase at that time, if there
were to be one.
Page 208
February 27, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And it's a policy.
MR. CARNELL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, yeah. Well, okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do I hear a motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion for approval by
Commissioner Halas, a second by Commissioner Fiala.
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.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 4-0. And we're
taking a break.
MR. SCHAL T: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
Commissioner, we're going to take it a little bit out of order
because we have Mr. Limbaugh here. He's not under oath right now,
but we can make that happen.
Item #10E
Page 209
February 27, 2007
RESOLUTION 2007-49: APPROVING A STATE
INFRASTRUCTURE BANK LOAN AGREEMENT IN THE
AMOUT OF 12,000,000, THE AMENDED LOCALLY FUNDED
LUMP SUM AGREEMENT AND THE RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO ENTER INTO AND
EXECUTE THESE AGREEMENTS WITH THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO BE USED FOR THE
I-75/IMMOKALEE ROAD INTERCHANGE LOOP PROJECT-
ADOPTED
This will be 10E, to seek the board's approval of a state
infrastructure bank loan agreement in the amount of $12 million, the
amended locally funded lump sum agreement and a resolution
authorizing the chairman to enter in and execute these agreements
with the Florida Department of Transportation to be used for the
I-75/Immokalee Road interchange loop project.
Mr. Don Scott, your transportation planner, chief planner --
director, will present.
MR. SCOTT: Something like that. This item is presented to
finalize the agreements with FDOT on the state infrastructure bank
loan for $12 million and also the locally funded lump sum agreement,
which you previously approved back in May of 2006. But obviously
there was one part of that where they pay us the money, I turn around
and pay it back to FDOT. It kind of made sense for the money to go
straight to District 1, and that's the adjustment in that locally funded
agreement.
Obviously, you might have read the newspaper about I -7 5. The
bids did come in. The lowest bid does fit within the project. There is
a project there for widening 1-75 and Immokalee Road interchange.
This project is included within that.
And I open it up for any questions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
Page 210
February 27, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got a question for Johnny
Limbaugh.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let's see if we've got a second
first.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I second it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We've got a motion from
Commissioner Fiala --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Henning seconded.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Commissioner Henning
seconded it. Okay, thank you.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Johnny, does this mean that this
$12 million -- that we're going to get that loop in first?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good question.
MR. LIMBAUGH: We actually have a meeting set up with your
staff to -- once we finalize the selection of the team -- to sit down with
the team and relay this board's intention that that loop would be
attended to at the -- as quickly as possible.
We've already talked that over. We're going to sit down with the
contractor as soon as we get them onboard and discuss the schedule.
Today I can't say that it's the first step. There's no design, and the
contractor has designed other parts. So it will require -- you know,
permitting and everything else will be the timetable that sets that
course.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, we're getting closer to what I
think needs to be addressed, and that is, at least now you've moved off
center, that you're saying that there is a good chance since we're
turning over $12 million to you, to address the loop here at Immokalee
Road.
So I like what I'm hearing, and I hope it moves in that direction.
MR. LIMBAUGH: Okay. I'm not under oath, but I think what I
said is we're going to talk about that.
Page 211
February 27, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm going to hold you to it.
MR. LIMBAUGH: I didn't guarantee that it was going to be at
the beginning.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They'll just transfer that money up
to Lee County somewhere and use it there. That's what's going to
happen.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. With that, any other -- any
comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor--
MS. FILSON: I don't have a second, do I?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you have a speaker?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It was Commissioner Henning.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor of the motion,
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.
Thank you very much, Johnny. Appreciate you waiting.
MR. MUDD: Thank you very much, Commissioner.
Item #10D
RESOLUTION 2007-50: AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION BY
GIFT OR PURCHASE OF FEE SIMPLE INTERESTS AND/OR
THOSE PERPETUAL OR TEMPORARY EASEMENT INTERESTS
Page 212
February 27, 2007
NECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROADWAY,
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED FOR
THE EXTENSION OF TREE FARM ROAD FROM DAVILA
STREET TO MASSEY STREET AND WOODCREST DRIVE
FROM IMMOKALEE ROAD TO TREE FARM ROAD; (PROJEXT
60171) WITH AN ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT OF 1,200,000.00
- ADOPTED
That bring us to 10D. That's a recommendation to adopt a
resolution authorizing the acquisition by gift or purchase of fee simple
interest and/or those perpetual or temporary easement interests
necessary for the construction of roadway, drainage and utility
improvements required for the extension of Tree Farm Road from
Davila Street to Massey Street and W oodcrest Drive from Immokalee
Road to Tree Farm Road.
Project number 60171, estimated fiscal impact $1,200,000. And
Mr. Norman Feder, your transportation administrator, will present.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second. Motion by Commissioner
Henning and seconded by Commissioner Coletta for approval.
With that, we have Commissioner Halas's light on.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. My question is in regards to
-- if you'd refresh my memory exactly when this road was going to be
put in by the developer. Was it before there was any COs or was there
-- after a portion of COs? Can you tell me exactly when that road will
be in and functional?
MR. FEDER: Yes, Commissioner . We have to buy these three
parcels to allow them to proceed on the construction. We are slated to
have this at least by April of '08 for them to construct. They are
limited in the case of Summit Lakes, which is a major part of this
issue, to 50 percent of their COs until the road is completed, then
they're allowed to proceed with the other 50 percent.
Page 213
February 27, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have a motion by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Coletta.
Any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 4-0.
Item #10F
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO MOVE EXCESS LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF 1,148,493.03
FROM FUND 112 TO THE TRANSIT OPERATIONS FACILITY
FOR REPAIRS AND OR RENOVATIONS NEEDED AT THE SITE
- APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item is 10F. It's to approve a
budget amendment to move excess landscape maintenance funds in
the amount of$1,148,493.03 from fund 112 to the transit operations
facility for repairs or renovations needed at this site.
Ms. Diane Flagg, your director of alternative transportation
modes, wi II presented.
MS. FLAGG: Good afternoon.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Diane -- Ms. Flagg, could you hold
Page 214
February 27, 2007
just one second. We have two lights on. We might just have questions
to ask you rather than a presentation.
Start with Commissioner Coyle, then go to Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. My concern is that -- why
didn't we get an estimate of the total cost for this facility at the time
we were making a decision to buy it? You know, you're coming in
with $1.1 million for repair and renovations. We should have had this
in the packet whenever we made the decision to buy the building. I
might not have voted to buy it had I known we've got to pump in
another $1.1 million for renovations and repair.
MS. FLAGG: When the board took action to purchase the
property, it was contingent upon inspection of the property. A
complete inspection was done. A complete analysis of the repairs was
made.
Prior to closing Mr. Feder's secretary made appointments with
commissioners that were available so that we were able to brief the
commissioners on that before we proceeded to closing. We wanted to
fully explain to them what we had found upon the inspection of the
property .
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I was not one of those
commissioners that got briefed.
MS. FLAGG: I under -- I've subsequently learned that, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't know how the other
commissioners feel about that, but it should have been available to us
before we made a decision to tell you to go ahead and buy the
property .
MS. FLAGG: The way that the property purchase was handled,
it was contingent upon subsequent inspection. So we did not close on
the property until we conducted those briefings.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So the other commissioners
approved of that, I guess. So I guess you've already got approval to do
it. Doesn't make any difference, does it?
Page 215
February 27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let's go to Commissioner Halas.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: First -- oh, I'm sorry.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, for the record, December 7th and
8th, once we got the inspection reports and more information on what
the cost would be -- and our estimate was pretty close to where we are
right now and we're still refining some of these cost estimates even
today -- we did call all the aides, set up meetings. It was on December
7th and 8th. Unfortunately we were unable to get the meeting with
you. We did meet with the other four commissioners. That was not
an effort not to meet with you, Commissioner, I assure you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There was a Board of County
Commission's meeting in December. Why wasn't it scheduled on the
agenda? Why wasn't it at a public hearing?
MR. FEDER: Because when we made the decision and we
brought it to you to purchase, we noted even at that time that we had
to make the decision -- I believe it -- and don't quote me exactly on
this -- but it was December 11 th, I think it is, by the contract, that we
had to make the decision which was before the subsequent board
meeting, and that's why we made the effort, once we got the data, to
make sure that everybody was comfortable before we moved forward
on the purchase based on what we found out of the inspections.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's really bad.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'm sorry you weren't part of
that. I think that's something you might want to take up with the
county manager.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I think it is bad that the Board
of County Commissioners made a decision to buy something at some
point in time and they did not know at that point in time about these
maintenance costs.
Now, if you talked with the commissioners later, there was no
chance for the commissioners to debate the issue or to raise concerns,
Page 216
February 27,2007
and I certainly would have raised the concern had it been done in
public.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, I appreciate that. What I will tell
you is at the time that we brought it to you we discussed the purchase,
we went through the issues of what uses and the fact that we had to get
a letter of zoning verification. That was an outstanding issue, also the
issue of the conditional use, if we go to transfer later, which we're
looking at now.
We did identify that there were some costs for move in. We
didn't itemize them. We didn't go in detail because we didn't know
them. We did note the fact -- I believe in the record, even in the
minutes -- that we'd have to modify based on the question that
Commissioner Halas had asked about the lifts and the door areas there.
We did note that we're going to try to bring fueling on site. We
did note that we're doing the inspection. We had some issues on that,
but we did find that we can do some repairs. They're not major
problems on most of the inspection. That's--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just so you know, I would not have
voted to buy this property had I known that there was going to be a
million dollars or more for renovations and maintenance, end of story,
okay?
MR. FEDER: I appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just so that Commissioner Coyle
has some background here, I was asked to attend a meeting with staff.
And at the time it was brought up that there was going to be some
maintenance issues but also at that time they were talking about the
price of the land had -- was originally offered, I believe, for 12
million, and we had the ability to purchase this land for around 8
million and that there was going to be some cost involved in --
because of the fact that the prior owner didn't keep up some of the
Page 217
February 27,2007
facilities.
But I felt that the price of the property and what the county was
getting for that property, that the additional cost for paint and maybe
possibly repairing air-conditioners, was still beneficial to the taxpayers
here in Collier County.
N ow that I've said that, the -- my concern is, on this particular
item, since we're moving money off the landscaping, does this mean
that there will be some areas that are presently scheduled to be
landscaped that are going to be not getting landscaped, such as -- in
my district there's some very strong concerns about the landscaping
from Wiggins Pass Road north to the Collier line. Can you -- or to the
Lee/Collier line.
Can you give us some assurance that that's going to be taken care
of?
MR. FEDER: Okay. First of all, the dollars that you're looking
at here, the million, which also include es -- and I just need to add, in
the zoning verification letter it was noted that we had to put a wall in
that should have been done by the prior property owner and -- as well
as some landscaping. So those are some of the added things that we
brought to everybody.
As to the issue on the dollars that you have here, those are fiscal
year '06 maintenance dollars for the landscaping. And based on the
costs and issues we had and the rebudgeting of '07 maintenance at the
level, we didn't need those dollars and they did roll into this year and,
therefore, were available and we're trying to use for this purpose.
The issue of the landscaping in '07's program, we came to you, I
believe it was last board meeting or the one before, North Trail, East
Trail, as well as Goodlette-Frank Road, were approved for
landscaping with a caveat that we not proceed on a notice to proceed
on those until we came back to you to address the issue of the
transportation budget, and that's where we are right now. We have not
pulled those out, but we haven't proceeded on the notice to proceed at
Page 218
February 27, 2007
this time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So we're just -- we're
waiting in limbo basically is what you're saying, until --
MR. FEDER: And we are trying to get the --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- the board decides what direction
we're going to be going; is that correct?
MR. FEDER: That is correct. And actually what you're waiting
for and we are trying to get to you is information on the impact fee
update and what is the likely revenue change on that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So in closing, the vote today has
nothing to do with the landscaping issues up in that neck of the
woods?
MR. FEDER: That is correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, then
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I don't think that
Commissioner Coyle's comments should be discounted. There's
several times that we have purchased properties that afterwards we
spend quite a bit of money into fitting our needs.
I think it's important -- you know, it's a lesson learned and -- I
think by all of us, that we need to ask the questions before we even get
into a contract. What is it -- what is it, the cost estimate, to get to a
usable condition? And we shouldn't sign contracts that doesn't bring
the property up to a certain standard of conditions.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, I'll also note that this purchase was
pushed on time for the 8 million versus the 12, and that's why we
came in to you and identified that we had a number of unknowns at
that time. But I appreciate what you're saying.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, two things, one of them is, I'm
chairman of the Transportation Disadvantaged Program. And I wasn't
Page 219
A,.1>dl.. ,_., '.....___.."
February 27, 2007
told that this money, this rollover money, was going to be taken.
Is there anything that is going to be withdrawn from the
transportation disadvantaged people?
MR. FEDER: No. This is -- again, this is fiscal year '06
landscaping maintenance funds.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, not landscaping.
MR. FEDER: That's what these funds were.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I thought you said -- doesn't it say
there that we have -- yes, carryforward funds in the Transportation
Disadvantaged Program in the amount of $253,290.
MS. FLAGG: No, ma'am. It's not going to affect the
Transportation Disadvantaged Program. It was '06 dollars.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And that wasn't being saved
MS. FLAGG: No, no.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- for purchasing vehicles or
anything?
MS. FLAGG: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. I just wanted to make
sure that, you know, we didn't disadvantage them any more.
And I totally agree with Commissioner Halas, it's very important
to people in that area. I know when we voted on the U.S. 41
landscaping back in 2003, and then in 2004, we had to -- we were
asked again to put that aside for a couple years because they had a
new water main to put in. And I remember making the stipulation at
that time saying, we can put it aside as long as we don't lose it, and we
were assured that we wouldn't. So I just wanted to put that on the
record.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Do I hear a motion for approval or disapproval?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
Page 220
February 27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Halas for approval, a second by Commissioner Fiala.
And the only comment -- I just want to make a comment.
Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Henning are both right. We
bear the responsibility for not asking the questions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but like Commissioner
Henning says --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's what he said.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- we've learned a lesson.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We learned a lesson from this. And I
think we're going to be a little more thorough in our questions in the
future.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Before you take a vote, can I at
least draw your attention to a couple of items?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Oh, sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're approving -- I presume
you're going to approve that $300,000 for installation of fiber-optic or
fiber installation phone switches and $400,000 for fuel tanks and
$250,000 for generators. Are you really -- does that -- do you really
intend to do that? And it looks to me like that brings it up to $2.5
million.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. The recommendations that are
on the summary page is talking about $1,148,493.03.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are you sure that you're -- that
those have been clearly identified? Do we know which costs are being
approved here?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, there's no costs being approved
here. This is a budget amendment to move money from one account
to the other.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And then once you do that, you've
approved his authority to spend the money.
MR. MUDD: No, sir, not in the -- not in -- for those particular
Page 221
February 27,2007
quantities that you talked about just there. Those are -- those are an
itemization on that list that this staff will have to come back to this
board and get approved.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then let me rephrase that.
Do the commissioners understand that there is a list of $2.5 million
defined for this project, this renovation project --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just the balance they need.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't know whether it's the
balance they need or not. It might be a partial amount that they need
and we come in and ask for another amount later on, another million
dollars. I don't know. I really don't know what it is.
MS. FLAGG: Diane Flagg, for the record. Those are -- the
majority of those are cost projections right now, but it will not exceed
the amount that this budget amendment is requesting.
What we would do, if some of the costs come in higher than what
the projections are, we would take out the things like the fuel tank and
generators and seek grants or additional funding at a later date to do
that. So this budget amendment is not -- the facility will be moved in
and renovated with this budget amendment.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With that, I'll call the question.
Any comments?
(No response.) _
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't see any. All those in favor,
indicate by saying aye?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And let the record show that it was
4-1 with Commissioner Coyle being the dissenting vote.
Page 222
February 27, 2007
Item #10G
ADOPTION OF POLICIES TO BE USED IN DEVELOPING THE
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT BUDGET OF FISCAL
YEAR 2008 -APPROVED; RESOLUTION 2007-51: SETTING
DEADLINES AND MEETING DATES - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is lOG, that the Board of County Commissioners adopt policies
to be used in developing the Collier County budget for fiscal year
2008.
Mr. Michael Smykowski, your director of office management
and budget, will present.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Good evening, Commissioners. For the
record, Michael Smykowski.
Weare here tonight to adopt a series of pertinent policies that
will affect preparation of the fiscal year 2008 Collier County budget.
The purpose of today's discussion is for the board to reach a
consensus upon the policies upon which the budget will be based.
It's also important to note the county manager met with the
Productivity Committee last week to share the proposed FY -'08
budget policies prior to this board presentation, as he has for a number
of years now.
The executive summary is broken down into three distinct
elements, the first of which is new policies that will require board
policy direction. The second element is standard budget policies that
the board has adopted or endorsed for a number of fiscal years.
And I'll -- rather than walking through those individually, after
we complete the specific items for this year, we'll deal with those on
an exception basis.
And then as always, we include a three-year projection for both
Page 223
February 27, 2007
the general fund and the unincorporated area general fund, which are
the two principle ad valorem tax supported funds of the county
government for -- one is the general funding being countywide.
Obviously the unincorporated being the area of the county that is
outside the boundaries of the three municipalities in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, did you want
to wait or did you want to make a comment now?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, a question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: A question. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're giving direction for
department and constitutional officers, I believe, an 8 percent
increase?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So -- but the --
MR. MUDD: It's our recommendation to the board. We're not
giving direction until you tell us --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry. I -- just for
clarification, it would be the Board of Commissioners?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What happens to the other 8
percent? You're asking for a total 16 percent increase. What happens
to that other 8 percent? That's not true?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: No. We're not asking for an increase of 16
percent.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sixteen percent of -- what is the
16 percent within the packet that we're referring to?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. On page 1 of the attachments
begins the individual budget policy items proposed for fiscal year '8,
the first of which is the general fund millage rate.
The county is, again, recommending that ad valorem tax revenue
be capped at a maximum increase of 16 percent. In other words, you
would automatically roll back any -- the general fund millage rate for
Page 224
February 27, 2007
any increase above 16 percent in taxable value.
Obviously, given the change of the local real estate market, that
may be unlikely, but it is consistent -- the manager, I think, wanted to
be consistent with the prior year policy for this year and for every year
moving forward.
MR. MUDD: Michael, while you're on that thing -- now, I
briefed every commissioner yesterday on the Productivity
Committee's comments to the budget guidance. So -- and as Michael
covers it on the page, I'm going to interject and tell you what the
Productivity Committee recommends.
In this particular case, we recommended 16 percent because that's
where it was last year and that's where the board told us, so we started
there. Productivity Committee recommends that that be set at 10
percent. So anything above 10 percent, it's rolled back and returned to
the taxpayers.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Right. The staff recommendation -- there's
a lot of uncertainty. Obviously you've seen some of the legislative
bills or items that have been coming about talking about increasing the
homestead, applying this exemption to tangible personal property,
limiting ad valorem going back to 2001 rolled back rate plus CPI that
have some staggering implications.
The staff recommendation at this point is to stick with the county
manager's recommended guidance. You will have a number of
opportunities throughout the summer in which you can always reduce
the millage rate and obviously -- whether or not we'll even receive a
10 percent increase, you know, that would be cap recommended by
the Productivity Committee -- is even in question.
But you'll have opportunities in June during the budget
workshops -- the proposed millage rate, which is your worst-case
scenario that is provided to taxpayers and used in the TRIM notice, we
plan on adopting that on July 24th, so you'll have that opportunity.
In addition, there are the two September public hearings, and you
Page 225
February 27, 2007
will have had the benefit of -- the TRIM notices would have gone out,
and you'll have the benefit of the input from the public as well.
Given the legislative uncertainty at this point, I think the staff
position is, you know, take a conservative route early on because you
have an entire series of opportunities upon which you could reduce the
millage rate should you deem that the appropriate measure for the
upcoming fiscal year.
But given the uncertainty, again, relative to the legislation and
some of the somewhat severe or extreme measures that are being
proposed, I wouldn't want to see you boxed in early on in the process
while you don't really completely know the rules of the game as
they're going to apply to this year and written for you by the state
legislature as well.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let me go to Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just want to cut to the chase and
get to the bottom line. You're saying we're going to do 10 percent.
Why don't we say that?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I think -- I think your assessed
value, based on the Department of Revenue's projections at the end of
November, will come in around 10.4 percent.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: That's what they say.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right.
MR. MUDD: I have no facts or figures to either confirm nor
deny their projection.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But you've had good results from
prior forecasts from them, so --
MR. MUDD: The last three years, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. So why don't we just use
that figure rather than the 16 percent -- because I think 16 is totally
outrageous -- and use the 10 percent and be done with it?
MR. MUDD: On that particular item, if I could get the board's
Page 226
February 27, 2007
direction, and then we can move to the next item and we'll --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I totally agree with that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are there three nods?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, I can't agree with that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, because -- because I'm afraid of
what Tallahassee will do. I'd rather do that later.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can't we do that in May when we
get that percentage?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You can, but it doesn't make any
difference.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you know what? I'd rather
look -- have the taxpayers feel we've saved them in the end than to cut
our throat in the beginning.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yep.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, if I could -- and if the
taxpayers believe that we are looking to get a 16-percent increase on
assessments this year, then it gives the legislature a wonderful
opportunity to argue how greedy and inefficient the county
governments are, and that's a good reason to cap it.
If we can take the high ground and say to our taxpayers and
everyone else that we think the years of high assessments are over
with for a while and we believe a reasonable amount is 10 percent --
and by the way, if it goes over 10 percent, we're going to return it to
you.
In other words, if it comes in at 12 or 14 or 16 percent, we're
going to give that money back to the taxpayers. I think that's a far
more positive statement than saying, we're going to take 16 percent
and we're not going to give it back to you unless it goes over 16
percent.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to Commissioner Henning,
then Commissioner Halas.
Page 227
February 27, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well -- and we're talking about
what might happen to the -- what the legislature's going to do, and
respond to the rising taxes. They're going to ask the voters to vote it
through a -- maybe a special election in November, maybe.
And before they can do anything, they're going to have to come
back into session in 2008 to make law for implementation. And they
know -- and we all know when that session is, right?
And we know -- at least I feel confident that they know that local
government is already working on their budgets. And if they change
how we budget, they can't make us do it in a working budget at the
present time.
But just like Commissioner Coyle said, it's a wrong message to
send to the legislators because they will have fuel for the fire.
And besides, the county manager says it's going to be budget --
or millage neutral anyways. You don't want your departments and the
constitutional officers to base upon what we historically know is not
going to happen. We know we're not going to get 16 percent.
It would be a lot easier for us to give guidance on what we know.
We know it's 10 and a half percent. We feel it is, based upon
historical information. If we set it at 16, we're going to have a tough
time sitting up here trying to figure out who doesn't get what. If you
set the guidance now, I think it's -- it would be more prudent of what
Commissioner Coy Ie said.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'm going to jump in front of
you, Commissioner Halas, just for a moment. I attended the tax
meeting that they held in the university -- when was it, last week?
And I can tell you something. There is nothing we're going to do here
that is going to change what Tallahassee's going to do. Absolutely
zero.
My feeling is, is that I'm willing to look at it after the fact, but I
want to know where everybody else is coming from out there. I'd
rather leave it where it is, because if you go at 10 now or 10 and a
Page 228
February 27, 2007
half, at the end of that, you're going to bring it back, and the next
motion will be to try to go down to 6 and a half, then you're going to
have to cut back on your road, you're going to have to cut back on
everything, and you're going into an '08 year where the legislature is
going to have something in place, the legislative body is going to be
feed upon your ability to collect taxes.
So I would keep this as an ace in the hole to be played out a little
bit later in this year as we go forward. That's my own feelings.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm for giving back money to
taxpayers here in Collier County . We all work very hard and we all
have to pay taxes. But I'm concerned that we have a lot of people in
this county that enjoy the services that we -- that we offer here.
And I'd like to keep, as Commissioner Coletta said, keep that ace
in the hole. And after we find out what's going to happen at
Tallahassee, I'm going to jump on this bandwagon for 10 percent. But
up until the point in time when I have an understanding of what's
going on in Tallahassee, I'd like to reserve that option and keep it at
16. And if it looks very favorable for the counties here, that we're not
going to be impeded on what we need to do to address growth, then
I'm all for rolling it back to 5 -- or 10 percent.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ten and a half, wasn't it?
Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I recall so clearly when we --
when it was announced that we were $180 million short in our
transportation funds, and we challenged the county manager to find
the money, and he said, none of you will like it. No commissioner, no
taxpayer, he said, but I'll cut the budget, but you all have to suffer
some. You're going to lose all the little special things that you wanted
in order for me to do that.
Now, we're also talking about reducing or capping this millage
rate. And ifit comes in at 10.4, we're not -- I think that if we cap it
Page 229
February 27, 2007
right now, we're not even going to have any opportunity to get some
of that $180 million, or we can save some of the programs that we feel
are essential.
And so I'm going to register that concern.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now, Commissioner Coyle?
And I'm going to limit this discussion pretty soon because we can go
all night long and we're not going to get any different than 3-2.
But Commissioner Coyle, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I really wish you'd
reconsider on this because you're confusing the issues. What you're
concerned about is not relevant here. You're confusing a forecast on
how much we think the valuations will increase with the decision by
the legislature about how much money we're going to get. They have
-- there's no relationship to that whatsoever.
What -- to put this in simpler terms, if you say, we're going to cap
our expected increase in taxable value at 16 percent, what you're doing
is you're telling every agency of government, go ahead and budget to
expend 16 percent more money this year than you are going -- than
you otherwise would have.
Now, they go ahead and budget that, the sheriffs office and the
clerk and everyone else budgets the additional 16 percent, and then it
comes in at 10, and what are we doing now? We're trying to beat
them over the head to get it back down to 10. What we want to do
when we're trying to forecast something is go in with something that is
conservative and realistic. That way they will have already
anticipated that reduction, they will have already reviewed where they
can improve efficiencies and reduce cost, and the budget we will then
have will be more realistic and we'll be better able to function under
whatever the legislation does.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's got to Mike and find out.
Mike, what about this? This is an issue I didn't consider.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: The next item, the next category, is budget
Page 230
February 27, 2007
allocations, and the county manager's proposal is, again, used for
general fund purposes, the share of the pie. In other words, everyone
would share equally based on the proportions. They were the general
funds going back to '04. We've used that over the last few years.
But the caveat this year is with a maximum agency budget
increase of 8 percent. The county manager was recommending a
maximum budget increase of 8 percent. And I think the county
manager will address the counter proposal raised by the Productivity
Committee. But his specific recommendation was 8 percent.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Well, the context of what
we're talking about.
MR. MUDD: Let me go back to the context you're talking about.
Look, I put 16 -- and as the county manager, I put 16 percent there
because that's what you agreed to last year, okay? There was -- I
didn't put any rational thought into what that was. It was there. I said,
we still need to have a cap. We need to know where the rollback's
going to be, and it's something that the board needs to decide.
I believe that the Productivity Committee hit it dead on the head.
I believe the 10 percent cap this year is a prudent one, especially with
the negative -- the negative bills that I have seen that try to take your
home rule authority away from you as far as your budgets are
concerned.
Governor Crist has a platform out there that could cost Collier
County $50 million, and I shared that with every one of you. House
Speaker Rubio basically put something out on the line here about a
week ago. And we haven't seen the bill number yet. He put it out at a
draft for the budget committee that was meeting at the time.
Mr. Smykowski and I have done the numbers on that particular
thing, and that's a 50 percent cut in your ad valorem revenues. That's
$138 million cut. If that's the kind of rationale that they're going
through, the more conservative you can be on your cap of what your
revenue is going to be and before you roll it back to your constituents,
Page 231
February 27, 2007
the better off you're going to be, because I believe it is a positive step.
And I believe -- it came in at 10.4. That was the revenue. I will
tell you, they've been really close. It hasn't been where they said we
were going to come in at 26 where Abe Skinner didn't come in at 25.8.
I mean, they were really close at the end of those years.
So I'm going to tell you, you're going to be at 10 or just a little bit
over. That's it. I don't think it's a bad thing. Understand why I put the
16 there. It's where you were last year. I didn't put a rational basis on
it. I just wanted the discussion to start there.
I didn't want this board to lose sight of the fact that they capped it
and then they rolled over, because I believe that was an important
decision that this board took. It's one of the reasons that this board
room only had nine people come talk to them during the budget
conference where there were other counties in this state that had to put
circus tents up because there were over a thousand people trying to --
if they would have been lynched, they could have been that night.
And Charlotte County was one of them. They had to put a circus
tent up because they couldn't hold them all in their boardroom. Had
over 500 people, and their meeting went till like 1 :30 in the morning.
So I'm going to say, that was a pursuant thing that the board did.
I didn't want the board to lose sight of that particular issue. I don't
believe 10 percent is a bad number. I think it's a good number. I don't
think you're going to be rolling a lot back over 10 because I don't think
the assessed values are going to come in much higher than that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Meanwhile, we don't know for sure
what's taking place. Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: You have no idea what's going -- Florida's safe
until the legislature goes into the House, then we don't know what it is.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Once again, that's the argument to
take as little action as possible with the idea that we will respond and
do the 10 -- 10, 10 and a half percent when that point in time comes. I
-- even though it doesn't look like there's any possibilities, I don't
Page 232
February 27, 2007
know what's going to come down.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But we may regret that at this point in
time.
MR. MUDD: Well, I think your assessed value is basically -- is
predicated on how the market's doing. It has nothing to do with what
Tallahassee's doing to you. It has everything to do with what the
market's doing, new home sales, new construction starts, and what
your property evaluation is going to do in the year. Is it going to be a
couple percentages or is it going to fall?
The next item that --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We haven't gotten through yet.
Commissioner Fiala wants to speak, and then I want to see some
direction given to the county manager.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well -- and I was going to say,
before the county manager spoke, that -- let's form a compromise and
call it 12. I figured that'd -- that'd get us down closer, but the county
manager said -- I didn't even realize the 10.4, and he just
recommended that we -- that's a good conservative figure. So I guess
I should withdraw my idea of 12.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I make a motion we make it
10 percent, which is the reasonable -- the reasonable projection is.
We're going to put ourselves in a real bad position if we start talking
about 16 percent. You know, we're going to look ridiculous and be
the subject of ridicule and criticism. So let's use what we believe to be
reasonably accurate.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is it 10 percent or 10.4?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The question was, what was --
MR. MUDD: Sir, the Department of Revenue estimate was 10.4
percent.
Page 233
February 27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. But you're going at 10 percent
rather than 10.4?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If it was 10.4, I would agree with
you. But in any case, we've got a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coy Ie and a second by Commissioner Henning.
Meanwhile, I want everybody to keep in mind all those things
that have to be done.
Those in favor of the motion --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, let me ask a question then.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Those things that need to be done,
including -- including our transportation system -- because that's what
we're most concerned with right now and all of the things we either
win or lose because of that -- if we cap it at 10, does that affect then
the money that we can use for those things?
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, the difference between your revenue cap,
which is what you're talking about right now, before you roll back, if
it gets over that amount and your expenditure ceiling, which I'm
recommending at 8 percent and the Productivity Committee is
recommending at 6 percent, the difference between whatever that
figure is will be your unfinanced money that you'll be able to deal
with.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So this is not going to affect
whether or not we have extra money for transportation or where you're
going to get your $180 million from; is that what you're telling me?
MR. MUDD: It will be --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I answer that?
MR. MUDD: It will be -- you really asked me a hard question,
okay? And you want me to give you certainty, okay, and it's a very
hard thing to do. I will tell you it will have a minimal impact, ma'am,
minimal in the fact that it won't be more than a half a million dollars.
Page 234
February 27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Between 10 and 10.4?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. That's about it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have a motion by
Commissioner Coyle -- or is it other way around? Were you the one
that made the motion, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Coyle.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Coyle made the motion, Henning was
the second, to cap it at 10.
Okay. And with that motion, all those in favor, indicate -- you
are all through speaking, right, Commissioner Henning?
(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: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item comes to the general
budget allocation. I recommended 8 percent. Let me tell you why I
recommended 8 percent. Because your South Florida cost of living
came in at 4.1 percent. Your average growth in the county has been
averaging around 5 percent a year. That comes in at around 9.1
percent.
And I set it at 8, which was below that because I also knew what
the revenue projections were and I didn't want to get too close, and we
can -- and we can work that necessity issue.
I presented that particular issue to the Productivity Committee
Page 235
February 27, 2007
and they thought that it would have been better to set it at 6 percent so
that whatever squeeze is between the 6 and the 10 would be
unfinanced requirements.
I will tell you that if it is at 6 percent, the expanded positions will
move out of the budget and will show up on your UFR list. I'm just
going to -- there's -- at 6 percent, when you're talking about 4.1 and a
merit of 1.5, it is so close on personnel that if there's anything that's
expanded, expanded service -- I mean in '08, according to the AUIR,
we're talking about adding three ambulances and the crews that go for
it.
Ooh, that's several million dollars. And when you put that on
me, there's no way that EMS could even stay close to that 6 percent.
So I just want you to know, if you want to set it at 6 as a goal -- and
we'll try to, everybody get to it -- just understand you're going to have,
I'll call it creep, of expanded above the 6 percent onto your UFR list.
And I'm trying to be very forthright and frank with you in that
particular dialogue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But the UFR list would have
considerably more money in it?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. It would -- it could potentially have it,
but you're going to -- on your UFR list where you might not have
expanded positions, so to speak, you'll have them this time, so it will
be vying for --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. So it's just another way to be
able to pick the options?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In other words, the money stays the
same, it's just that you have to pick and choose from what's there?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And if it's a 4 percent difference between
6 and 10 and you come in right around 10.4 and, yeah, you roll back
half a million, but you're sitting in those 4 percent. We're talking
about $10 million, Mike? Ten million dollars on the UFR list off the
Page 236
February 27, 2007
general fund. That's what you're talking about, the difference between
the 6 --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which then means you couldn't -- if
we take it and all put it in transportation, then you don't get the
ambulances you need; is that what you're saying?
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, that's a decision for the Board of County
Commissioners to make, but that could happen, ma'am, depending on
what the board wants to do.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, thank you. Well, thank
you. Well, we've got to keep in mind that we have very little growth.
You know, we might have some new growth and monies from
commercial property, but residential property, I haven't seen it grow
that much.
The one thing you've got to remember, you remember the item
called non-reoccurring property taxes? It was like $20 million last
year?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, because most of it was interest, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yep. Interest turned back from
the tax collector and that. That's quite a bit of money that we could
prioritize and say we want to provide it for transportation or we want
to make EMS whole or things of that nature.
If -- I think the Productivity Committee's recommendations will
give us more flexibility to hit what we think that the public's priority
is. And I'm going to make a motion to approve the Productivity
Committee's recommendation of 6.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion from
Commissioner Henning for 6 to approve committee's -- the
Productivity Committee's recommendations.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a second from
Commissioner Coyle. I don't have a problem with it. I think it works
Page 237
February 27, 2007
out fine. It just gives us a little more latitude, what we have to work
with in the end.
You're looking at me very strange, Commissioner Fiala. Say
something.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I worry that we'll take everything
and put it into one pot, and maybe other things that are important to
each one of us might die.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, that's one of the reasons we go
through those elaborate charades during the time when it comes to
divide those types of funds up. And I personally don't have a problem
with it. That's -- so any other comments from anyone? I'm sorry. Did
you want to add something else to that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no, no. I'm just thinking --
trying to think fast.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did you want to ask a question or
anything?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I asked it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So would this have an effect on
personnel in other areas of the county? We talked about EMS. Would
it have an effect of other things?
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, at 6 percent, you're basically --
you're basically saying that you're funding what you've got going right
now, okay? And I think I can speak for the sheriff on that particular
issue, too. At 6 percent, you're funding what you have right now.
Operational side, your increases to chemicals and gasoline,
petroleum-type derivatives for projects, for power from FP&L, have
been going up higher than that. It's going to be a challenge to come in
at 6 and we'll take that challenge, and where we can't meet it, we'll
discuss it with you in excruciating detail.
Now, I will tell you at 6 percent, you also give yourself some
buffer. Let me tell you what the buffer is. What happens is, the
Page 238
February 27, 2007
Department of Revenue is wrong one time and it comes in at 8, okay?
And so you're only getting an increase of 8 percent versus the 10.4
that they said we were going to get at the end of November.
If that -- if that happens, then you're down at 6 and you haven't
had a catastrophic failure. I mean, you're not -- you're not trying to
really get into the -- you're basically dealing with your UFR list still.
Yes, it's not $10 million that you've got on your UFR list, now it's 5,
okay, but you're still there and you're still dealing with it.
I think this is an austere time. Everybody knows that things
haven't been selling as fast as they've been going. Commercial
property has been going right off the -- right off the shelf. They can't
build it fast enough in this county for some strange reason. And
they're flipping it just as bad as it was last year where they were
flipping properties during the height of madness. Commercial
properties are doing the same.
And right now commercial property is what's going to save you
in your assessment, and it will particularly hold true in Collier County.
Of that 10.4 -- the Department of Revenue talked about new
construction being 4.5 percent of that, so we were basically having it
assessed on regular properties that were here with growth at 6 percent.
So I think it's -- I think it's a safe place to be. I mean, I'm -- you
know, 6, 8 -- just so you know that we're going to be steady staying at
6, and if we're talking about expanded, we're going to have to come
talk to you about it and it's going to be vying on your UFR list for
those particular issues.
Mike -- as long as you understand that, I don't have a problem
with 6.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I've got two lights lit up over
here, and I hope we keep the discussion down fairly --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to -- I've just got to get
some things straightened out, if you'd just bear with me. We have
some projects, I believe, that are coming online. How will they affect
Page 239
February 27, 2007
as far as manpower to address the operation of those facilities?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the only facilities that cause me
any concern whatsoever right now are the two -- are the library
expansions. I'm going to hold my head down and I'm not going to
look because the daggers are going to be killing me here in just a
second.
But I will tell you, if we get ourselves in a pinch and you build a
south regional plant, then I'm going to come back with a
recommendation to you -- what did I say, plant? Library, excuse me.
Some people think it's Blockbuster except it's got books in it. Just ask
the librarians. There's more -- there's more tapes, movie tapes, going
out of our libraries than there is books. That's surprising.
But libraries. And if it comes onboard and we're scrapped, then
I'm going to come back to the board with a recommendation that we
close a couple of our branches that seem to be on the outskirts that
people have to come with cars to get to anyway because there's no
walking traffic to it, and then we move that staff into that -- into that
regional library instead. Commissioner Fiala and I have talked about
the East -- the East Naples branch getting closed down in order to do
that. And it will probably have to be a suggestion for one other one
that's out there.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Did I answer your question, sir?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, you did.
MR. MUDD: Libraries are the only place where I've got an issue
because you're bringing on libraries that are going to have an
expanded -- expanded group of folks that are going to have to --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How will this affect our budget if
we have to make adjustments in our budget to offset the cost of
expenditures that are beyond our control, such as fuel for the county
cars, insurance for the county buildings, et cetera?
MR. MUDD: Now, you're talking about what's discretionary and
Page 240
February 27, 2007
what's nondiscretionary. You're going to do the best --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's part of the budget.
MR. MUDD: You're going to do the best you can with your
discretionary dollars to answer the nondiscretionary calls that you get,
the unexpected. We're going to do our best to estimate what those
particular nondiscretionary costs are going to be, and we'll come
forward and we'll talk about it. We'll talk about it when we bring those
budgets forward.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The last question I have,
because I know we want to get this moving forward, but -- so we have
a large amount of roads that still need to be addressed, whether we're
going to pave limerock or whether we're going to expand roads. How
is this going to affect -- they're going to be in direct competition
between the roads and also the necessary personnel that we need to
take care of the operation of our buildings; is that correct?
MR. MUDD: And I don't foresee right now that what Norman
has for his road building program, from either general fund and/or the
unincorporated general fund that's reoccurring dollars being decreased
.
In any way.
If you remember last year, Norman had $1.7 million in
reoccurring dollars for limerock road conversion, and the board gave
him another 2 -- 3.3 million that was reoccurring with another 1.9 that
was non-reoccurring. I'm close to those numbers, okay? I could be
off a couple hundred thousand dollars, please, but I'm pretty close to
those.
So Norman basically has about $5 million right now in
reoccurring -- in reoccurring money from last year that he's -- that he's
going to probably project to you to be used again to continue his
limerock road conversion out in the Estates.
And I have -- and I have a bet with Commissioner Coyle that we
will have expended all of those particular dollars because he basically
made a motion to this board at the end of the UFR list discussion that
Page 241
February 27, 2007
says, if you don't spend that, we're going to talk about reserves or
spending it someplace else, and that was at the end of the year.
And I've got a full court press on with Norm Feder and his folks
to make sure that those contracts are cut and those roads are being
paved. And by God, they're getting paved, okay? And they're doing --
they doing better than they ever have before, and I have no doubt in
my mind that Norman will be done paving his annual program in June
out there in the Estates. And he wishes he had more money. But there
will be $5 million there.
As far as the general fund allocations to Norman that you
normally give him out of the general fund, he'll still have that 24
million, and I believe there's more money that goes to him in other
different pots of dollars. I don't see any decrease in that either.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'm going to ask you to try to
keep your questions localized right to this. We're going to be here for
at least another two or three hours.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Just with respect to the 6 or
8 percent budget allocation, it makes absolutely no difference with
respect to the amount of money we have whether it's 6 or 8, but if it's
6 percent it gives the Board of County Commissioners greater
oversight of that incremental amount of money over 6 percent, and I
think that's where we want to go.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala, then we'll take a vote.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I would just like to ask my
commissioners -- Jim Mudd mentioned the little East Naples library
that we have now, and it's nestled right in the heart of all the poverty
areas there, and it's the only place that the children can walk. And
right now they don't offer many children's programs because it's so
small. But when we open the new library, they will offer more
children's programs. And I would ask you if that -- it comes to be, I
Page 242
February 27, 2007
would hope that you, on the UFR list, would approve that so we don't
lose that for the children in the area.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we got a little ways to go on
that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know, I'm just --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we hopefully don't get into the
UFR list now. I really do (sic).
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, but I'm just saying that because,
as I'm going to vote on this, I'm just telling you on the record what I
hope.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to set the budget allocation
guidance of 6 percent.
MS. FILSON: We already have a motion and second.
MR. MUDD: We already have a motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That was yesterday.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, it was a long time ago, around
lunchtime we made the motion.
MS. FILSON: Commissioner Henning made the motion,
Commissioner Coyle seconded it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. You forgot already, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's vote.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Old age.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, I don't want
to cut you off. I know you didn't push the button, but you look like
you wanted to speak. You didn't speak quick enough.
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?
Page 243
February 27,2007
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I need you to lock in the pie, and
that's the next -- that's the next under agencies by -- based on
percentage, and it's what we've been following over the last three
years.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Six percent.
MR. MUDD: No, Commissioner. This has to do with the
allocation of the general fund to the different offices, and it's right
there on that page. It goes, the agency --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What page again?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Six percent.
MR. MUDD: I'm on page -- I'm on page 2 --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that number 3?
MR. MUDD: I'm on page 2 of 30.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: It's the general fund budget allocation.
There's a chart with percentages, general fund budget allocation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you seeing the percentage
of 6 percent or the 100 percent of the 6 percent?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: We're saying everybody has to live within
their proportionate share of the pie, and your maximum increase
overall is 16 percent. So there's an additional caveat to just sharing in
the pie because the pie -- if the value came in much higher, it would
be much bigger at 10 percent than it would be at 6.
So the 6 percent is a further restriction above and beyond the
proportionate share authorized under the pie. So I think that's going in
the direction you --
MR. MUDD: The pie -- the pie is broken out on 100 percent.
That's the historical -- what everybody basically used in the budget of
2004. What that pie basically does is says, okay, 6 percent is an
allocation of money, and what the pie allocations basically say, of that
6 percent, this is your percentage of it, okay? And it tries to keep -- it
Page 244
February 27, 2007
tries to limit the food fight that you have where somebody's trying to
do a creep into somebody else's -- somebody else's allocation. It helps
a lot, Commissioner, when you're setting the budget.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to make a motion to
approve this part of the budget policy.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion from myself, a
second from Commissioner Coy Ie. And with that we'll get to the
questions. Let's see.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the -- and that's why I was
clarifying 100 percent of the 6 percent.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why can't everybody stay with
6 percent, period, each department stay with 6 percent, each
constitutional stay within 6 percent?
MR. MUDD: They are. They are, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've got an answer for that. If the
Supervisor of Elections comes in at less than her nine-tenths of a
percent, and she usually does come in fairly low, we don't want
somebody else using that excess, and so that's the reason for doing it.
Ifwe find --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- an agency that can come in less
than their share, we don't want it to be gobbled up by somebody else
who wants to go above their share.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: And I've reported to you every year about this pie,
if people were within the pie or they didn't come back and do the
particular issue. It basically stops people from mission creep into
somebody else's area, and then you -- it basically stops -- it holds
people to where they are.
Page 245
February 27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we have a motion on the floor and
we have a second.
Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we got by the first page. We
only have 30 more to go.
MR. MUDD: Go, Mike.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thirty-two.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: MSTD general fund millage target, the
staff recommendation is millage neutral in the unincorporated area
general fund.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala.
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.
Page 246
February 27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it.
Anyone opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 4-1, Commissioner Henning being the
dissenting vote.
Next?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: The next recommendation from the county
manager is, again, to limit net new positions to 25 or less.
MR. MUDD: As I said before--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How much further less can you
get?
MR. MUDD: Oh, I think you're going to get less. I told you
before, at 6 percent --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
MR. MUDD: -- you're not going to have a lot there, so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
MR. MUDD: We've set a standard and we're trying to keep it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We've got a motion by
Commissioner Halas, a second by Commissioner Fiala.
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: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Anyone opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Discretionary operating expenses. The
Page 247
February 27, 2007
recommendation is to limit the increase to the local consumer price
index from Miami/Fort Lauderdale, which was 4.1 percent.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Tell me where you are; what page
are you on now?
MR. MUDD: We're on page 3 of30, ma'am. We're in the third
paragraph down the page.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're going too far ahead. There you
go. CPI, 4.1.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Coy Ie, a second by Commissioner Halas.
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: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: The healthcare program cost sharing is the
next item. The manager had gotten to the 80 -- the desired 80/20 split
between the employer and the employee share over a number of years.
It's recommended to maintain that 80/20 share, and we're also looking
for uniformity across all agencies.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Including the constitutional officers?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
Page 248
February 27, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Coyle,
second by Commissioner Halas.
Andy discussion?
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The only one that does it
different is the sheriffs department?
MR. MUDD: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Others do?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Others are not -- can you give
me an example of what everybody else is doing, please?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. The sheriff is higher than that particular
percent, and so is the tax collector.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, the tax collector is, too.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And the property appraiser, we believe.
I'm not for sure, but I know those two are.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And our union is at 80/20 also?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion, we have a
second. No, did we have it?
MS. FILSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We did.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Coyle, followed -- second by Halas.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 249
February 27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Compensation. On the next page, the
recommendation, again, is the three-legged stool that we described in
the past consisting o.fthe cost of living adjustment, which would be
4.1, the awards program or merit at 1.5 percent, and then a quarter of
one percent for pay plan maintenance for the annual survey work that
is done for specific classifications that may be out of sync with the
local or Florida markets. So the total would be 5.85 percent.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that's lower than last year, and
I move approval.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'll second that.
We have a motion by Commissioner Coy Ie and a second by
Commissioner Coletta.
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: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Stormwater capital funding. The
recommendation, again, is to use the point -- the equivalent of .15
mills annually. Again, this provides a dedicated funding source as
well as providing local matching requirements as grants become
available to fund stormwater.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
Page 250
February 27, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Halas,
second by Commissioner Fiala, for approval.
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: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Next item, Commissioners, is some
scheduling issues we have.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve what's
submitted.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. That includes a resolution -- just for
purposes of clarification for the record -- a resolution that was
included in your package for May 1 submittals for the sheriff, clerk
and Supervisor of Elections.
Our June budget workshops are recommended for June 28th and
29th. There is a board meeting that Tuesday, and the F AC
conference. Obviously, we're trying to schedule around that, which
was June 12th and June 15th. Given the uncertainty relative to
legislation, et ai, we think that's prudent for those dates.
The draft date for the adoption of the proposed millage rates is
July 24th. We have to provide the property appraiser and the tax
collector with the maximum millage rates by August 4th per statute,
and that gives us a little --
Page 251
February 27, 2007
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we could either have it on July
31 st or July 24th. Staff didn't believe that it could turn the documents
that are necessary to get them into the state if it was on the 31 st of
July. So it left us to go back to July 24th on that particular date, sir.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: And the public hearing dates, we've
followed the -- the Thursday following the -- following the holiday in
September, we're recommending September 6, and then two weeks
thereafter, September 20th.
Weare second in the pecking order as it were. The school board
has first priority in setting their date. They've selected tentatively
September 11 tho The other taxing jurisdictions are anxious for this
information because, obviously, they have to begin setting their dates,
and can't conflict with the county or the school.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have a motion --
MS. FILSON: And all those meetings are on all of your
calendars.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good. So we have a motion by
Commissioner Henning covering all the eventualities that were just
mentioned, a second by Commissioner Fiala.
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: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
Page 252
February 27, 2007
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Comparative budget data. The county
manager has provided some comparative budget figures using the
adopted '07 budget. We're, again, recommending using that. The
county's selection for comparison are consistent with those used last
year, Sarasota, Lee, Charlotte, Marion and Manatee. We think that's
just good prudent business practice to see what -- how we stack up
against other counties that are as similar as --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- practicable.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
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: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Operating funds. We typically budget in
the general fund 2 and a half percent, and we typically budget 5
percent in the remaining operating funds, and we budget the
constitutional officer reserves within the county general fund since
they provide countywide service.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's consistent with standard--
Page 253
February 27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coy Ie, second by Commissioner Fiala.
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: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: They ayes have it, 5-0.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Accrued salary savings. Staffwas
recommending using 2 percent accrued salary savings factor in
developing the '08 budget, recognizing that all positions are not full
during the course of the entire fiscal year.
MR. MUDD: Okay. And we also talked off that 2 percent -- we
came up with overtime limitations that has that example. We're on
page 6 of 30.
The Productivity Committee recommended that that 2 percent go
to 4 percent with the Productivity Committee, and they're trying to
take into effect the actual vacancies that we have in the organizations
at this particular time.
Every -- at the time that it was set, 2 percent was -- it was
basically set at something higher than 4 percent at the request of the
sheriff because he was having -- he was filling all his vacancies. And
then I remember the comment, I even have people on standby, and as
the vacancies come open or go to school, I can even put those in.
I believe Crystal was his finance officer at that time. But I won't
put you on the spot, Crystal, okay?
Page 254
February 27, 2007
Since that time we've had a downturn as far as fills are
concerned, and we're averaging more like 4 percent. I will tell you
that we're going to have to adjust that overtime example because it
doesn't necessarily fit if the board approves the 4 percent accrued
savings factor because of vacancies.
You might want to say in your overtime limitations that that's
what you choose to do, is that the overtime budgets stay within the 4
percent that's there that basically would be 100 percent. You try to
keep your overtime within what your 100 percent personnel budget
would be. And then deviations from that, you can explain it to the
board when you come and present your budgets.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then that would be my
recommendation, go with the 4 percent but require that any overtime
payments be made out of that 4 percent.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We've got a motion by Commissioner
Coyle, second by Commissioner Halas.
Anything you want to -- any comments from staff on that?
MR. MUDD: Four.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No comments? Okay. No. Whoops,
I'm sorry. Commissioner Coy Ie, something else?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. All those in favor, indicate by
.
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 255
February 27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: The rest of the policies that move into that
second segment, which were the existing policies that we -- things
like, we do a three-year projection of the tax supported funds, grand
fund positions; transitioning to a general operating budget should be
treated as expanded service requests. We applied gas taxes to our road
construction program. We don't fund contract agencies.
MR. MUDD: I want you to go down that one more time.
Contract agency funding. You get into this every year with somebody
wanting to come in and say, please fund me. And you've got about
300 of them that are just waiting with baited breath to try to tackle
you. Once you give away, then you're going to be here, because the
previous boards have had it. The Board of County Commissioners will
not fund any non-mandated social service agencies, and that has been
your policy since you've been sitting --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to reaffirm that policy.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion from
Commissioner Coy Ie, a second from Commissioner Henning, and I
was going to make a joke asking if you wanted me to do a workshop
on this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You probably will anyway.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: There's about three more pages --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hold on. We didn't take --
MR. MUDD: Didn't take the vote.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor, indicate by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Page 256
February 27, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
MR. MUDD: Keep talking, Mike. I don't think you have to vote
on these.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Sir, in the interest of time, the next three
pages are, again, standard policies you've adopted for a number of
years. If you want to treat those on an exception basis, otherwise we'll
assume that we'll continue on with that standard practice. Again,
trying to save time.
The three-year budget projection. We assumed 8 percent taxable
value in the general fund over three years. The analytical model I
used projected a slight millage increase in '09, '010, but again, with
reasonable tolerances within general fund, which would probably be
manageable.
MR. MUDD: We're on page 11 of 30 when you look at that
paragraph when he's talking about those increases between the
eleventh page and twelfth page. The twelfth page he's assumed 8
percent -- 8 percent and 8 percent in '08, '09 and' 1 O. I don't know for
sure what they're going to be, so I said, set them for 8.
And then what would that do based on what we know as far as
expanded positions are concerned and costs that we know, they're
increased costs that are coming forward? And that gives you what
those millages are in '08, '09 and' lOon page 11 of 30 on that graph.
And he talked about a little bit of an increase in '09 and' 10, and I will
tell you those are manageable so that there won't have to be an
Increase.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: And would also be mitigated by your 6
percent agency budget cap this year. That would help. Obviously it
helps you in the out years as well.
Page 257
February 27, 2007
Unincorporated area looks strong. We projected millage neutral
with varying degrees of projected UFR funds available over the next
three years with leaving the millage constant at .8069 over the next
three.
And if you do not have any further questions, we are complete.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Commissioner Henning? I'm
sorry. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The Productivity Commission
talked about attrition?
MR. MUDD: The attrition? You did that already at 4 percent.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Four percent.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, it's getting late. I think we
ought to continue tomorrow. We're going to have three
commISSIoners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I said I think we ought to
continue until tomorrow.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, it would be -- you'd be down to
three.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's keep going for a little while
longer, okay?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I'd like to get it done if we'll
just move ahead here.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Sir, that concludes my presentation, unless
there are any questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you need a final vote for
anything?
MR. MUDD: No, Commissioner. I think we're okay. You've
got the budget policy.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to the next item.
Page 258
February 27, 2007
Item #11A
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS - MICHAEL
MARCH REGARDING QUEENS PARK STORMW A TER
MANAGEMENT - DISCUSSED
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Can I just ask Commissioner
Coletta -- I have a gentleman in the back here. He had wanted to put a
petition on, and my error, I didn't get him to do it in time, and I said,
come for public comment, and it's about the Lely Area Stormwater
Improvement Project, and it's just a three-minute speech. Could you --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We just went through two hours --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have to leave at 6:30.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We just went through two hours of
discussion this morning about why we shouldn't do that. Are you
really wanting --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, you have no idea what it's even
about.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It doesn't make any difference.
You can't do a public petition at public comment.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It isn't a public petition. It's a public
comment. He had hoped to do a public petition. He's not -- he's just
going to ask us a question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Unless I'm overruled by this
commission, I'm going to invite the gentleman up here to make the
public comments at Commissioner Fiala's request, as I would do for
one of the other commissioners.
MS. FILSON: The gentleman's name is Michael Marsh.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You got a whole three minutes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I have to leave at 6:30, so that's
why I asked the question.
Page 259
February 27, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where are you going?
MR. MARSH: Okay. Good afternoon, or good evening. My
name is Michael Marsh and I'm here today representing the 32
homeowners of the Queens Park who are directly affected by the new
LASIP canal project.
We're asking you today to put a temporary hold on the LASIP
project with stormwater management for the following facts and
reasons:
Stormwater management has continuously misled the
homeowners of Queens Park on this project. And number two, our
first notification as a homeowner was mailed to us on October 25th of
2006 with a meeting date set for November 1st of2006.
The letter from storm water states it was a meeting to discuss the
capital improvement project and to obtain our comments. We were
told that these were design plans thus began our concerns immediately
with stormwater management that these plans are not acceptable for
numerous reasons.
I personally issued a letter, along with the other homeowners, to
storm water raising our concerns, which led to a meeting at my house
with stormwater and Commissioner Fiala.
During this meeting, we showed firsthand how the proposed plan
would affect our homes, property, and most importantly, the safety of
our families.
I've personally driven throughout Collier County and cannot
locate any canals that come as close to the homes as the stormwater
management has presented as the proper solution for this project.
Also during the meeting, stormwater indicated to the
homeowners and led us to believe that they could obtain more
property and agreed that they should have a fence to protect our
children and families. And we proposed a two-to-one slope with a
fence inside on the west side of the canal. This approach would cost
additional money, but would give us more footage.
Page 260
February 27, 2007
We followed up continuously to confirm this change. They did
not respond until Commissioner Fiala sent the request.
Stormwater quickly took advantage of presenting a contract to
you for approval. They did not advise our issues as a community
relating to this project, or to the board, that we can obtain additional
footage in our yards by changing the design.
Another issue that has been ignored by stormwater is the
ownership of the fill in our yards. We have been advised that we
legally own the fill and should be compensated for it. As of today,
this issue has not been addressed with the homeowners. We are, of
course, interested in negotiation, but nobody assumes responsibility or
will address the issue.
Our second notice as homeowners relating to this project is
tomorrow afternoon, February 28th, with a statement from stormwater
that construction begins on March 1 st, which is Thursday . We have
been told that there is to be three legal notices, and we've only gotten
two. We were also told that the protocol relating to this project has
not been followed.
So as commissioners of Collier County, we are asking you to
help us protect our families, property and community. Please put this
project on hold and give us more time to present to you all the details
and have storm management come to a reasonable resolution for us,
the taxpayers and residents of Queens Park. We are an older, smaller
community but should be given the same consideration of preserving
our property and protecting our families. We need your help.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, just by way of a little bit
more explanation. The stormwater said that it's possible to arrange
this different slope on the thing, but it would cost nearly a million
dollars more. I think it's $785,000 or something like that, and they
just couldn't ask anybody to pay that.
And what the homeowners discovered is that they paid for the
Page 261
February 27, 2007
dirt in their back yard. They paid for all 80 feet, and 60 of it is going
to be dug out. And with that money, they could pay to have the slope
changed, and that's what they're most concerned about is just -- right
now it's going up to 10, 15, 20 feet of their back yards. One, it was
going to go through their swimming pool, and they actually had to
move the canal so that it didn't go through the swimming pool.
MR. MARSH: It's very, very close to the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Very close.
MR. MARSH: There's no homes in Collier County that are
affected by this. This is very, very close.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And so what he's asking is if there's
a way that they could at least be compensated for the fill that Norm
needs, or anybody needs that's a -- you know, it's a good price now --
and that way it would pay for whoever would buy the fill. Fill goes at
-- Norm's shaking his head, but there's other places that really need fill
-- just so that it would pay for this different slope. But if --
MR. MARSH: Correct. They had to bring in fill from Miami for
the Golden Gate Bridge.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Golden Gate Henning (sic), then
Golden Gate --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Golden Gate Henning.
MR. MARSH: Or Airport Road, or I don't know what bridge that
.
IS.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning; I'm
identifying you with a geographic area. Sorry about that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, we can't act on this
now. The only decision we can make is whether or not we bring it
back for a future hearing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's all we can do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now--
MR. MARSH: The meeting tomorrow is -- the preconstruction
Page 262
February 27, 2007
meeting's February 28th, and I know Gene is going to be ready with
trucks on March -- you know, on Thursday.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand that. We just went
through two hours of agony this morning being told by constituents
why we can't do this, and we have been called criminals, violators of
the sunshine law, because we did it a month or so ago.
We cannot make a decision on a public comment item that has
not been advertised. We don't have opposing views. We don't have
the public here. The public doesn't know we're going to be discussing
this. The public doesn't know that we're likely to make a decision on
it, so we can't make a decision on it. We can instruct staff to come
back with a report at a future time, but we can't do this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And then maybe at that time we
could just ask them to take into consideration that that slope might be
changed and that the -- and they can weigh the dirt until then so --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They've heard it, so they can come
back -- they'll be prepared to give us whatever report --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because right now the only thing
that stood in the way is the money, and I told them that I didn't know
that the commissioners would go for that money. But if they've got
the money in their dirt, it might just change the neighborhood, so --
okay. Can we bring that back then?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure, why not? We can get an
answer from staff, get a report on it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have no problems.
Commissioner Henning's trying to get a word in here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Just give us something
on the agenda, some kind of explanation. But we can make decisions.
That was the whole debate this morning. We can make decisions as
long as our meetings are open for the public to view . We don't have
enough information on this one to make a decision, and I'm -- I think
Page 263
February 27, 2007
the commissioners --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're right about that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- believe that. Yeah. I'm not
going to have Bill Barnett or the Women League (sic) of Voters tell us
that -- how to run our meeting. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did we -- we have enough of us that
are willing to give instructions? We do, for staff to bring back a report
and what the responsibilities are to be able to accommodate the
neighborhood.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The residents, yeah.
MR. MARSH: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you so much for being here
this evening. We're sorry about the long delay in being able to get you
up here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He was here at nine o'clock.
Item #10H
A WARD WORK ORDER UC-280 TO MITCHELL AND STARK
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF
$997,252 TO DEMOLISH THE CONCRETE STRUCTURES AND
UTILIZE THE EXISTING OXIDATION DITCH STRUCTURE AS
AN IRRIGATION QUALITY WATER STORAGE TANK AND
ESTABLISH ELIGIBILITY FOR A SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT GRANT OF $224,000 AND WAIVE THE WORK
ORDER THRESHOLD REQUIREMENTS UNDER CONTRACT
04-3535, ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITY
CONTRACTING SERVICES - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 10H, which is a
recommendation to award work order UC-280 in the amount of
$997,252 to Mitchell and Stark Construction Company, Inc., to
Page 264
February 27, 2007
demolish the concrete structures and utilize the existing oxidation
ditch structure as an irrigation quality water storage tank, establish
eligibility for a South Florida Water Management grant of $224,000
and to waive the work order threshold requirements under contract
04-3535, annual contract for underground utility contracting services.
Project 72501, and --
MS. SRIDHAR: Sandy Sridhar.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Coyle -- Commissioner Halas, a second by
Commissioner Coyle.
Discussion? Questions? Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just one. This is a work order.
Why do we have what looks to be low submitted -- submitted the
lowest qualified responsible for this work? So I there was a bid?
MS. SRIDHAR: Yes, sir, a bid.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other questions?
(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: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
We're going to take -- I think it's time for a break, or no? We'll
go just a little bit more, because we're going to lose Commissioner
Page 265
February 27, 2007
Fiala when we come back.
Item #101
AWARD OF RFP #07-4092 SAP UPGRADE POJECT TO
LABYRINTH SOLUTIONS, INC. (dba LSI CONSULTING) IN THE
AMOUNT OF $ 1 ~209~999 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 101. It's a
recommendation to approve the award of RFP number 07 -4092, SAP
upgrade project to Labyrinth Solutions, Inc., d/b/a LSI Consulting, in
the amount of$1,209,999. And Ms. Len Price, your administrator for
administrative services, will present.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Coyle.
Any questions?
(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: And the ayes have it -- I'm sorry.
Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
Item #10J
Page 266
February 27, 2007
AWARD BID #07-4072 "COLLIER COUNTY IRRIGATION
QUALITY WATER PROJECT" TO DOUGLAS N. HIGGINS, INC.
TO PROVIDE THE INSTALLATION AND HOOKUP OF NEW
IRRIGATION QUALITY (IQ) WATER LINES TO BOTH THE
IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND THE CHILLER PLANT COOLING
TOWERS ON THE MAIN GOVERNMENT COMPLEX LOCATED
AT 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST IN THE AMOUNT OF
$ 1 ~ 183~500 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: The next item is 10J. It's a recommendation to
award bid number 07-4072, Collier County irrigation quality water
project to Douglas N. Higgins, Inc., to provide the installation and
hookup of new irrigation quality, I Q water lines, to both the irrigation
system and the chiller plant cooling towers on the main government
complex located at 3301 Tamiami Trail East in the amount of
$1,183,500.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second it, but I do have a
question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We've got a motion by
Commissioner Halas, a second by Commissioner Henning.
Commissioner Coy Ie for the motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, Commissioner Coletta --
Halas.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Halas --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I made the motion; he seconded it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Henning for the
second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And you're our third base.
Page 267
February 27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning
seconded.
Go ahead, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there any anticipated
expansions in this facility as far as space in the next seven years?
MR. MUDD: No, sir. I'm going to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. You've answered my
question.
MR. MUDD: The answer to your question is no. The master
plan says there is. We are going to come to you with an additional
master plan that's going to talk about moving the county's seat at some
time off of this complex just because of the space and what sits here.
This will become probably, a thought, a judicial jail facility for the --
Collier County as it gross out, and maybe this chamber, your board
room and everything else that -- the plan is to build an identical
building next door like this, but the new --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You answered my question.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We've got to move on.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions?
(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.
We are going to take a very, very short break, last break of the
Page 268
February 27, 2007
evening, then we'll get right back here and finish everybody's
business.
(A brief recess was had.)
(Commissioner Fiala is absent for the
remainder of the commission meeting.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
Item #10K
ACCEPTANCE OF $1,510,094 IN THE GENERAL REVENUE
FUNDS AND $ 1,639,225 IN THE HAZARD MITIGATION
GRANT PROGRAM (HMGP) TOWARDS THE CONSTRUCTION
OF THE NEW COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY OPERATIONS
CENTER (EO C) - APPROVED
The next item on your agenda is item 10K. 10K was an add-on.
It was the acceptance of $1 ,51 0,094 in the general fund -- in the
general revenue funds, and $1,639,225 in the hazardous mitigation
grant program funds, toward the construction of the new Collier
County Emergency Operations Center.
The reason it was a walk-on is because we have a 15-day
suspense to accept these funds. We found out about the 15-day
suspense on Friday when we were told we were awarded these
particular dollars. If I didn't get it on this agenda, it wouldn't be on the
next one, and we would have missed our suspense, and we would have
had to give up $3.1 million.
Dan, do you have anything else to say?
MR. SUMMERS: No, sir, I don't, unless you have any
questions.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. Good work.
Page 269
February 27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Halas,
second by Commissioner Henning.
No discussion? Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all in favor, indicate by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The three ayes, three commissioners.
Item 10L
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
AND AIS RISK CONSULTANTS, INC. TO PROVIDE
ACTUARIAL SUPPORT SERVICES TO THE GROUP, FIGHTING
AGAINST INSURANCE RATES, a/k/a FAIR IN AN ANNUAL
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $75~000 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is -- it's old 16E3,
which is now 10L. This was asked to be moved by Commissioner
Fiala, and I'll try to relay what her concerns were.
It's an approval of an agreement between the Board of County
Commissioners and AIS Risk Consultants, Inc., to provide actuarial
support services to the group fighting against insurance rates, ADA
F AIR, in an annual amount not to exceed $75,000.
Commissioner Fiala's concern is that this -- that this not be a
reoccurring contract, that that be a one-time fee, and that if it has to go
into a second year, that it would come back to the Board of
Page 270
February 27, 2007
Commissioners to be approved.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's part of my motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have a motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we have a second. Okay. We
have a motion by Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner
Halas.
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 HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 3-0.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to public comment
on general topics.
Ms. Filson?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think Ms. Filson went to get
somebody. She'll be right back.
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. There is one person. I think the name is
Marshal ( sic), I hope. Noone left.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there someone in this room that
wants to speak under general topics?
MR. MUDD: No slips.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There is no speakers.
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. We don't have any slips here.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. That brings us to 14A. 14A used to be --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're waiting just a minute to get
Page 271
February 27,2007
Commissioner Coyle into here, because he's -- Donna -- he's the
vice-chair for the CRA.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: He's been at lunch.
I think commissioner -- or commissioner -- Office Manager Sue
Filson went looking for him.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner Coletta, I believe you're the
vice-chair for the CRA. It was voted that she would be the chair --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Am I?
MR. MUDD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, I'm vice-chair.
MR. MUDD: And you would be the vice-chair because I believe
you had a little bit of Immokalee, and you sit as the CRA for both
forums.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. That sounds good.
Okay. You're not, by the way. I'm the vice-chair.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, you are.
MR. MUDD: No, he is. He's the vice-chair.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It was an excuse to get you back here.
Item #14A
CRA TO APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL
(MOBILE HOME) LOT AND ABUTTING VACANT LOT IN THE
BA YSHORE AREA OF THE CRA AS PART OF A CRA
RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECT; TO APPROVE PAYMENT
FROM AND AUTHORIZE THE CRA CHAIRMAN TO MAKE A
DRA W FROM THE BA YSHORE GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE CRA
W ACHOVIA BANK LINE OF CREDIT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$235,000 PLUS COST AND EXPENSES TO COMPLETE THE
SALE OF SUBJECT PROPERTIES; AND APPROVE ANY AND
ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS. SITE ADDRESS:
3008 VAN BUREN AVENUE - MOTION TO PURCHASE AS
Page 272
February 27, 2007
PRESENTED - DENIED; MOTION TO SUBMIT OFFER OF
APPRAISED VALUE - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: This is item 14A, and I'll get it for you. It's 16G7.
It's a recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency to
approve the purchase of a residential mobile home lot and abutting
vacant lot in the Bayshore area of the CRA as part of a CRA
residential infill project, to approve payment from and authorize the
CRA chairman to make a draw from the Bayshore Gateway Triangle
CRA Wachovia Bank line of credit in the amount of $235,000, plus
costs and expenses, to complete the sale of subject properties and
approve any and all necessary budget amendments.
The site address is 3008 Van Buren Avenue. And Mr. David
Jackson, your director of your CRA, will present.
MR. JACKSON: Good afternoon. David Jackson, Community
Redevelopment Agency.
The reason it's on the agenda, it was brought forward, was that
the appraisal on two pieces of property that we were trying to acquire
in the residential infill project did not appraise to the value of the
contract for the property.
In that appraisal, they came in -- the vacant lot came in about
$90,000, and the appraised -- at the appraised value, and the purchase
price is 95,650. It was within $5,000, and that's what we feel is
justifiable.
Both lots are to be sold as a pair. They're voluntary, willing
sellers. The one lot that has the mobile home on it, a trailer, on the lot,
is appraised at 117,600, and the purchase price for that lot is 139,350.
If you'll look on your visualizer there, I'm showing you some
other sales that have occurred within the last 12 months that were not
picked up on the appraisal report for this. And this was done by an
independent appraiser, and he looked at several properties that were in
the general neighborhood.
Page 273
February 27, 2007
These are other trailer lots. It's approximately the same width, 40
feet, that are on Jeepers Drive and in the area within the last 12
months. And you can see if you just did a normalization of the --
those lots, an average price is about $138,000.
I've summarized below that. These two lots, one with a trailer
and one is vacant, are adjacent. They make for a nice residential infill
project. You can do a -- it's not a duplex, but a common wall, fee
simple, two-family dwelling unit. And put the two prices together for
those two lots, they would average out about 117,5-.
We in the CRA staff took this to the advisory board. They feel
this is justified, and the reason that we feel it's justified is because this
is a slum and blighted area. It is severely depressed. There is a -- the
sheriffs department spends a lot of time down there, and we have a lot
of code violations in that general area.
What our goal is to do, according to the master plan, is to create
some residential infill single-family homes, owner-occupied, and
replace the trailers with foundation homes of some sort. We're
looking at modular, we're looking at stick built and we're also looking
CBS.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, fine. We've got a couple
commissioners that have questions.
MR. JACKSON: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I can't see making an offer
above what the appraisal is, being that there's really no buyers out
there. So I think these people, if they're willing sellers, should be
ecstatic that they have somebody willing to buy their property. And I
can't support anything but what the appraisals came out as.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: If I may?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead. You may respond.
MR. JACKSON: I appreciate that point of view, and I would
Page 274
February 27, 2007
agree with you in most of the occasions, but in order to make an
impact in a 150-trailer lot area, you need to do more than just one
project, and the hope would be to be able to do five or more.
We are also in contact with other people that have lots that would
possibly sell them. The object is to get the momentum going in the
general area. There are some people who actually -- are living there,
would like to build a home, however, they don't want be the first one
to do that in an area.
I think it's justified, and the reason, Commissioner Henning, that
it's justified is because the impact to the neighborhood is so great,
even though we have a monetary differential here, the impact of
turning around a neighborhood and bringing it back to life with
families of people living there that actually are owner-occupied
instead of heavy rental, I think, is qualified.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, here's what's going to
happen, and we've seen it with Conservation Collier, is you're the only
one -- the only buyer in there and you keep on raising the price,
therefore the appraised values are going to keep on going up. And in
today's market -- if it was two years ago, I think it would be different,
but there are absolutely -- there's no buyers out there.
MR. JACKSON: If I --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know what?
MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's my position and I am not
changing it, and you can't change it.
MR. JACKSON: I wouldn't want to argue that, but I'd like to
show you what could make a difference in the area.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's do this. Rather than challenge
Commissioner Henning when he said you won't change it, let's go on
to Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My concern is, I believe that one of
these properties was bought in 2006 for about $90,000, and I think the
Page 275
February 27, 2007
person wanted about 139,000.
MR. JACKSON: If you're talking about the subject property,
3008 Van Buren, the two lots, they were purchased for 170,000, the
two lots.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I was just talking about the one
property. I thought it was -- I thought it was purchased for 90,000 --
MR. JACKSON: No, sir. It was--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- in 2006.
MR. JACKSON: They were purchased as a pair for 170,000;
one closing, one owner.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: For two lots?
MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, who's -- any more questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we have a motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, anything?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would move for approval.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we have a motion by
Commissioner Coyle for approval, and I'll second it to get this moving
forward.
With that, is there any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor of
Commissioner Coyle's motion for approval and my second, indicate
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 276
February 27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the motion fails.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion that we submit
an offer of what the appraised values are.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion from
Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Coyle, to submit an
offer for what the appraised values are.
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 HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 4-0.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
Thank you. So we're at that point in the meeting where we're at
staff and commissioner general communications. I got a feeling we're
going to be a little bit long with this, but we'll give it a try.
Let's start with the county attorney. Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Really the only thing I would say at
this point, after the helpful discussion this morning, is that County
Attorney Office, working with county manager staff, will look to
provide the additional information related to the mitigation fee
ordinance and the underpinnings of it. It will require additional study
Page 277
February 27, 2007
and the payment for some outside assistance in that, which our office
is prepared at least to -- I think to take care of that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And you're referring to the linkage
fees?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. In regards to the linkage fee, there is an
impact study, that is the impact of a fee or various amounts of fee and
what would they do in the community if they were to be imposed, and
the board was looking for some additional information. And, again,
we'll work to provide that information.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't mean to interrupt you, sir, but
I'm going to -- I'm going to ask Commissioner Coyle to give you some
guidance on this. He's got quite a business background, and I'm sure
that he might be able to shorten the process and maybe save a couple
dollars as far as how to figure out what the impact is on anyone
particular industry.
Got any comments, Commissioner Coyle? I don't mean to shake
you loose, but I'm looking for you on this one.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, but I think we need to try to
resolve it. Maybe we need to have a meeting and sit down and talk
about it.
MR. WEIGEL: You and I?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. WEIGEL: Oh, I'd be delighted.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: That'd be great.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would love to see you work on that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: I'd like to get -- while we're there and we're on
linkage fees -- and I brought 10 copies of the old minutes that -- where
you guys killed the program. I just want to make sure, you killed it.
You stopped the program. And--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. No, you didn't.
Page 278
February 27, 2007
MS. FILSON: I already gave them minutes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've already read the minutes. I
know exactly what we said.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why are we going to get into this
when it's not going to get us anyplace at all?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
MR. MUDD: But I don't want to -- Commissioner, I just want to
get some guidance, okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll give you the guidance, but we
don't need to have to go back over past history. Let's go with where
we're going in the future of this, okay?
MR. MUDD: Okay. Well, let's -- here's what I got off the dais.
I've asked Leo. Leo, I'm stumped. I don't think I have linkage fee
guidance. I've talked to the county attorney in the fact I've talked to
Mike Pettit, and I said, Mike, you get any clear guidance? He said,
no, we don't.
Commissioner Coletta, you're absolutely clear where you want to
go. You want to re-Iook at linkage fees.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Here. Let me tell you where this
came down. The directions were given by Commissioner Coy Ie. He
instigated it. Commissioner Fiala came back with the first backing on
it, Halas came back with the second, myself with the third.
Coy Ie was first when he okayed. He brought it back with the
economic impact study wanting to be added. That's already being
worked on.
Fiala was okay with it as long as we bring it back with the
inclusionary zoning, tie it all together so that we can see the overall
impact.
I don't -- I don't know what else direction do you need? We can
give it to you now if you'd like it. There's one commissioner missing,
but is there something that's missing from this matrix?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, there is. Commissioner Halas --
Page 279
February 27, 2007
Commissioner Fiala said she wants it to come back in inclusionary
zoning, and I believe you need to take a look at it in inclusionary
zoning if you're going to look at the concept because you can't just do
inclusionary zoning with some kind of -- without some kind of linkage
fee, because if you do, then you discriminate against residential
developments versus commercial developments, and you're going to
get yourself in a bind when that happens.
So there has to be some kind of buy-out provision for those
commercial PUDs that come -- rezones that come before the board.
So I believe that is prudent, and I believe that's what I needed to get.
So if you're saying, hey, we're going to bring it back and we're
going to bring it back into a package, then I don't have a problem. But
I certainly don't want to take it by and of itself because we're going to
still run into the same issue with -- if it fails again, we run into the
same issue with inclusionary zoning, and I just want to try to stop that
from happening.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You know -- and I think it's a perfect
tie-in. I think Commissioner Fiala was right and Commissioner Coyle
is right. We have to come up with a cost for what it is that we're
talking about in relation to the industry itself and what the impact's
going to be. I think it's an excellent mix, totally do.
Commissioner Coy Ie, and then Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. You asked me to respond to
this, and I really would have preferred to do it in a meeting, but it is
very clear in these minutes that I said now is not the right time to do it;
number two, I was concerned about the economic impact. There was
not sufficient information to determine what the economic impact
would be; and number three, I described a scenario where different
kinds of businesses have different impacts on our -- our affordable
housing issues.
I said that if you had a high-tech company coming in and
building commercial and they were paying high salaries, you wouldn't
Page 280
February 27,2007
want to punish them by hitting them with a high linkage fee for
affordable housing because they're not creating affordable housing.
On the other hand, if you had a commercial company coming in
and building a Walgreen's or a supermarket of some kind that
employed people drawing low salaries, they would have an impact
and create a demand for affordable housing so they should have a
linkage fee. I said, we need to define how we're going to administer
that. Those are all absent from the study.
So if we get information like that and we produce a completed
study that says, these are the circumstances where we should apply it,
these are the circumstances when we shouldn't apply it, this is the
amount we recommend because it will not have an unfavorable impact
on our economy, that's the kind of information I think we need to
have.
That was very clear from the minutes. And when we said kill it,
we said kill that meeting; kill that meeting and don't bring it before the
county commissioners. There was nobody who said, kill it forever.
All I ever wanted was a clarification on how we would apply it and
what a reasonable cost would be, and that's not in the study.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I think we're going there now,
right?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. That's what I'm hoping we
can do. Now, is that sufficient guidance or not?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that's fine.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to Commissioner Halas, and
then I'll come back to you, sir, if you have something else to add.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, I was -- when this vote was
taken, I was a little concerned. Obviously we all heard the horror
story of $48 a square foot, and I'm sure that each and every one of us
knew that that was not going to fly. That was given by a consultant,
and we've used that consultant a number of times.
Page 281
February 27, 2007
Right now when commercial comes before us, there's a donation
of 50 cents a square foot. I think that we need to just have this as an
open-air discussion amongst all the commissioners, and I'm sure we're
going to come to something that's in the middle of the road. Probably
something like $2 a square foot or a dollar and a half a square foot.
Obviously it's not going to be $48 a square foot.
So that was my concern that -- and I took it -- to be honest with
you, I took it as it was going to be -- it was dead on arrival and there
was nothing else that was going to be discussed about that, and that's
what I was left with, with the impression when the vote was taken.
And I'm glad that we're going to resurrect this, and I think it
needs to have an open-air and fair hearing, and I think we'll all come
to something that is beneficial to addressing our concerns here in the
community.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you.
Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, just very briefly. I want you to
understand why I thought it was counterproductive to proceed at that
point in time. Ifwe'd proceeded at that point in time, we would have
had a public hearing without the information that I just described that
we need to make a decision.
We would have gone into the public hearing, we would have
debated it, we would have expressed our concerns, I would have said,
I can't make a decision on that, and we would have wasted a lot of
time.
I was expecting we would get information before we take it into a
public hearing, information on which to make a decision. That's the
reason. And I think if we get the information, we can make a decision.
But you just can't go in a hearing absent the information and
expect to make a decent -- decent decision on this, because we can't
make uninformed decisions without data.
Page 282
February 27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Mr. Weigel, anything else?
MR. WEIGEL: I think that will do it, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Thank you very much
for everything you did today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, you got quite a list?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, I have two things. Okay. First is
wonderful news. Okay. Let's start with the wonderful news, and then
we'll get into the bad news. No, not really.
Wonderful news, just came in. I went downstairs at a break at
lunchtime and found this in my in-box. This was a reply from the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that signed by Michael Bennett?
MR. MUDD: No, Barnett.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Barnett. Oh, I see.
MR. MUDD: No, sir. This is not a letter of apology.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This gentleman here is a great guy.
MR. MUDD: This is a result of the meeting that Commissioner
Halas and I went, when he was the chair, to Tallahassee to get the
beach parking issue where they were threatening to take $1.9 million
away from their cost share.
Not only do we get the $1.9 million back, they have now
approved our concept that you have basically approved over a series
of meetings to offer beach -- annual beach parking stickers to folks
that are visitors in Collier County that are not landowners and
taxpayers.
And not only will you get your 1.9, but if you get to the middle
paragraph, it says, outstanding invoices for the Collier County beach
project with approved scopes of work under agreement 05CO 1 will be
paid at the new state cost share. So we're going to get additional
bucks. So it couldn't be better news. That's about a $1.7 million
bogey to us.
Page 283
February 27, 2007
Next thing, you've got some press, and I'm not trying to say
who's reporting in the Naples Daily News correctly or incorrectly or
what the issue is. But you've been having the thing about EMS, Dr.
Tober and whatever.
I wanted Mr. Summers to give you about a one-and-a-half minute
update so you know what's going on and at least you understand
what's happening in that thing, and that's the last item I have.
Mr. Summers?
MR. SUMMERS: Commissioners, Dan Summers, director of the
Bureau of Emergency Services. My goal here today was to give you a
very brief upload on --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Turn on the timer. Turn on the
time.
MR. SUMMERS: I'm a little horse. I'll do the best I can to give
you a little upload on some of the issues associated with the ALS
engines. Dr. Tober wanted to be here today, had a full patient load
schedule and could not be here to discuss some of these issues. He
does encourage you, if you have any questions, feel free to call him
directly and he'll give you some background information.
As we got into some push back on the ALS engine agreements,
let me tell you why. First of all, if you'll remember back in the AUIR
activity, the Productivity Committee asked us to take a look at how we
could count ALS engine programs in terms of some type of transport
formula or some type of transport concerns.
We had four challenges associated with that request in the AUIR
in the Productivity Committee. Number one is that Collier County as a
governmental entity does not own or operate these ALS engines.
Secondly, remember that we have statutory licensing authority.
And this is just to show the cover sheet. Collier County via the
statutory requirement in Collier County EMS is a licensee or a
subgrantee of ALS engine programs, if you will. And as a result of
that, those issues very directly come under Dr. Tober's control.
Page 284
February 27, 2007
Third was that ALS engine programs are not countywide so,
again, that cost us a challenge associating a level of service standard
with ALS engines.
We also wanted to make you aware that the existing ALS engine
programs did not provide us a mechanism of which to allow staff or
the board to amend those agreements in some capacity for a delivery
of service. In other words, our interlocal agreement requires an actual
vehicle count and an actual paramedic certification approved by Dr.
Tober, and this is where we've had some push back a little bit from the
departments.
So what we want to -- and we met with some of you one on one
to remind you that the ALS engine program was never designed to
substitute for transport, and our level of service deals with transport
specifically, and that's how we measure our standard.
The ALS engine program is an enhancement to that. It provides
a safety net for our paramedics. We want that program to continue, but
we also want the fire districts to continue to work with us under a
specific medical control, and that statutory document there does point
that out.
I made the decision to make a request that we terminate those
ALS engine agreements because general county attorney guidance
was -- at that time was to bring back a new document. So there was
more than enough time to say, hey, let's get these documents, let's
refine these documents that better reflect the service that everybody
wants to deliver because we need to do that within the next 90 days or
so -- and I'll tell you why we chose that 90 days. We want to get that
started, bring you back a new agreement well within that 90-day
period so we had no lapse of service. So that's kind of where we
stood.
The other commitment that we made to you, Commissioners, was
that Chief Page was going to research a grant and has a tentative nod
on a grant from the state office of emergency services to actually let us
Page 285
February 27, 2007
bring a consultant in and to figure out a good way of which to
benchmark ALS engines for the future.
So, again -- and we're going to work that process. I will -- I will
take a glare from Mr. Mudd here if we can make the May comment--
the May period or not, but we'll do our best.
If I may have a few extensions here, real quickly. The reason
that we acted on this 90-day suspension -- I'm sorry -- this 90-day
renegotiation period on the interlocal agreement was, during that time
we found, and we suspected, and we are worried about a number of
infractions that are in place out there with the ALS engine program.
We suspect that, first of all, we don't have a -- we have a big
variable in the number of engines that are provided. Some days they
meet the minimum. Some days they exceed the minimum. Well, if
they exceed the minimum with ALS engines, under the state statutory
requirement, they're not a licensed unit. And if they're operating an
unlicensed unit, that puts us in jeopardy, and so that's the reason that
we moved forward.
Secondly, we were having challenges with medical
documentation and medical -- documentation and intervention from an
ALS unit. As you know, one of the things that's paramount in the
medical business is documentation. So we're running into some
challenges there where the documentation by the ALS engines was
inconsistent.
Third, there was a desire to possibly use some quick response
vehicles like SUVs instead of fire engines. Well, we don't have a
provision in the interlocal to do that. And, again, that was another
push back from the fire departments.
Last, but not least, is some medical terminology. There were
some new units placed into the sheriffs 911 dispatch center that, in
terms of a computer-aided dispatched, that were conversed to the -- or
outside of the chiefs agreement, outside of the communication's
manual from the county and actually conflicted with the medical
Page 286
February 27, 2007
control designation that Dr. Tober has.
So actions at this point, we want to -- we're going to bring you --
and we have two drafts already finished, one with Marco and I believe
one with the City of Naples. We're about to finish up a third one that
meets these requirements with the Isle of Capri, so those three are
being done.
But, again, these issues that we're driving were really two things.
One was to make the interlocal agreement reflective of our general
statutory requirements and, secondly, make sure that actually what
was being delivered as an issue of LOS was properly reflected in the
interlocal agreement.
So it has caused a little bit of a bumpy road, but we have done
that all in the name of medical control, under the auspices of our EMS.
Actions to date, we are -- again, have these interlocal drafts that
we're about ready to bring back to you. We're going to look at some
of the dispatch protocol and make sure that we get that standardized.
You all are familiar with that.
And, again, we understand that emotions are running high in
some of the districts which may be driven by some union issues. And,
again, we'll take a look at that and be fair.
But rest assured we have done this with proper diligence. It may
not have been received very well, but these things are important in
terms of medical control to be standard and to be uniform across the
county to the best of our ability.
So I don't know if Chief Page has any additional he'd like to add.
Commissioner Coyle, thank you for your extra time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle has a question.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Only one observation. I strongly
encourage you not to commit to any memorandum of agreement with
any fire district until it is approved by this board, okay?
MR. SUMMERS: And, sir, this was our intent--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Don't even lead them to believe
Page 287
February 27, 2007
that that is going to be the approved document, okay?
MR. SUMMERS: Sir, we have done due diligence on the
documents to meet the standards. We'll bring those to you. And,
again, it was my desire to bring you a document that is revised and not
have a document sunset. So I was looking for continuous coverage of
licensed vehicles.
MR. MUDD: But, Commissioner, you have approval --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: -- for that agreement, not us.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry?
MR. MUDD: You have -- the board has approval of those
agreements, not the staff.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I just don't want to give the
districts the impression that you have sat down and negotiated with
them an agreement and that's what it's going to be. You know, you
have to make it clear that it's going to come to us first, and then we'll
decide whether or not --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I don't think we have to get into
any more discussion on it. We're there. You know exactly the way the
world's put together. It's just as long as they understand it.
Okay. With that, Mr. Mudd, do you have anything else?
MR. MUDD: No, sir; thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Summers.
MR. SUMMERS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Under comments.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner's comments? I
have two. While you boys are up in Washington, the -- or asking for
the good folks here in Collier County to lobby the legislators to keep
housing trust fund whole, it's planned to limit the funding to $243
million. So that's a significant cut over the previous years.
Page 288
February 27,2007
The second thing is, on September 12th, Commissioner Halas
brought up a topic about affordable housing funds, and the board gave
direction. And Commissioner Coyle said, we're going to look at
everything? And the response was, yes, sir, and down to the last
penny? And the response was, yes, sir.
Well, I was given the engagement letter by a citizen that is
contrary. On October 18,2006, KMPG (sic) letter did not address
what the commissioner's request was, and that was every last cent to
be audited, a material threshold for these HDC (sic) transfers. They
specifically -- they wanted the HH -- CCHD transfer looked at, and
we also talked about having a performance audit done.
What has happened is KPMG, through this engagement letter, is
only going to test internal control systems, and they will take a
sampling of some of those agreements.
This -- the monies that were contracted for KMPG (sic) was quite
a bit of money to do -- to do those performances. And you know, I do
have a person with -- I don't know if you have heard of investigations
of this company from -- on the east coast on their auditing.
But I don't like the fact that I thought it was specific direction,
what the board's desire was, and it wasn't done. And I don't know
what the board wants to do about it, but I can tell you in the future you
will be seeing a lot more resolutions from this commissioner because
in state statutes 125, as it said, the county administrator shall follow
the ordinances and the resolutions of the Board of Commissioners on
what it says. And I think that's very important that we -- that we do
this.
And I know that the board is not happy with the Clerk of Court,
but if you want the clerk to take a look at every last cent, I am all in
favor of that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's a pretty deep issue for the end of a
meeting. Would you like to bring it back next meeting as an agenda
item?
Page 289
February 27, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make out a resolution.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't know if you have to go that
far.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, sir, we do. Because this is
not the only case the board gave specific direction and it was
understood and it was not carried out, and that is not representative of
the public.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let's do this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When we memorialize it in an
official document, then those actions must be carried out.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that's a very serious thing, what
you're saying. I'm not saying what you're telling us is not true.
Commissioner Henning, what I would suggest is, let's bring it back to
the next meeting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would be happy to write a
memo to the Board of Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That would be very much
appreciated, but I think the next meeting would be an appropriate
place for this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to write -- well,
Commissioner, I will put an item on the agenda and I will write a
memo to the Board of Commissioners --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- showing them what we said
and showing them the engagement letter.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And in all fairness, you're going to
supply this data early enough so that the county manager can also be
able to respond by getting his own data together; in other words, it
won't be something that comes out a couple days before the meeting?
It goes through the regular process --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think we got about three
weeks, so I have plenty of time to put a memo together and get it to
Page 290
February 27, 2007
you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, fine. And at that point in time,
we'll get it on the agenda and go forward and deal with it.
Do you have anything else?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And I didn't give you a chance
to respond, Mr. Mudd, because I don't think there's any need to
respond at this time.
MR. MUDD: No. I'm still waiting for their audit report.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Absolutely nothing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, thank God.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I just --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You don't have to push the button.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I just want to say that I've
been waiting for the audit report, too, and I hope that it's forthcoming
in regards to what was -- what the audit covered, and if we need to
give additional direction, I think we can discuss that at the next
meeting. It didn't cover all the other areas that I was concerned in.
My concern was the money trail, let's say, that was coming all
the way from Washington that might have bypassed the county and
went forth to whoever. And I just want to make sure that all the
money is accounted for in that manner, and I don't know if that's what
you're getting at, Commissioner, but that's exactly what -- not only the
county, but also the money that does not come to the county, and I
don't know whether that's under the jurisdiction of the Clerk of Courts.
If he doesn't have that jurisdiction, then we have to make sure
that, some way or another, that we can give direction in that manner.
Also I'd like to say that I wish Commissioner Coletta good results
when he works with the school board because I think it's very, very
important. These are public facilities, and they're paid for by taxpayer
Page 291
February 27, 2007
dollars. And as I brought up, that's almost seven mills.
So I hope that the school board realizes that these are all paid for,
and that would be -- give the ability to the youth here in Collier
County to use that as practice fields and also adults that want to go out
and run track. I think that gives them the ability also to do that. So I
know the school's got some soccer fields that could be used for -- for
practice, so I wish you well on that endeavor.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
And speaking of the school board, this is -- we set it up so that
we'd be meeting with the chair once a month, myself, Mr. Mudd,
along with Mr. Baker, and it's a tradition I hope that carries on with
the next chair of both this Collier County Commission and the school
board.
We were able to come to some understandings as far as the CAT
facility and the length of time that it could be used. It wasn't that
difficult, the idea being is that we might be able to condense the issues
down to point that, when we have our joint meeting, we can get those
things resolved that are going to take a little more discussion.
Also, I wanted to share with you, Southwest Regional Planning
Council, I'm honored to have been made the chair of that group of
representatives from five counties.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, there goes the planning
council.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, well, it's working well, believe
me, sir. Babcock Ranch came before the council at the last meeting,
and this was just to get them approved as far as the question list for
their development of regional impact, and I'll have you know that
Collier County has had a tremendous influence on developments of
this size because of Ave Maria and some of the other issues that we've
dealt with as far as the region -- I'm sorry -- the rural lands and rural
fringe.
Also, too, they're coming to us with their initial offer of 10
Page 292
February 27, 2007
percent affordable housing within the community . We're asking for an
in-depth study to be able to justify that 10 percent to see if it's enough.
I've got a feeling it's going to end up being considerably more. That
feels good to be involved.
Look forward to the Trade Port in Immokalee coming to us in the
near future. They're going to be coming to the Regional Planning
Council for the development of regional impact, and they're telling me
up front that they're going to be dealing with a whole bunch of issues
that are important to this community, including affordable housing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is this a PUD?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's a PUD. It's a commercial
PUD, but it's also going to have an affordable element in it, too.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's going to be fairly extensive.
They're talking about 3-, 4,000 jobs when it's built out.
And with that, I have nothing else to share. This has been a very
productive day. I apologize to the audience out there that's been
watching. Most of the time we'd never carry the meetings this long,
but Commissioner Halas and myself have to go to Washington, D.C.
first thing tomorrow and we couldn't extend this meeting into
tomorrow.
And with that, we're adjourned.
* * * * * Commissioner Halas moved, seconded by Commissioner
Henning and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted * * * * *
Item #16Al
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF TURNBURY PRESERVE,
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
Page 293
February 27, 2007
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY -
W /STIPULA TIONS
Item # 16A2
RELEASE AND SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR PAYMENTS
RECEIVED FOR THE FOLLOWING CODE ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item # 16A3
RESOLUTION 2007-42: GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL FOR
THE PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF BRITNEY ESTATES. THE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE
PRIVATELY MAINTAINED - W / RELEASE OF THE
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 2007-43: GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL FOR
THE PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF VERONAWALK PHASE IB. THE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE
PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED - W /RELEASE OF THE
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
Item #16B1
PURCHASE OF 1.14 ACRES OF UNIMPROVED PROPERTY
WHICH IS REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
STORMW A TER RETENTION AND TREATMENT POND FOR
Page 294
February 27, 2007
THE OIL WELL ROAD WIDENING PROJECT - PROJECT NO.
60044 (FISCAL IMPACT: $125,610.00) BETWEEN IMMOKALEE
AND CAMP KEAIS ROAD
Item #16B2
NOVATION AGREEMENT ADDING CONDITIONS AND
REPLACING A PREVIOUS AGREEMENT WITH
COUNTRYSIDE MASTER ASSOCIATION, INC. FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A NOISE WALL AS PART OF THE SIX-
LANE IMPROVEMENTS TO SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD
PROJECT #62081 - ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT: ($0) ALONG
SANTA BARBARA BLVD FOR RESIDENTS WITHIN
COUNTRYSIDE AT BERKSHIRE LAKES
Item #16B3
THE PURCHASE OF TWO (2) CREW CAB FLAT BED DUMP
TRUCKS IN ACCORDANCE WITH COLLIER COUNTY BID
#04-3591 FROM WALLACE INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS IN
THE AMOUNT OF $139,495.14 - FOR REPAIR AND ROAD
MAINTENANCE
Item #16B4
PURCHASE OF TWO (2) 20-CY DIESEL POWERED DUMP
TRUCKS IN ACCORDANCE WITH COLLIER COUNTY BID
#05-3731 FROM WALLACE INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS IN
THE AMOUNT OF $208,059.54 - FOR DAIL Y REPAIR AND
ROAD MAINTENANCE
Item #16B5
Page 295
February 27, 2007
WORK ORDER IN THE AMOUNT OF $484,660 TO
AQUAGENIX FOR THE 2007 AUSTRALIAN PINE REMOVAL
PROJECT (PROJECT NUMBER 51501) UNDER CONTRACT 03-
3568 ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR COUNTYWIDE EXOTIC
VEGETATION REMOVAL - GROWING ALONG NUMEROUS
MILES OF COUNTY MAINTAINED DRAINAGE CANALS,
DITCHES AND LAKES
Item #16B6
ONE (1) ADOPT-A-ROAD PROGRAM AGREEMENT WITH
TWO (2) ROADWAY RECOGNITION SIGNS AT A TOTAL
COST OF $150.00 - W/GABE THE GRANITE GUY
Item #16B7
CONTRACT WITH CAMBRIDGE SYSTEMATICS FOR PHASE 1
OF RFP-06-3999 FOR THE TOLL FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR
THE SS JOLLEY BRIDGE IN THE AMOUNT OF $481~823
Item #16B8
CHANGE ORDER NO.2 TO CONTRACT NO. 03-3473 WITH
HDR ENGINEERING, INC. - CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR
PREPARATION OF A LAND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY FOR
BA YSHORE/GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AREA (CRA) DISTRICT SUPPLEMENTING
CIVIL ENGINEERING DESIGN AND SURVEYING SERVICES
IN THE AMOUNT OF $162,560 FOR THE GATEWAY
TRIANGLE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (PROJECT
NUMBER 51803)
Page 296
February 27, 2007
Item #16B9
DEVELOPERS CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT (DCA)
BETWEEN SEMBLER F AMIL Y PARTNERSHIP #42, LTD., (THE
DEVELOPER) AND COLLIER COUNTY TO ACQUIRE RIGHT
OF WAY AND FUND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS.
(COMP ANION ITEM TO THE HAMMOCK PARK PUDA-2006-
AR-10030, ITEM 17C) - LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK AND COLLIER
BOULEVARD
Item #16Cl
ACQUISITION OF A 60-FOOT BY 60-FOOT UTILITY
EASEMENT NEAR THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 3898 1ST
AVENUE SW FOR A PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY WELL SITE
EASEMENT, AT A TOTAL COST NOT TO EXCEED $27,000
(PROJECT NUMBER 700661) - ALONG WEBER BOULEVARD
IN GOLDEN GATE EST A TES
Item #16C2
ACQUISITION OF A 50-FOOT BY 60-FOOT UTILITY
EASEMENT NEAR THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 341
WEBER BOULEVARD NORTH FOR A PUBLIC WATER
SUPPLY WELL SITE EASEMENT, AT A TOTAL COST NOT TO
EXCEED $24~500 (PROJECT NUMBERS 700661 AND 701581)
Item # 16C3
ACQUISITION OF A UTILITY EASEMENT FOR A 50-FOOT BY
Page 297
February 27, 2007
60-FOOT PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY WELL SITE NEAR THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 611 WEBER BOULEVARD SOUTH,
AND ASSOCIATED PIPELINE AND ACCESS AREA, AT A
TOTAL COST NOT TO EXCEED $52,700 (PROJECT NUMBER
700661) - ALONG WEBER BLVD IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES
Item # 16C4
WORK ORDER HM-FT-3785-07-04 WITH HOLE MONTES, INC.
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR MODIFICATIONS TO
COLLIER COUNTY WATER DEPARTMENT RAW WATER
BOOSTER PUMP STATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $600,600
(PROJECT 710041) - TO IMPROVE COUNTY WATER
DEPARTMENT RESPONSE DURING EMERGENCIES AND
HURRICANES
Item # 16C5 - WITHDRAWN
ANNUAL CONTRACTS TO SELECTED FIRMS FOR
TRENCHLESS SEWER SYSTEM REHABILITATION
CONTRACTING SERVICES PER BID 07-4088 (PROJECT 73050)
AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16C6
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER FUNDS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $250,000 FROM THE COLLIER COUNTY
WATER-SEWER DISTRICT USER FEE FUND (414) RESERVE
FOR CONTINGENCIES TO PROJECT 743131, NORTHEAST
IRRIGATION QUALITY PIPELINE, IN ORDER TO PURCHASE
9,720 FEET ON 24" IRRIGATION QUALITY PIPE FROM THE
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
Page 298
February 27,2007
$355,725 - TO DELIVER IRRIGATION QUALITY WATER TO
CUSTOMERS IN THE NORTHEAST SECTION OF THE
COUNTY
Item #16D1
SUBMITTAL OF A 2007 ESRI GRANT PROGRAM FOR 4-H
(U.S.) INTRODUCTORY-LEVEL GRANT APPLICATION TO
THE ESRI GRANT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AND NATIONAL
4-H GIS/GPS TECHNOLOGY LEADERSHIP TEAM FOR THE
INTEGRATION OF GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM
(GIS) SOFTWARE IN COLLIER COUNTY 4-H CLUBS AND
SCHOOLS
Item # 16D2
TIME & MATERIAL, NOT-TO-EXCEED PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES PROPOSAL FROM PBS&J TO HAVE DR. DAVID
TOMASKO PERFORM A SEA GRASS STUDY ON LOWER
CLAM BAY IDENTIFYING DIE-OFF FACTORS,
CONTRIBUTING RELATIONSHIPS AND OUTLINING
MITIGATION STRATEGIES AND COSTS - AS DETAILED IN
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16El
SALE OF SURPLUS ASSETS FROM THE NORTH COUNTY
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY PROJECT. TO BE HELD
MARCH 12~ 2007
Item # 16E2
Page 299
February 27, 2007
AUTHORIZE THE SALE OF COLLIER COUNTY SURPLUS
PROPERTY ON MARCH 24,2007 - SERVICES PROVIDED BY
ATKINSON REALTY & AUCTION~ INC.
Item # 16E3 - Moved to Item # 1 OL
Item #16E4
REPORT AND RATIFY PROPERTY, CASUALTY, WORKERS
COMPENSATION AND SUBROGATION CLAIMS SETTLED
AND/OR CLOSED BY THE RISK MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR
PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION #2004-15 FOR THE FOURTH
QUARTER OF FY 06
Item #16E5
REPORT AND RATIFY PROPERTY, CASUALTY, WORKERS
COMPENSATION AND SUBROGATION CLAIMS SETTLED
AND/OR CLOSED BY THE RISK MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR
PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION #2004-15 FOR THE FIRST
QUARTER OF FY 07
Item #16E6
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR ON-SITE GRANT TRAINING IN
THE AMOUNT OF $15,500 - FOR 4 DAYS OF ON-SITE STAFF
TRAINING
Item #16F1
REMOVAL OF $570,992.54 FROM THE ACCOUNTS
RECEIVABLE CONTROL ACCOUNT AND A LIKE AMOUNT
Page 300
February 27, 2007
FROM THE ALLOWANCE FOR DOUBTFUL ACCOUNTS
CONTROL ACCOUNT IN THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES FUNDS' GENERAL LEDGER FOR THE TIME
PERIOD OF OCTOBER 1,2003 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30,
2005
Item #16F2
EMERGENCY SERVICES MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND
MOORINGS PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
Item #16F3
APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENTS - #07-186
Item #16Gl
CRA BOARD TO APPROVE THE LEASE OF ADDITIONAL
OFFICE SPACE FOR BA YSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE CRA
OPERATIONS, APPROVE NEW OFFICE LEASE WITH
LANDLORD, AUTHORIZE THE CRA CHAIRMAN TO SIGN,
AND APPROVE ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS -
LOCATED AT 2740 BA YSHORE DRIVE
Item #16G2
EXECUTE SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT AGREEMENT(S)
BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND GRANT APPLICANT(S)
WITHIN THE BA YSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA; - FISCAL IMPACT
Page 301
February 27, 2007
IS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - LOCATED
3144 PINE TREE DRIVE AND 1716 AIRPORT PULLING ROAD
Item #16G3
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO APPROVE
THE PURCHASE OF A RESIDENTIAL (MOBILE HOME) LOT
IN THE BA YSHORE AREA OF THE CRA AS P ART OF A CRA
RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECT; TO APPROVE PAYMENT
FROM AND AUTHORIZE THE CRA CHAIRMAN TO MAKE A
DRA W FROM THE BA YSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE CRA
W ACHOVIA BANK LINE OF CREDIT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$90,000 PLUS COST AND EXPENSES TO COMPLETE THE
SALE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY; AND APPROVE ANY AND
ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS (SITE ADDRESS:
3148 VAN BUREN AVENUE)
Item #16G4
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO APPROVE AN
EXTENSION OF SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT AGREEMENT
02/2006 BETWEEN THE CRA AND MR. PETER CANALIA DUE
TO CERTAIN CONSTRUCTION AND PERMITTING DELAYS
FROM FEBRUARY 28~ 2007 TO JUNE 30~ 2007
Item #16G5
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO APPROVE
THE PURCHASE OF A VACANT RESIDENTIAL (MOBILE
HOME) LOT IN THE BA YSHORE AREA OF THE CRA AS P ART
OF A CRA RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECT; TO APPROVE
PAYMENT FROM AND AUTHORIZE THE CRA CHAIRMAN
Page 302
February 27, 2007
TO MAKE A DRAW FROM THE BA YSHORE GATEWAY
TRIANGLE CRA W ACHOVIA BANK LINE OF CREDIT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $90,000 PLUS COST AND EXPENSES TO
COMPLETE THE SALE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY; AND
APPROVE ANY AND ALL NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENTS (SITE ADDRESS: 4048 FULL MOON COURT)
Item #16G6
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO APPROVE
THE PURCHASE OF A VACANT RESIDENTIAL (MOBILE
HOME) LOT IN THE BA YSHORE AREA OF THE CRA AS PART
OF A CRA RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECT; TO APPROVE
PAYMENT FROM AND AUTHORIZE THE CRA CHAIRMAN
TO MAKE A DRAW FROM THE BA YSHORE GATEWAY
TRIANGLE CRA W ACHOVIA BANK LINE OF CREDIT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $90,000 PLUS COST AND EXPENSES TO
COMPLETE THE SALE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY; AND
APPROVE ANY AND ALL NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENTS (SITE ADDRESS: 3252 LUNAR STREET)
Item #16G7 - Moved to Item #14A
Item #16H1
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING
A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. COMMISSIONER PAID TO
ATTEND THE NEW HOPE MINISTRIES 25TH ANNIVERSARY
CELEBRATION LUNCHEON ON FEBRUARY 11,2007 AND
REQUESTED REIMBURSEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $22.00,
TO BE PAID FROM HIS TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED 7675
Page 303
February 27, 2007
DAVIS BLVD, NAPLES
Item #16H2
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING
A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. COMMISSIONER PAID TO
ATTEND THE KNOW YOUR COUNTY GOVERNMENT TEEN
CITIZEN PROGRAM LUNCHEON ON APRIL 10, 2007 AND
REQUESTED REIMBURSEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $9.00
TO BE PAID FROM HIS TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #16H3
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING
A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. COMMISSIONER PAID TO
ATTEND THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF LEADERSHIP
FOUNDATIONS OF AMERICA BOARD MEETING ON
FEBRUARY 22, 2007 AND REQUESTED REIMBURSEMENT IN
THE AMOUNT OF $30.00 TO BE PAID FROM HIS TRAVEL
BUDGET - AT THE EAST NAPLES METHODIST CHURCH
Item #16H4 - WITHDRAWN
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. ATTENDED THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
CONCIERGE MEDICINE IN COLLIER COUNTY LUNCHEON
ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 19,2007, AND REQUESTED $15.00
TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL
BUDGET - AT THE VINEYARDS PARK COMMUNITY
Page 304
February 27, 2007
CENTER, 6231 ARBOR BLVD W.
Item #16H5
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. WILL ATTEND THE 5TH ANNUAL WOMEN IN
HISTORY LUNCHEON ON FRIDAY, MARCH 30, 2007 AT THE
NAPLES HILTON & TOWERS; AND REQUESTED $75.00 TO
BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #16H6
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. ATTENDED THE CLEVELAND CLUB'S 9TH
ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY
31,2007; AND REQUESTED $28.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - HELD AT THE
NAPLES ELKS CLUB, 3950 RADIO ROAD
Item #16H7 - WITHDRAWN
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. WILL ATTEND THE 2007 LINCOLN DA Y DINNER
ON SATURDAY, MARCH 3, 2007 AT THE NAPLES BEACH
HOTEL; $125.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S
TRA VEL BUDGET - LOCATED GULF SHORE BL VD NORTH
Item #1611
Page 305
February 27, 2007
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 306
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
February 27, 2007
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS
DIRECTED:
A. Districts:
(1) East Naples Fire Control and Rescue District: Minutes of January
12, 2007.
B: Minutes:
(1) Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee: Agenda
for February 20, 2007; Minutes of January 16, 2007.
(2) Bayshore Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee: Agenda for
February 7, 2007; Minutes of January 10, 2007 Special Meeting.
(3) Emeraency Medical Services Advisory Council: Minutes of
January 30, 2007.
(4) Collier County Citizens Corps Advisory Committee: Corrected
Minutes of November 15, 2006.
(5) Collier County Public Vehicle Advisory Committee: Agenda for
February 5,2007.
(6) Collier County Domestic Animal Services Advisory Committee:
Minutes of December 5, 2006.
(7) Immokalee Master Plan & Visionina Committee and CRA Advisory
Board/EZDA Joint Meetina:
(a) Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Aaency and the
Redevelopment Area Advisory Board: Agenda for January
17, 2007.
H:\DATA\FRONT DESK - 2007\2007 Miscellaneous Correspondence\022707 _misc_corr.doc
(b) Community Redevelopment Aaency Advisory Board and
Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee: Agenda
for January 17, 2007.
(c) Enterprise Zone Development Agency (EZDA): Agenda for
January 17, 2007; Agenda for December 20, 2006; Minutes
of December 20, 2006.
(d) Community Redevelopment Aaency Advisory Board:
Agenda for January 17, 2007.
(e) Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board and
Immokalee Master Plan and Visionina Committee: Minutes
of December 20, 2006 Joint Meeting.
H:\DA T A \FRONT DESK - 2007\2007 Miscellaneous Correspondence\022707 misc corr.doc
- -
February 27, 2007
Item #16J1
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF FEBRUARY 03, 2007
THROUGH FEBRUARY 09, 2007 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J2
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF FEBRUARY 10,2007
THROUGH FEBRUARY 16,2007 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16K1
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,000 TO
FUND THE COST OF SUPPLEMENTS TO THE COLLIER
COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES AND THE
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
Item # 16K2
AGREED ORDER AWARDING EXPERT FEES AND COSTS
FOR PARCELS 737R, 937R, 738R, 838, 938R, 746R AND 946R IN
THE LAWSUIT STYLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS V. WILLOW RUN LAND TRUST, ET AL., CASE
NO. 05-1036-CA (SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER
TREATMENT PLANT RO WELLFIELD EXPANSION PROJECT
NO. 70892) (FISCAL IMPACT $37,879.29)
Item # 16K3
MEDIA TED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND A
Page 307
February 27, 2007
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT TO BE DRAFTED
INCORPORATING THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS
THE MEDIA TED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $215,000.00 FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PARCEL
118 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. DA VID
LA WRENCE MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, INC., ET AL., CASE
NO. 06-0567-CA (SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD PROJECT
NO. 62081) (FISCAL IMPACT: $99,541.20)
Item # 16K4
AGREED ORDER AWARDING PLANNING FEES FOR
PARCELS 131 AND 132 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER
COUNTY V. WEST COAST DEVELOPMENT CORP., ET AL., CASE
NO. 06-0708-CA (SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD PROJECT
NO. 62081) (FISCAL IMPACT $14,500.00)
Item #17A
RESOLUTION 2007-44: SNR-2006-AR-10898, JON OGLE
REPRESENTING THE CRA BAYSHORE/GATEWAY
TRIANGLE, HAS SUBMITTED A STREET NAME CHANGE
APPLICATION. THE REQUEST IS TO CHANGE THE NAMES
OF TWO STREETS, FRANCIS AVENUE AND PINE STREET,
TO LINWOOD WAY. THE NEW STREET, LINWOOD WAY,
WOULD INCLUDE FRANCIS AVENUE, SOUTH OF LINWOOD
AVENUE TO THE DEAD-END INTERSECTION WITH PINE
STREET, AND PINE STREET, NORTH OF FRANCIS TO
LINWOOD AVENUE
Item #17B
Page 308
February 27, 2007
ORDINANCE 2007-29: AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-13, AS AMENDED (THE COLLIER
COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMP ACT FEE ORDINANCE) BY
AMENDING ARTICLE TWO, IMPACT FEES, SECTION 74-202,
PAYMENT AND SECTION 74-203, USE OF FUNDS;
AMENDING ARTICLE THREE, SECTION 74-302, SPECIAL
REQUIREMENTS FOR ROAD IMPACT FEES; PROVIDING FOR
CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR
INCLUSION IN CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE
Item #17C
ORDINANCE 2007-30: PUDA-2006-AR-10030, SEMBLER
F AMIL Y PARTNERSHIP #42, L TD, REPRESENTED BY BOB
MULHERE, OF RWA, INC., REQUESTING A PUD
AMENDMENT TO REFLECT THE CURRENT LDC SECTIONS
WHICH WAS RECODIFIED IN 2004 IN THE HAMMOCK PARK
COMMERCE CENTRE PUD DOCUMENT. THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY IS 20.23 ACRES, AND IS LOCATED ON THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF CR 951
AND RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD (COMPANION ITEM
TO 16B9)
Item #17D
RZ-2005-AR-7445, D. WAYNE ARNOLD, AICP, Q. GRADY
MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A. REQUESTING A REZONE
FROM THE CONSERVATION ZONING DISTRICT WITH AN
AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN AND A SPECIAL
TREATMENT OVERLAY (CON-ACSC/ ST) AND THE VILLAGE
RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT WITH AN AREA OF
Page 309
February 27, 2007
CRITICAL STATE CONCERN AND A SPECIAL TREATMENT
OVERLAY (VR-ACSC/ST) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE
VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT WITH AN AREA
OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN AND A SPECIAL
TREATMENT OVERLAY (VR-ACSC/ST-4) (COPELAND)-
CONTINUE TO 2nd HEARING ON MARCH 13,2007
Item #17E - Moved to Item #8D
Page 310
February 27,2007
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:15 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
"~~
/ /
,.,...,t9lf'
JIM CO~En ., at t
ATTEST:
DWIQHTE:'BROCK, CLERK
A . . ;...
ttest II! 't(, &;a!r"!l1~
s jglliltw'; 0" 1
These min~t~s approyed by the Board on .3/.;27/f1? , as
presented V or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 3 11