BCC Minutes 04/24/2007 R
April 24, 2007
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, April 24, 2007
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such
special district as has been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m.,
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Jim Coletta
Tom Henning
Frank Halas
Fred W. Coyle
Donna Fiala
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Crystal Kinzel, Office of the Clerk of Court
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD (CRAB)
~'
,~
)/ ,,\
AGENDA
April 24, 2007
9:00 AM
Jim Coletta, BCC Chairman, District 5; CRAB Vice-Chairman
Tom Henning, BCC Vice-Chairman, District 3
Donna Fiala, BCC Commissioner, District 1; CRAB Chairman
Frank Halas, BCC Commissioner, District 2
Fred W. Coyle, BCC Commissioner, District 4
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM
MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER
WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENT A TION OF THE
AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL
RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY
THE CHAIRMAN.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY
ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, 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
April 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.
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 A V AILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of to day's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for consent and
summary agenda.)
B. March 27,2007 - BCC/Regular Meeting
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
A. 20 Year Attendees
1) Mama Kraus, Parks & Recreation Enviommental Specialist
2) Robert Thurston, CDES
3) Cheryl Soter, CDES
4) Joseph Collins, Utilities Billing
5) Steven Ritter, Transportation Engineering
6) Ramiro Ponce, Transportation Maintenance Road & Bridge
Page 2
April 27, 2007
7) Richard Noonan, Building Review & Permitting
8) Barbara Pitts, Library-Immokalee Branch
B. 25 Year Attendees
1) Marilyn Matthes, Library Administration
C. 30 Year Attendees
1) Gail Wilver, Parks & Recreation Administration
2) Pablo Salinas, Parks and Recreation-Immokolee Aquatic
D. 35 Year Attendees
1) Cecilia Martin, CDES
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation to recognize May 6, 2007 through May l2, 2007 as Drinking
Water Week. Water is one of our most basic and vital needs and our health,
safety, comfort, and standard of living depend upon an abundant supply of
safe drinking water. To be accepted by Mr. Paul Mattausch, Director, Water
Administration; Ms. Pamela Libby, Operations Manager, Water
Administration; Mr. Stephen Lang, Environmental Specialist, Water
Distribution; Mr. Steve Messner, North Water Plant Manager; Mr. Ty
Stuller, Water Distribution Manager, Water Distribution; and Mr. Howard
Brogdon, Laboratory Supervisor, Water Lab.
B. Proclamation to recognize Mr. Michael Malloy for his volunteer work as
Master Gardener. Mr. Malloy has donated his time and efforts to the Master
Gardener program, sharing over 30 years of pragmatic horticulture
experience through the preparation and delivery of public presentations to
increase awareness of the importance of retaining wildlife habitats. To be
accepted by Mr. Michael Malloy.
C. Proclamation to designate the month of April 2007, as Call Before You Dig
Month. To be accepted by Mr. Lynn Daffron from Embarq and Mr. James
Page 3
April 27, 2007
French from the Community Development and Environmental Services
Division.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Recommendation to recognize Don Albonesi, Richard Badge, Glama Carter,
Amia Curry, Renee Finsterwalder, Marlene Foord, Joe Frazier, Kim Grant,
Mark Isackson, Peter Lund, Gary Mullee, Cliff Ong, Winona Stone, and
Amanda Townsend as Collier Countys Outstanding Team for Spring 2007.
B. Contractor's presentation regarding the C.R. 95l Water Main project by
Akerman Construction Company, Inc.
C. Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for the current fiscal year (20th)
from the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) presented to the
Office of Management and Budget. To be accepted by Mike Smykowski,
Director, Office of Management and Budget.
D. Presentation by Dr. George Yilmaz, recognizing Jon Pratt, NWRF Manager,
as the recipient of the Water Environment Federations William D. Hatfield
Award.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public petition request by Tom Killen to discuss Radio Square PUD and
outstanding commitments.
B. Public petition request by John Shepard to discuss the Coconut River Estates
Civic Association Property at 236l Clipper Way.
C. Public petition request by Richard Viscusi to discuss tree removal along
boundary ofWalMart and Sunrise Condominium Complex.
D. Public petition request by Gene Silguero to discuss vacation of easement to
allow set back requirements.
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 Y.m.. unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
Page 4
April 27, 2007
A. Sherifrs Office and County Staff recommend that this item be
continued to the Mav 8, 2007 BCC Meetinl! to finalize staff
coordination. Board consideration of adoption of a proposed ordinance
prohibiting certain sexual offenders and sexual predators from establishing
temporary or permanent residences within 2,500 feet of specified locations
such as parks, schools, daycare centers and playgrounds within the County
and prohibiting property owners from renting and/or leasing all or portions
of real property to them within the prescribed limits.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of members to the Environmental Advisory Council.
B. Appointment of members to the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local
Redevelopment Advisory Board.
C. Recommendation to declare a vacancy on the Affordable Housing
Commission.
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. This item to be heard at 10:30 a.m. Recommendation to approve Contract
Amendment No.2, Exhibit E, for a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) of
$38,533,902 under Contract No. 04-3609, Construction Manager at Risk
Services for the Collier County Emergency Operations Center, with Kraft
Construction Company, Inc. for the building construction portion of the
Emergency Services Complex, Project 52l60.
B. Recommendation to approve the intent of the Collier County Water-Sewer
District to implement Water Restriction measures, per the South Water
Management District (SFWMD) Water Shortage Plan. (Jim DeLony,
Administrator, Public Utilities)
C. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners provide the
County Manager or his designee direction as to the manner for calculating
allowable wetslips when a project shoreline is within a conservation
easement.(Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development and
Environmental Services)
D. This item to be heard at 3:00 p.m. Recommendation to the Board of
Page 5
April 27, 2007
County Commissioners (Board) to consider options for the creation of a Fire
Review Task Force to review issues and concerns related to fire review and
inspections associated with the building plan review and permitting process;
to review the building review and permitting procedures related to fire
review and to review and make a recommendation to the Board regarding
the amending of or repeal of Collier County Ordinance 2002-49, as amended
by Ordinance 2005-32, the Collier County Fire Prevention and Protection
Code pertaining to adopted standards and codes of the Florida Fire
Prevention Code published by the National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA), as amended by the State of Florida. (Joseph K. Schmitt,
Administrator, Community Development and Environmental Services
Division)
E. Presentation of a proposed Collier County Pre-Purchase Inspection Service
to be offered to prospective real estate buyers to ensure that the purchased
structures are built in accordance with all zoning approvals. The information
presented is intended to allow the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to
consider and provide direction on whether or not to make available this Pre-
Purchase Inspection Service to prospective real estate buyers in Collier
County. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development and
Environmental Services)
F. A report on solid waste collection options for white goods, tires, batteries
and electronics in specific areas of the County. (Jim DeLony, Administrator,
Public Utilities)
G. This item to be heard on or about 11 :00 a.m. Immokalee Master Plan and
Visioning Committee and Local Redevelopment Advisory Board request to
the Collier County Board of County Commissioners to cease enforcing
certain zoning provisions in Immokalee for eighteen months or until the
approval of the new master plan and land development codes, whichever
comes first. (A companion item to l4B to be heard after l4B is discussed by
the CRA) (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development and
Environmental Services Division)
H. Recommendation to terminate the Intergovernmental Agreement between
the Board of County Commissioners and the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, South District Office for enhanced environmental
resources permitting (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community
Development and Environmental Services Division)
Page 6
April 27, 2007
I. This item to be heard at 2:00 p.m. Report of the findings on Utility Issues
related to Transportation Projects.
J. Recommendation to determine the final agenda from the topics proposed by
members of the Board of County Commissioners and the Naples City
Council for a joint workshop scheduled for May l, 2007. (Debbie Wight,
Assistant to the County Manager)
K. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners reject the $l6.5
million counter-offer from Athina Kyritsis and Zannos Grekos, owners of
the Gawn Fishin', LLC property located in Everglades City (Owners).
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. This item to be heard at 12:00 noon. Notice of Closed Attorney-Client
Session
B. This item to be heard at 1 :00 p.m. Board of County Commissioners to
Provide Direction to the Office of the County Attorney as to any Settlement
Negotiations and Strategy Relating to Litigation Expenditures in William
Litsinger v. Collier County, Florida and Fred Coyle, individually, Case No.
06-432-CA, now pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier
County, Florida.
C. Recommendation to approve a Pre-Litigation Mediated Settlement
Agreement for the purchase of improved property (Parcell40) in the amount
of $l ,283,988.00 which is required for the construction of Vanderbilt Beach
Road Extension Project #60 l68. (Fiscal Impact: $l ,298,488.00)
D. 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
$l,565,000.00 for the Acquisition of Parcelll9 in the Lawsuit Styled
Collier County v. David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc., et al., Case
No. 06-0567-CA (Santa Barbara Boulevard Project No. 6208l). (Fiscal
Impact: $863,450)
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
Page 7
April 27, 2007
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. This item to be heard on or about 11 :00 a.m. Immokalee Redevelopment
Advisory Board recommendation to the Collier County Community
Redevelopment Agency (CRA) to consider approval of job descriptions and
referral to the Board of County Commissioners the recommended fiscal year
2007-2008 budget request related to the establishment of a new office in
Immokalee to conduct CRA and Enterprise Zone Development Agency
functions and duties.
B. This item to be heard on or about 11:00 a.m. Immokalee Master Plan and
Visioning Committee and Local Redevelopment Advisory Board request to
the Collier County Redevelopment Agency to approve and forward to the
Board of County Commissioners a request to cease enforcing certain zoning
provisions in Immokalee for eighteen months or until the approval of the
new master plan and land development codes, whichever comes first. (A
companion item to lOG to be heard before lOG is discussed)
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Recommendation to adopt a resolution supporting a feasibility study
for the proposed Heartland Parkway.
2) This item reauires that ex parte disclosure be provided bv
Commission Members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve
for recording the final plat of Via Veneto Lots 30 and 33 Replat.
3) This item reauires that ex parte disclosure be provided bv
Page 8
April 27, 2007
Commission Members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to grant
final approval ofthe roadway (private) and drainage improvements
for the final plat of Castlewood at Imperial. The roadway and drainage
improvements will be privately maintained.
4) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission Members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve
for recording the final plat of Silver Lakes Phase Two-G
5) Recommendation to approve the application for the Job Creation
Investment Program and the Advanced Broadband Infrastructure
Investment by Airflyte Electronics.
6) Recommendation to reject Bid No. 06-4050 for demolition of
Commercial/Residential Structures.
7) Recommendation to accept the Special Magistrate's decision on the
Mediation Proceedings for Case 06-CEB-00055: Jerry and Kimberlea
Blocker v. BCC
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve a Resolution to terminate an Interlocal
Agreement between the City of Naples and Collier County regarding
maintenance assistance for the Traffic Signal System on Goodlette-
Frank Road between U.S. 4l and Golden Gate Parkway and
authorizing the County Manager or his designee to provide written
notice of termination to the City.
2) Recommendation to approve the attached Agreement between Royal
Wood Golf & Country Club and Collier County Board of County
Commissioners as it connects LASIP to the Santa Barbara Boulevard
Extension from Davis Boulevard to Rattlesnake Hammock Road,
County Project No. 511 0 1
3) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve
a budget amendment to recognize revenue received for the FY07 5309
Federal Transit Authority (FTA) grant for $238,000.
Page 9
April 27, 2007
4) Recommendation to declare a single family residence on 2.674 acres
in Golden Gate Estates as surplus property and to take the appropriate
steps to sell the property (Fiscal impact $300.00.)
5) Recommendation to Award Bid #07-4ll3 for Preparation and
Delivery of Title Commitments and Real Estate Closing Services.
Fiscal Impact: None.
6) Recommendation to approve a one year traffic reservation extension
associated with the approval of the Traffic Impact Statement (TIS)
submitted with the Verona Walk Phase 4C and 4D PPL AR#9241.
7) Recommendation to request the Board of County Commissioners to
approve $4,500 from the Freedom Memorial Fund (620) to be
allocated toward hiring a professional grant writing service for
fundraising purposes.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to approve, execute and record Satisfactions for
certain Water and/or Sewer Impact Fee Payment Agreements. Fiscal
impact is $245.00 to record the Satisfactions of Lien.
2) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfactions of
Lien for Solid Waste residential accounts wherein the County has
received payment and said Liens are satisfied in full for the 1992
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
Fiscal impact is $30.00 to record the Satisfactions of Lien.
3) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfaction of
Lien for a Solid Waste residential account wherein the County has
received payment and said Lien is satisfied in full for the 1994 Solid
Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal
impact is $20.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien.
4) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfactions of
Lien for Solid Waste residential accounts wherein the County has
received payment and said Liens are satisfied in full for the 1995
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
Page 10
April 27, 2007
Fiscal impact is $70.00 to record the Satisfactions of Lien.
5) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfactions of
Lien for Solid Waste residential accounts wherein the County has
received payment and said Liens are satisfied in full for the 1996
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
Fiscal impact is $90.00 to record the Satisfactions of Lien.
6) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners Award
Contract #06-4049 Public Utilities Division Asset Management
Program Development and Implementation to Camp Dresser &
McKee, Inc., for an amount for the first phase not to exceed
$447,946.00
7) Recommendation to utilize short-term inter-fund loan from user fees
as an interim funding source for the South County Regional Water
Treatment Plant (SCRWTP) l2 MGD RO Expansion Project
#70097l, and for the South County Regional Water Treatment Plant
(SCRWTP) Well field Expansion-Easement Project #70892l, Water
Impact Fee capital projects.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation to affirm the approval ofa United State Fish and
Wildlife Cooperative Agreement 40l8l6J09l for a Derelict Vessel
Removal Grant and approve all necessary budget amendments to
recognize and appropriate grant revenue in the amount of$30,000.
2) Recommend Approval of a Budget Amendment totaling $250,000
from Beach Renourishment/Pass Maintenance Reserves to fund
miscellaneous Beach Renourishment initiatives as required by FDEP
permit which is part of the Countys Major Beach Renourishment
Project (90527l).
3) Recommendation to authorize a payment of$75,000 to Betty Briggs
to purchase the Rob Storter Collection and to authorize the Chairman
of the Board of County Commissioners to execute the attached three-
party Agreement among the Friends ofthe Museum of the Everglades,
Mrs. Betty Briggs, and the County, to transfer ownership of the
Storter Collection to Collier County.
Page 11
April 27, 2007
4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners recognize
the income from credit report fees generated by the Home Loan
Program operated within the Housing and Human Services
Department.
5) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the County Manager to sign, a lien agreement with
Santa Ledezma Diaz (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County
impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at
Lot 86, Independence, Phase II.
6) Recommendation to recognize anticipated revenue in the amount of
$ll,300 from the Collier County Medical Society and approve a
budget amendment to the Housing and Human Services Client
Assistance budget.
7) Recommendation to adopt the State Housing Initiative Partnership
(SHIP) Local Housing Assistance Plan (LHAP) for State Fiscal Years
2007-2008,2008-2009 and 2009-20l0 as required by state law and
submit to the Florida Housing Finance Corporation.
8) Recommendation to approve the submittal of a Florida Boating
Improvement Program Derelict Vessel Removal Grant in the amount
of$80,000 to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Recommendation to ratify additions to, deletions from and
modifications to the 2007 Fiscal Year Pay and Classification Plan
made from December l6, 2006 through March 30, 2007.
2) Report to the Board of County Commissioners concerning the sale
and transfer of items associated with the County surplus auction held
on March 24, 2007, resulting in gross revenues of$5l8,875.25.
3) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Harvey N. Karen and Lisa M. Karen for 0.678 acres under the
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to
Page 12
April 27, 2007
exceed $898,000.
4) Recommendation to approve the submittal of the attached Florida
Communities Trust (FCT) grant proposal seeking post acquisition
funding for a 2006 Conservation Collier purchase of the Collier
Development Corporation parcel, which is a component of the Gordon
River Greenway Preserve Project, requesting reimbursement for 50%
of project costs, or $l,045,700.
5) Recommendation to approve Phase III Enterprise Implementation
Strategy of the Enterprise Content Management Strategy, Project No.
50042l, in the amount of$25,000.00.
6) Recommendation to approve the Grant of Storm Water Drainage
Easement agreement, Exhibit A, between Collier County and Edison
College, to allow construction of a shallow drainage swale required by
the Site Development Plan for the Emergency Services Complex and
South Regional Library, Project Numbers 54003 and 52l60.
7) Recommendation to confirm approval of the Starnes property as a
Category A property on the fourth Conservation Collier Active
Acquisition List and direction for the County Manager or his designee
to actively pursue this property, considering an actual appraisal value
that is significantly higher than originally estimated.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Recommendation to accept an awarded Volunteer Fire Assistance
Matching (50/50) Grant from the Florida Division of Forestry for the
purchase of wildland fire fighting equipment and approval of
necessary budget amendments to recognize and appropriate revenue in
the amount of$3,340.98.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Coyle requests approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended as a
Page 13
April 27, 2007
guest speaker at Naples Sailing & Yacht Club Men's Speaker
Luncheon on March l5, 2007. $9.95 to be paid from Commissioner
Coyle's travel budget.
2) Commissioner Halas requests approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attending the
Economic Development Council VIP Breakfast at the Hilton Naples
on May 2, 2007. $2l.53 to be paid from Commissioner Halas' travel
budget.
3) Commissioner Coletta requests approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner
paid in advance to attend the Leadership Collier Class of 2007
Graduation on May ll, 2007 and is requesting reimbursement in the
amount of$50.00, to be paid from his travel budget.
4) Commissioner Coletta requests approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner
paid in advance to attend the EDC's 2007 Best Places To Work
Breakfast and Awards Presentation on May 3, 2007 and is requesting
reimbursement in the amount of $40.00, to be paid from his travel
budget.
5) Commissioner Fiala requests board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended the 4-H
Foundation Luncheon on Tuesday, April 10, 2007 at the First United
Methodist Church; $9.00 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
Collier Republican Club Meeting on Monday, April 9, 2007 at the
Clubhouse at Bridgewater Bay; $l2.00 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
Leadership Collier Class of2007 Graduation on Friday, May ll,
2007, at the Naples Beach and Golf Hotel; $50.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
Page 14
April 27, 2007
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 March
3l, 2007 through April 06, 2007 and for submission into the official
records of the board.
2) To obtain board approval for disbursements for the period of April 07,
2007 through Aprill3, 2007 and for submission into the official
records of the board.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners (Board)
approve the Committees selection of Bricklemyer, Smolker, &
Bolves, De La Parte & Gilbert and Fixel, Maguire, & Willis and
authorize the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to
sign an Agreement with each law firm for eminent domain services
once such agreement is signed for legal sufficiency by the County
Attorney.
2) Recommendation to approve the Second Offer of Judgment in the
amount of$20,000 as to Parcels ll4 & 914 in the lawsuit styled CC v.
Elias Valencia, et al., Case No. 03-2274-CA (Golden Gate Parkway
Project No. 60027). (Fiscal Impact $7,600, if accepted)
3) Recommendation to authorize staff to prepare and submit applications
to register service marks with the United States Patent & Trademark
Office and the State of Florida Division of Corporations to preserve
the Countys advertising, logos, phrases and slogans.
4) Recommendation to approve an Agreed Order Awarding Expert Fees
and Costs for Parcel l78 in the lawsuit styled Collier County, Florida
v. Teodoro Gimenez, et al., Case No. 04-056l-CA (Vanderbilt Beach
Road (CR862) Project No. 6305l). (Fiscal Impact $22,000.00).
Page 15
April 27, 2007
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
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. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt an
Ordinance to amend Ordinance 2003-39 for the purpose of changing all
references to funding traffic education to driver education programs,
increasing the surcharge amount the Clerk of Courts may collect on all civil
traffic penalties from $3.00 per penalty to $5.00 per penalty and to require
that each Driver Education Program receiving funds require a minimum of
30% of a students time be behind-the-wheel training as authorized by
Section 3l8.l2l5 of the Florida Statutes, entitled the Dori Slosberg Driver
Education Safety Act.
B. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Recommendation to
approve Petition A VESMT-2007-AR-ll203, Lot 6l, Black Bear Ridge
Phase l, disclaiming, renouncing and vacating the Countys and the Publics
interest in a portion of a drainage easement in the rear of Lot 6l of Black
Bear Ridge Phase l, a subdivision located in Section 34, Township 48
South, Range 26 East, as recorded in Plat Book 43, Page 89 through 92 of
the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, and being more particularly
described in Exhibit A.
C. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. DOA-2005-AR-7136:
Naples Grande Holdings, LLC, represented by Bruce E. Tyson, RLA, AICP
of Wilson Miller is requesting a change to the previously approved Grey
Oaks Development of Regional Impact (DR!) in accordance with Florida
Statutes, Subsection 380.06(l9), to affect the southeast quadrant that is
Page 16
April 27, 2007
located in unincorporated Collier County of the 1 ,60 lA acre project.
Proposed modifications include removing 250 hotel rooms and adding l75
residential units. The Grey Oaks DRI is located in the northeast, southeast,
and northwest quadrants of Airport-Pulling Road and Golden Gate Parkway,
in Sections 24, 25 and 26, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier
County and the City of Naples, Florida. (Companion to PUDA-2005-AR-
lOl57)
D. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDA-2006-AR-
lOl57: Naples Grande Holdings, LLC, represented by Bruce E. Tyson, of
WilsonMiller Inc., requesting an amendment to the Grey Oaks PUD to
replace the approved hotel use with residential land uses and add l75 units,
thus changing the maximum number of units to l,775 dwelling units for a
project density of 1.12 units per acre. The PUD comprising l,601.4 acres is
located at the northeast, northwest and southeast quadrants of the
intersection of Airport-Pulling Road and Golden Gate Parkway (the changes
proposed in this petition will only affect the southeastern quadrant of the
intersection), in Sections 24, 25, 26 Township 49 South, Range 25 East,
Collier County and the City of Naples, Florida. (Companion to DOA-2005-
AR-7l36)
E. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition: PUDZ-2006-
AR-9l50 Kerry Kubacki for Livingston Village, LLC, and Tammy Turner
Kipp of Vanderbilt Holdings II, LLC, represented by Robert L. Duane,
AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc., is requesting a rezone from the currently zoned
A Rural Agriculture with a Conditional Use (CU) overlay to MPUD Mixed
Use Planned Unit Development. The proposed rezone request is for up to
lOO,OOO square feet of retail or office space and ten multifamily units; the
project is to be known as Bradford Square MPUD. The subject property is
9.18 acres located at l4258 Livingston Road, north east comer of Livingston
Road and Vanderbilt Beach Road, Section 3l, Township 48 South, and
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
F. Recommendation to approve a resolution adopting the Collier County HUD
One Year Action Plan for FY 2007 -2008 for Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG), Home Investment Partnerships (HOME), American
Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) and Emergency Shelter Grant
(ESG) Programs, authorize required HUD Certifications, approve execution
Page 17
April 27, 2007
of Subrecipient Agreements by the County Manager or his designee, and
submit to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD ).
G. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-2006-AR-8997,
D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, Q. Grady Minor and Associates, and Richard D.
Yovanovich, Esq., Goodlette Coleman and Johnson, P.A representing Elias
Brothers Communities Two, Inc., requesting to rezone a 55- acre tract from
the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to Residential Planned Unit
Development (RPUD) zoning district for a project known as the Buttonwood
Preserve RPUD for property located approximately one mile south of
Immokalee Road (C.R. 846) and 0.7 miles east of Collier Boulevard (C.R.
95l) on the south side of Tree Farm Road, in Section 35, Township 48
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
Page 18
April 27, 2007
April 24, 2007
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Ladies and gentlemen,
welcome to the Board of Collier County Commissioners' regular
meeting April 24, 2007. We'll begin this meeting with the invocation
by Mr. Mudd.
Will you lead us in that, please, sir.
Please stand.
MR. MUDD: Let us pray. Oh, Heavenly Father, we ask your
blessings on these proceedings and all who are gathered here. We ask
a special blessing on this Board of County Commissioners, guide them
in their deliberations, grant them the wisdom and vision to meet the
trials of the day and the days to come.
Bless us now as we undertake the business of Collier County and
its citizens, that our actions will serve the greater good of all citizens
and be acceptable in your sight.
Your will be done, amen.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, would you lead
us in the pledge.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning, one and all.
The -- Mr. Mudd, changes to today's agenda.
Item #2A
REGULAR CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA - APPROVED
AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Agenda changes, Board of County
Commissioner's Meeting, April 24, 2007.
Page 2
April 24, 2007
First item is to add item 2C. That's the March 28,2007, approval
of minutes for District 2 Town Hall Meeting, and that item is added at
staffs request.
Next item is to withdraw item 6D. It's a public petition request
by Jean Silguero to discuss a vacation of easement to allow setback
requirements. That item's withdrawn at the petitioner's request.
The next item is item 8A. Continue to May 8, 2007, BCC
meeting. It's board consideration of adoption of a proposed ordinance
prohibiting certain sexual offenders and sexual predators from
establishing temporary or permanent residences within 2,500 feet of
specific locations, such as parks, schools, day care centers and
playgrounds within the county, and prohibiting property owners from
renting and/or leasing all or portions of real property to them within
the prescribed limits. That item is being asked to be continued by the
sheriffs office and county staff.
Next item is to move item 16A 1 to 10L. It's a recommendation
to adopt a resolution supporting a feasibility study for the proposed
Heartland Parkway. Item is asked to be moved by Commissioner
Coyle and Commissioner Fiala.
Next item is to continue item 16A5 definitely. It's a
recommendation to approve the application for the Job Creation
Investment Program and the Advanced Broadband Infrastructure
Investment by Airflyte Electronics. Just got an email this morning
that basically said they don't want to go to the Immokalee site.
They're going to go someplace in the urban area, and this would
disqualify them. We're waiting for an official letter from them. But to
be safe, we'll just continue this item until we receive the
documentation.
Next item is item 16A6. For the sake of caution, staff has
requested the BCC waive the $50,000 formal competitive threshold if
necessary during the re-bidding process in the event that work to a
given vendor exceeds $50,000 cumulatively. Staff anticipates bringing
Page 3
April 24, 2007
a new contract to the board for award within 90 days.
Next item is to move item 16B 1 to lOP. It's a recommendation to
approve a resolution to terminate an inter-local agreement between the
City of Naples and Collier County regarding maintenance assistance
for the traffic signal system on Goodlette- Frank Road between U. S. 4 I
and Golden Gate Parkway and authorizing the County Manager or his
designee to provide written notice of termination to the city. That item
is being moved to the regular agenda at staffs request and also the
City of Naples' request.
Next item is to move item 16B6 to 10M. It's a recommendation
to approve a one-year traffic reservation extension associated with the
approval of the traffic impact statement submitted with the Verona
Walk, phase 4C and 4D, PPL AR#924 I. That item is being moved at
Commissioner Coyle's request.
The next item is to move item 16C6 to ION. It's a
recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners award
contract number 06-4049, Public Utilities Division Asset Management
Program development and implementation of the Camp Dresser &
McKee, Inc., for an amount for the first phase not to exceed $447,946.
That item is being moved at Commissioner Coyle's and Commissioner
Henning's request.
Next item is to move item 16E7 to 100. It's a recommendation
to approve -- excuse me. Recommendation to confirm approval of the
Starnes property as a category "A" property on the fourth
Conservation Collier active acquisition list and direction for the
County Manager or his designee to actively pursue this property,
considering an actual appraisal value that is significantly higher than
originally estimated. That item is being asked to be moved at
Commissioner Coyle's request.
Next item is to withdraw item 16H6. Commissioner Fiala
requests board approval for reimbursement for attending a function
serving a valid public purpose, attending the Collier Republican Club
Page 4
April 24, 2007
meeting on Monday, April 9, 2007, at the clubhouse of Bridgewater
Bay; $12 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget. This
item is being withdrawn at Commissioner Fiala's request.
The next item is to move 17F to 8B. It's a recommendation to
approve a resolution adopting the Collier County HUD one-year
action plan for FY 2007-2008 for the Community Development Block
Grant, CDBG, Home Investment Partnerships, HOME; American
Dream Down Payment Initiative, ADDI; and Emergency Shelter
Grant, ESG programming, authorize required HUD certifications,
approve execution of sub-recipient agreements by the County
Manager or his designee and submit to the United States Department
of Housing and Urban Development. This item is being moved at
Commissioner Henning's request.
You have a number of time certain items today, Commissioners.
The first item is lOA to be heard at 10:30. It's a recommendation to
approve contract amendment number 2, Exhibit E, for a guaranteed
maximum price of $38,533,902 under contract number 04-3609,
Construction Manager at Risk Services for the Collier County
Emergency Operations Center with Kraft Construction Company, Inc.,
for the building construction portion of the emergency services
complex, which is project 52160.
The next time certain item is item 10D to be heard at three p.m.
It's a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to
consider options for the creation of a fire review task force to review
issues and concerns related to fire review and inspections associated
with the building plan review and permitting process. And I'm not
going to read the whole thing, but it is three p.m.
Next item is item 14A, to be heard on or about 11 a.m. It's the
Immokalee Redevelopment Advisory Board recommendation to the
Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency to consider
approval of job descriptions and referral to the Board of County
Commissioners the recommendation fiscal year 2007/2008 budget
Page 5
April 24, 2007
request related to the establishment of a new office in Immokalee to
conduct CRA and Enterprise Zone Development Agency functions
and duties.
The next item is item 14B to be heard on or about 11 a.m., and at
that time, around 11, and you'll don the CRA hat and -- adjourn the
BCC, table it, and then be the CRA at 11 a.m.
14B is a CRA item at 11 a.m. also. It's the Immokalee Master
Plan and Visioning Committee and Local Redevelopment Advisory
Board request to the Collier County Redevelopment Agency to
approve and forward to the Board of County Commissioners a request
to cease enforcing certain zoning provisions in Immokalee for 18
months or until the approval of the new master plan and Land
Development Codes, whichever comes first.
And the next item, lOG, would be the same item as 14B except
that the Board of County Commissioners would then be the Board of
County Commissioners to consider that particular request.
The next is IOJ to be heard at two p.m. It's a report of findings on
utility issues related to the transportation project.
Item 12A to be heard at 12 noon. It's a notice of closed
attorney-client session, and item 12B to be heard at one p.m., Board of
County Commissioners to provide direction to the Office of the
County Attorney as to any settlement negotiations and strategy
relating to the litigation expenditures in the William Litsinger versus
Collier County, Florida, and Fred Coyle individually, case number
06-432-CA now pending in the 20th Judicial Circuit Court in and for
Collier County, Florida.
That's all I have, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, that's a very ambitious
schedule that we have today. And with that we're going to go to
commissioners here for ex-parte disclosure on the summary and
consent agenda and also for any changes to the agenda.
We'll start with Commissioner Henning.
Page 6
April 24, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I had some ex-parte
communication on 17C; 17E, with the petitioner and some of his staff;
17D, which is coming off the consent agenda; 16A whatever is a plat.
I did speak to staff on that.
Also, the board members received an inquiry from a resident on
1 OF. Did not get a response from staff. That person would like to
have that a time certain. 10F is report on solid waste collections
option for white goods, tires, batteries and electronics in specific areas
of Collier County.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make -- for the board to make that
a time certain.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, what the schedule is,
maybe the time certain could be after a certain time so that we can fit
it in. I can see us bumping the ceiling on this schedule that we have
today as far as trying to make the time certains that we already have.
What's your suggestion? Would later in the afternoon work?
MR. MUDD: 4:00, 4:30, sir?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 4:00, 4:30.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You want to make that 4:30?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why don't we say 4:30 or later just in
case we run into trouble. I'mjust concerned that we might be still in
the middle of something.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. But here's my problem
with that. There are many time certains because of government's
request, and this is a citizen requesting to have it a time certain. I
think they take precedence over government.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're right, Commissioner Henning.
It's just that I'd like to have him come in here, the same with
government. They realize these time certains are less than certain, that
we're going to run into certain obstacles when we're going to run past
it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So can we make this a time
Page 7
April 24, 2007
certain?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We can go ahead and make a time
certain.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But if we run past, I hope everybody
will bear with us as we move into the schedule.
So what time do we have for the time certain, 4:00 or 4:30?
MR. MUDD: 4:30, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 4:30, thank you.
Commissioner Henning, what else?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. As far as
disclosures go, on 16A4, Silver Lakes, actually I didn't ever talk to
them about this particular thing, but being that I've spoken to people
from Silver Lakes recently, I thought I'd just put that on the agenda, or
on the record anyway, even though it didn't exactly mention this
phase.
Also, on 17 -- excuse me -- 17G, I spoke with Wayne Arnold and
Rich Y ovanovich, and that's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good morning. The only item that
I need to bring forth as far as ex parte is I 6A3; I had emails and that
was about it.
The rest of the items I have no disclosures in regards to today's
agenda. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I have no further
changes to the agenda. With respect to ex parte disclosures, I have no
disclosures for the consent agenda.
I have disclosures for item 17D Naples Grande Holdings petition.
I have received an email from Mr. Bruce Tyson who represents the
Page 8
April 24, 2007
petitioner. And on 17F, Naples Grande holdings, I have received an
email from Mr. Bruce Tyson from Wilson and Miller. And on 17G, I
have had a meeting with Wayne Arnold and Richard Yovanovich
concerning that particular petition.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
And as for myself, the consent agenda, I have no disclosures on
the summary agenda. Item number 17D, correspondence and email;
item 17F, correspondence and emails; and item G, a meeting. And
with that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman? I'm sorry. I
forgot one other thing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Could me (sic) finish, and then I'll be
right to you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Henning.
Also, too, I have a request from a petitioner that we move 10K,
which is concerning the Gone Fishin' property. They would like it
moved until the second meeting in May. They're not prepared. They
think that they might be able to offer the county a better deal. They
just need some time to be able to work out the details, and I'd like to
consider that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you need any nods?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We got three nods, so we'll
move that -- we'll put that as being --
MR. MUDD: Continue it to the 22nd of May.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I ask a question before we
make a --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're saying we're not going to
reject the offer, the $16.5 million offer?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not today.
Page 9
April 24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we haven't --let me put it the
other way. We're not accepting the $16.5 (sic) by taking no action.
They want to come back with a better offer.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can't they do that anytime? Ifwe
reject the $16.5 million offer today, they can come back with an offer
for $10 million next week and we'll be happy to consider it, right? I
mean, you don't have to continue the consideration of an offer for
$16.5 million just for them to put in another offer?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, would this effectively take
care of the -- remove any consideration in the future if we're to reject
the offer?
MR. MUDD: No, sir, but it basically has -- you have an offer by
the client of $16.5 million, about $3 million over our appraised value.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right.
MR. MUDD: By the board rejecting it, it basically brackets and
tells them, you're not going to --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then I withdraw my request to have
this moved forward. When the item comes up, I think --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- we'll be able to move forward
expeditiously through it, Commissioner Coyle.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Talking to Mr.
Y ovanovich on Livingston Village, there's a couple corrections I
would like to add to the PUD, with the assistance of David Weigel and
Susan Murray.
The -- their neighboring property wanted to put in the conceptual
drawing that was presented to them at the neighborhood meeting.
Also, the board received correspondence from another commercial use
about outside bars and acoustical noises and stuff like that. Being a
mixed unit, I have concerns about allowing that type of a use.
Ms. Murray, would you assist me?
Page 10
April 24, 2007
MR. MUDD: This is item 17E.
MS. ISTENES: Thank you. Susan Murray Istenes, for the
record. Excuse my voice. I was up north in the nor'easter, and that
was a bad thing.
I'll put on the visualizer the elevation. On the elevation, there is
a note there -- and I can't read it here -- but essentially it says that it's a
conceptual drawing only. At the time ofSDP, the elevation would
have to comply with code requirements. Staff is comfortable with
that. I assume you are as well, Commissioner.
Additionally -- and I've spoken with Rich Y ovanovich and the
planner assigned to this project -- they would like to add two
conditions, and Rich is okay with this language, and so are we as staff.
The first is no outdoor amplified entertainment shall be permitted for
any restaurants. And that, in parentheses, is music or television. And
the second, no bar areas with outside seating shall be permitted. I
could hand you out a copy of that if you'd like, or I could place it on
the visualizer.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Place it on the visualizer, please.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, does this --
MS. ISTENES: It's number four and five on your visualizer at
the top of the page.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning, does
this meet your needs?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think it meets the needs of the
community. Commissioner Halas, yourself and I, at least received
correspondence on another commercial activity where it becomes
problematic, this type of use. And I -- you know, we might as well
correct it. So I would like to make a motion to enter that into the PUD
and keep that in the summary agenda.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Henning, a second by Commissioner Halas, to enter this into the
Page 11
April 24, 2007
record of the PUD.
Any comments?
(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. Thank you,
Commissioner Henning.
Anything else?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's it, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala, you have something else?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just wanted to mention --
nothing to take off the agenda at all or, rather, off the consent. But on
16D5, we were talking about an impact fee deferral that we were
approving, and I noticed that it was $8,166, and I was surprised.
And so I asked the County Manager as well as Joe Schmitt. I
said, I thought impact fees were $35,000, and they said, well, they are
but not in all cases. And in the cases n and this was a Habitat home in
Immokalee. And they said, for the Habitat homes in Immokalee,
they're only 8,166. And I thought, we ought to all know that because,
you know, we could get -- what is it, like three or four homes' impact
fee deferrals at this rate. And you know, we've been under the
impression, all of us, that all impact fees are $35,000. So I thought I'd
just put that on the record and bring it to everyone's attention.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Page 12
April 24, 2007
And with that, I think we -- Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Just a moment. As you're aware
with 12 -- item I2A and 12B are related in regard to the case of
William Litsinger versus Collier County and Fred Coyle individually,
case number 06-432. And I wanted to place on the record orally my
advice and request to the board for the closed session today. It's been
placed both in public notice and n as well as in the agenda itself.
And having said that, I have completed my discussion for the
record. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Weigel.
And with that, do I hear an approval for today's regular, consent
and summary agenda as so amended?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Halas to do so and a second by Commissioner Coyle.
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.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have n okay. Please let the
record show that Commissioner Henning was in objection.
Page 13
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
April 24, 2007
Add Item 2C: March 28, 2007 - Approval of minutes for District 2 Town Hall Meeting. (Staff's
request.)
Withdraw Item 6D: Public petition request by Gene Silguero to discuss vacation of easement to
allow set back requirements. (Petitioner's request.)
Item 8A continued to the Mav 8, 2007 BCC meetinq: Board consideration of adoption of a
proposed ordinance prohibiting certain sexual offenders and sexual predators from establishing
temporary or permanent residences within 2,500 feet of specified locations such as parks,
schools, daycare centers and playground within the County, and prohibiting property owners
from renting and/or leasing all or portions of real property to them within the proscribed limits.
(Sheriffs Office and County Staff's request.)
Move Item 16A1 to 10L: Recommendation to adopt a resolution supporting a feasibility study for
the proposed Heartland Parkway. (Commissioner Coyle's and Commissioner Fiala's request.)
Continue Item 16A5 indefinitelv: Recommendation to approve the application for the Job
Creation Investment Program and the Advanced Broadband Infrastructure Investment by Airflyte
Electronics. (Staff's request.)
Item 16A6: For the sake of caution, staff has requested that the BCC waive the $50,000 formal
competitive threshold if necessary during the re-bidding process in the event that work to a given
vendor exceeds $50,000 cumulatively. Staff anticipates bringing a new contract to the Board for
award within 90 days.
Move Item 16B1 to 10P: Recommendation to approve a Resolution to terminate an Interlocal
Agreement between the City of Naples and Collier County regarding maintenance assistance for
the Traffic Signal System on Goodlette-Frank Road between U.S. 41 and Golden Gate Parkway
and authorizing the County Manager or his designee to provide written notice of termination to
the City. (Staff' request.)
Move Item 16B6 to 10M: Recommendation to approve a one-year traffic reservation extension
associated with the approval of the Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) submitted with the Verona Walk
Phase 4C and 4D PPL AR#9241. (Commissioner Coyle's request.)
Move Item 16C6 to 1 ON: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners award
Contract #06-4049 Public Utilities Division Asset Management Program Development and
Implementation to Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc., for an amount for the first phase not to exceed
$447,946. (Commissioner Coyle's and Commissioner Henning's request.)
Move Item 16E7 to 100: Recommendation to confirm approval of the Starnes property as a
Category A property on the fourth Conservation Collier Active Acquisition List and direction for
the County Manager or his designee to actively pursue this property, considering an actual
appraisal value that is significantly higher than originally estimated. (Commissioner Coyle's
request.)
Withdraw Item 16H6: Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended the Collier Republican Club
Meeting on Monday, April 9, 2007, at the Clubhouse at Bridgewater Bay; $12.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Fiala's travel budget. (Commissioner Fiala's request.)
Move 17F to 8B: Recommendation to approve a resolution adopting the Collier County HUD One
Year Action Plan for FY 2007-2008 for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Home
Investment Partnerships (HOME), American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADD I) and
Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) Programs, authorize required HUD Certifications, approve
execution of Subrecipient Agreements by the County Manager or his designee, and submit to the
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (Commissioner Henning's
request.)
Time Certain Items:
Item 10 A to be heard at 10:30 a.m. Recommendation to approve Contract Amendment No.2,
Exhibit E, for a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) of $38,533,902 under Contract No. 04-3609,
"Construction Manager at Risk Services for the Collier County Emergency Operations Center",
with Kraft Construction Company, Inc. for the building construction portion of the Emergency
Services Complex, project 52160.
Item 10D to be heard at 3:00 p.m.: Recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners
(Board) to consider options for the creation of a Fire Review Task Force to review issues and
concerns related to fire review and inspections associated with the building plan review and
permitting process; to review the building review and permitting procedures related to fire review
and to review and make a recommendation to the Board regarding the amending of or repeal of
Collier County Ordinance 2002-49, as amended by Ordinance 2005-32, the Collier County Fire
Prevention and Prevention and Protection Code pertaining to adopted standards and codes ofthe
Florida Fire Prevention Code published by the National Fire Protection Association (FFPA), as
amended by the State of Florida. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development
and Environmental Services Division.)
Item 14A to be heard on or about 11 :00 a.m.: Immokalee Redevelopment Advisory Board
recommendation to the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) to consider
approval of job descriptions and referral to the Board of County Commissioners the
recommended fiscal year 2007-2008 budget request related to the establishment of a new office in
Immokalee to conduct CRA and Enterprise Zone Development Agency functions and duties.
Item 14B to be heard on or about 11:00 a.m. followinQ 14A: Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning
Committee and Local Redevelopment Advisory Board request to the Collier County
Redevelopment Agency to approve and forward to the Board of County Commissioners a request
to cease enforcing certain zoning provisions in Immokalee for eighteen months or until the
approval of the new master plan and land development codes, whichever comes first.
Item 10G to be heard on or about 11 :00 a.m. followinQ Items 14A and 14B: Immokalee Master Plan
and Visioning Committee and Local Redevelopment Advisory Board request to the Collier County
Board of County Commissioners to cease enforcing certain zoning provisions in Immokalee for
eighteen months or until the approval of the new master plan and land development codes,
whichever comes first.
Item 101 to be heard at 2:00 p.m.: Report of the findings on Utility Issues related to Transportation
Projects.
Item 12A to be heard at 12:00 noon: Notice of Closed Attorney-Client session.
Item 12B to be heard at 1 :00 p.m.: Board of County Commissioners to provide direction to the
Office of the County Attorney as to any settlement negotiations and strategy relating to litigation
expenditures in William Litsinger v. Collier County, Florida and Fred Coyle, individually, Case No.
06-432-CA, now pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida.
April 24, 2007
Item #2B and #2C
MINUTES OF THE MARCH 27, 2007 REGULAR MEETING AND
THE MARCH 28, 2007 BCC/DISTRICT #2 TOWN HALL
MEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
The next thing would be the March 27,2007, BCC Regular
Meeting and the March 28, 2007, approval of the minutes for District
#2 Townhall Meeting.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Move for approval.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion for
approval by Commissioner Coyle, a second by Commissioner
Henning.
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: And those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it unanimously.
Okay. Mr. Mudd, we're at the service awards. And would you
like us to come out front?
Item #3A
Page 14
April 24, 2007
SERVICE AWARDS: 20 YEAR, 25 YEAR, 30 YEAR AND 35
YEAR RECIPIENTS - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, sir. If you'd come out front.
And Commissioner, while you're down there, I'd ask that we do 5A,
the team awards, which are also on the table, and it probably could
save you some time while you're --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That sounds wonderful.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, this -- we'll start with the 20-year
attendees. The first 20-year employee is Maura Kraus from parks and
recreation, environmental specialist.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Long time coming, huh?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Congratulations.
MS. KRAUS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: A great job.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please squeeze right in here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: She's really been -- I just want to
say this on the record. She's really been here 25 years except that the
first five years she was here on a grant. I mean, that's a long time.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: The next recipient is Robert Thurston from
Community Development's Environmental Services.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hi, Robert.
MR. THURSTON: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you for your 20 years. We
look forward to the next 20. Don't hesitate.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations.
MR. THURSTON: I've been here 26 years myself. I took off a
Page 15
April 24, 2007
few days.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Here's another example, another man
with 26 years, originally worked for the sheriffs department. Please
get right in here, we'll get a picture.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're going to clash there.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: The next 20-year awardee is Cheryl Soter from
Community Development's Environmental Services.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much.
MS. SOTER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next 20-year awardee is Joseph Collins from
Utility Billing.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Twenty years, very
. .
Impressive.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, Joe.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Next 20-year awardee is Steven Ritter from
Transportation Engineering.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's hear it for Steve.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, Steve. I got it. It doesn't seem
like 20 years ago you worked for Golden Gate --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hi, Steve. Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Congratulations.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you for the wonderful job you
Page 16
April 24, 2007
do for us.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next 20-year awardee is Ramiro Ponce from
Transportation Maintenance Roads and Bridges.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning, Ramiro. Thank you
for your 20 years.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You've got some great workers.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're so proud of everything you do
for us.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, absolutely beautiful job.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Mr. Noonan and Ms. Pitts couldn't be with us this
morning because of sickness and surgery in particular cases.
And that will take us to our 25-year awardees. Our one 25-year
awardee is Marilyn Matthes, from Library Administration.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Congratulations.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for all you do for us.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: We have one 30-year awardee today, and that's
Gail Wilver from Parks and Recreation Administration.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I need a little guidance here from
someone who set up the table.
MS. FILSON: Yeah, it's that one you have in your hand, sir, yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Thank you so much, 30 years.
Page 17
April 24, 2007
Appreciate it very much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good to see you again.
Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll do it a little different. We'll put
you right here in the middle.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you for 30 years of
dedicated service. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Stand right here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you so much.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Pabio Salinas, another 30-year awardee, couldn't
be here today because he's recovering from an illness.
We have one 35-year awardee, and that's Cecilia Martin from
Community Development's Environmental Services.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just want to say on the record here,
I rode up in the elevator with Cecilia, and she told me that she was
born in Everglades City and her dad was mayor of Everglades City.
And she's the only 35-year employee we have, so we need to give her
a big hand.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Did you start when you were in
elementary school?
(Applause.)
Item #5A
RECOGNIZING COLLIER COUNTY'S OUTSTANDING TEAM
FOR SPRING 2007 - PRESENTED
Page 18
April 24, 2007
MR. MUDD: And, Commissioner, as I mentioned before, we'll
do the one team award we have. And Matt, if you could come help
me just a little bit up here for just a second.
This is 5A. It's a presentation to recognize Don Albonesi,
Richard Badge, Glama Carter, Amia Curry, Renee Finsterwalder,
Marilyn (sic) Foord -- excuse me -- Marlene Foord, Joe Frazier, Kim
Grant, Mark Isackson, Peter Lund, Gary Mullee, Cliff Ong, Winona
Stone, and Amanda Townsend as Collier County's outstanding team
for the spring of 2007.
If! could get those ladies and gentlemen to please come forward.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The Strategic Excellent (sic) Program for -- and
Commissioner, as you're handing them out, I'll just read what they've
done. The Strategic Excellence Program for Ultimate Performance, or
STEP-UP, project team was assembled by myself, the County
Manager, to assist in its -- his implementation efforts and the Board of
County Commissioners' 10-year strategic plan, which was adopted for
fiscal year 2007.
The STEP-UP team held their kick-off meeting in September
2006 and began regular monthly meetings in November 2006.
In addition to being tasked with bringing the board's strategic
plan to light, the team is heavily involved in ensuring the divisions and
departments intermediate range business plans, annual work programs
and individual employee performance plans are aligned with the
strategic plan.
The team is also focusing on program performance metrics,
enhanced business operations, and identification and implementation
of best practices.
The STEP-UP project team is a multi business discipline team
that also acts as a catalyst to encourage a cross-divisional approach in
achieving the board's goals and community outcomes as outlined in
the strategic plan.
Page 19
April 24, 2007
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you Collier County's
Outstanding Team for the spring of2007.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ladies in the front here.
(Applause.)
Item #4A
PROCLAMA nON RECOGNIZING MAY 6, 2007 THROUGH
MAY 12, 2007 AS DRINKING WATER WEEK - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to proclamations.
The first proclamation to recognize May 6, 2007, through May 12,
2007, as Drinking Water Week. Water is one of our most basic and
vital needs, and our health, safety, comfort and standard of living
depend upon an abundant supply of safe drinking water.
To be accepted by Mr. Paul Mattausch, Director of Water
Administration; Ms. Pamela Libby, Operations Manager in Water; Mr.
Stephen Lang, Environmental Specialist, Water Distribution; Mr.
Steve Messner, North Water Plant Manager; Mr. Ty Stuller, Water
Distribution Manager, Water Distribution; and Mr. Howard Brogdon,
Laboratory Supervisor in the Water Lab.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much. It's a
pleasure to read this proclamation. I can tell you that the Collier
County Water Department works diligently for all of us here in Collier
County to make sure that one of our great resources, that we have
plenty of, and each day that we turn the tap on, we need to thank these
people for basically stepping up to the task here.
The proclamation reads as follows:
Whereas, water is one of our most basic and vital needs and our
health, safety, and standard of living depend upon the abundant supply
of safe drinking water; and,
Page 20
April 24, 2007
Whereas, the citizens of Collier County should have a safe and
dependable supply of water both now and in the future; and,
Whereas, we are calling upon each citizen to help protect our
water resources from pollution, to practice water conservation and to
be involved in local water issues.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of May 6
through the 12th, 2007, be recognized as Drinking Water Week.
Done and ordered this 24th day of April, 2007, the Board of
Collier County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, and the chair
is James Coletta.
And I move that this proclamation be approved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Halas and seconded by Commissioner Fiala to approved the
proclamation.
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. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Paul, thank you so much.
Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you so much. It's good to see
you agam.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Great job, well one.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Congratulations.
Page 21
April 24, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Great job.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You've got to stay here for a
picture.
(Applause.)
Item #4 B
PROCLAMA TION RECOGNIZING MR. MICHAEL MALLOY
FOR HIS VOLUNTEER WORK AS MASTER GARDENER-
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, our next proclamation is to
recognize Mr. Michael Malloy for his volunteer work as master
gardener. Mr. Malloy has donated his time and efforts to the master
gardener program sharing over 30 years of pragmatic horticulture
experience through the preparation and delivery of public
presentations to increase awareness of the importance of retaining
wildlife habitat.
To be accepted, of course, by Mr. Michael Malloy.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Whereas -- excuse me. Whereas, an
important part of the Collier County and University of Florida
Extension is to inform residential gardeners about the Southwest
Florida eco-friendly urban gardening; and,
Whereas, trained master gardener volunteers perform an
extremely important role in this service; and,
Whereas, one master gardener volunteer has shown himself to go
above and beyond expectations in teaching residents what plants are
appropriate to Collier County's climate and water limitations and
advocating the elimination of pesticide use for the promotion of
wildlife and protection of the environment; and,
Whereas, this volunteer has become a stand-alone master
gardener and has given his time to receiving training, has shared over
Page 22
April 24, 2007
30 years of pragmatic horticulture experience through the preparation
and delivery of public presentations and has donated his time and
efforts to increase awareness of the importance of retaining wildlife
habitats; and,
Whereas, his donation of over 1,000 documented hours of time in
the master gardener program since 2005 has been of tremendous
benefit to the citizens of Collier County; and,
Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners would like to
express their deepest appreciation to Michael Malloy for all his
volunteer work as master gardener.
Therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that Master Gardener
Michael Malloy be recognized for his gift to the citizens of Collier
County.
Done and ordered this 24th day of April, 2007, Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, James Coletta, Chairman.
And Commissioner Coletta, I would like to motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion for approval by
Commissioner Fiala and a second by 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: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you like to say a couple
Page 23
April 24, 2007
words?
MR. MALLOY: No. It's just been fun. I think the Collier
County Master Gardener Program is of great benefit for the county.
It's just been a lot of fun. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. We need a picture too
when you get a chance. Thank you.
(Applause.)
I tern #4C
PROCLAMA nON DESIGNATING THE MONTH OF APRIL, 2007
AS CALL BEFORE YOU DIG MONTH - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next proclamation is to
designate the month of April 2007 as Call Before You Dig Month. To
be accepted by Mr. Lynn Daffron from Embarq, and Mr. James
French from the Community Development's Environmental Services
Division.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Whereas, each year in Florida
lives are endangered, time and money is wasted, and underground
utility facilities are destroyed because individuals fail to have an
existing underground utility facility locate before engaging in
excavation or demolition of activities that can be -- unnecessarily
damage existing underground utility facilities; and,
Whereas, Florida's governor, Charlie Crist, recently issued a
proclamation endorsing the protection of underground utility facilities
and observe the month of April 2007 as Call Before You Dig Month;
and,
Whereas, Call Sunshine, toll-free number, one-call center that
informs and notifies all participating utility agents of planning of
commencing excavation or demolition (sic) that can damage
underground utility facilities. It is a free service to contractors,
Page 24
April 24, 2007
property owners and individuals who plan to commence such
excavation or demolition; and,
Whereas, Collier County advocated compliance with Florida
Statutes and local ordinances with -- regarding protecting existing
underground utilities from avoidable physical damage; and,
Whereas, each individual planning any type of excavation or
demolition that may -- might damage any existing underground
facility should always notifY Call Sunshine to determine whether the
existing underground utility facilities need to be located whereby
locating personal and -- personnel are dispatched at no cost to each
such inquiring individuals to physically mark in -- the underground
location of a buried utility facility; and,
Whereas, Collier County recognizes Collier County and the City
of Naples Underground Damage Prevention Task Force as a group of
utility providers and local government agencies that are dedicated to
protect the underground facilities and the community's infrastructure
by utilizing Call Sunshine.
Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Commissioners
of Collier County, Florida, that the month of April, 2007, be
designated as Call Before You Dig. You dig it?
Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to pass this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. I dig it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Mr. Dig It and a second by
Commissioner Fiala.
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.)
Page 25
April 24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Could I call Sunshine to get my
telephone line fixed too? I'm going to bury somebody if they don't
come fix it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I thought for a minute Commissioner
Henning was going to break out in some rap music.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks for all the work you do for
us. I tell you, I refer more things to you and you take good care of
them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Pictures, gentlemen. You've got to
have something to be able to keep this moment in your memory
forever.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. DAFFRON: Lynn Daffron, representing the Collier
County/City of Naples Damage Prevention Task Force.
I'd like to thank you folks. Through your support, once again,
Collier County's the flagship county for the State of Florida. We have
excelled over the other counties in both education and enforcement.
So we're doing a fine job here. As hard as it is, we're doing a fine job.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that will bring us to presentations.
5A was the team award, which you presented earlier.
5B, contractor's presentation regarding the County Road 951
water main project by Ackerman Construction Company, Inc.
Ron, you going to introduce them?
MR. DILLARD: Yes.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
MR. DILLARD: The presenter stepped out to the rest room.
He'll probably be back soon.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You want to go ahead with the next
presentation?
Page 26
April 24, 2007
MR. MUDD: Yeah, we'll go to the next one, sir.
Item #5C
DISTINGUISHED BUDGET PRESENTATION AWARD FOR
THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR (20TH) FROM THE
GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIA nON (GFOA)
GIVEN TO THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET-
PRESENTED
The next presentation is 5C -- Ron, we're just going to put you on
standby -- is distinguished budget presentation award for the current
fiscal year, which is the 20th award for this department, for the
Government Finance Officers Association, which is the GFOA,
presented to the office of management and budget. To be accepted by
Michael Smykowski, Director of the Office of Management and
Budget.
Michael, you got your whole team, bring them on up.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good, good. I'm going to read the
press release from the Government Finance Officers Association and
then present you with the award.
The Government Finance Officers Association of the United
States and Canada is pleased to announce that Collier County, Florida,
has received the GFOA's Distinguished Budget Presentation Award
for its budget. The award represented a significant achievement. It
reflects the commitment of the governing body and staff to meeting
the highest principles of government budgeting.
In order to receive the budget award, the government budgeting
office had to satisfy nationally recognized guidelines for effective
budget presentation. These guidelines are designed to assess how well
an entity's budget serves as a policy document, a financial plan, an
operations guide, and a communications device.
Page 27
April 24, 2007
The presentation itself reads that the Government Finance
Officers Association of the United States and Canada presents their
Certificate of Recognition for Budget Preparation to Office
Management and Budget, Collier County, Florida.
This Certificate of Recognition for Budget Preparation is
presented by this organization to those individuals who have been
instrumental in their government unit, achieving a Distinguished
Budget Presentation Award.
The Distinguished Budget Presentation Award, which is the
highest award in governmental budgeting, is presented to those
governmental agents' units whose budgets are judged to adhere to
program standards.
And it gives me great pleasure to present this award to Mike
Smykowski and his staff. And I think we must also recognize the
contributions of our County Manager in achieving such a significant
presentation award.
Mike, thank you very much. Congratulations to all you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Great job.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thanks so much for the job you do.
Wonderful to see you. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I could never do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're real proud of you. Thank you
very much.
MR. MUDD: Get in the middle, Mike.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, are we ready for B?
Item #5B
Page 28
April 24, 2007
A PRESENTATION BY AKERMAN CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY, INC. REGARDING THE C.R. 951 WATER MAIN
PROJECT - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: I believe so, sir, and this is the contractor's
presentation again regarding the County Road 950 (sic) water main
project by Ackerman Construction Company, Inc.
MR. DILLARD: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
I'm Senior Project Manager, Ron Dillard, with Public Utilities
Engineering Department, and I'd like to introduce Mr. Jeremy Kline
(phonetic) who will make the presentation for Ackerman
Construction.
MR. KLINE: Good morning, Commissioners. Once again, I'm
Jeremy Kline with Ackerman Construction. I'm going to give you a
short presentation of our project on County Road 951, the water main
that we're installing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Move the mike toward you, sir.
MR. KLINE: Excuse me?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There we go.
MR. KLINE: I'm sorry -- from Davis to County Road 41 (sic).
Once again, we're Ackerman Construction. Today's date, April 24th.
Here is a short map of where the project takes place, starting
from Davis going down to 41. Installing a 36-inch water main and a
30-inch water main and doing interconnects at various locations across
951.
We're connecting the interconnects, 24 inch, eight inch, smaller
various sizes that go along the project, to install with the 20 inch that's
also going down 951.
Progress to date. Through April 16th, construction is 30 days
behind. We have put on an additional four pipe laying crews to get us
back on schedule, accelerate the progress. In about 40 days we should
be back on schedule. And the final completion for the job is around
Page 29
April 24, 2007
November 20th.
If you have any questions at this time that need to be answered--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Questions from the commissioners? I
think that we're fairly pleased, you know. You fell behind, you
realized you fell behind, you took the initiative to bring extra people
in to bring yourself back onto schedule. And for that, we applaud you.
MR. KLINE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can you elaborate a little bit in
regards to why you fell behind?
MR. KLINE: We missed a window for permitting.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And was that permitting from the
county or it was from --
MR. KLINE: South water --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: South Florida.
MR. KLINE: South Florida Waste n
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Water management.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Water management.
MR. KLINE: Yes. It's their pumping permit.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Is there anything that you
think we need to do to help get things back on schedule?
MR. KLINE: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Everything's moving along okay as
far as you're concerned?
MR. KLINE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you very much
for a good job.
MR. KLINE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You've been one of the better
presentations we've heard today.
Page 30
April 24, 2007
MR. KLINE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And with that, Mr. Mudd, what's the
next item?
MR. MUDD: Thank you, sir.
MR. KLINE: Thank you.
Item #5D
PRESENT A TION BY DR. GEORGE YILMAZ, RECOGNIZING
JON PRATT, NWRF MANAGER, AS THE RECIPIENT OF THE
WATER ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION'S WILLIAM D.
HATFIELD AWARD - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is a presentation by
Dr. George Yilmaz, recognizing Jon Pratt of the North Water
Reclamation Facility Manager as the recipient of the Water
Environment Federation's William D. Hatfield Award, which is pretty
significant. George?
MR. YILMAZ: Thank you, County Manager.
Commissioners, for the record, George Yilmaz, Wastewater
Director. The William D. Hatfield Award is presented to operators of
wastewater treatment plans for outstanding professionalism and
performance. It was established by the Water Pollution Control
Federation as late as in 1946 and honors exceptional operators of
wastewater treatment works throughout the world, so it's a national
award recognized throughout the world in our industry.
Jon Pratt, our own North Water Reclamation Facility Manager,
has been and continues to be an outstanding leader in the wastewater
industry. He has been in the field for over 20 years and recognized
such by his peers.
For the last four years Jon has served as chairman of the FWEA's
operator challenge and has acted as the secretary, vice-chair and the
Page 3 1
April 24, 2007
chairman of the Florida Water and Pollution Control Operators
Association for outreach.
Jon has also been an active instructor teaching all aspects of the
wastewater treatment process, and he's great -- I will say better than
with my Ph.D. -- in math when it comes to wastewater.
Jon Pratt is truly an exemplary professional. Over the years he
has given back to the wastewater industry, his community, his
co-workers, our own Collier County water/sewer district. With that,
Commissioner Fiala, would you please do us the honor of presenting
Jon Pratt with this prestigious award. Jon?
MR. PRATT: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It is certainly my honor and great
pleasure to present the William D. Hatfield Award to Jon Pratt, a
dynamite guy, plant manager of the North Water Reclamation Facility
for outstanding professionalism and performance. We just love your
work, Jon, and love working with you. Thank you so much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations, Jon.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Jon, congratulations. Thanks for a
good job.
MR. MUDD: Get a picture, Jon. Get your picture. Smile for it,
too, okay?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks, Jon.
MR.OCHS: Thank you, Jon.
MR. MUDD: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY TOM KILLEN TO DISCUSS
RADIO SQUARE PUD AND OUTSTANDING COMMITMENTS-
Page 32
April 24, 2007
PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the public petition
section of your agenda. The first public petition is a request by Tom
Killen to discuss the Radio Square PUD and outstanding
commitments.
MR. KILLEN: Good morning. My name is Tom Killen, for the
record. Been a practicing architect here in Collier County for more
than 25 years.
And in October of 2003 I modified the Radio Square PUD for the
Elks Lodge. We primarily attempted to soften some minor
requirements to help the Elks sell their property to a developer, which
has been done.
This tract was restricted to office buildings only, which we
maintain. But in the last review, the traffic department insisted on two
modifications to the PUD. The first was they required an arterial
street-lighting level at the entrance off Radio Road. Secondly, they
required a six-foot-wide walkway, the entire -- down the entire east
property line.
I asked where it was going, and I was told the property behind
the Elks was to install a sidewalk, which would connect with that, but
that never happened. Staff has been very helpful in helping us try to
get these things resolved.
Now I've given you a little packet here. First page, that's the
building that has been constructed in that location, and second page is
-- the third page is the request, and then next following two pages are
just how the PUD would be modified.
Then the next site plan is actually a reduction of the SDP that
was issued for this project. If you noticed, the upper left-hand side,
you can't read it. This is too small, but there's a very large drainage
catch basin at that location.
The next page is an aerial from the county tax records. That
Page 33
April 24, 2007
gives you a little better picture of what's there. And the next page is,
as far as light level, that's the Elks illuminated sign at the front of the
property on the main drive that comes in.
I took my homemade little light gauge out one evening and tried
to get a lighting level. I came up somewhere a little over two-foot
candles as best I could figure out with my little machine, but it's kind
of a -- it's kind of a misnomer because the Elks Club sign is
illuminated at night, and I'm standing there at the location that the
level is supposed to be around three foot candles, and that's where the
sign is. So it has good identity at night. I don't think there's a
problem.
The other thing that they asked for is a sidewalk from Radio up
to the -- up to the Elks Lodge on this particular side of the street.
Now, the next two photographs show why it's very difficult to put a
sidewalk there.
The next page shows from the driveway into this office building,
back to the Elks Lodge. And the following -- following picture shows
from the driveway out to -- excuse me -- I'm going backward. Yeah,
the following goes from the driveway up to Radio Road, the sidewalk
out front. And there's so many backflow preventers and other devices,
fire and so forth, that it makes it almost impossible to put a sidewalk
in these locations.
The next page shows the sidewalk that was installed back to the
back -- right to the end of the office building property.
The last picture shows the large culvert that's approximately
halfway back between this building and the property in the rear. That
would be the entire east property line. It's impossible to put a
sidewalk there, and I was told that whatever we put, the sidewalk
would have to be inside of a right-of-way, so the right-of-way would
have to be moved over onto the Elks property almost into their
retention lake, which creates a great hardship for the Elks Lodge and
actually makes no sense.
Page 34
April 24, 2007
What we'd prefer to do is to cross over at the end of the sidewalk
that's existing, cross over Donna Street with a marked -- marked
walkway, and put an approach on the opposite side so you could at
least cross Donna Street at that location rather than go the full length
of the property.
In you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer. I'm trying to
get my 10 minutes done as quickly as possible. And I know you
cannot make a decision today, but this way you have a package you
can review. And I think staff probably has some input also.
Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. Mr. Killen, are you
representing MK Developers?
MR. KILLEN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I have a question for staff.
Is this a proper way to amend a PUD?
MR. KLA TZKOW: Not on the floor here at public petition.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I mean, certainly not right
now today. But is public petition an appropriate way to amend a
PUD, or does it require review by other agencies, other advisory
boards?
MR. KLATZKOW: This would require a full review. If they
want to amend the PUD they can do that. It will be the regular
process we amend PUDs.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So there's really no way of
amending a PUD through a public petition process?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. KILLEN: I was asked to be here, so I have no idea.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, all right. Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We were, too.
Commissioner Henning?
Page 35
April 24, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Kline (sic), you -- Mr.
Kline?
MS. FILSON: Killen.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Killin (sic)? I know you by
your first name. I apologize.
MR. KILLEN: This works too well all the time. I'm still getting
used to it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine. Is that what you're
asking for is to accept a future application to amend the PUD?
MR. KILLEN: I'm not really sure. We met with staff, and staff
recommended that we sign up and come to this meeting and make a
little presentation on what -- you know, what we want to do, but I
really don't know the answer, Tom.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did you ask them why? I guess
we're going to see you in the future, right?
MR. KILLEN: I would think so.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. It's always a pleasure to
see you anyways.
MR. KILLEN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you for being here today.
MR. KILLEN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd?
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY JOHN SHEPARD TO DISCUSS
THE COCONUT RIVER ESTATES CIVIC ASSOCIATION
PROPERTY AT 2361 CLIPPER WAY - TO BE BROUGHT BACK
AT THE MAY 22, 2007 BCC MEETING @4:30 P.M. TIME
CERTAIN
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next public
Page 36
April 24, 2007
petition. It's a request by John Shepard to discuss the Coconut River
Estates Civic Association property at 2361 Clipper Way.
MR. SHEPARD: Good morning. My name is John Shepard, for
the record. I live at 2361 Clipper Way here in Naples, Florida, and I
am the president of Coconut River Civic Association Estates.
I'm a stay-at-home dad. I have a 10-month-old son and a
four-year-old daughter, a 23-year member of the Alabama Army
National Guard and currently of a United Professional Forces Fort
Company up in Birmingham, Alabama.
This is the outline I'll be following today. I'll start with my
introduction, followed by a quick purpose. I'll give a Reader's Digest
version of my overview and submit my request for petition to you.
Probably skip the summary and go straight into conclusions and have
some questions.
First I'll orient you to our neighborhood. Everyone knows where
Spanky's is. That's probably the easiest way to describe our
neighborhood, and we're basically the neighborhood behind Spanky's.
Some of you may not know, but our neighborhood was featured
as one of the top U.S. neighborhood section Family Fun magazine in
the winter edition this year, and that is a national/international
magazine, and that was for our family boat-along, which we do every
year. It's basically a boat parade up and down our canals.
Once again, we're a nonprofit civic association. We were
established back in the '70s. We have 220 residents in the
neighborhood roughly . We have about half of those, 100 members,
plus or minus, as members of the association. It's voluntary. It's not a
mandatory association.
Currently our membership's down about 15 to 20 percent due to
the issues that are ongoing right now that we'll be bringing up. The
acronym is CRECA. And I oriented you to the location.
We are a boating community, and I'd like to take this opportunity
to thank you all for what you've done as far as the boat speed limits,
Page 37
April 24, 2007
because if anyone has a stake in it, we do. We are at the very end of
the river, and everything that you're doing is -- make our trip out to the
Gulf a little bit quicker is greatly appreciated.
Once again, we have a limited budget so -- and our ability to hire
lawyers and to get involved in a lot of this stuff is very limited. At the
end of our budget we usually have 3-, $4,000 a year left over, and
that's usually to fix a pool pump or add mulch or something like that,
any capital type of improvements or maintenance on our facilities,
okay.
We do have amenities which include tennis courts, a heated
swimming pool, we have a pavilion that can be used for free by any of
the members for parties or -- you know, Boy Scouts meet there. We
have a boat launch, shuffleboard court and basically a bathhouse.
Two hundred forty dollars a year. That's probably the best deal
in Naples, and we do have an all volunteer board.
Basically when all's said and done, this is going to be the end
state when this situation over, which is basically to gain your approval
to recognize our property, our amenities and being in compliance with
your county codes.
Okay. Reader's Digest version of this. I could go on forever, but
I'm short on time here. So we were initially cited for violating a code
of having trailers, empty boat trailers parked there, which have been
parked there for close to 25 plus, 30 years on the property, and plus
some land clearing that was really Wilma cleanup damage that we --
that rolled over into 2006.
We met with code enforcement and the environmental people,
and basically we were told everything is okay. You know, we -- you
know, we compromised, said, we'll put up a hedge line so no one sees
any of the boat -- empty boat trailers, and we thought everything was
okay.
So we end up going back and telling the people we're going to
start putting the boat trailers back, and the we get hit with another
Page 38
April 24, 2007
petition, or a violation, that basically says nothing's okay. None of
your amenities outside of the tennis courts have a site plan or anything
like this.
Now, we do have permits and COs for every item on our
property except for -- except for the boat launch, which I couldn't find
the CO. Myself and Robert McDaniel went down to records and went
to permitting to try to hunt these documents up, like a site surveyor --
what do you call it? A -- anyway, we went to look up for those
documents.
And we were told that there's years of missing documents down
at the records, and we don't know if there some or not, but our big
thing is, why would we get a permit and CO for something that wasn't,
you know, okay to use? And that's basically where we're at right now.
And we have opposing interpretations by Code Enforcement and
the Planning Department. It's my understanding that planning
department is the only one that makes the decision on this.
And so basically we're just trying to find out -- you know, we
want to make everything right. We're just trying to be legal. And like
I said, I've lived in the neighborhood for seven years, and I have - I
don't know what these words mean, PU and this and that, but we're
just doing everything we can to be right. At the same sense, you
know, we're trying to deal with land codes for each different phase of
the amenities that were put on the property, there's a different land
code for that year or whatever, and I'm trying to sort through this, and
we basically need a little help on this.
And basically our request is that -- you know, that somehow you
-- that we put together a team to look in to recognize our property COs
as valid terms of land use, and this is based upon the possibility that
those documents do exist. And plus, we've been doing this for 25
years and no one's n we've never received a complaint in 25, 30 years,
as long as this property's been there, for boat trailers or any other of
our amenities on the property.
Page 39
April 24, 2007
We'd also like to allow our empty boat trailer parking to be
continued as long as, you know, we'll be a good neighbor. You know,
we'll put up a hedge line and we'll make sure that they cannot be seen
from the street or anyone's back yard, and that will be at our expense.
And plus, again, this could be -- it could have been permitted in
the past. And you know, I was probably a kid when all this stuff was
first initiated, and so I would like to ask that as a request.
We can delete the third request. I've talked with Mr. Schmitt
about the number 3 request. And the final request is basically the
violation. We asked for an extension, but Mr. Schmitt actually told
me that it has been suspended as of this time, this violation, until this
situation is resolved; however, we at CRECA have not received the
suspension notice.
Basically in summary, I gave you an introduction to our
neighborhood, stated our end state, and gave you the quick view,
explained what we were -- once again, we're a working-class
neighborhood, and like I say, we've been doing this for 25-plus years.
We've been operating this way and never had a complaint, never had
to go through this.
We are getting -- I'm personally getting a little frustrated because
I don't understand the system and I'm trying to understand it as best I
can. But this has pretty much been ongoing since December. And
just trying to get some answers and trying to be right, trying to do
everything correct without it costing us a whole bunch of money and
hire a whole bunch of lawyers and stuff to make this right.
We provide a safe recreational environment for our
neighborhood, and we also provide community service opportunities
for both adults and children in the neighborhood.
And as money permits, we are constantly continuing to improve
property. We spent over $25,000 just to remove trees from Hurricane
Wilma, and that was just to get them from where they fell out to the
road and we only have a two-acre piece of property. And thanks to
Page 40
April 24, 2007
Mr. Jim DeLony and Michelle Arnold of code enforcement, they
coordinated a meeting between myself, Robert McDaniel, who is our
property guy, and FEMA, and they were able to assist us in the actual
removing debris. We still had to pay to have them cut down and
brought out to there, but that was another thing I'd like to thank the
commissioners for.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I have met
with Mr. Shepard and Robert McDaniel from the association, and I've
also met with the owners of one residence that have complained about
the boat storage facilities there.
There is a difference of opinion between our planning department
and our Code Enforcement Department concerning what should be
done here. It can only be resolved by the commission. I would like to
ask that it be brought back and placed on the agenda for a full public
hearing. I don't think it will take very long. I think we should be able
to resolve it fairly quickly, particularly with Mr. Shepard's interest in
putting up a hedge to screen the boat storage area.
And there is no question but what the situation has changed for
some of the residents there. The vegetation that previously screened
the boat storage area is gone. Whether it was gone because of the
hurricane or it was gone because of cleanup and some grading that
was done is a matter of some debate, but the point is, it's gone. And I
think if we can get the parties back here at a public hearing, we can
sort it out fairly quickly and get it resolved.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'll second your motion for this.
But a couple of points I'd like to bring up. One, these are working
people. We ought to try to plan it for a time certain later in the day so
that we can have good attendance, and, two, working through your
office, maybe you might be able to mitigate this dispute between the
neighbors before it comes to us.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd be happy to do that. And as a
Page 41
April 24, 2007
matter of fact, John, if you and Bob McDaniel want to get together, I'll
talk with you about the results of my meeting with the other
neighbors, and then we'll see if we can't resolve this.
MR. SHEPARD: Yeah. We want to be good neighbors. We're
not -- we're not -- like I said, the hedge line was originally planted. I'd
actually told the complainant that long before the complaint was filed
of our plans. And once again, we don't have a lot of money . We have
the dirty dozen that gets out there on the weekend and actually puts
this stuff up.
In our initial meeting with code enforcement and the
environmental people, we told them we would do it immediately and I
also said that I would extend the personal hedge line of the
complainant's immediately, but we were told by the environmental,
you might want to wait till rainy season before you plant that hedge
line. So this was all thought out ahead oftime, and apparently -- but
it's gone this far. And like I said, we --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Coyle and a second by myself, Commissioner Coletta.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just one question for
Commissioner Coyle. Are you asking for this to be on a future item
on 10 or 8 or 7?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Under the county commission?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would it be under a -- or 9?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't think it makes any
difference, whatever is most appropriate for the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 16?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 16 would be good.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, all right, very good.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 16, by the way, is a consent agenda
which means we don't have to have any debate. If we can make -- if
we can find a solution, then I can submit it as an item on the consent
Page 42
April 24, 2007
agenda. And with a little bit of luck, the other commissioners will not
object and it will be approved and we won't have to have a hearing.
But if I cannot get a reasonable settlement between you and the
complaining party, it will have to come back for a regular public
hearing and debate.
MR. SHEPARD: Okay. So we just like maybe get with your
office and set up and appointment?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Well, no. Let my office get
with you.
MR. SHEPARD: That will work.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd or Mr. Weigel, any
comments or questions?
MR. MUDD: 22nd of May okay?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's okay with me.
MR. MUDD: The 22nd of May? There's a meeting on the 22nd
of May, that's what I'm asking.
MR. SHEPARD: Oh, that -- I'll make plans.
MR. MUDD: Is it okay for you?
MR. SHEPARD: I don't see the --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How does 4:30 sound?
MR. SHEPARD: 4:30's just as good as any time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, towards the end of the day so
the working people won't be missing a tremendous amount of time.
MR. SHEPARD: Like I say, I'm a stay-at-home dad. I've got the
little ones running around all day long, so --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Bring them along. We'd love to have
them running around.
MR. SHEPARD: No, you wouldn't, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel, anything that you want
to add to this before we go on?
Page 43
April 24, 2007
MR. WEIGEL: I'd just say that we look forward to working with
Mr. Coyle in regard to any further advice concerning the agenda when
it comes for the 22nd.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Okay. So we have a
motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by myself.
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.
Thank you very much for being here today.
MR. SHEPARD: Thank you, sir.
MR. McDANIEL: Thank you.
I tern #6C
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY RICHARD VISCUSI TO
DISCUSS TREE REMOVAL ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF W AL-
MART AND THE SUNRISE CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX-
PRESENTED AND PETITIONER TO SPEAK WITH HIS HOA
REGARDING HEDGE HEIGHT
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next public petition is a request
by Richard Viscusi to discuss tree removal along the boundary of
Wal-Mart and Sunrise Condominium Complex.
Page 44
April 24, 2007
MR. VISCUSI: Good morning. I'm a part-time resident at the
Naples Sunrise III Condominiums. And back in the summer of2006,
our whole line of trees was removed from the rear of our
condominium complex. Now, this affects five buildings.
Now, I understand that there's supposed to be a six-foot fence put
up there, but that's not going to help the people on the second floor.
These trees were removed by the county and they -- nothing has been
done since then, so we are now looking -- everyone's living room is
looking into Wal-Mart's parking lot, coupled with the fact that the
noise from cars, horns beeping, car alarms going off, the sweeper
truck and leaf blower at three to five in the morning.
I mean, something's got to be done about this. And I'm just
coming here for -- to find out what my rights are as a unit owner to
how we're going to correct this.
I know -- there were a couple of men from our condominium
association. I spoke to you, Ms. Fiala. And I don't know if they
brought this up. They didn't --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
MR. SHEPARD: So I don't know where to go from here other
than taking -- looking for a lawyer to find out what my rights are.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It looks like John is here. Do you
have information for, us John?
MR. VLIET: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Maybe we can hear from this
gentleman, please.
MR. VLIET: John Vliet, Collier County Transportation Road
Maintenance Superintendent.
Back in June of'06, we did go in there, it's the Palm River outfall
ditch, and we started removing some Australian pine trees from the
canal bank. They were creating a problem with the weir that's just to
the west in the same area, with the debris, the limbs, things falling
from trees.
Page 45
April 24, 2007
During that time we were cleaning that outfall and taking --
removing some of those trees, we were approached by the
vice-president of the condominium association. The lady's name is
Janet Suberta (phonetic). She did contact us, asked us if we would
remove the remaining trees along that canal bank, because apparently
it was causing them a maintenance issue as well.
We looked into it, asked -- pretty much advised her, we could
probably go ahead and remove the rest and asked if they would plant
some shrubs along that tree line that had existed, which they did do.
They replaced it with some ficus hedges -- with some ficus hedges. It
was necessary to do this in order to improve our drainage and keep
that weir from being clogged up as well.
They did vote it, their association, as well, about replacing those
trees with the ficus hedge, which they agreed to do.
MR. VISCUSI: That hedge has been there for a while.
MR. VLIET: Yes, sir. There was a portion that was there, and
there was a newer -- well, they added this existing right here.
MR. VISCUSI: That doesn't help the people on the second floor
of the condominiums. Those trees were all --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir, step up to the mike, please. It
doesn't do any good to have a conversation over there.
MR. VISCUSI: Yes. Well, there is a hedge there, but that's good
for the first floor people. But the second floor people have to look at
the Wal-Mart parking lot and all the noise that goes with it, not to
mention the depreciated value of the condominiums.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Doesn't ficus grow pretty fast?
Can't they just grow it taller? So you can ask your condominium
association not to cut it down to that level, let them grow it higher to
protect you. I know I've seen ficus hedges about --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Twenty feet and higher.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah, they're huge, 20 feet high.
So that would protect you and --
Page 46
April 24, 2007
MR. VISCUSI: Well, they never do that. Those hedges have
been there for many years.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you have to talk to your
condominium people who planted them, I would believe, and ask
them to let it grow higher. I think this is something that you need to
discuss with them. This was their decision to pull the trees out. It was
their decision to plant the ficus, and it was -- it's been their decision as
to what length to cut it, so maybe you need to talk with them and
suggest that they let it grow much taller. It grows very quickly.
MR. VISCUSI: Well, they have someone com -- well, I don't
know. I'll have to try that. But I'm sure that ain't going to work.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, see, sir, that's their property.
Those are their trees --
MR. VISCUSI: I'll have to get somebody to go after them.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- their bushes, and so you have to
talk with them. We can't tell them what to do.
MR. VISCUSI: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But thank you for being here today.
MR. VISCUSI: Thank you for having me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, we're going to have a
10:30 time certain. Why don't we take a short break now so we can
get right back here to the people's business.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, let's proceed with the time
certain.
Item # lOA
RECOMMENDA nON TO APPROVE CONTRACT
AMENDMENT NO.2, EXHIBIT E, FOR A GUARANTEED
Page 47
April 24, 2007
MAXIMUM PRICE (GMP) OF $38,533,902 UNDER CONTRACT
NO. 04-3609, "CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK
SERVICES FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY
OPERATIONS CENTER", WITH KRAFT CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY, INC. FOR THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
PORTION OF THE EMERGENCY SERVICES COMPLEX,
PROJECT 52160, FOR COMMERCIAL PAPER - RESOLUTION
NOT ADOPTED: TO RETURN W/REQUEST AT A FUTURE
DA TE IF NEEDED; MOTION TO APPROVE INITIAL PHASE OF
CONTRACT AS DESIGNED AND TO SEND ITEM TO THE
PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE TO WORK ON COSTS AND
VALUE ENGINEERING FOR THE FINISHING DETAILS FOR
THE TOTAL PROJECT - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Next item is a time certain item at 10:30
a.m. It's lOA. It's a recommendation to approve contract amendment
number two, Exhibit E, for the guaranteed maximum price of
$38,533,902 under contract number 04-3609, Construction Manager at
Risk Services for the Collier County Emergency Operations Center
with Kraft Construction Company, Inc., for the building construction
portion of the Emergency Services Complex, project 52160.
And I believe Mr. Ron Hovell, your Senior Project Manager over
at your Facilities Department, will present.
MR. HOVELL: Good morning. For the record, Ron Hovell,
Principal Project Manager in the Facilities Management Department.
I can go through a short presentation here to familiarize you with what
we're proposing and then answer any questions you might have.
Just a quick history. This project's been under design since June
of 2003. The board changed the site location to Lely Resort in
September, 2005. The construction manager, Kraft Construction, was
selected in March of 2004. The Site Development Plan was submitted
last summer and approved in November.
Page 48
April 24, 2007
The building permit was submitted back in October, and that's
still pending, but the site work guaranteed maximum price proposal
per Kraft Construction to get started on, the work was approved in
December, and the site work is over 50 percent complete at this point.
As far as the guaranteed maximum price review, we initially
received a proposal of just over $44 million. We obtained copies of
all the subcontract bids along with the direct costs and took a close
look at that, because the price with the full furniture, fixtures and
equipment budget, we were going to be over the currently approved
budget.
After a thorough review, 20 items were selected. Just some
highlights, changing the off-site pre-cast concrete wall panels were
changed to site casts, saving over a million dollars and three months
off the schedule, and the purchase of some large equipment, such as
the two 2,500 K W generators were pulled out, and we also changed
the project funding for the furniture, fixtures and equipment. And
with the exception of those things specific to the emergency
operations center, we predominantly have told the occupants that
they're either going to move their furniture that they currently have
with them or make other arrangements outside of the project budget,
much like we've done for the courthouse annex.
And, therefore, the bottom line is -- for the GMP proposal
amount is now about $38 and a half million; therefore, the total project
estimate, taking into account those numbers I just provided, is
basically $55.6 million.
And I can get into some of those details if you'd like. And on the
funding side, we're anticipating coming forward here in the next board
meeting or two asking for about $3 million in revenue to be
recognized as part of the state grant for the EOC. That would bring
the funding to roughly $55.6 million, and basically we would have an
on-budget project.
Therefore, the bottom-line recommendation is that you approve
Page 49
April 24, 2007
the $38,533,902 amendment number two with Kraft Construction and
authorize the issuance of a commercial paper loan in the amount of
$8,169,000 as was always envisioned as part of the project funding.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning, then
Commissioner Coy Ie.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Hovell, are you saying that
you can purchase a generator cheaper than what was in the bid?
MR. HOVELL: We feel that by the time a subcontractor
provides a proposal through Kraft Construction, they've obviously got
their markup on it, then Kraft gets their markup on top of that, and by
direct procuring those very large items from a price tag point of view
-- and it's only two items -- it's something that we felt that we could
handle and save some money on, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Plus you get an exemption from the sales tax; is
that correct, sir?
MR. HOVELL: Sales tax as well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wasn't these Kraft contracts as
exempt, sales tax exception?
MR. HOVELL: Ifwe -- if we exercise this 38 million and a half
contract amendment, some of the items will still be procured under the
direct material purchase program, and we will avoid sales tax on
those, and that will be a savings back to the project budget to
potentially cover any other changes that might come up.
But these generators, it's not just sales tax. It's also the markups
of both the subs and Kraft that, when you're talking about well over a
million dollars just for those generators, the money adds up pretty
quick. You start talking 5 and 10 percent here and there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So this will be a change
order in the future, correct, for the generators?
MR. HOVELL: No, the way that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It will be a separate item?
Page 50
April 24, 2007
MR. HOVELL: We'll just -- the way the contract amendment's
written is that it will be owner provided, so we'll go through a process
to procure the generators and provide them to Kraft Construction, is
the way it's currently envisioned.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So this will be an additional cost
for the project?
MR. HOVELL: Right. And I do want to point out that that $1.8
million line about a little more than halfway down on this list, it does
recognize that in the total project estimate. Those costs will be part of
the project costs, just not through Kraft Construction.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- on the site work we
already approved, correct?
MR. HOVELL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The -- what about the
land cost? Is that included into this?
MR. HOVELL: There were no land costs for that 20 acres.
Those 20 acres were somehow provided to the county as part of --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. HOVELL: -- a settlement agreement, I believe it was.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What is the cost per square
foot?
MR. HOVELL: I think if we were to divide the 55.6 million by
the roughly 130,000 square feet, I think we'd find that it's over $500 a
square foot.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That's -- I guess that's
what concerns me. If this is what we're going to be doing in the future
with our buildings, you know, it's -- it's never ending.
And at the floor levels, did I see that one floor level is actually
two? It's not? I think it was the EOC operations and the 911
operations that actually went up more than one story.
MR. HOVELL: There are members from both the design team
and the construction team here if you really want to get into some of
Page 51
April 24, 2007
the details, but my general recollection is one or two ofthe floors does
have some open space, much like if you go into building H and go up
onto the second floor, you can look down onto that first floor lobby.
There's, in essence, a hole in the floor. There's the same type of thing
in this EOC.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In the lobby area, where the
stairs are and all that?
MR. HOVELL: Over in building H, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This one, is it really necessary
to have that open area for the 911 center and the EOC operations?
MR. HOVELL: I'd have to ask one of the operators who
understands why it's laid out the way it is from a site visualization
point of view.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'd like to get that answered.
But also, the board doesn't approve plans, correct? We hire
contractors but we never see the plans?
MR. HOVELL: That's my understanding that there's no
requirement to bring plans forward to the board, you're right, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So, in essence, if the
plans, i.e., Golden Gate Library, are not to the liking of the public or
the board, we don't have any choice to amend that unless that is
brought to our attention. That's what concerns me.
MR. HOVELL: I can't argue your point, sir. I'll just remind you
that in this particular case the design was completed long ago. The
only thing we were directed to do was site adapt that design to a new
site, which is what we've done.
MR. von RINTELN: Commissioner, for the record, Jim von
Rinteln with the Emergency Management Department. I could speak
to the EOC portion and the mezzanine design, the high ceilings with
the EOC, and that's a design component that is considered optimum
for an EOC because of the large number of people and the need to be
able to see what's going on up front on the display, an information
Page 52
April 24, 2007
component.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How high are the ceilings?
MR. von RINTELN: I think they're in the neighborhood of about
20 feet for the -- both the 911 center and the EOC.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 20 feet?
MR. von RINTELN: Yes, two floors.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, two stories. So we'd be
able to see screens like this on our walls here?
MR. von RINTELN: And larger. There's a large rear projection
so you could put briefing information and so forth.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I have a series of
questions that I need to go through on some items. I think I share the
same concern Commissioner Henning shares, is that I want to make
sure we're spending taxpayers' money on a functional design and not a
taj mahal, so I'm going to go through a number of cost elements and
ask for a brief explanation.
The first one has to do with -- and this is on page 13 of 43.
Systems and communications cost of$3 and a half million. Can you
tell me very briefly what that includes?
MR. HOVELL: I can tell you in general that the project includes
a monopole communications tower that's roughly 175 feet tall. I
believe there's a number of communications systems that go on top of
that. I know John Daly from our communication section is here if you
want to get into some of the specifics about which radio systems are
actually riding on that, but I'm pretty sure that's the predominance of it
is related to that large tower and whatever antennas and whatnot go on
it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Daly, please come forward.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You said 13 of48?
Page 53
April 24, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, page 13.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I got it for you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 13 of 48, yeah. It's the last item
there, systems and communications, $3 and a half million. As I
understand it, you've already taken out radios that would be acquired
under a different budget item. So what is this cost?
MR. DALY: John Daly, telecommunications manager for the IT
department. I'm not sure what makes up that whole 3 and a half
million. I believe the monopole was approximately a half a million. I
would have to go back to the design team on that.
MR. von RINTELN: That's correct.
MR. DALY: That's correct. As for what else was in that 3 and a
half million.
MR. von RINTELN: Jim von Rinteln with Emergency
Management Department for the record. My familiarity is really with
the emergency operations center component, and there's, of course,
911, there's some IT backup systems. There is a number of radios in
communication that are -- have to do with the public safety system.
Some of it is with the sheriffs department as well as with the
emergency communications for the EOC, which are the radio room
that you see down in the first floor now.
COMMISSIONER COYLE. Yeah, I understand that, but we're
doing that now. So we've got communications equipment now. Is it
going to be junked or is it going to be transferred out there and just
connected? So, you know, where is the other $3 million going?
MR. von RINTELN: There's a combination of new equipment
and equipment that is usable out into the future that will be going
along. I do believe that 3 million, though is part of the 800 system.
MR. HOVELL: I checked with Kraft Construction. That line
item includes the internal cable TV system as well as the building
automation and security systems that feed back here to this complex.
Page 54
April 24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I still have a number of items.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go right ahead, sir. I didn't mean to
interrupt you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Ifwe go to page 18 of 48,
water, storm and sewer, water wells are not included, water treatment
for wells are not included. What is the significance of that?
MR. HOVELL: On the civil drawings there were some
references to those items, and Kraft wanted to make sure it was clear
that those had not been further specified on our part, nor was it
intended that they be included, so they just wanted to make sure we're
aware that if there was a vision that we were going to have a
nonpublic water supply, you know, a building-specific water supply,
that that was not something that they were providing in the current
contract.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are we going to have a
building-specific water supply? Is that going to be an add-on later on?
MR. HOVELL: I would have to defer to Jim --
MR. von RINTELN: No.
MR. HOVELL: -- but I don't -- I don't believe so.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. We are talking about, on
page 20 of 48, a granite inlay of Collier County. I presume that is
nothing more than just an emblem of some kind?
MR. HOVELL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Page 22 of 48 we're talking
about operable decorative gates, fixed decorative gates, ornamental
fencing. That entire package is almost a half a million dollars. What
kind of ornamental gates and fencing are we really talking about here?
MR. HOVELL: Well, there's a fence around the entire ESC part
of the site, which actually was one of the 20 items that we reduced the
cost on by changing from -- I believe it was originally specified to be
aluminum -- to a galvanized steel to reduce the cost. There's also
Page 55
April 24, 2007
gates into the parking lot that -- and there was also originally some
type of -- I'm trying to think how to say it, built from the ground up
type of security kiosk that's now going to be a prefab kiosk.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I guess I'm more concerned with
the decorative gate classification. How decorative are these gates?
MR. HOVELL: Part of the design option, or one of the
alternatives that we selected, was the alternate four to do aluminum
fence and gates in lieu of steel -- I'm sorry, I had it the wrong way --
reducing the price by just over $100,000.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Do you have a visual of what the gate looks like or
the fence looks like?
MR. HOVELL: No, sir, not handy.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Have you evaluated different styles
of gates from a standpoint of determining how much it costs?
MR. HOVELL: Part of that $115,000 savings was also changing
from ornamental to just standard, I'll call it, you know, kind of like the
picket straight rail.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that applies to the gates and
the fence itself, both?
MR. HOVELL: Whatever used to be ornamental is now much
more plain, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. On page 23 of 48, we have
wood wall coverings, chair rail, crown moldings. Don't know how
much that costs. It's included in package 6A, which is $352,000, but
there's a lot of wood trim here. Is that necessary for the utility of the
building?
MR. HOVELL: I'm not sure where that's specified.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not either.
MR. HOVELL: Maybe the architect wants to answer that one.
MR. CORDOVA: My name is Al Cordova with Harvard Jolly
and project architect for the project. The chair rail was specified in the
Page 56
April 24, 2007
corridors. And as I understand it, that's been removed.
Yeah, that wood trim has been removed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the crown molding?
MR. CORDOVA: Also been removed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the wood wall coverings?
MR. CORDOVA: That's all in that package.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All of that has been removed?
MR. CORDOVA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you. Marble sills. Is that for
all windows, for putting in marble sills for all windows?
MR. CORDOVA: I believe that's still in the -- that is still in the
project, but that's standard for a windowsill.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, marble sill is not standard.
Cultured marble could very well be standard, but if you're talking
about real marble sills, you're talking about a lot of money for
windowsills.
MR. CORDOVA: It has been changed to cultured marble.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you. And fire
protection. We have almost three-quarters of a million dollars for fire
protection. That is more than the entire plumbing budget for the
building, as I understand it. Plumbing is priced at 691,000, and the
sprinkler system is priced at $740,000. Why is that?
MR. TOOFA: Pete Toofa (phonetic) with Kraft Construction.
The sprinkler system is actually more expensive than the plumbing
because of the dry system and the technology that we are covering. A
good, actually more than half of that $700,000 figure, is the dry
sprinkler system to protect the equipment that you have in the
building.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're talking about halon or other
fire suppression --
MR. TOOFA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- equipment? That's a lot of
Page 57
April 24, 2007
money. TV studio and light grid wiring and fixtures. What kind of
TV studio are we talking about? Is it going to be separate from the
one we have here? Are we going to have two TV studios now?
MR. von RlNTELN: Commissioner, Jim von Rinteln with the
Emergency Management Department again. I think because I've been
with the project the longest, I can answer some of these questions.
That is the replacement for the studio that's downstairs, and this is the
envisioned new studio for Collier County. So it is a replacement for
what is down on the first floor.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And about what is -- what are we
going to do as far as servicing this particular building is concerned,
and which is more important from a TV standpoint?
MR. von RINTELN: I think I'd defer to that department for the
answer to that, but my understanding was that for the next two years
we'll be utilizing the equipment on the first floor here and then they're
going to transition into that area with a newer facility at that point.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that included in their budget for
this next year?
MR. von RINTELN: It would be for two years, and that's my
understanding.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm still a little concerned about
how it impacts the television operations for this particular room and
how responsive it will be if it's located some distance away.
MR. MILLER: Yeah. Commissioners, Troy Miller. I'm your
Manager of Television Operations. We basically don't have a
television studio now. We have a kind of makeshift on the first floor.
And as most of you know, you've come either to a couple independent
businesses here in town in their television studios to do some of our
programming. It actually will have no impact in what we do in this
room and how we broadcast meetings. It's more meant to internalize
some of the things that we're doing external now and will be cost
savings in that area.
Page 58
April 24, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are we going to duplicate
equipment? Is equipment going to remain here?
MR. MILLER: All equipment that's here will remain here except
for our post production editing equipment that we have that will
transition to that building, and there will be new equipment added at a
later point in time, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we'll have duplicate equipment
to some extent?
MR. MILLER: To a little extent, yes. Not the same kind of -- I
mean, the cameras we have here are very fixed and specialized
cameras for this room, so it would be a different kind of equipment
than that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How much money is being spent
on the TV studio at the new building?
MR. HOVELL: Other than the physical room itself, the
equipment is no longer in the project budget. That was one of the
things that will now be left up to the public information office to
budget at whatever time they feel is appropriate within their normal
budget to buy that new equipment. So there is -- all's we're building is
the floor space.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But you don't have a price for that.
So three-quarter of million dollars just to build the place?
MR. HOVELL: Well, it would be -- I was -- they were telling
me it's $700,000 worth of equipment, but that's not what we're talking
about. Whatever the square foot -- square footage of that TV studio is
times the -- you know, approximate square footage, cost of the
building, would be that cost. Unfortunately, I don't know the square
foot size.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we're going to have
audiovisual systems again under package 17 A. I have no idea what
that's going to cost, but it's included in the package that's worth $3.5
million, and 20 motorized recessed projection screens. We're going to
Page 59
April 24, 2007
have a lot of people watching movies over there, I guess; is that what
it is?
MR. HOVELL: Well, part of the audiovisual systems in package
17 A is the security, the opposite end of the cameras, the viewing
screens for those security cameras. It's those audiovisual systems.
There's also -- I don't know how it relates to the EOC operational
displays, if those are in that same 17 A package; do you know?
MR. von RINTELN: Jim von Rinteln, again, with the
Emergency Management Department. Within the building there -- of
course, there are a number of departments and offices and functions.
The EOC portion, within a couple of the conference rooms, there are
projection screens. I believe a couple of them are motorized.
You also have the entire EMS training facility that will be
transferred there. Those all have a number of screens and projectors.
Within the 911 and the sheriffs substation and the sheriffs working
areas, there are some screens, as well as throughout the many
functions of the building. So while it sounds like a lot of screens,
there are a number of functions going on in the building as well.
So we did look at all those and we went through and looked for
cost savings, and those were items that we looked at. Each
department was asked to go through and verify that that's what they
needed, and that was accomplished.
Back to the studio though, I do want to mention that part of that
studio function is in an emergency to be able to broadcast emergency
information from the emergency operations center as well as to
support the press area which is adjacent to the EOC. So I just want to
point that out.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just want you to understand that
I've been in some very, very sophisticated emergency operations
centers in my lifetime and I have functioned in them. I have never,
never ever seen one with 20 screens, okay? And that includes
emergency operations centers that were designed to monitor
Page 60
April 24, 2007
worldwide operations of a military nature.
MR. von RINTELN: And to be clear, Commissioner, there are
very few of those screens in the actual emergency operations center.
They really are in the majority of the other spaces in the building.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I've asked a number of
questions. I don't think I've gotten all that many good answers. I don't
think this project has been value engineered at all. I would really love
for the Productivity Committee to take a look at this and to determine
what we can do to reduce the cost. I think the cost is excessive, and I
think we are building a monument rather than a building that will
serve its primary purpose, and I just can't support it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Coyle.
Commissioner Fiala, then Commissioner Halas, then back to
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. I had a couple
more that I was concerned with, but I was glad to see that you took out
the interlocking pavers and then -- but then you put in stamped
concrete. And what it looks like is, when we started to build -- to plan
this, we said, we want the very best, the Rolls Royce of any
emergency operations center we could have. Shoot for the stars.
And then -- and then -- and, of course, none of us are allowed to
go in there. I mean, this is just -- it's off limits to any citizens at all,
yet when we're building a library, we haven't enough money to do
many of the things in the library because we can't -- you know, we
don't have the money for that, and it's interesting, that's where our
citizens and our taxpayers go. We have to cut short on those things
and yet, where they cannot attend, where we were doing -- we were
doing brick pavers and we were doing wood wall coverings and so
many things, then I thought, gee, you know, I wonder how cost
effective we're building this.
So I went about trying to ask a couple of questions, and one of
them was, I wanted to know what adjustments -- I'm sorry -- what
Page 61
April 24, 2007
have you put through the -- what have they put through the value
engineering that the Productivity recommended, Productivity
Committee recommended? Excuse me. I mean, what value
engineering did you do to -- have you taken all of the Productivity
Committee value engineering suggestions?
MR. HOVELL: Ma'am, value engineering is normally done in
the design development process. Usually at 30 to 60 percent design
you can make some significant changes and really change the
potential price of the project. This project was designed a year and a
half, two years ago. All we were told was to site adapt it to a new
location. It's been in permitting and whatnot based on the current
design for some time.
Ifwe were to have taken the relatively recent recommendation to
have all projects go back through value engineering, you know, we
could have done that, but it would have delayed the project, you
know, probably a year or more while we didn't turn in the building
permit applications and went through that process.
The recent effort that we just went through to try and bring this
project in within budget was basically to take things, you know, if it
was aluminum or steel and, you know, switch it to something, vice
versa, but to still predominantly maintain the look of the building and
not change anything significantly enough that we would have to go
back through a permitting process, in all honesty.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me say, I think that all of us
agree we need an emergency operations center. We're all behind it.
We also agree that it should be cost effective, that this emergency
center costs one and a halftimes more than the overpass is costing,
and -- so, you know, it makes one think, aren't there any cost effective
measures that we should be adding to it?
I think Commissioner Coyle asked some great questions. I just--
I'm worried about that as well. I'm just n I'm just worried that maybe
-- maybe we haven't tried to cut some of the corners. Maybe we don't
Page 62
April 24, 2007
need to build a Rolls Royce. Maybe it should just be a Cadillac.
MR. HOVELL: I'm not arguing your point at all, ma'am. I just
want to point out that however we got where we got, we were directed
to site adapt the original design to the location. We were under
pressure to get this project going, so we came forward in December
with only the site work portion because of the permitting related to the
building. It was still a little bit up in the air. That was approved. Kraft
Construction's now mobilized out on site, and they're expecting to go
to work on the building here in about the next month.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's wonderful. I think it's
just the reason maybe we're a little bit aghast is, we haven't seen any
of this before. I mean, it's great that everybody's approved it behind
the scenes, but we've never seen it, and we're the ones that have to
answer to the taxpayers.
MR. HOVELL: I understand.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My understanding, that the
Productivity Committee did go through this building when it was
being proposed; am I correct? They didn't? I thought --
MR. HOVELL: Not to my knowledge.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I thought -- I was under the
impression that they basically went through this program and looked
at the cost of this thing, but maybe I stand to be corrected.
The EOC that we presently have, when was that designed and
what was the population that that EOC can really handle? When I say
population, I'm talking about the population of the county here.
MR. von RINTELN: Jim von Rinteln, for the record. That was
long before my time, and I've been here for 10 years. It was initially a
civil defense office that, I think, what the director's office is currently,
it then slowly expanded into the space that is there now over the years.
But for the last 10 years that I've been with the county, it's been about
the 900 square feet that it currently is, so --
Page 63
April 24, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're at 900 square feet down
there roughly, right?
MR. von RINTELN: Approximately.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The building that we
presently are discussing here, what is the life expectancy before we
would outgrow that building?
MR. von RINTELN: I'm not sure I'm the person to answer that.
From an EOC perspective, we've probably outgrown it several years,
okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, no. I'm talking about the new
building that we're building. What is your life expectancy of that
particular building with the buildout of people that we're anticipating
that are going to be here in Collier County?
MR. VON RINTELN: Well, it will take care of the needs from
an EOC perspective for the foreseeable future through the buildout, as
far as the EOC portion of the building goes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The other question I have--
I know they had a question in regard to the amount of money that was
being spent on communications. I believe this is all the internal
wiring and so on, and I believe it's to also accommodate the 911 phone
exchange; is that correct?
MR. DALY: What was the question?
MR. von RINTELN: Communications and how --
MR. DALY: Yeah. The plan is that the 911 -- the existing 911
center, which handles answering 911 calls and covers the public safety
dispatch component of the sheriffs office communications center
would move to that location.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: They would be moving to that
location; is that correct?
MR. DALY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And what would be -- how
many people would be used to support that, and also, are we looking
Page 64
April 24, 2007
at the build-out of this county, and will we have the necessary room
within the confines of this building to expands the operations --
MR. DALY: Yeah. This--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- to meet the needs?
MR. DALY: -- center is built to hold more, both phone intake
consoles and dispatch consoles than the current room does. The
current room is at capacity.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. DALY: And your question how many people, I believe
communication has a staff of about 75, with probably 20 or so on shift
at a time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I think we probably have
some public speakers on this item today?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We do, but we're going to finish with
the commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All right. I guess my concern is
where we are today with the EOC that we have. It's functioned very
well, but I'm very concerned about where we're going in the future and
what we need to look at as far as in the future for protecting the
citizens here in Collier County.
I understand that there is a little bit of fluff and buff to this, but I
think it helps accommodate the news media in case we do have a
windy event, and I think it's also advantageous that we have, my
thoughts, a TV studio there because we'll be self-powered.
And if we do have an occasion where we have total power
outages, there's a lot of people that are now putting generators in their
homes, so hopefully we can give them adequate information, both
audio and visual, in regards to what's taking place in the community. I
think communications is the utmost thing to make sure that we get
information out as quick as possible and as accurate.
So I'm hoping that we can get some further justification in
regards to the cost of communications and what really needs to be
Page 65
April 24, 2007
handled here. I think also visual information ofthe people that are
working in this building, my understanding; it's four stories high, is
that correct?
MR. HOVELL: Yes, sir, four stories.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And maybe we can have also a
quick breakdown of the different departments that are going to be in
that building so somebody has -- so we have a basic visual or we can
visualize exactly what this office space is going to be used for, how
it's going to be utilized in an everyday manner and also in a situation
in -- where we have an emergency.
So I think that's important that we may find out that kind of
information, who's going to be there on a daily basis, will the public
be able to ingress and egress out of this building when we're not under
a situation of an emergency.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now I'm going to take a turn since
every commissioner has had one turn.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I've got some questions here
that --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, fine.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He was just going to answer that
question.
MR. HOVELL: It would take a few months to get the floor plans
and whatnot available on this computer, but in general it's -- there's
about 80- or 90,000 square feet of usable assignable space, and only
about 10,000 of that is for the EOC. The remainder is for things like
the 91 I center, the sheriffs substation, the EMS headquarters officers,
which used to be in building H and are now in leased space. They're
supposed to move back out ofleased space into this building. We've
mentioned the television studio operations, some IT spaces, some
training areas, conference rooms, et cetera. So it is a building that is
more than just an EOC.
There is an expectation that the public would be coming into the
Page 66
April 24, 2007
building. And certainly when an event is going on then, you know, it's
an entirely different group of people. But on a day-to-day basis, when
we're going through the rezoning process for -- at the old site, at the
Bembridge site, we had talked about how many people and the traffic
and whatnot.
And at the time, the projection was, on any given day, we're
looking at about maybe 90 employees being in the building on any
given day, and obviously there's shift work going on, too, because the
sheriffs substation is around the clock when and if they move the E
911 (sic) center there, that's around the clock, what have you.
So at your pleasure, sir, we can, you know, maybe take a break
and come back later with those detailed floor plans and show you, but
that's kind of a quick overview.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, actually I was going to address
my questions to Dan Summers, so if you want to use that time to pull
together whatever other information you need.
Dan, I think there is some facts that we need to be able to go over
and also play the what-if game. First, tell us about the present
situation we have with the emergency management center down here
on the first floor, and why is this not a desirable location and why is it
important that we, on the most expeditious date, move it.
MR. SUMMERS: Commissioner, for the record, Dan Summers,
Director of the Bureau of Emergency Services, Emergency
Management.
Just a couple of things to clear up. Number one, the Collier
County Emergency Operations Center is a very storm-surge
vulnerable site. It's only by luck through the last couple of storms that
they have been a wind event, not a storm surge event, very atypical in
the hurricane environment, and the last 11 I did in Carolina, some of
those produced 13 feet of water at the shoreline. So this building is
subject to failure. This emergency operations center is subject to
failure.
Page 67
April 24, 2007
As you know, I work with FEMA on a national level for
emergency operation centers, and the square footage you have right
now, roughly, would accommodate, based on civil preparedness
guidance document number CPG-1 is a town for 60,000 people. We're
well beyond 60,000 people, and certainly that's a municipal EOC. A
small municipal EOC is what we're set up and designed for
downstairs.
You mentioned briefly about public egress into this building. We
hold training opportunities in our emergency operations center for the
general public almost on a daily basis. So we have storm -- storm
watch training, we have local mitigation strategy group meetings
there, et cetera. And as the team has already mentioned, if I may
clarifY, EMS administration, billing, training, emergency
management, 911, a sheriffs substation, the clerk's IT, the county's IT
are just some of a few of the tenants in that particular building.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No one's going to argue, Mr.
Summers, this building's going to be very expensive, but then again,
too, the public's welfare is worth certain expenses. It would -- at some
point in time, is this a realistic cost, I mean, compared to other
emergency operations centers throughout the state that they've built?
MR. SUMMERS: Sir--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Have we got a lot of fluff in this that
we should be giving serious consideration to changing it?
MR. SUMMERS: Sir, I think -- the reason I think the
programming should go through the way it is presented is this.
Number one, you have an atypical engineered building. This is a
building that's designed for category four plus wind event. We have
mitigated and we are required to mitigate, in other words to elevate the
posture of the buildings in order to receive some of the federal funds.
We would not be eligible for the mere 3.1 million. Based on
FEMA guidance were we not elevating some of the infrastructure with
that building, and no doubt the elevation costs additional monies. We
Page 68
April 24, 2007
realize that.
The other part is wiring and infrastructure. I would bet you today
in the wires that we've pulled in the EOC and the technology that we
have today, which we have funded year after year after year for
growth, it is a lot to bring this large of infrastructure, again, wiring,
plumbing, electricity, data and those type of things, and even really
almost three independent data systems that are required to be there
with the 91 I center needs, what the clerks needs are and what the
county needs are.
So is there an enormous amount of wiring? Yes. Is this as
technology -- as technologically required as a hospital would be? Yes.
It's there but it is a one-time up front. Ifwe go to a shell-type
building, we're just going to keep coming back and pulling wire and
putting infrastructure and antennas day by day.
So I easily see this functional opportunity here as a 20-year
event. I do see it as Collier County being able to -- although
everybody would be challenged, but this community, that's your
continuity of government. And if you can handle a catastrophic
category five worst-event scenario, I don't know of anybody in South
Florida right now, other than Collier County with this EOC, that could
survive it. Yes, we'd skip a few beats, but we could put this county
back together with this robust EOC. And it's the biggest and most
important tool in our tool kit.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And if we did not build this in a
timely fashion, give me an idea of the time lines. Suppose we wanted
to send this back for value engineering, for other considerations, take a
year and a half to be able to get to that point. What would happen? I
know already they have the preparation of the site taking place. You
would have to end preparation on it. Would there be issues that we'd
have to deal with and money? And I know as time goes along it's
going to cost more, but I don't have this all in the proper perspective.
Can you --
Page 69
April 24, 2007
MR. SUMMERS: Well, your FEMA grant will go away. It is
time limited. It has to be executed and it has to have draw. The state
statute, Senate Bill 2171 that provided that only had an 18-month
window. It was -- Collier County is poster child for that project as to
where we were in design development, so you can count on that 3.5
gomg away.
In terms of other static costs related to the site and fluxionary
costs, I'd have to let Ron address those.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: My fear is that to delay this is going
to put us to that point where we have to deal with the issue of what the
state legislative body's going to do with our -- with our budget. At
that point in time, the whole complexity of what has to be done is
going to be changed tremendously, and this just may be put off till that
point in time in the distant future, putting some of our residents at risk,
or all of our residents.
So I'm very, very concerned about this, from several different
directions. I'm very concerned about the money we're spending. I'm
very concerned about the possibility that this time element to put it off
might be a disadvantage to us to be able to come back later and keep
moving forward. So as we move through this discussion -- we've been
at it for a while, and we're going to continue it till that point in time
that we come up with a decision.
Commissioner Henning, then Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I'm very concerned
about some of the innuendos or direct statements that if we don't build
this building, we're not going to protect the citizens in Collier County,
all right.
Are we going to protect the citizens of Collier County?
MR. SUMMERS: Sir, you --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does it really matter what
building you're in?
MR. SUMMERS: Commissioner, you will always get 100
Page 70
April 24, 2007
percent from our organization protecting the public. It's how quickly
do you want to respond? Do you want staff and the resources and the
state and the federal and the non-profits to be able to act in a
coordinated -- and recover in a coordinated fashion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you haven't done that
before?
MR. SUMMERS: Sir, I think we've done a very good job --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think you have, too.
MR. SUMMERS: But we have done that without the -- without
a flood impact. And you bring one foot of water onto Airport-Pulling
or two foot or three foot of water, the way that flood management
exacerbates a disaster response, I don't think anyone here has a good --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did you have an alternative site
during the Wilma event?
MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir, we did. We had some--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I don't like the way this
discussion is going. We need to make good decisions for the citizens
of Collier County, including the taxpayers. All right. Let -- tell me
about the grant. Before grants have expired we've asked for
extensions, and we have received it. Are you saying this grant, we're
not going to be able to receive an extension?
MR. SUMMERS: We are aware that in Senate Bill 7121, the
state portion that is tied to the FEMA mitigation money that FEMA
and Governor Bush negotiated had an I8-month capital project
window. Now, I don't know the process for requesting an extension. I
will certainly be glad to research that potential for extension.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How much of that grant have
you spent today?
MR. SUMMERS: None.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: None.
MR. SUMMERS: None.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's just for the vertical
Page 71
April 24, 2007
construction? It's not for the elevation --
MR. SUMMERS: For the EOC component, for the EOC
component. It is a hybrid of issues; in other words, we are taking
credit in that grant for some of the things that were part of this
programming. There were some other activities in this grant that we
made very, very minor changes or justified to the engineers at the state
that this was reasonable in terms of meeting the grant complex -- the
grant and intent. It is -- engineering-wise it is complicated.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Hovell, please explain to
me in our executive summary the Kraft several pages of figures. Is
that taking these off of the bid or the construction?
MR. HOVELL: Can you tell me which page you're looking at,
sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's page 16. Page 16 and
it goes through 20, it looks like; 22, 23 pages.
MR. HOVELL: These items are the cost estimate report from
Kraft that should add up.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. These are estimates for
the construction and we're accepting these individual items?
MR. HOVELL: I'm looking on the last page, page 23 -- on
Kraft's page 23 or page 38 of your executive summary. That -- those
figures add up to 38,533,902. That is your contract amendment
proposal that's before you today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So we've got a million
dollars to paint drywall? A million dollars?
MR. HOVELL: I'm not sure which page you're looking at, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we got -- I'm on page 20.
No, I'm sorry. That's the air-conditioning system. I seen the -- I just
had the drywall page in here. It was a million dollars. Am I wrong
about that?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if you're talking about
exterior/interior, page 31 of 48, I think that's where you're at, where it
Page 72
April 24, 2007
says paint drywall and it talks about the total amount of square footage
to be painted.
MR. HOVELL: That's square footage.
MR. MUDD: That's square footage. There's over 1,053,092
square foot of drywall to be painted.
MR. HOVELL: Total price is $430,000.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. MUDD: But everything else that's there --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That was the square foot?
MR. HOVELL: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Couldn't we get a company like
Verizon or something to put a tower up and get a space off of that?
Do we -- is there a security issue where we couldn't request that,
saving that money, half a million dollars?
MR. DALY: If you could locate a commercial enterprise that
wanted to site at that location, yeah, you could. But, I mean, it
depends on their system design and whether that's a prime site for
them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. DALY: But, yes, you could do that ifthere was interest.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, I think that's one of the
options, that we some do. And $500 a square foot is a heck of a lot of
money, and if this is the preview of what we're going to be doing in
the future in buildings, we will not have enough money to serve the
public.
And when you have a two-story, 20-foot area for -- or 911 and
EOC to have 22 TV screens, what we're saying is, this room is not
functional, being a lO-foot. And I can tell you what the public's going
to say about this building. It's going to be taj mahal number two in
Collier County.
I know that we need to build it, but I can tell you that I have not
seen the particulars on that, and that is very concerning because what's
Page 73
April 24, 2007
driving the cost is other people's input besides the Board of
Commissioners. And I'm going to have to support my colleague in
trying to get these costs down in a more reasonable manner.
MR. HOVELL: If! could make one correction, sir. When I
went back and did the math, it's roughly $425 a square foot for this
project cost.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that makes me feel better,
but I can't understand -- I can't understand having a 20- foot room
ceiling to be able to communicate, to be able to show things on a TV
screen. I mean, that's just -- not comprehensible. That isn't an
auditorium and -- or amphitheater theater or the Myra Janco Daniels'
Hall, you know. That's my concern.
MR. SUMMERS: Commissioner, may I address that comment,
please, just a little bit. One of the -- one of the things that I think is
frustrating is the misconception here about what these monitor walls
do. In our environment, one of the reasons that our EOC is not as
efficient as it is, is that we spend time covering information that could
be easily displayed and, therefore, as a result, I have to verbally
convey that, I have to prepare documents, Xerox documents, send
emails when I can put information on the screen that includes -- this is
not about watching The Weather Channel, not whatsoever.
This is now taking information, for example, maybe from the 911
center's computer-aided dispatch to tell me what resources may be
available. It may be aerial photography now that I have assets from
NASA that I can display. It's real-time damage assessment. It's
scrolling text activity about shelters --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You couldn't do it in this room?
MR. SUMMERS: No, I can't do it in this room. I have to have
continuous feed and continuous information from multiple sources. A
typical EOC, we'll take Dade County. Thirty-six television monitors
in the small undersized Dade County Emergency Operations Center
are not watching CNN or The Weather Channel.
Page 74
April 24, 2007
What you haven't seen here is that I do EOC activity by paper.
The new emergency operations center will make us that much more
efficient because the information will be displayed.
I want information that's being displayed in the emergency
operations center to be available to the sheriffs 911 center so that the
dispatchers can not only see the issue at hand that the EOC is dealing
with, but can apportion our public safety resources. In turn, I can see
what the -- what the 911 center is putting out in terms of manpower,
resources and fire trucks and EMS and law enforcement, and then I
can help make EOC decisions to respond to that, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you need 20-foot ceilings
for that?
MR. SUMMERS: I need the ability for the -- for every working
position in that room to be able to see that activity, and I have more
efficiency with all the eyes looking forward looking at that activity
than spreading small monitors around from different work stations.
It is an issue of sight -- of vision. It's the ability from those from
the dais to get back and see what -- to observe the climate of the
participants in the EOC, whether there's an emergency situation. So it
is part of that staired -- the line of sight is the word I'm looking for,
and in terms of a classroom and a training environment that allows
those multiple images to be displayed so that we don't have to gin up
information that's visually available.
So it is a sight where an awful lot of multi-tasking takes place.
But what I do right now in the emergency operations center is I do it
all with paper, and it takes time to do that, and I think this will make
that operation much more efficient and let me be able to partner much
better with the 911 center. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Ifwe may, we're going to go
to Commissioner Coyle, but Commissioner Coyle, I want to get to the
speakers after you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll be very brief. I think for a
Page 75
April 24, 2007
while there we got way, way off point. People were talking about the
need for the emergency operations center and how important it was.
Nobody's proposing that we not build the emergency operations
center. I asked questions about projection screens, ornamental fences,
wall covers, crown molding. That has nothing to do with building the
building.
Now, it would have been better, had we -- I think, had we gotten
into the details of the design of the building. I think we might very
well be beyond that point.
But let's not lose our focus here. Ifwe were to ask you to take a
look at the finishing details of this building and all of the equipment
that you're going to put inside it and make sure that you're getting the
best value for your money, that's not going to stop you from building
the building. It's not going to delay you building the building. So let's
sort of get over this defensive posture about -- because somebody's
questioning cost and efficiency, that we're suddenly going to stop you
from building a building. That's not what this is about.
Now, what I would have expected, being a very experienced
team here, that you would have gone through this kind of
consideration at the very beginning, and we wouldn't have to be doing
it here. Apparently you didn't. Value engineering is not something
that is new to the concept of capital improvements.
The Productivity Committee has been doing this and has been
suggesting it for years. This didn't start after you began planning this
building.
So what I'm suggesting is that you proceed with the building
construction. Should have no problems with the grant. Shouldn't
affect your schedule at all, but lets get all these finish details and take
a look at them and see ifthere are ways that the costs can be reduced
or you can do something in a different way.
And I am not going to get into the business of trying to tell you
how to run an operations center, but there is a great risk of information
Page 76
April 24, 2007
overload and confusion when everybody is looking at the same
screens all the time. They work best when you've got a single big
picture and then you echelon the action to particular teams who have a
specific responsibility to take specific actions as a result of what's
happening in the big picture. You've got everybody looking at all this
information, and you're going to have information overload.
So I would encourage you to take a look at that, but I'm not going
to get into a debate about who knows better how to run an emergency
operations center. That's your job, not mine. But it's something to
consider.
So let's get away from the idea that the emergency operations
center can't be built because we're not n we're not interested in paying
for decorative fences or crown molding, okay?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, may I make a
suggestion, just some food for thought.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then we're going to hear the
speakers. Possibly you might want to put a hold on a certain amount
of this money while it's going to review to the Productivity
Committee, and then it can come back to us. Think about that
between now and the time that the speakers come up before us.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that's a good idea.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But I think you're on tune. It's
important that we build the building, but we still need to maintain
some sort of control.
Call the first speaker, please.
MS. FILSON: Ted Soliday. He'll be followed by Reg Buxton.
MR. SOLIDAY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ted, we're going to be allowing each
speaker three minutes and --
MR. SOLIDAY: I'll go even faster than that. I think you all are
doing an excellent job, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I think -- I
Page 77
April 24, 2007
really appreciate the effort that you're going through today. I like the
last conclusion. I can understand the issue.
First of all, I'd like to tell you that your job -- your EOC is
wonderful. They do an outstanding job. You already know that. I've
already seen you all in those rooms as we've been there.
The Naples Airport Authority likes to work in there, we'd like to
be part of it. Right now your system, it just doesn't lend itself to that.
We have a tremendous difficulty in our communications with the
Federal Aviation Administration and all the other agencies we have to
deal with. We would like to be able to be more party to this and work
with your people, and we think a new center is valuable. You said
you agree with that. I'm not going to waste your time any further than
that other than to, again, commend your staff and the job that they're
doing and commend you all for what you're doing.
Thank you. I'll answer any questions, if you have any,
Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Soliday.
MS. FILSON: Reg Buxton. He'll be followed by Deborah
Horvath.
MR. BUXTON: Good morning. Reg Buxton.
I wish to speak to you today as a member of the following:
President elect, United Way of Collier County; vice-chair, Collier
County Red Cross Regional Chapter; member of the President's
Council, International College; chair of the Citizen Corps of Collier
County; representative of the Collier County business community;
Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce representative during
emergencies to the emergency operations center.
In the last month I've spent time with all these people. I've asked
them one question. Do we need this building? Do we need to make
the citizens of Collier County safe? And what's the cost of a human
life in Collier County? Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
Page 78
April 24, 2007
MS. FILSON: Deborah Horvath. She'll be followed by Judy
Nuland.
MS. HORVATH: Good morning, Commissioners. Good
morning, Mr. Mudd, Mr. Ochs.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: State your name for the record,
please.
MS. HORVATH: Deborah Horvath. I am the CEO of the
American Red Cross here in Collier County. We have just been named
a regional chapter covering Lee County as well effective as of July
1 st, so I will be the regional executive director.
And there is no doubt we need a new emergency operations
center. We've been here on many occasions standing side by side with
the county trying to open shelters and run them in storm mass care and
all of those other things, and we are out at the fires right now.
But at any rate, I am only here to advocate for this new building.
I understand you have concerns about the costs. That's not my
business. I don't know anything about those.
I was only here to come and support emergency management in
this effort because what is downstairs is absolutely inadequate. We
just have to find a better way to be able to communicate, keep the
community safer, and all -- and step into the 21 st and 22nd century.
You don't want to build this building and in a couple of years it's
going to be inadequate again.
So I understand why emergency management needs this. I know
that you do. And as a member of the community and running the Red
Cross, I just want to make sure that we all keep the community as safe
as we possibly can. And I appreciate all of your help and your
backing on this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. HORVATH: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Judy Nuland. She'll be followed by Floyd
Chapin.
Page 79
April 24, 2007
MS. NULAND: Hello, Commissioners. I'm Judy Nuland and I
represent Collier County Health Department and we work in concert
with all of the emergency services here in Collier County, and
working together in one building would only serve us better.
Logistically we need the space, we need all the people together, and I
appreciate your support of this project. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Ms. Nuland
MS. FILSON: Floyd Chapin.
MR. CHAPIN: For the record, Floyd Chapin, representing
Sapphire Lakes Homeowners Association, consisting of about 590
property owners and taxpayers of Collier County.
We're not trying to come late into this project. We have followed
this project ever since you originally proposed it on Santa Barbara, the
Bembridge site. We were advocates of the site at that time. We are
advocates of the site today, although it's four miles further from our
homesites. This is a must-do project for Collier County.
I understand your cost concerns, but I believe it's vital upon you
to approve this project today. Had you done so two years ago, we
wouldn't be here today worrying about additional costs.
I think we've got a professional staff in the county. I think you
people are doing a commendable job. I still think we must proceed
efficiently and effectively and get this project done at the earliest
possible date. Today is D Day, as far as we're concerned, as taxpayers
of Collier County.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Chapin.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. Commissioner Coyle, I think
that you were framing some thoughts you might want to put into a
motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would suggest that we
authorize the staff to proceed with the construction phase of the
Page 80
April 24, 2007
project, and on a parallel track, ask the Productivity Committee to take
a look at some of the finish details to determine whether or not they
are essential and maybe recommend some -- make some
recommendations concerning ways we might be able to reduce costs.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Clarification?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commission -- motion by
Commissioner Coyle and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
And discussion? Seeing none --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Clarification. You're not saying
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Forgive me for letting me go on. It
almost worked, huh?
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're not saying to approve the
contract. It's to conditionally approve the contract?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Approve the contract for the
construction phase -- initial construction phase of the contract, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, conditioned upon the
review of -- for value engineering?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: For value engineering, for those
finish details that are proposed to determine ifthere are less expensive
ways of achieving the same results.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For the total project?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: For the total project.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, great. I agree with that. I
just can't comprehend needing an auditorium to conduct these events.
And I could be wrong. It's just my own personal opinion.
Page 81
April 24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, does your
second agree with that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I got one question now. The value
engineering. We're talking about the Productivity Committee doing
this?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If they will accept the assignment.
They are volunteers, so we're going to have to ask them if they'll do it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And if not, then we'll have to
bring it back to this board to see what the next step is.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, but it should not -- it should
not interfere --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With the construction.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- with the ability to proceed with
the construction phase.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And to be qualified for all the
grants that they're --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. Once they start
vertical construction, they can apply the proceeds of the grants; is that
not correct?
MR. HOVELL: I believe so, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you need any further clarification
on this so you don't walk away with any questions in your mind?
MR. MUDD: No, but I would like to give to -- I'd like to give
the commission a little bit more of a guarantee. Do not approve the
commercial paper loan and make that contingent upon results of the
Productivity Committee and the finished product, because that's $8
million, and then we have to come back to the board in order to talk to
you about the finished product reductions and the need for this
particular instrument, and I believe that gives you the guarantee that
Page 82
April 24, 2007
you need as a board that that transpires.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that's an excellent
suggestion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you include it in your motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And my second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And your second.
With that, is there anything else? Any loose ends? Any
questions? I see Mr. Weigel with his hand up.
MR. WEIGEL: Right, thank you. I want to make sure of the
motion, again, and additionally, get confirmation from Jim and his
staff there. This construction management at risk contract -- and so to
the extent that the board is making alterations here relative to pricing
and call it outfitting to this, my understanding is that Kraft has already
agreed to these elements of pricing and outfitting at this point in time,
and so that do we, in fact, have a need for Kraft to still come and agree
to what is going to be potentially changed by the recommendation of
the Productivity Committee coming back to the board?
MR. MUDD: Yes, yes, I believe that's the case, and that will
have to go through the Productivity Committee, then we're going to
have to sit down with Kraft again, adjust the price schedule and come
back to the board, show them what the amendment to the price
schedule is, and then talk to the board about a need to do a commercial
paper loan in order to cover the difference.
MR. WEIGEL: So again then, the board's approval and direction
today of what they are approving and directing today is not an
approval of an agreement with Kraft at this point in time, correct?
MR. MUDD: And I believe they're agreeing to the Kraft
proposal to start working on the building as designed, the finish work
is up for renegotiation, and I believe that's what the board is basically
directing staff and agreeing to as far as the contract is concerned.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. The last question I have then, I think, is
Page 83
April 24, 2007
in regard to design, Mr. Henning's question or concern, among others,
relating to the auditorium-type effect of design that's there. If that's
subject to be changed at this point based on recommendation of the
Productivity Committee and affirmation of the board, I want to make
sure that coming from this meeting, the understanding with Kraft is, is
that that potentially may be a design change, unless I'm mistaken.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right.
MR. WEIGEL: Is the board -- or is the board signing off on that
design with merely indicating concerns? I'm a little unclear on that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, you've got the
floor.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. If it is -- if it results in a
design change, Kraft will have to agree with that, and they will either
charge us more or less based upon whatever the design change is. It
would be handled just like any other change order. And we wouldn't
make it if we felt it was going to be too expensive.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. I think--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that not correct? Is that--
MR. MUDD: That's right, sir.
MR. WEIGEL: That sounds certainly clear and understandable
to us, and I expect that it will be understandable to Kraft as well.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: And I have a question, too, just so that I'm clear,
so that when the contract comes through, you're approving the
contract with changes?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, potential changes. We
don't know yet.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. If you've got something to say,
say it.
MR. HOVELL: I think there's two basic ways to approach it.
One is to approve this Exhibit E with your direction that we not
actually let them work on any of those finishes, which will be months
Page 84
April 24, 2007
and months down the road anyway. The other possible approach
would be, don't approve this Exhibit E. We'll come back at some
future -- hopefully next meeting, with something changed with Kraft.
But that, you know, has some risks to it.
So I think what I heard you say is you're approving this Exhibit E
with those restrictions of only proceed on those things that are
physical to the building, the basic structure.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. You will-- you won't expend
monies until you come back to get our approval in the first place,
right? I mean, you've got a budget and you've got a contract, but
you're going to be getting invoices from somebody and you're going to
be paying those invoices in accordance with a particular budget; is that
correct?
MR. HOVELL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if those invoices exceed a
certain dollar value, you're coming back and getting our approval; is
that not true?
MR. HOVELL: At this point the last $8 million is subject to that
commercial paper loan --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
MR. HOVELL: -- so certainly we couldn't do that part without
your specific approval.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. So that is the thing
you want to focus on.
MR. HOVELL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What would be covered under that
$8 million? It should not include site preparation work. It should not
include probably the beginning of the vertical construction, all those
kinds of things. You've got plenty of time to deal with this issue.
MR. HOVELL: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's not something that's going to
Page 85
April 24, 2007
throw a monkey wrench into the plans. And we go through the
change order process every day here.
MR. HOVELL: And so to be clear, we'll bring this Exhibit E to
the chair to sign off on and just not pay for those last pieces, and we'll
make a change to hopefully decrease the price based on those
finishing changes that are discussed with the Productivity Committee.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. Including the issue
that Commissioner Henning has brought up. You will have to make a
determination if it is cost effective to make that change, okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just have some concerns if we go
back to the architect and say, okay, we're going to make some internal
changes, and if these changes relate to the structure of the building, we
might find ourselves in a deeper expense here than what we're
discussing today. So I think we need to make sure that we walk
carefully in the direction that we're headed because this thing could
end up costing us a lot more money than we're discussing today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: My understanding of what the motion
was and everything had nothing to do with the structure of the
building.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: If you go back for architectural
design changes inside the building, there may be some additional
expenses. And anytime you have a -- anytime you have a change
order, you're on the clock, so --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: We'll bring that back.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the process. You bring it
back to us. If it costs more than we think it ought to cost, we won't do
it.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One thing cancels the other out.
Page 86
April 24, 2007
Now, Commissioner Coyle, thank you very much for that.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And you're absolutely
right, Commissioner Halas. And when we do bring it back, then this
change order item I'm concerned about bringing it to the chair without
the full board hearing it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, not change.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that what you're saying?
MR. HOVELL: No, not the change order. The current contract
amendment that's before you today, we're suggesting that the chair
will sign off on that based on your direction but we won't actually
allow Kraft to proceed with those finishes, which will be, you know,
nine months, a year from now anyway, and we'll come back with a
change order between now and then.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. This is a reduction. This
item is a reduction, correct?
MR. HOVELL: The future item will be.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the commercial paper loan?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. You're not going to approve the
commercial paper loan, and that was part of this agenda item, and that
basically takes $8 million off of this project. We have to come back to
you, let you know what the Productivity Committee has found, what--
we'll link with the architect, we'll link with Kraft, figure out what we
can agree to, bring that all back to the Board of County
Commissioners and determine how much that commercial paper loan
should be, ifthere needs to be one at all.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. Okay. I don't see any more
lights on. There's no more questions, no more comments. And with
that I'm going to call the question. All those if favor, indicate by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 87
April 24, 2007
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 running against some time restraints as far as what we
have made commitments for. Let's try to get the Immokalee issue
done. I know we're going to be running a little bit late, unless you
have some commitments out there I'm not aware of that you
absolutely have to do at 12 noon.
MS. FILSON: Yeah, you have a closed session.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, we've got a time certain--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- for a closed session.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're already past it. Okay, fine.
Continue, Mr. Mudd. We're going to try to move through this in an
expeditious way.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, just adjourn the BCC and adjourn
the CRA and switch things because we're going to -- we're going to
14, and that's the CRA --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I hereby surrender the gavel to
the CRA chair.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. The CRA board of directors
will come to order.
Item #14A
IMMOKALEE REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD
RECOMMENDATION TO THE COLLIER COUNTY
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) TO
Page 88
April 24, 2007
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF JOB DESCRIPTIONS AND
REFERRAL TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THE RECOMMENDED FISCAL YEAR 2007-2008 BUDGET
REQUEST RELATED TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEW
OFFICE IN IMMOKALEE TO CONDUCT CRA AND
ENTERPRISE ZONE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUNCTIONS
AND DUTIES - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: First order is 14A. This is an Immokalee
Redevelopment Advisory Board recommendation to the Collier
County Community Redevelopment Agency CRA to consider
approval of a job description and referral to the Board of County
Commissioners the recommended fiscal year 2007/2008 budget
requests related to the establishment of a new office in Immokalee to
conduct CRA and Enterprise Zone Development Agency functions
and duties.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, I'd like to ask Mr.
Thomas a question.
MR. THOMAS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is this what you see in the
summary agenda, was this agreeable by your advisory board?
MR. THOMAS: Yes, sir, the budget and everything, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now, I got a question for
staff regarding this contract in relation to the Bayshore Triangle CRA.
Is this basically related? We're very familiar with that kind of
contract. We've spent a lot of time with it. Excuse me for not
speaking into the mike. I know it makes it a little difficult.
The comparison between the two. In other words, the CRA
contract that we hold now with the Bayshore Triangle area CRA, is
this quite a bit similar to that?
MR. GREENWOOD: Yes. For the record, Tom Greenwood
with Comprehensive Planning. The office in Immokalee will
Page 89
April 24, 2007
basically carry on the same activities that the CRA office does for
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle in an advisory manner to the CRA. The
only difference would be, is that there would be some activity, since
there is an Enterprise Zone Development Agency advisory board there
in Immokalee involving carrying out the strategy plan or strategic plan
for the enterprise zone.
With that said, the Enterprise Zone Development Agency is
really a BCC function. So the staff coordinator of the enterprise zone
would continue to be a county employee. And right now it's the
director of comprehensive planning department.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: So the job description for the director and his
assistant is the same as the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle one except the
names have been changed to the areas they're going to support.
MR. GREENWOOD: Yes, it's very similar.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. We're very familiar with
the product. And with that, I make a motion for approval.
MS. FILSON: Commissioner, I have a speaker.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. We'll get to that in just a
second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second your motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have a motion by myself,
Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala for approval.
We have one speaker?
MS. FILSON: One speaker, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Would you call that
speaker forward.
MS. FILSON: Susi Winchell.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. I'm taking back over.
It's automatic.
MS. WINCHELL: Good morning. For the record, my name is
Susi Winchell. I am with the Economic Development Council of
Page 90
April 24, 2007
Collier County.
The EDC supports the county staff recommendations for the
budget and the positions that are for the CRA and the EZDA. We also
have committed to collocating in that facility, and we believe that
establishing this office will help better communication with job
recruitment and job retention projects.
So thank you very much for your consideration. Have a good
day.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is all these funds coming out of
the TIF?
MR. THOMPSON: Not all of the funds can come out of the TIF.
As Mr. -- I'm sorry. Fred Thomas. My hat is on as the chair of the
CRA committee.
As Mr. Greenwood just mentioned to you, that some of the
activities of this office will be to serve the Enterprise Zone
Development Agency. And according to a legal opinion we got, you
can't use TIF funds for that. You have to use regular county funds.
We used to have $150,000 in the budget, the county budget, for that
program, and they haven't been doing an adequate job in the last year,
so they took it out of the budget. But we need to, at some point,
restore it to the budget.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Is this out of 111,01,
585,951?
MR. MUDD: The CRA director would come out of their TIF
funds. The enterprise zone would be a 111 budgeted--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: III?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And that expense is
going to continue at 85,000?
MR. COHEN: For the record, Randy Cohen, Comprehensive
Page 91
April 24, 2007
Planning Director. Just to clarifY the role of my department with
respect to the CRA and also with regard to the enterprise zone, when
the redevelopment agency was created, obviously, there were not
separate executive directors.
When that role gets assumed out in Immokalee, the only
responsibility that my department will still have, in essence, will be to
coordinate certain activities, one of those being preparing the annual
report. Otherwise, the only thing that my department will be doing is
something that would be along the lines, if the respective
redevelopment areas were to ask for things on a fee-for-services basis.
So, otherwise, our role is going to be greatly diminished.
With respect to the enterprise zone, out in Immokalee, the 15
members that make up the CRA also, by resolution, make up the
enterprise zone as well. My office will still function in the role of
enterprise zone coordinator and do that annual report. But along those
same lines, the function will be minimalized as well.
So it's been taking away a tremendous amount of the
responsibility out of my department and it will be moved out to
Immokalee with the CRA and Mr. Thomas's organization.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, good for you. Now, can
somebody answer my question? What's coming out of III? How
much is coming out of III? Is it 85,000?
MR. MUDD: I believe the $85,000 right now is coming out of
the TIF funds, okay, and that gets transferred over to community
development because right now they've got the staff that's working on
their CRA.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Right now the enterprise zone work is not
budgeted. So, Commissioner, I think it would probably be anywhere
from 10- to $25,000 when it finally does get budgeted.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, great. Thank you so
much. You're a big help.
Page 92
April 24, 2007
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm confused. The executive
summary says that there are two staff members, executive director,
operations analyst and administrative assistant. That's three. I don't
understand.
MR. THOMAS: Okay. There's three staff job descriptions that
you're looking at.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. THOMAS: We're only going to initially fund two of the
positions. That's the executive director and administrative assistant.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So only two of them are
going to be funded. Now, I want to get back to Commissioner
Henning's question. Where is the money coming from for personnel
services? We have $180,000 for personnel services and a transfer,
111,of85,700. Where's the money coming from?
MR. THOMAS: The first number you talked about is TIF funds.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. The $180,000?
MR. THOMAS: $180,000 TIF funds.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. THOMAS: The $85,000 is projected to support the state
enterprise zone.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, the Administrator
for Community Development.
The $85,000 is money that comes out of the TIF money that is
put into the fund 111 to fund the current position they now have on
staff. Effective 1 October that money will no longer be in my budget.
That money will go back to the advisory board and that money will be
available to pay for the executive director. The other monies to
support the enterprise zone are monies that will have as to be asked for
during the budget cycle.
Page 93
April 24, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: From what source?
MR. SCHMITT: Probably, most likely, from 111.
MR. MUDD: 111. And I just mentioned to you it would be
anywhere from 10- to $25,000 based on the minimal support that was
just relayed to the board on that particular issue. You're talking about
just doing an annual -- an annual plan and having one staff member
attend a meeting once in a while. That's it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So we're going to fund two
people initially, and that's going to be done for about $100,000 or so;
is that about where we are?
MR. MUDD: Does that -- that outfits the office, too, doesn't it?
MR. THOMAS: We're looking at a total operating expense of
357,000 right now; $180,000 for the executive director and
administrative assistant. That's fringe benefits. That's the whole
package.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. THOMAS: Then you've got operating expenses, of 130- for
consulting, 34- for interdepartmental payment of services, for building
rent, repayment of the general fund for our impact fee deferrals, things
like that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand the budget, what I
don't understand is the source of funds. I'm looking for --
MR. THOMAS: All of the funds that you see in this budget
down here are TIF funds.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All 2.292 million?
MR. THOMAS: TIF funds.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So your total approach--
MR. THOMAS: I'm looking at the -- oh, maybe I'm looking at
something you're not looking at.
MR. SCHMITT: On page 13 of 13 --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. SCHMITT: -- the budget outline, fund 186. That's the fund
Page 94
April 24, 2007
it currently is -- that's all the TIF money in the existing account today
and where the money is budgeted. Currently of that money, of 186,
that's where I was getting the $85,700, and that was being rolled into
111 to pay for staff. Like I said, that will no longer come into
community development.
MR. MUDD: As you see in the FY-'07/08 -- I'm on page 13 of
13.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: Okay. You'll notice where it says transfer 111,
85,7- in '05/06, '06/07, and then it zeros out in '07/08.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
MR. MUDD: It's gone. You go down to look at revenues. TIF
funds are the delta between the base year and the appropriate year for
general fund and for 111. So what you're seeing there for revenues for
001 of $71 0,800, in fund 111, $160,200 are TIF funds that are above
the base year that go into their particular organization like they do any
other CRA. So for clarification --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: -- there is no III support for these positions in this
186 budget.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what I wanted to know,
okay. I got it now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: What Fred did say though, for the enterprise
zone, he can't pay for any of those functions out of 186.
MR. MUDD: He will show up with a budget --
MR. SCHMITT: And that will be in your budget.
MR. MUDD: -- and add $25,000 to bring that through.
MR. SCHMITT: That will be in Fred's budget, not my budget.
MR. THOMAS: That will be in our budget coming to you, that
budget that used to have $150,000 in it, we're going to come back, and
Page 95
April 24, 2007
I think it's going to be a little more than 20- or 25,000 to help support
the incentives in the state enterprise zone.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor and a
second.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signifY by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
Next item?
Item #14B
IMMOKALEE MASTER PLAN AND VISIONING COMMITTEE
AND LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD
REQUEST TO THE COLLIER COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY TO APPROVE AND FORWARD TO THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A REQUEST TO CEASE
ENFORCING CERTAIN ZONING PROVISIONS IN
IMMOKALEE FOR EIGHTEEN MONTHS OR UNTIL THE
APPROV AL OF THE NEW MASTER PLAN AND LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODES, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST -
DENIED
Page 96
April 24, 2007
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 148. This is the
Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee and Local
Redevelopment Advisory Board request to the Collier County
Redevelopment Agency to approve and forward to the Board of
County Commissioners a request to cease enforcing certain zoning
provisions in Immokalee for 18 months or until the approval of the
new master plan and Land Development Codes, whichever comes
first.
This is also a companion item to lOG, which you'd have to hear
as the BCC but it reads the same except you're doing the action as the
Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Are we still as the CRA now?
MR. MUDD: Yes. You're still as the CRA, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, very good.
MR. MUDD: The only -- this was a direct result of a letter that
Mr. Thomas wrote to the Board of County Commissioners. And I'll
get it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Thomas, go ahead.
MR. THOMAS: Okay. I wrote that letter on behalf not
enterprise -- not the enterprise. I'm sorry -- the Immokalee Master
Plan and Visioning Committee, okay, and that's why I was a little bit
confused that it came up to CRA' but it doesn't matter. We can
explain everything and everything is connected anyway because the
CRA is funding the activity of the Master Plan and Visioning
Committee. But that's the hat I have on right now.
And I want to thank you for this opportunity to tell you. I'm
going to bring you fast forward up here with a little brief history to tell
you how we got into this planning mess-up we happen to find
ourselves in right, and where we think we can go from here.
As you will remember, Immokalee has been a very resilient town
responding to activities going on around it, from a small southern,
black and white cat and laurel (sic) producing area to including a
Page 97
April 24, 2007
transfer station for lumber going from the Carnestown, Ochopee,
Copeland area, up to the northern part of the state. We grew into the
commercial hub when we stopped doing business with Cuqua
(phonetic) and became the commercial hub to a four-county
agricultural area. And that caused a lot of growth and development.
A lot of things happening in our community.
In the '70s, before I came here in '86, we had a separate planning
zone out in Immokalee with a separate Planning Commission trying to
look at the overall growth and development of Immokalee.
When I came in '86, I, shortly thereafter, became a part of your
Planning Commission, and one of our first functions was the new
Growth Management Plan act and working with the Growth
Management Plan.
And we came up with land planning, land zones, for all of the
various areas in Immokalee to protect the local homeowners, the
landowners that were using the land for maybe different things than
what the master plan -- the then master plan was bringing forth, they
put in a protection called the grand fathering clause. As long as the
landowner didn't do more than a 51 percent change in the value of
what's going on in the land, they could keep that existing use, which
was like a legal nonconforming use. And that has been a headache for
us ever since it's been put in place.
Understand that Immokalee is a very unique kind of community,
and we served as that agricultural hub until 1989. Between '89, the
Christmas freeze, and March of'90, we went from 45 to 50
independent farmers, small independent farmers, I mean farmers that
were leasing a square mile of land to harvest street crops during the
winter months --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Excuse me, Fred. Sue, turn off
the timer. Mr. Thomas is a presenter, not a speaker.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let's get down to the issue.
We have a closed-door session.
Page 98
April 24, 2007
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, no. Let Mr. Thomas
finish his presentation. It's just a courtesy and then we'll get -- it will
just take a short time to do it, and then we'll get into our discussion. I
ask you for that courtesy for Mr. Thomas or for any other presenters
that come before us today.
Mr. Thomas, please proceed.
MR. THOMAS: I'm sorry. I'll make it as fast as I possibly can.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know you will. I'll makes sure
of it.
MR. THOMAS: There's a lot of problems and a lot of frustration
that's built up in this overall situation. I'm trying to calm down
everything and let everybody see the real function of what we're trying
to do.
But we went from 45 farmers to three farmers overnight in that
one season. Seven medium farmers to three medium-size farmers.
We had to then come to you to ask for pulling the airport and
putting it on a separate Airport Authority so we could begin the steps
of becoming an industrial hub. We have a master plan that is very
much like our master plan today with some differences, okay.
Now, fast forward us to today, and there's a lot of things
happening around us. And I got this map on the wall. We've got Ave
Maria is down here. One of the problems we had in Immokalee for
many years is that 80 percent of our schoolteachers don't live in
Immokalee. Ninety percent ofretail management doesn't live in
Immokalee. There's opportunities for that to change because of Ave
Maria opening up the operation down here.
Not only did Ave Maria open the operation down here, but the
Barron Collier Company bought all of Serenoa, which is right here.
And so you have a full understanding of what's going on, you've
got the Big Cypress SRA right there with 28,000 rooftops in that
whole operation, you've got 6,000 rooftops in Serenoa, and you've got
10,000 rooftops in Ave Maria.
Page 99
April 24, 2007
They're going to have big boxes here in Serenoa, movie theaters,
Wal-Marts, et cetera. When you put those movies and Wal-Marts
here, that will cause more of our teachers to want to live here, because
one of the reasons why a lot of our folks don't live here -- and we've
got an image unnecessarily -- we have an image.
Let me just take -- I've got to take the time to do this, a little
diversion. When my wife and I first came here, we came from a
waterfront condo less than a mile from the open bay in Tampa. My
wife looked at this little town, Dollar General, Family Dollar, and
said, why? But when I took her to Edison Mall and she saw how close
it was, no problem. We can do this.
Now, we'll have all those services now right here, okay. If that
happens, when the big box goes in this Serenoa down here, that's
going to drive all of our little stores on Main Street because now the
guys can get on their bicycles and whatnot and go down there and buy
stuff. The only saving grace that we have, folks, to keep up with the
pace of things going on around us is the Seminole Casino here and
making this the beginning of a tourist zone.
You've got the help of the EDC to help us retrofit these folks, but
we cannot do that if things are happening to force us to do things
contrary to what's in our master plan.
For example, over here in this area right here, we're talking about
medium density residential. It happens to be, right now, folks, zoned
mobile home. We've got a contractor out there trying to build two
concrete block buildings, homes, with FDA support and can't do it
because they're not mobile homes, even though in that neighborhood
that's supposed to be a mobile home overlay, 60 percent of the
buildings are concrete block or stick built, and only 40 percent are
mobile homes.
It's those kinds of things that are causing us problems. We've got
ajunkyard -- not ajunkyard. Yeah, ajunkyard. That's what it is, out
here by the airport up here, and they're being forced to make some
Page 100
April 24, 2007
changes where, under the new plan, they'll be able to operate.
We're just saying to you folks, since it's taking us so long to get
to the process -- and understand, in order to become your industrial
hub circled around this area, we're not competing with Naples, we're
not competing with coastal Palm Beach County. We're competing
with Lakeland, Clewiston, Highlands County, Sebring. Those folks
don't have any heavy codes. They don't -- it takes you -- in Hendry
County it takes you 90 days to get your -- or nine months to get your
building permit. In Collier County it takes you three years without
any question.
We're trying to compete with those folks for industry. We should
have had the Wal-Mart distribution point here, not in Wauchula
because we're more centrally located in the state. And the reason why
we're not getting that kind of development, because it just takes too
long to do it. It just takes too much pretty to do it.
I told you about the dormitory that I built that's only got half the
number of men in it because of the local requirements that are good
for the coast because you all can get that money back, but we can't get
that money back in Immokalee.
So all we're saying is find us a way. You've got a plan that's
being vetted. We've been working on it for two years. Now we have
to begin the process of going through the Land Development Code
amendment and staff.
You know, since I sent that letter to you -- I had a lot of meetings
with staff and I sent you another piece yesterday to try to show how
we can do it that was approved by our committee at the last meeting,
because two meetings ago is when we prepared that first letter. Last
meeting we came up with a new approach and trying to make it
possible and flexible for people to be left alone, let them begin to stay
in front of the curve so that we can make the best of our connectivity
to Ave Maria, to the new Sun City Center that's coming up in Felda.
You understand?
Page 101
April 24, 2007
Thanks to Commissioner Halas we had good connects with Lee
County and Hendry County, so our roads are going to be increased,
and we're going to get four-lane roads coming into Immokalee.
We're just asking, folks, stop doing things contrary to what our
plan is -- that's going through the process now, our plan that has been
-- it's done to the satisfaction of our citizens, who is now going
through a technical review and going through the state review process.
We're just trying to keep things from happening in that process that's
contrary to the plan. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Thomas. Let's
do this. Before we go to Commissioner Coyle --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, isn't Commissioner Fiala the
chair?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, forgive me. It's force of
habit. I'm sorry. Donna, you've got it. Just reach right over and
whack me.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know -- you know my feeling
on this, Fred. You've heard it before. We've got a process. We need
to follow the process. You've done good work on an overlay. We're
moving through the process. Let's wait and let's do it right.
Secondly, the -- this request, according to staff -- presume it's our
legal staff -- is contrary to the amendment parameters set forth in the
Florida statutes.
The third point is that in the areas -- other areas where we have
the 51 percent limitation, it's done for a very good reason. It's done
because FEMA requires it. You don't get -- you don't get favorable
flood insurance treatment from FEMA if you don't adhere to that
particular regulation. It is a -- by adhering to the regulation, it requires
that we upgrade older buildings, and that's the only way you get them
out of the floodplain sometimes. Now, I don't know how many of
yours are in the floodplain, but I know what the 51 percent is.
Page 102
April 24, 2007
MR. THOMAS: None of ours are in the floodplain, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But the point is that we've got a
process. There's no way in the world you'd ever have gotten that Wal-
Mart in Wauchula. They're much closer to the 1-75 than Immokalee,
and it's going to be years before you get a four- or six-lane highway to
Immokalee. No, none of these regulations would have affected that
situation.
And as far as maintaining character, Arcadia has some beautiful
architecture there that is not atypical of central Florida. There are
beautiful Victorian homes there. You don't have to have concrete
block homes in Immokalee to retain it as a historical area. I just think
it's premature.
Immokalee is doing wonderfully with your help and the help of
the other people who have been leaders in the community out there.
You're making great progress. How we can -- we can now say that
you're going to fail unless we suspend enforcement of zoning action is
beyond my imagination. I just can't imagine why we'd want to do
that.
So I would make a recommendation of disapproval.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
MR. THOMAS: Sir, sir? Commissioner Coyle?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion -- excuse me. I have a
motion on the floor by Commissioner Coyle, and a second by
Commissioner Halas.
Okay. Do we have any discussion?
MR. THOMAS: Can I say one thing to Commissioner Coyle?
Arcadia does not have an architectural code. I rest my case.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I know where
they're coming from. It's been a long time. The master plan's been in
Page 103
April 24, 2007
the works for longer than two years. It's been in the works for a long
time.
They finally can see the light at the end of the rain -- at the end of
the tunnel. And, of course, you want to bring it around as soon as
possible. And I realize that there's legal impediments. The County
Attorney, what they're asking us to do is they're -- is there a way to do
it under the state constitution and state statute?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: For the record, Marjorie
Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney. The plan Mr. Thomas is
talking about is a new Immokalee Master Plan. That has not been to
this board yet, nor has it been to DCA at either transmittal or adoption,
and then you would do -- change your code based upon the Growth
Management Plan once it's adopted and approved by DCA, and that
has not happened yet. There is no such thing under our case law in
Florida of a growth plan in progress rule like we have a zoning in
progress rule.
So you could amend the Land Development Code to, perhaps,
loosen or suspend restrictions in the Immokalee area, but you'd have
to have a rational basis for it. It would have to be consistent with our
current Growth Management Plan and the Immokalee Area Master
Plan, and you have to follow the procedures. This is by state that you
we have to have these advertised public hearings and so on as well as
the procedures in our code. And you would have to follow those
procedures to do that.
If you didn't do that, then once the master plan were adopted, you
would amend the land code accordingly, following those same
procedures that I just alluded to.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So what you're saying basically
is, in order to get to the point just to be able to relax the code, we have
to go through the whole process that we'd have to go through to
change the code?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Right. And that would have to be
Page 104
April 24, 2007
consistent with the Immokalee Area Master Plan. It would have to be
reviewed by our staff. And there would have to be some reasonable
basis for it and no equal protection problems with it, and so on, to go
through that code amendment process.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do you know of anyplace in
Florida that's been reasonably successful in doing what Mr. Thomas is
suggesting?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: No, sir. I don't know if planning
staff might be able to address that since that's more of a planning type
thing, but --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm aware of that. That's okay.
That's not a fair question, because that would require a lot of research.
I know where this is going. It's not going to pass, and that's obvious,
and I always say that when we have issues come before this
commission that we have to say no Immokalee.
In the same light, I'd like to see what we can do to try to expedite
two things. One, an overlay that could take place in an expeditious
manner that won't conflict with the master plan, because the master
plan's going towards finality. Those issues that we're looking for to
try to expedite them, maybe have staff person totally dedicated to
work just on the Immokalee overlay and the master plan to try to bring
them around in an expeditious manner. I don't know how else we're
going to get there. Obviously today we're not going to get the support
we need to even look into the possibility of taking this to the next
level.
I'm going to turn it over to another commissioner.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like another word before we
finish.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What's the issue? I don't -- I
never got the answer of what's the motion all about, what we're being
Page 105
April 24, 2007
asked. You know, I just don't understand. I heard a lot about
Immokalee I never knew, and I appreciate it, but what are we doing?
MR. SCHMITT: In can interject. This motion was from the
CRA hearing from the advisory committee chairman, asking the CRA
to forward this recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners for consideration.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the recommendation?
MR. SCHMITT: So this would be a recommendation to the
board for the board to consider a motion whether to suspend any type
of enforcement. And so your amendment or your -- at least your
action right now would only involve the CRA. You can table it here,
and then, of course, it wouldn't go forward to the Board of County
Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it a Code Enforcement
action?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's a number of actions. Mr.
Thomas, do you want to try to briefly sum it up?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Fiala is the chair.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I -- forget it. I can't -- I can't
help it. It's ingrained, you know. She's -- this thing here is supposed to
give me a whack with it every now and then. I'm so sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I could help you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, go ahead. You take this. And
what we're trying to do is, he's saying that he wants to shove aside
zoning and permitting and so forth.
MR. THOMAS: No, I don't want to shove it -- we don't want to
shove it all aside.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MR. THOMAS: I mean, the health and safety things we are--
have no concern about. But we have a number of situations where
people are trying to position themselves to start down the process or
continue doing business as they've been doing before that are being
Page 106
April 24, 2007
forced to shut down because there's a heavy zoning enforcement
action that started about 12 months ago, 18 months ago, and coming
down.
A lot of this stuff will be relieved with the new master plan, and
they won't be enforcing those things like before.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. THOMAS: I tried to explain to a number of people in that
last piece that I sent out to you all yesterday that as long as we have to
refer back to the existing master plan, rather than to create a new zone
with a new master plan like we did back in the middle '80s, we're
going to be with this headache of how we deal with the inconsistent
uses at our various places.
But if we come up with a different kind ofa system that allows
us to start fresh and new, giving us a chance to compete with central
Florida, we can make this thing happen. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And you understand what they
were doing now?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I've got a gist.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. So we have a motion on the
floor and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I think your idea was good to
maybe get together an overlay real quickly. An overlay will help a lot
and, of course, I think they need to put some steam on that preparing
for the Immokalee Master Plan. It's been languishing for quite some
time. It needs to move forward. So maybe they'll have the equipment
to do that now that we've approved 14A for the director and the
Page 107
April 24, 2007
assistant.
And with that, I don't believe we have to hear then lOG; is that
correct?
MR. MUDD: No, then you have to switch hats real quick.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh. The CRA board meeting is closed.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Finally. Wow.
Item #IOG
IMMOKALEE MASTER PLAN AND VISIONING COMMITTEE
AND LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD
REQUEST TO THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS TO CEASE ENFORCING CERTAIN ZONING
PROVISIONS IN IMMOKALEE FOR EIGHTEEN MONTHS OR
UNTIL THE APPROVAL OF THE NEW MASTER PLAN AND
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODES, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST
MR. MUDD: That means that lOG is no longer -- is withdrawn.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, we're bucking against a couple
of time concerns. The next one was what, our 12 o'clock?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Twelve o'clock.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, 12 o'clock, closed session. You're
breaking for lunch until 1:30, sir?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we're--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're adjourned.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- we're adjourned and we're going to
reconvene at the closed session, right?
MR. MUDD: 1 :30, sir. We'll reconvene at 1 :30.
Item #I2A
Page 108
April 24, 2007
CLOSED ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, isn't the closed session--
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, but for the public, the open session will
reconvene at 1 :30.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Make it known the public's not
invited to this closed session.
(A closed session meeting was had during the luncheon recess,
and proceedings continued in the sunshine.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Mr. Mudd.
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Mr. Weigel?
Item #12B
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO PROVIDE
DIRECTION TO THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
AS TO ANY SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS AND STRATEGY
RELATING TO LITIGATION EXPENDITURES IN WILLIAM
LITSINGER V. COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND FRED
COYLE, INDIVIDUALLY, CASE NO. 06-432-CA, NOW
PENDING IN THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - MOTION TO RE-DlRECT
STAFF TO REJECT OFFER AND HAVE STAFF NEGOTIATE A
SETTLEMENT OFFER, NO MALICIOUS ACTS AND FOR ALL
ISSUES TO COME TO AN END - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: This brings us to item I2B, which is Board of
County Commissioners to provide direction to the Office of County
Attorney as to any settlement negotiations and strategy relating to
litigation expenditures in the William Litsinger versus Collier County
Page 109
April 24, 2007
and Fred Coyle, individually, case number 06-432-CA, now pending
in the 20th Judicial Circuit Court in and for Collier County, Florida,
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. And thank you, Jim.
The Board of County Commissioners has gone in and come out
of closed session in regard to case number 06-432-CA, William
Litsinger versus Collier County and Fred Coyle, individually. And
agenda item I2B is the opportunity for the Board of County
Commissioners, at public meeting, to indicate any direction or
entertain any questions with the County Attorney relative to
settlement negotiations and strategy related to expenditures.
So at this point I will turn it back to Mr. Chairman and the
commissioners for any questions and/or any direction they may wish
to give to the County Attorney.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Henning, Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion
that we direct our staff to reject the offer. I also -- ask to -- in my
motion to have our staff, our legal staff, to negotiate a settlement offer,
but more importantly, in this settlement offer, that the parties involved
find no malicious acts by anyone, and that is very important. And the
second thing, that all these issues disappear, okay?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Henning,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor -- I'm
sorry.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm, sorry. Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Just to note that, for the record, an offer has been
Page 110
April 24, 2007
tendered to the Board of County Commissioners on behalf of William
Litsinger through his counsel. That offer of settlement asking for the
board to consider is an offer in excess of $600,000 and the motion that
has been put forward is a rejection of that very offer.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. Okay. Any other comments,
questions?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Something to add.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Jackie, have you got something else
to add?
MS. HUBBARD: No. Just, thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. 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: Opposed?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I am abstaining.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let the record show that
Commissioner Coyle has abstained, and the motion was 4-0. Fine.
Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'm going to ask for some -- for
some guidance. This would normally go to -- well, we can try. We've
got a two o'clock time certain, which is your Productivity Committee
briefing on what they've found out for utilities and road transportation,
just bring that to your attention.
The next item on the agenda is item 8B which used to be 17F.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Would-
Item #8B
Page III
April 24, 2007
RESOLUTION 2007-101: A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE
COLLIER COUNTY HUD ONE YEAR ACTION PLAN FOR FY
2007 - 2008 FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT (CDBG), HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS
(HOME), AMERICAN DREAM DOWN-PAYMENT INITIATIVE
(ADDI) AND EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANT (ESG)
PROGRAMS, AUTHORIZE REQUIRED HUD
CERTIFICATIONS, APPROVE EXECUTION OF SUB-
RECIPIENT AGREEMENTS BY THE COUNTY MANAGER OR
HIS DESIGNEE, AND SUBMIT TO THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
(HUD) - ADOPTED W/CHANGES
MR. MUDD: It's a recommendation to approve a resolution
adopting the Collier County PUD one-year action plan for
FY -2007/2008 for Community Development Block Grant, CDBG,
Home Investment Partnerships, HOME, American Dream down
payment initiative, ADDI, and emergency shelter grants, ESG
programs, authorize required HUD certifications, approve execution
of sub-recipient agreements by the County Manager or his designee,
and submit to the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development, HUD.
The item was asked to be moved by Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it can be brief, Mr.
Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I do have to get each
commissioner to disclose what their ex parte is.
MS. FILSON : You don't need it on this one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, I don't?
MR. MUDD: You don't need it on this item, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I did have ex parte on my
thing. But okay, fine. We're set.
Page 112
April 24, 2007
Marcy, please.
MS. KRUMBINE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, Marcy Krumbine, Director of Housing and Human Services.
And we're here today to get your approval on our one-year HUD
action plan.
You have before you quite a voluminous document that spells out
all the different projects and the different numbers. What I'd like to do
is just give you a broad overview to say that it's not just about
numbers, but it's about making a difference in our community.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman? We could do
this real quick. I just had some concerns, that's why it came off the
summary .
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So do I.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: My concern was, if you ask -- or
would you like to go first? When you said okay -- go ahead. You go
first.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're the guy that pulled it off.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The resolution that you're
asking us to pass would be different than the one in the booklet,
correct?
MS. KRUMBINE: There was one numerical error and we did
update that resolution.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. In here it's not a
complete resolution.
MS. KRUMBINE: Were we missing a page?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. So you'd be replacing
the resolution within our executive summary?
MS. KRUMBINE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct? Would it go in there?
Page 113
April 24, 2007
Okay. We're not recognizing all affordable housing funding sources?
MS. KRUMBINE: No. We're just -- this is just our federal grant
program.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you're also recognizing
the SHIP program, which is --
MS. KRUMBINE: That's our -- that was a different item on the
agenda.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is in this document,
correct?
MS. KRUMBINE: That is just for showing that the funds are
leveraged.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. KRUMBINE: That's what we have to do with HUD. They
want to see that we're leveraging our federal funds with other funding.
So we leverage it with some of our county funds but also our state
funding.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you don't want to show all
the funding sources?
MS. KRUMBINE: It's not -- it -- just in the appropriate spots,
like the match and the leverages is where we show it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So it's not necessary?
MS. KRUMBINE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The next thing is the sub-
recipients agreement. It has the administrator for community
development on there as a signer. You still want to keep that?
MS. KRUMBINE: No. We'll update that, and we're also
changing that with the new -- and bringing everything before the
board. So there'll be an updated signature page so that the county
commissioner will approve the sub-recipient agreements, and public
services will sign off on it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner--
Page 114
April 24, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So is that going to be corrected
before --
MS. KRUMBINE: Yeah. What you have before you is a draft
document.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we're approving the draft?
MS. KRUMBINE: You approve it and then we update it, and
that's usually how it goes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I need to address it in my
motion then?
MS. KRUMBINE: Can you do that? Those changes would be
made.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, okay. That has to be in a
motion, all right.
And the last thing is, there is a true need out there for housing for
the blind, and Collier County has not addressed that. And the people
that are blind want to be self-sufficient, self-sustaining, and they need
just a little hand up, and I would like for us to see, putting some of the
efforts to housing for the blind. Can we do that in this?
MS. KRUMBINE: We actually in our -- in our state housing
initiative that was on the consent agenda, we do have a strategy for
special needs, and it's specifically for organizations that deal with
special needs like blind or developmentally disabled. So what they
need to do is come before us with a proposal so that we could fund it,
and we could do that.
And the same thing with the -- with the federal plan is it's -- it's a
grant process. So we publicize it, and then organizations come to with
us their proposals of what they want to do. So what we need to do is
-- and if you would help us, is connect with the organizations that are
serving that community, and we could make sure that they know about
all these different opportunities so they could be a part of the grant
application cycle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I be a part of that process --
Page 11 5
April 24, 2007
MS. KRUMBINE: Sure.
-- or am I prohibited?
MS. KRUMBINE: An organization would have to be a part of
that process.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The public can't be a part of the
process?
MS. KRUMBINE: Well, it's organizations that are funded, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I have to join them, right?
MS. KRUMBINE: You could join the Collier County
Organization for the Blind.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I respond just a little bit to that
in front of you?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm involved with the disabled group.
I've been working with them for some time along with Mayor Barnett
trying to advance their cause towards affordable housing, too, for their
members, so it's not a bad idea. It's a very good suggestion.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I had a little trouble figuring
out some of the things in the report, and I called the clerk's office.
And I said, could you help me with this? And they didn't receive a
copy of it.
And so apparently they called to ask for a copy and they said
they weren't -- I don't know the exact words. I'm going to just say that
they weren't given one. And I was just wondering if we could -- could
we put this off one meeting until you can clear up some of these things
that Commissioner Henning just brought up and to have the clerk's
office take a good look at it as well?
MS. KRUMBINE: Well, the -- first of all, this has to be in
HUD's hands by May 15th, otherwise we lose our funding. So we
would be calling it close. But the process -- the procedure has been the
Page 116
April 24, 2007
same for a number of years, and that is that we prepare the draft, we
put it out for public comment for 30 days, then we finish the draft and
include the public comment and then submit it to the County
Manager's Office, public services administration, and the county
commissioners to review it two weeks before the meeting, and the
clerk's office gets it once you all have signed off on it, and that's been
the procedure.
And it's also been -- the drafts are available and we show that.
They could come to our office to see it, it's in the county library, and
it's in a number of locations available.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I just felt a little
uncomfortable not having the clerk give some input being that they're
doing some work on this section myself.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Marcy, what we have before us, is
this more or less boilerplate that we receive every year?
MS. KRUMBINE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So I --
MS. KRUMBINE: The only thing that changes are the projects.
But the HUD application is boilerplate.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there any other questions?
MR. MUDD: No. There's projects -- just to make it clear.
Those projects that are in this book are based on applications that
come to you --
MS. KRUMBINE: That's correct, and scored.
MR. MUDD: -- and scored, so -- and then it gets vetted at what
MS. KRUMBINE: At the Affordable Housing Commission
meetings.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Yes, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm ready to make a motion, but
we didn't see -- on other ones like our Planning Commission, we have
Page 11 7
April 24, 2007
recommendations from the Planning Commission within the executive
summary .
But I'm going to make a motion to approve with the correction of
inserting the right resolution, correct resolution with the correct
signature and all material, also the contract agreement with the sub-
recipients to be corrected as the alignment. That's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'll second that motion. Any
other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all in favor of
Commissioner Henning's motion, seconded by me, Jim Coletta,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And let the record show that
Commissioner Fiala was in opposition, so the vote was 4-1. Thank
you very much.
MS. KRUMBINE: Thank you.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2007-102: APPOINTING LLEWELLYN
WILLIAMS AND DAVID BISHOF AND RE-APPOINTING MIKE
SORRELL AND WILLIAM HUGHES TO THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 9A. Appointment
Page 118
April 24, 2007
of members to the Environmental Advisory Council.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion -- someone make the motion.
I shouldn't be making the motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to accept the -- well, these
are not the committee's -- motion to reappoint Mike Sorrell and
William Hughes and to waive any requirements that are needed. And
I don't think they require them this time. Right, Ms. Filson? Of
course I'm right.
MS. FILSON: I didn't know you were going to go to mine next.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that motion.
MS. FILSON: Okay. On this committee, you need to appoint
one member to serve as the technical alternate, one person to serve as
the technical regular member, and then the other two members are up
for reappointment. So we really have five vacancies but we really
only have four applicants.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I make a motion that we
appoint all four of the applicants.
MS. FILSON: And can you tell me which one will be the
technical alternate?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's have Llewellyn Williams be
the technical alternate; David Bishofbe the technical; Mike Sorrell
will be the non-technical reappointment; and William Hughes will be
the technical reappointment.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I just add something? Right
here -- in here it says Mr. Bishofwill have to excuse himself for
participating in any manner including presenting, participating in the
discussion and voting on projects submitted by Counsel Tech. So I
don't know --
MS. FILSON: It was their suggestion that he be the alternate, but
we don't take recommendations.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, ifthere's a conflict of
interest, then I will withdraw my recommendation for appointment
Page 119
April 24, 2007
then. Yeah, if there is a conflict --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe we could just put him as an
alternate then?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well--
MS. FILSON: Ifhe's an alternate, he attends the meetings,
participates but cannot vote unless a regular member is absent.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sorry to throw the monkey wrench
in there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good work. So we have a motion by
Commissioner Coyle and a second by Commissioner Halas.
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.
Item #101
REPORT OF THE FINDINGS ON UTILlTY ISSUES RELATED
TO TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS - MOTION FOR THE
COUNTY MANAGER TO ACCEPT THE PRODUCTIVITY
COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND
Page 120
April 24, 2007
IMPLEMENTATION AND TO BRING BACK AT A FUTURE
BCC MEETING - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our time certain
item of two p.m., and this is a report of the findings on utility issues
related to transportation projects.
MR. FEDER: Commissioners, for the record, Norman Feder,
transportation administrator. Back in October we came to you with a
request to be able to pursue a, what I will say is a modified state
provision to allow us to try and encourage utilities to relocate in a
timely fashion.
Subsequent to that, we had a number of presentations by
contractors. Those contractors expressed some of their concerns with
what they're experiencing with underground utilities, quite often not in
the location that they're anticipated in some of the plans, as well as the
fact that they were experiencing some problems with the relocations
particularly at the time with FP& L, who was, of course, out of the
area based on hurricanes and issues at the time.
The contractors were basically utilizing their presentations as an
opportunity to make their case to you, one of which has filed a claim
because of the delay for FP& L's movement. The other that's facing
liquidated damages on delay on the project.
But having said that, we were directed to go back and look at
what we could do because we clearly agreed that there was more that
we needed to try and do to be able to locate the underground or to find
a better way to work with the utilities to make sure that our corridors
are free and that they work well with the contract as we go through
our projects.
What we did do in that -- what we did do on that is we met about
three times with the Productivity Committee along with our CEls as
well as with design and some members of the contracting industry.
We then met a couple of times with the Productivity Committee
Page 121
April 24, 2007
because this board had asked County Manager Mudd, who had asked
transportation, as well had asked Productivity Committee to look at
this issue and see what options there were.
What I want to do is give you a very quick intro and let some
folks come up here, most notably the Productivity Committee
themselves, but I wanted to put it in perspective. Basically what we're
dealing with is an issue where we have some opportunity for
improvement.
But the image that's been placed out there is you have projects of
massive delays, all kinds of problems, plans that don't show anything,
other issues of the sort, and that's not the case. I want to assure you
that what's been accomplished over the last seven years hasn't been
with that as the rule.
There are issues that we've had to deal with and we'll continue to
have to deal with even with some of the new things that we're going to
bring forward to you.
But really the bottom line is the standard that is used by the
Florida Transportation Commission on the state, is used somewhat
nationally in the process, is that you should be within 10 percent of the
dollars and 10 percent of time if you have a successful project.
Now, all of us would like to have it done ahead of time and under
budget. But from a practical sense, if you are giving two times on
your projects and if you're trying to get those dollars tight, you're
going to have issues to deal with.
With our contracts plus the allowances that the board provides,
we stayed well within those parameters. I think what you see here
first is the eight projects that have been completed already on the
network, essentially in the 10 percent area of dollars. We've been at
about 4.9 percent on those closed projects relative to the contract
amount in allowance and about 31.11 percent of the time. Now,
obviously that's of concern. I'm well over 20 on the time.
What you have there in red is a reflection of some major items
Page 122
April 24, 2007
that are included in those delays, and there's very few of them, iftaken
into account, change those numbers appreciably.
In the case of closed projects, one of the biggest issues we had
was about $3 million on the initial efforts on Immokalee Road
between 951 and 1-75 to four lane that where, unfortunately, the
survey was old and had not been updated and the canal was moved
closer to the roadway.
And rather than just finish the project and then later try to address
it in the project this board directed us, and rightfully so, to go in and
shore up that embankment, which we did. That was about $3 million
which ended up changing appreciably the numbers. We would have
been not using the allowances relative to our contracts, you can see,
by a negative 2.09, and our time would have been brought down to
about 17 percent.
On current active jobs -- of course, these aren't completed so
these numbers aren't yet finished. But as we stand today, even with
some delay on the overpass that we're experiencing, we're at about
3.16 percent of dollars, 9.16 of time.
And again, if you take out two major issues here on active
projects, the fact that I went from four to six lanes on Immokalee
Road, that was a conscious effort by this board -- one we needed to do
and I think will be served well in the future by costs and by the
improvement -- but that added time and money. The other being the
overpass itself, about 2.5 million, relative to the S wall, the canal and
the muck that we experienced.
So what I'm trying to point to you is that when you look at the
issue, I don't want to get improvement options totally confused with
where we stand on ability to deliver our projects. We're not going on
the basis of a total at risk by the contractor. And in the case of our --
nature of our construction, there are so many issues out there that's not
to our advantage. But in our case, we are trying to hold and manage
these contracts and work through them.
Page 123
April 24, 2007
What I'll point out to you is that -- okay, it will go up but it won't
go the other way, okay.
There is no silver bullet. I think what we heard from everybody
when we got them together, including the Productivity Committee,
there's a lot of things we can do and we need to do better on, but at the
same time, we're never going to have a set of plans that doesn't have
some issues to deal with, and that will lead you into a discussion by
Jay Ahmad, who's going to give you a little bit of background, hand it
over to Productivity Committee, and then Steve Carnell and I will try
to wrap up.
Jay?
MR. AHMAD: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
My name is Jay Ahmad. I'm your Director of Transportation
Engineering and Construction Management.
The common goal for us in building any project is to build a
project. And for roadways, we build it while we maintain traffic. We
maintain at least the existing number of lanes out there so our
traveling public can use them.
And while we're doing that, we hope to avoid -- we build it while
we're avoiding utilities. We could elect to build a -- move the utilities
first, and that will take approximately a year to two years, and then
start building the project. But due to catching up to growth, we elect
to build a project while we're moving utilities. And, of course, we still
have services that have to be done, garbage and mail and school buses
use our roadways while we're building these things. And we must
maintain businesses operational while under construction.
So all these things that we have to do, we accommodate the
businesses, the delivery of mail and services and emergency services
to homes and businesses, while we are in construction.
And also we build it within a very tight right-of-way. We could
elect to acquire a lot of right-of-way so we can have room for our
utilities to be installed, but we wisely choose a tight right-of-way so
Page 124
April 24, 2007
we won't impact homes and businesses and, of course, the cost. Our
right-of-way costs are very high. So we try to accommodate that
within almost 15 to 20 feet of right-of-way while building sidewalks
and installing all these utilities while we're maintaining all the existing
utilities.
And again, the utility relocation is being done, while under
construction. And you can see the telephone poles are, in some
places, are in the way of our construction.
And we're not only having telephone poles. Of course, we have
underground utilities. And when utilities, particularly the above
ground utilities, don't happen, we face major delays, and at times we
stop work. Contractor's become creative and start paving around poles.
And this is Norman's favorite picture. We have many utilities.
We have sewer, water mains, force mains, of course, the sewer, and
electric, Embarq, TECO gas and our stormwater and drainage, and this
picture it shows it all, and this just happens to be Immokalee and
Livingston, Immokalee Road reconstruction.
And we have also not just we're -- it's not as building as a
building. We go lateral, we cross streets. We have -- we go miles of
construction, and we need to cross to service all these side uses, homes
and businesses. So we have crossings of -- and we do that at night to
alleviate some inconvenience to our motoring public.
It doesn't mean that we're -- it's helpless. We can do a lot of
things, and many of them we are doing. And we have been using
ground penetrating radar, and this picture shows what that is. Some
equipment looks like a lawn mower, some more sophisticated
equipment with multi lanes where some units are being pulled by
individual person, but what that is it sends a radar image into the
ground and it detects metals and objects in the ground.
This is a picture that would come out of that ground penetrating
radar. And we wrote those things on top. We really can't tell whether
it's a tank or it's a pipe or it's -- sometimes it's electric wires. And if
Page 125
April 24, 2007
the ground water table is high, you can't tell at all.
We could do increased locates and potholing. We -- locates are --
we send our locate department to identify where the -- what we know
exists underground.
We do potholing currently at -- where we think is conflict points
where we think there is crossings or known locations and we -- at high
risk locations, such as mast arm locations or known sewer lines and so
forth. And those are done to confirm location.
How accurate it is? I gave an example. This happens to be by
Wilshire Lakes and actually a very recent picture, Wilshire Lakes and
Vanderbilt Beach Road. The silt fence on your right there is actually
the right-of-way line, and where it says plan align on the left, that's
actually where the as-built is. The known GIS as-builts shows the
location of that line. It happens to be a reuse line. The GIS showed it
as 10 feet from the right-of-way line.
We did ground penetrating radar, and it showed it anywhere
between -- showed it about five feet, and that's the line diagonally
across. It says GPR on top.
We dug a bunch of potholes, one, two, three, the location, and
you can see the gentleman there to the right is digging a new one.
And the line just happened to be -- he couldn't find it actually where
the line is, so we used a backhoe actually, and the line happened to be
between three to eight feet from the right-of-way line.
And there is a water table that impeded ground penetrating radar.
As-built plans weren't accurate, so those are the issues that we face.
There's another example -- and I've shown a picture. Actually a
recent example. Two weeks ago we hit the water main on the corner
of Airport -- and many of you must have heard about it -- Airport and
Vanderbilt. Our ground penetrating radar said we're clear, there's no
lines underneath. Our utility department came and marked the lines.
We know there is no line.
We even went ahead and potholed. We dug a hole six feet deep.
Page 126
April 24, 2007
We'd have dug deeper but we would have had to get OSHA
requirements of ladders and so forth. We dug to six feet and we
confirmed there is no line. And we wanted to install a mast arm. We
dug for the mast arm and sure enough, we had a fountain on our
hands. Cut water for about two days to some people. Our utility
department helped us and we -- I think nobody lost water, but those
are the issues that we face.
The -- again, the as-builts are not very good that we work with.
The ground penetrating radar is not very accurate, and even with
potholing you may end up with surprises. This line happened to be a
bypass water line that our utility department installed and it wasn't
marked on any plans.
This is Norman's favorite one. They're -- all these silver points,
bullets, the GIS, as-built, utility coordination, we do a lot of utility
coordination during design and ground penetrating radar, and we do
constructibility reviews.
And our Productivity Committee, we met with them, I believe,
twice and we met with our construction engineering inspectors at least
three times, we met with some contractors, and we kind of chatted and
debated and discussed this issue of utilities, how can we do better.
And I will -- this is a good point to let our Productivity Committee
give you a report of their findings, how can we improve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Welcome, Janet.
MS. VASEY: Thank you very much. Janet Vasey for the
Productivity Committee. How are you this afternoon?
I -- you have in your packet our report, and I was going to give
you a brief overview if you would like, or if you just want to ask
questions, I'm at your disposal, whichever way you'd like to do it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. We do have two
commissioners that would like to ask questions at this time.
Commissioner Henning and Commissioner Halas. We'll start with
Commissioner Henning.
Page 127
April 24, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Mr. Ahmad, first of all, I
want to thank you and particularly your staff for addressing and
answering the questions of the public and individual commissioners.
Second of all, and many times that we hear contractors, that it's
the underground people's fault. They're not -- they're not out there and
they're not doing their job, we can't get them to do their job,
blah-blah-blah.
Would it be prudent for the county to do road construction in
different phases, to hire an underground utility person to move those
utilities and then hire a road contractor to come in and construct the
road? Have you ever thought of that?
MR. AHMAD: Sir, yes, we have, and that actually is being
practiced elsewhere. For example, Lee County does some of that and
Florida Department of Transportation does a lot of that. What we
have in Collier County though is we are always racing to build a
project due to growth and concurrency and other issues that we face.
This process will delay, the one you just mentioned, will delay
construction projects. First you have to obtain all the right-of-way in
order for you to locate these right -- these utilities, you have to be in
construction twice, one for underground utilities for moving FP& L
and other aboveground utilities and then for construction of the
roadway itself. I would -- in my projection, it may delay the project
between two to three years.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And we don't have any
delays now?
MR. FEDER: Generally speaking, we're staying within the 20
percent as we showed you, and even less than that, so not as much.
Certain jobs more so.
I can give you one project on the pro, and I think we both can
figure out which one that is on Vanderbilt Beach Road that I would
have loved to have separated those two functions. But you've got to
understand also what you lose in that -- and we've talked to people
Page 128
April 24, 2007
that have applied it and why they're doing it and what the advantages,
and disadvantages as well.
What you lose also is, if it's done at all correctly, as in many jobs
it is, you have the ability for the contractor who's actually paving to
also be working portions of the job that is completed when you have a
longer project. Usually when you're trying to do that you have very
short projects of one, no more than two miles in length. We have
many projects that are five or larger in length by their nature.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I believe some of the other
problems that we have in regards to underground utilities, and correct
me if I'm wrong, but it's the amount of right-of-way that we have to
work within because we either got canals or there's already been
something that's been permitted there. And if we take any additional
lands, then it becomes very cost prohibitive. Am I correct in my
assumption?
MR. AHMAD: Absolutely correct, Commissioner. An example
of that is Immokalee Road in front of Sam's. We actually had to build
retaining walls or -- just to maintain so we can have Sam's not
impacted as much and not to buy as much land from Sam's.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. AHMAD: And what -- we end up with about 12 feet of
right-of-way to have all the utilities that you saw in that picture within
that corridor.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Did the same thing basically exist
on Vanderbilt Beach Road also?
MR. FEDER: Yes, it did, Commissioner. And I think the key
point is, we're working, especially on these urban corridors, and
second or third generation of utilities, and because of the growth in the
area, every utility wants to up-size as soon as one of our projects come
out and yet, old utilities are still in the ground, some of them no longer
Page 129
April 24, 2007
on plans.
Existing utilities must be maintained while the new utilities go in
because you can't turn somebody's water off and say, as soon as I put
in new water, I'll give you water again. You've got to keep
maintaining what's out there while you're providing the new.
So when we don't buy a wide right-of-way, it does lend itself for
that need for conflict boxes, as the name implies, or more conflicts
along that corridor as you're trying to move around existing while
you're putting in the new utilities.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The question to you is, as we're
laying down these new utilities, how close in proximity are these
utilities being -- being placed on charts and whatever else?
MR. AHMAD: The different--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Are you using GPS coordinates?
MR. AHMAD: For example, between force main and water
main is approximately seven to eight feet. You have to have a
separation between the two. A reuse line is similar.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Are you using GPS
coordinates so that later on when we -- if we're going to put a mast
arm in, that we're not going to run into a situation where we feel that
there's no -- there's no utilities there and find out that we have old
faithful out there?
MR. AHMAD: We are moving to that direction. Our older
contracts don't have that requirement, and we are making changes to
include that as we go along, and hopefully we don't duplicate the
mistakes that we had in the past.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what's the accuracy of the
stuff that's being plotted?
MR. AHMAD: We have -- the old stuff is anywhere between
three to six feet horizontally, and vertically there is no GPS data really
to speak of vertically, how deep it is. The current data that we use, it's
pretty accurate. It's within a foot or --
Page 130
April 24, 2007
MR. MUDD: The triples that they're using for the GPS are
within six inches.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So we can go out there 10
years from now, and the stuff that's now being recorded, we shouldn't
have the problems that we're incurring at this point in time if we have
to go out to do something else in the roads that we've upgraded so far?
MR. FEDER: Some of the items that are identified actually
through the industry and through the Productivity Committee and that
we've already started to move on as well as others that we're going to
be presenting to you, yes, that is the answer, but the key to that is,
once you finish a project in as-built is maintaining that as-built as new
things come in.
And one of the things you did is you moved my right-of-way
permitting along with my locates over to -- along with my survey
crew, over to road and bridge. That was done specifically for us to get
stronger in to as-builts and GIS, because once we got a project and
we've been the full GPS and we've got good as-builts -- and we'll talk
to you more about particulars or maybe Janet will -- once we've got
those things, we need to make sure, as changes come in, as new
development comes in, connects with the lateral, new driveways on
the service, which are easy to identify, but other things happening
particularly underground, that we maintain those as-builts as accurate
as we can. So we have to do that as part of our permitting process,
and we need to more in right-of-way permitting to keep those up.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Last question. In regards to
utilities that come in at a -- after the after, let's say for instance TECO
or FP& L that may put something underground, how can we hold
them to the same standards as we're trying to incorporate at the present
time?
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, I should have spoken to you
before I did all this work. But the fact of the matter is, that's a major
part of what we need to do, and that's one thing we're going to come to
Page 131
April 24, 2007
you -- we need some provisions to have some hold with the utilities,
but yes, along with our own right-of-way permitting -- and they have
to get a right-of-way permit to go in. Along with any other developer,
we need to make sure that we know and have GPS for what gets added
after we finish and had a good set of as-builts, or in everything that
we're right-of-way permitting right now, when they open it up to put
in a line, we want to go out there not only to verify it for a new set of
plans or to clean up what we have in GIS, but to identify anything else
that we see down there at the time it's open, at least to flag it if it's
something different that's on our GIS.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ms. Vasey, thank you very much for
being here today. Productivity Committee is a very important element
in Collier County government in helping us make these decisions.
Can you give us a brief summary of what your findings were?
MS. VASEY: Sure. What we did was we looked at some road
contracts, well, one in particular. We had the meetings with Norman's
staff, also with the -- as they said, with the construction engineering
and inspection people and the design professionals. We got Steve
Carnell in purchasing, clerk's office had a representative, and public
utilities.
And Norm was very open with us about all the problems that
have occurred over time, even going back to before he was the
administrator. And we looked at what those problems are and what
kind of possible recommendations we could have to solve those
problems.
And Norm was already on track with a lot of the issues, and
they're included in our report, too, as well as the CEls came in with a
lot of contract management issues that will help keep things on track,
real specific ones, and I think I handed -- that one is the contract
management part of our report.
We had about 30 altogether, maybe a little bit more. I -- we
worked on the utilities one, and I think Norm was right on track before
Page 132
April 24, 2007
we even got there with having -- looking at utilities to assess
liquidated damages and withhold permits to try and get the utilities to
do a more timely job of helping with the locates and also moving the
utilities.
Then under contracting issues, we wanted -- more to your
question, Commissioner Halas, we were trying to get a handle on
better documentation of the as-builts that come out of the new
construction, and it's not always great coming from the road
construction people.
So we made some recommendations that there were other options
to either have the CEls sign off on them and make them make those
timely documentation of as-builts in the contract with the road
construction people, make that as part of the progress payments with
the sign-off from the CEls, or you can have a separate contract for the
CEls to be responsible for the as-builts, and they'll keep them up as we
go along, or someone else to come in and do that. But that's a real
important part of it and it's not -- it wasn't being handled just perfectly
by the road construction guys.
We talked a lot about the assumption ofrisk. You can throw
more risk on the contractor or less. If you throw more risk on them,
you run the risk of having -- paying a higher cost for the contract than
you really need to because in -- when you only have one or two
people bidding on a project, if you lay all the risk on them for
construction material increases or time specific milestones along the
way, they'll build -- they'll build it into the price, but they'll have to
meet liquidated damages if they don't hit those milestones or, you
know, build in some price escalation.
Whereas, if you don't make the contractor assume that risk, you
can get a lower price. And if some of those things don't happen, then
you're better off. And if they do happen, then it's a cost -- an
increased cost to road building, and you do have the 10 percent on the
dollars to handle those kinds of problems.
Page 133
April 24, 2007
We also tried to look at things on work stoppage. What can I
done to expedite the processes in case things go wrong or you have a
problem where you have to quickly redesign an area. We made some
recommendations in that area.
We also have some recommendations on change orders. Not
everything is big and needs a real change order. Sometimes you can
make things faster. I f you've already got the 10 percent -- if it's within
the 10 percent cost and the 20 percent time, process it through another
way and keep things moving more quickly. That would help in the
time part of it.
We think we can -- there might be some possibilities for working
with other counties, at least checking that our prices are good
compared to theirs. Make sure we're getting a fair -- a fair price on
our contracts since we only have one or two bidders sometimes.
There were a lot of recommendations under contract
management, and those include keeping the design people on hand to
redesign if necessary. Trying to get the contractor's attention when
things start to slip, there's some reporting recommendations in there.
And if people -- if contractors don't do a good job on keeping on time,
then you can look to maybe not including them on future lists for
bidders.
And then a lot for more intensive management to avoid schedule
slippages, and a lot of those were very good recommendations from
the CEls.
And then the last part we had was on the design area, and we
mentioned the value engineering recommendations. I think that's
coming to you separately to do value engineering in the road projects,
and also having high-risk items. And for that, some of the problems
look like, ifthere was a real intensive review before -- during the
design phase, to identify high-risk potential problems, that that would
be very helpful.
And so we're recommending, along with Norman, that the CEls
Page 134
April 24, 2007
come in at 60 percent design, and maybe even some of the value
engineering people could sort of brainstorm. What could go wrong,
you know? What if the canal, you know, isn't properly identified?
What if the muck isn't properly identified?
And, you know, some of those things we would have had to pay
for anyway, but if you can identify them earlier, you can build them
into the time frame better and it would cost less and save them.
So those are basically some of the things -- some of our
recommendations will need further review to be sure that they can be
handled through legal and purchasing procedures, but I think they're
worth looking at, and -- let's see.
I guess that's all I have. We worked very well with all the staff.
Your staff was already on the road to solving this issue and we sort of
just participated with them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you for that.
Commissioner Fiala, then Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, well. You know, you've just
about answered everything I was going to say. I was just real
impressed and I was going to asked Norm ifhe had worked out most
of these recommendations, but he has, and you've commented, so I'm
done. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. I'm going to make a
motion to direct the County Manager to implement the other
recommendations from the Productivity Committee that has not been,
and also in those implementations, to come back to the board of any
concerns if it's going -- if it's going to be more expensive and how
much more expensive, if it's going to be more time, how much more
time and things of those nature.
That's my motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Ifl may, Mr. Feder, any
Page 135
April 24, 2007
comments on the motion?
MR. FEDER: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'd just like to ask a couple
of questions.
Janet, how long have you been on the Productivity Committee?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: When did they create it?
MS. VASEY: Seven years, I think.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Seven years.
MS. VASEY: I don't know when to leave.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, you can't.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, I asked that to make
sure people understand how long you've been serving this government
in this capacity and how wonderful a job you've been doing.
MS. VASEY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You and the other Productivity
Committee members do a lot to help us make sure we spend taxpayer
dollars wisely here in Collier County, and I think that's one of the
things that sets us apart from most of the other 67 counties in the state,
and I just want to express my personal appreciation to your
contribution, and I hope you'll stay for at least another 10 or 15 years.
MS. VASEY: Well, thank you very much, but it really is a group
effort. We have four members on our committee, I'd like to say, Brad
Boaz, Bob Dichter (phonetic), and Sid Blum, and We worked, you
know, all on this, and it always is a group effort, but thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Very much.
Okay. With that we have a motion by Commissioner Henning
and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any questions, comments?
Page 136
April 24, 2007
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. The ayes have it 5-0. Thank
you.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2007-103: APPOINTING MAURICE GUTIERREZ
AND JILL BARRY AND RE-APPOINTING LINDSEY THOMAS,
RONALD FOWLE (W/WAIVER OF 2 TERM LIMIT) AND
STEVEN MAIN TO THE BA YSHORE/GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE
LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: That brings us to 9B, and that is appointment of
members to the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment
Agency Board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to accept the committee
recommendation.
MS. FILSON: And that is to waive the two-term limit for Ronald
Fowle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: For Ronnie Fowle, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have a motion by Commissioner
Fiala and a second by Commissioner Henning.
Any comments?
(No response.)
Page 137
April 24, 2007
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.
I tern #9C
RESOLUTION 2007-104: DECLARING A VACANCY ON THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMISSION - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item is 9C. It's a
recommendation to declare a vacancy on the Affordable Housing
Commission.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'll make a motion to do so.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by myself, Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Halas.
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 138
April 24, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Item #IOB
RECOMMENDA TION TO APPROVE THE INTENT OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT TO
IMPLEMENT WATER RESTRICTION MEASURES, PER THE
SOUTH WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SFWMD) WATER
SHORTAGE PLAN - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 9B (sic), and that's
a recommendation to approve the intent of the Collier County
Water/Sewer District to implement water restriction measures for the
South Water Management -- yeah, and I'm going to make a correction
-- to the South Florida Water Management District Water Shortage
Plan. And--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's lOB.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What number is it again? You said
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's lOB.
MR. MUDD: I'm sorry. It's 108. Just a little bit of dyslexia.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, that works better.
MR. MUDD: And Mr. Paul Mattausch will present, your
director of water.
MR. MATT AUSCH: Somebody closed down the program.
MR. MUDD: Come out of that one, Paul.
MR. MATT AUSCH: Commissioners, I apologize. I had that all
set to go, and apparently it got closed down.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No problem. We can go to the next
item and come right back to you.
MR. MATT AUSCH: Pardon?
Page 139
April 24, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, he's ready.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're ready now, go ahead.
MR. MATT AUSCH: Yeah, we're all set.
First, Paul Mattausch, for the record, Collier County Water
Department Director. And first let me thank you for this morning's
action, the proclamation recognizing Drinking Water Week. I didn't
have the opportunity immediately afterwards to thank you for that.
And on behalf of all 125 employee of the water department, I would
like to thank you for that action this morning.
We -- South Florida Water Management District declared on the
12th of April a water shortage emergency and implemented some
phase two restrictions that were put in place by public utilities on the
13th of April.
I'd like to introduce Clarence Tears to you, director of Big
Cypress Basin. He is going to talk to you briefly about what those
restrictions are, and then I'll be back up.
Clarence?
MR. TEARS: Well, originally I thought it would be good
morning, but I guess now it's good afternoon.
I think the most important thing to point out is we're experiencing
a severe drought. Fortunately (sic) on the west coast, especially in
Collier County, you know, our water supply is rain driven. We're not
attached to Lake Okeechobee in any way so it's not our backup water
supply. I keep reading about that.
Our water supply is rain driven, comes from the CREW marsh,
the hedge-waters of Collier County, and works its way through the
system. But we've been extremely dry, you know, for the past six
months, and we're way below normal. And, you know, the district
implemented, especially for the west coast, because we're so rain
driven, when it's extremely dry, it impacts our groundwater levels.
So this phase two water restriction is basically in place right now
to protect our groundwater supply from saltwater intrusion, because
Page 140
April 24, 2007
once saltwater enters the water supply, the water supply is no longer
good. It just creates a brackish water supply, so that's why it's so
important at this time as a community, as a county, to pull together
and protect that resource, and that's why we're at phase two, and it's
possible, if the drought continues, we could actually see mandatory
water restrictions at a phase three level.
Phase two, basically it's odd and even days and we reduced the
watering to two days a week. So for odd addresses it's Wednesdays
and Saturdays, for even addresses, Thursday and Sundays. And the
watering time is for four a.m. to eight a.m., and there's hand watering
from five p.m. to seven p.m.
In addition, you can only wash your car on these days during this
time frame, and it has to be on pervious surfaces. So I always wash
my car on the spots on my yard where they're dry so I get the water,
you know, rinse my car, and it also helps the lawn, but that's
important.
Also you can see, acreage larger than five, the watering hours is
between 12:01 a.m. to eight a.m.
I really want to thank Collier County for all their support, code
enforcement, the utility for their efforts. It really is appreciative (sic),
and I think Collier County is always in the forefront, when you look at
all the 68 counties, just doing the right thing all the time, and it's -- on
a personal note, I'm really proud to be a citizen of this community.
The other thing on the water restrictions, for detailed information,
you can go to www.colliergov.net, or you can go to www.sfwmd.gov,
and there's all types of information available.
I give it back to Paul, and thanks again.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. MATT AUSCH: Thank you, Clarence.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll do questions right after the
presentation.
MR. MATT AUSCH: I'll be glad to take questions that you may
Page 141
April 24, 2007
have about those restrictions that we just talked about prior to turning
this over to George Yilmaz, director of the wastewater department.
He wants to talk to you a little bit about the irrigation quality water
and the restrictions in place on that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You want to -- if you want to -- you
want to just have questions now regarding the hours that we're allowed
to water? And if that's not the questions -- well, in any case, let's see
where it takes us.
Commissioner Henning, Commissioner Halas, then
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it was stated that they
implemented the phase two water restrictions. Just for clarification,
the board gave that approval back in 2001 through an ordinance, if the
water management went into a severe phase two or phase three, that
our staff has the authorization to proceed. So the board already gave
that direction, not that you're changing policy on a residence. We
gave you that direction.
MR. MATT AUSCH: That's correct, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. The other thing is, the
implementation of this phase two under the statutes given by the
Florida -- or South Florida Water Management, it is a temporary water
restriction. Of course, they don't identify that in the statutes, but
historically it only runs for a few months, correct?
MR. MATT AUSCH: That is correct, and that depends solely on
when it starts raining again, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. MATTAUSCH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's it? Okay.
Commissioner Halas? I'm sorry. You didn't put --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got some questions, and this is
basically directed to Clarence Tears. I need some questions answered.
Clarence, you realize that this county has really stepped up to the
Page 142
April 24, 2007
concerns about addressing future water resources, and I'm somewhat
perplexed why we have such stringent -- that we have to go with such
stringent requirements that South Florida Water Management is
putting on other areas whereby they have more water coming out of
the upper aquifer or they even draw water out of rivers, draw water
out ofOkeechobee. We've spent an awful lot of money in this county
addressing water that is brackish water presently, we use RO for
refining this water.
Can you tell me why we should be under the same strict water
requirements? Most of our water comes out of RO wells.
MR. TEARS: Well, actually some of the other areas are in phase
three water restrictions and severe, and it's actually getting worse, and
some of the other areas, the district's basically telling them there's no
water for water supply on the east coast.
Lake Okeechobee's dry, the conservation areas are dry, the
Kissimmee chain is dry. But once you get north of the Kissimmee
chain, their system's a little different, and there is water available in
the northern end of the system.
So what they've done is they look at various regions, and based
on the groundwater levels in our area, which are as low as Lehigh
Acres, our groundwater levels are dropping and they continue to drop.
And this is truly to protect the resource. And this is a groundwater
withdrawal.
So this isn't really the RO. Your other water supplies are deeper
aquifers. They're not impacted by this restriction. It's the shallow
wells, the ones that are in the Tamiami aquifer that are impacted. And
what we're trying to do is truly protect the groundwater resource in
this area.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But most of our water now is
coming out of these deeper aquifers here in Collier County.
MR. TEARS: I think it's roughly, what, Paul, about 50 to 60
percent. About half of your water supply still comes from the
Page 143
April 24, 2007
Tamiami aquifer.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Another question I have
since you represent South Florida Water Management, and that is if
we're in a situation right now where we have -- we're getting very
stringent restrictions in water usage, there's been some talk that South
Florida, from Tampa south, could have an additional population of six
million people.
So are you telling us that we have a possibility of running out of
water and that we're going to have to revert to Gulf water as far as
getting adequate supplies of water in the future to meet our growth
needs?
MR. TEARS: What you're really -- based on Florida Statutes
and the direction we have, we create a water supply plan. Our water
supply plan is based on one in 10-year drought. This far exceeds that
drought.
We're within 10 percent of the historical lows for this time of
year of our groundwater. So I mean, we're at the extreme. So when
you're at the extremes, you have to protect the resource. But based on
the projections and the lower west coast water supply plan and the
direction the utilities have been directed to take, we can meet the
future demands by going to alternative sources; however, whenever
we have extreme situations like we're experiencing right now, we have
to take protective measures to protect the resources.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. TEARS: I mean, we won't design a facility for a one in
IOO-year drought. It would just -- you know, it would be an enormous
amount of infrastructure to take care of that, but we design for about a
one in 10-year drought, and this far exceeds that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Went through a drought scenario
about 2000 or 200 I .
MR. TEARS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And so here it is, is this another
Page 144
April 24, 2007
100-year event that -- it's 2007.
MR. TEARS: It just depends. It's approaching -- it's
approaching an extremely severe event. It just depends how the rain
patterns, you know, start to come back. But what we have in Collier
County is every year, even in the driest years on record, we roughly
get about 26 inches of rainfall. That will replenish our groundwater
supplies locally, but it just -- we have to wait for the rainy season. It's
just, we've been dry for so long that, you know, we're just trying to
protect the groundwater resources.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that South Florida Water
Management has an obligation to all citizens in South Florida to let us
know what the plan is in the future and what kind of resources that we
have as far as extracting water out of the wells.
MR. TEARS: If they go to www.sfwmd.gov and look at our
website, you can look at the lower west coast water supply plan,
which is the 20-year plan for this coast, and it identifies alternative
resources to meet the future demands.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And are those all of those resources
where we're going to have to go out and start extracting water out of
the Gulf?
MR. TEARS: Based on the current projection, I think most of
the utilities are stating that they can go to the deeper aquifers to meet
those future demands. Marco Island is using surface water storage. A
lot of the smaller cities are going to reuse to supplement their potable
demands. But having -- in this area, based on cost and demand, it
doesn't look like we're going to full desalinization of seawater at this
point in time for our region.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess where I'm -- what I'm
concerned at is that we're on the same water restrictions as other
communities that haven't put the effort forward that we have in this
county in regards to making sure that we have alternate water sources
-- resources, and I would hope that South Florida Water Management
Page 145
April 24, 2007
would look at that. And, yes, we need to make sure that we are trying
to save the water as much as possible.
MR. TEARS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But I think that the restrictions
should not be maybe as stringent as what's happening with other areas
where they haven't planned for the future.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, thank you. Commissioner
Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then we're going to take a IO-minute
break.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Just a fast one.
Clarence, you said before that our water supply is rain driven but
then you said our water supply comes from the CREW marsh --
MR. TEARS: Well, it's rain driven. It's the low lying areas and
the headwaters of our system. Actually, if you look at the confining
layer, the further north you go in the system, it's what they call a leaky
aquifer, and allows the water, when it rains, to get back into the
ground, filters through the ground into the deeper aquifer, which is our
freshwater supply in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So then the CREW marsh is very
instrumental in our water supply; is that what you're saying?
MR. TEARS: The headwaters of Collier County are very
crucial.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. With that, we're going to take
a 10-minute break, then we'll continue the presentation at that time.
Thank you very much.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike. We are
still discussing lOB, which has to do with the water restriction
Page 146
April 24, 2007
measures.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did we get to you, Donna?
MR. WIDES: Commissioners, good afternoon. For the record,
Tom Wides, the Operations Director for Public Utilities.
As Mr. Mudd has stated concerning the water use restrictions,
there is a little bit more to this discussion that I'd like to share with you
this afternoon.
First off, if I just may make a note. Irrigation quality water, many
know it as reclaimed water, but it is a mix of well water and reclaimed
water. Irrigation quality water is not exempt, or another way of saying
it, is part of these restrictions. So those using that type of water will
be under the restrictions during the phases here. You'll find that on
Exhibit A of your Exec. Summary pack.
One other thing I wish to discuss with you this afternoon, this
will come back before you in two weeks at the next board meeting;
however, as part of the ordinance we adopted with your approval back
in June of 2006, there is provision for a water restriction surcharge.
It has basically -- although noted here three, basically has two
important function to see it. Number one, it's an economic incentive to
assist in promoting water conservation. Number two and three
combined, it really does help maintain the financial -- the financial
stability of the utility to maintain the revenue, the precious revenue
sources to continue operations. Some of our variable costs do go
away, but in fact, those fixed costs do remain in place during these
restrictions.
As a result of that, I'd just like to share with you what is current--
what is the current surcharge arrangement that's in the ordinance as it
stands today, and this is ordinance 2006-27, schedule 1, appendix A.
What it notes is currently -- is that in phase one there's a 15
percent surcharge on the flow basis of the water bill. In other words,
the water bill has two mechanisms, a fixed percentage, which is a base
charge, and also the flow charge that is based on how much you
Page 147
April 24, 2007
actually use. The surcharge applies to the actual usage portion of the
bill.
But what you'll see is in the phase two, which is what we're in
now, it allows for a 30 percent surcharge on that flow rate, phase three
being a 40 and phase four being a 60. That is what's currently in
place.
However, at our next board meeting as an advertised public
hearing item we're going to be returning to you with an alternate
suggestion and proposal. Our proposal will be that in phase two, we
would implement a 15 percent surcharge, phase three would be a 30
percent, and phase four would be a 40 percent. There would be
effectively no surcharge at that first phase, which is similar to what
we're doing today.
Lastly, how do we apply that surcharge? What it is, it will be
applied to the first billing cycle following the month after the water
uses restriction is declared. That's really in place right now as we're
designed right now under the ordinance. And, secondly, the surcharge
will cease on the first billing cycle following the revocation of the
water conservation restrictions.
How will we apply it? What we have in place today is that for
single-family and block rate structure -- excuse me. For single-family
and multifamily homes, okay, it will be applied for consumption
greater than approximately 10,000 gallons per month, okay. That's the
second block. So the first 10,000 gallons would be -- would have no
surcharge applied to it. Usage over and above that would.
Under the nonresidential accounts for consumption greater than
block one, we would implement the surcharge and it would be applied
to all potable-water-irrigation-only accounts for all consumption
starting right from the first -- from the first gallon.
That's what we're implementing -- that's what we're
implementing by ordinance as of today, however, we'll be back to you
in two weeks for your guidance in terms of our recommendations.
Page 148
April 24, 2007
And, again, our recommendations, just going back for a moment,
would look as such in this page.
I'm ready to entertain any questions that you may have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now, if 1 understand correctly,
it's twofold. One is to try to limit the amount of water that people are
going to use, and number two, is to be able to make up the lost
revenue that we lose because they're using less water because it's still
going to cost X number of dollars to run the water facilities and to
keep everything going forward. Does that about sum it up?
MR. WIDES: Yes, Commissioner, that is correct. And I'll refer
you one more time to the chart. To, in fact, promote that water
conservation through an economic incentive, and number two, to
maintain the financial viability of the utility during this period.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, this isn't the first time we've
been here. I mean, we've had similar situations happen in the past,
and God knows it's going to happen again in the future. It's one of
these boom and bust type situations. We've got plenty of water, and
out of sight, out of mind, you know. Turn on the faucet and there it is.
Get the grass just as green as you can, water every other day or
whatever.
At some point in time we're going to have to come to the
realization that we have to do more than just become upset at that time
of the year that we have the drought situations.
Whatever happened? I remember 20 years ago there was all this
xenscape.
Do you remember that, Donna?
It was a big, big issue, and everybody was out there. You know,
plant less grass, bahaya, the Floratam, all that, just allowed in certain
areas.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: A big campaign going.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Big campaign. And all of a sudden
that thing went like many other ideas, at the time of plenty, you know,
Page 149
April 24, 2007
it became less important and it went by the wayside. Is there any
thought going on as far as at some point in time doing what they've
done in some of the dryer states, like Arizona and Nevada, that new
construction coming online is limited to how much green area they
can have or what kind of green they can plant, water irrigation type of
things where --
I'm sorry, what's going on?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing. We were just supporting
your position.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. The first place I want to turn the
irrigation lines off is to Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner
Halas's house.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I wish I had irrigation lines.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I tell you something, that's one
thing that I'm very proud of is the fact that I don't have Floratam and I
don't have bahaya. I've got native Florida grasses, and I'm real proud
of what they produce. They're drought resistance, they're bug
resistant, and they produce nice flowers if they get tall enough.
Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is there going to be a surcharge
applied to people who are using reclaimed water, since we're trying to
also save reclaimed water? I think we should have a surcharge on
that. Or have you already put that into consideration?
MR. WIDES: Commissioner, at this point in time we do not
have that in place, okay; however, we can speak to that further.
MR. DeLONY: For the record, Jim DeLony, Public Utilities
Administrator.
Sir, with -- the recommendation from staff would be not to do
that and accept that we are going to implement the restrictions to make
sure that any well withdrawal that's associated with our irrigation
program meet the 30 percent reduction in terms of withdrawal.
Until the underground storage reservoir, the reservoir we're -- the
Page 150
April 24, 2007
aquifer storage recovery reservoirs in place for irrigation water, some
of this operation still is a disposal operation for treated effluent. So
there's effluent that needs to go in.
Now, the good news is, it also serves to recharge the underground
aquifer to some degree. By letting that water spill as irrigation water,
you do get some recharge to the surficial aquifer. Somewhat limited,
but it's still a benefit, and I think Clarence would agree with that.
But at this stage of the game, given the fact we're going to troll
very carefully through your ordinance, how that irrigation water goes
out, particularly that which is from a well source, my recommend --
the recommendation of staff is to remain without that -- without a
surcharge at this time.
And now at some stage of the game that's certainly going to
change where we can start -- where we can recover that water and
store it, but at this stage of the game, we still have a need to dispose of
that water in a reasonable, as well as a very efficient way, otherwise if
there's excess water that no one's taking through the reuse system, then
we have to dispose of that through deep well injection, and that's a lost
resource. So at this stage of the game, that's where we're staying in
terms of our recommendation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Final question. How are you going
to control people who have wells dug that are strictly for irrigation?
MR. DeLONY: Sir, it's just part of the ordinance, enforcement
that all of us are going to be part of, not just the -- with utilities. We
have the sheriff, we've got the water conservation district, we've got
Clarence and all the folks with South Florida, highlighted this to
homeowners associations. There is a lot of self -- I don't want to use
the word policing, but self-culturally acceptable, we're in a tough spot
and we're all going to dig in and do it.
We've seen already in the last two weeks reductions that are
significant. Mr. Mattausch has some charts to show you from the
water utilities standpoint that we've already seen people start to draw
Page 151
April 24, 2007
back in terms of their overall utilization.
I believe that that speaks of people who have wells as well. You
know, this is for everybody. This is not just something for public
utilities, but everyone who has a well in Collier County. These
restrictions are in place for them as well. And so through a concerted
effort of everyone I spoke to, I believe that we're going to get that
compliance, substantial compliance. And if not, we will educate and,
as necessary, obviously we have the capability to enforce as well.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How does this chart track against the
previous years? Because this is probably following also the decline of
people leaving to go back up north.
MR. DeLONY: Paul, would you like to address that?
MR. MATT AUSCH: Yeah. Actually on this chart what you're
looking at is two years superimposed on each other. The green line, if
you look out at the left-hand side of this and follow that along, the
green line is last year's demand.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Which one's the green line?
MR. MUDD: This is the green line right here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Last year's demand, okay.
MR. MATTAUSCH: Yeah. The green line is last year's
demand. The red line is this year's demand. The blue dots are daily
demand. And what that is is a 30-day average, the previous 30 days.
So you can see within the last two weeks, our 30-day average has now
slipped below last year's 30-day average, and we're seeing a reduction
in demand on non-irrigation days, Mondays and Tuesdays
specifically. In fact, yesterday, Monday, being a newly implemented
non-irrigation day -- remember, we used to say Fridays are days. Now
it's Mondays, Tuesdays and Fridays, okay.
Yesterday was a non-irrigation day, and you can see our demand
yesterday was 28 million gallons and some change. Now, normally
on Monday we would have seen somewhere around 32 and a half
million gallons. So the difference is approximately, yesterday, in fact,
Page 152
April 24, 2007
about four and a half million gallons lower than what we would have
seen prior to the restrictions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve staff
recommendations. When you come back with a change, show us
some financials.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. A motion to approve staff
recommendations by Commissioner Henning and seconded by
Commissioner Coyle.
Any comments?
(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.
Thank you very much, gentlemen.
Item # IOD
RESOLUTION 2007-105: RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BOARD) TO CONSIDER
OPTIONS FOR THE CREATION OF A FIRE REVIEW TASK
FORCE TO REVIEW ISSUES AND CONCERNS RELATED TO
FIRE REVIEW AND INSPECTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
Page 153
April 24, 2007
BUILDING PLAN REVIEW AND PERMITTING PROCESS; TO
REVIEW THE BUILDING REVIEW AND PERMITTING
PROCEDURES RELATED TO FIRE REVIEW AND TO REVIEW
AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD
REGARDING THE AMENDING OF OR REPEAL OF COLLIER
COUNTY ORDINANCE 2002-49, AS AMENDED BY
ORDINANCE 2005-32, THE COLLIER COUNTY FIRE
PREVENTION AND PROTECTION CODE PERTAINING TO
ADOPTED STANDARDS AND CODES OF THE FLORIDA FIRE
PREVENTION CODE PUBLISHED BY THE NATIONAL FIRE
PROTECTION ASSOCIATION (NFPA), AS AMENDED BY THE
STATE OF FLORIDA - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we have a three o'clock time
certain. This is a recommend -- and this is IOD. This is a
recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to consider
options for the creation of a fire review task force to review issues and
concerns related to fire review and inspections associated with
building plan review and the permitting process; to review the
building review and permitting process related to fire review, and to
review and make a recommendation to the board regarding the
amending of or repealing of the Collier County ordinance 2002-49 as
amend by ordinance 2005-32, the Collier County Fire Prevention and
Protection Code pertaining to adopted standards and codes of the
Florida Fire Prevention Code published by the National Fire
Protection Association, NFP A, as amended by the State of Florida.
And Mr. Joe Schmitt, your Administrator for Community
Development's Environmental Services, will present.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, good afternoon. For the
record, Joe Schmitt, your Community Development Administrator.
As you recall at the March 19th Board of County Commissioners
Fire District Steering Committee joint workshop, you directed the
Page 154
April 24, 2007
County Manager, come back to you with proposals to form a task
force to review the issues associated with fire review and permitting
and also whether we should continue to at least have in effect the local
ordinance associated with specific requirements within Collier
County.
I've provided options, five options. One option, of course -- I can
go through those. You have those in front of you if you'd like to
discuss, but option one was basically the Development Services
Advisory Committee. They would delegate that to a subcommittee.
That subcommittee could be formed. It would be under the auspices
of the chair of the DSAC. You could provide the chair any
recommendations of this board that you think that subcommittee could
consist of.
Understand that that subcommittee could be members outside the
DSAC. They would advertise and they would seek members from
other disciplines or whomever or whoever was interested in being a
part of that committee.
As you know, the DSAC is already a board-approved and
sanctioned committee, and I put extracts in there out of the -- out of
our codes of laws and ordinances, specifically dealing with chapter 2
administration, the board's commissions and committees. The DSAC
is certainly empowered well within their authority to review that.
Option two was delegate to the Board of Adjustment of Appeals.
That is a separate board. That is a board appointed as well. You
approve the members of that. And the BOAA could review this, and
we could have that presented to the Board of Adjustment of Appeals.
But it was my recommendation as well that any change that was
proposed by the DSAC would also be vetted before the BOAA before
it comes to you, because I think that's an important element of review.
The third option was create a task force combined -- or
comprised of one member from the DSAC, from the Board of
Adjustment of Appeals, from the Fire Steering Committee, one
Page 155
April 24, 2007
member from the Planning Commission, and one member from the
Productivity Committee.
Option four was to create a task force comprised of three
members each, three members from CBIA, three members from the
Steering Committee, Fire Steering Committee, and three from the
Productivity Committee.
And option five, which was an option forwarded us by the fire
commissioners, North Naples Fire Control and Rescue District, was
basically to recommend -- and I lost that one. Let's see. That would
be one member from the CBIA, Collier Building Industry Association,
one member from the Collier County Building Department, one
member from the Collier County Fire Code Official's Office, one
member from the American Institute of Architects, one member from
the Fire Marshals Association, and one member from the Fire Steering
Committee.
Of course, if you picked options three, four and five, you would
-- there would be a requirement to ensure that, based on your
direction, of course, that they follow the guidance in accordance with
what's defined in the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances
regarding the formation and creation of boards, so there would be
certain requirements that would have to be met informing those
special task forces.
So with that, I open it for your discussion. That's pretty much my
introduction, and subject to your questions, that concludes my
presentation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we have any speakers?
MS. FILSON: We have five speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We don't have any lights on
over here, so why don't we go to the speakers.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Chuck McMahon. He will be followed by
Bill Schrek.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And all the speakers have three
Page 156
April 24, 2007
minutes for their presentation.
MR. McMAHON: Commissioners, if I may, one of the things
also that was in the direction that you were hoping to have was the
Fire Service Steering Committee was to be involved in these options,
which we were not at this point in time. We took it back to our last
Fire Service Steering Committee. We turned it over to each district to
take back to their districts for support to bring it back to our Fire
Service Steering Committee, which is Thursday night, so we were
unable to meet your timeline to be able to be part of this.
We're hoping that maybe you can give us another month to get
this put together so we can bring our options to you also as a joint
united Fire Service Steering Committee so that the fire commissioners
can work on an even level with the county commissioners to make
everything work out right.
Because we can't move forward unless we're all on it together,
and we'll probably have to have another workshop in order to make
this happen. I don't think you're going to be able to do it with just
your approval on it because it's kind of a joint thing that we're going to
need to do with all of us. I really don't see it happening by direction
from the county itself.
So I would hope that you would give us another month so we
could take it back now that we've had -- all the districts have taken it
to their meetings. We have our meeting Thursday night so that we can
come up with what we feel that we'd like to present to you as a joint
fire service countywide steering committee to work with the county.
That's all I got.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. McMahon.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Bill Schrek. He'll be followed
by Heather Henning.
MR. SCHREK: Good afternoon. As a contractor and going
through the last three years of review between the building department
and the fire department and being delayed anywhere up to six months
Page 157
April 24, 2007
in getting permits because of the confusion and maybe the procedures
involved, I really feel this needs to have as much input from the
construction industry as it can on the committee. I think the DSAC's a
really good way to do this with the guidance of maybe Ed Riley and
Bill Hammond sitting in as part of the program.
But really, all we want to do is build good buildings and stop
costing developers and builders 6 percent interest on their money over
a one- to six- to seven-month period in getting reviews done. I know
if you had a house out there and you wanted to get it going, you would
not want to pay interest while the permit process goes on.
And these are very good people that work for the county, both in
the fire department and the building department, but there's something
lacking in the efficiency and the direction that gets something done. I
could not build buildings the way they go through the permitting
process. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Commissioner Henning,
did --
MS. FILSON: Heather--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry.
MS. FILSON: Heather Henning. She'll be followed by Bill
Varian.
MS. HENNING: Good afternoon, Commissioners and guests.
My name is Heather Henning and I currently serve as the presidential
appointee on the executive committee of the Collier Building Industry
Association, and I am president of a local contracting company. It's
my pleasure to be able to address you today on behalf of the Collier
Building Industry Association.
We have read the executive summary prepared by Mr. Schmitt
and are encouraged this process is moving forward as the association
is looking forward to working with the local jurisdictions,
professionals and the public, to create a more workable solution for
our building members and our clients.
Page 158
April 24, 2007
With that having been said, the building industry would like to
advocate on behalf of the option one where the Development Services
Advisory Committee creates and leads a fire review task force.
As a DSAC is already established, we are in favor of not creating
the wheel and believe the DSAC is well equipped to work with all the
appropriate stakeholders toward a more streamlined and workable
solution. We feel our industry would be fairly represented, as there
are CBIA and building members on this committee.
DSAC is the best entity best qualified to look at this issue since
these individuals possess the technical knowledge and are most
qualified to address the Florida Building Code and the Fire Prevention
Code in a logical and equitable manner, keeping public safety as a
high priority.
Finally, the DSAC was formed for the very purpose of handling
this type of issue, and based on the executive summary, they would be
well within their scope of responsibility to handle it without board
initiative; however, since the Fire Review Task Force is such an
important issue for the industry and the community, the blessing of the
Board of County Commissioners on option one would be welcomed.
On behalf of the CBIA, thank you for your time and your
consideration.
MS. FILSON: Bill Varian. He'll be followed by Karl Reynolds.
MR. VARIAN: Good afternoon, and thank you for allowing me
to speak. For the record, my name is Bill Varian, CGR caps (sic). I
am president of Varian Construction Company here in Naples, a
resident of Golden Gate Estates. I am your 2007 DSAC chairman,
also, as we talk about this.
You have before you an executive summary with five options,
creating a task force to look into building and fire review processes
and inspections. I am here to ask you to allow DSAC, under option
number one, to create and oversee such a task force. This is what
DSAC was intended to do.
Page 159
April 24, 2007
As chair, this is one of my goals, was to look to duplication of
reviews and how we can effectively decrease review times without
jeopardizing public safety, the main reason why you have codes to
begin with.
The composition of this committee should include people who
are knowledgeable with the Florida Building Code, the Florida Fire
Prevention Code, and the workings ofCDES, community
development.
If, as commissioners, you would like to make recommendations
to DSAC as to who should sit on that task force, we'd like to take that
under consideration, but I must ask you to allow DSAC to make the
final decision who and how many sit on that task force.
Both codes have areas of duplication in the review process, and
are needed; however, we believe that there are areas that the building
department is looking at and areas that the fire departments are
looking at that they may not need to be doing. It's a large process that
we need to be looked at.
The task force can look at this as well as other municipalities and
districts around the state, how they handle these issues. This will not
be an overnight response. It takes months to look at all these issues
bringing in local and state leaders and research other processes to
come up with the recommendations for your consideration.
Builders like myself, we want efficient and timely reviews with
public safety uppermost in our mind. So I ask you strongly to
consider option number one. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Karl Reynolds.
MR. REYNOLDS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Karl
Reynolds, North Naples Fire. Just to basically go along with what
Commissioner McMahon had said, was basically the districts was
asking for it to be basically just postponed until after the steering
committee could meet with all the recommendations from all the
districts, and that's basically all I have.
Page 160
April 24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning, did
you have something? Oh, you had your light on earlier.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, I do. You know, this is
really not our problem. It's really the fire districts' problem, in
particular East Naples since they administered the fire plan and
review.
My recommendation, and I hope that we can do it, is the
chairman to write a letter to the Fire Steering Committee to put
together a group, including members from Collier County's
Development Advisory Board Committee and Board of Adjustment
Appeals, and not to have any government employee on there. I'm
afraid if members of the building industry might say something, there
would be retribution or the concern of retribution.
In order to resolve this issue, I think all concerns ought to be
addressed. That's my recommendations, and I'll make that in the form
of a motion.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Motion failed. Doesn't mean
don't come back -- come back with another one soon, I'm sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I'll make another one
right now, if you want.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let's give Commissioner Halas a
chance, then we'll be back to you. Turn your light back on.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. Looking at this, I got to go
along -- it's too bad that we've gotten to this point in time when it takes
six to eight months, almost a year sometimes, to get through the
permitting process. And, of course, we've taken a lot of heat ourselves
here as county commissioners.
Page 161
April 24, 2007
I'm going to make a motion that we go with option one, and I
think that hopefully that will be the way -- the direction that we need
to go here to address this very important issue here in Collier County
in regards to what's happening here with our codes here with the
inspections at the -- when the fire commission gets involved in this.
So, again -- my motion is option one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'll second your motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I understand that this affects
the building community the most, but I think that being it's the fire
service that they're trying to work with, I think what we ought to be
doing is having a committee comprised of more than just DSAC. I
think we must have other people on there.
I would really like to see us give them one more chance to give --
to put their recommendations together and make the final decision
next month. I think they've been working at it. I think they've been
working diligently. Don't you sit on that committee, too?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I go to them.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And so, I would suggest we wait
one more month till we -- but definitely it has to be heavy with DSAC
or CBIA members. I had some recommendations myself, but if they
want to wait one more month and come up with a final
recommendation to us, because they're the ones that it affects most,
I'm willing to wait.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll ask the motion maker.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Nope. My motion still remains.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Something we've got to address
here. It's been going on for a couple of years now. See where it goes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Halas, a second by Commissioner Coletta.
Page 162
April 24, 2007
Any other discussion? Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'm concerned about the
timing. Actually -- actually option number one does require that there
be representatives from the fire departments and the Fire Chiefs'
Association and all that sort of thing, so there will be a balanced
membership there. As a matter of fact, it says that the selected
members of the development community and related stakeholders
nominated by the CBIA, the American Institute of Architects, fire
inspectors, members of the community, or any other organizations
deemed appropriate, Collier County building official, Bill Hammond,
and Collier County fire official, Ed Riley. And so it looks like the
guidance is to make sure that the committee is very broad in
membership.
But once again, I -- I hesitate to ignore the request of the fire
districts to at least give them some time to give us a recommendation.
So I'd just like to -- before I vote on this, I'd like to understand what's
likely to happen. They're going to meet, Chuck, when, Thursday?
MR. McMAHON: We meet Thursday.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Of this week?
MR. McMAHON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then why do we need a month
then before we reconsider it?
MR. McMAHON: Commissioner Coyle, as you know, as being
a commissioner and meeting your -- what you guys -- how you meet,
the fire districts meet once a month. We've had our meeting on the
19th. Our next meeting -- some of our board meetings had already
been in session before the 19th, so we had to wait until our April
meeting.
We came in our April meeting, we talked about it, but we can't
do anything because we have to have board approval from each
individual board, which we've gotten. Right now we've got a positive
flow with the five fire districts to work together with the county to
Page 163
April 24, 2007
bring this together. But it takes time because -- we meet once a
month. Each district meets separately.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I understand. But what
happens after Thursday? Would there be some decision from the fire
districts, some recommendation as to how we -- you would like to see
us proceed?
MR. McMAHON: I'm sure what will happen is that we will
come together Thursday, we will put a few hours into this. We will
talk about what options that we have possibly out there.
Unfortunately, we've got to take it back to the boards for one more
approval and come back. So we're still going to be beating up on it. I
mean, our problem is that we have different boards and we all work
together. That's what the Fire Service Steering Committee does.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if you go back to the boards,
you'll do that in May, I presume. What would be the timing in May to
do that?
MR. McMAHON: It would be the third -- or the fourth Thursday
of the month is when we would meet again after --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So that would miss us again, and
then we would have to take it up into June sometime.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we're going on summer break.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're going to have to call some
special meetings.
MR. McMAHON: We could possibly try to call a special
meeting of the steering committee. I mean that's --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because you --I'm sorry. You'd
have to have the information to us then so we can have -- we can have
something written up for us to discuss and to study before the meeting.
MR. McMAHON: Ifwe have to call a special meeting, that's not
a problem. We can do that. I still think -- and I share with you, I
think that we need to be able to sit down again at a workshop to really
Page 164
April 24, 2007
hammer it out because you are all part of that. Unless you're going to
give Commissioner Henning and the steering committee the direction
to work on your behalf.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They're not going to direct me
to do anything, trust me.
MR. McMAHON: I know. But it's there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would be willing to give him the
authority to do that. He knows what he's doing. He's a good guy.
But here's my problem. We are not going to do this, that is, we
are not going to be the ones making the decision about what needs to
be done other than the fact we're recommending an organizational
structure to do it and providing guidance about who participates in that
committee.
So I don't think that we are going to be sitting around in a
meeting deciding how we solve this problem. All we're going to be
doing is just saying, hey, we think this is the proper committee to form
and this is the proper membership, so go out and do it. I'd hate to get
into a series of meetings with the fire district officials and the
commissioners before we could ever even decide how we're going to
create a committee.
MR. McMAHON: I understand that, Mr. Coyle, and to be honest
with you, there again, the Fire Service Steering Committee itself is set
up to do that, and that's why we -- that's where we can do it. We've
voiced our opinion about that before.
We are set up. We do have a county commissioner that comes to
the meeting now, and we have, you know, the chairman of each
individual district coming to the meeting. We're advertised, we're safe
under the sunshine law. I mean, there's a lot of -- maybe that's where
we can hammer it out, coming up on Thursday. I would hope so.
We've got pretty much direction from our boards to come
together at the steering committee and hammer it out. We could
possibly go and do that. I know that my board will go with whatever
Page 165
April 24, 2007
my recommendation is, and I more than likely don't even need to take
it back because they said whatever I want to do. They gave me that,
you know, freedom to bring it together with our options. All it is is
options at this point in time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, can I point out
something to you --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sure, sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- that I'm sure's already evident.
One, it is a balanced board. They're nothing more than an advisory
board. They're going to be taking it through the public process.
Before any decisions are made, it's going to come back to us at least
once, ifnot a number of times. So I got a feeling the only thing we're
running into is an action that's going to delay the progress that we've
been looking for.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, that is disappointing, but I'm
-- I really don't like the idea of ignoring the input from the fire
districts, and that's what bothers me is that I wish we'd had this input
earlier.
But I guess bottom line is, the committee is going to have to be a
committee that is represented by all stakeholders, and I don't see it
being all the fire district membership making this decision with just
some testimony by people who walk into the committee meeting. I
think it -- everybody -- the stakeholders have to be together, they have
to be equal, and they have to be heard in order to hash out some kind
of reasonably acceptable solution and then bring it back to this board,
and the fire districts then can react to any recommendations that might
occur there, but -- well, there's a motion on the table --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There is. Commissioner Fiala wants
to speak.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- so I won't belabor it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to say, if you -- if we
brought it back in a month -- and I realize right now I'm -- I don't
Page 166
April 24, 2007
know how far -- you know, how many supporters I would have on
that, you'd have to have this all done, ready and in a neat package to
our County Manager at least a week before the commission meeting,
so you don't even have a month. I mean, you have three weeks in
order to get the whole job done, and that's it, or we'll do it for you,
okay?
MR. McMAHON: We'll try to do what we can.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. The answer is, yes, we can do
it, you see, and that way it will give us more confidence and fighting
power.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Spoken like a mother.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I have some concerns that
all of a sudden the fire commission comes before us -- now we had a
workshop in regards to what we felt needed to be done, and I think
there was adequate time to address this, instead of coming in here the
11 th hour when we're trying to figure out the best way to approach
this.
So that's some of the concerns that I have. And as was brought up
by one of my fellow commissioners here, Commissioner Coyle, in
regards to who was going to be on this committee I think that in order
to get this thing moving and figuring out what needs to be done -- it's
too bad that we've gotten to this point in time because of the fact of
people that are in the building industry.
In fact, we, ourselves, here in the county, we ran into a couple of
stumbling blocks in regards to concerns that came up in the
construction of projects here in the county that ended up costing us
substantially more money. And I think at that time is when somebody
should have taken the initiative on the fire districts and said, hey,
enough is enough.
And it wasn't -- there was no initiation on their part. It was until
at that point in time when we called a workshop to try to sit down and
Page 167
April 24, 2007
hammer things out. And then, of course, we've had a number of
people come before the Board of County Commissioners telling us
some of the problems that they were incurring.
And staff spent a lot of time on trying to figure out options and
what we could do, what direction we needed to go. So I'm hoping that
I'm going to get enough support here to take care of this thing and
hopefully get some restitution to what's going on out there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Halas, a second by Commissioner Coletta.
Any other comments? I'm sorry, Commissioner Fiala? Mr.
Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: I'd appreciate it if you could restate the motion,
if it is to go with objective one, is that --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Option one.
MR. WEIGEL: Option one?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: Is that, therefore, is to have DSAC --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That correct.
MR. WEIGEL: -- with a task force that goes beyond the DSAC
members themselves. Technically then your DSAC, as constituted
under its ordinance, cannot include a membership, a voting
membership, beyond those members ofDSAC, so it's more than a
mere subcommittee of DSAC, and I would suggest that you, in
essence then, just so you know this, are creating an ad hoc committee
composed of DSAC and additional representatives to be determined,
and it's either going to be determined by your express designation here
today or it may have to come back to you if DSAC is going to be
making a determination in coming back to you. So I wanted you to
get as much done today as you can. It would appear that you're
actually creating an ad hoc committee.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go with Mr. Schmitt first. Mr.
Schmitt?
Page 168
April 24, 2007
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. And I respect the County Attorney's
opinion. I believe the option one was basically -- the DSAC would
form a subcommittee. The subcommittee could report back to the
DSAC, and the DSAC would be the element to come and report to
you, unless you prefer what David just proposed, and that was that
you empower the DSAC to inform that -- to form that task force. And
of course, then that would be a separate committee.
MR. WEIGEL: I just -- no. I just wanted to be clear that if
DSAC is going beyond its membership as opposed to a mere
subcommittee of its membership, that that is, in effect then, an ad hoc
committee that this board is authorizing right now.
MR. SCHMITT: But we do that. We have subcommittees, we
have utilities subcommittee, we have other subcommittees of other
members who are subcommittee members who then report back to the
primary committee, and then the committee forwards their
recommendation, so --
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, if they're not members of the
committee in chief, they're really not subcommittee members, is what
I'm telling you.
MR. SCHMITT: Okay. All right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What clarification do we need on this
so that we can move forward with no doubts in anybody's mind what
we're doing?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Vote on the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I thought it was clear, but I
mean, the County Attorney doesn't, so I have an issue.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I just wanted to make it clear that your
authorization, if it is to have members working with DSAC who are
not committee members of DSAC, you're, in essence, creating a new
task force or an ad hoc committee, and that is fine, and you can do that
today, but you would want to, to the extent possible, identify all
members of that ad hoc committee that you're creating, and then Sue
Page 169
April 24, 2007
can administer it to the extent that it exists and completes its task.
But DSAC does not have, through its own authorization, its own
ordinance, does not have the ability to give equal authority to persons
that are not on the committee to serve as part of a subcommittee with
it. Just doesn't have that authority.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. The option one actually
provides two alternatives within it for the selection of the people to
serve on the subcommittee. That is partly the cause of the confusion.
So if we were to say that we're creating an ad hoc committee
consisting ofa couple of members ofDSAC and that we will then
solicit and approve other nominations for membership, then we have
created an ad hoc committee that is not subordinate, but their
recommendations could very well be routed through DSAC and come
to the Board of County Commissioners for review.
Now, the reason that I think we could take that alternative of
selecting the nominations is that we then would have time to permit
the fire districts to nominate their members so they can get their names
to us pretty quickly, and we can make sure that they are properly --
properly represented on this committee, and any other stakeholders
that we think are appropriate could be considered for appointment to
that ad hoc committee.
So I think that would solve most of our problems, wouldn't it,
David? It would let us create an ad hoc committee that is legally
formed, not subordinate to DSAC, and still use DSAC as an advisory
committee to review and make recommendations on the committee's
findings before they come to us.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas, you're the
motion maker.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I got a question to ask the County
Attorney. Did you go through this document before it was presented
to us?
Page 170
April 24, 2007
MR. WEIGEL: I'll say that, yeah, we -- as a staff we reviewed it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Then why wasn't all this
worked out prior to bringing this forward to us by you and the -- and
community development?
MR. WEIGEL: Oh. Well, no, I -- no, we did not see this until it
became part of the published agenda as far as that goes, and then we
do our review.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, if you had questions on it,
why didn't you have -- either have it pulled because the clarification
wasn't clear here -- instead of getting into this 11 th hour here of telling
us now that there's some fine lines here that haven't been addressed.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I really wasn't telling you how not to do it.
I was telling you how you could accomplish your desire.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I pull my motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 1 don't think we've got enough
information here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The motion's been pulled.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I just wanted to ask if -- back
with what, Commissioner Coyle, if that all happened, they don't really
have to report to us at all or get our approval for anything because it
would be DSAC who would make all the decisions?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, no, no, no, no. As I understand
what the County Attorney has told us is that DSAC doesn't have the
authority to create an official subcommittee, so we would have to
create an ad hoc committee, and that ad hoc committee would consist
of whatever stakeholders we thought should be included on the
committee, and then the committee could make recommendations
which then would be routed through DSAC and any other advisory
committees that we wanted to route it through to make sure we've
gotten a broad enough view of the recommendations, and then they
Page 171
April 24, 2007
would come to us, and then we could make some decisions based
upon that.
Now, that's going to take longer than today to do because you're
going to have to advertise for those things, and we're going to have to
depend upon the fire districts to get their nominees for membership on
that committee to us, and -- but we can identify the stakeholders.
They should be the development industry, they should be the fire
districts. They should be citizens. They should be the people that are
already mentioned here. And we could just ask Sue to advertise for
those and --
MS. FILSON: Shouldn't the County Attorney or someone
prepare a Resolution creating the committee before advertising --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, we would do--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We could do that in the interim.
MR. WEIGEL: If the board passes this, we just do it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, yeah. So you could make
the decision to do it today, and then the County Attorney could create
the resolution, you could do the advertising, we could get the
nominations. Next meeting hopefully we'll be in a position, or the
meeting after that, hopefully be in a position to actually create the
committee, make the selections, and get them to work.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is that in the form of a motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would make that as a motion, yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What about the County Attorney?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, no. It's too difficult ajob.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Coyle, a second by myself.
Mr. Weigel, anything?
MR. WEIGEL: No, that's just fine. We understand.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Schmitt, is there --
Page 172
April 24, 2007
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Just for clarification on page 5 of7 under
section 2.828, we are going to follow those rules as specified in
division two of your standards and creations of review boards, so we'll
adver -- we'll come back with a resolution and we'll advertise for the
formation of a special task force then for this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You don't agree, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, we'll do a resolution pursuant to your
approval today, and the only thing left to do then is appoint the
members.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right, that's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And will that give us time then to
hear from the fire --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sure, because they could respond
to the advertisement to appoint members.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Did you hear that?
MR. REYNOLDS: I disagree with that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Don't invite comment from the
audience unless you get the chair to nod to it, then I'll address them to
come up front.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now you got them going.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. REYNOLDS: You guys aren't prepared, and then you won't
give us time to do what we got to do. What's the difference? Damn.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion, we have a
second. Any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Page 1 73
April 24, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let the record show
Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner Halas were opposed.
Item #1 OC
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS PROVIDE THE COUNTY MANAGER OR
HIS DESIGNEE DIRECTION AS TO THE MANNER FOR
CALCULATING ALLOWABLE WETSLlPS WHEN A PROJECT
SHORELINE IS WITHIN A CONSERVATION EASEMENT-
MOTION FOR THIS ITEM TO BE BROUGHT BACK FOR
POSSIBLE INCLUSION IN THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 10C. It's a
recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners provide the
County Manager or his designee direction as to the manner for
calculating allowable wet slips when a project shoreline is within a
conservation easement.
Bill Lorenz, your director of your environmental department,
community development, will present.
MR. LORENZ: Yes, thank you. For the record, Bill Lorenz,
environmental services director. Good afternoon, Commissioners.
The purpose for this item is to come back at the board's direction
from a December 12th meeting, I believe it was, and provide the board
a report on how staff has been applying the shoreline calculations for
wet slip densities from the Manatee Protection Plan criteria
specifically when those -- the shoreline is present within a
Page 174
April 24, 2007
conservation easement.
Up to about a year ago the staff had excluded the shoreline that
was within the conservation easement from those calculations. The
net effect of that would be, of course, you would have less boat slips
for a multi docking boat facility if you exclude the shoreline within
the conservation easement from that calculation, and that was based
upon some earlier discussions in the early to mid I990s with review
staff and some other County Attorney staff that are no longer here in
terms of the County Attorney's Office.
But the staff had that understanding that the application of the
calculation for shoreline and conservation easements would be
excluded from that total calculation.
We want to note that the Manatee Protection Plan -- both the
Manatee Protection Plan and the Land Development Code do not
make any distinguishing -- or do not distinguish between total
shoreline and shoreline within conservation easement. So those two
documents are silent with regard to the definition of shoreline.
Currently the staff is applying the requirements the -- that the
County Attorney's Office had reviewed a project about more than a
year ago in which case the guidance to environmental review staff was
to evaluate -- first evaluate the conservation easement to determine
whether the conservation easement would or would not allow the
shoreline to be in the calculation, and only after reviewing that
conservation easement would the calculation be made.
Now, typically probably most conservation easements is not
going to identify the shoreline calculation within the conservation
easement, except there is a situation, and talking with some of the
permitting folks who are involved with some state permits, the state
will require -- when they go to a state permitting -- to permit the boat
slips, the state will make certain calculations, and then they will
request a conservation easement to be placed upon the area with the
determination that no more -- that that shoreline cannot be used for
Page 175
April 24, 2007
further calculations.
But we want to make sure we don't get into a chicken and egg
situation because they're going to the state for that particular
permitting requirement as well.
One thing I want to make clear too is that during this particular
situation, we're talking about calculations for the maximum allowable
boat slips, not the -- not the location of where those boat slips are. For
instance, it's almost -- it's almost analogous to when you calculate
density, the amount of residential units, let's say, on a project site, you
calculate your -- you calculate the number of units based upon your
gross density, then you set aside your preserve area, put a conservation
easement on it, but you've used that preserve area in your calculation,
so it would be very similar to that, and then you would cluster your
boat dock, so to speak, in an area that's outside the conservation
easement.
So I just want to make it clear, don't confuse the calculations with
the location of the facility itself. We're simply talking about utilizing
the shoreline within the conservation easement to make those
calculations.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Bill, I don't understand why you
would permit the shoreline of the conservation easement to be
included for the purpose of calculating the maximum number of slips.
Why would you do that?
I mean, the purpose of the shoreline is to protect the shoreline,
right? I mean, why would you include that protected area in the total
shoreline area for determining maximum allowable slips?
MR. LORENZ: Well, the -- it kind of gets back to the analogy
again, gets back to the idea of, if you're looking at a residential
development and you've got -- and you're doing a gross density with
regard to the total area to calculate your number of residential units,
then you cluster them outside your conservation easement. The same
Page 176
April 24, 2007
argument can be made in this situation, is that you're making the total
calculation, you're clustering your boat slips outside of the
conservation easement, but you're utilizing the shoreline in the
calculation total -- for the total number of boat slips.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I guess I understand the
similarity, but I don't even like the other one. I don't even like using
total acreage for calculating allowable density. I think -- I think the
conservation easements on property should not even be included for
calculation of density, quite frankly.
MR. LORENZ: Well, the staff -- as I said, earlier, before we
received the guidance from the County Attorney's Office, the staffs --
the staffs idea was along those lines, that because it was in a
conservation easement it should not be allowed in the calculation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, yeah.
MR. LORENZ: But there is no -- but there is no explicit
direction in the Manatee Protection Plan or the Land Development
Code directing staff one way or the other. And as I said, when an
issue did come up and we had discussions and got information from
the County Attorney's Office, it was their guidance to look at the
conservation easement language first, and that's what we've been
doing since -- for the year and a half.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do we have the authority to make a
more restrictive ruling on this?
MR. LORENZ: Yes. This is -- quite frankly, this will be -- this
is a policy decision for the Board of County Commissioners to give
direction to staff as to how you would want to see this to be
interpreted.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we could do it -- we could do
it both for shorelines and conservation easements as well as for
acreage within a PUD where there were preserves or other
environmentally sensitive lands.
MR. LORENZ: Well, that's a whole different -- that's a whole
Page 1 77
April 24, 2007
different issue, of course --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, it is, okay.
MR. LORENZ: -- and I'm not prepared to speak to that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, all right. Okay. That's a
different issue, then let's not -- let's not get into it if it's a different
issue. Let's not complicate things too much, okay.
MR. LORENZ: One thing, we do -- we do exclude the tidal
submerged lands from that density calculation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. LORENZ: 1 think -- and I believe the board did that or
adopted that policy maybe two or three years ago. It's in the recent
past.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. That was the submerged
lands, you mean?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right.
MR. LORENZ: The marine tidal wetlands, I believe it is.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, okay. I understand.
MR. LORENZ: But staff -- staff, of course -- that's the
background in terms of where we are with the issue. At the moment
my recommendation is to follow the County Attorney's Office subject
to any other direction from the Board of County Commissioners. And
to the degree that we get any -- whatever policy direction we get from
the board today, the recommendation is to go ahead and codify that in
the Land Development Code, and then we can work out all the finer
points and the details to make sure that everything is working
smoothly.
Currently we don't even have the definition of shoreline in the
Land Development Code.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Well, I guess my problem,
just as a general statement of position, is that I would prefer not to
include any conservation easement shoreline in the calculation of total
Page 178
April 24, 2007
allowable slips.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Make that as a motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I would make that as a
motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's go to Commissioner
Halas now.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My understanding is a conservation
easement, if it goes to the water's edge, then that also carries into the
surrounding waters, is that correctly -- is that correct?
MR. LORENZ: Well, the conservation easement is the easement
over the property that the property owner owns, and that -- and the
property owner still owns the underlying property, but the
conservation easement prohibits a number of different activities or
simply allows only certain activities.
If it's -- if that ownership -- if those --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Goes down to the water's edge.
MR. LORENZ: Well, if it -- there are situations in Florida where
a property owner may own water bottom, but typically the water
bottom is owned by the state, and that's why, to do any work within
the state lands, you have to get a submerged land lease.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. If there was a bulkhead that
separated the conservation easement from the water, then -- because in
this case I think we're discussing conservation easement that butts up
against the edge of the water and then basically continues out on the
waters, right? The conservation easement is directly right next to the
water that we're talking about where the docks would go in; is that
right?
MR. LORENZ: Well, for this discussion, the shoreline -- if we're
talking about, what is the delineation of the shoreline, typically the
conservation easement will come all the way up to the vegetation.
Typically in a mangrove system, that's going to be -- that's going to be
Page 1 79
April 24, 2007
your definition of shoreline. So the conservation easement would go
to that point, and then the rest of it would be open water.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Suppose you had a
conservation easement and you had a bulkhead such as a seawall,
what would that then become? Would there be a separation of where
the conservation easement ended and the seawall started, and the
waters themselves?
MR. LORENZ: Yes. You could have that situation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. But what happens if -- in a
situation that I think we're all discussing here is where you have a
conservation easement, you have mangroves that go all the way down
to the water's edge, and in case -- in some cases it's in the water's
edge?
MR. LORENZ: We would have to define what the definition of
shoreline would be. The state -- the state --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What's the state say?
MR. LORENZ: The state has a definition -- I have to look back
at the details because it gets to be fairly complex, because what they
look at is certain -- within concern dates if have you some type of
water structure in the water, they would consider it a shoreline, and
other situations they wouldn't, so that's what I'm saying. The
definition of shoreline's going to need to be worked out in some detail
through the Land Development Code process.
But if the general policy is that you don't want to include that
area within the calculation of shoreline, we'll have to address that
somehow in the drafting of the amendments.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioners, when we did
the removal the calculation of submerged land, we did it through the
proper process, and that would be an amendment. I think it was to the
Growth Management Plan. Might have been included in the Land
Development Code. I would recommend to the motion maker to put
Page 180
April 24, 2007
that into his motion to give the direction to make any amendment to
the Land Development Code, therefore, the public is aware of it, it's
not a hidden policy document and blah-blah-blah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think Commissioner Henning is
probably right. Doing it on the fly here is not really the way to do it.
It deserves a public hearing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. I understood it all except for
the blah-blah-blah, but I'm not up on all the legal language.
With that, we have a motion. We have a second.
MS. FILSON: And we have three speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Three speakers, and we're going to
listen to the speakers next.
MS. FILSON: Rich Y ovanovich. He'll be followed by Bruce
Burkhard.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich
Y ovanovich on behalf of Signature Communities.
If you'll recall, this actually came up as a discussion item related
to the Cocohatchee Bay, Bert Harris settlement discussion, and there
was going to be a report back to the commission.
We assumed that we would be given plenty of notice as to when
this item would be discussed so we could review the item and
potentially meet with each of the commissioners individually . We
found out about this Friday of last week, so obviously we didn't have
an opportunity to get involved in the process.
I think it is -- I think what Commissioner Henning suggested is
probably the fair route to have this be part of an LDC amendment so
not just Signature Communities, but other potentially affected
property owners, can comment on the merits of what's being proposed.
I would like to remind the commission that when you own
waterfront property, you have riparian rights. And just because you
are willing to put a conservation easement on a portion of your
property doesn't mean you lose those riparian rights related to that
Page 181
April 24, 2007
property in the first place, and one of those riparian rights is to be able
to enjoy the waterfront, including docks.
The state has a process that it goes through. You know, Bill didn't
go through it in great detail. Hopefully we'll go through an LDC
amendment process to where we can hash out why the state does what
the state does relating to boat docks and how they calculate the
number of boat docks related to the property.
But there is a process you go through to essentially determine the
appropriate number of boat docks, and you take into consideration the
impact to listed species, you come up with a number, and then you
record a conservation easement to make sure that that number doesn't
Increase.
We believe the state process is a good process, and we would like
to, you know, in greater detail, discuss that through hopefully a
process where you discuss the LDC amendments.
We think that this is not fair to Signature Communities or other
property owners to just come up with a policy determination on an
agenda item that really the public hasn't had a lot of time to study,
give its input to determine what the appropriate change should be and
would request that this go through the proper process, which would be
through an LDC amendment process, and then everybody, both for
one side and for another side, can give you your input, and then you
all can decide what might be the appropriate mechanism after hearing
it through the appropriate mechanisms, including going through the --
your Environmental Advisory Council on those types of issues. I
think it's too important a decision to just make it today without
bringing public input.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Am I wrong, Commissioner Coyle,
but isn't that what you just included?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. I recognize Commissioner
Henning's concern about that. Commissioner Henning is correct. I
think it is something that deserves a public hearing, and I agree to
Page 182
April 24, 2007
revise my motion to that effect.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I pull my second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You pull it?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second it. Nothing wrong
with public input.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we have a motion by
Commissioner --
MS. FILSON: We still have two speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead.
MS. FILSON: Bruce Burkhard. He'll be followed by Doug Fee.
MR. BURKHARD: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name
is Bruce Burkhard. I live on Oak Avenue.
And first of all, I agree 100 percent with the commissioner. I
think a conservation easement infers a desire to protect our natural
resources, not only mangroves, but all of the various forms of wildlife
that depend on the mangroves and the creatures that live in the water.
It also seems to me that the staff has been following a very
common sense methodology that the conservation easement, which
was usually implemented to gain additional development rights,
removes all further development rights so there are no boat slip rights
that the owner can transfer.
The desired outcome for the public is a preservation of critical
estuaries which have been disappearing due to development pressures.
I think the staffs current interpretation of the Manatee Protection
Plan is helping to protect the few remaining estuaries. The ideal
solution, as we've been discussing, is to change the LDC and probably
the GMP to absolutely prohibit docking facilities and marinas in front
of conservation easements. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker, Mr. Chairman, is Doug Fee
MR. FEE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, my
name is Doug Fee. I appreciate being able to speak to you today. I'll
Page 183
April 24, 2007
be very brief.
I do support Commissioner Coyle's motion. I do feel that these
areas which are governed by the Growth Management Plan and
specifically by the CCME -- although in the legal considerations it
says there's nothing in the Growth Management Plan or Land
Development Code that specifically addresses this issue, I do believe
there are broad goals, policies, that are in there that you really want to
protect these areas, you know, where they are mangrove shoreline,
wildlife. And so I would support limiting this calculation to non-
conservation easement lands.
Beyond that, there is a recommendation in number B that says,
for projects where preserve areas and CEs are not yet established. It
says in number two, it says, use the total shoreline for calculating the
maximum allowable wet slips and identify this value in the
development document.
One thing I want to mention is, in your GMP, there, I believe, is a
policy that encourages dry slips over wet slips, and I'm not seeing in
here anything that furthers that goal. We're rewarding or allowing
density on the shoreline, but I'd like to see something in here that
would encourage or give density to dry storage as well. And thank
you very much.
MS. FILSON: That's your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Okay. So we have a motion by Commissioner Coyle and a
second by Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could we hear the motion again?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we certainly can, but first let's
go --
MR. LORENZ: Yes, thank you. Just -- just to note, in terms of
-- the recommendation was for us to come back and have the board
give us direction in terms of what the next steps should be. And one
question that the staff would have is in terms of directing us to go
Page 184
April 24, 2007
through the Land Development Code process.
What direction do you want us to, if you will, part of the fence to
fall on? Either direction for the shoreline within conservation
easements to be excluded or the total shoreline, or is -- something
different than that?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. It's the same as my earlier
motion. It is that the shoreline in a conservation easement is not to be
allowed for the calculation of boat slips, the maximum number of boat
slips. And what 1 am proposing that we do is bring that back as a
change in the Land Development Code at a public hearing, and then
we will have a fair opportunity for all stakeholders to be heard, and
then we can make a decision. So that's my motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, do you
agree?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Does that answer your
question?
MR. LORENZ: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. Thank you.
Okay. With that, is there -- there's no other questions. 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.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it 5-0. Thank you
very much.
Item #IOE
Page 185
April 24, 2007
PRESENTATION OF A PROPOSED COLLIER COUNTY PRE-
PURCHASE INSPECTION SERVICE TO BE OFFERED TO
PROSPECTIVE REAL ESTATE BUYERS TO ENSURE THAT
THE PURCHASED STRUCTURES ARE BUILTIN
ACCORDANCE WITH ALL ZONING APPROVALS. THE
INFORMATION PRESENTED IS INTENDED TO ALLOW THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO CONSIDER AND
PROVIDE DIRECTION ON WHETHER OR NOT TO MAKE
A V AILABLE THIS PRE-PURCHASE INSPECTION SERVICE TO
PROSPECTIVE REAL ESTATE BUYERS IN COLLIER COUNTY
A MOTION MADE TO TAKE NO ACTION ON THIS ITEM-
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is 10E, and that's a presentation of a proposed Collier County
pre-purchase inspection service to be offered to prospective real estate
buyers to ensure that the purchased structures are built in accordance
with all zoning approval.
The information presented is intended to allow the Board of
County Commissioners to consider and provide direction on whether
or not to make available this pre-purchase inspection service to
prospective real estate buyers in Collier County.
And Mr. David Weeks, your--
MR. BELLOWS: Ray Bellows.
MR. MUDD: Excuse me, Ray.
MR. BELLOWS: We're both around--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You look so much alike.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ray, if you would please, if you
could make it a very brief description of what we've got in front of us
for the viewing audience, and I'm sure the commission will have some
questions and maybe some suggestions.
Page 186
April 24, 2007
MR. BELLOWS: No problem.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. We do have a speaker
too, but go ahead, Ray.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows with the
Department of Zoning and Land Development Review.
As the County Manager explained, this is a presentation on a pre-
purchase inspection program to be offered to prospective real estate
purchasers. The program is similar to one offered in Miami-Dade
County. 1 called and coordinated with them. I determined how their
program works. Basically they have a series of inspections that are
typically asked for by residents when purchasing a property.
Staff, if they were to have a program, or Collier County were to
adopt a program, it would include staff from our engineering services
staff, our zoning department staff, and the building department,
because some of their inspections cross all three of those jurisdictional
reviews.
Similar to the Miami-Dade program, Collier County would offer
a zoning program that would inspect the zoning of the property that
would determine ifthere were any variances approved or conditional
uses applicable to the property, the number of units, the density
allowed, the structures on site met setbacks. Ifthere were fences
involved, whether they are consistent with the Land Development
Code.
Non-conforming structures would be identified. They would
include plat information, restrictions, and any code violations.
It should be noted Collier County has some programs in place
that cover some of these inspections. We have a zoning verification
letter that verifies zoning of property. We also have a zoning
certificate that validates commercial zoning for commercial property
owners.
Staff estimates that a program, if it was mandatory, would be
approximately 250- to $300 (sic). Ifit was a voluntary program,
Page 187
April 24, 2007
depending on the participation, it could range from $1,000 up to about
$2,000.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ray, could you tell us the reasons
why we want to consider something like this? What has been the
reasons that's brought us to this point? Or Mr. Schmitt?
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, for the record, Joe Schmitt.
Just for background, you dealt with a couple of variances, and on three
different occasions you asked staff to look at this and to come back
with you for a recommendation.
And this was based on your request that we have some kind of a
process. If you recall, the last incident was a gentleman who came in,
petitioned the board because he felt he was being unfairly charged for
impact fees. He didn't know he had an addition -- or he claims -- and
not making any accusations, but he claims that an addition was done
to his home. He was totally unaware of it until after he came in for
another building permit. He was then informed that he had an
additional square footage.
So you asked us to look at a program that would identify these
type of incidents before a property transferred hands -- transfers
hands.
So, frankly, that's what we did. This is a program that
Miami-Dade has. I'm not saying we want to jump into this thing, but
it is something you asked us to come back and present to you for
discussion. And I don't know if that answered your question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That answers it very well. It wasn't so
much for us. I think we're pretty well informed on it, but I wanted to
make sure that those people that are listening today understand why
we're doing what we're doing, at least looking at the possibilities.
And I'm going to lead off on this. I tell you what, this is a big
concern, the fact that we have had numerous times issues come up to
us where -- an unknown consumer buying a home, suddenly finds out
that the pool cage is six inches too far off of where it's supposed to be
Page 188
April 24, 2007
into the right-of-way, that the -- something was done to the house
without a proper permit, impact fees are owed, all sorts of reasons.
Now, I don't agree that it should be something that county staff
should do, and I don't believe it should be a voluntary program. It
needs to be identified to what particular element out there is the ones
that are suffering from this. A lot of your gate communities. They
have very serious restrictions on what can take place there. They
police themselves fairly well. Some of your remote communities like
Golden Gate Estates, the agricultural lands, Naples Park maybe to a
point.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Naples Park.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. They do have problems
where people are thinking that the best thing they can do is to try to
save a couple of dollars on a permit fee, they go ahead and they make
modifications to their homes, do whatever they want, and then pass it
on to the unsuspecting buyer.
What I'm proposing that this would be, not a voluntary program,
but mandatory, and those particular instances out there where it would
be paid for by the seller and it would be done by an outside source,
something like a title insurance company but not necessarily that,
someone that could provide this service rather than the county,
because the problem is is that if we provide the service, it's going to be
top heavy. It's going to require a staff to be there at all times, whether
you're busy or not. It's going to require unknown cost factors in place.
And then if we do make a mistake -- inadvertently we're going to -- it
becomes an issue that this Board of Collier County Commissioners
has to solve, where if an outside agency, be it an engineering firm or
whatever, takes the responsibility to provide this certificate, they'd
become liable and it becomes a civil matter. My own thoughts.
And with that, we'll go to Commissioner Henning and then
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. I don't remember
Page 189
April 24, 2007
the board giving that direction to bring something back. Was that a
motion or consensus?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, Commissioner. At least on three different
occasions they asked us to look at some kind of a pre-inspection
program prior to purchase in order to prevent the type of incidents that
have come in front of this board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we voted three times for you
to bring it back?
MR. SCHMITT: I will pull the records, Commissioner. I don't
know what the vote was. It was clear direction given to the County
Manager to come back with this program, or a program similar, to
research what other counties have and to look at some program that
would be put in place in order to do this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I have a question for Mr.
Klatzkow. Do we -- is there any other venues that the public can go to
if they bought a lemon?
MR. KLATZKOW: You could bring a civil action against the
seller. And then going back in the chain of title, he could then bring it
to his seller and his seller, until it finally got to the point where you've
got the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, there's also due diligence,
too, by the buyer?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I've done that myself. You
know, when I purchased my property, I wanted to make sure it had
permits and discovered it didn't have two permits and it was
straightened out beforehand.
So I mean, you know, I think government is here for -- to do
things that the citizens can't do for themselves. I don't think
government is here for -- to take care of citizens on every case.
And I think this is a noble attempt, but it's just way too much
government, whether it is a voluntary basis or a mandatory. The
Page 190
April 24, 2007
people have a right to find out whether they're buying a lemon or not,
and if they buy a lemon, they can at least make lemonade out of it and
straighten the issue out.
But I don't think it's our duty to mandate them to protect against
buying a lemon, so I can't support either recommendation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I think a lot of people,
first-time buyers, they come down here and they're under the
impression that everything is hunky-dory and buy a piece of property,
and then all of a sudden they find out that, for whatever reason, the
setbacks weren't followed and then, therefore, they're left holding the
bag, and they might not find out for two or three years after
purchasing the house, and then they have to come in and go through a
variance process and also acquire an attorney to go through the
process with them.
It's far more expensive to -- for them to go through that and -- not
realizing that there might be issues of -- where rooms were added that
weren't permitted, that setbacks weren't followed or they got other
problems that they didn't realize, and that's why I think that some of us
were concerned that maybe we needed to have something that would
be available. It could either be administered by the county or it could
be administered by someone else, but it's something, I think, that
needs to be looked at, that when you do surveying of the property, you
establish what the criteria, the setbacks, and all this is.
So that was one of the reasons that I felt that it was important.
And maybe -- hopefully maybe if we got a public speaker, they can
throw some light on this also.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Well, Commissioner Coyle
first, and then we'll go to public speakers.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think it's a noble effort and I
understand why we would be interested in doing it. But based upon
the experience of a county as big as Miami-Dade, they're only getting
Page 191
April 24, 2007
one a month. It doesn't seem to be a really big problem.
And secondly, any lending institution is going to insist upon a
title search which is going to have to, I think -- don't they look to see if
the property conforms to existing codes?
MR. SCHMITT: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
MR. SCHMITT: A title -- this wouldn't involve a title search,
but if -- let me first say, we're not pushing this. You asked for us to
come back, and so please understand, this is not something that staff is
jumping head foot -- headfirst into the water to do.
But the second piece is you could hire a home inspector, and a
home inspector can do exactly what's on this sheet.
COMMISSIONER COYLE; Okay. So a--
MR. SCHMITT: A home inspector can come in and pull the
public records. A home inspector can come in and go down to the
Property Appraiser's Office and pull the property card. So these --
there are mechanisms already in place to assist a home inspector to do
exactly this type of service if somebody wanted to do that type of
research.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So maybe we shouldn't be
competing with private industry in this respect, maybe the --
MR. SCHMITT: I would say, it's -- Commissioners, it's your
call, but given the Miami-Dade, the cost, I have to -- I have to pay for
the service. If I -- if you direct this, I will have to have the staff to do
this and I have to charge the fee in order to cover the cost. And as the
executive summary clearly points out, that could be fairly spend-yo
I think the second thing is, if in fact it's voluntary -- and I've
gotten the legal considerations as pretty detailed, that we would look
for some kind of an -- to indemnify ourselves, and certainly the
consumer's going to expect some protection. So there's all those kind
of issues that -- the burdens we pick when we do that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It gets too complex. Let me just
Page 192
April 24, 2007
bounce one more idea off of you. A number of these issues are things
that have lain dormant for many, many years, and then something is
brought to our attention, we find that a house is maybe built three or
four or five inches or a foot from where it should have been and that
sort of thing, or that there might be other code violations that have
existed for 15 or 20 years.
It -- is it appropriate to just provide some blanket exemption from
those things, from those violations, if they have existed for X period of
time and it does not create a health, safety or welfare problem for the
people in Collier County?
In other words, if you've got a violation because your foundation
is three or four inches off and it's been that way for 15 or 20 years,
why would we want to put people through the process of coming in
for hearings and trying to get that corrected? Can't we just grandfather
things like that in and let it go?
MR. SCHMITT: There are certain -- yes. To answer your
question, that -- if you want to provide staff the latitude for the
administrative process, which we do have -- and there's been recent
hearings where that -- we've lost some of that administrative -- at least
decision-making authority that we had.
But the other piece is, Mr. Klatzkow and Ms. Arnold, myself, oh,
probably a month ago -- actually back in October when we talked
about the consolidated code enforcement ordinance, which you'll see
at the next board meeting, there is a paragraph in there that provides at
least an avenue for a resident who comes upon that type of a situation.
They're going to have to verify that what was built is built to code, but
it does give them kind of the get-out-of-jail-free card.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I don't know if the
commissioners are interested in considering that sort of thing.
MR. SCHMITT: That will be back at the next meeting.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so it's coming back anyway,
huh? So we're going to be talking about that later?
Page 193
April 24, 2007
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good. Then I won't belabor
it anymore.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He's asked my question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I've got one comment before
we go to the speaker and this is purely a thought. The expression, let
the buyer beware. The thing is, how can they beware if they don't
know there's a problem? How about a simple form they have to sign
off on telling them what their rights are and what they may -- should
be concerns with so that we have it on file for every new homeowner
that comes in. I don't know how you would do it.
It would say nothing more than, you know, these problems could
possibly exist. You may -- it's your option to hire a home inspector to
be able to identify if everything is in compliance as far as permits, da,
da, da, one right after the other, and that would be the end of it. The
person would sign it, and they'd be more or less signing off that they're
convinced it's fine or they're aware of the fact that they should have
done due diligence. Any suggestions?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think there's a state requirement
for that already. Any seller must disclose any violations of code, but
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Defects of property.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, so that makes it -- that
makes them liable for any misrepresentation, so that already exists.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But would this misrepresentation -- if
they buy the house and they don't ask the question, is the house fully
permitted, is everything just the way it's supposed to be, and they say
yes and then they're gone, they move back up to Illinois, you've got a
problem.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Perhaps.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's just a thought. I'm getting to think
Page 194
April 24, 2007
-- the point that we're trying to go to the point of having a mandatory
inspection isn't practical, and it would be very difficult to put into
place, it would be very -- in many cases it wouldn't be needed. It's just
for the rare individual that does need it, ifthere was some form that
people would have to sign off on with realizing -- protect their own
rights to make sure that they're safe. Just a pure thought.
But let's go to the speaker, and then we'll come back, close this
out, action, no action, whatever. Who is the speaker?
MS. FILSON: The speaker's William Poteet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: While the speaker's coming up,
I'm going to make a motion that we take no action on this item.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
MR. POTEET: Good afternoon. My name is William H. Poteet,
Jr., and I'm here on behalf of the Naples Area Board of Realtors. I sit
there as the director of the governmental issues chair, and I'll make
this real brief because I like the motion.
First of all, NAB OR wants to thank the commission and the staff
for including us in the recommendation of this particular motion, this
particular discussion. We feel that we'd like to be at the table and be
able to serve the county anytime we have the opportunity to.
Also, we also, on the issue similar to this, we'd like to
recommend that one of our other organizations here in Collier County,
the Marco Island Area Association of Realtors be included, because
they cover a lot of the south part of Collier County.
As for the discussion here, you know, we, too, have the question
of why are we bringing this before the general public? We had 2,600
sales last year. And out of 2,600 sales, there was a very small amount
that had any difficulty.
You are right about, there are disclosures that sellers have to
make, and they put -- any known defects have to be listed, otherwise
Page 195
April 24, 2007
they are liable, and there's state law in that respect.
We're concerned about the county's liability for any program that
you run on this. If you have people out there telling them that you're
meeting code and then suddenly they find it's three inches off, you
know, you're not going to be able to just say, well, you're not going to
be liable for that, and why expose the county to something they don't
need to do? There are people in the private industry that will provide
this service if a buyer wants to purchase it.
And then our last thing is the potential for delays in real estate
closings. As we know, there's always about, you know, five, 10
different parties that are involved in a real estate closing, and each one
has to -- takes time, and if you add another layer to it, then it's
possibly not good for the consumer.
And real estate closings are all about the general public, because
it's their property. It's not the Board of Realtors' property. It's the
general public that we're trying to benefit.
So whatever you decide today, if you want to go on and, you
know, research this more, we'd love to be part of the program,
otherwise, if you decide not to do anything, we're thankful there, too.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr.
Poteet.
Is there any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, motion by
Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala to take no
action.
All those in favor indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 196
April 24, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it 5-0.
Item #lOF
A REPORT ON SOLID WASTE COLLECTION OPTIONS FOR
WHITE GOODS, TIRES, BATTERIES AND ELECTRONICS IN
SPECIFIC AREAS OF THE COUNTY- STAFF DIRECTION TO
CONTINUE CURRENT PROGRAM - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to a time certain
4:30, and this is item 10F, a report on solid waste collection options
for white goods, tires, batteries, electronics in specific areas of the
county. And Mr. John Yonkowsky, your Director of Public Utility
Billing?
MR. YONKOWSKY: Utility's billing and customer service.
MR. MUDD: There you go -- will present. Thanks, John.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll tell you what, while you're setting
up, would you call the speaker, please?
MS. FILSON: Sure, Kaydee Tuff.
MS. TUFF: My name is Kaydee Tuff. I'm speaking on behalf of
the Golden Gate Area Task Force. It's a group of people -- it's a group
made up of representatives of various county departments, our
community sheriffs department, fire department, and we respond to
various needs and problems in our community.
And we've been wrangling ever since -- well, with the issue of
trash collection in our community since the contract was changed in
2006. I believe it was October 2006.
What we're finding is although there has been some inroads being
made in educating the homeowners in our community -- slow as it
Page 197
April 24, 2007
might be, we feel it's working -- but we feel that educating the rental
areas is not working.
And there have been extra efforts made on the part of utility
billing to do those educational efforts, and yet we continue to see
problems in the alleyways of our community and along Sunshine
Boulevard, which you know is -- some of you may know -- is being
beautified, and the community is spending -- excuse me -- taxpayer
dollars to beautify that median, and we want to make sure that that
strip in particular looks good.
Right now the problem is that people are putting out items just as
they do -- just as they had before. Anything with a plug, anything
with some sort of an electronic device has to be called in, and this isn't
taking place.
During our town hall meeting sometime back, both
Commissioner Coletta and Tom Henning asked the utilities staff to do
something more in these communities because they, too, are seeing in
their areas that this is not working.
What We have asked -- and to prove that, indeed, things have not
changed since that meeting, our task force members made up of utility
billing, code enforcement and sheriffs department, went out and
cleaned these alleyways, and they found five microwaves, 16
televisions, 35 tires, a water heater and a bicycle. Some of those
items, I'm told, were called in.
Now, this was done on just a couple of our alleyways, so you can
see it's a continuous problem that's not being met by the current
contract that we have with waste management.
What we'd like to see -- because we know it's expensive to send
these trucks out so many times into these areas. They're driving past
some items to get to the one item that was called in. So let's say the
other items get called in the following week, now we have to send out
staff again, staff and trucks, gas money. We know that as many times
as they're having to go out for these repeated incidents, that it's
Page 198
April 24, 2007
probably costing more money in the long run.
We feel that our community, being because it's -- the density is
contained and the areas that we have the biggest problems are
contained, that we'd like to be considered for a pilot program. I don't
know exactly how that could be done. I would welcome any efforts of
staff or the direction of this board to see if something can be done to
that effort because we feel that it's going to save money if we have a
regular pickup for these areas. And the areas that we would like you
to consider are Sunshine Boulevard, Tropicana Alleyway, Salt
Alleyway -- it's actually Safety Alleyway, to Cannon Mystic
Alleyways. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Ms. Tuff.
MR. YONKOWSKY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is John Yonkowsky.
Agenda item 10F is a report to the board on collection options for
solid waste items such as white goods, tires, batteries, and the -- I'll
show you the slides.
And this report -- I've got a brief slide presentation for you, and
then we can answer any questions that you'd like. Basically, the staff
recommendation is that the Board of County Commissioners continue
the current level of service in accordance with the current collections
agreement at its current cost, also continue concentrated education
outreach and enforcement program that we're currently using.
Under considerations, the current collection process for white
goods, tires, batteries and electronics is, the residents call in 48 hours
before the normal bulky item collection day for heavy items and
schedule a pick up. That information is transmitted to Waste
Management, and they schedule their vehicles to make the pickups on
the proper collection day.
Items are placed curbside by the resident before six a.m. on the
collection day, and then the trucks pick the items up. And what they
use for these types of material are claw trucks, box truck, and flatbed
Page 199
April 24, 2007
trucks.
The previous collection process was that the items were set out
curbside on the scheduled collection day. Flatbed trucks, box trucks
and claw trucks had to go down every street that was scheduled for
pickup that day and they picked up all the items that were curbside.
The trucks traversed every street regardless of the need.
Normally, approximately three to four or five times a year, is the
-- when this is actually used in most of the county. The call-in and
pickup program, it's been successful, as you will see in a few minutes
in most of the county.
It's eliminated several trucks from going down every street in that
service area every day. It's provided a rate benefit to the curbside
customers, and in essence, it's provided a best value service to the
residents and to the county.
The call-in and schedule a pickup program was not intended to
prevent residents from placing items curbside any day of the week. It
was not intended to prevent residents from placing ineligible items
curbside, and it was not intended to prevent residents from placing
items curbside that are not properly prepared.
The issues that were discussed in the previous slides can be
corrected by enforcement of the collection rules. The county uses a
very aggressive outreach, education and enforcement program to gain
compliance with the requirements of the solid waste collections
ordinance.
And to show you that, for 10/1/05 to 9/30/06, which is a
12-month period, the first period that the program was in existence,
the residential call-ins countywide were 11,760. And given those
three areas that we've considered high rental areas, Naples Manor,
1,977; Golden Gate City, 2,242; Naples Park, 237.
Six months of this year, the current fiscal year, we've got 10,617
call-ins from countywide; Naples Manor is 1,298; Golden Gate City,
we've already reached what we had, the level, last year for a full 12
Page 200
April 24, 2007
months; and Naples Park is 259.
Next slide, please.
This year -- or the same period of time, the 12 months of -- the
first 12 months of the contract and the second -- or the six months of
the second year are enforcement work orders. And when I say
enforcement work order, we actually go out before -- two days before
the collection service and go down the area. And when we see white
goods or items sitting out, we take and recognize those, we've got a
laptop computer. We look and see if the customer's called it in, we --
and if they have, okay. If they haven't, we create a work order for it,
it's picked up, and the residential gets -- the resident gets an NOV.
And the NOV is a notice of violation warning that the next time you're
going to get a fine for this.
As can you see, Naples Manor, we did 13 of those where we
actually called them in the first year, and seven the second year.
Golden Gate City was 52 the first year. This past year it's 585 in six
months. Naples Park was zero and nine for the same period.
And this next slide shows the actual citations that we've issued.
And if you look at Golden Gate City, the first full year, we issued 145
citations. The second year we've issued 53. So we think the program
is working.
We -- as to the request for a pilot program, we did look at a pilot
program for the particular streets that were names -- mentioned by Ms.
Tuff, those streets. We talked to the contractor. The contractor said,
yes, they would work with us on a pilot program, but they want to be
paid for the additional cost of providing the extra streets, the extra
individuals and the gas and insurance.
What we think that we've done is actually provide the same thing
but using the staff, the criteria that I just explained, where we actually
go out the two days before the actual scheduled pickup, we create
work orders for items that do not have work orders, and it gets picked
up, and the owner gets a citation.
Page 20 I
April 24, 2007
So the program is working. It's not working -- as Ms. Tuff said,
it's not working nearly as well in the Golden Gate City area.
And utility billing and other county departments work very hard
with them to get that process done, but we would like for
consideration to continue the program as it is and then see if the -- if it
does get better overall.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We'll start with Commissioner
Henning, then Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Put a -- County Manager, put on
slide 12, blah-blah, side 12, second to the last.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you're saying that is not
working in Golden Gate, this one right here, this pilot program?
MR. YONKOWSKY: No, sir. It is working. It's working in--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It is working.
MR. YONKOWSKY: It's working in Golden Gate. As a matter
of fact, yesterday -- and here's the problem. As I said in the executive
summary and in the slides, this program will not prevent people from
setting out an appliance, a white good, at any time during the week.
Saturday those areas were cleaned up in the pilot program. Yesterday
and this morning we went out and counted. There's 49 items sitting
out on Sunshine and those alleys.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's a violation right there,
isn't it? Aren't you supposed to do it on certain days?
MR. YONKOWSKY: Yes, sir. That's absolutely right. It's
supposed to be set out on the morning before at six o'clock. So the
program -- the call-in program, as the statistics show, I believe, is
working. More people are calling in from Golden Gate City. The
numbers of call-ins are increasing in that area. It's almost double what
it was last year.
But the program, the call-in program, is not going to prevent
people from setting out -- if their collection day is on Wednesday,
Page 202
April 24, 2007
from setting an item out curbside on Thursday. Hopefully it will be
picked up that next day that the collection for that street is supposed to
be.
The second thing that the program, call-in program, will not do, it
will not eliminate unprepared items. For example, setting out
something that isn't properly prepared, horticulture, for example, just
throwing out a pile of horticulture. It won't work for that. It won't
work for items that are illegal, propane tanks and the other items that
people like to set out that are not supposed to be picked up. We
correct those problems with enforcement.
Before the collection program came about -- or this new contract
came about that was approved by the board -- it started on 10/1 -- we
had the same problem. People were setting out items anytime during
the street (sic), it wasn't picked up until Saturday, as it is -- Golden
Gate's schedule, or it wasn't picked up on -- they set it out anytime that
they want, and it would get picked up.
Well, the same thing is happening right now. It's -- they're setting
things out. They're setting them out anytime during the week.
They're setting out items that aren't prepared properly, the
horticultural, and they're setting out things that should not be picked
up. And according to the contract, they shouldn't. I mentioned
propane tanks as one. That's a major problem.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have some other questions,
too.
MR. YONKOWSKY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's wrong with Waste
Management picking up items that are set out that were called in but
they passed items that was not called in? What's wrong with them not
picking those up?
MR. YONKOWSKY: Commissioner, I do not believe that that
is exactly what's happening.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
Page 203
April 24, 2007
MR. YONKOWSKY: We're going out -- we go out every
Thursday in Golden Gate City. We have public utilities staff that goes
through there, and they look at every item that's out on the street on
Thursday. They look in the laptop to see if that's been called in. If it's
been called in, that's okay. If it hasn't been called in, they create a
work order to have it picked up on Saturday.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So I can go -- you're
concentrating in Golden Gate. I can go to Naples Manor and find that
Waste Management is not going by items that should be picked up
that hasn't been called in?
Can you get to slide number -- it's not a slide number. The one --
585, I didn't understand that. It said -- yeah. You say enforcement
work orders. And is that what you're saying your staff is doing is
going out and identifying items that are set out there and --
MR. YONKOWSKY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and they're issuing NOVs and
they're getting ticketed and --
MR. YONKOWSKY: The work order there -- this slide shows
that a work order that we create, through the laptop we create a work
order, and that item gets picked up that weekend.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. YONKOWSKY: At the same time, since we've had to
create the work order, we give an NOV for first-time violators. The
second time that they do it they get a citation for that property.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What happens to those
monies on the citation? Where does that -- does it go back to your
department?
MR. YONKOWSKY: Yes, it goes. It goes back to the division.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, those are good questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I was going to ask the same
Page 204
April 24, 2007
one because I've seen that same thing happen where they pass things --
in the Triangle. I was in the Triangle, and they're passing all this stuff,
and they went to one place, picked it up and then kept right on going,
and I thought, what in the heck? How come they didn't pick up the
rest of the stuff? So I had witnessed that same thing.
And, of course, the problem that we're having is we'll never
educate renters because they're moving all the time, and so it's a
never-ending problem. I think it's important that you drive down and
notice these different things and send trucks out to get them, but they
need to pick up everything. I know they missed -- one of the Jack
Mischung's biggest complaints is they drive up and down Naples
Manor and leave half the stuff there. They only go to particular
houses.
MR. YONKOWSKY: And Mr. Mischung is an advocate, just
like Ms. Tuff is. And I think that we've demonstrated that in Naples
Manor, that there has been a tremendous change. We're getting calls
from Naples Manor.
The other thing is, when they go by something that they're not
supposed to pick up, what they're -- if it's not an item that they're
supposed to pick up or it's not properly prepared, they should be
leaving a sticker on it and saying that it isn't prepared properly. But
the ones that -- in the six areas, the high rental areas that we patrol --
and one of the areas is just east of 951 in Commissioner Coletta's area,
we patrol that -- I think that we've seen a tremendous amount of
improvement. Whether we're 100 percent, that's never going to
happen. We can't do that.
But the effort that we have put out has been very, very good.
We're not put -- we may not have enough effort in Golden Gate City
yet. A lot of departments are working on it. They have the cleanups.
And what we're doing is we're demonstrating, I think, that we're
getting a lot of the things in Golden Gate City.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know the Golden Gate people have
Page 205
April 24, 2007
worked so hard to try and clean that whole area up.
MR. YONKOWSKY: They have.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They've been working diligently.
Do you drive in there every single week?
MR. YONKOWSKY: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So John, if! understand --I'm sorry.
Were you done?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was my last question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: John, if! understand you correctly,
there is no provisions to be able to pick up when they're driving
through if there's something there along the side of the road and
they're going to the house down the street? They're just going to go to
the house that was designated, or they are picking up?
MR. YONKOWSKY: They -- unless it's designated,
Commissioner, they won't pick it up. But what we're doing is going by
on Thursday, for example, in Golden Gate City, and we're designating
all the items that aren't designated. But ifthere's items that are set out
on Saturday or -- they will not be picked up and they're still sitting
there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I've got to admit. I've seen an
improvement on some of the streets east of 951 where you'd see the
same washing machine or piece of furniture week after week after
week. It's not there anymore, so obviously there is a cause and effect.
There is something happening.
And I would like to see this, sometime in the future, get a brief
report on it where it went to the next step and be able to graft it out to
see that we are getting compliance and that we're getting to be where
we need to be.
I'm going to make a motion that we follow staff -- well, where
are we on this here -- that we follow the staff recommendations to
continue the service as it is at its current rate and continue the
education outreach and enforcement program.
Page 206
April 24, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by myself, Commissioner
Coletta, a second by Commissioner Halas.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, one more question.
MR. YONKOWSKY: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could you stop and pick up those
things instead of passing them by?
MR. YONKOWSKY: The items that are not part of the pickup
process? No, ma'am, because -- let me give you an example and I
used it earlier. The propane tanks, we do not want them to put
propane tanks in their trucks and crush them.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I understand that, but there's a
lot of other --
MR. YONKOWSKY: The other items, the brown goods, the
TVs and things like that, the contract does not require them to pick it
up. They're willing to do a pilot program, as I said earlier, but they
want to be paid for it, and the problem is that we think that we have
done the exact same thing as the request for the pilot program by
making sure that we go down, once a week, everyone of those streets.
And then not -- the way that we verify it is that we go back on
Monday or Tuesday, and ifit isn't picked up and Waste Management
had a ticket to pick it up, they go back out that day and pick it up.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The items that stated, those people
want to dispose of them, they can put them in their vehicles and take
them to the drop-off point; is that correct?
MR. YONKOWSKY: Yes, sir, they can.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: At designated drop-off points, such
as electronics gear and stuff of that nature, paint, old batteries, stuff of
this nature?
MR. YONKOWSKY: Yes, sir, they can.
Page 207
April 24, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. With that, any other
comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We took care of the speakers. We did
that first thing.
All those in favor, signify 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 a 10-minute break.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
Item #lOH
RECOMMENDATION TO TERMINATE THE
INTERGOVERNMENT AL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, SOUTH
DISTRICT OFFICE FOR ENHANCED ENVIRONMENTAL
RESOURCES PERMITTING - DIRECT STAFF TO RETURN
WITH A FEE SCHEDULE TO CONTINUE PROVIDING
SERVICE - APPROVED
Next item on the agenda is 10H. It's a recommendation to
Page 208
April 24, 2007
terminate the intergovernmental agreement between the Board of
County Commissioners and the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, south district office, for enhanced environmental resources
permitting.
Mr. Joseph Schmitt, your administrator for community
development's environmental services, will present.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, good afternoon again. We'll
make this short. Basically we have an interlocal agreement that was
providing -- it was basically a grant to the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, provide two staff members in Collier
County to provide this service.
I could no longer really afford that since the permits that were
supporting this endeavor have dropped off, and those are primarily
permits for the ago areas in the Estates. What I would -- my
recommendation is either we terminate or I be allowed to come back
and charge a fee for this.
I've already coordinated that recommendation with Lucy Blair
and the Department of Environmental Protection. She believes that's
more than fair, and if I charged a fee for this service, it would
certainly make up for what I have to send to her in order to provide for
the two staff members, and, of course, it would pay for the rent or any
other type of services that I provided.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Basically what it is, we want to
charge a fair users fee --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- to be able to make ourselves whole.
And I'll make a motion that we expect you to go forward with that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, it concerns me -- we
brought this out before about sending out letters terminating the
board's agreements. Very clear in the statutes, 125, the County
Page 209
April 24, 2007
Manager is to administer, administrate, manage, not terminate. Make
policies; we make policies. So I'm very disturbed that this has been
brought out before.
And then just right after that there's another letter of termination.
This is against the state statutes.
MR. SCHMITT: That was a letter to notify -- what the
commissioner's referring to, that was a letter, formal letter of
notification that I was bringing this to the Board of County
Commissioners,
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It says, in reference to the
interlocal agreement, paragraph six, I am providing a written notice
within 60 days, time frame, the effective termination date.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. And the issue there was to
notify them because I did inform them on the phone this was a board
action that required the board to terminate.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It does.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But you already sent a letter out
to terminate. That's not management. That's not managing the board's
agreement.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's have the County Attorney
address it.
MR. KLA TZKOW: We have to give notice under the contract--
you have to give notice under the agreement, interlocal agreement,
that we were considering termination. We wanted the ability for the
state agency to come here to be able to discuss this before the board
that this was an issue. But all along, the actual decision on whether or
not to terminate was the board's.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's more than 90 days from
October. The board could have take (sic) action based upon the input
of our staff to send a letter out of termination.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, I'm preparing budgets now that
Page 210
April 24, 2007
come to you in June that identified this as a cost, and all we're trying
to do is get your direction, do we terminate it or do I begin to charge a
fee for this. I would come back in October with a fee schedule to
identify this.
This is already funded up through October. That was made very
clear in my conversations with the DEP. And it's already funded.
They already have the money for the two positions. The two folks are
not losing their job. There was no intent in doing that. All that was
was a form of notification that we were considering that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. It says -- it is a reference to
terminate.
MR. SCHMITT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not consider. It doesn't say
that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, if you'd like
to make a motion after we vote on this one to deal with this in some
way, you might want to do that, rather than just keep the conversation
going back and forth. Take a board action.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know, I can address
it. That's no problem.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Excuse me. How can you address a
board issue by yourself?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's not a board issue. It's just
continually happening that the board has authority by the Constitution
of the state, and those authorities have been taken away from us.
Policies are being made that the board is not aware of, the board hasn't
adopted. Agreements are being nullified or terminated by our staff,
the board's agreements.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. And I suggest if you see it that
way, after we make this motion, you might want to get direction to
give staff some sort of direction that we can carry forward. That's a
different issue than we've got right here at the moment. And I -- your
Page 211
April 24, 2007
concerns are probably valid.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's right here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go ahead and take it one step at
a time, take care of this. And if you feel there's something you want
to do as far as in a motion to be able to address this, we can go ahead
and do that, too, okay?
But let's take care of this motion first, and then if you want to,
you know, take it from there, I'm more than willing to listen to
whatever. But rather than just go on and leave it open ended, we're
not getting to where we need to be on anything. So let's vote on this
motion before us right now, unless there's some other issue that you
want to cover.
Okay. We've got one speaker.
MS. FILSON : You ready?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes.
MS. FILSON: Brad Cornell.
MR. CORNELL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Brad
Cornell. I'm here on behalf of Collier Audubon Society. I'm very
concerned at the prospect of losing these two positions that are in the
permitting department. I think they've worked very well and have
resulted in some important knowledge of wetland determinations, the
wetland maps for North Golden Gate Estates, as well as assisting of
county and protecting the citizens of this county from flooding and
water quality problems as a result of losing wetlands to single-family
home building, and also to the single-family home lot owners and
builders who wish to get those permits. This has been a great service.
So I'm concerned about losing that service.
I do support what Mr. Schmitt was proposing in terms of
implementing a fee structure to retain them to keep that service
continuing with those two staff members. It's important to all of us in
terms of protecting North Golden Gate Estates' wetlands, because if
we lose those, there's no way for code enforcement to see the
Page 212
April 24, 2007
violations that occur in North Golden Gate Estates or for DEP from
Fort Myers to recognize that, and I think that will be an exacerbated
problem, as well as the flooding. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
And with that, ifthere's any other comments related to this issue?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none. All those in favor --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What's the motion again?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. The motion is to direct
staff to come back with a -- I'm sorry -- with a -- with a fee schedule to
be able to provide the service and keep it going.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is that correct, Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the motion was made by myself,
Commissioner Coletta. It was seconded by Commissioner Halas.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it 5-0.
Commissioner Henning, I didn't want to cut you off, but now is
the time if you'd like to address that. You've got my attention.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know, it's clear in the
contract, if you look at page 13 of27, number six, in the event one of
the parties fail to fulfill any obligation under this agreement, and then
the other party may immediately terminate this agreement at any time.
Either party may also terminate the agreement as provided with
Page 213
April 24, 2007
written notice and intent.
And if you see, the agreement is between then Chairman
Commissioner Fiala and the acting district director of Florida
Department of Environmental Protection. This is -- this stuff is going
on all the time. Like I said, there's policies. We are policymakers.
There's policies being made and the board is not adopting policies.
This has come before us, other things hasn't. And I just have a
problem with the board not -- the agreements not being managed and
policy being made.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Could we go to the County Manager?
Did you have any comments on this? Are we failing as a board as far
as delegating authority that we shouldn't be delegating?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're not delegating.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I didn't think so.
MR. WEIGEL: Being taken over.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, rare is the day I'd say you're failing as a
board. Commissioner Henning is correct in the sense that the
agreement is between the county, and typically -- this is typical of
most agreements with the county, the Board of County
Commissioners being the county, and the other party.
And so from the standpoint that the terms of the agreement
provide for a termination or a notice of termination, that is the board's
prerogative. Now, I think a clarification that could be -- could be
reached in terms of policy and, therefore, then administrative action
by the staff, is that if, in fact, there are significant issues that would
tend to indicate problems with fulfilling the terms of the agreement by
the other party, couple -- there are choices that the board could make
to assist staff or to clearly define for staff, and that is, the board could
indicate in the contracts, or just by practice, that the staff may
potentially provide a letter indicating a notice of intent to recommend
termination and that that letter could be sent because ultimately it is
the staff that administers these contracts and not the board itself.
Page 214
April 24, 2007
And if, in fact, then the staff comes back to the board, having
sent a notice of intent to recommend termination, we could make it
clear that the contract would indicate that the timing of that notice is
the timing that is the effective timing for operation of the agreement, a
la, whether it's 60 days or 90 days, so that the staff and the board, on
behalf of the needs of the contract for the county as the party in
interest, doesn't lose additional time in the administration of the
agreement.
And I think that's one way that it could be approached so that the
staff is not overstepping and essentially effectuating policy decision of
the board on the contract, but at the same time, bringing something
back to the board and the board either ratifies that notice of intention
to terminate, and in so doing, effectuates the notice and the timing that
-- initiated with it if the board wished to follow that kind of procedure.
That's one way to do this.
Otherwise, the board could conceivably have staff merely come
to the board when there, in fact, is what staff determines as significant
and appropriate reasons to come back to the board and have the board
authorize the notice of intent to terminate. Then it will come back to
the board, of course, at a later point in time for the formal termination.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Weigel, may I ask you a
question? Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead.
MR. WEIGEL: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wouldn't it be more appropriate,
a letter, instead of this type of a letter of termination, to say, lack of
funding, we're going to bring to the board two options, one, to
terminate, the other one is to fund from another source. Wouldn't that
be managing the contract?
MR. WEIGEL: There's certainly nothing wrong with that
business-like approach whatsoever.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sending out a letter of
Page 215
April 24, 2007
termination is that it's clear in the contract or the agreement that either
party can terminate. And I just think that's a better approach to it than
what was done here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't feel personally violated by
what staff did. I do think there's better ways to do things.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Commissioner Henning is
right. There are two things. Number one, the external communication
here is incorrect, okay. The internal action is correct. The staff is
coming to us to get approval for whatever action we take. So they've
taken the right action, but the external communication is incorrect.
It really is not even clear whether it's a termination or whether it's
a notice that there -- don't have the funds but they're going to ask the
Board of County Commissioners if we can provide the funds. It's not
clear what this is at all, the letter.
So I think it can be solved if the staff will use a little more care,
just as in the last correspondence we talked about, is that rather than
saying, you know, we are taking action to do this, it would be better if
they said, we are making a recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners to do this, and then that puts it in the proper context,
and -- but as far as the staffs actual actions are concerned, they're
doing the right thing by bringing it to us and letting us make a
decision, but the correspondence is wrong.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle -- or Halas,
excuse me, Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Does staff get guidance from our
legal people in regards to how letters are going to be addressed or how
things are going to be approached? Does the legal department have
any input in this?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, that's--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do you look at any of these letters?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, Commissioner, that's a general question,
Page 216
April 24, 2007
and the general answer is, sometimes yes, sometimes no. For
instance, the previous agenda item, we were not a part of and saw it --
we saw it no sooner than you did. But on this one, I do not -- I'll -- I
can ask if Jeff Klatzkow or anyone else saw the letter before it went
out and provided advice.
MR. KLA TZKOW: First I saw the letter was this -- in the
agenda package.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Possibly what we need is to direct
staff to come back with a policy that will handle this in the future.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Rather than try to micro manage it
right now. They know -- they know what we're looking for. I think
it's how you handle the letter. It will make it a little bit easier when
you're reading through this agenda to know exactly what they're
looking for. I mean, to come to the conclusion we came to you had to
read through the whole agenda before you got to it. But I mean, I'm
not that upset about it, to be honest with you, but I do think there's
always a better way to be able to get there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, that's true. That's the point.
The thing is that the staff actually recommended that we cancel the
contract, okay. Now, they didn't say that in this letter to the
Department of Environmental Protection. They talked about getting
funds and not having funds, and they were going to ask us for funds,
but I don't see anything in the letter that says, we're going to
recommend cancellation of the contract.
So the letter itself isn't consistent with the recommendations of
the executive summary, and it causes some confusion. Nevertheless,
we're here. You're asking for our opinion. You're asking us to make a
decision, so the process is being followed, it's just that the
correspondence isn't as precise as it should be.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And I agree with you. And when I saw it,
Page 217
April 24, 2007
I said, it went out like that? I took a look at who it was addressed to.
And if you look at paragraph nine of your agreement, it was from the
manager of your contract to the manager on their side of the contract,
okay, and that's who it went to, the two action officers, and that was
correspondence between the two.
I also took a look at the letter, and as I went down to the bottom it
talked about a future funding mechanism in coming to the board.
Could it have been worded better, you betcha. But I also took a look
at that and said it was going between two action officers and it wasn't
going to that particular agency as the board's process.
And so I -- I took a look at where it was and where it went to it. I
said -- when I read this executive summary, I said, yeah, I could be,
looked at number nine, looked at where the correspondence went to, it
was the two action officers, your action officer, their action officer
based on the agreement, as that correspondence went through, and I'll
take -- I'll take steps to get this corrected.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. I'm sorry. Commissioner
Henning, I see your light on.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'll wait till commissioner's
comments.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, fine. But I think we've given
direction to staff. Is everyone in agreement or reasonably in
agreement? Okay. Thank you. Thank you Mr. -- Commissioner
Henning.
Please, what's next, Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Joseph, did you get -- you got your guidance, what
you need.
Item #lOJ
RECOMMENDATION TO DETERMINE THE FINAL AGENDA
FROM THE TOPICS PROPOSED BY MEMBERS OF THE
Page 21 8
April 24, 2007
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE NAPLES
CITY COUNCIL FOR A JOINT WORKSHOP SCHEDULED FOR
MAY 1, 2007 - TOPICS TO INCLUDE: FUTURE ANNEXATION,
FLORIDA LEGISLATURE AND PROPERTY TAXES,
COOPERATIVE EFFORTS REFERENCING NAPLES BAY AND
CLAM BAY, CHARTER GOVERNMENT, THE CITY'S
REQUEST FOR COUNTY FUNDS AND A RECYCLING
PROGRAM THAT MIRRORS COLLIER COUNTY'S PROGRAM
- CONSENSUS
Okay. We're on 10J, which is a recommendation to determine
the final agenda for the topics proposed by members of the Board of
County Commissioners and the Naples City Council for ajoint
workshop scheduled for May 1,2007. And Ms. Debbie Wight,
assistant to the County Manager, will present
MS. WIGHT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. You have before
you an executive summary with the topics proposed by members of
the Board of County Commissioners, yourselves as well as members
of the city council, and I would ask that you review them and make a
decision now which of those you would like on your agenda for the
May 1 st joint workshop with the city council.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How many items do we have? I
mean, how many can we have?
MS. WIGHT: How many can you have? That also is your
decision.
Jim, I don't know what you wanted to recommend to them.
Commissioner Coletta has proposed six; Commissioner Fiala has
three. Commissioner Coyle has three. Commissioner Halas proposed
annexation, which was also proposed by Commissioner Coletta. The
city council has four items. I could name those all for you if you'd
like, read those.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, some of them are fairly
Page 219
April 24, 2007
duplicative when you get down to it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, if you'll
permit me, what I've done is I've tried to go through all these and
correlate them and see if we can't take those that mean essentially the
same thing and group them under one heading.
And so I have a total of six categories, if you'll permit me to go
through them. See if you agree with them. Number one is
annexation. Both Commissioner Coletta and Commissioner Halas
wanted to talk about that. The second is Florida legisl -- Florida state
legislation. If we want to talk about the impact of any of the state bills
concerning property taxes, it might be a good time to talk about that,
and that covers, you know, one of my issues.
The other one would be cooperative efforts with respect to
Naples Bay and Clam Bay, and from that we could get into the speed
zone issues and/or the equal access and cost issues that were brought
up by Commissioner Coletta.
And then the fourth category could be funding requests, which
would be the funding requests associated with Sandpiper and
Fleischmann project, Gordon River greenway, that was requested by
the city.
The fifth category would be charter government, and you could
lump into that consolidation fire departments, which was raised by one
of our commissioners, and then the last would be recycling program
for the city patterned after that one -- the one that we have in the
county .
And I think those six categories would accommodate everything
that all of us have asked for. If I missed anything, you know, tell me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Very good.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. WIGHT: You did very well, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any comments?
MS. WIGHT: Looks fine to me.
Page 220
April 24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Once again, you came through in a
big way . Yeah, I think you got direction.
MS. WIGHT: That looks fine, Commissioners. Anybody else?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No.
MR. MUDD: Three nods.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yep, got them.
MR. MUDD: Thank you.
MS. WIGHT: Thank you.
Item # lOK
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS REJECT THE $16.5 MILLION COUNTER-
OFFER FROM A THINA KYRITSIS AND ZANNOS GREKOS,
OWNERS OF THE GAWN FISHIN', LLC PROPERTY LOCATED
IN EVERGLADES CITY - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Next item on the agenda is lOK, and that is a
recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners reject the
$16.5 million counteroffer from Athina --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We already did that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, we didn't. We didn't vote on it.
MR. MUDD: -- Kyritsis and Zannos Grekos, owners of the
Gone Fishin' LLC property located in Everglades City.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion to approve
from Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Coyle.
And comments is the fact that this does not prohibit them from coming
back and making another offer; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
Page 221
April 24, 2007
MS. RAMSEY: That is correct. I did want to point out though
there is something in the executive summary that you do need to
know, that the Manatee Protection Plan for this particular site, as it
sits, where no matter what the price is, does not currently allow for a
boat ramp or for dry storage at this location. I just wanted you to
know that in case you didn't pick that out of there. Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Chairman, can I ask a question?
But you go on to say in the executive summary that it might change in
the future.
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What -- how certain can we be that
that would be the case?
MS. RAMSEY: I've asked the environmental people, you know,
department, numerous times, numerous emails, trying to get to that as
to like how long is it guaranteed. There is no guarantee. They
anticipate there would be anywhere from three to four years before we
would know whether we could or whether we couldn't. It is kind of
iffy. And I can't get a better answer than that at this moment.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And it's sort of important--
MS. RAMSEY: Very important.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- otherwise we won't be able to
use it for the purposes we want to use it for --
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and if we're going to hold it for
three or four years in the anticipation that maybe we might be able to
use it, there's a cost associated with that that has to be factored into
what we're willing to pay for this property.
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. And we have shared that
information with the current owner as well.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, okay, all right. Okay. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion, we have a second.
Page 222
April 24, 2007
Any other discussion?
Commissioner Henning, did you have something else to add?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we know that the city
council is opposed to this, the purchase of it, for a use of a boat
facility. So unless they have changed their mind, why go down this
road?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I don't recall them ever meeting
to discuss it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Mayor Hamilton came up
here and shared his concerns.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, Mayor Hamilton, I very much
respect the man and like him very much. But once again, the city
council never met to discuss it. So I mean, they may have feelings
that way and they may not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I know he's the
spokesperson for the city, so I'm surprised to hear that he was doing
that on his own.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, I -- well, they never had a
meeting to discuss it. I don't really care to carry it any farther because
then I might say he was working outside the sunshine and all that, and
he never would do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'm not even implying that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, I know that and I want to make
sure nobody thinks I am either. But the thing was is that we still don't
have a determination. They never met to discuss it. We offered to
send staff down there to try to get a discussion going so we could try
to get some feelings on it, and they never picked up the opportunity to
go forward. It might be a moot issue, but it's one of those things.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. If all things are worked
Page 223
April 24, 2007
through, including, you know, things with the environment and so
forth, it would be such an ideal place --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, it would.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- if the price was right, and it's
desperately needed as more and more places are drying up and bought
out by developers, and then they can never be used for public access
again. And just maybe these people will realize our dilemma and, you
know, they would still be getting a good price for it and we would--
we would be able to then buy it for our future. But, you know, there's
still clouds over the property when you think of what the
environmental aspects are on it. So just maybe they'll come back and
give us a positive.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Meanwhile, you know, who knows
what time will provide a couple weeks from now --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- or whenever, what opportunities
might present themselves --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- what we may find out through
discovery. I mean, I've got to admit at this point in time, it sounds less
than favorable. But there we are. We got what we got, and we've got a
motion not to accept the offer.
And from that, no other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, say
aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
Page 224
April 24, 2007
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it 5-0.
Item #1 OL
RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION
SUPPORTING A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED
HEARTLAND PARKWAY -DENIED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 10L, which is
16A 1. It's a recommendation to adopt the resolution supporting the
feasibility for study for the proposed Heartland Parkway. The item
was asked to be moved from the consent agenda to the regular agenda
by Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Fiala.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Why don't we start with
Commissioner Fiala then go to Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He pulled first.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's all right. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just have a real problem with this
one. First of all, and most importantly, it doesn't even touch us, and
I'm wondering why we're supporting a feasibility study. Are we going
to end up paying some of the costs for it, number one.
Number two, it's interesting -- you know, it's interesting, and I'm
just going to throw this onto the table. Maybe I'm grasping at straws,
but, you know, I've never been a proponent for paying tolls on the new
two lanes on 1-75. As strongly as the -- as they're telling us it needs to
be done, especially development industry telling us how much we
need to toll this so we can build the other four lanes. And I'm just
wondering, as we all know tolls never go away, I wonder ifsome of
those tolls are going to be dedicated to building the Heartland
Expressway which will then open the middle of the state right up to
development.
Page 225
April 24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Can I answer that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just thought I'd just place that on
the table.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I can answer that. As a member
of the authority, the answer's no. Ifwe have control of the authority,
which we do at this point in time -- and Norm Feders (sic) will verify
this -- we direct where the funds go.
Ifwe don't have control of the authority -- if this doesn't pass, in
other words, if the toll authority goes away, the state tolling agency's
going to come in and toll it eventually on their own, and we'll have no
say where the monies go. At this point in time we can direct them
back to this area.
Mr. Feder, would you address the question with more detail in all
the authority that your office gives you?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Which is none.
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, Transportation
Administrator. I believe the chairman is quite correct. Right now,
based on the toll authority, if, in fact, there's a decision to toll, the
authority would direct how that money gets spent and where it gets
spent.
If the authority doesn't move on that, we move on the fifth and
sixth and eventually later it gets tolls, which it only -- it's about the
only way it will probably come forward -- maybe with the Florida
Turnpike -- without having the authority and any deal established with
the turnpike, they have no provision to keep the monies locally. They
could put it anywhere else, whether it's the Heartland or any other part
of the system.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll just -- I'll just throw this little
piece in here. With the authority, the faces change and so do their
ideas, and depends on who sits there as to how the money's dedicated.
But anyway --
MR. FEDER: Until a decision is made and instructed, that's
Page 226
April 24, 2007
correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And if! may, too, the
feasibility study -- Mr. Feder, before you go too far. This feasibility
study, would it require Collier County's contribution to it?
MR. FEDER: That's very unclear. This is the first I got to see of
this item, a concern that this was brought in through our efforts over in
Immokalee without any real discussion. First of all, it is a facility
that's noted to only go to State Road 82 in Fort Myers. It does not
speak to enhancing 82 and 29 in any manner. It speaks to only
concentrating on the northern end, which would be down to state -- or
starting at State Road 60 south of Lakeland, which just happens to be
right next to the district office in Bartow and establishing a road from
there up to 1-4 and a connection to what is finally called the Polk pork
way or the Polk Parkway, and that connection is the only thing that's
provided for here.
It's noted that even that section is only about 28 percent viable on
tolls. It's noted that other funds would have to be obtained from local
government. It's noted that they're asking for our endorsement of this
concept of that facility up there from Florida DOT to use their PD&E
monies to focus attention on an SIS facility that this would
conceivably, I guess, become if they had everybody's endorsement.
So my observation is, as a transportation planner, I hate to say
that I don't want to see progress towards an alternate corridor. It's
needed, but I don't believe it's to our advantage when we're a donor
county within a donor state, within a donor district within a donor
state, to the tune of us getting only about 56 percent of our return over
a IS-year period. I don't think we want to put ourselves in endorsing
an item. It doesn't even come directly into our county, and the
prospects are, they're going to be working on the north end at first.
They don't need our endorsement to do that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So your recommendation is, don't
endorse this --
Page 227
April 24, 2007
MR. FEDER: Unfortunately, it would be my recommendation. I
wouldn't say try to defeat the Heartland from proceeding forward, but
right now we've got a lot of other issues that need to be addressed that
are much more near term on the agenda and are not being addressed;
29, 82 being an example of that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, Coyle was next.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Coyle.
Forgive me. I'm glad you're keeping an eye on it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Henning can go.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, you go ahead, sir. We believe
in senior members going first.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Well, Commissioner Fiala
should go first all the time then.
I don't know that I can improve on Norm Feder's
recommendation except to say that, yeah, we shouldn't approve it and
we should work like heck to defeat it because, you know, this is put
together by people who believe there's a sucker born every minute,
and I guess they think we're some of the suckers.
Commissioner Fiala, the money's got to come somewhere -- from
somewhere, and you can bet part of it's coming out of our pocket.
We're already scrambling for money to do what we can do now in
Collier County, and now people want us to support the spending of
more money for a proposed Heartland Parkway.
Now, let's look at process very carefully. On 1-75 right now
we're taking a look at all the development that has occurred, all the
traffic that is being generated, and we're trying to determine the
feasibility ofa tollway. We're trying to determine how much money it
will generate.
Well, the Heartland Parkway is reversing the process. Nobody's
decided how much development's going to be there. Nobody knows
what kind of traffic is going to be there, but they want to do a
Page 228
April 24, 2007
feasibility study anyway.
The process is reversed. The governor knows the process is
reversed and he says it's backwards. The secretary of DCA says it is
the wrong way to proceed with planning roads, that first you have to
do the long-range planning that is necessary. That hasn't been done.
And the final kicker is, that this is going to benefit some ofthe
wealthiest landowners in Florida, if not in the United States. If they
want a feasibility study done for their Heartland Parkway that is going
to open up their land to make them billions of dollars, then they're
certainly welcome to do the feasibility study, as far as I'm concerned.
And if you ever wanted to know a good reason not to support
tolling of 1-75, it is the fact that efforts like this are going on which
will, in fact, undermine the ability of 1-75 to be successful as a
tollway.
So this is a no-brainer in my opinion. I'm even offended that it
comes to us.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, these types of things are why
we're sitting up here is to be able to make these hard decisions. Let's
see if we can get some guidance from Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to pass.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Then let's have a motion up or
down.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I make a motion to disapprove and,
in fact, I would even support a resolution opposing the Heartland
Parkway.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I do want to say something,
okay?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The Heartland highway, if it
does bring growth in that area, that's a good thing for Collier County.
It would give other people choices when they want to come to Florida
Page 229
April 24, 2007
besides Collier County or Southwest Florida. Anytime that we can
direct growth away from here, I think it's a good idea.
So I can't support the motion, but I can be silent on the other one
as to not to support.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me break it into two parts and
just deal with what's on the agenda. That's the proper way to do it
anyway. Let's just -- motion to disapprove this resolution.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Before we vote on that, how
many speakers?
MS. FILSON: I have one speaker, Brad Cornell.
MR. CONRECODE: I'm not registered as a speaker, but --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, hurry up. Yeah, go ahead,
please.
MR. CONRECODE: For the record, Tom Conrecode. As you all
know, I've been advocating for transportation solutions in our region
and certainly outside of our region for more than a decade.
The corridors' initiative, of which the Heartland Parkway is one
of the designated corridors, covers nine future corridors that deal with
transportation issues throughout the state through the year 2060. It
was a process that went through multiple years, multiple public
hearings and meetings, including DCA, DEP, DOT and a whole lot of
other very smart people in Tallahassee that are supposed to be
thinking about planning for our future.
Of the nine corridors identified through that process, four of them
are going forward with some level of additional study. The Heartland
corridor happens to be one of those. That feasibility study occurs with
or without your support.
What this resolution attempts to do is to provide you a seat at the
table to discuss how all that -- all that traffic coming south from 1-4
will come into Collier County, because right now there are three
potential ways that that could terminate. We could stop at State Road
Page 230
April 24, 2007
80, they could stop at State Road 82 in Lee County, or it could stop at
the 29 bypasses around Immokalee.
Ultimately the idea is to make an interconnection with 1-75 and
the Alley in order to serve freight traffic that's currently going through
1-75 in Lee and Collier Counties in order to get to the Midwest.
So this is a much bigger issue, a much bigger picture, and I
apologize that I haven't had an opportunity to speak to each of you to
provide more detail about what the corridors' initiative is all about at
the state level.
I know we have a new DCA secretary, and he's trying to come up
to speed on this. He has been meeting with the DOT secretary, the
DEP secretary. They're going to have the regional conference in
Southwest Florida in the near future specifically to talk about this
Issue.
So I apologize I didn't provide more information to you ahead of
this item, but there's a lot more to it than just saying, we think it
should or shouldn't. It's going to happen with or without us. It's a
question whether we have a seat at the table to discuss how it affects
our future.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Cornell.
MR. CORNELL: Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Brad
Cornell on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society, Audubon of
Florida, Florida Wildlife Federation and the Conservancy of
Southwest Florida, who have all asked me to speak on this issue.
I want to counter what you just heard from Mr. Conrecode. The
current governor and the current DCA secretary, Department of
Community Affairs secretary Tom Pelham, have both been quoted in
the media as being very vocally opposed to this concept of the
Heartland Parkway. Not only that, the whole corridor action plan that
he spoke of that was supposedly brought forth from the best and the
brightest in Tallahassee has been denigrated by both of these current
Page 231
April 24, 2007
administrators and our current governor.
And I would point out if you look at a map of Florida and pick
out where development is not currently, you would find that those are
the nine corridors that are in this plan, and I would heartily not
recommend that as the way to plan for Florida's future. That is not the
way. You do not find a road, put a road on the map, and then build
your communities around the road.
That's the recipe that we've had since World War II, and it's
response -- it's responsible for the kind of sprawl and ineffectual
unsustainable development that we've seen to the extent that that's
happened.
I would like to point out something that's been very good in
Collier County. We've taken the bull by the horns more recently in
the rural land stewardship and the rural fringe policies that you all
have adopted into our comprehensive plan where planning happened
on the basis of what was there on the land.
We looked at the landscape, we figured out what was important
to protect in terms of agriculture, natural resources, and then planned
the community around those issues, and then you look at your
infrastructure.
And I would compliment Collier County and you all for
supporting that way of doing business and not -- and also your
wisdom, and I would heartily second what Commissioner Coyle has
spoken about, heartily second the fact that you don't have a road
planning your land use for the future. That's been proven to be the
worst way to go about it.
So we strongly support your opposition of this resolution and
also opposition of this way of planning. We think that the Department
of Community Affairs would have a better way of planning for this
region, and we look forward to the workshop that they will be
bringing to Southwest Florida.
Thank you.
Page 232
April 24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Okay. We have a motion, we got a second.
Commissioner Coyle, I believe you already spoke. Did you have
something else?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I was -- but Commissioner
Henning's light is on, so he might.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It is. I'm not too sure. I'm just going
down --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. He should go first, and then
I'll go.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, that's right. It's his birthday
today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: He's older than I am today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- since it's your birthday.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's a false statement.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. It was on there from
before.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Your birthday? Oh, the light, okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then I'd just like to make a final
comment. I think Mr. Conrecode is correct. This will happen whether
we like it or not. The people -- no. Some of the elected
representatives in Tallahassee serve to benefit personally from this
particular process, and they are going to push it and steam roll
anybody who gets in the way, and it makes no difference what we do,
whether we approve it or not. We're not going to have a seat at the
table. And even if we got a seat at the table, we wouldn't have
anything to say about it, just like we didn't have anything to say about
the Growth Management Plan or about the tax proposals or the
removal of home rule authority for local governments.
Page 233
April 24, 2007
Developers have found that they can get what they need by going
to legislators in Tallahassee and getting it. They don't need to go
through local governments anymore. So we don't have a table. We're
not going to get a seat at the table to do anything. So they've cut us
out of the process. And I'm not, quite frankly, in the mood to help
them by passing resolutions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We appreciate your insight.
And I'm going to make a comment that I can't support the resolution
because I do think we're removing ourselves from the table at a point
in time that we could be influential in what's happening. This isn't
going to happen in our term as commissioners. This is future
long-range planning way off there at some other point. But needless
to say, you know, it's the will of this commission, and we are going to
go forward with the vote.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
Aye.
Let the vote show that I was -- I was alone on the dissenting part
of the vote.
Next item, Mr. Mudd.
Item #IOM
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR TRAFFIC
RESERVATION EXTENSION ASSOCIATED WITH THE
APPROV AL OF THE TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT (TIS)
SUBMITTED WITH THE VERONA WALK PHASE 4C AND 4D
PPL AR#9241 - APPROVED
Page 234
April 24, 2007
MR. MUDD: It's 10M, and that used to be 16B6. It's a
recommendation to approve a one-year traffic reservation extension
associated with the approval of the traffic impact statement submitted
with the Verona Walk phase 4C and 4D PPL AR#9241. The item was
moved at Commissioner Coyle's request, and Nick Casalanguida from
transportation division, will present.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, before you begin, let's go right
to Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Let's go through this. The
only reason I pulled this is in a meeting with Mr. Y ovanovich, the
attorney for the petitioner here, indicated that he wanted to buy a new
car, and if he could sit in Board of County Commissioners room all
day today, he could probably cover the entire cost to discuss this item.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I suggest we continue it to the next
meeting.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's not a very nice car.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Seriously, my only concern, Nick,
was the statement in the executive summary that says that if we grant
this extension, that the developer agrees to address their obligations
within a certain time period, okay.
Now, that doesn't mean they agree to accept their obligations or
to pay their obligations. It merely says they will address their
obligations. So my feeling is that if we're going to grant an extension
to the traffic impact statement, that we should get some assurance that
they will, in fact, pay the fair share of whatever impacts we have
previously agreed to and they will do so within a specified period of
time. That's all I want to do.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's fair, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And I think that Mr.
Y ovanovich agrees with that except that right now you don't know
what some of the costs are.
Page 235
April 24, 2007
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you don't know how much
he's going to have to pay for some of those, if anything at all; is that
true?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So how can we get -- what
can we say in this agreement, this extension, that will get us the
guarantees we need and get those guarantees satisfied within a
specified time period?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Just to alleviate some of your concerns
-- and for the record, Commissioner, Nick Casalanguida, with
transportation planning.
As part of the DRI review process and your PUD auditing
process and as part of any development order application, we're being
pretty diligent about reviewing the PUD commitments that are there.
So any application that comes in from this development will be
stipulated for approval to comply with those PUD and DRI
requirements.
Tying it in as part of the extension was just another avenue I
wanted to use to put something on the record and put him on notice
that these things are coming due. We had put a time frame of
approximately 180 days because we didn't have the actual costs at that
time.
We have the mechanism through the audit process and through
the development order review process to make sure that they comply.
They have several other applications that they've agreed to -- we
expect those to be held up until we comply.
And in fairness to this developer, who's done Island Walk, when
we asked for a payment for a signal, they wrote the check even a year
after the development was completed.
So we have a good history with them. We have a mechanism to
make sure that they pay. This was to put them on notice, and they've
Page 236
April 24, 2007
been willing to put on the record that they're willing to do this, so I
think I'm pretty comfortable with that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you feel comfortable with the
wording as it is right now?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir, I do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then I'll make a motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we have a motion for approval
by Commissioner Coyle, 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.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 5-0.
Item #lON
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS A WARD CONTRACT # 06-4049 PUBLIC
UTILITIES DIVISION ASSET MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION TO CAMP
DRESSER & MCKEE, INC., FOR AN AMOUNT FOR THE FIRST
PHASE NOT TO EXCEED $447,946.00 - APPROVED
Page 237
April 24, 2007
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next on -- the next item is ION. It
used to be l6C6. This is a recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners award contract number 06-4049, Public Utilities
Division Asset Management Program Development and
Implementation to Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc., for an amount for
the first phase not to exceed $447,946.
The item was asked to be pulled by Commissioner Coyle and
Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Who wants to go first?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let Commissioner Henning go.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the problem that I have, it
says this is the first phase, and you get us down the road after phase
1,052 and then we can't get out of it. That's my problem with this
item. I think that we should have full disclosure of what the cost is
going to be, how many phases, and so on and so forth.
The next thing that I have a problem with is the board determined
that the SAP system will be the centralized system for the county, the
clerk, and other constitutional officers, and in this executive summary
it said they -- well, we'll take a look at it, see if it will apply. I just
don't feel a lot of confidence that that's going to be taken a look at, and
apply that to SAP.
MR. WIDES: Commissioners, for the record, Tom Wides,
Operations Director of Collier County Public Utilities.
Commissioner, to respond to your first question in terms of the
phasing, yes, we do see three phases, okay. In fact, phase one is to
understand what we have in our current systems and what is missing.
And I'll describe it very highly as a gap analysis for asset
management.
Phase two, yes, that would be the design process. We don't know
Page 238
April 24, 2007
at this point in time what the cost will be of phase two or an
implementation phase three we do not know. I recognize that, and
that's very true.
What I will tell you though is, what we gain from this from
assessment phase, I don't see to be a throw-away product. Quite
frankly, we may find during this first assessment phase, and what we
would be looking for is, in fact, using some of the current functionality
we have today, is that a possible alternative? Is SAP a good
alternative? Is -- are there linkages, natural linkages? Are there
linkages to our billing system, in fact? Are there linkages to our
existing work order systems?
Those are pretty tremendous tasks to map out those activities
from a -- from literally an assessment point of view.
What I would say also from a -- I'll call it a prudent management
approach to the assets that we have on the ground, we know with GIS,
we now are learning where they're all at, but we don't have a good feel
for their state of -- for their state of the actual asset themselves.
We do know that pumps and pipes, electrical components, have
an asset and have a useful life. If we can get ourselves to a stage where
we can look at that asset in a financial system and say, that's what
we're using in our management system also to manage, to replace, to
rehab, those are all pieces that we can start to understand by getting
through this first phase of this project.
So I will admit, no, we don't have the cost for phase two or phase
three, but we do know that this is not throw-away work from phase
one.
And if may add one more thing into this. I personally, and a
number of our directors, have gone out and gone to various
conferences to try to understand what other communities, what other
businesses are doing to try to improve their state.
And with -- the first thing that we hear from them and when we
had the Qualser (phonetic) presentation a couple of years ago, the first
Page 239
April 24, 2007
thing we heard from them is the asset management system's value,
okay. And those who don't have it, how far behind? You're kind of
shooting into a dry target trying to understand your planning.
Commissioner, I hope that helps to respond.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It -- thank you. Yes, it does, but
why not ask the question, how can we integrate our billing system into
SAP and our work orders and our asset management? But this doesn't
say that. And, you know, we talk about consolidating functions in
county government, and I got a concern that we're moving away from
it.
MR. WIDES: Commissioner, maybe the -- one of the first things
I would respond to is, in order to determine where we want to go, we
need to have a comprehensive understanding of the systems that we
have today. How they interrelate, how does GIS interrelate potentially
either with an asset management system or more fully with SAP,
okay.
And one of the significant tasks that we have, which is up on the
visualizer here, is the technology assessment. We have a
not-to-exceed $71,000 of the 400 and -- almost $450,000 designed to
look at our existing software, our existing inventory of software, look
at the flows between and among those systems and finally, yes, in
fact, not just take a cursory look at SAP, not take a cursory look at
GIS or the other systems we have, but look at these systems, see what
they will provide and how we can either utilize information from them
so we aren't re-inputting data for a second time or interfacing back to
them, but get a much better picture of what is our asset availability
with the systems we have today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't you go to
Commissioner Coyle.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I have the same primary
concern, is that we don't know what phases two and three are, how
Page 240
April 24, 2007
much they're going to cost, how long they're going to take and what
the benefit really is going to be.
But there are some things that I know, and here's how this
process work. We do the initial assessment as a consultant, and most
consultants who have done these know exactly where they're going to
come out in the end because they've done them for somebody else.
They're going to sell you something else. So at phase two and phase
three, it could be another couple million dollars.
Now, something else I know is that we have a pretty darn good
public utilities division with some pretty good people here, and I am
surprised that with the people we've got here, we don't know what it is
we've got. Maybe we haven't documented it as well as we should, but
I'd be willing to bet you that knowledge exists.
I think you know where your lines are, where your pumps are,
where your motors are, where your facilities are. You gave us a
presentation just a couple of years ago where you talked about
examining the life cycles of pumps and motors with the objective of
determining how -- when you were going to have to swap these out,
what you would have to maintain in inventory, which types of
equipment you should maintain so that they could be swapped out
quickly and you wouldn't have to wait for order and ship time. We
went through that in some detail at least two to three years ago.
And I just can't believe that a division that operates as well as this
division does doesn't already have a lot of that knowledge and
information. And even if you required some additional people to do
this, I think you'd be way ahead doing it in internally, at least the
initial assessment phase. Can you always bring in a consultant to brief
you on what an asset management system does, which ones are
available, what are the advantages of those, and take me somewhere
where I can see them work. But the process of understanding work
flow and processes and assets is something that I don't believe
anybody knows better than you know.
Page 241
April 24, 2007
MR. DeLONY: For the record, Jim DeLony.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that's what bothers me, okay?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. If I may respond. Thank you for the
compliments. Jim DeLony, public utilities administer.
You're right, sir, we know what we're doing. We really do. I
mean, we've got great folks. They're all sitting right here with me.
Sometimes a lot of our work is changing a wheel on a car moving
down a highway with the normal ongoing pulse and tempo of the
operation, staying in compliance, being a demand on a daily basis,
doing the things we have to do to coach, teach and mentor the future
of your employees and so on.
I don't like going out of house and doing things that I would want
to do in-house. I'm not going to say I don't have the people. If I
thought that this task could be accomplished with more in-house staff,
I'd be up here asking Mr. Mudd, then, in turn, hopefully he would
support me to ask you to get those resources.
I don't believe we know what we need to know to accomplish
what's on the chart that you have in front of you there, to blend into an
accounting system as well as an operational system, to make those
just-in-time decisions from an operational and a link-to-financial
standpoint to arrive at that best-value solution I've promised you since
I've been here.
Now, with regard to that, we've looked across the market, we've
looked at utilities that have tried and failed, ones that have tried and
been successful. I'm not going to come back with a solution that some
consultant gave us because he led me down the wrong road. That's
not what I -- we're about.
But I understand exactly how you feel, sir. I know what you're
saying, and I kind of visited where you're talking about. I can't take
any issue with what you're saying. I just don't -- I think at this critical
point where we are in the utility or given our sizing and our potential
sizing, this is a good move to do a full-stream assessment of what
Page 242
April 24, 2007
we're got in hand, SAP, geographical informational management
systems, our operations 10, which is our in-house warehousing
system, and see what the blend of those, because they were essentially
systems brought on board as each instead of a family of system.
Now, we believe SAP's got some capabilities to go from just a --
it states right now it's an accounting system to more of a management
system. And we will continue to make that, in my assessment, where
it's applicable; the workhorse for everything we do. That's the
commitment that Mr. Mudd has given to the staff from day one about
what we're going to do with SAP into the future.
I can't tell you sitting here today with any great knowledge -- and
I think I speak for my staff as well -- where SAP would be limiting or
be helpful at this stage of the game. We have a great attitude, a great
idea, of where our stuff is, and what it is. We don't yet have the
ability to move that to just-in-time decisions about financial matters in
the 15- to 20-year earmark.
Primarily what's on this chart that deals with taking those assets
from -- into modernization, preparing for placement and having that
strategy long-term so when we go to bond -- when we go to rating,
when we go to impact fees, we've got the sufficient financials backed
up with the status of the infrastructure.
The asset management program we seek would give us that
assistance and help us with that crystal ball, and that's what we're
trying accomplish, sir. You're right. Nobody should know that better
than us, and that's where we should stand. Can we do this in-house
with current? I don't think so. Should we wait until we can muster the
resources in house to do so? That's one strategy.
I thought that looking at it in this manner, which we've
approached the board here in this phase manner, we'd be able to eke
this a little bit one good step at a time, crawl, walk, run to our ultimate
destination to accomplish what you see in this chart in front of you.
That's the approach and deployment. There are probably many other
Page 243
April 24, 2007
ways to skin this -- skin this or accomplishment, but that's the strategy
we put before the board today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, once again, I'm not going to
get involved in trying to tell you how to operate, but there are certain
fundamental elements to this kind of decision process that I think you
understand as well as anyone else. You're going to have to have an
inventory of your physical assets. You've going to have to have work
flow.
MR. DeLONY : Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're going to have to have some
understanding of what your goals and objectives are. I think you've
got all that. I think you know that.
MR. DeLONY : Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What you don't have, probably, is
the time to allocate specifically to doing those kinds of things because
you're so tied up in the operational -- day-to-day operational aspects.
A small team working full time at something like that, under the
guidance of your department heads who already have the knowledge,
should be able to pull together this information fairly quickly for you.
And then we've got SAP assets available either in-house or we can get
them from a consultant who can look at the information you gather
and say, here's how we can integrate it or, no, we can't integrate it.
Once you've got this information, you can bring a potential
vendor in here for presentations and say, here's the information I've
got. Here's what I have to put into this thing, here's what I want to get
out of it. Now, what do you have that will help me get there, okay?
And you'll find that those people that you used to gather that
information and develop those procedures and documentations and
objectives will be invaluable as you go through the process of
selecting your systems and implementing them and training people on
how to use them and refining the process. So they will bring you
dividends as you go down the road.
Page 244
April 24, 2007
The only way you can get the same payback by hiring a
consultant is to pay them more money on another engagement, and it's
going to cost you lots and lots and lots of money once you get into it.
So I would hope that you could find a better way to proceed with
this, but I do not want to interfere in your ability to continue creating
the finest public utilities division around because I know that's what
you're doing. And I just am uneasy about committing a half a million
dollars to something when I can't see the light at end of the tunnel.
MR. DeLONY: And you know what, sir, there's just not a thing
in the world that I don't agree with what you said. In terms of creating
those champions, in-house champions to carry the ball to the next
level, you're on the mark. I mean, there's no better way to do it than to
grow your own when you have the capability to do that.
Sometimes, as a matter of slope and pass, you want it today,
instant gratification or you want to, you know, raise your own
tomatoes or go down to town and buy tomatoes, I mean, it's really in
that category is what we're speaking here today in terms of approach
and deployment.
Here's the bottom line, you know. We are in the -- we're in the
throes of a tremendous expansion program in public utilities, created
by concurrency management. And, you know, we continue to dial
that and to do those tasks every day.
Concurrent to that, you know, we're competing at market. And
I'm not complaining. I mean, we're at market. We're the pretty tight
technical labor base here in Collier County. Nothing new there.
Finally, with regard to us, real-time need for this information
exists yesterday for this utility. If we're going to be a world-class
organization, I needed that information three years ago when I brought
you a rate study, and I'm going to bring a rate study in here to you, sir.
We're going to assess our financials in June. We may be a year
earlier than the third year of the current rate study, and that's one of
the things in our financial plan to look at mid year. So the need for it
Page 245
April 24, 2007
is real time. So the tomatoes need to become -- if I can get them off
the shelf and they're good, that's what I'm seeking in this particular
solution, and that's the point. I can't argue with you or give you a
better alternative in what you present in terms of approach and
deployment. I just believe that the timing of it is appropriate.
This contractual arrangement that we're proposing is a time and
materials cost. It's not a lump sum. And we'll dial in as we see fit
these tasks, and there's a number of them. This is the first three on this
chart. This is all in your packet in terms of the contract proceeding --
next chart, please. All these estimates that you see here are our best
guess estimates for these deliverables. But again, we'll dial those in --
dial those in based on what we -- what we determine, as the project
delivery team, for each one of these deliverables. And that's our
approach currently, sir, and that's what we've proposed and have
recommended to the board.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So if you go through phase lH --
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir,
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- how much money have you
spent? Half of the 400,000?
MR. DeLONY: Well, that could be. I mean, it could be. It is
cumulative in that regard. But at the same time, we've made these
good faith estimates for each of these deliverables. And again, they're
dealing with a time and materials delivery both in terms of the quality
and quantity.
You know, when you put these -- when you look at -- you look at
this in terms of a proposal from a consultant, you're looking at his
capability to provide you the deliverable as opposed to the specifics of
that deliverable until you get into the guts of it, and that's how you do
this particular type of arrangement. This is a time and materials
arrangement.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, add up for me very quickly
the total costs of phases IA through IH.
Page 246
April 24, 2007
MR. DeLONY: Okay, just a second. It should come to
approximately 467- --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It adds up to the whole amount of
467-?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, but we broke that down in this
presentation, what we thought our good faith estimate for each
deliverable. And I don't know if you agree with me or not -- with your
experience, I'm sure that -- I think you'd get at least 80 percent
agreement that this approach in terms of these deliverables that are on
these charts -- did you flash each one of these up, Tom -- is the way
we'd get home with regard to what we discussed, you and I, over the
last five minutes. You know, with each one of these deliverables is
how you build this particular kind of system. And I know you've done
that in the past in your earlier life.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That doesn't add up to 487,000.
MR. DeLONY: Not yet, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. You've got more?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sorry.
MR. DeLONY: Deliverables are A through H.
Sir, I did the best to answer the questions. Is there anything else I
can ask -- answer in terms of this proposal that we have?
And by the way, again, thank you for your compliments with
regard to our division.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Don't look at me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're looking at you for guidance.
You pulled it --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion for approval of
this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
Page 247
April 24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion for
approval by Commissioner Halas and a second by Commissioner
Fiala.
Commissioner Henning, did you have something else to add? I
don't know if I turned your light off when you weren't ready or what.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I have no more to say.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, fine. With that, all those in
favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let the record show that
Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Henning were in opposition.
MR. DeLONY: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #100
RECOMMENDA TION TO CONFIRM APPROVAL OF THE
STARNES PROPERTY AS A CATEGORY A PROPERTY ON
THE FOURTH CONSERVATION COLLIER ACTIVE
ACQUISITION LIST AND DIRECTION FOR THE COUNTY
MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO ACTIVELY PURSUE THIS
PROPERTY, CONSIDERING AN ACTUAL APPRAISAL VALUE
THA TIS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN ORIGINALLY
ESTIMATED - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item on the agenda is
100. 100 is -- used to be item 16E7. It's a recommendation to
Page 248
April 24, 2007
confirm approval of the Starnes property as a category A property and
fourth Conservation Collier active acquisition list and direction for the
County Manager or his designee to actively pursue this property
considering an actual appraisal valued that is significantly higher than
the originally estimated, and this item was asked -- yeah. This item
was asked to be moved to the regular agenda by Commissioner Coyle.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm doing it again, right? Okay.
It's just no secret why I didn't pulled this one. With the real estate
market that is -- that is sort of in a depression, we've got a piece of
property that comes in almost $2 million higher than our estimate and
our appraisals. I think we would be smart to reject the offer from the
owner and let him sit on it for awhile.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It is.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by--
MS. FILSON: I have two speakers, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All right. We're going to come to
that. We have a motion by Commissioner Coyle and seconded by
Commissioner Halas.
Please call the speaker.
MS. FILSON: Brad Cornell. He'll be followed by William
Poteet.
MR. CORNELL: Good evening, again, Commissioners. Brad
Cornell on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society.
It's not clear to me that there has been any offers. I believe this is
just an appraisal that has come in higher, and staff wanted you to
know that the approval that you had made previously was based on a
lower appraisal.
Now the appraisal a year later is more accurate, and this is what
is being reflected and the reason for the agenda item. You can ask
Page 249
April 24, 2007
your staff. Since I'm speaking before staff, I'm a little awkward here.
But 1 do want to go on to say that this particular parcel, 367-acre
Starnes parcel, is one of the largest of the Conservation Collier
acquisition proposals and it's a very important strategic piece that's
within the CREW system, around Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary and
the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed. It's vital for flood
protection, wetland protection, habitat protection and water quality
protection.
All of those reasons are clearly in the public's interest. There
also is access and public recreational values that can be associated
with this parcel. I think that even with the increased appraisal, this
still falls well within the range of a public value that it strongly
recommends Conservation Collier acquisition. And we would urge
you to keep this on the A list and to direct your staff to negotiate with
the landowner. We don't know what they're asking, but not negotiate,
but to work out a deal, because we don't negotiate through
Conservation Collier, but to use this as the basis for the offer. Thank
you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is William Poteet.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did you want to address something
now, or did you want to wait, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll wait.
MR. POTEET: For the record, my name is William Poteet, and I
serve as chairman of Conservation Collier. I'm speaking here on
behalf of myself and not the conservation committee.
But the purchase of the Starnes property, we felt, was very, very
important. It was the largest piece of property that we had been
offered to date. The price of the property, it was an initial estimate that
the real estate department gave us. It was not an appraisal. So we
were basing it on an estimate that the real estate kind of picked out of
the air and said, we think it's going to be in the ballpark.
It came in a little higher, and I realize it's gone up, you know, a
Page 250
April 24, 2007
million dollars or plus. But when you start Looking at it per an acre
basis, you're looking at it going from $11,000 an acre to $14,000 an
acre, which was not a huge increase if you looked at it by an acre
basis, and that's how we pretty much look at it. If we look at all the
other little bitty properties that we buyout there in a small acreage
fashion, this is probably the most inexpensive piece of property that
we actually have submitted to you per acre of any of the properties out
there.
It's a very, very important property for the watershed issues up
there with the CREW properties, and just some wonderful things can
be done on the properties, you know, 367 acres, approximately. And
we just thought it was too valuable to turn away, and we knew that,
yes, the price was higher, but under our guidelines in Conservation
Collier, we tell these people to submit the offers there, and we'll rank
them, and then we will pay them whatever the appraisal is. It's a fair
market value, and that's what it came in as. So, you know, we have to
live with what we decide -- what we say. It wasn't something that we
can go negotiate saying we can take it for a couple million less. We're
not -- we don't have that position to do that.
So I just recommend that -- and ask you to continue to kept it on
the A list as part of the purchase for the Conservation Collier plan.
Thank you.
MS. SULECKI: Can I--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, did you want to
address that?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. The problem I have is that
the appraisal that we've got was an appraisal done in May 2006,
almost a year ago, or the estimate that we have. Right?
MS. SULECKI: That's right. The estimate was done during the
approval process based on comparable sales at that time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That was May oflast year.
That was before the property values began going south in Collier
Page 251
April 24, 2007
County, and now a year later you're telling me that it's 30 percent
higher.
MS. SULECKI: That whole Corkscrew corridor, a lot of sales
were from that area, and that is actually booming, I think.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. But is it booming because
the government buying land at a price that is way higher than they
should be buying it? I don't know if that property that Lee County
purchased is worth the amount they gave -- they purchased it for.
MS. SULECKI: Lee County has a little bit different -- and for
the record, my name is Alexandra Sulecki, Coordinator of
Conservation Collier. Lee County has a little bit different policy than
we do, and they negotiate, and that price was based on their
negotiations and considers access very similar to the Starnes property.
So it's really a good match.
But we do have real estate services folks here who can answer
your questions about that because actually the area comparables from
our two appraisals that were done just recently came in at that amount.
So what we had before was an estimate based on comparables at that
time, and what we have now is the actual appraisals, there are two,
and the comparables based on the reality of the situation, you know,
which is what our purchase policy says we will do. But if you have
questions about the comparables and about real estate in that area, you
might want to ask.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Why don't we ask some
questions. I think that this is important enough to really know where
we stand on it. I have some questions about real estate, but I'm not
going to jump in front of Commissioner Henning, Commissioner
Fiala. You go first and I'll come back later on it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I just had one question to ask
the real estate people. Look, who gave us the estimate of value for
May 2006?
MR. LEONARD: For the record, I'm the real estate appraiser,
Page 252
April 24, 2007
and my name is Roosevelt Leonard. I'm the person that provided the
estimate for May 2006.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, you're telling me, Mr.
Leonard, that in spite of all the things that have happened with
property values in Collier County in the last 12 months, that this
particular property has increased in value over 30 percent in the past
12 months?
MR. LEONARD: No, I'm not saying that. This is the way the
process worked in May. When I provided the estimate, it was a range
of9,000 to 12,000 dollars. In May, at that particular time, I felt that
the estimate would be a little bit on the lower side. That's why I
provided the range of 9- to 12-, and I considered around 11,000 to be
adequate at that particular time.
The -- there's a unique situation that happened with this particular
parcel. The appraisers used the current market data as late as February
'07. Well, there was a comparable that sold that's recent in the Starnes
area for 13,500 per acre. And the second reason for the increase, yes,
the -- Lee County is negotiating a parcel that happens to have been
appraised at 14,500.
Given that particular data, the 13,500 and the 14,500 of the parcel
that's being negotiated, the appraisers felt that the 14,000 per square
acres was the new current market value.
Now, had I taken a look at the comparable sales, the pending
sales, I believe I would have been at 13,000 per acre. So there would
have been an increase in the current market estimate.
Now -- and then there's something also that, you know, right now
myself and the rest of the real estate staff, we currently don't have
access to the MLS. And what the MLS will provide us -- and we
cannot become members of the MLS because we are a government
entity, so we've already tried.
But the MLS will give us current listings, current pending sales
and expired sales. Those are important because they will give us a
Page 253
April 24, 2007
direction on which way the market is going. But without that being
possible, at this particular May time, I do believe that the 11,000 per
acre was a fair estimate of the property at that particular time with
what we've had.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it Mr. Leonard?
MR. LEONARD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, thank you. I have a
question for you. I hope it's you. Did you study the appraiser's
reports?
MR. LEONARD: I did, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, great, thank you. Did you
walk away with the best use for this as five-acre ranchettes is how
they came to their determination?
MR. LEONARD: Well, some of it was -- you know, one
appraiser stated in his analysis that he thought it would be best to
leave it vacant and have some type of use for the grazing and oil and
gas leases. But just let me say, yes, you can develop the parcel into
five-acre units, but I still considered that the highest and best use for
the parcel is vacant ago
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that what they determined?
MR. LEONARD: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I misread it. But
vacant ago for --
MR. LEONARD: That's the current zoning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's the current zoning. And
that would be for what its use is now, is grazing right, grazing cattle,
right?
MR. LEONARD: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How does that -- there's
wetlands in there. Now, I've heard of MelaIeuca-eating cows, but I
Page 254
April 24, 2007
haven't heard of -- true story. Cows that eat wetland vegetation.
MR. LEONARD: I'm going to defer that to Alex to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't think you can answer that
-- nobody can answer that. So you really don't know. And I don't
know if that was taken under consideration of the usable wetlands or
what can be used in the wetlands. So is that a -- I mean, they based it
upon per acre, the total price of the acre.
And, you know, wetlands play an important function as far as the
environment, but I don't know about what important function it plays
in farming or development or whatever, except for mitigation.
MS. SULECKI: I'll try to answer -- I'll try to answer, even
though it was a rhetorical question maybe?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, no. It was a very serious
question. I don't think anybody can answer it. There is no use for
wetlands.
MS. SULECKI: Well, I have one answer.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. SULECKI: It may not be the answer. But I brought up this
map because this is a map of the wetland soils on the property, and
you might see underneath it that most of it has been cleared at one
time for grazing and is being used for grazing.
The wetland soils are really in very discrete areas. The
vegetation that remains, and maybe some Melaleucas down here, I
don't know. But I have traveled through this property, and the
wetlands are simply open marshes.
So when we say that, you know, the -- I'm not really sure. The
comments about cows eating Melaleucas because there's not a lot of
huge stands of Melaleucas there, I guess is my point.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, yeah. No, a government
official told me that one time. But that's a long time ago. And what
can you do -- what can you grow in wetland or marshes? Can you
grow something that cows would eat or --
Page 255
April 24, 2007
MS. SULECKI: Well, the cows use it for water sources.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Okay. Great.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. We never gave you the
opportunity. We heard the speakers. We first heard a motion and a
second and then the speakers, and we never got to hear from you.
Could you -- I have a couple questions, but I first would like to
hear just a little bit about this property, if you wouldn't mind.
MS. SULECKI: Okay. Well, I'll be -- I'll be brief. What I was
basically going to say was that we brought this item to you because
we had these two appraisals that came in higher than our estimate, the
average of which is our offer, pursuant to our purchase policy. And
the reason that I brought it to you is because you make the business
decisions.
And I wanted to come back to you so you understood why this
was higher and were comfortable with it before we moved ahead to
make the offer. It wasn't the owner that was offering to us. It's us at
the point of making the offer to the owner. And I wanted to make sure
we could answer your questions.
I didn't want to go through all the -- you know, the parcel itself,
the criteria and the aspects of it because we've been through that when
we brought the active acquisition list to you in January and you
approved it as an A list property.
But I just wanted to make a couple of points to you that the
appraisal value is consistent with our purchase policy in the resolution
that we have for our purchase policy and that this parcel, which is
right up here, is a very significant contributor to this entire wetlands
system at the landscape level as a buffer because it is highly subject to
development, even more so than originally I had thought in my report
because Corkscrew Road, which comes right at the corner here, is now
in the process of being approved by Lee County, so it's not being
widened, but the drainage is being improved. It's a little bit widened,
Page 256
April 24, 2007
so it's going to make it nicer to travel out that area and develop those
parcels there.
And then I wanted to just kind of bring to that -- an idea that
Judge Starnes had brought to us that I thought was very exciting, and
it had to do with the cultural resources having to do with cattle
ranching. He wants a lease from us. And I checked around with Lee
County and some other folks to see, you know, how these are done,
what people charge for them.
And Lee County charges a dollar an acre per year, and they use it
as a management tool, and we've heard that from a number of other
people in the environmental business and in the land management
business, that it's used to keep down the exotics, not the Melaleuca,
but Brazilian pepper and field exotics. It does a really good job of
that.
And Judge Starnes has offered to work with us doing some sort
of like a cattle round-up days to preserve the cultural heritage that we
have here because his family has been invested in this for many, many
decades, and he has a strong tie to that, and that's one reason why he
wants to keep his cattle here. And he's willing to work with us, kind
of like an Otter Mound. We have the archaeological resources. Here
we've got some environmental resources, it's buffering the significant
water resource area, which the CREW lands are, and it has this --
these other opportunities associated with it.
So I also wanted to tell you that the Conservation Collier
Committee unanimously recommended we move forward to the offer.
And then something a little bit more kind of on the side, but
nonetheless significant, John Murray, who is the director of CREW,
Dr. Murray, also teaches a class at Gulf Coast University.
And what they do there is some systems management, and they
talk about ecosystem services and how you calculate them. And there
has been some work over the past 40 years by Howard T. Odum, who
is really one of the giants in ecological systems research at the
Page 257
April 24, 2007
University of Florida and throughout the country, and they have found
some ways to calculate the dollar value for ecosystem services.
It's a little -- it's not as well accepted as other things. So that's
why I say it's a little bit on the side. But he has used his calculations
that he uses in his classes and that Professor Odum has pioneered and
worked on for 40 years to calculate that this parcel would be worth
I 1.3 million over 40 years in terms of clean water, flood control
aquifer recharge, recreation, and hope for our future generations,
which is one thing our Conservation Collier ordinance says we're
going to do is protect these lands for current and future generations.
So that's all I wanted to bring to you today, and I hope that you
will -- you will approve us to go forward and make this offer to Judge
Starnes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Now I wanted to ask a
couple questions. First of all, I wanted to state earlier in the day we
had somebody up here, and they were talking about the CREW lands,
and it was Clearance Tears, and he said those are our source of water
and we have to protect them. And this location is part of that system,
and that is part of our water source now and for the future, and I don't
think we should ever give that up. It isn't a price that the owner
offered. It was what we offered him according to our policy, the
policy that we have set up for you to follow, and so -- and according
to the Conservation Collier policy, there is no negotiation. We offer
them a fair price, the average between two appraisals, and they either
accept it or they don't, and that's it.
MS. SULECKI: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And so we have to keep that in
mind.
Also you talked about cattle round-up, and I though that would
be -- that would be something Commissioner Coletta would really
jump all over because one of the things he feels very -- very concerned
about is open access, and not only will we have open access, but we'll
Page 258
April 24, 2007
be encouraging people to have this, and then we even get a little bit of
income because this guy is going to praise -- or pay us to graze his
cattle.
MS. SULECKI: That's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I just feel -- and the cattle, by the
way, keep the weeds and everything down so it's hardly any
maintenance on our part as well, so --
MS. SULECKI: They also provide in the leases for the lessee to
-- and lessor to manage the fences, maintain the fences, and it also
keeps a presence on the property for security purposes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Whoa. So that's really a savings.
So I just feel this is -- this is a property that we should not miss
buying, and I -- but there's a motion on the floor, so I have to wait.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't know if it was the cattle idea
or what, Commissioner. And I -- you know, the truth of the matter is,
I asked this question by email from staff back a couple days ago, and
the answer I got back was -- Stames; am I pronouncing it right?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Starnes.
MS. SULECKI: Starnes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Stams?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Starnes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Starnes -- property could absolutely
be developed. Most of it is uplands, and in a neutral area within the
rural lands growth management framework. The density would have
to be increased by acquiring credits from other land and/or moving
credits from the small portion of the property to have more credits.
Example, the wetlands on the eastern and southern sides, but this
could certainly be done if it is not purchased and placed in the
conservation status. It is a -- it is an important buffer area for the
whole CREW, Corkscrew Swamp, Bird Rookery Swamp, wetland
system, because I -- for the very same reason that you brought it up, I
had concerns early on.
Page 259
April 24, 2007
And I received this email. And after receiving this and weighing
the fact that the price per acre is extremely reasonable in today's
market -- you answered my questions as far as the rising cost of real
estate. The people of Collier County have trusted us with their money
to be able to spend it on -- the best way we possibly can, and we have
spent millions of dollars on lands that are considerably smaller than
this, and we didn't bat an eye. And so now we've got a chance for,
what, 300 and--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 360--
MS. SULECKI: More than half a section.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, more than half a section, and
we're going to fluff it off and say, well, maybe they'll drop the price
later. Well, it's only going to be a matter -- they sat on this land
forever. They're running cattle on it. They can live on it for a lot
longer. They'll turn around and sell it to a development in a matter of
years when that market comes back. So I, for one, am for purchasing
this property and doing what the voters of Collier County told us they
wanted us to do.
MS. SULECKI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But be that as it may -- well, we're
going to go back to Commissioner Coyle, then we're going to get this
thing moving forward.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I'm not going to take much
more time. I wish you would check the cost for the lease. A dollar
per acre per year is extremely low in my experience.
MS. SULECKI: That's just what Lee County does. There's other
examples.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. You know, I've seen prices
of 5 to 12 dollar per head per month of cattle for grazing. It depends
on where they are. But if we're going to do it, we should at least do it
at market rates.
Page 260
April 24, 2007
MS. SULECKI: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the other thing is, don't begin
to assume that that's going to get you public access. There's no way a
farmer or rancher could afford to graze his cattle there and have
people coming in and out of gates, perhaps leaving gates open. The
only way you're going to logically get public access here is on
escorted trips of some kind, maybe as a special occasion.
The rancher will almost have to lock those gates to keep the
public or anybody else from going in there and leaving the gates open
and the cows getting out. It just doesn't make sense any other way.
And so I think you need to work those things out. Just don't assume
it's going to get you public access if you lease it for cattle grazing.
MS. SULECKI: We will bring both the lease back to you for
approval, so you'll have a chance to look at that, and the management
plan. We'll address those things. It's going to be part of the CREW
management plan, and we will make sure that those things are
addressed before it's brought back to you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you be so kind as to work with
the Florida Fish and Wildlife? They have special hunts that they
allow --
MS. SULECKI: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- where they're -- they're lotto hunts
if you put in for them. A limited number of people get to go on there
and enjoy a wilderness experience.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And shoot a cow.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And shoot a cow.
MS. SULECKI: That is part of the management plan.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you very much. What
is the motion on the floor again? It's been so long I forgot.
Ms. Filson, what was the motion?
MS. FILSON: What I have is Commissioner Coyle made the
motion, it was seconded by Commissioner Halas, to deny.
Page 261
April 24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Is that still the motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's still my motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that's still your second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Let's just call the vote and see what
happens.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, geez. Okay.
No other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor of the motion to
deny, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And the motion failed. It was
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, we -- you didn't say for. He
didn't say aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: He didn't. He voted against it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, against the motion--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it failed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- how many?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The motion failed.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The motion failed. That's what I was
just in the process of doing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. That's what you said.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Two-three.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You had it right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's getting a little late, but I --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, I'll second it.
And with that, any other comments?
(No response.)
Page 262
April 24, 2007
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: And the ayes have it 5-0. Are we at a
break time again? I'm losing track of time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, we have to now.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MS. SULECKI: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. By the way, your
department did a wonderful job of bringing us around to where we
needed to go.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You earned your keep.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, guys.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Ask them if you can have
tomorrow off.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next -- you have thee items
left.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I understand.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, but then there's commissioner
comments and manager comments and so forth.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just a very short break, right. No,
he's not making any comments.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We've got another three hours.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We've already been through this.
MS. FILSON: I only have two items.
Page 263
April 24, 2007
MR. MUDD: How long, Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ten minutes, at the very most.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Mr. Mudd.
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
Item #lOP
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION TO
TERMINA TE AN "INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF NAPLES AND COLLIER
COUNTY REGARDING MAINTENANCE ASSISTANCE
FOR THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM ON GOODLETTE-
FRANK ROAD BETWEEN U.S. 41 AND GOLDEN GATE
P ARKW A Y" AND AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY
MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO PROVIDE WRITTEN
NOTICE OF TERMINATION TO THE CITY - MOTION WAS
MADE TO AMEND AGREEMENT AND BRING BACK AT A
FUTURE BCC MEETING - APPROVED
The next item on your agenda is lOP, and that used to be l6B 1.
It's a recommendation to approve a resolution to terminate an
interlocal agreement between the City of Naples and Collier County
regarding maintenance assistance for the traffic signal system on
Goodlette-Frank Road between U.S. 41 and Golden Gate Parkway and
authorizing the County Manager or his designee to provide written
notice of termination to the city.
The item was moved to the regular agenda at staffs request once
we -- once we found out the City of Naples wanted to talk on this
particular item and had concerns.
Page 264
April 24, 2007
MR. TIPTON: Commissioners, Bob Tipton, director of traffic
operations. I'd like to just recap the item for you. I'm sure you
understand it. But it concerns the Goodlette Road traffic signal
interlocal agreement between the county and the city. The agreement
was signed in 1989.
Back in those days, the city had a rather simple traffic signal
system, but it was still greater than what the county had. We had
nothing back in those days.
So it was decided that the signals along Goodlette Road could
best be served, even though it was a county road, for the city to
operate those signals, so it was put on their simple system.
The city took over the timing and the operation of the signals,
and although they did help with maintenance and such, they were not
required to provide any of the maintenance, repair or the -- pay for the
power. That stayed with the county.
Now there's three things coming together in this area of
Goodlette Road. This Goodlette Road corridor that we're talking
about runs from U.S. 41 up to 22nd Street, which is up at Naples High
School. It has nine traffic signals on the county roads there that are
being operated by the city.
And currently at the intersection, as you all know, at Goodlette
and Golden Gate, we're expecting big things that are going to be
affecting the county transportation operations here. We've got the
overpass and the new interchange that is going to be providing more
traffic on Golden Gate Parkway. We've got the Goodlette Road
expansion. We've got new signals on it, and we've gone to six-lane
leading down to Golden Gate Parkway. And we are completing the
county's advanced traffic management system, our computer system in
that area. We're installing cameras and bringing those cameras back
to our traffic management center.
So in planning for this for the past year and a half we've been
working to bring all this together, and we find that it's best for us to
Page 265
April 24, 2007
assume the operation of at least five of these signals that are -- of these
nine that are on traffic -- Goodlette Road. The five in the northern
area will have a definite effect on the operation of the county
roadways, especially at the intersection of Golden Gate and Goodlette.
And there's two signals being built, brand new signals, on the
Goodlette Road project that were put there for progression that -- the
basis of their warranting at Ohio and Wilderness. And so we need to
have these all on the same signal system and running together.
So we've asked -- we're planning on moving those five northern
traffic signals along with the one on Bear's Paw, which is to the east of
this area, to bring them under control of the county's traffic
management system so that we can better provide coordination in the
area.
The city had some concern, and their concern is mostly with the
southern end down near the City of Naples, the downtown area, their
four intersections, 7th, 5th, Central and Grand Central, especially
those last two, are involved in their redevelopment area down in there,
and they would like to work with the county to arrange for a new
agreement in which they could still operate those signals and with -- if
it pleases the board, we would suggest that that might be the best thing
to do too on those four items, is to come up with a new agreement,
come back to the board and the city council with a new interlocal
agreement addressing those four. But I'll try not to speak for the city.
We have Dan Mercer, who's the City Public Works Director
here, and Greg Strakaluse with the Transportation Department here.
And if you guys care to say anything?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please.
MR. MERCER: Thank you very much for this opportunity. For
the record, Dan Mercer, director of public works, and I'm speaking on
behalf of the city today, tonight, almost wee morning hours.
I agree with everything that the county is trying to do here.
We're here to support them. My only concerns, and they've addressed
Page 266
April 24, 2007
them real well, the two major concerns, as he brought up was, you
know, I think DOT has spent a lot of money from grant positions for
the city and county to improve and upgrade their traffic management
systems and their traffic signals, mast arm, so forth, and I was just a
little concerned.
We've left them out of the picture with any of these changes and
changes in interlocal agreements and stuff, and Bob agreed with that,
and we're going to get them into the picture now.
The other issue is, I would rather, instead of canceling this
contract or agreement right now, which needs to happen and you all
have that right -- but, you know, I really think we need to have a new
agreement in place instead of leaving those four intersections out in
never-never land as far as who's going to respond, who's going to be
liable, things -- just some unanswered questions and concerns.
So if we could quickly, you know, get through drafting up a new
agreement, which we'll work with them, your staff on, I would
strongly recommend that, maybe at the same time that they send a
certified termination letter. Because once you get the letter out, it's 30
days. I'm not sure we can get all that together in 30 days, but we will
give it our best shot.
Other than that, you know, I think your staffs doing a great job,
and I don't want to slow it down or stop it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I agree. What is the reason
we want to leave out these additional intersections? Why don't we just
pick them up and take responsibility for them?
MR. FEDER: First of all, I think what will come out of the
agreement is we'll continue to power and to maintain and work with
the city on the maintenance part, but I think the city's looking at trying
to coordinate that signal timing with the timing that they have along
U.S. 41 relative to the heart of Naples growth and the Naples area, and
so we're trying to support that. It's logical that they coordinate those
Page 267
April 24, 2007
particularly with other signals in that area.
Once you get above 7th, it's more of a progression along
Goodlette-Frank itself and, in particular, at Golden Gate, and so we
need to establish that progression.
We'll continue to share effort with the city. We both have the
systems that came up from the state, and we can look at each other's
systems, talk to each about issues, but this is a correct split at that
point.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why don't we modify this thing
and modify the recommendation and not terminate, but suggest a
revision to the agreement so that we can work out the arrangements
for those intersections the city wants to control, and we can work out
arrangements for the ones we want to control?
MR. FEDER: We're fine with that. As a matter of fact, if we
could, I believe -- and I'll let the city speak to it -- if I had some way
just to change the limits on the agreement, that would do it as well, but
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good.
MR. FEDER: -- I understand your issue. We're fine on that.
Let's amend the agreement and bring it back to both parties.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That's my motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Coyle,
second by Commissioner Henning.
Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor,
indicate saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Page 268
April 24, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it 5-0. Thank you.
Item #11
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is public comment on
general topics.
Ms. Filson?
MS. FILSON: I have no speakers.
Item #12C
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A PRE-LITIGATION
MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE
PURCHASE OF IMPROVED PROPERTY (PARCEL 140) IN THE
AMOUNT OF $1,283,988.00 WHICH IS REQUIRED FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD
EXTENSION PROJECT #60168 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: The next item is County Attorney's report, and it's
number 12C, which is a recommendation to approve a pre-litigation
mediated settlement agreement for the purchase of improved property,
parcel 140, in the amount of $1,283,988, which is required for the
construction of the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension project number
60168.
MS. ASHTON: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record,
Heidi Ashton. This item, as well as the next item, are on your regular
Page 269
April 24, 2007
agenda because the fiscal impact is over $1 million.
This first parcel, the proposal is to purchase 6.12 gross acres that
have improvements, including a home and a dressage rink, stable, pool
and a shed for 1.283 and 988. Want me to read that again? 1,289,988.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I interrupt you?
MS. ASHTON: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I just want to see if I can help move
things along. The reason this property is worth more than some of the
others we've seen is because of the reason that it has all sorts of
improvements on it?
MS. ASHTON: This has a number of improvements. As in the
executive summary, our appraiser valued the property at $975,000,
and the owners appraiser valued the property at 1,350,000, the
proposal is $1,283,988, and the appraisals don't take into consideration
a cost for moving costs as well as for Save our Homes, and those
issues were factored in, and we mediated this with Will Smith,
mediator, to come up with a proposal.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I can't tell you how happy I am to see
that we're making progress on buying these homes. These are the
homes that are on that side of the canal across from the golf course,
and we're trying to make these people whole so they can get on with
their lives, and I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have a motion for approval from
myself, Commissioner Coletta, and a second from Commissioner
Fiala.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing -- I'm sorry. I've got a
speaker?
MS. FILSON: Oh, no, sir. I'm just checking to see how the
vote's going.
Page 270
April 24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, I see. Okay. That's good, you
know.
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: And the ayes have it unanimously.
Thank you.
Item #12D
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
$1,565,000.00 FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 119 IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. DAVID LAWRENCE
MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, INC., ET AL., CASE NO. 06-0567-
CA (SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD PROJECT NO. 62081 -
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Our next item is l2D. It's a recommendation to
approve a mediated settlement agreement and stipulated final
judgment to be drafted incorporating the same terms and conditions as
the mediated settlement agreement in the amount of $1 ,565,000 for
the acquisition of parcel 119 in the lawsuit styled Collier County
versus David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc., et ai, case number
Page 271
April 24, 2007
06-5067-CA, and this is the Santa Barbara Boulevard, project number
62081. And, again, Heidi Ashton will present from the County
Attorney's Office.
MS. ASHTON: The owner of this property is the Naples
Christian Academy, and the total settlement proposal is $1,565,000.
That includes expert fees and costs, as well as attorney's fees.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, 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 unanimously. Thank
you very much for a wonderful presentation.
MS. ASHTON: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us to staff and
commissioner general communication.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Mr. Mudd, do you have
Page 272
April 24, 2007
anything?
MR. MUDD: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: No, only that I saw a notice today asking the
board about a potential joint meeting with Lee County and the
Southwest --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, I got it right here. I was going
to be bringing it up under comments.
MR. WEIGEL: Very good. Nothing more from me, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: A month or so ago this board
unanimously passed a resolution concerning illegal immigration and
asked our federal government to take some action concerning our
borders and you asked me at the time to continue to refine the costs
associated with illegal aliens in Collier County, and I have done so
with the help of staff and other agencies in Collier County, and I
would like to report to you now what I have been able to find out.
Incarceration of illegal's in the Collier County Jail. These are
people who have committed crimes. They're not there because they're
illegal. They're in jail because they committed crimes. The annual
cost to Collier County taxpayers is $9,042,444 a year.
We have not been able to determine the cost for apprehending
and prosecuting the illegals who commit crimes, so that is an unknown
cost.
The education cost, we've got, I think, 8,724 non-English
speaking students in our school system in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What was that, 8,000?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's 8,72 -- maybe it's 6,000 --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would you like my glasses?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, it's 6,724 non-English
speaking students in the schools at $8,382 per student per year yields a
price, a cost of$58,360,568; however, in all honesty, it can be argued
Page 273
April 24, 2007
that not all of these students are illegally in this country.
So we went to the U.S. Department of Education figures, and so
we found that the most probable cost for the education of illegal alien
students and the U.S. born children of illegal aliens is 40 thousand,
614 thousand, 284 dollars (sic) per year for Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Forty thousand or forty million?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry. $40,614,264 per year.
The delivery costs of children born to illegal parents in Collier
County is annually two thousand, one hundred and -- it's $2,125,000
per year, and this figure does not include the pre- and postnatal care of
those children. Much of this information is difficult, ifnot impossible,
to find.
The emergency room care at Collier County's emergency rooms
is $3,100,000 each year, and the Emergency Medical Services which
we provide, that is Collier County government provides to illegal
al iens, is $2,151,38 I per year.
The cost of injuries, property damage and increased insurance
rates due to accidents involving illegal aliens is unknown. The cost of
crimes committed by illegal aliens is unknown.
The payments made by the federal government to Cuban
immigrants is unknown. The amount of money provided for higher
education for illegal immigrants is unknown. The housing and social
services costs are unknown.
So with all of the unknowns, and we just take what we know, the
total cost per year to Collier County taxpayers is $57,333, I 09 every
single year, and it's probably going up.
So, you know, if we could convince the state and federal
governments to do something about the illegal alien problems, we
could give our taxpayers a nice tax reduction this year. We could cut
their taxes by $57 million.
So that concludes my report. I'll continue to work on some of the
other figures if we can get them. I can tell you that the system is
Page 274
April 24, 2007
rigged so that you cannot determine some of this other information.
They simply will not collect the data which is necessary to determine
the cost of some of these other issues.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Quite amazing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It is amazing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner, did you get any
information in regards to how many of these people are paying into
the social security fund or income tax?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I can't tell you for Collier County.
I can tell you that those who advocate for illegal immigration, that is
the legalization of those that are here, point out that as much as 50
percent of their cost is made up in social security payments that they
pay. There's no -- there's no data to support that, but this is a -- now,
these are people on the other side of the fence who are saying that we
want to make all these illegal aliens legal.
So they are, of course, calculating figures which will make it
seem that they're paying their way. But if you take into consideration
on an annual basis all of the benefits of having cheaper labor and
including into -- in that the -- whatever they contribute into social
security and whatever they might pay in federal taxes, it approaches
no more than 50 percent of their total cost.
So even if those figures are true, you would still be looking at a
net cost of almost $30 million to the taxpayers of Collier County. I
hope that answered your question partially. That's as close as I can get
to it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. I don't mean to interrupt
you. I appreciate the report, but what are we going to do with it?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't know that there's anything
we can do with it except, perhaps, we should let taxpayers know
where their tax money going. It wouldn't be such a bad idea to
include it in our annual report or in our budgeting information. It
Page 27 5
April 24, 2007
wouldn't hurt to let our legislators know that if they really want to help
the taxpayers of Collier County, one way to do that is help us do
something about the cost of the illegal aliens.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: At least underwrite the cost of it, you
know. That would be the very least we should do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I mean, the problem is -- shouldn't be
ours. The problem should be taken care of at the border.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right, that's right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you for that.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. Maybe what we can do is
ask Commissioner Coyle ifhe would send this information on to our
elected representatives in Washington, D.C., to let them -- give them
an idea of what it just costs us as a county, and maybe it will help
stimulate some other interests by those people up there in Washington
to get an accounting of what's happening in the other 66 -- or yeah, the
other 66 counties here in Florida.
I think it's a problem that needs to be addressed, and obviously
it's not only costing the taxpayers here in Collier County, but it's
costing the taxpayers dearly in the whole State of Florida.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Do you have something,
too?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I'm going to ask the County
Manager if he's had any updates in regards to what's going on in
bartering up in Tallahassee, ifthere's been any new developments
since yesterday in regards to the tax reform?
MR. MUDD: Sir, there's been -- well, at noontime today there
was at least two counter proposals from the House side to the Senate
side in conference, okay. But when you look at both plans, they're
still at opposite ends of the spectrum, so they've got a lot more
Page 276
April 24, 2007
movement to come to.
And I would -- I would think that they need to get there by
Friday or, since next week's the last week, they get themselves in a
real bind if they're trying to get those conference bills back on each
floor to get approval to send it to the governor. So they've got a lot of
work to do yet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Do you have any indication
-- I haven't heard anything from the Florida Association of Counties
whether they're going to come up with any type of a conclusion before
the closing of the session up there or whether they're going to have to
go into a special session. You haven't heard anything yet either, okay.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Does that cover it, sir?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I appreciate Mr. Weigel giving a
lead-in to what I have to offer to you.
Commissioner Fiala, would you pass a couple of them down that
way.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I will.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In fact, if you would be so kind, pass
them on down to the deputy so the County Manager and deputy
County Manager also have copies.
This is a letter from Bill Barton, the chairman for the Southwest
Florida Expressway Authority. And what it is is -- I'm going to read
the letter in part rather than the whole thing.
At our April 20th meeting, the Expressway Authority Board
determined that ajoint meeting in Mayor June with the Lee or Collier
County Commission would be most helpful. We are, therefore,
extending an invitation to Lee and Collier County commissioners to
participate in a joint informational workshop with the Southwest
Florida Expressway Authority Board.
Page 277
April 24, 2007
The Expressway Authority decided to forego its regular May
meeting so that that meeting time, date and location would be
available for a joint workshop. It would be Friday, May 18th at 1 :30
at the Bonita Springs City Hall. We would anticipate presenting
summary and information on the options for achieving 10 lanes as
evaluated by Wilbur Smith Associates and public finance -- fiscal
management consultants for the Expressway Authority. The -- and the
Florida Turnpike Enterprise.
We will also be presenting the results to data of our public
information effort being conducted by Cecil Minor & Associates in
the related public opinion questionnaire.
We feel the joint workshop would be helpful in making sure that
everyone has the same information and to be sure that the Expressway
Authority is well informed about the thoughts of the various
commiSSIoners.
Please let us know if you accept our invitation and if the May
18th date will work for your board. If another date is more
appropriate to your schedule, please advise of preferred date or dates.
Please send response to Dave Loveland of Lee County DOT.
I really hope -- I mean, I've been spending a lot oftime with this
authority. There's a lot of good ideas out there. It basically comes
down to the point that at some point in time we have to have the
people of Collier County and Lee County make a decision what they
want to do as far as 75 goes.
And the decision's going to be very simple. Either we proceed
now or we fall back, and at some point in time the throughway
authority on its own will come up with the tolling. If they do that, the
monies that are generated here will be used wherever they want to
within the state.
Be that as it may, I don't want to get into a big discussion on it. I
sincerely hope that my fellow commissioners will indulge me and
attend this meeting and give me permission to go ahead and reserve
Page 278
April 24, 2007
the date.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I can't do that until I talk with my
aide and get my schedule.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. But for the moment, I mean,
the idea of the meeting and the idea of the date might not work. The
meeting would be critical to be able to proceed and to be able to give
direction.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I can tell you right now that I'm not
in favor of financing this any further, 625,000 or whatever the amount
of money they want. I'm not -- I'm not there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're not -- we're not going to ask
you for money.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't care. I've taken a stand
pretty much that I'm not going to toll those two lanes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So in other words, you won't
attend the meeting to be able to find out what the options are?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've made a decision that I'm not--
yeah, I'm not going to be there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're not?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Nope.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I appreciate that. I appreciate the fact
that, you know, you let me spend so much time on it and I don't even
get the courtesy to have you come to the meeting. It's very disturbing.
How do the rest of my commissioners feel on this?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll go, I'll go. I'm always interested
to hear what anybody has to say.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. I appreciate that. And at
the end, if you reject it, that's fine. I won't ask you to attend, you
know, other ones.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's being conducted by -- I believe
it's being conducted by the public relations firm that's hired to promote
the --
Page 279
April 24, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. They'll be there. We're
conducting the meeting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'll go.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have something on my
calendar.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. But would you attend the
meeting if we had it on a date that was advantageous to your calendar?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I'll go.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But, you know, I must say, this
board is made up of a five-member board, an equal board.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I just feel pressured on this
issue to, you know, make it happen, okay, and I don't like the feeling
that's being projected, so --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I'm not -- the reason I'm trying
to get everybody to come to it -- because at some point in time this
commission's got to make a decision.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we were going to make a
decision and it was put off. We were ready to make a decision. It was
suggested that we put off until we were educated on the issue, okay?
And I asked for information to get educated. Still haven't received it
to date. But I am educated.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'm sorry. If I knew about the
information request, I would have made sure it was fulfilled. I can't
picture why somebody wouldn't have fulfilled that information
request.
But meanwhile, you know, we need to be able to come up with a
direction. So let's do this. Let's have our aides look at the calendars,
see what's available, we'll go forward. We're still going to keep the
invitation open for everybody and see where it goes from there. I
Page 280
April 24, 2007
appreciate the fact, you know, you're willing to keep an open mind on
it until we get to that point in time that a decision can be made one
way or the other.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know how open my mind is,
to be honest with you, but I'll go and listen.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine. I can't ask for anything
more.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I mean, I have to be honest with
you, okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But the fact that you're going to go
means a lot to me.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Remember that minds are like
parachutes. They; work best when they're open.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They don't function unless they're
open. Oh, you looked at that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we got some general direction on
that and we'll check with the calendars. We'll see what can be done to
accommodate everyone, and we'll go from there.
And that's all I have. It's been a long, long meeting. I appreciate
everyone staying with it.
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. I wanted to -- on
Commissioner Coyle's report, I was going to mention at the time,
aren't they marching again on the -- right at the beginning of May?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And I think it's important, not
only that, but then your report, as good as it was, it was only as good
as the information you were able to get, and so much of it, probably
double the amount that you gave us, was not even in there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'm glad that we put together an
impact fee deferral rate and we wanted proof of citizen -- not
Page 281
April 24, 2007
citizenship, but proof oflegality. Although I was interested to note
that only one of the persons has to be legal. They can have a couple
and they don't have to be, and I thought that was interesting. Okay.
That was enough on yours.
The second thing I wanted to talk about, just very, very quickly.
We had this HUD plan today, and I would ask that next year it be
delivered to the clerk's office when you deliver it to the libraries, if
you wouldn't mind. That way then they have it too so they're
informed, because I kind of like to hear what they have to say about it.
And the last thing I wanted to talk about is density bonuses on
entire acreage. You know, we've talked about it before. I've
mentioned it a number of times here at the commission meeting and--
but we have never really sat down as a board where we had the time to
discuss that particular issue, and I would like to do that, because I
think it impacts our road systems dramatically, and there are many
times when we might want to approve something, but because of all of
the extra acreage that also gets the density bonus on it, we cannot
because it would then trip the concurrency rate.
So I really think we ought to be addressing that. So you've got
my comments.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we did address the density
bonuses.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: On the entire acreage?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where it is allowed, in our
Growth Management Plan.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right, I know, but I think that we
ought to -- in my opinion -- and maybe it isn't anybody else's. In my
opinion, when we give, say, 10 percent of our -- of the 200 acres to
affordable housing so they get, you know, I don't know, 20 houses or
something I ike that, the rest of it then all gets the extra eight units per
Page 282
April 24, 2007
acre as it is, which then cripples the whole roadway, and many times
we can't approve it just because of that.
I think that we should give them the density that they need to
have, affordable housing, absolutely, but I think that as a thank-you
gift from us, we should -- or an incentive, we should give them one
extra unit per acre. That's still 200 extra units that they can profit from
-- you know, that extra profit that they wouldn't have had otherwise.
But I don't see why they should get eight extra units for the entire
acreage.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you're actually talking
about, you know, 30 percent. What you're talking about is what was
being suggested.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Reducing the density on --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no, no. It wasn't reducing
the density. You've got a base density of four units per acre.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right, period, right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And they were asking for -- you
know, above that would be affordable housing. Are you saying you're
opposed to that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no. I said give them all the
density that they need for affordable housing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What I'm saying is, so you give
them an extra eight units per acre for affordable housing, whether they
build 10 percent, 20 percent, 30 percent, how much they want --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're too kind. That wasn't --
they weren't asking for that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But what I'm saying then is, once
we've given that allocation for the affordable housing, we give them a
bonus of one extra unit on the rest of the acreage, whereas now we
give them eight extra units on the entire acreage.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well -- and that's only in certain
Page 283
April 24, 2007
areas. And density bonuses are not by right, okay? That's there for
the asking. And I'm not sure if you're talking about what's on our
books today or what is being proposed by the EDC.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I'm not -- I'm not talking about
what's being proposed by the EDC nor -- what I'm saying, what's on
our books today, I think, needs to be changed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think it was written by the
developers, quite frankly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Actually, Commissioner,
we just addressed that through the EAR-based amendments.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know that, but the thing is, it was
originally written there, and I don't think we've ever thought that
maybe we ought to readdress how many extra units we're allowing by
giving them density bonuses on the entire acreage rather than just
what is needed for the particular project, and then a bonus of one extra
unit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we can always say no. We
always have that right to say no.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We do. We do that all the time, too.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'm not done.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Did Commissioner Henning get a
chance --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Let him do that. I just
wanted to make a comment about that issue because I think I could
clarify it a little bit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The Fire Steering Committee is
hopefully going to hire a facilitator about the consolidation issue and
put all those issues, you know, on the table, and then sort them out.
And the biggest issue of what I'm hearing is, the disparity of pay
Page 284
April 24, 2007
of firefighters in the different districts. Coastal firefighters are making
much more than the inland firefighters, such as Corkscrew and
Immokalee, so on and so forth. So that's just one of the items, but I'm
really impressed.
The other thing is, it's my opinion that the legislators won't come
to an agreement and there will be a special session. Disappointing that
-- and it is not a comprehensive approach. I was told while I was in
Tallahassee that South Florida Water Management has a billion --
over a billion dollars in reserves, and so -- I hope that they address the
comprehensive of everything on the property tax or the TRIM notice
and not just local government. I think that's it, Mr. Chairman, and I
make a motion that we adjourn.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I appreciate that.
Commissioner Coyle, last comment?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, just very briefly. I agree with
you on the legislation. I don't think anything's going to come out of
this unless it's just a real mess passed at the last minute that none of us
can live with.
But let me go to Commissioner Fiala's issue. We did address this
and we made a change earlier -- well, sometime last year in our Land
Development Code, but I think Commissioner Fiala's talking about
something slightly different, and I think it's probably a good idea to
consider it.
We have also said, okay, if you'll build a certain number of
affordable housing units, we'll give you some additional density on
your market rate units, and maybe that's really the wrong way to do it.
They've always said that density is the key to keeping the price
lower. So if you want to have more density on an acre for affordable
housing units, then you can pack in enough affordable housing units
on an acre for them to make a profit, okay, and you don't have to let
them build more market rate units and -- but we have the flexibility, I
believe, to do that right now.
Page 285
April 24, 2007
All we've got to do is just take that position. And if somebody
says, well, I want to get eight or 10 units per acre because I'm building
15 percent affordable housing, then we'll say, okay, we'll give you 10
units per acre, but they've all got to be affordable housing.
And so then they've got to convince us they can't build 10 units
on an acre and make a profit. I don't think they can do that. I don't
think they can convince us that they can't do it.
So I don't think it's something worth talking about, but I think we
can do it right now, as Commissioner Henning has said. All we've got
to do is just take that position when it comes up to us.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I think we've done it. We're
adjourned. Go home.
****Commissioner Halas moved, seconded by Commissioner Coyle
and carried 4/1 (with Commissioner Henning opposing), that the
following items under the Consent and Summary Agendas be
approved and/or adopted ****
Item # 16A I - Moved to Item # I OL
Item #16A2
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "VIA VENETO LOTS 30
AND 33 REPLA T" - DEVELOPER MUST RECEIVE A
CERTIFICATE OF ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES PRIOR TO
THE ISSUANCE OF THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN FINAL
APPROV AL LETTER
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 2007-91: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
Page 286
April 24, 2007
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "CASTLEWOOD AT IMPERIAL".
THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE
PRIV ATEL Y MAINTAINED - W/RELEASE OF THE
MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A4
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "SILVER LAKES PHASE
TWO-G" - DEVELOPER MUST RECEIVE A CERTIFICATE OF
ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE
OF THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN FINAL APPROVAL LETTER
Item #16A5 - Continued Indefinitely
APPLICATION FOR THE JOB CREATION INVESTMENT
PROGRAM AND THE ADVANCED BROADBAND
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT BY AIRFL YTE
ELECTRONICS - HELPING TO CREATE 90 NEW JOBS IN
COLLIER COUNTY BY 2009 WITH AN ANTICIPATED
A VERAGE WAGE OF $34,000; TO BE LOCATED IN THE
IMMOKALEE ENTERPRISE COMMUNITY
Item #16A6
REJECT BID NO. 06-4050 FOR DEMOLITION OF
COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES - REQUEST
THA T THE BOARD WAIVE THE $50,000 THRESHOLD FOR
FORMAL COMPETITION AND ALLOW STAFF TO REISSUE A
MODIFIED BID
Item#16A7
Page 287
April 24, 2007
ACCEPT ANCE OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE'S DECISION
ON THE MEDIATION PROCEEDINGS FOR CASE 06-CEB-
00055: JERRY AND KIMBERLEA BLOCKER V BCC - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16Bl - Moved to Item #lOP
Item #16B2
AGREEMENT BETWEEN ROYAL WOOD GOLF & COUNTRY
CLUB AND COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AS IT CONNECTS LASIP TO THE SANTA
BARBARA BOULEVARD EXTENSION FROM DAVIS
BOULEV ARD TO RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD
(PROJECT NO. 51101) - TO SECURE EASEMENTS FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF FUTURE LASIP PHASES
Item # 16B3
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE REVENUE
RECEIVED FOR THE FY07 5309 FEDERAL TRANSIT
AUTHORITY (FT A) GRANT FOR $238,000 - FOR THE
REHABILITATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF BUS-RELATED
TRANSFER FACILITIES
Item #16B4
DECLARING A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON 2.674
ACRES IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES AS SURPLUS PROPERTY
AND TO TAKE THE APPROPRIATE STEPS TO SELL THE
PROPERTY (FISCAL IMPACT $300.00. ) - ORIGINALLY
PURCHASED FOR THE SANTABARBARA BOULEVARD
Page 288
April 24, 2007
EXPANSION PROJECT; THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 5605
PAINTED LEAF LANE WITH AN ASKING PRICE OF $412,000
Item #16B5
AWARD BID #07-4113 FOR PREPARATION AND DELIVERY
OF TITLE COMMITMENTS AND REAL ESTATE CLOSING
SERVICES - W/AMERICAN GOVERNMENT SERVICES,
EMMANUEL LLC TITLE SERVICES, EXECUTIVE TITLE
INSURANCE SERVICES, FIRST AMERICAN TITLE
INSURANCE COMPANY, COLLIER ABSTRACT, FIRST TITLE
AND ABSTRACT, MIDWEST TITLE COMPANY AND SOUTH
FLORIDA TRUST & TITLE COMPANY; ANNUAL
EXPENDITURES ESTIMA TED AT $300,000
Item #16B6 - Moved to Item #10M
Item #16B7
$4,500 FROM THE FREEDOM MEMORIAL FUND (620) TO BE
ALLOCA TED TOWARD HIRING A PROFESSIONAL GRANT
WRITING SERVICE FOR FUNDRAISING PURPOSES - TO
ENTER INTO A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH
GRANTS PRO OF FORT MYERS
Item # 16C 1
RECORD SATISFACTIONS FOR CERTAIN WATER AND/OR
SEWER IMPACT FEE PAYMENT AGREEMENTS; THE FISCAL
IMPACT IS $245.00 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTIONS OF
LIEN - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 289
April 24, 2007
Item # l6C2
RESOLUTION 2007-92: SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR SOLID
WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY
HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED
IN FULL FOR THE 1992 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. FISCAL
IMP ACT IS $30.00 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN
- FOR FOLIO NUMBERS: 63856600109 AND 40621400007
Item # 16C3
RESOLUTION 2007-93: SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR A SOLID
WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE COUNTY
HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN
FULL FOR THE 1994 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. FISCAL
IMPACT IS $20.00 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN
- FOR FOLIO NO. 63452720001
Item #16C4
RESOLUTION 2007-94: SA TISF ACTIONS OF LIEN FOR SOLID
WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY
HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED
IN FULL FOR THE 1995 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. FISCAL
IMP ACT IS $70.00 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN
- FOR FOLIO NUMBERS: 63856600109, 52650680006,
603809600004,62203480009,6345270001 AND 63852200008
Item #16C5
Page 290
April 24, 2007
RESOLUTION 2007-95: SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR SOLID
WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY
HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED
IN FULL FOR THE 1996 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. FISCAL
IMPACT IS $90.00 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN
- FOR FOLIO NUMBERS: 24982520008, 35641360006,
52650680006,62203480009,65074040002,6517240006,
65671600007 AND 67490480008
Item #16C6 - Moved to Item #lON
Item # l6C7
A SHORT-TERM INTER-FUND LOAN FROM USER FEES AS
AN INTERIM FUNDING SOURCE FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY
REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT (SCRWTP) 12 MGD
RO EXPANSION PROJECT 700971, AND FOR THE SOUTH
COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT
(SCR WTP) WELL FIELD EXPANSION-EASEMENT PROJECT
708921 , WATER IMPACT FEE CAPITAL PROJECTS - DUE TO
DELA YS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL AND THE SLOW DOWN
OF BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITIES RESULTING IN LOW
FUNDS IN THE WATER IMPACT FEE FUND
Item #16Dl
AFFIRM A UNITED STATE FISH AND WILDLIFE
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT 40l8l6J09l FOR A DERELICT
VESSEL REMOVAL GRANT AND APPROVE ALL
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO RECOGNIZE AND
Page 291
April 24, 2007
APPROPRIA TE GRANT REVENUE IN THE AMOUNT OF
$30,000 - TO ASSIST THE TEN THOUSAND ISLANDS
NA TIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE WITH THE REMOVAL OF
DERELICT VESSELS IN ORDER TO PRESERVE AND
ENHANCE THE WATERWAYS AND ESTUARIES WITHIN THE
COUNTY; TO DATE 34 VESSELS HAVE BEEN REMOVED
COUNTY - WIDE
Item # 16D2
BUDGET AMENDMENT TOTALING $250,000 FROM BEACH
RENOURISHMENT/PASS MAINTENANCE RESERVES TO
FUND MISCELLANEOUS BEACH RENOURISHMENT
INITIATIVES AS REQUIRED BY FDEP PERMIT WHICH IS
PART OF THE COUNTY'S MAJOR BEACH RENOURISHMENT
PROJECT (905271) - TO COMPLETE THE REQUIRED
ARTIFICIAL REEF CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM;
REIMBURSEMENT IS ANTICIPATED FROM FEMA
Item #16D3
PA YMENT OF $75,000 TO BETTY BRIGGS TO PURCHASE
THE ROB STORTER COLLECTION AND TO AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TO EXECUTE THE ATTACHED THREE-PARTY AGREEMENT
AMONG THE FRIENDS OF THE MUSEUM OF THE
EVERGLADES, MRS. BETTY BRIGGS, AND THE COUNTY, TO
TRANSFER OWNERSHIP OF THE STORTER COLLECTION TO
COLLIER COUNTY - A RARE COLLECTION (310 ITEMS) OF
WORKS OF ART AND ARTIFACTS THAT PROVIDE A
UNIQUE HISTORICAL RECORD OF THE COUNTY
Page 292
April 24, 2007
Item #16D4
RECOGNIZE THE INCOME FROM CREDIT REPORT FEES
GENERATED BY THE HOME LOAN PROGRAM OPERATED
WITHIN THE HOUSING AND HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT - ESTIMATED TO GENERATE $6,000 IN
CREDIT FEES ANNUALLY
Item #16D5
AUTHORIZES THE COUNTY MANAGER TO SIGN, A LIEN
AGREEMENT WITH SANTA LEDEZMA DIAZ (OWNER) FOR
DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES
FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT
LOCATED AT LOT 86, INDEPENDENCE, PHASE II - FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY
INDEPENDENCE SUBDIVISION IN IMMOKALEE, THIS
AGREEMENT DEFERS $8,166.25 IN IMPACT FEES
Item # l6D6
RECOGNIZE ANTICIPATED REVENUE IN THE AMOUNT OF
$11,300 FROM THE COLLIER COUNTY MEDICAL SOCIETY
AND APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE HOUSING
AND HUMAN SERVICES CLIENT ASSISTANCE BUDGET - IN
SUPPORT OF A PART-TIME ASSISTANT PATIENT CARE
COORDINATOR FROM FEBRUARY 1,2007 THROUGH
SEPTEMBER 30, 2007
Item #16D7
RESOLUTION 2007-96: THE STATE HOUSING INITIATIVE
Page 293
April 24, 2007
PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) LOCAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN
(LHAP) FOR STATE FISCAL YEARS 2007-2008, 2008-2009 AND
2009-2010 AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW AND SUBMIT TO
THE FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16D8
RESOLUTION 2007-97: SUBMITTAL OF A FLORIDA BOATING
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM DERELICT VESSEL REMOVAL
GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $80,000 TO THE FLORIDA FISH
AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION - TO
PRESERVE AND ENHANCE WATERWAYS AND ESTUARIES
IN THE COUNTY; THE FUNDS ARE INTENDED TO REMOVE
UP TO 20 VESSELS
Item #I6El
RATIFY ADDITIONS TO, DELETIONS FROM AND
MODIFICATIONS TO THE 2007 FISCAL YEAR PAY AND
CLASSIFICATION PLAN MADE FROM DECEMBER 16,2006
THROUGH MARCH 30, 2007 - FOR MINIMAL FISCAL IMP ACT
WHICH ARE ABSORBED BY INDIVIDUAL DEPARTMENTS
Item # l6E2
REPORT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CONCERNING THE SALE AND TRANSFER OF ITEMS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE COUNTY SURPLUS AUCTION HELD
ON MARCH 24, 2007, RESULTING IN GROSS REVENUES OF
$518,875.25 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 294
April 24, 2007
Item # 16E3
AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH HARVEY
N. KAREN AND LISA M. KAREN FOR 0.678 ACRES UNDER
THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION
PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $898,000 -
LOCA TED ON MARCO ISLAND ADJACENT TO THE
EXISTING OTTER MOUND PRESERVE
Item # 16E4
SUBMITTAL OF THE ATTACHED FLORIDA COMMUNITIES
TRUST (FCT) GRANT PROPOSAL SEEKING POST
ACQUISITION FUNDING FOR A 2006 CONSERVATION
COLLIER PURCHASE OF THE COLLIER DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION PARCEL, WHICH IS A COMPONENT OF THE
GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PRESERVE PROJECT,
REQUESTING REIMBURSEMENT FOR 50% OF PROJECT
COSTS, OR $1,045,700 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item # 16E5
PHASE III "ENTERPRISE IMPLEMENT A TION STRATEGY" OF
THE "ENTERPRISE CONTENT MANAGEMENT STRATEGY",
PROJECT 500421, IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,000.00-
CONTRACTED WITH DOCULABS, INC.
Item #16E6
THE "GRANT OF STORM WATER DRAINAGE EASEMENT"
AGREEMENT, EXHIBIT A, BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY
Page 295
April 24, 2007
AND EDISON COLLEGE, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A
SHALLOW DRAINAGE SW ALE REQUIRED BY THE SITE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE EMERGENCY SERVICES
COMPLEX AND SOUTH REGIONAL LIBRARY, PROJECT
NUMBERS 54003 AND 52160 - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16E7 - Moved to Item #100
Item #16Fl
ACCEPT AN AWARDED VOLUNTEER FIRE ASSISTANCE
MATCHING (50/50) GRANT FROM THE FLORIDA DIVISION
OF FORESTRY FOR THE PURCHASE OF WILDLAND
FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT AND APPROVAL OF
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO RECOGNIZE AND
APPROPRIATE REVENUE IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,340.98 -
FOR THE ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE AND RESCUE DISTRICT
Item #16Hl
COMMISSIONER COYLE'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING THE NAPLES SAILING & YACHT CLUB
MEN'S SPEAKER LUNCHEON, WHERE HE WAS A SPEAKER,
ON MARCH 15,2007; $9.95 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER COYLE'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT
896 RIVERPOINT DRIVE
Item #16H2
COMMISSIONER HALAS' REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Page 296
April 24, 2007
COUNCIL'S VIP BREAKFAST AT THE HILTON NAPLES ON
MAY 2, 2007; $21.53 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
HALAS' TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT 5111 TAMIAMI
TRAIL NORTH
Item # 16H3
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING THE LEADERSHIP
COLLIER CLASS OF 2007 GRADUATION ON MAY 11,2007;
$50.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S
TRAVEL BUDGET - HELD AT THE NAPLES BEACH HOTEL
AND GOLF CLUB, 851 GULF SHORE BOULEVARD NORTH
Item #16H4
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT TO ATTEND THE EDC'S 2007 BEST
PLACES TO WORK BREAKFAST AND AWARDS
PRESENTATION ON MAY 3, 2007; $40.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER COLETT A'S TRAVEL BUDGET - AT THE
HILTON NAPLES, 5111 T AMIAMI TRAIL NORTH
Item #16H5
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING THE 4-H FOUNDATION LUNCHEON ON
TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 2007 AT THE FIRST UNITED
METHODIST CHURCH; $9.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT
388 1 ST AVENUE SOUTH, NAPLES
Page 297
April 24, 2007
Item # 16H6 - Withdrawn
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING THE COLLIER REPUBLICAN CLUB
MEETING ON MONDAY, APRIL 9, 2007 AT THE CLUBHOUSE
AT BRIDGEWATER BAY; $12.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - PROGRAM TO
INCLUDE A DEBATE TEAM COMPRISED OF HOME
SCHOOLED STUDENTS PREPARING FOR THEIR REGIONAL
TOURNAMENT AT EDISON COLLEGE IN MAY
Item #16H7
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
TO ATTEND THE LEADERSHIP COLLIER CLASS OF 2007
GRADUATION ON FRIDAY, MAY 11,2007, AT THE NAPLES
BEACH AND GOLF HOTEL; $50.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - HELD AT THE
NAPLES BEACH HOTEL AND GOLF CLUB, 851 GULF SHORE
BOULEVARD NORTH
Item #1611
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR
REFERRED:
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 298
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
April 24, 2007
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS
DIRECTED:
A. Minutes:
(1) Bavshore/Gatewav Trianqle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board:
Agenda for February 6, 2007 Workshop; Minutes of February 6, 2007
Workshop; Agenda for February 6,2007 Meeting; Minutes of
February 6, 2007 Meeting.
(2) Coastal Advisory Committee: Minutes of February 8, 2007; Minutes
of January 11, 2007; Minutes of December 14, 2006.
(3) Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Board: Agenda for
March 20, 2007; Minutes of February 20, 2007;
(4) Citizens Corps Advisory Committee: Minutes of January 17, 2007;
Agenda for January 17, 2007; Minutes of February 21, 2007; Agenda
for February 21, 2007.
(5) Collier County Planninq Commission: Agenda for March 15,2007;
Agenda for March 1, 2007; Minutes of January 4, 2007; Agenda for
February 15, 2007; Minutes of December 21, 2006.
(6) Immokalee Master Plan and Visioninq Committee & Community
Redevelopment Aqencv Advisory Board/Enterprise Zone
Development Aqency:
(a) Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Aqency &
Community Redevelopment Aqencv Advisory Board:
Agenda for January 17, 2007; Minutes of January 17, 2007.
H:\DA T A \FRONT DESK - 2007\2007 Miscellaneous Correspondencel042407 _mise _ corr.doc
(b) Community Redevelopment Aqencv Advisory Board and
Immokalee Master Plan and Visioninq Committee: Agenda
for January 17, 2007; Minutes of January 17, 2007; Agenda
for January 31,2007 Special Meeting; Minutes of January
31,2007 Special Meeting; Agenda for February 21, 2007;
Minutes of February 21, 2007.
(c) Enterprise Zone Development Aqencv/Communitv
Redevelopment Aqencv Advisory Board: Agenda for
January 17, 2007; Minutes of January 17, 2007; Agenda for
February 21,2007; Minutes of February 21,2007.
(7) Emerqencv Medical Services Advisory Board: Minutes of January 30,
2007; Minutes of February 28, 2007.
(8) Pelican Bav Services Division Board: Agenda for March 7, 2007;
Minutes of February 7, 2007; Agenda for February 26, 2007 Special
Meeting; Minutes of February 14, 2007 Workshop.
(9) Bavshore Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee: Minutes of
February 7, 2007; Agenda for March 21,2007.
(10) Collier County Contractor's Licensinq Board: Agenda for March 21,
2007.
(11) Lelv Golf Estates Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee:
Agenda for February 15, 2007; Minutes of January 18, 2007; Agenda
for March 15, 2007; Minutes of February 15, 2007.
(12) Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee: Agenda
for March 12, 2007; Minutes of January 8, 2007; Minutes of February
12,2007; Agenda for February 12, 2007.
(a) Outreach Subcommittee: Agenda for February 12, 2007.
H:\DA T A \FRONT DESK - 2007\2007 Miscellaneous Correspondencel042407 _mise _ corr.doc
(13) Immokalee Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee: Agenda for
March 28, 2007; Agenda for February 28, 2007; Minutes of January
24,2007
(14) Collier County Environmental Advisory Council: Minutes of February
7, 2007; Agenda for March 7, 2007; Agenda for February 7,2007;
Minutes of January 11, 2007.
(15) Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee: Agenda for
February 5, 2007; Minutes of February 5, 2007; Meeting Schedule for
2007.
(16) Collier County Parks and Recreation Advisory Board: Minutes of
January 17, 2007; Minutes of December 20,2006; Minutes of
February 21, 2007.
(17) Vanderbilt Beach M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee: Agenda for March
1, 2007; Minutes of February 1, 2007; Agenda for April 5, 2007;
Minutes of March 1,2007.
(18) Collier County Historic and Archaeoloqical Preservation Board:
Agenda for February 28, 2007; Minutes of January 17, 2007; Agenda
for March 21,2007; Minutes of February 28,2007.
(19) Collier County Library Advisory Board: Agenda for January 31,2007;
Minutes of December 13, 2006; Agenda for February 28,2007;
Minutes of January 31,2007.
(20) Golden Gate M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee: Agenda for March 13,
2007; Minutes of February 13, 2007.
(21) Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainaqe M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee:
Agenda for March 14,2007; Minutes of February 14, 2007.
(22) Collier County Public Vehicle Advisory Committee: Agenda for March
5,2007.
H:\DATA\FRONT DESK - 2007\2007 Miscellaneous Correspondencel042407 _misc_corr.doc
April 24, 2007
Item #1611
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF MARCH 31, 2007
THROUGH APRIL 6, 2007 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item # 16J2
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF APRIL 7, 2007
THROUGH APRIL 13,2007 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16Kl
THE COMMITTEE'S SELECTION OF BRICKLEMYER,
SMOLKER, & BOLVES, DE LA PARTE & GILBERT AND
FIXEL, MAGUIRE, & WILLIS AND AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT WITH EACH LAW FIRM FOR
EMINENT DOMAIN SERVICES ONCE SUCH AGREEMENT IS
SIGNED FOR LEGAL SUFFICIENCY BY THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY - DUE TO THE COUNTY'S FUTURE RIGHT-OF-
WAY LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM
Item # 16K2
THE SECOND OFFER OF JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$20,000 AS TO PARCELS 114 & 914 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
COLLIER COUNTY V ELIAS VALENCIA, ET AI., CASE NO. 03-
2274-CA (GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY PROJECT NO. 60027)
(FISCAL IMPACT $7,600, IF ACCEPTED)
Page 299
April 24, 2007
Item # 16K3
STAFF TO PREPARE AND SUBMIT APPLICATIONS TO
REGISTER SERVICE MARKS WITH THE UNITED STATES
PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE AND THE STATE OF
FLORIDA'S DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS TO PRESERVE
THE COUNTY'S ADVERTISING, LOGOS, PHRASES AND
SLOGANS - THE TOURISM DEPARTMENT TO SUBMIT
"PARADISE COAST BLUEWAY" AND "PARADISE COAST
BLUEW A Y - THE COLLIER COUNTY PADDLING TRAIL"
Item #16K4
AN AGREED ORDER A WARDING EXPERT FEES AND COSTS
FOR PARCEL 178 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA V TEODORO GIMENEZ, ET AI., CASE NO.
04-0561-CA (VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD (CR862) PROJECT
NO. 63051) (FISCAL IMPACT $22,000.00)
Item # 17 A
ORDINANCE 2007-39: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2003-39
FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHANGING ALL REFERENCES TO
FUNDING "TRAFFIC" EDUCATION TO "DRIVER"
EDUCATION PROGRAMS, INCREASING THE SURCHARGE
AMOUNT THE CLERK OF COURTS MAY COLLECT ON ALL
CIVIL TRAFFIC PENALTIES FROM $3.00 PER PENALTY TO
$5.00 PER PENALTY AND TO REQUIRE THAT EACH DRIVER
EDUCATION PROGRAM RECEIVING FUNDS REQUIRE A
MINIMUM OF 30% OF A STUDENT'S TIME BE BEHIND-THE-
WHEEL TRAINING AS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 318.1215
OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES, ENTITLED THE "DORI
Page 300
April 24, 2007
SLOSBERG DRIVER EDUCATION SAFETY ACT."
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2007-98: PETITION A VESMT-2007-AR-11203,
LOT 61, BLACK BEAR RIDGE - PHASE 1, DISCLAIMING,
RENOUNCING AND VACATING THE COUNTY'S AND THE
PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN A PORTION OF A DRAINAGE
EASEMENT IN THE REAR OF LOT 61 OF BLACK BEAR
RIDGE PHASE 1, A SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN SECTION 34,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, AS RECORDED IN
PLAT BOOK 43, PAGE 89 THROUGH 92 OF THE PUBLIC
RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND BEING
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A"
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 2007-99/DEVELOPMENT ORDER 2007-02:
PETITION DOA-2005-AR-7136: NAPLES GRANDE HOLDINGS,
LLC, REPRESENTED BY BRUCE E. TYSON, RLA, AICP OF
WILSONMILLER IS REQUESTING A CHANGE TO THE
PREVIOUSL Y APPROVED GREY OAKS DEVELOPMENT OF
REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI) IN ACCORDANCE WITH FLORIDA
STATUTES, SUBSECTION 380.06(19), TO AFFECT THE
SOUTHEAST QUADRANT THAT IS LOCATED IN
UNINCORPORATED COLLIER COUNTY OF THE 1,601.4:1:
ACRE PROJECT. PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS INCLUDE
REMOVING 250 HOTEL ROOMS AND ADDING 175
RESIDENTIAL UNITS. THE GREY OAKS DRIIS LOCATED IN
THE NORTHEAST, SOUTHEAST, AND NORTHWEST
QUADRANTS OF AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD AND GOLDEN
GATE P ARKW A Y, IN SECTIONS 24, 25 AND 26, TOWNSHIP 49
Page 30 I
April 24, 2007
SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY AND THE CITY
OF NAPLES, FLORIDA. (COMPANION TO PUDA-2005-AR-
1 0 15 7)
Item #17D
ORDINANCE 2007-40: PETITION PUDA-2006-AR-I0157:
NAPLES GRANDE HOLDINGS, LLC, REPRESENTED BY
BRUCE E. TYSON, OF WILSONMILLER INC., REQUESTING
AN AMENDMENT TO THE GREY OAKS PUD TO REPLACE
THE APPROVED HOTEL USE WITH RESIDENTIAL LAND
USES AND ADD 175 UNITS, THUS CHANGING THE
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS TO 1,775 DWELLING UNITS
FOR A PROJECT DENSITY OF 1.12 UNITS PER ACRE. THE
PUD COMPRISING 1,601.4:1: ACRES IS LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST, NORTHWEST AND SOUTHEAST QUADRANTS
OF THE INTERSECTION OF AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD AND
GOLDEN GATE PARK WAY (THE CHANGES PROPOSED IN
THIS PETITION WILL ONLY AFFECT THE SOUTHEASTERN
QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION), IN SECTIONS 24, 25, 26
TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY
AND THE CITY OF NAPLES, FLORIDA. (COMPANION TO
DOA-2005-AR-7136)
Item#17E
ORDINANCE 2007-41: PETITION: PUDZ-2006-AR-9150 KERRY
KUBACKI FOR LIVINGSTON VILLAGE, LLC, AND TAMMY
TURNER KIPP OF V ANDERBlL T HOLDINGS II, LLC,
REPRESENTED BY ROBERT L. DUANE, AICP, OF HOLE
MONTES, INC., IS REQUESTING A REZONE FROM THE
CURRENTLY ZONED "A" RURAL AGRICULTURE WITH A
Page 302
April 24, 2007
CONDITIONAL USE (CU) OVERLAY TO "MPUD" MIXED USE
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. THE PROPOSED REZONE
REQUEST IS FOR UP TO 1 00,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL
OR OFFICE SPACE AND TEN MUL TI-FAMIL Y UNITS; THE
PROJECT IS TO BE KNOWN AS BRADFORD SQUARE MPUD.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS 9.18:1: ACRES LOCATED AT
14258 LIVINGSTON ROAD, NORTH EAST CORNER OF
LIVINGSTON ROAD AND VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD,
SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, AND RANGE 26 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. - ADOPTED W/CHANGES
Item #17F - Moved to Item #8B
Item #17G
ORDINANCE 2007-42: PETITION PUDZ-2006-AR-8997, D.
WAYNE ARNOLD, AICP, Q. GRADY MINOR AND
ASSOCIATES, AND RICHARD D. YOV ANOVICH, ESQ.,
GOODLETTE COLEMAN AND JOHNSON, P.A
REPRESENTING ELIAS BROTHERS COMMUNITIES TWO,
INC., REQUESTING TO REZONE A 55- ACRE TRACT FROM
THE RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT TO
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD)
ZONING DISTRICT FOR A PROJECT KNOWN AS THE
BUTTONWOOD PRESERVE RPUD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
APPROXIMA TEL Y ONE MILE SOUTH OF IMMOKALEE ROAD
(C.R. 846) AND 0.7 MILES EAST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD
(C.R. 951) ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF TREE FARM ROAD, IN
SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
Page 303
April 24, 2007
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:31 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CON~~ N
JIM COLETTA, Chairman
A TTEST~.;
DWIGflT E. BROCK, CLERK
~ LlMM ~~l.
Attest /11 to , ,
. t '9n~,tu,.e on 1 .
These minutes approved by the Board on \Y"\1.{.1 od. <mol-, as
presented X. or as corrected I
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY
COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI
LEWIS.
Page 304